Dread Elves LAB Design guidelines Feedback thread

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • noir wrote:

    What playstyle do you guys want to play?
    I vote for:
    MSU / MMU / Cav MSU
    Monster Mash
    Mixed arms

    As far as Avoidance is concerned isn't it required for MSU/MMU? It's been said that with that playstyle you need to 'pick your fights' - isn't that kinda synonymous with Avoidance? Unless by "Avoidance" you mean "Avoidance & Shooting" - I assume that being the most NPE thing it's a complete no go in T9A?

    BTW What does Flying Circus mean in T9A? Is it possible to have it in DE? Which armies can currently field it?

    Best Wishes
    Ozzy
  • Ozzy666 wrote:

    noir wrote:

    What playstyle do you guys want to play?
    I vote for:MSU / MMU / Cav MSU
    Monster Mash
    Mixed arms

    As far as Avoidance is concerned isn't it required for MSU/MMU? It's been said that with that playstyle you need to 'pick your fights' - isn't that kinda synonymous with Avoidance? Unless by "Avoidance" you mean "Avoidance & Shooting" - I assume that being the most NPE thing it's a complete no go in T9A?

    BTW What does Flying Circus mean in T9A? Is it possible to have it in DE? Which armies can currently field it?

    Best Wishes
    Ozzy
    no, avoidance means you shoot and kinda don't engage at all. or only if reaaaallyyy necessary.

    Edit: keep the feedback about play styles coming! great that this is starting to get really progressive!!!
  • Giladis wrote:

    This will depend on the final Design Guidelines.

    Based on what I see in this topic greater volume has no obstacles, mobility has some.
    From what I read in the guidelines I see a problem with high volume potentially leading to gunline play. A bolt thrower with 36" range that moves and shoots with a -1 penalty still has the problem of avoidance because 36" is still enough to back up from approaching chargers.
    An 18" xbow trying to avoid is at long range and almost always within charge range. Combine that with the unit having to pay points for combat stats means that even if they successfully avoid combat, it is a sub par playstyle. This is a great design because it's not restrictive so players can still have fun trying but there is no incentive.

    One way to get around that with a moveable bolt thrower is to have something like a +1 to hit at close range which the bolt thrower is paying decent points for. So not getting within short range.
    But stationary bolt thrower with like 8-10 shots with reduced strength can work. Or volleygun shots. Feels a bit un-elfy but it might be ok.

    But anyway, the guidelines feel somewhat open in this regard so it's fine.

    -------------------------------------------

    Summary in green at bottom for those who are pressed for time

    One thing I was thinking about and have a problem in the guidelines is this "short range defenses against ranged".
    Based on some other people's comments on the forum I am reminded about the way Dread Elves deal with enemy ranged is the way we deal with everything - speed/maneuverability and killing it. Dread Elves is an army where the best defense is a good offense. And we see this in our current style of play.
    A quick look at the ETC lists shows lots of Acolytes with Wizard upgrade. One purpose of this is mobile magic missile units that are great at taking out warmachines ...not always for avoidance, because these units do have combat stats so they do charge in when the time is right. The light ability lets them avoid enemy shooters yes, but most games they use that light cav movement to hunt warmachines or get flank/rear charges.

    I've never had a problem with short ranged shooting from enemies. And here is why.
    If the enemy has mostly short range shooting then I'm not taking massive casualties on turns 1-2. So by the time I do get into short range to charge them my units can take a round of shooting plus a stand and shoot and still get into combat. Thinned down, but it's still a good fight, If I feel I might take too many casualties then I combo charge with more units, get faster units to support in the flank. If they've outmanouvered me, played better and their short range shooting has tipped the scales then that's fine - they beat me based on tactics.

    The problem is long range shooting:
    1) The problem is my opponent dropping everything to get first turn and then rolling a 4+ with warmachines. We can handle this with good warmachine hunters, counter battery shooting, and MSU/monster spam. Academy buff should help with MSU so this is good.
    Against warmachines I vanguard, move as close as I can - shooting and magic missiles don't always kill them but at least next turn I can get a charge. This is why the guidelines to make harpies a bit stronger is good. Their fly is great for getting at the warmachiens that are more protected and being able to kill it or at least tie combat - currently they lose combat so sometimes can't even tie the warmachine up for 1 round!!! This isn't enough to replaced bolt thrower counter battery shooting as harpeis serve the same role as dark riders, raven cloaks, acolytes, but it adds an extra tool. So this guideline while weakening our chaff is actually providing a decent tool.

    2) The problem is shooting long range and next turn backing up and shooting long range again(avoidance). Look at Ogres. Their bombardiers are usually subpar unless fighting an army like dread elves - they can move 6" shoot 24" with QTF and their strength 4, AP 2 gun shreds elves. From a dread elf perspective I'd be fine if ogres had these guys with 3+ to hit but at 18" or 16" - I got tools to deal with that - will they still shred elves? ya, but at not long range.
    SE and High Elf do avoidance with 30" shooters, is it a problem? sort of, but this is where our mobility(mostly cav) come into play, and counter shooting. 48" bolt throwers means those avoidance armies have to stay real far away. Make it 36" it's easier for them. But 36" with a bolt thrower that can move....that creates interesting play and tactics. More incentive to not drop for first turn. part of the problem is other armies like I mentioned with Ogres, but at least Daemon Legions avoidance is gone.

    3) The problem is a staggard guneline where once you get into the short range of the front guys you are also in the long range of the back guys.
    This is probably the most problematic as it leads to the most boring games.
    A 24" dwarf flamethrower is a great example here. My current strategy against this is that I will never enter the 24" range with an infantry block. Without bolt throwers, my only option for dealing with this is to send warmachine hunters and magic. ...magic is kinda hard a gainst dwarves, easier against Empire gunline. But the warmachine hunters will never make it through the plethora of 30xbows, 24 handguns, and 12" throwing weapons. So again, without bolt throwers to counter battery fire, my only tactic is to sit in the corner and go for tie.
    This is why I think you see etc lists without bolt throwers because they aren't going for the gunline matchup so they don't really need them. DE don't do gunline play.
    In an all-comers list we include bolt throwers because of enemy gunline, but if opponent is not gunline then at least there are two types of ammo that will contribute to the battle - kill chaff, whittle down deathstars, maybe kill a monster.

    This is how I find my games to go. Maybe other people's meta's go a bit differently.

    Summary

    So with the guidelines I disagree with the mandate for short ranged defenses vs shooting at the expense of things like movement and counter battery shooting(bolt thrower, magic missiles). Having a weakness against shooting is fine. We just have to keep our ability to attack those shooters so that the game stays interesting to play.

    Thanks for reading my long post :)
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    I see a problem with high volume potentially leading to gunline play. A bolt thrower with 36" range that moves and shoots with a -1 penalty still has the problem of avoidance because 36" is still enough to back up from approaching chargers.
    At this point I do not presume to guess what the exact ranges of weapons will be, or that volume would be allowed alongside mobility. :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • noir wrote:

    What playstyle do you guys want to play?
    I love to play DE around two themes: corsair and beastmaster. I should be happy with next edition!
    Corsair MMU/Cav MSU, with corsairs as main units, complemented by agile raiding units.
    Beastmaster's Monster Mash, with heavy raptor cavalry.

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • Well, the short distance protection could have easy and pleasant solutions, I do not see a very big problem, I trust you will know how to fix it satisfactorily. I can think of an armor that makes our units always at a long distance in order to shoot them, or even that the range of the weapons is reduced 6" (3" for pistols) or that modifies the limit of the short range of the weapon to half (e.g. Arch: 24", short shot normally 6") there are as many possible formulas ...
  • Calisson wrote:

    noir wrote:

    What playstyle do you guys want to play?
    I love to play DE around two themes: corsair and beastmaster. I should be happy with next edition!Corsair MMU/Cav MSU, with corsairs as main units, complemented by agile raiding units.
    Beastmaster's Monster Mash, with heavy raptor cavalry.
    I get shamed because I always play corsairs with monster support!
  • Giladis wrote:

    At this point I do not presume to guess what the exact ranges of weapons will be, or that volume would be allowed alongside mobility.
    wasn't it ninth scroll #3 that pretty much stated range 36max? It's not like it set in stone but but that's kind of what was being pushed quite heavily for.

    Calisson wrote:

    Corsair MMU/Cav MSU, with corsairs as main units, complemented by agile raiding units.
    Well.....
    Display Spoiler

    C.4. Corsairs
    A small separate sub-faction. Should have limited number of different units (e.g. 1.-2 units). Corsairs should have clearly different roles than any of the other subaction’s units.


    With the focus on academy units I don't see Corsairs keeping scoring if they are in core. I don't want to see them moved out of core.
  • KiRaHyuU wrote:

    Lich King wrote:

    Calisson wrote:

    Please don't put burgers and fast food in the directive. X/ <X
    And no, DE being based in T9A~North Murica is not an excuse.
    We're not talking about McDonald's, KFC or BK, okay? :D
    buddy, it’s all about In and out and Five guys now :)
    this could be an entire thread in its own... even though in an out is clearly superior...


  • Just replying as some who owns some elves with a lot of black paint on them:

    DE review:

    A1: Seems fine.

    B11: Seems mostly OK, but who *does* get deathstars? If DE don't (despite being the close-combat elves), that probably counts out all the Elves, and ID didn't get them either... this is the problem of ditching ASAW.

    B12: Seems fine.
    B13: Seems consistent with B11.
    B2: Seems fine.
    B3: Seems fine.
    B4: Seems fine.
    B5: Seems fine.
    B6: Pretty sure 24" was supposed to be "average" not "below average" and lowering ranges that far seems questionable. Otherwise seems fine.
    B7: I feel like a category of "can absorb shooting" should be spelled out in "specialists". Combat armies need that as a tool for meta.
    B8: "Dies when shot at from far away" is a pretty sucky theme. I'd prefer something like "like a shark, they must move forwards or die" (i.e. protection from shooting *when advancing rapidly*).
    B9: Seems fine. Harpies deserve to be cool.
    B10: Seems fine
    B101: Seems fine.
    B102: Seems like an unnecessary extraction of flavour. Boo.
    B103: Seems fine.

    C1: Still seems like an unnecessary extraction of flavour. Boo.
    C2: Seems fine.
    C3: Seems exciting and tricky. Good luck team!
    C4: Seems undefined.

    Background Team

  • Rereading the OP, and wondering about how the fluff that DE value their citizens (their elfish blood) above any other resource will be reconciled with their apparent lack of interest in equipping them to survive a battle. There’s gonna be a slew of corpses any way you go about it, unless harpies are as common as dogs in their world and cloud the skies.

    That’s lip service their privates and citizens are gobbling up.

    Only thing I can imagine is a Dune sort of combat approach, where subterfuge & cc skill is king. Though they still used shields and slug weaponry in their armies and household training.
  • Dopey wrote:

    Rereading the OP, and wondering about how the fluff that DE value their citizens (their elfish blood) above any other resource will be reconciled with their apparent lack of interest in equipping them to survive a battle. There’s gonna be a slew of corpses any way you go about it, unless harpies are as common as dogs in their world and cloud the skies.

    That’s lip service their privates and citizens are gobbling up.

    Only thing I can imagine is a Dune sort of combat approach, where subterfuge & cc skill is king. Though they still used shields and slug weaponry in their armies and household training.

    The obvious assumption to make (to my mind) would be that T9A Elves are physically weaker than humans. Orcs are "Strength 3" with a bonus ("strength 3.5"), Elves are "Strength 3" with a malus ("strength 2.5").

    Like, if this was an RPG, dwarves and orcs would have a much higher encumbrance limit, Elves would have a penalty.

    It might be protective, but that doesn't help you if you collapse in a heap under the strain.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Dopey wrote:

    Rereading the OP, and wondering about how the fluff that DE value their citizens (their elfish blood) above any other resource will be reconciled with their apparent lack of interest in equipping them to survive a battle. There’s gonna be a slew of corpses any way you go about it, unless harpies are as common as dogs in their world and cloud the skies.

    That’s lip service their privates and citizens are gobbling up.

    Only thing I can imagine is a Dune sort of combat approach, where subterfuge & cc skill is king. Though they still used shields and slug weaponry in their armies and household training.
    The obvious assumption to make (to my mind) would be that T9A Elves are physically weaker than humans. Orcs are "Strength 3" with a bonus ("strength 3.5"), Elves are "Strength 3" with a malus ("strength 2.5").

    Like, if this was an RPG, dwarves and orcs would have a much higher encumbrance limit, Elves would have a penalty.

    It might be protective, but that doesn't help you if you collapse in a heap under the strain.
    But how do you rectify 'high quality equipment' with 'no 4+' and basically the same close combat weapon options orcs get? Where's the high quality? Or 'highly trained military' with 'we equip our soldiers with the weapons we optimized for putting down slave revolts'?

    My problem with the guidelines is there's no sense of how anything in them arises from background in a way that makes sense. Much of the mechanical directive is divorced from (or even contradictory to) the sparse background material, and the few things that are attempted to be justified from background contradict other background statements, and thus don't feel like natural explanations. There's also terribly little background here of the sort you would expect to ground a design document that is supposed to be background driven.

    I mean, does anyone remember the fluff blurb for DE when transitioning to 2.0? Where is that here, and what areas of the mechanics is it supposed to be represented in? The DE background hasn't changed since then.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ