Pinned (AUG2019) Revised Dread Elves Army Book Design Guidelines

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!

  • Peacemaker wrote:

    For me its the defensive guidelines that still retain the emphasis on going even less numbers while still retaining only R3, 5+
    Can you point me to which parts of the guidelines makes you think the army will have less numbers than in the current book please?
    Perhaps this will help me to understand.


    Minidudul wrote:

    Personnaly, I see here the opportunity to have a lot more of active defense, more than passive one.
    Yes, I expect this to be one direction the team will explore.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Can you point me to which parts of the guidelines makes you think the army will have less numbers than in the current book please?
    Perhaps this will help me to understan

    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    B.1.2 Common Equipment
    The standard small arms fire weapon of this army is the repeater crossbow which has proven its use as an efficient tool to stifle slave revolts due to the ability to fire a high amount of shots in a short timeframe.

    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Being an elven race the army can generally be described as very elite. Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army. Note that DE use their slaves only for their economy and not in battle.

    This should have the following in-game impact; models should have high average eliteness, and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf armies. Overall dread elves should not feel more or less elite than other elves.

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is 750 points instead of 1000).
    my post on 2nd page also mentions this.
    Especially the bottom part about unit sizes being 750max. Currently they go a bit above that. And I don't really see more special rules for infantry leading to cheaper costing infantry.

    If I'm interpreting this incorrectly then let me know.
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Can you point me to which parts of the guidelines makes you think the army will have less numbers than in the current book please?
    Perhaps this will help me to understan

    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    B.1.2 Common Equipment
    The standard small arms fire weapon of this army is the repeater crossbow which has proven its use as an efficient tool to stifle slave revolts due to the ability to fire a high amount of shots in a short timeframe.

    The Dread Elf's equipment's quality is very high due to the local military academies which provide uniformity in equipment and the fact that elven blood is considered the most precious resource of Dathen.

    B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
    Being an elven race the army can generally be described as very elite. Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army. Note that DE use their slaves only for their economy and not in battle.

    This should have the following in-game impact; models should have high average eliteness, and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf armies. Overall dread elves should not feel more or less elite than other elves.

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is 750 points instead of 1000).
    my post on 2nd page also mentions this.
    Right.. but what of that doesn't describe the current book?
    What makes you think it is an increase of eliteness compared to the current book?

    Have I missed a clarification off the ACS crew?
    (Also note to ACS crew: I think there is an extra "not" in the sentence "Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army.")
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • So, less number per unit is not less number on board.

    It was stated that elves will cost the same as now as average (the powerlevel is considered as correct now), if you want to try an army with most of elves at 20pts in average there is still the place to bring a lot of body (for 2000pts in R&F you have about 100 models).
    1 - Start of the Charge Phase (and start of the Player Turn)
    2 - The Active Player chooses a unit and declares a Charge
  • DanT wrote:

    Right.. but what of that doesn't describe the current book?
    What makes you think it is an increase of eliteness compared to the current book?
    Why the current book again? It just makes the discussion swirrling around. My impression was the current book is not the way it should be.

    But to follow that question. The current book allows for blocks of 50 Legionnaires for 700 to 800 points. Playing 3 or 4 such blocks would send you to 2100 up to 3200 points. Leaving some room for characters. Which is removed by the new guidelines:
    and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf armies
    But to be honest, that is not the issue right now - or ?
    Nobody cares if the bodycount of a 4500 point army is plus or minus 10 modells compared to today. As long as it works :)
    All the expressed concerns might be debatable, but they express a certain concern based on personal interpretation of the guidelines and a lot of experience playing DE. If some read the text different there might be something in. In the end the guidelines make DE the top glass cannon army - so far not many glass cannon builds excell at tournaments (double Sword master builds ?).

    What I miss, and I read a lot of the statements here in a similiar manner is the story how such an MSU/MMU glas cannon army plays:

    DanT wrote:

    When I read the guidelines for any army, and when I wrote the first ever set of this kind (the first draft of the ID ones), I try to draw a picture of the army in my head, and try to tell the story of how it plays.

    Personally I am fine with the guidelines after the discussion and can sit back and let me surprise. :beer:
    Still I can see that there are some challenges in drawing a picture how to play against DH or even HBE ... we all know how our elite R&F suffers before they reach combat, just to face the unscratched Kingsguard or SM with Blazing Dawn.
    Do you have such a picture when reading the guidelines ?
    If you do not like 9th Age - fine, it is your right to do so. But do not spoil our fun - go and find your game, be it AoS, 5th Edition, Magic or Dublo

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Uthegen ().

  • Uthegen wrote:

    Why the current book again? It just makes the discussion swirrling around. My impression was the current book is not the way it should be.
    I didn't bring up the current book, it was brought up in a response to me:
    "For me its the defensive guidelines that still retain the emphasis on going even less numbers while still retaining only R3, 5+"

    I believe that this "even less" is a comparison between the current book and the guidelines.

    So I'm afraid I think your question should not be addressed to me.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • Uthegen wrote:

    But to follow that question. The current book allows for blocks of 50 Legionnaires for 700 to 800 points. Playing 3 or 4 such blocks would send you to 2100 up to 3200 points. Leaving some room for characters. Which is removed by the new guidelines:
    How does the guidelines remove this?

    The guidelines say:
    - large units are possible
    - large units should not be as big as in horde armies
    - units should be 75% max size compared to max size limitation provided by general guidelines
    - playing few large units should not be optimal rules wise

    The current AB gives you 50 Spear Legionnaires with FC for 780 pts which is just 30pts above the design limit for the new book.

    I don't see why the guidelines would mean a future book couldn't have a max size on Legionnaires at 40+ level.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • Three things that I wonder about most:

    1. No access to wizard master: divination, alchemy
    This is clearly a nerf. No more access to Unerring Strike and Corruption of Tin, why? Must say I am a bit disappointed that it seems that there is no intention at all to get DE anywhere near the top in the list of magically strong books *nostalgia*.
    Furthermore disappointing that the "hybrid character" (I assume fighter/caster) doesn't get access to Occultism as the school has a lot of spells that are optimized for a fighty caster like a Vampire Count. Like The Rot Within that (boosted) may give the caster +1 OS/DS and Breath of Corruption which (unboosted) gives the caster a breath attack. Usually very situational effects for a rather vulnerable Res3 caster with a single STR3 attack that in most cases rather stays a bit further away from the frontline. If schools aren't switched anymore I'd say at least add Occultism to the hybrid's options as well.

    2. Core with ARM5 cavaly, close to whole armies with ARM5 BUT weak protection against long ranged weaponry
    At first that sounds a bit like a paradox. So if I understand correctly, it seems DE gets special armour that only works against melee, like the SA Crocodile Totem (+1 Armour against Close Combat Attacks)?
    And DE gets their own version of HE Lancers or (because everyone already has the models anyway) it may be that Raptor Riders are being moved to Core? Could it be true?


    3. The importance of cults in-game should be scaled down compared to old book
    I like this, if there's more options for diversion by other, less restrictive means I'm all for it.
    + :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: + This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • @Giladis this discussion seems to be revolving around interpretation and knowledge.

    I can see the frustration of both sides, but the crux of it seems to be that the designers and higher ups understand what they mean inherently with their guidelines as they have defined what the terms actually mean and have context for internal comparison, the community doesn't have the advantage of this knowledge.

    Because of this, they are left to try and tease out meaning by asking questions over and over without reaching clarity very easily with those involved.

    Easily can turn to frustration with the process.

    This will repeat itself as a cycle until people understand what is actually being said.

    TLDR, the project is very fond of internal jargon and interpretations which frustrates the community as they have very little access to this information, which in turn leads to confusion.

    Clear the confusion and you'll have constructive discussions.
    Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
  • @Masamune88 I am missing the reason why you tagged me. Simply as a way of relaying the comment further inside or?

    I for myself don't think I have said anything that cannot be read from the guidelines that have shared with public forum. :huh:



    Teowulff wrote:

    2. Core with ARM5 cavaly, close to whole armies with ARM5 BUT weak protection against long ranged weaponry
    At first that sounds a bit like a paradox. So if I understand correctly, it seems DE gets special armour that only works against melee, like the SA Crocodile Totem (+1 Armour against Close Combat Attacks)?
    And DE gets their own version of HE Lancers or (because everyone already has the models anyway) it may be that Raptor Riders are being moved to Core? Could it be true?
    You misunderstood. The guideline say "avoid enabling" and then lists what.

    Teowulff wrote:

    1. No access to wizard master: divination, alchemy
    This is clearly a nerf. No more access to Unerring Strike and Corruption of Tin, why? Must say I am a bit disappointed that it seems that there is no intention at all to get DE anywhere near the top in the list of magically strong books.
    Furthermore disappointing that the "hybrid character" (I assume fighter/caster) doesn't get access to Occultism as the school has a lot of spells that are optimized for a fighty caster like a Vampire Count. Like The Rot Within that (boosted) may give the caster +1 OS/DS and Breath of Corruption which (unboosted) gives the caster a breath attack. Usually very situational effects for a rather vulnerable Res3 caster with a single STR3 attack that in most cases rather stays a bit further away from the frontline. If schools aren't switched anymore I'd say at least add Occultism to the hybrid's options as well.
    The DE will be just below the top level with more access than average and a few perks on the side. As for not getting occultism there are two reasons specific paths wanted to be restricted and secondly it was not as fitting from a background perspective.

    As far as background goes our hope is we will be releasing bits of information with each ACS announcement on LAB progress to help the wider public better understand what the Daeb are all about as they wait for the full treatement of the Army Book :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

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

    yeah dan I think taking an army off at ranged will be way harder to do than it already is and the max shkoty builds will be gone
    I agree that "taking an army off at ranged" will be hard.
    But I think "soften with manoeuvrable shooting and finish them off in combat" should be viable (which I appreciate isn't exactly what you are saying you want).
    I am also not sure I think these super shooty builds exist now.

    Do you think these super shooting builds exist now? Got any links to any such lists and how they have performed?
    Do you think these type of lists are an important part of DE identity?
    Does the majority of the DE community think these type of lists are an important part of DE identity?

    Full disclosure: for my personal taste/hang-ups/idiosyncracies/interpretation/however-you-want-to-phrase-it, I don't see these as an important part of DE.
    However, I do think these sorts of issues are probably the most important and useful ones to feedback re: the guidelines.
    If the vast majority of DE players think like you, then there might be an issue.




    Masamune88 wrote:

    TLDR, the project is very fond of internal jargon and interpretations which frustrates the community as they have very little access to this information, which in turn leads to confusion.
    I dno.
    What jargon do you think has been misunderstood?
    I seem to interpret them differently to others, which is why I have asked some of the questions I have about people's interpretation compared to mine.
    So far though, I haven't yet been quoted a part of the guidelines that I think depends on jargon that I know and other people don't.

    But then it is part of my job to read very technical publications and pay close attention to the precise details, maybe this just isn't a common skill?

    Either way though, resolving this is what ACS are for, right? Relaying any difficulties in interpretation to RT and checking any unclear passages.
    Perhaps you could take any jargon or passages you think are unclear or unambiguous to RT and clarify what they mean?
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE

    The post was edited 3 times, last by DanT ().

  • Giladis wrote:

    You misunderstood. The guideline say "avoid enabling" and then lists what
    :facepalm: :oops:

    Giladis wrote:

    Teowulff wrote:

    Furthermore disappointing that the "hybrid character" (I assume fighter/caster) doesn't get access to Occultism as the school has a lot of spells that are optimized for a fighty caster like a Vampire Count.

    Like The Rot Within that (boosted) may give the caster +1 OS/DS and Breath of Corruption which (unboosted) gives the caster a breath attack. Usually very situational effects for a rather vulnerable Res3 caster with a single STR3 attack that in most cases rather stays a bit further away from the frontline. If schools aren't switched anymore I'd say at least add Occultism to the hybrid's options as well.
    As for not getting occultism there are two reasons specific paths wanted to be restricted and secondly it was not as fitting from a background perspective.
    As far as background goes our hope is we will be releasing bits of information with each ACS announcement on LAB progress to help the wider public better understand what the Daeb are all about as they wait for the full treatement of the Army Book :)
    Sorry to say but it all seems so very arbitrary. Why not Occultism on the fighty guy (as it is clearly optimized for fighty guys and not for weak ones - as I explained) and why not Alchemy or Divination on the caster? I would VERY much like to hear the reason behind this choice.
    + :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: + This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Teowulff ().

  • @Giladis the tag was to move the comms higher up the chain yes, but also in your comments directly post your reply you basically point out my point,


    "You misunderstand..."

    And then a lengthy explanation for something that should be outlined.

    Basically you are needing to translate the guidelines meaning for community members to understand. That in essence is an issue which can seriously drain the project of resources due to explanation burnout
    Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
  • How long are the paths to remain the way they are? Is there any plans to change them anytime soon?

    Occultism would be a great lore for a cult priest character, it's not that great a lore for an oracle. The same can be said about divination being a useful lore for the oracle and definitely works better when both of its missiles are available in tandem as they are very specific. Divination and Alchemy are great master lores while occultism/cosmo and witchcraft are good adept lores, cosmo and witchcraft being underpowered and occultism having range issues in the master spells.

    These lore choices are definitely a very big nerf to the DE which is already in a sad shape. However optimism remains. DL book is good in most parts and very creative, not really balanced yet, but it gives hope for a good DE book. Still please be aware that this is a big nerf.
  • Masamune88 wrote:

    "You misunderstand..."
    This part was related only to the ARM comment.



    Teowulff wrote:

    Sorry to say but it all seems so very arbitrary. Why not Occultism on the fighty guy (as it is clearly optimized for fighty guys and not for weak ones - as I explained) and why not Alchemy or Divination on the caster? I would VERY much like to hear the reason behind this choice.
    Here is part of the explanation > (AUG2019) Revised Dread Elves Army Book Design Guidelines

    It was decided on overall game design level that DE should have less magic paths because the current number was result of legacy. There were two option considered, either dropping an entire path entirely (BGT choice which one is the least fitting for DE in T9A) or reducing access to the Paths which at the moment are over represented in the game compared to other paths based on the Magic Paths Distribution Matrix. RT and BGT had a discussion and it was settled this was the most fitting option for the future.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

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

    Have I missed a clarification off the ACS crew?
    (Also note to ACS crew: I think there is an extra "not" in the sentence "Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army.")
    I did not notice this. If this is intentional then I guess I don't have much issue with the guidelines. :)

    Masamune88 wrote:

    @Giladis this discussion seems to be revolving around interpretation and knowledge.

    I can see the frustration of both sides, but the crux of it seems to be that the designers and higher ups understand what they mean inherently with their guidelines as they have defined what the terms actually mean and have context for internal comparison, the community doesn't have the advantage of this knowledge.

    Because of this, they are left to try and tease out meaning by asking questions over and over without reaching clarity very easily with those involved.

    Easily can turn to frustration with the process.

    This will repeat itself as a cycle until people understand what is actually being said.

    TLDR, the project is very fond of internal jargon and interpretations which frustrates the community as they have very little access to this information, which in turn leads to confusion.

    Clear the confusion and you'll have constructive discussions.
    This is very much a thing that is happening.

    DanT wrote:

    But then it is part of my job to read very technical publications and pay close attention to the precise details, maybe this just isn't a common skill?
    Ya, you are very good at it. It's nice when you chime in and point stuff out to people.
  • @Giladis @DanT @Uthegen @DarkSky @Peacemaker @Squirrelloid excellent discussion above, thank you for your insight, genuinely.

    My reservations here may be a bit of a knee jerk reaction and I reckon others can be included in this. However, judging by the results of the Deamons and Warriors books I have faith that we will get to a fun and interesting LAB.

    The revised guidelines are a lot clearer so I think the best we can do is state our reservations in a constructive manner going forward. The teams have an abundance of feedback and have already tweaked a few things, that’s what I love about this project and on reflection I’m confident in the creativity of the ADT.
  • @DanT yes, it is part of the ACS remit to translate the ideas to the community, however if the ACS has to dig through layers of bureaucracy to find a person willing to define the situation succinctly then we have a problem.

    Unless the ACS has the tools and information to hand to answer the clarifications though, we will end up with the confusion that has been going around.

    From my exp of the design process, it is incredibly hard to pin down an answer from aspects of the project mainly due to workload, and unless you know the project intimately then life as a conduit is incredibly difficult.

    Be that as it may, it has gotten better, but there is always room for improvement.

    TLDR: as an ACS, often we cant answer the defining questions because we are not given the knowledge required to do so. Even if we ask for it.
    Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.