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!

  • To me the fluff on that decission is secondary, as long as it gives the army the tools needed to run well and fun.
    So I would base the decission primarily on the Army book design needs, second on the story with other elven fractions and third to some "logic" in the fluff. In the end fluff can be adjusted and evething can be justified - especially upfront LAB release.
    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
  • @Uthegen that is not the case in LAB production as we are making our own unique IP as a strong conceptual basis for our designs.

    So first goes background, then design guidelines while the requirements of the army book need to fit the previous two.

    LAB process is not mechanical fine tuning of the chassis that was inherited from legacy and developed over the past 4 years but a ground up creation of a faction named Dread Elves as they are in the T9A setting. :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

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

    but a ground up creation of a faction named Dread Elves as they are in the T9A setting
    This sounds great but is incorrect in my opinion. The fact that all models need to be playable and the fact that 9th Age has so far refused to make radical changes in order not to alienate the player base (good choice imo) pretty much dictated the bandwidth of changes. You can not call this a recreation from the ground up. It might feel that way.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • As for the ground up design regarding magic paths and IP - there shouldn't be a problem with picking whatever magic path suits the army best as there is no issue with GeeDubs IP infringing on this since their IP basically had their armies with access to almost every magic Lore.

    T9A is far more restrictive in magic paths which is fine. Just be sure to pick the right paths for the armies that synergize or allow for different builds. Often times we design our lists around a magic path. What I run into alot with my 3 elf factions is that since their magic paths have overlap, it quickly comes down to "this elf faction plays the best with divination so if you are going divination then just play faction X instead of Y or Z.

    Elves having similar lores adds to the problem of the elf factions being too similar.
    We also want to avoid having access to 5 lores but only 2 of them are ever taken because if you play the other 3 you just go play a different elf army.
    This happens alot when I write a Dread Elf list, I either go for Witchcraft or Occultism otherwise it's better to pick a different elf army.
  • Giladis wrote:

    @Uthegen that is not the case in LAB production as we are making our own unique IP as a strong conceptual basis for our designs.

    So first goes background, then design guidelines while the requirements of the army book need to fit the previous two.
    Hey, you are free to do so. To me it sounds limiting youself without need. The whole discussions illustrates quite well that each path can be justified by fluff if you emphasis the right part of the concept.
    As I have explained I see the army design of DE as one of the biggest challenges as it is designed (by the guidelines) to be one of the most glass cannon concepts of the 16 armies (imho the most extreme). If you can cope with "preset" magic path verything is fine. I could imagine that a swap here and there could make things easy, well rounded or just cover the gaps (like alchemy does today).
    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 ().

  • If it is possible can you tell what "pyro" fluff is and how it fits with hbe while it doesn't fit with de? @Giladis

    The purpose is to better understand the nuances of the design guidelines. If de are favouring damage but pyro (which seems to be a very much damage only oriented path) doesn't fit with de, then there seems to be some details not readily visible.
  • Cam wrote:

    Div seems thematically appropriate but we haven’t seen the fluff behind the decision.

    Personally I think Cosmo is the worst path so I’ll just be biased in these convos.
    So you find Witchraft actually better than Cosmology?

    Personally I find Witchraft as the worst, not enough impact and I would like to se a redesign of this lore completly.

    As Find Cosmology on par with Occultism. Problem with the letter is it works only one several builds (Dragon Oracle and Acolites). As ussually Conclaves not have to be so restricted as a Wizard master with whole path to work with I count only Oracle on Dragon as a "build". Dull IMO.

    And I agree - Im also Biased because I find Cosmology better than both Witchraft or Occultism on my Foot Dragonless Oracle.



    To add to further discussion, I agree that Evocation would synergise better with our army than Allchemy does.
  • LeXincerta wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Div seems thematically appropriate but we haven’t seen the fluff behind the decision.

    Personally I think Cosmo is the worst path so I’ll just be biased in these convos.
    So you find Witchraft actually better than Cosmology?
    Personally I find Witchraft as the worst, not enough impact and I would like to se a redesign of this lore completly.

    As Find Cosmology on par with Occultism. Problem with the letter is it works only one several builds (Dragon Oracle and Acolites). As ussually Conclaves not have to be so restricted as a Wizard master with whole path to work with I count only Oracle on Dragon as a "build". Dull IMO.

    And I agree - Im also Biased because I find Cosmology better than both Witchraft or Occultism on my Foot Dragonless Oracle.



    To add to further discussion, I agree that Evocation would synergise better with our army than Allchemy does.
    well I am intrigued. I find cosmology quite weak too. Never bother with more than adept. Only ice and fire and perception of strength are worth taking.

    On foot wizard I much prefer alchemy or divination.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • For Cosmology
    I find Touch to the heart usefull (I run 2 Cowboys so picking off champions is a must - combo charging with acolites is not always easy), healing part saved them more then once; Unity in Divergence is situationaly briliant. Perception of Strenght and Ice and Fire I pick almoast always.

    My list has Yema Acolites as Magic damage dealers.

    Alchemy is to situational, Quicksilver is usefull against monsters thou, Spells 5 and 6 from alchemy are not worth a master, Adept with a book of power was my pick for alchemy (option of both missiles or Armour buff and a damage buff).

    Divination is great to bring down High value models, help with dsicippline and alows getting Divine attacks. Scrying is a must.
    Still re-rols to hit with our lighting reflexed elves is not same worth as for other armies without. Spell nr 6 is useless. Spell nr 1 is sitational with our high agi stat.
    Divination needs a second mage to enhance the ranges so it best works coupled with another Wizzard (Yema acolites are not a good one as than you cannot use your mobility to full potential).

    And still I rate divination as best lore we have acces to.
    I think Cosmology is great but the list has to be tailored to work with it.
  • Giladis wrote:

    As for DE and Occultism the TT has a couple of unique ideas we intend to try out. :evil:
    A fighty character that can make use of the melee buffs from Occultism would be great, thanks! :thumbup:

    LeXincerta wrote:

    To add to further discussion, I agree that Evocation would synergise better with our army than Allchemy does.
    Agreed, Evo could offer a few nice buffs. Even if only available as adept so we won't have 2 magical moves (from Witchcraft and Evocation).
    Must say that I don't see why the magic paths should necessarily be set in stone forever.
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/collecting/painting: :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: :DE:

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

  • Funny when a thread is opened for army redesign, it looks like discussion are around a single topic!
    KoE it's only about the might flying duke
    DE it's only about magic lores
    Fantastique Bataillon de Joinville (FBJ)
    6 Nations 2014 Winner. French DE player
    ETC 2016 & 2017. Luxembourg coach. 2018 & 2019 Norway coach.True Norses go to Valhalla!
    Chairman ETC2018

    European Masters League, the most exciting event! Check this europeanmastersleague.com/
  • Yeah you have a combat buff that can be really good versus other elites armies in deceptive glamour, one that’s amazing for R3 (or S3) in wheel turns and bewitching glare can be decent. You can counter shooting/WMs with random move or twisted effigy. Then who doesn’t like ravens wing? Plus all hexes so class for multiple units. You can combo it nicely with Yema acolytes too if your worried about no missiles.
  • Cam wrote:

    Yeah you have a combat buff that can be really good versus other elites armies in deceptive glamour, one that’s amazing for R3 (or S3) in wheel turns and bewitching glare can be decent. You can counter shooting/WMs with random move or twisted effigy. Then who doesn’t like ravens wing? Plus all hexes so class for multiple units. You can combo it nicely with Yema acolytes too if your worried about no missiles.
    The Magic works like this the you try to give your oponnents hard choices what to try to dispel.
    Half off the spells is working for CC (The Wheel turns, Deceptive glamour bewitching Glare (Hybrid spell) . Two look like Antushooting - No shooting spell and random move (this is also nice to get longer overruns/ pursuits asnd is also a positioning spell )last is Ravens wing wich is a positionning/ scenario play spell.

    It hard to pick a combination which will pose those questions

    You go for postionning game (Ravens + Randon Movment) But then you get only 2 other type spells to CC.

    Anti shooting (only one spell - good luck to hit a machine with random movent with 18" ranege withour risking countercharges). So this lore is not good atnishooting due to only one spall which oponnent needs to stop.

    CC (Deceptive, Wheel, Bewtiching and Maybe Hereditary) this could work, but is it really that good? I would go with Bewitching and Wheel turns first.

    If Random movment was range 36" than we might have another conversation.
  • Babnik Kalenina wrote:

    Funny when a thread is opened for army redesign, it looks like discussion are around a single topic!
    KoE it's only about the might flying duke
    DE it's only about magic lores
    Design Team specifically asked for feedback about certain spells. That's why all the talk is about magic paths.
  • I haven’t gone trough the reading of all the comment pages, so forgive me if i’m totally out of topic or if i’m saying something yet discussed.
    But in my view r&f focus + little ranged defense + no light troop + no special deployment is a major flaw, because you will be forced to rush combat (and you won’t be always able to pick up a good one) while also unable to effectively camp on secondary (wich is usually the strategy of r&f).
    So we need to be kinda super fast in my opinion.
  • Where are you getting "no light troops" and "no special deployment"?

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • First of all, Thank You! For taking the time, effort and passion to flesh this potentially rich army out and deepening its lore, playability and variety. I love this game and I take my hat of for those who have tinkered and are tinkering on its development. Having read the design comments and some of the discussion, I would like to throw my 2 cents into the conversation as well.

    As I only have a couple of DE games under my belt I will refrain from commenting too much about what works well and not so well in my opinion in the current rules, and I'd rather talk about what I dream about when it comes to the new dread elves book and about my interpretation of the proposed design goals.

    My Dreams & Interpretations
    1. I am a huge fan of corsairs and sea monsters. My current DE project is very much sea based and the army has always had strong links to the water. I would love to see an expansion of monsters coming from the sea (plenty of models from different companies to pick from, and gives a lot of freedom to the players) and some sort of synergy between corsairs (being men of the sea) and the monsters and creatures from the depths. Also smaller specialized sea creature units would very much tickle my fantastical pickle.
    2. Another aspect of the dread elves that makes me work on them diligently is the chariots. Hard hitting chariots with support chariots sprinkled in makes my day. I feel they are strong, but with apparent weaknesses that can be easily exploited by good players and thus quite balanced. But maybe add a sea based chariot of sorts? Or a sea creature mount option besides raptors and horses.
    3. I recently played a cadaron army with around 116 shots output, and though the list looked fun on paper, it was a drag to play it within allotted time. MSU and short range shooting playstyles take a lot of time as they require a lot of precision. I fully embrace the design goals for both MSU and short range shooting (both fit my mind and playstyle), but be careful not to cut away less demanding list options completely. Also, I would find it a pity if a larger block of tower guard or a massive spearblock would not be viable options. They should never become the go too for the army, but they should not be made redundant either in my opinion.
    4. I love the concepts put forth for controller and the increase in beasts for the dread elves. I hope the new beast options are out of the box concepts and that more magical items will be added to further flesh out the controller mechanic.
    5. I am personally on board with super beefy magic output and extremely little magic defense. I feel this mechanic should be pushed to the limits as it would give a very original flavor to the army.
    6. The close combat aspirations for rank and file are a beautiful thing (and here I will secretly refer back to the current rules) but they should be considerably scarier units than they are now for this to become viable. Dread Elves can be murdered easily as per design through shooting/magic/prolonged combat which is fine. But if you play MSU and half your unit gets shot into the abyss, the other half should still somewhat scare an opponent, at least the elite troops.
    7. The simplification and loosening of cults is a very good idea. Right now I feel the cults are a very big constraint in my list building and I'd rather see the system replaced. Whatever it will be replaced by (and I have faith the designers will come up with something good) should add a lot of variety and options, but not restrain too much in possible combinations. I am a game designer myself and I know how hard it is to maintain player freedom while adding a myriad of rules and game mechanics, but the golden rule should be that any over arching system should enable new options and disable only a very few game breaking options.
    8. Water strider for corsairs, because, well, they can swim very well :)
    That was enough thought spilling on the late evening. Good luck, enjoy the process, and I will keep on painting and waiting impatiently for the new creation to come out!
  • @Giladis
    In the discussion around magic paths I am confused. Are we talking about thematically fitting magic paths or mechanically fitting magic paths?

    For me, if our main caster is called "Oracle" and our secondary casters are called "Acolytes", then the magic paths naturally should revolve around foresight and deities. Calling our caster an Oracle without access to Divination (and to a lesser extent Thaumaturgy), seems just missing point (fully knowing, that the path names are not the only factor).

    Agreeing with @Dopey here: If the Dread Elves are more about personal ambition and less about "preserving the balance", a path like Occultism and Divination makes much more sense than Cosmology.

    From this perspective I also see the choices of Shamanism (way too crude), Pyromancy (not sophisticated enough), and Evocation (why would I talk to the dead, when I can speak to the gods?) as perfectly correct choices.

    -----

    Mechanically: I think nobody can say, because if all the units change, how on earth would anybody know, which magic paths would be the most powerful. I also want to adress, that denying a "this would feel perfectly" path can be a good thing, as it may allow to push the power level on our units, without the constant menace of "combo with this magic path is too strong"-discussions.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/