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!

  • Cam wrote:

    So the selection is offensive lores as per the guidelines. The adept thing sounds like it has potential but is ultimately a reduction in magic.
    Which I think was a goal, as access to 5 paths (even with 2 of them limited) is still above average.

    Evocation.. gameplay wise it's definitly a fit.
    Backgroundwise: So far I understood Evocation more about the evocation of spirits and the like, speaking to the dead and summoning them (at least that's what I get from the names of the spells) which doesn't scream DE to me, again at least not for what I know lorewise about them.

    For me it just reads a lot of people want Evocation instead of Cosmology because, let's be honest: Cosmology seems the weakest path, at least it's one of the/the lowest picked one.
    I also seem to remember having read that all elves will/should have Cosmology as "connecting" lore.

    Cam wrote:

    Given the range of occultism the familiar will still be present on foot builds
    Bold to assume that the familiar will even still exist :)
    This post has been brought to you by Zhanta Claws little helper.
    Click here for more information about Zhanta Claws and the ID LAB
  • Cam wrote:

    Master:
    Witchcraft - Debuffs, offensive
    Occultism - Damage, offensive
    Cosmo - Mixed offensive/defensive

    Adept:
    Alchemy - Buffs, defensive
    Div - Buffs, defensive
    I see awkward taking Alchemy for a Defensive lore and at the same time Witchcraft as offensive lore.

    Only one alchemy spell i defensive (Arm Buff) rest is offensive helping in dealing demage. Witchcraft has Denial spells against shooiting (Defensive), Wheel Turns and BFocus spell are Buffs in form off a enemy debuff.
  • Shako wrote:



    Evocation.. gameplay wise it's definitly a fit.
    Backgroundwise: So far I understood Evocation more about the evocation of spirits and the like, speaking to the dead and summoning them (at least that's what I get from the names of the spells) which doesn't scream DE to me, again at least not for what I know lorewise about them.
    If the Cautl Lords got it I dont See why DE shouldnt.
  • The whole discussion you started here in the last posts is completely disconnected from the actual fluff and reasoning for the Path distribution, which was explained in quite detail. If you claim "it fits fluff-wise" but there is actual fluff from our BGT that directly contradicts it, what kind of argument do you have left?

    The path distribution did not happen on offensive/defensive scale, but on whether the underlying concepts are in sync with the DE society and their take on magic (I don't have the document at hand, but it was explained somewhere). So how does "Thaumaturgy and Pyromancy" point towards DE?

    At last the team already stated, that Path distribution will not change, has anything changed to discuss this now? Outside of "I just want Evocation, because I like the spells" I didn't see a real argument for such a change.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


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

    Cam wrote:

    So the selection is offensive lores as per the guidelines. The adept thing sounds like it has potential but is ultimately a reduction in magic.
    Which I think was a goal, as access to 5 paths (even with 2 of them limited) is still above average.
    For me it just reads a lot of people want Evocation instead of Cosmology because, let's be honest: Cosmology seems the weakest path, at least it's one of the/the lowest picked one.
    I also seem to remember having read that all elves will/should have Cosmology as "connecting" lore.

    Cam wrote:

    Given the range of occultism the familiar will still be present on foot builds
    Bold to assume that the familiar will even still exist :)
    Well 3 master paths and a hybrid caster matches VS and maybe ID with their vassal caster (although this could be a master too who knows?). Although if acolytes stay conclave we’re above VS really.

    It’s below 7 races with access to at least 4 master paths and above 5 with the minimum 3 masters and nothing else. So it’s average to below average.

    Yeah I’m not asking for evo but certainly would like it over Cosmo.

    Familiar needs to exist if you want one of your 3 master paths to be taken on foot.

    DarkSky wrote:

    The whole discussion you started here in the last posts is completely disconnected from the actual fluff and reasoning for the Path distribution, which was explained in quite detail. If you claim "it fits fluff-wise" but there is actual fluff from our BGT that directly contradicts it, what kind of argument do you have left?

    At last the team already stated, that Path distribution will not change, has anything changed to discuss this now? Outside of "I just want Evocation, because I like the spells" I didn't see a real argument for such a change.

    Where has this been explained fluff wise? Giladis stated certain paths were linked to certain communal gods but outside that I haven’t seen much explanation of this. You’re right about Evo, it’s being mentioned as it’d fit the army well game wise.
  • DarkSky wrote:

    The whole discussion you started here in the last posts is completely disconnected from the actual fluff and reasoning for the Path distribution, which was explained in quite detail. If you claim "it fits fluff-wise" but there is actual fluff from our BGT that directly contradicts it, what kind of argument do you have left?
    The path distribution did not happen on offensive/defensive scale, but on whether the underlying concepts are in sync with the DE society and their take on magic.
    Still you must agree that it's a miraculous coincidence that:

    1. DE had Alch-Witch-Div-Cosmo-Occ in the old books (1.3 and beyond);
    2. There was no background;
    3. Later BGT totally unprejudiced wrote a nice and fluff background;
    4. Guess what - the 5 most suitable paths of magic are EXACTLY THE SAME as they were before there was a background!

    It's a miracle! 8o
    + :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: + This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • My point is hybrid caster seems bound to be some sort of priest thing. thaumaturgy is the power of gods....

    Pyro is a plain sadistic furnace invoking discipline. I can see the pragmatic DE generals want this kind of mage.

    And it's not that I like the spells better. I don't.

    But looking at the lores maybe the big mage is the priest and the small one a prince/captain thing.

    Restricting divination to an adept is really sad
    I think the problem is mostly about points
  • zertuiop wrote:

    Pyro is a plain sadistic furnace invoking discipline. I can see the pragmatic DE generals want this kind of mage.
    Here are my points I have problems with this argument:
    1. "DE generals want" is besides the point. A general would most likely want casters of every path, if given the choice. Path selection is not distributed what the respective generals might want, but which kind of magic would make sense based on the sociology of the army.
    2. It fails to adress how Pyromancy is better fitting than the existing ones.
    3. It fails to link the attributes "plain", "sadistic", "furnace invoking" to anything spefici Dread Elvish. Why are these more linked to DE than other attributes for other paths we already have? (personally I think none of these three sound even remotely like DE, also IDK why straight up blasting your opponent is more sadistic than any other magic missile in the game).

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


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

    Well 3 master paths and a hybrid caster matches VS and maybe ID with their vassal caster (although this could be a master too who knows?). Although if acolytes stay conclave we’re above VS really.

    It’s below 7 races with access to at least 4 master paths and above 5 with the minimum 3 masters and nothing else. So it’s average to below average.

    Yeah I’m not asking for evo but certainly would like it over Cosmo.

    Familiar needs to exist if you want one of your 3 master paths to be taken on foot.
    3 master paths and 2 adept paths would put you above VS (3 master and 1 weird one) and above current ID (3 master and 1 adept although only on a mount), from what I got from the spoilers on par or above new ID (I don't think Vassals will get 2 new paths, on them being masters I'm less sure from the guidelines).
    Coupled with Wizard Conclave, again putting DE above them.
    And thats just path avaiability.

    So every army with access to Occultism needs to have the familiar? Yes the range is a huge detriment, that's a huge part of what the path is about. Not every path of magic needs to be equally good on every character(-option) of every different army it's avaiable in.

    Also pretty much everything @DarkSky is saying.
    This post has been brought to you by Zhanta Claws little helper.
    Click here for more information about Zhanta Claws and the ID LAB
  • Shako wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Well 3 master paths and a hybrid caster matches VS and maybe ID with their vassal caster (although this could be a master too who knows?). Although if acolytes stay conclave we’re above VS really.

    It’s below 7 races with access to at least 4 master paths and above 5 with the minimum 3 masters and nothing else. So it’s average to below average.

    Yeah I’m not asking for evo but certainly would like it over Cosmo.

    Familiar needs to exist if you want one of your 3 master paths to be taken on foot.
    3 master paths and 2 adept paths would put you above VS (3 master and 1 weird one) and above current ID (3 master and 1 adept although only on a mount), from what I got from the spoilers on par or above new ID (I don't think Vassals will get 2 new paths, on them being masters I'm less sure from the guidelines).Coupled with Wizard Conclave, again putting DE above them.
    And thats just path avaiability.

    So every army with access to Occultism needs to have the familiar? Yes the range is a huge detriment, that's a huge part of what the path is about. Not every path of magic needs to be equally good on every character(-option) of every different army it's avaiable in.

    Also pretty much everything @DarkSky is saying.

    Its a hybrid of Div/Alchemy not actual adepts on both (from what I read anyway). I actually forgot about the Lammassu but either way ID, VS and DE will be about the same. 8-10th, so not really above average.

    If you want to see occultism on foot yeah pretty much as only DE (familiar) and VC (Arcane knowledge) take it on foot. ID (lammassu), DE (Dragon) and warriors (skywheel) all take it on mobile fliers otherwise. Exception being the pendulum which is much more than a caster.
  • DarkSky wrote:

    At last the team already stated, that Path distribution will not change, has anything changed to discuss this now? Outside of "I just want Evocation, because I like the spells" I didn't see a real argument for such a change.
    This line of thinking is not correct.
    The argument for Evocation isn't because "we like it", it's because it synergizes well with Dread Elf playstyles. It also fits well for the "feel" of the army.

    Klaudel wrote:

    Background can be modified
    if it ain't published then it can indeed be modified. :)

    I really hope T9A doesn't force some half skewed DE fluff that most people won't enjoy.
  • zertuiop wrote:

    DE as we know them seem to point to thaumaturgy and pyromancy to me. true offensive magic. even if it is just as adepts.
    Will never happen as long as Death Trance is a thing.

    +2 to wound from Flaming Swords and Death Trance is way too strong.
    The Underdog Ambassador

    T9A - Nanatoo
    Wargamer.au - Naboo

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

  • Teowulff wrote:

    DarkSky wrote:

    The whole discussion you started here in the last posts is completely disconnected from the actual fluff and reasoning for the Path distribution, which was explained in quite detail. If you claim "it fits fluff-wise" but there is actual fluff from our BGT that directly contradicts it, what kind of argument do you have left?
    The path distribution did not happen on offensive/defensive scale, but on whether the underlying concepts are in sync with the DE society and their take on magic.
    Still you must agree that it's a miraculous coincidence that:
    1. DE had Alch-Witch-Div-Cosmo-Occ in the old books (1.3 and beyond);
    2. There was no background;
    3. Later BGT totally unprejudiced wrote a nice and fluff background;
    4. Guess what - the 5 most suitable paths of magic are EXACTLY THE SAME as they were before there was a background!

    It's a miracle! 8o
    I am pretty sure you are incorrect. The initial choice of paths had already been discussed with BGT thoroughly.
  • For me is quite easy from my humbre experience to find the reason and reference to choose our magic lores: our need to reach and wound in combat (considering enemy T and AS).
    Being the aggressive HTH elves... we must think about.... how sum to our hth power level cosmology lore? and Occultism? And Witchcraft? and Alchemy/Divination from an adept caster? Also... how these lores help us to reach combats and deal with chaff that condition our tactics?
    I used to be Suddenwind... :)