What SE currently lacks

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Fleshbeast wrote:

    I’m still keen for an Aged Oak with M0 and a large buff area. :)
    Some sort of Warmachine Tree that doesn't move and provides static bonuses? That could work.
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog: Updated lexicons
    If you need a mod: Moderator Request thread
    (I'm no mod, but seemed like a link that should be everywhere)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • Fleshbeast wrote:

    I’m still keen for an Aged Oak with M0 / Res 7 and a large buff aura to represent an Oak tree spreading its branches and shading an area to darkness.

    Fighting under the Boughs: Friendly models within 18 inches of Aged Oak receive Hard Target (-1 To be Hit?) when targeted by ranged attacks from outside the aura.
    Enemy Units outside the aura must use a minimised roll when rolling for charge distance when charging units effected by this aura.
    Just an idea - what about line „count as forest terrain feature” for the purpose of moving it with treesinging and maybe possible synergies between our units and forests?
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • Ciara wrote:

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    I’m still keen for an Aged Oak with M0 / Res 7 and a large buff aura to represent an Oak tree spreading its branches and shading an area to darkness.

    Fighting under the Boughs: Friendly models within 18 inches of Aged Oak receive Hard Target (-1 To be Hit?) when targeted by ranged attacks from outside the aura.
    Enemy Units outside the aura must use a minimised roll when rolling for charge distance when charging units effected by this aura.
    Just an idea - what about line „count as forest terrain feature” for the purpose of moving it with treesinging and maybe possible synergies between our units and forests?
    that’s a great idea!
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    Maybe you remember when HE where at bottom tier with all overpriced. Think that we have the same problem, they had a great point reduction and now the book is in a good tier. At least 150-200 points reduction in many lists.
    And I think we have the same problem as they had, core archers are expensive, vanguard light cavalry SUPER expensive (compare it with DE and Cry, I want them to chaff no to shoot bows), first 3 kestrels are more than 100 points..., wildhunters and BD are a little bit UP too, thickets and treefather are ok (maybe 5 points up or down treedaddy), rangers are quite cheap for they quality, poisoned shoot is expensive, pathfinders... no coments... Maidens are ok (5 points up or down like TF).
    And our items... Nerfed hail shot costs 70 points ! And only in chieftain, you are going to take a binding instead for sure, like our bows... Hail shot 50, lifesheed 60 and people will start to take other options for archer BsB instead of binding and obsidian rock...

    New patch is coming soon with point changes and I really hope generally hard points decreased, we don’t have a bad book at all BUT as all the books have things cheaper we cant compete with them.
  • New

    I dont think you are right in some cases.

    Last patch hbe list got down up to 50p and these were list with most underpicked stuff. Furion list, as far as i remember actually went up in price so i dont really think they went 150-200p down.

    Core archers are overpriced, no suprise here, as our any bows on foot, thats the way they are, its our strenght so they are expensive and garbage. Disagree on heath hunters, one of best light cavalry in terms of shooting and combat capabilities but it comes with a price.

    Agree on rest, more or less. Inst it insane how additional models for big units, be it dryad or rangers are cheap? Its insane, in sylvans? Cheap blocks while shooting is overpriced and still wont do much.

    Our items suck big time, especialy all 3 shooting weapons. Wyscan made with pathfinders characters in mind after it was heavily nerfed and still it work only on short, in most cases 50/50 of times only on 0-2 kindred on foot. „Bolt thrower” bow is really bad design, exactly opposite of our army gameplay, you want to keep distance with it while literaly rest of the army dont. Only ap3, no penetrating and somehow you ignore bow basic rules like volley fire and qtf. I tried this item many times in many setups - hot garbage. Hail shot got bad after its set to aim 2+ but i guess it wont get fixed until lab.

    Turns out our shooting is really lame even tho we have supposed strength in it.
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • New

    Yup, the fear of SE avoidance and bow-lines is strong, and not without reason.

    The problem is that units tend to be priced based on their maximum potential and in cases such as the Sylvan bow this means the assumption is that the unit will always be in short range. It's been suggested to simply lower range to 18' with Accurate and STR4/AP1 at all times, which is much easier to price correctly, but unfortunately leaves SE without ranged zoning (warmachines and such).

    Perhaps the solution simply is to have 2 bows?

    - Sylvan Longbow: Range 30, QtF, Str3/AP1
    - Deepwood bow: Range 18, Qtf, Accurate, STR4/AP1

    Easier to point and offering a real choices on how to equip shooters:

    For example for Sentinels (assuming they keep poison) the Sylvan longbow would be more expensive, so there would be points to save as well as more powerful shooting for those willing to go close-and-personal with they, but the long range option would remain



    Short term however.... hopefully Sylvan Archers will go down a bit. I hate leaving them out of my lists, but they are so bloody awful for their points. But I don't think RT will risk rocking the boat more than that on the shooting issue
  • New

    Wesser wrote:



    The problem is that units tend to be priced based on their maximum potential and in cases such as the Sylvan bow this means the assumption is that the unit will always be in short range.
    From my understanding, that's not true anymore (also it would not apply that way: Otherwise it would mean that SA with always S4 and accurate would have the same price as actual SA.)

    I think that now the target is more specifically win rate (external balance) and pick rate (internal balance).
  • New

    Was thinking about SE and then we've got all these wildfires locally. Traditionally, tree-creatures are regarded as being fearful of fire, but wild fires are also important for the forests themselves. What if, rather than the arsonist, the trees themselves were choosing to become a wildfire? They are intelligent trees and making fire is as simple as rubbing two sticks together...

    What about granting the SE Trees-units an option where they could opt to combust themselves?

    In rules, they could gain flaming attacks for a turn (plus maybe some other buffs), and then die.
    For Lexicon-team Project Blog: Updated lexicons
    If you need a mod: Moderator Request thread
    (I'm no mod, but seemed like a link that should be everywhere)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • New

    The sylvan bow being S4 in short range is an awesome rule that encourages you to get close. S4 ap1 is not what it used to be but still I'd rather see the archers more fairly pointed over this awesome rule being cancelled. I'd even go so far as to not give them ap1 in long range as this further reduces the incentive to to get close or even ap2 in short if eliteness is important.
  • New

    Im pretty sure AB could just rewind some of the late "fix" on our book and get back to:
    -scoring wardancers (put it to max 2 units)
    -put kestrel back to 0-3 units
    -put thickbet back to 3-6 per unit
    -give us back some flavoured items instead of the pretty lack luster we have now (3d6 s1 bow was pretty cool and created something the game doesnt have anymore aka gunship dragon)
    -fix the problem with not being able to get lets say 1 avatar and 2 regular trees (but make it then impossible to get any other big guy as dragon or ancient).

    Those fixes takes really few effort to make (BUT they still don't fix internal balance issues) and yet we still won't be in range with top armies (no los magic blast with ultra mobile and resilient solo models aka wodg/ high range super reliable magic blast with a ton of mw sources aka skaven/ high range threat with no los long range blast and ultra resilient solo models aka vc/ small foot print, super mobile single model spam with some really resilient character and nice map control aka Ogres/ some green stuff that none understand and yet the kill you from afar or in combat aka orc and goblins/ not even talking about demon ...)

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

  • New

    I understand that mobility is a concern for AB but let's be realistic in what environement are SE the most "mobile" army ? We have nice small arm fire that can make us win some match ups only by sitting there and shoot, but i think that many armies are able to do the same.

    And yet we still lack a lot of pretty obvious options to make the army just a tiny better and seen on tournament. (for exemple i don't think any top 6 team in the cinco or ocho UB tournament have taken a woodies except maybe 1 team). Take for exemple the lack of musician (or similar options [having to pay a big taxe in character to have this option i jut blend stupid]) on dryads and thicket when we are supposed to be a "mobile army" ...
  • New

    If also find that in the current, single-entity heavy meta SE mobility is not particularly unique or powerful.

    There is simply too little room on many tables to make use of squishy glass cannons if the opponent has multiple pivoting zoning tools.
    Unfortunately, I have no idea how to address this effectively without touching some of the game's core mechanics.
  • New

    Serwyn wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    The problem is that units tend to be priced based on their maximum potential and in cases such as the Sylvan bow this means the assumption is that the unit will always be in short range.
    From my understanding, that's not true anymore (also it would not apply that way: Otherwise it would mean that SA with always S4 and accurate would have the same price as actual SA.)
    I think that now the target is more specifically win rate (external balance) and pick rate (internal balance).
    You’re absolutely correct. However, that is only the first part of the process. After TA make their suggestion then other teams actually work the points and make the adjustments. So the TA data could feasibly show a need for a huuuuge reduction on our SA (it doesn’t as far as I know) but the people making the changes could still overrule and not change or only make a minimal adjustment.
    edit: seriously unlikely to materially overrule the data. But tweaks happen.

    Considering the average points per matchup across armies comes out as roughly 11-9 over multiple matches it’s showing that General ability is the more deciding factor than army choice now.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef

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

  • New

    If we had double treefather possible from special i would take them every time. I think that sort of style should not be for us, if i'm honest. But hey, i shun thicket beasts for the same reason, too many good anvils don't feel like SE to me. Forest spirit themed lists are another thing, i play elf heavy only.
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
    Phae's Pointy-Ear Blog: Elves in a Corner