What SE currently lacks

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

  • "Swap Divination for Witchcraft. Divination is background important for supernal, so unlikely to vanish entirely for consistency of the setting. Also probably too specific for this level of goal/guideline."

    If I spend my entire gaming career reading T9A fluff for supernal, Sylvan Spirit, Daemons etc. etc. I still don't think I'll ever understand why Supernals all having access to Divination is necessary for consistency (nor for that matter why all Elves MUST have Cosmology).

    Such as strange constraint to put ourselves under...
  • DanT wrote:

    My comment was not aimed at your post.
    I was just generally clarifying what I had been driving at, to try to prevent misunderstandings
    My apologies then. Rereading my comment I realize that comes off somewhat snippy. That was uncalled for.

    DanT wrote:



    A couple of comments below since you asked.

    Arrahed wrote:

    Goals:

    • Make SE shooting output more predictable in regard to matchup.This is a good high level vision/goal.
    • Simplify SE shooting rules. Interesting. Defo fits as high level vision.
    • Add defense against melee auto-hits. I think this is too specific, and has a tonne of underlying assumptions (is it needed, why is it needed, what is it achieving, what is the actual goal, why not state the goal instead... etc etc...) This is probably better placed as an example implementation for the first point. It is mainly a matchup dependency issue and can only be addressed when taken the possible matchups into account. Since we don't know how other books will turn out, not much we can do about it.
    • Reduce reliance on Forests. Interesting. Defo fits, but maybe controversial :P I agree that it won't make everyone happy. It trades immersive background rules for easier balancing.
    • Increase focus on deception-themed elements for close combat units. Very interesting. I think your specific examples imply something a little different; given these specific examples for this one I would change this to "movement-based shenanigans" rather than "deception". Essentially it is the opposite of the "lack of movement tricks" sentence in the ID guidelines. I couldn't think of any deception themed rules in the core book except for Ambush. If there is design space for that sort of thing, I could see a flavorful unique special rule come into play here. However in general, I prefer a leaner design with very few unique special rules. I guess movement shenanigans could be a suitable stand-in if flavored accordingly in the accompanying background material.
    • Swap Divination for Witchcraft. Divination is background important for supernal, so unlikely to vanish entirely for consistency of the setting. Also probably too specific for this level of goal/guideline. I know. ;( This is more a tongue in cheek comment. I never skip an opportunity to advocate for Witchcraft. :)
    • Boost the magical aspect of SE a little bit. "Ensure that SE are average casters" would be better as a guideline/goal I think. Of course, it probably needs a definition of "average caster", which is where I suspect disagreements would occur.

    But yeah, generally I think these sort of statements are the right sort of level to be aiming at achieving some sort of community consensus.
    [/spoiler]
  • Swapping cosmo for witchy would nicely show how SE have effectively turned their backs on elvish high society and turned to a more primal mind set...

    But i get it, project has its vision. I've been working a while now on a homebrew of my own SE, the Mossenhome Elves, i'll see if i come up with anything worth sharing.

    And don't get me wrong, i still love the T9A SE. My main gripes are with pathfinders being a bit disappointing and the mess of a character section we have.
    "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
  • Falco wrote:

    We pay many rules on pathfinders that we don’t use like paired weapons, extra offensive, scout. Removing it and doing optional every model should decrease 5-6 points so sentinels 38 and pathfinder 42?
    But I think with next patch is going to happen the opposite, increase of sentinels (making them more expensive because last year were in 35) and low decrease on pathfinders (not enough to see the light)
    Since the sylvan are priced at 1ppm for the sentinels you can see how much they are valued and the sentinels get a massive boost out of sylvan blades in cc so probably on the pathfinders they are worth 0.5 point at best, i disagree about scout being useless, i consider it very important for their role and for fluff consistency, also ,as DanT is explaining, a good pricing for the pathfinders it's not happening more because of a structural reason (their being RPS) than because of an unwillingness to make them decent
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    funkyfellow wrote:

    On the subject of ranked up units of archers, I would posit that changing to a purely Light Troops focused design represents a possible way to help diversify SE from the other elven factions. If SE relied exclusively on Light Troops for shooting with a small amount of monstrous shooting support it would then create a completely different playstyle & theme from that of a bowline of ranked archers supported by bolt throwers, which typifies an HE army's approach to shooting.
    An interesting consequence of such a decision would be that SE shooting will likely be "weaker" than the HbE one, since SE would be more mobile.Compared to HbE archers, SE archers would need to be
    A) more specialized (Same damage per point than HbE when shooting at their specialized target, worse when not),
    B) more expensive per model (and thus less point efficient and more vulnerable to ranged damage) or
    C) Weaker shooting overall (S2 AP1 shooting for example) but similar cost to HbE archers.
    I don't agree here.Mobility should be an army's strength, IMO SE should have the same damage output per point as HbE but be more mobile, so overall better.
    I agree on them being more elitist/specialized so more points/damage per model but the output (compared to HbE) should be this:
    A) Specialized units should deal higher damage (per point) when shooting their natural targets, sligthy lower otherwise
    B) Generalized archers should deal the same damage (per point) but being more mobile

    HbE excel in other fields (magic?) so I don't see as unfair SE being superior in shooting.


    Pricing is outside the scope of the LAB team's work. Speaking as someone who is ON a LAB team, we have zero authority to say "this book is supposed to be good at X, so keep the prices low".

    (We did help on the initial pricing rounds, but under the understanding that the goal is to get as close as we can to what the algorithm will eventually set the prices to)


    So your desire for "should be overall better" is an unreasonable request; it would require the entire project to throw out the current policy on how point costs are assigned.


    Note that this applies to everyone; it would be against policy to make HBE magic artificially cheap, or whatever else you might want to complain about. Underpriced units are mistakes to be corrected, not policy. The project happily takes feedback on what units need price hikes to be fair (there are surveys running around right now you could mention what seems to underpriced to you on), by the way.

    Background Team

  • Wesser wrote:

    "Swap Divination for Witchcraft. Divination is background important for supernal, so unlikely to vanish entirely for consistency of the setting. Also probably too specific for this level of goal/guideline."

    If I spend my entire gaming career reading T9A fluff for supernal, Sylvan Spirit, Daemons etc. etc. I still don't think I'll ever understand why Supernals all having access to Divination is necessary for consistency (nor for that matter why all Elves MUST have Cosmology).

    Such as strange constraint to put ourselves under...

    The Paths are tied to magical philosophies. Divination is the natural magic of the Supernal Realm; it is intuitive to creatures of the Supernal Realm.

    Cosmology, conversely, is the magic of the natural balance and harmony of the (well) Cosmos (and of Chaos too).



    That said, I point towards the Exalted Herald, who is Supernal, but only uses the attribute from Divination. There is scope for creative wiggle-room from LAB teams.

    (Heck, ID have Supernals and no Divination. How? They're not spellcasters! :P )

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Drakkanor wrote:

    Folomo wrote:

    funkyfellow wrote:

    On the subject of ranked up units of archers, I would posit that changing to a purely Light Troops focused design represents a possible way to help diversify SE from the other elven factions. If SE relied exclusively on Light Troops for shooting with a small amount of monstrous shooting support it would then create a completely different playstyle & theme from that of a bowline of ranked archers supported by bolt throwers, which typifies an HE army's approach to shooting.
    An interesting consequence of such a decision would be that SE shooting will likely be "weaker" than the HbE one, since SE would be more mobile.Compared to HbE archers, SE archers would need to beA) more specialized (Same damage per point than HbE when shooting at their specialized target, worse when not),
    B) more expensive per model (and thus less point efficient and more vulnerable to ranged damage) or
    C) Weaker shooting overall (S2 AP1 shooting for example) but similar cost to HbE archers.
    I don't agree here.Mobility should be an army's strength, IMO SE should have the same damage output per point as HbE but be more mobile, so overall better.I agree on them being more elitist/specialized so more points/damage per model but the output (compared to HbE) should be this:
    A) Specialized units should deal higher damage (per point) when shooting their natural targets, sligthy lower otherwise
    B) Generalized archers should deal the same damage (per point) but being more mobile

    HbE excel in other fields (magic?) so I don't see as unfair SE being superior in shooting.
    Pricing is outside the scope of the LAB team's work. Speaking as someone who is ON a LAB team, we have zero authority to say "this book is supposed to be good at X, so keep the prices low".

    (We did help on the initial pricing rounds, but under the understanding that the goal is to get as close as we can to what the algorithm will eventually set the prices to)


    So your desire for "should be overall better" is an unreasonable request; it would require the entire project to throw out the current policy on how point costs are assigned.


    Note that this applies to everyone; it would be against policy to make HBE magic artificially cheap, or whatever else you might want to complain about. Underpriced units are mistakes to be corrected, not policy. The project happily takes feedback on what units need price hikes to be fair (there are surveys running around right now you could mention what seems to underpriced to you on), by the way.
    I guess somewhere there should guidelines that state what an army should good at and what not, correct me if I'm wrong.
    The current state of SE shooting (very low impact on the game, a liability most of the times) is something the project is ok with or it is supposed to be fixed with the LAB?
    Ok maybe it's a error but a HbE wizard master costs 10 points more than a druid and has +1dis, +1 casting and access to better magic items. Is it unfair? IMO it's not because HbE are supposed to be better than SE at casting and having higher discipline. What i consider unfair is HbE having a shooting phase way more effective then SE.
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    I guess somewhere there should guidelines that state what an army should good at and what not, correct me if I'm wrong.
    Yes and no.
    There are faction guidelines

    The current state of SE shooting (very low impact on the game, a liability most of the times) is something the project is ok with or it is supposed to be fixed with the LAB?
    We don't know the project's vision for the SE LAB yet.
    (Note, I disagree with your characterisation of SE shooting (I would say it is strongly RPS and meta dependent as its main attributes... but I suspect this is a strongly context dependent judgement), but that is irrelevant to answering your question about the project's vision).



    Ok maybe it's a error but a HbE wizard master costs 10 points more than a druid and has +1dis, +1 casting and access to better magic items. Is it unfair? IMO it's not because HbE are supposed to be better than SE at casting and having higher discipline.
    Making similar entries in different books equally priced is not a project goal, nor a necessary outcome of the pricing process (neither is it actively avoided: it happens or it doesn't).
    (The goals are just that the best 4500pts lists from different books deliver similar results (external balance), and there are a selection of "best" lists from each book that between them see vaguely reasonable usage of most/all element of the book (internal balance); if these goals are achieved then the prices are *correct*.).


    What i consider unfair is HbE having a shooting phase way more effective then SE.
    Discussions of "fair" on the t9a forum never end well... ;) :P

    Display Spoiler
    The main quantifiable sense in which army books can meaningfully be compared from a "fairness" perspective is their external balance, i.e. win rates.

    The project aims to produce fun, interesting, competitive and distinct LABs... what matters is whether players like the LAB for their faction and find it to be thematically appropriate and interesting. Trying to compare LABs for "fairness", in a fashion other than external balance, is of limited utility. If the LABs are individually distinct, fun, interesting etc... then "fairness" doesn't matter in any meaningful sense. If players think the factions aren't distinct, then this needs adjusting... but it isn't about "fairness", it is about faction differentiation. If players think the project vision for their LAB is wrong... well that is why the guidelines are made public and feedback requested :)





    That aside... bear in mind that neither HBE nor SE are LABs. Nor have the guidelines for either of these LABs been made public.
    The slim books are essentially "get you by" army books, designed to make the game complete and playable by players of all factions... but not fully representative of the project vision of each faction.

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE

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

  • Drakkanor wrote:

    I guess somewhere there should guidelines that state what an army should good at and what not, correct me if I'm wrong.The current state of SE shooting (very low impact on the game, a liability most of the times) is something the project is ok with or it is supposed to be fixed with the LAB?
    Ok maybe it's a error but a HbE wizard master costs 10 points more than a druid and has +1dis, +1 casting and access to better magic items. Is it unfair? IMO it's not because HbE are supposed to be better than SE at casting and having higher discipline. What i consider unfair is HbE having a shooting phase way more effective then SE.

    No, and you have changed topics. "SE shooting is low impact on the game and a liability most of the time" is not pricing. Neither is "HBE shooting phases are more effective than SE shooting phases". (Note that you said more effective, not more cost-efficient)


    If you want SE shooting to have more impact and be less of a liability, that's fine. I'd still prefer it if you nailed down some more specifics, but if that's what you'd said to begin with, I wouldn't have said (in essence) "mate? not happening". I'd have asked you questions to try and figure out precisely what you want.

    If you want SE shooting phases (when maxed out, obv) to hit harder than HBE shooting phases? Fair enough.

    I don't mind what you want, I just want you to clearly and unambiguously express it so the project can process your expressed desire properly.



    For the record: yes, there will be guidelines. They will be created based on feedback from threads like this one. That's why it's important people decide what it is they really want.

    Now is not a good time to try to argue fairness, or recriminate past failings. Now is a good time to clearly, consistently and persistently say what your dream SE book would be like. Now, before the guidelines get written.

    Again: Without any reference to point costs.

    If you say "I want this to be underpriced", your request will be politely ignored. Or possibly rudely ignored. But ignored, it will be.


    Assume that, in the long run, nothing will be underpriced, and then tell us what that book looks like.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    If you want SE shooting to have more impact and be less of a liability, that's fine. I'd still prefer it if you nailed down some more specifics, but if that's what you'd said to begin with, I wouldn't have said (in essence) "mate? not happening". I'd have asked you questions to try and figure out precisely what you want.

    If you want SE shooting phases (when maxed out, obv) to hit harder than HBE shooting phases? Fair enough.

    I don't mind what you want, I just want you to clearly and unambiguously express it so the project can process your expressed desire properly.
    I tried to be more specific some post ago (316), but that is just an example of what It could be, probably there are better ways to reach the same desired output.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Drakkanor wrote:

    I guess somewhere there should guidelines that state what an army should good at and what not, correct me if I'm wrong.The current state of SE shooting (very low impact on the game, a liability most of the times) is something the project is ok with or it is supposed to be fixed with the LAB?
    Ok maybe it's a error but a HbE wizard master costs 10 points more than a druid and has +1dis, +1 casting and access to better magic items. Is it unfair? IMO it's not because HbE are supposed to be better than SE at casting and having higher discipline. What i consider unfair is HbE having a shooting phase way more effective then SE.
    No, and you have changed topics. "SE shooting is low impact on the game and a liability most of the time" is not pricing. Neither is "HBE shooting phases are more effective than SE shooting phases". (Note that you said more effective, not more cost-efficient)


    If you want SE shooting to have more impact and be less of a liability, that's fine. I'd still prefer it if you nailed down some more specifics, but if that's what you'd said to begin with, I wouldn't have said (in essence) "mate? not happening". I'd have asked you questions to try and figure out precisely what you want.

    If you want SE shooting phases (when maxed out, obv) to hit harder than HBE shooting phases? Fair enough.

    I don't mind what you want, I just want you to clearly and unambiguously express it so the project can process your expressed desire properly.



    For the record: yes, there will be guidelines. They will be created based on feedback from threads like this one. That's why it's important people decide what it is they really want.

    Now is not a good time to try to argue fairness, or recriminate past failings. Now is a good time to clearly, consistently and persistently say what your dream SE book would be like. Now, before the guidelines get written.

    Again: Without any reference to point costs.

    If you say "I want this to be underpriced", your request will be politely ignored. Or possibly rudely ignored. But ignored, it will be.


    Assume that, in the long run, nothing will be underpriced, and then tell us what that book looks like.
    I want to bring nuance: It may be pertinent to refer to costs, but only in comparison with other units of the book and not with other armies.
    For example, "Bows should be more cost efficient than infantry blocks because there should be an incentive to fill a lot of bows in a list", or alternatively "Sylvan magic should not be very cost-efficient because SE lists should not fill too many wizards" are perfectly valid design suggestions.

    But again for clarity I stress that this reference to pricing is only with respect to internal balance and not at all with external balance. "SA should be better per point than Goblins" is not a valid design suggestions.

    HR Team

    ID LAB Coordinator


  • Serwyn wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Drakkanor wrote:

    I guess somewhere there should guidelines that state what an army should good at and what not, correct me if I'm wrong.The current state of SE shooting (very low impact on the game, a liability most of the times) is something the project is ok with or it is supposed to be fixed with the LAB?
    Ok maybe it's a error but a HbE wizard master costs 10 points more than a druid and has +1dis, +1 casting and access to better magic items. Is it unfair? IMO it's not because HbE are supposed to be better than SE at casting and having higher discipline. What i consider unfair is HbE having a shooting phase way more effective then SE.
    No, and you have changed topics. "SE shooting is low impact on the game and a liability most of the time" is not pricing. Neither is "HBE shooting phases are more effective than SE shooting phases". (Note that you said more effective, not more cost-efficient)

    If you want SE shooting to have more impact and be less of a liability, that's fine. I'd still prefer it if you nailed down some more specifics, but if that's what you'd said to begin with, I wouldn't have said (in essence) "mate? not happening". I'd have asked you questions to try and figure out precisely what you want.

    If you want SE shooting phases (when maxed out, obv) to hit harder than HBE shooting phases? Fair enough.

    I don't mind what you want, I just want you to clearly and unambiguously express it so the project can process your expressed desire properly.



    For the record: yes, there will be guidelines. They will be created based on feedback from threads like this one. That's why it's important people decide what it is they really want.

    Now is not a good time to try to argue fairness, or recriminate past failings. Now is a good time to clearly, consistently and persistently say what your dream SE book would be like. Now, before the guidelines get written.

    Again: Without any reference to point costs.

    If you say "I want this to be underpriced", your request will be politely ignored. Or possibly rudely ignored. But ignored, it will be.


    Assume that, in the long run, nothing will be underpriced, and then tell us what that book looks like.
    I want to bring nuance: It may be pertinent to refer to costs, but only in comparison with other units of the book and not with other armies.For example, "Bows should be more cost efficient than infantry blocks because there should be an incentive to fill a lot of bows in a list", or alternatively "Sylvan magic should not be very cost-efficient because SE lists should not fill too many wizards" are perfectly valid design suggestions.

    But again for clarity I stress that this reference to pricing is only with respect to internal balance and not at all with external balance. "SA should be better per point than Goblins" is not a valid design suggestions.

    No, it is not a good idea to request "bows should be more cost efficient than infantry blocks" either.

    If you want optimal lists to field a lot of bows rather than infantry blocks, just say that. That's a great feedback! Specific enough that I know what units you want (the ones with bows), general enough that I don't have to tie myself into knots trying to make it happen. Love that feedback. Say more things like that. Please?

    Same for "SE should generally not field want to field heavy magic lists". Great, fantastic. Leave it there, don't mention points.


    Why? Because design teams have knobs they can actually adjust to make things like that happen that aren't point costs. And unlike point costs, the LAB team will actually have control over that. You'll be making a request that there will actually be specific human beings who can make it happen. Do that. Please. Do that.

    Please? :)


    Edit: Again, there is not an SE LAB team yet, but I could be on one in future, or not, but either way - please, try to line up your feedback so people can actually do it. Do y'all have any idea how frustrating it is to read a request and go "I am sympathetic, but my hands are tied, I literally can't do what you're asking"?

    Background Team

  • @WhammeWhamme : But the feedback is not necessarily aimed towards the LAB team :)

    The internal balance process has a subjective part: What is considered internaly balanced? It's pretty non-controversial for example, that in an "internally balanced" SE book, there should be more Sylvan Archer than Unicorns. But some other decisions are not that easy: If unit A has three options and unit B no options, should A and B be played about as much? Should each option of B be played as much as A? Somewhere inbetween? The answers are subjective (and the community is even asked explicitly do give its point of view via the google form!)

    Moreover as you said the lab team is not responsible for the points. Which means the lab team has not direct influence on wether a particular unit will be frequent or rare (in optimised lists). That should make it clear that a feedback on the line of "competitive lists should include many bows", which is more or less equivalent to "bows should be a good deal" is not really directed at the LAB, or at least not entirely ;) .


    In fact you could even say that arguing over the internal balance that is in the process right now is more productive than arguing over an hypothetical, future LAB for which Background pressure and guidelines are not known.

    HR Team

    ID LAB Coordinator


  • Serwyn wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme : But the feedback is not necessarily aimed towards the LAB team :)

    The internal balance process has a subjective part: What is considered internaly balanced? It's pretty non-controversial for example, that in an "internally balanced" SE book, there should be more Sylvan Archer than Unicorns. But some other decisions are not that easy: If unit A has three options and unit B no options, should A and B be played about as much? Should each option of B be played as much as A? Somewhere inbetween? The answers are subjective (and the community is even asked explicitly do give its point of view via the google form!)

    Community feedback is sought on points for the yearly slim book updates, yes. It is useless for LAB purposes.

    But, again, you can say "unit X should see more play than unit Y" without actually going to points.

    I mean look, I just did it right there - I said "unit X should see more play than unit Y" and didn't use the word "points".

    The answers are subjective, the answers are good to give, the answers do not need to include the word "points".



    Moreover as you said the lab team is not responsible for the points. Which means the lab team has not direct influence on wether a particular unit will be frequent or rare (in optimised lists). That should make it clear that a feedback on the line of "competitive lists should include many bows", which is more or less equivalent to "bows should be a good deal" is not really directed at the LAB, or at least not entirely ;) .


    No? The LAB team has many knobs they can adjust to affect frequency. They can't just force units in, but they WILL be spending a lot of time and effort on trying to make sure units are holistically viable, not just underpriced-so-people-will-spam-them.




    In fact you could even say that arguing over the internal balance that is in the process right now is more productive than arguing over an hypothetical, future LAB for which Background pressure and guidelines are not known.

    You can say a lot of things. Don't make 'em relevant. Arguing is a waste of time. Say what you want. No need to argue at all.


    Arguing over it right now isn't going to be productive. Discussions that actually produce greater understanding might be productive. Arguing is not productive.

    Background Team

  • Again the community is asked a direct input in the form of "which units are most underplayed" and "which units are most overplayed". Omitting some details, this pretty directly means "which unit are too cost efficient" and "which unit are not cost efficient enough". Especially sincre the update won't change anything but points.

    So why wouldn't it be reasonable for the community to discuss and argue which feedback is the good one? For example someone may find that BD are too highly priced and not competitive enough to his tasting (underplayed). Then by discussing with someone else who is of the opposite opinion he may change his mind and finally decide that BD's prevalence in SE lists is just fine. So yes, definitely arguing on the subject is productive.

    I don't think this thread is reserved as a wishlist for the LAB Team ;) And anyway it's certainly a bit early to give wishes on the LAB, other than to brainstorm and dream.

    If you want we can certainly continue this discussion in PM :)

    HR Team

    ID LAB Coordinator


  • Serwyn wrote:

    Again the community is asked a direct input in the form of "which units are most underplayed" and "which units are most overplayed". Omitting some details, this pretty directly means "which unit are too cost efficient" and "which unit are not cost efficient enough". Especially sincre the update won't change anything but points.

    So why wouldn't it be reasonable for the community to discuss and argue which feedback is the good one? For example someone may find that BD are too highly priced and not competitive enough to his tasting (underplayed). Then by discussing with someone else who is of the opposite opinion he may change his mind and finally decide that BD's prevalence in SE lists is just fine. So yes, definitely arguing on the subject is productive.

    I don't think this thread is reserved as a wishlist for the LAB Team ;) And anyway it's certainly a bit early to give wishes on the LAB, other than to brainstorm and dream.
    I agree that a thread where community members try to persuade each other about what entries to vote for in these surveys could be useful.
    My apologies, I didn't think that was what this thread was.
    I'm sorry if my posts have de-railed the thread and been posted in an inappropriate place.


    One last de-rail...
    Display Spoiler

    However, I am afraid I disagree that this is too early for the community to think about the LAB... (but there are caveats to my statement of course: Random wishlisting is pointless. Detailed mechanics is pointless).

    I tried to get the EoS community thinking about guidelines nearly a year ago... which culminated in several people writing their vision for EOS, and me writing my own complete EoS guidelines, and writing an EoS homebrew to illustrate those guidelines. I think some interesting things came out of those discussions that mean the different subsets of the EOS community understand each other better. And I hope those discussions will prove useful when EoS LAB guidelines are released to the community for feedback.

    Personally, I'd recommend all communities starting discussions to get some consensus on the kind of things they want to see in the guidelines. Not because that consensus will necessarily inform the initial project guidelines... but because it means that when the guidelines get released and feedback is requested, the community consensus is clearer, and the areas of agreement and disagreement with the project guidelines will be clearer, better explored and easier to articulate.
    Equally, if it becomes clear during those discussions that there are clear schisms in the community for a given book, then that is very important context when feedback is requested on the initial public release of the guidelines.

    Anyway, my apologies again if I've de-railed this thread. I will stop posting and leave you guys to discuss :)
    If the things I've been saying are relevant in another thread, then feel free to quote them there or ask my questions there instead, and I will try to stay on topic;-)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Serwyn wrote:

    Again the community is asked a direct input in the form of "which units are most underplayed" and "which units are most overplayed". Omitting some details, this pretty directly means "which unit are too cost efficient" and "which unit are not cost efficient enough". Especially sincre the update won't change anything but points.
    I think in the end people want not only a better point balancing but more options for the play style.

    But anyway, I think it is becoming clear which are A the "underplayed units" or other elements that need lower cost - most of it has to do with shooting: Pathfinders, Sylvan Archers, Bow Enchantments, Pathfinder Kindred.
    On B the "most overplayed" side I think we have mostly the trees: Thicket Beasts, Thicket Shepherds, Dryads, Wildhunter Kindred.

    If the internal balancing logic of "Make A cheaper und B more expensive" is applied to SE then we will end up with some cheaper shooting units and more expensive trees. Will that make the SE players happy or result in new possible play styles? I doubt it.
  • DanT wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    Again the community is asked a direct input in the form of "which units are most underplayed" and "which units are most overplayed". Omitting some details, this pretty directly means "which unit are too cost efficient" and "which unit are not cost efficient enough". Especially sincre the update won't change anything but points.

    So why wouldn't it be reasonable for the community to discuss and argue which feedback is the good one? For example someone may find that BD are too highly priced and not competitive enough to his tasting (underplayed). Then by discussing with someone else who is of the opposite opinion he may change his mind and finally decide that BD's prevalence in SE lists is just fine. So yes, definitely arguing on the subject is productive.

    I don't think this thread is reserved as a wishlist for the LAB Team ;) And anyway it's certainly a bit early to give wishes on the LAB, other than to brainstorm and dream.
    I agree that a thread where community members try to persuade each other about what entries to vote for in these surveys could be useful.My apologies, I didn't think that was what this thread was.
    I'm sorry if my posts have de-railed the thread and been posted in an inappropriate place.


    One last de-rail...
    Display Spoiler

    However, I am afraid I disagree that this is too early for the community to think about the LAB... (but there are caveats to my statement of course: Random wishlisting is pointless. Detailed mechanics is pointless).

    I tried to get the EoS community thinking about guidelines nearly a year ago... which culminated in several people writing their vision for EOS, and me writing my own complete EoS guidelines, and writing an EoS homebrew to illustrate those guidelines. I think some interesting things came out of those discussions that mean the different subsets of the EOS community understand each other better. And I hope those discussions will prove useful when EoS LAB guidelines are released to the community for feedback.

    Personally, I'd recommend all communities starting discussions to get some consensus on the kind of things they want to see in the guidelines. Not because that consensus will necessarily inform the initial project guidelines... but because it means that when the guidelines get released and feedback is requested, the community consensus is clearer, and the areas of agreement and disagreement with the project guidelines will be clearer, better explored and easier to articulate.
    Equally, if it becomes clear during those discussions that there are clear schisms in the community for a given book, then that is very important context when feedback is requested on the initial public release of the guidelines.

    Anyway, my apologies again if I've de-railed this thread. I will stop posting and leave you guys to discuss :)
    If the things I've been saying are relevant in another thread, then feel free to quote them there or ask my questions there instead, and I will try to stay on topic;-)

    Well I don't think that is really the direction the thread is taking (unfortunately), just saying that it would be an interesting and valid discussion :)
    Also I agree with your statement, yet is the time for brainstorming more than for emitting wishlists. And in that discussion pricing is not relevant. Eliteness and low/high model count is though.

    HR Team

    ID LAB Coordinator


  • Serwyn wrote:

    I want to bring nuance: It may be pertinent to refer to costs, but only in comparison with other units of the book and not with other armies.For example, "Bows should be more cost efficient than infantry blocks because there should be an incentive to fill a lot of bows in a list", or alternatively "Sylvan magic should not be very cost-efficient because SE lists should not fill too many wizards" are perfectly valid design suggestions.

    But again for clarity I stress that this reference to pricing is only with respect to internal balance and not at all with external balance. "SA should be better per point than Goblins" is not a valid design suggestions.

    This is something that caught my eye. Is it acceptable for units or entry types that should be promoted to be more internally point efficient or inversely?
    Could this then apply to, for example, all rank and file troops in the game?