What SE currently lacks

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

  • Serwyn wrote:

    And in that discussion pricing is not relevant. Eliteness and low/high model count is though.
    Agree 100% :)

    That is why I asked the set of questions I did to ask what SE players want from their shooting.
    Is it high eliteness of each shooting model... good selection of shooting tools... combined totality in a list... damage-focussed eliteness... etc etc.

    And of course this is why the mobility discussion matters. Because a highly mobile shooting force will always be bad at inflicting damage compared to an otherwise identical non-mobile force...




    Bogi wrote:

    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?
    Yes and no :)

    The pricing framework is flexible enough to include this if it is wished for... but it would need to be done carefully and consistently, and it might not be clear how to do that in every case.

    However, some cases are easy to implement (and already have some/all of the infrastructure in place).

    For example, one option is to treat core and non-core differently.
    I.e. when applying price increases and decreases to the different elements within a book based on their internal balance scores, one can choose different parameters for core such that e.g. core suffer fewer (and smaller) price increases, and more (and larger) price decreases, relative to non-core.
    (Or the opposite if one is sadistic and really wants to make core into a tax haha! :P )


    In all cases of course, the problem is that nothing comes at zero cost.
    (Relatively) Cheaper core in a book requires (relatively) more expensive special, in order to maintain external balance.
    (Relatively) Cheaper rank and file requires (relatively) more expensive skirmish elements, in order to maintain external balance.

    So then the question is how to respond to complaints from people that their favourite non-core/non-rank&file/whatever unit is deliberately overpriced and that that is unfair... because of course the usage data will show that these units are used less...
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE

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

  • 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.

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

    Sure, there are some reasons to discuss what is overpriced or underpriced in the slim book.


    That was never what I was talking about, and until this post it wasn't what you were talking about either. Allow me to refresh your memory:


    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.


    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.

    No. Those are not valid things to say in regards to the slim book either.


    The slim book is not being designed or redesigned. If you want to talk about "design", you're talking about either the LAB, or history (and you can't change the past).

    And it is unfitting to ask for slim book units to be intentionally underpriced. That is literally the opposite of what the project is trying to do with the yearly updates.



    And, for the record, SE are a strong candidate for LAB 7. The large amount of completed artwork and stories from the FAB mean that the project needs to assign less art and background resources to get a SE LAB done, and SE are a fairly difficult book to design around at present.

    So really, you might have a year or more to hash out what you really want... or you might have months at best. How fast do you think y'all can agree?

    Background Team

  • Bogi wrote:

    Could this then apply to, for example, all rank and file troops in the game?
    Well, I think it is a valid design suggestion and something that is compatible with the design and balance processes, to the best of my knowledge. (I think DanT proposed something along this lines as well?)
    But I'm just saying that it make sense to discuss arround it. I don't know if that something RT would be up to or if it is in the scope of the balance update, and maybe there would be a lot of unintended problems relating to a change like that, or there may be other ways to solve the balance of monsters. For example if you introduce a new weapon enchantment with automatic Wounds then certainly all monsters will get a bit worse.

    Personally I think in that casr it is more interesting to discuss the problem (are monsters too good? how, why?) than the solution.

    HR Team

    ID LAB Facilitator


  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    No. Those are not valid things to say in regards to the slim book either.


    The slim book is not being designed or redesigned. If you want to talk about "design", you're talking about either the LAB, or history (and you can't change the past).
    Please link me to the place where intended play rate of all unit in the book has been defined and set in stone, with the information that balance update won't change it. Otherwise your point is entirely void.
    Hint: You can't because it isn't set in stone. That's exactly why the community is being asked its input on the matter every year.


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And it is unfitting to ask for slim book units to be intentionally underpriced. That is literally the opposite of what the project is trying to do with the yearly updates.
    Of course not. Please I've already said 10 times that internal balance is a data driven process that is not up to discussion.

    Now if you speak about "internaly underpriced", please give a definition of "underpriced" that does not refer to the play rate.
    A unit is underpriced if it is priced less than it should be. The price of a unit should be the one where it reaches its aimed playrate. None is saying a unit should be played more than what it should be played, that's inconsistent. "A unit should be underpriced" is a contradiction.

    Saying "Archers should be more cost efficient and wizards less cost efficients" is not at all unfitting. It reflects that with the exact same book you can tweak prices in different ways to promote different playstyles. Two book with the same entries but different costs can have arbitrarily different playstyle.

    HR Team

    ID LAB Facilitator


  • Serwyn wrote:

    To everyone else reading: I insist and repeat yet another time just to be clear. Don't say "SE Archers cost more than HE archers that is a scandal why does the project hate SE". That's very bad. Bouh. :judge:
    Well people probably say that because 28 points of queens guard against 24 of forest guard has no point...
    Or chieftain more expensive than commander (he has martial discipline) or Wizard 10 points more expensive with +cast + 1 disc and martial discipline
    So obviously people is going to make cross comparitions with other books (which I think in that chase are justified).
    If in the next patch they decrease points like with HE about 100 points was ? Book would be much better in extern balance and a little bit better in internal (they are good now).
    And no one hates SE or HE just some books are better designed
  • Art_of_War 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.
    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.
    I'm unsure as to what any point drops will bring to the archers currently. It is mostly meta that has relegated them and definitely with a new meta they will start to shine again, with or without drops in points. Sentinels are used often as a bunker and by some because they are a counter to the meta but mostly because of a lack of bunker options. I now use an Eagle king but I am the only one who does and me using it is not in the data. When meta changes sentinel usage outside bunkers will drop and possibly archers or pathfinders will find a place. Meta is not often dictated by the the points and points have so far been only playing a never ending catch up game with the meta.

    I don't even look at individual point costs of units when making lists it's more about what fits into the whole and as said by someone earlier small changes are there to not increase or decrease what can fit together in lists and outperform individual parts.

    DanT wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    And in that discussion pricing is not relevant. Eliteness and low/high model count is though.
    Agree 100% :)
    That is why I asked the set of questions I did to ask what SE players want from their shooting.
    Is it high eliteness of each shooting model... good selection of shooting tools... combined totality in a list... damage-focussed eliteness... etc etc.

    And of course this is why the mobility discussion matters. Because a highly mobile shooting force will always be bad at inflicting damage compared to an otherwise identical non-mobile force...




    Bogi wrote:

    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?
    Yes and no :)
    The pricing framework is flexible enough to include this if it is wished for... but it would need to be done carefully and consistently, and it might not be clear how to do that in every case.

    However, some cases are easy to implement (and already have some/all of the infrastructure in place).

    For example, one option is to treat core and non-core differently.
    I.e. when applying price increases and decreases to the different elements within a book based on their internal balance scores, one can choose different parameters for core such that e.g. core suffer fewer (and smaller) price increases, and more (and larger) price decreases, relative to non-core.
    (Or the opposite if one is sadistic and really wants to make core into a tax haha! :P )


    In all cases of course, the problem is that nothing comes at zero cost.
    (Relatively) Cheaper core in a book requires (relatively) more expensive special, in order to maintain external balance.
    (Relatively) Cheaper rank and file requires (relatively) more expensive skirmish elements, in order to maintain external balance.

    So then the question is how to respond to complaints from people that their favourite non-core/non-rank&file/whatever unit is deliberately overpriced and that that is unfair... because of course the usage data will show that these units are used less...
    I do feel mobility is often not priced or valued enough by players who often only do combat calculations when comparing units. In olden days shooting was very immobile and mobile shooting hardly existed or was limited to low range or low strength, this was in old old games workshop who had a good eye for game mechanics.

    As for the answers to my quote, it is interesting that external balance is so regarded when in fact the rps effect has a far greater weight on games then external balance. The rps effect is not as bad as it used to be in gw times but this has nothing to do with points but with restrictions to eliteness, and I feel further reductions to rps is a much more important goal then external balance, since it's effect on game outcome is larger. I would go so far as to even hypothesise that the state of external balance can not even be fully seen because of the rps effect.

    Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Could this then apply to, for example, all rank and file troops in the game?
    Well, I think it is a valid design suggestion and something that is compatible with the design and balance processes, to the best of my knowledge. (I think DanT proposed something along this lines as well?)But I'm just saying that it make sense to discuss arround it. I don't know if that something RT would be up to or if it is in the scope of the balance update, and maybe there would be a lot of unintended problems relating to a change like that, or there may be other ways to solve the balance of monsters. For example if you introduce a new weapon enchantment with automatic Wounds then certainly all monsters will get a bit worse.

    Personally I think in that casr it is more interesting to discuss the problem (are monsters too good? how, why?) than the solution.
    I feel that the discussions on mobility being stronger has been discussed a lot recently and still no concensus has been reached, I know how I feel about it but not everyone agrees. Some msu rnf lists have done well and my SE ranked lists perform well but I do better with my full light troops VS and I have never struggled against any rnf infantry lists.

    I would consider testing what can come of incentivising core or ranked infantry troops from soecialt.

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

  • Serwyn wrote:

    To everyone else reading: I insist and repeat yet another time just to be clear. Don't say "SE Archers cost more than HE archers that is a scandal why does the project hate SE". That's very bad. Bouh. :judge:
    Just to be clear, I don't think someone hates SE or HbE, the comparison between the two books was intended to prove that there are units with the same price where one is simply plain better than the other. For this reason I wouldn't be scandalized if SE archers would cost as much as HbE ones but being plain better.
  • Art_of_War wrote:

    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.
    This should happen only if SE are externally above average, otherwise only abused units should go up in price.
  • Xhat about: dpn't change anything in SE book about pricing and UP the hell out of Single models that are spammed atm, then we might see a comeback from underused units. I don't understand why people thinking that unit that nobody pick are all about bad priced .. just no. They are either bad designed or not usefull in a certain meta. So since next update is all about price fixing, don't fix anything in SE and fix the rest of the book. Thanks.

    Ironic Mode Off

    Hope Whammewhamme will have ablast reading this :)
  • So, considering all the above @Hachiman Taro and @funkyfellow what would you say about creating a new topic in wich we discuss about the wished design of the new book ?
    I'd suggest opening with a list of the common complaint/request/design pitfalls about Se (light troop mounted druid, witchcraft, pathfinder being weak, ecc.) with an explanation about why certain decision have been taken in the past or why a commonly suggested fix would be bad, maybe with a comment from @DanT and/or @WhammeWhamme about the matter if they can spare the time.
    An interesting thing would also be to see if you can at least get to know from the design team if there are any no-go points in the army design that are somehow already known (because they are already taken by De for example) so we can have a cleared idea of what to suggest.
    A section about what form the feedback should take would be good for WhammeWhamme's joy.
    Also remember that we did a brainstorming about magic items some time ago : Se community magic items brainstorming, it can be interesting to revise some of the good ideas that got devised there and see if they are choerent an eventual overall vision of the book

    I know it would be a lot to organize, but hey it's for the good of the Se LAB! :) Also just the summary would be a great step foward to organize thoughts
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    This should happen only if SE are externally above average, otherwise only abused units should go up in price.
    My understanding is that there are three scenarios how internal and external balance come together:
    a) If SE is within average of external balance: Some units will go up (the ones that are seen as underpriced) and some (the overpriced ones) will go down. These changes will mostly compensate each other and will narrow the span between best rated and worst rated units.
    b) If SE is seen as under average of external balance: In this case the overall prices for SE will go down, mainly for the units that are seen overpriced from the internal side.
    c) If SE is above the average of external balance: All prices will go up, mainly on the underpriced units (internal view) but also on average priced units. Overpriced units are most likely to keep their price or maybe slightly decrease.
  • Bogi wrote:

    As for the answering to my quote, it is interesting that external balance is so regarded when in fact the rps effect has a far greater weight on games then external balance. The rps effect is not as bad as it used to be in gw times but this has nothing to do with points but with restrictions to eliteness, and I feel further reductions to rps is a much more important goal then external balance, since it's effect on game outcome is larger. I would go so far as to even hypothesise that the state of external balance can not even be fully seen because of the rps effect.
    Yes, good point :thumbup:
    On some level this is the question "how important is the average vs the full shape of the distribution?", which is an entirely legitimate point to make with how the project handles external balance.

    I would say the project primarily deals with the "average" for external balance because it is unclear what else is really practicable.
    Detailed, concrete and actionable suggestions are welcome :)

    Instead, RPS issues are largely designated as a design problem, and the pricing assumes that this task has been achieved to some reasonable degree.
    I think it is on the radar for LABs to make sure that books are not too RPS (although I'm a little out of the loop on the details of that stuff these days).
    But this is a hard task, and one that is difficult to meaningfully measure objectively.
    (And the question of how RPS the game should be is largely a matter of taste. E.g. individual units being RPS is a large part of the construction of the game and part of the manifestation of the skill in the game is to match one's scissors vs the opponents paper).


    As someone with a fair amount of experience with legacy systems, how do you feel the current level of RPS between books/lists is in t9a compared to different legacy times?
    Do you think it affects all of the books equally, or do you think some books (possibly e.g. SE) are affected more than other books?



    Chack wrote:

    So, considering all the above @Hachiman Taro and @funkyfellow what would you say about creating a new topic in wich we discuss about the wished design of the new book ?
    I'd suggest opening with a list of the common complaint/request/design pitfalls about Se (light troop mounted druid, witchcraft, pathfinder being weak, ecc.) with an explanation about why certain decision have been taken in the past or why a commonly suggested fix would be bad, maybe with a comment from @DanT and/or @WhammeWhamme about the matter if they can spare the time.
    An interesting thing would also be to see if you can at least get to know from the design team if there are any no-go points in the army design that are somehow already known (because they are already taken by De for example) so we can have a cleared idea of what to suggest.
    A section about what form the feedback should take would be good for WhammeWhamme's joy.
    Also remember that we did a brainstorming about magic items some time ago : Se community magic items brainstorming, it can be interesting to revise some of the good ideas that got devised there and see if they are choerent an eventual overall vision of the book

    I know it would be a lot to organize, but hey it's for the good of the Se LAB! :) Also just the summary would be a great step foward to organize thoughts
    My advice would be to focus on high level/big picture things. E.g. whether a druid should have light troops is likely to be too specific for guideline-level discussions.
    But people should try to understand the consequences of different big pictures.



    Art_of_War wrote:

    My understanding is that there are three scenarios how internal and external balance come together:a) If SE is within average of external balance: Some units will go up (the ones that are seen as underpriced) and some (the overpriced ones) will go down. These changes will mostly compensate each other and will narrow the span between best rated and worst rated units.
    b) If SE is seen as under average of external balance: In this case the overall prices for SE will go down, mainly for the units that are seen overpriced from the internal side.
    c) If SE is above the average of external balance: All prices will go up, mainly on the underpriced units (internal view) but also on average priced units. Overpriced units are most likely to keep their price or maybe slightly decrease.
    The process could be used this way, but my hunch is that it is unlikely to used in quite such an extreme matter.
    Particularly as the external balance is at a reasonable place to start with.

    Generally I would expect price decreases on the worst elements in every book, because this is unlikely to impact external balance much.
    But less externally powerful books will get more (and larger) discounts.

    Equally for the best couple of entries in each book...
    ... although this end of the distribution of internal balance values within a book needs handling more carefully because it more directly affects the external balance.

    For example, the steam tank is a constant conundrum in EoS.
    It is semi-auto-include, and arguably clearly underpriced... but EoS was below average externally in the last update.
    So the choices are
    (A) leave it be and accept it is wrong.
    (B) Adjust the tank price upwards, but also provide larger discounts to the weaker elements in the book to compensate.
    (A) Is simpler and less risky, but obstructs the iterative nature of the process. (B) is better in principle, but runs the risk of overshooting in either direction with the external balance... which can garner some... robust... criticism from the community.

    Please note, I am talking in general about the pricing system... I have no knowledge in detail of how the project is approaching the actual next points update.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Changing the way of conversation (SE don’t live just about shooting).
    Magic and discipline.
    As elves we should have better magical power, something like +1 cast near forest , generate more veils near forest...
    Discipline:
    I understand you want to make them more primal but, what about treefather and avatar? If there is one model that can afford take disc 10 there are both, avatar LAB should be more Orion.
  • I think I would address discipline in a unique SE way, leaning more towards the current Warriors dynamic than towards a transitional discipline core. SE are a guerrilla force and should be played available to play wide. SE are based around individual kinbands joining together to fight a common enemy. SE are a meritocracy, where leaders lead by example rather than through politics.

    What I would do is to design a Kin-leader, who either takes the place of champions in Elf units or is a cheap character who cannot leave units once he's joined. These champions would be leadership 9, and provide re-rolls of leadership, have 2 wounds and essentially act as mini-characters. Units should feel like kinbands, kinbands should be most disciplined when lead by their chief.
  • DanT wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    As for the answering to my quote, it is interesting that external balance is so regarded when in fact the rps effect has a far greater weight on games then external balance. The rps effect is not as bad as it used to be in gw times but this has nothing to do with points but with restrictions to eliteness, and I feel further reductions to rps is a much more important goal then external balance, since it's effect on game outcome is larger. I would go so far as to even hypothesise that the state of external balance can not even be fully seen because of the rps effect.
    Yes, good point :thumbup:On some level this is the question "how important is the average vs the full shape of the distribution?", which is an entirely legitimate point to make with how the project handles external balance.

    I would say the project primarily deals with the "average" for external balance because it is unclear what else is really practicable.
    Detailed, concrete and actionable suggestions are welcome :)

    Instead, RPS issues are largely designated as a design problem, and the pricing assumes that this task has been achieved to some reasonable degree.
    I think it is on the radar for LABs to make sure that books are not too RPS (although I'm a little out of the loop on the details of that stuff these days).
    But this is a hard task, and one that is difficult to meaningfully measure objectively.
    (And the question of how RPS the game should be is largely a matter of taste. E.g. individual units being RPS is a large part of the construction of the game and part of the manifestation of the skill in the game is to match one's scissors vs the opponents paper).


    As someone with a fair amount of experience with legacy systems, how do you feel the current level of RPS between books/lists is in t9a compared to different legacy times?
    Do you think it affects all of the books equally, or do you think some books (possibly e.g. SE) are affected more than other books?

    I honestly thought that Rps improved massively from games workshop days but now that I am thinking about it again, I am having the issue of false memory. Simply I want to criticise games workshop for their incompetence, but with deeper reflection it turns out that unfair treatment from my side might be unfounded. The difference in rps might not be this big at all.

    Rps is closely linked to eliteness of units and the quantity of special rules, specialisations. One extreme example bad match for SE is ID, this is because of the eliteness in ID. ID are I feel also quiet weak to my WDG army and this is also because of over specialisation. Yes gw had good days and later on bad days but now we are following the footsteps of things which made gw have bad days.

    One easy was to check is to open an etc scoring sheet from like 2013/14 and compare it to the one in 2019. I'm curious to see. Late 8th demons had lists and scores similar to UD last etc.
  • I would like our base archer to feel more elite than the other two Elven factions.

    HBE has bowline.
    DE has crossbows and multi shot.
    SE had move and shoot.

    HBE got access to move and shoot so we lost our ‘thing’ and we don’t feel elite any more. (Ignore the fact that move and shoot is everywhere now as we are talking Elven factions).
    S4 at close range is nice, but doesn’t really matter if you’ve been shot off the table before you get there. Also, for me, it is a product of the bow not the archer.

    I actually believe that removing move & shoot from the HBE honor would help us feel more elite again. Let’s not get into the fluff of an HBE city-bound citizen having the same aim score as a forest dwelling hunter or a sea faring reaver (Citizen Archers should be 4+ imo).

    The three Elven factions were considered together when DE guidelines were created so there should be a rather high level idea already of what differentiates them. Let’s hope this sort of thing came up.
    "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."
  • I believe I can sum up what the majority of SE payers have wanted from their shooting units for sometime using the following points:


    High impact when compared to other armies

    When players choose to play SE they want to lean into the prevalent fantasy trope of the master wood elf archer. They expect an army that can be filled up with the deadly archers who can inflict impressive damage to an enemy with just some well placed shots from a simple bow. Their individual archers should each represent the pinnacle of ranged damage when compared to other factions.

    Highly maneuverable and fast

    Paired with their deadly damage potential using bows, players expect SE to be among the most fast and graceful of the armies. Being difficult to catch and highly mobile is a hallmark of the trope.

    Hard to-hit

    This ties in with their speed as the primary way they keep themselves alive. Through a combination of natural skill and fey magic Sylvan Elves make it exceedingly hard to even be seen let alone be hit by an enemy.

    Fragile

    Elves are not known for their durability in any setting. Players expect them to fold like wet paper when they are actually caught. Having little in the way of Resilience or Armour.



    I imagine most already understand that units designed with these traits in mind are difficult to create in a game of rank and file armies. Naturally the project is quite aware of these desires and their pitfalls and has already expended considerable effort to implement them in a balanced way. I do feel the current slim book is close to achieving these aims (barring the special items/characters section).

    What many feel is that the current issues boil down to pricing and the RPS matchups that pop up when designing units with these traits. Auto-hits are and should be a weakness/counter to these kinds of units, what many within the SE community have long complained about is that these types of attacks are too effective. They should still remain as a viable counter but not be as effective as they are now, the simplest option to rectify this issue would be to lower the price of the units in question, a process for which the project already has designed. This will also then increase the offensive potential of these types of units as their is a direct correlation between a units power and its price (in a game with set points sizes being able to take more stuff = more power).

    Come time for the LAB their are a number of ways the team can tweak designs to meet the above goals without relying overly as much on pricing. Ideally it would be done by simple rules adjustments that can create complex tactical opportunities during a game. Ideas that have already been presented by members of the community include an aura that can protect units from certain RPS weaknesses (requiring tight positioning to fully utilize), new rules tied to occupying a forest, conditional Aegis Saves, or even reducing the offensive output of a unit when it marches. These kinds of mechanics could give simple costs/benefits and be worded in a concise and easy to understand way but would then have broad tactical considerations when employed during a game, the ideal of any game designer I believe.

    Of course an important consideration is that any changes made don't only affect SE. The game has 15 other armies and it is imperative that their needs/wants also be considered when creating new designs. It's up to us as a community to do our part to help reduce RPS game-wide.

    Hope this helps,
    Cheers!

    SE Community Support

    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated December 30, 2020
  • When applying the above guidelines to specific SE units patterns begin to emerge that showcase the issues that some have with them:


    Pathfinders/Pathfinder Kindred

    High impact when compared to other armies - This unit has high damage potential against a very specific sub-set of units (high armour low resilience units or units with low armour that stack to-hit modifiers). Against armies that do not field these targets this units cost-effectiveness is poor.

    Highly maneuverable and fast - As Skirmishers with Scout & Quick to Fire this unit fits this desire adequately.

    Hard to-hit - This desire is represented by Hard Target (1).

    Fragile - A high price, Resilience of 3, and lack of armour definitely makes this unit amongst the most fragile in the game.


    Overview: Players view Pathfinders and the associated Kindred as the ideal wood elf archer. This is the most iconic unit for many and is supposed to be the ideal representation of the faction, for these reasons the unit has a special place in the hearts of SE players. Most players want to include Pathfinders in their lists but quickly find the unit is only good in very specialized circumstances. The unit is designed to counter very specific threats meaning that when those threats aren't present or your army can counter them effectively using other means the unit is no longer worth its cost due its inherent RPS nature. I believe this specialization exists in part because of the inclusion of Sylvan Sentinels in the army roster, necessitating the designers to differentiate the units from one another by giving them specific roles to fulfill.

    Proposal: If Sylvan Sentinels were removed from the army roster and Pathfinders are given a more generalist role, one that makes them exceptional against the most common types of units instead of a specific niche, many SE players would be satisfied and this would help smooth over the RPS nature of the unit. Giving the unit Lethal Strike as part of this package would help fill the hole left behind by the removal of Sylvan Sentinels.


    Sylvan Archers

    High impact when compared to other armies - Over the course of a game Sylvan Archers have a very poor damage/cost ratio. They posses the SE mechanic of changing movement into damage (Sylvan Longbows) but lack the tools to fully utilize this mechanic when compared to the rest of the army, resulting in an ineffectual shooting output for most of the game.

    Highly maneuverable and fast - In a faction full of Light Troops shooting & combat units Sylvan Archers are incredibly slow. Their internal competitors (Heath Hunters, Sylvan Sentinels, Pathfinders) all posses the ability to March and Shoot as well as reform whenever desired. They lack synergy with most other units present in the book because of this, and are quite unwieldly/unintuitive.

    Hard to-hit - Outside of the Banner of Silent Mists Sylvan Archers lack this feature.

    Fragile - Sylvan Archers are an expensive & slow unit that lacks any form of defense.


    Overview: Players want to use the unit since it represent the basic Sylvan Elf archer and desire for it fill the role as the primary Core unit of the army. Sadly though, many players opt out of using Sylvan Archers since the unit does not match their desired play style, one of high speed guerrilla warfare. Sylvan Archers are also a victim of an internal competition with Heath Hunters, a unit which provides a platform for highly mobile shooting that also counts towards Core.

    Proposal: Replace Scoring with Light Troops and have the unit count towards Unseen Arrows as well as Core. As the iconic Core unit for SE they should feature it's key strength, mobility. This change would promote a more healthy environment for creating internal balance and inter-unit synergies with the expectation that all SE shooting is operating from a mobile base line. This proposal would also benefit with the removal of Sylvan Sentinels with regard to internal balance. If granting Light Troops to the unit proves to be unsuitable in an eventual LAB design instead consider giving the unit March and Shoot.

    SE Community Support

    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated December 30, 2020
  • @funkyfellow
    Great post, I think thats the view of many SE players.
    Just a couple of things I disagree wirh:
    - removing Sentinels: they are the only viable archers we have in the book and an effective way to deal with monsters, if they are removed I'd expect some other archers having poisong attacks
    - counting base archers as unseen arrows: this would furthermore limit the number of archers in our lists. I suggest to remove scoring and give them M&S. To be elite and justify they actual price range they should have f4 also at long range.
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    @funkyfellow
    Great post, I think thats the view of many SE players.
    Just a couple of things I disagree wirh:
    - removing Sentinels: they are the only viable archers we have in the book and an effective way to deal with monsters, if they are removed I'd expect some other archers having poisong attacks
    - counting base archers as unseen arrows: this would furthermore limit the number of archers in our lists. I suggest to remove scoring and give them M&S. To be elite and justify they actual price range they should have f4 also at long range.
    Well removing Sentinels allows other options to be explored

    You could have a unit with Light troops and throwing weapons with an in-built Anton-monster ability for example