Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • Ivar K wrote:

    It might be insignificant now. But as LAB prosess evolves it might be the first stone. HbE should be The defencive elves ir we are the offencive elves. So they should have better protection and if everybody get better protection (even if little) the total level of protection will rise. It might be that HbE LAB will take away some of their protection too.
    While I’m not convinced there’s necessarily been a power creep with each new edition, what I can attests too is DE is designed with a long term goal in mind, call it DE is combat/HBE is defensive. The issue is as the first mover the issue is other books still remain in an older design philosophy.

    The Dread Prince is one of those items in my mind. While the goal was to be the pinnacle of combat characters again, be it on foot or mounted obviously HBE and SE have better builds but again if we’re too design with those builds in mind - we’d be contributing to the power gap.

    So somewhat it’s a no win scenario but thankfully we have pts to balance it out :)
  • New

    Gingersmali wrote:

    I really dislike the idea of yet another army getting plate armour there are so many more flavour full ways to give DE extra range defence if doing so.


    Why would DE get plate armour and HE not it feel super lazy?

    My glass cannon infantry keep getting pyroed off, time to give them more armour!

    This x2

    Major issue is that the part that stood up to range more (chariots/knights) have been made way worse and that any counter play has been removed (DR from core despite guidelines saying they’re core).

    Honestly just put them back to core and that is plenty. Instead of pursuing some idealogical purge that was carried out v dancers.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • New

    IntrigueAtCourt wrote:

    It's a half measure, and not worth the heavy heavy nerf to RE. It's already more of a nerf than anyone has anyone really proposed so the resultant buff should be a full measure, not half.

    Edit: I don't understand the phobia to elf infantry getting 4+ save. Lion guard have 3+/4+, FW have 4++ flat. My proposal isn't giving it to core units like legionaries, or cav. It's a fair and balanced approach.
    Yeah but lion guard won’t be S6 let alone MW cause kraken hide reasons and FW will be deleted cause a conditional 4++ was too good never mind a permanent one ;)
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • New

    Cam wrote:

    Gingersmali wrote:

    I really dislike the idea of yet another army getting plate armour there are so many more flavour full ways to give DE extra range defence if doing so.


    Why would DE get plate armour and HE not it feel super lazy?

    My glass cannon infantry keep getting pyroed off, time to give them more armour!
    This x2

    Major issue is that the part that stood up to range more (chariots/knights) have been made way worse and that any counter play has been removed (DR from core despite guidelines saying they’re core).

    Honestly just put them back to core and that is plenty. Instead of pursuing some idealogical purge that was carried out v dancers.
    DR being dark riders? They can still be taken from core, no? The core one with xbows are a lot of fun imo.

    As you and others have mention perhaps DE could use some more robust units however I think these would want to be thing like the beasty stuff. Then if you want to write a more robust list you can but this means I taking these choices and not the units with the highest output. Making judges or OG more robust and less killy kinda of ruins them for the people that like glass cannons, and ruins tier character imo.

    Man you really miss those dancers. Do you have lots if them?
  • New

    Ivar K wrote:

    If we want to tone down ruthless efficiency it could work like army wide poison attacks. Poison is weaker than static +1 to wound, except in some extreme cases.

    In mechanical way it fits well to the idea of hitting so well that it kills more easily. And wide use of poison seems both dready and ruthless way of being efficient.
    Not a bad idea either. Is this limited to applying in the the first round of combat?

    Does Artistry of Death remain the same then or change in line with the change to Ruthless Efficiency you propose.
  • New

    I'm still not impressed by the severity the guideines are used with.
    When I first read the book my impression was "great book!" It looked well thought, playable, didn't sem OP, the only flaw I found immediatly was the strong restrictions of character and unit options, but that seemed like something to be solved after some feedback. Especially as others voiced the same thoughts.
    And it is still not cared for, actually the restrictions on how I have to playmy characters got worse, not better.

    Then the RPS nature of the army became obvious, and proposals were given how to fix that, as well as questions asked for implementation of seemingly missing fluff-implementation (mist leviathan anybody?)

    But instead of fixing obvious flaws that even prevent a fun game for both players, the guidelines were used to not change anything for the main problems.

    This becomes even stranger as the things that did get changed were mostly for the better, like corsairs not counting for raiders without TW, or giving them hand bows later on, adding weapon options to chariots, better colossal kraken rules, there would be more to count.

    But the guidelines are not used as guidelines, but as crippling borders that cannot be crossed and are set in stone, no matter what problems they cause .
    First, this is an alpha release, even guidelines should be changeable if it creates problems.
    But that should not even be necessary, sa you could use the guidelines as, well, guides for the army. They don't have to be as rigid as they are now.

    The guidelines describe how hte army should look and feel, but a small deviantion from them doesn't change that, and seting strong barriers that prevent smart solutions is crippling for the whole process.

    DE (and any other army) already had a strong recognisable character. They always were diferent in style, gameplay and options than any aothre army, actually before the LABs we had 16 different armies, with unique character.
    And they did not adhere to guidelines as rigid as DE suffers from now.

    So how can anyone claim that without such restrictions the armies would loose their individuality, as history already prooves that wrong?

    A bit more opening up in the creative process would create better armies IMO, especially if we really want to avoid RPS games after all 16 have new books. Because if they get as restrictedas DE seems now, there will be trouble avoiding that.
  • New

    persionally i would change the following items. Most are a repetition of ideas resonating on these forums.

    Free up characters items.
    If something should only be picked up by 1 character like crippling frost make it a character upgrade that counts toward magic item allowance

    Create the availability of a wizard adepts to allow more list building opportunities

    Core seems fine for now with the recent changes.

    Change blades of dorac to work on hexes.
    This would alleviate the desire to make death stars on paper by combining everything on one unit.

    If militants are not good anymore i would add the poison rule there.

    Remove ruthless efficiency from all but acedemy trained units. Making the other entries cheaper and showing u do need training to remain constantly effective in battle.

    Add acedemy based triggers to chariots and knigths even though they are not acedemy trained enough anymore they still retain most of the basic training to give the other acedemy trained units an edge as if a completely acedemy trained unit is present.

    Change mist leviathan to either a cover aura, vanguard(6 inch) or a charge aura which allowed to charge better since the mist makes the dread elfs appear far away but they actually are closer. Could also be negative charge modifiers on opponent units.(hex type)
    Currently the team is jumping through guideline hoops which does not lead to a good design.

    I think this will make the army less rps and is a move in the rigth direction. Many things still need to be improved still and as long as the book keeps moving into a less rps nature i think that this is a good approach.

    So far the book is shaping up and the team is doing wonders under the guidelines burden.
    Hopefully the RT will allow some leeway for the team to allow creativity to reach an optimal solution instead of on that is less optimal beaten silly by the guidelines.

    So keep up the good work!
  • New

    You know, I’ve been checking out some of the playtesting reports and looking through results from some of the recent tournaments, and I’m starting to question how RPS this book actually is?

    There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it crushes CC lists and gets smashed by heavy shooting, at least not publicly and at the level of people who are either dedicated PTs or playing in tournaments.

    So for those saying it’s too RPS and needs toning down, could you share some examples or battle reports to explain why you think this is the case?

    Ultimately it’s a bit of a tough ask - if you share a battle report and make a judgement from it, someone might argue that chance/poor play/excellent counter play was the reason for the seen result. But If anyone who really thinks the book is RPS has the time and willpower, I’d be really interested to see what sort of game you played and some unbiased analysis of why it went the way it did, at least from your point of view?
  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    A question for all those advocating the reduction of CC potential among DE.

    If DE are the CC elves, should the CC potential existing in the current Alpha draft be reduced how much would then the existing CC potential of SE and HE need to be reduced in their transition from Slim to LAB to ensure that DE are clearly the CC elves?
    It is a good question, and I personally think Ruthless Efficiency, and Academy Training really make DE stand out as CC elves already. Question is if DE potential got reduced, how much would WotDG or EoS's CC abilities be as well? EoS has pretty high CC potential if they get enough bubble buffs overlapping for example.

    I think, without a doubt, we have to accept that all armies have to be able to compete in CC in one way or another. So DE being 'CC elves' doesn't strictly translate to higher CC power, but rather more tools for CC strategies. If other armies become too weak in CC, we will other problems to deal with (gunlines, shooty avoidance, frustrating stuff like this).

    DE Guidelines: General
    Display Spoiler

    A
    Elves are generally considered elite troops which are skilled, fast, disciplined, and have (in-line with other elves) low resilience. DE differentiate themselves from other elves through close quarter oriented bloodlust and should have rules that support doing damage at close quarters.

    B.1.3
    Being an elven race the army can generally be described as very elite. Masses of cheap troops and tar-pits are not non-existent in this army. Note that DE use their slaves only for their economy and not in battle.

    This should have the following in-game impact; models should have high average eliteness, and the least elite model in the army should not enable anything close to horde armies. Eliteness should be comparable to other elf armies. Overall dread elves should not feel more or less elite than other elves.

    DE is an army that thrives in MSU and MMU setting. Deathstars should not be an effective playstyle. To highlight this, the maximum unit sizes and cost from the gamewide guidelines are cut to 75% of their original values (e.g. maximum cost for slow unit is 750 points instead of 1000).


    Again I would say Ruthless Efficiency, and Academy Training really capture the aspects of strong CC tools well. Average eliteness is on the lower end however, and this is partially limited to the glass cannon nature of the army guidelines. For example DE have 20 ppm infantry while HE have Lion Guard and Flame Wardens at 27 ppm and SE have Dancers at 31 ppm.

    Deathstars seem particularly encouraged with Temple Legate's unit buffs (distracting), Blades of Darag, and now swiftstride banner... Blades of Darag could be a one-time buff like this: (+1S and replace Ruthless Efficiency with Artistry of Death). This could help a bit and I think its decently balanced. Swiftstride Banner could stay but its a bit much (feel like a SE rule: Swiftstride when charging out of forest).


    DE Guidelines: Close Combat
    Display Spoiler

    B.7 Close Combat
    As the CC specialists among the three elf races, DE offers a wide variety of close combat troops (shock troops / troops for prolonged combats / specialised troops intended for specific targets). DE have easy access to CC centric special rules as well as above average elf level CC stats (remeber that the average elf should not be more elite, so an increase in combat abilities need to be compensated elsewhere).
    Elf and non-elf (beasts and monsters) can all be divided into one of these 3 categories.

    • Shock troops are frontload focused units. They have rules which support a peak damage output in the first round of combat or when charging (hatred, battle focus in the first round of combat, etc.). These troops are typically not able to sustain prolonged fights either because of their lack in defensive capabilities (glass cannons) or because of the significant drop in damage in subsequent rounds of combat (e.g. chariots).

    • Grinding units. Primarily CC academy units, who due to their inter-unit-synergies and higher body count, are especially well equipped for prolonged combats as they offer a continuous source of damage with the ability to sustain damage to a higher degree. These units should have smaller focus (if any) on higher damage output first turn of combat, and instead use more even damage output. Note that these are decent grinding units in an elven context. Next to a dwarf, these units they should still feel fragile.

    • Close combat specialists are troops which excel against dedicated targets but which are not able to exercise their full potential against other troops. Specialised troops reward players who create situations where they are fighting what they are meant to fight.
    As the most close combat specialist elf army, DE need to offer a wide spectrum of different close combat units which enable players to tailor their playstyle around the flavour of close combat unit that they prefer. The army must not feel one-dimensional in regards to its close combat options (e.g. not only glass cannon units) and the close combat units should have an explicitly different in-game role/feeling to them.


    DE seem to have a variety of CC tools, sure, but do they have a variety? Obsidian Guard and Dread Judicators are distinct enough I guess. But I get the feeling that the army really just has 3 glass cannon infantry units (Obsidian Guard, Dread Judicators, Temple Militants) and then Legionnaires as a kind of anvil. I do think the Distracting on Temple Militants is a cool way to honor the Dancers of Yema from the older book, but now I am wondering if this glass cannon unit is covering so many bases (as a core unit), resulting in Obisidian Guard and Dread Judicators to suffer a bit.

    One thing I would recommend for Temple Legate:
    Alchemy has great spells to buff militants, so give the unit buff something for Great weapon units (Judicators have no academy rules, and no Blades of darag synergies)
    Divination has great spells to buff judicators, so give the unit buff something for blades of darag (distracting seems fitting here, like it is now).
    Above all: Replace Temple Legates Halberd option with a Great Weapon Option (so only Prince and Temple Legate have Great Weapon options).
    (Note: it’s intentionally mismatched this way (good spells for militants but unit buff for great weapons and vice versa so that it’s not super obvious which upgrade to take)


    Obisidian Guard could maybe benefit from Suppressive Fire in subsequent rounds of combat?
    Judicators getting Scent of Blood built in seems justifiable both from mechanical and fluff standpoint.
    Situation Aegis saves (in melee) could be another interesting thing to explore for a unit.


    De Guidelines: Defensive Capabilities
    Display Spoiler

    B.8 Defensive Capabilities
    Elves are limited to resilience 3. Monstrous and mounted units may have higher resilience, but should not have above average for their types. The army should feel elven, and low resilience and overall fragile troops helps with this.

    Although the troops are elite and generally well equipped for their respective troop type, armour is often not a major defensive tool for non-mounted troops. Armour should be average or below average, no where near the top 5 in the game, but also not bottom 5. Avoid enabling the following:
    - Good armour in core (e.g. ARM3 infantry, ARM5 cavaly)
    - Very easy access to ARM6 on characters
    - Close to whole armies with ARM5.

    DE defensive abilities are often tailored to their close quarter fighting theme. For example close combat centric special saves and avoiding to-be hit in close combat could be themes for DE defensive capabilities. Any defensive capabilities above normal elven standards should clearly follow this theme. DE should have weak protection against long ranged weaponry, which contributes to the inherent feeling that players actively want to play aggressively towards the enemy. Furthermore the defensive capabilities tailored to close quarter fights create an additional incentive to play aggressively. Although some units in the army have above elf-average defensive capabilities in close quarters, this does not mean that it is very tanky in game wide terms.


    Compared to other elves, dread elf units should have a clear focus towards dealing damage over protecting themselves. Dread elves define the pinnacle of elven damage dealing (while highborn elves is the pinnacle of elven defensive abilities). Looking at defensive traits of comparable units between the books (e.g. spearmen vs spearmen), the bookwide average should have DE clearly less protected than their HBE cousins (and better offense instead). Comparing specific units of similar roles, DE may never exceed HBE defensive traits, but they can rival their combat defence.


    And this is the crux of the situation: the very high RPS nature of the army. HE and SE suffer from this too. So its not necessarily just a DE problem. Its possible that its a new DE problem though (given the books previous strategy was to spam high R single models. Even HE are weak to pyromancy, Sea Guard are 24 ppm with only a 5+ save for example, and Flamewardens are comparable to Legionaires (and obviously worse if divine attacks are factored in).

    The simplification of the magic Lores is the biggest offender to this phenomena. We already have spells that exist that uses a model's Discipline Value instead of Resilience, we could easily change some spells to use a model's agility instead (in case of multipart, use the lowest value). This could 'even the playing field' a bit, and not make R4 feel so much more stronger/elite on the battlefield. So changing some spells can certainly help the situation, situational defensive buffs could also help but it can't be too easy to achieve (i like suppressive fire mechanics). Debuffs like Fae-miasma can also make sense here.

    Rather than Mist Leviathan providing defensive aura buff to DE units (that has been suggested on here), I would rather see it be able to provide an offensive debuff aura to enemy units (units within 8'' get -1 aim and maximized roll on march tests). That would be helpful, and the defensive abilities still tailor to the close quartered fighting theme. This feels particularly Dread Elfy, that once they are close enough they have effects that mitigate ranged damage through debuffing the enemy rather than buffing the dread elfs. Again think suppressing fire, how can an element like that be expanded across the army? Mist Leviathan seems intuitive, but maybe gargoyles can provide it too in the form of a sweeping attack.


    Summary
    The close combat power of the army is mostly fine, but nerf Blades of Darag a little bit (one time buff of +1S and replace Ruthless Efficiency with Artistry of Death). This will make elite infantry more relevant.
    Display Spoiler

    Blades of Darag
    Two-Handed. While using this weapon, the wielder gains +1 Attack Value, and attacks made with this weapon become Magical Attacks. Attacks made with this weapon gain +1 Strength, and the model replaces Ruthless Efficiency with Artistry of Death for as long as one or more non-Attribute Spells with duration One Turn are affecting at least one model in the wielder’s unit. This weapon cannot be enchanted with Weapon Enchantments.


    There are units that could use a little work. Giving Obisidian Guard or Legion Legate some extra Academy Bonuses. Giving Dread Judges Scent of Blood. Explore possible situational Aegis in melee with these units (perhaps only first round)

    Give Temple legate a Great Weapon, and Temple Legate's Warsmith should buff Judicators somehow (Aegis in melee, or just straight up reroll armor saves without any clause, since the unit is AP4 anyways). Unit buff shouldn't be too strong, but enough to justify MMU.

    Some magic lores should punish low agility, rather than nearly all of them punishing low Resilience. I know this is a big ask, but SE and HE also have very RPS match ups against ranged damage, even though it presently a most distinctly DE issue.

    DE should have things that mitigate damage in close range. Think -1 Aim mist leviathan aura, Gargoyle sweeping attacks, replacing Swiftstride banner with another debuff aura. Perhaps one or both of the Altar's could facilitate something similar rather than buffing a big units. Debuff aura mechanics will better facilitate MMU/MSU.

    EDIT:
    One final note, I anticipate poor internal balance between Auxilleries and Legionaires. Auxiliary spam in core seems very powerful: consider limiting Aux unit size even further. They can play in wide and combat reform very well especially with extra rank from Academy trained, and they give each other suppressive fire, and they have parry. So a unit of 25 Aux supported by smaller units of 15 aux is a very versatile and strong combo.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by jaith1 ().

  • New

    I think t9a has improved upon Warhammer 8th edition in most regards. The main downside as compared to whfb, from my perspective, is the lack of customisation. Some of these changes are understandable from a balancing point of view, but some really just limits options when building lists.

    How does it break the game to allow players to choose if their horses should have barding, or whether they want their characters to wear armour or not? Why introduce weapon enchantments rather than magic weapons and then make the all of the enchantments in a book available only for specific types of weapon? Why can’t I choose the level of the caster I’m bringing? Why do characters come with special rules built in, rather than the option of adding these for a given point cost?

    I guess that this is down to personal preference in the end. I understand the appeal of simplicity, but for me it’s too much simplicity at the cost of being able to play around with different setups.

    The lack of options will cause players to feel like they’re sandwiched into specific setups. This has been the case with t9a in general, but the DE book is the most glaring example so far.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think there are plenty of great things about the book, but the general tendency to limit player options (or at least perceived options), is a problem for me.

    I think enchantments rather than magic items should be seen as the exception to the rule here. This particular change did introduce more options and from what I can remember this was a change that was welcomed by the community as a whole. Maybe that’s just selective memory on my part though :)

    The post was edited 2 times, last by EBD ().

    Post by Nanatoo ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves ().
  • New

    What was the deciding factor in not allowing Hydras to also take the colossal upgrade?

    It seems strange that the Kraken got that upgrade but not Hydra. Is there a problem with creating more options or is it a balance issue?

    I would love for the Hydra to have it also, my mind has been racing for months with all the modelling opportunities and I was devastated when it was missing from the book :(
    The Underdog Ambassador

    T9A - Nanatoo
    Wargamer.au - Naboo
  • New

    berti wrote:

    Kollosal upgrade was a last minute add on as it was told by lab team.
    Propably not applied to Hydra to not open even more pricing issue.

    I mean why not make the colossal upgrade as it is and applicable to either the hydra or the kraken (points as is, only if you have a beastmaster general, and 0-1 aka you can have one Colossal monster, which is either a kraken or a hydra).
    I'd love a colossal hydra
  • New

    Cam wrote:

    It would cost way more on the hydra just because you already have +1W and the ability to heal
    Fair enough, like everything the points can be set correctly

    I guess what I'm saying is they there is no reason in principle why the kraken is the only one of the two with the colossal option.

    I guess you could alter what it is for the Hydra (e.g. it only gains an additional wound, the handlers and the base size and gains something else instead?, ala whatever feels like 50pts worth, an extra attack for example)