Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • (not commenting in staff role)

    I have seen comments that DE is too slow, and also that it is "rush" rather than "table control style", but people don't want "avoidance", etc etc.
    Naively at first glance there are some tensions here. I think I can parse these myself and tease out the nuances, but I might be risking putting words into other peoples' mouths by doing so.

    So, I wanted to ask people to give some more precise elucidation here, for my own interest.
    Does anyone want to give a brief and precise account of some of the nuances here?

    E.g. Things like what does rush mean/imply? What does table control mean precisely? Slow in what sense? How does table control differ from the ability to avoid/delay (in the sense of the opponent not being able to force an engagement? How do rush/table control/speed apply to different subsets of the entries (e.g. mainline combat vs support)? Can table control and rush be synergistic? (If not why not? Can subsets be synergistic?) How does table control relate to avoidance (what is avoidance?)? etc etc...

    (As I say, I have my own answers to these questions, but I didn't want to assume too much on behalf of others, so I wanted to give people a chance to define more precisely what they mean so we can all be on the same page :) )
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Here's my thoughts on what to loose (I think I've expressed them before)

    Ruthless Efficiency as now but only works on standard sized models.

    Artistry of Death works on all models, but is limited to the first round of combat

    AWSRV3 ( Coinsures of Carnage :) ) As Artistry of Death Currently is.

    Ruthless Efficiency remains army wide

    Artistry of Death is given to all beast tamer themed units (Beastmaster, Lashmasters in Thunderpacks, Hydras and Krakens, Beast Breakers, and Hunting Chariots). Consider giving the 'knighly/noble themed units it too (e.g. Prince, Dread Knights, Raptor Chariots)

    AWSRV3 is reserved for Judicators only

    Artistry of Death still achievable through the banner as now (might have to be cheaper, or possible just grant AWSRV3)

    To me it makes sense as well from the background you've written.

    You talk about the fact that all DE master the 'killing cut' in there training, but it feels like most of them would only master it vs 'man' sized foes. Only more elite/specialized units would have the opportunity to practice this craft (and gain the knowledge) to be able to perform similar feats on larger creature/those with different anatomies.

    Honestly I think the above is a fair trade off for a slight increase in ranged protection across the army.

    I think just making Ruthless Efficiency proc on a charge would mean that our infantry would need additional tools to be the ones that get the charge.
  • Eol wrote:

    I know that armybooks designs are oriented to tournaments, and must be green or red vs other armies to make it balanced in group strategy... and ok, but I have the feeling that the external balance have been polarized too much to the point that in DE games, one of the players is going to have a difficult/not very funny game.
    That's not true at all, armybooks are meant to be balanced on their own, not in the context of team strategy.
  • DanT wrote:

    (not commenting in staff role)

    I have seen comments that DE is too slow, and also that it is "rush" rather than "table control style", but people don't want "avoidance", etc etc.
    Naively at first glance there are some tensions here. I think I can parse these myself and tease out the nuances, but I might be risking putting words into other peoples' mouths by doing so.

    So, I wanted to ask people to give some more precise elucidation here, for my own interest.
    Does anyone want to give a brief and precise account of some of the nuances here?

    E.g. Things like what does rush mean/imply? What does table control mean precisely? Slow in what sense? How does table control differ from the ability to avoid/delay (in the sense of the opponent not being able to force an engagement? How do rush/table control/speed apply to different subsets of the entries (e.g. mainline combat vs support)? Can table control and rush be synergistic? (If not why not? Can subsets be synergistic?) How does table control relate to avoidance (what is avoidance?)? etc etc...

    (As I say, I have my own answers to these questions, but I didn't want to assume too much on behalf of others, so I wanted to give people a chance to define more precisely what they mean so we can all be on the same page :) )
    Table control: With a lot of quotes, is you can reach spots in the table through movement and secured areas, this can be done using chaff to prevent counter charges or with high march rate "evading", also "Table control" is the state you reach after you won the Guerrilla Warfare of the first turns (totally imposible with current DE)

    About "avoidance" vs movement, imho is a mistake thinking that all lateral movement is about "avoidance" yes, you can use LT to avoid the enemy, but also, you can use the LT to reach better charge spots and angles, and LT is only an example, the most important thing for this is the March Attribute. IMHO DE design style will be in heavy focus in flank/rear charges. and for this you need High March Rate instead of High Charge rate, IMHO March will be the core of the DE movement, gaining easily the good spots on the table but being subpar in face to face combat.


    Without shooting the "Avoidance" will be always about taking better spots to charge. SE with shoots will be avoidance, but DE will be """""avoidance""""" melee oriented.

    LT has different uses, DR with crossbows will "avoid" the combat for more shoots, Gorgons with LT use the LT to reach better charge spots (and of course this probably means they will be nerfed in offensive power)

    Also is not the same LT on a March 18" unit or LT on a March 10" unit
  • First of all. Not writing in staff role of playtester, my own opinion, and I have a nice DE army that I field beside my dwarfs and EoS army the most. (have also some other armies too).

    I see a lot of unneeded overreaction here. And I am mostly very critical with new designs and special rules.

    When I bring a EoS infantry army I have a proplem when oponent has a lot of shooting. Pretty much the same as DE have when facing this.
    BOTH armies can bring cavalry. Both armies have some way to close the gap a bit faster. (orders on EoS side, higher Advance/march on DE side and some special rules for charges).
    Both armies can bring shooting themself, EoS more static shooting, while DE have mobile shooting. Thanks to the increased aim value it will be comparable dangerous.
    DE have better basis fighting abilities by a lot. EoS can make up with some synergies (that are not so super easy to get working in CC).

    Both armies can bring cavalry approach, even full cavalry if wished. EoS has better warmachines (that cost points, and are hard to defend) Both have access to magic.


    There is no need to restart the design of DE. They are mostly fine. Points have to settle but so early in Testing (Alpha) the book is in my opinion in a way better place than ID book in it´s current beta iteration.
    Only thing that should take additional care is the charakter section. I also don´t like the altar designs a lot, but the rest of the book, some point adjustments aside is fun to play with and against. (did both with different armies).

    Leaning too much into infantry alone (as I tend to do) opens up some vulnerability to ranged damage. For magic you can bring tools to reduce the early high damage (scrolls, magic resistance, the orb to get +1 to dispell). For shooting you need propably some sight blockers, or some fast units that threaten shooting fast. (like fast cavalry or harpies or knights).

    The limited DE shooting should also not be underestimated. Auxiliarys bring a lot of shots, and are also viable in CC against some things, with lightning reflexes, shields, and +1to wound in first turn).
  • setrius wrote:

    umbranar wrote:

    Change I would like to see and discussed locally in exchange for ranged protection:
    Ruthless Efficiency: Model parts with this rule can choose to lose Lightning Reflexes to gain +1 to wound in combat.
    Artistry of Death: Model parts with this rule gain +1 to wound in combat.

    Whether that needs to be nerfed to first round of combat or not might be another discussion, I like it either way.
    Maybe my math fails but it's the same have permanent lighting reflex that choose between +1 to hit or +1 to wound. I don't see the benefit of this.
    IMO its better have +1 to hit that +1 to wound.

    That is all
    Against some targets you want to +1 to wound, against others +1 to hit.
    My suggestion is to make THE combat elven race chose which. Ofcourse the ranged protection trade-off needs to be decent.
    It will nerf the combat damage output slightly, but gives our troops a much needed ranged protection boost.
    :UD: <--ACS FOR--> :WDG: :DE:
  • Chack wrote:

    Eol wrote:

    I know that armybooks designs are oriented to tournaments, and must be green or red vs other armies to make it balanced in group strategy... and ok, but I have the feeling that the external balance have been polarized too much to the point that in DE games, one of the players is going to have a difficult/not very funny game.
    That's not true at all, armybooks are meant to be balanced on their own, not in the context of team strategy.
    Maybe is a "non written rule", it´s not stated officially, but it´s the reallity.
    And I respect it, of course.
    I used to be Suddenwind... :)
  • umbranar wrote:

    setrius wrote:

    umbranar wrote:

    Change I would like to see and discussed locally in exchange for ranged protection:
    Ruthless Efficiency: Model parts with this rule can choose to lose Lightning Reflexes to gain +1 to wound in combat.
    Artistry of Death: Model parts with this rule gain +1 to wound in combat.

    Whether that needs to be nerfed to first round of combat or not might be another discussion, I like it either way.
    Maybe my math fails but it's the same have permanent lighting reflex that choose between +1 to hit or +1 to wound. I don't see the benefit of this.IMO its better have +1 to hit that +1 to wound.

    That is all
    Against some targets you want to +1 to wound, against others +1 to hit.My suggestion is to make THE combat elven race chose which. Ofcourse the ranged protection trade-off needs to be decent.
    It will nerf the combat damage output slightly, but gives our troops a much needed ranged protection boost.
    Unless some exceptions I always choose +1 hit than +1 to wound. As more hits you have you have more possibilities to wound. Again, I don't see any advantage.

    That is all
  • DanT wrote:

    (not commenting in staff role)

    I have seen comments that DE is too slow, and also that it is "rush" rather than "table control style", but people don't want "avoidance", etc etc.
    Naively at first glance there are some tensions here. I think I can parse these myself and tease out the nuances, but I might be risking putting words into other peoples' mouths by doing so.


    So, I wanted to ask people to give some more precise elucidation here, for my own interest.
    Does anyone want to give a brief and precise account of some of the nuances here?

    E.g. Things like what does rush mean/imply? What does table control mean precisely? Slow in what sense? How does table control differ from the ability to avoid/delay (in the sense of the opponent not being able to force an engagement? How do rush/table control/speed apply to different subsets of the entries (e.g. mainline combat vs support)? Can table control and rush be synergistic? (If not why not? Can subsets be synergistic?) How does table control relate to avoidance (what is avoidance?)? etc etc...

    (As I say, I have my own answers to these questions, but I didn't want to assume too much on behalf of others, so I wanted to give people a chance to define more precisely what they mean so we can all be on the same page :) )
    I will try to answer some of the points:


    „E.g. Things like what does rush mean/imply?”


    The book was supposed to poromote infantry play more then the slim book. At the same time it promotes the CC aspect of the army without buff reliance on single models to avoid the old Altar dependency. Both were accomplished by Ruthless efficency to include the old signature sinergies we had on our infantry.This also compensated for better in most cases rr1s to wound (Killer intinct) and on top made the infantry more desirable as it benefits the most from +1 to wound beeing mostly low S.


    In fear of our CC potential to be to severe we were denied ranged protection to allow counterplayfor our oponents.

    No form of ranged protection (apart from 2 spells) means that any form of ranged pressure is supposed (and is most of the time) to be efficent way to put a hard toll unto our units. We dont have any form of counterplay as we los tour long range threats apart froim Magic, which was denied the range extension in form of the familiar.

    Ouir units which are not the cheapest or numerous ones (but its not tha bad as for other elite armies). As every turn of beeing exposed to shootingis tough on our army, in case of ranged pressure, we cannot take time to mnouvre arround (MSU aproach to get favourable CC with several of our units) and are forced to rush forward to get to CC asap to have any chance to arrive in sufficent numbersand not just get killed in the grind (even tarpits are dangerous to our R3 5+ infantry).

    Non MSU aprroach of MMU and deathstar is beeing heavly punnished by natural counters in form of flamers and catapults which is normal. The only counterplay we have is to screen our units with the leviathan/ thunder pack/ Monsters in general. (No ranged protection and long ranged dammage potentioal).


    One of the tools to force the engagments on out terms was cheap MOBILE chaff, which could be also brought from core. We still can get Vanguardig Light cavalry which is awesome for their points.But to have mutliple mobile chaff elements we are forced to get it from special or spend a big chunck of the Core point into those instead of our infantry with awesome Academy rules. (I get it its the global design choice to avoid pure chaff units and give it utility to be able to avoid very cheap price. As long as most of the books will have their labs done with same philosophy in mind – we will fell beeing inferior in this regard)

    We lost the maximsied charge buff for mutliple units (now we have it for one unit in form of a Banner – antoher MMU/ deathastar promoting design). This means its more risky for our infantry/ slow cavalry (With scent in conditional normal speed department) to just fail the charge and get punished a turn longer by oponnets ranged assets. Reliability was key in the old book. This alowed our slow chariots to be viable in slim and they sported R5 to be able to get through small arms fire. Our infantry was as fregile then as its is now (minus 6+ aura).

    Against a CC oriented armies or low ranged pressure we dont have this feeling to be forced in this way.


    So to Summarise – we are deenied the choice in form of our RPS design. And against ranged pressure we have to rush forward at all costs without the tactial manouvres which need time we dont have.


    What does table control mean precisely?


    Raliable charges (don't have to be longer – but more like it to get in) (only possible in MMU/ deathstar list design)

    Possibility to get into good positions to charge on the next turn (high movement) – Leviathan helps our infantry with this.

    Ability to win chaff war (quicker then better).

    Many mobile chaff units alowing us to chaff mutiple elements during multiple turns to dictate the engagments.


    „Slow in what sense? „

    Our cavalry is slow (both advance and march rate), Our monsters are average , infantry is just the standard elvish statline (and infantry is slow by design in comparison to other trop types bar the chariots). We are supposed to run infantry in bigger numbers = slow army feeling.


    "How does table control differ from the ability to avoid/delay (in the sense of the opponent not being able to force an engagement?"
    - this is preciesly what I understand on the table control.


    „Can table control and rush be synergistic? (If not why not? Can subsets be synergistic?)"

    Yes they can, on both accounts.


    How does table control relate to avoidance (what is avoidance?)? etc etc..."

    Avoidance is a extreme form of table control. But it might even avoid all engagments entirly when coupled with ranged dammage.

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

  • setrius wrote:

    Unless some exceptions I always choose +1 hit than +1 to wound. As more hits you have you have more possibilities to wound. Again, I don't see any advantage.
    That is all
    From 6 to 5 is the sweet spot. It doubles the damage. Example hit on 3 and wound on 6 scenario. 6 attacs.
    With +1 to hit we have 5 hits and 0.833 wounds.
    With +1 to wound we have 4 hits and 1,333 wounds.
  • Ivar K wrote:

    setrius wrote:

    Unless some exceptions I always choose +1 hit than +1 to wound. As more hits you have you have more possibilities to wound. Again, I don't see any advantage.
    That is all
    From 6 to 5 is the sweet spot. It doubles the damage. Example hit on 3 and wound on 6 scenario. 6 attacs.With +1 to hit we have 5 hits and 0.833 wounds.
    With +1 to wound we have 4 hits and 1,333 wounds.
    Marvellous racial rule that only help you in a sweet spot :thumbdown:

    That is all

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

  • @DarkSky

    Eventual losing of Ruthless Efficiency, or having it only on charge is massive nerf (especially for slow infantry blocks), I belive that for proper discussion, you should propose the exact wording of the mentioned ranged protection buff, otherwise its really hard to say. If the buff is clunky and funny and very narrowly situational, losing RE would be devastating.
  • The hereditary spell is also a nice tool to punish flamers or catapults, with a bit too little range to realy do it.
    Sure you can shoot your catapult on my unit, inflicting 16 hits, killing 6-8 elfes and then loosing 3-4 wounds on your catapult. Shoot a second time with this spell active and catapult is dead. (or very vulnerable to ranged damage with only one wound left).

    I would split it up to a normal spell, more range, lower casting value, only affecting ranged, and another version affecting CC.


    Sure...not a game breaking strong tool. But in my opinion hereditary spells should not be super strong.
  • Eol wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    Eol wrote:

    I know that armybooks designs are oriented to tournaments, and must be green or red vs other armies to make it balanced in group strategy... and ok, but I have the feeling that the external balance have been polarized too much to the point that in DE games, one of the players is going to have a difficult/not very funny game.
    That's not true at all, armybooks are meant to be balanced on their own, not in the context of team strategy.
    Maybe is a "non written rule", it´s not stated officially, but it´s the reallity.And I respect it, of course.
    But it's not what happen in the reality, it could be a consequence of trying to have armies with more distinctive strengh, weaknesses and playstyles but it's not like LAB team has the objective of having more RPS armies, i think it would be the opposite, take for example the change on volcanic embrace on ID, it's clearly meant to reduce the RPS.
  • i think it would be the opposite, take for example the change on volcanic embrace on ID, it's clearly meant to reduce the RPS.
    it doesn´t reduce RPS, it just makes them strong against armored oponents too.....
    ID army still mows with everything through R3, 5+ AS things. But now they added an armor counter (on top of having AP 2 in many many units) to the autohits too.
  • ferda wrote:

    @DarkSky

    Eventual losing of Ruthless Efficiency, or having it only on charge is massive nerf (especially for slow infantry blocks), I belive that for proper discussion, you should propose the exact wording of the mentioned ranged protection buff, otherwise its really hard to say. If the buff is clunky and funny and very narrowly situational, losing RE would be devastating.
    Well, that would defeat the purpose of my question.


    My question is exactly that: A lot of people write something similar to: "We want less RPS, give us ranged protection and reduce some offensive power". So now my follow up: "Which offensive power are you actually fine with giving up".

    >> Assume, the change will be net neutral. <<

    If you give up RE completely, you'll get a big compensation. If you dance around with RE doesn't work on turn 3 at a full moon, you'll get a small compensation.

    I am not looking for perfectly balanced suggestions. Just write what you think could/should be removed. Can a unit live with less Str, if it makes it better into combat? Can/should banners be changed? Etc.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    ferda wrote:

    @DarkSky

    Eventual losing of Ruthless Efficiency, or having it only on charge is massive nerf (especially for slow infantry blocks), I belive that for proper discussion, you should propose the exact wording of the mentioned ranged protection buff, otherwise its really hard to say. If the buff is clunky and funny and very narrowly situational, losing RE would be devastating.
    Well, that would defeat the purpose of my question.

    My question is exactly that: A lot of people write something similar to: "We want less RPS, give us ranged protection and reduce some offensive power". So now my follow up: "Which offensive power are you actually fine with giving up".

    >> Assume, the change will be net neutral. <<

    If you give up RE completely, you'll get a big compensation. If you dance around with RE doesn't work on turn 3 at a full moon, you'll get a small compensation.

    I am not looking for perfectly balanced suggestions. Just write what you think could/should be removed. Can a unit live with less Str, if it makes it better into combat? Can/should banners be changed? Etc.
    for me:


    Remove RE completelly, i was ok with the dmg output before the Alpha, just with the Raptors with 2A and the return of the Gorgons as units.


    I will trade the RE in gorgons for LT every day of the year also in Characters to get again a viable Pegasus / LT horse the other units I will trade happily for the return of the DR to core and march 20 min size 5 harpies (at least march 20)

    I will profit better the improved movement of these units to get a better chargers so the lost of RE doesn't care to me.