Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • Ciara wrote:

    Okay, now at this point i just suggest you read rulebook since both 5 and 8 dr can pass this gap and move like 18 inches.
    Read the RB you pls, you need to pass the ENTIRE UNIT IN A 1x8 before reforming again. So the front Model of your formation will be at least at 16" of the obstacle before closing files again.
  • Girien wrote:

    umbranar wrote:

    First of all, during movement you need only half an inch on each side to move through. After the reform you need to have 1 inch.
    Second, a model (not the unit but model in the unit) can only move its total march at maximum, including reforms its taking.

    This means a 2x4 cav units (50mm wide so about 2 inch) can fit through a 3 inch gap but has to be clear of other units at the end of its movement by 1 inch.

    a 1x5 unit is longer during reforms and the model moving the furthest move more then a model in a 2x4.

    I find it a strange criteria though for a useful fast unit.
    Seriously im near to enrage...
    1x5 vs 1x8, I NEVER SAID SOMETHING ABOUT 2x4, on a 2.5 gap you can pass ONLY in 1xX formation. in fact in if the 8size can be in a 2x4 the 5 size can be in a 2x3 formation!!
    Sorry but if you are changing the parameters of your point and are so easely angered, maybe it's not the project or the forum.
    Anyway, I believe we have entered the "don't care what you say, I'll stick by my opinion" part of the discussions so, see you tomorrow when we actually have facts and not gut feelings and/or rumors.
    Army Community Support: :UD: :WDG: Also playing: :DE:
  • Before it was a 3" gap, so no problem for the DR at all. Even in 2 models wide formation. :)

    The army still can have lateral movement and even an all cavalry approach. Just 3 models more in core. And these not only have disadvantages. Pretty much the same as harpies. 8 are propably not killed by a single salvo of a shooting unit or a spell. In close combat 3 wounds more and 3 attacks more can make a difference, more so when you try to fight warmachines or chaff units with them.

    If I have spare points in the shooting category I would even put the repeating crossbows on the raiders in core to have a reasonable shooting unit that has high mobility.


    But of ourse, when you reduce them to the ability to be cheap chaff and to be able to pass through small gaps in enemy formations...ok, your decision. And if you want to wait for old world do so. I doubt it will be a more reasonable ruleset than 9th age, but we will see.
  • Girien wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    For anyone who want some maneuvrablity and support from the DE core i suggest Auxiliaries :
    - their shooting is ok
    - they activate academy bonuses
    - they can easily kill small flanking units
    - they can plink off wounds from big things
    - they can use suppressing volley to support other academy units
    - they can hold a turn or two against many single models
    - they can turn around and blast annoying ambusher
    your concept of "Maneuverability" surprises me a lot... I was thinking about positioning and lateral movement and you recommend an static shooting unit...
    The gunlines are maneuverable??? Just asking
    I suppose this beg the question : maneuvrablity to accomplish what ? To me the auxiliaries are manouverable because they can end up in useful positions to shoot, defend the flanks and support other units, what do you want to accomplish ?
    If you dislike the auxiliaries you can get the corsair which are light troops with a shooting weapon and an ok cc output, or march 10" is not enough ?
  • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    Girien wrote:

    X = GAP of 2,5"
    Suddenly it's 2,5" :DAnd just like that, DRs are unplayable :love:
    No, simply in my matches i always round to 3" to avoid discussions... 25mm+1" (1/2" for each side) + no body moves totally in straigh line. I said b4 the ppl are missing the point. I think i was clearly appointing to "you cant pass through a gap that needs you to be 1 Rank wide with a 8 size DR"

    Do you know a proverb about a savant, a moon and a finger??
  • Jarec wrote:

    Well, let me be the one who hangs on to this part of your take.
    I guess you have heard it a thousand times over already, but:
    I find it soul crushing when someone says that I need to my faction when I'm just trying to play as I was used to. The play style removal in the name of making factions more different from each other is IMO the worst thing to do.

    I also find it baffling to hear that no-infantry lists are more limited (I guess you meant that the way of looking at a single list). I think it's the exact opposite. By having the ability to make an army that much different from the other ones is the most customisable (by looking at the contrast between all the lists within a single faction).
    If, like you said, you do leave out a substantial part of the book, it makes it so much more different than the those who do their lists like to book wants them to be built, to not leaving anything out. Makes it have so much more range within a single book.
    Thanks for replying :thumbup:

    I am unsure any thoughts/comments/questions from me would be welcome at this point, so I will leave it at that.



    @Kriegschmidt
    I feel like there is a lot of misunderstanding caused by perceived subtext in each of our messages that is a consequence of the difficulties of text communication and our different contexts.

    I am reluctant to say much else as I fear that at this point we are on two different islands, each with totally different contexts, and there is almost nothing I can say that I can be sure won't be misinterpreted.

    I certainly had no wish or intent to bother you (or anyone else) in the manner I seem to have done, and I am sorry that my words seem to have bothered you.
    If you are interested in trying to untangle this enough that we can each see more clearly what the other is saying and why, I am happy to pick this up by PM or over a pint sometime, but I think it is not a short thing to do so, and therefore is inappropriate for this thread.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Ciara wrote:

    Girien wrote:

    Read the RB you pls, you need to pass the ENTIRE UNIT IN A 1x8 before reforming again. So the front Model of your formation will be at least at 16" of the obstacle before closing files again.

    You can reform as soon as your centre is like 1,5" behinde enemy lines or something like that. Try rb.
    The side models move more than 18"

    Not a single model can move more than their march attribute.

    Not worry is a common mistake.
  • As I see it. DanT came to the discussion and neatly surmised a Facet of the issues at hand. And, in doing so, acknowledged he was not surmising the Whole of all issues people have with DE LAB.

    For my part think he is right. There are those who feel they don't want to build their army around Core, in general. What is desired from Core is Chaff and/or Scoring. Where as the LAB turned Core into the most important part of the book. Even when 8 DR are Core they become the cornerstone on which the army is built.

    Core was made so important to validate the ability to play MMU and MSU from Core when using Infantry choices. That Core is what the Army is built from and provides the extra wounds to make Ranged Damage less impactful. It seems to people previously a MMU army was built primarily out of Special, with Core playing the part of Chaff or MSU Scoring. But instead, the new army plays MMU well with minimal chaff. This is because of the greater number of impactful Medium Sized Units and how much wider the army can play now.

    You have far more options than players seem to think. But, meaningless throw away Core is no longer the point of the army. It is built on the value of it's Core.
  • Ciara wrote:

    Dude xD

    All you care about is centre before moving and after moving and models cant do more than march from that position to final. How much models move in betweet doesnt really matter, more or less. But still you do realize you can close ranks just 1,5" behind enemy lines?
    JAJAJAJA,

    So this reform is legal to you, you keep the center of the unit at 18"
    Images
    • Captura de Pantalla 2021-06-30 a les 16.40.17.png

      13.04 kB, 732×352, viewed 38 times
  • Girien wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Dude xD

    All you care about is centre before moving and after moving and models cant do more than march from that position to final. How much models move in betweet doesnt really matter, more or less. But still you do realize you can close ranks just 1,5" behind enemy lines?
    JAJAJAJA,
    So this reform is legal to you, you keep the center of the unit at 18"

    Ciara wrote:

    Dude xD

    All you care about is centre before moving and after moving and models cant do more than march from that position to final. How much models move in betweet doesnt really matter, more or less. But still you do realize you can close ranks just 1,5" behind enemy lines?
    Read again please.
  • Ciara wrote:

    Girien wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Dude xD

    All you care about is centre before moving and after moving and models cant do more than march from that position to final. How much models move in betweet doesnt really matter, more or less. But still you do realize you can close ranks just 1,5" behind enemy lines?
    JAJAJAJA,So this reform is legal to you, you keep the center of the unit at 18"

    Ciara wrote:

    Dude xD

    All you care about is centre before moving and after moving and models cant do more than march from that position to final. How much models move in betweet doesnt really matter, more or less. But still you do realize you can close ranks just 1,5" behind enemy lines?
    Read again please.
    And in your previous picture i said your side models move more than the march move, they need to pass through the gap not phase trespassing it. And you say that only the center of the unit matters.
  • In an attempt to inject some positivity in this thread: While I'm not a huge fan of avoidance (or, as others put it, "maneuverable" armies) I do think that such a playstyle is still quite possible with the DE book.

    Having played with units of 8 Shadow Riders, they are a very good tool. And at 235 points, they ARE in chaff territory. If the 50-point difference between them and, say, a unit of 5 core Elein Reavers is what makes the difference between you winning or losing a game, then I dare say that you're using chaff wrong.

    There is something to be said about the psychological impact of using a 200+ point unit to redirect. But having recently played a Vampire Covenant list where my cheapest unit of chaff was 325 points, and where I didn't lose any of my games in a major international T9A event, I can attest to the fact that even at that price tag a unit of chaff well used is still worth it.

    But knowing full well that I won't convince everyone, I decided to write yet another list and talk you through it. I'm sure that there will be a lot of "yes, but..." posts, but bear with me.



    Here the idea was that if it isn't maneuverable and cannot contribute to the "fast" plastyle, it cannot be part of the list.
    I also wanted something that plays in all phases of the game, so as to not be classified as "push it forward".

    The idea is to control board space, have more and superior chaff and fast hard hitters that can pick off the weaker parts of an enemy army before focusing on the harder units during the late game.

    - The core: T9A needs you to have Scoring somewhere, and here I decided to get it from core. The Auxiliaries are cheap, as survivable as a scoring unit can be in DE, and can keep moving 10" while also participating in the game by shooting. Unless necessary I'd keep them in a 5-wide formation, sacrificing some shots for added maneuverability and ability to move past enemy charge arcs when needed.
    The Warlock needs a primary bunker, and a unit of corsairs can perform that role, easily keeping him within range for his spells with a 34" effective range.

    - The shooting/magic component: Cosmology is a very decent and versatile damage-dealing path, which also doubles as a buff path to activate the blades of Darag whenever necessary. This is coupled with 45 RxBows and two bolt throwers to keep single models on their toes. Between Touch the Heart and the two chariots, you have a fairly good chance of killing cowboys before they even come close to your troops.

    - The combat elements: The main combat elements of this army are the 2 x 10 Acolytes, the Beastmaster general on Pegasus, the Hydra and the two Gorgons. All can move laterally between 12" and 18", and have swiftstride charges. With Ruthless efficiency, even the 3 Shadow Rider units can double as combat elements, also allowing you to "clip" enemies with your main combat troops.

    - Leadership: if I was creating this list for myself, I'd be inclined to forego the BSB completely and instead give the Outcast the Ring of the Obsidian Thrones to stabilize key parts of the battlefield whenever needed. I understand that this is not an option for everybody, which is why I went with a mobile BSB that can also act as a cowboy, pinning down anything that has AP2 or lower long enough for the rest of the army to pile into them.

    If you really wanted, you could shift the Shadow Riders to core and give them Repeater Crossbows, then invest in Dread Knights for scoring instead.
  • Girien wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    If you dislike the auxiliaries you can get the corsair which are light troops with a shooting weapon and an ok cc output, or march 10" is not enough ?
    Is enough to evade combats, not enough to gain behind enemy lines good positions.
    And this is a good questions, how many here use the corsairs to fit a warlock inside and evade combats with them "sorc bunker role".
    So basically only cavalry (in this case shadow riders) has enough movement to fit your criteria, i take that you don't find useful the role of the other core units aside from scoring ?
  • Chack wrote:

    Girien wrote:

    Chack wrote:

    If you dislike the auxiliaries you can get the corsair which are light troops with a shooting weapon and an ok cc output, or march 10" is not enough ?
    Is enough to evade combats, not enough to gain behind enemy lines good positions.And this is a good questions, how many here use the corsairs to fit a warlock inside and evade combats with them "sorc bunker role".
    So basically only cavalry (in this case shadow riders) has enough movement to fit your criteria, i take that you don't find useful the role of the other core units aside from scoring ?
    Yes basically this is the cavalry job, can be done also with pegasus heroes or similar.

    BTW About the 5 size vs 8 size "Gap jumping". a """"PICTURE""".

    X = The distance between the unit and the gap (count here spins etc) + after the gap (i quit the extra 1" you need to leave after the movement on the picture)
    Y = The size of the GAP.

    8 size can only legally make a 7" jump (so maximun can jump a 6" gap if they began the movement at 1" (totaly unrealistic btw)
    5 size can legaly make a 11" jump



    the "gaps" are always Table elements (houses, ruins etc) or units. Basically the 8 size can jump through any table elements (walls, but you know innecesary) and can only jump through enemy units if the adversary is totally retard and puts their unit at 1", 2" of your DR unit.

    After that you need to check that any of the models move more than your march move, this is specially hard if the unit are 8 size because if you get an 1x8 formation the side models of the units need to "curve" their movement to pass through the gap (the problem that @Ciara has in his example, probably reducing their range additionally again to the 8 size unit)


    Need more pictures??

    4" on this kind of movements makes a big difference.

    4 and add to this that the center of the unit before the reform of the 4x2 size are 1" away than the 5x1 size, plus the side members of the unit makes more movement if the 8 size unit ends his movement at 8x1 formation, also need a bigger gap etc etc etc...


    Seriously i need 2 pages to make you understand 8 size unit are less maneuverable than a 5 size unit??? seriously?


    EDIT ALSO: the 5 size can do vanguard + reform and get behind enemy lines if your opponent has an error when deploys their army (12+18 movement your center in a 2x3 formation pass the line of sight and can go through a gap (not a 2,5 gap, but a 3" yes) this is impossible to do with a 4x2 unit unless the deployment error are totally barbaric.


    Aaaand a lof of other examples...


    PD: Yes i deploy the DR the last, for me a 15 Legionary unit is more a chaff unit than the DR. The DR are the core of my playstyle. They won the match, other units just pull the trigger. This is my desperation, the reasoning of "you want a cheap chaff in core" is painfully, seriously...
    Images
    • Captura de Pantalla 2021-06-30 a les 16.56.33.png

      54.59 kB, 1,342×752, viewed 35 times

    The post was edited 7 times, last by Girien ().