Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • Fluff wise it would go like this:
    DE are a very religious people. So a wizard using her fellow elves as a sacrifice is an honor. The elf has the glory and honor of sacrificing themselves for the gods.

    Mechanically it's still terrible because occultism is best on a dragon. The Warlock is an outcast from society rather than a priestess so why would religious elves let a non-priest sacrifice them?

    Also weird fluff: if cosmology is the path that all elves share, why it it not a sanctioned lore for the Exarches?

    All the magic path fluff for DE doesn't make sense to me. Also mechanically and playstyle wise it doesn't nake sense either.
    It just seems like some random background that only the author really cares about. The rest of us can't relate to it because the actual spells and names we've been using for years paint a very different image than the official fluff.
  • Xingu79 wrote:




    I understand that the team doesn't take any of the forum feedback seriously as it is not tournament data.

    Just a thought
    Not true actually
    Mental Health First Aider (MHFA England)

    "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred The Great


    Have a goosy gander at my models!
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    All the magic path fluff for DE doesn't make sense to me. Also mechanically and playstyle wise it doesn't nake sense either.
    It just seems like some random background that only the author really cares about. The rest of us can't relate to it because the actual spells and names we've been using for years paint a very different image than the official fluff.
    Maybe it helps knowing the background. I hope for Christmas as publishing date.
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    Xingu79 wrote:

    I understand that the team doesn't take any of the forum feedback seriously as it is not tournament data.

    Just a thought
    Not true actually
    To be more precise, an alpha is here to be able to change design and balance.
    Tournament data help a lot for balance (external, then internal), but hardly inform on design (except the most picked and less picked option, but even here you don't have the detailed reasonS).
    It's all the other sources of feedback (including forum) which help designing, because it give some reasons (not all), on why on how.
    In my opinion, an alpha should not focus first on balance (even if moves for it help), but to make design interesting and understandable for most. If something on purpose is not accepted, it's the time to review design, or rearrange other things to make the whole coherently acceptable.
    :UD_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

    I hold no truth except mine. And I'm not sure about this last one.
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    Fluff wise it would go like this:
    Yes it could. You can write anything after all. For now the fluff of Dread Elves is that Dread Elves are fine sacrificing slaves (see DE background supplement), but would never consider sacrificing a Daeb Elf. That is quite a basic principle on which BGT built the Daeb background. Why you would needlessly and for doubtful reasons topple that and send all BGT so basically re-write the whole faction is a little beyond me though. Seems you are grasping at straws just to get Occultism into the army, with the possibility to eat some Elves for your Dragon Caster spells.

    Peacemaker wrote:

    so why would religious elves let a non-priest sacrifice them?
    They don't. Which is the exact reason why Occultism has been removed!
    (Additionally, they won't let a Elven Priest sacrifice them either, see above)

    Peacemaker wrote:

    All the magic path fluff for DE doesn't make sense to me.
    I guess that is a mixture of non-released background, not reading the available material and not really listening to what Giladis has said in this thread (or missing his statements). @Giladis posts have been full of content, but were quite hard to understand, as sometimes the semantics of specific words have a huge influence which isn't always easily traversed.

    I'll try to summarize a few things that kept on coming up:

    1. Why was Occultism removed? – Occultism allows sacrificing your own troops for gain. Something the Daeb categorically do not do. This mismatch prevents that access, unless a rule is introduced to prevent you from doing that (reference: See the original design for Warlock in Ninth Scroll which did have a rule for just that)
    2. Why do Daeb not allow sacrificing their own, aren't they ruthless enough for that? – In short: It's not a matter of ruthlessness, this doesn't prevent them from doing anything to achieve victory. It is more the mindset that they are the superior race and killing your own is unthinkable.
    3. Why do Daeb not bring slaves to the battlefield? [background] – Daeb see slaves as a prime economic factor (compare slavery in southern american states). Losing a big number of slaves could be disastrous and very expensive. Additionally the Daeb do not trust in the usage of slaves on the battlefield. What if they desert during battle and endanger the Daeb in return?
    4. Why do Daeb not bring slaves to the battlefield? [game play] – A slaves unit typically has the following propeties: Strength In Numbers (cheap models), big units (high unit min and max numbers), low stats (low eliteness). These are three of three aspects the DE army is not supposed to have. It's easy to see that such a unit can be good, but it also violates basically every design goal. It reeks of "having your cake and eat it too" philosophy and would dilute the army.
    5. Why does $unitEntry have access to $path but not to $otherpath? – Giladis laid down a lot of the reasons before. Some is background related, some is related that we don't want a path showing up in 16 armies and one only showing up in one or two (so gameplay related). Background and game design need to find a way to tie it together. While you can go back and forth and make any argument, e.g. Cosmology would also be a fit for Temple Exarch, the answer is basically: "Yes, you can do that, and it will make a certain sense in the background as well, but we decided otherwise". E.g. I would say we can discuss for ages whether divination or cosmo is a better fit and find 20 pros and cons on both ends, but in the end the team has to make a decision. Some players will like Divination better, some will like Cosmology better, so you can't make everybody happy. I hope you can understand this whole situation even if you personally would like some of the decisions changed.
    6. What about the background for current path access?
      1. Divination is tied to the Battle Oracle background
      2. Alchemy is tied to the War Smith background (I think that is Nabh worship)
      3. Cosmology is common among elves, so the Warlocks naturally know it.
      4. Witchcraft: I can't recall any specifics
      5. Evocation: I can't recall any specifics.
      6. Shamanism and Druidism: Can be ruled out as complete non-fits, as they are more tribalistic and rough. Something the Daeb look down on. Unless the complete T9A team changes, I would bet money that DE will never get one of those.
      7. Pyromancy: Is in the same category as Alchemy, so any background that accomodates Alchemy can probably re-fitted for Pyro, if somebody really really wants to
      8. Thaumaturgy: Is in the "theological" category for magic, which could be a fit and has similarity to our Phantom Queen Curse.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Xingu79 wrote:

    I understand that the team doesn't take any of the forum feedback seriously as it is not tournament data.
    Completely wrong.

    We take the forum feedback very seriously. I am writing regular feedback summaries.

    We do however need to consider the following:
    • The forum here is only a tiny subset of the player base
    • The forum here are the DE players, we have to consider the whole game
    • Players unhappy with a specific thing write a lot more than those happy with something
    • Feedback from the forum needs tending and crafting to understand correctly and do the right action. What might be clear to you when you write it, doesn't mean it is clear for the team. Finding a solution to your feedback that actually makes the game better and the players happy is very difficult.
    For a recent case: There were many posts here about the min size of Harpies. The team decided to change min size to five. Now a lot of players show up and say: "Why did you change it, I liked 8 min better".

    So perfect example: If we don't change anything we get accused of ignoring feedback here. If we change it, we get accused of listening to the whiners. If we do min 8 players complain about footprint, modeling requirements, ability to chaff multiple units. If we do min 5 players complain about too high cost per wound. If we do another change on the min size, players will complain we change too much. If we leave it, players will complain we change too little during alpha/beta. So of course: Most of the feedback here will not be implemented. Because it's impossible.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • @DarkSky I'm ok with your messages, but I would like to come back to a few points you mentioned:

    DarkSky wrote:

    1. Why was Occultism removed? – Occultism allows sacrificing your own troops for gain. Something the Daeb categorically do not do. This mismatch prevents that access, unless a rule is introduced to prevent you from doing that (reference: See the original design for Warlock in Ninth Scroll which did have a rule for just that)

    Put back this anti-sacrifice rule has been investigated? It was refused because it would bring too much complexity to the book?

    DarkSky wrote:

    1. What about the background for current path access?
      1. Divination is tied to the Battle Oracle background
      2. Alchemy is tied to the War Smith background (I think that is Nabh worship)
      3. Cosmology is common among elves, so the Warlocks naturally know it.
      4. Witchcraft: I can't recall any specifics
      5. Evocation: I can't recall any specifics.
      6. Shamanism and Druidism: Can be ruled out as complete non-fits, as they are more tribalistic and rough. Something the Daeb look down on. Unless the complete T9A team changes, I would bet money that DE will never get one of those.
      7. Pyromancy: Is in the same category as Alchemy, so any background that accomodates Alchemy can probably re-fitted for Pyro, if somebody really really wants to
      8. Thaumaturgy: Is in the "theological" category for magic, which could be a fit and has similarity to our Phantom Queen Curse.

    Pyromancy and Thaumaturgy seems more appropriate to me. I had made a proposal on it. (DE General Discussion)
    To know how many people would be really interested in this change, between the visible minority and the silent majority, it will be complicated.

    Like you said, the teams had to make a choice. I would understand that it would not be accepted.
  • @DarkSky you hit all the nails on the head.

    @Khadath a non sacrificial mechanic for Occultism warlock was too much complexity, I’m pretty sure the TT have said as much in this thread.

    Just to reiterate sacrificing Daeb lives is anathema to the DE. They’re not so religious that they would let state Exarches kill them for gain. They are too individualistic for that to be tolerated and such a death is for only for slaves. Warriors don’t let themselves be slaughtered like cattle basically.
    Mental Health First Aider (MHFA England)

    "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred The Great


    Have a goosy gander at my models!
  • Harpies were fine at 8 models. Sad that the team followed the whining in this case. I always prefer more wounds on redirectors instead of having less wounds for higher price because of an additional special rule that doesn´t help a lot to fulfill their main task. And no matter what is added, such a unit will be there mostly for emergency redirecting, no matter if it can fight against other chaff or threaten warmachines. All of this they also could do at about the same level with more models instead an additional special rule. Even better because with 8 wounds they can survive an average magic missile spell.

    @ Magic lores.
    I am fine with the current magic lores and their distribution. Only evocation seems to me a strange pick. I see no reason why this should fit in any way to DE. But ok, I am not so firm in the background of the DE. In addition I think having EVO access is super strong with the special rule of the outcasts.
  • @DarkSky "Yes, you can do that, and it will make a certain sense in the background as well, but we decided otherwise"

    This sums up why the whole DE LAB process is a farce. In practical terms, @Xingu79 's and @Minidudul 's criticisms about feedback were 100% accurate.

    The Harpies example is silly and disingenuous. For starters, it's such a tiny thing, that to use it as an example of 'We listen to feedback' is ridiculous. Secondly, it's only relevant to gameplay, so supports Xingu79's criticism. Thirdly, there weren't many posts asking for the change. There have, however, been many, many posts protesting at the fundamental changes to the wizarding 'core' of the army, how they don't make sense fluff-wise, how they take away a popular and fundamental character (the Wizard Master general), and how they could be easily fixed.

    It's a farce.
  • berti wrote:

    Harpies were fine at 8 models. Sad that the team followed the whining in this case. I always prefer more wounds on redirectors instead of having less wounds for higher price because of an additional special rule that doesn´t help a lot to fulfill their main task. And no matter what is added, such a unit will be there mostly for emergency redirecting, no matter if it can fight against other chaff or threaten warmachines. All of this they also could do at about the same level with more models instead an additional special rule. Even better because with 8 wounds they can survive an average magic missile spell.
    It's exactly the point : the idea is to make harpies NOT the best chaff. Previous iteration was the mathematical best chaff for the 160pts range. It's logical to move on to make the unit less interesting as chaff but more at other things, be the change a try and not a complete success at this first try.
    :UD_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

    I hold no truth except mine. And I'm not sure about this last one.
  • Regarding magic lores, I think Evocation in DE is really grasping for straws.

    The argument that a Daeb society wouldn’t sacrifice their own kind doesn’t circumvent the fact that the one doing the sacrificing is a mistrusted outcast of that society. Warlock Outcasts are a necessary evil in their armies, and one practicing Occultism really highlights the extent of this.

    Occultism for an Outcast fits perfectly with the fluff because it ties up the narratives of Daeb’s superstition of magic and how these warlocks become outcasted perfectly.

    But then we have the argument of “Daeb generals wouldn’t let Outcasts do that” Which is kinda grasping for straws… it’s like:

    “Why do the Daeb hate magic?”
    “Because Highborns like it, but we have some outcasts we can apparently keep in check”
    “Why do Daeb mistrust Cosmology/Witchcraft practicing warlocks?”
    “Partly because HE/SE practice cosmology and partly because those warlocks get lumped in with the Occultism warlocks”

    Elves have always been an arrogant race. And among the Elves, I think Dread Elves are particularly associated with a reckless pursuit for power. A Warlock taking this reckless pursuit too far with Occultism, and being outcasted from society makes sense.

    You can still have a believable functional narrative of the Daeb society, because the outcasted Warlocks sacrificing their own kind are a very small minority.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • It's exactly the point : the idea is to make harpies NOT the best chaff. Previous iteration was the mathematical best chaff for the 160pts range. It's logical to move on to make the unit less interesting as chaff but more at other things, be the change a try and not a complete success at this first try.
    It is the price that matters, and to some degree the footptrint.
    This is the reason the eagle and the sabretooth single models ARE the best chaff in the game. Harpies in bigger unit sizes can be chaff and also can fight somewhat against warmachines and other chaff. They will never be important to fight anything else, perhaps some small shooters in the flank, but thats it. No matter how many rules you add, the main job of them will be warmachine hunting and be sacrificed for elfen lifes.

    Just the price will increase for each special rule added, instead of keeping them just plain "cheap" per model without adding rule after rule. Just make the unit starting size bigger, so that the price tag of around 160 points is ok for them.
    There are other things that CAN be used as chaff at the 150-200 point range, and harpies beeing in this range, but killed super easy will not be in the lists propably, because their main job at tzhis price range can also be done by a single gorgon, some 5 man riders or even a cheap charakter. Up to the point where you use very little chaff because you field an MSU army, where you get just an additional unit for the price of a chaff piece harpy unit.

    I think (and this is just me, not claiming I speak for somebody else) that harpies are only viable if they either are cheap enough to be a better pick for chaff than other replacements, or when they are so overloaded with special rules, that it ends in a ridicoulus package. And having bigger units is propably the way to get them to a price range where they can compete with a gorgon or the dark riders. Wounds matter, they also matter when the harpies charge a warmachine or shooting units. I much prefered the 8 model min sized design, would even have increased it to 10 models, because then you can with ease do 2 units of old= 1 new unit without spare models.
  • I think the problem with those few Warlocks practicing Occultism is that they would never be invited to join a DE army at all in the first place. So even if there are some Warlocks with Occultism, they are never part of DE armies, and so don't need to be in the book. Only those Warlocks that are at least a little tiny bit trustworthy can join a DE army. And those do not practice Occultism.
  • Khadath wrote:

    It was refused because it would bring too much complexity to the book?
    Yes. The team looked at the initial familiar mechanic and decided to "save" some complexity budget and spend it elsewhere instead. Remember that during the time this decision was made "too high complexity" of the ID LAB was not "a", but "the" main criticism towards the LAB process. So the team naturally focused on finding lower complexity mechanisms.

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    This sums up why the whole DE LAB process is a farce
    The only farce I see is me still trying to propagate a wholesome and friendly atmosphere here where people don't yell thinly veiled insults at one another. Well, it may turn into a tragedy instead, if I lose my cool.


    Bringing back the posititity: Friend of mine participated in a local tournament. Talked to lots of people and everybody was extremely satisfied with the T9A project and especially with the new books. Only DE player at the tournament got 3rd place out of 18.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    @DarkSky "Yes, you can do that, and it will make a certain sense in the background as well, but we decided otherwise"

    This sums up why the whole DE LAB process is a farce. In practical terms, @Xingu79 's and @Minidudul 's criticisms about feedback were 100% accurate.

    The Harpies example is silly and disingenuous. For starters, it's such a tiny thing, that to use it as an example of 'We listen to feedback' is ridiculous. Secondly, it's only relevant to gameplay, so supports Xingu79's criticism. Thirdly, there weren't many posts asking for the change. There have, however, been many, many posts protesting at the fundamental changes to the wizarding 'core' of the army, how they don't make sense fluff-wise, how they take away a popular and fundamental character (the Wizard Master general), and how they could be easily fixed.

    It's a farce.
    I had a whole lot of text I deleted so I'll keep it short: we all know your opinion by now. Even after @DarkSky and other staff explain to you to reasoning, you keep going on the insulting path your on. Please give it a rest.
    :UD: <--ACS FOR--> :WDG: :DE:
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Bringing back the posititity: Friend of mine participated in a local tournament. Talked to lots of people and everybody was extremely satisfied with the T9A project and especially with the new books. Only DE player at the tournament got 3rd place out of 18.
    This is wonderful: you've produced an anecdote about how happy some tournament players are. I don't think there's any better way you could have proved the point.

    And as for threats about losing your cool: I don't care. This process invites criticism, it's fair criticism based on several people identifying serious problems at the core of the book, and I'm going to make it, whether you get upset or not.

    @umbranar : No. I won't. Firstly because I'm trying to get through the wall of rationalisation avoiding the book's inherent problems and secondly because the alternative is that this LAB process becomes: "Criticism is only that which we're happy with", which is preposterous and sets a dreadful precedent.
  • arwaker wrote:

    I think the problem with those few Warlocks practicing Occultism is that they would never be invited to join a DE army at all in the first place. So even if there are some Warlocks with Occultism, they are never part of DE armies, and so don't need to be in the book. Only those Warlocks that are at least a little tiny bit trustworthy can join a DE army. And those do not practice Occultism.
    We can of course take that narrative too, it’s a matter of opinion/taste. I personally find the narrative I just presented more flavorful and fulfilling, while this one to be quite bland. Like dry toast without butter…

    For some it’s harder to suspend the belief that DE generals would hire an Occultist Outcast.

    For others it’s harder to suspend the belief that Warlocks are actually Outcasted at all. The whole narrative can almost feel forced ‘just because’. As in the narrative is so bland it almost becomes unbelievable in a way.

    We can go back and forth as to which narrative is better or more sensible, but I doubt we will get anywhere because at the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion/taste.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.