Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • Kriegschmidt wrote:

    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.
    The point is not that you should not present feedback on what you believe are flaws in the DE LAB. On the contrary. The point is (1) that you should present your feedback in a reasonable way (avoiding needless hyperbole and insults) and (2) that you give it a rest when you have made your point and the LAB team has in response presented it’s own point of view. Agree to disagree is what that’s called.
  • Cam wrote:

    Its pretty insane that DE can’t have occultism. It’s literally the first path you’d think of and when mentioning occultism the first races would be DE and VC.

    As for the sacrifice, it’s the same thing as the H spell. So what’s the issue?
    My first thoughts would be VC, VS, OnG, ID, DL, UD. I would never even get to thinking of Occultism for Elves. So, your first post is subjective.

    Your second point is wrong. The H Spell is cast before anyone even dies. It sets up a case to get revenge for death, it doesn't cause the death of citizens.
  • As far as I remember the old WH army books, there ALWAYS was every unit beeing explained as the peak of "add some random ability that fits to the unit". Rules sometimes covered this, but way more often they just did not.

    We all see the past with some kind of pink glasses on.


    Old DE background book was superstupid and awful. Of course it had flair, but with a society using slaves as main work force and a cult that kills thousends of slaves on regular basis and even sacrifices other DE while they are part of a race struggling to have any growth in numbers...yeah sure. Nearly as bad as the countless hordes from northern wastelands who seem to live from mud and dirt, because nothing grows there. Peak of this absurdity were the endtime books, so please don´t tell us that the old books had any kind of coherent and believable world background.

    Not that 9th age is a lot better. My impression is, there is an inner circle having a clue of background, but it is unfinished and so not released bare some snippets in the scrolls.


    I am fine with a background of the wizard masters not beeing trusted.
    Should be the case in a lot more armies. How on earth should a wizarsd master have the knolwedge to command an army. He is great at summoning lightnings, hexes and augment spells, but he propably has no clue about the logistics needed, about scouting, about choosing the right terrain for a fight and how to command a bunch of soldiers. But this is a thing 9th age rules ignore mostly. They even kept this stupid crown to enable mages have the same leadership as normal generals.

    And the temple legates who are way more linked to DE society not beeing able to become wizard masters, propably because of their temple duty not having enough time to focus on studying magic. I could even think about the realy powerful of them beeing the leaders of the temples, who don´t go to battle for the regular army. (perhaps just in TEMPLE centered armies, in an addon book. :)


    The hereditary spell has NOTHING to do with sacrifices. Why should it. It is a revenge spell. A thing that is very fitting for a society that values elfen lifes over other races. The spell doesn´t sacrifice anything, and punishes the oponent for killing an elf. In no way this is linked to sacrificing an elf.
    I think it should only work on DE models, and not on monsters, but ok, there are handlers or riders on all of them.
  • jaith1 wrote:

    Lord Drakon wrote:

    I have a general criticism as using 'background' for what is possible or not possible. By doing this it feels very restrictive, and thus sometimes counterintuitive.
    Which makes me think, why isn’t there feedback on background?
    Good point, as it is so essential.

    However, democracy might be a down fall instead of improvement.

    A group of creators made warhammer AB's in their ivory tower and we all loved them (unbalance aside). Here we have democracy but are never satisfied.

    Personally I feel uneasy when not mainstay DE players design the army book. Do they really get who we are, what we want, what the essence is of DE?

    But then, was this not also the case in Warhammer where writers such as Gav Thorpe wrote several AB's.

    More questions than answers I am afraid.
    KoE gentleman rules:

    Thou shall only use (flying) horses.
    Thou shall only fight hand-to-hand, do not inflict ranged damage
    Thou shall always accept a duel
    Thou shall not retreat from an enemy
  • echoCTRL wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Its pretty insane that DE can’t have occultism. It’s literally the first path you’d think of and when mentioning occultism the first races would be DE and VC.

    As for the sacrifice, it’s the same thing as the H spell. So what’s the issue?
    My first thoughts would be VC, VS, OnG, ID, DL, UD. I would never even get to thinking of Occultism for Elves. So, your first post is subjective.
    Your second point is wrong. The H Spell is cast before anyone even dies. It sets up a case to get revenge for death, it doesn't cause the death of citizens.
    It is subjective yeah, but it’s definitely what I think.

    Its not wrong. It has no power unless you let elves die, it’s actually worse as at least occultism you don’t have to let elves die for an effect.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • Cam wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Cam wrote:

    Its pretty insane that DE can’t have occultism. It’s literally the first path you’d think of and when mentioning occultism the first races would be DE and VC.

    As for the sacrifice, it’s the same thing as the H spell. So what’s the issue?
    My first thoughts would be VC, VS, OnG, ID, DL, UD. I would never even get to thinking of Occultism for Elves. So, your first post is subjective.Your second point is wrong. The H Spell is cast before anyone even dies. It sets up a case to get revenge for death, it doesn't cause the death of citizens.
    It is subjective yeah, but it’s definitely what I think.
    Its not wrong. It has no power unless you let elves die, it’s actually worse as at least occultism you don’t have to let elves die for an effect.
    The spell is cast so it deters enemies from killing Dread Elves. "Better leave these elves alone or face the curse". Ofcourse, some might just kill anyway and face the consequences.
    :UD: <--ACS FOR--> :WDG: :DE:
  • Cam wrote:

    echoCTRL wrote:

    Let Elves Die? It is a pitched battle, it isn't practical to think you can fully stop elves from dieing.
    That’s not really my point…. But ok.
    Your point seems to be that because the spell forgoes taking an opportunity to protect life, but sets up a situation in which losing life hurts the enemy, it is the same as sacrificing a life for magical power. I find that to be a false equivalency. Sacrificing is the act of taking a life in preparation for an unknown outcome, whereas the H spell casts a spell ahead of time to be prepared for a known outcome. Further, in sacrifice it is the elves themselves killing their own people, which we do not have in the case of the H spell, and dispute popular sentiment these days, failing to protect someone from harm is not causing them harm even when we prepare to take advantage of the harm suffered.
  • Ilderoth wrote:

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    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.
    The point is not that you should not present feedback on what you believe are flaws in the DE LAB. On the contrary. The point is (1) that you should present your feedback in a reasonable way (avoiding needless hyperbole and insults) and (2) that you give it a rest when you have made your point and the LAB team has in response presented it’s own point of view. Agree to disagree is what that’s called.
    You are of course right about keeping the feedback reasonable and calm, nobody gains anything from insulting others.
    It is not true that after posting your thoughts, you should stay put and believe the one-time post would have any impact or even register as important.
    The results of people repeating their wishes like a mantra were a lot better in past discussions than those polite single posts that were nerver repeated.
    Especially if you get politician-style answers that don't solve the problem, you should try and formulate your concerns again, because otherwise those who were asked to do a change will simply assume that whatever they said satisfied your wishes , and won't consider change.

    With the DE book there has been answers like "the guidelines enforce this" if it is covered by the guidelines, and "this is an exeption to the guidelines we deemed necessary" if it is not covered by the guidelines.
    Background is never given to us,, but often used as an explanation, sometimes comming across like a deus ex machina event, as soon as you want something to change the designers seem to like, te background appears to call for exactly what they did.
    Even if you provide background context it is sometimes dismissed if it doesn't support what was already decided by the designers.

    So I can understand that people get a bit annoyed by the kind of answers they sometimes get.

    Still no reason to attack people, and I believe results of this discussions will be a lot better if we all stay calm.
  • Ciara wrote:

    its not like you let elves die. Your opponent decide if they die. You decide if you want to take revenge for them via hereditary.
    Nah

    1) occultism you can’t use because maybe you will sacrifice for an increased effect.

    2) H spell you cast a spell that requires elves to die to get any effect.

    If it’s so precious why is your signature number 1 all time spell only taking effect when elves die?

    It’s completely nonsensical to me.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • Cam wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    its not like you let elves die. Your opponent decide if they die. You decide if you want to take revenge for them via hereditary.
    Nah
    1) occultism you can’t use because maybe you will sacrifice for an increased effect.

    2) H spell you cast a spell that requires elves to die to get any effect.

    If it’s so precious why is your signature number 1 all time spell only taking effect when elves die?

    It’s completely nonsensical to me.

    I think it´s obvious. It´s like a bully threaten it´s victim. The police says to the bully: if you don´t stop that you´ll end in prison. Occultism is like the police hurting the victim to scare of the bully. Or something like that. :D
  • general getting an occultism-wielding outcast into his army:
    G:You are not to sacrifice anyone of my troops - cast your spells without sacrificing
    O:OK, I can do that.
    ...
    Middle of the batle
    G: those overthere really need to die now or we will loose our troops - go kill them
    O:I can, but not without the extra power of a sacrifice
    G: Just do it, it's important.

    Any background explanation is as good as the person writing the story, and since we don't even know the background, we woubldn't even recognise changes if they were done.
  • Cam wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    its not like you let elves die. Your opponent decide if they die. You decide if you want to take revenge for them via hereditary.
    Nah
    1) occultism you can’t use because maybe you will sacrifice for an increased effect.

    2) H spell you cast a spell that requires elves to die to get any effect.

    If it’s so precious why is your signature number 1 all time spell only taking effect when elves die?

    It’s completely nonsensical to me.
    as said in a different thread, you are mixing game mechanics and background. The background of the spell is taking revenge for fallen DE soldiers, which is a good fit for DE.
    You are arguing that the background is bad by complaining about the mechanics of the spell - this does not make sense. You could say the mechanical representation of the spell is bad, but not the fluff of the spell.
  • Cam wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    its not like you let elves die. Your opponent decide if they die. You decide if you want to take revenge for them via hereditary.
    Nah
    1) occultism you can’t use because maybe you will sacrifice for an increased effect.

    2) H spell you cast a spell that requires elves to die to get any effect.

    If it’s so precious why is your signature number 1 all time spell only taking effect when elves die?

    It’s completely nonsensical to me.
    I'm not sure how to correct you on this, seems like a communication or just a different kind of logic.

    To me its clear:

    - Occultism has this strong pull towards sacrificing for extra power.
    Hence this nasty path of magic allows wizards to sacrifice their own, and elves just don't do that.

    - Curse of the Phantom Queen is a deterend for the enemy. Sure if the enemy doensn't kill an elf, all you gain is a little power for later (direct effect of casting the spell: veil token), but the elves are alive (indirect effect of casting the spell.). However, should the enemy kill an elf, they are blasted by the curse (direct effect of casting the spell).

    What effect do you prefer? The blasting (direct effect) or keeping that elf/unit alive (indirect psychological effect).
    :UD: <--ACS FOR--> :WDG: :DE:
  • Cam wrote:

    It’s completely nonsensical to me.
    Your inability understand or unwillingness to listen to explanations on basic logic is not anybody else's fault.


    The topic of Occultism, Daeb Sacrifice, and the Hereditary has been discussed at length and you got all the answers to be expected. Unless the team decides to re-introduce Occultism in an update I declare the topic to be offtopic. Postings on it will be moved to an extra-thread (if I am feeling particularly nice) or deleted (anytime else).

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    Your point seems to be that because the spell forgoes taking an opportunity to protect life, but sets up a situation in which losing life hurts the enemy, it is the same as sacrificing a life for magical power. I find that to be a false equivalency. Sacrificing is the act of taking a life in preparation for an unknown outcome, whereas the H spell casts a spell ahead of time to be prepared for a known outcome. Further, in sacrifice it is the elves themselves killing their own people, which we do not have in the case of the H spell, and dispute popular sentiment these days, failing to protect someone from harm is not causing them harm even when we prepare to take advantage of the harm suffered.
    It’s nothing to do with it not protecting life either.
    Free command groups for standard infantry