Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • I'm really not sure what you're going with this line of thought anymore, though. Like - You want to play as the bad guys, yes sure, that's already in the books. But then there's these weird examples, and...

    What IS a "bad guy", then? Someone who unabashedly says "I am the bad guy!" and revels in it or what? Because nobody does that. Not even the Dark Elves did that. Not even the DROW do that.
    Life is hard when you're a skeleton
  • Look, the DE are horrible to species they deem less-than. Which is pretty much everyone who isn’t an elf.

    They are objectively pretty fearsome and cruel in a way the HBE don’t tend to be but both factions consider themselves superior to everyone else.
    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!
  • berti wrote:

    I never said they are good guys. They may see themself as the good ones.

    And you can of course see the DE still as bad guys, but I would doubt that they see themself as bad guys. And the background is not such a stupid "kill everything at all costs" anymore. And I am glad it is no more.
    Of course, that bad guys probably they see themself as good boys. But in the real world is not like this. [Mod: real world politics removed]

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

  • Okay, back to topic: Do I understand it right?

    • DE absolutely need to have Cosmology
    • Temple Exarch with Cosmology is at least possible
    • Divination is not an absolute necessity for DE



    Is any of those statements wrong?
    So it would be possible to remove Divination from the Oracle and give Cosmology, and the Warlock would lose Cosmology in exchange for another path.
    • DE absolutely can't have Occultism
    • Pyromancy and Thaumaturgy are both theoretically possible for DE
    So we could trade Divination for Pyromancy or Thaumaturgy?
  • Nemeroth wrote:

    Look, the DE are horrible to species they deem less-than. Which is pretty much everyone who isn’t an elf.

    They are objectively pretty fearsome and cruel in a way the HBE don’t tend to be but both factions consider themselves superior to everyone else.
    For me a unit that starts its name with Dread doesnt mean nothing. You speak about they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Why doesn't have rules to represent this?
    For example, Arrogant: when a unit with this rule are in close combat get +1Discipline. Not apply this rule when are in close combat againts elves.
  • (not commenting in staff role)

    setrius wrote:

    For me a unit that starts its name with Dread doesnt mean nothing. You speak about they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Why doesn't have rules to represent this?
    When/if/how to best represent background mechanically is a really fascinating general question I think.

    Perhaps I can ask (to anyone who cares to answer) :
    (A) In the pre-LAB slim book, what were the "dready" rules that gave the faction the correct feel?
    (B) What are the really evocative rules in other slim books/LABs that perhaps are not the most crazily impactful rules mechanically/power speaking, but do a good job of creating the right feel on the table top?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • setrius wrote:

    Nemeroth wrote:

    Look, the DE are horrible to species they deem less-than. Which is pretty much everyone who isn’t an elf.

    They are objectively pretty fearsome and cruel in a way the HBE don’t tend to be but both factions consider themselves superior to everyone else.
    For me a unit that starts its name with Dread doesnt mean nothing. You speak about they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Why doesn't have rules to represent this?For example, Arrogant: when a unit with this rule are in close combat get +1Discipline. Not apply this rule when are in close combat againts elves.
    I don’t know, I’m not a member of the GDT or LAB TT………
    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!
  • arwaker wrote:

    So we could trade Divination for Pyromancy or Thaumaturgy?
    The short answer is no.


    Oracles play a very big part in DE culture and society.


    I feel a portion of the disconnect between how paths are perceived by the BGT and some posters is a different starting point. For the BGT paths assigned come from the manifestations of the DE culture and society rather than from the mechanical compatibility of spells within the game.

    If you ignore the spell effects and concentrate on the philosophy behind the paths would anyone assign shamanism to an urban society with latifundia?


    Furthermore, for mechanical reasons neither Pyromancy or Thaumaturgy are on the cards for DE since they provide tools for a playstyle deemed as undesirable for DE within the context of the T9A game. Not even talking about if Divination would have been somehow selected for replacement these Paths would not be top picks since other paths higher on the list of appropriateness would take precedence.



    The paths assigned to each faction are carefully selected to fit the societies and cultures as they have been created by the BGT and each captures an important element of these societies.

    War making and prognostication make important elements of the DE society. For a civilised society where a war deity and her partner and son play a crucial role, Alchemy is the best path from the ones available to represent these philosophies.


    As I have previously said Exarchs not having access to Cosmology was a compromise and the game faction as a whole retaining the path was seen as sufficient. That does not mean there are no Exarchs practising Cosmology or Witchcraft or some other. It just means we are unable to present them with the limits of the Complexity Budget. Whether that remains so throughout the LAB process I do not know. :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    DE LAB TT

    THE SAUCY QUILL INN
  • DanT wrote:

    (A) In the pre-LAB slim book, what were the "dready" rules that gave the faction the correct feel?
    From the 2.0 book for me that would be Executioner's Blade. It was an indirect rule that caused real world dread as many players kept their standard characters as far away from Dread Judges as possible.



    DanT wrote:

    (B) What are the really evocative rules in other slim books/LABs that perhaps are not the most crazily impactful rules mechanically/power speaking, but do a good job of creating the right feel on the table top?
    Top candidates: Mummy's Curse, Forest Walker and Forest Follows,

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    DE LAB TT

    THE SAUCY QUILL INN
  • Khadath wrote:

    - Pyromancy allows you to do damage that can protect us from shooting damage, which would give us a kind of protection while being 100% in the directives (offensive magic, not direct protection), more interesting than alchemy.
    Which is a purely mechanical argument and @Giladis right before this post mentioned, that T9A designers do not want to give such a tool to DE. I don't think anybody from RT, TT, or any other function game design related doubts that Pyromancy on DE would be very powerful.

    Khadath wrote:

    - The thaumaturgy allows a game just as technical as divination but more dread (hex, divine judgment exercised by the exarc).
    I don't get the background dissing on Oracles and Divination. The supreme caster for Dread Elves has been named "Oracle" for several years and I can't recall a single instance where somebody said the name doesn't fit. Similarily when I ask feedback on the unit names, the "Battle Oracle" was never mentioned as a criticism among a lot of feedback critsizing a lot of names.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Guys, you know that politics are off-limits in this forum. Please don't make me do cleanup duty again.

    @setrius If you want your DE army to be really evil guys, nobody stops you from envisioning a legion/expeditary force whose general is a cruel sadist who revels in the pain and agony of his victims, regularly feasts on the flesh of his captives and commits atrocities left and right. Just don't expect the whole faction to be the comically evil you want.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    Khadath wrote:

    - Pyromancy allows you to do damage that can protect us from shooting damage, which would give us a kind of protection while being 100% in the directives (offensive magic, not direct protection), more interesting than alchemy.
    Which is a purely mechanical argument and @Giladis right before this post mentioned, that T9A designers do not want to give such a tool to DE. I don't think anybody from RT, TT, or any other function game design related doubts that Pyromancy on DE would be very powerful.

    Khadath wrote:

    - The thaumaturgy allows a game just as technical as divination but more dread (hex, divine judgment exercised by the exarc).
    I don't get the background dissing on Oracles and Divination. The supreme caster for Dread Elves has been named "Oracle" for several years and I can't recall a single instance where somebody said the name doesn't fit. Similarily when I ask feedback on the unit names, the "Battle Oracle" was never mentioned as a criticism among a lot of feedback critsizing a lot of names.
    IMHO, oracles left DE army after slim, now are Exarch.
    Divination dedicated to other elves will difference each faction, apart of lore effects that doesn't help to fix army problems now
    About tauma, if loose the chance to play a master sorcerer as a general, being an outcast, thauma, evo and witchcraft give enough reasons to justify their status.
    I used to be Suddenwind... :)
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Guys, you know that politics are off-limits in this forum. Please don't make me do cleanup duty again.

    @setrius If you want your DE army to be really evil guys, nobody stops you from envisioning a legion/expeditary force whose general is a cruel sadist who revels in the pain and agony of his victims, regularly feasts on the flesh of his captives and commits atrocities left and right. Just don't expect the whole faction to be the comically evil you want.
    That's basically a DE army that is being tempted by the Dark gods - emphasis on the plural.

    Much as HBE decadence and arrogance is a ripe ground for the dark gods (as per the WDG story) - the DE's spirit of individualism, adventurism & Piracy combined with their attitude towards "might makes right" is super ripe grounds for DE going rogue.

    DE inspire Dread in the other factions - Elves due to their piracy and raiding (as well as potential to reclaim the homeland) other races due to them seeing every non-elf as cattle for the taking. And the DE society is perfectly fine with that.

    Head of Lectors

    Advisory Board

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • DanT wrote:

    (not commenting in staff role)

    setrius wrote:

    For me a unit that starts its name with Dread doesnt mean nothing. You speak about they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Why doesn't have rules to represent this?
    When/if/how to best represent background mechanically is a really fascinating general question I think.
    Perhaps I can ask (to anyone who cares to answer) :
    (A) In the pre-LAB slim book, what were the "dready" rules that gave the faction the correct feel?
    (B) What are the really evocative rules in other slim books/LABs that perhaps are not the most crazily impactful rules mechanically/power speaking, but do a good job of creating the right feel on the table top?
    "Quickly" for (A) :

    Familiar & acolytes : both where about "striking from invisible place", like in the fluff spoiler (attack from the mist), by getting a good place for damage spell. I understand the general politic of the game to move from this sort of tools too hard to counter, and I don't think we should have this as powerful as before but a bit should be possible. Just that we have the opposite now (combat caster have little incentive to take spell they won't cast while in CC, it's not the breath from occultism/thauma or damage from Occu/evocation). In the same theme, there were more inbuilt strider, allowing to hide from terrain and attack from more place (there is the common standard, but, hey, it's like all the other armies at this point, nothing special about DE playstyle - even a DE standard with strider+smthg would be better).

    I'm in the view of "bad guys" have no problem cursing their enemy, putting obstacle in the way, etc as means to win, even if perfectionning itself works too (but it's more KoE way of thinking ("good guys") or WodG (other "bad guys"), isn't it ?). DE didn't have a great incentive to take hex, but at least the hereditary promote that (and MSU). For this thematic, I'd say it feels "dreadier" to put some curse and malefice on the opponent even if it's the same mechanical result than a buff (means can be mean too). Edit : don't know how to express it well, maybe it's about "bully the weaker" associated with "having tool to create weaker".
    Now the incentive are to buff (blades of darag, buff path for the combat casters).

    We can talk about banner of Gar Deacos and Academy banner which reward coordination by first turn damage (kill first, then talk ;)).

    Even if I was not terribly fan of, midnight cloak was a tool for creating "glass canon character" (talking about the dev charge mainly here), add nabh cult also, something that can create an image of arrogance. Nothing in the alpha DE book offer something similar in term of opportunity to go "glass" for character, all work fine all turn (or is better next turn, transcendence and seal (of the republic) look grinding tools to me). And even unit are all the same type of "glass" (the judicator have hatred for hitting but replace the wounding first turn by an all-turn bonus), no weapon option or banner (like blood banner, which is an active one (= only when charging)) offer this option to go "glasser". Talking about magic again, the amulet of spite was also a great option (!) for going offensive.
    Talked about option, but it's an important point here I think : I, as player, had to choose the tool or moment (for the altar's blessing at the start of the turn), for going first turn damage, it's a decision with the reward of dead enemy at end. Feels like now, elves (less with beast, but beast are not DE), take their options/bonus for something else, as the rewards.

    Also probably the fact we had a lot of dedicated chaff (or priced like that : harpies, medusas + raider core), helped a lot to have board "control" (you can add strider in addition, definitely Cult of Yema was the DE tool). And once again, if I understand that sacrificing unit have to be moderated, we lose those with nothing in exchange for controlling the board.

    Maybe talk a lot about magic here, but for a fantasy setting it's quite important to me (or hobgoblin, but not DE's army).

    Edit : the first point (striking from nowhere) and the glass-canon one are also probably tied for the feeling of fear/dread, because if an unit is always strong it's a known danger, even if it's a danger it's less fearsome than something than can suddenly strike hard without warning (with the limit of a all public information game).


    Edit : Some few addition in blue.
    :UD_bw: :SE_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

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

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

  • Minidudul wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    (not commenting in staff role)

    setrius wrote:

    For me a unit that starts its name with Dread doesnt mean nothing. You speak about they consider themselves superior to everyone else. Why doesn't have rules to represent this?
    When/if/how to best represent background mechanically is a really fascinating general question I think.Perhaps I can ask (to anyone who cares to answer) :
    (A) In the pre-LAB slim book, what were the "dready" rules that gave the faction the correct feel?
    (B) What are the really evocative rules in other slim books/LABs that perhaps are not the most crazily impactful rules mechanically/power speaking, but do a good job of creating the right feel on the table top?
    "Quickly" for (A) :
    Familiar & acolytes : both where about "striking from invisible place", like in the fluff spoiler (attack from the mist), by getting a good place for damage spell. I understand the general politic of the game to move from this sort of tools too hard to counter, and I don't think we should have this as powerful as before but a bit should be possible. Just that we have the opposite now (combat caster have little incentive to take spell they won't cast while in CC, it's not the breath from occultism/thauma or damage from Occu/evocation). In the same theme, there were more inbuilt strider, allowing to hide from terrain and attack from more place (there is the common standard, but, hey, it's like all the other armies at this point, nothing special about DE playstyle - even a DE standard with strider+smthg would be better).

    I'm in the view of "bad guys" have no problem cursing their enemy, putting obstacle in the way, etc as means to win, even if perfectionning itself works too (but it's more KoE way of thinking ("good guys") or WodG (other "bad guys"), isn't it ?). DE didn't have a great incentive to take hex, but at least the hereditary promote that (and MSU). For this thematic, I'd say it feels "dreadier" to put some curse and malefice on the opponent even if it's the same mechanical result than a buff (means can be mean too). Edit : don't know how to express it well, maybe it's about "bully the weaker" associated with "having tool to create weaker".
    Now the incentive are to buff (blades of darag, buff path for the combat casters).

    We can talk about banner of Gar Deacos and Academy banner which reward coordination by first turn damage (kill first, then talk ;)).

    Even if I was not terribly fan of, midnight cloak was a tool for creating "glass canon character" (talking about the dev charge mainly here), add nabh cult also, something that can create an image of arrogance. Nothing in the alpha DE book offer something similar in term of opportunity to go "glass" for character, all work fine all turn (or is better next turn, transcendence and seal (of the republic) look grinding tools to me). And even unit are all the same type of "glass" (the judicator have hatred for hitting but replace the wounding first turn by an all-turn bonus), no weapon option or banner (like blood banner, which is an active one (= only when charging)) offer this option to go "glasser". Talking about magic again, the amulet of spite was also a great option (!) for going offensive.
    Talked about option, but it's an important point here I think : I, as player, had to choose the tool or moment (for the altar's blessing at the start of the turn), for going first turn damage, it's a decision with the reward of dead enemy at end. Feels like now, elves (less with beast, but beast are not DE), take their options/bonus for something else, as the rewards.

    Also probably the fact we had a lot of dedicated chaff (or priced like that : harpies, medusas + raider core), helped a lot to have board "control" (you can add strider in addition, definitely Cult of Yema was the DE tool). And once again, if I understand that sacrificing unit have to be moderated, we lose those with nothing in exchange for controlling the board.

    Maybe talk a lot about magic here, but for a fantasy setting it's quite important to me (or hobgoblin, but not DE's army).

    Edit : the first point (striking from nowhere) and the glass-canon one are also probably tied for the feeling of fear/dread, because if an unit is always strong it's a known danger, even if it's a danger it's less fearsome than something than can suddenly strike hard without warning (with the limit of a all public information game).


    Edit : Some few addition in blue.
    wow. You just made me miss the old book, with you list on magical items.
  • Giladis wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    So we could trade Divination for Pyromancy or Thaumaturgy?
    The short answer is no.
    OK, clear as can be, lets see the reasons


    Oracles play a very big part in DE culture and society.
    Yes, but this explains nothing about path access...



    I feel a portion of the disconnect between how paths are perceived by the BGT and some posters is a different starting point. For the BGT paths assigned come from the manifestations of the DE culture and society rather than from the mechanical compatibility of spells within the game.
    Yes, in a system with a rich background it is absolutely OK to have background reasons to explain rules like path access, while the rule-impact should not be important


    If you ignore the spell effects and concentrate on the philosophy behind the paths would anyone assign shamanism to an urban society with latifundia?
    No, but to a society that happens to capture and tame and breed and train beasts and happens to have military units specifically trained to deal with animals and beasts, I would




    Furthermore, for mechanical reasons neither Pyromancy or Thaumaturgy are on the cards for DE since they provide tools for a playstyle deemed as undesirable for DE within the context of the T9A game. Not even talking about if Divination would have been somehow selected for replacement these Paths would not be top picks since other paths higher on the list of appropriateness would take precedence.
    Now, as a reason to not give a path to a faction, rule or playstyle reasons are OK, fluff can be ignored as the developers simply decided to not want a specific path?




    The paths assigned to each faction are carefully selected to fit the societies and cultures as they have been created by the BGT and each captures an important element of these societies.
    Now, fluff again, but still no explanaition why the background (that is still mostly hidden) can be interpreted as forbidding pyro or shamanism, while it is no problem (with the knowledge we have) to find fluffy reasons to get access to those paths




    War making and prognostication make important elements of the DE society. For a civilised society where a war deity and her partner and son play a crucial role, Alchemy is the best path from the ones available to represent these philosophies.
    Isn't Thaumaturgy better fitting than alchemy if we talk about prognostication or other godly influenced stuff? And the claim that alcemy is the path of the war-makers is not clear, pyro seems more war-like, and especially supporting the major DE tactic of charging the enemy lines with infantry, shamanism would be a path to help wedge war...




    As I have previously said Exarchs not having access to Cosmology was a compromise and the game faction as a whole retaining the path was seen as sufficient. That does not mean there are no Exarchs practising Cosmology or Witchcraft or some other. It just means we are unable to present them with the limits of the Complexity Budget. Whether that remains so throughout the LAB process I do not know. :)


    Complexity budget is a concept that is no longer uesd we were told more than a year ago. And I have yet to see complexity at all in choosing what path is allowed, they all contain 6 spells and a rule that makes the path a bit more unique.
    Claiming the exarchs practise cosmo, but don't cast it is a wide stretch from "letting the background influence the rules".


    In the end it seems the only real answer we get here is:

    The short answer is no.
  • DanT wrote:





    (B) What are the really evocative rules in other slim books/LABs that perhaps are not the most crazily impactful rules mechanically/power speaking, but do a good job of creating the right feel on the table top?
    To me, Pack Tactics. It is my favourite rule in the game, and I have written lists specifically to get use out of it despite the overall lists being clearly suboptimal.
    Check out my T9A channel on YouTube HERE
  • LaughinGod wrote:

    Someone mentioned earlier how this topic has a lot of negative posts because people who like what direction LAB is taking don't want to post for some reason. This motivated me to post and show there are at least some people who don't want to post even though they have opposite feeling. Reason I see no point in posting is because most negative feedback gets shut down with responses like "you can't have that because backround/fluff reasons" or "this is against guidelines and/or project vision". I mean you can use those responses to shut down literally any argument made, because backround/fluff is not published and the project vision is murky ( it seems you can break the guidelines if they suit your vision, but not when someone else thinks it is suitable or makes more sense ).

    Not saying I think all is bad, personally I am convinced by the "fluff" explanation why DE can't have Occultism. But then I also wonder how does Evocation fit in that same "fluff" ? Same goes for Blades of Darag. Someone suggested Shamanism instead of Evo, and I tend to agree it makes much more sense ( I mean come on, there are many beasts in this army it makes 100000 more sense than Alchemy for example as Alchemy is explained by DE favoring the Smith god but this is not represented at all in their army as they have shittiest and most basic weapons and armor possible so this connection to Alchemy exists only in fluff, connection to Shamanism exists in the units, the theme and the feel of the army ).
    Mist leviathan is in the game just because someone really important in T9A team though it is a cool idea and forced it into the book. Idea was stupid from the start, but this shiet is staying because this person wants it to stay. And he can't accept he is wrong. We will have 50 iteration of this unit if needed before release, resources will be wasted, but we will have Mist leviathan in the book. Yay.
    Instead of wasting resources on Mist leviathan, you could've made developed Beastmaster theme more. It is half baked right now IMO, and as such it should probably be dropped from the main book and rolled into a supplement. Or work harder to develop it further, but this seems unlikely this far into the Alpha as it would require adding more units and options to the book.
    I mean I could add more criticism, but since I read most if not this entire topic, I think everything I disliked was already mentioned by people smarter and more eloquent than me, and most of it was shut down with those two responses I mentioned earlier.
    For the end I will say some nice things I liked at the start of this process with the new book, so that I don't seem all negative. I liked the project merged two naked girls units into one and I liked the reduced R on chariot mounts.
    Same sentiment here, it feels like all propositions are quickly shut down either by them not being according to the guidelines (which - apparently - can be broken otoh when the team wants to do so) or not in accordance with unreleased background fluff. This has at least shut me down from the discussion for several months now. I'm also not gonna get back into the same discussion we've all already been over, just wanted to let you guys know I'm one of the people who had enough of this all.
    Have you checked out my Youtube channel yet? Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8s5AkuzccDY_M0zBVIDd7w