Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • 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?
    For me it's Devastating Charge(Fearless, Hard Target(1)) that it's part of Makhar Battle Fever (army wide rule for the Makhar), it really says a lot about the culture/way of fighting without having a big impact most of the times.
  • 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?
    Infernal Brand and Well of Souls this rule is from Ark of Ages.
    I dont understand why not create more rules than manipulate the Flux Card.

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

  • Isn't that a lore more suited for races with less attention to discipline and well-kept appearances than Dread Elves? I mean DreadElves/Beastmasters aren't attuned to their inner beast. It's more of a case of breaking beasts

    Currently it is a lore mostly for SE Druids, Ogres, Orcs and Beastmen. Skinks also have it, and their less-than-bestial nature makes the match more of a stretch, but being in pact with the savage jungle perhaps explains it.

    Not a good fit thematically for DE I think, but then again. I'm not sure why KoE Damsels have access, so guess nothing is impossible
  • Wesser wrote:

    Isn't that a lore more suited for races with less attention to discipline and well-kept appearances than Dread Elves? I mean DreadElves/Beastmasters aren't attuned to their inner beast. It's more of a case of breaking beasts
    Currently it is a lore mostly for SE Druids, Ogres, Orcs and Beastmen. Skinks also have it, and their less-than-bestial nature makes the match more of a stretch, but being in pact with the savage jungle perhaps explains it.

    Not a good fit thematically for DE I think, but then again. I'm not sure why KoE Damsels have access, so guess nothing is impossible
    I agree too, shamanism is more SE themed, SE must be the ones who master this lore.
    Maybe for beastmaster, like an adept upgrade could be ok.
    IMHO, warlock outcas with thauma, evo and witch lores makes sense
    I used to be Suddenwind... :)
  • Every time i read in the forum, that the project shut down any comment opinion, a cat die.

    I can say to DE players, that ACS is doing an amaaaazing job gathering ALL your feedback, and talking with everyone in the DE Team to fix all the concerns, but is impossible to please everyone.

    And who knows in the future if the paths will be the ones we have now, or if Warlock will be or not as is now... we are working, is Alpha, soon beta, and the book is evolving, and we take seriously ALL comments and opinions.
  • (not commenting in staff role)


    Interesting list so far for things that people think are evocative/give the correct feel in other books
    @setrius infernal brand, well of souls
    @Chack Makhar battle fever
    @youngseward Pack tactics

    Infernal brand being on this list pleases me greatly :)


    More answers to "in the pre-LAB slim book, what were the "dready" rules that gave the faction the correct feel?" please :P



    Display Spoiler


    Minidudul wrote:

    "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.



    @Minidudul

    I'm not really getting "dread" from most of these if I'm honest, sorry

    I do get the hex one :thumbup:

    I half get the strider one, although I see that as a bit more sylvan-elfy in some ways. I think my take on the "dready" version of this aspect might be more about multi charges into different facings than anything specifically terrain related.


    The glass cannon and chaff stuff you mention don't really say dread to me if I'm honest.
    However, how do you find the combination of lightning reflexes and ruthless efficiency? Does that deliver the "glass cannon" therefore "dread" feel for you?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DarkSky wrote:

    lol.lobest wrote:

    Going back to the magic issue, I think that it should be approached in the context of all the three eleven factions.

    DE (the bad guys) get access to cosmo, Evo, occultism and thauma

    SE (the forest/nature guys) get access to Shama, druidism and witchcraft

    HbE (the good guys) get access to divination, pyro and alchemy

    All of them (elves) get access to cosmo.

    Or any other combination, in case the background/balance elements suggest differently. But this should be the scheme to follow, IMO.
    Several that make no sense in your argument regarding T9A world building:
    • DE are not "the bad guys"
    • HE are not "the good guys"
    • Evocation, Occultism, and Thaumaturgy are not "the evil magic paths"
    • Witchcraft is not tied to forest/nature in any way (outside of the classical evil witch lives alone in the forest fairy tale)
    • Divination, Pyromancy, and Alchemy are not "the good magic paths"
    Comments on your rule proposal:
    • "The magic issue" - I have yet to read a compelling argument, why the current path association is so bad it needs drastic changing like above (i.e. cutting three paths and adding two)
    • Why should the overlap of three factions with strong ties together be only 25% of the magic paths? Why is that number better than anything else? (e.g. having two shared paths overall, or having one shared overall and each elvish factions shares one with one other?)
    • How does that improve the game or the Elven factions overall?
    • Why do all three Elves have to have the exact same amount of magic paths available?


    The best arguments I have seen so far are about the background of Cosmology and how it isn't available to Temple Exarchs, when in background it probably should be. Additionally there is feedback about Occultism vs Evocation, which I personally don't share, but is well argued and could be made a case for (Evocation being redundant, the fear of sniping spells with IW being too good, the lack of magic missiles).

    OK, fine, let's say that de aren't the bad guys, and that HbE aren't the good guys. Let's say there is something else that differenciate them from their cousins. We can make a survey among players, we can ask the background team, or somebody else to assess which is the essence of DE/SE/HbE in comparison to each others.

    Still, I think that access to certain magic paths instead of others should be based on that essence.

    Why should all elven factions have access to the same amount of magic paths? Because let's be honest, elves players constantly compare what's available to them in comparison to what is available in other elves books. Furthermore, this would help differentiate them and give to each faction an unique magic flavor.

    Why 25%? Because there are 10 paths, and 3 factions. So they need to share 1 path and get 3 additional paths each. Easy.

    The approach according to which we should try to get the most powerful path for our army doesn't work, because meta changes, armies change, and what is a strong path now can be rubbish in 6 months.

    The approach according to which we should get paths according to background doesn't work because many players don't read the background and because the background doesn't give clear indications on which magic paths should be available. It gives indications about many aspects of the DE society/mentality, that can then be interpreted in a way that is translated into access to certain paths. But interpretation may change from person to person, and it is impossible to find an agreement.

    And this, I'm sure, applies to the other two elven factions two (the reason why this hasn't already happened is because they haven't been through lab yet).

    So let's establish a simple method: each elf faction gets access to cosmo and 3 paths that somehow fit them more than the other two.

    We should look for simplicity, not unnecessary complexity.
  • Villon wrote:

    Every time i read in the forum, that the project shut down any comment opinion, a cat die.

    I can say to DE players, that ACS is doing an amaaaazing job gathering ALL your feedback, and talking with everyone in the DE Team to fix all the concerns, but is impossible to please everyone.

    And who knows in the future if the paths will be the ones we have now, or if Warlock will be or not as is now... we are working, is Alpha, soon beta, and the book is evolving, and we take seriously ALL comments and opinions.
    May be.
    But even though I'm still vocal, I'm always under the impression that all is already set and justified and nothing will change when I read the answers of the task team ("it's background related", "it's against guideline", "too complicated", "too powerful", "I wrote a list" all of this shut down conversation, there are too few "can you explain why ?" "can you develop" "with this (explanation) in mind, would you suggest something else in the same vein ?" etc, in comparison).
    Seems the impression is shared among other than me.


    DanT wrote:

    @Minidudul

    I'm not really getting "dread" from most of these if I'm honest, sorry

    I do get the hex one

    I half get the strider one, although I see that as a bit more sylvan-elfy in some ways. I think my take on the "dready" version of this aspect might be more about multi charges into different facings than anything specifically terrain related.


    The glass cannon and chaff stuff you mention don't really say dread to me if I'm honest.
    However, how do you find the combination of lightning reflexes and ruthless efficiency? Does that deliver the "glass cannon" therefore "dread" feel for you?
    No problem, I tried to answer but it's surely a bit messy.

    Yes, the strider one is shared by SE (but in a 16 faction game, it's hard to not share anything), but attacking through the terrain which normally offer a great defense is still something that feels scary (it's sure a strong game effect too and have to be considered with moderation). And as you said, it's tied to being able to multi-charge more easily, sure that light troops or high march rate can help too setting this kind of tactics (with the exclusion of special deployment).

    For the glass canon part, it's about the "potential", but I understand that in a wargame all army have that and that's finally just a common sight.
    On LR + RE : first, I see more LR as the signature for elves in order to make them "elite", other option (Off/deff 6 for example) would probably fine to me to represent this, so except for Great weapon wielder (and those unit are rare enough to have their own treatment if there are change), it don't represent too much "glass-canon" to me. RE is sure better for this feel of glass-canon. But I'd say it's not enough on is own, I played some game where the best play for my side would have to push and wait the charge, while with a "canon" I expect to do the damage when I launch the bullet. It's sure set the path of the faction, but I still think it's worth expanding and exploring within the book (and not just for beast) : I'll try the comparison with DH, they have sure a great grinding tool with the combination of Res 4, shield wall and Dis 9 (to mention the important), but it's completed by some fearless/bodyguard and other defensive bonus, so it's not "just" the basic.

    But indeed, "dread" may be better serve by rule like fear (which have too much limitation, as there are fearless armies, fear/fearless unit and so on - and have to be limited for the sake of the rule itself), or rule like the DL Hellish Growl.
    :UD_bw: :SE_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

    I hold no truth except mine. And I'm not sure about this last one.
  • I disagree, the divide of 1 common path, 3 paths per elven factions is simply too simple.
    Although the background is mostly hidden at the moment, having paths strongly connected to said background is in my opinion a much better way to fit mechanics to background than the other way around, fitting the background to the mechanics. I fear the phrase "because a wizard did it" would be used to just basically shoehorn the background into the mechanic and thats a style GW worked with quite often.

    The interpetation of the background and what mechanics would fit is another discussion.
    I agree that Pyromancy would perfectly fit a "War God". But there's many more paths that could be seen as "war path" as this is a wargame afterall and I don't know enough about the background yet.

    Still I think we should be careful not to "oversimplifying" the background or mechanics.
    Army Community Support: :UD: :WDG: Also playing: :DE:
  • 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?
    (A) A lot of :
    - Death Trance (who is always there)
    - Moraec’s Reaping
    - Transcendence
    - Banner of Blood
    - Banner of Gar Daecos
    - Amulet of Spite
    - Irresistible Will
    - Poison and path of assassin
    - Executioner’s Blade

    (B) I don't know the other armies well enough to judge.

    DarkSky wrote:

    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.
    I did not participate in the forum before the LAB announcement. I was just a gamer using the books to play in a WHFB context. I never liked the term Oracle for wizard. Without having the fluff, it's complicated to judge. My opinion on this subject comes late suddenly. For the "battle oracle", in the first place it did not bother me more than that, not having the fluff on the subject, I did not make too much opinion but the more I play DE and the more I read the book and less I like it.
  • Giving DE Wizard Masters would require -

    RT decide that the DE TT must make it available again.

    RT would define the scope of magic power available to DE. (Meaning noncombat caster/BSB)

    Background team would have to advise on what is removed.

    The scope would involve remaking two Characters, the faction's magic, and possibly adding a new Character on top.

    Then there is the concern that having a Wizard General.is too efficient points wise, and the entire rest of the army must become more expensive as a result, or at least Obsidian Guard lose their special rule.

    The compounding effects of making Wizard Generals possible are huge, unlikely to be changed because I think you would have to convince both RT and BGT that it is a necessity. Changes such as this are really just outside the scope of the TT because it changes a tenth or more of the book. It sets back the whole book and makes balancing the book take longer.

    This isn't something that can easily be done via complaints in this thread. You should campaign for such a change and devise some solutions your selves. Open new threads and take polls.

    I am not trying to dissuade you, but to give you a road map

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

  • Girien wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    You are entitled to your opinion ofc, but all I see is someone who have ALL the options he used to have just with different restrictions that he refuses to adapt to because..I dont even know why
    1.- Because raider theme was my main theme before.2.- Because after the first unit of corsairs they are useless (the first one is the mage bunker) if you go full melee.
    3.- Because after the 2nd unit of SpearElves they are useless if you want to go faster than a Dwarf.
    4.- Because the only thing you can do is spend the points making the spear elves unit bigger and this broke my "raider" preference.
    5.- Because if I spend the special points in Fast Cavalry, I need to fit minimum 3 expensive characters because not a leader wizard master I can only break with love and kisses and DE are supposed to be an aggressive army
    6.- Because core is supposed to not be a Tax and defines the "core" of the army, my core (raider) that is gone because potatoes. Leaving only to spend points in a units I dont like.

    (Some admin can speed the "deletion account" countdown of 7 days...?)
    I feel for you. If one had a thematic army with units of 5 Dark Riders in core that acted as chaff, with a block or two of Scoring Corsairs.

    Suddenly that kind of army is missing a lot of stuff, especially if that army had a block Dancers of Yema

    I can understand the degree of model invalidation on an Army level, it is frustrating. I just hope you can find a build that works for you.

    I imagine that can be difficult though, since
    2x5 Dark Riders with Rcrossbows and 2x14 Corsairs with Handbows hits your raider limit, and you have only filled out ~500 points of core, and you have 0 scoring units… and you need 3 characters.

    No other army so far has had such a radical redesign… WotDG, DL, ID… most can essentially unbox their old armies and still have a functional army. The builds that were invalidated (like all-chariot core) lasted for max 1 edition.

    But with DE, two of their scoring combat blocks moved into the non-scoring raiding party entry. Corsair-themed army across many editions suddenly gone. Plague-themed VS suffers similarly from this issue.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • Cam wrote:

    Would people be upset at losing the apprentice BSB because of his spell over his stats?
    To be honest? No. The Spell is a gimmick, the 4++ is a huge saver in points that would otherwise go into defensive gear. It also makes me a lot less nervous about putting my Temple Exarch BSB on the front ranks to fight.
    For 50 points I could take the Heirloom and be happy with my current MSU list and I think most lists if the Temple Exarch wasn't a caster at all. For me its a fighty BSB that is quite "tanky".
    Army Community Support: :UD: :WDG: Also playing: :DE:
  • Cam wrote:

    Would people be upset at losing the apprentice BSB because of his spell over his stats?
    I'm not sure i understand the question you mean if i value my fightyish bsb being apprentice ?

    In that case i would be upset because being apprentice on this package let me have the hereditary on a character that is in the ideal position to make use of it (frontline and center more or less), also it gives me the 5th spell without having to take a specific character for it (i would take a bsb anyway probably) but that a specific list concern, with a master taking the heirloom would have been a solution, but i don't really like having a master to bunker away so i went for double exarch plus acolytes.
    The stats are also one of the reason i choose an exarch to be bsb, he can carry magic banners and/or weapon enchant without compromising his defense.