Observations on High Elven Wargaming

[Musashi]

Musashi's Advice on Smooth Interactions

Pretend to assume good faith.

[Ruerl Khan]

What, all of that?

I agree that HE archers are a little disappointing in the amount of pointy doom for your proverbial buck, but all of those seems excessive. Shooting in two ranks and armour piercing longbows would be enough to put them on par with DE repeater crossbowmen, adding mutiple shot on top of shooting in two ranks is just getting greedy.

There should also be something left for the Asrai, who are supposed to be the real experts.

not "on par", better. Two ranks shooting together with armour piercing is better than the repeater crossbows simply by the benefit of longer range, add multible shots and its getting insane.

I agree that the high elf archer could use a minor boost, but some of these suggestions are getting silly.

[Marinero]

I would say that shoot in two ranks will be sufficient to make our archer good value for their points.

Alternatively, if shooting in 2 ranks is 'Sooo outrageous', we could get no long range penalty..

But I prefer shoot in two ranks

[draxynnic]

What, all of that?

I agree that HE archers are a little disappointing in the amount of pointy doom for your proverbial buck, but all of those seems excessive. Shooting in two ranks and armour piercing longbows would be enough to put them on par with DE repeater crossbowmen, adding mutiple shot on top of shooting in two ranks is just getting greedy.

There should also be something left for the Asrai, who are supposed to be the real experts.

not "on par", better. Two ranks shooting together with armour piercing is better than the repeater crossbows simply by the benefit of longer range, add multible shots and its getting insane.

I agree that the high elf archer could use a minor boost, but some of these suggestions are getting silly.

Situational. If both are in ranked units, the HE archer unit would have more firepower than the DE crossbowmen. However, the DEs still get multiple shot when in a single rank (whether due to being able to deploy in a line that long, taking casualties, or being in a unit that can start with 5 models such as Dark Riders) or skirmishing, while in all these situations, the HEs shooting in two ranks provides no benefit.

That said, my gut feeling would be to try one or the other and see how it goes before implementing both.

Regarding the multiple shot suggestion - it is possible that tethlis meant a BS reduction as well as the standard -1 penalty for multiple shot, which means under standard conditions it would be a choice of one shot with a 3+ chance to hit or two with 5+ chances to hit - which are statistically equivalent. It'd only really be an advantage in special circumstances, such as when there's a large target within half range.

[Eldacar]

I would say that shoot in two ranks will be sufficient to make our archer good value for their points.

They had "shoot in two ranks" for most of the playtesting that was done, IIRC. I'm not sure why it was removed.

[draxynnic]

Possibly because that was a period when they were trying to excise as many special rules as the could.

According to the 6th edition designer notes, some bright spark decided that BS4 with longbows was firepower enough, without considering the obvious mathematical observation that an Empire player could get equal or greater firepower by spending the same number of points on archers... let alone crossbowmen or handgunners. Or that, at that time, DE crossbowmen had nearly double the firepower at only one point more in cost. (In 7th, the balance with Empire is a little better but still unfavourable, while that with the DE has got worse with repeater crossbows getting buffed and DE crossbowmen now being cheaper than HE archers.)

[silashand]

Draxynnic's Observation of Balance Debates:

The armies you don't play are always overpowered, unless you can sweep them away with ease, in which case they are balanced to perfection. The armies you play are always underpowered, unless most opponents require very specific lists to even have a chance of countering them, in which case it's finely balanced and not a problem (there is a counter, after all).

Silas' Law of Balance:

Whatever army I bring will always be the epitome of balance, fun and fairness to all my opponents whilst their list, if they beat me, will be comprised solely of the cheesiest, most abusive combinations available to them and with absolute disregard for their army's background, the tournament guidelines and the enjoyment of the other player (me).

Silas' Law of Sportsmanship Scoring:

No matter how fair your army, no matter how much you try to insure it is both enjoyable to play against and with, some twat will always take exception to it and give you the minimum possible sportsmanship score because they lost the game, usually due to their own ineptitude and/or lack of tactical acumen. They will always blame their opponents for their own failures and tend to turn otherwise enjoyable games unpleasant, trying and tedious, making you wish you'd just stayed home instead of attending. To add insult to injury, they will always be the one player in the hall who has an allergic aversion to soap and who probably couldn't identify it 2 out of 3 times from a supermarket shelf if asked.

Just kidding, of course... sort of.



Cheers, Gary

[Eldacar]

Possibly because that was a period when they were trying to excise as many special rules as the could.

I was talking about 7th, to be more specific.

[Anduil of Elithis]

I would say that shoot in two ranks will be sufficient to make our archer good value for their points.

They had "shoot in two ranks" for most of the playtesting that was done, IIRC. I'm not sure why it was removed.

I heard the rumour, that it was ditched because some higly-ranking GW.official felt that HE-archers were stronger than his wood elves with this rule.

[Musashi]

I would say that shoot in two ranks will be sufficient to make our archer good value for their points.

They had "shoot in two ranks" for most of the playtesting that was done, IIRC. I'm not sure why it was removed.

I heard the rumour, that it was ditched because some higly-ranking GW.official felt that HE-archers were stronger than his wood elves with this rule.

Probably untrue - since any idiot can see that uberlongbow-wielding skirmishers are way superior to overshoulder-shooting longbow equipped close formation units. I'd swap the Wood Elves our hypothetical shoot in two ranks for their skirmishers any day.

[Chracian]

Rule of whingingness:

Get any two HE players together and they will complain about how much better DE are instead of looking for ways to just play against them and have some fun!

Rule of RBTs:

In a 2k list, take 2 (at least).

Dice landing on the floor rule (house rule):

If a player rolls a die and it lands on the floor, it is counted as a miss. If he can't even hit a 6' x 4' table from 6" away, what hope have his archers got?

[draxynnic]

They had "shoot in two ranks" for most of the playtesting that was done, IIRC. I'm not sure why it was removed.

I heard the rumour, that it was ditched because some higly-ranking GW.official felt that HE-archers were stronger than his wood elves with this rule.

Probably untrue - since any idiot can see that uberlongbow-wielding skirmishers are way superior to overshoulder-shooting longbow equipped close formation units. I'd swap the Wood Elves our hypothetical shoot in two ranks for their skirmishers any day.

They still pay through the nose for those skirmishers, though.

To be frank, both WE and HE archers could do with an upgrade.

[Musashi]

They still pay through the nose for those skirmishers, though.

To be frank, both WE and HE archers could do with an upgrade.

WE in general might need an upgrade, but their archers specifically do not. HE in general could do with some tweaking, but their archers specifically need a major upgrade.

[Cyrannoc]

I agree, High elf Archers should be able to shoot in two ranks, its not overpowered in my opinion and places them exactly where they should be in the ranged firepower superiority ladder - generally it makes sense fluff-wise, and everyone knows that archers look best in two ranks, and lets face it, the elves are all about looking the best really now arent they?

Menedals Law of green envy:

In games Vs low leadership value orcs and goblins with animosity tests etc... the orc and goblin army will behave as a model of steadfast discipline, however the elves attempting to drive off the greenskin menace with thier centuries of training and fairly high leadership values will always roll a fail on any psychology test!! @*$@!!+* hell!!!!

P.s I like Chracian's house rule and comment about elf archers - lollipops!

[Foxbat]

... High elf Archers should be able to shoot in two ranks, its not overpowered in my opinion ...

I'm for this change too.

Menedals Law of green envy:

In games Vs low leadership value orcs and goblins with animosity tests etc... the orc and goblin army will behave as a model of steadfast discipline, however the elves attempting to drive off the greenskin menace with thier centuries of training and fairly high leadership values will always roll a fail on any psychology test!! @*$@!!+* hell!!!!

Its this exact law that has not allowed my to beat these guys. The best I have are draws.

[Musashi]

Musashi's Law on Silver Wand

Only two characters are qualified to receive a Silver Wand:

1. Dragon Mages 2nd Level - to enhance their fire-power

2. Archmages 4th Level - to optimize their chances to
receive their preferred spells

[~Milliardo~]

Musashi's Law on Silver Wand

Only two characters are qualified to receive a Silver Wand:
1. Dragon Mages 2nd Level - to enhance their fire-power
2. Archmages 4th Level - to optimize their chances to
receive their preferred spells

... ... And why wouldn't you put it on a level 2 Mage if you were, say, running two of them at 2,000 points?

[Musashi]

Musashi's Law on Silver Wand

Only two characters are qualified to receive a Silver Wand:
1. Dragon Mages 2nd Level - to enhance their fire-power
2. Archmages 4th Level - to optimize their chances to
receive their preferred spells

... ... And why wouldn't you put it on a level 2 Mage if you were, say, running two of them at 2,000 points?

The Seerstaff of Sapphery - absolute chance of receiving the spells you have your heart set on, as compared to a 50% chance for the three you'll receive utilizing the Silver Wand.

Downside, you pay an extra 20 points more and lose a Power Stone/Dispel Scroll slot.

[~Milliardo~]

What about it? If you have two Mages, and the Seerstaff on one, the Silver Wand is still viable on the other.

[Musashi]

What about it? If you have two Mages, and the Seerstaff on one, the Silver Wand is still viable on the other.

Viable, yes, but chancy. Use that arcane slot to buy some useful item, for your other 2nd Level Mage.

[~Milliardo~]

... God you irritate the hell out of me, Musashi.

If you're taking two dispel scrolls, the 10 point Silverwand fits nicely. I don't really agree when you say chancy. If you're rolling for specific spells, then the Seerstaff will let you get what you want and you can round out the rest of his equipment with a powerstone, allowing him a better chance to cast it... the other Mage can be set up for defense with a pair of dispel scrolls and the silver wand. The extra spell gives him a bit more versatility.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not even arguing with that. What I'm arguing against is the idea that something must be done a certain way to be correct, and all your posts exude that. It's that kind of self-assured arrogance that's driving me fucking crazy.

[Musashi]

Milliardo, are you sure you have hung out with Elves a lot?

Come to think of it, when I was marooned in the States and Gundam Wing was one of the few anime on cable, I noted that your namesake was a pretty smug bastard (he was also my favourite character on the show).

[~Milliardo~]

Haha, no, I don't hang out with elves; that's something that other people here started saying. Milliardo was given to me by other people too.

It's not being smug in and of itself that bothers me, but how you're directing it. You post a lot and are bound to be one of the first things people see; what you say and how you say it directly affects the underlying theme of the entire site. The newer players tend to latch onto absolutes when someone with a higher post count than they do starts talking; they adhere to rules of thumb, pre-built armies and it kills creativity dead. People become more concerned with the rules of the game than actually playing it or expressing themselves with their force.
This is why I'm bothered by hearing absolute laws on scientifically built, optimal lists... but before I'm labeled a fluff-head, it does the same negative thing to those optimal lists, creating stagnation and furthering the negative attitudes. People don't try anything new or experiment or try to think for themselves.

By all means, continue being arrogant... I really don't mind if you think you're an authority on playing High Elves or that you're better than everyone else, but for the sake of the children, please just try to balance it out with a disclaimer once and awhile, or warn your audience about the danger and difficulty of taking or giving advice without thinking it out thoroughly... when you post something as if it comes from on high and was carved in stone, I want to throttle you a little.

[Musashi]

I don't claim to be either omniscient or have absolute knowledge of the game, but I have played Elves off and on for quite a while, in various milieus.

Thinking of the children, I'm an advocate of do what I say, not what I do.

So, if there any kiddies out there reading this, be polite to your opponents, congratulate them when they win, be modest in victory. Open doors for others and help little old ladies across the street.

After all, arrogance can transcend human norms.


And above all, have fun. If you're not enjoying yourself playing this game, then find some aspect of it that you do enjoy, otherwise, there's a whole wide world out there to savour and experience.

[Ramesesis]

Rammies rule of allround defensive magic

On 2000 point to 2500 point, take two lv2 mages:
A takes Silverwand & 2 scrolls
B takes Annulian crystal

[Valandil]

[IMO SoA should cause all combat to be fought by I value instead of ASF. For the most part elves would get to hit first, but there are some quick things out there that would strike before core units, like wardancers, druchii, some daemons, some skaven, vamps, ect. we could have more kool special rules like this one here if we fought in I value instead of ASF. give 2 c Ulthuan]

I absolutely agree with this one. I always thought that ASF is too much over the top. Give me I value or +1 to hit or a parry bonus for everyone instead.

[Musashi]

It's not being smug in and of itself that bothers me, but how you're directing it. You post a lot and are bound to be one of the first things people see; what you say and how you say it directly affects the underlying theme of the entire site. The newer players tend to latch onto absolutes when someone with a higher post count than they do starts talking; they adhere to rules of thumb, pre-built armies and it kills creativity dead. People become more concerned with the rules of the game than actually playing it or expressing themselves with their force.
This is why I'm bothered by hearing absolute laws on scientifically built, optimal lists... but before I'm labeled a fluff-head, it does the same negative thing to those optimal lists, creating stagnation and furthering the negative attitudes. People don't try anything new or experiment or try to think for themselves.

By all means, continue being arrogant... I really don't mind if you think you're an authority on playing High Elves or that you're better than everyone else, but for the sake of the children, please just try to balance it out with a disclaimer once and awhile, or warn your audience about the danger and difficulty of taking or giving advice without thinking it out thoroughly... when you post something as if it comes from on high and was carved in stone, I want to throttle you a little.

All fun and games aside, I've thought about this post and decided to address some issues that were raised:

By all means, continue being arrogant

I doubt that I come across as arrogant in the majority of my posts in this forum.

I really don't mind if you think you're an authority on playing High Elves or that you're better than everyone else

I've played Elves and magic-users off and on, over the years, so I'm a little more alert to how magic effects gameplay. I have never claimed to be better than anyone else. However, during the 6th Edition I did run a cabal of the Seer Council, usually 2 Archmages (Teclis being one) and the rest Mages, with the BSB and the remaining Lord choices warriors. I know why the Seer honour was removed, because you could shut down the movement phase of your opponent, by spamming Beast Cowers, or panic Skavens, etcetera, because sooner or later your opponent will either run out Scrolls, Dispel dice or fluff a throw.

The 7th Edition changed the landscape drastically, and so I had to change the composition of my basic army. I've always considered the Book of Hoeth too risky to use effectually, but the re-engineered Teclis and High Lore convinced me that overwhelming Magic Defence was the way to go, and subsequent Army Books have proven me right.

but for the sake of the children, please just try to balance it out with a disclaimer once and awhile, or warn your audience about the danger and difficulty of taking or giving advice without thinking it out thoroughly

Kids, if you haven't figured it out by now, no plan survives contact with the enemy; preparation is all well and good, but so is deployment, and all hangs on the roll of a die - all we can do is mitigate the result by bringing to the table optimized forces, which can maximize favourable results, and minimize losses. And different situations require different solutions, High Elves suffer from the curse of being too specialized and an all-comers list is difficult to compose.

Except in very large games - then we rock.

when you post something as if it comes from on high and was carved in stone, I want to throttle you a little

Another thing to bear in mind, is, that any advice is only relevant to the current 7th Edition - the moment there is any revision of either the BRB or our Army Book, this advice is no longer valid.

but before I'm labeled a fluff-head, it does the same negative thing to those optimal lists, creating stagnation and furthering the negative attitudes. People don't try anything new or experiment or try to think for themselves.

Stagnation only results if there are no other successful pathways to optimal results. This certainly happens during the 6th Edition, with all cavalry armies, and Seer Councils. I dropped Chariots from my list until the new Dark Elf AB - they're back in now. Changes in the tactical environment will ensure that stagnation won't prevail.

[tethlisslayer]

Bring Assault of Stone back to the way it was in 5th edtion and only be an HE spell...I miss that spell and it would certainly make the gun line an interesting choice.

"What the hell? What do you mean the hill ate my gun line?"-My favorite quote in a game ever.

I love that spell...good times.


O btw the way going back to what I said earlier about multiple shots: I actually meant that HE archers should get the option of either taking one shot at 3+ with AP -1 or take one shots at 4+ and then one shot at 5+ per round of shooting with no AP. These would be the options every round of shooting.

THat would make it an interesting thing, even as a temporary fix for HE, until they are able to remember the centuries of training that they have received and learn how to fire in two ranks while standing on level ground

BTW I always remembered WE archers kicking HE archers asses back in 5th edition even with the inclusion of shooting in two ranks. What do WE archers get now? Longer range +AP? Skirmishing, Longer Range and AP? That would make sense to me. Basic troops get this and then the more expensive the troops are the higher the AP.

On a side note: Why does GW hate the forces of Order? Chaos is so boring, "We have unlimited forces, whenever you kill a sldier another six are born. We will destroy the world." Its so freaking boring. And I mean they spend all of their time creating new rules for those armies and making them better and giving them sweet ass models and stuff and then all the forces of order get jipped out of their minds.

Regards
-tethlisslayer[/list]

[Lethalis]

I doubt that I come across as arrogant in the majority of my posts in this forum.

That's rather arrogant of you.

[Flame of the Asuryan]

+1 to tethlisslayer

Chaos had to be sooooooooooooo evil, it isnt even funny anymore. With backgrounds and so, it is the most boring army imo.