Ulthuan

Hi Ulthuan! It's been nigh a year since I've been on! Good gods!

I've been playing around with some crazy 9th Age lists in excel for the past couple months, so I thought I'd come read your guys' opinions on the game and HBelfs in general.

Glad to see the community still flourishing, and glad to be back!

wise

Good to have you back wisetiger.

Welcome back indeed, wisetiger. We're still here and not planning on going anywhere else

The consensus about the HBE list is that it's a bit at the lower end of the competitive spectrum but that we still have some strong lists and nice synergies in the book. Also, internal unit balance seems a bit better compared to 8th ed. So, some of the more unusual choices are starting to make an appearance.

I'd be interested in seeing some of the lists you've come up with. The meta is still moving around, so we can use some crazy ideas

Rod

Welcome back

Prince of Spires wrote:
The consensus about the HBE list is that it's a bit at the lower end of the competitive spectrum but that we still have some strong lists and nice synergies in the book. Also, internal unit balance seems a bit better compared to 8th ed. So, some of the more unusual choices are starting to make an appearance.

It's actually more contentious than that. Broadly speaking, we have pretty good internal balance...but as for external, there was some fan-analysis released recently which had us at the lower end of a fairly tight spectrum, but the data analysis team are adamant that a) that dataset wasn't as complete as theirs and b) doesn't show jack because the difference between top and bottom is so small it is not meaningful. I'm staying out of the data analysis argument, but I broadly accept their claim...their full data dump with interpretation is due in about a month, so we'll see hten...

Ferny wrote:Welcome back

Prince of Spires wrote:
The consensus about the HBE list is that it's a bit at the lower end of the competitive spectrum but that we still have some strong lists and nice synergies in the book. Also, internal unit balance seems a bit better compared to 8th ed. So, some of the more unusual choices are starting to make an appearance.

It's actually more contentious than that. Broadly speaking, we have pretty good internal balance...but as for external, there was some fan-analysis released recently which had us at the lower end of a fairly tight spectrum, but the data analysis team are adamant that a) that dataset wasn't as complete as theirs and b) doesn't show jack because the difference between top and bottom is so small it is not meaningful. I'm staying out of the data analysis argument, but I broadly accept their claim...their full data dump with interpretation is due in about a month, so we'll see hten...

What prince of spires and ferny said.... minus the bit about 'nice synergies'. The book contains very little in the way of synergies and those that it do contain are weak and situational at best. Having said that...if you love being the underdog in most games and starting with a handicap then this is the army for you. Winning with this army is a much bigger achievement and a nod to your abilities as a general then with others.

Okay, I have to admit, after reading through the book, I can see few synergies, if any. And by synergies, I mean special rules or magic items, some ability that allows 2 or more units to work together efficiently. I'm not talking about how well frost chickens reduce strength, making other units in the same combat survive longer. I will try to stay within the mindset that this is 9th Age, and limit my comparisons with 8th.

The first one I'll cover is Valiant. Now, for a book where the characters are - ahem - characterized by honours, the Bodyguard part of Valiant only works if the character being Bodyguarded is either a Royal Huntsman or have no honour at all.

First, let's take Valiant into context of Lion Guard. That means they are Stubborn vs Fear-causing enemies. Great! Just like they were before. It means they ignore penalties to Leadership for break tests and combat reform tests. Oh... but only against Fear-inducing enemies... That's silly. If they're Stubborn vs Fear, why wouldn't they be Stubborn vs non-Fear?!

Second, let's take it in the context of Lionguard bodyguarding a character. The character must either be a Royal Huntsman or have no honour at all. In an army book that has a focus in assigning honours to your characters, this rule discourages taking honours. On top of that, Archmages and Mages aren't even protected, as Valiant only Bodyguards High Princes and Commanders. The plus side of this is that Bodyguard grants the guardee regular Stubborn, not just Stubborn vs Fear.

Third, let's take it in the context of a character taking the Royal Huntsman honour. That character gets Stubborn vs Fear (which gives it to his whole unit). But it doesn't give Valiant to his unit. And only Rank and File models with Valiant get Bodyguard, which means a Commander with Royal Huntsman can't Bodyguard another character, so he's stuck with only Stubborn vs Fear, not regular Stubborn vs all.

For 60/45 points, you get Lion's Fur, no Dragonforged Armour option, must take a Great Weapon to gain the Multiple Wounds (2, Monstrous/Monsters), and immune to Terror and Fear, and option for a Lion Chariot. You get Valiant, but only the Stubborn vs Fear part, and you don't get Bodyguard, nor regular stubborn. It's not a bad honour, but it is reduced by the limitations of the Valiant rule.

1. They were designed to have a focus on monster killing, so they retain stubborn against their intended foes but lose it (as default) against infantry, cav, etc.

2. In a sense, this was the case - in theory no honour should be as viable as honours, but it was getting to the point that really you 'might as well' take an honour, unless there wasn't one available (e.g. dragonlord, cav prince until the latest Rhyma update), because of the value added it gives on an essential BSB/prince if you take one. So by linking bodyguard only to unhonoured characters and huntsman it made unhonoured more interesting in that build. It also encourages lion characters with lions, rather than what we had in 8th where Korhil was best with PG and Caradryan with lions. (IMO the bigger problem is that neither huntsman nor normal characters can survive combat well).

3. yes, characters do not as a rule grant stubborn to the unit they join, that would be too strong.

It's generally agreed, I think, that foot characters - and in particular foot lion characters - are unfinished.

Thanks for your thoughts Ferny. Though the explanations of why they were built that way are correct, and enlightening in itself, I think that the potential for synergy falls short.

Also, to clarify, a character with Stubborn (vs Fear) does, in a sense give the benefits of Stubborn to the unit it is with, though they technically don't gain the rule. Stated under the Stubborn rule on page 99: "A unit with at least one model with this special rule ignores any Combat Score penalties..." So in that sense, yes, they would be like a Korhil with PG, but Stubborn vs Fear.

I guess I'm trying to find out what the synergies are in this edition. Yes there are certain units that give benefit to others, like Frost chickens' Chill Aura. But that just benefits everyone. Lion Commander with Lion Guard would be Stubborn vs everything. PG Commander with PG would give the whole unit 3++ vs Magic. Things like that are small synergies, but nothing that makes a significant impact from the base versions of the units.

I love that chariots got better, but you still can't have an all chariot army (even with regular core troops), as any enemy large blocks will have ranks, thus steadfast against your charges, leading to prolonged combat, which is bad for elfs.

Reavers and Eagles are still the best redirectors in the game IMO, so there's a lot of the Movement phase we can control. But when dwarves gain triple march, it completely overshadows the swiftness of elves, especially when you add Battle Runes that Magic Move their units, or Scout/Ambush runes, or even a banner that gives a unit Vanguard.