PDA

View Full Version : Is the new High Elf book a nerf in disguise?



winkypinky
19-12-2007, 21:48
Hey all.

I have been away from the hobby for about a year and 8 months, judging on my last log in date on this site.

I read through the New HE bookabout 2 months ago. (one of my friends always gets the new books a couple of months early) I was beyound disapointet.
My first 3 thoughts were:

1: Cool
2: w00t 2 attacks on swordmasters!
3: Nice that phonix guards finally got "something"

The next 3 were:

1: Who would ever use a unit of silverhelms again?
2: Armour of the Gods is gone forever. (I think?)
3: Hehe I can get a large dragon now.... and 2 in 2k.. (but you could do this before the new book came out with the dogs of war dragon guy)

But. Overall i thought of the new book as a major debuff.
Why? You can not make an all cavalry army anymore.

And even though you get ekstra special choices, and have to field less core units, you still have to use infantry.

And if you fancy having a cavalry army now, it will by no means include silverhelms. Dragon Princes is simply just better. (Ws 5)

When i played before i seriously had to make some clever thinking to get a good use out of the limitid amount of special choices.
In a cavalry army now, you will have even less special choices to chose among. Because you sort of need cavalry in a cavalry army. Giving you less options in the chariot/reaver/shadow warrior slots.

I have thought of starting a new army, chaos or lizardmen (got some models for both) and let my silverhelms forever rot in a corner of some smelly closet...

I do have a lot of Elven infantry. And maybe that could be the way to go now? More models = more fun, afterall this is a hobby not a sport....

Any thoughts on this ramble?

theunwantedbeing
19-12-2007, 21:55
Sounds like your just overly sore about not getting your uber all cav army anymore, despite your army actually being noticably more powerful as a result.

No armour of the gods?
St7 with the starlance works on a hero just fine, there's also that star dragon.
2 dragons before? yes but now you can have 2 dragons that cast lots of magic.

Sounds like no all cav is a blessing as you must have felt like you wasted your money on those infantry.

static grass
19-12-2007, 22:06
the all cav army didn't fit the background it was just the most effective part of the list. So that's now gone. The book does better reflect the armies of the kingdoms of Ulthuan. Overall I would say that the new book is a slight buff but as the old book was quite weak so this isn't a problem.

The new book has more exciting options than the old one but generally I think you will have a smaller army than anyone else.

winkypinky
19-12-2007, 22:11
I dont know if i have "wasted" money on infantry since i have been playing since late 3th edition. The time when spearmen and archers actually rocked.

And i have almost all kinds of HE armies.

How can you say s7 with a lance, on the charge, when mounted is near the same as a static s7 on foot all the time?

And the 2 magic casting dragons is a lot more expensive point wise than the old dragons, and you will not have the points to back them upin the magic phase in a 2k game. So the cute magic casting trick is really not something you have to take into acount unless you play 3k+ games. Which to be fair, is not going to happen very often.

And what part of the new dragon rules did i miss were it says they do "lots" of magic? They do medicore magic. Medicore magic just isnt good enough anymore.

winkypinky
19-12-2007, 22:13
the all cav army didn't fit the background

I like you :)

Well you could say it very much fitted with the background of a tiranoc army, or ellyrian army.

Shank
19-12-2007, 23:36
I don't see how you can't have a all cav army anyway with the new book. You can take 6 special units. So that means 6 cavalry units. Umm, that is quite a bit.

Flypaper
19-12-2007, 23:37
Is the new High Elf book a nerf in disguise? Yup, pretty much. From an all-out tournament perspective, anyway. That's not necessarily a bad thing - a list that can produce multiple tier 2 armies is probably more valuable to the Warhammer player base (in terms of fun-to-be-had) than one that can produce a single tier 1.5 one.
the all cav army didn't fit the backgroundBull. The ruleset defines an army's background as much as the second-rate fanfic that comes with the book - and the 6th edition HE ruleset pretty much beat you over the head with the fact that it was a cavalry army. Three cavalry choices, one of them core and fairly points-efficient, and good two-for-one chariots.

winkypinky
19-12-2007, 23:53
I don't see how you can't have a all cav army anyway with the new book. You can take 6 special units. So that means 6 cavalry units.

That was my point. All the cavalry have been moved to the special section, thereby severely limiting your choice of support units, if you want to field an cavalry army.

Before you would have your core units filled with silverhelms, and in many cases (even in 2k battles) you(I) would field more than the minimum amount of core units.

If you want to create a cavalry army now it would look (in a rough setup) something like this.

3 units of dragon princes (you need some cavalry)
1/2?? chariots
1/2?? units of light cavalry

That really isnt a lot of cavalry and you have filled ALL your special choices.
Then you NEED the dragons or mage lords or whatever you can make expensive point wise to "fill out" the army.

That really isnt much of a cavalry army compared to last HE book were it would look more like:

Minimum! 3 units silverhelms
2 units light cavalry
2/4 Chariots, depending on whatever you wanted a unit of dragon princes or not.

And BTW the "new" HE all "cavalry" list really sucks fluff wise compared to the old one. By my understanding dragon princes, is Princes. There aint that many Princes in calador fluff wise (you know low reproduction rate, also know as the whole, make courtesy to a elf lady for 300 years with songs, flowers, music, artwork and other romantic stuff before you get a shag with her "problem")

It really is a rape to the fluff section moving the silverhelms to the same category as dragon princes while not limiting the number of dragon prince units to 0-1 like in the old days. That made sure that you wouldnt field the entire caladorian nobility in every battle you fought. And last book they were edged out by the silverhelms in many lists because silverhelms were core units.

static grass
20-12-2007, 12:22
I like you :)

Well you could say it very much fitted with the background of a tiranoc army, or ellyrian army.

thanks and yes you could but would it really be true? For Example Ellyrian is known for its light cav and not for it's glittering ranks of silverhelms...

I think that the new book is more aimed at theme armies. I am sure you are right that there are more silver helms than DPs but in terms of army selection does it matter? In the world war two game "flames of war" you can pick para reg companies as your army but everyone knows that the army isn't made up paras. I think it is the same here. If you pick 4 DP units for you list then this is pretty clearly a caledorian force.

Voodoo Boyz
20-12-2007, 14:45
If Silverhelms were Core still I probably would have started a High Elf army instead of going with Ogres since I wanted to play an all-calvary force and the models would have rocked.

But as it is I don't want to make an army with their core units, but their specials. I would have ignored the "best" parts of the list in Sword Masters, White Lions, Pheonix Guard, but just gone for a mounted force. But nope, can't do that and so I didn't want to do the army.

EvC
20-12-2007, 18:35
All I can say is I'm most pleased that all avalry was made special, if it's stopped the dull one dimensional all-cavalry lists from persisting. High Elves were a poor army with one decent build before, now they're a great army with many great builds. Sorry if you hate using infantry, you can always go play Empire, I hear two Steam Tanks, a War Altar and a couple of units of Knights is great for the powergamers.

lparigi34
20-12-2007, 18:42
If you really want cavalry that bad, do not even go empire. The obvious choice is Bretonnia.

logan054
20-12-2007, 18:56
you know when i read the title i thought this could actually be a interesting topic then i saw the content, my god man, you still have access to 6 units of cav which can all be dragon princes if you really like, oh no, damn you need two units of archers to make it all legal, what a shame. frankly how can this actually be a bad a thing, you now have to think outside of the box to make a army rather than using yet another all mounted force.

As a chaos player i would love the have the kinda changes to army layout (bar asf) that actually made many of my far than useful units useful again. As said before you want a all mounted army then your collecting the wrong army, thats what brets are for.

Voodoo Boyz
20-12-2007, 19:12
All I can say is I'm most pleased that all avalry was made special, if it's stopped the dull one dimensional all-cavalry lists from persisting. High Elves were a poor army with one decent build before, now they're a great army with many great builds. Sorry if you hate using infantry, you can always go play Empire, I hear two Steam Tanks, a War Altar and a couple of units of Knights is great for the powergamers.

Wait, if I wanted to do an all Calvary force then I'm a power gamer?

The best part about the new HE is the Elite Infantry, I'd be ignoring almost all the best new stuff in the army if say, Silverhelms were still core and I made a Cav force.

The reason I don't want elite infantry (or just about any) is that I already have Dwarfs! And if I wanted to powergame with a mounted force I'd pick Bretts or as you said Empire, not ******* Ogres.

EvC
20-12-2007, 20:09
So why exactly can't you be content with adding in a couple of tiny units of Archers as well, and then making an all-cavalry force from the rest of it?
Dragon Princes = 200 points
More Dragon Princes = 200 points
Silver Helms = 150 points
2 Chariots = 200 points
Reavers = 120 points
2 x 10 Archers = 220 points
4 Eagles = 200 points

There you go, that's about 1400 points blown on virtually all cavalry, leaving you a few hundred points to spend on characters, magic banners, whatever extras you want? You can even take 4 Heroes mounted on Chariots as well that won't eat into your specials allowance.

Are those 20 models walking around really going to ruin the entire army for you?

By the looks of things, all new army books are going to be making a few infantry choices mandatory. Imagine, games played where ranked up units rule the day, rather than endless cavalry and skirmishers deciding every battle...

superknijn
20-12-2007, 20:24
Well, you still get an ungodly amount of Special choices. Just fill your Core with Archers, and load up on cavalry.

Tobias
20-12-2007, 20:27
The list is bad, you always need to have 2 foot units, I don't mind that, but its the fact that I prefer one unit normal infantry 1 unit elite infantry and 2 units cav. I think that is balanced and it is not possible anymore. Or you have to go all infantry or minimize core ... It's so unbalanced. I would rather have that DP were 1 per 2000 thousand points, silver helms were core and 1 per 1Kpoints

(max 3 units heavy cav in 2K, 5 in 3K and 6 in 4K ...)

Finnigan2004
20-12-2007, 20:29
The irony here is that I suspect that the all mounted build will continue to be the most powerful because movement in warhammer is so key in so many ways other than charging. Once people get done experimenting with shiny new infantry, very cavalry heavy lists (with some eagles and dragons maybe)will become the powergamer army of choice (you heard it here first). I thought all along that ASF was positive because it gives some reason to buy expensive infantry. The idea of cavalry getting nerfed is really silly, but GW did make some effort in this army book at internal balance at least.

That said, I will be experimenting with a new all infantry high elf force (well, a great eagle will be included) in the near future (as soon as my lizards are totally painted) because now it is at least feasible (read: I will not get laughed at). I like the new book because the lack of viable infantry was the main barrier for me in terms of painting my high elf army. I agree with Flypaper that being able to produce many viable lists is better than being forced to use one extremely good build all the time.

W0lf
20-12-2007, 20:50
Wait, if I wanted to do an all Calvary force then I'm a power gamer?

If your asking my oppinion then yes, yes you are.

Of course i find nothing wrong with power gamers at all, i can be a bit of a power gamer at times.

Voodoo Boyz
20-12-2007, 21:06
So why exactly can't you be content with adding in a couple of tiny units of Archers as well, and then making an all-cavalry force from the rest of it?
Dragon Princes = 200 points
More Dragon Princes = 200 points
Silver Helms = 150 points
2 Chariots = 200 points
Reavers = 120 points
2 x 10 Archers = 220 points
4 Eagles = 200 points

There you go, that's about 1400 points blown on virtually all cavalry, leaving you a few hundred points to spend on characters, magic banners, whatever extras you want? You can even take 4 Heroes mounted on Chariots as well that won't eat into your specials allowance.

Are those 20 models walking around really going to ruin the entire army for you?

By the looks of things, all new army books are going to be making a few infantry choices mandatory. Imagine, games played where ranked up units rule the day, rather than endless cavalry and skirmishers deciding every battle...

Because that's 4 units of Calvary and 2 Chariots, what if I wanted to make an effective Calvary army that has a lot of units?

The Archers are effectively 220 points wasted that don't do anything for my army. In fact the reason I decided not to do the new HE is that I didn't like any of their core choices, they're simply not very effective. Silverhelms or even Reavers as Core would have made me able to take something that I felt was at least useful for my army, more so if I could take Silverhelms, and it'd actually be a reason to *take them* and maybe they wouldn't have had to made it a minimum of 2 Core choices, since the core is so terrible.

EvC
20-12-2007, 22:08
The build I listed was 4 cavalry, 2 chariots (And up to 6!), 2 archers, 4 eagles + characters- that's 13 deployments, not too shabby I think ;)

I also like that you didn't like that I suggested you might be a powergamer, yet readily complain about being forced to take "terrible" infantry units, which is the classic powergamer response :D

winkypinky
20-12-2007, 22:16
Are those 20 models walking around really going to ruin the entire army for you?
...... ranked up units rule the day, rather than endless cavalry and skirmishers deciding every battle...

That is why i think it is such a big blow to the "power" of the High elves.

Any Infantry army with 15points a piece T3 5+ save infantry is going to be a pain in a tournament setting to play. What can you do? Oh I can march and have first strike.... That really isnt very good. If you play in a game where ranked units ruled the game (say they removed the flanking bonus) then and only then will this game truly be boring to play. If it got to some point were infantry were at the prime, and high movememnt were not as attractive, i would say the entire strategy part of the game would be gone. (Lets face it, how many people actually moves there infantry blocks around INSIDE charge range for several turns? Not gonna happen, infantry blocks is charge at first sight, unless it is a very rare case)

And to the case of the 20 models. Yes.

For what i know HE is the only army were you hand over 220 victory points at the start of the game to the opponent. Elven archers just are that bad compared to their points. They have been that since they lost the shoot in 2 ranks. And when they got that rule they were just medicore and nothing special.

And the "new" and "improved" HE elite infantry.. I can not see it. Is it the first strike rule? That only matters to stationary White Lions, and if your white Lions are stationary you deserve to have them hit by chariots (which they still die horribly from)

The swordmasters with 2 attacks? Wow... Now they have the same amount of attacks as a chaos warrior, that is not a huge improvement.

The Phoenix guards, 4+ ward. That sounds nice. But it really is not that good it is only half the wounds inflicted saved, they cost an arm and 3 legs. Compared to ironbreakers, who just dont want to die no matter what.

winkypinky
20-12-2007, 22:25
As a chaos player i would love the have the kinda changes to army layout (bar asf)

No you would not. I can promise you that. If you opened your new book and found, chaos hounds, marauder horsemen, knights and chariots in the special or rare section you would cry. And in your brand new deamon book everything with a movement value of more than 4 was restricted to rare. That would not be a nice change that would make chaos the pansies of the world.

And it has nothing to do with thinking outside the box, as many people of pointed at you just field 220 points of archers as your core units problem solved, or is it?

Imagine this as the very first line in the chaos book:

If you decide for a 2000 point game the chaos player may only field 1780 points. (and some scaling system)

That would NOT be nice changes, that would be lame changes, as they are to the elves.

R Man
20-12-2007, 22:52
Actually as a Bretonnian player I want more infantry interestingly enough. I find it annoying that my only competative list is overly cavalry based. After a while it feels predicatable and one dimensional.

Now the HE are based on Roman, Greek and Byzantine units. Their citizen levies are exactly like the Phalanx and elven armour resembles byzantine armour. Now these armies had a strong core of cavalry (Byzantines mostly) but were mostly focused on Infantry. Cavalry should be important to HE, but it should not be the cornerstone.

GW probably didn't expect Heavy cav. armies to be so prominent and moved them into special because it violated the core image of what the HE were. What I am surprised about is why Dragon Princes and SH are both special. DP should be rare, especially considering the lack of other rare choices.

As for the HE getting weaker, it certainly doesn't look that way. An army focued on core troops and SH will be able to get more bodies on the field that are more effective than they used to be. Spearelves are deadly on the defensive, PG are nasty. Fear can stop a cavaly charge before it starts and fully half of all wounds will evaporate against their ward. SM are excellent at fighting infantry thanks to speed and damage. HE magic is much better with stubbornness and a ward added in.

The only reasons I can think of for thinking the book is weaker is simply that either you just didn't like it, or you've played a game with too many elite units and gotten massacred.

Dominatrix
20-12-2007, 22:53
Why do you say that 2 units of archers are 220 points wasted? First of all high elf archers are probably the only missile unit (coupled with dwarven thunderers maybe) in the game that is not automatically dead just because some flier/ fast cavalry charged it.

Thanks to ASF and given the fact that fast cavalry has generally crappy armor saves, you will probably cause casualties before they even hit you, thus lessening the attacks they throw at your archers and may even win or tie combat.

Think this over for a bit and you will realise that against the traditional enemies missile units face, HE archers can actually hold their own and are not dead meat.

Besides if all else fails park them behind or inside some terrain and get the points for table quarters. :D

P.S. This thread is quite original. Since the HE book was released I have never seen a single HE player who thinks this book is worse than the previous one. On the contrary quite a few players have started playing HE armies thanks to it. I don't know about you but this tells me the new HE book is anything but a nerf in disguise.

winkypinky
20-12-2007, 23:14
the only missile unit (coupled with dwarven thunderers maybe) in the game that is not automatically dead just because some flier/ fast cavalry charged it.

----> HE archers can actually hold their own and are not dead meat. <------

.....the contrary quite a few players have started playing HE armies thanks to it. I don't know about you but this tells me the new HE book is anything but a nerf in disguise.


The part about the elite elven close combat archers kinda made me laugh. They dont have shields you know? And yes they can survive a combat if you roll god-like and your opponent gets all 3's and below. Which is the same for goblin archers (or halflings for that matter) T3 no save is just not going to cut it on avarage. Yes first strike makes you ABLE to get some really lucky rolls and not lose a combat. But it is not going to happen on avarage.

And the fact that some have taken up high elf armies now.... well do you really believe it is because they have gotten more powerfull? or the fact they are the new army? I hold on the later case... and so should you.


And to the bretonian player who would like infantry. You got infantry. Plenty of it. And even excellent infantry, seeing how high you value the elven infantry. You got peasents and other fun stuff. Which is about as powerfull as the elven infantry is compared to the elven knights!

R Man
20-12-2007, 23:35
And to the bretonian player who would like infantry. You got infantry. Plenty of it. And even excellent infantry, seeing how high you value the elven infantry. You got peasents and other fun stuff.

Try playing with them. We only have 4 infantry units to six cavalry units, one of which is a warmachine. They get shot to pieces by anything, overrun by any heavy cavalry, scared of anything with psychology, beaten by other infantry. To make them better with characters is awkward because we need the Virture of Empathy to put them on foot and it takes characters away from the knight units.


Which is about as powerfull as the elven infantry is compared to the elven knights!

What??? HE infantry is very powerful and strong, even in comparison to elven cavalry. Bret infantry is very weak compared to knights. Now back on topic before this goes too far.


The part about the elite elven close combat archers kinda made me laugh. They dont have shields you know? And yes they can survive a combat if you roll god-like and your opponent gets all 3's and below. Which is the same for goblin archers (or halflings for that matter) T3 no save is just not going to cut it on avarage. Yes first strike makes you ABLE to get some really lucky rolls and not lose a combat. But it is not going to happen on avarage.

Archers are not good in combat, but they are certainly not a waste. They can still shoot and kill. They aren't great at it but they can be vastly improved with the curse of arrow attraction. Not to mention that to get the VP's for them the enemy has to kill them or chase them off the table. If they don't then it's no VP's. And they can hold table quarters, or try putting them behind a wall or in a building.

winkypinky
20-12-2007, 23:49
- Try playing with them.
- shot to pieces by anything,
- overrun by any heavy cavalry,
- scared of anything with psychology,
- beaten by other infantry.
.....with characters is awkward because we need the Virture of Empathy to put them on foot and it takes characters away from the knight units.

infantry is very weak compared to knights. Now back on topic before this goes too far.

try putting them behind a wall or in a building

Well so for the only good use of elven archers anyone have proclaimed have been hiding them in biuldings (3 guys have said this) which surely shows their awesome power.

You do know that you have a general with a leadership good enough to cancel most psych tests and put their LD up to elven standards.

You CAN put characters on foot, why are you complaining that they cant be with your knights then? I agree that it would be awesome if you could get characters in every unit...

You do have infantry it is dirt cheap. You say it gets run over by knights? That is also true for the elven infantry which costs 3 times as much. Shot to pieces you say? Well try paying 15 points minimum for your peasents, then you would complain even more that they get shot. Or not field them at all. (like HE players with cavalry armies)

Infantry is very weak compared to knights... I see... My point was? Something along those lines...

The only point you got was that your infantry gets beaten by other infantry. And you pay what? is it 4, 5 or 6 points per peasent? And you want them to beat chosen warriors of Khorne?

Heretic Burner
21-12-2007, 00:03
Well so for the only good use of elven archers anyone have proclaimed have been hiding them in biuldings (3 guys have said this) which surely shows their awesome power.

You have no idea how to use archers? Seriously?

Then allow me to help.

HE archers are outstanding units. Look to their advantages. The one that should immediately pop up is their enormous range. They hit from a distance and have very good BS. Downside? A rather average S3 score.

So what do you aim them at? It should be obvious. Fast cavalry is a good option with them being able to keep a distance greater than most missile troops. Of course like most missile troops they are still outstanding at knocking a model off here or there to reduce rank bonuses. Ideal for taking out lone characters or oddball units like Skaven weapons teams. Really there are countless targets they're effective at.

But, as those old commercials go, wait there's more! They also happen to be move-AND-fire. HE archers have swords. They have very good movement. They are fielded in units above five. What does this mean? Flankers of course. HE tend to have decent leadership so even in the unlikely event their powerful infantry ties or loses combat they'll likely stick around. Guess what, with a fantastic charge range HE archers are ideal for mop-up. I've done this countless times with handgunners, no doubt you'll find your HE archers even more effective.

But wait, there's more! As has been mentioned they are ideal for claming quarters. Particularly with their huge range and being move-AND-fire. Warhammer is a game of victory points not kills.

They aren't there to kill an equal number of points worth of troops. That is an absolutely dreadful way of using them. They are there to help your other units earn more. Knocking of a rank here and there. Eliminating pesky march blockers. Heck, using their very quick movement to interrupt charging lanes themselves! All around a very good, dependable unit.

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 00:15
You have no idea how to use archers? Seriously?


I do know how to field archers.

I do know that they will never get their points back in a game and that is not what they are there for.

I do know they can claim table quarters. (but seriously... which ranked unit cant?)

I do know they can take of a rank, they can kill light things, excellent at shooting fanatics, really great BS. And so forth.

.......... and that just (in my head) lead to the sentence.... : And then?

But i am sure that i would like to field my 110 point archer unit as flankers, march blockers and whatever :rolleyes:

You really didnt get my point on the comment on archers did you? The point was that they really are crap for their point cost, underpowered, weak and expensive.

I didnt say that they cant fill out a niche role in a army. (and that niche were archers fits there just always seems to be something better)

And.. HUGE! range?!? comeon....

Dragon Prince of Caledor
21-12-2007, 00:22
I like the new book. All the themed lists are far more fun to play with. In 2000pts take 20 archers and those are your two core units. then take a lord mounted on something mean and take ur six cavalry units. In my opinion that would be no fun to play with... That is why i hate brettonia. Not dynamic enough.

Dragon Prince of Caledor
21-12-2007, 00:25
I have never thought of archers like that before...hmm good thoughts...:)

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 00:29
In my opinion that would be no fun to play with...

Excuse me.. But the topic is the powerlevel of the army, not the "fun" of the army.
I really have not seen anyone saying that the new book is more powerfull. The only one who commented on the powerlevel of the elves said as I that they have gotten weaker.

And that is really what this thread is about, not if or if not it is fun to play with cavalry or not. The question is:

Since the cavalry HE lists have been utterly butchered beyound any redemption, have the infantry got enough buffs to make it into a winning tournament army?

R Man
21-12-2007, 01:09
Well so for the only good use of elven archers anyone have proclaimed have been hiding them in biuldings (3 guys have said this) which surely shows their awesome power.

A units power does not come from it's stats or costs alone. The units use and how it works with other factors in the army that determine how powerful the unit is. This is true of all units but especially fast cavalry and archers.


You do know that you have a general with a leadership good enough to cancel most psych tests and put their LD up to elven standards.

Yes peasants can use a knights leadership, but not when he's on the other side of the board. And we have nothing that gives psych test imunity to units. The Grail Vow is the only thing that comes close but it only effects the model that has it.


You CAN put characters on foot, why are you complaining that they cant be with your knights then? I agree that it would be awesome if you could get characters in every unit...

Yes, but it costs points to do it. The Virtue of Empathy which counts towards our magic limit and our virtue limit. And it ramps up in price. Knights also desperately need characters when fighting units that can ignore combat resolution.


You do have infantry it is dirt cheap. You say it gets run over by knights? That is also true for the elven infantry which costs 3 times as much. Shot to pieces you say? Well try paying 15 points minimum for your peasents, then you would complain even more that they get shot. Or not field them at all. (like HE players with cavalry armies)

Spear elves are less than twice the cost of peasants and far more survivable in combat. Elven infantry is faster, and capable of keeping up with cavalry. Swordmasters can reliably beat most knights, even Bretonnian knights will struggle unless in numbers. And I hardly think an apropriate solution is to 'cheese' out my army with knights.


The only point you got was that your infantry gets beaten by other infantry. And you pay what? is it 4, 5 or 6 points per peasent? And you want them to beat chosen warriors of Khorne?

I suppose you expect HE archers to have to have St 7 shots to be worth it too? I'm not argueing that M@A should be uber infantry units. Once again you are ignoring the internal dynamic of the army.

Now this thread is supposed to be about High Elves not Bretonnians! If you want to argue about Bretonnians then dig up the other thread and post there. Lets get this back on topic before this goes too far.


Since the cavalry HE lists have been utterly butchered beyound any redemption, have the infantry got enough buffs to make it into a winning tournament army?

Here's an idea: Use both together! Revolutionary isn't it? Try using a mix of infantry and cavalry together.

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 01:27
Here's an idea: Use both together! Revolutionary isn't it? Try using a mix of infantry and cavalry together.

Have you ever played in a real tournament (not a friendly one) and ever i really mean ever seen a balanced list in the top 10? No.

It just is not going to happen. Before HE could fare decently at tournaments with a cavalry list.

Andnow they can..... what?
Oh they can play a balanced list... which has from the dawn of time sucked at any form of competitive play.

- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.
And not just say: It is fluffy..... Or it is not fluffy... Bunnies and hamsters are "fluffy" tournament play is not.

And you seriously think that in 4 editions of warhammer play i have not tried most compinations of units more than once? I do play casual as well, this thread and discussion was for tournament play. (yes that means powergaming in its most cruel and "unfluffy" form)

Voodoo Boyz
21-12-2007, 01:28
The build I listed was 4 cavalry, 2 chariots (And up to 6!), 2 archers, 4 eagles + characters- that's 13 deployments, not too shabby I think ;)

If Silver Helms were core I could get say, 2 Silver Helms, 4 Dragon Princes, 2 Chariots, Eagles, and characters and have a heck of a nicer army that I'd want to actually play with, vs. what they have now.

The reason people say to take 2x10 Archers is because the Core is so terrible. I love how spearmen aren't even considered all that much.


I also like that you didn't like that I suggested you might be a powergamer, yet readily complain about being forced to take "terrible" infantry units, which is the classic powergamer response :D

Just because I don't like the core units, or that I wanted an All Cav force does not mean I'm a power gamer.

I like Infantry units, certain kinds. Look at my Dwarf thread and my Dwarf lists when I post them. I love my Infantry blocks, including Dwarf Warriors. What I don't like is that I wanted a Cav army and I'm being forced to take units that are terrible in the context of the army I want to make. 2x10 Archers are a bad unit in a Cav army. They do little to nothing most of the time and I'd rather be able to spend those points on something I'd find useful in my list, like Silver Helms.

It's not a matter of "terrible infantry units", the HE have some of the best infantry in the game now, it's a matter that being able to take Silver Helms in Core would have let me make the army I wanted to with them and now that I can't I've decided not to play the army.

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 01:30
Double post

fubukii
21-12-2007, 02:27
Prince @ 610 Pts - stardragon, starlance, Armor of caledor, guardian phoenix
Mage @ 140 Pts - 2 scrolls
10 Archers @ 110 Pts
10 Archers @ 110 Pts
6 Dragon Princes of Caledor @ 215 Pts - standard, Banner of Ellyrion
6 Dragon Princes of Caledor @ 180 Pts
6 Dragon Princes of Caledor @ 180 Pts
5 Dragon Princes of Caledor @ 150 Pts
5 Dragon Princes of Caledor @ 150 Pts
3 Great Eagles @ 150 Pts ( can drop one for extra items like skiensilver)

Total Roster Cost: 1995

Seems effective enough to me

javaguru
21-12-2007, 02:30
Have you ever played in a real tournament (not a friendly one) and ever i really mean ever seen a balanced list in the top 10? No.

It just is not going to happen. Before HE could fare decently at tournaments with a cavalry list.

Andnow they can..... what?
Oh they can play a balanced list... which has from the dawn of time sucked at any form of competitive play.

- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.
And not just say: It is fluffy..... Or it is not fluffy... Bunnies and hamsters are "fluffy" tournament play is not.

And you seriously think that in 4 editions of warhammer play i have not tried most compinations of units more than once? I do play casual as well, this thread and discussion was for tournament play. (yes that means powergaming in its most cruel and "unfluffy" form)

Making people take core infantry seems to be a trend with GW. The new VC, according to those seeing the army book, is going to require infantry as core. An all cavalry VC list is very effective and "fluffy" for blood dragons and will no longer be possible. The game evolves, the fact you can take two small archer units that can perform a support role for an otherwise all cavalry force is a lot better than being forced to take zombies/skellies/ghouls that can only hold quarters and be defeated by many flyer/warmachine hunter units.

Heretic Burner
21-12-2007, 03:16
I do know how to field archers.

However you complained about people only mentioning them being effective to hold buildings. It's either you know them or don't. Which is it? Clearly if you did know their effectiveness you'd know that they're more valuable than just holding buildings (which they do very well).



I do know that they will never get their points back in a game and that is not what they are there for.

Well actually they may very well get their points back against many opposing units before factoring in their additional value. Its simply not something to count on, nor is it even necessary, however its more than possible especially against armies such as DE.



I do know they can claim table quarters. (but seriously... which ranked unit cant?)

Many can't be counted to do it as well. From frenzied units to those prone to animosity, randomly moving units, etc, etc, etc. In this case you have infantry with fantastic range that can move-AND-shoot - they're practically the ideal unit to claim quarters.



I do know they can take of a rank, they can kill light things, excellent at shooting fanatics, really great BS. And so forth.

Yes, many, many methods of taking advantage of their excellent abilities. The enormous flexibility you've just listed is an advantage in itself!



.......... and that just (in my head) lead to the sentence.... : And then?

And then what? Fight off bloodthirsters without losing a model? Knock steam tanks across the table? Send Archaon packing? How much exactly do you want from these already proven units?



But i am sure that i would like to field my 110 point archer unit as flankers, march blockers and whatever :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't you? They are excellent in all those roles in the right circumstances. Perhaps thats why you don't value the archers as much as you should.



You really didnt get my point on the comment on archers did you? The point was that they really are crap for their point cost, underpowered, weak and expensive.

The point was you don't believe they are worth their points. However, you have listed several flexible uses for them that will make up multiple times their points alone. That despite the fact you refuse to use them as flankers or to block marches as necessary.



I didnt say that they cant fill out a niche role in a army. (and that niche were archers fits there just always seems to be something better)

These is nothing in the HE book that comes remotely close to occupying the same role as HE archers. Other units lack range, are vastly more expensive, or have other limiting drawback to perform the above listed functions. Evidently you don't believe removing ranks, eliminating fast cavalry, taking quarters is an effective way of spending a paltry 110 points. I'm not sure how to convince you otherwise except to note that if you do indeed perform these functions you'll more than see a difference when you tally up victory points.



And.. HUGE! range?!? comeon....

HE archers have a greater range than virtually every other missile troop in the game. Yes, huge range.

javaguru
21-12-2007, 04:16
I agree, claiming a table quarter almost earns their points back. I'm still amazed that people value units solely on the VP's they "kill." Maybe the problem is not understanding the force multiplier concept.

R Man
21-12-2007, 04:33
Have you ever played in a real tournament (not a friendly one) and ever i really mean ever seen a balanced list in the top 10? No.

It just is not going to happen. Before HE could fare decently at tournaments with a cavalry list.

Andnow they can..... what?
Oh they can play a balanced list... which has from the dawn of time sucked at any form of competitive play.

- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.
And not just say: It is fluffy..... Or it is not fluffy... Bunnies and hamsters are "fluffy" tournament play is not.

And you seriously think that in 4 editions of warhammer play i have not tried most compinations of units more than once? I do play casual as well, this thread and discussion was for tournament play. (yes that means powergaming in its most cruel and "unfluffy" form)

Yes, yes I have. The concept is called synergy and it is responsible for the power of Harlequins and falcon's in 40k. This is also how archers can be useful. They don't do much damage themselves but their infuence allows other units to perform better. Also this new list for HE is different to what came before it and it hasn't been out long. Making any estimation of what will work for this particular list in tournements is presumptous.

What you also haven't considered is that Archers are the cheapest unit in the army and can be used as bait without much risk. They are also 'safe' points in that if your opponent shoots them or sends cavalry after them this is drawing danger and troops away from your other soldiers while still only taking up a core slot.

Flypaper
21-12-2007, 07:03
Here's an idea: Use both together! Revolutionary isn't it? Try using a mix of infantry and cavalry together.Doesn't really work with Elves, though. You end up with unsupported units, and they're too expensive to abandon in a corner like a goblin bolt-thrower. The best you can pull off is a static army with 'counter-attack' elements... Unfortunately, those die outright to anything that can outshoot them.

You could maybe throw some of the more offensively-oriented infantry into a cavalry army - White Lions advancing through cover, for instance - but they aren't core. :cool:
The concept is called synergy and it is responsible for the power of Harlequins and falcon's in 40K. Now, I'm not a 40K player, and all I know comes from forum complainants, but I was under the distinct impression that what was "responsible" for the power of Falcons and Harlequins was that the former are essentially unkillable, and that the latter are horribly overpowered. Regardless, I'm sure an invulnerable transport would have incriedible synergy with HE infantry - but last I checked Tiranoc Chariots don't make Spearelves move any faster.
- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.Tell me about it. I've been linking Who's the beatdown? (http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/3692.html) on here for years. Stay diplomatic about it, though, or you're liable to get lynched. :)

junx13
21-12-2007, 07:10
Have you ever played in a real tournament (not a friendly one) and ever i really mean ever seen a balanced list in the top 10? No.

It just is not going to happen. Before HE could fare decently at tournaments with a cavalry list.

Andnow they can..... what?
Oh they can play a balanced list... which has from the dawn of time sucked at any form of competitive play.

- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.
And not just say: It is fluffy..... Or it is not fluffy... Bunnies and hamsters are "fluffy" tournament play is not.

And you seriously think that in 4 editions of warhammer play i have not tried most compinations of units more than once? I do play casual as well, this thread and discussion was for tournament play. (yes that means powergaming in its most cruel and "unfluffy" form)

While I have never played any tournaments before, I do think that whether or not a competitive tournament army can be built out of the new High Elf army list remains to be seen.

I believe your original gripe was that you can no longer play a viable cavalry list for tournaments, cos now the infantry have been vamped up to a point that they cannot be ignored.

Now, if as was mentioned, you wanted to play a themed list that involved all cavalry, I do agree that that would be difficult. However, I think it has never been the theme of High Elf armies to have pure cavalry army until the previous edition.

I think it would be an impossible to task to want to take the same armies to tournaments when the army book changes, since like in your example, with every Magic the gathering release, the gamers learn to adopt the new rules into their tournament strategies and adapt accordingly.

I guess the same could be said for High elf armies in tournaments.

Other than that, as a casual gamer, the new list has helped in general to restore the viability of the High Elves in most gaming circles.

I now see that most High Elves can hold their own in battle, and I don't wince at killing his 15 point Phoenix guards not doing squat even when I have a bad day at dice rolling.

Individually, they are still as killable as before, but the ASF rules now actually make them slightly more survivable than before.

That said, I think we have to concentrate on what exactly are we talking about when we say nerfed.

Have the high elves been nerfed in tournaments? I think the jury is still out on that one.

Have they been nerfed in normal play ?

I personally don't think so, cos the new list allows for more playability in terms of builds and most guys in my group have "balanced lists" anyway and therefore the new list actually helps cos it makes infantry trendy again, as opposed to the dark elven list, with which I constantly lose even though I win most of the time with my other armies (woody, TK ).

Prince Facestab
21-12-2007, 07:58
I'm a little bit worried that they're a little too strong in casual game circles, but a little too weak to do well in tournaments. As in, they'll fall easily to most currently existing tournament power builds, but people without powerbuilds will be at a fair disadvantage. Tier 1.9, or Tier "Double Secret 2", or something like that.

Alas, my High Elves will be thousands of miles away from me for the next 6 months, so I'll cheerfully admit that this doesn't go beyond theoryhammer and intuition.

Red_Duke
21-12-2007, 08:46
As i sit here, im amazed people are crying over the new HE book.

That it's given Infantry a chance to shine makes it worthy for that alone - complaining that you have to take 2 units of either archers or spearmen seems somewhat obtuse as well. Spearmen are pretty good now, given that they can pump out 15 attacks when charged before the opponent even gets to land a single blow, making them superb against many other infantry units, and with the number of attacks they have, even potentially reasonable against cavalry.

Complaining about having 2 S5 attacks that always go first is just crazy too - these guys can chop up heavy cav for crying out loud!

And talking of Cav, Dragon Princes could now be considered some of the finest heavy cav in the game.

More importantly, there does'nt appear (yet at least) to be a single 'superbuild' (unlike many armies), so we might even see a bit of variety in the armylists. How can this be a bad thing?

Settler
21-12-2007, 09:12
All I can say is I'm most pleased that all avalry was made special, if it's stopped the dull one dimensional all-cavalry lists from persisting. High Elves were a poor army with one decent build before, now they're a great army with many great builds. Sorry if you hate using infantry, you can always go play Empire, I hear two Steam Tanks, a War Altar and a couple of units of Knights is great for the powergamers.


I second that emotion ;)

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 11:36
These is nothing in the HE book that comes remotely close to occupying the same role as HE archers.


Have you ever heard of the bow upgrade to ellyrian reavers? No, you say?

Well then i can understand your glorification of the elven archers.

Even 2 chariots can fill the same niche as the HE archers inthe moving and shooting department.

M9 > M5

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 11:42
That it's given Infantry a chance to shine....

Complaining about having 2 S5 attacks.....



You dont see chaos warriors with halberds running rampage across the top 10 tables do you?
There is a reason for that. It is infantry without a handgun.

And most infantry which has a chance of getting the player to the top 10 is either armed with a Handgun or Crossbow. (or blow pibes)

Or has a ability to not die, like the Harlequins in a god-mode falcon.. Which someone claimed was the pinnacle of synergy and not just good because it cant die.

Settler
21-12-2007, 11:56
Winkypinky I always respect uncommon and contrary points of view. In fact it is necessary for a healthy developing and well-rounded society. Regardless of how negative some of the details may seem, take a step back and notice that the vast majority of gamers are happy, even excited about the new HE book. There must be good reasons for this unless we all fell to some subliminal GW trick. The new HE book has invigorated the Warhammer community, the evidence of which is this very thread. As for me, it has breathed new life into the game. Rejoyce brother.

EvC
21-12-2007, 12:01
If Chaos Warriors had ASF all the time, then you'd see them a lot more. Remember, it is the age of cavalryhammer, where cavalry rolls over infantry nearly every time (Except against Dwarfs). If those Chaos Warriors got to strike first every time, and only costed 15 points for their 2S5 ASF attacks, thereby annihilating half the cavalry models attacking them, then yes, I'm sure you would see them more often :)

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 12:24
it is the age of cavalryhammer

QFT

...... and were did the HE cavalry go?

the12thronin
21-12-2007, 12:29
HE archers have a greater range than virtually every other missile troop in the game. Yes, huge range.

Er, no. Every army out there either has or can get 30" range shooting (if they want to use the rare slot). HE's are a push to a solid loss against everyone who has a crossbow and are a slight win to slight loss against most anything with a longbow. Moving and shooting only makes it worse for the High Elves.

Kahadras
21-12-2007, 12:33
I find it hard to believe that people are serious when they post threads like this. OK you can no longer play a 'pure' mounted army. On the upside most of the army gains ASF and most individual choices recieve a buff or two. Suddenly though HE are nerfed beyond all hopes of redemption because GW decided to remove the option for them to field their 'old' tourney build.

Kahadras

EvC
21-12-2007, 12:37
QFT

...... and were did the HE cavalry go?

Perhaps now it is the age of wah-hammer.

wildkarrde0
21-12-2007, 12:38
yep this one of those conversations that could be argued over forever the new book has given the high elves a load of different options to take an the ne asf rule has just given the high elf infrantry something to sout about because now mean that you average elf should be able to squish a goobo without been knocked over by feather duster

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 12:48
.....gains ASF.......


I cant imagine any serious tournament player who will feel threathened at an enemy with first strike.
Even if the whole army has first strike.

Lizards tournie builds will still just run around and blow them with blowpibes and make devastating charges with big things that really could not care less about elves with first strike.

Chaos tournie builds will MAYBE find it a bit harder against something that can hit before them. But then again, they use (core) chariots.

Empire armies will just giggle at the silly elfs and either shoot them dead more easily, thanks to players fielding infantry. Or drive their steam tanks over the elves like they have always done and will continue to do untill the tank is gone forever (which it proberly wont)

DE tournie builds will still just ride around and shoot with their crossbows, and have a much easier day since they wont face as much cavalry anymore.

Dwarfes will still hold their gunline, and couldnt care less about the first strike, it really takes a optimistic commander (and a fool) to think that his dwarfs will ever get the first blow.

Ogre kingdoms will still be at the botton so they proberly wont care.

Chaos dwarfes will shoot them. (and again much easier than before)

Brettonian will rejoyce because they no longer are threathened by the HE superior movement. (and if you charge a single lance against anything in a block in the front you wont make top 10 anyway)

Wood elves will smile, one less army that can catch them while they dance around.

......... I really dont see were ASF improves the matchup in anyway.

And yes swordmasters has become "nicer" and White lions are "nice" now. But they are infantry and suffer the same problems that infantry has suffered from since 6th edition and in 7th. They dont have handguns.

Kahadras
21-12-2007, 13:00
And yes swordmasters has become "nicer" and White lions are "nice" now. But they are infantry and suffer the same problems that infantry has suffered from since 6th edition and in 7th. They dont have handguns.

Look at it this way. In 2000 you need to invest in 2 small archer units then can go and buy as many Silver helms as you like.

Kahadras

winkypinky
21-12-2007, 13:05
...go and buy as many Silver helms as you like.



You can field 6 units.
That is not as many "as you like"

And if you fielt the 6 units of silverhelms, which would be foolish since they are in the same category as DP's

You will have ZERO support, no chariots, no light cavalry with bows and no shadow warriors.

Which was the units that would win you the game. Silverhelms didnt win before, the chariots and reavers did. The silverhelms were the "core" that needed backup.

Now you can either have the core or the backup.

Which you should be able to see isnt powerfull at all in any way.

EvC
21-12-2007, 13:37
Once again, you can put 4 characters on chariots (a great choice too since they become US5) on top of your six cavalry choices...

Disciple of Caliban
21-12-2007, 14:28
If Silver Helms were core I could get say, 2 Silver Helms, 4 Dragon Princes, 2 Chariots, Eagles, and characters and have a heck of a nicer army that I'd want to actually play with, vs. what they have now.

The reason people say to take 2x10 Archers is because the Core is so terrible. I love how spearmen aren't even considered all that much.



Just because I don't like the core units, or that I wanted an All Cav force does not mean I'm a power gamer.

I like Infantry units, certain kinds. Look at my Dwarf thread and my Dwarf lists when I post them. I love my Infantry blocks, including Dwarf Warriors. What I don't like is that I wanted a Cav army and I'm being forced to take units that are terrible in the context of the army I want to make. 2x10 Archers are a bad unit in a Cav army. They do little to nothing most of the time and I'd rather be able to spend those points on something I'd find useful in my list, like Silver Helms.

It's not a matter of "terrible infantry units", the HE have some of the best infantry in the game now, it's a matter that being able to take Silver Helms in Core would have let me make the army I wanted to with them and now that I can't I've decided not to play the army.

Ok, so dont play them, problem solved?

This thread has ran on for a while and hasnt actually achieved anything, in essence because there is nothing to argue about.

If someone is looking to use High elves as a tourny army there are plenty of options available and i'll quite happily wager that HEs will place well in next years tournaments.

Fair enough, they can no longer do all cavalry, a shame yes, but if you want all cavalry their are other options available to you aside from HE(brets being the obvious choice, but if you feel the need to use Elves both WE and DE can make an all cav army (I actually run an all 'cav' wood elf army with reasonable success))

So there we go, everyone can stop arguing, because no one is disagreeing, high elves can still field a lot of cavalry even if they have to include 2 core units, high elves are still competitive at a tourny level (Ok, i obviously cant prove this, but no one can disprove it either so lets wait till next years tournaments before arguing over it), there are plenty of all cav armies if thats what a player wants to field.

I rest my case (hopefully)

Fhoen
21-12-2007, 14:34
not to mention goblin wolf /spider cav wich is cheap as chips and those pesky spiders have poisoned attacks :P

+ it's a real cool theme

theunwantedbeing
21-12-2007, 14:45
In 6th edition all cavalry was the only viable choice if you didnt want to get massacred.
And by this I mean, if you took anything on foot, you'de immedaitly lose by a massacre regardless of how well you rolled.

Now, your forced to take infantry, which means your never going to win.

Heck, last game I faced a HE player with my DE.
My book is worthless and he gets all those uber rules and yet he still failed to beat me, miserably infact I got a solid victory.
All because his army wasnt entirely composed of cavalry.

Kahadras
21-12-2007, 17:47
Which you should be able to see isnt powerfull at all in any way.

Which is probably exactly what GW wanted. Putting Silver helms into core would just result in the same type of lists that the old book had just with better rules.

So yes you can take plenty of Silver helms if you want to but it limits what else you can take (whoa there's a foreign concept). If you want a cavalry 'theme' to the army then you can take characters on chariots (as EvC kindly pointed out), a couple of archer units and spend the rest of the points on Princes, Chariots, Helms and Reavers. Unfortunatly most people want to have their cake and eat it too.

While I sympathise for people who might want to field an all cavalry army for the cool factor but I don't agree with the whole 'armies book nerf' theory which just seems to be a complaint that the 'old' competitive build can't be used anymore.

Kahadras

jasonbeauchene
21-12-2007, 19:39
As far as I can tell the biggest complaint is partially that SH in Special makes it harder for the "traditional" support roles for all cavalry. I think this is a true claim. You can not field as many chariots, eagles, reavers, sws as you could before. There is no arguing this claim-I am not conceding that it means the army is not viable, just that this claim is true.

The second complaint I am hearing is: to field 1780 points of cavalry you have to take 2 slots of archers. This is also, for the most part true, you could take spearmen or the 12 point hybrid sea guys, but alas we focus on the archers, and I think that is because people are saying of the core choices they are the most viable. This claim is also true-I am still not conceding that this sends the army to the trash.

The complaints really boil down to: "What I was running, and used to, is now no longer available." This is true, the codex has changed the way the army is to be played. Warhammer is not a static game, it evolves. Some of the evolution will make the game better and will stay, other parts will make the game worse, and by evolution will disappear.

I will not say if a HE army is viable or not on the tournament scene. I think it is to early to decide how the metagame will show up. However, in my experience, I have seen very decent players fielding powered up armies (one with a steam tank heavy empire build, and another a strong lizard army) in my local tournaments lose solidly to new elf builds. Could be that they were not to familiar with the new builds or what not, but that is why the metagame is flux and will settle eventually. I can say that both the HE armies were fielded by two different people, and had two very different builds.

That last point above is what feeds my reaction to the book, it has made HE a more flexible resilient force with options, rather than a one-dimensional force like it was in the past.

My biggest complaint to the new codex has to do with the move of the SH to the special category, not because they were moved, but because of their relative point to usefulness value vs. the other big cavalry unit in that section. For 22 points you can get the 2+ Silver Helm or for 30 points you can get the 2+ Dragon Prince with 2 Attacks, and better LD. They should have changed the point cost of the Silver helms to be in line with the power of the other units, because right now they are not an efficient use of the finite resource that is your point total. Think about it, the SH captain upgrade is 10 points which means for 32 points you can get a low LD Dragon Prince. . .

Heretic Burner
21-12-2007, 22:19
Er, no. Every army out there either has or can get 30" range shooting (if they want to use the rare slot). HE's are a push to a solid loss against everyone who has a crossbow and are a slight win to slight loss against most anything with a longbow. Moving and shooting only makes it worse for the High Elves.

Makes what worse? Shooting at xbowmen? Why would HE archers trade shots with xbowmen? Why wouldn't they be moving to claim quarters? Why wouldn't they be shooting at fast cavalry? Why wouldn't they be using their superior combat abilities in a flanking role?

Of course HE archers should cause less casualties than a move-OR-fire weapon. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the presence of xbowmen make HE archers somehow not have a large range. They do. The comment still stands, HE archers have a greater range than virtually any other missile troop in the game - all that on a move-and-fire body. Add superior stats almost across the board, and ASF and we find that HE archers are vastly superior in many roles that xbowmen simply can't function. At core.

Aelfric
21-12-2007, 22:34
Hey, I have been reading threads in the warseer forum for quite a while and finally decided to register. The thing is that I am really confused with the new high elves . I used to have a High Elve Army when I was 12 years old but never played. After a while I sold them and now being 22 I fell in love with them again and did spend a whole lot of money for my new staff. But my question is are they even worth it?. Before the new army book came out, everybody complaint about them being to strong. Now exactly the opposite seems to be the case. I must say that this fact really confuses me. I must also admit that I have almost no experience with Warhammer and just bought the army because I love the background and the models but it would be nice winning a game or two after a while as well. So how competetive are they really? Please do not be mad with me that I did not open a new thread for this, its just that I have to write to comments before they let me do this and this question is keeping me away all night. And thanks to all for making this forum so interresting.

R Man
21-12-2007, 22:55
Now, I'm not a 40K player, and all I know comes from forum complainants, but I was under the distinct impression that what was "responsible" for the power of Falcons and Harlequins was that the former are essentially unkillable, and that the latter are horribly overpowered. Regardless, I'm sure an invulnerable transport would have incriedible synergy with HE infantry - but last I checked Tiranoc Chariots don't make Spearelves move any faster.

Actually Harelquins are far from overpowered. They are a glass hammer, deadly in combat but they only have a 5+ save and T3. The falcon covers this crittical weakness which is responsible for their power. I chose this example as it is a clear and obvious one.


Have you ever heard of the bow upgrade to ellyrian reavers? No, you say?

Reavers with bows are very expensive and far frailer than archers. Not to mention that they take up a special choice.


Empire armies will just giggle at the silly elfs and either shoot them dead more easily, thanks to players fielding infantry. Or drive their steam tanks over the elves like they have always done and will continue to do untill the tank is gone forever (which it proberly wont)

No different from fighting cavalry. Only cavalry costs far more than infantry, more than twice an infantryman.


DE tournie builds will still just ride around and shoot with their crossbows, and have a much easier day since they wont face as much cavalry anymore.

Actually HE archers outrange reapers, and can weaken them or force them forward. Fast cav is especially vulnerable to shooting. Curse of arrow attraction makes focus fire very powerful.


Brettonian will rejoyce because they no longer are threathened by the HE superior movement. (and if you charge a single lance against anything in a block in the front you wont make top 10 anyway)

Actually SM and WL as well as PG are danger units with armour busting and show stopping capabilites. HE Infantry are fast and are quite capable of pulling of traps and tricks. Also HE mages have a spell that can make units stubborn. A Lance doesn't look so intimidating if it's about to be flanked by Swordmasters.


Wood elves will smile, one less army that can catch them while they dance around.

Yes for a wood elf shooter army. No for a wood elf combat or forest spirit army. Treemen might still be strong but other units would suffer from their lack of ranks and their vulnerability in combat.


And yes swordmasters has become "nicer" and White lions are "nice" now. But they are infantry and suffer the same problems that infantry has suffered from since 6th edition and in 7th. They dont have handguns.

Infanry doesn't need handguns to be effective. In fact the best infantry is, interestingly enough, Grave Guard.

You've forgotten about the Infantry buffing spells that have come into the lists. A 5+ ward save? Yes please! Stubborness? Awesome! The old favorite Curse of Arrow attraction? Where's your Fast Cav now?

And there is no reason that an army has to be either cavalry or infantry. Try a mix of both so the cavalry can eliminate archers and other damaging but frail units while your infantry pins and holds other infantry (Actual tactics vary depending on opponent).


6th edition all cavalry was the only viable choice if you didnt want to get massacred.
And by this I mean, if you took anything on foot, you'de immedaitly lose by a massacre regardless of how well you rolled.

Now, your forced to take infantry, which means your never going to win.

Heck, last game I faced a HE player with my DE.
My book is worthless and he gets all those uber rules and yet he still failed to beat me, miserably infact I got a solid victory.
All because his army wasnt entirely composed of cavalry.

So you fought one battle and you know all the possible builds and how every HE tactic would fair? Impressive.

Chaplain Mortez
22-12-2007, 00:22
I'm kind of wondering how much I can contribute to this thread, but hopefully I can add something useful with all of this calvary bashing.

I played High Elves as my first army, and my list looked something like this:

4 wizards
21 Spearmen
21 Spearmen
10 Silverhelms
10 Silverhelms
2 Chariots
20 Swordmasters of Hoeth
2 Great Eagles
2 Repeater Bolt Throwers

Now it looks like this:
4 wizards
20 Spearmen
20 Spearmen
2 Chariots
21 Swordmasters
5 Shadow Warriors
1 Great Eagle
2 Repeater Bolt Throwers

See something?
I'm missing calvary and an eagle. But I've been doing better with the new list, losing less and pulling a draw more often. I don't think it is a nerf--the new book is definitely an improvement. But it's not exactly this powergamer heaven, either. I also think there were a lot of great opportunities that GW passed up with this new book.

For one, core choices shot down in price, rare stayed the same, but everything else shot up in cost--from Special to characters. This is a big oversight on a lot of the complaints I see. What really happened in the new book is that units became closer to where they should be in price, instead of everything being over/underpriced. That is why High Elf cavalry was used so much: best bang for your buck.

Moving Silverhelms to special and not doing anything to Dragon Princes besides upgrading them did absolutely no good to the list. I think spearmen are now where they should be. But Silverhelms and Archers, they got lazy. The fact is that, when compared to other armies, both of these suffer as they did previously. Archers are still too expensive for what they do. I know, I know, they have their uses. But I have yet to find a reason for them in my list. Dwarf Handgunners, Wood Elves, Dark Elf crossbowmen...all much better yet cost similar points or less. Strength 3 is not going to cut it. If they had been lowered to 9 points, I think archers would be more viable.

Moving Silverhelms to special was just stupid. It didn't get rid of the all-cavalry army, it got rid of silverhelms altogether. My biggest gripe is that the High Elf nobility can't have a magic banner, but puny militia archers can. I missed something. The only reason to take them is because they are cheaper than dragon princes. But 6 points goes a long way.

By the way, keep reading and just trust me. I think you'll see I have a good point to make.

Probably the biggest folly with the new list was the changing of the core, special, and rare choices. It's just not intuitive with the rest of the game. They did that, yet took away Goblin's extra heroes. Not only that, but this was an opportunity missed. What they should have done is this: let characters take certain units as core as long as they have the upgrades for it.

What I was thinking is that if you take the Swordmaster honor, you get swordmasters as core. Continue down the list for all of the units. You essentially lessen the number of spearmen we have now, and increase the number of swordmasters. Same thing. However, create an honor for Silverhelms. If you take the honor, you get Silverhelms as core. But to have an all-calvary army, you'd have to take three characters with the honor. If it cost 30 to 50 points, you wouldn't have much for magical defence or beefy items to smite your opponent with. Then the army would have the problem of dealing with other characters and magic. A big weakness that could have fixed the all-calvary army.

Overall, calvary got nerfed, I'll agree there. But what I won't agree on is that it was done the right way. Nor do I think that archers got the fix they needed. No, we don't want to be Wood Elves. But do I want a combined arms force? Yes, I do. In my list above, I take RBT's. I don't capture table corners, but I save points over archers--that just doesn't make any sense.

Lord Anathir
22-12-2007, 00:48
Have you ever played in a real tournament (not a friendly one) and ever i really mean ever seen a balanced list in the top 10? No.

It just is not going to happen. Before HE could fare decently at tournaments with a cavalry list.

Andnow they can..... what?
Oh they can play a balanced list... which has from the dawn of time sucked at any form of competitive play.

- Sometimes i just wish people would try and playsome competetive MT:G And just translate 5% of what they should learn about streamlining, goals of your deck (in this case army), how to win and how to prevent opponents from winning into warhammer teori.
And not just say: It is fluffy..... Or it is not fluffy... Bunnies and hamsters are "fluffy" tournament play is not.

And you seriously think that in 4 editions of warhammer play i have not tried most compinations of units more than once? I do play casual as well, this thread and discussion was for tournament play. (yes that means powergaming in its most cruel and "unfluffy" form)

You win. Seriously. Anyone who tries to disagree with that is absolutely fooling themselves.


With the loss of the cavalry, if you want to play for fun, use high elves and all the cool stuff. If you want to win real tournaments, use empire, bretts, lizards, woodies or skaven.

I use this balanced high elf army in tournies and friendlies. Its good, but it wont win my tournies. I know that and am not fooling myself before hand. I do it for the challenge. I've use the dual treeman build once and did very well in the particular tourney but I prefer the helves anyways:

Lvl3, AC,3xScrolls, 3x10 Archers, 2x20 Spears,sb, 2x7 smasters, c, AoL, 2x5 Helms, 2xChariots, 2xRBT, 2x Eagles

-------------
Note that I have the archers there. 30 of them. They are good to a certain extent. They lack in killy power, but make good screens and can use them to eliminate lighter targets and leave my rbt to kill more urgent targets. They should be priced about 9 though, but I dont mind because I need them no matter what to server certain roles in my army. Range is alright, but not great. A lot of armies have access to 30inch range fire.

Helms are still important for running down warmachines and screening eagles so they can charge warmachins. Also good for flanking and taking out mages.

----------------
Winkypinky wins though. He is absolutely 100% right on all counts. Everyone else doesnt know what the ***** they are talking about.

Take your balanced high elves to casual games. Since the cavalry is gone. take Teclis, 4 mages or another army altogether to tournaments. (unless it has comp, which makes it a little more difficult to guess). And teclis and 4 mages or dual dragons isnt very strong compared to some of the stronger armies out there.

Kahadras
22-12-2007, 05:25
Winkypinky wins though. He is absolutely 100% right on all counts. Everyone else doesnt know what the ***** they are talking about.


Lets try not to resort to these kind of statements please.

Basicaly people seem to be trying to argue that the most recent HE book is somehow broken/nerfed because they have to buy 2 small units of archers before they can run off and start filling their special choices with cavalry. Concidering what else the HE got in return I think that's a small price to pay and it's not like small units of archers are such a awful unit.

Kahadras

Flypaper
22-12-2007, 10:04
Basicaly people seem to be trying to argue that the most recent HE book is somehow broken/nerfed because they have to buy 2 small units of archers before they can run off and start filling their special choices with cavalry. Concidering what else the HE got in return I think that's a small price to pay and it's not like small units of archers are such a awful unit.Two small units of archers are inferior to equally priced alternatives in Ye Olde Tournament Cavalry build. Nothing particularly helpful has been added to this archetype, which was unquestionably the best-performing HE army in 6th edition.

There's no real reason to believe that the new book has made available a new, superior archetype - reliant on elite infantry or otherwise. At best, a hypothetical tier one elite-infantry-heavy army would be very quickly and very easily metagamed against.

...Therefore, the HE list at it's most powerful has been made less powerful, although we've yet to establish to what extent. I'm not seeing what is so difficult about this concept.

Now, other things have been added to the list. You could probably even convince me that ASF on Swordmasters was a good idea. Personally, I wish they hadn't thrown a bunch of design principles out the window when writing the list, which is why I'm not a huge fan. However, I can see value to Warhammer as a whole in getting people to play around a bit more with elite infantry; regardless of how stupid the methodology used to arouse this interest may have been.

the12thronin
22-12-2007, 12:06
Makes what worse? Shooting at xbowmen? Why would HE archers trade shots with xbowmen? Why wouldn't they be moving to claim quarters? Why wouldn't they be shooting at fast cavalry? Why wouldn't they be using their superior combat abilities in a flanking role?

Of course HE archers should cause less casualties than a move-OR-fire weapon. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the presence of xbowmen make HE archers somehow not have a large range. They do. The comment still stands, HE archers have a greater range than virtually any other missile troop in the game - all that on a move-and-fire body. Add superior stats almost across the board, and ASF and we find that HE archers are vastly superior in many roles that xbowmen simply can't function. At core.

Maybe that's their only target, maybe they have no fast cav, maybe the guy bet you money you couldn't kill any, I don't know. This is theory but in about every situation this plan would not work. You're seriously going to pay 11 ppm for a flanking unit that can't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag? LSG can fill the role you mention with being able to fight and shoot much better. Spears are a flanker that can actually hurt something and have a chance of living through the return attacks. Yes, please send archers up my flanks so I can continue to destroy the core of your army.

I am not under the mistaken impression that they do not have long range. You are under the mistaken impression a 30" shot somehow makes them invulnerable virtually every other missile troop in the game since everyone has access to a crossbow. Oh, and you lose virtually every time you compare firing a longbow at something versus firing a crossbow at your archers.

Kahadras
22-12-2007, 12:43
There's no real reason to believe that the new book has made available a new, superior archetype - reliant on elite infantry or otherwise.

Has this actualy been confirmed or is this just conjecture?


...Therefore, the HE list at it's most powerful has been made less powerful, although we've yet to establish to what extent. I'm not seeing what is so difficult about this concept.


Sorry it's just the removal of I@C, the addition of ASF, the possibilities that 4 rare slots give and all the other rules tweaks that makes it difficult to grasp why the HE have come out worse off with their new book.

Kahadras

Chicago Slim
22-12-2007, 13:09
Two small units of archers are inferior to equally priced alternatives in Ye Olde Tournament Cavalry build. Nothing particularly helpful has been added to this archetype, which was unquestionably the best-performing HE army in 6th edition.

Under the previous book, most players found that cavalry was the answer to making HE's competitive. Under those rules, HE all-cav was competitive against other races' all-cav builds. Under the new rules, they appear not to be (I'd argue that we haven't had time to see empirical evidence on that point, but I agree that the theory is sound).

But here's what I think is missing from this conversation so far: the fact that HE's previous internal-best build is no longer as good doesn't mean that they won't be tourney-effective. It just means that they now have a different best-build.

Considering that High Elves can now take 6 units, 5+ each, of elite infantry, I predict that we're going to see some enormously powerful HE armies using Multiple Small Unit tactics in the coming tourney season.



There's no real reason to believe that the new book has made available a new, superior archetype - reliant on elite infantry or otherwise. At best, a hypothetical tier one elite-infantry-heavy army would be very quickly and very easily metagamed against.

I agree, my theory is still just a theory (I've built a couple of 5-bolt thrower, 6 small unit armies, but only played two games with them, myself), and yes, they can be metagamed out of existence-- but so can ANY build. Part of the point of a tournament is that you don't know what you'll face, and so you can't count on metagaming your opponents builds.

Locally, the Adepticon tournament curcuit in the past couple of years has seen a lot of MSU, so this year, I'm making sure I have a plan for dealing with MSU, but I'm also aware that building around the expectation that I'll see a particular build is a sucker's game: at some point, the popular build will shift, and on any given day, I'm fairly likely to draw exactly the opposite of what I expected to see.



However, I can see value to Warhammer as a whole in getting people to play around a bit more with elite infantry; regardless of how stupid the methodology used to arouse this interest may have been.

I think that ONE of the things the design team probably does, when rewriting an army book, is to look at what the tourney circuit and community are playing with that army-- when you see that everyone playing greenskins is doing the goblin horde of doom, or that every HE player is bringing all-cav, then that suggests that there's "One Right Way" to build from that book. That sort of one-dimensional play probably offends the design team (and rightly so, I think), so they take steps to specifically remove that build from the next version of the book (in the specific cases I'm citing, by removing extra heroes for all-goblin armies, and by making cavalry special for high elves).

Of course, in the long run, it'll probably just push people to some different, One Right Way to build... but that's in part because they can't possibly play-test every build to the extent that they'll be tested in the wild, and so the design team can't anticipate what the really effective build will end up being...

Chicago Slim
22-12-2007, 13:15
Has {the non-existence of a new archtypical build} actualy been confirmed or is this just conjecture?

I argue that the book hasn't been out long enough to know, yet.




Sorry it's just the removal of I@C, the addition of ASF, the possibilities that 4 rare slots give and all the other rules tweaks that makes it difficult to grasp why the HE have come out worse off with their new book.

Intrigue at Court was a fairly bad idea in the first place-- bad enough to actually convince a number of players to simply not play High Elves.

ASF is, in some ways, game-breaking, but as has already been disucced in these forums, it's not impossible to deal with. I'd argue that ASF is effectively just like all-Fear-causing armies (of which there are two that MUST be all-Fear-causing, and two more that can choose to be): if you're not prepared for it, it'll rock your socks.

The current "4 rare slots" gives the high elf player exactly as many RBTs, and exactly as many Eagles, as he had under the previous book. The only difference is that he can now take 3 of one and 1 of the other (whereas previously, with 2 rare slots and both options being 2-for-1, he had to take either 4 of one, or 2 and 2). Hardly game-breaking.

The REAL big differences in the High Elves, I think, is the enormously expanded access to elites-- all those units that used to be 0-1, now are 0-6 in 2000 points!

Lord Anathir
22-12-2007, 14:04
not really, the real difference is the lack of support core units. sure, we only had 4 special before, but helms were core, so I could run 3 units of helms and then take the heavy stuff and 2for1 chariots in the special. In reality, if compared to the new book, the old book had 0 core requirements (because u could use helms which are now special) and could take 3+ helm units, 6 chariots and a unit of dp. Thats 10 special slots under the current rules.

winkypinky
22-12-2007, 14:04
Winkypinky wins though. He is absolutely 100% right on all counts. Everyone else doesnt know what the ***** they are talking about.



Now the only question that reamains to be answered is how i get that sentence into my sig ;)

winkypinky
22-12-2007, 14:09
...........Concidering what else the HE got in return I think that's a small price to pay and it's not like small units of archers are such a awful unit.

Kahadras

What is it that the HE get that is good for tournaments? I cant see it. You have got a lot of nice things for casual play. (making people not interested in winning able to win)

But nothing, i can see. That is a "tournament upgrade"

Dominatrix
22-12-2007, 14:50
Where I live most competitive HE builds are something along the lines of a Lord with star lance on star dragon, a dragon mage, 2 minimum sized units of archers, lots and lots of dragon princes and RBT/ Eagles in some combination. I don't see how a list like this is not tournament viable as it has more killing power than the old silver helms lists, at least in my opinion. Now all that remains is wait and see how well HE will do in the official tournaments.

Heretic Burner
22-12-2007, 16:32
Maybe that's their only target, maybe they have no fast cav, maybe the guy bet you money you couldn't kill any, I don't know. This is theory but in about every situation this plan would not work. You're seriously going to pay 11 ppm for a flanking unit that can't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag?

No, you're paying 11 ppm for a flanking unit that can remove ranks regardless if it kills a single model (which it most certain can with its decent combat stats) with the additional bonus of, oh, being able to do all those other functions listed before. Would I pay 11 ppm if it only could flank? Unlikely. However since it can perform all those other functions the point is moot.



LSG can fill the role you mention with being able to fight and shoot much better. Spears are a flanker that can actually hurt something and have a chance of living through the return attacks.

While LSG may be able to perform some of the functions better, they also don't sport the same range and there is the whole being more costly problem you'v neglected to mention. Indeed, HE archers aer a fantastic unit to take a rank or two off those very same LSG!


Yes, please send archers up my flanks so I can continue to destroy the core of your army.

I have no idea what this means. Flanking units are obviously very important in this game and by no means will it allow anyone to "destroy the core" of an army.



I am not under the mistaken impression that they do not have long range. You are under the mistaken impression a 30" shot somehow makes them invulnerable virtually every other missile troop in the game since everyone has access to a crossbow. Oh, and you lose virtually every time you compare firing a longbow at something versus firing a crossbow at your archers.

Nobody said 30" range is going to make them invlunerable to all shots, however it most certainly will make them invulnerable to the many 24 or less move-OR-fire units in the game. Obviously its absurd to believe every army sports a xbowman unit, this is clearly not the case as any look at army lists would tell you. And those that do field the rare xbowman unit - guess what - there is an entire army out there to fire at instead! Why would you trade shots with them with the superior operating range of a move-and-fire 30" unit?

Again what you've neglected to point out is those very same xbowmen can't move-and-fire. You've neglected to point out that those very same xbowmen have worse stats almost across the board. You of course seem under the very mistaken impression that the HE player, with a 5" move and 30" range would even consider trading shots with xbowmen rather than perform the function HE archers are meant to perform. I certainly don't throw handgunners into close combat with Swordsmasters!

So yes HE archers trade increased points costs and marginally less power in their shots for vastly increased flexibility, move-AND-fire, better stats almost across the board, superior HtH capabilities, and ASF. If you can't find value in those major advantages then clearly this might not be the unit for you. Most other players will be able to immediately see those advantages and rightfully view HE archers as an outstanding unit in their own right.

Kahadras
22-12-2007, 16:35
The current "4 rare slots" gives the high elf player exactly as many RBTs, and exactly as many Eagles, as he had under the previous book. The only difference is that he can now take 3 of one and 1 of the other (whereas previously, with 2 rare slots and both options being 2-for-1, he had to take either 4 of one, or 2 and 2). Hardly game-breaking.


Maybe not but using mercenaries and DoW could throw up some interesting possibilities.


What is it that the HE get that is good for tournaments? I cant see it. You have got a lot of nice things for casual play. (making people not interested in winning able to win)

But nothing, i can see. That is a "tournament upgrade"

At the end of the day 'tournament upgrade' is just a way of saying 'a way to break the army' and I'm sure HE players are busy looking for 'the next big thing' which will probably include Dragons, Dragon Princes and mercenaries.


I think that ONE of the things the design team probably does, when rewriting an army book, is to look at what the tourney circuit and community are playing with that army-- when you see that everyone playing greenskins is doing the goblin horde of doom, or that every HE player is bringing all-cav, then that suggests that there's "One Right Way" to build from that book. That sort of one-dimensional play probably offends the design team (and rightly so, I think), so they take steps to specifically remove that build from the next version of the book (in the specific cases I'm citing, by removing extra heroes for all-goblin armies, and by making cavalry special for high elves).

Good point. Goblins also got more expencive IIRC. As far as I can see if GW left Silver helms as core they'd have to up the points of the unit and probably wouldn't have introduces the 'one less core than everybody else' rule either. In this case the 'all cav' build is still nerfed (for tourney players) because GW have recognised it as a 'one right way' build.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
22-12-2007, 16:50
I think that ONE of the things the design team probably does, when rewriting an army book, is to look at what the tourney circuit and community are playing with that army-- when you see that everyone playing greenskins is doing the goblin horde of doom, or that every HE player is bringing all-cav, then that suggests that there's "One Right Way" to build from that book. That sort of one-dimensional play probably offends the design team (and rightly so, I think), so they take steps to specifically remove that build from the next version of the book (in the specific cases I'm citing, by removing extra heroes for all-goblin armies, and by making cavalry special for high elves).

However neither HE cavalry armies or the alleged "goblin horde of doom" have ever been top tier lists in tournament play. Have they been effective at one point? Sure. Have they dominated? Not by a long shot.

If GW are indeed moving options players believe are enjoyable simply to remove that dimension from the book then it can't possibly be a good idea. It's failed spectacularly in the Greenskin book and despite HE being by all appearances significantly stronger overall, I wouldn't want players of HE being forced to play an army that they find no enjoyment from.

Those "builds" should be encouraged (rather than being removed) however balanced with alternate "builds" that are equally effective allowing greater choice for all involved.



Of course, in the long run, it'll probably just push people to some different, One Right Way to build... but that's in part because they can't possibly play-test every build to the extent that they'll be tested in the wild, and so the design team can't anticipate what the really effective build will end up being...

However the design team has the very best playtesters possible at their disposal: the player base. While they should certainly anticipate what will or won't work, should they fail they certainly have options to correct those mistakes on an ongoing basis. GW have decided they don't want to do this for Warhammer Fantasy (for whatever reason) despite doing exactly that in other products they produce. It clearly hurts the game in the long run and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

winkypinky
23-12-2007, 00:16
probably include Dragons, Dragon Princes and mercenaries.

Kahadras

I actually ahdnt even thought of mercenaries, because you could only have 2 units instead of 4 eagles. But now its 4....

But I am kinda confused about mercenary and regiments of renown units, from how far back can a mercenary unit or regiment of renown have rules before they are legal? Should they just have been legal under 6th edition at some point? Or is there one book to tule them all?

Halflings really have everything they HE archers lack. They Hit as well, Have as high BS, one of the units skirmish and the other moves through woods. They cost 70% of the HE archer.

And shadow warriors is what HE archers need to be good.


I am actually thinking in spite of all those who have HE archers dear and credit their power. To make a He Skirmish army with the ROR regiment halflings and a DOW regiment halflings, 2x12 seaguards, 4 units shadow warriors. As a base, and you could call it expedition themed...

Flypaper
23-12-2007, 00:23
Has this actualy been confirmed or is this just conjecture?Is this a trick question? :p

Of course it's conjecture. And unanticipated superpowered builds do show up, though they're infrequent. All I'm saying is that all signs point to "no" via basic theoryhammer: it's the units with lesser mobility that have been enhanced, but High Elves are still short on what you need to make low-mobility armies work - overwhelming firepower and resistance to attrition. M5 MSU is the only variant left to play with, but even small HE units are worthwhile targets for enemy shooting and can be rapidly negated.

...That is, HE MSU is too unbalanced an option - it can chop up most beatdown armies with the combination of ASF and basic MSU checkerboard formation (unless they're all-chariot, I guess...), but will die outright against any army with no motivation to cross the board to get to them - i.e. anything shooty or zappy.

Consequently, the only remaining avenue for exploration is looking for synergy between the static and fast elements... And I'm really not seeing any. HE cavalry has traditionaly worked fairly independently, and given their high movement to low toughness ratio it's pretty obvious that they're built to get into combat fast. Slowing them down so they can support elite infantry doesn't help and could very well hurt. Conversely, an infantry-heavy army with a smattering of supportive cavalry becomes a static army that's too expensive to be able to afford the necessary firepower.

yes, they can be metagamed out of existence-- but so can ANY buildWell, what I was hinting was that all-infantry's easier to metagame against than all-cavalry, simply because it's more vulnerable (due both to its lesser armour and its reduced ability to manouvre).
I think that ONE of the things the design team probably does, when rewriting an army book, is to look at what the tourney circuit and community are playing with that army [...] That sort of one-dimensional play probably offends the design team (and rightly so, I think), so they take steps to specifically remove that build from the next version of the bookOh, definitely. I just wish they hadn't mauled the force organisation chart and seriously dilluted the ASF special rule while doing so. :o

If GW are indeed moving options players believe are enjoyable simply to remove that dimension from the book then it can't possibly be a good idea....because Warhammer is an expensive hobby, and because changing an army list involves quite a lot of expense and effort for those of us who don't already have 5K point collections. GW can't afford to be too arbitrary in its balance changes.

(AKA "quoted for truth" ;) )

[Edit: post 666! yeah!]

Chicago Slim
23-12-2007, 03:21
However neither HE cavalry armies or the alleged "goblin horde of doom" have ever been top tier lists in tournament play. Have they been effective at one point? Sure. Have they dominated? Not by a long shot.

I think it'd be a long shot to say that ANY build has "dominated" tournament play, at least in the US. I've just spent 1/2 hour researching US tourneys from the last three years. Here's the breakdown of armies that have scored #1 or within 5 points of the #1 "battle" points, in all of the US Grand Tournaments and "Tournament Curcuit" events for which I could get results:

Vampire Counts x5
Lizardmen x4
Brettonian x3
Wood elf x3
Chaos (no specification listed) x3
Nurgle Daemons x2
Tzeentch Daemons x2
Skaven x2
Tomb Kings x2
Orc and Goblins
Empire
Slaanesh Daemons
Slyvanian
Dwarf
High elf
Khorne Beast


I guess my point here is, in the past three years, there's no one formula for what makes a great tournament army. Hordes of Chaos has an edge, and Ogre Kingdoms suck, but past that, people are clearly making things happen with a wide variety of army books-- which suggests that NOTHING is "dominant" at the highest of tournaments.



If GW are indeed moving options players believe are enjoyable simply to remove that dimension from the book then it can't possibly be a good idea.

This isn't quite what I described as my perception. I would agree with you, that sucking the fun out of the game would be bad of them.


It's failed spectacularly in the Greenskin book and despite HE being by all appearances significantly stronger overall, I wouldn't want players of HE being forced to play an army that they find no enjoyment from.

As both a Greenskin and High Elf player, I fail to see the new Greenskin book as "failing spectacularly". In fact, I'm playing Greenskins a lot more often under the current rules than I did under the most recent book, because I find them a lot more fun to play (then again, I never cared for the Gobbo Horde-- I'm an Orc fan).

And if we've established anything, I think it's that cavalry-heavy HE armies are still available-- they're just a little less min-max optimized than they used to be, and thus less tournament-effective. As a guy who plays both "at home" and "tournament" styles, I have to say that the "enjoyment" of each environment is very different, and comes from entirely different sources. High Elf all-cav is no longer a style I would enjoy in a tournament (actually, it already wasn't, nor was it particularly potent before, at least as far as the list above suggests). But I still will run cav-heavy HE armies at home, and will enjoy it when I do.


Those "builds" should be encouraged (rather than being removed) however balanced with alternate "builds" that are equally effective allowing greater choice for all involved.

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I think that that's EXACTLY what has happened.



... should they fail they certainly have options to correct those mistakes on an ongoing basis. GW have decided they don't want to do this for Warhammer Fantasy... It clearly hurts the game in the long run and doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Eh. Me, I like having a more stable rules-base. I hated the "rules creep" of 5th and 6th eds, where you had to continually buy supplements and keep up your subscription to White Dwarf, lest you missed out on some major change in the core rules...

Chicago Slim
23-12-2007, 03:35
...That is, HE MSU is too unbalanced an option - it can chop up most beatdown armies with the combination of ASF and basic MSU checkerboard formation (unless they're all-chariot, I guess...), but will die outright against any army with no motivation to cross the board to get to them - i.e. anything shooty or zappy.

As noted above, it's still early results, but so far I'm having good results from MSU with heavy shooting (4 RBTs and a Lord on an eagle, with the bolt-thrower bow). That, with 20-30 archers, seems to give shooty/zappy armies a run for the money on shooting and zapping, allowing the MSUs to hide out until late in the game. Admittedly, it's a bit of a blend, since 40% of my points are spent on shooting, but even with 6 specials, I can only spend so many points and still call them "small units"...


...because Warhammer is an expensive hobby, and because changing an army list involves quite a lot of expense and effort for those of us who don't already have 5K point collections. GW can't afford to be too arbitrary in its balance changes.

Right-- sorry. I sometimes forget that other people think of 5000 points as large... (my smallest army, of the four I collect, is 4K). :)

Kahadras
23-12-2007, 06:37
Of course it's conjecture. And unanticipated superpowered builds do show up, though they're infrequent. All I'm saying is that all signs point to "no" via basic theoryhammer: it's the units with lesser mobility that have been enhanced,

I'm looking at Dragon Princes and I think they've been enhanced pretty nicely. I've discussed 'comp' builds with a couple of new HE players and this seemed to be the general responce; Mage heavy (possibly with a dragon), a couple of units of archers, Dragon princes and some kind of exploitation of the 4 rares idea.


Consequently, the only remaining avenue for exploration is looking for synergy between the static and fast elements...

Shooting and cavalry.


...because Warhammer is an expensive hobby, and because changing an army list involves quite a lot of expense and effort for those of us who don't already have 5K point collections. GW can't afford to be too arbitrary in its balance changes.


Not really. All you need to do is add two small archer units and you're good to go. The only people this should potentialy upset is dedicated tourney players who now have to buy quite a few new units but tourney players should already know that GW has a habit of removing the 'best' build from the armies book and should have been prepared for it.

Kahadras

logan054
23-12-2007, 14:57
No you would not. I can promise you that. If you opened your new book and found, chaos hounds, marauder horsemen, knights and chariots in the special or rare section you would cry. And in your brand new deamon book everything with a movement value of more than 4 was restricted to rare. That would not be a nice change that would make chaos the pansies of the world.

And it has nothing to do with thinking outside the box, as many people of pointed at you just field 220 points of archers as your core units problem solved, or is it?

Imagine this as the very first line in the chaos book:

If you decide for a 2000 point game the chaos player may only field 1780 points. (and some scaling system)

That would NOT be nice changes, that would be lame changes, as they are to the elves.

No i would, i love using infantry actually, i actually only usually use one unit of cavalry in my army, i dont think however they would make a 6pt model special ;) When you comsider you have 6 special slots and for me i usually take 10/11 units i think i could survive, hell, i would love all the 0-1 restrictions removed on units like furies, chosenm hell i could take 4 units of dragons if i liked, 6 units of chaos knights and some charaters with hounds, yeah, what a weak army hey!!!

I personally cant see what any HE player has to complain about, as far as i knew you couldnt take 4 great eagles before or 2 RBTs + 2 great eagles. Dragon princes, two attacks, damn man, spank me silly, thats such a nerf! Oh, whats this, SM, s Ws6 S5 attacks each with ASf, my god man! Man, if only chaos warriors had such a nerf ;)

winkypinky
23-12-2007, 19:46
I have made a new Thread in the army list section.

Were in a propose a first draft and thoughts on a balanced High Elf list.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119209

May my silverhelms rest in peace.

- Some of them might ressurrect cut asunder and reglued with some archer legs to make seaguards*

*explained in link ;)

Flypaper
24-12-2007, 00:36
Not really. All you need to do is add two small archer units and you're good to go.At my painting speed, that's about six months. :o