High Elf wishlisting...

[Trains_Get_Robbed]

I don't see how H.E are anymore "killy" than any other race. The max amount of attacks we can obtain in the army is 2 (with S.M or D.Ps), and on average with a 7x3 W.L unit your going to get what 10 Wounds before saves fro example against something that most likley has many more wounds, strength and attacks and will hit back just as hard because all you need is a stiff breeze to hit back and kill a 15 point elf.

We pay through the nose for ASF more than it's worth, and my opponents/fourms/gamers still complain that ASF is "broken" even after they try elves lol. I'll never forget the day my friend Garret wanted to play a game, so I gave him a semi-meta P.G list, and got a noob to run his T.K list that I had just beat into the ground. . . only to be curbstomped into the ground. He hasn't mocked ASF since, hasn't pipped about H.E being "overpowred" -if that isn't hilarious I don't know what is.

I would rather have T4 S4 over W.S 4/5 I5 as I'm not reliant on magic as much. Grant it, I love playing H.E, I chose them because they are heavily invested in the magic phase, but without magic, H.E frankly suck. *Not many armies (T.K maybe Beastmen and L.M) can reliably say that if they have a single poor magic phase they will lose the game. Ogres, WoC, etc. . . there's not a ton finesse involved, if G.W can just turn down the skill meter so my H.E aren't playing on Veteran (a honorable nod goes to T.K and W.E players playing on Insane mode*), by: costing units appropriately, providing ample synergy among units, as well as choices, also providing a menagerie of weaponry for our basic core troop (for example LSG with Halberds at 12 points and +5 ++4 against shooting, could be justified currently), as well making proficient magic items/assortments then I think there would be less whining from both sides.

Edit: This isn't hyperbole, it's exaggeration on some parts (really Hypebole is word of the week), regardless the F's I give are still around zero.

[R Man]

Trains, I think HE are considered 'killy' because they have very accurate, high strength attacks. White Lions may have only 1 attack, but they hit most troops something like 8/9 times, or so. At S6, that's nasty. Also, ASF was created for a purpose, so HE could get their valuable attacks in while being charged. Obviously this is no longer relevant, so the rule should at least be reconsidered. In addition, High Elves are very lopsided. They are very good in close combat, but die to even light missile fire. Swordmasters blend hordes of 'ard orcs and the like, but die like sheep to a bunch hicks with bows. How do you balance that? In addition there are several problems with other factors of the army, such as the structure of the army list.

I guess the point is that ASF is hard to judge in effectiveness. It makes HE very killy, but fails to achieve its purpose. As a result elven armies are very frail and vulnerable. Most people who say to drop it, also want to increase HE resilience, so they are less vulnerable to things like shooting, magic or even bad luck.

[BloodiedSword]

Guarenteed kills are fine, but it doesnt embody being a High Elf. It could be disputed, bur most would agree that for the most part High elves are killy enough, even without rerolls, what doesnt make sense is these elite super warriors who are FEW in numbers, and unnaturally fast to dish out damage and then be slain for their efforts. Other armies are super killy and offset it with toughness, armor or numbers, none of these suit elves(not just high elves) at all, and i feel that my idea is far more elegant than say a ward save as that insinuates a level of toughness/invulnerability to the elves in question, my solution still means that when the elves get hit, they go down. Of course i would put other rules in place too, and i am in the process of writing my own 8th edition list which i will show here, but it does involve some higher WS, fight in initiative, a parry save for spear/shield, SOA only being on certain units.

My project sees the Asur as a fast, mobile army, capable of striking fairly hard at weak places of the enemies lines with an emphasis on self preservation. The bulk of the army will be its citizen levy bolstered by the elite special and hardened further with a powerful rare selection.

Yeah, essentially the problem with any special rule that attempts to make HE elite by increasing offensive abilities runs into the problem that to be balanced, they are necessarily weak in defence - turning every battle into a brutal bloodbath of slaughter, which pretty much goes against all the background of HE wanting to maintain their dwindling numbers.

IMO a purely defensive ability is the way to go.

[The Low King]

Fixed it for you.

Wood Elf Glade Guard excluded of course, but then again Wood elves are more humped in 8th and should have be redone first anyways.
You didn't really just compare elves to skinks and dwarves right?

Other elves arent as killy as high elves therefore are not as expensive. (Also, its Dwarfs not Dwarves.)

Comparing their surviability to dwarfs:

Lets assume a S5 enemy striking at WS5 (so opposing elites)

VS the elves they will hit on 4s, wound on 2s and there will be no armour save.
VS the dwarfs they will hit on 4s, wound on 3s and there will be no armour save.

So, assuming 100 attacks (for statistics sake);

Elves take 100x(1/2)x(5/6)= 42 casualties
Dwarfs take 100x(1/2)x(2/3)= 33 casulaties

So the elves take roughly 25% more casualties, not a massive difference (about 1 casualty in your normal combat)

I don't see how H.E are anymore "killy" than any other race. The max amount of attacks we can obtain in the army is 2 (with S.M or D.Ps), and on average with a 7x3 W.L unit your going to get what 10 Wounds before saves fro example against something that most likley has many more wounds, strength and attacks and will hit back just as hard because all you need is a stiff breeze to hit back and kill a 15 point elf. .

lets see:

White Lions:
14 attacks, hitting on 3s with rerolls, wounding on 2s. approx 12 hits. Thats 10 wounds. -3 to save means anything other than knights or Chaos warriors/ironbreakers with shields will have no save.

Dwarf hammerers (most killy unit in the dwarf army):
14 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s. approx 9 hits. Thats 7.5 wounds. -3 to save.


Putting the stats i just worked out together.

The White Lions take 25% more casualties than the Hammerers but deal 30% more damage.
Both are stubborn (i believe..)
WL have higher Movement, Initiative and both have similar rules.
The WLs also have the advantage of ASF wich means that in small combats (or even protracted combats) the WLs will have a massive advantage (can reduce attacks back).

For example, a horde of each fighting eachother (lets say 30 vs 40 to keep the costs balanced); the WLs will kill just 19 Hammerers before they can strike. In return the hammerers, now with reduced attacks, will kill roughly 9 WLs. Next round there are 8 hammerers left (13 died) and they kill much less. The combat finishes with ~15 WLs left and no hammerers, from equal pointed units.




Also, something to note. The Dwarfs are supposedly dieing out just as much as the elves.

[BloodiedSword]

Also, something to note. The Dwarfs are supposedly dieing out just as much as the elves.

But dwarfs don't whine about it nearly as hard, so no-one notices or really cares

[knightwire]

Step-up is in my view the best rule added to 8th; it allows slower enemies actually able to deal damage; consider 14 swordsmen vs 50 clanrats (in 5x10). on average 18 attacks will hit dealing 12 deaths (if the CR have shields.)

This isn't a general Step-up hate idea. I love Step-up as well, but it's particularly hard on Wood Elves and High Elves because of the high model cost for normal vulneralbility situtation. I usually hate the descent into math hammer, but you're not understanding the suggestion.

4 rounds of combat and dead CR unit... swordsmen take zero casualties as not even supporting attacks could be made; a completly one-sided combat for units of similar points value (210 vs 225); yes the CR will be able to tarpit for those 4 rounds but the combat is so one-sided it just won't matter. With step-up CR will kill 1.6 for every 12 deaths they themselves receive and whilst the combat will generally resolve in favour of the HE swordmasters but they will loose half their unit in the process.

Step-up represents the enemy unit refilling the front rank of models to gain back the models full attacks. Support attacks are a made by a model directly behind those in combat contact. In your hypothetical the CR unit would ALWAYS get attacks back in the form of Supporting attacks. So redo your scenario of SM against this CR horde and now count the single attacks from the second, third and (if they have spears) forth row.

Also I think you need to do this exact same combat with the rules as they exist now. Let's compare the results.

Is it fair that the SMs took damage?... well yes they are at war/battle you've gotta expect casualties; without steadfast the CR woudl have broken the first turn as well. Having HEs a special rule to ignore step-up and/or supporting attacks will rediculously one-side every HE combat resolution a couple of powerful units could attack decimate pretty much anything and charge the next unit without casualties.

That would be rediculous, but it doesn't have anything to do with what was proposed.

Quick reform on being charged however is very High Elf, advanced training and experiance will mean they'll never get flanked at least not initially; a reroll on to-hit rolls should only be included on the elite units however; a high elves initiative means they are generally strikeing first anyways.

Yes, this is also very High Elf.

[Petey]

Other elves arent as killy as high elves therefore are not as expensive. (Also, its Dwarfs not Dwarves.)

No, both Dwarfs and Dwarves are correct, just as armour and armor are both correct. One spelling comes from British English the other from American English. The rule for usage in this case is consistency, if one uses the British spelling they must use it throughout the document, and vice verse.

Comparing their surviability to dwarfs:

Lets assume a S5 enemy striking at WS5 (so opposing elites)

VS the elves they will hit on 4s, wound on 2s and there will be no armour save.
VS the dwarfs they will hit on 4s, wound on 3s and there will be no armour save.

So, assuming 100 attacks (for statistics sake);

Elves take 100x(1/2)x(5/6)= 42 casualties
Dwarfs take 100x(1/2)x(2/3)= 33 casulaties

So the elves take roughly 25% more casualties, not a massive difference (about 1 casualty in your normal combat)




lets see:

White Lions:
14 attacks, hitting on 3s with rerolls, wounding on 2s. approx 12 hits. Thats 10 wounds. -3 to save means anything other than knights or Chaos warriors/ironbreakers with shields will have no save.

Dwarf hammerers (most killy unit in the dwarf army):
14 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s. approx 9 hits. Thats 7.5 wounds. -3 to save.


Putting the stats i just worked out together.

The White Lions take 25% more casualties than the Hammerers but deal 30% more damage.
Both are stubborn (i believe..)
WL have higher Movement, Initiative and both have similar rules.
The WLs also have the advantage of ASF wich means that in small combats (or even protracted combats) the WLs will have a massive advantage (can reduce attacks back).

For example, a horde of each fighting eachother (lets say 30 vs 40 to keep the costs balanced); the WLs will kill just 19 Hammerers before they can strike. In return the hammerers, now with reduced attacks, will kill roughly 9 WLs. Next round there are 8 hammerers left (13 died) and they kill much less. The combat finishes with ~15 WLs left and no hammerers, from equal pointed units.

Your math is correct, except that it doesn't take into account the shooting each elite unit suffered through to get to the combat in question, T3 is significantly worse at dealing with softening fire than t4, even with the armor save buff on the elves. Additionally, by army design, the Dwarves will have more warmachines (for cheaper) than the elves currently, and their shooting much more telling with small arms. Though I'm totally on board with your point that elves are indeed more killy than other races.

Also, something to note. The Dwarfs are supposedly dieing out just as much as the elves.

They don't release a census. Elves and dwarves aren't dying out. Here's why. The Dark Elf and Wood elf populations seem stable, yet the wood elves live a more primative lifestyle with less medical tech than their High cousins, and the dark elves live in a horribly vicious (see renaissance italy) society of duels and one upsmanship where they kill each other daily. The High Elves are just Emo and like to pretend that their lives are worse than they are, while believing that they're superior to everyone else in the world, who doesn't see just how awesome they are. Meanwhile the Dwarves are prone to exaggeration and complaining (like grandpa), about how things were more awesome back in the day, ya know, when they partied with elves all the time, had to be bailed out by humans against the orcs, and warred with eachother over pointless grudges. Yeah, things are certainly awful for the dwarves in comparison. They only get the backing of the most powerful nation on the continent, with the largest friendly boarder of any two sovereign people, with one of the greatest seaports/trading hubs in the world. And they totally don't have awesome technology, which lets them build ironclads and submarines, cannons, trains, and helicopters... wait... no... they have all those things.

Basically Dwarves are stupid. They can't see how good they have it, nor do they use it as effectively as humans would. And High Elves are sappy bitches who need to get over themselves and actually do some good in the world rather than talk about what their grand dads for everyone and how they should be recognized for that.

[R Man]

Originally Posted by The Low King
Comparing their surviability to dwarfs:

Lets assume a S5 enemy striking at WS5 (so opposing elites)

VS the elves they will hit on 4s, wound on 2s and there will be no armour save.
VS the dwarfs they will hit on 4s, wound on 3s and there will be no armour save.

So, assuming 100 attacks (for statistics sake);

Elves take 100x(1/2)x(5/6)= 42 casualties
Dwarfs take 100x(1/2)x(2/3)= 33 casulaties

So the elves take roughly 25% more casualties, not a massive difference (about 1 casualty in your normal combat)



lets see:

White Lions:
14 attacks, hitting on 3s with rerolls, wounding on 2s. approx 12 hits. Thats 10 wounds. -3 to save means anything other than knights or Chaos warriors/ironbreakers with shields will have no save.

Dwarf hammerers (most killy unit in the dwarf army):
14 attacks, hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s. approx 9 hits. Thats 7.5 wounds. -3 to save.


Putting the stats i just worked out together.

The White Lions take 25% more casualties than the Hammerers but deal 30% more damage.
Both are stubborn (i believe..)
WL have higher Movement, Initiative and both have similar rules.
The WLs also have the advantage of ASF wich means that in small combats (or even protracted combats) the WLs will have a massive advantage (can reduce attacks back).

For example, a horde of each fighting eachother (lets say 30 vs 40 to keep the costs balanced); the WLs will kill just 19 Hammerers before they can strike. In return the hammerers, now with reduced attacks, will kill roughly 9 WLs. Next round there are 8 hammerers left (13 died) and they kill much less. The combat finishes with ~15 WLs left and no hammerers, from equal pointed units.

Your math is correct, except that it doesn't take into account the shooting each elite unit suffered through to get to the combat in question, T3 is significantly worse at dealing with softening fire than t4, even with the armor save buff on the elves. Additionally, by army design, the Dwarves will have more warmachines (for cheaper) than the elves currently, and their shooting much more telling with small arms. Though I'm totally on board with your point that elves are indeed more killy than other races.

I'd also like to point out that, if we talk about the basic units, then for equal points the Dwarves can take shields, which will give a parry save if the attacks come in combat. Therefore the Dwarves would have a 6/6 save. This would cut casualties by about 10, down to 23. This means that, for equal points (Spear elves and Warriors) the Elves take considerably more casualties. Almost double. This is with the two cheapest units in their respective books. Can ASF really make up such a difference in defence?

[snakezenn]

Just an idea(could be horrible) what about SoA being something like any enemies with equal or lowere initiative have to reroll successful hits as well as providing a 5 or 6+ ward save against BS shooting?

[The Low King]

No, both Dwarfs and Dwarves are correct, just as armour and armor are both correct. One spelling comes from British English the other from American English. The rule for usage in this case is consistency, if one uses the British spelling they must use it throughout the document, and vice verse.

Actually, Dwarves are the ones in the Tolkien Universe whilst Dwarfs are the ones in the Warhammer Universe. Tolkien choose the name Dwarves to differentiate them from the Dwarfs of Mythology. GW stuck with the original spelling, it is how its spelt on the Army book.

I'd also like to point out that, if we talk about the basic units, then for equal points the Dwarves can take shields, which will give a parry save if the attacks come in combat. Therefore the Dwarves would have a 6/6 save. This would cut casualties by about 10, down to 23. This means that, for equal points (Spear elves and Warriors) the Elves take considerably more casualties. Almost double. This is with the two cheapest units in their respective books. Can ASF really make up such a difference in defence?

My maths was comparing two elite units fighting eachother, basic dwarf warriors are significantly less killy than hammerers, being S3 rather than S6.

Basic dwarf warriors with shields are T4 with a 4+/6++ save and S3 hand weapons.
Basic elf spearelves are T3 with a 5+ save (i believe), spears and their special rules.

Thus, a unit of dwarfs in ranks of five will have 10 S3 WS4 attacks whilst the unit of elves in the same formation will have 20 S3 WS4 (with rerolls) attacks.

So, a unit of Spearelves is much more vulnerable but at the same time does over 200% of the damage.

100 dwarf warrior attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 25 wounds
200 Spearelf attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 75 wounds

three times the damage for two units that are the same size.

[Hoshiyami]

So, a unit of Spearelves is much more vulnerable but at the same time does over 200% of the damage.

100 dwarf warrior attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 25 wounds
200 Spearelf attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 75 wounds

three times the damage for two units that are the same size.

Bear in mind you're optimizing the elven potential (4 rows, fighting no ASF/init>5 troop). Just as an example, 20 dwarfes could be in 7x3 (-1) formation, having 14 attacks. Also, the damage output of the dwarfs would be optimized with great weapons, but maybe their role as basic troops would be just to resist damage before another unit charges in... the elves don't have that option and their killiness (in their S3 spearmen) isn't something to be proud against good T/AS troops/characters/monsters.

[The Low King]

Bear in mind you're optimizing the elven potential (4 rows, fighting no ASF/init>5 troop). Just as an example, 20 dwarfes could be in 7x3 (-1) formation, having 14 attacks. Also, the damage output of the dwarfs would be optimized with great weapons, but maybe their role as basic troops would be just to resist damage before another unit charges in... the elves don't have that option and their killiness (in their S3 spearmen) isn't something to be proud against good T/AS troops/characters/monsters.

The elves could be in a 7x4 formation, giving them 28 attacks, thats why i was comparing them in equal ranked units. Why would you not optimise the spearelves? sureley you would have them in at least 4 ranks.....

if they have GWs they dont have a 4+/6++ save as you were suggesting. In fact, if they have GWs then just use the example using hammerers i posted before. The elves have GW troops, they just dont have spearelves with GWs.

[R Man]

My maths was comparing two elite units fighting eachother, basic dwarf warriors are significantly less killy than hammerers, being S3 rather than S6.

Basic dwarf warriors with shields are T4 with a 4+/6++ save and S3 hand weapons.
Basic elf spearelves are T3 with a 5+ save (i believe), spears and their special rules.

Thus, a unit of dwarfs in ranks of five will have 10 S3 WS4 attacks whilst the unit of elves in the same formation will have 20 S3 WS4 (with rerolls) attacks.

So, a unit of Spearelves is much more vulnerable but at the same time does over 200% of the damage.

100 dwarf warrior attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 25 wounds
200 Spearelf attacks vs T3, WS4 no AS: 75 wounds

three times the damage for two units that are the same size.

I am aware. The issue is that as most units go up in price, so does their defence. Chaos Warriors, for example, are very expensive, but have T4 and Chaos Armour to mitigate damage. Not to mention having effective chaff units to help absorb damage/protect flanks. Lizardmen too have expensive infantry, but Saurus have good defence and plenty of cheap and effective shooting (skinks, salamanders) and magic. Elves do have good magic though.

As for your stats, yes, elven offence is very good. And I'm not saying it isn't. But I'm not sure if accounting for it in this way is appropriate. Those numbers are not the most effective way of showing unit fighting strength. After all, realistically units have limits to how many can attack, and comparing a number against a different number doesn't show how units actually fight, as retaliation is an important . So lets take two units of 25, one of Spear-Elves, one Dwarf Warriors. Elves will get 20 attacks, dwarfs 10, so it keeps the scale even. Against Chaos Warriors (15) the elves will kill 1. Chaos kills 6 elves. Chaos then kills 3 Dwarves, who kill none. The Dwarves actually do better, and will last longer. Now, obviously this isn't exactly fair, Chaos Warriors excel, and elves struggle with defence, but we can now apply some context. Dwarves will most likely apply missile fire to the Warriors, which the elves don't match in calibre. The Dwarves can reliably hold the warriors, while the elves evaporate far too quickly. In three combat rounds the Dwarves will still be mostly intact (3 ranks, still steadfast), the elves will be decimated. In addition, and this is critical, the Elves offensive power would start dropping almost immediately, rendering that ASF much less valuble, which is what they 'traded' their defence for in the first place!

[Hoshiyami]

The elves could be in a 7x4 formation, giving them 28 attacks, thats why i was comparing them in equal ranked units. Why would you not optimise the spearelves? sureley you would have them in at least 4 ranks.....

You wouldn't do it if you had 20 just elves. I said 7x3 (-1) because it was a match for 20 elves. 28 dwarfs (a match for 7x4 elves) may use an horde formation, and so on. Of course, elves can use horde too, but 50 elves together would be screaming for a ubberspell or some warmachine love...

if they have GWs they dont have a 4+/6++ save as you were suggesting. In fact, if they have GWs then just use the example using hammerers i posted before. The elves have GW troops, they just dont have spearelves with GWs.

They don't have GW troops (units with GW in the troops section, I mean). If they can't do damage (S3 isn't doing too much against >T3/good AS troops), and can't bear with damage (nor with resilience, nor with numbers)... what's their role? distraction?

[The Low King]

You are comparing the units when against one of the worste targets for the elves to fight.....

High initiative, high toughness, high weaponskill, high armour unit against elves who rely on high weaponskill, having higher initiative than your opponant and rely on mass S3 attacks.
The dwarfs you are using on the other hand are designed not to kill stuff but to survive....

Chaos warriors are one of the best units in the game, making elves have equal survivability to them would be....strange

You wouldn't do it if you had 20 just elves. I said 7x3 (-1) because it was a match for 20 elves. 28 dwarfs (a match for 7x4 elves) may use an horde formation, and so on. Of course, elves can use horde too, but 50 elves together would be screaming for a ubberspell or some warmachine love...

why would you only use 20 elves? and the dwarfs wouldnt be in 7x3 formation unless they are GW dwarfs.

A horde of Dwarfs is also more vulnerable to Uberspells than a horde of elves.

They don't have GW troops (units with GW in the troops section, I mean). If they can't do damage (S3 isn't doing too much against >T3/good AS troops), and can't bear with damage (nor with resilience, nor with numbers)... what's their role? distraction?

They can do damage....just by mass attacks rather than high strength.

the difference would be 20 attacks hitting on 4s with rerolls, wounding on 5s and 10 attacks hitting on 4s, wounding on 3s......wich is about the same

[R Man]

The Low King
Re: High Elf wishlisting...

You are comparing the units when against one of the worste targets for the elves to fight.....

High initiative, high toughness, high weaponskill, high armour unit against elves who rely on high weaponskill, having higher initiative than your opponant and rely on mass S3 attacks.
The dwarfs you are using on the other hand are designed not to kill stuff but to survive....

Chaos warriors are one of the best units in the game, making elves have equal survivability to them would be....strange

I know, I was demonstrating a point, not making a fair comparison. My point was that a direct comparison of attack power is misleading, especially with spear elves, and ignores context. My other point was that the offensive power that elves have instead of defensive power is quickly reduced, mostly for spear elves but really for any small elven unit or a unit in a horde. Whereas defence seems to remain roughly equally useful thorough out a combat, for the most part. Therefore elven attack power isn't essentially enough to offset their frailty, especially when accounting for missile because, frankly ASF does jack against being shot in the face. Now there are possible solutions to this, but I wasn't suggesting giving them a Chaos Warriors defence. I was pointing out that most elite units do require some form of mitigation to be effective. This can be armour, but it can also be increase in numbers, better shooting or even movement rules. Obviously elves are thematically lightly armoured, so that's out. But I fail to see why a points reduction or two won't help. Knocking a point of here or there won't suddenly make them play like goblins or anything. Making shooting better, especially some anti-medium armour shooting, would help too by off-setting HE Infantry frailness, and so on and so on.

Obviously this isn't so clear cut. Elves still have potent magic, Dragon Princes and Phoenix Guard, who boast good defences. White Lions also have good shooting defence and Stubborn and Eagles are good too. But if you took out ASF that would change. And since ASF doesn't do what it was supposed to do it should at least be re-considered.

[Hoshiyami]

why would you only use 20 elves? and the dwarfs wouldnt be in 7x3 formation unless they are GW dwarfs.

A horde of Dwarfs is also more vulnerable to Uberspells than a horde of elves.

At some point you'll put the limit. 20 elves are 180 points (+ command group). 25 (a 5 casulaties buffer) comes at 225 (a handy 250 with full command)... they begin to be a little too expensive for whatever they're going to do...

The only reasons a horde of dwarves could be more vulnerable to ubberspells are init checks and dragon banner. 'Every miniature takes a hit' or T check spells for example favor dwarves. Also, dwarven magic protection CAN be very powerful, albeit you have to invest points in it.

They can do damage....just by mass attacks rather than high strength.

the difference would be 20 attacks hitting on 4s with rerolls, wounding on 5s and 10 attacks hitting on 4s, wounding on 3s......wich is about the same

Against AS 2+ (elven cavalry, bretonnia, etc) 1 S point doubles the wounds (and 2S points means x3). Against T5, too. Armor save, thougness... sheer number doesn't always work.

Checking the numbers against T4 troops, that 20 attacks would render 2-3 wounds... and then comes the return damage. It would be ok if armored T4 wasn't so normal in the battlefield (elite, expensive troops shouldn't be easily killed), but it's rather common.

[Kurnous the Hunter]

Okay, I know I'm new here but I was much more active back in the GW website days, had an internet article or two published etc (You might find The Hooves of Ellyrion). In early 2002 I started writing some Advanced Warhammer Rules (AWR) which was inspired in part by the new edition, Mordheim, the computer games and creating a more 'fluffy' game. I might add that these rules had fighting in multiple ranks (10 years ahead of it's time!) I might post them up sometime. However my time as a student came to an end and as my life got busier, I abandoned the project.

At the time I felt that Elves were not very fluffy, toyed with the idea of 2 attacks - but that was way overpowered particularly with no 'step up'.

I had a few versions of Elves with a special rule 'Elven Agility'

In battle, elves use their natural speed, grace and reflexes to good effect. On the attack they lash out with blows of blinding speed, often far too quick for the enemy to follow. Attacking an elf is no easy matter either, their keen senses and awesome reflexes mean that they meet blows with ease, deftly parrying or turning aside before the blow strikes. With bows, elves are very quick to draw and notch their arrows with great deftness they aim and fire, often twice as fast as archers of lesser races.

All versions had Elves shooting twice if standing still (no ranked fire) - this was inspired by Shadow of the Horned Rat - where shooting was initiative based.

I Had 3 versions of how it would effect combat.
1. Re-roll misses in Combat, 6+ Dodge (Ward) save
2. Re-roll misses in Combat, -1 to hit (Combat and shooting)
3. +1 to hit in combat, -1 to hit (Combat and shooting)

Option Number 3 minimized dice rolling/ re-rolling but felt too powerful, whilst Option 1 felt balanced but just had too much going on with dice.

With the change in how initiative works and step up, I believe any of the 3 above would work with the addition of new options
4. ASF, 6+ward (can be combined with hand weapon and shield ward)
5. ASF, -1 to hit.

The question would be which of the 5 options would be most balanced.

There are two main issues though
a. How would re-roll hits (plain or ASF) fit in with the hatred mechanic of HE vs DE.
b. How to differentiate HE vs DE? My idea here would be HE count as +1 Initiative when fighting DE.

Please note that in my experimental rules I did not have Citizen Levy/Martial Prowess extra ranks. (I had Rules regarding formations; Shield Walls vs Open Formation vs Incoming! - and HE got bonuses to formation rules).

Now I guess I'll wait to hear some feedback regarding what fellow WHFB players would think is balanced. I lean toward Option 3 - but worry that it would make the characters too effective.

I also had another rule, again for all Elves regarding Magic

Magical Talent
Elves as a race are blessed with vast magical talent. They can more keenly see the winds of magic, and understand its intricacies better. Magical power more naturally flow to them as though they are conducts of power. Also the long lives of the elves means they have more time to practice, and study magic as an art. This means that elves are great spell-casters; far better then those of lesser races.

All elves may re-roll any results of 1 on any power or dispel dice as well as spell effects. The second roll of a re-roll counts and no further re-rolls allowed unless any other ability states that it can.

This was at the time when miscasts were double ones. I always thought that Elves should be much more reliable with their magic and cast the same spells as non-elves in a superior manner. (Slann would get an even better version of course!)

[Sinaris]

I am continueing to flesh out my idea in the form of my own version of 8th Ed. High Elves, so far i have core and special slots loosely worked out (points and toning down/up are "in progress"). If interested look here:
http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39359

[Damocles8]

I wonder what High Magic lore is going to turn into.....