9th highborn musings(now with .99.4 discussion!)

[Ielthan]

Honours are unique i think so cant take multiple mage knights

I don't think it actually states that in the current version.

[Browncastle]

Are you sure? that would go against all themed armies!

[Ielthan]

I just noticed griffons changed to monstrous beasts, which while good for survivability does perhaps leave them a bit overcosted. They're significantly worse than a hippogryff, which comes with mount's protection 5+, (a griffon has none whatsoever, surely this a mistake? Even an eagle get's a 6+), armour piercing and devastating charge, and is similarly priced, cheaper even than a noble's griffon. High elves really need some work.

[sparkytrypod]

Guys, sorry for the lack of updates, christmass is the busiest time workwise for me.

I am reading all the posts and trying to get the odd game in!

@lelthan, i think griffons are good value at the momenf, 120 points to give our lord/noble T5 and an extra wound or two. You can still get a decent save and if u biy the upgrades which are a must of you take the griffon, it hits like a tonne of bricks. Fly 8 is a bit slow, but depending on what lore you use, perhaps shadow, high, loremaater you can ive him an extra movement boost.

i think its 450 ish for a T5 flying prince with 4 strength 7 attacks, and 5 S 6 attacks on the charge from the grifdon and all of these can have lightning reflexes, so you are hitting on 2's with them all most of the time as the griffon is ws5.

Thats some serious power projected by one model. Slap on the divine icon, as written it affects the whole models attacks, and you are taking down baddies like john mcClane!

[Ielthan]

Guys, sorry for the lack of updates, christmass is the busiest time workwise for me.

I am reading all the posts and trying to get the odd game in!

@lelthan, i think griffons are good value at the momenf, 120 points to give our lord/noble T5 and an extra wound or two. You can still get a decent save and if u biy the upgrades which are a must of you take the griffon, it hits like a tonne of bricks. Fly 8 is a bit slow, but depending on what lore you use, perhaps shadow, high, loremaater you can ive him an extra movement boost.

i think its 450 ish for a T5 flying prince with 4 strength 7 attacks, and 5 S 6 attacks on the charge from the grifdon and all of these can have lightning reflexes, so you are hitting on 2's with them all most of the time as the griffon is ws5.

Thats some serious power projected by one model. Slap on the divine icon, as written it affects the whole models attacks, and you are taking down baddies like john mcClane!

It's 120 for the Prince, 150 for a noble. Another 45 pts for the upgrades that the hippogryff get's about half of which (points wise) for free. I really don't understand 0 mount protection though when even an eagle and a horse give a 6+, I mean that's actually less than 8th edition. Even if it requires a points increase it should happen, it isn't logical otherwise.

[Ielthan]

Does anyone else think queens guard should have the ability to take a magic banner if they don't skirmish? Seems odd that they can't. Also has anyone tried the shard of nullification yet? I'm wondering if it's actually of any use, or will it be like those hugely expensive items in the old O&G book that never saw the light of day.

[SpellArcher]

Yeah the woodie list was a good one. I think the best that any of us brought. Yes I agree shooting is a big deal in elf vs elf. The issue was target saturation, in 8th you pretty much just the 2 or 3 units of wild riders you really had to focus on up front, throw in 3+ fast combat characters with 4+ ward saves on top of that however and it's a much more difficult problem. The issue with my magic missiles is that he didn't really care about potentially losing a 10 man unit of archers, especially when any survivors are testing on ld 10 rerollable, and the dice needed to cast that spell were usually better off with one of the signatures (e.g. searing dooming/burning gaze a tree man or wild riders, or good old wyssans). Went 18 rather than the usual 12-14 on the swordmasters as i anticipated they were going to get shot and wanted enough to be combat viable. Maybe should have just gone 3 units of 12.

The first thing I would ask is what redirectors did you have lelthan? You need them vs Wild Riders I think. Treemen are M5 so shouldn't need to be dealt with immediately. The general point about MM's vs archers is that that helps you win the shooting war and hence preserve RBT for shooting down heavier stuff. But here maybe just MMing the WR's was worth a look. I agree that 3x12 SM's might have served you better.

Had held the lion horde back but that mark of wrath with halberds is very nasty, and the rbt's had more pressing targets (cough*daemon prince*cough). Dissolution is ok, but as it's DD you don't usually have too many chances to cast it, and with the nerfs to so many magic items I don't really see it as big deal. With high elves I've always felt the role of magic is to deal with the threats that our combat troops can't, and shooting was to disable enemy support units rather than blast things away. Light magic currently achieves this far better than white magic imo.

I agree about not getting Dissolution off that often. But at the least a scroll caddy is a good target, simply to make him use it. 4+ Wards are also well worth targeting. I've always seen high magic as support to make your other stuff work better. I guess it might depend what other stuff we have.

You say you have an issue running multiple infantry blocks, but theme wise shouldn't that really be the core of every high elf army? This book seems designed to return high elves to the 7th edition tournament type lists, but why is that a good thing? Frankly they didn't look great on the table, and don't really make a lot of sense thematically. The MSU type lists imply that without extreme min maxing the list is underpowered. Personally I see high elves fighting in medium size blocks that maximise their potential through force concentration, the best way to translate this is extra ranks. I also think you're perhaps underestimating the loss of ASF, that loss of reliability on such fragile troops really feels enormous in game. Dark elves kept their reliability, and then some, and the cauldron makes them as survivable, if not more. Our primary defensive buffs have gone (high magic attribute, BotWD), better armour is nice, but it isn't enough.

Infantry blocks have long been an embattled thing, rarely in any edition being that great. I believe they have a key role to play but HE's work well as a Combined Arms force IMHO. I have far better results with this approach with HE's than I do with my Wood Elves or Daemons for example. Shooting is necessary for board control and weakening combat targets. Magic is necessary for defence and boosting key units. Fast combat units are necessary to put pressure on. Redirectors are necessary to buy time. An infantry block or two fits well because they can stand and trade better, they can bunker characters, they can take ground to rotate attacks around. But too many and you have to cut other areas which really hurts HE's IMHO. It's a delicate balance. 21 Swordmasters will do no more damage than 14 round one for example. Those seven models cost you shooting, magic or fast attackers and that can really hurt.

So far, losing ASF hasn't been an issue for my army. My Prince became viable again because of Trickster's Talisman. My Swordmasters have 22 S5 attacks hitting first on 2's. Yes re-rolling 3's would be even better but you didn't always get the re-rolls and we now have the 'parry' option too. SM's are certainly good enough. Maybe it hurts PG and DP's for example more. But again, it's about working out which units work for the army style you're aiming at and which don't IMHO. I believe the 9th Age book favours the kind of lists we saw in early 8th rather than the late 7th lists but this remains to be proved. The difference was mainly that infantry were more important in the former.

Our infantry doesn't have the offensive potential to go to toe to toe on small frontages like it used to.

How so with the Swordmasters?

I would imagine it would need some tweaking. The list basically does one thing and it does it well. Magic totally geared for defense. Could maybe swap out the eagles for a lion chariot, it's decent now. Would be interesting to take the reavers in units of 10 as disrupters. The alternative way I'd go is msu swordmasters backed up by a lot of shooting. Although I'm not sure in a tournament that would get you the big wins you'd want. Something like this maybe:

I can see this. I'm not sure the magic is enough and the lack of shooting could really hurt in some match-ups. But it'll hit a lot of things damn hard. I'm not quite sure about the MSU Cav Core. How are Silver Helm buses looking at the moment? Would a Cavalry Prince be essential to that?

I quite like the look of your MSU list, though more drops would be nice. Well worth testing I'd have thought.

My lists tend to be MMU lists, where almost all stuff is either in BSB or general range or both or doesn't care too much about LD tests. A phoenix as a single model with terror for instance only really needs LD when losing combat or the occasional panic test, for which you can't use MD. Same with my redirectors, they have free reforms anyway so only care about stuff where MD doesn't apply.

But this is my point Rod. I'm all for sticking to your general principles but the rules changes may mean branching out, switching one elite infantry unit for another, re-jigging your cavalry etc..If playing your army slightly differently works better, that may be necessary. Three deep elite infantry blocks are simply no longer a default choice.

For me ASF, and especially the reliability it brings, has been a bigger deal. I went first before, I still go first. However, in the old situation, there was very little chance of having rubber lance syndrome. Failed half or three quarters of the 3+ to hit roll? No worries, I'll just pick those up and still hit with 80-90% of my attacks. I always knew what my troops would do.

As above, I think it needs to be analysed. Lions and Swordmasters didn't have re-rolls, the latter simply got better. DP's hit most things on 2's now rather than re-rolled 3's. It's not as good but going to S4 makes them overall better. PG hit slightly worse but they are one of the units where characters synergies still matter. Dragons didn't re-roll to hit anyway. Princes got Trickster's Talisman, which is murderous and easy to underestimate until you've experienced it. I'm not saying losing ASF doesn't matter, I'm saying there are buffs in other areas that counterbalance it.

[Ielthan]

Against the woodies IIRC I had 3 units of reavers with the 4+ save and some shadow warriors as redirectors. To be honest once he got first turn the game was all but over. His shooting obliterated my chaff. Our shooting simply isn't powerful enough to counterfire as well as neutralise fast combat threats. Now our magic isn't either. Against the warriors we were playing closed item builds so I didn't know where the scroll was and wasn't going to waste 4 dice finding out.

I honestly believe our book is among the weakest put out and that tournament results will reflect this. MSU swordmasters seems to be the only way to really compete, even then I think it will have some major issues, how will it deal with the increasingly terrifying Bretonnian lances if you don't get off aura light spells? Frankly I don't like playing MSU that much, units of 12 infantry just don't look good on the table, even if they are effective. No other army has to resort to that extreme level of min maxing to be competitive, we shouldn't either. Another issue is the list clearly wasn't designed with MSU in mind (even though I agree it's the best way it can play), why would they put the dragon banner in that's clearly designed for larger infantry units? I work in design and we would describe that has a failure.

I've now looked through all the other lists, and immediately things jump out at you in each of them, multiple interesting and effective ways in which you can make the army work, combinations and synergies between units (e.g the Bretonnian foot knights) and relevant magic lores (e.g. vampires). Ours just doesn't have any of it, it's just a bunch of not-that-elite units thrown together. The more I see the creativity that's gone into the other books the more dissatisfied I am with ours. Everything in the book apart from swordmasters, sisters and seaguard got significantly worse. I guess spearmen got better, but that's a relative term; they're still overcosted and terrible. Even dragon princes, yes s4 is nice, but at such a crazy points hike and being moved to rare, losing asf, access to high lore attribute and botwd, it's not worth it. I mean grail knights are just 4 points more and much, much better, and they can be easily boosted to 4+ ward or a 4+ vs shooting, hell they even have white magic now so they can do it that way. What is it that we have left that is even slightly unique? Dark elves now do everything we do, but they have ways of doing it all better. It's frustrating as there was so much opportunity for creativity, it feels like they've tunnel visioned on the honours (with mixed success, seriously will anyone ever be running a noble on a skycutter? Probably not).

The magic items of other books are pretty much all well thought out and useful, ours on the other hand... glittering robes will never be seen in a tournament. Neither will the shard of nullification, the cloak of stars was an interesting idea, but with the book so weak we're far too reliant on buffs for it ever to be useful. I actually think High Elves need a new unit to remain competitive without resorting to completely unforgiving playstyles, some kind of force multiplier, of which we basically have 0. There's the Frostie, but I doubt you'll see many of them any more, maybe as a mount. The only force multipliers we have are expensive characters, that will only buff one unit per character, but as you have said msu is the way to go so this approach would be incredibly inefficient. The book just doesn't work.

I think the key problem is the hatred of 8th High Elves at the ETC, when really the book was mid tier with some game breaking gimmicks thrown in at the last minute (e.g. little bit of inside knowledge for you, the book was playtested with BotWD doing something completely different, it was a last second change just before it went to the printers).

Our characters are now very flexible, but still prohibitively expensive, with not a lot of actual impact unless you go the ancient dragon route. The power level of this book reminds me of 6th edition, not particularly great at anything and very fragile. After comparing it to the other books, honestly I'm pretty disappointed, I'm confident tournament results will soon reflect this.

[HugoMac]

Well, it´s no strange thing you are so disappointed, Ielthan:


http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php? ... #post93226



Yep, we are the WEAKEST army nowadays (little has changed since the statistics, that are quite recent). Something no tournaments needs to demostrate, just after reading ours and any other armies anyone can see it...

[Ielthan]

Well, it´s no strange thing you are so disappointed, Ielthan:


http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php? ... #post93226

Yep, we are the WEAKEST army nowadays (little has changed since the statistics, that are quite recent). Something no tournaments needs to demostrate, just after reading ours and any other armies anyone can see it...

Yep it's pretty sad. I'll leave this post from Gondarion on that thread that I think sums things up pretty well.

The list is a complete mess, and is geared only toward monsters and avoidance. Lion Guard are NOT more or less the same. Shadow warriors are really expensive, I don't know why. Phoenix Guard, no one really knows yet, but if holy attacks become prevalent they will become a weak choice, and since no one takes the execrable White Magic, they won't get the 3++ they used to get, although that was arguably OTT. The overarching point is that the army has lost all the synergies it once had, its lore got ruined, Lion Guard lost 33% of their attacks, it lost the old frost phoenix and world dragon (which was necessary), the magic items are an incoherent mess, the army has no internal balance and the classic defensive/mobile battle line is gone as a viable option, if it ever was one. In short, there is no motivation to even test the army unless you like MSU, avoidance or monster tag teams. For those that like armies, it is a non-starter.

I'm actually pleased to see these results, maybe the RT will respond appropriately, though I'm not holding my breath.

[SpellArcher]

I quite like your Dragon list Browncastle. The magic is enough, the shooting is enough, you have four dangerous flyers.

Guys, sorry for the lack of updates,

Lol, your musings is turning into everyone's musings!

Our shooting simply isn't powerful enough to counterfire as well as neutralise fast combat threats.

You had an awful lot of points sunk into M5 combat infantry lelthan. Your opponent was always going to win the board control war.

Even dragon princes, yes s4 is nice, but at such a crazy points hike and being moved to rare, losing asf, access to high lore attribute and botwd, it's not worth it

Dragon Princes were almost never used in competitive lists before. S3-S4 is a huge difference. Shield of Saphery and World Dragon only mattered to them if you built a bus and that was very rare, the vast majority of strong lists used Helms for this because they were Core, cheaper and relied on the characters to kill stuff anyway.

glittering robes will never be seen in a tournament

This was a very popular item from the 7th book. Why is it so bad now?

Our characters are now very flexible, but still prohibitively expensive, with not a lot of actual impact unless you go the ancient dragon route.

Have you tested Trickster's Talisman lelthan?

Shadow warriors are really expensive, I don't know why.

They are cheaper than an almost identical unit in the 8th WE book which was regarded as strong.

Lion Guard are NOT more or less the same.

This is true, the old World Dragon was a game-changer.

Lion Guard lost 33% of their attacks,

As analysed above, this is irrelevant because they were always fielded around 25 or so and so still all get to attack.

it lost the old frost phoenix

The old Frostheart was bent, the new one looks decent.

Yep, we are the WEAKEST army nowadays (little has changed since the statistics, that are quite recent). Something no tournaments needs to demostrate, just after reading ours and any other armies anyone can see it...

Firstly, I'll reference Furion, who's opinion was that no definitive conclusion could be reached on a book until you'd played at least fifty games with it. Possibly the best HE player alive.

Secondly, please bear in mind that HE players (and I speak as a mod on Ulthuan of course) have a legendary reputation for over-complaining over several editions. In general they've had average to strong books over that time. Not only is this complaining contentious, it isn't very useful. Players of all armies at some time or another find themselves with weaker books than their opponents. You do the best you can. If you want to win games you design a list you think has legs, test it to death, learn how it works (which will not always be immediately obvious) and adjust accordingly. Part of the problem here is that our last book had units like 3++ PG, World Dragon buses, Frostheart and Star Dragon which could often be rammed down an opponent's throat without a great deal in the way of tactics and still win. We won in early 8th without these things by building synergistic lists where this didn't mean loading up a WD unit with all our characters.

The current HE book could indeed be the weakest out there, that is almost beside the point. The guys in charge of 9th Age will analyse results and act accordingly. What matters is doing the best we can with what we have, not what we wish we had. Keeping an open mind to what other HE players suggest and test is vital. That's the point of a thread like this, to learn from each other and do better than if we were all struggling on individually.

[Ielthan]

Firstly, I'll reference Furion, who's opinion was that no definitive conclusion could be reached on a book until you'd played at least fifty games with it. Possibly the best HE player alive.

Secondly, please bear in mind that HE players (and I speak as a mod on Ulthuan of course) have a legendary reputation for over-complaining over several editions. In general they've had average to strong books over that time. Not only is this complaining contentious, it isn't very useful. Players of all armies at some time or another find themselves with weaker books than their opponents. You do the best you can. If you want to win games you design a list you think has legs, test it to death, learn how it works (which will not always be immediately obvious) and adjust accordingly. Part of the problem here is that our last book had units like 3++ PG, World Dragon buses, Frostheart and Star Dragon which could often be rammed down an opponent's throat without a great deal in the way of tactics and still win. We won in early 8th without these things by building synergistic lists where this didn't mean loading up a WD unit with all our characters.

The current HE book could indeed be the weakest out there, that is almost beside the point. The guys in charge of 9th Age will analyse results and act accordingly. What matters is doing the best we can with what we have, not what we wish we had. Keeping an open mind to what other HE players suggest and test is vital. That's the point of a thread like this, to learn from each other and do better than if we were all struggling on individually.

Well I certainly respect Furion's opinion, I learnt a lot from his videos and his reputation as a tournament player precedes him.

I would say that the view that we over complain is pretty subjective, the 6th ed book was weak. 5th ed was pretty op, 7th I think was strong but it also had a lot of dross in it, and was nothing compared to the Daemons and Dark Elf books. 8th was op if you leaned on the gimmicks (alarielle star, teclis, double star dragon etc., 3++PG).

My issue has been more to do with the why we are weak rather than the how. I think it stems from a lack of creativity in the design process. The whole book feels very linear, hence there's no synergy laterally between the army. It's not simply a case of supercharging units, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that there is a more rewarding way for lists to be built other than only combined arms and having to resort to msu tactics, which just look awful on the table. No kid comes into a store and says oh cool at 12 guys, but the block of 50 halberdiers will have their rapt attention.


Yes I agree about board control, although I think in general wood elves have always been a tough match up for high elves unless you go very shooting heavy, which I generally prefer not to do.

Dragon princes sometimes saw play in comped environments, I'd rather see them in a more points efficient iteration. My suggestion for a very long time to fix them was to make them 30pts, S4, 1A, but to give them devastating charge. It's a good reflection of their fluff, balanced in game and you still wouldn't see more than 5 or 6 in a unit. I'd also return the champion's larger magic item allowance, as their ability to carry more powerful magic items harks back to at least 5th edtion (used to get magic banners half price).

Regarding glittering robes, firstly this isn't 7th (the most overly romanticised edition of the game), i don't remember the 7th ed magic lores but in comparison to 8th there is less incentive to have an ultramobile mage (assuming you'd have the mage on an eagle), death magic isn't anything like what it was. Also I believe there is much greater access to magical attacks now, and with the strength of the Daemon book I find it unlikely someone is going to take that risk.

Yes I have tested the tricksters talisman (or talisman of cenryn now), I have no issue with that item, I think it's good, but that still leaves 4 inadequate ones.

Well the WE unit had armour piercing, and was in an army that functioned very differently, which is a pretty big deal. They also had asf and murderous prowess in woods. And it wasn't that strong, they weren't waywatchers.

I disagree with with your comments on lion guard, in game there was an enormous difference between being 7 wide 4 deep and 10 wide 3 deep. 7 wide would give you the advantage against most 5 wide units, infantry or cavalry. 10 wide and you're getting double charge by a lot of attacks.

[sparkytrypod]

I really dont think the book is that bad, but i have only played against beastmen, wood elves and warriors. We are at the early stages of teasing out solid lists and i think we have to throw away alot of the old ideas like standard cav buses, lion block etc. And just try new lists for a couple of months.

The benifit you get out of martial discipline will depend on your play style really. It is usefull and allows tou to not have to worry about a lot of ld tests.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Firstly, I'll reference Furion, who's opinion was that no definitive conclusion could be reached on a book until you'd played at least fifty games with it. Possibly the best HE player alive.

I didn't know you are such a fanboy, SA

[SpellArcher]

I would say that the view that we over complain is pretty subjective, the 6th ed book was weak. 5th ed was pretty op, 7th I think was strong but it also had a lot of dross in it, and was nothing compared to the Daemons and Dark Elf books. 8th was op if you leaned on the gimmicks (alarielle star, teclis, double star dragon etc., 3++PG).

The problem is that that is the general perception. So a paragraph like Gondarion's is going to be read as just complaining for complaining's sake by players of other armies. As Sparky implies, I just feel it's more constructive to pick a build, playtest it, tweak it, learn it, maybe post this stuff up on the forum and then come back and say "based on this evidence there are the following issues...". As you've discussed lelthan, in raw power terms HE's haven't done badly overall in the books they've had.

My issue has been more to do with the why we are weak rather than the how. I think it stems from a lack of creativity in the design process. The whole book feels very linear, hence there's no synergy laterally between the army. It's not simply a case of supercharging units, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that there is a more rewarding way for lists to be built other than only combined arms and having to resort to msu tactics, which just look awful on the table. No kid comes into a store and says oh cool at 12 guys, but the block of 50 halberdiers will have their rapt attention.

This is subjective. Lots of us like the way MSU or Combined Arms armies look on the table and don't like big blocks, though I use Coastal Guard for example which would be 25 strong at 2400pts. Personally it drove me nuts to see huge units of Silver Helms stuffed full of characters dominating tournament lists. The last book depended on character-unit synergies to a great extent. That's not the only way to build an army that works as a unit. High Magic for example has always synced well with a solid shooting phase (and combat units which put lots of high strength hits on the enemy, which are still around).

Yes I agree about board control, although I think in general wood elves have always been a tough match up for high elves unless you go very shooting heavy, which I generally prefer not to do.

Agreed up to a point. Magic matters, as do fast attack units like Silver Helms.

Dragon princes sometimes saw play in comped environments, I'd rather see them in a more points efficient iteration. My suggestion for a very long time to fix them was to make them 30pts, S4, 1A, but to give them devastating charge. It's a good reflection of their fluff, balanced in game and you still wouldn't see more than 5 or 6 in a unit. I'd also return the champion's larger magic item allowance, as their ability to carry more powerful magic items harks back to at least 5th edtion (used to get magic banners half price).

Sounds pretty sensible. In general I feel that expensive units that kill stuff are better than average-priced ones (like 8th DP's) that struggle to do so.

Regarding glittering robes, firstly this isn't 7th (the most overly romanticised edition of the game), i don't remember the 7th ed magic lores but in comparison to 8th there is less incentive to have an ultramobile mage (assuming you'd have the mage on an eagle), death magic isn't anything like what it was. Also I believe there is much greater access to magical attacks now, and with the strength of the Daemon book I find it unlikely someone is going to take that risk.

I was more thinking of early 8th, there are blogs on here like Tethlis' and Seredain's which show excellent use of this item. On eagle is interesting but in a unit not only gives near-immunity to mundane attacks but also the security of the unit. Very clever moves like charging out solo to tie up stuff with non-magical attacks has been seen. It needs investigating IMHO. I'm not sure there are any more magical attacks now than there used to be. Which are the four items you dislike so much lelthan?

Well the WE unit had armour piercing, and was in an army that functioned very differently, which is a pretty big deal. They also had asf and murderous prowess in woods. And it wasn't that strong, they weren't waywatchers.

Absolutely we can't do simplistic unit to unit comparisons without looking further. My point is that looking at Shadow Warriors and saying "too expensive" is similarly short-sighted. Depends what else you've got, depends on testing. Having used Hagbane a lot, I've been very impressed with it. ASF and MP were nice to have but really a side-issue compared to the shooting.

I disagree with with your comments on lion guard, in game there was an enormous difference between being 7 wide 4 deep and 10 wide 3 deep. 7 wide would give you the advantage against most 5 wide units, infantry or cavalry. 10 wide and you're getting double charge by a lot of attacks.

Combo-charges are not that easy to organise, the vast majority of big units I've seen used by good players spend most of their time 10-wide. If you're charged by an enemy Horde for example you simply lose the fourth rank attacks. You feel the 7x4 option is important lelthan but I disagree.

I didn't know you are such a fanboy, SA

I disagree with a fair bit of what the guy writes SM. But there's no denying he's a stellar player, so his opinion is relevant here. I give credit where it's due.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi SA,

Well, it does not take a genius to know that in order to understand the army you need to play with it a lot. There are 16 armies out there. There were 6 scenarios in the 8th edition rule book. In order to play against the same army in each scenario at least once you would need to have 96 games. And that assuming you are playing against the same army list from particular army book. To me 50 games seems like an arbitrary assumption everybody would make, regardless of experience.

In a way that of course reinforces the point you tried to make so I agree that claims that particular army book is too weak can be premature. Or simply not true.

As to what makes a person a stellar player, well, let's just say it is not only about how many tournaments you win. I don't want to derail the topic though so if you wish to exchange point of view on that matter you know where to find me

[Prince of Spires]

I think the number 50 is pulled out of thin air, and will even be different for each individual. Of course the overal idea is valid. You can only say something about a book after a lot of playing. As swordmaster rightly points out, playing everyone in all scenarios alone already takes 96 games.

However, that does not disqualify the statistics referenced by HugoMac. Since all army books are released at roughly the same moment, all players in all those tournaments will have (on average of course) had the same preparation and number of games. It's not a situation where a single new book has come out and you have to figure out how to deal with people who have been playing the same list and book for ages. The playing field is level in that sense. So at the very least you could conclude that the other books are easier to play then the HE book. And yes, there are a lot of assumptions in those statistics, but the results are extreme enough (losing 2 out of every 3 games) to show a trend.

As for HE players having a reputation of complaining. Well, I think that goes for a lot of players and while they might have the reputation, everyone always complains about their book. A lot of the discussions on here were often fairly balanced. And the main conclusion usually was 'we're a strong book if you factor in the gimmicks (book, banner and frosty). Take them out and we're middle of the pack. And I think these results show that. Those gimmicks were removed or nerfed (not completely sure why, since other races also have strong stuff), and we end up middle of the pack.

Also, having had a strong book at some points in the past isn't a reason not to get a decent one now. It should have no impact on the current book. And, being a strong book and being perceived as a strong book are two very different things here. HE players have also gotten a lot of complaining about how strong and OP the book was, even at times when HE players had trouble ending in the middle of the pack in tournaments. Some people have just taken a dislike to HE and complain about them no matter what.

I do think that the disappearance of the SH bus as the main viable tourney list is a good thing. But that's because I generally dislike the character deathstar approach (which this was). But it does pay to remember that the reason people ran this was because it was the strongest build. Take it away as a viable option, and you drop in power, unless something else comes up and replaces it.

Rod

[SpellArcher]

Well, it does not take a genius to know that in order to understand the army you need to play with it a lot. There are 16 armies out there. There were 6 scenarios in the 8th edition rule book. In order to play against the same army in each scenario at least once you would need to have 96 games. And that assuming you are playing against the same army list from particular army book. To me 50 games seems like an arbitrary assumption everybody would make, regardless of experience.

I've seen strong players like Lord Anathir disagree on that SM. Lots of players used to play only Battle Line due to the tournaments in their country or region. Some didn't play certain rulebook scenarios, many introduced their own. I suspect Furion simply found that around 50 was a good average for how long it took him to get a grip on things. He played an awful lot of games. He top-scored at the ETC which you don't do unless you're a very strong player.

So at the very least you could conclude that the other books are easier to play then the HE book.

This is an old and quite interesting topic for us, isn't it Rod? In general there is a case that elf armies are not as user-friendly as WoC, say. I remember having several close games with my Wood Elves vs a Lizardman player, then swapping armies and running him over. But that's not automatically so. It's a possibility, especially when you factor in the loss of the old World Dragon which often let you push very aggressively at little risk. I'm not saying those stats are invalid.

As for HE players having a reputation of complaining. Well, I think that goes for a lot of players and while they might have the reputation, everyone always complains about their book. A lot of the discussions on here were often fairly balanced. And the main conclusion usually was 'we're a strong book if you factor in the gimmicks (book, banner and frosty). Take them out and we're middle of the pack. And I think these results show that. Those gimmicks were removed or nerfed (not completely sure why, since other races also have strong stuff), and we end up middle of the pack.

I remember this from the 90's Rod, HE players were known for it then. When the 6th edition DE book was amended in WD, Gav Thorpe mentioned that the biggest lobbying to revise other books had come re the HE one (which was unbalanced rather than weak per se). I didn't notice that much complaining on Asrai when the WE book was junk. Ulthuan itself has been slightly different because for example in early 8th when the army was average at best there was a lot of work put in by our guys on the blogs and elsewhere to make the most of what we had and punch above our weight. That is the spirit we need now.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Many players are very adamant about their opinions. That does not mean they have more right to claim their point of view is more valid than others. The numbers I gave can be used simply as a reference point to show that it is obvious you need to play more with particular army in order to properly assess its strengths and weaknesses.

The number of games played is really a secondary matter here. You may forget about the scenarios but it can be then replaces by the number of variations of the army lists that are popular at a time. If you want to take ETC setting into account then you obviously need to include matching system and how that affects the overall standings for particular player. You may have the best player in the world (quite arbitrary term because I have no idea how one wants to assess that) playing a role of a blocker and he will never get significant amount of points. But that would not make him any less valuable for the team.

And you can have plenty of other factors that will further affect the estimation of army performance. The statistics from the tournaments are no less valuable for the people who design army books for 9th age. I just think it is better to avoid such authoritarian statements as "you need X games to know how powerful the army is".

The point was, however, not that much about how many games do you really need to play but that I totally disagree with your overenthusiastic prize of that player. I tried to frame that in a not-so-serious manner because I think it is a little pity that you idolize that particular person.

As to more general topic, that is 9th edition highborn musings and the fact that HE players complained abut their army book. I am not sure if much changed in the meantime but from what I remember the main problem is that almost everybody things that adding character and value to the army means bringing more power.

Now that is what is a wrong direction because if you give something powerful to one army people from others will want that too. Remember how HE players were disappointed when 8th edition book didn't have any monstrous cavalry? Unfortunately, I don't see how it can be contained now. Apparently Rules Team tried to limit the amount of powerful novelties but that caused a lot of disappointment too.

Personally, when the project started I hoped for something like Raging Hordes booklet, streamlined rule book and the process where the rulebook is being extensively tested before absolutely any further changes to the books are even discussed. But the designers took different route.

[SpellArcher]

Pawel, we both agree that it is not possible to immediately assess the value of a book compared to other books purely on a first reading. I provided an example, we are in disagreement on the validity of that example.

I think it is a little pity that you idolize that particular person.

Back off. I find this very insulting. The guy is a strong player etc, his opinion is relevant, as the opinion of other strong players might be in such a case. There are lots of things I disagree with him about. He is not my god.

[sparkytrypod]

Gosh we really have wandered a bit off topic now guys!


At the moment there isnt much point in giving out about the state of the book or ninth in general, it is goin to be this way until the next revision sometime in the new year, so all we can do is play play play and test test test.

To bring us back to positivity let focus a bit on what we are happy with at the moment, games and list building will quickly show units and items that are dead weight.

What points level are you guys mainly playing at?

What type of wizards /magic are you using and how has this influenced your list? Or are you building your list and then choosing a lore?

Do people șee a future in fighty characters?

Are you taking honours in your characters. And if so are you actively benefiting? How has the ability to take honours influenced your list?

Has anyone used the new version of white lions yet?

Are people trying to cram in the new and shiny stuff to the detriment of the army as a whole?

Are we now an aggressive army or defensive?

If you are up for answering some of these try and push ourselves to steer clear of Generalisations, the devil is in the detail no matter how small or simple it sounds!

Also, feel free to stick in your own questions and headings for a bit of analysis!

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

@ SpellArcher

There was absolutely no intention to insult you. I think you know that very well. But since you chose to treat it that way then fine, I will be backing off.

@ sparkytrypod

When is the date of the new release?

I wish I could answer some of your questions but as I don't plan to play 9th Age any time soon then I guess what is left is keeping fingers crossed the 1st official and full version will be a good game.

[Ielthan]

I've heard we could get a new version before Christmas, as early as Tuesday.

Regarding your questions:

1. 2400pts but starting a 1600pts campaign for fun.

2. I think you still need to start your list building with magic. I think atm the only real options at 2400 pts are a lvl4 of light or the more master. Banner of path can be worth it, but 50pts is expensive for +1 to cast.

3. I think fighty characters have improved, but they generally face the same problem of 1 shot killing your general. Star Dragon still the way to go, but I will try the griffon Prince soon.

4. I'm taking honours, the flame warden bsb will make pretty much every list, the toughest bsb we've ever had by a distance. Lore master gets taken. I'm trying the mage prince but more because it's cool than competitive. Handmaiden honour is basically the same as before, if youre taking sisters it's good, but expensive. Shadow warrior one is useless.

5. Trying new stuff but the stronger stuff tends to take precedent, swordmasters, seaguard, dragon princes, lion chariot is good.

6. Have used the new white lions in horde with dragon banner, they're not that dissimilar, but like before they need a lot of character/magic support. Without the botwd gimmick or alarielle ward save they don't cut it. Maybe vs a non elf shooting heavy list, otherwise Swordmasters are much better.

7. I think we're either avoidance then counterattacking or extremely aggressive, pretty much same as before.

[SpellArcher]

Fair play SM, TBH I fear we misunderstood each other quite severely here.

Sparky:

1) I've only played one game, at 2000pts. But I'm expecting to up it to 2400 and have a rough idea of what I'll be adding.

2) Banner of Path looks tailor-made for a Coven of Light, if that is still viable. I've used an Archmage with Book on high magic, backed up with Mage Prince BSB also on high but with Scroll. It worked well in the game I played, complementing my good shooting phase. I'm considering dropping the scroll from the BSB to fit more combat gear in which case the AM would take it. Book was helpful but Scroll is more important than ever I believe.

3) The simple addition of Talisman of Cenryn has made my Chariot Prince viable again. He killed a 2+/5++ elf lord in one round. It gives us back that option to go for a quick kill instead of being forced to grind. Should be frighteningly good on a Giant Sword Prince because you even get +1 to hit on top of the re-rolls.

4) Honours are really good, especially for fighting characters. I've seen lists where you really want to take two on one character. The fact that you get them on top of magic item allowance simply makes them more powerful now IMHO. My Mage Prince BSB gives me Book, improved spell selection, double MM if I want it, +1 to Channel. Buying a Mage is not necessary.

5) I'm tempted to try the Skirmishing Lions, partly because it gives another case of Stubborn (in woods) on top of vs Fear-causers. Not sure what I'd drop to pay for them though.

6) I take what I think will work from the range of models I have. So new stuff has mainly been in the form of the Honour, magic items, changes to how existing units work.

7) My list turned out fairly defensive for my first game, with plenty of shooting. Partly this was because the models I had available dictated an infantry-heavy Core and I feel Coastal Guard offer me more utility than Spears. I do take lelthan's point that the list may be discouraging infantry blocks somewhat. I have 14 Swordmasters with Banner but as said above, I'm not sure even about adding 10 Lions, Knights of Ryma just look more badass. I suspect both defensive and offensive strategies should be workable.

[Giladis]

I might shed some light.

After spending several sleepless night I am quite positive the update will be on Dec 21st.

[Ferny]

What points level are you guys mainly playing at?

Same as always for me - 2400. Interesting point though - is ETC moving to 2500? If so I suspect the meta will follow and so will I. Basically I'll play whatever I can get a game at though.

What type of wizards /magic are you using and how has this influenced your list? Or are you building your list and then choosing a lore?

Loremaster. I just can't work out what lores work or don't work anymore and he saves me having to decide, and as a bonus is both more tanky and more fighty, and costs about the same. Also with aided casting his main weakness from 8th is mitigated. The downside is that he does sort of cost more because you need at least a banner and/or mage knight level investment to get the best of him, whereas an AM can go solo. That said, banner can come from core tax and a mage knight is a nifty upgrade for a griffon character so might be something you can get easily anyway

Do people șee a future in fighty characters?

Sure - griffon characters look good. Dragon characters, mage or prince, look good. On foot, now the annointed is up to 3A, the BSB looks good (2+/2+/4++, with 3xS5 holy, magical attacks - pretty solid). If you class them as fighters, the magic of loremasters is so good now they're likely to be around a lot, and by the same measure, we can take mage knights!

Are you taking honours in your characters. And if so are you actively benefiting? How has the ability to take honours influenced your list?

Fo sho! Ignoring loremaster who hasn't really changed much, mage knight is a wicked new one. I would totally take any of the three foot BSB options (handmaiden, seahelm, annointed) in the right list. With the annointed I'd be inclined to include PG unless I was taking a light list, with handmaiden as big a bunker of sisters as permitted (with the 5++ vs shooting banner, and maybe an AM/loremaster with MR3 and bow of eru).

Has anyone used the new version of white lions yet?

Not yet, but they look viable again now.

Are people trying to cram in the new and shiny stuff to the detriment of the army as a whole?

Not sure, but I'm definitely suffering from options overload when trying to design lists, rather than finding a theme and building the best possible to it (e.g. aggressive, defensive, shooty, magic, etc).

Are we now an aggressive army or defensive?

Options on lots of flyers and core heavy (and fast) cav and good chariots allow for aggressive builds. Options for max sisters, resilient foot BSB, strong countercharge, solid special shooting and viable core shooting allow for defensive. Lots of lore choice flexibility helps too. Probably depends on playstyle.

If you are up for answering some of these try and push ourselves to steer clear of Generalisations, the devil is in the detail no matter how small or simple it sounds!

Oops - did these in order and just hit this . Wonder how I did!

[sparkytrypod]

well lads, here we go, lets face it this is roughly what we are gonna be playing with for the next few months!!i will just be speeding though some stuff but we can come back to it later, so having had a read of our book this is what i am thinking...

Heroes/honours

Loremaster
loremaster is out for me, an insane amount of points for what you get i think.
Also along with the points increase, the swordsworn rule has really lost its lustre, mithril mail has increased in price, some lore attributes & signatures have been changed and not for the better, (in the eyes of the loremaster anyway!).
So what can we do with him eh, essentially he is the same and if you were happy before you will probably just drop a few bodies from special to squeeze him in now.
On the positive side he is LD10 with 4 attacks, so you can make him an infantry fighter that dabbles in magic if you want to play aggressively, or kit him out for magic and castle in a unit of lion guard, who are stubborn against fear causers.

Prince
This is still my go to guy, i just like the idea of having an heroic fighter. He still rocks on a griffon as far as im concerned, nothing has changed in this update for him griffon wise.
However, with our new amazing war banner of rhyma, which gives thunderous charge, i have had a rethink on his role as a cav prince (along with everyone id say!!)

Into the dragon prices he shall go, with 1+ armour, demon hunter helm, giant blade and divine icon, for a whopping 4 strength 8 attacks on the charge, with enemy rerolling ward saves, the dragon princes will have 9 S7 attacks from the front rank alone, the horses will have 8 S4 attacks also.
The trick will be balancing the size of this unit with the need for getting charges off, i.e what else do i need to get into my list both shooting and redirector wise to ensure i charge as often as i want and at the correct targets.
So right now i an thinking maybe 9 dragon princes, full command, devastating charge and banner of rhyma

Archmage
well if you arent taking a loremaster i think i will be taking this guy. i am not sold on 2 lvl 2 mages which are cheaper by the way, but the kicker for me is asfad scholar, the extra range on your spells on this one model gives me an edge on playing defensively if i need to, when i say this i am looking at white magic also, all my damage spells now have range 30", need to rip a magic item of a character, i now have maybe 3 turns to try, dont want to march into a gunline, cataclysm and lunminous bolts are range 30" with this upgrade, sorted.
And no matter what infantry you choose the phoenix rises is a huge threat, heck even after a charge bumping dragon princes up to strength 5 is good. The lore attribute also doesnt end at the end of the turn either anymore.
Loadout for this guy will be a scroll plus some form of save, whatever takes your fancy. i think if you take the honour on him you need to spend all magical item points efficiently or you will be short on actual bodies for your army.

right, thats a start, hopefully get the ball rolling, there is so much to talk about, but now i must play halo!! look forward to all any any input! please no whining, this is essentially the book we will have for the forseeable future, so lets see what we can do with it!

[SpellArcher]

On the positive side he is LD10 with 4 attacks, so you can make him an infantry fighter that dabbles in magic if you want to play aggressively, or kit him out for magic and castle in a unit of lion guard, who are stubborn against fear causers.

How big would you make the Lion Guard Sparky? If he's going pure magic, maybe Archers or Sea Guard could bunker? For that matter, if he's going combat would Flame Wardens be the best unit for him?

The trick will be balancing the size of this unit with the need for getting charges off, i.e what else do i need to get into my list both shooting and redirector wise to ensure i charge as often as i want and at the correct targets.
So right now i an thinking maybe 9 dragon princes, full command, devastating charge and banner of rhyma

It's certainly tempting, should hit like hell on the charge. The Prince can grind if necessary, though he might need BSB close for this. As you imply, heavy focus is then on this unit. You get 4 extra attacks from Devastating Charge for 45 points, might be worth running without, especially if it turns out the unit needs more bodies. The flipside of course is that you're not using Core for the bus, so what would you take there? I suspect you end up with your other units slightly nerfed. Another option is simply to stick the new Banner on a unit of six or seven say, with Devastating Charge.

Some very good points on the Archmage, agree completely. The top spells need to be four-diced though, which is dangerous with just one caster. I'm pondering Book, then scroll on another guy, earthing rod also worth a look, an idea from Thomas Munk's latest list, here:

http://www.asrai.org/viewtopic.php?f=45 ... 40#p355240

Sceptre of Power could be good too.

[sparkytrypod]

hi SA,

ah if i was going to use the lion guard for baby sitting duty i would be thinking 25-30 range, its a safety first approach, so full bolt thrower and lots of shooting/redirectors, plus scoring helms.
Regarding flame wardens, maybe, but the stubborn aggainst fear causers is still good on the lions, one unfortunate combat or break test and you are in trouble with the wardens, flame wardens are also more expensive.

Corewise my initial thoughts are a good unit of archers, plus 3 msu helms with a banner for scoring. At the moment archers are getting alot of hate, but my thoughts are if you were taking them before, well they are still going to do the same job now and they get light armour for free, also especially with the toning down of 1+ armour and the power of units in general if more infantry is going to be seen, they have a role to play.

Looking at that wood elf list you linked, if i dont have archers or only 24 inch seaguard, i think im am in a world of trouble, but if i have 21-30 archers, plus some bolters, well at least i can control some space, if the wood elf is wasting arrows on my archers, i am happy enough! Speed is the key!

Regarding 4 dicing on the archmage, ya its a risk, but if i hold off on say, arcane dissolution till the end of my phase, will the threat of it let me get luminous bolts through, might not need to do it then!

Really i am just trying to get my head around what is the best setup i like, maybe not the most uber powerfull but competitive. Its gonna be all so meta dependant!! By the looks of things 20-25 models is the new 30 in unit size and so on, its exciting!!

[SpellArcher]

ah if i was going to use the lion guard for baby sitting duty i would be thinking 25-30 range, its a safety first approach, so full bolt thrower and lots of shooting/redirectors, plus scoring helms.

Yeah, I can see this defensively. I don't trust this unit to stalk the enemy down but enough shooting (and maybe more magic?) could take heat off it so it can fend the enemy off.

Regarding flame wardens, maybe, but the stubborn aggainst fear causers is still good on the lions, one unfortunate combat or break test and you are in trouble with the wardens, flame wardens are also more expensive.

In 8th, Lions with World Dragon were good but there were still plenty of things (elves) that caused them trouble. Now they've lost it. The +1 AS is helpful but there are a lot of Initiative 6 elves running around. Flame Wardens look better all-rounders to me, though Lions murder some things with their Multiple Wounds rule. It's like, do you go for a unit you know won't run or for a unit that could have a better chance of winning a grind.

Corewise my initial thoughts are a good unit of archers, plus 3 msu helms with a banner for scoring. At the moment archers are getting alot of hate, but my thoughts are if you were taking them before, well they are still going to do the same job now and they get light armour for free, also especially with the toning down of 1+ armour and the power of units in general if more infantry is going to be seen, they have a role to play.

Sounds pretty sensible.

Regarding 4 dicing on the archmage, ya its a risk, but if i hold off on say, arcane dissolution till the end of my phase, will the threat of it let me get luminous bolts through, might not need to do it then!

I feel there are certain games where you need to be hitting the enemy with either Arcane Dissolution or Cataclysm most phases. Grounding Rod is helpful but a lot of miscast results are bad news on four dice, especially if bunkered in Lions as opposed to Flame Wardens. Sceptre of Power is great because you can probably prevent a miscast entirely with it but it's still one use. Book is expensive but being able to 3-dice Dissolution each phase for example, could be important to turn the screw.

Really i am just trying to get my head around what is the best setup i like, maybe not the most uber powerfull but competitive. Its gonna be all so meta dependant!! By the looks of things 20-25 models is the new 30 in unit size and so on, its exciting!!

I'd be very interested to see a list!