Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => Warmaster Revolution => Topic started by: Aldhick on March 06, 2017, 10:50:25 PM
-
Looking for any experience with Wood Elf list from Trial armies compendium focused on rules issues as this list seems to have bunch of them.
Any contribution appreciated.
Cheers
-
Interested in this thread as I am building this army. However I have limited experience and my views would be biased, as I like the cool, unique flavour of the army. But I do recognise it needs fixing.
The min/max needs looking at, as the army list builds itself after the min is taken. No real room for variety.
-
To be perfectly frank I feel that the whole list harks back to the early 90's Elf Fetish that made Squeakies uber powerful in every GW game and should be removed entirely... Most players consider the Vanilla High Elf army to be playing on easy mode and this list is so lacking in balance that it makes high elves look weak! I just don't think it has any redeeming features beyond flavour and aesthetics... neither of those require a bucket full of special rules.
(how on earth did anyone decide that a 2 shot, +1 to hit with possible armour piercing arrows Unit should only cost 60 points?)
-
After listening to the Warmaster podcast on this topic, I'm kind of concerned on the army direction.
There are a few good points made- such as Dryads being underpriced (100pts for 4/4/5+), and Glade Riders not needing 3+ to hit (the list should look at Tournament High Elves as a base), but:
Eternal Guard should definitely remain with a 5+ save (as with other elite elven spearmen, and eternal guard tend to break the wood-elf mould regarding armour and skirmishing)
and Treemen should be in the list- they are an iconic Wood Elf unit!
Personally, I'd look at ideas from M.B.Hildreth's list (I think published in Warmaster magazine). It has Dryads as 4/3/6+, which is much more appropriate for the Warhammer:Warmaster stats conversion, and Waywatchers are only a single stand (very useful, but not game breaking). Other improvements include Call of the Hunt being on a 6+, but gaining in situational usefulness.
The Forest Spirit Army and Alternative Skirmish Rules should probably be dropped- although I like them, that's a big pile of special rules.
Simply taking a knife to the as-is list will probably kill the flavour, and see everyone running them as 'counts as' High Elves.
-
The 5+ armour save surprises me I'll be honest. Orcs with heavy armour, shields and a higher toughness get a lower armour save. Prancing about helps I guess?
-
The 5+ armour save surprises me I'll be honest. Orcs with heavy armour, shields and a higher toughness get a lower armour save. Prancing about helps I guess?
The armor in WM doesn't represent just how heavy armored the unit is, but also some combat skills as this cannot be reflected in "to hit" rolls. Halberdier units should not be the same as HE spermen stat-wise, should they.
-
After few testing games I see the main WE problem in the extra woods system. Thanx to lack of armored units, the best way for WE is to put his units into the forrest and stay there and shoot, eventually use the situation to some carefully planed charges. However this is extremely difficult against heavy armored units - such as heavy cavalry. If this so criticised rule of "no armor on 6" is to be dropped, the WE have practically nothing to oppose such units. In fact the best the WE can do against heavy cavalry is to hide in the wood and don't let it charge. But this leads to very boring play for both players and frustrating for the opponent. The problem is especially visible when the enemy succedes in defeating the WE cavalry after which the rest of the WE army can only hide in the woods, where they easily beat the enemy infantry and any other units can't reach them. In such moment the game turns into two armies looking at each other trying to do the best with their shooting and the game stalls. WE units are not only lightly armored, but quite expensive and therefore few in numbers. So protecting your units is something you really want to do.
Therefore I think the first step should be to focus on the extra wood rules. They need to be decreased. However being ripped of their main defensive tool the WE cannot be ripped of their armor at the same time, leaving them completely unprotected against hard hitting enemy units.
BTW I see absolutely no problem in the Call of the Hunt spell (compare it to what tournament Bretonnia can do). In fact I think they need it. WE have absolutely no protection against long range artillery - especially against cannons that treat defended targets as in open. Taking into account that you have an elite army few in numbers, you really fear any losses that happen before your units have chance to do something. The situation presented in the Podcast is super extreme. Wise and experienced player would not allow this happen as it is quite easy to position your artillery so that it cannot be the closest target to any enemy unit. Positioning the whole unprotected artillery brigade so it can be freely charged by using this spell is the worst thing you can ever do with your artillery. You cannot judge whether the spell is strong or not based on such situation.
-
The armor in WM doesn't represent just how heavy armored the unit is, but also some combat skills as this cannot be reflected in "to hit" rolls. Halberdier units should not be the same as HE spermen stat-wise, should they.
Well if you look at the 28mm counterparts that would likely have been the original inspiration -
Empire halberdier, average combat skill (WS3), carries no shield (could carry a shield but it only applied to Shooting attacks and not Melee) and possibly wore a steel breastplate but most wore a padded jack. Light armour on the average in Warhammer - 6+ save.
High Elf spearmen, above average combat skill (WS4) wore steel scale armour and carried a shield. The scale armour, oddly, was counted at Light in the rules, and the shield boosted it to 5+ save.
Funny how there's a direct correlation there but if in Warmaster the fighting ability rather than the equipment worn is what matters then that's a whole other kettle of fish true enough.
-
Seen from this perspective, the Ethernal Guard has 5+ save as well in 6th ed armybook. So no problem there.
-
Seen from this perspective, the Ethernal Guard has 5+ save as well in 6th ed armybook. So no problem there.
Agreed. But this just shows me that I cannot fathom how the armour save of a unit is arrived at in Warmaster. *shrugs*
-
Chiming in :)
BTW I see absolutely no problem in the Call of the Hunt spell (compare it to what tournament Bretonnia can do).
Agree - Both Bret and VC have something similar spellwise. I'd say Call of the Hunt is a bit more situational even. Bret/VC gets to move where they want to. WE need to move into combat with the closest visible enemy unit. I'd say Bre/VC's got the better deal on that. Less fiddling with positioning to get to where you want to go.
(And considering how CoeH is worded atm I would also rule that if the affected unit cant reach combat they dont get to move at all? Might need a look at?)
The "Enemy may not shoot at chargers"-part is good but also situational. Not all enemy units have shooting. The opponent should easily be able to keep their more squishy artillery and such out of the spells threatrange (closest visible). At least during early/midgame.
Maybe, if needed, CoeH should work just like Bret/VC's similar spells? That would make it more usefull I think..
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
-
I agree it's odd, but I think the main units for most Warmaster armies have a pretty simple way of determining their stats, based on what is considered a 'standard' Warhammer configuration.
For example, Halberdiers are your generic unit- one attack per model, light armour becomes 3 attacks for a stand, 6+ save. High Elf spearmen have one attack per model, light armour and a shield- which becomes 3 attacks per stand and a 5+ save. Orcs have two hand weapons (2 attacks per model) and light armour, which becomes 4 attacks per stand and a 6+ save.
I've found that this view works for most units. It's only when a unit's natural abilities seriously break the mould that things get shaken up- such as how Chaos Warriors have hand weapons, heavy armour and shields- but they naturally have 2 attacks per model, so the stand still has 4 attacks. It's really only 'when does a unit gain an extra hit?' that throws me.
Part of the reason I liked M. B. Hildreth's original Call of the Hunt was that it added an extra use for the spell- it could be cast onto an engaged unit, giving +1A (per stand, I think). Since it can only be cast in the Wood Elf turn, that helps epitomise to me the Wood Elf motto: Hit first and hit hard.
I agree with Aldhick's opinion on the extra forest. The same issue used to be true in Warhammer- without the forest, Wood Elves were excessively squishy and could not stand up to anything heavy. With too much forest, the Wood Elves were untouchable, and games would often become very dull/frustrating for the opponent. As much as I like the idea of the rule, I think it needs to be toned down or dropped.
As something of a replacement, I think Treesinging could do with a boost- perhaps moving a forest 2D6cm? As it is, I would only ever bother to cast this spell if I had no other possible spell to cast. Elves can't afford to be too mage-heavy, so having a 50/50 chance per mage to give forests a slight wiggle every turn is very rarely worth it.
-
I agree it's odd, but I think the main units for most Warmaster armies have a pretty simple way of determining their stats, based on what is considered a 'standard' Warhammer configuration.
For example, Halberdiers are your generic unit- one attack per model, light armour becomes 3 attacks for a stand, 6+ save. High Elf spearmen have one attack per model, light armour and a shield- which becomes 3 attacks per stand and a 5+ save. Orcs have two hand weapons (2 attacks per model) and light armour, which becomes 4 attacks per stand and a 6+ save.
I've found that this view works for most units. It's only when a unit's natural abilities seriously break the mould that things get shaken up- such as how Chaos Warriors have hand weapons, heavy armour and shields- but they naturally have 2 attacks per model, so the stand still has 4 attacks. It's really only 'when does a unit gain an extra hit?' that throws me.
Cheers for that, other than the edge case of the additional hit as you say, that's makes a lot of sense.
So ignore my earlier about the 5+ on the Eternal Guard (also it appears I'd got my head in a fuddle thinking they were just Glade Guard with spears rather than elite double-spear-ninja bodyguard types that they are).
-
Glade Guard/ Eternal Guard have been on a bit of a rules and name ride.
When named Glade Guard, they were basic Elven Spearmen- a 'core' unit identical to their High Elf counterparts. When they became Eternal Guard (6th ed I think) they became an elite unit, with a lot of odd special rules. They had high WS, extra attacks (on top of supporting spear attacks) and gained an equivalent to heavy armour. If that were translated directly into Warmaster they'd probably be 4/3/5+, though I don't think that should be the case (not when other Elven armies don't even have their elite foot troops). In 8th ed, they basically became regular spearmen again, with light armour and shields. They kept WS5 and a few other boosted stats, but nothing too significant.
I think 3/3/5+ is perfect for them, and the ability to take a regular combat unit that doesn't need to rely on dirty tricks is great as it gives the opponent something they 'know' how to tackle, helping to remove some of the frustration that comes from facing a guerrilla warfare style force.
-
I have played a couple of games using mocked up Wood Elves and their ranged game is very powerful, but the biggest issue for me is the number of additional special rules you have to remember and the strange points costs of units when compared to identical units in other armies.
Things I like are;
Eternal Guard. Profile is spot on.
Wild Riders. Excellent representation in the rules and follow the standard fanatic rule as well.
Warhawk Riders. Well represented.
Treeman character - because if he was a Monster choice he could not enter woods!
Things I feel may need a few small tweaks to bring the list in line with the more traditional armies are;
Issue #1. The minimum troop choices are 5 units coming to 345 pts out of every 1000 pts. This is far higher than any other army.
Solution; Glade Guard (archers) should be 2/- choice, and Eternal Guard (Spearmen) should be 1/- choice, per 1000. This is in line with the High Elf list but reflects the Wood Elves preference for archers.
Issue #2. Glade Guard seem expensive at 75 pts. They cost the same as High Elf archers, and get the +1 to hit bonus, but have no armour save. So they are not as good as High Elf archers for the same cost!
Solution: A price drop of 5 or 10 points. Even with their ignore forests for command rule, I think this is justified. 70 pts per unit is still pricey but fairer.
Issue # 3. Wardancers have a rule that breaks the game system. No unit in Warmaster affects armour saves in close combat. Wardancers should not do this. Also they are very expensive for three hit infantry.
Solution: Two options here I think. Either run Wardancers the same as every other Fanatic unit; 5/3/- profile, must charge and pursue, cannot evade, ignore terror and drive backs for 70 pts.
Or turn Wardancers into single stands of Skirmishers like the Empire list. They are bought as a single additional stand to Glade Guard or Eternal Guard units, have the same armour as the parent unit to represent them intermingling, can be positioned in any formation without penalty, and can be removed instead of a parent stand. 4/3/* for 25 pts.
Issue # 4. Waywatchers also have a rule that breaks the game system. No other unit ignores armour on a 6 when shooting.
Solution: Waywatchers are not a separate unit. They are instead an upgrade for Glade Guard. One unit of Glade Guard per 1000 pts can be upgraded to Waywatchers for +10 pts. They gain the same rule as Handgunners, -1 armour save when shooting, to represent lethal shots.
Issue# 5. Dryads are very cheap at 100 pts. Their negative flammable rule is extremely situational. They also get to ignore the -1 command for forests rule which more than makes up for the flammable rule. Also Dryads should really now be called Tree Kin as this is the appropriate unit type in line with the profile of 4/4/5+.
Solution: Rename Dryads to Tree Kin or "Forest Spirits", and price them at 110 pts in line with their profile counterparts (Black Orcs).
Issue # 6. Glade Riders should not get +1 to hit. This rule was removed from the High Elf list in regards to Reavers as is was felt too powerful when combined with Command 10 characters.
Solution: Remove the +1 to hit for shooting rule and reduce cost to 90 pts.
Issue # 7. Command 10 General. Very few armies have this and Command value should not be confused with Ld value from Warhammer. I personally see Wood Elves as a bit feral and less disciplined than High Elves or Dark Elves.
Solution: Impose a -1 command penalty if an Elf character orders a non Elf unit (Dryads / Treekin or Wild Riders). This provides a counterbalance to Command 10 General and greater incentive to bring a Treeman to command your forest spirits!
I won't comment on the spells as they were not cast in the games I played.
Please feel free to critique my suggestions, I am no army building expert but would like to generate some discussion about how the Wood Elf list can be revised for Warmaster Revolution.
Many Thanks
-
Many thanx for your input Dark Omen. I (and I belive that many others) agree with most of what you have written. But there's more imo. I did lot's of thinking about the WE list and some playtesting as well. As I see it, these special rules/stats issues are secondary problems. Primary problem is the overall conception. That means following:
- the guerilla style play is boring and frustrating for the opponent, often leading to stalled battles, where WE army after losing most of it's non-infantry units has no option but to hide inside woods and shoot... Battles should be fun, not dull hide and seek games.
- WE are elite army with expensive units and therefore few in numbers. The units are mostly very fragile. No long range weapons, no heavily armored units. Any losses suffered before they get to action hurt big time. This predicts the army to hide and seek tactics.
- numerous additional woods allow you to cover significant area of WE half of the table with woods making it unpenetrable fortress - half of the opponents units could not enter it, rest of the army would stand only poor chances in charging the elves in the woods head on - very funny game, indeed.
So the first take should imo be to try to solve the concept problem. It is necessary to decrease the determination to guerilla style tactics to keep games fun, yet it is necessary to abide the background where WE don't have massive epic field armies but are mostly defending their homeland. And all this should be ideally made with as few impact on the existing list as possible not to mess with people's collection too much.
So no guerilla fighting and no massive WE armies at the same time. How to solve this? To achive the first, it is necessary to start with decreasing the number of the extra woods. To achieve the latter, there is and idea mentioned somewhere by someone on this forum and I think it's the best direciton to follow - let the tree spirits fight for the elves.
-
You raised some really nice points there and I like the way you have offered up solutions... its a rather lengthy post so I'll try and keep my responses short :)
Ranged game powerful = yes, but I would argue High elves are even more so, with their bolt thrower
Treeman character = how about if he was a monster, like giant or bone giant? - but as he is a tree can move in woods (I know another unique special rule that you are cutting down on)
Issue #1 = agree
Issue #2 = agree
Issue #3 = agree, I thought of the same 2 options as you, cant decide which, perhaps the first option.
Issue #4 = I like you option (does that include 2 shots, for 3 stands, -1 armour)? However don't agree. Many of the artillery (which are a units afterall) ignore armour. I see waywatchers as the "artillery" for wood elves. In fact the only hope they have of punching through heavy cav. With only 2 stands, and maybe a roll of a 6, I think the odds are too low to unbalance the game (my maths is not good, so it might be -1 to armour is more devastating and reliable than the random 6 on a D6).
Issue #5 = agree
Issue #6 = agree
Issue #7 = interesting twist - I like it, rather than reduce the cmd to 9 for everything, and give more a reason for the Treeman (still prefer to see him as a monster, but like where you are going with this)
Spells are an issue (tree singing is pants) allow the woods to move further, 1D6 achieves nothing.
You did not give your thoughts on rule of up to 4 free woods.
Is it me, or does the Albion list feel more "wood elfy" with their ties with nature... wolfhounds, eagles, fenbeast...spells of mists, rain and hail. I know we are trying to tweak the existing list (not mess up what people may have bought) but I think it would have been cool to have less elf troops and more woodland animals as part of the army.
-
Like Clawless Dragon I'm also part way into building a WE army. I'm invested.
I played WE in warhammer so a lot of this is familiar. As a WE player there needs to be an to get your troops up close. Magical arrows provided this.
Bring back arcane bodkins for GG at 15cm. That'll force them to get in close and provide a counter for heavy cav. Get it right you can take a stand off a unit, get it wrong and you're trampled.
I've no problem getting rid of the extra woods unless there's none on the field already- there should be enough terrain on the field anyway.
Core units need to be either -1 each or as stated for first 1000 points then -1 for second thousand points. Like GG must have 3 in 1000 point army, 5 in 2000 points.
-
I'm gonna put here one of the ideas being discussed and I'll be glad for any feedback:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/179cL5cBUp0XazKg1PWmonjORIpt_rEuimCn28GztkV0/edit#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/179cL5cBUp0XazKg1PWmonjORIpt_rEuimCn28GztkV0/edit#gid=0)
The main concept is to limit the elves in number slightly and allowing to build "tree spirit" heavy army, while not messing with the existing list too much. The aim is also to drop too unconventional special rules and not making up new ones.
The list also tries to support combat tactics, not shooty and guerilla tactics. It's important to see, that Wardancers and Wildriders are the only hard hitting units. That's why Wardancers need to stay as a unit. For me it makes much more sense to make Waywathech skirmishers-like unit as they are supposed to be small abmush squads, but more importantly, having super effective expensive and fragile shooty unit is supporting guerilla warfare.
If we want to make dryad-heavy army, the 4 hits and cost over 100 pts is simply too much. In this concept they are equivalent of daemon horde.
Almost everybody want to see the the treeman as a monster. While monters always count as in the open rules-wise, I see no problem allowing him entering woods. Retaining Treeman character is to support the "tree spirit" option and gives you more variability.
The list allows still to build almost all-elf army, yet with limited options. And gives you an oportunity to go tree-spirit heavy and enjoy more combat style games.
The list was playtested to some extent, and it worked quite well. 2k games with 2 woods wholly on WE side seemed sufficient to me allowing WE to use them yet not to put all the possible units in it to hide and shoot.
What is not still clear: Should be Wildriders and Wardancers forced to charge on initiative? These are expensive and fragile units limited in nubers, yet to pull them out by units of opponents choice is very easy way to get rid of them. But these units are essential part of WE attacking possibilities that must be used wisely to the good effect. So it shouldn't be too easy for the opponent to screw them.
Tree singing - the D6 move is too minor in effect and the possibility of bringing the WE units to combat too vague and problematic - can a unit be brought to combat via this spell backwards? It will be even more minor when the number of woods is decreased. How about 2D6 cm moving the wood alone - no troops with it?
All other spells seem fine to me.
-
I agree with pretty much all of Dark Omen's points.
Wardancers as an Empire-like Skirmish unit was an idea I was considering suggesting, except that stealing that rule really takes away one of the few things unique to the Empire.
I think Waywatchers as a simple Glade Guard update is a little too bland. They need to be an aggressive scouting unit. A rule like that of Gutter Runners would suit them well, and two stands for a unit is great as a weakness. To further their requirement for aggressive use I'd consider limiting their shooting range to 15cm, but perhaps with no armour saves allowed. It's also not inappropriate to give them 4 attacks- They have always traditionally had high Weapon Skill and two hand weapons. With two stands and no armour they'll never be a frontline combat unit, but they can threaten the heck out of flanks- which is exactly their purpose.
The Dryads as they currently are are not Dryads- both from a fluff perspective and a rules perspective. I agree they either need new stats or a new name. The daemon horde equivalency later brought up is perfect- Dryads are tree daemons. They're not flammable- or even truly 'fleshy'.
I disagree with the idea of dropping the command value of the general, as in my experience this encourages more defensive armies, which is exactly what makes Wood Elves frustrating. They need encouragement to be more aggressive in movement, which I'll talk about more below.
As Industrialtrousers mentioned, Wood Elves would probably benefit from a look at their older Fantasy rules. Specifically, in 6th ed, to help prevent Wood Elves from being a boring gunline they gained the ability to move and fire freely, as well as a shooting benefit within close range. That really encouraged an aggressive but risky play style, and made the 6th ed book the best Wood Elves ever had IMO (the 'magic arrows' of 8th completely missed the point). Gaining Armour Piercing (-1 to saves) at 15cm would probably help achieve that, though may need to go with an increase in points (I'd test 80, though the current 75 may be fine). The point being that Wood Elves are few in number, and you need to squeeze all of the damage you can get out of them.
Guerilla Warfare is pretty much the defining feature of Wood Elves. I definitely get that they need conventional units too, but if you try and step too much on the guerrilla aspect of them then you're not making a Wood Elf list anymore.
Forcing Wild Riders to charge on initiative is fine, and sits with their aggressive nature, but it does not suit Wardancers. The hindrance to Wild Riders may have a benefit, in that it will encourage shielding units to be outside of a forest in order to stop the Wild Riders charging off.
Apologies for the rambling style of many broken responses to other people's comments :p
On another note:
What if Wood Elves could pay points for a section of forest? You can either have a 'regular' size army with no extra forest, or fully embrace the guerrilla warfare style but with a smaller army than your opponent (amount of forest available would be limited per 1000pts).
-
Ales that looks very promising. Thank you, so far.
I like the -1 Command on Treestuff. Have you thought about these ogre sized Treestuff?
On another note:
What if Wood Elves could pay points for a section of forest? You can either have a 'regular' size army with no extra forest, or fully embrace the guerrilla warfare style but with a smaller army than your opponent (amount of forest available would be limited per 1000pts).
That is exactly what I'm thinking having free fortification is just unbalanced in the first place.
-
I'm gonna put here one of the ideas being discussed and I'll be glad for any feedback:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/179cL5cBUp0XazKg1PWmonjORIpt_rEuimCn28GztkV0/edit#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/179cL5cBUp0XazKg1PWmonjORIpt_rEuimCn28GztkV0/edit#gid=0)
The main concept is to limit the elves in number slightly and allowing to build "tree spirit" heavy army, while not messing with the existing list too much. The aim is also to drop too unconventional special rules and not making up new ones.
The list also tries to support combat tactics, not shooty and guerilla tactics. It's important to see, that Wardancers and Wildriders are the only hard hitting units. That's why Wardancers need to stay as a unit. For me it makes much more sense to make Waywathech skirmishers-like unit as they are supposed to be small abmush squads, but more importantly, having super effective expensive and fragile shooty unit is supporting guerilla warfare.
If we want to make dryad-heavy army, the 4 hits and cost over 100 pts is simply too much. In this concept they are equivalent of daemon horde.
Almost everybody want to see the the treeman as a monster. While monters always count as in the open rules-wise, I see no problem allowing him entering woods. Retaining Treeman character is to support the "tree spirit" option and gives you more variability.
The list allows still to build almost all-elf army, yet with limited options. And gives you an oportunity to go tree-spirit heavy and enjoy more combat style games.
The list was playtested to some extent, and it worked quite well. 2k games with 2 woods wholly on WE side seemed sufficient to me allowing WE to use them yet not to put all the possible units in it to hide and shoot.
What is not still clear: Should be Wildriders and Wardancers forced to charge on initiative? These are expensive and fragile units limited in nubers, yet to pull them out by units of opponents choice is very easy way to get rid of them. But these units are essential part of WE attacking possibilities that must be used wisely to the good effect. So it shouldn't be too easy for the opponent to screw them.
Tree singing - the D6 move is too minor in effect and the possibility of bringing the WE units to combat too vague and problematic - can a unit be brought to combat via this spell backwards? It will be even more minor when the number of woods is decreased. How about 2D6 cm moving the wood alone - no troops with it?
All other spells seem fine to me.
Wow I really like the list you have published! I am reassured that there is a lot of thought going in to how Wood Elves can be made more user friendly.
-I assume that the Wood Elf mage character gets the same reroll to cast spells as the High Elf mage, as they cost the same?
-A Treeman monster that can go in woods? Well it makes sense but does break the game rules. I can see the parallel with the Bone Giant. A Bone Giant has the exact same profile for same points but cannot go in woods. May be increase the Treeman cost to reflect this?
Really good stuff.
Thank You.
-
Thanks for sharing what's being considered. So far it is looking very good, what's happened to the forest dragon?
I like the idea of the tree spirits fighting for the elves, but what can we use to represent the dryads? I was going to avoid them as there is little choice, but they will have a bigger roll to play in the army now.
I know eureka have some nice stuff, but can become pricey, it looks like pendraken have some wood spirits but I'm not sold on them http://www.pendraken.co.uk/FAN-MON4-p7191/
Also magister militum have a nice treeman https://www.magistermilitum.com/scale/10mm/fog5-giant-wolves-13989.html
but I'm stuck for other sources, what are other people planning to use for Dryads?
-
Many thenx for your contribution guys. Much appreciated.
Guerilla Warfare is pretty much the defining feature of Wood Elves. I definitely get that they need conventional units too, but if you try and step too much on the guerrilla aspect of them then you're not making a Wood Elf list anymore.
Right. But the problem is WM is not designed for such style of play. That's also why WE never got an official army list. I don't see a point in designing armylist for games that only one side will enjoy.
what's happened to the forest dragon?
Isn't an option to take two +A3 terror causing mounts/characters too much?
-I assume that the Wood Elf mage character gets the same reroll to cast spells as the High Elf mage, as they cost the same?
-A Treeman monster that can go in woods? Well it makes sense but does break the game rules. I can see the parallel with the Bone Giant. A Bone Giant has the exact same profile for same points but cannot go in woods. May be increase the Treeman cost to reflect this?
Good points - the WE mage should be 80 - same as DE sorceress.
The bone giant was the main pattern for the treeman. Minor point cost amendment might be at hand.
Unlike the other lists, which mostly need only small amount of amendments, the WE list needs much more work. That's why we would appreciate your help with playtesting and feedback - wheter the original experimental list or the one suggested here, or any other ideas. It will be most helpful when the imput is based on actual experience rather than gut-feeling shouts. First in line should go the concept and closely related extra woods problem. The units/stats/special rules are secondary issue and should be related to the outcome of the first one. Many thanx.
-
Isn't an option to take two +A3 terror causing mounts/characters too much?
Good point. Didn't think of that. Although he is not a mount, so maybe the issue is the +3 as no other hero has that. I would be inclined to reduce to +2 attacks, and bring back the option of the dragon. If you think undead have sphinx, bone giant, dragon.. all do 3 or more attacks, chaos, lizardmen, have monsters and monstrous mount all giving 3+ attacks, so plenty of armies have multiple high attack, fear causing troops.
Although Perhaps this could be one of the unique features of the WE army, were the hero has more attacks than the general
-
Right. But the problem is WM is not designed for such style of play. That's also why WE never got an official army list. I don't see a point in designing armylist for games that only one side will enjoy.
You're right that WM is not designed for a guerrilla warfare play style, but I don't think there's honestly too much risk of that happening here (assuming the free woods rule receives a much-needed change). What I'd aim to do instead is try to capture the essence of that fighting style- encourage mobility, concentration of fire and similar aspects.
Although I think the GoogleDocs list is generally an improvement, I think it encourages large amounts of the force to be relatively static. Most shooting units, for example, are best off finding a forest edge to dwell in and remaining there for most of the game. Forcing Wardancers and Wild Riders to charge at the nearest enemy means they will be spending a large amount of the game in-hiding, so as not to be drawn out too early. Even giving Warhawk Riders a 15cm all-around shooting attack, while common to such units, has a drawback by reducing the importance of their facing (so exact placement becomes less critical).
I'd like to see an incentive to close the gap, rather than sitting back and being defensive- something similar to how Dark Elves are aggressive as they are much more fearsome at close range (though not stealing their rules).
-
Good point. Didn't think of that. Although he is not a mount, so maybe the issue is the +3 as no other hero has that. I would be inclined to reduce to +2 attacks, and bring back the option of the dragon. If you think undead have sphinx, bone giant, dragon.. all do 3 or more attacks, chaos, lizardmen, have monsters and monstrous mount all giving 3+ attacks, so plenty of armies have multiple high attack, fear causing troops.
Although Perhaps this could be one of the unique features of the WE army, were the hero has more attacks than the general
Thanx for an idea to concider
Although I think the GoogleDocs list is generally an improvement, I think it encourages large amounts of the force to be relatively static. Most shooting units, for example, are best off finding a forest edge to dwell in and remaining there for most of the game. Forcing Wardancers and Wild Riders to charge at the nearest enemy means they will be spending a large amount of the game in-hiding, so as not to be drawn out too early. Even giving Warhawk Riders a 15cm all-around shooting attack, while common to such units, has a drawback by reducing the importance of their facing (so exact placement becomes less critical).
I'd like to see an incentive to close the gap, rather than sitting back and being defensive- something similar to how Dark Elves are aggressive as they are much more fearsome at close range (though not stealing their rules).
Thanx for the comments. WE are desighend as few in numbers, fragile but deadly when charging properly. So this predicts them to be held in defense and attack only in the right situation as they cannot afford any unemployed losses. You can hardly change that unless you make the elves more armored - but that wouldn't be WE anymore. That's the reason why the dryad/treeman-heavy army is supported in the suggested list. These units based on daemon/bone giant stats put into brigades are capable of doing the "proper battle" job. When supported by elvisch cavalry, they are able to stand even against heavy cav brigades.
The point is not to strip WE of their hiding in the wood completely - we all know it is their tactic fluff-wise afterall. But it should be reduced to such extent it is acceptable for the opponet too. That's why the extra woods are still in the suggested list and why it restricts the elvish part and supports the tree spirit part.
On the Wardancers and Wildrider - that's why I wrote previously that I'm not sure about them being forced to charge on initiative for exactly the same reason you say.
What is your idea of making WE more aggresive while not messing with the existing list too much and without inventing too many new special rules?
-
What is your idea of making WE more aggresive while not messing with the existing list too much and without inventing too many new special rules?
I can see where you're going with the forest spirits, and I agree that's great for making a more traditional army that will fight like any other army- which is why that holds no appeal for me. I can certainly understand why that would appeal to people who play other regular armies, and who have no real attachment to Wood Elves as concept (as quick background on myself, I've collected Wood Elves for nearly 20 years now and absolutely loved the design behind the 6th ed book over all others).
I do have some concern that, by aiming to be forest spirit heavy, the elves will become a chore to take and that an Elven army won't be able to stand up by itself.
My preference would be to see Ld remain high, to encourage movement- maybe even adding a movement spell that allows relatively free movement too (more free than The Call of the Hunt) and/or a boost to treesinging. People may hate the potential hit-and-run, but it's always a big gamble for the Elves to pull it off. Added to that would be encouragement to close the range- armour piercing shooting (-1 save) at half range appeals to me. It doesn't need to be drastic.
The shooting units are likely to take damage in return- the trick will be in doing the necessary damage in time, then getting the remainder of those units into safety.
Control of movement should both be important and certain- so ideally no units automatically charging off by themselves (though it can be justified for Wild Riders by fluff), and positioning should be vital for concentrating fire as needed.
As I'm sure most people know, shooting alone rarely kills things in Warmaster, so it's in the second stage when Dryads and Eternal Guard come into their own- hopefully cleaning up units of 1 or 2 stands which have been stripped of support.
The weakness of the list is counterfire- which it must use terrain to try and minimise, and it's also a bit more vulnerable to poor luck than many forces. If the Glade Guard expose themselves for a shot and the dice roll dismally, that's no small thing- but must be an accepted risk. If the shooting doesn't weaken the enemy enough, the Dryads and Eternal Guard would be unlikely to hold.
If I could really stir things up I'd add Great Eagles as well as the Warhawk Riders. Wood Elves were once the main 'air force' army, and I liked fielding both of these units in Fantasy- even if they were often terrible. I don't think that's a necessary change, just some fun.
-
Even the newly suggested list looks broken to me.
* Why are the standard elven Archers ported over with the same stats and no woodland penalty then given a a 10 point saving per unit?
* Why limit the normal Infantry to 3 per thousand and then throw in Unlimited Uber Spearmen... er "tree-Spirit/Dryads" for 75 points with immunity to terror, no command penalty in woods and a +1 attack! OK they do have a -1 command penalty from most heroes but it's a 10 command General so it's hardly an issue?
* Waywatchers are based on Empire Skirmishers... Good plan but why they seem cheap for the power of the shooting attack? Also, should the save not be 0/5+ to match their parent units?
* Wardancers... Glad to see their 'tank' killer ability gone but I'm still not keen on armoured flagellants in an Elven Army.
* An Unlimited number Hero mounts seems a little unnecessary.
*
-
Interesting. Wood Elf players say it's too weak and others it's overpowered. How come :-)
-
Interesting. Wood Elf players say it's too weak and others it's overpowered. How come :-)
Probably because they are Squeakie lovin' gits ;)
-
Alright now. I'll own the git reference as I don't have a leg to stand on there but not sure I'm taking on the squeakie.
I'm Building a We army so by Xmas I'm hoping to have lured dry erase and or Mr Athens fantasy in for a game or two and have some meaningful feedback. You need something with punch or the opposition chariots/Knights etc just roll you.
-
All elf's are Squeaakies and all Squeakies must die!
*OK, some elf's are Skimbo's but they are also gits and should die :o
**Please note: I may have been playing Orcs far too long 😝
-
As for your sensible comments re: "punch" that's what the wardancers do... The tree spirit/dryads are overkill and the knights/chariots cant get you in the woods anyway. Even unarmoured shooters are insanely hard to shift if they have support.
-
Even the newly suggested list looks broken to me.
* Why are the standard elven Archers ported over with the same stats and no woodland penalty then given a a 10 point saving per unit?
* Why limit the normal Infantry to 3 per thousand and then throw in Unlimited Uber Spearmen... er "tree-Spirit/Dryads" for 75 points with immunity to terror, no command penalty in woods and a +1 attack! OK they do have a -1 command penalty from most heroes but it's a 10 command General so it's hardly an issue?
* Waywatchers are based on Empire Skirmishers... Good plan but why they seem cheap for the power of the shooting attack? Also, should the save not be 0/5+ to match their parent units?
* Wardancers... Glad to see their 'tank' killer ability gone but I'm still not keen on armoured flagellants in an Elven Army.
* An Unlimited number Hero mounts seems a little unnecessary.
*
#1 Wood Elf Archers have no armour save. High Elf archers have a 6+ save. A 6+ save is valued at around 10 pts in other armies so this is fair.
#2 Good point. I think the purpose of Elf unit maximums is to emphasise the fact that Elves are few in number in the lore. I agree that the Forest Spirits are cheap at 75 pts, but they are comparable to lesser deamons which are priced the same. The cheap cost is to emphasise their use over the Elves. This is to promote more aggressive game play and prevent "Forest camping" with units hidden in woods all game.
#3 Yes, Waywatchers are cheap at 30 pts for 2 armour piercing shooting attacks. And yes they should be -/5+ armour save. They are also insanely good value for increasing the scouting factor of the army (see below). But they only have 2 combat attacks. So maybe they should be 35 pts, but no more than that.
#4 Yes, I played several games with Wardancers and never once remembered that they have a save! I think bringing them in to line with other fanatic units by dropping the save and reducing cost to 70 pts is the way forward.
#5 Yes, unlimited mounts is bad. I'm sure this will be rectified to 1 per 1000 pts.
I played some more games with the new list and I still like it a lot. However one thing that came up was the scouting value for wood elf armies. It is insanely high, literally double what other armies can field. This is due to the fact that almost all the wood elf units provide a scouting value. And Waywatchers provide 3 per unit! That is +3 scouting value for one stand of troops worth 30 pts. I think the Scouting system needs to be re evaluated for Wood Elves to correctly balance the value of units like Dryads and Waywatchers.
In game terms, this means that the Wood Elves will almost always win the Scouting roll and pick their table edge, so they can always pick a table edge with fewer woods than the minimum to get their free wood and increase the overall number of woods on the field.
The most recent game I Played was 2000 pts Empire vs Wood Elves (using proxy Romans as Wood Elves hee hee).
I took 1 General, 1 Treeman Ancient character, 1 Wizard. 4 Archers, 2 Eternal Guard, 2 Waywatchers, 4 Dryads, 2 Wardancers, 2 Wild Riders, 2 Glade Riders, 2 Hawk Riders, 1 Treeman monster.
Things I found to work well included;
The Treeman character was really useful for tipping combats with his Terror and +3 attacks, and for keeping the Forest Spirits moving.
I actually made use of Tree singing to move units in woods out of initiative range of the enemy.
Wardancers are still very strong on the charge and were able to shred a Steam Tank on dice alone even without their previous armour piercing rule.
Things I found worked less well included;
Wild Riders hit like a truck ( I removed 2 units of Knights for no losses in one charge) but then get overwhelmed by supporting troops that they invariably have to advance into. This is quite realistic but a bit of a liability in game terms. I guess you just have to make sure they kill their points before they die!
A canny opponent will always save their dispel scroll for the predicted Call of the Hunt spell to prevent losing their artillery.
Even Forest Spirits in forests are shredded by cannon! It is hard to protect your combat troops form artillery fire if the opponent knows how to set up guided shots (using troops to focus line of sight at juicy targets).
Archers often need to leave the cover of their woods to be able to bring targets in range, especially when the enemy has artillery. The Waywatchers and Glade Guard failed to have an impact on the game.
In the end the Empire won by breaking the Elves on Turn 5.
-
The doom of the Wood Elfs (Romans)
-
Many thanx for your contribution Dark Omen. Much appreciated.
I tried to incorporate some ideas presented here and from other sources that seemed reasonable.
It's obvious that some people still prefer to build their armies based on elves rather than tree spirits. Raising the max value by 1 for basic WE infantry and cavalry seems the way to help it while not abandoning the concept of limited elf choices altoghether.
I also followed the idea of cutting the Treeman hero 1 attack short and returning the forrest dragon mount option.
No limit on mounts was obvioulsy an omission.
The Waywatchers are 35 now. I guess the Wardancers are supposed to be way better fighters than flagellants so that's why they originally had the 6+ save. Does the save make them that strong? Let's watch this one.
on the Wildriders - this is exactly how they are supposed to work (they are basically chariots). Deadly yet fragile. This is aslo why I'm not quite sure whether they should be forced to charge on initiative, as with this rules it's oftent the opponent who decides which of his unit are they gonna to charge - and they are too precious to be easily wasted on units of opponents choice.
Here's the revised list https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wos6WnnCUaJwG3zg9E4-tl5hEn1hwqSd7vXaaq1YlEc/edit#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wos6WnnCUaJwG3zg9E4-tl5hEn1hwqSd7vXaaq1YlEc/edit#gid=0)
-
I seem to need permission to access this list?
-
should be reset now
-
#1 Wood Elf Archers have no armour save. High Elf archers have a 6+ save. A 6+ save is valued at around 10 pts in other armies so this is fair.
#2 Good point. I think the purpose of Elf unit maximums is to emphasise the fact that Elves are few in number in the lore. I agree that the Forest Spirits are cheap at 75 pts, but they are comparable to lesser deamons which are priced the same. The cheap cost is to emphasise their use over the Elves. This is to promote more aggressive game play and prevent "Forest camping" with units hidden in woods all game.
#3 Yes, Waywatchers are cheap at 30 pts for 2 armour piercing shooting attacks. And yes they should be -/5+ armour save. They are also insanely good value for increasing the scouting factor of the army (see below). But they only have 2 combat attacks. So maybe they should be 35 pts, but no more than that.
#4 Yes, I played several games with Wardancers and never once remembered that they have a save! I think bringing them in to line with other fanatic units by dropping the save and reducing cost to 70 pts is the way forward.
#5 Yes, unlimited mounts is bad. I'm sure this will be rectified to 1 per 1000 pts.
I played some more games with the new list and I still like it a lot. However one thing that came up was the scouting value for wood elf armies. It is insanely high, literally double what other armies can field. This is due to the fact that almost all the wood elf units provide a scouting value. And Waywatchers provide 3 per unit! That is +3 scouting value for one stand of troops worth 30 pts. I think the Scouting system needs to be re evaluated for Wood Elves to correctly balance the value of units like Dryads and Waywatchers.
In game terms, this means that the Wood Elves will almost always win the Scouting roll and pick their table edge, so they can always pick a table edge with fewer woods than the minimum to get their free wood and increase the overall number of woods on the field.
The most recent game I Played was 2000 pts Empire vs Wood Elves (using proxy Romans as Wood Elves hee hee).
I took 1 General, 1 Treeman Ancient character, 1 Wizard. 4 Archers, 2 Eternal Guard, 2 Waywatchers, 4 Dryads, 2 Wardancers, 2 Wild Riders, 2 Glade Riders, 2 Hawk Riders, 1 Treeman monster.
Things I found to work well included;
The Treeman character was really useful for tipping combats with his Terror and +3 attacks, and for keeping the Forest Spirits moving.
I actually made use of Tree singing to move units in woods out of initiative range of the enemy.
Wardancers are still very strong on the charge and were able to shred a Steam Tank on dice alone even without their previous armour piercing rule.
Things I found worked less well included;
Wild Riders hit like a truck ( I removed 2 units of Knights for no losses in one charge) but then get overwhelmed by supporting troops that they invariably have to advance into. This is quite realistic but a bit of a liability in game terms. I guess you just have to make sure they kill their points before they die!
A canny opponent will always save their dispel scroll for the predicted Call of the Hunt spell to prevent losing their artillery.
Even Forest Spirits in forests are shredded by cannon! It is hard to protect your combat troops form artillery fire if the opponent knows how to set up guided shots (using troops to focus line of sight at juicy targets).
Archers often need to leave the cover of their woods to be able to bring targets in range, especially when the enemy has artillery. The Waywatchers and Glade Guard failed to have an impact on the game.
In the end the Empire won by breaking the Elves on Turn 5.
#1 Good point, I did notice that after posting but I would still find it more balanced to leave the cost (and save) alone. Actually, given the lack of command penalty in woods I would suggest a 5 point increase would be in order.
#2 The Forest Spirits may have the same stat line as the daemon horde but it is not subject to instability which renders it a poor comparisson. I personally can see no place in the army at all for this unit but will come back to that.
#4 dropping the save and cost seems like a good plan... but only if they get the rest of the stat line of the Dark Elf Witch Elves that they are clearly comparable too.
#5 to be fair, in an army with only 2 characters who can ride a mount (+general) the limit is a bit moot. However, limiting the Unicorns to just one per army (not per 1000 points would put it on par with other armies!)
A question of Need & Balance: Is this army really needed and is it really balanced when compared with others? To me the answer is a double NO!
First, do we actually need a third flavour of Elves? I mean, honestly, If you want to play Wood Elf that much just play a reskinned Dark Elf army... everything proxies really well. OK subordinate execution seems a bit off flavour :) but more or less everything works well. There's improved archers & deadly but grumpy (if now too heavily armoured) cavalry. There is a big monster that could easily be re-purposed as a near unstoppable rock throwing Ent... Even the Bolt Thrower could be re-imagined as slow moving 'uber archers' and I can't see any justification for a Wood Elf army to be mainly comrised of non-elves so it really doesn't matter that they aren't in the list.
Second, Even with the most recent tweaks I just don't see this as balanced compared to most armies. Glade Guard losing a point 6 Save to save 10 points is not balance... it will rarely matter as they may never leaving the woods anyway. Wardancers are equal to the heaviest hitting Infantry in any Army but without the Suicidal tendencies that temper other fanatic units usefulness making them significantly better than the stat line might suggest. Waywatchers... actually, I'm fine with those as an thematic alternative to artillery :/ Dryads just seem to be put in as a heavy infanty alternative to heavy cavalry? If they must stay in the army they should probably cost at least 15 or 20 points more than the Daemon Horde to reflect their woodland bonus and lack of instability. They should also be strictly limited to no more than 2 Units per 1000 points (and that's probably 1 too many!) Glade Riders... all the joy of Elven Reavers but now with their +1 to hit back but costed as the nerfed, tournament version??? Wild Riders are now just Fearless Elven Chariots without the charge bonus... Not exactly Over-Powered (or cheap!) but I can't say I can understand the need? Warhawks are shooting flyers with all round vision... a very rare combo and Unique in a high command army. I like the Treeman monster... it's a nice balance and very unusual! Treeman Hero on the otherhand should probably be limited to 1 per Army though this would be less of an issue if the Dryad numbers were squashed as I suggest. Unicorn should (as I mentioned earlier) be limited to 1 per Army and I am really not sure there is balance in having a terror causing hero and mount in the army?
So... still pretty negative from me (sorry) and not just because I don't like Elves. Overall the theme is clear and so is the intent but I just don't think the 2 work well together for Warmaster, it's not a game designed for Guerilla Armies and trying to 'force' this one out in the open with unlimited amounts of Heavy Infantry ignores the fact that they will be supported by the best shooters in the Game, Shooters who will quickly be able to dominate terrain due to the exceptionally high command :(
-
Well I personaly would like to see Witch Hunter Army out of the comming compendium, for they are more of someone's wild dream rather than part of the Warhammer lore. However I was outvoted and persuaded by majority that since they have been in once, they cannot fall out now as too many people have the armies and count on playing them. Though I might very well agree with you on whether WE are needed to be around and that there was a good reason why they were not planned as official army, they are around now, people have the armies and want to play them. So we have to deal with it. I'm grateful for all the contributions and I take them seriously however it is much more helpful if it's based on actual playtesting experience rather than theoryhammering.
-
...Though I might very well agree with you on whether WE are needed to be around and that there was a good reason why they were not planned as official army, they are around now, people have the armies and want to play them.
While I do take your point about people wanting to play them I do wonder how big the actual demand is? Whatever, I do think making it clear that they were never an official army list (and never intended to be!) is a very important point to make. At the very least I would urge that such experimental & fan made army lists be kept seperate from the more canon lists (as, indeed, they are in the "Trial Armies" publication) and remember that just because it was suggested for playtesting does not mean it deserves to be included.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I agree with you about the Witch Hunters being a very iffy inclusion... The group I regularly play with disallow pretty much everything after the Tournament Armies with the exception of Chaos Dwarf & Norse for serious games! We have trialed almost all of them at least once over the years so it's not entirely 'theoryhammering' but frankly we haven't found much (any) merit in any of them apart from the 2 mentioned .
One last thing... please tell me that the 'fan' armies aren't under serious consideration? Inclusion of the "Dwarf Engineering Guild Army" would be a very sad day for Warmaster :(
-
It would be nice for people to reflect that some serious serious time and effort of other people went into things like the Trail Armies publication. I must say that some of the postings above seriously make me consider selling off my Warmaster armies, leaving this place and going to "greener pastures"
-
Thanks for all your hard work Aldrich. I have not fully digested the new list yet but will certainly try it next time I play. I appreciate letting us into the thought process behind the changes and including appropriate feedback that pushes the list forward to be playable and fair ,( as fair a elves can be anyway, ) and these changes are not just decided behind the closed doors of the committee, before the community sees them.
I've only picked up the the wardancers are a unit, for some reason I thought they would be the "add on" unit as they were so few in numbers, and the way watchers would be the elite killer unit. However this works well, as they align well with witch elves and slayers.
I like the idea of the dryads and treeman hero, but have no idea how I would proxy them in the army.
Noticed the woods have been reduced to max of 2 and max size of 16cm , which is a shame as it lessens the effectiveness of a couple of their spells, but totally understand why it's needed. Are the spells to be looked at? The only thing that bugs me is the tree singing spell, I can never see that being used, move up to 6 cm and stop if you touch any terrain. It can never move far enough to hav an impact on a 5 to 7 turn game.
-
Noticed the woods have been reduced to max of 2 and max size of 16cm , which is a shame as it lessens the effectiveness of a couple of their spells, but totally understand why it's needed. Are the spells to be looked at? The only thing that bugs me is the tree singing spell, I can never see that being used, move up to 6 cm and stop if you touch any terrain. It can never move far enough to hav an impact on a 5 to 7 turn game.
As stated before I see the free woods part as most important rule yet, unlike point costs and stats, very hard to grasp. It slouhld be balanced to make all paries satisfied - WE to have their natural combat style, opponent not being frustrated by having no chance to catch their elf and tournament organisers by not messing with the preset terrain and scenarios too much.
On this one I would be much grateful for your feedback, experince and ideas.
As pointed by Podcast guys, the original extra wood dimensions are too large and vulnerable to abuse when pushed to the edge. A cicle with 18cm in diametre seems still pretty large.
About the spells - yes, it's pretty much the Tree singing it shloud be focused on. It's effect is in most cases too minor and the possible charge description is too vague. There was an idea to let it move 2D3 (rather than D6) to increase the distance moved in average.
-
Hi,
Personally as a non WE player I am glad to see that the free woods are limited in size, shape and number. To me WMR is a game to be played on an epic scale, where the armies involved are massive, too big even to fight completely inside woods. They must come out eventually to fight those titanic battles that I certainly envisage we are playing.
As for the spells, again I agree that WE would want to move the trees around more. Maybe instead of the trees moving a random amount, they should move up to a fixed distance?
Or the player gets the option to move upto say 4cm, or roll 2D3 if they want to gamble on getting a 5 or 6cm move instead?
I would also like to see it considered that the Call of the Hunt spell is limited in the same way as all other movement spells are currently limited, "the spell only affects a single unit, never a brigade", and that supporting charges are also not allowed - i'm hoping this last bit will affect all movement spells.
-
I would echo Lex's sentiments to some extent. First of all, it's only a game! Second, there's nothing wrong with suggesting, amending, finessing, complaining, praising, and generally discussing lists and how they might be improved, balanced etc. But blanket condemnation of whole chunks of army lists that people have invested time and effort on bringing to the community is pretty rude in my book. Third, any unapproved list is, almost by definition, a work-in-progress. Playtest it, suggest changes, playtest those changes, try them against different types of opponents; generally build up a solid evidential base. And if there are lists that you think are not yet 'ready', don't play them with your friends or don't include them in the lists allowed for the tournaments you organise. But suggesting that they are all arbitrarily killed off is an extreme solution that irritates other players and especially those that gave up their time to write them.
For the record, I have a Witch Hunter army. It very rarely wins. I also have Beastmen, Chaos Dwarves, and Cathay. None of them perform very well either, but I try to play them as often as possible so as to build up playtest evidence. I have regularly played against Nippon and played with it until I sold the minis recently; I think it's got some rough edges, but it certainly isn't 'broken'. Albion is a regular feature at our tournaments and seems pretty middle-of-the-road. I don't have Dwarf Engineering Guild, but my sense is that significant tweaks could make it playable. And on my list of things-to-do is to proxy my Witch Hunters as Slayer Kings to see how that list plays. My best guess is that it will be fun but won't win much. Also, I really liked the Shangri-La list that Lex floated a while back. Definite long-term potential for that one. http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=8174.msg71150#msg71150
Finally, I would also suggest that some of the weird and wonderful lists out there, some put together by Rick Priestley himself, can be developed in the long-run. Why not have Fantasy Mongols or Indus?
And, getting back on topic, I don't have especially strong opinions about WEs.
-
Do the 'free' woods have to be free?
If they cost points, it would limit the size of the elf army beyond arbitrary min/maxes that may or may not find the sweet spot.
-
Do the 'free' woods have to be free?
If they cost points, it would limit the size of the elf army beyond arbitrary min/maxes that may or may not find the sweet spot.
This was actually what in the first draft I ever made for WE..... (and for the Araby Desert Nomads, only in that case it was obviously not Woods.....
-
Any particular details?
-
My price for the woods would be 150 points each.
-
I played with the new list on Thursday against Toothpick! It felt more balanced (without the 6 to kill, rules), the new point costs meant you had real choices to make building the army, before due the min, max and high points the list basically built itself with very little variation. I still find the spells very underwhelming or very situational, only good if the enemy is silly enough to go into or near woods.. which they won't.
The only thing I had trouble with is the waywatchers with their 2 attacks, you have them in the front of the unit to shoot, or stand and shoot. But if you charge into combat you don't want them to be first in as they have 2 attacks and the rest of the unit have 3. It just became awkward manovering stands when you wanted to charge the enemy (this is in column formation)... so this felt awkward but everything else felt good.
I know people still have issues with the "bring on woods, pillbox, fortress" rule, but limited to 2, and smaller size, meant I could not hide more than 2 units in each, due to placement of stands I would often have a stand poking out, which allowed cav to charge me a few times damaging them before they could retreat deeper.
In a couple of weeks Toothpick will play them against me, so I can see what it's like to play against them.
-
Many thanx Clawlessdragon, much appreciated!
-
I have played three more games at 2000 pts with the new Wood Elf list, taking a "bit of everything" to see how units work. My list is posted above but includes a General, Wizard, Treeman character, some archers, spearmen, Waywatchers, Wardancers, Tree spirits, Wild Riders, Glade Riders, Hawk Riders and a Treeman monster.
I have now played Wood Elves against Tomb Kings, Orcs and Goblins and Bretonnians.
Every game I won scouting and got my free wood.
Every game was a massacre against the Wood Elves.
I'm not sure if was terrible luck on the Wood Elf side each time, or bad unit selection, or bad decisions, but I found it very hard to make any headway at all against the enemy without losing a lot of units in return.
Example vs Tomb Kings.
Undead Artillery at range pounded the Elf Infantry in woods.
Chariots and Cavalry overwhelmed Elf Wild Riders.
Elf Infantry that tried to engage Undead Infantry was caught in the open by Chariots and destroyed.
Elven archery achieved nothing of note and was countered by Undead archery well.
Wood Elf magic achieved nothing.
Wood Elves Broken turn 5.
Example vs Bretonnians - we played on a very heavily wooded board.
Warhawks did well and took out enemy artillery and Flyers.
Bretonnian Knights destroyed Wild Riders and Glade Riders.
Wardancers were lured out of woods by auto charging and were massacred by Knights.
Bretonnians just kept out of bow range of archers.
Wood Elf magic achieved nothing.
Wood Elves Broken turn 5.
Example vs Orcs - we played across a river - very defensible for Elves!
Elf Archers actually got to kill some Infantry!
Wild Riders charged in, bounced off Orc cavalry and were killed.
Hawks bounced off goblins and were killed.
Treeman bounced off Orcs.
Wood Elf magic achieved nothing.
Dryads did OK and killed some Black orcs but too little, too late.
Glade Riders blunder charged into Orc lines and were killed.
Again Wardancers were lured out of cover by auto charging and were killed.
Wood Elves Broken turn 6.
Conclusions - I find Wood Elves very hard to play with and win. Their spells seem to achieve little. Their Wardancers and Wild Riders can be led around by the nose and overwhelmed, or else they must be baby sat to block their line of sight. Their characters are very expensive leaving less room for units.
For me, I haven't found a combination that feels right and enables me to compete on an even level against the established armies.
I will continue to playtest and hopefully come up with a winning combination.
Many thanks
Iain
-
Many thanx for sharing your experience with the list. It is very helpful as we are now getting close to the point where Wood elves along with Beastmen will be the last and most difficult armies to deal with.
-
I finally got to use WE in a 2000pts game using version 0.1.2.
My opponents O&Gs went first, the majority of them moving up slowly at half pace due to some unlucky command rolls. The "four amigos" did their usual thing and formed up on the centre line and tried to push my stuff off the board with "Gerroffs!". Thankfully no real damage was done this time.
My first turn didn't go any better, I got a unit of Glade Guard in a wood. Another went in my "free" wood with a unit of War Dancers. Nothing was in range for shooting, and the Spellsinger only moved a wood 1".
Orc turn 2 saw the rock lobbers get on top of a hill with their goblin wolf rider minders. The orc brigades made slightly better progress up the table this time. The "4 amigos" tried to push some of the wood elves off the table again, breaking up two brigades of glade guard and war dancers. The rock lobbers inflicted 2 wounds on a stand of waywatchers hiding in a wood with some glade guard, and drove them back 2cm.
In the wood elves turn there wasn't much movement as the Tree giant hero fluffed an order to a brigade of dryads and the general also failed to do anything useful. Shooting saw a lone unit of glade riders drive back a unit of boar boys out of command range of a goblin shaman.
Orc turn 3 saw some better command rolls which put a brigade of orcs and black orcs in the middle of a large wood, and a second brigade of orcs got to charge a lone unit of glade guard. The shamans got their acts together and pulled off 2 Gerroffs and bugger up my 2 brigades of dryads confusing a unit in one, and got a Whaagh! cast on the orcs in combat. Shooting from the rock lobbers drove back and confused the another unit of dryads. Comabat saw the glade guard in combat with the orcs evaporate, but not before the destroyed 2 stands out of 3 from the front unit. The orcs then feeling brave with a Whaag! on, advanced into a unit of war dancers who promptly gave them a good kicking winning the combat, for the loss of 1 stand. The orcs that remained retreated a short distance, and the wardancers waited for their turn. In the wood elves turn, the wardancers charged into the orcs on initiative along with another unit of wardancers who were just hanging out in the area. lone unit of wild riders charged into one of the minder units of wolf riders, which were in column formation, so the wild riders only suffered one would from shooting as they charged. The hawk riders who had been languishing at the back also got to charge a brigade of orcs. The tree singer failed a command on a unit of glade guard, but it was enough to move them half pace behind the orcs in combat with the wardancers.
The wild riders won the initial combat round and forced the remaining stand of wolf riders back 3cm. The wild riders pursued bringing the two rock lobbers into the combat. Luckily the wild riders won the second round of combat destroying the unit of wolfriders, combat res also destroyed the rock lobbers. The remaining two stands of wild riders then advanced into the flank of the other unit of wolfriders, and promptly destroyed them too for the loss of 1 stand. The remaining stand then withdrew to a safe distance. The wardancers destroyed the orcs easily, and so did the hawk riders the remainder of whom then advanced into the flank of a unit of goblins and destroyed them too.
At this point we called it a day as we ran out of time.
Thoughts on Wood Elves.
Overall they work really well as they are. They were surpringlu forgiving considering I had never used them before. The wild riders hit as hard as chariots on the charge. We weren't sure if the "wild rider" bonus was applicable when they advance into another unit. Glade guard and waywatchers are fine. Hawkriders are good too, a unit for picking off stray or damaged enemy units (?).
The treesinging spell could possibly be increased in range to 50cm without making it overpowering if its effect stays the same (1d6).
On the thorny subject of the free woods, all I can suggest is that if there are any woods already on the table, then the WE don't get any more. If there are none then they get 2 free woods the shape and size of say a DVD disk.
Last thought. Warmaster is a game where the battles are supposed to be on an epic scale, on open fields for the most part, and under open blue skies. Not in woods with large brigades of men crashing around whilst the cavalry hangs around out side. The fluff may say there aren't many WE, but then has anyone done a head count?
Rant over.
Shane
-
Many thanx Shane for detailed battlereport and your conclusion!
-
Playtested Wood Elves last night with Janners. I had Beastmen with a fairly standard build. Didn't use WE free woods but put two big woods fairly centrally in order to force us to play in and around them. Wanted to prevent an "avoidance of the WE pillboxes strategy" because that's the logical thing to do and it would make for a boring game. Tournament data shows that Janners is a better player than me, but neither of us did anything especially inspiring in terms of game strategy. Dice spiked both ways for both of us, so that also wasn't really a factor.
Overall, things only really went my way once: Managed to get the chariots in on his Wild Riders and took most of them down in two rounds. But then got slaughtered by War Dancers which pretty much tipped the game. Also got a good ambush in position behind two melees but then failed the second order to bring them in. Eventually my break of 11 was whittled away and Janners was only about half way to his of 9. My general sense across the whole game was that I had to go defensive from the start and I was bouncing off WE enhancements (plural) in every turn. If I played him again at a tournament, the only logical thing to do would be a castle-up around a hill or village. It got to the stage where it sort of became funny. Whenever something happened like "oh, Fury of the Forest on a 5 up because I'm going use one of my two unicorns", I would say "yes, because Wood Elves need a bit of help!" Repeat with Waywatchers' shooting, Monster mount that can run around in forests, Wild Riders unaffected by terror, and amazing Command 10 orders unaffected by trees. I suppose I can console myself with the fact that at least their flyers can't yet go in the forests. Not sure I should have mentioned that; someone might suggest that as an amendment!? Anyway, I'm sure we'll repeat the playtesting with different opposing armies, but I can't say I'm looking forward to the games.
Reflecting and discussing at the end, I reached the conclusion that its like playing High Elves but even harder. Yes, the HEs have heavy cavalry and artillery, but their infantry options are limited. WEs have the same infantry plus two additional choices of punchy varieties. Plus the free pillboxes which any sane opponent will avoid like the plague. Which will then make for dull games.
On the question of the free woods. Can I suggest people take a step back and think about this comparatively. Two statements; do you agree with them?
1) Because the fluff says they fight at home and live in a particular type of terrain, Albion armies must deploy [insert number] of free marshes at the beginning of the game.
2) Because the fluff says they fight at home and live in a particular type of terrain, Tomb King armies must deploy [insert number] of free areas of soft sand at the beginning of the game.
If you follow this on logically, should Empire armies deploy a couple of villages or one small town because they usually fight in defence of their settlements? Or should Dwarves get free hills? I won't labour the point any further, but if this is such a good thing for the Warmaster system why not apply it to all other armies?
So, if we accept that HEs are the uber army in Warmaster, and people can sort of live with that because there needs to be forgiving core army for beginners, then my current opinion is that WEs are uber+. Something big needs to change. I know that people don't like the idea of reducing their armour so I can't see that going anywhere. So my first suggestion would be no free woods. And, although it will I'm sure irritate people, I'm also going to strongly recommend that their general goes to Command 9. Janners and I talked through the game afterwards and that was probably the biggest contextual factor and reducing it would have a universal and balancing effect. For example, the aforementioned War Dancers came from waaay back on his start line with a 9-9-7. If it had been Command 9, it would have been 8-8-6 which, if he'd pulled it off then "well done, good luck to you mate". Command 9 plus all their enhancements would give the opponent a fair chance and, as suggested by Dark Omen a while back, could be justified in the fluff as WEs = bit more feral than HEs? In summary, at the moment Command 10 plus pillboxes and all their other enhancements is just a bit depressing to play against. Venting ends.
-
Thanks for the feedback I saw the pictures, it looked great, it's always interesting to see other people's perception after playing with or against the wood elves. I can't understand the beef with the with the command 10 and the wardancers moving so far, as the same would hold true for dwarves and high elves. Ok yes, if they are charging through woods, they have the advantage. I would be inclined to keep the command 10, but suffer -1 in woods, I know this goes against the core of wood elves, but it would make them no better than dwarves or high elves, and if they brought on xx free woods, they would be less inclined to use them.
I am also open to dropping the free woods (again its loosing that wood elf flavour), but if we do, then the spell list would need looking at, as half of the spells would become (possibly) obsolete as they rely on woods.
There is no easy solution, but it is good more people are playing with them and coming up with possible fixes.
-
My 2p's worth...
Terrain should not be a factor in any army composition, nor should terrain be an item that an army takes with it.
I would prefer it if they got no free woods as well, however, 2 of their spells require a wood to work.
Therefore if no woods are on the table, I have suggested they get up to 1 or 2 free woods.
Another option is the 2 spells in question are replaced.
Fury of the Forest, this could be reduced to only stands in the wood are attacked, and stands/units get their armour save as normal.
Are they uber+, possibly, I found them a very forgiving army to play with – maybe too forgiving of the mistakes I was making.
The General at Ld 9. Yes, I would go with that. High Elves and Dark Elves have Ld 10 because they are far more regimented in their approach to warfare, whereas WE are not, I don't think it would be to the detriment of the army as a whole either.
DE also have the whole “you blunder you die†thing, which neither HE or WE have for their Ld 10.
Lastly...
What makes Wood Elves unique from other Elves? I would say it's the no command penalty in woods not the woods themselves.
-
So I played another 2000 pt game against Steve last night. I took Chaos, he was Wood Elves.
He actually took an illegal list but we only realised afterwards.
He had a General, Wizard, Hero on Hawk, 4 Archers, 2 Waywatchers, 4 Spears, 2 Wardancers, 6 Wild Riders (illegal), 2 Warhawks and a Treeman monster.
I took a General, Hero on Dragon with Sword of Might, 2 Wizards, one with Dispel Scroll, one with Ring of Magic, 2 Chaos Warriors with magic swords, 5 Marauders, 2 Ogres, 4 Hounds, 4 Chariots, 2 Harpies.
The battlefield has heavy woods on the flanks and a built up area in the centre.
Chaos actually beat Wood Elves on Scouting and forced them to set up first.
Wood Elves took first turn. Flanks were cavalry, centre infantry.
Chaos redeployed to offer a refused flank, putting all cavalry on the left and holding the centre with Infantry in terrain.
Some good orders got Chaos Chariots and hounds into Wild Rider brigade on the left flank and destroyed them.
Wood Elf counter attack caused some damage but was then overwhelmed by Chaos second Chariot brigade which removed the remaining Wood Elf Cavalry, at which point Steve had had enough.
Victory to Chaos on Turn 4.
So we both have yet to find a winning combination with the new list.
We both feel that new Wood Elves lack a decent force multiplier in the form of a Flying, Terror causing character, their spells are underwhelming, they have no chaff units and no resilience so lose points very quickly. It appears that the only way to win with Wood Elves is indeed to forest camp, which is a tactic we both refuse to employ.
Steve is in the process of coming up with an alternate symbiotic list composed equally of Forest spirits and Elves. The Spirits provide close combat punch, chaff and resilience. The Elves provide shooting and mobility. The concept is that you choose one of two types of General, Treeman or Elf Lord, who suffers command penalties against units not of his type, and the two types of unit cannot brigade or intermingle characters. It requires a lot of work but will be fun to test out.
We also consider that the Tree Singing and Fury of the Forest spells could be merged into one spell that both moves woods and causes damage to enemy caught in them. This then frees up a spell slot for something useful like a Mirage type spell.
Happy Playtesting!
-
Please consider bringing back the Forest Dragon into the next version of the WE army list so it can be playtested, rather than just simply removing it.
About the whole free wood thing, could instead one of the WE spells create a wood which would remain in play and casting wizard cannot cast it again? It would mean to get a 'free' wood, WE would have to take a wizard, wizard has to successfully cast the spell without it being dispelled, it would use up a spell, etc?
-
Here is the first draft of an alternative list I have been working on with my regular opponent.
The list divides the units into Elves and Forest spirits, with minimums that must be taken from each type. Elven characters suffer a penalty when commanding forest spirits. Units and characters of different types cannot intermingle.
You must choose between a high command Elf General or a lower command Treeman general, whichever you choose you have to take some units of the opposite type.
The list allows the purchase of woods out of the army points allowance instead of getting free woods.
The Elven units provide shooting and mobility, the Tree Spirit units provide chaff, close combat punch and resilience. Wild Riders are classed as Forest spirits in this list.
The Elven general is available at a reduced (Dark Elf) cost as he will suffer a penalty to command forest spirits, which you must take.
The Waywatchers provide a threat to heavy armour due to their special deployment rule.
The Forest Dragon mount allows Elves to provide a force multiplier for combat.
Wardancers allow the elves to create moderately powerful close combat blocks when combined with Eternal Guard, but are intentionally limited in number.
The Treeman General provides a cheaper command option, the Branchwraith a hero option to get around the -1 to command for Elves. Forest spirits are able to hold the line and dish out damage without having to hide in the woods.
The list concept is that the army can compete in close combat and at range without being too powerful.
The points values incorporate the racial rule of no -1 to command in woods and also the -1 to command forest spirits by Elves.
I hope some of the concepts provide room for discussion!
Thanks
Iain
-
great work. i really like the concept.
I still like to make some points about it.
- I guess you priced the Spell for the Treeman Ancient and the Branchwraith with 5 points extra?
- it is quite common if a unit that „must always use initiative to charge“ must always advance as well.
- The two shooting attacks the way watchers have is breaking a taboo. At least for me, because that way shooting can do more harm than original intended.
-
Several points stand out for me...
* Waywatchers are far too good. 95 points and thet get 2 shooting attacks with a -1 armour AND a +1 to hit AND no order penalty for woods AND are back to being a 3 stand unit AND get sneaky Ninja deployment behind enemy lines at a critical moment???
* Wardancers are basically Empire Skirmishes but with better armour (possibly) and the ability to move about once combat starts... I see they are 5 points more than skirmishers but I would seriously drop that rearange stands part. To fiddly in combat and not really justified. Other than that niggle I really like them, much improved over the original.
* Warhawks are flying monsters with a shooting attack. Again they pay a few extra points but I think classifying them as Flying Cavalry so they lose the monster charge bonus might be more balanced?
* Treekin are Ogres with an availability of 2 per 1000pts? Should this be dropped to 1 per 1000 pts?
*The Treeman Monster is basically a Bone Giant who doesn't always get the command penalty and can enter woods.... this also seems a little more powerful than needed.
Overall I would say this seems like an improvement but I still think it's putting flavour before balance. Am very concerned that it basically Cherry Picks from other lists gives the troops a quick rebranding (and a few extra abilities) but doesn't really take into account why no other army gets such a range of powerful troops without some sort of sacrifice :/
-
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the list.
@Ole - Yes, I added 5 pts to the characters who have the Tree singing spell.
The Wild Riders follow the same rules as Bretonnian Knights - they have to charge but don't have to pursue. Also Ogres have to charge humans but don't have to pursue, so there is some precedent.
@ Ole and honest mistake
The Waywatchers were not effective as a one stand unit in my experience. They also need to be a three stand unit to justify the +3 Scouting value they provide. Their role is that of artillery in the army - they can be deployed close to the enemy and provide armour piercing shots. This fills a hole in the Wood Elf list which otherwise has a hard time coping with heavy cavalry / infantry. I can see the argument to dropping them back down to one shooting attack and three combat attacks for no reduction in cost but I have yet to properly playtest them to see if they are too good.
@honest mistake
Wardancers - a 5 pt increase on Empire Skirmishers seems about right for a one stand unit that can get 5+ armour. The swapping stands in combat is just to reflect their ability to interpenetrate other units and seemed quite thematic but is not essential so can be dropped.
Warhawks are identical to Terradon Riders.
Lists that have Ogres (Chaos, Orcs, Ogres,) generally also have other Heavy Infantry, such as Trolls, Ironguts, Chaos warriors. I don't think a 2 unit cap is that high.
-Treeman is identical to the other list but with an added 10 pt tax for entering woods.
I agree they look good on paper, but in practice I rarely find they live up to their potential.
The weakness I see in the Wood Elf List is a lack of resilience and lack of punch. I have tried to include units that provide this, but have intentionally limited them. The most effective melee units, Wild Riders and Treekin, are max of 2 per 1000 pts.
There are no long range missile attacks so the Wood Elves suffer against artillery.
Their magic is very limited - only two spells I consider viable at present, being Twilight Host and Call of the Hunt.
It is quite hard to effectively bring a lot of shooting to bear in a game, so ironically the Glade Guard are quite limited in their effectiveness. Wood Elves have excellent archers but archery does not win games.
Compared to High and Dark Elves I think the Wood Elves are still the poor cousins as they lack 4+ armour cavalry which in turn make the Command 10 Generals so effective.
I will continue to playtest until a balance is found. Personally I have no desire to collect Wood Elves but I know lots of people do, so I'll do what I can to provide viable ideas. Having said that I'm not precious about this list so feel free to ignore it if you want!
Iain
-
I really like Dark Omen's list.
My only issues are:
Waywatchers are probably too good as they are, though I agree that the previous Salamander-like role wasn't right for them. I think a unit of 2 stands wouldn't be terrible- that's 4 shots, so on par with most artillery out there. They simply swap range for Gutter Runner style deployment.
Wardancers moving around during a combat is a little impractical. I think the background justification is fine, but that it doesn't add enough for the inconvenience of model-moving.
I'm not sure about Treemen entering woods- I know that sounds ridiculous, and that they gain no benefit from it, but it's a major overwrite of some core rules. Maybe playtesting would show it to be fine though.
Stating that the Treeman Ancient should cause Terror, but doesn't because he's unlikely to be in combat anyway is... odd. Personally, I'd make him a decent in combat, Terror causing General that is cheaper than the Forest Dragon option. I know combat generals aren't popular, but some people may enjoy the risk. Right now I see little use for him- he gives no extra unit access, he commands Elves and Forest Spirits at Ld9 (vs the Elf general's 10 for Elves and 9 for Spirits)... Being cheaper and casting a spell doesn't seem impressive for an ancient tree-monster.
I hope you continue development of this list, and that it gets considered as the 'official' list (who does decide that?).
-
I really like the attention this list is getting. I just moved, and have brought my Warmaster stuff out of storage, so I intend on continuing to assemble the WE's I've already purchased.
Following!
-
Hey guys. It's been a while. Check the lates 0.2.3 version of the Wood Elf list. We will be happy for any feedback from playtesting. Many thanx to Iain and all the others for the input.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_y9V45CKxkIrQe_ARIKSB6bqIIqHEs5/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/10_y9V45CKxkIrQe_ARIKSB6bqIIqHEs5/view)
-
I like this list, but it may be too powerful? Having a Ld10 general backed by two movement spells is pretty damned quick (even if one is only a situational D6cm move). It's also a massive amount of options- more than most lists- though I actually don't mind that at all ;D
As well as a couple of spelling mistakes, some of the wording could be clearer- The extra wood rule, for example... I can't offer a quick fix on that one, but can try and do a full re-wording if I find time in the coming days. Similarly for tree-singing- you move a forest, leaving enemy units touching the forest in place (mechanically very awkward), but the forest immediately stops if it touches enemy models? I assume this means enemy models not already in contact, but you can never be too clear. I know picking on wording can seem cheap, but Warmaster seems to be have a very strong basis in non-English countries, so these details matter.
-
Have played a couple of WE playtest games recently with Paul Winter. Will do same again next week. And lined up to also play Janners' WEs the week after that. I will then offer some observations based on the experiences. Also, I ought to declare that I have always considered the 2009 WE list to be rather overpowered and will be using that datum as a way of gauging the 2018 version.
-
Good, very good. Most of the ideas from my alternate list are here.
Will be play testing this list soon probably against a new Beastman list I am working on.
Might even to a Battle report for you tube on army builds and testing if it goes well.
**Evil cackle**
Dark Omen
-
I love the WE, I think I have tested all the army lists produced so far including the new army list 0.2.3 I have had the opportunity to test it we are on the right track. But what I would like to emphasize that I think the WE in the woods should be his kingdom or at least very difficult to oppose it in his environment.
To make a comparison the LIZARD has benefited as much as the WE in the dense soil no maulus in command phase (-1 in the wood etc.). On the other hand, with considerably higher troops. Where is its strength of the WE then? By comparing units between LIZARD AND WE: Kroxigor 5/3/4 Trekin 4/4/5 moreover the base infantry of the LIZARD are 4/3/5. I think it would be now that the WE had AT LEAST a unit that could make a difference on the battlefield.
In the open field the WE are practically popcorn, according to at least one strong infantry unit would make the difference. Bring the TREEKIN to 5/3/4 or at least 5/4/5 and modify the eternal guard in 4/3/5. After many matches with the WE, I can assure you that they lack the thrust.
In addition, spells should be modified. For example the High Elf Spells "HEAVEN'S FIRE" is perfect for WE.
At the moment it is not a competitive army even in a wood. But I'm hopeful for a WE army list that can play not only to draw a game but at least to have a chance to win.
What I want to say is that the LIZARD has the same bonus of WE in the dense terrain, with much higher units, in my opinion should be given something more to the WE to be able to say better the WE in the wood that the LIZARD.
Is my opinion, the shot, a fundamental characteristic of the WE, should be more incremant. I have tested the change made with army list WE 0.2.3 of Waywatchers, their value of melee attack is low would be to bring back to three, then their high cost at 70 pts would be justified too. But I must say that WE army list 0.2.3 meets my favor THANKS and congratulations for the idea.
Leonida
-
Wood Elves and Lizardmen have basically the same home environment- It seems right that they both have the same rules of easier command in woods. Being defended is already pretty dang good, and even the basic Eternal Guard already have elite infantry stats.
Wood Elves and Lizards also play differently- Wood Elves have more and longer range shooting than lizards, plus Lizards are limited in movement- their best stuff must be within 20cm of a character to receive orders, so although they have more free terrain movement the Wood Elves can use it better. I would not consider the list here weak against Lizardmen.
Falling into the trap of making Wood Elves like Lizardmen+1 leads to a very bad place.
-
I agree with the fact that WE and Lizard (I also have a Lizard army 3000 pts, and other Ogres, Nippon, Chaos, Bretonnia ecc.) can not have similar units. But I can guarantee you after years of playing with WE and that there is no unity to push. I know very well the other ARMY LIST game from 2000 to warmaster.
I apologize if I have not been clear but my English is poor, it was my intention to highlight some gaps in an army that I think is one of the most iconic in the world of Warmaster, And I had taken as a reference the LIZARD. I just want a WE army list to be finally achieved by canceling previous lists errors.
SORRY again but I love WARMASTER.
Leonida
-
Having tested WE army version 2017 on the field against Ogre Kingdom, I must say that the unit Waywatchers on three stands has made the difference by finally demonstrating its effectiveness, but without unbalancing the game. Now known that with version 0.2.3.
The Waywatchers were again brought back to two stands, tested again in the game they proved to be much less effective very very fragile and almost single use. They were a great unit finally. why?
Leonida
-
I do not know if it's done right or it's a mistake:
WE 0.2.3. GLADE RIDERS, 100 pts
High Elf: REAVERS, 90 pts
Bretonnia: SQUIRES, 90 pts
Dark Elf: DARK RIDERS, 100 pts I remembers 3/2 melee and shoot
-
Dark Elf: DARK RIDERS, 100 pts I remembers 3/2 melee and shot
Dark riders shoot 2 at halve distance, dont they?
-
BRETONNIA SQUIRES SHOOT 30 CM! 90 PTS
HIGHT ELF REAVERS SHOOT 30 CM! 90 PTS
WOOD ELF GLADE RIDERS SHOOT 30 CM! 100 PTS WHY?
-
I wanted to indicate the Dark Riders as an example, their greater cost is justified with a more than two shoot at 15 cm, if a over 15cm single shoot 30cm. If attacked in melee one shoot, I hope I have been more precise. Is that okay? Thank you
Leonida
-
Geep: The wording is preliminary and will be fined.
Leonida: Dark Omen's list was his personal activity outside the WMRC, nevertheless it was highly influential. However our intention on Waywatchers was to keep tem on 2 stands as they are ment to be dispersed guerilla units, not full strengh regiments. You might not belive that, but I recieved a negative feedbeck for Waywatchers being too strong in 0.2.3 :-).
The point cost of Glade Riders are obviously mistake and it should be 90 pts as usual.
I aggree that they will be difficult army to play, but this is what they are ment to be to keep them Wood elfish and fun at the same time. You can either make hight stat army you can just send forward to eat everything in the way (such as Lizardmen), but they would be no Wood Elves any more. Or you can build super shooty army, that is camping in the woods, firing and frustrating the opponet - that would be very Wood Elf-style, but definitely not fun for either side. The third option it the way we wanted to go - hitty but squashy army that have to think twice where to hit and how to manouver. It's Wood Elfish and fun at the same time.
-
understand me, I have great respect for the work you are doing, with good results I have to add on the new WE ARMY LIST 0.2.3, I must say that I played and played since 2009 at the Army list WE of the 2009 compendium THIS LIST WITH BIG LIMITED (I HAVE 5000 PTS WE based this list compendium 2009). Excuse me if I'm too heavy but after years of play I hope for a complete and captivating list. The 0.2.3 list I have already tested several times in multiple fights.
I allow myself some suggestions, and I hope I will not offend anyone. I agree with you that the WE must be a fragile army and not easy to play, but it does not have to be punished for this!
Waywatchers 3/2 melee / shoot, hit 3, armor 0, and only two stand. Yours special rules list 0.2.3.
Leave the GLADE RIDERS shoot +3, I can tell you that the Dark Riders do more damage!
But to be honest, you're doing a good job. THANKS YOU VERY MUCH
Leonida
-
last night at my club we tested WE army list 0.2.3 again. (2000 pts) WE vs EMPIRE. The WE break in the third round POP CORN. For the umpteenth time it was found that the WE lacked a unit that could at least worry the adversary. Furthermore, the WE spells have been ineffective. If the road that has been taken is to build the army list we are facing the umpteenth failure. I ask please not to create an army only on the academic basis, in my opinion the playability is a must !!!!!! THANK YOU
Leonidas
-
Last time I played it WE broke Bretonnia in 4th turn...
-
I seem to read a little sarcasm. But it does not matter if this is your intention. In my club they are disappointed by this proposal for an army list. Excuse me if I'm honest but it's not competitive, try !!! Thank you
PS. I forgot too with WE 0.2.3. I break Ogre kingdom army in the third round, but it was the only victory with WE. They need a unit that gives a boost even in the open field or not just to take refuge in the wood. Try try !!! Maybe I'm scarce? Maybe you're right you. thank you
Leonidas
-
I'm not being sarcastic. Just saying that if I was to judge the list on number of wins and loses it would be ok in my point of wiev. Aside the removal of the most ridiculous and unjustifiable special rules, the list is actually boosted compared to the original Trial army list.
-
I preferred your provisional version posted on 27/03/2017 of the WARDANCER AND WAYWATCHERS. or even better the waywatchers version on three stands. Only time and the players will give their approval, But I give up!
Leonida
-
I really don't see how this list could be underpowered. It's pretty much the High Elf list with a few tweaks and a whole lot more options from the forest spirits. We have the same shooting power, the same infantry (plus better options, and Wardancers), the same cavalry (Wild Riders lose 1 save but gain 1 attack, for 10 points less), the same flyers (but slightly better with a shooting option)- all we really miss are the Chariots and the Dragon- and everyone hates the Dragon anyway. The Treeman is pretty similar for less than half the points.
Waywatchers are basically the Bolt Throwers- they lose a little range but gain their special deployment, and they have 1 less shot but gain +1 to hit and -1 enemy armour save. Like High Elf Bolt Throwers, they're not going to dominate a game- but they shouldn't. They're a pretty awesome support unit able to disrupt enemy stands by pushing them into each other, or could be positioned to deal the extra hit or two required to kill a stand. At a stretch they're also better in combat than the Bolt Thrower.
The only real downside is that some of our units can be commanded by Ld 9 at best, including the Wild Riders- but then our general doesn't get hit with the extra points cost penalty like the High Elf one does.
We can't quite spam magic like the High Elves- other than with Tree Singing- but we have a movement spell, which is pretty much the best spell possible in the game (ours is slightly limited by the charge requirement, but that's really the best use of it anyway). Tree singing can also work as a unit movement spell under the right circumstances- possibly even giving a charge.
-
Certainly making a WE army list is not easy, I am aware of it, and I congratulate you for your commitment.
My comments are to recommend some things, but it is, and it remains my opinion as a player of Warmaster with WE since far away (first army list WE on warmaster magazine and then with compendium 2009). I would like to have a comment/opinion from others who play essentially and love WE like me. Thank you
Leonidas
-
I would like a clarification after years on the WE Fury in the Forest spell; enemy units inside the Wood are hit at +4 or +5? I have always hit at +5 for the opposing units inside it wood and +4 for those in open. Thank you
Leonidas
-
GEEP, you convinced me sincerely.
We were asking for two things, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO IF IT IS POSSIBLE. We are continuing to test WE 0.2.3 also tonight played 2000pts against DE. Outcome draw .. We noticed that a small addition to Waywatchers would not hurt and would not be so unbalancing:
First:
WAYWATCHERS, BRING THEIR ARMORING TO +6, since they are elite troops and to add a touch of uncertainty and also how on the forum it was stated that the armor is also a combat capability, and I do not think they are inferior to the infantry of the skeletons? try to think about it and little I know but at least think about it.
Second: As we thought of our club, allowing the WE cavalry to pass through the wood clearly no defend bonus! as the first version of the WE army. It would be their peculiarity to make them more specific.
Meanwhile, thank you very much
Leonidas
-
GEEP, you convinced me sincerely.
We were asking for two things, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO IF IT IS POSSIBLE. We are continuing to test WE 0.2.3 also tonight played 2000pts against DE. Outcome draw .. We noticed that a small addition to Waywatchers would not hurt and would not be so unbalancing:
First:
WAYWATCHERS, BRING THEIR ARMORING TO +6, since they are elite troops and to add a touch of uncertainty and also how on the forum it was stated that the armor is also a combat capability, and I do not think they are inferior to the infantry of the skeletons? try to think about it and little I know but at least think about it.
Second: As we thought of our club, allowing the WE cavalry to pass through the wood clearly no defend bonus! as the first version of the WE army. It would be their peculiarity to make them more specific.
Meanwhile, thank you very much
Leonidas
Leonidas, thank you for your input, but could you please stop writing some stuff in CAPS? It is not only hard to read but is broadly considered shouting. And nobody wants to get shout at, do they?
Giving Wardancers a 6+ save only costs points. There is, or should be very little benefits from it. Remember they could be placed nearly anywhere on the board. Most probably in a defended position (dense terrain) and stand an shoot. They are hard to shift and pretty annoying!
But if you keep them in the backfield of your enemy troops they are one of the biggest harassments there is in Warmaster.
Giving them a 6+ save will only increase points in a very points expensive list.
If you want them more elite, why not glue only three miniatures per base. And say they are not hundreds os soldiers but anything less.
You asked me to think about it, and I did. ;)
Keep it coming.
Ole
-
Ok thanks a lot I will not do this mistake again I did not think to cause so much noise ..
For the rest it does not seem so incredible the change proposed by me, I do not think it is unbalancing. It makes the game of Waywatchers and consequently of the WE more interesting.
Leonidas
-
About the waywatchers - if the point cost would be adequate, then it won't be unbalancing. But it doensn't make sense in the first place. The list already suffers from having lot of pricy options and no cheap ones. Every time I was building a list I felt I'm in extreme point shortage to build a list I'd like to. So I really don't understand why make the option even more expensive for almost no real effect - in our game against Bretonnia a unit of Men - at - arms supported by another one charged WW unit in the wood. The Men-at-arms were harmlessly beaten off while taking one stand of damage. So why should make WW even thougher?
About the cavalry in the woods - this would be serious messing with some core game principles.
-
On the official website of Ricks Warmaster - rules updates, there is the list of the armies of Fantasy Mongol: Gareth Hobson, in which the ligth cavalry (WE Glade Riders) has this rule:
Light cavalry; "Light cavalry is based on the long side rather than on the short and can be turned 360 degrees to the full range.The light cavalry can enter difficult terrain in the same way as the infantry, but can never count as defense or fortified". It can be an idea. Thank you
Leonidas
-
Yes, this is Light cavalry concept from the Warmaster Ancienst.
So you would like to apply this concept (including different basing) on WE cavalry? Are you sure of the consequences?
-
forget it
-
Look, the list is still under testing and I still await some feedback from other players around the world. If they are gonna support what you say, it will be definitely taken into account. At the moment you are the only one seeing the situation so grim. Will check the spell clarifications. Cheers.
-
Have been doing some WE (v0.2.3) playtesting with Paul Winter and Janners recently. Here is a brief summary of what we have fed into the WMRC. The issues we think are most significant are marked with an asterisk (*).
* 1. Buying extra woods for 25 points each. Creates pill-boxes for the WE player. No other WMR army has them. So get rid of it completely. Or (see my previous comments above), give Dwarves the option to buy hills, Empire the option to buy villages, and so on.
2. Glade Guard. In the 2009 list you had to take 6 per 2,000 points. Recommend a return to that, otherwise it's another enhancement.
3. Eternal Guard. Surely less well-armoured than their mail-coated HE and DE brethren? Should be 3|3|6+ and priced accordingly. Factoring in no command penalty in woods, of course.
* 4. Wardancers. OK as a Skirmish stand rather than a unit, but underpriced given that Empire skirmishers can only get 6+ armour at best for same price. But would be resolved if Eternal Guard became 6+ armour.
* 5. Waywatchers. Current configuration is OK, but underpriced. Compare to Empire handgunners at 65 points and no (Command 10) infiltration option. Should either be same price but 2 hits per stand, or price pushed up considerably.
6. Dryads/Treekin. Very happy with army having some heavier hitting/armoured infantry, but why are there two lines? List has way too many entries compared to other lists. So merge into one type only.
7. Glade Riders. No concerns.
* 8. Wild Riders. Current configuration is OK, but underpriced significantly. If you're a Chaos player, how might this offer sound to you ... For only 10 points, upgrade your Marauder cavalry to an extra attack per stand to front at start of each fight AND be immune to terror. Yes, there's a command penalty to be factored in, but with a Command 10 general that 'penalty' only takes them to the level that everyone else is playing at.
9. Warhawk Riders. OK, but Terradon stats are generally seen as the best flyers in the game. If you get these in your overall package, perhaps turn down the volume on other things (see suggestions above).
10. Treeman. No concerns.
* 11. Characters. Dwarf-priced Command 10 General. Really? With all that cavalry and some great flyers? Needs to be Elf-priced.
12. Spells. Pretty good, but every tournament player worth his salt will take two unicorns and suddenly those difficult to cast (but potentially game-breaking) spells become a lot easier. Especially when you chuck in the standard magic items on top of that.
13. Mounts. Too many options. Suggest dropping at least the unicorn for reasons above.
In summary, the list is definitely fixable but we're worried that it's just got too many low price goodies at the moment.
-
If you are hoping for a return to the old army list then I'm sorry you never played with that of Compendium 2009. (minimum absurd, 345 pts, etc.)
It puts a very good job performed so far very well. I, as an old player with wood Elf, have to say that changing it as you indicate is a destroyer. According to me at the moment the 0.2.3 works, and I consider it the best ever published in 15 years, although I still have problems to familiarize with it, but it's my game problem.
I must say that I like it in my club (ten regular warmaster players).
Indeed, in my opinion, some units like Waywatchers are a bit weak .. but if I have to choose it is OK to save the 0.2.3. I have become a fan of this Army list at this point !! Thank you
Leonidas...
-
* 1. Buying extra woods for 25 points each. Creates pill-boxes for the WE player. No other WMR army has them. So get rid of it completely. Or (see my previous comments above), give Dwarves the option to buy hills, Empire the option to buy villages, and so on.
The ability to take woods has been crucial to Wood Elves since early 6th ed Fantasy, and before that they had ways to create woods mid-game. It's more iconic to them than terrain is to any other race. It may be a rule that needs some tweaking, but throwing it out completely seems like the lazy option.
2. Glade Guard. In the 2009 list you had to take 6 per 2,000 points. Recommend a return to that, otherwise it's another enhancement.
A mandatory 6 of an expensive shooting unit is very dull- it forces monotony in lists beyond the intention of the unit minimum requirements, and because they are only shooting infantry it also encourages a monotony in play style. It's better to have minimums spread across different unit types- No Warmaster scale army should be without Eternal Guard, for example, and their different unit role is a good shake-up.
3. Eternal Guard. Surely less well-armoured than their mail-coated HE and DE brethren? Should be 3|3|6+ and priced accordingly. Factoring in no command penalty in woods, of course.
Eternal Guard (and the Wood Elf Spearmen before them) have always been the equal of their elven brethren. In fact, Eternal Guard (ever since they gained that name) are actually an elite unit closer to White Lions, etc.
Higher WS, better Ld, often Stubborn in some form, and armour and equipment better than that used by High Elf or Dark Elf regular spearmen.
A drop to a 6+ save makes them equal in combat to High Elf Archers, which is rather pitiful and doesn't reflect any version of them.
If this creates an issue with the Wardancer save then address the issue there.
6. Dryads/Treekin. Very happy with army having some heavier hitting/armoured infantry, but why are there two lines? List has way too many entries compared to other lists. So merge into one type only.
I dislike this idea because Dryads and Treekin are very different- it's like combining Saurus and Kroxigor. Still, I agree there are probably too many options, and this would probably be the least bad loss.
* 11. Characters. Dwarf-priced Command 10 General. Really? With all that cavalry and some great flyers? Needs to be Elf-priced.
That's also Dark Elf General price. The clincher for the price change with High Elves was the combination with Silver Helms, as aptly demonstrated in a published game where 2000pts of High Elves took out two allied 2000pt armies without breaking a sweat by swinging a large Silver Helm block from one flank to the other.
Wild Riders are almost Cold One Riders- just 1 less save and with a command penalty. I agree 100pts may be too cheap, and 110pts may be a better starting point, but keep the fix to them rather than taxing the general- at least until the rest of the list is set in stone and there's been more games recorded.
-
The cavalry of WE for 1000 pts Wild Riders only - / 2, DE Cold One - / 3 and Dark Riders - / 3 which cost only 95 pts (two shoot at 15 cm look like a little below cost compared to light cavalry of Glade Riders WE), HE Silvers Helm - / - without limit With general LD 10, both for DE and HE. I do not understand this one-way fury against the WE army list. So let's look at all the Army lists, I honestly do not see this danger hanging over Warmaster of an unbalanced WE on the contrary ...
-
@Geep, Thanks for your thoughts. You picked up on two points that I had asterisked. The other ones I don't feel so strongly about.
On the woods, I just don't see them as necessary. If you're playing friendly, scenario-based games in a non-competitive context, then lay down plenty of woods when you put the terrain; just as you would if you were theming the table to match other armies/situations. But whether people like it or not, the army lists are used a lot for competitive play. As a tournament organiser, I don't want to ban things that have been 'agreed' by the community, because that can create unnecessary discontent and undermine the credibility of the rules/lists revision system.
On the price of the general, with DEs there is the small matter of them executing subordinates, usually after 36 orders or less. If the WEs had some sort of command problem, I'd very happily support 155 points. For example, it's a guerrilla army, so why not limit the characters to 20cm command range? That helps rein in the Lizardmen, who are otherwise very powerful and also live somewhere with lots of trees.
@Leonida, my experience has been this: In 2014 and 2015 we allowed the 2009 WE list at tournaments we ran. They over-performed noticeably and feedback from experienced and sensible players (including the WE players) was that they had too many good things for too few points. It used to be the same for HEs, but they got reined in a bit.
Since the new version of the list came out recently, three of us have playtested it in several games, against different armies, with scenarios rather than just line-of-battle, and with players on each side with similar levels of experience. A little-bit-of-everything WE list was narrowly defeated once and lost badly once (to a list containing six Chaos Warriors in a hold-the-tower scenario). All their other games they won by a significant margin. And a maxed WE list with 4 Wild Riders managed to take down an army with a break of 10 for the loss of only 1 Treeman and 4 stands from 4 units.
So, from the evidence of our experiences, we have suggested some changes to the WMRC. I don't have any 'fury' or any other sort of passion for the list, so I am not going to spend any more time on it. Other people will also feed in their experiences and suggestions on this forum and the committee will make a decision and we will respect it. But if we then see a repeat of the 2014/2015 tournament experience, we might have to ban them again partially or fully from our events. It would be a real shame if we had to do that. So let's see what happens. Personally, I am not going to say anything more on WEs until after a new list gets finalised.
In the meantime, I shall playtest some other lists to help move things forward for the community. We have Cathay next on the to-do list. But I'm going to predict that, in the future, Nippon will become just as controversial as WEs before a final list is agreed. But such debate is a good thing, not a bad thing, especially if people use playtest evidence-based arguments.
-
In our club we tested WE army list 0.2.3 in 12 games (2000 pts) against various armies; DE, HE, Empire, Dwarf and Tomb King. With contrasting results, four draws, five losses and three wins. We'll play WE vs Dwarf tonight. In our club we play more for pleasure, the tournaments are on the sidelines, even if we have organized one in February 2018 (Tomb King victory). Perhaps this is the difference in ours evaluation.
-
I can see a problem in testing WE only in scenarios... they are ment to spice the game, but are not ment to be core of the game. The same problem I see in the perspective of Warmaster being primarily tournament game - it is obvious from the principle of the game, that it cannot be ment to be competetive game, but rather narrative. I have nothing against WM tournaments but I refuse to take tournament play as a prism form adjusting rules.
-
I personally like the latest version of the army list , bar a few tweaks. Too much choice? Just look at the orcs and gobs, they have the most unit choices. Too over powered? I point my finger at the high elves, even dark elves with their 2 shooting attacks at 15cm.
I like the fact there are 2 distinct army flavours, elf or tree spirits (it would have been good to have more animals from the forest, wolves, bears, but we are not looking to create a new list, just fix the current) together with the choice of light and heavy troops.
I think having minimum dryads is a mistake, great fluff, but a nightmare to get models for (unless we can persuade black gate minatures to do wood elves after the orgres).
I also think the loss of woods will be a mistake, reduced to 2, and of a small size, the "fortresses" have little impact, you can't hide your whole army within. Also, when i played empire, these were my only means of closing the gap against those damn cannons. Without the heavy armour of other armies, they are so exposed over the open field.
More importantly, if you remove the woods, you reduce the effectiveness of the tree singing spell, that can be cast by the treeman and wizard. So maybe that spell would also need changing if the wood go. I understand these woods could cause issues in some scenarios played in the tournaments. -
interesting concept to alow all armies to "purchase" additional terrain.
-
@Clawlessdragon
@Aldhick
I agree with you two, surely reducing the WE to a simple tournament army list is a mistake penalizing it all. Surely decreasing the wood or eliminating them as an option, it goes to diminish the spells making them even more ineffective or in some cases useless. in fact, two out of four spells have the presence of a wood within 30 cm, this is already a limit.
Not all the world of Warmaster is based on tournaments!
Fortunately for my club
Finally Thanks guys
-
@Clawlessdragon
Ps. I forgot: I too was destroyed by the cannons of the empire with my WE 0.2.3.
I have already modified and built my WE army on a 0.2.3 basis. Including Dryadi
Leonidas
-
Promised I would shut up about WEs, but one last appeal:
If the list is going to retain the option to buy woods (which I still think is a bad idea), at least make it a real choice and a real price. Swapping a unit of Wild Riders for a wood/pillbox would be a genuine choice. Swapping out a skirmish stand is a no-brainer.
Onward to Cathay ...
-
I am a lover of oriental armies. You made me very curious. I already have a Nippon army (compendium 2009) and I was interested in making Cathai, but now I'll wait for yours.
Leonidas
-
WE wood: I thought of various solutions,
1; The first free wood, measuring 16/18 cm, if you want more, is purchased at a cost "x" but smaller than 12/14 cm, at most one every 1000 pts.
2; Alternative: one free Wood every Treemen in play, dimensions 16/18 cm.
3; Alternative: one free wood and one more for each Treemen in play. 16/18 cm
4; Alternative: apply the WE army list rule 0.2.3.
Leonidas
-
@Leonida, Minis used are here
http://www.forum.specialist-arms.com/index.php?topic=7161.msg61947#msg61947
Some changes since then. Have used TB Line Mongol Heavy Cavalry as Cold Ones proxies.
I'll start a new thread for Cathay.
-
just played another game against Dark elves tonight. Maybe its just me, or the choices I made - but I can never get the wood elves to be a real threat in a game, let alone win. However, a few more observations from tonight's game.
Dryads should not be compulsory (mainly as it is impossible to represent them with models in any number) or perhaps make it a choice between Dryad or Eternal Guard (same point cost) depending if you are going for a elf army or spirit army... Chaos Dwarf has this choice mechanic... 2 earth shakers or 2 rockets or 1 of each....
Glade riders are over priced at 100 !! look at high elves, same stats but they cost 90 points. Even Dark elf riders, with same stats but with double shots at 15cm cost 95 points (which is devistating if 3 units ride up to you!! no one survives 18 shots).
Not sure if the wild riders should be tree spirits- it is the only good fast/hard hitting thing in the army has and it is penailsed as only a hero with cmd 8 can order it - or the General @ -1cmd... it therefore is not as effective as the dark or high elf cav (yes it is immune to terror, which is not to be sniffed at)
Finally, I still dont see the issue with the extra woods. I like the fact you have to 'pay' for them, so make a real choice between more troops or terrain, but what is a reasonable cost? They have been reduced in size, so you can only get a couple of units within (that can see out and shoot or charge) and scaled back from 4 to 2 woods at most. In most games you should have enough terrain, so the placement of new woods will be very limited towards the wood elfs own table edge and have little or no impact on the game... In the last game I had, one wood moved 4cm - a waste of a spell really. - I appreciate it would get frustrating if units reduced to 1 stand hide in the woods, so you can't finish them off, or in tournaments - in certain scenarios - they can cause issues, but they have toned down a lot, I feel a lot of those early issues have been addressed, but you can never please everyone.
Just a few thoughts really, but Glade rider point costs do need looking at :) Good luck with deciding the final rules.
-
The glade riders point cost is a mistake indeed. They should be 90.
The reasons for Dryads being compulsory choice are: 1. ideological - WE are ment to be tiny in numbers and therefore they alway bring woodland creatures along to battle. 2. It sould allow you to build tree spirit-heavy army. 3. It is neccessary to justify Ld10 genarl for 155 pts
Wild riders are forest spirits fluff-wise and again it is neccessary to justify 155 pts for the general.
Currently discussed changes for next draft:
- wardancers from 25 to 30 pts
- glade riders 90 pts
- wildriders from 100 to 115 pts
- waywatchers from 2/2A to 1/2A and from 70 to 60pts
- only one unicorn per army.
-
Waywatchers 1/2 absurd ............! I feel sad!
Leonida
-
A defeat! I do not understand this extreme power of Wood Elf !? I ask at this point for help to understand !!!! But really now point the finger at the Dark Riders 95 pts cost absurdly Low !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Why Wild Riders 115 pts? A 110 Pts seems more justified. Unicorn one? It does not seem to me that there are these limitations in other Elf army lists, Bretonnia Vampires, etc. We are disappointed
-
A defeat! I do not understand this extreme power of Wood Elf !? I ask at this point for help to understand !!!! But really now point the finger at the Dark Riders 95 pts cost absurdly Low !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe I can help. Lets look that them separately:
wardancers from 25 to 30 pts. 25 for a 5+ save is unreasonable.
glade riders 90 pts forget about the comparison to Dark Rider. Think Reavers.
wildriders from 100 to 115 pts They are nearly as strong as Cold ones.
waywatchers from 2/2A to 1/2A and from 70 to 60pts This is a very good compromise. This unit will nearly always break the game, because of the combination of strong shooting and ambushing. If it hasn't occurred in your games you are probably playing with way to less terrain.
only one unicorn per army. I could life with 1/1000 but the reason is simply the magic buff I suppose.
-
Thank you so much for your availability, but what you wrote I know it too !!!!!! I'm not so .. I have a lot of experience in the game, but I think you are seeing the WE with the wrong eyes seen so it will be another Army list of the wrong WE, all this fury do not understand it and I do not think I'm the only one to think so. ... Some comparisons, however, do not need to hide your head in the sand, the Dark Riders are instead an excellent example of over power!
Like many other examples Cannons !! ??. The price Wild Riders too high 115 !!!! absurd, their cost is 110! More than three quarters of the army can not take advantage of the LD10 as the strongest units (wild R. and Treekin) suffer a -1 to the LD and bring it to LD9. We are still here to discuss this incredible strength of the leadership of the WE that terrifies everyone! I accuse those who do not play with WE.You are too academic. The umpteenth opportunity to do a good job has been lost.
-
I was a little shocked with some of those point costs, but when compaired against other units, they do make more sense.
I can't see the wild riders being better than silverhelms or empire knights due to the low armour. In fact, wild riders are closer to boar riders.. 4/3/5 @ 110 points, except they reduce to 3 attacks after 1st round. I just remembered they are immune to fear, so maybe the 115 points is fair.
The restriction to 1 special mount does not seem fair, given other armies have access to multiple mounts.
Waywatchers are tricky, as the stats are closer to Artillery now. Hard to put a cost on them, it seems a fair compromise. Just a thought, if these are the wood elf "artillery" what's the thought of basing them short side forward? Just a thought, a bit like pistoliers on foot with their -1 to armour.
-
Then the boar riders 4/3/5 have an attack more always !!!!! taken in front, back and side! it is not limited to the first melee round only. Wild Riders only! front! only frontally and limited to the first round!
-
Boar riders are limited to Ld 8 characters- even the general- and they have no movement spells in their list. Still, I also think 110pts is probably better.
Waywatchers being 1/2 I can accept, but don't really like. It's a bit too 'generic artillery' for stats, and I always liked that in Fantasy Waywatchers were usually surprisingly ok in combat- they frequently got bonuses if charged, or if charging from a wood, or (I think in 8th ed) had 2 hand weapons (2 attacks each).
-
@Aldhick,
Dryads being compulsory choice ... It is neccessary to justify Ld10 general for 155 pts.
OK, but perhaps 2 Dryads per 1,000 to support that argument?
Wardancers from 25 to 30 pts | Glade riders 90 pts | Wildriders from 100 to 115 pts | Waywatchers from 2/2A to 1/2A and from 70 to 60pts | Only one unicorn per army
That all seems sensible to me. Waywatchers especially.
-
I me repeat the LD10 is limited to less than half the army, and to the less incisive units, For the other elite units we have a classic LD9 (Treekin, Wild Riders, Dryads and Treemen) Also for these units remains the Noble to LD8 modified to LD7, with the advantage of being controlled by the Spellweaver to LD8 with a control distance limited to 20 cm. where is Over power !!!!!!!!!!
Waywacther reduced to less than Glade Guard units, and reduced to artillery with infantry stand, at this point I consider the Ambush loss, and a return to 3/2 .3 .0.
Unicorn, one in the Army Why? I do not know that he is acceding to other armies.
Wild Riders 110pts with LD9 are not controlled with LD10!
Then, at this point, you should return to the WE Compendium 2009 with some changes in costs. I hope in a coming awakening.
-
I me repeat the LD10 is limited to less than half the army, and to the less incisive units, For the other elite units we have a classic LD9 (Treekin, Wild Riders, Dryads and Treemen) Also for these units remains the Noble to LD8 modified to LD7, with the advantage of being controlled by the Spellweaver to LD8 with a control distance limited to 20 cm. where is Over power !!!!!!!!!!
Waywacther reduced to less than Glade Guard units, and reduced to artillery with infantry stand, at this point I consider the Ambush loss, and a return to 3/2 .3 .0.
Unicorn, one in the Army Why? I do not know that he is acceding to other armies.
Wild Riders 110pts with LD9 are not controlled with LD10!
Then, at this point, you should return to the WE Compendium 2009 with some changes in costs. I hope in a coming awakening.
The Price of the 10 Command Value is always paid by the high price of the general. It was not being paid by the troops. So say it should but it isn't.
I might have repeated myself but the power/problem with the wood elf list is in the free/cheap defended position that are moving (spell). This is most probably the reason why 2 unicorns are a bit broken.
-
I've bought a wood elf army for the larger part and spent a fair bit of time sculpting my own dryad/treekin folks. (Read "fair bit" as a buck of a lot, for 3 units)
I've invested.
I play infrequently so I can't add much to playability discussion. Plus I don't really give a fat rats arse if I win or not. I like the game. I trust those who come before and offered up the early lists as they've spent a decent amount of time doing so. Trial by fire isn't a great way to work out rules. 1 unit of dragon ogres have both won/cost me a game and their point value could be argued either way, endlessly. Sometimes you get lucky.....
No other Warhammer army was quite like WE. The two main reasons were the differing troop types making army selection difficult for the WE player, and the fact that evasion rather than offense was the most savvy way to play them and could prove frustrating for opponents.
The former isn't the way warmaster has really worked as regardless of the troop types everything across the board in ANY army is more similar than Warhammer. We all hit on 4+ - happy days. To attempt to reproduce the nuance of the Warhammer WE in Warmaster isn't going to work. Evasion/guerrilla style games might be fun for the WE player and experienced opponents but are pretty crappy for the most part.
My 2 cents:
Dryads as trial armies.
Eternal guard to 1/1000 as core is too expensive.
Waywatchers as Trial armies 1/1000
You've got WE flavour there and decent options for alternate playing styles. Plenty of scope there to have archers hold up an advance while the punchy units get stuck in and do some damage.
Could ditch glade riders as a choice, few models available anyway. Without the extra movement of warhammer they cease to have the same function anyway.
Enough of me twittering.
-
@ Ole
We are amazed in our club for the turn that took the creation of WE army list.
General dwarf LD 10, 155 pts is error? are you telling me this?
-
We are very disappointed.
-
I've bought a wood elf army for the larger part and spent a fair bit of time sculpting my own dryad/treekin folks. (Read "fair bit" as a buck of a lot, for 3 units)
I've invested.
Have you managed to paint them yet? I was following your progress last year, it would be nice to see the final / painted units :)
-
They're largely painted but I will be giving them a few touch ups and bases need finishing. When I varnished them the colour washed out as varnish was old. Made these last year but looking at them now I could do better.
-
I haven't painted up all the archers yet. Got a bunch of them from Copplestone. Thought I'd put a few pics here somewhere...
-
Very nice, i do like them, lots of work though :-X
I went pendraken for my archers, which are nice, but a bit big. Wish i had gone copplestone. Might get some copplestone as waywatchers. However, it's all on hold until the committee can nail down the final list - which as we know is not an easy task.
-
Excuse me, but if you think LD10 at 155 pts is too convenient, then why not return to a cost 180pts LD10 General army WE, but for all units, including Forest Spirits, as it was in the compedium 2009: I think the solution to problems.
-
Regarding the Copplestone cloaked Archers, I strongly recommend drilling through the bases and pinning them from underneath. The legs are a bit thin to support the bodies and this led to some 'casualties' after tabletop usage. Bit of a pain but worth it in the long run.
-
Continuing to playtest Cathay. This week played against Barry Pittman (of Black Gate miniatures fame), who wanted to try out the new Wood Elf list using tokens. Explanatory photos below, but textual narrative as follows.
I set up the terrain (desert themed) with everything (apart from the hills) being impassable. Barry swapped 60 points worth of Wardancers and placed two 16x16cm square woods. I suppose I could have insisted on him trimming the corners, but even round woods with a 16cm diameter are still pretty big woods. Anyway, they started 12cm apart but later moved closer together due to the Tree-singing spell. He placed them next to the impassable terrain because the rule specifies dense terrain, ie. woods, village. But even if he had kept them away from the impassable terrain, it wouldn't have changed the basic dynamic of the game which was all his infantry with defended status and (spoiler alert) me unable to do anything about it.
Barry got first move and sent the Eternal Guard into one of the woods. Other units followed up. I got myself into a decent defensive stance with the hope that my artillery might be able to do something against his units in the woods. They managed to fire once but, hitting on 5+, they did nothing. Barry then sacrificed his Warhawk Riders to destroy my Rocket Launchers and Bolt Throwers. He also got his other units into the 'defended' safety of the woods.
I decided to send in my Orc Slaves (Dishonoured proxies) because at 5|3|0 they were my hardest hitters. But they just bounced off the brigade of four Treekin (4|4|5+), managing to only take one stand off him. The Treekin also can't be terrified (so no point in adding my dragon). In that defensive position I would fancy their chances even against Chaos Warriors.
Some small combats occurred between my chariots and his Wild Riders which had no great effect on the game other than to whittle down my break. But it was the first time I experienced the movement spell that prevented me from standing-and-shooting. No comment on that.
Tried a different route. Tiger Guards (4|3|4+) backed up by Dagger Axes (3|3|6+) marched round the back of the WEs. Three successful orders from a hero got them in! So far, so good. But WE general had already moved Glade Guard and Dryads to cover the rear (Cmd 9 because of the Dryads, but no woods penalty). GG had no armour, but stand-and-shoot at 3+, then trying to dislodge supported defended GG and Dryads (hitting on 5+). Bounced with the loss of two stands. He lost no stands. Suppose I could have put the dragon in, but used the Tiger-mounted hero instead because if I won, the character could pursue. Not sure the dragon would have changed the eventual outcome.
By this stage I was three-and-a-half away from my break of 12. Treekin got two orders from their general (Cmd 9 but no penalty for woods) and hit my Dagger Axes. Game over. My thoughts on the game? Nothing to add to my previous observations during the WE reform process. Will post further thoughts about Cathay after more playtests.
-
Photos as promised above.
-
Second batch of photos.
-
If you followed the rule "no dimension larger than 16cm" (maybe 15cm would solve lots of troubles), you won't be able to fit them all in so neatly and at least some of the stands would be "chargable" from cavalry. And one more thing - if you have possitioned your artillery so, that it was opened for the Call of the hunt attack, it is your fault... due to the obligation to charge the closes target it can be easily possitioned so it cannot be charged.
-
PS: I know it was a testing game, but if you are gonna to play with somebody who enjoys to put his whole army to dense terrain and then just stares at you happy you are unable to do anything abou it, you might reconsider... :-)
-
16x16 squares is clearly not the wording of the forest rule, and is an absolute killer here.
Choosing to be so bunched and static should be the downfall of his play. WE shooting doesn't have the range of war machines, so if you can cover your war engines and deal with his non-bunkered units you should be able to force confusion, run literal rings around his units and hit them in flanks and rears. Easier said then done I'm sure.
-
@Aldhick, a few points in reply, please:
1) 15cm woods will not solve the problem. Even if hanging out the edges, the stands will still count defended. Or the WE players adopts a three-stand frontage. The key issue here is the defenders. This army has a good number (4 per 2,000) of really good (and cheap) heavy infantry (4|4|5+, no terror, no have-to-charge-humans, 105 points). If I was playing with them, they would be straight into my 30 point wood as an anchor point in every game.
2) The artillery units were charged normally by the flyers, not by the spell. They were protected by shooting chariot units. But WEs have narrow-based (and shooting) flyers, ie. best in the game. Perhaps Dwarves might have had a chance with Flame Cannons? But everyone else is in trouble and so shooting them out of their 30-point woods with artillery (if your army has them) is probably not going to be an option if the WE player is prepared to sacrifice his flyers. Which I would do every time if I was playing with them.
3) Regarding opponents' strategies, I often play against Dwarf armies. They usually 'castle-up' in terrain and, yes, you have to find ways to dislodge them. The difference is that they do not have the option to pay 60 points and get two large hills.
@Geep, also a few points, please:
4) As I said in my text, yes, the woods should have been 16cm circles. But the 'absolute killer' issue is not solved by a change in geometry.
5) As I said in my text, I tried to go round the back. But Cmd 9 ordering his Forest Spirits (no woods penalty) allowed him to easily counter such moves.
6) Yes, my artillery outranged his archers. But see point (2) above. And sending my ordinary archers (defended so 5+ to hit) within 30cm of his (3+ to hit) would have been suicidal.
-
My previous post was, legitimately I think, fairly negative. So here are some suggested positive solutions:
A) If the rules committee is determined to retain a brigade-sized wood per 1,000 points, then make it a real choice. Sacrificing two skirmish stands is a no-brainer. If my opponent had to lose two of his four Wild Riders, that would have given him a hard choice. And 110-point wood = reasonable price for its potential effect.
B) Treekin should be 120 points. O&G Ogres have the same stats (4|4|5+) but have to charge humans. They cost 105 points. If they didn't have to charge humans they would be 110 points. Immune to terror should be an extra 10 points on top of that.
C) Dryads should be 70 points. O&G Orc Warriors have the same stats (4|3|6+) and cost 60 points. Immune to terror should be an extra 10 points on top of that.
With regard to (B) and (C), the minus 1 to command is irrelevant because the WE general is already 155 points rather than HE price of 180. And ordering them at Cmd 9 is just 'normal' compared to other armies.
-
You bring up some good points I hadn't noticed.
I agree Warhawk riders based on the short edge would be too good- I had assumed they were long-edge based. Removing artillery should be a bit more of a struggle for WEs, and usually has been in Fantasy. Certainly not impossible with our speed, waywatchers, multiple flying units, etc, but never insanely easy.
I think the round woods would make more difference than you think- here he achieved well-supported blocks that were able to shoot out. With a round wood you generally have to choose between easy shooting or support. 30pts does seem like a bit of a pittance to pay though.
I hadn't noticed the price of treekin- you're right, that profile is 110pts at least with no drawback- and the forest spirit drawback already has a countering positive (plus the bonuses of elf leadership and freedom in terrain).
Dryads I'm unsure of, but could probably do with a minor points boost. Orc Warrior stats are already mildly better than Elf stats in most cases (3 3 5+) despite both being 60 points, and these slightly beat the orcs.
-
In my opinion a battle is not a text, any army is defended in a wood is practically indestructible (Lizard, dwarfs, etc.). This was a battle taken very far, in my opinion.
-
I really don't understand the wood problem. You are saying it is overpowered for we to be able to easily hide two quarters of your army into woods where only thing it can do beside standing a watching is to shoo 30 cm with som of their units? In my eyes and experience, now rhe opponent has olmost whole army to deal wit the rest of the we army easily. And payin for woods with whole units would mean no one would ever take them. The we are already suffer from being small in numbers of units.
And warhawks overpowered? What about giant eagles, carrions and exclusively pegasus knights? They have 5+ save and access to movement spell without any restrictions (unlike we) an also to unicorn (+1 to cast). Why is nobody complaining about that?
-
@Aldhick, I support your opinion thank you very much
-
@Geep, The Warhawk point is an interesting one. I have just checked the current list and the old ones. It does not specify narrow-based so, yes, they must be wide-based. I guess I had just assumed Elf flyers = narrow-based. Which is an error. Apologies. But I am not the only one to make that mistake! (Aldhick, please can you confirm that they are wide-based?, Thanks)
@Aldhick & Leonida, regarding the Warhawks, my main point is that if the WE player is willing to sacrifice his flyers he will neutralise an opponent's artillery. WEs, in addition to other good things, also have flyers. Which compounds the problem which I perceive in allowing them to have two 30-point woods. No artillery = no obvious solution. We are not going to agree on this issue, but I will continue to present my playing experiences as they occur. And continue to offer what I think are game-balancing solutions.
-
@Aldhick & Leonida, regarding the Warhawks, my main point is that if the WE player is willing to sacrifice his flyers he will neutralise an opponent's artillery. WEs, in addition to other good things, also have flyers. Which compounds the problem which I perceive in allowing them to have two 30-point woods. No artillery = no obvious solution. We are not going to agree on this issue, but I will continue to present my playing experiences as they occur. And continue to offer what I think are game-balancing solutions.
Sure, go ahead. My playtesting experience is that it is quite demanding to achieve a victory with WE if opposed wisely. You simply don't achieve a victory by hiding in woods... At the moment I belive that all suggested changes would make them teethless.
And still I belive that if the artillery is so vital for the WE opponent, there are still means to protect it effectively even against the warhawk riders
-
@Geep & Aldhick, Error above. Warhawk Riders are Monsters, so narrow-based unless long-based specified. Apologies for the confusion.
-
I really don't understand the wood problem. You are saying it is overpowered for we to be able to easily hide two quarters of your army into woods where only thing it can do beside standing a watching is to shoo 30 cm with som of their units? In my eyes and experience, now rhe opponent has olmost whole army to deal wit the rest of the we army easily. And payin for woods with whole units would mean no one would ever take them. The we are already suffer from being small in numbers of units.
I think the main problem is one of boredom, and not being a fun force to play against. Fantasy Wood Elves had a bit of the same problem.
Basically, if the Wood Elves bunker in a forest you can't hurt them easily, they may be able to do some opportunistic sacrificial chargers, but for the most part the players stand and stare at each other while the models don't move. If the non-WE player gets bored and attempts to take the wood, they probably lose the game.
The fact that the wood elf player gets to place the forest makes them very different to regular terrain.
-
I really don't understand the wood problem. You are saying it is overpowered for we to be able to easily hide two quarters of your army into woods where only thing it can do beside standing a watching is to shoo 30 cm with som of their units? In my eyes and experience, now rhe opponent has olmost whole army to deal wit the rest of the we army easily. And payin for woods with whole units would mean no one would ever take them. The we are already suffer from being small in numbers of units.
I think the main problem is one of boredom, and not being a fun force to play against. Fantasy Wood Elves had a bit of the same problem.
Basically, if the Wood Elves bunker in a forest you can't hurt them easily, they may be able to do some opportunistic sacrificial chargers, but for the most part the players stand and stare at each other while the models don't move. If the non-WE player gets bored and attempts to take the wood, they probably lose the game.
The fact that the wood elf player gets to place the forest makes them very different to regular terrain.
You are right... but that was the initial ideological WE problem when we started messing with the list... This is basic WE trait... if you strip it from them making it regular WM army, you would get disagreement from all dedicated WE players as they would be WE no longer fluff-wise.
Please note that this "hide and seek" problem was radically diminished compared to the original Trial army list and there are now ways how to play them offensively.
-
I absolutely agree it's always a likely issue due to their intended guerrilla warfare nature, and I agree it's an improvement from the last list. I'm also all for them keeping something like their current abilities as it fits their flavour. There may need to be more discouragement though from the bunker approach into using some of that movement they have.
The mis-sized forest was definitely an issue in the earlier battle, but I don't know if that alone caused the above problem. It probably doesn't help that the player was experienced with the previous list, where the bunker was a greater issue- but it's a problem that it worked so well here regardless.
-
@Aldhick
This army list at the moment seems to me a good compromise between playability and the peculiar characteristics of WE. Already tested twice from the exit, but never victory, (tomorrow afternoon test battle against Albion ..) But despite everything, but I appreciate it and I love it, because it represents very well the essences and difficulties of play of the WE. Thank you
-
So: I come back now from my club, where I just faced 2000 pts Albion with my We 2000pts. I was defeated (three Feanbeast summoned two of which killed) But despite the defeat I had fun. Thank you
-
ORIGINALLY POSTED BY empireaddict;
…."I set up the terrain (desert themed) with everything (apart from the hills) being impassable. Barry swapped 60 points worth of Wardancers and placed two 16x16cm square woods. I suppose I could have insisted on him trimming the corners, but even round woods with a 16cm diameter are still pretty big woods. Anyway, they started 12cm apart but later moved closer together due to the Tree-singing spell. He placed them next to the impassable terrain because the rule specifies dense terrain, ie. woods, village. But even if he had kept them away from the impassable terrain, it wouldn't have changed the basic dynamic of the game which was all his infantry with defended status and (spoiler alert) me unable to do anything about it."....
These woods were too big! The rules clearly state that the Wood Elf army's chosen woods cannot be larger than 16 cm in any dimension. This means the biggest the woods can be is a 16 cm diameter circle. Your woods were 22.6 cm across the diagonals! Naughty naughty!
-
Played Barry again this week and my Wood Elf proxies lost the game. Barry's Empire were 0.5 from break when that happened. Set up my two woods for 60 points (each much less than 16cm diagonally) in good pillbox positions. Took out all his artillery on the second attempt with my Warhawk Riders. Before that I had reduced the effectiveness of artillery on hill by moving woods in front of them. Stalemate. He had nothing to dig me out of the woods and I had no incentive to exit them. So, having driven a couple of hours to play the game against him, I decided to go out and attack him because otherwise it would be a really dull evening. My units with Ogre and Orc Warrior prices/stats (no terror) did pretty well against Empire infantry and my attack left him clinging on by a thread. But Barry is a really good player and threw everything at my troops (some of whom were now in the open) and managed a victory by the narrowest of margins.
This is the first time I have played with the new WEs. It is probably also going to be my last. And this is the end of my commenting on this thread. For the reasons why, I refer readers to these comments and my previous ones.
-
Excessively pillboxing Wood Elves is likely, and a problem in that it kills the fun of the game.
It may be a good idea to add incentive for enemy movement into the base rules. I know it's yet another special rule, but it was added as a balancing factor in pre-book 6th ed Fantasy Wood Elves and seemed to work. My suggestion for Warmaster would be something similar to:
Enemy units score VPs equal to their points if they end the game within 20cm of the Wood Elf's table edge.
Elves being static? Ignore them- march as much as you can into a far corner and if the game gets called you'll win. That won't be a fun ending- but hopefully that's then enough incentive for the Elves to come out and engage your army (and therefore result in a fun game).
-
Maybe a 'Napalm' rule ;D
-
It's probably also worth noting that ANY army can pillbox in woods if the terrain happens to be favourable- so this isn't purely a WE problem.
Possible alternatives should probably revolve around ease of perfect wood placement, or the escalating benefit of multiple forests.
Some examples:
-An "I place, you place' system. The WE player would place the first forest they've bought, the opponent gets to place the second, the WE player the third, and so on. All must be placed in the WE board half.
-Post-placement scatter- as it sounds, after all bought forests are placed scatter them 4D6cm in a random direction. They stop if the hit other terrain, a board edge, etc. You may want to let them cross the half-way line, and could have an 'annihilation' possibility- A forest hitting another forest removes it from the board, with no compensation (or opponent places as they want anywhere then scatters). It'd discourage over-foresting a table and placing bought forests too close to each other.
-Scaling cost. Each forest costs the sacrifice of a number of Wardancer stands equal to the number of forests already on the board. Ie. placing 1 forest on a bare board costs 1 stand, a second forest costs 2, etc.