[AL]Wood Elves

[empireaddict]

Photos as promised above.

[empireaddict]

Second batch of photos.

[Aldhick]

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.

[Aldhick]

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... :-)

[Geep]

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.

[empireaddict]

@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.

[empireaddict]

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.

[Geep]

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.

[Leonida]

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.

[Aldhick]

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?

[Leonida]

@Aldhick, I support your opinion thank you very much

[empireaddict]

@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]

@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

[empireaddict]

@Geep & Aldhick, Error above.  Warhawk Riders are Monsters, so narrow-based unless long-based specified.  Apologies for the confusion.

[Geep]

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.