A few friends and I are working on some Fandexes to play with. Number one on the priority list is, of course, Wood Elves. I'll put what I've got so far here once I get back to the computer with that file on it, but in the mean time, I'd like to ask you guys for ideas on what you'd change.

Some guidelines:

- we want to keep that same agile, elite that makes the Asrai the Asrai, which means no cheap blocks of rank-and-file, no matter how much it would help the army tactically.
- ease and quickness of play is key. We don't want a dozen new units with two-dozen new rules each. A few new ideas is good. Fine-tuning of existing stuff is better.
- to simulate guerrilla warfare better, ideas like universal Hit and Run, Fire and Flee, and such have been tossed around. This seems to be the main aspect to focus on, so any input would be appreciated.
- the Forest Spirit 5+ Ward will not be negated by non-magical attacks. As much for simplicity as for balance. So let's move on to bigger and better discussions.

So, Dakka. Whatcha got?

(see later post for current Fandex)

Wow, you have been one busy man!

I have just started a wood elf army myself, so I can offer enthusiastic criticism, but I don't know them well enough for constructive criticism!

I love the idea of allowing more units to hit-and-run, but reading your 'asrai warfare' rule it seems a little unfair that when an opponent beats a wood elf unit in combat they can't pursue them, I would suggest when the wood elf loses it DOES take a break test and if it PASSES its allowed to fall back with the rules above.

Do asrai bows need to be strength 4 AND armour piercing? And if glade guard can hit and run and have just had a bow upgrade would that not justify a basic points increase? skirmish upgrade = very cool.

But enough criticism, I am loving having a dragon as a rare choice, allowing mages to use more lores, bolt thrower-esque warhawk attacks (inspired idea!) and the new athel loren lore in general (tree singing as lore attribute & 'summon' dryads = awesome).

Last suggestion, I always thought it interesting that as forest spirits were immune to psychology they couldn't flee as a reaction, this made them tactically different to other units and also fluffy as they are a force of nature and thus have no concept of retreat, I think you should keep that.

Anyway, i'll shut up now and let someone who really knows about asrai say something, I'm moving over to the dwarf thread I just saw as it's making my beard tingle!

The hit-and-run idea is definately something I'm not satisfied with. Mainly because a BSB is essentially useless in such a force. Even without being able to pursue, fleeing combat isn't all that great army-wide. As I've playtested, you run out of space real quick.

Honestly, I forgot about the AP bows. Mathhammer-wise, Glade Guard are not that bad. We just really wanted Wood Elves to be better, and improving their Core (by making them better/pt, not just by adding stuff and increasing their cost) seemed like a good place to start. But I've seen that, on their own, the Guard are mostly okay.

Forest Spirits being able to/not being able to flee has fluff-compliments either way, but ITP is easier than "Immune to Terror and Panic"...I may change that back.

Finally, we cannot take credit for the Warhawk rake attacks. That was...someone else on Dakka. Can't recall who, at the moment.

Fair points all round. When I look at the hit and running I see a new option that allows woodies to actually throw units into combat again (now that they can't kill off the front rank to be safe), I can imagine how you'd run out of space though, and have a complete mess of skirmishing units fleeing and charging in all directions if you weren't careful! funny for your opponent, a real test of organization for you

The other option is to bring back the Fire and Flee! charge reaction, but that leaves most Forest Spirts without any way of being Forest-y.

Treeman Ancients: Forest Spirit, 3+ Scaly Skin, 4+ Regen. Access to Lore of Life, Lore of Athel Loren

Treemen: Forest Spirit, 3+ Scaly Skin, 4+ Regen
Treekin: Forest Spirit, 4+ Scaly Skin, 5+ Regen
Dryads: Forest Spirit, 6+ Regen, Hatred (or Frenzy)

I like a bit of what you've done with Wild Riders (their points are off. 2,335pts each? Ouch!) but I was always a fan of them causing Terror when they charged in the flanks or rear, having Furious Charge (whatever the fantasy equivilant is) and/or potentially having some sort of ability to disrupt ranks in the turn that they charge due to the panic that they can incite. I also think some sort of Miner-like deployment might be appropriate for Hawks, Wild Riders, and Dryads (or certainly a SC or upgrade that allows the same)

Hmmmm, I would change the Forest Walkers special rule. The part about Mysterious Forests. Make it where any time a unit from either side enters a Mysterious Forest, you roll 3D6 and the Woodelf player may choose which of the rolls apply. If 2 wood elf armies are fighting each other, you roll as normal and this rule doesn't apply.


I would add Fire and Flee back as well.

Fire and Flee: Wood Elf units with this special rule have an additional Charge Reaction option. When a unit elects to Fire and Flee, it immediately makes a Stand and Shoot charge reaction and then Flees, as per the individual rules for the Stand and Shoot and Flee charge reactions. Shots made during a Fire and Flee reaction suffer a -1 penelty on the to hit roll. This penelty is NOT negated by the Asrai Archery special rule.


Another special rule I would add,

Hit and Run: The Asrai do not tend to fight in pitched battles, but a series of hit and run attacks meant to weaken the enemy over time. Eventually defeating their opponents over the span of days or even weeks. When casualities are caused by a unit with this rule, set them aside seperatly from the other casualities. At the end of the game when tallying up Victory Points, count the point value of these models in the total as if they were their own individual units. These points are in addition to the unit they were from's original point value.

Give this special rule to all Characters and Waywatchers.

@Nagashek: Heh. I believe Wild Riders were originally priced at 23pts, and are supposed to be 35pts.
Units like this are always tricky, because there's so many ways to capture their feel within the rules.

Interesting idea about special deployment, though!

@Grey Templar: Why would you change Forest Walker? Letting the Wood Elf player decide for both sides gives the rule some offensive potential. Really, I just think it's stupid that Wood Elves can loose a fight because of the forest they're in, like anyone else. And don't even get me started on Dryads taking wounds from animated trees...

Because the Elves can only tell what the Forest is in advance, and maybe do some rearranging. They don't have complete control over the result.

Thus, having it be a 3D6 roll and the WE player decide which rule applies seems to be the fairest option.

You are right; a forest where Wood Elves went first has no reason to be safer than any other. The opposite, in fact. But 3 dice...I guess I feel like a slight variation on a mechanic is more complicated than creating another simple mechanic.

They could just be immune to casualties and psychology tests caused by Forests?

I watched a unit of Waywatchers sustain 2 casualties from a Venom Thicket. It makes zero sense. Of course, their Poisoned arrows did (though they did not help). Slightly more sense, in fact, than it does for normal foot-slogging infantry to wander into a copse of trees and then promptly rub their weapons down with tree frogs and cobras.
Mysterious Forests. A cool idea with some very silly means of execution.

Woodland ambush, Any WE unit deployed inside a forest is considered to be lurking in ambush and is invisible to the enemy (kinda like the dwarf warmachine rune) They may not be targeted by missile fire,warmachines or magic until they "reveal" themselves by moving or shooting. However they must make panic tests as normal.

Enemy models may still charge them as normal as it represents them being spotted.

Also they should never have to take dangerous terrain test from forest no matter what unit type. (other negative effects should apply as normal.

I like the ideas and way you've kept the general concept of the Wood Elves. I don't really know the army well enough to offer useful criticism, but I am pretty sure that Branchwraiths are a bit overpriced at 1012 points for the upgrade There's a similar problem with some of the magic items.

@Jubear: I like the idea. It's elegant and makes sense. My two issues, though, is that Warhammer has already laid out (bad) rules for ambushes, and that Wood Elves don't seem to need as much help against shooting/magic armies as they do armies with several units of 50 guys.
I like the way you think, though! Keep the ideas coming!

@Sebster: I think the issue is that I was not the original author, and that my Edit-Track Changes-Insert Comment routine still somehow showed up on the final markup. Deciding on point costs is always tricky, so as a general rule, I ask someone who really likes the army (my friend) to throw out a number that seems more reasonable, and then I increase it. I'll try to fix that, once I can get at the original document.

Updated the info. That should take care of weird typos. Changed the Forest Stalkers up a bit, replaced Asrai Warfare with Fire and Flee, etc.
I also did a thing or two with the spells. Swapped Oaken Armour and Fury of the Forest as the signature and #1 (because having all Wood Elf casters access to a spell that grants more armour doesn't fit as well as one that harasses the enemy).
Still not sure about The Big Spell.

Warpsolution wrote:
@Sebster: I think the issue is that I was not the original author, and that my Edit-Track Changes-Insert Comment routine still somehow showed up on the final markup.

Ah, that'd explain it. I thought it was a change in value, because the numbers looked liked they'd changed from one thing to another, but I didn't think of tracking changes.

Deciding on point costs is always tricky, so as a general rule, I ask someone who really likes the army (my friend) to throw out a number that seems more reasonable, and then I increase it. I'll try to fix that, once I can get at the original document.

Yeah, points cost are really tough, because a value of a unit isn't just in its abilities, but based in so many intangible things. Eyeballing a value, getting feedback and then seeing how it works in play and adjusting it is pretty much the only way to do it.

Indeed! Right now, my main concerns here are Wild Riders, Warhawk Riders, and Eternal Guard.
On the last one, I've seen so many people offer so many different ideas. A 5+ Parry, because, ya' know, defensive staff-based martial arts, replacing the weird weapons with halberds or spears and shields (probably the simplest idea, but I thought I'd try to change as little as possible). As they are now, they've e got the bonuses of hand weapon/shield, spear, and two hand weapons. Or in other words, they have +1 armour and a 6+ Parry added on to what they were.

Thanks for all the imput so far, everyone.

Two things:

1. It seems a bit odd that Glade Guard have light armor but Eternal Guard and Waywatchers don't.

2. War Dancers have a rule called Elite warriors which isn't explained in the post. I think it was the rule that let champions of special and rare units take 25 pts of magic items and Spites like their High and Dark elf counter parts.

Otherwise awesome job. I really like the direction this has gone since the last time we talked about this.

Heh. Yeah, they should all have Light Armour. And I was going to explain the Elite Warriors thing on each unit. I'm gonna fix that up real quick!

There. Edited. Now I'm looking at the spells again, and I'm wondering: Fairie Fire seems really, really good. Any ways we could make it more comparable to Wind Blast? And the Big Spell...how good is it?

Awesome job. I would like to see a bow for waywatcher priest or hero with the ability of heroic killing blow. Warhawks are way to weak in the 8th edition especially that ther is no extra attack for charging.

But GW cares only about the most popular races and as far as I remember nothing has been added to wood elfs for the past 5 years. Little hope!!!!!!!!!! Maybe three years later we gone find 1/20 of the things mentioned in a new wood elf codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If they would just release new rules to the existing units and add new items that would be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wood elves are the finest archers in the warhammer and they don't have sniper unit. How about giving them a unit of archers that would have s 5 and would penetrate the ranks the same way bolt throwers do. Imagine a giant bow hooked to a tree or driad and elf standing behind it and stretching the chord. The unit could consists of 10 archers each of the using the horse base.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
I would like to see a bow for waywatcher priest or hero with the ability of heroic killing blow.

Heroic Killing Blow is an amazing and incredibly rare ability. A Wardancer character has access to it, and giving one army more than one way to get at this ability would be pretty unfair, especially considering that you could have multiple Wardancer characters.
Most important of all, though, is that giving Heroic Killing Blow to any ranged attack--close range or not--is probably never a good idea.
There was an idea on the forums a while back about Waywatchers being able to choose Killing Blow or Sniper, or giving Waywatcher characters Sniper. Still worth considering.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Warhawks are way to weak in the 8th edition especially that ther is no extra attack for charging.

Do you think the Warhawks above (W2 and a Rake attack) would make the unit worth taking?

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If they would just release new rules to the existing units and add new items that would be fine.

Agreed. Hence why I'm working on this Fandex. Tournaments are one small aspect of Warhammer; I'd gladly let any Wood Elf general use this Fandex in a normal game.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wood elves are the finest archers in the warhammer and they don't have sniper unit. How about giving them a unit of archers that would have s 5 and would penetrate the ranks the same way bolt throwers do. Imagine a giant bow hooked to a tree or driad and elf standing behind it and stretching the chord. The unit could consists of 10 archers each of the using the horse base.

By "sniper", do you mean "high-strength ranged attack?". To be honest, a two-man bow sounds pretty far from elven. Maybe Goblins would do such a thing (I modeled my Doom Diver as such, actually), but such a weapon would be undignified and very inaccurate.
Moreover, I don't think Wood Elves need much in the way of new units; we're trying to keep the number of Core/Special/Rare about the same as the other books. Super-accurate archery and immensely powerful attacks shouldn't really mix anyway. I mean, Skaven Jezzail teams would still be a great choice, if they were still skirmished, and they're 20pts for BS3 models.
If, however, you were using the word "sniper" in the actual in-game sense (though your example would be off the mark, if you were), I'd point out that there are several character-targeting goodies in the book. Even more, if we follow through on the sniper-Waywatchers. Maybe drop their Trap ability, give them Sniper, and bring them back up in points a bit?

Thanks for your input, though! Also curious what people have to say about Wildriders, Wardancers, Eternal Guard, and the Lore of Athel Loren.

It's nice that you mentioned enthernal guard as this unit is simply way to weak. A model cost 12 point has 2 s 3 atacks and a armour save of 5+ and t 3. For the same cost you can get driad which has 2 s 4 atacks a ward save of 5+ and t 4. Therefore there is absolutely no reason for using enthernal guard. I hope in 2013 when the new wood elf codex is going to be released , the ethernal guard is going to be stroneger. Wood elf army does't need many new units. However I hope they will add some kind of elite archers, because waywatchers are just not doing there job. Killing blow works only on a roll of 6. Waywatcher costs 24 pts and it's more worth to get a wild rider for 26 pts.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's nice that you mentioned enthernal guard as this unit is simply way to weak. A model cost 12 point has 2 s 3 atacks and a armour save of 5+ and t 3. For the same cost you can get driad which has 2 s 4 atacks a ward save of 5+ and t 4. Therefore there is absolutely no reason for using enthernal guard. I hope in 2013 when the new wood elf codex is going to be released , the ethernal guard is going to be stroneger. Wood elf army does't need many new units. However I hope they will add some kind of elite archers, because waywatchers are just not doing there job. Killing blow works only on a roll of 6. Waywatcher costs 24 pts and it's more worth to get a wild rider for 26 pts.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: To be honest, a two-man bow sounds pretty far from elven. Maybe Goblins would do such a thing (I modeled my Doom Diver as such, actually), but such a weapon would be undignified and very inaccurate.

Why not !!!

The bow does't necesary need to be hooked to the tree it can be the tree or the branch that bends it self and the wood elf would just stretch a creeper. You said that this would be inaccurate, but think realistically wood elves are said to be the finest archers in a whole warhammer universe. If the archer of that sort would master his skills for whole life every day all most nonstop he would shoot accuaretely with this inaccuarate weapon, or the tree it self. And I did't mean that this should be a sniper unit , because this would be to strong, but I meant that wood elfs should get a sniper unit. I agree with you about the heroic kiling blow and about the warhawk riders. I like the way you improved waywatchers, but I feel like two efective missile units are not enough for the wood elf army if they are to be the finest archers in a whole warhammer universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nothing has been released for wood elfs since 5 or 6 years. So it should not be a problem for GW to release 1 or 2 units at most.

Having a hard time understanding everything there, devastator777777, but I'll try to respond:

- my Eternal Guard are 15pts for Stubborn WS5 S3 T3, with a 5+/6+, 2 attacks, Fight In Extra Ranks, and--this is the most important--they keep their longbows.
Eternal Guard should be comparable to Black and Pheonix Guard, and I think these changes would make them so.

- my Waywatcher dropped by 4pts, gained Killing Blow at all ranges, and have Asrai Longbows (S4 at close range).

- " I did't mean that this should be a sniper unit...I meant that wood elfs should get a sniper unit" -see why I'm a bit confused, here?
And as for thinking realistically about giant self-drawing tree-bows: it's just not in the tone of Elves. Wood Elves are loosely based off of Native American guerilla warfare, which is a far cry from this idea.
I mean, yes, they're the best archers, so applying themselves to one weapon or another would yield in fairly accurate ranged combat, but that doesn't mean they'd slap together just any ol' weapon. They're going to use the tried-and-true tactics, the reliable ones, and the Best Ones.
Finally, no one in history has ever fielded masses of 20ft. longbows. Especially not in an army that needs to travel quick and light.

- and on "effective missile troops": the Asrai have the Glade Guard, Glade Riders, Eternal Guard, Warhawk Riders, and Waywatchers. I think that should be good enough, don't you? They each serve a different purpose, but they're all good at what they do.

If the enthernal guard would have longbows then there would be little senese in having glade guard. In close combat they are still weaker then dryads which are cheaper.

There is a stereotype that wood elves are a mobile army, however there is no rule applying that all of wood elf units need to be mobile. That's way nothing is wrong with the unit of archers that I mentioned previously. You said that" no one in history has ever fielded masses of 20ft. longbows" that's true, but if GW would try different unit's then we would't have many of the units that are now in the game. If you worry that this unit might be to strong, then the alternative is making it cost expensive. 10 archers with s 5 piercing ranks the same way bolt throwers might do a lot of damage. On the otherhand if a single archer would cost 50pts then, your opoent would be able to field 3 hydras for the price of 10 archers.

Glade riders and warhawk riders are not counted as effective missile troops, because they are not numerous or don't have a powerful ability like waywatchers. I'm not a great fan of giving bows to the ethernal guard, because then they would have practialy the same shooting capabilities(accept the fire and flee rule) and would be much stronger in close combat.combat.

@devastator7777777: you say that there would be no point in taking Glade Guard, but that Eternal Guard are still worse than Dryads so...I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think they're too good or not good enough? 'Cause you seem to be saying both.
Keep in mind that Eternal Guard cost 3pts/model more than Glade Guard and, most importantly, are Special instead of Core. And I took out the option to make them Core. They're no better shots than their kin, so if you want a super-shooty army, go with Glade Guard.
Also, Dryads aren't very good anymore. The new Skirmishing rules make Dryads take up a silly amount of space on the table. Also note that Eternal Guard have more attacks at a higher Weapon Skill and have a better save versus S3 and less, and the same save versus S4. And, of course, they are Stubborn. Which is The Thing about them.

There isn't a rule that says they're mobile, but that's the whole point of the army.
Allow me to clarify: there's nothing wrong with the idea of giant bows in itself. It even makes sense, in a fantasy setting. It's not a broken or over-powered concept, but it feels like a Golbin or Skaven contraption, which is about as far from Elven as you can get.
In my opinion, it absolutely does not ever even remotely fit the tone of the Asrai, which is more important to me than anything. They don't get cheap rank-and-file, they don't get heavily armoured anything, and they don't get this. If you like the idea, by all means utilize it in some way. But, to be plain: there is nothing you can do to sway me to put it in my version of the book.

Glade/Warhawk riders put out few shots, but are extremely mobile, which allows them to (1) put those shots where they count the most, and (2) do so without being open to return fire.
Wood Elves don't need all of their units to fire lots of arrows. If you want more arrows, you take more of that one unit. They should each offer something different to the force.

Here's what I see in terms of battlefield rolls for the Asrai:

- Glade Guard: volume of shots; forms the core of the army.
They're already pretty effective, but the Fire and Flee! rule should help them a little.
- Glade Riders: mobile shots; disruption.
I dropped these guys in points significantly (I believe they're more comparable to Dark Riders, now). Also, note that they're S4 at close range, too.
- Warhawk Riders: mobile shots; disruption; close-combat capable.
They have an extra Wound, and they can hit units for auto-S4 hits. So, at close range (which should be easy, since they Fly), they actually get 1 S4 shot with their Asrai longbows, and one or more auto-S4 hit with the hawk. Really, when I look at it that way, I might make it so they can only hit one unit with their Rake/turn. Or that they can't shoot and Rake in the same turn. Otherwise, they'd be putting out more attacks/pt than Glade Guard, and more accurately, too.
- Waywatchers: precise shots; anti-armour
I dropped them by 4pts/model. I think I might go back and let them swap KB for Sniper, with characters getting both automatically.
- Eternal Guard: volume of shots; close-combat capable.
At 15pts/model, these guys are not a good choice for archers, but they're extremely versatile. They're a ranged/anvil unit an sort of anti-horde which I'm pretty happy with. The thing is, for 3pts more, you get +1WS, A, and Ld, +1 armour, Parry, Fight In Extra Ranks, and Stubborn, so Eternal Guard start looking insanely good. But then, at 15pts/model, they're S3 T3, with a 5+/6+, and diminishing returns hit them hard. They still can't stand toe-to-toe with even semi-elite combat troops and hope to come out ahead. So really, what Wood Elves get in this unit is an anvil, something that can deal with hordes relatively well, and they get those things without diminishing their ranged capabilities overmuch.
Honestly, I forgot to give them the Fire and Flee! rule. But now that you mention it, it makes a ton more sense for them to not do that.

If you don't like they way I've changed them or Warhawks or Waywatchers or whatever, how about you show me what you'd do? The "I don't think that's how it should be" response a lot, but that's not very constructive. Tell me what you'd change, and how you'd change it.

I'm fine with warhawks and waywatchers, but I think the ethernal guards are still to weak. Let's compare them to the dark elf black guard. A single model of black guard has 2 s 4 attacks the ws of 5 and warrior elite rule, leadership of 9 and they are stubborn. The ethernal guards have the same characteristics, but they have s 3 and don't have the warrior elite rule. They have bows, but dark guard is cheaper by 3 pts.

How would I solve it?

What always comes up on my mind when I think of ethernal guard is a unit that whirls with their double bladed spears, showering the enemy with attacks. What I would do is give 2 attacks to ethernal guard combined with the double bladed spear which would give 3 attacks in total. What I want to achive is to give 3 attacks to the model in the first and second rank. So 10 ethernal guards formed in two ranks would have 30 attacks. In terms of statistics the ethernal guards would be still a weaker in combat then the black guard, they would be a core unit for a higher cost. I think that they would be good enough without bows. If they would get bows , then GW would need to release new ethernal guards as the current models don't have bows. Furthermore many people have whole units of ethernal guards painted nicely if ethernal guards would be re released then they would't buy the new models.

Let's break down all the differences. Black Guard have the following over my Eternal Guard:

-3pts/model
+1 Strength in close combat
re-roll To Hit rolls

Eternal Guard have:

Parry save
Fight in Extra Ranks
Asrai Longbows

The Black Guard have +1 attack, but the Eternal Guard effectively have two hand weapons and spears, so the Eternal Guard have more attacks.
The Black Guard also have heavy armour, but the Eternal Guard effectively have shields, so the Eternal Guard have slightly better armour.
So, really, we have to consider halberds and re-rolling To Hit versus Asrai Longbows, Forest Stalkers, Asrai Archery, and +3pts/model.

That is an interesting way of simplifying/intensifying the spear-staff rule, though. Multiple supporting attacks/model. I'll consider that! Simplicity is key.
However, I simply will not allow Eternal Guard as Core. Stubborn Core troops is madness, so the only way to make them remotely fair is to make them cost too much, which is exactly their problem now. They are almost never taken, Core or otherwise, because of their price.
Units shouldn't be "bad" because they're Core or "good" because they're Special; Core units should be the most practical choice to form your army around, because they're all-around solid, where your Special choices should be for special situations, hence the name. Making Core Eternal Guard--and making them over-priced to justify it--doesn't fit with that philosophy.

And as for bows, Games Workshop, and new models, I remind you:

This is a Fandex. It's not the real thing. So I won't let any of that stop me.

Really, my friend and I were talking about Eternal Guard, and we thought it odd that Glade Guard would set down their longbows when they take up the call to become Eternal Guard (because that's exactly what happens). They've got the BS, they've got Asrai Archery. Why not use it? Wild Riders and Wardancers make sense; they're Forest Spirits, now. But Eternal Guard are still "regular" Wood Elves.
So, basically, we thought it logical, and we thought it a good way to make them a good unit again.

That said, I like the idea of multiple supporting attacks/model. I'll probably update the current Spear-Stave rule and maybe drop the bows, and maybe drop the cost, depending on how it looks in the end.

Keep the ideas coming.

Work ate my post. To sum up: 15ppm is too high, will get beaten by BG even after all the rounds of shooting, even if the bows are S4 at close range due to BG's I stat. I assume PG will fare even better due to better survivability. That might be fine if you have access to Lore of Life on Spell Singers, but that is not stated. Also, Spell Singers are overcosted at 100ppm. Drop the cost by at least 25, if not 35.

I hope that you will update ethernal guard soon. I looked at the spells from the lore of anthel lore. All of them are cool. All of them accept one are balanced. Murder of spites is more powerfull then the dwellers below. It has 3 times longer range. In some cases it kills unit more effectively and
is a powerfull hex as well. Let me give you an exammple, both of the spells are cast against a unit of 10 cold one knights. Murder of spites will most likey kill 5 cold one nights and lower characteristics of the remaining 5.When casting dwellers below 3 cold one knights are going to die as cold one knight fails it's strenght test on 5+ = 1/3 . This is not balanced as level 1 or 2 wizzard are able to have more powerfull spell then level 3 or 4. How would I solve it? The murder of spites would't grant any hits on enemy instead it would modify movement, balistic skill, weapon skill, strenght, toughness, intiative by d3 and the number of wounds by 1 up to a minimum of 1.

There. A few things updated. Most of it was correcting errors, but some of it was swapping things around. Waywatchers and Wardancers and Warhawk Riders.

I switched up Eternal Guard. I dropped their bows, not because I think they'd be too good or anything, but because they should cost less. 14pts for Stubborn models with 3 attacks and 3 supporting attacks seems pretty fair. A Horde would throw out 90 attacks, and that's just funny.

As for the Big Spell, yeah, I forgot to change the ranges back on that. But I do not think it was better than Dwellers, or even as good. A longer range and some stat penalties aside, Dwellers can insta-kill characters, and that's just sick. I'm tired of losing my lvl4 Wizard to a single spell along with half of my 50 guys.
Anyway, I changed it up again. Murder of Spites is supposed to be a way for Wood Elves to deal with large numbers of enemies, so dealing wounds needs to be part of the effect, or (as it is now) the only effect.

Not sure what you're driving at, with lvl1's and 2's getting better spells than 3's and 4's. How does that affect this spell's balance?

Also, why on earth would you cast Dwellers on a unit of 10 guys, let alone 10 guys wit S4? Now that unit of 30 Witch Elves, on the other hand...

Spellsingers are still 100pts base.

How about we give an army wide forest spirit 5+ ward vs non-magical attacks, and forest daemons (previously forest spirits 5+ ward vs everything).
That would make the elf infantry a little more durable, without going to crazy. To keep the feel of a smaller elite army, they do need to be better for the points.

As for mysterious forests, I'd say roll 2D6 and the elf player picks between the two, on a pair he picks any. In an woodelf on woodelf game, the player first entering the forest does the choosing.

-Matt

As far as the LoAL goes, I like it. It is a very control oriented spell list, which puts it VERY much at odds with the standard "do Xd6 amount of SY hits" spells we've been dealing with. It makes the spell list quite versatile and fits perfectly with the spirit of the army. I think it bears playtesting, certainly, as I worry about Longbow Hordes having poison shots, but still, very nice. GW could learn alot from the way Privateer makes its spells.

How about sending an email with the link of this forum to GW maybe they are going to admire some of the ideas.

@Nagashek: what should Spellsingers cost?
Thanks on the spells, though. Most of them are not my original thoughts.
I feel like tons of Poisoned shots might be a problem, but that a big unit of 12pt T3 6+ save models would kind of make up for that. I'd much rather have a Goblin horde with half the range and 4 times the arrows anyway. But yes, I'd like to test it (thought anyone who wants to use this Fandex in their own games is, of course, more than welcome. As long as you tell me how it went).

@Matt: I'm not sure what you mean about Forest Spirit saves. Is that right parenthesis meant to come after "spirits" rather than "everything"? If so, then it seems like you're suggesting that all Wood Elf models have a 5+ Ward versus non-magical attacks, and that models currently called Forest Spirits would have a plain ol' 5+ Ward. Am I getting that right?
That just seems...really, really awesome. I mean, Glade Guard are not that crazy-good, but they're by no means bad. They're quite comparable to Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen, especially with the little upgrades the Fandex currently gives them.
I've done the Mathhammer and seen it done; Glade Guard are a decent buy for their points.

But I like that Forest Stalker change. Just a touch simpler and more clear.

@devastator7777777: honestly, Games Workshop gets that kind of stuff all the time, from what I understand. They offered me a potential interview for a position on their design team, but I didn't want to move to Iceland. I know for a fact that at least a few of their guys look over these forums now and again. If they like it, they can have it.
Really, though, I wouldn't expect them to update the book any time soon. Hence this project.

This source states that the book is going to be updated early to mid 2013.
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/07/warhammer-fantasy-rumors-compiled-by.html

Well, if that is true, it's still far far away.

Plus, I need to give my brain something to blunt its metaphorical teeth on, and this is one of my projects that keeps my mind going while I'm in the middle of some particularly tedious work.

Other things I changed: I forgot that the Asrai Longbows granted AP at close range as well, so I took that out. They really don't need much better shooting, and with negating the penalty to Stand and Shoot! as well as giving them Fire and Flee!, I'm already worried we've gone too far in that direction.
Wood Elves will win basically any shooting match, which is as it should be. But shooting should never be enough to win you a game. That version of Warhammer would be boring and intensely frustrating.

So, once again, I'll ask: what, in general, do Wood Elves need to do better? I think that they need a few cost-/unit-adjustments, and that they needed a few things to deal with big blocks better. Beyond that, giving them some more options to encourage and reward a hit-and-run style of play is key.
Any other thoughts?

I think they do with big blocks good enough. Tree kin are powerfull vs infantry with their stomp attacks additionaly the 5 or 6 warhawk riders should be a able to obliterate a block with their rake.

Treekin are a good response (12.5 wounds/turn to WS3 T3), but they're really the only viable option with the current GW book, and they are extremely pricey. Not that they're not good; they're awesome. But when you have them, you have to give up a lot of other stuff.

As for Warhawk Riders, how do you figure? One S4 hit per model does not equal a ton of carnage. Plus, they're still very fragile, and hard to keep out of harm's way in even medium-sized units.

Let's assume that warhawk riders are able to get 30 s4 attacks on a unit of 30 models. If the unit has 6+ armour save and t of 3, then 2/3 of them are going to die if rake attacks hit automatically. 20 models. If rake attacks don't hit automatically then 4/9 or 1/3 of them is going to die. 13 or 10 models. I think that a unit of 20 ethernal guards is able to do comparable ammounts of damage. 60 attacks * 2/3 * 1/2 * 5/6= aproximately 17 wounds. 2/3= probabilty of hiting, 1/2= p of wounding, 5/6= p of armour save failing. The horde will be able to get 20 or maximum 40 attacks on ethernal guard. Asume 32* 1/2*1/2*1/2=4

Hi, Liking all the updates so far! Here's a couple more thoughts.

I have a couple of suggestions for LoAL. Firstly does the signiature spell have a range? I think it should have some maximum range, increased with the bigger version. Maybe also have it able to target units outside range but within 6" of a forest as well if you really want it to get to far away units.

With the Faerie Fire spell I like the spell but I think being able to move enemy units like that is a big deal, between reforming, moving back to where they want to be and possibly failing their stupidity test that is 2/3 turns out of the game. I think it needs to be a higher casting or have some caveat on how it can move enemy units.

I really like the new 6 spell btw.

Also the war hawk attack has the potential to hit a LOT of units with a 20" march and fast cav shenanigans. would you consider changing it to pick one unit you have moved over but make the attack penetrate ranks, more along the lines of terradons? I think either way they also justify costing 5 more points considering the increasing damage larger units can deal with a rake rule. 6 of them moving over 20" worth of units and doing 6 str4 hits to each one (including war machines, lone characters, small/skirmishing units), multiple times a game, is worth more than 180 pts. I think 35 for a more focused rake attack would make more sense.

Also I really like the current set-up on eternal guard, I think the points cost is pretty spot on for what they do. I'm sure I saw you say in a post here somewhere that eternal guard also had parry but I can't see it in the army list.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what lores can singers use?

@devastator7777777: read it again. A War Hawk inflicts one hit per model of Warhawks in their unit, not per model the War Hawks fly over.
That would be beyond stupid.

@Uzi: No idea how I missed that spell not having a range. I like the forest-idea, but I'll play around with it a bit before adding any unusual (and thus harder to balance) elements/
I've been meaning to get Faerie Fire down to something reasonable.
I'm compare it to Wind Blast (which rocks):

7+/14+, magic missile, 24" range, d3+1/d6+2" away from caster

So this is harder to cast and has a shorter range, but moves the enemy father and in any direction, not just away from you.
Faerie Fire is a hard one. It fits with the Asrai concept so perfectly, but it's so hard to settle on something that's (1) not just Windblast v2, (2) broken and/or impossible to cast, or (3)
reasonable, but often ineffective.

I did have them hitting one unit/turn before, just because they can shoot, Fly, and I gave them 2 Wounds. So I changed them back to 1 unit raked/phase now, though I removed their restriction of choosing between raking or shooting (since you'd choose rake 95% of the time anyway).
I could knock them back down to 1 Wound (though 30pts for T3 W1 models still makes me cringe), restrict their shooting again, up their points, etc.
I think they're pretty solid right now. How do they compare to Hexwraiths and Screamers? Terradon Riders are...not exactly great right now. I'd rather leave them out of the equation as well.

With the Eternal Guard, I had Spear Staves granting the benefits of the extra hand weapon, hand weapon/shield, and spear at one point (+1 attack, Fight in Extra Ranks, +1 armour and Parry), but giving them A2 and the ability to make more supporting attacks was simpler. So as of now, they do not have Parry.
Maybe I could drop them to A1 again, and give them Parry? Not quite an even trade, but then they'll have some kind of save in combat, and we'll avoid a horde of 30 Eternal Guard throwing out 90 attacks. Because that would be...silly.
Also a stupidly good choice for any Poison-granting abilities.

What do you think?

Oh! Right, the wizards. I believe we were thinking Athel Loren, Beasts, Life, and Shadow? I know those last two are The Best right now, but, from a purely non-biased standpoint (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that all the Lores are equal), they seem to fit the best.

Ah, i hadn't thought of wind blast, fair point on that.

Loren, beasts and life is a good shout for singers, I wouldn't object to them having shadow too.

Definitely keep war hawks at 2 wounds, that on its own makes them useful, and 1 unit/turn rake and still shoot is good. I haven't played much vamps (in 8th) or demons so I don't know about the hexwraith/screamer comparison, I have however been thoroughly annoyed by terradons plenty of times.

Eternal guard don't need parry, you're going for attacks and that's fine, especially with more access to life magic, I don't think spear-stave has to do more than it does in the current book, the extra attack on the profile and the greater buff/hex magic options the army would have in general are enough to make them useful, and i think 14pts is good. Also missed that three supporting attacks thing, i think that (the 30 man, 90 attack scenario) is too much, especially with the poison option. I think with a 3 attack front rank and spears you are pretty well covered attacks wise with just 1 supporting (40 man horde getting 60 attacks if you don't charge and 30 getting 50).

And yes giving them poison is still a very good shout! I don't think its too much though.

BTW have you managed to get many test games in? and what faired well/poorly? I'd love to see a bat-rep with you using this codex

I don't like how you droped 2 supportive attacks, for a poison rule, keep in mind that dark elf black guard has 2 atacks and 1 supportive. They have a s4 and warrior elite rule. If ethernal guard which costs 2 points more per model would be able to field 3 attacks and 1 supportive with s3 , without warroir elite rule, then they would be to weak. Poison rule is not that effective. Remember that a limit of ethernal guards in a unit should be 20. 3 attacks and 3 supportive are fair. 60 attacks are not that devestating, normal wood elfs should't get a parry save if they have armour already. Keep in mind that a model costing 14 pts has a t of 3 and save of 4+. This means that unit of 20 enthernal guards costing 280 pts could be efectively weakened by missile units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will give you a better exammple why 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are just enough for the enthernal guard. They cost 14 pts, a goblin costs 3 if I am right. That means that for every 30 ethernal guards on a battle field( not in one unit as a limit is 20). There can be 110 goblins deployed. Ethernal guard costs 3.67 goblin. Goblins are able to performe 110 attacks hower ethernal guards 90. Ethernal guards need to make110 wounds to win. However goblins just 30. Goblins are probably going to be split in to few units. Ethernal guards in to two(as the limit is 20 in a unit). The only chance ethernal guards can win is if they wipe out each goblin unit one by one, quickly before all of them manage to engage. That's why they need to do high ammounts of damage in one turn. So 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are just enough.

@devastator7777777:

1. Eternal Guard and Black Guard should be comparable, but not the same. Black Guard should be better, because Dark Elves are more about close combat than archery.

2. I always forget about that 20-max rule, and it's stupid. A relic of 7th edition. In 8th, where units of 50 or more models is a common sight, such a stiff limit on even Special infantry is just silly.
I promise, Black Guard will have no such limit when they bring out another Dark Elf book. And if they cost a little more for that utility, I'd say that's fair.
So, to compare, we have:

14pts, S3 A3 (3 supporting), Forest Strider, light armour, no limit
12pts, S4, A2 (Warrior Elite), heavy armour, limit 20

That begins to look a little better. Black Guard are better model-to-model, but less versatile as a unit with their stupid 20-man cap. If we took that off and bumped them up a point or two, I think we'd see they're quite comparable.

3. Poison is very effective, especially at lower Strength vaules. Even 20 Eternal Guard would be generating 10 auto-wounds a turn.
It's not automatically broken, but a unit shouldn't go so well with a certain spell or item that it becomes an auto-include in every list.

4. "normal wood elfs should't get a parry save if they have armour already" What do you mean, and why?
Spear-Staves grant more attacks, that's one thing. But they could also easily be considered to offer more protection, bo-staff style, to help the unit out with their poor survivability. And the unit has an armour save of 6+, not 4+.

5. Any unit can be weakened by ranged combat. Not sure what you're driving at.

@Uzi: the problem is, giving them spears and two hand weapons is okay, but spears only work when you don't charge, and when you have 3-4 ranks of guys to work with. I think Eternal Guard need help being more versatile, so I'd really like to change the up to be as non-conditional as possible. Which isn't very much, given their S3 T3.

I'm thinking: drop the number of attacks (something like 1 attack base, or 2 supporting attacks and/or 1 from 3rd rank in Horde formation, or something) and give them a little more survivability. A 5 or 6+/6+ is all. What do you think?

Finally draids have 2 attacks and one supportive attack. If ethernal guard would perform 3 and 1 supportive attacks just with lower strenght then they would be crap. Ethernal guards in the current codex have similar characteristics, and everyone who is not a beginner never uses them. Draids are much more efective.If ethernal guards would get one more attack and a parry save then there would be a little change as they are a special unit which has lower strenght, toughnes and costs 2 points more then driads. 3 attacks and 3 supportive attacks are balanced for enthernal guard, pls don't make this unit a crap unit again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you think that they are to strong then give them 3 attacks and 2 supportive. 2 attacks and a 2 supportive with 6+ armour and 5+ parry is to weak. You need to be carefull not to make a unit called versatile a unit that is not worth deploying on battelfield. Yes with 3 attacks and 2 supportive they are going to be weaker then black guards for a higher cost interms of statistics.

Dryads take up a huge amount of space on the table, can never deny Steadfast, and, most importantly: are not Stubborn.

Stubborn is huge. Stubborn is awesome. Especially in an army that revolves around light, maneuverable troops that can't hope to win by charging headlong into the enemy.

The problem with extra supporting attacks is the Horde formation. It's not even that 90 attacks is too good (they're only doing 7-8 wounds/turn to Warriors of Chaos, and taking more than twice that in return). It's that it's too much of one thing.
They'd shred any large block they came into contact with, but die horribly to anyone with decent armour.
These are the elite of the Asrai; they should be prepared to face a variety of enemies, not be a super-focused unit that can only deal with one or two.

As I said, I'm thinking of:

- making them A1 (so they'd have 2 attacks each), with +1 supporting attack.
- keeping them A2, but bringing their supporting attacks down to 2.
- I'd also consider making the 3rd rank only get one supporting attack, but that's starting to get a little more complicated than it needs to be, and I don't want people to specifically avoid taking them in big units (after all, a 400+pt unit of T3 models with poor saves has its own drawbacks).
- I liked giving them +1 armour and a Parry. I think I'll go back to that.
Maybe the Spear-Stave gives them +1 Attack, Armour, and Parry, while the Guard themselves have a special rule for +1 supporting attacks.

Eternal Guard are not going to be as good at fighting as Dryads, because they're Stubborn. That single ability should define their roll as an Anvil unit. They should be able to dish out some pain as well, but in an army of fast, fragile Hammers, these guys have their roll to play.

Could you maybe give the eternal guard themselves the armour piercing rule (better fluff if it's the guards' skill rather than their weapons) in return for less attacks if you want them to be more versatile? Or give them a fighting style option between an attacking option and defensive option?

I also think it would be cool if they had ASF, just to throw that out there

Let's give them a high initiative of 6. So they will be first to fight. It would be cool if they could an offensive and deffensive option as uzi mentioned. So an offensive option could be 3 attacks and 3 supportive 5+ armour. Deffensive option could be 2 attacks 2 supportive 5+ armour and 4+ parry. Armour piercing rule is not worth droping attacks, as it modifies armour only by 1. They don't need asf as wardancers can have it.

When I use the word "versatile", I'm talking about a single set of rules that, while not excelling in any one situation, do well in many.

Armour Piercing is a good idea, though. +1S is to much, but -1 armour might be the right amount.

ASF isn't something I'm willing to give a unit without a lot of thought. That, and I'd like to find a different way to make elves better; ASF seems to be the go-to buff for pointy ears.
Initiative 6 is interesting, though. Dryads have I6, if I remember correctly. What about Black and Pheonix Guard? Those are the guys they should be most like.

3 supporting attacks is too much, looking back. It's not happening, period.
If it turns out that Eternal Guard 100% need it to be a viable unit, I'd rather give them halberds, like every other friggin' Guard. The only reason I haven't done so yet is an attempt to keep in line with the original idea. Of which, I believe the Spear-Stave to be the least cool anyway.

Also, they have a 6+ armour save, not a 5+. No Wood Elf is going to wear heavy armour, period. If their weapons grant them extra armour from some kind of improved Parry, that's another story. But I'm not piling on a million tiny rules like that. Simplicity is key.

Also, choosing between 3(3) attacks with a 5+ and 2(2) attacks with a 5+/4+ is ridiculous. With that second option, you've basically made Pheonix Guard that are cheaper, have more attacks at -1S, and are Stubborn.
Name one situation EVER where +1 attack is better than a 4+ Ward save. If even one such situation exists, I'd be suprised.

So now I'm thinking it might be easiest to go back to an older idea; Extra Attack, Fight in Extra Ranks, +1 armour, Parry, then also give them +1 Attack and Armour Piercing or something?

Honestly, are Spear-Staves based on a historical concept? They seem like they'd make a decent weapon but...blech.

On the topic of Spellsinger cost, I think the other elves' hero level spell caster cost is about right, which IIRC hovers around the 70-80 ppm mark.

NM, I'm smoking crack. Still, 100pts is too high, IMO. I'd still probably go with 95-90, since DE sorceresses are 100 and better in many ways.

70-80pts seems reasonable; I'd like to keep it in the same range as the other elves.
How do you think a Dark Elf Sorceress is better, and by how much should that effect cost?

Eternal guard should be comparable to the the Black and Phenoix guards in terms of quality, but they serve a very different role.

The Black guard are dedicated to inflicting appalling damage on the Witch King's enemies and are well suited to the task. The Pheonix guard are meant to engage the most deadly unit on the field to the last man (I think the fluff mentions that their order was originally founded to engage demons). The Eternal guard however are primarily there to keep their Lord alive.

Their abilities should all focus around durability. If I might make a suggest, what if they had regeneration? It would give them some staying power and is fluffy for Wood Elves (they could make a vow with Athel Loren similar to the Pheonix guard and the White Tower).

So...

Eternal Guard 14pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 5 4 3 3 1 6 2 9
Asrai Archery, Bodyguard, Forest Walkers, Stubborn, Regeneration

Equipment: Spear Stave, light armour
Unit size: 10+
Musician +7pts
Standard Bearer +14pts
May carry a magical standard worth up to 50pts
Guardian +14pts
A Guardian may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Your version of ethernal guards is not verstile as they are good at fighting heavy armoured units, but suck at fighting with hordes. Actually when you think of ethernal guards you think of a unit that spins it's double bladed spears showering enemy with attacks. These attacks are not that powerfull, but numerous. It's the style of elfs with double bladed spears, killing hordes. Infact if you watch first episod of lord of the rings, then at the begining of it there are such a warriors killing hordes of orcs. No one on earth has before you tought of making this unit a unit used to fight with not numerous heavy armoured enemies. You said that slow moving 2 men bows are not the style of asrai. Same with ethernal guards killing armoured units it's not their aim, not their style, just does't fit them. This unit has to long history of killing hordes in a fantasy world( books, games, films) to become a not numerous armoured enemy killer.

@Greenleaves12: you're on to something, there.
Eternal Guard are the guys watching over Athel Loren during the winter, while the forest sleeps. They should be...capable.
I did nix the Bodyguard rule, though. I noticed that there were a lot of ideas like that one taken from various other armies and, while they make sense, they make sense for a lot of armies. So instead of trying to give everyone all of the little abilities, I'd just as soon keep it simple.

I do not think they should have a straight-up 4+ Regeneration, though. That would make them better than Phoenix Guard by far, since they are still Stubborn.
Hm. But a unit with A2, 5+ Regen, and the original Spear Stave rules...let's compare them to Black and Phoenix Guard:

Versus WS3 S3 T3 A1, 5+/6+ -

Eternal Guard deal 4.7 wounds and take 1.4 (3.35:1)
Black Guard: 6.2/1.7 (3.64:1)
Phoenix Guard: 4.1/.9 (4.56:1)


Versus WS4 S4 T4 A2, 5+ armour -

Eternal Guard deal 3.7 wounds and take 2.8 (1.32:1)
Black Guard: 5.6/4.2 (1.33:1)
Phoenix Guard: 3.8/2.1 (1.8:1)

Versus WS5 S5 T4 A1, 5+ -

Eternal Guard deal 2.8 wounds and take 2.8 (1:1)
Black Guard: 4.7/4.2 (1.1:1)
Phoenix Guard: 3.1/2.1 (1.47:1)

That's starting to look pretty good! The Eternal Guard are behind the Pheonix Guard on kills and casualties, but are Stubborn, while they're behind the Black Guard on kills, but ahead on casualties.
They cost more than Black Guard, which is okay, since (1) Dark Elves are better fighters and (2) more attacks has a higher potential, so it should cost just a little more.

@devastator7777777: how do you figure that any of these ideas are good against heavily armour opponents? The closest would be S3 AP, which is almost as good as S4, which is still bad at cracking armour.
And how is 2-3 attacks plus Fight in Extra Ranks bad at fighting hordes? I mean, the best anti-horde units aren't ones with a bunch of S3 attacks, they're the ones with a bunch of S5 attacks.
But since we all agreed on trying to keep Eternal Guard S3, having 3 ranks in the front and 2-3 ranks of supporting attacks will surely go to helping them cut down plenty of the enemy.
Like I said before, 3 ranks of 3 attacks/model is in the realm of comical. Nothing in the whole game can come even close to that. It's still a poor choice 70% of the time, and an awesome one the other 30%.
We need Eternal Guard to be more durable, with a little more punch. They'll have plenty of extra attacks with additional hand weapons and spears; this should be the focus of the unit's combat ability, after all. But piling on more will only narrow their purpose. If you can intercept the enemy tar pits, they'd be broken, but if they stuck them in combat with the enemy elite first, they'd be terrible.

The more I think about it, the more I'd like them to be S4. What would we have to give up to give the following +1S (from the weapon, I assume):

14pts WS5 BS4 S3 T3 I5 A2 W1 Ld9
Asrai Archery, Forest Walkers, Stubborn, Regeneration (5+)
Spear Stave (counts as an additional hand weapon and a spear)

Maybe they need to be 15pts? Maybe their weapons count as additional hand weapons and halberds instead? Something like that?

Also, as far as Regeneration goes, I'd be interested to see what would happen if the enemy had a -1 to Hit or something instead (I know we talked about this a while back). That would tie them into the winter-element again, and also prevent characters from taking the Dragonbane Gem and being immune to the character who was designed to knock Regeneration off the unit. But maybe that's not so bad?

(see later post for current Fandex)

I like the 5+ regen idea for eternal guard, however if you do that AND make them str 4 aren't you just making dryads but with -1T and +1A (spear staves)?

Think about them in comparison with the 2 other combat infantry units: wardancers and dryads. Buffed dryads or wardancers should be the go to units for beating tough enemies, in flanks and combined charges. Treekin can take on tough enemy units face to face and win, especially with a little buffing.

Although eternal guard are cool they serve a the army list better by being an anvil, and as long a they are stubborn they are a decent bodyguard unit. With above average attacks and WS and regen/parry they should chew through enemy core infantry anyway. I would like them to be kick ass elite infantry but realistically that's not what the army list needs them to be.

I also think they need the highborn/core rule back, I can't see many people sinking special points into them when they are already taking fighty dryads as core and the special choice alternative is treekin, wild riders etc. I think players should get some reward/army variation if they take a highborn who ISN'T going to be avoiding combats!

I see what you're saying. My issue is that S4 isn't good, it's just average for the Warhammer world. It would round the unit out so well and erase the need for a bunch of weird stuff.

Wardancers and Dryads are cheaper and faster, with the prior hitting harder and the latter being tougher.
You raise a very good point about Highborn/Core; I'd like to reward people for taking a combat Lord over a Spellweaver. That said, if you can't see people taking them as Special, that seems to be a sign that S4 would help them a lot.
Also, no other army has that option of Core Stubborn troops, and I'm trying to go with the current trend of less weird rules.

High Elves provide a pretty decent comparison; their units should be better, but there should be some similarities (correct me if I missed anything):

Phoenix Guard 15pts WS5 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld8
Fear, Speed of Asuryan, Ward save (4+), halberds, heavy armour

Sword Masters 15pts WS6 BS4 S3 T3 W1 I6 A2 Ld8
Speed of Asuryan, great weapon, heavy armour

White Lions 15pts WS5 BS4 S4 T3 W1 I5 A1 Ld8
Forest Strider, Speed of Asuryan, Stubborn, White Lion Cloaks, great weapon, heavy armour

Really, compared to these guys, I don't think the Eternal Guard would be too far off, even with the Spear Stave granting +1 Strength. They'd still be worse, which is fine, but my main concern is that they be viable.

Also, I did some math on -1 To Hit versus 5+ Regeneration. The latter generally seems to be slightly better, while the latter can't be stripped with Flaming Attacks and doesn't apply to non-WS/BS attacks. I personally think the prior would fit the unit better. Thoughts?

I think -1 to hit fits better,

If you like the highborn/core rule then make it that only a unit joined by the highborn is stubborn.

Thinking about a highborn and guard theme option for an army perhaps eternal kindred could cover some of this? Along the lines of "...If the army general has eternal kindred then units of eternal guard become a core choice. Any unit of eternal guard joined by the character gains stubborn" (and keeps the rule if he is slain in combat while part of the unit?) That's pretty close to the current army book rules, but a little more condensed.

This could be an excuse to drop a point or two from them but this way they are better value for points. Add a few points to eternal kindred in return if you think. Could open up more uses for them while still having the specialized option.

I would love to see more theme-able army lists like this in general (I think it would be particularly good with wood elves),GW seem to have a go at it every now and again, but they always get rid of it in the very next codex/book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for fun:

Wardancer Highborn:
Gives any unit he joins / units of wardancers within 8(?) the hit and run special rule

Or
Wardancers in an army led by this character gain +1 to their talismanic tattoo save

And/Or even...
Units of wardancer count as core choices but you must have one non-wardancer core choice for each wardancer unit taken as core (or core and special? eg 2 wardancers and 2 glade guard as core then 2 more wardancers as special?)


Branchwraiths:
Make spites for treekin and dryad champions unlocked by having a branchwraith

Perhaps with all kindreds make it so that they make a unit of type that they join stubborn? Could stop units like wardancers/cavalry from whiffing and losing to static combat res

Ok I'll stop now

(Treeman ancient = core treekin)

Core Eternal Guard makes sense, from their role in Asrai society; usually, an army with some Eternal Guard is almost solely Eternal Guard.
You're on to something, here! So Eternal General = Core Guard, and Eternal Character in Guard unit = Stubborn.

The other rules are something I'll mull over, but I'm a little hesitant; the Kindred idea already feels like something that won't be in the next book, which is a shame, but you don't see High Elves with Sword Master/White Lion/Phoenix Guard upgrades to their Princes, or Dark Elves with Khainite Dreadlords and what-have-you.
But my point is, it's already a weird, atypical rule, and I'm not sure I want to mess with it further.

Core Wardancers/Treekin would be tempting, I'm sure. And the idea makes sense. They both definately need those limitaions, though. An all-Treekin force would be a bit much.

I am late to this party but I wanted to say a few things because a) Wood Elves are my favorite army, and b) I play eternal guards in nearly all of my lists.

It does not sound as though you gents go on Asrai.org very often because many if not most of the generals there are using a unit of eternal guard at around 30 models with a Beastweaver with the Rhymer's Harp (grants a 5+ ward to the unit).

This unit typically contains the BSB with the 2+ armor and re-roll and another noble. When the unit is assaulted, the other noble steps up to take the beastweaver's spot in the front and you have a large, stubborn unit with good fighters and hopefully the beast spell granting your nobles +3S and +3A or the base spell (+1S +1T).

Then all the killing stuff joins in, treekin, treemen, wild riders et al. Personally I have more success with this when I play a suicide noble on eagle that hunts down and slays the opposing armies top caster, but one of the beast buff spells should "go off" each combat.

So Mr. Warpsolution your idea of the regeneration save is really good as most people playing the E Guard are already footing the bill for a Rhymer's Harp (which I believe you removed from the magic items list).

I like that you are further differentiating them from Glade Guard by upping their points. I would like it personally if the elite units of all 3 flavors of elves were 15 points to show they are relatively equal (now Asrai are seen as the poor cousins of the Druchii and Asur)

One last appeal, I also play a lot of Wildrider kindred and hate that while the transition from elf to forest spirit has given the standard wild rider a +1S & +1T, the kindred does not do the same for the highborn/noble. Wtf? HE is NOT an elf anymore!!!!! He CAN have > a T3!!!! Aaarrggghhhh!!! /rant

Oh and your work is awesome, your list not only looks better than the current one, it looks more fun. Unfortunately my group are a bunch of sticklers for "printed material only" that I will not be able to play test your list. : (

Maybe there should be a treekin kindred. I would like to see more magical standards.There should be at least two magical standards over 50 points( one of them should cost more then 100 points). The standard storm of the dark whizzing pereforating arrows. The range of standard is 24. All glade guard unit's within it's range will get armour piercing rule. Aditionaly if the enemy unit takes panic tests caused by the glade guards shooting, they will suffer -3 penalty to their leadership. 150 points. How about standard that would increase the distance forest moves during the tree singing. Additionaly draids, treekins and treemans within it's range could get a regeneration 4+ rule. Give more ideas for battle standards.

It would be a shame to lose a cool and characterful rule from the real book so I'd say keep the eternal/core rule in some form, I think making it a kindred rule would be simpler and more characterful.

@Bastion: You're obviously experienced with the guard and your 15pt elf special idea makes sense, so what would you want from them for 15pts? would a 5+ regen make up the difference?

And I think that first 4 in the wild riders' stat line is their BS.

Banners are a tough one to get right, let's face it half of the banners in the 7thed books are barely ever used, they are the one magic section I haven't minded getting pruned back in the 8thed books in favour of common ones. At leat the two you have here Warp are genuinely useful and not over-costed!

Uzi: actually ethernal guards are better then draids, why should they be a core unit. Warpsolution: actually rake does't give warhawk riders any bonuses in combat( only when they move over a unit) Let's give them devestating charge or extra attack or resolve rake attacks in close combat. With their 2 s4 attacks their not able to do a lot of damage. Maybe they can be more expensive.

 Uzi Toting Monkeys wrote:
It would be a shame to lose a cool and characterful rule from the real book so I'd say keep the eternal/core rule in some form, I think making it a kindred rule would be simpler and more characterful.

@Bastion: You're obviously experienced with the guard and your 15pt elf special idea makes sense, so what would you want from them for 15pts? would a 5+ regen make up the difference?

And I think that first 4 in the wild riders' stat line is their BS.

Banners are a tough one to get right, let's face it half of the banners in the 7thed books are barely ever used, they are the one magic section I haven't minded getting pruned back in the 8thed books in favour of common ones. At leat the two you have here Warp are genuinely useful and not over-costed!

hmm . . . the regen is not as good as the 5+ ward save I'm currently getting with the Rhymer's Harp. That is a 75 point item in a unit of 30 (usually) so 2.5 points per model. That would raise the E Guard to 14 with a true ward save. Most Woodie Generals also give the unit the banner of Armor Piercing (can't think of the name right now) so I think with a regen instead of a true ward giving them armor piercing would get them to 15.

To cap I am saying; searath (spear-stave) functions as 2 HW and spears; E. Guard fighting style provides 5+ armor save; stubborn without needing a character, bodyguard meaning one unit can be purchased as a core for each highborn you have, Regeneration 5+ and armor piercing. . . . I think that would be worth 15 points, make them elite on par with other elven elites. I would also give them an option to purchase elven longbows as the E. Guard are supposed to be the best fighters among the glade guard so they should have the option of bringing their old bow with them (but not be forced to for players who like to play stripped down units).

That's my 2 cents . . . and thanks for asking (Oh and indeed Wildriders DO have S4. Seems each elf army has a unit with S4 and Wildriders are it for the woodelves)

Okay! Lots of stuff to work with. Thanks, everyone. Let me respond to some stuff:


@Bastion of Mediocrity: yeah, not a frequenter of any other forums. I just might go there for some further input, though!

On Eternal Guard: I don't think a unit that can be really good if you have three or more characters and a spell cast on it is a good unit. That is a huge point investment, and it's really gimmicky. But I do know of the Harp-Guard and how they become a useful unit that way.

I do not think that the Asrai should ever be as good of melee fighters as their kin, but 15pts might give me enough room to make them what they should be. Specfically, S4 is still my goal, via spear-staves also counting as halberds.

Imposing -1 to Hit is going to be the rule instead of Regeneration. It's just a tiny bit worse, overall. And if I make that only in Close Combat and increase their cost to 15pts, I think they'll work pretty well.

I did have them with bows the first time 'round, but dropped them so they could be more awesome at other things without costing a ton of points. How much do you think Asrai longbows would cost as an upgrade? I'd have to say sometihng like +3-4pts/model, since they're a better version of a good ranged weapon, and that's the usual cost.

And your proposal for how to make Core Guard seems the best to me. This way, Wood Elves can't field an all-Stubborn army, but the unit doesn't have to suffer when it's a Special Choice by having conditional Stubborn.

Also, thank you. Though I can only take credit for...20% of this material, max. And that's mostly just minor adjustments. The real idea-guys on this project lie elsewhere.

@devastator7777777:

- a Treekin kindred? How is that going to work, exactly?

- on the subject of magic items, I've cut the list down a lot, to keep in style with the new books. There are almost never more than two or three items of the same type. One of the banners is for close combat and is not too pricey, the other is for archery and defense, and costs a ton. I do not want to add any more magic items, because that's just not how the game works anymore. And even if it did, armies get one Mega-Awesome banner, not three or more.

- and now Eternal Guard are better than Dryads? Before you kept saying the Guard need a boost, because Dryads are better.
And they'd only be a Core troop if you took a Highborn with the Eternal Kindred. Since taking Lords that are non-wizards is pretty rare, I'm for this idea.

- what about War Hawk Riders, now? They have terrible T, W, and saves for their points, and have huge bases,. Why would you want them in close combat in the first place? It doesn't matter how much damage they dish out, they die really fast.
The unit has a good ranged attack, now another Movement-based attack, and can Fly. They aren't meant for close combat

Actually the charge and flee rule of warhawk riders can be used only in close combat. Maybe if warhawk riders would use this ability then enemy would need to pass initiative tests -1 to even be able to perform atacks in the close combat phase vs warhawks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Their ranged attacks are't that good, it's just 6 archers in a big unit, they can be easly shredded by a unit of 18 dark elf crossbow men. 2*18*1/2*1/2*2/3= 6 wounds that's why it's not safe for them to harass enemy with not effective shooting. 6 Warhawk riders vs t 3 armour 5+ close range 6* 2/3*2/3*5/6=120/54= 2. Long range 6*1/2*1/2*2/3=1. This why they are not effective shooters. In 7th edition when there was an extra attack for the charge they were good in close combat. A warhawk and a rider had 4 s 4 attacks in charge. They were able to flee and charge again. Now they are weak, they should get the devestating charge or rake attacks could be resolved at close combat.

Hit and Run! allows War Hawk Riders the choice to flee from a combat, without risk of pursuit.
Tell me, what kind of unit would benefit from a rule where they're better at fleeing combat than normal?

The answer: one that doesn't want to be in/doesn't often win combats.

And yes, they're not that great at shooting. The idea seemed to be that, since they can Fly, the few shots they had would go to the most vulnerable aspects of an army.
That's why I thought something like Rake would really help. And compared to Screamers and Hex Wraiths, they seem to be shaping up.

Furthermore, you never got an extra attack from charging in 7th; charging units got to attack first, regardless of initiative (which was great, since you only needed to kill a number of models = the number your in base contact with, and no one could attack you back). That's a 40k thing, I believe.

But allow me to boil it down to what I think your point is: that War Hawk Riders are not good enough, as listed.
Is that correct?

It is correct. I confused the number of attacks with 40k. Warhawk riders are still to weak even with the rake. Maybe if rake would allow them to pierce through ranks the same way as bolt throwers do. Consider that such attacks hit with -1 strenght for every rank.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
If rake attacks are to be effective they need to hit automatically.

Oh! Yes. They're supposed to. I must have deleted that part when I changed them the last time.
I updated the Fandex to show this, and to change a few other things.

I'd be willing to change Rake back to any number of units hit in the movement phase, but then I'd have to limit their shooting and probably up the cost.
I just wish I could get at a DC/VC book to compare them to Screamers and Hexwraiths. War Hawks will hopefully end up a little less defensive and a little more offensive or cheaper.

I'm crunching numbers, and if anything, it's looking like War Hawk Riders should cost more, not get better. They do a good job of thinning/harassing larger units and picking off small ones, without leaving themselves open to much hostility themselves.

There's something I was going to ask everyone: what's the Ld of various Elf units? Are any of them higher than Ld8? I don't want to give Eternal Guard or Wild Riders Ld9 if Black Guard and Dragon Princes don't.

And on the subject of spells, I was looking at older threads, and they had some really great ideas for spells. A few questions:

- which of the spells above would you get rid of to make room for one that transforms a terrain feature into a forest? How about one that creates a temporary forest or allows Wood Elves to occupy an existing one like a 2-level building?

- I'd like to spread out the Lore a little better in terms of spell type, with an even mix of Direct Damage, Augments, and Hexes. Probably favoring the last one.
I'd also like to make the 6th spell a Vortex, but I don't think it should just move randomly like most of them do. Any ideas?

Thanks again, everyone!

Black Guard and DPs do indeed have Ld9. You are good to go on that front.

Oh, good. So the units that have Ld9 are:

Wild Riders, Wardancers, Eternal Guard, and Waywatchers.

War Hawk Riders are Ld8, but I6.

It's gettin' down to the little details now.

Also, can anyone put up the wording on the Highborn = Core Eternal Guard rule? I'd like to put that in there.

@warpsolution: I'm not on Dakka everyday so sorry for not replying earlier.

My answer to E Guard was if they had a 5+ regen and armor piercing, I think 15 points was good. A -1 to be hit in close combat = I would not use them without a way of giving them a ward save. T3 Sv5+ for the ONLY way of getting ranks (i.e. anvil) in the ENTIRE armor is not good enough even with a -1 to he hit. As the only ranked unit worth ranking up in the army (glade guard should only ever be in 2 ranks), they are the target over ever template weapon and every spell. The only reasons they are used by wood elf generals is to break steadfast and to stick around for the true beaters to come (treekin, treemen and wild riders).

Your list has already removed the Harp, so in your list I would not use E guard. Halberds are nice, -1 to hit is nice, but E guard are in the army to hold the line. They cannot do that on a 5+ armor save only. They need protection from shooting.

As far as adding bows, Asur spearmen give up a shield and pay 2 points to be sea guard (gaining a bow). I think 2 points per model would be enough since archery is the Asrai thing they should get a discount and you are already paying for an expensive model.

For turning them to troops I would write this in the army list:
Bodyguard: For each highborn in the army, one unit of eternal guard may become a core unit.

I hope I don't come across as confrontational, but I feel strongly about the e guard unit and would be unhappy with leaving the option of a ward/regen save on them.

The current core eternal guard rule states "If the army is led by a highborn, then Eternal Guard are a core unit. Eternal Guard are a Special Unit if your army is led by any other kind of character" and then their Bodyguard special rule states that any unit joined by a highborn or noble is stubborn.

I like your current spell list. I think turning a non-forest terrain feature into a forest would get a bit complicated, as would the two-units-in-one-forest idea. Springing up a new temporary forest however could be good, would it last a turn or could it work as RIP? Like I said though I like all the current spells so I'm not sure what you'd get rid of.

if you want to make the #6 a vortex then go for it. Its only random in subsequent turns and also an elf cannot really tell the spirits of the forest what to do, only ask nicely!

@Uzi: thanks for the wording!

As for the spell, I'm thinking about three possible ideas, probably combining one of the first two with the third:

- a single piece of terrain within 18" is replaced by a forest of equal size.

- place a forest (no larger than the Citadel Forest) within 12".

- an existing forest may be garrisoned by Wood Elf units as if it were a two-level building (which determines how many models can shoot only). If a Wood Elf unit is in the forest at the time of casting, they are considered to be garrisoning the building.
A unit assaulting the garrison is affected by the rules of the Mysterious Forest.

I was thinking it would last until the next phase, but Remains in Play is a good idea.
I'm thinking about dropping Storm of Thorns. Hidden Path and Call are from the original book, and the mechanics fit better than Poison (which only sorta'-kinda' works). Fury of the Forest isn't going anywhere (should it be direct damage or a hex, by the way?). Faerie Fire and Murder of Spites are a better fit as well. Oaken Armour is less obvious, but still feels like a more Asrai-thing to do.

@Bastion: you raise a good point. I will say that, mathematically, a -1 to Hit and a 5+ Ward are nearly identical, so a 5+ Regeneration might be, overall, a little worse.
Of course, that's only in close combat. I wasn't thinking about templates and the like.
I was thinking about shooting, though. I figured that, in a standard shooting match, Wood Elves are going to come out ahead, with Glade Guard being what they are. If the enemy tries to take down your Eternal Guard and you focus on their other missile troops, I'm confident things would go well.
But yes, templates. That changes things.

I could make the -1 To Hit versus shooting as well (it's not just cold, it's also snowy/windy?), but that won't fix it either.
Regeneration could still work, I just don't think it fits quite so well.
Versus non-flaming, and magic/shooting, Regen is better. That said, Eternal Guard were coming out a little behind Black and Phoenix Guard in terms of kill-to-casualty ratio anyway. Do you think swapping out Fimbul Aura for Regeneration (5+), but otherwise keeping them the same would be fair?

Also, I'm not sure if everyone noticed, but there are other changes as well (I think. Oddly enough, I do not own a Wood Elf Codex. It's all memory work over here). Like, Asrai Archery also negating the penalty to Stand and Shoot!,, and I just nixed the Horse Master rule on Glade Guard (it's from Marauder Horsemen; it doesn't matter much, but with Swiftstride, I figured it matters so little as to take it out).
Also, I was curious about people's thoughts on Dryads, Treemen, and Treemen Ancients? Oh, and the Forest Dragon. By far my favourite idea.

Wood Elves

Army Wide Rules:

Asrai Archery: the warriors of Athel Loren are some of the finest archers in the Old World, having trained with the longbow for many decades or even centuries.
Wood Elf units with this rule do not suffer a penalty for moving and shooting.

Asrai Longbows: many Wood Elf longbows are exceptionally well-crafted and maintained, often being heirlooms made from the heartwoods of ancient trees.
An attack made with an Asrai Longbow is resolved at S4 at close range.

Forest Walkers: the Asrai are truly one with the trees, moving amongst them freely, and speaking to them in a tongue as old as the hills.
Wood Elf units have the Forest Strider rule. Additionally, all players in any game involving Wood Elves must roll 2d6 for Mysterious Forests. The Wood Elf player chooses which of the dice applies. On a double, the Wood Elf player may choose any result. If there is more than one Wood Elf player in a game, the player whose turn it is or whose turn is coming soonest when the roll was made decides.
Forest spirits never suffer any wounds and never take psychology tests due to Mysterious Forests.

Special Rules:

Aerial Agility: the War Hawks, Great Eagles, and even the mighty Forest Dragons have spent their entire lives in the canopies of Athel Loren, and are not hindered by vine or branch.
Units with this special rule can fly through forests without penalty.

Bodyguard: Wood Elf Highborns go to battle accompanied by the Eternal Guard, the finest warriors the Asrai can muster, sworn to protect their commander at all costs.
A unit with this special rule may be taken as a Core choice if the army general is a Highborn. The Highborn must join one of these units and can never leave it.

Fire and Flee: the Asrai do not engage their opponents in frontal assault, instead choosing to loose volleys of arrows from the trees, and then retreating deeper into the woods before their enemies can offer retribution.
Units with this rule may choose to elect both to Stand and Shoot! and Flee! as one charge reaction. Resolve the Stand and Shoot! reaction before the Flee! reaction. Note that, even if the charging unit is forced to make a Panic test and flees, the unit with this special rule must still flee as well.

Forest Spirit: amongst the allies of the Wood Elves are otherworldly fey beings, awe-inspiring and terrible to behold. Even the Asrai themselves are ill at ease when the children of the Forest are near.
Units with this rule have a 5+ ward save, cause Fear, are Immune to Psychology, and any close combat attacks made by these units count as magical. Forest Spirit characters may not join units that are not Forest Spirits. Wood Elf characters that are not Forest Spirits may not join units that are Forest Spirits.

Forest Stalkers: Waywatchers wear cleverly woven raiments that make them nearly impossible to see, allowing them to come within arm’s reach of their foes without ever giving away their position.
Ranged attacks against a unit with this rule incur a -1 penalty. Additionally this unit has the Scout ability except that there is no minimum distance required between them and the enemy. Waywatchers may not declare a charge in the first turn as they come out from hiding.

Horns of the Wild Hunt: when the ancient, enchanted hunting horns of the Wild Riders are wound, a great and primal joy leaps up in the hearts of the Asrai, and a great confusion clouds the minds of those they would hunt. When the Wild Hunt is full upon them, Wild Riders will not cease in their pursuit until they or their quarry lay dead.
A unit of Wild Riders always counts as having a musician. Any friendly unit within 10” of a Wild Rider Unit counts as having a musician. Any enemy unit with a musician within 10” of a Wild Rider unit is treated as though they do not have a musician.

Lethal Shot: Waywatchers can shoot with such uncanny accuracy that even plate armour is no protection, and they can pick out a commander from his fellows with neigh-unto supernatural accuracy.
A unit of Waywatchers may either have the Killing Blow or the Sniper special rule with attacks made with their longbows. They may choose at the beginning of each shooting phase, and before they make a Stand and Shoot! or Fire and Flee! reaction.

Rake: War hawks sweep over their prey, plowing through enemy ranks with their razor-sharp talons.
A model with this rule inflicts a single automatic hit with a strength equal to the War Hawk’s strength to one enemy unit it moves over when it flies.

Spear Staves: Eternal Guard wield double-bladed spears in their sacred vigil, cutting down the enemies of Athel Loren in a graceful, twirling dance.
Special weapon. Requires two hands. Spear Staves grant +1 Strength, and the Fight in Extra Ranks special rule on any turn the wielder did not charge. Additional, it improves the wielder’s armour save by 1.

Strangle Root: Treemen can cause their roots to grow at an alarming rate, shooting out of the ground to entangle foes.
A model with this rule has a shooting attack with a range of 12”. Place the center of the small round template anywhere within this range and within the model’s line of sight. The template scatters D6”. Any model under this template takes a S3 hit and gains the Always Strikes Last special rule until the end of the Wood Elf player’s next shooting phase.

Talismanic Tattoos: the War Dancers and Wilder Riders have many inking rituals that invoke luck and protection.
A model with this rule has a 6+ Ward save. If a model with this special rule already has a Ward save, it improves by 1.

Lords:

Highborn* 140pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 7 7 4 3 3 8 4 10
Special Rules: Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers
May choose up to 100pts of magic items and Spites from the Common Magic Items, Wood Elf Magic Items, and Spite sections.
May choose any Kindred.
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow, light armour
Weapon (one choice only):
Spear +3pts
Great weapon +6pts
Extra Hand weapon +6pts
Armour:
Shield +3pts
*For every Highborn in a Wood Elf army, one unit of Eternal Guard may be chosen as Core. The Highborn must join this unit and can never leave it.


Spellweaver 225pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 4 3 3 3 5 1 9
Special Rules: Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers, Level 3 Wizard
May choose up to 100pts of magic items and Spites from the Common Magic Items, Wood Elf Magic Items, and Spite sections.
May choose any Kindred.
May be upgraded to a Level 4 Wizard for +35pts
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow

Spellweavers cast spells from the Lore of Athel Loren, Beasts, Life, Light, or Shadow

Treeman Ancient 275pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 6 3 6 6 8 2 6 9
Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Large Target, Terror, Scaly Skin (3+), Strangle Root, Stubborn
May choose up to 100pts of Spites.
May be upgraded to a Level 1 Wizard for +50pts
May be upgraded to a Level 2 Wizard for +85pts
Equipment: Gnarled fists

Treemen Ancients cast spells from the Lore of Athel Loren


Heroes:

Noble 80pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 6 6 4 3 2 7 3 9
Special Rules: Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers
May choose up to 50pts of magic items and Spites from the Common Magic Items, Wood Elf Magic Items, and Spite sections.
May choose any Kindred.
One Noble in a Wood Elf army may carry the Battle Standard for +25pts. He may carry a magic banner (no point limit), though if he does so he may not purchase any other magic items.
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow, light armour
Weapon (one choice only):
Spear +2pts
Great weapon +4pts
Extra Hand weapon +4pts
Armour:
Shield +2pts

Spellsinger 100pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 4 3 3 2 5 1 8
Special Rules: Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers, Level 1 Wizard
May choose up to 50pts of magic items and Spites from the Common Magic Items, Wood Elf Magic Items, and Spite sections.
May choose any Kindred.
May be Upgraded to a Level 2 Wizard for +35pts
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow

Spellsingers cast spells from the Lore of Athel Loren, Beasts, Life, Light, or Shadow

Branchwraith 65pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 6 4 4 4 2 8 3 8
Forest Spirit, Forest Walker
May choose up to 50pts of Spites
May be upgraded to a Level 1 Wizard for +50pts
Equipment: Razor-sharp talons

Branchwraiths cast spells from the Lore of Athel Loren

Mounts:

Elven Steed 12pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 3 0 3 3 1 3 1 5
Fast cavalry, Forest Walkers

Warhawk 30pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
1 4 0 4 3 2 5 1 5
Aerial Agility, Flying, Hit-and-Run, Rake

A character riding a Warhawk may join a unit of War Hawk riders.

Great Eagle 50pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
2 5 0 4 4 3 4 2 8
Aerial Agility, Flying

A character riding a Great Eagle may join a unit of War Hawk riders.

Unicorn 30pts (Glamourweave Kindred only)
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
10 5 0 4 4 1 5 2 8
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Impale, Magic Resistance 2

Impale: a Unicorn gains +2 strength in the round it charges.

Great Stag 50pts (Wild Rider Kindred only)
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 5 0 5 4 3 4 2 7
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Impact Hits (d3)

Forest Dragon 250pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
8 6 0 5 5 5 35 6 8
Aerial Agility, Fly, Forest Spirit, Large Target, Poisoned Attacks, Poisoned Breath, Scaly Skin (3+), Terror

Poisonous Breath: Forest Dragons have a breath weapon that is resolved at S3. No armour saves may be taken against wounds caused by Poisonous Breath.

Core:

Glade Guard 12pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 4 3 3 1 5 1 8
Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow, light armour
Unit size: 10+
May Skirimish for +1pt/model.
Musician +6pts
Standard Bearer +12pts
May carry a magic standard worth up to 25pts
Lord’s Bowman +6pts

Glade Riders 22pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 4 4 3 3 1 5 1 8
Asrai Archery, Fast Cavalry, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow, spear, light armour, Elven Steed
Unit size: 5+
Musician +6 pts
Standard Bearer +12pts
May carry a magic standard worth up to 25pts
Horse Master +6pts

Dryads 12pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 0 4 4 1 6 2 8
Forest Spirits, Forest Walkers, Skirmish
Equipment: Razor sharp claws
Unit size: 10-20
Branch Nymph +12pts

Scouts 15 pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 3 4 3 3 1 5 1 8
Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Walkers
Equipment: Hand weapon, Asrai Longbow, light armour
Unit size: 5-10

Hunting Hounds 7pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
7 4 0 3 3 1 3 1 5
Forest Walkers
Equipment: Fangs and Claws
Unit size: 5+

Special:

Spite Swarms 35pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
6 3 2 2 2 5 4 5 10
Forest Spirit, Forest Walker, Hover, Poison Attacks, Swarm
Unit size: 2-10 bases

War Dancers 16pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 6 4 4 3 1 6 1 9
Always Strike First, Skirmish, Killing Blow, Talismanic Tattoos, Ward save (6+)
Equipment: Two hand weapons, light armour
Unit size: 5-20
Musician +7pts
Blade Singer +14pts
A Blade Singer may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Wild Riders 33pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 5 4 4 3 1 5 1 9
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Frenzy, Horns of the Wild Hunt, Talismanic Tattoos
Equipment: Spear, light armor, Elven Steed
Unit size: 5+
Standard Bearer +13pts
May carry a magical standard worth up to 50pts
Wild Hunter +13pts
A Wild Hunter may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Eternal Guard 15pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 5 4 3 3 1 6 1 9
Asrai Archery, Bodyguard, Forest Walkers, Regeneration (5+), Stubborn
Equipment: Spear Stave, light armour
Unit size: 10+
Musician +7pts
Standard Bearer +14pts
May carry a magical standard worth up to 50pts
Guardian +14pts
A Guardian may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Treekin 65pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 0 5 5 3 2 3 8
Forest spirit, Scaly Skin 4+
Equipment: Bludgeoning limbs
Unit size: 3+
Treekin Elder +15pts
A Treekin Elder may take up to 25pts total in Spites

Warhawk Riders 30pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 4 3 3 2 6 1 8
Aerial Agility, Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Flying Cavalry, Hit-and-Run, Rake
Equipment: Asrai Longbow, Spear, light armour, Warhawk
Unit size: 3+
Musician +7pts
Standard Bearer +14pts
May carry a magical standard worth up to 50pts
Wind Rider +14pts
A Wind Rider may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Rare:
Great Eagle 50pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
2 5 0 4 4 3 4 2 8
Aerial Agility, Fly
Equipment: Powerful Talons

Treeman 220pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 5 0 6 6 6 2 5 8
Forest Spirit, 3+ Scaly Skin Save, Stubborn, Large Target, Terror, Strangle Root, Stubborn, Equipment: Gnarled Fists

Forest Dragon 250pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
8 6 0 5 5 5 5 6 8
Aerial Agility, Fly, Forest Spirit, Large Target, Poisoned Attacks, Poisoned Breath, Scaly Skin (4+), Terror

Waywatchers 20pts
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 5 3 3 1 5 1 9
Asrai Archery, Fire and Flee, Forest Stalkers, Forest Walkers, Lethal Shot, Skirmish
Equipment: Asrai Longbow
Unit size: 5-10
Shadow Sentinel + 10pts
A Shadow Sentinel may take up to 25pts total in magic items and Spites

Armory

Spites:

A Lamentation of Despairs 50pts
These three inseparable sister-spirits are much feared within Athel Loren, for they only appear to announce the demise of an individual. Often appearing as withering old crones with twisted twigs for hair, red-eyed ravens, or a triumvirate consisting of a crone, a beautiful woman, and a girl-child. Those who feel their gaze upon them know their time has come.
Enemy units within 6” of a model with Lamentation of Despairs are at -1 Leadership.

A Blight of Terrors 30pts
Terrors are malicious spites that dwell in the dark places of Athel Loren. They take great mirth in the horrified and frightened expressions of their prey, and even greater hilarity if their target dies of shock. They often hide secreted on a host, and when that host comes near an enemy, they loom out, screaming and wailing, taking on their most fearsome aspect.
A model with Blight of Terrors has the Terror special rule.

An Annoyance of Nettlings 30pts
These spites commonly take the form of spider-like creatures, scurrying over their host with feverish abandon. Any enemy that attempts to strike a being that is under the protection of Nettlings is likely to find their weapon snagged in a web of magical filaments.
Enemies targeting a model with Annoyance of Nettlings are at -1 to hit.

An Aura of Flashes 30pts
A model with Aura of Flashes has the Always Strikes First special rule.

A Cluster of Radiants 25pts
Radiants are unusual glowing Spites that usually manifest as little more than a blurred shape of pure light, though they appear in all manner of colors. They are often seen circling the most ancient of trees, and they will shy away from Elves and other mortal creatures. Sometimes they will take more solid form and appear as small Elven figures. They act as sponges of magical energy, sapping power from enemy mages.
A model with Cluster of Radiants may add one extra dice to their Dispel dice pool in their opponent’s Magic Phase.

A Muster of Malevolents 25pts
Malevolents appear in countless guises and are aggressive defenders of Athel Loren, utilizing poisoned darts and needle-like arrows, known as Elf-shot to the Bretonnians, to bring down their enemies. Some say that to be wounded by a Malevolent is to suffer a long and painful death, others that their darts can make their victims fall into a nightmarish sleep that can last for centuries.
A model with Muster of Malevolents counts as having a ranged weapon which can be used in addition to any other ranged attack, and can even be fired at a different target. This has a range of 30” and fires 2d6 S1 shots, rolling to hit using the firing model’s BS as normal (the penalty for multiple shots applies). These shots have the Poisoned Attacks special rule. A model may stand and shoot with Muster of Malevolents. This is not a magical attack.

A Pageant of Shrikes 25pts
Shrikes are malicious Spites that often reveal themselves as diminutive red-capped creatures borne upon the back of black birds, though they also appear as owls with fey light in their large eyes. Some take the form of vicious, razor winged pixies or small knights riding upon the backs of large insects. They move like quicksilver, darting through the forest to strike at their enemies, targeting arteries and eyes. Some say they are able to reach within the bodies of their foes to attack vital organs and the mind, causing great pain and sometimes death
A model with Pageant of Shrikes counts as having a ranged weapon, which can be used in addition to any other ranged attack, and can even be fired at a different target. This has a range of 18” and fires a single shot which always wounds on a 4+ and allows no armour saves. Roll to hit using the firing model’s BS as normal. This shot has the Sniper special rule.

Magic Weapons:

Blade of Oberon 60pts
The edge of this pole axe glints with starlight and dreams, and can cut through steel as easily as flesh.
Halberd. No armour saves are allowed against wounds caused by this weapon.

The Bow of Loren 30pts
This ancient and enchanted longbow is said to be strung with a single hair taken from the head of Ariel, Queen of Loren. The wielder of the Bow of Loren is therefore considered to be the Fey Queen’s champion upon the battlefield, striking down her enemies with unnaturally swift precision.
Asrai longbow. This bow allows the wielder to shoot as many times per turn as there are attacks in its profile. There is no penalty for taking multiple shots.

The Dawnspear 25pts
When the Wild Hunt rides from Athel Loren, the Elven prince chosen as Orion’s equerry carries the Dawnspear, a powerful talisman as old as the alliance between the Asrai and Athel Loren. Each time the Dawnspear tastes blood, it unleashes a pulse of light blinding the wielder’s foes with its brilliance
If the wielder causes an unsaved wound, that unit suffers a -1 to hit for the rest of that combat phase

Hunter’s Talon 15pts
Crafted by a master waywatcher, the gnarled appearance of this bow belies its uncanny accuracy.
Asrai longbow. Grants the wielder the Sniper rule

Magic Armor:

Forest Cape 30pts
This cape is imbued with a magical ability to hide its wearer from all eyes, blending him perfectly into the background of the forest.
Light armor. The wearer has a 4+ Ward Save against all ranged attacks; this includes magic missiles and war machines.

Helm of the Hunt 25pts
This helm depicts the god Kournos in his aspect of the Hunter from whom no quarry can escape
This helm grants the wearer +1 to their armour save, which can be combined with other equipment as normal. In addition, the wearer gains +1 Weapon Skill and +1 Attack.

Talismans:

Amber Amulet 45pts
This gem, crafted at the height of Spring, pulses with the magic of the forest and bestows the vitality of the growing forest upon its bearer
At the start of the Wood Elf turn the bearer may roll d6. On a 1-2, the Amber Amulet has no effect. On a 3+, the bearer regains 1 lost wound.

Wraithstone 40pts
The wailing and tormented spirits of all who die within the Waystone boundaries of Athel Loren are bound to this gem, inspiring great dread in the enemies of the Wood Elves
The bearer causes Fear, or Terror if they caused Fear already. Additionally, any unit in base contact with the wielder’s unit suffers a -1 penalty to leadership.

Enchanted Items:

The Black Arrows 85pts
Their shafts are made from the heartwood of ancient trees, their feathers taken from the most ancient and wrathful of the great eagles. A warrior who goes to war with a quiver of Black Arrows carries death with them.
The wielder of the black arrows gains the Sniper special rule. In addition, all longbow attacks made by a model with the black arrows have the Heroic Killing Blow special rule.

Hagbane Arrows 25pts
Carved from the trees of the Glade of Woe, some of Cyanthair’s taint still lingers in these arrows. If these darts even so much as break the skin of a foe, a formless blight that shrivels and corrupts quickly spreads from the wound, condemning their victim to die in screaming agony.
Longbow attacks made by a model with Hagbane arrows have the Multiple Wounds (D3) rule.

Arcane Bodkins 20pts
Whether the foe wears thick armor or unnatural hide it matters not. Should an Arcane Bodkin fly true, the target is doomed.
No Armor saves are allowed against wounds caused by a longbow from a model with Arcane Bodkins

Dragontooth Arrows 10pts
Made from the teeth of one of the emerald Forest Dragons of Loren, some of the creature’s venom still lingers on these barbs
The model’s longbow has the Poisoned Attacks special rule.

Arcane Items:

Wand of the Wych Elm 55pts
Crafted from the branch of a Wych tree, these staves are much valued for their ability to bend the winds of magic
The wielder channeling on a 4+. In addition, once during each of their opponent’s magic phases, the Wood Elf player may re-roll one dispel die. This can cause Irresistible Force.

Magic Standards:

The Standard of Aeriel 45pts
This banner constantly looks as though bathed in the glow of the twilight sun. It bears the device of Ariel herself, and those under its gossamer banners are blessed with her grace.
A unit with this banner may always take a Stand and Shoot! or Fire and Flee! charge reaction. In addition, the unit may make a Stand and Shoot! reaction any number of times in a phase, and is always treated as having Light Cover.

Banner of Dwindling 30pts
Woven from the red leaves of autumn, this banner is instilled with Faoghir, the West Wind. It saps the impure of vigor, allowing the Asrai to strike them down, never again to return to their lands
Units that flee from this unit roll one more die than normal to determine the distance that they flee and then take away the highest.

Kindreds:

Alter Kindred 15pts
The character’s Movement and Initiative increase to 9 and he gains +1 Attack. They cannot be the army general and must fight on foot.

Eternal Kindred 35pts
This character gains a Spear Stave, in addition to the Regeneration (5+) and Stubborn special rules. This character may not be the General.
For every Noble with this upgrade, one unit of Eternal Guard may be taken as a Core choice. The Noble must join this unit and cannot leave it.

Glamourweave Kindred 35pts
The character gains the Forest Spirit special rule and a +1 to cast spells from the Lore of Athel Loren.

Scout Kindred 15pts
This character gains the Scout special rule. The character must fight on foot and cannot wear heavy armor or use a great weapon or a shield.

Wardancer Kindred 45pts
The character loses their longbow and cannot wear armour, but gains two hand weapons. They have the Heroic Killing Blow, Immune to Psychology, and Talismanic Tattoos special rules. The character must fight on foot and cannot join non-Wardancer units.

Waywatcher Kindred 35pts
The character must fight on foot, loses their armour, and cannot use a great weapon or a shield. In addition the character gains +1 Ballistic Skill and the Forest Stalker and Lethal Shot special rules (waywatcher characters gain all benefits from the Lethal Shot special rule at all times).

Wild Rider Kindred 45pts
The character must be mounted. They lose their longbow and gain a spear. The character also has the Forest Spirit, Fast Cavalry, and Talismanic Tattoos rules, and cannot join non-Wild Rider units.

Lore of Athel Loren:

Lore Attribute- Treesinging
Every time a spell from the Lore of Athel Loren is successfully cast, the casting player may move a forest in any direction, up to d3”, after the spell’s effects are resolved. This may bring the forest in contact with or over a unit. If a friendly unit is wholly within the forest, the unit will move with it. Additionally, the Wood Elf player may elect to change the forest as they move it; the next unit to move into the forest must make a roll on the Mysterious Forest table. This roll will replace any previous rolls made.

Signature spell- Fury of the forest: (5+) Direct damage. Roots and branches shoot up from the ground and lash out at the target.

An enemy unit within 24” of the caster takes D6 S3 hits. If a unit suffers one or more unsaved wounds by this spell, their Movement value is reduced by half until the caster’s next magic phase. The caster may increase the casting value of this spell to 10+. If they do, Fury of the Forest inflicts 2D6 S3 hits, and a wounded unit may not move at all (except flee if broken in combat) until the casters next magic phase.

1: Oaken Armour: (8+) Augmentation. The caster brings new and vital life to the ferns and the branches around her comrades, weaving them into shields and suits of living armour as hard as iron.

The caster may target a friendly unit within 18”. The unit gains +2 to their armour. The caster may choose to increase the casting value to (15+) and affect all units within 18”.

2: The Hidden Path: (7+) Augmentation. The spellcaster erects a bridge between this world and the world of the Fey, and invites her allies to cross.

A single unit within 24” can treat all terrain as open ground until the start of the caster’s next magic phase, though they cannot end a move in impassible terrain. If the wizard chooses to increase the casting value to 14+, they may target any unit within 48”.

3: Fairy Fire: (8+) Hex. The caster summons glowing faeries around the target that bewilder them, luring them deeper into the wood.

An enemy unit within 18” of the caster instantly moves 1d6” in a direction nominated by the caster. If this move would take the unit off the table edge, it stops 1” away.

4: Wildgrowth (8+) Unique. The caste hurls an acorn, enchanted with the vigor and strength of the ancient woods, causing the ground to erupt in a frenzy of vines, branches, and roiling earth.

Remains in play. Wildgrowth can create a forest anywhere within 12” in the caster’s line of sight. A forest created this way may be no more than 6” in diameter, and may not be placed in such a way that it overlaps with other forests, rivers, or marshlands.
Alternatively, Wildgrowth may target an existing forest, allowing friendly units to treat it as a two-level building. Units wholly within the targeted forest are treated as the garrison. The forest still follows any rules on the Mysterious Forest table.

5: Call of the Hunt: (10+) Augmentation. The caster fills his allies with the spirit of Kurnous, imparting a measure of his anger, vigor, and ferocity upon them

Call of the Hunt may target a friendly unit within 24” If the unit is not engaged in close combat it may immediately make a move of 2d6” towards the nearest visible enemy. If this brings the unit into contact with an enemy unit this counts as a charge. If the target unit is engaged in combat, models in the unit will get an extra attack until the casters next magic phase. The wizard may choose to increase the range to 48” and the casting value to 14+.

6: Murder of Spites: (11+) Magical Vortex. The spites of Loren are easily angered and the Spellsingers of Loren are knows the incantations that will make them go to war. When aroused like this the spites gather in massed swarms that sweep over the foes with bites, stings and deadly poisons.

Murder of Spites uses the small round template. Once the template is placed, nominate the direction it will move. To determine how far the template moves, roll a artillery die and multiply the result by 4. Any model without the Forest Spirit special rule touched or passed over by this template suffers a S2 hit with no armour saves allowed. No Look Out, Sir! rolls are allowed against wounds caused by this spell. If the result is a Misfire!, center the template on the caster and scatter it D6”. In either event, in subsequent turns, the spites travel in a random direction and move a number of inches as equal to the roll of an artillery die. If a Misfire! is rolled on a subsequent turn, the spites disperse…for now. A reckless or brave spellsinger can choose to summon even more spites, using the large round template. If they do so, the casting value increases to 21+.

I really like the forest dragon, having a dragon as a rare choice is just too cool, and I like the stats/ward save trade off. I'm interested in how you came to 250pts, is that reflecting what you think dragons in general are worth, or the forest dragon specifically?

Dryads never needed changing, is the only difference for dryads in your rules the fear causing and full ward save from forest spirits? Just to check it is a full ward right? Did you think they needed that buff to make them worth 12pts?

I like the ancients a lot too, but I think the wizard level costs are too high, I think somewhere between 30-40 for lvl 1 and 40-60 for lvl 2 would be better. Partly because it would be hard to also fit a lord level wizard into an army, or do you think a an ancient led army should have to rely on multiple low level wizards?

I'm presuming the benefits of the two level building effect on the forest spell would be that 20 men can shoot? It's an intereting idea. How about say you can choose to either create a forest or buff an already existing one? And I like the remains in play idea. If they are RIP would you be able to buff a forest you are currently keeping up with RIP? It could make an interesting tactic where a wood elf player can create a firing platform from scratch for a big unit of glade guard.

Wait...do Dryads currently not cause Fear? Coulda' sworn they did. Or do you mean that the above ones don't? Fear is included in the Forest Spirit rule, but I suppose writing out would be better formatting.

The dragon is, if I remember correctly, based off the Hydra, with a mark up of something like 25-30pts.

As for the full Ward save, it's just an easier rule. Conditional Ward saves are clunky and awkward. Also, you should be able to play an all Forest Spirit army against Daemons without screwing yourself over.
I mean, Forest Spirits are actually just a type of daemonic entity anyway.

The cost of wizard levels on the Ancient are just what I've seen consistently: going from lvl0 to lvl1 costs 50pts, and 35pts from there up.

And yes, the spell would let 20 guys shoot (mostly I just mentioned it to clear up any confusion. The Folding Fortress doesn't say, and I saw a player building a 30-level tower on the back of an Arachnarok for his 300 goblins + Poison BSB unit).
That's what I had in mind; either create a new forest or make an existing one better.
I suppose you could building-ify a spell'd up Forest. It'd be a bit risky, but totally cool

I like the current ethernal guards.

dryads do already cause fear,my bad. And really I guess the full ward is a good idea.

I'm still not entirely sold on the dragon cost though, again for the record i have zero experience playing with/against dragons, but if you are taking the hydra as a model I think most people would agree it is 30pts under costed anyway and I think it should probably cost a bit more again to lose handlers and gain fly and a ward save over the regen (as everyone comes equipped with something flaming these days).

BTW i know its minor but I would like to see treemen and -kin have the flammable rule back, its just good fluff. i know it is kind of double stacking a vunerability to flaming (with treemen having regen too) but I'd be sad to see that rule go, any way to work it back in?

The Hydra is something like this (please excuse any errors; totally off of memory here):

175pts
Hydra
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 4 0 5 5 5 2 7 5
Handlers
M WS BS S T W I A Ld
5 5 4 3 3 - 5 2 8
Special Rules: Breath Weapon (S=curent W), Hatred, Regeneration (4+), Scaly Skin (4+), Terror
Equipment: light armour, extra hand weapon, Beastmaster's Scourge (AP)

So we marked him up to 215. Then +1M +4WS +4I -1A +3Ld, a worse Breath Weapon, no Hatred, change 4+ Regen to 5+ Ward (a little better, but barely so, since it's a lower save), and dropped the handlers (so he basically loses +3Ld and 6 WS5 S3 AP attacks).
Then, we made him a Forest Spirit, gave him Fly and Aerial Agility, Improved his Scaly Skin by 1, and gave him Poisoned Attacks.

The only thing I've considered is adjusting him to be S6, but he seems to have good potential as is, too.

As for Flammable, that's something I've been considering. The only problem is their vulnerability to cannons as-is, and multiplying a flaming Dwarf cannon ball's wounds by 2 is...rough.

The Flammable rule has always bothered me. It's fluffy and all, but it seems like such a harsh and arbitrary punishment. Sure it kind of makes sense that the animate corpses of Nehekhara and ogres composed of brush would dislike torches, but its not as though Greater Demons or the Vampire Counts share similar weaknesses. I don't know, I guess symmetry just appeals to me.

And Treemen can't take the Dragonbane Helm/Gem.

Not that it's a bad thing; those two items find their way onto a lot of characters. Most of them Tomb Kings and guys with Regeneration.

Really like your most recent list. I would play this.

In regards to flammable, I always thought it was weird that people think a living tree (treeman) would take more damage from fire than a mammal. Actually burning would hurt flesh worse than living wood. Just my 2 cents

I'd like to change up the spells a bit at some point, but I'm glad it seems good.

Though now Eternal Guard don't benefit from the sig. Life spell. Pretty minor problem, overall.

Still not sure on the Wild Rider's points. M9 Fast Cav. with A2 and Frenzy and S4+spears, on top of a 4+ Ward, and their weird-and-awesome Horns of the Wild Hunt ability.

And Spites. Getting ASF from a Spite is better than getting it from your sword, since you can take the Spite and a +2 Attack sword or what-have-you. So I'm thinking some of the prices should go up a little?
The Black Arrows: what do you think of those?

Oh, and maybe Wardancers should get ASF?

Etc.

But overall, I'm pretty happy. Thanks, guys. For all the help!

I don't think the ASF spite needs to go up in points, it's still coming out of your magic item allowance.

I would trade some of the wild riders' stats/rules to lower the cost, I really like wild riders but I personally wouldn't want to spend 200pts on a 5 man unit, they would lose out to other things (like a dragon) at that cost.

And with wardancers I'm not sure because I love the dances and would really like to see them work that way. With the ones in your list if they are going to be getting 2 attacks I think ASF would be a good because of the re-roll to hit.

I don't think Spites should cost much more; really just 5pts. They don't take up any slots, which is better than if they did. Not usually by much, but there should be some kind of price for that versatility.

Wild Riders are fast, hit hard, and are never easy to bring down (though they are rarely hard to bring down, either). I dropped them by 1 Attack, so they've got 1+Frenzy, which I feel is enough to drop their cost significantly (-5pts, to 33pts/model). They still have 2S5 attacks, a 4+ Ward, and are super mobile.
Also, for the record, a Dragon is exactly the kind of thing you wouldn't want these guys up against. They can cut through big blocks with ease, and their maneuverability means they'll rarely engage tough foes until they're ready. Frenzy kind of goes against that, but I think it's a cool mechanic.

The dances are cool, but they're overly complicated.
Also, I know ASF would be good, but what I mean is, would it be reasonable?
I'm trying to compare them to Swordmasters (a very similar unit): +1pt/model, -1S, Skirmish, 5+ Ward instead of 5+ armour, Killing Blow
I feel like their cost and lower Strength would limit how much they'd benefit from ASF, but KB and a 5+ Ward are not insubstantial boons.
I'd have to say that Skirmish is going to be the decider; do they benefit more from the free reform than they're hurt by zero ranks and a big footprint, or vise versa?

Stuff is updated.

Also: I was thinking about giving Wild Riders the option of riding Great Stags for some Monstrous Cavalry, to keep in line with the current trend. Thoughts?

Sorry if I am being thick here but is there meant to be a download link for this fandex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rohansoldier wrote:
Sorry if I am being thick here but is there meant to be a download link for this fandex?

Never mind. I found all the info now and I like what I see. Some nice magic items especially. Would be good as a download though.

I've offered downloads before, but so few are willing to risk it, what with me being some faceless stranger and the untold digital horrors that may or may not be contained within the file in question.

How about, you can flee up a tree and gain a 2+ ward save if you flee into a forest?!

Great to see some wood elf love. Ive been watching you for a while and now im going to throw in my 2 cents. Wood elves where my first army and i learnt fast or died, i learnt and i'd like to think i have a good understanding of the army and how it works.

Love most of the changes, and most of them where sorely needed (LoAL re-vamp, EG re-work) and ill get what i like out of the way first. Like the new army rules, especially fire and flee, but im worried this could be a tiny bit too good. Say a unit of ten glade guard get charged and you fire and flee, thats ten shots at strength 4 with no penalties, and say you make it out, rally, put another 10 shots in and get SaS the next turn with another ten shots. Thats 30 shots in 2 turns into a probably already depleated unit. I'd say keep a -1 to hit when flee and fire'ing to show how hasty it is and not be over powered. 'cause say a mage bunker of 20 puts out 60 shots and if my maths is right thats 20 wounds on a t4 unit and 10 after a 4+ save!!!60*2/3*40*1/2*20*10*

All this commenting on EG makes me want to join in. Because you have removed the harp (which i dissagree with, i mean only arrows as enchanted items? a little bland.) i think that insted of the spear-staves granting a +1 armour save it adds a parry save and they have a 5+ standered. Meaning they can be countered by shooting (like most elf horde units) and a parry save is slightly better in combat because it carnt be negated. And personally i found that +1 attack works better then +1 strength, they are double sided spears, not helbeards, why treat them as such?

I also think that some of your units have a low I for no reason. I like the new hunting hounds but really, I3? Dire wolves have I 3, and they are already dead! There dogs, there ment to be fast, they should have I5, 4 at least. And maybe an increase in points and have a plus 1 strength on the charge to put them on par as cheap glade riders with no shooting. We have enough re directors with no other perpose. And treekin and treemen, why the nurf to I 2? Sorry if this has been glazed over before but i missed it. Treekin are one of the best MI in the game but this is a huge nurf, Now ogres hit at the same time as them, as well as choppa orks who all will shred our expensive unit. I understand that they are lumbering and all but if you want to make them slow make them I3 to strike on par with humans and before ogres. In contrasted to WR need to be I6? I thought that was reserved for really,really agile units like wardancers and dryads who are unnaterly quick, ive never seen any fluff to justify them being as quick. I5 is fine, it strikes at least at the same time as other elites, I 6 is a special place for the best of the best, i dont see WR as being that fast.

The treeman ancient is a good looking and kinda reminds me of a greater daemon. *even if he strike AFTER a GUO!!!!* The magic levels are nice, especially with the nice lore re-boot but i find the W8 unneeded. If you want to make him tough add more Toughtness to make him T8, making him untouchable to anything less then cannons. I also think he SHOULD be flammable, now he has a 5+ ward save he is saver from it and if a GIANT TREE doesnt have flammable nothing should. Also the ability to shrug off cannons on a 4+ is way to good, why does he even have regen? Trees dont regenerate. Maybe there could be a sprite that does it, forest spririt only that repairs the bark, at say 50pts. Compare him to a GUO, who is a lot more expensive, and they do the same thing. the only difference in stat line is he has 2 more wounds, 3 less WS, 2 higher I (!!!) and 2 less attacks and what armour does he come with? A 5+ ward like us and for 50 pts (500pts min) he gets a 4+ save (we have better) and regen. We do everything the same for less and more effect. So id say increase his price to 325, remove regen and have it as a sprite, bump T, remove wounds and bump I to 4 or 3. If you think this is too much a point increase make him a level 1 base and he can go up to level 3 (like a GUO...) as i treemen ancients would be able to always do tree magic wouldn't they?

Im only trying to be constructive because when this is done i fully intend to play this in my gaming group, and i want it to be fair and up to meta, not another half good army.

@bRianStorm: that's a cool idea, but I'd be hesitant to add in any further rules. Having Forest Strider and Stubborn on their Skirmish units in woods should convey a similar feel without the extra complications.

@ALEXisAWESOME: I shall respond to your points in the order they appear in your post-

- you raise a good point about Fire and Flee!. In the current book, Wood Elves still suffer a -1 on Stand and Shoot! reactions, right? Maybe I'll just keep it that way.
But as awesome as Fire and Flee! sounds, it's actually not that great on the table. The chances of being caught, fleeing off the edge of the table, not rallying next turn, and--the big one--disrupting your line as the unit gets bumped through other units, obstacles, etc. all result in this option being very conditional.

- getting rid of most of the magic items is just to keep the book in line with the other new Army Books. The Harp is a decent item, but it doesn't do anything to continue the tone of the army. But, since magic arrows and Spites are such cool concepts, I broke from the current trend and gave them more magic items than the other books.

- Currently, the spear-staves don't grant any armour or a Parry; Eternal Guard have a 6+ armour and 5+ Regeneration. The staves act as halberds and spears.
As for +1A versus +1S (assuming a WS4 or less enemy charged 15+ Eternal Guard deployed 5-wide):

Against T2, 5+ armour, +1A deals 5.9 wounds, +1S deals 6.9 wounds.
Against T3, 5+ armour, +1A deals 4.5, +1S deals 5.6.
Against T4, 5+ armour, +1A deals 2.9, +1S 4.2
Against T5, 5+ armour, +1A 1.5, +1S 2.8.

And so on. Without any armour, +1S is still better against everything except T3 (then it's a tie) and T2 (+1A is better by .4 wounds). At T6+ and/or 1+ armour, +1A is better, but then they're both awful anyway.

So as for you finding that more attacks are better than higher strength, in this case, I'd have to say you're mistaken, or that your local meta is an unusual case.

And spear-staves barely make sense, no matter how you look at it. Warhammer is not a good place to look for weapons that perform as they should, historically. This interpretation is just better, mechanically.

- Hunting Hounds are Chaos Warhounds, except they have Forest Stalkers and cost 1pt/model more. There's no way some big dogs are going to be I5. I mean, with the description of the Warhounds, you'd except them to be sporting S4 A2 or something (they're giant, mutated, rabid wolves), but they're nothing of the sort. And since Wood Elves needed an extra unit to keep up with the other books, I figured that something small and cheap would be appreciated.
I don't know what you mean about re-directors with no other purpose. Maybe the Eagles? But everything else in the book is currently capable of other stuff, and none of them are purely expendable.

On Treekin/men and Wild Riders, I honestly hadn't noticed that the first and last of those were I3/5 (Treemen are I2, though). Treekin, I am quite confident, will not get shredded by Orcs and Ogres, though (S5, T5, and a 4+/5+ will see to that). I might consider bringing them back up to I3, just to keep things The Same.
I don't actually remember why I bumped Wild Riders to I6, though. Maybe so they could attack before Chaos Warriors and Knights, but I think that's more of my issue that those ironclad behemoths are somehow I5.
I have a similar complaint about Dryads, really. A Core unit with I6 is pretty extreme, but I figured, "eh, why not?". Until I noticed that Daemonettes are I5. Living incarnations of grace, lust, and speed are slower than tree-ladies...
But yes, I think I'll drop them back down again (but not Warhawk Riders; they gain scarcely any benefit from the +1I, and if you've got the reflexes to steer a giant bird through a forest, that makes you I6 in my book. Really, I just feel bad for the unit).

- The Ancient is a tricky monster in terms of pricing and ability, to be sure. A few rebuttals-

1. W8 seems to me to be far less extreme than T8. What do people want out of their monsters? To not get killed by a cannon Turn 1. And what does your enemy want out of his S4 unit with great weapons? To kill your monster. T8 doesn't allow either of those things, but W8 does.
Plus, Sphinxes are T8, and they're made of stone, which is a bit tougher than wood.

2. Ever try to set a living tree on fire? They're slower to burn than a human being is. If a tree is Flammable, then so are people.
It's just an unnecessary rule. I've seen Treemen bite it from a flaming Dwarf bolt thrower, cannon, etc., and it adds nothing but disappointment to the game.

3. I wouldn't bother comparing him to any Greater Daemon ever. Because those guys are more than a bit outdated. GW's Treeman is I2, so he's staying that way. And my version better be cheaper than a Great Unclean One, since that guy (and all his friends, really) is just terrible in 8th edition.

4. Regeneration was a way of increasing his durability a little bit (going from a 5+ to a 4+), but still sort-of-kind-of keeping in line with that fire-theme. It doesn't have to be there, but right now, I don't see it as crazy-good.

5. The current trends seem to be sticking to wizards who are lvl1-2, and then 3-4, so I'm staying in that pattern. I want to avoid a super-durable monster that's also a Lord-level caster, though, so 1-2 seems reasonable.
Increasing his points and making him an automatic lvl1 makes sense, but I'll probably just leave him as-is, so people can field him without the magic levels, in lower-point games.

Than you for all your comments, though. You've got me thinking about this stuff from some different angles.

Thanks for the in depth reply. I really never new that the GW treeman was I2, i never really checked and assumed it was 3. Oops. I now understand that fluff<function bit but i must say i dont agree with it. Using the spear-staves as helbeards i can live with but where does the regen come from? If i played this with my gaming group and they asked why my EG had regen what do i say? 'Cause it makes them more durable?

By re directors with no other use i ment we arnt in need of more. A unit of 5 GR works as well as an eagle and i find that the hounds are a bit cut and dry. Maybe if they had a good synergy with the Orion build? We already have hounds of the hunt in our book, if slightly over costed, why not use them? Str 4, I4. WS 4, and forest spirit 12 points. As i dont see what they are there for in a list that other things carnt do. Maybe make them the only thing an alter can join with a 'Running with the pack' rule. It would counter act the alters weakness (no unit). Just an idea.

I think dryads wouldn't suffer from a drop in I to 5, but then what makes them different to other elves? All the elves in our army are I5, and we want them to be completely different to the elves as they can make an army list on there own. I think that wood elves should have several viable armies, not just avoidence and flank charge. The forest spirit change makes a forest spirit army viable and the hounds would make a hunt army viable.

Back to the TMA the reason i said that he should be able to be a lord level caster is because at his points in a 2k game you can have both him and a naked level 3! Then you have both a lord level mage and a super durable monster in two seperate models.And also it would make a all forest spirit army viable as they really need that dispellability that a level 2 carnt do. Maybe even give him access to beast. The regen is good because it means you ignore 50% of all cannon wounds and also it makes no sense fluff wise. I'd say take it off and make it a sprite for 35-50 pts and make the TMA 300 pts with level 1 base. Just because a lot of others do it doesn't mean you have to, also daemons go from level 1 to 3, so do vampires.

8 wounds will make him hard to take down, but without regen it will be easier. WS 8 isn't needed, also i dont see him as that good in combat. He is massive, i dont see hoow WS3 things would hit him on 5's, its not like he is blocking them. Make him 6 to make him different to a treeman, but 8 isn't need.

I think the TMA is vital to get right if an all tree army will be possible with out Drycha, who you will only use because she is level 3.>

Treemen are I2 because they're huge lumbering monsters made of wood. I mean, there's no way anyone would argue that Treebeard or the other Ents from Fangorn are as fast as the common human.

Eternal Guard are the guardians of Athel Loren, keeping the forest safe when the Spirits of the wood are sleeping through the cold winter months. The Eternal Guard have an intimate and supernatural connection to Athel Loren, represented here by their ability to recover from even the most grievous of wounds, the vitality of the Forest itself coursing through their veins.
If anyone wants to argue the point further, ask them why Phoenix Guard have a 4+ Ward save.

I'll probably want to re-do Orion and Drycha (I'll gladly take any other ideas for Special Characters, from those who have a deeper knowledge of the lore of the Asrai), now that you mention it.
The Hounds are really there to offer a unit that costs 35pts, more than anything else. One of the big tactical aspects to Wood Elves is out-maneuvering the enemy, so I figured that a fast unit that is also cheap would help achieve that best. It's not an essential aspect to the army, though. They could be changed or replaced, but I don't want to tack a bunch of weird rules onto a new unit; I don't trust my grasp of game-design enough to pull those kinds of tricks. Simplicity and consistency are my main concerns,

Dryads are S4 T4 with A2, a 5+ Ward, Fear, and ItP. They are vastly different from Elves, whether they're I5 or 6.
It's not a big deal; I don't intend on changing it, because it doesn't really make that much of a difference. I just think it's silly.

As for a lvl3+ Treeman, I'm still not convinced. The all-Forest Spirit army can do just fine without the extra +2 to Dispel that a Spellweaver offers; they're fast, tough, and their casters are even more so.
A Treeman with the Lore of Beasts? I'd have to say the answer to that is a resounding "no". He's a tree. He does not transform into a Dragon or other such stuff.
Giving him 4+ Regeneration makes him 16% more likely to negate a Wound than if he just had his 5+ Ward save. You say he's got a 50% chance to negate a cannonball with Regen, I say he's got a 33% chance to do the same without it. Also, it's not to hard to imagine how it could make sense. Bark knits, branches and vines re-grow. If magic stone statues can regenerate, magic trees can do so too!
Regeneration should probably cost around 35-40pts, since a 4+ Ward is 45pts (I'd say 35pts for an item or 40pts for a Spite, since it doesn't take up a slot).
And on the subject of magic levels, just because others do it means that I do have to do it; I'm trying to stick to the trends of new Army books. That will keep people's problems with my Fandex down to a minimum.
Daemons are outdated. But are you sure Vampires can't go up to lvl4?
I totally missed the WS8, though. Thanks for that. I think that was a relic of the original Fandex before I got ahold of it, which definitely suffered from a "my army sucks it needs to be cheaper and better and with more stuff and the best" sort of view. WS6 makes the most sense (though I assure you, he is totally blocking incoming enemy attacks).

But all of that considered, I don't think that Regeneration is a big deal, and that goes both ways. We'll cut it out.
And his point cost is something I've been considering. He's not as crazy-awesome as the other Big Monsters in the new books, but he's super-durable, a potential Wizard, and probably your General. I'll re-evaluate his cost.

As far as I'm concerned, though, you don't need a lvl3+ Wizard to make a tree-army work. Two or three Branchwraiths (who are really quite efficient Heroes) and a lvl2 Ancient should do just fine. As I said before, that +1 or 2 more to cast/dispel is not as big a deal as many would suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There. The list is updated. I think.
Also, I noticed that the Treemen only have 5 attacks, not 6. I dropped the Rare-version back down, but I kept the Lord-version at 6.

Something else I was considering: most Heroes have +1S and T compared to their rank-and-file equivalents. How much should a Branchwraith cost if she were S5 and T5? She'd be...a very solid character, and making Wood Elf stuff more expensive isn't really something I'd like to do.

Thanks for anothe in-depth reply. Since it looks like its only us who wants to see this done, i think i should state that while i think i have a good understanding of the army. They are my first and only fantasy army and i have a good 2000 pts i think i should say i am only 14 (since yesterday ) and you probably have a better understanding then me.

Well, before i get down to buissiness, Phoenix Guard have a 4+ because they're blessed by there God (whos name escapes me) which it states specificly in there fluff. Eternal Guard are just elves that are trained to fight during winter when the forest carnt help. If you want them to be able to regen with out totally forgetting fluff i would surggest an enchanted item akin to the Harp or return Ariels blessing to the lore. Which by the way was one of the only reasons i ever really took the lore because it was so good. It also states wood elves are good healers in the fluff (have you guessed i like the fluff???). I think it could replace Oaken Armour as it gives the same benifit to glade guard and there like but wont be as over powered with tree spirits. Treekin with a 2+ armour, then ward. Treemen with a 1 up and dryads with a 5+ re-rollable. A single 4+ is worse on then two 5+'s and god help you if you cast it on WR. 3+ and a 5++!

How many magic using armies do you see with just level ones and twos? If any, do any spells get through against just 1 level 4 mage? Thought not. Branchwraiths make terrible wizards, level ones just arn't worth it, especially with LoAL high cast cost. Also i dont think a branchwraith needs to be T5, maybe STR 5, but not T5. See is no treekin. If you include the regen sprite then that could make her survivable but with 2 wounds its not really worth it and goes against her point. She adds some effective cheap pounch to a unit, and she is very good at it. Str 5 would make her better but she'd need a point increase, which we dont like. Also why she doesnt make a good wizard.

My problem with the TMA ancient at the moment is that you can take him with a level 3. I dont like this and it could be easily abused. Making the treeman level 1 would mean you could reasonably up the points. Also witth the high casting value of only lore he can take being a level 3 would be the only reliable way of getting the spells of without throwing a lot of dice at it. I wouldn't be happy throwing any less then 3 dice at even an 8+ with a level 1-2, and 4 at 11. With out access to a lord level treespirit a tree army would be effectivly locked out of any 10+ spells with out risking more then id like on a miscast.

Also taking a look at the magic items/sprites i see your a few under on items and some are a bit over priced or not that good. Blade of Oberon is 60pts for only a no save sword, when the codex come with that for 50 pts. Your paying 10 pts for a helbeard. Hunters talon could be over powered in the only build any 1 would use it as. Waywatchers come with sniper so the only people who'd use it will be scouts who'd use it with hagbane arrows for a 1 shot mage kill, id say keep with the old rules of no magical arrows or you will have no end of bitching from empire (warrior priests) and high elves (mages) and pritty much who a single STR 4 arrow has a chance of wounding.

Also while you cut down on so many of our items you still kept quite a few sprites. There all nice (although the despairs are just a slightly longer range wraithstone...) but i think that you dont need both ranged sprites. Most of the new codexs like 1 thing in the Magic items which does something and nothing thats like it. So you COULD swap one of them for the regen sprite. Also Arcane items are looking bare and i weep for the massive nurf to the WoWE (kinda of put by channeling, but still...) maybe keep one re-roll for whole attempt to keep us at one of the best magic defense in the game. Most of the new books have a kind of bound spell if your keeping with it, that could fit in somewhere, like a horn that cast call of the hunt? Amber pendent seems kinda ganky and there are a few other items like it around. Personally i liked our stone of the crystal meer because it was special, but thats just me.

A last note on wardancers. As you pointed out before with the glade guard a lot of STR 3 attacks dont do much and i think they should keep there +1 str on the charge. It'd be a shame to see them bounce of a lot of things because they are only str 3. Also there should be a wardancer magic item, just to give the option.

P.S I dont know if it was intentional but the kindreds bearly have any restrictions anymore. I can have WR noble with a 2+ save (armour of metoric steel) and the same with the wardancer. Alternitivly you can have a wardancer with the dawn spear to put a -1 to hit on any unt (hit first). Was this intended?

Alex.

- on Phoenix Guard: exactly. They have it 'cause the book says so. So if the new Wood Elf book said "Eternal Guard have Regen 'cause blah blah hippie-wood magic blah", it's all good. You say they're "just there to fight in the winter, when the Forest Spirits can't help"? That doesn't sound like a "just" anything, to me. The Forest Spirits make up a good chunk of Athel Loren's armies, and most of the physical brawn within them. Without them, the elves are going to need some pretty wicked-awesome elves to make up that difference.

- +2 armour is not over powered on one unit versus another. It increases durability by 33%, regardless of what their armour is. Metal offers an almost identical spell (one of the reasons I'd consider pitching it, honestly), and it's not that awesome.

- as for Lord-level Treemen wizards, you're not going to move me on this one. Sorry.
A level4 will have a +2 on the Ancient. So the Ancient rolls three dice, gets a total of 12 (the average). The lvl4 still needs to roll three dice to beat him, getting a 14, which would put the Ancient ahead on dice, since he's got more Power Dice than the lvl4 has Dispel Dice.

- Branchwraiths cost 15pts more than a lvl1 Spellsinger for +1WS, S, T, +3I, +2A. a lvl1 is not as good as a lvl2, this is true.

- not many armies go without a lvl4 if they can help it, this is true. And I consider that a failing of the game. There's nothing stopping a player from fielding some Spellweavers/singers with a Guard bunker or two, and then fill up the rest of the list with Dryads and Treekin/men. If they want all trees for no reason beyond "it's cool", then I still don't see any reason to allow them to build a list that plays basically the same as one with Elves, too.

- an Ancient with no Spites and a naked lvl3 does not seem like a good plan to me.
Still, I will say this: the Ancient, as he stands, seems very much comparable to the Arachnarok, and thus he should cost a similar amount as-is. I'm thinking 300pts base is fair.

- you could look at the Blade of Oberon and say "10pts for a Halberd of Strife? Awful!". You could also say "+10pts for +1S and no shield? Awesome!".

- once I updated Waywatchers, I forgot about the Talon. Not sure if I should change it or drop it for something else. I considered a War Dancer weapon, but didn't want to over-stuff the weapon-section.

- I tried to keep a relatively large selection of Spites, since they're one of the things that makes the army unique (and the Despairs being like the Wraithstone was deliberate; trying to keep things simple, but also to offer some synergy).
You raise a good point about the ranged Spites; I just think the idea is so cool. If any army should boast multiple shooting attacks on multiple models, it's this one. Still, you may have a point (though I'd just chop it out, rather than add another).

- can you post the original text on the Blessing and on the Wand of the Wych Elm? I do not have the book.

- Wardancers are S4. They don't get +1S on the charge, but they have two hand weapons, ASF, KB, and a 5+ Ward.

- I never noticed, but the original Fandex had Wardancers with light armour. I took that out, now. As for Wild Riders, they have light armour, so the characters can have magic armour. Any restrictions saying otherwise just feels silly. He's already got a 4+ Ward, so if someone wants to spend 45pts on Silvered Steel for a 2+, and even 25pts more to make that re-rollable, that's fine with me. A tank-like character in a unit that fairs poorly in prolonged combat seems like a bad idea to me.
I'm trying to keep things simple and make them better. I can do both, often enough, just cutting out all of the silly restrictions.

Since you dont have the book ill quote somethings that might help on the whole restrictions thing.

Wild Rider kindred
''ther character carries a spear and wears light armour. They may not choose additional weapons or armour (such as adding a shield), though they may choose a magic spear or suit of light armour to replace the respective item. Blah Blah Blah''

What this means is that the restriction was i can only take magical LIGHT armour and carn't take a shield.. This was good, as now can get a 2 + (mount + shield+helm+ cheapest heavy armour in BRB) and still have enough left for the dawn spear. You should do the same with almost all the kindreds by saying only magical light armour (except maybe EG kindred) to stop 2+ wood elves becoming the norm.

WoWE
quite simply ''any dispell attempts maybe re-rolled'' This is awesome!!!! this single handedly made us a force in the anti magic table just behind dwarves. Id say we need to keep it this way, maybe nurf it to once per phase and keep the channeling, 'cause we had nothing to help with offense.

Ariels Blessing
'''cast 9+. 18 inches. Any friendly unit, even in combat and even the mage herself, gain regen until your next magic phase''. Regen is fun and really helps any unit in our army, i used it alot and was the only spell apart from CotH that i used often. And this is why im adverse to giving any unit you want regen, its a special thing. In the rule book it says ''particularly hardy creatures can regenerate damage at a terrifying rate.'' Then can we add ''Oh, and hippie elves get it too, because we dont want to give them armour.'' doesnt sound right to me. I can also believe it wouldn't be unbelievable that there are healer sprites that could fix a forest spirit back up quickly. Its like the flammable rule. Its like your picking the rules you'd like to use and what would be effective. Not what would really make sense on the field.

Alex

**Edit** The reason i dont liek the blade of Oberon is because its so....Normal. Ill take a look through some of the codexs i own. Dark elves :sword of ruin. 50pts. no armour saves. Skaven: Warpforged blade. 50pts. No armour saves alowed. Lizard men: blade of *long lizard man name*. 65pts. No armour saves alowed. +1 str. Daemons. Etherblade. 50pts. No armour saves alowed. Common magic. Obsidian blade. 50pts. Guess what it does?

Do you get my point? Thats all but 1 fantasy codex i own (old ogres, lost magic page to vampire) that dont have an ignore saves weapon at around 50 pts. We are wood elves god dammit and we are special

None of the new books try to restrict the kind of armour a character can wear/buy. It's a weird little antique of 7th. It's gotta' be streamline.
That said, how are you getting a 2+ by taking a helm and a suit of heavy armour? Those would both be Magic Armour.

The Wand certainly is good. I can't quite decide if it's too good (protecting you from bad Dispel rolls), or not as good as re-rolling one die (since you don't want to re-roll a 4, 5, or 6, and since it gives you another chance at IF). Still, I think I'll just switch it back, to keep it simple.

As far as Regeneration goes, here's the simple fact: Eternal Guard are a TERRIBLE unit in the current book. The only legitimate way to field them is by sticking a character into the unit with a huge magic item to keep them alive.
Now, what I see is that, with a similar ability of their own, Eternal Guard would become a decent unit.
But I don't want to give them a 5+ Ward; that blurs the line between them and Forest Spirits too much.
I thought about giving enemies a -1 To Hit them (about the equivalent of a 5+ save), a Fimbul Aura sort of thing, but then I considered that this wouldn't protect them from big spells or templates.
So then we come to Regeneration. And is it really so hard to imagine? They are the Eternal Guard. They're Eternal. Forever. Unceasing and Undying.
As I said before though, I won't be adding any more Spites. I mean, you go from a 5+ to a 4+. It's just not necessary.
And once more, how are trees flammable? Meat catches fire faster than green, living wood.

I mean, yes, I want to use rules that are effective. I'd even agree that, to a certain point, I'll set story-sense aside for the sake of mechanical-sense. But that's not the point here. The point is that it totally makes sense for Eternal Guard to regenerate, and none at all for a tree to be flammable.

As for the Blade, I see what you're saying. I guess my big problem with the Army Specific weapons is that they're weird and generally useless. But...eh. Whatev. I'll cook up something bizarre and mostly ineffective.

I might be missing something here but I think that all wood elf characters should have a max armour save of 4+, whether mundane or magical, or 3+ at the very best.
This save would include armour, shields and any mount the elf is riding.

To me (I am not a wood elf player, this is just the impression I get) wood elves are all about agility and speed (even more so than high or dark elves) so encumbering themselves with a great suit of armour is not something they would consider.

However, to enforce the theme of quickness over heavy armour, they need some kind of special rule to make them slightly more survivable. Perhaps a 6+ ward in hand to hand combat only (it is easier to dodge a blade imo than an arrow or cannonball) to represent them dodging a blow?

I am not sure how viable this will be and it could even be unbalancing in large numbers as the elves get most of the benefit of carrying a shield (no increase in armour save though) without the penalty of what weapons you can use at the same time.

It goes without saying though that the elf loses the benefit of this extra save if they are carrying a shield as well.

I don't see why this is such a big deal for people. The only Wood Elf models that have a good armour save are characters. And the only way they can do that is by buying a Helm, Enchanted Shield, the Armour of Silvered Steel--none of which are especially encumbering--or to buy one of the magic Heavy Armours.

Of those four options, the only one that stretches disbelief is the last one, and that's more of a problem with the rules in the main book, not the Wood Elf one.

No extra rules. No weird restrictions. Wood Elves will have the same odd quirks that other armies have, so that when those quirks get worked out, all the armies will benefit, instead of all of them except a handful, which develop new odd quirks because of the weird restriction's reaction to the change.

If you're still looking for character ideas, I'll share this one;

Just an idea I had after realising that one of my third-party elven spellcasters sits perfectly on the shoulder of my Treeman model. I was going to just use them as a treeman ancient, but then I remembered TAs can't be spellcasters. So, here's what I ended up with. Thoughts appreciated.

Alys, the Forest's Daughter 200 points + mount
There was once born a child. Her parents were artisans, her family peons of the forest. To these simple origins was born a changeling. Some ancient part of the forest had made its nest in her soul. For years, the only sign of this was her white hair, pale even for the fairest of the Asrai.
This changed when she turned thirteen. She had not yet taken to her full growth, for the Asrai age as mortals until they enter their adult phase. It was at the cusp of womanhood that the child was taken. Lured by the cry of a wounded beast, she flitted from tree bough to branch, further and deeper into the forest. There, as the plants grew strange she found the origin of her spirit. The forest-fragment that had bonded with her had been summoned to rejoin its greater self, but the child was not willing to let go her mortal frame.
The child was tested. She underwent trials that would destroy experienced spellweavers, but the spirit of the forest within her carried her through them, binding itself deeper and stronger to her soul. Still, the forest would not let her go to return to her mortal life.
The child lives there still, her body frozen in time as her trials continue. Sometimes, these trials bring her out of the deep forest, when a foe the forest believes may free its spirit-fragment appears. The child both anticipates and dreads these battles, for she does not want to die - yet there is a part of her that harbours a growing desire to be free and rejoin its greater self.
When she appears on the battlefield, she calls the greatest forest spirits to her aid, riding atop the shoulder of a treeman ancient whose age rivals that of Adanhu, Durthu and Rhydysann. Othertimes, a great beast comes to her aid, and in the most dire of battles, where her power is more important than her testing, she is born upon the back or the oldest of forest dragons, Cerdaneu, whose magic rivals her own in power.


M WS BS S T W I A Ld Points Alys 5 4 6 2 2 3 5 1 10 200 Great Beast 7 4 0 5 7 5 4 d6 5 200 Treeman Ancient 5 5 0 6 6 6 2 5 9 325 Cerdaneu 8 9 0 9 9 9 1 8 10 800

Weapons and Armour: Alys has a shortbow and carries Dagger of Rituals. She is accompanied by a Confusion of Deceits. The Great Beast is accompanied by a Befuddlement of Mischiefs and a Muster of Malevolents. A Treeman Ancient is accompanied by a Cluster of Radiants and a Lamentation of Despairs. Cerdaneu is accompanied by a Murder of Spites and a Pageant of Shrikes.
Special Rules;
Alys - Forest Strider, Forest Spirit, Forest Stalker, Bond.
Great Beast - Forest Spirit, Scaly skin (4+), Unbreakable, Ethereal, Unstable, Random Attacks (D6).
Treeman Ancient - Forest Spirit, Scaly Skin (3+), Stubborn, Strangle-roots, Flammable, Large Target, Tree Singing, Terror.
Cerdaneu - Fly, Large Target, Scaly Skin (3+), Terror, Venomous Breath, Forest Spirit, Loremaster (Athel Loren).

Magic:Alys and Cerdaneu are level 4 Wizards. Alys may choose spells from the Lore of Beasts or the Lore of Athel Loren, and may divide her wizard levels between the two. Cerdaneu chooses spells from the Lore of Athel Loren.

Bond: Alys shares a special bond with Forest Spirits. Any Forest Spirit unit she has joined (including her mount) may choose to suffer a wound she suffers in her place. For each wound drawn in this way, place a token by the unit or model. At the end of the phase, these wounds are restored on a d6 roll of 5+ in the same manner as a successful casting of the Regrowth spell.

The Dagger of Rituals: Alys may use this dagger as a hand weapon. However, its true power lies in its use as a casting aid. When Alys casts a spell with Irresistable Force, she may elect to take a wound instead of suffering a Miscast. This wound cannot be drawn across the bond.

A Confusion of Deceits: These little folk flit around their host constantly, blurring her image and even snatching arrows from the sky. Attackers directing their attacks towards the character must halve their weapon skill, and the wearer has a 3+ Ward save against missile attacks.

Incidentally, if you want more feedback on your book, you could try cross-posting it to Asrai.org and have a look at some of the other stuff people on there have come up with.

I have been meaning to get the Fandex over there; I just have other projects that take priority right now.

The character concept is cool. I'll consider something like that, if I get around to making Special Characters.
I'd have to do some heavy re-writing, to update her to this book.
The only thing that would cause me concern is the Bond ability; it makes her immune to damage as long as she's with some Forest Spirits, and then even that awesome ability is made better when they all get a chance to heal after the phase. That right there should cost 100pts easy. Maybe she can pass wounds on to other units on a 3+, where it sticks (no saves allowed).

She's toughness two, and as long as she's mounted on a monster I don't believe she can actually join units.

Yes, but she could choose to not be mounted, correct? And even mounted, the potential for Life-shenanigans seems high.

No, she MUST choose one of those mounts, just like any Glamourweave under the official book.

Okay, well, that's more or less okay. It basically just gives her a Treeman's attacks/gives the Treeman her Toughness.
Still a bit on the wonky side, but I like the feel.

Just one question.

When you look at the dragon characteristics in the mounts section it has scaly scin 3+, but when you look at the dragon profile in the rare units ection it has scaly skin 4+. Is it just a mistake or is suposed to be Cethin-Har stronger than other dragons. I myself find option 2 more reasonable. For Cethin-Har is a very unique dragon, an ancient dragon that carries sisters of twilight to battle. There fore it is surely more experinced and stronger than any toher dragon. I feel like Cethin-Har needs something that would give him an advantage over other dragons. Why not if you give 8 wounds to ancient treeman, for his great age uniquess. Yet you may deploy more than one acient treeman, however you can deploy only one Cethin-Har. This means Cethin-Har is even more unique.

My idea is that Cethin-Har would have ws of 7 , 6 atacks and
a scaly skin 3+ instead of 4+. Additionally give him a special tail atack that would be resolved by placing a large blast marker over the center of the dragon. All enemies that are at least partly covered receive a strength 5 hit.

Of course then it's point cost would need to be increased to 460pt , 500pt or even more. Creatures that are extremly rare and powerfull need to be worth a lot of points.

I'm intrested what do you think of my concept and how would you make the Cethin-Har special if at all.

Well, a few things:

1. @Furyou Miko: good gods above I just now noticed the stats on that Dragon. No, no, and no. WS, S, T, W9? A8? How in the name of everything ever is this dragon better than every other monster in all of Warhammer? Stronger than a Bloodthirster, tougher than a sphinx, more woulds than an Arachnarok, and more attacks than a Hydra.
Should this dragon have a leg-up over other monsters? Sure, why not. But it should not be better than all of them in every way. Far from it.

2. @devastator 7777777: that was just an error on my part. I believe I decided upon a 3+ being the standard, since they got some other (rather serious) downgrades. Thanks for catching that, though I'm sure there's a lot more typos in there.
Cethin-Har and all the other Special Character stuff has yet to be touched upon. The people I play with don't field Special Characters, because they often lead to rather one-sided games. I assure you that when/if I get around to it, the Special-dragon will have a little something extra, probably akin to the differences between the High Elf dragons.
The tail attack is too good, however. S5 on a template that it can use every turn? Even if he had to give up his extra attacks, I'd say no. Maybe +1WS, +1T, and boosted poison.

I would say +1ws, +1A,+1T and effective poison. I'm addidng one atack to distinguish between a special charcater and a rare unit. I fell like dragon should have toughness of 6, because hydra has T5 and 4+ Regen and is worth only 195p

+2S . Giving it +2S strength would be nice since wood elfs don't have anything with S7 a part from orion, but that's only in the turn he charged.

Poison attack.(All the dragons) Soporific fumes that penetrate the armour, but don't burn the skin or lungs. Only the toughest and most resistant organism can withstand it and get rid of the poison. Target must pass a toughness test without armour saves allowed or is slained. You will rarely kill a character with this ability due to look out sir special rule, but it allows you to kill monsterous infanrty, multi wounded infantry and cavalry. Multi wounded infantry and cavalry are very rare and monsterous infantry have a high toughness so the ability will not be op.


Of course dragon with WS7 , A6,S7,T6 can be worth a lot of points. In the current wood elf rule book it is worth 320pt and it has W6. So I guess WS7 , A6,S7,T6,W5 would be worth something like 440pt. Keep in mind that with W5 Cethin-Har will not be a monster that is inpossible to defeat. That's way it's current profile is pretty fair.

The Hydra is the most under-priced monster in the game, so let's not compare him to anyone (I used him as the basis for the Forest Dragon, but I think I added 30-45pts before I did anything else).

S7 isn't exactly a common thing. And I don't consider it exactly necessary.

I don't get the Poison Attack idea. Is that its breath weapon, or what happens when it rolls a 6 to Hit, or what?
Either way, I think it's (a) too potent and (b) not necessary. I was thinking more along the lines of its attacks auto-wound on a 5 or a 6 to Hit.

Finally, I'd point out that the current Wood Elf book is terrible, not just because the numbers aren't high enough, but because they cost too much for what they currently are. 320pts is too much for what you get out of that monster right now.

I'm thinking +1WS, +1S, and +1T would be pretty fair; he'd be close in raw power to normal dragons, but he'd still be fast, have Poison, and a Ward save.
Keep in mind, my Forest Dragon is not nearly as physically powerful as normal ones; they've gained something in becoming extensions of Athel Loren, but the forest's enchantments have their costs as well.

lol, just a note... Cerdaneu, the Dragon Alyss rides is just a standard Emperor Dragon out of the Storm of Magic book with the Forest Dragon breath weapon and Athel Loren spells.

You do remember that you have to be playing at least a 4000 point game before you can include it, yes?

Ha! Totally saw the 325pts above the line and thought that was his cost.

Yeah, okay, he might be fair, then. It might actually be cool to offer a character option for such large games (especially since the character can be fielded in smaller ones too).
But did you include the cost of the Spites? Heh. It barely matters, but hey, that might boost his minimum game size to 4100!

What are some Special Characters from the Wood Elves books? There's Drycha, the Sisters, Orion...

Current;
Orion, Drycha, Sisters of Twilight

Old;
Ariel, Naieth, Skaw, Scarloc, some kind of werebear beastmaster whose name I forget. Think there were more as well.

Getting back to dragons.

(All dragons)Poison is just a breath weapon. All models affected need to pass a toughness test or are slain.(No armour saves allowed).

Since wood elfs don't have anything with strength or toughness of 7+ and they will not get anything with toughness of 7+, it would be nice if they would get one figure with strength of 7. I would give S7 to Cethin-Har, but perhaps there is other figure that could get it.

Eh. I considered it. The thing is, most dragons don't actually have potent breath weapons. S2-4. Meh. Right now, it's S3 no armour. Maybe "suffers a wound on a 5+ with no armour" would be better?

I don't think all armies have access to S/T7 models. And besides, there's the W8 Treeman ancient...

As for Special Characters: eh. Not really motivated to work on them. But if I were to make any one of the the Biggest and the Baddest, it would have to be Orion.

I agree that wood elfs don't need S7 if they have W8. However the poisonous breath definetaly does't need to be weakened. S3 no armour saves is like average and hydra has strength 5 Breath. Two questions. Does the spell fairy fire change the unit's facing? Does the standard of Ariel allow unit to fire and flee any number of times in phase or only stand and shoot any number of times in a phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thing. Why do waywatchers no longer lay traps which would count as difficult terrain for every unit charging waywatchers?

- Hydra's have a breath weapon with a Strength equal to their Wounds. At S5, it's better than Poisonous Breath. At S4, it's probably about equal to it. And from there, it's worse.
I'd consider "Wounds on a 5+", which would be the same versus T4, worse against T3 and less, and better versus T5 and more.

- Good call on the Faerie Fire, though. It's too ambiguous. The original idea was that yes, it changes the unit's facing. This has been the Problem Spell out of the bunch; it's potential for abuse is...high.
Still open for suggestions. Maybe if it could move D6" and could wheel, so you could change it's front arc a little, but not turn it completely around?

- the Banner says Stand and Shoot any number of times per phase, and that's what it means.
Besides, once you Fire and Flee, you're fleeing, so you have to keep fleeing.
Although...now that I look at it, the writing would be clearer if it just gave them the Quick to Fire rule. That was the original idea, anyway, and the current wording might cause some conflicts with unusual situations like Random Movement.

- Waywatchers laying traps makes sense, but giving them the option to trade Killing Blow for Sniper makes even more sense. Both could work, but keeping them cheap is my #1.
Besides, there are a lot of units that could lay traps, but currently, the only ones who do have the word "Trapper" in their name.

Since I am returning to Wood Elves this thread reminds me of and identical one that happened on the Wood Elf forum asrai.org. There were alot of great ideas being tossed around (nothing to OP if I remember correctly) but personally I remember these being my top changes that I wish/needed to occur :

-Point reductions for units across the whole book (not every single one but you catch my drift)

-Whole army can march and shoot without penalty for moving (basically what we have now except we will be that much faster).

-Whole army has Glade Guard Bows, potentially (for less of a points decrease) they get x2 shots at short range.

-Level 1 and 2 spellsingers can take Lore of Life, Beasts or Shadow along with Lore of Athel Loren

-Fix the Lore of Athel Loren

-Rule to help our skirmisher CC units be able to take on big blocks, a good idea was "Woodland Ambush" we surprise the enemy when charging that they lose steadfast for the first round of combat.

-Waywatchers (if they stay at their current points cost) get "Hawkeye" rule, where if they role a Killing blow result on Monstrous infantry or Cavalry it does D3 wounds to make them more universally effective, get to appear anywhere like they used to be able to and have the sniper option. Maybe a little much but you have to remember its a T3 model with no armor.

-Forest Spirits get permanent ward save thats not negated by magic weapons.

-Eternal Guard fighting style gives them a permanent 4+ wardsave and bump their strength up to 4, still only stubborn if HB joins the unit.

-Gauntlet of Sprites: (this is just a ridiculous magic item that I thought just would be fun to test out ). +1 armor save, The gauntlet is crafted from the oak of ages itself and no matter the person who wears it its always a perfect fit, sprites inhabit this gauntlet and can be periodically unleashed by the wearer. It is a breath weapon with the stats of S2, 4+ poison that always uses the template, even in CC. When after the first shot role a D6. At the start of the shooting phase on the role of a 4+ you may fire the breath weapon again, if fired twice the next turn you have to roll a 5+ to activate it. From then on you have to roll a 6 to fire it.

I insist that the dragon's breath attack maintains strength 3 with no armour saves allowed. For dragons breath weapon was ment to be used against infantry not monsters.

Faerie Fire. Imagine a big unit moving sideways, soldiers bumping on each other. Such a ludicrous situation may not occur in real life. Therefore a unit needs to change it's facing. However the casting difficulty increased and maximum angle of turn limited to 90 degrees. So you can not change unit's facing by 180 degrees and charge from the back.

If you want to keep waywatchers low on points maybe they could be upgraded for an additional 6 points per model to trappers.

Wood elf bows already shoot at strength 4 at short range. If they could 2 multiple shoot it would be op.

The gauntlet of sprites is a fair weapon, as far as it would be worth a lot of points.

I would like to point out that wood elf wizards may not be upgraded to a lore masters, which is a con. Wood elf should be equall or a bit weaker in magic then dark elf which already have a very strong wizard on dragon.

Dont bother insisting. He is stubborn when he is set on an idea, regenerating EG and all

Dark elves dont have access to lore master outside of special characters anyway. IF Warp would re-implament the wand of wych elm then yes, wood elves to meet there place of magic among the elves. I agree without it our wizards are a little lackluster, i think we should be better then empire wizards for one thing.

Who says the breathweapon is for use on infantry? You, i dont see it in the book. Its noxious fumes, a hydra is affect just as much as an orc, i'd say more with all those noses! Remember that breath weapons can only be used one, so you have a 1 in 3 chance to cause a single wound to a hydra *gasp*. In combat its not as good as normally attacking unless against knights *i think* so yes, it would work better against infantry because there is more of them. Its not a devine rule, its logic.

I agree. Since the breath weapon will statisticaly be able to inflict one wound on a unit of 3 monsterious infantry with multiple wounds per model, it is obvious that infantry models with only one wound will be targeted. In order to have good breath weapon that is able to do fair ammount of damage vs infantry, S3 with no armour saves is needed.

devestator 7777777 wrote:

Wood elf bows already shoot at strength 4 at short range. If they could 2 multiple shoot it would be op.

I made a mistake when writing it out, they would get two shots at close range @ strength 3 (this would help wood elves be viable against horde armies like orcs or skaven) or choose to shoot a single shot @ strength 4 which for a 12pt. model with no armor and toughness 3 I dont think is op at all. Also for a change it would make our Glade Riders useful for a change and actually make them more worth their ridiculous points cost. We are supposed to be the best archers in the world so it would make sense we could shoot rapidly if we had to, hell in the Two Towers the Elves at Helms Deep were unloading on the Urks!

A'ight, let's respond to a few things:

- I feel like the units that needed point adjustments got them, no?
I don't have the book on me anymore, so I'm going on memory. Do any of these units look overpriced or under-powered?

- giving the entire army the ability to march and shoot isn't something I've considered. That might be a pretty cool idea, though I feel like that, coupled with Fire and Flee, would be too much. Thoughts?

- I don't think Glade Guard should have two types of shots. It just muddies up the ease of play. Besides, 2 S3 shots at BS4 results in .5 wounds versus T3 models at close range. 1 S4 shot results in .44445 wounds. Versus a model with a 5+ armour save, the first deal .33333 wounds, while the second deal .3697.

- I've seen "Woodland Ambush" and absolutely hate it. Auto-stripping Steadfast on the charge just brings us back to 7th edition.
I think that some kind of benefit for flank/rear charging should exist in the BRB, but beyond that and a change to the Skirmish rules, I think Wood Elves are fine in that department. A group of six warriors in a loose formation shouldn't be able to break a large block of troops with ease, no matter how awesome those six warriors are.

- Waywatchers with a D3 Wounds option might be cool. Again, I don't want to over-complicate things. I kinda' want to say that, if Ogres and A-bombs are your targets, Waywatchers are just a poor choice. But it's something I'd consider.

- Eternal Guard with a 4+ Ward and S4? So they're like Phoenix Guard, but lose ASF and Fear to gain Stubborn if a Noble joins them? Sounds like they're good without him, and amazing with him. Which means people who field them will also field a Noble. I'd rather make them more consistently worth-while.
(and Regeneration makes just as much sense for them as does for Phoenix Guard or Tzeentch-marked Warriors to have a Ward save. Magic is magic is magic.)

- I'd point out that "Always Wounds on a 5+" is worse against T3 and less, but is much more useful when an opponent's been Flesh to Stone'd and the like.

- the original idea of Faerie Fire was that you could turn the target unit on the spot and move them. But I've re-worded it to D6+2", which may include wheels, but not turns or reforms. Though I'd also point out that you couldn't turn a unit around and charge it in the rear; Movement before Magic.

- I just don't see why Waywatchers need traps. It could make sense, it could fit, but they've already got enough stuff going on to portray the "sneaky forest assassins" concept.

- let's not look to Dark/High Elves to determine how powerful Wood Elves need to be, magic or not. Both of those books were made in a previous edition, and have their own problems, however minor they may be in comparison.

Overall, I'd like to thank everyone again for the feedback thus far, but I'd also offer a warning: looking at other fan-made rulebooks, there's nothing that turns people off to the ideas therein than a huge host of new rules piled on to every unit and character.
It might make sense to give this unit Poison, or this item to grant a 3+ Ward save, but it's a slippery slope. The set of rules I've got here have been well-received and considered fair largely, I think, because of my attempt to keep all such extras down to the minimum needed to establish the theme. I don't ask "would it make sense if this unit could do this?" anymore. Now, I ask, "would it make sense of this unit could do this while units X through Z with a similar theme in other books can't do that?"

 gmaleron wrote:

devestator 7777777 wrote:

Wood elf bows already shoot at strength 4 at short range. If they could 2 multiple shoot it would be op.

I made a mistake when writing it out, they would get two shots at close range @ strength 3 (this would help wood elves be viable against horde armies like orcs or skaven) or choose to shoot a single shot @ strength 4 which for a 12pt. model with no armor and toughness 3 I dont think is op at all. Also for a change it would make our Glade Riders useful for a change and actually make them more worth their ridiculous points cost. We are supposed to be the best archers in the world so it would make sense we could shoot rapidly if we had to, hell in the Two Towers the Elves at Helms Deep were unloading on the Urks!

Fluff from another world isn't the best reference on how things should be. I don't recall the elf archers at helms deep being mounted...
The problem with glade riders is the advantage of 30" is largely lost on a 18" steed. S4 at short range would help, along with knocking them down to ~20 points.

-Matt

Just keep the upgrade of waywatchers for 6 points to a trapper. It's not neccessary, but I followed this thread from the begining and also want to have my little part in it. Some of the changes on this thread are also unecessary, but You tought it it would be cool if they would occur. Coming back to breath. What's the probability that you gone deploy a dragon* the probability your oponent will uses flesh to stone or similar spell on a unit* the probablity both dragon and the unit will be in the same sector of the table* the probabilty at least the majority of models in unit will have only one wound so you able to do enough damage?

@devastator7777777:

- Waywatchers have a special deployment rule, an extra -1 to be shot, and either Killing Blow or Sniper. I just don't see the need for anything else just yet.
Maybe they need another option. I doubt it, but I'm open to the possibility.

- Following this thread from the beginning means you have my thanks, but it doesn't mean you'll have any greater say than anyone else. I'm looking at each idea at face value, nothing more.

- if you think there are unnecessary changes, please point them out. I'm trying to make it as streamline as I can within the army's theme.

- the odds of fielding a Dragon, your opponent casting Flesh to Stone, and the two units fighting is slim. I'm not saying it'll happen all the time.
What I'm saying is, once again, this:

A. "always wounds on a 5+" is worse versus >T4.
B. "always wounds on a 5+" is better versus <T5 and some unusual situations that involve the Strength of the attack (like versus the Dark Elf Pendant).

--it's a tiny difference, but it's there, so I thought I'd mention it. I'm still leaning towards S3, because it's simpler, but I've got to think around all the corners.>

Increasing wild riders point cost to 33 and giving them horns of wild hunt is really unecessary. Horns of wild hunt special rule does't influence combat resolution very much(It's just 1 to combat resolution). However the wild rider stats are the same as in the current wood elf rule book, but the point cost is increased by 7 points. Let's stay with current stats but drop the points to 20 and remove the horns of wild hunt rule or drop points to 26 and keep the horns of wild hunt rule. Waywatchers. I know they have lot of options already, but if you upgrade them to a trapper for additional 6 points. It would be fair. Such a waywatcher would have bs 5 woodland ambushers rule, -1 to be shoot at penalty, trapper rules and lethal shoot. He would cost 26 points and would be a rare unit. Don't forget that wood elf are supposed to be the best archers in warhammer universe, the unit of waywatchers is an elite for wood elfs. That's way it is supposed to be the best archer unit in the game. However you can get a cold one knight for 27 points with 2+ armour save and S6 during charge and a cold one which it self has S4 attack. The unit has hatred as well most attacks will hit. So the upgraded waywatcher unit is not op.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Waywatchers. I know they have lot of options already, but if you upgrade them to a trapper for additional 6 points. It would be fair. Such a waywatcher would have bs 5 woodland ambushers rule, -1 to be shoot at penalty, trapper rules and lethal shoot. He would cost 26 points and would be a rare unit. Don't forget that wood elf are supposed to be the best archers in warhammer universe, the unit of waywatchers is an elite for wood elfs. That's way it is supposed to be the best archer unit in the game. However you can get a cold one knight for 27 points with 2+ armour save and S6 during charge and a cold one which it self has S4 attack. The unit has hatred as well most attacks will hit. So the upgraded waywatcher unit is not op.

You should be comparing waywatchers to shades or shadowwarriors, then look towards other dedicated lite shooting units. Finally, try and match them to 8th edition rules if you can, so you're not balancing the new list to the old rules. Wait a month for high elves and see what shadow warriors get. Balance them off of that.

-Matt

Matt. I will whait ,perhaps the current rules for waywatchers with current point are op. However be aware that waywatchers are supposed to be better than shades or any other lite shooting unit from whole warhammer unvierse. The differences does't need to be very big, but visible. For wood elfs are the best archers from warhammer universe and waywatchers a rare even among wood elfs. Hatred grants already a big advantage to dark elfs and magic to high elfs, archery is supposed to be such advantage for wood elfs. If high elfs will get the most powerfull magicians in the game(in their new codex), then why wood elfs should't get the best lite shooting unit in the game?

@Matt: couldn't agree more.

@devastator:

The Horns rule is not strictly necessary, no. But it's pretty minor, and it fits their concept really well, and they don't have a lot of other stuff going on.
As for costing more, what about their 4+ Ward save and Frenzy? I originally had them at 2 Attacks + Frenzy, but I wanted to see what people thought if I knocked them down a bit in price and ability.

As for Waywatchers: they're BS5 Scouts with Killing Blow or Sniper that don't suffer a penalty for moving and shooting. That makes them the best archers in the game. Traps have nothing to do with archery.

Warpsolution wrote:

As for Waywatchers: they're BS5 Scouts with Killing Blow or Sniper that don't suffer a penalty for moving and shooting. That makes them the best archers in the game. Traps have nothing to do with archery.

Definitely not for 24 points a model when they have no armor save and are only T3. For 24 points a model I would expect them to have much more, like their ability to appear anywhere on the map like they did in 7th edition, that would make them worth their points.

Warpsolution wrote:

- giving the entire army the ability to march and shoot isn't something I've considered. That might be a pretty cool idea, though I feel like that, coupled with Fire and Flee, would be too much. Thoughts?

- I don't think Glade Guard should have two types of shots. It just muddies up the ease of play. Besides, 2 S3 shots at BS4 results in .5 wounds versus T3 models at close range. 1 S4 shot results in .44445 wounds. Versus a model with a 5+ armour save, the first deal .33333 wounds, while the second deal .3697.

-In response to the first one I dont think it would be to much, again if you think about it we are a T3 model with no armor at all whatsoever, it would make sense that we could run up shoot and flee and fit the fluff of an ambushing army that comes at you from all different angles.

-I dont see how it would muddle up the game at all if we were to have more shots at close range, maybe the Helms Deep reference was not the best example but will use the example from the last book in the "Knight of Bretonnia" series where Drycha tries to end the reign of Ariel and Orion. The archers when being faced with a multitude of of opponents rushing them unload into them with uncanny accuracy and "scything down scores of Dryads" rushing only perhaps twenty Glade Guard. If we had x2 shots @ S4 even then I dont think it would be OP, as stated we are supposed to be the best archers in the world which should translate into being the best shooting army in the game when it comes to our Glade Guard and other bow wielding units. I will admit since I have played Wood Elves for the vast majority of my time in Fantasy my opinion might be a little skewed to some, but it would be nice to have an edge in the one aspect of the game we should.

 gmaleron wrote:

Definitely not for 24 points a model when they have no armor save and are only T3. For 24 points a model I would expect them to have much more, like their ability to appear anywhere on the map like they did in 7th edition, that would make them worth their points.

Did you notice that I gave them back their original Scout rules and dropped their cost down to 20pts/model?

 gmaleron wrote:

-In response to the first one I dont think it would be to much, again if you think about it we are a T3 model with no armor at all whatsoever, it would make sense that we could run up shoot and flee and fit the fluff of an ambushing army that comes at you from all different angles.

Why does everyone seem to think that, if an idea "fits the fluff", it should be tacked on to the unit entry? Of course it fits. My question is: is it fair?
I don't expect anyone to be able to answer this off-hand; the benefits of rules like Hit and Run and Fire and Flee are hard to guess at. They are usually pretty minor, but have the potential to change the tide of a battle or two.

 gmaleron wrote:
I dont see how it would muddle up the game at all if we were to have more shots at close range, maybe the Helms Deep reference was not the best example but will use the example from the last book in the "Knight of Bretonnia" series where Drycha tries to end the reign of Ariel and Orion. The archers when being faced with a multitude of of opponents rushing them unload into them with uncanny accuracy and "scything down scores of Dryads" rushing only perhaps twenty Glade Guard. If we had x2 shots @ S4 even then I dont think it would be OP, as stated we are supposed to be the best archers in the world which should translate into being the best shooting army in the game when it comes to our Glade Guard and other bow wielding units. I will admit since I have played Wood Elves for the vast majority of my time in Fantasy my opinion might be a little skewed to some, but it would be nice to have an edge in the one aspect of the game we should.

Okay. I've heard the idea that "Wood Elves are supposed to be the best archers" one too many times. Allow me to clarify your point for you. Wood Elves are already the best archers. They're BS4+, can move and fire without penalty, and have S4 shots at close range. What you mean to say is, "Wood Elves should be better archers than they currently are".
On the note of "Knights of Bretonnia": 20 Glade Guard scything down scores of Dryads? Sure. In a book. And my Doomwheel crushes hundrdeds beneath it's bulk. And Gor-Rok, the Great White Lizard, has never once taken a single step back in battle. And so on. Every army has several units that are described as "OMG these guys are the best EVER". And what happens when every army has such units? They all get proven wrong.

I just don't get why people think Glade Guard are that bad. I have seen units of them take down their point's worth plenty of times. The downside is that, when they see combat, they lose. But that's because they're a ranged unit! Units with ranged attacks cost more than other units, because they can kill the enemy without fear of retribution. As such, they are inefficient in close combat. If there was an army build that allowed you to reliably take down your opponent before he got to you, would anyone ever field a different army? Shooting helps win the day in Warhammer. Wood Elf shooting helps more. But it isn't supposed to win the day all on its own. That would be boring, and tremendously frustrating to face.

No one gets to have a unit than can just sit there, pouring arrows into the enemy, and have any chance of victory. You need to move! Pull back the unit that's going to be charged next turn, and move up the unit out of the charge arc. Flee a charge, rally, shoot s'more, and then charge in once their units are isolated and thinned down. You'll lose stuff along the way, but hopefully not as much as you take. Same as any other army.

I guess that's why I feel so qualified to work on this project; I don't have any strong feelings for Wood Elves, one way or the other.

Glade guard are good already, but their weaker at long range than other units. For exammple at long range dark crossbowman will inflict 0,3333 wounds at glade guard when shooting two bolts. Glade guard will inflict only 0,2083 wounds at the dark elf crossbow man. Dark elf crossbowman is 2 pt cheaper and only a dark who's biggest strength is not shooting. To balance that wood bows could get S4 at all range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With dwarf crossbow men the stiuation will even be more drastic. Glade guard will inflict only 0,139 wounds however the dwarf crossbowman 0,222. That's why S4 on long range is neccessary for glade guard.

1. Dark Elf Repeater Crossbowmen are widely agreed to be under-priced.

2. Dwarf Quarrelers are Move or Fire. That is a huge difference. They're tougher and have a better leadership, which somewhat makes up for it, but they also hit less often.
Quarrelers fair poorer than Glade Guard in more situations than they excel.

3. Wood Elves can move and shoot without penalty, which means they can close with their opponent without loosing any efficiency (and, in fact, gaining some), while also forcing their target to readjust to keep the Glade Guard in their front arc.

The problem is that quarrels are more effective at long range against targets with armour save 6+ and better. Additionaly quarrels are more durable and have higher leadership which makes them more resistant vs enemy missile troops. Glade guard are better at fighting close combat troops by keeping away from combat, but worst at fighting missile troops at long range concidering the ammount of points glade guards cost. You can have two bretonia peasant bowmen with a long bow at a cost of one glade guard. Even thought glade guard have a better bs two peasant archers will do more damage than one glade guard at long range and at short range if the target has no armour. S4 is neccessary for glade guard at all range.

Glade Guard only lose to Dwarf Quarrelers if both sides just stand there and shoot at each other all day.
Glade Guard can move up and around the Dwarfs, forcing them to spend a turn moving back into position.
Also, terrain is going to give the Guard more of an advantage, since they're faster and can move without decreasing their accuracy.

Versus T3 models, two peasants will cause .33 Wounds at long range and .5 at short range.
The Guard will cause .25 at long range and .5 at short range.
So yeah, the Bowmen do a little better at long range. If they never move. The Guard have that option.

S4 would indeed make them better versus other missile troops. And way, way better versus basic infantry. It's not needed.
There's more to archery than BS, S, and point value.
More importantly, saying that a unit isn't good enough because it has some disadvantages against a specific type of enemy unit. Your opponent isn't going to field just Bowmen or Quarrelers or Reapeater Crossbowmen, and you're not going to field just Glade Guard.

They are the best archers, as-is. S4 at any range would tip the scales and make Glade Guard too powerful versus most of the unit's they'd face.

By the time a 5" move takes crossbows out of arc, the wood elves have most likely already taken a beating. You're going to need to march to make it matter, and the turn you march, the dwarves could swift reform, so you gain no advantage in the shoot out.

It's tough to compare Glade Guard to peasants. Yes, you can get twice as many peasants, point for point. But if you're planning on running ~600 points of glade guard, you might find out that 50 shooters is a lot easier to put on the table and move than 100 peasants.

I'd actually like to play test wood elf infantry being able to shoot any turn they rally. This could make for an interesting flee/rally/shoot army. It makes the shooting slightly better, but makes the mobility of the wood elves come into play more. IMO, they are shooty enough, they just need a little more of a mobility advantage to the shooting they have.
It could be a fun dynamic. I'll want some smaller faster unit to charge Glade Guard when they flee from my main block. But smaller fast units are ideal targets for glade guard. So now we'd have a good tactical exchange of charge angles, shooter position and target selection.

-Matt

A swift reform doesn't count as moving for crossbows and such?

But I agree that something needs to be done. The Fire and Flee and Hit and Run ideas helped them against melee troops, but I'm liking the simplicity of marching/rallying and shooting.

With these ideas...they're basically fast cavalry on foot.

This seems like a good direction to take things in.

Warpsolution wrote:
A swift reform doesn't count as moving for crossbows and such?

But I agree that something needs to be done. The Fire and Flee and Hit and Run ideas helped them against melee troops, but I'm liking the simplicity of marching/rallying and shooting.

With these ideas...they're basically fast cavalry on foot.

This seems like a good direction to take things in.

Being able to march and shoot would steal the thunder from skirmishers.
If army wide can rally and shoot, it would still leave skirmishers as more special; as they could both march and shoot, and rally and shoot.

-Matt

I agree, if anything a S4 bow at long range for a 12pt model with no armor that can move and shoot without penalty....not OP at all and would allow our army to have a little more killing power outside our forest spirits which I think is something about Wood Elves that needs to be addressed, being a shooty army it would be nice to have more killing power at a distance to potentially even the odds for us when the enemy gets close.

One thing however that has been mentioned is that though it would be nice to have Glade Guard get a bit more bang for their buck they are not one of the big problems with our book, currently IMO those are:

-Point tweaks (primarily reductions) for multiple (most elf units) in our army.
-A better Lore of Athel Loren
-Make Eternal Guard worth taking and to fit Wood Elf lore and fighting style.
-Allow level 1 and 2 casters access to lore of life and beasts (think shadow would be a good fit to since we are not goody goody or complete evil).
-Forest Spirits ward save is there for everything and anything.
-Waywatchers need a big boost to be worth their points or even some new rules to make them even nastier (my D3 wound idea against monstrous infantry and cav for example I am a fan of).

Just some of the big things I feel that need to be addressed before Glade Guard.

 gmaleron wrote:
I agree, if anything a S4 bow at long range for a 12pt model with no armor that can move and shoot without penalty....not OP at all and would allow our army to have a little more killing power outside our forest spirits which I think is something about Wood Elves that needs to be addressed, being a shooty army it would be nice to have more killing power at a distance to potentially even the odds for us when the enemy gets close.

One thing however that has been mentioned is that though it would be nice to have Glade Guard get a bit more bang for their buck they are not one of the big problems with our book, currently IMO those are:

-Point tweaks (primarily reductions) for multiple (most elf units) in our army.
-A better Lore of Athel Loren
-Make Eternal Guard worth taking and to fit Wood Elf lore and fighting style.
-Allow level 1 and 2 casters access to lore of life and beasts (think shadow would be a good fit to since we are not goody goody or complete evil).
-Forest Spirits ward save is there for everything and anything.
-Waywatchers need a big boost to be worth their points or even some new rules to make them even nastier (my D3 wound idea against monstrous infantry and cav for example I am a fan of).

Just some of the big things I feel that need to be addressed before Glade Guard.

Yeah, the lore really needs a revamp. While tree themed is neat, it does work with the randomness of terrain on the table.
I've heard a lot of people using EG to good effect. The question is, do you want Eternal Guard to be Core or Special? As a special, they need to get a little better.
Yes, all wizards need access to more lores. The ogre book showed the need for this.
I was actually hoping daemons would go back to the old daemon ward, but since that didn't happen, switching forest spirits over makes more sense.
D3 wounds seems bad. I'd rather see them get killing blow at all ranges and the ability to trap terrain; turn any non-open terrain they scout in, into dangerous terrain.

S4 for glade guard at long range is not op, it's just 0,333 wounds against t3 armour 6+ models like goblins. However it is 0,167 wounds against T4 armor 4+ . How many shoots can a glade guard have with the current stats before geting engaged. 2-1 long range, short range, fire and flee , short range , stand and shoot. This makes 4-3 hits on 4+ and 2 hits on 3+. If the enemy is T3 armour 6+ then glade guard will inflict 2,222-1,889 wounds. However if the target is T4 armor 4+ then glade guard can cause 1.111-0.944 wounds. A unit is only worth deploying if it's point cost is smaller than the damage dealt. Certainly the point cost of glade guard is more than a cost of two goblins or two clanrats. Those calculations were made assuming that archers shoot at S4 long range. With current stats glade guard should inflict just 1.722-1.514 wound vs T3 armour 6+. However vs T4 armour 4+ only 0.778-0.694. S4 is so badly neccessary for these archers so their point cost could be returned.

@gmaleron: so...what do you think of the Fandex, then? It has all of those things.

@HawaiiMatt: skirmishers would still be allowed unlimited reforms, though, so they're still harder to hide from. Does that seem like too little a distinction? It's all a bit fuzzy for me.

@devastator7777777: With a total of 2 turns at long range, 2 at short, and 2 as a charge reaction, I see 10 Glade Guard doing 16.4 Wounds against Clanrats with shields (T3, 5+ save). That's 73.8 points worth of casualties.

If those same Guard shoot at some Orcs (T4, 5+ save) instead, it looks like they cause 10.1 Wounds (not counting the -1 to armour at close range). That's 70.7, 90.9, or 111.1, depending on the variety of Orc.

If they shoot at Khornate Warriors with halberds and shields (T4, 3+ save), it's 7.2 Wounds, for...144pts, I think?

So, yeah, they don't make their points back in the first two situations. But I'd also point out that they were able to do all of that while the other unit did nothing in return. Sure, the Glade Guard would almost definitely bite it in the ensuing combat, but that's why Wood Elves have their combat units.

Shooting shouldn't ever win you a game all on its own. That would just be bad game design.

The problem is that every time glade gurads shoot Clanrats get closer and closer. After those 73.8 points are dealt glade guards will get caught and slaughtered. There is a high chance that they will be caught even during the first charge . I understand that you need to introduce your close combat units, but it often might be to late. Giving glade guard S4 would increase the wounds on scaven Clanrats to 18,5, such a minor difference does't disbalance the game, but it gives wood elf archers higher chance to rout the scaven.

If it's such a minor difference, I'd just as soon not change it. The thing I like about a constant S4 is its simplicity, but I think that keeping to the official book as much as possible is a good way to ensure that people will accept the changes.

As to actual tactics:

- you put your Dryads in front of the Guard and a little off to the side. The enemy can ignore them and charge the archers, exposing their flank to the Dryads, or they can deal with the Forest Spirits first.
I know there are a lot of variables that might make this-or-that situation impossible, but it should not be that hard to keep your relatively few, small M5+ units, many of which skirmish, in position.

- but more importantly: as I said before, shooting shouldn't be carrying the day on its own. Concentrated fire causing some panic tests is fine, but you shouldn't be able reliably panic a unit with it's equivalent in shooting. Why would you ever take anything but missile troops, if you could just kill the enemy before they ever get to you?

Warpsolution wrote:

@HawaiiMatt: skirmishers would still be allowed unlimited reforms, though, so they're still harder to hide from. Does that seem like too little a distinction? It's all a bit fuzzy for me.

@devastator7777777: With a total of 2 turns at long range, 2 at short, and 2 as a charge reaction, I see 10 Glade Guard doing 16.4 Wounds against Clanrats with shields (T3, 5+ save). That's 73.8 points worth of casualties.
If those same Guard shoot at some Orcs (T4, 5+ save) instead, it looks like they cause 10.1 Wounds (not counting the -1 to armour at close range). That's 70.7, 90.9, or 111.1, depending on the variety of Orc.
If they shoot at Khornate Warriors with halberds and shields (T4, 3+ save), it's 7.2 Wounds, for...144pts, I think?

Reforming twice often uses up half of your movement, so unlimited reform, limited by max movement of move x2, is actually pretty limited movement.

As for shooting:
Actually, you got zero points, zero points, and zero points respectively.
You don't get points for killing models, you get points for killing units.

This swings both ways. If I take nothing but units of shooters, I may shoot 1/2 to 1/3rd of your army dead by the time you hit my lines. When you hit my lines, I'm going to have a lot more units than you, so you'll be getting ~120 points at a time, where as I may have combined fired to knock off 200 to 400 point units. Now you're in a race to catch what's left of my army before the game ends.
Games don't end with both players tabled usually (happened once or twice with my vampires), so you have to accept that units are often going to kill less than their value. If they do score points, and don't up as many, you win. Making shooting stronger really could overly tip the balance if you looked at just spamming those shooters.

150 glade guard, split into 10 to 15 units is actually pretty effective against a lot of armies.
Outside of my undead and my old skaven, I don't field much that can absorb 75 S4 hits at long range, and 100 S4 hits at short range. Even if I only get 1 at long, 1 at short, and 1 stand and fire, that's ~250 S4 hits.
Even my undead would be hard pressed to take those hits.

-Matt

I suppose that, since a reform counts towards the limit a skirmishing model can move, giving the ability to the rank-and-file would take away more than I initially thought.
Then again, there's the skirmishing option for Glade Guard, and then there's Waywatchers. They're the only ones who would need to stand out from the regular Glade Guard, and they already do in a lot of other ways.

I understand the problem with considering casualties as points earned, but I think it works just fine. Models killed is models killed. Coordinating units and making due with the time the game allows you is a universal concern, so setting it aside shouldn't be an issue.

But yes. I agree on every point.

Warpsolution wrote:
I suppose that, since a reform counts towards the limit a skirmishing model can move, giving the ability to the rank-and-file would take away more than I initially thought.
Then again, there's the skirmishing option for Glade Guard, and then there's Waywatchers. They're the only ones who would need to stand out from the regular Glade Guard, and they already do in a lot of other ways.
I understand the problem with considering casualties as points earned, but I think it works just fine. Models killed is models killed. Coordinating units and making due with the time the game allows you is a universal concern, so setting it aside shouldn't be an issue.
But yes. I agree on every point.

I more meant to take it with a grain of salt then set it aside.
If you may any improvement to shooting, I really suggest play testing an army that maximizes that shooting.
I've proxied 12 units of 12 glade guard, 2 eagles, a bsb with 10 point magic bow and hail of doom, and a level 4 of life (dwellers) and that everyone in the woods take a S5 hit item.
It was pretty good actually with the current S3/S4 rules.
The army was all about controlling direction of over-run, to limit your losses to 150 points (12 glade guard with musician).

The hard counter is multiple ethereal units, or large AOE spells that hit multiple units (skavens cloud of corruption, chain lightning or comet).

-Matt

250 S4 hits spread over the table is not something that is game ending or giving Huge advantage. 250 hits is like 50 wounds average since some units are not prone to missile troops. These include beasts, heavy cavalry, monsterious infantry, monsterious cavalry, monsters. You can survive 50 wounds spread over the table, when glade guard get caught then they get slaughtered. When deploying 150 archers on a game for 2000p you are not even able to have level 3 wizzard. Additionaly your oponent can field a wizzard, if he is scaven then he can have standard that grants -2 to hit for glade guards. The strategy with massing the glade guard works only if your oponent is taken by suprise. You can deploy 26 warhawks and an army for remaining 220 points while playing a game for 1000 points. With current rules wood elf player would just need to get rid of missile units and stay a way from combat and the game is won almost automatically. Since such things happen extremlely rarely you don't say that warhawks are op. S4 for glade guard at long range does't tip the balance, only in some unsual and rare situations. Deploying 150 archers it's not something that happenes often or that you could not counter. You have never seen anyone play a game with 150 glade guards with S4 at long range. We may only estimate the outcome which can be different depending on units the oponent of wood elf player fields. Furthermore S4 at long range is not that big of a difference, it's just 75 hits with S4 instead of S3 at long range. S4 is better, because it Gives higher chance to rout units, quarrels and peasant bowmen won't have advantage over glade guards anymore . This is how it should be since.....( not going to repeat a thing that has been said so many times and Warpsolution complains about the reperations).

@HawaiiMatt: that actually sounds like an awesome army.
As a general rule, I don't like armies that try to win by completely preventing me from participating in parts of the game. If I do my thing, and you do your thing, and you do yours better, that's fine with me. But I've faced lists that try to keep me from playing the game, and it's awful.
I think that everyone's tolerance for such tactics has gone way up in terms of Wood Elves, since the book has such a tough time, and I hope that any new book (this one or an official one) can capture that style of play without making it hair-pullingly frustrating to play against.

@devastator7777777: you've stated your case and offered--several times each--the few pieces of evidence you have. I get what you're saying. I'm just not convinced. It's not a difference of opinion; I just believe that the math would work out to something other than what you claim it does.
One of us is wrong, simple as that. My side has not moved you, and your side has not moved me. So you can either re-word your argument and bring other points to the table, or you can accept that I disagree, and that no amount of repetition is going to give you any sort of influence over my project, and you can go on to write your own.

One last questions. How does S4 at long range disbalance the game even thought you got majority of shoots at close range with the new fire and flee rules?

devestator 7777777 wrote:
One last questions. How does S4 at long range disbalance the game even thought you got majority of shoots at close range with the new fire and flee rules?

If you go first, you're getting 2 shots at long range.
In an army where you spam shooters, that's 150 S4 hits, instead of 150 S3 hits. Against hard targets (T4 3+ saves) its 37 kills at long range, instead of 16 kills at long range. That's a pretty huge increase.
Also, when you spam shooting, a lot of your models are going to be out on a flank, firing inward at long range to finish off units.
I don't want a wood elf army where 150 glade guard is a good idea.

Your not going to get hits150 only 150 shoots times 0,5= 75 hits, that's a big difference. That's 19 wounds.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Your not going 150 only 75 hits, that's a big difference. That's 19 wounds.

150 models at long range = 75 hits per turn.
If I go first, that's 150 hits at long range.
vs T4, S4 wounds on 4's, S3 Wounds on 5's.
vs 3+ armor, S4 is saved on 4+, S3 is saved on 3+.
Going from 5+ to wound and 3+ save to 4+ to wound and 4+ save is a huge jump in killing power.

In an army with 150 glade guard, a lot of the shots turns 3 are still at long range. You want to spread out to limit your losses, limit panic, and prevent overrun into a new unit.

If all you get is 2 shots and long, 1 at short and a stand and fire, you're looking at inflicting 150 S3 hits and 175 S4 hits.
If it's S4 at all ranges, thats 325 S4 hits.
That's firepower tabling a lot of army builds. Those that it doesn't table it cripples.
IMO, any change in wood elves needs to make melee as viable as shooting, with the strongest build being a combined list.
Fighting the mobile gunline is really not fun.
After all, I'm rolling tons of dice. You charge, I flee. It's entire possible that you're only rolling dice for th emagic phase, armor saves and panic tests.

-Matt

Agreed, Matt. 100%.

So, with some of these new ideas considered, which would suite Glade Guard best?

1. Fire and Flee!
2. rally and shoot
3. march and shoot
4. any combination of 1-3

Warpsolution wrote:
Agreed, Matt. 100%.

So, with some of these new ideas considered, which would suite Glade Guard best?

1. Fire and Flee!
2. rally and shoot
3. march and shoot
4. any combination of 1-3

I like rally and shoot. You have to get away, not get charged again, and not have the game end.
Fire and flee means you get to do your damage, then check for the risk.
I prefer Risk->Reward, not Reward->Risk.
March and shoot is too annoying. I don't want my opponent to not get to play. March and shoot is for skirmishers and fast cav anyway, which woodies have plenty of.

-Matt

I see what you're saying. If it's just #2, does the army need anything else? It's the weakest option in the list.

Should't the wood elfs get both fire and flee and rally and shoot.

I dunno. That seems like a step in the other direction,

#1 and 2 play a bit too well with each other. #3 is the most potentially obnoxious on its own.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Should't the wood elfs get both fire and flee and rally and shoot.

No.

Fire and flee, and rally and shoot is giving you more than 6 shooting phases in a game.
Figure 3 turns of shooting, fire and flee, rally and fire, fire and flee, rally and fire. Stand and fire.
8 Volleys over 5 turns.

-Matt

Rember when we were discussing that the points of glade guard are not returned. I assumed the glade guards have both fire and fire and rally and shoot and S4. Then the cost of glade guard returned only in 2/3. It will look dramatic if they will get only one of the three options. Options 1+2 is not op. Without it glade guards are not going to be better then quarrels or peasant archers. I understand that S4 is op. However now were heading the rong direction, finaly wood elfs are supposed to be the best archers, additionaly they should get a lot for their 12 points per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You may fire and flee only once, second time there is a very high risk of geting caught.

@devastator7777777: Once more-

1. Ranged units should not be able to get their points back all on their own.
Because they don't have to put themselves at risk in close combat.
Because, if they could, everyone would just field all-shooting armies forever.

2. Getting both option would increase the volume of their shots by over 30%. That's a big shift in the average number of casualties, and an even bigger shift in the maximum potential.
Glade Guard are not that bad in their current incarnation.

3. Dwarf Quarrelers are tougher and more effective in close combat. But they're also slower and have less effective shooting.
Peasant Bowmen take up a ton more space on the board, and are much easier to scare off.

4. Wood Elves already have the best archers.
For 12pts, you get a model with BS4, S3(4), and that can move and shoot without penalty. It's also got WS4, I5, and M5.
That's a fair deal on paper. The only issue comes from 8th's focus on massed infantry (30 arrows fired by the finest archers in the land still only kill, at most, 30 foes). In 7th, Wood Elves were a good army. They don't need bigger numbers and cheaper costs (we tried BS5 Glade Guard. It was...ugly). They need a few adjustments here and there, and another tactical option or two, to make the concept of the army viable.

Rally and shoot vs Fire and flee.

Rally and shoot is supposed to be a ablity for wood elfs that will give them an advantage over other races. Rally and shoot works only if you flee from combat and have a ability to shoot. As you know you can not win again only with shooting. What will often happen is that you will flee from combat with glade guards, your close combat unit will engage your opponent's unit, your glade gurds will rally, but will not be able to shoot, because you can not shoot in to close combat. Fire and flee is more certain in this situation, because you shoot before the units get engaged. Such situations will occur often.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Rally and shoot vs Fire and flee.

Rally and shoot is supposed to be a ablity for wood elfs that will give them an advantage over other races. Rally and shoot works only if you flee from combat and have a ability to shoot. As you know you can not win again only with shooting. What will often happen is that you will flee from combat with glade guards, your close combat unit will engage your opponent's unit, your glade gurds will rally, but will not be able to shoot, because you can not shoot in to close combat. Fire and flee is more certain in this situation, because you shoot before the units get engaged. Such situations will occur often.

Unless of course, your opponent is coming at you with more than one unit, or has any other unit within 30". Then you can flee the charge. On your turn, charge into his combat block with one of your own, and rally to shoot his support.
Fire and Flee has a problem. If you fire and flee, you can get a situation where both sides are fleeing. If your shooting panics me, my charging unit turns and runs, and your shooting unit also runs.
Rally and Shoot doesn't have this problem.

You mean that it may occur that both units will flee to the same edge of the table and they might overlap each other, or one unit will flee through the other one. If this is what you ment then the unit that was charging can flee in to the opposite, or second closest edge of the table.

Rally and shoot will only work if the line of sight will not be obscured by the two or more engaged units. Your Oponent's units might be out of glade guards arc of sight or range. It's to uncertain for the ablity that is supposed to give advantage to wood elfs over other races. Plus Glade riders and Warhawk riders already have it. Rally and shoot is uncertain, but it is certain glade guards will always cost 12 points, which is a lot compering to other archers. Glade gurds already lose to quarrels and peasant bowmen, let them have a firm special ability so their high cost is justified, wood elfs are supposed to be the best archers anyway. Fire and flee is more certain than rally and shoot.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
You mean that it may occur that both units will flee to the same edge of the table and they might overlap each other, or one unit will flee through the other one. If this is what you ment then the unit that was charging can flee in to the opposite, or second closest edge of the table.

Rally and shoot will only work if the line of sight will not be obscured by the two or more engaged units. Your Oponent's units might be out of glade guards arc of sight or range. It's to uncertain for the ablity that is supposed to give advantage to wood elfs over other races. Plus Glade riders and Warhawk riders already have it. Rally and shoot is uncertain, but it is certain glade guards will always cost 12 points, which is a lot compering to other archers. Glade gurds already lose to quarrels and peasant bowmen, let them have a firm special ability so their high cost is justified, wood elfs are supposed to be the best archers anyway. Fire and flee is more certain than rally and shoot.

I'd argue that shooting at S4 at short range, shooting at 30", moving and shooting, and shooting without a movement penalty is what puts glade guard over other shooters.
Trying to balance them to two really old books isn't a good idea. Balance them in 8th edtion to 8th edition books.
So what 8th edition lists have shooters as core?
Tomb Kings, Empire and Orcs.
You want to take a look at how 12 point glade guard fair in the 8th edition shooting world?

I'd also argue that wood elves as a race feature mobility.
Fire and flee leaves you with a reactionary effect limited to who charges you in your front arc.
Rally and fire leaves you with a reform in any direction in any formation threatening a huge area of the table.

-Matt

Empire cross bowmen have a range of 30 and S4 at all range. Empire handguners have S4 and armour piercing at a range of 24. Of course these units have worse balistic skill and have penalty for moving and shooting (crossbowmen can not move and shoot) but they cost only 9 points. Moving and shooting is not that great, because you wan't move forward so you don't come to close to enemy, you rather will stand and shoot.(If you find yourself out of range you may make one move, but not more) Both empire units are better at fighting armoured units at range of 16+ inches assuming they haven't moved. Most units have armour save. Empire crossbowmen and handgunners cost only 9 points per model. Glade guards cost 12 points. That ends up with glade guards beeing slightly better and they have slightly better LD ,I and bs of course. However glade guards are more expensive and are wood elfs. However we both agreed that wood elfs need to have special ability like rally and shoot or similar. There is no point in continuing the discussion about shooters. What I was trying to say that wood elfs need a ability like raly and shoot or fire and flee. I just worry rally and shoot might be uncertain and not good enough. If your missile unit will rally right behind two engaged close combat units then it often might find it's line of sight obscured. Fire and flee is more certain and it allows you to do one awesome thing. Fire and flee throuh your unit forcing your opponet's unit to charge a unit you fled through.

Being able to move and shoot is a huge deal.

Matt brings up a good point about the potential silliness of shooting into a unit, breaking them via Panic, and then running yourself.
Being allowed to shoot in a turn you rally is simpler and more active.

Are there any other similar situations where you're not normally allowed to shoot?

Warpsolution wrote:
Being able to move and shoot is a huge deal.

Matt brings up a good point about the potential silliness of shooting into a unit, breaking them via Panic, and then running yourself.
Being allowed to shoot in a turn you rally is simpler and more active.

Are there any other similar situations where you're not normally allowed to shoot?

You can panic an enemy and be panicked yourself with magic, so I don't see it as too silly.

I don't think Rally and Shoot! is the answer. We have Fast Cavalry and Skirmishers. We can already skirmish Glade Guard(in this rework), so the Rally and Shoot! rule is completely redundant.

How about an indirect bow fire ability?

Say drop a large template? S4 for all bows fired in this way..
Make it 1 template for 10 warriors 1 S4 attack per unit hit or 2 S4 attacks for 20 warriors... As an alternative, allow a super long ranged shot... Say +50% to range... i0

DAaddict wrote:
How about an indirect bow fire ability?

Say drop a large template? S4 for all bows fired in this way..
Make it 1 template for 10 warriors 1 S4 attack per unit hit or 2 S4 attacks for 20 warriors... As an alternative, allow a super long ranged shot... Say +50% to range... i0

I'd say minimum 20-man unit for the small blasts, and perhaps 30-man for large. Perhaps S4 for small (to represent a large volume of arrows striking a small area) and S3 for the large. Due to the accuracy issues, perhaps the small blast scatters artillery dice inches, while the large scatters only d6 inches. A misfire for the small blast would mean anything from the aim being completely wrong to a crosswind taking them off target?

Also, same with Warmachines - Move or Shoot. Would give WE access to a small amount of artillery anyway.

Why would you need a form of indirect fire beyond Volley Fire?

Warpsolution wrote:
Why would you need a form of indirect fire beyond Volley Fire?

Why do you need March and Shoot or Rally and Shoot, when you can Skirmish for +1 pt and get both?

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded rude, rushed a bit when I made the post.

As for indirect fire other than Volley Fire, I'm not sure. If the blast templates had a larger range than 30" then it may be a incentive to take larger blocks of Glade Guard.

It gives us a sort of Warmachine-esque function, I suppose? I guess an immobile treant who throws rocks could work as well.

Jirin wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
Why would you need a form of indirect fire beyond Volley Fire?

Why do you need March and Shoot or Rally and Shoot, when you can Skirmish for +1 pt and get both?

EDIT: Sorry if that sounded rude, rushed a bit when I made the post.

As for indirect fire other than Volley Fire, I'm not sure. If the blast templates had a larger range than 30" then it may be a incentive to take larger blocks of Glade Guard.

It gives us a sort of Warmachine-esque function, I suppose? I guess an immobile treant who throws rocks could work as well.

Skirmish is actually pretty bad on a large scale. It really starts to eat up table space and a shooty army needs to be able to focus a high amount of its units on a small area to be effective. Especially skirmishing shooting units. A unit of 20 wound be 12.5" long and ~2.2" deep. None skirmishing is 8" long by 1.7" deep. Skirmishing basically takes away 4.5" worth of shooting space. It's like having 12 less shooters on the table (6 from the front rank and 6 from the 2nd rank).

On smaller elite shooters (shades, chaemeleons, gutter runners with poison slings) small units can do enough damage to pay off. But long range cheap units? Not so much.

-Matt

Agreed. I mean, I wouldn't consider Glade Guard cheap, but the point stands.
Really, I think the Skirmish rule needs to be changed up. They should deploy and take up space like other units, but be allowed all their other benefits and drawbacks. That would fix everything, I believe.

@Jirin: March and Shoot isn't something I'm considering any more, and Rally and Shoot would give Glade Guard the opportunity to do something they're not currently allowed to do (and for less points and real estate than the upgrade to Skirmish them costs).
This "indirect fire" idea is just another version of Volley Fire, but usually better. It doesn't add anything to the army or the game, it just replaces the current mechanic with one that would be better and less elegant.

IMO skirmish should be a half in gap between ranks, and no gap between columns. Maybe GW wanted skirmishing units to be smaller and not be the major focus. I think this is a rule issue though, and not an army issue.

Honestly, if you want to make dryads better, drop skirmish off them. That's a unit that needs to be in bigger blocks, and the ability to be and strip steadfast would improve the army by leaps and bounds.

-Matt

I like the Rally and Fire idea, it doesn't make glade guard more powerful so much as more reliable. Fire and Flee looks a bit cheesy by comparison! But seriously I think it makes GG a more attractive unit choice just because they are more reliable, being able to move and fire and rally and fire means every unit [i]should[i] be firing every turn.

Side note though the more I like the idea the more spammable it seems. It would be interesting to play test with a GG heavy list. For context, if anyone has read SneakyGobbo's batreps with his skink-cloud army imagine that but with rally-and-fire GG, nasty

Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged. As for indirect fire I would propose that big blast template will inflict 2d6 hits for every 10 gg in a unit. S3 at long range and S4 at short range. Same with small blast, just the same ammount of hits focused over smaller area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Small blast may be used to kill a preferable targets within a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say that the big blast scatters artilery dice inches minus the highest bs in a unit and the small blast d6 inches minus highest bs in a unit.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged. As for indirect fire I would propose that big blast template will inflict 2d6 hits for every 10 gg in a unit. S3 at long range and S4 at short range. Same with small blast, just the same ammount of hits focused over smaller area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Small blast may be used to kill a preferable targets within a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say that the big blast scatters artilery dice inches minus the highest bs in a unit and the small blast d6 inches minus highest bs in a unit.

So the small blast scatters 0 to 2" at most, unless you have a character where it does scatter at all?
Why even use a template if your just doing 2D6 hits?
Because it is way better than volley fire?
Because it is better than normal shooting?

Think about it. 10 guys average 7 hits with this rule.
10 guys shoot an opponent in the open at close range only average 6.66 hits.
With you rule, everyone sudden becomes better for aiming into the sky instead of aiming at the enemy.

It's another bad idea. It's overly complex.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged. As for indirect fire I would propose that big blast template will inflict 2d6 hits for every 10 gg in a unit. S3 at long range and S4 at short range. Same with small blast, just the same ammount of hits focused over smaller area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Small blast may be used to kill a preferable targets within a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say that the big blast scatters artilery dice inches minus the highest bs in a unit and the small blast d6 inches minus highest bs in a unit.

So the small blast scatters 0 to 2" at most, unless you have a character where it does scatter at all?
Why even use a template if your just doing 2D6 hits?
Because it is way better than volley fire?
Because it is better than normal shooting?

Think about it. 10 guys average 7 hits with this rule.
10 guys shoot an opponent in the open at close range only average 6.66 hits.
With you rule, everyone sudden becomes better for aiming into the sky instead of aiming at the enemy.

It's another bad idea. It's overly complex.

-Matt

. It can only be used if a unit stands and does't move. Furthermore it is easier to fire at the area instead of firing at the moving target. Archers just point their bows in the sky at the angle Lord's bowman shows them and release arrows at his command. This way of shooting is more precise then firing dircetly. For the lord's bowman is more experienced and has better tact then any of the other archers. So it scores more hits than shooting directly. This is how shooting in medival times looked like. When soldiers followed orders the scatter was very small if at all. The volume of shoots is already spread over the area of the template. Adding such a ability for the best cordinated archers in the game is reasonable.

That's mostly wrong.
You don't hit more things by shooting in the area rather than shooting at the target. It doesn't matter what you aim at the enemy, or at the ground under him, if he's moving, he's moving. The logic of he's moving so I'll shoot the ground should mean you're hitting the ground where he no longer is at, because, ya know, he moved.

Archers sent arrows skywards to fire over their own troops and increase range. Marksmanship and contests were always at targets, not areas. Aiming at the target does help you hit the target.

If that ballistic theory was correct, gunners would not hold their shots until the enemy is up close, they would shoot their guns into the air.

Here's an example of an utter fail of your rules.
I have a unit of skirmishers in side a building. You are -3 to hit them. Under normal rules, Elves would need 6's to hit.
With your rule, 10 archers would incredibly strike 2D6 times, as their shots fall through the roof, and through the upper 2 stories, and strike true at models inside.
Or replace building with forest and repeat.

Firing through a direction you cannot see, at an area, rather than a target, is always way less accurate than firing down the direct path that you can see, at a target.
It's just how reality works.


-Matt

If the model shoots directly then there is high chances they miss, because the target is moving, however when commander of archers follows the track of the enemy unit, he orders his archers to set bows at angle and launch the arrows at a given time so they will strike on enemy, not to close not to far. Where else unexperienced soldiers are not going to predict the track of enemy unit as precisely as their commander. Of course there should be a penalty for hiting in to units that are covered. Substract d3 from every 2d6 for shooting in to soft cover and d6 from 2d6 for shooting in to hard cover. Shooting unit's under roof should be banned completly. Of course when there is a archer in a tower, then he will be shoot at directly. However firing indirectly( following orders of the commander) is more precise at the open field when enemy is moving. It is not true that unit's did't fire at an area. ( Not my stupid idea, this what other people think as well). They aimed the target as well, but you went to far saying that they did't fire at the area.

Well, that cleaned up the rule perfect.

Reducing hits for cover makes sense, that is what GW already does with -1 to hit. But what about skirmishers? If you spread out, you have less people in a given area, which still isn't taken into account in your rule.
What might make it perfect is that you roll D5's against skirmishers, and subtract D3's for cover.

They, now you have a perfect replace for a rule GW kind of already has. Much more clean the Volley Fire.


-Matt

Let's substract d3 for every -1 to hit penalty and d6 for every -2 penalty. So if penalty is -3 then d6 and d3 are substracted from 2d6.

@devastator7777777: Shooting in a volley is not more accurate. It increased your range, allowed you to fire indirectly, and increased the projectile velocity (via gravity).
The only way it was ever effective is when you have lots of archers versus lots of enemies.

Think about it: would you order one marksmen, expert or not, to shoot at a 45 degree angle at his target?
Would you have fifty archers fire in such a way at one man on a horse, standing in a field?

No. You'd tell them to aim at their foe and fire directly.

Let me be blunt: this is a stupid, terrible idea. Let's compare it to Volley Fire:

1. Volley Fire: if you haven't moved, half of the 3rd and latter ranks may fire.

2. "Indirect Fire" (which needs a new name, since that's a special ability of Stone Throwers already): if the unit hasn't moved, you may lay down a template within range (line of sight not needed) instead of firing normally. Use the large template for something-and-whatever, and the small template for a-reason-never-really-stated.
The small template scatters d6", the large template scatters the distance shown on an Arillery die (on a Misfire!, nothing happens).
Both decrease the scatter by a number of inches equal to the highest Ballistic Skill in the unit.
For every 10 models in the unit, every unit touched by the template takes 2d6 hits at the missile weapon's Strength.
If the unit touched is in cover, it takes 2d6-d3 hits (if in soft cover) or 1d6 hits (if in hard cover) instead.
Units are immune to this rule if they're in a building.

So, tell me, which of these rules is simpler? Which is easier to use, and will slow the game down the least? Oh! And does either one represent a higher level of realism than the other?
The answers, by the way, are Volley Fire, Volley Fire, Volley Fire, and No, not really, but if I had to choose one, it'd be Volley Fire.

I'm always open to suggestions, but I have no time for suggestions that needlessly complicate the game and that are based on a stubborn and willful ignorance of how the laws of physics and tactical combat actually work.

On an earlier note, being able to shoot in a turn you rallied and the Fire and Flee! special rule are mostly the same. But the first is a simpler one, easier to explain, understand, and play. And it's also an ability that you have/get to utilize, where the second takes place on your opponent's turn, as part of a reaction. And the second one has the potential to create some silly situations that don't make much sense. So it looks to me like the first idea is superior in most ways. Fire and Flee! has one advantage, as said before: it's more of a sure thing, in that you get to shoot, whether or not you escape the enemy. But all things considered, I think being able to shoot when you rally is still better.
And for the record: if anyone thinks that Wood Elves should be able to win by just standing there and shooting the enemy until they're all dead, you're dead wrong. Wood Elves are the finest archers in the Old World. But that's not the theme of their army.

edited out

You would have one marksman shouting in front of 50-200 archers this is how it was in the past. Not allways, but the best cordinated unit's worked like this.

If you hate the idea of indirect fire then let's just leave it. Wood elfs are mobile, however indirect fire can only be ulitilised when stationary.

Fire and flee key advantage.
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
You would have one marksman shouting in front of 50-200 archers this is how it was in the past.

Right. And Warhammer has rules to do this, called Volley Fire. It works similar to this Indirect Fire nonsense, but better.
Because Volley Fire doesn't make each guy more accurate like Indirect Fire does, it just lets more guys shoot, without them all needing line of sight.
And because Volley Fire doesn't require you to place a template, roll for scatter, subtract BS, then roll hits and wounds, oh, and don't forget to subtract another die roll worth of hits if X situations come up, and also remember that if Y situation occurs, the enemy's immune, never mind. It's just like normal shooting.
Streamline. Elegant. Easy. A better rule.
It's not that "I don't like this rule". It's that it's completely unnecessary and doesn't actually do anything.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Beeing able to fire and flee through a friendly unit forcing the enemy unit to charge the friendly unit is certainly not cheesy. This allows you to have a volley of arrows at a charging unit and the friendly unit that enemy was forced to charge at can still fight. This allows to slaughter even a strong unit in a turn it charged.

This is a fair point. But I'd also point out that, with being able to shoot in a turn they've rallied, you could still flee through some Dryads and force your opponent to reckon with your WS4 S4 T4 A2 I6 5+ Ward combat-monsters, while the Glade Guard could rally behind them, facing another unit (probably the one that's going to charge those Dryads to help out their friends who are now in combat with them) and shoot them.
I don't think Fire and Flee! is specifically cheesy, but it's just a little more complicated than it needs to be, and it doesn't have the same strategic options that this other rule does.
Plus, if your 'Guard ever panic, this rule would let them shoot after they regained their composure.

I just want to go against the stream and say that wood elves should not be able to, control what kind of forest they or their enemy walk into. Why? well because the warhammer world is a chaotic place infused with magic. It may very well be that the wood elves are fighting close to athel loren, but is athel loren imune to corruption from chaos? Im pretty sure they are not, which is why the wood elves should have no control over it.

Athel Loren is far from immune to the corrupting powers of chaos. The Forest known as Athel Loren is essentially a lesser God of Chaos itself. Orion and the Treemen are akin to Greater Daemons, while the Dryads are just another lesser daemon, like a Bloodletter/Daemonette combo.

That said, it's a pretty minor ability. And note that in its current incarnation, the Wood Elves can only choose from one of three options, rather than pick and choose.

Since it barely does anything at all, I'd just as soon keep it; I feel like an army called Wood Elves ought to offer something that relates to how Forests function within the game.
...but I suppose the part where it says "Forest Spirits never suffer casualties and automatically pass all Psychology tests caused by Mysterious Forests".

So, you're right, but I think you're taking too strong a stance. Wood Elves should be able to have some control over Forests. Not complete control, but some.

Wardancers

- In this fandex they cost 16 points and have asf ,and a killing blow.

-In the current wood elf codex(from gw) they cost 18 points and have the ability to choose dances which will benefit them. This includes: one that grants them killing blow, asf, extra attack and 4+ward save.

This makes them more versatile and adaptive to the situation. With the current rules their able to inflict a lot of wounds and this makes them good, they need to get just a little bit stronger.

In this fandex their role is more of killing heavy cavalry, armoured troops and characters.

I wish they would become versatile and alround good again.

The ability to get an extra attack allows to scythe a lot of infantry, especially that they will majority of times get to strike first.

If they are charged or find themself in trouble and need a better survivality, then you can use a dance that provides a 4+ wardsave. Although I would change it to -2 to hit since they already have a 6+ wardsave.

Here is how I imagine wardancers:

18points asf tattoos(6+ ward save, magic resistance lev 1)

dance 1: extra attack

dance2: killing blow

dance3: -2 to hit up to a maximum of 6. This should offer them a fair survivality. They loose asf for the time of a dance since they need to be more cautious.

Well, keep in mind that these Wardancers have a 6+ "Dodge" Ward save, and that Talismanic Tattoos improves this by 1, for a 5+ all the time.

They also always have S4, instead of only in the first round. And they still have two hand weapons, and get re-rolls on most opponents (which is about as good as +1A, with lower potential wounds but less likely to brick in any given round).

Then consider that the old War Dancers couldn't use the same dance two phases in a row (which, since you'd obviously pick the best one you could first, is a pretty big set back).
And then that these ones cost 2pts/model less.

In short, I'm confident that these guys are all-around better.
They lose a point of Ward save and 1 attack 30% of the time to be stronger, cheaper, and have all three abilities all the time.

If so then, they really are good.

It is so!
I've been comparing them to Swordmasters, actually. I felt like Wood Elves needed s'more bite at less cost.

If there is the same ammount of wardancers in the first and the second rank, then they hit the same ammount of attacks as the old wardancers used to with dance providing +1 attack. Furthermore they have killing blow all the time which awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm intrested how they gone treat wardancers in new wood elf codex. Hope just like you did it. Maybe the rulebook is delayed, just ,because you started this thread and they are using some of Ideas.

Rumors of new wood elf rulebook coming spring 2014:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?24338-Wood-Elf-Rumour-Roundup

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Maybe the rulebook is delayed, just ,because you started this thread and they are using some of Ideas.

I'm flattered, really, but...I doubt it. They've got enough people cranking out cool/good ideas as it is. Thanks, though!

They are the best at balancing rules, but they are not so creative as you and some of the people from this forum. Take a look at this thread and cool new weapon ideas thread. Compare it to the ideas of gw. Gw ideas are simpler, but more boring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fell like just 2 magic banners is not enough for wood elfs. Every army has one which costs 70 points.
The banner of dwindling is't that good. I would exachange it for something else.

My idea for one banner.

Banner of faith in dependability.
All units within 12 of a banner don't suffer any penalities to hit while shooting a part from the one coming from long range.
50 points

Should't the wardancer kindred get +1ws and +1I.

Simple is good. Simple is everything we want to strive for.

The Banner of Dwindling is from the current book, and I think I'm going to keep it. But now that you point it out, it does seem to be lacking. What if the unit with it could re-roll it's pursuit distance instead? Same concept, with a more drastic possible result.

I hadn't noticed that every army had a 70pt banner. I'll think about it.

And 2 banners should be fine. Magic item lists are a lot shorter now, and I didn't want to take too much away from Spites and magic arrows, so I had to make cuts somewhere. Magic banners seem the least Wood Elf-y of items. They're just not that big on rank-and-file.

What about the wardancer kindred. I think he should get + 1 ws and +1 I. Otherwise if he is a hero then he will have the same stats as average wardancers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's exchange a banner of dwindling for 70 points banner, or at least make it reroll persuit distance. In current rulebook wood elfs have 100 point banner. It grants fear to the unit of the bearer and magic resistance lvl 1 to all units within 12. It's not a solid choice thought. Maybe if it would grant all units within 12 magic resistance 2.

Glade guard just lost the title of the best archer unit in a game. For the high elf maiden guard is released. Each model has S4 at a range of 24, flamming, magical attacks and armour piercing. They can fire from three ranks and have bs of 5 , good initiative and light armour. While they cost only 20 points per model.

The game balance has been broken at least by the time wood codex get's released.

Something needs to be done in order to improve glade guard. I think of S4 at long range , or the combination of rally and shoot and fire and flee.

I'll give the Wardancer Kindred the old bonuses. And the Wild Rider one +1S and Frenzy.

I'd actually be surprised if the whole Kindred thing survived in the next book. It's overly complicated and bulks out the book with stuff most people won't be taking anyway.
But I'll leave it, for now.

The Maiden Guard are pretty crazy-good, but they're Special, right?
And what kind of saves do they have? Basically nothing?

They're certainly awesome, but 20pts is by no means cheap. 20pts for one arrow is a lot. The fact that it's a BS5 S4 AP Flaming arrow increases the situations where it'll be useful, but it's still only one arrow.
I'd want cheaper arrows before I wanted better ones.

Sounds like we should compare them to Waywatchers before Glade Guard.

And for the record, I'm not going to add or change something with the intent on making something unbalanced just because Games Workshop did at some point (Mournfangs, I'm looking at you).
I'll err on the side of Not-Good-Enough before I cross the line the other way.

Still, I hope that all my work is soon proven pointless.

Maiden guard are rare choice. I wonder thought what will gw do to return the wood elfs title of the best archers.

Compare them to Waywatchers. Against most opponents, the Maiden Guard are better at long range and they're equal at short range (though the Waywatchers can get to close range without losing accuracy).
Against Regeneration/Ethereal and models with low to medium armour, the Guard are better.
But Waywatchers win against high armour models and low mobility models.

That, and if you consider a shooting match between Glade Guard and Maiden Guard, the Wood Elves come ahead in points every phase.

I will be surprised if the new Waywatchers don't have changes extremely similar to the ones above. A point drop and a little power/versatility boost. It's all they need. They are, hands down, the best archers in the game.

Were the best archers in the game.

The recent nerf to Killing Blow really reduced their effectiveness.

What recent nerf?

Waywatchers don't win against armoured targets. Since Maiden guard are S4 and armour piercing. Let's assume they both shoot sv 2+ t3 target. Close range.Waywatchers. 5/6*1/6+5/6*1/2*1/3=0 2,7777. Chances to hit are 5/6, 1/6 is a killing blow, 1/2 is wounding without killing blow and 1/3 is p that enemy fails armour since waywatchers are S4. Maiden guard 5/6*2/3*1/2=0,27777. If Maiden guard have moved then it inflicts 0,2222 wounds instead. Waywatchers beat Maiden guard only at short range vs 2/3+ armour assuming it did move. If it did't move then it beats waywatchers vs 3+ armour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can have 5 glade guards for cost of 3 Maiden guard. Glade guards deal 5*1/2*1/2*5/6 wounds = 1+1/24. Maiden guard. Haven't moved. 3*2/3*2/3=1+1/3.Have moved. 3*1/2*2/3=1.

Hm. Well, let's consider the most iconic "heavy armour" unit: Chaos Knights.

5 Waywatchers:
4.2 Hits, 1.4 Wounds, .8 Wounds after saves (.7 Killing Blow and .1 regular).

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

So it's a very, very close call. Maiden Guard are more fragile and can threaten a larger array of targets and are vulnerable to the Dragon Helm/Bane Gem items.

As for Glade vs. Maiden, let's assume 15 of the Maidens (300pts), which is 25 Glade Guard.

Against T3 with a 5+
- Glade: 4.2 (long range) 9.2 (short)
- Maiden: 5 (long, moved) 6.7 (long/short, moved), 8.3 (short)

Against T4 with a 5+
- Glade: 2.8 (long), 7 (short)
- Maiden: 3.8 (long, moved) 5 (long/short, moved), 6.3 (short)

Lower armour will swing the numbers for the Glade Guard, since AP won't help. Higher T/armour will start to see a smaller and smaller difference between S4 AP and S3/4, so then it just comes down to whether or not 5 BS4 (no penalty for moving) shots is better than 3 BS5 shots. Which they usually are. Because it's more arrows.

The Maiden Guard do not seem in any way broken to me. They're use is limited, but they pack a great punch at range for little table space.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What recent nerf?

Killing Blow can no longer be used on characters who are on Chariots, Monsters, or Monstrous Beasts.

Warpsolution wrote:
Hm. Well, let's consider the most iconic "heavy armour" unit: Chaos Knights.

5 Waywatchers:
4.2 Hits, 1.4 Wounds, .8 Wounds after saves (.7 Killing Blow and .1 regular).

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

So it's a very, very close call. Maiden Guard are more fragile and can threaten a larger array of targets and are vulnerable to the Dragon Helm/Bane Gem items.

As for Glade vs. Maiden, let's assume 15 of the Maidens (300pts), which is 25 Glade Guard.

Against T3 with a 5+
- Glade: 4.2 (long range) 9.2 (short)
- Maiden: 5 (long, moved) 6.7 (long/short, moved), 8.3 (short)

Against T4 with a 5+
- Glade: 2.8 (long), 7 (short)
- Maiden: 3.8 (long, moved) 5 (long/short, moved), 6.3 (short)

Lower armour will swing the numbers for the Glade Guard, since AP won't help. Higher T/armour will start to see a smaller and smaller difference between S4 AP and S3/4, so then it just comes down to whether or not 5 BS4 (no penalty for moving) shots is better than 3 BS5 shots. Which they usually are. Because it's more arrows.

The Maiden Guard do not seem in any way broken to me. They're use is limited, but they pack a great punch at range for little table space.

5 Maiden Guard: 4.2 Hits, 2.1 Wounds, .7 after saves

Chaos warriors don't have a 1+ armour so it gets modified to 3+ and 2/3 of wounds are saved. If they have ward save then this works against killing blow as well. What ward save and what kind of armor save do they have?

Chaos Knights do indeed have a 1+ save: +4 for Chaos Armour, +1 for shields, +2 for barded mounts.

So: 5 BS5 shots needing 2+ = 4.2 hits. S4 vs. T4, needing 4+ = 2.1 wounds. 1+ armour vs. S4 AP = .7 Wounds.

Unless they have the Mark of Tzeentch or the Blasted Standard, they don't have a Ward save.
But when they do, it effects both units equally, so it shouldn't change who's better than who. They both get equally worse.

When we are comparing waywatchers to maiden guard, we need to assume that maiden guard did't move. For it has an effective range longer by 9 inches.

I already calculated that maiden guard are better vs 2+armour t3 in this circumstances.
The same armour T4 .Maiden guard 5/6*1/2*1/2=0,208333 wounds. Waywatchers 5/6*1/6+5/6*1/3*1/3=23148 wounds.
Maiden guard are better vs 2+ armour t3 and t4 and weaker armours. While Waywatchers are better vs 1+ armour and 2+ t4 armour.

Now the question arises.

What's the ratio of units with 1+ armor and 2+ armour t4 to 2+ armour t3, units with weaker armours(3+,4+), monsters and enthernals.

How about extending the range of killing shot to long range?

I already put up numbers for when they didn't move.

Also, let's call them the Sisters of Avelorn. For that, as I found out today, is their real name.

Against T3 2+ armour, 10 Waywatchers do .6 wounds at long range and 2.8 at short range (1.4 Killing Blow, 1.4 after saves).
10 Sisters do 2.3 at long range and 2.8 at short.

Against T4, Waywatchers do .4 and 2.3 (1.4 Killing Blow, .9 regular).
The Sister do 1.7 and 2.1.

But the point of all these numbers was this: the Sisters are a (very) little bit better than Waywatchers at shooting against most opponents.
So all Waywatchers really need is a tweak here and there (mostly to their price), and they're good to go.

They should NOT be as good at causing mass casualties as the Sisters of Avelorn; Waywatchers are stalkers, snipers, and hunters. They can scout (making their actual range a lot longer), can shoot and move (through the woods, even!) and are -2 to be shot at in return.
So yeah, Waywatchers need some help. I think the single biggest thing would be dropping them down to 20pts or so. But they--and Glade Guard--are not nearly so awful as many make them out to be.

Remember that waywatchers are supposed to be a bit better then sisters of avelorn. Finally this is supposed to be the best archer unit in the game. Maybe if killing shot would work on long range or waywatchers could use the sniper rule and killing shot simultaneously.

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of archery is simply "the art, practice, or skill of shooting with bow and arrow". The definition of archer is "a person who uses a bow and arrow".
So you say that Waywatchers, being Wood Elves, are supposed to be better archers than the Sisters of Avelorn, since they're High Elves.
Now we can take those definitions and replace them with the word archer in your claim: "Wood Elves are the best persons who use bows and arrows", or "Wood Elves are the best at the art, practice, or skill of shooting with bow and arrow".

According to these statements, the bow and the arrow used by the individual have nothing to do with the bow or the arrow they use. So the Sister's longer range, S4 Armour Piercing, Magical, Flaming weaponry has nothing to do with their skill as archers. BS5 does though, as does firing in 3.

Now, Waywatchers are BS5, can move and shoot without penalty. The whole unit can shoot, but we won't count that as a point in their favor, since that's due to them being Skirmishers, rather than a special rule saying that they're awesome at shooting (like the Sister's firing in 3 ranks). Killing Blow/Sniper does come from their supernatural aim, though.

So, technically speaking, Waywatchers are the better archers.
But no one's going to compare them like that, right? They're looking at their overall performances. At which time, I'd point out that Waywatchers can all shoot, are much more maneuverable in both deployment and on the table, and are a much more durable unit.

Also, the Waywatchers in my Fandex have Killing Blow and/or Sniper at any range already (as much for simplicity's sake as to make them better).
And Killing Blow + Sniper on the whole unit, all the time, would equal the very height of ridiculous. They can easily get within close range on Turn 1, and fire at your General. Assuming he's T5 with a 4+ Ward, a group of 6-7 stand a 50-50 chance of killing him dead right then and there. No way.

If waywatchers have killing blow at long range and cost 20 points per model then they are fine.

What about the 70 points standard? It would be cool if wood elfs would get one that would allow archers reroll to hit.

The big standard for Wood Elves ought to be the Standard of Ariel, and the more I think about it, the more I think it should be primarily defensive.
What it currently does is okay, it's just not enough/too expensive. Maybe a Ward save on the unit and MR to anyone with 12"? Or a penalty to be hit, or maybe the unit is Ethereal in the Movement Phase or something?

Why not add+1 to hit( shooting and close combat) for the unit of standard bearer and magic resistance of 2 for every unit within 12.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or instead the standard grants 3+ wardsave to the unit of bearer and unstable rule and magic resistance lvl 1 to all units within 12.

+1 to Hit and Magic Resistance don't really go together, thematically.

3+ Ward and Unstable is too good and too weird. Unstable is like Unbreakable, which is awesome, and the casualties-instead-of-fleeing is a bit of a toss up in many situations as to which is worse (though I'll admit, it's usually worse).
But a 3+ Ward would make them extremely unlikely to lose many combat in the first place.
Finally, the BSB's option to take a Magic Banner over protective equipment should not yield more protection than the protective equipment does.

So what would you do with the banner?

How about a 5+ Ward to all units within 12" (since Wood Elves are so fragile anyway), and the unit can move through (but not end its move on) Impassible Terrain?

Also: Wild Riders on Great Stags. 60pts? They'd be Monstrous Cavalry:

M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 5 0 5 4 2 4 1 7
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Impact Hits (D3)

So they're weaker than most, being only T4 and a 4+ armour save (6+ light armour, +2 for the mount), and they aren't super fearsome in close combat with A1, but they're M9 and fast cavalry. Thoughts?

In the current rulebook stag has 2 attacks and 3 wounds , and costs 50 points. All other stats are the same as you mentioned a part from impact hits. I think 2 attacks, 3 wounds and d3 impact hit's are justified at a cost of 60 points. Rider should cost additional points.

Perhaps the standard can inmprove the ward save of all units within 12 by 2. Since most wood elf units have already a 5+ ward save.

I was thinking 60pts for the whole model. Trying to make them comparable.

60 pts for a whole model is a bit to less I would say 75 points.
What about the standard?

Wild Riders should be appropriately priced/powered compared to Blood Crushers, Mournfangs, etc. What do these units have for Wounds/Attacks/cost? Because Wild Riders should be on the weaker side of all three, to make up for their mobility, and to emphasize that even the Wood Elves' elite cavalry shouldn't just go charging headlong into the enemy.
I mean, aren't Blood Knights 70pts?

Also, D3 Impact Hits is worth more than 10pts/model. I gave them that because (1) it makes sense, and (2) to make them more effective in the first round and less effective afterwards, hence the 1 attack downgrade. I guess I could see them having 2 attacks, since they're Monstrous.

The thing about the standard is, while many Wood Elf units have a Ward save, not all of them do. So this banner could give your fragile units the same protection those other ones enjoy.
It could just grant MR2, but Magic Resistance is pretty awful.

Improving the Ward save of all units within 12" by 2 is beyond broken. Think about it; characters and Wild Riders with 2+ Wards, Treekin and Treemen with 3+'s...it'd be an auto-include.

Mourn fangs deal 4 S5 attacks and have M of 8 inches. The riders deal 3 S4 attacks. The whole model costs 60 points. For 5 points riders can get a heavy armour instead of light. For another 5 points ironfist which is treated exactly as a shild or great weapon for 8 points. 70 point model can have +2 armour save and parry or 73 points model can have a rider with 3 S6 attacks and 3+ armour save. Not to mention d3 impact hits , T4 instead of T3 for rider and 3 wounds.That's way 70 points for a model with 3 S5 attacks from stag and 2 S4/S5 attacks from the rider with T3 and 2 wounds is a good point cost.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Juggernauts have a 3 S5 attacks and 3 wounds opposed to stags with just 2. Blood letters have a killing blow . The whole model has +4 armour save magic resistance lvl 1 ,5+ wardsave and costs 65 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When it comes to the standard maybe 5+ ward save for the unit of the bearer and + 1 to ward save to all units within 12 a part the one of the bearer.

Oh, so Bloodcrushers have three wounds too? Cool. So Great Stags with W3 isn't unusual. We'll go with that.

Wild Riders should not be better than Bloodcrushers and Mournfangs. Sure, they're Elves, but they're also a lighter, faster unit.

So let's compare (notify me of any errors in stat-value)-

Defense
- Crushers: T5 (right?) ,4+/5+
- Mournfangs: T4, 2+/6+ or 3+
- Wild Riders: T4, 4+/4+

Looking at that actually makes me want to downgrade the Riders to a 5+ armour save. The Stag doesn't really offer much in the way of protection anyway. Wild Riders should be more fragile in some ways, but the Stag's T4 and their 4+ Ward make that hard to do.

Offense
- Crushers: 3 WS6 S6 KB , 3 WS5 S5
- Mournfangs: 3 WS3 S4(6), 4 WS3 S5, D3 Impact
- Wild Riders: 2 WS5 S5, 2 WS4 S5, D3 Impact

So Wild Riders have 3 less attacks, but higher WS and I than Mournfangs, and while they're at -1WS and S compared to the Crushers, they have D3 Impact Hits.

Mobility
- Crushers: M7
- Mournfang: M8 and huge bases
- Wild Riders: M9 Fast Cavalry

Here they blow everyone out of the water. Which is fine. That's what we want them to do. But that means they should be a little worse in the other departments.

So here's a revision:

M WS BS S T W I A Ld
9 5 0 5 4 3 4 2 7
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Impact Hits (D3)

As for the banner, I'm still going to say no. Sense when do you see unit-wide 4+ Ward saves? Wood Elves should have fewer Deathstars and viable castling-lists than any other army. Just be happy with giving your archers and a few other odd units a 5+ Ward.
Really, though, I'd like it to work on Eternal Guard (and it does, but it's usually redundant). Maybe -1 to be shot or hit in CC or something...

When it comes to monstrous cavalry it is treated exactly like cavalry with the following exeception: model uses highest wounds characteristics. In brb it does't say that it uses highest toughness characteristics thought. This means that the model is going to have a toughness of a rider. Wild rider has a toughness of 3 and his toughness is used when attacks are resolved at model. Crushers are FAQ'd which I don't know what it stands for, that allows them to use t4 OF MOUNT INSTEAD OF T3 OF RIDER. The jugernaut rider has a S4 1 attack kiling blow, ws 5. Both jugernaut and rider get +1S in the turn they charged. (Demons of khorne rule)

Therefore 3A,3W for stags are fine. Maybe reduce M to 8 for I5.

When it comes to standard. I could continue the discussion about a ward save. However I like the idea of -1 to hit bs and cc. Since we both agree on it let's just have it.

They FAQ'd MC to also use the highest toughness value.

I can't find Daemon-Jugger stats, but the Warrior-ones are T5. How much do Skull Crushers cost?
But wow did Blood Crushers take a hit in the new book!

So Blood Crushers have 1 S4 KB and 2 S5 attacks.

Something I'm looking at, though. Juggernauts and Mournfangs should be decidedly stronger than a big deer. I was thinking S5 via his headgear, but that's also what I was trying to do with their Impact Hits.

So, first, let's assume that Blood Crushers aren't very good right now. And let's assume that Mournfangs are too cheap for what they bring. So it looks like Demigryphs and Skull Crushers are the best examples all of the sudden?

If all the other Mounstrous Cavalry have mounts with A3+, I won't break that pattern. But S4 seems more fitting, looking at all the other stuff, regardless of number of attacks.

In conclusion: since Wild Riders are T4 and have more attacks than Blood Crushers, and are more manueverable than everyone ever, I don't think they need a ton of help. For now, I'll say:

Wild Rider on Great Stag: 70pts
Wild Rider: M5, WS5, BS4, S4, T3, W1, I5, A1, Ld9
Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Frenzy, Talismanic Tattoos
Great Stag: M9, WS5, BS0, S4, T4, W3, I4, A2, Ld7
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Walkers, Impact Hits (D3)

But I'm still wondering whether or not to increase Wild Rider's normal cost and make them A2 base.

As for the Big Standard: it shouldn't be the-best-thing-OMG-why-wouldn't-you-take-that. But I think it should be better than most of the other ones out there.
A blanket 5+ Ward seems better to me than MR2, even though the Ward won't stack with other forms of protection (like the Forest Spirit rule). Magic Resistance is extremely narrow in its usefulness, and is terribly named; I'd much rather have Glade Guard huddle under the banner that makes them almost as tough as my Dryads, rather than have any and all of my units gather 'round to get a 3+ versus DD and MM spells. And things that straight-up improve Ward saves are awesome and rare, and doing so by 2 or more is just begging for trouble.
All of the above is why I changed up the Talismanic Tattoos and gave Wardancers a 6+ "Dodge" Ward save. So it'd actually be useful.

But, considering Eternal Guard, I think the Standard of Airel should be:

70pts - the bearer of this standard, along with any unit he joins, may move through terrain as if it were open ground (though they may not end their move in impassible terrain). Additionally, enemy shooting that targets friendly units within 12" of this standard suffer a -1 to Hit.

There. I had to make the Ethereal thing more specific, so that you couldn't charge a unit and be immune to their Stand and Shoot, but other than that, it's nice and simple, with two strong buffs (-1 to Hit is about as good as a 5+ Ward, so Dryads, Wardancers, and Wild Riders shouldn't have to worry about much in the way of shooting with this).

Juggernaut has 3 S5 attacks and T4. Rider has T3. Both rider and juggernaut have +1S during charge. The model costs 65 points.

I agree that stagknights should be much weaker then mournfangs, but just slightly weaker then Crushers if at all for a couple of reasons.

1. Before the newest Demon Codex was released Crushers were too strong. GW wanted to weaken them and overdid it. They will probably get a buff in next demon codex. However if we will make stag knights weaker then crushers are right now, then they will be like this for the next 10 years since wood elf codexs get released once per 10 years.Current wood elf codex was released 8,5-9 years ago. The wood elf 8th or hopefully 9th will probably get released March next year. Demon codexs get released much more often. Wood elfs will have weakest MC in the game. Remember that for the next 10 years after stag knights will get released they will be slowly getting weaker and weaker.

2. Mournfangs are much stronger then any other MC in game. Furthermore ogres have monstrous infantry which is much better than any other in a game. Wood elfs are supossed to be the best archers. However waywatchers are just a bit stronger then Maiden guard. Furthermore I just discovered that dwarf handguns are +1 to hit. Which makes them better then glade guard at range of 24-16 assuming both units did't move. We could quarrel for age whether or not and to what degree wood elf archers are the best in the game. The conclussion we would come up with would be that wood elf are just a bit better than other races in archery. Elsewhere when it comes to ogres there MI and MC are much much better than any other. Every race has it's key strength and few smaller strengths. If for wood elf the key strength is just a little bit bigger than small strengths then there needs to be more small strengths. Let Mc be one of smaller strengths. Meaning that it's not going to be the worst MC in the game and is going to be as good as or bit better then crushers NOW. Demon codex will get released and Crushers will be better again. Thought I think for demons, Crushers are a small strenght at most.

Stags have a great horns and are very strong, They should be able to do as much damge as juggernaut armed in tooth only. Thought stags should be much more fragile then a demonic monster. I think S4 for a stag is a terrible idea, that would make it as strong as cold one armed in tooth only.
Since Crushers are FAQ'd MC which allows them to use highest toughness value does't mean that stag knights need to be FAQ'd. This would make stag knights more fragile, finally that's one of wood elf weaknesses and it's how I imagined them to be.

Then stags could have following stats

3 W, 3 A, S5, M9, d3 impact hits.

Stag knights would have 4+ armour and use lower toughness of rider as cavalry does and some monstrous cavalry.

Once again stats of juggernaut and it's rider.

Juggernaut
M 7, A 3, S5/(S6 charge), I2, T4,W 3,Ws 5

Rider

A1, S4/(S5 charge),I4,T3,W1, Ws 5, killing blow.

Whole model uses higher toughness of the mount , has magic resistance 1 ,4+ armour and 5+ ward.

When it comes to standard it's either -1 to hit both in cc and from shooting or we should continue the discussion about ward saves.I like the option of 5+ ward for the unit of the bearer and wardsave improved by one point for any unit within 12 but not the unit of the bearer. I think ward save of 4+ for a unit is not something disbalancing the game totaly. Your not gone get 3+ since wild riders are fast cavalry and their best at attacking from flank. 4+ ward save is like heavy armour and shield vs S3, heavy armour and shield mounted vs S4, heavy armour and shield mounted on a barded horse vs S5. Many units already have 5+ ward save, 4+ will be just a bit of a buff. Furthermore ward saves are one of those little, numerous wood elven strengths.

1. As I said above, Crushers aren't good enough, Mournfang are too good. So I won't be trying to make Wild Riders equal to them.

2. What's with this "we won't get a new book again for a long time, so make it count" nonsense about? This is a fandex. I can update it as much as I freakin' want. You can update it as much as you want. Even if I disagree with your changes; it's not like I can stop you, or even be aware of when you make those changes.
I'm not here to make sure that this one book lasts until the next one. I'm doing this in an attempt to understand the game better, and satisfy my desire to plot and plan.

3. Your point about strengths and weaknesses is legit, but there's a lot more to it than "Wood Elves have +2 archery. Ogres have +5 Monstrous Cavalry". There's synergy, and maximum potential, and learning curve, and all of the other stuff.
I'll set aside concerns like that for playtesting.

4. ...Dwarf Thunderers are slower, Move or Fire, with the same effective BS, and cost more than Glade Guard. If a Wood Elf player just tries to sit there and out-shoot the Dwarf player, they're playing the wrong army. Even more so than archery, Wood Elves are about mobility.

5. Wild Riders should have less punch than other Monstrous Cavalry. I'm not going to make the riders weaker, and I don't think decreasing the Stag's attacks is a good idea. Which leaves Strength.
But if we're going to talk about in-game logic: which is stronger, a giant deer, or a giant robot-bull? A giant deer, or a horse-sized raptor? Juggernauts have a lot more than teeth; they're covered in spikes and have iron hooves. Cold Ones have sickle-like claws on their hands and feet. Stags have antlers and hooves. None of that changes anything.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to compare Cold Ones and Great Stags in sheer brawn. Keep in mind that the Stag has more attacks and impact hits and a stomp. He's "only" that strong, but he's got 5 more attacks.

6. All monstrous cavalry uses the higher T-value, now. I'm not about to make a Special Rule that downgrades Wild Riders just so they can stay awesome in other categories.
Really, I think changing the Talismanic Tattoos rule might be in order. Cavalry with a 4+ Ward is great. Monstrous Cavalry with a 4+ Ward could...lead to problems.

7. The biggest problem I have with the Standard giving a Ward save is that it won't make Eternal Guard any better, and they're the best unit for a BSB with that standard.
Why would the Standard give the carrying unit a Ward, but only improve the Ward of units around it?
And it's not that a blanket 4+ is horribly game-breaking. It's that you're suggesting all units within 12" have that potential. I'll take that standard in a big unit of Eternal Guard (that I'll take as Core, since my BSB'll have Eternal Kindred) and two blocks of Treekin. Then toss out some Dryads in the front.

If we can update the fandex as much as we want to then let's update Crushers. I don't want Stag kinights to be shity, just because Gw made a mistake.

I think juggernauts are fine, just increase the T5. The riders of juggernauts need a buff thought. How about 2 attacks instead of one. This should be enough assuming they are +1S in charge.

Then let's keep S5 for stags. For me you can drop any other characteristics for stag a part S. Just can't imagine a charge of coldones beeing as powerfull as charge of much more massive stag with great hornes.
If juggernauts get a buff in this fandex then let stags stay at.
3W,3A,S5,Ws5,T4

If juggernauts don't get a buff then let's make a compromise. Keep stags S4 with S5 in the turn they charged. I would even drop the wounds. Stags with gear are as or a little less powerfull then juggernauts , but much less durable. That's way I would drop wounds to 2.

However I would prefer if we upgrade Crushers and keep stags as I first mentioned.

When it comes to standard I ran out of ideas. If you have a standard that somehow benefits all units within 12 you can always clump up units around it and they will all be benefited. My lasy idea is that standard can grant 4+ regeneration to the unit of the bearer.

This is a Wood Elf fandex. Sure, we could make a houserule that says Juggernauts are T5 and their Bloodletter riders have A2. But that's a different matter entirely.

Now listen carefully, because I'm going to explain myself once more, as clearly as possible: Because Blood Crushers are not good enough, Wild Riders will be better. Because Mournfang Cavalry are too good, Wild Riders will be worse than them.

It really looks like the requirement for Monstrous Cavalry to be, well, monstrous, is for them to have W3+ and A3+. So I won't be breaking that pattern just yet.

You say you can't imagine a Great Stag being only as powerful as a Cold One, but consider this:

Two Cold Ones occupy the same amount of space as one Great Stag. Cold Ones have one attack each, at WS3 I2.
Meanwhile, the Great Stag has D3 Impact Hits, 3 attacks at WS4 I4, and a stomp. That's 3 times the offensive output of two Cold Ones, sooner in the Initiative order, with half of the attacks being more accurate and the other half auto-hitting.
I see what you're saying about the comparison, I really do. But again, I ask you, which is harder to believe, that a giant deer is equal in strength to a horse-sized raptor, or that a giant deer is equal in strength to a robot-bull and a 5-ton warthog/wolf/cougar-thing?

+1/2S during the charge is something I considered, to match the Unicorn. But the logic behind it is the same as that behind Impact Hits, so having both is redundant (they have big antlers, so they get +1 S...they have really big antlers, so +D3 Impact Hits).

My point about the standard is that, if the bonus is good enough, you'll want to clump your units up. If it's -1 to be shot or MR2 or something, you don't need your whole army to get that, just the main unit and one or two supporting units is enough.

Thinking about Talismanic Tattoos: Maybe they just give you MR2? I'd make the "Dodge" Ward save on Wardancers a 5+. This way, Wild Riders won't be the toughest Monstrous Cavalry ever.

For Mc to be well monstrous following stats are required 3W+,3A+,5S+,T4+

+1S in charge is not the same as d3 impact hits. Impact hits come from the ramming, while +1S is from the fact stag speeded up and had more force and his attacks with horns are stronger.
I have idea if you don't like the combination of plus 1 strenght in charge then maybe the impact hits can be resolved with S5.

I'll still prefer if we upgrade Crushers here, not to start a new thread and keep stags S5.

Magic resistance 2 from the talismanic Tattoos would do it's job. However then unicorn needs to grant MR 3.

When it comes to standard what do you think of regeneration 4+ for the unit of bearer. I don't like -1 to be shoot at since scaven have a standard which grants -2 to be shoot at for whole army costing just 50 points. It usually stops working after the first 2 turns( the turns of shooting before CC).

@Warp, how about +1/2 strength on the Impact Hits only?

Let stags have S5 at impact hits.

All Monstrous Cavalry has S5. That's a fair point. What that means to me, though, is that I can take liberties not just with S, but with A and W as well.
I won't break the 3 Wound-standard, though. Big is Big. But Attacks could take a hit, like I considered in the first place.
I mean, I still think Juggernauts and Mournfangs are stronger than Great Stags overall. That just makes sense. But # of Attacks can represent that, too. Plus, the scales of 1-10 and 1-6 don't leave much room for variation.

The issue here is that these guys need to take a hit somewhere. They're Monstrous Fast Cavalry, people. With a friggin' Ward save.
Since Wood Elves struggle against big blocks of Steadfast troops, I figured lots of S4 attacks would be preferable to fewer S5 ones. If you want a unit of all S5, all the time models, take Treekin.
But let's experiment.

Things like lances and spears (and, following the same logic, antler-points) grant +S on the charge because they use their weight and speed to plow into the enemy lines.
Impact Hits are a different way to illustrate this exact same thing. One model should not have both abilities.

And Impact Hits are resolved at the model's Strength. I'm not going to mess with that. It leads to confusion situations.

So...if the math worked out before with A3+D3 impact + 1 Stomp at S4, what makes more sense for S5?
- A1, D3 Impact
- A3, 1 Impact

Let's clarify this once more: this is a M9 unit with WS5 I5 models involved, and they happen to have a Ward save to boot. They need to have some kind of downfall compared to the other Monstrous Cavalry.

On to Talismanic Tattoos: in the current book, they grant, what, a 6+ Ward and MR1?
If these ones offered MR2, instead of improving a Ward by 1, it would change the following:
- Wild Riders would go from a 4+ to a 5+ Ward.
- Wardancers would go from a 5+ to a 6+ Ward, but I'd bump them back to a 5+.

So overall, Wild Riders would be more resistant to spells, but less durable to other stuff, whereas Wardancers would be just as durable, but more so against spells.

On the Standard of Ariel: don't compare it to the Stormbanner. Because that item is way too good, because it has a 50-50 chance of breaking every turn after the 1st, and because it effects the whole board, not just your enemy. And it grounds flying units and sometimes stops war machines, instead of letting the bearer move through terrain.
They're totally different items.
Also, it takes Skaven longer than 2 turns to get into combat in such a way that they have a hope of winning.

Move over water features, through buildings and cliff faces, and -1 to be shot at for any unit within 12", for the entire game. That seems pretty good to me. I mean, we could change the -1 to be shot to -1 to be hit in CC, or to MR2. I just think that the Big Standard should be focused on Elves more so than Forest Spirits, and it would be pretty easy with this banner to make a list that does a lot of dancing around to avoid combat. So a penalty to being shot would be good.

Regeneration (4+) is okay. It's pretty bland, considering this is one of the Big Items in the book. It isn't worth 70pts to improve Eternal Guard's Regeneration by 1, but giving Regeneration (4+) to a unit with no special saves is worth more than 70pts. It's an option, I suppose.

Another idea: instead of all that, the unit and the bearer are now Ethereal and Unstable. A cool image, but I don't think anyone would ever take it, seeing as how Eternal Guard are Stubborn. Just a thought.

Here's an idea. Have the Stags be Str4, and their Horns give them +1 str on the charge. And further clarify that this increases the str of their impact hits as well.


Great Stag:

M9 WS4 BS0 Str4 T4 W3 I4 A2 Ld7

Unit Type: Monstrous Beast

Special Rules: Impact Hits(D3)

Thick Skinned: The rider of a Great Stag adds +2 to his armor save instead of the usual +1 for being mounted

Antlers: Great Stags gains +1str in the next round of combat on a turn they complete a successful charge. This strength bonus applies to the Stags impact hits.



Where they'll take the hit so to speak is in their point cost.

With my suggested profile, I'd cost a Stag Rider at 55 pts if the rider doesn't have any additional armor save and no better than a 5+ ward.

Well, since Impact Hits are based on your Strength, I don't see how +1 to your base Strength would do anything except effect your Impact Hits.
Antlers grant +1S. They're also the reason for dealing D3 Impact Hits. That's like giving a model +1T and forcing opponents to re-roll successful wounds on him because he's really, really tough. Either one of those rules would be sufficient; I feel like doubling-up like that is more complicated/awesome than it needs to be.

Honestly, something like S4 (+1 on the charge), A3, no Impact seems like the simplest way to go.

And isn't 55pts really cheap as it is? I was thinking 60pts to start, but 70 is looking more likely.

You have to compared to other monstrous cavalry out there, and at my suggested statline they aren't as good a mount as others. Like Mournfangs, Skullcrushers, etc...

Also depends on the rider. Skullcrushers and Mournfangs have riders with 3 attacks, one at Str4, the other with str5 magical attacks.

Unless the rider also has 3 str4ish attacks, along with a cumulative armor save of 3+ or better there's no way they're worth 60 pts each. I think my 55 is still a little high.

Seems to me that stags knights should be around the same power and cost as Demigryphs.

I'd go with slightly worse armor (3+), forest strider and fast cav.
Mournfangs have leadership issues, blood crushers have kiting issues. I would see wood elf monstrous cav as a less durable but more mobile unit.

The difference between special and rare does matter. For Warriors of chaos, you're choosing between hell cannons and monstrous cav. You give up your only really shooting options for them.

@Grey Templar: I have been comparing them to other Monstrous Cavalry (see last dozen posts or so).

Figure in that these are highly mobile and have a Ward Save. They don't have much for armour, but I was thinking that a 4+ Ward would put them over the top in terms of durability; the one area I think they should really suffer.

Here's what I've got so far:

Wild Rider
WS5 BS4 S4 T3 I5 A2 W1 Ld9
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Stalker, Frenzy, Talismanic Tattoos, The Wild Hunt
Great Stag
WS4 BS-- S5 T4 I4 A3 W3 Ld7
Fast Cavalry, Forest Spirit, Forest Stalker

I think it'd be cool if the Stags had some benefit on the charge, either a bonus to Strength or Impact Hits. But they shouldn't be more offensive than the other monsters, so I'm thinking of dropping to S4 or A2 or A1, depending on the option.
The other things to consider is whether or not to make Wild Riders A2 base, and whether or not to keep Talismanic Tattoos as-is, improving their Forest Spirit save to a 4+, or to change it to MR2 or something. Or drop it all together, I suppose.