Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.