Poll: What to do about the Elven Heroes
This poll is closed.
Keep Both
16.67%
1 16.67%
Keep only Ranger
83.33%
5 83.33%
Keep only Mage
0%
0 0%
Get rid of both
0%
0 0%
Total 6 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Elven Heroes
#1
Elven Heroes are contrversial.

Now is the time to decide what to do with them.

I'm starting a poll to see how you feel about them.

The choices will be

Keep Both
Kill Ranger
Kill Mage
Kill Both

I'm leaning on keeping only the Ranger, but that is my thought today. Big Grin

Please post your feeling about allowing them to be the Army General and if the army should be able to take one Elf unit one slot better than normal.

The poll will be open for 7 days.
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#2
I'd say no to both those suggestions. The thought of an elf running around in the forest on his own being the general for a human army is quite weird, and a travelling elf mage isn't much better for that cause.

Don't think they should make elves any more common either, both are more or less loners, not leaders of their own regiment of elves.
Reply
#3
To be honest, I think if we want to kill any of them, it should be the Elf Mage.
The Elf Mage is an easy proxy as a Hireling Wizard/Hireling Wizard Lord. I know that's who my lord model is at the moment (Until of course, I can strip my Nicodemus model), and I think M4c does it as well.
Also, given how rare Elves are, I would think that a Mercenary Elven Mage would be a really really rare thing indeed.

So yeah, I think in with the Ranger, out with the Mage.

As for the other suggestions. I would go so far as to say, the Elven Ranger cannot be the armies general. Or any non-human to be honest (Dwarves put up the most presenting case though). But the Elves shouldn't be able to I reckon.
And agree with M4c, that it doesn't really make much sense that loners such as the Ranger and Mage would make a unit more common.
Reply
#4
Agree on what Someone said. Personally I'd like to keep both, but if one should go, I agree it should be the mage, especially since we now have thought up some neat special rules for the ranger to use, it just makes him a more original character choice.
Reply
#5
The elf mage is a little much, and a little too rare for a mercenary army. A 0-1 on the ranger I could easily live with, as they and dwarves are both very unusual.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
Reply
#6
I agree with what is being said.
Drop the mage.
Unless Renown is a serious limiting factor for the army, you would always take him over a normal mage. He has better stats and comes with 2 built in abilities which work out cheaper than a character taking them seperately (if a normal mage could actually take both of them!).

One elf character in the list as a 0-1 choice would be fine, and I think a Ranger type fits the sort of character you might join a merc army for whatever reason (it might be part of a quest or for revenge and might have nothing to do with money). I would even think about not having a restriction or renown cost but have him take up 2 character slots.

Agree with not allowing non-humans as generals. They are being brought in for their skills. If a dwarf or elf was to raise an army then I would expect they would have better success using their own people.

Matt
Reply
#7
Ok, it looks a resounding "drop the mage" so far.

0-1 choice I COULD live with, even if GW has begun to remove that. The problem is that in bigger battles it scales bad. On the other hand, I doubt any army would have more than one elf ranger with them (fluff wise). He shouldn't take up 2 character slots though, not worth taking then.
Reply
#8
I don't think we should be putting in 0-1 restrictions since GW has removed them. Just say that you need two human heros for each hero with the distrust rule and that limits it enough.
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#9
I thought we were gonna have RP's to restrict that? And the 2 tileans for every non-tilean scales bad, you require 6 of them just to have a norse, a dwarf and an elf, not sure I like that...

In 3000 pts I would like to be able to use all of them, but with your suggested restriction that requires me to play at least 4000 pts, luckily we get one extra hero choice with the paymaster, otherwise it would be 5000!
Reply
#10
But then do we keep Norse in the distrust camp?

OK how about more human heros than ones with distrust?
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#11
That works fine by me, at 3000 pts with 7 hero choices, that just allows you to to take all 3 for maximum variation.
Reply
#12
More humans than non-humans may work out easiest and still allow for a great amount of flexibility. You could take three norse or two elves and a dwarf at 3000 pts, if you max out heroes.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
Reply
#13
To be honest though, Norse should almost fall into the 'mistrust' category anyway. I mean they're big beefy barbarians that come from the north, where there are mainly chaos worshippers.

I think it'd feel kind've odd including the Norse in the 'mainstay' of the characters.

It almost feels like there should be another special rule like "Outlander : May not have more Outlander characters than non-Outlander characters".

I assume this kind've rule would be in addition to renown cost as well?
Reply
#14
That's why I always call them non-tileans rather than non-humans. Yes, Norse should fall into the Distrust category, or rather the outlander rule, when it comes to allowing you to field them. Mistrust should be between elves and dwarfs, not allowing them to join each others units, as well as not confering Ld to any unit not of their "kind". The way I see it, tilean mercs wouldn't follow an elf or a dwarf, nor a norse. They could fight with them, but wouldn't look upon them as leaders. That would also make merc captains a more attractive choice to take for Ld for your units, otherwise a dwarf is both better at fighting AND leading with Ld9.
Reply
#15
I'm not sure I agree about not giving their leadership to units. I mean, Dwarves aren't that bad. Dwarves and Humans tend to get along well, and I Don't really see an exception considering the Gold lust that Dwarves have in common with Mercenaries. Of course they're still old grumblers, but I don't necessarily think a human would ignore their leadership (Especially if they've been given command of the unit). Orders are orders, whether you like them or not.

I think Felix might've failed more than his fair share of leadership tests if he weren't testing on Gotrek's unbreakable leadership 10 XD.

So yeah, I think it should just be between Dwarves, Elves and Orcs. Dwarves won't fight in Elf or Greenskin units. Elves won't fight in Dwarf or Greenskin units (I suppose maybe a Dark Elf might... but I think they're above that). I don't think we need to get much more complicated than that.
Reply
#16
I can see non-Tilean heroes in tilean units just not units of non-tileans of other races. Tilean Races should be Human and Halflings, but there could be an argument for Dwarfs to be Tilean but I'm saying to keep the Distrust rule on them.

Distrust: Non-Tilean heroes, Dwarfs, Elves, and Norse (we can change this if you wish), cannot join Non-Tilean units of other races. They can join any Tilean unit (Human, Halfling).

As I write this I believe we are waiting for two people to vote but it looks like we will keep the Ranger and Ditching the Mage.

Now for the special rules for the Ranger, currently they sit at:

In Shadows: Elf Rangers are stealthy by nature and wear cloaks that can match their surroundings, because of this they can only be seen when they are up close to the enemy. When on foot he is -2 to hit with missile weapons.

Pathfinder: Can either take a unit of Duellists and use them as Scouts or a Unit of elves that can appear from any board edge starting on turn 2 as reserves.

I'm thinking about the following changes.
In Shadows: Same as above except for adding "Cannot be targeted when in unit (at least 5 other models) by missile fire (including magic missiles)"

Pathfinder: Change to Can either take a unit of Duellists, Skirmishing Halflings with bows or Elves and use them as reserves can appear from any board edge starting on turn 2 as reserves.

Scout: Can join any unit that can scout.

What do you think, or should I start ducking from incoming tomatoes?
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#17
Okay, first of all, we can't write non-Tileans in the book, because we have no real definition what a Tilean are. Rather write it like this, separate for each character:

Norse - Distrust: May not join units of Dwarfs, Elves or Halflings
Dwarf - Distrust: May not join units of Elves, Norse or Ogres.
Elf - Distrust: May not join units of Dwarfs, Norse or Ogres.

I'm leaving orcs out of this, since they are very likely to go from the book.

For the rest:

Elven Cloak: Elf Rangers are stealthy by nature and wear cloaks that can match their surroundings, because of this they can only be seen when they are up close to the enemy. He is -1 to hit with missile weapons. (always, I would remove the mount option from him, it doesn't really make you very stealthy. Ever heard of mounted shadow warrior or waywatchers? Also, neither the dwarf or the norse should be able to take horses, if they can now)

Pathfinder: Allows any infantry unit the Ranger is with to enter from any table edge. At the start of the Dogs of War player’s second turn, roll a dice. On a 4+, the unit may enter the table from any table edge. They may not charge the turn they enter. For every successive turn after the second, add a +1 to the roll, so that in turn 3 they arrive on a 3+ and so on. Note that a roll of 1 is always a failure.

Scout (just put scout as a special rule, that's all needed).
Reply
#18
M4c, NO on ANY Infantry unit for pathfinder. The Roll to come on will be there.

You don't like Non-Human, you use non-Tilean and now you don't like that either? I would have explained Tilean/Non-Tilean in the book.
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#19
No, I use non-tilean here, but it's really just a made up word, which looks really unprofessional in a book. Same goes for non-human. You don't call a dog "non-human" do you? Therefore, the description I wrote or something similar should go in the book.

Why NO on any infantry unit? He can only lead skirmishing unit or elves? Why? Because they are "sneakier" and are the only units that could be led around the battlefield? Or is bringing a M4 block cheesy? At least I didn't put heavy cavalry as an option.
Reply
#20
I am against being able to bring in from reserve unless it is real expensive pointwise and the units cannot be able to break the game. Like the ranger could only move a unit worth up to 100 points (like the tomb king banner). Moving a unit of Heavy Cavalry could easily be constituted as broke, and so would 24 pikeman. But a dozen halflings with bows or spears, or a half dozen fast cav, I would be more accepting of that.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Elven Unit BilboBaggins 103 56,268 12-23-2009, 07:07 PM
Last Post: Guido
  Dwarf Heroes BilboBaggins 29 15,856 12-22-2009, 09:11 PM
Last Post: BilboBaggins
  Elven Heroes BilboBaggins 32 16,379 12-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Last Post: M4cR1II3n

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)