Tuesday, 10 July 2018

Warhammer: Wood Elves 9th Ed 1.0(1) out now!

Updated July 11: Fixed bugs mentioned in the comments.

Coming at 186 pages, this book is your ultimate go-to source for everything Wood Elves (barring the excellent Defenders of the Forest from WFRP, which you should check out for even more background on them). This book contains all the background from all tree editions of the Wood Elves army books as well as additional background from White Dwarfs and some WFRP articles. I have also removed the background on Mallobaude's invasion of Bretonnia, as this is something that is not resolved until the End Times (which, as we all know, was just a fever dream caused by inhaling too much plastic glue).

Download 


As far as rules are concerned, this update changes the following:

  • New Army Special rule: Elven Grace - giving a 6+ Parry save against enemies with lower Initiative. This rule will be given to both High Elves and Dark Elves as well to balance out their current high cost. I'd like to get feedback on this special rule overall to get an idea if this is good or not, or if Elven Grace should be represented by something else like +1WS, +1 To Hit or -1 To be Hit or anything else. If you are interested, you can find the forum discussion about it here).
  • New Special Unit: Tree-Revenants
  • New Special Unit: Spite-Revenants.
  • New Special Unit: Sylvan Hunters.
  • New Special Character: Ariel (frankly ridiculous that she was not included in the 8th ed book already seeing how much she is mentioned in the background)
  • New Special Character: Naeith the Prophetess
  • New Special Character: Thalandor
  • New Special Character: Lothlann the Brave
  • New Special Character: Scarloc
  • New Special Character: Scaw the Falconer
  • New Special Character: Gruath the Beastmaster
  • Blessings of the Ancients replaces Blessing of Isha, gives +1 to cast in forests.
  • Forest Sprits cause Fear by default.
  • Removed spite swarms; instead spites makes a return as character upgrades from 6th ed (and no, the Annoyance of Netlings do not effectively give you a 2+ ward save in challenges now). 
  • Removed beastmasters; their background has instead been transferred to Alters, whom it fits better with.
  • Return of Swiftshiver shards, allows models to fire multiple shots when moving/ignore penalties for multiple shots when standing still. 
  • Return of Starfire shafts, forces enemies to re-roll sucessful panic tests caused by them.
  • Trueflight Arrows have the Ignores Cover special rule.
  • Tree Kin has gotten their old 6th ed background back, the 8th ed fluff (with the whole "dead elf" thing being moved to the Tree-Revenants).
  • Dryads have T3, can instead shift into different tree aspects which gives them +T, +A or -1 to be Hit.
  • Alters are Infantry and skirmishers, can shift into different animal aspects.
  • Waywatchers have regained their trap rule form 5th ed, can place traps in forests. 
  • Waywatchers regained their forest stalker special rule from 6th ed, making them -1 to be hit, and can deploy within 12" as long as they are within a wood.
  • Waywatcher have Killing Blow on their missile attacks like in 6th ed, rather than multiple shots and no armour saves.
  • Waywatchers can take Enchanted arrows.
  • Waywatchers do not have two hand weapons by default, 18 pts.
  • Orion is MI, not Mo.
  • Warhawk may be taken as a character mount. 
  • Glade Lords and Captain start without light armour and bows for WYSIWYG purposes, 5 pts cheaper. 
  • Orion 485 pts. 
  • Durtu have WS and BS6, A5 to be closer to a Treeman Ancient in stats. Have the Sword of Dath magic item, 335 pts.
  • Araloth has light armour, 230 pts.
  • Drycha has W2, cost 180 pts.
  • Spellsinger 85 pts.

As you can see, I've added most of the Age of Sigmar models, but with rules and rewritten background to fit the Old World, as well as a slew of updated special characters from 5th ed.

I will be giving both High Elves and Dark Elves some updates shortly with the new Elven Grace special rule, followed by updating their Ravening Hordes lists as well. After that, I will be on a break for a few weeks to have time to finish the video games from the last Steam sale (though I will still be tinkering with the books at work when possible). I've done most of the work on the Skaven already as far as rules go, though there's quite a lot of graphic and layout changes that are needed to fit new artwork and background from various White Dwarf issues.

Anyway, enjoy, and let me know of the horrible game-breaking bugs I've missed!

80 comments:

  1. -I don't really like Elven Grace. The elven armies already have a ______ prowess ability and that's pretty nice.
    -Didn't Arcane Bodkins have Armor Piercing (2) special rule in earlier editions.
    -Wildwood Rangers were Strength 4 in previous editions.
    -I think that players should be able to choose what Waywatcher Trap is used.
    -Branchwraiths and Drycha should have the Tree Aspect rule just like regular Dryads.
    -Since Orion uses his spear as a Throwing Weapon, maybe its strength should be dependent on his strength? Also, the spear should have Armor Piercing (1) rather than Ignores Armor Saves since you've done that to all Bolt Throwers.
    -I understand Ariel's shriek ignoring armor saves but not regeneration.
    -Who in their right mind has Araloth go alone? Instead he should grant Unbreakable to whichever unit he joins. Also, the eyes are full of nerves, if someone has their eyes torn out, they plain won't fight at all, just suffer in pain. As such, I suggest making his attack take away the opponents ability to make attacks (both ranged and melee) if the coveted 6 is rolled.
    -There's a typo in the rules for Othu the Owl where the unit gets to re-roll all rolls 'To Tit'. Hilarious but you should fix it. I also don't understand why he wouldn't affect units using magic bows or missiles.
    -The Bolas used by Gruarth are meant to ensnare enemies and have little capacity to harm. I suggest making it Strength 1, but it'll always entangle the enemy if it is hit. Also, it needs to be specified how long the model hit is entangled.
    -There is a formatting error in the A Lamentation of Despairs entry.
    -Rather than +1 WS, the Helm of the Hunt should grant Frenzy so that whoever has it can really be used as an elite Wild Rider.
    -The Army Standard Bearer entry on the Glade Captain is not in a box.
    -Waystalkers are missing the full complement of special arrows.
    -Meadow Chariots are missing the full complement of magic arrow options.
    -The Alters described in the two sections do not match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - True, but all non-human armies also have a special rule that is tied to them as a race (rather than a faction) as well. Moreso, the Elven armies suffer from being very expensive and fragile for their points cost, which means that they can have a very hard to to recoup their points cost. Do you think that the Elves were fair before with only their Prowess special rule?
      - AP3 even, which was pretty crazy if up against Bretonnians and the like. So I nerfed it, but made it cheaper as well.
      - They are S3 in the 8th Ed book.
      - I think that would mean that certain traps would never be used. Right now, it's supposed to represent them having set up multiple traps in all directions, hence why the selection of the particular trap activated is random.
      - Will fix.
      - I can make it Ap instead sure, but at only S5, you are better off using the Hawk's Talon almost every time.
      - Will fix.
      - Beats me, but he does have a 4+ ward... He already gives stubborn to his unit, Unbreakable would be a bit too much. You could still strike even if you lost an eye, flailing your weapon like a blind madman (literally).
      - Haha, will fix :) It was for balance purposes, but seeing as you cannot keep using the Owl every turn the same unit, I can change it.
      - Will fix. It already says "in his next turn".
      - Will fix.
      - Will fix.
      - Will fix.
      - Will fix.
      - That is intentional, due to have little firepower they have it's not really worth including.
      - Will fix.

      Delete
    2. -In the case of Orion's spear, it wouldn't have to be Strength 5, just make it strike at Orion's strength +2. There's already a precedent for that with Throwing Axes which strike at the user's strength +1.
      -If you're going to keep Skarn the Eye Thief as is, then the coveted 6 roll should also affect Ballistic Skill. Maybe change it to reducing WS, BS and I to 1. Having your eyes torn out is a very major thing.
      -I think I suggested this last Ravening Hordes but to go with Marksman's Prowess, I think that EVERY Elven unit should have access to a ranged weapon of some sort. Spellweavers and Spellsingers regain their option for a Asrai Longbow or Poisoned Javelins (so that it's possible to model one as a elite Sister of the Thorn. Shadowdancers and Wardancers have Throwing Weapon options. Eternal Guard, Wild Riders and Wildwood Rangers have Javelin options.
      -Warhawk Riders are missing the special arrow options.
      -Even though Meadow Chariots lack firepower, the arrow options would still be cheap at double the points cost of a single elf model.
      -I think that Branchwraiths should be WS/BS 5 and I6 since Dryads are WS/BS4 and I5. This shows a logical progression instead of a sudden jump in skill. Drycha would be WS/I 6 and BS5.

      Delete
    3. -Have you considered making Glade Guard skirmishers?

      Delete
    4. - Will fix.
      - Will fix.
      - I don't think that fits, as many of the wood elves models do not have any missile weapons on them. There are a lot of armies whose army special rule does not apply to all models.
      - Will fix, though they did not have this in 8th ed.
      - Giving those options to the chariots just means more things to keep track off though, and it won't really have any impact at all on the game.
      - WE already have deepwood scouts as a core unit, I don't think glade guards also need to be able to skirmish.

      Delete
  2. The special rule for Dryads about Tree Aspects are mentioned in the unit biographies(?) section but there is no mention of it in the army list section, and the same goes for Alter Kin (special rule mentioned in long unit description section but not mentioned in army list section). Otherwise the codex is nice, looking forward to playing the Asrai again!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The sylvan hunters have different number of wounds in the two sections.
    Are they supposed to be MI with only 1 wound?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a bug, they should have W3 :)

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the fix! They are also extremely cheap for MI (11 points!). I presume that is a bug as well?

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, I completely forgot to change that. They are supposed to be 44 pts each, will have that uploaded soon :)

      Delete
  4. Elven Grace seems to me a great improvement to the game. We will test it in our ongoing campaign and I'll give feedback as soon as possible.
    Last but not least, hope that you recover Skarloc Archers from the Third Edition, Sooner or later (maybe in the ROR section). Keep up the excellent work ^_^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you like it!

      Scarloc's archers can be created by taking a unit of Deepwood scouts and a Wardancer Hero though, so it's practically there already :)

      Delete
  5. Just a thought on Elven Grace. I know this may be controversial but...

    One of the defining characteristics of an Elf if their agility of thought, action and reaction. Therefore, as a concept, I feel that some sort of 6+ 'dodge' Ward would be more suitable for Elves. In combat it could be stackable with Parry against lower initiative fighters and it could conceivably be used against ranged attacks, although if that was too strong that could be limited to those from the front.

    Calling it a dodge rather than a parry may be purely a matter of naming but it would avoid any confusion in situations where a Parry might not normally be allowed but intended in this case, such as mounted or wielding great weapons, attacks made to the flank/rear etc.

    I feel it that would fit better with the character of an Elf (particularly with those that are less 'combat' trained) and even tie in with the name of the rule better. I am not an Elf player myself btw and this may need refining, particularly after playtesting but I'd be interested in others' thoughts, so please - discuss...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, Mathias and Freebooter have discussed it at some length in the forum Ed. I think Dodge (6+) across the board is too powerful tbh with you. I fear even the Parry is too good, but obviously significantly less so than a Dodge. The Parry is well within reason (and the established point cost of elves) to start testing it out though, and if it is not ideal, it is a relatively easy rule to fix across the board.

      I've voiced some of my concerns about it in the forum, as I'd prefer a more offensive bonus, as my personal view is that elves are supposed to be glass-cannons for one thing, but more importantly, I think it is more important that they actually manage to "chew" through larger, cheaper enemy units at an increased rate as opposed to hang around longer in a fight just to keep pinning some Steadfast unit in place that keep matching them with static CR bonuses.

      Personally I advocated for +1 WS vs lower Initiative foes, as that would give them an offensive bonus vs similar foes (and a smaller defensive bonus vs. significantly lower Ws enemies). Personally I sort of see Elves and Dwarfs pretty equal when face to face, and this would even things out by letting the Elf Hit on 3+, Wound on 5+, while the Dwarf did the same on 4+/4+ to the elf etc. You can offcourse argue that a Parry save would be equal in just this situation, but it is also a bit conditional, as it does not apply to mounted elves for example, only works against frontal attacks etc.

      Those are some of the issues and concerns, but I'm more than willing to teest out a Parry Save for elves. Not so worried about it on the wood Elves as I'm about it on the high elves though, as the high elves could more massively benefit from this, particlualrly due to stacking with Shield of Saphery and some other factors. At some point you just get to the point that it's a waste of points to pay for elite units with high strength/armour piercing attacks when you just encounter ward saves anyway. Take a bloodthirster for example. Going up against a regiment with full rank bonus, outnumbering bonus, banner, he already has to cause unsaved 6 wounds just to win the combat. If said unit now has a 5+ ward save due to HW+Shield/Two Hand Weapons, then the parry save alone will nullify 1/3 of his attacks, making it almost impossible for him to take on even a unit of Nasty Skulkers (just to name an example).

      Delete
    2. Well, a Bloodthirster is I8, so I don't think he is going to be in too much trouble to be honest ;)

      As for it being a 6+ "Dodge", that was the intent (though only the front), being usable on mounts as well.

      Regarding the normal Parry rule though, I have for a while considered making it so that it can only be used against attacks up to S5 (as at S6 and higher, your shield/sword whatever is practically going to break under the force of the blow).

      It does not really make that much sense that you can just parry the strike of a Dragon with your shield, regardless how skilled you are. Maybe that should be implemented for the normal Parry rule?

      Delete
    3. I've had a read of the discussion thread too to get a clearer picture of what has already been mentioned and have some thoughts (bear in mind I haven't explored these thoroughly or tested any of them, by simulation or otherwise):

      1) the 'prowess' rules for elven factions are consistently rerolling 1s, which I like. Adding rerolling 1s for ranged attacks for murderous prowess i think is a good move.

      2) I don't like +1 WS. I think any advantanges it offers are too reliant on the oppositions stats, bearing in mind the oppositions I is already taken into account. I think it will be fiddly to remember if multiple buffs are added too, such as those from magic.

      3) Yes, I agree that Elves are supposed to be glass cannons. I think that if you manage to actually hit one well enough to significantly wound one, they should die quite easily. But I also think their natural counter to this, bearing in mind they are not supposed to be a 'numerous' race would be to do what they could to keep themselves alive - from a lore perspective every elf life lost is felt greatly etc and so I do think a defensive buff is appropriate.

      4) I think a +1 Ward save, of whatever kind, is the most appropriate from a balance and lore point of view. Balance wise, when we talk about the number of dice being rolled during the different phases of combat, a ward at the end of combat will have less effect than +/- to hit at the beginning of combat.

      5) I like the idea of parry being modified to take into account the strength of the blow, although it does raise further questions such as those warriors with high strength themselves who are able to absorb the blows, or the Ogre Ironfist - if their ironfist isn't strong enough to parry a blow then their arm itself is going to be screwed!

      6) If Parry were to be modified, renaming the Ward given to Elves under Elven Grace would be important to provide distinction, assuming they were still intended to have the save against higher strength blows (such as an agile dodge move would). Additionally with the fact it would be given to mounted models too.

      7) If static CR is a concern, perhaps Elven Grace could provide an automatic +1 to combat res. I wouldn't be a fan tbh as I get the feeling CR is something that may need to be looked at in the future, particularly when considering the scenario between large monsters and numerous small troops, such as the bloodthirster/nasty skulkers example (even if those goblins are particularly nasty).

      8) If Wood Elves are supposed to be primarily ranged combatants, a combat buff of any sort will benefit them less than HE/DE.

      Anyway, just putting these out there for consideration. I'm not precious about the ideas so feel free to demonstrate whatever prowess you happen to possess and murderously/martially/marksman-ly(?) rip them to shreds :)

      Delete
  6. While I'm not fond of the End Times myself, I'm not overly fond of the idea of saying 'They never happened, ever.' either. Personally, I'm more fond of the idea that ET basically turned into a larger, somewhat more destructive Storm of Chaos.

    Everywhere gets a bit smashed up- Ulthuan doesn't sink, but does suffer quite a bit of damage, for example -everybody gets a good scrap in, and Archaon probably still gets nutted by Grimgor at the last moment.

    But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek ;)

      9th Ed is set pre-End Times/Storm of Chaos, and as such I don't want to include background sections that are unresolved in the timeline(like the Shadow of Nagashizzar, which just cuts off mid-battle in the HE book, and will be removed).

      Delete
  7. I've just gotten to the army special rules part Mathias, but before I start immersing myself in the rules, I have to just compliment you on the whole layout of the book. It looks incredible. 10/10. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like, while Nagash *does* come back, he's way too weak to actually accomplish anything near what he does in ET.

    The Skaven don't just obliterate everything in their path. While their various assaults do cause massive damage, they don't outright win, either. Lustria doesn't get Morrslieb dropped on it, either.

    Arbaal actually wins something for once. Sigvald doesn't die, but for reasons still gets peed on by Throgg. Wulfrik's still wandering. The Glottkin don't ruin Altdorf- they wind up fighting outside the city and wind up turning part of the battlefield into a plague-ridden marsh, among other things.

    Stuff like that, y'know?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This book contains all the background from all tree editions Wood Elves army books-"

    Ha, I see what you did there.

    So, is Champions of Chaos a collection of all the Chaos Aligned 'heroes'? Does this include some of the demons or just WoC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Complete accident actually, along with the grammar error, but very fitting ;)

      Yes, Champions of Chaos contains all the special characters for WoC not included in the 8th ed book. DoC characters will be kept to the DoC book as normal.

      Delete
  10. -The Great Stag has the profile of the Great Eagle in the Beastiary.
    -Unicorn has the old magic Resistance (2) in beastiary (haven't gotten to the armyli st yet, butIimagine there as well. It also has Movement 2 in the beastiary. Yes. 2...
    -I see you refer to a 5" forest a few times (army special rule and Acorn of ages), which is a bit annoying as the plasic forests from GW are not usable then, which I imagine is the only forst a lot of people really have...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will fix those, thanks!

      How big in diamater is the Citadel forest? I don't have that myself, but I would of course want it to be used for these special rules.

      Delete
  11. Just thought you should know- There doesn't appear to be a Wood Elves book in the drop down list.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Been browsing through the list on my pad out in the sun, and Iæve spotted a few things here and there Mathias, and also have some thoughts on the list a few places:

    Army Special Rules:

    -Elven Grace: Just a few things regarding the implemenation Mathias. 1. Needs to be stated that it stacks with an already existing Parry. 2. Some of the mounted unuts, such as Wild Riders also have the Elven Grace special rule, but Parry doesn not work for mounhted models, so ther might be some confusion.

    Forest Strider: Love that you reduced it to a 6+ Ward Save, as a 5+ was a nigthmare to dea lwit hat times. I've played against Wood Elves A LOT and I think that was much needed.

    Blessings of the Ancients: Nice touch.

    Ambush from the Worldroots: The 5" diameter thing is a bit of an issue. The official forests from GW cannot be used, as they are slightly larger. 5" is also only about 12,5 cm, which is perhaps a bit small.

    Marksman's prowess: Fine rule that fits them well.

    A thought regarding Wood elves and archery: With the multiple shots rule applying if you don't move to bows, no long range to hit penalty, volley fire, the loss of no penatly to moving and shooting (from WE 7th ed) and the loss of the incentive to get in closer with the Glade Guard Longbow from 7th ed, I have a little bit of a concern that the Wood Elves might shift significantly to becoming a bit more of a stand off at range and just shoot type army, rather than be moving about, ambushing and so on. Especially not that enemies will take longer to get to them on foot, due to the reduced charge ranges. You know I agree with you regarding buffin missile fire etc, but I fear it could change the playstyle of the Wood Elves quite a bit in a direction I'm not that big a fan of in their case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Beastiary:

    -Eternal Guard Searath: Would it not be bettr to specify that it could be used as either two hand weapons or a Spear? As it stands now, it gets all the benefits from a spear when charged but also grants +1 Attack at the same time, which is a very potent combination as it allows you A Lot of attacks from a relative low amount of models.

    -Wardancers: Since Wardancers now basically have a 4+ Ward in close combat (assuming Elven Grace and regular Parry Stacks), I see little need for the Shadows Coil to be a 3+ Ward save. I enemies are pressing in from all sides, it doesn't make much sense they could dance about either. Not a big fan of Wars Saves goiing beyond 4+, except for very rare exceptions, and I don't think this should be found on troops tbh. Could Stubborn be a better solution, since they already have a 4+ Ward Save in hth?

    Wardancer Weapons gone? I would perhaps like to see them back, but then with Armour Piercing removed from the Whirling Death dance.

    Waywatcher: Could the Hawk-eyed Archer special rule only apply at short range perhaps, to encourage a bit more of move and fire playstyle, then have them hang back towards the table edge for most of the game.

    -Wild Riders: Seem fine. Just the Elven Grace issue as far as being maouted is concerned.

    -Sisters of the Thorn: Same Elven Grace issue, but to a lesser extent as they already have a 4+ Ward Save. I also noted that they only had to be 4 or more models in every rank to gain +1 to cast, while the Doomfire warlocks had to be 5. Oversight in one of the books? I aslo assume that the Posioned Attacks is sister of the thorn/handmaiden only?

    -Warhawk Riders: Wasn't Flying Cavalry removed/made obsolete? Should the Warhawk really be T4, A2? Just checking.

    -Alters: I like that they are back. Wood elves are not an army list bloated with units, so I think it is a good incluison. Just a bit odd that the Stag grants Impact Hits while the Boar does not. No other complaints. :-)

    -Dryads: I like that you made them S3/T3, added their forsm and made them have the option to be Skirmishers etc.

    -Revnants: Both seem like fine inclusions that broaden up the list a bit.

    -Sylvan Hunter: Seems fine. I presume this is another AoS inclusion, but I like it.



    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow! Great work! Looks beautiful Mathias! I look forward to reading this later.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Special Characters:

    -Orion: Got quite the massive BS increase, along with the Marksman Prowess. Gotta admit I'm thinking Multiple Shots (6) on the Hawk's Talon gets a bit scary, byt then he has a second missile weapon that will oly ever miss1/36 times too... Ouch... It doesn't even stipluate that he has to pick one to use from what I can see. Cloak of Isha has magic resistance specified to 2 instead of 5+.

    Ariel: Thinking that maybe Magic saves would help against the Dart of Doom, even though it is a Magic weapon. Acorns of ages and 5" forest issue. Nice to see her back though.

    Araloth: reove Stuborn. Is listed as M9 in the army list.

    Thalandor: Spear of Daith and Elven Grace could be confusing to some. Seems fine otherwise.

    Durthu: seems fine

    Drycha: Missing Spirit-Walker description?

    Naestra & Arahan: Here I see some issues, which I think is an oversigth. The Conjoined Destiny special rule does not make any sense if they are mounted on either the Eagle or the Dragon, as the mount's Wounds (and Toughness) is used. Also, the "we are bak to full health since you didn't kill us both at once" is kind of hard to accomplish if they are on an armoured, T6, 6W dragon...

    Naieth the Ptophetess: Owl now seems a bit useless, as the Long Range penalty is gone and they re-roll 1's anyway. Also promotes the buy a big unit of archers and just hang back and massacre everything by just rolling lots of dice playstyle, which I'm a bit concerned about.

    Lothlann the Brave: Finally a BsB character ina abook. Nice. :-)

    Scaloc: Seem fine.

    Skaw: Seem fine.

    Gruath: Seem fine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lore of Athel Loren:

    -Lore Attribute seems very appropriate

    -Twilight Host. Steadfast is not determined by ranks, but by unit strength in 9th ed. Needs fixing.

    -Midrigal's Greening: Same 5" forest issue. Nice addition though.


    Spites of Athel Loren:

    Loved that you kept these in and gave the Wood Elves their own unique options.

    -Annoyance of Nethlings: thank god you fixed that moronic rule it used to have.

    -A Lamentation of Despair: Struck me as a little cheap for what it does, especially to monsters...

    Otherwise they all seemd fine at first glance. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Heirlooms of athel Loren:

    -helm of the Hunt: I presume the * beneath refers to the Frenzy special rule?

    -Hail of Doom Arrow: I used to dread this as it was, but now it has Armour Piercing, 1's are re-rolled and ther is no longer a long range penalty... Ouch... I suggest S3 on it tbh. It would still be more than enough for 30 points under the new rules. It used to be an option that was automatically included in 7th ed and previously, which kind of tells you if it was good for its points or not. I truly dread it in this edition... If S3 is too much of a nerf in your mind, I suggest adding some range to it instead.

    -Banner of the eternal Queen: has Magic resist (3).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Army List:

    -Arcane Bodkins: I'm thinking they should cost 2 pts perhaps, since the bows already have armour Piercing. Otherwise I fear they will always be the go to option, for good reason. It also encourages you to solve every tactical situation by just hanging back and shooting arrows, as it will work against pretty much anything.

    -Spellweaver: I jyst noticed something. She gets a Warhawk for 40 pts (which grants +1 T), and the Dark Elf Sorceress has to pay 50 points for a Dark Pegasus, which does not grant a T bonus any more.

    -Treeman Ancient: seems to be missing his magic item allowance in the army list.

    Branchwraith: No Magic item/Sprites allowance? No point cost listed if so.

    -Glade Guards: Gets a Banner option while Dreaspears don't? They also have a banner option on the Eternal Guard.Odd that a "guerilla" army can take more banner to war in their core section than a more professional style type army. Not saying they shoul't be able to, jsut pointing out the discrepency.

    -Warhawk Rider in army list is T3 I see.. That resoves a few issues mentioned previously if that is the case. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Overall thoughts:

    Overall I like a lot of what I see, and it gets me excited to play against them again. Just hope my buddy that has them is equally excited to read the list. :-)

    I think you did the right thing removing the old alter Kindreds and instead included some new character types.

    I am a bit concerned about the reduced need for the wood elves to move about and fire, but I can't say for certain how big an issue it will become without playtesting a fair amount.

    All-in all, a very exciting list that doesn't add too many new units to the list all at once and doesn't branch out oo much tactically. I think that if you include to many options within each individual list, then it really doesn't matter that much which list you play any more, as they can pretty much all do the same in the end. This book was very nicely themed I think. Ther could perhaps have been a Forest Dragon option in the Rare section to flesh that out a little more, and to give the list some more mobile close combat power, but it's not a major issue by any means. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WE moving and firing was only in 6th ed though, in 8th ed they had no such bonuses. If necessary, their Marksman Prowess could be changed to ignoring -1 to hit when moving rather than re-rolling 1's.

      A stand-alone forest dragon is interesting though. It will screw up the layout a bit, but I'll consider it :)

      Delete
    2. Something I'm not at all worried about is you not managing to fix the look of a book Mathias. :-)

      TW:Warhammer has a stand-alone dragon for Wood Elves, so it was not a very original though. I just like the idea of a non-mounted dragon and it kind of fits them as they co-operate more with nature than dominate it. :-)

      Delete
    3. I support the Lone Forest Dragon idea

      Delete
  20. Hmm Hagbane Tips are 3p. but Swiftshiver Shards are 2p. I'd make Swiftshiver Shards also 3p. at least. Having Multiple Shots even when moving or ignoring -1 to hit if not moved is pretty dam powerful...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that might be a bit much. If you move and fire MS(2) you suffer -2 to Hit. +1 BS is usally 1-2 pts.

      Delete
    2. Hard to argue the point cost there. I think Mathias is corerct, but I still fear how dangerous glade guard can become against certain foes regardles.

      Delete
  21. There are a number of Armour Piercing (1) special roles that a unit can have simultaneously, such as Asrai Longbow & the Arcane Bodkin. If they are meant to stack, would it avoid confusion if they are written as Armour Piercing (+1)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are obviously stacking Ed. The Bodkin Arrows would have no purpose otherwise. That said, it could say so in the Armour Piercing description in the rulebook I think. :-) Likely the first encounter of the situation though. The alternative is to not have them stack, and give the Arcane Bodkin Arrows Armour Piercing (2) offcourse.

      Delete
    2. They stack, as described under special rules in the BRB.

      Delete
    3. I swar I read up on Armour Piercing yesderday, without seeing it mentioned that they stack...

      "ARMOUR PIERCING (*)

      Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that has this special rule) inflict a further negative armour save modifier as indicated by the number in the brackets, in addition to those for Strength. If a model has a weapon with the Armour Piercing rule, only attacks made or shots fired with the weapon are Armour Piercing."

      To me, that reads stacking with modifiers from Strength only, but it is open to interpretation.

      Delete
    4. I figured they did stack for exactly the reason that they would otherwise be redundant. However, what is obvious to some is less obvious to others and as this is probably a rather unique situation, I think clarification would be beneficial for all players.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Mathias: Could Arcane Bodkin be Armour Piercing (1) at short range only perhaps? Keep the point cost the same, but then you'd perhaps encourage a more "guerilla" type play style. Would partially help solve two issues at once I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, short range is 4" now, so I think that would be pretty useless. In 8th ed, Arcane Bodkins were actually AP3, so it's weaker now. I could increase the price if necessary though.

      Delete
    2. I forgot that short range weas't half range any more. I meant half maximum reange of the weapon.

      Delete
    3. or a set value of lets say 12" for example...

      Delete
    4. It is not all that relevant what it was back when the system was drastically different mathias. Remember, now you have no long range penalty, have armour piercing, can easily fire twice etc... I'd rather se it nerfed for a low cost than add a super-arrow to an already delicate situation to test out...

      Delete
  24. Hi so a friend and I were discussing this and out of curiosity, why don't wood elves get a bolt thrower? I honestly don't think they need one and they never really "construct" warmachines like their cousins do. But they had the meadowchariot. I can see a bolt thrower being slow so won't work with guerrilla warfare. But then why don't treemen get a great bow like bone giants do? Can agree that they done really use weapons but they do have staff's, So why not give them a giant spear to throw? Anyway I was just curious and want to see what you guys think. Personally I don't think wood elves need it and it would make Orions spear redundant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sylvaneth Hunters can pretty much fill that role if you need more powerful shots, and they are mobile. :-)

      Delete
    2. Sylvan Hunters I mean... Still getting used to the new names. :-P

      Delete
    3. As a Tomb King player I get where he is coming from. Mathias could give the Treeman an upgrade for a throwing spear (bolt thrower) like "iron bark javelins" or something, for 20pts (going on what TK colossus pay for a giant bow). Then you at least give the option to take a war-machinesque unit without detracting from the guerrilla fighting aesthetic of Wood Elves. Would be the bigger version over Sylvaneth Hunters just as TK Colossus with a bow of the desert are the bigger version of Ushabti with great bows. Even if its a rarely used choice, its always fun to have the options. It allows for different play styles, which allows for more fun, which is the whole reason we play this game and why Mathias has kept it alive for us for so long after it was destroyed (in a fever dream).

      PS: Mathias, first time writer, long time user of your work. A huge thank you for all the effort you have put in over the years!

      Delete
    4. I'd caution about giving Wood Elves any more long range firepower that forces their opponent to always come to them... Not sure if you are familiar with the changes to the bows, but the WE list has potentially made somewhat of a shift towards being a stand back and shoot everything at max range, instead of forcing the elves to move about at a shorter distance from their enemies. This is more of a change to the whole meta game, but it impacts the wood elves more than any other army perhaps. Treeman having "botl thrower" type weapons would be really harsh, as you wouldn't even be able to effectivly threathen them with most flying units, fast cav and the like. Thus I think the Sylvan Hunters are more than enough in terms of higher strength firepower. Wood elves need to be encouraged to flank, be closer to their enemies, use forests, etc. Nothing is more boring than fighting with or against an army that justs stands at maximum distance to kill you. It's understandable for dwarfs, but it's not what we'd want to se for Wood elves I think. :-)

      Delete
    5. I fully agree with you, I've been jaded by some wood elf armies in the past. But it was always a thought on why they never had a "artillery" unit back in the day. The current bow rules make Wood Elves really good and the edition of the enchanted arrows helps alot too.

      Delete
    6. Had a few not so fun games where I faced a block of 40 or so Glade Guards myself. That in this edition would be a horror show I think. :-)

      I just posted some new suggestion for Shields in the forum, which I think could help encourage a more tactical playstyle as far as missile troops are concerned. I agree that missile power was a bit underwhelming before, and needed a buff to keep up with the armour increase, but I'm not a fan of there not being an effective counter to missile troops either. If you expect your oppoent might bring many, ther should be something you can do about it, without resorting to more "extreme" options from your Special and Rare section of your army list. This is where I think changing how Shields work a bit will potentially help provide a more historically accurate fix if you will. Ther might be holes in my suggestion, but a pros vs. cons debate is always good to have when it affects such a large part of the game overall I think.

      Delete
    7. In one old article, Wood Elves actually had bolt throwers mounted in the trees, which I could see work. However, those would only really be used for sieges rather than pitched battles imo.

      I think shields could probably use a bit of boost as well against missiles for infantry. It was included in an earlier 9th ed version, perhaps it should return?

      Delete
  25. I get that. I was thinking like how tomb kings Ushapti getting their great bows and their colossal giant getting it's bow.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Book looks awesome! Love the Elven Grace & waywatchers with shooting killing blow. These 2 rules highlight the fine tuned skills of elves. Also, thanks for finding a way to incorporate the lovely AOS models. I can now buy them & use them in my 8th/9th edition games. At least I can look forward army updates in terms of models....

    btw have you considered finding a way to put the new Idoneth Deepkin into Pirates of Sartosa? I see how busy you are, was just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks!

      I think the Idoneth would fit better as a Fishmen army, if I ever would get around to make one.

      Delete
    2. Please don't make a fishmen army Mathias...

      Delete
    3. The background for the Idoneth as an entire race/faction stems purely from AoS, from what I understand. I can see the sense in creating space for AoS units for Fantasy races but to create a new race to accommodate for an AoS only race seems a bit much.

      Having said that, Fishmen have existed in Fantasy...

      Delete
    4. Probably a very good reason they were scrapped by GW though... If these models are to find a home, I actually think adding some of them (with new lore) to Pirates of Sartosa as Kane suggests would be far, far preferable...

      Delete
    5. Well, they are elves, not humans, so I can see them working better as additions to the High Elves (specifically, as part of Cothique) than as additions to the Pirates.

      Delete
    6. Sartosa welcomes all kinds from what I recall... :-)

      Delete
  27. This is the best Wood Elves codex army I have ever seen.

    About the Elven Grace rule I can give fresh new ideas:
    -Elves could have 6+ ward save in combat.
    -Units suffer -1 to hit Elves in combat.
    -Mixed Rule: Elves can decide one of two: the ward save o enemies suffer -1 to hit them.

    Plus, I can give you a new vision to fix a problem I had one time. When wood elves plays in a entire terrain of trees, enemies gain soft cover from the trees (But it is a little controversial).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/warhammer-armies-project/71Mz893hMDI

      Delete
  28. Spelling mistakes in the fluff sentence for the Athel Loren Lore Attribute - should read "Wood Elves" not "Woof Elves", which are something else entirely, and I would probably add "and" in front of "with it renewal" to make it read better.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Have you considered to give Glade Guard more weapons options(dual weapons, sword and shield, spear and shield)? I think it will be cool to give the choices.

    Great job!! Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I considered that, yes, but decided against it as it's not in their fluff and they have other units that use that weapon combination already.

      Delete
  30. Hi would just like to say that I love what you've done with the wood elves but please could someone explain how Ariel's 4+ ward save and her magic resistance 5+ rule interacts with each other because i read your main rulebook and I'm still a bit confused any help is appreciated xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Magic resistance stacks up 2+, so ariel has a 2+ ward against spells, and 4+ against other attacks.

      Delete
    2. Okay thank you very much

      Delete
  31. Hey awesome work but perhaps you might wan to make the Sylvan hunters have a similar minimum unit size of 3+ like the Treekin instead of 5+ as I believe that they are both very similar both being monstrous infantry but again its entirely up to you and grea
    t work I'm downloading it right now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you like it! Sylvan Hunters should be 3+ yes, I've updated that now.

      Delete
    2. Its an awesome book and I've already organised a game for sometime tomorrow and they will mist definitely make an appearance

      Delete