WE update for the upcoming HE DLC

Copied to clipboard!
15 days ago
Feb 3, 2025, 7:29:07 PM

I hope that WE can get completed with some new lore and mounts options and maybe a hero:


1. Spellweaver Lords should have forest dragon mounts

2. Spellsinger and Spellweavers should have access to all 8 lores of magic plus Dark and High magic. being able to bring both high and dark magic is a part of their lore and should be possible

3. Shadow dancer hero

0Send private message
15 days ago
Feb 3, 2025, 7:51:23 PM

Not only do I not think Spellweavers should have dragon mounts, I don't think the DE Supreme Sorceress, or the HE Archmage should have dragon mounts either. With how strong casters are in this game, any time a caster can get a monstrous mount, it makes the combat lords pretty much obsolete if they have the same mounts.

0Send private message
15 days ago
Feb 3, 2025, 8:41:38 PM

Spellweaver.jpg

No to Forest Dragon mount. Yes to Lores of Magic. Yes to Shadowdancer Hero.


Speaking about Elves and mounts: Noble should get Griffon and Master Manticore. Also, I propose that Archmage belonging to Knights of Caledor faction should have access to Star Dragon.

0Send private message
15 days ago
Feb 3, 2025, 8:58:37 PM

Next DLC will of course be DoW

0Send private message
15 days ago
Feb 3, 2025, 11:49:23 PM

If there is a WE update I want, its male Glade Captains to match the lords.

0Send private message
15 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 1:04:08 AM

I'm not opposed to WE getting these things, but it doesn't particularly belong as part of the High Elf DLC.  Let them wait for their own DLC if they're getting one, or a between-DLCs update if not.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
Not only do I not think Spellweavers should have dragon mounts, I don't think the DE Supreme Sorceress, or the HE Archmage should have dragon mounts either. With how strong casters are in this game, any time a caster can get a monstrous mount, it makes the combat lords pretty much obsolete if they have the same mounts.

I disagree on removing dragons from HE archmages and monstrous mounts from casters in general; the differences in combat stats make a caster lord on dragon enormously worse in melee than a melee lord on dragon.  Possibly casters on monstrous mounts should have their health/armour nerfed further, but iirc it's fully tabletop-accurate for HE archmages to be able to ride dragons, and they're actually more dangerous in melee when riding dragons on tabletop (since the dragons are their own entities with their own combat stats unaffected by the rider), just also more fragile.


Nobles should 100% have griffon mounts, too.  TT-accurate and would fix them being useless in lategame.  HE mage heroes should probably get birb or pegasus mounts (nothing particularly combat-focused, just something flying to bring them in line with other races' mage options) - I do not remember what TT has to say on this checked and there's no 8e rules precedent for it, but it's definitely lore-accurate, and seems completely fair balance-wise.

Updated 15 days ago.
0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 7:48:17 AM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
I disagree on removing dragons from HE archmages and monstrous mounts from casters in general; the differences in combat stats make a caster lord on dragon enormously worse in melee than a melee lord on dragon. 

Buddy, the issue is that it makes the caster incredibly tanky and a threat in melee in addition to making the caster much harder to reach while he can easily reach any point of the battlefield. Magic is already plain overpowered, so adding all of those perks on top of it is why melee lords always play second fiddle to casters.


Also, gotta' love that you think casters are apparently entitled to also be stronger melee fighters than melee lords. Just shows how degenerate gameplay in this game has already become.


Most monster mounts should be removed from casters or they need to make casters worse at casting while mounted to counterbalance the majorly increased utility and survivability. I'm thinking about +50% WoM cost to all spells and -50% WoM generation if the caster is on a monster, just so you actually have to stop and think for at least a minute before you mount your caster up.

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 9:04:40 AM

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Also, gotta' love that you think casters are apparently entitled to also be stronger melee fighters than melee lords

Nothing they said suggested that.

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 2:19:25 PM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
I disagree on removing dragons from HE archmages and monstrous mounts from casters in general; the differences in combat stats make a caster lord on dragon enormously worse in melee than a melee lord on dragon. 

The thing is though... it's a dragon. It's not like it being "enormously worse" in melee than a melee lord is much of an issue when it's on a powerful flying monster, as the spellcasting is better anyway. It reminds me of the dnd picture of 2 T-rex's and the caption "what's being a druid like? It's like this but one of these can also cast 9th level spells".

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 4:35:40 PM


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Buddy, the issue is that it makes the caster incredibly tanky and a threat in melee in addition to making the caster much harder to reach while he can easily reach any point of the battlefield. 

"Incredibly tanky".  Do you genuinely struggle to kill caster lords on dragons? It's not hard, at all.  They're a massive target at range, and they don't have the melee stats to survive in prolonged melee against decent anti-large.  The argument I was refuting was that they were anywhere near as good in melee as melee lords on dragons, but you are also wrong.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Magic is already plain overpowered, so adding all of those perks on top of it is why melee lords always play second fiddle to casters. 

Ahaha, no.  Magic in general vs melee in general is sufficiently close to being perfectly balanced that I'd be fine if their relative balance was left alone for the rest of development.  You wanna talk about lords playing second fiddle, try looking at ranged and hybrid-ranged lords who don't have AoE weapons.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Also, gotta' love that you think casters are apparently entitled to also be stronger melee fighters than melee lords. 

Literally nowhere did I say or imply that.  The issue of you responding to my posts without reading them clearly and putting words in my mouth is not new; please make more of an effort at reading comprehension if you wish to argue with me, or you'll just end up arguing with a position that doesn't even exist.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Most monster mounts should be removed from casters or they need to make casters worse at casting while mounted to counterbalance the majorly increased utility and survivability. I'm thinking about +50% WoM cost to all spells and -50% WoM generation if the caster is on a monster, just so you actually have to stop and think for at least a minute before you mount your caster up. 

You... are aware that monstrous mounts in general are balanced by cost, yes?  If your counterargument is that cost doesn't matter because of campaign power creep, that would a horrible argument, and also leads to the logical conclusions that we shouldn't be allowed monstrous mounts for melee lords, or high-tier troops, because Sigmar forbid we be allowed to spend our money on anything, it would just be too unbalanced.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
The thing is though... it's a dragon. It's not like it being "enormously worse" in melee than a melee lord is much of an issue when it's on a powerful flying monster, as the spellcasting is better anyway. It reminds me of the dnd picture of 2 T-rex's and the caption "what's being a druid like? It's like this but one of these can also cast 9th level spells".

If its melee performance wasn't an issue, I think you'd be complaining about eagle mounts too.  Melee performance matters immensely for dragons - sure, they can do decent damage on infantry regardless, but a wizard lord will take considerably more damage in the process, and doesn't need a monster to be able to mulch infantry.  Spellcasting is no substitute for ability to melee when it comes to fighting anything with a lower model count than infantry - try fighting anything monstrous or a good melee lord and you will quickly notice the difference between the two lord types on dragon.  Describing spellcasting as "just better" than melee is extremely reductive, and misses the point that they can both do things the other can't.


I said before that I'm not actually opposed to survivability nerfs to casters on monstrous mounts, though I'd want them to see melee attack buffs in return to reflect the mount's lethality being independent of the rider.  I would consider this a nerf on balance, just one which reflects tabletop rules well, and isn't so severe as to bring things out of balance.


Caster lords on dragon being able to fight like a lesser version of melee lords on dragon is a feature, not a bug, though. :) Melee lords' ability to take down hard targets is not something which casters can generally replicate, and the monstrous mount makes the melee lord wildly more effective against infantry than lesser mounts, so I'm happy to say they're fine right now.

Updated 14 days ago.
0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 5:05:36 PM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Ahaha, no.  Magic in general vs melee in general is sufficiently close to being perfectly balanced that I'd be fine if their relative balance was left alone for the rest of development. 

Agreed. The guy you're debating with has a longstanding notion that magic is overpowered, while not giving full weight to the counterarguments brought up. He went as far as suggesting that debuff magic should be reduced in effectiveness in the same way damage magic is reduced. It's absolutely absurd. 

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 5:13:24 PM

TheWattman#7460 wrote:

If there is a WE update I want, its male Glade Captains to match the lords.

I would start with giving Glade Captain unique model. The poor she-Elf is a kitbash.

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 4, 2025, 11:47:09 PM

TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
I disagree on removing dragons from HE archmages and monstrous mounts from casters in general; the differences in combat stats make a caster lord on dragon enormously worse in melee than a melee lord on dragon. 

Buddy, the issue is that it makes the caster incredibly tanky and a threat in melee in addition to making the caster much harder to reach while he can easily reach any point of the battlefield. Magic is already plain overpowered, so adding all of those perks on top of it is why melee lords always play second fiddle to casters.


Also, gotta' love that you think casters are apparently entitled to also be stronger melee fighters than melee lords. Just shows how degenerate gameplay in this game has already become.


Most monster mounts should be removed from casters or they need to make casters worse at casting while mounted to counterbalance the majorly increased utility and survivability. I'm thinking about +50% WoM cost to all spells and -50% WoM generation if the caster is on a monster, just so you actually have to stop and think for at least a minute before you mount your caster up.

Elven mage lords getting dragon mounts has always been a thing, both in the lore and the tabletop. It's one to the main aspects of having an Elven army to start with. 

0Send private message
14 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 12:40:17 AM

Maedrethnir#1968 wrote:

TheWattman#7460 wrote:

If there is a WE update I want, its male Glade Captains to match the lords.

I would start with giving Glade Captain unique model. The poor she-Elf is a kitbash.

Right!? How is she holding all of that stuff in combat? It's really bad, but also funny. 

0Send private message
13 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 2:13:08 AM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
If its melee performance wasn't an issue, I think you'd be complaining about eagle mounts too.

The issue is having the same powerful mount. Spellcasting is already strong enough, and almost always the superior option, that having the combat characters get the combat mounts would actually give a reason to take them over the caster lords sometimes. A Great Eagle is not a Dragon. As is, a Supreme Sorceress or Archmage on a dragon is just a better character than a Dreadlord or Prince on one, because there's very little that the caster on a dragon can't kill, that the combat character on one can kill (it's not like you can't give combat items to spellcasters as well) and being able to freely and safely fly around the battlefield casting pit of shades is stronger anyway.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Describing spellcasting as "just better" than melee is extremely reductive, and misses the point that they can both do things the other can't.

When the lords are on foot or even on horses, yes I agree. When they're both on the strongest flying monsters in the game, at that point it doesn't really matter if one is a little stronger than the other at combat, because the caster having magic is significantly better to take in any army.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Caster lords on dragon being able to fight like a lesser version of melee lords on dragon is a feature, not a bug, though.

It's not that they fight like "lesser versions of melee lords" that's the problem. It's that they fight as strong as the basic dragons do, which is already powerful enough. If the Prince/Dreadlord got the dragon, and the Supreme Sorceress/Archmage got the Manticore/Eagle, they're still on strong flying monsters, just not the strongest one.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Melee lords' ability to take down hard targets is not something which casters can generally replicate

Tell you what. Drop a Prince on his dragon in a horde of black guard, and then drop an Archmage in them and have her drop a pit of shades on herself, and tell me which one works out better. If the argument is single targets, then use a Final Transmutation. 

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Monstrous mount makes the melee lord wildly more effective against infantry than lesser mounts

And they make the casters that as well, but with spellcasting as well.


The Wood Elves are actually the exact scenario I'm pointing out. Glade Lords get dragons, Spellweavers don't, so recruting Glade Lords have a place in the army. If Spellweavers got dragons, I doubt I'd ever bother recruiting a Glade Lord again.

0Send private message
13 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 8:12:35 AM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
"Incredibly tanky".  Do you genuinely struggle to kill caster lords on dragons? It's not hard, at all.  They're a massive target at range, and they don't have the melee stats to survive in prolonged melee against decent anti-large.  The argument I was refuting was that they were anywhere near as good in melee as melee lords on dragons, but you are also wrong.

Buddy, I just turn that around, when's mounting your caster on a dragon not the optimal choice? Ranged pretty much doesn't matter when magic has often way too much range itself and dodging is so easy.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Ahaha, no.  Magic in general vs melee in general is sufficiently close to being perfectly balanced that I'd be fine if their relative balance was left alone for the rest of development. 

You just lost all credibility because there's pretty much no debate that magic is currently way too powerful (and braindead easy to use) and melee characters are nowhere near close in utility.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
Literally nowhere did I say or imply that. 

Yes, you pretty much did say exactly that since your complaint was that casters on monster mounts weren't as strong as melee lords and therefore didn't need any nerfs.

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:
You... are aware that monstrous mounts in general are balanced by cost, yes?  

Nope. For the utility they bring they're waaay too cheap. That's why you see mounted casters all the time in MP, it's simply not something people need to think about much.


NemoTheElf101#1472 wrote:
Elven mage lords getting dragon mounts has always been a thing, both in the lore and the tabletop. It's one to the main aspects of having an Elven army to start with.

On the TT magic had half a dozen failure states and there was a chance of insta-killing your mage by casting every turn. Here it's brainless, much more powerful and has no downsides whatsoever. That's why the comparison is invalid. 

Updated 13 days ago.
0Send private message
13 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 3:57:23 PM

MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
Spellcasting is already strong enough, and almost always the superior option, that having the combat characters get the combat mounts would actually give a reason to take them over the caster lords sometimes. 

Yeah, no, I really don't think you're right on this.  Maybe you just haven't played caster lord vs strong melee LLs very much, there are enemy lords who will eat your army and then your caster, even if you spam magic on theirs.  Some of them can also fly, and will eat your caster lord before you get the chance to nuke their army much.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
As is, a Supreme Sorceress or Archmage on a dragon is just a better character than a Dreadlord or Prince on one, because there's very little that the caster on a dragon can't kill, that the combat character on one can kill (it's not like you can't give combat items to spellcasters as well)

I couldn't disagree more.  A melee lord on dragon, with proper support, can duel elite enemy melee lords, as well as scary enemy monsters.  A caster trying this will die, and magic items make very little difference.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
When the lords are on foot or even on horses, yes I agree. When they're both on the strongest flying monsters in the game, at that point it doesn't really matter if one is a little stronger than the other at combat, because the caster having magic is significantly better to take in any army.

You aren't factoring in the things which a dragon with high melee stats can deal with and one with low melee stats can't.  I also doubt you're considering scenarios where WoM gets low, which does sometimes happen for world map reasons.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
It's not that they fight like "lesser versions of melee lords" that's the problem. It's that they fight as strong as the basic dragons do, which is already powerful enough. If the Prince/Dreadlord got the dragon, and the Supreme Sorceress/Archmage got the Manticore/Eagle, they're still on strong flying monsters, just not the strongest one.

I don't see the problem here.  You're paying dragon price for dragon performance.  Moon Dragon isn't even the ideal choice to begin with, Sun Dragon has more generally useful breath and Star Dragon is better in melee.  Do you think it's that broken to have an "extra slot" that you can put a dragon in?  (It barely trips my radar compared to Lightning Strike in terms of campaign balance.)  Or is it that you find mages hard to keep alive without stapling them to a monster?  I personally find the eagle keeps them safe better due to higher speed, smaller hitbox, and the lack of incentive to engage in melee.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
Tell you what. Drop a Prince on his dragon in a horde of black guard, and then drop an Archmage in them and have her drop a pit of shades on herself, and tell me which one works out better. If the argument is single targets, then use a Final Transmutation. 

I'd predict archmage with Pit of Shades will outperform prince vs Black Guard by a moderate margin (they'll both get hammered if they stay in), but archmage with Final Transmutation will get utterly rinsed by monstrous infantry while the Prince will win that fight, to say nothing of single targets.  Final Transmutation is not that good and I don't know why you think it is.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
And they make the casters that as well, but with spellcasting as well.

It's not equivalent.  Casters are already amazing vs infantry, it's not a proportionally significant increase to them.  Melee lords multiply their effectiveness vs infantry by many times, casters are getting less than a 100% increase.  Dealing with infantry is already something they do really well, it's just not that impactful on them.


MODIDDLY1#9212 wrote:
The Wood Elves are actually the exact scenario I'm pointing out. Glade Lords get dragons, Spellweavers don't, so recruting Glade Lords have a place in the army. If Spellweavers got dragons, I doubt I'd ever bother recruiting a Glade Lord again.

I still would, for the reasons I've explained.  I do think most (non-legendary) lords and heroes with ranged attacks need buffs to those ranged attacks, but I also think you're just overrating magic and underrating melee.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Buddy, I just turn that around, when's mounting your caster on a dragon not the optimal choice? Ranged pretty much doesn't matter when magic has often way too much range itself and dodging is so easy. 

When is mounting your melee lord on a dragon not the optimal choice?  Same answer - cost, or you need a smaller hitbox or the ability to hide.  You cannot dodge every shot from a massed ranged army on a dragon unless you're at max range, it simply does not turn fast enough.  Horses are significantly better for getting in close to cast without dying to dangerous ranged, and also don't suffer from the flying-unit massive punish of entering a vulnerable stagger animation on taking high damage.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
You just lost all credibility because there's pretty much no debate that magic is currently way too powerful (and braindead easy to use) and melee characters are nowhere near close in utility. 

That's a bizarre take.  Of the three characters which just released with OoD, and are widely agreed to be power-creeped to hell and back, ​none of them are mages.  Of the three from ToD, only one of them is a mage, and nobody complains about what she can do in personal combat, only her faction mechanics.  The balance of magic does get periodically debated, and this is usually an internal discussion of whether damage magic needs a relative nerf and everything else a buff - last time I saw such a thread, I don't recall anyone at all even passingly mentioning the notion that magic in general was overtuned.


My credibility is fine, thank you for your concern.   If I lose credibility with you for being willing to state an opinion you disagree with, that is a sacrifice well worth its cost.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Yes, you pretty much did say exactly that since your complaint was that casters on monster mounts weren't as strong as melee lords and therefore didn't need any nerfs.

I said:

- They're not unbalanced

- They're less strong in melee and durable than melee lords

- I'd be fine with them taking further durability nerfs


You interpreted this as:

- "you think casters are apparently entitled to also be stronger melee fighters than melee lords"


Your response indicates a complete failure to understand what I'm even saying.  You seem to be operating under some kind of bizarre misconception that a caster lord on a dragon wins a melee duel with a melee lord on a dragon.  It does not.  If you doubt what I'm saying, just open the game up and test.  Caster lords are not better in melee than melee lords; the idea is farcical.


It's also pretty funny that you describe my assessment of casters on monsters being weaker in melee as a "complaint".  It's working fine, nothing to complain about there. xD


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
Nope. For the utility they bring they're waaay too cheap. That's why you see mounted casters all the time in MP, it's simply not something people need to think about much. 

Completely different balance complaint.  Them being balanced by cost is intended design; whether that's being doing successfully is a whole other issue.


TainBoCuailinge#8335 wrote:
On the TT magic had half a dozen failure states and there was a chance of insta-killing your mage by casting every turn. Here it's brainless, much more powerful and has no downsides whatsoever. That's why the comparison is invalid. 

On the TT, magic was also infinite, capable of oneshotting lords, locking down an entire enemy army for the whole fight, and grew in effectiveness the more mages you had.  Describing things which could happen but were extremely unlikely just makes your argument sound silly to anyone with a passing familiarity with TT.  Here it's finite, and comes with lower risks but less powerful effects in the case of everything except AoE damage magic, which is indeed overtuned.


But no, the fact that magic isn't a 1:1 conversion of tabletop magic doesn't make roster comparisons invalid at all.  That would be like saying that since MA and MD aren't a straight conversion of WS, then, I dunno, Dark Elves shouldn't exist or something.  They're affected by hit chance, after all.  It's utterly arbitrary to say that a non-1:1 representation of mechanics means relevant elements of lore and rosters shouldn't be adhered to - doing them in a balanced way is important, but the existing implementation is fine on that front.

Updated 13 days ago.
0Send private message
0Send private message
13 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 4:10:26 PM

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

I want a shared Pantheon Mechanic based on Troy for all the Elven Races. 

I understand it might seem pointless to elaborate if CA prefers their suggesions vague, but as a non-Troy-player, I have no idea what that means, yet am moderately intrigued. :D

0Send private message
13 days ago
Feb 5, 2025, 4:23:31 PM

Steelclaw#6359 wrote:

Captain_Rex#1635 wrote:

I want a shared Pantheon Mechanic based on Troy for all the Elven Races. 

I understand it might seem pointless to elaborate if CA prefers their suggesions vague, but as a non-Troy-player, I have no idea what that means, yet am moderately intrigued. :D

No worries mate. 

IMG_3799.png

You could push your divine level for individual gods via rituals and temple buildings to gain specific buffs fitting for each god. But your divine level decreased over time again if you stopped doing rituals.



0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment

Characters : 0
No results
0Send private message