SE Community Magic Item Brainstorming for Full Army Book

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Item To replace: Drums of Cenyrn

    Glyph of Cenyrn (50 pts):
    The bearer may reroll to failed to-wound rolls with its close combat attacks

    I don't think Drums of Ceryn are often used. Personally I never use it.
    A contrario,I find it hard to build combat Prince because it's reallt hard to fin offensive points of magic items. IN particular, since potion of strength and divine Icon don't exist anymore, you just take a usual 60 points weapon and curse of the black stag, and that's the end, you can't really do more than half your points allowance. I think having such an item would open more builds. On top of that this items work well with medium-strength builds that we have, and also with lethal strike for our dancer princes or with WWB, so I find it satisfying and fitting. Finally the design is really simple and doesn't involve complexe rules and wording.
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Considering flying lets you trololo walk out of traps, I would really rethink your logic.
    I don't think I do if you want to increase the price (significantly) based on:

    - Situational use
    - The assumption I let my unit with that character get trapped (with a spell I could any unit, this item can only save a specific one)
    - That a 12' march (assuming I pass March test) would necessarily save the unit

    Remember what we've been telling you about OUU items: If it's situational it's gotta be cheap, so we can afford to kit a character for duties beyond carrying that item
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    There is very little that is situational in that item, because it also tacks a 5++ Aegis on a unit for a turn, which is something I'd already price at 40-45 pts.
    1. That Aegis is against shooting only, making is really situational right there

    2. This is Sylvan Elves. 5++ doesn't exactly make a unit invulnerable to shooting, and the enemy will always have something worth shooting at

    Our previous hereditary was incredibly weak for these reasons, so why would I pay a lot of points to get it now?

    If it cost 45 points so I could still squeeze in Heroes Heart on a Bsb Bladedancer Chief it might be playable in that specific case... If it was more than that I would never play it.. and bar Pathfinder characters being made viable it would have be even cheaper to go on any other sort of character
  • I think it's better to listen to the person who knows how the game prices things and design with those constraints in mind, rather than argue with him about how valid those constraints are, because that's probably not going to achieve much constructive, at least for the purpose we are at here.

    For example we seem to have gathered that items with a possibly powerful peak situational use are likely to be more expensive than the SE community thinks is good to pay for them.

    So maybe it's better to try to design towards items that have a flatter power curve, that is are broadly useful but not particularly powerful in particular situations, spiking the cost for every use to match the power in that particular situation. That seems to be one of the concerns with our roster of items, too many are already that way.

    Data Analysis

  • Actually in that vein,

    @Fnarrr i wonder if you wouldn't mind answering a question for me?

    The Bough of Wysan is currently Sylvan Longbow Enchantment +1 to Wound at Short Range, Magical Attacks for 55pts.

    What effect on costing do you think making it:

    Sylvan Longbow Enchantment, Multishot (3 for Chieftain, 4 for Prince), +1 to Wound at Short Range, Magical Attacks would have?

    The reason for this would be that it would be the same as now for Pathfinder characters (Since they already have the same multishot), but possibly somewhat useful for non Pathfinder characters, who would get multishot out of it but not be able to add Master Archers (AP3) to it.

    I feel like that shouldn't actually affect the price too much since the peak power is the same, am I right or not?

    Data Analysis

  • Banner of the Mist Walkers: One use only - Place a forest in contact with the unit "same size as the SE one, and same format as the "templates" making it easy) and teleport the unit in another forest on the battlefield (the unit may perform a free reform in the new forest).

    This allows us to use one more forest on the battlefield, and would allow us to make some nice move tricks on the battlefield.

    DL / WDG Community Support

    Playtester

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    I think it's better to listen to the person who knows how the game prices things and design with those constraints in mind, rather than argue with him about how valid those constraints are, because that's probably not going to achieve much constructive, at least for the purpose we are at here.

    For example we seem to have gathered that items with a possibly powerful peak situational use are likely to be more expensive than the SE community thinks is good to pay for them.

    So maybe it's better to try to design towards items that have a flatter power curve, that is are broadly useful but not particularly powerful in particular situations, spiking the cost for every use to match the power in that particular situation. That seems to be one of the concerns with our roster of items, too many are already that way.
    Acknowledged...

    Which is why my own idea for Mistwalker would be to change it the part about teleporting into another Forest into "arrive from Ambush" and not count as Scoring if done after Turn X
  • @Hachiman Taro that bow lets a must-take character (BSB) provide good shots that don't come out of the shooting cap; i know PF kindreds dont either (contentious issue for me, its why I left BT at the time) but since they cannot be BSBs at least the per-shot nvestment is high for them.

    Its basically bad design, where the only way to balance it on list level is to hammer it with price. I'd blind price at 75-80 myself (~3 sylvan archers), but the full 100 wouldnt surprise me.

    If you dont want nasty surprises, dont pitch designs for ranged power outside the shot category.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    @Hachiman Taro that bow lets a must-take character (BSB) provide good shots that don't come out of the shooting cap; i know PF kindreds dont either (contentious issue for me, its why I left BT at the time) but since they cannot be BSBs at least the per-shot nvestment is high for them.

    Its basically bad design, where the only way to balance it on list level is to hammer it with price. I'd blind price at 75-80 myself (~3 sylvan archers), but the full 100 wouldnt surprise me.

    If you dont want nasty surprises, dont pitch designs for ranged power outside the shot category.
    See your point but it's not that good shoot tbh. Only two more arrows than without the bow, and only slightly better than Sylvan Archers while not counting toward base, not giving more wounds and taking magic item and character allowance.
    It is easy to price in fact (on a BSB), thanks to the Intermediate Value Theorem. While it is less cost efficient than archers, it's useless to take it. So slightly bellow that breakpoint (due to the other advantage I mentionned) it would be balanced. It can't be broken since you can just take two or three more archers for the same effect. Maybe just add "the bringer counts as if he had three Sylvan longbows".

    However, IMHO, that same fact made the bow boring and uninteresting. You can just take S.A. for more or less the same effect. Better design something different.
  • Its worth noting archers have another cap, so that theorem doesn't necessarily work - but that's minor. More on point, in terms of output the bow is a fair bit higher than 3 archers: at long range its 2 extra shots hitting on 2+, which is slightly better than 3 archers hitting on 4+; at short range the hits are lower but the +1 to wound benefit to those 2 shots and the 3rd "base" one outperforms the 3 archers yet again.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Its worth noting archers have another cap, so that theorem doesn't necessarily work - but that's minor. More on point, in terms of output the bow is a fair bit higher than 3 archers: at long range its 2 extra shots hitting on 2+, which is slightly better than 3 archers hitting on 4+; at short range the hits are lower but the +1 to wound benefit to those 2 shots and the 3rd "base" one outperforms the 3 archers yet again.
    Yes I also evoked that limitation, and yes it is better than two archers but maybe not than three since you already have one without the bow. Some stats would be needed but the exact price it should be isn't my point, just that it's not hard to price fairly.
    But as I said I wouldn't like much that item anyway.
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    If you dont want nasty surprises, dont pitch designs for ranged power outside the shot category.
    When i was wondering why our magical bows are always subpar this consideration came at my mind(since they are outside the cap they aren't allowed to be good) but i haven't been able to confirm the theory, you think that it might be the case ?

    If you think it is the case do you have a suggestion about how to exit this strange situation (best archers aren't allowed a good magic bow) ?
    Creating a very good bow that makes the character counts in UA can be a solution ?
  • @Fnarrr That's interesting, thanks. I only agree with some of your assumptions but like you say it's very useful to have your point of view to avoid those nasty surprises. It'd be an though provoking discussion to have about them but probably not too useful here. Gameplay experience kinda tests what assumptions are right over time anyhow.

    As an aside my proposal for the Shooting Cap was to include Pathfinders in the shooting cap (and the bow cap be a shot cap instead) so we're closer together sometimes than you might think.

    I think it's really useful to be able to have these back and forths with people who understand BLT pricing before designs are set though, it seems likely to result in more functional designs making print.

    Data Analysis

  • Hi all!

    Here are a couple of ideas I have been toying with for awhile, some of them I have posted before while other ideas got altered to reflect the changes in the recent update.

    New Items:
    Item to Replace: Lifeseed Feathers


    Veil Walkers Harp; (100 pts)
    Dominant, Wizards Only
    During step 3 of your Magic Phase you may spend 1 Veil Token and choose one of the following effects:

    Harmonious Melody: Friendly units within 8" of the bearer gain Magical Resistance (2) until the start of your next magic phase.
    Song of Discord: Target enemy Wizard within 8" suffers -1 to their Casting and Dispel rolls until the end of their next magic phase.

    Explanation: There is a large gaping hole in our item selection concerning the magic phase. We are literally the only army without a faction specific item for it. Since I think we have too many shooting items we could drop one and make room for this. I feel an item that encourages mobility and closing in on our enemies would fit best, it also needs to be good enough to compete with the likes of the Magical Heirloom and Book of Arcane Power. This item is designed to help protect the army early on and to be able to switch to a more aggressive strategy later in the game.


    Item to Replace: Shielding Bark

    Shroud of the Ancients: Elven Cloak Enchantment (90 pts)
    The bearer gains Fortitude (4+) and Distracting.

    Explanation: Having a an armour enchantment that gives a special save and a weakness to flaming attacks that isn't Fortitude feels really weird, Fortitude already gives that kind of effect. By having a special save as a cloak enchantment we can somewhat get around our reliance on the Talisman of Shielding in our lists. Distracting was added since it fits our strengths.



    Aspect of Nature (Currently vacant space)

    Entwined Roots: (50 pts)
    The Bearer may cast Forest Embrace as a bound spell (Power Level 4/8) and gains Channel (1) if it is contact with a Forest.

    Explanation: We have an empty slot with the removal of the old Entwined Roots, I feel we could use a bound spell to bring us on par with everyone else and having a redundant effect to pair with our hereditary felt like a good choice. Bringing back our old Blessing of the Ancients also add extra flavour. Spirits of the Wood from Druidism could also be a cool pick for a bound spell for this choice.


    Item Changes:
    Bough of Wyscan: Sylvan Longbow Enchantment (40 pts)
    Magical Attacks. Attacks with this weapon gain +1 Strength when shooting at Short Range.
    The Bearer of this enchantment may still select a Melee Weapon Enchantment.

    Explanation: By switching from +1 to Wound to +1 to Strength the price can go down some more, by allowing us to take melee enchantments we don't have to sacrifice combat capability on our Pathfinder Princes to have a cool bow. I would still like to see Shots (3) for non-pathfinders on this item but that could possibly create new issues with the shooting allowance caps and points costs.

    Hail Shot: Sylvan Longbow Enchantment (75 pts)

    Magical Attacks. One use only; this weapon gains +1 AP & Shots (10), the bearer gains no effect from Master Archer this turn.
    The Bearer of this enchantment may still select a Melee Weapon Enchantment.

    Explanation: Hailshot did not come out of the 2.0 update to shooting very well. By changing it to a Weapon Enchantment we get around all the weird issues with restrictions and set Aim scores. By replacing the 3d6 shots with shots 10 (slightly below the current average) we speed up the game a bit and get rid of some variance (booth good and bad). By using the profile of the Sylvan Longbow we get rid of unneeded complexity with the only change being AP 2 at long range instead of Strength 4.

    Drums of Cenyrn: (25 pts)
    Models on Foot Only
    Enemy units within 8' of the bearer suffer minimized rolls to their flee distance

    Explanation: The Drums are a good candidate for getting rid of a One Use effect in our item selection. Affecting our enemies flee rolls feels like a suitable effect.

    Sacred Seeds: (30 pts)
    One use only. At the end of Step 6 of the Pre-game sequence you may choose a Ruins, Fields, or Water Terrain Feature. The chosen feature becomes a Forest for the rest of the game.

    Explanation: The current version suffers the same item allotment issues that the other expensive one use items suffer from. This change simplifies its use, opens up new builds, and saves us the hassle of having to carry around an additional Forest to games.

    Mist Walker's Mirror: (45 pts)

    At the end of step 4 of the Deployment Phase Sequence (before deploying Scouts), the owning player may remove a friendly unit within 36" of the bearer from the Battlefield and deploy it again within 36" of the bearer (any Characters joined to the unit must remain in the unit; this does not affect the number of Undeployed Units for calculating the starting roll-off bonus).

    Explanation: I think switching around Mistwalker's Mirror and the Banner of Deception could really help both items with their issues. By being able to target a unit instead of having the effect attached to a banner this item would become much more harder to predict and also much more easier to use in many different types of list compositions. By adding a range limit to the item we can help keep costs down in return for the increased flexibility.


    Banner of Deception: (70 pts)
    Models on Foot Only

    One use only. If the bearer’s unit consists entirely of Standard Size Infantry models, is unengaged, and is entirely within a Forest Terrain Feature that doesn’t contain any enemy models, the unit may teleport to any other Forest Terrain Feature on the Battlefield. This special movement is resolved at the end of the player’s Movement Phase. When teleporting, the unit must be placed entirely within the target Forest. It may appear in any legal formation but must follow the Unit Spacing rule.The unit counts as having performed a March Move

    Explanation: The main problem with the Mistwalkers mirror is the huge character tax associated with it. It makes an already tricky to use and niche item even more situational since any character that has it is either next to useless or incredibly vulnerable in close combat. By turning it into a banner we can get around that issue while also keeping the item from being undercosted.

    Points Changes:
    Horn of the Wild Hunt: (30 pts)


    Predator Pennant: (40 pts)


    Explanation: These items certainly became much more useable in the last update, the main issue with them is simply points costs.

    Thanks for reading,
    Cheers!

    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated September 26, 2019

    The post was edited 5 times, last by funkyfellow ().

  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    @Fnarrr That's interesting, thanks. I only agree with some of your assumptions but like you say it's very useful to have your point of view to avoid those nasty surprises. It'd be an though provoking discussion to have about them but probably not too useful here. Gameplay experience kinda tests what assumptions are right over time anyhow.

    As an aside my proposal for the Shooting Cap was to include Pathfinders in the shooting cap (and the bow cap be a shot cap instead) so we're closer together sometimes than you might think.

    I think it's really useful to be able to have these back and forths with people who understand BLT pricing before designs are set though, it seems likely to result in more functional designs making print.
    Why doesn't ACS with input from ADT & BLT come up with a preferred set of mechanic(s) guidelines for the community. Give a brief example from ADT and BLT gives brief pricing guidelines. This would help to focus those who have an idea if they can somewhat predict what may happen. If ACS would put this in the first post of a discussion about a unit/item it might help, especially new people who may want to contribute.

    For example:
    1. Conditional mechanic-everything within 8" gets x effect. Easiest to predict point wise.
    2. Conditional mechanic with drawback-x does d3 wounds except against unarmored targets. Easy to predict most outcomes, may be slightly more or less based on negative conditional situation frequency.
    3. Stat buff- S+1. Will be expensive based on external and what stat is changed.
    4. Hidden random- on a 4+ the unit gains D6 attacks in combat. Hardest to predict due to not knowing outcome until in-game moment. Most likely to be priced at most beneficial outcome.

    P.S. This is the closest to legalese I could write. Sorry for any confusion to professional legalese writers. :P
  • Serwyn wrote:

    Item To replace: Drums of Cenyrn

    Glyph of Cenyrn (50 pts):
    The bearer may reroll to failed to-wound rolls with its close combat attacks

    I don't think Drums of Ceryn are often used. Personally I never use it.
    A contrario,I find it hard to build combat Prince because it's reallt hard to fin offensive points of magic items. IN particular, since potion of strength and divine Icon don't exist anymore, you just take a usual 60 points weapon and curse of the black stag, and that's the end, you can't really do more than half your points allowance. I think having such an item would open more builds. On top of that this items work well with medium-strength builds that we have, and also with lethal strike for our dancer princes or with WWB, so I find it satisfying and fitting. Finally the design is really simple and doesn't involve complexe rules and wording.
    I would use this.

    Background Team

    9th Scroll Editor

    Ammertime Podcast Host
    soundcloud.com/ammertime-podcast
    Team Ireland ETC 2019 :HE:
  • Rothulf wrote:

    Sacred Seeds : Replace with "Forests count as having Channel (1)for bearer's army"
    I was going to suggest a similar (give channel (1) to bearer in forest) but yours is better.



    funkyfellow wrote:

    Aspect of Nature (Currently vacant space)


    Entwined Roots: (50 pts)
    The Bearer may cast Forest Embrace as a bound spell (Power Level 4/8) and gains Channel (1) if it is contact with a Forest.

    Explanation: We have an empty slot with the removal of the old Entwined Roots, I feel we could use a bound spell to bring us on par with everyone else and having a redundant effect to pair with our hereditary felt like a good choice. Bringing back our old Blessing of the Ancients also add extra flavour. Spirits of the Wood from Druidism could also be a cool pick for a bound spell for this choice.




    Sacred Seeds: (30 pts)
    One use only. At the end of Step 6 of the Pre-game sequence you may choose a Ruins, Fields, or Water Terrain Feature. The chosen feature becomes a Forest for the rest of the game.

    Explanation: The current version suffers the same item allotment issues that the other expensive one use items suffer from. This change simplifies its use, opens up new builds, and saves us the hassle of having to carry around an additional Forest to games.



    I really like the Entwined roots aspect you created except the name.

    Is your sacred seed costed as the torch from WotDG? I like the idea anyhow but would then leave mist walker (and banner of deception) as is.