Sylvan Elf LAB Brainstorm/Ideas thread.

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • I don't think we should spend very much of our precious complexity budget on tree spirits in the main book, i'm certain a Forest Spirits auxiliary book is bound to happen and there we can have all these cool seasonal aspects and such awesome ideas properly explored. The main book will most likely be the only book in the game that gives us actual sylvan elves to play, so i personally think it is the elves whose identity should be focused on in there, to tell us as clearly as possible where they stand in relation to their cousins and the wider world.
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
    Phae's Pointy-Ear Blog: Elves in a Corner
  • I can definitely see your point @Phaeoron. To me its the symbiosis to the surroundings and the tree spirits, that defines the Sylvan Elves. Some other roles have been denied before, we are no more the shooters we have been (the cap on 55 bows per army where we mostly don't have any other shots hurts) for example, we do not wield any really spectacular magic or magic items, neither offensive nor defensive. We do shine in close combat as long as it doesn't mean breaking ranked up units. What would you see, that can be touched?
  • Symbiosis is important to me too. We have that now in a quantity i like where we bring a forest and have spirits to do jobs the elves can't.

    I also like the hunter aspect, i think the general direction is good where "our arrows do not blot out the sun" but we have some relatively high quality shots compared to many armies, and we have pretty brutal first turn CC output from elves that they can't really sustain (don't ask me why i think that's cool, maybe something to do with encapturing "kill or be killed" type of mentality?).

    Not sure if i answered what you're asking, though :D
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
    Phae's Pointy-Ear Blog: Elves in a Corner
  • Oh, you do and I can absolutely go with that. At the moment I'm bringing 3(!) Shifter-Princes to competitive tournaments. Even when I do not get top places regularly I am a feared opponent with this and definitely the one who laughs when I roll my charges...
    As I play against both undead factions on a regular basis the shooting doesn't do much for me and even other armies don't miss the cheap targets I have to use my quality shooters for, so I tend to use the close combat units. Mostly rangers, who are super-effektive now and Kestrels and the very reliable Forest Guard as long as they are 40+ bodies. So if something can be done for the huntsmen or the blade dancers to make them either survivable or fast enough to keep the Speed of other units I would live with just small changes to the spirits. Some should be done anyway, as we are talking in legendary army book terms..
  • Why don’t reduce rank from our bows to 20-25 but always with strength 4.
    We reduce the possibility to castle because we have to be near the enemie, 22 for example is good because our second line can shoot as our first line is 20 from the enemie, the problem with our actual strenght 4 is even with move and shoot or march and shoot you must be 12-13 UM from enemie charge which is devastating for you.
    We could be more agressive with better shot and we don’t buff avoidance.
  • Falco wrote:

    Why don’t reduce rank from our bows to 20-25 but always with strength 4.
    We reduce the possibility to castle because we have to be near the enemie, 22 for example is good because our second line can shoot as our first line is 20 from the enemie, the problem with our actual strenght 4 is even with move and shoot or march and shoot you must be 12-13 UM from enemie charge which is devastating for you.
    We could be more agressive with better shot and we don’t buff avoidance.
    not if you want to keep 30inches and quick to fire.
    Then it becomes an issue of just letting SE use the crossbow.
  • The latest Scroll has a preview of the thought direction of for two DE characters.

    the-ninth-age.com/community/fi…-issue-20-march-1st-2020/

    Maybe you can draw some inspiration from it for SE :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • These are two interesting models. Both seems cool to play. I would really like to play the cosmology warlock.

    If we extends this to sylvan elves who could have pf and blade dancer chat as different entry rather than kindreds, as in v8, I don't know about it.
    Sure it's somehow cleaner and easier to include stat changes, but it also seems a waste of space. The warlock seems to be just a standard wizard master trading some magic items points for the familiar. I really don't know about what would be better for us, but it would seem an interesting point to discuss here.

    Other than that, I am not a fan of having specified different kind of familiar for different domain. If I have a nice model for my warlock with a familiar of some sort, Iwould like to play him with all paths without the familiar being mismatched two times over three. Sure you don't have to be full wysiwyg, but still I don't think it bring anything to precise different familiars corresponding to different paths.
  • Familiar creatures are just wip concepts to remain as such until the BGT does the final naming before the public playtesting file is released :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • Giladis wrote:

    The latest Scroll has a preview of the thought direction of for two DE characters.

    the-ninth-age.com/community/fi…-issue-20-march-1st-2020/

    Maybe you can draw some inspiration from it for SE :)
    Personally I have long desired for a Wizard's chosen Path of Magic to affect the model's profile or add some kind of ability, so that alone makes me love the concept, cool stuff!
    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated May 28, 2020
  • Giladis wrote:

    The latest Scroll has a preview of the thought direction of for two DE characters.

    the-ninth-age.com/community/fi…-issue-20-march-1st-2020/

    Maybe you can draw some inspiration from it for SE :)
    I like them both, but I was just wondering whether there is a change of direction here. The Manslayer looks like a powerful individual fighter, so I was wondering whether this means a relaxation of the previous separation of character roles between the elven armies, with DE having a lot more synergy from their characters, while SE weren't given much room for synergy from our characters. Even if that remains as they overall guidance, if the LAB teams are being given a little more freedom to add a few exceptions, that could be very good for SE.
    My SE homebrew (New version 7/6/2020)
  • If you look at the guidelines for Synergy

    Display Spoiler


    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    B.10 Synergies
    Synergies which support the close quarter fighting nature is a defining trait of the army. Synergies in general should support the MMU/MSU play style which tends to play wide. Synergies should be seen as a tool to incorporate important background driven subthemes for the army's identity in the book.

    Synergies must not enable the creation of powerful deathstars. This can be achieved by limiting the base power of units, and/or limiting the amount of stacking of synergies that can be done.

    There are three main providers of synergies:

    B.10.1 Inter-unit-synergies - Academy
    Academy units are troops which are trained to fight together in order to maximise their potential. This background interaction should be translated into inter-unit-synergies in the book. I.e. Academy synergies should amplify academy units efficiency and showcase that they have trained together.

    These abilities should not up the raw power of individual units, but rather allow academy units to perform actions (where both units are involved) that normal units cannot. EoS parent/support unit rules is good inspiration. Avoid copy-pasting the exact EoS rules. Give DE a unique twist on this, and make is smaller scale that EoS version (it’s a main theme in EoS while a sub-theme in DE).

    B.10.2 Synergy providing models: Cults
    The providers of cult-related synergies is models who carries the word of their god (e.g. priests and shrines). They are able to motivate dread elves by speaking for their god. This should take the form of priests speaking for their god (e.g. “Your god demands you to smite that enemy”) and/or cursing enemies by channelling divine powers.

    Mechanically it should function as debuffing target enemy. This encourages the an MSU play style since maximum effect is gained by ganging up on a debuffed enemy with several DE units.

    Great care needs to be taken to ensure that stacking of synergies cannot be used to create too strong units.This means that either:


    Synergies cannot be combined (e.g. buffs from academy is impossible to combine with debuffs from cults), or

    Each effect is very low impact.
    Each cult should offer a unique twist on these debuffs, representing its background and defining the corresponding cult troops in their nature.

    Beyond providing synergies to followers of the same God, which cult a model belongs to should have very small, if any, inherent game impact. I.e. the importance of cults outside this synergy-providing aspect should be scaled down compared to the old book. Note that cults should only spread these synergies to followers of the same cult.

    B.10.3 Movement and discipline: Monster handlers
    The interaction between monstrous units and their handlers. Note that the DE society is the most warfare focused elf society in the T9A setting. The degree of formalised military training, its economic implication (raiding/slavery) and the spiritual diversity (cults) offer unique opportunities to incorporate synergistic elements in the army. This source of synergy should showcase handlers’ abilities to control monsters, primarily represented by increased discipline- and movement-related capabilities.



    You will see it does not mean all character have to provide synergy only those with specific thematic affiliations :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    The latest Scroll has a preview of the thought direction of for two DE characters.

    https://www.the-ninth-age.com/community/filebase/index.php?file/986-9th-scroll-issue-20-march-1st-2020/

    Maybe you can draw some inspiration from it for SE :)
    I like them both, but I was just wondering whether there is a change of direction here. The Manslayer looks like a powerful individual fighter, so I was wondering whether this means a relaxation of the previous separation of character roles between the elven armies, with DE having a lot more synergy from their characters, while SE weren't given much room for synergy from our characters. Even if that remains as they overall guidance, if the LAB teams are being given a little more freedom to add a few exceptions, that could be very good for SE.
    Hmm?

    Isnt the Manslayer just an Elven Lord with +1OWS/Attack/5++ and a special rule that is sort of gimmicky? I mean it doesnt work vs. shooting and since no effect as yet allows anyone to reroll Aegis Counterstrike really doesn't seem to be something to build around.

    So at the end of the day he's like the DE version of BOTD. An alternative so that not EVERY DE army is about stacking synergies. SE isn't completely denied synergy characters either (just almost)
  • Wesser wrote:

    Hmm?
    Isnt the Manslayer just an Elven Lord with +1OWS/Attack/5++ and a special rule that is sort of gimmicky? I mean it doesnt work vs. shooting and since no effect as yet allows anyone to reroll Aegis Counterstrike really doesn't seem to be something to build around.

    So at the end of the day he's like the DE version of BOTD. An alternative so that not EVERY DE army is about stacking synergies. SE isn't completely denied synergy characters either (just almost)
    Yes, but if they are adding more non-synergy, lead-by-example type characters (not exactly like all their characters are synergy based already), perhaps SE can add a little more synergy in our character section. I'm not talking about making us all synergy based or anything, just being able to add a little more. Things like perhaps FG kindred adding something to their unit like BD kindred add fleet of foot, or a character being able to buff the shooting of our archers slightly or something.

    I know we have a little synergy available from our characters, the spear, BD kindred, items like the horn of the hunt etc, but generally all of our characters are very focused on being straight up fighters, which feels a bit one-dimensional in my opinion, and I think having just a couple of them being slightly less capable fighters but having some mild synergy effects (nothing too strong, as we still shouldn't be synergy focused), could give us real options to freshen up our character selection instead of just having a whole bunch of variations on "+1A and gain the unit's special rules".
    My SE homebrew (New version 7/6/2020)
  • For Sylvan Elves it might just be impossible to create competitive rules for all the kindred characters. It's just too many Kindreds.

    Obviously unit buffs is one way to go and that's easy to design. ...and do we want to go that direction? Just look at AoS or 40k - bubble buffs is pretty much all their characters do because its easy to design.

    And fluff wise: Are kindreds in T9A going to be as defined and central to the fluff as they were in 8th edition?

    It's something we have to decide. From the looks of the other LAB's, it's diverging quite a bit from 8th edition. So feel free to get creative!!!
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    For Sylvan Elves it might just be impossible to create competitive rules for all the kindred characters. It's just too many Kindreds.

    Obviously unit buffs is one way to go and that's easy to design. ...and do we want to go that direction? Just look at AoS or 40k - bubble buffs is pretty much all their characters do because its easy to design.

    And fluff wise: Are kindreds in T9A going to be as defined and central to the fluff as they were in 8th edition?

    It's something we have to decide. From the looks of the other LAB's, it's diverging quite a bit from 8th edition. So feel free to get creative!!!
    I'm suggesting stuff like adding a mild synergy to FG (Like BD giving their BD unit Swifstride) and giving a character an archery related synergy (how about an upgrade for mages rather than prince/chieftain, which gives the mage 2 or 3 poisoned, divine shots, and lets their unit ignore cover from forests), not making all of our characters give synergies and bubble buffs.

    As for whether kindreds are going to be such a big thing, I don't even know if we really need kindreds per se. IMO we need a BD specific character, a mounted hunter-type character (not neccesarily specifically a wild huntsmen though), and a super-archer character (again should work with either SS or PF, but doesn't actually have to be a member of either). Other than that, I don't know that we need kindreds. Shifters could be a seperate character type, or they could be moved out of characters altogether. Chieftains and princes could cover basically be FG kindred by default.

    Most importantly, I don't think we need to be tied to the current two tiers of character. Lord and Hero tiers originate from when you only had one lord in an army and other characters had to be hero tier. Without that system, they are pretty meaningless. Cheaper armies can benefit from simply having cheap heroes, but for armies like elves, they are too expensive for that, so they end up basically just being bad versions of princes, who we have to bring for BSBs.

    Instead, we could have a real warrior-hero type character, kind of like the Manslayer mentioned above, and another character representing more of a local lord, who is still a gifted warrior by the standards of lesser races, but who is a civil leader, not really a warrior. He could be an ok fighter, but have other benefits, like being an apprentice level wizard, or having some leadership related rules, or even just giving better leadership, or being able to ambush his unit in from a forest.
    My SE homebrew (New version 7/6/2020)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by CariadocThorne ().

  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    The latest Scroll has a preview of the thought direction of for two DE characters.


    the-ninth-age.com/community/fi…-issue-20-march-1st-2020/


    Maybe you can draw some inspiration from it for SE :)
    I like them both, but I was just wondering whether there is a change of direction here. The Manslayer looks like a powerful individual fighter, so I was wondering whether this means a relaxation of the previous separation of character roles between the elven armies, with DE having a lot more synergy from their characters, while SE weren't given much room for synergy from our characters. Even if that remains as they overall guidance, if the LAB teams are being given a little more freedom to add a few exceptions, that could be very good for SE.
    My interpretation of the Manslayer is it is intended to replace the Assassin entry. It trades special deployment and poisons for more loadout options and the Aegis Save mechanic, it's now more of a duelist over being a sneaky backstabber. If this is the case I personally would of perfered a more sneaky unit entry, but the project has struggled with assassin type characters in the past so I can see why they would opt for a more straight up fighter type character inspired by Greek heroes instead.



    I think it would be interesting to debate the merits of both the Kindred system and standalone character entries for SE. Personally I was quite pleased when the project reintroduced Kindreds to the army and I would like to see the system both expanded upon and refined. But I can also see the merits in standalone entries, especially for the Shapeshifter Kindred.

    I am also intrigued by the idea of dropping the Chieftain entirely from the book, perhaps even getting rid of BsB access altogether and experimenting with other options for Disicpline managment in the army, such as re-rolls to Discipline Tests when within X" of a Forest.

    Cheers!
    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated May 28, 2020
  • I really like the idea of a kindred which gives a benefit to Archers. Whether it is something along the lines of ignore cover or (my preference) can always stand and shoot.

    The latter would be useful across multiple entries as it would allow more aggressive close play with all archer types as well as bringing any Briar Maiden equivalent we may end up with back into contention.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • funkyfellow wrote:

    My interpretation of the Manslayer is it is intended to replace the Assassin entry. It trades special deployment and poisons for more loadout options and the Aegis Save mechanic, it's now more of a duelist over being a sneaky backstabber. If this is the case I personally would of perfered a more sneaky unit entry, but the project has struggled with assassin type characters in the past so I can see why they would opt for a more straight up fighter type character inspired by Greek heroes instead.
    If you're correct, that would mean it would not be expanding the number of non-synergy characters, so my musings above are for nothing :(

    I was seeing it more as a commander replacement, because HE and DE commanders tend to suffer from the same issue of Hero-level characters I mentioned above. I could see DE replacing Princes and Commanders with the fighty manslayer and a second character representing more of a tactician and leader (but a distinctly military leader unlike my civilian leader idea for SE).

    funkyfellow wrote:

    I am also intrigued by the idea of dropping the Chieftain entirely from the book, perhaps even getting rid of BsB access altogether and experimenting with other options for Disicpline managment in the army, such as re-rolls to Discipline Tests when within X" of a Forest.
    When I suggested the fighty character/leader character split above, I actually considered suggesting that this could even lead to dropping BSBs entirely from SE, but I was worried that might be going too far. Invalidating models could be a concern, but I can see a couple of ways to keep people's BSB models relevant, like letting the characters carry their own personal banner (giving the +1CR for a banner, and letting them take banner enchantments). It's certainly an interesting idea for discussion, we are supposed to have a high degree of indepence in our army, compared to most armies who are more reliant on leadership bubbles.
    My SE homebrew (New version 7/6/2020)