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!

  • Wesser wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    back to forest dragon:

    regular dragon stats, except fly 6/12 instead of 7/14.

    Special rule: Lay in wait

    The model/model part gains +2 advance, + 4 march and + 2 agi when it begins the start of the player turn in covering terrain.
    Hmm
    Actually cant decide if good rule or needless complexity
    ha, maybe both lol
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    back to forest dragon:

    regular dragon stats, except fly 6/12 instead of 7/14.

    Special rule: Lay in wait

    The model/model part gains +2 advance, + 4 march and + 2 agi when it begins the start of the player turn in covering terrain.
    HmmActually cant decide if good rule or needless complexity
    ha, maybe both lol
    all the best are!

    Our movement emphasis/strength should allow us to keep the dragon’s base fly at 7/14 though I reckon.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    I was thinking about an aspect of winter (or ice or whatever) which has a chill effect similar to the frost Phoenix and Yetis/Mammoth. It would be aligned to grinding strength so very tree focussed.

    When entering combat the unit summons a blizzard of spinning ice and fog giving -1 Agi to all enemy units in base contact. For each successful wound dealt by the bearer (excluding those dealt by special attacks) an additional -1 Agi is added to the effect of the blizzard. A model may not go below 0 Agi via this method.

    This would give the trees an opportunity to strike before some opponents they currently don’t strike ahead of. As it stacks over rounds of combat you could feasibly have impacts hits going after normal attacks for new entrants to an ongoing combat giving greater synergy to the Trees and Elves combo as the elves could hit before some of their more potent RPS challenges.

    A variant could be the same as the other Frosties of a straight -3Agi which would make the Trees hit ahead some units like Lion Guard / Chosen Warriors and at the same tune as others. Makes it less of a gimme combat for the opponent.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    I kind of like how the book performs, even though I’ve not played in almost a year. The speed and damage output SE can lay on focus points on the battlefield means you can really disrupt your opponent’s plans. I think that play style has been dubbed “forest Guerilla” and in my very humble opinion, the LAB should go into that direction. Despite this, the traditional style of avoidance should at the very least be semi-competitive.

    So from the top of my head, the LAB should be including but not limited to the following:

    • Skirmishing Dryads for free, it’s bad enough we lose a scoring unit from core.
    • Musician-like effect in tree units
    • Adv6 for Elf infantry
    • Mistwalker‘s Mirror as Banner (sound idea, no character tax but the annoying restrictions remain)
    • Redesign of Elven cloak: ranged attacks targeting the model not rolling to hit reduce the number of hits by X (to a minimum of 1) - could be tied to starting unit size, proximity to forest or even amount of incoming hits. Or just flat out -1.
    • loss of armour from Elven cloak could be set off by increase in ward save or innate save in profile
    • Better magical bow(s)
    • Re-vamp of some magical items
    • Ability to pick up Witchcraft. Possibly only with restrictions since SE are not supposed to have 5 magic paths in any way. As long as they’re fair and make sense overall, the whole path could be very thematic for the army. Maybe a trade - when using witchcraft, can’t have path X in the army.
    • Loosen restrictions on some of the kindreds to allow more widespread use with different mounts such as the Eagle King or Dragon.
    • Avoiding hits must mean something more than it does now, both in combat and in shooting. Elven cloak could be one way since it’s basically an empty canvas(pun intended), but perhaps it can be done with a more widespread use of Distracting or hard target. No idea how to balance that though.
    • Unicorn light troops
    • Vanguarding ranger character (perhaps tied to new magic item / forest guardian kindred)
    • Pathfinders with improved scout ability, perhaps more aggressive playstyle options? Less of an avoidance tool but rather a unit SE players want to include and not bite themselves in the back-end for because of the price tag. Every time I try to include this unit in my lists, I find 2 or 3 other choices that don’t die to a stiff breeze or run away at the first opportunity and cost less. Maybe it’s just me, but they’re very unappealing with the current price-tag, even with their abilities.
    • I’d like to see the shapeshifter elaborated a bit more, meaning different shapes to shift into. Just for the fun of it really.
    • archers are really expensive in the army that should absolutely be about archers. I know it’s balance, but I feel the core archers are overpriced.
    Now that’s a lot of changes and I’m pretty sure some of the design changes would be priced to hell in the first iterations...it’s first world problems really. I think the majority of the book is playable and works well, just some things could need a little help in the flavour department represented on the tabletop.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • New

    And what should we lose? Or perhaps “what should offset some of these changes”? Just price?

    asking because most of these sound like buffs so I would expect an average results swing in our favour across anything not heavily RPS.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • New

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    And what should we lose? Or perhaps “what should offset some of these changes”? Just price?

    asking because most of these sound like buffs so I would expect an average results swing in our favour across anything not heavily RPS
    That’s the problem. I do realise that implementing most of these changes means a significant power increase, which would mean the prices would be increased as well or some things would be deleted, restricted quite heavily.


    Some things can be fixed with points for sure. The musician could be built into the dryad /TB champion so increase the upgrade to 30 points, which would also mean we could scratch the oaken crown to free up space.
    Elven cloak I’d honestly have to just let run and see. It’s supposed to be an effect that reduces RPS matchups against magic-heavy armies, so it’s very situational and doesn’t always apply. However, reducing the incoming autohits can be quite strong when spread over the army.

    Other straight up buffs like the Adv6 would be harder to balance for sure. A price hike across the roster would be inevitable, while I have the feeling you can get some good units for the points right now. I’m not sure what to give up for this, all I know is that it would be a suitable way to differentiate SE from the other Elven factions.

    I’ve also heard that ID give a lot of players a headache, and my wish list is not intended to be a knee jerk reaction to their LAB. Just some things in the book that I personally feel could need a little help.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • New

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    And what should we lose? Or perhaps “what should offset some of these changes”? Just price?

    asking because most of these sound like buffs so I would expect an average results swing in our favour across anything not heavily RPS.
    Frankly I could do without the RR 1s to wound in forests. Stacking too many benefits in forests isn't healthy as the battlefield becomes too much of an RPS element

    I don't think Trees should have musician except in auxiliary lists. I think it's nice that elves are the maneuverable choice over the sturdier trees
  • New

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    And what should we lose? Or perhaps “what should offset some of these changes”? Just price?

    asking because most of these sound like buffs so I would expect an average results swing in our favour across anything not heavily RPS.
    Frankly I could do without the RR 1s to wound in forests. Stacking too many benefits in forests isn't healthy as the battlefield becomes too much of an RPS element
    I don't think Trees should have musician except in auxiliary lists. I think it's nice that elves are the maneuverable choice over the sturdier trees
    perhaps dryads only? They’re supposed to be agile, and while that is shown by their agility value in profile, I’ll not sure they would be more cumbersome than Elves.

    Removing RR 1’s to wound could be an option, if it doesn’t tamper with the army’s background too much. Being stronger in forests would make sense background-wise, but I agree it’s a fallacy to rely on forests to improve your fighting chances.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • New

    Serwyn wrote:

    My idea is to give swift reforms to dryads anciant (instead of via aspects). Would give a bit more incentive to take one for something else than a redirector.
    I think the drayd ancient is nothing near a redirector ever.

    The point is that units must have swift reform, since infantry is anyway the weakest unit type and should be the strongest unit type in this game which it is a rank and file game. All infantry need to be improved.

    Having to put a character in the unit means that character is so gentle to any attacks and is no harder to kill then the unit she is in, meaning if the player is not careful you can quickly loose the benefit of of hatred/lethal/ld9 bonus to your army. I always take a dryad ancient in all my lists for the ld9 benefit and often take two adepts to get a good buff phase. I have to be very careful not to loose the general, but all SE general's have this issue.

    Few things to understand. The dryad ancient became the only max adept level caster in this whole game who lost access to number 5 and 6 spells. This change when it happened really hamstringed some lists. Dryads lost a pip of initiative at a certain point during 9th, this meant so much about keeping ancient safe in unit and keeping the lethal strike and hatred long enough to make it count.

    Even with all this the SE core feels the core tax so much that the dryads are by far the best choice SE have.
  • New

    Ciara wrote:

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.

    AIUI, RT would prefer to solve that dilemma by having more units without Swift Reform in the game, not less.

    Background Team

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.
    AIUI, RT would prefer to solve that dilemma by having more units without Swift Reform in the game, not less.
    I agree actually. Rewards careful play

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    And what should we lose? Or perhaps “what should offset some of these changes”? Just price?

    asking because most of these sound like buffs so I would expect an average results swing in our favour across anything not heavily RPS.
    Frankly I could do without the RR 1s to wound in forests. Stacking too many benefits in forests isn't healthy as the battlefield becomes too much of an RPS elementI don't think Trees should have musician except in auxiliary lists. I think it's nice that elves are the maneuverable choice over the sturdier trees
    perhaps dryads only? They’re supposed to be agile, and while that is shown by their agility value in profile, I’ll not sure they would be more cumbersome than Elves.
    Removing RR 1’s to wound could be an option, if it doesn’t tamper with the army’s background too much. Being stronger in forests would make sense background-wise, but I agree it’s a fallacy to rely on forests to improve your fighting chances.
    SE would still have plenty of advantages in forests. The DTs, enemies not being Steadfast while fighting in them, Mistwalkers Mirror, cover....
  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.
    AIUI, RT would prefer to solve that dilemma by having more units without Swift Reform in the game, not less.
    After releasing a whole new book which goes in pretty much the opposite direction, I find that hard to believe.

    I would actually approve less positional flexibility in general. I would make the more mobile elements so much more useful. On the other hand, it would probably mean another round of price increase for mobile squishy units as they are harder to counter under certain circumstances. This would then push SE further into a niche that is already too narrow for my taste.
  • New

    Ciara wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    I agree actually. Rewards careful play
    Kinda. And make game more boring since you have less options in movement phase compared to normal units. You either stay in place or move forward or something like that.
    Well thats make them good for Holding in a Forest, where they Can let the enemy come to Them Or in small units that need to reform less.

    I Think its fine you cant just have your cake and eat it, but have make meaningful tactical choices between Dryads and FG
  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.
    AIUI, RT would prefer to solve that dilemma by having more units without Swift Reform in the game, not less.
    I agree actually. Rewards careful play
    Game needs more units that wheel not less infantry with swift reform, swift reforms do not increase game dymanics by much, it is only advance movement, especially when comparing to the fact that you have pieces that march in any direction.

    Arrahed wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ciara wrote:

    Trees will still be m5, no vanguard, no scout, nothing movement related except for light troops (on skirmish, in exchange for scoring) on them so elves will still be superior. Lack of swift reforms is real pain, you either play without it or you have to get hero inside which sometimes die in first combat, has poor options combined with unit. Rat ogres have it, ghasts have it, ghouls have it. Is there any other standard or large infantry in the game without base acces to swift reform? I dream of even champion combined with musicians like ghouls for higher price than normal champion. Anything but just give me that option except for boring characters in boring units.
    AIUI, RT would prefer to solve that dilemma by having more units without Swift Reform in the game, not less.
    After releasing a whole new book which goes in pretty much the opposite direction, I find that hard to believe.
    I would actually approve less positional flexibility in general. I would make the more mobile elements so much more useful. On the other hand, it would probably mean another round of price increase for mobile squishy units as they are harder to counter under certain circumstances. This would then push SE further into a niche that is already too narrow for my taste.
    I agree. I would add that this is the correct direction since otherwise we get huge price drops on unused units and then have a lot more minis on the table, which increases entry.

    A lot of infantry is used simply to score or roadblock. Three options I see. Price increase in lateral movement units and characters, price drop on rank and file units or thirdly rules changes and some reversals of recent rules in 9th.