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!

  • New

    Noldor wrote:

    Cant we create an AoN where i can use this modell on a 50x50 Base for?

    google.com/shopping/product/53…w4Tzbiw,cdl:1,prmr:1,cs:1
    I have that model and even with the wings he's a 40mm.

    But FYI there was a 9th scroll with rules to upgrade a character to a 50mm base.
  • New

    After further consideration I must question if AoN should even be in the character section.

    But first things first. What is the background on Avatar of Nature? The name suggests to me that this can be one of two things.

    1. It's an entity created out of pure divine/otherworldly matter for the sole purpose of aiding the Sylvan army in a deciding battle.

    2. It's a form of blessing/godsend from nature, bestowed on a great leader of the Sylvan community. Fusing with the bearer and making it something non-elven (or non-forest walker I guess.)

    Either way I see the Avatar as a temporary thing, created or bestowed, as a divine intervention to push the outcomes of conflict in the worldly plane in a direction that benefits whatever powerful entity called Nature by the Sylvan culture.

    If 1, then AoN should not be a character imo, but more akin to the green knight in the old Brettionia. (Don't know what it's called in KoE or if its conceptually still there). Probably a 0-1 choice in special.
  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier. Some avatars of nature are "physiologically" treefathers, some aren't. Avatar of Nature is a name of a function/class not a name of a specific creature. :)
    Alright, that seems a bit strange to me. I get that you want people with treeman models to be able to field them as an AoN. But for background reasons why not say that it is something that can take the guise of a treefather, or from my post above, imbue a treefather.

    When AoN isn't a treefather, what is it?

    Thanks for your time.
  • New

    Eastern Gate wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    I guess I wasn't clear enough earlier. Some avatars of nature are "physiologically" treefathers, some aren't. Avatar of Nature is a name of a function/class not a name of a specific creature. :)
    Alright, that seems a bit strange to me. I get that you want people with treeman models to be able to field them as an AoN. But for background reasons why not say that it is something that can take the guise of a treefather, or from my post above, imbue a treefather.
    When AoN isn't a treefather, what is it?

    Thanks for your time.

    Because the background actually exists and it made other decisions?

    Like, a lot of people's ideas are "Good, but that's not what we went with" and literally nobody on the BGT wants to start arguing about why we went with X instead of Y, because we're literally not allowed to explain all the details that would explain decisions.

    Your idea is cool. It's not what people went with, and there are rules against answering questions like that.

    Background Team

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Because the background actually exists and it made other decisions?

    Like, a lot of people's ideas are "Good, but that's not what we went with" and literally nobody on the BGT wants to start arguing about why we went with X instead of Y, because we're literally not allowed to explain all the details that would explain decisions.

    Your idea is cool. It's not what people went with, and there are rules against answering questions like that.
    Whoa, hold your horses. I'm sorry if I came across as rude? I certainly don't expect you to go with my decisions, just putting some ideas out there.

    I just asked a simple question, no need to get all gestapo on me good sir.
  • New

    Eastern Gate wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Because the background actually exists and it made other decisions?

    Like, a lot of people's ideas are "Good, but that's not what we went with" and literally nobody on the BGT wants to start arguing about why we went with X instead of Y, because we're literally not allowed to explain all the details that would explain decisions.

    Your idea is cool. It's not what people went with, and there are rules against answering questions like that.
    Whoa, hold your horses. I'm sorry if I came across as rude? I certainly don't expect you to go with my decisions, just putting some ideas out there.
    I just asked a simple question, no need to get all gestapo on me good sir.

    You're not rude! I think your ideas were cool! I even said that! :)


    The reality of the situation is that the BGT have serious restrictions on what we can actually say and share, and that can get awkward really fast. We can't really answer "Why not do X?" because the answer to that is likely to involve stuff we're not supposed to share.


    So yes, not rude at all, it's a very natural question, and I'd like to answer it, I love casual discussions of lore, and I love going along with people's ideas (in general, obviously some specific ideas are like "...dude, no" :) ).

    Background Team

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    You're not rude! I think your ideas were cool! I even said that! :)


    The reality of the situation is that the BGT have serious restrictions on what we can actually say and share, and that can get awkward really fast. We can't really answer "Why not do X?" because the answer to that is likely to involve stuff we're not supposed to share.


    So yes, not rude at all, it's a very natural question, and I'd like to answer it, I love casual discussions of lore, and I love going along with people's ideas (in general, obviously some specific ideas are like "...dude, no" :) ).
    Ok, fair enough. I don't see a reason why you are so heavily restricted and I get the feeling there's no point in asking so lets drop this topic.

    There is nothing written in our FAB about AoN so I just concluded that maybe its up in the air and not set in stone.
  • New

    I have an idea regarding the mist walkers mirror and how it could be made into a better variant while not sloting up a lot of points ona herochoice thats ultimately useless.
    Make it an upgrade to the conclave option on briar maidens and have it like so:
    Mist Walking, 20 pts, one use.
    Teleport any friendly unit within 12" to a forest terrain feature. Follow the unit spacing rule and it can appear in any legal formation.
    And if its done in the end of the movement phase or magic phase doesnt really matter. probably in the end of the macig phase so you wont be able to teleport up a mage and firing spells from the backline, WICH would be awesome. So in the end of the movement phase you use this.
    And if people think 20 pts for the upgrade is too little, bear in mind conclave upgrade on maidens put it at 295, whereas the cheapest before was 225 and mist walkers mirror is utter excrement
    Finnveden
  • New

    Hi all,
    someone mentioned, if I have the time, I should write my own home brew book.
    I am afraid I am not very happy:
    Neither the shapeshifter nor the Avatar of Nature is as some people whished they where . . .
    So I tried to add / change from the current book only some rules.
    Sylvian Bow (two shots stengh as user (+ 1 at half range)), Concentrated fire (for a vail token one unit gets battlefokus) & Little Thieves (unbreakable for trees if they suffer no wound)
    removed flameable of all trees

    Also I added three new unit types & aspets of nature and moved the one with the spears away.
    So forest ranger with not so good stats in core -- more weapon options.
    Avatar of Nature rewritten to Guardian of Natur + 1 Agi
    New entry Avatar of Natur
    Ancient Dryad can be Master
    Exchanged Magic so now Witchcraft is added
    New Shapeshifter unit --> not very happy as I would see them clearly as magical scout / vanguard and distracting close combat unit (dryad stats) currently they have bows and are expensive

    Hidden arrows new entry: Thicket Sentinels, nearly drayd stats but 3 healthpoints and Sylvian bow, so 2 shots with S5 at short range.
    Pathfinder got It's a trap!

    As we have magic to higher the strength of one unit and two shots with sylvian bows together with concentrated fire I believe we can wipeout more with shooting as we are still expensive

    It is just a real cheap update, so no testplaying if pointswise the army would work.
    And also not all ideas and special rules added I read on the forum or I have in mind by myself

    I really love our current book, I just missed the best archers of the world, as nearly every army has a unit which shots better and is cheaper or at least better stats and armor.
    Also I miss the bonus for tree units in wood, like magic resistence . . .
    or attack with blade dancer over the own units (fly move), mix dryads and thicket beasts. . . .

    If you have time during this hot summer, take a look and if you like my ideas great!
    If you would like to provide feedback, also a nice to have --> I am not a professional player, so don't take it must have or the only answer I would accept :)

    But I believe the most important thing would be feedback of the final team.
    What should be testet, maybe they can publish just a single or two new points / units and ask us
    for testplaying or opinions . .

    I know it from ID that there are ongoing chances all the time but I don't believe that just 4 or 6 people are arguing about it.

    One whish from my sider.
    In the final team should be a lot of SE players, otherwise we end up like GW with power grap and SE at low tier.

    Stay healthy and play safe
    BR

    Link
    drive.google.com/file/d/1h1aXK…fPPWkPCX/view?usp=sharing