Bows - is it really worth it?

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

  • Summarizing what has been proposed so far, there seem to be a few solutions to make SA more efficient:
    1. Reduce cost
    2. Make them more mobile (light troops)
    3. Improve melee skills

    My favourite solution would be that we could choose between two versions (similar to Heath Riders/ Heath Hunters):
    - Melee SA, scoring, 5+ save, Sylvan Blades, can shoot from three ranks
    - Mobile SA, non scoring, light troops
  • Bows - is it really worth it?

    I was trying to think of another way to make them feel like the very core of the army, the backbone of the warband, without touching the stuff or the range they already have
    Something like being able to "stand and shoot" on a enemy unit charging a friendly unit, if both are close enough (unless being charged themselves at the same time of course)?

    I have no idea if this would be too strong or useless though, or if it would take too much from the EoS identity, with the "parent unit" vibe to it.
    I create illustrations for the 9th Age :)
    You can see the other things I draw here
  • I could honestly see Sylvan longbows becoming Sylvan bows, in exchange for some utility and protection.

    Sylvan bow: range 24, str 3 ap 1 str 4 at short range. Quick 2 fire, march and shoot. Volly fire

    But Sylvan archers also gain Elven cloaks (6++ against ranged, hard target if they moved) and a special rule which allows them to shoot and flee as a reaction.

    Heath riders and pathfinders get this bow too, sentinels keep a long bow. Reduce range, to force us to engage more, but give us more tools to survive when inside that danger zone.
  • I mean, I feel like complaining that they're priced too highly and then adding even more special rules that will inevitably come with a price tag might not be the best way to do it.

    Sometimes it's simpler to make something solid and desirable by making it not too spectacular. They already have multiple special rules going for 'em (QTF, AP1 and S4 at short). Is adding more really necessary?
  • On the other-hand, I think the best thing to do is to make the concept of a unit work perfectly, then work back-wards from there on how to achieve it?

    Long range avoidance is punished, so we push towards shorter ranged play. But shorter ranged play is obviously more dangerous, so we add some counterplay to enable the playstyle we want.

    I think the most important thing about LAB design is going to be making a concept that works the way you want it to, then start simplifying from there.

    Also worth mentioning, I'd imagine some of these rules would be closer to army-wide special rules. Old wood elf lore, which I believe thematically still holds true, is that battling a Sylvan Elf army should be like being caught in a hurrican of leaves, some attacking, some retreating, never a strong concentration in one place and never easy to bring to bare. I think a mid-range shooting presence with high mobility is the way to accomplish that.
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    I mean, I feel like complaining that they're priced too highly and then adding even more special rules that will inevitably come with a price tag might not be the best way to do it.

    Sometimes it's simpler to make something solid and desirable by making it not too spectacular. They already have multiple special rules going for 'em (QTF, AP1 and S4 at short). Is adding more really necessary?
    That assumes that there is a consensus also with the team that decide on points on the fact that they are overpriced/don't have a role, and i suppose that there isn't, otherwise after two years the point would be already changed.
    So a different design is proposed, and a this point is just brainstorming because we can't see the lab on the horizon.
  • Chack wrote:

    Squigkikka wrote:

    I mean, I feel like complaining that they're priced too highly and then adding even more special rules that will inevitably come with a price tag might not be the best way to do it.

    Sometimes it's simpler to make something solid and desirable by making it not too spectacular. They already have multiple special rules going for 'em (QTF, AP1 and S4 at short). Is adding more really necessary?
    That assumes that there is a consensus also with the team that decide on points on the fact that they are overpriced/don't have a role, and i suppose that there isn't, otherwise after two years the point would be already changed.So a different design is proposed, and a this point is just brainstorming because we can't see the lab on the horizon.
    By seeing the point drops they got in the last 2 years I think there is consensus that they are overpriced. The problem is unfortunately that the balancing team will never suddenly drop a lot of points from a unit but they will rather drop points little by little until they feel the unit is correctly priced. Since they were heavily overpriced it will take time before they get to the right spot (around 18 ppm a model).