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).
  • Late to the party but I like the topic.

    Yes our bows are worth it. But not from core unless on heath hunters... Maaaaybe.

    Near max PF and sentinels is where it's at. Over costed yes but still solid with character support. Bunkers and high lateral moving answers with counter attack ability is still worth the cost.
    Yes SA suck. Get over that move on to embrace blocks in SE core like the project wants and suddenly the army is strong. My last game included 4x15 spears plus a main block of 35 spears. No core shooters just forget these exist, for now too costly ppm vs damage output. In the old days when dryad clouds screened them I ran 3 units. Now your better off with hyper efficient spears and rare shooters.
    "To be a champion, compete; to be a great champion compete against the best; but to be the greatest champion, compete with yourself" -Matshona Dhliwayo
  • The problem with Sylvan Archers is that they have too few targets. They will normally shoot from long range so their attacks only have S3 AP1. This means that for targets with R5+ and good armour they have a very low chance to inflict any damage. Relevant targets shouldn't have high resilience and armour which reduces options to:
    - Standard infantry units
    - Shooting units
    - Chaff

    As standard infantry units normally come in high numbers they are also not interesting as a target. What remains are chaff targets or other shooting units.

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

  • Balancing bow internally is a difficult task. Because I think we want to avoid an army can win just with shoot and avoidance. For the interest of the ennemy.

    bow need to be not too good, and be at right level for both player.
    But in same time people playing SE like me, often love concept of bow shooting from an hidden place. Like player of sniper into FPS.

    For the moment I focus my réflexion on EOS issue, but maybe after I will do a SE homebrew.

    my first intuitive solution would be to try 2 shoot per bow if you don’t move. By making S3 more powerful due to saturation, without increasing number of hp of the unit. ( 3 shoot for DE works fine. But lightly OP in my opinion...)

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net

    T9A Mission - Join the Team - Donate

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Casp ().