Wanderers of the Realms: A TGA Community Living Wishlist

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Yeled said:

Stormcast? Aelf souls? Idoneth?

The stormcasts are mostly post end times souls right?

There aren't that much specific aelfs being recycled except the big Hag or am I incorrect?

I have no idea in what way Idoneth are recycled must have missed that (please tell me more).

[Aloth_Corfiser]

I am more of a reader than a poster, anyway I wanted to "revive"  this Thread a little as I really like the concepts you shared over here.  In fact I read this topic a few months ago when I got started in March 2018 now i have perused it again just for fun. ?

I wanted to touch a bit on points already brought up:

-Wanderers embracing Harmony and Balance in the Realms
-this striving for Balance fittingly fleshed out in their goal to gain forgiveness by Alarielle
-the use of Fae-Creatures

Building upon the little lore we have I continuously thought about our defining feature: The Wandering and Pathfinding and to an extent the Survival Aspect.
Some of you have beautifully summarized the motivation(s) for Groups of Wanderers to get by as they do - be it search for forgiveness, the thrill of the Hunt, etc. 
I got inspired by Unit Quotes out of the Game Dawn of War (never played it that much though) there is this unit of Eldar Rangers and they keep saying things like:
"We yearn to wander."   "You can not imagine what we have seen with our eyes."  "We have traveled much darker paths." etc..
What I got from this was a sense of arrogance and pride on the one hand but also a sense of duty, confidence and inspiring spirit coming naturally  to Aelven Kindreds. This Elements could very well be fitted into gameplay as a focus on the Bravery stat. Wanderers already have the "Defiant Hunters" trait - there could be so much more. (But I fail to come up with any precise Ideas at the Moment.)

When looking at the Wanderers from the perspective of the City dwelling Aelves I always imagine it along these prejudices and wishes:
-Wanderers are perceived as being either cowards or adventurous hot headed fools not adding anything to the fight against Chaos
-Maybe a bit too "primitive" (we got Archmages, Loremasters, etc.. )
-Directionless and meandering
-Maybe a hidden desire to life the Life of a Wanderer and be adventurous, romanticizing Ideas of "getting away"
 

When in fact Wanderers are fighting the most difficult fight of all:
-No refuge means high alertness all the time
-When they die they are gone (No Reforging) --> By the way: Where do Aelf Souls go? Is there still a hidden relation to Waystones and Soulstones that Aleves carry with them?
-These Aelves have been to places and have seen Horrors beyond compare (I just love the almost callous sentiment of "You can't imagine what we have been through" vibe.)
-They have traveled all the Realms and in a philosophical sense they "serve the Realms" as they want to keep them clear from Chaos, there is also no desire for owning Land

Regarding these musings, I just wanted to emphasize the reliance on cleverness and Experience that any Wanderer-Warband has to have in order to survive. As some of you already said the addition of all sorts of creatures is vastly tempting, however I would also be perfectly fine to continue on the path of an underdog Aelven-Force. Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
So where should I end my ramblings? Maybe with some concepts that do not fit anywhere:

-The Trait "Singer of Spells" is fluffy and valuable, why not expand the Singing on to Wanderer Units or to a Battalion? Having Oral Tradition or weaving new Leylines through Spell-Singing  this could well be a defining feature for us. It is a bit Tolkien-Inspired but Singing when wandering through any wild Enviroment is so relatable. ---> Wanderer Units could have a ward against Mortal Wounds when Singing a certain Song. I am also inspired by the Fyreslayer Runes here, where a Player can activate each Rune only once per game.
-However Wanderers being stealthy and then having the Singing-Element?
-It would be an ironic twist to somehow buff the Wanderers Bravery, since they fled during the Age of Chaos. Now they are determined - they may retreat but only to hunt down their foes later.
-What do you think about an Infantry Skirmishing Unit carrying Javelines and (Short)-Swords?

[Popisdead]

Usually wishlisting in this case is people wishing things were they way they used to be (I could suggest making Wanderers as powerful as they were in 6th ed) so there is little value in these threads however.

 

After reading about Kurnouth (or whomever it was) in the BRB and seeing how great a job GW did with the Beasts of Chaos book I would really like to see Sylvaneth and Wood Elves merged back together.  I think they could do it and even if they dropped the non-plastics from the range, they could do a really good job.  That's my wish

[GM_Monkey]

15 hours ago, Popisdead said:

....  I think they could do it and even if they dropped the non-plastics from the range, they could do a really good job...

Don't you dare touch my Waywatcher! ?

[Yeled]

@Aloth_Corfiser, I think you hit on a lot of valuable themes and ideas. I especially liked your listing of the quotes from Dawn of War, and some of the focus on the fact that they've seen things and fought fights that no one else has. The idea of singing and oral traditions is also a good one.

On 10/17/2018 at 12:08 PM, Popisdead said:

Usually wishlisting in this case is people wishing things were they way they used to be (I could suggest making Wanderers as powerful as they were in 6th ed) so there is little value in these threads however.

 

After reading about Kurnouth (or whomever it was) in the BRB and seeing how great a job GW did with the Beasts of Chaos book I would really like to see Sylvaneth and Wood Elves merged back together.  I think they could do it and even if they dropped the non-plastics from the range, they could do a really good job.  That's my wish

You know, I used to be opposed to this but now I'm a bit more willing to return to the two armies being brought back together. I think that GW had this idea early on to split all the factions up, and somewhere along the way they realized that was a mistake. Now we've seen them putting things back together. We've seen it in all the Chaos god books since Tzeentch, the Stormcast, Legions of Nagash and Beasts of Chaos. 

I wonder what the Sylvaneth book would look like if it came out brand new today. Do people think it would include the Wanderers? Would we have two factions together under a single banner like we do with Beasts of Chaos and the others? Would they have changed the lore?

On 10/18/2018 at 4:00 AM, GM_Monkey said:

Don't you dare touch my Waywatcher! ?

Amen. Our single best unit. It needs a new kit is all.

[Yeled]

I almost feel we need to revisit this discussion since 2.0 came out. A lot has changed.

[Aelfric]

I don't think it would work to bring Sylvaneth and Wanderers back together;  Sylvaneth have now been a separate faction long enough to establish a strong and distinct identity for themselves and the lore has moved on.  I would rather see Wanderers stand on their own  with  their own Battletome or within a Free Cities Battletome alongside the other residents of those cities.  This could allow Sylvaneth and Wanderers to unite together, as residents of the Living City for example, whilst retaining their separate identities as different factions.

 

[Yeled]

@Aelfric, looking back, I think they might not have split the Sylvaneth and Wanderers the way they did if they had to do it over. But I agree that ship has sailed.

I suspect the Wanderers will be included in a larger Free Cities Battletome, as you describe above. I think that's the worst of all possible outcomes, tbh. While I think Legions of Nagash was brilliant the way they put the Death Alliance back together with various options, I believe what makes Wanderers special will be completely lost in a Free Cities book in the same style.

I'm definitely hoping we get a Daughters of Khaine type update for the Wanderers -- built on the existing lore, but in a creative new direction. New models and updates to the old kits. Etc. I'm not sure that's what we'll get, though.

[Aelfric]

1 hour ago, Yeled said:

@Aelfric, looking back, I think they might not have split the Sylvaneth and Wanderers the way they did if they had to do it over. But I agree that ship has sailed.

I suspect the Wanderers will be included in a larger Free Cities Battletome, as you describe above. I think that's the worst of all possible outcomes, tbh. While I think Legions of Nagash was brilliant the way they put the Death Alliance back together with various options, I believe what makes Wanderers special will be completely lost in a Free Cities book in the same style.

I'm definitely hoping we get a Daughters of Khaine type update for the Wanderers -- built on the existing lore, but in a creative new direction. New models and updates to the old kits. Etc. I'm not sure that's what we'll get, though.

I agree the best outcome would be a Wanderers Battletome.  But if they made a Free Cities Battletome in the manner of Beasts of Chaos, as in each sub-faction gets its own traits, spell, artifacts and a battalion, I would be happy with that.   You could have the cities with overarching bonuses and a couple of battalions each.  That way, if you wanted to play a pure faction, like Wanderers or Dispossessed, you could do so quite easily.

[WABBIT]

I wish they would merge Sylvaneth and Wanderers again or at least allow them to work together without suffering the ill effects. Slyvaneth are so anti allies is annoying trying make an army knowing the woods will affect wanderers. In 8th I never got tired of making armies for themes, styles or balanced like Forest spirits, Cav archers, mobile skirmishers, Wild hunt etc. Since the split there are so few ways to build a wanderer army its boring. They all play the same unless you go for options that use the weakest units in AoS like Wild Riders.  Its over very quickly if you try a wild hunt theme. Its either pick the battalion which choose almost your entire army for you or every other build is just a variation on how many glade guard or Sisters you want. I want war dancers and scouts/way watchers, Eagle rider, war-hawks etc to be back in mainstream, wild riders worth using and SotT that are useful for more than just a good spell.  At least in friendly games we can house rule Wanderers are sylvaneth when it comes to wyld woods damage but it shouldn't be that way. Anyway the points drop from last Handbook was welcome but as everyone got a points drop it didn't make much difference.

 

Maybe Living City should allow Wanderers and Sylvaneth to interact without the woods problem? And keep one allegiance from Wanderer or Sylvaneth.

[adreal]

I have said it before ( I think on facebook) Wanderers are not wood elves. 

Wanderers left the sylvaneth to thier fate against chaos, and now try to make up for thier shame.

I think if wanderers were to get a battletome it will be like bonesplitterz, flesh eater courts and clans pestilence. We wont get new units, we might get some updated warscrolls (wild riders get a rend on the charge and the option for shields). And maybe a mounted hero (put a larger base in with the wild riders, give him a shield and javelins).

What I would really like is to theme wanderers after kurnous, have the hunt be a major thing for us (hit and fade archers, vicious and sudden combat units).

Give us a skirmish combat unit, but make them satyrs (aelven ungors) and a new avatar of the hunt like the eidolons (one combat, one magic). Have a magic lore tied to making traps (like sisters of the thorn)

And finally rename some units (glade guard, wildwood rangers) to separate us from our wood elf roots

[WABBIT]

I still prefer Wood elves + Forest spirits. ?

[Aelfric]

15 minutes ago, adreal said:

Give us a skirmish combat unit, but make them satyrs (aelven ungors) and a new avatar of the hunt like the eidolons (one combat, one magic). Have a magic lore tied to making traps (like sisters of the thorn)

I like this idea.  I see Wanderers as protecting the natural order of existence rather than a civilised order espoused by Sigmar.  As the Beastmen have been around since the beginning of the realms, it would be perfectly feasible for there to  be some that do not view Chaos as the default state but accept a more balanced state that encompasses Order and Chaos, alongside Death and Destruction (followed in the cycle by rebirth).  This would fit seamlessly into the Wanderer ethos (as I see it, at any rate). 

[adreal]

Also gives us back wardancers but that fits with the new direction of AOS (as the older aelven gods are dead)

[Aloth_Corfiser]

I always liked the small animal companions like the hawks that are accompanying the Wayfinder and the Nomad Prince.  Even the prospect of adding Aetherwings to my army is tempting. ^^
The Daughters of Khaine Type of expansion would really be the best outcome.

As you have put it @adrealthe difference between classical Wood Elves and Wanderers are quite apparent and I would welcome a further distinction towards GWs own Wanderers in AoS.

What caught my eye when I read through the Core Book and the Ghyran Lore section was a remark about the Sylvaneth and their War against Nurgle's Forces during the Age of Chaos. There it was hinted that the Sylvaneth fought hard and successful at first alongside Aelves which are called Wanderers. (Afterwards the story moves on to the Wanderers leaving Ghyran etc.)  I always assumed they were called (or named themselves) Wanderers after the betrayal / diaspora occurred. 
However my Core Book is not in English so it might be due to that or due to myself just nitpicking. ^^

[Orsino]

15 hours ago, Aloth_Corfiser said:

I always liked the small animal companions like the hawks that are accompanying the Wayfinder and the Nomad Prince.  Even the prospect of adding Aetherwings to my army is tempting. ^^

This is an interesting point. Sylvaneth have really taken over the tree theme. Beastmen have the half-animal hybrid thing. That really leaves having actual wild animals as the obvious way to develop wanderers. Units of bear cavalry, packs of wolves or foxes, hawks circling overhead. Wanderers could have a thematic niche as representatives of true wild life.

Although personally I'm quite happy converting wanderer unit leaders into "good" Beastmen. 

[Popisdead]

On 10/18/2018 at 2:00 AM, GM_Monkey said:

Don't you dare touch my Waywatcher! ?

He would be plastic soon   Actually There are loads of Finecast BoC units.

On 10/19/2018 at 11:05 AM, Yeled said:

@Aloth_Corfiser, I think you hit on a lot of valuable themes and ideas. I especially liked your listing of the quotes from Dawn of War, and some of the focus on the fact that they've seen things and fought fights that no one else has. The idea of singing and oral traditions is also a good one.

The Sylvaneth Warband from the Shadespire/Underworld video shows a Tree Revenant with a bow.  IMO that's a failure in that the archery should come from Aelves and the heavy hitting from the Sylvaneth. 

[Popisdead]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:05 AM, Yeled said:

@Aloth_Corfiser

You know, I used to be opposed to this but now I'm a bit more willing to return to the two armies being brought back together. I think that GW had this idea early on to split all the factions up, and somewhere along the way they realized that was a mistake. Now we've seen them putting things back together. We've seen it in all the Chaos god books since Tzeentch, the Stormcast, Legions of Nagash and Beasts of Chaos.

Missed this point.

What I also think is GW valued our input via Twitter and FB   I know I for one said taht the way AoS was released and with the armies being mostly new, it shattered the player base, even a year later with points because they still couldn't play their army which they bought and paid for.  So to us it seemed like "well,.. time to throw this $1000+ in the garbage that I spend years painting and buy a whole new army".  Beasts of Chaos literally has garbage models (minotaurs and pumbagors) in the list and as great and mildly descent options.  The army book has generated a huge buzz, a massive influx on the FB group, brought back old players, and sold immensely well. 

Having collected Wood elves for 30 years now, I look at my Wardancers and think "what a unique unit that GW just is crapping all over by neglecting so much since basically 1994..."  THEY'RE EVEN QUOTED IN THE JES GOODWIN ELDAR SKETCHBOOK!?!?  Super iconic. 

[Yeled]

14 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

Missed this point.

What I also think is GW valued our input via Twitter and FB   I know I for one said taht the way AoS was released and with the armies being mostly new, it shattered the player base, even a year later with points because they still couldn't play their army which they bought and paid for.  So to us it seemed like "well,.. time to throw this $1000+ in the garbage that I spend years painting and buy a whole new army".  Beasts of Chaos literally has garbage models (minotaurs and pumbagors) in the list and as great and mildly descent options.  The army book has generated a huge buzz, a massive influx on the FB group, brought back old players, and sold immensely well. 

Having collected Wood elves for 30 years now, I look at my Wardancers and think "what a unique unit that GW just is crapping all over by neglecting so much since basically 1994..."  THEY'RE EVEN QUOTED IN THE JES GOODWIN ELDAR SKETCHBOOK!?!?  Super iconic. 

Perhaps that is the case. I think GW wants to sell new models so dropping support of models they no longer sell (and that people already have) makes some sense. There's a story on Bell of Lost Souls speculating about how, eventually, GW will drop old space marines and just go with Primaris as the core marines. Old marines might still be playable but they will be inferior in every way to encourage people to shift. I think this speculation is probably likely true.

All I know is, back when the Sylvaneth came out, they could have done the release as a major update to the Wood Elves in the same way that Daughters of Khaine was updated. You'd keep your old elf and treeman/dryad models and add the other new Sylvaneth, and the lore could be that the aelves were becoming more and more treelike over time or the two groups were converging. That could have been a cool lore for AoS and you'd have a very robust army with lots of options. Maybe we'd even see the Glade Guard model updated. But instead they insisted on the fractured focus of their releases, and frankly both the Sylvaneth and the Wanderers seem underdeveloped. I mean, the Sylvaneth are new, but they aren't likely to get an update anytime soon and they really only have a few units. They aren't exactly the Stormcast or a Chaos faction or the Legions of Nagash in terms of options or diversity.

Anyway, yeah, that ship has probably sailed. 

[Popisdead]

46 minutes ago, Yeled said:

Perhaps that is the case. I think GW wants to sell new models so dropping support of models they no longer sell (and that people already have) makes some sense. There's a story on Bell of Lost Souls speculating about how, eventually, GW will drop old space marines and just go with Primaris as the core marines. Old marines might still be playable but they will be inferior in every way to encourage people to shift. I think this speculation is probably likely true.

All I know is, back when the Sylvaneth came out, they could have done the release as a major update to the Wood Elves in the same way that Daughters of Khaine was updated. You'd keep your old elf and treeman/dryad models and add the other new Sylvaneth, and the lore could be that the aelves were becoming more and more treelike over time or the two groups were converging. That could have been a cool lore for AoS and you'd have a very robust army with lots of options. Maybe we'd even see the Glade Guard model updated. But instead they insisted on the fractured focus of their releases, and frankly both the Sylvaneth and the Wanderers seem underdeveloped. I mean, the Sylvaneth are new, but they aren't likely to get an update anytime soon and they really only have a few units. They aren't exactly the Stormcast or a Chaos faction or the Legions of Nagash in terms of options or diversity.

Anyway, yeah, that ship has probably sailed. 

Well the clear thing to remember is BoLS is clickbait and mostly inaccurate or reposted from elsewhere.  ad-revenue site, not content   Power armour is the clear winner for sales so removing it would mean?,.... we can put that one to rest for now

The problem with looking at "back when Sylvaneth were released" is the BoC book was a really fast turn around.  Sam Pearson is the author and hasn't been with the company that long.  AoS is only 3 years old and as evolved hugely, thanks to the sensible direction of the company now.  Sylvaneth don't have a huge range, merging in the plastics would effectively double it and expand the lore (something GW does amazingly well now).

I would more worry Glade Guard are removed and Sisters of the Watch become the new archers.  the GG sprue is 13 years old and doesn't fit aesthetically with the new Aelf designs.

I think we mostly, at the heart of the matter, agree,.. and lament what our wanderers have become in AoS 2.0. 

[Erosharcos]

On 10/24/2018 at 2:44 PM, Popisdead said:

Well the clear thing to remember is BoLS is clickbait and mostly inaccurate or reposted from elsewhere.  ad-revenue site, not content   Power armour is the clear winner for sales so removing it would mean?,.... we can put that one to rest for now

The problem with looking at "back when Sylvaneth were released" is the BoC book was a really fast turn around.  Sam Pearson is the author and hasn't been with the company that long.  AoS is only 3 years old and as evolved hugely, thanks to the sensible direction of the company now.  Sylvaneth don't have a huge range, merging in the plastics would effectively double it and expand the lore (something GW does amazingly well now).

I would more worry Glade Guard are removed and Sisters of the Watch become the new archers.  the GG sprue is 13 years old and doesn't fit aesthetically with the new Aelf designs.

I think we mostly, at the heart of the matter, agree,.. and lament what our wanderers have become in AoS 2.0. 

I can’t see this happening since they went through the trouble of re-boxing glade guard. The current sculpts for GG aren’t bad at all IMO. After BoC tome I think Wanderers will get something down the road.

What I would like to see is GW play more on the importance of Waystones in Wanderers battle mechanics. As I understand it, the Wanderers are currently trying to redeem themselves. If the story every turns back to Ghyran, it would be a good way to expand the Wanderers lore and model range.

I think it would be very awesome to see GW add Waystones in a similar way to other terrain pieces in other factions. One way to make it unique would be to have the Wanderer player declare sites on the battlefield that will receive a Waystone, and then your Wanderer units can place it and gain static/cumulative buffs while nearby or as an army as the set up the stones. Could add new units that play on this mechanic too that expands Wanderers range. 

[Aelfric]

19 hours ago, Erosharcos said:

I think it would be very awesome to see GW add Waystones in a similar way to other terrain pieces in other factions. One way to make it unique would be to have the Wanderer player declare sites on the battlefield that will receive a Waystone, and then your Wanderer units can place it and gain static/cumulative buffs while nearby or as an army as the set up the stones. Could add new units that play on this mechanic too that expands Wanderers range. 

If we get physical Waystones, I would like them to be teleportation points (similar to Sylvaneth woods) as an alternative to coming on the board edge, after all they are meant to strengthen and connect Ley lines.  It would also be nice to teleport more than one unit a turn (again), maybe through a battalion or a particular tribe (should we ever get a book).

[Erosharcos]

21 hours ago, Aelfric said:

If we get physical Waystones, I would like them to be teleportation points (similar to Sylvaneth woods) as an alternative to coming on the board edge, after all they are meant to strengthen and connect Ley lines.  It would also be nice to teleport more than one unit a turn (again), maybe through a battalion or a particular tribe (should we ever get a book).

Agreed 100%. I didn’t start playing until after GHB2018 released, but from what I’ve read Wanderers weren’t remotely OP or annoying with the 2017 Realm Wanderers. Any idea why they changed it? 

[Aelfric]

2 hours ago, Erosharcos said:

Agreed 100%. I didn’t start playing until after GHB2018 released, but from what I’ve read Wanderers weren’t remotely OP or annoying with the 2017 Realm Wanderers. Any idea why they changed it? 

No idea.  We can only hope it was so that when they bring out the battletome, they can make it better again without having to have actually made it better ?.

Really, I just think that GW are not always particularly good at subtle adjustments.  They wanted to tone it down a bit, but set the pendulum swinging a bit too much.  The bit that really hurts is not so much  the restriction of one unit per turn, but the fact that the unit has to be wholly within 6" of a board edge before it teleports.

I really only use it now to shift Waywatchers around, which is still useful.  I tend to use 3 and so you can still disguise which one might move in any turn.

[GM_Monkey]

16 hours ago, Erosharcos said:

Agreed 100%. I didn’t start playing until after GHB2018 released, but from what I’ve read Wanderers weren’t remotely OP or annoying with the 2017 Realm Wanderers. Any idea why they changed it? 

It came as a big surprise to me, I had just really started to use it well, and then they nurfed it into the ground. It took about 3-5 more games to figure out how to use Wanderers after that, and I was forced into using the battalion to try and recapture the fast movement, popping up anyway way of playing.

However it's now really moved back to being a gunline type of army, moving up the board trying to shoot anything that gets too close. Fun but I really miss the initial jump, fire then reposition as they responded type of play.