Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Mirage8112]

6 hours ago, Aezeal said:

This. Mirages next post doesn't really say anything that makes me want to add a treelord. All very specific situations where the "bonus" the Treelord adds is very minimal in any case. To keep the analogy: I just don't see the screwdriver part of his equation.

What I was saying in the post above is that the treelords value lies in his use as a utility/damage dealer, while hunters are just pretty much straight up damage dealers. Damage alone does not win games; putting the damage at the right place at the right time is how you win games. 

As an off-shoot example, before the generals handbook came out, a player on them Facebook page went through every unit in the game and assigned them a letter-grade based off some formula he created (back in the days before points) to help players decide what unit to add to their armies. Basically some formula of attacks times hits divided by wounds with square root of bravery or something (it made sense but I don't remember the exact equations). Basically getting a picture of how many wounds each unit could be expected to cause in a standard game turn. There were a lot of units that were no surprises. Phoenix guard got an A, as did dwarf hammerers and Stormcast Retributors. Some got slightly lower grades (Glade guard got a C without use of their bodkins, but a B+ when they did). But some of the scores obviously didn't take utility into account. The Celestial Hurricanium got a D-. The brayherd shaman got an F- (even though he could summon Skarbrand onto the table for 0 points every turn of the game).

The point here being we all know what units in the game are are good damage dealers, but sometimes utility is hard to quantify. The examples I gave above are specific, but they happen all the time in game and they aren't the only examples of situations where the TL edges out a second unit of hunters. The buffs the treelord brings might seem minimal, but even a minimal buff sometimes makes the difference between winning a fight and losing a fight, or winning a fight and winning a fight without taking any significant damage.  

Also, perhaps you would see the value if you actually fielded the treelord on the table rather than on paper ... 

[Aezeal]

42 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

What I was saying in the post above is that the treelords value lies in his use as a utility/damage dealer, while hunters are just pretty much straight up damage dealers. Damage alone does not win games; putting the damage at the right place at the right time is how you win games. 

As an off-shoot example, before the generals handbook came out, a player on them Facebook page went through every unit in the game and assigned them a letter-grade based off some formula he created (back in the days before points) to help players decide what unit to add to their armies. Basically some formula of attacks times hits divided by wounds with square root of bravery or something (it made sense but I don't remember the exact equations). Basically getting a picture of how many wounds each unit could be expected to cause in a standard game turn. There were a lot of units that were no surprises. Phoenix guard got an A, as did dwarf hammerers and Stormcast Retributors. Some got slightly lower grades (Glade guard got a C without use of their bodkins, but a B+ when they did). But some of the scores obviously didn't take utility into account. The Celestial Hurricanium got a D-. The brayherd shaman got an F- (even though he could summon Skarbrand onto the table for 0 points every turn of the game).

The point here being we all know what units in the game are are good damage dealers, but sometimes utility is hard to quantify. The examples I gave above are specific, but they happen all the time in game and they aren't the only examples of situations where the TL edges out a second unit of hunters. The buffs the treelord brings might seem minimal, but even a minimal buff sometimes makes the difference between winning a fight and losing a fight, or winning a fight and winning a fight without taking any significant damage.  

Also, perhaps you would see the value if you actually fielded the treelord on the table rather than on paper ... 

I actually did read your post.

It's not like he has abilities a TLA or Durthu doesn't have and I've never used them... it's more that he actually lacks other abilities they do have.  The abilities he does have just don't impress me that much and IMHO his utility is severly limited and I cannot imagine it compensates the wounds/damage advantage hunters have... or the utility advantage (spells, forest summoning, unbinding, being a hero in 3 places, access to items and traits, command ability the TLA has). Not to mention I do not think the things you mention happen all the time and even if they did I still hardly see how it makes the treelord that much better.

[Aezeal]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

This is so true. In one game I got completely blocked by my own Wyldwood and hardly got any Scythe Hunters into combat - due to clever coherency breaking by my opponent.

However.. the same goes for a treelord.. wait.. even more so. And "other than cover" as he mentioned.. is kinda ignoring one of the biggest buffs on the battlefield and worth much more than any buff the treelord gets from the forest (which buff exactly btw). Not to mention cover bonus potential is what actually makes the hunters a better target for shield of thorns.

Anyway: 6 hunters are

1: cheaper than 3 hunters and a treelord       and

2. are enough to claim an objective in some scenario's where 4 bodies are not.

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

Right? Right? I mean, not only is it a great warscroll that is relatively strong against a lot of the stuff Sylv is weak against, but it also gives you a different kind of mobility and a different kind of debuff to compliment our already strong mobility and debuffing game. And it's SO FLAVOR APPROPRIATE. Augh!

 

@Mirage8112 I've definitely come to respect your thoughtfulness and experience -- maybe you could expand on the treelord comments. The place I get hung up on is the math vs. Kurnoth Hunters. The best comparison is sword Kurnoths. The treelord does 6.22 r1 wounds on average at full health while the Kurnoths do 11.55. The treelord has the impale attack which can certainly kick in a couple extra wounds if you roll well, but the Kurnoths do an extra 1.5 mortals on average. The treelord does have that short range shooting attack for another 2.78 rend 1 wounds, of course. So at full strength the Treelord is doing around 70-75% of the Kurnoths' damage on your turn and more like 50% on the opponent's turn. The offense also degrades a lot faster than Kurnoths. After taking 5 wounds, the TL is down to half offensive power while the Kurnoths lose less than third of theirs. 

Defensively, the Kurnoths have 3 more wounds while the TL has 1 better armor. Kurnoths can take advantage of cover while the TL can't, and the Kurnoths get to reroll armor in melee. There are also quite a lot of bonuses against monsters that work against the TL but not the Kurnoths. The TL does get the stomp ability which is a big deal, but is still a 4+ to even activate. The TL is also a better target for Regrowth.

The Kurnoths also get the emissary ability which can be useful. 

 

So all in all the math looks really bad for the Treelord unless I am hugely underrating adding another stomp. It costs 44% more points for 30-50% less offense (which also degrades faster) and 25% fewer wounds. The better armor is kinda a wash with the lack of reroll and inability to benefit from cover. 

 

What am I missing? If you are arguing that Kurnoths and Treelords are both appropriately pointed, then I must be missing a big part of your logic.

PS these numbers are comparing 3 hunters to a treelord? so 180 points vs 260(?).. or has cost been taken into account? Or have you compared against 4 hunters or something?

[Mirage8112]

5 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

I actually did read your post.

I figured you did, I was just re-itterating for emphasis. 
 

6 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

The abilities he does have just don't impress me that much and IMHO his utility is severly limited and I cannot imagine it compensates the wounds/damage advantage hunters have... or the utility advantage (spells, forest summoning, unbinding, being a hero in 3 places, access to items and traits, command ability the TLA has). Not to mention I do not think the things you mention happen all the time and even if they did I still hardly see how it makes the treelord that much better.

Says the guy WHO HAS NEVER ACTUALLY FIELDED THE TREELORD ON THE TABLETOP. 

We all know that you don't like tree-revenants. you've made your position on them perfectly clear on them. But unlike the Treelord, you've actually fielded them and at least have practical experience of their strengths and weaknesses. As far as the Treelord goes; you're just guessing. I appreciate that your dedicated your position, but really shouldn't privilege theoryhammer over actual game experience. 

 

14 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

However.. the same goes for a treelord.. wait.. even more so. And "other than cover" as he mentioned.. is kinda ignoring one of the biggest buffs on the battlefield and worth much more than any buff the treelord gets from the forest (which buff exactly btw). Not to mention cover bonus potential is what actually makes the hunters a better target for shield of thorns.

Anyway: 6 hunters are

1: cheaper than 3 hunters and a treelord       and

2. are enough to claim an objective in some scenario's where 4 bodies are not.

Again, theory hammer over actual in-game experience. I've used a Treelord in about 1/2 of my games. I can tell you, from experience, that the treelord is a viable addition to a Sylvaneth list provided you know what your doing with him and have a plan for his use. His role on the tabletop is basically a floater and I like being able to take advantage of that flexibility (I sort of feel the same about T-revenants.). 

If the only measure of a competitive list is the maximum number of wounds it can churn out a turn, then I see why your not keen on him. But that's metric you can only measure on paper. Ultimately the real measure of a competitive list is the one that brings the most wins over a variety of opponents on the tabletop; not just on the spreadsheet. 



 

[Mirage8112]

4 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

hese numbers are comparing 3 hunters to a treelord? so 180 points vs 260(?).. or has cost been taken into account? Or have you compared against 4 hunters or something?

Cost was taken into account in his calculations. 

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

 

As I said.. for utility I take the TLA. I take him every game and it's not that hard to see how a regular treelord would compare to him. It's + 1 attack + movement vs -1 spell, -1 unbind, - summoning forests - command ability - the item my TLA always gets. I might not play the treelord but it doesn't take a genius to do this limited extrapolation.

And about results: the best Sylvaneth lists I've seen feature Hunters and not the treelord (but I admit I don't pay real attention to that sort of stuff so if thing have changed, let me know).

[Mirage8112]

1 minute ago, Aezeal said:

As I said.. for utility I take the TLA.

And where did I say I'd rather have the TL than a TLA? I didn't. In fact i specifically pointed out the advantage of having both the TL and the TLA on the table simultaneously. When would you take 2 TLA's?  You wouldn't. You'd take a TLA and something different. My point is if you have to have one of each or double up on one, it makes more sense to diversify. I also say that from experience rather than a theoretical number of wounds something might cause under ideal circumstances. 

 

[Aezeal]

I'll admit I'd not take 2x TLA in any point game I usually play. But hat doesn't mean I couldn't forgo the TL for more hunters. And I do play the TLA so it's not that hard to see how a regular lord works.. I mean you can see pretty easily what he does less right?

[swarmofseals]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

Cost was taken into account in his calculations. 

I talked about cost in the end but I didn't actually do efficiency calculations. I'd be happy to do that here:

 

Points per unsaved wound caused (Swords/TLwithRanged/TLwithoutRanged):

No Save/6+save: 13.78/27.2/38.34 (these are also the points per damage before save against units with unrendable saves)

I'm not going to bother with the math on higher saves as the ratio should remain close to the same. The Treelord will get slightly better against higher saves because of the rend 2 on the vine attack, but the effect will be really small.

 

Looking back at defense, you get the following points per effective wound (Kurnoths with Thicket/Kurnoths without Thicket/TL)

Rend 0: 3/6/7.22

Rend 1: 5.29/8/10.83

Rend 2: 8.33/10/14.44

Rend 3: 12/12/18.05

Rend 3+/Mortal: 12/12/21.66

 

These numbers make the treelord look a lot worse. They are only a tiny bit better than half as efficient as sword kurnoths during your turn and a bit better than a third as efficient during the opponent's turn. That's a really major difference, especially when you consider that the treelord falls off faster too. Defensively, they are pretty close against shooting attacks but the TL is still clearly worse, and in melee it's about half as efficient. This does not count the stomp of cover, as it's much harder to factor those in.

 

OK, all that being said, having read @Mirage8112's arguments, I think he does have a couple of very valid points. It's true that Kurnoths are not exactly optimal in wyldwoods and can be quite awkward against a savvy opponent. It's also true that the stomp is a pretty big deal if you are combining it with other hit debuffs. Pairing a treelord with your TLA is a lot cheaper than pairing a Durthu with your TLA. Similarly, babysitting some dryads in a wood to potentially stack -2 to hit does sound quite powerful.

If you can actually fit the TL in the wood with the dryads then that does make a very tough bunker. If the treelord has to sit next to the woods, however, then it gets a bit dicier as a smart opponent will target the treelord first. If you compare a unit of dryads bunkered in a wood with an outside TL in support vs. a unit of dryads bunkered in a wood with a unit of kurnoths outside in support, I suspect the Kurnoths will do a bit better job assuming the outside unit gets targeted. If you aren't running Gnarlroot then I might give an edge to the Treelord assuming the enemy can't kill him in one turn, as in that case Regrowth will far outperform Verdurous Harmony. 

The situation that @Mirage8112 got at through his tactical analysis that I find compelling is the idea of a treelord behind the frontline in support. I think in this role you will see a clear tactical advantage over the Kurnoths that really comes down to the massive 3" range on the treelord's main melee attack. A treelord can sit behind a line of Kurnoths and still stomp and bash the enemy. Thus he is adding value where more Kurnoths would not. Scythe Kurnoths can fill this role with dryads, but for bunkered dryads (which is your best use of dryads, most likely) the Kurnoths will be really awkward. If you can fit a TL in there it should work great.

 

My main problem with the Treelord is that Sylvaneth get so tight on points so easily. Our battleline is expensive if you want to make it useful, and we have no cheap options to serve as a minimal tax. Add on expensive behemoths and the strong need for some Kurnoths and you don't have a lot of room to play with. It's likely to be a real tradeoff between a Treelord and more Kurnoths or, say, Drycha. 

 

We should remember how we got into this debate in the first place though. We were talking about Ironbark and whether or not the regular TL is a huge anchor making that battalion super inefficient by default. I think @Mirage8112 demonstrated that while it's not the most efficient choice, it's not a gigantic waste either if you use the model intelligently. I don't see myself rushing to add a TL into any of my lists, but I also don't think it'd be a huge disincentive to try Ironbark if it turns out there is a duardin unit that could be really powerful.

 

[Mirage8112]

10 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

And I do play the TLA so it's not that hard to see how a regular lord works.. I mean you can see pretty easily what he does less right?

Translation: "I don't need to play him to know he's bad on the tabletop."

No. You really should play him before making a judgement. 

 

11 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

But hat doesn't mean I couldn't forgo the TL for more hunters.

I didn't say you couldn't. I also didn't say the Treelord was mandatory. I said he's viable. There's a difference. 

 

23 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

And about results: the best Sylvaneth lists I've seen feature Hunters and not the treelord (but I admit I don't pay real attention to that sort of stuff so if thing have changed, let me know).

Right. A lot of those lists also have a unit or two of tree-revenants. Does that mean you've changed your mind on them and they are the best possible unit in the battletome and you're plan is to include 40 in every list? No. That's silly. You include them because you have to. Some units don't make it into top lists simply because they just aren't the favorite. Or short sightedness. I've set maligned units become HUGE in net lists simply because somebody finds a use for them. Then they're everywhere. Is the TL such a unit? Probably not. Can you field one and be competitive? 7-10 matches playing one without a loss says yes. 
 


 

[Aezeal]

Seriously.. if a TL fits in a wood then so can the hunters. 

It's not that I don't try ironbark because of the TL.. it's more that I need to bring revenants (which I've indeed used... in every game and they have NEVER performed as I wanted - partially due to my opponents choice of lists.. but still) AND a treelord.. well and just because the fact that besides bringing duardin I just don't really rate the bonus the batallion gives that high. (Now my range of dwarves is limited so I'd also have to buy the dwarves I'd like to try.. which doesn't help either).  If other untis got the RR 1's I'd like it much better , if a treelord could get the item I'd also like it much better.

On batallions: I think it's sad that the winterleaf.. which is "the dryad battalion"  almost forces you to go 4x 10 dryads... which is pretty suboptimal.. but going much more dryads is also not very ideal. If they'd just said.. use 50 dryads..I'd play them right away  

I do think a treelord might actually be better than a Durthu.. but Durthu is needed for the free spirits so that might be why I play him before a TL. (well and next to alarielle it might actually be worth it for him to take her wounds).

Should consider the TL in the last 1300 points (next to 40 dryads, 5 revenants and 6 hunters) my 2K list (tbh only because I only have 6 hunters, but since I consider Durthu and Alarielle he should certainly be considered - next to the TLA).

1. Alarielle, Drycha and Durthu (1300 points in 3 models - only 38 wounds), no TLA general, only 1 artefact but also only 1 target for the artefact. I guess both Alarielle and Drycha would take regrowth with alarielle mostly casting shield/bolt and her damage spell and drycha healing till she dies (or shield/bold whatever A isn't casting)

2. Durthu, TLA, Drycha, 6 treekin, wych: TLA general but still only 1 artefact which really makes either Durthu or TLA quite a bit more vulnerable.

3. Big A, Big D and TLA (yes that is too much points.. but could be done if I delete 10 dryads and take 3 Treekin). Still only 1 artefact unless I somehow get a batallion instead of the treekin.. but don't see how). TLA general MIGHT be worth loosing a few dryads... however drycha's ability to clear a unit of 60 goblins in 1 shooting phase does have it's uses.

4 Alarielle, Durthy and 2x 3 treekin. (similar to 1 but no drycha: gives more targets for A's healing.. but not sure lacking Drycha's unique talents is worth that.

5. .... something with another battallion to give both TLA and Durthu oaken armor seems nice.. but can't really figure it out yet. Even better would be 3 artefacts so a wych could get the acorn for more 100% relilable forests to increase D's offence and buff dryads ( but I doubt I can fit 2 batallions in if I'm not using gnarlroot)

6. Big A, TLA, Drycha and 3 treekin

7. something else entirely.

However I'm currently leaning towards my new option 6. 

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Seriously.. if a TL fits in a wood then so can the hunters. 

It's not a matter if they can fit (of course they can fit), it's a question of if they can fit in a useful spot, and be within range of the enemy to attack. As I said before, if you're playing that tree holes block movement then that becomes rather complicated. The treelord has a 3" range and being only single model, doesn't have to worry about coherency. 

 

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

On batallions: I think it's sad that the winterleaf.. which is "the dryad battalion"  almost forces you to go 4x 10 dryads... which is pretty suboptimal.. but going much more dryads is also not very ideal. If they'd just said.. use 50 dryads..I'd play them right away

I dunno, 2 x 20 and 2 x10 seems like a fairly reasonable way to split the difference. Sure it's a lot of points.  But between say a frostheart phoenix AND a TL (or TLA. Or both) those dryads aren't going anywhere. 

 

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Should consider the TL in the last 1300 points (next to 40 dryads, 5 revenants and 6 hunters) my 2K list (tbh only because I only have 6 hunters, but since I consider Durthu and Alarielle he should certainly be considered - next to the TLA).

1. Alarielle, Drycha and Durthu (1300 points in 3 models - only 38 wounds), no TLA general, only 1 artefact but also only 1 target for the artefact. I guess both Alarielle and Drycha would take regrowth with alarielle mostly casting shield/bolt and her damage spell and drycha healing till she dies (or shield/bold whatever A isn't casting)

2. Durthu, TLA, Drycha, 6 treekin, wych: TLA general but still only 1 artefact which really makes either Durthu or TLA quite a bit more vulnerable.

3. Big A, Big D and TLA (yes that is too much points.. but could be done if I delete 10 dryads and take 3 Treekin). Still only 1 artefact unless I somehow get a batallion instead of the treekin.. but don't see how). TLA general MIGHT be worth loosing a few dryads... however drycha's ability to clear a unit of 60 goblins in 1 shooting phase does have it's uses.

4 Alarielle, Durthy and 2x 3 treekin. (similar to 1 but no drycha: gives more targets for A's healing.. but not sure lacking Drycha's unique talents is worth that.

5. .... something with another battallion to give both TLA and Durthu oaken armor seems nice.. but can't really figure it out yet. Even better would be 3 artefacts so a wych could get the acorn for more 100% relilable forests to increase D's offence and buff dryads ( but I doubt I can fit 2 batallions in if I'm not using gnarlroot)

6. Big A, TLA, Drycha and 3 treekin

7. something else entirely.

However I'm currently leaning towards my new option 6.

I went back and read your other posts re: this list and I'm not sure which way to lean. Ultimately my philosophy is that you pick units to do something n particular, not just based on raw wound output. 

For example, Drycha is super killy. Yes, squirmlings will eat an entire unit of 60 goblins. But you have to get all 60 within 10" for that to work. The point I'm making is that it's not enough to pick units because they're killy, you have to pick them to serve a purpose and then you have to make sure you can put them where they need to be when the time comes. 

What kind list do you want? MSU? Deathstar? Monster mash? The Classic hammer+anvil? What role do you see magic playing (at all)? Do you even need magic? How about magic defense? Do you favor ranged combat or CC? How do you plan on handling armor? Monsters? Tar-pits? Characters? Holding objectives? 

All of these are important questions and will determine what units you need to add to your core list. You have 2 units of 20 dryads, 5 rev and 6 hunters. Do you have a plan re: how you intend to use them? How are you kitting out the hunters? 

Answer those questions and your options will be much clearer. 

 

2 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

We should remember how we got into this debate in the first place though. We were talking about Ironbark and whether or not the regular TL is a huge anchor making that battalion super inefficient by default. I think @Mirage8112 demonstrated that while it's not the most efficient choice, it's not a gigantic waste either if you use the model intelligently. I don't see myself rushing to add a TL into any of my lists, but I also don't think it'd be a huge disincentive to try Ironbark if it turns out there is a duardin unit that could be really powerful.

This is more or less how I feel. My TL isn't a "must have" unit that finds its way into every list I write. Usually it's the last, or second to last, unit picked to fill a roster. But just because he's picked last doesn't mean he's worthless. It just means his role is more specialized. If I can parcel out his utility among other choices, I won't take him. But then again, sometimes trying to recreate that utility with other models actually leads me to spend more points or bump an important unit from my roster, so the treelord actually becomes the more points-efficient choice. (I suppose this is similar to trying to "recreate" a TLA with a TL and branchwych. In practice it functions about the same, maybe a little bit better, but also in some ways, worse.) 

 

3 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

My main problem with the Treelord is that Sylvaneth get so tight on points so easily. Our battleline is expensive if you want to make it useful, and we have no cheap options to serve as a minimal tax. Add on expensive behemoths and the strong need for some Kurnoths and you don't have a lot of room to play with. It's likely to be a real tradeoff between a Treelord and more Kurnoths or, say, Drycha. 

lol. Points get tight because Sylvaneth players are always trying to cram as many hunters as they can into a list rather than trying to use ALL the options available to us to their fullest effect:

Player 1: "I'd really like to try out a unit of spites, but there's just no room in my list points-wise."
Player 2: "You have 24 hunters spread across 5 units clocking in at 1,440 pts. How about you cut one or two and make some room?"
Player 1: "Heck no. I need all 8 units. Sylvaneth are useless without them..."

I played a 1k doubles tournament last month and didn't bring a single unit of hunters. It was a gnarlroot list with battelline filled by 10 dryads and 1 unit of T-revs, and Drycha, a TLA and Wytch filling the rest of the roster. Still won every match. I've also regularly played 2k matches with only a unit 3 sword hunters. Still won. I've also written lists that use loads of hunters, but I won't pretend that it's the only way to write a list or play a match. Do my hunters regularly smash face in games? Yes. Does that mean I can't smash face if I don't take 12? No. 

In the end, I am a staunch believer in the value of mathhammer when writing a list. I absolutely do look at average wound output when deciding which units to buy and play. However, at the end of the day, matches come down to generalship. Specifically, your ability to use everything at your disposal to outplay the enemy on the tabletop, not on the calculator.
 

[swarmofseals]

10 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

lol. Points get tight because Sylvaneth players are always trying to cram as many hunters as they can into a list rather than trying to use ALL the options available to us to their fullest effect:

Player 1: "I'd really like to try out a unit of spites, but there's just no room in my list points-wise."
Player 2: "You have 24 hunters spread across 5 units clocking in at 1,440 pts. How about you cut one or two and make some room?"
Player 1: "Heck no. I need all 8 units. Sylvaneth are useless without them..."

I played a 1k doubles tournament last month and didn't bring a single unit of hunters. It was a gnarlroot list with battelline filled by 10 dryads and 1 unit of T-revs, and Drycha, a TLA and Wytch filling the rest of the roster. Still won every match. I've also regularly played 2k matches with only a unit 3 sword hunters. Still won. I've also written lists that use loads of hunters, but I won't pretend that it's the only way to write a list or play a match. Do my hunters regularly smash face in games? Yes. Does that mean I can't smash face if I don't take 12? No. 

In the end, I am a staunch believer in the value of mathhammer when writing a list. I absolutely do look at average wound output when deciding which units to buy and play. However, at the end of the day, matches come down to generalship. Specifically, your ability to use everything at your disposal to outplay the enemy on the tabletop, not on the calculator.
 

I dunno. I think points get tight for me because I really don't want to have to take more than one unit of Tree-Revs and I also have an allergy to taking 10 man dryad squads. So what I really want to do is spend 580-720 points on battleline just to start. That does make things tight. Of course, I could just suck up the inefficiency, but it's such a feel-bad

I definitely don't think you need Kurnoth Hunters. Just a few pages back I was advocating that KHs could be profitably replaced with Tree-Kin in a number of situations. I do think KHs are really strong and also have sick models, so I'd have a hard time seeing myself not taking at least a unit or two... and I'd often like to take more than that. 

 

[Aezeal]

33 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

It's not a matter if they can fit (of course they can fit), it's a question of if they can fit in a useful spot, and be within range of the enemy to attack. As I said before, if you're playing that tree holes block movement then that becomes rather complicated. The treelord has a 3" range and being only single model, doesn't have to worry about coherency. 

True. In our shop we don't actually play it that way so it's hard for me to see how much of a problem it would be.. it would severly limit movement of a TL though I'd guess.

33 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I dunno, 2 x 20 and 2 x10 seems like a fairly reasonable way to split the difference. Sure it's a lot of points.  But between say a frostheart phoenix AND a TL (or TLA. Or both) those dryads aren't going anywhere. 

Also true. But still... 60 of them... it's more battle line than I'd wish. 

 

33 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I went back and read your other posts re: this list and I'm not sure which way to lean. Ultimately my philosophy is that you pick units to do something n particular, not just based on raw wound output. 

For example, Drycha is super killy. Yes, squirmlings will eat an entire unit of 60 goblins. But you have to get all 60 within 10" for that to work. The point I'm making is that it's not enough to pick units because they're killy, you have to pick them to serve a purpose and then you have to make sure you can put them where they need to be when the time comes. 

What kind list do you want? MSU? Deathstar? Monster mash? The Classic hammer+anvil? What role do you see magic playing (at all)? Do you even need magic? How about magic defense? Do you favor ranged combat or CC? How do you plan on handling armor? Monsters? Tar-pits? Characters? Holding objectives? 

All of these are important questions and will determine what units you need to add to your core list. You have 2 units of 20 dryads, 5 rev and 6 hunters. Do you have a plan re: how you intend to use them? How are you kitting out the hunters? 

Answer those questions and your options will be much clearer. 

What list do I want... well I want a list to score points and win games (I'm not doing that a lot lately). 

I'm a former woodelf player and a lot of my preferred playstyle comes from that (but does not neccesarily work with Sylvaneth or AoS)

- I generally like MSU... but not with dryads.

- I don't really see the value in Deathstars, Monster Mash in our army.

-I REALLLLY like going magic heavy.. but as I said in my longer post about it: the idea behind this list was NO GNARLROOT since my main opponent doesn't like the magic phase when I play that :D. Besides that:  I generally see magic mostly as a way to deal mortal wounds to high armored stuff.

- From a fluff point of view I really like shooting, shooting (or magic) and then ambushing: my experiment with it so far (only with 3 bow hunters, Drycha, TLA and 2 wyches - combinging shooting and magic as lots of ranged attacks in a gnarlroot list) is that in 5 turns just trying to shoot and then mop up the rest doesn't work for the scenario's. I started by keeping EVERYTHING (including Drycha and TLA) back to shoot... and that completely didn't work. Now I shove Drycha and TLA ahead and try to pin whatever I can pin down with the TLA (if it's in the middle it will still have range on a lot of targets for shooting and magic) .. and STILL it's not enough a lot of time to clear objectives fast enough and score points. (This is where my current focus on damage comes from btw.. NOT focussing on damage has not worked for me so far).

- I plan on handling armor by magic and rend 1 attacks mostly. I'll handle monsters with ANYTHING (a lot of monster have low saves I've noticed).

- Tarpits as in lots of numbers I kill with Drycha. Other tarpits I've not yet really encountered.. maybe you'd call 20 chaos warriors a tarpit? I dealt with them with whatever I had around.

- Characters I'd prefer to shoot or magic to death.

-Holding objectives: dryads... but they often die and then it gets tough.

-I intend to move dryads to different objectives (not in enemy deployment zone) try to conquer the objective with help from 1-2 of the heavy hitters and then stay there if possibel. I generally keep Tree revenants back, they are VERY vulnerable to... charges, shooting, magic.. basicly anything. I hope to kill 5 wound characters with them but really they can only kill the most weak of those. Or artillery.. which isn't used much by my opponents except for a high elf player who usually keeps 10 spears and a lore master next to 2 boltthrowers... not vulnerable really.

- NOW I plan to kit the hunters as 3 swords and 3 scythes and put both next to a unit of dryads so I can kill stuff in 1 turn and claim the objective instead of claiming it a turn later  (I used to play with only 3 bows).

--> hope you know more to give advice on the list now

33 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

This is more or less how I feel. My TL isn't a "must have" unit that finds its way into every list I write. Usually it's the last, or second to last, unit picked to fill a roster. But just because he's picked last doesn't mean he's worthless. It just means his role is more specialized. If I can parcel out his utility among other choices, I won't take him. But then again, sometimes trying to recreate that utility with other models actually leads me to spend more points or bump an important unit from my roster, so the treelord actually becomes the more points-efficient choice. (I suppose this is similar to trying to "recreate" a TLA with a TL and branchwych. In practice it functions about the same, maybe a little bit better, but also in some ways, worse.) 

I wouldn't say he's worthless.. but just think that on both damage and utility he's outclassed (and pretty strongly). I don't really see his utility value at all btw: it's still not completely clear what you mean by that. If you need more utility after taking the TLA then I guess he could be the choice.. but (apart from the fact I don't see the utility really) have not felt I lacked utility so far (mind you.. I've been playing a gnarlroot list with TLA, Drycha and 2 wyches so that might explain that part).

EDIT: this is a bit too much pro-TL now I read it again. I mean to say: he's probably not overcosted or not much at anyrate. But hunters are way more effective and I think that generally (barring very specific situations you'd nearly have to create for him to take advantage of OR specific lists) taking hunters will result in a stronger list.

 

33 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

lol. Points get tight because Sylvaneth players are always trying to cram as many hunters as they can into a list rather than trying to use ALL the options available to us to their fullest effect:

Player 1: "I'd really like to try out a unit of spites, but there's just no room in my list points-wise."
Player 2: "You have 24 hunters spread across 5 units clocking in at 1,440 pts. How about you cut one or two and make some room?"
Player 1: "Heck no. I need all 8 units. Sylvaneth are useless without them..."

I played a 1k doubles tournament last month and didn't bring a single unit of hunters. It was a gnarlroot list with battelline filled by 10 dryads and 1 unit of T-revs, and Drycha, a TLA and Wytch filling the rest of the roster. Still won every match. I've also regularly played 2k matches with only a unit 3 sword hunters. Still won. I've also written lists that use loads of hunters, but I won't pretend that it's the only way to write a list or play a match. Do my hunters regularly smash face in games? Yes. Does that mean I can't smash face if I don't take 12? No. 

In the end, I am a staunch believer in the value of mathhammer when writing a list. I absolutely do look at average wound output when deciding which units to buy and play. However, at the end of the day, matches come down to generalship. Specifically, your ability to use everything at your disposal to outplay the enemy on the tabletop, not on the calculator.

Well I'd probably try to put in more if I had more.. but so far I just got my 2nd set of 3 hunters 2 weeks ago and still haven't played with them. So far my hunters have actually been disappointing  in a lot of games (probably since I've only used 3 bow hunters so far - the game where shooting and magic killed the 3 small goblin heros in 3 places was nice though.. or the first game against chaos when Valkia was shot down) partl because my opponents KNOW my list... and don't take a lot of 5 wound hero's..thus making my shooting and magic snipers less usefull.

[Aezeal]

7 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

I dunno. I think points get tight for me because I really don't want to have to take more than one unit of Tree-Revs and I also have an allergy to taking 10 man dryad squads. So what I really want to do is spend 580-720 points on battleline just to start. That does make things tight. Of course, I could just suck up the inefficiency, but it's such a feel-bad

I definitely don't think you need Kurnoth Hunters. Just a few pages back I was advocating that KHs could be profitably replaced with Tree-Kin in a number of situations. I do think KHs are really strong and also have sick models, so I'd have a hard time seeing myself not taking at least a unit or two... and I'd often like to take more than that. 

 

I think hunters are just the best choice for damage dealers in our army. And damage always has a significant place in most armies. 

Next to that they are also resilient (my bowhunters have only been killed once I think.. ofcourse.. they wheren't in range of a lot of enemies) which ticks another box.

I think my Gnarlroot list has been putting too much points in utility (tree revenants, magic, shooting) so I'm switching to more damage (as I've said the last 2 weeks - since the tourney).

[Mirage8112]

3 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

I dunno. I think points get tight for me because I really don't want to have to take more than one unit of Tree-Revs and I also have an allergy to taking 10 man dryad squads. So what I really want to do is spend 580-720 points on battleline just to start. That does make things tight. Of course, I could just suck up the inefficiency, but it's such a feel-bad

I understand that. I also shared that opinion not that long ago. I have since come around of the usefulness of T-rev's. Now my standard battleline load out is 20 dryads and 2x 5 T-rev's: 440 pts. That leaves plenty of points to play around with. I have been exceptionally happy with their performance the last few games. 
 

6 minutes ago, swarmofseals said:

I definitely don't think you need Kurnoth Hunters. Just a few pages back I was advocating that KHs could be profitably replaced with Tree-Kin in a number of situations. I do think KHs are really strong and also have sick models, so I'd have a hard time seeing myself not taking at least a unit or two... and I'd often like to take more than that. 

I don't want to give the impression that I dislike Hunters; I don't. I really like hunters. I'm in the process of building the outcast alpha-strike list right now and making the list viable really can't be done without hunters. But when it becomes a question of adding the second or third unit of hunters and adding something else, my vote is for something else. 

 

[the Fel-hand]

One factor you should consider when comparing kurnoth hunters to tree lords is that we know points will be updated in the next generals handbook. Hunters are one of the more complained about units in the game and I think they could see a big point increase. Its just speculation but I think the only units complained about more in all of Age of Sigmar are stonehorns, and skyfires. 

[Aezeal]

55 minutes ago, the Fel-hand said:

One factor you should consider when comparing kurnoth hunters to tree lords is that we know points will be updated in the next generals handbook. Hunters are one of the more complained about units in the game and I think they could see a big point increase. Its just speculation but I think the only units complained about more in all of Age of Sigmar are stonehorns, and skyfires. 

Are they still complained about? Haven't heard much in a while really. Battle brew deserves a nerve too. And some formations need to be more expensive. And some auto buffing units.

[Jorthax]

So I've always been let down by Hunters shooting, and I started us down the TL route talking about Ironbark, I wonder about bringing something like this;

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
Branchwych (100)
- Artefact: Ranu's Lamentiri 
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
Spirit of Durthu (400)
- General
- Trait: Gnarled Warrior 
- Artefact: Ironbark Talisman 
Drycha Hamadreth (280)
- Deepwood Spell: Verdant Blessing
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
10 x Arkanaut Company (120)
- 3x Light Skyhooks
6 x Kurnoth Hunters (360)
- Scythes
10 x Grundstok Thunderers (200)
- 10x Aethercannons
Treelord (260)
Household (20)
Ironbark Wargrove (60)

Total: 2000/2000
 

I'm not sure about Drycha, but I wanted another spell, tempted by going 2 x Branchwych and bring 10 more Arkanaut Company for 3 more light skyhooks as they are so nice...

I'm pretty sure the Aethercannons are the best for dmg output, but I think without being able to be flown anywhere I would need to take the Mortars instead to give me that threat against 5-6 wound buffing heroes / casters.

Does Durthu need +1 to wound from the Ironbark Talisman , or is giving up the Brairsheath too much? What other options are good on him?

Should I make more use of Tree Revs since I'm not doing anything with the re-roll 1s to wound from Master Crafted Weapons in the battalion? I just cannot justify the cost.

[Aezeal]

I've really liked Drycha in my games.

Not really into the Overlords but wouldn't taking one large unit of either of those and then a Khemist be a better idea?

There is a lot to like about this list but there are a few things that might be problems

- Good command ability is lacking

- Not much bodies for taking objectives. Sure you have the dwarves.. but those are shooters and you'd probably prefer keeping them out of melee and if they are in melee they won't be killing their enemies that quick on their own.

Minor points:

- You have quite some rend 2 shooting and Durthu hits with rend 2 too, so maybe going swords on the hunters might be a better idea so you can clear chaff better.

- Other good item on Durthu is the Oaken armor obviously.. that means Drycha (or the wych) can cast mystic shield on herself.

- Consider Aethershot rifle on the gunnery sergeant (thunderers).

[Jorthax]

Ah yes, I've lost the TLA command ability here.

I think 20 Arks with a Khemist might be better that makes 6 skyhooks go to 12 shots, very nice. 

[Mirage8112]

 

On 4/28/2017 at 3:33 PM, Aezeal said:

On 4/28/2017 at 3:04 PM, Mirage8112 said:

I dunno, 2 x 20 and 2 x10 seems like a fairly reasonable way to split the difference. Sure it's a lot of points.  But between say a frostheart phoenix AND a TL (or TLA. Or both) those dryads aren't going anywhere.

Also true. But still... 60 of them... it's more battle line than I'd wish. 

 

Ugh. What does that even mean? Who cares if they're battleline or not? What matters is what they do on the tabletop, not if they happen to be battling or not. If you have a group of 30 dryads that capture an objective on turn 1 and because of that you end up winning that game, nobody going to say "Well, they're battleline, so your win doesn't count" ....

 

On 4/28/2017 at 3:33 PM, Aezeal said:

- I generally like MSU...

- I don't really see the value in Deathstars/Monster Mash....

-I REALLLLY like going magic heavy....

- I plan on handling armor by magic and rend 1 attacks mostly. I'll handle monsters with ANYTHING...

- Tarpits as in lots of numbers I kill with Drycha...

- Characters I'd prefer to shoot or magic to death....

-Holding objectives: dryads..

-I intend to move dryads to different objectives (not in enemy deployment zone) try to conquer the objective with help from 1-2 of the heavy hitters and then stay there if possibel. I generally keep Tree revenants back, they are VERY vulnerable to... charges, shooting, magic.. basicly anything. I hope to kill 5 wound characters with them but really they can only kill the most weak of those. Or artillery.. which isn't used much by my opponents except for a high elf player who usually keeps 10 spears and a lore master next to 2 boltthrowers... not vulnerable really.

So, to recap, here are your options:

On 4/28/2017 at 11:52 AM, Aezeal said:

1. Alarielle, Drycha and Durthu 

2. Durthu, TLA, Drycha, 6 treekin, wych

3. Big A, Big D and TLA (... delete 10 dryads and take 3 Treekin).

4 Alarielle, Durthy and 2x 3 treekin. 

5. .... something with another battallion to give both TLA and Durthu oaken armor seems nice..

6. Big A, TLA, Drycha and 3 treekin

7. something else entirely.

If you don't want a monster mash, that pretty much knocks out 1, 2, 3 and 6. All of those options invest a major portion of your army's makeup in large monsters. You don't really need more units to hold objectives, since you're running 2 x 20 dryads, and there's not much point running dryads in groups of 10, so unless you want to bring in revenants (spite or tree) MSU is right out. That leaves 4/5/7. But 5 & 7 aren't really options, just possibilities of "something else." So really 4/5.

If it were you, I would pick either Alarielle OR Durthu since the two of those together is a massive portion of the list. My preference would be Alarielle.  Since you like magic, I'd opt to throw in another wytch/wraith. That will give you 4 spells to cast per phase and 4 unbinds. Since you're taking Alarielle, I'd bump the hunters up to 6. That will give you another 100 pts or play with. If I were you I'd add another unit of T-rev's. That way you have 2 units of 5 to work in tandem (they work much better in 2 x 5. Two scions with glaives can make excellent use of their reroll.) 

True there's no Drycha. While I like her she's not compulsory and your treekin should be able to hold off just about any type of horde unit you come across (plenty of wounds/numbers/relatively high save). Drycha is also a kind of liability in a list like this if your opponent gets a double turn.

 

On 4/28/2017 at 3:33 PM, Aezeal said:

I wouldn't say [The TL is] worthless.. but just think that on both damage and utility he's outclassed (and pretty strongly). I don't really see his utility value at all btw: it's still not completely clear what you mean by that. If you need more utility after taking the TLA then I guess he could be the choice.. but (apart from the fact I don't see the utility really) have not felt I lacked utility so far (mind you.. I've been playing a gnarlroot list with TLA, Drycha and 2 wyches so that might explain that part).

 
Utility: "useful, especially through being able to perform several functions."

That is to say, he does more than just "kill stuff". You keep saying he's outclassed but you literally have no idea what you're talking about. you have no practical experience of using him effectively on the tabletop. You're refusing to field him and experiment. You keep insiting you know what you're talking about, when you very clearly don't.

You keep insisting that you don't want to take him and that he's not a viable option. You've been using a bunch of units that are (generally) regarded as being the best in codex and you still aren't winning. So either you need to listen to players that know how to use things you are not familiar with and develop strategies for everything in the codex (not just the units you like); Or you need to buy as many hunters as you can fit in a list and stop asking for/arguing with good advice. 
 

On 4/28/2017 at 3:33 PM, Aezeal said:

I think that generally (barring very specific situations you'd nearly have to create for him to take advantage of OR specific lists) taking hunters will result in a stronger list.

Protip: Creating situations for units to take advantage of is the main way you win games. 

 

 

[Mirage8112]

On 4/30/2017 at 11:59 AM, Jorthax said:

So I've always been let down by Hunters shooting, and I started us down the TL route talking about Ironbark, I wonder about bringing something like this;

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
Branchwych (100)
- Artefact: Ranu's Lamentiri 
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
Spirit of Durthu (400)
- General
- Trait: Gnarled Warrior 
- Artefact: Ironbark Talisman 
Drycha Hamadreth (280)
- Deepwood Spell: Verdant Blessing
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
10 x Arkanaut Company (120)
- 3x Light Skyhooks
6 x Kurnoth Hunters (360)
- Scythes
10 x Grundstok Thunderers (200)
- 10x Aethercannons
Treelord (260)
Household (20)
Ironbark Wargrove (60)

Total: 2000/2000
 

I'm not sure about Drycha, but I wanted another spell, tempted by going 2 x Branchwych and bring 10 more Arkanaut Company for 3 more light skyhooks as they are so nice...

I'm pretty sure the Aethercannons are the best for dmg output, but I think without being able to be flown anywhere I would need to take the Mortars instead to give me that threat against 5-6 wound buffing heroes / casters.

Does Durthu need +1 to wound from the Ironbark Talisman , or is giving up the Brairsheath too much? What other options are good on him?

Should I make more use of Tree Revs since I'm not doing anything with the re-roll 1s to wound from Master Crafted Weapons in the battalion? I just cannot justify the cost.

You're missing a unit of tree revenants since the ironbark tax is household + 1 unit of revenants extra. 

Aside from that, I've been running the math on the loadouts for the Overlords, trying to put together the most effective weapons that brings something to table we lack and trying to get some idea of where best to spend the points for maximum playability; both in terms of damage output, resiliency, flexibility and utility.

So far, this is what I'm thinking:

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
Spirit of Durthu (400)
- General
- Trait: Realm Walker  
- Artefact: Ironbark Talisman  
Branchwych (100)
- Artefact: Acorn of the Ages  
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Spite-Revenants (100)
20 x Grundstok Thunderers (400)
- 1x Aethershot Rifles
- 8x Aetheric Fumigators
- 3x Decksweepers
- 8x Aethercannons
Treelord (260)
Arkanaut Ironclad (440)
- Main Gun: Aethermatic Volley Cannon
Ironbark Wargrove (60)
Household (20)

Total: 1980/2000

Like your list above @Jorthax, I opted for Durthu to take advantage of the Ironbark Talisman. He's pretty much the only hero in either army that can make use of it that isn't likely to get smashed to a pulp before attacking. 3 groups of revenants will be very very mobile, and rerolling 1's of their attacks (and rerolling since dice per unit for either hits or wounds) will make them effective enough in combat to reliably snipe lone characters (especially since all three x5 will be operating as a single unit). Oddly enough thanks to the "Stubborn and Taciturn" special rule conferred by the battalion, the revenants are basically immune to battelshock. (Bravery 7 thanks to the household battalion means they'd need to lose 5 models before really being in danger of battleshock. Since the units are only 5 models strong that means they can pretty much fight to the last man.)

Oddly enough I've opted for a mix of short range/ long range weaponry on the Thunderers.  Mathhammer shows that the short range Aetheric fumigators actually have the greatest damage output and the loadout above puts out about 19 wounds with average rolls (vs a save of 5+). If you roll well for the Aetheric fumigators, the decksweepers and the aethercannons, that damage could be as high as 29 wounds, or as low as 10 if you roll badly. Considering you have 3 separate rolls to make at this load out, you are pretty likely to land somewhere in the middle, so 20 wounds (vs. a 5+ save) sounds about right. 

The best loadout for the ironclad seems to be Aethermatic volley cannon, which means the ironclad is putting out around 10 wounds (vs. 5+) depending on how you roll. Truthfully the Ironclad is really just there as a sort of mobile defense fortress. It has enough resiliency that it can pretty much handle a round or two of punishment before dropping it's payload of thunderers in range of whatever it wants to punish. I opted to take the big airship over the smaller since it has a better save, higher wound count and can carry all 20 thunderers without losing speed. 

So plan here is relatively straight forward. I think the preference would actually be getting the second turn. At deployment, the treelord goes into the enclaves with the ironclad (thunderers embarked), the revenants and the wytch and durthu deployed on the table (The revenants should probably plan to screen Durthu in case you have an enemy whose capable of a 1st turn charge.) The free forest will go anywhere that can put Durthu within 9" of the enemy if he teleports. 

If you do end up getting the second turn, then the Wytch drops the acorn in the first hero phase. Durthu teleports along with the wytch and (hopefully) is able to move again on a roll of 4+. The ironclad while it can only move 8" gives their 9" weapons a max threat range of 20" (23" on the Aethercannons) which is probably enough to threaten whatever moved up the previous turn. 

So,

At the end of the first turn Durthu should be in combat, hopefully within 3" of a forest swinging with 5 attacks (or so) and wounding on 2's for 6 damage (!)  The hope is that Durthu will erase whatever he's in combat with giving the treelord a chance to move up and support him for a double turn. Because he's essentially a power hitter, I am not too worried about not having briarsheath, gnarled warrior or the oaken armor on Durthu. Double stomps and double 3+ saves means a lot of damage output in close combat without a whole lot of vulnerability. If he does end up taking wounds the wytch is there to heal him back to as close to full as he can get, plus, his ability to tank wounds for the wytch (on a 4+) means the wytch essentially has a 4+ save on top of her regular save (likely 4+ since she'll be in cover).

Frankly I think the element of surprise in this list will be huge. If you do get the 4+ roll for realmwalker and you get an aggressive enemy (think BCR) who gets in range of the thunderers, you could in theory generate somewhere between 40-50 wounds (all with rend -1 or -2) in first combat round (And that's only between Durthu and the thunderers.) If you get the second combat round, double that number and add another 8-12 on top for the second treelord. brining the total to 80-110 wounds between the two turns. (this also doesn't count any wounds generated by the revenants who should be able to get into the mix by turn 2.)

This is basically one of those front loaded-lists where you take a turn or two to set up a "knockout-punch". 40 wounds is tough to recover from and this combinations of items on Durthu makes him a super precise teleporting spoiler. 

This is list isn't exactly beefy model count wise. It's basically relying on its ability to wipe out an enemy in a single CC/shooting phase, but isn't exactly resilient enough to take a hit if that hit goes someplace unplanned (the thunderers can easily retreat from combat in the combat phase, but that doesn't do a lot of good if the enemy activates first.) So, with that in mind, heres a variation on the list above:

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
Spirit of Durthu (400)
- General
- Trait: Realm Walker  
- Artefact: Ironbark Talisman  
Branchwych (100)
- Artefact: Acorn of the Ages  
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Tree-Revenants (100)
5 x Spite-Revenants (100)
3 x Tree Kin (100)
3 x Tree Kin (100)
9 x Endrinriggers (360)
- 3x Aethermatic Volley Guns
- 1x Skyhooks
- 1x Grapnel Launchers
Treelord (260)
Arkanaut Frigate (280)
Ironbark Wargrove (60)
Household (20)

Total: 1980/2000

The endrinriggers are actually surprisingly fast (between their fly, the skyhook, and grapnel launcher) and as such I opted for slightly less-beefy airship. The fact that they an heal the ship as well makes up a bit for the loss of wounds. Between CC and shooting they put out a respectable 10-12 a turn. They shouldn't have any trouble getting into CC with all their movement abilities + flying. 2 wounds apiece means you get relatively the same amount of wounds as the thunderers (more or less). 

Since Durthu will still be doing the heavy lifting, this variation puts out less damage but has a lot more staying power with the addition of 2 groups of treekin. (who are again, just about immune to battleshock). So first turn if everything goes as planned, you can expect to put out about 30-35 wounds in the first turn. the second turn is bit less predicable, but if Durthu does well, you'll have him + a treelord and 2 x 3 treekin to play with. 

Overall I think this approach would do well on a tabletop. I'm not thrilled that that Durthu needs a 4+ to move after teleport, but hell, it's better than a 6. Basically you have a about a 65% shot of getting him into combat the first turn. (50% from realmwalker, and if that fails a 30% chance to make a 9" charge) But if you fail, you do have Durthu standing next to another TL flanked by a wytch and some treekin. Not exactly an easy target. 

Questions, comments, observations? 
 

[HadrielCaine]

OMG. @Jorthax Of course Kharadon Overlords have the keyword DURADIN. You've made my day with the list you posted. PayPal balance from commission is going straight to buying Pirate Dwarfs to go with my Sylvanelves. Thanks