Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Aezeal]

So why is everyone putting spites as batteline unless needed for batallions? Dryads are better in most regards if I read you correctly?

[Paul G]

Bravery debuffs? Plus I think most posited lists using Spites have been Dreadwood!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swarmofseals]

5 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

So why is everyone putting spites as batteline unless needed for batallions? Dryads are better in most regards if I read you correctly?

I have absolutely no idea. Dryads are more efficient in every way. The only advantage of spites are the morale debuffs which are harder to quantify but strike me as not that powerful. Making an extra model flee is much worse than causing an extra wound in that you need to successfully trigger battleshock for it to work at all (easy against some opponents, not so easy against others), and if you DO trigger battleshock then causing an extra wound in combat has the same benefit as causing an extra model to flee, except that you also caused an extra wound to begin with. The only exception to this is when you are fighting a very large unit of high wound models that doesn't have inspiring presence and manage to battleshock it. In that case causing an extra model to flee is significantly better than causing an extra wound in combat. To me though that's both an unlikely scenario and also a scenario in which you are likely already winning. 

[xanderhansen]

This seems like an interesting idea, but doesn't their ability hit your units as well?

Yes it does, but you can use it in so many ways.

- you can summon trees 1 inch away from enemy units with verdant, and then shoot it.

- if you have to many enemy's around, simply just teleport away blast them down.

- no enemy buff hero can hide from you anymore

- as sylvaneth you don't want to fight your all at once, and now the enemy can't pile to many units together, in fear of to many units getting hit.

And there so many more things to do. Before ppl hated our trees, now they gonna truly fear them [emoji6]

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[swarmofseals]

1 minute ago, xanderhansen said:

Yes it does, but you can use it in so many ways.

- you can summon trees 1 inch away from enemy units with verdant, and then shoot it.

- if you have to many enemy's around, simply just teleport away blast them down.

- no enemy buff hero can hide from you anymore

- as sylvaneth you don't want to fight your all at once, and now the enemy can't pile to many units together, in fear of to many units getting hit.

And there so many more things to do. Before ppl hated our trees, now they gonna truly fear them

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk
 

All very good points. Even in a list not built around abusing this ability I could see taking one just for the fear factor. Influencing your opponent's decisions can easily be worth that chunk of points. I think Sylvaneth is a board control army at it's core, and the Heraldor does really synergize nicely with that. You could definitely get some nice shenanigans going with Forest Folk, too.

[xanderhansen]

And some Nice hereldor things..

- The shooting he can do is an ability = you can run and shoot = at least 21 inch you can get to hit a terrain.

- his shooting dosnt need line of sight, you simply just pick a terrain in range.

Sendt fra min SM-G935F med Tapatalk

[scrubyandwells]

So on the surface it looks like there's multiple things pushing toward hordes as the new efficiency (it's way too early to know, though): 

1. Some of the Pitched Battles have a rule that gives objective scoring precedent to units of 20+ models.

2. Massive Regiments rule.

3. Battalions going up substantially across the board.

Personally I've always been more drawn to elite, low-model-count armies, 'so going to focus playtesting on low-model sylvaneth vs multiple different hordes + armies w/ at least 1 powerful, buffed block (30 Liberators) and see how they do, e.g., 120+ Bloodletters, Death lists w/ lots of models, et al. 

I've been wanting to get Alarielle for a while and build around her, so going to stick w/ that plan. 

After going through potential allies, here's one GHB17 iteration w/ Alarielle that fits my personal walk-and-chew-gum playstyle:

• Alarielle (Verdant) - 600
• Ancient (Oaken Armour, Regrowth) - 300
• Waywatcher - 100
• Waywatcher - 100
• 10 Dryads - 100
• 10 Dryads - 100
• 5 TRevs - 80
• 3 Scythes - 220
• 3 Scythes - 220
• 3 Vanguard Longstrikes - 180

That seems like a good list to test vs high-model-count/high-wound armies w/ the above new realities re: pts #1-#3.

Few notes: 

1. Alarielle + Ancient still provides 4 spells + Wyldwood generation via Verdant, Silent Communion, and Metamorphosis (the latter of which can definitely generate a Wyldwood e.g. if focused on wiping out a low-save small unit).

2. Alarielle + Ancient + 2 Waywatchers + Longstrikes provide quite a bit of shooting output, including 2 units w/ very long-range threat (Alarielle + Longstrikes).

3. Waywatchers can pump out quite a few shots w/ their Fast Shots, especially if you can put one by Damned terrain, and then heal them back up via Regrowth in same hero phase.

4. 2 units of 10 Dryads + 1 unit of 5 TRevs has been what I've ran for a while, so it'll be good to see how it can fare in the new reality, which looks a lot tougher.

5. 2 units of 3 scythes (or mix in some greatswords) provides the bedrock punch + resiliency that we've known.

6. It might make more general-purpose sense to swap out Longstrikes w/ Hurricanes for potential to do more vs low-save horde units. Not sure.

Definitely open to building new lists truly oriented toward whatever the new reality looks like, even if it means going over 50 models, but first want to start getting a sense of how low-model-count trees can fare in GHB17.

 

 

[scrubyandwells]

I can already think of a lot that would be extremely difficult for that list (and similar low-model lists) to deal with...but gotta start somewhere.

[Mirage8112]

So I've had a day to sit down and digest some of the changes. It's good to see some hard numbers and like both @swarmofseals and @scrubyandwells, I'm starting to think a little deeper about what this means for the larger meta-game. 
 

16 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

I think they are a little bit of a net nerf for Sylvaneth in the context of everything else but not a severe one. I do wish they had taken a bit more care in balancing specific battalions. Gnarlroot is still the obvious choice (or the Dreadwood Alphastrike if that's your thing), while unused battalions like Winterleaf aren't any more attractive now. Meanwhile other top tier battalions like Kunnin' Rukk simply went up by the same flat increase as everything else.  

I think I'm a little more positive about the changes than most. Basically the changes to point totals really only hurt players who brought more than 6 hunters (in any combination). Because of the reduction in battleline troop cost, we essentially get 60-80 pts free just for showing up to matched play. For example, my previous list included 2 units of T-revs and a unit of 20 dryads; an 80 pt reduction in cost takes care of the 80pt bump to Hunters, and the reduction in cost for the Treelord and characters means the gnarlroot tax doesn't hurt nearly as much as it could. Basically I'd have to adjust my list around 80 pts or so. Previously I could fit in 10 sisters for 440 pts. Now I might only be able to take 1 unit of 5, but truthfully, I never really felt like I needed anymore than that. 

To be fair some of the other meta-battalions suffered a lot worse. Kunnin' rukk' not only went up in battalion price (+100pts), but so did arrowboyz. (+20 pts). However, the max unit size for Arrowboys was decreased to 30, down from 40. Which means instead of getting 240 shots, for 460 pts, they're getting  180 shots for 520 points. That's a massive change (in our favor) and will radically change how destruction armies build their lists now. 

Dreadwood is super viable now, since spite count as battlelline, and while I' not as inclined to pack as many hunters into the list as I would have before, the net reduction in required points means I can build the list in a more balanced way, which all in all, means it will be more competitive. I also wouldn't dismiss winterleaf especially with the ability to bring an order unit outside our available allies list. 

Gnarlroot isn't dead, but I think hunters spam probably is. The battleline reduction only really pays for 3-6 hunters, which in my mind was all i wanted to take anyway. I said it before and I'll say it again; Gnarlroot + hunter spam was a lazy way to play the game (as were things like Kunnin' Rukk'). Furthermore, Taking 3-4 units of hunters (so 9-12 hunters on the table in whatever combination) in mixed order list with a hurricanium won't ever be a thing now, and based on how all the changes interact, I think the game designers are purposefully refining the choice of playstyles for each army and I don't think Sylvaneth were ever intended to be played as hunter spam. 
 

17 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

On a different note, I have a few tentative predictions. I see a lot of people focusing on alpha strike lists, and while I don't dismiss the possibility that such lists could be good, I think that there will be a general trend towards armies being bulkier with more wounds shoved into fewer points. The massive regiment rules really encourage that. I already think that hordes would have made a pretty reasonable counter to the GHB 1.0 metagame, and with heavy ranged damage becoming less efficient and chaff becoming more efficient I think we're even more likely to see that play out. Alpha Strike lists are great against opponents who have a lot of points shoved into key pieces that you can realistically take out on turn 1 or 2. They are going to struggle against opponents who either have enough chaff to keep you from getting at the good bits or who simply have no key locuses of points and can just absorb your initial hit with sheer numbers.

I mentioned this back on the podcast with @scrubyandwells, that players would eventually start to see the value of chaff units and that players would start including small "throw away" units in their lists since they were the best choice for dealing with some of the trickier units in the game. Our alpha strike prospects are better than most thanks to dreadwood, and we don't really suffer from alpha strike vulnerability. Our area denial is second to none, and with the ability to put down 1-2 units on the table and deep strike everything else in, I see good things in our future if the meta goes that direction. 

As to hordes, I'm not concerned with Sylvaneth becoming horde focused. Let's not forget the reason that hordes weren't being used regularly. They're slow, they're expensive (points wise) and as far as sylvaneth are concerned Dryads don't receive sliding scale bonuses like other units do. Granted we get a +1 armor save for units over 12 models strong, but that's nothing like Tzaangors or Bloodletters. 

Plus, according to warhammer community, the new scenario that has objectives that can only be captured by hordes OR Behemoths. Hordes got a reduction in points, but behemoths did as well. I think you'll definitely need at least one f those two, but I don't feel as if it has to be hordes or it has to be behemoths. 
 

17 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

Instead, consider the possibilities presented by our new roster. A 30 strong Dryad unit is really tough to move. You can almost guarantee proximity to a Wyldwood because you have enough bodies to create a nice balloon string. That gives you 9 point models with a 4+ armor save and -1 to hit. In Magical Christmas Land you can drop a huge Wyldwood on an objective, fill it with a 30 strong Dryad unit, and give it mystic shield. With TLA command you're looking at 2+ rerolling 1's and -1 to hit. Opponents are going to really struggle to dislodge that unit. Offensively Dryads aren't great, but they are quite good against chaff (which I expect to see more of!). So if 30 Dryads are a tough nut to crack and extremely tough if they somehow all squeeze into a Wyldwood, imagine how painful it would be to face something like 120-150 Dryads. These numbers are very doable. I mean, if you really wanted to go ham you could squeeze 210 dryads into a 2k point list.

One strategy that I think could be quite effective is to create hardpoints using a Treelord or TLA enveloped by 30 Dryads either inside a Wyldwood or balloon stringing to one. This gives you -1 to hit with shooting and -1 to -2 in combat, good armor, and the Treelord can reach over two rows of Dryads and still hit the opponent without them being able to retaliate.

(note; it was widely anticipated that there would be a new rule of one limiting the stacking of effects with the same name. Thankfully that didn't happen so multiple TL stomps could def be a thing in the future) 

Furthermore, there are some real trade-offs for using dryads in 30's even with point reductions. I have had tremendous success running dryads in 20's. But even in 20's they're tricky AF to fit into a forest to gain the cover bonus. On top of that, it's not just dryads + forests that's the winning recipe; it's dryads+forest+TL stomp = win. Our ability to stack -2 and even -3 hit is a major star in our completive crown, especially since what makes tactics like bloodletter bomb so scary is the unit doing mortal wounds on a 4+ or 5+. Making the strategy work with 30 dryads becomes extremely difficult since your TL or TLA has to being within 3" of the enemy in order to stomp. A 30 model footprint means theres no way you can protect all sides of the blob, and its very reasonable to assume that any general worth his sense will put pressure where the blob is weakest. i.e out of range of TL stomps. I still think for defensive objective holding,  20 is still >30. (oddly enough.)

As to dealing with hordes, we have a fair bit of options. Hunters in groups of 6-9 do more damage than most small units can soak. Especially with battleshock. Have a unit of spites trailing behind and watch (most of) them evaporate. For the really ugly stuff we can always bring Drycha. 
 

4 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

The only advantage of spites are the morale debuffs which are harder to quantify but strike me as not that powerful. Making an extra model flee is much worse than causing an extra wound in that you need to successfully trigger battleshock for it to work at all (easy against some opponents, not so easy against others), and if you DO trigger battleshock then causing an extra wound in combat has the same benefit as causing an extra model to flee, except that you also caused an extra wound to begin with. The only exception to this is when you are fighting a very large unit of high wound models that doesn't have inspiring presence and manage to battleshock it. In that case causing an extra model to flee is significantly better than causing an extra wound in combat. To me though that's both an unlikely scenario and also a scenario in which you are likely already winning. 

Well, yes and no. 

Dryads are much better at doing what they do than spites are, but spites are excellent force multipliers if you use them correctly. Most of my theory crafting for them revolves around the use of the dreadwood/outcasts battalions but let's forgo those for the moment.

Let's say that this "massive regiments" thing does take off. Even if it only takes off in small way, units that we previously would have seen at 20 models will now likely be at 30. That means units that previously were maybe 7 bravery might clock in at 8 or 9 (since units receive +1 bravery for every 10 models in a unit). Spites not only reduce bravery by 1, but also force models within 8" of any terrain feature to roll 2 d6 for battleshock and choose the highest. 

Sylvaneth are not typically a strong burst damage (BD) army. (For that you'll want beastclaw raiders or khorne bloodbound). We're more of a "damage over time" (DoT) army. Adding a unit of spites mixed into a unit of 20 dryads and a TLA holding an objective makes for a tough proposition. You have the dangerous wyldwood terrain, which will do D3 mortal wounds if spells start flying, you have a strong chance of catching a -2 to hit, you'll be at -1 bravery and having to roll 2 d6 for battleshock. You're pretty much guaranteed to lose a model or two every single phase you're in combat AND then you'll have to take battleshock. Losing 5-6 models across 3 phases (not unreasonable) makes it almost guaranteed he'll lose 4-5 more if spites are around. 4-5 extra models fleeing from battleshock equates to roughly having an extra sword hunter-and-half in combat (all without needing to actually have damage in combat). If those are multi-wound models fleeing the value is even higher. 

On top of this, if the enemy general decides to use inspiring presence to counter the spites, he can't use any other command abilities that round into the next. That's a lot of pressure for an 80 pt battleline unit.

Most things will really struggle to take setup without committing 2-3 elite units PLUS support, even then you're likely looking at at least 2-3 full turns before you make any serious headway. 

-----------

Overall I think there is a lot to go over. The changes are hard nerf to one particular type of list (anything that used 9 or more hunters) but if you've been using everything else in codex to their maximum effect (treelords, T-rev's, spites) there's a lot to be happy about here. I've advocated pretty consistently for working T-rev's, Spites and Treelords into our lists for exactly this reason. Mostly I was anticipating that new units/armies will arrive on the scene and would serve as a hard counter to our gnarlroot "netlist", and I wanted to be sure that I knew what every tool in our toolkit did so I'd be prepared. Now it seems that things have shifted and what I was preparing for happened, it just didn't happen in the way I expected. 

I plan to sit down and look more carefully at allies, but I'd like to have the book in hand first. Id like get a close look at the scenarios and how they've changed before I start seriously considering mixed lists for tournament play. I still think mono-sylvaneth lists (excluding order units from meta battalions) are strong contenders, even with the increase in battalion costs, but it remains to be seen how other armies will react to the changes. 

[scrubyandwells]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

Overall I think there is a lot to go over. The changes are hard nerf to one particular type of list (anything that used 9 or more hunters) but if you've been using everything else in codex to their maximum effect (treelords, T-rev's, spites) there's a lot to be happy about here. I've advocated pretty consistently for working T-rev's, Spites and Treelords into our lists for exactly this reason. Mostly I was anticipating that new units/armies will arrive on the scene and would serve as a hard counter to our gnarlroot "netlist", and I wanted to be sure that I knew what every tool in our toolkit did so I'd be prepared. Now it seems that things have shifted and what I was preparing for happened, it just didn't happen in the way I expected. 

I plan to sit down and look more carefully at allies, but I'd like to have the book in hand first. Id like get a close look at the scenarios and how they've changed before I start seriously considering mixed lists for tournament play. I still think mono-sylvaneth lists (excluding order units from meta battalions) are strong contenders, even with the increase in battalion costs, but it remains to be seen how other armies will react to the changes. 

Awesome writeup, as always. Look forward to chatting in depth once we get the book and get a better sense of the overall picture.

Incidentally, the 12 Hunter + Durthu version of Gnarlroot isn't exactly unplayable in GHB17. In the list I've been running, it just has to drop down to 9 Hunters and lose Free Spirits, and it's at 1,970 with a one drop still intact. That could probably be competitive against a lot of builds...not as strong, but still viable.

I'd probably drop one of the 3 bows. Having 6 has been helpful vs builds where I've needed to hang back outside of the enemy's kill zone, while still being able to put out damage, so only having 3 would lessen that threat; but scythes/greatswords seem more reliable / all-comers-oriented @ 220.

Sylvaneth have been solid for a while (as we know, not tearing up the scene but very competitive with the right variables), so if the Gnarlroot "netlists" are taking a hit, I think that's understandable, especially given that a lot of the other top lists we've seen over the last year are taking a hit (...although certainly not all of them).

[scrubyandwells]

Before looking too much at a wide variety of other things, 'starting to play around w/ what's possible now w/ a Gnarlroot 1-drop using my existing collection w/ minor changes/additions. Here's one list that might be reasonably viable (w/ standard disclaimer of "who the hell knows ATM"):

• Ancient 
  • e.g. Gnarled Warrior, Oaken Armour, Regrowth
• Bwych
  • e.g. Acorn, Throne of Vines
• Bwych
  • e.g. Ranu's, Verdant Blessing
• 20 Dryads
• 10 Dryads
• 5 TRevs
• 3 Scythes
• 3 Scythes
• 3 Bows
• Treelord
• Gnarlroot
• Household

That's 1,990. On paper, it seems pretty compelling; e.g.:

1. Maintains strength of 1-drop, in a meta that could likely raise the average # of drops.

2. Maintains high-value of determining 1st turn, e.g. likely maintains capacity for us to get Wyldwoods down on objectives before those objectives get swarmed by bodies. 

It looks like multiple scenarios are now most models within 3", which would seem to only increase the value of getting Wyldwoods down on objectives.

3. Allows for splitting of Acorn and Verdant on different Bwyches just in case you can't determine 1st turn and get hammered early before you can get the woods out (e.g. 1-drop KO Zilfin is still going to be a thing and is going to be nasty vs a list like this one...maybe even a hard counter).

4. Seems to maintain reasonable competitive viability in new version of Three Places of Power, Duality of Death, since Duality of Death can be scored by Behemoths (thank the PTB).

5. Has at least 1 unit of 20 Dryads. I suspect one key tactic may be keeping them safe in the enclaves and cultivating a chance to optimize the rule allowing a unit w/ 20+ models to take precedent for objective scoring.

I'm not sure how viable that'll be, though, especially since this list is vulnerable to alphastrikes, and we know a lot more factions are going to have amazing mobility in GH17. In that regard, MSU may still have a big role. Might be better to run 3x10 Dryads rather than one 20 and one 10, in order to be able to set up screens and/or drop at least 10 bodies onto multiple objectives (often ideally near 3 Scythes). 

6. Hard to know if 5 TRevs or another unit of 10 Dryads would be a better bet. Not a fan personally of spamming only Dryads, so probably would always run at least one unit of TRevs, even if sub-optimal. And the models are just too damn sweet not to. 

Update: Oops, the current list is 1,990, so it's either 5 TRevs, 5 Spites, or moving the Dryads to 3x10 and swapping TRevs for another wizard, e.g. with Dwellers Below for some anti-horde potential. I suspect 5 TRevs is a better all-around bet. 

7. Still puts out 6 spells + maintains Wyldwood summoning (Verdant, Acorn, Silent Communion).

8. Has at least 1 long-range threat -- although only 1 could be a problem -- in the 3 Bows, and respectable shooting overall w/ Ancient + Treelord + 3 Bows.

9. Maintains two units of combat Hunters, which, crutch or not, has been essential to running the faction in my exp.

Personally I haven't been a fan of one unit of 6 scythes for a long while and suspect two of 3 will be even more important in the new world. Among other things, it allows us to pincer a big block, i.e. hitting from opposite sides and minimizing their pile in. 

10. Maintains one of our strongest tools, Household's Discipline of the Ages, for locking up a key unit, especially big blocks. 

With all this said, the list doesn't have any highly-tuned anti-horde tools, e.g. Drycha. Would just have to see if that's a huge problem.

In general, looking at and testing modified versions of past builds won't exclude looking at new possibilities and new thinking.... All in good time...

 

[Nico]

Great stuff guys. A couple of points. 

I don't think literal one drop Zilfin is a thing any more - they will not take the Battalion any more - they are really suffering from points changes. They will still be a low number of drops. That said - giving them a chance of an early double turn isn't great.

Quote

Overall I think there is a lot to go over. The changes are hard nerf to one particular type of list (anything that used 9 or more hunters) but if you've been using everything else in codex to their maximum effect (treelords, T-rev's, spites) there's a lot to be happy about here

What 40K are you playing? "Codex."

I'm a little surprised that people aren't looking more closely at Winterleaf given the positive changes to Dryads.

It will be interesting to see how regular Treelords fare now. From my experience it's rarely worth trying to get 20 Dryads into cover - it diminishes their offence too much - it also takes quite a while to position the models (basically jeopardising your opponent's enjoyment and wasting your time too).

It seems like Drycha will have more of a place for anti-horde (and will be a great sideboard choice for such tournaments - which seem rarer these days).

Ironbark with either Vulkites plus Runesmiter or Arkanauts plus Khemist could be a thing. The latter seems more cost effective than Longstrikes and less squishy as you need to kill 14 models before you kill a single Skyhook.

[scrubyandwells]

18 minutes ago, Nico said:

Great stuff guys. A couple of points. 

I don't think literal one drop Zilfin is a thing any more - they will not take the Battalion any more - they are really suffering from points changes. They will still be a low number of drops. That said - giving them a chance of an early double turn isn't great.

What 40K are you playing? "Codex."

I'm a little surprised that people aren't looking more closely at Winterleaf given the positive changes to Dryads.

It will be interesting to see how regular Treelords fare now. From my experience it's rarely worth trying to get 20 Dryads into cover - it diminishes their offence too much - it also takes quite a while to position the models (basically jeopardising your opponent's enjoyment and wasting your time too).

It seems like Drycha will have more of a place for anti-horde (and will be a great sideboard choice for such tournaments - which seem rarer these days).

Ironbark with either Vulkites plus Runesmiter or Arkanauts plus Khemist could be a thing. The latter seems more cost effective than Longstrikes and less squishy as you need to kill 14 models before you kill a single Skyhook.

Hey man,

Yeah you're right, getting double turned by Zilfin isn't much of an option either.

Winterleaf definitely was an early thought, though it's quite expensive now, even more than Gnarlroot/Household, so it'll be interesting to see if we see it much.

Mass Dryad spam, optimizing Mass Regiments + objective scoring rule for 20+ models, certainly seems like an obvious direction in GH17. As mentioned, though, personally I'm just not a large-model-count player, and very hesitant to become one, so first going to look at what's possible with <50 models. But it very well could be the case trying to run sylvaneth lists w/ <50 is a recipe for losing a lot of games in the new meta. (TBD)

With that said, if someone loves the idea of an all-Dryads army + some big trees, GH17 might be just the thing for them.

I resonate w/ that re: trying to get x20 Dryads into cover:

a) ATM my trees are glued down and have quite a few leaves on them, so it's a fiddly process (need to get the tree stands magnetized to pop 'em on/off easily to speed up model placement).

b) More often than not I'm putting 3 scythes into the same Wyldwood and wrapping them with Dryads, so that's not viable w/ 20 Dryads while still maintaining cover for everyone.

c) I've been sticking with the limit of 6 total Citadel Wood bases, and rarely place 3 bases down for 1 Wyldwood, so there's a little less room for getting models into cover.

Drycha would be amazing indeed as part of a 2nd list in a 2-list tourney, or yeah in a sideboard.

Wish I resonated more w/ the KO aesthetic...would be cool to look at them in an Ironbark as you said. 

 

 

[scrubyandwells]

20 minutes ago, Nico said:

It will be interesting to see how regular Treelords fare now. From my experience it's rarely worth trying to get 20 Dryads into cover - it diminishes their offence too much - it also takes quite a while to position the models (basically jeopardising your opponent's enjoyment and wasting your time too).

On paper, I like the idea of a Treelord as a Durthu substitute, maintaining 2 big trees to try for Groundshaking Stomps when needed e.g. vs Bloodletters, Endrinriggers, etc. The list above has some decent-looking synergy re: potential for Dryads + scythes + big tree (Groundshaking Stomp) combo in 2 different spots on the board.

[Mirage8112]

19 minutes ago, Nico said:

Ironbark with either Vulkites plus Runesmiter or Arkanauts plus Khemist could be a thing. The latter seems more cost effective than Longstrikes and less squishy as you need to kill 14 models before you kill a single Skyhook.

I've been considering this for a while, but was planning more on going full Endrinriggers with saws. They fare quite well at 120pts for 3 and put out a metric ton of damage. They also might be a decent substitute for melee hunters if you want a list that has more than 6. 

[Aezeal]

Quote

Sylvaneth are not typically a strong burst damage (BD) army. (For that you'll want beastclaw raiders or khorne bloodbound). We're more of a "damage over time" (DoT) army

It's more we are resilient so our damage output drops less than the opponents.

I still wonder if just leaving the batallions and just taking more troops isn't just a better way to spend our points. I'm a gnarlroot player and just not sure if it brings enough. Dreadwood s alpha strike has more direct return but is even more expensive.. but I currently have no spites so no reason to think about that.

Quote

the list I've been running, it just has to drop down to 9 Hunters and lose Free Spirits, and it's at 1,970 with a one drop still intact

Don't we need a batallion to make it a 1 drop?

_______________________________________________________

I'm wondering if just keeping 2 units of bow hunters for character sniping and then taking TL for melee might not be the way to go. I think my first try will be a no batallion Alarielle list. The limit on behemoths is annoying and makes me want to take the strongest ones (big A, big D, tla and drycha) but that doesn't use the discount at all so I'm going to try and resist the urge to take those and even resist my urge to take Drycha (whom Ive been taking in about every list I've played).

Alarielle, TLA, 2x TL for 1380 points: optimizing synergy with Alarielle healing.

Min 300 battle line dryads (with the reduction in points for both revenants and dryads my preference for dryads remains).

Leaves me enough room (320) for a unit of bow hunters/allies/dryads/Wych. 

Potential allies, loremaster (on big A, yum), waywatcher or boltthrower(a bit more shooty to replace or supplement kurnoth char sniping, however TLA, TL x2 and A can do their part), Lord on eagle (to assassinate stuff when the rest of the army has drawn most opponents out).

In comparison to the dreadwood alpha strike it has more staying power obviously but no alpha strike means more enemies to deal with too. Still quite a lot of magic though not gnarlroot level obviously. 

 

 

[Mirage8112]

1 minute ago, Aezeal said:

It's more we are resilient so our damage output drops less than the opponents.

Well, that is true as well.

But what I was getting at is that it seems to me that designers are clamping down a bit on certain ways of building armies. All of them fit intoa  aprticaulr style of play, and it seems to me that the designers are tweaking how strong each style of play is for each army. 

For example, now Sylvaneth could feasibly do a traditional "horde" style of play with a mixture of huge blocks of dryads and battalion bonuses, but they won't do a horde style of play as well as say a players in a Death alliance. Stormcast are capable of doing a long slow grind list, but not quite as well as Sylvaneth. And Sylvaneth can feasibly do a monster-mash list, but it probably won't be quite as effective as Beastclaw raiders. This is nice because it makes each army unique, in so far as you have 2-3 styles to choose from (that the designers probably intended), and you might be able to put together a 3rd or 4th, but it might not be as strong as an army whose unit were designed with that playstyle in mind.

It is interesting insofar as this last round of points changes show us the play-stlyes that the designers didn't want to see being so dominant in matched play. Previously, Sylvaneth could cobble together a fairly decent gunline, between hunters and the Huricanium. It's now pretty clear that the designers didn't want a pure Sylvaneth army to be as good a gunline as an Skyfire/grundstock thunderer gunline, or Kunnin' Rukk bowline (incidentally with Kunnin' Rukk, Grundstock thunderers, and skyfires it appears the game designers wanted them to have access to gunline lists, but they didn't want them to be quite so good that they eclipsed everything else.)   

I think, more than anything else, what we've seen is a major internal rebalancing of the armies and what's easy to forget is that it's happened pretty much everywhere. The players that will have the hardest time are the players who've picked a play style that their army wasn't intended for. Because the point changes look to me like the designers saying "we don't want this army to be as good at this play-style as that army". I think it's possible the allies chart was a way to make that little easier to swallow. For example, making Sylvaneth allies with Stormcast and Wanderers has given us access to some decent moderate price shooting, so if you were dead set on a Sylvaneth gunline, you could feasibly cobble together enough shooting units for those two armies to compete on the tabletop. Maybe not quite as well as the huricanium/hunter spam of old, or quite as lethal as thunders stacking khemists, but enough that a competent general should have a solid opportunity of a win if you make smart choices. 

[scrubyandwells]

1 hour ago, scrubyandwells said:

Hey man,

[...]

BTW on Dryads, one good reason to take at least one big block is to help zone out teleporting units, while snaking back to get the -1 to hit from a Wyldwood.

[Tizianolol]

@scrubyandwells have you considered to play a big unit of 6 scythes?^^

[scrubyandwells]

22 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:

@scrubyandwells have you considered to play a big unit of 6 scythes?^^

Yeah used to run 1x6 scythes quite a while back, there's multiple issues with it but the main one in my view is board flexibility. Game after game I needed more combat punch in multiple locations to respond to threats / score objectives; and also wanted an additional chance to roll a 6 on Nav Realmroots for the extra move / an easier charge. I think MSU combat Hunters will he even more relevant in GH17 era.

On a different note, already deeply skeptical of the competitiveness of the last list I outlined. I'm trying to fight the strong initial impression battalions just aren't viable for us anymore, except maybe Household, and we're going to need a lot more models on the table to compete at a high level and maybe even more ways to reliably reach and deal w/ the enemy's key pieces, especially if we have to play with fewer opportunities to summon and leverage Wyldwoods effectively.

[Tizianolol]

i wanna try gnarloot too in this edition, but im not sure about treelord . it seems not so good in combat . maybe 3 more hunters with gs are better?

[scrubyandwells]

3 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:

i wanna try gnarloot too in this edition, but im not sure about treelord . it seems not so good in combat . maybe 3 more hunters with gs are better?

It's been an ongoing debate re the value of the Treelord. Check out this article for some various thoughts. I'm not comfortable making any recommendations at the moment since things are very unclear right now, which is exciting in some ways.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/01/age-of-sigmar-spotlight-sylvaneth-part-6-aug-1gw-homepage-post-3/

[scrubyandwells]

14 minutes ago, scrubyandwells said:

It's been an ongoing debate re the value of the Treelord. Check out this article for some various thoughts. I'm not comfortable making any recommendations at the moment since things are very unclear right now, which is exciting in some ways.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/01/age-of-sigmar-spotlight-sylvaneth-part-6-aug-1gw-homepage-post-3/

With that said, at the moment my sense is the only battalion of reasonablly-clear efficient value is Household (which of course requires a Treelord + 1 Branchwych + 1 unit of TRevs), from the POV of trying to build an all-comers competitive list; but as always we're dealing with very incomplete info right now. Household gives us 2 artefacts, eg Oaken Armour or Moonstone or Briarsheath for Ancient as general, and Acorn for a Branchwych. We also have 2 spells that have always stood out: Regrowth and Verdant Blessing, so those could go on those 2 heroes. There's real risk, though, you'll lose 1 or both vs someone going 1st that can hammer them one way or another. 

[Dragon10]

Anyone know if allies battleline can count as your armies battline ?

eg have 

glade guard as allies

and 2 x 5 Tree Revs 

 

[Nico]

Loremaster only in Gnarlroot - not as an ally.