Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Nico]

Quote

Nice post. I THINK I agree with all your points.

Thank you. It really boils down to these issues:

1. Are set ups distinct from moves? (yes)
2. Is it impossible for an ability to be a set up and a move? (yes - otherwise loads of contradictions)
3. Is Navigate Realmgates a set up move? (yes - the primary wording is "set it up")

I've thought about the set up versus move distinction a lot in the context of other armies (both Mostly Grots II and future lists). Point 3 is the most debatable of the 3 points.

Quote

(Also agreeing on not really agreeing with moving around forest trees. It would be ridiculous for Alarielle or treelords not to be able to enter a forest.

This is Tree-gate. This is why I'm conflicted on the issue (I was there when Rufio was stopped from moving his Ancient through his own Wyldwood that Durthu had summoned back at Firestorm Fours 2016). However, let's maybe park that one for now.

[Gengis137]

So to be clear: with the free spirits, can they:
-Go out of the enclaves at the hero phase?
-teleport from a wood to another in the hero phase?



Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Forestreveries]

So to be clear: with the free spirits, can they:

-Go out of the enclaves at the hero phase?

-teleport from a wood to another in the hero phase?

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

There is no definitive answer yet.

I've always played it as no, as it just felt off to me to do so.

It appears tournament organisers have started to steer that way as well.

Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

So to be clear: with the free spirits, can they:
-Go out of the enclaves at the hero phase?
-teleport from a wood to another in the hero phase?

In the rules - yes. 

At Blood & Glory - no.

At future UK events - maybe - leaning towards no.

[Gengis137]

The thons is that in itself it doesn't seems broken but applied to durthu...


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Nico]

I don't see Durthu as being worse than 20 Protectors deploying adjacent to your models carrying 8 Starsoul maces.

The solution to Free Spirits would be to increase the cost. I'm about to suggest that as an alternative to comp-stomping it.

[Nico]

Go Sylvaneth!

[scrubyandwells]

3 minutes ago, Nico said:

Thanks. It's only pre-order, so will hopefully arrive next Saturday at the FLGS. I'm sure someone else will do this.

I don't infringe copyright. Happy to discuss the rules and hopefully points.

Yeah, wrong choice of words. Edited above. Oh ok, yeah we'll probably see the rules soon. 

[Nico]

@scrubyandwells Do you talk about Sylvaneth in the context of GH v2.0 on Rolling Bad? I'm going to listen in.

[scrubyandwells]

7 hours ago, Nico said:

@scrubyandwells Do you talk about Sylvaneth in the context of GH v2.0 on Rolling Bad? I'm going to listen in.

Not really, though that would be a good discussion. Hope you like the ep. (Unfortunately they weren't able to raise the volume on my audio.) Looking forward to reviewing your list of suggestions at the GH 2.0 feedback thread.

[Aezeal]

9 hours ago, Nico said:

Thank you. It really boils down to these issues:

1. Are set ups distinct from moves? (yes)
2. Is it impossible for an ability to be a set up and a move? (yes - otherwise loads of contradictions)
3. Is Navigate Realmgates a set up move? (yes - the primary wording is "set it up")

I've thought about the set up versus move distinction a lot in the context of other armies (both Mostly Grots II and future lists). Point 3 is the most debatable of the 3 points.

This is Tree-gate. This is why I'm conflicted on the issue (I was there when Rufio was stopped from moving his Ancient through his own Wyldwood that Durthu had summoned back at Firestorm Fours 2016). However, let's maybe park that one for now.

GW will probably FAQ it as:

IF you place physical tree on the base they block line of sight and you have to move around them. IF you do not place any trees  (and this is allowed) sight is not blocked and you do not have to move around them. The holes in the base do not block movement.

Which would mean we'd mostly just play with the bases which is easier for transportation anyway (transporting a base with 3 trees with leaves takes about a shoebox if you protect it with some padding)

[Aezeal]

9 hours ago, Nico said:

In the rules - yes. 

At Blood & Glory - no.

At future UK events - maybe - leaning towards no.

You'd say the rules as written are Yes to both Q's?

Wouldn't they need to be on the table to use that ability?

[Nico]

Quote

Not really, though that would be a good discussion. Hope you like the ep. (Unfortunately they weren't able to raise the volume on my audio.) Looking forward to reviewing your list of suggestions at the GH 2.0 feedback thread.

Looking forward to it after I get through the Livestream. Thanks.

Quote

You'd say the rules as written are Yes to both Q's?

Wouldn't they need to be on the table to use that ability?

Normally (as you suggest) you cannot use abilities belonging to a Unit that isn't on the table, however, this is a battalion ability (cf. most Stormcast Eternals battalions which work on units not on the table). 

[Mirage8112]

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I think the distinction between moves and set up rules is perhaps the most important distinction in the game at the moment. It cost an opponent a point in one of my games at Blood & Glory because he wrongly thought that setting up a Cairn Wraith (via summoning) on an objective was a move (which is what Three Places of Power requires for you to score that turn). The referee agreed with me that it's a set up, so unless the Cairn Wraith can do a subsequent pile in or charge, it doesn't score that turn.

That's a solid RAW interpretation. unfortunately it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. 

 

17 hours ago, Nico said:

The key question remains whether it's a set up or a move - perhaps look again at the set up and move FAQ answers on page two of the FAQ (left and right columns). On my reading, the FAQ answer could scarcely be more explicit about GW driving a wedge between set up and move and the difference is massive for so many rules (it gives examples, it specifies that you can deploy the models adjacent etc.). 

I don't know how many times I can say this: It doesn't matter if it's a move or a setup. That distinction is irrelevant and unimportant for this question. It's as irrelevant as noting that a fly move ignores intervening terrain and models. It doesn't matter. You either say still, or you retreat. Whether you retreat via a set-up or retreat via moving, it's still a retreat. 

 

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I see it as follows, your premise that you still only have two options (a) remain stationary or (b) retreat is wrong. The special rule (without needing to apply a purposive interpretation) is adding on a third option © instead of doing what you normally do, set up the models elsewhere (therefore not a retreat). It's not amending (b) because (b) is a move and Navigate Realmroots is a set up rule - for a rule to be both a move and a set up is a contradiction (because both FAQs answers would be engaged and it both would and would not trigger a Gryph Hound).

Setting up does not give a third option, and I have no idea how you can think that it does. Look at the order the clauses happen in. The first clause says: 

"You can either remain stationary or retreat."

That means when the movement phase starts (or you perform an action that happens "as if it were the movement phase"), you only have two options. You can "remain stationary" which means by definition the model "may not change its original position", or it may change its original position by choosing to retreat. Now, most models can only move to retreat, so adds a restriction via the second clause:

"If you choose to retreat, the unit must end it's move more than 3" away from all enemy units."  

The fact that the second sentence refers to a "move" is inconsequential, because a retreat is not specifically a move. A retreat is anything other than remaining stationary.  

 

17 hours ago, Nico said:

Navigate Realmroots is a lengthy and self-contained special rule (i.e. you can use it without reference to any other rules (other than the FAQ on set up), it certainly doesn't expressly refer to retreating etc..) which breaks the normal rule and in my eyes it is adding a choice that sits on top of the two existing choices (in the circumstances where you are within 3 inches to start off with). The fact that Navigate Realmroots has a special table that you roll for seeing what you can do later adds weight to this. The result of a 6 seems inconsistent with it being a set up. The wording could be better - there are some secondary references to moving in the table which muddy the water - but as with the Warrior Brotherhood - the primary wording is "set up", which they have seen as trumping the secondary wording. 

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that a retreat is a move, and navigate realm roots is a set-up. There is nowhere in the rules that says a retreat is a move and "only" a move. What it does say, is that a retreat is anything that causes the model to end the phase in a different position than it started. It then further says if you choose to retreat and "move" the model (the only way most models can retreat) from its original position, it must end its move further than 3" from enemy models. 

I could see you making the argument that if the unit chose to retreat via a "set-up", it could position itself within 3" of an enemy model, since that sentence only specifically refers to "movement" as needing to end up more than 3" away from any enemy models (and your frequent citation of the FAQ supports this). However it would still be subject to the charge/shooting restriction as it ends the phase somewhere other than it started then is not stationary, it's retreating. (However units that navigate the realmroots must maintain a 9" buffer, so that's irrelevant.)

Think of it like this:

"At the beginning of the song, you can either dance or leave the building. If you want to run, you can't bother any of the other dancers. If you choose to leave the building, you can't come back in for 5 minutes."

If you decide to hop instead of dance, you still have to leave the building; because you aren't dancing. You can bother as many people as you like on the way out, because you aren't running; but you still can't come back in for 5 minutes (because you're not dancing either). Those are the rules. It doesn't matter if your running or hopping, you still have to leave the building because you aren't dancing and you can't come back in for 5 minutes, because you left the building.

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I'm obviously more relucant than some to concede any more ground on Sylvaneth rules. This is really just a question of whether Kurnoth Hunters with Bows can get out of combat and go snipe something else - it's not a huge point.

I understand your frustration, but this is major rewriting of the rules by trying to read something into the game that just isn't there. It's not just that bow hunters could get an extra turn of shooting by baiting a charge. It's the possibility of a Durthu (or two) with realmwalker (+2 on realmroots roll) getting out out combat via the realmroots and getting a same turn charge against something clear across the field; that's potentially game changing, as it's an easy ~15 wounds with average rolls. 

Nowhere in the rules does it say that retreat is only a move. It says a retreat is anything other than staying still, and if you choose to retreat via a move, you have to end up more than 3" away from enemy units. Trying to put stuff in there that isn't there makes us look gamey and makes our other rule interpretations (i.e. free spirits and dreadwood wargrove) look like we're trying to game the system.

It's bad form.

 

17 hours ago, Nico said:

We need to... brace ourselves for the temerity of Beastclaw Raider (battlebrew spam and better healing than Sylvaneth) players to moan when their monsters (which are on absurdly small bases for their value in the game I would add) have to waddle around Wyldwoods instead of going through them

 

FWIW, GW conceives of AoS in "model terms" while tournaments are measuring base to base. For that reason the Beastclaw raiders should be able to fit between the trees, since the official line is that "bases don't matter".

 

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I agree that the Forest Spirits one is 100% on my side of the argument - it's in the hero phase, it's a classic Vexillor/Skitterleap teleport rule, it clearly uses the set up wording. It doesn't say "as if it were the movement phase". 

The Tree Revenants' Waypipes to me is also clear. It's adding on an option ©, which is a set up rule.

I would agree with the above, but I think GW will errata it myself. But RAW, I would say in this instance you have a case. 

As to way pipes however; no dice. Again, it's "remain stationary or retreat" and way piping happens in the movement phase.. There is nowhere in the rules that specify that a retreat is only a move. It does specify that a retreat is anything other than standing still. Revenants that use the waypipes do not stand still. 

 

[Nico]

I can see where you're coming from, we'll have to agree to disagree for now. I'll keep this short. Hopefully an official FAQ answer will arrive soon.

Our premises and starting points are different. My starting point it (alost always) to look at the specific rule, your starting point is looking at the Rules themselves and then fitting the rule into them. This difference of approach leads us down different Realmroots....

When I look at something like Navigate Realmroots, I see an entirely self contained code for how to do that rule (that doesn't require any particular input from the rules). It's actually a start of the movement phase rule (I only just noticed this - my bad), so technically happens before any other movement in the "movement phase proper" (cf. our good friends the Fanatics and Nasty Skulkers). I check whether the unit ticks all the boxes, satisfies any triggers within the (Navigate Realmroots) rule and find that it does. I then work out whether it's a set up rule or a move and consult the relevant FAQ - it's a set up (and not a move, which I think we've agreed on). There's nothing in the rule that prompts me to go to the 4 pages of rules in this question (it's self-contained).

You're starting point is to start with the (a) or (b) of retreating and try to fit the Navigate Realmroots into that (a) or (b). GW are the only people who can tell us which approach is right. You're assuming that the (a) and (b) options of stationary and retreat are a closed list of things you can do (which is understandable but unprovable either way), which you have to fit other options into.

One analogy would be the Shooting Phase Rule says "In your shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with shooting weapons." However, this clearly isn't a closed list. A Magmadroth or Knight Heraldor has self-contained rules (which aren't shooting weapons) that are used in the shooting phase (which you can run and still use). Skeleton Horse Archers have a self-contained rule allowing them to move in the shooting phase. These examples point to the shooting phase rule not being a closed list.  

I can see that you're trying to say that a retreat isn't expressly defined as a move, which is a good point. However a retreat does expressly share the defining characteristic of a move, namely that you have to end a move more than 3 inches away from the enemy (as per the FAQ answer regarding a move). To me this is strong support (not proof) for retreat is a subset of the possible moves and hence leads to my conclusion that a set up cannot be a retreat (as a set up isn't a move and a set up isn't subject to the 3 inch rule). Again, this isn't conclusive, but it's certainly enough for me to play it my way until such time as (a) a TO rules it the other way (which is certainly not unlikely given that many players seem to dislike Sylvaneth movement trickery even though it's one of their defining characteristics); or (b) GW give an official FAQ.

Balance

I don't think the balance argument particularly helps your argument. Yes Durthu extricating himself from combat, pew pewing and maybe long bombing a charge is very good (or not taking the incredibly good ignore rend of -1 Gnarled Warrior trait to get a 50% chance of making a charge). However, he's a 400 point (second tier behind the godly level of 460 points plus) monster, who is (in the absence of Wyldwoods) very slow and with Wyldwoods dependent on the enemy being in or near them. Other things at the 400 point mark are also incredible or widely complained about - the Mourngul is perhaps the most hated warscroll in the game and the Necrosphinx is no slouch either, routinely making a 24 inch effective charge and doing huge damage. The Huskard on Stonehorn is only 380. I'd add that hit and run is integral to Sylvaneth gameplay fluffwise for what it's worth. It is a bit disappointing that something like this isn't clear even now.

Quote

FWIW, GW conceives of AoS in "model terms" while tournaments are measuring base to base. For that reason the Beastclaw raiders should be able to fit between the trees, since the official line is that "bases don't matter".

You're quite right. Most/all independent tournaments in the UK since the GH have been measure to base as have both The Warlords and The Grand Tournament Heat One, so forgive me forgetting to specify that this on the assumption of measure to base. I appreciate that things may be different elsewhere.

[DeadlySarcasm]

@scrubyandwells @Nico

Please do not to share any warscrolls/battalions on here that aren't freely available on the official app/website.

Thanks

[scrubyandwells]

Hey guys, working on a Sylvaneth project (details soon...), in part for AdeptiCon 2017 and other events. For AoS @ ACon, we won't know the scenarios in advance (but I know they won't be the Pitched Battles), and we'll be rolling for command traits, spells, and artefacts.

With that in mind, which of the following two lists would you take? If you also have an alternate build you think is stronger, please share away. I know @Rhellion is thinking about a TLA + Durthu combo + quite a few Kurnoth. I'm concerned, though, about not having enough chaff / screeners with Alarielle lists or TLA + Durthu lists.

The first list is my slightly-modified version of the one @Forestreveries put together a while back. If you'd do this one, would you have an extra Branchwych or extra Tree-Revenants? I like the idea of having an extra chaff unit, but since we're rolling for spells etc., an extra Branchwych raises the odds of getting the high-value artefacts and spells. And one unit of 6 Kurnoth scythes or two units of 3 each? 

The other list is the one mentioned a few posts ago. One potentially nice aspect is it should often result in a Triumph roll, which could be especially handy for the 6 Kurnoth scythes. 

I've also looked at Dreadwood, Ironbark, Free-Spirits-only, heavy Kurnoth, heavy Dryads, and a few others; but none of them seem to hit the mark. One aspect is I'd like to have variety in the list given the nature of the project, so taking 21 Kurnoth or 80 Dryads doesn't quite fit the bill. With that said, Winterleaf / Forest Folk has some interesting qualities. 

Thanks for any advice.

Option #1 (Sisters of the Thorn) - 2,000pts:

• Treelord Ancient
• Branchwych
• Branchwych (or extra Tree-Revenants)
• Tree-Revenants x5
• Dryads x20
• Dryads x10
• Kurnoth Hunters x6 (Scythes) (or two @ x3)
• Kurnoth Hunters x3 (Greatbows)
• Kurnoth Hunters x3 (Greatbows)
• Sisters of the Thorn
• Gnarlroot Wargrove + Household

Option #2 (extra Kurnoth + likely Triumph roll) - 1,960pts:

• Treelord Ancient
• Branchwych
• Branchwych (or extra Tree-Revenants)
• Tree-Revenants x5
• Dryads x20 (or two @ x10)
• Dryads x10
• Kurnoth Hunters x6 (Scythes) (or two @ x3)
• Kurnoth Hunters x3 (Greatbows)
• Kurnoth Hunters x3 (Greatbows)
• Kurnoth Hunters x3 (Greatswords) (or Scythes?)
• Gnarlroot Wargrove + Household

[scrubyandwells]

Re: those two list options, at the moment I'm leaning slightly toward the first list, but quite concerned about relying on Sisters of the Thorn. The second list has two good hammers (the scythe-Kurnoth (probably screened by 10 Dryads) and the TLA + greatsword-Kurnoth together), with a decent anvil in 20 Dryads (as long as they're in a Wyldwood), and the usual Gnarlroot magic + Roused by Magic + some long-range shooting + a unit of Tree-Revenants in a utility role. The second list is tempting since it might be more reliable than the first list, which has a decent-sized dependency on the Sisters of the Thorn and getting their spell off when you really need it, as we've discussed before.

[Forestreveries]

I like both lists a lot. Without knowing the scenarios I would lean towards the second I think.
As you say, it's more reliable.


With regards to the second branchwych, I actually prefer wraiths to wyches because of the -1 to hit just making opponents think twice about sniping them out.

Most of the time in my experience, when an opponent goes to target it, I will remind them that it's -1 to hit and they will often choose a different target. If they're unfamiliar with he matchup it quite often adds to the Gnarlroot wych being left alone as well as they don't realise she doesn't have it.

Bit cheeky but it comes up more than you'd think.


Also, Kurnoth hunters with swords just don't perform as well as either bows or scythes IMO.
I don't think Id ever take them now, having played with them alongside the scythes.

Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

Re: those two list options, at the moment I'm leaning slightly toward the first list, but quite concerned about relying on Sisters of the Thorn.

Given rolling for spells, I think you're absolutely right to go for Gnarlroot and at least 3 Wizards - frankly more. Can you reroll duplicates (so if two casters rolled Throne of Vines - say)? You really want to have Regrowth for obvious reasons and usually Verdant Blessing. 

Similarly the blind battleplans favours Gnarlroot since it's economical and flexible.

I'm always torn about Sisters of the Thorn. At Blood & Glory I saw games swing on mystic shield cast rolls to the extent that I have a newfound respect for Arkhan the Derp (simply as a near guaranteed mystic shield). Some players will not attack the shield of thorns target in combat (those who have read the FAQs). Between that and the chance of failing the cast, I'm less keen on it than I was unless you build the list around it (e.g. putting it on Alarielle or Drycha, who benefit from it more than most or on a big block of Winterleaf Dryads). That said, reroll saves is the best "normal" buff in the game. Then again it's also duplicative of the Ancient's command ability (which is one of Sylvaneth's best points). It's a tough one.

[Forestreveries]

I've got both sisters and a Hurricanum in my list and will always try to get them near arcane terrain for and the Hurricanum for +2. It is a big deal if you fail for sure.

I don't think it is as big in the big scary monsters as you can only do the mortal wounds back on a 5+ at best. If you do it in Dryads you can afford to attack with that unit last which itself means your durthu or alarielle can always go first and demolish whatever why're fighting without having to take a big hit on something elsewhere in return


Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

I'm going to a team event that doesn't require Battleline units and has a sideboard. At least one player and possibly 2 are likely to be playing Sylvaneth. I'm thinking that this is quite advantageous to Sylvaneth, since our battleline taxes are a real pain. I'm thinking that Gnarlroot plus a single block of 30 Dryads plus whatever would be a good starting point. Winterleaf (as much as I like it) annoyingly still requires 4 Dryad units, so you almost inevitably end up with some of the wasted 10 Dryad units that don't have 4+ saves.

Dreadwood would also be strong, since you could just take the 4 Spites as the battalion tax, but then you can fill the single drop army with whatever you like.  

Thoughts?

[Nico]

Quote

I've got both sisters and a Hurricanum in my list and will always try to get them near arcane terrain for and the Hurricanum for +2. It is a big deal if you fail for sure. 

I don't think it is as big in the big scary monsters as you can only do the mortal wounds back on a 5+ at best.

I would use the Hurricanum before it probably goes up in cost in GH v2.0....

You're praying for Arcane Terrain with Sylvaneth. Just as Kunning Rukkists are praying for damned terrain to abuse.

You can put it on an Oaken Armour, Gnarled Warrior Ancient or Durthu with mystic shield and it will trigger on a 4+ and ignore rend -1 (however - not if you're forced to roll). However, Dryads in cover are the most efficient as you say (you can get it on a 3+ - Cover, inherent +1 from Wyldwood, mystic shield).

Some games will literally be won or lost on whether a Stonelord or Arachnorok gets Battle Brew/Talisman of Protection or not. Death are crippled without the 5+ ward, so you're doing better than them out of the gate.

[Forestreveries]

I played at RAW a few weekends ago,it had varying game sizes with no battleline requirements.

I took Free Spirits, Heartwood, Lords of the Clan and Oakenbrow.

It was a lot of fun!

Is a great time to try Dreadwood without needing 7 units of revs!

Sent from the Hidden Enclaves via the Realmroots

[Nico]

Quote

It will likely come with a formation, and that formation will NOT have points. Like all of the Start Collecting boxes.

I agree this is what past form would suggest. I'm hoping for a change (both for Fyreslayers and perhaps even more so for Ironjawz) - I think they get a lot of feedback saying give points for additional battalions. This is a difficult task, because some battalions are so broken in matched play since they are designed for narrative play. Thankfully Brotherhood of the Great Derps never made it to a tournament I'm aware of (and shouldn't do), but some of them would be appropriate for matched play (e.g. Neferata's Blood Court, probably some of the Fyreslayer ones, the Arkhan one and the Bloodscorched Bulltribe spring to mind).

The only method would be to go back and manually point them and sift out ones that shouldn't see the light of matched play. Mediocre Joe made a start at this exercise, but it's hard to find motivation if there's no guarantee that it will ever be used. I've thought about doing a community Fyreslayer Allegiance pack (with a view to it being better than the Order pack but not as good as the Death or Sylvaneth allegiance packs), but it would need to be annexed to the house rules for an event, might be controversial etc.. You could in principle offer to your opponent in each game at an event the choice of playing with your pack or the normal Order one - but I have no idea how that would pan out. 

I know Tyler Mengel has done his TK Battletome and Allegiance Pack and it looks amazing. However, I don't see UK tournaments at least being receptive to anything other than hard nerfs or outright bans for the Snake Surfers.

Thoughts?

[Apologies if this is a double post. It came up as a draft post when I tried to make a new one.]