Let's Chat Sylvaneth

[Jorthax]

Just now, Aezeal said:

I think the Overlords are very dependant on their allegiance buff and buffs from each other.  They are really meant to be played (IMHO) with a ship AND a hero for buffing a unit.  Since we can't get 3 units in it'll be suboptimal. Also.. what do they bring that we don't already have ourselves except the models which are nice and different from what we have).

They bring some reasonable heavy weapons, but you are absolutely right about the "Code" being important otherwise a lot of their numbers are not very impressive. 

I had hoped another Duradin release would bring Ironbark into play. But until that damn Treeman is a "Hero" he's just too sub-optimal himself.

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Jorthax said:

They bring some reasonable heavy weapons, but you are absolutely right about the "Code" being important otherwise a lot of their numbers are not very impressive. 

I had hoped another Duradin release would bring Ironbark into play. But until that damn Treeman is a "Hero" he's just too sub-optimal himself.

Yeah that is the problem.. without an item he's so much weaker.

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Jorthax said:

They bring some reasonable heavy weapons, but you are absolutely right about the "Code" being important otherwise a lot of their numbers are not very impressive.

Since some units in the Battalion will have the keyword KHARADRON OVERLORDS, the battalion is considered to have the Kharadron keyword as well. That means you could technically take the Ironbark battalion and use the Kharadron allegiance abilities and items. 

And why not take the Sylvaneth allegience? Frankly theres not much that the sylvaneth allegiance offers the duardin units or the household battalion that you can't live without. Truthfully the Treelord offers more to an overlord focused list than the overlords offer to a Sylvaneth focused list. We can get decent ranged weapons through greatbow hunters and not only can't use their airships for sylvaneth units but with wyldwood movement we don't really need them. However Overlords don't really appear to have access to any multi-wound monsters (other than airships) or easy ways to throw out -1 hits debuffs in CC.   

Granted the battalion won't get it's free wood, but with access to airships and the fact that tree-rev can teleport to table edges, that's not really an issue so much. Giving the tree revs the ability reroll wounds of 1 actually improves their damage output a fair bit since they're already wounding on 3's, and the battalion specific item actually makes the wytch worth putting on them front lines (with a bit of support from the treelord mind you.)

 

2 hours ago, Jorthax said:

I had hoped another Duradin release would bring Ironbark into play. But until that damn Treeman is a "Hero" he's just too sub-optimal himself.

 

 

That's silly. Back in the days of WHFB you got to be pretty good at determining point costs for items vs their worth/utility. There's nothing in the artifact section I would say would be a "must have" item that would make the Treelord much more "competitive." 

He doesn't have a command ability, so you wouldn't make him your general. That means command traits are right out. He can't take Arcane treasures since he's not a wizard, so all those are right out as well. You wouldn't put glamourweave, seed of rebirth or wraithstone on him because those items are situationally useful at best, or have an unreliable proc-rate. That leaves Daiths reaper, the oaken armor or briarsheath. The last two are meant to increase his survivability, but with a 3+ and 12 wounds and the ability to stomp in CC he's already pretty survivable, so most of those really suffer diminishing returns on a warscroll whose already fairly tanky.

That pretty much leaves the reaper as the only item you would feasibly put on him that doesn't really double up on abilities he already has. But since you have to choose the melee weapons (likely sweeping blows), statistically it might proc once per game turn (since it's only on to-wound rolls of 6). so it's not a huge or even reliable benefit for the treelord to have access to items. Plus you often can only take 2-3 items per list and using an item on him prevents you putting an item on a 100pt character who will get far more use out if it. 

On the other hand, were he a hero he'd definitely be getting a point increase since he'll be able to compete in the objective game. currently he's got about 2.5x the wounds and 3x hitting power of one of the lesser characters and he's about 2.6x the cost. It seems to me that he's pretty well pointed for what he does. 
 

@Aezeal @Jorthax I also really have to ask, how many games have you two actually played with a Treelord in your lists? I have maybe 8-10 games with him under my belt and I've been pretty satisfied with his performance. 

 

[Aezeal]

24 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Since some units in the Battalion will have the keyword KHARADRON OVERLORDS, the battalion is considered to have the Kharadron keyword as well. That means you could technically take the Ironbark battalion and use the Kharadron allegiance abilities and items. 

And why not take the Sylvaneth allegience? Frankly theres not much that the sylvaneth allegiance offers the duardin units or the household battalion that you can't live without. Truthfully the Treelord offers more to an overlord focused list than the overlords offer to a Sylvaneth focused list. We can get decent ranged weapons through greatbow hunters and not only can't use their airships for sylvaneth units but with wyldwood movement we don't really need them. However Overlords don't really appear to have access to any multi-wound monsters (other than airships) or easy ways to throw out -1 hits debuffs in CC.   

Granted the battalion won't get it's free wood, but with access to airships and the fact that tree-rev can teleport to table edges, that's not really an issue so much. Giving the tree revs the ability reroll wounds of 1 actually improves their damage output a fair bit since they're already wounding on 3's, and the battalion specific item actually makes the wytch worth putting on them front lines (with a bit of support from the treelord mind you.)

 

 

 

That's silly. Back in the days of WHFB you got to be pretty good at determining point costs for items vs their worth/utility. There's nothing in the artifact section I would say would be a "must have" item that would make the Treelord much more "competitive." 

He doesn't have a command ability, so you wouldn't make him your general. That means command traits are right out. He can't take Arcane treasures since he's not a wizard, so all those are right out as well. You wouldn't put glamourweave, seed of rebirth or wraithstone on him because those items are situationally useful at best, or have an unreliable proc-rate. That leaves Daiths reaper, the oaken armor or briarsheath. The last two are meant to increase his survivability, but with a 3+ and 12 wounds and the ability to stomp in CC he's already pretty survivable, so most of those really suffer diminishing returns on a warscroll whose already fairly tanky.
t
That pretty much leaves the reaper as the only item you would feasibly put on him that doesn't really double up on abilities he already has. But since you have to choose the melee weapons (likely sweeping blows), statistically it might proc once per game turn (since it's only on to-wound rolls of 6). so it's not a huge or even reliable benefit for the treelord to have access to items. Plus you often can only take 2-3 items per list and using an item on him prevents you putting an item on a 100pt character who will get far more use out if it. 

On the other hand, were he a hero he'd definitely be getting a point increase since he'll be able to compete in the objective game. currently he's got about 2.5x the wounds and 3x hitting power of one of the lesser characters and he's about 2.6x the cost. It seems to me that he's pretty well pointed for what he does. 
 

@Aezeal @Jorthax I also really have to ask, how many games have you two actually played with a Treelord in your lists? I have maybe 8-10 games with him under my belt and I've been pretty satisfied with his performance. 

 

0 to be honest. But I've noticed I like putting my TLA against a big strong unit without rend 2 and just keep them there so they can't kill other stuff. I fear I couldn't do that with a treelord since he'd die against buckets (say 40) of 3+/3+ rend 1 attacks of some elite units. It's not that I wouldn'tplay with a treeman it's more that I take a TLA first, then Drycha if possible and between battleline there aren't that much points left... and hunters just seems better and another behemoth would also really really give me a limited number of models. For my new NON gnarlroot list I'm looking at a Durthu and a lot of hunters... not much room for a regular treelord (I'd probably go for a TLA general before I'd get a regular treelord since the command ability is really good).

 

I'm still interested on your views on the lists I put up a few posts back btw  

[swarmofseals]

17 hours ago, Nico said:

I've been writing lists along these lines, basically dumping the Ancient and taking 2-3 Branchwraiths instead (which you might even be able to hide behind a building or which get -2 to hit in a Wyldwood with Briarsheath and then powering ahead with 70 odd Dryads. The problem is that Winterleaf still feels criminally expensive at 160 points (plus it forces you to take 4 units of Dryads rather than 3).

I wish so hard that winterleaf didn't suck. I really want to take a Frostheart Phoenix!

[Mirage8112]

21 hours ago, Nico said:

In the DoT book (for example), it's the final paragraph of the first column of text: "Generate any random values for a weapon...." This is the post-FAQ wording, which carves out damage.

maybe I'm blind but I do not see where you're talking about. pg #? or section heading even

[DantePQ]

After some more games I'm not sold on TLA - he is great in Gnarlroot as he becomes quite good caster with 2 spells a turn, but otherwise he isn't mobile, doesn't fight good, doesn't shoot good. He's nice bunker with great Command Ability. I came to conclusion that Drycha works better as she is a threat to big units and is quite mobile. 

I made this list to try out in few games (it's 1500 with 3 Battelines)

Drycha with Squirmlings, Regrowth 

Branchwych - Gift of Ghyran, Acorn of Ages, Verdant Blessing

Branchwych - Treesong. 

Battleline : 

3xTree-Revs

Units :

4x3 Kurnoth Hunters with Bows 

 

I think it can work with ability to manipulate wyldwoods and a lot of small units that can shoot and move between woods to secure objectives. 

[Jorthax]

@Mirage8112 You have caught me there. 0 is my answer too,. But you are of course right this would drive a points increase.  I will have to "put up or shut up" and run some Ironbark to test 

Could you please expand on this part, "Since some units in the Battalion will have the keyword KHARADRON OVERLORDS, the battalion is considered to have the Kharadron keyword as well. That means you could technically take the Ironbark battalion and use the Kharadron allegiance abilities and items. "  because you will set my mind racing on that one... I didn't think this was the reverse case at all. 

I definitely bow to your experience in list building etc. So I will do the right thing and give a Treelord some love and play him, our games have died down a little lately as adult duties got in the way with home improvements taking away our usual gaming spot. So I hope to pick this back up again ASAP.

 

[Nico]

Quote

I wish so hard that winterleaf didn't suck. I really want to take a Frostheart Phoenix!

This is one of the units that I would be looking to include too.

 

[Nico]

Quote

maybe I'm blind but I do not see where you're talking about. pg #? or section heading even

Try page 113 of the DoT book. It's the second page of "Warscrolls" - the preamble before they introduce the Warscrolls. 

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, DantePQ said:

After some more games I'm not sold on TLA - he is great in Gnarlroot as he becomes quite good caster with 2 spells a turn, but otherwise he isn't mobile, doesn't fight good, doesn't shoot good. He's nice bunker with great Command Ability. I came to conclusion that Drycha works better as she is a threat to big units and is quite mobile. 

I made this list to try out in few games (it's 1500 with 3 Battelines)

Drycha with Squirmlings, Regrowth 

Branchwych - Gift of Ghyran, Acorn of Ages, Verdant Blessing

Branchwych - Treesong. 

Battleline : 

3xTree-Revs

Units :

4x3 Kurnoth Hunters with Bows 

 

I think it can work with ability to manipulate wyldwoods and a lot of small units that can shoot and move between woods to secure objectives. 

I must say that I'd not quickly include 2 TLA's for example.. but the combination casting, survivability, item he can get, command ability make him worth the extra points over a wych I'd say. Drycha is nice too.... For my non gnarlroot list I've been looking (see my post of last week) for the best combination between TLA, drycha, durthu and Allarielle. (being limited to max 2 hunter units atm which are auto-includes). I think each of these has pro's and con's and each is worth his or her points more than a regular treelord (well Allarielle vs 2 treelords is a hard choice but in a tailored list I think she could put her weight (her spells is all sorts of hurt).

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, DantePQ said:

After some more games I'm not sold on TLA - he is great in Gnarlroot as he becomes quite good caster with 2 spells a turn, but otherwise he isn't mobile, doesn't fight good, doesn't shoot good. He's nice bunker with great Command Ability. I came to conclusion that Drycha works better as she is a threat to big units and is quite mobile. 

I made this list to try out in few games (it's 1500 with 3 Battelines)

Drycha with Squirmlings, Regrowth 

Branchwych - Gift of Ghyran, Acorn of Ages, Verdant Blessing

Branchwych - Treesong. 

Battleline : 

3xTree-Revs

Units :

4x3 Kurnoth Hunters with Bows 

 

I think it can work with ability to manipulate wyldwoods and a lot of small units that can shoot and move between woods to secure objectives. 

PS I don't think this list hasn't enough real damage dealing. I wonder if you won't get the same problem my gnarlroot list had: surviving but not dealing enough damage to push objectives fast enough to score points. I mean it's all stuff that works best on sniping and assassinating but not killing whole swats of models (except Drycha). Dryads do more damage than revenants, melee hunters do more damage than bow hunters etc.

You say: secure objectives.. but a balanced armies with a few blocks of troops will just move up to midline objectives kill revenants and can't be shifted by this army.

[DantePQ]

Maybe I will try out onr unit of Hunters with Scythes. 

 

Put pushing damage in Sylvaneth aint easy. In melee only Durthu and Scythes and Drycha do that well enough so maybe adding one unit of Scythes will do the trick. I feel fine with objectives as for 1500 Drycha and 3 Scythes backed up by rest should be enough.

[Cerve]

6 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Maybe I will try out onr unit of Hunters with Scythes. 

 

Put pushing damage in Sylvaneth aint easy. In melee only Durthu and Scythes and Drycha do that well enough so maybe adding one unit of Scythes will do the trick. I feel fine with objectives as for 1500 Drycha and 3 Scythes backed up by rest should be enough.

To me, 3x2 Bows and 3x2 Scythes will works fine. If you need damage, Reaper+Circle is a nice combination with Drycha. Wildwoods will helps too. 

Hunters will do the rest.

 

[DantePQ]

You can't combine Reaper with Circle as Drycha can't get any magic items. Ok so I've been doing some tests and today played against DoT 

my list was : Drycha with Squirmlings (Reaping), TLA with Moonstone(Regrowth) and Gnarled Warrior, Branchwych with Ranu's (Verdant Blessing), 2x5 Tree-Revs, 10 Dryads, 4x3 Great Bows Hunters, 1x3 Scythes in Gnarlroot. 

It worked quite great against Skyfires as I was able to set up 2 additional Woods in my herophase, Drycha demolished big 20 Tzaangors unit, and it was quite hard to catch me we played Blood&Glory and I got minor victory and a lot of kill points. 

Army is quite mobile once Woods are set up and Drycha along with Moonstone TLA gave me a lot of flexibility. 

Next up are BCR  

 

[Mirage8112]

9 hours ago, Jorthax said:

@Mirage8112 You have caught me there. 0 is my answer too,. But you are of course right this would drive a points increase.  I will have to "put up or shut up" and run some Ironbark to test 

I definitely bow to your experience in list building etc. So I will do the right thing and give a Treelord some love and play him, our games have died down a little lately as adult duties got in the way with home improvements taking away our usual gaming spot. So I hope to pick this back up again ASAP.

 

I totally understand the fact that often when playing a game like this, we choose to "start" and army and then purchase models based on what we've theory crafted on paper. The treelord kit isn't exactly cheap, and for those of use who picked up the start collecting box, most of the time they choose to build the tree lord Ancient rather than the other two options. The often means options that don't look like the best investment don't really get "tested" on the tabletop, and they develop a reputation for being "sub-optimal" only because nobody has invested the time to actually use them on the tabletop ad develop strategies around them. 
 

10 hours ago, Jorthax said:

Could you please expand on this part, "Since some units in the Battalion will have the keyword KHARADRON OVERLORDS, the battalion is considered to have the Kharadron keyword as well. That means you could technically take the Ironbark battalion and use the Kharadron allegiance abilities and items. "  because you will set my mind racing on that one... I didn't think this was the reverse case at all. 

This is actually incorrect and I misspoke. ALL the units in the battalion need to have a specific keyword for the battalion to have the keyword apply, not just two of them. The fact that it asked for the DUARDIN keyword threw me for a second. 

 

 

[Aezeal]

5 hours ago, DantePQ said:

Maybe I will try out onr unit of Hunters with Scythes. 

 

Put pushing damage in Sylvaneth aint easy. In melee only Durthu and Scythes and Drycha do that well enough so maybe adding one unit of Scythes will do the trick. I feel fine with objectives as for 1500 Drycha and 3 Scythes backed up by rest should be enough.

Please... sword hunters are better for pushing against most regular units which is what usually will be guarding objectives (the time when 5 models with a 2+ save (where scythes would be better)  defend an objective will be very rare). The damage output of 20 dryads is not exactly 0 either btw.

[DantePQ]

20 Dryads cost 240 I ve used them but in that particular list Id have to drop Hunters. 

Yeah I know that Greatswords have better damage output but Scythes are more flexible especially considering that Drycha is already amazing against big units. 

 

[Aezeal]

1 minute ago, DantePQ said:

20 Dryads cost 240 I ve used them but in that particular list Id have to drop Hunters. 

Yeah I know that Greatswords have better damage output but Scythes are more flexible especially considering that Drycha is already amazing against big units. 

 

As long as you don't forget them  

Anyway I've started to think that ranged attacks are just not giving me enough killing power so I'm going to try a more melee approach to the game. I've not been able to play last weeks so still haven't tried my melee hunters though.

[Aezeal]

14 hours ago, DantePQ said:

After some more games I'm not sold on TLA - he is great in Gnarlroot as he becomes quite good caster with 2 spells a turn, but otherwise he isn't mobile, doesn't fight good, doesn't shoot good. He's nice bunker with great Command Ability. I came to conclusion that Drycha works better as she is a threat to big units and is quite mobile. 

I made this list to try out in few games (it's 1500 with 3 Battelines)

Drycha with Squirmlings, Regrowth 

Branchwych - Gift of Ghyran, Acorn of Ages, Verdant Blessing

Branchwych - Treesong. 

Battleline : 

3xTree-Revs

Units :

4x3 Kurnoth Hunters with Bows 

 

I think it can work with ability to manipulate wyldwoods and a lot of small units that can shoot and move between woods to secure objectives. 

Back to your list : Personally - if you forgo the TLA - I'd say you should just delete a branch wych and go (at least)  2 x 10 dryads. And go 2x 3 melee and 2 x 3 bow hunters if you really like the shooting. (deleting both wyches would allow you to get another bunch of hunters though that might be a bit much - you could give a general hunter gnarled warrior or realm walker though - I guess realm walker would then count for the whole unit... which might help a unit of 6 melee hunters getting the charge after teleporting)

BTW treesong is a crappy spell. casting roll of 7 is kinda high. On a table with some terrain the moving will be very limited since you have to keep 3"away from everything.

[swarmofseals]

13 hours ago, Nico said:

This is one of the units that I would be looking to include too.

 

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.

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, swarmofseals said:

@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.

 

Thanks for the compliment! I must also say it's very nice see another poster who shares my views on the usefulness of mathhammer.

You've made very apt comparisons above, and Il start by saying that your mathhammer isn't wrong. On average hunters do have a greater damage output than treelords in a stand up fight. However my appreciation for the uses a treelord can have don't revolve solely around damage output and perhaps thats where the disconnect lies. Firstly, I want to make clear that my support for the Treelord doesn't come from a place of "which warscroll is better?" In my mind it's not a question of "are Hunters better than Treelords?" (the answer to that question is yes btw)... The question is more "if you have a list that already has hunters, is it better to take a second group of hunters or Treelord instead?" 

Aside from considerations of playstyle and personal preference there some situations where if I already had a group of Hunters, I would prefer a treelord to a second group of hunters:

Firstly, Hunters do not gain any substantial benefit from fighting in the wyldwoods (other than cover) in fact, for those of us who play that wyldwood trees are essentially "impassable terrain", 50mm x 3 bases become an enormous liability. Furthermore, if you're running a group of 20 dryads and trying to keep them all in the forest for the cover bonus (and you probably should be) theres very little chance you'll be able to have both your hunters and dryads in the woods and get all the hunters in range to attack (even with scythes). That means even if a full strength unit of hunters is only putting out 2/3 of it's possible damage (providing they can get into combat). 

Much like the Hunters, the Treelord is not particularly tied to the forest. Outside of the woods, hunters lose their point of save (treelords don't). He does not benefit from cover when there, so he can also roam about the board as a free-floating tank (without the wyldwood Durthu's damage output drops fairly considerably, making him unsuited for this role). That means he can support units like tree-rev's with his stomp (and t-revs benefit greatly from having anything that improves their survivability), or provide support to a second bunker of dryads across the board. In fact, if playing a gnarlroot list, I'll often have two separate bunkers of 20 dryads in two forests with the TLA in one and a regular TL + wytch (with regrowth& verdurous harmony) in the other. That basically means I'll have two healing capable strongholds that are very difficult to shift, putting -1/2 to hit on anything within 3" that tries to pry them off whatever they are guarding (usually objectives.) Furthermore if you're bring sisters of the thorn as your gnarlroot wizard, hunters already have an ability that allows them to reroll saves and since you can't reroll a reroll, Treelords are actually better targets for shield of thorns if both units are outside of cover. 

Hunters role on the board is basically a straight-up damage dealer. The beacon ability is nice, but really they are the hammer that our army has access to. Treelords are more utility/damage. And while your mathhammer percentages are accurate, I feel they are fairly misleading. In reality, you're really only looking at the difference of ~3-4 wounds per turn between the two. so basically your looking at a big hammer (Hunters) and a slightly smaller hammer/screwdriver/corkscrew (tree lord)

In fact, if I had my druthers I would take a TL and unit of 3 hunters and have them operate together. That way you've basically got a very tough compact unit of 4 models that can reliably handle any troop class in the game. Want to attack a cannon? Have your treelord screen while your hunters conga behind him. Let the treelord take the d6 mortal wounds per turn until you get there and then heal him back to full health after they've done what they were intended to do. Got some nasty monster killer headed your way? The hunters screen while the TL stomps. Out of range of the command ability you need? Hunters act as a beacon. About to eat a charge from a full strength monster? Let the hunters take the charge, tank the damage by rerolling saves while the TL stomps and then pile the hunters into combat to get him down to a few wounds, then the TL can attempt to peel the last few wounds off, or use impaling talons; That combination of units will handle just about any situation/unit/scenario in the game and is durable enough that if you make a mistake you're unlikely to suffer too badly for it

In the end, games are won and lost largely on damage output. That's totally true. But any units that allow you to refine how and where you put that damage have value beyond how many wounds they generate. Even units that do nothing but charge and die are still tremendously useful if that sacrifice prevents the enemy from bring a key unit within range at a key time. Some units have value that rests outside raw firepower.  

[Cerve]

7 hours ago, DantePQ said:

You can't combine Reaper with Circle as Drycha can't get any magic items. Ok so I've been doing some tests and today played against DoT 

 

 

I meant on a Branchwitch+Drycha in the same army  my bad wording

[Aezeal]

9 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.

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.

[Nico]

Quote

Firstly, Hunters do not gain any substantial benefit from fighting in the wyldwoods (other than cover) in fact, for those of us who play that wyldwood trees are essentially "impassable terrain", 50mm x 3 bases become an enormous liability.

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.