AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Rhargar]

Hello, as i get two proportions of the looncurse box i want to start with this great faction. But i´m unsure, how to equip the hunters. I see many lists, where they were equipped with swords and some using the scythes.

So what is the better way to do in accordance to the new battle tome. I favored the scythes because of their greater range, but what are the counting Points for swords?

[Trevelyan]

Point for point, swords have always done more damage. The new Warscrolls increase this advantage by giving sword the chance to inflict mortal wounds on a 6 damage roll. 

The advantage with scythes is the range, as you suggest. Getting more than three swords into melee range can be tricky given the large bases, but getting six scythes into combat is much easier. The range also helps when you use Tanglethorn Thicket since 1” pile in plus 2” range makes it easier to reach the target.

So what you want to build depends on how you want to use them. If you are making scythes then make all six scythes (with a single Huntmaster for WYSIWYG) to field a larger unit.  With swords you either want two units of three, or possibly one unit of swords and one of bows.

A lot of people dismiss the bows, but anecdotally that could be because they aren’t using them in the right role. Both swords and scythes are fairly easy to use - point them at the toughest enemy and keep hitting until it dies. Rinse and repeat. People expecting bows to do the same will be disappointed. Bows aren’t well suited to be primary damage dealers, but excel at softening key targets early (to make it easier for combat specialists to finish them) and at removing chaff later in the game to clear space for your charging units.

There isn’t really a best way to assemble them. You’ll probably want all the options eventually anyway.

 

 

[Frowny]

In general, swords do the most damage. They will beat out scythes against everything but the highest save targets.

However the scythes are better in units of 6 since with their big bases the swords can't usually fit more than 4ish models, especially not while sprouting roots and only piling in 1in. The reach also gives them flexibility.

Tldr: swords in 3s and scythes in 6 or 9s.

I'd build 3 of each. I'll be most opponents would let you proxy whatever you want. Unfortunately they are very hard to magnetize.

[swarmofseals]

12 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

This all makes sense, but with the prevalence of these types of abilities there has to be some way to account for it ... But units like the celestial hurricanium got very low scores, ignoring the fact that it significantly increased the damage metrics of everything around it and allowed Sylvaneth to dominate the early competitive scene. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but force multiplying units like TL stomps or Slaanesh’s Locus of diversion are going to play a huge part in the meta going forward and it’s best to find some way to find someway to quantify that a little. 

...the comparison between [the AGKoTG] and the TL is not a fair one at the moment....

... a TL’s mobility increased dramatically with the number of WW we have on the board...

 

...Which is why I’m surprised you characterize Sylvaneth as a low speed army...

While I’m withholding concrete judgements on our new book, initial battle reports look very promising. I think there will be a much clearer picture on Saturday when we get the full and complete breakdowns of points changes for all the factions (I know most have been leaked already, but Skaven, FEC and Slaanesh will be released as addendums.) I actually think the new scenery rules will make it easier to get our own terrain out on the table, while posing a bigger problem for other factions who are much more limited by initial terrain drops. It remains to be seen exactly how this will be applied in competitive play going forward, but for single match-ups I think it’s a real boon for us.  

I think you could probably create some sort of mathematical model for quantifying the effect of disrupting combat, but it would be a variable model and not a fixed value. Quantifying something like the Hurricanum buff is a bit easier -- while it does vary quite a bit depending on what it is covering and how many units it is covering, the buff itself at least is just a direct improvement to the expected value of the buffed unit. A +1 to hit is probably going to increase your overall damage output by something like 25-50% depending on things like base to hit value, rerolls etc.

A combat disrupting ablity, on the other hand, doesn't map very easily to expected value. I can, kinda, but it requires you to know the offensive output of both your units and the affected enemy unit as well as the relative defensive values of both units. It also makes a big difference what the default combat sequencing would be. You get a much bigger benefit if the order would have been ENEMY-YOU-YOU than you would get if the order would have been YOU-ENEMY-YOU. So it's not that this can't be quantified, it's just very difficult to boil it down to a generic number in an all-comers situation. I think you could write an equation that looks something like this:

Defensive Value of Sequence Disruption in a given Combat Order = (Expected Offensive Output of Enemy Unit Striking In Sequence) - (Expected Offensive Output of Enemy Unit Striking Out of Sequence)

Offensive Value of Sequence Disruption in a given Combat Order = (Expected Offensive Output of Friendly Units Striking Out of Sequence) - (Expected Offensive Output of Friendly Units Striking In Sequence)

In each case you would calculate the expected values by calculating how much damage a unit would be expected to do after suffering the expected amount of damage they would receive in a given sequence. So to give an example, let's say you have a unit in combat with an enemy unit. Both units have 20 1 wound models that can strike, and the expected offensive output at full strength is 10 wounds of unsaved damage. 

In the case of the enemy striking first in normal sequencing, the defensive value of disrupting the sequencing would be 5 (it would normally deal 10 damage, but if you disrupt sequencing you can expect to deal 10 wounds on average first, which will decrease their expected offensive output to 5). The expected offensive value of disrupting the sequencing would also be 5 (as you would be dealing 10 damage instead of the 5 that you would expect to deal having taken 10 wounds first).

In the case of you striking first in normal sequencing, the value of disrupting the sequence in this case would be 0, because the cases are identical.

So you could come up with some very rough valuations of the ability by making some assumptions about the average values of the many different variables in question, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. 

I agree that these abilities are going to play a big role, but accurately estimating the value of the ability in each case is really quite fraught.

_____________________

I totally agree that the comparison between the AGKoT and the TL is not a fair one at all, which was very much my point. The lens people tend to evaluate combat disruption through is experience with the AGKoT and maybe the Keeper of Secrets, because these are the dominant examples we have of sequencing disruption. The point that I'm trying to make is that the value of the ability in that context is very different from the value of the ability on a Treelord for exactly the reasons you mentioned. That doesn't mean it won't be useful on a Treelord, I just think anyone expecting it to be as dominating on a Treelord as it is on AGKoT/KoS is going to be disappointed.

____________________

Regarding speed, I agree that Sylvaneth can be deceptively fast, and it really does hinge on the teleportation shenanigans. My concern is that many of our teleportation abilities rely on Wyldwoods that may become very difficult to place. I know you are arguing that the new terrain rules could make it easier on us, but I'm having a hard time seeing how that is. There was a kerfluffle on this board not long ago where people were arguing about the amount of terrain that should be on the board. I forget who it was (it might have been you?), but the most vocal participant in that discussion was arguing that Sylvaneth players shouldn't tolerate any more than the minimum standard that GW suggested at the time (which was 1+ piece per 2x2 square). That person was advocating for 6 pieces of terrain on the board. The new GW standards specify a minimum of 10. While the new rules may limit other armies' terrain placement, I don't think this outweighs the addition of at least 4 more pieces of terrain to the table. There are also people arguing that the new terrain placement rules apply to terrain added during games too, so the more restrictive requirements about distance from models, objectives, and other terrain features etc. would also apply to summoned Wyldwoods. Personally I think this interpretation is incorrect, but I could be proven wrong. 

All that being said, I think an even bigger factor is the problem of turn order. When we could nearly guarantee the ability to take the first turn, we were able to ensure that we could place Wyldwoods near or on top of mid-table objectives. Typically there would be an 18-24" gap in the middle of the table with no enemy models to block our placement. If you don't get the first turn though, many enemy armies will be prepared to zone us out of that space and prevent the summoning of new Wyldwoods in the middle or back of the board. Getting the first turn is now a lot trickier, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's a significant % of games where we have to struggle on without being able to place more trees. In that case, Tree-revenants or Dreadwood teleport become extremely important.

___________________

I totally agree about the faction as a whole. I think there are a lot of potential tricks and powerful combinations in the new tome. I wouldn't be surprised if Sylvaneth ended up high tier, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work out. The power is there, it just depends on what happens with the other tomes (like you said), FAQs, and how things actually play out in practice. If nothing else, I think we have a lot of tools to do some very legitimate alpha strikes. I can't think of any unit in the game that can hit as hard as a unit of 12 Kurnoths, and we should be able to hit with that unit at will (although it's a huge investment!).

 

[TreelordRecent]

I would just add that there may be a case to have a unit of 6 swords if you play dreadwood. As dreadwood allows you to place a unit 9 away from an enemy you may be able to get them all in, in turn one... but in most other scenarios 6 scythes may be easier to use.  

Following some inspiration from the forum I have built a unit of 9 scythes to make the most out of dreadwood and the archrevenant... I am still to see how they perform. 

[swarmofseals]

14 minutes ago, TreelordRecent said:

I would just add that there may be a case to have a unit of 6 swords if you play dreadwood. As dreadwood allows you to place a unit 9 away from an enemy you may be able to get them all in, in turn one... but in most other scenarios 6 scythes may be easier to use.  

Following some inspiration from the forum I have built a unit of 9 scythes to make the most out of dreadwood and the archrevenant... I am still to see how they perform. 

Swords are pretty clearly better when you are charging as you can't use the thicket buff in that situation anyway. If you run the numbers, you'll find that the break even point where scythes become equivalent to swords is about +58% against targets with saves of - or 6+, and between 36-39% against all other saves. That's assuming you are rerolling 1's to hit. If you aren't then it's a bit smaller but still over 50% for saves of - or 6+ and around 33% for all other saves. The gap widens if you are getting full rerolls to hit. 

So in practice that basically means that for a 12 model unit, scythes only get better than swords if only 7 of the swords could attack while all 12 scythes can attack vs saves of - or 6+, and 8 vs. 12 for all other saves (although swords are only a tiny bit better in the 9 vs. 12 scenario).

For a 9 model unit, the break ahead point for scythes is 9 attackers vs. 5 attackers for swords or 9 vs. 6 scenario vs saves of 5+ or better.

For a 6 model unit, it's 3 vs. 6 attackers or 4 vs. 6 attackers depending on save.

For a 3 model unit it's 1 vs 3 attackers or 2 vs. 3 attackers depending on save.

TL;DR - depending on the size of the unit and the save of the opponent, scythes are only better than swords if the extra 1" reach allows you to hit with the whole unit instead of somewhere between a half to two thirds of the unit. I suspect that means that in practice swords are going to be better the vast majority of the time.

[TreelordRecent]

@swarmofseals Thank you for the in depth explanation. It does make you want to try them in large numbers with harvestboon and an archrevenant.

[Mirage8112]

3 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

So you could come up with some very rough valuations of the ability by making some assumptions about the average values of the many different variables in question, but I'm not sure how useful it would be. 

I totally agree that the comparison between the AGKoT and the TL is not a fair one at all, which was very much my point. The lens people tend to evaluate combat disruption through is experience with the AGKoT and maybe the Keeper of Secrets, because these are the dominant examples we have of sequencing disruption. The point that I'm trying to make is that the value of the ability in that context is very different from the value of the ability on a Treelord for exactly the reasons you mentioned. That doesn't mean it won't be useful on a Treelord, I just think anyone expecting it to be as dominating on a Treelord as it is on AGKoT/KoS is going to be disappointed.

I think the difference between the TL and the AGKoT/KoS use of the ability differs based on the context it’s being used. The ability of combat disruption on a AGKoT or Keeper of secret is valuable because they are killy enough to be independent operators, insofar as they wont require attack support to make the best use of their disruption abilities. This is further evident because there’s also a 160-200 point disparity between between the TL and those two.

Which makes sense, because the TL essentially functions as a utility unit. As you pointed out, it’s damage is “swingy” at best, when it rolls well it wrecks face, when it rolls poorly it’s a slap fight at best (though, such things can be said about any unit in the game). But it’s ability’s usefulness really needs to be calculated with another unit or two since you would never run 1 independently and expect to get anything out of it.

Personally, I would argue that a utility unit like the TL need to be treated much in the same way we treat a buffed stat or heroes with items in our calculations. That is to say, you effectively add the Treelord’s raw offensive/defensive output to a single unit present in the combat when a stomp is successful. Vs a single enemy, you add every unit’s damage together in an aggregate and effectively treat them all as a single unit. Depending on positioning and turn, you can add either the offensive stat or the defensive stat. To reflect the 4+ nature  of the roll, just reduce the value by half. If your concerned about the points value, items past the first technically have a points value as well, since it requires the purchase of a battalion to make any use of them. I know if we could buy an item that basically gives 12 free wounds (that can also be negated on a 3+) and an extra 8 damage to any single unit wholly within 12” on a 4+ we would all be taking it.  

I think it’s important to think of the ability in this way, because we’ve always been an army that wants to bait the charge (at least as I play). I don’t think this has drastically changed. A unit of T-revs screening a TL 1” out with a unit or two of hunters screened by a WW holding an objective is quite formidable.  A horde unit attempting to charge that will only be able to clear the screen, and if stomped, everything will have a chance to swing before losing the screen. Even in the enemies turn, it will take no less than 3 units to access whatever is behind the screen if stomp is successful.  Yes that’s a large points investment and an obvious trap. That doesn’t matter if it’s the only thing the enemy can reach, or if everything else the enemy can reach is either chaff or a tar pit. (Did I mention I often play with a lot of chaff?)  
 

3 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

My concern is that many of our teleportation abilities rely on Wyldwoods that may become very difficult to place. I know you are arguing that the new terrain rules could make it easier on us, but I'm having a hard time seeing how that is. There was a kerfluffle on this board not long ago where people were arguing about the amount of terrain that should be on the board. I forget who it was (it might have been you?), but the most vocal participant in that discussion was arguing that Sylvaneth players shouldn't tolerate any more than the minimum standard that GW suggested at the time (which was 1+ piece per 2x2 square). That person was advocating for 6 pieces of terrain on the board. The new GW standards specify a minimum of 10. While the new rules may limit other armies' terrain placement, I don't think this outweighs the addition of at least 4 more pieces of terrain to the table. 

Yes that was me. 

However, it’s important to consider the context of the argument. My argument was that if players can flood the board with numerous large terrain pieces, we’d have no space to place woods. My (clarified) argument was that if there were no restrictions on size of terrain, we should argue for 6 pieces, but accept no more than 8.

However the new terrain rules mandate 10 peices, but only 6 pieces of (relatively) medium size. The dragonfate dias, ophidian archway, magewraith throne, numinous oculusum and arcane ruins all have very small footprints (something like 3-5” square) and each player can place 3. Players may bring custom scenery pieces outside that list, but they must use the relevant warscroll, and have a foot print of no more than 10” in any direction or be larger than 4” tall. The further 4 pieces are walls/fences consisting of 2 pieces each , with each player placing 2. This is actually quite reasonable since it makes it almost impossible for a single player to block out the entire board. 

Also, since citadel woods are one of the listed “approved” pieces, we can very well take 3 woods for our 3 pieces and shut down firing lanes to objectives relatively easily (there is no restriction on placing listed scenery on objectives that I’ve seen). This makes an excellent substitute for WW on forward objectives, since they don’t really provide quite as much benefit as before. Furthermore It’s fully possibles to put the citadel woods 1” away from an objective (blocking firing lines from the enemy deployment zone) and then summoning a wood on the other side 1” away from the same objective. If you can pull this off, it’s would be fully possible to teleport 30 drayds onto the objective, maintain your -1 hit by staying within 6” of the wood, keep your +1 cover save (by maintaining 1” coherency across the 2 scenery pieces) and be LOS blocked from shooting.

Furthermore, there is no minimum size on terrain now. If your enemy tries to block you out by choosing a big 10” 4” tall block for his 3 terrain pieces, there’s nothing stopping you from dropping a rock on top and saying it’s mystical terrain and rolling on the accompanying table. (It’s gamey as fk, but if I felt my opponent was trying to zone me out by picking the largest terrain he could, I’d say one good turn deserves another.) 
 

4 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

There are also people arguing that the new terrain placement rules apply to terrain added during games too, so the more restrictive requirements about distance from models, objectives, and other terrain features etc. would also apply to summoned Wyldwoods. Personally I think this interpretation is incorrect, but I could be proven wrong. 

The rules specifically mention “terrain placed by an allegiance ability”. Which would apply to our first woods, but not our subsequent woods. Wyldwoods aren’t even really “faction terrain”, just regular terrain. They do not even contain the SYLVANETH keyword (unlike the battleforge, herdstone, Fane of Slaanesh, ect). i imagine that will be cleared up very quickly in the first FAQ.      
 

 

4 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

I totally agree about the faction as a whole. I think there are a lot of potential tricks and powerful combinations in the new tome. I wouldn't be surprised if Sylvaneth ended up high tier, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work out. The power is there, it just depends on what happens with the other tomes (like you said), FAQs, and how things actually play out in practice. If nothing else, I think we have a lot of tools to do some very legitimate alpha strikes. I can't think of any unit in the game that can hit as hard as a unit of 12 Kurnoths, and we should be able to hit with that unit at will (although it's a huge investment!).

Our book seems to me to be like a box of tinkertoys where you have 50 parts but you can only build something out of 15. How you pick and choose those parts will make wildly different buildings that do wildly differ things. 
:
I see builds in our book that can skew their power wildly in a number of directions: spellcasting, combat efficiency, resiliency, combat disruption, hordes or MSU.  I also see builds that can focus in a couple of areas while still maintaining presence in others. These are the builds I think will be the most competitive, and there’s definitely more than 3 of them (unlike the last book.) Playing Sylvaneth will be quite different in this book and I think that’s good for our overall power level. We were mostly easily to account for before thanks to our lack of diversity and being 1-2 trick ponies. 

We’ll have a better picture when the GHB is out sat and hopefully the errata/raw soon after. It would also be nice if our damn book came out before the end of the year.   

[Emissary]

On 6/20/2019 at 4:04 PM, scrubyandwells said:

We also need to be able to survive a strong alpha strike, since opponents out-dropping us could go first and try to pin us in our deployment zone, while they're scoring objs. 

I wanted to touch on this.  I think it will be really hard for your opponent to pin you in your deployment zone if you plan for it.  Obviously, the tree revenants can always teleport out.  However, if you place your initial wyldwood where you plan on putting some kurnoth hunters or treelords, if they alpha strike you to tie you up, then you can use your ancient's free wyldwood ability (can't be stopped) and/or Verdent Blessing to create a new wyldwood towards their objective.  Then cast the Hive to give your teleporters the +3" charge and then teleport out your treelords and one other unit and still have a really good chance of making that 6 needed to charge out of the teleport.  

 

5 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

I totally agree that the comparison between the AGKoT and the TL is not a fair one at all, which was very much my point. The lens people tend to evaluate combat disruption through is experience with the AGKoT and maybe the Keeper of Secrets, because these are the dominant examples we have of sequencing disruption. The point that I'm trying to make is that the value of the ability in that context is very different from the value of the ability on a Treelord for exactly the reasons you mentioned. That doesn't mean it won't be useful on a Treelord, I just think anyone expecting it to be as dominating on a Treelord as it is on AGKoT/KoS is going to be disappointed.

 I agree.  When I mentioned it being a big factor in the game, it wasn't that it was causing the treelord to become some sort of alpha strike monster.  It was more that it was initially a great defensive buff to stop that first turn alpha strike.  I don't think many units will want to charge 6 scythe hunters that will reroll 1st to hit and have an extra attack that also have 2 treelords behind them and a 75% chance of letting all three of them hit the chargers before the chargers get to hit them.   Later, it was good for combat sequencing to allow some critical fights to happen in your favor (like allowing spite revenants fight first before their tissue paper armor becomes a liability).  I certainly don't see it as something that you count on to run your durthu up alone and let him dominate, but it's another great buff for the army when they're running in concert together.

[Xil]

Any news on the release? 

[Namelessone81]

Hey all ! Do we know when they usually update the AoS app with the new points from the latest generals handbook ?

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

Just played 750 points versus my GF's Gloomspite Gitz (I chose to not do summoning for a more even match).

So it turns out that Kurnoth Hunters with Swords and an Arch-Revenant buffing them are utterly terrifying. Chopped through 5 Squig Hopperz and 5 Bounderz in one turn thanks to fortunate pile-in positioning, and completely murdered their Loonboss on a Squig in the next. At the bottom of turn five, I Spirit-Pathed them next to Zarbag's Gitz on the objective, pulled off the charge with a nice re-roll from my general, and chopped up enough of their boyz to cap the objective at the end of my turn for a last-moment win!

My List:

Branchwych (General, Gnarlroot Chalice, Gnarlroot Command Trait) - 80

Arch-Revenant - 100

5 X Tree-Revenants - 80

5 X Tree-Revenants - 80

3 X Kurnoth Hunters with Greatswords - 200

Treelord - 200

GF's List:

Loonboss on Cave Squig (General, Backstabba's Blade, Low Cunning)

Zarbag

Zarbag's Gitz

12 X Squig Herders

5 x Boingrot Bounderz

5 x Squig Hoppers

That Squig Battalion that lets you reroll your movement

 

[schwabbele]

On 6/22/2019 at 1:00 AM, Mirage8112 said:

there’s nothing stopping you from dropping a rock on top and saying it’s mystical terrain

Hmm how would that work? Doesn’t rules say 6“ distance between terrain pieces?

[Namelessone81]

I don’t understand what other terrain I can use as unique. Does anyone know ?

[Mirage8112]

7 hours ago, schwabbele said:

Hmm how would that work? Doesn’t rules say 6“ distance between terrain pieces?

I don’t think so. Rules say 6” for faction terrain pieces deployed by an allegiance ability. A mystical rock is just... a mystical rock.  

 

19 minutes ago, Namelessone81 said:

I don’t understand what other terrain I can use as unique. Does anyone know ?

Right now, the default terain is one of like 8 kits and you have to use the warcrolls. If you want to sub in something use you can (dreadstone blight for example), you just have to use it’s warscroll. If it doesn’t have one, you have to roll for mystical terrain    

But wait a frigging minute. does that say 10” tall at its tallest point? Is this from the new GHB?

Edited June 24, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Namelessone81]

3 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I don’t think so. Rules say 6” for faction terrain pieces deployed by an allegiance ability. A mystical rock is just... a mystical rock.  

 

Right now, the default terain is one of like 8 kits and you have to use the warcrolls. If you want to sub in something use you can (dreadstone blight for example), you just have to use it’s warscroll. If it doesn’t have one, you have to roll for mystical terrain    

But wait a frigging minute. does that say 10” tall at its tallest point? Is this from the new GHB?

Yup

[Mirage8112]

26 minutes ago, Namelessone81 said:

Yup

If that’s true, and if our new woods are under 10” tall (old ones are about 5” tall) it seems like there’s nothing stopping us from picking WW as one or more of our 3 primary peices of terrain.

If thats true, that would be a Godsend and pretty much everything we could want. It’s not without precedent either, since one of the primary terrain pieces is a Sigmarite mausoleum which act as gravesites for LoN armies. It would also make sense that that each faction could use it’s own terrain pieces as substitutes for primary terrain pieces, and why deploying them after terrain is set is so restricted.  

[Televiper11]

I know the Battletome is still embargoed but are the new points updated in Ayzr or on Warscroll Builder?

[schwabbele]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

don’t think so. Rules say 6” for faction terrain pieces deployed by an allegiance ability. A mystical rock is just... a mystical rock.  

Check the battlefield section right above the faction terrain section. There it says 6“ 

[Emissary]

7 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

I know the Battletome is still embargoed but are the new points updated in Ayzr or on Warscroll Builder?

They are updated in warscroll builder

[Televiper11]

1 minute ago, Emissary said:

They are updated in warscroll builder

Thanks!

[Mirage8112]

39 minutes ago, schwabbele said:

Check the battlefield section right above the faction terrain section. There it says 6“ 

 

Ah. Thanks for that. 

[ppetford]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

If that’s true, and if our new woods are under 10” tall (old ones are about 5” tall) it seems like there’s nothing stopping us from picking WW as one or more of our 3 primary peices of terrain.

If thats true, that would be a Godsend and pretty much everything we could want. It’s not without precedent either, since one of the primary terrain pieces is a Sigmarite mausoleum which act as gravesites for LoN armies. It would also make sense that that each faction could use it’s own terrain pieces as substitutes for primary terrain pieces, and why deploying them after terrain is set is so restricted.  

Exactly what I was thinking. Although I’m lucky enough to have a decent AoS group where we have mostly been ignoring the scenery restrictions - so don’t expect to have to resort to this.

[Amradiel]

I bought two sets of Looncurse and then the bomb dropped that the battletome has been delayed 😭 I have not yet dared to glue anything except for the Arch-revenant. I'm scared of building something I will regret after the book is here.

[Emissary]

We already have all the new unit data sheets for the new book so you should be able to build smartly