AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Kiekeboe]

1 minute ago, Pennydude said:

Okay, so our individual trees still need to be 3" from terrain features and objectives along with 1" from models.  If we set up a ring of 3, we can't see through them anymore unless the model is 10+ wounds.  What we need to know is if it's impossible to set up one of the three individual trees, does that negate us from setting up all three?  Our AWW is a terrain feature consisting of 3 models.  

I think it's pretty clear. It keeps saying 'consists of 3 pieces', 'placing 3 pieces', 'forms 3 awakened wyldwoods', it never says 'up to 3'. It's 3 or none at all the way I'm reading it.

[Havelocke]

10 minutes ago, Kiekeboe said:

I think it's pretty clear. It keeps saying 'consists of 3 pieces', 'placing 3 pieces', 'forms 3 awakened wyldwoods', it never says 'up to 3'. It's 3 or none at all the way I'm reading it.

This is the way I read it as well. There is nothing to suggest that you can set up fewer than three trees. This is kind of a bummer in terms of logistics and cost, as it means you will be limited to one summon for every set of three you own. The BR:Kragnos warscroll was a big money and time saver for new collectors of the army.

Luckily, I don't think it will matter a ton on the table. Since there's no limit on how far away the trees can be from each other, I think you should be able to dump the extra tree in an irrelevant location almost every single time.

[Landohammer]

There is additional clarification in the FAQ that Aura command abilities only lockout the issuer from giving/receiving. Those that benefit from auras may continue to issue/receive additional command abilities. So its possible that a unit could technically get multiple buffs.

The monster and character buffs, combined with the buffs to the wyldwood split and auras, means TLA may actually be useable again

 

 

24 minutes ago, Legatus Seneca said:

‘Also spell selection seems nerfed. 

Page 69 – Spell Lores
Delete the second sentence in the paragraph of body text under the header.

deleted: “…you can choose…one spell..for each of your wizards”

Which, if I understand it, means all your wizards will know the same single spell + their warscroll spells. Unless you spend an extra enhancement of course. This nerf seems universal for all battletomes. Tough

 

I think you may be over thinking that line. You choose one spell for each of your wizards. So each wizard may choose a spell. Its not any different than before. Giving every wizard the same spell would be silly. 

 

1 hour ago, Hoseman said:

I'm so confused and sad about the wanderers thing... it just dont makes sense so as the allies doesn't make sense to me only idoneth and well maybe stormcast too but no wanderers is like TOO strange.

Maybe the wanderers will be sylvaneth? Maybe are we going to have kurnothi? I dont get it.

Plus the thing of only one unit can teleport per turn is a big nerf to me as I liked to teleport kurnoth + arch revenant. And the 20 dryads will be almost impossible to teleport as I feel the 20 cant be into 6" of one tree (I guess)

So sad about wanderers 

I am also sad about Wanderers. I emailed the FAQ email for clarification. I wonder if it may have just been forgotten about. But note you could only teleport 1 non-treelord unit before. So that is the same.

1 hour ago, Thrst77 said:

Is anyone else confused with the new changes to the wyldwood? I just cant understand why they changed it back after kragnos. It feels like another step backward for sylvaneth in general. The kurnoth change is fine and I am sad to see it go but the rerolling 3+ save was pretty obnoxious in the games I played. I am overall disappointed in GW for moving away from the kragnos profile and replacing it only a few months after releasing it...

Ever since 40k starting invalidating their Vigilus supplements within a year after releasing them I have been SUPER wary of buying supplements, so I avoided buying any BR books for rule purposes. This just further supports that decision. 

I think the 3+ rerollable saves on Hunters was a bit much, but considering their point cost i don't think it was that big of a deal. However it looks like most units have lost save rerolls. Probably a good change for the game as a whole even tho it hurts us.

 

 

[Hoseman]

35 minutes ago, Kiekeboe said:

 

Kurnoths with their +1 save from roots, +1 from TLA, +1 from all out defense gets them on a 3+ save against -2 rend, I'll take that.

Is this ok??? I thought with 3.0 the save can only be modiffied by +1 and there you are using +3. The way I read the rules I think it was only +1 and -1 to hit and wound rols and +1 to save no matter how much buffs and debuffs you got. I mean if you are in cover and you have the aura of the TLA dont make you +2 to save, you will always have only +1 no matter the rend of the enemy. Am I right or wrong? 

[Havelocke]

5 minutes ago, Hoseman said:

Am I right or wrong? 

A little of both. Saves are capped at +1, but that's only after you total all the modifiers. Essentially, multiple save buffs after the first work as a buffer against rend.

So if you have +1 to save from three sources, and you're facing an enemy with -1 rend, you combine those for a net +2 modifier, which is then capped at +1.

[Pennydude]

6 minutes ago, Hoseman said:

Is this ok??? I thought with 3.0 the save can only be modiffied by +1 and there you are using +3. The way I read the rules I think it was only +1 and -1 to hit and wound rols and +1 to save no matter how much buffs and debuffs you got. I mean if you are in cover and you have the aura of the TLA dont make you +2 to save, you will always have only +1 no matter the rend of the enemy. Am I right or wrong? 

Part of the core rules FAQ says that you add all bonuses and rend together to get a final number.  If that number is +2 or higher, you only get to apply +1 instead.  

So if I have Thickets, TLA aura, and AoD for +3 and I get hit with a rend -1, that results in +2 total.  Core rules says I can only apply to +1 giving it a 3+ save.

If you get hit with rend -3 instead, now the bonuses and rend equal to 0 and you are at your base 4+ save.

[Arzalyn]

15 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

The monster and character buffs, combined with the buffs to the wyldwood split and auras, means TLA may actually be useable again

Completely agree with you! I was a little down on him before the Faq, but bringing 3 small wood with his ability and the command working as was discussed make him a really good support hero. His command help reduce rend and let us use other command abilities during combat (arch-rev, ghur realm, all out attack, harvestboon) and still have the extra save. The extra 3 wood without a cast give us 3 woods on our territory + 3 wholly within 18" of him (probably on the middle of the table) which give us a lot of flexibility in teleporting and securing the abilities of Durthu and Dryads.

23 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Luckily, I don't think it will matter a ton on the table. Since there's no limit on how far away the trees can be from each other, I think you should be able to dump the extra tree in an irrelevant location almost every single time.

It doesn't limit how far they must be from each other, but I believe we still follow the effect restrictions (18 of the ancient, 12" of the acorn hero, 24" of the verdant blessing caster, and 1" away of models, terrain and objectives for all of them).

[Mirage8112]

4 hours ago, Landohammer said:

Yea if Treelord ancient was useless enough already, now he is extra useless lol..

Good catch on the wyldwood warscroll. So yea we are very much susceptible to monsters killing our forest now 

Overall this was pretty hard on us.

Just about everything in the game lost the ability to re-rolls saves. So far just about very place I've checked has changed whatever the ability was to +1 to saves. 

As such, I'm not entirely sure it was a nerf exactly. Looks more like they took that ability out of the game wholesale; if everybody is affected, nobody is effected.

While our woods can be bashed by monsters, there's more of them on the table. Also, in practice, if a monster wanted to bash the old wood, he's likely right on top of it which would shut down teleporting anyway (due to zoning out the 9"). Seems like it won't really change in practice. 

 

3 hours ago, Emissary said:

That's not the way aura command abilities work.  

From the Core FAQ:

"Q: Some commands are received by all units within a certain range of the model issuing the command. Can such an order be received by a unit that has already received a command in the same phase? A: No."

This is incorrect, as that passage specially refers to units that receive commands in an area. That's not an "aura" affect. The section on aura effects is in the sidebar, and says: 

"Some older command abilities specify that the effect of the command ability applies to multiple units within a certain distance of the of the unit issuing the command... when this is the case, the command is both issued and received by the same model, even though the effect of the command applies to the specified units within the specified range... The model that issued the command cannot issue or receive another command in that phase... the other units that benefit from the effect of the command do not count as having received a command."

Also it seems all of our "unresolved issues" are now definitively answered:

Single trees do not block LoS.
T-revs/ other units can teleport out of combat.
Drayds can teleport after being summoned.
Unique characters can take spell enhancements (including flaming weapons)
Aura's stack with other command abilities unless the aura was issued by the model in the same phase. 

Any other ones I missed? 

I think the change to our woods MW output might actually be a wash or slightly better (if you have more spell casting). 
      

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Pennydude]

@Mirage8112 I think the one thing I need to know is that if it's impossible to put one of the three individual trees down, does it stop us from putting the legal ones on?  Otherwise, I'm content with everything and will make this work.  Gladewyrm went up in my eyes since the healing for your units within 6" now and not wholly within 6".  Also something on the Spirit Paths abilities for the Treelord variants; those now say 'within 6"' so it's easier for them to teleport.  That's actually quite nice with Durthu since he can now teleport at the full extent of his Guardian Sword attack bonuses.

[Mirage8112]

15 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

@Mirage8112 I think the one thing I need to know is that if it's impossible to put one of the three individual trees down, does it stop us from putting the legal ones on? 

As written, I'd say it does. It seems to be you put 3 down, wherever you can fit them. If you can't fit 1, you can't put it down.

Personally I don't think this will be an issue. Verdant blessing for example has a 24" casting range. I'm pretty sure I can find a place for  one or two 1/2 inch by 5" crescents shapes somewhere in a 48" bubble. 

Alarielle's spell might be a little trickier to place since it's 12" from the destroyed unit. But still, a 24" bubble to place a wood up to 1" from a model/terrain/objective will probably be fairly easy unless you use it to snipe a character in the middle of a horde (but if that's the case you couldn't place it now anyway). 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Pennydude]

@Mirage8112 That's how I read it as well and have sent an email to the FAQ team asking for clarification.  It'd be so much better if you could place up to 3 pieces and if you do set up 3, you can have them form a ring.

I also just saw that we are still restricted to the 3" rule for scenery and objectives per GHB faction terrain placement (GHB pg 11).  That may cause an issue.

[Emissary]

Here's what I'm thinking for my first army for tomorrow's game:

Gnarlroot Glade

Warlord Open Battalion
Treelord Ancient
Warsong Revenant with Chalice of Nectar, Nurtured by Magic
Branchwraith with Spiritsong Stave
5 Tree-Revenants
5 Tree-Revenants

Hunters of the Heartlands Open Battalion
3 Kurnoth Hunters with Greatswords
6 Kurnoth Hunters with Greatbows
10 Dryads

Other
Spirit of Durthu
Gladewyrm

1995 points

Thoughts?  The big decision for me has been the Spirit of Durthu vs. Drycha.

The greatbows with +1 to hit from All out Attack and reroll 1s should put in some work.

[Mirage8112]

2 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

I also just saw that we are still restricted to the 3" rule for scenery and objectives per GHB faction terrain placement (GHB pg 11).  That may cause an issue.

"Faction Terrain" I think specifically refers to terrain pieces that are setup before the battle starts, which is reflected on the WW warscroll anyway. Anything that comes in after has its placement determined by the method it was summoned. Besides, battletome rules always supersede core rules anyway. 

[Pennydude]

4 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

"Faction Terrain" I think specifically refers to terrain pieces that are setup before the battle starts, which is reflected on the WW warscroll anyway. Anything that comes in after has its placement determined by the method it was summoned. Besides, battletome rules always supersede core rules anyway. 

I don't agree due to GHB saying the 3" restriction on placement is in addition to the set-up rules.  Our other abilities tell us to set up 1" away from everything but then we have to apply the GHB restriction on top.

[Havelocke]

5 minutes ago, Emissary said:

Thoughts?  The big decision for me has been the Spirit of Durthu vs. Drycha.

That's a tough one. Durthu can still teleport through smashed wyldwoods, but I'd give the edge to Drycha due being a wizard in Gnarlroot, and wanting to make one additional change to the list, below.

I would also look for a way to include the Spiteswarm hive in your list. You need to clear 35 points to do so, and you could combine some of the following changes:

Change Dryads to Tree Rev's: -15 points
Change Dryads to Spite Rev's: -25 points
Change Durthu to Drycha: -10 points
Change Sword Kurnoths to Scythe Kurnoths: -10 points
 

5 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

"Faction Terrain" I think specifically refers to terrain pieces that are setup before the battle starts, which is reflected on the WW warscroll anyway. Anything that comes in after has its placement determined by the method it was summoned. Besides, battletome rules always supersede core rules anyway. 

I haven't seen the GHB 2021 wording yet, but the GHB 2020 rules said that they were in addition to battletome restrictions, which I think would preclude the battletome rules from overruling them. GHB 2020 also specifically includes terrain set up due to allegiance abilities or warscrolls after the battle begins.

If 2021 mirrors the language from 2020, I think we'll be stuck following both sets of restrictions, as we were previously.

[Pennydude]

3 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

I haven't seen the GHB 2021 wording yet, but the GHB 2020 rules said that they were in addition to battletome restrictions, which I think would preclude the battletome rules from overruling them. GHB 2020 also specifically includes terrain set up due to allegiance abilities or warscrolls after the battle begins.

If 2021 mirrors the language from 2020, I think we'll be stuck following both sets of restrictions, as we were previously.

I have the GHB in front of me right now.  Here's what it says verbatim on Faction Terrain.

FACTION TERRAIN
Faction terrain features must be set up more than 3" from all other terrain features and more than 3" from all objectives.  These restrictions are in addition to the set-up rules in the battletome in which they appear.  If it is impossible for a faction terrain feature to be set up, it is not used.

Our "terrain feature" is 3 scenery pieces.  So it follows that if we cannot set up one of those three pieces, that means the terrain feature as a whole cannot be set up which means all 3 or nothing.  Ugh.

[Mirage8112]

4 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

FACTION TERRAIN
Faction terrain features must be set up more than 3" from all other terrain features and more than 3" from all objectives.  These restrictions are in addition to the set-up rules in the battletome in which they appear.  If it is impossible for a faction terrain feature to be set up, it is not used.

Our "terrain feature" is 3 scenery pieces.  So it follows that if we cannot set up one of those three pieces, that means the terrain feature as a whole cannot be set up which means all 3 or nothing.  Ugh.

Again, I think "Faction Terrain" is specifically for terrain that is set up before the battle starts. 

What does the section before say?  Is it talking about setting up the battlefield for a match?  

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Mirage8112]

6 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Again, I think "Faction Terrain" is specifically for terrain that is set up before the battle starts. 

From the Core rulebook: 

"Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army."

Our initial wyldwood is taken as part of our army and should be include on our list (like the Bone Tithe Nexus or Charnel Throne). Because it is "deployed" like unit at the start of the game. Forests that come after are like summoned units and not actually part of our army list.   

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Pennydude]

@Mirage8112 Yes, the previous section is about terrain features and that normal battlefield terrain is 3" from battlefield edge, 6" from other terrain, and 3" from objectives.

And I'm starting to think I'm wrong, again(sorry, really stressful day at work and my car stopped working).  If they wanted to add those restrictions in, they would have done it like the previous BR warscroll since that was pretty deliberate.  

[Mirage8112]

5 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

Yes, the previous section is about terrain features and that normal battlefield terrain is 3" from battlefield edge, 6" from other terrain, and 3" from objectives.

And I'm starting to think I'm wrong, again(sorry, really stressful day at work and my car stopped working).  If they wanted to add those restrictions in, they would have done it like the previous BR warscroll since that was pretty deliberate.  

Don't be sorry mate. This is new for all of us, and we're all trying to figure out exactly how the changes affect us. There's a lot of crunch to sift through. I imagine its hard to do with life stuff in the way (as I know quite well from having a 5 month old that refuses to sleep like Nagash refuses to die).

They went through and changed a bunch of warscrolls and wording in the battletomes. I imagine if they intended all WW to be 3" from terrain/objectives they would have edited it to say so. Plus, Alarielle's warscroll is literally brand new and includes the 1" from models/objectives/terrain wording. Kinda seems suspect a brand-new warscroll would have and ability wording that only applies in open/narrative play. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Havelocke]

1 minute ago, Mirage8112 said:

From the Core rulebook: 

"Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army."  

You left out half of that rule, though. I don't think this is cut and dried.

17.0.2 - Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army. A faction terrain feature has a faction terrain warscroll (see 23.0), which will tell you how it is set up and what additional rules apply to it.

The second sentence even has the rules bold text, referring to an important game term. The question here is what the exact definition of a 'faction terrain feature' is, since the GHB rules apply to the placement of all faction terrain features.

I believe, based on the presence of the rules bold text in the second sentence, that the definition of faction terrain is terrain which has a faction warscroll, whether it is summoned or included on your army roster. I think the first sentence is better worded as a definition, though, so I think that @Mirage8112's argument also holds weight.

 

3 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Plus, Alarielle's warscroll is literally brand new and includes the 1" from models/objectives/terrain wording. Kinda seems suspect a brand-new warscroll would have and ability wording that only applies in open/narrative play. 

The spell already existed, though, so it's not like they wrote it from scratch. Plus, there are all kinds of rules that only apply to matched play. You could make the same argument and say 'why would they give the person who deployed first +1 to priority' if they were just going to change it in the matched play rules?' The matched play rules are designed to create a slightly different gameplay experience.

[Pennydude]

@Mirage8112 @HavelockeHa, helps if I read the new woods carefully.  If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll).  That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others.  I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.

[Mokoshkana]

Just now, Pennydude said:

@Mirage8112 @HavelockeHa, helps if I read the new woods carefully.  If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll).  That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others.  I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.

The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."

That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero.

[Freypal]

As a new player to AoS trying to learn the Sylvaneth army. All these wyldwood rules melt my brain. 

[Havelocke]

Just now, Freypal said:

As a new player to AoS trying to learn the Sylvaneth army. All these wyldwood rules melt my brain. 

Ha! Amazing that we're still debating this in 2021.