AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Trevelyan]

7 hours ago, Havelocke said:

 As I understand it, there's a general consensus that both these rules and the rules on the wyldwood's warscroll must be followed when setting up a wyldwood before the battle begins. The debate is mostly centered around whether the GHB rules continue to apply to faction terrain which is set up after the battle begins.

It’s worth pointing out that there is no conflict between the GHB and the revised AW warscroll for the initial setup. The latest AW version has the same 3” minimum included in the GHB (clearly limited to setup before game only). You aren’t letting the GHB supersede anything at setup. 

The setup restrictions are intended, in large part, to ensure that the game starts with a reasonable distance between terrain pieces and that players placing faction terrain are not able to do so in a way that creates an impediment on the table; the constraints are universal. 

But the ability to actively summon more trees during a game is a particular feature of our faction. It can create constraints for other players, but unlike the initial placement it is not guaranteed - we can get safe woods down if we pay up front for the artefact or a TLA to place them, otherwise we are using spells that can be unbound. And opposing players have the opportunity to simply limit placement by controlling areas of the table. 
 

That’s why I agree with Mirage. Once the game begins, the pre-game setup rules don’t apply. We are working with a different set of constraints for artefacts, warscroll abilities and spells and there is no reason to believe that the GHB limitation on placement before you’ve deployed armies should supersede individual warscroll abilities and spells that have not been errataed on several occasions in spite of GW putting considerable work into changing the way Awakened Wyldwoods operate. 

[Kaylethia]

54 minutes ago, Trevelyan said:

the same 3” minimum included in the GHB (clearly limited to setup before game only)

They are referring to the Battlepack section in the GHB, which applies to placing faction terrain without mention of when it applies.

A tiny blip, easy to overlook.

 

I'm still of the opinion that it doesn't apply. First, because it is clearly written with pre-game faction terrain in mind, as that covers every faction terrain. Second, in the case of two effects applying at the same time, and since it is always (to the best of my knowledge) our turn, we choose which order we apply simultaneous effects, with the last one to be applied to take effect.

There is also merit to the argument that BT and warscrolls override core rules, which the rules in the GHB are.

 

EDIT:

The important question here is whether we agree to use the more restrictive or permissive reading of these rules, as both are valid readings until a clarification is issued. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Kaylethia

[Mirage8112]

12 hours ago, Havelocke said:

I doubt anyone's ever accused you of being afraid to speak your mind, but I've always found you to be respectful when our opinions have differed.

I feel the same about you, and @Pennydudeas well. I’ve had a number of very intense discussions on this board since it’s launch in 1.0, and I’ve found as group we tend to agree about most of the big issues, and it’s important not to lose sight of that when dissecting the particulars. 

Speaking of dissecting the particulars, I think you can I are on the same page in terms of the method by which we resolve rules disputes. Twelve both refereed frequently to the differences between RAW and RAI, while also citing precedent to occasionally infer how a rule might work under peculiar circumstances. 

Which is why this is a very very clever argument. 
 

12 hours ago, Havelocke said:

Your argument seems to look at the deployment restriction as a single variable, which can't have two different static values at once. I think you're basically saying that the following two statements are contradictory:

• The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 1"
• The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 3"

And they are, because they cannot both be true. However, it's not how the rules are worded. The next two statements are NOT contradictory:

• The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
• The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain

These two rules don't contradict each other, because they're not mutually exclusive. If a tree is more than three inches from other terrain, it is also more than one inch away, and both rules are satisfied. If [they] can both be followed at the same time, then they don't contradict each other, and you don't get to ignore the GHB rules in favor of the warscroll rules.

Your argument is a good one, albeit slightly technical. I feel i can answer it, but my response might be a bit technical as well, so I apologize in advance for the incoming wall of text.

Essentially you are saying there is an area of play where both statements can be true. Your argument implies that because we can play in way that satisfies one rule, while at the same time technically fulfilling the purely linguistic requirements of the other we are required to. While I understand that your position is technically correct (one can indeed do that). I think your argument that we are required to stay solely within that area of play is more than a little overstated, and not supported by the rules. 

Firstly, these rules aren’t just linguistic requirements on a page, they exist under a wider “permissive ruleset” that is played out under real conditions. If you’re not familiar with the term, a permissive ruleset is a collection of rules that allow you to do something: move a model, make an attack, apply a modifier, ect. Every Rule in Age of Sigmar allows you to perform an action under certain conditions with clearly stipulated limitations. You can’t do something in the game unless the rules say you can. The core rules are general and apply to everyone, and warscroll rules/faction rules are particular to that unit or faction. 

There will obviously be ways to play where one can satisfy the condition of multiple rules at the same time. But if that is the case, then we dont really need to discuss those interactions because there is no conflict. For these type of debates to even exist there has to be an interaction where one rule allows you to do a thing, and another says you may not. While there could be an infinite number of other choices that do not trigger a rules conflict (by equally satisfying both rules as you solution does), there can’t be a discussion about them, because there is no conflict to discuss: they are irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion and as such we must be silent about them.

So, consider the wider ruleset under which the following statements exist:

• The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
• The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain

These two rules allow you to choose where to place a piece of scenery within a certain area. If there is a spot on the board that is within 1.5 inches of the terrain that you want to place the terrain, the question becomes can you place the piece of scenery there or not. One rule says yes, the other says no. That is the source of conflict, and avoiding it by suggesting you “can” do something else is not actually a resolution: it’s a dodge. A very clever dodge but a dodge none the less.  

As i said above, I think the “obligation” you suggest we have to play the middle ground rather than choosing between the primacy of your rules is the weak link in your argument: 

12 hours ago, Havelocke said:

If [they] can both be followed at the same time, then they don't contradict each other, and you don't get to ignore the GHB rules in favor of the warscroll rules.

Do the rules really say we are obligated to dodge when we can? No they dont. When two rules conflict, you have one that says I can do X, and and another rule thats says I cannot. Alarielle’s warscroll says she can retreat and charge; the core rules say she cannot.  Am I obligated to decide I’d rather not shoot just because the rule says I “can” retreat and shoot not “must” retreat and shoot? In other words, are we obligated *by the rules* to play in manner that satisfies the pure liguistic requirments of two rules simply because its possible to do so?

If the rules supported this arguement I would agree with you. But as Pennydude has pointed out, the core rules are clear that you are not required to play both rules simultaneously. Section `1.1.6 says:  

“If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence.”

Again, a permissive ruleset allows you to do a thing with certain stipulations. If two rules conflict the core rules say one takes precedence over the other

• It must contradict a core rule
• Be the effect of an ability

To use a specific example, a TLA wants to use Silent Communion to place a WW within 1.5” of an existing terrain feature. The rule as written on his warscroll says you can, the other in the GHB says you can’t. The core rules are clear that Silent Communion  meets the requirements if it contradicts the core rule set (it does) and is the effect of an ability (it is). Thus we are allowed to ignore the 3” restriction and place the WW as long as it doesn’t violate the 1” stipulation of ability that you are using.
 

12 hours ago, Havelocke said:

All of this also ignores the presence of the "in addition to" clause. The wording of that phrase makes it very difficult, in my mind, to overrule the GHB rules. The only time I could see a battletome overruling the GHB restrictions is if the conditions of the ability actually cannot coexist with the restrictions, such as:

• This faction terrain feature must be set up within 1" of another terrain feature
• All faction terrain must be set up more than 3" from other terrain features

The above is obviously not a real rule, but it's an example of what two mutually exclusive conditions could look like.

The rules don’t need to be entirely exclusive in every application to create a situation where one rules says you can do something and the other rule says you can’t. It’s not a matter of being in conflict in every situation, only that is in conflict in at least one situation. 

I also think your misreading the “the additional to” clause. The “additional” restriction is not a hierarchical one: it doesn’t change which rule takes precedence when an ability effect conflicts with a core rule. If an ability said you could “set up a terrain feature 1” from models and objectives”, then “in addition to” is added to the restrictions already present: “set up a terrain feature 1” from models and objectives [and 3” from terrain]”. You couldn’t ignore it, because it doesn’t conflict with the rules as they already exist and 1.1.6 wouldn’t apply.

But if there is already a restriction regarding it’s placement relative to existing terrain, i.e. “set up a terrain feature 1” from models objective and terrain” then that does create a conflict. In this case 1.1.6 would indeed apply and you would apply the effect as written. “In addition to” simply means “add to x”, not “add to with preference over x”. 

I dont know how much more clear this could get, because there are literaly dozens of examples of this working in a similar way. Not only is it a long standing precedent that battletome override core rules (even back in WHFB) the Core rule book specifically states abilities override core rules. This isn’t a vague rule interaction where we have to try and tease out what something means, it’s in the core book in black and white, RAW. The GHB is a core book and its rules come secondary to ability effects as they appear on the various warscrolls and battletomes.

The TL:DR here is that this whole discussion boils down to a conflict between a core rule and ability effect. RAW you always apply the ability effect even if a core rule says you must do something else. GHB is a core rule book, it’s rules so cover all the armies in a general way, but it doesn’t supercede the abities as written on the individual warscrolls.  

Edited July 16, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Trevelyan]

4 hours ago, Kaylethia said:

They are referring to the Battlepack section in the GHB, which applies to placing faction terrain without mention of when it applies.

A tiny blip, easy to overlook.

I know which section they are referring to. My point is that while it doesn’t explicitly state when the Faction Terrain change applies, the fact that it is listed among a series of other pre-game setup conditions for the battlepack without any other changes that could be read as applying throughout the game and without stating that the faction terrain change applies at all times strongly implies that all of those are pre-game changes. 

[Kaylethia]

@Trevelyan I must apologize, I read your comment in such a way that implied that you had missed it, as I had.

 

[Aezeal]

Quote

And they are, because they cannot both be true. However, it's not how the rules are worded. The next two statements are NOT contradictory:

• The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
• The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain

While this is true it also doesn't make any sense. I they can't be within 3'  there should have been an errata on that.. there have been several errata on the same warscrolls and same page and they haven't changed this.. that says something to me.

After Penny's post I was kinda in doubt but Mirages argument + pic about GHB being core rules (didn't know that) seals it IMHO since the core rules state they are overwritten by warscrolls (as he says).

Just so it's in here I'll quote those rules too

Quote

1.6 ABILITIES AND EFFECTS Every warscroll includes abilities, each of which has an effect. When an ability is used, its effect is applied. In addition, most effects have restrictions. Abilities can also be found in sets of allegiance abilities (see 27.0) and in the rules for battalions (see 26.0).

Quote

If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence.

(that second one is in the side bar)

TLA warscroll is a warscroll.. so that is clear

And the spell is underspell lore even though it's not the deepwood lore and the spell lore is still classified as an allegiance ability right?

 

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Aezeal said:

And the spell is underspell lore even though it's not the deepwood lore and the spell lore is still classified as an allegiance ability right?

Yes. Also items like the Acorn fall under allegiance abilities. 

[Havelocke]

@Trevelyan, @Mirage8112 and @Aezeal make tons of great points! There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me if I don't acknowledge every single point. I'll try my best. Wall of text incoming.

Defining Contradictions:

11 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

Essentially you are saying there is an area of play where both statements can be true. Your argument implies that because we can play in way that satisfies one rule, while at the same time technically fulfilling the purely linguistic requirements of the other we are required to. While I understand that your position is technically correct (one can indeed do that). I think your argument that we are required to stay solely within that area of play is more than a little overstated, and not supported by the rules. 

I started to take issue with your phrasing here, but I think you've more or less accurately described my thinking. However the example you gave of Alarielle's ability does not fall in line with my thinking, because an ability's effect exists whether it is utilized or not. The effect of her ability and the text of 8.2 cannot be true at the same time, and are therefore contradictory, allowing the warscroll to take precedence.

• Swirling Glowspites: This model can retreat and still shoot and/or charge later in the same turn
• Core 8.2: You cannot shoot or attempt a charge later in the turn with a unit that has retreated.

I would summarize our opposing viewpoints on what constitutes a contradiction in the following way, which I hope mirrors your thinking on the matter...

Havelocke:
Two rules are contradictory if no game state can exist which causes them to agree on the legality of an action.

Mirage:
Two rules are contradictory if any game state can exist which causes them to disagree on the legality of an action.

I could make an argument for my thinking based on the definition of a contradiction in formal logic, but I'm not sure anybody wants to go down that rabbit hole (though I will happily explain if anyone asks). I also think it would be a weak argument, as I cannot provide any evidence that Games Workshop had that particular definition of a contradiction in mind when writing third edition.

Instead, I'll defend my position by answering the obvious question as it pertains to my definition of contradictory rules: What happens if two rules disagree, but are not contradictory because an alternate state could exist which causes them to agree?

Spoiler

In this case, we have to look at whether the disagreeing rules are permissive or prohibitive. If the disagreeing rules are permissive, the action is legal. If the disagreeing rules are prohibitive, the action is illegal.

(While Age of Sigmar has a permissive rules set, there are both permissive and prohibitive rules. Any action is illegal until it is made legal by a permissive rule, yet prohibitive rules also exist which make legal actions illegal again under certain circumstances.)

The zoning rules on our wyldwoods are a case of disagreeing prohibitive rules. We have a permissive rule which makes it legal to place the wyldwood (any wyldwood ability), and two further prohibitive rules which make the legal action illegal under certain circumstances (wyldwood ability restrictions plus GHB restrictions)*. If the conditions of either prohibitive rule are met, then the rule takes effect and the action becomes illegal.

*(Here, note that I am separating a single game ability into two 'rules' for the purposes of discussion.)

The inverse of the above could be true if two different rules cause an illegal action to become legal. If a unit gets to ignore battleshock under two different conditions, either one could cause the 'ignore' rule to become illegal.

None of the above proves that my interpretation of what constitutes a contradiction is correct, only that it is entirely possible to resolve non-contradictory rules disagreements without one rule or the other being ignored.

Beyond responding to the question above, I can't think of any conclusive evidence that proves or disproves either my own thinking, or Mirages. We might be at an impasse here.

 

 Non-Existent Errata:

5 hours ago, Aezeal said:

While this is true it also doesn't make any sense. I they can't be within 3'  there should have been an errata on that.. there have been several errata on the same warscrolls and same page and they haven't changed this.. that says something to me.

Perhaps there should have been, but the game designers are only human, as evidenced by the need for errata in the first place. If they are able to miss something in the initial printing, then they're also capable of missing something in the errata.

Ultimately, I can't agree with your suggestion that the non-existence of a rules clarification can be used as evidence of anything, except that the rules as written must be understood and used for the time being.

 

Effects and Restrictions:

The text of Core 1.6 and it's associated sidebar, quoted by Aezeal above, notes an interesting distinction between effects and restrictions, both of which can be contained within a single ability. The sidebar mentions that effects may supersede core rules, but makes no mention of restrictions. The third sidebar on the same page states:

If the effect of an ability modifies a core rule, then all restrictions that apply to the core rule still apply unless the effect specifically notes otherwise.

Based on their definition of restrictions and the example in the sidebar, it is clear that the zoning distances on our warscroll abilities, as well as those in the GHB, are restrictions and not effects. This raises important questions about our discussion, since it's clear that the two are handled differently.

It's not at all my intention to move the goalposts in this argument, so I'll avoid drawing any conclusions about this for now, and let anyone who wants to weigh in.

(There's a ton more I could say, but this post is running long, so I'm going to conclude my response here. @Mirage8112, I'm specifically curious to know when you reply if you think I've correctly summarized your understanding of what creates a rules contradiction.)

Edited July 16, 2021 by Havelocke

[Green Tea]

Hey there! I just got the Drycha's Spitegrove box. I already have 5 Tree-revenants from the Warcry box. What would be the best way to assemble the tree revenants within? Thanks

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, Green Tea said:

Hey there! I just got the Drycha's Spitegrove box. I already have 5 Tree-revenants from the Warcry box. What would be the best way to assemble the tree revenants within? Thanks

While they aren't exactly bad, Spite Revenants lost a lot of what made them interesting with the points increase (they are our cheapest battleline still, but not by a huge difference any more). Mostly lists I have seen so far use at least 2 units of 5 Tree Revenants, and 3 units is quiet common too, so assembling all of them as Tree-Revenants is what I would advise.

[Rors]

So debates about terrain aside..

I'm going to start a force and I was wondering if anyone has tried Spirit of Durthu in AoS.

Specifically, I'm thinking I'll put him in Gnarlroot and give him the arcane tome. Now that he's a wizard he'll get innate re-roll 1s to hit. He can always fight at top bracket for a command point and for a spell I was thinking flaming weapon. 5 attacks at damage 7 seems pretty scary.

[Kaylethia]

5 hours ago, Green Tea said:

Hey there! I just got the Drycha's Spitegrove box. I already have 5 Tree-revenants from the Warcry box. What would be the best way to assemble the tree revenants within? Thanks

If you build Tree-Revenants, build the leader with the glaive, as you can use their reroll to try to hit with two damage. 

If you're feeling good about the number of Tree-Revenants you have, Spite-Revenants have situational use with bravery tricks like the Horrorghast.

1 hour ago, Rors said:

So debates about terrain aside..

I'm going to start a force and I was wondering if anyone has tried Spirit of Durthu in AoS.

Specifically, I'm thinking I'll put him in Gnarlroot and give him the arcane tome. Now that he's a wizard he'll get innate re-roll 1s to hit. He can always fight at top bracket for a command point and for a spell I was thinking flaming weapon. 5 attacks at damage 7 seems pretty scary.

I've been thinking about something similar, but I'd rather take either the generic fly or LoS blocking spell for more utility. Six damage is already scary enough.

That enables you to pop out a wood to keep his buffs or teleport, move him over terrain better, or stop your opponent from shooting him.

In my last game, I took the Sylvaneth artefact that makes the bearer invisible to units outside of 12" to great (and annoying to my opponent) effect. 

[plavski]

Durthu with the Amulet of Destiny is a pretty thicc tree too and a very strong build for him.

[Havelocke]

10 hours ago, Rors said:

So debates about terrain aside..

I'm going to start a force and I was wondering if anyone has tried Spirit of Durthu in AoS.

Specifically, I'm thinking I'll put him in Gnarlroot and give him the arcane tome. Now that he's a wizard he'll get innate re-roll 1s to hit. He can always fight at top bracket for a command point and for a spell I was thinking flaming weapon. 5 attacks at damage 7 seems pretty scary.

I think that the command ability you mentioned is absolutely huge. I wrote Durthu off, initially, and have since come around to thinking he's a strong option, largely because of this command ability.

I've tended to shy away from Durthu in my lists, despite his high damage ceiling, because of his unreliability. There are just too many ways to bracket him or otherwise shut him down. Between needing the woods buff, needing to be unbracketed, and the inherent swinginess of a lower number of high damage attacks, it just felt like you needed the stars to align in order for his potential to be realized.

Now, though, he's got a lot of support that can help him reach that ideal situation. You mentioned tome in gnarlroot, which is probably the first way I'd try him. I agree with @Kaylethia that the fly spell is probably better than flaming weapon, as it gives him another tool to use if your opponent screen out the charge he wants to make. It's also worth mentioning that, if he gets caught out of position, tome lets him summon his own trees to buff himself.

There's a lot of other things you could try. Winterleaf plus amulet might have potential. In the end, I think that having that command ability to return him to the top bracket is the big gift that gives Durthu a bit of the reliability he's always lacked.

 

[mojojojo101]

Personally I've always like Durthu in Harvestboon, particularly if you don't have to face a lot of shooting because Seek New Fruit really can make him quite annoying to pin down, even more so if he can get his stomp off.

With the changes to the game generally, the new woods rule, the warsong revenant actually being a semi-reliable caster who can heal him if necessary I think he feels a little less unreliable than before. He's still expensive enough that I think you probably have to drop Allarielle to play him so how much he will actually show up is debatable I think.

[Walkirriox]

@Havelocke Where is this command ability?? Can’t find it anywhere…

[Havelocke]

@Walkirriox - It's in the GHB. I'll provide the page number and the name of the ability when I get home later.

Here's hoping I've remembered the ability correctly, and it's not limited to non-heroes or something.

 

Edit: Okay. I found the rules online. It's on page 12, called Feral Roar. 

Important to note that it's activated in the combat phase, which means it can potentially get blocked by a monstrous rampage.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Havelocke

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

@Havelocke Where is this command ability?? Can’t find it anywhere…

It's part of the battlepack, under realm rules (GHB 2021 page 12)

Feral Roar. 

42 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

@Walkirriox - It's in the GHB. I'll provide the page number and the name of the ability when I get home later.

Here's hoping I've remembered the ability correctly, and it's not limited to non-heroes or something.

Targets monsters, no other restrictions.

* Dammit got ninja-ed while making the long last part of this post. *

 

Tbh, locally we generally didn't play realm rules so I wonder if we'll adopt this it's a realm rule even though it's the only one GHB seems to have selected for 2021.

 

That command ability might be a reason to play something like this though:

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
- Glade: Gnarlroot
- Grand Strategy:
- Triumphs:
Alarielle the Everqueen (740) in Warlord
Spirit of Durthu (340)
- Artefact: Amulet of Destiny (Universal Artefact)
Treelord Ancient (295)
Warsong Revenant (275) in Warlord
- General
- Command Trait: Nurtured by Magic
- Artefact: Chalice of Nectar
- Universal Spell Lore: Levitate
Branchwraith (95) in Warlord
5 x Tree-Revenants (80) in Warlord
10 x Dryads (95)
5 x Spite-Revenants (70) *

Total: 1990 / 2000
Reinforced Units: 0 / 4
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 72

*You'd probably prefer another 5 T-rev's since that would take you to a nice clean 2K points and you aren't going to go for damage or holding power with a unit like this anyway and as an objective taker or speedbump the teleporting ability would be a much better option... but I only have 5 of those myself

The combination of Alarielle healing with the healing spells you have (at least for free on Alarielle and the warsong) and possibly on TLA and wraith too if you think those 2 might have other stuff to cast (say: throne + warscroll spell) and the amulet on Durthu quite reliably give you more than the meagre 72 wounds noted above. (summon healable Hunters ofc or 20 wounds of dryads if needed). You;d need to avoid combat where monsters would get deleted in a turn and try to avoid similar shooting damage output too. If all fails the command ability will give you a chance at a good last strike at least. (PS I can see the argument for making D a wizard, the reroll will help with his reliability in damage output but I think a hard edge in survivability will be more important for a combat unit since it will also help keeping his healing needs lower and the RR 1 to hit isn't lost to him anyway).

The army obviously lacks much in the way of screening though so you'd have to be careful with alpha striking/shooting armies before your TLA can activate his CA (and before you can get the hunters to project it to the 2nd part of your army). 

PS am I the only one who sees the warlord batallion as quite OP.. if we had some better or cheaper (in case of warsong) subcommander options I'd probably just take 2 of those. Magnificent is just so much better than the rest .. the abilities you get (I assume you'd generally take a magic item but if you have a setup where something else like a spell would be more powerfull than even that it would be the same) are more powerful than most command abilities and not limited to 1 phase.

PPS How would you rate 1 Durthu vs 2 regular TL? It wouldn't fit in this list unless you went 3x spite but in general it's a choice. You'd not have the option of the amulet then but you could put a casting artefact on a caster and that wouldn't be much weaker if at all. You'd have much more wounds, board presence. Damage output would be lower at full strength but after that not much lower I think (the CA mentioned above ofc would favor Durthu)

Edited July 18, 2021 by Aezeal

[plavski]

I've seen a lot of people saying that you should be careful about putting too many monsters in your army, and especially too many low tier ones, as you're just giving away victory points if they die. I'm thematically leaning heavy into big tree peoples for my path to glory games, but for matched play, I'd rather kurnoths who won't end up getting smashed and losing me the game just by their existence.

[SpiritofHokuto]

27 minutes ago, plavski said:

I've seen a lot of people saying that you should be careful about putting too many monsters in your army, and especially too many low tier ones, as you're just giving away victory points if they die. I'm thematically leaning heavy into big tree peoples for my path to glory games, but for matched play, I'd rather kurnoths who won't end up getting smashed and losing me the game just by their existence.

Sylvaneth are quite fortunate in that regard as all their monsters are 10+ wounds and on a 3+ save with all but one of them being heroes to boot. 

[plavski]

Just now, SpiritofHokuto said:

Sylvaneth are quite fortunate in that regard as all their monsters are 10+ wounds and on a 3+ save with all but one of them being heroes to boot. 

Oh for sure, we're a good monster army. But I'm talking about regular treelords in particular. Non-hero monsters are a liability so you have to play them quite carefully. 2 monsters (especially hero ones) is fine, but that third might just overextend you a bit and the treelord can do work at 190, but can it do enough to justify a potential VP loss? I don't know for sure, but that's the only one I have a question mark over. In the right list, I'm sure it's good, but I don't think I've seen that list just yet.

[Arzalyn]

4 hours ago, plavski said:

I've seen a lot of people saying that you should be careful about putting too many monsters in your army, and especially too many low tier ones, as you're just giving away victory points if they die. I'm thematically leaning heavy into big tree peoples for my path to glory games, but for matched play, I'd rather kurnoths who won't end up getting smashed and losing me the game just by their existence.

I also saw this argument about monsters a couple of times now, but I honestly don't get it. There is exactly 1 Battle tactic (from the Ghur pack) that gives points if a monster is killed and your opponent can try to score it only once per battle. On the other hand 5 of the 8 battle tactics give you extra victory points or need a monster to be scored. Sure, the regular Treelord is not a killing machine of any sort, but to me it fells you are also loosing some scoring potential if you don't take a monster just to make that one battle tactic a little harder to score.

[Havelocke]

1 hour ago, Arzalyn said:

I also saw this argument about monsters a couple of times now, but I honestly don't get it. 

There's also a realm rule on page 12, called Predators and Prey, which gives a VP once per turn if you kill an opponent's monster.

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

There's also a realm rule on page 12, called Predators and Prey, which gives a VP once per turn if you kill an opponent's monster.

Ohhh totally forgot that one! That makes more sense, so there is a real coast in running more treelords them...

Honestly I would like to hear more people and their experience with the regular Treelords in general. Last edition most people used to say their warscroll was pretty poor. The warscroll practically didn't change, but this edition made they count as 5 models for objectives, added a monster rampage to his abilities and make them give you/your opponent extra VP as they are monsters (if you are playing in Ghur). The 25~35 points difference with the Kurnoths does help differentiate them while building a list, but are those all those changes enough to make you actively want to include one in your list?

(Most lists I have seen so far generally run 2 of our hero monsters, so lets assume we already have some monsters in our list for this discussion).

 

[Havelocke]

11 minutes ago, Arzalyn said:

Honestly I would like to hear more people and their experience with the regular Treelords in general.

In addition to the points you mentioned above, I think that they benefit indirectly from the change to the wyldwood warscroll, because the easier it is to get trees down on the board, the more valuable their additional teleport becomes.

I think the ability to teleport multiple threats in one turn is a big strength of our army, and for that reason I definitely plan to continue experimenting with Treelords in my lists, at least for my first few games of this edition.