AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Aezeal]

8 hours ago, plavski said:

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.

Yeah I agree which is why I don't have a regular TL in that list.

The TLA is not in the list for combat but for a spell, a dispell, a forest and some weak (but potentional character sniping) shooting and ofc a great CA. Only to be risked in combat when things go wrong or there is some screening and the battle is relatively save.

Durthu with a 3+/2+ save before rend (and options to further increase it if needed) and a 5++ has a certain toughness but since he needs to be in combat he's a bit more of a risk.. he's not invulnerable but you have healing spells and abilities in the army which can be mostly reserved for him (assuming Alarielle can mostly do her own healing).

Alarielle 2 me is more like the TLA than Durthu even though she's ofc got some damage output. She needs to be save in the back at start, if she dies there is a problem but if she dies before summoning it's basicly done then and there. She's too expensive NOT to fight at all her abilities are good but not good enough to justify the points (though that spell can be NASTY) but you really need to pick your battles.. which with her movement and flying is not that much of a problem. Retreating and charging/shooting on her is a godsend. Before in turn 3-4 if she'd just joined a battle it would be devastating not to get her attacks in and you'd usually keep her there because her not fighting would mean a lost game so why no try it (and the she'd die and you'd still lose). Now you can go away, shoot, charge (+ bonus) in another battle... or in the same but from a saver angle with less people hitting her. I'm a a bit sad she didnt't get 20 wounds or a ++ save last update but I can see they went for the healing theme and that is nice too.

[Rors]

I think the other issue is everyone talks about the ability to get +1 save and heal and all of that, which is true, but there's only 1 command a phase.

Multiple monsters means only one can be at top bracket, only one hero can heal themselves, and only one unit is all out attacking/defending and so forth.

In previous editions, you find the best units and spam them. This edition, the return on investment drops off really quickly with multiplication.

I think as the meta refined itself the strongest lists will have msu units that offer utility and don't require support, and a few strong units that are the focus buffs onto.

A hero monster is great, a second hero monster is significantly less great.

The best lists will have optimized command usage where I think a lot of early lists at the moment have an overly optimistic vision where every unit is evaluated with buffs considered.

[Aezeal]

7 hours ago, Rors said:

I think the other issue is everyone talks about the ability to get +1 save and heal and all of that, which is true, but there's only 1 command a phase.

Multiple monsters means only one can be at top bracket, only one hero can heal themselves, and only one unit is all out attacking/defending and so forth.

In previous editions, you find the best units and spam them. This edition, the return on investment drops off really quickly with multiplication.

I think as the meta refined itself the strongest lists will have msu units that offer utility and don't require support, and a few strong units that are the focus buffs onto.

A hero monster is great, a second hero monster is significantly less great.

The best lists will have optimized command usage where I think a lot of early lists at the moment have an overly optimistic vision where every unit is evaluated with buffs considered.

While true in general Sylvaneth have a lot more +1 save abilities and a aoe +1 save CA which can be used in addition to the standard one. Healing is the same to a lesser degree.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Aezeal

[Domize]

Going to play a casual 2v2 game at 1250 points per player soon to learn 3.0 (teammate will just have to deal with my trees!) Annoyingly the battleline requirement increase to 3 above 1k points now… Curious about your thoughts on this list:

Allegiance: Sylvaneth
- Glade: Winterleaf

LEADERS
Branchwraith (95) in Warlord
- Deepwood Spell: Throne of Vines

Treelord Ancient (295) in Warlord
- General
- Command Trait: My Heart Is Ice
- Artefact: The Oaken Armour
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth

Arch-Revenant (105) in Warlord
- Artefact: Frozen Kernel

UNITS
10 x Dryads (95) in Warlord
5 x Tree-Revenants (80) in Hunters of the Heartlands
5 x Tree-Revenants (80) in Hunters of the Heartlands
6 x Kurnoth Hunters with Kurnoth Scythes (430) in Hunters of the Heartlands

ENDLESS SPELLS & INVOCATIONS
Spiteswarm Hive (40)

Total: 1220/1250

Other options I’m considering are ditching the dryads, endless spell and arch-revenant for a third unit of Tree-Revenants and a standard Treelord (lands me at 1250 on the dot).

Or going Gnarlroot, with bow hunters instead. Not sure what my teammate would be yet, so keeping it quite open. I’ve got most models except Alarielle, so happy for any recommendations

[Rors]

13 hours ago, Aezeal said:

While true in general Sylvaneth have a lot more +1 save abilities and a aoe +1 save CA which can be used in addition to the standard one. Healing is the same to a lesser degree.

In my opinion (I'm frequently wrong, not trying to come off as an expert in this game), most armies have those extra save access, although my main army is StD which has saves for days and might bias me. Anyway anyway, I suspect saves are going to be used to stack more often than spread. You need +2 to keep +1 to your save against rend 1, +3 save against rend two and so forth. Due to how dice statistics work a the benefit of staying at a 2+ save is way better than a 3+ and 3+ is a stat jump over 4+. I'm not sure if that made sense but what I mean is like, a 1 in 6 fail is a large stat jump over 1 in 3 and again 1 in 3 in way better than 1 in 2.

The meta will also probably shift to favor rend because everyone has more acces to armour. Even Aoe will need to be positioned to cover key units unless the whole army is castled.

In terms of healing, I again suspect that with chip damage being less effective and buffs also being focused rather than spread, that a lot of combat/shooting will be decisive.

All of which makes me think that spamming units that rely on buffs will be less effective than stacking buffs on key units. I can't envision how a competitive list could throw in a tree Lord on a list that already has a spirit of Durthu for example, or a list run multiple Durthu. The multiplication of these unit rolls seems to become a liability to the functionality of the unit.

 

[Havelocke]

10 hours ago, Domize said:

Curious about your thoughts on this list:

I would take a different artifact on the Treelord Ancient. If you're looking for survivability, the amulet of destiny from the core ruledook, which gives you a 5+ ward save, will give you a better return.

Alternatively, you could run an artifact to boost your magic. Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith is a popular choice, and will let you get your Spiteswarm Hive out on turn one more reliably. Vesperal Gem, for guaranteed healing from the Ancient, could also be strong.

Finally, I would consider dropping your Dryads for more Tree Revenants. They aren't as tanky as they used to be in second, especially in blocks of ten, and you've got the Branchwraith to add bodies to the board.

[Kaylethia]

4 hours ago, Rors said:

The meta will also probably shift to favor rend because everyone has more acces to armour.

In my local group, this has been the case for a few years.

A CoS player just loves garrisoning a unit of 20 Irondrakes and giving them extra rend with a runelord. It's silly and brutally effective.

[Rors]

21 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:

In my local group, this has been the case for a few years.

A CoS player just loves garrisoning a unit of 20 Irondrakes and giving them extra rend with a runelord. It's silly and brutally effective.

Yep. Which is why I think it's not about splitting buffs. Most of the time the question will be, what do I need to survive 20 Drakes with extra rend and all out attack? 

It becomes something of a binary calculation where things are either going to be lethal or not depending on what buffs are stacked where. Players will need to chose what units they trade to get the advantage.

[Tizianolol]

12 hours ago, Havelocke said:

I would take a different artifact on the Treelord Ancient. If you're looking for survivability, the amulet of destiny from the core ruledook, which gives you a 5+ ward save, will give you a better return.

Alternatively, you could run an artifact to boost your magic. Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith is a popular choice, and will let you get your Spiteswarm Hive out on turn one more reliably. Vesperal Gem, for guaranteed healing from the Ancient, could also be strong.

Finally, I would consider dropping your Dryads for more Tree Revenants. They aren't as tanky as they used to be in second, especially in blocks of ten, and you've got the Branchwraith to add bodies to the board.

Im testing on tts now, I think 3x5 tree rev are so mutch better then 10 dryads . I play gnarloot and with 3d6 my brwr summon so easy 10 dryads per turn! I played 3 game and my revenants teleport away when they were in combat, is that a good interpretation? Warscroll says " instead of make a normal move"

[Havelocke]

2 hours ago, Tizianolol said:

I played 3 game and my revenants teleport away when they were in combat, is that a good interpretation? Warscroll says " instead of make a normal move"

That's the correct way to play their ability.

The core rules FAQ clarified that you can't use 'instead of normal move' abilities when you're locked in combat, but the Sylvaneth FAQ changed the Tree Revenant warscroll to include an 'or retreating' option as well.

[Tizianolol]

Nice!! They are very good now imo

[Aezeal]

18 hours ago, Rors said:

In my opinion (I'm frequently wrong, not trying to come off as an expert in this game), most armies have those extra save access, although my main army is StD which has saves for days and might bias me. Anyway anyway, I suspect saves are going to be used to stack more often than spread. You need +2 to keep +1 to your save against rend 1, +3 save against rend two and so forth. Due to how dice statistics work a the benefit of staying at a 2+ save is way better than a 3+ and 3+ is a stat jump over 4+. I'm not sure if that made sense but what I mean is like, a 1 in 6 fail is a large stat jump over 1 in 3 and again 1 in 3 in way better than 1 in 2.

The meta will also probably shift to favor rend because everyone has more acces to armour. Even Aoe will need to be positioned to cover key units unless the whole army is castled.

In terms of healing, I again suspect that with chip damage being less effective and buffs also being focused rather than spread, that a lot of combat/shooting will be decisive.

All of which makes me think that spamming units that rely on buffs will be less effective than stacking buffs on key units. I can't envision how a competitive list could throw in a tree Lord on a list that already has a spirit of Durthu for example, or a list run multiple Durthu. The multiplication of these unit rolls seems to become a liability to the functionality of the unit.

 

I certainly agree with you but we have some high base saves on the major stuff incl the TL so that makes it already less vulnerable than most rank n file.. and we do have the blanket +1 so that is a bonus too... ofc after that it's the same for all armies but we are a bit ahead there. 

In the end I do agree to much big stuff is too much since big stuff is often expensive per wound. But I think a TLA that stays out of combat shouldn't really be counted and with her healing Alarielle really does bring something extra. So I think TLA, Alarielle and Durthu isn't too much.

[Domize]

20 hours ago, Havelocke said:

I would take a different artifact on the Treelord Ancient. If you're looking for survivability, the amulet of destiny from the core ruledook, which gives you a 5+ ward save, will give you a better return.

Alternatively, you could run an artifact to boost your magic. Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith is a popular choice, and will let you get your Spiteswarm Hive out on turn one more reliably. Vesperal Gem, for guaranteed healing from the Ancient, could also be strong.

Finally, I would consider dropping your Dryads for more Tree Revenants. They aren't as tanky as they used to be in second, especially in blocks of ten, and you've got the Branchwraith to add bodies to the board.

Thanks for the tips! Amulet is a good shout, protects against MWs too. 

Any thoughts on Winterleaf vs. Gnarlroot? Also, at lower point levels, do you think Drycha might be better than the TLA? I realised his command ability won't hit as many units as at lower points, especially considering my Tree Revs will probably be porting out of range anyways.

[Rors]

5 hours ago, Aezeal said:

In the end I do agree to much big stuff is too much since big stuff is often expensive per wound. But I think a TLA that stays out of combat shouldn't really be counted and with her healing Alarielle really does bring something extra. So I think TLA, Alarielle and Durthu isn't too much.

I'm not a fan of Alarielle but I agree that the role of TLA and Durthu are different enough that they fit in the same list. Primarily because as you mentioned the TLA is a support piece that avoids getting stuck in.

[Walkirriox]

I have a couple of questions:

- If you are playing Warsong with chalice and branchwraith with +1 spell artefact, which one is the best for using throne of vines? 
- In case warsong was the answer, then bw with the artefact is pointless, right? so it would be better to give the artefact to Durthu and make him wizard, in example?

[Havelocke]

7 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

If you are playing Warsong with chalice and branchwraith with +1 spell artefact, which one is the best for using throne of vines?

I've been thinking about this, as well. I think you never want more than one throne on the Branchwraith, either way. One solution that I've considered is swapping the artifacts, giving the Spiritsong stave to the Warsong and the chalice to the Branchwraith.

The chalice is more or less analogous to a single throne, giving the Branchwraith about a 90% chance to cast before unbinding. It also frees up her lore spell slot for Regrowth or Verdurous Harmony, should you need it. Meanwhile, the Warsong appreciates the stave, as it lets him cast throne, spellportal, and unleash in a single turn.

The main drawback I see to this is that it makes the Warsong less reliable out of the gate, as his early spells don't receive the boost from the chalice, making them easier to unbind.

7 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

In case warsong was the answer, then bw with the artefact is pointless, right? so it would be better to give the artefact to Durthu and make him wizard, in example?

I think it's very possible that this is the solution, and running a Branchwraith without any enhancements will become the new norm in Warsong lists.

17 hours ago, Domize said:

Any thoughts on Winterleaf vs. Gnarlroot? Also, at lower point levels, do you think Drycha might be better than the TLA? I realised his command ability won't hit as many units as at lower points, especially considering my Tree Revs will probably be porting out of range anyways.

The list you wrote devotes a third of your points to your Scythe Hunters, so I think the rest of your list should look to support your gameplan. Kurnoths in their face.

To that end, I think Winterleaf is the right call. If you go with Gnarlroot, you're giving up some melee output for magical power, essentially. I think that would be fine if you had more payoff, but your casters are here to support your Kurnoths, not the other way around.

I'd stick with the Ancient over Drycha for the same reason. His command ability will give the Kurnoths a defensive buff anywhere on the board, so he's going to be very useful for getting additional rounds of combat out of that unit.

I'm going to suggest two additional changes to the list, along the same lines. The first is that you go with the Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith, as that will maximize her chances of getting your spiteswarm hive out on turn one by allowing her to cast throne of vines first.

The second is making the Arch Revenant your general, as this will expand the range of his buff aura, making it easier to get his re-rolls onto the Kurnoths.

[Aezeal]

Now now.. the Gnarlroot offensive buff can be usefull for hunters too. 

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

I've been thinking about this, as well. I think you never want more than one throne on the Branchwraith, either way. One solution that I've considered is swapping the artifacts, giving the Spiritsong stave to the Warsong and the chalice to the Branchwraith.

The chalice is more or less analogous to a single throne, giving the Branchwraith about a 90% chance to cast before unbinding. It also frees up her lore spell slot for Regrowth or Verdurous Harmony, should you need it. Meanwhile, the Warsong appreciates the stave, as it lets him cast throne, spellportal, and unleash in a single turn.

The main drawback I see to this is that it makes the Warsong less reliable out of the gate, as his early spells don't receive the boost from the chalice, making them easier to unbind.

Points may be a constrain in some list, but I tend to favor including the Cogs in a Gnarlroot list with the Warsong, which free the Spiritsong slot for some other artifact. With the Chalice + 1 to cast near a wood is much easier to get them out with the Warsong. This also lets us use the Gem instead, to secure throne casts on the wraith or other support spells with other models, or give a +5 ward/revival to a important hero.

Or make Durthu a wizard, this is also quiet funny.

9 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

- If you are playing Warsong with chalice and branchwraith with +1 spell artefact, which one is the best for using throne of vines? 

I tend to prefer the Chalice on the Warsong and giving the wraith the first throne. My reasoning is basically this:

- The Warsong already have the +1 to cast near our starting wood, more bonus are better, but he can live without it if you give him the chalice. If you didn't took the spellportal, the warsong is better at supporting our units fighting with all of the spell lore spells than the wraith and to do you will need to move with him a little further on the starting turns.

- We generally want to keep our Wraith safe to keep the dryads flowing, which make the throne drawback much more negligible. Also more dryads are more relevant on the earlier turns than the latter ones, so getting those summons earlier is generally more desirable.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Arzalyn

[Mirage8112]

@Havelocke I greatly appreciate the effort you’ve taken thus far, and I’m sorry its taken me a few days to respond (baby stuff). I know it’s been a couple of days since the topic trailed off and most everyone else has moved on, but since you asked me a specific question, I feel compelled to give you answer. At this point, I feel like we are getting pretty close to nailing down the exact nature of our disagreement on the matter, and I very much enjoy these types of “high-level” rules discussions. So I’ll just address the points you made to me, and let the points you made to the other posters fall by the wayside. 
 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:

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 will assume that you know your mind well enough to accurately summarize your own position. But I’m finding some difficulty fitting my position into the format you’ve provided. I think it might make more sense if go through the rest of your post first, and see if I can articulate the differences between our positions.

 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:

What happens if two rules disagree, but are not contradictory because an alternate state could exist which causes them to agree?

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.)

First, I think we should make a distinction between prohibitions and restrictions, particularly when we use the term “permissive ruleset”.

There is a distinct difference between a permissive ruleset with restrictions, and a prohibitive ruleset. This is because in a permissive ruleset, a restriction only exists in order to define the boundaries of a legal action. I.e. you can shoot, but only 20”, you can run, but only D6. You can claim cover, but not if you’re a monster ect. Ect. The only purpose restrictions have in a ruleset of this type is to clarify the scope of an action, not to prohibit an action in the game.  This useful because saying “you can shoot” without saying “how far” means you could in theory, shoot across the tables into other games. Even “global” abilities like Kroak’s “Supreme Master of Order” ability still specifies that it applies only to “the battlefield”. All effects have restrictions in the same way that all squares have sides.

This is opposed to a “prohibitive ruleset”, such as the Law, where a litany of actions are declared “prohibited” under some type of penalty. This is why Age of Sigmar does not tell you that you “may not flip the table”, or “punch your opponent in the face”, because the ruleset doesn’t bother to define all the things which you “cannot do” in a match. Age of Sigmar has a finite list of actions from which you can choose. So while you might be able to say “prohibitions exist” they only exist within the scope of available actions, not in-and-of themselves. 

 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:

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.)

I think the highlighted statement is one of the major problems I have with your position:

While separating an ability into two separate rules allows you to neatly articulate the scenario as a conflict between two “rules”, the core rulebook does not make that distinction. From 1.6:

“Every warscroll includes abilities, each of which has an effect. When in ability is used its affect is applied. in addition, most effects have restrictions.”

The section from the core rules above, it is clear that it refers to the use of an ability as “an effect” and not a “rule”. This important because the margin note addresses a conflict between ability effects and the core rules, and not a conflict between “two rules”.

It also highlights both “abilities” and “effects” (indicating these are keyword-esque game terms), clearly making a distinction between rules and ability affects. It also is clear that the restrictions are actually a component of ability effects.  Effects and restrictions are treated as a single thing: restrictions are part of an effect. In fact the language treats  restrictions that accompany ability effects in the same manner as borders of an object. Would we consider the border an object as something distinctly separate from an object? Would you consider the skin of soap bubble (the border that separates “inside” from “outside” as distinctly separate from the bubble itself? 

The core book is clear that the term “rules” refers to the core rules. In fact this is the only place I can see where GW refers to something as a “rule” (as abilities are always refers to as effects). The section I have referenced before (regarding the hierarchy of rules and ability effects) only refers to ability effects that contradict the core rules:

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

So the question is not “do these two rules conflict”, because a “rule” only refers to the core rules themselves. And it would be unlikely that our dispute stems from an internal inconsistency within the ruleset itself. 

So, in light of the absolve we might amend your statements to say:

“In this case, we have to look at whether the disagreeing rules are [a permission or a restriction]. If the disagreeing rules are [a permission], the action is legal. If the disagreeing rules are [a restriction], the action is illegal.” 

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

From here, you continue:
 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:

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.

And here’s the rub, because I don’t think your wrong. It’s very clear that you can play in a manner where neither rule is ignored, (a fact I’ve never denied) and place a wood legally according to both sets of restrictions, but you’ve not shown why the rules compel you to do so. This is important, because the crux of your argument isn’t that we can play in manner where both rules are satisfied, it’s that if we can, we must. To date, I’ve not seen any rules reference from you that supports the idea of this obligation.

So again, while you can show that it is possible to execute an effect in a manner that does not contradict the core rules, we still don’t have any indication that we are obligated to execute an effect in that way. But we do have multiple examples where GW has given preference to effects (including their innate restrictions) over rules. We’ve already mentioned the insight blurb in the margin which clearly says effects take precedence over rules. Furthermore a little further down the same page, we have yet another example where gw specifically articulated it preference for effects over rules:

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

GW has outlined two scenarios for us: In the event that a permission from an ability violates a restriction from a core rule, the effect takes precedence. If the effect modifes a core rule, then any restrictions to that core rule still apply unless specifically stated otherwise. It has also explicitly outlined one scenario where ability effects do not take precedence over the core rules in 1.6.5 (units cannot fight more than twice in a single phase) and none of our discussions revolve around this single exception. 

So here, in reference to the Treelord Ancient’s “Silent Communion” ability, it is clear that the 1” restriction (which we already know is a component of the ability itself and not separate from it) takes precedence over the core rule that mandates faction terrain be 3” from existing terrain. It’s also clear from the second section that because the rule specifically modifies the distance at which a WW can be placed, the restrictions present in the core rules are ignored in favor of the ability effect. In both cases it is clear the 1” restriction take priority over the 3” restriction from the core rules, not only does the effect take precedence because effects take precedence over core rules, it also explicitly modifies a restriction that applies to a core rule.

In both cases, Rules as Written (RAW) is clear that the 1” restriction for terrain, models and objectives takes precedence over whatever restrictions are present in the core rules. 

So perhaps we can return to the “brass tacks” explanation of our two positions 

On 7/16/2021 at 3:04 PM, Havelocke said:

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.

 

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

Mirage:
A contradiction exists if the an application of ability effect would violate a core rule in any way.

I hope this is what your after when you asked if your description of my thinking was accurate. The difference may seem subtle, but the game is clear that the actual application of the effect is what determines its contradictory state, not hypothetical application of all the ways an effect could be applied. The game does not care if you choose not to retreat and charge with a model, it only cares if you attempt to (since the restriction on charging is a component of retreating).  

If you wish to charge after retreating, you need to have an ability (via a warscroll or allegiance ability) that explicitly says you may do so. It’s the application of that ability that creates a contradiction between the effect and the core rules (in which cases the ability effect would take precedence.) not the fact that ability or rule just “exists”.

This post is already a little long, but I hope it clear. At this point it might only be the two of us (or maybe just me lol) who are still interested in this, but I’d be keen to hear your perspective if you’re still inclined. 

 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Havelocke]

3 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Now now.. the Gnarlroot offensive buff can be usefull for hunters too. 

It totally can. In general, I actually prefer Gnarlroot for the better artifact and warlord trait. Winterleaf is always going to be statistically better, as it's adding a flat 16.6% hits while Gnarlroot is usually adding around 11%, so the question is whether or not those 5% hits are worth the tradeoff.

In @Domize list, I just think he's kinda all-in on an alpha strike with the Kurnoths, and so the extra 5% wins out. Especially because he's probably looking to teleport the Kurnoths, which might cause them to lose their Gnarlroot buff if they get too far from a Wizard.

2 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

If you didn't took the spellportal, the warsong is better at supporting our units fighting with all of the spell lore spells than the wraith and to do you will need to move with him a little further on the starting turns.

This is a solid line of thinking. Giving the warsong the chalice, so that he is not as reliant on throne of vine buffs, makes him a lot more flexible, and is more useful in most situations.

Giving the spiritsong stave to the Warsong and the chalice to the Branchwraith might be trying to do too much, and ultimately hurt the list. I want to try it at least once, though.

2 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

I very much enjoy these types of “high-level” rules discussions.

Me too! I'll need to dig into this a bit, but I appreciate you taking the time.

[Aezeal]

56 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Me too! I'll need to dig into this a bit, but I appreciate you taking the time.

GL digging in.. but I'll give you a hint: he's right.

I personally think your whole semi-love affair discussion is going a bit into nowhere (but still fun to read).. the relevant rules have been quoted IMHO. The combination of 'GHB is core rules' and 'core rules are trumped by warscrolls' settles it I'm sure even Penny agrees. (He who remains silent consents).

On the Warsong item topic: I'll be trying out the chalice on the warsong a bit more personally. Rolled a triple 1 last game which didn't improve my mood but still think the warsong bomb would be a nice thing.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Aezeal

[Havelocke]

6 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

GL digging in.. but I'll give you a hint: he's right.

I personally think your whole semi-love affair discussion is going a bit into nowhere (but still fun to read).. the relevant rules have been quoted IMHO. The combination of 'GHB is core rules' and 'core rules are trumped by warscrolls' settles it

It... kinda doesn't settle it, though. Not for me, at least. I never suggested that the GHB wasn't a part of the core rules, nor that the warscroll rules don't take precedent when they come into conflict with the core rules. The point I'm debating is whether or not a contradiction exists when examining these two rules at all, which is a necessary prerequisite for a core rule to be invalidated.

That said, I agree with you that the discussion isn't really moving forward though, and I think that both of us are re-stating our points in different ways. I probably won't be writing another essay on the subject, as it's cluttering up the thread at this point.

[Landohammer]

Hey guys, I am bringing a Treelord Ancient and 18 Kurnoth Hunters to a tourney on sat.

Am I understanding it correctly that if the TLA pops his CA in the hero phase, that all Kurnoth Hunters on the board would benefit from the +1 save until the your next hero phase? (due to Envoy of the Everqueen?)

Seems insanely good. And yet I haven't heard much chatter about it. Assuming you are facing Rend 1 or 2 you would effectively have a 2+ save if you don't charge. 

[Havelocke]

22 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Am I understanding it correctly that if the TLA pops his CA in the hero phase, that all Kurnoth Hunters on the board would benefit from the +1 save until the your next hero phase? (due to Envoy of the Everqueen?)

Seems insanely good. And yet I haven't heard much chatter about it. Assuming you are facing Rend 1 or 2 you would effectively have a 2+ save if you don't charge. 

That's the general consensus on how it works, yeah. I alluded to it in a post on the previous page, but I'm also quite hype for this ability. I think it has the potential to turn Sylvaneth into a defensive powerhouse.

I think some people are sleeping on it because of how much more access there is to +1 save in this edition in general. People see it and go okay, it does the same thing as All-Out Defense of Finest hour. Just another way to get +1 save. But it's SO efficient.

With minimal set-up, you can give +1 save to your entire army... for two turns... stackable with AOD... for one CP. That's just nuts. And the only thing you need to do to set it up is take a unit that we usually want to be taking anyways.

[Landohammer]

32 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

That's the general consensus on how it works, yeah. I alluded to it in a post on the previous page, but I'm also quite hype for this ability. I think it has the potential to turn Sylvaneth into a defensive powerhouse.

I think some people are sleeping on it because of how much more access there is to +1 save in this edition in general. People see it and go okay, it does the same thing as All-Out Defense of Finest hour. Just another way to get +1 save. But it's SO efficient.

With minimal set-up, you can give +1 save to your entire army... for two turns... stackable with AOD... for one CP. That's just nuts. And the only thing you need to do to set it up is take a unit that we usually want to be taking anyways.

I was a pretty big hater of the TLA in 2nd, but with the buff to forests, monsters, heros, and now that command ability, he has become quite the toolbox.

My only hold up is that, assuming I spam Kurnoth hunters and take minimum battleline, it really only leave me enough point for 1 big character. So I have to choose between Drycha, Durthu and TLA. And not having Drycha is particularly painful.