Jump to content

AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion


Chris Tomlin

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Trevelyan said:

Four units of 5 each because you misread the *revenant requirements for Dreadwood, and a unit of 10 because you like a challenge when deciding what Alarielle will summon. :)

Dreadwood Wargrove is 4 units of Spite revenants. Not Tree.

 

No, I was wondering for the pts cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kairos Tejedestinos said:

No, the rules are quite clear that you always make the reroll before any modifiers.

rerolls.jpg

That section you’ve quoted doesn’t say what you think it says. That rule only states that you apply modifiers to dice after refilling them. It doesn’t prohibit applying those modifiers before reroll in general too. 

The FAQ quote that someone quoted earlier is the real source of confusion. 

The issue with Rend is that the core rules don’t determine the pass/fail state of a save until after Rend is applied. An argument can be made that the whole discussion of modifiers and refills is really only intended to apply to non-standard rerolls (from spells and similar sources) rather than inherent modifiers such as Rend. But it’s an argument that could go either way - an FAQ to the FAQ would not be out of place.

More importantly, it’s not an argument worth having given the apparent change in the language used.

I will happily concede that a strict reading of the rules could have prohibited reroll of saves which only failed due to Rend. But the current language (as of Looncurse) suggests that GW is addressing an unintended corner case modifier and it was not ever the intent to prohibit rerolls where Rend (as distinct from other modifiers) is concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean about a corner case? Any -1 to hit or -1 to wound applies to every unit that has abilities to reroll failed rolls.  For example Hag Naggar allows you to reroll all failed rolls when you are on round X, and witchbrew allows to reroll failed wound rolls.  It is very common for rerolls to be only for failed rolls.

The FAQ states perfectly what i said, if there is any confusion i don't see it, so maybe you could explain it, i don't mean this in a bad way, i like to know how the rules work and i don't mind being proven wrong. What i understand from the picture is that you make rerolls before any modifiers, and then the FAQ states that you must see if it is a failure or not from the unmodified roll before doing rerolls. 

 

 

Edited by Kairos Tejedestinos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trevelyan said:

That section you’ve quoted doesn’t say what you think it says. That rule only states that you apply modifiers to dice after refilling them. It doesn’t prohibit applying those modifiers before reroll in general too. 

The FAQ quote that someone quoted earlier is the real source of confusion. 

The issue with Rend is that the core rules don’t determine the pass/fail state of a save until after Rend is applied. An argument can be made that the whole discussion of modifiers and refills is really only intended to apply to non-standard rerolls (from spells and similar sources) rather than inherent modifiers such as Rend. But it’s an argument that could go either way - an FAQ to the FAQ would not be out of place.

More importantly, it’s not an argument worth having given the apparent change in the language used.

I will happily concede that a strict reading of the rules could have prohibited reroll of saves which only failed due to Rend. But the current language (as of Looncurse) suggests that GW is addressing an unintended corner case modifier and it was not ever the intent to prohibit rerolls where Rend (as distinct from other modifiers) is concerned. 

@Kairos Tejedestinos is correct. 

Rerolls happen before modifiers. that language has been in the core book for ages, and was clarified in an FAQ.

Rend is not distinct in any way from other modifiers. Rend is a “modifier” because it “adds to or subtracts from” a dice roll: It is not -1 to your armor save.

Hunter have a base save of 4+, so if an attack without rend succeeded the Sylvaneth player would need to roll a 4+ on a single die to save the wound. If the Sylvaneth player was able to root in the combat phase, he would be able to reroll 1’s, 2’s and 3’s since all of those would be a “failed save” roll before rend modifies the roll. 

But if the enemy is using an attack with some amount of rend, it would modify the Sylvaneth players die roll after rerolls, not before. That means in the same scenarios above, the Sylvaneth player would only be allowed to re-roll 1’s, 2’s and 3’s because those save rolls would have been considered a failed save before modifiers. He would not be able to reroll 4’s even though that roll will fail after the rend modifier is applied. If the attack has -2 rend, he would still only be able to reroll 1’s, 2’s and 3’s, even though 4’s and 5’s will fail after rend is applied. This had the side effect of making rend much more powerful and useful on the table. 

Consider also how this effects other save rolls in the game. Disciples of Tz have a item that adds +2 to your save roll, but you have to reroll successful saves. For example, if you have a model with a 4+ armor save, facing an enemy with -1 rend, you would have to reroll 4’s 5’s and 6’s, even though 3’s and above would succeed after modifiers. On a model with a 5+ save vs no rend, you’d only have to reroll 5’s and 6’s even though 3’s and above would suceed.   

Changing the language to “Reroll saves” is much cleaner, since it means you can just reroll any die used for a save roll. IMO this is the way it should have been written  all along. There’s nothing worse than trying to figure which dice you can reroll by doing metal  math on the back end. 



 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Changing the language to “Reroll saves” is much cleaner, since it means you can just reroll any die used for a save roll. IMO this is the way it should have been written  all along. There’s nothing worse than trying to figure which dice you can reroll by doing metal  math on the back end. 

Essentially, yes. 

As I said, it’s not worth getting into because the language is changing anyway. The only question is whether you believe that GW intends this to be a change to RAW or a change you RAI. 

Personally, I think it’s really a change to RAW, after a poorly drafted FAQ had unforeseen consequences. I can construct a case for this, but the evidence is all circumstantial - GE generally pretty poor at writing clear rules; consensus at both my local GW store and local non-GW gaming venue; that the recent change brings rules into line with how I had previously interpreted them; and so on.

I can even speculate that what GW originally intended with the whole “modifiers apply after rerolls” language was to closer to the idea that you don’t lose modifiers if you reroll. But that remains speculation. Interestingly, none of the difficult issues arise with positive modifiers, and the FAQ example likewise deals with the positive modifier case. It is not unreasonable to speculate that age wrote the FAQ without really thinking about the interaction between negative modifiers and conditional rerolls. 

But ultimately it is all history anyway, so I genuinely don’t see the point in worry.

As I said, I will happily accept that the vast majority of the world interpreted the old rule differently and simply rejoice that GW has changed things to match the way my local community plays before it ever became a problem. 

Besides which, all of this is distracting us from rampant enthusiasm about new releases. Let’s talk about that instead! 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the Looncurse stream on Warhammer TV's Twitch channel and in regards to the point values in the box they were okay to use for matched play for now and then he stressed the "for now" part. Also another interesting tidbit is that they apparently worked on this box around the same time as they were working on the Gloomspite Gitz release so assuming they worked on the Sylvaneth battletome after that the point values for the Sylvaneth units in the Looncurse box probably aren't up to date with the new battletome.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

I was moving some things around in my spare room last weekend and decided to take a group photo of my Sylvaneth. Sadly not fully painted but slowly approaching it. 

D5tG4F6XoAAEQAa.jpg

Nice.. But. . The trees look better with leaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nox said:

Just watched the Looncurse stream on Warhammer TV's Twitch channel and in regards to the point values in the box they were okay to use for matched play for now and then he stressed the "for now" part. Also another interesting tidbit is that they apparently worked on this box around the same time as they were working on the Gloomspite Gitz release so assuming they worked on the Sylvaneth battletome after that the point values for the Sylvaneth units in the Looncurse box probably aren't up to date with the new battletome.  

Generally no points in tome but in ghb right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Trevelyan said:

As I said, it’s not worth getting into because the language is changing anyway. The only question is whether you believe that GW intends this to be a change to RAW or a change you RAI. 

Personally, I think it’s really a change to RAW, after a poorly drafted FAQ had unforeseen consequences. I can construct a case for this, but the evidence is all circumstantial - GE generally pretty poor at writing clear rules; consensus at both my local GW store and local non-GW gaming venue; that the recent change brings rules into line with how I had previously interpreted them; and so on.

I can even speculate that what GW originally intended with the whole “modifiers apply after rerolls” language was to closer to the idea that you don’t lose modifiers if you reroll. But that remains speculation. Interestingly, none of the difficult issues arise with positive modifiers, and the FAQ example likewise deals with the positive modifier case. It is not unreasonable to speculate that age wrote the FAQ without really thinking about the interaction between negative modifiers and conditional rerolls. 

Normally I’d agree with you that it’s not worth getting into, but this change isn’t gamewide. It’s a change to one single warscroll; all the other warscrolls still use the old wording and as such rerolls need to happen before modifiers in teh majority of cases. Also, the FAQ wasn’t poorly drafted, it was drafted exactly in regards to this question: do modifiers (such as rend and mystic shield) apply to rerolls of armor saves? And the answer is no: Rerolls happen before modifiers and must be taken on the unmodified save characteristic.

It sounds to me like you just don’t like the way it plays and you disagree with the the designers. I agree with you, since I think it’s a confusing game mechanic and the game would be better without it. My guess is that it was written to make rend more powerful in the first few editions of the game, since there was very little in the way way to by-pass saves with mystic sheild stacking and various other game mechanics that don’t exist in the same way anymore. Also considering how much more prevalent MW are in the current iteration of the game it looks like they are attempting to make our armored units a little more durable. This is a good thing for us. 

I also suspect thats also the reason they changed a lot of the “on a roll of 6 or more” to “an unmediated roll of 6” since +hit mechanics in the game made such abilities overpowered (i.e. Skyfires and bloodletters).  It would make almost no sense to bring expensive highly armored troops if it was so easy to take them off teh table between rend and MW. 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on about rerolls and I'm still just sitting here completely floored at GW leaving kurnoth bow warscroll AND points the same... Unbelievable.   Anything other than the looncurse points would just be speculation and frankly if they bothered to split the warscrolls apart without lowering the bow cost, I don't have much faith in their judgement...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Wyldwoods are a great design, imo. You can have both single trees and small groves on the table, and it won't be impossible to deal with. I hope the kit isn't too expensive; it would be a shame to need a ton of these, again, for a functioning army.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nox said:

Ehm, so Sylvaneth release held up in customs? That's a first I think.

Actually no. This has happened a couple of times with 40k stuff. And a few other things from time to time. 

 

41 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

ut seriously this is great. WYLDWOODS ARE GONE. 

Yes and no. Warhammer community confirmed that you’ll be able to use the old ones if you don’t want to buy the new woods. 

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Actually no. This has happened a couple of times with 40k stuff. And a few other things from time to time. 

 

Yes and no. Warhammer community confirmed that you’ll be able to use the old ones if you don’t want to buy the new woods. 

Since i already have one citadel woods... that's great news :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...