AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Mirage8112]

14 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

Isn't this sort of rock paper scissors in a way again anyway?  Terrorgheist can't touch durthu, non-cloak/non-harvest durthu can't beat terror?

That’s not exactly what rock-paper-scissors means.

R.P.S. Usually refers to units that are super powerful against one thing, but can’t beat another thing. Old Gnarlroot was RPS because it was very powerful vs armies that had no easy access to unbinding, but weak against anti-casting armies.

Cloaked Durthu will absolutely ruin a terrorgiest. It will probably ruin hordes of troops too. I can’t really think of a hard counter to this combo other than another terrorgeist with the Doppelganger cloak, in which case they wouldn’t ever be able to attack each other and combat would end with them standing there staring at each other. 

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

12 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I get thats how you read it, but that’s not what it says. It says, “you can set up one unit in reserves, for every unit you set-up on the table”. The wording is one-for-one. It doesn’t say “you can never have more units set up in reserves than you’ve set up on the table,” it doesn’t say “before you set a unit up in reserves, you must set a unit up on the field.” I’d like to see an FAQ on this, because RAW it can be read either way. 

I mean, we both know the writing was done as a restriction to how many units we are allowed to place in reserves, i mean that wording isn't even new, that's the wording for Stormcasts eternals and for nighthaunt for example. You can choose to read it like you please, since GW isn't know for their precise writing, but i don't think we should entertain this idea because we know that's not how it works.

And to be honest, you can say that's not what it says, but i don't think that's true, it might be ambiguous if you attempt to shoe-horn into your definition, but it says that for every unit set up on the table, you can place one unit in reserve. That's a clear cut restriction on how many units you can place in reserves since you have already been told when you can place those units in reserve (when you are going to deploy a unit). There isn't a single indication in there directly written where it tells you that you can alter the way alternate deployment works.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Kairos Tejedestinos

[feltmonkey]

6 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I get thats how you read it, but that’s not what it says. It says, “you can set up one unit in reserves, for every unit you set-up on the table”. The wording is one-for-one. It doesn’t say “you can never have more units set up in reserves than you’ve set up on the table,” it doesn’t say “before you set a unit up in reserves, you must set a unit up on the field.” I’d like to see an FAQ on this, because RAW it can be read either way. 

 

 

You're picking one line out of context and ignoring the first line of the rule - "Instead of setting up a SYLVANETH unit on the board..."  At the point when you are selecting a unit to set up on the board you can instead select one to put in the hidden enclaves.  I get what you're saying, and good luck trying to get away with it in a game, but it's a bit of a stretch to call your interpretation rules as written.

[AaronWilson]

After a day of being very negative about the book I've come around on it, the book has lost certain aspects of which I loved. That said, there is a new and exciting book to explore so I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it properly and to start creating lists and getting them on the table.

[jake3991]

32 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

Can someone explain to me why the Arch-Revenant keeps getting a mentioned as a major alarielle buff when the majority of her damage (her mount) cannot be affected?

Can you provide an FAQ/rules citation for this? You'll find that is is command traits that do not effect mounts NOT command abilities. 

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

1 minute ago, jake3991 said:

Can you provide an FAQ/rules citation for this? You'll find that is is command traits that do not effect mounts NOT command abilities. 

Command traits =/= Command abilities.

[jake3991]

Just now, Kairos Tejedestinos said:

Command traits =/= Command abilities.

Yeah just wanted to see if @Zanzou had some knowledge on the archie we did not!

[Zanzou]

2 minutes ago, jake3991 said:

Can you provide an FAQ/rules citation for this? You'll find that is is command traits that do not effect mounts NOT command abilities. 

doh. I think you're right, my bad.

[jake3991]

Just now, Zanzou said:

doh. I think you're right, my bad.

No sweat! did not want you to lose out on that extra attack!

[Mirage8112]

49 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

 

You're picking one line out of context and ignoring the first line of the rule - "Instead of setting up a SYLVANETH unit on the board..."  At the point when you are selecting a unit to set up on the board you can instead select one to put in the hidden enclaves.  I get what you're saying, and good luck trying to get away with it in a game, but it's a bit of a stretch to call your interpretation rules as written.

Insert shrug emoji here.

I like looking at how things are written to see what is permitted and what isn’t. I don’t have the nighthaunt or SCE book, so I can’t speak to what’s in those books. 

This is is the most recent book written at the moment, and a designers faq will be released after. It’s one of the things I’d like clarified, because the rule has changed in format and application from the previous rule. 

Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Everybody seems pretty convinced they know exactly what the power level of the book is, and how everything interacts before 85% of the player base has the book in hand, and before 100% of the player base has played any games with it. Nobody is any sort of expert yet. So Chill out ffs.

 

[Walkirriox]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

I get thats how you read it, but that’s not what it says. It says, “you can set up one unit in reserves, for every unit you set-up on the table”. The wording is one-for-one. It doesn’t say “you can never have more units set up in reserves than you’ve set up on the table,” it doesn’t say “before you set a unit up in reserves, you must set a unit up on the field.” I’d like to see an FAQ on this, because RAW it can be read either way. 

 

The nighthaunt’s allegiance ability says: “You can set up one unit in the underworlds for each unit you set up on the battlefield”. Almost exactly he same wording, so no, you can’t set up both at the same time, it is just a restriction of how many units you can have in reserve.

[Frowny]

Can someone PM a link with all the new spoiled information? I haven't seen several of the glades yet.... I'm not sure this is a valid post though, so I suppose the mods may delete  it

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

5 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Insert shrug emoji here.

I like looking at how things are written to see what is permitted and what isn’t. I don’t have the nighthaunt or SCE book, so I can’t speak to what’s in those books. 

This is is the most recent book written at the moment, and a designers faq will be released after. It’s one of the things I’d like clarified, because the rule has changed in format and application from the previous rule. 

Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Everybody seems pretty convinced they know exactly what the power level of the book is, and how everything interacts before 85% of the player base has the book in hand, and before 100% of the player base has played any games with it. Nobody is any sort of expert yet. So Chill out ffs.

 

Everyone is chill. And noone has stated they are convinced about the power level of the book. What are you on about ? If you want i can provide you the text for NH and SC if that helps (even tho i already told they have the same wording, so it should suffice to had read the sylvaneth one), but you are getting pretty defensive for something as silly as this. Everyone makes small mistakes when reading a rule they haven't read before, and jump into excitement to share their findings, i can say it has happened to me more times i would like to acknowledge, and there is nothing shaming on that. 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Kairos Tejedestinos

[Mirage8112]

11 minutes ago, Kairos Tejedestinos said:

Everyone is chill. And noone has stated they are convinced about the power level of the book. What are you on about ? If you want i can provide you the text for NH and SC if that helps, but you are getting pretty defensive for something as silly as this. Everyone makes small mistakes when reading a rule they haven't read before, and jump into excitement to share their findings, i can say it has happened to me more times i would like to acknowledge, and there is nothing shaming on that. 

Don’t worry man. I’m not defensive about it, nor am I really sticking to my guns on it. My post was probably sounded more defensive than it was, since I’m jumping back and forth between multiple discussion threads. Slot of Sylvaneth players who played gnarlroot are upset about the changes. Not because they changed are less powerful, but because... we’ll... “changes”. I believe you re: nighthaunt snd SCE. You don’t have to share the text.

If anything I was reading that way to see if it could solve @swarmofseals problem of having too many drops. I’m not totally convinced having a one drop army is necessary anymore, so the point is somewhat moot.

What do you think about the underlying issue? Do you think having a 1 drop will be a handicap?

Edited May 27, 2019 by Mirage8112

[feltmonkey]

@Mirage8112 - I specifically said I have no idea about the book earlier this evening (I'm certainly not down on it - I'm looking forward to trying the new stuff out), and I wasn't having a go at you, I was just pointing out the part you seemed to have missed, and that I reckon what you are saying is a bit of a stretch.  Genuinely sorry if you interpreted it as an attack of some kind!  I agree it needs a FAQ. 

 

<checks knickers>  I can report they are largely untwisted.

 

Talking of FAQs, I was listening to the Honest Wargamer's "review" of the book and they bought up one rule that definitely needs clarification.  It's the Winterleaf command trait - "Roll a dice each time a wound is allocated to this general and not negated.  On a 5+ the attacking unit suffers 1 mortal wound."  The question is, say your general has 10 wounds and something causes 20 wounds to it - do you roll 10 dice fishing for 5+s, or 20?  If it's the latter this could be pretty good against those units that do insane amounts of wounds in melee.

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Zanzou said:

I thought squirmlings were almost never useless because generally even elite armies would bring at least SOMETHING for objective control.  Wouldn't even 10-mans would suffer 5 instant wounds easy? Didn't this kill her niche role on the battlefield?  It seems like she does "okay" ranged damage to everyone equally now and just "okay" melee damage.  To me that seems a little dull, but I don't really know how I feel about the battletome as a whole yet.

I'd agree. Im not sayin Drycha is bad and she may proof to be worth her points but for me her main roll was killing big units and she's not better at that now. I call it a nerf mainly due to the points increase. She's rather breakable anyway with only 10 wounds.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Aezeal

[Kairos Tejedestinos]

4 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

What do you think about the underlying issue? Do you think having a 1 drop will be a handicap 

 

I don't think that is that big of a deal. And to be honest, most sylvaneth players are so used to 1 drop that it will take some time to adjust. I don't think the army itself has an underlying issue (competitively speaking), or atleast not one i would dare to speak about so soon.

[feltmonkey]

Could Drycha be a candidate for that Winterleaf power where you can pile in and attack twice in a combat round?  If you use the thing that gives her 20 attacks instead of 10 you'd be doing 40 attacks if all goes well, and you'd have another lot of her other melee attack too, plus you'd have done her flitterfuries shooting attack earlier.  It's situational of course, but wouldn't that all add up to some pretty effective hoard clearance?

Edited May 27, 2019 by feltmonkey

[heiza]

does spite revenant give -1 bravery for each unit at 3" or -1 whatever the number ?

[Mirage8112]

I really like what they’ve’ done with new Drycha. Filterfuries used to be very effective vs MSU lists and squirmlings were good at clearing hordes, but you could never use both. Now it looks like she’s halfway effective in both roles. 

One of the things i’m really noticing about players responses to the book, is the unit roles have changed dramatically. If you only ever used Drycha to clear hordes, and never came up on MSU lists with Multi-wound models, it looks like a clear nerf. Same thing with gnarlroot and spell casting. If you’ve enerv come up against a anti-casting army it looks like clear nerf. 

I actually think the changes make a lot of units more effective in multiple roles, and we’ll stop seeing them used in such “niche” ways. Drycha can still clear a horde pretty easily, she’ll just need to get into combat to do it, or be screened by dryads. She can also do some serious damage in MSU lists with multi-wound models. We also have a lot more access to healing than before, so 10 wounds isn’t really a problem if you don’t put her in a vulnerable spot where she can get double-turned. 

Winterleaf as a battalion looks very very aggressive, and Drycha is a good candidate for the the double attack item. You’d have to make it count and only use it on something lynchpin. 

I’m still a bit puzzled at how to build dreadwood and take full advantage of it’s rather odd mechanics. I’m fairly sure there is something there, its just not super obvious atm.  

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Aezeal]

45 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I really like what they’ve’ done with new Drycha. Filterfuries used to be very effective vs MSU lists and squirmlings were good at clearing hordes, but you could never use both. Now it looks like she’s halfway effective in both roles. 

One of the things i’m really noticing aboput players responses tot eh book, is the unit roles have changed dramatically. If you only ever used Drycha to clear hordes, and never came up on MSU lists with Multi-wound models, it looks like a clear nerf. Same thing with gnarlroot and spell casting. If you’ve enerv come up against a anti-casting army it looks like clear nerf. 

I actually think the changes make a lot of units more effective in multiple roles, and we’ll stop seeing them used in such “niche” ways. Drycha can still clear a horde pretty easily, she’ll just need to get into combat to do it, or be screened by dryads. we also have a lot more access to healing than before, so 10 wounds isn’t really a problem if you don’t put her in a vulnerable spot where she can get double-turned. 

Winterleaf as a battalion looks very very aggressive, and Drycha is a good candidate for the the double attack item. You’d have to make it count and only use it on something lynchpin. 

I’m still a bit puzzled at how to build dreadwood and take full advantage of it’s rather odd mechanics. I’m fairly sure there is something there, its just not super obvious atm.  

 

Now she's just damage.. but we had that already in  hunters. Horde clearing was what was nice sure i used her againstmsu.. and she was usually not as effective. And fighting 30 models worth of elite units about her points (those nighthaunt ghosts) will probably kill her still while shed hurt them hard before . There are so many units that deal 10-15 wounds with ease.  And ofcourse every 300 point unit will be a nice target for the doublr attack item ofc. 270 points of winterleaf dryads will probably hurt as hell with it too, especially buffed by archie.

Dreadwood is a bit of a puzzle indeed. Since the teleport is at end of movement fancy stuff like placing a forest and telorting more can't be done. So whom ever is going will be going alone, needing a 9 inch charge (I know there sre options)and being fairly unbuffed.  A Durthu with some nice item would probably a good idea... something to ensure survivability, like the dreadwood item (or a movement item leaving him vulnerable). But it seems a bit suicidal still if he's solo. I guess a screen of Tree revenants who have free teleport and a reroll might help him survive  if they survive the battle and they can probably buy him a turn.

PS isn't the martial memory wording odd? All the or or or since most stuff happens in different phases anyway (maybe it's logical for a native speaker but translated it seems odd to me)

Edited May 27, 2019 by Aezeal

[Siegfried VII]

What I find weird myself is the lack from a response from GW on the battletome... There are people who have it and have bought it so I thought we would get at least a response... 

[Aezeal]

51 minutes ago, heiza said:

does spite revenant give -1 bravery for each unit at 3" or -1 whatever the number ?

-1 for any number of units... (1+)

[Aezeal]

14 minutes ago, Siegfried VII said:

What I find weird myself is the lack from a response from GW on the battletome... There are people who have it and have bought it so I thought we would get at least a response... 

Dont think they usually react.

1 hour ago, feltmonkey said:

@Mirage8112 - I specifically said I have no idea about the book earlier this evening (I'm certainly not down on it - I'm looking forward to trying the new stuff out), and I wasn't having a go at you, I was just pointing out the part you seemed to have missed, and that I reckon what you are saying is a bit of a stretch.  Genuinely sorry if you interpreted it as an attack of some kind!  I agree it needs a FAQ. 

 

<checks knickers>  I can report they are largely untwisted.

 

Talking of FAQs, I was listening to the Honest Wargamer's "review" of the book and they bought up one rule that definitely needs clarification.  It's the Winterleaf command trait - "Roll a dice each time a wound is allocated to this general and not negated.  On a 5+ the attacking unit suffers 1 mortal wound."  The question is, say your general has 10 wounds and something causes 20 wounds to it - do you roll 10 dice fishing for 5+s, or 20?  If it's the latter this could be pretty good against those units that do insane amounts of wounds in melee.

Once all wounds have been allocated I think the target dies and no more can be allocated.

 

1 hour ago, Walkirriox said:

The nighthaunt’s allegiance ability says: “You can set up one unit in the underworlds for each unit you set up on the battlefield”. Almost exactly he same wording, so no, you can’t set up both at the same time, it is just a restriction of how many units you can have in reserve.

I think the discussion is about different things. The first person talking about this was indeed talking about dropping one on the table and one off. Mirage seems to be saying you could drop half your units of the table as long as you drop at least an equal number on the table.. and another person was saying you needed to drop a unit on the table before you can drop amother off it (and so on for the 2nd on and off the table).

[Isotop]

25 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Once all wounds have been allocated I think the target dies and no more can be allocated.

I think you are right, since:

"Wounds are allocated one at a time to models in the target unit."

and

"Once the number of wounds allocated to a model during the battle equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain. Place a slain model to one side – it is removed from play."

(https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Rulesheets/ENG_AoSSW_Rules_booklet_web.pdf, page 7)