AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[AaronWilson]

2 hours ago, Pestilens said:

The list  that u posted  yesterday seems 2020 points. I think u need to replace forest folk with the other formation (the one that include durtu+3x kurnoth). Btw i will try that list  tonight agaist khorne

Edit: also  the other formation is 140... So se need to try something else

Yeah I realised theat before the game, I dropped my second unit of revs, added Geminids and left the last 20 points for a chance of a triumph! Let me know how it goes.

[Zanzou]

2 hours ago, overtninja said:

The new woods seem easier to put down - they aren't as restrictive and you can squeeze them into different spaces thanks to how modular they are

I don't see how.  The minimum size of the awakened wyldwood is about exactly the same as the minimum size of the old wyldwoods.  Since the tips of the 3 pieces must always connect to the other tips, it sounds like it will always end up being the exact same shape at minimum size.  Would it not?

Edited May 29, 2019 by Zanzou

[ElectricPaladin]

Am I reading it right that if a Winterleaf treelord rolls a 6 to hit with his massive impaling talons that's immediately 2d6 mortal wounds? And if a Winterleaf sword-hunter rolls a 6 to hit that's two mortal wounds and two to-wound rolls (that will deal two damage each if they go through)? Because that's pretty good.

[Almace038]

When you generate extra hits, you don’t actually roll the hit, so unfortunately it won’t trigger the Massive Impaling Talons’ mortal wounds because the second hit wasn’t a “roll”.

[ElectricPaladin]

Just now, Almace038 said:

When you generate extra hits, you don’t actually roll the hit, so unfortunately it won’t trigger the Massive Impaling Talons’ mortal wounds because the second hit wasn’t a “roll”.

So then if you roll a 6 you would get d6 mortal wounds from the original hit and then a to-wound roll for a d6 damage hit.

Still pretty tasty.

[Almace038]

Absolutely! It is part of why I’m excited for Treelords in particular for the tome. Especially with Durthu’s points drop.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Almace038
Mobile autocorrect is the worst

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah. I went and bought a treelord myself.

Plus, I can already do the household battalion, which is pretty good low-hanging fruit as far as battalions are concerned.

[HollowHills]

11 minutes ago, ElectricPaladin said:

So then if you roll a 6 you would get d6 mortal wounds from the original hit and then a to-wound roll for a d6 damage hit.

Still pretty tasty.

No, massive impaling talons is only 1 damage now. So you get one d6 mortal wounds and then a successful hit, which if it wounds, deals 1 damage. 

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Easytyger said:

My question is how if this army going to function with 1 Awakened Wood on the table? Because that's going to happen frequently if Sylvaneth cannot out drop its opponent.  Zoning out places for Woods will shut much of the army down.  Even though it is very flavorful and unique I wish they had completely minimized the interaction with Woods.  

 

2 hours ago, overtninja said:

Basically, it doesn't look like the army will be able to cover the world in trees and then castle nearly as much, so it's time to start thinking of other ways we can wreck our opponents, rather than letting the Wyldwoods do the heavy lifting for us.

We can still easily cover the board in trees. The first free forest is the most restrictive, but subsequent forests are not and you should easily be able to find space even if it’s 1 footprint (of the old woods. The new woods would be 3 peices). It’s not unreasonable to expect us to get 4 woods down by the end of our first turn, even if the enemy brings on reserves, or tries to zone you out. Even units that can move 20” from a forward deployment can have a. Wood thrown down 1” in front of them (providing you account for their move when you deploy), and with the 24” range of the new woods, even if they end their turn 6” away from you, you can throw up a wood behind them fairly easily. 

Aside from the above, it’s important tot remember, that the GW guidelines for terrain is 1 piece per 2’ Square of game board which is 6 pieces. Not 9, not 12. It will be fairly important as a Sylvaneth player to remind your opponent of this, so he can’t put 11 pierces of terrain on the board and prevent you from throwing any woods down. In the big tournaments I’ve played in, they are usually pretty good at sticking close-to or under this rule. In your local games you might need to insist that you stick to the rule and point out the relevant section of the rule book.  Don’t be a d*k about it, but you might need to insist on it, and stress that without reasonable space to put terrain down, it won’t be a fair or fun game. Also, when you put out terrain, be mindful of the pieces you pick and keep in mind where you’ll want to put out your woods.

Also something I can’t stress enough: A competitive player is thinking about being competitive in every phase of the game. That mindset starts when you pick up your army book for the first time, and doesn't end until the last roll of the game is made: the army you choose, the list you make, the scenery you choose, where you put it down, the side you pick, the deployment choices you make, and what your going to do first turn. Every single phase of the game matters, and if you’re interested in being competitive on the tabletop you need to consider all those aspects as well as the choices you make when the game starts. 

  @overtninja Is right in the sense that our woods actually are less critical now. The teleport range has effectively gone way up, and having a max-size wood down isn’t totally necessary anymore. We can fit more models in a smaller area thanks to no trees in the way, and being deep in the forest doesn't really help us like it used to; instead we’re looking for prolonged combats so we can get our 6+ roll twice per game turn. 

Keep in mind, that this 6+ per game turn will probably be causing more damage over the course of the game than our old woods used to. Unless you played a bunch of idiot opponents that didn’t learn charging  all your models into the woods was probably a bad plan. (Mine learned pretty quickly that you “conga-charge” as few models into the forest as you can, just enough to make contact and keep the others at the edge, and then pile them in 3” to avoid the test.)

 

[Mirage8112]

Also, after reading my last post I did a quick check. Models test on a 6+ for Wyldwood damage for EVERY wildwood they are within 1” of, since the wording is “a Wyldwood” and not “any wyldwoods”. It might be a funny strategy to set up 3 single-footprint woods within 1” of each other and hang out right in the middle forcing them to test on 3 dice every charge phase. At 2 checks per turn on 3 dice, its a 90% it will go off at least once per player turn, and a 60% chance it will go off twice per player turn. That’s a lot of mortal wounds and could really hurt monsters and the like.   

Edited May 29, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Easytyger]

7 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Aside from the above, it’s important tot remember, that the GW guidelines for terrain is 1 piece per 2’ Square of game board which is 6 pieces. Not 9, not 12. It will be fairly important as a Sylvaneth player to remind your opponent of this, so he can’t put 11 pierces of terrain on the board and prevent you from throwing any woods down. In the big tournaments I’ve played in, they are usually pretty good at sticking close-to or under this rule. In your local games you might need to insist that you stick to the rule and point out the relevant section of the rule book.  Don’t be a d*k about it, but you might need to insist on it, and stress that without reasonable space to put terrain down, it won’t be a fair or fun game. Also, when you put out terrain, be mindful of the pieces you pick and keep in mind where you’ll want to put out your woods.

Where is this rule about 1 piece of terrain her 2'x2' area? Is there such a rule? I am missing it.

[Easytyger]

3 hours ago, overtninja said:

The new woods seem easier to put down - they aren't as restrictive and you can squeeze them into different spaces thanks to how modular they are - they don't have a set footprint.

From my understanding they will have a definite footprint as all three pieces need to touch each other forming a circle of sorts. 

[Freejack02]

37 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

The minimum size of the awakened wyldwood is about exactly the same as the minimum size of the old wyldwoods.  Since the tips of the 3 pieces must always connect to the other tips, it sounds like it will always end up being the exact same shape at minimum size.  Would it not?

 

7 minutes ago, Easytyger said:

From my understanding they will have a definite footprint as all three pieces need to touch each other forming a circle of sorts. 

That's very true for 3 bases, but the warscroll is 3-6... and adding a 4th base adds a LOT of flexibility on what shape they can take.

[Aezeal]

4 can easily be deployed in a line like configuration that fits nearly everywhere I think. 

[Easytyger]

1 minute ago, Freejack02 said:

 

That's very true for 3 bases, but the warscroll is 3-6... and adding a 4th base adds a LOT of flexibility on what shape they can take.

Ah missed that its 3 to 6. That's interesting. 

[Aezeal]

20 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Also, after reading my last post I did a quick check. Models test on a 6+ for Wyldwood damage for EVERY wildwood they are within 1” of, since the wording is “a Wyldwood” and not “any wyldwoods”. It might be a funny strategy to set up 3 single-footprint woods within 1” of each other and hang out right in the middle forcing them to test on 3 dice every charge phase. At 2 checks per turn on 3 dice, its a 90% it will go off at least once per player turn, and a 60% chance it will go off twice per player turn. That’s a lot of mortal wounds and could really hurt monsters and the like.   

Not within 1" of each other 

[Fyrm]

Also, remember, even 3 won’t form a perfect circle. They couldn’t, because they couldn’t really fit more in without messing it all up. As I understand it, the footprint is supposed to match out current woods, which means they’ll be in kinda odd patterns. But, if we have multiple boxes, we could mix and match these shapes. So let’s say there is one long piece in a box, kinda in a U shape? You could set up a normal woods, or you could take 3 of these pieces and make a sort of star, or 2 and a more flat piece and make a sort of bunny face [you know what I mean...]. So that will likely help us squeeze them into places, picking which parts to use! 

 

Also, no thoughts on what vase sizes to use for proxy endless spells? :[

[Mirage8112]

21 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Not within 1" of each other 

Gah. Stupid English. It’s my first language and I can barely speak it.

Yes, 3 wyldwoods 1” apart from each other. Should be fantastic for something like take and hold. The first “free” wood goes out 6” from the first objective. The second go down so they are 1” away from the first and each other and 1” away from the objective. Add drayds across the middle over the objective anchored by a TLA or hunters. TLA with auto-cast gem on the woods for D3 mortals and will also trigger the magic test on all 3 woods. Roll well and that’s 4D3 mortals to anything in range. 

That will be pretty hard to shift and the damage output is better than anything we could do before. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Warheadsbylink]

1 hour ago, Easytyger said:

Where is this rule about 1 piece of terrain her 2'x2' area? Is there such a rule? I am missing it.

It's not a rule per se but a guideline offered by GW in the core rules (see image). Definitely my least favourite thing with playing Sylvaneth is having to deal with the meta game of how much terrain goes on a table.  Since there's nothing from GW apart from the aforementioned quote it can be a bit of a grey area. That's why I think that it's a bit of a shame that they just kind of replaced the model and tidied up the old rules of Wyldwoods rather than giving us one super Wyldwood. I think there's a few different ways that could've been done but it's a moot point now. Need to work with what we've got which is still good.

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Warheadsbylink

[ElectricPaladin]

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

No, massive impaling talons is only 1 damage now. So you get one d6 mortal wounds and then a successful hit, which if it wounds, deals 1 damage. 

Thank you, that's correct.

So on a 6, a winterleaf treelord will get d6 mortal wounds and one roll to-wound that will deal one damage. Much less tasty. Not exactly bad, but less tasty. So winterleef treelords aren't uninteresting, but they aren't really taking advantage of the winterleaf combat trait any better than anyone else.

For sword-hunters, a 6 will get them one mortal wound plus two rolls to-wound (two damage each).  Especially as each one gets four attacks, that's many more mortal wounds for your buck. It seems to me that winterleaf sword hunters are the ******.

[Aezeal]

51 minutes ago, Fyrm said:

Also, remember, even 3 won’t form a perfect circle. They couldn’t, because they couldn’t really fit more in without messing it all up. As I understand it, the footprint is supposed to match out current woods, which means they’ll be in kinda odd patterns. But, if we have multiple boxes, we could mix and match these shapes. So let’s say there is one long piece in a box, kinda in a U shape? You could set up a normal woods, or you could take 3 of these pieces and make a sort of star, or 2 and a more flat piece and make a sort of bunny face [you know what I mean...]. So that will likely help us squeeze them into places, picking which parts to use! 

 

Also, no thoughts on what vase sizes to use for proxy endless spells? :[

I think you are interpreting rumours a bit too literally.  Like the footprint of the forests was mentioned (and not by gw I think).. but I doubt they match it exactly looking at their warscroll picture it's roundish with 3 bases and not at all similar to current shape .

Edited May 29, 2019 by Aezeal

[ElectricPaladin]

I do think that it will be possible to use multiple pieces to make forests with unusual shape. We do have the warscroll and it does say that an awakened wyldwood is made up of three to six (not three or six) sections, each one placed so that its points touch the points of two other sections, forming various shapes and sizes. 

However, I also think that @Fyrm is probably overstating how much flexibility we'll have. That said, part of the utility of owning multiple sets is going to be the freedom to make a wider variety of shapes using a wider set of pieces.

 

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, ElectricPaladin said:

Thank you, that's correct.

So on a 6, a winterleaf treelord will get d6 mortal wounds and one roll to-wound that will deal one damage. Much less tasty. Not exactly bad, but less tasty. So winterleef treelords aren't uninteresting, but they aren't really taking advantage of the winterleaf combat trait any better than anyone else.

For sword-hunters, a 6 will get them one mortal wound plus two rolls to-wound (two damage each).  Especially as each one gets four attacks, that's many more mortal wounds for your buck. It seems to me that winterleaf sword hunters are the ******.

Yeah swords will be my main melee guys

[TheGrayKing]

2 hours ago, ElectricPaladin said:

For sword-hunters, a 6 will get them one mortal wound plus two rolls to-wound (two damage each).  Especially as each one gets four attacks, that's many more mortal wounds for your buck. It seems to me that winterleaf sword hunters are the ******.

I think the following list would be pretty good for using/abusing the exploding 6's from Winterleaf.

Arch-Revenant

Spirit of Durthu - Frozen Kernel.

Treelord Ancient - General, Regrowth, Spiritsong Stave

20x Spite-Revenants

20x Spite-Revenants

20x Spite-Revenants

6x Kunroth Hunters w/Greatsword

Chronomatic Cogs

Spiteswarm Hive

Outcasts Battalion

 

The list leaves 50 points for either another Endless Spell or an extra CP

 

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, Warheadsbylink said:

It's not a rule per se but a guideline offered by GW in the core rules (see image). Definitely my least favourite thing with playing Sylvaneth is having to deal with the meta game of how much terrain goes on a table.  Since there's nothing from GW apart from the aforementioned quote it can be a bit of a grey area. That's why I think that it's a bit of a shame that they just kind of replaced the model and tidied up the old rules of Wyldwoods rather than giving us one super Wyldwood. I think there's a few different ways that could've been done but it's a moot point now. Need to work with what we've got which is still good.

 

Not really something you can use. Imho it says 1 minimum (no max) and the overall conclusion is more is better. There used to be something clear that said d3 per 2x2 if I recall correctly.. and alernately you and opponent set up. This meant that you could put 3 small  terrain pieces on the edge of the table on a 2x2 if your opponent picked large 2x2 covering terrain pieces on his squares.