Jump to content

AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion


Chris Tomlin

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, scrubyandwells said:

since Wyldwoods can now only be placed as a ring,

The diagram from the warscroll describes/shows the “ring” placement of a 3 piece WW. I don’t think a WW with more peices has to form a ring, since the shape of the footprint would make this impossible with more than 3 pieces. It would come out looking more like a 4 pointed star or something. 

I think the intention here is just that the ends of the scenery pieces need to touch one on another to form an enclosed space, with all the point turning inward. If if that’s true, we might be able to get some flexibility in the shape provided we have enough woods to do so. Not sure until the kit comes out how that will work. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I played a few small 500 points games today using the new sylvaneth rules. These games were also against relatively new players. Obviously this is not representative of a competitive environment but some observations to share. 

My list Winterleaf 

Arch Revenant - heart is ice / frozen kernal. 

Spite revenant x 20

Kurnoth with swords x 3

500 points. 

Game 1 and 2 played FEC Blisterskin 

He was using crypt flyers 2 x 3 and an infernal crypt courtier. 

I made a little line of spites and flew the rev into a Wyldwood nearby. Kurnoth popped up in the wood. He got turn 2 and charged into the woods. Activated his unit fighting the kurnoth who did 1 wound vs a 3 up rerolling failed. Fought twice with that unit but they failed to do any damage the second time. Spite revs attacked next, no buffs on them (I had fired them onto kurnoth). I got 11 in range, they managed to get 24 successful wound rolls through which was sufficient to kill the three enemies. 

Kurnoth went next, more than comfortably killed the three crypt flyers and then used the second pile in to kill the infernal. The second game was fairly similar. 

Game 3 vs gloomspite. He had 20 squigs, 10 bounders and a fungoid. I got into a tank spot with the woods and he charged. Killed 6 spites with the mortal wounds from bounders, then activated squigs into kurnoths who tanked it like a boss. Spites were in a small spot so didn't get many in, but they killed 4 bounders, then only suffered another 4 loses from bounders. Kurnoths (again buffed) smashed the squigs. 

Battleshock then brutalised the remaining gloomspite units off the table. 

Anyway, general observation is that kurnoths are very effective and spite revs can put out incredible damage now. Winterleaf is pretty great. 

Main concern is our mobility is quite weak. I enjoyed using the spite revs but they are definitely dying if they get hit by anything half decent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

The diagram from the warscroll describes/shows the “ring” placement of a 3 piece WW. I don’t think a WW with more peices has to form a ring, since the shape of the footprint would make this impossible with more than 3 pieces. It would come out looking more like a 4 pointed star or something. 

I think the intention here is just that the ends of the scenery pieces need to touch one on another to form an enclosed space, with all the point turning inward. If if that’s true, we might be able to get some flexibility in the shape provided we have enough woods to do so. Not sure until the kit comes out how that will work. 

 

I'll be interested to see if we can make the old tree models work as well. I bought a cheap army on eBay and it include the older wyldwoods. I'm crossing my fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

The diagram from the warscroll describes/shows the “ring” placement of a 3 piece WW. I don’t think a WW with more peices has to form a ring, since the shape of the footprint would make this impossible with more than 3 pieces. It would come out looking more like a 4 pointed star or something. 

I think the intention here is just that the ends of the scenery pieces need to touch one on another to form an enclosed space, with all the point turning inward. If if that’s true, we might be able to get some flexibility in the shape provided we have enough woods to do so. Not sure until the kit comes out how that will work. 
 

Yeah that's a good point, thanks. Just generally meant we're going to be more constrained than we were in Sylvaneth 1.0.

Edited by scrubyandwells
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warbossironteef said:

So you can put a Wyldwood on an objective (after the 1st) as long as the 3 terrain pieces are spaced out around it?

Nope. The new Wyldwood warscroll clearly states that the Wyldwood terrain includes the area enclosed by the terrain pieces. The actual physical models are marking the edge of the wood, rather than being the whole of the wood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Warbossironteef said:

Do you have a link to the Wyldwood spoilers? In the articles I've seen I haven't seen the new warscroll. 

This link has just about all the leaked info I think:

https://imgur.com/a/6SgC7Ji

Just had a quick re-read of the Awakened Wyldwoods warscroll. Interestingly, it specifically mentions creating a ring out of each of the citadel woods used to create the Wyldwood. I guess they mention "ring" over "circle" so as to allow someone using four or more trees to create a more oval shaped "ring" which is longer but with less width to allow Wyldwoods to fit into and around spaces that are less open to the standard, circular, 3-tree Wyldwood? Would be interesting to see the tactical uses for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking to add my army and build out a solid 2k Alarielle list. The one problem I keep running into is getting the 2nd artefact. I want to try out Gnarlroot and I really like the idea of a TLA for support with the Vesperal Gem. Does anyone have any suggestions of what battalion fits well? Alarielle makes me want multiwound units so I was hoping to have some points for 3-6 hunters. Forest Folk seems expensive but I wasn't sure if I ran a minimum Outcasts battalion if it would be worth it.

I wish there was a few more options with Battalions because it's making it hard to get that extra Artefact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Warbossironteef said:

I'm looking to add my army and build out a solid 2k Alarielle list. The one problem I keep running into is getting the 2nd artefact. I want to try out Gnarlroot and I really like the idea of a TLA for support with the Vesperal Gem. Does anyone have any suggestions of what battalion fits well? Alarielle makes me want multiwound units so I was hoping to have some points for 3-6 hunters. Forest Folk seems expensive but I wasn't sure if I ran a minimum Outcasts battalion if it would be worth it.

I wish there was a few more options with Battalions because it's making it hard to get that extra Artefact.

Forest Folk is probably your best bet in a Gnarlroot list with Alarielle. Dryads are great battleline if you want to capitalize on Gnarlroot's strengths (resilience/attrition) so the only tax you're really paying is the battalion points themselves. One thing to note (since it's already been discussed in this thread): we don't have definite ruling on whether or not the Vesperal Gem can help cast either your TLA's warscroll spell, or the tree summoning spell(Verdant Blessing) all Sylvaneth wizards have for free. The general consensus on the forum is that warscroll spells and Verdant Blessing DO NOT count as being in the Lore of the Deepwood; based on the formatting in the new tome. The Vesperal Gem is still very powerful, but the free Gnarlroot artifact is very good for a support wizard as well, and since Alarielle can't use it, maybe you don't need a second artifact. Alarielle can always choose throne of vines, so her other two spells have +2 to cast. Or you could invest the points in Cogs, and Alarielle could use them to slow down time for an extra spell cast, and the ability to reroll her saves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a true. In my head I thought what Mirage said was very powerful. I was hoping to use the Gnarlroot artefact on the Wraith for summoning and then guarantee the D6 heal from the TLA who is my general, that way you're 100% guaranteed the D6 + D3 healing. 

 

Maybe something like this could be a starting point. I'd worry about body count but depending onthe game you could summon in 20 more dyrads plus fairly reliable summoning from Wraith. It uses the models i have except for the Revenants. Any CC?

LEADERS
Alarielle the Everqueen (660)
Spirit of Durthu (340)
Treelord Ancient (300)
Branchwraith (80)
UNITS
5 x Spite-Revenants (60)
5 x Spite-Revenants (60)
5 x Spite-Revenants (60)
20 x Dryads (200)
BATTALIONS
Outcasts (100)
ENDLESS SPELLS / TERRAIN
Chronomantic Cogs (60)
Geminids of Uhl-Gysh (40)
Either Worm or Tree ES (30/40)

Edited by Warbossironteef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New rules mandate 10 pieces of terrain for matched play. It also says faction-specific terrain must be set up more than 6” from the battlefield edge, no more than 6” away from other terrain features and 3” away from objectives. Terrain is set up in a particular order: 

First you choose a battleplan and then set up objectives. Each player selects 5 terrain pieces from a list: 3 from primary (Azyrite ruins [1 piece?], citadel woods, magewraith throne, ophidian archways, dragonfate dias, numinous oculus, arcane ruins or sigmarite mausoleum. and then 2 secondary pieces: and walls/fences (2 peices ). It also says you can sub in a terrain piece no more than 6” across at its wides point or 4” tall at its tallest point for any of these. Then faction terrain must be placed, if there is no space, then it is not placed.

It seems like from the wording, this only applies to faction terrain set up before the battle and not faction terrain set up during the battle, (which would follows the warscroll placement I assume. This is prime for an FAQ) If that is the case, it means the table edges, and our deployment zone  will probably be where our woods are most likely to go.   

The GHB also specifies that you must roll on each piece of non-faction scenery for the scenery table. It also says (somewhere in there) that is method for assembling the board should be bog-standard for tournament play.   

Thoughts?

Source: 

 Relevant section starts at 20:55

Edited by Mirage8112
Adjusted the distances for faction terrain drop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

New rules mandate 10 pieces of terrain for matched play. It also says faction-specific terrain must be set up more than 8” from the battlefield edge, no more than 6” away from objectives or other terrain features. Terrain is set up in a particular order: 

First you choose a battleplan and then set up objectives. Each player selects 5 terrain pieces from a list: 3 from primary (Azyrite ruins [1 piece?], citadel woods, magewraith throne, or ophidian archways, dragonfate dias, numinous oculus, arcane ruins or sigmarite mausoleum)  2 from secondary (walls and fences). It also says you can sub in a terrain piece no more than 6” across at its wides point or 4” tall at its tallest point for any of these. Then faction terrain must be placed, if there is no space, then it is not placed.

It seems like from the wording, this only applies to faction terrain set up before the battle and not faction terrain set up during the battle, (which would follows the warscroll placement I assume. This is prime for an FAQ) If that is the case, it means the table edges, and our deployment zone  will probably be where our woods are most likely to go.   

The GHB also specifies that you must roll on each piece of non-faction scenery for the scenery table. It also says (somewhere in there) that is method for assembling the board should be bog-standard for tournament play.   

Thoughts?

I think that if it's only for the terrain that you place at the start of the battle, it's... okay.  Disappointing, but far from unworkable.

If it's for all terrain throughout the game, then it frikkin' sucks. Our new tome is already a bit of a mixed bag (a good bag, to be sure), and that restriction would be a huge blow, taking our army with the new tome from "trickier to put together but ultimately fine" to "already outdated in the competitive scene".

I'd be fine with heavily reducing our ability to get trees out if we'd gotten some powerful extra toys not linked to the trees to make up for it, but we really kinda haven't, as far as I've seen. Any cool thing we've got has been made up for with nerfs elsewhere. And believe me, I'd love to be able to run Sylvaneth in events without a tonne of trees and have a good chance of doing well, but that's not happening with the new tome, AFAIK. That said, I'm not very experienced with the game, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

 

Edited by acr0ssth3p0nd
Added extra sentence to clarify that I'm probably not someone you should take too seriously on this stuff :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Aezeal said:

If you both place scenery you can try to clump your placings together leaving tons of free room.

This was my thought.

Most of the scenery mentioned actually has a fairly small footprint. It might even be possible to block your opponent out of deploying his faction terrain (since faction terrain can’t be placed within 6” of any other terrain), and still ensure that you can get woods out over the course of the game (since our woods deployed after  the game begins only has a 1” restriction) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard scenery placing rules should mean no more of those endless arguments about overly cluttered or empty tables.

Ensuring games are more consistent gets a thumbs up from me, regardless of whether it ends up being a slight nerf or boost for Sylvaneth.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, a74xhx said:

Standard scenery placing rules should mean no more of those endless arguments about overly cluttered or empty tables.

I played a game last week with about as much scenery as the new GHB suggests, if not slightly more. It still left plenty of room for putting down forests. Interestingly, my opponent was convinced that the table was too empty, so finding out this is the new normal works for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most tournaments will probably opt for standard terrain deployed before the game to limit game times, while others might use the terrain rules as written, but still set the boards up before the game starts.

But yes, now we have something official we can point to that says “this how much terrain should be on the board.” It’s also super useful because it says that any of the named primary pieces can be swapped out for another piece as long as it’s not more than 11” wide at its widest point and 4” tall at its tallest. I think that’s a solid compromise for getting some other small-ish terrain peices on the table if your opponent just goes right for the largest things his can get his hands on.

I’m also pleased to see that citadel woods is one of primary pieces, and gives us an incentive to drop those down for our 3 primary pieces to block LoS over much of the board. Skaven players will hate that since it will pretty effectively shut down the gun line component. 

All in all, as much as players are having a kneejerk reaction to this, it might actually be a real boon for us. 

 

Edited by Mirage8112
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do people feel about Tree Revenants? I feel like 160 points for 2 batteline requirements that can teleport and somewhat reliably threaten weak casters or backfield units is great. In my head, 30 Dyrads for defense and 2x5 Tree Revenants seems good for a more defensive list, possibly with Alarielle. It gives you a strong chaff unit and then some backfield mobility/late game objective grabbers. 

My biggest issue is that they do not fit into a battalion. I really wish they did. I've been struggling super hard when writing lists, especially ones with Alarielle, to find a battalion that works. In the end I'm going to try going without one, but not getting the 2nd artefact seems huge. 

Anyone have any thoughts on Tree Revenants and the somewhat related topic of no battalion lists? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

This was my thought.

Most of the scenery mentioned actually has a fairly small footprint. It might even be possible to block your opponent out of deploying his faction terrain (since faction terrain can’t be placed within 6” of any other terrain), and still ensure that you can get woods out over the course of the game (since our woods deployed after  the game begins only has a 1” restriction) 

About army specific terrain placement... isnt it so that army book >> core rules /GHB anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aezeal said:

About army specific terrain placement... isnt it so that army book >> core rules /GHB anyway?

This is $64,000 question.

The exact words as I’ve heard them read in the video above are “Sometimes the allegiance abilities will allow you to include 1 or more terrain features, these are set up in addition to the pitched battle terrain features.  In a pitched battle, faction terrain must be set up more than 6” from a table edge, more than 6” from any other terrain feature and more than 3” from any objectives. In addition to any other restrictions that apply. Sometimes this makes it impossible for a faction terrain pieces to be placed in this way, if this is case it is not [placed].” 

I think it’s the “in addition to any other restrictions”, that will cause this to override placement restrictions in the individual battletomes. Since faction pieces like the Skaven’s Gnawholes get their placement instructions (which is a restriction) from their allegiance abilities. So essentially, that sentence means you add the restrictions from the GHB to whatever restrictions are already present, ie. Skaven wont be able to deploy gnawholes in a pitched battle without an errata (since they must be placed entirely within 8” of an edge and they are more than 2” long at any point) 

For us, that means we won’t be able to count on puttin our free forest down in our own deployment zone next to the table edge. Not a big deal, because this seems to only apply to terrain that is set up before the game starts: since it is specifically mentioning terrain deployed through an “allegiance ability”, (ie. Dwarf forge, Wyldwoods, Shipwreck ect.) WW placed during the game are not done via an allegiance ability, they are placed via a spell, item, or a warscroll ability, and thus fall outside these restrictions.  

But for other factions who can’t do that, it’s a big restriction. It all but guarantees free space on the edges of the board for WW’s and gives enemies an incentive to leave space free in the middle of the board  to deploy their own terrain features.

Ironically, this reverses the problem we were arguing about earlier of enemies zoning our woods off the board by dropping a large amount of terrain. Now, we can drop terrain to zone them out of their own feature (since that 6” restriction is a big one, and one they didn’t have to worry about before) with the idea that while we wont be able to get our free forest out either, WW forest bought on later can easily fit within that those gaps and keep 1” away from everything else.

The only feature we might not be able to squeeze out are Maggotkin Trees (small bases) but we might be able to control where they get dropped and still leave room for our forests.

Edited by Mirage8112
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...