AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Nos said:

Sylvaneth epitomise the "cant hurt what you cant touch" maxim. If as a Sylvaneth player you're in a position where big chunks of your army are getting tabled in one go, you're either assessing the wrong fights offensively or setting up badly defensively. Theres no reason with the amount of maneuverability that Sylvaneth have to let a substantial investment be getting munched in one turn or even double turn.

While I agree this should be our good points and I also agree this is what we are paying a lot for I think it's not working very well.. with the high movement values, teleports and a lot of run and charge options spread out over tons of armies it appears others have enough mobility to hit is where they want unless we bunker up in our own zone and move back if they advance... which is totally not acceptable when playing for objectives. This even without taking the strong shooting and MW output some armies have.

 

1 hour ago, Nos said:

At the very top level, where the best players are playing each other, it stands to reason that players whose decision making and understanding of the game is excellent,that in control of an imbalanced faction, they will beat a similarly gifted player using a merely balanced army such as Sylvaneth. Because not only will they have an army designed to win from the outset, they will have the strategic capability to respond to things they wernt anticipating as well.

But that's not 99% of people on here, and most of the issues on this forum or similar on the internet demonstrate that the issue isnt Sylvaneth, it's people trying to play them as something they arebt and ignoring the strengths of what they are. 

If 99% of the players here don't have a good win ration - even if it is because they 'play the faction incorrect'  as you put it then the faction is not in a good spot. Especially if the other 1% of the competative players ALSO can't do extremely well in tournaments... basicly you said most players over all levels of play don't do well.. which - to me - means the armies isn't in a good place balance wise and thus the issue IS sylvaneth. 

1 hour ago, Nos said:

If you're looking for a kill all comers net list that some factions have, with a central gimmick designed to deny the opponent from the get go, Sylvaneth dont have it, you wont find it. They are the antithesis of a point and click approach. That dosen't make them weak though.

I'm not sure I get exactly what you mean... but when playing a tournament you NEED to have a single list that can beat everything that it meets on the table. For me the same is mostly true in casual games too: I often don't know which army my opponent will play, either because I don't know the opponent that well or because he has multiple armies. Even IF I know what my opponent plays I prefer not to tailor my army against a specific opponent. I prefer to have a list that is well rounded enough to work a few games against different opponents. Sure I change my lists a bit or a lot depending on what I feel like or based on what playstyle I want at the moment but no real list tailoring. (I'll be tailoring my list for the rematch against that Coalesced Seraphon army with thunderlizard battalion though.. but only because I'm pretty sure that EVEN when I do that I won't win  and because my current thoughts are our strongest weapons  - the hunters - sufffer a lot from the damage reduction so I'll be going mass infantry with 1D)

Edited July 18, 2020 by Aezeal

[Nos]

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

While I agree this should be our good points and I also agree this is what we are paying a lot for I think it's not working very well.. with the high movement values, teleports and a lot of run and charge options spread out over tons of armies it appears others have enough mobility to hit is where they want unless we bunker up in our own zone and move back if they advance... which is totally not acceptable when playing for objectives. This even without taking the strong shooting and MW output some armies have.

 

If 99% of the players here don't have a good win ration - even if it is because they 'play the faction incorrect'  as you put it then the faction is not in a good spot. Especially if the other 1% of the competative players ALSO can't do extremely well in tournaments... basicly you said most players over all levels of play don't do well.. which - to me - means the armies isn't in a good place balance wise and thus the issue IS sylvaneth. 

I'm not sure I get exactly what you mean... but when playing a tournament you NEED to have a single list that can beat everything that it meets on the table. For me the same is mostly true in casual games too: I often don't know which army my opponent will play, either because I don't know the opponent that well or because he has multiple armies. Even IF I know what my opponent plays I prefer not to tailor my army against a specific opponent. I prefer to have a list that is well rounded enough to work a few games against different opponents. Sure I change my lists a bit or a lot depending on what I feel like or based on what playstyle I want at the moment but no real list tailoring. (I'll be tailoring my list for the rematch against that Coalesced Seraphon army with thunderlizard battalion though.. but only because I'm pretty sure that EVEN when I do that I won't win  and because my current thoughts are our strongest weapons  - the hunters - sufffer a lot from the damage reduction so I'll be going mass infantry with 1D)

I dont base my perspective on faction balance on how experts play them, as most people arent experts, most people that most people play wont be experts.  In my experience this focus just makes players worse if anything because they focus on playing a list and not playing the game.

Experts are experts because they know the game itself regardless of army, and they are skilled in the fundamentals-deployment, movement, screening, model placement, anticipating turns, range, when to use reserves, all the things that you have complete control over and which have no dice involved what so ever.

Most AOS players who are not experts in the basics do not place anything like as much focus on this as they do on the ideal scenario in which their favoured gimmick or ideal scenario for their list pops off. 

Experts are experts because their mastery of the basics can more or less guarantee they can maneouver that scenario into being, as far as is possible.  In that scenario, even pro Sylvaneth players are not going to find a way out of that puzzle.

Most AOS players do not have the same means to ensure this happens though , meaning if you're good at the basics you can work around their death synergy. And Sylvaneth just so happen to force you to master the basics if you want to use them at all effectively meaning in most cases if you use them well against a net list commandeered by an average player, your chances are good.

I base my perspective on my own experience. My own experience with SC was that they were strong for the first few months of 2nd but lost their power relative to new releases and buffs of other factions. I dont play them currently because *I* cant work out how to have fun with them. I don't see that as an issue with the faction per se ,I've just accepted that for the time being I'm less interested in trying to work that out than I am in trying something else, which is why I started Sylvaneth.

My experience with Sylvaneth is that they are blessed with very strong advantages core to the mechanics of the game and this has stayed true even with the subsequent release and buffs of existing and new factions. I play them because they are fun, involved, and in my experience, really powerful. They suit my understanding of the game which, as above, is master the basics.

My experience with talking online with other players us that they either find them as strong as I do for the same reason, and those are people who use all of the army together, or that they find them weak or underpowered, abd talk in terms of an army they're not.

Eg you say KH are the "strongest weapons"- no they're not. They're a powerful offensive unit but they dont work without synergy.  

In a sentence, my review of Sylvaneth's strengths is that almost all of their units are the strongest weapons because they all perform their specific intended function well and economically,  meaning you can have multiple strong options in one list which allow for both aggressive and reactive play. All of the units are also fragile without support. None of them work independently.

190 points of Kurnoths will likely be negated or frustrated by 190 points of something else if they dont charge them, but theres no excuse for letting that happen. 80 points of Tree Revs wont even kill 80 points on the charge. But they're not for killing 80+ points. They're for claiming objectives,  sniping 1-2 remaing wound characters, screening your force or droping in the path of a super powerful unit with a previously clear charge path. 

I'm not here to throw shade but my feeling from what I read online about Sylvaneth is that they are played by people whose focus on math hammer and deleting units etc blinds them to the basics of the game, and who are losing not because Sylvaneth are weak but because their basic grasp of mechanics are meaning they are forming an imbalanced gotcha list heavily dependent  on specif circumstances, or letting their  opponent corner them into an equal fight, which is not what Sylvaneth are about.  Hit hard where the enemy are weak, otherwise tarpit/melt away. Dont ever line up equal points. 

I dont say this because I think I think Im a good player, I say it because I *dont* think I'm a good player but still do very well with Sylvaneth.

Against Coalesced for example I would focus on all the magic and maneuverability I could, I wouldn't be looking to spam KH because without the auxiliary units to make them really powerful it's just lining up melee fights which arent going to pay off. Coalesced literally hard counter KH with their wound negation so points wise they're already compartivley less economical. Drycha on the other hand becomes invaluable, as do all those Spite or Rev units that Colaseced melee monster units will overkill 4 or 5 times for nothing but a 60 or 80 point return. Alarielle becomes more of a consideration than in most lists because of high movement and situational summoning, and the Beetles charge is comparatively more reliable damage vs coalesced than KH due to multiple D6s.

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Nos

[Kaylethia]

@Nos You have put into words what I've struggled with. 

My main opponent is a strong player who I keep learning from, and while his experience with Sylvaneth is based on reading the tome and playing against me, he also views the army as being in a good spot, for the same reasons as you listed. 

While I keep losing against him, due to my own lack of mastery, every game hammers home a new part of the basics. 

[Aezeal]

23 hours ago, Nos said:

 

Against Coalesced for example I would focus on all the magic and maneuverability I could, I wouldn't be looking to spam KH because without the auxiliary units to make them really powerful it's just lining up melee fights which arent going to pay off. Coalesced literally hard counter KH with their wound negation so points wise they're already compartivley less economical. Drycha on the other hand becomes invaluable, as do all those Spite or Rev units that Colaseced melee monster units will overkill 4 or 5 times for nothing but a 60 or 80 point return. Alarielle becomes more of a consideration than in most lists because of high movement and situational summoning, and the Beetles charge is comparatively more reliable damage vs coalesced than KH due to multiple D6s.

 

I think focussing on magic might not be that easy. I had 3 casters and his single +2 and 3x  cast and unbind over whole table slann made sure I only got a single spell off my last game against them. Not to mention he killed my 2 wraiths (5 wounds) in 2-3 turns (also the arch rev btw) with his annoying signature spell. I took an all comers list with a bit of everything, 9 hunters, not that much since I didn't know anything about his army and also because I don't often tailor lists in general.  As I said, in a rematch I'd try to tailor a bit since the difference in power was significant and I'd go with lots dryads and spites (I don't have that much T revs).   

[Mirage8112]

10 hours ago, Aezeal said:

I think focussing on magic might not be that easy. I had 3 casters and his single +2 and 3x  cast and unbind over whole table slann made sure I only got a single spell off my last game against them. Not to mention he killed my 2 wraiths (5 wounds) in 2-3 turns (also the arch rev btw) with his annoying signature spell. I took an all comers list with a bit of everything, 9 hunters, not that much since I didn't know anything about his army and also because I don't often tailor lists in general.  As I said, in a rematch I'd try to tailor a bit since the difference in power was significant and I'd go with lots dryads and spites (I don't have that much T revs).   

This game has 5 phases: Hero, movement, shooting, charging/combat, and battleshock.  To win a game of AOS, you need to be able to compete in at least 3 of the 5 phases (preferably 4) or absolutely dominate 2 phases.  

You can’t really win games *just* by dominating the magic phase. This is an objective game, not “see how many of your opponents models you can blow off the board” game. If totally wreck face in the magic phase But you can’t get on objectives: you lose. If you dominate the magic phase and  get on objectives but can’t stop the enemy from getting to you then you had better hope the unit you picked to hold the objective can take a punch: or you lose. Get a shut down in the magic phase, can’t get on objectives and picking the wrong combats? Guess what? You lose. 

If you are putting all your eggs in 1 basket and hoping to dominate the magic phase, it’s likely you’ll do fine provided you don’t come up against a magic specialist (like Seraphon or DoT). If you do, and you cannot compete in 3 of the other phases (moving, combat, shooting or BS), then you’re a goner.
 

On 7/18/2020 at 8:43 AM, Nos said:

**A bunch of true stuff** 

Absolutely 100% spot on. couldn’t have said it better myself. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Mirage8112

[Mirage8112]

On 7/18/2020 at 2:37 AM, Kaylethia said:

The 2019 FAQ had this:

In a Pitched Battle, faction terrain must be set up more 
than 3" from any other terrain features and more 
than 1" from any objectives, in addition to any other 
restrictions that apply to it. Sometimes this will make it 
impossible for a faction terrain piece to be set up; in this 
case, it is not used.’

I've always taken it to mean to layer every restriction and use the worst, and I have a rules lawyer-y player in the group, so everything has to be "exactly by the rules or FAQ as written, damnit." I'd be very happy if you, or someone else could point me in the right direction. 

I believe when you’re dealing with overlapping restrictions, you use the most recent version. Not “the worst” version. This is why we use stats the most recent battletome, rather than the stat lines from previous battletome regardless if the unit is better or worse.

 Our “faction drop” woods have a 1” from terrain, 6” from objectives and 1” from enemy territory in our BT. The 2019 GHB actually dropped after our book was published, and the matched play rules superseded our BT rules. That is why we used the 3” from terrain, 1” from objectives and 1” from enemy territory (“an additional restriction” covered by the GHB) when using the GHB 2019 for matched play. The restrictions are the same in GHB 2020 (3” from terrain, 1” from objectives) but as an “additional restriction”, we also can’t drop our faction terrain in enemy territory (1” away).

However, the order of operational looks a little like this changed in GHB 2020. This think this is relevant because it looks like terrain (including faction terrain) is set up before players actually choose which territory they want. This means there is no enemy territory when our faction terrain drops, so I assume we don’t have to follow that restriction. 

3” from other terrain and 1” from objectives looks to be the proper guidelines to use. 

  

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Mirage8112

[Sputnik]

6 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

3” from other terrain and 1” from objectives looks to be the proper guidelines to use. 

I'm new to the game and still figuring all this out, but am I right in thinking that this would be a nice upgrade for us? Does this mean that we could place a woods in the middle of the board (closer to objectives than previously) before choosing sides, then use our first turn to pop a woods down in our deployment zone and get teleporting right away for a possible alpha strike or to castle up an objective?

[Zanzou]

As I kind of mentioned, I hadn't personally been into playing them really since the book changes (even though I own the physical book and have thought about the new strategies), so my perspective on their balance isn't from my own games or W/L, but as a spectator, cross-comparing different faction rulesets, and verifying suspicions with the aggregate tournament stats (so take my opinion for what you will).  Even if I was playing I wouldn't use my personal W/L as evidence of anything, because that's 1 person relative to the skill of your local gaming group.

To clarify, my position was never that sylv should be able to sit there and just tank everything, or even be dominant at anything.  It's that for example, TLA should have two spells to facilitate play making in top-tier tournaments, since plays are what their whole role appears to be.  To be clear, Sylvaneth would still get completely wrecked against all top-tier magic like seraphon in the magic vs magic department, so I'm not asking for Sylvaneth to "completely dominate with a single gimmick".  Sylvaneth would still be a toolkit army, not the "I win button" army. The tree-revenant teleport change was one big step for their bag of tricks, it just seemed to me that they could use 1 small push further in tricking because there are certain factions out there that sylv did not seem to have an answer for.  Trees can hard-counter(ish) some armies and yet sylv appears to be wide open against a lot of the top.  You could say "that just means broken armies needed to receive the nerf hammer" and if that's what's happening then that's fine, otherwise I'm advocating for a fun option...

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Zanzou

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

This game has 5 phases: Hero, movement, shooting, charging/combat, and battleshock.  To win a game of AOS, you need to be able to compete in at least 3 of the 5 phases (preferably 4) or absolutely dominate 2 phases.  

You can’t really win games *just* by dominating the magic phase. This is an objective game, not “see how many of your opponents models you can blow off the board” game. If totally wreck face in the magic phase But you can’t get on objectives: you lose. If you dominate the magic phase and  get on objectives but can’t stop the enemy from getting to you then you had better hope the unit you picked to hold the objective can take a punch: or you lose. Get a shut down in the magic phase, can’t get on objectives and picking the wrong combats? Guess what? You lose. 

If you are putting all your eggs in 1 basket and hoping to dominate the magic phase, it’s likely you’ll do fine provided you don’t come up against a magic specialist (like Seraphon or DoT). If you do, and you cannot compete in 3 of the other phases (moving, combat, shooting or BS), then you’re a goner.
 

Absolutely 100% spot on. couldn’t have said it better myself. 

Odd post.. it was Nos who was talking about focussing on magic (against coalesced) and me saying it wasn't a good option against that army due to the Slann and it's magical options. Also I didn't focus on magic, I just had 3 casters and no magic specific items which is fairly standard in this army. So how you make that into me saying you should dominate the magic phase (let alone all your assumptions about me and other phases which I don't mention here) and him being right about everything I can't follow since you directly contradict that part of his post.

I can accept you saying he's right about the rest but the above is just a plain contradiction.

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

I believe when you’re dealing with overlapping restrictions, you use the most recent version. Not “the worst” version. This is why we use stats the most recent battletome, rather than the stat lines from previous battletome regardless if the unit is better or worse.

 Our “faction drop” woods have a 1” from terrain, 6” from objectives and 1” from enemy territory in our BT. The 2019 GHB actually dropped after our book was published, and the matched play rules superseded our BT rules. That is why we used the 3” from terrain, 1” from objectives and 1” from enemy territory (“an additional restriction” covered by the GHB) when using the GHB 2019 for matched play. The restrictions are the same in GHB 2020 (3” from terrain, 1” from objectives) but as an “additional restriction”, we also can’t drop our faction terrain in enemy territory (1” away).

However, the order of operational looks a little like this changed in GHB 2020. This think this is relevant because it looks like terrain (including faction terrain) is set up before players actually choose which territory they want. This means there is no enemy territory when our faction terrain drops, so I assume we don’t have to follow that restriction. 

3” from other terrain and 1” from objectives looks to be the proper guidelines to use. 

  

 

Yeah for 2020 GHB I think that would be it. 

In the link I found I didn't see it described but since objectives is still mentioned in the rule that must mean you FIRST pick scenario, then 1 player sets up all terrain (so you can stay away from objectives) and then the other player picks a side and after that the first player (who setup terrain) starts deployment?

Edited July 20, 2020 by Aezeal

[Nos]

1 hour ago, Aezeal said:

Odd post.. it was Nos who was talking about focussing on magic (against coalesced) and me saying it wasn't a good option against that army due to the Slann and it's magical options. Also I didn't focus on magic, I just had 3 casters and no magic specific items which is fairly standard in this army. So how you make that into me saying you should dominate the magic phase (let alone all your assumptions about me and other phases which I don't mention here) and him being right about everything I can't follow since you directly contradict that part of his post.

I can accept you saying he's right about the rest but the above is just a plain contradiction.

To clarify, I wasnt saying go all magic , but in context to your post I was saying I personally would focus on the mobility and magic of Sylvaneth and not just spam Kurnoth Hunters in Winterleaf.

Against Coalesced I probably would go something like

Gnarlroot Grove

Alarielle

Drycha

TLA

Branchwych with Gnarlroot artefact 

Arch Rev

10 Tree Revs

2 x 5 Tree Revs

6 KH sycthes

Vengeful skullroot or Gladewyrm to round off points, but excellent value to just block off a path, and cant hurt you either

At least two guaranteed woods, 4 unbinds a turn, basically 3d6 to summon 10 dryads (or to get throne of Vines first turn then make it 3d6 +2, then +4 etc) multiple spell and attack options which do no more than 1 wound making them extra valuable vs scaly skin, multiple D6 damage chances which likewise are very important vs scaly skin,  economical and reliable shooting with which is basically free, 20 extra dryads or ten Revs or 3 KH or a TL as situation demands for free, 2 super powerful and mobile assasins in Drycha and KH rerolling 1s in attack without even being buffed (Drycha guaranteed, KH more or less if you're sensible with positioning) , strong support in TLA, 3 cheap units which can move pretty much anywhere at any point, not at all command point reliant but you have great command options if you have them spare.

Super mobile army that almost guarantees summoning a unit per turn with 3 other spells on top,  very hard hitting strike units which can reliably attack and finish things like Slaan easily within a turn, strong unbind potential, strong, free healing for the pieces that need it most. No gimmicks, not reliant on two or three or four things having to happen to chain big combos, just really strong weapons and options available at multiple points of the turn and considered defence/nerf vs Coalesced strengths.

Note the army isnt 'about' magic per se. My four casters have roles besides casting and can all perform a function well even if they dont get a spell off each. With the exception of the Branchwych, but they're 80 points so hardly breaking the bank,  and casting on 2d6 out of 3, they absolutely will get spells off anyway. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Nos

[Popisdead]

On 7/17/2020 at 3:38 PM, Mirage8112 said:

Have you tried perhaps building your own wargrove rather than taking the preset ones? There’s a bunch of decent items/command traits that are well worth taking. I’ve toyed around with some of the builds and found somethings I’d be happy to play.

I think this is important for people to hear.  

 

On 7/18/2020 at 5:20 AM, Nos said:

 (Dryads are free! You can literally make a 500 point unit focus all its killing power on zero points!),  

...

But that's not 99% of people on here, and most of the issues on this forum or similar on the internet demonstrate that the issue isnt Sylvaneth, it's people trying to play them as something they arebt and ignoring the strengths of what they are. 

I found this really good last game I played.  I tossed out 10 Dryads a turn (got lucky) and it made a huge difference.  Held up a bone grinder a couple turns.

...

It kinda is.   People need to understand the game not the army.   Kind of like Mcluhan's "the media is the message."  

[Aezeal]

52 minutes ago, Nos said:

To clarify, I wasnt saying go all magic ,

I know, but I wasn't advocating it at all  .

Interesting build. I must admit I'm not going to try it right away since I'm first gonna try my full on 1D approach with tons of dryads, spites and T revs. I think Alarielle might be a weakpoint in the specific army I was against since it had quite a lot of pretty high rend shooting though.  If you use your summoner to cast throne 2 turns you'll only have 30 dryads extra max since she only has one cast even in this build right? Also there is a high chance of 5 wounds characters dying early on (as by personal experience).. but I have no real idea what to do about that except take a TLA which also gives  the 2nd forest without a cast which means I'll certainly be using that one in a rematch. Drycha just has so much potential so she's to good to ignore too so she'll be there too (but she got killed in turn 2 by bastilladon shooting I think, 2 bastilladons, one double shooting hurts. I didn't know he could move and shoot so wasn't out of range as I though I'd be turn 1).

 

9 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

I found this really good last game I played.  I tossed out 10 Dryads a turn (got lucky) and it made a huge difference.  Held up a bone grinder a couple turns.

I've personally not average more than 1 succesfull summon last games so I'm quite jealous. Partially because failing casts, partially unbinds (that terrible Slann for example) but also lacking good target wyldwoods due to  the 9" rule when enemy has engaged.

[Mirage8112]

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Odd post.. it was Nos who was talking about focussing on magic (against coalesced) and me saying it wasn't a good option against that army due to the Slann and it's magical options. Also I didn't focus on magic, I just had 3 casters and no magic specific items which is fairly standard in this army. So how you make that into me saying you should dominate the magic phase (let alone all your assumptions about me and other phases which I don't mention here) and him being right about everything I can't follow since you directly contradict that part of his post.

I can accept you saying he's right about the rest but the above is just a plain contradiction.

Two separate issues. I was agreeing with @Nos about the attitude toward our BT’s playstyle.  

My comments o na build that focuses on magic is a separate issue. It wasn’t a pointed criticism of a magic heavy approach, it was more of a general approach to building an army.. My point was when writing a list you need to think about building your synergies so that you can compete in 3-4 phases or dominate in 2. If you run a magic focuses list that focuses on dominating the magic phase, you also need to plan how the list will play out in the other phases of the game. Personally, I feel a list that focuses on dominating in 1-2 phases rather than competiting in 3-4 runs the risk of being really swingy: you either crush your opponent because they have no counters, or you run up against a hard counter (like coalesced) and have nothing to fall back on. 
 

2 hours ago, Aezeal said:

In the link I found I didn't see it described but since objectives is still mentioned in the rule that must mean you FIRST pick scenario, then 1 player sets up all terrain (so you can stay away from objectives) and then the other player picks a side and after that the first player (who setup terrain) starts deployment?

So the new rules lay out the following steps:

1. Players pick the scenario, and then place objective tokens
2. We pick terrain from a pre-set list. 3 from primary and 2 from secondary 
3. Players roll off, with the winner picking player A, or Player B .
4. Players A then sets up ALL the terrain 
5. Player B then chooses which territory they wish to use. 

The question is when faction terrain should be set up. The little bubble that mentioned tournament play mentions that tournaments will likely  have terrain already set up, in which case players roll off to see which territory they will use. Players who have faction terrain are instructed to set up thier faction terrain before territories are determined.  Can’t place your free wood 1” away from enemy territory if you don’t know which territory is friendly. I assume the placement is the same with matched play games that happen outside tournaments.

[Nos]

1 hour ago, Aezeal said:

I know, but I wasn't advocating it at all  .

Interesting build. I must admit I'm not going to try it right away since I'm first gonna try my full on 1D approach with tons of dryads, spites and T revs. I think Alarielle might be a weakpoint in the specific army I was against since it had quite a lot of pretty high rend shooting though.  If you use your summoner to cast throne 2 turns you'll only have 30 dryads extra max since she only has one cast even in this build right? Also there is a high chance of 5 wounds characters dying early on (as by personal experience).. but I have no real idea what to do about that except take a TLA which also gives  the 2nd forest without a cast which means I'll certainly be using that one in a rematch. Drycha just has so much potential so she's to good to ignore too so she'll be there too (but she got killed in turn 2 by bastilladon shooting I think, 2 bastilladons, one double shooting hurts. I didn't know he could move and shoot so wasn't out of range as I though I'd be turn 1).

 

I've personally not average more than 1 succesfull summon last games so I'm quite jealous. Partially because failing casts, partially unbinds (that terrible Slann for example) but also lacking good target wyldwoods due to  the 9" rule when enemy has engaged.

I personally have never needed to cast throne of vines with a Branchwraith and her 3d6, I'm just saying it's an option. 

Throne of Vines on Alarielle is great against armies who want to charge you because it can make Metamorphosis really dangerous, especially versus mid level heroes or small units of elites. And vs Coalesced it's just one wound per dice so itsnt affected by scaly skin.

Re Woods, if summoning is a part of your plan its worth putting a wood on your side of the board which is out of enemy reach for a few turns solely to turn it into a factory/defensive position. That's what I usually do with TLA's free wood after placing my initial one somewhere more aggressive. 

[Aezeal]

12 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

1. Players pick the scenario, and then place objective tokens
2. We pick terrain from a pre-set list. 3 from primary and 2 from secondary 
3. Players roll off, with the winner picking player A, or Player B .
4. Players A then sets up ALL the terrain 
5. Player B then chooses which territory they wish to use. 

Wow.. only 5 pieces of terrain.. that really makes a difference.. I usually play with no less than 9 including some pretty large pieces (and I usually set up the table myself). If the rules now clearly state 5 I can leave SO MUCH more of the table free.

11 hours ago, Nos said:

That's what I usually do with TLA's free wood after placing my initial one somewhere more aggressive. 

I usually try to get the first one in the middle (but that was 1" away from enemy territory so still not THAT offensive) and the 2nd one near one of my own objectives, but I often had difficulty getting even a 2nd forest out there (this will partially be solved by the new rules - see above in this reply) but trying a TLA will be nice anyway.

[Nos]

16 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Wow.. only 5 pieces of terrain.. that really makes a difference.. I usually play with no less than 9 including some pretty large pieces (and I usually set up the table myself). If the rules now clearly state 5 I can leave SO MUCH more of the table free.

I usually try to get the first one in the middle (but that was 1" away from enemy territory so still not THAT offensive) and the 2nd one near one of my own objectives, but I often had difficulty getting even a 2nd forest out there (this will partially be solved by the new rules - see above in this reply) but trying a TLA will be nice anyway.

In my experience placing trees near or around objectives can be a bit of a trap, as given the limitations of doing stuff within a certain distance of the enemy it can limit you having it near a place which is already guaranteed to have a lot of enemy traffic. From the perspective of summoning or teleporting, Sylvaneth are fast enough and have movement buffs and trickery that mean a wood which looks to be out the way can be more than close enough as a troop delivery system.  Not infrequently in that scenario an opponent will try to stymie that by taking units closer to the wood to prevent that but that means less enemies around an objective etc. Divide and conquer is the way 

I get that woods are useful in and around combat for the buffs they give but those are very much secondary to the movement and summoning control they provide in my experience. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Nos

[Tizianolol]

Guys what sylvaneth wildwoods model i have to use? Can i use old one or i have to play with new model? I mean in a tournament? I just realizzati model is changed:(

 

- about terrain.. its each player chose 3+2 terrain, so when player A deploy them its 10 terrain in total. Thats what i understood.!

Edited July 21, 2020 by Tizianolol

[Popisdead]

20 hours ago, Aezeal said:

I've personally not average more than 1 succesfull summon last games so I'm quite jealous. Partially because failing casts, partially unbinds (that terrible Slann for example) but also lacking good target wyldwoods due to  the 9" rule when enemy has engaged.

It goes game to game.   I've hit twice with 6 Bullgors in a turn.  I haven't faced a Slann (lockdown).  

[Nqshou]

Hello guys,
do you have in mind a list aggro with Drycha and mass Kurnoth Hunters? I would like to try the potential of this type of list. Thanks

[Kramer]

On 7/21/2020 at 2:29 PM, Tizianolol said:

- about terrain.. its each player chose 3+2 terrain, so when player A deploy them its 10 terrain in total. Thats what i understood.!

And a wild wood is one of the options I think. 

[Aezeal]

On 7/21/2020 at 2:29 PM, Tizianolol said:

Guys what sylvaneth wildwoods model i have to use? Can i use old one or i have to play with new model? I mean in a tournament? I just realizzati model is changed:(

 

- about terrain.. its each player chose 3+2 terrain, so when player A deploy them its 10 terrain in total. Thats what i understood.!

Yeah just read it myself... means my table will be just as filled as is was I guess. If you win the roll to setup the terrain you can put more (all) on the sides though  Just line em up on one side (I'd never do this tbh but would be legal). But putting a few of the larger piece more towards the corner might help deploying forests

[Aezeal]

6 hours ago, Kramer said:

And a wild wood is one of the options I think. 

yes.. but not an awakend wyldwood... there is a difference... a rather important one for Sylvaneth

[Tizianolol]

When i red first time i thought that too. Yes i think its a normal wildwood not a sylvaneth wildwood. Anyway can i use old wildwood model for my list in aos 2.0 or i have to play the new one?

[Aezeal]

10 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:

When i red first time i thought that too. Yes i think its a normal wildwood not a sylvaneth wildwood. Anyway can i use old wildwood model for my list in aos 2.0 or i have to play the new one?

You can use a single old wyldwood base as a complete (single placement/summon) forest (so not 3 bases anymore, it's only 3 bases if you use the new woods). Doesn't it say so in our book (not sure where I got this rule from really)?