AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Thrst77]

I feel like the new wyldwood rules have added so much clutter to a profile that was perfectly fine after the kragnos update. Sure, planting three trees at once with a 24" range for verdant blessing should be easy but it adds more busywork. Should have just stayed as the "up to three" imo

[Pennydude]

22 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."

That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero.

Look at the last sentence on that column. Setting them up more than 3” from each other means they are three separate faction terrain features. Under the GHB Faction Terrain rules, if its impossible to set up a faction terrain feature, it is not placed. Since they are separate, one failing should not cause the others to fail, IMO.

[Pennydude]

26 minutes ago, Mokoshkana said:

The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."

That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero.

Look at the last sentence on that column. Setting them up more than 3” from each other means they are three separate faction terrain features. Under the GHB Faction Terrain rules, if its impossible to set up a faction terrain feature, it is not placed. Since they are separate, one failing should not cause the others to fail, IMO.

Edited July 2, 2021 by Pennydude
Sorry for double post, mobile being a pain

[Aezeal]

So if a branchwraith summons to a single tree awakend wyldwood you just have to ring that tree's base with the dryads?

Is there still an option to use the old wyld wood? I'm not sure where the ruling we could use it instead of the new one was located and if it was changed. Would you be able to place the separate tree's as 3 seperate awakend woods (I'm guessing not since that would make deploying easier) or can you only use the base as a ' complete' awakend wyldwood of 3?

[Aezeal]

1 minute ago, Pennydude said:

Look at the last sentence on that column. Setting them up more than 3” from each other means they are three separate faction terrain features. Under the GHB Faction Terrain rules, if its impossible to set up a faction terrain feature, it is not placed. Since they are separate, one failing should not cause the others to fail, IMO.

This does seem a reasonable interpretation of the rules. 

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

24 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Ha! Amazing that we're still debating this in 2021.

Especially since BR Kragnos fixed this issue and now it's been actively un-fixed.

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

You left out half of that rule, though. I don't think this is cut and dried.

17.0.2 - Faction terrain is a special type of terrain that is taken as part of an army. A faction terrain feature has a faction terrain warscroll (see 23.0), which will tell you how it is set up and what additional rules apply to it.

The second sentence even has the rules bold text, referring to an important game term. The question here is what the exact definition of a 'faction terrain feature' is, since the GHB rules apply to the placement of all faction terrain features.

I believe, based on the presence of the rules bold text in the second sentence, that the definition of faction terrain is terrain which has a faction warscroll, whether it is summoned or included on your army roster. I think the first sentence is better worded as a definition, though, so I think that @Mirage8112's argument also holds weight.

I also think that because the GHB passage on faction terrain is included in the battlefield set-up section it's referring specifically to setting up the battlefield with terrain before the game starts. This wording is also reflected on the warscroll itself (it specifically mentions that the restrictions apply to initial placement). I don't think the restrictions on terrain placement are meant to be indefinite. We're only one of 2 factions who have this issue (the other being maggotkin) so it's probably unlikely the GHB would address our factions unique use of scenery; it makes sense that the warscrolls themselves would detail specifically how they are to be used in game.

I means that's literally how everything else works.

 

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

he spell already existed, though, so it's not like they wrote it from scratch. Plus, there are all kinds of rules that only apply to matched play. You could make the same argument and say 'why would they give the person who deployed first +1 to priority' if they were just going to change it in the matched play rules?' The matched play rules are designed to create a slightly different gameplay experience.

I mean, it existed yes, but it was deliberately altered. And although there are all sorts of rules that only apply to matched-play from the core book, I can't think of a warscroll that has alternate range specifications depending on what mode of game you're playing. And again, it's clear in the errata that they could have changed any of this to reflect these restrictions: but they didn't. There is no reason for GW to leave the range restriction in our BT in place after a major errata, and then create an alternate range restrictions that makes actually using them impossible. 

 

40 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

Ha, helps if I read the new woods carefully.  If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll).  That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others.

Nice catch! And upon second reading I agree with you. 

 

40 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.

Despite all the previous, think how impossible that makes actually playing with woods on the new smaller table. 8 pieces of scenery means there has to be gap bigger than 8" between them to even get 1 wood down. You can pretty much forget getting a 3 wood circle down anywhere other than your deployment zone with terrain, objectives and models on the board.

Finally, as I mentioned before Battletome and warscroll rules supersede core rules. Where there is a conflict, you're supposed to use the faction specific rules. I understand that the passage in the GHB says "in addition to any other rules" but the rules in the GHB are not "an addition": it does not add a new restriction (we already have distance from terrain and objectives restriction) it creates two versions of the same restriction. The core rulebook says (specifically) in that case we are supposed to use the restrictions in our Battletome. 

I understand wanting to abide by the rules, but sometimes I think Sylvaneth players are dedicated to handicapping themselves. This is the T-revs "teleporting from combat" conundrum all over again: a general wording change that Sylvaneth players are dedicated to seeing as a deliberate restriction to how our faction is supposed to play despite every indication otherwise.
 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Tizianolol]

About aw wildwood your interpretation seems correct , we are not forced to place 3 little tree. The only problem is now little tree dont block LoS and 3 tree together block it. ( because its considered a wildwood) the problem is our bowhunters again if they are into a ww got LoS blocked. Last update not. Thats sad

[acr0ssth3p0nd]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

I also think that because the GHB passage on faction terrain is included in the battlefield set-up section it's referring specifically to setting up the battlefield with terrain before the game starts. This wording is also reflected on the warscroll itself (it specifically mentions that the restrictions apply to initial placement). I don't think the restrictions on terrain placement are meant to be indefinite. We're only one of 2 factions who have this issue (the other being maggotkin) so it's probably unlikely the GHB would address our factions unique use of scenery; it makes sense that the warscrolls themselves would detail specifically how they are to be used in game.

I means that's literally how everything else works.

 

I mean, it existed yes, but it was deliberately altered. And although there are all sorts of rules that only apply to matched-play from the core book, I can't think of a warscroll that has alternate range specifications depending on what mode of game you're playing. And again, it's clear in the errata that they could have changed any of this to reflect these restrictions: but they didn't. There is no reason for GW to leave the range restriction in our BT in place after a major errata, and then create an alternate range restrictions that makes actually using them impossible. 

 

Nice catch! And upon second reading I agree with you. 

 

Despite all the previous, think how impossible that makes actually playing with woods on the new smaller table. 8 pieces of scenery means there has to be gap bigger than 8" between them to even get 1 wood down. You can pretty much forget getting a 3 wood circle down anywhere other than your deployment zone with terrain, objectives and models on the board.

Finally, as I mentioned before Battletome and warscroll rules supersede core rules. Where there is a conflict, you're supposed to use the faction specific rules. I understand that the passage in the GHB says "in addition to any other rules" but the rules in the GHB are not "an addition": it does not add a new restriction (we already have distance from terrain and objectives restriction) it creates two versions of the same restriction. The core rulebook says (specifically) in that case we are supposed to use the restrictions in our Battletome. 

I understand wanting to abide by the rules, but sometimes I think Sylvaneth players are dedicated to handicapping themselves. This is the T-revs "teleporting from combat" conundrum all over again: a general wording change that Sylvaneth players are dedicated to seeing as a deliberate restriction to how our faction is supposed to play despite every indication otherwise.
 

To be fair, at this point I feel like expecting anything other than the worst possible result from official sources is seeing yourself up for inevitable disappointment. 😛

[Mirage8112]

36 minutes ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:

To be fair, at this point I feel like expecting anything other than the worst possible result from official sources is seeing yourself up for inevitable disappointment. 😛

Well I suppose that's one way you could go lol. 

Although I should point out that all the weird rules interactions we've been debating (T-revs teleport, Drycha access to flaming weapons, dryads teleporting after summoning ect) all have been clarified in our favor, and just about every reveal has either benefited us a great deal, or hurt every other faction far more.

I stand by what I've ben saying for pages now: our faction is in the best place we've been since 1.0 gave us the first of the new Battletomes.       

Edited July 2, 2021 by Mirage8112

[Kramig]

My disappoint is the limitation to only 1 teleport per round. What do you think about? 

[Thrst77]

12 minutes ago, Kramig said:

My disappoint is the limitation to only 1 teleport per round. What do you think about? 

I think its fine. We have units like treelords and tree revenants that can teleport without having to use the 1 teleport per round. Often times I don't feel the need to teleport more than one unit.

[Nixon]

 (as I know quite well from having a 5 month old that refuses to sleep like Nagash refuses to die) @Mirage8112

This made me laugh, we have the exact same problem at my Growe and it is very hard to see the funny side of things at the moment. 

So thanks! 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Nixon
Spell

[Nixon]

34 minutes ago, Kramig said:

My disappoint is the limitation to only 1 teleport per round. What do you think about? 

I also think this is all right since we often just teleport that big nasty unit of Kurnoths anyway. 

But of course that might change. 

[martinwolf]

@Mirage8112 Can you point me to the bit where Core Rules spells are allowed for unique characters? 

[Lanoss]

It’s in the FAQ… they amended a line in all the Lores for all the armies 

 

Im finding the FAQ’d rules for AWW to be more confusing now than the rules in BR Kragnos 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Trevelyan]

2 hours ago, Kramig said:

My disappoint is the limitation to only 1 teleport per round. What do you think about? 

I think it’s the same restriction we’ve had since the 2.0 Battletome dropped in 2019, so it’s a little late to start worrying about it now. 

[Aeryenn]

Best advice: ignore GW's confusion unless you attend tournaments. They were supposed to make things clear with this errata (not to mention "best rules ever core book"). It's embarrassing. Just play Wyldwoods the way it makes sense and find friends who wish to play a fair, balanced game.

[Kramig]

4 hours ago, Thrst77 said:

I think its fine. We have units like treelords and tree revenants that can teleport without having to use the 1 teleport per round. Often times I don't feel the need to teleport more than one unit.

I was forgetting that them have their own rule, thanks! 

[martinwolf]

3 hours ago, Lanoss said:

It’s in the FAQ… they amended a line in all the Lores for all the armies 

Yes, but this doesn’t include the Core Rules Spell Lore Enhancements as far as I can see. The update is only for the Sylvaneth Spell Lore.

[a74xhx]

Hmm..... FAQ no longer states you can use the old citadel wood models.

[a74xhx]

Feels like these new Wyldwood rules were written by people who hadn't seen the Kragnos versions of the warscroll.

[Aezeal]

I think the woods are fine with these rules, we'll be sprouting some trees all around the table now and I'm thinking TL-variants will be a good option now I can reliably teleport (I've had whole matches where I didn't get more than my starting wood if I didn't take a TLA) in addition to the 3.0 monster rules. TL+ hunter and TLA hunter teams  for a +1 save for these teams seems solid.

[Alpidur]

In particular, why take out a new warscroll into Kragnos and a month later re-write all the warscroll? No sense! 

[Nick in York]

5 hours ago, a74xhx said:

Feels like these new Wyldwood rules were written by people who hadn't seen the Kragnos versions of the warscroll.

Yeah, I've said elsewhere that my feeling is that the team/individual working on BR Kragnos wasn't aware that other people were also working on changing the Awakened Wyldwoods for AoS 3. Both BR Kragnos and the FAQ ones are trying to fix the same issue (difficulty in placing woods down, line of sight) but in different ways.