AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[herohammer]

I want wildwoods to be limited to the one you set up at the beginning and for the army to change accordingly to maintain balance. I refuse to spam woods all over. I know I guy who owns 18 woods just to play this army in case he needs that many in a game. 

The woods are annoying as hell to play against and hardly anyone plays them right with the trees actually in place. People just run empty bases and charge giant stuff right though them without needing to move around/over the trees.

Sylvaneth were the first army I played in AOS but I haven't touched them in awhile because of the wildwood rules.

[a74xhx]

Playing with empty bases is fine, but charging over the holes is just wrong.  I've filled some of the holes in with resin water and declare them as pools filled with deadly creatures/liquid, so you can't stand on our walk over them. I've also chopped some of the trees down to stumps, and others into to single branchless trunks, straightening out the curves so they are mostly vertical. Solves many of of transport issues with them, and adds variety.

First wood I place is a blackened burnt down wood. I tell my opponent they were destroyed by some <pick random unit from his army> and my army is really angry about it.  Yet to pysche anyone out with it yet

My other 8 woods are themed verdant, winter, magical, jungle etc.  They are being summoned from across the different realms.

[jake3991]

I am also concerned that a new book would largely be a nerf.  We've got a cool army here that allows for highly dynamic play. A lot of the new keywords (wholly within etc.) would be a huge blow to our biggest asset, mobility.  Hopefully any changes just update things to the "new battle tomb model" and leave it at that.  

[Aeryenn]

I won't buy a nerf battletome GW, keep that in mind. 😑

[a74xhx]

4 hours ago, jake3991 said:

I am also concerned that a new book would largely be a nerf.  We've got a cool army here that allows for highly dynamic play. A lot of the new keywords (wholly within etc.) would be a huge blow to our biggest asset, mobility.  Hopefully any changes just update things to the "new battle tomb model" and leave it at that. 

This is why I think there won't be many changes. It'd be difficult to rewrite Sylvaneth and there is a great risk of breaking them. At the moment it's probably more luck on GWs part Sylvaneth are still competitive - just look at the kharadrons, AOS 2018 killed them because the overall meta turned against shooting.

The suggestions of a single wood or fewer woods would require a significant rewrite and boost to all our units, causing a totally new playstyle.

I think GWs plan is for the underpowered factions will to be boosted and the current top armies (sisters, nagash, deepkin, nurgle, Sylvaneth) to stay exactly the same, creating a more even playing field. Sadly for us this will feel like a nerf given we at probably near the bottom of that top army list.

Best option is a few minor boosts to our warscrolls.

 

[Wickie De Viking]

Right, when they boost some underwhelming armies like Fyreslayers, they might rise above Sylvaneth in the Meta. But giving us some amazeballs new mini's might soften our disappointment

[Ruhraffe]

12 hours ago, herohammer said:

I want wildwoods to be limited to the one you set up at the beginning and for the army to change accordingly to maintain balance. I refuse to spam woods all over. I know I guy who owns 18 woods just to play this army in case he needs that many in a game. 

The woods are annoying as hell to play against and hardly anyone plays them right with the trees actually in place. People just run empty bases and charge giant stuff right though them without needing to move around/over the trees.

Sylvaneth were the first army I played in AOS but I haven't touched them in awhile because of the wildwood rules.

I feel this would have a big impact lorewise. The life grows around the sylvaneth armies whereever they walk, so the growing of woods is a fantastic element. Growing one tree is a bit lame. Also, how do you want to lay out the allegiance ability after this change, without loosing the unique touch of teleporting between the woods? This is what makes Sylvaneth really fun for me. Setting up defensive positions, shifting my troops around whereever they are needed, holding objectives in a grindy defense and striking them in the back. All of this, does not happen without teleporting and the defence of the woods. 

[JP1]

Look, i love the woods as much as the next guy (both in terms of fluff and abilities), but what really gets me is that people just see our army as not fun to play against because of them.  When i rock up to a tournament i want the other person to have a great time, not have a disappointed face that a guy with a bag full of plastic trees has showed up to spoil his day (which applies doubly for shooting armies and those with large based non-flying monsters).

Ruleswise, woods are fine (maybe tweak dryad buff to wholly within 3" or 6" of the woods), but we're all here to have a good time and play some fun games,  and i'm not sure the wyldwood mechanic is delivering that for our opponents right now.

 

 

[Ruhraffe]

I have the feeling, that this gets criticised because of the obvious nature of the woods. It really gets pushed in your face:

"And now I shoot you" - "nuh-uh!"

"okay, then I charge with my battlelines" "okay, one sixth dies."

"At least my big centerpiece can crush right into the midst of your army" - "nope, trees in the way"

The trees are a mighty denial tool, I have to admit, but this is the way the army works. It is this way in every kind of game. It is really frustrating to play against a control style, because control decks/armies/... tend to get in the way of your plan and win by not loosing, instead of having a "fair" upfront fight. I can totally understand that this can be hard to deal with, especially for newer players, who might not know their way around that. Recently I had two 1000 point games against someone quite new to the game, him playing Nighthaunt. He really had a hard time, but mainly because he tried to press hard into the woods, instead of standing back a bit, collecting points on his objectives and grind me out with his endless summoning; or letting me come to him. 

But at the end, that is how sylvaneth rolls. You can play them as a control-style army, they got the tools for the job.

Similarly, I have never stood a chance against my friends Tzeentch. Their mortal wound output was just to high. I cannot reach him, he blows up half my units just in his hero phase. This is just how Tzeentch is played, high MW, but not this tanky when you reach them. If you can't get in combat or snipe out the spellcasters, bad luck. 

In the last few days, I heard many suggestions in this forum, to limit Sylvaneths ability to castle, to teleport, to weaken their board control by giving them less woods or smaller or even just trees or..... But what is left when this gets into effect? We got another melee-focused army, maybe some Bow-Hunters in the back, and some healing abilities, that often come to late because the unit already died. Meh. 

[Grimbok]

But did GW design the army to be a defensive control army, annoying for the opponant to play, one drop wildwood spam army? 

 

I don’t think so. They thought up some cool looking rules, with a wildwood for flavour. The current playstyle og wildwood/dryad spam control game is unintentional. If you don’t play that way, you are hard pressed even in casual games... It’s just how it worked out, more or less by accident. Why would they make the brand new revenant kit rules underpowered/borderline useless and the old dryads awesome? 

 

They need to fix the warscrolls from the ground up and change the wildwood rules to make this army viable and varied army people want to pick up and play with for a long time. The one drop control ****** gets boring really fast, the hassle of moving those models within the woods is too much, and many opponants find it annoying to play against.

 

I love my sylvaneth models, a joy to paint, but I find them very uinteresting to play. I refuse to dryad spam and I can hardly put more than 3 wood bases on the board because we actually use terrain and stuff...and if I don’t, my army is utterty destroyed by new battletomes...even in casual games...and that’s a problem.

 

Grimbok

[Lhw]

Disagree with that @Grimbok. Whilst Dryad spam is probably best, there are plenty of players who have gone 3-2 or 4-1 with min model, monster heavy lists. @Jimbo did it at Angelcore and someone at Blackout this year went 4-1 with a non battalion list, featuring Alarielle, Drycha and Durthu! So definitely doable in casual play. I also think it's pretty impossible to assume to know how GW 'wanted' the army to play. There are a lot of players playing Sylvaneth, many of whom picked it up early on (myself included), so I don't think that it struggles in that respect. 

My thoughts in general, if we were to get a new tome:

- Fix stringing. Yes it makes Dryads good, but it is silly. Not particularly fun to play against, and just doesn't make sense at all.

- Make woods consistent in manner they're put down. All outside of 1". 

That would be my only two things that I felt really needed dealing with. Think the tome is relatively balanced.

Having said all that, definitely not in the 'I fear a nerf' camp. Love what the recent new tomes have offered armies and very excited about the prospect of a new one for us! Alarielle might even get a natural bonus to cast in it!! 

[Grimbok]

So either play a demi-godess or one drop battalion...ok... what about lower point games? Of course that doesn’t excist in tournament players mind. Only 2000 points matched play...all the time...

This is one of the biggest problems in AoS, the tournament mindset and it’s influence on army design and points costs etc... you always say; just play like this, all is fine! But what if I just want to play a varied sylvaneth list and want’s it to function ok and have close games?

You know, like armies we see on pictures in the battletomes and read in fluff descriptions...

Sylvaneth as a defensive control army. Not the feel I get reading the tome... 

 

 

Grimbok

[Kaylethia]

11 minutes ago, Grimbok said:

So either play a demi-godess or one drop battalion...ok... what about lower point games? Of course that doesn’t excist in tournament players mind. Only 2000 points matched play...all the time...

This is one of the biggest problems in AoS, the tournament mindset and it’s influence on army design and points costs etc... you always say; just play like this, all is fine! But what if I just want to play a varied sylvaneth list and want’s it to function ok and have close games?

You know, like armies we see on pictures in the battletomes and read in fluff descriptions...

Sylvaneth as a defensive control army. Not the feel I get reading the tome... 

 

 

Grimbok

I've played 1000-point games where I place a single wood base and go full ham. I've played 2000-point games where most of my army teleports every movement phase. And those have been essentially the same list (gnarlroot, monstermash, 1-2 units of 20 dryads, no dryad spam). 

To me, at least, Sylvaneth are an army of flexibility, and part of that can include spamming. Whether or not you choose to or need to use that, is dependant on each player and their respective local (or not-so-local) group.

[Ruhraffe]

@Grimbok, that is just not right. I said abouve, I also play 1000 points, and thats where I started when I began collecting. My winrate at 1000 points is way better then at 2000, because we got big behemoths that are hard to deal with at 1000 points, Durthu being the main example, but TLA as well. Also, Branchwraiths with their summoning can be immensly strong if you can keep them protected and hold a wood free for her to summon into. 

[Lhw]

@Grimbok I talked about 2k because that's what I like to play. Just my own experience. You're being equally aggressive about that. I have little experience with 1k games, but fortunately it seems that @Kaylethia and @Ruhraffe have, both of whom seem to suggest that they can be quite doable at that level too.

I'm a bit confused by how you do want Sylvaneth to play? Not big monsters. Not Dryad spam. What do you want? 

[Grimbok]

A mixed fluffy force. I don’t mind a treelord or two or a group of dryads. But I would also like to include kurnoth hunters (all types) and tree revenants, drycha once in a while etc. 

 

A mixed force is fine against half of my opponants, good games. Not against LoN, Maggotkin, Seraphon and sometimes Khorne (when 20 bloodletters drop down late game). It’s power creep and summoning that does it. Classic GW. To counter that, it forces sylvaneth to go down one route to play along (with unfortunate wildwood syndrome added in).Other armies are worse off though, but they need an update too. 

 

My fear is because one aspect af Sylvaneth does OK at tournaments, GW thinks the battletome is fine, just minor adjustments...

 

How many years are we gonna wait for Spite and Tree Revenants to be a usefull battleline option? It’s pretty basic stuff. With so few warscrolls in the army, they better hit the mark pretty close with all of them. 

Fixing wildwoods is of highest priority though.

 

Grimbok

[Lhw]

I think Tree Revs are great. The pressure they can put on your opponents objectives and small wound models is brilliant and very useful. Kurnoth Hunters are still very good, as is Drycha against big hordes (such as DoK, Reapers or FEC...) I think Spites are a bit pants, and Wych's just don't seem worth the same points as Wraiths to me now, but almost everything else in the book has a role. 

Again, 1 aspect of Sylvaneth is not the only thing that has done well. I've done well with lots of dryads, other players have done well with a collection of monsters, some have used multi drop armies, @Mike Burgess has used lists with lots of Hunters in before. I really think they are a very viable army at the moment, with 5/6 viable lists. 

 

[Grimbok]

Tree revs shouldn’t be a small unit hiding in the back to pressure empty objectives. They don’t do much other than being a slight annoyance. They don’t do enough damage and dies to a stiff breeze. These should be your main battleline troops (they are the soldiers of the sylvaneth)  delivering damage. More like namarti thralls style. You should be able to play these as battleline without dryads support imo. 

 

 

Grimbok

 

[Lhw]

That's a fair comment. Would be cool if they kicked out more damage (or could be boosted to do so). Doesn't quite mean you can't use them though, does it? 

[Grimbok]

They count as battleline I suppose...

 

Grimbok

[Grimbok]

Eitther make them like namarti thralls, hard hitting class cannons or make them two wounds. They are pretty big tree/ghost stuff, seems pretty durable. 

 

Grimbok

[overtninja]

Trees are a lot less powerful if you put 2 pieces of terrain on every square of the board at a minimum, I've found. They are additionally less effective if your opponent has terrain pieces of their own - which every new army basically does now. With the changes to the rules for where you can place Wyldwoods, you're looking at putting maybe 1 or 2 woods down per cast if you're lucky - and your opponent could easily make it harder depending on where they put the terrain down before the game starts, where they deploy their own terrain, and how they position their units.

I've not played too many games but Wyldwoods are definitely MVPs of the army - but without them, Sylvaneth would be rather rubbish, since they'd miss out on the bonuses that make them competitive, the LoS blocking that prevents sniping and mortal wound spells from anything that doesn't fly, and the general control of your opponent's movement - especially for blocking their big models. The Sylvaneth really need those forests to function adequately vs. most other armies, even if they are specifically designed to frustrate your opponent.

[Aezeal]

56 minutes ago, Grimbok said:

Eitther make them like namarti thralls, hard hitting class cannons or make them two wounds. They are pretty big tree/ghost stuff, seems pretty durable. 

 

Grimbok

I'd say a further points drop is more in GW's alley... since it would mean we would buy more of those.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Aezeal

[Kaylethia]

On the topic of Tree-Revenants, I've discussed them with a friend who loves mathhammer. He's put their offensive capabilities (3+ hit rolls and rend) on par with Hammerers. Except you get movement shenanigans on top. Following his advice, I've used a unit of ten, and they are very nice. As long as you have good positioning, possibly presenting a more important target as needed, coupled with the ability to take out things that are squishy or weakened, alongside forcing your opponent to divert resources to protect those targets make them a very good hammer unit that takes some pressure off your main units just by being on the field. In 1k games, that's usually one of the opponents heroes or battleline units sitting near their backline, keeping them off objectives.

I don't know how many here have tried a unit of ten revenants, but I urge you to try them. Five aren't nearly as threatening as ten that can be almost anywhere on the field, with an average damage of 2-6 against AS4 without counting the 2-damage weapon on the unit champion or rerolling a single dice. 

[Aezeal]

7 hours ago, Lhw said:

 

- Make woods consistent in manner they're put down. All outside of 1". 

 

OMG YES THAT.

If stringing is gone dryads do need a price drop though.

20 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:

 

I don't know how many here have tried a unit of ten revenants, but I urge you to try them. Five aren't nearly as threatening as ten that can be almost anywhere on the field, with an average damage of 2-6 against AS4 without counting the 2-damage weapon on the unit champion or rerolling a single dice. 

2-6 damage doesn't seem like a very reliable way to kill most 5 wound hero's ... let alone 6 wound hero's with a better than 4+ save (yes... bloodsecrator)

 

5 hours ago, Lhw said:

, and Wych's just don't seem worth the same points as Wraiths to me now, but almost everything else in the book has a role. 

 

I agree.. their spell is just so subpar.. especially when looking at the newer spells and endless spells (yes you pay for those.. but still).

I personally would like the Ancient to have 2 spells btw, just because I think ancient treelords should be better casters than most. I'd not mind loosing an attack for it..