Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Chris Tomlin

AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

Recommended Posts

I appreciate the cost argument, but if the hypothetical new terrain works better then I ultimately won’t mind. 

 

What worries me is the potential playstyle impact. I bought into Sylvaneth to play a slightly tricksy, teleporting and terrain manipulation faction. If removing the Wyldwoods means cutting back on teleporting and turning the army into a relatively slow and predictable melee army which replaces mobility with excessive healing (for example) as an Order alternative to Death style recursion then I won’t be happy. 

Swapping Wyldwoods for a more convenient teleport nexus with a few other benefits is (theoretically - subject to actual implementation) fine with me. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trevelyan said:

I appreciate the cost argument, but if the hypothetical new terrain works better then I ultimately won’t mind. 

 

What worries me is the potential playstyle impact. I bought into Sylvaneth to play a slightly tricksy, teleporting and terrain manipulation faction. If removing the Wyldwoods means cutting back on teleporting and turning the army into a relatively slow and predictable melee army which replaces mobility with excessive healing (for example) as an Order alternative to Death style recursion then I won’t be happy. 

Swapping Wyldwoods for a more convenient teleport nexus with a few other benefits is (theoretically - subject to actual implementation) fine with me. 

This is probably the best way I've heard ot described yet. It would be a huge and bizarre change to go from "most mobile army in the game" to "death, but with life".

I mean, I still love Sylvaneth and I'll be fine with whatever they do but it'd be very weird.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trevelyan said:

I appreciate the cost argument, but if the hypothetical new terrain works better then I ultimately won’t mind. 

 

What worries me is the potential playstyle impact. I bought into Sylvaneth to play a slightly tricksy, teleporting and terrain manipulation faction. If removing the Wyldwoods means cutting back on teleporting and turning the army into a relatively slow and predictable melee army which replaces mobility with excessive healing (for example) as an Order alternative to Death style recursion then I won’t be happy. 

Swapping Wyldwoods for a more convenient teleport nexus with a few other benefits is (theoretically - subject to actual implementation) fine with me. 

Yes. This. 100%. 

On top of this I'm worried about wholly within making teleport too finicky to be useful. Even wholly within 6 for the teleport will almost always mean it takes an extra turn to walk into the woods and it will immediately be almost unusable. You could no longer summon a woods near something and then teleport elsewhere. I'm not even sure the base of allarielle can fit wholly within 6 of a Wildwood if she doesn't fly into it. 3 turns to teleport (walk into woods or wholly within, teleport, then charge) would turn us into a standard walking force just as badly.

I'm hoping for single trees like the nurgle ones that can easily be summoned and moved and wholly within 12 of at least one tree as the redeploy. Allows you to put a second tree down to cover a block of 30 if needed since wholly 12 for 30 models is quite finicky and not that enjoyable.

I do think we will get some more healing though, likely in the form of an endless spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hoping that the new terrain is an additional wildwood model rather than a scraping of the existing ones.  Only three base models of trees is rather lame and more variety for the modeling is welcome.   Perhaps put the new grove on a smaller base to allow more placement options. 

 

If I was going to shoot for the moon I would also wish for the existing placement rules to be relaxed to remove the "distance from" clauses and instead just require that models not need pushed aside to deploy the woods.  The original rules I think were conceived in an era when tables were less cluttered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..  no news today? 

I hope that if they change the wyldwoods just split it into three independent trees that need to be on a distance between them. Just the same way we use them, but easier to transport and to put on the battlefield. 

And I hope theres an endless that let us resurrect deleted units like a tree of life or something 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zanzou said:

That would be kind of atrocious to me.  They tell us we basically have to buy a ****ton of this terrain to be viable and then would delete the terrain completely 2 years later? Even as a big Sylvaneth fan, justifying buying new terrain for them if they're throwing out my previous investments into them is a major turn off and with that big slap in the face don't know if I'll bother with the new rules... As long as they continue to make the old wyldwoods an acceptable option in play then I won't complain.

This happens nearly every single edition. People invest $100-$150 in buying large units because the rules are good, and then in the next edition of the book or FAQ, they aren’t quite as good, or a rule change makes them play differently than they did before. 

Think of it this way. Most people who invest in console gaming (xbox, ps4, ect) shell out anywhere between $3-$400 for a new system every what, 4 years? No matter how many games you played on the old console, they don’t work on the new console. Most people don’t bat an eye when the new system drops or their old console crashes.  It’s understood that on a long enough timeline everything gets invalidated. 

There is nothing that says you can’t still use your woods as scenery, or, if you’re really stuck on it, there no reason you cant continue to play with the old Battletome and GHB with your local club. 

I have 9 Wyldwoods, painted, based, leaves, the works. At little over $30 a pop I’ve spent nearly $300 on my woods, and more than a few hours in painting them. I also have an entire wood elf army, a much larger warriors of chaos army, some high elf stuff and a bunch of other miniatures and terrain that never sees the light of day because they were split between factions when AoS first came out (I’m an old WHFB player). 

I hate top break it to you, but eventually every single model in your collection (and mine) will be obsolete one day. That’s just the way this game works. It’s part of the great cycle of war gaming, and one of the downsides of getting your army updated. 

Just try to enjoy it while it lasts.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Trevelyan said:

I appreciate the cost argument, but if the hypothetical new terrain works better then I ultimately won’t mind. 

What worries me is the potential playstyle impact. I bought into Sylvaneth to play a slightly tricksy, teleporting and terrain manipulation faction. If removing the Wyldwoods means cutting back on teleporting and turning the army into a relatively slow and predictable melee army which replaces mobility with excessive healing (for example) as an Order alternative to Death style recursion then I won’t be happy. 

Swapping Wyldwoods for a more convenient teleport nexus with a few other benefits is (theoretically - subject to actual implementation) fine with me. 


So far, the devs have done a really solid job of making each army feel different on the tabletop. Khorne feels like Khorne should; a melee centered army that just buzz saws through anything and everything provided they can get into CC. A Legion army feels like en endless supply of troops, that no matter how many you kill, they just keep coming at you while your troops die and don't return. Nurgle feels like a force impossible to kill, truly disgustingly resilient. Idoneth feels like a wave, a little weak at first but gets stronger and stronger as the game progresses; the tide sweeps in. 

As I said in a previous post, our army has been an army that centers around area denial and movement tricks. We’re an army that does really well with asymmetric warfare; get us in a straight up toe-to-toe fight and we lose (not quickly, but we lose).  But give us a chance and we’ll put 4-5 of our units against 1 of theirs, annihilate it, and then disappear to do the same somewhere else.

It really depends how the dev’s want our playstyle to be. I cant really think of any single allegiance army that feels the same as another. While it’s true that the the “life” mechanic doesn’t currently come into play in our army design right now, I can’t imagine that they would just duplicate the Legions playstyle and call it a day. Death is endless, but super slow and dependent on masses of troops to be effective (and if you ask me kind of boring). There are plenty of regen mechanics in th game between TZ summoning through fate points, FEC replenishing troops, Nurgle summoning, so there’s good reason to think we’ll get a bit more of that mechanic, tied to Alarielle being the goddess of life (we are a life army after all). Even though Khorne does CC best, every other army can do CC too, just not as well. I expect life magic to feature in this way but not as the core mechanic of the army. 

Currently, nobody does movement like us. Stormcast can bring units on the board, but relies on characters or spells to move them great distances when they get there. Other armies can bring units onto the board through summoning, but when they’re there, that where they stay; until they foot-slog somewhere else. If I had to put money on something I’d say we retain our superior movement abilities in some way, and hopefully with something that streamlines the mechanic. 

And thank god too right? As @Frowny pointed out, we have a 2-3 turn movement mechanic now. Get into the woods, teleport then move and charge. Some units can do this faster (if they start off the board and teleport directly into the woods, or T-revs with waypipes), but it’s still usually 2 turns minimum, with a 9” bubble that’s really easy to block off. Legions get 4 gravesites that can be placed without restrictions (being that its a marker and not a scenery piece)  so it’s summoning bubble is fairly difficult to block off (since the legion player has total control of where to place it). 

Our movement is important because it accounts for fact that some of our units are relatively fragile (T-revs and spites) allowing them to bypass the long slog and thus not get shot, charged, magicked off the board. Our woods also provide protection from shooting so our relatively weak characters (Wraiths can get up to -3 hit and ignore rend in a wood) can stick around and do stuff. 

This is our mechanic now, but there are other ways to do this. For example, Kharadron Overlords can give their airships items that let them do stuff. It looks from the previews that spites will figure heavily in our book. Could you imagine if we could give a unit spites like the arch revenant? Imagine Kurnoth hunters with +3 move and fly. Or a spite that allows a Treelord to ignore MW on a 5+? 

Our wood mechanic is cool because it allows us to do something in game. But it also leads to ridiculous play sometimes. Long lines of drayds that snake out from woods for the -1 to hit even though they really aren’t anywhere near the woods. It would be much better to just find another mechanic that gives us the same benefit without tying us so heavily to an area of the board. 

 
All of this is just speculation, but Gw has done a decent job making every army terrifying in it’s own right. Sometimes they overshoot the mark (TZ when it first dropped springs to mind) or undershoot it (KO) but they’ve done a bang up job with Khaine, Idoneth, FEC and all the long time players of those armies seem fairly happy. I’m going to pass on the “the sky is falling” line for the moment and just trust that the devs know what they’re doing. 

Edited by Mirage8112
  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

This happens nearly every single edition. People invest $100-$150 in buying large units because the rules are good, and then in the next edition of the book or FAQ, they aren’t quite as good, or a rule change makes them play differently than they did before. 

Think of it this way. Most people who invest in console gaming (xbox, ps4, ect) shell out anywhere between $3-$400 for a new system every what, 4 years? No matter how many games you played on the old console, they don’t work on the new console. Most people don’t bat an eye when the new system drops or their old console crashes.  It’s understood that on a long enough timeline everything gets invalidated. 

There is nothing that says you can’t still use your woods as scenery, or, if you’re really stuck on it, there no reason you cant continue to play with the old Battletome and GHB with your local club. 

I have 9 Wyldwoods, painted, based, leaves, the works. At little over $30 a pop I’ve spent nearly $300 on my woods, and more than a few hours in painting them. I also have an entire wood elf army, a much larger warriors of chaos army, some high elf stuff and a bunch of other miniatures and terrain that never sees the light of day because they were split between factions when AoS first came out (I’m an old WHFB player). 

I hate top break it to you, but eventually every single model in your collection (and mine) will be obsolete one day. That’s just the way this game works. It’s part of the great cycle of war gaming, and one of the downsides of getting your army updated. 

Just try to enjoy it while it lasts.

 

Disagree for so many reasons.

-First of all 7 years is normal for console lifespan.   I just recently bought what I needed for this army at christmas time because I didn't think it would be dead in a couple years, as it is a new army.  

-It is not a video game. Physical collecting, building and painting takes time and is a long term hobby.  To expect people to throw out things from being playable in games after finally having time to finish it in such a short time is absurd. If you got it day 1 of launch then good for you, but it's not unreasonable for people to get it 1 to 2 years after launch.

-I'm 100% ok with rule changes, I'm not okay with discontinuing rule support for something you released under your AoS brand with rules a couple years ago.

-Didn't invest in the models because their "rules were good" or a flavor of the month, I invested because they were literally the core way this army operates.  They don't even have to be "good", they just need to continue to be supported in some fashion, even if they change the rules.

-We all know the monetary investment for Warhammer is usually exponentially higher in the long run.  At least those of us in the working class would know that :).

-Calling it a new version of the game rather than an expansion is disingenuous and  incompatible with the way GW does constant small releases and expansions every year or so.

-Saying that people can just play with them with the old battletome, while true, is about as appealing as playing Warhammer Legends with people who want to play current warhammer -> It doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. You guys are spending a lot of time speculating rules that haven't even been detailed yet.

2. The wyldwood models are still useable terrain models. They aren't wasted in that sense.

 

(I wholeheartedly support getting rid of wyldwoods - they are a nightmare)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

(I wholeheartedly support getting rid of wyldwoods - they are a nightmare)

I don't know why but your username makes me laugh alongside your outlook on Wyldwoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thalassic Monstrosity said:

 I don't know why but your username makes me laugh alongside your outlook on Wyldwoods.

Haha, when I hate them you know they are bad.

They stopped me playing with my beloved Sylvaneth. They are such a pain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

Haha, when I hate them you know they are bad.

They stopped me playing with my beloved Sylvaneth. They are such a pain.

Which I agree is totally fair they make new alternative ways to play Sylvaneth for people like you.  To remove the "wyldwoods" rule from sylvaneth completely though is unfair to the other half.  If they're so annoying GW could just reinvent the rules for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The World Tree said:

Haha, when I hate them you know they are bad.

They stopped me playing with my beloved Sylvaneth. They are such a pain.

Same here.  I waited to get into AoS until Sylvaneth came out.  I love the look and feel.  I bought in hard before I really dug into the rules (I was new to AoS afterall).  I played some games vs some Flesh Eater Courts and won the first couple, then my opponent upped his game and I started losing, badly.  It was because all I had was 1 Wyldwood.  We play with very full tables so there was barely room for that one let alone 4-12 of them.  I shelved my Sylvaneth about 2 years ago and haven't touched them since because the Woods were just not fun and I didn't want to be accused of putting out terrain for my advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the games console metaphor quite works, @Mirage8112 because even when a new console appears I can still use my old one if I prefer, or can't afford the new one. If the release of the PS5 causes all PS4s to explode you would have a point.

 

However, I agree with every other word you say. Rules updates change the game, models become less usable, this happens - it is always painful, but it's a fact of life if we really do want the constant balance tweaks, new faction releases and updated battletomes we ask for. 

 

The disappearance of Wyldwoods (if true @Zanzou) is an extreme example of this, as I've never known a model to go from being absolutely integral to an army to gone in one update. However, they are an unusual case as they are such a pain to use, fight against, and transport that the removal is kind of a necessary evil. If the functionality of the woods is replaced by something less expensive, easier to transport, and easier to use, then I'd grudgingly take the hit, I think.

 

Of course, we don't actually know what is going to happen. GW might keep Wyldwoods in some capacity, just make them less integral. I think we'll have a new scenery thing, limited in number, with some kind of teleport mechanism, and a fairly large "wholly within" area of effect. They'll mention roots spreading from this tree and giving us the powers. It would be an improvement on the long strings of dryads, wouldn't it? I've always found them immersion breaking and embarrassing to the point that I deliberately will not do them. 

 

Anyway, Looncurse will be up for pre-order tomorrow, I think, and out next Saturday. Can't wait! It's the perfect box for me because I play Sylvaneth and am starting a Gloomspite Gitz army. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Zanzou said:

Disagree for so many reasons.

-First of all 7 years is normal for console lifespan.   I just recently bought what I needed for this army at christmas time because I didn't think it would be dead in a couple years, as it is a new army.  

-It is not a video game. Physical collecting, building and painting takes time and is a long term hobby.  To expect people to throw out things from being playable in games after finally having time to finish it in such a short time is absurd. If you got it day 1 of launch then good for you, but it's not unreasonable for people to get it 1 to 2 years after launch.

-I'm 100% ok with rule changes, I'm not okay with discontinuing rule support for something you released under your AoS brand with rules a couple years ago.

-Didn't invest in the models because their "rules were good" or a flavor of the month, I invested because they were literally the core way this army operates.  They don't even have to be "good", they just need to continue to be supported in some fashion, even if they change the rules.

-We all know the monetary investment for Warhammer is usually exponentially higher in the long run.  At least those of us in the working class would know that :).

-Calling it a new version of the game rather than an expansion is disingenuous and  incompatible with the way GW does constant small releases and expansions every year or so.

-Saying that people can just play with them with the old battletome, while true, is about as appealing as playing Warhammer Legends with people who want to play current warhammer -> It doesn't happen.

You can disagree. You’re entitled to your opinion. 

The question is, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it?  

Wyldwoods are going like it or not. You can either find the silver lining, play oldhammer, or quit. I don’t see a fourth option.  

I suppose you can come along and grumble if you like, but that wont do much other than make you look like a dwarf. 

nobody likes a dwarf.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

I'm not sure the games console metaphor quite works, @Mirage8112 because even when a new console appears I can still use my old one if I prefer, or can't afford the new one. If the release of the PS5 causes all PS4s to explode you would have a point.

Timespans are the different, but the metaphor holds. Sure you can play Mario on NES for the rest of your life but you can also play AoS with the old Battletome and the first general handbook if you really want. Releasing the new Battletome doesn’t cause the old one to explode either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone who would let you continue to use the old rules though.  Mainly because of the woods!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

I suppose you can come along and grumble if you like, but that wont do much other than make you look like a dwarf. 


nobody likes a dwarf.   

I wonder if we'll keep Ironbark Wargrove in one form or another?

Edited by Thalassic Monstrosity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After nearly three years and hundreds of games: IMO Wyldwoods have been unequivocally the most frustrating part about collecting, playing, and playing against the faction.

I do hope the rumors are true: We'll be able to play the army with one terrain box, like Gloomspite, FEC, Skaven, Khorne, Fyreslayers, and Slaanesh.

An initial sense of frustration at their (potential) loss is understandable. As others have said, though, we can use them as regular Citadel Woods terrain, so there's essentially zero loss in our past investment.

Edited by scrubyandwells
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Thalassic Monstrosity said:

I wonder if we'll keep Ironbark Wargrove in one form or another?

General expectation is most (or all) of the Wargroves will become Stormhost-equivalents, each with their own built-in rules, command traits, artefacts, etc. (i.e., the Wargroves will no longer be one-drop battalions). And then we may see existing non-one-drop battalions, like Household and Forest Folk, maintained with some updates.

Edited by scrubyandwells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

You can disagree. You’re entitled to your opinion. 

The question is, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it?  

Wyldwoods are going like it or not. You can either find the silver lining, play oldhammer, or quit. I don’t see a fourth option.  

I suppose you can come along and grumble if you like, but that wont do much other than make you look like a dwarf. 

nobody likes a dwarf.   

I think that's fair.  My fourth option is to pray to the godly Everqueen that they maintain an optional use of old wyldwoods BUT update the rules to deal with awkward frustrations, and let the new terrain option be a nicer version to fulfill the same gameplay role with less headache as @feltmonkey might be describing.

49 minutes ago, Jazarith said:

 I didn't want to be accused of putting out terrain for my advantage.

Accusations of playing broken things or using [insert x/y/z] to your advantage will not go away anytime soon.  These days there are units that can obliterate enemies with a single roll of the dice from insane mortal wound counts, broken units that can attack twice at the start of the turn, etc etc.  "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is said for a reason.  If something is truly broken or anti-fun GW needs to update the rules regarding it, or the tournament host/ player agreement changes the rules.  They could definitely completely overhaul the way wyldwoods actually work without removing them from the game completely.

Edited by Zanzou
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a singular terrain piece representing  Realmroots with great abilities like healing, summoning and teleporting and us still being able to summon a Wyldwood terrain piece (but brought down heaps in terms of spamming) which would still block LoS, move and attack units nearby....

Just my 2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zanzou said:

I think that's fair.  My fourth option is to pray to the godly Everqueen that they maintain an optional use of old wyldwoods BUT update the rules to deal with awkward frustrations, and let the new terrain option be a nicer version to fulfill the same gameplay role with less headache as @feltmonkey might be describing.

Accusations of playing broken things or using [insert x/y/z] to your advantage will not go away anytime soon.  These days there are units that can obliterate enemies with a single roll of the dice from insane mortal wound counts, broken units that can attack twice at the start of the turn, etc etc.  "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is said for a reason.  If something is truly broken or anti-fun GW needs to update the rules regarding it, or the tournament host/ player agreement changes the rules.  They could definitely completely overhaul the way wyldwoods actually work without removing them from the game completely.

I've had people be annoyed about wyldwood too... but I just played a Khorne Tyrants of blood army with 3 thirsters and skarbrand... Skarbrand autodealing 8 MW when he arrives in combat (that 1+ roll apparently isn't a hit roll so 1's also count?) and then dealing a ton of damage besides seems more annoying to me.. or the cheapest BT around even at only 2 wounds left having a damage output higher than a treelord... that is annoying to me.  1 or 2 BT I could deal with.. but when they are cheap enough to play 4 in 2K then there is just not much you can do about it (personally my opinions is that with the new Khorne book and all the possible free buffs (that previously costs points through batallions) it  gave BT's the BT's should have gone up in points).. just play and get trashed (seriously I played winterleaf against chaos and still it wasn't enough). So opponents  complaining about the small broken things in our army.. well.. too bad for them :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scrubyandwells said:

General expectation is most (or all) of the Wargroves will become Stormhost-equivalents, each with their own built-in rules, command traits, artefacts, etc. (i.e., the Wargroves will no longer be one-drop battalions). And then we may see existing non-one-drop battalions, like Household and Forest Folk, maintained with some updates.

Yeah seems logical to me.. and .. I hope ours are as good as the Khorne ones :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...