AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion

[Mirage8112]

17 minutes ago, Inquisitorsz said:

yeah like I said, negotiating a table layout with friends or a casual came at a club/store is very different to a set tournament/competitive event. 

My main point is that all the local tournaments I've been to recently feel like they had more terrain on them. I know some local TOs aim for about 10-12 pieces. 
And that's where things can get tricky I think. 

I'm in Australia 😃

Lol I meant @Freejack02. We all know Aussies aren’t as burdened by politeness as the Brits are...  

IICR Adepticon had something like 5-7 pieces of terrain on the board, with a mix between medium-small, large and very large. Some of the towers and buildings were bastions with walls, or sections of fortresses, but large/medium pieces were usually arranged together thematically, with large sections of the board left open. 

This is another point, I don’t mind having terrain on the board. I mind having too much terrain on the board, or having said terrain spread out too evenly. If I was as a Tournemnt and facing a terrain board with 10 big pieces spread out evenly all over the board, and I couldn’t feasibly get any woods down because of objectives or spacing, I’d ask my opponent if we could take a couple of pieces off and change the configuration a bit. If he said no, I’d explain why. If he still said no, I’d figure I was playing vs a WAAC player, call a TO over and explain the situation. They should be familiar enough with the general state of affairs to know that a Sylvaneth player without woods on the board is a Sylvaneth player who doesn't have a fair chance of winning.   

If they still said no, then I’d just play through and try for a draw. I’d also make a note not to attend that tournament again because they clearly aren't concerned about seeing players on equal footing. Tournaments should be about who plays their respective army’s the best. To compete in that game, tree-players need to have trees on the board. It’s as much a part of our army as Alarielle or hunters are. 

Edited May 30, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Easytyger]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

 

You are welcome to do what you like at your gaming club, but the designers made a woods a core mechanic of how this army functions. Selecting a 9-10 of a bunch of HUGE terrain pieces, knowing full well it zones your army out of a core mechanic is a negative play experience.  

Too little terrain is as bad a problem as too much. I’m not saying you have to make your opponent play the game in the Realm bowling ball. GW has given us a guideline on what is a good amount of terrain to use. There is nothing wrong with sticking to a the guidelines given by GW.

That’s why the game has rules. 

That guideline is the minimum , certainly not the maximum.  If I show my opponent those guideline he would say ‘yes look 6 is the bare minimum and it even says more is better’ 

If I was negotiating with my opponent I wouldn’t point that it because it supports having more terrain not less. 

I really like this army but it starts the game out on a bad foot. I totally agree there are a lot of potential Negative play experiences in other armies like non-interactive Gristlegore, Skaven Warp Lightning vortex, unkillable Hagnar DoK, etc. but for some reason our Woods mechanic really is hated by other players despite the lack of overall power of the army. 

I was just hoping they would smooth this out but a las it will be up to us. 

[Freejack02]

Obviously the upcoming GHB is going to make the standard table size 8x12 to accomodate all the terrain they want to sell us. 

[Freejack02]

50 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

Are you a Brit by any chance? because your answer is exceedingly polite. 😂

Ha! No, midwest here. 

[Hallgeir]

2 hours ago, TheGrayKing said:

Part of the reason I'm running the Spites in such big numbers, besides for the battalion, is the aura of -1 bravery and reroll successful battleshock tests.

There's too much immunity to battleshock for me to feel comfortable relying on that.

[BetterOffGwen]

Making a 5 drop list with the new rules, wanted to see what people think:

Winterleaf Grove

Free Spirit Battalion (140)

-Spirit of Durthu (General, My Heart is Ice, Frozen Kernal) (340)

-3x Kurnoth Hunters (Greatswords) (200)

-3x Kurnoth Hunters (Greatswords) (200)

-6x Kurnoth Hunters (Scythes) (400)

Outcasts Battalion

-5x Spite Revenants (60)

-5x Spite Revenants (60)

-20x Spite Revenants (200)

Branchwraith (Spellsong Stave, Throne of Vines) (80)

Branchwraith (The Vesperal Gem, Verderous Harmony) (80)

Arch-Revenant (100)

Vengeful Skullroot (40)

2000/2000

Wounds: 117

Command Points: 2

Thoughts: This is taking advantage of exploding 6s by using them on the units that hit hardest (Kurnoth & Durthu) and those with an incredible output of attacks (Spite Revs). If you can get the 20 man Spites in combat all at once, you deal 61  3+/3+ attacks or 81 w/ Arch Revenant command ability. With Archies bonus, that's 41 wounds on average. You use the Frozen Kernal, that's 82 wounds on average. Absolutely insane for 1 artifact, 1 cp and 200pts.

Running the small groups of Kurnoths with swords, because they're better, and the large group with scythes so they can all hit. Arch-Revenant flies nearby to make the already strong Hunters absolute monsters. They go with Durthu, and the Scythes aim for whatever has the best save.

The Branchwraiths get the artifacts. The artifact on the Wraith with Throne of Vines lets her cast an extra spell. Get Throne up, cast Dryads turn 1. Turn 2, cast endless spell (either Vengeful Skullroot or a Gladewyrm thay travels with your death squad of Free Spirits). The second Wraith auto-casts a spell that can revive a Kurnoth a turn or she can focus on getting more woods down. If the first Wraith goes down, she can switch to Dryad duty.

 

Comments or criticisms? Just trying to figure out some fun new things with these lists, but I've never actually played more than a 1000pt game haha.

[Freejack02]

3 minutes ago, BetterOffGwen said:

Comments or criticisms?

Looks like you might have 3 artefacts (although idk what Spellsong Stave is)? I'm not sure where the sweet spot will be with our number of drops, so 5 might be good. 

 

4 minutes ago, BetterOffGwen said:

If you can get the 20 man Spites in combat all at once

Good luck!

[TheGrayKing]

@Freejack02 Spellsong Stave gives you an extra spell cast during your turn

[BetterOffGwen]

1 minute ago, Freejack02 said:

Looks like you might have 3 artefacts (although idk what Spellsong Stave is)? I'm not sure where the sweet spot will be with our number of drops, so 5 might be good. 

 

Good luck!

You get an extra command point and artefact for every battalion. Since I have 2 Battalions, I should get 3 total. Spellsong Stave is an artefact that makes your caster get an extra spell.

[Freejack02]

2 minutes ago, BetterOffGwen said:

You get an extra command point and artefact for every battalion. Since I have 2 Battalions, I should get 3 total. Spellsong Stave is an artefact that makes your caster get an extra spell.

Derp, I missed Outcasts. Looks solid!

[HollowHills]

2 hours ago, Freejack02 said:

Good luck!

It's not that unreasonable. I've managed to get 20 nemarti thralls into combat and they are in the same base sizes. You rank them diagonally with ten in the front and ten in the back, unless you get wedged in to a bad spot then you can normally get the whole unit into combat. 

[Walkirriox]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

It's not that unreasonable. I've managed to get 20 nemarti thralls into combat and they are in the same base sizes. You rank them diagonally with ten in the front and ten in the back, unless you get wedged in to a bad spot then you can normally get the whole unit into combat. 

I'm really interested in spites, so getting all of them into combat is a must. Could you please explain it with more detail? Maybe a quick draw with paint would help.

[Matt Large]

2 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

I'm really interested in spites, so getting all of them into combat is a must. Could you please explain it with more detail? Maybe a quick draw with paint would help.

Just gonna jump in a show ya this example mate, it’s poorly drawn on my phone but it does the job ha  

Edited May 30, 2019 by Matt Large

[Mirage8112]

12 hours ago, Easytyger said:

That guideline is the minimum , certainly not the maximum.  If I show my opponent those guideline he would say ‘yes look 6 is the bare minimum and it even says more is better’ 

 If I was negotiating with my opponent I wouldn’t point that it because it supports having more terrain not less. 

The minimum is 0. The guideline is 6. 

It seems like a lot of people on this forum are resistant to this. I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Is it that you feel bad playing with woods? Or are just afraid of putting your opponent off? 

How much terrain do you usually play with at you local clubs? My opponents tend to prefer less terrain to more. Back in the old days where we rolled for 0-3 terrain pieces and the number came up around 11 (D3 per square is an average of 2 pieces per square, x 6 squares), we always groaned and changed it to 9 small pieces by mutual agreement.

There was no question about making it better for Sylvaneth, because I didn’t even play Sylvaneth back then. Mostly wanderers or mixed chaos.
 

[Mirage8112]

After asking all the stupid question I can think of (lol), I think I have a solid idea of how everything works and here’s what’s I’m planning on running yo. 

Modern day version of my old Dreadwood list: and it’s ALOT better than before. If both endless spells are out, I can put my entire army on his front line turn 1. I’ve run the math and I’m pretty confident I can take up to 3 Terrorgiests off the table in the first turn without losing a single model: This is the Alpha strike from hell. 

Allegiance: Order
Mortal Realm: Ulgu
Wargrove: Dreadwood 

Spirit of Durthu (340)
- Artefact: Doppelganger Cloak 
Treelord Ancient (300)
- General
- Command trait: Parragon of Terror
- Artefact: Jewel of Withering 
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
Treelord Ancient (300)
- Deepwood Spell: Treesong
Arch-Revenant (100)
Arch-Revenant (100)
Branchwraith (80)
- Deepwood Spell: Throne of Vines

20 x Spite-Revenants (200)
5 x Tree-Revenants (80)
5 x Tree-Revenants (80)

Treelord (200)

Lords of the Clan (60)

Spiteswarm Hive (50)
Chronomantic Cogs (60)

Total: 1950 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 2
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 93
Drops: 7

 

I’m still making adjustments and swapping some things around.  I’d really like to get some kind of bonus casting to help with the endless spells, but I’m not sure how to fit in and still get what I need in the list.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Mirage8112

[Freejack02]

3 minutes ago, Mirage8112 said:

How much terrain do you usually play with at you local clubs?

We used to roll, recently we've started using 2 pieces per section - though admittedly no one has been playing with large faction terrain (Sylvaneth, IDK). As for whether I feel bad playing with woods, the answer is sadly yes. To me they are clunky and unfun, and I really wish our entire faction's power didn't depend on them - I would have much preferred for them to be an optional mechanic (no one try and tell me they're technically "optional" right now - we both know you aren't getting anywhere without em). 

[Mirage8112]

25 minutes ago, Freejack02 said:

To me they are clunky and unfun, and I really wish our entire faction's power didn't depend on them - I would have much preferred for them to be an optional mechanic (no one try and tell me they're technically "optional" right now - we both know you aren't getting anywhere without em). 

Personally I love playing with woods. I find them thematic, and the playstyle is very unique within the tabletop Age of Sigmar universe.

 

I get that people don’t like them; but every faction (just about) has something other players hate. Like I said, I hate Nagash. But I don’t see our woods being any different than any other factions annoying units/mechanics, and I’m surely not going to feel bad playing my army the way the designers intended just because other players don’t like seeing certain unit combinations on the table top.

 

As to other players not being able to “interact” with the woods in any way, so what? We can’t interact with Nurgle’s trees, either and they can throw a lot of those down over the course of the game. We can’t do anything about the cycles of corruption that do free mortal wounds to non-Nurgle units either, but I’m not going to tell my opponent he can’t use it because I don’t like it or because I disagree with the army having a mechanic I can’t stop or influence in any way. At least people can go around our trees...

 

If you don’t like our woods, then let me ask: why play Sylvaneth at all? Is it just the models that attract you the army? I’m not trying to suggest you play something else (you seem to be an insightful player, I like you on our side!) but we are an asymmetrical warfare/area denial army. Nobody can do what we do which is why I love this army.

Why do YOU love this army?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ElectricPaladin]

Honestly, the wyldwoods are why I started playing this army. The ability to manipulate the playing field by adding terrain is incredibly characterful and evocative.

[overtninja]

My club usually either assembles the table for aesthetics, usually 2 pieces of terrain per square, or we roll and then take turns putting it down. Folks in my local meta like running with big monsters, I'm known for making tree-walls to prevent charges and generally stop big non-flying monsters from getting around. It's a bit of a dirty tactic, but it's what Sylvaneth currently have (old battletome) rather than MW generation, super-magic, extreme resilience, or other faction advantages.

My regular opponents tend to use terrain to stop me from filling the middle of the board with trees, and I don't blame them at all. I enjoy the mini-game of terrain deployment before the game, and it's not like my opponents don't have their own bothersome terrain to put down either. 😛

Anyway it would be a moot point if people weren't so scared of going into the woods with anything else, really. I suspect the new battletome will really help out with that, though I expect the new rules will have our enemies eating 1d3 MWs in the charge phase pretty regularly. It's hard to know if they'll hedge out big monsters the same way, but I think at this point I'd be fine either way, especially since our forces look a bit more punchy in the new book.

Edited May 30, 2019 by overtninja

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

Yes. That was in the book at one point, but no longer. 

And I disagree, because in setting up a table, no one player gets to determine how many scenery pieces there are. The player across from you doesn't get the choice to grab 14 scenery pieces and you have no say.  When a disagreement between the players happens, you look at the rules for guidance. Core rules say 1 piece per 2” square is reasonable, and if thats the only thing the rules say about it, then that’s the guidance you should fight for.  
 
OIr you can let them put 14 peices down and wonder why you aren't playing on equal footing. Your choice.

I agree you should try to minimize.. but this box is just saying you really should play with some minimum terrain and it ends on the tone of the more the better.  I just don't think it really says you should limit to 1 per 2x2.. since minimum 1 per 2x2 certainly isn't maximum.

 

15 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

Your opponent want to throw down 15 pieces? Say hold up cowboy, 15’s way too many. And you negotiate. Say you settle on 8 and he want 4 huge pieces, say thats fine, and you pick 4 tiny pieces. 

Yes I think this is the way and I actually think 4 big and 4 small makes for a nice table (I think the average of D3 per  2x2.. which would be 12 is acceptable if it's mostly small stuff). Especially if you both set it up you should be able to place stuff together or near the edge (so on other places, hopefully centrally) there will be some open room. 

 

And as I said before I'm pretty sure we can make nearly linear woods now with a very small foot print (but + 6" around will give room enough for teleporting even though it might not get a unit in cover)

14 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

I need way more experience to make a final decision. Most of this just comes from thinking about the last few games/tables I've played on. 
Hypothetically speaking, 4 small bits of terrain (3" in diameter which is pretty tiny terrain) can almost completely zone you out of a 2x2ft space if there's an objective in the middle.

But 8 pieces on the table makes putting 4 in a 2 x2 look odd so I doubt that will happen.. not to mention you should build the table before you roll for the scenario anyway IMHO to make it generally more fair on both parties.

[Matt Large]

I enjoy using the Wyldwood’s personally, they are usually my MVP in how I played with magic and setting them off all the time. My only dislike is the transporting of them, it’s like carrying around two armies with you to an event. That was my one hope for the book, keep the woods, lower the quantity. It doesn't look like we’ll need as much as before though.

[Aezeal]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

It seems like a lot of people on this forum are resistant to this. I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Is it that you feel bad playing with woods? Or are just afraid of putting your opponent off? 

No it's because the thing you yourself posted says: 

The GUIDELINE suggests 6 minimum... and 6 minimum is not 6 maximum so there no basis of saying the minimum GW suggests should be the maximum.

I prefer a low number and I like placing as much woods as I can in every nook and cranny and I will.. I certainly don't feel bad about it.. I just don't think your argument for 6 max is that good IMHO

 

1 hour ago, Freejack02 said:

We used to roll, recently we've started using 2 pieces per section - though admittedly no one has been playing with large faction terrain (Sylvaneth, IDK). As for whether I feel bad playing with woods, the answer is sadly yes. To me they are clunky and unfun, and I really wish our entire faction's power didn't depend on them - I would have much preferred for them to be an optional mechanic (no one try and tell me they're technically "optional" right now - we both know you aren't getting anywhere without em). 

Well.. I really think woods are and should be a big part of our army.. we are the treeguys.. trees and woods match.. taking cover in woods and getting bonusses from them is about as lore correct as it gets. It might sound harsh.. but if you don't like that part of our army you might just be better of trying another army and ally in some of the good stuff sylvaneth has. Don't know how commited you are but if one of the core mechanics isn't fun to you you might just better be of not spending more on this army. (Now ofc.. this is all just from 1 remark you made... but if that is really how you feel it might be a thing to think about).

 

23 minutes ago, Matt Large said:

I enjoy using the Wyldwood’s personally, they are usually my MVP in how I played with magic and setting them off all the time. My only dislike is the transporting of them, it’s like carrying around two armies with you to an event. That was my one hope for the book, keep the woods, lower the quantity. It doesn't look like we’ll need as much as before though.

I like doing damage with the woods too.. will be easier now since magic was rather unreliable so I cut down on wizards. I think I'll really like the new woods rules.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Aezeal

[Aezeal]

23 minutes ago, Matt Large said:

I enjoy using the Wyldwood’s personally, they are usually my MVP in how I played with magic and setting them off all the time. My only dislike is the transporting of them, it’s like carrying around two armies with you to an event. That was my one hope for the book, keep the woods, lower the quantity. It doesn't look like we’ll need as much as before though.

I actually think we might be placing several still. 1 auto, 1 TLA auto, 1 first turn by some caster who doesn't have more to do...

[Mirage8112]

13 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

I agree you should try to minimize.. but this box is just saying you really should play with some minimum terrain and it ends on the tone of the more the better.  I just don't think it really says you should limit to 1 per 2x2.. since minimum 1 per 2x2 certainly isn't maximum.

It says 6 pieces on a board is a good place to start. It does not use the word minimum, nor maximum. If you want to read it that “more is always better” thats your choice mate, I wont stop you. 

 

21 minutes ago, overtninja said:

My regular opponents tend to use terrain to stop me from filling the middle of the board with trees, and I don't blame them at all. I enjoy the mini-game of terrain deployment before the game, and it's not like my opponents don't have their own bothersome terrain to put down either. 😛

  
That’s pretty much what they should do. That’s part of of setting up terrain. As I said, competitive gaming is both players trying to give themselves an advantage at every phase of the game. Unit Deployment is a mini-game too. Even the various parts of the game can be seen as mini-games. Just because its a mini-game doesn't mean you need to hand your opponent an advantage by letting him put way too much terrain down. Would you give your opponent an advantage during the game by deciding you wont try for that 5th charge even if you have a unit of 9 hunters 3” away? No that’s dumb. Lose enough mini-games, lose the game period. That’s how tabletop wargaming works. 

Everybody balking at the idea of starting with 6 pieces of terrain and saying, “6 isn’t enough” is forgetting that the six to start with isn’t six, with faction terrain, it’s nearly 12. When you get 3 woods on the table + the six starting pieces and the other factions terrain (if they have it) thats 9-11 pieces of terrain on the table. So it’s not that the table “doesn't have enough terrain” in that case. It’s that some people here “feel bad” about have terrain on the tablet that only helps them, but don’t “feel bad” when their opponent tries to block off the middle of the board for their own advantage. That’s just bonkers. 

The last I say on the subject is this. 6 pieces of terrain before the game starts is the guideline, not minimum or the limit. Once everything is down, there will be plenty of terrain on the table (more terrain is “more dynamic” remember?) There can be more than 6 to start, but I would not settle for letting my opponent block out the table between a bunch of terrain and objectives since I’m not in the habit of shooting myself in the foot before the game starts.

I want my opponent and I to be on equal footing and each have as close to a 50/50 chance to win. That’s how you decide who is the better general in the spirit of friendly competition.  A table without room for more than 1 wood is not starting the game on equal footing. Surely not with Eel spam, Gristlegore, or a bunch of Hagg-Narr elves in front of me. 

6 -8 to start is fair. Anything much more than that is just your opponent trying to kill the core mechanic of your army before the game starts. Not cool.

[tman3257]

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

Allegiance: Order
Mortal Realm: Ulgu
Wargrove: Dreadwood 

Spirit of Durthu (340)
- Artefact: Doppelganger Cloak 
Treelord Ancient (300)
- General
- Command trait: Parragon of Terror
- Artefact: Jewel of Withering 
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
Treelord Ancient (300)
- Deepwood Spell: Treesong
Arch-Revenant (100)
Arch-Revenant (100)
Branchwraith (80)
- Deepwood Spell: Throne of Vines

20 x Spite-Revenants (200)
5 x Tree-Revenants (80)
5 x Tree-Revenants (80)

Treelord (200)

Lords of the Clan (60)

Spiteswarm Hive (50)
Chronomantic Cogs (60)

Total: 1950 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 2
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 93
Drops: 7

 

If I could make a few suggestions/throw some ideas out there.  

I don't know if a second Arch-Revenant is worth it.  It would give you a bit more coverage on his command ability but if you drop him and make a few changes you can lower your drop count by 2, get casting support, and an extra CP.  If you're going for an alpha list I feel low drops is very important. 

Changes would be:
-Remove Arch-Rev #2.
-Make Arch-Rev #1 your general, extends the range of his +1 attack ability to make it easier to fit a unit of spites in it after charging.
-Exchange the two T-Rev squads for spites.  I know this reduces the amount you can teleport around but sometimes you want stuff to hold back objectives too, so its not a waste.
-Add the Outcasts battalion now that you have 3x Spites.
-You have an extra artifact now, throw the Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith, this lets her cast Throne of Vines and a spell (probably one of your endless) on the same turn.

Final list would be:

Wargrove: Dreadwood 

Spirit of Durthu (340)
- Artefact: Doppelganger Cloak 
Treelord Ancient (300)
- Artefact: Jewel of Withering 
- Deepwood Spell: Regrowth
Treelord Ancient (300)
- Deepwood Spell: Treesong
Arch-Revenant (100)
- General
- Command trait: Parragon of Terror
Branchwraith (80)
- Artefact: Spiritsong Stave
- Deepwood Spell: Throne of Vines

20 x Spite-Revenants (200)
5 x Spite-Revenants (60)
5 x Spite-Revenants (60)

Treelord (200)

Lords of the Clan (60)
Outcasts (100)

Spiteswarm Hive (50)
Chronomantic Cogs (60)
Gladewyrm (30) (You have 40 points to play with, threw this in as filler, pick some other spell if you'd like)

Total: 1940 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 3
Drops: 5