Jump to content

I h*** my Sylvaneth


Nixon

Recommended Posts

Mostly because of the Wyldwoods.....

I have a decent painted 2000 point army but only two citadel woods, not even enough to make a complete wyldwood.

I think the woods a purly designed, the way they block movement is crazy and I really dislike needing them.

So what can I do and how can we sway GW to something better with the Batteltome 2.0, if and when it arrives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often felt that the size of the woods and having to put them down does make some pressures on the army that others don't have and that it gives them something that is otherwise setup and fixed at the start of the game. I do get that it fits their whole theme really well and the spell has been in long enough that it likely works for many.

 

I'd wager the best would be if GW released individual trees (much like the twisted ones that Nurgle gets) that are larger in size  and which give you a similar "summon trees" ability but with a different overall effect 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the same way when I built my Sylvaneth army - I really disliked the Wyldwood mechanic in general. I hated transporting the extra terrain, felt pressured to place them exactly right, and didn't like hearing my opponents sigh when I pulled them out to summon/place. It just seemed unfun for other players, and I didn't want to bring that to the table. I still wish that the benefits weren't so baked into the allegiance and units, but they have grown on me a bit. Just realize that learning to use them effectively is what puts you on par with other top tier armies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a frequent Sylvaneth opponent, it puts some pressure on me too.  I usually end up setting up the table as I get to the store first, and I feel pressure to get it right - I have to leave space for some useful Wyldwood placement (to not be a poor sport), but not too much space (to not be a patsy).  It's a fine touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always try to set up the terrain so that there is limited space for Wyldwoods. And I often play the Wyldwoods like "area terrain". It makes no sense that a huge monster cant just crash through.

But I would really love if GW would take a closer look at how the army synergises with the woods and how it impact the enjoyment of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is indeed the size of the woods that is the issue, it works in a computer game, but on the table it suddenly ends up something you've got to factor into the table setup and also means that you don't really get much of a surprise with them as the deployment area is often a bit easy to spot. 

 

I think they worked better in Fantasy where  the terrain on the table was more sparse and open because of the way units moved in formations and rank and file. I think in Sigmar there's more encouragement to have denser terrain because now everything moves on round bases and individually. As a result a big terrain feature that appears in the game has to be planned for and also has a bit of trouble fitting in.

 

A few large "great oaks" or such that are on a large base and gives some kind of area bonus would achieve a similar effect whilst not being as big a feature on the table. Could still block or be a barrier in tight areas; whilst also not having to be thought of before you start the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Overread said:

It is indeed the size of the woods that is the issue, it works in a computer game, but on the table it suddenly ends up something you've got to factor into the table setup and also means that you don't really get much of a surprise with them as the deployment area is often a bit easy to spot. 

 

I think they worked better in Fantasy where  the terrain on the table was more sparse and open because of the way units moved in formations and rank and file. I think in Sigmar there's more encouragement to have denser terrain because now everything moves on round bases and individually. As a result a big terrain feature that appears in the game has to be planned for and also has a bit of trouble fitting in.

 

A few large "great oaks" or such that are on a large base and gives some kind of area bonus would achieve a similar effect whilst not being as big a feature on the table. Could still block or be a barrier in tight areas; whilst also not having to be thought of before you start the game. 

Isn't there a guide about how to place terrain in the new rule books somewhere? I couldn't find it last time I looked but I thought it was like both roll a d3 for 3 parts (2x2)of the table and place the terrain there... That really helps since even if you roll 3 pieces you can place them on a side of that part and keep some space. Having said that... placing a forest with 3" space around it (tla ability) is often impossible. I really need to use a spell etc to place a forest 1" outside of other models.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well page 227 says a suggested ratio is at least 1 bit of terrain per 2 foot squared of table.

Page 267 lists a few ways you can put terrain on the table from rolling off dice; to alternating to one player putting it down and the other choosing their start location.

 

And that is about it really - unless there is a mention on specific battleplans there's really not much if anything about how to setup terrain in the book. It's one BIG area where I think GW should put more attention on it; but I dont think that will happen until they allow the rules to be more than the 8 or so pages it currently is. A lot of terrain rules and  themes you'll see are likely hangovers from previous editions of the game or 40K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pros: Look amazing when painted, unique flavorful mechanic, synergizes with army, adds another level of strategic depth to the army/game

Cons: Pain to transport, expensive, raises barrier of entry into the game, difficult to manage model movement/placement on, complicates table terrain placement.

To me it seems like GW already had the Citadel Woods models when designing Sylvaneth so they went with those instead of coming up with a cleaner design. Now a few years later or whatever the woods don't quite seem to really functionally fit with the rest of the game given that so much now is focused on AoE mechanics.

2 hours ago, Overread said:

A few large "great oaks" or such that are on a large base and gives some kind of area bonus would achieve a similar effect whilst not being as big a feature on the table. Could still block or be a barrier in tight areas; whilst also not having to be thought of before you start the game. 

Yeah this is kinda what I was thinking too. Then again given the amount of $$$ most Sylvaneth players have already invested in Wyldwoods I dunno how excited people would be to have new terrain models show up ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly unless they've bought dozens of them they can just use them as terrain without any loss; sure its not "as good" as it once was but its still very viable terrain and possibly themed to their army.

 

 

Another thought - instead of a large tree have a huge root erupt from the earth. Representing one of the mighty ancient trees burrowing through the lands before rising up to give aid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Overread said:

Honestly unless they've bought dozens of them they can just use them as terrain without any loss; sure its not "as good" as it once was but its still very viable terrain and possibly themed to their army.

Haha you dramatically underestimate the sour grapes that would result from GW turning their previously-essential army components into useless* terrain.

 

*Useless to a tournament-goer in a place where tournaments provide their own terrain that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like removing the woods would result in a giant backlash. Hell I would be pretty upset too after funneling a hefty amount of money into woods that only one of my armies uses, yet I must agree that it is incredibly restricting and clunky sometimes. Nothing is worse than arriving at your table at a tournament and see that you have simply no room to fit your woods into.

I had a discussion with some other Sylvaneth players in my local shop and we had some (in my opinion) pretty interesting ideas. Branch out the Wyldwoods mechanic into more areas to increase versatility, for example:

-Leave the physical woods as the only permanent source of the synergy and fine tune the placing restrictions

-Add abilities or spells to existing or new units that "infest" normal scenery. There is no game with a barren table and if there was you would have no problem placing the woods. Turning some ruins into a wyldwood overwriting its original rules until you next hero phase would allow for more tactical options at the cost of a spell or ability dice roll similar to the ancient's 4+ ability.

-Add new units that act as "mobile" wyldwoods. Introducing a new hero or unit type that acts as heavy support providing the benefits of the wyldwood in bit smaller radius could solve some problems too. You would lose the dangerous terrain part of the warscroll but a more mobile and much more compact buffer for your Durthu or Dryads could potentially be really useful. Could potentially be balanced with a move restriction: You bunker down in your hero phase to give benefits but you can't move in your movement phase nor charge this turn.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nixon said:

Mostly because of the Wyldwoods.....

I have a decent painted 2000 point army but only two citadel woods, not even enough to make a complete wyldwood.

I think the woods a purly designed, the way they block movement is crazy and I really dislike needing them.

So what can I do and how can we sway GW to something better with the Batteltome 2.0, if and when it arrives?

As much as it frustrates me at times, I really like the use of terrain .

As an opponent, I wish you would just put down 1 wood and not up to 3 bases... that's where I find it unenjoyable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of specific terrain pieces, I’d rather see something like malign sorcery expansion. A box of common terrain pieces that bring some special rules to the table and you pay points for them.

 I would like to see more army specific terrain pieces like the woods become available to other armies, similar to shipwrecks and graveyards (idk and death respectively).

as for the size of the woods, I think just making them smaller would do fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recommendation is to play on a denser table. Locally, we play 2 pieces of scenery per 2x2 section, with most of it being buildings or other LoS blocking terrain. Most of the time, I have two or three places to put a single wood base, maybe one more if I have the Acorn artefact. I've had games where I put down the first wyldwood and nothing else, because they'd be in places where they don't help or my opponent has blocked the areas. This has been true for games up to 2000 points.

You could try a few games like that, and see where you stand then. 

As for the other things said in this thread, I would like a unit or hero that's a mobile synergy battery. Probably not a moving small wyldwood, but possibly something similar to the Bloodsecrator, where you can give up some portion of your turn with that unit (shooting, melee, movement, etc.) to get an AoE buff to some units. Maybe a unit that gets a small buff for being close to one of our existing units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrCharisma said:

As much as it frustrates me at times, I really like the use of terrain .

As an opponent, I wish you would just put down 1 wood and not up to 3 bases... that's where I find it unenjoyable. 

Excactly my thoughts! Love the machanic. It’s fits, looks cool* and offers a cool tactical advantage. 

Buuuut.... 3 bases of wood is 1. Crazy expensive and 2. Limits placement to much. Still have the feeling that should have just been 1 base of woods and it would be fine or at least better. 

* in theory at least. Trees sprouting up from the ground tangling enemy’s and suddenly a big angry tree lord charges from that spot while only moments ago there was clear grass. Yes please! But the wildwood is in a bit of weird spot in between trying to be cool looking and practical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romhi said:

Could potentially be balanced with a move restriction: You bunker down in your hero phase to give benefits but you can't move in your movement phase nor charge this turn

Cool idea! Maybe even make them more recognisable by giving them a pole... maybe with something on top.. a flag maybe? Or a synonym of that would work ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

Haha you dramatically underestimate the sour grapes that would result from GW turning their previously-essential army components into useless* terrain.

 

*Useless to a tournament-goer in a place where tournaments provide their own terrain that is.

there is several tournaments that let player come with their own terrain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 12:35 PM, Nixon said:

Mostly because of the Wyldwoods.....

I have a decent painted 2000 point army but only two citadel woods, not even enough to make a complete wyldwood. [...]

Where did you get that you needed multiple bases worth? It isn’t on the Warscroll...

“DESCRIPTION
A Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a terrain feature consisting of up to three Citadel Woods placed within 1" of each other[...]”

You can use between 1 and 3 citadel woods to make a Wyldwood.

You don’t need to have 3 bases per wood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate Wyldwoods, because in 1k games played on 48x48 boards, just one is enough to dominate the game unless you go out of your way to deploy terrain to hinder planting a wood, which feels wrong to me.

Whoever came up with the option for them to be 1-3 bases of woods needs to be severely physically educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help that the line of sight thing means that you'll never be able to pull the trees out in even semi-competitive environments ever again.

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 8:22 AM, ledha said:

there is several tournaments that let player come with their own terrain

If you play in North America, it's MUCH less common. I've never even heard of one in the states tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2018 at 9:00 AM, Kaylethia said:

My recommendation is to play on a denser table. Locally, we play 2 pieces of scenery per 2x2 section, with most of it being buildings or other LoS blocking terrain. Most of the time, I have two or three places to put a single wood base, maybe one more if I have the Acorn artefact. I've had games where I put down the first wyldwood and nothing else, because they'd be in places where they don't help or my opponent has blocked the areas. This has been true for games up to 2000 points.

You could try a few games like that, and see where you stand then. 

As for the other things said in this thread, I would like a unit or hero that's a mobile synergy battery. Probably not a moving small wyldwood, but possibly something similar to the Bloodsecrator, where you can give up some portion of your turn with that unit (shooting, melee, movement, etc.) to get an AoE buff to some units. Maybe a unit that gets a small buff for being close to one of our existing units.

Playing like that severely limits the strenght of our army. I know this since in my shop we usually have tables like this. The few times an opponent build a bit less crowded table I could actually use our army abilities which helped a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of tried and tested strategies revolve around using the woods. It becomes a problem when some one else can decide whether or not you can use these strategies. Be that an opponent or TO that makes house rules og sets up the terrain.

The Wyldwoods has become a dilemma. Use them and be a that guy, use them not and you are not playing your army to its full potential.

Its bad design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...