Woods and trees

[KeX]

Hi

How people play or how is rule on tournaments about woods. Can you remove trees and fit model inside or not?

Some say you cant remove trees so that means all big models cant go inside or pass? For example sylvaneth can put so many woods so they can stop fro example 1-2-3 GOU and Glottkin....... so they can move any more and anywhere

Tnx in front

[Choombatta]

If you would treat trees as "removable" when they get in the way, what is to stop someone from wanting to remove any terrain that gets in the way?

[Isotop]

18 hours ago, Choombatta said:

If you would treat trees as "removable" when they get in the way, what is to stop someone from wanting to remove any terrain that gets in the way?

In my opinion this is a very good argument. The trees are part of the terrain piece, so we have to deal with the problems arising from them in some other way than simply stating "they are not really there".

 

15 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

We usually use the trees as Decoration. That way you avoid all the BS concerning climbing Trees, landing on top etc. blocking monsters for no reason (they‘d just rip out the trees)

it could add quite some fun though if you could destroy a tree ?

I‘d really advise to just remove them for simplicity’s and fairnes‘s sake unless you want to pull off some border-line unfair shenanigans with which you can get unattackable by some units.

It is totally fine for your gaming group to use the house rules you prefer - but please do not try to generalize your made up rules modifications (no offense here, just what house rules are) for everyone by stating what is objectively fair and unfair.  You call it BS that Wyldwood trees can block big based models (which often times  are monsters) and that they could simply rip out the trees. We are talking about abstract rules and their implications - not about what we think our toy soldiers should be able to dot o our toy terrain in a narrative way. Even if there was any application for your "monsters can simply rip out trees"- argument, it would not really make sense taking the whole picture into account. There are a lot of models with bases restricting them from fitting in between two Wyldwood trees which are not big stompy monsters. How would, for example, a Goblin Wolf Chariot get rid of the trees? Even our (I am a Sylvaneth player) own Treelords can not fit between the tightest of the sets of trees within a Wyldwood and it is not at all clear to me how the Treelord would (or want, to stay within your narrative) rip out a tree pretty much the same size as himself. 

What are you doing if your monster wanted to pass an Idoneth Shipwreck or a Nurgle Gnarlmaw? You can not really balance models on top of these. Would you simply remove them? I am sure that is not what the rules tell us to do in this situation. @Choombatta´s argument holds true here: Why should we be allowed to remove terrain pieces?

 

11 hours ago, Nico said:

The Facehammer Pack’s Cylinder Rule (treat model as a vertical cylinder up to its head height) typically used at events, deals with the attacking from atop a Wyldwood Rule.

 

 

I guess this means the cylinder extends under the base as well? My gaming buddies and I simply project the base of a higher standing model on the ground beneath it and measure melee ranges from the projection (not in the case of Wyldwoods - we treat them as impassable for non-flying models and simply passable for flying models in accordance with the "projection" house rule).

 

3 hours ago, King Taloren said:

 But there is nowhere in the rules that state treat the tree as a separate piece from the citadel woods terrain. The rules I believe are very specific as to treat the entire piece as a singular piece

Overgrown Wilderness states: 

"Models are not visible to each other if an imaginary straight line 1mm wide drawn between the closest points of the two models crosses over more than 1"of the base of a Citadel Wood. This scenery rule does not apply if either model can fly."

The whole rule does not apply if at least one of the models in question can fly. Nowhere does it say that the physical tree+real LoS interaction is not kicking in at that point. Again, is there any implication I am simply not seeing here?

 

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Miniwargamign just uploaded a game in which they had the same Tree issue (look at the coimments):

Well I thought normal woods would block LOS since I couldn't find a Rule about that for Slyvaneth Wyldwoods...

Afaik they can be roused by magic and make your people brake their lewgs when running/charging into them.

 

The way I see it Sylvaneth Wyldwoods and Citadel Woods are definetively two seperate things, even the Keywords are different.

This means the Sylvaneth WWs do not block LOS but ordinary non-sylvaneth Woods placed on the Table do block LOS

 

 

EDIT:
Well I just read the new warscroll after updating my app. Nervermind the Citadel Wood and Wyldwood thing. (though I call huge BS on using 2 Warscrolls for 1 Terrain Piece...)
 

I agree it  is huge BS (as are a lot of GW rules) but at least it is now clearly defined by the FAQ.

In my experience the Miniwargaming crew is not a good scource for reliable rules knowledge. If you simply wanted to point us to the comment section of the video to see peoples opinions, I am sorry for the first sentence.

[AverageBoss]

2 hours ago, King Taloren said:

 But there is nowhere in the rules that state treat the tree as a separate piece from the citadel woods terrain. The rules I believe are very specific as to treat the entire piece as a singular piece

What he is saying is that since flyers do not have los blocked by woods, straight true los goes into play, where the physical 3D tree is now the only thing that can block.

[JackStreicher]

Miniwargamign just uploaded a game in which they had the same Tree issue (look at the coimments):

Well I thought normal woods would block LOS since I couldn't find a Rule about that for Slyvaneth Wyldwoods...

Afaik they can be roused by magic and make your people brake their lewgs when running/charging into them.

 

The way I see it Sylvaneth Wyldwoods and Citadel Woods are definetively two seperate things, even the Keywords are different.

This means the Sylvaneth WWs do not block LOS but ordinary non-sylvaneth Woods placed on the Table do block LOS

 

 

EDIT:
Well I just read the new warscroll after updating my app. Nervermind the Citadel Wood and Wyldwood thing. (though I call huge BS on using 2 Warscrolls for 1 Terrain Piece...)
 

[King Taloren]

9 hours ago, Isotop said:

Picture the following scenario: Two very small flying models standing on opposite sides of a Wyldwood tree. The base itself will noch block LoS because at least one of them has the Flying ability. The tree, however, will block LoS between the two of them as long as you can not draw "real" LoS as a result of the physical tree model.

 But there is nowhere in the rules that state treat the tree as a separate piece from the citadel woods terrain. The rules I believe are very specific as to treat the entire piece as a singular piece

[Nixon]

Man those trees always causing a fuzz. GW please make the woods area terrain. And until that day, I thinks its the best way to play them.

[Nico]

The Facehammer Pack’s Cylinder Rule (treat model as a vertical cylinder up to its head height) typically used at events, deals with the attacking from atop a Wyldwood Rule.

 

 

[Isotop]

15 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

It doesn’t say the trees are ignored but they are not what decides LOS interference anymore since you will measure starting at the edge of the base inward and all the trees are further in than 1” so in essence they are just decoration because the LOS is blocked before you reach the tree

and I don’t ignore the trees for moving models. Just move them out of way so I can move models inside and around the places the trunks are supposed be. I still treat the places if the tree as impassible (or I guess climbable)

Picture the following scenario: Two very small flying models standing on opposite sides of a Wyldwood tree. The base itself will noch block LoS because at least one of them has the Flying ability. The tree, however, will block LoS between the two of them as long as you can not draw "real" LoS as a result of the physical tree model.

[King Taloren]

5 hours ago, Isotop said:

It does not say that the trees are to be ignored, though. I would love to see this change, but it simply is not there. Or maybe I missed something you did spot to prove your claim?

It doesn’t say the trees are ignored but they are not what decides LOS interference anymore since you will measure starting at the edge of the base inward and all the trees are further in than 1” so in essence they are just decoration because the LOS is blocked before you reach the tree

and I don’t ignore the trees for moving models. Just move them out of way so I can move models inside and around the places the trunks are supposed be. I still treat the places if the tree as impassible (or I guess climbable)

[JackStreicher]

We usually use the trees as Decoration. That way you avoid all the BS concerning climbing Trees, landing on top etc. blocking monsters for no reason (they‘d just rip out the trees)

it could add quite some fun though if you could destroy a tree ?

I‘d really advise to just remove them for simplicity’s and fairnes‘s sake unless you want to pull off some border-line unfair shenanigans with which you can get unattackable by some units.

[Isotop]

13 minutes ago, King Taloren said:

”If you measure more than 1” through the base of a Citadel Woods the the models are considered to be outside of LOS unless the models have FLY.”

It does not say that the trees are to be ignored, though. I would love to see this change, but it simply is not there. Or maybe I missed something you did spot to prove your claim?

[King Taloren]

14 minutes ago, Isotop said:

There is no proof to that claim. The trees are still blocking LoS as far as them being an obstruction goes.

There are "vertical terrain" because according to GW every terrain is "climbable". It is just a terrible situation with the Wyldwood trees since the possibility of a model standing on top of a tree largely depends on the specific model of the tree in question (there are different ways of assembling each tree - mostly the number of leaf-"roofs" you put onto it

 

That is what I was referring to with "every terrain is climbable". The bigger problem with models standing on top of trees is the fact that they can not really be attacked or attack themselves because of the vertical distance between them and models standing at ground level.

Yeah I agree it feels weird about landing atop trees and basically making it impossible to target with melee combat without janky “oh my guys climb the trees to attack the flying turtle”

But the trees in a citadel woods are not necessary any more aside from looks because you measure LOS blocking through an inch of the base of the woods now instead of using the trees to determine if you can see models through them or not.

”If you measure more than 1” through the base of a Citadel Woods the the models are considered to be outside of LOS unless the models have FLY.”

[Isotop]

On 9/26/2018 at 3:35 PM, BaldoBeardo said:

I think it's not really an issue any more. Previously in AOS1 the trees were static LOS blocking objects so moving them had consequences.

Now that the *area* of the wood is the LOS blocker, trees are pretty much just decorative so moving them shouldn't be an issue.

There is no proof to that claim. The trees are still blocking LoS as far as them being an obstruction goes.

33 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

I went to a event the otherday and was told the trees were just "vertical terrain" that could be climbed up and down. Has there ever been a official wording for the trees by GW or something to say they're intended as inpassable etc.

There are "vertical terrain" because according to GW every terrain is "climbable". It is just a terrible situation with the Wyldwood trees since the possibility of a model standing on top of a tree largely depends on the specific model of the tree in question (there are different ways of assembling each tree - mostly the number of leaf-"roofs" you put onto it

 

32 minutes ago, Nico said:

FAQ provides that all scenery is climbable by default. 

This is good as it allows fliers on big bases to land atop them (ignoring vertical distances when moving). Otherwise they can be unable to make charges at all in some situations.

That is what I was referring to with "every terrain is climbable". The bigger problem with models standing on top of trees is the fact that they can not really be attacked or attack themselves because of the vertical distance between them and models standing at ground level.

[Nico]

FAQ provides that all scenery is climbable by default. 

This is good as it allows fliers on big bases to land atop them (ignoring vertical distances when moving). Otherwise they can be unable to make charges at all in some situations.

[AaronWilson]

I went to a event the otherday and was told the trees were just "vertical terrain" that could be climbed up and down. Has there ever been a official wording for the trees by GW or something to say they're intended as inpassable etc.

[BaldoBeardo]

I think it's not really an issue any more. Previously in AOS1 the trees were static LOS blocking objects so moving them had consequences.

Now that the *area* of the wood is the LOS blocker, trees are pretty much just decorative so moving them shouldn't be an issue.

[KeX]

Tnx  we play to remove tree and thats it but if im planing to go on tournament i need to know  my 3-4 fat guys GUO wont move much

How people play on GTA or LVO or any other big tournament if someone been on any  

[King Taloren]

I think generally it’s been left up to players and the TO’s own rulings. We’ve tended to play that the trees can be removed but the space they take up on the base  the trunks themselves is considered impassable. But taking the trees out of the way because we have a lot of spiky bits and no one likes getting caught and looking like the massacre of bikers from Endor.

 

so in that case as long as you can fit the base without getting stuck in a tree trunk you are good to go. It does hamper larger models but that is the point of the woods aside from the los blocking.