What to do Against Sylvaneth that just won't come out of the woods

[Nos]

4 hours ago, Painbringer said:

As a Sylvaneth player myself, I think that one of the best ways to beat them is to focus on their key pieces - monstrous heroes, like TLA, Durthu or Drycha. Sylvaneth are not synergetic like Khorne or Stormcast for example, but the models I mentioned are very important for the overall play style. Once you remove "key players", the rest of the army struggles a lot. Undercosted but powerful units, like Evocators, are very good for this  - even without buffs, they can destroy more expensive stuff. You will probably loose some of your own troops in the process, but the battle should be much easier later. At some point you simply have to go into the woods - however, keep in mind that terrain setup and placement of your troops can affect where Sylvaneth player will drop his forests. 

Evocators are great for that because of their MW. Get one to cross into the forest, so long as he dosent die it’s immaterial how many others you can pile-in because you’re going to get 10+ shots at a MW. Nearly always takes Durthu down a bracket or two and once he’s maimed as you say you’re largely just lining up against twigs.

[Black Blade]

The way the Sylvaneth can aggressively spawn and deploy their woods is temporary I hope. They are unique as a faction in how they can place them and how much board space they can own especially when you consider all the benefits they have.

[Ruhraffe]

11 hours ago, Black Blade said:

The way the Sylvaneth can aggressively spawn and deploy their woods is temporary I hope. They are unique as a faction in how they can place them and how much board space they can own especially when you consider all the benefits they have.

Disclaimer: I play Sylvaneth

I hope that Sylvaneth keep that style of play. If we can't deploy these woods as freely we loose the ability to do these fancy movement sheenanigans. This is what makes Sylvaneth interesting to play, to build up the fortress and defend it. But a fortress far away from the objectives does not make any sense. 

 

If you take this away from the Sylvaneth they are so squishy against MW, are slow by the value on their warscrolls, and loose all the good boni they get when they are at the woods. 

[Sedraxis]

14 minutes ago, Ruhraffe said:

Disclaimer: I play Sylvaneth

I hope that Sylvaneth keep that style of play. If we can't deploy these woods as freely we loose the ability to do these fancy movement sheenanigans. This is what makes Sylvaneth interesting to play, to build up the fortress and defend it. But a fortress far away from the objectives does not make any sense. 

 

If you take this away from the Sylvaneth they are so squishy against MW, are slow by the value on their warscrolls, and loose all the good boni they get when they are at the woods. 

I think the playstyle will remain, just with more restrictions. Right now it's a mess of old rules mixed with a few erratas. Restricting the placement of woods to 3" away from any other terrain & models and giving the army the wholly withing treatment will solve most issues without changing their style.

[Ruhraffe]

Even if this derails the topic a bit: 

The reason Treelord Ancient does not get played this often is, that the wyldwood has to be fully within his abilities radius. I feel, as a sylvaneth I need the ability to get out at least two, rather three woods in the first turn, and these wyldwoods have to be in the places where combat happens. If not, the opponent just advances and utterly wrecks the whole point of my allegiance ability, because I cannot place further wyldwoods, or the wyldwoods are so far in my back that they do not give my any advantage. 

If we expand the radii and give them wholly within, okay, but then the whole change was moot. 

If there is a problem, it's the wyldwoods base itself. A wyldwood just covers a gigantic area of the field. While I like that style of board control, I can see how it can be difficult to play around, but again that's the point of board control. They could have maybe just taken the tree models and said, that the models have to be within x'' of each other and give the boni in 6'' so something like that. Still board control, but not this much space needed. But thematically, the growing woods are fitting the lore really well, and if we are honest, if there grows a wood, it can't be just 2 treestumps and thats it

[Aeryenn]

I don't see any problems with wyldwoods as they are, nor are they winning tournaments. If they make any restrictions Sylvaneth may become unplayable. 

[Kirjava13]

Just limit it to one base of woods and the ability is fine. Letting it be two or three is not fun to play against, it's frustrating as the board rapidly gets locked up and then you can't move or cast anywhere without dying.

[Kramer]

41 minutes ago, Aryann said:

I don't see any problems with wyldwoods as they are, nor are they winning tournaments. If they make any restrictions Sylvaneth may become unplayable. 

Hear hear, and the playstyle is cool as a concept even if it’s the execution looks a bit clunky. If GW manages to streamline it without hurting the playstyle, different story for me. 

[Justinbot]

I'm curious how your opponent is bringing a battalion with the units you mentioned at 1000 pts. There's not a single battalion that your opponent should be able to field with that list, as just the basic household battalion (100 pts) requires a Treelord, revenants and a branchwych (not a Treelord Ancient).

On another note I do think the woods are kinda clunky but restricting their placement more than it is now will severely neuter the army. Depending on how many terrain pieces are already on the board it's already hard enough to get them down in prime spots.

[Yoshiya]

5 hours ago, Justinbot said:

I'm curious how your opponent is bringing a battalion with the units you mentioned at 1000 pts. There's not a single battalion that your opponent should be able to field with that list, as just the basic household battalion (100 pts) requires a Treelord, revenants and a branchwych (not a Treelord Ancient).

On another note I do think the woods are kinda clunky but restricting their placement more than it is now will severely neuter the army. Depending on how many terrain pieces are already on the board it's already hard enough to get them down in prime spots.

He's using Gnarlroot which swaps the Treelord in the household for a Treelord Ancient. It's a pretty common base for Slyvaneth though most avoid it at 1000pts as it uses a lot of points up.

[Justinbot]

1 hour ago, Yoshiya said:

He's using Gnarlroot which swaps the Treelord in the household for a Treelord Ancient. It's a pretty common base for Slyvaneth though most avoid it at 1000pts as it uses a lot of points up.

Right, but don't you have to pay for the Gnarlroot battalion as well? That's 230 points right there. With all the stuff OP said his opponent brought that's over 1000 points (and assuming the dryads were all summoned).

Branchwraith 80
Treelord Anchient 300 
Drycha Hamadreth 280
Branchwych 80 
Tree revenants 160 (assuming 2  units for battleline)
Dryads (summoned)

household 100

gnarlroot 130

total: 1130

[Yoshiya]

1 hour ago, Justinbot said:

Right, but don't you have to pay for the Gnarlroot battalion as well? That's 230 points right there. With all the stuff OP said his opponent brought that's over 1000 points (and assuming the dryads were all summoned).

Branchwraith 80
Treelord Anchient 300 
Drycha Hamadreth 280
Branchwych 80 
Tree revenants 160 (assuming 2  units for battleline)
Dryads (summoned)

household 100

gnarlroot 130

total: 1130

Oh right, when I calculated the points I didn't spot that he had Drycha and it all fit in. In that case yea, the list he is using is illegal. He's likely confused about the points for Gnarlroot and how it goes on to of the household rather than being a seperate modified version of a household (I was confused about this myself when I initially started playing).

[Sedraxis]

That's another thing that I think might get changed. Sylvaneth battalions have not only a very low cost, they also allow you to add in "any number of other Sylvaneth units" after you fulfilled one very small requirement. It's a huge advantage available to very few factions, mainly those with older rules. 

I'm all for more battalion options, but then at least bring this create-your-own-battalion style build to all armies and get rid of the guaranteed first turn mechanic.

[Nos]

Had a few more SC centric thoughts.

With Relictor or Vexillor you can drop a unit pretty much anywhere on the board. If you buff up a big blob of Sequitors or Liberators with Azyrite Halo then stop them in the middle of a central wood and stretch them out a bit you’re massively limiting capacity for shenanigans. Obviously not ideal in all circumstances but especially in objective scenarios where Sylvaneth tend to sprout woods on objectives it’s going to be a pretty big spanner in the works.

Far less reliable but pretty funny, if you give a Knight Azyros Blade of Secrets and wound a spell caster with it you can make them forget a spell. Flutter around his casters and make them forget how to do stuff with woods.

[Ruhraffe]

2 hours ago, Sedraxis said:

That's another thing that I think might get changed. Sylvaneth battalions have not only a very low cost, they also allow you to add in "any number of other Sylvaneth units" after you fulfilled one very small requirement. It's a huge advantage available to very few factions, mainly those with older rules. 

I'm all for more battalion options, but then at least bring this create-your-own-battalion style build to all armies and get rid of the guaranteed first turn mechanic.

If you take the cheap turn 1 from sylvaneth, this is a huge nerf, more drastic then to other armies. Because our woods are this large, we cannot fit them in as soon as the opponent had one turn. Even if he does not try to take spots where we could grow trees, it just happens. So sylvaneth desperately needs turn one, to set up the woods. If this cannot be achieved, our whole allegiance ability is not usable. 

So, to keep sylvaneth in play, if you do not get the cheap turn one, you either have to make the units strong and resiliant enough, so they can challenge the opponents army outside of the woods, which they can't at the moment; or give them the opportunity to set up more woods from the getgo. Option one takes the army its unique touch, option two is the opposite of what most non-sylvaneth here whish for.

[Dead Scribe]

The question is:  do sylvaneth HAVE to operate in a manner where they have woods all over the table and if not they auto-lose?

I don't think thats entirely the case.

We have undead players that feel that if they can't summon to the max that legion of nagash armies cannot win because they think that the army is unplayable without the extra 800 or so points that they generate from extra troops / recycling.  But if the armies are pointed somewhat correctly, those should just be bonus points, just like woods should just be bonus as opposed to mandatory.

[AaronWilson]

24 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The question is:  do sylvaneth HAVE to operate in a manner where they have woods all over the table and if not they auto-lose?

I don't think thats entirely the case.

We have undead players that feel that if they can't summon to the max that legion of nagash armies cannot win because they think that the army is unplayable without the extra 800 or so points that they generate from extra troops / recycling.  But if the armies are pointed somewhat correctly, those should just be bonus points, just like woods should just be bonus as opposed to mandatory.

The problem with Sylvaneth is that all of there allegiance abilities (Traversing spirit paths, Wyldwoods, Deploying in hidden enclaves) are directly tied to the Wyldwoods, as well as a fair few warscroll abilities. Sylvaneth 100% do not function without multiple Wyldwoods not on the table which is a problem with the battle tome (and why nearly all Sylvaneth competitively will play a one drop army to ensure first turn and placing of woods). 

[Dead Scribe]

We have a sylvaneth player that does pretty well even if they don't get to spread their woods out all over the table (meaning they absolutely still function just without their extra bonuses)

However if thats the consensus, then the book should be fixed.

[Ruhraffe]

If you want to get just to the near of what Sylvaneth is capable of, you have to. 

Dryads: Cover bonus, -1 to getting hit if near wyldwood

Durthu: +D3 Attacks with the Sword near wyldwood

Spites: Interact with Terrain pieces, e.g. wyldwoods

Alarielle: Living ram interacts with wyldwoods (often times you dont want it to, but well...)

branchwraiths: Their summoning only works with wyldwoods, and they get -1 to getting hit, just like dryads

branchwych: +1 to hit near a wyldwood

Allegiance abilities: Placing, teleporting between wyldwoods

Spell lore: Placing wyldwoods, moving wyldwoods, doing damage around wyldwoods. (2/6 spells iirc)

Artifacts: Acorn places a wyldwood

Treelord Ancient: Bonus to teleporting, ability to set up a wood, his signature spell targets a wood.

Treelord: bonus to teleporting

Tree-Revs: Can use a wood for their teleporting ability

Every unit (apart from the treelord and tree revs), and every part of our rulebook interacts heavily with the wyldwoods. This army is designed around the woods, and not the other way around. To change this, the whole faction has to be rewritten.

[Dead Scribe]

Then I'd say you need to be ok if you don't get to spread your trees out because you'll be out of bonuses, or you need to play a different army and write GW and let them know that they have created an army that is not fun because it hinges on you getting first turn and spreading a bunch of trees out to get your army bonuses and that you feel its not fair if you don't get your bonuses otherwise.

[Black Blade]

20 hours ago, Ruhraffe said:

If you want to get just to the near of what Sylvaneth is capable of, you have to. 

Dryads: Cover bonus, -1 to getting hit if near wyldwood

Durthu: +D3 Attacks with the Sword near wyldwood

Spites: Interact with Terrain pieces, e.g. wyldwoods

Alarielle: Living ram interacts with wyldwoods (often times you dont want it to, but well...)

branchwraiths: Their summoning only works with wyldwoods, and they get -1 to getting hit, just like dryads

branchwych: +1 to hit near a wyldwood

Allegiance abilities: Placing, teleporting between wyldwoods

Spell lore: Placing wyldwoods, moving wyldwoods, doing damage around wyldwoods. (2/6 spells iirc)

Artifacts: Acorn places a wyldwood

Treelord Ancient: Bonus to teleporting, ability to set up a wood, his signature spell targets a wood.

Treelord: bonus to teleporting

Tree-Revs: Can use a wood for their teleporting ability

Every unit (apart from the treelord and tree revs), and every part of our rulebook interacts heavily with the wyldwoods. This army is designed around the woods, and not the other way around. To change this, the whole faction has to be rewritten.

The problem is how oppressive the woods are themselves. They rewrite the entire battlefield. I would be fine with a simple nerf that wild woodd are just citadel woods with all the extra rules but only being a single wood. the footprint of 3 woods spawning one or more times is SO MUCH.

 

Edit: "extra rules"

[chord]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 2:29 AM, Ruhraffe said:

 they are so squishy against MW, are slow by the value on their warscrolls, 

This describes several armies and they don't even have the wood spam to start with.  It's just a balance, maybe hand out bonuses in a different way that is less spammy

(but then again allow spam increases sales)

[Aeryenn]

It's not fair for all those Sylvaneth players who own, assembled and painted 9-12 woods to now tell them "you can only place 1 citadel wood". There is really no problem with this mechanic. It's unique. It might be sometimes hard to play against but there are several others that are not fun - alpha strikes, heavy shooting, endless summoning. And what? You wanna change all that? Leave it. It's perfectly fine. 

[Sedraxis]

1 hour ago, Aryann said:

It might be sometimes hard to play against but there are several others that are not fun - alpha strikes, heavy shooting, endless summoning. And what? You wanna change all that? Leave it. It's perfectly fine. 

It's funny because all those thing are also part of Sylvaneth

[Aeryenn]

20 minutes ago, Sedraxis said:

It's funny because all those thing are also part of Sylvaneth

Compare Sylvaneth shooting to Tzeentch, summoning to FEC or Death. Different league. If people want to restrict wyldwoods to 1 citadel wood then i postulate that Tzeentch may only choose 1 unit to shoot in the shooting phase and FEC only to summon one unit per round. It makes that much sense. Really, leave it or rebalancing Sylvaneth around Wyldwoods will destroy this army. Want to rebalance something? Boost Ironjawz, Kharadrons and BCR, nerf DoK and LoN - that's what tournament results tell us. Don't fix things that work well, like Sylvaneth. Well designed and well balanced army.