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

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

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Black Blade said:

the footprint of 3 woods spawning one or more times is SO MUCH

Very much this. Let them spawn as many woods as they like, as they can now, just maybe not turn the entire bloody board to trees.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think sylvaneth are fine lore wise and the representation of their lore on the battlefield.

It's fluffy that wildwoods appear or are part of the battle when fighting sylvaneth.

It's a good mechanic that your army underperforms while out of the woods (as they are tree people) but perform really well when on their home turf.

But the thing is, some mechanics are just painfull to play and to watch. My main concern is - and i played several times against a very good sylvaneth player who knows all the tricks - that the base itself has to much going and has to much vertical space when trying to move through it. I think most issues would disappear if we would treat the whole citadel wood base as one flat marker, like just remove the trees when playing in the wood and put them back on when theres space to do that. It's really painful to move through woods, either because of dying while charging or running or because of the very limited spaces between the trees. Keep all rules but make the base just a marker that means "wholly whitin 1" of the wood marker apply those rules:".

Second thing is to balance out when sylvaneth are able to place that wood markers. Right now Sylvaneth rely extremly on the first turn. It's just plain boring to have no other option and playing the same whole game over and over again. In our group it's pretty much "you either have a one drop as well and win the 50/50 to have a great shot at winning as you can spread out and block forrest placement or you have no mega battalion or loose the 50/50 and it's near impossible to win the objectives". Maybe allow them to deploy more then one forest but remove the acorn or the spell as it was pretty much auto include anyways afaik.  Or prohibit the placement of scenery warscrolls as a whole on objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say one more thing in defense of my position. First of all let me also say that I like Sylvanneth, sweet faction with very cool/models and themes. Its cool manipulating the board like that. I have no animosity towards you guys and wish you many awesome models in your future. 

What i think makes for a good tactical game is choice. I think the way the Wyldwoods work now or can work, removes choice. You don't have to think tactically when in turn one you can have your 1-drop list and then populate the board with 4 Wyldwoods consisting of 3 citadel woods apiece. 12 pieces of terrain that block line of sight, kill things that move or go to fight in it, punish spell casting and offer you teleporting and summoning abilities. That's just turn 1, only getting worse after that. It literally comes to the point where the opponent is punished for playing the game at all. That's not good for a game. I hope it changes in some way that is even handed and your faction is fairly compensated for the changes.

When a player can spam so much of something they don't need to make tactical choices and when other players have no choice but to be penalized for any gameplay action, those are not good or healthy for a game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You don't have to think tactically when in turn one you can have your 1-drop list and then populate the board with 4 Wyldwoods consisting of 3 citadel woods apiece

From what I have read and gather from conversations I've had, making a highly tactical game is not a design point for AOS.  It is more a strategic game where you build a strategy and then execute the strategy with a simplistic list of tactics.  That is I believe a strong point of AOS, because requiring strong tactics is something that many people are not good at, and would make the game not fun.

Thats not saying no tactics in the game, thats saying the game is intentionally built so that one does not need to be highly tactical to do well.  They instead need to understand a strategy and execute that strategy (the overall plan) accomplished by proper list building and understanding how those work within the mechanics of the game (so one drop lists to get first  turn is an overall strategy, if you don't get first turn and can't deploy woods, many people feel cheated, it does not matter if this is not a tactical decision, the overall effect is the strategy of sylvaneth is to deploy massive woods to gain all your benefits and bonuses and to make sure you only have a one drop list to do so)

When a player can spam so much of something they don't need to make tactical choices and when other players have no choice but to be penalized for any gameplay action, those are not good or healthy for a game.

This would only be true for people looking for a highly tactical game.  For people looking for a strategic list building game where you execute an overall strategy, how they have designed it is fun and desired.   Other games provide more of a tactical chess game and have a target audience for that design.  I have also noticed that few people play those games, so I think GW is on to something with the tactics-lite but strategic approach of AOS.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


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

[...] and then populate the board with 4 Wyldwoods consisting of 3 citadel woods apiece. 12 pieces of terrain that block line of sight [...]

I'm almost exclusively playing Sylvaneth. There was never ever a situation when I could drop three Sylvaneth Wyldwoods each consisting of 3 Citadel Woods. I almost always manage to drop one SW with 3 bases at the beginning and simply there is no more room for any other 3 Cit.Wood.Wyldwood. Then during the game I will drop like two Sylvaneth Wyldwoods consisting of two Citadel Woods, sometimes less, never more. Usually single drops of single Citadel Woods where there is space. Question to people who complain about the amount of Sylvaneth Wyldwoods: are you playing WITHOUT ANY SCENERY? I'm serious because after we put scenery, deploy our armies there is no room, it's not even possible for me to place 3 three piece each sylvaneth wyldwoods. Simply no room. You either play without scenery and terrain or you and your opponent compress your armies so much that the board is empty. Watch any miniwargaming.com or Guerrilla Miniature Games - at the start of any of their games do you see place for 12 citadel wyldwoods? Use the rules in the original core book how to deploy terrain/scenery. Divide the gaming area into 6-8 squares and roll two dice for each square. results: 2 - no terrain, 3-7 - 1 terrain, 8-11 - 2 terrain, 12 - 3 terrain  - something like that. I don't get it how you or your opponent deploys 12 Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. It's impossible if terrain is present o armies are deployed.

Edited by Aryann
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is also one thing to consider that even our sylvaneth player gets cranky about.  If you have a lot of terrain on the table he won't play because he has no room to put his woods down so arguments can happen about how much terrain is appropriate.

We typically follow tournament standard where there is a lot of open space though so he is able to deploy his woods (he just has had games where he doesn't get a lot of his woods but still does well which is why I don't think they are absolutely important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. By mid summer,  I suspect most armies will have a faction specific piece of chunky terrain.

2. Everyone should play the "Use the rules in the original core book how to deploy terrain/scenery" like @Aryann said.

3. Add new rule in Generals Handbook 2019 that states "scenery must be at least 1 inch from an objective".    I think this is required right now - Look at the Gitz Loonshrine. Try placing that over an objective. You can more or less completely block off an objective in your own territory.

 

I think those three things combined alleviates most people's issue with Sylvaneth whilst still keeping them playable.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Aryann said:

I'm almost exclusively playing Sylvaneth. There was never ever a situation when I could drop three Sylvaneth Wyldwoods each consisting of 3 Citadel Woods. I almost always manage to drop one SW with 3 bases at the beginning and simply there is no more room for any other 3 Cit.Wood.Wyldwood. Then during the game I will drop like two Sylvaneth Wyldwoods consisting of two Citadel Woods, sometimes less, never more. Usually single drops of single Citadel Woods where there is space. Question to people who complain about the amount of Sylvaneth Wyldwoods: are you playing WITHOUT ANY SCENERY? I'm serious because after we put scenery, deploy our armies there is no room, it's not even possible for me to place 3 three piece each sylvaneth wyldwoods. Simply no room. You either play without scenery and terrain or you and your opponent compress your armies so much that the board is empty. Watch any miniwargaming.com or Guerrilla Miniature Games - at the start of any of their games do you see place for 12 citadel wyldwoods? Use the rules in the original core book how to deploy terrain/scenery. Divide the gaming area into 6-8 squares and roll two dice for each square. results: 2 - no terrain, 3-7 - 1 terrain, 8-11 - 2 terrain, 12 - 3 terrain  - something like that. I don't get it how you or your opponent deploys 12 Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. It's impossible if terrain is present o armies are deployed.

This is right. For those stating that there are going to be 12 bases of woods after turn 1 are really only thinking in theoretical terms and not actual game play. This will almost never happen. The foot print for a full 3 woods is much too large. Most placements are going to be 1-2 bases. 

Woods do not take way choice. You can say they make your choices harder, sure.  I have played against plenty of opponents that have made the right tactical choices and calculated risks playing around woods that have worked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Easytyger said:

This is right. For those stating that there are going to be 12 bases of woods after turn 1 are really only thinking in theoretical terms and not actual game play. This will almost never happen. The foot print for a full 3 woods is much too large. Most placements are going to be 1-2 bases. 

Woods do not take way choice. You can say they make your choices harder, sure.  I have played against plenty of opponents that have made the right tactical choices and calculated risks playing around woods that have worked. 

Yea, how to deal with woods is the tactical choices rather than just saying they take it away.

Also, as others have said, there should be now way to place 12 woods on the board, especially since they all need to be placed within 1" of each other and thus cant be deployed as a line but rather need to be clumped up.

I often find even for the allegiance abilities woods I can only place down two bases where I actually want them. If you're having these problems then you need to seriously look into placing more terrain down in your games.

Personally I think peoples issues with woods is born more out of the lack of true terrain rules in the game as opposed to the woods themselves being an issue. People have gotten used to terrain being a benign thing that blocks your movement and sight maybe but otherwise can be ignored. If more terrain had interesting rules that brought more questions about how to play around it is feel like the woods would just be seen as one more thing to deal with.

In that line of thought, I wouldn't be surprised if complaints about woods die down as others terrain with powerful rules becomes the standard. Having to think about things like a -1 save from a herdstone that increases in range is a pretty big deal too after all but I hear no complaints about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 3:25 AM, Aryann said:

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. 

No one is arguing that Sylvaneth need nerfed, its just the way Wyldwoods work that people have a problem with. Even if you win vs someone spamming the woods its not a fun game and you feel like you just worked a shift instead of participated in a recreational hobby.  

No one here is arguing that the woods should be nerfed to undermine the whole faction. Almost everyone has suggested they get buffs/boosts to compensate and make them stronger overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×