Sylvaneth Wildwood

[PJetski]

 

6 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

So you had a first game against a faction, were caught unawares by their new schtick, and now declare them to be cheese?

Mon dieu, formulate a little. Learn from your errors, adapt to your enemy. The local Sylvaneth player was wrecking my army mercilessly in every game I played. Recently I've managed 3 consecutive wins as I familiarised myself with their capabilities, and most importantly, their limits.

In addition to playing as the Sylvaneth on numerous occassions, I have been playing against Sylvaneth at least once a week, every week, against multiple opponents since they were released in the summer. I think Sylvaneth woods are just a little bit too strong for a free summoned terrain piece, especially if you play them RAW and allow people to place 3 Citadel Woods with each summon.

I would like to keep this discussion productive, so please don't jump to conclusions and attack people like that.

What is more interesting here is that this kind of response is exactly the kind of thing people were saying about Seraphon/Death/Demon summoning; "It's not that good, the army is balanced around it!", "wow you played one game and came to cry cheese??? get good", etc. Yes you could play around it, but ultimately the game is better now that it costs points to summon units.

In friendly games I don't think the Wildwood present a problem because they really embody the flavour of the Sylvaneth but in competitive matches I think it needs to be reigned in before people start to abuse the infinite free terrain.

I have been workshopping a few different ways to reduce the potential abuse of the Wildwood in Pitched Battles without kneecapping the faction:

1. Terrain generated by players does not confer a cover bonus (this would apply to more than just the Wildwood, eg: Balewind Vortex)

2. Sylvaneth Wildwood cost 20 points for Sylvaneth (rather than being free)

3. Instead of 1-3 Citadel Woods it is 1 Citadel Wood.

4. Maximum of X Wildwood throughout the game determined before the game starts

5. Any combination of the above

Let me know what you guys think!

[Craptrain]

1 hour ago, PJetski said:

 

1. Terrain generated by players does not confer a cover bonus (this would apply to more than just the Wildwood, eg: Balewind Vortex)

2. Sylvaneth Wildwood cost 20 points for Sylvaneth (rather than being free)

3. Instead of 1-3 Citadel Woods it is 1 Citadel Wood.

4. Maximum of X Wildwood throughout the game determined before the game starts

5. Any combination of the above

Let me know what you guys think!

I think that's all a bad idea.  Sylvaneth already deal with the problem of costly units.  Their only viable battleline choice is 120 points.  You want to add an additional 20 point charge to the key component around which the army is supposed to be based and claim its somehow not kneecapping the army?

[Mossback]

Hi all, and first post here. I'm building a Sylvaneth based army, and the idea of the wyldwoods has also intrigued me. Since they do seem to be an integral part of the sylvaneth forces, and there seems to be no consensus on how many is too many, or two few, how about making it a dice roll? A wyldwood consists of between 1 to three models, so make it a d3 roll when placing them or summoning them. That would certainly make it more interesting for when a Treelord Ancient tries to cast Awakening the Wood , using the Deepwood spell lore Verdant Blessing, or the arcane treasure Acorn of the Ages. The Sylvaneth player hoping to drop three models for a blocking move would be hampered if he rolled a one or a two, only giving him one model to place. Of course, if you rolled a five or six, allowing for three models, there is nothing saying you have to actually place that many; it would be the choice then of the caster. I think that would satisfy both the Sylvaneth army commander as he doesn't have to pay points for something that GW seemed to make an integral part of the army, and it keeps the opponent happy as the barren wasteland he was expecting to be fighting on doesn't suddenly become the Amazon rainforest.

[Nico]

Quote

Hi all, and first post here. I'm building a Sylvaneth based army, and the idea of the wyldwoods has also intrigued me. Since they do seem to be an integral part of the sylvaneth forces, and there seems to be no consensus on how many is too many, or two few, how about making it a dice roll? A wyldwood consists of between 1 to three models, so make it a d3 roll when placing them or summoning them. That would certainly make it more interesting for when a Treelord Ancient tries to cast Awakening the Wood , using the Deepwood spell lore Verdant Blessing, or the arcane treasure Acorn of the Ages. The Sylvaneth player hoping to drop three models for a blocking move would be hampered if he rolled a one or a two, only giving him one model to place. Of course, if you rolled a five or six, allowing for three models, there is nothing saying you have to actually place that many; it would be the choice then of the caster. I think that would satisfy both the Sylvaneth army commander as he doesn't have to pay points for something that GW seemed to make an integral part of the army, and it keeps the opponent happy as the barren wasteland he was expecting to be fighting on doesn't suddenly become the Amazon rainforest.

I wouldn't advise self-comping the army. There are enough people who haven't read the scrolls and reach for the nerfbat without thinking. Don't encourage them.

Sylvaneth are a second tier army at the moment (second tier, not second rate - there are plenty of third tier armies - Brayherd, Dark Aelves, High Aelves, Dispossessed, pure Slaves to Darkness, Gitmob, Everchosen, Fyreslayers, Seraphon without Kroak). 

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

 

Sylvaneth are a second tier army at the moment (second tier, not second rate - there are plenty of third tier armies - Brayherd, Dark Aelves, High Aelves, Dispossessed, pure Slaves to Darkness, Gitmob, Everchosen, Fyreslayers, Seraphon without Kroak). 

This is an important consideration Sylvaneth aren't smashing everything in sight and sweeping the podiums at tournaments. This on its own should suggest they aren't over the top. For me the armies in the second tier are generally the ones GW have got it right. 

[kozokus]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

Sylvaneth are a second tier army at the moment (second tier, not second rate - there are plenty of third tier armies - Brayherd, Dark Aelves, High Aelves, Dispossessed, pure Slaves to Darkness, Gitmob, Everchosen, Fyreslayers, Seraphon without Kroak). 

Just to know, what would you consider in each tier?

[hobgoblinclub]

I think a wildwood should just be one Citadel Wood.  Otherwise, you run the risk of every single game vs Sylvaneth being played on a table filled with woods.  I don't want to have to flood the table with scenery just to stop them placing too many.  Scenery placement should be aesthetic, not an exercise in being gamey.

Alternatively, you could randomise the growth of the woods and say that you deploy D3 each time.

[Bowlzee]

I'm a Sylvaneth and will give you my experience with the woods.

• Our units are over costed purely on the fact that they play better with woods. The cost of the woods is factored in to the cost of the units. Dyrads, 120 points die in droves unless you can get them near a wildwood.
• redeploying units is actually very difficult. You need to be within 3" of the wood and 9" away from the enemy. Don't want any sylvaneth deploying near you? Swamp the terrain. They also then can't move unless they roll a 6. So that's a 9" charge...
• Putting down woods is only really viable in the first turn or against bunker armies. Again, there are restrictions on where to place these 1" or 3" away from other terrain or models. They are large bases as well, you can easily prevent a player from placing any woods down with your own model placement
• I have yet to see a pure Sylvaneth army win at any tournament or even podium. They have some neat tricks, but most of them are easily countered.

I haven't won many games with the army. I find it very difficult to place more woods after turn 1, so usually end up playing to take turn 1, and more often that not, then get double turned. It takes a skilled Sylvaneth player to make the woods work. They certainly don't need more comping.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah, as Death in particular I can fan out a little and deny a lot of the table to my opponent, letting me corral them in and prevent them tree-flitting around too much. Once you know their tricks, they're incredibly-easy to counter.

[Nico]

Quote

Just to know, what would you consider in each tier?

Obviously this is subjective, but here we go (loosely ordered within each tier) Chaos are really hard to order as so much scope to mix:

Tier 1

• Stormcast (with other order units)
• Beastclaw with Moonclan Grots
• Kunnin Rukk (I mean Bonesplitterz)
• Tomb Kings
• Skaven

Tier 2

• Flesh Eater Courts (as they have no pew pew)
• Moonclan
• Sylvaneth
• Waywatchers
• Empire gunlines, Hurricanum and Luminark
• Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon with mixed Death
• Khorne Bloodbound (plus pew pew).
• Nurgle
• Spiderfang
• Greenskinz
• Mixed Chaos
• Legion of Azgorth
• Seraphon (with Kroak)
• Warherd (with sorcerors and pew pew)
• Ironjawz
• Devoted of Sigmar

Tier 3

• Gutbusters (without any monsters)
• Dark Aelves 
• Deathlords
• Pestilens
• Tzeentch Daemons
• Slannesh Daemons
• High Aelves
• Dispossessed (strong but too slow to be competitive in all battleplans)
• Pure Slaves to Darkness 
• Gitmob
• Fyreslayers
• Seraphon without Kroak
• Tamurkhan
• Everchosen
• Brayherd

[RossMHoward]

What is it about the Wyldwood that bothers people? Being on the board isn't enough to get het up about. 

1. Is it the fact you lose models when running and charging through them?
2. Is it the Roused By Magic rule that kicks off mortal wounds on a 5+ when a spell is cast within 6" of it. 
3. Is it the wait it buffs Sylvaneth units, like -1 when attack Dryads?
4. Or is it the way it opens up the board to Sylvaneth Armies with teleporting?

Here's what I'd say to each:

1. Most Sylvaneth models die very easily and don't have huge damage output (aside from hunters and a very lucky Treelord), setting traps with the Wyldwood are an integral part of our damage output and area denial. Also, given that on the charge a model has to end up within 1/2 an inch. Make that connection with as few models as possible and use your pile in to help models cheat death. 
2. This one I am sympathetic about, as if you get bogged down in a wood for a turn or two, you can lose some very crucial wound. To account for this, if you can shoot or mortal wound hero's within or around the wood you can mitigate this. 
3. As with point 1, these minor buffs are integral for an army that doesn't stand up well to an ongoing and coordinated assault. 
4. If you take issue with this, then you need to take issue with summoning armies and Stormcast armies in general. The difference with Sylvaneth is that you have a mechanic to stop this, and that is to sit inside their woods. Lets say I place my forests down in an opportune place and then my opponent rolls to pick sides, and chooses the side I wanted. I then have to decide, do I place models in reserve to risk arriving through that wood? Or do I place them on the board and try to mobilise them later. If in the first case I'm locked out of my woods by an astute player, then I'm losing the ability to deploy key models until I manage to clear the forest. 

 

[Arkiham]

i feel people are just anti magic. 

 

More than happy for a unit of guys to do say d3 mortal wounds on a 6+ with 2 attacks each. 

but a wizard? using a spell?! how dare you! nerf him! nerf him into the ground and then let us relieve ourselves upon his grave.  

wizards got hit hard by the rules of 1, now the balewind and now points on top of it.

[Ollie Grimwood]

It may be simply because it's something that only Sylvaneth can do, I've noticed a tendency over the years to focus on an army's or faction's unique aspects as being overpowered simply because ones chosen faction can't do the same. 

[JewelKnightJess]

Do people not accept a base-only Wyldwood? I've never had anyone complain when I place just the base down. I only have two Wyldwoods anyway, and certainly can't take the trees with me when I'm travelling to my local stores to play because they'd need a separate case of their own which makes getting it all on the bus really annoying. Around my way we're all happy to consider the Wyldwoods as an area terrain piece rather than the three trees being 'set' in place. 

Personally I think it's better to play it without the trees down since you and your opponent aren't tangling your fingers and models up in the branches and under the canopy.

[Mossback]

I've purchased one of the wyldwood models, but for the remaining ones, I plan on using a cut up game mat cut to the same size as the GW base. The trees do seem to get in the way, especially if you have a Treelord Ancient or larger model. If you are dropping one to three models every time you summon a wyldwood, you are taking up a huge space in your transport case with the trees. The game mat version looks good and you can bring a forest to the game much more easily. I'm also not interested in doing tree surgery everytime I play and have to glue back all the fiddily bits that might break off.

[Arkiham]

4 minutes ago, Mossback said:

I've purchased one of the wyldwood models, but for the remaining ones, I plan on using a cut up game mat cut to the same size as the GW base. The trees do seem to get in the way, especially if you have a Treelord Ancient or larger model. If you are dropping one to three models every time you summon a wyldwood, you are taking up a huge space in your transport case with the trees. The game mat version looks good and you can bring a forest to the game much more easily. I'm also not interested in doing tree surgery everytime I play and have to glue back all the fiddily bits that might break off.

That's the point of the trees, to get in the way, you shouldn't be removing them.

[Andreas]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

 

Tier 2

• Devoted of Sigmar

 

Off topic but so interesting I could not resist. What would this list look like?

On topic. Here (Sweden) it seems that limiting to one citadel wood is common at tournaments. But pure Sylvaneth won the last big tournament I attended so it seems all good. But meta here is a bit softer (at the moment) than what seems to be the case in other places I think.

[Mossback]

4 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

That's the point of the trees, to get in the way, you shouldn't be removing them.

I can't see how that would actually improve the gameplay experience. Do the trees have to have all the canopy attached, or can you play like it is winter with no leaves? Should a sylvaneth have problems moving through the woods they just summoned? I don't think so. Since there is no movement penalty assigned for moving through the woods, like it doubles movement cost for non-sylvaneth forces, the trees are simply there to enhance the beauty of the model base with little other functionality. If the trees were required to remain fixed all the time, no one would bother to use the branches or leaves for fear of damaging their other models during movement.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, Mossback said:

I can't see how that would actually improve the gameplay experience. Do the trees have to have all the canopy attached, or can you play like it is winter with no leaves? Should a sylvaneth have problems moving through the woods they just summoned? I don't think so. Since there is no movement penalty assigned for moving through the woods, like it doubles movement cost for non-sylvaneth forces, the trees are simply there to enhance the beauty of the model base with little other functionality. If the trees were required to remain fixed all the time, no one would bother to use the branches or leaves for fear of damaging their other models during movement.

The trees are part of the terrain, they shouldn't be removed, that was only done in 8th as of movement trays,

In AoS the movement is more fluid, you count movement for turning, for moving up and over a wall etc. There's no suggestion that you can just remove terrain to suit your needs

 

Do you move the buildings if they are in your way? no, the same should be said of the trees.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It makes the game infinitely more awkward to play, though. And we have removed buildings in order to place models in the past. No one likes trying to fiddle 40 Skeletons into cover with them getting caught on trees and wrecking them. It makes it tedious for all involved.

[Andreas]

In all games I have played we have had a short discusson about the terrain before the game. What's impassable etc. and if relevant how to threat woods. Everyone I have played have been very relaxed regarding moving some trees to fit for example a treeman in the woods. But we dont really measure for example movement for turning etc with any degree of accuracy (if not someone is trying to do something obivously out of line) so my opponents might be more relaxed than in general, i dont know.  Just have the discussion pregame.

 

[mmimzie]

On 11/13/2016 at 3:00 AM, Nico said:

Try actually playing a game vs Sylvaneth before reaching for the nerf hammer.

In practice it's very hard to place more than 6 Wyldwood bases because of terrain and the likelihood that your opponent will go first.

 

 

I agree with this. I think the tree folks simply need it, and its more so the fact that other armies don't have allegiance abilities; so some times they might seem more powerful. Wait till Death starts getting allegiance bonus you folks are gonna spit out your coffee.

I'm a really big fan of rules as written. Tournament and personal comps just add another barrier to entry for everyone. This turns the game into a cliche fest where it's difficult for all of the community to play together.

 

 

17 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

It makes the game infinitely more awkward to play, though. And we have removed buildings in order to place models in the past. No one likes trying to fiddle 40 Skeletons into cover with them getting caught on trees and wrecking them. It makes it tedious for all involved.

As i said above here. The rules simply are the rules> I dont mind if folks remove the trees for ease of moving the models around and seeing whose where, but the space the trees take up is functional and apart of the terrain feature.  As the trees making it difficult for bid monsters and stuff to get them seems pretty cool.

If you think of a it a big rig truck with a trail can smack into a tree and the thing still stands. Imagine a monster trying to knock down trees. That would take quite a lot of work. 

 

1 minute ago, Andreas said:

In all games I have played we have had a short discusson about the terrain before the game. What's impassable etc. and if relevant how to threat woods. Everyone I have played have been very relaxed regarding moving some trees to fit for example a treeman in the woods. But we dont really measure for example movement for turning etc with any degree of accuracy (if not someone is trying to do something obivously out of line) so my opponents might be more relaxed than in general, i dont know.  Just have the discussion pregame.

 

Measuring for turning is pretty much not that big a deal. Slows down the game. Now if your moving where it's super close and you might not make it, and turning might make a different then i guess i'd measure. but for the most part i dont care.  

[Arkiham]

As shown here, you cannot move through scenery , removing the trees must be discussed, but won't be allowed in tournaments.

[Mossback]

1 hour ago, mmimzie said:

I agree with this. I think the tree folks simply need it, and its more so the fact that other armies don't have allegiance abilities; so some times they might seem more powerful. Wait till Death starts getting allegiance bonus you folks are gonna spit out your coffee.

I'm a really big fan of rules as written. Tournament and personal comps just add another barrier to entry for everyone. This turns the game into a cliche fest where it's difficult for all of the community to play together.

 

 

As i said above here. The rules simply are the rules> I dont mind if folks remove the trees for ease of moving the models around and seeing whose where, but the space the trees take up is functional and apart of the terrain feature.  As the trees making it difficult for bid monsters and stuff to get them seems pretty cool.

If you think of a it a big rig truck with a trail can smack into a tree and the thing still stands. Imagine a monster trying to knock down trees. That would take quite a lot of work. 

 

Measuring for turning is pretty much not that big a deal. Slows down the game. Now if your moving where it's super close and you might not make it, and turning might make a different then i guess i'd measure. but for the most part i dont care.  

Not quite sure that your monster truck analogy is exactly appropriate. If I have a model with a movement of 7", and the wyldwood is 6" across, I am unhampered at all during my movement phase, as if the scenery doesn't exist. If, however, I have a model that may end up in the wyldwood and some part of his miniature is tangled up in a tree (banner, sword, staff, etc.) then some degree of common sense needs to apply. You wouldn't deny some dragon rider access to a terrain piece just because his base keeps sliding off the rocks, would you?

[Mossback]

23 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

As shown here, you cannot move through scenery , removing the trees must be discussed, but won't be allowed in tournaments.

I'm not sure Alarielle on her wardroth beetle would even fit inside a wyldwood with all the branches and leaves attached. Common sense needs to be applied, tournament rules or not.