Woods, how many to summon?

[thediceabide]

Hey guys, I'm just looking at the new GHB entry for Sylvaneth Wyldwoods and I'm wondering if the min/max unit size of 1 means a single citadel wood. Before people were summoning "two or more" though now with the unit size of 1/1, should they now be placing a single tree base?

[Bowlzee]

OK so lets clarify this a bit with the scrolls.

GHB Profile update is below:

 

When you summon a Wyldwood, you can only summon one. I think everyone agrees with that.

Now here is the scroll for for a Wyldwood.

The key is here. A Wyldwood consists of 1-3 Citadel Woods. 

So when you summon your 1 Sylvaneth Wyldwood  it can consist of 1-3 Citadel wood bases.

[discoking]

Summon Fell Bats/Bat Swarms lets you summon 1-3 but GHB limits it to 2 per 80pts.

Surely the same thing?

[Craptrain]

20 minutes ago, Choombatta said:

All Matched Play rules are secondary by that reasoning.

GW took the time to release the points and min/max model number for Sylvaneth Wyldwoods and Balewind Vortex just last week.

I would think GW knew what they were doing when they released it.

Respectfully no, all matched play rules are not secondary and nothing in my post states or even implies that.  It's a question of explicit vs. ambiguous, not GHB vs. warscroll.  You're simply choosing to go with ambiguous while I'm saying we should go by what's explicit.  If Games Workshop wants to come out and explicitly state that terrain features are units and citadel woods are models, that's fine, however that isn't the case (and by looking at other warscrolls it shows us that's not even Games Workshop's intent).  You're assuming that two numbers in two columns on a table that wasn't designed for scenery is somehow a definitive ruling when that simply couldn't be further from that truth.

[Craptrain]

9 hours ago, thediceabide said:

Then you cannot place the wood at all because you never meet the minimum model count required.

Simply reiterating a false argument doesn't make it right, regardless of what politics has shown us.

 

Your argument is nonsensical and illogical.  You can very clearly meet the minimum by placing 1 Sylvaneth Wyldwood which consists of up to 3 Citadel Woods.  You're holding on to the notion that Citadel Woods are models when Games Workshop made a conscious decision to remove the word model from the Wyldwood warscroll as it referred to Citadel Woods before the release of the Sylvaneth battletome.  Why remove that word if they clearly intended Citadel Woods to be models?

I think this discussion is done.  You have the answer to your question and you can choose to accept it or not.  Best to take your own advice about false arguments though, I would think.

[thediceabide]

17 minutes ago, Craptrain said:

Your argument is nonsensical and illogical.  You can very clearly meet the minimum by placing 1 Sylvaneth Wyldwood which consists of up to 3 Citadel Woods.  You're holding on to the notion that Citadel Woods are models when Games Workshop made a conscious decision to remove the word model from the Wyldwood warscroll as it referred to Citadel Woods before the release of the Sylvaneth battletome.  Why remove that word if they clearly intended Citadel Woods to be models?

I think this discussion is done.  You have the answer to your question and you can choose to accept it or not.  Best to take your own advice about false arguments though, I would think.

So you're saying that based on no actual printed rules whatsoever, that the best answer is that you ignore the min/max number of models, that was clearly a mistake (but it was not a mistake to remove the word "model" from Citadel Wood), and that this becomes the only ability in the game which summons an indeterminate number of non-models entities? And instead of Min/Max being about models, which it clearly states in the rules, for this situation, and only this situation, it has to do with the number of warscrolls that are bought together?

Just want to make sure I'm clear on understanding you.

My whole point is showing how illogical it is to say that Citadel Woods aren't models. Yes, the argument that you cannot use it at all is illogical, that's to illustrate how illogical the argument that they aren't models is. If you say that they aren't models, it causes far more rules discrepancies. Perhaps they removed the word model because there was no need for it? Maybe it was a copy/paste error? Maybe they didn't think that they needed to remind you that you are holding a model in your hand, and not some bizarre new construct of game terminology? I've never heard anyone argue before that a kit sold by GW once assembled is anything but a model.

The far simpler assumption is that a Citadel Wood is a model, otherwise you need to make up new rules to cover this situation. Like what do you do regarding the Min/Max NUMBER OF MODELS in a unit when the Warscroll has a Min/Max assigned, but contains no actual models? You can't say that the Max is on the number of Sylvaneth Wyldwoods because there is absolutely no support for that statement in the rules. If you think it's so intentional that they cut out the word models, then are you also saying they intended for an entirely new usage of the Min/Max, but also intended to not actually spell it out anywhere and it was their intention for players to infer from it whatever they want?

C'mon man, you can't be serious. It's easy to say a discussion is over when you don't have any actual support for your position.

EDIT:  I would be GLAD to change my perspective on the whole thing, if you could find any printed rule that supports your claim. Seriously. Show me where in the rules it says that the Min/Max for terrain warscrolls is in some way supposed to mean something different, or where in the rules it says that terrain warscrolls aren't bound by Min/Max models in a unit, and instead the min/max is meant to prevent you from taking duplicates of the warscroll itself, not the models it contains. 

My whole objective here is to find clarity in the rules, I don't give a ****** how many Wyldwoods a Sylvaneth player puts down, if it's what the rules state, right now we play with a sensible 2. Right now the best argument for anything other than 1, requires a ton of making up new rules that aren't actually printed anywhere.

[Bowlzee]

14 hours ago, bottle said:

So in the end I am going to side with you being able to take 1-3 Sylvaneth Wyldwoods. Why? Although I agree that the way the GHB is worded strictly limits the "models" in the pitched battle profiles if we are to follow that with every unit in the game it means all crewed artillery would not be able to take any crew because they are also limited to 1 "model" max.

The intent is obviously you can take an artillery warmachine and a set of crew.

And if it's the case that 1 cannon and 3 crew count as "1" on the pitched battle profiles, it's probably going to mean the 3 citadel woods count as "1" too.

That's my take on it, anyway. If you are going to argue that a Wyldwood can only have 1 citadel wood (and I think there is definitely a logical argument for this - I have been agreeing with many of the points made for this) you are probably going to have to apply the same logic to warmachines and say they can't bring their crew along, and to me that's problematic.

 

This. Good spot about the artillery crews. Hopefully this will put it to bed 

[Nico]

Quote

Even as a Sylvaneth player, you have to at least consider the possibility that they meant for it to restrict the number of Citadel Wood models, otherwise they could have just as easily worded it as min/max 1/3.

Then it would be 3 Wyldwoods and people would be screaming about 9 bases being deployed at once.

They aren't very likely to make a big nerf to the key mechanic of the new army without even mentioning this in the document or making some kind of notice of this fact.

Quote

Nobody is trying to "nerf it into the ground" people are trying to figure out the damn rules. 

Well it's less than a week since all bar one Sylvaneth alpha strike list got comped out of existence at a major tournament. I'm not bringing Sylvaneth to that event as it happens. Another major tournament set a cap of 1 base per Wyldwood before that. The army has only been in existence for 6 months.

[mmimzie]

They simply arnt though. where does it say this in the general hand book that this is a hard forever limitiation. this limitation is the same as the army composition limitation qhere you can summon as many heros/monsters/artillery points will allow. @thediceabide

 

I honestly do want to see where in the book it says this.

[thediceabide]

6 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

@thediceabide @Nico to my understand. while the min max does exist. it only exist to limit model you take as part of your list, and not models generated through the course of the game.

To my understand there exist no rule that says as much.

If nagash could qyadrue his summoning and summon 80 skels. there exist nothing stopping you from doing this.

Just as nothi g stops you feom summoning  10 heros.

I'm not saying you couldn't cast the spell multiple times to summon multiple trees (like Nagash summoning that many Skeletons), I'm saying the number of trees you summon each time you use a spell/ability to summon them. Plus in Limited Play, the units are still size restricted by their entry in the General's Handbook.

[mmimzie]

@thediceabide @Nico to my understand. while the min max does exist. it only exist to limit model you take as part of your list, and not models generated through the course of the game.

 

To my understand there exist no rule that says as much.

 

If nagash could qyadrue his summoning and summon 80 skels. there exist nothing stopping you from doing this.

 

Just as nothi g stops you feom summoning  10 heros.

[thediceabide]

5 hours ago, Nico said:

It's really depressing to see people jumping on any opportunity to hard nerf Sylvaneth into the ground.

Do people really think that they would hard nerf Sylvaneth like this by a side wind, without spelling it out.

Nobody is trying to "nerf it into the ground" people are trying to figure out the damn rules.

If people argue that the Min/Max of 1 doesn't apply to the number of models (each citadel wood is a model, don't kid yourself), then this become literally the only warscroll in the game where the number of models it contains is not restricted by the General's Handbook entry for it in organized play. Even as a Sylvaneth player, you have to at least consider the possibility that they meant for it to restrict the number of Citadel Wood models, otherwise they could have just as easily worded it as min/max 1/3. Additionally, the rules in the GHB doesn't say you multiply the number of the name-sake, you simply multiply the points by the number of models.

[Choombatta]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

It sounded like you were implying that Warscrolls were the Primary source, and the GHB was a secondary source.

So as I originally asked, people are saying the Min/Max should be ignored, because it is a scenery piece, even though GW saw fit to add Min/Max to the Wyldwood just last week.

As for why Min/Max matters, it is because GW saw fit to add them. If it did not matter, just give them a points value and end it there.

Battalions have points but no Min/Max entry, so there is a precedence for not giving some Matched Play profiles points without a model limit.

[Nico]

Quote

The Gaunt Summoner is a single model accompanied by 4 additional models. They are not treated as 1 model in total, as the familiars can be killed apart from the Summoner (attacker chooses).

It is still defined as a single model and plays as a single model in the game - you measure the range for all his abilities from any of the 5 models representing the Gaunt Summoner.

[BaldoBeardo]

Except if it's not a unit, it can't really be subject to any rules statements containing the word 'unit'...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[BaldoBeardo]

You place one wyldwood. One. The 'unit' is a single wyldwood. That's why it's max 1, that's why it's min 1. You get one.

The wyldwood you place, however, consists of up to 3 citadel woods.

That in no way violates the min-max situation.

That said, I believe the intent *is* a single wood, because my general experience thus far is that when matched play throws up a rules query, go with the least interesting / most stifling response...

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Craptrain]

6 minutes ago, discoking said:

Summon Fell Bats/Bat Swarms lets you summon 1-3 but GHB limits it to 2 per 80pts.

Surely the same thing?

Where are you getting 2 from for Fell Bats?  I see 3 as the minimum size in both the GHB and on the warscroll.  For Bat Swarms you're right though.

However, I doubt these situations are the same because A)  Fell Bats and Bat Swarms are not scenery and B) Fell Bats and Bat Swarms are not the basis for Death's allegiance abilities.

[discoking]

Yeah sorry bout Fell Bats,my bad

[Craptrain]

12 hours ago, Choombatta said:

So the warscroll states a Sylvaneth Wyldwood consists of 1-3 Citadel Wood kits?

@rokapoke, well the Vortex also, but I do know what you mean.

It says "A Sylvaneth Wyldwood is a terrain feature consisting of up to three Citadel Woods". 

[Choombatta]

If that is the case, they have changed the wording, and I would have to reconsider my position.

It always said before "A Sylvaneth Wyldwood consists of 1-3 Citadel Wood models".

 

You are indeed correct, they changed the wording on the warscroll recently to remove the word "models".

[Arkiham]

15 hours ago, MacDuff said:

Did GW ever resolve this debate? I'm building Wildwoods now...

yeah. FAQ'd so its up to three. 

[Craptrain]

6 minutes ago, thediceabide said:

So you're saying that based on no actual printed rules whatsoever, that the best answer is that you ignore the min/max number of models, that was clearly a mistake (but it was not a mistake to remove the word "model" from Citadel Wood), and that this becomes the only ability in the game which summons an indeterminate number of non-models entities? And instead of Min/Max being about models, which it clearly states in the rules, for this situation, and only this situation, it has to do with the number of warscrolls that are bought together?

Just want to make sure I'm clear on understanding you. 

You're not clear or understanding me.  I've already very clearly stated my position (as have others).  Since we're now resorting to straw man fallacies, I'm going to walk away from this discussion as I'd rather not get nasty (which clearly seems to be the tone this is starting to take).

[Arkiham]

29 minutes ago, thediceabide said:

Woah random tangent, what are you even talking about? All of those models have warscrolls... you can buy them from the GW store and on their warscrolls even show you a picture of what model to use. Oh hey, there's a thought, go look at the Wyldwood and tell me what model you see in the picture.

Oh, so like this 

 

And those models don't exist,  the warscrolls are from different models by different names. none of those warscrolls have a model, they've taken it from another warscroll.

Your reply is exactly what I was aiming for, you completely destroyed your own argument.

Hey, would you look at that, sylvaneth Wyldwood , using 3 citadel wood bases, on the store, to buy as a model. with their warscroll. fancy that.

[thediceabide]

45 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

Your argument of no such model is rubbish.

By your argument there is many models that are no longer usable as that model no longer exists, here is just a few 

Wight king with black axe.

Chaos lord of slaanesh 

Curseling Lord of Tzeentch 

Sarus sunblood 

Spirit of durthu 

These are all reused warscrolls no longer valid, according to you, as there is no model for them.

Woah random tangent, what are you even talking about? All of those models have warscrolls... you can buy them from the GW store and on their warscrolls even show you a picture of what model to use. Oh hey, there's a thought, go look at the Wyldwood and tell me what model you see in the picture.

[Arkiham]

Your argument of no such model is rubbish.

By your argument there is many models that are no longer usable as that model no longer exists, here is just a few 

Wight king with black axe.

Chaos lord of slaanesh 

Curseling Lord of Tzeentch 

Sarus sunblood 

Spirit of durthu 

These are all reused warscrolls no longer valid, according to you, as there is no model for them.

[Choombatta]

Which means you must ignore the Min/Max value.

Why add something just in the past 2 weeks that players are expected to ignore?