Lets Chat Wanderers / Wood Elves compendium

[Aelfric]

11 minutes ago, Graftonianman said:

@Aelfric: Ah, I see your argument. Still, I’m not sold. 

There are 2 requirements when deploying troops with Realms: wholly within 6” of the table edge and 9” of enemies.

Example: Wending Wand says “...anywhere within 18”...” The word ‘anywhere’ could allow you to ignore the 9” from enemy requirement. GW corrected the wording error in the FAQ. 

This is not the case in Stalker. There is no wording that allows you to ignore the proximity to the enemy in the text of the Stalker rule*. Stalker only gives leniency on which table edge can be chosen for teleport. 

The FAQ that Baz references is not applicable because it is noted in the Realm Wanderers rule that you can’t setup within 9” of the enemy. 

 

*unless you consider both requirements together, like what Aelfric argues, but that is a bit weak; I’m sure I could find an example that contradicts this

I suppose it's like all these things, without a definitive ruling from GW, it really comes down to what is acceptable in your local group or community.  At the end of the day, the aim is to have fun with other players and if the consensus is not in favour of something, then that's fine.  With more regular FAQs these things will be resolved eventually on the whole, I'm sure.  Many issues get resolved without recourse to GW anyway - I've had quite a few questions resolved on here for me.  What is nice is to have a coherent, logical reasoning to put to your local area when resolving difficulties and it helps to be able to discuss issues here first before possibly putting your foot in it  

 

[Graftonianman]

Well said. I never would have thought of this possibility until I read discussion here. I shot off an email to my group, I’ll see what we agree on. It def changes the dynamic of this army. At least, it does mine. Funny, it seems such a simple thing. 

[WABBIT]

So there's a couple of things here.

1. Stalkers of the Hidden paths allows Wanderers to Set up in combat/within 3" of enemy as long as units are wholly within 6" of the table edge.

2. Set up describes when a unit enters or re-enters the battlefield (not just first turn) and it prevents further movement (unless an ability specifically says otherwise - ie Realm roots Sylvaneth) but set up units may or may not count as having moved when they attempt to use their Warscroll abilities like Forest of Boughs and Shoot twice if not moved.

 

The first point seems pretty solid with FAQ and example ruling at a GW tournament. 2nd one is up for debate though.

[Aelfric]

50 minutes ago, WABBIT said:

So there's a couple of things here.

1. Stalkers of the Hidden paths allows Wanderers to Set up in combat/within 3" of enemy as long as units are wholly within 6" of the table edge.

2. Set up describes when a unit enters or re-enters the battlefield (not just first turn) and it prevents further movement (unless an ability specifically says otherwise - ie Realm roots Sylvaneth) but set up units may or may not count as having moved when they attempt to use their Warscroll abilities like Forest of Boughs and Shoot twice if not moved.

 

The first point seems pretty solid with FAQ and example ruling at a GW tournament. 2nd one is up for debate though.

It's true that the 2nd point is up for debate, but I think the pendulum is swinging in favour of them not having moved.  My reasoning for this would be as follows:

1.  The Realm Wanderers trait does not follow the move rules as laid out in the core rules, therefore it is not a move.

2. The trait itself states " instead of making a move" and " set the unit up", thus defining it as a set-up.

3. The latest Rules FAQ under " What is a set-up, exactly? " says  " to change the location of a unit on the battlefield without having to make a move " as part of its explanation. This says to me that a set-up is not a move - they are two distinct, mutually exclusive events.

All of this, plus Baz's Lord-Aquilor find, points to the conclusion that they have not made a normal move but a set-up and therefore will not lose their special abilities.

The only real stumbling block, it seems, is the last sentence of the Realm Wanderers trait itself, which says "this is the unit's move for that movement phase ".  I would interpret this use of "move" as movement in general rather than having used a standard move, which this clearly is not, and is there only to prevent using a standard move after relocation.  This, however, could have been worded better.  

I can't really see a logical reasoning that would prove that the opposite is true.

[Graftonianman]

Is there some instance where the phrase “counts as having moved” is used in some other rule? Ie, does GW still use it?

I interpret that last line like that as well. Like, this “uses up” the units opportunity to move that turn. 

[Tidings]

I wonder if we actually can use fortress of boughs and then teleport. Fortress doesn't allow you to move, but it's a setup, not a move. It counts as having moved AFTER it's complete. 

[WABBIT]

@Tidings so 3 things now? 

Very good point though. Can units "Setup" move while gaining the benefit of an ability that prevents movement - ie Forest of boughs. Didn't they FAQ pile ins to be not allowed while in FoB? This logic may apply for Set up too....

 

[Tidings]

But a pile in is very clearly a "move", while the ability is clearly a set-up that counts as having moved (probably just to prevent you from moving after)

[WABBIT]

How did all get so fiddly ?

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

21 hours ago, WABBIT said:

@Tidings so 3 things now? 

Very good point though. Can units "Setup" move while gaining the benefit of an ability that prevents movement - ie Forest of boughs. Didn't they FAQ pile ins to be not allowed while in FoB? This logic may apply for Set up too....

 

You have to read the words quite literally.  When piling in you may MOVE the model.  The other abilities are clearly removing and setting up.  There is no mention of the word MOVE in there.

People read into these things too much, imo, haha.

[Graftonianman]

The Realm ability says “instead of making a move”. I read that as a unit forgoing it’s move to teleport. EG with FoB has no move to give up, so even though it wouldn’t be “moving”, it can’t do it. Anyway, that’s how I play it.

Pile in is one of the 3 types of moves: normal, charge, pile in.

[Tidings]

17 hours ago, Graftonianman said:

The Realm ability says “instead of making a move”. I read that as a unit forgoing it’s move to teleport. EG with FoB has no move to give up, so even though it wouldn’t be “moving”, it can’t do it. Anyway, that’s how I play it.

Pile in is one of the 3 types of moves: normal, charge, pile in.

You're right, that's the best interpretation of it. I've been playing it that way too, was just a thought. 

[Popisdead]

Has anyone player Skirmish with pure Wanderers?  

 

Our group started up a campaign soon and I was wondering if people had  experience on good suggestions to take.  I'm likely going to have a Waywatcher hero lead then I was thinking combat punch with Rangers and maybe thematically a single Sister of the Watch with a pet Gryphhound would be neat.  initially I was just going to use this as an excuse to paint up some old 1980s elves that I have in my collection I'm quite fond of.  A Beastmaster with some pets maybe to count as Rangers and such.

 

bad-mathammering tells me 4 GG should knock off one wound with Arcane bodkins but with the WW hero I'm not sure I want to gamble on that.

 

any thoughts or suggestions?  

[awcamawn]

40 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

Has anyone player Skirmish with pure Wanderers?

Wanderers can do pretty well on the skirmish level. Sisters of the Watch get to shoot at anything that charges them, Sisters of the Thorn are super valuable for casting arcane bolt each turn. Rangers are as high-costed as they normally are but won't have any monsters to target to make them worth their points. Wardancers do better for their points if you have any and your opponent doesn't mind you using warscrolls not listed in the skirmish supplement. The Waywatcher hero is not listed as well, but if there's a real issue running him in skirmish it's that he may be too powerful to make for a fun game. You'll likely shoot your opponent off the board before they can get into combat. The nomad prince is a great alternative hero to consider, and is actually quite a beast in combat at the skirmish scale. Unless your opponent takes a megaboss then he doesn't really fear going toe to toe with anything in skirmish. The reroll ones to hit command ability is great as well.

[Popisdead]

That is incredibly helpful.  thanks kindly!

[nightsrage]

Is there a way to have "+1 to hit" added to Waywatcher troops from the compendium in a general order alliance? 

[Graftonianman]

Only thing I can think of is the hurricanum. Check out the pinned topic; rules affecting the order keyword. 

[BillyOcean]

Hello Wander fans,

I am just getting back into AoS after a long hiatus - I'm afraid I was one of the early rage-quitters after the transition from WHFB 8th Ed. But it seems like the game has progressed a lot since then and is in a really good place now! So now I'm looking to start a new army and the Wanderers seem right up my ally - I've always been into armies that play cagily and require skill to play. I'm just hoping you all can help me with a couple of questions before I commit:

 

1. Can Wanderers play competitively, without playing prescriptively?

I want to be able to take my army to tournaments, and I want to compete. I don't need to be cutting edge competitive, nor do I give a hoot about winning tournaments. I just don't want to feel like I've lost before even deploying, and I want to given my opponents challenging and interesting games. Furthermore.... I don't want to play with an army that relies on a specific, highly prescriptive gambit to do well.  For instance, I've seen Wanderers do well at a couple of tournies recently, but looking at the lists it seems like they are predicated on deep-striking (or whatever its called in AoS) with the Battalion, and blowing as much off the table as possible with Arcane Bodkins in turn 1. I wouldn't want to play that way because I don't enjoy games that swing on the success of a turn 1 gambit. I want to be making different decisions each game, not have some set play that I always rely on. So, after all the pre-amble my question really is: In your experience, can a solid, balanced, well-designed Wanderers list do well without relying on some prescriptive turn 1 alpha play?

 

2. Any predictions about Wanderers longevity?

I like to take my time painting my army to a high standard, and learning all its ins-and-outs on the table. So I'd be pretty heartbroken if I committed to the army and it was relegated to compendiums in GHB18. What do we think the likelihood of that is? On the one hand, some of the models have been repacked for AoS which suggests they are in it for the long haul. However, I do worry that some of our interesting characters like Waywatchers might be relegated given they don't have up-to-date models. Losing any options from the already small selection would impact the army pretty hard. So, does anyone want to make any bold predictions about what you see as the future of the Wanderers?

 

Thanks in advance for any responses. I also have some finer-grained questions about rules and some list ideas, but I'll leave those for later to avoid bloating this post. 

 

[Cambot1231]

What would a Start Collecting Wanderers box look like? 

I'm thinking:

10 Eternal Guard/ Rangers

16 Glade Guard 

Nomad Prince

5 Sisters of the Thorn/ Wild Riders

Seems like a nice way to be on your way to the Battalion.  Looking at it we just really need a big centerpiece model... which gives me great hope for the future perhaps a return of Kurnoth or Orion.  Something that gave wanderers +1 to hit or attack and mimicked the durability of the frost heart phoenix would be incredible

[Aezeal]

On 3-2-2018 at 11:25 PM, Graftonianman said:

@Aelfric: Ah, I see your argument. Still, I’m not sold. 

There are 2 requirements when deploying troops with Realms: wholly within 6” of the table edge and 9” of enemies.

Example: Wending Wand says “...anywhere within 18”...” The word ‘anywhere’ could allow you to ignore the 9” from enemy requirement. GW corrected the wording error in the FAQ. 

This is not the case in Stalker. There is no wording that allows you to ignore the proximity to the enemy in the text of the Stalker rule*. Stalker only gives leniency on which table edge can be chosen for teleport. 

The FAQ that Baz references is not applicable because it is noted in the Realm Wanderers rule that you can’t setup within 9” of the enemy. 

 

*unless you consider both requirements together, like what Aelfric argues, but that is a bit weak; I’m sure I could find an example that contradicts this

I would agree with this.

[Frozenbeast]

On 2/4/2018 at 12:52 AM, Aelfric said:

"this is the unit's move for that movement phase "

First of all, hi again, it's been a while. second of all after reading all, or at least the majority of this dispute on the allegiance trait, while I might be convinced on some points I am not sold on others. 

Quoting Aelfric, this last line in the trait I think is what makes it controversial and considering what you guys said throughout the discussion (reguarding the set-up FAQ and the Lord-Aquilor rule) I am kinda convinced GW messed up the description but meaning no arm: it's human error. I really think it could have been wording better but it is an error. I think what they wanted to say is: "....this prevents the units set-up like so, to make a further movement." (by the way idk you guys but English is not my first language and this is a freaking easy sentence to write, so idk why an English mother-tongue person could not think of it, but anyways....).

So while I could be convinced on the SotW firing twice after using the trait (and maybe the EG using FoB too, but that seems trickier), I am really really really not convinced about the set-up within 9" of enemy units. I mean everything is there to prove the exact contrary of what they ruled in that tournament:

1) the trait talks specifically of staying 9" AWAY from enemies;

2) Stalker of the Hidden pathways (this is more personal but from my POV is pretty clear and logic) amends only the "which board edge you can come in from" part of the trait and the fact that does not mention anything about the 9" thing, just means that that part is not changed and follows the baseline description;

3) the FAQ itself specify that the 3" rule for set-ups is valid unless noted otherwise. IT IS INDEED NOTED OTHERWISE in the trait itself! (I am not tilted or anything just wanna make my point) The rule talks of setting up the unit wholly within 6" of one board edge AND (BTW I thing that comma is a typo. It is grammatically incorrect putting a comma before the last object of a list - eg this, this, this, and this) 9" away from any  enemy units (this IS the "otherwise noted" part). 

 

Also one last thing regarding that Wending Wand, I think they  tend to answer the specific question and not digressing to much. This is why in the FAQ that object is mentioned and not SotHP, because the question IS about the Wand and not SotHP; although it refers to it too seeing it is basically the same rule we are taking in consideration.

 

I am down to write GW again, maybe the more we are the more they will take us in consideration. Can Anyone write the email here on which we can contact them please?

 

[BillyOcean]

I also plan to write to GW for clarification, as I do believe the current wording may not reflect their intentions. I also  believe the more who write with the same question, the more likely we are to get a ruling. Until then, I think we have to work off a RAW interpretation, and remember that from a sportsmanship perspective, if RAW is truly ambiguous we need to take the interpretation that is less favorable to us, as the commanding player. (Unless a TO has given their own ruling, in which case follow "their house, their rules"). Heres my thoughts on the two points of discussion:

Stalker of Hidden Paths: From a RAW perspective, it seems pretty clear that this rule is intended to modify the Realm Wanderers battle trait, rather than overwrite it with a whole new rule. The only part of the trait that it modifies is the table edge you can re-enter on, so other restrictions stand. Remember Warhammer is a permissive ruleset - unless the rules give you permission to do something, assume you can't. When using SoHP, you are still leaving the table using the Realm Wanderers trai. When you leave using the Realm Wanderers trait you MUST return on the same edge, and you MUST return further than 9" from enemy. SoHP gives me permission to break the table edge restriction, but I see nothing that gives me permission to break the 9" restriction. Honestly, I don't believe that a clarification from GW is even necessary here, but I would still very much appreciate one. 

Quicksilver Shots and Fortress of Boughs: I'm afraid that from a RAW perspective, the inclusion of the simple line "this is the units move" means I don't think I can teleport and use Quicksilver Shots or Fortress of Boughs in the same turn. I get that in general a set-up is not a move. However, in this particular case the set-up has been defined as a move: "You must then set the unit up......... This IS the units move".  The specific set-up has been defined as a move, and specific rules over-ride general rules. For Sisters of the Watch, the rules seem clear: After teleporting, I get to the shooting phase and ask if I can use a rule that requires I did not move. I did not make a traditional move, but I did something that has been  defined as a move. So, I made a move. Things are a little trickier for Eternal Guard because of the ordering, but I still follow the same logic. I activate Fortress of Boughs in the hero phase which means I cannot move this turn. It stands to reason that this prevents me doing anything that is defined as a move, so I cannot use Realm Wanders.

However, unlike SoHP, I do think theres a good chance that this wording is not consistent with GW's intention. I find it likely that they simply intended Realm Wanderers to prevent any other movement in the movement phase, and therefore not interfere Quicksilver shots and Fortress of Boughs, and that if they give a clarification it may well go in our favor. Especially given that under the current rules, Sisters of the Watch are horrendously overcosted. So I think its worth bugging them for a clarification here, but until then, I'll be playing the rule in the less favorable way.

[Frozenbeast]

59 minutes ago, BillyOcean said:

Things are a little trickier for Eternal Guard because of the ordering, but I still follow the same logic. I activate Fortress of Boughs in the hero phase which means I cannot move this turn. It stands to reason that this prevents me doing anything that is defined as a move, so I cannot use Realm Wanders.

 

This is where things get murky. As per FAQ a set-up is not defined as a move (as the range of moves are: movement, pile-in and retreat/run). Therefore even if you change your model's location it is not a move. This is why I specified I think the last sentence was intended to make us understand that a unit which uses the Realm Wanderers trait cannot further move once it changed its location (OMG I am tying so hard to not use the word "move" ).

[BillyOcean]

 

6 minutes ago, Frozenbeast said:

This is where things get murky. As per FAQ a set-up is not defined as a move (as the range of moves are: movement, pile-in and retreat/run). Therefore even if you change your model's location it is not a move. This is why I specified I think the last sentence was intended to make us understand that a unit which uses the Realm Wanderers trait cannot further move once it changed its location (OMG I am tying so hard to not use the word "move" ).

Ha  - yes I agree they employ some pretty loose usage of the word "move", and that Eternal Guard is the murkiest example.

But I still follow the logic that although set-ups are in general not defined as moves, the specific Realm Wanderers set-up is defined as a move, and that specific rules trump general rules. I think the more favorable interpretation may well be GW's intention and I'd love to use it (just assembled 30 EG), but I won't until GW clarify because I'd hate to gain advantage if its not correct. I'd love to see that clarification before the next big FAQ, because it shouldn't be on us to walk these linguistic tightropes to figure out what our units cab do!

[Graftonianman]

3 hours ago, Frozenbeast said:

 

So while I could be convinced on the SotW firing twice after using the trait (and maybe the EG using FoB too, but that seems trickier), I am really really really not convinced about the set-up within 9" of enemy units. I mean everything is there to prove the exact contrary of what they ruled in that tournament:

 

Which tournament did they rule that way?