Trevelyan

Dryads are a lot tougher than Spites. Between blessings of the forest and impenetrable thicket, a unit of Dryads can be very hard to remove. But in terms of pure damage out put they lose to the new Spites under any circumstances. Consider that in the above example, the aspires were doing more than twice the damage of the Dryads. Rather than look at the challenge of getting 15 Spites into range of the same target, you could look at it another way - you only need 7 Spites in range to do the same damage as those 15 Dryads. Both units are useful but Spites are useful as a (glass) hammer, while Dryads are your anvil. You want Dryads for their durability, and to make the most of that durability you should be near a wyldwood. Spites play games with Bravery and Battleshock so want to be out hunting targets.

Your basic numbers are correct, but 12 wounds from 15 models is 0.8 wounds per model, not 0.75. I assume the reference at the end to rend is a mistake, you seem to have listed results for 6+/5+/4+ save. As Emissary suggests, this is inferior to Spite Revenants for pure damage. Let’s say the same 15 Spite Revenants found a target. They would make 46 attacks at 3+/3+ for 31 basic hits, plus 8 extras from winterleaf - 39 hits on average. Those would result in 26 successful wounds from 15 models or 1.7 per model, more than twice as deadly as the Dryads. It is harder to get 15 Spite Revenants into range of a target with only 1” melee weapons, but they’ve got plenty of damage potential to work with smaller numbers.

Worth noting, yes. But the majority are just based on bodies in proximity at the end of the turn.

Community question: how are people seeing the GHB errata removal of “citadel wood” and insertion of “wyldwood” in the matched play terrain table interpreted locally? My initial assumption was that a “wyldwood” was something distinct from an “Awakened wyldwood”, so we couldn’t take faction friendly terrain as part of the basic matched play terrain placement. Essentially it was a covert rebranding of the existing Citadel Wood Warscroll. I assumed we would get an update to the warscrolls in the app to clarify this when it was updated with new Sylvaneth content but the app is updated with our content and there is still no generic wyldwood. Recently I've seen people locally, not even other Sylvaneth players, seem happy to assume that they can deposit Awakened Wyldwoods as basic terrain. When neither player is Sylvaneth, they present an interesting hazard and can potentially limit (or sometimes enhance) magic-heavy armies. One local Tzeentch player has to think much harder about where his units and casters are when spells start flying. An Orruk player pointed out that he can place Realmgates as generic scenery and through his allegiance ability to improve his mobility, so doesn’t see an inherent objection to Sylvaneth doing the same. Perhaps the change from a Sylvaneth wood to a generic Awakened Wood represents a shift in approach - they aren’t a faction specific feature any more so much as a generic feature that our faction works well with. Is there any emerging consensus around this elsewhere? What are people seeing in practice? I’d anyone else even discussing it? Maybe a further update will appear to clarify this after the weekend, but if it doesn’t... thoughts?

You’ll want to pick an assembly option for the various kits. If you’re not magnetising (which is a pain with Kurnoth and very unsatisfactory with treelords - you can swap weapons but miss the other changes) then I’d recommend you use the treelord kits to make one Treelord Ancient and one Spirit of Durthu. For the Kurnoth Hunters, make six with scythes (and only one actual leader - use the variant leader pose scythe if you want to play WYSIWYG) and three with swords. You will need a Branchwraith, but some people convert a spare Wych, which you have. Revenants are all good as of the new book. You will rarely need more than two units of Tree Revenants. Taken in fives they are excellent objective takers and the threat of them teleporting around can limit enemy mobility. There has been some discussion on this in the last few pages. Spite revenants are now our hardest hitting battleline infantry and come at the same price as the Dryads (for a unit of 20). But 20 Spites hit harder than 30 Dryads, albeit without the same durability. Personally I’ve got 30 (plus a few spares for playing bigger units in full WYSIWYG), but 20 should be plenty in most cases. There has been a lot of discussion about the Spites recently too.

Definitely. So much potential, ranging from the ever-popular dropping Kurnoth Hunters behind enemy lines, to my new favourite: Alarielle: ”I’m going to control this objective” Opponent: “You and what army?” Alarielle: *summons 20 Dryads* Opponent: “******” (my opponent had calculated that I couldn’t fly Alarielle over his battleline and into range of the objective without running, and if I ran then the few models he had on the edge of the control zone would prevent Alarielle from taking control that turn. He realised too late that I could run Alarielle over his line and into the zone, then summon enough Dryads 9” away from his line but still in the control zone to take the objective that turn)

True. Although I wish they’d updated her Spite Revenant summoning to 20 Spites to align with the new unit costs. She still seems to be summoning based on some very obsolete data points.

Alarielle got moved from “auto include” to merely “good to include”. What she lost on her warscroll (and extra d3 healing and changes to her command ability) she gained in access to some very nice Glade abilities. The objections of someone who hasn’t looked at things in aggregate or tried them on the table. Battalions aren’t an auto take any more because the whole nature of list building has changed. You don’t need them in the same way as previously to qualify for a Wargrove for that single drop. And you really don’t need that many artefacts (however much you might want them). Yet most of them are as good, or better, than they were before, and there are plenty of nice combos to be had. We can teleport any number of treelord variants and tree revenants. It’s only Kurnoths, Dryads and Spite Revenants that are really restricted, and how often do you really need to teleport those? Don’t overlook the value of the Forest spirits ability to get several units into play by an advanced wood on your first turn. We were never guaranteed to get the first wood in enemy territory. It could happen, but since the wood was placed before people picked sides, you had at best a 50:50 chance, assuming you didn’t want the wood yourself as a staging area. And remember that an enemy deployed near or in a wood in his territory would effectively deny you the use of it as a teleport platform anyway. You don’t seem to have read the new wood rules clearly. You roll once at the end of each charge phase regardless of whether anyone, or everyone, charged.

Kinda. There are a few bugs in the data - check out Drycha’s Squirmlings, the app still lists them as a missile weapon with 2” range.

Can you break that down? Horn of the Consort will let you reroll hits, taking them from a 50% to a 75% hit rate (90% for the leader) but at -1 rend and d3 damage, how are you making 6 attacks inflict an average of 17 wounds?

Thanks. That looks exactly like the pose I had in mind!

I find they do better in some cases than others. Historically I liked them as an option for Alarielle to drop once I’d seen what I was facing. I’ve not has much like using treelord variants to clear chaff. Durthu tends to be engaged which limits target choice, and I’ve always had horrific luck with the TLA - even on 2+/3+ I seem to miss an alarming number of attacks. Bow hunters always seem more reliable and flexible. Plus they realistically get two rounds of shooting against a lot of armies, whereas shorter ranges likely only get one. It is definitely circumstantial. Locally I play a lot of games against Orruks (with a Mawkrusha), FEC and Tzeentch/Slaanesh. Against those there are frequently advantages from more ranged attacks. two rounds of bow hunters plus one of the treelord family can make a big difference. Against other factions the utility may vary. Mom balance, I think that bow hunters could easily stand to be 180 or even 160 points. When they help, they are invaluable. But I agree that they don’t always help. On occasion I’ve used them as uber-chaff. Once they’ve run out of viable shooting targets (say by the third round) I occasionally find them useful just to charge into an enemy. They really won’t really hurt, but that can often tie something up for two rounds when a unit of tree revenants would just melt. And the hunters can still inflict a few wounds at close range on the way out.

Emissary covers most of it. Spites change to 3+/3+/-/1 in the new book, and at 200 points for 20 they are much more efficient damage dealers than Dryads. Dryads still have value as a tarpit (Spites are a lot squishier) but we’ve got genuine battling options now. Tree revenants are great at a few specialist roles, but absolutely can’t stand up as an actual battleline. I largely agree with other recent comments on the Hunters. I typically play 6 scythes and 3 swords. Where I disagree is on bows. People tend to dismiss bows because they aren’t great damage dealers (either because they’ve correctly assessed the warscroll or found out the hard way in play). I find that bow hunters work well putting out reasonable damage where you need it ahead of the charge phase. Scythe Hunters will murder things in combat but can get bogged down with a few chaff models (something that tree revenants do well at for us). Having a unit of bows available to clear the chaff and leave the scythes free to charge into a higher value target can be very useful. They are also great at blunting the edge on quite a few enemy behemoths. All behemoths see a harsh drop in performance when they take damage, but the very first drop on the table is often the largest (as with our own Durthu going fro flat 6 to d6 damage). Having a unit that can reach out and give that sort of target a love tap from 30” away is often very useful. I’ve had my scythes survive a charge in part thanks to the help of their bow companions. Just don’t expect the bows to clear serious threats at range.

I wouldn’t recommend two units of 10 tree revenants just yet. I’ve got enough for that myself but have never fielded them as two 10s (and rarely as more than 2x5). You probably want some Dryads as proper tarpit infantry, and spite revenants have a lot going for them in the new book too. 1x6 Scythes Hunters is a very solid choice. What you really need are more leaders and those Dryads. On that basis I’d recommend that you pick up two Start collecting boxes. That gives you two treelord variants (make one ancient and one Spirit of Durthu) and 32 Dryads (make 3 as branch nymphs for maximum versatility). You’ll also get a couple of Branchwyches. Having one is occasionally useful. I can’t see needing both. What you really want is a Branchwraith for summoning. Some people convert a Wych into a Wraith (giving you a use for that second Wych) otherwise you need to hit the GW web store. And you can always get some sword Hunters (two units of three) as an alternative/addition to your scythes.

Four boxes, giving you 12 trees, should be enough to get started. I find that table space gets limited after the first turn anyway, so one free placement (3 trees), two turn one summons (TLA plus a spell - 6 trees) and one subsequent spell (3 trees) is as much as you’ll probably need. There will inevitably be occasions where you’d like to summon more, or when you can put down a bigger wyldwood than the minimum 3 tree size earlier, though. So longer term I expect you’ll want more. There is always the solution that Aezeal and I were discussing a few posts back - get a Deepcut Studios mat (around the cost of a single box) and cut out template trees. For friendly games they should give you plenty.

Question for the community: I’m assembling a second TLA in anticipation of putting a LotC in Gnarlroot, and ideally I want it to have a different pose from my original TLA (the standard pose per the instructions). The treelord kit obviously contains the full range of joints for any of the three poses, and there are plenty of age pictures of standard treelords in the TLA pose. But I’ve not seen any pictures of a TLA in either the treelord or the Durthu pose, and the head/beard alone looks like it might limit options. Has anyone tried using the other joints for a non-standard TLA who is able to confirm/deny whether it works? Are some options more viable than others or does the TLA really only work in one pose? Thanks in advance.

I’d have preferred 1-2 of the old woods. From all reports, 3 new bases together are very close to 1 old base, so 3-6 should really equate to 1-2. Itll be interesting to see whether 6 new bases in a rough circle gets fairly close to a clump of 3 old bases. In which case a single old base won’t come close.

Looncurse boxes sit somewhere between the Maltese Falcon and unicorns in terms of availability right now. If you want to buy one, I’d recommend you start researching time travel. There are a few boxes around, but they go for such inflated prices that you could buy the Sylvaneth content twice over at RRP and still have change.

Minor quibble, but I think that on his own turn his “attack at the start of the combat phase” ability triggers before your stomp, so you shouldn’t have been able to kill the general that easily.

I almost certainly got the idea from you. I made mine around a years and a half ago from a Deepcut swamp mat after seeing the idea online, which is too close to be coincidence. Kudos for an awesome idea

In addition to the four woods I do have assembled, I’ve got two unopened Vale of Ghyran boxes sitting on a shelf that I always intended to assemble and paint. But my local club is happy for me to use some woods that I cut to size from a Deepcut Studios mat, so I never got round to it. I wont make that mistake twice. There’s even enough of the mat left to make a fair few of the new wood bases from!

I agree with Druug, the Ancient is the best option for the reason suggested. I’m not a fan of magnets on anything organic either. It’s a completely different story on 40k imperial knights and vehicles.

Swords vs scythes is one of those theory verses practice issues. Swords are objectively better for the reasons you mention when considered in isolation. Scythes have three advantages in practice: 1) they are much easier to use in larger units - actually getting six swords within 1” of a target is harder than you’d think. It’s doubly hard if you’ve popped your thickets and only have a pile in range of 1”. 2) they take AR buffs better - while swords outperform scythes, the difference isn’t huge. Giving swords an extra attack is a 25% boost (5 attacks instead of 4). Scythes get a full 33% better, which makes a huge difference. 3) -2 rend is better than -1 rend for the targets you really must kill. Swords are superb at chewing through chaff and moderate infantry. Scythes are more reliable when you’ve got something tough with a lot of wounds and a good save. Swords are better on paper, but mortal wounds are unreliable and you’ll often see people find ways to negate -1 rend on priority targets whereas -2 rend is harder to avoid None of which is to say that swords aren’t good, because they are genuinely fantastic. If you are taking a unit(s) of three then make it swords. But if you want a larger unit then go for scythes every time. And whichever unit you have, it pays to understand what it does best. . . . Tree revenants exist to do two things; sacrifice themselves in the face of a charge, and threaten to take objectives. That’s “take” and not “hold”. Sticking a unit of tree revenants in front for whatever your opponent wants to charge either forces a delay or makes him trade poorly, allowing you to protect and retaliate with your own heavy hitters. Knowning that your revenants can take any undefended objective forces an opponent to keep units back. I played a game recently where a unit of tree revenants kept two much larger enemy units out of the way because my opponent couldn’t afford to lose either of those objectives so didn’t dare more away from them. The revenants just sat back in a forest all game, 80 points of chaff neutralising several hundred points of opposing chaff without a single die being rolled. The key is timing and patience. Only commit them when it matters, because they’ll take an objective but rarely hold it against retaliation.

Assuming you mean to do that over multiple turns - the AR can’t move after assisting the bow hunters, but can still use her command ability on the scythes at range - then you’ve really got two discrete things going on. Lets take the scythes as a given. No one is going to suggest that giving them +1 attack and reroll 1s to hit is a bad idea. 3x bow hunters will roll 6 dice to hit and average one 6. They have slightly above a 50% hit rate as a unit (thanks to the leader’s better hit chance) so the AR buff adds an average of around one hit across the two units, which then has to wound and the target has to fail the save at -1 rend before you roll damage. The unit of scythes can benefit from the extra attack as well as the reroll to hit, has a better hit rate anyway plus gains twice the extra attacks once you spend a command point (ie four attacks per model rather than two gives an average of two rerolls per three hunters). Add the -2 rend and they’ll feel the benefit of the AR far more. In terms of pure efficiency, melee units are going to be much better. So you need a plan to get value from the ranged units, and in my experience that shouldn’t be to treat them as a primary source of damage. I personally like bow hunters. They are excellent at inflicting early damage on enemy behemoths and superb at clearing enemy chaff from a charge lane. But they are very much not a workhorse damage unit, and throwing buffs at them to make them better at something they don’t do well is probably a misapplication of resources. If you want the damage then you’d be better putting points into a second scythe unit.

I would rethink the Kurnoths and the battleline troops. Two units of bow hunters aren’t really going to pull their weight. Either drop one for a second unit of swords or, for preference, drop the swords and one bow unit for a 6 man unit of scythe hunters. I personally like to have a unit of bows around, but no more than one. Others might advise you to lose them all in favour of something more melee focused and reliable, say 6 scythes and 3 swords. I don’t know what a single unit of Spite Revenants is doing there. A second unit of tree revenants would be better for objective grabbing and general chaff purposes. I’d also be inclined to cut back on the Dryads. If you want to stick with sword Hunters over scythes to keep your unit numbers up for Free Spirits then the Dryads are likely to get underfoot. In your current list, Free Spirits isn’t getting you much. Also, you’ve given the arch revenant a spell, but she’s not a caster. For something more specific, can you elaborate on why you are struggling? What is your typical battle plan and what stops it from working?