Trevelyan

It’s not that bad. Granted it’s more than the current woods, but we will likely need fewer of them. If GW confirms that the existing woods are an allowed alternative then I suspect you’ll still be able to pick those up at a discount as people pick up the newer version. I’ll even be looking to sell off a few unopened boxes myself.

Random thought: Let’s assume that “wyldwood” is just the new name for a generic wood (currently a “citadel wood”). That’s seems likely, even if it’s not yet confirmed. Given that the Sylvaneth like to play with Awakened Wyldwoods, what do you suppose are the long term chances of them receiving an errata to Verdant Blessing that would allow them to awaken an existing wyldwood as an additional option alongside placing an entirely new Awakened version? It would address the table space issue without increasing the absolute number of Awakened woods you can put down per turn. Probably a pipe dream, but it seems like a credible solution to the problem of a faction which depends on the ability to summon terrain features on a crowded table.

I’ve never once had minis stick to each other. I’ve got magnets with a 0.49kg pull on every Dryad but that’s still not enough to attract an adjacent mini.

I think the assumption is that the non-Awakened Wyldwood is just the same as a current Citadel Wood. This seems entirely plausible, but also like needless faff to change the name of something so basic.

GHB errata allows you to take a Wyldwood as a large scenery option. Still not clear whether this is intended to be a catch-all for the Sylvaneth and the Awakened Wyldwood, though. Currently there is nothing that is just called a Wyldwood.

Battlefoam magna rack. I use one 6mm x 3mm N35 magnet on the smaller bases, one N42 on the Kurnoths and two N42s on the treelords.

That’s putting it tactfully. I’d be more inclined to suggest that the entire 1d4chan update reads as if the author only skimmed the leak but walked away with the impression that the new Sylvaneth book waved a nerf bat above it’s head and cackled maniacally while running over the author’s childhood pet. Accuracy comes a distant second to highlighting “nerfs” (most of which are nothing of the sort).

I completely agree that dryads have a lot going for them in terms of both an extra 2” movement and vastly improved durability. They absolutely still have value. I just think it is important to recognise that this isn’t a small point for point improvement in damage output. Rather 200 points of Spite Revenants will consistently now inflict more than 10% more damage than 270 points of Dryads. That’s a fairly significant increase in damage for an even more significant drop in cost. The takeaway is that Spites are vastly more dangerous in this edition. If you want a unit that can run around the table (important given the reduction in teleports) and tarpit then Dryads are still better. But if you just want a battleline unit that can make the most of an alpha strike opportunity (bearing in mind that both units charge the same distance if you teleport them 9” away) then Spites are objectively better for fewer points. Don’t overlook them.

I think that 20 Spite Revenants out damage 30 Dryads under any of the scenarios you suggest. And while you can run Dryads two ranks deep, in practice it’s not any harder to let 20 revenants into combat than to get 15 Dryads in the front rank engaged with 15 lined up perfectly behind them. Adding Drycha to the list to further buff the Spites only swings things even more in their favour. Plus we’re talking about a 20 point Spite unit against 270 points of Dryads, which is almost enough to buy the Arch Revenant to give them the extra attack. So if you’re looking for cheap infantry that maximises damage output, don’t go for the Dryads.

You don’t lose access to artefacts if you pick a Glade, only the Command Traits, several of which are objectively inferior to those available from the Glades (e.g. Gnarlroot vs Mystic Regrowth). You just need to buy a battalion or two for extra artefacts, if that’s what you really want. If you field all named characters then you won’t get to use generic traits or any artefacts anyway. Why would you not pick a Glade? That seems to be the case where you’d have least real choice.

I’m struggling to picture a scenario where the old version works better. The only thing I can envisage from your description is that you were sending a solo treelord in against enemy units, and your opponent was very obligingly whaling on the big tree rather than tackling bigger threats. The value of delaying the attacks against you is twofold. In the immediate combat, it means that all of your units can attack first. So if your treelord is backing up a unit of kurnoths and a unit of Dryads then all three get to hit the enemy before it can retaliate. Under the current version, the enemy can attack back after the first unit attack, even if at a penalty. If you get your treelord supporting other units then you’ll find that ‘the whole unit is dead’ is a much tougher penalty to overcome than a mere -1 to hit. Even if you don’t wipe out the enemy unit, you need to consider whether the extra damage you inflict (removing models or knocking monsters down the damage track) might be a better way to reduce damage than the -1 penalty. The less immediate advantage is when you’ve got multiple combat engagements on the table. I’m sure you’ve been in situations where you’ve got two separate fights kicking off and you know that, whichever one you pick for your unit to attack first, you’ll suffer in the other by attacking second. It happens in almost every game I’ve played. The new treelord stomp solves the problem and allows you to attack first in both (or all three, etc) fights. Remember that, baring a few corner case enemies, you can use this ability on the enemy turn too, attacking first even when you would normally have to go second. It’s a genuinely excellent ability.

As people have mentioned, this is old news. There is also nothing “derpy” about it. The ability to force a target to attack last is much better than imposing a -1 penalty to hit, and the mortal wounds are superior to the automatic kill against most targets. Occasions when you are hitting a significant multi-wound target with the claw and can use the current ability to kill it are rare. Far more often either have a target with a couple of wound total and the claw is just enough to kill it (equivalent to an extra wound or two), even assuming you roll to hit, wound and it doesn’t save. I don’t think I’ve ever had it kill anything significant. The option to inflict D6 mortal wounds is going to be useful in far more situations in practice. The point drop just reflects that the standard treelord has always been overpriced.

This. The old warscroll was for the Sylvaneth Wyldwood, which comprises 1-3 citadel woods. The new wood models are a replacement for the citadel woods, not just the Wyldwood, and the updated warscroll is for the newly renamed Awakened Wyldwood, which comprises 3-6 of the new citadel wood models.

Currently, yes.

Point for point, swords have always done more damage. The new Warscrolls increase this advantage by giving sword the chance to inflict mortal wounds on a 6 damage roll. The advantage with scythes is the range, as you suggest. Getting more than three swords into melee range can be tricky given the large bases, but getting six scythes into combat is much easier. The range also helps when you use Tanglethorn Thicket since 1” pile in plus 2” range makes it easier to reach the target. So what you want to build depends on how you want to use them. If you are making scythes then make all six scythes (with a single Huntmaster for WYSIWYG) to field a larger unit. With swords you either want two units of three, or possibly one unit of swords and one of bows. A lot of people dismiss the bows, but anecdotally that could be because they aren’t using them in the right role. Both swords and scythes are fairly easy to use - point them at the toughest enemy and keep hitting until it dies. Rinse and repeat. People expecting bows to do the same will be disappointed. Bows aren’t well suited to be primary damage dealers, but excel at softening key targets early (to make it easier for combat specialists to finish them) and at removing chaff later in the game to clear space for your charging units. There isn’t really a best way to assemble them. You’ll probably want all the options eventually anyway.

Who has seriously said we got nerfed? Other than the many-times-flawed update to the 1d4chan tactics page, I don’t think anyone who has seriously looked at the leaks thinks they are a nerf. If they do then they need to look again.

FAQ for the old Battletome addressed this. You can use Navigate Realmroots while within 3” of an enemy and it does not count as a retreat. This might change with the new book, but I don’t see any reason to assume it will for now.

You couldn’t ever count on three woods down in turn one. You could certainly achieve it, but only the free wood and the acorn were guaranteed. The treelord ancient ability was 50:50 and the spell needed a successful cast. We still have access to the acorn (although there are more options available for artefacts now) and the treelord ancient can guarantee a wood now. So arguably you’ve got more chance of getting three more woods down than before if that really is a priority. The only difference is where some of those woods can go. We didn’t lose a wood in the opponent’s half of the table, we lost it in the opponent’s deployment zone. Plenty of scenarios have deployment zones that take up less than half a table, and given the roll off for deployment zone, you were never guaranteed it in the enemy zone before. I never saw an opponent opt to deploy around my wood given the choice, but the new rules guarantee that I can plant a wood an inch in front of his line because I place the wood after sides have been chosen, which is arguable better (again, space permitting, which was always the case). So on balance, and allowing for the fact that you can’t place woods over objectives any more, the new rules aren’t as bad as some people are making out. What we lose in best case scenario (having a wood in enemy deployment space) we gain elsewhere. Overall mobility isn’t hit too badly either. You can still deploy in hidden enclaves and have units enter the table via a forward wood on turn one, and after that you likely won’t need to teleport much. Remember that it’s not just tree revenants that circumvent the teleport limit? All treelord types also have their own spirit paths ability that doesn’t use the 1/turn navigate limit.

I played a game last week with about as much scenery as the new GHB suggests, if not slightly more. It still left plenty of room for putting down forests. Interestingly, my opponent was convinced that the table was too empty, so finding out this is the new normal works for me.

Sneak peek at the new GHB?

Nope. The new Wyldwood warscroll clearly states that the Wyldwood terrain includes the area enclosed by the terrain pieces. The actual physical models are marking the edge of the wood, rather than being the whole of the wood.

Bow Hunters aren’t without buffs. The Heartwood Horn of the Consort lets them reroll attacks for a start, which addresses their most obvious weakness. Which LoS issue are you worried about? The biggest threat to LoS comes from your own woods, and you get to decide where to place those. If you are bringing bows then I’ve never had a problem positioning woods so as not to block LoS where I need it most, and if you force the enemy away from objectives and into cover to avoid the bows then that’s still advantageous. Plus a lot of factions have flying units which don’t create LoS problems in the first place.

It only increases average damage by 1 if you’re already successfully cast and not been unbound. Once you adjust your overall numbers to allow for the increased chance to cast and reduced chance to unbind then the average damage increase from ToV up before you cast Metamorphosis is not insignificant

Yes and no. In abstract you could argue that making it usable every turn was a fair offset for changing “reroll all” to “reroll 1s”, and the change to omit shooting (I think the range is a non-issue given Hunter changes). It was a balanced technical change to turn a single big turn ability into a recurring smaller ability. But I would agree that, in practice, there was usually one big turn where the more extensive reroll clearly mattered.

It will combo to the extent that you will get one mortal wound and still be able to roll for a wound on the second attack generated by the 6. It certainly won’t allow you to inflict two mortal wounds per 6 rolled.