[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

Man, there's so much to say about Belthanos! His warscroll is fascinating, and very unique.

His combat profile does a bit less damage than any of the other single entity beatstick options (Alarielle, Drycha, Durthu)., while costing more than any of them (except Alarielle). Obviously, though, he compensates for this with better mobility and survivability (except Alarielle again).

A big reason for this is his lack of a ranged profile, which hurts his overall damage output. He's comparable to Drycha or Alarielle if only the melee profile is considered. This also affects his usage options, as he's not doing any damage at all unless he's charging in, which is not true for those other options.

His abilities all serve to enhance the mobility of the army without relying on magic. This is really exciting because, in my experience, it's been something that causes the Sylvaneth to struggle against armies that can reliably deny their  mobility-boosting magic.

The Kurnothi War-horn is the highlight of the warscroll for me (though I question whether the hyphen is necessary). Nature Aetheric is really unique and I think quite powerful, though the timings on it will take some experimentation to fully grok. The retreat and charge ability is a nice little bonus.

As a whole, I see him working into lists in two ways. While he doesn't do as much damage as Durthu or Drycha, he is much more durable than Drycha, and much more mobile than Durthu. In comparison to these units, it feels like he needs a lot less support from the rest of the army to be effective on his own, even if his damage ceiling isn't as high.

I think he'll shine the most as a "build around" piece, though. He's quite expensive, so I think maximizing his abilities in an army that can also use his combat profile is going to be his best usage.

For my first list with him, I'm intrigued by the notion of trying to maximize a "no magic" Sylvaneth army. I think he'd combine nicely with a Treelord Ancient that takes Warsinger, Vesperal Gem, and Verdurous Harmony. The two would form a really bulky support core for as many Spiteriders or Kurnoths as I manage to take from there.

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

10 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

Don't know if everybody saw that alredy, but a Oakenbrown list got 2nd in the Columbus brewmaster tournament some weeks ago.

I wonder if the Verdurous Harmony on Drycha is a mistake. It doesn't look like there's actually anything that can be targeted by it in the list.

I played my first Oakenbrow game a couple weeks ago, and I was pleasantly surprised with it. I really liked having the extra teleports. Only thing that felt lacking was the damage. Outside of Durthu, I didn't really have anything that could make a dent in tanky units. I wonder if that's the thinking behind including Drycha?

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

53 minutes ago, Arzalyn said:

I don't think we will be able to use our regiment in a sylvaneth allegiance...

Yup. I totally missed that footnote. Ah well.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

Regiments of Renown Let Your Warhammer Age Of Sigmar Army Hire Mercenaries With Powerful Abilities

New regiments of renown just announced, including a Sylvaneth regiment consisting of an Arch-Revenant and a unit of Gossamids.

"Finally, the half-mad Sylvaneth of Elthwin’s Thorns made a name for themselves seeking a cure for their curse amongst the armies of ORDER, darting around the battlefield on zephyrwing spites and unleashing deadly salvos with unnatural insight."

Thoughts or predictions for the new regiment? The two units in the battalion don't really mesh well. I kinda hope the rules will give them some synergy and buff the gossamids, but I suspect that the rules might be more tailored for cross-faction inclusion, and they might just get a watered down teleport or something.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

17 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Not sure what might be good to add to the Outcasts...

One thing I think really helps a Dreadwood list is a reinforced unit of Spiterider Lancers. Their strike-first effect allows you to get off both strike-and-fades without getting hit back on the turn you activate your glade ability.

I'd also make sure you get some Tree Revenants into your list. They're always useful. Spiteswarm Hive is also an auto-include for me. I put the popular Spellsinger/Tome/Warsong into my list as my general, and I liked how it worked with the rest of the army. If you did all that, it'd put you at 1950.

Finally, I'd consider blocks of 15 for your Spite Revenants. They'll very rarely all get to attack, but I think it's worth it for the redundant wounds, and you'd rarely be wanting to charge with all three units, anyways.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

22 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Am I understanding it correctly that if the TLA pops his CA in the hero phase, that all Kurnoth Hunters on the board would benefit from the +1 save until the your next hero phase? (due to Envoy of the Everqueen?)

Seems insanely good. And yet I haven't heard much chatter about it. Assuming you are facing Rend 1 or 2 you would effectively have a 2+ save if you don't charge. 

That's the general consensus on how it works, yeah. I alluded to it in a post on the previous page, but I'm also quite hype for this ability. I think it has the potential to turn Sylvaneth into a defensive powerhouse.

I think some people are sleeping on it because of how much more access there is to +1 save in this edition in general. People see it and go okay, it does the same thing as All-Out Defense of Finest hour. Just another way to get +1 save. But it's SO efficient.

With minimal set-up, you can give +1 save to your entire army... for two turns... stackable with AOD... for one CP. That's just nuts. And the only thing you need to do to set it up is take a unit that we usually want to be taking anyways.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

6 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

GL digging in.. but I'll give you a hint: he's right.

I personally think your whole semi-love affair discussion is going a bit into nowhere (but still fun to read).. the relevant rules have been quoted IMHO. The combination of 'GHB is core rules' and 'core rules are trumped by warscrolls' settles it

It... kinda doesn't settle it, though. Not for me, at least. I never suggested that the GHB wasn't a part of the core rules, nor that the warscroll rules don't take precedent when they come into conflict with the core rules. The point I'm debating is whether or not a contradiction exists when examining these two rules at all, which is a necessary prerequisite for a core rule to be invalidated.

That said, I agree with you that the discussion isn't really moving forward though, and I think that both of us are re-stating our points in different ways. I probably won't be writing another essay on the subject, as it's cluttering up the thread at this point.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

3 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Now now.. the Gnarlroot offensive buff can be usefull for hunters too. 

It totally can. In general, I actually prefer Gnarlroot for the better artifact and warlord trait. Winterleaf is always going to be statistically better, as it's adding a flat 16.6% hits while Gnarlroot is usually adding around 11%, so the question is whether or not those 5% hits are worth the tradeoff.

In @Domize list, I just think he's kinda all-in on an alpha strike with the Kurnoths, and so the extra 5% wins out. Especially because he's probably looking to teleport the Kurnoths, which might cause them to lose their Gnarlroot buff if they get too far from a Wizard.

2 hours ago, Arzalyn said:

If you didn't took the spellportal, the warsong is better at supporting our units fighting with all of the spell lore spells than the wraith and to do you will need to move with him a little further on the starting turns.

This is a solid line of thinking. Giving the warsong the chalice, so that he is not as reliant on throne of vine buffs, makes him a lot more flexible, and is more useful in most situations.

Giving the spiritsong stave to the Warsong and the chalice to the Branchwraith might be trying to do too much, and ultimately hurt the list. I want to try it at least once, though.

2 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

I very much enjoy these types of “high-level” rules discussions.

Me too! I'll need to dig into this a bit, but I appreciate you taking the time.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

7 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

If you are playing Warsong with chalice and branchwraith with +1 spell artefact, which one is the best for using throne of vines?

I've been thinking about this, as well. I think you never want more than one throne on the Branchwraith, either way. One solution that I've considered is swapping the artifacts, giving the Spiritsong stave to the Warsong and the chalice to the Branchwraith.

The chalice is more or less analogous to a single throne, giving the Branchwraith about a 90% chance to cast before unbinding. It also frees up her lore spell slot for Regrowth or Verdurous Harmony, should you need it. Meanwhile, the Warsong appreciates the stave, as it lets him cast throne, spellportal, and unleash in a single turn.

The main drawback I see to this is that it makes the Warsong less reliable out of the gate, as his early spells don't receive the boost from the chalice, making them easier to unbind.

7 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

In case warsong was the answer, then bw with the artefact is pointless, right? so it would be better to give the artefact to Durthu and make him wizard, in example?

I think it's very possible that this is the solution, and running a Branchwraith without any enhancements will become the new norm in Warsong lists.

17 hours ago, Domize said:

Any thoughts on Winterleaf vs. Gnarlroot? Also, at lower point levels, do you think Drycha might be better than the TLA? I realised his command ability won't hit as many units as at lower points, especially considering my Tree Revs will probably be porting out of range anyways.

The list you wrote devotes a third of your points to your Scythe Hunters, so I think the rest of your list should look to support your gameplan. Kurnoths in their face.

To that end, I think Winterleaf is the right call. If you go with Gnarlroot, you're giving up some melee output for magical power, essentially. I think that would be fine if you had more payoff, but your casters are here to support your Kurnoths, not the other way around.

I'd stick with the Ancient over Drycha for the same reason. His command ability will give the Kurnoths a defensive buff anywhere on the board, so he's going to be very useful for getting additional rounds of combat out of that unit.

I'm going to suggest two additional changes to the list, along the same lines. The first is that you go with the Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith, as that will maximize her chances of getting your spiteswarm hive out on turn one by allowing her to cast throne of vines first.

The second is making the Arch Revenant your general, as this will expand the range of his buff aura, making it easier to get his re-rolls onto the Kurnoths.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

2 hours ago, Tizianolol said:

I played 3 game and my revenants teleport away when they were in combat, is that a good interpretation? Warscroll says " instead of make a normal move"

That's the correct way to play their ability.

The core rules FAQ clarified that you can't use 'instead of normal move' abilities when you're locked in combat, but the Sylvaneth FAQ changed the Tree Revenant warscroll to include an 'or retreating' option as well.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

10 hours ago, Domize said:

Curious about your thoughts on this list:

I would take a different artifact on the Treelord Ancient. If you're looking for survivability, the amulet of destiny from the core ruledook, which gives you a 5+ ward save, will give you a better return.

Alternatively, you could run an artifact to boost your magic. Spiritsong Stave on the Branchwraith is a popular choice, and will let you get your Spiteswarm Hive out on turn one more reliably. Vesperal Gem, for guaranteed healing from the Ancient, could also be strong.

Finally, I would consider dropping your Dryads for more Tree Revenants. They aren't as tanky as they used to be in second, especially in blocks of ten, and you've got the Branchwraith to add bodies to the board.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

11 minutes ago, Arzalyn said:

Honestly I would like to hear more people and their experience with the regular Treelords in general.

In addition to the points you mentioned above, I think that they benefit indirectly from the change to the wyldwood warscroll, because the easier it is to get trees down on the board, the more valuable their additional teleport becomes.

I think the ability to teleport multiple threats in one turn is a big strength of our army, and for that reason I definitely plan to continue experimenting with Treelords in my lists, at least for my first few games of this edition.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Arzalyn said:

I also saw this argument about monsters a couple of times now, but I honestly don't get it. 

There's also a realm rule on page 12, called Predators and Prey, which gives a VP once per turn if you kill an opponent's monster.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

@Walkirriox - It's in the GHB. I'll provide the page number and the name of the ability when I get home later.

Here's hoping I've remembered the ability correctly, and it's not limited to non-heroes or something.

 

Edit: Okay. I found the rules online. It's on page 12, called Feral Roar. 

Important to note that it's activated in the combat phase, which means it can potentially get blocked by a monstrous rampage.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

10 hours ago, Rors said:

So debates about terrain aside..

I'm going to start a force and I was wondering if anyone has tried Spirit of Durthu in AoS.

Specifically, I'm thinking I'll put him in Gnarlroot and give him the arcane tome. Now that he's a wizard he'll get innate re-roll 1s to hit. He can always fight at top bracket for a command point and for a spell I was thinking flaming weapon. 5 attacks at damage 7 seems pretty scary.

I think that the command ability you mentioned is absolutely huge. I wrote Durthu off, initially, and have since come around to thinking he's a strong option, largely because of this command ability.

I've tended to shy away from Durthu in my lists, despite his high damage ceiling, because of his unreliability. There are just too many ways to bracket him or otherwise shut him down. Between needing the woods buff, needing to be unbracketed, and the inherent swinginess of a lower number of high damage attacks, it just felt like you needed the stars to align in order for his potential to be realized.

Now, though, he's got a lot of support that can help him reach that ideal situation. You mentioned tome in gnarlroot, which is probably the first way I'd try him. I agree with @Kaylethia that the fly spell is probably better than flaming weapon, as it gives him another tool to use if your opponent screen out the charge he wants to make. It's also worth mentioning that, if he gets caught out of position, tome lets him summon his own trees to buff himself.

There's a lot of other things you could try. Winterleaf plus amulet might have potential. In the end, I think that having that command ability to return him to the top bracket is the big gift that gives Durthu a bit of the reliability he's always lacked.

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

@Trevelyan, @Mirage8112 and @Aezeal make tons of great points! There's a lot to respond to here, so please forgive me if I don't acknowledge every single point. I'll try my best. Wall of text incoming.

Defining Contradictions:

11 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

Essentially you are saying there is an area of play where both statements can be true. Your argument implies that because we can play in way that satisfies one rule, while at the same time technically fulfilling the purely linguistic requirements of the other we are required to. While I understand that your position is technically correct (one can indeed do that). I think your argument that we are required to stay solely within that area of play is more than a little overstated, and not supported by the rules. 

I started to take issue with your phrasing here, but I think you've more or less accurately described my thinking. However the example you gave of Alarielle's ability does not fall in line with my thinking, because an ability's effect exists whether it is utilized or not. The effect of her ability and the text of 8.2 cannot be true at the same time, and are therefore contradictory, allowing the warscroll to take precedence.

• Swirling Glowspites: This model can retreat and still shoot and/or charge later in the same turn
• Core 8.2: You cannot shoot or attempt a charge later in the turn with a unit that has retreated.

I would summarize our opposing viewpoints on what constitutes a contradiction in the following way, which I hope mirrors your thinking on the matter...

Havelocke:
Two rules are contradictory if no game state can exist which causes them to agree on the legality of an action.

Mirage:
Two rules are contradictory if any game state can exist which causes them to disagree on the legality of an action.

I could make an argument for my thinking based on the definition of a contradiction in formal logic, but I'm not sure anybody wants to go down that rabbit hole (though I will happily explain if anyone asks). I also think it would be a weak argument, as I cannot provide any evidence that Games Workshop had that particular definition of a contradiction in mind when writing third edition.

Instead, I'll defend my position by answering the obvious question as it pertains to my definition of contradictory rules: What happens if two rules disagree, but are not contradictory because an alternate state could exist which causes them to agree?

Spoiler

In this case, we have to look at whether the disagreeing rules are permissive or prohibitive. If the disagreeing rules are permissive, the action is legal. If the disagreeing rules are prohibitive, the action is illegal.

(While Age of Sigmar has a permissive rules set, there are both permissive and prohibitive rules. Any action is illegal until it is made legal by a permissive rule, yet prohibitive rules also exist which make legal actions illegal again under certain circumstances.)

The zoning rules on our wyldwoods are a case of disagreeing prohibitive rules. We have a permissive rule which makes it legal to place the wyldwood (any wyldwood ability), and two further prohibitive rules which make the legal action illegal under certain circumstances (wyldwood ability restrictions plus GHB restrictions)*. If the conditions of either prohibitive rule are met, then the rule takes effect and the action becomes illegal.

*(Here, note that I am separating a single game ability into two 'rules' for the purposes of discussion.)

The inverse of the above could be true if two different rules cause an illegal action to become legal. If a unit gets to ignore battleshock under two different conditions, either one could cause the 'ignore' rule to become illegal.

None of the above proves that my interpretation of what constitutes a contradiction is correct, only that it is entirely possible to resolve non-contradictory rules disagreements without one rule or the other being ignored.

Beyond responding to the question above, I can't think of any conclusive evidence that proves or disproves either my own thinking, or Mirages. We might be at an impasse here.

 

 Non-Existent Errata:

5 hours ago, Aezeal said:

While this is true it also doesn't make any sense. I they can't be within 3'  there should have been an errata on that.. there have been several errata on the same warscrolls and same page and they haven't changed this.. that says something to me.

Perhaps there should have been, but the game designers are only human, as evidenced by the need for errata in the first place. If they are able to miss something in the initial printing, then they're also capable of missing something in the errata.

Ultimately, I can't agree with your suggestion that the non-existence of a rules clarification can be used as evidence of anything, except that the rules as written must be understood and used for the time being.

 

Effects and Restrictions:

The text of Core 1.6 and it's associated sidebar, quoted by Aezeal above, notes an interesting distinction between effects and restrictions, both of which can be contained within a single ability. The sidebar mentions that effects may supersede core rules, but makes no mention of restrictions. The third sidebar on the same page states:

If the effect of an ability modifies a core rule, then all restrictions that apply to the core rule still apply unless the effect specifically notes otherwise.

Based on their definition of restrictions and the example in the sidebar, it is clear that the zoning distances on our warscroll abilities, as well as those in the GHB, are restrictions and not effects. This raises important questions about our discussion, since it's clear that the two are handled differently.

It's not at all my intention to move the goalposts in this argument, so I'll avoid drawing any conclusions about this for now, and let anyone who wants to weigh in.

(There's a ton more I could say, but this post is running long, so I'm going to conclude my response here. @Mirage8112, I'm specifically curious to know when you reply if you think I've correctly summarized your understanding of what creates a rules contradiction.)

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Tizianolol said:

Wait a sec, they said in this podcast if I give gnarloot artefact on warsong revenant i can roll 3 dice to see my casting role, i chose 2 highter rolls to see if I casted the spell, but when I resolve that spell i can use all 3 dice to see casting roll? ( for ex if I roll 4-5-6 , i cast the spell with 11 +1 if near ww. If opponent doesnt unbind that I roll 16 dice and see how many 5+ i got? Am I right?

I remember the part you're talking about. It was confusing. They were adding in the bonus from multiple turns of throne or vines, not using all three dice from the artefact. They also happened to get their math wrong, on top of everything else.

When using the Gnarlroot artefact, only the two dice you keep count for anything at all.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

2 hours ago, Pennydude said:

I'm done here.  I'm done posting.  Thanks for ruining this for me.

I'd like to echo what @Mirage8112 posted, and say that I always enjoy your posts, and I find your insights to be super valuable. I'd never tell someone to stay on a board if they're not enjoying the discourse, but you should know that your opinions are valued and respected here, @Pennydude. I hope you stick around.

1 hour ago, Mirage8112 said:

I’ll totally own that fact that I can be forceful in my replies. Still, I do value your insight and respect your right to have an opinion. I will absolutely defend to the death your right to express your viewpoint, but I’m not going to refrain from challenging it just because you have it.

I doubt anyone's ever accused you of being afraid to speak your mind, but I've always found you to be respectful when our opinions have differed. The fact that you take the time to respond carefully and thoroughly is, I think, a credit to how you give weight to what is posted when people disagree.

 

3 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:

If the core rules say one thing (3”) and warscroll/Battletome rules say another (1”) you use the warscroll rules. Yes it says “in addition to” but we already have a range restriction in the Allegiance/warscroll ability. War still/Battletome always, always, takes precedence when two rules conflict. When there’s a question of which rule/range to use, you use the Battletome RAW. Full stop.

Speaking of disagreements, I guess I'd like to weigh in on this point. Your argument seems to look at the deployment restriction as a single variable, which can't have two different static values at once. I think you're basically saying that the following two statements are contradictory:

• The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 1"
• The distance from other terrain that the wyldwood must be set up is 3"

And they are, because they cannot both be true. However, it's not how the rules are worded. The next two statements are NOT contradictory:

• The wyldwood must be set up more than one inch away from other terrain
• The wyldwood must be set up more than three inches away from other terrain

These two rules don't contradict each other, because they're not mutually exclusive. If a tree is more than three inches from other terrain, it is also more than one inch away, and both rules are satisfied. If tthey can both be followed at the same time, then they don't contradict each other, and you don't get to ignore the GHB rules in favor of the warscroll rules.

All of this also ignores the presence of the "in addition to" clause. The wording of that phrase makes it very difficult, in my mind, to overrule the GHB rules. The only time I could see a battletome overruling the GHB restrictions is if the conditions of the ability actually cannot coexist with the restrictions, such as:

• This faction terrain feature must be set up within 1" of another terrain feature
• All faction terrain must be set up more than 3" from other terrain features

The above is obviously not a real rule, but it's an example of what two mutually exclusive conditions could look like.

14 minutes ago, Kaylethia said:

There is no other mention of having to be more than 3" away from other models. They also do not mention "in addition to any other restrictions," as was the case in 2.0 (this is based on the wyldwood, TLA, and Alarielle warscrolls) 

This, to me, clearly means that whichever ability is being used to set up a wyldwood will have all the restrictions listed. As there are no generic restrictions outside of the 3" from the other two models when deploying three small wyldwood, I'm damn sure there are no additional restrictions to apply.

The "in addition to" does not come from the warscroll. It comes from faction terrain rules in the GHB, and I don't think that @Pennydude ever said that wyldwoods needed to be 3" from models.

@Pennydude's stance, and mine, is that wyldwoods must follow the restrictions listed on whatever ability is being used to place the wyldwood, plus the restrictions listed in the generals handbook.

As I understand it, there's a general consensus that both these rules and the rules on the wyldwood's warscroll must be followed when setting up a wyldwood before the battle begins. The debate is mostly centered around whether the GHB rules continue to apply to faction terrain which is set up after the battle begins.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

@GunslingerOy

I haven't played a ton of third yet, but here's my thoughts on your lists:

Between the two, I think I'd prefer the list without Drycha. There's no doubt in my mind she's a badass, but tying up 1000 points on those two models is leaving you a little light on wounds. It's interesting, but I think the other list is "safer".

In that list, I would combine your Dryads and your Spite Revs into single units. That will make them better buff targets for command abilities, and make them slightly harder to take out for your opponent's battle tactic. (This would also let you fit your units into a single battle regiment. I think you've got too many units in there right now.)

If you did want to play the second list, I would again combine the Dreads, and I would also stick the Dryads, Kurnoths, and one Tree Rev squad into a hunters battalion, since you probably shouldn't worry about drops with that list.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

3 hours ago, Emissary said:

I understand that, but the 3" rule in the general's handbook is with the before the start of the game setup instructions. 

This is an inference only. The section is not labeled as such, and it doesn't say anything in the rules text about no longer applying once the game begins.

There's certainly ambiguity, and I agree with @Pennydude that it needs an FAQ. Purely going with the rules as written, though, my belief is that you have to apply it to all wyldwoods during the game.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Pennydude said:

I believe you can due to GHB Faction Terrain rules on pg. 15.  That rule states that if a faction terrain feature cannot be placed, it is not used.  When you place individual woods, they become three individual faction terrain features.  Therefore, the inability to place one tree should not affect the ability to place two other trees legally.

Others here may disagree with me, but following the GHB rules, faction terrain should be 3" away from other terrain and all objectives since those are additional restrictions to setup.  There are no additional restrictions when it comes to woods placement near models, so follow the ability that placed the woods.  In our case, that's more than 1" away from other models.

Agreed! I think this is the correct interpretation of the rule.

56 minutes ago, Grimbok said:

Thanks for the info. The ability to setup just one or two trees is very nice because there are plenty of terrain on my board. Seems like GHB might save us there (and I don’t want to buy and transport all those trees).

Honestly, if you're not bringing plenty of trees to a game, I think you're just hurting yourself. Almost all of our mobility is based around the trees, and it's one of the signature strengths of our army. I know they're a pain in the ass to transport, but the Army is designed around them, to a significant degree.

1 hour ago, Pennydude said:

With the Warsong Revenant being an extremely powerful caster (one of the strongest in the game), that's huge.

That's BOLD! I like it. I look forward to playing with him and seeing if I agree with you.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

BATTLE REPORT: PART TWO

ROUND ONE

Sylvaneth Turn: Slay the Warlord
I decided to try to go big on turn one by denying my opponent his grand strategy and removing an important support piece. It was risky, but I felt I had a decent shot at it.

In the hero phase, I failed to generate a command point, and my opponent selected his finest hour for his general. My Treelord Ancient cast the spiteswarm hive, but was unbound, and my Branchwraith failed to summon any Dryads. The Treelord Ancient summoned two more wyldwoods in the center of the board, and a third next to the objective threatened by the gnashtoof.

In the movement phase, I teleported my Treelord Ancient onto the flanking objective, and positioned my Treelord to charge into the Boltboyz, after which he could pile into the Swampcalla. I teleported my Revenants into the Kruleboyz backfield, and moved my Branchwraith onto the center objective. Finally, I brought my reserves into the center of the board.

In the shooting phase, my Kurnoth Hunters took 4 wounds off the Shaman, my Treelord killed a Bolt Boy, and my Ancient took 5(!) wounds off the Gnashtoof. I failed my charges with my Treelord and my Revenants, which brought me to the end of my turn.

Spoiler

The Board

Kruleboyz Turn: Broken Ranks (Spite Revenants)
My opponent chose to try to wipe out my Spite Revenants, planning to send his Gnashtoof into my formation at the center of the board.

In the hero phase, my opponent healed one wound from his Swampcalla, while I failed again to generate a command point. His shaman failed to cast Boggy Mist.

In the movement phase, the Gutrippaz, Murknob, and the Hobgrotz all ran to advance up the board and claim the uncontested objective, while both Killabosses moved towards the center. In the shooting phase, the Boltboyz attacked my Tree Revenants, and killed two.

My opponent opened the charge phase by sending his Gnashtoof into my spite revenants. I responded by using unleash hell with my Kurnoth Hunters, who dealt six(!) damage, and killed the Gnashtoof on the charge. Feeling pressure, my opponent also charged his Killaboss into my Treelord, looking to deal some damage. My Treelord roared in response, locking the Killaboss out of command abilities.

In the combat phase, my Treelord succeeded on his stomp and went first. He then rolled a six on his impaling talon and dealt four mortal wounds. To add insult to injury, he connected with all three of his sweeping blows, and dealt enough damage to easily remove the Killaboss.

Round One Score: Sylvaneth 3 - 1 Kruleboyz

At the end of round one, things were looking pretty grim for the Kruleboyz. They'd lost their two strongest combat heroes, and I had suffered minimal losses. My opponent won priority, and decided to take the double to try to salvage the situation. (Note: I stopped taking pictures at this point. By the end of this turn, the battle had swung pretty heavily, and it felt a bit unsportsmanlike to me.)

ROUND TWO

Kruleboyz Turn: Bring it Down! (Treelord)
Hoping to turn the tide, my opponent looked to advance into my center formation and deal some casualties.

In the hero phase, we forgot to do our heroic actions (or I can't remember what they were). The shaman buffed the poisoned weapons of the gutrippaz instead of casting a spell. In the movement phase, my opponent advanced towards the center with his Hobgrots and his Gutrippaz, while moving his shaman towards the objective held by the Murknob.

In the shooting phase, the hobgrots killed three spite revenants, and the boltboyz failed to connect on the Treelord. My opponent successfully charged the treelord with his gutrippaz, and sent his hobgrots into the spite revenants and the branchwraith. My Kurnoth Hunters shot at the Hobgrots with unleash hell, but only removed two models.

In the combat phase, my Treelord succeeded on his stomp, and the Hobgrots finished off the spite revenants. The Branchwraith killed one Hobgrot, and my Treelord connected with all four of his sweeping blows, dealing fifteen damage and reducing the gutrippaz to three models, who dealt three damage to the treelord before fleeing in the battleshock phase.

Sylvaneth Turn: Aggressive Expansion
Automatically scoring my battle tactic, I looked to deal as much damage as possible and end the game on this turn, since it had basically become a rout.

On my second turn, I removed the majority of the remaining Kruleboyz. The Murknob died shooting and melee from my Treelord Ancient, who jumped across the board with a spiteswarm-assisted charge.

The swampkalla Shaman died to shooting from my Treelord, and the Kurnoth Hunters were able to shoot away most of the remaining Hobgrots, who ran in the battleshock phase. The tree revenants charged into the boltboyz and killed one, leaving the last remaining boltboy as my opponents only remaining model at the end of the turn, at which point we called the game.

Final Score: Sylvaneth 11 - 2 Kruleboyz

 

 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Obviously, this was a very lopsided game, in which nearly everything went my way. On top of the crucial rolls, my opponent was working with a box set army, rather than a fully fleshed out list, and it didn't feel like he had a full toolbox to work with. Still, I noticed a couple things about the Sylvaneth and about

1. Our mobility is fantastic right now
Being able to split up our trees is so good. I can't rave about it enough. With the initial wyldwood plus silent communion, I was able to set up multiple important teleportation points, and still have trees left over for defensive placement.

I think I will be running a Treelord in most of my lists for a while. With our tree placement at the state it's currently in, getting extra teleports off is super clutch.

2. I think we can get tanky
Sylvaneth have such a wealth of defensive options available to them. We've all talked about how good the Ancient's command ability can be, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. I've talked about it before, but one thing I didn't think about until this game is how easy it is to get cover against shooting from the single wyldwoods through the 'behind terrain' rule. All in all, I think castle-y builds could totally be viable in this edition.

3. The game feels much deeper.
The round-to-round battle tactics are my favorite addition, I think. It's another place where you can make mistakes, and fall behind in a game due to a poor decision rather than bad dice. That's good, in my book.

I think using secondary charges to lock out unleash hell will be something that is very useful in certain situations. We're lucky we've got a unit that'll excel at that (tree revs)

That's all I got! Happy to answer questions if anyone has them. Sorry it wasn't the most competitive game!

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

BATTLE REPORT

As promised, here's a battle report from my first game of 3.0! There's not much to analyze, sadly, as the dice skewed *very* heavily in my favor. Still, I think I learned a few things, which I'll share at the end of the post.

Army Lists
My buddy wanted to play the Kruleboyz from his Dominion box, so we decided to play 1000 points each, to let him try out his new models.

Spoiler

ALLEGIANCE: SYLVANETH
 - Grand Strategy: Prized Sorcery
 - Glade: Gnarlroot
 - Triumph: Bloodthirsty

Battle Regiment Battalion
Treelord Ancient (295)
 - Trait: Nurtured by Magic
 - Relic: Chalice of Nectar
 - Spell: Regrowth
Branchwraith (95)
 - Spell: Verdurous Harmony
5x Tree Revenants (80)
 - Protector Glaive
5x Spite Revenants (70)
3x Kurnoth Hunters with Greatbows (225)
Treelord (190)

Endless Spells
Spiteswarm Hive (40)

Total: 995 / 1000
Reinforced Units: 0 / 4
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 54

Spoiler

ALLEGIANCE: KRULEBOYZ
 - Grand Strategy: Prized Sorcery
 - Triumph: Bloodthirsty

Warlord Battalion
Swampcalla Shaman and Pot-Grot (125)
 - Trait: Master of Magic
 - Relic: Amulet of Destiny
 - Spell: (Not Sure)
Killaboss on Great Gnashtoof (200)
 - Relic: Vial of Manticore Venom
Killaboss with Stab-Grot (140)
 - Skareshield
Murknob with Belcha-banna (115)
Man-Skewer Boltboyz (120)

Hunters of the Heartlands Battalion
10x Gutrippaz (180)
10x Hobgrot Slittaz (95)

Battleplan & Deployment
We rolled for our battleplan and ended up playing the Apex Predators battleplan. After setting up terrain, I chose to be the attacker and set up three wyldwoods on the edge of my territory.

Spoiler

Board Before Deployment

At this point, I was a little worried about the battleplan. In Apex predators, only heroes can contest objectives. I only had two in my list, while my opponent had four (more than the battlepack allows for, but he was playing the box and it was a casual game).

Moving into deployment, I placed my Treelords and my Branchwraith as close as possible to the center objective, and placed my tree revenants in my backfield. My spite revenants and Kurnoth Hunters were set up in reserves. My opponent set up his Gnashtoof and his Hobgrots on one flank, and his Gutrippaz, Murknob, and Killaboss on the other, with his Swampkalla and Boltboyz set up on the high ground terrain.

Spoiler

Board After Deployment

After deployment, I decided to take the first turn. I knew I would need to push my Branchwraith onto an objective and set screen her well, and I wanted to get my reserve units down (plus my Ancient buff) before my opponent could move up the board.

EDIT: Oh, no! I hit post too soon. Rest of the post coming shortly...

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

@Quooch Yeah! I'm writing up a battle report this morning.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

7 hours ago, The World Tree said:

This really feels like a stretch. Seems very clear to me that they can't. I understand the argument, but the simpler explanation that unique can't take or use enhancements is clear.

If that's the case, then I would argue that unique units also cannot be selected to benefit from your triumph, either. If you interpret 27.3.1 to mean that benefiting from an enhancement in any way is being 'given an enhancement,' then it has to apply to all enhancements equally, without a written exception.

I have no problem with someone interpreting the rules this way. It's straightforward and concise. I've shifted off of my own previous thinking a bit, due to the first sentence of Core 27.3, which says:

"Each set of allegiance abilities includes a number of enhancements that are given to specific units in the army..."

This indicates that all enhancements are considered to be 'given' to the unit that benefits, whether or not the wording is present in their respective rules sections.

 

The sidebar which emphasizes every wizard also doesn't feel like an explicit inclusion for unique units to me, because of the sidebar next to 27.3.1, which says that unique units cannot benefit from an enhancement they were forced to receive. This seems to be written for command traits, or situations where a unique is your only hero, but I think it could just as easily apply to the Spell Lore enhancement, which forces the unique unit to take a spell.

That spell then could be a faction lore spell, which includes a written exception for unique units, or a universal spell, which would then be ignored per the sidebar.

 

TL/DR: I think I was wrong. I have reasoned my way to the conclusion everyone else came to a while ago.