Jump to content

Mirage8112

Members
  • Posts

    803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Mirage8112 last won the day on May 27 2019

Mirage8112 had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,478 profile views

Mirage8112's Achievements

Lord Castellant

Lord Castellant (8/10)

1k

Reputation

  1. Might also be done WHFBitis here. Insofar as Xenos players already having fairly large collections and thus not really driving sales.
  2. As an artist who occasional has had to deal with IP law, it makes sense GW would have these taken down. An easy way to think of this, is if a person who is unfamiliar with the product buys something thinking it’s an “official” product because of design, marketing, or name, then it infringes on IP law. That purchase only occurred because the buyer thought they were buying a product from an established company, but instead were buying a product that was trading off an already established brand.
  3. Even better: they removed that passage in the updated FAQ. Now it’s anywhere on the table more than 3” from anything else. At least for the next 72 hours until they ****** us around again.
  4. I dunno. For lists that primarily use hunters as CA nodes, or want a unit to hang back and support rather than being a front-line fighter the ability to throw a bunch of shots out over 30” rather than just standing there in the woods waiting to do something (like the poor branchwraith) is a nice bonus. Plus they are easy to heal, super mobile, tough to kill and can hide in a forest just broadcasting CA and softening up targets for front-line fighters. Also balistas put out more damage, but are pretty much the definition of a glass cannon. They have a worse save, trash movement, less wounds, can’t be healed and no escape mechanism. Catch them: they’re dead. I think you really have to look at ALL the stats as well as how the unit functions with army support. Bow hunters have their place at the table, but they certainly don’t work in every list.
  5. The command ability lends itself well to big blocks of dryads, which are already a pretty resilient unit. For 1 CP, and the right hunter placement, you can easily make your entire army immune to Battleshock. Having 3-4 Treelord variants also means 3-4 stomps. Running the Treelord variants in pairs means a nearly 75% chance you’ll be striking first in combats not to mention they’ll likely be surrounded by dryads. Notice also you have a lot more shooting (all Treelord variants and Alarielle) nearly board-wide passive healing plenty of active healing big blocks of resilient troops who don’t worry about battleshock, that are easily to replenish with 1 cp and the Rally! CA. Winterleaf is fun because it takes a lot of models off the table, but its still a CC-oriented playstyle and there certainly matchups that do it as well or better. Gnarlroot is fun because who doesn’t like shooting a bunch of spells? But as @Landohammerpointed out if you run up against a magic-heavy army like lumineth or DoT, you just won’t be able to keep up if the only plan you have is magic. Games aren’t just won on scenario objective alone anymore. I think Oakenbrow has a really good chance to maximize points from battle tactics and grand strategies since extra points are rewarded for using monsters to complete battle tactics. Also, an oakenbrow list stands a very good chance of accomplishing a few grand strategies and denying your opponent some easy to score ones. This edition isn’t just about how much how many model you take off the table, its also about how you take them off the table and how you gum up your opponents plans to do the same. Scoring battle tactics with monsters give double VP’s, and having monsters that continually heal means it will thought for your opponent to remove them. Most of the Treelord variants will be extra survivable in oakenbrow. For example, if you give durthu the artifact, and make him the general, he’ll easily have a 2+ save with a 6+ ward, he can take 4 wounds before bracketing, and can heal on average 6 wounds in the hero phase ( If you take gladewyrm; which you should) without needing to worry about casting regrowth. If you need it, regrowth will give you 3-4 extra wounds on top of that. That means you can feasible lose 10 wounds off a durthu, have him heal 6 in the hero phase and still have him swing at full strength next turn. Being able to do that to just about any monster on the field (with the exception of vanilla treelords who can *only* heal 4 wounds without regrowth) means its going be very difficult for you opponent to score Sever the Head or Vendetta from grand strategies. Also Slay the warlord, Bring it down!, and Monstrous takeover from battle tactics will be a tough get. And since the CA favors big blocks of dryads who are easily 4+ save ignoring rend -2, immune to battleshock and fighting in 2 ranks, Battle tactics like Broken ranks, Conquer, Aggressive expansion will be very difficult your opponent to score as well. I do too actually. I think we have more able builds then we have before, but a lot of players are still playing variations on their 2.0 lists. I think Oakenbrow leans into the 3.0 mechanics better than the other glades, although it will require a difficult approach to play-style. Also give the previous nerf to WW, have the workhorse of your army (TL variants) able to freely move between woods without counting toward the teleport cap is a big plus.
  6. Heartwood has seen some success in competitive events, and I’m still pretty convinced Dreadwood is a viable choice. Although I haven’t tested it, Oakenbrow + Alarielle seems to have a lot going for it as well.
  7. It’s happened to single factions 40k a couple of times (usually to correct errors in print rather than adjust a a mechanic), and I believe in AoS once or twice, (although the details escape me). But on a side note, regarding the ward save change: is it just me or is the Warsong Revanant save-after-the-save one that happens after wounds are allocated? In other words according to the new faq does it stack with a ward save? A Warsong-Rev with the Amulet of Destiny, +2 to armor saves and flaming weapons sounds ridiculous: 3+ Armor ignoring rend -1, 5+ ward and a 4+ Save-after-the-save, sporting 5 3+/3+, damage 3, rend-1 attacks. Normally I wouldn’t capitalize on something like that, but considering teh rough treatment we just had I’m inclined to take the above in Dreadwood and just pop up around the board and murder things.
  8. Then why haven’t they fixed it yet. It’s been nearly a week. All they need to do to fix it is remove one sentence (the one that says to ignore the alleged allegiance ability in the battletome) or add two sentences to the relevant warscroll. To me only one thing is certain, the ability as written does not work, because it refers to an ability that is no longer where it should be. This should be an easy fix, and I know for certain they are aware of the issue. Sylvaneth players were all over the FAQ announcement thread on FB and I know of at least 10 people who emailed them. Word is, the writers are aware of the issue, but we don’t have a fix as yet. So what gives? Well, that and giving dryads and branchwraiths -1 to hit, serving as teleport nodes for the Treelord variants, giving Durthu extra attacks, and the Warsong-Rev bonuses to casting. WW actually do a lot for us outside moving 1 unit around the board and are still pretty integral to our play style. This change (until it corrected) doesn’t make them useless, it just makes them less useful: albeit by alot. Also other factions have access to a lot more annoying mechanics than teleporting. Hell Flesh Eater Courts still have Terrorgiests which are just brutal on the tabletop, and storm cast have plenty of access to teleporting. KO to can practically teleport around the board and bring multiple units with them, and they aren’t tied to a terrain feature. Other factions have units arriving from reserves, or can move units either with magic, or giving them flying and a huge movement buff (which in some ways is better than teleporting). Teleporting/movement abilities are a key part of the game for lots of armies/builds and I don’t really see why ours is overpowered enough to warrant a nerf of this magnitude. Personally, I don’t see why having to buy forests is any different than having to buy Treelords or endless spells. In 3.0 we can easily play a very low model count army and still be competitive, so the cost of entry is a lot lower than something like DoK. As to “having to buy terrain”, pretty much every faction except a handful has faction terrain and I doubt GW’s goal is to have you buy less stuff to play a given faction. Selling kits is what GW does, and if you want to play Sylvaneth you’ll need a few tree kits to get the most out of the army regardless of that single unit teleport. It’s weird and we agree on that. We also agree that there is some kind of mistake on the warscroll, I’m just not certain we agree on what the mistake is. This should be an easy fix and its not fixed yet. My only thought is that there is some discussion as to how they are going to implement this mechanic, because it seems to me they tried something and it wasn’t working how they intended (Sylvaneth winning tournaments? Can’t have that lol.) or perhaps they saw a potential for abuse that they hadn’t considered and just made a snap revision until they could figure something out. Also, it bears considering SoB just got a WD update, and its been announced that StD are getting something similar in the coming weeks. I wonder if this clumsy re-jiggering of our teleport mechanic is in preparation for a WD update to our faction that’s just over the horizon? Certainly there’s a lot of talk about how stacking ward saves won’t last, and the wider AoS community’s opinion of the Sylvaneth change is overwhelmingly negative. I very much hope they change it but at this point even giving our original teleport as written in the BT is a nerf (Enter wholly within, exit wholly within vs enter within exit wholly within). Seems to me they took our bread and we’re begging to get some crumbs back. Crumbs are better than nothing, but they’re still crumbs.
  9. The thing is, the more I look at it the more it looks like a deliberate attempt to just remove a mechanic they didn’t like without giving anything back in return. When you look at the other changes to the warscroll, every change was either a straight up nerf (removing the ability to place 3 separate trees, and hard ruling 3” placement) or an equivalent change to the mechanic. We live and die by our trees (literally and figuratively), and now we’re literally the only faction in the game (I’m aware of) who has abilities on our warscroll that we cannot use as written in matched play. What’s also weird was how short lived the previous incarnation was. From what I understand we’ve had a respectable showing, but I wouldn’t say we’ve been dominating the competitive scene lately. Either one of those changes would have been a clear nerf to forests (3” placement /single forests per casts) but both? So what gives? Even without the removal of our allegiance ability, the other two changes are pretty clear nerfs to a critical mechanic of our army, and there hasn’t really been any equivalent balancing. So why hit us with the nerf bat so harshly? It just doesn’t make any sense. So I’m curious to see how long this faq of the faq takes, because it seems to me to be the goal of this faq was to clamp down on our ability to teleport. They’ve given us less nodes to teleport to and made putting new ones down harder. And unfortunately removing our allegiance ability dovetails a little too neatly with that. I guess we’ll see, both in terms of what they do and also how we do with the new mechanic in the tournament scene.
  10. Supposedly the rules writers have been made aware of the difficulty with the way the warscroll is written and are working on a solution. Hopefully we get some clarify on how this is actually supposed to work.
  11. This seems unclear. The faq for the core rules says (roughly) all restrictions for placing the first wood apply to subsequent woods. Im not convinced either way, because the wording for the entire update seems badly written. I probably won’t play it that way, I can only tolerate so many nerfs at a time and I’m not inclined to fish for more unless I’m totally sure.
  12. This is pretty much how I read all of this too. This new warscroll is FAR more restrictive than the old one, and the additional changes to placement are a pretty bitter pill to swallow. Even if the changes to our allegiance ability are returned this is a real kick in the acorns. As far as a silver lining goes, it looks to me like dreadwood just had it’s stock tick up a few notches, since that CA teleport is now the only way to move a non TL variant around the board. And even if that oversight is fixed, it will be much harder to move units with less woods on the table and teleport nodes confined to our territory.
  13. Mancunian carnage: 70 man tourney, 1 Sylvaneth player who finished 5th. 6 bows, alarielle and warsong with 3 tree rev units bwraith and some espells
  14. The list went 4-1, took 5th place and Best Order General. The 1st place list was a TLA, Durthu and Yndrasta in a Living Cities list. details here: Goonhammer Sylvaneth seem to be doing very well at the moment. I’ve seen a lot of super positive feedback from players who are seeing lots of wins, and now we’re seeing very respectable placement at tournaments.
×
×
  • Create New...