Mirage8112

"Faction Terrain" I think specifically refers to terrain pieces that are setup before the battle starts, which is reflected on the WW warscroll anyway. Anything that comes in after has its placement determined by the method it was summoned. Besides, battletome rules always supersede core rules anyway.

As written, I'd say it does. It seems to be you put 3 down, wherever you can fit them. If you can't fit 1, you can't put it down. Personally I don't think this will be an issue. Verdant blessing for example has a 24" casting range. I'm pretty sure I can find a place for one or two 1/2 inch by 5" crescents shapes somewhere in a 48" bubble. Alarielle's spell might be a little trickier to place since it's 12" from the destroyed unit. But still, a 24" bubble to place a wood up to 1" from a model/terrain/objective will probably be fairly easy unless you use it to snipe a character in the middle of a horde (but if that's the case you couldn't place it now anyway).

Just about everything in the game lost the ability to re-rolls saves. So far just about very place I've checked has changed whatever the ability was to +1 to saves. As such, I'm not entirely sure it was a nerf exactly. Looks more like they took that ability out of the game wholesale; if everybody is affected, nobody is effected. While our woods can be bashed by monsters, there's more of them on the table. Also, in practice, if a monster wanted to bash the old wood, he's likely right on top of it which would shut down teleporting anyway (due to zoning out the 9"). Seems like it won't really change in practice. This is incorrect, as that passage specially refers to units that receive commands in an area. That's not an "aura" affect. The section on aura effects is in the sidebar, and says: "Some older command abilities specify that the effect of the command ability applies to multiple units within a certain distance of the of the unit issuing the command... when this is the case, the command is both issued and received by the same model, even though the effect of the command applies to the specified units within the specified range... The model that issued the command cannot issue or receive another command in that phase... the other units that benefit from the effect of the command do not count as having received a command." Also it seems all of our "unresolved issues" are now definitively answered: Single trees do not block LoS. T-revs/ other units can teleport out of combat. Drayds can teleport after being summoned. Unique characters can take spell enhancements (including flaming weapons) Aura's stack with other command abilities unless the aura was issued by the model in the same phase. Any other ones I missed? I think the change to our woods MW output might actually be a wash or slightly better (if you have more spell casting).

No offense taken at all. I enjoy a good discussion, and you clearly have experience in this area. I suspect our play styles are quite different which is probably why some of my thoughts sound odd. But that doesn't mean we can't put our heads together and come up with something that works. It is. Sort of. You can't just alpha strike them without a plan, and it's far better to bait out the charge, and then press the nuke button. But before we go any further, I feel that I should point out that no plan is foolproof (As Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.") Every game will have it's own challenges, but it should be fair to assume the following: 1. You aren't going to stick blindly to the plan If the opponent gets bunch of buffs on the field that give units extra range, or heals a previously mortally wounded unit, or has a reasonable chance at setting up a countercharge, these will all effect your strategy. But you should have a reasonable knowledge of the spells, items and CP at your opponents disposal. 2. Sometimes dice fail. This is dice game. All the positioning in the world will not save you if you roll nothing but 1's. 3. Terrorgeists are dangerous. This is should be a no brainer, but your admittedly up against a difficult match-up. Terrorgeists have explosive damage, and the ability to attack twice. They throw our a bunch of mortal wounds and stand a good chance at killing whatever they get into combat with. Yes they can kill Alarielle in a single round of combat. They can also kill 20 dryads, Durthu, Drycha, 6 Hunters and just about anything else you put in front of them if their rolls go well. They aren't invincible however. And assuming average rolls on both sides, whoever has the best positioning should win the match-up. I'd say the average threat range is 20"-25" depending on how well they roll for their charge. Really, anything outside of 26" is probably safe barring an extraordinarily long charge, or extra buffs on the field (which shouldn't be a surprise and can be accounted for.) This accounts for shooting and charge ranges, but not pile-ins. This is important, because a well positioned screen can still lock an opponent out out from combat even with the new pile-in rules. Yep, you have screen flying units further back than foot-slogging units. But how far really? First it has to survive a scream. A unit of 10 dryads should easily survive even a high roll, and a unit of 5-10 T-revs stand a reasonable chance of having 1-2 models left which is fine, because it's a screen.) But for the sake of argument and simplicity, let's assume you have 5 models left after the scream. Let's also assume, that the Terrorgiest only has the charge distance to make (i.e. a Blisterskin TG moved the full 16" and is now ready to throw down a charge). How far away should the 5 mans screen and Alarielle be to ensure she's safe? The max charge range is 12". But a TG is on a 130mm base, and even though it can fly, it can't land on top an enemy model. So if that 5 man screen is 7" away at the end of his move (and if you stagger the 5 man screen bases you can get a 2" deep screen) even if he rolls a 12, he cannot land on the other side without landing on a model. Which is good, because that no matter the charge distance rolled he will only reach the front of the screen. So, where's the best position for Alarielle here? My bet would be 7" away from the front line. If the Terrorgeist makes the charge against the screen, you can use "Unleash hell" and since hit debuffs are capped at -1, and he already has -1 to hit from the artifact, you'll hit on a 3+. Depending on wargrove (letting you rr 1's) you stand a good chance of peeling some wounds off before combat. Even with the first pile-in he shouldn't be able to get fully around the screen, so he's still ~7" away. A second activation won't do anything to get him closer as his max combat range is 6". That leaves him 7" away after his turn ends. Now, maybe he heals some of that 6 damage, maybe he doesn't. But in your turn you get a 3 spells, a second spear shot, double impact hits (from the beetle and then from the monster) and combat. Even if he heals 3-4 wounds that's a lot of damage to try and weather. So to set up the screen, take the TG movement (16") add the screen distance (7") which puts your screen 23" from the TG starting position. Then Alarielle 7" behind that gives us 30" from the TG. This allows her move into position, and set up a defensive wood (or appropriate spells) and generally prepare for next turn. Various buffs might tweak the ranges but the principle is the same. Actually this is exactly where Sylvaneth units are best. It's not about "protecting" her. It's about consolidating your strongest units in one area of the board and using them in a show of overwhelming force. We don't win fair combats: we nuke and teleport. If you're not engaging the enemy 2 or 3 v 1 there's a good chance you'll lose. Sylvaneth are best when fighting asymmetrically. This strategy is very much how I've played them through editions. Sometimes you have to let the opponent have 1/3 of the board so you can use the 3/4 of your army to fight 1/2 of your opponents. It's my suspicion 3.0 will be even better for this thanks to grand strategies, VP for killing monsters, and battleground objectives: there's much less pressure on us to hold objectives on the field now. I'm not sure how that game went, but I doubt a different unit would have done much better if it got charged by a Terrorgeist turn 1. As you said, they can kill anything in our army in a single turn of combat. I can't imagine a Durthu or block of hunters would have faired much better, and if you couldn't protect Alarielle (literally 1 model) Whatever you would have put there instead would have been just as vulnerable. If you pinned all your hopes on charging her without support (before bringing her summoning out and before wearing the TG down with shooting or Magic) and then wiff'ed all your attacks then yeah; you're gonna die. And truth is you probably should die. Call it what it was; an error in play and just resolve not to make the same mistake next time, rather than doubling down and hoping for a different outcome. This is probably a major factor. Even based on the points adjustments alone. (not to mention the new CA and extra ways to score VP)

That’s an annoying one. Apparently the issue is that the flaming weapons spell falls under “enchantments”, and as worded in the 3.0 core book unique units cannot receive enchantments. It’s also noted that as worded they can’t receive spells from their own faction spell list. It’s pretty obviously an oversight which they’ve already said they are intending to correct.

@Havelocke And I discussed it a few pages back and agreed to disagree. But even in the wider community it is very much disputed. The two interpretations seem to stem from a disagreement over what “instead of” means. One side thinks “instead of” involves a trade; a normal move FOR a teleport, and the other reads it as a choice between two things; a normal move OR a teleport. I’m not opposed to letting other Sylvaneth players decide that they are unable to teleport in their own games, but I definitely will be using it in mine. We’ve been doing it since 1.0 (and argued about it then), and have had the issue settled with one FAQ already. I can’t see GW reversing that mechanic over what amounts to a language change unless it’s a deliberate nerf. Even aside from the above there isn’t a conflict with the new rule set. The definition of “instead of” is “a substitute for or an alternative to”. If you go out to eat and order a steak and the restaurant doesn’t have steak, it’s ok! You can have salad “instead” of steak (i.e. “this instead of that”). If the restaurant isn’t even offering steak (ie you “can’t” have steak) you can still have salad “instead” of steak; you don’t have to go hungry and then get massacred by a bunch of mortek guard. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter, as GW is updating all the battletomes an faq/errata to ensure they work with 3.0 (confirmed today on WC). As such we will likely have an answer of the single WW LoS blocking question, the Drycha with flaming attacks question, and the teleporting out of combat question. I’m mostly interested in the first of the three. The others seem to be practically settled issues to me.

So good. And even better for us. Endless spells overall have gotten better with the changes to how our WW blocks line of sight. Now that our woods block LoS to anything less than 10 wounds means we can cast endless spells into out line of sight blocking woods without worrying about them being dispelled in the next turn (since LoS is required for dispelling an endless spell). Big wizard monsters (Lord of Change, Kroak) are still a threat, but wizards who can fly won’t be able to dispel any longer (which is a lot of TZ). The thought of being able to put down an area buff/debuff without worrying about losing it next turn to flying support wizards makes stacking endless spell effects in the enemy turn fairly appealing. Wyldwoods with shackles hidden in them can be used pretty successfully to shut down approach to an objective for a turn even if there are only 5 t-revs on it. Can’t be shot at, can’t be charged, and can’t be dispelled without dedicating a large (or uber) caster to get rid of it. That’s pretty huge for us, because it means we’ll have to leave less of our army behind to hold an objective, freeing up more resources for combined charges on enemy units.

I’ve been looking at the math regarding command abilities on T-revs and Hunters, particularly how “All-out-attack” competes with the Arch-Revenant “extra attack” CA, since they are both used in the same phase. Turns out, the math breaks down to show that the Arch-Rev’s extra attack CA is better in all situations. On T-revs it gives roughly twice as much of a damage buff as all out attack (On 5 T-revs you have a 4 damage base before saves, all out attack does 5 damage before saves, and the extra attack does 6.) In fact, in the case of Hunters the damage by the Extra Attack CA is amplified by his innate giving hunter RR 1’s to hit (which is in itself a huge buff). Hunters do benefit from All-out-attack (giving 6 scythe hunters an extra ~4 points of damage before saves). But the buff from the extra attack CA (and the rr 1’s aura) gives 6 scythe hunters a whopping extra 10 points of damage (16 base ~26 buffed). This makes me think that the Arch-rev still very much has a place in our lists (especially if you’re taking lots of hunters), because while All-out-attack does give a moderate damage buff, the extra attack CA is so much better on Hunters. The cool thing is that all-out-attack is practically as good on T-revs as it is on hunters. AoA on 6 hunters yields a ~4 point damage bump, but on 10 T-revs it’s a ~3 point bump. I really think All-out-attack was made for T-revs (as opposed to Hunters). You get roughly the same amount of a damage bump using it on a 160pt T-rev unit as you do a 430 point Hunter unit. I’ll have to see how the buffs stack up with other units, but teleporting a unit of trees behind a support character and being bale to give them the +1 hot via the scion is a great use of the CA, because it leave the Hunters open to receive the +1 attack CA if you’re being aggressive, or the +1 save Ca RR failed saves if you’re being defensive.

I was thinking about this the other day. This has a bunch of uses. The new pile-in rules really open up a lot of tactical play. Combo charge a unit of T-revs with a unit of hunters. Active the T-revs first, and pile in 6" around the back (or side) of the unit to set up a screen for the counter-charge. Then your opponent has to decide if he wastes attacks taking out the T-revs and risks having the hunters at full strength , or chooses to attack the hunters and leaves the T-revs there blocking the charge the next turn. You can charge, and then pile-in to tag a shooting unit locking it in combat. This will either force them to retreat (preventing them from shooting next turn) or waste shots on T-revs. A 6" pile in should even be enough to skirt around a small screen and tag units behind. A unit of 10 charging the side of screen should be able to pile in a round the side and take out a supporting character (of 5 wounds with a 4+ save) AND possibly block the counter charge. They're cheap, fast, inbuilt rr charges. Units of 10 can absolutely kill support heroes and units of 15 might be enough to finish off monsters that have taken a bracket or two. I really think these will be a key part of our toolkit in 3.0

If your main tournament list took that big a hit in points, it's pretty obvious that that GW was targeting your type of list. Just before the points for 3.0 dropped, I built 3 lists and none of them really lost more than 100 points, some even less when you factor in the fact I don't have to pay for battalions anymore. But I build lists light on hunters (1 unit, maybe 2 max) and heavy on movement and board control. But aside from all that, your post sounds like a familiar complaint: "I only care about tournament play. The list I've been running is no longer playable." But at the same time, "Sylvaneth are terrible in competitive play, and in a very bad place." I don't get this mentality. Why are you mad about being unable to play a list that wasn't winning? Wouldn't you take that as a sign that maybe your style of play needed to change? Would you be pissed about being "unable" to drive a car that isn't legal anymore and never got you where you wanted to go anyway? For God sake, let it go and do something new. If your previous (losing) list was all hunters maybe you should consider diversifying your play. Hunters are more mobile and able to broadcast Command abilities, Something OBR can't even take advantage of. That alone makes a hug difference, because hunters are taking advantage of a core mechanic of 3.0 that OBR have no access to. It's not just points that make a unit useful but how it fits into the army, the factions style of play, and new game mechanics of 3.0. Honestly this. I just wonder if @Aeryenn just really, really wants Sylvaneth to be a Close combat specialist army who can go toe-to-teo with OBR or Blade of Khorne. Surprise! We aren't, we can't, and we haven't been able to for a while. We haven't been close combat specialists with "cheap" hunters since our first battle tome in 1.0: You're at least 2 editions behind. Unless our units are stupidly underpointed you're going to be disappointed if you want to lean heavily into the style of play. Time to learn to do something different.

Fyreslayers have actually had a lot change in how their army composition functions with the new rules. Hearthguard berserkers can only be taken in units of 15 now, (and have to use 2 reenforcement points to do it) and they can't stack saves past 4+. They will also suffer from 32mm syndrome and the new coherency rules will make even getting 15 man squads into CC tricky. Not everything is about points. The core rules are a massive shakeup for for list and army building. Just about every army is going to have to adjust, and everything "strong" in 2.0 is either downright unfieldable or much more expensive. I don't have a crystal ball, but it seems like they're trying to a just the game to cut out these dumb spammy lists where everybody just takes minimum battelline units and mix/maxes the unit in the list with the most damage. Everybody's answer to everything was always "more Kurnoths". It didn't work mind you, but it didn't stop people from listening to the crowd that thinks the game is only won in the combat phase. Hunters are cheaper in Scythes to make them a little easier to field in 6's (which is how they've always been best). They also really benefit from the new coherency rules, while swords in 6's just... don't. This 100%.

Actually I was talking about the Facehammer livestreams where they revealed the core rules 3.0. In the reveal video, Russ specifically the TLA and the Kurnoth hunters extending the Command ability across the board, sometime where they are discussing the details of how command abilities work. I don't specifically remember the time stamp, I just remember it jumping out to me.

weird double post.

I mean, range isn't specifically defined, but I don't think that's an oversight. Range just isn't a specialized term the way "normal move" and "Re-roll" is. 1.5.1 Talks about measuring distances, but doesn't use the specific term "range" either. Does that mean "range" doesn't exist? Doubtful. I think it's just another word for a measured distance ("distance" being a specific term they defined, but "measuring" isn't). I might add however, that range does appear in other warscrolls. Umbral spell portal uses the term "range" as in, "the range and visibility can be measured from the other Spellportal..." I'm not certain how this all that different, excepting the fact that command auras specifically state they effect the caster. Again, if range isn't a specifically defined game term, then it means what it says: "distance to or from something". In such case it would likely refer to both, since both require measuring a specific distance to or from something. Separating "issuing range" from "range of effect" is not something the rules do, since you've already pointed out nowhere in the core rules do they suggest "range" is spume sort of keyword that has specific distinctions. If range is just "the distance to or from something", then whenever you are required to measure the distance of a CA to a group of hunters for any reason, the answer is always "they are in range". Likewise anything within 12" of them are in range as well.

The only unit that "receives" the command in this case is the Ancient, who also issues the command: "Pick 1 friendly with this command ability". The units around him benefit from it, but that's not the same as "receiving" the command. The core rules states the range a hero has to be at to issue a command: Generals and totems get 18" to issue, heroes get 12", unit champions can issue commands to their units. Because of the wording, hunters are obviously not in range of unit champions (because they aren't heroes), but every hero on the board can issue a command to them: they are always considered to be "in range". Command abilities that have an aura have a range of effect. The envoy rule says they are always "in range" of a command abilities, so auras always effect them. They also effect any unit within 12" (just as always). I don't see any ambiguity or conflict with the rules here. Plus the play testers have already confirmed how the above works. I suppose you could ask or wait for an FAQ, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Considering the game is changing so much, I don't think any data from previous games will be helpful. My local is opening up for AoS on Fridays now, but it will be a few weeks before I can get down there with any regularity. Which isn't actually much of a loss, considering I don't really expect things to kick off for a few weeks yet till everyone has the book in hand. I don't think anybody in any of my groups has actually played any 3.0 games yet: this week will likely be the very first few trial games with digital copies of the rules and points leaks. I'm sure we'll all have some hard, practical data pretty soon, but right now is probably more the time for theory crafting than looking for receipts. Despite the lack of 3.0 games to reference, I have posted several tactical examples in this thread at various places. While the overall game is changing, I don't think how we use the units will change all that much. There's a lot of knowledge here between all of us, I'm sure somebody has some tactics you would find useful. What in particular do you find find Sylvaneth struggle with? (The more specific you are the more likely you'll get information you can use. I think a lot will change here. I wouldn't take anything that happened under 2.0 as indicative of how things will work in 3.0. Although letting a Terrorgeist get a clean shot at Alarielle without making sure it was gravely wounded will probably net you the same result. Rule of thumb: never pick a fight unless you're absolutely sure your target is going to die. Especially something as dangerous as a Terrorgeist.

More like "Eternal Contrarian" badge. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely things in the changes that came off worse if you intend to use them in the old way. But that's doesn't mean they're universally terrible; it just means they are terrible at their old job. This has also been confirmed by the playtesters. CA have to be given to a unit, if it's an aura, only the unit who received the command in that phase can't receive another. Thralls operate in a different army and are a more much more akin to dryads. It's not the individual stat line or points cost of the model that is relevant: it's what it can do when paired with other units from the army. I don't see this being problem at all. Staggered 2 rows of 5 should get all their attacks in. Maybe if they are fighting a single character model on a 25mm base they'll struggle, but against say... 10 thralls? no problem. And double reenforcing spites is relatively cost-effective way to make them more survivable, I'd be inclined to take then in 2 groups of 10, but 1 group of 15 flanked by Treelords and dryads would work just fine. Especially with Drycha standing in the middle of that. Can they get shot off the table? yep. Is anybody stupid enough to shoot at a group of spites and not Drycha whose standing behind them? unlikely. Their leadership debuff isn't the only thing that makes that combo work. The Warsong has the bigger debuff of -2 and it's an aura. The command trait forces RR of battleshock tests. The spites are really just there to do a bunch of damage. Play with Sylvaneth is about redundancy of buffs and uneven combats. Put 5 of our units against 2 of theirs, destroy them, and then teleport across the board and do it again. In fact that's bread and butter dreadwood play... I also have to say I'm noticing a theme: Sounds like everything you put in combat dies. T-revs, Dryads, Alarielle, spites doesn't matter. Unless it's Hunters it doesn't survive. When you play does anything other than hunters survive? I mean, is it really that hard to screen? We have so much available to counterplay now. There are a lot of answers to problem like spite survivability. We can rally, verdurous harmony, lifeswarm. We have treelords who are awesome this edition who can stomp and disrupt the activation wars. Our screens are cheap and effective, and its relatively easy to block line of sight now (maybe even easier if the woods get FAQ'd to include the half circle of the base). I mean everything has a counter, nothing is perfect. It goes both ways. ******. That text is too small lol.

I hate to be that guy who always goes "Well AksHUallY" but.... I still think spites are very viable, but there isn't really much of reason to take them in anything other than Dreadwood list (which is where they belong anyway). We took them everywhere before because they were easily our cheapest battalion and the easiest way to get access to a second CA and artifact. sure we used them, but that's not really how they were best utilized. Spite may have gone up 10 points, but they're still a ducking steal at 70 pts. The changes to saves and CA really benefits them. Units can't stack saves past +1 anymore, and they only reason they would is to negate rend (which spites don't have). Units can't be debuffed past -1 to hit, which means at absolute worst they hit on 4's. The units they are fighting aren't as tough or hard to hit, they are smaller, and by-and-large are more expensive. It's also not terribly hard to get them to a 4+ save, as they should probably be fighting in cover anyway. A few pages back, somebody mentioned the Horrorgast, Drycha, Warsong, Dreadwood, Vengeful Skullroot combo. A unit of 10 spites will have 30 attacks, 3's x 3's RR 1's to hit and wound. The enemy will have a -3 to bravery, will have to RR successful battleshock tests, can't use command abilities to make units immune to Battleshock, and have an extra 2D3 model flee when they fail. Throw flaming weapons on them for extra lols. And even if you only pull off 50%-75% of the above combo, battleshock is going to hurt for any unit who isn't innately immune to battleshock. I think the ancient is a strong contender for a place in our lists. There's only two units on the battletome that have an aura CA (TL and Alarielle), and Alarielle's used in the already crowded combat phase. The ability to give RR 1's to the entire army (potentially) is huge in the new edition. Also, paired with a healing endless spell like lifeswarm or the wyrm, the TLA can basically heal 2d3 every hero phase without worrying about a cast (and even pair with vesperal gem for d6 if you have to). Paired with cogs he's a reliable 2 spell caster. There's a lot of versatility here depending on the type of game you want to play. Just about everything in playable in the right combination. Hell, even stuff that didn't look viable before (looking at you Oakenbrow) now seems much more feasible to play. Oakenbrow with a bunch of reenforced dryads, a TLA, Durthu and double treelords looks like it might actually be viable on the tabletop. All the monsters can take 4-5 wounds before they bracket, dryads will be immune to Battleshock, double trees at two spots on the table (durthu+ TL, Ancient +TL) for 2 tomb rolls per unit, rampages, and plenty of easy access to healing on 3+ save monsters that can easily be given 2+ and RR 1's. I think our play has really opened up with the new changes. Time to think outside the Winterleaf/Gnarlroot/Dreadwood box. Hell, even in those boxes there's a lot of new way to build a viable competitive army.

All in all it, looks like we got off light for points. Hunters got the worst of it, but now scythes are cheaper than the other options.

A new wrinkle! Although this hasn’t been officially confirmed, it seems quite possible and interesting if true. Apparently the area of a single tree includes the area between the two prongs (as if you’ve drawn a straight line between the two arms). Like so: If that’s true that means even the small tree included in the set will block line of sight to a character behind it. Since the distance between the edge of the woods at the tree, and the imaginary line is exactly 3 inches. The largest wood however will block line of sight to an area about 4” across. Enough that you could likely get LoS blocked to a compressed 5 man unit. While single woods don’t block a lot (ie a single wood won’t shield 30 dryads), multiple single woods on the board could definitely hamper enemy fire lines and at the very least prevent 1/2 a unit from firing.

Yes this is right. I realize now I was mixing a bunch of rules together because I'm trying to read and handle a baby at the same time. Re-reading the section again I'm in agreement. Cover vs shooting if the whole unit is within 1" with no attackers within 3" (although it will be tight with units larger than 5 but definitely doable). Single trees will still offer cover for units behind them, but it looks like we will need a full circle to block LoS. Although using redeploy to bait an enemy deeper into a wood still looks like a solid plan. We're definitely going to lose some WW over the course of the game, since people will be brining monsters as a rule now. Although we can only use 1 per turn and only if they can roll a 3+ (so if they did it every turn, at least one roll will fail). And all we really lose out on is the MW in the charge phase (since the LoS blocking is harder to pull off and only works on rings of trees anyway.

It seems to apply for all terrain. So if you're at the edge of a single tree, and the enemy is on the other side, you should still receive the benefit of cover. This seems like it would work well with the new redeploy CA. Set up a group of dryads 3" behind a single tree to receive cover and block LoS. If the enemy ends their movement within 9" lining up for a charge, redeploy to move up 3" and get to the edge of the forest to maintain your cover save. If you're in a complete wood, then the normal cover save rules still apply. Probably a good thing.

Anybody notice the changes to cover? Now you get cover if your unit is “fully behind” a piece of scenery. This makes think the wording on WW is meant to be used with this particular rule: i.e. if you’re behind even a single tree you get the benefits of cover without having to be fully in an enclosed wood. This makes me think even single Wyldwood trees block line of sight as well, since by the current cover rules you would have to measure 3” “through a Wyldwood” even if that entire 3” wasn’t part of the WW.

I respect that. Well said. The other thing is some warscrolls will probably be adjusted and clarified in the same manner as when AoS 2.0 dropped. a lot of core mechanics have changed (like moves) that affects a wide variety of abilities and rules interactions. I really want to know if unique characters can take spells. Alarielle getting access to the flaming weapon spell is pretty big, as would be Drycha. Probably bigger for her, because without access to the even the basic spell lore she's stuck with her bravery based MW spell. Something you'll only use in a bravery-rebuff based build.

I've seen this debated a bunch of times, mostly in regard to dryads who've been summoned into a WW via a wraith. As far as I know there hasn't been a official FAQ on it. I am firmly on the side that says restrictions on moves don't affect our ability to teleport. Saying you can do X "instead of a regular move" means "you can do one or the other"; you just can't do both. If you didn't move in the movement phase (for any reason), then you can teleport. It doesn't matter why you didn't move, all that matters is that you don't. Sort of like, "Instead of wearing blue shoes, you can choose to wear yellow shoes". What if you don't have any blue shoes? there's no reason you can't rock your yellow kicks. You just can't wear two pairs of shoes at the same time.

Nice. Shows you how often I play sword hunters 🤪