[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

2 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

I also just saw that we are still restricted to the 3" rule for scenery and objectives per GHB faction terrain placement (GHB pg 11).  That may cause an issue.

"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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

15 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

@Mirage8112 I think the one thing I need to know is that if it's impossible to put one of the three individual trees down, does it stop us from putting the legal ones on? 

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). 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

4 hours ago, Landohammer said:

Yea if Treelord ancient was useless enough already, now he is extra useless lol..

Good catch on the wyldwood warscroll. So yea we are very much susceptible to monsters killing our forest now 

Overall this was pretty hard on us.

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. 

 

3 hours ago, Emissary said:

That's not the way aura command abilities work.  

From the Core FAQ:

"Q: Some commands are received by all units within a certain range of the model issuing the command. Can such an order be received by a unit that has already received a command in the same phase? A: No."

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). 
      

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

2 hours ago, Landohammer said:

I am finding myself agreeing with a lot of your posts since you posted this. (you were right about small units of Spites in 3rd afterall) so please don't take this as if I am picking on you, but I find this comment a bit uniformed in terms of playing against terrorgeist. 

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.
 

3 hours ago, Landohammer said:

Picking wounds off them just doesn't seem like an option. IMHO the correct move is to alpha strike them with a hammer and kill them in a single combat. 

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.  
 

2 hours ago, Landohammer said:

They have 35 inch threat range BEFORE pile ins (which they can do multiple times) with an average threat range of 27-30 inches depending on sub. They also heal and had a -1 hit aura vs shooting. Most opponents will deploy them on the line. They can kill anything in our army in a single charge. 

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Landohammer said:

The issue with terrorgeists is that if they are so insanely fast that they can often just fly over your screens. If they cant, then they can kill your screen, and then activate again to get into alarielle. There just isn't a way to block them from reaching your units unless you are just 3 feet away from them lol. 

You would need a screen plus a significant gap, like 7+ inches.

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Landohammer said:

It gets to a point where you are tying up half your army to protect a unit rather than using her to do stuff.

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.
 

4 hours ago, Landohammer said:

I wanted to add that I tied my opponent 20-20 despite losing her turn 1. If I had used her 740 points on literally any other unit I would have likely won.

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. 

 

3 hours ago, Landohammer said:

I have only played new Alarielle in 2nd. My one third game so far was without her. I def need to play her in third for more data. 

 

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)

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Pennydude said:

What’s the issue with Drycha and Flaming Weapon? That seems very cut and dry.

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.

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

5 hours ago, Aezeal said:

Is that generally accepted? Because it's instead of a normal move, it's not itself a (disallowed) normal move. The normal move (which is disallowed) is not done but something else (which is not specifically mentioned as not allowed) is done instead.

@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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

On 6/23/2021 at 9:27 AM, Popisdead said:

I think it's very good and why has no one mentioned soulsnare shackles yet?

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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

10 hours ago, Havelocke said:

Another indirect buff to Tree Revenants that I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that they can use command abilities after teleporting more often, since the Scion can issue commands now. This was often not the case in the last edition, when they had to jump far away from heroes.

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. 

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

On 6/21/2021 at 12:31 PM, Havelocke said:

Finally, their 6" pile in move gives some tactical flexibility that can be exploited. This is limited by the new coherency rules, but pile in moves also got more flexible. I haven't personally assessed yet exactly how valuable this will be in the new edition, but it's certainly worth considering.

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

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

2 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

I would like just devs to be reasonable about setting points. If a faction is a looser for last few years why not give it some discounts or don't touch it at all? There are factions that were mostly untouched with points. Fyreslayers, Nighthaunt (at least my build). And some were heavily damaged. Sylvaneth, Slaanesh, Tzeentch. Basically my old list lost a Durthu. That's huge.

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. 

 

2 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Take a look at Necropolis Stalkers, my favorite OBR unit. Points increase? None. This model plays EXACTLY the same role as Kurnoth Hunters do. 3 model unit, 4 wounds each, great offensive and defensive profile. Couldn't the points stay the same for Hunters? Ehhh...

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. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Trevelyan said:

That’s another non-sequitur. You were, and still are, the one complaining about the points increases on some units. If you don’t believe that points changes are ever a solution, and that issues with the faction run much deeper than points changes can reach, then that’s a very different proposition and a very different conversation. 

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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

7 hours ago, Aeryenn said:

Look at Fyreslayers points. Much better army than Sylvaneth which was proven on countless tournaments. Runefather on Magmadroth 15 points increase. Durthu 40 points increase. Drycha 30 points increase. Kurnoth Hunters 35 points increase. Hearthguard Berzerkers 5 points increase. That's just sad.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

Not that I'm saying Kurnoth Hunters were overpowered. They weren't, but they were at the core of virtually every competitive Sylvaneth list, so I'm not surprised they were targeted by GW to address the internal balance of the army. That said, I still don't have a good explanation for why the Scythe Kurnoths got off easier than the other options.

 

1 hour ago, overtninja said:

Scythe Kurnoth being cheaper is a bit of a mystery, but it's probably because rend isn't as valued as MW generation, nor is random damage, and also because GW knows that people run them in groups of 6 thanks to their reach.

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. 
 

9 minutes ago, Trevelyan said:

Simply put, points aren’t rules

This 100%. 

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

32 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Oh! I didn't realize he was just talking about the WarCom articles. Cool cool.

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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

weird double post. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

43 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

So here, maybe, is our definition of what "range" means. We'll call it "issuing range". It's important to note, though, that the word "range" does not appear in the text of rule 6.0 or rule 6.1. Assuming that these distances are the "range" of command abilities is a reasonable inference, but it just isn't stated on the page.

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. 

 

43 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

If the "range" of a command ability is the latter distance, which you called "range of effect," then I would agree with this. This would mean, however, that the distances outlined in 6.1 are not the range of a command ability, and Kurnoth Hunters could no longer receive Call to Battle buffs anywhere on the table. In short, I don't think that the single phrase "in range of a command ability" can mean both the "issuing range" and the "range of effect" at once, and I don't think it's clear which type of range it refers to.

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.     
 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

As I see it, it's not possible for a command ability to work this way in the new core rules. Take a look at what 6.1 states:

To use a command ability, you must spend 1 command point, pick 1 friendly model to issue the command, and pick 1 friendly unit to receive the command.

So in order for the aura to continue to function as intended, either an exception needs to be written in that lets more than one unit receive the command, or it needs to be clarified that the command is being issued to the Ancient, and the resulting aura is itself the benefit of the command ability.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

This, then, raises the question about how Envoys of the Everqueen interacts with the new Command Ability system. Envoys states that:

If a friendly Sylvaneth Hero uses a command ability, friendly Sylvaneth units wholly within 12" are treated as being in range of that command ability.

This is an ambiguous rule, because it is no longer clear what the "range" of a command ability is.

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Landohammer said:

All sarcasm aside, can you post up some bat rep summaries of your recent/upcoming games? I am playing a lot of games every week in a pretty tough meta and I am just not seeing wins with Sylvaneth (or Living City).  

 
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. 

 

1 hour ago, Landohammer said:

I am hungry for Sylvaneth content, especially from people who are having success with the army. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Landohammer said:

 Last night a terrorgeist killed my Alarielle in a single round of combat and its got me flustered lol. So I am desperate for resources lol. 

 

59 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

this was under 2nd edition.

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.  

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

14 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

You get the eternal optimist merit badge for sure, Mirage.

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. 

 

16 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

I'm curious to see exactly how his aura works with the new command ability rules. Do all units within 12" receive a command, for example, and does it work with Envoys of the Everqueen or not? (I don't think it's a given.

 

3 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

The auras stack and are usable with the Kurnoths being a beacon. There’s no unit receiving the CA but everything in range is affected.

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. 
 

 

14 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

So I don't have a problem with the Spite statline or points. Its actually fine. Its the fact that taking a unit of 10 burns a finite resource and a unit of 5 isn't really a functional threat outside of a screen or speedbump. The really frustrating part is that the decision was clearly based on how they are sold, rather than their functionality. For example, Thralls are a very similar unit in terms of role, cost and model yet they are taken in base units of 10. 

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.

 

18 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

But wait there is more. Under the new coherency rules, a unit of 10 is unlikely to get all of their attacks. If you honeycomb, you can probably stretch 6 guys into combat for a whopping 18-19 attacks. (you can't break coherency to pile in to my knowledge)

 

 
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. 

 

19 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

But hey, their leadership debuff is solid right? But only if they survive to the battleshock phase to provide it. Under the new rules, the active player takes all of their tests first, So even if you get lucky, and don't get wiped out on return attacks, (which is rare in my tourney experience with spites, they ALWAYS get wiped), then you have to test on bravery 6 or burn a CP to save like 3 guys. 

 

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. 

 

40 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

Tragically, flaming weapons has to target one of the caster's melee weapons. That would have been an insane combo, otherwise.

 
******. That text is too small lol. 


 
 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

3 hours ago, Landohammer said:

So something that hit the army in a really personal way is Spite revs staying at 5 model squads.

This effectively kills the unit. Its now a max squad size of 15 and is a big waste of reinforcement points that are just better spent on Hunters or Dryads.

 

2 hours ago, Havelocke said:

I agree, and I am similarly crushed. I started my Sylvaneth collection with Drycha and a bunch of Spites, and they continue to be some of my favorite units in the army. It's especially frustrating because I feel like, prior to these new rules, they were actually very close to being relevant. If Drycha's Spitegrove had stuck around, I think Spite Rev hammers could have been a thing.

(Maybe not a totally optimal thing, but still a usable thing.)

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.  

 

2 hours ago, Havelocke said:

After spending some more time toying around with lists, I think you might be right. Something I didn't account for is that, with points going up and fewer models in lists overall, versatility becomes a bit more important.

The Ancient loses big to the Warsong in casting potency and mobility, but it edges out the warsong in ranged damage and unbracketed melee damage. On top of that, it adds the stomp, the free woods, and the free teleport for utility.

In some lists that want woods but don't care as much about magic, Dreadwood comes to mind, I can definitely see a strong argument for including the Ancient over the Warsong.

 

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.  
  

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

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.

 

 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

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.    

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

36 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

I think @Walkirriox was pointing out that one of the conditions for being behind terrain is being more than 3" from your attacker, so behind will never offer you a save bonus in the combat phase. Wholly within still can.

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. 

 

53 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

I don't think so, and @Pennydude doesn't think so, but @Mirage8112 seems to think they can, so he might have seen something we didn't.

That being said, one model can definitely offer cover against shooting attacks.

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. 

 

25 minutes ago, Tizianolol said:

Now with monsters that can destroy our forest and methamorphosis spell from today riveal from GW that make an hero a monster its very bad for our playstlyle. I hope they buff again wildwood or clarify  some rules! 

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.   





 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

7 hours ago, Walkirriox said:

But that will only applies to shooting right? 
 

So in combat does it remains the same or you no longer receive cover from being wholly within that terrain?

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. 

 

7 minutes ago, Havelocke said:

I think it's a bummer, but not particularly surprising. The balewind vortex was used almost exclusively to create death star units, which is something that they are clearly trying to avoid in the new edition.

Probably a good thing. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

1 hour ago, Havelocke said:

I come down on the other side, in terms of what the rules actually say, but I totally respect this position. I also think it's probably what the designers intended. Certainly no need to beat it to death when there's so much other new stuff going on!

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.
 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

Just now, Havelocke said:

Teleporting itself isn't a normal move, but our teleport rules still need it to be possible. Navigate Realmroots, Spirit Paths, and Waypipes all contain the phrase "instead of making a normal move" as a requirement for activation. If a model can't make a normal move, it can't use an ability that requires it. Sinister Ambush is unaffected, though.

This could probably get FAQ'd. I believe that the intent behind the clause is to prevent models from moving after teleporting, which is what it did in the old core rules. Just an unintended side effect of a structural change.

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. 

[AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion]

9 minutes ago, Pennydude said:

Sword Kurnoths are unaffected because their MW are on 6s to wound.

Nice.

Shows you how often I play sword hunters 🤪