Aezeal

I honestly think returning models too the table should be undead only.. and not FEC either.. just zombeis and skeletons.. and I guess the abomination that is bonereapers. Healing and good healing.. ok.. summoning if not to much (ours is too weak) but not more.

Yeah that is it.. you can have a great plan... but if the wood doesn't come which is a real posibility then one of the 5 turns is gone.. and 5 is optimistic.. a strat really has to be rolling in turn 1-2 really turn 3 will be reactive and turn 4 and 5 way to late

Good point surprisingly many units have higher wounds while treelords should be one of the topdogs in that department. I'm not fine with the deterioration though

I'm hoping - the wraith become priest, - wyches stay mages - 2 cast on TLA New hunter character, just a combat beast with a combat buff. - Alarielle becoming stronger (stats, abilities everything) with matching (but still competative) points to reflect her being one of the few gods. In comparison to Archaon her abilities are somewhat lacking eventhough they are not weak.. and in stats... well...

Winterleaf, Drycha, a unit of T revs and a unit of 20 dryads and then hunters would be a decent list from the top of my head.

Yeah, magic is unreliable as hell without bonus to cast and that removes forest and their mobility as a reliable strategy for Sylvaneth IMHO. Sadly without mobility Sylvaneth just isn't up to par. Summoning forests as a low roll prayer or as abilities might help a bit in that department. Also I think all units except melee hunters need to be about 10% cheaper. Another wound or attack on the Tree revenants would be nice too (another attack would keep their roll similar - glass cannon - but more viable and another wound would make them more durable still only average in combat but not glass cannon anymore. The Gem is nice but Gnarlroot should just give a straight +2 to cast to TLA's and +1 to other casters. Insta return of magic trees (they'd be more viable as opposed to other builds of our army... still don't think this alone would make a gnarlroot build viable overall).

' If a spell is cast, the opposing player can choose one of their Wizards that is within 30" of the caster to attempt to unbind the spell before its effects are applied. To unbind a spell, roll 2D6. If the roll beats the roll used to cast the spell, then the spell is not successfully cast. Only one attempt can be made to unbind a spell.' Maybe I'm missing something.. but where is LoS involved in unbinding?

Could you delete some units yourself by alpha striking?

I consider CoS the grand alliance in a more lore correct way with some background and rules that match the rest.

No at your first line, Yes at the second. Outcasts comes with nothing except the rules it has. It has a requirement : you need to have 3 units of spites before you can pick it. You get no units form it just the rules, an extra CP and an extra artefact (the last being the main reason to pick a batallion for sylvaneth since the benefits from the batallions itself are quite a bit weaker than in other books). I don't use battlescribe but I guess the way you describe it you just pick outcasts, accept the units it gives you or increase it. No need for other battleline if you don't want. Yes at everything. 1 woods teleport and all TL variants get to teleport from wood to wood too and Trevs always and everywhere (everything 9" away from enemy of course which will be a problem often) Sounds like a good basic army - roll with gnarlroot or dreadwood. Just play a few games and get a feel for it and the strategies and see what you like (dreadwood is often used for a sort of alpha strike with a large unit of hunters for example and in combination with an endless spell improving charges to make the 9" charge more sure I've not actually played it but it might be a bit trickier to get done than most other strats so I'd suggest trying a few gnarlroot or winterleaf games first.. but that is just me)you'd like. Personally I'd say: with a single unit of 30 dryads, Drycha, a wraith and with a few units of hunters (9 or more models in total) back with an arch revenant you can't really go wrong. You get 1 in a basic army to go on any NON-special character (Alarielle or Drycha) hero. Then you get an extra artefact for every batallion you take. No matter how many artefacts you may take it's ALWAY max 1 per character. Your general could have a command trait and an artefact for more abilities but no hero can have 2 artefacts. Yes we have good artefact options (which is why I said it's the main reason to take a batallion) but our batallions are relatively expensive for what they do besides that in my opinion. Another option is to not take a specific glade so you have a free pick for the first artefact..but that means trading a lot of good abilities - and often a good artefact too - for that option (overall it's not done a lot I think).

Drycha is good at most point levels, certainly at 2k. If you want to play outcast it means you need to have 3 units of spites in your army before you can select outcast (and pay the points for that). The tree-rev's are not needed unless you want another 3 smallish units with weak defense (my suggestion: if outcast go 3 units of spites , MAYBE a single unit of tree revs and then get some more heavy hitters --> hunters or if you need more bodies get a big unit of dryads or increase size of the spite units). Spites are glasscannons , in large units maybe a bit of a hammer but you certainly shouldn't think T-revs are an anvil. They are very much NOT an anvil (for their points relatively low wounds, lowish and no other defensive option) their teleport is where the magic is: perfectly placed roadblocks, the treat of getting behind lines forcing the opponent to keep stuff on objectives and actually getting behind lines if there is something weak or an undefended objective. Hunters and dryads are anvils (though usually you'll be using hunters on the offence, but if the enemy hits them they can certainly take a punch). My experience that is unless you take specific items summoning dryads isn't very reliable but in gnarlroot it should be an option.

As he said: you pick a specific piece of terrain that becomes your place of power, not a terraintype.

Well... I have exactly the same problem. Going first SHOULD give you the option to place one somewhere if there is some room. About the forest. Wyldwood and awakend wyldwood use the same models (atm 3-6 of the new bases or 1 old base) if it's placed as regular terrain it's a wyldwood, if it's placed as faction terrain or summoned forest (spell, TLA, acorn) then it's an awakend wyldwood.

The longitudinal one mentione above with 4 is legal right?

You can use a single old wyldwood base as a complete (single placement/summon) forest (so not 3 bases anymore, it's only 3 bases if you use the new woods). Doesn't it say so in our book (not sure where I got this rule from really)?

yes.. but not an awakend wyldwood... there is a difference... a rather important one for Sylvaneth

Yeah just read it myself... means my table will be just as filled as is was I guess. If you win the roll to setup the terrain you can put more (all) on the sides though Just line em up on one side (I'd never do this tbh but would be legal). But putting a few of the larger piece more towards the corner might help deploying forests

Wow.. only 5 pieces of terrain.. that really makes a difference.. I usually play with no less than 9 including some pretty large pieces (and I usually set up the table myself). If the rules now clearly state 5 I can leave SO MUCH more of the table free. I usually try to get the first one in the middle (but that was 1" away from enemy territory so still not THAT offensive) and the 2nd one near one of my own objectives, but I often had difficulty getting even a 2nd forest out there (this will partially be solved by the new rules - see above in this reply) but trying a TLA will be nice anyway.

I know, but I wasn't advocating it at all . Interesting build. I must admit I'm not going to try it right away since I'm first gonna try my full on 1D approach with tons of dryads, spites and T revs. I think Alarielle might be a weakpoint in the specific army I was against since it had quite a lot of pretty high rend shooting though. If you use your summoner to cast throne 2 turns you'll only have 30 dryads extra max since she only has one cast even in this build right? Also there is a high chance of 5 wounds characters dying early on (as by personal experience).. but I have no real idea what to do about that except take a TLA which also gives the 2nd forest without a cast which means I'll certainly be using that one in a rematch. Drycha just has so much potential so she's to good to ignore too so she'll be there too (but she got killed in turn 2 by bastilladon shooting I think, 2 bastilladons, one double shooting hurts. I didn't know he could move and shoot so wasn't out of range as I though I'd be turn 1). I've personally not average more than 1 succesfull summon last games so I'm quite jealous. Partially because failing casts, partially unbinds (that terrible Slann for example) but also lacking good target wyldwoods due to the 9" rule when enemy has engaged.

Yeah for 2020 GHB I think that would be it. In the link I found I didn't see it described but since objectives is still mentioned in the rule that must mean you FIRST pick scenario, then 1 player sets up all terrain (so you can stay away from objectives) and then the other player picks a side and after that the first player (who setup terrain) starts deployment?

Odd post.. it was Nos who was talking about focussing on magic (against coalesced) and me saying it wasn't a good option against that army due to the Slann and it's magical options. Also I didn't focus on magic, I just had 3 casters and no magic specific items which is fairly standard in this army. So how you make that into me saying you should dominate the magic phase (let alone all your assumptions about me and other phases which I don't mention here) and him being right about everything I can't follow since you directly contradict that part of his post. I can accept you saying he's right about the rest but the above is just a plain contradiction.

I think focussing on magic might not be that easy. I had 3 casters and his single +2 and 3x cast and unbind over whole table slann made sure I only got a single spell off my last game against them. Not to mention he killed my 2 wraiths (5 wounds) in 2-3 turns (also the arch rev btw) with his annoying signature spell. I took an all comers list with a bit of everything, 9 hunters, not that much since I didn't know anything about his army and also because I don't often tailor lists in general. As I said, in a rematch I'd try to tailor a bit since the difference in power was significant and I'd go with lots dryads and spites (I don't have that much T revs).

While I agree this should be our good points and I also agree this is what we are paying a lot for I think it's not working very well.. with the high movement values, teleports and a lot of run and charge options spread out over tons of armies it appears others have enough mobility to hit is where they want unless we bunker up in our own zone and move back if they advance... which is totally not acceptable when playing for objectives. This even without taking the strong shooting and MW output some armies have. If 99% of the players here don't have a good win ration - even if it is because they 'play the faction incorrect' as you put it then the faction is not in a good spot. Especially if the other 1% of the competative players ALSO can't do extremely well in tournaments... basicly you said most players over all levels of play don't do well.. which - to me - means the armies isn't in a good place balance wise and thus the issue IS sylvaneth. I'm not sure I get exactly what you mean... but when playing a tournament you NEED to have a single list that can beat everything that it meets on the table. For me the same is mostly true in casual games too: I often don't know which army my opponent will play, either because I don't know the opponent that well or because he has multiple armies. Even IF I know what my opponent plays I prefer not to tailor my army against a specific opponent. I prefer to have a list that is well rounded enough to work a few games against different opponents. Sure I change my lists a bit or a lot depending on what I feel like or based on what playstyle I want at the moment but no real list tailoring. (I'll be tailoring my list for the rematch against that Coalesced Seraphon army with thunderlizard battalion though.. but only because I'm pretty sure that EVEN when I do that I won't win and because my current thoughts are our strongest weapons - the hunters - sufffer a lot from the damage reduction so I'll be going mass infantry with 1D)

I always play all restrictions on top of each other. I think it's : in our territory, more than 6' from objectives and more than 3' from every other terrain feature for the pre game forest. I must have missed the new terrain rules: since when do we place 3 woods (the one in 3 pieces you mean I guess)? I always place terrain in consensus with opponent. Then roll for missions, place objectives, roll off and someone picks a side. Then I place my single wood within limits mentioned above. I know the Seraphon have a different rule which means their terrain piece is placed before table setup.. seems annoying for tournaments though. EDIT: ah googled the new terrain rules.. those help. I guess if we let the GHB 2020 rules not only overrule the GHB 2019 but also the battletome (which is also a possible source for discussion but I think that is the intention), if the rule that it needs to be setup away from enemy territory is really completely gone that helps a lot too. In the link I found I didn't see you place forest first though... I read terrain and then 1' from objectives and 3' from other terrain. Hopefully I can now more regularly place forests.. though enemy movement often limits my placements a lot if I don't get the first turn even if I get the spells off.

I don't see our army do that though. The fact forest are not that easy to place, certainly not in the places you need them AND the fact our teleports like most of them are still @ 9" and most options to get increased charge ranges are magic based and thus extremely unreliable means it's a to unreliable to base a strategy on.. hell lately I've read that even dreadwood based alpha strikes aren't reliable and that is much easier to pull off than what you say every fight we pick should be like. Not to mention lots of armies have quite a good mobility without teleporting so they'll charge us too and nothing we can do about it.