scrubyandwells

We'll see...generally, though, I wish we would focus first on the health of the overall ecosystem, and assess books from that standpoint. From that POV, I think we want books to fall in the "fat middle" — 40%-60% win rate, ideally 45%-55%, while knowing that win rate stats have inherent limitations. Many of the examples given (e.g., Kroak, Nagash, Mortek Guard, Hearthguard), are generally components of builds that are either outside, or the upper bound, of what's "healthy" for the overall environment. I think we want those types of components brought within, or further within, the margins. It just seems more fruitful to assess battletomes through an egalitarian/healthy ecosystem lens, rather than assessing it in relation to its present, over-performing elements, e.g., Kroak/Salamanders/bound endless spells; Horrors/Flamers/Changehost/etc.; Legion of Chaos Ascendant (summoning Horrors every turn on 9+/10+ on 3 dice; Petrifex Elite/Mortek Guard/Nagash; Hearthguard Berzerkers; arguably IDK; arguably Hallowheart; etc. A recent example of this was the new KO book. When it came out, quite a few were expressing that it was terrible from a competitive POV; but most folks weren't viewing that book through the "fat middle" lens. If you look at it from that end of the stick, we're fortunate. In terms of overall strength, the book is generally where it should be, especially relative to certain elements in Seraphon and Tzeentch — two unhealthy examples of what we could've easily had with KO as well.

I think others covered it really well. Reasonable arguments exist on both sides. We need clarity. Definitely recommend emailing AoSFAQ@gwplc.com. In the mean time, personally would err on caution and play as if it is tethered to Sylvaneth Allegiance Abilities.

Yeah it's a good Q that hasn't been 100% clarified. If they do FAQ it, let's hope we can do it. The army is struggling enough as it is. In the meantime, I think we can. A Wyldwood isn't a predatory endless spell, so technically the errata doesn't apply to it. The "spell" part of Verdant Blessing is the Wyldwood itself (otherwise it's incoherent...), so in general, I think the Spellportal works for it.

Thanks man, glad you liked it! We were trying to balance the bad with the good and (hopefully) some constructive ideas. I tend to agree the Treelord should be more durable. It just doesn't have much of a role at the moment, other than contributing to the Stomp Game and providing a free teleport. On the Spellportal, I've been casting Verdant Blessing through it in non-Dreadwood lists. It increases the odds of placing woods, especially in the enemy's territory/deployment in order to apply greater pressure. Doing so might otherwise be difficult with the normal 24" (or 30" with Balewind), since the wizard casting it, at least in my lists, is usually the Branchwraith with Spiritsong Stave and Throne of Vines, who is almost always near the back of my deployment, trying to stack Throne of Vines and stay alive.

This was an excellent batrep, guys! Greatly enjoying your channel. It's awesome to see non-standard lists as well.

Our mileage seems to vary here, and that's fine. I've played since day 1 and have had success with 1x6 Swords, and consider them especially interesting in Dreadwood. Some folks share that view (but not everyone), such as Laurie Huggett-Wilde, who had 1x6 Swords in his list that finished top 5 at multiple majors, including 3rd at the AoS GT Final. If you disagree, though, that's perfectly cool. 1x6 Swords does have some challenges, as noted, so there are tradeoffs.

Here's the math between 1x3 Swords (left) vs 1x3 Scythes (right): 6+ save = 13 damage vs 8.66 damage 5+ = 11.07 vs 8.66 4+ = 9.15 vs 7.22 3+ = 7.22 vs 5.78 2+ = 5.3 vs 4.34 On paper, with the warscroll addition of MW's on 6's to W, Swords do more average damage than Scythes across the board. The primary argument for Scythes is the "on paper" part. In some cases, their 2" reach means they have more ability to both root down for RR saves while staying in range to attack in combat. At the same, in my experience, 1x6 Swords can usually attain the movement and frontage via teleport for all six to be within 1" of their target(s), particularly via Dreadwood, Spiteswarm, Cogs, and/or Warsinger. The challenge is in succeeding rounds: when that larger unit of Swords is still locked in combat, and you need to root them down, which then potentially hampers your ability to keep them within 1" reach with their greatswords. A related problem is keeping 1x6 Swords rooted down in cover in a Wyldwood without sacrificing their ability to stay within that 1" reach. Experienced players will also look for opportunities to tag, or double tag, 1x6 Swords on the corners to further hamper their ability to be in range to attack. In general, though, Swords do more average damage than Scythes, even vs 2+, and can be quite viable in 1x6 with some practice and the right build. They especially shine in Dreadwood since you aren't limited to teleporting wholly within 6" of a Wyldwood.

Definitely appreciate folks' frustrations with the book. With that said, I think the number of "3-2 viable" (i.e. competitive) builds is quite extensive. Dreadwood has always stood out because of its CA and the incredible opportunities it opens up; but if you don't go Dreadwood...if your mobility, board control, capacity to pressure, etc. is going to be more reliant on Wyldwoods, then a few things stand out from personal testing, all of which reflect a bias that Sylvaneth is still best suited toward objective play, controlling space, and being selective about when you look to do damage. 1. While not everyone agrees, I tend to think a TLA is almost a must-have in non-Dreadwood builds. While it's unfortunate it isn't 2-cast/unbind, the fact that it (essentially) guarantees you will have a second Wyldwood on the table, wholly within 18" of it — that fact stabilizes your capacity to play the army/scenario. 2. 1x5/2x5 Tree-Revs continue to have an important place in Sylvaneth lists, especially in objective play, screening at key moments, and keeping opponents' honest. 3. At least 1x30 Dryads also remain invaluable for screening/zoning, staying near an objective and wholly within 6" of your Places of Power pre-deploy Wyldwood (so that they auto-pass battleshock), or applying pressure up-field. When the book came out last year, I didn't fully appreciate the ongoing value of a big unit of Dryads. While it's possible that you could do well with, e.g., a Harvestboon Monster Mash build with multiple Spirit of Durthu's, I think 1x30 Dryads reflects a staple of playing to the strengths of Sylvaneth. 4. Spellportal provides a degree of flexibility, mobility, and opponent-pressure that otherwise isn't possible when a Wyldwood — via Verdant — is limited to wholly within 24" (or even 30" with a Balewind). Casting Verdant through Spellportal enables, e.g., placing a Wyldwood deep in opponent territory, without over-exposing your caster (often a Branchwraith in the backfield, out of harm's way, with Spiritsong Stave + Throne of Vines). Spellportal makes it difficult for opponents to zone out Wyldwood-placement space. It increases the pressure/threat that can be applied, in addition to the 1x5/2x5 Tree-Revs. Of course, right now, a number of top-table builds are excellent at shutting down magic, which affects Wyldwood generation (and further elevates the importance of a TLA), but that's part of the greater risk faced when running non-Dreadwood.

Hi all, Just wanted to start sharing some thoughts on our battletome's (extensive) positives, and some issues that stand out (IMO), beginning with the latter. I'll make additions as time allows. Appreciate any thoughts, differing views, etc. In general, as mentioned before, I think our battletome is mostly reflective of the power level we would want for all battletomes. It's a fair book, with reasonably good internal balance. It's not a "tier 1" battletome, and shouldn't be. Issues: 1. Treelord Ancient remaining a 1-cast/unbind wizard. The lack of 2-cast/unbind on TLA really stood out day 1. It remains a problem, even with its point drop to 260. By comparison, e.g.: a. A Grey Seer on Screaming Bell is 240 with 2-cast/unbind, a 5+ FNP (feel no pain)/DPR (damage prevention roll), and a # of other valuable elements that make it a key cog in many Skaventide lists. b. A Verminlord Warbringer is 280, with 2-cast/unbind, 5+ FNP, an excellent spell, solid combat output, etc. c. An Abhorrant Archregent is 240, with 2-cast/unbind + a CA to summon 130, 170, or 200 points once/game, making it effectively a 110-, 70-, or 40-point equivalent model. Other examples could be given as well (Cities of Sigmar Hallowheart Wizards, Gaunt Summoners at 240/260 that summon 200 points of Horrors, etc.). As one example of the 1-cast impact: A TLA with Regrowth is common, but it has a meaningful built-in spell as well — Awakening the Wood. Since the TLA is 1-cast, though, Regrowth usually takes precedent, so you often won't get to use Awakening the Wood. A 1-cast/unbind TLA exacerbates other issues as well, e.g., it weakens Lords of the Clan battalion builds, which are already on the back foot; and it places greater pressure on keeping a 5W Branchwraith alive with the Spiritsong Stave + Throne of Vines (+ often Balewind Vortex) combo, which gives us a mutli-cast wizard outside of Alarielle. TL:DR — Sylvaneth should have a built-in 2-cast/unbind wizard outside of Alarielle, a 600 point investment. 2. Tree-Revenants still hitting on 4's. 1x5 Tree-Revs at 80 remain valuable for their core utility, e.g.: keeping opponents honest (i.e. not allowing them to leave objs), grabbing an obj (especially late game), and teleporting them in as a key screen/zone. In a 1x5 unit, though, they've always struggled to offer any reliable chip damage in combat. They average ~2.67 damage vs 4+ save (so at times you'll do nothing), or ~3 damage vs 5+ save. (Re: 1x10 for 160 — it's a tough ask in light of how easily they die.) If they were hitting on 3's, however, they'd gain an additional point of total damage on avg via 1x5 in combat. One point of additional damage may not seem like much, but I think it's meaningful, and reasonable. It also makes 1x10 Tree-Revs more attractive as a unit both to take and to actually buff, such as spending a CP (and all CP are precious in Sylvaneth) to give them +1 attack via an Arch-Rev or Harvestboon. One issue is whether 3's to hit would harm the equation of value between 1x5 Spite-Revs at 60 vs 1x5 Tree-Revs at 80. I don't think it would. The 20-point difference between them remains relevant, and 1x5 Spite-Revs would still provide excellent value at 60 points. They're also essential to one of the best (and most utilized) buys in our battletome: 3x5 Spite-Revs + Outcasts battalion at 280 points. Another aspect: 4's to hit feels like a disconnect with the narrative of Tree-Revs. From the battletome: "It is said that their appearance echoes that of the Protectors of ancient days..." They are the warrior caste of the Sylvaneth. They seem synonymous with elite 1W aelven models, like Wildwood Rangers, Sisters of the Watch, Phoenix Guard, Black Guard, and Executioners, all of which hit on 3's. Even Eternal Guard, arguably the most direct comparison, hit on 2's and wound on 3's when not moving (and they shouldn't be moving 😀). More soon...

Hi @Landohammer, thanks for your thoughts! Just following up: 1. Yeah, the book really leans into melee KH. If, e.g., Wyldwoods didn't block our own LoS, I think we'd see both KH Bows and Drycha a little more often (since we wouldn't have to expose them as much), even with KH Bows at 4's to hit in a game with so many ways to make them 5's or even 6's to hit. Previously, Hurricanums probably kept KH Bows at 4's to hit in their base profile. It's possible that CoS Hurricanums are still keeping KH Bows at 4's to hit, since dropping them to 3's means that they could be 2's in CoS, at which point they could be attractive to spam again, similar to how they were spammed in 2016 in Mixed Order. Regardless, from the POV of playing, you know, Sylvaneth, rather than Sylvaneth units in some other faction, KH Bows staying at both 4's to hit and 2 attacks, when Wyldwoods also block our own LoS, was one of the Day One flaws of our 2019 battletome. 2. Yeah my heart wanted Heartwood to be top-table viable when the book came out, but reality quickly got in the way. On Fb, someone had mentioned 20 Irondrakes + a Runelord + Bridge in Ironbark. That would be a meaningful way to add reliable ranged damage, at a decent price, but...a Sylvaneth army with stunties? That's a high price to pay. 3. I've been impressed by the damage output of Winterleaf, but still suspect the lack of meaningful ranged damage may tend to make it fall apart on top tables vs experienced players. Generally, with Winterleaf and Dreadwood, I tend to think we're looking at a few baskets we're trying to cover: a. "Business in the front, party in the back" – a classic pattern in AoS/WHFB, expressed most strongly right now by Seraphon and Tzeentch, where you have your bodies in the front for chaff/screening/zoning/obj scoring (Skinks; Horrors), and you have your damage dealers in the back (Kroak + co + Salamanders; Flamers + Wizards), ideally with at least one teleport, allowing you to put one of your damage dealers in a key spot to deplete or destroy a key target. Other armies can showcase this pattern, such as Skaven and CoS, but I suspect not as well, at the moment, as Seraphon and Tzeentch. As long as Seraphon and Tzeentch players have built enough chaff into their lists to multi-layer screen their damage dealers, and as long as they position well during the game, I tend to think that Winterleaf and Dreadwood builds will have poor exchanges of value against those armies, especially if we're unable to cast spells, like Spiteswarm Hive, which provides such a crucial mobility buff. At the same time, I think these kinds of rock-paper-scissors matchups is another argument in favor of the double turn mechanic, since, in this case, it could open up the potential to break through your opponent's screens and reach one of their critical pieces with one of your hammers. b. Support-synergy-centric – armies centered around the buffs/debuffs of their support pieces, like Fyreslayers, DoK, OBR, and others. Fyreslayers and DoK, in particular, of course, are much more difficult for a melee army to deal with when their heroes, especially their 5-6W heroes, can continue to stay on the board. Same with OBR when 20 Mortek Guard are surrounding a Harvester. c. "Intensify forward firepower!" – KO...and KO. Their own basket. It's possible that, with Spiteswarm Hive and a ton of KH, they wouldn't be able to do enough damage to prevent us from reaching them and doing significant damage in return. Alternatively, we focus on out-scoring on objs, and try to soak up the damage (and our obj points) for as long as we can. d. "My melee out-melees your melee" – IDK, Slaanesh, FEC, Warclans, BCR, Khorne...on paper, this is the one that looks the most even and dependent on generalship. I haven't had enough games vs armies in this basket, but suspect that we have a reasonable shot in most matchups, although it's still unclear if we can get away with builds that don't have a meaningful answer to ASF/ASL.

Greatly enjoyed this batrep! Just subscribed. Would love to see one with the Winterleaf list you guys mentioned.

Hi gang, Just wanted to pop in with some thoughts and Qs. Needed a break from trees after three years (have been playing SCE since last July), so never actually tested the new Sylvaneth book much when it came out; but have gotten some games in with them on TTS recently. Of course it's unclear when tournaments might happen again, but here's some views and Qs from that perspective, which I'd love any opinions on: 1. Sylvaneth's battletome remains one of the most well-balanced from a "healthy ecosystem" POV, i.e., if you take a solid list to a tournament, and you're reasonably experienced, you've got a shot at going 3-2. You could have an outside shot at going 4-1, but 5-0 will be exceptionally rare across the entire ecosystem. I think that's reflective of a "well-balanced" battletome. Unfortunately, from that POV, many other battletomes are not as well-balanced. 2. I think the spread of what Sylvaneth are asked to compete against has never been more challenging. That spread includes: DoK: They remain difficult for traditional reasons, with some new wrinkles, e.g. efficient Scourgerunner Chariots. Generally, you want to be able to snipe a Hag Queen (or two), and, maybe ideally (?), do something about the Cauldron buff machine, the frequent cornerstone of DoK builds. Morathi can also be challenging, e.g., the potential to tie up your shooting (if you have shooting) for a number of rounds, forcing their shots into her. OBR: With the caveat of not having faced them yet, I imagine Nagash is a difficult matchup. More broadly, I think you must be able to snipe at least one Petrifex Harvester (with a 3+ save, possibly RR 1's), since Sylvaneth won't do much vs Mortek Guard if it's nearby. And if you have to be able to kill a Harvester, you probably must be able to first snipe a Mortisan Boneshaper, which could heal 3 wounds on a Harvester each round. Sylvaneth's mobility and capacity to concentrate power can help vs OBR, but I suspect if you can't kill a Harvester, you'll be in for a bad day. Fyreslayers: Unfortunately, if you're staring down two or three bricks of under-costed x20 Hearthguard Berzerkers (HGB), in Hermdar, you probably have to be able to "Just shoot the heroes" (or at least snipe a key hero at a key time next to x20 HGB). At the same time, you may need some semblance of an answer to Hermdar's ASF and double activation on a brick of x20 HGB. Hoping you roll a 4+ on a Groundshaking Stomp doesn't seem like a great answer, or even hoping you roll a 4+ on two Stomp attempts, assuming you can set up the opportunity. IDK: Still difficult for traditional reasons, similar to DoK. I think Ishlaen Guard also remain undervalued, especially with a Turtle for a 3+ ignore rend save (potentially RR 1's in combat), as an anvil anchor for an army that can still fit 2x6 Morrsarr Guard and other goodies. As always, Idoneth have phenomenal mobility and capacity to concentrate power, even without relying on a Soulscryer, along with their MW shocks that can, e.g., potentially turn off a Spirit of Durthu's 6D before he gets to swing. Dreadwood CA, Verdant Spellportal, and/or Tree-Revs could be critical for mobility, especially to get around boats blocking off space. I suspect Sylvaneth could be fairly competitive vs IDK, with good play, but they still seem tough to deal with. KO: The list that I've faced the most (with SCE...no games yet vs KO with trees) runs a Dirigible Suit Endrinmaster, Aether-Khemist, 3x6 Endrinriggers, 2x10 Thunderers, 1x10 Arkanaut Co, and 2 Frigates. Essentially the entire army can fly high and focus a tremendous amount of firepower from just within 24", with a lot of -1 rend, -2 rend, and multiple damage. Of course, flyers ignore LoS on Awakened Wyldwoods. That could be a problem. Seraphon: At the moment, I'm leaning toward certain Seraphon Starborne builds being the strongest, or among the strongest, in the game, but no one knows it yet other than TTS players (...a lot of experienced players are playing on TTS). I think they're a hard counter for melee Sylvaneth builds, and probably do just as well vs shooting builds, including Heartwood, given Seraphon's capacity to spam ranged MWs. The footprint of Starborne builds is similar to past powerful lists: "Mooclan" in 2016 (Thundertusks throwing 6MW snowballs + Grot spam for screens/objs), multiple iterations of Tzeentch across 2017-2018 (Skyfires, Changehost), Skaven in 2019 with multiple units being undercosted, and now Tzeentch again this year. Slaanesh: As far as I can tell, White Dwarf Slaanesh bypasses the toning-down of depravity generation that happened via the Dec 2019 FAQ. Kurnoth are amazing sources of depravity, so it could be difficult to win the long game vs Slaanesh, especially if you can't threaten their heroes from distance. With that said, I haven't played against Slaanesh with trees; but on paper, this looks like another matchup where you'd like to have some ranged threat. Alternatively, maybe Sylvaneth has melee builds that can go toe-to-toe with Slaanesh? FEC: This one feels similar to Slaanesh. The Chalice remains a critical piece of FEC's durability, so if you don't wipe out entirely that unit of 40 Ghouls or Gristlegore Ghoul King on Terrorgheist, they could be coming back fully (or almost fully) restored. Again, another one where, on paper, you'd like to have some ranged damage, and you almost definitely need the ability to kill a 10-body Ghoul screen without sacrificing something important of your own. Plenty of other matchups could be challenging, but those are among the ones that stand out personally. 3. In terms of competing against the above matchups, it often appears that you'd like to have 1) some meaningful ranged damage capacity, and 2) some ability to answer the ASF/ASL Q, when it arises. (Maybe I'm misreading #1 and/or #2?) In that regard, when first reviewing the book last year, two things jumped out: a) A personal desire for Heartwood to be among the most competitive, since it presented the chance to play "combined arms." In light of Wyldwoods blocking our own LoS (entailing that Kurnoth Bows and other shooters must be more exposed), the nature of Look Out, Sir!, the greater prevalence of -1 to hit (and stacking it for -2), and the amount of higher durability, I'm not that confident that combined-arms Heartwood is an actual choice for top-end play. b) Dreadwood's CA as arguably the strongest element in the book, providing incredible mobility that both bypasses Wyldwoods and pairs effectively with Spiteswarm Hive, allowing you to teleport a threat piece anywhere and have the chance to get a 6+ charge with a CP RR. "A" was the hope that Sylvaneth could compete in a fashion similar to how they began in 2016: a combined arms build with a blend of some magic, some shooting, some melee, and some mobility. I'm not confident that hope reflects reality. "B" was the potential reality that Sylvaneth, represented by the strengths of the Dreadwood CA and the core elements of Winterleaf, had become an army that would now focus primarily on combat as the means of trying to compete on top tables. 4. With all of that in mind, at the moment I'm struggling to square this seemingly round hole: A clear strength of Sylvaneth is melee, but the faction is staring down the barrel of a number of matchups where a dominant melee focus doesn't appear to be the answer, and the faction's ranged damage options are...limited, to put it mildly. Hopefully this ramble wasn't too rambly. Would love to hear your thoughts. I'll follow up with another post on some of the current lists getting tested out.

Thanks! Would you care to get the approximate width x length dimensions? And if you have a second one, would be great to see some photos of what's possible with up to 6 of the "Citadel Woods models," to use their updated terminology, where 1 of the new Awakened Wyldwood kits consists of 3 Citadel Woods models.

Thanks to everyone who responded re: favorite AoS Pitched Battles. Here's the rankings for 2016-2018 and 2019 battleplans. Of course we have less experience w/ 2019's, so we'll see how opinions evolve. 2016-2018: 2018: Focal Points - 13 (36.1%) 2016: Border War - 12 (33.3%) 2017: Starstrike - 11 (30.6%) 2016: Blood and Glory - 10 (27.8%) 2018: The Better Part of Valour (with no burning objs round 1) - 8 (22.2%) 2017: Scorched Earth (with no burning objs round 1) - 8 (22.2%) 2016: Three Places of Power - 8 (22.2%) 2017: Battle for the Pass (long way deployment) - 7 (19.4%) 2017: Duality of Death - 7 (19.4%) 2016: Escalation (with updated rules) - 7 (19.4%) 2016: Gifts from the Heavens - 7 (19.4%) 2018: Places of Arcane Power - 5 (13.9%) 2018: Shifting Objectives (long way deployment) - 5 (13.9%) 2016: Take and Hold - 5 (13.9%) 2017: Knife to the Heart - 4 (11.1%) 2018: Total Commitment - 3 (8.3%) 2017: Total Conquest - 2 (5.6%) 2018: The Relocation Orb - 1 (2.8%) 2019: 2019: Places of Arcane Power - 26 (72.2%) 2019: Shifting Objectives - 26 (72.2%) 2019: Duality of Death - 25 (69.4%) 2019: Starstrike - 25 (69.4%) 2019: Total Conquest - 24 (66.7%) 2019: Scorched Earth (long way deployment) - 23 (63.9%) 2019: Battle for the Pass (long way deployment) - 22 (61.1%) 2019: The Better Part of Valour (long way deployment) - 22 (61.1%) 2019: Focal Points - 22 (61.1%) 2019: Knife to the Heart - 20 (55.6%) 2019: Total Commitment - 20 (55.6%) 2019: The Relocation Orb - 18 (50%)

Based on the data so far, quite a few folks are still fans of Border War and Blood & Glory, for example, among others. Appreciate the view, though! Hopefully this survey will be helpful.

Hi all, if you were a TO, which of the 30 AoS Pitched Battles would be in your top *12* for Matched Play tournament consideration? Please submit your response here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdkRKwzx20FHY8tAkBnTCMR8GUpYjD4lUCEnUHASaCwUX3Xpg/viewform?usp=sf_link Results will be shared once we have a good number of responses. Thanks!

"Start of phase" order is determined by who has the turn. The person with the turn does all of their "start of phase" abilities first, then their opponent does theirs, if they still can.

Check out Sound the War Plums for competitive AoS coverage: YouTube channel The channel streamed the Flying Monkey AoS GT this past weekend. It's new and still working out the kinks, but it's off to a solid start.

Forest Folk looks reasonably compelling, especially in a low drop list w/ a TLA to get at least one reliable Wyldwood out and bunker some Dryads in it, a la old-school Sylvaneth. The retreat-and-still-charge ability could come into play a fair amount. Opens up pinball options for greater mobility outside of our now more limited teleport. And a unit of 20-30 Dryads w/ +1A from Arch-Rev and other buffs (e.g. Winterleaf, etc.) could do a lot of work in combat. Not as high on Lords of the Clan at the moment, since two TLAs is one too many IMO. You don't get two auto-Wyldwoods from two TLA -- just one. The extra stomp can be nice, but it's 600pts into 2 models that don't tend to do much in shooting or combat.

Of course, 120 Spite-Revenants in double Outcasts for 1,400pts seems like a good competitive answer, but spam is tasteless to most folks for a reason.

Yeah been having this debate locally. If not doing Heartwood Bows for ranged damage vs FEC, Khorne, Slaanesh, Daughters, Idoneth, Fyreslayers, etc., or generally having ranged damage vs Activation Wars and powerful combat units, then we're relying on Groundshaking Stomp, all else equal. And if we're investing a lot into individual models (Durthu, TLA, Treelords), that's reducing our model count and potential ability to compete in scenarios w/ lots of objectives (e.g. Better Part of Valour and the new Scorched Earth). If we're not doing 3-4 drop and playing like we used to (getting woods out and bunkering on objs), then we need to be able to do enough damage, quickly, to catch back up on objs (in a # of scenarios) later in the game, since many opponents will have gone first and bunkered. We also need to be able to survive a strong alpha strike, since opponents out-dropping us could go first and try to pin us in our deployment zone, while they're scoring objs. Thankfully our damage output potential has gone up considerably, but I'm still not sure whether to focus on Stomps vs Activation Wars, or meaningful long-range damage (Heartwood Bows), and then balancing that ranged damage with some combat punch (in that regard, I like Heartwood's RR 1's to hit and wound CA + combined w/ Arch-Rev's +1A for a unit).

Yeah that's a good point, thanks. Just generally meant we're going to be more constrained than we were in Sylvaneth 1.0.

Apart from the pre-deployment one, Wyldwoods must be 1" from the center of objectives, as well as 1" away from terrain and models, as normal. The 1"-from-center-of-objectives requirement isn't minimal, since Wyldwoods can now only be placed as a ring, instead of the myriad ways we could place them previously.

Brendan Melnick and I started talking a couple years ago about potential supplementary awards for AoS events. In particular, we were interested in awards for "casually competitive" players: folks who enjoy going to events but who also enjoy playing non-optimal builds, or generally uncommon armies, for a variety of reasons. Those discussions led to Brendan ironing out the kinks for two awards that he's been offering at Brew City Brawl: The Sigmar Hardmode Award (AKA the "Special Snowflake"): Eligible for players that finish at least 3-2 with an army that is both unique and challenging to win with. Assessing the winner can be done in different ways. Brew City, e.g., has a small, private group of trusted voters who make the final selection. (Sidenote: We were thrilled to see @domus and AoS Coach add a similar award to Midwest Meltdown and Sydney GT respectively.) The Big 3 Award: At Brew City, the Big 3 is awarded to the player with the highest total score whose list includes only 3 Leaders, in addition to the rest of their 2K list. Of those 3 Leaders, 2 must be Unique and 2 must be Behemoth. (Thus 1 must be a Unique Behemoth Leader.) Of course, some armies can't meet those requirements, but as a supplementary award, I think it's OK if it has some exclusions. Different parameters could be set for both awards as well. The Big 3, e.g., could be reoriented to make it more broadly accessible. (In that regard, @Ben Johnson was part of our original inspiration, in light of his well-known love of running at least 3 Behemoths.) However, I think Brendan ended up with the limitations that he set for the Big 3, in part because it's not that usual nowadays to see lists running 3+ Terrorgheists, Bloodthirsters, Keeper of Secrets, and so on. Recently, he and I have been discussing another possible award. At tournaments, it's common to see lists that duplicate the same warscroll: 18 Morrsarr Guard, 60+ Witch Aelves, 60+ Dryads, etc. We thought it'd be cool to have an award eligible for players who bring faction armies that better reflect the variety of that faction's model range. We don't have a name worked out yet, and would love to hear any suggestions; but here's some early thoughts on one potential spec. The award could be eligible to players with a faction-specific list that includes: a minimum of 4 Leaders and 6 Non-Leaders no duplicate warscrolls, unless the faction has 2 or less Battleline/Battleline If options, in which case you can duplicate that faction's Battleline/Battleline If, up to 3 total Battleline in your list (note that a duplicate warscroll still only counts as 1 warscroll toward your minimum 6 Non-Leaders) allies limited to Heroes only (e.g., this allows factions without Wizards to add them as allies) #3 could be removed possibly i.e. no extra restrictions on allies The above excludes some factions that have a small range (e.g., Ironjawz), but most of the ranges are eligible. Here's an example of a 2K list under the above conditions: Leaders Aether-Khemist (160) Arkanaut Admiral (120) Aetheric Navigator (80) Endrinmaster (120) Battleline 10 x Arkanaut Company (120) 10 x Arkanaut Company (120) 10 x Arkanaut Company (120) Units 6 x Endrinriggers (240) 6 x Skywardens (240) 5 x Grundstok Thunderers (100) War Machines Arkanaut Ironclad (420) Grundstok Gunhauler (160) Total: 2000 / 2000 The above has 4 Leaders and 6 Non-Leaders, with the duplicate Arkanaut Company only counted as 1 warscroll toward the minimum 6 Non-Leaders. In terms of competitiveness, some factions will be able to build lists with excellent variety that are stronger on the table than the variety lists of other factions. That's inevitable, and perfectly cool. (On average, though, lists will tend to be less optimal.) The main goal here is just to have an incentive and award for players drawn toward collecting and experiencing a faction on the table that more broadly reflects the faction's model range. So that's one potential spec for another award to go along with Sigmar Hardmode and the Big 3. It probably has some kinks, and other specs might be better. Would love to hear any thoughts on the above, or other potential supplementary awards for AoS events.

Sorry for double post. Still no way to delete posts?