Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I noticed that since I got sylvaneth nobody wants to play with forest scenery. I recently hat a talk with my best friend (who also plays AoS), and we both came to the conclusion that for most people "forest" and "sylvaneth wyldwood" are the same.

Both my friend and I agree that...

1. ... a table full of "wyldwoods" would be unfair, but you could always use those woods as generic scenery and roll for what they do.

2. ... 1 wyldwood would not be too much of an advantage, but it always depends on where it is placed.

3. ... you could always say: "I get my wyldwood, you get your pick of a piece of scenery". But we only know of one other piece of scenery that favours only one single army/faction (garden of morr).


As both of us think it's strange for sylvaneth to never fight in forest environments (because everyone thinks its an "unfair advantage"), I wanted to ask how you guys play basic forests vs. wyldwoods with sylvaneth.

I would play it that the forests that are on the table are just forest and need to roll for terrain, except for the one the sylvaneth player can place at the start of the game and any he summons. That way the other forests dont give the sylvaneth player an unfaire advantage