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.

Hi,

I am thinking about adding either Wild Raiders or Sisters of Thorn to my army. Which of them is better for competitive gameplay?

All best,

Both are good. Depends on what you need. But since both are good, it's not a bad idea to take both.

Wild Riders hit like a brick and counter other fast monsterous infantry. Sisters are by far the best Bunker unit we have. Pick to taste.

Competitive Wood Elves require both.

The standard set-up is 21 wild riders and 8 sisters.

The 8 sisters house a level 4 death mage on steed, and a BSB with the HoD arrow on a steed.

The army needs the Wild Riders to rack up the big points.

21 Wild Raiders in one big block?

gausus wrote:
21 Wild Raiders in one big block?

Three units of 7.

It really depends on your meta, or more specifically on how games are to be scored.

In a 20-0 system I would say that thedarkavenger here has a point. Wild riders are probably the best way for WE to rack up big points in a hurry. 21 seems a bit excessive, but I can see that being a decent build.

Generally speaking though, the purpose of wild riders is to "finish off" things that your shooting has whittled down. It's easy to cripple things with WE shooting but you'll often find that you want something running around mopping up those crippled units to earn their point. Enter Wild Riders.

Sisters, meanwhile are a bunker unit. With a 4++ they're surprisingly durable. Throw MR(2+) on there and they become basically immune to magic missiles (the bane of elves). If you have a level 4 on high magic to boot then that unit becomes nigh invincible.

The most competitive wood elf build I've seen was something like: 3 units of 10 glade riders filling out core, a unit of 10 sisters with two level 4s and a BSB in it, an eagle, a unit of wild riders, and two units of 8 waywatchers. It will never fight you, the bus is nigh invincible and protects an immense amount of points, and unless you're very well schooled in fighting it the WE player will just dance around you whittling down points until you have nothing left.

The best wood elf build is:
Level 4 death with a scroll and/or MR2(can't recall item types.) on a steed.

BSB on steed with HoD.

3 units of trueflight glade guard.

Cheap glade riders to fill out core.

3 units of 7 wild riders with standards and musicians.

8 sisters of the thorn with full command and the gleaming pennant.

Warhawks to provide a screen for the glade guard.

How large should the Glade Guard and Glade Riders units be?

gausus wrote:
How large should the Glade Guard and Glade Riders units be?

10 glade guard with trueflight, a standard and a musician.

Either 5 glade riders with a musician, or 10 with a standard, musician and hagbane.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The best wood elf build is:
Level 4 death with a scroll and/or MR2(can't recall item types.) on a steed.

BSB on steed with HoD.

3 units of trueflight glade guard.

Cheap glade riders to fill out core.

3 units of 7 wild riders with standards and musicians.

8 sisters of the thorn with full command and the gleaming pennant.

Warhawks to provide a screen for the glade guard.

This list is only the "best" if you're considering it in terms of sportsmanship points as well as battle points. In terms of pure tabletop effectiveness the all-cav avoidance list is way more powerful, as evidenced by basically every ETC wood elf list being exactly the same.

I'd also be more afraid of dual level 4s than an additional unit of wild riders, in some combination of shadow/dark/high/metal/death. Each has their own tools that they bring to the army. High makes the bus invincible. Shadow helps shooting and debuffs, plus ranged removal with pit. Metal helps with armour-spam, that WE shooting doesn't like (especially if you don't have waywatchers). Dark is just a very powerful lore. Death is kind of overrated, but makes for a strong choice nonetheless.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The best wood elf build is:
Level 4 death with a scroll and/or MR2(can't recall item types.) on a steed.

BSB on steed with HoD.

3 units of trueflight glade guard.

Cheap glade riders to fill out core.

3 units of 7 wild riders with standards and musicians.

8 sisters of the thorn with full command and the gleaming pennant.

Warhawks to provide a screen for the glade guard.

This list is only the "best" if you're considering it in terms of sportsmanship points as well as battle points. In terms of pure tabletop effectiveness the all-cav avoidance list is way more powerful, as evidenced by basically every ETC wood elf list being exactly the same.

I'd also be more afraid of dual level 4s than an additional unit of wild riders, in some combination of shadow/dark/high/metal/death. Each has their own tools that they bring to the army. High makes the bus invincible. Shadow helps shooting and debuffs, plus ranged removal with pit. Metal helps with armour-spam, that WE shooting doesn't like (especially if you don't have waywatchers). Dark is just a very powerful lore. Death is kind of overrated, but makes for a strong choice nonetheless.

That makes it painfully obvious you've never played anything outside of tournaments where sportsmanship is a major score factor.

The build I've listed is the ETC build.

The all cav list is good, and I use it myself, but it isn't the best. It's a large chunk of your army that may not even show up for the game. Which makes it inherently weaker.

The consensus from the better wood elf players is that 30 trueflight is the best core setup in the book as they're cheap, have a small footprint, and can function as chaff.

The list I suggested has 9 chaff drops. Which means that the main threat of the army can be where it's needed.

And the most of the actual 2014 wood elf etc lists were a variation on the list I submitted with only 5 of 13 being all cav. Have a gander: http://raffazza.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/micro-3-wood-elves-at-etc.html

The triple glade guard list is very much the netlist as it allows the opponent to get very little points outside of the bunker, something that the all cav list does not do. And the ambush adds an element that you can't control to the game. The standard list is very much unsporting in comparison to the all cav glade guard list, which is why all the good wood elf players use it.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The best wood elf build is:
Level 4 death with a scroll and/or MR2(can't recall item types.) on a steed.

BSB on steed with HoD.

3 units of trueflight glade guard.

Cheap glade riders to fill out core.

3 units of 7 wild riders with standards and musicians.

8 sisters of the thorn with full command and the gleaming pennant.

Warhawks to provide a screen for the glade guard.

This list is only the "best" if you're considering it in terms of sportsmanship points as well as battle points. In terms of pure tabletop effectiveness the all-cav avoidance list is way more powerful, as evidenced by basically every ETC wood elf list being exactly the same.

I'd also be more afraid of dual level 4s than an additional unit of wild riders, in some combination of shadow/dark/high/metal/death. Each has their own tools that they bring to the army. High makes the bus invincible. Shadow helps shooting and debuffs, plus ranged removal with pit. Metal helps with armour-spam, that WE shooting doesn't like (especially if you don't have waywatchers). Dark is just a very powerful lore. Death is kind of overrated, but makes for a strong choice nonetheless.

That makes it painfully obvious you've never played anything outside of tournaments where sportsmanship is a major score factor.

The build I've listed is the ETC build.

The all cav list is good, and I use it myself, but it isn't the best. It's a large chunk of your army that may not even show up for the game. Which makes it inherently weaker.

The consensus from the better wood elf players is that 30 trueflight is the best core setup in the book as they're cheap, have a small footprint, and can function as chaff.

The list I suggested has 9 chaff drops. Which means that the main threat of the army can be where it's needed.

And the most of the actual 2014 wood elf etc lists were a variation on the list I submitted with only 5 of 13 being all cav. Have a gander: http://raffazza.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/micro-3-wood-elves-at-etc.html

The triple glade guard list is very much the netlist as it allows the opponent to get very little points outside of the bunker, something that the all cav list does not do. And the ambush adds an element that you can't control to the game. The standard list is very much unsporting in comparison to the all cav glade guard list, which is why all the good wood elf players use it.

Ha! You're right that I don't play much outside of tournaments / tournament practice anymore. It's kind of the nature of my meta...that simply being the bulk of the games available. That said, the last time I faced that WE cav avoidance list at a tournament he ended up with Best General and a zero for sportsmanship.

I will admit that the ETC lists look a lot more like your list than mine. Forgot how many wild riders people brought out. Jesus. However I also forgot (until I struggled to find the rules pack on google) how close the new book was to the due date for lists. People really hadn't had much time to play around with the book by the time lists were due. Over here in North America I've seen some pretty significant development in the local WE lists since then. People switching from hagbane to trueflight, playing around with lores.

The reason I say that the all-cav list is the best is because it's so mobile and flexible that a truly skilled player has all the tools necessary to be truly and utterly savage with it. Foot archers are better on paper, but they're slower and can be caught. Glade guard ambush behind you in the weakest point of your lines and knock out easy points, then dance around your ability to return fire.


That said, I will add the disclaimer that this is primarily in an uncomped, WLD meta. In Swedish 20-0 I have not seen them performing as well, and we do not play ETC at all here. However I know that there will be several players at the US masters running the WE, including the all-cav player who is the top-ranked WE player in my meta, so it will be interesting to see how things go. I've talked a lot of smack about how a Canadian is going to be the US Master, so I'm really hoping he pulls it out for us

I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
The best wood elf build is:
Level 4 death with a scroll and/or MR2(can't recall item types.) on a steed.

BSB on steed with HoD.

3 units of trueflight glade guard.

Cheap glade riders to fill out core.

3 units of 7 wild riders with standards and musicians.

8 sisters of the thorn with full command and the gleaming pennant.

Warhawks to provide a screen for the glade guard.

That makes it painfully obvious you've never played anything outside of tournaments where sportsmanship is a major score factor.

The build I've listed is the ETC build.

The all cav list is good, and I use it myself, but it isn't the best. It's a large chunk of your army that may not even show up for the game. Which makes it inherently weaker.

The consensus from the better wood elf players is that 30 trueflight is the best core setup in the book as they're cheap, have a small footprint, and can function as chaff.

The list I suggested has 9 chaff drops. Which means that the main threat of the army can be where it's needed.

And the most of the actual 2014 wood elf etc lists were a variation on the list I submitted with only 5 of 13 being all cav. Have a gander: http://raffazza.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/micro-3-wood-elves-at-etc.html

The triple glade guard list is very much the netlist as it allows the opponent to get very little points outside of the bunker, something that the all cav list does not do. And the ambush adds an element that you can't control to the game. The standard list is very much unsporting in comparison to the all cav glade guard list, which is why all the good wood elf players use it.

Your list is illegal for ETC, too many comp choices.

As for the OP's question, on a personal opinion;

1. Wild Riders are effective for either acting as a deterrent to protect your gunline, or being used as a glass cannon on the charge, they do not suit static combat resolution.

2. Sisters are an effective unit to protect your characters by parking them in it, while having 2 support spells that augment your army's defensive capabilities.

As with all competitive lists, your decision on which will be the better unit depends on what you feel the meta will be.

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

You fix that in WLD by crafting good scenario objectives, which can iron out all sorts of unpleasant playstyles. Moreso than 20-0, which skews the meta towards a certain style of hyper-aggressive list. I've played lots of 20-0 for Swedish and lots of scenario-based WLD and will take the second over the first any day.

Re: the cav list, it's definitely not something everyone can be successful with. One mistake and you're toast. No mistakes and it's the most infuriating game of warhammer your opponent will ever play. We call it the "chinese finger trap," because you just get snared up in it and the harder you fight it the worse things get for you.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

You fix that in WLD by crafting good scenario objectives, which can iron out all sorts of unpleasant playstyles. Moreso than 20-0, which skews the meta towards a certain style of hyper-aggressive list. I've played lots of 20-0 for Swedish and lots of scenario-based WLD and will take the second over the first any day.

Re: the cav list, it's definitely not something everyone can be successful with. One mistake and you're toast. No mistakes and it's the most infuriating game of warhammer your opponent will ever play. We call it the "chinese finger trap," because you just get snared up in it and the harder you fight it the worse things get for you.

The scenarios aren't a fix, they're a coat of paint on top of a glaring crack. You can get around that by making a list that claims scenario points and still gets a minimum win. It's why the 15-5-0 system works as a medium between the two.


As for the cav list, you're still missing one overlying point. It isn't the best as you can play a perfect game without the glade riders ever turning up. And that inherently makes it a worse list that does the exact same thing, but starts with the whole list on the board.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

You fix that in WLD by crafting good scenario objectives, which can iron out all sorts of unpleasant playstyles. Moreso than 20-0, which skews the meta towards a certain style of hyper-aggressive list. I've played lots of 20-0 for Swedish and lots of scenario-based WLD and will take the second over the first any day.

Re: the cav list, it's definitely not something everyone can be successful with. One mistake and you're toast. No mistakes and it's the most infuriating game of warhammer your opponent will ever play. We call it the "chinese finger trap," because you just get snared up in it and the harder you fight it the worse things get for you.

The scenarios aren't a fix, they're a coat of paint on top of a glaring crack. You can get around that by making a list that claims scenario points and still gets a minimum win. It's why the 15-5-0 system works as a medium between the two.


As for the cav list, you're still missing one overlying point. It isn't the best as you can play a perfect game without the glade riders ever turning up. And that inherently makes it a worse list that does the exact same thing, but starts with the whole list on the board.

Allowing minimum wins is exactly the point, in that it allows for players to focus on claiming objective points and denying the same to their opponents. 20-0 you're just push, push, push, push. 6-dice final trans, 6-dice purple sun, all in an attempt to score as many points as possible. Scenarios and objectives create more moving parts to be concerned about. Even if you're losing you can still battle out over denying your opponent objectives and trying to secure your own. The win becomes only one part of a much more involved game.

Note that I'm not just talking about "the winner is whoever holds the watchtower." I mean 10-5-0 for a WLD, 5 points for completing the secondary objective (kill enemy general, keep your highest level wizard alive, etc.), and up to 5 points for completing the tertiary objective (table quarters, holding objective markers, moving units off your opponent's board edge, etc.). That means that it's possible to get as many points for a loss with all objectives as for a win with none.

And what's wrong with minimum wins? Close games are more fun for both players than blowouts.


As for the cav list, I think you're also missing the point I'm trying to make. Infantry units can be caught. A good general should never lose his glade riders. They may earn less, but they also give up less. If you beat your opponent by 2,500 to 1,000 or 1,500 to 0 it's the same result.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

You fix that in WLD by crafting good scenario objectives, which can iron out all sorts of unpleasant playstyles. Moreso than 20-0, which skews the meta towards a certain style of hyper-aggressive list. I've played lots of 20-0 for Swedish and lots of scenario-based WLD and will take the second over the first any day.

Re: the cav list, it's definitely not something everyone can be successful with. One mistake and you're toast. No mistakes and it's the most infuriating game of warhammer your opponent will ever play. We call it the "chinese finger trap," because you just get snared up in it and the harder you fight it the worse things get for you.

The scenarios aren't a fix, they're a coat of paint on top of a glaring crack. You can get around that by making a list that claims scenario points and still gets a minimum win. It's why the 15-5-0 system works as a medium between the two.


As for the cav list, you're still missing one overlying point. It isn't the best as you can play a perfect game without the glade riders ever turning up. And that inherently makes it a worse list that does the exact same thing, but starts with the whole list on the board.

Allowing minimum wins is exactly the point, in that it allows for players to focus on claiming objective points and denying the same to their opponents. 20-0 you're just push, push, push, push. 6-dice final trans, 6-dice purple sun, all in an attempt to score as many points as possible. Scenarios and objectives create more moving parts to be concerned about. Even if you're losing you can still battle out over denying your opponent objectives and trying to secure your own. The win becomes only one part of a much more involved game.

Note that I'm not just talking about "the winner is whoever holds the watchtower." I mean 10-5-0 for a WLD, 5 points for completing the secondary objective (kill enemy general, keep your highest level wizard alive, etc.), and up to 5 points for completing the tertiary objective (table quarters, holding objective markers, moving units off your opponent's board edge, etc.). That means that it's possible to get as many points for a loss with all objectives as for a win with none.

And what's wrong with minimum wins? Close games are more fun for both players than blowouts.


As for the cav list, I think you're also missing the point I'm trying to make. Infantry units can be caught. A good general should never lose his glade riders. They may earn less, but they also give up less. If you beat your opponent by 2,500 to 1,000 or 1,500 to 0 it's the same result.

You've not been playing 20-0 well then. If you're playing a list that is vulnerable to those kind of spells, then you're not playing the right list for that kind of event.

The entire reason that most skilled players lost interest in WLD is the fact that games devolved into the following process:
1- Player A gets the minimum win, then spends the remainder of the game backing off.
2- Player B spends the rest of the game trying to catch player A, let alone trying to get points. (Case in hand, the Dark Elf pure fast cav list ruins people in WLD.)

As for the cav list, you've failed to grasp it again. Your Glade Riders have a 33.3% of failing to turn up EVERY turn. So that's a 19.98% chance of the bulk of your army not showing up for the entire game. And that makes for a glaring weakness in the list.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
I have a feeling that I know which wood elf player you're referring to, and whilst he is doing well with that style of list, it's not something that everyone can play. In a WLD system it does well, but that's because you have a set margin to get the points for to get the win.

A 20-0 system is completely different, as you have to push for the points to get the win, which sounds painfully obvious, but for the all glade rider list, that's hard to achieve. As you have no control over the dice rolls for when the bulk of your army arrives. i find the 20-0 to be a superior system as it doesn't encourage minimum wins to win a tournament.


As for the 30 glade guard, yes they're static, but with the way the army plays, nothing should get to them, as you have about 6 drops before you have to place them and the sisters, which are the real threats in the list.

You fix that in WLD by crafting good scenario objectives, which can iron out all sorts of unpleasant playstyles. Moreso than 20-0, which skews the meta towards a certain style of hyper-aggressive list. I've played lots of 20-0 for Swedish and lots of scenario-based WLD and will take the second over the first any day.

Re: the cav list, it's definitely not something everyone can be successful with. One mistake and you're toast. No mistakes and it's the most infuriating game of warhammer your opponent will ever play. We call it the "chinese finger trap," because you just get snared up in it and the harder you fight it the worse things get for you.

The scenarios aren't a fix, they're a coat of paint on top of a glaring crack. You can get around that by making a list that claims scenario points and still gets a minimum win. It's why the 15-5-0 system works as a medium between the two.


As for the cav list, you're still missing one overlying point. It isn't the best as you can play a perfect game without the glade riders ever turning up. And that inherently makes it a worse list that does the exact same thing, but starts with the whole list on the board.

Allowing minimum wins is exactly the point, in that it allows for players to focus on claiming objective points and denying the same to their opponents. 20-0 you're just push, push, push, push. 6-dice final trans, 6-dice purple sun, all in an attempt to score as many points as possible. Scenarios and objectives create more moving parts to be concerned about. Even if you're losing you can still battle out over denying your opponent objectives and trying to secure your own. The win becomes only one part of a much more involved game.

Note that I'm not just talking about "the winner is whoever holds the watchtower." I mean 10-5-0 for a WLD, 5 points for completing the secondary objective (kill enemy general, keep your highest level wizard alive, etc.), and up to 5 points for completing the tertiary objective (table quarters, holding objective markers, moving units off your opponent's board edge, etc.). That means that it's possible to get as many points for a loss with all objectives as for a win with none.

And what's wrong with minimum wins? Close games are more fun for both players than blowouts.


As for the cav list, I think you're also missing the point I'm trying to make. Infantry units can be caught. A good general should never lose his glade riders. They may earn less, but they also give up less. If you beat your opponent by 2,500 to 1,000 or 1,500 to 0 it's the same result.

You've not been playing 20-0 well then. If you're playing a list that is vulnerable to those kind of spells, then you're not playing the right list for that kind of event.

The entire reason that most skilled players lost interest in WLD is the fact that games devolved into the following process:
1- Player A gets the minimum win, then spends the remainder of the game backing off.
2- Player B spends the rest of the game trying to catch player A, let alone trying to get points. (Case in hand, the Dark Elf pure fast cav list ruins people in WLD.)

As for the cav list, you've failed to grasp it again. Your Glade Riders have a 33.3% of failing to turn up EVERY turn. So that's a 19.98% chance of the bulk of your army not showing up for the entire game. And that makes for a glaring weakness in the list.

If they're backing away from you then they're easy to push off of objectives. The whole point of WLD is that winning itself is only one of several goals. It encourages tighter games and more flexible lists, rather than hyper-aggressive dick-kicker lists where you're just push-push-push all the time.

It's also a more interesting way to impose comp restrictions than a hard-comp system like ETC, or a system like Swedish that everyone just breaks in exactly the same way. "Objectives cannot be held by fast cav" or "only units that generate fortitude can capture" fundamentally changes the sorts of armies people will consider bringing. Placing those objectives after deployment, and on your opponent's side of the board only, can discourage castling. It's a much more interesting and flexible system, which is diminished if too much emphasis is put on hammering your opponent into the ground instead.

The core premise of WLD is that a hard-fought battle between two evenly matched opponents that results in a 100-point victory is more engaging than a blowout 2,500-0 win over a new player, and the latter not award drastically more points than the former. And you can always play around with the margin of victory if 100 points is too tight.


As for the Glade Riders, I'm not sure if your math is right there. The odds of a Glade Rider unit failing to show by a given turn is: 33.3% turn two (1/3), 11.1% turn three (1/3x1/3), 3.7% turn four (1/3x1/3x1/3), 1.2% turn five(1/3x1/3x1/3x1/3), and 0.1% by turn 6(1/3x1/3x1/31/3x1/3). The odds of that happening to the bulk of your army are even worse.