The Power of the Acorns?

[thesustainablecenter]

So I know woods are a HUGE deal for us now. But is it really worth it to buy a lord just to carry the acorn? Its not like we get 3 woods guaranteed, its D3. So will average 2, but what if we get just 1? That sucks for 100 points + a Lord choice. In addition, we need to ensure our opponent is forced to come to us in our woods, which a smart player won't do willingly. That means a lot of shooting and magic threats. That equates to mass glade guard to pump out a lot of shots, on top of the almost mandatory waywatchers which you will find in almost any list. But we then also need close combat support to beat our opponents once there in the woods. Seems like a long list that in a 2.5k game were not going to have the points for all of it. I think it can be done, I just think the acorns are not optimal, especially when considering it needing to work at a tournament or grand tournament game after game after game.

[JAMOB]

Realistically, you're probably taking a lv3/4 mage anyway, so it's really only an extra hero for the scroll fi you want one. I for one am going to playtest the mighty acorn and then decide.

[Tropic]

We don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn. A close combat oriented army can have the forests lined up in the center of the board, a Spellsinger can be given Calaingor's Stave to manipulate the forests, and Forest Stalker gives us rank bonuses in these forests while the opponent cannot claim such a bonus. This is how the Dryads can really shine now that they rank up. Force the opponent to play by our rules.

[thesustainablecenter]

We don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn. A close combat oriented army can have the forests lined up in the center of the board, a Spellsinger can be given Calaingor's Stave to manipulate the forests, and Forest Stalker gives us rank bonuses in these forests while the opponent cannot claim such a bonus. This is how the Dryads can really shine now that they rank up. Force the opponent to play by our rules.

Sorry I still don't see how even in the forests how dryads are proving to better than eternal guard or even rangers.

[gingersmali]

We don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn. A close combat oriented army can have the forests lined up in the center of the board, a Spellsinger can be given Calaingor's Stave to manipulate the forests, and Forest Stalker gives us rank bonuses in these forests while the opponent cannot claim such a bonus. This is how the Dryads can really shine now that they rank up. Force the opponent to play by our rules.

You don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn, but unless you out range you opponent good luck getting them to come into any of your forests. Out ranging most opponents will takes a substantial amount of shooting.

Also you might think you can pull crazy flanks/attacks by teleporting units thought forests, but good players will soon catch on to this, and chaff up the relevant forests.

[cyberhawk94]

We don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn. A close combat oriented army can have the forests lined up in the center of the board, a Spellsinger can be given Calaingor's Stave to manipulate the forests, and Forest Stalker gives us rank bonuses in these forests while the opponent cannot claim such a bonus. This is how the Dryads can really shine now that they rank up. Force the opponent to play by our rules.

You don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn, but unless you out range you opponent good luck getting them to come into any of your forests. Out ranging most opponents will takes a substantial amount of shooting.

Also you might think you can pull crazy flanks/attacks by teleporting units thought forests, but good players will soon catch on to this, and chaff up the relevant forests.

Hes not saying to teleport, hes saying get all his units just behind the woods, and then use Tree Singing bubbled to push all the woods down the opponents throat

[SpanielBear]

We don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn. A close combat oriented army can have the forests lined up in the center of the board, a Spellsinger can be given Calaingor's Stave to manipulate the forests, and Forest Stalker gives us rank bonuses in these forests while the opponent cannot claim such a bonus. This is how the Dryads can really shine now that they rank up. Force the opponent to play by our rules.

You don't have to fixate on shooting when fielding Acorn, but unless you out range you opponent good luck getting them to come into any of your forests. Out ranging most opponents will takes a substantial amount of shooting.

Also you might think you can pull crazy flanks/attacks by teleporting units thought forests, but good players will soon catch on to this, and chaff up the relevant forests.

Hes not saying to teleport, hes saying get all his units just behind the woods, and then use Tree Singing bubbled to push all the woods down the opponents throat

Also, Wood Elves remain the best army in the game, IMO, for chaff clearing.

[Oregonwoodelf]

I really like the new book except for dryads not getting a musician, our prowess requiring us to be in a forest, and the acorn being so expensive. I feel like you need to buy the staff that gives you tree singing also to maximize the chance of catching an opponents unit (especially if he is a seasoned tournament player) in a forest combat. I will have to play test this allot before I can make a complete judgement. It just seems silly that we have to sink points into magic items to be able to maximize our army wide special rule. I left my rule book at my friends house, does anyone know what the point cost of the folding fortress is compared to the acorn? And what size base is the folding Fortress?

[gingersmali]

can you push forest on to energy units? pretty sure they stop.

I think and all out combat army could work, whether acorn is a good shout, in this type of list, dunno, I'd have to play some games. maybe.

[overtninja]

If you were going to make a wall of woods in the center, you'd probably be best served using the accurate arrows. Then you could shoot through the woods, over your units, at long range, around the chaff, through the screen, into your target, nothing but net. Honestly A wood elf player should be able to knock chaff off the table in a turn or so, denying the opponent control of the field. Then it's a matter of playing the redirect/death of a thousand cuts before the big charge that we're used to playing. Chaff units should all be killed so we can weedle around the field and be jerks, it's the WE way.

[Tropic]

If you were going to make a wall of woods in the center, you'd probably be best served using the accurate arrows. Then you could shoot through the woods, over your units, at long range, around the chaff, through the screen, into your target, nothing but net. Honestly A wood elf player should be able to knock chaff off the table in a turn or so, denying the opponent control of the field. Then it's a matter of playing the redirect/death of a thousand cuts before the big charge that we're used to playing. Chaff units should all be killed so we can weedle around the field and be jerks, it's the WE way.

Spot on.

Sorry I still don't see how even in the forests how dryads are proving to better than eternal guard or even rangers.

In a protracted contest I agree with you that Dryads aren't better. During the first round of combat, I would argue the Dryads are better than the Eternal Guard as the former always gets a 6++ save while the Eternal Guard would have no save whatsoever against S4+ unless they spent extra for a shield, in which case they have the same 6+ armor save but at a higher cost per model than the Dryad unit has. Additionally, that first round of combat has Hatred in play for the Dryads to wash the ASF advantage Eternal Guard have, and the Dryads could knock the enemy unit to WS1 if Fear triggers. Against other Elves ASF is moot, so Dryads win outright in the first round.

This is not to say "take Dryads and screw the Eternal Guard/Wildwood Rangers!" I would argue that there's a benefit to fielding a substantially sized Dryad unit behind a Acorn forest for those who want to field them.

[SpanielBear]

Dryads also have more attacks to take advantage of a venom forest, assuming they charge. Recieving a charge, the four ranks of the Eternals do better.

Essentially the Wood Elf troops can be assigned one of four roles (though they are in no way limited to them):

Aggressive: Core= Dryads, Special= Wild Riders, Wildwood Rangers, War Hawks.

Defensive: Core= Eternals, Special= Treekin, Rare= Treemen.

Shooty: Core= Glade Guard, Special= Deepwood Scouts, Rare= Waywatchers.

Sneaky: Core= Glade Riders, Special= War Dancers, Sisters of the Thorn, Rare= Eagles

A simple guide to wood use is going to depend on what ratio your army falls into. Sneaky? Use woods dotted across the board to provide islands for moonstoning and as prowess triggers. Defensive? Woods to slow and chanel the enemy to specific points, using fungus forests or wild woods to really discorage entry into certain parts of the board. Aggressive? A solid line at the midpoint where your units meet, to ensure you are fighting in optimum conditions. Shooty? Woods to the rear, for cover and to provide last-ditch venom ASF.

That's the copy paste guide, anyway. In reality, I imagine each encounter will be different and comprise a variety, but these seem like the essential choices we have to make.

[Ciratan]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

Except the EXACT rule is "After the Battlefield has been set up but before deployment begins." NOT Before sides. In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

[thesustainablecenter]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

Except the EXACT rule is "After the Battlefield has been set up but before deployment begins." NOT Before sides. In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

Excellent catch! Okay so no acorns for me then! I'm not aging 100 points for maybe only a single wood possibly in my opponents deployment zone! But in the end for competitive play we seek certainty and this a lot if points for an uncertain thing. But i think it's hella fun and I'll be playing for the lol's.

[Rogue Sun]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

Except the EXACT rule is "After the Battlefield has been set up but before deployment begins." NOT Before sides. In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

Yeah, having a forest in the middle of their lines sounds horrible. I mean, bifurcating parts of their army so they can't properly support each other sounds terrible. I mean I *guess* it could be useful if we had some means to teleport entire units into their flanks, but oh well.

Bottom line is that if you're using the Acorn you'd better have a clear idea of what you're planning on doing with it. For me, I see extensive abuse with the Moonstone and shutting down BS based armies (which are on the rise) by making them suffer -2 or -3 modifiers while you shoot back unhindered.

[Ciratan]

Yeah, having a forest in the middle of their lines sounds horrible. I mean, bifurcating parts of their army so they can't properly support each other sounds terrible. I mean I *guess* it could be useful if we had some means to teleport entire units into their flanks, but oh well.

Bottom line is that if you're using the Acorn you'd better have a clear idea of what you're planning on doing with it. For me, I see extensive abuse with the Moonstone and shutting down BS based armies (which are on the rise) by making them suffer -2 or -3 modifiers while you shoot back unhindered.

Having woods on MY side is no hinder to my army. I've chosen the side with the most woods many times when I win the roll. Even when playing WoC.

[Findecano]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

Except the EXACT rule is "After the Battlefield has been set up but before deployment begins." NOT Before sides. In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

No offense, but having woods on your opponents side of the table is a good thing for wood elves, it enables me to teleport that unit of wild riders or rangers behind my opponents army or on to his flanks later in the game. If I roll a 3-6 result with the acorn of ages I would be putting one wood on each side of the table at least. The moonstone needs a re-entry target.

[Rogue Sun]

Yeah, having a forest in the middle of their lines sounds horrible. I mean, bifurcating parts of their army so they can't properly support each other sounds terrible. I mean I *guess* it could be useful if we had some means to teleport entire units into their flanks, but oh well.

Bottom line is that if you're using the Acorn you'd better have a clear idea of what you're planning on doing with it. For me, I see extensive abuse with the Moonstone and shutting down BS based armies (which are on the rise) by making them suffer -2 or -3 modifiers while you shoot back unhindered.

Having woods on MY side is no hinder to my army. I've chosen the side with the most woods many times when I win the roll. Even when playing WoC.

You don't need to have them on your side in order to make use of them. Putting them in the middle means your opponent has to draw LOS through them. At long range. Possibly after moving. All of which your shooters can ignore thanks to Trueflight Arrows. Not only that, but when you meet them halfway in combat you can dictate that it take place inside of a forest where they will get no rank bonuses. Use some creativity and critical thinking, having a giant blob of forest in the middle of the table can be used to pretty huge effect.

[Hody]

Aye, I want forest on my enemies side as well, so that once they've made it through my hail of arrows to my money unit I just teleport to there side and they can't catch me.

Still, the 100pts kinda spoils it a bit for me though as well, had it always been 3 woods then I would certainly have used it, but at my LGS we usually always have a couple woods on the board anyway so on average I'll have 3 woods including our free one to play with.

I'll most likely use it for tournaments though just to mess with my opponents.

[khyran]

Add another FOZZRIK'S FOLDING FORTRESS, pack it with 1500 points of GG and surround it with murderous forests.

Not my idea, saw it on the podcasts about WE

Not reliable but certainly fun

[godswearhats]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

I think the main rules are very clear. Deployment is the phase in which table sides are selected. So for Battleline, you set up terrain, use the Acorns, then roll off to pick sides.

“DEPLOYMENT
Roll off to see which player picks the half of the table they will deploy in. The opponent will deploy in the other half.”

That's a direct quote from the Battleline scenario. Now, from the Deployment section of the BRB:

“DEPLOYMENT
With the armies chosen and the terrain set up, it’s now time to deploy.”

And from Acorn of the Ages:

“At the start of the game, after the battlefield has been set up, but before deployment begins,”

Seems pretty clear to me.
~gwh

[CauCaSus]

We already got a free wood in our deployment phase. What the acorn does is provide us with a way to put forests in our opponents deployment zone.

[gingersmali]

Another reason the Acorn is not a good buy is that the forest could be in your opponent's deployment zone. Mat Ward Wrote the rule poorly.

This is part of what I posted on another forum:

Except the EXACT rule is "After the Battlefield has been set up but before deployment begins." NOT Before sides. In the scenarios you choose sides and THEN you begin to deploy units. So the Acorn is not as clear as it seems. It would have been clear had he wrote "after the battlefield is set up but before you choose sides." Or he could have wrote "after the battlefield is set up and after you choose sides but before you begin to deploy." Then it would be a clear rule.

So you might roll 3 woods and two scatter to the side your opponent picks. What good will that do you?

No offense, but having woods on your opponents side of the table is a good thing for wood elves, it enables me to teleport that unit of wild riders or rangers behind my opponents army or on to his flanks later in the game. If I roll a 3-6 result with the acorn of ages I would be putting one wood on each side of the table at least. The moonstone needs a re-entry target.

Moonstone doesn't just work it is very easy to stop if you know its coming. And i think it safe to assume if you see acorn you'll see moonstone.

I think everyone is bigging up how good woods are, you opponent will happy match thought(enjoying his cover save), or sit in them there is no real disadvantaged for them. Even in combat both prowess are nice but you don't hear people raging about how over powered they are in HE or WE, that get them all the time are.

Im all for people taking the acorn but nothing i have seen suggested so far makes me think it is particular strong, and often relays on you opponent making mistakes.

Having Wild riders charge you in the flank is scary but not much more than getting charged in the front they only get +1Combat Res, and less attack back at them. Also they are fast cav the should be able to get where you want them.

[Drstrangelove]

......or put directly down the middle of the battlefield. What's that, your block of Savage Orcs isn't steadfast in a forest and my wild riders just put you on snake eyes even though I only have one of them left alive?

[Tropic]

An option to keep the woods free for Moonstone is to designate them as Wildwoods or Blood Forests. The former would force the opponent really consider clogging it up. The latter would get the target unit out of the forest by targeting them with magic. Is this an ideal solution? No, but your opponent wouldn't think you'll Moonstone into them if you designate them with a negative Forest type for your use.

Conversely, you could use Acorns to bluff using Moonstone, promote your opponent getting into them and use Tree Singing to deal damage to them. Have the forests close enough together and you can get off the boosted spell to affect all of them at once. Do this enough and your opponent won't know what you're going to do from one game to the next.