Dryads FAQ

[LadyLoec]

I take a unit of 14 without champion in case I roll watchtower - they are tough enough to hold the watchtower for a few turns and the unit is small enough it can be deployed there at the beginning of the game, and replaced with my wildwood rangers later on if need be. In other games, they've not done badly either. Did some decent damage to a horde of crypt ghouls with a little help from wyssans, and kept them away from some of my flimsier troops. No, they're not as amazing as in the last edition, but that doesn't make them useless.

[RedPanda]

Just toss a lv2 Beast into the unit = instant usefullness.

Sadly the Beast lore does not work on Dryads

[Hewhorocks]

I think they were nerfed because the codex writer thought the tree units in general were overshadowing the 'elves' part of 'wood elves' a bit too much, and went a little overboard 'correcting' the problem.

This seems the most likely answer. I'm always inclined to believe incompetence over malevolence so the conspiracy doesnt get much play from me. If they were intended as protectors then you would think they'd get the skirmishers rule (or at least a musician) as flexibility seems a perquisite for that role. I dont buy them as screening because they simply arent cheap enough to do that. 110 points isnt a screen its a margin of victory. Without the ability to reform they arent useful as re-directors (certainly compared with an eagle.) So dryads are either a screening unit that cant maneuver or even flee, a static fighting unit (with str 3) that doesnt want to be in the forests , expensive chaff, or a branch wraith delivery system. The last option seems the most viable except branchwraith's arent really that much more potent that a dryad champ in combat. Still for 229 points you'd get 14 Dryads and a Branchwraith with some buffing potential. Not a terrible unit running down the flanks trying to get a late turn charge, and unlikely to be blown away with bowfire or panicked (itp). Any monstrous cav or even medium cav, will eat them for lunch though and they arent going to out-maneuver anyone. Even being steadfast in the woods would have helped them tremendously and maybe thats coming in the new edition (terrain strider treats that terrain as open ground.) All is not lost but Dryads went from "all-stars" to "developmental league players" taking hits in the sturdiness, mobility, and firepower departments while making a unit of tree-spirits that now want to avoid being in forests.

[RedPanda]

I dont mind that Dryads are currently like they are (thou I would have like an extra inch of movement) but I do suggest a single change/errata
"Forest Spirits get Stubborn in forests"

Reason is it makes no bloody sense that tree spirits don't get stubborn in forests while only skirmishers do. While I do miss the old dryads, but this is the only one thing I have problems in dealing with.


We should have a petition for "Forest Spirits get Stubborn in forests Errata"

[Phazael]

Treekin serve the goalie role much better, at least in my testing of the new book thus far. Dryads in their current form are overpriced (compare them to Gors, Orcs, or Dwarf Warriors) and the lack of musician for swift reforms makes using them as deflector shields for the Gladeguard somewhat suspect. I think that, outside certain gimmick setups involving magic and the stubborn crown, their best current use is as an immune to psyche bunker unit for an otherwise vulnerable caster character. It's a pity with the nice models they have, as simply leaving them with skirmish or adding an option for a musician would have made the unit see some broader play. As it is, the forest spirit with the ugliest model (Treekin) is probably the most useful one.

[Hewhorocks]

As it is, the forest spirit with the ugliest model (Treekin) is probably the most useful one.

Well raging heroes has some nice alternatives for them. Though my vote for ugliest forest spirit model goes to the eldar forest camo suit.

Sorry I guess my post has nothing to due with dryads per sae.

[Sidewinder]

Or perhaps it's an economic reason?

Of the hundreds if not thousands of business decisions that must be made such as choosing artwork, deciding what rules remain, what rules are removed, what rules are reworked, what new models are produced, what those new models will look like, how many SKU to produce on the initial print/manufacture run, etc, for revamping an army book, the "Let's produce a product that kills sales." isn't one of them. That would be an incredibly poor business decision that could get someone fired. The Wood Elf line is one of the lowest selling GW lines. It would make more business sense to discontinue the whole line rather than to make an odd business decision like that. If they were actually wanting to do what you propose, they would have simply removed Dryads from the rulebook.
It's not as if they have never done this before. I still have a WE chariot that I would have liked to use at least once before they were dropped. I still have WE spearmen (that I have used as proxies for 6th ed Eternal Guard) and WE archers (that I have used as proxies for 6th ed Glade Guard). I still have a Scarloc (that cannot be used as a proxy for anything because it looks so ridiculous as anything but Scarloc).

I believe you are thinking from the perspective that GW will make most of its sales from current WE players. Hopefully, that won't be true. Sure, most current WE players will get a new book, the spell cards, and a few boxes and/or kits, but not much more because they already have nearly all they need. That's not where the recovering of costs and producing profit will come from. The bulk of WE sales need to come from new WE players, doesn't matter if they come from new players to the hobby or existing players new to Wood Elves.

"Nerfing" Dryads to encourage current WE players to purchase Eternal Guard is risky because current WE players may already have Eternal Guard models (thus negating the whole point of reducing Dryad's effectiveness) and because it might cause a backlash that causes a loss of players quitting from disgust. The way to get current WE players to purchase WE SKU's is to produce highly desirable new units with great new models to support them and fantastic new models of old sculpts.

[Sidewinder]

We should have a petition for "Forest Spirits get Stubborn in forests Errata"

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense but you're not likely to get very far with a petition. The thing to do is get your gaming group to adopt it as a house rule.

Just toss a lv2 Beast into the unit = instant usefullness.
Sadly the Beast lore does not work on Dryads

I know you meant "attribute" rather than "lore" but just to prevent confusion I want to clarify that what you mean is that there is no Beast casting bonus if targeting Dryads.

In that case they seem a little expensive now then, I would have liked to see them at 5 slaves Max per model, as that is what ghouls cost For vc with a similar profile.

Dryads do not have the Unstable rule (crumble) nor do Dryads require the general to be within 12 inches to be able to move more than 4 inches.

[Minsc]

On a point for point-basis, Dryads are somewhat fine. (Not "great", but not "bad" either.) I wish that they would have an option for a musician, but I understand why they don't.

What's off-putting with Dryads is the fact that our other core-infantry are a better choice most of the time, but they still offer us T4 and 6++.

No, my main issue with them is that they for some reasons are as uncomfortable around forests as dwarven warriors, and this just feels soooooo wrong, but I doubt it will be Errata:ed.
I think It's just a lazy oversight by Mr. Ward: He didn't realize that they would loose stubborn in forests, once they lost skirmish.

[Tethlis]

No, my main issue with them is that they for some reasons are as uncomfortable around forests as dwarven warriors, and this just feels soooooo wrong, but I doubt it will be Errata:ed.
I think It's just a lazy oversight by Mr. Ward: He didn't realize that they would loose stubborn in forests, once they lost skirmish.

This I agree with. Very unfortunate for all the Forest Spirits.

I've played a good number of games so far with the new book, one using a more relaxed list with Treeman Ancient, Treeman and multiple Core Dryad units. I've actually used Dryads in all my lists so far (8 games played) and they've done quite well as far as Core choices go. The thing I appreciate about them is that they go through enemy chaff and light units exceedingly well, tying them up and distracting them. These kinds of units are usually pretty good at drawing missile fire; if you're using High Elves or Dark Elves, you're probably shooting at the kind of units that Dryads are great a killing. For Wood Elves though, they need to prioritize their missile fire on key targets, and can't really let Glade Guard/Scout/Waywatcher units get distracted by taking out chaff. So having a min Dryad unit that runs around, kills Hounds and Fast Cavalry and then redirects heavier combat threats is a very nice way of letting missile units focus on missile fire. Since a min unit of Dryads is still a lot cheaper than a min Glade Guard unit with any sort of arrow upgrade, I think they actually help enhance table control compared to simply loading up on an all Glade Guard Core.

[robtion]

In that case they seem a little expensive now then, I would have liked to see them at 5 slaves Max per model, as that is what ghouls cost For vc with a similar profile.

Dryads do not have the Unstable rule (crumble) nor do Dryads require the general to be within 12 inches to be able to move more than 4 inches.[/quote]

@Sidewinder: Yes but they don't have poison attacks either? I am fine with the cost for dryads but it is not great considering they lost skirmish, a point off their wardsave, and a point off their strength. Those add up to a fairly significant downgrade and they only cost 1 point less is all I am saying.

I will still use them and am in fact currently converting a bunch right now ready for painting

@Minsc: Well said

[The Peacemaker]

Lots of good points.

Its is obviously a business decision by GW to nerf exisiting units and buff new/underused units. They've done it for every codex in 8th so far.
Wood Elves is the first book where the nerfs/buffs are not so skewed or apparent. Every unit is very close in its tabletop ability vs its points.
An example of one of the worst books is The Empire.

Alot of players also buy used models. GW does need its sales to come from new wood elf players. New players can get models that have been around very cheaply. But if the best units are new and have no existing models then you gotta buy the new stuff.

------------------------------

Wood elves did get a massive buff to shooting. Hagbane, trueflight, waywachers all mean that you can actually make a dent in your opponents army. So the balance to that is weaker close combat.

I think everyone does agree that eternal guard are better than dryads. Toughness 4 is good but for the points your paying its not.
Comparing to beastmen gor is a bit skewed considering beastmen don't have a shooting phase.

Dryads just lack a role. It wouldn't take much to make dryads good. Heck, its as simple as making them Initiative 6 so when you fight against other elves they take away the ASF re-roll for intiative 5 guys.


If you plan to use lore of beasts then Its worth taking dryads because the sig spell can boost them to toughness 5. Wilst if it was cast on eternal guard they would only be toughness 4.
This is kinda what bothers me too is that that Branchwriaths are only lore of life. Which isn't that good for dryads.

[Sidewinder]

Robiton,
Sorry, I didn't meant to be curt. I did want to be brief because I tend to get wordy (as you can see from one of my earlier posts) and I'm trying to break that habit.

I was expecting a change to Dryads having skirmish; there were so much clamoring for Dryads to gain rank bonuses for combat resolution on various boards including this one. I was expecting a points drop but also an option to pay additional points to gain skirmish. This would have made nearly everyone happy.

Like you, I'm displeased with the Dryad changes. Well actually, I'm very displeased with them. You left out that Dryads lost one point of initiative as well and that's another reason I'm displeased.

When I first read your post I focused on the "5" and completely missed the "slaves" part. I thought you were making a case to lower the Dryad point cost to five. I wondered why ghouls were only five points so I looked at the VC book to see why they would be so cheap. Now I know you weren't advocating for a steep drop in points.

But for a fair comparison between Dryads and ghouls, we would have to compare all their stats, BRB rules, and their special rules. Not only that, but we would have to compare the way the two models interact with their armies. For instance, a VC player has the chance of losing a ghoul each turn after he/she has lost the general. We don't have that. We would also take in account that Dryads cannot have musicians or standard bearers. We would have to take in everything to determine if we felt the two were correctly costed in comparison with each other. I believe the chance of crumbling two different ways, relying on a nearby general or a spell to be able to move faster than eight inches outweighs any Dryads disadvantage. So, doing that, I should be content about the new Dryads and its point cost.

Nope, no I'm not. I'm still displeased about the changes.

BTW, notice how wordy I got?

[robtion]

@Sidewinder: No problems, I didn't take your comment as curt I agree a skirmish option would have been great. I just used the term 'slaves' to keep out of trouble as some people are funny about giving away points costs of units. I understand the confusion though, happens a bit

I have a VC army thus the ghouls comparison, they are fairly similar though I agree there are several differences.

Wordy indeed, I generally type on a tablet so try to keep brief as it's slow.