Ulthuan

Ulthuan, Home of the Asur
It is currently Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:00 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:40 am 
Offline
Rhetor militaris
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:50 pm
Posts: 451
Mod Edit

First post slightly amended. People have strong opinions both ways so please everyone keep emotionally-charged language to a minimum.

SA

Hi Everyone!

Note: Not a 'complaining-about-changes-thread'; please make another if you want to do so. More interested in what people think can be achievable under the new changes. Optimism friends, optimism! Thanks!

With the changes to 50% Lords/Heroes, and no reason for non-comp tournaments not to incorporate the changes, I'm starting a thread to discuss what can be done to maximize our book under the changes.

Couple of thoughts to start.

Heroes: Case to be made for them? Lords seem awesome now, but besides a Coven, I can't see much reason to take lots and lots of Heroes, vs what other armies can field. Maybe 3x Dragon Mage, but seems a bit pointless since everything's likely to have a 1+ Armor, and Fire doesn't cut it there.

Core: I don't see Archers being useful under the changes, and even Reavers are less useful at misdirecting. There's likely to be a lot more war machines however, making both still an option. Helms still seem like the best option, and gives us a combat unit (with Banner of the World Dragon: great now against Herohammer) and all the Monsters we could ask for.

Special: Any case to be made for taking any? I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts.

Rare: Bolt Throwers or Phoenixes? I'm thinking Bolt Throwers, as Phoenix-riding Anointed are better value for the points, and the Eagle Claws will deal with monsters and single characters better. Eagles are also an option, but less important than before.


Tournaments that also play the BRB scenarios will help keep a lid on how ridiculous some of the setups can be, but I'm fully expecting Monsters and Lords to be the new theme, with maybe one combat block, nearly always Core. Since Helms are our only real option for Core (maybe big blocks of Archers, in case of Watchtower?), not sure we have much of a choice.

Some lists, to get the ball rolling:

Quote:
Anointed of Asuryan on Flamespyre Phoenix, General, Giant Blade, Enchanted Shield, Dawnstone, Potion of Foolhardiness, 530
Anointed of Asuryan on Frostheart Phoenix, Ogre Blade, Dragonhelm, Golden Crown of Atrazar, The Other Trickster’s Shard, 535

Noble, BSB, on Elven Steed, Barding, Heavy Armour, Shield, Spear, Banner of the World Dragon, 168
Noble on Elven Steed, Barding, Dragon Armour, Sword of Might, Charmed Shield, Luckstone, Potion of Strength, 145
Mage on Elven Steed, Level Two, Lore of High Magic, Dispel Scroll, 155
Mage on Elven Steed, Level Two, Lore of High Magic, 130

15 Silver Helms, Full Command, Shields, 375
2x 5 Silver Helms, Champion, Shields, 250

3x Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower, 210

TOTAL: 2498


Alternatively:

Quote:
Anointed of Asuryan on Flamespyre Phoenix, General, Giant Blade, Enchanted Shield, Dawnstone, Potion of Foolhardiness, 530
Archmage, on Moon Dragon, Level Four, Lore of Death/High, Dispel Scroll, Talisman of Preservation, Potion of Toughness, 610

Noble, BSB, on Elven Steed, Barding, Heavy Armour, Shield, Spear, Banner of the World Dragon, 168
Noble on Elven Steed, Barding, Dragon Armour, Sword of Might, Charmed Shield, Luckstone, Potion of Strength, 145
Noble on Elven Steed, Barding, Heavy Armour, Shield, Ogreblade, Dragonhelm, 141

17 Silver Helms, Full Command, Shields, 421
5 Silver Helms, Shields, Champion, 125
5 Ellyrian Reavers, 80

4x Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower, 280

TOTAL: 2500


Could also swap the Flamespyre to a Frosty.

Or, going heavy on magic:

Quote:
Archmage, Level Four, High, General, on Moon Dragon, Book of Hoeth, Talisman of Endurance, Ironcurse Icon, 610
Archmage, Level Four, Lore of Death, on Moon Dragon, Dispel Scroll, Talisman of Preservation, Potion of Toughness, 610

Noble, BSB, on Elven Steed, Barding, Shield, Spear, Banner of the World Dragon, 164
Noble on Elven Steed, Barding, Heavy Armour, Sword of Might, Charmed Shield, Luckstone, Potion of Strength, 139
Noble on Elven Steed, Barding, Heavy Armour, Shield, Ogreblade, Dragonhelm, 141

17 Silver Helms, Full Command, Shields, 421
5 Silver Helms, Shields, Champion, 125
5 Ellyrian Reavers, 80

3x Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower, 210

TOTAL: 2500


Also considering Beasts and Metal, instead of High for the General, but then magic items would need some juggling.

It'll be an interesting transition period before 9th! Hopefully, it gets people thinking about the game in a different way, and we get some innovation!

Axiem


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:34 am
Posts: 357
I read the FAQ while writing star dragon lord list.
Me and me fellow gamers play 3,000pts games most of the time, and with 1,500pts for Lords
bringing double star dragon is definitely possible.
However, do note that the dragon lists I'm devising nowadays aren't entirely for competitiveness.
My aim for writing the list is to utilise as many flying monstrous threats as possible.
Below is the recent list

Lords
Prince(Dragon Armour, Star Dragon, Star Lance, Charmed Shield, Talisman of Endurance, The Other Trickster's Shard)
Archmage(Level 4, Star Dragon, Talisman of Preservation, Dispel Scroll, Ironcurse Icon) - High Magic

Hero
Noble(BSB, Lance, Heavy Armour, Shield, Lion Cloak, Great Eagle, Dragonhelm, Golden Crown of Atrazar, Potion of Strength)


Core
Core
20 Archers(Full Command)
6 Silver Helms(Shields, Full Command)
6 Silver Helms(Shields, High Helm, Musician)
5 Ellyrian Reavers(Spears and Bows, Musician)
5 Ellyrian Reavers(Musician)

Special
8 Dragon Princes of Caledor(Full Command, Ogre Blade, BotWD)

Rare
Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower
Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower
Frostheart Phoenix

2,998pts

I chose 2 units of small silver helm units over one large one for their tactical flexibility.
They can go hunting warmachines separately or act as emergency chaff, as I have neither eagle nor shadow warriors in the list.
20 archers are there for dealing with chaff, and also for watchtower missions.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:07 am
Posts: 51
Location: Perth, Australia
5 Frosthearts

Anointed on Frostie
Anointed on Frostie
Caradryan on Frostie

600 points of Core

Frostie
Frostie

or

Double Dwellers, Double S7 Banishment

Teclis - Flaming Sword, Savage Beast, Searing Doom, Banishment, Dwellers, Harmonic, Okkams, Purple Sun
Level 4 Life Archmage

Lothern Sea Helm BSB, Reaver Bow, Golden Crown
Level 2 Light
Level 1 Light, Forbidden Rod
Level 1 Light, Dispel Scroll

25 Archers
4x5 Reavers

20 White Lions, BotWD

4x Bolt Throwers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:07 am 
Offline
Southern Sentinel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:01 am
Posts: 4474
Location: On the path of an outcast
Hi Axiem,

From your post I understand you want to adapt to the new situation where 50% Lord/Heroes are allowed and there are no composition limits. You are probably also aiming at the tournaments with no scenarios, as these may affect the army list building. For example, sometimes you need a ranked unit to claim the objective.

I also hope the current exercise in army list building is just the beginning and once some lists are established as reference points some tactical discussion would commence.

You obviously want to use the higher characters allowance to the fullest, meaning you are interested in adding as many of them as possible (provided they are useful and add something that units cannot). Side effect is that does not leave much room for troops but it is quite possible that you decided that you don't need them with more heroes in the force.

I would like to understand your approach better so I have some questions and some comments:

1. Why do you think higher character allowance is an opportunity/good thing?

2. Do you assume that your lists are going to face character heavy armies only or are they supposed to be good against regular armies too?

3. In your initial analysis you scraped entire special section, picked only one type of a regiment from rare and two from core. It means you have only 3 unit types and associated characters out of 18 (I think) units the book has to offer. How such sever limitations are going to promote innovation in your opinion?

4. Your examples show cavalry with mounted characters as well as flying ones plus bolt throwers as range support. The units are organized as either main regiment with all characters or as small support elements. It gives the impression that the forces are meant to engage the enemy as fast as possible in sort of point-and-click manner. Or in the case of archmages on dragons a force that is good at denying points to the enemy and maybe even avoiding combats if possible since it is quite risky to put level 4 in the fight.

What is new these armies bring to the table in comparison to the forces that are similar but were built with old restrictions?

Just to emphasize, I didn't post the above to criticize your approach. As I have mentioned, I am trying to understand it. Even more so due to the fact I remain skeptical about the changes and I am not as optimistic as you are about things to come.

Cheers!

_________________
Image

Twitter @SwordOfHoeth

High Elves MSU - Observations

Rabidnid wrote:
Are you seriously asking someone called Swordmaster of Hoeth why he has more swordmasters than white lions? Really?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:39 am
Posts: 20
Well, I bet there will be less models on the table and quicker games. I think overall the changes only strengthen the strong builds that high elves already have, while weakening the builds that were used less.

For specials I think they will still work, botwd white lions and phoenix guard will still be good alternatives to other things depending on the list. I'm a little worried about swordmasters though, they were in a tough spot and now I think it's going to be even tougher... dragon princes could be useful if core ends up being a chaffparty of silverhelms and reavers.

Overall, I kind of don't like the idea of having huge flyer lists and I'm going to try and stay away from it. I kind of want my army to feel a little more grounded in realism, like having some form of infantry. :roll: Might look forward to a Cavalry Prince/Loremaster or Archemage now though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:48 am 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 6876
Location: The city of Spires
@Swordmaster: I think most people play standard battleline without objectives. Which makes those less important. I can imagine that in a future edition objectives will become a lot more important. But for now, they hardly feature in games. And, if you simply destroy everything your opponent has then objectives stop mattering as well of course.

One area where this will have some impact is where you are currently just short a few points when kitting out a lord / hero character. Those 10 or 20 points to make your SD lord extra killy or better protected can make a huge difference without otherwise impacting the list.

And of course, in some situations creating a balanced list that deals with an unbalanced character heavy list can be tough. Try fighting a stardragon @1500 pts (which is now possible to field). Bringing a balanced list vs that is tough.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:16 am 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12281
Location: Otherworld
A lot of people will assume multiple monster lords are coming and load up on cannon. Further, players will deliberately move to armies with cannon from armies without. So the first question is, "Can armies with two or three monster lords do well in a cannon-rich environment?"

The World Dragon point is a good one. Again, is a Silver Helm bus with WD BSB in clearly the best way to go for Core? If another Core set-up is viable, that opens the door to a unit of Lions or Swordmasters with the Banner. PG might be OK anyway with the right character support. In fact a substantial unit of Core infantry is something a monster lord might think twice about charging if you're packing Mindrazor.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline
Something Cool

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 2309
Location: Northern, California USA
I think there's a case to be made for the humble Skycutter with Eagle Eye. Why? Another Bolt shot although only at str 5 but is ignoring armor saves and dealing d3 wounds shouldn't be overlooked. Another thought is heavens since i'm assuming the most abusive lists are going to be coming in the form of flying monsters or characters on flying mounts. Comets help with board control and harmonic is great with a bolt throwe bunker

_________________
Ptolemy wrote:
Im not above whoring myself for a good cause. ;)


Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 11:11 pm
Posts: 278
How about this:

Archmage: Talisman of Preservation; Power Stone; Level 4 Wizard; Lore of Beasts; Star Dragon 675
Archmage: Dispel Scroll; Crown of Command; Lore of Life; Elven Steed 265

Chaynal (Noble): Sword of Might; Enchanted Shield; Dawnstone; heavy armour; Elven Steed (Ithilmar barding) 139
Rohanion (Noble): Banner of the World Dragon; lance; heavy armour; shield; Battle Standard; Elven Steed (Ithilmar barding) 172

5 Ellyrian Reavers: bows; musician; standard bearer 105
5 Ellyrian Reavers: musician; standard bearer 100
5 Ellyrian Reavers: spears; bows; Harbinger; musician 115
12 Silver Helms: shields; High Helm; musician; standard bearer 306

Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower 70
Eagle Claw Bolt Thrower 70
Jormungandr (Frostheart Phoenix) 240
Frostheart Phoenix 240

2,497 points


SH life cav bus
Beasts stardragon archmage to push through savage/wildform/pelt on the bus with Regen/fts/regrowth potential on bus. Amber spear pulls scroll early in monster heavy new meta.
Double frosty

Could change he archmage dragon to dragon prince and spend the extra points to increase te level of the life archmage.
The synergy of life bloom and boosted eqrthblood on the bus is undeniable.
I do love the savage beast bubble on the charge scenario with the bus/beast Mage
6 st 9 attacks
6 st 8
6 st 7
4 st 6
13 st 5
Damn...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:12 pm
Posts: 656
too much focus on power builds...

how about fun builds, like spamming eagle nobles along with a beast archmage?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:18 pm 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 6876
Location: The city of Spires
I would spam griffon characters. Great fun. And a great use of all those IOB sets lying around. You should be able to fit 6 of them in a standard list I think.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:25 pm 
Offline
Vindicated Strategist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:21 am
Posts: 4929
Location: Oslo, Norway
The way I read the OP, this topic is all about powerbuilds ;)

To re-iterate the list I've argued for since the beginning of the ET discussion:

Quote:
Prince on Star Dragon, Star Lance, Heavy Armour, Lion Cloak, Shield, Dragonhelm, Golden Crown of Atrazar, The Other Trickster`s Shard = 610
Prince on Barded Steed (General), Giant Blade, Dawnstone, Enchanted Shield, Heavy Armour = 263
Life Archmage on Steed, Crown of Command, Dispel Scroll, Dragonbane Gem = 305
Lords = 1178

Noble BSB, Barded Steed, Heavy Armour, Shield, Lance, Banner of the World Dragon = 172
Noble on Barded Steed, Heavy Armour, Ogre Blade, Charmed Shield, Luckstone = 139
Heroes = 311

16 Silver Helms, Shields, Full Command = 398
5 Reavers, Bows, Champ = 95
5 Silver Helms, Shields, Champion = 125
Core = 618

Frostheart Phoenix = 240
Great Eagle = 50
Rare = 290

Army Total = 2397


I think this is fairly close to as good as it gets for us, in this department. Playtesting needed, of course. Rock hard, solid counters, few weaknesses. I see Special as more or less disappearing unless you go infantry (which can be done I believe, Teclis-oriented Coven for example). I'd like to address Swordmaster's questions because I think these are well suited for explaining why this new errata provides us with something we've never had before: Character flexibility beyond belief.

1. Why do you think higher character allowance is an opportunity/good thing?
Our characters have always been what provides us with the flexibility to deal with a number of unique threats that are otherwise devastating to our army that we simply don't have any other answers to. Allowing us to take even more of these means that we can build even better all-comers lists with fewer weaknesses and thus be better suited to face other hard lists without having to surrender to the fact that a certain army has a lot of bad matchups. This is a good thing because you always want to minimize your bad matchups.

2. Do you assume that your lists are going to face character heavy armies only or are they supposed to be good against regular armies too?
I expect well-designed character-heavy HE lists to be able to compete with anything. I don't see all factions benefitting from this, which means that "traditional" armies will still be around. This needs to be considered in an all-comers setting.

3. In your initial analysis you scraped entire special section, picked only one type of a regiment from rare and two from core. It means you have only 3 unit types and associated characters out of 18 (I think) units the book has to offer. How such sever limitations are going to promote innovation in your opinion?
While I didn't write the initial analysis here, I see our special section as the weakest point of the book. While WL and PG both have their uses and potential, I consider them inferior to characters and rare, in general. That said, I don't think they are completely dead as they can serve roles in more defensive and/or magically oriented builds.

4. Your examples show cavalry with mounted characters as well as flying ones plus bolt throwers as range support. The units are organized as either main regiment with all characters or as small support elements. It gives the impression that the forces are meant to engage the enemy as fast as possible in sort of point-and-click manner. Or in the case of archmages on dragons a force that is good at denying points to the enemy and maybe even avoiding combats if possible since it is quite risky to put level 4 in the fight.
Point-and-click is non-existant in Warhammer, in my opinion. Even Warriors of Chaos and Daemons have to think carefully about what to do when charging ahead at full speed. The same holds true for Elves with a few, powerful units. Fewer units does not mean it's easier to play, or even more of a point-and-click playstyle for that manner, in fact I think it's the opposite: I'd rather have a Black Dragon and 6 Peg Masters if I were to play point-and-click than Axiem's suggestions above. As for engaging the enemy as fast as possible, this is a very lucrative option to have available in a singles tournament setting as it allows you to capitalize on your mobility in a strong matchup to win big.

What is new these armies bring to the table in comparison to the forces that are similar but were built with old restrictions?
They allow us to counter many of the threats currently making certain matchups really bad, without giving up many of our favourable matchups. They also allow us to create some terrifying offensive builds where we basically have the army with one of the best combinations of hitting power + mobility in the game. Lastly, they allow us to load up on magic without compromising with our fighters: Without maximising the character section you can, for example, have an Archmage, Loremaster and Cavprince.

I hope this helps clarify some of the rationale behind these emerging lists. I need to playtest them before I can comment much on how they play, tactically. Strategically most of them are fairly easy to evaluate (though you of course need the proper matchup to evaluate this).

_________________
Retired from Warhammer. Playing Warmachine & Hordes (Cygnar).

Follow me on Courage of Caspia, my blog.

Warhammer blogs from 2011-2015:

:: Path to Glory - High Elves Army Blog ::
:: Curu Olannon's Vindicators - 2500 points Army Blog (Old book, outdated) ::


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:45 pm
Posts: 152
It doesnt suddenly make our character combos very broken or OP, it does give us more options for those who like it especially for 2000 or 2400pt games.
Tyrion+teclis, Teclis+loremaster =D>, lvl4+dragon(s). Caradryan on ashtari+noble, eltharion on stormwing+lvl4.

I dont think any of our character or monster combos are that broken that it will make it OP, armies like WOC DoC are another story though.
Cannonless armies might get some serious problems with those.



These changes could drastically change the meta and how warhammer is played, its kinda hard to tell what will happen. I must say that i personally probably like the change even if just for the extra variation and the fact that certain builds aren't impossible cause of a 10pt override.

_________________
"Today we mourn Sir Technical, horrifically dismembered in battle. He was unable to survive the fight, but his form was impeccable!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:55 pm
Posts: 100
If people are up to it, also consider if you play all 6 scenarios. Have a Watchtower, and Blood and Glory Build.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 8:54 pm 
Offline
Rhetor militaris
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:50 pm
Posts: 451
On my phone at the moment, so the replies will have to be short I'm afraid. I'll do a better write up once I'm back at a computer, and take the time to respond to everyone individually.

@Swordmaster

Generally, Curu's answers are good ones. The reason I don't feel special choices are all that important anymore is a) they were already largely on the way out, with the Helmbus pretty widely recognized as the best option in tournament play (excluding comp, scenarios, etc.) and b) 50% Lords and Heroes means more Monsters, tank characters, and importantly fliers. All three of these choices do a number on our Elites (for the points, and in comparison with what is taken now). Already, the kings of the Meta are mobile, resilient, and hard-hitting: this is just another step in that direction, hence Monsters and Lords over elites.

I expect these changes will lead to more character (obviously) but I don't think this is Herohammer, especially not for the tournament scene. Furion summed up my thoughts nicely on the matter when he pointed out that the lessening of the character caps is inherently self-comping (from the thread in Fantasy section). I agree. That being said, the effects are going to be different in uncomped versus comped, scenarios versus battle line. I'm interested in facilitating discussion on all of it.

Hope that helps proved some insight on my thought process. As I said, on my phone at the moment. More to come when I have time.

Axiem


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:41 pm 
Offline
Vindicated Strategist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:21 am
Posts: 4929
Location: Oslo, Norway
I have been thinking about this a bit today, and generally I think there are two ways we can capitalize on this.

The first way is taking 2 combat lords, backed up with an Archmage and possibly a hero mage or two to round out magical flexibility and/or the need to include certain items (e.g. Scroll, Book). These 2 combat lords can be any combination basically, but I doubt that it's effective to put them both on monsters as it'll lose you the L4. Basically then, I see 4 approaches:
- Star Dragon + Cavprince
- Flamespyre + Cavprince
- Dual Cavprince
- Cavprince + Footprince

Option 1 is the most shock and awe type of army we can make, disregarding dual star dragons etc (which could still be strong, I believe, but it will become hard to tool up the necessary supporting bus properly without exposing the mages too much. Will look into this as well). It's basically designed to smash anything and everything apart from the very worst enemy combat units and lords. The Lore is up for discussion and I can see Life, Death and High all being good candidates here, but I think Life is my favourite here seeing as Dwellers counters other deathstars really well, lifebloom on the SD is very good and lastly Flesh to Stone doesn't even need Throne of Vines to be stupidly good on the Star Dragon.

Option 2 basically plays like Furion's ETC list, with the exception that the bus is significantly stronger and can thus play more aggressively, creating space for the Anointed. A downside here is losing the RBTs. Unsure if this tradeoff is worth it.

Option 3 allows a serious cavstar to be made. Could have issues vs Life, of course.

Option 4 allows a very strong dual-block combination to be made. The problem here is that the 2nd block (read: infantry) has to come from special, so I assume points will be tight.

The second way to capitalize on the increased allowances is to try and play the meta in a more defensively oriented list. My favourite example here is Teclis + Light Coven where you basically go overboard in the Heroes department. Coupled with Enfeebling Foe, Dwellers and 2 scrolls, not to mention forbidden rod and whatever other arcane items you might want. This latter approach is less about actually utilizing the restrictions directly and more about anticipating what people will bring.

_________________
Retired from Warhammer. Playing Warmachine & Hordes (Cygnar).

Follow me on Courage of Caspia, my blog.

Warhammer blogs from 2011-2015:

:: Path to Glory - High Elves Army Blog ::
:: Curu Olannon's Vindicators - 2500 points Army Blog (Old book, outdated) ::


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 11:42 pm 
Offline
Southern Sentinel
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:01 am
Posts: 4474
Location: On the path of an outcast
Thanks for reply, Axiem. I am looking forward to reading more elaborate comments whenever you find time to post them.

Cheers!

_________________
Image

Twitter @SwordOfHoeth

High Elves MSU - Observations

Rabidnid wrote:
Are you seriously asking someone called Swordmaster of Hoeth why he has more swordmasters than white lions? Really?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:11 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Univeristy of Glasgow
My thoughts, from a dwarf point of view:

I really really fear for dwarfs. The new rules really let armies become even more polarized than before. As shown in sandstorm's two lists, HE can have stronger ranged OR stronger/faster CC. Since by definition and virtue of being all infantry and m3, dwarfs have a history of being forced to deal with all comers more so than any army. They cant avoid or divert anything, everything has to be either shot off the board or fought, literally without a middle ground. Also considering their machines are by design highly specialized to deal with one or two targets (ie cannons for monsters, ST for hordes, organs for knights/heavy Inf) with limited overlap (ie ST can shoot monsters but will never be as reliable at is as cannons. same for organs shooting at hordes or cannons shooting at knights etc), the min maxing will hurt them badly and severely hurt their ability to deal with the full range of threats warhammer can throw at them. Now for example instead of a max 2-3 flying monsters we have to design lists can deal with 5, while at the same time also allowing the same list to deal with more possible ranged assault or more avoidance (and invariably there will still be some strange offshoot stuff like msu or hordes that people will field in order to capitalize on the meta). Magic Defense isn't even a strong point anymore and really their greatest anti magic threat was min-maxing... what I mean by this is that since they're always all infantry, all t4, mostly all st4+ or machines the spells did had little effect against them could be ignored, and dice saved for the spells that hurt. More magic cap means more wizards which means more dangerous spells, and that will hurt very badly. Now instead of dealing with a possible single purple sun a turn and a bunch of rubbish a number of armies can afford to have the standard lvl4 death + some other mayhem like light spam or dwellers. I haven't looked at what skaven can do in terms of magic but it can't be good. Their wizards cost nothing anyways. And as always there is the added issue of scenarios, an every present thorn in the side of the army. While a High elf army can field 5 frosties and get infantry/flags in core, dwarfs need to compromise either firepower or defense of that firepower to be able to contest a watchtower WHILE being able to compete in all other scenarios of the game vs all the other armies. It is a "too many variables to plan for" scenario for an army that is more based on planning than other army in the game.

_________________
For the dwarfs, there was only this. Hammerson met Grombrindal’s gaze, and the White Dwarf nodded slowly. If it must be done, let it be done well. Whether they were dead or alive, that was the only way dwarfs knew how to do anything.

And Grombrindal said "10 from the back, yeah?"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:16 pm 
Offline
Vindicated Strategist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:21 am
Posts: 4929
Location: Oslo, Norway
I think Dwarfs will be just fine. Take a healthy number of helicopters (5-7), double cannons and double organ guns, double infantry blocks and you're good to go. Every single monster-heavy list in the game will be heavily out-deployed and you still have the artillery to hurt them a lot.

_________________
Retired from Warhammer. Playing Warmachine & Hordes (Cygnar).

Follow me on Courage of Caspia, my blog.

Warhammer blogs from 2011-2015:

:: Path to Glory - High Elves Army Blog ::
:: Curu Olannon's Vindicators - 2500 points Army Blog (Old book, outdated) ::


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:21 pm
Posts: 132
Of my 3 armies (HE, LM, and DW) I actually have the least worry about how my dwarves are going to handle the change.

Us Dawi have so many option with dealing with all of the threats out there, it becomes a matter of simply making a list that is robust enough to deal with as many as possible.

LM and HE have far more problems dealing with the Herospam about to occur (I feel really bad for my LM, since they have no cannons/artillery to target high toughness targets, and their own monsters outside of Stegadons are pretty bad, those poor poor carnosaurs.... but hey, cowboy spam....)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 3
I'm about to play a 1000 point battle next week against Orcs and Goblins.

Anything I should bring? Was thinking loremaster with book. Or maybe see how he handles a fat dragon! The potential for lords up to 500 points in a 1000 point battle is just scary and the change from 250 to 500 points is going to affect a lot.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:35 pm 
Offline
Auctor Aeternitatum
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 6876
Location: The city of Spires
Shakkara wrote:
I'm about to play a 1000 point battle next week against Orcs and Goblins.

Anything I should bring? Was thinking loremaster with book. Or maybe see how he handles a fat dragon! The potential for lords up to 500 points in a 1000 point battle is just scary and the change from 250 to 500 points is going to affect a lot.

I would check with your opponent first if he is aware of the change and if he wants to play with the change. Not everyone is aware of the FAQ's (a lot of people don't read forums) or care for them. And if that's the case with your opponent then facing a dragon in a 1000pts game would be a big shock for him. And probably not a pleasant one.

As for what to bring, go for something you think is fun.

Rod

_________________
Eirik wrote:
Please try to remember that, no matter how 'official' the source seems, rumours are basically just a dictionary combined with a random number generator

For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 3
Prince of Spires wrote:
Shakkara wrote:
I'm about to play a 1000 point battle next week against Orcs and Goblins.

Anything I should bring? Was thinking loremaster with book. Or maybe see how he handles a fat dragon! The potential for lords up to 500 points in a 1000 point battle is just scary and the change from 250 to 500 points is going to affect a lot.

I would check with your opponent first if he is aware of the change and if he wants to play with the change. Not everyone is aware of the FAQ's (a lot of people don't read forums) or care for them. And if that's the case with your opponent then facing a dragon in a 1000pts game would be a big shock for him. And probably not a pleasant one.

As for what to bring, go for something you think is fun.

Rod


It's not intended to be fun, we are both going to break the game as much as possible and there's a good reason behind it. So far this person has used list like 2 mini units and the rest of the points spent in one giant unit turtled up inside a folding fortress. Or a 9 fanatic army with slingshot congo lines. That sort of thing. If he's not aware of the rule change, even better!

I've also considered going dark elves. Hellebron + cauldron is 500 pts and fits in now. Then a load of crossbowmen that get the to wound reroll and a unit of warlocks.

For high elves, maybe a dragon and frost phoenix and fill up the core with reavers? Or Carandryan on Ashtari and a Flame Phoenix. Add 3x reavers with bow and there's points left for a Skycutter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:11 am 
Offline
Rhetor militaris
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:50 pm
Posts: 451
Alright, time for those responses:

@ Sinsigel

For 3k+, I definitely think that a Star Dragon is mandatory. It gives so much hitting power, and can be coupled with magic quite well, without compromising. The challenge then becomes how to fit a similar setup in a 2.4-2.5k list. I think here, the Star Dragon is less important, and the Anointed actually takes the cake, because it opens up the Bolt Throwers in Rare, without being forced to take a Phoenix. I'll talk more about this below.

@ Sandstorm

Five Frosties seems like drastic overkill to me: even two seems somewhat redundant. I'd much rather take the Anointeds on Flamespyres at this point, or more importantly, some magic. The magic heavy list is a lot more interesting IMO, but 20 White Lions is too small a number for an environment that will be heavy with Monsters. If the spells don't do enough turns 1-2, you've just lost the game. I am interested though in what kinds of magic we will start seeing. I could easily see 2x Level 4 + Lv 1s Coven being a thing. I'll be thinking more about how to pull this off.

@ Swordmaster

Quote:
Why do you think higher character allowance is an opportunity/good thing?


I posted this in the Fantasy Thread, and I feel it bears repeating:

"Firstly, this is going to cut down in the time it takes to play games, which I feel can only be a good thing. While playing with large armies is awfully fun, the physical time it takes to play against an all-skink player, for instance, is too high. There's also the fact that if games get shorter, tournaments will require you to play more games, which helps to find the truly 'best' player in the room rather than the 'luckiest,' (quotes very much intentional).

Secondly, point deflation has kept us putting more and more models on the table with each edition, without any consequence. At the current rate, next edition edition or two might have had us putting 4k worth of models on the table, in 5-6th edition terms. If this was an objective of GW, which I feel it was, mission accomplished.

Finally, on a very selfish level, High Elves benefit from these changes quite a bit. With all the access to fliers, monsters, magic, and Bolt Throwers we're setup well to weather the storm. I'm looking forward to playing the game in a different and new way."

Quote:
Do you assume that your lists are going to face character heavy armies only or are they supposed to be good against regular armies too?


I don't think there's a distinction to be made here between 'character heavy' and 'normal.' I think that after seeing these changes, there's a knee-jerk reaction to call this Herohammer, but I don't think that's entirely accurate. I don't look at this as an overhaul, I look at this as a meta shift; a loosening of restrictions that will allow for new innovation. Just as if they made Rare able to be 50% of your army, or Core went down to 10%, I would be interested in seeing what new combinations start appearing.

I already mentioned that I think this change is self comping, but let me expand on that. First, as Furion points out, you aren't going to see anyone really committed to taking the 3rd Level 4, and 2x Level 4 is already a sub-optimal choice for most armies (including HE), so I don't feel too bad going up against Level 4 + Level 4 & Coven: for the points, I feel I can do a better job.

There's the same thing with characters as a whole. Because I still have to fill Core, I want to make sure that my Core is reasonably supported, for the points. This means yes, more monsters, fliers, Cav Lords, but it also means I'll be taking Bolt Throwers, Phoenix, and maybe some Great Eagles (maybe). I foresee other armies will look at it the same way. Alternatively, they're playing "Herohammer with 625 deadweight core," which I don't think min/max-ers will tolerate, and the meta won't support. Don't get me wrong; in the short term, you might see craziness, but once things settle down, I don't see "625 deadweight" being a trend.

Quote:
In your initial analysis you scraped entire special section, picked only one type of a regiment from rare and two from core. It means you have only 3 unit types and associated characters out of 18 (I think) units the book has to offer. How such sever limitations are going to promote innovation in your opinion?


It's a shift of where the options are coming from, and that breads creativity and innovation. Before, there were only 2-3 Lord choices that were consistently playable (competitive, and ignoring special characters). Now, if you count the combinations, there are closer to a dozen. Where before, a lot of our variety came from Special, now it comes from Lords and Heroes. Not bad, just different.

I scrapped the Special section completely because the points have to come from somewhere, and Bolt Throwers and Phoenixes are still likely playable, but units like Sisters, Skycutters, Swordmasters just don't compare with Cav Princes, Life Archmages, Star Dragons, and Phoenix Anointed. These units were already weaker in the meta, and they've only gotten worse. As I pointed out, resiliency, speed, and hard-hitting are the characteristics of this meta, and this shift: those units which don't epitomize those characteristics are less likely to be seen now.

Quote:
Your examples show cavalry with mounted characters as well as flying ones plus bolt throwers as range support. The units are organized as either main regiment with all characters or as small support elements. It gives the impression that the forces are meant to engage the enemy as fast as possible in sort of point-and-click manner. Or in the case of archmages on dragons a force that is good at denying points to the enemy and maybe even avoiding combats if possible since it is quite risky to put level 4 in the fight.


No, not at all. Let me explain.

If you're playing a "lineup and push" strategy, you don't need mobility as much as you need resiliency and hard-hitting (thinking Nurgle wall). Speed adds a completely different element to the game: board control. Warhammer, now more than ever, I feel is going to be about controlling very specific, and sizable, chunks of the table at a time. The armies that can do that the best will consistently beat those who cannot.

High Elves have always had access to speed, but have been notably lacking in resiliency, with a few exceptions. This edition, the Frostheart, Core Silver Helms (and characters), and Phoenix Anointed have shown that resiliency can be achieved, which gives us a deadly combination.

This means two things: 1) HE units are in a unique position to be able to dictate terms and 2) are not afraid of getting into combat, thus can create a equilibrium on the board, rather than having to give it up in a hurry. Assuming 1) leads to 2), you create a scenario where you control large swaths of the table, giving you plenty of time to clear away any annoying chaff, pick at characters and monsters, and cast plenty of magic. This, I feel, is going to be the strength of new HE: being able to control the table, wear down the enemy, and finish with a triumphant charges.

This is very different from "lineup and push," but I expect it take a good helping of patience to make it work, and (especially in the short term, while players are testing) the instinct will be to play aggressive. I view this as a mistake however.

I hope that shows some of the reasons I'm excited and optimistic about the changes. I feel there are going to be a bit of learning, as there was with 8th itself, but ultimately we'll be better off, just how I feel with 8th.


@Feeblings

Quote:
Well, I bet there will be less models on the table and quicker games. I think overall the changes only strengthen the strong builds that high elves already have, while weakening the builds that were used less.


Precisely.

Quote:
For specials I think they will still work, botwd white lions and phoenix guard will still be good alternatives to other things depending on the list. I'm a little worried about swordmasters though, they were in a tough spot and now I think it's going to be even tougher... dragon princes could be useful if core ends up being a chaffparty of silverhelms and reavers.


I'm not yet convinced of the merits of White Lions and Phoenix Guard under the changes. Currently, even with Banner of the World Dragon, White Lions have a tough time against Monsters, and even lots of Peg-spam, specifically because they're still to vulnerable to the sides and rear. I'm also worried that without a Prince in the Phoenix Guard, they lack the hitting power to deal with what's likely to be taken and, if you want to invest in the Prince, start to become more expensive than the alternatives. I will say that if you are going to take a foot element, a Lothern Sea Helm is now 100% a requirement; you won't be able to get by without the free reform against highly mobile opponents.

What are you thoughts on how effective foot is, compared to say a Star Dragon instead? I'd be interested on hearing some analysis.

@ Rod

Quote:
I think most people play standard battleline without objectives. Which makes those less important. I can imagine that in a future edition objectives will become a lot more important. But for now, they hardly feature in games. And, if you simply destroy everything your opponent has then objectives stop mattering as well of course.


I hope this is true. I actually like the objective-heavy gameplay of 40k, and while I wouldn't necessarily advocate an equal emphasis be placed on the Fantasy side of things, I think there's still room for expansion. This does also make sense, with the shift towards less models and faster games, which seems to be a focus of GW across all their systems.

I also agree: there should be some awfully fun Gryphon builds, especially if you take lots, barebones.

@ Spellarcher

Quote:
A lot of people will assume multiple monster lords are coming and load up on cannon. Further, players will deliberately move to armies with cannon from armies without. So the first question is, "Can armies with two or three monster lords do well in a cannon-rich environment?"


This is why I don't feel the impact on the overall game will be that devastating, although I do predict a shift in the meta. At first, everyone will take as many monsters as they can get their hands on, then Dwarves will take 7x Gyros and max Cannons and everyone will drop their monsters as fast as they can, in favor of anti-warmachine and chaff clearing tools.

@ Malossar

Quote:
I think there's a case to be made for the humble Skycutter with Eagle Eye. Why? Another Bolt shot although only at str 5 but is ignoring armor saves and dealing d3 wounds shouldn't be overlooked. Another thought is heavens since i'm assuming the most abusive lists are going to be coming in the form of flying monsters or characters on flying mounts. Comets help with board control and harmonic is great with a bolt throwe bunker


I don't see it to be honest. Rare points are being lessened as people take more Monster Lords instead, leaving room for 4x Eagle Claws with points to spare, and I just can't justify taking a SKycutter before I've taken my 4th Bolt Thrower, nor can I justify its combat contributions against a Frostheart, Eagle Noble, or even a 1+ Blocking Noble. Care to persuade me?

I strongly agree about Heavens. Fliers are going to be in 90% of lists that can take them now, and Heavens is a great way to counter this. It also synergies very well with the themes of hard-hitting, quick, and resilient, not the least because it allows for chaff clearing that saves points to be spent on the aforementioned themes.

@ Vespacian1

Not sure about the particulars, but the concept seems solid. If you beef up the Helms by 5, you have plenty of resiliency without compromising on speed. I would, however, drop the second Frostheart for 2x more Bolt Throwers here, as I think you desperately are going to need the chaff clearing, and I'm also not sold on the Lore setups. I think it needs to be Life/High/Death on the Dragon-Archmage and I think, unless the Dragon-rider has it, High on the Helms is better than Life, due to lower casting values. The first Noble also will need S6 more than ever; I'd recommend Ogre Blade here, or Potion of Strength if you like.

@ cptcosmic

Quote:
too much focus on power builds...

how about fun builds, like spamming eagle nobles along with a beast archmage?


All in good time :) For the moment, I'm interested in seeing what works well, then sliding the scale back from there. This will give us all a better idea of how much we can 'get away with' without sacrificing understanding of how much we can accomplish.

@ Curu

I disagree that the Star Dragon list needs both a Cav Prince and a Frostheart. You're at too much risk of letting the game stalemate and getting worn down at ranged by magic and shooting. I think 4x Bolt Throwers is a must for allowing good combats that are favorable, but also to prevent unfavorable ranged wars. I would drop the Prince here, as the Star Dragon provides enough combat threat that you needn't worry.

I do, however, like the concept. I personally think I'll favor the Flamespyre/Frostheart Anointed instead, just for the options, and for the added survivability in a meta that's bound to be magic- and cannon-heavy.

2nd Post:

Quote:
The first way is taking 2 combat lords, backed up with an Archmage and possibly a hero mage or two to round out magical flexibility and/or the need to include certain items (e.g. Scroll, Book). These 2 combat lords can be any combination basically, but I doubt that it's effective to put them both on monsters as it'll lose you the L4. Basically then, I see 4 approaches:
- Star Dragon + Cavprince
- Flamespyre + Cavprince
- Dual Cavprince
- Cavprince + Footprince


Too narrow a view I feel. Let's start with generally: what do lists now need to be able to do? I've already pushed the idea of hard-hitting, mobile, and resilient, but if there's anything else here that you think should be considered, please feel free to expand. After that, there are several ways I foresee categorizing play styles: "push," "dance," "point denial," and "ranged" are the general ideas that come to mind here.

The first ("push") obviously wants as many combat elements as possible, that function well independently and together. The second ("dance") would place more of an emphasis on magic and shooting, eliminating chaff and creating opportunities before hitting home with a final charge. Point denial could feature several blocking Cowboys, all fliers, and lots of resilient choices like Flamespyres and Frosthearts, and less Cav. Finally, a ranged play style would have to rely on Lions or Phoenix Guard, with lots of magic and shooting, a play style my gut says is weakest, but could still do well.

Your list of options fits very nicely into the first, and some of the second, but I think there are other choices that need to be considered. Double-Loremaster, for instance, is incredibly versatile, works well against monsters and characters alike, and still leaves plenty of points to be spent elsewhere. Archmages on Dragons I also think are likely to be more popular, especially with Death, because there isn't the requirement of exclusivity with the other Lords.

Then there are the heroes, which I think deserve and entire discussion unto themselves. Lightly-kitted Nobles on Eagles, Steeds, or Gryphons all could work pretty well, provided you have enough of them and aren't skimping elsewhere. Also another topic, how does Light Magic factor in? I agree, it is particularly good. As Malossar also points out, Heavens is also a lot stronger in a meta dominated by Fliers. There's a lot of meat here, that's going to take some time to digest. I'm very much interested in everyone's thoughts on these matters.

I expect, by the end of this, there will be about a dozen different character setups worth trying, and my hope is that at least six are effective enough that we'll see them commonly. My gut feeling is that the delta's between the different-options power-levels is going to be relatively small, which means there's plenty of room for options.

@ nick larking

Quote:
I dont think any of our character or monster combos are that broken that it will make it OP, armies like WOC DoC are another story though. Cannonless armies might get some serious problems with those.


If we're talking about normal lists, I don't think any monster combos are particularly broken; even WoC 2x DP and Disc Lord doesn't scare me too much. Four Eagle Claws, plenty of fliers, and BotWD Helms is enough to deal with such threats.

If we're talking about special characters however, all bets are off. I think Teclis + Alarielle is the strongest HE can come up with, but it's on foot, so I'm not particularly attracted to it, given everyone else will be flying circles around me, and the first 1-2 magic phases pretty well determine the game.

@ Toledo Inquisition

Quote:
If people are up to it, also consider if you play all 6 scenarios. Have a Watchtower, and Blood and Glory Build.


Exactly one of the points I wanted to talk about. The lists most of us envision auto lose in Watchtower and (sometimes) Blood and Glory. How should we address this when playing BRB scenarios? I'm open to suggestions here. I think MSU might (oddly enough) be the answer here. I'll talk more about this at length, when I have time.

@ Lord Anathir

Quote:
I really really fear for dwarfs. The new rules really let armies become even more polarized than before.


Quote:
think Dwarfs will be just fine. Take a healthy number of helicopters (5-7), double cannons and double organ guns, double infantry blocks and you're good to go. Every single monster-heavy list in the game will be heavily out-deployed and you still have the artillery to hurt them a lot.


+1. I don't think they'll have too much trouble, although I think their builds are going to be the least flexible. Besides the option that Curu listed, I'm not sure of how else to play it, and that makes the army very stale and one dimensional, which is sad indeed.

@mcmulligan

Quote:
LM and HE have far more problems dealing with the Herospam about to occur (I feel really bad for my LM, since they have no cannons/artillery to target high toughness targets, and their own monsters outside of Stegadons are pretty bad, those poor poor carnosaurs.... but hey, cowboy spam....)


Lizardmen yes, High Elves, no. I think we're actually one of the strongest armies to take advantage of this change precisely because so many of choices are narrowly focused, meaning we can deal with both Heroes and Monsters efficiently providing we take the right units. It's going to be a min/maxing game, with several right answers, and when that's the case, armies with the most unit variety will come out on top, and High Elves have variety in spades.


Thoughts? I'd love to hear everyone's opinions!

Axiem


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:03 am 
Offline
Green Istari

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:26 am
Posts: 12281
Location: Otherworld
As far as Wood Elves go, 2x lvl4 is already a decent build, I can only see it getting better. Against the extreme range of stuff we're going to see at first, having the magical tools to deal with all of it looks very important. Especially in an army with no artillery. Waywatchers and Enchanted Arrows are great but they struggle with things like tank characters, especially in multiples. I still think combat characters (and the Treeman Ancient) are worth looking at but I'm largely a voice in the wilderness on this one.

Surely, Core becomes really important now, as it becomes a bigger proportion of rank and file. Squeezing the maximum efficiency out of it looks key.

There's an illuminating post by Scott Lines on pg 2 of this thread:

http://www.warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewt ... 3&t=126234

He's a good player on the UK scene. He plays Nagash at the recent Blackout tournament and gets very upset when he feels good play fails simply because Nagash is OP. As he says, he will move from Wood Elves back to his Empire (with 3 cannon and Light) if that's what it takes to win. Other players will follow suit IMHO. We then get a cannon-heavy meta. Do we then see the rise of armies less vulnerable to cannon (with no monsters say) while still being able to cope with monster lords too? What would such armies look like?

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:41 pm 
Offline
Vindicated Strategist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:21 am
Posts: 4929
Location: Oslo, Norway
Quote:
@ Curu

I disagree that the Star Dragon list needs both a Cav Prince and a Frostheart. You're at too much risk of letting the game stalemate and getting worn down at ranged by magic and shooting. I think 4x Bolt Throwers is a must for allowing good combats that are favorable, but also to prevent unfavorable ranged wars. I would drop the Prince here, as the Star Dragon provides enough combat threat that you needn't worry.

I do, however, like the concept. I personally think I'll favor the Flamespyre/Frostheart Anointed instead, just for the options, and for the added survivability in a meta that's bound to be magic- and cannon-heavy.


The Cavprince makes a huge difference in terms of what the bus can and cannot do. Whether he remains necessary or not remains to be seen in playtesting.

Quote:
Quote:
The first way is taking 2 combat lords, backed up with an Archmage and possibly a hero mage or two to round out magical flexibility and/or the need to include certain items (e.g. Scroll, Book). These 2 combat lords can be any combination basically, but I doubt that it's effective to put them both on monsters as it'll lose you the L4. Basically then, I see 4 approaches:
- Star Dragon + Cavprince
- Flamespyre + Cavprince
- Dual Cavprince
- Cavprince + Footprince



Too narrow a view I feel. Let's start with generally: what do lists now need to be able to do? I've already pushed the idea of hard-hitting, mobile, and resilient, but if there's anything else here that you think should be considered, please feel free to expand. After that, there are several ways I foresee categorizing play styles: "push," "dance," "point denial," and "ranged" are the general ideas that come to mind here.


Lists, as always, need to better at killing the enemy than the enemy is at killing them. The bigger the difference, the better. Dance and point denial is something you implicitly do when you play big units (in terms of points) and flyers. Ranged we can do as well, but we don´t need 50% lords for this.

Quote:
The first ("push") obviously wants as many combat elements as possible, that function well independently and together. The second ("dance") would place more of an emphasis on magic and shooting, eliminating chaff and creating opportunities before hitting home with a final charge. Point denial could feature several blocking Cowboys, all fliers, and lots of resilient choices like Flamespyres and Frosthearts, and less Cav. Finally, a ranged play style would have to rely on Lions or Phoenix Guard, with lots of magic and shooting, a play style my gut says is weakest, but could still do well.


Dance and point denial as you define them here are approaches I simply don´t believe in, regardless of lord points allocation. DE simply do it better than us. Lizardmen, too, I believe.

Quote:
Your list of options fits very nicely into the first, and some of the second, but I think there are other choices that need to be considered. Double-Loremaster, for instance, is incredibly versatile, works well against monsters and characters alike, and still leaves plenty of points to be spent elsewhere. Archmages on Dragons I also think are likely to be more popular, especially with Death, because there isn't the requirement of exclusivity with the other Lords.


Double Loremaster was always an option. Outside of team tournaments, rarely seen. Contrary to popular belief they are relatively weak against monsters and characters. What would you do vs this:
WoC: Double Nurgle DP with flamewards, 3++ stubborn lord with MR1 on disc
DE: X Masters on Pegs, hiding in units of WL/Dark Riders
HE: Star Dragon and/or a big bus

Quote:
Then there are the heroes, which I think deserve and entire discussion unto themselves. Lightly-kitted Nobles on Eagles, Steeds, or Gryphons all could work pretty well, provided you have enough of them and aren't skimping elsewhere. Also another topic, how does Light Magic factor in? I agree, it is particularly good. As Malossar also points out, Heavens is also a lot stronger in a meta dominated by Fliers. There's a lot of meat here, that's going to take some time to digest. I'm very much interested in everyone's thoughts on these matters.


This was always an option. As they haven´t been popular thus far, I don´t see how this new meta would suit them better seeing as they are good at handling small things, not big things. Light Magic however will likely be huge. Heavens receives a little boost innately vs flyers, but the monsters that matter don´t care too much about an extra D6 S4 hits.

Quote:
I expect, by the end of this, there will be about a dozen different character setups worth trying, and my hope is that at least six are effective enough that we'll see them commonly. My gut feeling is that the delta's between the different-options power-levels is going to be relatively small, which means there's plenty of room for options.


Sure there are tons of things you *can* do, I just don´t see all the things we can do that we couldn´t already have done before, as elaborated on above. I do expect us to see a good few options though, in terms of defense we also have a few pretty strong builds centered around the Coven, doubly so with Teclis which can now take a companion L4 for double S7 Banishment nastiness at 2400 points.

_________________
Retired from Warhammer. Playing Warmachine & Hordes (Cygnar).

Follow me on Courage of Caspia, my blog.

Warhammer blogs from 2011-2015:

:: Path to Glory - High Elves Army Blog ::
:: Curu Olannon's Vindicators - 2500 points Army Blog (Old book, outdated) ::


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:39 am
Posts: 20
Axiem wrote:
What are you thoughts on how effective foot is, compared to say a Star Dragon instead? I'd be interested on hearing some analysis.

Though I am a noob, I'll state my opinions. You can laugh at them and stuff :lol:

For games of 2400-3000 I think having a star dragon or at least a phoenix mount is something that can hardly be ignored. It almost seems necessary. Elf lists without monsters of their own will find it hard to challenge the dragon/monsters, and in general are going to find the increased big lords/heroes of other armies difficult to kill at these points. Our core, elite, and rare ground troops just don't have the strength and toughness to do it. We also can't out-siege opponents who will go shooty siege builds. This leaves mainly infantry lists between a rock and a hard place.

So what could you do against monster lists? For winning against such lists using no monsters of our own is definitely difficult. I haven't looked too deeply into it yet, but I think any effective strategy is going to have to crush in the magic phase. The dragon/monsters being so costly, means that a list without it will be able to take more magic. Buffing your own units and debuffing the monsters I think being the main thing. Shadow magic is great and wissans will probably be important as well. Also an army relying on it's elite infantry and magic will probably need more core chaff. I think this is where those extra points will have to go towards to. With more chaff you can hopefully out deploy the monster list forcing it into a bad position.

Do I think infantry lists are better at these points value though? No not really, but I'm sure some will be used often and I'm sure some people will still use specials at the top level and have success.

My main point however is I think a lot of places will be lowering game points to 2000 because most army books can take whatever they need now at this level. In my opinion this is what GW wants and I like the idea of shorter games anyways.

I've tried extensively to make a build that effectively utilizes the stardragon in a 2000 point list and it's very difficult. I'm not too happy with the results. This also brings along another problem. The cavbus is exceptionally weaker at this level if you include a dragon, unless you give up on what I consider some important options. It's not that it wouldn't work, it just brings very little models to the table and the helm bus will be a lot more vulnerable, or won't have as much of a punch. What I'm looking at is should I bring the dragon, frostheart, and a weaker cavalry bus with botwd, or take a stronger bus (though no botWD), phoenix guard and swordmasters/whitelions with botwd at this level?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:12 pm
Posts: 656
this change would allow me to make a cool army out of 3 IoB sets

lvl 4 archmage with +4 ward and scroll
noble on ASF griffon with lance, dragon armor and shield
noble on ASF griffon with lance, dragon armor and shield
noble bsb on ASF griffon with star lance, dragon helm, golden crown, heavy armor, shield & lion pelt

25 seaguard full command
3x 5 reavers with musician

2x15 swordmasters with full command

3 x RBT


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 7:07 am
Posts: 51
Location: Perth, Australia
You know I have flirted with the idea of running a Noble BSB Griffon with BotWD. The idea is a little out of left field I can admit, but having flying BotWD on a thunderstomping monster really screws over some matchups in our favour. Additionally, that WoC opponent won't be expecting the Griffon BSB to have it and when his Daemon Prince gets rickrolled like that turn 2 you can start laughing inside. Works well in some monster mash builds and invalidates the need to run a "bus" with 4+ characters inside.

Star Dragon Prince, Heavy Armour, Star Lance, Charmed Shield, OTS

Caradryan on Ashtari
Noble BSB Griffon, Lance, Dragon Armour, Shield, BotWD

10 Silver Helms, FC
5 Silver Helms, Champ
5 Silver Helms, Champ
5 Reavers, Champ

Frostheart Phoenix
Frostheart Phoenix

I would have taken this to my state championships if it wasn't open lists with the lists being published before the tournament. Unfortunately the Rickrolling Griffon loses all of its mojo in such a tourny.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:55 pm 
Offline
Vindicated Strategist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:21 am
Posts: 4929
Location: Oslo, Norway
Not to mention that said setup leaves you with 0 magic, 0 ways to break steadfast, a BSB that basically just has to hide against anything Elven and a severe weakness to enemy magic (which, given 50% armies, means tons of purple sun and banishment, I would expect).

_________________
Retired from Warhammer. Playing Warmachine & Hordes (Cygnar).

Follow me on Courage of Caspia, my blog.

Warhammer blogs from 2011-2015:

:: Path to Glory - High Elves Army Blog ::
:: Curu Olannon's Vindicators - 2500 points Army Blog (Old book, outdated) ::


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group