Dark Aelf (Shadowblades)

[Sarkazim]

@Nicoor anyone else following.  Taking a different train of thought for a moment based on the Fanatic Discussion found here.  

NOTE:  Please don't bring the rules part of the discussion here, leave it there in the Rules board.  Regardless of an individual stance.  This is about using that, and will work under either interpretation.

Here I learned something that's possible, but have never seen it in game.  The FAQ allows me to count the Assassins Hidden placement as my Set-up for the turn.  This is different to how I normally play, and I think it's different to how Nico plays.

If I start with my Assassins and for my 1st-4th set-up, just write down what unit that they're going to be hiding in, then I'm not placing anything.  After reading it, there isn't anything stating that I have to choose a unit on the board when I do.  Nico, I believe you play it where the hidden unit is inside its parent unit WHEN you drop them, which is why I'm asking you about this specifically.  It's something that I hadn't even considered, but there doesn't appear to be anything saying that I have to physically put something down on the table when it's my turn to set-up a unit.

This means I could technically force my opponents to put up to 4 units on the board before I even place my First?  The upside to this is that he'll have a hard time deploying against me as he could potentially have most/all of his army down.  I would then have greater freedom to pick, place, or counter his unit placement before the game even starts.  

The Downside is the 'If they can do it, then so can X'.  Fanatics/Sneaks gain a HUGE role to play pre-game, as you could Stack them REALLY cheap.   You'd use them stall the placement of your units making it almost impossible for your opponent to place his hordekilling unit against the Horde unit.  You'd then be able to almost always be able to place your own units off against their prime Targets.

This really shifts some importance off of finishing first just so you can choose who goes first.  The FAQ also makes sense when it says that models in a Battalion can still deploy separately if they want to.  It's easy to always plan on going second when compared to an army that depends on going first.  Sure, your opponent can always choose to let you go first, but he's still scrambling to get units toward/away from where he needs them to be.

This also potentially becomes a drawback for summoning type armies. The summoning caster is usually the last model to go down on the table, so that it's in the best position to survive.  Following the mentality that I should place something on my turn to Setup, I've only been able to get 2-3 of my Riders in a position to kill said caster.  This would make it really difficult for him to do that without taking a number of units to balance that out.

Anyways, that's my thought process right now and while this might not have that big of an impact on most armies, this could be a huge thing for me as it would make it easier to isolate a part of my opponents list without wasting a turn with 1/2 the board running.  Make it easier to avoid certain units that will spend the game chasing me or be out of their charge/shooting for a turn or two.  Or Assassinate key Cogs, like Necromancers, Healers or Casters.

Want some thoughts before I try it.

[Kramer]

Very interesting train of thoughts. Do you outnumber your opponents often (in units). Beacuse there are a couple of scenario's that reward you being done setting up first. 

With the speed of the dark riders you should be able to outmanouvre most armies any way. Getting the first turn (setting up de assassin with a unit as one)  might be more valuable than getting your opponent to set up his first 4 units

But definitely experiment and report  

[chord]

I think if you choose to use the assassin's ability , that is your set-up for the turn.  You would just state, I'm setting up my assassin using his special ability and writing down then unit he is in.  (and let them read the warscroll if they are not aware of it).

So if you had 4 assassins you could set up 4 of them in the first four turns of setup, thus being on turn 5 and placing your first unit on the board.

 

[Nico]

Quote

This means I could technically force my opponents to put up to 4 units on the board before I even place my First?  The upside to this is that he'll have a hard time deploying against me as he could potentially have most/all of his army down.  I would then have greater freedom to pick, place, or counter his unit placement before the game even starts.  

This is what you would always do with anything that deploys off the board, so that the other side is deploying blind. For example, as Fyreslayers I would almost always deploy a Runesmiter and a unit first, then repeat.

[Nico]

Quote

The Downside is the 'If they can do it, then so can X'.  Fanatics/Sneaks gain a HUGE role to play pre-game, as you could Stack them REALLY cheap.   You'd use them stall the placement of your units making it almost impossible for your opponent to place his hordekilling unit against the Horde unit.  You'd then be able to almost always be able to place your own units off against their prime Targets.

On the other hand, I'd rather not give away clues about where they are.

I don't think that you need to deploy them into a unit that's already deployed (you could deploy them into a unit you're going to deploy later. Obviously you don't say anything in this regard to give the game away.

[Sarkazim]

@KramerYes and No on the number of units. I originally started this project with 15 Riders and an Assassin.  It comes out to an even 500 points and made life simple as I would just 2x, 3x, or 4x that depending on game size.  Now that I've got a few games in, the unit Sizes vary and I like having at least one more Unit than I do Assassins so my opponent knows that there is at least one empty unit.

We've also been playing it where the Assassins don't count against when setting up.  I did initially play like Nico suggested, where I hid them in a unit and counted both units as single drop.  So I will usually only have 3-5 Drops and be done.  While it generally works out the same for determining who goes first, the way I play it now gives me a little wiggle room because I can hide them after all my Riders have deployed, and have them in good positions.  Haven't met anyone IRL who has had an issue with this.

The Discussion on Fanatics has broadened this.  You can read the full debate there and make up your own mind, but there is a new option that Imdidnt see.  That is actually counting the Assassins.  This will take me to 7-9 Drops which really lowers the frequency that I will choose who goes first.  This isn't important to most armies, but is pretty significant to mine.

You're not wrong about them being mobile.  What I lack is a consistent damage output to maintain that advantage.  It's great when it works, but the edge of playing such a unique army is losing its WoW factor fast.  I can usually only buy a turn or two before I run out of Table space.  Eventually I'm either forced to charge, or the rare get charged.  If I survive that, then I can retreat out the other side, but that costs me ALL my attacks to retain the freedom to roam.

Undead can replace a huge chunk of what I kill.  Some Battalions grant re-rolls to charges or bonus movement (Seraphon).  Sylvaneth can summon forests, teleport, and have a Battalion that even prevents retreating.  Battleshock is literally my main source of doing any kind of Crippling Damage, but I can't do a significant amount of Damage to even break that.  Even when Sow Terror goes off. 

In the First Turn, I'll take one of my units on my flank, and run them away from whatever was setup to deal with them. It's been working better than I thought. I've learned the hard way that it's quite easy for me to make a bad choice and go the wrong way.  Using the Assassins to delay the set-up of my Riders could offset that.  I'm just not sure it'd work if I had to give up the choice of who goes first, as he'd take that first turn to start boxing me in.

I should note that choosing to second has worked out incredibly well for me, because I can setup outside of his threat range and force him to come into mine.  If I choose to go first, I can use the impressive 30" threat range to do something.  This is how I already know that I can be boxed in, and that I can't take any unit in this game one on one.

@chordYes, if I used the ability then it would not only count as my setup for the turn but would also count against me setting up first.  It's odd because I've never seen it.  Every game I've watched has been Alternate placing units until both are done.  I've never seen an 'I'm placing nothing but still going to count it'. It becomes even sketchier if I choose to deploy 1-2 Assassins just to gain the advantage, and the deploy the other two with their units to maintain choosing who goes first.  It's looks like another 'Pick n Choose' that I don't like.  It's 'possibly' legal, but you'd have to read the other thread and make up your own mind.

@NicoI think you've hit the nail spot on.  We've moved from HOW they are deployed to WHEN they are deployed.  I could write down where they are BEFORE deploying any Dark Riders.  After Deploying all the Dark Riders.  I can choose to hide the AS my selection.  I can even mix it up.  Like the other two, it looks like it's going to go back to that discussion, which I wanted to avoid.  I'll have to sleep on it at this point, but your input is appreciated.  I MIGHT PM you later about the Fanatic discussion, to avoid getting troll'd while I think it through.

THANKS to all of you.  The insight is clearing up what I need to do, say, and try instead of just going in blind.

[chord]

Have you looked at using the Shadowblade warscroll from the Dark Elves compendium pdf?  It still has the shadowblade keyword so you could use the Dark Riders as battleline but you couldn't use the Master of Disguise ability since it only works on exiles.  The updside is you get -1 rend, better save, move, bravery, Heart of Woe.   Might be worth making one of your Assassin's this warscroll since its a little punchier.

 

[Sarkazim]

One of my Assassin models is the Shadowblade mini.  

Minor issue is that he can only be placed in an EXILES unit.  The Compendium version that has the EXILES rule, doesn't have the Shadowblades Keyword.  Loss of Battleline, and the points aren't as neat.  Giving him the -1 Rend artefact is almost worth it.  Heart of Woe is ALL units.  So if I make him too good at killing, he just gets shot, and I take the Wounds.

I know the FAQ sort of addressed this, and 99% of the players are okay with it.  Considering the other thimgs I'm trying to do, it's one less hassle.  That and it'll probably fade away as things get upgraded.

[chord]

True you can't hide him but his other abilities might be worth it depending on the game/opponent. Against a less shooty army his 8" moves is pretty good.

[Sarkazim]

The 8" is good, but not when compared to the 14" of the rest of the army that I'm running.  He'd just look odd.

[Nico]

They've comped it as I predicted. In your turn, you deploy pile in and attack your assassins, then your opponent deploys, piles in and attacks with their assassins (i.e. applying the simultaneous attacks hints and tips and assuming that you pick to do your damage first); then the body of the combat phase - so your turn, your pick first.

Crucially - you don't get another round of attacks in with the assassins in the body of the combat phase. 

They have also rewritten the deployment of Nasty Skulkers (and Fanatics) for balance reasons. Makes it quite a bit harder to use them.

[Sarkazim]

I just read the FAQ.  

@NicoI don't understand your first statement.  There are two FAQs on the Reveal thing.  The Main FAQ says I get to reveal, resolve, then decide if I even want to use the next one.  The Order FAQ says that I do get to use all of them, and using one doesn't prevent the others from going.  While this hasn't happened it was good to clarify it n case I ran into a player who tried it.  The last bit was what I think we agreed on.  That the current player has to use his before his opponent.  So Assassins can't be deployed and attack in response to an Assassin.  Makes the Assassin vs. Demon Prince Discussion interesting.

Im not Devastated by the no second selection on the Assassin.  I'm actually relieved to have an answer although I am disappointed in the unit as a whole.  Tactically, it just means I'm going to have to put more of them into a unit to actually assassinate something.  Which significantly reduces the fear value of even having them.

The other thing that changed is that I HAVE to give an Assassin the Artefact.  I can't give an Artefact to my DR Champion.  I've been playing around with it and while it hasn't made an impact, it was nice to be able to use the Artefact for more than just the reveal.  Just gotta decide if the Hoarfrost or -1 Rend is better.  The +1 Damage isn't worth it because he still won't do enough damage to a unit to prevent him from being killed.

-----

That leaves 2 questions left unanswered though, and this is more for me than any actual response.  If I missed these in the FAQ, then let me know.

1- Do I have to hide the Assassin when it is his turn during Deployment? This will count against me setting up first.  If I have to, then can I choose to hide him in a unit that isn't on the board yet?

2- Does 'Sow Terror and Confusion' stack with each unit in range?

[chord]

44 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

 

2- Does 'Sow Terror and Confusion' stack with each unit in range?

According to the FAQ I think it does

 

[Sarkazim]

it's on the Fence @chord.  It doesn't specifically state that it is excluded because of that FAQ, which it could.  The problem is when we go to resolve the second ST&C.  The problem is in how ST&C is worded.

We simply don't know if we're checking to see if a singular D6 is there, which there is after the first ST&C resolves.  Or if we get to add a D6 when we get to the second, third, or forth ST&C.  Both interpretations are plausible, which is why we need an answer.

[chord]

I believe the proper way to play it is to add a D6 per unit of dark riders within 14" of the enemy unit who rolled a 1 on battleshock.

[Nico]

Quote

Im not Devastated by the no second selection on the Assassin.  I'm actually relieved to have an answer although I am disappointed in the unit as a whole.  Tactically, it just means I'm going to have to put more of them into a unit to actually assassinate something.  Which significantly reduces the fear value of even having them.

This is the point I'm emphasising. The other points are minor compared to doing potentially twice as much damage as normal by attacking twice in one turn (which the FAQ agreed with me on - adopting a purposive interpretation). 

[rokapoke]

5 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

2- Does 'Sow Terror and Confusion' stack with each unit in range?

It looks to me like they've updated the warscroll's wording -- if I recall correctly, it used to reference units "within 14" of a unit of Dark Riders."

The current wording (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-dark-riders-en.pdf) states "Enemy units within 14" of Dark Riders are terror-struck", indicating that it doesn't matter how many units of Dark Riders are involved.

[Sarkazim]

@rokapoke The choice to treat the rule as applying to any/all unit of Dark Riders is the result of checking just to see if the additional D6 is present.  It is the more common interpretation, but we simply don't know if ST&T is written for the unit 'Dark Riders' or all units of 'Dark Riders'.  

The problem doesn't even appear until someone runs 2+ units of Dark Riders.  When we follow the tips on how to resolve multiple abilities does the question even show up.  Opponent rolls a '1' for his Battleshock test.  First unit of Dark Riders uses ST&T, and we add a D6.  Second unit uses ST&T, under the current wording, this still happens.  We either check to see if the D6 is there for having previously been subjected to ST&T.  Or, since it's not specific, do we get to stack according to the FAQ.

I'm not trying to break the game, or cheese the unit out.  I don't currently play it as stacking, but I do roll an additional die to see what the outcome could've been.  It's just something that I feels needs either a word change or a separate FAQ, because the Stacking FAQ changed it to being possible.  Unlike the other ones where I was coming from a possible situation to something definitively disallowed.

I would just like an answer before I start playing it that way.  Not in any rush as I have to figure out what the Assassins are supposed to do, which Artefact is going to work out the best on them, if they count toward setting up first, or if I should just say Eff it, and not run any of them.  Worrying about being able to remove an extra 2-3 models when my opponent actually rolls a 1, after somehow even forcing the test, is the least of my problems.

@Nico I don't know if I'm just tired but I'm just not processing what you're getting at? Or are you just trying to say 'I was right!'? I understand disallowing it from the potential damage perspective.  Having been fortunate enough to have played it from a practical perspective it just isn't worth it.  The other Assassins have so much more going for them, and the only advantage the Shadowblade has is that he can hide in any Order unit.  

Im not going to go into the combos where he might be better off in other Order units, but it feels like a handicap almost in a Shadowblades Alliance, because he doesn't do anything different that spending his points on more Dark Riders wouldn't do, and better.  Currently, the only use I see for bringing one is so that there is something that can use an Artefact for the turn he is revealed before he gets raped by what he was trying to kill.

 

[Nico]

Quote

Nico I don't know if I'm just tired but I'm just not processing what you're getting at? Or are you just trying to say 'I was right!'? I understand disallowing it from the potential damage perspective.  Having been fortunate enough to have played it from a practical perspective it just isn't worth it.  The other Assassins have so much more going for them, and the only advantage the Shadowblade has is that he can hide in any Order unit.  

I'm tired too. Remember that I'm looking at this from a Nasty Skulker persective. If I had tried to do two sets of attacks with each of my 3 units of 12 Nasty Skulkers in each turn with Gordrakk's buffs, I think people would have been understandably angy (I didn't do so as per this thread). All I'm saying is that I told you a while back that a Tournament Organiser would take a purposive interpretation of the don't select a unit to attack twice rule i.e. a broader don't attack twice (unless Vanhels level of specific wording saying you can attack twice). This has now come to pass in the FAQ with a specific answer confirming that the Assassins cannot attack twice in a given combat phase (i.e. only in the start of the combat phase, not in the body of the combat phase as well).

I hope that's clear.

All the other complicated mechanics have been ruled pretty much as we both said. I think they've tried to simplify it, so that you have to do all your assassins first (if it's your turn) and then the opponent does all their assassins next (in practice this is what you would always do, unless you were specifically trying to kill the opponent's assassins with your ones - since you cannot kill what's not on the table); and once all the start of the combat phase stuff is done, you can then activate one of your units. Overall - good news.

Merry Christmas.

[Sarkazim]

@NicoGot it.  Merry Christmas to you too.

Brainstorming a different direction.  

Quote

Tenebrael Shard (Artefact)

15 Dark Riders (Warlord)

10 Dark Riders

10 Dark Riders

5 Doomfire Warlocks

5 Doomfire Warlocks

5 Reavers (BL)

5 Reavers (BL)

5 Reavers (BL)

This is going to open up some options and flexibility to the list.  Its still overcosted and I lose the hidden Assassins mechanic which was one of the draws to the army.  The Warlocks are more there for Arcane Bolt/Shield as well as counterspell opportunity, and no so much for their signature spell since the range is disappointing, but remains a threat.

It's still 60 Mounts, so I already own the models for it, and it wouldn't be too difficult switch to this.  Especially since I haven't put ANY of the Riders on yet and I'm just working on the Horses.  I have two boxes of Waywatchers for the Heads, so I'd just convert the Bows for a "Dark Reaver" conversion to maintain the Theme.

 

[Sarkazim]

Caught a break in my crazy Work Schedule to catch a game vs. Skeletons.  Playing to the Objective landed me a draw, and even then only because of my unit that came back as a result of my Campaign roll.   I had managed to get both Skeleton units down to 2-3 models, but didn't have the damage output to finish them off.  Also, I don't think he rolled under a 10 on any of his charge distance rolls.  He finished the game at full strength.

Again the frustration of playing a very under powered list showed itself.  The Assassin managed to put a whopping 2 wounds on the VLOZD, which it promptly got one of them back from munching on the Assassin.  For SnG, we rolled the double attack just to see what would have happened.  3 more wounds.  At least my opponent was nice enough to admit that he needs to dumb down his list.  On the flip side, he was endlessly frustrated by all of my Retreats to go after objectives.  No one had ever done it, and he was thinking there was something that he could do about it.  Everyone told him that it was basically how my army worked, and he hated it.  After the 3rd retreat one of the spectators pointed out that he was practically back to full strength, with me sitting at 6 models left on the table.

The relic being forced onto the hero also meant that I didn't really get much use out of that as well.
-----
Moving forward, I did a few things differently this time around.  My first mistake was spreading my units far apart to where they couldn't support each other.  Like my larger games, I had one unit that had to run, so it ended up NOT shooting, which probably would've turned the tide against 1 unit of Skeletons.  Him catching me with 2 units put me at a huge disadvantage, as retreating for most of the game cost me too many attacks.  My usual retreat with one, and charge with 1-2 more just never really went off.

One gambit that did sort of work, was retreating away from the objectives but within range of his Vampires.  He took the bait and spent the Turn going after me instead of getting on his objectives to score the points.  If this had been a normal game, I would've lost, but I think I need to work on this one a bit more.  Sacrificing a unit to bait my opponent has some potential.

-----
Since several people showed up, we had a discussion about the two remaining issues.  
1- They agreed that the Assassin counting toward deployment was weird.  They felt the same way I did about the way the rule is worded.  "Instead of Setting up Normally" could mean that they aren't subject to any of the normal deployment rules.  They also agreed that if I did want to count them toward me setting up first, then I could null deploy for each Assassin, since the FAQ says that it can be done.

I think I'm really going to try this one.  Going first doesn't seem to work well for this army, as it's easier for my opponent to react after I've moved to box me in.  Initially I think my opponents will always choose to go first, but after a time, they'd probably see that letting me go first makes life difficult for me, as it was in this game.  I'd just like to see how things go when I force him to put 4-5 units down before I even place my first.

2- Stacking 'Sow Terror and Confusion'.  This one was simple, since they all openly admitted that it could go either way, but like me, agreed to hold off on allowing it until we see some sort of FAQ or Update on it.

- That's it!

[rokapoke]

27 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

I could null deploy for each Assassin, since the FAQ says that it can be done.

Where is that in the FAQ?

[chord]

The VLOZD can be tough to deal with if you can't focus a lot of wounds on it from a distance. But  playing to the scenario is definitely the right thing to do

[Sarkazim]

@rokapokeIt's a carry over from a discussion from another thread.  

Quote

‘Set-up’ is typically when a unit is placed on the table during deployment, but can also refer to a unit being deployed in a location other than on the battlefield, or being put into play once the game has started (a unit using the Stormcast Eternal Warrior Chamber’s Lightning Strike, the Chameleon Skinks’ Chameleon Ambush, or the Treelord’s Spirit Paths ability, for example). Models can set up within 3" of the enemy, even if they are set up in the movement phase, unless noted otherwise in the rules for the ability that allows them to be set up once the battle is under way. 

The 'allowance' comes from the bit underlined.

Short story is that there is a group of individuals who feel that each unit has to follow all the setup rules, so don't actually get placed until the controlling player nominates that unit to be setup.  They believe that 'Instead of setting up normally' specifically refers to placing the model on the table, and not the entire 'setting up' process.  I haven't met a player yet who has forced me to declare that I am hiding my Assassins when their time comes to set them up on the table.  A few players have requested that I write down what units have Assassins before setting up any units, but isn't an issue after the first game.  The line listed certainly does give the the controlling player the option to count them if he wants, as opposed to being forced to. 

After taking that stance to see what the outcome would be, there were two effects that affect gameplay.  The first one being that my Assassins would then count toward whether or not I had actually finished setting up first.  The second one was more interesting, especially if forced to count them.  Since there is a lack of any instruction to force me to put something down when it is my turn, I would simply declare the Assassins as my first deployments. Writing down their locations as my setup for the turn appears to be legal, with the only difference being that one group insists that it has to be this way.  The majority of players simply don't care.

What this does is force my opponent to put a unit down on the table, for each Assassin I have, before I place anything down.  I effectively get an idea of where key units of his are going and either setup to deal with them, or ignore them.  The downside is that I potentially lose positioning the Assassins in the best units to deal with the threats after all the units are on the board.  With Assassins not having an impact in game like I had hoped, this is less of an issue.

My group agreed to allow me play it that way if I wanted, so we can see the results.

[Sarkazim]

Hey all, thought I'd drop in with an update.  Changes in my work schedule have forced me to drop out of the campaign I was in.  With the combos available to the other armies, the bonuses for having a painted army, just put me so far behind that it was becoming just too difficult to make the effort.  In addition to that, the local GW shop has kicked off a huge 40k shindig with tons of fresh blood, so I've been asked to help teach the game.  I do have more painting time and once my body adjusts to my new schedule, I'll be getting back to that, so keep an eye out.

-----

Gamewise, the FAQ has sapped a majority of my steam.  While I'm glad that I now know that Assassins don't strike, its become difficult to use them.  Being forced to take the relic on the Assassin means that one of them will have a Rend, but they simply can't kill anything.  I've had to stack them to do anything effective which also removes the 'ball and cup' mechanic that attracted me to them in the first place.  With the wait on a response to Assassins counting as a setup unit, and Sow Terror stacking, my games have dropped to just rolling dice.  I still enjoy the army and game, but it's become quite predictable.

-----

I DID finally go up against the Slanneshi DP and think I pissed him off because I got around his interrupt activation.  I'm not sure I played the rule correctly though so I'll post here, but something didn't seem right.

- Unit of Dark Riders with one Assassin moves and sits 3" away from the DP, shoots putting a few wounds on him, then charges.  I deliberately leave the models out of base contact, with just the one model at 1/2" away.  

- Activatimg the Assassin doesn't Trigger the DP ability, as there is no way to tell if he's in range until he gets placed, and I get to finish the Assassins attack once he is placed if we did it right.  He too was used to the placing the model, then resolving the ability at that time.  We simply rolled off on it and I won, but want to know.  He piles-in and makes base contact and puts a few more wounds on him.

- I now activate the Dark Riders as my first choice whic does Trigger the DP.  He's upset (not mad) because he thinks he has to hit the Assassin because of the being in base contact, and can't swivel the DP around to get in base with the Riders.  Even though he wasn't in base, I was under the impression that the range of his weapons could still swing on the Riders?  He didn't want to argue, and went after the Assassin, which he raped.

He won the game because through ALL of that, I failed to kill the DP.  A string of losing the Initiative rolls meant that I never got to benefit from my retreats and was ground down.  He lightened up a bit when I pointed out that he didn't need that DP interrupt to win, and that I only disrupted it's for the one turn.  Failing to kill it meant he got it on subsequent turns.

Still, would like to actually know.