Let's chat Fyreslayers

[Andreas]

23 minutes ago, Louzi said:

I am not. If anyone tells me it is confirmed another way, I would appreciate it. But for now I'll play it like that, because otherwise I am not sure I am cheating my opponent...

Which is fine. The issue you could face is if someone wants to reroll their save rolls and you disagree.

Edit: or have 4+ to hit and takes damned for +1 to hit and also have rerolls to hit for some ability and he roll a 3 and is forced to reroll it. ?

It'sa common ability. But I am not going argue this. Play it the way people you play with play it is probably the best solution.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

9 hours ago, Louzi said:

they explained the battalion on stream...

That’s fair enough, and I agree with that ruling. But until it’s in an faq it’s not official. Not everyone watches twitch. 

[Karl]

You don’t have to re roll the dice, just says that you can. In you example of damned where you get +1 to hit. You roll your dice, I would only re roll 1s and 2s because you know after the modifiers the 3’s will hit. 

[Andreas]

2 hours ago, Karl said:

You don’t have to re roll the dice, just says that you can. In you example of damned where you get +1 to hit. You roll your dice, I would only re roll 1s and 2s because you know after the modifiers the 3’s will hit. 

I know ?

Edit: Deleted some comment. Play the way your local scene plays it.

[gertat]

I play Khorne and are thinking about starting a second army and that will likely be Fyreslayers.

Will try to at first keeping to the big boxes ro start with.
- 2 Start collecting boxes
- 4 boxes Vulkite Berzerkers boxes
- 2 boxes Auric Hearthguard

Allies
- 3 boxes KO Skyriggers

Thinking of fielding this list

Allegiance: Order

Leaders
Auric Runefather on Magmadroth (260)
- General
Auric Runesmiter on Magmadroth (200)
- Runic Iron
Auric Runesmiter (80)
- Runic Iron
Auric Runeson (80)
- Ancestral War-axe
Auric Runeson (80)
- Ancestral War-axe
Auric Runesmiter (80)
- Runic Iron

Battleline
10 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (200)
- Broadaxes
- Fyreslayer Battleline (Runefather General)
30 x Vulkite Berzerkers (330)
- Handaxes & Slingshields
30 x Vulkite Berzerkers (330)
- Handaxes & Slingshields

Units
9 x Endrinriggers (360)
- 3x Aethermatic Volley Guns
- 3x Drill Cannons
- Allies

Reinforcement Points (0)

Total: 2000 / 2000
Allies: 360 / 400

 

Any thoughts and advice

[stratigo]

If you're going to make the balloon guys shooting based, use Wardens. Endrinriggers pay 20 more points per 3 for their close combat goodness.

[Andreas]

20 hours ago, gertat said:

I play Khorne and are thinking about starting a second army and that will likely be Fyreslayers.

Will try to at first keeping to the big boxes ro start with.
- 2 Start collecting boxes
- 4 boxes Vulkite Berzerkers boxes
- 2 boxes Auric Hearthguard

Allies
- 3 boxes KO Skyriggers

Thinking of fielding this list

Allegiance: Order

Leaders
Auric Runefather on Magmadroth (260)
- General
Auric Runesmiter on Magmadroth (200)
- Runic Iron
Auric Runesmiter (80)
- Runic Iron
Auric Runeson (80)
- Ancestral War-axe
Auric Runeson (80)
- Ancestral War-axe
Auric Runesmiter (80)
- Runic Iron

Battleline
10 x Hearthguard Berzerkers (200)
- Broadaxes
- Fyreslayer Battleline (Runefather General)
30 x Vulkite Berzerkers (330)
- Handaxes & Slingshields
30 x Vulkite Berzerkers (330)
- Handaxes & Slingshields

Units
9 x Endrinriggers (360)
- 3x Aethermatic Volley Guns
- 3x Drill Cannons
- Allies

Reinforcement Points (0)

Total: 2000 / 2000
Allies: 360 / 400

 

Any thoughts and advice

Buy a battlesmith also. I would advice to make one runefather on foot instead of a runeson. And maybe make a runeson on magmadroth instead of a runefather on magmadroth. If you want a runefather as your general you are probably better off picking the one on foot and runeson on magma are better if you in the future get another unit of vulkites. I also think you should think if there is some way you could convert and get another runesmiters in foot. Two of those is a good number and the most common build I think.

[gertat]

Wich battalion do you prefer if any?

Is there a stand out that most use?

[Andreas]

11 hours ago, gertat said:

Wich battalion do you prefer if any?

Is there a stand out that most use?

IMO this is the order from best to worst:

1 No battalion

2 Warrior Kinband (Some rate this higher than No battalion)

3 Lords of the lodge

4 Forge Brethren

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

20 minutes ago, Andreas said:

IMO this is the order from best to worst:

1 No battalion

2 Warrior Kinband (Some rate this higher than No battalion)

3 Lords of the lodge

4 Forge Brethren

If you have hearthguard then lords of the lodge is number one 1. Without it they’re not good enough

I rated forge brethren quite high before GHB17 but now it’s a bit too expensive. 

No battalion is hard because you end up with a lot of drops. With two Smiters and a battalion you can sit around the 4 -5 drop range maybe less 

[gertat]

How do a runesmith and ”his” unit count towards the deploy drops?

Does the units of the board count at all? If the do, does the count as one och two?

[Nico]

You drop them together as one “drop”. Pretty obvious from the wording.

[Andreas]

6 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

If you have hearthguard then lords of the lodge is number one 1. Without it they’re not good enough

I rated forge brethren quite high before GHB17 but now it’s a bit too expensive. 

No battalion is hard because you end up with a lot of drops. With two Smiters and a battalion you can sit around the 4 -5 drop range maybe less 

All true but no battalion is still good. Good enough to win blood and glory. ?

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

2 minutes ago, Andreas said:

All true but no battalion is still good. Good enough to win blood and glory. ?

That is a fair point, however that list was very efficient and build around a very specific play style. 

[Andreas]

2 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

That is a fair point, however that list was very efficient and build around a very specific play style. 

Yes, I run pretty much the same list as he does.

But I agree that fyreslayer battalions are all ok if you build around them. They all have some weaknesses, kinband puts a lot of eggs in one basket (the runeson on magmadroth), Lotl forces you to take a lot of HB which is slightly less efficient than vulkites. FB cost a lot and also can make you become too static/defensive. But they are all ok. 

But I Still think my ranking is correct but that is of course my opinion.

[Warhammergeek]

So, I'm a little slow on the uptake, but a runesmiter tunneling with a unit can't be deployed as part of a battalion? I think I may have been playing my SCE battalions wrong if so!

And overall no battalion is strong in most ppls opinions?

[Andreas]

27 minutes ago, Warhammergeek said:

And overall no battalion is strong in most ppls opinions?

No the battalions are strong in most ppls opinion. If you just read my post above I was arguing that I think no battalion is even stronger and I have tried them all.  But I do think most people don't agree and have there own favourite batallion that they think is the strongest way to run fyreslayers.  Just by going with the discussions on TGA it seems Kinband get alot of love here.

[CountryMou3e]

Kinbad isn’t that great at all as the ruling is models NOT units 

[Nico]

That isn’t an official ruling as far as I know.

I think it’s a mistake (the default is that Units are referred to when you say the Paladins, the Brutes etc.). It is only a small and exceptional number of rules that refer to models within x”.

The ruling was probably a reaction to the particular Battalion being absurdly undercosted in combination with the Rune of Farsight.

[Thomas Lyons]

On November 7, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Andreas said:

Yes, then same with saves. If you fail the save reroll you roll again, very intuitive.

I have never seen anyone play it any other way it that this discussion with anyone I have played with since it is very intuitive. But I have seen a lot of topics on TGA trying to convince people that the should play it in some other way because of reasons. So I just read your post like now your trying to complicate things. ?

The wording is identical and 40k and they have confirmed that this is indeed how it works in both 40k and AoS.  You reroll before modifiers.  Meaning, if you have a 4+ save and reroll failed saves, and you get hit with -1 rend, then you roll the dice, reroll roll anything that is 1-3, then apply modifiers, so anything 4 and lower is a failure.  

This functionally means that each point of rend creates a "hole" in the range that you don't get to reroll as a failed save (since it is higher than your save value) but will fail once modifiers are applied.  So a rend -2 (without bonuses to counter it) will always cause a 33% failure of saves.  It seems counter intuitive unless you actually read the rules and follow the sequence. 

[rokapoke]

4 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

The wording is identical and 40k and they have confirmed that this is indeed how it works in both 40k and AoS.  You reroll before modifiers.  Meaning, if you have a 4+ save and reroll failed saves, and you get hit with -1 rend, then you roll the dice, reroll roll anything that is 1-3, then apply modifiers, so anything 4 and lower is a failure.  

This functionally means that each point of rend creates a "hole" in the range that you don't get to reroll as a failed save (since it is higher than your save value) but will fail once modifiers are applied.  So a rend -2 (without bonuses to counter it) will always cause a 33% failure of saves.  It seems counter intuitive unless you actually read the rules and follow the sequence. 

Note that this also means that Rend is a natural counter to all forms of “good armor” — a low save and rerolls — which seems to be the entire point of its existence. As you say, follow the rules as written and it works itself out. It seems that many players want to jump right to post-modifier saves, but that doesn’t make it right!

[Andreas]

15 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said:

The wording is identical and 40k and they have confirmed that this is indeed how it works in both 40k and AoS.  You reroll before modifiers.  Meaning, if you have a 4+ save and reroll failed saves, and you get hit with -1 rend, then you roll the dice, reroll roll anything that is 1-3, then apply modifiers, so anything 4 and lower is a failure.  

This functionally means that each point of rend creates a "hole" in the range that you don't get to reroll as a failed save (since it is higher than your save value) but will fail once modifiers are applied.  So a rend -2 (without bonuses to counter it) will always cause a 33% failure of saves.  It seems counter intuitive unless you actually read the rules and follow the sequence. 

Yes, I get the "hole" in the range. I have just never seen it played this way, just because it is so counter intuative. Have you seen it played this way in any tournament you have attended in the US,  for example sylvaneth reroll must be the most common example? Do you play it this way?

[Nico]

Yes I play it the correct way and Explain it to opponents who get it wrong. It’s particularly important to me as I play with the Paradoxical Shield/Fyreslayers with Battlesmith.

Battlesmith (as far as I read it) is a fire and forget aoe buff like the Slaan Starmaster’s Command Ability - not an aura. 

This is both good (you keep it until your next hero phase if Battlesmith dies) and bad (doesn’t benefit tunnelling up Units who aren’t on the table in hero phase).

[Thomas Lyons]

4 hours ago, Andreas said:

Yes, I get the "hole" in the range. I have just never seen it played this way, just because it is so counter intuative. Have you seen it played this way in any tournament you have attended in the US,  for example sylvaneth reroll must be the most common example? Do you play it this way?

Indeed.  I both play it this way and this is how it is played at the US events I have went to.  When there is confusion, I try to point it out to people and explain how it works.

[stratigo]

it's a bad rule they really should go back on if they're pushing it for AoS now, which I am not entirely certain they are.