Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mirage8112 last won the day on September 16 2017

Mirage8112 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

517 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Mirage8112

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

420 profile views
  1. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Super helpful! One more thing: We've talked pretty extensively about unit sizes contributing to the efficiency of swords vs scythes. Could you perhaps run the same number but for a group of 6 scythes? and say, 4 hunters? That way we can take a look at combats where scythes would all be able to pile in, but swords wouldn't.
  2. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Oooooo. I get now. That's actually super helpful. Especially useful for things like the SE Aetherstrike Forcewhere units can shoot if you completely destroy a unit in the combat/shooting phase. This way you can maybe distribute attacks efficiently and give yourself a chance to wipe the unit out from battleshock rather than combat. Can we perhaps see the same thing but for an armor save of say, 5+?
  3. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Interesting, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that this is probability of how many wounds come out from a combat with 3 scythe hunters vs 3 swords hunters?
  4. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Oh ho ho! O rly. Please do tell... Firstly, units that ignore -1 rend are few and far in between. Seraphon yes with Saurus guard and warriors (although does anybody really have major problem with Saurus Guard/Warriors?), and the Bastilodon (which ignores all rend) as well as Spirit hosts (which also ignore all rend). In two of those cases Scythes are just flat out worse (since -2 rend does nothing) and with Saurus warriors which only have an armor save of 5+ anyway. As for Saurus guard with a natural 4+, (3+ with shield) we do have other answers than scythes (and hell, they're not really scary anyway) I am taking range into consideration. 1 extra inch just doesn't bring that much to the table, unless your running them in a big group. In that case, yes, scythes are probably better than swords, but nobody is saying that scythes aren't better under some conditions. What @Freejack02 is saying is that in the majority of cases, swords are probably better. It pretty evident from your response that you really don't know how to deal with high-armor units other than scythes. No wonder you think they're mandatory. Gibberish. You can't say "Sylvaneth should take scythes for an optimal build to counter the meta", and in the same breath note that "Sylvaneth don't do well in the Meta". Maybe if people stopped all taking the same things and building the exact same lists Sylvaneth would be doing better. If Sylvaneth were crushing tournaments with a bunch of scythe hunters you'd have an argument. But they aren't really doing that are they? So my question for you is why are you fighting to defend a build that everybody takes but doesn't win with? 1. Nobody playing Sylvaneth takes swords at tournaments 2. Sylvaneth don't win tournaments Again see my point above: why are you fighting to defend a build that everybody takes but doesn't win with? I take scythes. I've also taken swords. In my game today, my 3 scythes died but my 3 sword hunters were the MVP's of the game. Weight of attacks mattered more than rend. Can't argue with math. Ok. You tell them that. That way everybody can run around with the exact same build and get pretty much the same results. Because that's a smart way to do things. Seriously though. Who looks at the player in 20th place and thinks "I want to build my list just like that. Then maybe I can get 20th place too someday".... Swords for hunters in 3's for clearing troops and hordes (mark my words, hordes will be a huge thing when Nagash drops in a week). Scythes in units of 6+ (for alpha-striking dreadwood builds or removing heavy armor). Bows for laying down range fire and sniping mid-tier enemy characters. Learn to use the right tool for the right job. If the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. That's fine, until you run across a bolt and lugnut...
  5. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    @Freejack02 Is correct and his numbers add up. There's a lot of personal bias here, but the numbers don't lie. Scythes have their place in a unit loadout. But freejack is right that swords often do a better job because the extra attacks. 50% of until in the game have a save of 5+ (for which swords are better). Maybe another 35% have a save of 4+ (in which swords and scythes are close enough to be considered even). That leaves 15% of units that have a save of 3+ or better. Thats not a large enough margin to require that extra point of rend. Because thats really what your trading off. You're losing 3 attacks for an extra point of rend. That's not an equal trade off. This is dumbest argument I've ever heard. By that logic you shouldn't be playing Sylvaneth competitively because not 1 pages back you said: You can run whatever you want to run, but justifying your choices as "I'm only picking what's good in the meta" is dumb. Because the meta, itself is also dumb. I say that because the meta sometimes feeds itself. I've seen bunch of unit lists that were laughed at until they hit the table and in the hands of a competent player they wreck everything. Why? because everybody in the meta was just taking what everybody else was taking and group think means good combinations (or even basic math it seems) get ignored in favor of trying to be like the cool kids. Scythes are vey reliable for taking down high value targets. But lets be honest, how many times have you seen more than 1 unit with a save greater than 3+? Almost never. furthermore, just because you're missing -1 rend by bringing swords doesn't mean you don't have a way to deal with high armor targets. The way to deal with them is called Dryads. If something has too much armor to kill, then you tarpit it and leave it there all game while your swords dismantle the rest of the army. Putting scythes behind a dryad wall might work in some games, but a smart player will just charge a different part of the dryad unit not within 3" of the scythes. And if they're behind a wall of dryads, they won't be able to charge since the dryad base is greater than 1/2 inch which means they won't be able to complete a charge. They'll just have to stand there and watch the dryads die until space opens up and allows them to charge. All weapon loadouts have a purpose, and a place in which they excel: scythes swords and bows. Some won't fit your list's play style, and others maybe be situationally more useful. I've had very good results with swords and scythes under various conditions. Anybody who says "one is better than the others in all cases", clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
  6. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Not exactly sure what the "Allarielle bomb" list is, but I do know that Gnarlroot hasn't really been a good all comers list for nearly a year now. An "all comers" list should really be that; a list that can take "just about everything" evenly. That means not loading up in one particular dimension (for example, Gnarlroot lists sacrifice combat power for healing and magic). Gnarlroot was powerful when the GHB first came out thanks to being rather points efficient, and relatively new in the Meta. That changed when Disciples of Tzeencth battletome was released since it became very obvious very quickly that although Sylvaneth have better than average magic, Tzeencth just does magic better (as it should be). We also have a some new contenders for magical supremacy in the Death update (Nagash is pretty much guaranteed anti-magic). Also, I'm not sure why SCE or Fyreslayers would be especially problematic for a dryad horde army. Looking at it on paper it seems to me like it would be a fairly competitive game. Again you're saying "common iteration of tree lists seen". I might point out that Sylvaneth have top spots here and there at tournaments last year, in 2017 Sylvaneth came in 5Th at LVO and 2nd at AoS GT heat 2. Alliance 2017 was also won by a Sylvaneth Player. Two of those were even Gnarlroot lists. But even all that aside, if you watch a the driver of a Ferrari drive repeatedly into a wall you don't conclude "Ferrari's aren't competitive race cars", you question why the hell they don't go around the wall. Tzeentch (esp Changehost) stomps all over Gnarlroot and low model count lists, yet nearly every battle report I've seen has the Sylvaneth player taking things like Durthu monster mash/Gnarlroot variations. All I can think is "Dear God why?" There are plenty of other competitive builds we can take that can compete vs the mid-tier armies. Yet the solution everybody seems to jump to is "Moar Hunterz + gnarlroot". The solution is "try something different until you find something that works" not "keep taking the same thing hoping it's going to turn out differently". Just to clarify, I don't think Sylvaneth are the easiest army in AoS to play, and there's no mystical list that's going to give you leg up vs every army on the tables (that's pretty much the definition of OP). We do have a number of builds that are very powerful providing you are careful with your positioning and the dice don't ****** you (it is a dice game after all). But if the only version of Sylvaneth you can play is Gnarlroot (or some variation thereof) and you expect the event to have a large amount of Tz players: then yes. It's very possible you'll face an uphill battle. But it's not specifically because Sylvaneth "Sucks vs [inset army name]". If you're not getting any traction with a list at an event, you either need to change your tactics, or write a better list next time.
  7. Damn it! I know right? i was slightly surprised myself. I would have thought that there would be more information out there, but apparently not. Sure thing. I'll keep it on my radar and as soon as I have another model on deck that could benefit from this technique I'll see what I can do re: a video. Dont mind at all! Shoot: Nope. Because it's not the reflectivity of the primer that matters. It's the smoothness of the coat. Vallejo's gloss back primer is glossy because it self-levels. When you look at a coat of matt primer (say GW's chaos black or some other similar primer) under high magnification (say 20x-30x) you'll see that the coat isn't smooth at all. It actually has a very fine texture that helps the paint grip to the surface of the miniature. Putting a coat of gloss varnish or even a coat of null oil gloss over that will smooth it out a little, but it's akin to laying a blanket over a bunch of pointy rocks. Sure, it won't be quite as pointy but it won't be nearly as smooth as laying a blanket over a bed of compacted dirt. The smoothness of the undercoat is super important when you're working with VMA paints. Normal metallic paint is basically micronized flakes of aluminum suspended in a wet medium (in this case acrylic). If the surface is smooth, then all the light that hits the paint bounces off in the same direction. If the surface is uneven, then the light scatters off in all different directions. This is basically the difference between a mirror that has no surface scratches, and one that has had a very fine sandpaper run over the surface randomly. One will be very reflective and the other will be cloudy (see the pictures of the knights armor below for reference). Because demi-metals exploit how much light the paint reflects you need the paint to be as smooth and reflective as it can possibly be. The easiest and best approach is to use an airbrush. The application of the base coat needs to be uniform (to make sure that the light reflects evenly over the surface) and brush application will leave very fine irregularities in the surface. Now, technically you only need an airbrush for the primer coat and zenithal highlight of VMA gold since GW actually makes Retributor gold available in a spray. But if you're going to airbrush 2 of 3 you might as well airbrush all 3: Gloss primer -> Retributor gold -> VMA gold. Good question. If you were to look at say Seraphim Sepia and Mournfang Brown under a microscope, you would see that the light behaves differently. Seraphim sepia is an ink while mournfang brown is actually a paint. The difference between them is that the pigment in the wash is transparent. I.e. you can see through it, and the pigment in Mournfang brown will look like little tiny rocks, i.e. it's opaque. Mournfang brown covers whats underneath it, while seraphim sepia won't. GW washes generally are used to subtly adjust colors (since the original color underneath will show through but will be altered by the wash). They can also be used to give some instant depth by brushing them into the tiny crevices on a model (where the wash pools and helps absorb the light). So while washes can cover what underneath them, they can only do that if they're used in very very large amounts (which is tricky to do over broad, flat, plates of armor). I don't really want to adjust the color of the gold, I want to give the effect that it it's highly polished. Think less like this: And more like this: Using paint that blocks light, lets you control how much light the surface reflects. In the picture above, the metal is highly reflective and light doesn't scatter. Wherever light hits the metal it just bounces right back off, giving white "flares" of light. The black areas aren't really "black" either. They're just reflecting light in a direction our eyes can't see (sort of like when somebody is holding a laser pointer. You can't see the beam unless its pointed at something because all the light is traveling in a direction that doesn't end at your eyes.) Using opaque paint lets me duplicate this effect. The reflections are just that. A very small amount of the reflection color mixed 50/50 with lahmian medium and glazed over the area. Since the paint is already highly reflective you're really just strengthening a refection thats already there. The same goes for the refection of Steelheart's golden foot in his sword. The pauldrons and the red armor were done sightly differently, because I came across the metallic medium after I'd already finished the stormcast. But if I were to do it again, I'd probably use the Reaver technique for both. I can detail the steps but it will be easier to follow with pictures. With the dwarfs and Skaven just announced for Shadespire I'll probably have a chance to do some more demi-metals and I'll see what I can do about putting a tutorial together.
  8. Thanks a lot mate! I'm pretty happy how they turned out. I'd love to do an entire army with that technique, but it's crazy time consuming and a fairly tedious process. Maybe at some point in the future I'll either get the gumption to do another army for myself, or perhaps I'll get a chance to do one as a commission for somebody else. That's because there isn't one! Demi-metals are something the manager of my local GW and I have talked about for a while. His former co-worker (who was a multiple demon winner in the past and now judges for GW's Golden Demon awards) turned him onto the concept. Although he sat down a demonstrated a bit of how the technique works, my manager friend has never actually sat down and attempted to do it himself due to the technical difficulty and time constraints. So how did I learn to do it? Trial and error mostly. I also looked for some help from the ole' interwebz, but I didn't find anything substantially helpful. I'm fairly confident with the process now and perhaps at some point I'll put together a tutorial if anybody is interested. Basically it's a two-step highlight (a halo highlight of retributor armor over a Vallejo's gloss black primer, and then a zenithal highlight of Vallejo's Metal Air Gold) followed by very very thin washes of Mournfang Brown into Abbadon black. Sometimes I added a few drops of Retributor armor to ease the transition from metallic to non-metallic paint. Then there are a few spots where the very edges of gold get a 50/50 highlight of VMA Gold mixed with VMA aluminum (but that highlight is fairly minimal). Really, the whole "shining gold" effect really only uses those 4 paints: Retributor armor, VMA gold, Mournfang brown, and Abbaddon Black. Thanks Mate! Believe me, when I started this paint scheme I almost gave up after I finished the dryads. But as the army has grown and I've added some variation I've come to feel that it really holds together well. It also reads well on the tabletop; especially once the woods go down.
  9. Jebus. it's been nearly two moths since I've posted anything. Thankfully, I've only taken a break from posting miniatures, but haven't taken much of a break at all from painting them. So, since I have a wee bit of down time, it's time to get my pictures up! Firstly. Shadespire. I'm still heavily focused on getting my trees painted for Adepticon, and I'm making great progress. However in terms of actually playtime, I've been playing Shadespire more than anything recently. I really really like the game and it's fairly easy to find an hour and a half to get in 2 or 3 games. When the game first dropped, I spent most of the time playing Stormcast. Recently however, I've switched over to the reavers and I'm really enjoying the playstyle. As such, I made it a priority to get the reavers painted up (I refuse to play with unpainted minatures) and really enjoy the break from painting bark + leaves. I very much enjoy painting skin and it proved to be a welcome break. Targor (the slippery): Arnuf: Karsus the Chained: Blooded Saek: Garrek Gorebeard: The whole gang! While it's difficult to tell in the photos, the Reavers red armor is also done in as demi-metal. while picking up some paint at my FLGS I came across a bottle of Vallejo metal medium (basically pure aluminum flakes suspended in an clear acrylic binder) and when added to regular paint it makes a sort of "halfway metallic". it's a striking effect, but doesn't photograph as well as I would like. But aside from that, the Reavers and Liberators are all painted, which mean the entire Shadespire core box is now painted! Quite pleased. I have some more Sylvaneth stuff to show, but it will likely be a couple days before I get them uploaded. In the meantime, happy painting! -F
  10. Dynamic Painting Log (Great Unclean One Completed!)

    Nice work on GUO! I've just tumbled across this blog, and it's really cool to see how much your painting has developed since the beginning. (even if it's not really that long) keep up the good work! -F
  11. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Just thought I would make a slight comment on the above: I don't see armies as having "hard counters". While your points above are well taken, I still disagree that KO and TZ are a hard counter as "an army". Certainly lists can see their hard counters across the table from them, but seeing a particular army across the table from you doesn't really mean anything until you see what units they're working with. Granted we make certain assumptions about what we'll see across the table from us when we sit down to write a list. The prevalence of of certain things in the meta always inform the choices we make between which units we take and in what combination. But even when writing the best "all-comers" list you can, you will invariably run up against a mechanic your list is weak to. And thank god right? Every list should have a counter. But, when you say: That's not true at all. The winterleaf anti-demon list I posted a number of pages back on the thread has a model count of just over 150. We are fully capable of fielding a force that uses a high model count (and thus wound count) to rob gunlines of their ability to put their firepower anywhere useful. A block of 20 Dryads can easily eat 10 wounds and still fight on. And hell even if the enemy did 15-20 wounds (though magic/shooting/battleshock), with that many bodies you still have 4 full strength units of 30 to work with. These scary lists you're referencing revolve around their ability to take out lynchpin units (TLA in a Gnarlroot list, Durthu or a big block of hunters in a free spirits list) or shut down one very particular mechanic that the list requires to work (healing in Gnarlroot list for example). You could write a list that is a hard counter for anything in the game; full stop. Granted it might not work well against anything else, but all things being equal you have a fair shot against anything in a 1-on-1 match.
  12. FAQ Has already clarified that "set-up's" are not "moves" and are not subject to the 3" restriction in regard to enemy models. Special rules that allow you to "set-up" a unit on the battlefield will have their own set of requirements and restrictions. (i.e. usually 9" from enemy models, but I've seen 6" and 5" as well)
  13. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Keep in mind the percentage of success in any given match-up will also depend on the battleplan. Some battleplans are more difficult/easier for Sylvaneth than others.
  14. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    Based on my experiences on the tabletop and what I can see from theoryhammer, Winterleaf and Dreadwood are our two best all-around lists. The fact that neither list is 100% foolproof shouldn't be taken as a flaw; instead it should be perceived as a form of balance. No army should have the tactical edge in list building vs every other army in the game. Some match-ups are just plain bad, and every list will find a battleplan it struggles with. That being said, both of these lists and their variations handle almost everything in the game. Dreadwood is harder to play well, but it offers more tactical options and more flexibility on the tabletop. I personally value flexibility higher than raw hitting power (although Dreadwood has both under the correct conditions.) Dreadwood also has the benefit that if you don't get first turn, you aren't stuck with whatever deployment choices you've made. Winterleaf is in some ways the opposite of Dreadwood in that it isn't terribly flexible in how it's played; put everything down, push half into your enemies face and use the other half to baby-sit objectives. But with an insane number of dryads exploding attacks on 6's, backed by ranged support of some kind, it does a better job countering the armies and battleplans the Dreadwood struggles with. I do think battalions are just about mandatory for matched play. Yes, they cost roughly 300 points for the battalions and another 200-300 points in units you might not usually take. But one of the main advantages that Dreadwood and Winterleaf have over the other battalions is the ability to re-deploy/shift units around at some point during the game. Alpha bunkering on an objective before the game starts is an insane benefit, and Winterleaf can even do it mid-game. It also gives you a 50/50 shot at deciding first turn. Which can be crucial as @Nicopointed out. The best thing (imho) about dreadwood it is forces your opponent to choose between two bad options (if you decide to use the alpha strike. as Nico mentioned before, there are other ways to play this battalion). In an ideal situation, the alpha strike removes a key unit or two from play first turn, but it's true that a prepared opponent can counter this. But even if you can't wipe something juicy off the board immediately, the prospect of dislodging 6 hunters from your front lines AND tackling a huge block of dryads who have moved/are about to move onto an objective is a night impossible task. Hunters are getting a bad rap because of their cost change and the changing meta, but they are still as resilient as they ever were and still require 2-3 turns of dedicated force to remove completely. Most opponents can choose to remove either the dryads or the hunters, but I can't think of a single army that can effectively do both it in a single turn (that includes Disc. of Tz, although they do come close). Even winterleaf isn't as good at this since its possible you opponent will have an entire first turn before you can use the redeploy ability. If you lose the roll off, it gives him enough time to push in on objectives before you can do anything about it. Dreadwood can do it irregardless of who gets the first turn and that's nothing to sneeze at.
  15. Let's Chat Sylvaneth

    It's not that ambiguous. Dreadwood clearly states that you roll for stratagems at the start of the first battle round. Who goes first is determined by deployment. You will know who gets first turn before you roll for stratagems. I have largely avoided bow hunters. I have found their use is confined to sniping enemy heroes, and to have a good chance of doing it in a single round you need at least 6. Preferably in 2 groups of 3. 440 points is a bit of a lopsided investment to pull one model of the table. Hunters are still capable of doing the heavy lifting (swords/bows) but you can't just throw them around willy-nilly anymore. Not entirely true. It's still very much a surprise, and it's still tricky to counter unless your opponent has really invested in chaff. Most of the lists I've seen only include 2-3 units of chaff, and never much more than 300pts, because most of the Deepstrike options force a 9" bubble with no further movement after the drop. Dreadwoods redeploy within 6" and the they still get an additional move before charging so you have some real flexibility in where you can put them. On top of that, hunter are resilient AF. Even if you lose the entire unit it usually takes half the game before your opponent can really get a handle on them. Sometimes causing a massive disruption to you opponents battleplans is just as good as removing models from the table. As to abilities: yes. Ideally you'll get 2 abilities (60% of the time you will) but you can still pull off the alpha with even with only 1, and you still stand a relatively good chance of tying up 1/3 to 1/2 the army even if he's bubble wrapping with chaff. Granted, I won't throw them against a chaff wall if there is a machine-gun behind it, but occasionally I'll drop them across the front lines and dare my opponent to do something about it. I do like defensive Dreadwood if you've drawn a particularly bad match-up of opponent & battleplan. Spite revenants combined with the Outcast battalion make surprisingly deadly chaff, esp vs low Bravery armies like Mortal Chaos and Destruction. It doest work too well vs. death (due to their insanely high bravery) but death armies aren't exactly a huge problem right now. There's also chaos demons which have high Bravery, but if your fighting demons of chaos it's likely Tzeentch and if so, then you clearly have worse problems than your opponents' high bravery. You're also forgetting that Drycha makes an awesome gun. She can clear hordes almost entirely by herself. Sure she's fragile but she's probably the only monster in the game that doesn't really lose effectiveness as she loses wounds. She's got a 2" attack range, so she's perfect for sticking in bunker (dryad/other). sure she's vulnerable to mortal wound output (esp at range) but can you think of a unit if our army that isn't vulnerable to range mortal wound output? Between Drycha, the TL/TLA, and a unit of hunters Dreadwood has plenty of punch. However the thing about dreadwood is that it's a riskier play style. You will very likely lose 2 out of your 3 hammers before the end of the game. But (most of the time) matches are won on objectives, not how many models your opponent removes. And if your playing a scenario where victory is determined by kill points the strategy is simple: don't do anything stupid. If it works for unbinding, it definitely works for the Bloodsecrator. Although the wording of the bloodsecrator's aura is a bit wonky, it clearly an AOE ability that effectively affects (or targets) all wizards (friend and foe) within a certain radius. I guess the real question here is what "target" means. I hate the back an forth of rules lawyering where you really have to parse the meaning of certain words but sometimes it can't be helped. Technically, the sticky point is that it doesn't use the word "target", but then again almost nothing in the game uses the word "target". When the rules do refer to your opponents models, it usually something along the lines of "pick a unit". sometimes you don't even get that much. Hell, even the rules for shooting say you choose a friendly unit and they can shoot; it doesn't even mention choosing an enemy unit to shoot at. Do we assume then that shooting doesn't actually target an enemy unit? So the question is does unbinding target the spell? or the wizard who cast the spell? I genuinely have no idea and it isn't clear from the rules at all. I don't even see an analogous rule to compare it to. Edit: For some reason TGA has decided I really wanted to strike through the previous text. Please pretend it's written normally.