Mirage8112

Members
  • Content count

    398
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mirage8112 last won the day on March 2

Mirage8112 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

360 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Mirage8112

  • Rank
    Dracothian Guard

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views
  1. Well, that is true as well. But what I was getting at is that it seems to me that designers are clamping down a bit on certain ways of building armies. All of them fit intoa aprticaulr style of play, and it seems to me that the designers are tweaking how strong each style of play is for each army. For example, now Sylvaneth could feasibly do a traditional "horde" style of play with a mixture of huge blocks of dryads and battalion bonuses, but they won't do a horde style of play as well as say a players in a Death alliance. Stormcast are capable of doing a long slow grind list, but not quite as well as Sylvaneth. And Sylvaneth can feasibly do a monster-mash list, but it probably won't be quite as effective as Beastclaw raiders. This is nice because it makes each army unique, in so far as you have 2-3 styles to choose from (that the designers probably intended), and you might be able to put together a 3rd or 4th, but it might not be as strong as an army whose unit were designed with that playstyle in mind. It is interesting insofar as this last round of points changes show us the play-stlyes that the designers didn't want to see being so dominant in matched play. Previously, Sylvaneth could cobble together a fairly decent gunline, between hunters and the Huricanium. It's now pretty clear that the designers didn't want a pure Sylvaneth army to be as good a gunline as an Skyfire/grundstock thunderer gunline, or Kunnin' Rukk bowline (incidentally with Kunnin' Rukk, Grundstock thunderers, and skyfires it appears the game designers wanted them to have access to gunline lists, but they didn't want them to be quite so good that they eclipsed everything else.) I think, more than anything else, what we've seen is a major internal rebalancing of the armies and what's easy to forget is that it's happened pretty much everywhere. The players that will have the hardest time are the players who've picked a play style that their army wasn't intended for. Because the point changes look to me like the designers saying "we don't want this army to be as good at this play-style as that army". I think it's possible the allies chart was a way to make that little easier to swallow. For example, making Sylvaneth allies with Stormcast and Wanderers has given us access to some decent moderate price shooting, so if you were dead set on a Sylvaneth gunline, you could feasibly cobble together enough shooting units for those two armies to compete on the tabletop. Maybe not quite as well as the huricanium/hunter spam of old, or quite as lethal as thunders stacking khemists, but enough that a competent general should have a solid opportunity of a win if you make smart choices.
  2. I've been considering this for a while, but was planning more on going full Endrinriggers with saws. They fare quite well at 120pts for 3 and put out a metric ton of damage. They also might be a decent substitute for melee hunters if you want a list that has more than 6.
  3. So I've had a day to sit down and digest some of the changes. It's good to see some hard numbers and like both @swarmofseals and @scrubyandwells, I'm starting to think a little deeper about what this means for the larger meta-game. I think I'm a little more positive about the changes than most. Basically the changes to point totals really only hurt players who brought more than 6 hunters (in any combination). Because of the reduction in battleline troop cost, we essentially get 60-80 pts free just for showing up to matched play. For example, my previous list included 2 units of T-revs and a unit of 20 dryads; an 80 pt reduction in cost takes care of the 80pt bump to Hunters, and the reduction in cost for the Treelord and characters means the gnarlroot tax doesn't hurt nearly as much as it could. Basically I'd have to adjust my list around 80 pts or so. Previously I could fit in 10 sisters for 440 pts. Now I might only be able to take 1 unit of 5, but truthfully, I never really felt like I needed anymore than that. To be fair some of the other meta-battalions suffered a lot worse. Kunnin' rukk' not only went up in battalion price (+100pts), but so did arrowboyz. (+20 pts). However, the max unit size for Arrowboys was decreased to 30, down from 40. Which means instead of getting 240 shots, for 460 pts, they're getting 180 shots for 520 points. That's a massive change (in our favor) and will radically change how destruction armies build their lists now. Dreadwood is super viable now, since spite count as battlelline, and while I' not as inclined to pack as many hunters into the list as I would have before, the net reduction in required points means I can build the list in a more balanced way, which all in all, means it will be more competitive. I also wouldn't dismiss winterleaf especially with the ability to bring an order unit outside our available allies list. Gnarlroot isn't dead, but I think hunters spam probably is. The battleline reduction only really pays for 3-6 hunters, which in my mind was all i wanted to take anyway. I said it before and I'll say it again; Gnarlroot + hunter spam was a lazy way to play the game (as were things like Kunnin' Rukk'). Furthermore, Taking 3-4 units of hunters (so 9-12 hunters on the table in whatever combination) in mixed order list with a hurricanium won't ever be a thing now, and based on how all the changes interact, I think the game designers are purposefully refining the choice of playstyles for each army and I don't think Sylvaneth were ever intended to be played as hunter spam. I mentioned this back on the podcast with @scrubyandwells, that players would eventually start to see the value of chaff units and that players would start including small "throw away" units in their lists since they were the best choice for dealing with some of the trickier units in the game. Our alpha strike prospects are better than most thanks to dreadwood, and we don't really suffer from alpha strike vulnerability. Our area denial is second to none, and with the ability to put down 1-2 units on the table and deep strike everything else in, I see good things in our future if the meta goes that direction. As to hordes, I'm not concerned with Sylvaneth becoming horde focused. Let's not forget the reason that hordes weren't being used regularly. They're slow, they're expensive (points wise) and as far as sylvaneth are concerned Dryads don't receive sliding scale bonuses like other units do. Granted we get a +1 armor save for units over 12 models strong, but that's nothing like Tzaangors or Bloodletters. Plus, according to warhammer community, the new scenario that has objectives that can only be captured by hordes OR Behemoths. Hordes got a reduction in points, but behemoths did as well. I think you'll definitely need at least one f those two, but I don't feel as if it has to be hordes or it has to be behemoths. (note; it was widely anticipated that there would be a new rule of one limiting the stacking of effects with the same name. Thankfully that didn't happen so multiple TL stomps could def be a thing in the future) Furthermore, there are some real trade-offs for using dryads in 30's even with point reductions. I have had tremendous success running dryads in 20's. But even in 20's they're tricky AF to fit into a forest to gain the cover bonus. On top of that, it's not just dryads + forests that's the winning recipe; it's dryads+forest+TL stomp = win. Our ability to stack -2 and even -3 hit is a major star in our completive crown, especially since what makes tactics like bloodletter bomb so scary is the unit doing mortal wounds on a 4+ or 5+. Making the strategy work with 30 dryads becomes extremely difficult since your TL or TLA has to being within 3" of the enemy in order to stomp. A 30 model footprint means theres no way you can protect all sides of the blob, and its very reasonable to assume that any general worth his sense will put pressure where the blob is weakest. i.e out of range of TL stomps. I still think for defensive objective holding, 20 is still >30. (oddly enough.) As to dealing with hordes, we have a fair bit of options. Hunters in groups of 6-9 do more damage than most small units can soak. Especially with battleshock. Have a unit of spites trailing behind and watch (most of) them evaporate. For the really ugly stuff we can always bring Drycha. Well, yes and no. Dryads are much better at doing what they do than spites are, but spites are excellent force multipliers if you use them correctly. Most of my theory crafting for them revolves around the use of the dreadwood/outcasts battalions but let's forgo those for the moment. Let's say that this "massive regiments" thing does take off. Even if it only takes off in small way, units that we previously would have seen at 20 models will now likely be at 30. That means units that previously were maybe 7 bravery might clock in at 8 or 9 (since units receive +1 bravery for every 10 models in a unit). Spites not only reduce bravery by 1, but also force models within 8" of any terrain feature to roll 2 d6 for battleshock and choose the highest. Sylvaneth are not typically a strong burst damage (BD) army. (For that you'll want beastclaw raiders or khorne bloodbound). We're more of a "damage over time" (DoT) army. Adding a unit of spites mixed into a unit of 20 dryads and a TLA holding an objective makes for a tough proposition. You have the dangerous wyldwood terrain, which will do D3 mortal wounds if spells start flying, you have a strong chance of catching a -2 to hit, you'll be at -1 bravery and having to roll 2 d6 for battleshock. You're pretty much guaranteed to lose a model or two every single phase you're in combat AND then you'll have to take battleshock. Losing 5-6 models across 3 phases (not unreasonable) makes it almost guaranteed he'll lose 4-5 more if spites are around. 4-5 extra models fleeing from battleshock equates to roughly having an extra sword hunter-and-half in combat (all without needing to actually have damage in combat). If those are multi-wound models fleeing the value is even higher. On top of this, if the enemy general decides to use inspiring presence to counter the spites, he can't use any other command abilities that round into the next. That's a lot of pressure for an 80 pt battleline unit. Most things will really struggle to take setup without committing 2-3 elite units PLUS support, even then you're likely looking at at least 2-3 full turns before you make any serious headway. ----------- Overall I think there is a lot to go over. The changes are hard nerf to one particular type of list (anything that used 9 or more hunters) but if you've been using everything else in codex to their maximum effect (treelords, T-rev's, spites) there's a lot to be happy about here. I've advocated pretty consistently for working T-rev's, Spites and Treelords into our lists for exactly this reason. Mostly I was anticipating that new units/armies will arrive on the scene and would serve as a hard counter to our gnarlroot "netlist", and I wanted to be sure that I knew what every tool in our toolkit did so I'd be prepared. Now it seems that things have shifted and what I was preparing for happened, it just didn't happen in the way I expected. I plan to sit down and look more carefully at allies, but I'd like to have the book in hand first. Id like get a close look at the scenarios and how they've changed before I start seriously considering mixed lists for tournament play. I still think mono-sylvaneth lists (excluding order units from meta battalions) are strong contenders, even with the increase in battalion costs, but it remains to be seen how other armies will react to the changes.
  4. I dunno call me the minority, but I can see a place for acolytes now. Especially since enlightened didn't get a point change. Those two together work really well, and considering the other options went up in cost I think there's a decent strategy one could pull together there if you were inclined to be creative.
  5. Good attitude to have! Still you might have the making to two separate tournament lists now. might be nice for a dual list event.
  6. Looks solid to me. Dryads would provide the spites a fair bit of cover, if you wanted to use them together. I really would like to be able to split the spites up into 2 groups of 2, since the outcast battalion works when the enemy is in range of "at least 2 unit of spites" since 4 are required for the battalion I'd like to split them up, but they'll need support. 30 dryads might be able to stretch out between 2 wyldwoods (and since you've got the acorn you could set 2 forests close to each other, and shut down a swath of territory about 44" wide ( 11" per wood x 4 bases). Where it can be delivered? 20 of the wounds come from the hunters, and 20 from Alarielle. Hunters use the free redeploy within 5" of the enemy and can then move again before charging. Alarielle can fly, and gets a free 16" move before the game starts, then another 16" move and then a charge. I can't imagine it would be difficult to put it where you want it to go. Are you referring to the point increases? They are quite steep, but truthfully I hadn't considered how undercosted the battalions actually were. Now that I think about it, the new points make it much more risk/reward appropriate.
  7. Here is the skeleton core of the Alarielle dreadwood alpha strike list @Nico and I came up with a awhile back. Assuming points values are correct. The basic premise of the list hasn't changed, and since spites now count for battleline you aren't required to take the 3 units of T-rev's, you actually gives get an extra 130 pts to play around with. More than enough for an extra hero or another unit choice to fiddle around with. Allegiance: OrderHeroesAlarielle the Everqueen (600)BattlelineUnits5 x Spite-Revenants (80)5 x Spite-Revenants (80)5 x Spite-Revenants (80)5 x Spite-Revenants (80) 9 x Kurnoth Hunters (660)- ScythesBattalionsDreadwood Wargrove (200)Outcasts (90)Total: 1870/2000 The original point of building the list this way was the "first turn alpha strike". Dropping ~50 damage into the enemy's front line in the first combat round. Truthfully, looking at those numbers now, I don't think it would be unreasonable to decrease the hunter unit to 6 (instead of 9). That would leave an extra 350 points to play around with, and still capable of putting out ~42 damage in the first combat round. 350 points could provide alot of additional support and make the list a lot more flexible than it was. Looks like the plan is still on. thoughts?
  8. Why include dryads + t-revs? aren't spites battleline now?
  9. Awww. Thanks man! That actually means a lot. I'm having tough time staying motivated these days. It helps to have a little encouragement. I got into painting miniatures around 2008 or so. So nearly 10 years I suppose. Originally it was my wife who encouraged me to get into the hobby, as a way stop playing World of Warcraft. One obsession just snowballed right into another lol. But truthfully, I've been painting much longer than that. My miniature painting style is heavily influenced by my background as an oil painter. I started with learning watercolors in my mid 20's; circa 2001 or so. From there I learned to draw a bit, then got some oil painting instruction. I worked as a teacher, teaching drawing to children and adults until 2010, when I left California. Most of my non-tiny soldier work is small scale hyperrealism, mostly a genre called Tromp L'oeil (French for "Fool the eye"). Here's a recent example: In painting like this, everything is painted. From the cloth to background. I have a lot of people try to pick the tape off my paintings: Most of the work is small. The chess painting is 8" x 10". The charlie brown painting is even smaller: 4" x 6". But they do occasionally get bigger. 14" x 16": or 14" square: I don't have nearly the time i used to after my daughter was born, but I'm starting to get back into it. Generally speaking, it's a lot harder than painting miniatures and very slow going which is why I've backed off doing "serious work". Aside from my background as an oil painter, you'd be surprised how little of it translates. Learning to paint miniatures with very thin layers of acrylic paint is worlds away from oil painting. That being said, there are two pieces of information I've learned as an oil painter that have been invaluable to me as a miniature painter. 1. How good is your brush control? Far and away this is the biggest thing. Painting is drawing with paint. Your ability to make the tip of the brush do what you want it to do makes all the difference in the world. Do this as an experiment; how small can you write your name with a brush? Practice that. It teaches brush control like you wouldn't believe. 2. Clean simple painting beats messy complicated painting any day of the week. The cleaner and more even your basecoats the better things turn out. My Sylvaneth scheme is actually really simple to paint, but it's effect all depends on how smooth the fades are. some of my Tzeentch stuff is done with an airbrush, but most of it is by hand, and I could certainly do it all by hand if I wanted to. But it's nearly impossible to paint a clean fade if the undercoat is patchy or if the paint has too much texture. I've taught people to learn to draw from the ground up, paint too; I'm sure you're no different. I'll be happy to give you feedback on your work (if you want). I strongly believe that I do can be learned, especially with a little bit of training and a desire to do great work. Sometimes all you need is that last little push to get over the hill.
  10. From Warhammer Community: "Thanks to allies, loads of units from the Destruction Grand Alliance can now find a place in your armies. Aleguzzler Gargants now cost fewer points and can be added to any Destruction army looking for a hard-hitting Behemoth capable of dealing buckets of wounds, or at the very least, causing some damage when it inevitably falls over. In a 2000 point army, you’ll be able to get two of these into your allies slot." https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/08/11/gh2-destruction-aug-11gw-homepage-post-3/
  11. I do remember that. I think it was Heelanhammer who was extrapolating the points from skirmish renown. I'm still skeptical. I guess we'll see!
  12. I'm pretty good at following rumor sites as well as board gossip, I haven't seen anything regarding this. Do you remember where you saw it?
  13. i'm curious to your reasoning for this. I've heard this elsewhere, but I haven't seen any solid reasoning why. It's funny, with the leaks (I use that term loosely since it's GW who is doing the leaking) we've seen mostly point reductions, very slight increases or the changing of unit sizes so far. We've seen point decreases more often than increases, and increases have mostly been a result of changing min unit sizes. But as other units get cheaper, hunters get more expensive by comparison. Nothing i've seen from the leaked rules indicated major point adjustments across the range. Moonclan fanatics got a slight increase (+~3ppm; 100 per 3 instead of 30 per 1.) Ale guzzler gargants are getting a confirmed point reduction in an unspecified amount. Currently they are at 180 points per model and supposedly you'l be able to fit 2 into the 400 pt ally sideboard. Which means they could go as low as 140, but my guess is that 160pts is more likely. Now, if that's true and a giant is priced at 160pts, with 12 wounds and a damage output range around ~8-10 wounds, do you really feel that hunters, with 3 more wounds that does maybe 2-3 wounds more per round of combat, will be pointed 40% pts more? Granted there are differences between the units (hunter get a few more abilities, a slightly better save, but have to take battleshock and are significantly slower) but even taking that into account a 40% difference seems excessive to me. Most multi-wound elite troops are currently priced the same as hunters. Take Ironjawz brutes for example. I've always said their damage output was comaparable to melee hunters and the only reason Brutes weren't better on the tabletop is because of limited army synergy (although they have done decently in a few tournaments as of late). They seemed to have given that very issue a bit of attention in the new book. With the new leaked allegiance abilities for Ironjaws, they look pretty serious now (if an iron jaws unit destroys a unit in combat the nearest friendly iron jaw unit can immediately pile in and attack even it's not their turn to activate a unit). Add to that the ability to bring in allies to fill holes in their lists (shooting, magic for example), they seem to have fixed that synergy problem. So... If you do think that Hunters are worth that increase (compared to other known points values), do you see that as warranted across the range? For example do you see an increase on Ironjawz Brutes from 180pts to 220pts as well? How about the other multi-wound Elite models in the game: Kroxigor (3 for 180pts), Demigryph knights (3 for 200), Leadbelchers (3 for 160), or Mighty Skullchrushers (160 per 3)? In other words do you think that it's just this one unit that's too strong or is it that class of model game-wide? I'd also like to get @Nico's take on this as well.
  14. I was building toward something like this: Allegiance: TzeentchHeroesTzaangor Shaman (120)Tzaangor Shaman (120)Magister (120)Chaos Sorcerer Lord On Manticore (240)Battleline20 x Tzaangors (360)- 3x Pair of Savage Blade- 4x Savage Greatblade- 2x Savage Blade & Arcanite Shield10 x Chaos Warriors (180)- Hand Weapon & Shield20 x Chaos Marauders (120)- AxesUnits6 x Tzaangor Skyfires (320)3 x Tzaangor Enlightened (160)5 x Chaos Chosen (160)- Mark of Chaos: NoneBattalionsArcanite Cabal (50)Tzaangor Coven (40)Total: 1990/2000 But it remains to be seen if this build will be viable once the new GHB drops. I'm strongly inclined to adjust the list to add a hellcannon for long-range indirect fire.
  15. Yeah, so I've been busy painting, but pretty bad at getting posts up. So far I've made really strong progress on this army. I have my unit of Tzaangors painted up: Well, half painted anyway since this will likely be a unit of at least 20. You can see I used the black skin scheme from the T-rev's in my Sylvaneth Army. Here's a close-up wip shot of the shield guy in the back: This is a tabletop army, so I'm not doing anything super fancy. Just trying to paint as cleanly as possible. The main difference between this and what I normally do is the inclusion of fluorescent colors as major part of the color scheme. You can see the Tzaangors all have florescent orange tips to their tendrils and feathers. It's also scattered throughout the army in various ways. I'm also arraigning them into sort of a visual hierarchy. The Tzaangor Shamans (which there will be two) get white skin with fluorescent feathers. The enlightened, skyfires and tzaangors all get black skin with various fluorescents depending on their unit. Orange for tzaangors, Green for Skyfires, Probably blue or purple for Enlightened (haven't decided). The Shamans will likely be deployed next to their corresponding units. For example the shaman above will likely be palling around with the skyfires since his feather plume will match theirs. I'm also just putting the finishing touches on my conversion. I have little more detail work yet to do, but the idea is firmly there: So that brings us pretty up to speed. I'm not sure what to tackle next so We'll have to see how much bandwidth I have over the next few days/weeks. Stay tuned! Happy painting -F