Mortal Wounds and Spells/Unbinds - Required for a competitive list?

[mrstimpson38]

I've been thinking about army lists recently and remember hearing that a lot of the top lists in previous AoS tournaments have either had a lot of mortal wounds or spells. That got me wondering about the topic title.

If someone fields a list that lacks mortal wounds or spells/spell unbinds are they at a large disadvantage compared to lists that include a high volume of mortal wounds or spells?

What do you guys think about this question? What do you think are some general counters to these mechanics that people could consider while trying to build a competitive list?

I know that The General's Handbook will change the competitive scene in some regards, but I'd like this conversation to focus on the topic mechanics rather than how TGH will effect the competitive scene.

 

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

It does seem that a higher number of mortal wound availability is an advantage, I don't know exactly if having a lesser amount is definitely a disadvantage. It's hard to tell as lists are so varied.

A lot of spells isn't always an advantage either, it's more about quality of the spell. Likewise with dispelling. It's good to have it as an option against a powerful spell but considering you have to be in range it can be a lot harder to use.

Not very helpful to be honest but I think it's hard to tell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Terry Pike]

Mortal wounds are one of the most important things when building a list in my opinion. some armies have so much access to high armour saves, ignore rend and in a lot of cases, both. If you don't have access to reliable mortal wound output, you may struggle to be on the high end of competitive. unbinding is something people aren't really focusing on to much and I've seen very few people put stuff in their list to actually achieve this other than a random wizard being in range by chance.

[Dangermouse425]

2 minutes ago, Terry Pike said:

Mortal wounds are one of the most important things when building a list in my opinion. some armies have so much access to high armour saves, ignore rend and in a lot of cases, both. If you don't have access to reliable mortal wound output, you may struggle to be on the high end of competitive. unbinding is something people aren't really focusing on to much and I've seen very few people put stuff in their list to actually achieve this other than a random wizard being in range by chance.

I agree with Terry here. Mortal Wounds play a key part in any decent list and are a great leveller.

My triumvirate of list building is; Mortal Wounds, Manoeuvrability and Rend. In that order.

Rend is key because you can really negate a powerful unit's armour save with a decent Rendy attack. The reason why it's third on the list is because of access to Immunity to Rend - whether that's through abilities like the Bastiladon's, or spells like Neferata's. Terry highlights the fact that some units have high armour saves, something which you need to be prepared to deal with in a competitive environment. Rend is all well and good normally, but you need to be prepared for your Rend to be negated, or at least weakened.

Access to a source (or sources) of Mortal Wounds overcomes this, it's an incredibly powerful tool, but one that's balanced with access to Mortal Wound Saves. With the General's Handbook coming out stating that you can't spam the same spell more than once a turn (Arcane Bolt), you'll likely see people seeking sources of Mortal Wounds from other places rather than just spells. This makes the situational Dispell even more unlikely. I think Khorne Bloodbound is the only army that can really use an aggressive Dispell tactic, other armies just result in putting their Wizards in the danger zone.

As for Manoeuvrability, well that's a story for another day, but it's an objectives based game...

[daedalus81]

I find saves against mortal wounds is more than units that ignore rend though?

[Mikosan]

I look for first mortal wounds, then rend, and finally multiple damage.  Everything else is icing on the cake

[Chris Tomlin]

I think it's no coincidence that of all the armies I've fielded, the ones that had reliable access to mortal wounds seem to perform best. It's a shame as some armies have easier access. But if you can get them in - take it!

I see unbinding as more of a bonus than something you can reliably plan for.

[Denneysman]

Some of those top list will change now tgat there's a cost for them now.

IE. rets cost 220 just for 5. And the teleport banner guy is 200 pts just for him. Plus only one arcane bolt per turn now

[mmimzie]

mortal wounds are great. Best way to kill big bads. That said the point skew for the generals hand books is in favor of your stock infantry. We'll need to see how the meta shifts as core is required now.

Dispelling is not worth focusing. For the first turn, maybe two you'll be out of unbind range for lots of spells.

[nelsonus]

I feel like mortal wounds are very similar to low ap shots in 40k. They are very important to have, too take specific things down. But if you can't take a ton of them, you can also just make the other guy roll a ton of dice and achieve the same things through the power of 1s.

[jamierk]

There are solid counters to both. Take an army with plenty of saves against mortal wounds for instance? Phoenix guard do a great job for instance, accompanied with some fast counter units like dragons/dragon princes and you could do very well. I'd be suprised if you couldn't build a list to counter it, but then what is that list vulnerable too? Maybe chaffy armies? But thats why we roll dice...

[daedalus81]

That's my goal with Tzeentch warriors/knights and a shrine.  Now if the arcanites would come out so that I could make a decent fatesworn battalion.

[AaronWilson]

I don't have enough information to really help, but hopefully TGH points then properly.