Reaching out, and bad touching someone

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Played my first AoS tournament yesterday, taking 1500 points of Bloodbound.  I ran the Bloodmarked warband from the Everchosen book, with a JuggerLord, two Slaughterpriests, a Bloodstoker, a Bloodsecrator, 8 Reavers, 16 Reavers, 8 knights, 8 Nloodwarriors, and a khorgoroth - basically, everything I have.

Played three games, tied vs. Beastclaw Raiders (2 mammoth things, 2 units of 4 Mournfang), won vs. Freeguild (Lord on Griffen, Hurricanum, Hellfire cannon, Cannon, a bunch of handguners, a big bunch of swordsmen, priest, 2 engineers), lost vs. Stormcast (hadn't seen the teleport in action before, he hit me turn one with 10 paladins, with 4 starmaces, killed my Lord and Bloodsecrator before I got to go!).  All three games were superfun (8 knights, with bonus attacks from the Lord and Nloodsecrator, wounding on 2+ with a re-roll on ones are pretty fun), and I love how the list plays, but I found myself struggling a little with the absence of "reach".

By "reach" I mean the ability to affect things at range, or pick out and isolate targets.  Could be with shooting, could be fast moving attackers, could be sneaky / ambusher types.  Basic issue is if I want to kill something, I need to grind my way across the table, through whatever is in the way.  The Slaughterpriests can do this to some extent, but with only a 50-50 chance to pull it off, it's unreliable.

I'd like to keep it fluffy if I can, but lets leave the discussion open for now.  Has anyone else had this issue, and what units (if any) are people using to fill this kind of slot?

On a related note, I found the two smallish 'reaver units unsatisfying.  If I drop the Khorgorath, I end up with 100 points to play with.  What mortal Khorne unit would you recommend with 100 points to spend?

FMB

[Arkiham]

Blood warriors, exalted deathbringer. 

BTW isn't that unit of 8 reavers illegal. Minimum unit size is 10.

Blood bound I find really struggled with dealing with targets with a tank line in front of it, you're pretty much forced to take a slaughter priest to try disrupt lines, try valkia , she's good on the charge with a 24" threat bubble, (20" realistically) can pick off a hero or war machine easily with her, rocking a 3+ also means she's on a 2+ on terrain so isn't too easy to pick off either 

[Herald of Chaos]

Since you sound like you are set on sticking with Khorne, and even more specifically mortal Khorne your options are pretty limited.  Slaughter priests are going to be a your only real option for ranged damage, and since you already have 2 of them you probably wouldn't be fielding more than that.  Perhaps try to play aggressively with those priests to get them within range of the units you want to take out, even if they do end up being killed themselves I often find that if you can eliminate a character that is handing out buffs to units the sacrifice of the slaughter priest is usually worth it.

Another option for mortal Khorne you might consider is taking along Valkia.  She isn't a ranged unit, with she does have a 12" flying movement to get up close to characters that are hiding away.  The bloodstoker can also make her charges that bit more likely to reach where you want to go with that extra 3".

Limiting yourself to Khorne limits you mostly to killing your way to who you want dead.  Remember we don't play Khorne to elimitate someone skulking around the backfield with an arrow or magic, we play Khorne because we want that visceral feeling of enemy and axe connecting.

Good luck, keep the blood flowing and the skulls piling.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

 

BTW isn't that unit of 8 reavers illegal. Minimum unit size is 10.

Nope.  p107 GH, cutout box, "Understrength Units".  You still have to pay the points for the minimum unit, but can run it under that number.

I'll look into Valkia.  Not sure what I'd swap out for the leader slot - maybe one of the priests?

FMB

[Herald of Chaos]

Since you want to keep some ranged damage in dropping one of the priests would run counter to that goal.  From a Khorne get into combat and smash face perspective it hurts but I would probably recommend dropping the stoker, you will lose the ability to add 3" to a units run and charge, but a big part of the stoker is also the re-roll 1s to wound and you already have that covered with the blood marked warband battalion so you lose less dropping the stoker I think.

[Arkiham]

That understrength unit thing means for units of more than minimum size, so 14 15 16 etc. You can't deploy a unit below the starting to size on the units warscroll. 

The rules say that the warscrolls rules are on the warscroll, the warscroll gives the minimum unit size on the warscroll.

Otherwise in the generals handbook it would say unit size 1-10. 60 points, it doesn't it says minimum 10.

You buy units of the minimum size according to the tables in the generals handbook, up to the maximum size allowed in the generals handbook,  you deploy them by the rules on the warscroll.

The generals handbook doesn't override the AoS rules, they compliment each other.

 

[Fireymonkeyboy]

You are incorrect.

1)  The GH rules do take precedence - if you choose to use them.  That's what makes the rules in the GH viable at all, and what allows for multiplayer play, matched play, the use of points, alternate scenarios etc.  If the GH rules didn't take precedence, then the book would be useless, as nothing in the GH is accommodated by the 4 page core rules.

2) The rules for matched play, including points, make specific provision for playing units under-strength.  See, as I note above, the cutout box on p107, "Understrength Units".  While you still have to pay the full points for a "minimum unit", you are free to run a smaller number of models

3) Despite your claim, the cutout box does not state that the rules for "under strength" units only apply once the minimum has been met.  It indicates the contrary, which you'll recognize if you look at the specific example the book cites.

Hope that clears things up a little.

FMB

[Arkiham]

So the rule from the 4 pages saying that the warscrolls contain the rules for using them is rubbish? Glad to know they wrote a paragraph of text on every single warscroll which is utterly pointless 

[james.speller]

With the minimum unit sizes, I don't think your opponent will be upset if you say to him:

"I am paying the points cost for 10 models, but only fielding 8, can you dig that chief?"

You're trading off extra wounds, and attacks for that starting ability (and the points you're paying for the formation).

More importantly, are you willing to go outside of Khorne mortals for your ranged attacks? The Skull cannon from Khorne demons is likely the only real ranged thing you'll get. It's not like 8th edition where it was drastically undercosted, so people probably won't call it a Skillcannon and tease you about it.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

It's not rubbish - it's the baseline.  If you choose to employ the rules for matched play, it's superseded by those rules.  The rules for matched play supersede a number of things in the core rules, like the rules for army selection, how to play games, rules for determining a winner, etc. 

Unless you're simply trolling at this point, I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this.  In the example on p107 of the GH, they indicate that if you only have 3 Liberators, you can run them as a legal unit, despite the 5 model minimum (which appears on their warscroll) - although you have to pay the full points for the minimum unit.  This is highlighted in a cut-out box which specifically addresses the issue - there's not much room for ambiguity.

Why do you take exception to this instance of the GH over-riding core rules, but you don't take issue with the elements which over-ride army selection, how games are played, how victory is determined, etc.  It seems a little disingenuous. 

FMB

 

[Arkiham]

The pop out box says absolutely nothing about the minimum unit size , just if you pay for 5 liberators you can deploy 3.

That means you pay for 10 deploy 8. Not pay for 5 deploy 3. The minimum unit size still exists.

You can't just pick an choose which rules to follow.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

1 minute ago, james.speller said:

With the minimum unit sizes, I don't think your opponent will be upset if you say to him:

"I am paying the points cost for 10 models, but only fielding 8, can you dig that chief?"

You're trading off extra wounds, and attacks for that starting ability (and the points you're paying for the formation).

More importantly, are you willing to go outside of Khorne mortals for your ranged attacks? The Skull cannon from Khorne demons is likely the only real ranged thing you'll get. It's not like 8th edition where it was drastically undercosted, so people probably won't call it a Skillcannon and tease you about it.

Having played against Mournfangs as battleline troops, teleporting paladins, and Hurricanum-backed gunlines, I'm pretty open to being teased ;).  Skullcannon seems to get a mixed reaction here - great shooting, but a vulnerable point sink.  I take it you're a fan?

FMB

[Arkiham]

You'll also note that it isn't a rule,  just a statement, that if you pay for 5 you can deploy 3. Whereas the minimum unit size is a rule. And rules must be followed.

 

Here, more evidence which states the minimum unit size is that mentioned in the table.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

2 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

You'll also note that it isn't a rule,  just a statement, that if you pay for 5 you can deploy 3. Whereas the minimum unit size is a rule. And rules must be followed.

 

It's a statement that running an understrength unit is legal within the rules.  

In other words, the rules explicitly indicate that understrength units are allowed, when playing within the context of matched play, as defined by the GH.  I suspect, that explicitly identified legality would explain why the local GW manager pointed out the box in the GH rulebook to me, confirmed the legality of playing understrength units, as they're provided for in the rules, and then confirmed the legality of my list for use in play.  Which is more than sufficient for my purposes.

FMB

 

[Arkiham]

You know the store owners are players just like us and not the guys who make the rules ?

I've provided two paragraphs of rule text in two different rule books which define a minimum unit size. This continues from my 2nd example, see attached, They've explained in the same rule book,  under the same game mode what a minimum unit is, but then, according to you they tell you to ignore that as you can just deploy what ever size you want.

 

Where is the logic in that? Why even bother writing it and defining the minimum size at all.

Until there is a FAQ. Interpretation doesn't take presidency over written rules.

the rules state minimum unit size In 2 different locations, backed up by 2 paragraphs of text.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Yes, you've established that there is a minimum unit size.  I do get / understand your point.

I've established, in turn,  that the minimum unit size is not a restriction - which is in the rules.  This isn't an interpretation, it's not ambiguous, it's specifically provided for by the exception indicated in the box on p107,  and clearly illustrated by an example of a unit being declared legal to play when understrength.  I note that you still don't indicate why you think points are okay (even through they violate the core rules), but understrength units are not.

FMB

[polarbear]

Under the impression myself you can take understrength units below the minimum size. It puts the player at a disadvantage anyway.

[Arkiham]

Not really, dropping 1 chaos warrior while using the fatesworn battalion gives 20% more survivability 

[Fireymonkeyboy]

It is, however, a points premium.  On the other hand, 8 Khorne knights hitting with 4 attacks each, wounding on a 2+ and re-rolling ones to wound is pretty giggly.

FMB

[Wolden Spoons]

Let's agree to disagree on whether the OP can cheat himself out of points. Irrelevant to the discussion.

Are you willing to branch out of Bloodbound at all? Bloodthirsters add decent range to any army, the Skullcannon is reasonable. There is another thread discussing it below.

of course skaven weapon teams are both chaos and filthy. Or you can get teleporting wizards etc.

Cavalry gives you a little reach, so MIGHTY Skullcrushers and the like. But usually yes, you are going to have to smash your way through.

[Fireymonkeyboy]

 

I'm fine with branching out provided I can meet the requirements for the Bloodmarked warband.  In realistic terms, that means I have around 100 points to play with at 1500, and a more or less open field at 2000.  

I hadn't really considered skaven - still getting used to the idea of them as being officially "chaos".  Any suggestions on particularly filthy choices?

In faction, I'd given marauder horsemen a thought, especially with javelins.  Not super killy, but they can run out fairly quickly, tie stuff up, and add at least some limited shooting.  Any one have experience with them in AoS?

FMB

 

I'd

[Fireymonkeyboy]

Hmm.  What about a big mess of ungor raiders?  I've had some success with big peasant units with my Brets, although they get the arrowstorm, and the ungors wouldn't.

FMB

[Wolden Spoons]

There are a few options at that size if you branch out but I don't have the GH to hand.

I'm not convinced there are good enou shooting options outside of the two cannons though. How many points is the Warshrine as that can be invaluable if you mark it Khorne.

[Warchief Varard]

Not much reach but i use 3 khorgorath's to support my front lines and the added range attacks help them to pick out characters support units and debuff enemy battleshock.

Reavers are great if taken in lots of units of 10 or a great big horde,  either way go hard or dont take them unless filling points/wounds try blood warriors.

 

[Simon1971]

Warp Lighting cannons or Jezzails from Skaven. But I would suggest looking at the Cygor. 18 inch range and can unbind 2 spells per turn.