Let's chat Disciples of Tzeentch

[Arkiham]

2 hours ago, Goodwin said:

I'm thinking the frontline is... acolytes now.  A line of ten of them to protect their beloved Tzaangor.  Then pile in the Tzaangor after the acolytes are REKT.  My thinking is that if you allow them to charge you, wipe that unit (or probably a better idea to use brimestone), then pile in, then hopefully/or definitly you have the next turn.  Recover a few bodies from the Shaman spell, then Pile In during Hero phase, then Pile In again in the combat phase.  Definitly though you're going to want to try avoiding getting hit by two heavy hitting units.

I'm hoping to get my first game in tomorrow but I've been lagging in assembly.  If I do it'll be red-eyed at the local store since I still have to spray all these birds down!

So stagger brimstone/blue Horrors 1 or 2" (the rear of the model) in front of tzaangor and run the battalion. Didn't think of that I was wondering how much damaged I'd have to absorb and still be effective.

Means I should be able to drop like 10 tzaangors and still be effective.

[Arkiham]

6 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Oooo! Yeah! Good spot. With destiny dice guaranting the double on the casting roll he could cast six times in a single turn! 

Makes the two's and threes more useful.

[Goodwin]

I don't think the Magister can do that, doesn't Matched Play strictly limit use of abilites like that to once?

Even if the enemy has 2" attack they wont get much into your tzaangor who then may have two rounds of attacks with the Tzaangor Coven.  The Shaman spell and Alterkin are also returning models per models, so we're gaining 2wounds per 1 model killed.  Of course, this won't matter as much against multi wound enemies but against other hordes it should be nasty.

I'm planning on running Alterkin and Tzaangor at 2k.  It won't be quite as points effective as screening with Blue/Brime, but I'm out of money and wanna stick with Mortals/Arcanites for now.

[Arkiham]

28 minutes ago, Goodwin said:

I don't think the Magister can do that, doesn't Matched Play strictly limit use of abilites like that to once?

Even if the enemy has 2" attack they wont get much into your tzaangor who then may have two rounds of attacks with the Tzaangor Coven.  The Shaman spell and Alterkin are also returning models per models, so we're gaining 2wounds per 1 model killed.  Of course, this won't matter as much against multi wound enemies but against other hordes it should be nasty.

I'm planning on running Alterkin and Tzaangor at 2k.  It won't be quite as points effective as screening with Blue/Brime, but I'm out of money and wanna stick with Mortals/Arcanites for now.

Only spells and attacks off rolls of 6 etc are limited

His is a inate ability to allow an additional spell every time the casting is a double.

 

[Nico]

He can cast another spell, but he will run out of spells he can cast (as the Rule of One on not casting the same spell twice trumps all, even Kroakster).

I thought I would repeat this chat with the wise @Mirage8112 as it's relevant here too:

 

As an interesting side note, a unit of 10 tarpit horrors is perfect trap for hunters. I've always said hunters should be run with swords in groups of 3 and scythes in groups of 6, (unless you were going to use them specifically for hunting highly armored targets of 3+ or better) due to sword hunters having more attacks. Swords will easily clear the first 10 horrors in 1 combat round, but scythes will need 2 rounds to clear 10 horrors. After the first split, it will take scythe hunters 3 more combat rounds to fully clear the split blue horrors (vs 2 for swords), and another 3 rounds to clear the brimstone horrors (vs 2 for swords). That's the difference between being tied up in combat for 4 game turns, vs 2 1/2. And if he's got any extra 1's in his destiny dice pool he could feasibly tie up those hunters the entire game. If you are to double that hunter unit to 6 (2 unit of 3 for swords), swords still fare better. 5 rounds for 6 scythe hunters vs 3 rounds for 2x3 for sword hunters. Not pretty either way. 

Isn't there a problem here due to the rule about not exceeding the initial unit size. Let's say you shoot 2 Pink Horrors, that gives you a choice of creating a brand new unit of 4 Blue Horrors (at a full cost of 50) or (assuming that you're allowed to elect not to use the Split rule, which is probably the case) you can choose to do nothing. If you do create the unit of 4 Blues, then you're unable to top this unit up due to the not exceeding the initial size of the unit rule. So when you attack again in the combat phase and kill say 3 more Pink Horrors, then the Tzeentch player is left with the choice of either creating another derpy unit of 6 Blues (capped at 6 for ever) for a full 50 points or just not using the Split rule. In some cases, it will still be worthwhile.

The scenario above, where they all die in one phase, is what you want to avoid.

Or you can just flood them with Gryph Hounds and shoot each new Blues unit. Ok that's an aside as we're talking about Sylvaneth but seemed like a fun thought.

This Split mechanic will be strongest vs Khorne and Ironjawz where almost all the damage will happen in the combat phase. What's particularly scary is setting up the Blues as a unit within 6" of the Pinks as this allows you to conga and potentially to block other units or flood objectives.

It's weaker than it seems (or than it would be in narrative play).

It well if you're opponent plays into your target selection, by whittling down a big Block of Blues and then killing Pinks which allows you to top up the Blues without spending reinforcement points. The trick is to kill the Pinks in small increments across different phases. Impact hits in the charge phase would be effective too.

 

Thoughts?

[Bjarni St.]

I have the same understanding as you on how the splits work in matched play. I think it's incredibly dense tbh. They really shouldn't be writing rules that don't work properly in Matched at this point. I can understand splits being considered too powerful and it being left weak on purpose but it's just too janky. Imagine explaining it to a new player.

[hobgoblinclub]

34 minutes ago, Nico said:

He can cast another spell, but he will run out of spells he can cast (as the Rule of One on not casting the same spell twice trumps all, even Kroakster).

True, but he's got his own 3 spells, plus his additional 1, plus another 2 if you give him Arch-sorcerer, and then he can cast any summoning you want to. It's potentially lots! 

[Arkiham]

I've always thought that blues and brimstones were massively subpar outside of initial deployment. You're pretty much forced to take a large unit of them at the start just to absorb losses and hopefully trigger replacement. 

38 minutes ago, Nico said:

He can cast another spell, but he will run out of spells he can cast (as the Rule of One on not casting the same spell twice trumps all, even Kroakster).

Indeed he does, but if you give him a trait. (This is probably only useful for 1k games as he'd be the general which isn't the best) he can cast up to 6 individual spells, 7 including the Balewind, 8 for summoning, and that's if you count "summon " as a spell. 

[hobgoblinclub]

What do you think of this list? Lots of spells means lots of mortal wounding. If I buff the Tzaangors to protect them, do I have enough to handle combat? I don't plan on hitting melee too much. It'll be stand off and pew! pew! with a timely charge from the Tzaangors. 

[Arkiham]

I've been wondering lately if the Lord of change is a trap if running tzaangors of any kind.

It's a large portion of points into a model with a limited spell casting amount, while the spells it can cast will go off, there's only two going off. It's almost as if they've built it for combat. 

That 300 points is a unit of skyfires/enlightened and a tzaangor shaman, 

It's the Blue Scribes, and a tzaangor shaman and a unit of 10 brimstone horrors.

It seems such an obvious goto model perhaps it's too obvious? 

[Nico]

Quote

It's a large portion of points into a model with a limited spell casting amount

However, it can also guarantee cast rolls of 11 very easily (one 5 destiny dice or rolling one 5 on two dice) and unbind like a pro and steal spells when it unbinds.

[Arkiham]

12 minutes ago, Nico said:

However, it can also guarantee cast rolls of 11 very easily (one 5 destiny dice or rolling one 5 on two dice) and unbind like a pro and steal spells when it unbinds.

Is there points for the exhalted greater daemons ? Maybe the tzeentch one of them might work better due to his better profile.

[Tres]

So I have a question. I wanted to run an all cavalry slaves to darkness list. If I choose to use the tzeentch allegiance, do I lose the ability to use knights and marauder horsemen as battle line?

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Tres said:

So I have a question. I wanted to run an all cavalry slaves to darkness list. If I choose to use the tzeentch allegiance, do I lose the ability to use knights and marauder horsemen as battle line?

I think there was a faq or a passage of text in the book saying it's fine. 

[Tres]

Ok let's take it one step further then. Let's say that I want to run the fatesworn warband AND use the knights and marauders as battleline. Could I still choose to use the tzeentch allegiance? 

[Arkiham]

2 minutes ago, Tres said:

Ok let's take it one step further then. Let's say that I want to run the fatesworn warband AND use the knights and marauders as battleline. Could I still choose to use the tzeentch allegiance? 

Yeah, if the units all contain the key words they can be taken. So everything will contain slaves to darkness,  tzeentch,  chaos. 

Also, By using fatesworn warband, you grant everything taken in it the everchosen key word, allowing you to take varanguard as battleline. But everythingwould require everchosen to do that, meaning everything other than the varanguard will be in the battalion.

[Tres]

1 minute ago, Arkiham said:

Yeah, if the units all contain the key words they can be taken. So everything will contain slaves to darkness,  tzeentch,  chaos. 

Also, By using fatesworn warband, you grant everything taken in it the everchosen key word, allowing you to take varanguard as battleline. But everythingwould require everchosen to do that, meaning everything other than the varanguard will be in the battalion.

Thanks! That's how I thought it worked, but I wanted to be sure before I go building lists.

[Nico]

Quote

Is there points for the exhalted greater daemons ? Maybe the tzeentch one of them might work better due to his better profile.

Not yet, but they said these were coming. The EGD of Tze (it rhymes) is not so great as it cannot fit into the Battalions as it's not a Lord of Change.

I'm looking forward to using mine.

Quote

Ok let's take it one step further then. Let's say that I want to run the fatesworn warband AND use the knights and marauders as battleline. Could I still choose to use the tzeentch allegiance? 

I did this on Wednesday - it does seem to work. Look at point 4 of the Battalions Guidance in the DoT Battletome. 

If all the units (ignore Battalions for this purpose as per point 4.) are Slaves to Darkness, then for listbuilding purposes, you can take Knights and Mara Cavalry as Battleline. Then as a separate step, you can elect between Slaves to Darkness Allegiance, Tzeentch Allegiance or Chaos Allegiance assuming that all the units have these keywords (cf. Ironjawz who rely on Ironjawz Allegiance for listbuilding/Battleline, but then elect Destruction for the game). 

[Nico]

Quote

Also, By using fatesworn warband, you grant everything taken in it the everchosen key word, allowing you to take varanguard as battleline. But everythingwould require everchosen to do that, meaning everything other than the varanguard will be in the battalion.

However, you then hit the brick wall of the Varanguard not being capable of being Tzeentch Allegiance, so you are unable to use them and then elect Tzeentch Allegiance. 

[Arkiham]

4 minutes ago, Nico said:

However, you then hit the brick wall of the Varanguard not being capable of being Tzeentch Allegiance, so you are unable to use them and then elect Tzeentch Allegiance. 

True, is why I separated it.

I should have made it a bit clearer perhaps. 

[Mirage8112]

4 hours ago, Nico said:

Isn't there a problem here due to the rule about not exceeding the initial unit size. Let's say you shoot 2 Pink Horrors, that gives you a choice of creating a brand new unit of 4 Blue Horrors (at a full cost of 50) or (assuming that you're allowed to elect not to use the Split rule, which is probably the case) you can choose to do nothing. If you do create the unit of 4 Blues, then you're unable to top this unit up due to the not exceeding the initial size of the unit rule. So when you attack again in the combat phase and kill say 3 more Pink Horrors, then the Tzeentch player is left with the choice of either creating another derpy unit of 6 Blues (capped at 6 for ever) for a full 50 points or just not using the Split rule. In some cases, it will still be worthwhile.

I don't think your reading of the rule is correct, because that's not the rule for reenforcement points actually says. The actual relevant parts are as follows:

"Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a pitched battle you must set aside some of your point in order to use these units... Each time a new unit is added to an army during the battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reenforcement points..."

This quote is pretty straight forward. Reserve your points, and through ability or spell, bring a new unit onto the board. So lets say in your example, you shoot two pink horrors, and it allows you to bring a new unit of blue horrors onto the board, at the cost of a full unit (50 points). 

So let's say combat ensues and you kill two more horrors. Now from the split rule: 

"If a friendly unit of pink horrors suffers any causalities... the slain horrors will spilt.... if there is already a friendly blue horrors unit within 6" of the Pink Horrors, add the Blue Horrors to that unit."

So the blue horrors unit goes from 4 to 8. Believe it or not, I don't think this conflicts with the rules for max unit size. Again from the reenforcement points section:

"Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don't cost you any reenforcement points. However, in a pitched battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for the unit.)   [emphasis mine]

The unit of blue horrors did not exist at the start of battle, therefore RAW they are exempt from the max unit size restriction since it only applies to units that are paid for and deployed at the start of the game. Ergo: you can continue to add blue horrors to the unit as the pinks die off. This makes sense, they don't want you to cheap out by taking minimum unit sizes and then add to them as the game goes on without having to pay for them. But being forced to keep a unit at 2 models when you've clearly paid for 10 doesn't make any sense mechanics-wise. 

One question on my mind is that the cost of initially summoning the blue horrors is 50 points which brings them on to the board. The text for reenforcement points clearly says you don't pay to add models to the unit, and the "unit size" cap only applies to units that existed at the start of the battle. So, if those two things are true, it seems to suggest you don't have to pay reenforcement points if the unit size gets above 10 ("Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don't cost you any reenforcement points"). That means for the price of 10, you get 20. The same goes for brimstone horrors. You pay for 10, you get 20 as the blues die off. 

i'll admit the scenario above is a little bit of a grey area, but at the very least there's no way the unit would be capped at whatever number of blues are summoned that phase. The rules in are pretty clear there; pay for 10, get at least 10. Possibly 20. 

Either way that makes them a whole lot better. Even if you have to pay for the blues/brims up to the max size of 20, it's 320 points you can use to tie up anything in the game for at least 3 player turns, Stonehorn, Mourngul, Durthu, pretty much anything (I'd suggest avoiding things that can just fly over them to retreat). Plus, since you can set aside the 180 points and bring 3 units of horrors, you can choose which one splits. (It's not like fanatics which hide in a specific unit.)  

And IF my reading of the rule is correct, it's 90 reenforcement points if you don't have to pay to bring the blue/brim unit size above 10. That's a STEALand will hands down be the best tarpit of the game.  

4 hours ago, Nico said:

 What's particularly scary is setting up the Blues as a unit within 6" of the Pinks as this allows you to conga and potentially to block other units or flood objectives.

They FAQ'd this for 40k that any new blue or brimstone horrors had to remain entirely within 6". No conga-lining away to pick up objectives 8"- 10" away. I don't imagine they'd rule different for AoS if that rule came up. 

 

[scrubyandwells]

Love this thread! 

Anyone have any build ideas for a mid-tier competitive, low-model count 2K Tzeentch list centered around Archaon?

Starting to think about a second army for later this year...doesn't have to be tough as nails...just looking for something fun around 35-50 models.

Update: Looks pretty tough to include much with Archaon, unless you leave out the Lord of Change (love that model though). 

 

[scrubyandwells]

Nevermind on the below, found the answer: "If all the starting units and warscroll battalions in your army follow Tzeentch - including any units that you assign the Tzeentch keyword to during setup - then your army has the Tzeentch allegiance."

Also, and sorry if this has already been answered: For units that don't have the Tzeentch keyword already on their warscroll, but which can receive the Tzeentch keyword when you set them up on the table (e.g., the Chaos Sorcerer Lord), does including those units mean you forfeit the Tzeentch Allegiance for battle traits etc., since they only receive the Tzeentch keyword when they're set up on the table, not when you paid for them in your army list? 

[hobgoblinclub]

8 hours ago, Arkiham said:

I've been wondering lately if the Lord of change is a trap if running tzaangors of any kind.

It's a large portion of points into a model with a limited spell casting amount, while the spells it can cast will go off, there's only two going off. It's almost as if they've built it for combat. 

That 300 points is a unit of skyfires/enlightened and a tzaangor shaman, 

It's the Blue Scribes, and a tzaangor shaman and a unit of 10 brimstone horrors.

It seems such an obvious goto model perhaps it's too obvious? 

He's such a good caster, I think he has a place. Also, without him you've not really got any high wound heroes. I want a large Arcanites equivalent to put in there too! 

[Arkiham]

3 hours ago, scrubyandwells said:

Nevermind on the below, found the answer: "If all the starting units and warscroll battalions in your army follow Tzeentch - including any units that you assign the Tzeentch keyword to during setup - then your army has the Tzeentch allegiance."

Also, and sorry if this has already been answered: For units that don't have the Tzeentch keyword already on their warscroll, but which can receive the Tzeentch keyword when you set them up on the table (e.g., the Chaos Sorcerer Lord), does including those units mean you forfeit the Tzeentch Allegiance for battle traits etc., since they only receive the Tzeentch keyword when they're set up on the table, not when you paid for them in your army list? 

Other than varanguard everything works as intended in relation to picking Chaos Gods. 

It was faq'd, 

Varanguard have a clear distinction that archaon must pick it