Let's chat Disciples of Tzeentch

[Salyx]

Habe you ever considered taking a Horde of Halberd Chaos Warriors supported by a Shrine? 

If you take them in a Fatesworn Warband and make them 27, they have 3 saves against any wounds. 

And they may be further supported by Mystic Shield, Demonic Power and Arcane suggestion as debuff.

That a whole brick the enemy won't be able to get rid of, so they can Cover Wizards or Block the middle of the table while the Wizards throw Arcane Devastation at your enemy. And they can fight hordes too

[hobgoblinclub]

6 hours ago, Nico said:

It's often not useful - many armies literally don't have a unit of 10 models (e.g. Stormcast), so given the high cast roll and 100 point cost it's not worthwhile. I elected not to use it vs Ironjawz yesterday.

Given nu-hordes, hard counters to hordes are more necessary than ever.

True. The first few games I ran him I barely met any big units. After that, I went on a run of games where he took off a load of big units. Then I got the balewind and he's been devastating. I say he's definitely worth taking. 120 is nothing when he's going to win you games. If the opponent hasn't got big units he's of little use, but come up against that big block of bloodletters and he can swing the tide of battle before they've even left their deployment zone. 

 

2 hours ago, Ratso said:

 

Remember now a regular Gaunt Summoner is the same price as one with familiars, so throw treaterous bond on him, and throw him forward with you troops to give him the 18" range he needs against hordes and if you keep him just behind you line he will be able to give the -1 to save plus sniping off high wound, low bravery models with his warp tongue blade. Much better than a Balewind.

I ran him with Treacherous Bond at first but it just proved unrealistic to expect to be able to maneuver him into position every game. The bonus with the balewind is that it can be done from such long range. It's so much of a factor, it makes your opponent rethink whether they want to let you go first or not. Because you can hit them from 36" away, you can often hit a big horde two or, with deep deployment, even three times before it gets to where it wants to be. 

[angelust]

Maybe it's a good time to be bringing 2-3 Gaunt Summoners. 100 points for a Balewind is mighty nice, but for 20 points more you can just add summoner #2.

I'm thinking of having one be a general with Arcane sacrifice...drop d3 mortals onto a unit of brimstones or blues, and extend his spell to 27" with rerolls to cast. Then have a 27" arcane bolt / bolt of tzeentch or whatever...pretty nifty.

[Xasz]

15 minutes ago, angelust said:

Maybe it's a good time to be bringing 2-3 Gaunt Summoners. 100 points for a Balewind is mighty nice, but for 20 points more you can just add summoner #2.

I'm thinking of having one be a general with Arcane sacrifice...drop d3 mortals onto a unit of brimstones or blues, and extend his spell to 27" with rerolls to cast. Then have a 27" arcane bolt / bolt of tzeentch or whatever...pretty nifty.

Rule of one.

[angelust]

Right - but second summoner for redundancy and other lore spells. Three would be overkill I guess.

[13on2D6]

1 hour ago, hobgoblinclub said:

True. The first few games I ran him I barely met any big units. After that, I went on a run of games where he took off a load of big units. Then I got the balewind and he's been devastating. I say he's definitely worth taking. 120 is nothing when he's going to win you games. If the opponent hasn't got big units he's of little use, but come up against that big block of bloodletters and he can swing the tide of battle before they've even left their deployment zone. 

 

I ran him with Treacherous Bond at first but it just proved unrealistic to expect to be able to maneuver him into position every game. The bonus with the balewind is that it can be done from such long range. It's so much of a factor, it makes your opponent rethink whether they want to let you go first or not. Because you can hit them from 36" away, you can often hit a big horde two or, with deep deployment, even three times before it gets to where it wants to be. 

Being on the receiving end of this from Steve I can honestly say worth the points and more!

[TheOtherJosh]

Right - but second summoner for redundancy and other lore spells. Three would be overkill I guess.

As long as you're running less than 9... you're legal.

There are only 9 in existence at any one time.... and that's only 1080 points.

[Malakithe]

5 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 

Acolytes have a much better synergy with Arcanites and the required heroes, and wizards. And you get a ranged attack that is missing from the Marauders.

 

Not really though. Most of the heroes dont have buffing spells that require Arcanites and the Acolytes themselves are only part of battalion requirements. They have one rule that boosts there super crappy shooting attack to a still crappy shooting attack..

Id rather take Marauders as pure bodies for 160pts less for the same size unit. Or a bare minimum of 10 for 60pts for battleline requirements. Either way its still cheaper and allows for bringing in other stronger stuff 

[Arkiham]

The gaunt summoner with infernal flames, how's it work on balewind

Pick a unit 36" away, and every model within 18" of the wizard suffer 1 mortal wound ?

[misthv]

12 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

The gaunt summoner with infernal flames, how's it work on balewind

Pick a unit 36" away, and every model within 18" of the wizard suffer 1 mortal wound ?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say the 18" is "the range of the spell"? Thus, it being doubled as result of Balewind...

[TheOtherJosh]

Not really though. Most of the heroes dont have buffing spells that require Arcanites and the Acolytes themselves are only part of battalion requirements. They have one rule that boosts there super crappy shooting attack to a still crappy shooting attack..
Id rather take Marauders as pure bodies for 160pts less for the same size unit. Or a bare minimum of 10 for 60pts for battleline requirements. Either way its still cheaper and allows for bringing in other stronger stuff 

Sheer cheap bodies as battleline. Sure. Marauders have them beat.

But I'll take a "super crappy shooting attack" (which gets better in range of a Tzeentch wizard) to the no shooting attack option at all from Marauders. Which means Marauders have to be in melee to do damage. (And depending on the battalion Acolytes could be shooting in the hero phase as well. So potentially double the shooting attacks.)

Marauders also don't get an "ignore wound or mortal wound" save with their shields. Or mortal wound threats against enemy wizards.

And Acolytes being 40 points cheaper (~28.5%) at minimum size than previous ... they're in a much better place than they were in GHB 2016. At 140 points for 10 vs 60 for 10, Marauders were basically a "no-brainer" choice when trying for cheap battleline ... at 100 vs 60... there is definitely more calculation required as Acolytes are a better overall value than previously.

And, If I really need bodies there are always Horrors. (Don't meet battleline ... but they work well for bubble wrap and area denial.)

(Also, because I'm a firm believer in the rule of cool, I'd lean towards the Acolytes because I feel that the Marauders do not have particularly engaging sculpts. If I'm going to have an army on the table, I want it to look good.)

[Malakithe]

11 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

 

Sheer cheap bodies as battleline. Sure. Marauders have them beat.

But I'll take a "super crappy shooting attack" (which gets better in range of a Tzeentch wizard) to the no shooting attack option at all from Marauders. Which means Marauders have to be in melee to do damage. (And depending on the battalion Acolytes could be shooting in the hero phase as well. So potentially double the shooting attacks.)

Marauders also don't get an "ignore wound or mortal wound" save with their shields. Or mortal wound threats against enemy wizards.

And Acolytes being 40 points cheaper (~28.5%) at minimum size than previous ... they're in a much better place than they were in GHB 2016. At 140 points for 10 vs 60 for 10, Marauders were basically a "no-brainer" choice when trying for cheap battleline ... at 100 vs 60... there is definitely more calculation required as Acolytes are a better overall value than previously.

And, If I really need bodies there are always Horrors. (Don't meet battleline ... but they work well for bubble wrap and area denial.)

(Also, because I'm a firm believer in the rule of cool, I'd lean towards the Acolytes because I feel that the Marauders do not have particularly engaging sculpts. If I'm going to have an army on the table, I want it to look good.)

 

Well for my plan im going to start with 2 units of 30 Tzaangors. So the Marauders will be the last battleline. A cheaper option. The problem with Acolytes is they have to be all or nothing. The only way to make them better is all the battalions and due to the cost increase the Acolytes arent actually cheaper at all. Sure, they get discounted but then the cost shoots way up in the crappy battalions they are part of. 

In order to make Acolytes even remotely useful they need huge battalion support and to be babysat by a wizard. 

Hmm...I might toy around with a full on Acolyte list now. Complete horde style. Flood the board with tons of them. Might work..

[Nico]

Any range/distance in a spell gets doubled - whether point to point or bubble. Starting with Kroak and his Astrolith bearer (which has no other purpose).

[decker_cky]

37 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

Well for my plan im going to start with 2 units of 30 Tzaangors. So the Marauders will be the last battleline. A cheaper option. The problem with Acolytes is they have to be all or nothing. The only way to make them better is all the battalions and due to the cost increase the Acolytes arent actually cheaper at all. Sure, they get discounted but then the cost shoots way up in the crappy battalions they are part of. 

In order to make Acolytes even remotely useful they need huge battalion support and to be babysat by a wizard. 

Hmm...I might toy around with a full on Acolyte list now. Complete horde style. Flood the board with tons of them. Might work..

If you want two units of 30 tzaangors, I think it's worth taking them in alter kin covens. Those 6's pop up enough that you'll slow the attrition on your two huge units. Every turn you can push them above the 18 or 27 model threshholds results in a huge efficiency increase. 

Two alter kin covens with 30 tzaangors (min otherwise) and two tzaangor shamans works out to 1960 pts (only 4 drops).

[Nico]

The reason why there are two distances mentioned is to stop it hitting every unit in 18" and to stop it hitting every model even if only one model was in range. That is the only difference vs Kroak.

[daedalus81]

5 hours ago, Salyx said:

Habe you ever considered taking a Horde of Halberd Chaos Warriors supported by a Shrine? 

If you take them in a Fatesworn Warband and make them 27, they have 3 saves against any wounds. 

And they may be further supported by Mystic Shield, Demonic Power and Arcane suggestion as debuff.

That a whole brick the enemy won't be able to get rid of, so they can Cover Wizards or Block the middle of the table while the Wizards throw Arcane Devastation at your enemy. And they can fight hordes too

I've been doing this for a while, but it should get a lot easier.  We can meet the fatesworn requirements more cheaply with 5 man chaos warrior units and stick a block of 30 in there for the shrine to bless.  

 

I'm still trying to find the fatesworn cost though.

 

[Arkiham]

8 minutes ago, Nico said:

The reason why there are two distances mentioned is to stop it hitting every unit in 18" and to stop it hitting every model even if only one model was in range. That is the only difference vs Kroak.

But you pick a single unit, so it'll only affect that one unit unlike kroak which affects all.

Still 36" 36" pretty much covers the unit 

[epokh]

8 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

I'm still trying to find the fatesworn cost though.

Fatesworn Warband is 100 points - picked up my book this evening.

[HMB]

Hi guys, a question for you: 

can I use Destiny dice to choose the amount of mortal wounds can Bolt of tzeentch deals?

[misthv]

8 minutes ago, HMB said:

Hi guys, a question for you: 

can I use Destiny dice to choose the amount of mortal wounds can Bolt of tzeentch deals?

It's debated. 

[Nico]

You should assume not able to use them for mortal wounds.

[HMB]

4 minutes ago, Nico said:

You should assume not able to use them for mortal wounds.

It's my opinion too but in our community forum not all the players are for the same opinion

 

[Tasman]

It states that DD are used to determine damage rolls. Mortal wounds are damage, are they not?

[Nico]

Not any more at any event in the UK you're likely to attend.

[Xasz]

New FAQ:

Quote

Page 74 – Battle Traits, Masters of Destiny Change the Damage roll bullet point to: ‘• Damage roll (e.g. any roll that determines a Damage characteristic, but not any roll that determines the number of mortal wounds inflicted by a spell or ability)’