Using Skarbrand

[ADDriot]

Hi all

I've acquired Skarbrand and wondered how you guys get the most of him. I'm going almost completely mono Bloodbound except him. No Sayl and no other Blood Thirsters.

I understand that being such a badass puts quite a target on his head. How do you make sure that you can deal some damage before he bites the dust?

If it helps my list will be something like this:

2 Bloodsecrator

Bloodstoker

Juggerlord

Slaughter priest

2 20 Bloodreavers

2 10 Bloodwarriors

2 5 Wrathmongers

5 Skullreapers

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arkiham]

Don't forget the more damage he has taken him the harder he hits.

Keep him in range of the bloodsecrator and maybe some wrathmongers and  you can multiple attacks with carnage so you can crush elite units, just try not to send him into chaff 

[Aspirant Snaeper]

I've only used Skarbrand twice as I have too many models and play too few games. Either rush him headlong towards the thing you want dead the most and watch as your enemy's battle strategy crumbles trying to kill him, or hold him back for a turn and THEN rush him forward, because he'll jump straight to MURDER EVERYTHING mode and have all his wounds to boot. 

A knowing opponent will try to missile strike him to prevent that, though.

[ADDriot]

Ok, good tips guys. Thanks. I imagine that unless he's at the higher levels on his anger chart you need to buff him to ensure that he doesn't whiff hard with his lower number of attacks. Buffed or angry his potential wound output seems incredible.

[Xerox]

It is indeed . A Stonehorn get punshed into pieces. 

[Aspirant Snaeper]

Remember: His rage level does not correlate to Slaughter and Carnages buffs. I forgot that the first few times I played him. Elementary stuff, but I overlooked it and imagine others have as well 

On the plus side, this means that his attacks hit harder after your opponents combat round, on the con side, he could theoretically be wiped off the table before ever seeing "Incandescent" levels of rage. 

[Arkiham]

First turn of combat is always incandescent 

[Aspirant Snaeper]

3 hours ago, Arkiham said:

First turn of combat is always incandescent 

Only if you go second. It specifically states that he starts the battle as Angry. So if you go first, there are no previous battle rounds with which to make him incandescent. 

If you go second in the first round, and your opponent did not or could not attack him, then yes, he's now incandescent in the first turn.

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Aspirant Snaeper said:

Only if you go second. It specifically states that he starts the battle as Angry. So if you go first, there are no previous battle rounds with which to make him incandescent. 

If you go second in the first round, and your opponent did not or could not attack him, then yes, he's now incandescent in the first turn.

Yeah, sorry.

I rarely if ever get into combat first turn so I just discount it 

[Gilby]

On 14/01/2017 at 1:11 PM, Aspirant Snaeper said:

Only if you go second. It specifically states that he starts the battle as Angry. So if you go first, there are no previous battle rounds with which to make him incandescent. 

If you go second in the first round, and your opponent did not or could not attack him, then yes, he's now incandescent in the first turn.

The rules say he is incandescent if he couldn't attack in at least one of the combats of the "previous battle round". Going second is still the first battleround and so is considered the start of the battle and he would be angry. At least that's how I read it.

[Aspirant Snaeper]

Thanks for clarifying. I usually get Turns and Battlerounds mixed up.