Lets Chat Wanderers / Wood Elves compendium

[WABBIT]

It should be obvious to any game designer if players start using elite cavalry like wild riders as cannon fodder rather than for hard hitting strikes then there is clearly a problem. They bounce off even battleline troops and are a joke against other elites or monsters. The added problem with wanderers is they have been so weak they very rarely appear at events as they just cannot compete. So no one sees the problem. 

Every GW person or tournament player being interviewed that I read about or listen to on pod casts and warhammer TV seem to love chaos and destruction armies, I have never seen or heard anyone raving about how much they love their wanderers army. Recently Martin who replaced Rob on warhammer TV mentioned he has an eldritch council army which is the first tIme ever I have heard someone say they love and collect an aelf army. I hope to see it in action one day I could do with the inspiration to get mine going again. I get the impression no one really likes or collects aelves at GW so they have been largely ignored. Wood elves have never been a primary army for Gw. The alliegence abilities clearly don't suit the wanderer warscrolls so like Tidings said it's either poor design or something new is coming. I hope it's the later as it won't take much to fill out the wanderer range and a battle tome will update the warscrolls nicely. I suspect it's something completely new for the aelves and what we have now will be left to wither on the vine. Whatever comes I'm sure it will be awesome. I'm just anxious after spending 3 years painting my woodelves army I'm nearly finished only to find  GW pulled Support for them. 

[Yeled]

30 minutes ago, Tidings said:

Sure in a dream world you could kite all day and kill everything with ranged specialists and never be charged. But that's not how things work. I think you are missing my point. I know how to shoot the scary stuff, there was a Mawcrusher in my frontline too lol. Rangers cost the same as Brutes and are also melee specialists, so I should see a pretty balanced combat there. But I was bringing this up because the Brutes are far more efficient for the points. This is a common problem for Wanderers.

Now, I'm okay with one army having to pay more for something less effective, as long as they get a good deal somewhere else. What I mean is this: 180 points for Rangers vs 180 points for Brutes, while the Brutes are much better units, is just imbalanced. UNLESS the Wanderers are the kings at something else. Seraphon and Sylvaneth have more flexible teleporting than us, Chaos and Destruction all move faster than us, so movement isn't our thing. So it must be shooting! Except... lots of armies shoot better than us. Stormcast, Skaven, Dwarves, even High Elves etc are all arguably better or more versatile shooting armies. The Waywatcher hero is the only unit that really stands out. 

If we could pay 100 points for shooting that costs OTHER armies 140 points, then I wouldn't mind paying 140 points for melee that others get for 100. Melee isn't our army's focus, after all. The problem is we don't really have any good deals to offset the expensive stuff - no monsters, weak but expensive melee and cavalry, and generally overcosted or average shooting. 

This is a very interesting comment. I want to think on this about how I can address it in the wishlist thread.

Overall I agree with what you said. I don't need Wyldwood Rangers to beat Brutes in a fight, even if they are the same points, under two conditions:

1. The Wyldwood Rangers are exceptional at something specific, so while they lose to the combat specialist brutes they make up for it by accomplishing something else that's important (killing monsters, movement, etc.);
2. As you said, if we pay a premium for a combat unit but make up for it with a discount somewhere else.

The issue is that, in the first case, the D3 damage against monsters is so specific and so hard to pull off in an actual game due to WWR dying that it doesn't equal out.

For the second point, paying a premium for a close combat troop in exchange for a discount in archery should mean we don't take the inefficient troop in most cases. If the goal of GW is to get us to buy and field more archers and fewer WWR than this would work. But ultimately its not a great practice. It would be better to make our close combat troops worse than brutes (mission accomplished) while making us pay less for them...or make the Rangers more capable so they aren't as good in close combat but make up for it in another way...see point number 1.

[Aezeal]

22 minutes ago, Yeled said:

Overall I agree with what you said. I don't need Wyldwood Rangers to beat Brutes in a fight, even if they are the same points, under two conditions:

1. The Wyldwood Rangers are exceptional at something specific, so while they lose to the combat specialist brutes they make up for it by accomplishing something else that's important (killing monsters, movement, etc.);
2. As you said, if we pay a premium for a combat unit but make up for it with a discount somewhere else.

I agree with you , while WWR might be slightly overcosted WABBIT just wants them to be what they are not: allround elite infantry instead of monster hunters. However it might be he just wants good melee units in our army... but it might also be that GW doesn't want wanderers to be played that way so they don't think we need much more than monster hunters and a cheap melee unit. The next problem however is probably that he thinks our archers are not good enough for our army to be played as a fully ranged army OR that AoS with it's high movement, tons of movement abilities AND tons of teleport just isn't favoring this kind of play. 

The problem probably just is that almost all of our troops are SLIGHTLY overcosted and forces a playstyle on us that is generally hard to do in AoS, especially with underpowered troops.

GG at 100-110 or with a discount at 30 wouldn't be overpowered

WWR at 10-20 lower wouldn't be overpowered too

Wild riders with elite cavalry stats OR with less points (fitting for fast cavalry which they are basicly atm.. not the elite cavarly we keep THINKING they are)

2 useless heroes

No real buffing heroes except for command traits.

No Behemoths

All of this would probably be too much.. but if WWR stay at their current level then it would be nice if wild riders could be elite hard hitting cav and/or GG would be 100 points. 

 

The think I'd REALLY REALLY like is a sort of priest/mage/buff character/druid that can give a single unit MW on 6 or even +1 to wound.. or even only rr 1 to wound (say he gives a unit poisoned arrows or something). A character like this might make our army playable even without any of the other changes (because, yes, doing this on a unit of 30GG would be strong - well if it only was RR 1 to wound it might not be enough but still it would be nice).

[Tidings]

@Yeled Yup, we're on the same page. In the case of WWR, they need to be a bit better to be viable. Either in the form of more rending or a better save, something like that. Or even a way to do MWs, something our army completely lacks. It's hard to use them properly and get value from them, so most people use EG instead, since they are so much cheaper and do their job better. If our archers were actually better than average, I doubt I'd gripe about WWRs because they still fill a niche roll and are useful, and their lack of points efficiency would be made up somewhere else (archers). As it stands, the only really efficient units (high value for points cost) are the EG and Waywatcher. And both of them get their value from standing still. Nomad Prince is incredibly good value too, but I can't think of much else that really stands out. In an archer-based army, our most efficient non-hero unit is our static frontline lol. 

GG aren't bad, but there are more efficient shooters in other armies. 

@Aezeal Couldn't agree more.

[Yeled]

4 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

The think I'd REALLY REALLY like is a sort of priest/mage/buff character/druid that can give a single unit MW on 6 or even +1 to wound.. or even only rr 1 to wound (say he gives a unit poisoned arrows or something). A character like this might make our army playable even without any of the other changes (because, yes, doing this on a unit of 30GG would be strong - well if it only was RR 1 to wound it might not be enough but still it would be nice).

Not to keep harping on the Wishlist thread, but after I'm able to post up recommended changes for existing units I want to do a section on desired units. I think this druid priest/mage character could be very interesting. If you don't mind I would like to port this over to that discussion at that time.

Other units...I would like the two useless heroes you mention to have buffs that make them useful. I'd also love to see some kind of fae sorcerer type mage that messes with charges via glamours.

[WABBIT]

While I want wanderers to have good shooting options I don't want wanderers to be just a shooting army. Just Shooting is boring. It's not fun for your opponent either and that leads to unfun games. I've used and faced too many gunlines in 8th edition and they sucked to be honest. Moving and shooting is just as bad if it's the only trick we have. It's cool for some units to be able to do it but It should compliment not define the wanderers theme and style of battle. We need combat troops with punch and or resilience like every other army out there. Glass cannons are fine costed properly. Currently we have glass water pistols. 

 

Tricks like ambushes, hiding, melt away are all good ways to give wanderers a theme of battle. The free guild regiments rules they brought back from 8th ed work well for wanderers too like fire in support of a friendly unit being attacked like a distraction attack. Bait and bake ?

[Aezeal]

5 minutes ago, Tidings said:

GG aren't bad, but there are more efficient shooters in other armies. 

They aren't bad... but as I said. if we need to be a full shooting army with only minimal melee support (which we are forced to be now with niche WWR and bad WR) then GG needs to be better or cheaper. If GW DOESN'T think full shooting with only minimal support but we should do something in melee then they should give us at least one tool: I can understand WWR as they are now, elite monster hunters, a niche unit.. but THEN wild riders need to be good shock cavalry. Or if wild riders stay the  fast cav they are now then WWR should be more generally effective.

5 minutes ago, Yeled said:

Not to keep harping on the Wishlist thread, but after I'm able to post up recommended changes for existing units I want to do a section on desired units. I think this druid priest/mage character could be very interesting. If you don't mind I would like to port this over to that discussion at that time.

Sure.

6 minutes ago, Yeled said:

Other units...I would like the two useless heroes you mention to have buffs that make them useful. I'd also love to see some kind of fae sorcerer type mage that messes with charges via glamours.

Yeah there are several options to add to our army. A priest. Mages, just buffign characters. 

However.. I fear GW is done with wanderers as they are. I'm pretty sure new models won't be coming: Aelf attention will be in new armies. That means that the Waystrider and Wayfinder models need to get rules that make them somewhat usefull. Personally I think the wayfinder could fit a somewhat combat oriented druid guy - he doesn't look mage-y but giving him a prayer ability or just a general support ability seems fitting.

The waystrider just radiates combat so he doesn't really fit the bill of what I described.. however a small buff for melee units could be put on him I'd say , nothing AoE I fear since then it would quickly be better than the nomads princes command ability (and I think command abilities should be the stronger abilities). 

I'd favor giving the nomad prince 6"AoE +1 to hit as command ability and then giving the wayfinder a 6"AoE RR 1's to hit. But if it needs to be weaker (sigh) then keeping the nomad prince as he is and giving the wayfinder a targeted +1 hit on one unit would be nice.... or even just a +1 to hit in melee which seems to fit his model.

[Aezeal]

1 minute ago, WABBIT said:

While I want wanderers to have good shooting options I don't want wanderers to be just a shooting army. Just Shooting is boring. It's not fun for your opponent either and that leads to unfun games. I've used and faced too many gunlines in 8th edition and they sucked to be honest. Moving and shooting is just as bad if it's the only trick we have. It's cool for some units to be able to do it but It should compliment not define the wanderers theme and style of battle. We need combat troops with punch and or resilience like every other army out there. Glass cannons are fine costed properly. Currently we have glass water pistols. 

Ok... you are right.. opponents get annoyed by shooting armies.. but really it's what wanders (at least old wood elves) have always been in the fluff. It's a niche role but one not taken by other armies so it's nice if the niche is filled. If you want to play something else play other elves. 

4 minutes ago, WABBIT said:

but It should compliment not define the wanderers theme and style of battle.

Just for the record I want to say that this is just an opinion. I would be perfectly FINE if that is all they where if they where playable in that role. The whole reason I started warhammer in 3th-4th edition or whatever (HE vs goblin set with cardboard large "models") was because I saw wanderers and really liked their ambush and shooting fluff. If I want to play combat I'll play something else (sylvaneth in my case but there are TONS of armies that can do this... I don't see why wanderers would need to be able to be yet ANOTHER combat army).

[WABBIT]

1 hour ago, Aezeal said:

Ok... you are right.. opponents get annoyed by shooting armies.. but really it's what wanders (at least old wood elves) have always been in the fluff. It's a niche role but one not taken by other armies so it's nice if the niche is filled. If you want to play something else play other elves. 

Just for the record I want to say that this is just an opinion. I would be perfectly FINE if that is all they where if they where playable in that role. The whole reason I started warhammer in 3th-4th edition or whatever (HE vs goblin set with cardboard large "models") was because I saw wanderers and really liked their ambush and shooting fluff. If I want to play combat I'll play something else (sylvaneth in my case but there are TONS of armies that can do this... I don't see why wanderers would need to be able to be yet ANOTHER combat army).

AoS is a combat system. It's the most fun element as both players are involved. Kunnin ruk is the shooting army no one can out shoot. There are many other good shooting armies. Free guild machine gunners get lots of buffs to make them very powerful plus they have artillery. Shooting is not a niche it's already been taken. If you want just shooting it's already out there. Wanderers in my opinion are or should be ambushing guerilla army not a shooting army. That means combat and shooting and movement in concert. That's way more exciting than just running around your enemy like crazy horse vs Custer. I'd prefer Small elite hard hitting slippery units with good shooting support units. Like wardancers or even the tree revenants. Synergy with cover/terrain is a good theme to explore. Wild riders are awesome models and can be an ideal main unit for us to use, they are fast but they must be much stronger in combat than they are or a great deal cheaper.  Some new buffing characters or creatures could give them some interesting abilities too. We lost Orion who used you give them immunity to battleshock. They could do with an extra attack and some rend.

I started with 2nd edition in the 80's I stopped after 4th ed was release (university and debt beckoned) I started again with 8th edition and dug out my old high elves and woodelves.  woodelves had no army book for nearly 10 years, then in 8th ed they finally got one and it was awesome, not only could we shoot, we had wild riders, fast hard hitting glass cannons and we had tough sylvaneth. The point is we had options and our opponents didn't know what to expect. We could bring any kind of force. A good army should give us more than one build otption and a chance to bring a balanced force or we won't compete in any events. 

[Origin]

@Tidings couple of posts back you mentioned WR doing a teleport, run and charge? Does that work? I thought the teleport counted for their move. 

[Tidings]

Just to throw my opinion in here, I want Wanderers to be an ambush army that focuses on shooting. It should have some melee units but they should be adequate, while the shooting should be exceptional. I started Wood Elves because I loved the aesthetics, the lore, and how well the playstyle represented a low-population faction that needed to avoid loss of life at all costs. This meant hit and run, ambush tactics with as little risk to themselves as possible, which in the real world means shooting. The playstyle fit the lore like a glove. Not only that, it was super rewarding to play such a delicate army with finesse, and it was challenging. 

I don't want to blow my enemy off the table while standing still. I don't want to charge at my enemy and do tons of damage. Those playstyles should be represented by Empire/Dwarven gunlines and Orks/Khorne respectively. I want to dance my troops around the enemy and hit key targets, then get away before they can retaliate with equal lethality. 

@Origin The rule says "This is the unit's move for that movement phase." Nothing states that you can't charge. Usually when there's a restriction like that it calls it out, and the standard 9" distance that you see in other teleports is to make charges possible but unlikely to succeed.

I think you're right about the running though. I just reread the rules for runs and you declare a run when you move the unit. Since using the teleport is an ability, you aren't declaring the unit is moving, meaning you can't then declare it's going to run. And once the unit comes back on the table it counts as having moved, so by then it's too late to declare a run. Guess I played that wrong, thanks for bringing it up! All that really does is make Wild Riders even more useless LOL.

[Yeled]

15 minutes ago, Tidings said:

I think you're right about the running though. I just reread the rules for runs and you declare a run when you move the unit. Since using the teleport is an ability, you aren't declaring the unit is moving, meaning you can't then declare it's going to run. And once the unit comes back on the table it counts as having moved, so by then it's too late to declare a run. Guess I played that wrong, thanks for bringing it up! All that really does is make Wild Riders even more useless LOL.

The Glade Lord on Great Stag command ability gave Wild Riders a +4 to charge rolls...before it was erased from the warscroll and the Glade Lord stopped being a Wanderer. I don't want that as a command ability, but I would love some kind of mounted hero that buffs the movement or charges of Wild Riders with an ability like that.

Honestly that's one of the frustrating things about the loss of the compendium units. I barely played with them, but their loss is a little disheartening given that new models for Wanderers is extremely unlikely. 

[tea_wild_owl]

since wanderer are lacking monster, I plan on using a frostheart Phoenix with anointed (which could be converted to a more wanderer style) as an ally.

with his 16" movement he can keep up with our other units, e.g. wild riders.

with his attuned to magic ability and 3 wizards (2 spellweaver, 1 sisters of thorne) he can get +3 on save (without casting mystic shield on him!) which buffs him to a 2+ save, getting even better when there are enemy wizards within 12". additionally, he has a 4+ extra safe for each wound and mortal wound he suffers, making him even more durable.

with shield of thorne from the SoT that's a 2+ rerollable save with mortal wound rebound on 3+ (or better).

his -1 to wound debuff could help keeping other units alive as well. wild riders running next to the Phoenix could be more durable, especially when reviving them with a spellweaver.

the downside is that the army would loose it's one time drop. but for friendly games that's not an issue (at least with my local meta).

the model costs 240pts, so since I loose the one time drop I could drop the battalion which is 240 pts.

I'll give it a try and report how it worked

[Aezeal]

11 hours ago, Tidings said:

It should have some melee units but they should be adequate, while the shooting should be exceptional.

EG are all you need for that cheap enough to keep stuff away from GG for a while.

 

11 hours ago, Tidings said:

I don't want to blow my enemy off the table while standing still. I don't want to charge at my enemy and do tons of damage. Those playstyles should be represented by Empire/Dwarven gunlines and Orks/Khorne respectively. I want to dance my troops around the enemy and hit key targets, then get away before they can retaliate with equal lethality. 

As mentioned before: reavers as allies probably reflect this best. But with the movement options in this game infantry will never dance around anything, even if GG had 10"move they'd not be doing that. The way I see it GW gave us one of the only ways to do this by our teleporting.. however odd it might be. If GG got to have a reaver like ability as in moving, shooting and then being allowed to move another 6" that would be the only alternative that MIGHT see us kiting a bit.. but ofc all fliers, all armies with movement options, all teleporters and all cavalry would still catch us or box us in. I think another 5"on the bows would've made a difference because it would make it less likely for fliers, cavalry and most movement abilities to get to us in 1 turn. Teleporters would still be a problem but the overall problem would be less. 20" isn't that bad.. but when you have to put the troops in 3-4 lines to hit a certain target it means that if the back line is in range to shoot the FRONT line is at about 17 or worse".

5 hours ago, tea_wild_owl said:

since wanderer are lacking monster, I plan on using a frostheart Phoenix with anointed (which could be converted to a more wanderer style) as an ally.

with his 16" movement he can keep up with our other units, e.g. wild riders.

with his attuned to magic ability and 3 wizards (2 spellweaver, 1 sisters of thorne) he can get +3 on save (without casting mystic shield on him!) which buffs him to a 2+ save, getting even better when there are enemy wizards within 12". additionally, he has a 4+ extra safe for each wound and mortal wound he suffers, making him even more durable.

with shield of thorne from the SoT that's a 2+ rerollable save with mortal wound rebound on 3+ (or better).

his -1 to wound debuff could help keeping other units alive as well. wild riders running next to the Phoenix could be more durable, especially when reviving them with a spellweaver.

the downside is that the army would loose it's one time drop. but for friendly games that's not an issue (at least with my local meta).

the model costs 240pts, so since I loose the one time drop I could drop the battalion which is 240 pts.

I'll give it a try and report how it worked

Yeah try it. I personally thought about it too because the model is awesom.. but it really doens't help our shooters very much. Smart players would probably still destroy our shooters first and then deal with the phoenix.

I think that maybe our best allies would be gryph hounds just because they are cheap so they make the cheapest speedbumps by blocking movement. Their anti-teleport ability is a nice bonus against one of our weak  points. Sadly.. they won't be teleporting so they would only be usefull for the first turn and then for some troops who stay behind to defend an objective. 

11 hours ago, Yeled said:

 I don't want that as a command ability

No you wouldn't: command abilities have had a MAJOR powercreep since the compendium (well actually some compendium command abilities (yes, Settra) where insane already) all our old compendium command abilities where nearly useless. Even our Nomad prince who is in every list since he's our best option actually has a pretty mediocre ability compared to most.. the redeeming thing being his 80 points.

 

 

 

 

[WABBIT]

The 2015 compendium warscroll for glade lord on dragon has a good ability. Re roll 1s to hit AND wound with 16". It still has wanderer key word too. Remember we can choose which warscrolls to use as long as we pay the recent points. 

[Tidings]

Some people asked to see the hurricanum I'm working on. It's still in the planning/early construction phase, but I made a project thread for it here:  

 

[TheGreatEnchanter]

@Aezeal what do you think of tree revenants as allies since they can teleport too

[darkspear]

Earlier, we discussed that Wanderers lack good infantry and many players make do with Eternal Guard.  What are your opinions of using allied White Lion Rangers?  I am thinking of getting 30.

[WABBIT]

2 hours ago, darkspear said:

Earlier, we discussed that Wanderers lack good infantry and many players make do with Eternal Guard.  What are your opinions of using allied White Lion Rangers?  I am thinking of getting 30.

I'm going to use them as they are actually worth their points. They are tougher than WWR and have rerolls vs shooting. I Haven't  tried them in 30's yet but if you inspiring presence them they should stick around a long time, long enough to do their thing anyway  if you don't IP them they are super resilient vs battleshock anyway with 4+ ignore shock. Shame they only have 1" range as it means you won't get many rear ranks attacking so it does harm they damage output. They may be better in smaller units as a result.

[Yeled]

3 hours ago, darkspear said:

Earlier, we discussed that Wanderers lack good infantry and many players make do with Eternal Guard.  What are your opinions of using allied White Lion Rangers?  I am thinking of getting 30.

 

50 minutes ago, WABBIT said:

I'm going to use them as they are actually worth their points. They are tougher than WWR and have rerolls vs shooting. I Haven't  tried them in 30's yet but if you inspiring presence them they should stick around a long time, long enough to do their thing anyway

They are basically Wildwood Rangers with better save but without monster killing for 40 pts less (or 120 pts less for 30...which is a whole unit of GG). So, yeah, they are probably a better option for general purposes. I wanted to use Phoenix Guard but 30 is too expensive by 20 points. But I think they are even more worthwhile.

Elite elves all have pretty much the same stat-line, with the only differences being range, abilities, save, and rend. Wyldwood rangers have one of the best stat lines and are amazing against monsters, but that save of 5 really hurts. On the other hand, having a 2" range and a -1 rend is a big deal.

• Wyldwood Rangers - 180/480: 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-1/1 (d3 against monsters); save 5+
• Executioners - 180/480: 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-/1 with 2 mortal wounds on 6's; save 4+
• Swordmasters - 180/480; 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-1/1 plus reroll hit rolls of 1; save 4+ plus reroll failed saves in shooting phase
• Black Guard - 160/430: 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-1/1 with reroll on failed hit rolls of 1; save 4+
• Phoenix Guard - 160/420; 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-/1; save 4+ plus a second save of 4 against wounds and mortal wounds, plus causing extra model to flee, plus no battleshock near heroes.
• White Lions - 140/360: 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-1/1; save 4+ with rerolls on 1s against shooting and a 50 percent chance of not fleeing after battleshock

The fact that they have a 2" range means you can often get all of them in a unit of ten in a position to attack. That's 21 attacks (Warden makes an extra attack), for 14 hits just under 10 damage on average (20 against monsters). A rend of -1 means that even heavily armored troops are going to have trouble.

By comparison, White lions are not going to get as many attacks if they aren't totally wrapped around their enemy, which will happen quite often. But they still have that rend so they are almost there. I'd say Rangers are better but the lower save and the difference in points makes the Lions a better choice...except when trying to kill monsters.

[WABBIT]

8 hours ago, Yeled said:

 

They are basically Wildwood Rangers with better save but without monster killing for 40 pts less (or 120 pts less for 30...which is a whole unit of GG). So, yeah, they are probably a better option for general purposes. I wanted to use Phoenix Guard but 30 is too expensive by 20 points. But I think they are even more worthwhile.

Elite elves all have pretty much the same stat-line, with the only differences being range, abilities, save, and rend. Wyldwood rangers have one of the best stat lines and are amazing against monsters, but that save of 5 really hurts. On the other hand, having a 2" range and a -1 rend is a big deal.

• Wyldwood Rangers - 180/480: 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-1/1 (d3 against monsters); save 5+
• Executioners - 180/480: 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-/1 with 2 mortal wounds on 6's; save 4+
• Swordmasters - 180/480; 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-1/1 plus reroll hit rolls of 1; save 4+ plus reroll failed saves in shooting phase
• Black Guard - 160/430: 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-1/1 with reroll on failed hit rolls of 1; save 4+
• Phoenix Guard - 160/420; 2 attacks, 2" range, 3/3/-/1; save 4+ plus a second save of 4 against wounds and mortal wounds, plus causing extra model to flee, plus no battleshock near heroes.
• White Lions - 140/360: 2 attacks, 1" range, 3/3/-1/1; save 4+ with rerolls on 1s against shooting and a 50 percent chance of not fleeing after battleshock

The fact that they have a 2" range means you can often get all of them in a unit of ten in a position to attack. That's 21 attacks (Warden makes an extra attack), for 14 hits just under 10 damage on average (20 against monsters). A rend of -1 means that even heavily armored troops are going to have trouble.

By comparison, White lions are not going to get as many attacks if they aren't totally wrapped around their enemy, which will happen quite often. But they still have that rend so they are almost there. I'd say Rangers are better but the lower save and the difference in points makes the Lions a better choice...except when trying to kill monsters.

Great comparison @Yeled I've been comparing the aelven elites for a while trying to find the best one. While rangers share the best stat line with black guard the monster hunter ability is just too niche to be worth the points. Again lions have abilities that are always useful particularly for an infantry unit. I.e. Shooting resilience and basically halving battle shock results. This allows you to forgo Inspiring presence without being punished too badly for it so you can use you command trait on something else. That in itself is a powerful ability which at first glance doesn't sound that great so it's not pushed up the lions points thankfully. 2 units of 10 or 20 is better if kept close together as they increase each units bravery to 9 too. This is my main point about price for low armour, unresilient niche ability units, it's not that I don't like monster killer ability or want to change WWR into something else @Aezeal it's that I don't believe it's worth the points for what you get and I don't know any player that agrees 180 is worth it for WWR suggesting we are right and GW designers need to look at our units again, it's the same for GG and a one shot wonder ability. It's just not worth it for a sub par expensive unit that under performs in every game  I've played so far.

black guard are the best on that list with 2" range and executioners are on a par purely Because of  their ability. So again dark aelves get the best stuff. Phoenix guard should have rend -1, why they didn't is a mystery and makes no sense as it punishes them dearly for having a great defence ability. I've used them a few times and the extra 4 save isn't actually that great in practice. 2 mortal wounds on a 6 for troops with 2 attacks is however awesome. You could argue WWR have two handed swords like executioners and sword masters and therefore should only have 1" range but they are already so bad I'm cringeing at the suggestion. 

To round this off look at Storm vermin...I face them all the time. They have the best stat line and 4 up save vs damage 1 with shields (which is most of the time) and their chieftain can give them an extra attack making it 3 attacks per model and they only cost....140pts. It's a joke really. I lose every time to those critters so I have to shoot them or avoid them. In my meta 180 for worse treoops is killing me as I can't bring one of my fav units. My skaven opponent very rarely uses monsters too and the horned demons are so fast it wouldnt matter if they did.

[Aezeal]

21 hours ago, TheGreatEnchanter said:

@Aezeal what do you think of tree revenants as allies since they can teleport too

I hardly use them in my Sylvaneth armies....but anyway: I think they are 5 wounds and not a better save than the EG so I don't see why I'd use them as roadblock instead of the EG. The damage output might be somewhat higher but in that role I'd prefer the chance EG has to get better saves and the extra wounds.

 

8 hours ago, WABBIT said:

I've used them a few times and the extra 4 save isn't actually that great in practice. 2 mortal wounds on a 6 for troops with 2 attacks is however awesome

I think the phoenix guard are decent at what they do, however compared to excecutioners all the other elites are way behind. I think that ability should be 1 MW on 6 or they should just be more points. Compared to the other elite options I don't think WWR are really lacking, maybe they should be 20 points cheaper so they would be on par with blackguardand phoenix guard and slightly behind swordmasters. Executioners +20 with the ability as it is so they have top points for being the best.

[Aezeal]

17 hours ago, WABBIT said:

I'm going to use them as they are actually worth their points. They are tougher than WWR and have rerolls vs shooting. I Haven't  tried them in 30's yet but if you inspiring presence them they should stick around a long time, long enough to do their thing anyway  if you don't IP them they are super resilient vs battleshock anyway with 4+ ignore shock. Shame they only have 1" range as it means you won't get many rear ranks attacking so it does harm they damage output. They may be better in smaller units as a result.

I think WWR are probably worth their points if you only use them against monsters... but that means you just need 10 of them.. After (or even before) those 10 going white lions or swordmasters if you still have ally points and want melee seems a better choice.

[WABBIT]

45 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Compared to the other elite options I don't think WWR are really lacking, maybe they should be 20 points cheaper so they would be on par with blackguardand phoenix guard and slightly behind swordmasters. Executioners +20 with the ability as it is so they have top points for being the best.

@Aezeal I respectfully disagree there. Monster hunter is a nice fluff ability with very little prospect of seeing use for the reasons already stated. I don't face many monsters at all and those I do are all way faster than WWR. Wanderers needs a decent combat Punch and we have only WWR at the moment. WR are a joke. The 5+ save means WWR are no better than battle line troops. The stat line they have won't hold up to any kind of combat if they are all dead and they are far too easy to kill. You either have to form them up behind a thin line of Eternal guard and hope your opponent doesn't have 2" range and lose the 2nd or 3rd rank of attacks that make WWR good in the first place or go naked and get squished. They should be 140 pts at most. Black Guard are 160 with the same stat line AND 4+ and a decent ability for combat without needing a Nomad Prince to buff them. Also compare WWR to Storm vermin who again have the same stats for 140 pts and get access to a 3rd attack from a chieftain and you can see where they should be price.

I do think as Tidings has already said before. I don't mind paying over the odds for Elite Inf in an army if I pay below the odds for other unit types like Archers. That way it rewards a balanced approach to list building, promotes a shooting approach and discourages a heavy Infantry combat list. We see it on other armies already, Its good to have all options available and use price to influence strengths and weaknesses overall as per the flavour of the races/allegiances.

[Origin]

Had a couple of games on the weekend, fielded 10 WWR as you do being a wanderer army and wanting to use your own units. Deployed them as a counter punch unit behind the EG. Had a Free Peoples Chicken General hit the EG line who promptly teleported out of harms way. And in charged the WWR. So heroic, so resplendent with their shiny axes and flowing cloaks, the swung, they caused 9 wounding hits which promptly bounced off some wretched Armour of Meteoric Iron. The WWR promptly got eaten by the giant chicken.

"So you see Simba, we are all part of the circle of life..."

Even though they are geared to do a number on Monsters, and they just might but more often than not monsters have good saves, 2+ with reroll ones, save after the save etc. The D3 damage is good but -1 rend is just not enough to make use of the D3 damage. I will drop them from my lists as soon as i have my SoW built. I doubt SoW will be better but at least they combo a bit better with the rest of our forces.