Kurnoth hunter weapons....

[Aezeal]

I can totally see an argument for going scythes on the first 3 of them. I can also see argumens for going bows on the first 6 of them thb  (reliable sniping, however as I've pointed out above, my expericience with 3 hunters in 1500 points is that I need bodies and just mass damage to conquer objectives rather than sniping, I'm playing gnarlroot though so I do have some options to deal MW at range through my magic, it might be I'll be missing it later). 

Intermission somewhat off topic: I've modelled my first 3 as one of each (my opponents are not annoying about WYSIWYG and even our local tourney couldn't really care) and played them as 3 bows untill now. I'll model my new 3 as the 2 remaining swords and a scythe (giving me 3 swords, 2 scythes and 1 bow) and playing them as swords and scythes the first time I'll get a list with 6 hunters (iin my 1500 points list that would mean I'd have to cull 3 treekin and a wych... which is not a problem.. but the wych was just going to be replaced by a loremaster (ordered him when I bought the hunters).. and I think that is a VERY good model.. not sure if I want to cut him before I've even played him).

Anyway.. going full on scythes seems subpar to me. Fact is: the number of 2+ saves in a game can never be that high to make it worth it. About half the enemy wounds in most games would be 5+, against SC you might see mostly 4+ but even then that would be like more than half of the wounds and against them swords are still better, even if they get a mystic shield swords will be equal. It will be VERY RARE I'd say to see more than 12 wounds as 2+, let allone 2+ RR 1's. 

I think it probably also has to do with my army being gnarlroot. 12 wounds as 2+ RR... I'd just kill it with magic. I'd not even bother to try anything else I guess. I'd probably put my TLA against it, hit it with the TLA and just try to magic it to death.

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, Cerve said:

I consider Scythes for that work. But I guess it's a meta thing

Well.. it's just mathematics that swords will clear most regular units faster than scythes, nothing meta about it I think. 

But I guess it's like I said in my previous post. Most things you want to clear with hunters I'd probably target mainly with magic for MW since I play gnarlroot anyway.

[Cerve]

2 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Well.. it's just mathematics that swords will clear most regular units faster than swords, nothing meta about it I think. 

 

Ok. The thing is that I don't need any regular unit cleaner. I need someone who can shut down any Ts3+ or better. 
I don't struggle against regular troops, I can block them, flanking them, play to objectives. 
What I fear are two things: 

1) Little support heroes who are constantly shielded by other units. Or WM. In both cases Bows will help me.
2) Big guys/big units with Ts3+ or better. 

So yes, Swords are silghtly better against regular units, but the thing is that I don't need anything against theme. I need to be able to shut down behemoths, overboosted units by magic etc. That's why I simply don't care about swords: I don't really need them. 

And honestly, I haven't see them in many tournament lists. Alway bows and scythe. That's because, in my opinion, the Armylist Sylvaneth doesn't care so much about regular troops, but it begins to struggle against mortal wounds machines/4+ saves/big behemoths (2 Ghoul Kings on Terrorgeist are a pain in the ass in my opinion, without any Scythe in list, just an example).


For me is not a maths consideration, is what I need in this armylist. AND, of course, a metaplay thing (here there's a lot of power units and less regular troops)

[Aezeal]

What exactly are the stats/saves of those GKoTG? 

[rokapoke]

35 minutes ago, Aezeal said:

Well.. it's just mathematics that swords will clear most regular units faster than swords, nothing meta about it I think. 

Man, now that swords beat swords hands-down, I'll have to eliminate all of the swords in my army and replace them instead with swords. Think of the improvements I will make just by switching from swords to swords!

[Aezeal]

2 hours ago, rokapoke said:

Man, now that swords beat swords hands-down, I'll have to eliminate all of the swords in my army and replace them instead with swords. Think of the improvements I will make just by switching from swords to swords!

No idea what you are talking about.. that is not what I read up there

[Dracothjay]

I tottaly understand what CERVE was getting at, and it also makes sense. 

Its a good thing he went in depth as, to me, it's become apparent that yes, greatswords are amazing, maybe better than scythes, but the fact that the greatbows have a dramatic range over other archer units in the game, the greatswords take the back seat. 

Scythes multi-tool, bows outperform swords due to range, that's what I've took from this.

[Aezeal]

Well.. that was my theory too, but I'm still loosing a lot due to not being able to push objectives early. As I said in sylvaneth topic : Early I can't push hard enough. After 2 turns I'll have a lot of enemy stuff dead and the resilient trees are still standing and can score points but then I'll be behind on points already and of ten too much to catch up.

It's hard to remove other stuff (Battleline,  general) so now my bowhunters become meleehunters so I can push objectives harder. Because I hope that by not shooting characters but by doing more damage in a combat phase (let alone 2 since if anything is left after my turn melee guys will gladly clear the objective in the opponents turn ) I will get the objective and score points earlier. 

I was totally behind the theory of bowhunters.. but it's not working out for me. This might be (as a dressed in the other topic) because I already have a lot of support characters (casters) which means bows is too much support/subtlety (sniping with targeted but lower damage) for my list in addition to all else.

 

And scythes are not the multitool, they are armored behemoth killers, swords are more allround (but maybe less needed in some lists as others mention) and that is why I'll be building them now for my list (I think my reasoning will hold up for most gnarlroot  lists since they have mw from spells to deal with the sporadic 2+ save. Lists with less magic might need a few scythes.. but I doubt more than 3-6 will be optimal even then due to limited nr of extremely high armored guys in a single game most of the time.

BTW Nico how much would your alarielle alpha strike list damage output increase with sword hunters? The tactic would then be to not kill the highest as with the hunters but with alarielle herself, plenty damage there anyway for most single targets. The sword hunter would just mop up troops with save 4+ or worse at the strike (and mop up the rest later).

 

 

[Aezeal]

Considering all this discussion... I'd say they all have their roles depending on your army and playstyle. Also seems like there is no reason to give different weapons different point values (which some suggest but what GW will not do anyway I think).

I've also decided just to build 3 different ones with my 2nd pack again.. giving me 2 of each so I can run 2 swords (and a bow) as a sword unit and 2 scythes (and a bow) as a scythe unit. And if I ever need a bow unit I can do that too with one melee option or another.

The Huntmasters will be a scythe and a sword though.

[Mirage8112]

They are all equally good. It just depends on your list. Ive run:

3 with swords

6 with scythes 

3/6 with bows

and been happy with how all of them performed. Depending on their loadout they are used differently in conjunction with your army list but, based on stats alone, all the choices are equally viable. 

[Nico]

Quote

BTW Nico how much would your alarielle alpha strike list damage output increase with sword hunters? The tactic would then be to not kill the highest as with the hunters but with alarielle herself, plenty damage there anyway for most single targets. The sword hunter would just mop up troops with save 4+ or worse at the strike (and mop up the rest later).

The percentage increase in damage would be the same as both are 3+ to wound.

The three big reasons to me for going Scythese are Mirror Match ups - how else are you killing their 35/36 Ancient, Stormcasts (Stardrakes - ditto) and Stonelords. All of these units cause problems for Sylvaneth. 

[Aezeal]

On 2017-4-19 at 6:19 PM, Nico said:

The percentage increase in damage would be the same as both are 3+ to wound.

The three big reasons to me for going Scythese are Mirror Match ups - how else are you killing their 35/36 Ancient, Stormcasts (Stardrakes - ditto) and Stonelords. All of these units cause problems for Sylvaneth. 

Yes so that would be more damage.. which might be usefull.

I agree a 353/36 ancient should not be your target, however a 3+ stonelord will get equal damage from swords as would a lot of stormcast stuff. However you don't neccesarily need to kill the TLA to win a game against sylvaneth. I'm pretty sure you should just kill a lot of bodies and the main damage dealers (their hunters) and just cripple their damage dealing and scoring ability.

I've build my 2nd box of hunters.. its done now.. I just have 2 of each and I will use em for whatever I need.. my opponents aren't WYSIWYG players and I certainly am not anyway. I think it'll be 1 swords and 1 scythes the first games.