Mokoshkana
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Mokoshkana
-
-
Seems like she is better overall though. There will likely be some allegiance or glade command abilities to replace what was lost.
-
4 hours ago, Frowny said:
The biggest problem i see is battle line. Gluttons are just so awful with the new coherency rules. Most likely you want a FLOSH general but then for battleline, Stonehorn beast riders are just not as good as FLOSH and give up VP.
Then I'm looking at a nonflosh general to get either dogs as battleline who don't accomplis much or an ogre general for ironguts, but then 3 units of ironguts is a lot of points
Maybe i should look at mornfangs again.
Or look at an Icebrow Hunter with cats. It is the cheapest way to get BCR into a list and tick all of the requirements. Plus being able to ambush the hunter and a unit of cats can do things like auto complete the battle tactic that requires two units in an enemy deployment zone.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Ooh wow, didn't see that part!
Here's a stupid list to capitalize those 3D6 charges:
No Mawtribe/Dominating Presence/not sure about best Triumph for it yet.....
720 Kragnos
125 Icebrow Hunter (general, Winter Ranger)
165 Frost Sabres 3x2
960 Single Gorger x12
1970 Total
Only 4 cats and 9 Gorgers away from this stunning spoiler possibly destined to go 3 out of 5 or better at Adepticon 2022!
That list is something else. I feel like it will struggle in objective game. I’d change out for a Butcher and a bunch of lead belchers. Less charge goodness, but more versatility and some shooting. Especially in underguts
-
18 minutes ago, Walkirriox said:
Point changes:
TLA 290 —>280
TL 190 —> 180
Drycha 330 —> 315
Durthu 340 —> 325
Alarielle has access to all spells from the Lore of the Deepwood.
It’s not that much, but all point reductions are welcome.Per Kragnos she could have cast all the spells from Deepwood already. They basically nerfed her in a Grand Order army. Points are nice though.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Arzalyn said:
They also have a specification that we follow the rulling on the ability that summoned them for the woods. As it is something specified in the warscroll it should overrule the general faction terrain restriction.
But we still have to abide by the 3" placement requirements, no?
-
1 hour ago, Oldhat said:
I'm a Gutbuster player so I'd want to see Gluttons go to unit size three for starters. Not sure what else really needs a major shakeup but that is a major point since six is just ridiculous.
It is highly unlikely they reduce the squad size, as they just increased it. I think six has the potential to work, but they need to adjust one of two things in order to make it viable. One, gluttons get a 2" range allowing them to get full attacks from models in the back due to coherency, or two, they give gluttons a special rule that allows a unit of six models to act as though they only have five models with respect to coherency. Otherwise, they will remain practically unplayable to me. I'd rather have Leadbelchers or Ironguts than the current Glutton incarnation.
-
1
-
-
Quick question regarding mournfang. I’ve always played two model units with a champion and a horn blower, but recently using battle scribe, it does not allow that option as it’s not a full four model unit. Is BattleScribe correct that horn blowers and standards are only viable in a four model unit or is my initial thought process correct?
-
3 hours ago, Reinholt said:
I want to echo this as someone who has played against it twice now: Warsong Revenant is the first caster in the Sylvaneth book that can make good use of many of the artifacts (which are boss) as a 2x cast wizard. Likewise, Gnarlroot with rerolls and what it does for the overall army is kind of bonkers in 3e given how they changed the prevalence of those abilities. I think it's an uncontroversial statement at this point to say Gnarlroot is a real problem.
Heroic recovery on Durthu is also gross as you keep him at the magic 6 damage tier longer.
And if you tone it back, the faction will be completely trash. None of the other glades are remotely viable, and this glade only shines with the warsong. It is definitely viable without it, but it’s not a top tier army. This is where we all come together and say they need a new book, but then we’ll be right back where we started with an auto take glade and the rest being underwhelming.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Walkirriox said:
I’m lost about tp requirements, now is wholly within enter-exit? Execept the big trees?
Refer to the allegiance ability in your battletome
-
3 hours ago, Yondaime said:
Honestly i didnt tryed it yet
But arent kurnoth bow REALLY underwhelming? you pay all those points for a mediocre DMG, yes they have a 30" range but i dont really think they are worth, swords tho do unholy damage
So i am really curious, what does makes this lists so strong? whats the tactic behind it?
Gnarlroot with "All out attack" on a unit of six bows gives you hits on 3+ (2+ for leader) with rerolling one's and wounds on 3+ which isn't too shabby. Quick napkin math makes me think the unit would force an average of 7 or 8 saves with d3 damage per failure. That's not too shabby.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Anybody using Gnoblars at all for screens? They went up in points for some reason, but wondering if I should bother assembling my bag of 12 and getting a few more to make a unit. Frost Sabres can be screens but when I take those I like to have them deepstrike with my Hunter usually.
I think Gnoblars are too expensive for what they provide. However if you decide to build some to flesh out the remaining eight you need, and you don't want to go with the generic ones from all of the Gutbuster kits, you can scratch build some the scraplauncher bits if you built a cannon. The seated Gnoblar looks pretty good one top of a treasure chest.
-
5 hours ago, Mirage8112 said:
Supposedly the rules writers have been made aware of the difficulty with the way the warscroll is written and are working on a solution. Hopefully we get some clarify on how this is actually supposed to work.
This is just shoddy craftsmanship. Where is the QA on this? The warscroll has now changed thrice in three months, these last two have just been written in a manner that screams “it’s Friday and all I have to do before I leave is write the new Wyldwood warscroll, so I’m just going spit out something quick and hope for the best.” I have zero faith that it will get fixed in a way that doesn’t invalidate something else or create a whole new cluster of questions about an interaction that the devs/QA folks just ignored.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Schauer said:
Rime Shroud got a bit better but yeah the loss of metalcruncher really dampens the viability of boulderhead now.
Also not because we lost the hag but i really dont like these point costs ending in 5s. Feels like a gotcha way of balancing the game
More than one metal cruncher was always going to get removed. It was an oversight the first time. I still think boulderhead is viable with the right build. Dual Frostlord still works with Metalcruncher (gets Brand of the Svard) and Black Clatterhorn (takes a different artifact as needed). The Battleline versions will just be less effective.
On that note, I have 1xFLoSH, 1xHoTT, and I have just built a normal Stonehorn beastrider to boost my force. I have another kit, and I was thinking about diversifying into a Thundertusk Beastrider or perhaps a second HoTT for the dual priest prayer boost as well as more mortal wound options. What are peoples thoughts on which way to go?
-
8 hours ago, PainfullyMediocre said:
Do Stonehorn Beastriders have much use any more? A Huskard is 10 points more and has some much more utility from mount traits and heroic actions.
Huskards are not battleline. When stonehorn beastriders are, they do not count towards the behemoth limit. So I’d say yes, they still have use.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:
Don't forget Ironblasters can do 6 shots up close, and they hit on 3+. With that, Blubbergrub Stench, and just combat I think one could clear out a low count chaff unit like Gors in one go.
Let’s ignore the spell for a moment and just look at statistics. With its multi shot, it’s going to average 4 hits, then 2.66 wounds before saves with a rend -1. Probably doing about 2 damage per shooting phase with one before any ward saves enter the picture.
As for melee, it hits on 4s so you’re averaging 1 hit and 0.66 wounds before saves. Assuming you charged, if the defender fails it’s save, you do an average of 3 damage. So I’m one shooting and combat save, you’re averaging 5 damage per cannon. That’s not great.
You can add in the caster and take the chance on the spell, but why not just field a unit of iron guts instead that will be cheaper, hits harder, and most importantly counts for more bodies on an objective.
Unfortunately the battletomes don’t have good internal balance, so we’re always going to have “better” and “worse” choices. However if you like cannons, give them a whirl and try your best to make them good 😎
-
6 hours ago, HostilSpike said:
Tyrant with Trophy Rack is a trap until you are already full on Artillery. On average the +1 to hit buff gives less damage than just adding another Ironblaster which is cheaper and doesn't waste an artefact.
If you aren’t running underguts for double shots, it is a waste to take cannons at all I my opinion. With one shot, too much can go wrong (missed hit/wound, opponent makes save, or you roll low for damage). There are better options out there.
Course, if you like the aesthetic and want to have fun, go nuts. Four scraplaunchers is not going to do well, but it will be fun to watch that goofy list get picked apart haha.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, HostilSpike said:
I'm curious as to why you're so sure it'll get FAQ'd out, other factions are allowed multiple instances of the same mount trait so there's always a chance this isn't an oversight
I just believe It will get FAQ'd out for everyone. Outside of spells/prayers, no army can double up on enhancements like artifacts or command traits, Even when referring to spells/prayers, they may only be cast once per round, so there is still a singular restriction of sorts. Given all of that, it would not make sense for the designers to all something like mount traits to completely ignore the unique restriction of other enhancements.
From a gameplay perspective, it would be horrible for the game as it allows armies with multiple mounts (which can take traits) to just abuse the best trait.
-
2 hours ago, KrrNiGit said:
I’m calling it the invincible frostlord list... healing from the pot healing from heroic recovery healing from lifeswarm... what does everyone think?
You cannot double up on mount traits (I know RAW it currently works, but that is not RAI, and it will get killed in the next FAQ).
-
Just now, Pennydude said:
@Mirage8112 @HavelockeHa, helps if I read the new woods carefully. If you set up the woods as 3 individual trees, they are treated as 3 separate faction terrain features (very bottom of the first column on the new warscroll). That means if one of the three cannot be set up, it won't stop you from placing the others. I still think they have to abide by the 3" rule though.
The first sentence of the second paragraph under SET-UP:
"This faction terrain feature consists of 3 scenery pieces."
That is very clear. It does not say "up to" 3. As such, there is no wiggle room. You place three or you place zero. -
48 minutes ago, HostilSpike said:
I'm annoyed Might Makes Right didn't get errata'd to benefit Mournfang more. Surely as 5+ Wound Ogors they should be at least 4 for objectives?
Yeah this is a definite nerf to Ogors. Here is to hoping that when a new battle tome comes out, they increase the base guys to counts as 3 instead of 2. The monters are still objectively better at 10.
-
1 hour ago, Schauer said:
FAQ is making those maneaters verryyyy enticing to use
I don't think any rule could make that expensive finecast enticing to me haha
-
3
-
-
On 7/1/2021 at 3:27 AM, Cosmicsheep said:
Kragnos is a named character... you can't have more than one !
I am allowed one and so is my opponent, hence the point of the question.
-
8 hours ago, Cosmicsheep said:
Well in that unlikely scenario, then yes, Kragnos B would get to do his ability too. The wording of the Bellow Of Rage only states that the model has been allocated wounds IN a phase.
If it had said DURING a phase, then i would have said no. Rule 1.6.1 defines the difference between the start, end and during a phase. Start > During > End
I asked the question specifically because a friend and I had a battle of Kragnos. It’ll happen frequently enough over the course of time. Appreciate the response!
-
So Kragnos ability “Bellow of Rage” takes place at the end of any phase. If Kragnos A is wounded in a phase and his bellow causes Kragnos B (who was not wounded in the phase) to a wound, would Kragnos B then get to trigger his Bellow of Rage? I didn’t see anything to suggest otherwise, but I wanted to ask as it’s one of those things that happens at the end of the phase. I wasn’t sure if there were a wonky rule that end of phase is not actually during the phase. Thanks!
AoS 2 - Sylvaneth Discussion
in Sylvaneth
Posted
Should be good. I think 3 is probably the max necessary