Jump to content

Saint Vierzehn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Saint Vierzehn

  • Rank
  1. Plastic orc spearmen. No painting required, and they're a good addition to just about any army list. -StV.
  2. My Crusader force was as follows: Troop 1: Sir Brannor Sir Damon Templar Knight x 3 Templar Ironspine x3 (w/ unit standard) War dog x 3 Troop 2: Sir Brannor Templar Knight x 3 Templar Ironspine x 3 Troop 3: Sir Conlan Templar Ironspine x 3 Troop 4: Sir Conlan Templar Knight x 2 Templar Ironspine Troop 5: Sir Conlan Templar Ironspine x 3 Troop 6: Sir Conlan Hospitalers x 4 Troop 7: (merc contingent) Calindra Silverspell Merc crossbow x 2 Merc warrior Luckstone Round 1: Spies among us. My opponent, Wowahboy, played a Crusader list spor
  3. When I first picked up this game, I had someone walk me through a tutorial using a list very different than one I've ever played since. After that, I sat down with the rulebook and chose the troops that I wanted. Then I walked into my first real game - and my first tournament - and went 3 - 0, and took first place. I was able to do that because I am able to judge lists before I play them. I've very nearly done that with Crusaders, of all things. Crusaders do reward good play. But I loaned my Crusaders to someone once, and they lost horribly. Have you seen the conversati
  4. Stubbdog took first in Warlord. -StV.
  5. All that will put a few valkyries down tough, sure enough. Assuming, of course, that I don't bother taking one of those non-unique, tough mages with counterspells that the mountain list sports. I've been debating whether a pair of dwarf mages are a better buy for the list than a merc contingent of tough bowsisters. Hard call, that one. But after you've charged and knocked a couple of models down tough, I"ll get to respond with 15 other warmaster healers and Skadi. That's more than enough to pull the stunned ones out of combat, spank your heinous djabouti, and hand out enough patch-up h
  6. Nope. I'd much rather have them occupy table space and staying alive. That's what wins most scenarios. Those were the key factors in all 3 Reapercon rounds this year. Killing stuff is a secondary concern. Besides, I don't have to use my valkyries in melee. With 3 MAV 5 attacks plus warmaster, my opponent will be using them in melee for me. Offense is something valkyries do in their spare time. And that's part of what makes a combination of warmaster + DV + healer on non-unique models a very bad idea in this game. Once I've chosen and occupied the ground I want with the valkyries
  7. I guess there are a lot of dwarf playing half-wits . Oh, I don't think I would say that everyone who plays the Mountain sublist is a half-wit, as you've implied. But I'm quite certain I could find at least one person who is. One of the flaws in Reaper's point costing model is that it does not take into account synergistic effects of SA's. Healer SA is especially susceptible to that, since its usefulness is largely dependent on the other models standing next to the healer. A healer in a goblin list (where all the models have one damage track and no toughness) would be pretty u
  8. The Mountain God sublist requires little skill to build an effective force or to play it successfully. Any half-wit who can figure out that 53 points for a 4DT model with DV 12, 3 MAV 5 attacks, warmaster, toughness, and healer is a good deal can be successful with the list. I really wish I had not been so distracted by hammering the BSG's back from the abominations that they were during playtesting to pay a little more attention to other lists. One unit of a dozen valkyries on a list might actually require a little thinking in execution to win with. But two? You would have to be a t
  9. The point costing model tends to produce aberrant results when dealing with low damage track models (especially if they have lots of special abilities) or with really powerful models. I hope, going forward, that the designers will make models with 3-5 damage tracks and only a few special abilities the required backbone build of all armies. Either that, or the entire point costing model will need to be reconstructed. -StV.
  10. Interesting. Logically, that would follow... not that my say-so carries any official weight. I don't see why Mercs shouldn't be able to use the +mercs rule the same as anybody else. It is equitable, if a bit obtuse. -StV.
  11. Since the chian of command rules apply separately, would it be legal to field a faction captain and two merc captains, with no warlord? -StV.
  12. I wish my Mercs had gotten to bump heads with you, Merlon. I would have liked to see your army in action. Maybe we'll see eachother at ReaperCon. -StV.
  13. How do mercenary warlords/captains/sergeants count towards command structure requrements? Since the rules don't specify any exceptions, I assume they count towards command structure restrictions without differentiation between faction commanders and non-faction commanders. For instance, it would not be legal to field 3 captains unless you also fielded a warlord, even if one of the captains was a mercenary and the other two were factioned. Likewise, it would be legal to field a mercenary captain and up to four faction sergeants. Is there any other official word on this? -StV.
  14. Wrongo. The good ones are usually the first ones in. -StV.
  15. In other words, it's no longer a sanctioned option. Which suits me fine, since they've added a bunch of faction data cards and +mercs, so now you can field faction armies that aren't handicapped due to lack of troop options. -StV.
  • Create New...