eating my hat: Scrye Shot and Thorgram

[rcrosby]

Not if my formation is on a size one hill...

 

And where are dwarves going to get Vale Archers?

I would be perfectly happy if you kept your formation cowering on a size 1 hill.

 

It works with any archers, although Arik will get a -1 cover bonus without Sure Shot. You can buy a lot of Piercers for the price of Thorgram's Scrye Shot.

 

Rich

[bluethunder]

When I play Thorgram I always give him + 2 RAV... I have others run interference for him and I choose targets by low DVs vs. points vs. game value .

 

I do well with him, but no one else really playes him.

[rgtriplec]

"A model does not have to pay for itself to be worthwhile."

 

No it doesn’t… if it is tying up a whole troop or a couple of solos like many melee Warlords can .

 

"Scrye shot, in the hands of an RAV 4+ model is very expensive,"

 

I am talking about RAV 2 Dwarf Warlord. There is a big difference in 2 points, it is doubling your odds.

 

 

"You might only kill 150 point worth of models. But! Those 150 points might be very relevant. For instance you might wound a Solo, dropping it's DV or MD so your Mage or Archer in another troop can mop it up. You might kill a Cavalry model that might otherwise prevent your Melee Heroes from charging important enemy models. Or you might force your opponent to adopt a detrimental tactical formation simply by having the Scrye shooter on the field. The Scrye shooter might only kill a few models, but the ability might be vital to the game."

 

For 414 points wounding a Mage and a cavalry model and killing an archer combined isn’t a fair trade off. I played a game where I took both Logrim and Logan, 1000 points two troops. I was playing an all cavalry Nefsofar army and the warlord’s troop was delayed one turn. In the time it took the second troop to get into battle the cavalry had killed Logan’s entire troop. The two Battlefury brothers and 3 warriors and 3 halbeards took down 1000 points cav in two turns. I have also killed Duke Gerard with Logrim in a single turn. If you use scrye shot with Thorgram he will never do anything similar. Keeping a forty point mage at bay or killing a handful of minions or wounding a solitaire just doesn’t do it for me.

 

"My problem is not with Scrye shot, but with the cost of Scrye shot on low RAV models, especially when Scrye shot is not a given models primary function. Naomi and Greka are alot more appealing to me than Throgrim, but if I was going to take any Scrye Shooter it would be Lorielle."

 

The only one I’d take is Lorielle.

 

 

"If you’re aiming at lesser orks there's you first mistake... "

 

 

I’m not aiming at anyone… I didn’t start the thread. I’m simply stating who the author said he was killing.

 

 

"As has been said through out this topic you should be aiming at things like low DV mages or high point cost models that have already been hit, then enter hand to hand."

 

If Thorgrim gets close enough to me to kill my Mage and then enter combat… he’d never make it into combat. Every archer in range would be on him or cavalry or a fast solo. If you are scrye shooting you better be way away from the battle because as soon as you come into the clear you are #1 on most players hit list. Thorgrim doesn’t scare me until he heads for melee, so I’d make it my mission to kill him before he could really be useful.

 

"For instance you aim at a mage, presume you hit that could probably be considered half the model base point value taken out there and then. Next turn the mage cast iceshards at one of you models, because of the wound, it's probably allot less likely to hit. If it fails that's half the caster's points, 10pt for the iceshard and half of the targets points that you can add to what the king just took out.

 

I know that there's allot of "if"s but the concept is there, and with the right deployment you could get as much as 2-3 shots before a single spell is cast. What people need to remember is that it's not always what the model took out but what it stopped from being taken out"

 

Yeah, there is a lot less if’s, you spend your 400+ points on the king. I’ll spend mine on Ironhammer, 6 shield maidens and a griffon. With my set up, ranger and double move, by the end of turn one, I’m already 45 inches across the board. I’ll fly over to Thorgrim by turn two and my griffon will eat him. Shoot away with your RAV of 2 that is so weak it can’t even hit me on a natural ten. I’ll circle until I get initiative and then dive. I’ll take my two attacks needing fives, against your three attacks that need eight’s. I’m as good as you are on my second track. Say you kill me… which is doubtful, by the time you do it is probably turn four or five and you haven’t killed my mage who is casting you to death or my volley of archers or those six shield maidens who are breaking you line… it wouldn’t be pretty.

 

 

"I would also like to note that JDRipley said that the enemy kept his prime target, such as expensive mages, out of range.

 

This is important to keep in mind. Thorgram did not kill the mage, but it sounds like he pretty much made it useless.

 

By forcing your enemy to stay 30" away from one of your own models, you limit that mages movement significantly. Forcing him to come out from hiding to take shots if he wants to target important models with spells, or to remain in hiding the entire game and being a waste of points.

 

This is a perfect example, of how a model can be worth his points, without having to kill his value. Think that everytime you keep that mage at the edge of the board, you just saved 2-4 grunts from being fireballed or firestormed... and you still get to take your attack on a model of your choosing."

 

 

By keeping a mage out of play, they would have to be 19-25 inches away, which would put Thorgrim 5-11 inches from the melee which is within charging distance of many models with bloodlust or runner and any cav and most monster types. He could get bum rushed by something as lowly as a unit of swift axes, with a musician they will travel 16 inches on an engagement charge… even if they don’t engage that turn he is trapped. Say over two turns he kills all of them… chances are he’s dying himself because he had no support but his two warriors. He would get tied up by 100 points worth of models and if the troop was 200 points of grunts he could be toast. You could say he had armor but that would make him over five hundred points with his bodyguards. Leaving 500 points in your line against 800 or 900.

 

Say you are hunting my mage… I could just bring a cleric or character with healing and keep them beyond Thorgrim’s radious but within range of a bandage or close enough to move in and out of the king’s sniping , which pretty much negates Thorgrim’s importance as a snipier and a bandage is easier to cast more times than a 2 RAV will hit.

 

 

"Let's look at an opposite extreme. I play Overlords. I bring Arik the Inquisitor with spells at about 150 points. I surround him with Onyx Phalanx, using the Phalanx immunity to ranged to protect Arik, and Arik's Dispel to protect the Phalanx. First turn, I advance my formation. End of the first round, the King Scry Shot's Arik. Casting power drops in half. Second round, King goes first and Scry Shot's Arik. Arik is dead. Magara Firestorms the Onyx Phalanx.

 

Shieldmaidens move into the breach, holding the center of the line. My elite warriors are dead, my mage is dead, and I've lost control of the battlefield. Not a bad day's work for an overpriced model. Oh, and the King is unwounded. He'll still trade blows with me later."

 

 

I have to say I love a scene where the Dwarves are eating the Overlords lunch. But all the King did was kill a mage in a scenario where he got the initiative and dice he needed, which would not be the norm. Considering Thorgrim with two gunts to make his minimum troop is half your points and two cards. The Overlords have a 165 point warllord tactician and their soldiers are an average of 25 points, with 6 the troop is 315 points with 2 cards, and three times the soldiers for 150 points less. The 150 point difference is the difference in the overlords having one or two more cards in the deck. Also the king will miss Arik more times than he hits him even with his mage DV of 8. So the initiative odds and the odds of Arik surviving a shot are both in the Overlords favor.

 

I think Margara and shield maidens rock. I take them every game and it is them who win your scenario by killing your elite and taking the middle. If it had been me I’d have never played a 150 mage with a DV of 8 in a game with a scrye shot model and not spend the extra thirty points on extra armor and 10 on divine favor. A DV of 10 vs a RAV of 2 and divine favor odds are Arik survives long enough to fireball a few dwarves and he has single handedly taken the 400 point warlord out of the game by just being a mage.

 

I have to agree with WILDBILL about not using the king ever, I'd have to be in a 3000 point game to play Thorgrim.

[shakhak]

@rgtriplec:

You setup some good counters, but every single one has the same flaw. Your counters are based on armies that already know your dwarven enemy is bringing Thorgram. Of course a person is going to have an advantage if they know exactly what to prepare against, this is true for every model or army.

 

Also most examples aren't going to play out exactly how you have written them.

 

Sure your griffen could charge ahead, and probably eat the warlord. If you do this though, your griffon is now really far away from the rest of your army. Not to mention is going to die since he is in the middle of your enemies army. You also assume that you can reach the warlord in melee, but he could be surrounced by other models or impassable terrain. You also assume that he doesn't have a griffon of his own.

 

Also the example where your mage is given a priest to heal the wounds Thorgram causes, that puts two casters outside of useful range, otherwise he would be shooting the priest, not the mage. Not to mention that of course Thorgram is going to wade into the think of combat, I can't think of any reason he wouldn't be smack in the middle of everything. So he should be taking on your swift axes and such.

 

 

Rgtriplec, have you played with the warlord enough to really give him a chance? Have you played against him enough to know that he isn't worth while? Play three games with him, in a row, trying to figure out how to use him to his full advantage. I really think your opinion will change. If it doesn't then no harm done. I think that some things just can't be decided on paper or in a forum. To really find out how he plays you need dice, miniatures, terrain, and an opponent.

[rcrosby]

Rgtriplec, have you played with the warlord enough to really give him a chance? Have you played against him enough to know that he isn't worth while? Play three games with him, in a row, trying to figure out how to use him to his full advantage. I really think your opinion will change. If it doesn't then no harm done. I think that some things just can't be decided on paper or in a forum. To really find out how he plays you need dice, miniatures, terrain, and an opponent.

Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I think it is very difficult to get useful statistical data from playtesting. If I flip a coin 3 times, get 3 heads and then declare that a flip of the coin will always be heads, is that more accurate then analytically declaring that the chance of heads vs tails is 50/50? The main benefit of playtesting is in uncovering tactics and situations that were not considered through simply thinking about it beforehand. However, getting a true measure of "value" invariably involves "crunching the numbers".

 

Rich

[smokingwreckage]

So we need a proper statistical analysis with all assumptions stated. This should be doable, but a handy visual aid would be the table and the miniatures at least. And someone else to do the maths.

[Storminator]

Rgtriplec, have you played with the warlord enough to really give him a chance? Have you played against him enough to know that he isn't worth while? Play three games with him, in a row, trying to figure out how to use him to his full advantage. I really think your opinion will change. If it doesn't then no harm done. I think that some things just can't be decided on paper or in a forum. To really find out how he plays you need dice, miniatures, terrain, and an opponent.

Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I think it is very difficult to get useful statistical data from playtesting. If I flip a coin 3 times, get 3 heads and then declare that a flip of the coin will always be heads, is that more accurate then analytically declaring that the chance of heads vs tails is 50/50? The main benefit of playtesting is in uncovering tactics and situations that were not considered through simply thinking about it beforehand. However, getting a true measure of "value" invariably involves "crunching the numbers".

 

Rich

 

I think both are indispensible. Whenever I do playtesting (invariably I don't get enough games in) I try to also include a lot of analysis of what could have happened.

 

@rgtriplec, I consider the King a poor use of points in a 1000 point game. But in a game of 1501, the right question is "how does he compare to other Warlords?" In that case the real comparison is "can I get 150 points worth of models with Scry Shot/ranged attack" not "what would I spend 400 points on instead?"

 

I think it's pretty easy to see that it can happen, and if it does, then the King is worth bringing.

 

PS

[shakhak]

Rgtriplec, have you played with the warlord enough to really give him a chance? Have you played against him enough to know that he isn't worth while? Play three games with him, in a row, trying to figure out how to use him to his full advantage. I really think your opinion will change. If it doesn't then no harm done. I think that some things just can't be decided on paper or in a forum. To really find out how he plays you need dice, miniatures, terrain, and an opponent.

Funny, I have the exact opposite opinion. I think it is very difficult to get useful statistical data from playtesting. If I flip a coin 3 times, get 3 heads and then declare that a flip of the coin will always be heads, is that more accurate then analytically declaring that the chance of heads vs tails is 50/50? The main benefit of playtesting is in uncovering tactics and situations that were not considered through simply thinking about it beforehand. However, getting a true measure of "value" invariably involves "crunching the numbers".

 

Rich

 

I do agree, data analysis is needed to decide if a model is worth it, but data analysis should include all variables. In a miniature game there are to many. There are hundreds of situations that a simple stat comparison won't work.

I guess what I'm saying is that your example is to simple. Comparing stats here would be more like rolling a d20 into a storm drain and trying to figure out what number will be face side up and where it stop. Sure you know it's between 1 and 20, and probably somewhere in the sewer, but you really don't know the answer, unless you follow that die and look at it when it stops moving. You need to do both. Understand your limitations, then fine tune it for precise measurement.

 

 

I truely think Storminator summed up my opinion pretty nicely in the post above.

[Ranzadule]

I never look at a model killing his points worth as the be-all-end-all. If a model kills something and/or takes an objective and doesn't give up more, then it has value. It is very easy to see the King killing *something* and staying alive himself. This has value. It also is valuable to deny areas of the table to certain models on the other side through deterrance. The question is is that value worth the points you spend on him? I think that sometimes it will be but most of the time, you can accomplish your goal without sinking the points into his abilities that cannot all be used at the same time.

[jdripley]

I think both are indispensible. Whenever I do playtesting (invariably I don't get enough games in) I try to also include a lot of analysis of what could have happened.

 

PS

 

The nail has been hit on the head. I think what we have in this thread is very much analysis and not very much playtesting. I'd like to note that the few of us here who have used Thorgram think he's alright, and by and large those who are purely analyzing stats think he's trash. As far as I'm concerned the topic may as well be closed until people have used Thorgram in a handful of games, given him a fair shake versus a variety of opposing armies, and have an opinion that, as Storminator says, is based on both playtesting experience and analysis.

 

Otherwise we'll continue to spin in circles like we've been doing in this thread for several pages and the only thing we'll get down to is "some people like him" and "some people refuse to like him" and what in the world use is that?

Actually you know what? I don't give a rip if people don't like him. If you sway reaper to make Scrye Shot removable equipment, that's fine, I'll have an option to take it out for smaller games or something. No big deal.

[rgtriplec]

I think both are indispensible. Whenever I do playtesting (invariably I don't get enough games in) I try to also include a lot of analysis of what could have happened.

 

PS

 

The nail has been hit on the head. I think what we have in this thread is very much analysis and not very much playtesting. I'd like to note that the few of us here who have used Thorgram think he's alright, and by and large those who are purely analyzing stats think he's trash. As far as I'm concerned the topic may as well be closed until people have used Thorgram in a handful of games, given him a fair shake versus a variety of opposing armies, and have an opinion that, as Storminator says, is based on both playtesting experience and analysis.

 

Otherwise we'll continue to spin in circles like we've been doing in this thread for several pages and the only thing we'll get down to is "some people like him" and "some people refuse to like him" and what in the world use is that?

Actually you know what? I don't give a rip if people don't like him. If you sway reaper to make Scrye Shot removable equipment, that's fine, I'll have an option to take it out for smaller games or something. No big deal.

 

 

I'm all about playtesting. I think it is essential and literally dozens of games need to be played by different tactitions using different factions and lists to know if anything works but before you get to that point there is the numbers. In any game whre stats are given to various models and different abilities their should be a system where everything is given a certain value the base unit being the lowest grunt. I used to playtest for Sabertooth Games and Wizkids. I knew how SG pointed everything and how SAs were valued, our base unit was the Gondorian Warrior with no SAs.

 

With that said when you compare Thorgrim to all the Warlords he is between 140-180 points more than the ones with compareable melee skills. Looking at the numbers scrye shot is not worth it at all it is still a luck proposistion, especially on such a low RAV. Change his RAV to 6, give him two attacks and I'll take him all day long. Drop Scrye shot and give me back 150 points, yeah, I'd field him in warlord required games. But the numbers don't tell me he is a good deal at 414 as is.

 

As for playtesting. I've used him once in a 1500 point game and he was a good melee fighter and scrye shot was very undependable. I've played a 1000 game with him every night this week and will hopefully have played a dozen by next weekend. I have a dwarf and and a dwarf 25% merc army both are 1000. I have played two people we play each army one time. The army without Thorgrim has a Griffon and no matter who plays him they engage the king by turn two. Thorgrim has twice sniped the mage on his first shot but she usually has DF and ignores it. That is the extent of the scrye shot in games against the griffon, after that they battle to the death in close contests.

 

My next games will take out the griffon and add two bears. Then I'll play a couple without mages or clerics, so he has to snipe grunts or DVs that make him roll 9 and 10. I hope to play crusaders, Nefsofar and Reven next week in armies I didn't build. As is my opinion is the same, his cost is detrimental to the stability of the rest of the army with its low return.

 

Games with the King have been both lopsided and very close and the king has won twice but he was not generally a factor except tying up the griffon and causing his opponent to take a mage and a cleric on top of the griffon to have sniping targets, which weakens how I would normally build. Also he gets killed every game.

[Sivrel]

I have also used thorgram against an elf company and won a game when he was 411 points and the point total for both armies was 1250 which at the time merited a Warlord. Even though I have used Thorgram effectivly I won't bring him unless I have to. Of cours this applies to every other Warlord in the game.

[Ranzadule]

Of cours this applies to every other Warlord in the game.

 

I'll give you that for the Elf and a few others, but Moandain, The Witchqueen, Judas, Ashkrypt, Kiakara and others are all bargains in any game.