Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I want to do a themed army around these guys, as if my ogre army is out hunting for mammoths, gorgers etc
Anyway so i was looking at the hunters and i feel i am missing something from these guys as i cant see there point
If they had scout or skirmish or heroic killing blow or made gnoblars count towards core or anything really then i cld see there uses but right now i dont see there point
At 1st i was thinking of putting 1 on a stonehorn and giving him the greedy fists, and a charmed shield and then charging it an an enemy spell caster until i realized that a pesky champion can go "i issue a challenge" and ruin my plans
I dont have the book infront of me so maybe i am missing something but right now i cant see what
To be brutally honest, I still don't think they're worth it from the strict gaming perspective, unless you wanted a heavy-hitting flanker by throwing him in with a bunch of Sabretusks (which are so good when fielded as solo models that it's hard to fathom why you'd want to pile a bunch of them up into an actual unit). The Bruiser is cheaper and gets the same job done (plus he can join units and be a BSB, which helps a ton as Ogres are rather average on the Ld front), and the other two Heroes can cast spells. I've heard mixed reviews regarding the Stonehorn, though personally I'm not a believer.
Last edited by rothgar13; September 19th, 2011 at 08:33.
Last edited by SheBeast76; September 23rd, 2011 at 21:11.
*deleted - bad connection*
Last edited by SheBeast76; September 23rd, 2011 at 21:12.
In my opinion, the hunter still doesn't bring anything to the table.
Only the hunter can take a SH for a mount, which left me a bit miffed.
I like both beasts, actually, but will always take a TT over a SH in games under 2k.
so, to get a better grasp on this guy, we should look at all of his most effective incarnations (i'm leaving out him alone on foot):
-on foot with a pack of sabertusks
-on a stonehorn
when with sabertusks and having longstrider, potion of foolhardiness, charmed shield, the opal amulet and a great weapon, the hunter is a fairly cost effective character with killiness and a a burst of survivability. 10x sabertusks and this guy means a unit that hits hard, can handle limited target at the hunter, has vanguard and swiftstride for under 400 points. It's a leadership 9 unit (with the hunter) and can really force your opponent to react to this threat. 2x of these units (with different hunter wargear + bigname, naturally) can really ruin an unexpectant opponents day, especially with some vanguarding maneaters knocking on their door. Sure the 2nd unit will be movement 6, but hey, they just got a free 12" move and have swiftstride. The hunter basically makes this "light cavalry" unit possible. If you cut down on the options and cut the sabertusks in 1/2, you can have a couple "cheap" units (like 4x sabers and a hunter) right on the enemy flanks by turn 1, thus making the enemy scramble to take both units and your 2x units of 3 mournfang and stonehorn(s) barreling down a flank/section of the battlefield. It's nice having that pressure from the sabers on turn 1.
For the stone horn, we can compare stuff.
normal: ld 7, 3x WS-3 attacks at str 4 and 6 wounds total.
With a hunter holding tal of preservation and charmed shield (to dodge a cannonball wound or w/e) and GW, the model clocks in at just under 200 additional points and here's what you get: ld 9, 4x WS-5 attacks at str 7, a 4++ ward save, a little extra protection and a total of 10 wounds! This is the obvious stuff, but adding those additional high str attacks at a higher WS, the leadership and combined survivability of both the hunter AND the natural protection of the Stonehorn means a far greater combat effectiveness and a model that can hold its own even IF the unit you charged didn't break. This unit can kill stuff like CRAZY, missle weaps have to randomize their shots increasing survivability of the model even more. If the stone horn suffers those 6 wounds, the hunter can still kill stuff after that, so your whole support doesn't dissolve b/c this monster went down. Same thing if the hunter dies, though it's with the monster reaction chart. I don't think the trade off is so bad as people think. It's all the points in the hero slot that's concerning. It puts a lot of eggs in one basket, but not all of em. You can always support with a 2nd (or 3rd!) "normal" one and some MF cavalry/yhette mash pit, if you want a super hard hitting flank force in under 3k.
Last edited by abbazabba1920; September 24th, 2011 at 06:20.
Now, those are some good pointers.
Its refreshing to see information like this, as most players believe the hunter is still a choice to avoid.
I'll check out the sabretusk backs, but leave the hunter/stonehorn until I build over 2k.
Rep to you ... once the system allows me to give again
my thanks to you for the kind words!