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!
First of all, hello, I'm new to this forum even though I have lurked here for some while now. Let me just state that as of yet I am no rules expert, so if what I'm about to write now is broken or simply crazy I apologize.
1.) Have anyone tried taking an mounted Icon Bearer with the Banner of the Hidden Dead (not sure about the name but you know what I mean). Deploying the Icon Bearer in a forward position - then summon forth a unit of 5 light cavalry (including a champion) 18" away - and they have the light cavalry charge an exposed warmachine crew.
-let's pretend a dwarf player has an exposed cannon on his flank, would it have any chance of success to simply suicide-charge the light cav into the cannon? I think it might be worth tying up his cannon for a round or two just to protect more juicy targets like chariots and bone giants etc... or, can it be justified - can it be done? It would be a first strike with a pretty good range, and the icon bearer could take his mount and fall back to safety (or summon the light cav from behind some kind of cover).
-if the light cav survives long enough, perhaps tomb swarms/scorpions wil emerge (ICF and spread even more havoc in and behind the dwarf lines.
2.) As of now I got 2x 10-models strong skeleton warrior units with bows, my plan was to relentlessly have these 2 archer units move forward, all the while raining death on my enemies. Once combat is reached, I was thinking of having the archers as a sacrificial unit, block line of sight, take a charge, or hit a flank - simply cause trouble and be in the way so my more sturdy and numerous units can do what they do.
-should I have a full command in my small archer units? perhaps the damage they will get, and the following combat resolution will simply obliterate them before I can throw them into the fray?
-is it justified point-wise to have a full command in each archer unit when they are basically advancing tar pits and nothing else?
Feedback appreciated :-)
1) Im sure it has been tried, but not by me personally. There are a number of flaws in the tactic. First off is the IB himself, in most armies (unless you are running at 3K+ or a LHP in 2K) then he is a waste of a vital Character slot, where magic is most important. Second, the Cav unit will be raised in your remaining moves phase, after charges have been declared and moved. If you can get a spell on them, well done, but good luck with it, especially against dwarf antimagic and guns to do a combo move in taking out your nearby Priest. If you dont get a movement spell cast on them, then they will have to survive a whole round of dwarf offense before they can charge, in which time its likely the warmachine crew will have fired at them, and / or the dwarf unit turned to recieve the charge front on. Finally, the banner is so expensive! Combined with the cost of the Light Cav and the IB, there are far better ways to spend points.
2) Generally if you are using archers, then youll be wanting to play defensive, letting the enemy come to you. If you want an offensive list, try to ignore using small bow skellie units, though the odd one can be handy. Also, small skellie units will not make good tar pits. And also do not take full command in small units no matter the setup.
Last edited by Phoenix; February 28th, 2008 at 09:43.
1.) I see you point, hmm... well, in a bigger game, say 3k or more (god forbid) where small ploys like this might not be that vital, it would be fun to try it.
Also, not bringing forth the light cav in round 1 - but say, round 2, or 3, where that dwarven cannon may have several other targets, might give the dwarf player a headache in picking a target, furthermore, creatures from below (ICF might have started to emerge as well.
I've also been sceptic to the Icon Bearer, it's a very cool model but it seems more worth it to take a prince/LP anytime over him... however, not using the exact same list and surprise your opponent from time to time with crazy stunts might spice up the gaming experience.
Is the IB recommended at all, or should one always go for princes and priests?
2.) I have no experience in sacrificing 10x-units of bowmen - yet, my initial thought was to simply keep moving them forward and pretty much let them soak enemy fire and whatnot (for as long as that might last) and then simply be in the way, if it takes dwarves 1 round to hack through my bowmen - good! What I don't know is if those 10 wounds on the move will be blasted away to quick to see my very russian WWII-tactic bear fruit ;-)
LHP, LP w/ Casket, TP + IB
TK, LHP, LP, LP, TP + IB
In both situations, the undying legion banner would be a good banner for him to have, effectively giving him some magic. Or it the BotUL is already in the list, make sure you make him a worthy option over another TP or LP.
An Icon Bearer would be a great choice in a Tomb Kings list except for 2 problems. Our rule about needing a Lich and Prince in every army. Second is our need for as much magic as possible. Both these needs eat up our valuble Hero slots and leave little to no room left over for a Icon Bearer.
The other thing you mentioned is charging Dwarfs with small units of skelles or light cav and I can tell you now your probably going to be dissapointed. Dwarf siege engine crews are tough, have good WS, great Ld and they can have an Engineer added to their numbers. I would not be suprised to see a crew beat a unit of 5 l. cav or 10 bowmen, my own crews have held off 20 gnoblars, and acutally beat them after a round of combat. If you want to hunt siege crews use the units we have that are made for it...scorpions and carrion. Both are fantastic units that can rip up a crew in no time. If your just looking to tie a crew up then use a couple swarm bases with "It came from Below"...cheap and effective.
The only honorable options left to we combatants is seppuku or semantics...which amount to the same thing really.