Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

buffalozap wrote:
SC players are were known to complain loud and proud about how they had no answer to magic without allied help. This is their answer.

Are their better options for a SC player who is going to be facing an army with no magic casting? Yes.

What did people expect? Something Cheaper points than the SC leaders with a better combat stat line AND the ability to counter enemy wizards? Get real.

Already it is fairly common place for SC to bring along gryph hounds to most games. If you're deploying your forces against an opponent with heavy magic use just attach one of those gryph hounds you were already bringing anyways to the Veritant to -on the fly- give your anti magic some extra zing. That's some pretty sweet deployment phase list jiggering flexibility.

I did not realise so many stormcast eternal players were vociferously protesting about lack of anti-magic.
Especially after the three rules of one were introduced in matched play.
Not sure why you would bring up the issue while quoting my post though......

Anyway, the fact that gryph hounds are already commonplace does not solve the problem I have pointed out : extreme fragility of the hound itself.
Thus my sceptical view on the Lord-Veritant's anti-magic capability.

I do admit it is good to see his limitless unbinding ability.
However I still do not rate his other abilities(Sanction and gryph hound bonus) too highly.
Problem with these abilities is that they work at very short range.
So short that it is more reasonable to just charge the Lord-Veritant and chop the wizard with its melee weapon.
These two abilities have literally no raison d'être, I daresay.

buffalozap wrote:
What did people expect? Something Cheaper points than the SC leaders with a better combat stat line AND the ability to counter enemy wizards? Get real.

Not sure what you are trying to point out. I never mentioned points cost, nor did I dismiss the model's superb CC capability.
More disappointing thing about the Lord-Veritant is its lame design, rather than the rule.
It's simply a Lord-Castellant with different weapon and lantern......this time on a stick instead.
Even the gryph hound has identical body to the Castellant's hound, save the head.

Perhaps I should have elaborated more on the model itself rather than the rule. Just to avoid confusion.

Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

buffalozap wrote:
SC players are were known to complain loud and proud about how they had no answer to magic without allied help. This is their answer.

Are their better options for a SC player who is going to be facing an army with no magic casting? Yes.

What did people expect? Something Cheaper points than the SC leaders with a better combat stat line AND the ability to counter enemy wizards? Get real.

Already it is fairly common place for SC to bring along gryph hounds to most games. If you're deploying your forces against an opponent with heavy magic use just attach one of those gryph hounds you were already bringing anyways to the Veritant to -on the fly- give your anti magic some extra zing. That's some pretty sweet deployment phase list jiggering flexibility.

I did not realise so many stormcast eternal players were vociferously protesting about lack of anti-magic.
Especially after the three rules of one were introduced in matched play.
Not sure why you would bring up the issue while quoting my post though......

Anyway, the fact that gryph hounds are already commonplace does not solve the problem I have pointed out : extreme fragility of the hound itself.
Thus my sceptical view on the Lord-Veritant's anti-magic capability.

I do admit it is good to see his limitless unbinding ability.
However I still do not rate his other abilities(Sanction and gryph hound bonus) too highly.
Problem with these abilities is that they work at very short range.
So short that it is more reasnonable to just charge the Lord-Veritant and chop the wizard with its melee weapon.
These two abilities have literally no raison d'être, I daresay.

buffalozap wrote:
What did people expect? Something Cheaper points than the SC leaders with a better combat stat line AND the ability to counter enemy wizards? Get real.

Not sure what you are trying to point out. I never mentioned points cost, nor did I dismiss the model's superb CC capability.
More disappointing thing about the Lord-Veritant is its lame design, rather than the rule.
It's simply a Lord-Castellant with different weapon and lantern......this time on a stick instead.
Even the gryph hound has identical body to the Castellant's hound, save the head.

Perhaps I should have elaborated more on the model itself rather than the rule. Just to avoid confusion.

If your opponent actually dedicates a round of cc or shooting to killing a gryph hound then you benefit from that exchange because it will always have been worse for you had they shot at your stuff or attacked your stuff that actually mattered.

IMHO all SC models look bad, cant be told apart, have dumb sounding similar names. I am not a fan of the SC aesthetic at all but more power to those who do like it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

And almost all of them can easily stomp the Lord-Veritant who approached too close to them.
That is the dilemma of the sanction ability.
If the Lord-Veritant is up against typical fragile wizards with 5+ save and 5 wounds, getting into melee is more efficient.
On the other hand when there are powerful monster-wizards, the Lord-Veritant shouldn't be within 7" of them from the first place.

If the rumour that he costs 120pts is true, then I suppose he is decent.
He still has decent CC ability and unlimited unbinding ability.
It's just that his other abilities do not seem to make much sense to me.
I'd rather see his CC capability toned down in return for slightly increased range for his abilities.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

And almost all of them can easily stomp the Lord-Veritant who approached too close to them.
That is the dilemma of the sanction ability.
If the Lord-Veritant is up against typical fragile wizards with 5+ save and 5 wounds, getting into melee is more efficient.
On the other hand when there are powerful monster-wizards, the Lord-Veritant shouldn't be within 7" of them from the first place.

If the rumour that he costs 120pts is true, then I suppose he is decent.
He still has decent CC ability and unlimited unbinding ability.
It's just that his other abilities do not seem to make much sense to me.
I'd rather see his CC capability toned down in return for slightly increased range for his abilities.

The Sanction ability is an extra knife in the back against casters its not supposed to be something you use to kill them outright. Combined with the Veritant's already impressive CC stat line (impressive because it comes with the paltry price tag of 120 points) Sanction just makes the Veritant outright one of the most efficient point for point options for attacking a unit with the WIZARD keyword.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

And almost all of them can easily stomp the Lord-Veritant who approached too close to them.
That is the dilemma of the sanction ability.
If the Lord-Veritant is up against typical fragile wizards with 5+ save and 5 wounds, getting into melee is more efficient.
On the other hand when there are powerful monster-wizards, the Lord-Veritant shouldn't be within 7" of them from the first place.

If the rumour that he costs 120pts is true, then I suppose he is decent.
He still has decent CC ability and unlimited unbinding ability.
It's just that his other abilities do not seem to make much sense to me.
I'd rather see his CC capability toned down in return for slightly increased range for his abilities.

You addressed that issue yourself though; he costs 120 points, those monsters cost several times that. Besides, if they aren't stomping him they are stomping something else and I'd rather a monster blow all its attack on killing a veritant than a unit of, say, retributors.

I'm sorry but really?

People want him to be good in combat.
Being stormcasts he has armour and can fight fairly well.

They want him to stop spells, which he can unbind an unlimited amount of times, which no one else can do.
He then can gain plus 3 to this to pretty much assure he unbinds it.

He then has a quick ability thrown in to wound casters aswell.


For all this, he is a solid buy and slightly on the cheap side for points.

Yet people want him to be able to fight amazingly, one shot casters and stop spells for these points?
He is a great option and IMO, a well balanced character.


Yes, he won't be fighting alarielle in combat or unbinding nagash, but he shouldn't be for those points.

All in all I like it.
Works well but not too well and has a very reasonable cost.

I'd argue that 'can disbind spells like a wizard' means he gets his 1 disbind roll each turn, just like every other wizard. The only ones who can disbind more than one are the wizards who have rules allowing it to happen more often.

I mean it's cool if I'm wrong, it makes him a much stronger model, but I don't see it working out that way.

 RuneGrey wrote:
I'd argue that 'can disbind spells like a wizard' means he gets his 1 disbind roll each turn, just like every other wizard. The only ones who can disbind more than one are the wizards who have rules allowing it to happen more often.

I mean it's cool if I'm wrong, it makes him a much stronger model, but I don't see it working out that way.

They have faq'd that it's an unlimited number of times for the several Khorne heroes that have the same ability.

Being able to running spells like a wizard simply states the method in which he can unbind them.

1 unbind is the most common, but loads have 2-3 and as mentioned, khorne have unlimited.
Each model states how many it can unbind in its profile, unless like this and the khorne one, it states no limit.





Edit: and to be fair, if they change this to 1-2 unbinds he isn't as good by half anymore.
Even with unlimited its still balanced.
If you really want to get a spell off then move out of his range or simply kill him.

Also, even generic wizards can attempt to unbind more than one spell (weirdnob shamans, for example) so "like a wizard" doesn't limit his capability to one. If it isn't stated then it's limitless.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Also, even generic wizards can attempt to unbind more than one spell (weirdnob shamans, for example) so "like a wizard" doesn't limit his capability to one. If it isn't stated then it's limitless.

only one attempt is permitted for the weirdnob. All models with the ability to unbind specify the number of attempts they are permitted, except when there is no specified limit, in those cases there is no limit.

Sorry, I mixed it up with the amount of spells he knows. XD

 RuneGrey wrote:
I'd argue that 'can disbind spells like a wizard' means he gets his 1 disbind roll each turn, just like every other wizard.

That is what I thought at first - but the one unbind/turn is _not_ in the core rules (first time I went back to the rules sheets in months!). How many spells a wizard can Unbind is on their Warscroll (that is specifically mentioned in the core rules) so, without an imposed limit, I would suggest he is indeed unlimited...

Oh no, the red pen is out! Haha

This dude would be 100x better if he had a way to get Lightning Strike. As it stands, it'll be hard to get him to range with many Wizards, who are just fine standing in the back line and slinging spells. That's my one hold up with him. Otherwise, appropriately costed and statted imo.

I'm not really worried about it. If you feel he will hard counter your casting, then remove him from the table first and keep your casters away from him.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

Getting this guy within 7" of Archaon sounds like a quick way to give Archaon 1d3 wounds back.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

Getting this guy within 7" of Archaon sounds like a quick way to give Archaon 1d3 wounds back.

I love how people assume that I meant a 1v1 dual between a 120 pt model and a 700 point one, and not the more reasonable assumption of my statement being made in the context of a battlefield. Heh, mayhaps we should discuss the irrelevance of any Stormcast foot hero since the stardrake is so much more powerful?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

Getting this guy within 7" of Archaon sounds like a quick way to give Archaon 1d3 wounds back.

I love how people assume that I meant a 1v1 dual between a 120 pt model and a 700 point one, and not the more reasonable assumption of my statement being made in the context of a battlefield. Heh, mayhaps we should discuss the irrelevance of any Stormcast foot hero since the stardrake is so much more powerful?

And if there are eight models within 7" of my Archaon, I'll probably attack the guy that has the potential to debuff my casting. The point is, this new model will be good if he can get in close to weaker spellcasters like Necromancers or Chaos Sorcerers, but they will do everything in their power to kite the hell out of him, and anything that is strong enough to actually want to be within his 7" bubble will just wipe the floor with him. It's a classic case of Great Model, Meh Rules.

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Even close range is still useful against monster-wizards like verminlords, aelf on dragon, Glottkin, Archaeon, etc.

Getting this guy within 7" of Archaon sounds like a quick way to give Archaon 1d3 wounds back.

I love how people assume that I meant a 1v1 dual between a 120 pt model and a 700 point one, and not the more reasonable assumption of my statement being made in the context of a battlefield. Heh, mayhaps we should discuss the irrelevance of any Stormcast foot hero since the stardrake is so much more powerful?

And if there are eight models within 7" of my Archaon, I'll probably attack the guy that has the potential to debuff my casting. The point is, this new model will be good if he can get in close to weaker spellcasters like Necromancers or Chaos Sorcerers, but they will do everything in their power to kite the hell out of him, and anything that is strong enough to actually want to be within his 7" bubble will just wipe the floor with him. It's a classic case of Great Model, Meh Rules.

Great, that means he didn't kill one of those other models that can fight better and burned his considerably attack power on a 120 pt model. Win for the Stormcast player.

I doubt I would put all 8-12+2D6 attacks into that one model, but I see you missed the point of my argument, so I'll just move on.

I would surround him in a ring of liberators, especially against non-shooty armies.

The Lord-Veritant could have some use against an opponent with lots of Wizards, but against say, an Ironjawz army with no Wizard at all? Then he will become an overpriced Hero with some mediocre melee attacks.

My experience shows that most armies field 1 Wizard or as many Wizards as possible. Versus the one Wizard army, wouldn't the Knight-Venator be better? He could just snipe the enemy Wizard from 30" away. And after that, just continue to snipe enemy Hero's? The Lord-Veritant really only has value against an enemy Wizard- within 18" to attempt to Unbind, and 7" to possibly cause d3 Mortal Wounds. You have to bury this guy in another unit and walk them up the board to get within 7" of an enemy Wizard, and by that time, couldn't you just charge?

In my meta, I have one Wizard heavy player, and the rest bring maybe 1 or 2. I can't see the use of this guy in my meta. Even in a heavy matched play, tournament environment, do you really want a model that has to get that close and roll so many times to possibly do d3 mortal wounds to a model that is typically a back field support model? The Unbinding aspect is great, but most players either go magic heavy or no magic at all (or the Wizard is taken for his other abilities despite spells). From a WAAC, tournament standpoint, this guy won't make the cut.

I doubt he'll see a lot of tournament use, for the reasons you stated. For casual play I can see him showing up though.

If the tournament has a side-board or multiple lists, he could be a good choice to take along., but yeah, not for a fixed single list.

(A "shaved knuckle" if you're a Steven Erikson fan.)

He'll make the cut into specifically arranged games where he hunts renegade wizards, chaos sorcerers etc. As such a model, I like him well enough. I think that a hammer would be a more appropriate weapon for him (reference to "Der Hexenhammer"), though...