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.

For this discussion, I would like to make the following assumption: Ynnari faction WGs can begin the game in a Ynnari faction Raider. I know it is up for debate, but not here.

A few points:
1) WWP option is instantly useful, but afterwards is worthless. The Raider provides mobility that can be used from turn 1, or can be risked to deepstrike.
2) Cannons get more potential from a Soulburst as they can reach more units if the first unit they shot is killed. The flamers may be difficult to shoot at another target due to range and being a template
3) Scythes will keep the WGs alive longer due to the incredible overwatch. They are also more reliable than the Cannons as they will always hit and ignore cover

Personally, I like the Scythe/Raider option as once you are in position (the hard part), you can really screw over a unit or 2. Plus the Raider is a tempting target to shoot, so you disembark the WG and have the Raider near as a Soulburst generator for them. The can either shoot again or move in a way that makes any charges the enemy was planning much harder.
WWP Archon/Cannons are a much more point & click option, but can be a bit of a suicide unit after they drop. If the opponent has 2 large targets within 18" of each other, it could be well worth the suicide.

-

The rebornwarhost im making has to many HQ slots. (Farseer is an auto include especially with potentially picking my powers), leaving me 1 hq slot for both archon and autarch for resrve manipulation.

My original plan was 5 wraithcannon guys with archon because i really you can only hit with 3 scythes max on the deepstrike anyway. But if its legal to start in a ynarri raider, id rather just scatter on the deepstrike and disembark and try to hit with 5 flamers, kill the target, than redeploy back into the marginal safety of the raider. Plus thisway i dont need an allied craftsworld detachment of 1 autarch and 1 cheap troop.

My list is a ton of deepstriking bikes, than either an aspect host of 15 spiders or deepstriking wraitjguys to suppliment my wraithknight.

I'm running into the same problem with too many HQs I want in the army, which has me leaning more to the scythe in raider approach. Not too mention raider is noticeably cheaper than WWP archon. I've given real thought to dual warhost and taking both in larger point games though.

I'm doing two Reborn Warhosts to mitigate HQ spot crowding (Shadowseers also help a lot).

I'm going to run a WWP with solid shot wraithguard. The flamers are better in a raider since they can all shoot, whereas you can run into situations where you're getting really bad coverage from a WWP (especially since they won't have battle focus). But overall, I like the solid shot guys better.

I'm actually thinking I'll run a nice mini death star (hopefully picking powers, but if not I'll still have veil + guide + a bunch of rolls for invis or whatever I find most useful to boost their durability). Basically a farseer + shadowseer + another farseer if need be. Autarch I think it necessary to mitigate reserves, but I am considering a comms relay on a bunker or something. I just don't currently have a side CAD so I'll probably just have to make do with an Autarch.

Is double reborn warhost even legal in itc?

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
Is double reborn warhost even legal in itc?

I think so. You are allowed three detachments/formations. Two of which can be the same kind. Detachments made of formations like the gladius/decurian/warhost count as one of your allowed detachments/formations, but any single formation inside them counts against your having duplicates. So you could take two warhosts, but not double up on any of the formations inside them.

On topic I say raiders and scythes all the way. Being able to hop in and out of the raider is awesome, and raiders have proven surprisingly resilient for me. A 3+ jink save feels better then armor 14.

The first time you mishap the raider w/ scythes, or scatter too far to use the scythes...you'll regret it.

I play mine with Cannons & WWP. Point and click, delete a knight/tank. If they soulburst and get another it's a bonus. The ability to simply remove a big threat, at will, with their consistency is worth it.

The biggest issue I have with this setup, is using up a HQ choice.

I have talked about this in the Ynnari tactics thread but I prefer the raider. With the WWP/d-scythes you will only be able to fire about 3 of them as none of the flamers can touch another friendly model. With the raider 1/3 of the time you will hit directly. As long as you do not mishap you can disembark and place yourself within 6" of the raider. This is usually enough to get pretty good flamer coverage.

The choice of cannons vs D-scythes is a bigger and trickier matter. Against most targets D-scythes will do more damage. Against gargantuan monstrous creatures the cannons have an advantage if they get a 6 on the destroyer table. Against a wraith knight, 5 d-scythes hit, 3.3 will do d3 wounds, averaging to 5 wounds. At this point the wraithknight can run away. With D cannons 5 shots, 3.3 will hit, if one is a 6 you are doing 6+D6 wounds which should be enough to kill the thing, if not then you are looking at 2.7 d3 wounds for an average of 4.16 wounds.. So the d-scythes average more damage half the time but the other half of the time the cannons outright kill the wraith night.

I personally would choose D-scythes as I think most people agree.

edit: removed fnp calculations as you can not fnp from d weapons

I think your math is slightly off.

I take the D-cannons because they have a 55.5% chance of flat out removing a single model unit, by virtue of rolling a 6.

Scythes will bounce off ION shields, decent ++ saves etc.

Also. No FNP may be taken against StrD weapons.

D-cannons only do more damage when you roll that 6 which only happens about half the time. But then again, d-scythes are not meant to be gargantuan monstrous creature slayers. I feel d-scythes are better against more targets and therefor they get my pick.

Really the answer of cannons vs d-scythes is it depends on what you want to kill. and there is no reason you can not take one unit of each, d-scythes and cannons.

I take D cannon with portal and Dscythe in Serpent.

If I feel a certain matchup needs scyths I start the cannons behind the serpent and hop in turn one, Deepstriking the Scyths.

I take an naked autarch for reserve manipulations and he can DS in with the Guard to tank some shots and... If you stick the archon in the middle, than autarch in second circle on the deepstrike you can get 4 dscyh on target.

To solve the ''not enough hqs'' I take a seer council, helps wih casting, keeping my seer save and gets you a re-roll warlord trait to booth.

I am leaning heavily towards D-scythes considering my current Ynnari list is 2 Reborn Hosts including a WK in each. 2 WKs with 4 total D-shots should cover my needs to remove any big single targets.

Doing the placement of the WWP archon and D-scythes, I do believe you can always get 4 templates if the 1st model placed is the 25mm base Archon.
You can only get four 40mm bases around a single 25mm, meaning that the 5th WG can be place on the outside ring and only the model behind the Archon cannot put its template down.
If the 2 targets you want to shoot at are at least 6" apart and no more than 16" away from each other, you should have no issues at all to drop inbetween them and get 4 templates on unit A, and 4 on unit B.
Even if you don't kill unit A, you should have weakened it enough for the rest of the army to kill it so that the WG can Soulburst to shoot unit B.
If you have a Blaster or Haywire grenade on the Archon, he can lend that 1 more shot to pop the first unit if needed.

I would still love to do the Raider instead, but not getting that precision Deep Strike is too risk on a unit that is this expensive and will be this much of a target.
Plus, you would have to disembark either way, since you would only get Soulburst if you are on the board (which embarked units are not).

-

 lambsandlions wrote:
I have talked about this in the Ynnari tactics thread but I prefer the raider. With the WWP/d-scythes you will only be able to fire about 3 of them as none of the flamers can touch another friendly model. With the raider 1/3 of the time you will hit directly. As long as you do not mishap you can disembark and place yourself within 6" of the raider. This is usually enough to get pretty good flamer coverage.

The choice of cannons vs D-scythes is a bigger and trickier matter. Against most targets D-scythes will do more damage. Against gargantuan monstrous creatures the cannons have an advantage if they get a 6 on the destroyer table. Against a wraith knight, 5 d-scythes hit, 3.3 will do d3 wounds, averaging to 5 wounds. At this point the wraithknight can run away. With D cannons 5 shots, 3.3 will hit, if one is a 6 you are doing 6+D6 wounds which should be enough to kill the thing, if not then you are looking at 2.7 d3 wounds for an average of 4.16 wounds.. So the d-scythes average more damage half the time but the other half of the time the cannons outright kill the wraith night.

I personally would choose D-scythes as I think most people agree.

edit: removed fnp calculations as you can not fnp from d weapons

i dont agree, the problem i have with scythes is the short range, and since you dont ignore invul saves with them, the imperial knight your referencing could make all thier saves and ur left holding your d&$# in your hand. The only reason im even considering scythes is the killing jinking bike factor, besides that, its not even close, the cannons are far superior. I mean heck you can atleast snap shoot the cannons at fliers, cant with scythes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
I am leaning heavily towards D-scythes considering my current Ynnari list is 2 Reborn Hosts including a WK in each. 2 WKs with 4 total D-shots should cover my needs to remove any big single targets.

Doing the placement of the WWP archon and D-scythes, I do believe you can always get 4 templates if the 1st model placed is the 25mm base Archon.
You can only get four 40mm bases around a single 25mm, meaning that the 5th WG can be place on the outside ring and only the model behind the Archon cannot put its template down.
If the 2 targets you want to shoot at are at least 6" apart and no more than 16" away from each other, you should have no issues at all to drop inbetween them and get 4 templates on unit A, and 4 on unit B.
Even if you don't kill unit A, you should have weakened it enough for the rest of the army to kill it so that the WG can Soulburst to shoot unit B.
If you have a Blaster or Haywire grenade on the Archon, he can lend that 1 more shot to pop the first unit if needed.

I would still love to do the Raider instead, but not getting that precision Deep Strike is too risk on a unit that is this expensive and will be this much of a target.
Plus, you would have to disembark either way, since you would only get Soulburst if you are on the board (which embarked units are not).

-

not hating and i would play the list, but who are you planning on playing your double reborn warhost with 2 WK in it? ITC does not allow double wraithknight, ETC (european team championships) dont allow double GMC with the same weapons, and this list would be brutal overkill in a fun style game which is basically all your left with.

The problem with cannons is cover saves. There are alot of things now that can get 2+, 3+ covers saves easily enough. The scythes remove the cover aspect at the cost of getting close. A raider solves the IK shield issue but can have problems with scatter unless you add a WWP, which jumps the price

not hating and i would play the list, but who are you planning on playing your double reborn warhost with 2 WK in it? ITC does not allow double wraithknight, ETC (european team championships) dont allow double GMC with the same weapons, and this list would be brutal overkill in a fun style game which is basically all your left with.

ITC is only 1 format of many.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:

not hating and i would play the list, but who are you planning on playing your double reborn warhost with 2 WK in it? ITC does not allow double wraithknight, ETC (european team championships) dont allow double GMC with the same weapons, and this list would be brutal overkill in a fun style game which is basically all your left with.

My local group (which consists of dozens of players, maybe even over 100) does not enforce ITC rules. We generally play by the main rules and FAQs. Tournaments are comp'd inconsistently as the current TO sees fit.
The only restriction I see consistently are no Forge World Army lists (though FW units are fine), and only codex LoWs allowed.
Even if I couldn't take both WKs, it would then be an easy matter to swap 1 for Yncarne, give the WG cannons to make up for the lose of true D, and use the extra points to make my lone Warlock into a Farseer to join the WG, since they'll need the twin-linking and hopefully roll the Ignores cover power.

Fragile wrote:
The problem with cannons is cover saves. There are alot of things now that can get 2+, 3+ covers saves easily enough. The scythes remove the cover aspect at the cost of getting close. A raider solves the IK shield issue but can have problems with scatter unless you add a WWP, which jumps the price

Just to clarify this post, you cannot give WG in a Radier a WWP because the WWP character cannot fit in the Radier with them (transport capacity 10 and WG are bulky)
But, yes, the ignore cover is the most appealing aspect for me, and the overwatch. Getting the 6 on the cannons is great, but it is only 5 shots, 1-2 will miss, so you only get a 6 half the time. That may not be enough to kill that big nasty unit, and it certainly isn't going you hurt Ravenwing bikes. You will kill 1 Bike and the rest of the unit will be fine.
D-Scythes will wipe the unit easily. And since Ravenwing tend to cluster up, WWP D-scythes will most certainly get to shoot twice.

-

Fragile wrote:
The problem with cannons is cover saves. There are alot of things now that can get 2+, 3+ covers saves easily enough. The scythes remove the cover aspect at the cost of getting close. A raider solves the IK shield issue but can have problems with scatter unless you add a WWP, which jumps the price

not hating and i would play the list, but who are you planning on playing your double reborn warhost with 2 WK in it? ITC does not allow double wraithknight, ETC (european team championships) dont allow double GMC with the same weapons, and this list would be brutal overkill in a fun style game which is basically all your left with.

ITC is only 1 format of many.

ITC is THE recognized way to play tournaments now in N.America, i think its fair to say when talking a list of death like a double WK list is, how does it fit in the ITC format. If your playing straight rulebook like galef is, wow, the cheddar that most get rolled out there week to week must be insane.2++ re-rollable invuls, stomping out of combat, stuff like that, good times.

Im going to a team tournament in April, i expect to see alot of riptide wings/surges and double wraithknight (etc rules allow extra GMC with no duplicate weapons), and i like the cannon's to deal with those threats. Lastyear at the asme tournament there was only 2 bike lists of 40, i played neither. Obviously each meta is different.

I thought I'd put this diagram of the ideal Deep Strike placement for WWP D-scyhtes:

-------O--------
-----OoO-------
-------O--------
-------O-------

Imagine the lowercase 'o' is the Archon and first model dropped. The capital 'O's are the WG. The dotted lines are the templates.
Since you can only get four 40mms in base with the center 25mm, that is why the 5th WG can be on the outside
If you place this unit between 2 enemy units that are at least 6" apart (so the WG can fit) but no more than ~16" apart (so that the templates can reach both units), you should be golden to shoot 4 templates ate both targets as long as the first on dies (so make sure it is a vehicle or other single target, or that the templates cover ever model at least twice)

And BTW, my group doesn't bother with ITC because we actually talk to our opponents pre-game. I have never been asked to drop to only 1 WK, but I would gladly drop both if someone did ask.
When you don't play with A-holes you don't have to enforce strict house rules.

-

 Galef wrote:


And BTW, my group doesn't bother with ITC because we actually talk to our opponents pre-game. I have never been asked to drop to only 1 WK, but I would gladly drop both if someone did ask.
When you don't play with A-holes you don't have to enforce strict house rules.

-

Plot Twist: All of them are A-holes.

Just kidding. I'd love to run standard book rules with unlimited sources, but no tournament runs it that way so no need to practice it!

Honestly, I really REALLY hope that 8th ed reintroduces legitimate list building restrictions. No more than 2-3 detahcments total, no more than 1 LoW per 1K points. Stuff like that. But as it stands, 7th ed is "Unbound + tax units = bonus rules"
The Reborn Host is ironically the first step I have seen that kinda heads this way, by including Formations in the main detachement. It would be nice if Formations were no longer stand-alone choices and had to be taken in this style of detachment. It would be really easy to make this part of the standard CAD to include Formations and say that Formations can only be taken in this manner.

The reason my group doesn't strictly use ITC rule sis because there are so many other comp systems out there and it is quite frankly unreasonable to keep up with the BRB rules, FAQs AND all the other comp systems rules. If the main rules were more restrictive in the list building stage, we wouldn't need all these house rules that not everyone agrees on.

But back on topic, I a, sold on the D-scythes. Not only does my list need the flamers, but they are cheaper in the long run (since cannons really require a Farseer for support), but the idea of Soulbursting because you killed a unit on overwatch is just too fun.

-

Not a single game I've ever played tournament or not have I used itc rules. So clearly it isn't the standard for all of north America.

I think ITC has been getting more and more popular with each year. I don't think I've played in a non-itc event in over a year. Even when I attended events that didn't submit scores to the ITC for ranking or use the ITC missions, they still used the ITC restrictions and faq which seems to be what you're hoping the next codex adopts anyways. If those are the restrictions you want, maybe you should just encourage your group to adopt ITC rules. Personally I like them because I kept hearing different interpretations of rules before they came in and said "for rule x, it's read this way". I don't even care that there are some rulings I disagree with, I'm just happy to know what to expect on them since everyone is on the same page.

On the topic of your soulbursting from overwatch, I feel like that's the kind of thing that will only work once against a player and maybe not even then. I think many people are already inclined to shoot d-scythe wraithguard because the overwatch is bad enough without them getting a SfD proc off of it.

I don't really like D-Scythes. You don't lose that much range over the Cannons, and WG are tough enough that being close isn't a problem (although they do like to get stuck in CC from what I've seen), but you're completely giving up the opportunity to inflict unsaveable wounds in favour of forcing the opponent to roll more invulnerable saves. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think I'd prefer the opportunity to RFP 6+d6 models from a deathstar than increased effectiveness against Jinking vehicles and basic cover-save infantry dudes, which my Scats and Warp Spiders can handle reasonably well already.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
ITC is THE recognized way to play tournaments now in N.America

So was INAT in 5th Edition, but not everyone bothered with it in every single game they ever played. Also, off-topic, ITC is just as arbitrary and inconsistent as INAT was, so if it is the standard for tournaments in NA then I'm glad I don't go to tournaments there. Can't take a Super Tuna because it's too powerful - can run Renegades & Heretics, though. I mean sure, it's undercosted and unbalanced as all hell, as are half the gak-ass rules Forgeworld dumps out, but one of my friends plays it and I curate the format so I decide what's legal. Also the store I own re-sells R&H models.

Egoboo comp systems suck. Detachment restrictions I can just about live with. Anything else, no.

What removes 6+D6 models? Are you thinking of a result of 6 on a D-chart? That's 6+D6 wounds on a single model - almost always killing a target. Must formats nerf it do 3 wounds flat (on the result of a 6), but I'm assuming you mean unmodified.

Either way, a single D shot can only kill a single model.

 BBAP wrote:
but I think I'd prefer the opportunity to RFP 6+d6 models from a deathstar than increased effectiveness against Jinking vehicles and basic cover-save infantry dudes, which my Scats and Warp Spiders can handle reasonably well already.

Models??? When you roll a 6 on the D table, only 1 model takes 6+D6 wounds.

So lets say you are shooting at some TWC (arguably better targets for Scatterbikes, but it is just an example). If you get 4 hits, and 1 of them rolls a 6. You can choose which wounds the TWC unit takes first, the '6', or roll saves against the other 3.
If you have him take the '6' result first, the closest MODEL takes 6+D6 wounds. Not the unit. Then the other 3 wounds can be saved by the TWC storm shields, only killing 1 more on average
That same unit getting hit with 4 D-scythes would suffer many more wounds, and will ignore cover.

If it were the case that the 6 result removed 6+D6 wounds from the UNIT, then, yeah there would be no reason to every take D-Scythes.

-

Saythings wrote:
Either way, a single D shot can only kill a single model.

Well that sucks. I always thought the extra wounds spilled into the squad - that's how I've been playing with and against D-weapons, but the correct way is that each 6 inflicts d6+6 unsaveable wounds to single Wolves and Guardsmen?

Also, why would anyone bother to nerf that? Throwing Nids players a bone or something?

 Galef wrote:
So lets say you are shooting at some TWC (arguably better targets for Scatterbikes, but it is just an example). If you get 4 hits, and 1 of them rolls a 6. You can choose which wounds the TWC unit takes first, the '6', or roll saves against the other 3.
If you have him take the '6' result first, the closest MODEL takes 6+D6 wounds. Not the unit. Then the other 3 wounds can be saved by the TWC storm shields, only killing 1 more on average
That same unit getting hit with 4 D-scythes would suffer many more wounds, and will ignore cover.

-

... but if they have Storm Shields - or any other invul that's better than their cover save - then "Ignores Cover" is irrelevant, right? Also you lose all your 1s and 2s on the D table with Scythes, and you can't fire them at Flyers.

I suppose if you're going to use Wraithguard then D-Scythes are better - you hit more dudes and force more save rolls. Thing is, if you're just trying to get people to roll saves, then wouldn't Scat/ Shuk-bikes with a Warlock be a bit more points efficient and a bit more useful overall? You have Conceal/ Reveal to drop cover saves, and while you're not killing a TWC or Mary Sue HQ IC with every failed save you can drop a lot more basic troopers and vehicles from a lot further away. Plus you can shoot at Flyers with them.

I guess my reasoning for D-Scythes is the versatility and they do not need a babysitter to Guide them or cast some kind of Ignore cover power.
As I mentioned before, I already have 2 WKs in my list, so I feel pretty well covered for true D. But the Scythe can take out a wider variety of units, plus there are very intimidating to charge. Since they will be very close to the enemy, that is way more important to me than being able to shoot are Flyers.

However, if I do end up playing in a Tourney that limits the number of WKs I can take, I would swap one out for Yncarne, keep the cannons on the WG and use the extra points to get them a Farseer.

Overall, this thread has been quite helpful. Thanks everyone.

-

They don't need psyker support, but they still need a WWP IC or a transport to get them somewhere they can contribute.

As for their Overwatch, best case scenario is the closest 15 models taking d3 Destroyer wounds each - which is to say, probably dying. Problem is, armies built for CC necessarily treat Overwatch as a fact of life, so they're either going to have some way to obviate the Overwatch or bypass the Wraithguard completely. Soulburst makes it a bit more awkward, but only to the extent that they'd need to avoid the Soulburst Template attack.

Again though, if you're taking WG then I guess D-Scythes in a Raider is the way to go.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
Is double reborn warhost even legal in itc?

Yes you can duplicate one detachment once. I actually only have two total detachments in my list - 2 reborn war hosts, each with 7 units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
I thought I'd put this diagram of the ideal Deep Strike placement for WWP D-scyhtes:

-------O--------
-----OoO-------
-------O--------
-------O-------

Imagine the lowercase 'o' is the Archon and first model dropped. The capital 'O's are the WG. The dotted lines are the templates.
Since you can only get four 40mms in base with the center 25mm, that is why the 5th WG can be on the outside
If you place this unit between 2 enemy units that are at least 6" apart (so the WG can fit) but no more than ~16" apart (so that the templates can reach both units), you should be golden to shoot 4 templates ate both targets as long as the first on dies (so make sure it is a vehicle or other single target, or that the templates cover ever model at least twice)

And BTW, my group doesn't bother with ITC because we actually talk to our opponents pre-game. I have never been asked to drop to only 1 WK, but I would gladly drop both if someone did ask.
When you don't play with A-holes you don't have to enforce strict house rules.

-

Pretty sure your diagram doesn't work. You have to try and petal them as tightly as possible (like a flower) so you can't go out to the second ring until all of the spots that can be filled in the inner ring are. And I'm pretty sure that you can fit at least 5 in base contact, even with a 25mm base for the archon. Even if not, you're still sacrificing efficiency with the templates because you'll always have at least one that can't hit the unit without laying over your own models (and often 2).

ITC is definitely becoming more popular in N America, though I hardly think it's an end-all be all for tournament formats. I like to list-build with ITC-legality in mind because I keep meaning to make it out to one of their big events (wish one would come to the East Coast!) That being said, for instance my gaming group doesn't play with ITC-nerfed D (suck it Imperial Knights! ). I do, however, like a lot of what they changed. Re-rollable 2++, multiple WK, unmodified D....these things can make the game difficult to balance from a competitive perspective. Of course, if you're just playing with your buds, that's great. But TBH, I doubt I'll ever field double WK in two Reborn Warhosts....it's just so crazy strong as is. I've only played two games with it, but it was against pretty competitive lists and it wasn't even close with only 1 WK.

I haven't played at any events yet (I cannot for the life of me here, but I'd love to) but even our local group plays by ITC.

Not necessarily the scenarios and listbuilding, but if there is ever a rules dispute we play using the ITC ruling, and if I am playing the more competitive players we play using full ITC rules

 luke1705 wrote:

Pretty sure your diagram doesn't work. You have to try and petal them as tightly as possible (like a flower) so you can't go out to the second ring until all of the spots that can be filled in the inner ring are. And I'm pretty sure that you can fit at least 5 in base contact, even with a 25mm base for the archon. Even if not, you're still sacrificing efficiency with the templates because you'll always have at least one that can't hit the unit without laying over your own models (and often 2)

I have actually taken the models out and tried it. There is no way to get five 40mm bases in contact with one 25mm base, so the 5th base will always go on the outside (which can start wherever I like), but you are right that the 4 bases that can go into base contact will need to be put in tightly. The diagram I made isn't perfect, but it works.

About the ITC non-sense: My typical Eldar lists up to this point have had 1 Inferno Lance WK and 2 Pulse Laser Hornets as my primary anti-tank. Since those are not options in the Reborn Host (yet) I have to resort to other means, which is 2 standand WKs and 1 unit of WG.
If, for any reason, an opponent or local tourney insists on ITC rules, I would insist that they produce a physical copy of those rules for me to look over so that I know what to change.
Otherwise, I have to take their word on what the rulings are. I don't like not having all the relevant rules needed for a game, that's why I own a RULEBOOK and all the Codices for my armies. If ITCs rulings are being requested, then they need to be provided by the person or TO requesting them.

However, if those rulings are provided (in paper, none of that digital cr@p). I would gladly drop 1 WK and field Yncarne instead. At that point, I also would need Cannons on the WG since I would be missing some dedicated anti-tank and the Scythes are less specialized. And since I was relying on the basic Template rules to auto-hit, ignore cover and have a devastating overwatch, I would also need to put a Divination Farseer with them to (hopefully) regain some of that through Guide, Perfect Timing, & Foreboding


-