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.

The old rule of thumb for WHFB was to take the Frostheart over Flamespyre, as at that time the Frostheart always had a survival rate over his firey counterpart (even if you had the points to accomadate the flame, people still suggested frost).

In working on my 2500 order force, I'm met with the following situation:

I have 20 pts of wiggle room with the Frostheart in there....for 20pts more I could field a Flamespyre instead.....looking over the two warscrolls now, it seems like the Flamespyre has effectively edged out the Frostheart in terms of raw power and the survival rates stats seem the same for both. Am I correct to assume that now the general rule of thumb is to go for the Flamespyre over the FrostHeart if you have the 20 points available to make up the difference?

My kit sits unassembled and awaiting more input!

While the flamespyre can deal more damage with its wall of flame, I have yet to see it do real damage or turn the tide. Most of the time I see it fly past an enemy unit, deal roughly 3 - 4 mortal wounds and then it be stuck in the middle of the enemy forces. But I have seen it used effectively to kill artillery crews.


Now for the frostheart, I believe it to be extremely effective support (with or without the rider) for Death-Star and Horde Units.

Another thought that occurs to me now, pending official review of course, is how the flamespyre's resurrection ability interacts in relation to things like the Ring of Immortality - you MAY need to pay extra points if you want the fire bird to do the one thing it says on the tin that makes it better than it's icy cousin.

It's just a thought that occurs to me, as at present I have seen little review on this matter.

Well the flamspyre explicitly states it is the same model, so I think it bypasses that much like the cohort of Tzeentch does. At any rate, it makes the flamespyke a clear winner in terms of potency. The thing is, every phoenix basically comes with an annointed riding it, which means the flamspyre with an annointed has an extra 4+ 'ward save' AND comes back from the dead on a 4+, bringing the annointed with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, worth note that if the phoenix in question is going to be the general than the frostheart is better since you need him to stick near the troops for command ability purposes.

I like the Flamespyre. Make sure to pair him up with a Loremaster of Hoeth and he can do some damage. Coming back to life at full health is really good.

I think the flamespyre is for suckers. Even back in fantasy days. The frostheart is a beast and if used correctly will probably save more wounds than the flamespyre will cause with their respective abilities.

All you have to do is put three wounds on the flamespyre and now it's down to dealing d3 mortal woulds? Pass.

Plus the logistics of flying your monster all over hell trying to jump units and not get out of position? Pass.

If there is any way shape or form the flamespyre is better it would only be on a game in which it returns to life. So for starters your HOPING for your big scary monster to kick the bucket for a CHANCE for it to do something good. Which will not happen more than half the time and probably less often than that. As stated earlier they just put a few wounds on it and watch it flounder.

It's also probably not legal for matched play unless you decided to leave the points off the board which I mean... pls god just take two of them (or none).

Frostheart wins hands down. A known quantity that is significantly more efficient at doing a more worthwhile job.

As far as the legitimacy of resurrecting. If that death ring that let a character return to life now needs points set aside I see no reason why the flamespyre would be any different.

I don't think one being an artifact and one being a special ability changes anything either. Lord croak has a special rule that lets him cast his spell 3 times and even has increasing casting values to balance this. It's still in violation of the rule of one and is illegal in matched play (in the FAQ).

So if it can't even do the one thing that makes it maybe efficient it's pretty worthless in my eyes.

Super sweet model though. The phoenix model kit is the reason I started high elves whenever it came out a few years ago.

If it costs points to revive then I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that the frostheart is the better option, I think the discussion is assuming that the flamespyre comes back for free.

Cauthon wrote:
I think the flamespyre is for suckers. Even back in fantasy days. The frostheart is a beast and if used correctly will probably save more wounds than the flamespyre will cause with their respective abilities.

All you have to do is put three wounds on the flamespyre and now it's down to dealing d3 mortal woulds? Pass.

Plus the logistics of flying your monster all over hell trying to jump units and not get out of position? Pass.

If someone is taking the flamespyre mainly for dealing flyover mortals then yeah, it will be bad because they are using it wrong. I doubt the OP wants advice based on the model not being properly utilized, after all poor decisions can screw over anything and make it look bad. So we should assume that the Flamespyre is being used competently for the purposes of the comparison.

Why else would you take a flamespyre over a frostheart other than because you were interested in dealing mortal wounds?

The frostheart has a better stat line and a very useful ability.

I'm what competent way are you using the flamespyre other than to be flying over units to deal mortal wounds? What tactics are you using the flamespyre Phoenix for that the frostheart doesn't do at least as well?

The flamespyre is ideal when you fly it into the opponent's backfield (dealing some mortal wounds on your way over). Its damage is such that it can readily rip through support characters or ranged units, and movement 16 is plenty to get it past the main line, charging whatever it happens to be in range of. Your opponent now has this phoenix sitting in the middle of their army that they need to do something about. The choice is basically to either kill it, or throw a tarpit unit at it while the rest of your force marches off. With either phoenix killing it will be annoying; you have to get an average of 24 wounds past its save to down it and with the frostheart you'll likely be suffering from a to-wound penalty while doing so. Tarpitting the frostheart is also slightly more difficult due to its improved claw profile, but has the added benefit of standing its aura away from the rest of the battle.

Here is where the flamespyre comes in. If your opponent decides to kill the flamespyre he's going to do so knowing there's a 50% that effort is completely wasted -- not insignificant when you need to deal 24 wounds. But if he tries to tarpit with a unit then the flamespyre can simply retreat over their heads and drop mortal wounds from its fly-by. Regardless, the opponent needs to divert resources, and may well change his movement plans to account for the possibility of the flamespyre being reborn into a flank position. The end result is that the flamespyre is a much bigger wrench into an enemy's battle plan than the frostheart could be, and you can capitalize on this disruption whether or not the flamespyre passes its revive roll. You can see that while the flyover mortal wounds are an important factor here it is only one part of the greater strategy that makes use of the flamespyre's other assets.

I'll say again though that if one is looking for a general, and I should expand that to say a support monster rather than being specific to the army general, the frostheart does win out. But I find that wanting the frostheart as a supporter is a rather specific use that an army will be built to accomodate, while the flamespyre can do its job well in any force, which I why I say the flamespyre is the better option overall. However, that statement is somewhat misleading on its own and I should have elaborated in my initial post.

Your missing your opponents choice where he just puts 3 wounds on it and now it's only doing d3 mortal wounds. He does not have to kill it or tarpit it. The damage output in combat isnt terribly impressive either. Neither is the frosthearts but at least your getting some utility out of it.

What if your opponent doesn't have artillery or backfield units worth sacrificing your expensive monster for?

The frostheart is arguably better suited to artillery hunting anyway. If it gets near a gun line now they are at -1 to wound anything they are shooting at. Plus having the extra attack and being cheaper.

The wake of fire degradation chart is brutal. If your hoping to take out artillery or archers or something don't you think the first thing they will do is put 3 wounds on it?

Maybe if the wake of fire started at 6 then went down to d6 like durthru or something. 3 wounds on it and your doing half your damage and hoping it can take something out and then die?

The flamespyre is to easily made ineffective. It's not going to be helping your army much while it's flying around dealing d3 mortal wounds a turn being all out of position.

I really don't think your going to get your points worth out of a flamespyre against a competent opponent. Unless if it dies and comes back and that's a lot of if.

The frostheart is a beatstick that works incredibly well in tandem with almost anything. Your always going to get your points worth out its abilities and stat line. It's a force multiplier.

The flamespyre has some nice sounding abilities on paper but the tactics that suit it are very risky at best and at worse your just throwing it away.

AoS seems to me to be all about your synergies and modifiers. The frostheart has synergy and will make your army better. The flamespyre is just going to run off and do its own thing and hopefully die?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would never have either as my general by the way. I'm partial to the seahelm with banner myself but really anything with a command ability that will effect more than just 1 unit (Phoenix guard) would be preferable. Unless your running a Phoenix temple army of course.

Cauthon wrote:
Your missing your opponents choice where he just puts 3 wounds on it and now it's only doing d3 mortal wounds. He does not have to kill it or tarpit it. The damage output in combat isnt terribly impressive either. Neither is the frosthearts but at least your getting some utility out of it.

What if your opponent doesn't have artillery or backfield units worth sacrificing your expensive monster for?

The frostheart is arguably better suited to artillery hunting anyway. If it gets near a gun line now they are at -1 to wound anything they are shooting at. Plus having the extra attack and being cheaper.

The wake of fire degradation chart is brutal. If your hoping to take out artillery or archers or something don't you think the first thing they will do is put 3 wounds on it?

Maybe if the wake of fire started at 6 then went down to d6 like durthru or something. 3 wounds on it and your doing half your damage and hoping it can take something out and then die?

The flamespyre is to easily made ineffective. It's not going to be helping your army much while it's flying around dealing d3 mortal wounds a turn being all out of position.

I really don't think your going to get your points worth out of a flamespyre against a competent opponent. Unless if it dies and comes back and that's a lot of if.

The frostheart is a beatstick that works incredibly well in tandem with almost anything. Your always going to get your points worth out its abilities and stat line. It's a force multiplier.

The flamespyre has some nice sounding abilities on paper but the tactics that suit it are very risky at best and at worse your just throwing it away.

AoS seems to me to be all about your synergies and modifiers. The frostheart has synergy and will make your army better. The flamespyre is just going to run off and do its own thing and hopefully die?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would never have either as my general by the way. I'm partial to the seahelm with banner myself but really anything with a command ability that will effect more than just 1 unit (Phoenix guard) would be preferable. Unless your running a Phoenix temple army of course.

Wait what? The enemy's artillery puts wounds on it but also doesn't exist to be attacked? Either the enemy has the artillery to put wounds on the flamespyre, but are beaten in melee, or they do not have those units and thus are not able to put wounds on the flamespyre. I've seen how both phoenixes play out on the tabletop multiple times, and I'm basing my opinion off what I saw first-hand as well as the stats. At any rate, I've made my point; In my opinion they both have their uses but the flameheart works better as a support monster for any Order force while the frostheart needs to be run with a specific kind of army around it (a hurricanum will serve much better as a generic force multiplier, for example).

If they have artillery, they will quickly put wounds on the flamespyre to significantly reduce its effectiveness.

If they do not have artillery then your not getting very much value out of your backfield harassment unit which you say is the ideal purpose for the flamespyre.

How on earth is the flamespyre a better support unit???? It offers no support whatsoever. Dealing wounds or getting into combat is not supportive. Especially if it's off jumping over units doing it's own thing. Do you not know what supportive means?

Here's an example. When my Swordmasters roll up on an objective with the support of a frostheart, everything is wounding them at a -1 (unless being shot from afar).

If the same Swordmasters have a flamespyre for backup....

The frostheart does definitely not need to be run with a specific army. I'm pretty sure every single unit in the game appreciates not being wounded as easily.

We are comparing the two Phoenix's to each other. Not to the hurricanum. The flamespyre is not better than the frostheart because of the hurricanum.

You're right, I did misuse the term support unit, auxiliary was what I meant.

Yeah, I would love for the flamespyre to not be impacted by the nerf to the ring, but they are worded to similarly for it not to be. Which is sad, as my wife has started a Highelf Army, and she loved the looks of it. I'm going to try and talk her into building a Frosty instead. There is something to be said for dealing mortal wounds though. Your only other in faction options are dragons and arcane bolt. To run them though, you need some sort of tar pit. Tie them up in assault, and then fly over them. Deal mortal wounds, and then counter assault.

That said, the Frosty is all around better, and the nerf was the nail in its. Offin.

Even if the flamespyre now costs points to revive, I seriously doubt anyone would enforce that outside of a very strict tournament, and further it will no doubt be changed back with the GHB2 or get a big points decrease, so I would be hesitant to base the decision on that particular factor. That said it would render the frostheart undoubtedly better by a huge margin.

Thanks for all the informative feedback, you guys rock. Will be going with Frosty for this kit!

So if you have a monster that can possibly come back to life after being killed the first time, you have to pay extra points for it? So are you saying that that ugly Skaven Abomination monster I keep having to fight against that comes back from the dead seemingly every game my opponent gets the chance to roll for it is supposed to be paying extra points for it?

luvdiscgolf wrote:
So if you have a monster that can possibly come back to life after being killed the first time, you have to pay extra points for it? So are you saying that that ugly Skaven Abomination monster I keep having to fight against that comes back from the dead seemingly every game my opponent gets the chance to roll for it is supposed to be paying extra points for it?

No, not unless they release an FAQ that says otherwise.

luvdiscgolf wrote:
So if you have a monster that can possibly come back to life after being killed the first time, you have to pay extra points for it? So are you saying that that ugly Skaven Abomination monster I keep having to fight against that comes back from the dead seemingly every game my opponent gets the chance to roll for it is supposed to be paying extra points for it?

Reading the warscroll for the Hellpit Abomination you'll see that when you roll a 5-6 for the 'Too Horrible to Die' rule that the model is not slain but instead heals D6 wounds. Therefore you're not setting up a new unit and not paying Reinforcement Points.

Thanks, that makes more sense. This topic has been a very useful read for me too, as I also have been eyeing the Phoenix beasts. I wish I could buy both of them.