With a bloodclaw starhost you could use the ability 3 times (if you want to take 3 Scar-Vet on Cold One) and yes it would stack. I can think of better ways to use the bloodclaw starhost, but this would work.
Bowser can u provide us of some examples? I use the bloodclaw with 2 scar vet on co and 1 sunblood alongside with 10 knights.
That's a perfect example right there. having two with a sunblood for rerolls. Or putting in a scar-vet on carno running the dual carnos with a sunblood and a scar-vet on cold one. generating extra hits re-rollable not just on 1s plus adding extra bites. Or throw in an oldblood on foot, that reform can be quite powerful.
Still, the GH says min 1 max 1, doesn't that mean you can only have one? (btw, I figured out how he was getting the extra attacks)
You can have just ONE general, and the general can use its command ability. However, there are some ways to let your other heroes use their command abilities, even if they are not the general. We can use the Bloodclaw Starhost, Dwarfs have the Longbeards, Tomb Kings have Settra...
That's one great idea. I use a bastiladon and a stagadon in my list. I can add the scar vet on carno, having 4 beasts the heroes and the unit of knights for the extra meet and dmg. I'll try to use vs elite armies with not a lot models
Remember that heroes counts like units. Max. 1 per unit, that's what that means. You can have 3 scarvets on cold ones with you, but not together.
I still seem to pick up on a lot of negativity about Saurus Knights yet I think the GHB 2017 did a lot to make them much more internally balanced with our other choices. First and foremost a points drop makes them far more comparable with Saurus Warriors, they now cost the same per wound with the same save and put out the same amount of attacks for the points unless you are really piling on the horde Warriors. For just general-purpose battle-line neither is really as good as Skinks (one of the best battleline units in the game) but otherwise it would be hard to stake a very strong claim that 10 Warriors are always better than 5 Knights. The Dracothian's Tail really helps Knights out a lot. The ability to just summon a unit in wherever you like without any chance of failure or having it unbound is huge on a unit that is going to be getting a +3 to their charge distance. Losing that +3 before you need it is far less of an issue when we can also summon in the Scar-Vet from the safety of the stars. That +3 from the Firelance Starhost is so much more of a big deal now that any Seraphon unit can be 9" away from a target pretty much any time we like either through summoning or teleporting. We can also summon in any Saurus support we need so getting ahead of key support such as an Astrolith Bearer is no longer such an issue. Where a lot of units want to use / abuse Damned Terrain what Saurus Knights want most is Mystical Terrain. A unit that gets its punch against hard targets from fishing for 6's on the to wound roll definitely benefits from re-rolls to wound - and a payback of 2 wounds per 6 rolled is really not bad. It is well worth putting Curse of Fate on a decent size unit of Knights deployed next to Mystical Terrain then teleporting them across the table to get stuck in. Summon in the Scar-Vet and an Astrolith Bearer so they also re-roll hits and they will get serious work done, use Curse of Fates to help the charge and then to get an extra mortal wound hit in if you roll any 5's. Then if you are feeling the need to really pile on the massed wounds get a Starpriest to wave their Serpent Staff in their direction; 3/4 of their attacks count as bites for the double damage on 6's. Again with the Serpent Staff taking advantage of Mystical Terrain really helps pile on the damage. A unit of 10 or 15 can just run around being a nuisance or you can commit to buffing them up into a cut-price ripperdactyl substitute. Or is there something I am missing which means the Knights are still terrible?
Definitely better than before but still : 1. Doing MW on WOUND rolls means that their damage output is just too unreliable to be counted in strategies. 2. Their non rend attacks are not bad at all but the meta has lots of elite 2+ rerolling stuff that no knight is gonna wound them. 3. The combo you describe is definitely good but unfortunately it dedicates around 600points *with batallion costs etc* to end up dealing unknown damage. It doesn't feel bad until you compare all those "must have" in order to make the combo and the damage it makes with something equal in points as Allarielle for example. It is by comparing that we get to see why it just cannot compete at the moment in a competitive environment and be consistent as a list. Your proposals are still good though !
1. Yes they are rather caught between being a source of volume attacks or fishing for mortal wounds but not being really specialised at either. 2. They are less hopeless against 2+ rerolling saves than Rippers 3. True. Any combat unit is either going to need help getting into combat or to do enough damage when it gets there. Or both. I would regard that as a fundamental limitation on non-shooting units in the game but I do not want to run a pure shooting army.
by themselves, knights are not bad, and they improved with GHB2017. It's 100 pts for 10 wounds that move 7" and save at 5+ (without suffering -1 rend). Sadly, if you compare them to different armies, they lack the utilities of light cavalries, and lack the punch/resiliance of heavy cavalries, which puts them in a sort of "grey area" (they taste as a wasted opportunity). Plus, you can indeed squeeze something good out of them (flurry of bites, or try to focus on MW), but it requires an heavy investment of resources (battalions and magical support). The knights can be useful, but will never be game-changing, so it makes the whole effort not so much appealing in the long run.
They're a 100 points now? I've missed that. That's kind of amazing, it means we finally have halfway capable line infantry (yea yea, skinks are good, but outside of a horde they're also only relevant as bodies, nothing more). Not as expensive or suspectible to mortal wounds as guard, doesn't need to be a horde like warriors or skinks to be a relevant threat, fairly fast, potential for mortal wounds (albeit rather unreliably), our only line infantry that actually works well with a starpriests venom thanks to their mounts. And they're even big enought that we could potentially hide a skink priest or something from sight behind em. It's a shame the mortal wounds are so unreliable, at a 100 points that's the only flaw left as far as line-troops go. Imma buy some Knights.
my girlfriend isn't going to like this.. Imma need to buy a load of em now, only got 8 from the starter set
Was looking through this for tactics but some seems outdated (though I am very new- only 2 games in with small armies). CAN you make unit hordes of more than 40? It looks like the max for warriors and skinks in a unit are 40 according to the warscroll builder. I have 40 of each and 15 knights as my base army. I've been reading about this bloodclaw starhost and it seems smart, but I agree, I have NO idea how I'd possibly injure the beastclaw raiders for example.
It is definitely outdated, sorry: it was made before GHB2 and a plethora of FAQ. Some things are still valid, but other are no more good (or even legal)... and hordes cannot surpass the 40 models (if you play matched games)
In matched play, nope 40 is the max for those (though I vaguely remember a skaven unit that could have 60, but I'm not too sure). There's also fairly little reason to it. It'd just be a gigantic unwieldy block of troops that's going to get stuck on everything. A clever opponent would just get it stuck in a chokepoint for most of the game. I think the vast majorityof it is still accurae (and mostly legal), though it's missing some nuances yea..