Wildwood Rangers

[Firelupus]

Oh the embarrassment, razor standard is above the 25 point limit. silly silly me.

the flamming banner is also a good option for the WWR

I agree though S5(wwR and Wild riders on the charge) is better then S3( eternal guard/ dryads). That is why i use glade guard, and glade riders as my core.

But they each have thier uses.

[Phil Rossiter]

The problem is that competitive WE lists are largely super-archers, fast cavalry and heavy magic because those are the things that work best against the fast, tough stuff that is everywhere, especially since 50% Lords and Heroes came in.

EG make some sense because one infantry block has it's uses (bunker characters, hold the Venom Thicket, fight when buffed etc). As Core, they don't mean taking fewer characters, Wild Riders, Scouts or Waywatchers. Rangers can be used instead but are more commital. The unit (and combat build army) has certain weaknesses that demand great care in list-writing and play.

Taking two blocks means even less of the board control stuff. Even High Elves, with the formidable Phoenix Guard and White Lions, suffer from this. PG for example have decent offense (unlike EG) and holding power (unlike Rangers). The fact that such a good unit is only seen now and then in competitive HE lists, speaks volumes.

[Firelupus]

Rangers can be used instead but are more commital. The unit (and combat build army) has certain weaknesses that demand great care in list-writing and play.

I agree with you here, if you are making a combat build army then you need to commit to it and write your list around this. My current list includes a treeman as a stubborn anvil that works in concert with my Wildwood rangers, yes treeman can be cannoned off etc, but so can everything.

Throw in a unit of wardancers and you have a decent combat center that can bring the pain with or without buffs.

List design does make or break you, in the end it comes down to what YOU want to use and how you want to play.

[Phil Rossiter]

Treemen (and I run one every game) are a similar case IMHO. They're excellent 2/3 games and awful the other 1/3. They are one of the very few things that can not be simply run over by stuff like WoC Chariots and characters for example. So for a list committed to going forwards (eg with Rangers) they make sense. They can stop infantry units that would carve Rangers up, cold. But against Daemons or Dwarfs say, they are a liability.

Now I write as a long-time combat build player. But the advantage of building with shooty/avoidance units is you run into fewer of these nightmare match-ups. You can always back off and play for points. Even this is becoming more difficult with 50% L&H though I believe. Which is why WE are generally regarded as not quite what they were before the FAQ change.

[Firelupus]

Phil, you and i are like minded in this regard .

[popisdead]

Every time I see someone say "Eternal guard are a good choice" as a reason to not take WWR, I cringe a little . I don't think it makes very much sense for you to use them to fight the same enemies.

I would suggest you look at *that* as the issue then. Don't cringe when someone makes the comparison but look at why. Cause that is the crux of army building. What choices are you taking and why.

It was the continual debate with taking EG pre-8th ed book and the continual issue with HE special infantry choices.

Rangers are a single attack infantry that has a neat rule bonus attack rule but lacking enough punch to make a presence.

[Gogery]

Apologies if I came across as aggressive with my earlier post, popisdead. That was not the intent. I simply believe that saying "Eternal Guard are a good choice" is flimsy reasoning for why not to take WWR BECAUSE I'm looking at why I would take them. I wouldn't take them to use for the same purpose as eternal guard since using s5 where s3 would suffice is overkill. So I've been trying to figure out whether they are, in fact, strong enough to stand up to their role of fighting tougher things on the battlefield!

It's like saying I would use Skrox with their s7 attacks on my lizardmen team for fighting the same things as saurus! While it can be done, it is certainly not optimal.

Rangers are a single attack infantry that has a neat rule bonus attack rule but lacking enough punch to make a presence.

This on the other hand is more of what I was looking for!

[Phil Rossiter]

I think it might be helpful to analyse a list with Rangers in and see what they do for that list and the way it plays. I took this to a tourney in November:

Stag Lord, Ogre Blade, Charmed Shield, 4+ Ward
Lvl 4 Life, 5+ Ward, Scroll, Potion of Toughness
BSB, Horse, GW, 4+ Ward armour, Shield

10 Trueflight, musician
10 Hagbane, Musician
10 Starfire, Musician
10 Dryads

20 Rangers, FC, Gleaming Pennant
7 Sisters, Razor, Musician
5 Wild Riders, Eternal Flame

5 Waywatchers
Treeman
Eagle

The role of the Rangers here is to take ground, deal with tough enemy units like MonCav and serve as a pivot for the cavalry. The Life mage goes with them to help with defence as they already have S5. It's worth noting that because the Rangers take non-Core points I felt the need to take Dryads (redirector) and a lot of archers in Core, which I don't consider ideal.

Partly because of Life, the list is aggresive, it's not built to ebb and flow. In some match-ups though (Daemons for example) it is overmatched in combat and needs to play more defensively. Rangers and Life are not ideal for this as you need to be taking out those fast threats at range. Your infantry block might well want to sit in the Venom Thicket and EG are better suited to this.

[Beragon]

Hey everyone! I was curious about Wildwood Rangers, as I prefer a more mixed/balanced army rather than one mostly focused on shooting, but can't seem to find very much information about them on the forums. So, what does everyone think of them? Do you use them or not, and why? What unit size if you do? Have you had good or bad experiences with them, etc. I'm not quite sure what to make of them myself.

I haven't tried them out yet, but if you want to go "punch your opponent in the face", Str 5 attacks are a good way to do that. I want to try them out sooner or later, but I would consider them more a support unit of 10 models or so. I think they would do well if you can manage to advance with them in cover, or screen them with a cheap skirmishing unit, such as Deepwood Scouts.

[HouseofGinaz]

Very good read,

I was torn between EG and WWR, but because I usually play Empire and have had a lot of games running spearmen lines and swordmen hordes I really want to focus on units that have more strength than S3. And EG are too identical to a huge spearmen bus with the same points. So even though EG provides much more synergy which we Empire players are always bragging about, I will go for WWR. From reading this thread though I'm considering running them 2x15 FC closely together with some chaff for support. The Always strike first rules, high weapon skill with S5 I hope will provide needed support against hammerers and black orcs. Hoping WS5 will negate most WS4 attacks.

[Phil Rossiter]

I'd be careful against the Hammerers, that extra attack could hurt, especially if he rolls up Hatred.

[HouseofGinaz]

I'd be careful against the Hammerers, that extra attack could hurt, especially if he rolls up Hatred.

That's a good point, in a group larger than 10 hammerers it would probably be suicide.

Wildwood Rangers remind me of Greatswords, a special unit which models looks awesome that really should have been a core choice since the already existent core Halberdiers/Eternal Guard does their job better, and doesn't use up special points that could be used for Demigryphs/Wild riders.

[Stygian]

Anyone tried rangers in horde formation? I've got 20 modeled and I'm seriously considering building another 8-9.. plus character support.

[DocDropPod]

I think a unit of 25 w/ armour piercing banner w/ Araloth could be nice.
A big points sink for something not too mobile. But if played right, could be used to entice your opponent to come at you.
Say, run fast cav everywhere else so that unit is really the only viable option.
Then hammer with Wild Riders

[Aezeal]

Not sure I'd go Araloth. Maybe just a wardancer.

[Phil Rossiter]

Horde makes sense to me. Numbers help Rangers because they die quickly and don't always strike first. But if they do, those third rank attacks will hurt.

[NonnoSte]

I think a unit of 25 w/ armour piercing banner w/ Araloth could be nice.
A big points sink for something not too mobile. But if played right, could be used to entice your opponent to come at you.
Say, run fast cav everywhere else so that unit is really the only viable option.
Then hammer with Wild Riders

Unfortunately they can't take the Razor Standard unless you gave it to a naked BSB, since they're capped at 25 pts for banners. (ironically they would be the unit which benefit the most from it)

Araloth is a huge point sink. If you want them stubborn, a GW wielding Lord with 4++ or 2+ armour and Crown of Command will achieve much more.
Mollesvinet has just posted a report where he uses them with a Crown Lifeweaver.

[Polycotton]

While you probably won't have ranks on the WR (or theyd be way more expensive than 10 WWR anyway) they damage out put and maneuverability from our (a bit OP) wild riders is just so good I'd take those anyday.
The WWR aren't bad.. but the WR are just so good I'd prefer them in nearly any situation even if they can't negate ranks.

I am currently running fairly fun lists that always uses Eternal Guard and not much shooting. Even still, I can't really find a way of putting a block of Wild Wood Rangers in my army for the above reason.

[DocDropPod]

I think a unit of 25 w/ armour piercing banner w/ Araloth could be nice.
A big points sink for something not too mobile. But if played right, could be used to entice your opponent to come at you.
Say, run fast cav everywhere else so that unit is really the only viable option.
Then hammer with Wild Riders

Unfortunately they can't take the Razor Standard unless you gave it to a naked BSB, since they're capped at 25 pts for banners. (ironically they would be the unit which benefit the most from it)

Araloth is a huge point sink. If you want them stubborn, a GW wielding Lord with 4++ or 2+ armour and Crown of Command will achieve much more.
Mollesvinet has just posted a report where he uses them with a Crown Lifeweaver.

Ah true. My bad.
Yes I crowned Lifeweaver would be good. Metal weaver also possibly - ap spells, scaly skin spells...

[Phil Rossiter]

I am currently running fairly fun lists that always uses Eternal Guard and not much shooting. Even still, I can't really find a way of putting a block of Wild Wood Rangers in my army for the above reason.

The thing is, you get the characters you need into your list. You get a couple of units of Wild Riders. You get the Waywatchers. You get the Trueflight/Hagbane. The question is whether you then want or can afford a slogging infantry block to attack and take ground with. I'd consider taking it instead of a third WR unit but not instead of a second, the flanks need covering.

[Stygian]

Lets discuss foot slogging glade lords for a sec.

As we know elves in general are not designed for attrition bar the mistake that is the dark elf book and wood elves have it worst of the 3. Anyway this leads to most lord characters packing great weapons + max defensive kit (less so for mounted). In my case it varies but usually starts with AoD and GW (and in this instance crown of cmd). However lately I've been considering the actual value of extra kit beyond a simple 4++ vs the immense power of rerolls with ASF and/or OT shard.
In short I'm starting to think the better glade lord builds might should focus on lethality over defense.
Outside of other elves, having true ASF is roughly twice as lethal (or reduces enemy ASF lords cc effectiveness) and essentially gives another round of attacks against other ASF opponents, as opposed to the GW. OT shard obviously compounds this.

Or in other words, if you do face off against enemy characters regularly you need to kill them first and quickly because we can't do attrition.

So whats your experience and preference here.. GW or magic weapon? OT shard or not?

I'm currently running a block of 26 rangers with lord and shadowdancer fwiw. The dancer is a character assassin while the lord brings the stubborn crown. However now that I am getting my feeling for the game back I am now considering playing a little less safe and focusing the lord on damage output rather than anchoring the unit. Obviously I lose some flexibility for tricks like intentionally exposing a flank and such, but does the higher damage potential outweigh this?

[Phil Rossiter]

This is one of the issues with running a big block of Specials IMHO, they're a hefty investment in a fairly static unit. Some things, especially tooled-up characters, have the mobility to charge them at the optimal time and the defence to shrug off S5 attacks. You can include the Lord to fight these but as you say Zanthorn, four S6 attacks without re-rolls don't scare much in a challenge. You can fit the Crown then but will you actually win? I guess if you have Protection Counters in the unit you can go lighter on the defensive kit. 4++, Ogre Blade, OTS looks interesting without being awesome.

At first I leaned towards Life buffs here but given the limitations of S5, I'm starting to think the unit could do OK sans characters with Wildform up. If you can get this spell through a certain level of threat is dealt with.

[Stygian]

I agree although if your committed to using a block infantry unit like I am then WWRs offer more threat then EG do, at least to non elven opponents. Last edition I ran an eternal-star with 2+ reroll nettlings lord and a harp weaver supported by multiple wardancer units. The unit was stellar but those days are gone and I need a replacement. If I can't have the durability of 5++ then I want damage output.

I am considering that exact build you posted btw. Currently rolling AoD, crown, db gem, GW and honestly its probably the better build since the unit can act as pseudo EG and stubborn brings more flexibility in terms of changing frontage. That said against plenty of opponents the stubborn isn't needed if the unit can push through that extra 2-3 wounds and the OT shard would also help the units damage output.

[Phil Rossiter]

As discussed, the advantages of EG are Core and Stubborn (and true ASF to stop elves chopping them up quickly). These can make them a good unit for characters, which can provide the killing power the EG lack. There are a few fairly successful EG-star builds knocking around the forum.

With Rangers I'd be concerned with them being efficient. They fight fairly well with no buffs which is quite liberating, I guess the issue is what other units you take to complement them. Once you start adding characters they become a unit you can't afford to lose (hence Crown) and that also has to see serious combat to be worth it.

I think there's something to be said for a High mage in the unit, possibly with 5++, Crown and Fencers Blades. The big plus is racking up protection whilst casting useful spells. If the unit gets charged by a powerful solo character say, the Lord can challenge and still benefit from the counters, while applying his ASF and OTS freely.

[Mollesvinet]

I played them with a lifeweaver with the crown. Having both earthblood and stoneskin really makes them durable, and the weaver can heal herself should a wound or two slip onto her. The worst thing is characters, I added a dragon lord to deal with them but that is not exactly the most reliable way to deal with it (sure is fun). Regrowing a champion would be annoying for your opponent though and might let you win through combat res, especially with a combined charge from wild riders or something.

You could add a wardancer in there, but I really liked that the rangers only needed a single mage to be effective against most things where as the eternal guard needs multiple characters.