Mage Hunter Strike Force*Vs Dawnguard Invictors

[Zemmi]

Hey guys

like the title states, I'd like to know which you prefer. The Invictors or the MHSF. Please tell me why and with which caster.

[Oniwasabi]

Varies greatly. With most casters I like to bring MHSF+UA, though currently Vyros and Kaelyssa are the notable exceptions since I play Vyros with a very low unit count and with Kae I prefer to max out on models that will benefit fully from her feat before I start taking models that only get half the bonus. Usually I run out of points before I run out of models for that case ^_^

Invictors+UA are usually first thing into my Kaelyssa and Ossyan lists, sometimes Ossy gets to be extra special and gets two units of Invictors to play with.

Rahn is probably the only caster that I don't frequently take Invictors with, as I have Battle Mages, MHSF, and Sentinels for melee damage at which point the Invictors start to feel redundant.

So for the most part... Both!

[Calcifar]

Truly depends on the list, what you want to achieve with it and the caster.

I find Invictors can be great with most of Rets casters, such as Vyros for that tasty +2 arm, for soe funzies arm 19 CRA pow 12 a-holes.
Ossy, since range + CRa + shatter storm and his feat is mean. So is quicken for more threat range.
Ravyn since snipe on these guys and again, her feat, are just fitting.
Kaelyssa, since phantom hunter on CRA and that pow is terrifying...

you get the picture.

The only caster i wouldnt take them with has to be Rahn. That is because i run him with Mages and Sentinels and i find he brings enough ranged threat as is and prefer the Sents melee terror here.


Mage hunters serve a different role. They are less geared towards fron-line range punching. They are supposed to remove vital support pieces or shoot down cheap infantry. But since they lack over average RAT and CRA, phantom hunter is what you bring them for, so shooting in the enemies backlines and removing those supports.


Invictors are your bread and potatoes, Mage hunters are salt and pepper.



Both Invictors and Mage hunters can damage jacks on range. Invictors will hit them more reliably, while Hunters will roll an additional die, lets do some simple calculations.


Lets assume the Average heavy will sit at around ARM 18.

The average Jack hunter bolt from a Mage hunter will do about 2 dmg to that (assuming average rolls are pssimistic 3,3,4).
If you can manage to get all 11 hunters (counting the UA) to hit, that is 22 dmg on average, not bad really.

With Invictors, it will be more complicated, depending on how you choose your CRA, also they suffer from 2 inch less range.

So 11 Invictors, target is ARM 18, we have POW 12 guns.

You could choose to perform 1 pow 17 and a pow 18 attack, both would hit most likely, average dmg would be 13.
Or you choose 2 pow 15 and a pow 16 with average dmg of 13 again
or no CRA and do 11 dmg on average, with somem isses too.


But on the other hand, the invictors will sport more armor and will actually be much better at removing high def models.
Since CRA boosts RAT, you could reliably remove a handful of hard-to-hit models each turn, Mage hunters would struggle here.


They are both specific in what they do and I find invictors to be more suited as a "go to" unit and Mage hunters as a "remove this crap and damage jacks" unit.


higher armor infantry there? you would prefer Invictors.
Higher def infantry making trouble? you would prefer Invictors.
Nasty Menoth support making your day difficult? Mage hunters to the rescue.
Lacking some punching power for jack - destruction? Mage hunters can help out.
Units with disgusting defensive buffs going on your nerves? Mage hunters will often be good due to Arcane assassin.


You see, its quite a toss up and often people will field both units with the right caster.




I hope this response was helpful. Also dont forget that Mage hunters also sport stealth and Pathfinder, they are amazing flankers.
Invictors are one SPD slower and have no pathfinder but instead Warjack flank one more MAT and pow in melee, so they are well positioned i nthe centre of the battle.

[Murkhadh]

They have a very different role.

They are both ranged units but thats about where their similarities end.

the MHSF are specialists, they solve problems no one else can. Annoying choir, shepherds, janissa stonetide krielstone bearers, vassals, circle druids, all hiding behind something to block line of site? MHSF take this stuff right out.

Need to kill a light jack from range, they do that, need to kill a lowish stats caster? they do that too. They can even wreck heavies rolling 4d6 damage on a charge and with cma they aren't bad in melee either.

The invictors are generalists. They blast things to pieces and then if the need arises can cut things up in melee in flank, they have a good mat of 7 and cra and are rat 6 with cra and re-roll misses which makes them probably the most accurate CRA unit in the game.

[Oniwasabi]

...
Kaelyssa, since phantom hunter on CRA and that pow is terrifying...

...

Please note, Phantom Hunter targets a model in your battlegroup!

[Calcifar]

Please note, Phantom Hunter targets a model in your battlegroup!

Oh my, shows how little I play Kaelyssa, thanks for the heads up.

[Murkhadh]

I do bring invictors with Kaelyssa because she doesn't have an inherent way to improve chance to hit, the invictors are highly accurate on their own.

[rolandhadley]

Stealth means that the MHSF is obviously a superior choice against ranged armies that don't deal with stealth well. When comparing all the million and one abilities of each unit type, it's easy to forget how powerful it is to have troops firing 12" at stuff that can't fire back.

The MHSF can also make a half decent tarpit in a pinch, since it has good defense and CMA.

As others have pointed out, the Invictors biggest pluses are accuracy and damaging high ARM, non-jack targets.

[rolandhadley]

Stealth means that the MHSF is obviously a superior choice against ranged armies that don't deal with stealth well. When comparing all the million and one abilities of each unit type, it's easy to forget how powerful it is to have troops firing 12" at stuff that can't fire back.

The MHSF can also make a half decent tarpit in a pinch, since it has good defense and CMA.

As others have pointed out, the Invictors biggest pluses are accuracy and damaging high ARM, non-jack targets.

[PG_Dawnlord Ed]

I think this is the exact same comparison as the Sentinels vs Halberdiers "debate."

They do different things. Invictors reliably hit higher DEF and can slag light targets and cavalry, as well as knocking boxes off heavies. MHSF hunt jacks, support models, and any target in general that would normally be out of reach or protected by magic. The only similarity is that they do them from range. They both have a melee option (Flank vs. CMA, respectively) which, again, serves a different function.

I think it's a false dilemma. You take the one that fills the role you want the list to have. Not the "better" one.

[joelker41]

My infantry divides up like this in 35:

Kaelyssa - Sentinels/Invictors.
Rahn - Nyss + Battle Mages
Ossyan Invictors+Stormfalls
Ravyn - MHSF + Stormfalls
Vyros - Sentinels, all day.
Garryth - see Vyros

In 50 I start sprinkling in Halbs or extra jacks to fill points. The only caster I usually use MHSF with is usually Ravyn. That is probably a departure from most Ret players I usually bring Invictors if I need shooting because of their accuracy.

I actually use Destor Thanes and Ghost Snipers more than dedicated ranged units I would say.

[Calcifar]

Stealth means that the MHSF is obviously a superior choice against ranged armies that don't deal with stealth well.

This made me smirk, since my thought process went : Okay Cygnar, hm nope loads of anti stealth. Okay Legion, hm nope eyeless sight.
Hm, what other ranged Fac...
oh lol they are best vs Ret armies.


That is somewhat sad really.

[Calcifar]

double post, yay for crappy internet.

[PG_Dawnlord Ed]

Wait, what? Cygnar is an almost auto-win for the Retribution....

[Calcifar]

That wasnt my point, I ment that theyve got loads of anti stealth tools

[Zemmi]

Thanks for all the fast replies, as a beginning RET player this thread was very usefull. I think I'll go with the Dawnguard Invictors. They simply look stunning and I prefer units who can also kill stuff in melee.

Thanks!

[PG_Dawnlord Ed]

That wasnt my point, I ment that theyve got loads of anti stealth tools

That they do. I envy the Swans in that regard.

[Murkhadh]

This made me smirk, since my thought process went : Okay Cygnar, hm nope loads of anti stealth. Okay Legion, hm nope eyeless sight.
Hm, what other ranged Fac...
oh lol they are best vs Ret armies.


That is somewhat sad really.

Ravyn and the mhsf is pretty east to feat and shred the gun mages with. but legion, yea they can be rough.

[Kallas]

This made me smirk, since my thought process went : Okay Cygnar, hm nope loads

Ravyn and the mhsf is pretty east to feat and shred the gun mages with.

Honestly, whilst their anti-Stealth is very solid, it is not completely shutting down our Stealth options. ATGM are accurate but limited to seven guys and relatively expensive, and as Murkhadh points out, we have a caster who can level the field significantly.

Wait, what? Cygnar is an almost auto-win for the Retribution....

As much as Retribution ignores a lot of Cygnar's defence (ie, most of it) it's still not an auto win. They have many tools, as do we, that work well - Lightning Leaps work against our light infantry and still threatens our heavier troops as well as being able to tag our backline. Their heavies are pound for pound better at their given roles (but generally lack our versatility) and their casters commonly have good support spells (DEF/ARM buffs vs non MHSF, Deadeye, etc) that help them do what they need.

The Ravyn-MHSF tag team is very, very nasty due to Cygnaran casters' lack of applicable defensive ability and normally defensive middling stats and will usually result in an incautious player's loss but still not an immediate auto win.

[PG_Dawnlord Ed]

I did say almost.

And I'd still take the Retribution in just about any possible matchup between the two. I do play both factions...

[rolandhadley]

Coming back to stealth - while there are of course a lot of anti-stealth tools out there, it doesn't mean you're facing them in most games. I think because we know the counter to everything, we overestimate how often those counters are actually on the table. It's only occasionally when you're facing hard anti-stealth in the form of ELyl or ATGMs, and when you're not, the MHSF has a big advantage over any ranged opposition.

Personally, I like to run them with Ossyan over Invictors because they have better feat synergy due to more attacks - people tend to underestimate what ungodly jack wreckers they are on the feat turn. As many here have noted, the MHSF is still good against hordes, since a lot of Hordes armies depend on support stuff that the MHSF specializes in taking out. Of course, this means dealing with accuracy issues, since they can't CRA like Invictors - this is a main reason I like to take the Banshee to make targets autohit.

[Calcifar]

Coming back to stealth - while there are of course a lot of anti-stealth tools out there, it doesn't mean you're facing them in most games. I think because we know the counter to everything, we overestimate how often those counters are actually on the table. It's only occasionally when you're facing hard anti-stealth in the form of ELyl or ATGMs, and when you're not, the MHSF has a big advantage over any ranged opposition.

Honestly, i dont know if i agree with this though.
I mean B13, how often do Cygnarens field those ? Almost always? And gun Mages are ususalyl there too. Im not stating stealth is useless to bring vs them but the irony I was pointing out is that MHSF Stealth will be most effective vs a Ret army and that is somewhat sad in itself.

Legion got Ravagores who will just murder the MHSF with fire, aoe blast and eyeless sight , no need for eLylyth as long as you bring that thing and most people seem to.

I mean, that covers the "main" range factions, right? Or did I miss one? Khador doesnt carem uch for stealth since all that bombarding is inaccurate blast bollocks anyhow, same goes for other factions.


Anyhow, MHSF are still awesome, though I wish we never got them for the sake of getting other cool toys which we will now never get due to this units existence.

[rolandhadley]

Given that Cygnar and Legion are two of 11 factions, and even with them you don't face anti-stealth ALL the time, that would qualify as "occasionally".

I kind of agree with you, Calcifar, on the notion that Ret doesn't get certain things because their units are too good, although I think it goes beyond just MHSF. I think them and stormfalls both are reasons that Ret will never have Deadeye on a caster, for instance.

[joelker41]

MHSF run into crap all the time between satyxis engaging, vanquishers setting them on fire or just blast damage killing them if you don't have Disco or an Artificer.

There are many ways people clear low armor troops.

[Calcifar]

Yes, yes but this was about stealth specificly.
Yes there are more factions, I ment faction which rely heavily on ranged combat, such as Cygnar, Legion and Ret. This is where the existence of stealth hurts most, unless youve got stealth ignore, which they both do in abundance, so then I say they are "most annoying" vs other Ret, in that respect. Of course Ret doesnt rely as heavily on support pieces as for example menoth, or many others.

I feel Im often missunderstood here

[bouncymischa]

I feel Im often missunderstood here

Eh, I'd chalk it up (at least in part) to the fact that the internet doesn't actually make a very good communication medium. It's far too easy to just post little soundbites that don't fully explain someone's viewpoint, and thus miscommunication seems to happen pretty regularly... <.<

[Soylent]

Sure MHSF dies to Vanqusher/Ravigore fire but so will Invictors, atleast MHSF are usually spread out better to avoid AoEs.

With the Banshee, I think the MHSF got a lot better, especially when it comes to assassination.

[BrotherOracle]

Sure MHSF dies to Vanqusher/Ravigore fire but so will Invictors, atleast MHSF are usually spread out better to avoid AoEs.

With the Banshee, I think the MHSF got a lot better, especially when it comes to assassination.

I think everything gets better with a Banshee. The only time I wouldn't take one would be if I couldn't fit a ten point jack in the list, or couldn't fit two. maybe I'm just a newb and love slam too much....

Unless you mean with Kae and a banshee the MHSF becomes more viable, then I agree.

(phantom hunter on a banshee is cool)

[Soylent]

No I mean in general, MHSF are much more potent with the Banshee around and not just with Kaelyssa. Sure with Phantom Hunter it gets better but unless you're playing Ravyn, most casters can pretty much ignore MHSF because of DEF so the MHSF goes jack/support hunting and maybe get a lucky shot on a caster. Now with the Banshee you can get a KD fairly reliably and with the MHSF lurking about, casters can no longer rely on overboosting and that adds another thing your opponent has to worry about. It's not meant to be a one trick pony but it gives you another avenue to victory as it's available to all of your casters.