AoS 2 - Gutbusters Discussion

[PlasticCraic]

Yeah I know it's just a guideline - although check tournament packs, because some will enforce it. 

I would not feel comfortable using a cauldron without taking the recommended larger base though.  There's quite a big discrepancy between how many enemy models can swarm around a 40mm base vs a 105 x 70mm base. 

[PlasticCraic]

I'm not saying it's crime of the century either mind you - if an opponent did it against me, I would let this one slide rather than kicking up a fuss.  But with my own models I would use the larger bases.

[Baron Wastelands]

7 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

They look good!

Only comment I have is that I would expect the Butcher with Cauldron to be on the 105 x 70mm base?

In the base size guide, they do have different sizes for the Butcher (40mm) and the Butcher with Cauldron (105 x 70mm).

If I was taking the better warscroll I feel like I should take the larger base tax.

I rebased well before the guidelines came out. Made a guess at “bigger than 40mm with a cauldron”, so he’s on a 50mm, like my tyrants; butchers without are still on 40mm. But sure. To be honest, a lot of my stuff is on bases that suit the model, particularly where the guide has changed several times. I initially rebased all of my trolls on 40mm rounds, for example, and am very happy with it, not going to rebase again now the guide is 50mm. They can’t stand base to base much, so playing distance is general fine.

For tournament play, absolutely, and for competitive play where it matters I magnetise onto the right size - my stonehorns/tusks are on chariot bases, for example, but I have bigger blank bases to ‘caddy’ them onto; but most of the time as we’re not trying to abuse base size it doesn’t really matter. Even less so with heroes, where there are pros and cons anyway.

[That Guy]

What are you guys standing on this than?:

I ordered a Loonboss on Great Cave Squig for the Gloomspite Gitz. On the recommended base size faq it says 50mm. Yet GW shipped it with a 40mm and i do think the 40mm fits it more than perfectly. Would i be wrong at a tournament when GW themselves! gave me another base than their recommended size faq tells me to put on?

[Baron Wastelands]

8 hours ago, That Guy said:

What are you guys standing on this than?:

I ordered a Loonboss on Great Cave Squig for the Gloomspite Gitz. On the recommended base size faq it says 50mm. Yet GW shipped it with a 40mm and i do think the 40mm fits it more than perfectly. Would i be wrong at a tournament when GW themselves! gave me another base than their recommended size faq tells me to put on?

Yeah, I don’t understand that one. Have just converted a Loonboss on great cave squig myself, and mounted it on a 40mm round. 50 swamps it. It might get changed, I certainly wouldn’t change anything this early after the battletome. 

[That Guy]

35 minutes ago, Baron Wastelands said:

50 swamps it.

Word. I got the actual finecast model, and i'll show you. 40mm is the way to go. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by That Guy

[amysrevenge]

An answer of "follow the basing guide 100% at all times" will work no matter where you are.  Any deviations from it might be fine or might be forbidden, and us guys going on and on about it here won't be able to tell you what your local conditions are.  So be cautious about it.

[sorokyl]

Yes and also i would expect "recommended" base sizes to turn into "strongly recommended" to turn into "required" over time.  

The only reason base sizes are not enforced right now is because they don't want to ****** off WHFB players (anymore than they already have).  But 10 years into AoS, I can't see round bases being "recommended" anymore. 

It makes a gameplay difference, i wouldn't use the wrong size round base just because you think it looks better if you ever plan on playing with strangers

[Overread]

@sorokyl agreed, however for right now I'd say most players are safer waiting until GW releases a Battletome then updating to round bases a few weeks later as that seems to be about the time that GW chances and reviews the sizes and then changes some back if there's enough pushback.

 

GW will likely never make them "required" but most clubs and events will over time (indeed many events enforce round bases right now) 

[That Guy]

26 minutes ago, sorokyl said:

i wouldn't use the wrong size round base 

Is it wrong when ordered from the webstore and they supply a smaller one than they actually recommend in their FAQ? That’s my problem with this. Don’t supply me bases I can’t use everywhere, that simple. If you recommend something, supply me that base, not another.

Edited February 19, 2019 by That Guy

[Overread]

You can probably get support to send you the right size in that case. It's not unheard of as I suspect any Gutbuster stock they've got might well not be recycled or repackaged that often so a paperwork change might well mean some stock still comes with the wrong bases. Heck until a week ago a LOT of skaven models (including clan rats) came with square bases still. 

[Baron Wastelands]

I didn’t mean to start a debate on base size. I was showing an image to demonstrate that a paint pot top is a reasonable size for a cauldron if you can’t get hold of one! By all means mount it on the correct base size - I reserve the right to base my own models 😁 but by no means take my comments as advice on what to do regarding base size for your own models, it is certainly true that you are safer using the guidelines if you want to play wherever. But equally, be aware that the guidelines do change, so pausing before rebasing as soon as a new book comes out is advisable.

[amysrevenge]

Haha point taken.  It's still a valuable conversation to have now and then.

[That Guy]

On 2/19/2019 at 10:54 PM, Overread said:

 

You can probably get support to send you the right size in that case.

 

Mailed them about it, specifically saying that they suggest 50mm, while supplying me with 40mm. They replied back at me:

“The miniature should be on a 50mm base, as per the FAQ. However, if your opponents are comfortable with you using a different base size, then you can of course the one you want, always remember to run it through your opponent. 

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us.”

What I take from this, is that they literally clarify my statement of it belonging on 50mm. So i just replied back to them asking why they supplied me with a 40mm round. 😆 I’ll guess i’ll just rebase him on 50mm than. To prevent any.... difficulties.

Edited February 22, 2019 by That Guy

[Kramer]

10 minutes ago, That Guy said:

Mailed them about it, specifically saying that they suggest 50mm, while supplying me with 40mm. They replied back at me:

“The miniature should be on a 50mm base, as per the FAQ. However, if your opponents are comfortable with you using a different base size, then you can of course the one you want, always remember to run it through your opponent. 

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us.”

What I take from this, is that they literally clarify my statement of it belonging on 50mm. So i just replied back to them asking why they supplied me with a 40mm round. 😆 I’ll guess i’ll just rebase him on 50mm than. To prevent any.... difficulties.

I did the same for the sorceress on dragon because the size chart wasn't out then. Rather than say I don't know, or agreed it's a bit weird. The response was along the lines of: 'the model is supplied with the base that best fits the model, you can of course change that if you desire something else.' No mention of size or anything  helpful either 😂

[Overread]

It reads like

"Yes I know its the wrong base but I'm not allowed to send you the right base because packing and rules development didn't talk to each other all that often/enough or it was older stock or someone made a mistake etc.." 

 

Base size is a contentious point and GW generally skirts it by changing base sizes but also saying "it doesn't matter sort of" 

[sorokyl]

Ironblaster ability "Rhinox Charge" reads:
"Add 1 to the damage inflicted by the Rhinox's attack if it made a charge move in the same turn"
Am I reading it right that I just do my attacks, and then +1 damage to the model attacked with the Sharp Horns? Even if I failed hit, wound, or save roll and did 0 damage?   
It does not say "add 1 to the damage characteristic" which is something many abilities have.  I have never seen "add 1 to the damage inflicted", which RAW even applies if 0 damage is inflicted. 
Could not find this question on the internet surprisingly. 

[That Guy]

9 minutes ago, sorokyl said:

Ironblaster ability "Rhinox Charge" reads:
"Add 1 to the damage inflicted by the Rhinox's attack if it made a charge move in the same turn"
Am I reading it right that I just do my attacks, and then +1 damage to the model attacked with the Sharp Horns? Even if I failed hit, wound, or save roll and did 0 damage?   
It does not say "add 1 to the damage characteristic" which is something many abilities have.  I have never seen "add 1 to the damage inflicted", which RAW even applies if 0 damage is inflicted. 
Could not find this question on the internet surprisingly. 

It’s because it’s older rule wording from the very beginning of Age of Sigmar and has been redone for other armies, but not the good old gutbusters yet. It means add 1 damage to the Rhinox’s Sharp Horns damage characteristic. So no, you won’t get damage even if you did 0 damage. On the charge your rhinox just does 1 damage more totalling  d3 + 1. So 2-4 damage if... you hit, wound and the opponent fails save.

[ryanguy88]

For a unit of 12 ogors, I have a question about the ability Bull Charge

Bull Charge:
You can re-roll wound rolls of 1 for an Ogor unit if it made a charge move in the same turn.  If the unit also has 10 or more models, you can re-roll all failed wound rolls instead.

Does this ability only work on turns that the Ogor unit charged?  Or if it has 10+ models, will it activate on subsequent turns (or on turns that the unit was charged)?

[amysrevenge]

"instead" is the key.  If it was to be all the time with 10+ models, it wouldn't say "instead", the full stop would be after "rolls".

Since it has the "instead", it still only works on the charge.

[James S]

On 2/22/2019 at 2:00 PM, ryanguy88 said:

For a unit of 12 ogors, I have a question about the ability Bull Charge

Bull Charge:
You can re-roll wound rolls of 1 for an Ogor unit if it made a charge move in the same turn.  If the unit also has 10 or more models, you can re-roll all failed wound rolls instead.

Does this ability only work on turns that the Ogor unit charged?  Or if it has 10+ models, will it activate on subsequent turns (or on turns that the unit was charged)?

Remember there are two player turns in one battle round. So when you charge it’s your turn, and subsequently it ends when that turn is over. Just some rules clarification to make life easier.

[ryanguy88]

Thanks @amysrevenge and @James S.  I appreciate it.   Though, this kind of makes me wonder why there seems to be so much push for 12 ogor bulls in a unit.  I agree it makes all 12 very point efficient, but in the couple of games I've tried it, I don't feel like I get more than 4-6 or so into combat at a time.  Leads to a lot of points sitting in one spot together. 

Maybe it's because I've been playing a bunch of 1000 or 1250 point games.  At that level, 400 points feels like a huge investment and I haven't been shoving them up the center of the board (4x4) to try and maximize the unit.

As a follow-up question, I've been trying to decide between running a second Tyrant and an Aleguzzler.   The former would give high consistent damage, but the latter would provide some targeted kills  (netters against Moonclan,  Banners against daemons, etc..)  I haven't actually tried the Aleguzzler I have yet, but has anyone else tried fielding him?  Does he feel at all consistent or comparable to the Tyrant, since they're the same point cost?

[Baron Wastelands]

2 hours ago, ryanguy88 said:

Thanks @amysrevenge and @James S.  I appreciate it.   Though, this kind of makes me wonder why there seems to be so much push for 12 ogor bulls in a unit.  I agree it makes all 12 very point efficient, but in the couple of games I've tried it, I don't feel like I get more than 4-6 or so into combat at a time.  Leads to a lot of points sitting in one spot together. 
Maybe it's because I've been playing a bunch of 1000 or 1250 point games.  At that level, 400 points feels like a huge investment and I haven't been shoving them up the center of the board (4x4) to try and maximize the unit

In some respects, they’re even better in a 1k game as they take so much shifting. It’s not just about how many you can get into base combat, it’s about how durable they are for the points cost, and how long they can maintain a decent combat frontage.

personally, I’d prefer a 2nd tyrant to a gargant, as the gargant can be very hit and miss (literally!).

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, ryanguy88 said:

  Leads to a lot of points sitting in one spot together

Kind of the benifit in my eyes. Not the points but where they sit   they are zone control in my games.  I’d play nine if 12 wasn’t such a bargain to be fair. But with six I’m hesitant to tyrant slap them, they don’t cover enough ground to deny zones and rarely get all six in neither. 

With one block of 12 even 3 mortal wounds I’d favourable to prevent battleshock, they protect a butcher and a counter charge unit and can block a flank on their own. 

But I agree if your just after damage output it might not be the best set up b

[Shankelton]

Anyone have any tips or tricks for spicing up Ogor pants? Painting my lot up and decided on blues and reds, but they seem a tad plain! 

Skin I plan to do a few tattoos, or at least try too. But Im at a bit of a loss for the britches. Don't really like the old style of pin stripes. Bit too old world for me!