Sleboda Posted December 27, 2018 Author Share Posted December 27, 2018 Two more games in tonight. Both played with all players attempting to be The One True Winner. First was Orruks, Fiends, Tzeentch, and Farstriders. The Fiends jumped out to an early Glory lead and never looked back. They did so much damage that the Gargant was inspired by the first Activation of Round One. The rest of us were left in the dust, with only the idea of denying victory to all players left as a motivation to continue. In the end, the Orruk player could not resist attacking the Gargant, speeding along the Fiends player's win. Easy win to the Fiends. This was played in the big rectangle arrangement. Note: The Farstriders inspire condition is awful for this game. You have to waste a full Round just to get your fighters to be good enough for the fight to come. I also believe that Steelheart's guys are disdvantaged in this game. Nobody will attack them early, and the Gargant will kick/smash one each time to kill them if they try to attack. You need easy inspire conditions to win this game (Easy-button Orruks and Fiends) Second game the Farstriders swapped to the Reavers. It has become pretty clear that this game is all about hitting early and hitting hard, and little pops here and there by lesser warbands only help the two best ones (Orruks and Fiends) win faster. The Reavers felt like they had potential. We played in the diamond configuration. Big mistake. Due to the placement rules for the Gargant, one player will be far, far away from the Gargant while the others pile on. The Fiends players was isolated and started hitting the only thing he could early on, the Reavers, killing two in his first two Activations. Reavers were eliminated before Round three and the Orruk just pounded away. Still, at the end, the Gargant won with one wound remaining. We won't ever be playing the diamond formation again. It's not fun for one of the players. A few oddball questions came up, and I'd love to read your opinions. 1) Control of the Gargant is never determined until the Rampage step. If, for some reason, you don't reach the Rampage, who rolls dice for its defense? We had a situation where the Gargant went on Guard for its turn, and then Gurzag 'Ead butted him in his first activation. This meant the Gargant could not be activated at all that round, so it never reached the Rampage step and thus never got to determine who controlled it. 2) The kick is optional. The attack is optional. It appears that movement is not. Do you agree? 3) I'm not sure they meant to write it this way, but they did. It appears that player turn order is not even determined until after the Gargant's first activation (going on Guard) each round. Agree? If not, other than your 'feeling', please show your work. In others words, the rules that are printed are pretty clear, at least in English, that player order is determined after the Gargant's first action, and unless there is something that has been printed in an errata I've not seen, I don't know how to deny that. Lastly, it's all Orruks and Fiends from now on. Not much reason to play the others in this variant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninelives Posted December 27, 2018 Share Posted December 27, 2018 I am starting to think, maybe having the player with the least glory controlling the Gargant would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyriphiry Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 On 12/27/2018 at 6:14 AM, Sleboda said: A few oddball questions came up, and I'd love to read your opinions. 1) Control of the Gargant is never determined until the Rampage step. If, for some reason, you don't reach the Rampage, who rolls dice for its defense? We had a situation where the Gargant went on Guard for its turn, and then Gurzag 'Ead butted him in his first activation. This meant the Gargant could not be activated at all that round, so it never reached the Rampage step and thus never got to determine who controlled it. 2) The kick is optional. The attack is optional. It appears that movement is not. Do you agree? 3) I'm not sure they meant to write it this way, but they did. It appears that player turn order is not even determined until after the Gargant's first activation (going on Guard) each round. Agree? If not, other than your 'feeling', please show your work. In others words, the rules that are printed are pretty clear, at least in English, that player order is determined after the Gargant's first action, and unless there is something that has been printed in an errata I've not seen, I don't know how to deny that. Lastly, it's all Orruks and Fiends from now on. Not much reason to play the others in this variant. 1) The defense is rolled by the player right to the attacker. That's how we play it. 2) Yes. That's also how I interprete the rules. 3) The player turn order is determined: first player is always the Gargant. In the first round player order is determined clock wise. Second round the player order is anti-clock wise - these are the rules in multiplayer game mode. So, the roll off does not determine the player order: it is always the gargant and then the other players, sometimes clock wise, sometimes anti clock wise. The only thing is: where does the gargant sit at the table? We let the first player who wins the roll off choose where he sits. From then on, the order is determined for the rest of the game. The only thing that changes is the player who controls the gargant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phyriphiry Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I played the Gargant in a two player game: Garrek's Reavers + Magore's Fiends. In the last round, we had the gargant down to six remaining life. I was ahead with two glory points (11-9). So the only way for my opponent to gain more glory points then me (we didn't make a special deck for this game, so our ploys or upgrades didn't give us extra GP) was to start fighting with me. So, then I also had no choice then to fight him. But we still had to kill the Gargant... It was real fun, with harsh dillema's: fighting each other but still damaging the Gargant to be able to win. In the end, I won the game with 1 GP and 1 Fiend surviving... It was hilarious!! He survived with two Reavers. The only downside of the game is that there is only one way to get glory: kill, kill, kill. What I love about this game in normal mode is that you can have different ways to gain glory: holding objectives, playing upgrade or ploy cards, making spells, sometimes even dying. It all depends on your objective deck. That makes this game really strategic!! Since you don't hold an objective deck, you also loose these strategic/tactical choices. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to play with objective decks anyway. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony225 Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 I'm very tempted to use a new Giant Mangler Squig as a stand in for the Gargant. It just looks so cool and thematic. Anyone else have any cool stand ins for a Gargant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcmattila Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 17 hours ago, Anthony225 said: I'm very tempted to use a new Giant Mangler Squig as a stand in for the Gargant. It just looks so cool and thematic. Anyone else have any cool stand ins for a Gargant? The Khorgorath has the right sized base, I was thinking of using it when I some day get to play the Gargant scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasticCraic Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 18 hours ago, Anthony225 said: I'm very tempted to use a new Giant Mangler Squig as a stand in for the Gargant. It just looks so cool and thematic. Anyone else have any cool stand ins for a Gargant? My friend is writing alternative rules for the Nurgle dual kit monster. Will be very similar to the Gargant with a couple of alternative thematic rules. I'll share them on here if they're any good once we've played them. I love the Mangler rules though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasticCraic Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 On 1/4/2019 at 11:02 AM, Phyriphiry said: The only downside of the game is that there is only one way to get glory: kill, kill, kill. What I love about this game in normal mode is that you can have different ways to gain glory: holding objectives, playing upgrade or ploy cards, making spells, sometimes even dying. It all depends on your objective deck. That makes this game really strategic!! Since you don't hold an objective deck, you also loose these strategic/tactical choices. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to play with objective decks anyway. Yeah, for that reason I think it's something to play once in a while for a change up, rather than regularly. Personally I'd keep it fresh by having a rest from it, rather than introducing Objective decks. I think they would distract too much from what you are aiming to achieve, and the Gargant would never die? Let us know how it goes if you try it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren2607 Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Reading this thread, I definitely want to try this battle. Where can I find the gargant card? And do I just have to just buy a regular giant from aos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcmattila Posted April 15, 2019 Share Posted April 15, 2019 On 4/13/2019 at 12:12 PM, Darren2607 said: Reading this thread, I definitely want to try this battle. Where can I find the gargant card? And do I just have to just buy a regular giant from aos? The card was included as a freebie in last December's White Dwarf, so now your best bet would be eBay. Or you could look up the card sides from Google and print your own. The giant is just the regular AoS Aleguzzler Gargant, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony225 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I transcribed the rules for the Gargant into Word. Is that something I’m allowed to post for those who don’t have access to the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjnoronh Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 No probably not- copyrighted material in WD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requizen Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 I would not be surprised to see the rules included in the next core box set, or a version of them. I talked to some of the GW guys at Adepticon and they seemed really excited about variant game types, so I bet we see more come out and supported in the core game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony225 Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 It just dawned on me they Thundrik’s Profiteers are the WORST warband to try and fight the gargant...literally the worst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.