Jump to content

AoS 2 - Orruk Warclans Discussion


Malakithe

Recommended Posts

On 12/16/2019 at 9:41 AM, DestructionFranz said:

I would put out the Boarboys Maniaks (280) + the Brutes (140).

 

I would put in instead, 3 X Goregruntas to maximize to Ironfist effect in a unit of 6x. (160)

Then I would put in 5x Ardboyz in a unit not of 20x to maximize tha Warchanter buff (in the Big Waaagh Ardboyz are better than Brutes). 

I would spent the last 50 point in a command point or in an Endless Spell. 

 

Hi @DestructionFranz thanks for taking the time to respond. Not sure I quite follow you. Taking out the Maniaks and Brutes leave 420 points to play with (almost another MK...). 3 Gruntaz is 160, so that leave 260 to play with, and 5 Ard boyz is 90, so I still have 170 to play with. Did you mean I need to plus up the Ard Boyz but not to 20 models? I think that is what you mean, but that would still leave me with 80 points spare, so I could feasibly add both an Endless spell and command point. 

The only kicker to all of this is that I only have 3 piggies, hence why there are only three here and the Maniaks to use as a screen for them.

Sorry if I am misinterpreting, just not quite following your train of thought here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kaaras said:

Hi @DestructionFranz thanks for taking the time to respond. Not sure I quite follow you. Taking out the Maniaks and Brutes leave 420 points to play with (almost another MK...). 3 Gruntaz is 160, so that leave 260 to play with, and 5 Ard boyz is 90, so I still have 170 to play with. Did you mean I need to plus up the Ard Boyz but not to 20 models? I think that is what you mean, but that would still leave me with 80 points spare, so I could feasibly add both an Endless spell and command point. 

The only kicker to all of this is that I only have 3 piggies, hence why there are only three here and the Maniaks to use as a screen for them.

Sorry if I am misinterpreting, just not quite following your train of thought here.

yep, I messed up. 

The concept was, increase the number of Ardboyz because in turn 2 they will be 2+/2+ (HR/WR). 

If I were you I would change the Artefact on the Maw Krusha because "Destroyer" can be used just once in a game. Against Sylvaneth "Metalrippa's Klaw" is better with -3 rend. (Sylvaneth have a good save roll, especially in cover). Stay away from Spirit of Durthu with the MK and send to him the Ardboyz.

The mount trait as well is not so good, I think you would find more interesting for your MawKrusha Mean 'un.  (+1 Damage with Tail and Fist)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Caffran101 said:

You mean clarified to how it was originally intended.

It was totally modified not just clarified. 

BEFORE +10 Boyz added to your Ardfist Battallion many times...

NOW same number of Ardboyz added to your army, (so no more to your Ardfist Battallion) but just once per phase. 

It means that you have 50% of possibilities to respawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Caffran101 said:

You mean clarified to how it was originally intended.

It was 100% broken before but to state it was changed to how they originally intended the batallion to be played is just wrong. 

Before the new unit was capped at 10 model size, and it was also added to the batallion which made infinite cycling possible throughout the game. The batallion is completely different now.

It's pretty clear they just didn't think the Ardfist batallion through or play tested it at all with mass CP and 5 MSU Ardboyz units in mind.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kasper said:

It's pretty clear they just didn't think the Ardfist batallion through or play tested it at all with mass CP and 5 MSU Ardboyz units in mind.

I would say more:

It's pretty clear they just play test at all in general ;) . Never been GW strenght.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo it doesn't really matter what was originally intended.  The point is it went from being competitively viable and relatively well balanced internally in comparison to ironfist to being competitively marginal.  Its a huge change, and means that the prevalence of Ironfist as the battalion of choice for ironjawz is pretty much going to go unchecked, and it removes one of our potential playstyles.  I understand the concerns around it, but I wish there was a less drastic solution.  A 50% chance of respawn isn't bad don't get me wrong, but the limitations are large enough that I'm just not sure you are going to see it very often competitively now.  The bonuses that come with Ironfist are just much higher this way.   I think there was a way to retain the reliability of the ability without it being crazy OP, it just would have been a rule wording that is not normally seen in the game, and GW seems to shy away from "uniqueness" in that way.  Again understandable, but its limiting.  If they had said something like "you can generate no more then 1 unit per phase in this way" it would have balanced out the rule much better.  You could still use multiple command points to ensure success, but you couldn't abuse it to reliably ever generate more then 90pts more then you started with.

Edited by tripchimeras
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tripchimeras said:

Imo it doesn't really matter what was originally intended.  The point is it went from being competitively viable and relatively well balanced internally in comparison to ironfist to being competitively marginal.  Its a huge change, and means that the prevalence of Ironfist as the battalion of choice for ironjawz is pretty much going to go unchecked, and it removes one of our potential playstyles.  I understand the concerns around it, but I wish there was a less drastic solution.  A 50% chance of respawn isn't bad don't get me wrong, but the limitations are large enough that I'm just not sure you are going to see it very often competitively now.  The bonuses that come with Ironfist are just much higher this way.   I think there was a way to retain the reliability of the ability without it being crazy OP, it just would have been a rule wording that is not normally seen in the game, and GW seems to shy away from "uniqueness" in that way.  Again understandable, but its limiting.  If they had said something like "you can generate no more then 1 unit per phase in this way" it would have balanced out the rule much better.  You could still use multiple command points to ensure success, but you couldn't abuse it to reliably ever generate more then 90pts more then you started with.

This is exactly what I meant. I could never have explained the concept better.

In an attempt to make less OP Ardfist they made it useless. They should have kept the possibility to spend more than one CP per phase. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the battalion is useless, since a good point was raised about the fact that you're now able to summon a 20+ ardboy unit across the map, which is game-winning in some circumstances. But, personally, I'd never run that list - it's just too much of a gamble. I'd also question whether that's really a better play experience for the opponent - massive amounts of BS summoning obviously isn't fun to play against, but is a 4+ potentially game-winning roll much better?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pointing out to everyone...they didn't actually "fix" the ardfist.

Due to the way they worded it, if the unit dies to endless spells before the first player takes their turn it's not actually a "phase" so the restriction of "can't use it more than once a phase" doesn't apply. HOWEVER The trigger is "A unit from this battalion is destroyed" so there's no requirement that you be "in a phase" to use the ability.

Thus if a unit is slain by an endless spell before the first player takes their turn you can still spam it....this time for potentially more than 10 models...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Malakree said:

Due to the way they worded it, if the unit dies to endless spells before the first player takes their turn it's not actually a "phase" so the restriction of "can't use it more than once a phase" doesn't apply.

Yay, another RAI and RAW discrepancy.

But if you would be my opponent and insist on that super niche thing i would immediatly leave the table and shake my head, sorry.


There is no explicit statement saying ... at the start of the battleround, after players decided turn order... is in a phase or is not in a phase. Regarding Core Rules, a game are a series of battle rounds, each round consisting of two turns, each turn having 6 phases. No space in between that. Each phase has start, during, end. So for endless spells to take effect the turn order has to be decided. So is this officially a phase yet or not? No one knows, as there is no clear definition of when the "Phase-Phase" starts.

Therefor i would flip the board if my opponent somehow manages to kill his unit in the what-ever-phase-round-thingy and wants to spend X+ CP on it. 

Stop Stop Hes Already Dead GIF - Simpsons Dead GIFs

Edited by DerZauberer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

Yay, another RAI and RAW discrepancy.

But if you would be my opponent and insist on that super niche thing i would immediatly leave the table and shake my head, sorry.

Lol I would never even consider doing it in a close to friendly setting and couldn't do it in another setting due to only having 30 ardboys. The big time I see it being relevant is when an opponent is throwing out a fair few endless spells and I have almost all my ardboys dead.

40 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

...at the start of the battleround, after players decided turn order...

...but before the first player takes their turn.

The end of that statement is so ****** important it's unreal as it establishes that it's NOT the first players turn and thus not in a turn.

43 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

a game are a series of battle rounds, each round consisting of two turns, each turn having 6 phases. No space in between that.

Exactly each turn has 6 phases. Therefore as the first players turn has not started and there is no "Endless Spell Phase" then the core rules establish its neither a turn nor a phase.

45 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

Therefor i would flip the board if my opponent somehow manages to kill his unit in the what-ever-phase-round-thingy and wants to spend X+ CP on it.

If only there was someway to have written the rules to make it clearer

"...Immediately after a unit..."

"Once per phase when a unit..."

or a designer commentary to say

"The period in which endless spells are moved is considered it's own turn and phase for the purposes of abilities which reference turns or phases."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malakree said:

Lol I would never even consider doing it in a close to friendly setting and couldn't do it in another setting due to only having 30 ardboys.

I meant it only metaphorical as you've stated this first, never meant to asume stuff, sorry for that!  

 

1 hour ago, Malakree said:

"...Immediately after a unit..."

"Once per phase when a unit..."

You're absolutly right, RAW there is a gap right now which you could still abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DerZauberer said:

You're absolutly right, RAW there is a gap right now which you could still abuse.

Honestly I feel a little sorry for GW. Every single time they create a new rule or change a current rule, they have to twist and turn every single sentence, oand in some cases, even a word. 😛  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kasper said:

they have to twist and turn every single sentence, oand in some cases, even a word. 😛  

In my oppinion  it's sad.

This rule is clearly intended to work that you only can spent 1 CP when a unit is destroyed. But from 499 cases (in which it works) there will be 1 case where it won't work, and that's where the loophole comes in. People will maximize their chance to achieve this 1 case and get an advantage of an "bug".

The whole RAW vs. RAI discussion is as old as humanity and i hate it. It's abusing bugs. But people can't argue or make a foundation for decisions based on intention and good-will, and if you need to defend your "interpretation" vs.  letters printed in black on white canvas, you gonna have a hard time.

Edited by DerZauberer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After my current project I want to jump into bonesplitterz, both as a stand alone, and as a very strong big Waaagh! army with my IJ.

What's the most cost effective way to build this list up? I'm not a stranger to conversions. Thanks for any help! 

List credit to @PlasticCraic

His blog can be found here: https://plasticcraic.blog/

Allegiance: Bonesplitterz
- Warclan: Bonegrinz
Mortal Realm: Ghur

Leaders
Wurrgog Prophet (160)
- General
- Trait: A Right Monster
- Artefact: Mork's Boney Bitz
- Lore of the Savage Beast: Breath of Gorkamorka
Maniak Weirdnob (120)
- Lore of the Savage Beast: Gorkamorka's War Cry
Savage Big Boss (100)
- Artefact: Maw-krusha Beast Totem
Wardokk (80)
- Lore of the Savage Beast: Brutal Beast Spirits

Battleline
30 x Savage Orruks (300)
30 x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (360)
5 x Savage Boarboy Maniaks (140)

Units
4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)
4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)
4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)

Battalions
Teef Rukk (140)

Total: 2000 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 207

  •  
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kasper said:

Honestly I feel a little sorry for GW. Every single time they create a new rule or change a current rule, they have to twist and turn every single sentence, oand in some cases, even a word. 😛  

1 hour ago, DerZauberer said:

In my oppinion  it's sad.

This rule is clearly intended to work that you only can spent 1 CP when a unit is destroyed. But from 499 cases (in which it works) there will be 1 case where it won't work, and that's where the loophole comes in. People will maximize their chance to achieve this 1 case and get an advantage of an "bug".

The whole RAW vs. RAI discussion is as old as humanity and i hate it. It's abusing bugs. But people can't argue or make a foundation for decisions based on intention and good-will, and if you need to defend your "interpretation" vs.  letters printed in black on white canvas, you gonna have a hard time.

They are a massive international company with decades of experience, a set of high level play-testers AND this isn't even a new issue. It's not like I had to "find" this, I already knew it existed because I had it come up in heat 3 this year.

Skragrotts da moon onna stikk killed a stormcast model and he tried to use the Lord-Arcanum "Cycle the Storm" but couldn't because the damage triggers outside of a turn WHICH GOT RULED IN MY FAVOUR! You've also got the whole Morathi issue, which they still haven't addressed, from 2 years ago. 

I'm not coming up with some fancy new rules exploit that no one could have seen coming, this is a recurring issue GW have failed to address which keeps coming back to bite them in the ass. It's not like they don't have the terminology required to easily fix it either. They have already defined and used the word Immediately in such a way that inserting it basically anywhere in the rule would stop what they wanted to stop.

They are being lazy, sloppy and I feel no remorse for pointing this ****** out now. I could easily have waited until heat 1, brought a list to abuse this and forced it down their throat.

Edited by Malakree
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the new Ardfist much better.  It’s obviously not going to be for everyone, but I like it.  To me this battalion feels like it supports a heavy Ardboyz army better than the original.  I like that it allows potential recycling of units of every size rather than just bringing back 10 each time.

And it was obvious that GW was going to hit this with an errata simply due to fielding units of 5 and then recycling them back onto the board as units of 10.

My only complaint is that I would have preferred  it if they made the roll to recycle easier for smaller units or allow multiple attempts in the case of failures.  Or simply remove the roll entirely since you already use a command point and have to have the Warchanter still alive.  I see nothing wrong with this just working like a mini grave-site from LoN.

But at the end of the day I still prefer this version to what was printed in the book - and that obviously slipped through playtesting.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Malakree said:

Except they don't actually say that. They say the damage doesn't count towards the 3 damage taken in the first players turn.

Again leaving ambiguity.

Yeah I am with you about the rules ambiguity being an issue.  There is a lot of crusty spots like that in the rules.  For instance the whole activation wars thing is problematic given that they did not design the combat phase with clearly identified sub phases that rules could key off of. Hopefully they rework that whenever AoS 3 comes along.

But on a positive note I would say that with AoS GW is doing a better job with crafting an altogether well designed rule-set than they did in the past.  Hopefully they look at how other companies build rule systems and take some of the better ideas.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2019 at 12:33 PM, Skabnoze said:

Yeah I am with you about the rules ambiguity being an issue.  There is a lot of crusty spots like that in the rules.  For instance the whole activation wars thing is problematic given that they did not design the combat phase with clearly identified sub phases that rules could key off of. Hopefully they rework that whenever AoS 3 comes along.

But on a positive note I would say that with AoS GW is doing a better job with crafting an altogether well designed rule-set than they did in the past.  Hopefully they look at how other companies build rule systems and take some of the better ideas.  

Yep, lots of baby steps to be proud of these days with GW. One would hope that eventually they would progress to children sized steps, and then one day become full fledged adults, but like any... *checks age of company* 44 year old... they are still just at toddler.  Hang in there little guy, you'll get it eventually!

No but joking aside, the past year has been full of positive signs for me.  Still having their fair share of missteps, and they really do need to stop writing rules with such a casual voice, but I am cautiously optimistic about the direction things are going.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...