Caffran101 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, DestructionFranz said: So, the Ardfist was just nerfed. Sigh... 😞 You mean clarified to how it was originally intended. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaaras Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestructionFranz Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestructionFranz Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudvig Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 It's the old ardfist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broche Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripchimeras Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 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 December 17, 2019 by tripchimeras 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestructionFranz Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TALegion Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakree Posted December 17, 2019 Share Posted December 17, 2019 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... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerZauberer Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 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. Edited December 18, 2019 by DerZauberer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakree Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerZauberer Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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. 😛 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerZauberer Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 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 December 18, 2019 by DerZauberer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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: BonegrinzMortal Realm: GhurLeadersWurrgog Prophet (160)- General- Trait: A Right Monster- Artefact: Mork's Boney Bitz- Lore of the Savage Beast: Breath of GorkamorkaManiak Weirdnob (120)- Lore of the Savage Beast: Gorkamorka's War CrySavage Big Boss (100)- Artefact: Maw-krusha Beast TotemWardokk (80)- Lore of the Savage Beast: Brutal Beast SpiritsBattleline30 x Savage Orruks (300)30 x Savage Orruk Arrowboys (360)5 x Savage Boarboy Maniaks (140)Units4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)4 x Savage Big Stabbas (200)BattalionsTeef Rukk (140)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 207 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakree Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 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 December 18, 2019 by Malakree 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerZauberer Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 40 minutes ago, Malakree said: 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. And again, my post towards RAI vs. RAW was not pointed towards you, not even the ardfist, just a general reaction on @Kasper's post... No need being that harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broche Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Malakree said: You've also got the whole Morathi issue, which they still haven't addressed, from 2 years ago What is the Morathi issue? I tough endless spell was one of the way to bypass the max 3 damage rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakree Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, broche said: What is the Morathi issue? I tough endless spell was one of the way to bypass the max 3 damage rule. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DestructionFranz Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 The problem is not about the interpretation of rules by the players, the problem is about the ambiguity of them. If the rules are clear nobody can argue about them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tripchimeras Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.