Warcry - Gloomspite Gitz discussion

[Hannibal]

4 hours ago, tom_gore said:

Played against Gitz yesterday and can say that their Quad ability on the Boingrot Boss is utterly broken. It's able to plausibly do 30 points of damage on average rolls against T5, starting from up to 10 inches away (and flying) and 40 points against T4. If it's a softer target they can still do enough damage activating 18 or 26" away.

The first time your opponent rolls a high triple means your leader or other high value target is dead and there is absolutely jack ****** you can do about it.

 

Yes, yesterday I noticed the same. The mounted squigs (Hoppas or Boingrots) don´t seem te be matched by any of the Warcry "original" warbands. It´s a shame. These guys are truly terrifying with their high speed, high strenght, high number of attacks and lifepoints.

Can´t say that I see any kind of balancing here.

 

On 8/5/2019 at 10:59 PM, Lucio said:

I'm liking Zarbag's Gitz as a core force,

3 x Shootas

1 x Herda

1 x Netta

2 x Squigs

 

Add to that a Boingrotz Boss and it feels like a "knight" and his hunting party, leaving another 170 points free, for a couple of Stabbas or a 3rd squig.

Had a similar setup yesterday:

Dagger: 3 Shootas (195)

Shield: Herda, 2 Squigs (325)

Hammer: Squig Hoppa Chief, Squig Hoppa (450)

---

970

 

Had a blast plaing that list. I didn´t want to go too heavy on the leader therefore I refused to run a Boingrot Chief, but in a more serious set up (yesterday I demoed the game to someone) I´d run a Boingrot Chief.

Best thing out of that warband: you can build it out of the Zarbag´s Gits box with the addition of a Hoppas Box (maybe just sell the spare parts) and overall it´s easy to transport, meaning in a small carrying case you can store the models for two great games: Shadespire and Warcry. Absolutely love it!

 

[Hannibal]

Hi all,

 

just thinking about Gloomspite a second time.

 

Because I think that the mounted squigs are a bit over the top against new players, what is your opinion on the following list?

Dagger: 3 Shootas  (195)

Shield: Boss, Herda, 2 Squigs  (475)

Hammer: Herda, 2 Squigs  (325)

---

995 points

[soak314]

1 hour ago, Hannibal said:

Hi all,

 

just thinking about Gloomspite a second time.

 

Because I think that the mounted squigs are a bit over the top against new players, what is your opinion on the following list?

Dagger: 3 Shootas  (195)

Shield: Boss, Herda, 2 Squigs  (475)

Hammer: Herda, 2 Squigs  (325)

---

995 points

It's close to what I run, and is pretty good!

Squigs are threatening without being ridiculous like the hoppers, but are also way more manageable.

[tom_gore]

Netters are insanely good against elite armies. Shutting down a Brute Boss for a round from 11" away with a 45 point model is... Well not priceless but VERY cheap!

[RiTides]

What about:

 

Boingrot Boss

3 x Squig Hoppers

3 x Netters

 

Too light on bodies? And are you guys converting netters somehow? The Zarbag’s Gitz model is sweet, but the ones from the Stabbas box are showing their age...

 

Also I saw someone mention seeing lists for Gitz, could you tell me where you see them (other than this thread here)? Cheers = )

[soak314]

49 minutes ago, RiTides said:

Too light on bodies? And are you guys converting netters somehow? The Zarbag’s Gitz model is sweet, but the ones from the Stabbas box are showing their age...

 

I think they're lovely! The moonclan grot box is one of the best ones for sculpt, character, and utter ease of construction IMO.

As per getting more netters, there's no real trick to it. Either buy a couple of grot boxes, or buy a bulk lot of the old metal netters from ebay somewhere (the old metal ones are amazing sculpts too).

I've heard of people weaving together wire and slapping it on the end of a pokin spear, that might be something you can try?

[Pariah]

6 hours ago, RiTides said:

What about:

 

Boingrot Boss

3 x Squig Hoppers

3 x Netters

 

Too light on bodies? And are you guys converting netters somehow? The Zarbag’s Gitz model is sweet, but the ones from the Stabbas box are showing their age...

 

Also I saw someone mention seeing lists for Gitz, could you tell me where you see them (other than this thread here)? Cheers = )

 This guy has a pretty good strategy to make more nets, if you don't mind some variation in your warband. 

[Eldarain]

I use the spider grots from Silver Tower as Netters (webbers?)

[Eldarain]

Played my first game with the Gitz. Our Boingrot Boss is very powerful but pro tip don't let an angry Ironjawz Brute Boss with a Quad ready to go get a hold of him. One shotted him from full health.

Played the mission where you have to kill the Dagger to win. We both put one model in the Dagger!

On Round 3 the Orc boss got my key Netter to 2 wounds but my Squig hunting pack took down the Ard Boy for the win.

[TeddyMadeMeDoIt]

Only having played one game with the local store demo minis from the box I straight away started thinking of all the Warbands I could make with minis I already owned (which my wife is very pleased about!) 

My first Gloomspite Gitz roster ended up looking like this...

Boingrot Boss (leader)

Boingrot Bounder

Stabba with spear 

Stabba with spear

Stabba with spear

Stabba with spear

Squig herder

Cave Squig

950pts

After reading some of of the comments on here though I may change that to....

Boingrot Boss (leader)

Boingrot Bounder

Stabba with spear 

Stabba with spear

Stabba with spear

Stabba with Net

Stabba with Net

Squig herder

Cave Squig

970pts

As it looks like the Nets can be really handy, from those hat have played with squigs though am I better off trying to make a different list with more? Do they work better in numbers? 

Admittedly I did try and get a range of these guys in the first roster so I can play with a lot of different things and then try add more that I like and less I don't etc etc 

[simakover]

hello, that do you think is optimals roster of gitz? im haveloon curse and make some testing team with boingrot boss + 2 boingrots and 2 squigs, feel devastating but lack of decision making. that im need also ? may be some good starting list?

[Injuryprone]

5 hours ago, simakover said:

hello, that do you think is optimals roster of gitz? im haveloon curse and make some testing team with boingrot boss + 2 boingrots and 2 squigs, feel devastating but lack of decision making. that im need also ? may be some good starting list?

Boing boss

Bounder

Squigs x 3

Herders x 2

[simakover]

why two herders? ability not seems so good eather

[Eldarain]

Anyone having success with the basic Squigs? They have been rather underwhelming for me.

New list:

Boingrot Boss

2x Boingrot

3x Netters

3x Shootas

[Injuryprone]

4 hours ago, simakover said:

why two herders? ability not seems so good eather

Just to fill points and I don't have any netters.

[soak314]

4 hours ago, Eldarain said:

Anyone having success with the basic Squigs? They have been rather underwhelming for me.

I use cave squigs predominantly, they're pretty damn good with multiple herders helping to push em along. I've one shotted a few SCE with em, great fun every time it happens.
 

[zamerion]

what do you think is better?

-stabba or stabba with spear?

-squig hopper or boingrot?

-Horde list ( for example : leader, squig hopper , 5 shootas, 7 stabba with net) or more elite list with stabbas with shields, more hoppers/boingrots and squigs?

 

tomorrow I have a game and I have to assemble the miniatures 😖

[Sleboda]

The Insanity of Sneaky Stab

I've seen two ways to play this rule, and, with a careful reading of the main rules, there is a third way which, within said rules, seems to be the most by-the-book way of playing it. But. If played that way, it seems horrifying, which is why my conclusion is that it can't be right and one of the other two must be (and I have an opinion on which).

Interested in discussing? Warning, it's a long one.  If so, read on.

The Sneaky Stab rule read: "... add the value of this ability to the damage points allocated by hits and critical hits from that attack action."

Most people have interpreted this one of two ways:

1) Add up you damage from your hits and critical hits and then apply the bonus to this total. The argument here is that the phrase "damage points allocated by hits and critical hits" is simply a way to say that if you are applying damage from some other source that is not a hit or critical hit, you don't get to add this bonus damage.  There are currently a few ways to do damage without hits or critical hits, and (as we've seen from Kill Team and other recent games) initial rules for new things are showing that they are written with future add-ons in mind (see reference to mounts and gargantuans in the Warcry main rules). This phrasing could easily be a way to future-proof the rules. Even beyond that, this interpretation sees, in essence, an implied parenthesis around "hits and critical hits"  - as in figure out the damage you a generating from (hits and critical hits) and then add the bonus to this total.

2) Add the bonus to each hit and critical hit. The argument here is that the rules say each hit and critical hit carries a damage to be allocated. Nothing says to add up all your damage and then apply it to the target. It says, on p. 44, point #3, "For each hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the first value ... for each critical hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the second value ..."  Well, that leads to the question of the actual process of allocating said damage, which bring us to this issue ...

 

In our games, we went down this rabbit hole and found something bothersome. If you use the justification for #2 above - that you allocate damage for individual hits (and criticals) you need to look at the rules to see where that comes from and where it goes. That inevitably leads to this:

Main rules, p. 44, point #4 "Damage points are allocated one at a time (note: emphasis mine)."

Uh oh.

Hits and critical hits generate damage points to be allocated. These are allocated one at a time. Sneaky Stab adds the value of the ability to  damage points allocated which means that each individual point, as it is allocated, gets the Sneaky Stab bonus. Yikes!

 

Now, am I saying this is how it ought to be played? Nope. 

What I am saying, though, is that if you are using the main rules to justify option #2 above, you must use all the main rules that relate to damage allocation. You don't get to pick a few of them and ignore the rest. You must follow the process of damage allocation through to the end of that process. This means that if you support #2, you really should support adding the bonus to each and every point, not to each hit.

In other words, #2 is a middle ground between a reasonable reading of the ability+main rules and the most literal reading. I support #1 and, if an opponent tried the literal application in a game against me, I'd have to allow that his reading is also correct and take the massive damage.

Note that this is not RAW vs. RAI. This is RAW and RAW vs a made up middle ground.

Thoughts?

[TwiceIfILikeIt]

I'm in favor of number 2, because of the logical reasoning of...  Me like Stab Stab!!!  🙂

[tom_gore]

Well it sure is insane enough with the #2 interpretation, and still better enough than the generic Quad with the #1 interpretation.

Would love GW:s clarification on this one, though.

[simakover]

today played my gitz list: 

1 boing boss

1 boingrot

1 hoppa

2 shoota

1 squig

1 net

 

against SCE( 3 dogs and 3 generic ranges with small bows)

im almost kill all SCE but leader, but not win cause this leader keep treasure until the end. riders awesome, squigs good but net and shootas looks pointless

Edited August 15, 2019 by simakover

[Injuryprone]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

The Insanity of Sneaky Stab

I've seen two ways to play this rule, and, with a careful reading of the main rules, there is a third way which, within said rules, seems to be the most by-the-book way of playing it. But. If played that way, it seems horrifying, which is why my conclusion is that it can't be right and one of the other two must be (and I have an opinion on which).

Interested in discussing? Warning, it's a long one.  If so, read on.

The Sneaky Stab rule read: "... add the value of this ability to the damage points allocated by hits and critical hits from that attack action."

Most people have interpreted this one of two ways:

1) Add up you damage from your hits and critical hits and then apply the bonus to this total. The argument here is that the phrase "damage points allocated by hits and critical hits" is simply a way to say that if you are applying damage from some other source that is not a hit or critical hit, you don't get to add this bonus damage.  There are currently a few ways to do damage without hits or critical hits, and (as we've seen from Kill Team and other recent games) initial rules for new things are showing that they are written with future add-ons in mind (see reference to mounts and gargantuans in the Warcry main rules). This phrasing could easily be a way to future-proof the rules. Even beyond that, this interpretation sees, in essence, an implied parenthesis around "hits and critical hits"  - as in figure out the damage you a generating from (hits and critical hits) and then add the bonus to this total.

2) Add the bonus to each hit and critical hit. The argument here is that the rules say each hit and critical hit carries a damage to be allocated. Nothing says to add up all your damage and then apply it to the target. It says, on p. 44, point #3, "For each hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the first value ... for each critical hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the second value ..."  Well, that leads to the question of the actual process of allocating said damage, which bring us to this issue ...

 

In our games, we went down this rabbit hole and found something bothersome. If you use the justification for #2 above - that you allocate damage for individual hits (and criticals) you need to look at the rules to see where that comes from and where it goes. That inevitably leads to this:

Main rules, p. 44, point #4 "Damage points are allocated one at a time (note: emphasis mine)."

Uh oh.

Hits and critical hits generate damage points to be allocated. These are allocated one at a time. Sneaky Stab adds the value of the ability to  damage points allocated which means that each individual point, as it is allocated, gets the Sneaky Stab bonus. Yikes!

 

Now, am I saying this is how it ought to be played? Nope. 

What I am saying, though, is that if you are using the main rules to justify option #2 above, you must use all the main rules that relate to damage allocation. You don't get to pick a few of them and ignore the rest. You must follow the process of damage allocation through to the end of that process. This means that if you support #2, you really should support adding the bonus to each and every point, not to each hit.

In other words, #2 is a middle ground between a reasonable reading of the ability+main rules and the most literal reading. I support #1 and, if an opponent tried the literal application in a game against me, I'd have to allow that his reading is also correct and take the massive damage.

Note that this is not RAW vs. RAI. This is RAW and RAW vs a made up middle ground.

Thoughts?

You spent way too much time thinking about this.  

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Injuryprone said:

You spent way too much time thinking about this.  

Not really. It was a natural outgrowth of an in-game discussion.

My opponent attacked with the ability. She added the bonus to each attack. I was like "Wow, really?" She read the rule to me. Being our first game with Gitz, we took all of about 10 seconds to go "well, let's check the main rules for what they say about the terms used in the rule." Just a few minutes later we saw the issue.

Seriously, in maybe 5 minutes or so of discussion we spotted the potential for trouble with the rule and were a bit surprised this made it through testing, especially seeing as how the rest of the book itself is really pretty tight in terms of rules clarity.

Then I watched battle reports while painting one night and saw different people playing it different ways.

Even if you just look at the two main interpretations, it's pretty apparent that people are playing it two different ways. The third, most thorough, reading of the rules is simply a natural progression from trying to see why players are not in agreement on how to play it.

No huge amount of time spent. No overthinking. Just plain old reading and thinking. All in less time than it takes for a pot of coffee to brew.

[PaniuBraniu]

The rule is not unambiguous because you don't use enough punctuation in  your language. Reading ability cards in other languages (which are included) may answer your doubts. 

[simakover]

that do you think about position of gloomspite in current meta?