Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AthelLoren

AoS 2 - Ogor Mawtribes

Ogor Mawtribes Poll  

414 members have voted

  1. 1. What tier do you feel Ogors are pre-battletome?

    • High-tier
      24
    • Mid-tier
      183
    • Low-tier
      207
  2. 2. What kind of army will you be running?

    • Entirely Gutbusters
      30
    • Mostly Gutbusters
      106
    • Mixed forces
      185
    • Mostly Beastclaw Raiders
      71
    • Entirely Beastclaw Raiders
      22


Recommended Posts

What's about adding some ironblasters to this list above, to get some strong ranged attaks+mobility+utility (not too week on charge/cc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinfullyvannila said:

You add +1 to the Blizzard Speaker(not Everwinter prayer though) prayer roll for each THUNDERTUSK within 18” of your Huskard.

 

Page 113 under the Blizzard Speaker ability.

Page 113 is warscoll,it can only buff following prayers which wrote on it,it can't buff the prayer for Yhetee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, joey_tsai said:

Page 113 is warscoll,it can only buff following prayers which wrote on it,it can't buff the prayer for Yhetee

Uh that's exactly what he said in the section you quoted also...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well putting together all the things I love about this book we get. Underguts 4 ironblaster, slaughtermasters, FLoSH, HoTT (seems good in this style forgot to click hailstorm) and a pretty big Skal. For sure it’s janky but has some serious MW potential on top of the 8 cannon shots. It’s a so bad it might be good style army ;) my favourite time is when a new book drops and trying to find unconventional lists. 

1DE5FC5C-B48F-43E0-A2E3-16E82D99FDBB.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reuben Parker , Just remember that you only get one mount trait unless you're running boulderhead maw-tribe.  Otherwise, looks like a fun list.  Might be worth combining another 2 of the small frost sabers into one -- the hunter will be able to deep strike with 2 units of them, after all.  Could use one to charge in, and leave 4 behind to screen for the hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone watched Warhammer Weekly on Vince Venturella's YouTube channel where they analyze Scraplaunchers vs Ironblasters and Scraplaunchers are just better? The idea of including 2 of those with a unit of screen and the Junkmob batallion is really cool I feel. That and if you add a Tyrant, it just makes the goblin unit battleshock immune and is really good. Essentially Scraplaunchers are better because they're cheaper and their spike damage is really higher. You can't use them on anything armored though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ryanguy88 said:

@Reuben Parker , Just remember that you only get one mount trait unless you're running boulderhead maw-tribe.  Otherwise, looks like a fun list.  Might be worth combining another 2 of the small frost sabers into one -- the hunter will be able to deep strike with 2 units of them, after all.  Could use one to charge in, and leave 4 behind to screen for the hunter.

Battalion gives second trait I believe? Also only one cat can deepstrike as have to take the underguts command trait. 
 

@Jabbukironblaster I think wins when you get double shots though?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ryanguy88 said:

@Reuben Parker You're right.   I missed that on my read through.  Thanks!

They seemed to say that even with the double shots from batallion, it was slightly worse than Scraplaunchers anyway. It's the fact they can tear through low armored units so much that makes their strength. It was my interpretation of it though. I might be wrong.

It's also the fact that the Junkmob battalion adds attacks to the Scraplauncher as well and is really cheap, while to make ironblasters good, you need a lot of commitment, and even then, it's debatable.

Edited by Jabbuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jabbuk said:

They seemed to say that even with the double shots from batallion, it was slightly worse than Scraplaunchers anyway. It's the fact they can tear through low armored units so much that makes their strength. It was my interpretation of it though. I might be wrong.

It's also the fact that the Junkmob battalion adds attacks to the Scraplauncher as well and is really cheap, while to make ironblasters good, you need a lot of commitment, and even then, it's debatable.

Ironblasters are a Hero/Monster sniping unit mainly, with high rend and damage that doesn't depend on size of target unit. The Ironblasters build fills the role vacated by Thundertusks. They can shoot at troops when there aren't other targets, but it's entirely balanced that Scraplaunchers are better at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jabbuk said:

They seemed to say that even with the double shots from batallion, it was slightly worse than Scraplaunchers anyway. It's the fact they can tear through low armored units so much that makes their strength. It was my interpretation of it though. I might be wrong.

It's also the fact that the Junkmob battalion adds attacks to the Scraplauncher as well and is really cheap, while to make ironblasters good, you need a lot of commitment, and even then, it's debatable.

Yeah, that said even with the double shots if the unit has 10+ or more models and a 4+ or worse save (I think). I'll point out though that the Ironblaster is better in melee with the Ogor attacks and the Azyr app says Ironblasters get 2 attacks for the Rhinox Horns while the Scraplauncher only gets 1 attack. I think that's a typo but I don't have my book on me.

Also, does anyone feel like the Ironblaster and Scraplauncher competing against each other is like a wrestling match between two people with Cerebral Palsy?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jabbuk said:

They seemed to say that even with the double shots from batallion, it was slightly worse than Scraplaunchers anyway. It's the fact they can tear through low armored units so much that makes their strength. It was my interpretation of it though. I might be wrong.

It's also the fact that the Junkmob battalion adds attacks to the Scraplauncher as well and is really cheap, while to make ironblasters good, you need a lot of commitment, and even then, it's debatable.

Interesting! Looking at them again they maybe worth running in that style of list even without the battalion (I don’t like the fact it only buffs two launchers and requires a 40 man gnoblars unit to not lose the buff super easily) as the list has a lot of MW and high value damage that the scrap launcher chaff handling could be useful. It also frees the list from having to play underguts, although if I switch to boulderhead would change the HoTT to HoSH as it’s a much better target for the brand artifact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been any consideration of allying troggoth units other than the hag? 

The book has some issues with armor, so i was considering perhaps 1 or 2 units of rockguts (who are really just too cheap for what they do) to goon around and crack armor, they also have mortal wound potential and if memory serves me right. They can even swing from behind a line of gluttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Reuben Parker said:

Interesting! Looking at them again they maybe worth running in that style of list even without the battalion (I don’t like the fact it only buffs two launchers and requires a 40 man gnoblars unit to not lose the buff super easily) as the list has a lot of MW and high value damage that the scrap launcher chaff handling could be useful. It also frees the list from having to play underguts, although if I switch to boulderhead would change the HoTT to HoSH as it’s a much better target for the brand artifact. 

Vince literally thought they were ****** when they started talking about them, and then completely changed his mind when Tom did some maths and proved that they were actually interesting. It was funny to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Forrix said:

Yeah, that said even with the double shots if the unit has 10+ or more models and a 4+ or worse save (I think). I'll point out though that the Ironblaster is better in melee with the Ogor attacks and the Azyr app says Ironblasters get 2 attacks for the Rhinox Horns while the Scraplauncher only gets 1 attack. I think that's a typo but I don't have my book on me.

Also, does anyone feel like the Ironblaster and Scraplauncher competing against each other is like a wrestling match between two people with Cerebral Palsy?

i dont even know what you mean with the cerebral palsy thing but its funny :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Forrix said:

Yeah, that said even with the double shots if the unit has 10+ or more models and a 4+ or worse save (I think). I'll point out though that the Ironblaster is better in melee with the Ogor attacks and the Azyr app says Ironblasters get 2 attacks for the Rhinox Horns while the Scraplauncher only gets 1 attack. I think that's a typo but I don't have my book on me.

Surely the main benefit of playing Ironblasters is that we can now decide who wins in a fight between a rhino and a shark? Comparing an ironblaster  (est120pt. Est 2.3 dmg, 2.7 on charge vs 4+ plus 1 mortal wound) to an allopex (120pt, Est 3.1dmg vs 4+). Its pretty close if the rhino gets the charge, but the shark moves faster, flies and is still never picked for its warscroll.

It is looking pretty rough for the old ironblaster. If you want something cheap to hold a back objective, beat up skinks or heart-renders and take pot shots which will very occasionally snipe support characters then I can see occasional use for one. But then again why not use leadbelchers, Maneaters or a spare tyrant to do the same job better and offer more versatility. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Ben said:

Surely the main benefit of playing Ironblasters is that we can now decide who wins in a fight between a rhino and a shark? Comparing an ironblaster  (est120pt. Est 2.3 dmg, 2.7 on charge vs 4+ plus 1 mortal wound) to an allopex (120pt, Est 3.1dmg vs 4+). Its pretty close if the rhino gets the charge, but the shark moves faster, flies and is still never picked for its warscroll.

It is looking pretty rough for the old ironblaster. If you want something cheap to hold a back objective, beat up skinks or heart-renders and take pot shots which will very occasionally snipe support characters then I can see occasional use for one. But then again why not use leadbelchers, Maneaters or a spare tyrant to do the same job better and offer more versatility. 

Ironblasters will likely never be optimal outside a full commitment build because you really need the double-fire thing. However, a fully buffed IB shooting averages 3.9 rend -2 wounds on a monster, and 2.9 rend -2 against a non-monster hero or unit of less than 10, compared to 3.3 and 2.7 of rend 0 from a fully buffed SL. Once you throw in armor the gap widens further.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Ben said:

Surely the main benefit of playing Ironblasters is that we can now decide who wins in a fight between a rhino and a shark? Comparing an ironblaster  (est120pt. Est 2.3 dmg, 2.7 on charge vs 4+ plus 1 mortal wound) to an allopex (120pt, Est 3.1dmg vs 4+). Its pretty close if the rhino gets the charge, but the shark moves faster, flies and is still never picked for its warscroll.

It is looking pretty rough for the old ironblaster. If you want something cheap to hold a back objective, beat up skinks or heart-renders and take pot shots which will very occasionally snipe support characters then I can see occasional use for one. But then again why not use leadbelchers, Maneaters or a spare tyrant to do the same job better and offer more versatility. 

That’s the rub at first glance they look bad still and I wasn’t considering them when I first flicked through the book  

However when buffed they are getting 2 shots (potentially hitting on 3+ if running trophy rack) and 3.5MW on the charge via spell. Once you add in that unlike sharks they aren’t monsters imho they can be a lot better than sharks. I also play IDK and sharks are probably only 10 to 20 points away from being picked so with the ironblaster being buffed to a lot better I believe it’s worthwhile. They also give ogres something they currently lack which is ranged sniping now TT is more anti horde. 

Now each player has to decide if they want to build an army around them though or not as they only seem good when both shots and MW are buffed. 

Edited by Reuben Parker
Damn auto correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GeneralZero said:

What's about adding some ironblasters to this list above, to get some strong ranged attaks+mobility+utility (not too week on charge/cc)?

I'm not sure "strong ranged attack" belongs in the same sentence as "ironblasters". BCR already have plenty of mobility and you don't need utility if everything is dead.

 

17 hours ago, Kurkulem said:

@Karragon What about your Thundertusk

The Thundertusk is weird, I brought him because before the book you never left home without a Huskard on Thundertusk but I'm not sure he's really got a role in the new book. His D3 heal is helpful but 4+ isn't reliable enough to count on it. The new Thundertusk shooting attack is underwhelming against anything that isn't 20+ models, which isn't all that common. Sure the fight last mount trait is cool but it's not like he can capitalise on it with such lacklustre attack profiles. 

Generally I've been sitting him behind the lines, putting the mawpot as far forwards as I can and using him to activate it turn 2 before moving further forward to get in range to shoot things. I could do much the same thing for cheaper with a hunter. Or swap him and the cats out for another FLoSH and have the huskard hang back to pop the cauldron. I'll probably run him a bit longer just to see if I can find a purpose for him that can't be done by anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have the mournfang packs left for the BCR side of the battletome. 

But I'm not sure what weapons to use on them. Anyone have any suggestions?

/D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dejnar said:

I just have the mournfang packs left for the BCR side of the battletome. 

But I'm not sure what weapons to use on them. Anyone have any suggestions?

/D

For some reason gargant hackers remained 4+ to hit, so it seems like clubs/prey hackers are the way to go. That being said, if you need rend, gargant hackers should be fine.

EDIT: just did some quick maths. Against a 4+ with nothing special (rerolls for anything, FnP type saves, etc.) their damage is nearly identical. And, you’re actually going to average more damage with the tusks.

Edited by FPC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegiance: Ogor Mawtribes
LEADERS
Icebrow Hunter (120)
- General
- Command Trait : Winter Ranger 

-Artefact: Kattnak Browplate


Frostlord on Stonehorn (400)
- Artefact : Alvagr Rune-tokens 
- Mount Trait : Metalcruncher


Huskard on Stonehorn (320)
- Blood Vulture
- Mount Trait : Old Granitetooth


Slaughtermaster (140)
- Lore of Gutmagic : Blood Feast


UNITS
4 x Frost Sabres (80)
2 x Frost Sabres (40)
6 x Mournfang Pack (420)
- Gargant Hackers
6 x Ogor Gluttons (240)
- Clubs or Blades with Iron Fists
2 x Mournfang Pack (140)
- Gargant Hackers
BATTALIONS
Skal (100)

TOTAL: 2000/2000 EXTRA COMMAND POINTS: 1 WOUNDS: 123
LEADERS: 4/6 BATTLELINES: 5 (3+) BEHEMOTHS: 2/4 ARTILLERY: 0/4
ARTEFACTS: 2/2 ALLIES: 0/400

What do you think about this list? I'm curious to see how effective I can make the frost sabres, while still having a frontline that can hit hard: huskard CA + Blood feast+ cauldron will make each mournfang do 8/3+/3+/ -1/3 if everything goes off and they charge. I am still not sure if 1 unit of 6 is overkill tho also for the "wholly within" requirement 2 units of 4 may be better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you really need a screen. Anything that can get to you turn 1 will be terrible for this list, denying the charge on all your cavalry and pinning you in. I think you need a screen, either of more frost sabres or 20 gnoblars. I think the skaal is useful for its artifact+ battleline, but you could consider committing more to it, or dropping it entirely for just more frost sabres. Also the 6 gluttons seem a bit out of place here, so maybe drop them. Consider -6 gluttons. +20 gnoblars, + 2x frost sabres as a small unit, +4x frost sabres to the big unit. Or alternatively, if you want a backfield objective camper, consider leadbelchers in small units instead of the gluttons, since they are cheaper and can occasionally contribute without leaving an objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a vacuum the scraplauncher is balanced against the Iionblaster in being more dedicated to shooting but also vulnerable to being locked up in melee; unable to shoot at all due to minimum range and unable to inflict enough melee damage to threaten even a squishy outflank unit. The ironblaster has less shooting damage generally speaking (underguts not being considered) but has no minimum range and is happy to charge or camp an objective safe in the knowlege that it takes a dedicated combat unit to beat it in melee.

That's all well and good but the problem comes with the context of the army; scraplaunchers are good against low-armor enemies, something everything else in the army is already exceptionally good at. The ironblaster provides rend -2 in an army with low MW output and low rend on average (it also has the Ogor keyword and those associated benefits). This is what makes the 'launcher a dud unit in my eyes.

Of course this can be rendered a moot point due to local meta; if the 'launcher does not have 10+ model units to shoot at it is extremely poor. If enemy armies aren't providing such targets for most of the game 'launchers just aren't going to be that useful, whereas if the local armies are very swarmy they could do extremely well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...