Ossiarch Bonereapers, hideously overpowered?

[Sleboda]

48 minutes ago, Emissary said:

Had several like that.  Looked like the mold likes to get a small air bubble in those areas which make them weaker and more prone to snapping.  

This has been a longtime issue with GW skeleton models, and one reason I'm happy that the current "skeletons" are thick. It's a bummer that the problem is still out there.

[Ninjon]

3 hours ago, readercolin said:

Congrats, you have sunk 840 points (with 1 unit of battleline) into one blob of your army.  You can take your 1 blob and it will be undefeated, and hold one section of the table.  Your blob moves at 4" per turn, unless you run them or spend your RD points on them (which also means you can't spend your RD points on something else).  With this blob, you can control... 1 objective.  There is no feasible way to run 2 of these blobs, and even if you did most games have 3+ objectives.

I'm not saying that this is bad per say, but I think that in most games it will be more viable to have your points broken up across more units.  Additionally, if your blob charges, you can fairly easily get your block of guard into combat, but then you won't be able to get your harvesters close enough because they can't complete a charge (remember, have to end within 1/2").  Or if you bring your harvesters around the edges so that they can complete a charge, they are now vulnerable to being counter charged.  You can kind of get around this by stringing your guard out to keep some near your harvesters, but now you can't get as many on target reducing your damage, which means that it will be even harder for your blob to take and hold objectives.  So now all your opponent has to do is toss some chaff in front of this blob, make it hard for you to maneuver it to objectives, and then win on the rest of the table because almost half your points are tied up here and it can be held back by maybe 1/4 of your opponents force.

I'm not so sure this tactic is so easily dismissed. If you run two blocks of Mortek Guard (our best unit overall anyway), in the shape of "L'" that are side by side (with the bottom of the Ls touching each other), with the 2 harvesters towards the center, you can really cover a majority of the board and take two objectives. Something like this:

 

11111111111111111 2222222222222222
                                               11  22
                                         H  11  22  H
                                         1111  2222

1: Guard block 1
2: Guard block 2
H: Harvesters

Then models you remove will always be in the two clumps near the Harvesters (note that these are not EXACT diagrams), and both will trigger off of both blocks of Guard. Since damage is done one at a time, when you assign the first damage to either unit you simple apply it to the model that is within both 3" Harvester ranges. One dead model = 2 4+ rolls to resurrect one. If you resurrect 1 (or 2...) from this damage, you IMMEDIATELY resurrect the model, place it back on the table within range of both harvesters, THEN move onto the next assigned damage. In theory you won't ever be targeting a model outside of both Harvesters range. 

Does this tactic still have downsides to it? Sure, as said its relying on a big point investment in Guard plus 400 points in Harvester support, but this army should be running Guard heavy anyway. But the blocks can separate if the need arises.  And of course, if you take out the Harvesters, the combo falters. 

[JackStreicher]

49 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

This has been a longtime issue with GW skeleton models, and one reason I'm happy that the current "skeletons" are thick. It's a bummer that the problem is still out there.

I never had that issue with any of my old skeletons (I have 60-80 of those bony buggers ^^)

[Zappgrot]

57 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Has there been official clarification on the Crawler needing line of sight?

Why would it not need LOS

[Sleboda]

40 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

I never had that issue with any of my old skeletons (I have 60-80 of those bony buggers ^^)

I've probably assembled at least 1000 of them, going all the way back to the box shown here. Back then it was worse. You could count on at least two bad bones per box.    I still have about 300 of those models sitting unassembled in a box. I use them as decoration now.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Sleboda

[Overread]

36 minutes ago, Zappgrot said:

Why would it not need LOS

That's the key. There's nothing in the rules for the Mortek Crawler to suggest that it can fire without line of sight; thus it must obey the normal rules for ranged models and have line of sight to its target. GW even modelled one of the workers with a spottingglass. Even though it could fire over many terrain features its clear that GW intends it to remain in a visible line of sight to the target. This means its still going to be exposed to the enemy if its going to be of use. 

[Sleboda]

I think the discussion comes from it saying to not use the attack sequence and also to pick a model.

I think it requires line of sight, but I can entertain the argument for the other position.

[XReN]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I think the discussion comes from it saying to not use the attack sequence and also to pick a model.

I think it requires line of sight, but I can entertain the argument for the other position.

I think the assumption that special shots don't reqire LOS can be correct

[Glazer]

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I think the discussion comes from it saying to not use the attack sequence and also to pick a model.

I think it requires line of sight, but I can entertain the argument for the other position.

Targets are picked before the attack sequence starts. See Picking Targets on page 6 to the core rules, and Making Attacks on page 7. Important quotes are:

"When  unit shoots or fights, you must first pick the target unit(s)... before any of the attacks ... are resolved."

and

"Attacks are resolved one at a time using the following attack sequence."

Hope that helps!

[AaronWilson]

Attack sequence is spefically rolling to hit and wound, saves etc. To be targetted for a attack (prior to the attack sequence) you need to be in LoS.

[Zappgrot]

15 hours ago, Overread said:

That's the key. There's nothing in the rules for the Mortek Crawler to suggest that it can fire without line of sight; thus it must obey the normal rules for ranged models and have line of sight to its target. GW even modelled one of the workers with a spottingglass. Even though it could fire over many terrain features its clear that GW intends it to remain in a visible line of sight to the target. This means its still going to be exposed to the enemy if its going to be of use. 

Yea i am wondering why ppl think it would not need LOS for a ranged attack.  They require LOS by the basic rules. That beeing said the thing is Huge. So it is going to see everything and be seen by everything on most tables. 

[Aaranis]

In my opinion the Crawler would've been received better by the community if it did like 15 attacks at D1 instead of the 3A 5D. That way you don't have your hero relying on a single roll to see if he's alive or dead, and there's much more granularity involved. It also feels more like a siege engine than a tactical rocket launcher.

[readercolin]

17 hours ago, Ninjon said:

I'm not so sure this tactic is so easily dismissed. If you run two blocks of Mortek Guard (our best unit overall anyway), in the shape of "L'" that are side by side (with the bottom of the Ls touching each other), with the 2 harvesters towards the center, you can really cover a majority of the board and take two objectives. Something like this:

 

11111111111111111 2222222222222222
                                               11  22
                                         H  11  22  H
                                         1111  2222

1: Guard block 1
2: Guard block 2
H: Harvesters

Then models you remove will always be in the two clumps near the Harvesters (note that these are not EXACT diagrams), and both will trigger off of both blocks of Guard. Since damage is done one at a time, when you assign the first damage to either unit you simple apply it to the model that is within both 3" Harvester ranges. One dead model = 2 4+ rolls to resurrect one. If you resurrect 1 (or 2...) from this damage, you IMMEDIATELY resurrect the model, place it back on the table within range of both harvesters, THEN move onto the next assigned damage. In theory you won't ever be targeting a model outside of both Harvesters range. 

Does this tactic still have downsides to it? Sure, as said its relying on a big point investment in Guard plus 400 points in Harvester support, but this army should be running Guard heavy anyway. But the blocks can separate if the need arises.  And of course, if you take out the Harvesters, the combo falters. 

While this is a possible solution to spread your forces out, by doing this you are going to thin them out and prevent them from being able to get significant damage.  This means that if someone interferes, it is going to be hard for you to remove that interference.  Additionally, if someone charges one side before they get into position, then it is going to drastically reduce the mobility of both sections.  Even worse, I could go ahead and throw something durable right into the center of these two forces and tie up both groups for a turn or two, preventing them from taking objectives or responding to other forces moving around.

Another way that this becomes an issue is that I can throw a unit down at the center of the lines to prevent them from moving, and then have a unit hovering out of combat out near the wings, preventing you from being able to pile-in without breaking coherency.  If it is a particularly sturdy unit, it might even stick around for a long time and block your movement the whole while.  This I feel is unacceptable for an investment of 1280 points.

If the objective of the game was to kill the other opponents forces and that was the only win condition, then I think this build is fine.  However anyone with mobility is going to be able to maneuver around and win the objective game if you try to do this.

[Kugane]

Would adding a 40 block of regular skeleton mercenaries have board presence? I am not even sure if mercenaries would reduce our command points since we techically have RD points instead?

[Aaranis]

1 hour ago, Kugane said:

Would adding a 40 block of regular skeleton mercenaries have board presence? I am not even sure if mercenaries would reduce our command points since we techically have RD points instead?

They don't have access to mercenaries, neither allies, OBR are all by themselves.

[Emissary]

18 minutes ago, Aaranis said:

They don't have access to mercenaries, neither allies, OBR are all by themselves.

They can use mercenaries unless the army includes Nagash or Arkhan.

[Aaranis]

11 minutes ago, Emissary said:

They can use mercenaries unless the army includes Nagash or Arkhan.

Really ? I missed that then I stand corrected. 

[JackStreicher]

7 hours ago, Aaranis said:

It also feels more like a siege engine than a tactical rocket launcher.

At 2+ to hit it is more like an indirect-firing sniper rifle. 🤣

Edited November 14, 2019 by JackStreicher

[NurglesFirstChosen]

On 11/13/2019 at 9:43 PM, Ninjon said:

I'm not so sure this tactic is so easily dismissed. If you run two blocks of Mortek Guard (our best unit overall anyway), in the shape of "L'" that are side by side (with the bottom of the Ls touching each other), with the 2 harvesters towards the center, you can really cover a majority of the board and take two objectives. Something like this:

 

11111111111111111 2222222222222222
                                               11  22
                                         H  11  22  H
                                         1111  2222

1: Guard block 1
2: Guard block 2
H: Harvesters

Then models you remove will always be in the two clumps near the Harvesters (note that these are not EXACT diagrams), and both will trigger off of both blocks of Guard. Since damage is done one at a time, when you assign the first damage to either unit you simple apply it to the model that is within both 3" Harvester ranges. One dead model = 2 4+ rolls to resurrect one. If you resurrect 1 (or 2...) from this damage, you IMMEDIATELY resurrect the model, place it back on the table within range of both harvesters, THEN move onto the next assigned damage. In theory you won't ever be targeting a model outside of both Harvesters range. 

Does this tactic still have downsides to it? Sure, as said its relying on a big point investment in Guard plus 400 points in Harvester support, but this army should be running Guard heavy anyway. But the blocks can separate if the need arises.  And of course, if you take out the Harvesters, the combo falters. 

While this seems decent on paper, surely that will leave you with very few models actually holding objectives. Maybe 2-4 (maybe 6-7) models on each. 
 

You’d probably find people winning objectives off your without charging you with this tactic. 

[Emissary]

6 hours ago, Aaranis said:

Really ? I missed that then I stand corrected. 

Yeah, the lords of the ossiarch empire rule on p73 states you can include Nagash or Arkhan in the army and they gain the ossiarch bonereapers rule,but if you include them you cannot include any mercenary units in your army.

[Grimrock]

Well, got my first game against the OBR tonight. After after a full 5 round game playing as slaanesh I managed to kill two whole models. A few more fell over of course, but arkhan picked them back up so not permanent damage. I did win by a single victory point on the last combat phase in the last turn, but if he had been a touch more aggressive in the first two turns I don't think I would've stood a chance. Catapult did great, putting 10 wounds on a keeper one round, thinning out daemonettes in others. Didn't even need to use its special shots to make a huge impact on the game. 

I will say that the layering of buffs caught me off guard. At one point the mortek was rerolling saves, 5+ death shrug, 4+ harvester resurrect, rend -2, exploding attacks on 5+, hitting on 2+, rerolling 1s to hit. They were an utterly unkillable unit that was also an unstoppable blender that killed everything it touched, with 20 of them taking out almost 1000 points of models. I avoided it as much as possible but there's only so much you can do when it's walking straight at the objectives and taking up the whole center of the board. 

So maybe not grossly overpowered, but it felt like the only thing I could do all game was avoid combat all together and sit on objectives. It worked, barely, and only because he was being cautious, but not exactly a fun game for anyone. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Grimrock

[Aaranis]

Yeah I'm going to wait next year for erratas/point updates before starting the army, it doesn't feel quite right as it is and I suspect they'll get balance suggestions from the community. It's as I suspected: probably very fun and challenging to play (in the sense that you have to position right and remember the 10 buffs you want to pass) but not for the opponent, which is a point where I'm too compassionate to let pass as I don't have fun when I see my opponent wondering why they bothered to play today.

[zilberfrid]

On 11/13/2019 at 2:48 PM, sal4m4nd3r said:

Have we reached a verdict on if they are hideously overpowered or not.. cause I have this gift card to pitchfork and torch emporium that is burning a hole in my pocket.. but I'm not going to buy em if we aren't marching cause I cant store them anywhere..

As I read it, there's one or two OP ways to play, and the rest is weak.

This means it's a poorly written faction, whether the power level is spot on or not. It certainly seems even less fun to play against than Slaanesh, with lord killing (or, with two catapults, half of a unit) and unkillable infantry.

EDIT: Also, the command point stealing could be very unappealing to play against.

Edited November 15, 2019 by zilberfrid

[Duke of Gisoreux]

On 11/14/2019 at 7:07 AM, XReN said:

I think the assumption that special shots don't reqire LOS can be correct

What makes you think it doesn't need line of sight? All its special attacks are listed as separate missile weapon profiles and thus according to the core rules it needs line of sight like any other regular missile attack.

Quote

In order to attack with a missile weapon, the model using the weapon must be in range of the target unit (i.e. within the maximum distance, in inches, of the Range listed for the weapon making the attack), and the target unit must be visible to the model with the weapon

 

If it wouldn't need line of sight, it had to be explicitly  mentioned in the Mortek Crawler's warscroll. Like the Trebuchet for example:

Quote

Arcing Shot: This unit can shoot at enemy units that are not visible to it. If it does, subtract 1 from the hit roll for the unit’s Rocks and Masonry attack.

[XReN]

2 hours ago, Duke of Gisoreux said:

What makes you think it doesn't need line of sight? All its special attacks are listed as separate missile weapon profiles and thus according to the core rules it needs line of sight like any other regular missile attack.

Actually I didn't knew that attack sequence is clearly defined, since that wasn't very important to me, now I re-read the rules and understood where I'm wrong about Crawler. 

It 100% reqires LOS to shoot special shots.