Sons of Behemat Discussion 👣

[Moogypies]

Must be the Gargant Gods manipulating the dice for everyone to get Focal as their first game

[Reuben Parker]

1 hour ago, Moogypies said:

I dont know what happened with the spam post making it appear three times.

But I can use it to evaluate! without making one post too long.

Rend -2 and -3 really hurt, whilst uncommon that they'll be run, those morghast where super dangerous and I couldnt do anything to stop them. 

Catapults are very scary at a flat 5 damage a piece, fortunately it's rend 0, but if you run the catapult spam list, you could be seeing an early removal of giants. 

We are...deceptively fast with decent charge rolls I had no problem covering the map turn 1. 

I was questioned on the use of a second loathing instead of +2 attacks on the flail, and from using the combo of +1 hit rolls 1/2/3/4 saves and +1 to hit rolls of heros and wizards, I felt I could confidently smash anything with the 10 attacks that pretty much always hit going from a 4+ to hit to a 2+ is incredible. Maybe different combos would work better, but I stand by the +2 to hit for the general (against a good chunk of things) instead of + attacks. 

+1cp vs a triumph? Hands down, that garaunteed 6" run made it possible to get to the middle objective and be positioned well. with a spare CP to reroll in a later phase (Which I needed for a charge) I think the safety of it is too good to not have. 

Added a picture of turn 4 to see what kinda board destruction I managed

The save rolls of 1 -4 doesn’t work vs heroes and monsters so the only cross over would be a non hero wizard with a 4+ or better. Lumineth jumps to mind but not much else. 

[Moogypies]

11 minutes ago, Reuben Parker said:

The save rolls of 1 -4 doesn’t work vs heroes and monsters so the only cross over would be a non hero wizard with a 4+ or better. Lumineth jumps to mind but not much else. 

Sacrosanct Stormcast and Tzeentch also. But yes, point is taken but +1 to hit over the majority of the board is good, but many combos to try still. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Moogypies

[PlasticCraic]

4 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Out of interest, has anyone played any missions that isn't focal points? 

Nearly every report on gargant performance I've seen has been using focal points. 

I'm more interested in how we'll do on missions like blades edge or better part of valour or any of the other 11 missions that aren't the 1 that we have heavily skewed in our favour. 

I'd push back a little on the 11 missions to 1 aspect: there are quite a few where Sons can score quickly through good keywords / kicking objectives / both.  I cover some of them in my Takers Tribe review, but just as an example, kicking objectives on Battle for the Pass can be game-breaking.

I know what you mean though, I reckon at least 70% of the games that I've seen people reporting are Focal Points.  Seems like quite the coincidence 🤣

Takers article for anyone interested:

https://plasticcraic.blog/2020/10/15/takers-tribe-kicking-for-goal/

[Gutlord]

6 hours ago, Ganigumo said:

Are you sure you got the rules right? Gotrek has a 3++ and reduces all damage to him TO 1, which means you'll need to make ~20-24 wounds get past his armor save to kill him

Ahhhhhh....I forget to reduce the damage to 1 🙄 (probably his best ability too), oh well back to the drawing board😄

Well done for noticing mate

 

[Gutlord]

2 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

I'd push back a little on the 11 missions to 1 aspect: there are quite a few where Sons can score quickly through good keywords / kicking objectives / both.  I cover some of them in my Takers Tribe review, but just as an example, kicking objectives on Battle for the Pass can be game-breaking.

I know what you mean though, I reckon at least 70% of the games that I've seen people reporting are Focal Points.  Seems like quite the coincidence 🤣

Takers article for anyone interested:

https://plasticcraic.blog/2020/10/15/takers-tribe-kicking-for-goal/

Another fantastic review as usual mate. Nice one 

[Tropical Ghost General]

@PlasticCraic I was just coming on here to share this excellent article

https://plasticcraic.blog/2020/10/21/sons-of-behemat-wrap-up-allies-mercs-and-misconceptions/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

------------

One of the things I feel is going to get addressed/needs to get addressed is the way the objectives are determined for scoring points. Currently the kicking them out of the deployment zones or other zones, being a thing that completely negates the scoring or ability for your opponent to win just seems wrong from a matched play perspective. 

Missions themselves should have balance for both armies to be able to win around a fixed set of parameters. Moving the parameters is fine, but either changing the points values or denying them altogether doesn't sit right with me. 

I'll be interested to see where it goes with the FAQ tbh

[Nezzhil]

1 hour ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

@PlasticCraic I was just coming on here to share this excellent article

https://plasticcraic.blog/2020/10/21/sons-of-behemat-wrap-up-allies-mercs-and-misconceptions/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

------------

One of the things I feel is going to get addressed/needs to get addressed is the way the objectives are determined for scoring points. Currently the kicking them out of the deployment zones or other zones, being a thing that completely negates the scoring or ability for your opponent to win just seems wrong from a matched play perspective. 

Missions themselves should have balance for both armies to be able to win around a fixed set of parameters. Moving the parameters is fine, but either changing the points values or denying them altogether doesn't sit right with me. 

I'll be interested to see where it goes with the FAQ tbh

The conditions to kick any objective that it isn't in your deployment zone are very hard. You need to be very close to the objective, and if you covered all the objective it is very hard, or impossible, to kick it. The problem is, as the opponent of a SoB, he won't care about objectives and you only think to maintain distance and kill my Gargants. In that case, you are gonna lose in a lot of games in a few rounds.

I think it is fine if as a player, I try to win the game capturing the objectives, in consequence, my opponent must lose if he only wants to kill things.

[Tropical Ghost General]

44 minutes ago, Nezzhil said:

The conditions to kick any objective that it isn't in your deployment zone are very hard

Totally agree with you. But iirc stuff like Knife to the Heart, RAW can't be won if you kick it out of your deployment zone. This is not a good mission interaction with the ability. 

Personally I would have no issue with objectives staying the same points, with regards to scoring, even if they get kicked out of their original position. It just makes the game much, much fairer and is a better balance.

[Scurvydog]

Funny how these things get through, or if the playtesters are all youtubers too busy with figuring out themes for videos than reading the rules in depth, I don't know. This book provided questions the second you look at the rules, especially longshanks looked like a problem the moment I first read it. would it have been so bad to just say it counted as having fly when doing a normal move, that seems less open to interpretation and that one time you walk over 2 stonehorns would that break the game more? 

The point about going for the mancrushers when playing against SoB sounds about right, with no screening or fight first mechanic, they can easily be taken out by competent combat units, like for example ambushing eels or a teleported unit of souped up ardboyz or marauders, which they will have no screen or defense against. They are not the only army suffering from this, but they are very squishy and will take a huge amount of damage.

Will be interesting to see how peopel will deal with alpha striking armies like this, maybe having 1-2 solo mancrushers just as speedbumps will be a requirement in matched play, it is just very expensive and fragile speedbumps for the point tag.

[Kasper]

1 hour ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Totally agree with you. But iirc stuff like Knife to the Heart, RAW can't be won if you kick it out of your deployment zone. This is not a good mission interaction with the ability. 

Personally I would have no issue with objectives staying the same points, with regards to scoring, even if they get kicked out of their original position. It just makes the game much, much fairer and is a better balance.

Straight up making a game impossible to win is incredible stupid, but kicking an objective out of your deployment zone in Battle for the Pass to deny your opponent the possiblity of earning 4 pts and instead 2 pts seems reasonable to me. Afterall it is quite clear we arent super tanky but not super killy either, so the gameplay is meant to revolve around objectives and outscoring VPs. Thats likely why many new battleplans (that were released at the same time as SoB was meant to be released - hence points in the GHB2020) include additional points if you have a hero, behemoth etc.

[Nezzhil]

1 hour ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

Totally agree with you. But iirc stuff like Knife to the Heart, RAW can't be won if you kick it out of your deployment zone. This is not a good mission interaction with the ability. 

Personally I would have no issue with objectives staying the same points, with regards to scoring, even if they get kicked out of their original position. It just makes the game much, much fairer and is a better balance.

I disagree. Almost all the players don't like the "kick objectives rule" in my local meta are players that only play killer armies and they only want to destroy you in two rounds. SoB is a fragile army, with very low input damage that only could win if you play objectives, objectives and objectives.

I don't think that Skaven, STD, GSG or armies like that will have so many problems to avoid being crushed by a kicked objective.

I play GSG, Ogors and Orruk, each army has bad matchups, if the killer armies with very few models have a bad matchup versus SoB I will very happy.

[Vaniljsas]

Unfortunately some players just don't want to play the game. They would rather play without terrain and just haven whoever uses the most busted damage/tank army win automatically. Hopefully it's not your entire meta!

On another note. I'm 3 games in with the Giants and loving them. A couple hard match ups in playing against coalesced and their -1 damage but not always insurmountable (depends on the dice, the battleplan etc).

Overall I'm happy the book seems to be turning out to the fat middle. Where I think I want all books to ideally be.

[KingBrodd]

Lads I need some assistance with my lighter skin tone. I'm doing quite a basic job with kislev flesh washed with thinned down Reikland with Lamian Medium, basically the battle ready technique posted by GW. But I was wondering how a drybrush of Flayed One Flesh on top of that would look?

[dirkdragonslayer]

7 hours ago, Nezzhil said:

I disagree. Almost all the players don't like the "kick objectives rule" in my local meta are players that only play killer armies and they only want to destroy you in two rounds. SoB is a fragile army, with very low input damage that only could win if you play objectives, objectives and objectives.

I don't think that Skaven, STD, GSG or armies like that will have so many problems to avoid being crushed by a kicked objective.

I play GSG, Ogors and Orruk, each army has bad matchups, if the killer armies with very few models have a bad matchup versus SoB I will very happy.

The objective kicking is probably my favorite part about the SoB at the moment. It's just a simple but very unique mechanic, and it's pretty funny to imagine you looking at your opponent and going "Actually we are going to play bloodbowl now." As a Gloomspite player I am still confident that I could play the objectives with my hordes of Grots, but I can see low model count armies like Idoneth Eels having trouble fighting for objectives against SoB. Maybe this will indirectly shift the meta towards people playing the objective instead of trying to delete as much of the enemy's units in 1-2 turns.

It's kind of funny that the army people expected to be a wrecking ball of destruction is actually good at holding and manipulating objectives.

Edited October 21, 2020 by dirkdragonslayer

[Oreaper84]

19 hours ago, Moogypies said:

Must be the Gargant Gods manipulating the dice for everyone to get Focal as their first game

Lol, happened to me to...used dice to determine 1st game, Focal points in Chamon. Had my OBR opponent concede and re-racked after turn 2

[Ganigumo]

5 minutes ago, dirkdragonslayer said:

The objective kicking is probably my favorite part about the SoB at the moment. It's just a simple but very unique mechanic, and it's pretty funny to imagine you looking at your opponent and going "Actually we are going to play bloodbowl now." As a Gloomspite player I am still confident that I could play the objectives with my hordes of Grots, but I can see low model count armies like Idoneth Eels having trouble fighting for objectives against SoB. Maybe this will indirectly shift the meta towards people playing the objective instead of trying to delete as much of the enemy's units in 1-2 turns.

It's kind of funny that the army people expected to be a wrecking ball of destruction is actually good at holding and manipulating objectives.

BoC already compete this way, and some players do pretty well at it. A few cheap hammers(30 bestigor are 300 points), lots of wounds, tons of chaff to control the board, ungor raiders for pregame moves, and they're pretty quick with bray shaman extra movement and run & charge, plus the ambushing. The army is about choosing when to die, and dying slowly while holding objectives. To me SoB looks like a harder hitting version, but with much less movement and board control.

[Gutlord]

34 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Lads I need some assistance with my lighter skin tone. I'm doing quite a basic job with kislev flesh washed with thinned down Reikland with Lamian Medium, basically the battle ready technique posted by GW. But I was wondering how a drybrush of Flayed One Flesh on top of that would look?

I always tend to go for layers dude, but with with some areas being so big I can see a drybrush technique being more appropriate......what about a drybrush of flayed one flesh followed by some fine edge highlights of paled witch flesh or something on the most pronounced areas (wrinkles, creases around pecs, veins on hands etc)

[KingBrodd]

14 minutes ago, Gutlord said:

I always tend to go for layers dude, but with with some areas being so big I can see a drybrush technique being more appropriate......what about a drybrush of flayed one flesh followed by some fine edge highlights of paled witch flesh or something on the most pronounced areas (wrinkles, creases around pecs, veins on hands etc)

Cheers for the response mate, I'm going to do the Layers of Kislev followed by a Reikland Wash then Drybrush some Flayed One Flesh over areas such as the knees and elbows.

[Gutlord]

56 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Cheers for the response mate, I'm going to do the Layers of Kislev followed by a Reikland Wash then Drybrush some Flayed One Flesh over areas such as the knees and elbows.

It'll look awesome, post some pics when it's done mate

[KingBrodd]

21 minutes ago, Gutlord said:

It'll look awesome, post some pics when it's done mate

Will do mate thanks!!

[Kasper]

With GW releasing FAQs 4 weeks after a book release, have anyone made a compilation of questions we can send in to ensure as many odd interactions get answered?

[Ganigumo]

@Kasper
Off the top of my Head:

1. Can krakeneaters with the spellcasting artifact cast endless spells? Should they gain the wizard keyword?
2. Does longshanks allow Mega Gargants to ignore the penalties for "retreating". Do they ignore the fact that they are in combat in the movement phase if the unit has a wounds characteristic of 10 or less.
3. If run as a unit, can each mancrusher gargant trigger it's own Stomping charge, or does it only trigger once for the entire unit.
4. can moving an objective with the Kraken Eater's 'Get Orf Me Land' ability change how much the objective is worth (for example in battle for the pass you could move your "home" objective out of your territory. Would it still be worth 4 points, or would it be worth 2)
5. Are the artifacts exclusive to the different tribes?
6. Can a warstomper general use Universal command abilities like 'On the double' or 'Forward to Victory'

Some of these are pretty clearly laid out in the book, but are a bit wierd and make me wonder if it was intentional.

Edited October 21, 2020 by Ganigumo
fixing tag

[Reuben Parker]

13 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

@Kasper
Off the top of my Head:

1. Can krakeneaters with the spellcasting artifact cast endless spells? Should they gain the wizard keyword?
2. Does longshanks allow Mega Gargants to ignore the penalties for "retreating". Do they ignore the fact that they are in combat in the movement phase if the unit has a wounds characteristic of 10 or less.
3. If run as a unit, can each mancrusher gargant trigger it's own Stomping charge, or does it only trigger once for the entire unit.
4. can moving an objective with the Kraken Eater's 'Get Orf Me Land' ability change how much the objective is worth (for example in battle for the pass you could move your "home" objective out of your territory. Would it still be worth 4 points, or would it be worth 2)
5. Are the artifacts exclusive to the different tribes?
6. Can a warstomper general use Universal command abilities like 'On the double' or 'Forward to Victory'

Some of these are pretty clearly laid out in the book, but are a bit wierd and make me wonder if it was intentional.

Also longshanks in regards to walking over endless spells. (RAW they can’t)

[Reuben Parker]

My order came in built the two megas super quickly. As I’m going to be playing either double gatebreaker breaker tribe or war stomper gatebreaker stomper tribe I made one dual use. Did the stomper body but put both club and flail on then will just exchange heads. I know you can magnetize all three Sets of hands but I’m a limited hobbyist and this solution was super simple. 
 

Also looking at the gargants why as 12 wound monsters are they on such comically small bases. Was planning to do a rocks basing theme but there’s really limited room. Plus side for most game mechanics a smaller base is preferable.