Fungrim Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 If (hopefully when) the Maw-krusha gets its inevitable points reduction in GHBII, what are fellow Ironjawz players expecting &/or hoping it to get reduced to? What is a Maw-krusha feasibly comparable to? For instance, a Frostlord on Thundertusk is only 420 points (!). Mannfred is 460. Thanquol is 500 points. From 520 points, I'd like to see the Maw get reduced down to the 400-460 spectrum, however as I'm forever the pessimist, I expect it will more likely be 480-500. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaticula Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I'd be happy with any reduction. 460 seems like a dream, 480 is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voc Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, Anaticula said: I'd be happy with any reduction. 460 seems like a dream, 480 is fine. Agree I can see it being a big anti-climax. Tbh I'm more interested to see if they drop/tweak the Gore-Gruntas and Weirdnob 460 would be ace, that's a free Ironfist Battalion :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N_Watson Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I would like 400 to 420. Can't look at the one warscroll in a vacuum. Stuff needs to change in the game to shift away from this boring gunline meta. Reducing the point taken of these beefy melee things and increasing the cost of shooting could be a good change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thediceabide Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, N_Watson said: I would like 400 to 420. Can't look at the one warscroll in a vacuum. Stuff needs to change in the game to shift away from this boring gunline meta. Reducing the point taken of these beefy melee things and increasing the cost of shooting could be a good change. I'm assuming you're referring to your own local meta. The bigger GT's don't seem to be dominated by shooting armies, take a look at Bad Dice if you want to read up on the lists that are showing up to tournaments: http://baddice.co.uk/lists/ Just most recently, 3 of the top 4 lists at the Heat 1 GT weren't shooting based. Shooting is good, but from what I can find, shooting based armies are at best 50/50 winning big tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thain Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I feel like Gordrakk should be in the 540± Points range and the generic Battle Cabbage should be in the 450± Points range. But that is assuming our rank and file all remain at 180 Points per Unit. If we see any significant reductions there, we may not need as great a reduction in the point costs for Upper Management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fungrim Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 At the very cynical core of it - you'd hope GW would want their more beautiful, but pricey, kits like the Maw-krusha sold, and the points cost would definitely aid this. I think in an army like Ironjawz, where there is a pretty limited number of options, it's crucial for key pieces (like a big smashy) to be viable on the table. You'd also hope that GW have looked at individual armies in isolation, as well as in terms of the wider meta, in order to develop a better GHB2. Sadly I don't own a Maw, and therefore haven't had the pleasure of using one! So those who do use it, is it comparable do you think to the aforementioned units (Frostlord, Mannfred, Thanquol)? I've played against these big gribblies, and theyre fearsome to say the least. I get the impression the Maw-krusha doesn't quite carry the same weight, despite the fact he's considerably more expensive than the likes of the Beastclaw cows, death dragons, Verminlords etc. This is less a question of the Mawk's attributes (there's been loads of that on here) - and don't get me wrong, I'm already sold on the guy. I have plans to pick one up in the near future, regardless of potential points droppages. I'm more trying to estimate what kind of reduction we can anticipate, based on similar unit types from other armies. If that's at all even possible (which it may well not be!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Fungrim said: What is a Maw-krusha feasibly comparable to? For instance, a Frostlord on Thundertusk is only 420 points (!). Mannfred is 460. Thanquol is 500 points. The Frostlord on Thundertusk is hardly a relevant comparison. The Frostlord on Stonehorn, on the other hand, is. I'd say swapping their points would be pretty fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thediceabide Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Fungrim said: What is a Maw-krusha feasibly comparable to? For instance, a Frostlord on Thundertusk is only 420 points (!). Mannfred is 460. Thanquol is 500 points. People care about the Frostlord on Thundertusk? It's pretty awful... Do you mean the Huskard on Thundertusk (which is really good for 340 points), which is almost without a doubt going to go up points in GHB2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, thediceabide said: People care about the Frostlord on Thundertusk? It's pretty awful... Do you mean the Huskard on Thundertusk (which is really good for 340 points), which is almost without a doubt going to go up points in GHB2? The Huskard is obviously fantastic. The Frostlord on Thundertusk is an angry Ogor that wants to get close and personal on top of a somewhat frail beast that wants to bombard its enemies from a distance. The model doesn't even synergize with itself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thediceabide Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, Solaris said: The Huskard is obviously fantastic. The Frostlord on Thundertusk is an angry Ogor that wants to get close and personal on top of a somewhat frail beast that wants to bombard its enemies from a distance. The model doesn't even synergize with itself! Haha, exactly, I don't think the Frostlord on Thundertusk is a steal at 420 points, there's a reason you NEVER see it on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Quote At the very cynical core of it - you'd hope GW would want their more beautiful, but pricey, kits like the Maw-krusha sold, and the points cost would definitely aid this. I think in an army like Ironjawz, where there is a pretty limited number of options, it's crucial for key pieces (like a big smashy) to be viable on the table. You'd also hope that GW have looked at individual armies in isolation, as well as in terms of the wider meta, in order to develop a better GHB2. It does seem that almost all of the centrepieces and a great deal of the elite shiny Warscrolls are overcosted and hence presumably fewer models sold for matched play at least. Examples include: Gordrakk Maw Krusha Alarielle (she is slightly overcosted - unless she can do the Soul Amphorae in every hero phase in which case she would be about right). Archaon (until the DoT book came out - now he's potentially very interesting). Varanguard (not useable in DoT, but at least you can do the Overlords of Chaos plus Varanguard as Battleline now (it's exactly 2,000 points with the new Gaunt Summoner from the DoT book - thanks for the tip @Chris Tomlin). The Stardrakes (until the recent Battletome). Mournfang Cavalry Nagash Neferata Big Mannderp (Arkhan is costed right, but don't use him as general) Blood Knights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Quote think the Frostlord on Thundertusk is a steal at 420 points, there's a reason you NEVER see it on the table. I'm sure it does have a use, but it's not the blatant bargain that the Battle Brew Stonelord is. The 3+ save and -1 to hit in melee makes it pretty solid. You could give it the Talisman to add to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 16 hours ago, Nico said: I'm sure it does have a use, but it's not the blatant bargain that the Battle Brew Stonelord is. The 3+ save and -1 to hit in melee makes it pretty solid. You could give it the Talisman to add to this. I actually think BCR has cost appropriate behemoths. Their army is incredibly small in number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thain Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Nico said: It does seem that almost all of the centrepieces and a great deal of the elite shiny Warscrolls are overcosted and hence presumably fewer models sold for matched play at least. Examples include: Varanguard These blokes are overcosted both in points and in retail price. So, um, I guess that's balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nico Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 Quote I actually think BCR has cost appropriate behemoths. Their army is incredibly small in number. That's the issue in a nutshell - they are cost appropriate if you take them in a BCR army and that's probably how they were costed in the first place, but almost no-one does that. Even The Master Russ Veal tried pure BCR only to lose painfully due to the dismal model count (even though on paper his list was filthy). The Facehammer episode about that is well worth a listen. The BCR are combined with either Grots (usually Moonclan), which are far too good for their cost or undercosted Bonesplitters (especially Kunning Rukk Arrer Boyz) or both (or even with an Arachnorok too for trolling) - which supply bodies and cover the Battleline requirements. The BCR monsters lose zero synergies by breaking allegiance - in fact they become a lot stronger as Battle Brew, the extra D6+2 movement and the Talisman are exceptionally good for choppy monsters. Here's a good example, where I played 6 games at the main event of Blood & Glory, of which 4 were against mixed Destruction lists with at least 2 BCR monsters in each army: As much as the BCR are a bit strong (they were stronger before the DoT and Stormcast Battletomes gave those grand alliances a shot in the arm), they are at least good fun to play against and you can construct counters to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanka Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 I take a frostlord on a thundertusk... and then take 6 units of 3 yhetees for board control. did well at the australian age of sigmar championships with it too. Mainly because it is something you dont often see...people often underestimated it. But yeah, Tuskard will defs go up...perhaps 380... they do drop wounds very easily though and as soon as they drop wounds they lose effectiveness. Maw Krusha deserves a points decrease I agree. perhaps 460 in line with the stonehorn FL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fungrim Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 Thanks all for your comments! Just to note: I put forward those units as suggestions of large behemoth-types that are cheaper than the Maw-krusha and probably have greater table presence. So indeed, there's better Thundertusk/Stonehorn combos out there (I don't play them however so not sure which is which!) - the Frostlord is the most expensive though, and as you say, he's not event the best.... which kind of lends to my point. The impression definitely seems to be that the Maw-krusha was pointed appropriately to the rest of the Ironjawz, rather than in sympathy to similar units across the game. In the same way that BCR gribblies were costed appropriate to the rest of their army. If you took out a Stonehorn or Thundertusk and stuck it in another army, I'd imagine it would be pointed a lot higher. Similarly, the Maw- would probably be pointed slightly lower. I wonder then just how much GW will want to tweak individual points costs, as they're clearly pointing factions rather than individual units these days. If they tweak the Maw-krusha, as has already been suggested, it will most likely have an impact on the Gore-gruntas (points decrease) and perhaps even Brutes (increase?!). Would be great for the former, but obviously not so much for the latter. We've seen this with Fyreslayers and Tomb Kings of course - pretty comprehensive army revisions (although, granted, both very much needed it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Fungrim said: Just to note: I put forward those units as suggestions of large behemoth-types that are cheaper than the Maw-krusha and probably have greater table presence. So indeed, there's better Thundertusk/Stonehorn combos out there (I don't play them however so not sure which is which!) - the Frostlord is the most expensive though, and as you say, he's not event the best.... which kind of lends to my point. No no no, the Frostlord is absolutely fantastic. You just have to stick him on a Stonehorn. The Frostlord on Thundertusk is a bit lackluster, due to being a mix of melee and ranged attacks instead of being dedicated to one of them. The Huskard on Thundertusk is great, and is overused and a steal at 340 - the combination of attacks and abilities on this dude just gels flawlessly. The Huskard on Stonehorn is an underused piece, and assuming that the others go up in points, and that the Mournfang packs go down, I foresee this guy being used a lot more. This is a bit of a sidetrack though. What the Maw-krusha should be compared to is the Frostlord on Stonehorn for 460 points, since they both fulfill the same role of a mobile melee wrecking ball. In this comparison, the Maw-krusha costs 60 points more, but falls short in both damage output, durability and speed (though the last point could be debated). I think the Maw-krusha is definitely too expensive for what it does, and the main reason it is still used is that Ironjawz are somewhat lacking in options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Tomlin Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Hey, For my direct GH2 feedback I went 440 for the Cabbage. Regarding Frostlords on Thundertusks, @ChippyRick has been considering one in some of his lists I believe (and he's pretty good...but don't tell him I said that! ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 12 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said: Regarding Frostlords on Thundertusks, @ChippyRick has been considering one in some of his lists I believe (and he's pretty good...but don't tell him I said that! ). Would love to hear the reasoning behind this, it seems like a really niche unit choice to me. Comparing it to the Huskard on the same beast, you pay 80 points extra, lose the Blood Vulture and Blizzard-speaker and gain a decent melee profile and an okay-isch command ability. It doesn't seem like a very good trade to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Tomlin Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 13 minutes ago, Solaris said: Would love to hear the reasoning behind this, it seems like a really niche unit choice to me. Comparing it to the Huskard on the same beast, you pay 80 points extra, lose the Blood Vulture and Blizzard-speaker and gain a decent melee profile and an okay-isch command ability. It doesn't seem like a very good trade to me. I know he made some reasoned argument for it, as you're right it does appear a slightly odd choice. I'll let him weigh in when he sees this though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Taylor Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said: I know he made some reasoned argument for it, as you're right it does appear a slightly odd choice. I'll let him weigh in when he sees this though He's wrong! The only reason I can see you doing it is if you are running Beastclaw and want Yhetees as Battleline. Outside that I would either go for a Huskard if you want a Thundertusk Character or a Frostlord on a Stonehorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Tomlin Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 Might have something to do with taking a different sort of list build that favours it or purely for places of power? Dunno! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fungrim Posted March 14, 2017 Author Share Posted March 14, 2017 Might rename this thread 'Husklord on Stonetusk' - seems to be the button to push on here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.