Maw-krusha = ?

[Nico]

Is it the 3+ save?

[Sadysaneto]

wes wannas gordrakk at 500. becos wis can unly count up to 5.

If wes gotta all 5 fingas in da handz, 'corse

[Caffran101]

13 minutes ago, Nico said:

Is it the 3+ save?

Yes, Frostlords (on both mounts) have a 3+ and I think an extra point on their bravery compared to  the huskards.

[Gaz Taylor]

11 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said:

wes wannas gordrakk at 500. becos wis can unly count up to 5.

If wes gotta all 5 fingas in da handz, 'corse

I know this is the Destruction Forum but please don't type like that  

I do however agree with that. I think a Mawkrusha should be around the 440-460 mark and Gordrakk around 540-560 mark.

10 minutes ago, Caffran101 said:

Yes, Frostlords (on both mounts) have a 3+ and I think an extra point on their bravery compared to  the huskards.

Not to derail this thread any more but for the extra 80 points you are paying, I don't think it is worth it. This is something I have thought about as I use two Frostlord on Stonehorns and a Huskard on Thundertusk.

[Chris Tomlin]

8 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

I know this is the Destruction Forum but please don't type like that  

*Like*

[Fungrim]

Sadly I don't think I could ever even consider Gordrakk at 700 to be honest.

From the what I've heard about him, and the relatively little time I've spent mulling over his warscroll, he doesn't sound reliable enough for that bracket of pointage at all.

580 perhaps?

[Thain]

There's just very little that Gordrakk offers above and beyond the generic Megaboss on Battle Cabbage that justifies the jump in points. Gordrakk at 700 Points just compares poorly to a Generic Megaboss on Battle Cabbage and Megaboss on foot at 640 Points. 

Marginal utility, opportunity cost, yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Nico]

Quote

 

There's just very little that Gordrakk offers above and beyond the generic Megaboss on Battle Cabbage that justifies the jump in points. Gordrakk at 700 Points just compares poorly to a Generic Megaboss on Battle Cabbage and Megaboss on foot at 640 Points. 

Marginal utility, opportunity cost, yadda yadda yadda.

 

It's the command ability, but after they deleted all the old Battalions, this is no longer the fun factor it once was:

That said, Gordrakk is ridiculous at 3,000 points (and much stronger at 2,500) as you get your entire 2,300 point army, stick it in a single battalion (Bonesplitterz/Beastclaw Raiders in particular) and fire off his command ability on the entire army - which then becomes a first turn charging, +2 attacks each demolition machine. Nevertheless, he is still overpointed as per the Community Ironjawz Points thread that @scrubyandwells organised some time ago now.

[Lord Biscuit]

Gordarkk is a really powerful offensive hero that can rip units a new backside and can have immensely swingy turns. The issue is beyond that one turn his command ability does nothing and all his command ability really does is makes charging a touch more consistent (which is awesome! But it's only 1D6 more of awesome, so about all it does is make gore grunters more likely to hit) and an extra attack on the turn he triggers. I don't see him as that much more killy then a generic maw crusher (with battlebrew factored, he's much less threatening) and he's definitely less survivable (no talisman? No orc) so getting value from him is all about that mega turn.

The key thing is he is a force amplifier who gets significantly stronger the more people he can buff. Unlike generic mega bosses he can affect non-ironjaw's units.  I can imagine him being a spectacular choice in 3000 points and above; I just don't think he really cuts it under that. Though then again thats probably exactly where he's meant to be king! This guy doesn't just lead any old fellas ya know.

 

I would be happier with the mawcrusher being valued between 420/460. I don't think that he should necessarily be a unit that is common in the army, but I think he takes up a bit too much space in a 2000 point list. This isn't assuming other changes.

[Solaris]

22 hours ago, Lord Biscuit said:

The key thing is he is a force amplifier who gets significantly stronger the more people he can buff. Unlike generic mega bosses he can affect non-ironjaw's units.  I can imagine him being a spectacular choice in 3000 points and above; I just don't think he really cuts it under that. Though then again thats probably exactly where he's meant to be king! This guy doesn't just lead any old fellas ya know.

This is what I think of all the supers (Gordrakk, Archaon, Nagash, Alarielle). People calling them overcosted are generally considering them for 2000 point battles, which isn't necessarily what they are made for. They all scale massively, and get better and better the larger the battle gets. I don't think they should be balanced for 2000 points. They are simply too large to fit in there. They should be balanced for the epic 3000+ point battles where they really fit in. These guys should be reserved for the really gargantuan battles imo.

[kozokus]

On 13/03/2017 at 7:42 PM, Nico said:

The Stardrakes (until the recent Battletome).

Interesting, What makes you feel he isn't overcoster anymore with the new book?

I still have trouble to justify his inclusion in a serious list.

[Chris Tomlin]

23 hours ago, Fungrim said:

Sadly I don't think I could ever even consider Gordrakk at 700 to be honest.

From the what I've heard about him, and the relatively little time I've spent mulling over his warscroll, he doesn't sound reliable enough for that bracket of pointage at all.

580 perhaps?

My direct feedback was 600 for Gordrakk.

[Fungrim]

7 minutes ago, Chris Tomlin said:

My direct feedback was 600 for Gordrakk.

Seems fair. Lets hope GW listens to the Megaboss..

[Warboss Gorbolg]

On 3/14/2017 at 1:40 PM, Solaris said:

This is what I think of all the supers (Gordrakk, Archaon, Nagash, Alarielle). People calling them overcosted are generally considering them for 2000 point battles, which isn't necessarily what they are made for. They all scale massively, and get better and better the larger the battle gets. I don't think they should be balanced for 2000 points. They are simply too large to fit in there. They should be balanced for the epic 3000+ point battles where they really fit in. These guys should be reserved for the really gargantuan battles imo.

On one hand this makes some sense, but if you step back, I think this terrible "game design".  Centerpiece models, those models that are also most likely to inspire your customers, should end up on the table and not the shelf.  Guess we are lucky since ours doubles as a Megaboss as compared to the rest of your list.

[Solaris]

2 minutes ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

On one hand this makes some sense, but if you step back, I think this terrible "game design".  Centerpiece models, those models that are also most likely to inspire your customers, should end up on the table and not the shelf.  Guess we are lucky since ours doubles as a Megaboss as compared to the rest of your list.

If they end up on the table is just a question of what mode of play is commonplace. Designing them for apocalypse-sized battles or narrative is perfectly fine if you promote that mode of play enough. I feel like the AoS-crowd as a whole has more or less zoomed in on 2000-point tournament style play, which is a bit of a pity. There is so much else that the game could offer.

[Thain]

The problem with Apocalypse-scale games are threefold: the cost of the models needed, the length of the games played, and the space needed to play them in.

Now, mind you, wargaming has never been a cheap hobby. But there's a "sweet spot" in terms of how much disposable income the average consumer is willing to sink into a hobby. At retail prices, your looking at around $200-240 bucks for a decent 1,000 Point AoS army... maybe $400-500 for a 2,000 Point army. Spread out over a year or two, that's workable for most folks. A 3,000+ Point army is a luxury you end up with after many years in the hobby, it's not a starting point.

Game length is a very real concern too. When I was in my teens, it was no big deal to start playing D&D or Warhammer at noon on Saturday and finish sometime late Sunday afternoon... But I'm in my mid thirties now. Husband, kids, career, all that boring stuff. I'm lucky if I can squeeze two to four free hours for gaming into my weekend. I'd rather play two or three complete games into my hobby time than one or part of one. I'm not alone in this.

 

[Solaris]

32 minutes ago, Thain said:

The problem with Apocalypse-scale games are threefold: the cost of the models needed, the length of the games played, and the space needed to play them in.

Now, mind you, wargaming has never been a cheap hobby. But there's a "sweet spot" in terms of how much disposable income the average consumer is willing to sink into a hobby. At retail prices, your looking at around $200-240 bucks for a decent 1,000 Point AoS army... maybe $400-500 for a 2,000 Point army. Spread out over a year or two, that's workable for most folks. A 3,000+ Point army is a luxury you end up with after many years in the hobby, it's not a starting point.

Game length is a very real concern too. When I was in my teens, it was no big deal to start playing D&D or Warhammer at noon on Saturday and finish sometime late Sunday afternoon... But I'm in my mid thirties now. Husband, kids, career, all that boring stuff. I'm lucky if I can squeeze two to four free hours for gaming into my weekend. I'd rather play two or three complete games into my hobby time than one or part of one. I'm not alone in this.

Of course, I'm not debating any of this. What I am questioning is the need for every single unit in the game to be designed and balanced solely for this style of play. It is already a fact that certain units stand and fall with the scenarios played. Why would it be a problem that some models are lackluster in certain battle sizes, while being great in others?

In the long run, diversification can only be good for the game. The only problem is when people get completely stuck in a rut where only competitive style games are played, because then units that are suboptimal for competitive play will not see use. As long as a diverse pool of scenarios and play modes are promoted, it will allow for every unit to come into its own.

[Warboss Gorbolg]

1 hour ago, Thain said:

Game length is a very real concern too. When I was in my teens, it was no big deal to start playing D&D or Warhammer at noon on Saturday and finish sometime late Sunday afternoon... But I'm in my mid thirties now. Husband, kids, career, all that boring stuff. I'm lucky if I can squeeze two to four free hours for gaming into my weekend. I'd rather play two or three complete games into my hobby time than one or part of one. I'm not alone in this.

 

One of the strengths of AOS is that it seems to scale down in points more naturally than WHFB did.  I believe this is helping people to enter the hobby or expand beyond 1 or 2 armies.  Just on this forum alone, I see many more people focused on 1k and 1.5k games than I saw over many years following WHFB.  In the US where I've lived, it was virtually impossible to get pick up games under 2k in WHFB.

I'm sure that some are playing bigger games, but it seems to me that the "best models" should fit well within 1.5 - 2k.

 

[Thain]

I'm not too concerned with some models only becoming sensible at larger point value games (esp. the "Big Guns" like Nagash, Archaon, etc.). 

I just don't like it when the marginal utility of a Special Character is so little above and beyond his generic counterpart (e.g., Gordrakk vs. Generic Maw-Krusha Boss)

[Fungrim]

Having units in an army that are meant more to be centre-pieces/big game expansions is fine in larger, more expanded alliances, and even more so in sub-factions with allegiance traits/battleline etc.

But in a faction as small and self-reliant as Ironjawz, it's not helpful that 2 of the biggest, smashiest, most aesthetically pleasing models are priced out

[Solaris]

22 minutes ago, Fungrim said:

Having units in an army that are meant more to be centre-pieces/big game expansions is fine in larger, more expanded alliances, and even more so in sub-factions with allegiance traits/battleline etc.

But in a faction as small and self-reliant as Ironjawz, it's not helpful that 2 of the biggest, smashiest, most aesthetically pleasing models are priced out

Oh no, the normal Maw-krusha should definitely go down a bit. I think we have already established that in this thread. I just don't see an issue with Gordrakk being slightly too large to be efficient in 2k games.

8 hours ago, Warboss Gorbolg said:

I'm sure that some are playing bigger games, but it seems to me that the "best models" should fit well within 1.5 - 2k.

This puts severe limitations on how you can design units and warscrolls. I think it's perfectly fine to design models that don't fit into this narrow category, and especially so when we're talking about gods and demigods.

[Thain]

Yeah, but if Nagash's job could be done better by a Vampire Lord and a Necromancer... Or Araielle's job could be done better by a Treelord Ancient and a Branchwych... Or Archaon could be replaced by a pair of Chaos Lords... We'd all see the problem right away.

 

[Solaris]

16 minutes ago, Thain said:

Yeah, but if Nagash's job could be done better by a Vampire Lord and a Necromancer... Or Araielle's job could be done better by a Treelord Ancient and a Branchwych... Or Archaon could be replaced by a pair of Chaos Lords... We'd all see the problem right away.

 

Nope. If a Wight King is a better 500-point general, a Vampire Lord is a better 1000-point general, a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon is a better 1500-point general, a Mortarch is a better general at 2000 points and Nagash is the best at 3000 points, then I see no problem whatsoever. It's not a question of whether a Vampire Lord and Necromancer can do Nagash's job better, it's a question of what their respective jobs are.

The "Big Guns" are designed to scale massively in power with the size of the army. If they are balanced for 2000 point battles, they will be broken in larger battles.

[Thain]

But at no point level does Gordrakk ever offer more utility than a Generic Maw-Krusha Boss paired with a Megaboss on foot. You're always getting more value from the pair of generics instead of the "Big Gun."

[kozokus]

11 minutes ago, Thain said:

But at no point level does Gordrakk ever offer more utility than a Generic Maw-Krusha Boss paired with a Megaboss on foot. You're always getting more value from the pair of generics instead of the "Big Gun."

I may not agree with this as @Nicosaid. At High level point, when your entire army fit in an single bataillon and his warcry affect your whole army.... It is worth th extra 200 points.