Equipping the Ardboyz!

[Sadysaneto]

1 minute ago, Dez said:

Heresy! I feel like my Ardboyz fail to perform much in the damage department but stick around forever (playing pure Ironjawz, all with 2hander).

For those who have done the math, is it generally better to have the -1 rend or an extra attack?

 

1 minute ago, Dez said:

Heresy! I feel like my Ardboyz fail to perform much in the damage department but stick around forever (playing pure Ironjawz, all with 2hander).

For those who have done the math, is it generally better to have the -1 rend or an extra attack?

 

I do too feel like they stick around forever, thats why a dont see the point on shields. But i do think they bring the pain.

 

Well, usually you have an average o 5 five boyz in range. so we talkin about 15 3/3/-/1 or 10 3/3/-1/1.

 

Id say its roughly the same. 

[Naishy]

10 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said:

thing is - if you go for warboss, you´ll need to spend at least 300 points more on generic battleline.

That is true, this set up has come about mainly from the transition from my destruction army as I paint up more IronJawz and the Orruk Warboss can be swapped with a Megaboss for a similar IronJawz specific ability.

For example the last army I used had 20 Ardboyz, 20 Morboyz, 3x10 Orruks, Frostlord on Stonehorn, Orruk warboss and some support characters.

The warboss bravely leads from the back waving his flag and then I choke the table with green bodies, often the orruks just sit on objectives untouched. while the 80 wounds of Ardboyz and Morboyz get my opponents face T1.

If I had 30 Savage Orruks it would be even better, although 2 wounds 6+ save vs 1 wound 5+ re-rollable (Orruk with shield) is quite comparable.                            

[Nico]

The extra attacks are significantly better (it's a 50% damage buff which is huge - normally it's like reroll 1s to hit vs the rend so the rend is probably better). The exception would be against something like Sylvaneth with rerollable saves. They are also better against ignore -1 rend armour - Duardin, Sylvaneth again and Seraphon have this mechanic.

[Lord Biscuit]

It would be a interesting test to run actually. My idea about it:

10 Man units; probably better to take more weapons then shields as a double war chanter buff puts them inrange of brutes. Plus the assumption is that the sheild will only stop one of 6 wounds that make it past all the hit/damage/armour saves. Thats fairly low blocking power for a loss of one attack, admit one that occurs after all other attacks have failed. I would either go all shields or no shields in this case. Half measures only dilutes your attack power/defending power, as across a 20 wound unit all shields has plenty of chance of eating stray attacks. Taking 3 shields on 3 guys means that you will probably only block one wound overall. 6 is 2 wounds, 9 is 3 and so fourth. Since if all shields their primary roll will be to block units so that Brutes can engage them more favourably.

 

20 man: 50/50 or 60/40 favouring offensive options would probably be fine. With shields at the back it's high likely that the shields will block multiple wounds spread across a 40 hp unit while offering a minimum reduction of smiting power.

 

30 or above: Dude, your going too far. Still, I would recommend at least 50/50 shields. By this point the unit becomes a bastion that will determine the fate of this game. I would still keep a strong offensive option as by this point you should really be throwing warchanter/boss and/or sharman buffs on this unit every turn to ensure they get their points back.

 

In regards to brutes: Brutes are glass cannons and thus should always swing first if they can. Thus 'ardboys are more likely to swing after they have taken attacks. 

In regards to Goregrunters: They have more attacks, faster and are difficult to break via battleshock, these guys get more boosts from Megaboss and probably higher quality attacks overall.

The megaboss ensures they get one extra attack unless using inspiring presence. So often they will be swinging with 3/5 attacks depending on configuration or whether the boss gets lucky six. It means that their damage drop off for dropping a weapon mightn't be as drastive as 50%, but 33%/25% in exchange for blocking 1/3 wounds

Shields can block mortal wounds. I wouldn't rely on this since it's only during combat, but it's a nice perk.

 

So really it depends. if your throwing these guys out as the sacrificial lamb it might be a good idea.

[Dez]

Just a quick note, Orruk-forged Shields work on any wounds in any phase.

[Lord Biscuit]

5 minutes ago, Dez said:

Just a quick note, Orruk-forged Shields work on any wounds in any phase.

Oh that's even better!

 

And to clarify, this is every wound that makes it's way past the dice rolling phases and the armour. Just that extra bit of irritation when they thought they made it to the finishing line. So even though I say "it blocks only 1 wound out of 6", it's "1 wound out of the six that would have killed something."

[Sadysaneto]

A question - if you fail the shield roll and get nuff wounds to remove a model, you have to remove the shield bearer?

[Dez]

6 minutes ago, Lord Biscuit said:

Oh that's even better!

 

And to clarify, this is every wound that makes it's way past the dice rolling phases and the armour. Just that extra bit of irritation when they thought they made it to the finishing line. So even though I say "it blocks only 1 wound out of 6", it's "1 wound out of the six that would have killed something."

It actually says:

“Orruk-forged Shields: Roll a dice before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk-forged Shield. On a roll of 6 the wound is ignored”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Destruction Battletome: Ironjawz.” iBooks. (neat how this was auto appended)

 

So it says wound, not damage (the result of a wound). It looks like this roll is taken before any saves are made, not after. Weird, right?

 

[Dez]

2 minutes ago, Sadysaneto said:

A question - if you fail the shield roll and get nuff wounds to remove a model, you have to remove the shield bearer?

Yes because it is allocated to the model with the shield. That wording is a little bit weird, you are doing the rolling before the wound goes to the model with the shield, it isn't meant that you roll the shield first then decide where the wound is going to go.

[Sadysaneto]

7 minutes ago, Dez said:

It actually says:

“Orruk-forged Shields: Roll a dice before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk-forged Shield. On a roll of 6 the wound is ignored”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop Ltd. “Destruction Battletome: Ironjawz.” iBooks. (neat how this was auto appended)

 

So it says wound, not damage (the result of a wound). It looks like this roll is taken before any saves are made, not after. Weird, right?

 

I understand thats after saves, since i only allocate wounds (usually) after save rolls

[Sadysaneto]

36 minutes ago, Dez said:

Yes because it is allocated to the model with the shield. That wording is a little bit weird, you are doing the rolling before the wound goes to the model with the shield, it isn't meant that you roll the shield first then decide where the wound is going to go.

I still cant see a reason to equip shields, lol

Im too orky for this ******, lol

[Dez]

You roll to wound, if the save fails THEN the damage is allocated.

[Lord Biscuit]

If the defence is before the saves, then thats better because it could stop more hits from getting through then expected; not sure how it alters that formula though.

 

DAT BEING SAID I PREFER TO HIT THINGS IN FACE WITH TWO HANDS, NOT ONE! WHAGGGHHHH

[Dez]

Shields is for da Stuntiez I'm busy kickin' and weedy paintkini Bonesplittaz!

[Nico]

The wording is meant to stop you rolling the 6+ and then allocating the damage to a non-shield model.

The ward save happens as the final step as normal and only works on regular wounds not mortal wounds. The final point is (a) self evident from the deliberate omission of mortal wounds and (b) confirmed on the Facebook page.

[Dez]

It reads to me that the 6+ save is taken before any armor saves. It would be much clearer if they said roll a D6 before allocating damage to a model with a shield.

[Nico]

It would - but that's what they mean. The order of the saves makes no difference on average so I wouldn't mind if you rolled it that way.

[tolstedt]

5 hours ago, Dez said:

So it says wound, not damage (the result of a wound). It looks like this roll is taken before any saves are made, not after. Weird, right?

 

It is damage.  The confusing part with the wording is that in the game the word "wound" has two meanings.  Wounds become damage.  Damage is allocated as wounds.

 

Q: When a model/unit has a special saving throw arising from an ability that can be used whenever they suffer a wound or mortal wound, is it taken after normal saves but before damage is determined (i.e. between steps 3 and 4 of the attack sequence)?

A: No, such special saving throws are taken after damage is determined and as each individual wound is allocated to a model that has such a save (see ‘Inflicting Damage’ on the rules sheet). For example, a unit of Phoenix Guard is attacked by a Cannon. The Cannon successfully makes its hit and wound rolls, and the Anointed fail their save roll. The Cannon therefore inflicts D6 wounds in step 4 of the attack sequence. The roll is a 4, inflicting 4 wounds on the Phoenix Guard. The attack sequence is now over, and the wounds are set to be inflicted on the Phoenix Guard. However, the Phoenix Guard’s Witness to Destiny ability means they ignore a wound or mortal wound on a roll of 4 or more, so as each wound is allocated, a dice is rolled, and on a 4 or more it is ignored.

 

To illustrate the sequence with an example specific to ardboyz:

If three retributor attack my ardboyz, they roll 6 dice. 3 hit. 3 wound. I roll 3 dice to attempt saves. I succeed in saving 2. One attack got through and it does 2 damage. I now must allocate 2 wounds to an ardboy.  Allocation is the point at which the shield comes in (same language as in the rules "allocating wounds").

If he is carrying an orruks forged shield before this final step of allocating the two wounds I can roll two dice and stop the wounds on 6's.  

[Dez]

 

Funny enough I had that feeling and read up. 

[Chris Tomlin]

Urghh...reading that Shield save discussion before 10am on a Monday morning was a mistake!! haha  

Personally I roll the 6+ after making armour saves. I don't think it works on Mortal Wounds, although I did originally play it that way.

When it comes to allocating the damage, do you roll 1 (or 2, dependant on wounds left) dice at a time until the shield guy fails enough to die, or can you only allocate a number of damage equal to the number of shield "wounds" you have in the unit?

So say the unit takes 6 unsaved wounds/damage and you have 2 shield guys, can you only roll for 4 shield saves? Tbh I've played it a number of different ways, being that I only have 1 shield guy at present (need to sort that!) it hasn't made any difference, but it definitely could if you kept rolling 6's!

I think writing that down for the first time has kinda answered my own question and only allocating a number of damage to shields as you have wounds left on shields seems the sensible choice.

Apologies if that is garbled. Need more coffee.

[Lord Biscuit]

I would probably roll it "per number of shield wounds" left, so if there were 3 shield guys I start off by rolling 6 then progressively less. If the numbers of wounds is greater then the shields then I would roll the shields first, if any do survive then I would roll equal to the number of sheilds again until no more wounds/no more shields 

[Vasshpit]

On 10/21/2016 at 3:52 PM, Sadysaneto said:

I still cant see a reason to equip shields, lol

Im too orky for this ******, lol

Choppa, hacka or blocka, it makes no difference cuz my boyz will beatcha ta deff wit anyting.

Blockaz just keep em in the fight longa so I can get to their boss and take iz head!

WAAAGGGHHH! !!!!!

[tolstedt]

4 hours ago, Chris Tomlin said:

Urghh...reading that Shield save discussion before 10am on a Monday morning was a mistake!! haha  

Personally I roll the 6+ after making armour saves. I don't think it works on Mortal Wounds, although I did originally play it that way.

When it comes to allocating the damage, do you roll 1 (or 2, dependant on wounds left) dice at a time until the shield guy fails enough to die, or can you only allocate a number of damage equal to the number of shield "wounds" you have in the unit?

So say the unit takes 6 unsaved wounds/damage and you have 2 shield guys, can you only roll for 4 shield saves? Tbh I've played it a number of different ways, being that I only have 1 shield guy at present (need to sort that!) it hasn't made any difference, but it definitely could if you kept rolling 6's!

I think writing that down for the first time has kinda answered my own question and only allocating a number of damage to shields as you have wounds left on shields seems the sensible choice.

Apologies if that is garbled. Need more coffee.

You are correct.  Allocate the wounds until a model dies.  If the model with the shield dies and no more shield models are left, then you can't use the ability anymore.

The most straightforward way is to roll one shield at a time.  In your example, 6 wounds to allocate with 2 shield boyz left, you could roll 4 dice to start.  If any of these are saved, the shield boy has survived the first part of allocation and is still alive and you can roll a save again on him on allocating the remaining wounds.

[Chris Tomlin]

10 minutes ago, tolstedt said:

You are correct.  Allocate the wounds until a model dies.  If the model with the shield dies and no more shield models are left, then you can't use the ability anymore.

The most straightforward way is to roll one shield at a time.  In your example, 6 wounds to allocate with 2 shield boyz left, you could roll 4 dice to start.  If any of these are saved, the shield boy has survived the first part of allocation and is still alive and you can roll a save again on him on allocating the remaining wounds.

I'm not totally convinced.

Though, this is the main way I've played it previously. Before I wrote it down today it seem easiest (though still perhaps convoluted).

Now I've thought about it, allocating more damage than there is wounds of shield armed Orruks in the unit seems a bit odd, as does rolling one die at a time.

Ultimately, it's not very clear. I tend to explain the rule to my opponents and make sure they are happy with what I'm doing with it. If I end up with defensive units full of shields I guess it won't matter, but for mixed units it's definitely worth discussion.

[tolstedt]

What are you not convinced by?

We don't need to roll one at a time in an actual game, that was what I thought was the best way to illustrate the effect and also is how they explain it in the FAQ posted above.