Equipping the Ardboyz!

[foolsama]

Should be taking Grimgor rather than the Megaboss for a support general. +1 hit trumps all. Grimgor + Warchanter means the boyz are hitting on 2s. Mystic shield (which is all the shaman is good for) means saving on 3s. Now you've got a force to be reckoned with. In my last few games I've done half shields, half 2-handers, and have been underwhelmed. Shield has saved maybe 2 of 20 models. I will try a few with all double-weapons and see how that goes.

My problem is that I'm only ever playing 'tournament' style games these days. Matched Play, rules of one, the same 6 scenarios... and armies that do much better than Ironjawz. I don't care what weapons you take when your opponent rolls up with 40 blood warriors, or 21 ogors and a stonehorn.

[WSDdeloach]

I think right now... my list currently is running a unit of 20 and a unit of 10. So, i think in my twenty unit.. im doing Standard, Musician, 10 guys with Choppa & Smasha, 5 guys with Big Choppas & 5 guys with Choppas & Sheild. Next unit (if I can make it work) I'd like to do 5 guys Choppa & Sheild, musician & Standard, then 3 guys big Choppas. 

This gives my big block some durabiility, and leaves my smaller block to either jump onto a singular unit or warmachine to do some rend damage. 

And of course, you got the Black Orc Big Boss (ArdNOb) & Warchanter (maybe two) running with... cause, thatz how da Gouge Eyez roll in the off season! 

[Chris Tomlin]

On ‎02‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 11:46 AM, LortOlle said:

The FAQ states that command has the same equipment as they had "before becoming" command. As in all other units the command will have the same as the rest of the unit. In the case of the ardboys you can pick their weapons, then becoming command. 

Either explain to your opponent what weapons they have or somehow show on the model, as in glue spare weapons on them.

Yeh, this is the way to go about this.

On ‎02‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:11 PM, foolsama said:

Should be taking Grimgor rather than the Megaboss for a support general. +1 hit trumps all. Grimgor + Warchanter means the boyz are hitting on 2s. Mystic shield (which is all the shaman is good for) means saving on 3s. Now you've got a force to be reckoned with. In my last few games I've done half shields, half 2-handers, and have been underwhelmed. Shield has saved maybe 2 of 20 models. I will try a few with all double-weapons and see how that goes.

Grimgor's Command Ability is very good for sure. Agreed that an expensive Mystic Shield is all the Weirdnob is worth taking for (but is still too rich for my blood at that cost). I really need to get more Ardboyz assembled and try some different configurations.

On ‎02‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:11 PM, foolsama said:

My problem is that I'm only ever playing 'tournament' style games these days. Matched Play, rules of one, the same 6 scenarios... and armies that do much better than Ironjawz. I don't care what weapons you take when your opponent rolls up with 40 blood warriors, or 21 ogors and a stonehorn.

Yeh...I'm feeling that. Have played 5 two day (5 or 6 game) events with Ironjawz since the General's Handbook came out this summer, I am really finding it match up dependant. Its frustrating when even some combat armies (as you mentioned) are just outdoing you in combat, but then still dishing out some pain at range as well. It can be a truly uphill battle at times I find.

[foolsama]

Just thought I'd put some numbers behind my inklings with Ardboyz.

I've played many games with 2-handers, but am now a convert to double choppas.

Check my math for sure, but the top row is 10 boyz with 2-handers (1 is boss), second row is double choppas (1 boss).

If you compare the saved wounds, taking rend in to account (ie, 2nd row 'saves on 4' to top row 'saves on 5'), you'll see the numbers are still in favor of more attacks vs -1 rend. I've spun it out to, just to be sure - the correlation remains the same even if you bring the Boyz hit rolls to 3 or even 2.

Formulas as follows:

Column B is A * 0.5 (4+ is 50% chance). C is B * 0.66 (3+ is 66% chance), D is C * 0.50, E is C * 0.66 and F is C * 0.84

[tolstedt]

4 hours ago, foolsama said:

Just thought I'd put some numbers behind my inklings with Ardboyz.

I've played many games with 2-handers, but am now a convert to double choppas.

Check my math for sure, but the top row is 10 boyz with 2-handers (1 is boss), second row is double choppas (1 boss).

If you compare the saved wounds, taking rend in to account (ie, 2nd row 'saves on 4' to top row 'saves on 5'), you'll see the numbers are still in favor of more attacks vs -1 rend. I've spun it out to, just to be sure - the correlation remains the same even if you bring the Boyz hit rolls to 3 or even 2.

Formulas as follows:

Column B is A * 0.5 (4+ is 50% chance). C is B * 0.66 (3+ is 66% chance), D is C * 0.50, E is C * 0.66 and F is C * 0.84

From your math there is still one situation units that makes the two handers (slightly) better.  When attacking units that get their whole save removed via -1 rend the two handers are better.  I take the two handers when facing skellies.

Also, why do you list them at 21 and 31 attacks?  Is this for the boss?  The boss does not get an extra attack.  

[Lord Biscuit]

Did you adjust the armour saves based on rend? By the looks of things you treated the two handers the same as the one handers. In which case without rend, 2 weapons is better then one!  So I decided to run my own numbers.

The numbers for column one is 4.356, 5.544 and 6.6. Which still lags behind two weapons at this stage. Adding megaboss wharg is 6.6, 8.3, 9.9, so it is correct that two handers are a bit lacking at this point.

 

Incase your curious, adding a warchanter without a boss is 5.7, 7.3 and 8.7 wounds, both buffs makes it 8.6, 10.9 and 13.

 

For the two handers it is as you say. Adding warboss and chanter is 8.712, 11.4 and 14.6. So unless your opponents defence dice are weighted (dey must be if da roll bettar den me!), more attacks is better then the rend 1 generally.

[LortOlle]

 

8 hours ago, foolsama said:

Just thought I'd put some numbers behind my inklings with Ardboyz.

I've played many games with 2-handers, but am now a convert to double choppas.

Check my math for sure, but the top row is 10 boyz with 2-handers (1 is boss), second row is double choppas (1 boss).

If you compare the saved wounds, taking rend in to account (ie, 2nd row 'saves on 4' to top row 'saves on 5'), you'll see the numbers are still in favor of more attacks vs -1 rend. I've spun it out to, just to be sure - the correlation remains the same even if you bring the Boyz hit rolls to 3 or even 2.

Formulas as follows:

Column B is A * 0.5 (4+ is 50% chance). C is B * 0.66 (3+ is 66% chance), D is C * 0.50, E is C * 0.66 and F is C * 0.84

I have done the math before and I have said it time and time again. 2handers are ONLY better if they have 2+ save. Every other situation the double one handers is better (they tie against 3+ save). The boss does not have 1 more attack, it has +1 to hit. But like you say, the hit rolls does not change the correlation between wounds and saves. You just hit more with both weapon types.

3 hours ago, tolstedt said:

From your math there is still one situation units that makes the two handers (slightly) better.  When attacking units that get their whole save removed via -1 rend the two handers are better.  I take the two handers when facing skellies.

Also, why do you list them at 21 and 31 attacks?  Is this for the boss?  The boss does not get an extra attack.  

No, The worse the save the BETTER double 1 handers are. You should only use 2handers against 2+ saves.  The table is hard to read but I can add my own. You can see that against 1+ saves the 1-handers will get better again because 1s will always fail so there the attacked model has a effective save of 2+ against both attackers. 2-handers are super situational and I don't understand why 90% of ironjawz players use them.

	Attacks	-	6+	5+	4+	3+	2+	1+
1-handers	30,00	10,00	8,33	6,67	5,00	3,33	1,67	1,67
2-handers	20,00	6,67	6,67	5,56	4,44	3,33	2,22	1,11

 

[Lord Biscuit]

The only reason I used a lot of two handers was because they looked cooler. I kind of regret my decison now. That and there wasn't enough single handers to arm them all that way, it's been a while.

[LortOlle]

17 minutes ago, Lord Biscuit said:

The only reason I used a lot of two handers was because they looked cooler. I kind of regret my decison now. That and there wasn't enough single handers to arm them all that way, it's been a while.

I get that, it's cool if your reasons are "it looks bad ass and I like it" but if your reasons is "it's better against -BLANK-" you're usually wrong unless it has exactly 2+ save. Twohanders looks cool and the torso with both arms up looks weird with two onehanders and looks much better with the twohanders. The kit is made to build a mix of models because of the "armed to the teeth" rule in 8th and should be reworked for AoS. It sucks to have to buy multiple boxes to build units.

[Kisada11]

All the ardboys have a sword on their hip ... couldn't I just count all my 2 handed models as using 2 weapons because of that?

I don't want rules to deter me from making cool looking models. As LortOlle commented I think the 2 handed pose looks much cooler with the 2 handed weapon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sadysaneto]

watza "shild", boss?

[Lord Biscuit]

Hmm, I mean this depends table to table and tourney settings but if you list them as two weapons on your entry sheet, treat all your two handers as duel wielders and keep every unit like that, I can't imagine any serious problems developing provided your consistent. Just I guess the volume of attacks and rigidity of these fellas fills in the missing link of quanity. Brutes don't bring enough guys, grunters don't provide as heavy a punch. Just I think in either case 'ardboys are very much an anvil, by themselves they are a capable unit but their role is to grab objectives and hold the line while the more fickle brutes get the juicy bits.

[tolstedt]

4 hours ago, LortOlle said:

 

 

No, The worse the save the BETTER double 1 handers are. You should only use 2handers against 2+ saves.  The table is hard to read but I can add my own. You can see that against 1+ saves the 1-handers will get better again because 1s will always fail so there the attacked model has a effective save of 2+ against both attackers. 2-handers are super situational and I don't understand why 90% of ironjawz players use them.

	Attacks	-	6+	5+	4+	3+	2+	1+
1-handers	30,00	10,00	8,33	6,67	5,00	3,33	1,67	1,67
2-handers	20,00	6,67	6,67	5,56	4,44	3,33	2,22	1,11

 

With your math the situation I mentioned (removing a skeleton crypt shield save entirely via rend) puts the weapons the exact same.  6.67 to 6.67.  The save goes from 5+ to no save.

 

[foolsama]

6 hours ago, Lord Biscuit said:

Did you adjust the armour saves based on rend? By the looks of things you treated the two handers the same as the one handers. In which case without rend, 2 weapons is better then one!  So I decided to run my own numbers.

The numbers for column one is 4.356, 5.544 and 6.6. Which still lags behind two weapons at this stage. Adding megaboss wharg is 6.6, 8.3, 9.9, so it is correct that two handers are a bit lacking at this point.

Incase your curious, adding a warchanter without a boss is 5.7, 7.3 and 8.7 wounds, both buffs makes it 8.6, 10.9 and 13.

For the two handers it is as you say. Adding warboss and chanter is 8.712, 11.4 and 14.6. So unless your opponents defence dice are weighted (dey must be if da roll bettar den me!), more attacks is better then the rend 1 generally.

You would just move your eyes to the right on my chart. You'd compare the 5+ save on the top row to the 4+ save on the bottom row.

6 hours ago, LortOlle said:

The boss does not have 1 more attack, it has +1 to hit. 

Holy ******, I've been playing this game wrong for 6 months. Reading comprehension fail! READ YOUR WARSCROLLS FOLKS.

[Furious]

I've been doing that too... just make them all +1 attack already! I don't want to roll separate dice. It's a nuisance. 

[Dez]

Yeah bosses are different all over the place...you do have to read those Warscrolls

[Furious]

Ugh. Reading.

[LortOlle]

22 hours ago, tolstedt said:

With your math the situation I mentioned (removing a skeleton crypt shield save entirely via rend) puts the weapons the exact same.  6.67 to 6.67.  The save goes from 5+ to no save.

 

True, there are corner cases where the "-" rend is an issue, like skeleton crypt shields or blood knights. Against skeletons they are, like you said, the same. If you fight nothing but soulblight armies with multiple units of blood knights you should probably take 2handers. If you're going to a tournament you should probably go 1-handers and send the brutes into the blood knights the one game you face them.

 

Edit: Im not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that when you buy a unit of ardboys, and want to make them as effective as possible, you should probably build them with two one handers unless you are in a super specific meta.

[Lord Biscuit]

To be fair, if Ironjaws had a problem, finding rend 1 definitely isn't one of them. Pretty much every unit in the army has it in some form or other. Even gore grunters have a respectable 13 rending attacks and 12 weaker attacks, two weapon brutes have 12+gorechopper+boss (so, usually 17 -1 and -2) and jagged spears have only have 1 attack less (which is made up for by more getting in combat) not including boss boost. So yeah, getting rending attacks isn't a huge problem and thankfully it isn't quite 40k in the sense where everything marches around with a 3+ save. Heh

 

 

[LortOlle]

1 hour ago, Lord Biscuit said:

To be fair, if Ironjaws had a problem, finding rend 1 definitely isn't one of them. Pretty much every unit in the army has it in some form or other. Even gore grunters have a respectable 13 rending attacks and 12 weaker attacks, two weapon brutes have 12+gorechopper+boss (so, usually 17 -1 and -2) and jagged spears have only have 1 attack less (which is made up for by more getting in combat) not including boss boost. So yeah, getting rending attacks isn't a huge problem and thankfully it isn't quite 40k in the sense where everything marches around with a 3+ save. Heh

And 3+ is still not good enough to justify the twohanders

I build only double one handers because shields are a bit lackluster imo. A unit of 10 will save 3,33 wounds with shields but lose 10 attacks. 

Units of 20 or bigger would benefit from a few shields though because everyone in the backline wont get into combat. I find it too fiddly to have to keep the 5 or so models that have shields at the back for the 1,66 wounds that the shields will save on average. 

[thediceabide]

On 11/22/2016 at 1:44 AM, LortOlle said:

 

I have done the math before and I have said it time and time again. 2handers are ONLY better if they have 2+ save. Every other situation the double one handers is better (they tie against 3+ save). The boss does not have 1 more attack, it has +1 to hit. But like you say, the hit rolls does not change the correlation between wounds and saves. You just hit more with both weapon types.

No, The worse the save the BETTER double 1 handers are. You should only use 2handers against 2+ saves.  The table is hard to read but I can add my own. You can see that against 1+ saves the 1-handers will get better again because 1s will always fail so there the attacked model has a effective save of 2+ against both attackers. 2-handers are super situational and I don't understand why 90% of ironjawz players use them.

	Attacks	-	6+	5+	4+	3+	2+	1+
1-handers	30,00	10,00	8,33	6,67	5,00	3,33	1,67	1,67
2-handers	20,00	6,67	6,67	5,56	4,44	3,33	2,22	1,11

 

I'm glad someone else made the chart so I wouldn't have to. Even then, you're causing 5/9th more wounds, so it's pretty easy to see that the situational advantage of the 2-h weapons is practically worthless.

Really, the debate is shields or not, I've personally been in the no shields camp, but that's because I'm all about the offence!

[Lord Biscuit]

8 hours ago, LortOlle said:

And 3+ is still not good enough to justify the twohanders

I build only double one handers because shields are a bit lackluster imo. A unit of 10 will save 3,33 wounds with shields but lose 10 attacks. 

Units of 20 or bigger would benefit from a few shields though because everyone in the backline wont get into combat. I find it too fiddly to have to keep the 5 or so models that have shields at the back for the 1,66 wounds that the shields will save on average. 

But then only about 3/4 of those 10 attacks would go on to wound depending on the target so all in all it's a fairly equivalent trade off.

That being said at the end of the day turtling doesn't win the day just shields comboing with their fairly good leadership, solid armour means that sometimes having a unit to hold the line at all costs is a pretty good thing. I will be trying it out next year when my university work eases up a little.

[LortOlle]

11 hours ago, Lord Biscuit said:

But then only about 3/4 of those 10 attacks would go on to wound depending on the target so all in all it's a fairly equivalent trade off.

That being said at the end of the day turtling doesn't win the day just shields comboing with their fairly good leadership, solid armour means that sometimes having a unit to hold the line at all costs is a pretty good thing. I will be trying it out next year when my university work eases up a little.

Yes. I agree there is a trade off that is not 100% clear between shields and two one handers and that can be debated.

I'm of the opinion that offense is a good defense and if you can remove a few models before they attack that in it self prevents wounds from going your way. If I wanted to turtle on objectives I would go moon grots with fanatics to interrupt charges instead of ardboys.

13 hours ago, thediceabide said:

I'm glad someone else made the chart so I wouldn't have to. Even then, you're causing 5/9th more wounds, so it's pretty easy to see that the situational advantage of the 2-h weapons is practically worthless.

Really, the debate is shields or not, I've personally been in the no shields camp, but that's because I'm all about the offence!

I agree, I think it's fiddly to have some shields and some double one handers so it's either full shields or full one handers for me and I think ironjawz are an offensive faction. With no shooting and overcosted magic we need to hit them hard in melee.

[Lord Biscuit]

True true. Most armies that consider units tanky cost around half of a 20 unit 'ardboy formation. Like Liberators, Grots (because lets face it, they will probably survive one combat phase by chuckling fanatics under a bus. I am not looking forwards to such delaying strats). Just on a 20 man unit not everyone will make it into combat anyway; so any way I can reduce damage before 14 boys hit them (because 6 will probably die) then I'll take it.

[SpleenThief]

I run 2 10 man squads the first all armed with 2 weapons and the second with 2handers. I point the 2 hander unit at heavier infantry and the dual wield at lighter.

I find they generally out perform brutes due to the act they have more wounds and higher bravery, not to mention the drummer.

All in all little drummer orruk and the banner barer make this unit probably they best entry in Ironjawz allegiance I think.