Moogypies
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Moogypies
-
-
1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:
Having never Pre Ordered from GW before will my order arrive ON the 17th or be POSTED that day?
In my experience, usually posted day of release if order to house, ready to collect day of release if picking up at a store.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Dankboss said:
I think in some armies they could work. I like Grunnock for the massive -1 to hit he projects.
Im thinking they're not too bad in a Big Waaagh list that runs Gordrakk who can give them that tasty +1 to hit, combined with the -1 to hit probably at least half decent.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:
Something I just realized. Since forbidden power is legal Fyreslayer and FEC mercs should still be legal too.
A list that runs 2 megas, 4 solo gargants comes in at 1680 with 6 units. 1 in 4 would allow 2 merc units in the remaining 320 points. Obviously there will be other possible setups too.
This could be used to bring in some screens which would be a MASSIVE boon to our army.
I hadn't even considered using mercs other then the gargants, time to think it over and see if any are potentially worth the sacrifice of 2 mancrushers.
At 320 you could get from FEC-
30 Ghouls
6 Horrors
3 Flayers
Archregent (Summons a unit of 20 for 1cp later also) and is a wizard for unbinds.
2 Varghulf
2 Ghoul kings
If you went a unit of 3 mancrusher / 1 solo you would get 360-380 pts to use depending on what Megas you pick.
Which could nab you any of the following
40 Ghouls
6 Horrors
6 Flayers
Archregent
2 Ghoul Kings
We would also not generate a CP turn 1. Thats another big loss.
I see the reasoning of a screen, but crypt ghouls have a move of 6 which the gargants will surpass fast so i'd find it hard to hold a big boy back so much for the screen to cover him. Without their 6+fnp they will fold so quickly.
Flayers can keep up, have the same wounds as a mancrusher and a worse save. I feel overall in a sons army a mancrusher will be more effective as it can run/charge near a big boy, has better survivability and better objective capture potential.
An archregent does seem the most worth it though, a 2 cast/deny wizard who can summon a unit of 20 objective holders, it also leaves you with enough for a free CP to offset the merc cost and buy an endless spell.
Struggling to find any value at all in fyreslayers at this point range. -
I do whole-heartedly suggest if people agree with me or not to email - AoSFAQ@gwplc.com with the following questions so we can get it cleared up.
Title- Sons of Behemat Rules FAQ
"Does the Mega-Gargants "Longshanks" ability allow them to ignore models within 3" when making a normal move, allowing them to walk over units without making a "retreat" normal move? "
"Does the Kraken-Eater gain the Wizard keyword and the ability to use Endless Spells when taking the "glowy lantern" artefact of power?"
"When using the rule "Mighter Makes Rightier" or "Get rid of Them" allegiance traits and you opt to use these rules in place of a battleplans default, does this rule supersede the units inability to capture the objective. For example only Battleline units can capture objectives in the battleplan "The better part of valor." "-
1
-
-
We also need confirmation that the Kraken Eater can cast endless spells, after he didn't get the wizard keyword yet the head designer said we can use endless spells when using the relic ^^'
I'd also like clearing up-
"Designer’s Note: If the battleplan being played does not follow the normal rules for controlling objectives, you can pick whether to use this battle trait or to follow the rules from the battleplan each time control of the objective is determined."
Does our capturing rule of 10/20 supersede the battleplan specified capture conditions (Leader or battleline) if we choose not to use it? Otherwise what is the point if it doesn't?-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, schwabbele said:
you ignore the fact that he is in combat when he is wihtin 3" of an enemy model and the ability doesnt say a thing about ignoring combat. based on your logic he would never be in combat because he ignores enemy models... anyhow that needs a faq i guess
i would throw a coin 
There is no game state of "in combat" in the rules. Just "eligible to fight when within 3" ". (Or 6 if you have the abilities)
8 minutes ago, Gwendar said:Right.. because normally, you wouldn't be able to come within 3" of something or pass across models.
This interprets the same as other abilities that do the same thing. If you're in combat (within 3" of an enemy) then you still have to retreat when you move. You're only "ignoring" the rules that prevent you coming within 3" or passing across models; units with Fly (and Doomwheels as another example) do the same thing. They still are classified as retreating.
If that wasn't intended, then it likely would've read "It can still make a charge move later in that phase". Sure, maybe it needs an FAQ but I certainly won't be playing it the way you're interpreting it until then."When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit." vs "When this model makes a normal move, it can ignore models that have a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less" vs "Flying- If the warscroll for a model says that the model can fly, it can pass across models and terrain features as if they were not there when it makes any type of move."
Flying units have to retreat still I agree, because they do not IGNORE the units they are eligible to fight.
Went and read the Doomwheels warscroll as I don't play skaven, and agree that has to retreat also, as it doesn't state to ignore movement restrictions.
All of these examples must end outside of 3" of an enemy unit still.
It may well need to come to an FAQ, but as written I cannot see why they do not ignore this restriction, and I think to avoid getting completely bogged down by screens and unable to damage our way out (Literally!) this is something we need.-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, schwabbele said:
I think thats the key here. You start within 3" -> you need to retreat because you are in comabt already. That thing is only ignoring models in the context of a normal move ( and can't stop withing 3") 🤷♂️
A retreat is just an option of a normal move you can use. You ignore the fact there is models under when when electing to use a normal move, so do not need to use the retreat choice.
The flavour text on the skill enforces this as the intent IMO.
"A Mega-Gargant towers high above the battlefeld, and with its long powerful legs it can step over most obstacles."-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, GunslingerOy said:
Does the longshanks ability let you leave combat without a retreat move?
I would say yes.
The Warscroll Reads "When this model makes a normal move, it can ignore models that have a Wounds characteristic of 10 or less and terrain features that are less than 4" tall at their highest point. It cannot finish the move on top of another model or within 3" of an enemy model."
In the rules a "normal move" is listed as - Moves made in the movement phase are referred to as normal moves, to differentiate them from charge moves (made in the charge phase) and pile-in moves (made in the combat phase). A model making a normal move can move a distance in inches equal to or less than the Move characteristic shown on its warscroll.
Further
"When you make a normal move for a model, no part of the move can be within 3" of an enemy unit. Units starting a normal move within 3" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or retreat."
We IGNORE enemy models under 10 wounds, when making the normal move, thus we do not have to retreat.
-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
This is it lads!! Cannot wait to see everyones paint jobs and conversions when these drop, not to mention that juicy Gargant lore!!
Did you listen to the sample audio of the book?
Lots of angry shouting giants
-
I like the idea of the kraken eaters ability to punt objectives, and the relic lets you punt it 3d6 instead of 2d6
But on the objective game and how to manipulate it some examples we have-
Knife to the heart- 2 Objectives Turn 3, if you control both you win. Potentially, if you just slowly move up your whole army kicking your objective as you go, by turn 3 when you get there you could just walk over their units take it and win.
Total Conquest- 4 objectives (1 pt for each you hold, 1 extra point for a leader unit within 6", +1 if you took the objective from your opponent) Since a kraken mega will count as 30, you could potentially yeet your objective a massive 18", move up 17" with your max move and 6" run with a CP (Or charge instead if it's a better option), and score a whopping 5 VP turn 1 with 1 kraken eater (Very best case 😛 )
Battle for the pass- 4 objectives.
THIS is an interesting one.
1 pt's for objectives in your deployment zone
2 pt's for neutral objectives
4 pt's for enemy deploymeny objectives.
Now people will usually just try and secure the enemy and hang a unit in the backline for easy points.
We throw the objective out of our deployment zone, THEY CAN NO LONGER SCORE THE 4VP/TURN.
Kick central objective into their zone, we can now score 8 VP / TURN from enemy territory objectives.
Scorched Earth- 8 objectives (we may be spread a BIT thin here...)
You can burn objectives you control in ENEMY TERRIOTORY. Shame if kraken eaters just threw them out and then you burned every objectiveFocal points- 5 objectives, opposites captured = more vp. Kick those opposites close to one another, +1 for behemoths on objectives. A central objective is worth 2vp, if its gets kicked out of the centre is it still a central objective? 😛
Better part of valor with 6 objectives needing battleline to capture and stay by them REALLY hurts us, it's almost unwinnable unless you run 3x3 or lower independant aleguzzlers and completely crush their battleline quickly.
Going to need clarification on the battleplans that use alternate capturing methods.
"Designer’s Note: If the battleplan being played does not follow the normal rules for controlling objectives, you can pick whether to use this battle trait or to follow the rules from the battleplan each time control of the objective is determined." Does this mean we supersede the capturing requirements if we choose not to use the battleplan rules? -
All ordered up, 3 big boys, some coasters, a book and the cards on the way. 1 Week wait now ❤️
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Looks like I'm getting some Coasters!!
I'll also be getting a set through *if stocks allow
Wish there was a gargant theme one but a nice bonus for sure.
-
Just now, Ganigumo said:
Or Palisade, to block shooting and be an actual screen.
Aye, looking through the sub 50 point spells, that wont be hard to achieve (As seemingly he has no + to cast) Palisade seems solid also.
BUT for artefacts, I took a step back into the GHB2020.
Aqshy's relic gives hit rolls of 6 score 2 hits, with some gargants able to put out 10 attacks on some profiles. This MAY be a good damage boost, if nothing else is better. -
Possibly may be worth using Emerald Lifeswarm with a caster giant to have some ok recovery added, or burning head for rerolls of 1 to hit?
-
5 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
It might be counterintuitive but I was actually thinking of the contrary: they might cost less (I know, there's no precedent for a named version to be cheaper than the standard one) since they loose so much without the allegiance abilities -then again, their warscroll might still surprise
If their warscrolls are the presumably the same, but with the extra rules given to them that have been shown on community over the weeks I'm actually questioning if the -1cp gain turn 1 (As per old merc rules) and possibly not counting as 20 models is a decent tradeoff for the increased offensive/defensive abilities (Rules dependant per gargant) if we can't take them naturally.
-
6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
There is still a possibility that not all the information were in the GHB2020. For instance, where are the points for the named version of the Gargants (the mercenaries)? At the end of today's article there this footnote
Now this might as well be them writing "as if" the tome had been released before the GHB2020 (as it should have been?) but who knows
I really doubt they'll be any increase over the standard ones. But we'll have to wait and see.
-
44 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:
You know i really balked at the price, but will likely still get an army. The logic you're showing really only makes sense in the world of the GW hobby, in relative terms using points as a way to measure value. When you buy an army, you're getting a stack of boxes of different sizes and a load of different kits, likely 2-3x the amount of sprue. With Gargants you're getting 2 different kits in 4 boxes. In absolute, real-world value, it's really poor. It makes sense in the GW world, but in the "buying a product with reasonable profit margin taking into account manufacture, design and distribution costs" it's really poor value. I know that GW haven't actually increased prices above inflation in general as a principle, but this is definitely stretching any value proposal for buying plastic models for a game. Maybe we're too used to to buying 2/3 SC boxes and some other boxes to make an army for £300, but I personally feel the price too much. It should, at most, match a Castellan Knight at £100.
The worst part is the 2 mancrushers at 75. That was £45 literally 3 years ago- £47.50 with inflation. A £30 increase in 3 years is ungenerous considering the age of the kit. They still come with a square base on the sprue!
Having said that, people (including, probably, me) will buy this. So who the hell cares.
Even if I don't just plop it in at GW pts/£ metric, I would still say personally for me it's decent value for the hobby I enjoy.
But that's a hole to go down for someone else, I don't care to talk about GW price points and derail the gargant thread. In the end everyone has their own views and choices for the hobby that is valid for each individual and I respect those viewpoints.
I've been saving for these boys since reveal, and I'm mega-excited to see some more rules as the week comes on
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:
@Moogypies that gargant on stonehorn is rediculous. I love it. But you did it, hit just about every faction. I’m envious of the death players Especially because they could 3D print the most epic skeleton giant
Far, far more to do in time to get one for each faction ^^ But I think this is that faction that I find the most passion with.
I've seen so many themes just work on gargants, for elementals I personally would focus more on maybe using tattoo's to express a connection with the elements, someone did an absolutely gorgeous Fire Gargant on the Facebook "Sons of Behemat Age of Sigmar" page. (Credit to the painter- Giacomo Simone) far eclipses my talent, but its incredible.
Part of me wonders about an earthy giant, with fire undertones covered in crackle paint/mordant earth and seeing how that would look.-
4
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:
So I’m committing to these big fellas for a new army and want this to be flavorful and thematic. I realized that for three years since starting this hobby, I’ve never had a cohesive paint scheme and much less a theme/narrative driven set of models.
Any wisdom out there from experience when you went for a scheme? Perhaps you started one way and ended in another? Maybe you started too early and the rules just didnt quite match what you were going for? Not saying the rules were “bad”, but how did you adapt to completing the list/army?
at the end of the day, I really want to go for an elemental driven giant army. Perhaps green giants for a sylvaneth look or lightning Thunderscorn appeal
Gargants are so wonderful in that we can perhaps look the most disjointed, taping bits of whatever faction onto us whenever we want and it still looks cohesive and in-theme overall.
I went for a giant from each realm/faction and a few stereotypical patchy giants.
I have a few more since this picture.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sigmarusvult said:
Found on facebook.
Take it with the usual pinch of salt although the prices for the non gargants items seem legit, we might just assume that...
I have to say my excitement for the big lads has dropped significantly, hopefully the rules will pull it back up.
Honestly I don't see what the salt is about frankly.
We have some of the most impressive, large scale models that matches the previously biggest model (Archaon, £100) with three times the customisation options, people should've assumed gargants would be abou his price, and after teclis made a showing of the new costs, upped expectations in accordance with that.
Compare the cost to another army,
We will cost £510 for 3 megas and 3 aleguzzlers for a 2k army.
Randomly plucked, lets say a khorne Tyrants of Blood army, you got your 4 thirsters which are £340 and still have 800 points to make up which will likely, come up to about £100-£160 choice dependant which doesn't really make us that much more expensive then other individually built armies.
You got outliers like BCR who offer incredible value/pt , but £510 for a complete 2k army, I honestly don't think is too bad in the scheme of this hobby. With such few units, we won't ever have to really buy more to be "in the meta", we're pretty much a 1 purchase and done situation.
I'll be buying the three, the tomes and cards and audiobook on release for sure, and may still increase the mega's to 9 in time for alternate poses and different loadouts as I love the gargant race. Heck I'm still buying more aleguzzlers despite having more then the max amount I can even use. If they're my army for the next years worth of gaming, well, well worth the price to me, but everyones hobby is different and we got to respect their views
-
4
-
-
As I said previously, we also got mystic shield on those tokens. Im hoping we have a preview of something like a "build a warlord" kind of thing, where we can make the leader tankier, a mage or something along those lines instead of relics/warlord traits. Cause otherwise those tokens seem kind of weird placed in the set.
But i'm buying all of it, LE tome another tome to use in tournaments etc.
Need a gargant community event with like 20-30 megas a side on a big ol' WHWorld Table
-
1
-
-
YES. YES. YES.
WAIT, our tokens have mystic shield on them, we MAY have a caster!
We can grab rocks and chuck them in the shooting phase 😮 -
Eagerly awaiting spam refreshing for that sunday preorder preview. Give me a limited Edition Battletome and dice boys.
-
1
-
-
If you can find a decent coloured Flesh Primer, you're well and truly set.
I take a roundabout way with some probably useless steps to get my fleshes done.~
Light-
White Prime
choice of flesh contrast
Wetbrush or Extreme heavy drybrush Cadian Fleshtone
Medium Drybrush Kislev flesh
Light drybrush Pallid Wych flesh
Dark-
White Prime
Darker Fleshtone Contrast
Extreme drybrush or wetbrush Catachan Flesh
Medium drybrush Knight Questor
Light drybrush Bloodreaver flesh (i can never remember which is the lighter one, this or Knight)
I then recess shade any folds with Aggraxx Earthshade a few times getting more concentrated closer to the folds and sometimes add a little Magos Purple to the fold to show the strain.
Works for me, the way i've learned to like what i've done. Probably inefficient though.
i would throw a coin 
Wish there was a gargant theme one but a nice bonus for sure. 
Sons of Behemat Discussion 👣
in Destruction
Posted · Edited by Moogypies
I've thought about it and mulled it over, I'd find it hard to justify two big boys in generic, as then I feel we lose a fair chunk of rules in tribes that would make them better I still find 1 hard to fit in with the battleline or other units you'd want ideally.
We would have 4 battleline options:-
Ogor Gluttons (120/400) (3/12)
Gloomspite Shootaz (120/360) (20/60)
Bonesplitterz Savage Orks (120/300) (10/30)
Gloomspite Stabberz (130/360) (20/60)
Gluttons fulfil the exact same role as mancrushers at that point, and give less objective coverage since they also would not have their ogor = more models rule.
Savage Orks could work well, they have a decent output if support by Dokks and Bosses, but again I Feel without the bonesplitterz traits, or artefacts and spells they're not durable enough, hurty enough or fast enough.
Stabberz and Shootaz I think if you where to do it, are the best option, with a Loonboss a group of 60 archers could give out a fair few mortal wounds, but then again I'd rather plop them in Gloomspite and Merc in a gargant with bonus rules since gloomspite have a fairly decent CP generation to offset the negatives. Netters combined with the -1 to hit from the warstompa merc if you can throw them into the same combats gives him a bit more survivability.