Malakree

One thing is you can only have 5 units in the ironfist, I would suggest merging two of the gg squads so you have a unit of 6 then make that the bosses unit. Take ironclad and miasmatic blade (ulgu 1) on the cabbage. It will make him super hard for the dorfs to kill because he's limited on spells. Grab a sword of judgment (ulgu 6 weapon) for the lulz to turn him into the ultimate heroslayer (and monster) with 2 warchanter buffs on him. It's a bit tailored towards the dispossessed but it's super close to what I'm running next week at bobo so it's not totally tech'd for them.

Ironjawz have Brutes which are disgustingly good at killing monsters so it's kind of a none issue. EDIT: That said they may actually be very useful for dealing with RR2+ saves. Problem is they are a bit over expensive for the limited number of attacks and don't have any internal synergy with the rest of the Ironjawz. 2 attacks at 4+/3+ means that for 100 points your opponent is averaging 1 save at -2 for 3 damage. So 200 points to inflict 2 saves at -2 for 6 damage total. On the other hand Brutes are 180 points whose boss with the Waaagh! buff will inflict ~+1.5 saves at -2 for D3 damage with just his smasha then you get the rest of the unit. On paper they look nice but I think that we are better off putting those points into Brutes instead.

Yes, RaW you can have a single megaboss Waaagh! multiple times and get as many attacks as you spend command points (at least). Exception to this would be if a tournament has any house rules which stop it.

At the risk of slightly derailing the thread the issue comes down to three separate things of which two are glaring errors while one is just a natural shift in the game. First is the endless spells, it's natural that they are a huge boost to all magic based armies. Both seraphon and tzeentch gained from their existence because they don't need to make major list alterations to use then. This is a natural shift which is to be expected. Second is the most agregeous issue, the double allegiance ability. Both of them are powerful enough to be a main faction trait (smashing and bashing etc.). Giving them both is stupid, it would be like giving fyreslayers high tide without removing the runes, ofc it's to strong. Really they should have removed the seraphon teleport and increased the summoning range to wholly within 36" more than 9" from an enemy unit. Cannot move or charge on the turn they are summoned. It keeps the essence of both while making the army on the board far more stationary, suddenly they have to protect their heroes rather than teleporting away. Lastly is the engine of the gods. This unit is a relic from the fluff days of sigmar when stuff wasn't balanced. It's warscroll reflects that but it's points doesn't. The best way to fix it would be to have one of the engines use the ability and the others all assist. "Once per turn, if there are one or more engines of the gods on the table then you may consult the stars. Roll two dice and add the engine of the gods stat on it's monster table (3/2/0/-1/-2). Roll an additional dice if there is a slann wholly within 12" of the engine and an extra dice for each other engine of the gods on the field. If more than 3 dice are rolled pick 3 and consult the table." Stops the ridiculous stacking and means having multiple just makes it more likely you can pick the result you want. Having 4 isn't vastly more effective than having 1 or 2.

Ability to teleport around the board randomly. Skinks are one of the best screen units in the game, are battleline and are super cheap. Massive amount of super powerful wizards letting them properly make use of the endless spells. Ability to randomly summon in extra units because they needed two fully fledged allegiance abilities. Engine of the gods now pretty reliably summons more units. You can have four Engine of the Gods who can each summon units everyturn. You are facing what was already a top tier army only now it fields 1k of free summons as well.

This. The second spell cast is MASSIVE for us because we can double up on the weirdfist bonus now, the massive reduction in points cost for it is just the icing on the cake. Just as importantly the endless spells in general mean that you can take 2/3 wizards and still make use of the extra spells. Sure if the weirdnob dies it's a loss but one of your other wizards can recast the Balewind then start using it. The balewind vortext change was just so good for us and the weirdfist, the fact that it now costs the same as the ironfist (QQ) just makes it more competitive against it.

This is actually my point. I think right now I think battalions are good enough for us that it's worth taking one, specifically because the choice isn't Ironfist or no Ironfist. It's Ironfist or no Ironfist or Weirdfist. Any situation where you don't take the Ironfist I would take a Weirdfist instead.

Personally I don't think it's worth dropping the Battalion. It grants us so much. For 180 points you cut your drops down drastically, get another artefact, a free command point and either the Ironfist or Weirdfist bonuses. Considering that the command point alone is worth 50 points, I would never go without it.

Essentially there are three bases for an Ironjawz list, which are the three stronger Battalions. Ironfist - Your generic catchall that fits with any Ironjawz allegiance list. Gorefist - The Ironjawz alpha-strike list, abuses the Big G to ensure you can get in combat turn 1 and do massive damage. Weirdfist - Previously more of a cheese list built around throwing out Foot of Gork and hoping for 30+ mortal wounds off it. The Gorefist list didn't really change, we know it's strong and nothing in the new rules changed that. In terms of list building there isn't to much complexity to it so there isn't much point discussing it. Take the Big G, a Gorefist with as many GG's as you can fit and you're done. As a result a lot of the discussion has focused around the other two basis because there is a lot of options and choice for them. Bloodtoofs+Cogs is the discussion around where the Ironfist should go in the new rules/meta, an Ironfist was always about giving us the extra mobility and Cogs/Bloodtoofs do exactly that. However they also cost a ton of points, 360 for both battalions and the spell is only 80 points shy of a second Maw-Krusha! So there is a lot of discussion and theory-crafting to be had around this topic. Lastly is the weirdfist, which is probably changed the most with the new edition, has gone from a niche "how hard can I make Gorks Foot Stomp" to a legitimate third option. A balewind vortex is much cheaper, the weirdnob has much better protection from ranged snipes and there is the raft of endless spells. Combine that with the increase to the Ironfists points and is a legitimate alternative. (see the spoiler for an example) So the end result is that the discussion has very much focused around the Ironfist vs Weirdfist variations because that's where the new choices and options are. It's not because the Gordrakkfist isn't strong, it's just not changed.

Ironfist means you move d6" the rampaging destroyers means you can make a normal move. You can do both.

@Vasshpit is correct for the conventional wisdom. I think the Boss Brute @Sangfroid normally says 5 is Choppas, 15/20 is Hackas, 10 is personal choice depending on how good you are with positioning etc. One thing to note is that now you only have to be as close when you pile in the positioning aspect of the 1" range is easier to do so we might see a swing back to it for the units of 10.

You mean the Gordrakkfist which is currently one of the strongest Ironjawz lists ? To be honest the fact they gave seraphon another giant buff after they were already reasonably top tier was pretty retarded. Doesn't help that a bunch of the top tier armies are all wizard focused while we are STILL weak to it. I think correct use of the endless spells is going to be mandatory if we want to try to compete, that and going for some ridiculous combos while saying ****** the meta. I suspect IJ atm are a 2-3/5 no matter what list you are running. I'm taking this list to Throne of Skulls next weekend Then this one to bravery one the week after, changed somewhat because they have some house rulings and such which mean you can't multi-stack waaagh! Dropping first only means you win ties in the roll off etc. As a note, you know that you are still at full move during your hero phase so if you get some IJ triggers you can move out of range of the shackles before they affect you.

Also as it's an Unbinding roll the various bonuses for casting don't apply. For example things like the Astrolith Bearer, The Slann Sage's Staff. It's also pretty vicious if it explodes. Potentially you can fire it and have it off the board by the time the round rolls round.

"An" unbind opportunity. You do realise it gets an unbinding attempt EVERY time a wizard casts a spell in 12" of it. If your opponent tries to cast 20spells you get 20 unbind attempts from it...

The Ironfist doesn't. It explicitly states Orruk Ardboys in none keyword bold. That means it's not keyword dependent but requires the unit with that specific name.

You can't they don't go in the Ironfist. Yep, I was sure somewhere in the pre-stuff someone on the GW team said you could now take the Big G in a megabattalion, when I checked though I struggled to sift through the hours of content to find where it was.

In this list I would drop the Megaboss to a Warchanter (you still have a 2nd Waaagh! source) freeing up 60 points. Drop the Ironskullz (freeing up 80 points) giving you 200 spare points for a battalion of your choice, probably a weirdfist or an Ironfist. This would still give you your extra command point but greatly reduce your drops, it would also include the WC who is great for his +1 buff, especially if you have a big unit of Ardboys who are getting a Waaagh! (3s vs 4s on 60+ attacks!). Losing the Ironskullz is perhaps a pain but I'd definitely say it's worth it. Plus you have 20 points spare for a second endless spell. Personally I like the Malevolent Maelstrom in a list without a lot of wizards. You are lacking unbinds should you come up against a lot of wizards and with his +2 to cast the unbind is less painful against your single spell a turn Weirdnob.

I'm intending on grabbing a SC greenskinz as my next buy, once I've finished my 18 remaining ggs, /facepalm, and converting both versions to have a waaagh! Banner.

So my thing is it says cast by an enemy wizard. With an endless spell the "cast" portion is setting up the spell model. In abilities it states "If successfully cast, setup...." This implies that the wizard is only involved in getting the model on the board. The damage on the other hand is done by the model itself independent of the wizard. As an example consider the following situations for the D3 damage from Ravenak's Gnashing Jaws (as an example). Which of the following would the lens of refraction reduce. You move a predatory spell You cast and deal d3 to your own unit. (You control, You cast) An Enemy moves a predatory spell You cast and deals d3 to your unit. (Enemy control, You cast) You move a predatory spell your Enemy cast and deal d3 to your own unit. (You control, Enemy cast) An Enemy moves a predatory spell an Enemy cast and deals d3 to your unit. (Enemy control, Enemy cast) Which of these would would count for lens of refraction? Does it require they control it or they cast it, does it have to be both, is it just all endless spells. In this regard in my opinion it makes most sense to consider the mortal wounds dealt by an endless spell to come from the model rather than the enemy wizard. This would be distinct from Spell Mirror which just requires you are affected by a spell.

No.

So I read the pendulum and the way I interpret it is you set it up with the length ways along a line. It then moves forward and backwards down that line. So it can go back but both you and your opponent know where it could possibly go. Means that how you originally place it is hugely important. Plus d6 mortals is vicious.

Personally if I had to pick a damage spell it would be the aethervoid pendulum because pick a direction and it only moves along that line. Means you get a lot of control over how bad it can ****** you if it's fired back.

In what way? Each of them is unique in what it does. For example, is the burning head an "attack" spell despite its RR1's aura?

Yep just read the rules, yet another example of where GW clearly meant something but 3 years and a bunch of FAQ's down the line it's now something totally different.

You get 5 rolls, on average you would expect 2.5 of each. Easier to round down and assume the 5th roll is a bonus than round up assuming both get the 5th roll.