Jump to content

Injuryprone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    107

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Injuryprone

    AoS2 - Dankhold Troggoth Discussion

    in Destruction

    Posted

    Thoughts on using shaman on arachnarok, webspinner shaman, or wardokks in our lists?

    So far I'm running:

    Troggboss

    Fungoid

    Rockgut x 6

    Fellwater x 3

    Fellwater x 3

    I was thinking of throwing in another fungoid, a shaman on arachnarok, a webspinner shaman, and maybe a wardokk to eat up some points without having to build more identical troggs.  Past that point maybe just spam fellwaters and throw in an endless spell to hit 2k.

    AoS2 - Dankhold Troggoth Discussion

    in Destruction

    Posted

    On 12/23/2020 at 3:05 AM, Dankboss said:

    They aren't inherently better, as in being superior, it's just they can perform in an environment that rockguts aren't so suited for; by that I mean Rockguts need to be in 6s+ to be effective, but at 1k that's pretty much overkill, and there's no sweet spot, which is where Fellwaters come in. I would go 6 Rockguts and 2 units of 3 Fellwaters. So it's not a matter of one being better than the other, but finding the balance appropriate to the points level, to avoid overkilling and wasting resources. Both will perform just fine, it's simply resource management.

    So with:

    Trogboss

    Fungoid

    Rockgut x6

    Fellwater x3

    Fellwater x3

    Maybe spend the last 80 on a madcap or squig herd?

    AoS2 - Dankhold Troggoth Discussion

    in Destruction

    Posted

    20 hours ago, Dankboss said:

    You may find Fellwaters performing better at 1000, due to less powerful units from the enemy. At smaller scale, the Fellwater's significantly high damage-point ratio becomes much more apparent.

    So far all I have is a dankhold, 3 rockguts, and a fungoid.  I'm trying to price out a list that will take me to 1000.  Bummer that the felwater are better at this value, as their sculpts don't really do anything for me.

    AoS2 - Dankhold Troggoth Discussion

    in Destruction

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Sauriv said:

    Somerhing like this (but i find 1k lists hard to build and I usually play 2k):

     

    Allegiance: Gloomspite Gitz
    Dankhold Troggboss (250)
    - General
    Fungoid Cave-Shaman (90)
    Fungoid Cave-Shaman (90)
    6 x Rockgut Troggoths (280)
    6 x Rockgut Troggoths (280)

    Total: 990 / 1000
    Extra Command Points: 0
    Allies: 0 / 200
    Wounds: 68
     

    Or remove the shamans and add 3 more rockguts and a cp. Or consider the new battalion for 140(i think) 

    Do we not need units of 3 for objectives?

    Warcry - Gloomspite Gitz discussion

    in Warcry

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

    The Insanity of Sneaky Stab

    I've seen two ways to play this rule, and, with a careful reading of the main rules, there is a third way which, within said rules, seems to be the most by-the-book way of playing it. But. If played that way, it seems horrifying, which is why my conclusion is that it can't be right and one of the other two must be (and I have an opinion on which).

    Interested in discussing? Warning, it's a long one. :) If so, read on.

    The Sneaky Stab rule read: "... add the value of this ability to the damage points allocated by hits and critical hits from that attack action."

    Most people have interpreted this one of two ways:

    1) Add up you damage from your hits and critical hits and then apply the bonus to this total. The argument here is that the phrase "damage points allocated by hits and critical hits" is simply a way to say that if you are applying damage from some other source that is not a hit or critical hit, you don't get to add this bonus damage.  There are currently a few ways to do damage without hits or critical hits, and (as we've seen from Kill Team and other recent games) initial rules for new things are showing that they are written with future add-ons in mind (see reference to mounts and gargantuans in the Warcry main rules). This phrasing could easily be a way to future-proof the rules. Even beyond that, this interpretation sees, in essence, an implied parenthesis around "hits and critical hits"  - as in figure out the damage you a generating from (hits and critical hits) and then add the bonus to this total.

    2) Add the bonus to each hit and critical hit. The argument here is that the rules say each hit and critical hit carries a damage to be allocated. Nothing says to add up all your damage and then apply it to the target. It says, on p. 44, point #3, "For each hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the first value ... for each critical hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the second value ..."  Well, that leads to the question of the actual process of allocating said damage, which bring us to this issue ...

     

    In our games, we went down this rabbit hole and found something bothersome. If you use the justification for #2 above - that you allocate damage for individual hits (and criticals) you need to look at the rules to see where that comes from and where it goes. That inevitably leads to this:

    Main rules, p. 44, point #4 "Damage points are allocated one at a time (note: emphasis mine)."

    Uh oh.

    Hits and critical hits generate damage points to be allocated. These are allocated one at a time. Sneaky Stab adds the value of the ability to  damage points allocated which means that each individual point, as it is allocated, gets the Sneaky Stab bonus. Yikes!

     

    Now, am I saying this is how it ought to be played? Nope. 

    What I am saying, though, is that if you are using the main rules to justify option #2 above, you must use all the main rules that relate to damage allocation. You don't get to pick a few of them and ignore the rest. You must follow the process of damage allocation through to the end of that process. This means that if you support #2, you really should support adding the bonus to each and every point, not to each hit.

    In other words, #2 is a middle ground between a reasonable reading of the ability+main rules and the most literal reading. I support #1 and, if an opponent tried the literal application in a game against me, I'd have to allow that his reading is also correct and take the massive damage.

    Note that this is not RAW vs. RAI. This is RAW and RAW vs a made up middle ground.

    Thoughts?

    You spent way too much time thinking about this.  

    Warcry - Gloomspite Gitz discussion

    in Warcry

    Posted

    5 hours ago, simakover said:

    hello, that do you think is optimals roster of gitz? im haveloon curse and make some testing team with boingrot boss + 2 boingrots and 2 squigs, feel devastating but lack of decision making. that im need also ? may be some good starting list?

    Boing boss

    Bounder

    Squigs x 3

    Herders x 2

    Warcry is Killteam/Mordheim... ?

    in Warcry

    Posted

    18 hours ago, Jefferson Skarsnik said:

    I know there are likely to be new chaotic beasts added sooner or later, but is there any reason why you couldn't sub in thematically appropriate fighters from the existing warbands as random twist deck monsters instead of/in addition to using the ones from the starter box ? 

    E.g having a particular area be infested with chainrasps/savage orcs/squigs that attack everyone. Or for the "Apex Predator" twist card where you add one 30-wound variant of a monster, you could add an ogre/troll/chaos spawn and use the rest of the Ogor Breacher statline for it 

    Idk I just I like the idea of a mighty chaos warband finally brought low by the rogue squig herd that chased it across the bloodwind spoil for eight days and nights

    Chaos spawn or bust

    Warcry is Killteam/Mordheim... ?

    in Warcry

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Nin Win said:

    Sadly for my horde the cheapest skeleton is 55 points.  That 15 points might not seem like much but when you take 10 such fighters, you're now missing a 150 point medium strength bruiser from the list.

    My prediction for tying up good models with cheap ones is that you'll think it's going great into late turn 1, early turn 2 but then you'll suddenly lose a ton of bad models and go into late turn 2, early turn 3 with no longer having a numbers advantage and now having a major quality disadvantage.

    I think the real way to use numbers will be in layers set up past objectives.  Where the elite warband has to be one the one to attack and fight through them.  I think when the scenario/situation has the horde as the aggressor, the lower quality warband is going to have to go for an outnumbering to kill rather than a tying up.

    Maybe it's the bat reps I've watched, but they were mainly used to screen movement and as a sacrifice to tie up a unit for a full turn.  With most games ending turn 4 and not being won on bodies dead, hordes seem like the way to go.  Maybe not a full horde but definitely not 5 elite units.

    • Like 1

    Warcry is Killteam/Mordheim... ?

    in Warcry

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Nin Win said:

    The math looks like actions aren't as important as damage per turn across the entire warband.  So you've got a bunch of actions?  That's nice.  You very likely don't have the same actual damage output as a mixed group with access to sources of damage from abilities which don't require actions.

    Furthermore, the splitting of forces into groups could well end up with a small group of chaff/basic grunts having to face off against some truly excellent fighters and being defeated in detail before their reinforcements arrive on later turns.  So it's not just average damage per action/activation/warband but also the damage output of each of the dagger, shield and hammer.

    I'm expecting my skeleton heavy Legions of Nagash warband to really struggle against my friend's Iron Jaws.

    But if your 40 point guys are tying up their 250pt cav, they are forced to waste activations on your chaff while you dominate the board with numbers.

×
×
  • Create New...