Discussion in 'Other Armies Discussion' started by NIGHTBRINGER, Jun 16, 2021.
Fair, though given how hedonistic modern society is, I’d say Slaanesh is in charge of that too...
@Lizards of Renown : Any thoughts on the Lore of the Great Maw? Perhaps a spell write-up (how do they rank against one another)? Strengths, weaknesses, uses, etc.
I have very little experience with the Lore of the Great Maw. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, if you get the chance.
Would love to! it's one of my favourites:
First off, I'll say that the Lore of the Great Maw has a great synergy with the Ogre Kingdoms army. Lots of buffs for combat in the list as well as a brilliant regeneration granting spell. These spells can also be upgraded to affect all units nearby, so it's good to have your wizards up close and personal.
Taking into account most of the OK's troops are movement 6, you can make the most of these very quickly.
Which leads me to the first bit: Bloodgruel Lore Attribute.
Ogre Kingdom wizards are in the rare group where they can take armour (have ironfist on their equipment list) and their stats are not bad. Stick them with a good weapon and armour and you've already got a fair decent fighter.
Add to this the fact that they can buff all units around them and it starts to become fairly decent.
Bloodgruel is particularly of use here. Every time a spell is cast, roll a 2+ and you regain a wound. With the Slaughtermaster's 5 wounds, this becomes quite useful in a fight. (On a roll of 1, not so useful as you take a S6 hit but still have a chance for it not to wound, armour save and ward save). You can go up against another character and heal yourself while buffing your troops. Marvellous!
Add to this that you get +1 to the next spell and this is a very useful attribute, effectively making you a level 5 wizard after the first spell.
Now to the spells:
Signature - Spinemarrow 6+: Stubborn for your unit or another? Very useful for a 6+ spell, considering that leadership is one of the key weak points for OK's. Keeping in mind that it is also a 6+ spell to buff your wizard to a level 5 and regain a wound, it's actually not bad at all.
1. Bonecrusher 8+: A fair attack spell. No one is jumping up and down about 2D6 S2 hits, but when you add no armour saves it becomes a fair attack. Especially against high armour, low toughness troops like Empire Knights, Elves of all kinds, etc. A bit of a high casting price for me, but fair.
2. Bullgorger 7+: Decent buff. +1 strength to unit or 14+ to give to all units in 12 inches. Good for a 7+ casting price. Again, synergy is important here. By itself it's the bad side of okay. But when your wizard can hold his own in combat, so can be on front line where the buff's really matter it becomes a decent spell.
3. Toothcracker 8+: Same as Bullgorger but +1 toughness and for 16+ for all troops in 12". A bit expensive for results, but still decent.
4. Braingobbler 9+: Induce panic test in target unit, except for those Immune to Psychology. Situational for it to be useful. With the right army, like Orc's & Goblins or Skaven, can be very useful. For a lot of armies though it's not useful at all (Elves, Lizardmen, Chaos and any Unbreakable armies like Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings). I'd switch this one for the signature spell.
5. Trollguts 12+: Pricy buff, but 4+ Regen for your unit or target unit? Or everyone in 12 inches?! YES PLEASE! Easily my favourite spell, despite the high casting cost as the Ogre's usually don't have much going for them in terms of high armour saves and this spell could win the entire battle for you as suddenly your troops get an extra edge in combat.
6. The Maw 15+: Direct damage template attack. Based on initiative, if you pass you just get a S3 hit, if you don't, S7 with D6 wounds. Can be good, but you have to roll scatter for placement and this is where it becomes a bit "meh". Overpriced for the likelihood of scattering and doing nothing. You can buff for 21+ and use the larger template to make it more likely, but it's a lot to invest in something that might do nothing. I'd swap this one for signature spell, especially with a high initiative army.
I'd say, from best to worst, is: Spell 5, then 2 and 3 together, then signature, then 1, then 6 and then 4.
I'd look to swap 4 first and then 6. But if I'm going up against O&Gs, then I'd keep the panic spell. If I'm going up against lizardment, I'd keep number 6. There's no spell that's super crappy for me here.
So, there is an extra note on this lore. Following on from the introduction and based on the wizard being in the frontline, able to heal himself and wear armour, you can also add a Hellheart. Force every enemy magic using in D6x5" to suffer a miscast is deadly. Give to your tooled up wizard, or bluff with a character who can rapidly get close to the enemy wizard and BLAMO! If you have an opponent who knows the item, then double bluff with a decoy who heads towards the enemy wizard and watch them flee. Love this one. Especially with armies who will get their wizards close like High Elves (for the +1 to ward saves) or Chaos armies.
And finally, I love the humor inherent in the Ogre Kingdom's rules. Not the least of which is here in the Magic, where the subtitle of the lore reads:
"Gut Magic. Gastromancy. Shamanic Victuals."
Excellent write-up, an enjoyable read. Cheers
I agree with your ranking of spells.
I remember that. The biggest cluster-f#$@ in the history of GW FAQs.
Yup, but considering the points where GW screwed me on rules [LoR bows his head in a moment of silence with respect to the unhandled and unfair treatment of the Tomb Kings], I have no qualms using this one.
Whenever I use my Tomb Kings and see how much better their spells are written for this edition I get more depressed about the army book.
I made a list of improvements to Tomb Kings to line them up with Vampire shit over on EEFL:
Feel free to use these in all friendly games you have as a final errata for the army book (I know it’s not official but GW aren’t going to do one, so we as the players have to take action and might as well use our collected knowledge and wisdom to do what is right - justice for the Best Undead Faction!).
Update on this, one member on EEFL has suggested giving Ushabti a mighty Toughness of 6 to even better represent their stony endurance:
I'm concerned that might be bridging the territory between Monstrous Infantry and Monster, but it's still worth having a go at playtesting them with that, even if just for the laughs, and if it makes them too strong, never mind, Toughness 5 it shall be!
2+ toughness at what level of points increase?
Honestly the toughness was not an issue in 8th as everything wounds on a 6 and poison is everywhere. If you took the sphinx and brought them to 7th or earlier they would be worth their points every game as anything less than str 4 couldn't even hurt them other than combat res. Ushabti are costly already and even at toughness 6 I don't think I'd invest too heavily into them. Yes it helps but I don't see how it would help all that much. If I'm wrong then I'll be happy to be wrong if they are better than they are now. Heck I'm still beating the dead horse of how much I dislike the TK Skullstorm and how I wish we could have gotten the Return to the Golden Age from Storms of Magic.
I always thought that their armour save should be much higher. I mean, they're solid stone for crying out loud. I think that would then manifest itself correctly when dealing with Poison. They're not alive, so thus having a poisonous javelin or similar jabbed into them would actually make NO difference.
Or making them not be auto wounded by poison...
I think it is a very problematic proposition to alter rules based on fluff. It reminds me of an old reference made in the 3rd edition Necron codex from way back in the day:
"Necrons are largely mechanical creatures, and as such it might seem inappropriate that weapons such as sniper rifles, which normally use poison to achieve their effect, and agonisers, which work against an enemy's nervous system, should be effective against them. In practice, anyone using these weapons against Necrons would make adjustments to counter the Necrons' defences, for example, using acid rounds instead of poisoned rounds or altering the charge from an agoniser to affect the Necrons' power systems. Because of this, Necrons do not receive any special immunities in this regard. In the Warhammer 40,000 universe there are many troops with an equal claim to special immunities, such as Tyranids and Daemons. It is therefore logical to assume that weaponry will keep pace to maintain fairness and avoid unnecessary complication."
I think the same principle holds true in WFB. If we retroactively grant Ushabti or Sphinxes immunity to poison because they are made from stone, many others can make an equally legitimate claim:
Undead aren't alive, so poison should have no effect on them
it wouldn't make too much sense for Daemons to be affected by poison either
and what about the K'daai Destroyer... a fire daemon bound to a metal body would most definitely be immune from poison (which by the way would instantly erase the Destroyer's only two losses in the Best CC units tournament!).
This is a fair point, but in that 40K rule you have futuristic races that often have multiple different rounds of ammunition or settings on their tech. In Fantasy however I just couldn’t see that happening - how could pathetic little Skinks configure their poisoned darts to somehow make them great at killing a stone statue? I’m sure I remember seeing an Ogre unit that was immune to poison somehow, so if an Ogre can a statue can. Stone is almost as resilient as metal against impacts and cannot be affected in any way by poison. Also as I mentioned before, how could Monstrous Infantry-size statues be Toughness 4, yet some big fat Crypt Ghouls somehow have Toughness 5, despite being creatures of flesh and blood? Flesh is in no way tougher than stone.
I understand your reasoning with Skeletons and Daemons, but to be fair most of those are smaller models that would be more likely to be damaged by the impact from a poisoned dart alone (and Daemons, though made of warp-stuff, still have some sort of body and organs, so I would assume poison could still damage those internal organs, including the K’daai which has Daemonic body parts that could be focus-fired upon).
No points increase to start with, Ushabti were generally deemed overpriced at 50 points per model for what they were, though if they prove to be OP with such increased toughness their value could be increased by +5 or 10 points.
To be honest I thought their armour save was fine, the models don’t have much metal armour and rely mostly on their natural stone bodies, which should be represented by a higher Toughness.
Tyranids and deamons were immune to poison and a few other effects back in 2nd edition of 40k. While I agree to the point that we shouldn't change things due to fluff reasons as it could warp the game, there has to be a middle ground IMO. Constructs are subpar due to either poor armour or toughness not meaning much. I'm not looking for them to be invincible but against two of my friends armies, VC and Lizardmen, most of my constructs were almost free point for them. If we make them too strong the cost goes up and they are less useful again.
To be honest I think the Sphinxes are fine except they just need to be Immune to Poison (though perhaps Necrosphinxes could be Strength 6?), while Ushabti definitely need at least one extra point of Toughness and Immune to Poison to be in any way effective at the points cost they currently have. Otherwise I’m content to leave them as they are
Changing the random heroic killing blow would also be nice. I don't need much to make me happy, I played TK in 7th and was happy and they were fighting uphill.