Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In theory a TAC should be able to handle them as they are a core army. If they are far too skewed then it will break game balance.

Thing is whilst hey are monstrously powerful, they also have very limited board control. It might also be possible to lock them in combat with fast units.

Like going against Ossiarchs, you might have to play more to objectives than just outright killing power.
And if the game is about killing power - mob up and focus fire on one. Each one you tear down is a huge chunk out of the enemy.



They might also be really vulnerable to magic, ranged attacks as well as being mobbed. So I can see potential for them to have weak points that allows other armies to exploit them; even if it might take a while for some to learn how to deal with them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Are we really going to suggest that a TAC should be able to handle this army?

They shouldn't. It's a skew list, for all intents and purposes.

It depends on how prevalent they become in the Meta. The issue being if they become prevalent enough, I don't think I have the tools in my OBR codex to handle it at all, TAC or not.

35 wounds behind a 4+ save is less durable than a lot of units; 30 mortek guard are harder to shift than that. 20 hearthguard zerkers, 30 grimghasts, 20 chaos warriors... If an army cannot kill a mega-gargant or two it has serious problems with damage output and either knows what it is doing or is not a TAC list. Plus Mega-Gargants are heroes and monsters. There are a LOT of anti-hero and/or monster abilities out there be they on a warscroll or from an artifact/allegiance ability, if a given player is concerned they can tap into those.

SoB have three lists:
1 Mega-Gargant and 9 Mancrushers
2 Megas and 6 Mancrushers
3 Megas and 3 Mancrushers

Unless the allegiance has something real good waiting in the wings which we have not seen yet those are not even close to the average tourney-topping army.

I guess we'll see then. Maybe I'm concerned for nothing and I won't have to worry about seeing them unless I get 1st round matched with them.

Have we seen any way for them to cast spells and dispel?

No, though I am betting Kraken-Eaters have an artifact and/or command ability for it.

 auticus wrote:
I don't see the exaggerations in my post sorry. I stated remove allies because cause was we started making exceptions, so why not just remove them because I find exceptions to be tedious. There are no exaggerations in any of that.

Well since exceptions are tedius...Let's remove cant' run and charge.

Cant' cast same spell twice? There are exceptions to that. Exceptions are tedius. Remove restriction!

Owner decides where damage goes. There are exceptions to that too. Make attacker allocate damage!

How will these lists look like? One big giant is around 500 points, one giant is around 200?

4 big once?
3 big once, 2 small once?
2 big once, 5 small once?

If you get 3 small ones it's about 500 pts. So it's basically 1 big or 3 small for 500 pts blocks. So from 4 big ones to 12 small ones. Most likely combos I would expect 2 big, 6 small or 3 big, 3 small

Ok. The small once are battleline? So no 4 big ones?

I think they discount the Mancrushers (small ones) if you take units of 3. It seems the minimum number of models one can take is 6 with a max of 10.

 Overread wrote:
In theory a TAC should be able to handle them as they are a core army. If they are far too skewed then it will break game balance.

Thing is whilst hey are monstrously powerful, they also have very limited board control. It might also be possible to lock them in combat with fast units.

And if the game is about killing power - mob up and focus fire on one. Each one you tear down is a huge chunk out of the enemy.

Same way i see them, the more megas that is on the table, the less objective control the force have. It may take some effort and some unit losses to bring down one mega(seeing some of the traits), but when one it is down things will change.

Yep plus can they even do anything in the magic phase? So that's a whole phase of damage and buff/debuff output that they might not be able to tap into on their own. Heck those Endless Spell walls could come into their own when you've factions that can't just get rid of them and could seriously be messed up by them.

I would imagine at least one relic deals with magic.

I wonder if they have detachments?

 Overread wrote:
Yep plus can they even do anything in the magic phase?

so far, no.
But that is perhaps where allies can come in.

Mega-Gargant Mercenaries on Warhammer Community:

Yea no bomb that one.
When we knew on saturday that all armies could have a mega, it was very clear megas would not follow the point limitations for allys at 2kp or less. (what are the ally points for armies above 2k btw?)

So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
Yea no bomb that one.
When we knew on saturday that all armies could have a mega, it was very clear megas would not follow the point limitations for allys at 2kp or less. (what are the ally points for armies above 2k btw?)

It's the same, 1/5th of points and model count. The limit just scales up and down with the points value you select.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

Sounds right from what we know so far. Which is a neat idea as it allows GW to separate the balance and stats of the gargants in their own army and those who are taken as allies. It might mean that allied ones are weaker or stronger or very niche built compared to the regular ones.

No wolves on Fenris wrote:
So from the war com article, am I right in thinking that other alliances can only take a specific named mega Gargant whilst destruction can take any one of the three named Mega-Gargants? Basically if we want a generic Mega-Gargant we need to get the army itself?

Kinda/sorta?

To use an example:
If you want to take a Mega-Gargant as Order? You have to take Bundo Whalebiter.
Bundo Whalebiter is always going to be a Kraken-Eater Mega-Gargant.

There's a bit of a sneak peek on the Sunday preview here:

I hope GW ordered extra of those cards as I can see a LOT of people getting them instead of getting the battletome

The exception is Destruction forces; several armies have SoB listed as traditional allies. Presumably they will also benefit from the point restriction being replaced if one picks up an allied MegaG.

@Overread to clarify, the allied restriction outside of points is one-in-four units, so three in-faction unit choices for every one ally choice. The points restriction is an additional rule for matched play only. Model count never comes into it either way.

And there we have it, an artifact for kraken mega gargant that makes one into a basic wizzard.

That first artifact in the preview is extremely powerful.

Yea, thouse 35 wounds might not go down so easily.

Just ordered my 2000pt list
Warstomper
Gatebreaker
2 x 3 Mancrushers

Well we have the full warscrolls now. Underwhelming, but not surprisingly so given GW's general reluctance to offer Destruction more powerful options. They just don't deal that much damage for being nearly 500 points. I would not be surprised to see the next GHB drop them down around the 400 point mark.

The army may still have a viable build or two thanks to allegiance and such, at least. And with their extra abilities the named character allies may make SoB most viable outside Destruction. Which is kind of sad if you ask me.

To be fair underwhelming might have been intentional - GW might not want to catch flak for releasing the most expensive models ever which are also coincidentally the most powerful ever.

 Overread wrote:
To be fair underwhelming might have been intentional - GW might not want to catch flak for releasing the most expensive models ever which are also coincidentally the most powerful ever.

I have trouble believing GW thought it that far through. Their established inadequacies in assessing potency seems a far more likely culprit.

Looking forward to the lore - interested to see if they are all actually Sons and if any mention of more intelligent Giants is referenced alongside the Destruction boys