Playing a test game tonight against a Cadian List with a Warlord Titan...will post a report following.

- Kendall

Think this is posted in the wrong thread.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Yes, that is probably way to good. Easy fix with wording so it doesn't benefit from the rule. Good point.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Game report here vs Tau.
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=32032

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Thank you very much!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Version 3.4 up.

Added mandatory choice of 1 Mega- or Great Gargant to the list structure.
Added a not to the "push em" rule which says that Mega Gargants can't use it.

Still haven't added the statline for Gunfortresses to the reference sheet, will do soon.

Giving KIC thoughts on only a +1 Mob rule to Supa-Stompas is something I'm thinking about...

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

The way the list is currently worded implies that you can have one or more Mega Gargants, or one or more Great Gargants, but not both Mega and Great in the same list. Maybe clarify by changing the formation name to something like "Avatar of Gork/Mork" with the Core Units part formatted the same way. Incidentally, such a move would provide a clear fluff justification for why a larger gargant is required.

Given the current wording, am I correct in thinking that "Push 'em harder ladz" only applies to Gargant and Great Gargant formations? In which case the wording would be clearer to state exactly that rather than referencing "a Gargant" and then later carving out Mega Gargants.

More Dakka upgrade wording is currently a bit awkward. Also, functionally, this means +2 A for Supa-Stompas and +3 A for anything else. There's probably a better way to word that. Alternatively, unless there is a strong balance concern for Supa-Stompas getting that third attack you could just change it to a straight +3. (Unless it is supposed to count remaining DC, in which case things get a bit more variable, and the word "remaining" should definitely be added. For reference, the current wording:
"Add a an extra Small Arms (15cm) attack for every 3DC, rounding fractions up, a WE has to a maximum of three additional attacks"

Thank you fir the help!

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

NP, this list is looking very interesting!

Question: are the fliers and spacecraft included in Support Formations, or just restricted to 1/3 total points? Templating implies that they are both, is that correct?

Other notes:
- Spacecraft need to be added to the reference sheet
- Soopa-Lifta Droppa should probably be renamed, as it isn't much like the Lifta Droppa (lacking the CC attack and being shorter ranged). Maybe Big Zzappa, Bursta Kannon, or Skullhamma Kannon would be appropriate?

Sort of crazy thought on upgrades: as people have been discussing, some of the upgrades are better/more exciting than others, what about expanding the upgrade list, increasing the cost on some, and then making each individual upgrade 0-1 per list instead of per WE? It might be hard to get right, but it would mean not every Gargant is running around with Kustom Power Fields and definitely feels Orky!

Nope, it wasn't.

Bat Rep time -

http://d6addiction.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/thursday-night-game-nigh-cadians-take.html

Lol ahhh made it sound like you were playing against a Cadian List using war griffin list (with a Warlord titan).

Also fantastic report. Good story telling. I agree with your assessments of the gargant list, it's not bad but increasing the costs of the supa stompas was unnecessary. If anything the list could still use a little bolstering to get it to a more competitive state. Also I don't think it's necessary to exclude the mega gargant from the push em harder rule. The thing is 1000 points and in a list that already suffers low activation counts it will be rarely used already.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group

Thanks for wirting this up for us Steve.
As everyone will read, the Great Gargant was a fortunate survivor at the end of game and I'd like to thank the giant building in the centre for providing a refuge for the last 2 turns.

Regarding performance, I love the Gargant list for the pure stompy goodness of sooooo many DC and great weapons well weighed by the Orks special initiative rules forcing them to bounce ever closer, blastie away looking for lucky 5's and or 6's!

A little miffed at the Supa-Stompa increase - seems a bit arbitrary without explanation - they are the easiest targets in the list and restricted by the Gargant to Support ratio. Though they did well in this game...

I echo the sentiment above that the Gargant list seems to be getting further and further penalised with each release and appears to that it is mostly based off people's untested feedback - 12 months ago it was a great list, then Stompas got adjusted (nice), Killa Kan Formations introduced (double nice), but then reinforced boilers were dropped (fair, the were too good to have), Going for it auto fires were introduced (was happy with a difficult terrain test with no reroll), Wyrd Towers were swapped out for Flakka Dakka (once again one of the best things, but understandable for their cost), Gatling was nerfed on the AP (considering its 45cm, and being wielded by a ork that will rarely be doing anything but taking the penalty for doubling), must auto include a great gargant reducing the flexibility of the list, and finally Supa Stompas have had a price increase...

Seems to be a lot of "fluff" being used to justify dragging the list down.

Still, I enjoy running my Gargants and will happily take them to the next tourney for a big test of their mettle.

- Kendall

Thank you for a awesome report! Truly a pleasure to read!

I agree that it's been alot of nerfing done in theese last versions. But Before the most recent changes I won 3 battles in a row against experienced good players. And a couple of people here also pointed out that the list might be a little too strong.
And I rather have a too weak list than a too strong one. Because then people at tournaments won't get pissed off when i bring the list to play with. We really need some data from battle reports now before changing anything else. And people don't mind winning over a weak list as they would mind loosing over a strong one (and thus end up on a lower place in a tournament).
I'm not trying to deliberately make the list a weak one. But what I mean is that Its better to be on the weaker side if I manage to persuade an organizer to allow it in a tournament (and give me the opportunity to playtest alit).

That being said, if we notice that the list struggles a bit of course we will change things. Lowering the Supa-Stompas 25p is the first thing then.

I do think the AA "nerf" was good as 45cm MW AA is way too powerfull in a game where air assaults are a important snd popular tactic. Especially when head on assaults on the Gargants on the ground will be very hard to win.

Hopefully I'll bring this list to a tournament here in Sweden on January the 21th.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam

Thanks for the report it was a good read.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

Thanks for both reports! They were nice reads.

On the matter of changes, i would like to propose one, small, to make the list both compact and flexible a bit more.

Currently, as we all know, due to the nature of this game that encourages to get a high number of activations, almost no one uses upgrades, apart from some specific ones, and in case of Orks, also normal to BIG upgrades. Amongst other things, one of the effects that it has on this list its that seeing Dreadnoughts on it is very hard and as far as i know no one tried to yet. Killa Kans are better for this list because it adds numbers to it that are much needed so the decision taken was good but i still want to see those Dreadnoughts on.
The solution i see to have Dreads is to make it as an option for the Killa Kan Mob, so take X Killa Kans or Y Dreadnoughts for 150 275 400 but this way the difference in points between the two options will make one choice better and will get worse and worse when taking Big and Uge. Making mixes of the two would help but would look a bit lame. The only point where both coincide is at 175 points: 7 Killas = 175 = 5 Dreads. The name could be kept as it is or change it to Armored Mob for example.

Positive side:
- Dreads will be finally taken, and in the same conditions as Killas.
- More flexibility and more tactical options as they are slightly better for different things for their cost.
- Dreads are way better at firefight for its cost, while being around the same for the rest.
- They no longer fight with Lootas and Fightas, so it will be a more tactical decision.
- If put at 175 300 425 would make it a bit cheaper than before for medium to big numbers while the discount is not the highest in an Ork list.

Negative side:
- They cost more at minimum, even if it is just 25 points, making it a worse option than before for activations.
- They no longer fight for the same cost with the other two, making the choice easier to make.
- Very minor: two BIG formations transported on a Great Gargant would no longer fit in. Right now they fit in perfectly.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list