8th Ed. Kroaky von Kroaks

[Ondjage]

Lord Kroak

Deliverer of Itza..

Have anyone tried him out? Is he any good? Im going to try him out tomorrow!

Just looking at his profile he looks decent enough?

- Affordable (compared to a Slann)
- Unbreakabale TG
- fear
- 3+ward
- miscast restive
- good damage spell
- awesome magic item

The downside is that you lose all the utility spells you would get chosing another level 4 caster.



Anyone have experience with him worth sharing?

=) =)

 

[sorrowquin]

He also gives his unit -1 to hit which is VERY nice.

Looking at his point cost I think he is definately a playable character. Just make sure you have enough Skink-Priest-Bombers to utilize his spell to the max!

 

[Ondjage]

Yeah, im thinking placing him in a forward unit of TG, to get him in the thick of battle and start spamming the cheapest version of the spell. Str 4 aoe should work wonders vs elves

 

[VampTeddy]

Remember to bring it up with your opponent if you're planning on using his spell as a bubble (since the BRB disallows that). Targets needs to be in the front arc of mr. Kroaks vision.

Otherwise i think he's an awesome character, even with only one spell, since our priests have access to good buff spells in both of their lores as signatures.

Iceshard blizard on the TG and kroaks mask makes for a -2 to hit... might be worth delving into.

 

[rantapanda]

will be trying kroaky soon. a friend of mine started vc just a while ago.
had one game against him and was 50/50 should i go with mr kroak or death slann. went for death slann
amazing game though. was almost at the brink of total annihilation when i finally managed to deathsnipe his wizard and crumble the whole ethereal army of his.
anyways will post soon how did kroaky do

 

[NexS1]

Remember to bring it up with your opponent if you're planning on using his spell as a bubble (since the BRB disallows that). Targets needs to be in the front arc of mr. Kroaks vision.

I thought that the army books trump the BRB uintil an errata resolves any questions?



Also, I have used Kroak and it was a fantastic outcome. You just have to buy enough TG for at least 2 rounds of combat because some WILL die, and the unit will be targeted with magic, you don't want Kroak in base contact with anything.

 

[RipperDerek]

In places where the army book explicitly contradicts the BRB, the army book wins. But that isn't the case here. The army book supplies a range, but it doesn't explicitly state the targeting restrictions in the BRB can/should be ignored.

That said, I think most playgroups decide to play it the way that seems right, rather than rules lawyering. Just be aware that some opponents might bring it up.

 

[Sleboda]

In places where the army book explicitly contradicts the BRB, the army book wins. But that isn't the case here. The army book supplies a range, but it doesn't explicitly state the targeting restrictions in the BRB can/should be ignored.

=> Exactly. AB>BRB gets tossed around a lot, but RipperDerek has brought focus to a very important part of that point that often gets overlooked.

Another way to sort of frame it in our mind is to ask a question - "Can I apply all the rules from both sources fully without conflict?" If so, then do so. That's the case here. There is no conflict, and thus the AB>BRB catch-all never comes into play.

 

[NexS1]

Ah, I don't have the AB in front of me right now - I thought (from memory) that it said "hits all enemy units within x range"

 

[hilburn]

It does say that, the point Sleboda and RipperDerek are trying to make (correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth) is that when combined with the targeting rules from the BRB it becomes "all valid targets within x inches", ie those in the casters front arc, not in combat etc.

I personally disagree with this interpretation of the rules, I think the intention and wording supports it as a bubble damage spell, like boosted soulblight, targeting every enemy within x inches.

Frankly I think so long as your club/GW/tournament is consistent with rules and makes it clear what that consistent ruling is I don't think it really matters (at least until the FAQ). Either interpretation will result in good/bad moments depending on whether it's you or your opponent getting the advantage of it, but it all balances out in the end

 

[NexS1]

Hmm. Well I would be most unhappy with someone if they tried to force "all within forward arc x" range" when the rule says "all enemy units in..."
But I guess it will have to be a play-it-by-ear situation. Oh well.

 

[Pofadder]

The other thing to consider is that Kroak cannot be BSB. Now some like the eggs in basket and some do not. I am not saying its a deterrent merely saying leave points to get that Scar-vet or skink chief BSB into your list

 

[Necromancy Black]

Hmm. Well I would be most unhappy with someone if they tried to force "all within forward arc x" range" when the rule says "all enemy units in..."
But I guess it will have to be a play-it-by-ear situation. Oh well.

Unfortunately it's a Direct Damage spell and the rules clearly say that Direct Damage spells have to target things within the front arc.

It's just lazy wording. What it should say is something like it targets all unengaged enemy units, including those not in the front arc.

 

[hilburn]

Hmm. Well I would be most unhappy with someone if they tried to force "all within forward arc x" range" when the rule says "all enemy units in..."
But I guess it will have to be a play-it-by-ear situation. Oh well.

Unfortunately it's a Direct Damage spell and the rules clearly say that Direct Damage spells have to target things within the front arc.

It's just lazy wording. What it should say is something like it targets all unengaged enemy units, including those not in the front arc.

However it does say "targets all enemy units within x inches" which is where you can make the point that it comes into conflict with the BRB and therefore play the AB>BRB card

 

[Sleboda]

Maybe it's another 9th edition hint. Direct Damage could be 360 in 9th.

 

[olderplayer]

I think Kroak as an unbreakable character and with -1 to hit his unit (TG most obviously) is potentially awesome. Compared to Slann he has +1 wound and +1T but -1I (no issue as long as look out sir). He has a basedward save of 3+ which is huge in this game. Unbreakable has to be worth a lot, so does the -1 to hit unit from BS shooting and in combat. If he miscasts, the risk of blowing up is one-sixth that iof most wizards. The only issue is the potential limitations of his one spell. From a points efficiency standpoint, he really can't be beat especially if the ITza spell is a bubble direct damage spell because TG units often get into grinding matches where the ability to deplete the opposing units faster than the TG unit is a huge advantage and can be decisive.

I thought it was obvious that his Itza spell is a bubble spell and just assumed it over-rode the restrictions in the BRB on direct damage spells, but it really needs an FAQ to ensure no arguments. Then I went and read the old spell. The old version of his spell clearly says the "spell hits every enemy unit within the range that has been chosen, even if they are engaged in close combat". The new version of the same spell says merely that it "is a direct damage spell that targets all enemy units within 12"." Does the word all combined with target over-ride the forward arc and not in combat restrictions for direct damage spells in the BRB? I think it obviously does and must but maybe the ability to cast direct damage spells now through skink priests led the author to rethink that issue and leave it intentially open for amendment or FAQ clarification (like in case of 9th ed).

 

[Necromancy Black]

Thing is, if the spell was going to hit all units in a bubble and also units in combat, why on earth would you make it a direct damage spell? Make it a hex spell and there's no issues at all.

As it is it can just mean all units in the front arc instead of one, and it still has nothing at all in the rule to allow it to affect models in combat.

Really needs an FAQ. I can see them saying it's 360 degrees but I also reckon it won't be able to target units in combat.

EDIT:: Ah, it might be because you can't channel a hex spell through skink priests.

 

[hilburn]

Also because hex spells dont do damage, they are anti-buffs, reducing attributes or increasing required roll scores

 

[Screamer]

Also because hex spells dont do damage, they are anti-buffs, reducing attributes or increasing required roll scores

Isn't Net of Amyntok a hex-spell?
And I think the rules for Magic Resistance is that it provides protection aganst direct damage and magic missiles, or does it work against hexes as well? If so, there's another reason for it to be a direct damage spell.

The spell could need a FAQ to clarify, but I think that at the moment it is pretty clear that Deliverance targets "all enemy units" within range, and not just the front arc. After all, "all enemy units" within range is all enemy units within range. So, yes, there is a conflict with BRB and the armybook trumps the BRB.

 

[Necromancy Black]

Magic resistance works against all damage caused by spells (that you can take a ward save against).

Also we'll have to just disagree on the spell. The rules in the BRB clearly say that unless stated otherwise the target of a spell must lie in the wizards forward arc and can't be engaged. Nothing I see overrides this for Kroak so it's every unengaged enemy unit in his (or a skinks) forward arc. That's still a wide area of effect though!