Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
* * * - -

Squig Bombin


  • FightingWalloon likes this

Squig Bombin

Squig Bombin


Type: Event
Faction: Orks
Cost: 2
Shields: 1
Signature/Loyalty:
Traits: Tactic.

Action: Destroy a target support card.
“HAHAHA! GO BOOM!” -Gurt, Gretchin Squigherder, last words

Set: Core Set Number: 72 Quantity: 1
Illustrator: Guillaume Ducos
Recent Decks Using This Card:
Want to build a deck using this card? Check out the Warhammer 40,000: Conquest Deck Builder!


24 Comments

Maby will be a good card someday. Currently not enough Supports are run within all of the decks to really make this an auto-include. 3/5 seems about right.

So, has this card's stock gone up with the arrival of awesome support cards such as Ammo Depot, Inquisitorial Fortress, Archon's Palace and the like?

    • Horus2 likes this

the problem i find is that half the factions you face off against dont typically use supports as a driving deck force, and the other half dont typically run more than one or two playsets of any given support.
in any best case scenario, youre paying 2R1C to get rid of something of equal value, youre not really getting ahead (unless people start playing throne of vainglory, 3R). most people wont be upset about losing their kannon or depot or 1 cost location.
so, do you run a card that is useful half the time, for one shield, and at best keeps you and your opponent on an even field?

I'd rather be the aggressor, and run cards my opponent must react to, honestly.

    • Horus2 likes this

the best argument i can think of is running 1x to answer everyones Sig support. nobody will argue that those are game changers. but then youre running one card on the off chance your opponent plays 1 card, statistically pretty rare.

So, has this card's stock gone up with the arrival of awesome support cards such as Ammo Depot, Inquisitorial Fortress, Archon's Palace and the like?

 

Yes, definitely.

 

I went through a phase of including 1 x Squig Bombin for a while when Dark Eldar popularity was at its peak, as taking out a Den or Palace was definitely worth the 2R1C. Yes, it true that it generates no card or resource advantage, but it does negate cards that are otherwise likely to significantly assist opponent victory. Against Space Marines, the other common deck, it was not as good, but still sometimes useful, and always had the option of being a shield.

 

In the last month (as in Gift of Ethereals) with Eldar and Zarathur proving equally valid in the meta, this cards strength was reduced, so I dropped it for a No Mercy.

 

In the coming meta (Zogwort's) I'm expecting a lot of decks using AM allies or AM main, and heavy support presence from that. However, nature of those is that there's likely to be a slew of 1-cost supports, none of which are individually worth a 1 for 1 exchange (Ammo Depot, Staging Ground, Ork Kannon, Rockcrete Bunker) and the 2-costers require good timing to negate efficiently (Inq Fortress might be gone by the time we get the Bombing, and Catachan Outpost might have already swung a battle or two). That makes me more inclined to go with 1 x Deathskull Lootas, though I know thats not a popular play. Even so, right now thats what my Ork deck has.

 

If we hit the stage again where there's a dominant deck in the meta with game-winning supports, I'll come back to this card.

    • Craken and Horus2 like this

Situational, but can ruin your opponents plan. In someway is a card like exterminatus, doom etc. Destroying a Kymera Den, Catachan Outpost or another great support can win you the game.

Photo
dnapolitano
Jul 22 2015 02:40 AM
I think squig bombin deserves a second look. An ork deck, in my experience Zogwort, benefits from including 2 at least.

This event is an action. Meaning there is no phase restriction. It can be deployed during the command phase action window after the warlord commits.

Considering that warlord commit can be largely based on supports in play, taking out a support after deploy can put opponent in a precarious position
    • Horus2 likes this

Definitely worth a couple of drops with the amount of good supports out there. Aun'shi and Kith I'm looking at you!

MVC in lots of games. Bye bye Catachan, Orbital City, or Signature Supports. Very useful.

Photo
FightingWalloon
Dec 11 2015 12:08 AM

Here's a list of the cards I look to target with Squig Bombin. These are automatic uses of the card.

 

Orbital City

Khymera Den

Awakening Cavern

 

When these hit the table and I have a Squig Bombin card, the only question is when to use it, not if.

 

There are a whole host of other supports that I will use it on, but it becomes much more conditional. Very handy card against Inquisitorial Fortress, for instance.

Anybody else think the game would be in a better place if this card was loyal with two shields?

I like being able to play my supports and have them do things.  I hate cheap removal.

 

But if it was loyal, then it would see more play but would be limited to Orks, which are not top tier, so I guess it wouldn't be a terrible thing.  I definitely don't wish it cost 1 resource though.

There's a problem in the game that some supports are horribly broken (Palace, Barracks, Blackship and Den) with almost nothing keeping them in check. Nobody really plays Squig Bombin' anyway, but it would be auto-3x in Orks at two shields and i wouldn't see that as a bad thing. One resource would probably be too efficient (that would double its resource efficiency).

Situational, but can ruin your opponents plan. In someway is a card like exterminatus, doom etc. Destroying a Kymera Den, Catachan Outpost or another great support can win you the game.

 

This. Given that we have a lot more supports to look out for in the current meta (e.g. Forward Barracks, Deathly Web Shrine, Kaerux Erameas) rising to the extent that nearly every deck will play something worth blowing up, even if it is just the warlord's support, a single copy is definitely worth taking.

Would I take the Ork alliance just for this? No. But if I'm already taking the Ork alliance for something else (or playing Orks), such as Ammo Depot, then I'll include a copy of this, similar to including a copy of Doom when using the Eldar alliance. Worst case, it's still a shield

    • xRAVEx and Horus2 like this
Photo
MotoBuzzsawMF
Feb 02 2016 03:13 PM

I think in the coming meta, supports will be a very big deal and they will be game changing. I believe that Squig Bombin' will see much more play to deal with these supports. Especially the Forward Barracks. I would not be shocked to see Subdual floating around in Eldar and allied decks. Even though Subdual is more or less garbage.

    • Horus2 likes this

I think in the coming meta, supports will be a very big deal and they will be game changing. I believe that Squig Bombin' will see much more play to deal with these supports. Especially the Forward Barracks. I would not be shocked to see Subdual floating around in Eldar and allied decks. Even though Subdual is more or less garbage.

 

Subdual still has its uses, however. Whilst it's sub-optimal that the support is not completely removed from the game it, in effect, resource chokes the opponent into paying for it again and card chokes them away from other cards. Obviously the strength of that happening is vastly dependent on how many resources they have already, but removing a support like Forward Barracks from combat for even a single phase is still enough to win key planets.

As an example, I recently played a game with Worr against Eldorath in which I got the Forward Barracks out first turn and sent a lone Captain Markis to first + Psyker to fourth. Eldorath sent a void pirate to fifth and a Dire Avenger Exarch + Warlock Destructor to first. I had the initiative and committed to fifth whilst Eldorath committed to fourth. I won all 3 battles thanks to Forward Barracks, and that strongly helped me inevitably win the game. Had Eldorath used Subdual on my Forward Barracks I would have lost 2 of those battles and taken a hit in my command presence, as well as Eldorath keeping his combat units alive.

The bigger issue for Eldar (and surrounding factions) is what do they take out for it, which is a harder choice I feel.

    • MotoBuzzsawMF and Horus2 like this

I think in the coming meta, supports will be a very big deal and they will be game changing. I believe that Squig Bombin' will see much more play to deal with these supports. Especially the Forward Barracks. I would not be shocked to see Subdual floating around in Eldar and allied decks. Even though Subdual is more or less garbage.

 

Except Palace and Den has been around for all of last year and yet Squig Bombin' was almost nowhere to be found. The problem is that as an answer, this card just isn't efficient enough to justify inclusion. There should be a better safety valve on supports because no card should be so good that it almost always auto-wins as soon as it is played. Competitive players are far more likely to switch to Swarmlord or Old Swarm Eye (or Subject ΩSwarm) to keep supports under control because Corpses is actually really good.

 

As an example, I recently played a game with Worr against Eldorath in which I got the Forward Barracks out first turn and sent a lone Captain Markis to first + Psyker to fourth. Eldorath sent a void pirate to fifth and a Dire Avenger Exarch + Warlock Destructor to first. I had the initiative and committed to fifth whilst Eldorath committed to fourth. I won all 3 battles thanks to Forward Barracks, and that strongly helped me inevitably win the game. Had Eldorath used Subdual on my Forward Barracks I would have lost 2 of those battles and taken a hit in my command presence, as well as Eldorath keeping his combat units alive.

 

This illustrates the fundamental weakness of answers compared to threats very well. A threat only needs to be drawn whereas an answer relies on the presence of a threat for it to be an effective draw. Consider the situation that your opponent was playing Subdual and simply never saw it. Also consider the situation in which he does draw Subdual and you never draw your one-of Forward Barracks (most likely scenario). In both cases, you're coming out ahead. You really need the answer to punish the threat for the utility of the card to go up and encourage players to use it (and keep those broken supports in check). Alternatively, if the card has a lot of utility outside of answering the threat (say, as an effective shield), then the card should still see a lot of play and the supports are kept in check.

    • Horus2 likes this

Got disconnected from an excellent game with Killaszit last night where my Worr deck was on for a clear and easy win against Nazdreg, and this played on the 3rd turn basically opened the whole game up again.

 

Essentially, if you can't take on Forward barracks, then you need swarm control options to reduce the absolute number of AM units, otherwise you can get snowballed. Orks can access some swarm control, but not as efficiently as some factions. 

 

It wasn't at all clear who would win the game in the long run, but it turned from a 4-turn crushing defeat for Orks into a to-the-last 7-turn close call.

 

Damn, I wish we'd got to the end of that game.

    • Horus2 likes this
Photo
FightingWalloon
Feb 03 2016 12:55 PM

I hear all the objections that this costs too much, but I have run it at least 2x in my Zogwort deck more or less from the beginning. There have been many games where it was just a shield, but in games where it was used or needed it has often been game saving or deciding.

 

Forward Barracks is a great example. Zogwort really has little to answer a Guardsman swarm. Those 2 hit points are huge when much of your army pings for 1. Warpstorm would be his only choice if not for Squig Bombin, and I prefer to run AM allies.

 

In analyzing the "efficiency" of the card, I think we need to think about the denial of benefits this imposes on your opponent. Is it inefficient to play a 2-cost card to destroy a 1-cost Khymera Den? Yes. But when you add to the cost of the Den the lost efficiency and power of being able to move those Khymeras for the rest of the game, the equation gets different. I'd say in the case of Forward Barracks Squig Bombin is a bargain. And I don't think you are losing out if you use if to blow up a Shrine of Warpflame, since Zarathur gets so much value out of its recursion ability. Orbital City, of course, literally changes games and taking it away put a huge crimp in Aun'Shi's entire approach.

 

Are answer cards dependent on other cards (the stuff they answer)? Yes. Would I like this to have two shields or cost less? Yes. Will I drop it from my deck? Not any time in the near future.

    • Asklepios and Hakkor like this

The issue is when you factor the effect when it comes up with the probability the situation arising (i.e. the expected utility of the card), you start to question whether you should simply play a different card that it's more powerful and useful, more often.

 

Exchanging a 2-cost card for a 1-cost card is a poor trade. Sure, the 1-cost card may be broken beyond belief and you're better to remove it, but you're still engaging in a bad trade. What's more is that you may not have draw the Bombin' until late, giving the support ample time to do a lot of work, or you may draw the Bombin' with no target in sight, and then it's just a sad shield in your hand.

 

There is a reason why this card is unpopular. There is no council that has collectively decided its bad. Its lack of play has arisen organically from people asking the natural question, "Could this be a better card for my deck?" Try playing a deck with Corpses and you'll quickly realise how awesome good support removal actually is.

I disagree with the "Exchanging a 2-cost card for a 1-cost card is a poor trade" part. It really depends on when and why you do that. I actually think this general raw maths approach is where we're group-thinking ourselves into a corner on a lot of things (we have a few of us here who go heavy with the numbers, which is great, I'm very much a culprit here, but it also sometimes misses out on the less quantifiable variables). 

 

Firstly, in terms of Ammo Depot and Archon's Palace you're creating economic advantage anyway (often 2C with Palace, 1C with Depot) so the trade is favourable even in the pure maths approach.

 

Then you've got all the tactical ramifications - opponent set up his Khymera for an epic Den move, you blow up Den. That might well result in the loss of a key planet, the survival of your Warlord, the death of all the Khymera etc. It could win you the game. At that point does the fact that it cost you 1 more R than your opponent paid truly matter?

 

In many situations your opponent is factoring his support into his overall planning for the turn, maybe for next turn too - that's what makes counters of any sort so valuable, the disruption effect they have on a game that at matching skill levels often comes down to edge plays. The moment those counters become too efficient you're left with a game of who draws what when.

 

I don't think costing is an issue, but I do agree that there's a problem in how often the situation arises, in that sense 2 shields would have been a nice solution (though it seems they don't want that on non-loyal cards). The trouble with making it more efficient when it triggers is you're back to in games when it matters it can be too good, and while that averages out for the person including it in their deck, it doesn't help the person on the other end (kind of like playing vs Aun'shi every single game).

 

I also think it's lack of play resulted from a lot of the Supports we now fear, not existing back in Core, and many factions not running suitable targets at all. Things are different now, but we got stuck in our ways, when perhaps it *should* be seeing more play than it currently does.

 

Finally, counter cards are always harder to include in a deck because, well, they don't actually do anything to help you directly, they're always based on protecting you from something your opponent might or might not do. This type of counter is even harder to pin down in that respect, because it's not even protecting you from a particular something (like Backlash specifically protects your Elites so comes into your deck along with those assets), but rather a general set of potentially problematic cards.

    • Asklepios, tdnordine, jalf and 3 others like this

Right: let us never forget that card and resource advantage are means to gain the elements you need for board control, which in turn provides the means for victory.

 

There's a card in this game that costs 2R1C, provides no card advantage of any sort, and doesn't even destroy, damage or remove its target from play. Yet our world champion here ran three of them in his winning deck, and pretty much EVERYBODY sees it as an auto-include...

    • Horus2 likes this

I disagree with the "Exchanging a 2-cost card for a 1-cost card is a poor trade" part. It really depends on when and why you do that.

 

Sure, but it's fundamentally a bad exchange, which is the important part. There can be circumstances where it works out to your favour through what I'd describe as being virtual advantage, but you need to ask under which circumstances does that situation come up, how frequently does it occur, and how much do you gain from it. Because when you're starting off behind on the trade, you need to gain a lot to compensate for it.

 

I actually think this general raw maths approach is where we're group-thinking ourselves into a corner on a lot of things (we have a few of us here who go heavy with the numbers, which is great, I'm very much a culprit here, but it also sometimes misses out on the less quantifiable variables). 

 

I think this is a faulty model of how players tend to work. I can really only speak for myself, but I normally try things before rendering judgment. The maths part usually comes after play-testing or as a heuristic based on similar cards that have been play-tested. I don't think there is a phenomena which players call groupthink because someone inevitably tries a card and other players tend to notice if it stomps them.

 

I used to believe that all support removal was bad on paper because of the threat/answer problem. Then I tried Corpses and realised what a good answer should look like.

 

Firstly, in terms of Ammo Depot and Archon's Palace you're creating economic advantage anyway (often 2C with Palace, 1C with Depot) so the trade is favourable even in the pure maths approach.

 

Which is a good indication of why a narrow answer should be more efficient than than the threat: Threats typically see some use before they're removed.

 

Then you've got all the tactical ramifications - opponent set up his Khymera for an epic Den move, you blow up Den. That might well result in the loss of a key planet, the survival of your Warlord, the death of all the Khymera etc. It could win you the game. At that point does the fact that it cost you 1 more R than your opponent paid truly matter?

 

In many situations your opponent is factoring his support into his overall planning for the turn, maybe for next turn too - that's what makes counters of any sort so valuable, the disruption effect they have on a game that at matching skill levels often comes down to edge plays. The moment those counters become too efficient you're left with a game of who draws what when.

 

Sure, I see your point. However, you're analysing the card based on the most ideal scenario without factoring the probability of it coming up (you'll see MtG players refer to this as being Magical Christmas-land, but I mean no offence with the term). The reality is that the scenario you describe very rarely shows up. Most common situations typically see the threat hit play, dominate, and then removed well after the damage is done, or that the threat never sees play and the support removal is burnt as a shield trying to tip that one critical battle (with optional rage at seeing the threat top-decked later on when you have no answer).

 

If Squig Bombin' was considered a reasonable include, you would also see a change to the scenario described at top levels. A player knowing that Squig Bombin' is a potential blowout would also adjust their play to compensate and produce an overall weaker game without Bombin' even being dropped. There would be more counter-play and the game would be in a more interesting place as a result. As it stands right now, a player draws Den almost always auto-wins and this isn't good for the game's overall health.

 

 

I don't think costing is an issue, but I do agree that there's a problem in how often the situation arises, in that sense 2 shields would have been a nice solution (though it seems they don't want that on non-loyal cards). The trouble with making it more efficient when it triggers is you're back to in games when it matters it can be too good, and while that averages out for the person including it in their deck, it doesn't help the person on the other end (kind of like playing vs Aun'shi every single game).

 

Make it loyal. Orks should get some more love than presently and there's no big loss in having the card disappear from ally factions since it was rarely included in the first place. All factions should have access to playable support removal, and that's something that should be aimed for with future warpacks, but if Squig Bombin' went missing from Chaos and AM, it would barely be noticed.

 

The issue of support balance is going to hang over the game designers constantly. Try as they might to balance them, some cards are going to slip through the cracks as being far too strong. In this case, you want good answer cards to keep them in check and I would err on the side of being a little too good, than not good enough. Broken threats aren't fun to play against and affect all aspects of the game. Especially Palace. Palace is the anti-fun. Broken answers restrict some fun cards from being played, but at least the damage is constrained to a subset of cards and I think you're better to take some risks with answers.

 

I also think it's lack of play resulted from a lot of the Supports we now fear, not existing back in Core, and many factions not running suitable targets at all. Things are different now, but we got stuck in our ways, when perhaps it *should* be seeing more play than it currently does.

 

Palace has been around for over a year and was picked up on almost immediately. Den has always been around. I think you can give the global meta a little more credit than this. They're not that slow.

 

Finally, counter cards are always harder to include in a deck because, well, they don't actually do anything to help you directly, they're always based on protecting you from something your opponent might or might not do. This type of counter is even harder to pin down in that respect, because it's not even protecting you from a particular something (like Backlash specifically protects your Elites so comes into your deck along with those assets), but rather a general set of potentially problematic cards.

 

True, but how many copies of Corpses do you run in decks that can use it?

 

There's a card in this game that costs 2R1C, provides no card advantage of any sort, and doesn't even destroy, damage or remove its target from play. Yet our world champion here ran three of them in his winning deck, and pretty much EVERYBODY sees it as an auto-include...

 

It also happens that every deck runs abundant targets for that card too. You need to factor the probability. When you've always got a target, you've always got a use.

 

Then there's also the aspect of temporal advantage and the impact of having the unit stuck with the Warlord, and probably unusable for the next turn too. Sure, you're down resources and a card in the very long game, but your opponent is down that (or potentially more) for a long enough period that it has a rather sizable impact.

    • Horus2 likes this

I agree with your point that value depends on how often you get to use that card (hence I'd have had no problem with both 2 shield and loyal versions of the card, as the former means it's never redundant and the latter is an alternative balance mechanic).

 

I certainly don't think Squig Bombing is fantastic, as I've stated elsewhere I think it goes in some decks, not others - there are other ways around Supports, and some decks struggle with them more or less than others. As Kingsley states in the other thread, Zara already has favourable matches vs the decks where Bombing is good, so why weaken the deck vs the tougher match-ups?

 

I think the opportunity cost and dead draw issues are entirely valid, though I don't think it's clear as to how frequently that happens with Bombing, and it's not static anyway as the meta and card-pool are in constant flux, what I'm disagreeing with is the idea that efficiency for a counter card is based on how much the opponent paid to get their Support on the table. My example was idealised because I was pointing out the fallacy of equating efficiency purely to immediate R and C costs (although that ideal situation isn't *that rare* in Ork vs Kith). We both know there are a tonne of other situations when you get a clear value from the play. What we might disagree about is how frequently they occur.

 

The other trouble is balancing a high variance card by creating a nice average is bad IMO - it's basically what 1x cards and Aun'Shi's entire deck does. Make something overly efficient, but only in 1 in 4 games and the deck running it isn't going to win Worlds. The problem is it is going to randomly stop other decks from winning Worlds when it hits that 1 in 4. 

 

Counter cards are especially liable of falling into this category because if they become too efficient suddenly they create an economic advantage AND a tactical advantage *just by showing up*. What's worse is they might just have not shown up and then the whole game would be different. Unlike other cards which still need leveraging you don't have to *do* anything with them once they hit the super-efficient level, just play them. I much prefer soft counters or expensive-but-powerful counters, because they atleast make you work for it or sacrifice other plays, which means your opponent still has space to respond.

 

Slightly inefficient counters can still be leveraged in the right deck. Overly efficient counters distort the entire meta (isn't that basically why everyone yells about Klaivex?)

 

p.s. I do take the point that the above high variance win issue also arises from cards that are OTT and thus counters are a solution to that, but IMO that usually just creates even more variance as it can rapidly descend into who draws what OP thing or counter for OP thing first. Better to find a very precise solution to that card, or conversely disempower it indirectly (Revenant is a very minor example of disempowering Palace). Blanket counters that hit a bunch of other stuff become tricky if too efficient. That said, I don't think any card truly breaks the meta atm.

    • Eu8L1ch and Horus2 like this