An excellent card, I believe. 4 cost is high, but Orks will pay that anyway for a 2 command unit, and repeatable support destruction is very strong. Because of its cost, a 2x rather than 3x, I think, but definitely worth the 2x.

My only worry here is that 2 damage is relatively shieldable.

There aren't many support cards actually being played, maybe 1 or 2 in the whole deck.

What I always have to remember is that there are certain supports that can make or break the game if they get them out. I can't tell you how many times I have angered a dark eldar with the bombs squig this helps make orcs the faction that you have to avoid playing supports. 

There aren't many support cards actually being played, maybe 1 or 2 in the whole deck.

Really? You've not seen any Catachan Outposts, Tellyporta Pads, Ambush Platforms, Archon's Palace, Twisted Laboratory, Khymera Den? I take it you've only been playing against Eldar then?

Imho it does it's job well enough against AM and DE, apart from that he still feels really expensive.

2/4 would make me more confident with the card as it would have some staying power. Or 3/3 for that matter would also help because of the mentioned possible shields. 2/3 however... Not so good enough apart versus the factions who depend on their Support...

3/5.

the problem with the card is as far as i understand it you have to damage not destroy the target..right?

the problem with the card is as far as i understand it you have to damage not destroy the target..right?

I think it's part of the 'Take damage' step.  Even if the damage is enough to destroy the targeted unit, you still 'damaged an enemy unit', so it's reaction could still be triggered.

However, it does appear that is has to be a regular attack made by this card.  You can't exhaust this card as part of payment for an event or another unit's ability and still use this card's reaction.

*edited to put in the correct step of the 'dealing damage' sequence, Page 6 RRG

The problem is their damage could be nullified with shields, in which case the reaction does not get to trigger.

in general, supports are probably the lowest count of card type in a deck. its true the effect of supports swings games more consistently than a one shot event.
right now id still rather pay two for squig bomb, with the flexibility of shields as needed, than pay four for a conditional support destruction where RKK and burna boys are just better combat cards.
if the meta shifts to decks running far more supports (12+) then these guys will run show.

The problem is their damage could be nullified with shields, in which case the reaction does not get to trigger.

Knowing that half the players on a tournament will be playing kith, or worse, the SM decks with Catachan Outpost, destroying supports seems mandatory in my opinion. Now, either this of the Squig Bomb, that's the question.

I agree. Though sadly I think Squig Bombin' is the way to go, as the effect here is easier to counter, and repeatability is less valuable until such a time that the meta routinely sees decks with 8+ supports in them.

I agree. Though sadly I think Squig Bombin' is the way to go, as the effect here is easier to counter, and repeatability is less valuable until such a time that the meta routinely sees decks with 8+ supports in them.

Squig Bombin is always available to trigger, provided you have the resources, yet this requires you to drop everything to play this card just to have a chance of taking out the support.

With all the talk of support-hate being worth it now in the current meta, has anyone revisited including this card?

Given the cost and ability I outright prefer the Imperial Fist Devastators, however I can vaugely imagine this working with a +attack boost of some kind (Straken, Lasgun, Khorne Axe) so that it's very unlikely that their ability won't fire.

Problem is that if there's not supports this card is far too expensive, whereas the Devastators are still reasonable for their price. However, Outflank'em with this could be fun to do (and might even make this more viable), especially if made ranged.

Hold on, do I see an attachment heavy Ork deck forming? Be right back ....

Well this looks interesting ....
 

Nice setup Kaloo! I like the idea

- Funny how everyone seem to throw our old chums, the traders and pirates, as well as the promotions to the wind these days..

I think I would take the Smasha Gun over Mork's Heap, or some other way of doing some self-stomping, as the Bad Doks like that in order to be command effective.

As for the Lootas I agree with your preference for the Imperial Fists. The obvious issue with the Lootas is that you have to be sure you can damage the defender, and even sniping a Pirate, apropos, can fail with only two ATK vs. a double shield. A solution is the Chain Axe, but then it's a costly combo.

On the other hand it's ability to target any support is great considering the singing elves choir and other non-location riff-raff. Besides, the ability might bleed the opponent dry of shields which might also work as a kind of a strategy.

Ork players?

Nice setup Kaloo! I like the idea

- Funny how everyone seem to throw our old chums, the traders and pirates, as well as the promotions to the wind these days..

I think I would take the Smasha Gun over Mork's Heap, or some other way of doing some self-stomping, as the Bad Doks like that in order to be command effective.

 

As for the Lootas I agree with your preference for the Imperial Fists. The obvious issue with the Lootas is that you have to be sure you can damage the defender, and even sniping a Pirate, apropos, can fail with only two ATK vs. a double shield. A solution is the Chain Axe, but then it's a costly combo.

On the other hand it's ability to target any support is great considering the singing elves choir and other non-location riff-raff. Besides, the ability might bleed the opponent dry of shields which might also work as a kind of a strategy.

Ork players?

The problem with the Loota's that has already been established here, is that you need multiple cards to make them viable. they need morks, or a Lazgun just to give them oomph to get its ability off. If the Loota's had 4 hp, we wouldn't be having the conversation IMO. I am not sure if the Nabba's are reliable enough to start adding Loota's in to make them cost effective. I think I would still rather stick to bombin.

The problem with the Loota's that has already been established here, is that you need multiple cards to make them viable. they need morks, or a Lazgun just to give them oomph to get its ability off. If the Loota's had 4 hp, we wouldn't be having the conversation IMO. I am not sure if the Nabba's are reliable enough to start adding Loota's in to make them cost effective. I think I would still rather stick to bombin.

It's not just that, it's also the fact that some supports will never get hit by the Lootas due to the timing (Inquisitorial Fortress, Troop Transport) and these are the types of supports you're ideally aiming for. I feel like these are too niche (even though Worr is huge) for the same reasons we're unlikely to see the tankbustas in decks (even with Gorzod + Bonesigner decks becoming a thing) and do too little when there are no supports to target other than be a weak Y'varn drop.