Combat example...giaks

A

Anonymous

Guest
In reading the combat example in the main book I see that there was damage done of like 52 points of damage to a Giak Soldier. The text then said that that was a grievous wound but not enough to kill a Giak Soldier but when I look in the monster section I see that Giaks only have 6 hitpoints or so. Where do I find how much a Giak Soldier has?

Thanks,
The Dirk
 
I dont know, maybe they are regular Giaks with some levels of Warrior added. How many levels of Warrior I don't know. It would be nice to see a breakdown of them in the book. You know like... Giak Shmuck (no levels added), Giak fighter (2 levels added), Giak Soldier (5 levels added), Giak Commander (7 levels added).
 
i feel giaks and drakkarim are somewhat under powered, i always got the feel that giaks were hardcore warriors and the drakkarim were just... elite. anyone else feel sort of let down by there stats?
 
It seems to me that they are as tough as you want them to be by adding warrior levels to them as per the "advancement" entry in the monster section. I just wish I had some guidelines as to how tough a Giak soldier should be. The combat example shows that they have over 52 hit points which means at least 5 or 6 levels of Warrior but I dont see any specifics. I guess I'll go look in the online Mongoose converted "Escape from the Dark" and see how they stated the 3 Giaks that drop down on the coach to get the children".
 
In the books AFAICR regular Giaks always seemed a bit weaker than regular human soldiery, in D&D terms I can't see them being more than 2nd level warriors, 3rd at a pinch. Drakkarim certainly elite, ca Fighter 4-5 I'd say.
 
Then how in the heck do they list them as having over 50 hit points? Even 3rd level would average out at what... 22 or something.

the Dirk
 
I seem to recall an earlier post stating that a mistake had been made with the combat example, and the giaks really should not have been that tough. I'll have to look through and see if I can find it.

Dawn Of Destruction did have giaks with levels in Dark Warrior, so level advancement seems right to me.
 
Bewildered Badger said:
I seem to recall an earlier post stating that a mistake had been made with the combat example, and the giaks really should not have been that tough. I'll have to look through and see if I can find it.

Dawn Of Destruction did have giaks with levels in Dark Warrior, so level advancement seems right to me.
Click to expand...

Yep, even the Giak that's really a Helghast would have a problem taking that much damage at once :).
 
BTW anyone ever thought that a stat of 18 in strenght is a little bit exagerated. I would mostly stick to the 13 which makes giaks strong but not too much. They are a fairly easy encounter in most of the books especially when considering that Lone Wolf was level 5 in "Flight from the dark". I know giaks are strong but then to me they are more like big goblins than small orks... And about their height, I always thought that Giaks were fairly small in comparison to the humans... the RPG makes them quite tall...
 
Frozenblaze said:
BTW anyone ever thought that a stat of 18 in strenght is a little bit exagerated. I would mostly stick to the 13 which makes giaks strong but not too much. They are a fairly easy encounter in most of the books especially when considering that Lone Wolf was level 5 in "Flight from the dark". I know giaks are strong but then to me they are more like big goblins than small orks... And about their height, I always thought that Giaks were fairly small in comparison to the humans... the RPG makes them quite tall...
Click to expand...

That's the thing really. Giaks are not goblins at all, they're a race bred specifically by the Darklords for war. Sure, they're a bit cowardly, but they're still great front-line troops, when well-led. The 18 Strength is an accurate reflection of all the previous descriptions of the race, especially when referring to the dissection of a Giak in the old Magnamund Companion.
 
I can understand they are a race bred for war, and yet even if they are not goblins (i have read the companion and strong bones do no mean strong muscles... the rest is mostly about the giaks having resistance to heat and poison, and to me that dead fellow is not an herculean machine of brutal mayhem) I still consider a value of 18 in strenght a bit exagerated. Let's say the average strenght of a normal human stands between 10-11. An above average human would have 12-13, a fairly strong human would have 14-15... you get the picture. It then means that an exeptionally strong individual would have the value of 18. To me it is totally irrational to have a whole race with an average strenght of 18 unless that race is giantish or particularly squat(more large then tall).A value of 18 means a +4 in damage and most adventurers on Magnamund have already killed a giak or two without having to be wounded by a 1d4+4 hit from a butterknife-wielding grey-skinned slave of the darklords. I could settle for a 14 or a 15 and even then I still think a 13 is totally appropriate for the giaks for it means they are strong, above the average human...

Let's quote the companion : "they were small, squat and grey-skinned..." By small it means small... No small scum, should they be spawn of the darklords, can have a 18 in strenght, statistically and physically... Well those are my thoughts... IMC Giaks are small, brutish and cunning... They are not some Uruk-Ai crossbreed who run away in fear when Banedon hits them with some lightning spell... They are cannonfodder and I think they should be considered as such...
 
It's more the major disparity between the huge strength and normal constitution which throws me. It's easy to imagine a creature that's con heavy (tougher than it is strong) but alwayd hard to think of it the other way round (stronger than it's tough).

Gary Chalk's Giaks always looked like malevolent little goblins whereas the later artist's giaks looked more orcish (in a hobgoblin sort of a way, not a GW orc chunky sort of way).

Now most of us are aware that the LWd20 giaks are very close to the standard OGL orcs (very close indeed) and I have no problems with that personaly. I do have a few difficulties looking at something demonstrating it's huge muscles but snapping like a twig in a strong wind. That's a bit cartoony really.
 
Frozenblaze said:
I prefer the Gary Chalk period... So I'll stick to the goblinoid type of Giak...
Click to expand...

I use Tom Meier's armoured goblins for giaks in my LW games which puts them somewhere inbetween the two (sizewise) but nearer to the latter in terms of style. Don't worry, I use a broad variety of miniatures in my LW games (I've even got a few of the old GW chinese lion-temple-dog things for Kalkoths :)).
 
Games Workshop Orcs and Joe Dever's Giaks always seemed to strike me as similar in my imagination, it helps that Mr Dever used to work for Games Workshop too
There are a few other things that remind me of GW too, skaven/noodnics and dark elves/drakkarim off the top of my head
 
Balgin Stondraeg said:
I use Tom Meier's armoured goblins for giaks in my LW games which puts them somewhere inbetween the two (sizewise) but nearer to the latter in terms of style. Don't worry, I use a broad variety of miniatures in my LW games (I've even got a few of the old GW chinese lion-temple-dog things for Kalkoths :)).
Click to expand...

I use vendel vendel Goblins and Orcs in my games to my mind they fit quite well with the original Chalk images. I really like the Mongoose Giaks too and I've painted them up as The Human Killers :?: regiment.

WW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
High Guard 2022 Question; Armor, Spinal Mounts, and Damage Multiples
Replies
9
Views
400
Shadowblayde99
S
Sigtrygg
First Impressions
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Loconius
L
alex_greene
Combat Encounters, Narrative Style
Replies
14
Views
899
alex_greene
alex_greene
P
Mass Naval Combat rules?
Replies
4
Views
273
ColinD
ColinD
T
Damaging large vehicles
Replies
10
Views
725
AnotherDilbert
A
Back
Top