PDA

View Full Version : First Warhammer Army: Orcs, Need Advice



volair
25-09-2007, 20:22
I am a brand new Warhammer Fantasy player and could use some advice on making my first army, which is orcs. I was thinking about taking lots of regular boyz and big uns, supported by black heroes to quell animosity.

To support these front line troops, I was thinking about using 4 groups of night goblin squigs and two lone trolls. The trolls could provide combat support and the squigs could fight other skirmishers, shooting units, and artillery crew, as well as flank the enemy to help the boyz out.

I have some questions though:
Are squigs really worth it? Would they just be quickly eliminated by shooting, leaving me left with just the boyz? Is there another fast unit that would better support the boyz?

Are black orcs worth it? Should I use them instead of squigs? The army would have less maneuverability but more power in combat.

Are shamans worth it? I heard that it is essential to have at least 2 caster heroes to defend against magic. Is this true?

Should i use regular boyz or the variants?(savage,etc...)

What equipment is best to give the boyz? Choppa and shield? Two choppas?

Any other advice would be great too.

Kadrium
25-09-2007, 21:10
I don't play orcs (except for once when I borrowed my roommate's army) but I do play against them fairly often. From the standpoint of facing orcs, I can tell you that you'll probably want two solid units of boyz in a 2k game. One can be bumped up to big'uns, one can be left as regular boyz. Run the units in 20-25 models. Avoid arrer boys.

I can't tell you much about squigs, but when it comes to goblins, spider riders have always been fairly effective as harassing and charge-bait units. I would also highly recommend 1 unit of night goblins with 3 fanatics. The goblins themselves are mediocre troops best used as fodder or maybe flankers, but the fanatics are a huge psychological tool, and can easily put a ton of wounds on tough/high armor save troops like cavalry.

A unit of black orcs is definately a hard as nails unit. They have the option of fighting with HW/Shield for a 3+ armor save when needed, great weapons against heavy armor, or 2 choppas when you just need a ton of attacks. They can also take the banner of butchery which will really make them combat monsters for that turn.

In my first game with my new chaos mortals army, my roommate's black orcs held a charge against 5 chosen knights + exalted champ, 2 marauder cav with flails, and a side charging chariot. To be fair, I rolled rotten (6 wounds out of 30ish attacks) and he rolled great (made four of six 5+ armor saves), but they then still got six wounds back against me, won combat easily, and broke all three of my attacking units. Black orcs are nasty.

You will want 2 shamans in a 2k army. If you take the sneaky staff of stealing, you can pull one power die from your opponent's casting pool which is added to your dispel pool, and there is a magic banner that can be taken which adds the accompanying unit's rank bonus to your dispel pool. If you're worried only about defending against magic, that will be plenty. If you want to have some magic offense, a 3rd shaman will be useful.

For the most part, just use regular boyz, though savage boyz make excellent boar cavalry.

Two choppas is pretty standard and very effective for your boyz, if I remember right.

Trolls can be effective against certain units, but they must either be charging a flank or have a supporting charge to help them overcome rank bonus. Just a few trolls charging infantry will lose badly to static CR. Their 12 inch charge is very useful against slower moving infantry, to help assure they get to charge. Just be careful that they stay close to your army general, as their stupidity on leadership 4 is crippling otherwise.

I'd put your leader on a boar, with the murtag's best basha axe (the 1ws 1str 1init weapon), and the item that makes him -1 to hit in combat. Put him in with one of your boyz units, get them into combat and start issuing some challenges. He should hold his own against most lords.

Boar chariots pack a decent punch for their cost.

Orc siege weapons are nothing special, but useful. Rock lobbas are generally more effective than spear chukkas, due to the lousy BS of the spear chukka crew. Rock lobbas or doom divers are not a bad thing to include.

sephiroth87
25-09-2007, 21:55
In my experience the squig hoppers aren't worth the points. They move randomly, they're not that tough, and they don't have a save. They hit hard if they manage to get there, though. Some people swear by them, but I just like chariots so much better. They get a free pivot and charge 14'' which is more than enough to run skirmishers and fast cavalry off.

But if you're going to run a unit of hoppers, I would run one good sized unit and save the other slots for something else, like spear chukkas, savage boar boyz, and boar chariots. As for whether the spear chukka or rock lobba is better, I think the spear chukka is hands down better. It never misfires and has two shots of hitting on a 5 if you take them 2 for 1. They're there simply to weaken the large targets and monsters that will do an O&G army in (like tomb scorpions and treemen).

As far as other fast units, I don't make an army without 2 units of wolf riders and 2 units of spider riders. They fulfill different roles in the army, but they're both insanely fast for the points.

On magic, I recommend taking a level 1 shaman with 2 dispel scrolls and either a BSB orc with the spirit totem or another goblin shaman with 2 more dispel scrolls. I think the staff of sneaky stealin' is overpriced for what it does and I'd rather have 2 automatic spell stoppers instead of just an extra dice looted from your opponent's pool.

You can get away with just the shaman and 2 dispel scrolls, but the magic heavy armies will give you a tough time.

Regular boyz are the most cost effective unit in the army book if you give them choppas and shields, especially when you run characters in the unit. I'd rather have a 6 point orc with a 4+ save in combat as a 7 point orc with a 6+ save. Having an extra attack isn't that big of a deal to me when I have chariots or trolls clipping corners and a warboss with 4 strength 6 attacks swinging. The Orcs are just there to add ranks and not die on me.

I don't think black orc units are worth it, especially when a regular orc boy is so cheap. But again, I'd rather use my special slots for something besides infantry. I can already get good infantry units in my core choices.

I can tell you how I play my army, but I see a lot of orc armies that look nothing like mine. Mine is a very combined arms type, where nothing charges in alone. I have 2 units of 25 orcs, a warboss on boar, a BSB on boar, a shaman, a goblin big boss on a chariot, 2 units of spiders and wolves, 2 trolls (or troll and 2 pump wagons), a basic unit of night goblins with fanatics, 2 boar chariots, 2 spear chukkas, and a bigger unit of savage boar boyz.

Heretic Burner
26-09-2007, 02:13
I am a brand new Warhammer Fantasy player and could use some advice on making my first army, which is orcs.

Well you probably couldn't have picked a worse army for a starter. I do hope it doesn't turn you off the game.


Are squigs really worth it? Would they just be quickly eliminated by shooting, leaving me left with just the boyz? Is there another fast unit that would better support the boyz?

Depends what squigs. Squig herds may be the best unit in the book, definitely worth it. However they are far from fast, slower even than regular boyz. However, from your phrasing I am assuming you mean hoppers which I find disappointing in most games. I'd go for no more than one unit which can be quite decent against some armies though make sure you have a clearly defined plan for them.


Are black orcs worth it? Should I use them instead of squigs? The army would have less maneuverability but more power in combat.

Black orcs are horrifically overpriced. Stay away at all costs. Squig herds are a far better unit. Squig hoppers have a completely different use and from your question I can see you might have problems with this army. You can't merely replace one unit with another, 4 units of BO are a much different army from one with 4 units of hoppers. Night and day.


Are shamans worth it? I heard that it is essential to have at least 2 caster heroes to defend against magic. Is this true?

No. O&G have a banner quite valuable for adding dispel dice. A single scroll caddy shaman is also advised. No other shamans should be taken, the less an O&G army spends on magic the better. They have the very worst magic in the game.


Should i use regular boyz or the variants?(savage,etc...)

Stick with regular boyz. No others are remotely as effective.


What equipment is best to give the boyz? Choppa and shield? Two choppas?

I like choppa and shield, though you really won't go too far wrong with two choppas. Make sure you give them one or the other though, far more effective than orcs armed with a lone choppa only.


Any other advice would be great too.

Really, the best advice would be to start with an army with a legitimate army book. Currently O&G perform the very worst in the game of all armies. They have a dreadful army book from top to bottom. They won't be given a much needed revision for many years. It's a bad choice, but if you are truly set start with regular boyz you can't go wrong with them.

volair
26-09-2007, 02:30
Do you think the following combo would work? Several units of 24 ork boyz, a black ork lord and 2 black orc heros as the main combat line with a shaman having 2 scrolls to help protect them. This would make up about half of my points. A fourth of my points going to knight goblin fanatics to protect my boyz from cavalry. And finally the last fourth going to fast units to quickly engage skirmishers and harassers into combat so that my fanatics can't be baited out. What is the best fast unit for that role? Ork boar boyz?

AdamAtCollege
26-09-2007, 04:50
I haven't played boar boyz, but I heard if you're going to use them, make them Savage Orcs, it's a better deal.

And I don't think the goblins and the fanatics will be a 1/4 of your points... So, you'll have some extra. I would suggest some trolls, they've saved my ass many times. I play with three, in one unit. With my other special slot, I bring a Lobber, though I'm going to try two spear chukkas instead soon.

Good luck! It is a tough army (I don't win very often), but it's FUN!

Braad
26-09-2007, 06:28
Wow... well, first of all, I disagree with people saying orc magic is bad.

It's great, you just need the right spells. But there are some very cute ones in there. It doesn't really matter how much shamans you take, just try it a bit and see what you like. I would at least use one big/warboss on foot though as general, and always at least one shaman with 2 scrolls or so.
Don't depend on them though, in my opinion they just add some fun to playing, they won't win you the entire combat.

Squig hoppers can be really nice, though difficult to handle. Just don't break a sweat when they don't do what you want and rethink your plan a bit. Send them were it is not strictly necessary to get there in time.

Black orcs are awesome. Boyz indeed are better, pointswise, but black orcs are just that bit more reliable to kill and don't run. A block of orcs can be cheap, but useless if they flee because your general is not close.
The auto-WAAAGH for black orcs is also nice.

Spear chukka's. I don't leave home without 2 of them. Well... sometimes I do, but they are the most standard thing in my army.

Boyz, blocks of 25.
Gobbo's blocks of 30.

That's a nice start I guess...

For the rest, just keep it going, and see what you need by trying.

Urgat
26-09-2007, 11:28
Okiiii.
Will answer to other peoples before the OP:
About magic, I'm mitigated: as braad said, the spells are great, really. But even if I'm faaaaaaaaaaaaar from sharing Heretic Burner's disdain for the new army book, I gotta admit the terrible fiasco table has got me play Waaagh! magic on the safe side, and my shamans are usually there only to dispell. Sure placing the odd spell here and there can be huge, but a fiasco usualy means losing your shaman, and then you're in for a world of pain if your opponent has a decent magic.
As for what to take, you'ge got plenty answers already.

Anyway.

Squig hoopers: they're hit or miss, really. If they get there (they can get there pretty fast, if you're lucky, if you're not, they can spend half the battle jumping slowly toward the enemy -or not at all, they roll for animosity too), they can be really nasty. I'm facing a chaos mortal army, and the only threat to them is magic, so I swear by them in this case, I take 7 of them (thge max you can get in contact against a regular 5 mini per rank unit), and they will crush anything (I've had them eat up chaos chosens like breakfast). When I face DE or any other shooty army, well, they're as good as dead, usually. Low toughness, no saves means lots of very dead jumping mushrooms.

Black orcs:
They're good. Forget about Kadrium's example though, this is all thanks to luck ;) I've got a unit of snotlings that beat a unit of bloodletters, doesn't make them any more "ubber strong". They're tought, they hit hard, and, most importantly imho, they can stand their ground on their own. They make a very valid choice to hold flanks, for instance. They're rather weak to enemy fire (they tend to drw a lot of ranged attacks), so give them shields if facing a shooting army (a 4+ save against ranged attacks isn't nasty).
Savage orcs have more to it than just the additional attack: they're immune to psychology until they lose a fight. This can be priceless in an O&G army.
But yeah, the best all around unit in the book is probably the good old regular orc boyz unit. The choppa rules make them hit hard, they're tough, resilient, and I have to run so I'll leave others tell about the other joys of playing greenskins, sorry.

volair
26-09-2007, 20:13
Well it seems like the basic boyz are very good but everything else kind of stinks so I think I may play another army. I don't want to play an all boyz army, even though I love them. I like a little variety but nothing else seems to be good support according to what i've read from the responses and on other forums. What other army has great basic melee troops like the boyz but has better support for them? Or is my analysis just wrong? I keep reading that orcs get slaughtered on this and other forums, but I am still open minded.

sephiroth87
26-09-2007, 21:00
I just won a tournament with them last week. Beat a tomb kings SAD, Skaven SAD, and Ogre MSU army for the win. My win/loss record for the orcs is probably my second best behind my Vampire Counts.

Most of what people tell you is from trying to go against what they did to the army book in 7th edition, which is to make a balanced list that has a backbone of orc infantry supported by fighty (black) orc characters and smaller support units that don't test for animosity or panic your big units when they die.

Chariots are stout for their points and taking multiples of them is devastating. Trolls are great support units, either for supporting charges or redirecting opponents' charges. Orc boyz units are the hardest, meanest meatshields you can buy. Goblin units with fanatics take table quarters and act as cavalry and skirmisher killers. They also excel at stopping a unit flat by throwing out fanatics in front of them. The wolf riders are super fast and march block well and the spiders are actually capable fighters for the points, especially against tough, low save targets. Your magic users have several spells that are fairly cheap to cast or have no line of sight and unlimited range. Savage Orc Boarboyz are an absolute terror in combat and they get a boatload of high strength attacks. And your general, if he's a warboss, is great in combat and his leadership is better than you'd expect for an orc.

The difference between this army and a lot of others is that it works best when you take different kinds of units and have them work together. You cannot simply take 9 infantry orc units and expect to win. You cannot take all cavalry and expect to win. You cannot take all goblins anymore and expect to win. That last point, by the way, is one of the main reasons why many O&G players are angry about the new book. They had 2 point goblins with an armor save, fanatics that gave no armor save, and the magic phase especially for level 2 shamans, was a little stronger.

Heretic Burner
27-09-2007, 00:07
Well it seems like the basic boyz are very good but everything else kind of stinks so I think I may play another army. I don't want to play an all boyz army, even though I love them. I like a little variety but nothing else seems to be good support according to what i've read from the responses and on other forums. What other army has great basic melee troops like the boyz but has better support for them? Or is my analysis just wrong? I keep reading that orcs get slaughtered on this and other forums, but I am still open minded.

You aren't wrong at all. Statistically, O&G are the very worst army in the game. If it seems like most units in the army appear poor, the truth of the matter is that in comparison with what is available to other armies they are poor.

Now it appears you want a solid infantry army. This is great! Many people enjoy having several nice blocks of troops supported effectively with other elements of the army for a cohesive whole. For strong basic troops with terrific support options (keeping in mind you're a beginner to the game) there are many options. Dwarfs have fantastic core warriors and there is no question they can field a large number of terrific units to support them. For pure power you won't go wrong with High Elves, their new book is so blatantly powerful that even a simple unit of spearmen absolutely mauls virtually anything many armies can field. Or go with one of the most enjoyable and flexible army in the game - Empire! So many ways to play this army from cavalry heavy, infantry heavy, artillery heavy, magic heavy, and everything in between! Being such a well rounded army they are by far my best suggestion for a new player to the game.

volair
27-09-2007, 15:24
I want to play as a race other than dwarfs or humans. My brother is going to play high elves so I want something different from him too(non-elf). Any other recommendations? My other two friends will play skaven and tomb kings, so I guess that leaves chaos, vampire counts, or lizardmen, unless i'm missing one. Which do you recommend from these?

Avian
27-09-2007, 15:28
Bah! None!

Anyways: Starting an Orcs & Goblins Army (http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/tactics/greenskin_starting.php)

warlord hack'a
27-09-2007, 21:58
heretic burner, can you show me the statistics that say that the O&G units are the worst in the game? So far my O&G force scored by far more victories and massacres than that they suffered losses, so either my opponents are very bad players, or your assumption is wrong..

Nuf said, check out Avian's link and decide for yourself.

Urgat
27-09-2007, 23:41
Heretic Burner is on a crusade against the new O&G book, so...

Heretic Burner
28-09-2007, 00:30
I want to play as a race other than dwarfs or humans. My brother is going to play high elves so I want something different from him too(non-elf). Any other recommendations? My other two friends will play skaven and tomb kings, so I guess that leaves chaos, vampire counts, or lizardmen, unless i'm missing one. Which do you recommend from these?

Well considering you are looking at multiple games against armies that are quite strong (particularly HE and Skaven) you may want a competitive army yourself. I like Lizardmen for you. They've got decent infantry, numerous tricks, excellent skirmishers (considering your interest in squig hoppers earlier), and obviously outstanding magic. Although not quite at the level of HE or Skaven, they should be competitive in most games and allow fun, close games with minimal tweaking. From a personal stand, I've always enjoyed games against Lizardmen barring hordes of skinks (which shouldn't be a problem for you since you seem to want to field a nice, balanced force). Hope it works out for you.

Heretic Burner
28-09-2007, 00:32
heretic burner, can you show me the statistics that say that the O&G units are the worst in the game?

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.warvault.net/warhammer_realm/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4037.

Heretic Burner
28-09-2007, 00:33
Heretic Burner is on a crusade against the new O&G book, so...

I guess somebody has to tell the truth about the army. Wouldn't want a new player to sour on the game because of a poor, misinformed choice would we?

grickherder
28-09-2007, 04:03
I love that stats page. Orcs & Goblins certainly are on the low side.

StormCrow
28-09-2007, 09:19
Heretic Burner is right, O&G aren't a very competitive army in tournaments...but would this be because they suck or because their list is nicely balanced and so there isn't much room for powergaming lists? Fair enough you don't like the book heretic, but your opinion does not constitute 'truth'.

To the OP; orcs and goblins aren't really an army for the serious gamer. If you are of a competitve nature you'd best stay away. But personally i find them more enjoyable to play with than my other army (tomb kings) and my opponents generally have a good time playing against them. My personal win record isn't that flash (about a 50-50 win/loss ratio) but i always walk out of games able to smile and laugh about the events; cause no matter how bad you lose it's always fun to send goblins to their certain doom.

Out of the races you said you'd like to try i don't think you should rule out the dark or wood elves, they play very differently to the high elves. Although that said you might want to give dark elves a miss until their new book comes out, the high elves are going to totally outclass them come november.

warlord hack'a
28-09-2007, 10:01
okay now I see, just because O&G finishes last on the GT tourneys you think that statistically they are the worst army out there? That's a leap of logic if ever there was one..
Personally I think that in order to consistenly win with O&G you need to be a good tactician, sopmething that is required in far less manner by woodelf trees(l)ingers, bret all cav and the chaos khorne battering ram.

Now my experience is mostly with pitched battles so I can not say anything about performance in scenarios, but in pitched battles there is not one enemy list I overtly fear, especially since the new army book (which saw an improvement of the choppa and the introduction of spiderriders)..

But have it your way, My O&G list is ready for our next friendly tourney and I expect to (for the third time in row) end up in the top three (finished first two years ago and third last year, could have been first if only I had moved my fanatics 2" more to the left..)

volair
28-09-2007, 13:29
The regular ork boyz and spider riders are my favourite orcs&goblins models. It is good to learn that they are both good. I am competitive by nature, but I don't get mad if I roll some bad dice and lose because of it, just as long as I can be competitive when I roll average dice and play well(might take some practise because i'm new to the game, but the same is true for my opponents). I read that spiders have poison and can move through any terrain, that is very cool. So they are worth their points cost? Could an army of all boyz and spider riders win? What ratio of boyz/spiders should I have?

Are black orcs worth it to deal with the enemy elites(or horribly crush normal troops)? I don't know much about the rules yet but would the spider riders be a good distraction if I sent them after enemy shooting units and skirmishers so that the black orcs could survive to make it into combat? Are trolls worth it for a little combat support? Which troll type is the best? When I say worth it for all of the above, I mean are they competitive against the top armies in tournaments. Is offensive orc magic worth it? The movement spells look very good, but what are my chances of getting them?

Finally, are goblin fanatics worth it? I read that they can kill your own troops or get redirected from their favored targets.

Thank you so much for any advice. I see that some people really think that orcs are bad, or should only be played if you can have fun losing. Is that really true?

Avian
28-09-2007, 13:42
Instead of giving lengthy answers, I shall just give short ones and refer you to my Orcs & Goblins Tactics page (http://folk.ntnu.no/~tarjeia/avian/subpage.php?s=index_greenskin_tactics)

Anyhow:
-Yes
-Anything is possible
-I like about 1:1 ratio of units
-Rarely
-That would be recommended
-Yes
-The basic one
-Not very likely
-One-in-three for level 2s, two-in-three for level 4s
-Sometimes
-No

volair
28-09-2007, 13:59
Is your guide updated for 7th edition? Thanks!

Avian
28-09-2007, 14:11
Everything that doesn't say it's for 6th edition is updated for 7th.

Urgat
28-09-2007, 14:20
To be honest you don't sound like someone who would enjoy orcs and gobs, anyway. Orcs and Gobs are random, they don't seem to fit what you'd want.

Grontik
28-09-2007, 14:56
Urgat has it right I think ... if you are in the game to win then O&G may not be for you. Not that they can't win but if you can't live with Animosity (which will always happen and has no reflection on your skills as a tactician) then I would think you may want to rethink your choice. I love playing the greenskins because they have a wide range of choices to play, can be brutally fun, I love the models, and they are a challenge to master. I definitely don't want to talk anyone out of playing O&G but think about whether you can handle having your units stopping dead in their tracks right at the time when it is most inconvenient to you. If you can live with the randomness of the army then I wholeheartedly encourage you to give them a shot because the army is fun to play.

kaulem
28-09-2007, 16:48
I have been playing O&G since the 7th ed book came out. (I also play HE & VC) My friends are very good tacticians, and we are generally evenly matched when it comes to wits on the WH battlefield. Most of us have been playing since 5th edition. (list of armies I regularly play against: HE, DE, Empire, Chaos, Beasts, Brets & Lizardmen.)

And I must say that playing O&G where tough to get used to, the hardest part being the animosity rule which can really screw up your battle plans (remember, WH is won in the movement phase, so random movement can really mess things up)

That said, the units have such a good cost/effectiveness ratio, that if you buy your units in pairs, even if one unit goes BONKERS with animosity, the other one should be OK... most of the time ;) And I have had as good a win/loss ratio with my O&G as my other armies, once I figured out ow to play them properly.

As said before, you need a balanced force, a couple of Gobbo blocks, a couple of orc blocks a couple of fast cav gobbos, a couple of chariots a couple of doom-divers/trolls and a couple of chukkas.

I don't like the squigs because they add even more randomness and lets face it, O&G have enough of that as it is.


Good Luck

volair
28-09-2007, 21:25
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have found out how to make orcs competitive. I think I figured out how to mazimize their strength: the regular boyz. 2000 point army. Play with 4 units of 29 boyz, joined by a black orc warboss, black orc battle standard bearer, and two black orc big bosses, making 4 units of 30 in each. They all have quell animosity and the 4 characters are protected by 6 point orcs. Play with 2 units of 25 regular boyz. 4 units of 5 spider riders. 2 lone regular trolls, and then 4 boar chariots. How could you lose? Two-choppa boyz and near naked bosses and warboss.

Goldenwolf
28-09-2007, 22:35
I think certain people are biased against O&G, and many newcomers do not play them well, so they get a bad rep. In Local Tournaments good O&G players have won or finished in the top 4. Now there are several O&G players, and many of them suck to be quite honest, as they are 11-14 year olds who do not know how to use their forces, but like to just do random things and kill people.

Kadrium
28-09-2007, 23:04
O&G just attract a lot of new players through their ready availability from the 6th ed and BFSP boxes. Naturally a lot of those players are going to stink. Dwarfs have a high representation but low performance as well, very likely through the same reasons. They didn't do as bad, but dwarf gunlines are a lot harder to totally screw up.

Also, over half the armies on that list performed "below average". Does that mean most of the armies in the game suck?

Heretic Burner
29-09-2007, 15:53
The sad reality is O&G are completely outclassed by opposing armies in at least 3 or 4 phases of the game most of the time. In particular, they are the very worst army in the game in the movement phase, by far the most important phase in the game. This is devastating. While they were far from a powerhouse the last edition (I don't believe any army with as crippling a disadvantage as animosity will be completely successful) they were in the very least a solid mid tier army. The army designer understood that O&G required a substantial points break to deal with the most crippling rule in the game and gave it to them (at least in the form of goblins). Also, they required a substantial advantage in the other areas of the game and gave it to them (at least in the form of magic).

Matt Ward doesn't understand this. His complete failure of an army book may have something to do with his inexperience or the simple fact he doesn't particularly have any atachment at all to O&G in general. Whatever the reason he made the movement phase even worse and absolutely crushed the necessary advantages. The result? The very worst competitve army in the game.

Fine you say. O&G aren't for competitor players? Absurd. This is a game with a winner and a loser. O&G, by necessity, need to be at least remote competitive with even the top tier army lists. Currently they aren't. A smart business plan would be to ensure they are regularly updated taking into consideration the results and feedback of the player base. GW's solution? Make sure they are absolutely ghastly for years and pretend you don't notice a problem. Pathetic.

Urgat
29-09-2007, 23:46
Well I've just won my third battle in a row with my all goblin army, so so much for them being crappy :p Sure they're not as numerous as in 6th edition, and they do take a severe spanking when in combat, but if I still manage to win (albeit with difficulty), well, i'm not complaining :p

Boneknight
30-09-2007, 13:53
I know I guy that plays orcs. He wins w/them a lot but he just takes a lot of infrantry and chariots and not a very fun choice, but he just got lucky brcause he beat me when I played my Khorne, against my slaanesh I think he would have some issues. Lizardmen are awsome. They have such a cool storyline and are a great army to play against. I've only played them in small point games but i've always wanted to play them in large pt games with my lord going a kill slaan crusade (chaos lords can kill anything) Dark Elves and wood elves are awsome too. I play HE and I just love elves in general, (I play them in lord of the rings also) so I thing LIzardmen and Dark ELves are both great starting armies for you because3 they're both solid infranty armies supported by skirmishers, strong cavalry, and some massed shooting

Boneknight
30-09-2007, 13:56
by the way they reintroduced spiders, they were in a previous edition

Boneknight
30-09-2007, 14:04
[ How could you lose? Two-choppa boyz and near naked bosses and warboss.[/QUOTE]

That is all you have. Magic and shooting will take you down quite easily. This list would absolutely be annihilated by HE, DE, Empire, Dwarves, Tzeentch, and Khone, with no manipulation you'll be annihilated. That is also way to many special choices. I'm sure you'll have Morks Spirit totem in there, but when you use its dispell dice your opponent we'll find out where it is. Your opponet is just going to annihilate one of your better units and you'll lose a whole lot of dispel dice. Can I smell a massacre?

Avian
01-10-2007, 11:41
I'm sure you'll have Morks Spirit totem in there, but when you use its dispell dice your opponent we'll find out where it is.
The BSB will have the Spirit-totem and will just move around to whichever unit has the largest rank bonus at any given time.


Can I smell a massacre?
Theoryhammer at its most pointless.

warlord hack'a
01-10-2007, 11:58
I am not going to argue about how good or bad O&G armies are with people who do not play them.. And actually animosity got better in 7th edition than it did in 6th, not even including the waaaagh..

Also, there are a whole lot of things you can do versus animisoty, I will give you a few:
1) send 2 units to do the job of one
2) include BO characters
3) chariots, trolls, snotlings, giants do not suffer from animosity, maybe squigs also not (do not know, never used them)
4) units with less than 5 models: no animosity.

etc.etc.

I still think that O&G are a good competitive force and have a win record to support my own belief. BRing on the lizardmen!

sephiroth87
01-10-2007, 17:13
I know I guy that plays orcs. He wins w/them a lot but he just takes a lot of infrantry and chariots and not a very fun choice, but he just got lucky brcause he beat me when I played my Khorne, against my slaanesh I think he would have some issues. Lizardmen are awsome. They have such a cool storyline and are a great army to play against. I've only played them in small point games but i've always wanted to play them in large pt games with my lord going a kill slaan crusade (chaos lords can kill anything) Dark Elves and wood elves are awsome too. I play HE and I just love elves in general, (I play them in lord of the rings also) so I thing LIzardmen and Dark ELves are both great starting armies for you because3 they're both solid infranty armies supported by skirmishers, strong cavalry, and some massed shooting

If your friend wins a lot, how lucky is he? The guy must be extremely lucky if he beat you and everyone else with that terrible, terrible orc army.

I don't understand how I keep winning with mine.

Also, savage orc boarboyz are just as good as lizardmen cold one riders, and cheaper to boot.

Heretic Burner
01-10-2007, 23:55
If your friend wins a lot, how lucky is he? The guy must be extremely lucky if he beat you and everyone else with that terrible, terrible orc army.


No luckier than seemingly everyone else who posts here. Just about everybody claims to have a win percentage of about 99.5%. :rolleyes:

Fortunately we don't have to rely on random anecdotes about how some local game against someone's friend turned out well for the worst army in the game, we have conclusive evidence from compiled scores showing statistically that O&G are indeed far less effective than every other army out there.

But hey, O&G just feels like it must be competitive right? That deep inkling in the gut that even though all evidence points against it, O&G must still be something less than a complete disaster. Truthiness at its finest folks. :evilgrin:

sephiroth87
02-10-2007, 00:35
Mine's closer to 65-70% :p

The math people on that board were making suggestions to fine tune the guy's method and make it a valid study (which it wasn't) and even he was noting the holes in the information he found and compiled, simply because of a lack of information, not being able to factor in comp scores very well, special characters (Like Thorek...), and other issues. Yup, I agree, that's airtight statistics.

It might be the best you can get, but conclusive evidence it's not. I'd say your defense using those statistics is just a smidge better than another guy's gut feeling from winning games with the orcs, but not by much.

It's kind of like a Christian telling me that there's conclusive scientific evidence of God and and Athiest telling me there's conclusive proof that there's not. Both of them are quoting statistics in their favor. You know what I do? I realize that both of them have a personal bias towards the issue and take their statistics with a grain of salt.

I know you don't like the orcs, it's obvious. Your opinion doesn't affect my enjoyment of this game and certainly doesn't affect my opinion of the orcs. I'd say you feel the same about my opinion.

But your opinion that they're completely useless goes against stuff that a lot of people are saying on here. I have a pretty good winning percentage with them since the new book came out, over the course of many different pickup games, opponents, tounaments, leagues, and playing people who placed well in GT's. I'm taking your biased opinion with a grain of salt and I'm going to continue to enjoy playing and winning with my orcs, which seems to be the important thing for me personally.

I think the original poster should do the same thing and make up his own mind.

Skitter-Squeek
10-10-2007, 08:38
I Am making an All Orc Army. I cannot wait for its completion. I say Go for it if it intrigues you... Reason I became a Skaven Player... I fell in love with the background, did not win a single game for like a year. Then realised I needed more then One unit of Clanrats lol, And Don't listen to all this Tourney Circuit Mumbo Jumbo Orcs is Hard as Nails. And if you like the Army History and Story Enough There is no Reason Why you should not play them.


Skitter Squeek

Heretic Burner
10-10-2007, 23:43
Nope. It is the strongest evidence we have. Unverified reports of some player beating his friend completely and utterly fails any scientific scrutiny. The GT results are verified and of a significant number to prove statisitically relevant. There is no getting around that. There simply is no better record available to any of us currently than that sample. For no other reason the logical, and proven answer is to go with the best evidence possible which has been presented. This evidence clearly demonstrates O&G to be the very worst competitive army in the game.

It is irrelevant what special characters are selected. GW's point scheme is based on the very basis that the armies will be clustered together on the battle score regardless of unit selection. This is not the case. The discrepancy is utterly immense, I was shocked GW managed to utterly foul up army balance in such a horrific manner and I certainly don't have a very high opinion of the playtesters at all. For those that have any faith at all in GW's balancing...well the statistics must be a heavy, heavy blow.

As for your Christian vs Atheist analogy - it fails utterly. There simply isn't conclusive statistical evidence for either viewpoint...however there is for the tremendous balance issues GW faces. It's time to just come to terms that the current system is completely broken and try something else. After all, it can't actually make GW's financial status more dismal can it?

O&G are a very bad army for a beginner to use. I can't stress this enough. Winning will be a very uphill battle as the evidence shows clearly. There are many other armies available that should be a better choice if only at a 500 point level to get a feel of the game. It really isn't that expensive to assemble an army that level and it should provide a much more enjoyable experience going with say Empire than O&G.

I've seen again and again a new player sour on the game for picking a poor beginner's army and I wouldn't want to see it happen again.

sephiroth87
11-10-2007, 16:26
I would disagree that my christian/athiest example fails utterly. There's a lot more statistical evidence supporting and attacking this idea than there is of the orcs being a bad army, and those people think their evidence is conclusive and ironclad, just like you believe your stats are. If you like, I can start quoting evidence from both sides to show you how "conclusive" it is. Both sides have very intelligent math and science people vomiting facts and statistics in their favor. And when it comes down to it, I place a lot more weight on my own personal experience and study than I do some random person telling me what to believe.

And once again, the main idea had to do with bias, something which you conveniently ignore. Yours is and has always been an extremely biased viewpoint from what I've read of your posts, and that's not always a bad thing. But it is true.

To be fair, I would agree with your statement about the O&G army not being for the starting player. Nearly every unit has weird rules that defy what's written in the rulebook, and most units have the added curse/occasional benefit of having to deal with animosity and stupidity. The orc army requires a player to do a lot of bookkeeping every turn, and the army does not have an easy learning curve.

By the way, I appreciate the response back. I was hoping you weren't ignoring me... ;)

Heretic Burner
12-10-2007, 00:19
I would disagree that my christian/athiest example fails utterly. There's a lot more statistical evidence supporting and attacking this idea than there is of the orcs being a bad army, and those people think their evidence is conclusive and ironclad, just like you believe your stats are. If you like, I can start quoting evidence from both sides to show you how "conclusive" it is. Both sides have very intelligent math and science people vomiting facts and statistics in their favor.

Yes, I would very much like you to present the verified, conclusive, statistical evidence for both sides. This isn't my stats at all, they are simply the accumulated numbers from multiple verified tournaments. I have nothing to do with it personally.


And when it comes down to it, I place a lot more weight on my own personal experience and study than I do some random person telling me what to believe.

Sure, any random source would be inconclusive. An experienced source would be a far stronger and more dependable measurement than your own "personal experience and study" only. After all, the secondary, tertiary, etc trusted sources provide additional value to the accumulated information and can only benefit the person regardless of what is being studied. Surely a lot more than just trusting yourself to be right. In fact, multiple sources are a good reason why statistical evidence is so powerful and widely accepted. In this case, its not some random player speaking of some unverifiable success in a local game (a source, like you suggest, should clearly be dismissed outright) rather it is the accumulated statistical, verified, and unbiased evidence showing O&G perform, well, dreadfully.


And once again, the main idea had to do with bias, something which you conveniently ignore. Yours is and has always been an extremely biased viewpoint from what I've read of your posts, and that's not always a bad thing. But it is true.

By all means prove I'm biased. I of course have offered statistical evidence free of bias, hence the statistical nature of it. It is there to be seen. It has been verified. In fact it isn't even my evidence at all, I've simply presented it allowing people to form their own opinions of what is so clearly shown by the numbers. Hey, if you can present evidence that I have always been extremely biased I will listen. However I do hope you have that evidence because otherwise you're making a baseless accusation against me. A difficult task considering I own multiple armies in the GW range allowing me a viewpoint that covers more than one, narrow, single army-oriented perspective.


To be fair, I would agree with your statement about the O&G army not being for the starting player. Nearly every unit has weird rules that defy what's written in the rulebook, and most units have the added curse/occasional benefit of having to deal with animosity and stupidity. The orc army requires a player to do a lot of bookkeeping every turn, and the army does not have an easy learning curve.

Nor does it have a suitable movement/magic phase to learn game concepts. The book is dreadfully written with countless ambigous rules and rules that are flat out unplayable in the current form. A massive portion of the book is simply advertising product, again not a good basis for introducing a player to the game. All told it may very well be the worst army in the game for the interested beginner without even taking into account its dismal competitive balance.


By the way, I appreciate the response back. I was hoping you weren't ignoring me... ;)

I tend to only ignore the obvious trolls and those wishing to start a flame war. I simply have no idea whatsoever why posters like me and Shimmergloom attract so many of them. You have been most civil.

EvC
12-10-2007, 01:05
More fuel for the fire, the latest UK GT results: 134 players, the top Orc and Goblin player finished 20th. Complete placings:
20
99
112
113
126
130
Orcs were also the "extra" army for each round's spare player, and I was (un)fortunate enough to face him in the first round. The result was a complete massacre in my favour (Highlight would be his Black Orc Warboss calling a mighty Waaagh! on turn two, at which point 4 Orc Boyz die as well as 3 Wolf Riders who run off the table. If only Orcs could call a Waaagh! every turn!), sending up into the top 10 where I would have to face the eventual winner of the tournament.

Heretic Burner is completely correct, and as much as we might wish that GW had put out an excellent army book and made them an effective army whilst still retaining their random, fun nature, they haven't.

Having said all this, I did start a game tonight against an Orc player, a very unique army- two Giant, two Stone Throwers, a BIG unit of Savage Orcs. On turn one Gork himself squished my Spirit Hosts followed by my Banshee, then he declared he had a magic item to cast the spell again! I was quite worried at this point, his army was big, strong and destroying me. And then it turned out the chump was using the 6th edition rules, and had no idea about 7th edition. Sheesh. Can't blame him for trying though.

warlord hack'a
12-10-2007, 10:52
yes O&G end up last a lot of times on GT, you have the facts. But then you make a thinking error in translating this into: O&G are the worst army in the game. By doing this you factor out the player factor. And I think that the players are mainly responsible for having O&G finish last.

you say: O&G finish last so the army is bad
I say: O&G finished last because in 4th, 6th and 7th edition they have been part of the starter box with new rules, meaning that a lot of people who start warhammer start with O&G, without thinking if they like the style, know the rules and have the tactical insight available to run them effectively. And because of their abundance in the starterboxes the O&G modles are also easy to get your hands on at a low price..

So instead of saying the army is bad and unbalanced and weak I would like to first see an investigation into the average player age and tactical/gaming experience, I expect you will find a huge number of O&G players are new to the game and most likely still quite young..

Urgat
12-10-2007, 11:13
yes O&G end up last a lot of times on GT, you have the facts. But then you make a thinking error in translating this into: O&G are the worst army in the game. By doing this you factor out the player factor. And I think that the players are mainly responsible for having O&G finish last.

No, that, you cannot say.
I can't count how many time victory was clearly in my grasp, and animosity kicked in and transformed a glorious final charge into a complete defeat.
It IS a fact that when I'm loosing (badly, I'm mean), it's because of random factors.
When you have your boar boyz that refuse to move, just when you can get that flank charge that you know will turn the tide, and it decides to stand there and offer its own flank to the enemy, AND the wolf unit you kept at hand for redirection just for the case this might happen squabbles too, you cannot do much about it, good player or not. Or when that squig unit squabbles just when you know that if you don't move, the spawn will get them next turn.
But I'm not complaining about animosity in itself, it has always been part of the army, and I'm fine with it.
I'm complaning about the side effects of it that are supposed to balance it:
I don't want my unit to move forward when I'm rolling a 6 (I already have enough trouble keeping my line more or less coherent), especially not when my night gobs have released fanatics the turn before, and they decide to step right on them, receiving up to 6D6 S5 hits and killing the three fanatics they've just launched (now that was a classic).
I don't want to use the waaagh (because it usually deal more harm to me than my opponent - well, thank gods, it's not mandatory, so i'm just ignoring the rule).
I don't want that lame extra dice when 20 orcs are fighting (which almost never happens since I'm playing gobs only most of the time) if I have to get such a stupidly repressive fiasco chart (it's got to a point when I know my shaman will probably die, while, on the other hand, I don't even care anymore when it is my opponent that miscasts, he casualy rolls on the fiasco chart and gets one hit or loses some power dice).
To be honest, it didn't use to be like that. Before, randomness meant that something random could happen. Now, randomness just means that you're gonna get it hard if you roll that 1.
Now forgive me, I'll be back to my usual self and say that I still love my gobs nonetheless, but I wish I could merge all the three army books I own and do my rules from there :p.

EvC
12-10-2007, 11:28
yes O&G end up last a lot of times on GT, you have the facts. But then you make a thinking error in translating this into: O&G are the worst army in the game. By doing this you factor out the player factor. And I think that the players are mainly responsible for having O&G finish last.

The facts speak for themselves, but this is an interesting theory...


you say: O&G finish last so the army is bad
I say: O&G finished last because in 4th, 6th and 7th edition they have been part of the starter box with new rules, meaning that a lot of people who start warhammer start with O&G, without thinking if they like the style, know the rules and have the tactical insight available to run them effectively. And because of their abundance in the starterboxes the O&G modles are also easy to get your hands on at a low price..

Unfortunately where this falls apart is the fact that Empire, Dwarfs, Bretonnians and Lizardmen (Who ALL suffer the same "easy access", to a lesser extent) are still taken, and do well. In fact, I would contend that because of the easy access to Orcs and Goblins, that if we were to ask people in the top half of the GT what armies they have, many would say they too have Orcs and Goblins, but didn't use them in a competitive environment because they knew they would have a much lesser chance as a result.


So instead of saying the army is bad and unbalanced and weak I would like to first see an investigation into the average player age and tactical/gaming experience, I expect you will find a huge number of O&G players are new to the game and most likely still quite young..

Okay mate, you give me £10,000 and I will conduct a detailed survey. Until then if you don't mind, we'll stick to the facts we do know, and the experiences that each of us have faced as secondary anecdotal evidence (E.g. I've fought 7th edition Orcs and Goblins about 10 times now and massacred them every time, except with my High Elves!).

I think you're actually doing a grave disservice to the Orc and Goblin players as well, you're being quite insulting really! Basically "Orcs did poorly because the people using them are crap" indeed! From what I saw at the GT, most people were running quite optimised lists- plenty of Bolt Throwers, Giants, Shamans put in units of Black Orcs, Black Orc Big Bosses in other units etc. The BEST tactics of Orcs and Goblins revolve around mimimising the effects of animosity- that should be enough to tell you something is wrong with the way the book is written. The people using them at the GT were not young, and they were not inexperienced, I can tell you that much.

Orcs are a fun army, and I'm sure that affects their take-up: it's fun, easy-going people there to have a great time and ready to laugh when the ridiculous happens and they lose big as a result. The fact that the power gamers steer away from them, and the inexperienced use them and lose does not mean they aren't weak (Eat my negatives!).

Urgat
12-10-2007, 12:38
(E.g. I've fought 7th edition Orcs and Goblins about 10 times now and massacred them every time, except with my High Elves!).

Now this is extreme I think. I don't say by any means it's easy to win with O&G (I certainly do it more easily when I'm playing with my small dwarf or empire forces - though I've given up on dwarfs completly, they bore the hell out of me - my ogre army, though, tends to be on the difficult side too), but I still tend to do fairly well with my greenskins if things don't go horribly wrong, for instance, I haven't lost a single battle for more than a month (yup, I'm very proud, and the additional "mwahahaha you've lost against gobs" factor is immensely satisfactory :p), so it does seem strange to me. Might I inquire of what kind of army you faced (I've noticed that "elite" focused orcs infantry armies do not fare very well at all, for example, because then a single squabble can really be crippling to your battle plan)?

Nemesis7884
12-10-2007, 12:46
the main problem with o&g is in my opinion, every army got stronger with the 7th armybook...but o&g got weaker... now theres obviously a gap - nevertheless, of course gw will recieve all this reaction and will also be able to proof it through their own games and we are all looking forward for the 8th edition which will bring o's back into the game (how long does a remade take, 3 years?)

warlord hack'a
12-10-2007, 13:59
if not the people then what stats exactly make the O&G army fare so poorly? Indeed animosity is a pain, so you make a tactical error if you need animosity prone units to do the work for you. If the battle hinges on that one animosity prone unit performing well then something went wrong earlier.

Of course this sounds arrogant and the same thing (battle hinging on one unit) happens to me mroe often than I would want, but I also realize that there is a price to pay for having models with t4, 4+ save and S4 in the first round of combat for only 6 points per model..

but indeed O&G tactics mainly revolve around limiting the effects of both animosity and low leadership. BUt every army has a weakness to combat so even that is not strange..

Nemesis7884
12-10-2007, 14:35
imo o+g armies would be perfect if you would cut down the costs of some units, especially savage orcs and boar riders

Prince Facestab
12-10-2007, 14:40
Unfortunately where this falls apart is the fact that ... Dwarfs... are still taken, and do well.

Ahh... according to these statistics that are being quoted, dwarfs did pretty much the same as orcs, finishing 1 place behind them in the UK numbers, and 1 place above them in the US numbers. I think the statement should be altered from "orcs are the worst army" to "orcs are the worst army, tied with dwarves", eh?

EvC
12-10-2007, 14:46
Generally I can agree with that (warlord hack'a I mean, not netpixie who is being a troll, another great Orc and Goblin unit), and as said most people do what they can do to minimise animosity, but it seems that most people don't do well with Orcs and Goblins... and if you think that's because they're new and inexperienced, then well, we're basically all in agreement here in saying that Orcs are not a good army for a new player to use (If he wants to win)!


Now this is extreme I think. I don't say by any means it's easy to win with O&G, but I still tend to do fairly well with my greenskins if things don't go horribly wrong, for instance, I haven't lost a single battle for more than a month , so it does seem strange to me. Might I inquire of what kind of army you faced (I've noticed that "elite" focused orcs infantry armies do not fare very well at all, for example, because then a single squabble can really be crippling to your battle plan)?

Well most opponents have been the type who go for the big infantry blocks- though one of them took two units of Black Orcs, but that still didn't work well as they're so expensive. That's three tournament opponents, a guy at my club in a couple of games (Although he conceded way too easily), and a few random games, which all seem to go the same way, big scrap in the middle, then my Black Knights roll the flank, fighting twice a turn and destroying two units, before panic kicks in and even more greenskins run. Admittedly, I think Vampire Counts are the worst army for Orcs to fight, as then you have fear and animosity to deal with, making the most important phase - movement - so difficult. Plus ethereal and raised units mean that even Fanatics don't cause any worry.

There was one quite strong army I fought at a tourney, all Goblins, 4 Bolt Throwers, Shamans with nasty bound tricks, lots of Chariots and Pump Wagons, beautifully painted with each chariot like a little tower. His Gobbo Warboss and BSB were in one unit of ranked Wolf Riders, and an unlucky fight sent a chariot hurtling through that unit, killing 3 of the Wolf Riders and making the entire unit panic off the board. I felt quite bad for my opponent and checking the rules it turned out you can’t panic that way (A very well-hidden exception), so that unit stuck around after all, but that just meant when my Knights hit the unit, the Gobbos died anyway. Ended up a massacre to me, as usual… and I simply can’t imagine being beaten by greenskins, just like I can’t imagine being given a tough game by 6th edition High Elves…


Ahh... according to these statistics that are being quoted, dwarfs did pretty much the same as orcs, finishing 1 place behind them in the UK numbers, and 1 place above them in the US numbers. I think the statement should be altered from "orcs are the worst army" to "orcs are the worst army, tied with dwarves", eh?

Dwarfs are such a weird anomoly that it's hard to talk about them in a proper context! Dwarf armies with Thorek do great, Dwarf armies without Thorek or an Anvil of Doom do very poorly. Again, it all comes down to movement, and just like Orcs lose out there, so do Dwarfs...

Urgat
12-10-2007, 15:21
if not the people then what stats exactly make the O&G army fare so poorly? Indeed animosity is a pain, so you make a tactical error if you need animosity prone units to do the work for you. If the battle hinges on that one animosity prone unit performing well then something went wrong earlier.

So, for you, being a good O&G player amounts to fielding a BO character in every and each unit you field? Therefore, I'm a bad O&G player since I refuse to do that? 80% of my units are prone to animosity (there's no BO units or characters in my goblin army, sheesh). Because as far as I know, besides warmachines/charriots, BO and rare slots, all the units in the army have to test for animosity. So all O&G strategies have to be based on this handful of units, and the rest is just to fill in choices?
Now I understand how orcs and gobs should be played, and I know I'm a bad player, thank you for your insight.
Funnily enough, I've never won so much since I've stopped using BO everywhere, but I suppose that's beside the point.

warlord hack'a
12-10-2007, 20:34
hold on, I am not calling you a bad player because you do not put BO characters in every unit. What I am saying is: limit the effects of animosity. By this I mean: avoit the situation where the battle hinges on a single charge that is never made as the unit that has to make this charge fails it's animosity check.

As you say you play gobbo's you use one of the other options available to avoid this. namely: you have 2 units to do the job of one (or at least you could have). I am trying to find a reason based on the armylist why O&G should be the worst army out there and the main argument I hear is animosity, so I explain how you can limit the effect animosity has on your game (which is more than just limiting the number of animosity rolls you have to make). Also you can limit the number of animosity rolls by taking snotlings, trolls, giants, black orcs (a whole unit if you wish) or small cav units and hope one model gets shot, making them smaller than 5 and therefor animosity free.

so basically I am saying: each army has special strengths and weaknesses to be dealt with, ours is low ld and animosity, but in exchange we get cheap troops and a lot of choice. Dark elves have far less flaws but they have the downside of costing tons. Etc. Etc. each army has weaknesses and strengths.

But seeing as O&G end low on the tourney ladder, and indeed I can not simply assume that that is the fault of the players, maybe there is something a bit out of balance. I just right now can not pinpoint what that might be..

and EvC, where is that exception regarding the chariot thing? was this because the chariot fled in the close combat phase, so the damage to the wolves was done in the close combat phase and therefor the unit was not affected as panic cause number 1 (25% casualties) is ignored in the close combat phase? A well hidden one indeed..

Urgat
12-10-2007, 20:57
I don't believe what makes O&G weaker is animosity (well, not really. I do prefer the old rules better though). Imho, it's things like more expensive gobs, a couple of stupid rules and unecessary changes that decrease their efficiency. But I don't believe they're weak, just weaker than they used to be.

warlord hack'a
12-10-2007, 21:22
true, the 20% cost increase of gobbo's is a pain, I now even try fielding them in minimum unit size, no longer the 30 or 35 big blocks of old.. But that has changed their role from possible assualt unit to pure support only..

And I like the new animosity rules better, gives us more movement (though that is not always a good thing) and no more units bumping into each other and fighting. The BO quell animosity however has gotten worse..

AdamAtCollege
12-10-2007, 21:38
I would rather not put a BO character and squabble, then put the orc in there and then have him destroy a rank full of warriors. Just my preference.

Heretic Burner
12-10-2007, 23:24
A BO character is certainly one of the most cost effective units in the O&G army book (which says something right there). Surely it isn't effective in all units, clearly they have no place in a cavalry unit. However, for the admittedly rather large point increase over a standard Orc boss, a BO character dramaticaly increases the value of their attached unit. Losing a small handful of orcs is easily compensated by receiving an extra round of movement - effectively an extra turn. In a standard 6 round game, this is immensely valuable...which all other armies receive for free.

In an army book where a massive 50% increase in points cost on vital units was coupled with actually making them more erratic, it is obvious to see some major tinkering has gone in this book. This is a huge alteration, easily on par with even the immense game changing HE strike first rule. And clearly its been shown the O&G has suffered heavily for it.

Handing the reigns of the book to a designer who had absolutely no interest whatsover in O&G has been a serious mistake. Add the fact the designer seems to have little grasp on the basic fundamentals of the game system itself and it is fairly obvious why the army book has been such a disaster. A break down in management from the top right on to the bottom.

Nobody at all should be surprised that armies with poor movement will fail in a game where the movement phase is easily the most important. The very worst army in the game in that phase needless to say does the very worst in competitive balance. That is not to say that it must be this way, having the worst disadvantage in the game can at least be mitigated by having some of the most powerful advantages in the game. O&G simply don't have that. They're vastly swamped in the magic phase. They are completely crippled in the movement phase. Their shooting is decidedly average. And, sad to say, most armies wipe through them in the combat phase, particularly in an era of dirt cheap cavalry and first striking swordsmasters.

It has been suggested by another that the steady increase in strength of most armies released ("Codex Creep" to borrow a 40K term) was completely reversed in the case of O&G. An army that underperformed in 6th edition was made even less competitive. I can only assume this was a dreadful error that should have been caught long ago, but then again the same can be said of virtually the entire army book.

A13X
13-10-2007, 10:08
Hey Heretic Burner thanx for the tournament results, they were pretty interesting to read.

I was suprised at how well WE came. All armies are devastating when used in the right way but I've never had any trouble in slaughtering my friends WE with my Bretonnians.

Then again, Bret. are very anti WE with low armour saves and ownage charges...

warlord hack'a
13-10-2007, 11:07
heretic burner, instead of simply repeating your earlier posts it mnight help if you read what is being said as a reaction to these posts and tell us exactly where in the new O&G armybook you think the designers messed up? And what 50% cost increase are you talking about?

Urgat
13-10-2007, 11:40
Hey Heretic Burner thanx for the tournament results, they were pretty interesting to read.

I was suprised at how well WE came. All armies are devastating when used in the right way but I've never had any trouble in slaughtering my friends WE with my Bretonnians.

Then again, Bret. are very anti WE with low armour saves and ownage charges...

Odd, seems to me Bretonnians should have the most pb with wood elves actually, with all the free woods, wood surfing and all that crap the treelovers can do.

A13X
13-10-2007, 12:09
Odd, seems to me Bretonnians should have the most pb with wood elves actually, with all the free woods, wood surfing and all that crap the treelovers can do.

Some of it can be annoying, especially when their delaying actually work. But it doesn't take much, only 1-2 successful charges and you have like destroyed their battle line :D. They can't take much damage and they go down in droves if you get into combat - even with a smallish unit of erant knights can do alot of damage if you charge the right place.

Bret are pretty resielant, most of my knight have a 2+ save (there is like nothing I know of that WE that is highly effective against that) and this certinly reduces the damage he can do at range. Bret are almost all mounted as well meaning he gets less chances to shoot and I am more manuverable and can adapt to his movements.

Once I get into combat - it's pretty much over, even their combat units aren't anything special - except that big walking treeman thing, which isn't that good. They can delay quite a lot but one unit always gets through!

EvC
13-10-2007, 13:05
and EvC, where is that exception regarding the chariot thing? was this because the chariot fled in the close combat phase, so the damage to the wolves was done in the close combat phase and therefor the unit was not affected as panic cause number 1 (25% casualties) is ignored in the close combat phase? A well hidden one indeed..

Yep, that's right, lucky for my opponent and me (Since I then got to capture his unit standard and battle standard)!

Heretic Burner
13-10-2007, 17:54
heretic burner, instead of simply repeating your earlier posts it mnight help if you read what is being said as a reaction to these posts and tell us exactly where in the new O&G armybook you think the designers messed up? And what 50% cost increase are you talking about?

Perhaps it would be in your interest to read the posts instead of simply attempting a knee-jerk response. It is quite clear where I believe a significant portion of the error was made in my last post. To reiterate, Warhammer is a movement based game. O&G are the very worst in that department. They require a substantial bonus to overcome the biggest penalty in the game. In 6th edition they had cheap units and effective magic - leading to the only army list that faired well in 6th edition tournaments the (goblin horde/high magic/plentiful warmachine). In the new army book this is no longer possible. The magic has been made the worst in the game. The movement is worse than ever, also the worst in the game. The cheap infantry vital in effective armies in 6th has been substantially raised in points by 50%. Thus, no effective army list, no effective method of competing in tournaments.

O&G where middle-to-poor before, they're absolutely broken now.

Nemesis7884
13-10-2007, 20:28
but they are just cool

or as paul barnett described them, they are the hooligans of the warhammer world WAAAGH!

warlord hack'a
14-10-2007, 02:13
1) animosity now is better than in 6th edition, do the math, on average you get more move now
2) my statement: animosity is our weakness, but in return for that we get good units at low price (orcs, chariots, artillery)
3) I completely missed the 50% increase, going from 2.5 to 3 points is not 50%. So please tell me: what units got 50% more expensive?
4) O&G are not the very worstin movement, dwarves are ;-). And getting the waagh off and charging another players M4 infantry blocks is also not bad at all. Also. chariots do not suffer from animosity so they radiate a reliable charge threat zone..

ao you see: Iread your posts, I just do not understand where you base your assupmtions on..

Heretic Burner
14-10-2007, 03:02
1) Lumbering forward randomly is not an advantage, it is a major disadvantage. Scouts in particular exploit this and disrupt the battle line. As do fliers. As do tunnelers. As do units available to every other army. A bonus move cannot be planned for, its entirely random. The likelihood of squabbling has increased as well. Dreadfully worse than 6th edition.
2) We do not have a significant discount in price. Our goblins are 50% more expensive compared to similar units (skaven slaves, gnoblars, etc). Savage orcs are tremendously overpriced. Boar boyz are a laughingstock for their points cost. No, they aren't cheap for their value. If O&G actually did have "good units at low price" than perhaps they wouldn't be so uncompetitive. Sadly this is just not the case.
3) 2.5 points? No, they were 2 points not 2.5 points. An increase from 2 points to 3 points is a 50% increase. This of course impacted both night goblins and common goblins. Common goblins were hammered twice, losing a shield for light armor. Quite frankly I am baffled how 2.5 points was arrived at. Half points haven't been in use for some time.
4) No, dwarfs are not worse than O&G. Dwarfs are considerably more mobile up close and of course they have the biggest advantage of all - they are completely reliable. O&G are by far the worst in the phase, the Waaagh move doesn't come close to compensating. Besides being crippling to any small units outright, it is completely random and leads to an army wide effect that is absurd. The likelihood that every single unit in the army benefitting from Waaagh and passing the roll is astronomically unlikely. The likelihood of at least one unit suffering from Waaagh most certainly isn't.
The chariots are no more reliable than any other chariot. This is not an advantage at all.

It baffles me that just about any games designer won't immediately see the above points as obvious. It baffles me that the playtesters didn't immediately note the above and correct the situation. Of course much of what GW does baffles me lately.

roadkill
14-10-2007, 03:49
I'm just a lurker with prehaps a bit too much time on my hands, but when looking through the statistics thread on warhammer realm, scrolling down to the ammended lists (because the first lot of stats have been destroyed by editing or something).

When making an adjustment to try and eliminate most (but not all) of the "new & inexperienced players". Orcs and Goblins are not actually at the bottom of the rankings but are 3rd from bottom (above beasts of chaos and orge kingdoms).

Dwarfs however shoot up from 2nd from bottom to 7th from bottom.

A larger survery being more scrutinizing in regards to player skill would most likely see the trend continue some more eliminating people who just got "lucky" on the day.

The sample base for the orcs and goblins are the unreliable results of 46 players. (the author states he does not know the impact of composition scores on the rankings).

Maby Orcs and Goblins can bring the pain to the opponents (i have observed alot of the players in this thread seem to have convinced themselves they can, which to them is really what is going to make the difference!).

But prehaps Orcs just are not that competitive at tournaments because their soft scores let them down. Adding in the fact that after adding in the UK "bring the pain" results the brokeness modifier for Orcs shoots up by 18.28 a boost to the orcs score by 37%.

Taking the data at face value Orcs are the 3rd worst choice to pick for a US composition based indy (maby its an orc-player-thing to like orcs?). But the orcs ability to smash heads seems inconclusive.

EvC
14-10-2007, 10:43
Sadly Heretic Burner is correct again. I remember the game I used my High Elves against the Orcs very well: a failed animosity test early on saw the Warboss' massive unit of Big Uns charge after my Shadow Warriors, and the big unit and his general were then out the entire game. Sure I was massacred in the end, but smart players with access to scouts will repeat that time and time again... Having units randomly move towards the closest enemy is less often a good thing than you might expect. I've played games that have been won or less thanks to failed animosity (and unruly) checks.

Urgat
14-10-2007, 11:02
1) animosity now is better than in 6th edition, do the math, on average you get more move now
No, really, no. Moving forward on your own sucks. Moving into your own fanatics suck. Moving when your unit is in short range to shoot sucks. Moving on your own in front of the whole enemy army sucks. Moving to get just in range of the heavy cavalry of your opponent while knowing that you cannot reach it or get out of the way sucks. Moving forward so your savage orcs get in charge range but not the rest of the army, obviously, sucks too. Sorry for the way I've typed this list, I don't feel like being creative this morning :p



2) my statement: animosity is our weakness, but in return for that we get good units at low price (orcs, chariots, artillery)

But they've nerfed my goblins :'(


3) I completely missed the 50% increase, going from 2.5 to 3 points is not 50%. So please tell me: what units got 50% more expensive?
Well yeah, Heretic Burner explained it right.


4) O&G are not the very worstin movement, dwarves are ;-). And getting the waagh off and charging another players M4 infantry blocks is also not bad at all. Also. chariots do not suffer from animosity so they radiate a reliable charge threat zone..
Well dwarfs don't exactly rely on movement to begin with.

While I don't believe that these elements make the army crappy, they're certainly sound points.

AdamAtCollege
14-10-2007, 11:03
I love the O&G army, but I do agree with the faults in the list. But I'll continue to play it, knowing that I'll lose. :)

sulla
14-10-2007, 11:20
Sadly Heretic Burner is correct again. I remember the game I used my High Elves against the Orcs very well: a failed animosity test early on saw the Warboss' massive unit of Big Uns charge after my Shadow Warriors, and the big unit and his general were then out the entire game.

...and I remember the time my DE had 2 dragons smashed in a single turn by the ridiculously powerful big waagh magic while the rest of my army were tied up trying to deal with a horde of fanatics who seemed magnetised to my lines and refused to move in any semblence of 'random' movement.

...Do anecdotal games really prove anything about O&G except that they are random for better or worse (usually a mixed bag that evens out)? Now, if you like orc infantry blocks supported by goblins, boarboys, magic and artillery, your army will be better than the 6th ed army book. It's only if you previously ignored those orcs in favour of all the other stuff that your army is worse.

warlord hack'a
14-10-2007, 12:06
oops, you got me on the points one, man I was thinking too far back.. Andf indeed, why they incresed the goobo points I have no idea, but I adapted and reduced their numbers in my list, problem solved..

as for random movement, I rather move toward the nearest enemy than not move at all, me being usually better in hth. And for each situation you can name in which moving forward is a bad thing I can name one in which it is a good thing (like being stuck at 9 inch from the enmy infantry line and then getting 2 inch bonus movement, enabling you to make the chagre, happens more often to me than all the other situations you describe)

and to heretic burner, on point number 2: my point is: you say the list is bad because O&G end low on toruneys, I say: that can have a whole lot of other reasons, so show me where the list is bad, you say: well the list must be bad because they end low on tourneys.. That's not a valid argument. Now, besides expensive gobbo's, can you point out to me what units are overpriced? Why do you think svg orcs are overpriced, for example?

Urgat
14-10-2007, 14:43
as for random movement, I rather move toward the nearest enemy than not move at all, me being usually better in hth. And for each situation you can name in which moving forward is a bad thing I can name one in which it is a good thing (like being stuck at 9 inch from the enmy infantry line and then getting 2 inch bonus movement, enabling you to make the chagre, happens more often to me than all the other situations you describe)

You're very lucky then, the random movement never gave me anything in terms of charging. I don't count the fanatics I've stepped on anymore, though. I'm pretty sure they never intended for night gobs to purposely kill their own fanatics that way, for instance.

warlord hack'a
14-10-2007, 15:43
well, at a friendly tourney in the beginning of this year the two calcelled each other out: I was facing a unit of temple guard plus slann and had my svg orc unit with general parked outside the 8 inch charge range. Next to them (but slightly to the front) was a unit of night gobbo's who had just released fanatics because some skinks had moved within range.
Then came animosity: my svg orcs rolled a 6, moved forward, came within chargerange and were forced to charge through the fanatics (all three of them). My plan was to wait anothewr turn but the orcs though differently. This reduced my unit from 20 to 10 and I was in the fornt of a fully ranked up slann unit, so I considered myself toast.
But then it was the turn for my svg orc boar boyz to check and they also rolled a 6! moved forward a lot (5 inches or so, got to within chargerange of a unit of saurus warriors, hit them in the flank, broke them and overran into the flank of the slann unit, killing loads, netating ranks and simply saving me from defeat..

So you see, generally it should level out..

Urgat
14-10-2007, 17:41
one example is different from "generally". I personaly hate the 6 result, and I have to settle with the conclusion that we cannot agree on this, which is of no consequence to me, I'm glad that someone besides me likes it, at least ;)

Heretic Burner
14-10-2007, 19:36
and to heretic burner, on point number 2: my point is: you say the list is bad because O&G end low on toruneys,

On the contrary, I say the list is bad because the army book is a complete and utter disaster. A consequence of this is the O&G army perform dreadfully in tourneys, no surprise at all.


I say: that can have a whole lot of other reasons, so show me where the list is bad, you say: well the list must be bad because they end low on tourneys.. That's not a valid argument.

Well, yes it is a valid argument. An argument backed up with empirical data is rock solid.


Now, besides expensive gobbo's, can you point out to me what units are overpriced? Why do you think svg orcs are overpriced, for example?

Savage orcs have been raised 1 point flat and have been forced to buy the ward save, a unit upgrade almost never used in the 6th edition simply because its a horrid buy. A frenzying unit with animosity is one of the most dreadful units in the game in movement. Compare with a stock standard orc boy with an additional choppa, the savage boy costs the same, is subject to frenzy, and its additional attack is subject only so long as the frenzy lasts. A ghastly purchase. Dreadfully overpriced showing once again the 6th edition was vastly superior.

Where else? Why not compare squig hoppers to dryads? Why not compare Boar Boyz to, well, any other cavalry unit in the game. And black orcs, well they are simply a complete joke - not difficult to find a thread on these boards with them being ridiculed. The vast majority of O&G units are mispriced, for the most part dramatically increased over the very average performing 6th edition values. Add in the fact that for the most part they do not perform as well as the 6th edition equivalent and there is no secret that the 7th edition book has serious problems on points costs...and that is before taking into account the far worse animosity table.

warlord hack'a
14-10-2007, 20:35
in 6th edition I fielded my svg orcs with warpaint (which I consider a very good buy) and spear, so in toal they costed 9 points a pop. Now in 7th edition the same combo costs 9 points also, and as a bonus we get better animosity (why do people think this one is worse is still beyond me, especially for a fully ranked orc unit) and a better choppa. Sounds fine by me. Mine comes with a BO big boss, not that hard a tactical desicion, so it does not suffer from animosity (O&G's number one pain right) nor from a low ld seeing as they are ItP, so that takes care of O&G enemy no 2, low ld..

compare a stock standard orc boy with a svg orc, one is subject to panic on the way in, th other is not, one has a 6+ wardsave, the other one has a 6+ normal save, so often no save at all.. The only advanateg I see for a normal orc boy is either that it is still 1 oint cheaper than a svg one, or it can take a shield to get a 4+ armour save in total and then is even 2 points cheaper than a normal svg orc.

squighoppers to dryads? how do they compare? One can chagre things even hiding in the woods or whereever and has S5 attacks, the other one has S4 attacks and a wardsave..
How about comparing svg orc boar boyz to some other cav in the game, for example an empire knightly order? A knight on the charge has 1 ws 4 S5 attack and 1 ws 3 S3 attack, T3 and a 1+ save. A svg orc boar boy (with spear) on the charge has 2 ws3 S4 and 2 Ws 3 S5 attacks, T4, a 5+ save and a 6+ wardsave. if I can choose I would rather have my infantry block be charged by empire knights than by svg orc boar boyz..

anyway, I guess you used ot field an all gooob army in 6th, which indeed got nerfed in 7th. My mixed list of O&G did not change much however, so I will leave you to your opinion, too bad you can still jnot give any hard facts from the armybook that some units are overpriced..

Heretic Burner
14-10-2007, 23:00
in 6th edition I fielded my svg orcs with warpaint (which I consider a very good buy) and spear, so in toal they costed 9 points a pop. Now in 7th edition the same combo costs 9 points also, and as a bonus we get better animosity (why do people think this one is worse is still beyond me, especially for a fully ranked orc unit) and a better choppa. Sounds fine by me. Mine comes with a BO big boss, not that hard a tactical desicion, so it does not suffer from animosity (O&G's number one pain right) nor from a low ld seeing as they are ItP, so that takes care of O&G enemy no 2, low ld..

Wrong. Your unit still suffers from animosity, you adding a hero to the unit in no way shape or form changes the actual unit's statistics at all. With worse animosity, and the bizarre addition of spears to a unit with frenzy, this unit is strictly inferior to HE spearmen. Your unit remains with low leadership, leadership has far more implications than panic alone. Your unit also can very well lose its extra attack once it loses combat (and being strictly inferior to numerous units this is clearly a concern). No, savage orc boyz, including spearmen, remain horrifically overpriced.


compare a stock standard orc boy with a svg orc, one is subject to panic on the way in, th other is not, one has a 6+ wardsave, the other one has a 6+ normal save, so often no save at all.. The only advanateg I see for a normal orc boy is either that it is still 1 oint cheaper than a svg one, or it can take a shield to get a 4+ armour save in total and then is even 2 points cheaper than a normal svg orc.

Being far cheaper is, of course, a massive advantage. You neglect that other advantage - frenzy. Savage orcs can be lead around (in particular with their horrific movement rate), standard orcs can't. On a point per point basis, regular orcs with either hand weapon or shield are superior to savage orcs in combat, AND are more likely to be in combats against opponents due to not having to deal with frenzy. Of course, in this era of first striking swordsmasters its good to have the tactical benefit of actually fleeing. From an internal balance perspective, standard orcs remain statistically strictly better.


squighoppers to dryads? how do they compare? One can chagre things even hiding in the woods or whereever and has S5 attacks, the other one has S4 attacks and a wardsave..

Yes, Dryads simply can't be compared to squig hoppers, they're on an entire other level. Granted I am comparing one of the statistically best units in the game with dreadful squig hoppers but the point still stands, dryads are far superior.


How about comparing svg orc boar boyz to some other cav in the game, for example an empire knightly order? A knight on the charge has 1 ws 4 S5 attack and 1 ws 3 S3 attack, T3 and a 1+ save. A svg orc boar boy (with spear) on the charge has 2 ws3 S4 and 2 Ws 3 S5 attacks, T4, a 5+ save and a 6+ wardsave. if I can choose I would rather have my infantry block be charged by empire knights than by svg orc boar boyz..

Of course the problem with savage boar boyz is actually charging anything at all. A frenzying unit without the benefit of a unit such as Chaos' hounds, savage orc boar boyz may very well be the worst cavalry in the game. The save is absolutely horrid as well, gunned down by virtually every xbow or handgun unit in the game. It would be nice indeed to choose to have an infantry block charged by savage orcs, sadly the choice is entirely in your opponent's hands due to frenzy and animosity.


anyway, I guess you used ot field an all gooob army in 6th, which indeed got nerfed in 7th. My mixed list of O&G did not change much however, so I will leave you to your opinion, too bad you can still jnot give any hard facts from the armybook that some units are overpriced..

I used to field multiple O&G armies in 6th, thus have a firm grasp of its capabilities. Of course we do know what they say about those that assume. Your mixed list is significantly smaller in models. Too bad you can't give any hard facts at all to counteract the enormous statistical evidence the O&G book is broken.

omera
15-10-2007, 02:13
I need help with Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer in general. I was going to make a thread but I can't because of my post count of 1, and there is already this thread. I currently don't have the main rulebook, or any book really. I want to get started on orcs and goblins. To be more specific...
1. Newbie painting tips for making the orcs look brutal.
2. I want to build a small army, no bigger than 500 points (for now). Tips on what I should have would be nice.
3. Is there a cheap way to store my miniatures?
4. General O&G tactics.
5. Any books besides the O&G rulebook and core rulebook that I should get.
I'll be reading this thread while I wait on answers.

warlord hack'a
15-10-2007, 10:21
there is no statistical evidence the O&G book is broken, you keep repeating that there is but then referring to tourney results which do not match one-on-one with an army list being broken or not, as I tried to point out there can be a lot of factors influencing these outcomes.

And anything is inferior compared to a unit of high elf spearmen, with the SoA rule you get a lot of attacks even before you can dig in..

frenzy on a M4 units is not going to get them led around, they are too slow for this, so I see frenzy as completely advantageous. Of course I would rather have ItP and an additional attack but hey, such is life.. And regular boyz are less likely to be in any combat as they have to take a lot of panic checks before they finally reach combat... My svg orc boar boyz get a shield of spiderriders so yes I get to choose what I charge alright. Etc. etc. You compare unit for unit, I look at the enitre list and see lots of combo's that work.

And you contradict yourself also: first you say svg orcs can be led around and due to animosity have bad movement, then you are surprised that I equip mine with spears, a clearly defensive weapon.. See my point?

and my mixed 2250 point list fields 16 deployment choices (and the characters as 17th) and 157 models, which I think is not bad at all. But that is just my list, it is just one example. I think any army with a solid orc backbone will work.

anyway, I will end my part in this discussion, if you keep comparing units one by one then most likely you can find counter units in other list that are cheaper but just as effective, e.g. clan rats versus goblins etc. The point is that none of these units all belong to the same army list, so when looking at the combination of troops you get different results than when looking at it unit for unit.

E.g. you say: it would be nice to be able to flee from a charge by swordmasters. I agree, I also agree my svg orcs can not do this, so for that role I have fast cav and gobbo units, so they block the charge to my svg orcs and then enable me to countercharge a flank. Oh and when faced with a frontal charge as only option in this instance I want the swordmasters to charge me seeing as that gives me better combat results than when I charge them. And no, they will not be able to get so close in forn of my svg orcs without either a blocking unit of mine or a flanking unit of mine near to help in that combat..

Despite your negative thoughts about the O&G armybook I hope you still enjoy playing O&G, I tend to have fun with them whether thay are broken or not..

bram kuijpers
15-10-2007, 10:59
orc tactics......? they realy dont mix well.

just charge things fast with some serius numbers and attacks ( 2 choppas will do)

and have your mighty hero fight along with units (what are non fighting orcs good for?)

also always have a orc shaman becuase they roll for BIGG WAAAGH (2 dispel dice is worth nothing!)

spaking of WAAAGHZ do a WAAAGH on any turn there is a good charge capability!

EvC
15-10-2007, 12:10
...and I remember the time my DE had 2 dragons smashed in a single turn by the ridiculously powerful big waagh magic while the rest of my army were tied up trying to deal with a horde of fanatics who seemed magnetised to my lines and refused to move in any semblence of 'random' movement.

...Do anecdotal games really prove anything about O&G except that they are random for better or worse (usually a mixed bag that evens out)?

If you actually took some time away from being snipey, then you'd have been able to tell that the entire point of that post of mine was to say that additional movement from animosity is not necessarily a positive... and oh look, that's the conclusion you've just arrived at from your post!

warlord hack'a
15-10-2007, 12:45
and to Omera,

get the Battle for Skull Pass boxed set, gives you a good start on night gobbo's and some fast cav and of course the rulebook. Then mayby buy a blister of fanatics and a gobbo wolf chariot or an orc boar chariot or 1 or 2 spear chukka's might come in handy. That will give you already a force of more than 500 points (more like 700). Painting tips are plenty in either the O&G armybook or the games workshop website.

cheap way to store your mini's, I put mine in either an old suitcase coated with foam, or an old toolbox, also coated with foam.

as for O&G tactics, go to Avian's site and enjoy: http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/index.php

And no you do not need any further books beside the two you mention.

sephiroth87
15-10-2007, 19:27
Heretic Burner:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html



BTW, I still fail to understand how dwarves got such a low score on that guy's analysis. Heretic Burner, are the dwarves that bad of an army?

zak
15-10-2007, 19:49
Orcs are not a competitive tournament army. That said this game is played by many gamers who have never and probably will never attend a tournament. The tournament scene is full of very competitive lists, which has maxed out on the good parts and weeded the bad. The Orc list due to animosity will never allow this as even if you max out on the good animosity will kick you in the balls when you least need it (that being said, getting kicked in the balls at any time is not good!)
The Orc and Gobbo list is not the worst list. It certainly hasn't been helped by GW's rule revision. Upping the cost of Boarboys was a complete FUBAR! The unit wasn't exactly game breaking at 18 points, but 22! The increase for Big 'Uns was a bit of a git as well. I would have prefered GW making any Orc that was frenzied immune to animosity as it makes sense what with them being 'frenzied'.
The Orc and Gobbo list is random. This will mean you will win big one week and mess up miserably the next. In a one off battle that isn't a problem, in a tournament it means you have Bob Hope and No Hope of making the top 3. I still think that it is a hugely entertaining army and I'm happy with my PERSONAL performance with them.

Heretic Burner
15-10-2007, 22:07
Heretic Burner:
<Links Snipped>


Neither link listed any verifiable empirical statistics which is what we've been discussing. Numbers =/= Statistics.



BTW, I still fail to understand how dwarves got such a low score on that guy's analysis. Heretic Burner, are the dwarves that bad of an army?

Yes. While doing fantastic in pitch battles, particularly with the vastly underpriced Thorek lists, they suffer in much the same way O&G do. They have dreadful movement, vital in other scenarios. Firepower alone is no winning factor, successful Empire gunlines include a great deal of firepower and a fast element to back them up.

Is their army book as poorly written as the Greenskins? No. It's actually quite clear and concise with rules that actually make sense. However, functionality suffers mainly from being hampered in the movement phase. Although they do have major advantages to offset this (particularly effective shooting and anti-magic), it isn't enough to help them in other scenarios outside your standard pitch battle.

I'm not suprised at all by their overall placement.

Heretic Burner
15-10-2007, 22:15
The Orc and Gobbo list is random. This will mean you will win big one week and mess up miserably the next. In a one off battle that isn't a problem, in a tournament it means you have Bob Hope and No Hope of making the top 3. I still think that it is a hugely entertaining army and I'm happy with my PERSONAL performance with them.

Well actually, no this is not the case at all. If this was the case then equal chances of winning big and losing big would arise with an ABM value of 100. You win big and you lose big but overall are net average. However, the results clearly show this is NOT happening. Oh yes they are losing big, and occasionally winning big, but in no way shape or form are the results near parity.

It simply doesn't have to be either/or between entertainment and competitiveness. A properly balanced army book can have both! I would be happy with an O&G list containing both elements as I'm sure most other O&G players would.

Indeed, I'm sure many DE players enjoy the concept behind their army, maybe even how they play. How much more would they enjoy them if they were in the least bit competitive with the new HE?

I'm not asking for O&G to be anywhere as powerful as HE, WE, Brets etc. I'm asking for them to be a rock solid mid tier army and those other armies adjusted to be rock solid mid tier armies. GW has the figures, its completely about making the necessary adjustments. For some reason GW doesn't want to do this and I cannot understand the reasoning. But maybe thats for another thread.

sephiroth87
15-10-2007, 23:57
God #$@! if you don't make sense...

*lights a torch and gets ready to burn down Mat Ward's office cubicle*

omera
16-10-2007, 12:11
Thanks. BTW, it looks like 40k is more of the game for me after calling dogs of war gaming (the place I will go to play D&D and Warhammer).

warlord hack'a
16-10-2007, 13:43
if you like science fiction and shooting then go for 40K, if you like fantasy and close combat, then go for fantasy battle. It's up to you ;-).

Nemesis7884
16-10-2007, 14:56
by the way i asked the trolls at gw hotline where to send complaints about current rules or army books (e.g. orcs) too.

they told me that you need to write a letter to the following address (no email). just in case anyone of you want to complain or request some answers.

Jervis Johnson
c/o White Dward Design Studio
Games Workshop
Willow Road
Nottingham NG7 2WS
United Kingdom

Urgat
16-10-2007, 16:52
anyway, I guess you used ot field an all gooob army in 6th, which indeed got nerfed in 7th. My mixed list of O&G did not change much however, so I will leave you to your opinion, too bad you can still jnot give any hard facts from the armybook that some units are overpriced..

Well now that's something that annoyes me (not you, the 6th edition goblin army of doom topic). After being silly and starting O&G in 5th edition by buying a complete BO unit, I've completly switched to gobs (I dare anyone say that gobs were overpowered in 5th edition...). Why? Because I liked gobs, for fluff reasons. Well I got bashed around a lot, and that was fine. Now they got improved (a bit) in 6th edition, and everybody and their grandmother decided to make all goblin armies. And now, because of that, my all gob army has been completly put down in 7th edition, and people tell me that it serves me right for getting into the bandwagon and playing an all gob army in 6th...
How goddamn unfair is that?

sephiroth87
16-10-2007, 17:17
Interview with Mat Ward about the O&G book:

http://www.warvault.net/chat/ward.php

I like some of what he said and dislike some others. The boar boyz question in particular was very revealing.

Urgat
17-10-2007, 17:16
Lol, I know that one.
About the fanatics, that always made me laugh:
Mat Ward: Probably the Waaagh! rule - or from a different point of view, the space/rules ratio of Goblin Fanatics.
"Mat Ward: They said it couldn't be done, naysayers all"

Right; my fanatics die if they cross a road, top job, ace, I'm glad you managed to make it fit in one page, I'm so grateful.

and my favourite:

"Mat Ward: It's always there, and always in consideration. In some ways, the Goblins made out like bandits in this new version. The Little Waaagh! is one of the best lores in the game, and there are plenty of new magic items to really, really, tee your opponent off. Against that, the loss of two extra Heroes at 2k points (which breaks a fairly fundamental rule of Warhammer) for example, is an acceptable trade in my mind."

An acceptable trade for what? The gob items suck (cool, magic banners... wait, we can take only one goblin banner) and the little waaagh requires bigger dice rolls than the great waaagh (huh?). Warpath of Mork or something is a 10+ (which is right) but foot of gork is a 9+?

Bah. and to conclude:

"Mat Ward: I don't have a Greenskin army"

says it all.

etancross
17-10-2007, 18:23
GEEZ!! You guyz are trying to tear apart my beloved Orcs!! Let ‘ol Etan Cross give his 2 cents…

Ok to make a long story short i've played fantasy for a few years, the first army I played was Dwarfs and I was damn good with’em and liked them, but I hated just standing there (unless I brought the anvil of doom) and not being able to set up all those cool movement and tricky flank moves. After trying Woodelves, and Lizardmen (I was good with all them by the way but never really liked them) I decided to try Orcs and everything fell into place. I LOVE orcs, I mean I freaken’ LOVE THEM and i'm completely happy playing them BUT I started out playing Dwarfs, if I would have started playing Orcs I would have had a LOT of frustration. I had good close friends baby step me into the game to learn it, but man once you get Orcs down IMHO they rule.

Animosity is a b!tch that will bite you in the ass but you learn to deal with it. Gunline armies and shooty armies are a pain in the butt and when you play those you have to tailor your list for it, high magic armies (chaos, new empire, HE, etc) are also a pain, when I play those armies I try to bulk up my magic defense enough to try to stifle what they are doing until I get to CC.

A lot of people hate orcs, I can’t count how many times i've been painting up a few boys and someone will come by and say “UGH I hate orcs” so they get a lot of undue flak but they are a tough as nails army. Their low leadership kinda blows, but they have some good options.

Squig hoppers are ok, Black Orcs IMHO are fantastic and I love them so I always bring them, Big’uns are nice because most of the time no one asks “hey did you bring any big’uns” so when you get in CC and have a unit with the banner of butchery, and 2 hand weapons….. that is pure undistilled, VIOLENCE!

I love orcs to death and I don’t agree with a lot of the things said in this thread (i'm just not in an arguing mood today) but starting out with them, even if you have an idea of what you want to do (be a hammer in CC, have lots of magic, have lots of shooty etc) they have so much varity that it could be kinda hard picking out what you need to do what, or what unit does something better than another unit.

Ill close with this, something one of my good friends said about orcs is this “Orcs are a GREAT army if you care about having fun, and if you are able to laugh at some bad things that can happen on the battlefield, but they are so random if you are a power gamer who has to win at any cost, you will have lots of frustration.

etancross
17-10-2007, 18:30
Well actually, no this is not the case at all. If this was the case then equal chances of winning big and losing big would arise with an ABM value of 100. You win big and you lose big but overall are net average. However, the results clearly show this is NOT happening. Oh yes they are losing big, and occasionally winning big, but in no way shape or form are the results near parity.

It simply doesn't have to be either/or between entertainment and competitiveness. A properly balanced army book can have both! I would be happy with an O&G list containing both elements as I'm sure most other O&G players would.

Indeed, I'm sure many DE players enjoy the concept behind their army, maybe even how they play. How much more would they enjoy them if they were in the least bit competitive with the new HE?

I'm not asking for O&G to be anywhere as powerful as HE, WE, Brets etc. I'm asking for them to be a rock solid mid tier army and those other armies adjusted to be rock solid mid tier armies. GW has the figures, its completely about making the necessary adjustments. For some reason GW doesn't want to do this and I cannot understand the reasoning. But maybe thats for another thread.


You know HB, i HATE to say this because some of your other comments are kinda bogus so i REALLY hate to say this but i do agree with a lot of what you have said here.

if i could change ONE thing that would possiably make O&G's better i would take away the anamosity rule that would be HUGE.

Heretic Burner
17-10-2007, 22:50
Association of Breastfeeding Mothers value?

http://www.abm.me.uk

It this thread getting even sillier?

It certainly isn't getting any funnier. :eyebrows:


By the way, I'm still waiting for some more "facts" to link your assertion that because O&G always come last in tournaments, they are in some way inferior to other armies.

I'm not sure exactly what you want. Though I readily admit they aren't in the least bit inferior to other armies if you want a punishing beating all the time. Well I suppose there are a few masochists out there but I can't imagine it at all appeals to the majority of O&G players. Nor does it appeal to GW's own "commitment" to have a reasonably balanced game.


Here's a candidate: Find someone who has won consistently over a range of scenarios with a non O&G army and also lost consistently over the same wide range of scenarios *with* and O&G army, preferably against the same opponents. Then find a large number of such people. (This is still open to massive prior bias, but is slightly better than just looking at tournament leader boards).

By all means go ahead and do just that - I certainly am not stopping you. Until such occurse, however, we can use the best data available to us, the very data GW uses as well.


And seeing as you seem to love gibbering on about "averages" remember, the average human has one testicle and one breast.

And evidently no capacity to type something actually funny. :D

Grinloc
18-10-2007, 09:46
Hi guys n gals. (first post :))

Well tbh i'm with Heretic on this whole thing.

When playing 6th edition i was used to playing "magic-heavy".
Waaagh magic was really strong back then, occasionally a lil "overpowered" even.
Today? When i decide to play this way (despite the horrid miscast table) i'm totally at the animosity rules' mercy, without having any options to mitigate its fatal results.

If i want to mitigate them i'm forced to choose black orc characters instead of shamans, which thrashes my magic phase AND magic defense. And if that wasn't enough, this black orc sissy doesn't stop my unit from lumbering randomly d6" towards my enemy.

Nothing like playing with a "close to no squabbling" army while having this dreaded slaanesh magic thrown at you with almost no means to prevent that from happening.


In 6th edition i roughly won 60-70% of my battles. I had a slightly unpredictable movement phase, but good artillery and potentially very good magic to compensate.
And now? Of the 11 7th edition battles i fought so far i won....NONE!
The long time friends i play against are (like myself) by no means master tacticians. We've been playing WH for close to 9 years by now, being close to equal in "skill" i guess.
The last battle was a prime example of this misery:
He stood there, without saying a single word, with a rather sad look on his face, watching me as more or less half of my units (no joke) squabbled and/or ran d6" forward randomly on every turn, essentially watching me as i defeated MYSELF.
What finally "nailed that coffin" was what he said to me on the 3rd turn: "C'mon now, this is pointless...". I've always been playing this game purely for fun. But what he (chaos/slaanesh) did to my army that day was just unbearable.


Don't you see what's going on here?
Close to no squabbling means no magic phase worth mentioning.
Close to no squabbling means no real magic defense (that's a HUGE one).
Close to no squabbling means your animosity-prone units are STILL at risk of running forward randomly.

Slaanesh magic got that one spell with which he sends one of your units towards a designated location, messing your already disrupted battle line up even more, rewarding his units (like chaos knights) with a juicy flank charge to obliterate your key units for good measure. And all of this nightmare just because you were basically forced to mitigate your animosity....

By now i've grown tired of this joke.
I gonna leave my greenies and try a different army, probably DE's. They sound very interesting and challenging.

If you wanna call this post a rant, be my guest. I by no means requested or expected the 7th edition greenskins to become more powerful. They were very good and fun already in 6th.
My guess is the author of the armybook (who obviously had no experience whatsoever in playing greenskins) compared each phase (movement, magic, shooting, cc) one by one to other armies and "balanced" it.

The result is an army which is at best medicore at everything it does, coupled with a dreadfully inferior movement phase.
Which basically equals to....being indeed broken.

Grinloc
18-10-2007, 10:20
@ netpixie:

When a specific army performs dreadfully at GT's over a lenghty period of time then it shouldn't require a "magic crystal ball" to tell you there's something dreadfully wrong with its armybook.

GW uses those results to measure an army's performance, So this IS the only "evidence" needed, since this very evidence tends to dictate GW's decitions which army rules get improved or "nerfed" (at least i hope so).

I've started playing warhammer fantasy a long time ago, that was 5th edition. The 7th edition greenskins are indeed broken.

GW's "evidence" is the results of those tournaments and the feedback of the playing community. Which, i might add, is one of the very points of this forum.

warlord hack'a
18-10-2007, 10:52
grinlock, read my earlier post on the subject, a lot fo other factors could be influencing these outcomes, like e.g. your own army which you apparently have failed to adapt to the new rules.. If animosity screws up your magic casting plans, why not get 1 black orc big boss and three night goblin shamans, put them in ahuge unit of night gobbos and as soon as animosity forces you to move d6 inch forward (which on average will happen once every battle) you use your move to move 2 inch back again if you actually want to stay put.

Then of course you only have to deal with the little waagh spells which indeed made orc magic less powerful than it used ot be, and of course the points increase in gobbos, but at least your animosity problems are controlled as far as possible..

warlord hack'a
18-10-2007, 13:01
my god netpixie, I sure am happy I'm on your side on this one ;-).

EvC
18-10-2007, 13:55
There are two terms that can be used to sum up net-pixie's posts: comparing apples and oranges, although I prefer "blinding people with ************" (apologies to mods and children).

The simple tenet of the arguments being put forward is:
The army book is poorly written, with many rules that really harm the effectiveness of the army.
-this was followed by a request for evidence. The best evidence we have backs this up by showing that on multiple recorded occasions the army has done poorly in comparison to most others- especially in competitive environments, while the reader should certainly acknowledge that this is also down to player skill, army uptake and the reasons for that. We cannot provide more evidence than that, we can just make a simple inference, and our own opinions. We live in a world where things like evolution cannot even be proven beyond all doubt despite thousands of researchers and studies, so what hope do we have that something as unimportant as army performance will ever be proven to the level that net-pixie insists? In lieu of proof, it's down to opinion based on poor evidence. Yes people, that's right, we're in the opinion zone, and if you don't like the opinion that the poor design of the Orc and Goblin army lists and their special rules may make them harder to use effectively, then you're out of luck, and no amount of sophistry will change that.

I'd much rather discuss what the thread is for, so now I'll refer to your own posts which I enjot reading, hack'a. You wouldn't seriously suggest someone puts three gobbo shamans and one Black Orc all in the same unit, would you? I don't think I've ever seen a case of "all eggs in one basket" that is easier to shatter (Can't even bunker them down like with Necromancer Zombie bunkers, due to panic). I do think it's a bit easier to mitigate animosity than Grinloc says though: my last opponent simply put an Orc Shaman in a unit of Black Orcs, easy. It's a fair risk to have one Shaman in a unit of Night Goblins, a third could probably hide in the woods, and with greenskins the key is redundancy, although sending three units to do one job can be a pain. But not impossible :)

warlord hack'a
18-10-2007, 14:05
no indeed it was not a serious suggestion (though it might be the best missile magnet the world has ever seen, just imagine having to roll four 'Look out sir!'roles with one succesful stonethrower hit ;-).

Anwya, my opinion is biased also as I have been playing the same list for a number ofyears and it combats the 2 major O&G weaknesses (ld and animosity) quite effectively and therefor I think they can do well in a tourney. But I have not since a long time had experience with an army where most units suffered from animosity (in my current list only 7 units suffer full animosity effect and 2 more are protected by BO characters, and in total I have 16 deployment choices..

EvC
18-10-2007, 14:18
Sounds like a solid army- did you change it much when the 7th edition army book was released?

Grinloc
18-10-2007, 14:33
Oh i tried plenty of stuff.
There are a few general flaws:

A unit of 40 n-goblins with black orc big boss as battle standard bearer for mork's spirit totem and 3 shamans basically means fat VP to be earned.

All this does is providing me with some lousy static combat resolution with infantry as weak as n-goblins. What i frequently did was trying to get the spells "Gork's Warpath" and "Waaagh" for my shamans. No matter if they actually got the spells or not, i put them into towers (basically out of harm's way). In the case they didn't get those spells they were expensive scroll caddies. Since squabbling shamans can't even use dispel scrolls this was an idiot-prove tactic....

So that is one black orc to "tame" this monster called 7th edition animosity? Not to mention this black orc is totally pointless when it comes to rolling those dreaded 6's.
Excuse me, no offense, but who in their right mind would call this "free move" a general advantage??
You know what this equals to? Tactically leading your units (or at least trying to) without a battle plan. Most of the time the outcome of this "free move" rewards your opponent far more than yourself by making him get into charge range with something very nasty, while you can't get out of the way in your "remaining moves" part.
Chaos knights, daemonettes and chariots come to mind.

What about the rest of my army?
So i should heavily concentrate on units not prone to animosity?
What basically is there? Trolls, giants, chariots, warmachines, overpriced black orcs.
That means no orc-based stable infantry battle line.

If i DO want this orc infantry line i'm pretty much forced to take black orc bosses instead of shamans. Otherwise this animosity eventually gonna bite me in the ***, sometimes making me effectively fall one whole turn behind (since the movement phase is so important).
I need those dispel dice and dispel scrolls (from the shamans) against this disgustingly powerful slaanesh magic. Mork's spirit totem alone won't cut it.
And since melee based heroes are not allowed to carry dispel scrolls i'm wondering how i should manage to play by the rules of an excuse of an armybook.

My opponents aren't stupid really and (naturally) want to win their battles.
They use magic-heavy army lists.
When i use shamans (to prevent them from vaporizing my units) they wait for those inevitable 1's and 6's.
When i use black orcs (to make my infantry function properly most of the time at least) their magic dominance is simply absurd. Ever tried to play with no real magic defense against a magic-heavy skaven army? When was the last time you witnessed a "Pit of shades" on units with initiative 2? Well, it aint pretty...

I'm trying to be more clear about what i'm trying to say:
A stable line of reliable (not squabbling) infantry is something most other armies totally take for granted. But the special rules of my armybook prevent me from having that "luxury".
Basically this way the greenskin army list gets extremely limited in its options. A player gets "weakened" either in one area or the other and trying to play "inbetween" can get very risky.

Due to animosity's current "effect" the orc player gets put at a major disadvantage in both army composition and playstyle.
And that is something no other army in warhammer has to face to such an extent.
Hey, sure, you can get lucky and none of your units squabbles in a 6-round-game. But how lucky can you be....

One of the basic "selling points" of greenskins always was that they were dead cheap. Yes, toughness 4 to such a point cost is cheap indeed, no argument about that. But as it stands now this doesn't even come close to compensating...and just makes greenskins close to unplayable in a competitive manner.

And no offense again...whoever it is who shouts "show me evidence, show me prove"....go talk to some NASA guy if he can help you with that. Those greenskin players aren't going to those GT's to lose there on purpose....

Grinloc
18-10-2007, 15:08
Another thing:

@warlord hack'a:
So you worked on lists minimizing your animosity as much as possible. Quite remarkable really, but there's one thing that makes the whole deal fall flat on its face...

To make a greenskins army list which is more or less evenly functional as those of other armies the player has to spend quite some time and effort. When all is done he didn't take his potential enemies into consideration one bit. Which basically means....

For a greenskin player, to have a "functional, risk-minimizing" army list, he is not allowed to combine the most powerful aspects of his army (cheap orcs units for example) into one potentially highly competitive force.

So he either does it regardless, like an owner of any other army would do, and potentially taking the risk of all going to he** in the process (due to animosity) or he leaves many of his army's strong parts out.

As one can see when looking at those GT results it's probably both...and it's not working out.

As far as i can see, ok it's a local community of friends playing, it's not working out for me either. Christ, i've been playing O&G for close to 8 years now. In 6th i didn't have any problems whatsoever. Now it's a massive uphill battle, "everest"-style so to speak....

warlord hack'a
18-10-2007, 16:19
why is there such a difference between 6th and 7th regarding animosity? The only things that changed is that instead of having 1/36 chance of moving forward and 5/36 of not moving you now have a 6/36 chance of moving forward and 6/36 chance of not moving. So in effect: you have a bigger chance of moving forward.
And of course black orcs lost their 6" quell animosity rule, which hurt me far more than the actual chance in the animosity rule..

And yes, this can mean that you get just within chargereach of a nasty enemy unit Now think about a real situation:
you either want that unit ot get into close combat or not right? If you do not want it in close combat then those d6 inch extra might bring you into trouble, but that unit would have been into trouble otherwise anyway only maybe one turn later. If you have a close combat unit then this extra d6 inch might be enough to make the charge which otherwise was out of reach. So yes I see the extra move as an advantage, not in all cases but since I have a CC oriented army for me it is in a lot of cases. And then I am not even talking about calling the waagh, which makes my enemy always in danger as soon as he comes into 14" of my general's unit and of my other close combat unit.

And to EVC, nope my list did not change much: I cut down on the number of gobbo's (I think I dropped 10), changed from wolfchariots to boar chariots and therefor had to ditch my rock lobber, put my general on a boar (and said goodbye to Armour of meteoric iron), got mork's spirit totem on a BO bsb also on boar. But the core stayed the same: 2 blocks of svg orcs with spears, one of them big uns, some fast cav, a bit of warmachine shooting and 3 night gobbo support units. Recently I added a single troll, a single pump wagong and two bases of snotlings, basically to marchblock and divert my opponent. It works for me, spears of savages are, well, savage..

Grinloc
18-10-2007, 19:56
Of course, removing the quell animosity rule from black orcs was the biggest fault of all.
Maybe GW sat there wondering how to easily prevent orc players from basically nullifying that animosity weakness the greenskins were meant to have...by using black orcs and hugging them with plenty other units...

About the "free" d6" move being generally an advantage or not:

It can be an advantage, i didn't say it never would be.
But the part of it which makes it so unpleasent is the fact that it is totally unpredictable.
Since this is a game of tactics, and the movement phase being the most important one, it has the potential of totally disrupting your battle line and screwing up your movement tactics.

Ok, let's pretend your CC oriented battle line is stable. One infantry next to the other, protecting each other's flank.
Now due to a dice roll one of them decides to run ahead, getting itself into charge range. You wanna tell me you would ever attempt that charge with that one unit? Alone??
If your opponent is even remotely competent he would have done the same thing as you so far, which is maintaining a stable battle line himself. All he would do now is cheer in anticipation of a potential upcoming flank charge since your other units aren't capable anymore of preventing that from happening due to not being able to catch up.

Way too often i've lost precious points and more importantly key units, just because of this one ***** dice roll.
Sometimes i got into charge range that way, but had no choice in the matter due to being savage orcs.
Or this unvoluntary move opened my unit's flank, basically losing it in the process.
Or the opposing unit on the other side was so powerful (mostly cavalry) that it didn't hesitate to crush me in the front next turn. Since i was forced to advance too far i couldn't get away from them. Next thing i knew there was a big mean enemy unit from hell standing behind my battle line, preventing me from marching and threatening my rear side. And all this madness just because of 2 dice rolls...

In warhammer dice rolls can't be dictated, but MOVEMENT CAN. Getting your units into tactically advantagous positions is key in this game.
Don't fool yourself, your opponents know about your animosity weakness, knowing it's now greater than ever.

Due to these new animosity rules the greenskins became even more unpredictable, making them even worse in that extremely important respect.
In 6th edition i frequently played savage orcs (both infantry and cavalry) with good results. With these animosity rules you are just asking the dice gods to make yourself get walked over.

All of this nightmare, and all that stands for potential compensation is "hey, my CC oriented army is supposed to get into combat, so this is good for me"??

I've been playing this game for quite some years now and i dare to say i'm quite good (not pro mind you) at movement tactics. When black orcs had their quell animosity special rule these things were almost never a problem.

And now after this "wise decition" on GW's part each and every one of my movement phases can potentially make me lose the battle? Probably without the slightest tactical fault on my part?
Oh, that happened more than just once.

If that should be called an overall advantage and a "green way of life" then i surely don't want it anymore...

One thing: If you see this animosity "dynamic" as an overall advantage, benefiting you frequently,....why do you create lists which minimize it?

(all this is in no way meant to come across as harsh or offensive or something. If it does sound that way i apologize.)

Urgat
18-10-2007, 23:33
"nods"
Plenty of good sense in that post above.

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 00:02
If your "free" moves happened to your benfit in most cases then hats off to you.

In my case this happened very rarely, i almost always received a major beating when this stuff happened.
Unfortunately a very useful tool to exploit this greenskin weakness is using fast cavalry. The chaos player, who i frequently play against, often tries to position his marauder horsemen in a way which potentially causes one of my orc units after rolling that "6" to move into the way of another orc unit next to it. I have no choice but to head towards the marauders since they are the closest visible target in this situation.
So to mitigate this crappy situation i declare a charge on the horsemen to at least give the now "blocked" orc unit a chance to get free by moving those 4" of a failed charge distance.

What this chaos player basically does is lying in wait with his fast units, waiting for me to roll one of those 6's. With this tactic he "grinds holes" into my battle line, making it sometimes terribly easy for him to take advantage of them.

Do you see my point now? If your opponent insists on exploiting this "army feature" of mine (when i roll those 6's he often does) he partially dictates my movement phase, getting my units into positions they definately don't want to be in. This way he gets a kind of "head start" i often fall short of compensating and in the process my units get outmanouvered.

Don't get me wrong, playing greenskins is often fun. But you know what's the sad part about those 6's and getting outmanouvered in the process? I almost can't do one bloody thing about it.
Maybe moving my units with the occasional "6" in mind, planning in advance, is a solution? Not really, that way my opponent tends to dominate the movement phase even more.

I analysed the last few battles i had and it seems that a greenskins victory is dictated by how often and when those animosity rolls of 1's and 6's take place.
A roll of "1" isn't that harsh actually. It's the dreaded "6" which not even a black orc character can do something against.
As long as my opponents insist on exploiting this my chances of winning a battle aren't good at all. An uphill battle indeed.

Heretic Burner
19-10-2007, 00:03
why is there such a difference between 6th and 7th regarding animosity? The only things that changed is that instead of having 1/36 chance of moving forward and 5/36 of not moving you now have a 6/36 chance of moving forward and 6/36 chance of not moving. So in effect: you have a bigger chance of moving forward.

It isn't very hard to see how much animosity has been drastically altered. The first that leaps out is the obvious - where you once had approximately ~1/6 chance of something random occuring, you now have ~1/3. This is a monumental difference. In Warhammer the movement phase is by far the most vital. It is the phase you have by far the most control over. Where units are theoretically balanced based on points value, the movement phase is where players get to generate the greatest advantage from, presumably, balanced lists. Of course nobody but the most fanatic GW apologist still believes the armies are remotely balanced presently, however it is irrelevant for the point of this discussion.

In O&G the movement phase is a disaster. First off squabbling has increased outright. O&G units are flat out losing an entire turn of the most important phase in the game more often. And rolling a 1 for animosity doesn't just impact the unit that squabbles, no adjoining section of the battlefield is completely thrown in disarray. One unit slowed means adjoining units must respond to the slowing. It opens gaps for your opponent. It means an extra turn of shooting from a gunline. In short its a very bad thing to happen.

Fine, we've put up with it before what about lumbering forward randomly. First thing to consider is only half of the result is random. What isn't random is the direction. You have no control over this. None. Your opponent's previous movement phase (and the positioning of his own units) has determined what direction your own units will head towards. Not you. Think about this for a moment...in the most important phase of the game, it is now in your opponent's hands how your units move ~1/3 of the time! There is a reason Slaanesh magic is considered so powerful, it helps to dominate the most important phase in the game. Against O&G, who needs Slaanesh magic? It should be no shock at all an army is broken with this new animosity rule. Any army would be dreadful with this rule.

Against a skilled opponent (and by skilled I mean any opponent that hasn't just cracked open a Battle for Skull Pass) moving forward randomly is BAD. But, what about the times when that extra d6 of movement gets you into charge range? Well, here is the bad news - units can flee. A unit that just gets into charge range is clearly easily avoided by a flee reaction. Of course, with the extra animosity distance and now the failed charge that unit will more likely than not completely outpaced the rest of your army - yup, another very BAD thing.

Randomly moving forward is obviously very bad. Matt Ward's concept of it somehow mitigating the bad effect of a squabble is so bizarrely off the mark it makes me wonder if he has even played Warhammer.



And of course black orcs lost their 6" quell animosity rule, which hurt me far more than the actual chance in the animosity rule..


Of course. The old quell animosity rule not only mitigated animosity (very deadly enough even in 6th) for the unit the character is in, it also created a zone of stability so that your line doesn't collapse every movement phase. In 7th this is not the case, a legitimate chance of actually moving your units how you wish them is simply not on the table. Combined with the new crippling animosity and O&G are simply almost unusable - at least against any opponent that takes a bit more to beat than just rushing forward in a completely chaotic manner.

Urgat
19-10-2007, 00:13
What this chaos player basically does is lying in wait with his fast units, waiting for me to roll one of those 6's. With this tactic he "grinds holes" into my battle line, making it sometimes terribly easy for him to take advantage of them.

I've thought about that one. thankfuly, none of my opponents have figured that yet, so for now I'm disregarding this pb entirely... I just hope I'll have a new armybook before they get that the 6 is like a mini frenesy...

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 00:59
You are absolutely correct, it IS a mini frenzy.

When that happens, and your opponents know what they are doing, it's basically over.

In a few of those 7th edition battles that very thing happened.

One of those battles takes the cake though:

The unit "of 6" drawn towards a fast enemy unit, those orcs preventing their fellas next to them from moving and a BIG hole in my battle line.
What followed was pure comedy. You know what my chaos opponent did?

His mounted daemonettes went into "turbo" mode and walzed straight through that hole "roadrunner-style". But he didn't even attack at all.
He moved up and down my battle line in the back of my units trying to make my orcs turn around. That way he prevented me from marching, in the case of me turning around he would have tried to destroy my units with "squishy stuff" like chaos knights.
At one point he let go, basically "playing games" with my greenskin force.

It was so absurd we had a painful laughing session :p.

And to top it off...you know what kind of event caused all this mayhem?

A roll of "6"......

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 06:17
Actually it's not really mini frenzy.
It's more like the potential danger of ALL your animosity-prone units of becoming "mini-frenzied".

Additionally these new animosity rules are the very reason why both savage orcs and savage orc boar boys are totally worthless now.

Using those units just makes you just ask for that pleasant punch in the face.

The more i think about it the more i come to the conclusion that Matt Ward's "brilliance" is actually a big insult to many loyal O&G players.

He provides you with a simple choice:

[a] You either take advantage of the things which made O&G's a strong army in 6th edition, being cheap T4 stuff and a great variety of units. But due to the new animosity rules you take the potential risk of everything going to he**. Which will MOST LIKELY happen at some point.

[B] Or you desperately try to build an army list with its top priority of minimizing the animosity "factor", while at the same time thrashing its performance when comparing it to army list compositions of good ol 6th edition.


Then you go to a GT with confidence to win a few battles (hey, we are confident individuals eh), but most likely one of two things gonna happen:

O&G player #1 chose option [a]
He leads his big green baddies into battle for some major stuntie head bashin'. But what's this? That vicious animosity check of doom is ruthless and bites him in the *youknowwhat*. Most of the times it goes downhill from there.

O&G player #2 chose option [B]
His greenskin force of "no-animosity" (so it actually does what the player wants it to) is due to its composition so fragile against various kinds of armies that he has no hope of getting a positive win:lose ratio.


The point of this thread was to answer the question if O&G's are a good army for a warhammer newcomer.
Mr. Animosity's answer is: No.
Playing any other army gives you the benefit of learning the fundamental basics of turn sequences, unit movement and a wide range of useful tactics.
O&G's, who "benefit" exclusively from animosity, don't let you have that. They prevent you from getting any insightful experience on game dynamics and at the same time can let you down while you probably didn't even make a mistake on your part.


If it were 6th edition being the recently released one, i would greatly reccommend the greenskins. They were awesome back then. It wasn't hard at all with them (movement-wise), some clever positioning of black orcs and their friends and you were good to go.
Nothing better than watching the pale face of your opponent when he stares at this cheap "green wall of T4", supported by potential "napalm" magic mayhem and big artillery batteries. Good memories :)

Maybe O&G's gonna get a rules revision in the future, like the DE's did. Until then...you better stay away from them.

Chaplain Mortez
19-10-2007, 07:29
I haven't read all of the posts (it's late hear and there seems to be a lot of negativity towards Orcs and Goblins), but I think I'll chime in anyway. Hope this post is useful to those reading this...

I picked a really rough army to start Fantasy with--High Elves in their current form. I probably win only 10% of my games (that happens when you play mostly infantry), but let me tell you that Orcs and Goblins are nothing to scoff at. So far, I've at least drawn all of my games and have actually won a few. I'd go as far as to say that the army is easier to play. Not to mention, it's also a lot of fun!

All this gibberish about Black Orcs being a waste of points is just wrong. For the same price as a High Elf Swordmaster, you get an extra point of strength, toughness, and better armor. Not to mention, access to more attacks when needed. The only thing you lose is weapon skill, movement, and initiative--movement being the biggest loss. Other than that, you have a very solid unit that can take on anything in a straight-up fight. Gork and Mork forbid if you get a unit of Goblins in their flank or a character marching in with them. Fact is, Black Orcs are a fire magnet. I think a lot of generals dismiss Black Orcs because they seem to die easy. It's not that they die easy, it's that your opponent is going to fling everything they have at them to prevent them from hitting their lines. I had a Lizardmen player use his 2nd. generation Slaan magic them for about five turns along with two rounds of shooting from Salamanders to reduce them to just the command. Probably 1000+ points of his army trying to eliminate a 250 point unit. I'd say that's doing really good. That's 2000 points of my army he's not hurting. My advice with Black Orcs is that expect them to be soak up a lot of damage. But if you can screen them with skirmishers or another cheap unit, you can deliver them to combat for some really nasty effects. I've had a lot of success since that game with the Lizardmen by using two units of 30 Night Goblins in front of them to march up the table, then slamming my opponent with a counter-charge of Black Orc meanness. Or waiting for the goblins to die/run away, leaving the Black Orcs plenty of room to move around. Think of it this way: put a rook behind a pawn and you have an effective way to position your rook. Second the pawn moves or is captured, the rook has all kinds of options to help capture your opponent's pieces.

The other thing that really gripes me is this business of animosity. Two words: who cares? Honestly, your average orc is half the price of what it would normally be for a trooper with that kind of statline. Goblins are just way too cheap to even matter. I use my units that suffer from animosity in pairs. I have two units of goblins standing right next to each other, for example, both setting up the same flank charge. If one decides to fail animosity, then the other is still there to make up for it. The average Orc is half the price of a High Elf, but has much better stats overall. If neither unit fails animosity, even better. If both units fail animosity (which I take into account), then my opponent has the dilemma of deciding what to do in order to charge. So both units are standing there. If they charge one, then the other will most likely pass animosity the following turn and counter-charge. Or a supporting unit (such as a chariot or Trolls) will be in range to do the same thing. Orcs are like a chubby kid rolling down a hill. He has a hard time getting a move on, but once he does, you can't stop him. That's where your WAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!! comes in. At those really critical moments when you can't set up those charges, you can just call in the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!! and get your troops where you need them.

Good Orc generals are also good organizers.

Organization is the key.

It's about getting your troops where you need them, when you need them, taking into account that you're going to have trouble along the way.

We also have the blessing of Mork's Spirit Totem. For a while, I really struggled putting up good magic defense. Then I did something stupid--I took a Savage Orc Great Shaman with the Skull Wand of Kaloth and some Kickin' boots. Problem sovled. I now have seven dispell dice (three from the totem, two for showing up, and two from a Level 3/4) and a character that has a lot of close combat "oomf!" Try it. He comes in at quite a few points, but left me with a lot of room to take cheaper meelee characters to stick in my units (two Night Goblin Bosses at less than 70 points and a Black Orc Boss at around 100). Plus, he dishes out horrendous amounts of damage in my magic phase because I can feed him all of my power dice. Often, he flings three small spells (little chance of a miscast) and one big one. Perhaps a bound item or two, and my magic phase is on-par with other armies with very little investment.

We also have some great warmachines, fast calvary, and some nasty monsters to back all of this up. Sephiroth87 mentioned using combined arms--and he's absolutely right. With our cheap units and characters, this leads us to have plenty of room for other units.

Anyway, I'm done now. I just don't think people give Orcs and Goblins enough credit where it's due. I've had a lot of success so far without any real gripes. Very flexible and balanced (in terms of having lots of different options, not in terms of cheese. This army can be cheesy...) army. It's like a better version of Empire.

Who needs guns when you got WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!?

Urgat
19-10-2007, 08:27
I did something stupid--I took a Savage Orc Great Shaman with the Skull Wand of Kaloth and some Kickin' boots. Problem sovled. I now have seven dispell dice (three from the totem, two for showing up, and two from a Level 3/4) and a character that has a lot of close combat "oomf!" Try it.

I've always wanted to, but I have no savage orc footmen (I'm broke, store metal minis are too expensive and they rarely ever appear on ebay :/), and I don't feel like putting him in a non savage orc unit (I don't even remember what happens to frenzied characters in non frenzied units...). And having him in the savage boar boyz seems like a very dangerous option, to say the least :p

Chaplain Mortez
19-10-2007, 08:47
I've always wanted to, but I have no savage orc footmen (I'm broke, store metal minis are too expensive and they rarely ever appear on ebay :/), and I don't feel like putting him in a non savage orc unit (I don't even remember what happens to frenzied characters in non frenzied units...). And having him in the savage boar boyz seems like a very dangerous option, to say the least :p

If a frenzied character can charge as per the Frenzy rules and he's in the unit, then the unit MUST charge with him. I stick mine in a unit of 25 Big 'Uns with the Spirit Totem. A very solid unit, to say the least. They still suffer from animosity, but I find them to be just as hard to beat as my Black Orcs. You could always use a nearly naked orc (the musician comes to mind--he doesn't really wear anything) combined with some greenstuff. Grab the banner that is all spiky from the Goblin sprue--that makes a great staff or wand.

I actually use this savage orc model:

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/orcs/catalog/orc_shamans.htm

...with the above conversion. It looks great and was fairly simple to do. But then again, $10 is a bit steep, I know. Worth it, however, if you need a lord. Not to mention, it was one of the best ideas I've had in the whole Warhammer game. A very versatile character (ld 9 with 3 attacks that can kill out-right upon hitting, with gross magic to boot). I recommend it.

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 09:14
Well first of all...no offense really, but the HE's of 6th edition are really weak. So i can perfectly understand your 10% ratio.
In 6th edition, out of the close to 20 battles against HE's (my brother left them in disgust), my greenskins won all of them.


You tend to talk about failing your animosity checks....i dunno, for some reason it sounds to me you are talking about having to stand still for that turn.
Rolling a "6" on the animosity check is NOT AN ADVANTAGE! It's what is really messing things up. More often than i care to count i ate a flank charge that way. And when you decide (as you described) to take two units for one job (just to make sure it works) your battle line will be packed full of units. When even one of those eats a flank charge (even by HE's) he gonna send your greenies running. When that happens i wish you luck on those LD6-7 panic tests after that unit broke from combat, not even talking about the chargers pursuing into another unit of yours.

Against experienced players having many of your units packed into a small area, while having the huge risk of rolling a "6" on so many checks, equals to potentially turning your battle line into a pack of juicy snacks of VP's for him.

Often enough when rolling those "6's" your units will probably hinder each other at movement. And it is your opponent's intentional decision in which way this is going to happen...IN YOUR OWN MOVEMENT PHASE (i can't stress this enough).
In the worst case this would equal to your enemy immobilizing your battle line.

Seems your opponents didn't exploit this glaring "we'll show em" weakness the way my opponents did. They basically "set up an ambush" with their fast units, eagerly awaiting that one dice roll which screws me up big time.

I just don't care anymore when rolling a "1". But i have no ways WHATSOEVER to prevent those "6's" from happening, not even with black orcs.

Don't get me wrong, O&G's can be a fun and strong army.
It's this game-breaking new animosity which makes them totally unpredictable and in many cases just unplayable.
When the sh** hits the fan animosity-wise against an experienced opponent it gonna be him who decides what's going to happen on the battlefield, not you.

If you try to pull off that tactic again of using two units for doing one job against an experienced player, who eagerly awaits to heavily exploit your so called "dash forward advantage", you most likely gonna get butchered...

I'm by no means saying your opponents were bad players or anything of that stuff. Just to put things into perspective...i've been playing my O&G's for quite some years now, the count of the battles i fought being easily over 100.
Everything was fine. Then from that day, when i switched to 7th edition, i started losing every single battle i participated in. That doesn't seem strange eh?
The players in my local community (all long time friends) and me got quite experienced in tactics when it comes to units and movement.

Didn't take them long to notice this glaring disadvantage of mine, which Matt Ward was so kind to provide me with....
I can't blame them really for doing so, it's a legitimate tactic. It even got an advantage for me in stock (of sorts)...showing me quite clearly where this new armybook falls flat on its face.

Urgat
19-10-2007, 09:23
You could always use a nearly naked orc (the musician comes to mind--

[...]

Problem is not the shaman (I'm not THAT cheap that I can't buy one mini ;) ) but the all metal unit of savage orcs to go with him :) Thanks anyway for the answer.

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 09:32
to Heretic burner, thank you for insulting me twice in one post! That must have taken a lot of effort! I have been playing O&G since 4th edition which must be something like 15 years ago. But please call me an inexperienced player as I apparently completely fail to see how animosity can be bad.. Here's the wakeup call:

You can only move far towards your opponent by a 6 on your animosity roll if there are no units in front of your units blocking your move. Now let's see: I either face enemy infantry or enemy cavalry (let's break them down into: things that move faster and things that move the same or slower).

When I face something that moves faster then I shild my svg orc unit with a unit of 2 snotling bases. They are ItP, do not suffer from animosity, prevent my svg orc block from unwanted charges or 6 inch forward stumble moves and can be used to block enemy cav and redirect them should they charge (and of couse overrun the snots unless they make their stubborn ld check). So no chance of me stumbling forward with my svg orcs as I then hit the snots. Problem solved

When facing enemy infantry then on the turn I am 9 or 10" away from their line I call the waagh. Again problem solved as not only my generals unit and my other CC unit moves forward, but even my gobbo units have a good chance of going forward (not that I want them too by the way).

If enemy fast cav is preying on you then you need more long range support in the form of fast cav or chariots, no enemy is daring to put his fast cav in range of my chariots.

And to Grinloc, you say some very sensible things and they are all true, but think of it this way: you say a 6 result opened a hole in your battle line where the enemies daemonettes moved through. Now think about this: if we did not have animosity then our units would be more expensive, so you would have less units and hence have holes in your battleline from the start.. And with enemy in your rear, note that the animosity 6 forces you to move to the nearest VISIBLE enemy, so something in your rear does not force you to turn around..

And even if only my general's unit gets into chargerange then I again have 2 options:
1) if the enemy line my units faces is very hard then I can either use one of my other (faster) units to block the enemy units next to my general's unit (and my general's unit is usually hard enough to chop thoguh an enemy unit in the first place) or even charge them with combined chariots if I have the opportunity and think I can win
2) if the enmy battle line is weak then there is not even need to support my main combat unit as my general will take care of the enemy battle line by himself.

And then finally the ramark about fleeing when you get in chargerange. Hey, you can do that too when you all of a sudden "have a hole in the battle line" and the enemy is planning on charging your unfortunate unit that stumbled forward. Jst flee with him, and let the enemy strand in front of your other orc unit (which is there in the first place because your units are so cheap).

The only element in my army that matters which is subject to animosity are my svg orc boar boyz and indeed it sucks if they fail their roll. But usually they are in combat by turn 2 or 3, and after that jump from unit to unit so no longer hav to test.

Anyway, I have made my point, which is: yes animosity is bad, but to compensate we get cheap troops. If you want to win with O&G this means you need to dam in the effects of animosity, e.g. by taking a few units that do not suffer or suffer less and put them in between your battle line..

this is my personal experience so far, next week I will play 6 matches in 2 days and I will pay extra attention to the animosity effects on my battle, so maybe I will 'squeek differently' next week..

Lord_Byron
19-10-2007, 09:34
Instead of fighting or surrendering to animosity, I've tried to harness it.

I have a post in the "how is everyone doing with the greenskins" thread linked below that explains the method for anyone curious.

http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-general-discussion/101549-how-is-everyone-doing-with-the-greenskins-3.html?highlight=byron

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 09:51
and when the enemy sets up fast cav to trap one of your units as it stumbles forward then I am a bit curious what his and your battleline look like. First off, you can have so many deployment choices with an O&G force that by the time your opponent put down his last unit you basically still have to start with what's important.
Secondly, if your opponent has set up such a trap, what is your plan for your next round of movement? If the plan is to stay put then yes, indeed if a unit rolls a 6 and then moves more than 3 inch forward you might have a problem as this means you either have to move the unit that suffered 2 inch back and have a small part of their flank stick out (as long as it is 1 inch it does not matter as then the unit next to him and protecting his flank will be pulled in the battle as well). So in this case you are telling me your opponent sets up a trap and waits for a 1/6 * 1/2 = 1/12 chance of you stumbling into it?
And in case moving forward does not hurt you then it is very easy to repair the battle line by simply moving the rest of your line so that you have one front again.

now with my army, whcih is very CC oriented, the only enemy army I do not want to face head on is an army which has heavy cavalry. But against those armies the effects of animosity are not really a factor as they can charge me whether I am on 14 or 16 inch or on 16 minus d6". In those cases I use my snotling shield by the way, to frustrate his move far more than animosity might do..

Perhaps it helps Grinloc if you give us a summary of your army list as, like i said, my army is a cc monster so I usually suffer more form rolling a 1 than rolling a 6, maybe your army has a different goal in mind in which case animosity is indeed far more of a pain.. O&G were originally meant as a cc army, the new animosity rule, more than anything, forces you in that direction. Add to that the great new choppa rules and there you have the direction GW is trying to push you: big blocks of choppa armed orcs.
oh yes and black orcs do not test for animosity, period. So this makes the BO unit very reliable, no 6's to pull you forward. Only Bo characters in normal orcs units suffer from the 6.

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 10:25
What i've been trying to say was:

1.) Orc unit "of 6" dashed forward. This created a hole in my battle line.
2.) With my other units i couldn't seal that hole and the daemonettes ran through, ending their movement behind my line of orc units.
3.) From that point on he prevented my orc units from marching, which was the whole point of his stunt.
4.) So i had his main army in front of me and his daemonettes behind me. I knew when turning around to get those daemonettes my orc units would become juicy snacks for his fast moving units.
5.) My enemy's fast units (of different sorts) totally dictated my movement phases from that point on, making me lose the battle by quite a large margin.

It essentially was a dice roll of "6" (on the animosity check of one unit) which caused all this mayhem. What worries me most is that i can't plan in advance accordingly since i can never know when and where this "roll of 6" is going to happen.

About him charging my orcs who dashed forward:
Oh he won't do that.
This scenario tends to happen quite often in similar ways.
If i get in range of charging him i can either declare it, just move forward or i wait for my fellas next to me to catch up (whatever would suit me best in a specific scenario).

If i declare the charge he flees, making the gap between my units even larger. If i don't he just moves his units into more favorable positions and i can't do one damn thing about it. Since his daemonettes are behind my units they prevent my greenies from marching, while his own units can march around as he sees fit. From that point on it almost always is a futile uphill battle i can't win anymore since his units are at least twice as fast as mine...

All i can do from that point on is desperately trying to get in CC, but he ain't stupid and just won't let me...his units being kinda similar to a swarm of sharks, circling around its helpless victim, waiting for the right moment to charge in and rip it to shreds. (now THAT was dramatic eh :cool:)

Well, it seems the only reliable way to prevent those "6's" from happening i'm pretty much forced to heavily rely on units not being affected by animosity.

This would thrash a big advantage the O&G's enjoyed having: a wide range of viable units providing the player with lots of "playground".

Apparently this seems to be the "Matt Ward way" of playing 7th edition greenskins: Choosing one of the lesser evils....

This ain't my army i fell in love with so long ago anymore. Thanks, but no thanks.

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 10:49
"From that point on it almost always is a futile uphill battle i can't win anymore since his units are at least twice as fast as mine..." (end quote)

Now THAT is your problem, not the animosity! What would have happened if you did not roll a 6? He would have flow over you anyway! Maybe a turn later but still not a problem. The problem you descirbe with that list has nothing to do with animosity..

You do not heavily need to rely on units not subject to animosity, but having some that don't indeed is a sensible thing. Especially to prevent the enemy from pulling tricks on you with their fast cav. And this in no way trashes the advantage of choosing a wide range of troops. My currrent army fields: svg orcs, svg orc big uns, svg orc boar boyz, normal orcs, spiderriders, wolfriders, snotlings, a troll, spear chukkas, night goblins, orc chariots, black orcs characters, a night gob character and a normal gob character. So basically the only 'races' not present are a giant and squig ;-).

Urgat
19-10-2007, 10:56
So, do you have any enlighting way as how to prevent me from walking over my own, just released fanatics, killing them, ruining my own unit, having them panic and, basically, completly screwing me up, w/o using snotling screens and therefore being accused of using the fanatic catapult tactic? And all that, thanks to ONE dice roll, and without my opponent lifting a finger!
I would really like you to explain to me how I can see that as an advantage.

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 12:44
well, in that case you are screwed yes indeed. Happened to me once also.. Unless you want to use the fanatic catapult tactic which hurts you also so is a viable tactic, if people accuse you of that one they might even accuse you of bringing fanatics in the first place..

Urgat
19-10-2007, 13:01
And this does not strike you as one severe flaw? When you play an all gob army like me, it doesn't happen to you once, it happens all the time. I've killed 4 fanatics lost one unit and one balista because of that on my last battle. I still can't believe I've won the battle after all the catastrophes that have fallen on my head starting from turn one.
Oh, and squig hoppers shouldn't roll for animosity, they can hardly control their mount, like hell they have time to squabble :/ (this was a free rant from the ASHTSWCRLCU: Assocation of the Squig Hoppers That Squable When In Charge Range of a Light Cavalry Unit).

EvC
19-10-2007, 13:51
So you killed 4 Fanatics, lost a unit (of Night Goblins?) and lost one 35 point Spear Chukka because of animosity in one game... yet you didn't lose. Simply put that highlights the strength of the army list more than anything, as even losing that stuff, it only cost 200 (?) points, and when the disaster happened the rest of your army was still strong enough to cover for it.

I think the reality that most players face is somewhere between Grinloc and hack'a's posts: Grinloc's opponents seem to really use the downfall of animosity to take his units where he doesn't want them, bu hack'a has a tight system in place to minimise the bad effects of animosity. Sometimes there's nothing you can do about animosity of course, and it really has too much effect on how the army plays for my liking, but isn't the end of the world.

Urgat
19-10-2007, 14:25
So you killed 4 Fanatics, lost a unit (of Night Goblins?) and lost one 35 point Spear Chukka because of animosity in one game... yet you didn't lose. Simply put that highlights the strength of the army list more than anything, as even losing that stuff, it only cost 200 (?) points, and when the disaster happened the rest of your army was still strong enough to cover for it.
It is not THAT simple. Half my army also fled following this event -two units jumping into their fanatics on the same turn: I was enormously lucky to rally most of my units - on Ld6!, I got one lucky shot with my spear chukka on the enemy general's unit, who went down to 4 models, fled, and couldn't rally. This basically saved my ass from an horrendous defeat (ok, i guess this was most humiliating for my opponent, granted).


I think the reality that most players face is somewhere between Grinloc and hack'a's posts: Grinloc's opponents seem to really use the downfall of animosity to take his units where he doesn't want them, bu hack'a has a tight system in place to minimise the bad effects of animosity. Sometimes there's nothing you can do about animosity of course, and it really has too much effect on how the army plays for my liking, but isn't the end of the world.

I don't mind animosity, I never did, I mind the new result of 6. That's the ONLY thing I'm complaining about in regard to animosity, animosity has always been part of my army, I've never even tried to dampen it with black orcs, I always managed well enough with it. It is the goddamn move on 6 that spoils it all for me.

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 18:39
"Now THAT is your problem, not the animosity! What would have happened if you did not roll a 6? He would have flow over you anyway!"

No, not really.

1.) What would have happened if i didn't roll that "6"? I gonna tell you now...NOTHING! Since i got a wide wall of orc units staring in his face his ******* fast cavalry wouldn't have done one bloody thing. You don't charge head on into the front of infantry with fast cavalry. And since my number of infantry units clearly outnumbers the unit count of my opponent he wouldn't have the slightest chance of tearing holes into my battle line.

2.) But against a clever opponent all which is sometimes needed is one unlucky "roll of 6".
The unit which rolled a "6" doesn't just move forward in a straight line, like you seem to think. It moves forward and to the side, blocking the moving path of the orc unit next to it. It does that since my opponent was clever enough to position his fast units in a way which forces me to advance this way.
This way he can tear holes into my battle line. My unit number superiority won't benefit me one bloody bit when it happens.

3.) So no, he won't roll over me if i don't roll that "6".
In 6th edition none of this was happening, due to the "aura" of black orcs preventing their fellas from screwing themselves over. Back then with my "wall of orcs" it was ME who dictated the movement phase, a potential speed advantage of my enemy did have next to no effect.
Or how would you try to outmanouver your opponent when his battle line is double as wide as yours eh??

4.) For example those mounted daemonettes are best used to kill war machine crews and doing flank charges. When that "roll of 6" happens this one chaos opponent uses that 20" speed crap to slip through my now open battle line which was perfectly stable before and hard as a rock. If i roll high on that forced additional move of my "unit of 6" i often don't have any means of PREVENTING THIS FROM HAPPENING.
Why do you think my opponents try this in the first place? Because it WORKS.

5.) About your savage orc units: I tried those too, not seeing their potentially fatal "effect" in my first few 7th edition battles.
They dash forward after that "6". Now they come into charge range. But due to their frenzy they are forced to charge.
But my opponents aren't stupid and won't accept that charge. Now my unit moves those additional 4" forward, while his friends stand way behind with their thumbs up their ***. Now i have an entire unit of savage orcs, totally helpless up front with no protection whatsoever, begging for my opponent's flank charge on his next turn.
"But my other orc units can join that fight in my next turn" someone might say? Nope, they won't. By the time they get there this savage orc unit will be long gone after my opponent hit its flank, pursuing and destroying it.

Now i don't only have a wide open battle line, but i also have those ******* daemonettes behind me (which i can't catch due to their 20" range) and i also lose a fatally important unit when it comes to "suffocate" my enemy with my wide battle line.

6.) Since fast moving units have a higher point cost than average ones, such as orc boyz, it was key in 6th edition to prevent your opponent from using that speed advantage on you. Now what was the reliable way to make this happen? You "surrounded" him with your big *** battle line of green T4. "Oh you won't run past my battle line, buddy. There's no way for you to slip through".. And now in 7th edition all what is needed is one unfortunate "6" and my battle line often folds.

So the key to minimize that dangerous thing would be forcing me to pick units that aren't suited best for the job i want them to do?

No thanks. The new army i gonna play will make me lean back due to doing what i demand of it.....doing exactly what i want ffs.

<Edit>: Now don't get me wrong. This thing doesn't happen every single time. It happens roughly 30-40% of the time.
"Hey, don't worry, it's the green way of life"...??
Having trouble in some battles is one thing, but potentially losing 30% of your battles due to a game designer's brainf**t while not making any real mistakes in your tactics is in my case unacceptable.

Why do you think those O&G players are at the dead end of those GT result ladders in the first place?

Urgat
19-10-2007, 19:52
Man, chill lol. Do as I do, start ogres :p (because they don't cost much -in real money I mean), so when you need to vent, you can just swap to that army for a couple battles :)
And I don't really feel like betraying my orcs and gobs coz they used to be part of their army (I miss that, btw, that was one unit not prone to animosity, reliable, which had its place in a gobelin army, imho).

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 20:54
I'm fine mate, ty :p.
Oh i already "switched".
Dark elves gonna be my next army. Interesting units, awesome lore and a challenging army.
Ordered units worth of 7k points heh. Now the upcoming painting of all that stuff is giving me headaches lol.

Urgat
19-10-2007, 21:20
7k? Damn, I wish I had the money for that :p
I have a skeletal DE force too, but it's somethng I bought from a friend, and his unit choice was... quite ineffective, so it's impossible to win with what I have.

Grinloc
19-10-2007, 21:32
Umm, what is a skeletal dark elves army? The ones i got here are quite alive and juicy looking :).

They cost me close to 2k €, due to the miniatures being mostly made of metal.
I guess that's a vital reason why they look so absolutely fantastic.

The corsairs, black guard, witches, oh dear.
Got the army book here too. A fantastic read and the painted units described in there...:eek: Now don't get me wrong. I won't ever even attempt to try painting as those pro's do. One of those DE army painters in there has been doing that stuff for close to 20 years lol.

Guess i'm getting a lil off-topic now :).

Urgat
19-10-2007, 21:50
by skeletal, I mean small (a unit of spearmen, 2 RBT, a unit of 20 corsairs, 24 Xbowmen, a lord on coldone, a sorceress, and that's it iirc). I suppose the word doesn't work that way in english.
I don't like the corsairs, I wish the guy bought witches instead :p
I really do like them DE in fact, but I really want to do a slaanesh cult (for the single reason I can put daemonettes in there, I love the current daemonettes, I'll get them some way or another), so i'm crossing fingers and hope they'll be in the new armybook somehow... Not that I really expect it though :/

Heretic Burner
19-10-2007, 22:50
I don't know about swapping for a couple of battles. It is really tough to go back to a broken army when you have a perfectly satisfactory army all pianted and ready to go. All that green paint starting to be covered in a fine coat of dust. I certainly don't feel it as a betrayal, after all GW certainaly betrayed the legion of O&G players by unleashing Matt Ward on the army book. If GW couldn't care less about O&G why should the players?

I echo Grinloc, DE can look fantastic! Not to mention its an army that the player actually gets to play rather than roll a dice at the beginning of a phase and watch your army play itself (poorly) for you. I wouldn't hold my breath on the cult being included in the next book though.

Urgat
19-10-2007, 23:03
nah, honestly, I don't do that bad with gobs, it's just more difficult than it used to be, my win/loss ratio is in the positives these days, it's just that sometimes, I want to hit hard, w/o minding animosity, so I play my Ogres, and... I get squabbles with my gnoblars, but, but! Nothing happens if I roll a 6! Weeeeeh!!!!
And, actually, i thought about it, I'm usually lenient with my friends, I let them do or take things that they shouldn't be able to do (like let my chaos mortal friend use Be'lakor's lore from HoC), so it's time for them to return the favour, and I'm gonna impo- ask them gently to let me try and use gnoblar units in my goblin army :p

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 23:08
if you have a massive wall of orcs and are closing in on your faster moving but weaker enemy and you roll a 6 on your roll then the affected unit will move towards the nearest enemy etc. etc. Now if you really have a wall of orcs your unit that is affected will not have a lot of wheeling room as right next to it, closer even than 1 Inch (you were having a solid wall right?). So basically this means this afffected unit will move straight forward, unless you rolled 5 or 6 for movement in which case he might free himself enough from your supertight battle line to actually have room to wheel. And hey, then comes your normal movement phase. Now since you has a solid wall I assume you were trying to squeeze your opponent between this wall of green and the edge of the table. So you have 8 inches of movement to compensate for having angled yourslef with a 2 inch wheel..

I still do not see the problem, really.. And abot the svg orcs, okay they can stumble forward and then might be forced to charge and then the enemy flees. Now let's see, the max this unit can move is 10" (a role of 6 plus 4 Inch failed move), then the rest of your green wall can quite well protect it by mocing forward another 8 inches, so the svg orcs are only ahead by 2 inch, that is still exposed flank but not a lot. Just rollig a 5 on the move is enough alreayd. And like I said, once close enough to the enemy I call waagh, making my whole battleline surge forward.

Anyway, we are both repeating ourselves, enjoy the dark elves, I personally believe they are the most beautifl miniatures out there, so enjoy!

warlord hack'a
19-10-2007, 23:12
and yes the enemy can put fast cav at an angle and force you to charge sideways a lot, especially with svg orcs. That is why the outer flanks of my svg orcs are protected by either my own fast cav or chariots or something else with high movement. This way, if fast cav is on my flank, I charge it with those units, if fast cav is in my fron then I might have to charge and fail (well I don't due to the snots but they are not always there) but that move is at least straight forward.

Grinloc
20-10-2007, 08:22
It's not that simple to illustrate the way how this animosity exploiting is done on a message board. It highly depends on exact unit positions, unit characteristics such as speed and special rules, etc. One inch too much on that roll can make all the difference.

What i CAN tell you is that it just works. On some occasions it almost seems those opponents (long time friends no less, them scum!:p) got it down to a science. Trying to exploit my biggest weakness with the right units, waiting for the result of that one dice roll ("we'll show em" movement distance, low=good, high="uh oh oh dear"), etc.

The most irritating thing about all this is that your opponent gets the chance to actively dictate your very own movement phase, basically telling you where you have to move one or more of your units.
As long as you don't face opponents who insist on going on an "exploitation spree", good for you. When you have to face someone who is "highly trained" in this regard, you better cross your fingers.

No other army has to face this weakness. And the only reason for this is one factor, which happens to be a human being, named Matt Ward.
With the release of 7th edition i suddenly started having trouble against some opposing armies, armies i used to walk over in 6th. Creating an army which is often performing badly in a very important gameplay phase while overall nerfing its other areas (hello magic...) down to mediocrity at the same time....those GT results shouldn't surprise you really.

Going back to a broken army won't happen in my case, that's for sure. I gonna wait patiently for the release of 8th edition, maybe GW will notice their fatal errors.

I'm switching to DE's for a reason. One of my opponents sometimes plays them. After seeing what this army is capable of, such as movement and unit diversity, it was close to a slap in the face (positively speaking).

The advantage i got compared to GT attending DE players is that i (in most cases) know the opposing army i have to face prior to creating my army list.

Things i demand of my army: I charge the units i want to charge. I can move freely as i see fit. "As my opponent the movement phase of my units is none of your business".

Since i've been playing solely O&G's for years i guess it will cause a sigh of satisfaction when my DE's enter the battlefield for their first time :).

Grinloc
20-10-2007, 09:37
One more thing before my greenies "we'll show em" off into the sunset (=get my basement as their new home)...

Was it probably even Matt Ward himself who thought up nerfing my cute, fun-creating lil FANATICS?????

Tell me what was actually wrong about them in 6th edition...they had the potential chance of 50% of hurting me more than my opponent.
I got 25 of those in my collection for a reason. Maybe some people here think "hoards of chaos" is the epitome of chaos? Oh you have no idea :D.

Occasionally i used 8 n-goblin units and 24 of those lil freaks. Worth taking a picture...seeing your opponent getting pale in the face.
True i often destroyed my own army that way which was an event of utter hilarity. But at least twice i totally wiped out my opponent (which happened to be chaos mortals).


Recipe for making your friend hate you: mad cap mushrooms, whispering the word "catapult" and telling him that his chosen chaos warriors gonna eat 6d6 str 5 hits with no saves allowed.

Most units which finally reached me rarely won combat, since having no rank bonus anymore (and sometimes not even the US to negate ranks lol) isn't all that healthy, even against n-goblins *whistles innocently* :angel:.

Now the only things which ignore armor saves are a handful of expensive magic weapons and goblin artillery. That just doesn't sound right.
Fanatics had the power to make your opponent do things in his movement phase he didn't want to do. Now often enough my opponent didn't care much anymore...

Urgat
20-10-2007, 10:02
Don't tell me about it.

Grinloc
21-10-2007, 07:54
Since it is said that Matt Ward never played O&G's himself i guess he might have been a lil biased against the greenskins. Always being on the receiving end of the horde can probaly influence your take on game/unit balance.

Now i came to the agreement with my local gaming community that i gonna play 6th edition until i got my dark elves ready for the "job". Since all of them besides one empire player play 6th edition anyway that isn't really a problem.

At least now that devil named "animosity" won't bite me in the *youknowwhat* most of the time.

Urgat
21-10-2007, 10:09
I would do that, but then I'd have to kiss my spider riders and my staff of sneaky stealin' goodbye (and the hopper/herder unit always confused the hell out of me).
And now I realize with horror that I'd miss only two things if I switched back to the previous book... Awesome...
Ah, I found a third one: the two snot wagons for one rare choice. That said, this is hugely counterbalanced by the two wolf charriots for one special choice...
edit: weeeh, 5th one! I forgot squigs herds were a 0-1 choice. Now that's a drawback...

warlord hack'a
21-10-2007, 17:59
well, DE cold one knights have stupidity on LD9, meaning that you have a 1 in 6 chance of sumbling 3.5 inch forward. Hey, let me see, this is exactly the same chance and average distance aunit failing animosity has.. Okay, the rest of your M 5 force will not have thisd problem but they will wait for the charge.

Three of my friends play DE and each of them still has to get their first victory against me, DE have the most beautiful models out there but are very hard to play right, which of course is a challenge.. Anyway, good luck with your new army and if you ever get tired of the greesnskins collecting dust, send me a pm before putting them on E-bay.

Avian
22-10-2007, 12:18
Was it probably even Matt Ward himself who thought up nerfing my cute, fun-creating lil FANATICS?????
With double damage for landing on top of them, more control over where they move and the new Madcap Mushrooms, I tend to find Fanatics more effective than they used to be. They don't completely negate 3+ or better saves, but they have gone from very good against cavalry and unimpressive against infantry, to quite good against both.

Apart from the silly wording on terrain, I find them greatly improved.

warlord hack'a
22-10-2007, 15:19
completely agree, it now just means that in order to wipe out a unit of knights you need to make sure they end on top of them, meaning I often resort to the catapult tactic..

Urgat
22-10-2007, 19:15
I don't exactly see what's so good about the madcap mushrooms, they work only on release turn, so unless you deliberately send your fanatics in one of your units (catapult), odds are they're wasted points most of the time.

warlord hack'a
22-10-2007, 22:08
yep, which is why I now often resort to the catapult tactic. Otherwise indeed they are likely to be a waste of point but it still feels good to be able to reroll all those 1,2 and 3's you roll when a fanatic does hit (and remember, if the enemy is forced to charge e.g. due to frenzy then they will more easily get their points back.

Also, one other dirty trick: mad cap mushrooms are not one use only, so once unit A hasd released fanatics, nothing stops you from hopping your mushroom carrier to the next Nigo unit and release again! Even in the same phase!

Grinloc
24-10-2007, 11:41
I'm here for an update, maybe an interesting read for some...

Since i'm playing warhammer with a bunch of friends using painted units is not a must. So i got the chance for my first lil battle with my DE's.
All i can say is that it was brutal.
A friend of mine, who played frequently against me before, played my O&G's army and got annihilated.
He used 4 orc units (22 each i think), 3 wolf chariots, 2 bolt throwers (for some defense against stuff like manticores), a unit of wolf riders and a unit of stone trolls.
He went "melee-heavy" with 3 black orc characters (one in the trolls unit) and one lvl1 goblin shaman as a scroll caddy.

He rolled two of those dreaded "6's" on turn 3 and 4, giving my already advantagous M5+ units a juicy charge opportunity each time.
I had 2 bolt throwers, 2 "small" units of witches, 3 averagely sized units of warriors (rxb), 2 units of dark riders, that one sweet cauldron of blood and the crystal of midnight (more on that later).

1.) My high sorceress had the luck to get the spell "black horror". I got the first turn and after moving the unit she was in directly 10" forward i placed the template in the thick of the orc battle line. One orc unit failed its panic test, ran straight through the artillery and made one bolt thrower crew run off the table.
I also used the crystal of midnight (on turn 2) on his shaman who forgot his brain bursta in the process. I didn't really want to risk getting my witches hit by that spell...

2.) Didn't look good for him already, but that wasn't the end really.
He squabbled once and rolled "we'll show em" twice, once on turn 3 and once on turn 4.
Both times he made his orc units come into charge range for my witches. Once i successfully baited him and on the other occasion he didn't attempt the charge in fear of being too far away. He moved 2" back, but i risked charging him on my next turn and the orc unit was close enough.

All i have to say to the general O&G's player is: No matter what you do, try to prevent DE witches from charging you. The outcome of a mass of poisoned attacks with the benefit of rerolling failed to wound rolls (due to the cauldron) against weakly armored units is just brutal.
When the second "we'll show em" happened the other witch elf unit got the luxury of getting the charge and additionally a unit of dark riders hit the orc unit's flank.

Now in this battle's case you not only have an army that is inferior in movement on almost every occasion, but you also got not enough magic defense due to being forced to take black orc heroes when you want to at least prevent the squabbles from happening.

This friend of mine doesn't switch to O&G's really. He just wanted to experience this army from a "personal" point of view.
I really felt a lil sorry for him, especially since my dice rolling wasn't something to write home about and me having much more experience than him when it comes to the disadvantages of O&G's in general.

What i had? Superior movement, superior magic and superior combat.
What he had? Superior numbers.

Of course his army composition wasn't really flawless, but since this was my first DE battle i didn't expect a clear victory. It doesn't matter how good your army composition is. If you get this "we'll show em " crap at the wrong time you are bound to lose. I was the one who patiently waited for those "6's" and they happened. My movement phase was superior already from the start and those "6's" just made it easier for me.

Now when it comes to my "personal taste" then my O&G's army can rot in he** (which happens to be my basement) for all i care. Never again will i make myself "suffer" from an excuse of an army book, but instead i will enjoy something which all other armies' players take for granted....a battle plan not being dependant one one stupid dice roll....

Thank you for your time,
A happy DE player :)

warlord hack'a
24-10-2007, 14:24
well grinloc, like i said, if you are going to ditch your O&G models tell me what you have, maybe I can use some of it.

Anyway, what I have to say of the battle: not impressive. You pit one of the hardest armies to play right in the beginning (O&G) against one of the easiest armies to play right in the beginning (in my opinion), but De are hard to play in the long run. First of he apparently did not bring Morks spirit totem, a serious mistake when facing heavy enemy magic. Secondly, apparently he did not know you could flee from a charge, otherwise, if he would really have superior numbers he would flee the charge of your witch elves and then countercharge with his second unit of orcs, seeing that an orc with choppa and shield is half the points cost of a witch elf. This apparently did not happen and indeed witch elves and the cauldron chop through a lot of things on the charge. But since witch elves are frenzied and have 10" chargerange, is is all too easy to chargepull them and countercharge in which case yout T3 and no armour save (and even 6+ wardsave due to the cualdron) will not help a lot.

anyway congrats with the win, just a pity you are using this battle to justify your choice of armies, so far I have never had problems with DE but that day might come, and probably sooner than I think..

warlord hack'a
24-10-2007, 15:33
apologies for my negative post above, I sound a bit harder than I meant (but am too lazy to go and edit it), I wish you all the luck with DE, which would be my 2nd army if I would want one (which I do not), not because they are good but I love the models!

Coming weekend we will have a mini torunament with 14 players, 2 of which are DE and 2 of which are O&G, the others are: 2 times chaos (at least once khorne), lizzies, Ogre Kingdoms, skaven, empire, vampire counts, bretonnians, Tombkings and ??? We will see how the greenskins fare against these diverse enemies.

Heretic Burner
24-10-2007, 17:15
That DE battle report exposed the major problems of the O&G list. It shows precisely the problems that we've been bringing up are indeed valid. It was picked apart mercilessly and figuring you are new to what has typically been thought of as one of the most difficult armies in the game to get to grips with this really shows O&G need a major revision and they need it soon.

Sounds like you had a lot of fun playing an army the Warhammer core rules support. Much like when I play Empire its a totally refreshing time playing with units that actually allow me to dictate the battle. Good luck in future games.

Grinloc
24-10-2007, 18:39
Well first things first...

1.) Thank you for wishing me luck with the DE's.

2.) Easiest army to play right?? No offense please, but what the heck are you smoking? Compared to O&G's my units are quite expensive (and rightfully so) but that kind of diversity in my army book is also one of my bigger downfalls. Those units all having T3 doesn't make it easier.
Why would you think those DE players being in the top 10 of GT results is such a rare occurance? When having to deal with not knowing your enemies beforehand DE's become very fragile in comparison to other armies. Even if you do know your enemy beforehand it can get tough for a DE player. Maybe he got unlucky and chose the wrong units for his army. Then it would be an uphill battle from the start, but....big surprise...possibly not against O&G's.

3.) He did take that charge from the witches since he would have been required to flee through one of his orc units ("scratching" them would have been enough). And since he already f'ed up two panic based LD tests before his army even moved 1" he decided to not risk that. His plan basically was to sacrifize that one orc unit (it was quite small already due to "black horror" and shooting) so he could crush the witches on his own terms (the orc unit which squabbled before was lying in wait a little to the side) since those are forced to pursue because of frenzy. He basically counted on me beating his unit down below US5, so his other unit of orcs wouldn't have to take a panic test.

4.) Granted i got a high score of 15 on that "black horror" on turn 1, but that was all which was needed to fu** him up big time. He tried to dispel it with DD but failed, which was a mistake in my opinion. Guess he didn't want to waste one of his two dispel scrolls so soon.
"Large radius" spells which require the enemy to pass a leadership test multiple times is the best kind of spell you can think of when facing low leadership armies like O&G's.

5.) Where did i mention anything about being magic-heavy? I had one lvl4 high sorceress and one lvl1 sorceress as a scroll caddy. The third was an assassin but i didn't have the points for the 4th. Playing magic-heavy sounds very differently to me.

6.) No offense please but from my point of view so far it seems you deliberately tried to downplay this army's weaknesses on almost every possible occasion. To put this into perspective...i played DE's for the very first time and totally crushed my opponent. When thinking about the things i've done to HE's in the past with my 6th edition O&G's it makes me wonder why someone would do that really. Those weaknesses are so glaringly obvious it makes me wonder if GW staff actually plays its own game on occasion.

If he didn't roll those "6's" the battle would have been way tougher...

I'm by no means an expert on playing DE's. How could i be? But when totally annihilating the O&G's in my very first battle then there's all the "proof" you need to notice that there is something terribly wrong in this picture. The only times when i had the pleasure to take part in such a victorious battle was with my O&G's of 6th edition against HE's. And those pointy eared freaks were a laughing stock for my wall of T4 back then.

7.) No need to apologize, it wasn't that negative really. Since you seem to be a fan of O&G's i guess i can understand your mood.

Grinloc
24-10-2007, 19:31
Since my brother owns a chaos army i gonna try a cult of slaanesh army at one point in the future. Then i probably get the chance to throw my enemy's battle line into complete disarray.

@Heretic
On one thing i gonna slightly disagree with you here:
The O&G's of 6th edition weren't below average really.
They were meant to have that disadvantage called "animosity" but using those black orcs with their aura and having the other orc units hug them on the way forward greatly mitigated this flaw.

3000 points battle...

"Compensation"? How about some (more like 8 lol) bolt throwers staring in your opponent's face, basically prohibiting the use of heavy cavalry?
How about having all those golbin shamans using the possibly most devastating magic lore in the game? Seeing your artillery using opponent get pale in the face when that "gork's warpath" gets through for the first time? Due to two warpaths i once managed to earn 900 VP in one magic phase :wtf:.
It wasn't only the spells, it was rather the magic items which made the greenskin magic so devastating.

HE bolt throwers: Want some of that "gork's warpath"?
HE heavy cavalry: See that cheap as crap goblin bolt throwers battery on the hill? You won't see them long enough to notice your mistake...
HE swordmasters: Waaagh magic all the way...
HE core infantry: Don't make me laugh...
HE magic: Buddy, i got 6 shamans here. Best of luck on those magic dice. No IF, no magic phase...

Now most of that stuff is lost. And with no compensation for this loss it aint looking good...

@hacka:
Sorry, mate, i aint gonna sell my greenskins. I gonna patiently wait for a rules revision or (in the worst case) for the release of 8th edition. O&G's can't really get worse than they are now....:rolleyes:.

<Update>:
The very same player i won against called me and wants to try it again.
Now i'm thinking about an alternative army list.
Don't get me wrong, i'm the kind of player who rarely brings a cheese army list to a battle.
I gonna try that city garrison army list, just for kicks. In case you don't know it...reaper bolt throwers count as special choices and remain 2 for 1 slot...
As for the opponent, you better bring scouts and/or flying untis to the table, otherwise....Neither of those are available to an O&G's army.

So, 2000 points battle coming up next week, possibly 8 reaper bolt throwers, ...let's see :).

warlord hack'a
25-10-2007, 09:31
so what you are saying is: I beat O&G with an army that can be tooled up to deal with a specific opponent and I won one match so this proves that all I have been saying is right. And hey, next week I will be facing him again so I am going to exploit one of my best units against his big weakness, see how that goes.. My guess is you do not even have to play that battle.

And yes, DE are easy to play, in the beginning. These three added words are very important. When you and your opponents get more experience with their armies (I know you have experience and so does your O&G opponent, but not with these armies) then DE will be harder to play. WHy are they easy to play in the beginning: because of high LD, high movement, solid magic and solid shooting and very good fast cav. Only CC is a bit of a weakness but that is also the hardest part of the phase ot set up right..

Most of the points that caused the downfall of the O&G army in the battle you desacribe have to do with low Ld. My main rants over here however have been focussed on animosity. This whole thread is about how O&G got nerfed from 6th till 7th. Low ld they always have had and will always have, so pointing that out as a weakness does not contirbute to this thread.

Basically with your battle report you are saying that O&G suffer from their low Ld. Sure those two 6's will have had influence, but they mainly had influence because he did not want to flee your charge that resulted from this because that might cause Panic. So his real problem was his fear of causing panic (a very realistic fear I guess), not his rolling a 6 for animosity.

So once again, I am not convinced that the new animosity rules are that much worse than they used to be, of course I would love to still have the old quell animosity rule but for the rest you just learn to live and deal with it, period.

Grinloc
25-10-2007, 16:04
I'm trying to be more specific here...

1.) DE's are basically required to get the charge opportunity (most of the time). With low AS and T3 they can't "take it". That's the reason why they are faster than most other armies.
If an O&G's player insists on being "infantry-heavy" he would have twice as many orcs as DE's on the table without breaking a sweat.
Having a low number of models, T3, low AS and facing twice your numbers requires you as a DE player to send your "best stuff" into battle. Otherwise you shouldn't even bother.
If i had to face O&G's of 6th edition i would be greatly worried about my pointy eared sadists. Having to face that devil named "next to no animosity cheap as crap T4" is a nightmare for any elves player.
But now they don't make me worry one bit. Now i'm getting a head start in the "movement phase battle" since i'm not the one who is being forced to play his army according to a handful of dice roll results.

2.) As i mentioned, if he didn't roll those "6's" the battle would have been far tougher for me.
This "6" is something an O&G player has no control over. To make matters worse he doesn't have any options in his army book to prevent the often enough fatal outcome.
Black orc heroes just have the ability to prevent your guys from standing there with their thumbs up their a**es. Your black orc takes his axe and starts beating the living crap out of his comrades. You know what you are doing there? You are actually doing the job your opponent is intended to do...
Hey, you might even lose an important point of static combat resolution before CC even started without your opponent even raising a finger.
Now compare this to 6th edition. Back then you just sent a black orc unit into battle to make your army stable and reliable. You had the benefit of next to no animosity and the luxury of going magic-heavy without the risk of potentially screwing yourself up.
O&G's players of 7th edition can't do that anymore. When rolling that "6" they just have to "swallow it".
The most important thing about that "6" is that it basically forces you to adjust your battle plan according to the result of ONE dice roll.


The worst part about all this is this "waaagh" special ability. That's the compensation for an O&G's player for that random "6"?
If you got any cavalry on the table like the laughing stock called savage boar boyz then you better pray to your god.
With my DE's, what would be bad for me?
Declaring a charge and being half an inch too far away.
Messing up the stupidity test of my CoK.
Crappy dice rolling when charging with my corsairs. Tell ya what i once lost with savage boyz against clanrats. Wth?

Bad luck for an O&G's player? Declaring this "waaagh", rolling a "1" and blowing your 300 points cavalry unit up....
This...army book...is...broken....
So you just don't care about the odd and/or fatal randomness of it? Sure, fine by me. O&G's aren't my concern anymore.
But it very much is one for those poor guys attending those GT's. Yes, i actually feel sorry for them, since O&G's and competitive tournament gaming don't mix well. Look at the results, it's obvious.


And about this "Only CC is a bit of a weakness":
My lousiest troop type, the warrior with rxb: Can't take the charge of basically anything remotely good and costs twice as much as an orc. If i make a fatal mistake with one of my units then it's toast. If an O&G's player does this is often enough not the case. I often laughed when a unit of clanrats charged my greenies.
A bit of a weakness indeed ...:rolleyes:.
Oh, i indeed dealt with it. But i just won't swallow it anymore. The only one who might swallow anything would be Matt Ward himself. Which would be his "army book"...page after page.

It's getting quite obvious you are getting annoyed by people who discuss the flaws of an army you enjoy playing. But that shouldn't tempt you to talk like "oh you won. great accomplishment really. want a cookie?".
All i did was knowing my enemy's weaknesses, him making tactical errors (which didn't have anything to do with the O&G's army itself) and me waiting for those weaknesses to take effect. Those "6's" finally "broke his neck". No more, no less.

Heretic Burner
25-10-2007, 17:51
So once again, I am not convinced that the new animosity rules are that much worse than they used to be, of course I would love to still have the old quell animosity rule but for the rest you just learn to live and deal with it, period.

Fortunately you aren't the one who needs to be convinced the new animosity rules are completely garbage, GW is the one that needs convincing. With the statistics they compile and use for game balance they simply must be convinced how terrible the new animosity is by now.

Also, fortunately we don't have to just "learn to live and deal with it". There are many options we can do. The most obvious is the one we've been discussing, shelving the broken army and moving onto an army that actually functions in the game. In my case Empire, in Grinloc's it is DE. From how flooded ebay was with O&G models upon the terrible army book release, we certainly aren't the only two who have taken this route.

Other options? Use 6th edition rules. Vastly superior and more competitive. Clearly they aren't in the same tier as the new HE, WE, or Brets but they will at least let you play the game with some knowledge you stand a chance (however small) against those armies. That and you won't lose right away if your opponent happens to field a single unit such as scouts.

DE have always been thought of as a difficult army for beginners. Low toughness, high expense, little punch all add up together to form a tricky army to come to terms with. The movement phase is critical for that army - easily the hardest phase to learn. To defeat, let alone absolutely demolish an army with little knowledge of DE would be somewhat impressive. That is, it would be if it wasn't against an opposing army that disintegrated on its own.

John Wayne II
25-10-2007, 19:17
From how flooded ebay was with O&G models upon the terrible army book release, we certainly aren't the only two who have taken this route.
be if it wasn't against an opposing army that disintegrated on its own.

Do you have any evidence for this? :eyebrows:

warlord hack'a
25-10-2007, 22:05
you keep going round in circles and saying the same things. All I say is: you won the battle because the O&G player was afraid to run from your charge because he suffered some horrible panic tests. This has nothing to do with him rolling 6 for his animosity. You say ' the battle would have been much tougher had he not rolled these sixes' Okay, I was not there so I do not know but you say the following:


Both times he made his orc units come into charge range for my witches. Once i successfully baited him and on the other occasion he didn't attempt the charge in fear of being too far away. He moved 2" back, but i risked charging him on my next turn and the orc unit was close enough.

When the second "we'll show em" happened the other witch elf unit got the luxury of getting the charge and additionally a unit of dark riders hit the orc unit's flank

You say it yourself: his 6 actually brought him into chargerange of your witchelves. Without this 6 there is no way that a single M4 unit can get the charge on a single M5 unit..If he would have gambled on this charge he would have had a very good chance of wiping out your witchelves!, who cost twice as much (not even counting the point investment for the cauldron))

Now instead of saying again the animosity rules are broken, try thinking what would have happened had he fled from the charge, how would the battle have gone then? My guess is he would have countercharged with his second unit of orcs and again you could say bye bye to your witchelves. Sure the combo charge with the dark riders is nasty as fleeing means he will get caught, which is why enemy fast cav is a high priority to take down when playing any infantry army and especially O&G.

Yes animosity got worse, but not unplayable. And yes, the choppa got a major improvement, you might even start to suspect there was a link between the two.. You know what bugs me most about animosity (and this has not been mentioned thus far afaik): rolling a 1 when you want to charge. That is the real downside I encounter most. But fortunately black orcs help out on this field and also calling the waagh helps you for one round. And one round is all I need..

Grinloc
25-10-2007, 23:12
As Heretic said there's no need to convince anyone of anything.
Different players have different views on how some special rules affect a game system.
When it comes to my experiences this animosity caused me far more harm than good. Which was all i needed to finally say "stuff it".

"Drama mode" <ON>: Do you think ditching my greenskins was actually easy after all these years? There's this box of all my O&G's directly behind me, probably being worth approximately 1.500€. Most of the stuff is painted. You know damn well how long it takes to get it all done.
So yes, i got "mentally attached" to these single-minded freaks.
I tried hard to win my 7th edition battles. I tried hard to maintain a mood of "***** happens". I'm not willing to play an uphill battle any longer with (potentially) game-breaking army wide special rules.

Seems you are the kind of person who enjoys playing O&G's, even when animosity sometimes screws you up. There's nothing wrong about that at all, have fun with them.
I sure as he** will have plenty of it with my DE's. I will "operate" my army on my own tactical terms and will no longer wait for the dices to see if they let me.

warlord hack'a
26-10-2007, 08:41
I think we agree and indeed painting them is a bit of an issue, somehow I can not find the time to finish my current list...

EvC
26-10-2007, 11:20
You guys should read what they say about Orcs and goblins in White Dwarf this month, it's quite telling that even they readily admit that Animosity frequently costs entire games, ruins battleplans etc...

warlord hack'a
26-10-2007, 13:15
well it does, but it gives you some bonuses too, being: cheap troops and the chance ot suddenly burst forward with half your army during the waagh and catching the opponent by surprise. But I will be one of the first to celebrate if they tone down this rule a lot, I am just against the opinion that it is so gamebreaking as to make O&G unplayable..

Grinloc
26-10-2007, 16:10
I don't know about you guys, but in my opinion "that Animosity frequently costs entire games, ruins battleplans etc..." is the very definition of game-breaking.
As we can see 1.) cheap troops and 2.) sometimes dashing forward in a battle fall short of compensating.

Apparently they know about this, so i can't figure out why they didn't do something about it already.
Yeah, the DE rules revision for example took some time to get released, but in the case of animosity it's on a totally different scale.

Doesn't matter really if you lose 1 out of 5 or 3 out of 10 battles due to animosity. In both cases it equals to "game-breaking".

sephiroth87
27-10-2007, 16:57
You keep posting about the bad points, but never about the good points. And you might respond by saying, "there are no good points." There are. I cannot tell you the amount of times I've used the waaagh rule to get within charge range where I would have just gotten shot for another turn.

Use tactics. Put mounted black orcs in your orc units. Never run more than 1 infantry unit that can actually squabble and stop on a roll of 1. Use multiple chariots, single trolls, and other units that don't have to roll for animosity and never panic your units if they die. Take minimum squads of spider riders and wolf riders (never less than 2 units and never more than 4 at 2000 pts.). Run chariots between orc units, so that if they do something stupid, they still have a 14'' charge and can actually pivot out of an orc unit's way during the charge. Never have goblin units within 6'' of each other unless they're within a warboss's leadership bubble. Take advantage of having extra chariots by taking a basic big boss in a chariot for your fourth character. Never run so many units, especially infantry, that you take up the entire table. With orcs, you want to hit a single point in the enemy's line and bust through, using your fast cavalry, fanatics, and disposable units to scare off flankers. Chariots are your hammer units, not orc boyz. The orcs are just there to lend rank bonus to what's doing the killing. If one of your units gets ahead, use their regular movement to compensate by moving 2'' to the side or backwards before you move your other units. Always run an orc boyz unit a couple of inches ahead of another so that one will take the charge and hold while the other gets to flank on your next turn. Never run your fast cavalry into anything that has an armor save. I can keep going, but I'm sure you already know this stuff. However, some people, especially new players, don't understand how to optimize and minimize your weaknesses, especially with an army as bookkeeping-heavy as the orcs.

By the way, I think the Dark Elves were next to last in Heretic Burner's little statistic study. Seems like you picked one loser army for another... ;)

Urgat
27-10-2007, 17:54
Never run more than 1 infantry unit that can actually squabble and stop on a roll of 1.

Wow, some O&G army you're describing there, man.

EvC
27-10-2007, 21:18
Yup, stating that you shouldn't take many infantry units susceptible to animosity IS basically an outright admission that the rule is game-breaking.

To quote Andy Hoarse, "The Greenskin Animosity rule also had a part to play in the defeat, but you pretty much expect that when playing Orcs and Goblins"... and then he goes on to talk about his force getting off lightly going by what he's seen happen elsewhere!

sephiroth87
28-10-2007, 03:14
Actually, it's a pretty solid core. Two units of orcs led by black orc characters and one without takes up a lot of room and is a solid core to the army. I usually take two or three blocks of infantry in any army I field. The two black orc led units have no other real issue other than moving forward, and the trolls and chariots keep them protected by not squabbling and having a pretty large charge range.

I can understand how people feel about the army book, but you can choose to look at it in two ways. In one, you can be so negative that you hate the army and you actively discourage people from playing it because you think it's broken. Or, you can choose to be postive, figure that the army takes a little more creativity, than say, Wood Elves, and try to form a community of people that love the orcs and want to learn how to win. If I were you, I'd take a look at the Thousand Sons or Orks thread in the 40k forum to see a bunch of people who knew that their army wasn't the best, but they loved the background and they figured out strategies and tactics to make their army work and win, even though their army was considered terrible by a lot of people. Your identification of where the orcs are on the power scale is (to me) debatable, but many of the issues the negative crowd has are valid and I see them. However, I don't think completely trashing the army, quitting it, and telling any new players that it sucks is particularly positive or useful. I always try to find a way to win with any of my armies, no matter how bad people think it is. Hell, I even own a dogs of war army that enjoys occasional wins.

I suppose I need to see myself of this discussion. If you guys want to continue to be self-defeating, that's your business. I'd rather just continue to enjoy playing my orcs and not waste my time trying to help people who don't want to be helped.

Continue pity party... :D

Urgat
28-10-2007, 10:43
Actually, it's a pretty solid core. Two units of orcs led by black orc characters and one without takes up a lot of room and is a solid core to the army. I usually take two or three blocks of infantry in any army I field. The two black orc led units have no other real issue other than moving forward, and the trolls and chariots keep them protected by not squabbling and having a pretty large charge range.

I'm not saying it's not solid, I'm saying it's sad. By your reasoning, all armies should have this core (coz you can't really do it another way, can you? Now I agree with you, this is hugely creative... put BO everywhere, charriots, giants, ignore the 5 other pages of unit choices in your army book, repeat with next army), which first means ignoring half the list and that then the only purpose the animosity rule has in your army is to be erased as much as possible from your army list (conflict there, no?). That's very in character, don't you think? Now I could understand that you want to play to win or something, but then I couldn't get why you'd play O&G, then. Well, besides liking how they look, their fluff etc, but then that's contrary feelings, since you'd play them because you like them, but you'd play them differently than for why you like them.

Grinloc
28-10-2007, 16:54
Exactly, Urgat.
To lessen the thread of animosity a player is getting (very) limited in his choice of units.
An army-wide special rule which makes a player "ignore" several pages of his armybook is in the very least questionable.
In the case of O&G's it's definately more than that.
So i should think about it positively and accept what i've been given by GW?
I won't.

When a new rulebook of an army gets released which makes the army i enjoyed playing before not enjoyable anymore, then i won't play it. It's simple as that.

I won't continue to play my orcs because i simply don't enjoy it anymore. Why should i? Because of some kind of greenskin loyality? Nonexistant here anymore.
I don't waste my time on anything here. Newcomers come to this message board, asking how the 7th edition O&G's are like.
In the process i tell them my opinion on why some of their special rules can severaly impact a battle. The important thing about all this is that it's my opinion, which has the same value as any other.

Warhammer Fantasy aint a cheap hobby after all, so telling those newcomers that everything's fine and sweet with an occasional minor flaw or two (it aint minor, that's for sure) can possibly be considered as "coloring the facts".
What i don't understand is why people would get so defensive when someone negatively talks about the army they are playing, as if those "naysayers" would actually talk about the players themselves. Which isn't happening at all in any case here.

Grinloc
28-10-2007, 18:11
Another thing:

"Seems like you picked one loser army for another..."

Hmm, let's see. Beautiful models, great fluff, highly tactical army...according to the opinion (!) of one person (which happens to be me), ...loser army then eh? Getting a lil defensive, aren't we?

With "witty" remarks such as that one this all tends to become pointless for interested newcomers to form their own opinions and doubts on this subject...

EvC
28-10-2007, 19:07
I suppose I need to see myself of this discussion. If you guys want to continue to be self-defeating, that's your business. I'd rather just continue to enjoy playing my orcs and not waste my time trying to help people who don't want to be helped.

Actually, I don't use Orcs, I play against them, and always win. With a massacre. It's not because I'm a brilliant player, and despite what some have said in this thread, it's not because they're being used by awful players. It's because of their rules, plain and simple. I want a challenge, the only time I've come to close to being challenged was a Skarsnik army loaded with Trolls, Giants and Chariots. Guy I fought at the GT had an Orc BSB in one of his units of Orcs... now after reading that, I bet you're thinking, "Well that's just a bad idea, if he'd just made it a Black Orc that'd have been fine". Let that sink in. The "positive" players are the ones that would consider using an Orc BSB to be a stupid move, by a poor player.

That's the mark of a badly written army selection list.

Avian
29-10-2007, 10:48
Actually, I don't use Orcs, I play against them, and always win. With a massacre. It's not because I'm a brilliant player, and despite what some have said in this thread, it's not because they're being used by awful players.
Quite frankly, I don't believe that. :eyebrows:

If the army list was so hopeless that a group of normally competent players would all always get massacred against a normally competent player, then no greenskin player should ever win a battle, which we know is nonsense.

EvC
29-10-2007, 12:15
Don't set up a strawman- I'm not saying that because I've won every game against Orcs (Except one where I used High Elves and my opponent forgot the army book and also forgot to tell me which units were Big Uns) that I will never, ever lose to them, but it is pretty much a forgone conclusion when I play against them.

I've got another game against them tomorrow, 2250 points with High Elves. 6th edition High Elves. I expect a fun game, but not a hard game.

Grinloc
29-10-2007, 14:13
In my case the likelyhood of a massacre decreased substantially when heavily relying on BO heroes. In the process i became very vulnerable to magic heavy opponents. It got to a point that my opponents know i got "mork's spirit totem" (DD equal to unit's rank bonus) in my army every single time.

When it comes to EvC's statement about the BSB...

A player has the option to use any type of hero in his army. His units are fully functional and don't rely on any "hero influence". Now he starts to create a viable army list prior to the battle in an attempt to make it as competitive as possible.

When an O&G's player attempts the same thing not only does he get essentially limited to one type of hero to make his animosity-prone units functional most of the time.
Now as a compensation for this disadvantage this very same hero sometimes beats his own unit up, occasionally making this unit lose one possibly very important point of static combat resolution in the process.
(You just have no idea how mad i was when this ********* happened to my savage orcs, losing their frenzy due to losing combat by one ******* point....)

And now some people here tend to tell potential newcomers that this is no big deal with its big compensation "just waiting around the corner". No offense please but from a competitive point of view this kind of reasoning can be considered "coloring the facts".
What is this anyway? A fluff based O&G's recruitment opportunity? C'mon, please, game-breaking animosity is not an opinion which you "O&G's supporters" frequently criticize but a fact which gets backed up by numerous tournament results and White Dwarf articles.

"Hey, don't be so negative, rather have fun with the stuff you've been given". Yeah, right. I'm having great fun when my O&G's get defeated horribly.
So let's narrow all this down to two options, it's quite simple after all:

#1: If you are a person who tends to play an army mostly for fluff reasons and puts a smile on his face in the case of not caring when his army gets massacred....then O&G's can be considered as an option.

#2: If you are a person who tends to play an army with the main goal of winning against most armies in mind....then you better stay away.

I did put up with it. By now i changed from being player #1 to #2. Yes, my main goal is to win my battles. Bite me.

Quite possibly plenty of these newcomers of the #2 category won't have the fun you talk of. Some of them might even quit warhammer alltogether, which is something noone should consider as "collateral damage"...

Avian
29-10-2007, 14:25
Well, maybe it is an army for more skilled players, then? :rolleyes:

My personal record with a mounted greenskin list (consisting mostly of things that went up in price and/or did not benefit from any rule changes in this edition) is currently 9 wins, 3 draws and 2 losses against a wide variety of armies. If the army list was so horrible, why do I keep winning when using a selection of the worst units in the list? And my record with all-goblins was essentially the same. Maybe the "glass half empty" people are just less competent?

Never have I seen such persistently negative people.

Grinloc
29-10-2007, 15:59
Hmm seems like someone who wanna show those "half empty" people "how it's done".

Hey, i got an idea.

Why don't you go to the next GT and talk to those O&G's players who happen to land on the dead end of the final results?
According to your logic those players may very well be craptastic tacticians not being worth your time.
While you are at it why don't you save up on those condecending remarks to reward them for their efforts?

"Glass half empty" my a**.

What people are basically doing here is criticizing GW's decition of (as Heretic put it) unleashing the O&G's "expert" Matt Ward on the army book.
Noone cares for anyone's personal records when players of a specific army frequently get walked over at various tournaments.
To even think that the players themselves must be the ones at fault for this and not the army book is some "remarkable" level of arrogance.

EvC
29-10-2007, 18:36
Well, maybe it is an army for more skilled players, then? :rolleyes:

My personal record with a mounted greenskin list (consisting mostly of things that went up in price and/or did not benefit from any rule changes in this edition) is currently 9 wins, 3 draws and 2 losses against a wide variety of armies. If the army list was so horrible, why do I keep winning when using a selection of the worst units in the list? And my record with all-goblins was essentially the same. Maybe the "glass half empty" people are just less competent?

Never have I seen such persistently negative people.

Well, you're the one saying the people I play against are not skilled, so I'd say you're the one being negative, and insulting to boot. If my opponent's stuff tears itself apart tomorrow, runs after my Shadow Warriors and ends up losing to rubbishy little High Elves I'll be sure to let my opponent know it's because he's just not very good :)

Grinloc
29-10-2007, 19:24
Hope your opponent is a friend of yours. Otherwise it may be a risky thing to do, for your health's sake that is :).

warlord hack'a
30-10-2007, 00:21
okay my last remark before I quit adding to this useless discussion: proof that the armybook is broken, the GT results have already statistically been demolished as proof and all you do is turn circles around the answers. I'm a salesperson, i know when people are avoiding questions as I have learned on how to do this and you grinloc, are avoiding questions.. Oh you will most likely reply with: 'see the GT results' or similar but I still hold against you your own report of your first DE battle which shows that due to a 6 on animosity your opponents orcs could have charged your witch elves, something that otherwise he could never have achieved in such a straight forward manner.. And show me where else you can get amodel with S4 in the first round of combat, T4 and a 4+ save for 6 points, that for me is the compensation for animosity.

I just finished a tournament with friends, played 5 battles in a weekend and due to having too many units got into my own way, which prevented me twice from scoring a massacre so I will drop my deployment choices from the 16 they are now to the more acceptable 13 or 14, which suited me find half a year ago. Only once did I suffer from bad animosity and the reason I suffered was my own fault: had I moved the round before to a more favorable charge position there would not have been any trouble as then the enemy I charge baited would have me in his flank, where it was safe for me to squabble (and of course, not squabling would have been better). In all those 5 battles I did not do great but nobody massacred me, even the opponents that massacred other players did not manage to contain my horde.

I say, if you do not like the new O&G rules then do as you do, choose another army, but don't go ranting on about O&G being bad and broken unless you can prove it, and waving GT results is not proving it..

EvC
30-10-2007, 01:05
I don't think there is any amount of evidence that could ever prove to you the point, so it's a pretty good thing you're quitting the discussion :)

Grinloc
30-10-2007, 01:39
If a player insists on not believing that the poor performance of (too) many O&G's players at GT's is due to a broken army book then having arguements about the subject is indeed useless.

I didn't avoid anything, you are more likely the one who either refuses to listen or insists that my opinion is flawed.
You insisted that an orc unit dashing forward, charging my elves in a straight forward manner (all on its own btw) can be considered as an advantage no other army enjoys having with the reasoning of being low on points costs to justify the unpredictable and dangerous nature of (an imo) broken animosity system.
And just out of curiosity, what makes you think that charging orc boyz can reliably break witches (who are even supported by a cauldron) from combat? Those two units play in quite different categories.

Fine by me, i said i don't consider it as an advantage and those GT results are perfectly fine for me (as "my own" evidence) to draw my own conclusions on this subject.
Where did i say anything negative about what an orc boy can do? Points/ability-wise an orc boy might be the best core trooper in the game right now.

If you insist on holding anything against me then i gotta tell you in an honest manner that i just don't care anymore.
The answers of mine which you are searching for are already told. I also asked questions to my own self (in effect that is) and got my answers pretty quickly:

"I prefer to play a wide variety of units in a battle, as it was viable in 6th edition. But the army book of 7th edition doesn't let me have that kind of play style unless i insist on putting myself at a serious disadvantage. My units may be cheap in comparison but that won't cut it in the long run by any stretch".
So i came to the conclusion that voluntarily limiting myself to a rather small number of unit options (to have a viable chance of winning without relying on pure luck) is a playing style i won't ever attempt with my O&G's.

Yes, maybe i was ranting about the greenskins every now and then, but that happened due to getting the army i enjoyed playing in the past crapped upon by GW themselves. In the process i never intended to threaten any people's army choice either. Maybe some people view my behaviour in this matter questionable or even uncalled for but i quite honestly got the same approach for that as i got for the fate of my O&G's army:
I just don't care anymore.

As for this request for a proof other than "not proof-worthy" tournament results:

All the "proof" (as an indicator) there is are those GT results and possibly player feedback. Since GW tends to balance armies with those GT results in mind it's them who needs convincing that a specific army is (at the very least) questionable in its performance.
Maybe this is just wishful thinking. GW even admitted it themselves. In the 7th edition army book there have been made various mistakes, some quite severe ones too. But you know what? I just don't care anymore.

In the case of this coming across as disrespectful then i apologize. I'm just fed up with the O&G's in their current state. You (hacka) adapted to the dynamics of 7th edition, i finally refused to. That's all what counts in the end.

Avian
30-10-2007, 10:39
So, summing up this thread:

1) The army book is not very well written.

2) It is still quite possible to win most of your battles using a selection of the worst units in the army list. I'm doing it, for example.

3) As the O&G are a horde army that is not especially easy to paint, it tends to attract more than the average number of players that are more into the hobby side of things, which unsurprisingly gives a lower average tournament results.


So if I am mostly winning and other people are mostly losing using the same army list, then either I am a better player than they are, or their opponents are better players than mine. In any case, player skill is a significant factor which people tend to ignore.

Grinloc
30-10-2007, 11:19
All valid things, Avian.
But there's just one little fault in there:
No matter how skilled a player is, when he messes up those animosity checks at the most inconvenient time he gets put at a disadvantage.
Sometimes it can be a small disadvantage, on other occasions it can happen to be a major one.

Now when the opposing player is skilled as well he might be able to take advantage of the situation. Which apparently can happen frequently.

Not to mention what's likely to happen if the O&G's player happens to be "hobby-oriented" while facing a (let's say) pro.
Both kinds of players aren't really a rare occurance at those tournaments.

I partially "blame" that "battle for skull pass" box for these statistics.

One thing i'd like to add: In my opinion it seems that 6th edition O&G's were more "easy going" and forgiving to the newcomers making them competitive with a solid reliable army.

Now in 7th edition this situation changed drastically. Players are required to take a close look at specific units (and their special rules) which they want to send into battle with the problem of numerous greenskin units not being "straight forward" by design at the same time.
How would a newcomer know whats good and bad when he more or less just started out...
The 7th edition O&G's basically got more demanding in the "army list creation process" of this game, sometimes making it a rather harsh environment for newcomers to be in by comparison.

Avian
30-10-2007, 11:57
All valid things, Avian.
But there's just one little fault in there:
No matter how skilled a player is, when he messes up those animosity checks at the most inconvenient time he gets put at a disadvantage.
Sometimes it can be a small disadvantage, on other occasions it can happen to be a major one.
I'm not denying that at all, though a good player will plan for this in advance and make sure he has a flexible approach that is not likely to fall apart on a single dice roll. I for one have not lost a single battle in seventh edition (I believe I have lost 6 or 7 out of 35-40) due to Animosity.

As I said in my review a year ago, the army is now probably on average more powerful, but more dependant on good dice rolls.

Grinloc
30-10-2007, 12:39
Well you can expect a newcomer to know that bungie jumping without a rope aint a good idea. Craptastic analogy i know :).

But you can't really expect said player to properly plan ahead for these potential failed animosity rolls since he doesn't have any "hints" when and where those situations are going to take place. That's a matter of training and getting used to, trial and error so to speak.

Now, as you said, the players of O&G's of 7th edition have substantially less to fall back on when things get messy. This is the reason why i tend to agree with numerous people who stated before that this army might have a too steap learning curve for a newcomer to successfully deal with.
Too many factors like strengths/weaknesses and possible random things need to be considered to have a good chance of winning nowadays.

Avian
30-10-2007, 12:56
I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at. Greenskins have the disadvantage that they are unpredictable; Undead have the disadvantage that they cannot flee from a charge and so on.

Now, it isn't always obvious which greenskin unit or character is the better choice in any given situation, but the army has more interesting builds than any other army. I didn't think I'd do any good with all-gobbos, but I did. I didn't think I'd do any good with a mounted list, but I did. In the new year I'll be starting an elite army, which I also have my doubts about, and so on. There is a cookie-cutter greenskin army that I got tired of before the army book was out, but you don't need to field that.

You have the disadvantage of using an army book written by a guy who, quite frankly, never should have gotten the job, but that doesn't mean that you should only start the game if you want to have fun losing - that's rubbish. I have never played to lose and I win much more often than I lose.

This "glass half empty" ranting is just silly. If the army's playing style is not for you, then fine, but if others succeed (with a variety of different builds, no less) while you fail, maybe a lot of the problem is with you? You have said what you need to say and this "save the noobs" campaign has gone on long enough.

Grinloc
30-10-2007, 19:33
When i remember the first battles (5th back then) when i started with warhammer it was fun, but also harsh sometimes.
One cannot expect to come into the warhammer world and dance all over those opposing armies straight from day one. I thought i would, hey i was young back then eh :), but newcomers will definately get there (as they always did). At least they should also be told the particular downsides of their army, since i saw too many "supporters" over the years rarely doing that.

Whatever led us to this point here, you were spot on when it comes to my "approach". It definately had to do with my playstyle. The army changed quite significantly with the new edition. I can't put my finger on all the things which led me to this point, the "ranting" which took place was probably due to "shaking off that attachment" to an army which changed to being disappointing in its playstyle, if you get my meaning.

Now if you'll excuse me *carries the army box down to the basement*.

Have fun with your battles,
Cheers.

Heretic Burner
30-10-2007, 19:56
I'm sorry Avian, your "success" means absolutely nothing at all. I'm afraid we've kept tally of who won and loss and the vast amount of statistical evidence shows that O&G are indeed at a major disadvantage. You've managed to win (and who hasn't online where the average winning percentage is about 99.5% judging by what people say) however we simply don't know the facts behind those wins. With the statistics we've provided we do know - they were taken in a tournament setting and recorded at a standard that is verified, confirmed, and simply has more merit than some anonymous anecdote on the net.

Now I do encourage you to take this magic formula to tournaments where you can win a lot of wonderful prizes. The vast majority of other greenskin players are simply at too great a disadvantage to compete but maybe your magic formula can show them how to play. The problem most certainly is not Grinloc's, the problem is clearly the list. If you succeed where the vast majority of players fail then we most certainly would love to hear the magic formula of success. Sadly there isn't any, the army is terribly underpowered and completely incapable of matching other armies beyond say DE. Even GW all but came out and admitted it is broken in White Dwarf.

EvC
31-10-2007, 00:44
Greenskins also placed 11th out of 14 in the Nemesis Crown, which is particularly notable considering they also got to include Chaos Dwarf results and as one of the "big three" had far more players using the army, making the implications of the results pretty conclusive. Of course, just as a GT featuring 1500 games is not good enough proof, nor are the tens of thousands of games played in a global campaign.

But anyways, I did spectacularly manage to lose my game against Orcs tonight, using High Elves (old rules). My opponent did take a list that minimises the effects of animosity of course- two units of Orcs lead by Black Orc characters, several fast cav units, 5 chariots/ pump wagons and an artillery battery. He did also take a nice big unit of Savage Orc Big Uns, but I was a bit of a twot against them, throwing a Chariot into the unit because of "Enemy in the way", essentially giving them a free 11" move by way of pursuit. My opponent had luck where he needed it (Killing off half a unit of Silver Helms on turn one due to IF, then finishing it off on turn two, whilst making Reavers and Bolt Thrower crew run off due to panic), and animosity never really hurt him, as his Savage Orcs never failed a test and they were the only ones who it really mattered to. I did very much enjoy my loss, however :D

Avian
31-10-2007, 12:01
I'm sorry Avian, your "success" means absolutely nothing at all.
Isn't it nice how apparently everything you say means something and everything that disputes that means nothing?

The fact is, when I win most of my battles using inferior units, then there is no reason at all why the average player should not win around half his battles using more effective units from the list.

So I'm afraid your theory falls down in practice. If the army book was as hopeless as you claim, we should all be losing all the time (possibly even against DE). Obviously we are not, so the situation is not as bad as you say.

But such is usually the way when you only see things in black and white. Heck, you'd probably have more people listening to you if you did not go for the unsupportable "everything is hopless" approach. It is much easier to dismiss you this way and you end up being a noise-maker far out on the flank.

Suit yourself.

Grinloc
31-10-2007, 12:27
Why don't you go into specifics then, your army list compositions, tactics and such? Not stuff like "I'm used to winning with inferior units, so you are wrong".

As long as you don't then people have no reason to change their viewpoints on general and/or particular things.

Your point of view may be differing from those of others but that doesn't mean they aren't interested to hear the details...

Avian
31-10-2007, 14:43
Well, you could for example visit my O&G tactics page, which is linked to in my signature.


I agree that the army book is not amongst the better ones in Warhammer, but anyone making statements such as:

...the army is terribly underpowered and completely incapable of matching other armies beyond say DE.
is just asking to be dismissed out of hand because what they claim is unsupportable. Anyone wanting to make a case that the army is not an easy one to play with can probably do quite well by dragging up tournament statistics, but as soon as they start posting things like that quoted above they just lose any credibility amongst those who do not already share their view.

For one thing, the "glass half empty" crowd tends to dismiss any notion that player skill has anything to do with the results of the battle. Take the quote below, for example:

Actually, I don't use Orcs, I play against them, and always win. With a massacre. It's not because I'm a brilliant player, and despite what some have said in this thread, it's not because they're being used by awful players. It's because of their rules, plain and simple.

If you go out with this approach, it's no wonder you can't convince anyone. I have often been critisised for being too negative about the army book, but I have always backed up my claims with facts. I have never gone from "This army consistently ranks badly in tournaments" to "the army is terribly underpowered and completely incapable of matching other armies beyond say DE", which is why I am widely listened to while Mr. H. Burner is not.

EvC
31-10-2007, 15:20
I think you'll find arrogance and flaming does not benefit your cause in the slightest, Avian. While I do agree that the worst examples of pessimism are not constructive, attack the post, not the poster. You'll find that the reasons why the army does so poorly have been explained many times early in this thread, I'm sure that everyone will join me in apologising for not repeatedly posting an essay on why the army does so poorly on the top of every new page, so that people who stick their oar in every 50 posts don't end up thinking that we have no valid basis for our claims.

Plus thanks once again for complimenting my generalship. However, if we are to take your bold claims of brilliance seriously, then the reason that you do well with the army is indeed most likely due to your own well-above-average generalship, and not a reflection on the army itself. I would contend that you are an exception to a trend (A trend noticed by several people in this thread, supported by hundreds of tournament games and thousands of campaign games and even acknowledged in White Dwarf- but it's never good enough, is it?), after all, by the looks of things you have spent a long time coming up with your tactics... but should a typical Orc general have to go to Avian's Tactics Page before he can do well with the army?

Avian
31-10-2007, 16:40
Again, I'm not saying the army book is very well written. Read my review of it from when it was released last year and you will see that it is true.

However, there is very little proof that things are all that bad. Take the tournament statistics, for example. I shall give you just one example of how to dismiss them:

We shall take it as given that a person that is highly competitive and not much into the hobby side (painting, converting, background, etc.) of Warhammer prefers his army to have at least one of two attributes:
1) it consists of few models (and is hence cheaper to buy and quicker to paint), and
2) it consists of models that are easy to paint up to a decent standard

This is a consequence of the fact that this is a miniature game and that most tournies require models to be painted. Had the game been played on a computer or with cardboard markers, the two above would not apply.

I assume that nobody will dispute my claim above.

Then, it cannot be said that the greenskin army fulfills either of the two criteria above to any greater degree. You typically need a lot of models (or slightly fewer, but more expensive models) to play them and compared to, say, Skaven or Undead, they are not exactly easy to paint up well.

Given the above, it logically follows that greenskin players on average tend more towards an interest in the hobby side of Warhammer than the competitive side. All else being the same, a competitive player would tend to prefer some other army.

That being so, and with Warhammer tournament participants making up more or less a cross-section of the player base of the game (there are very few tournaments you need to qualify for; mostly you just show up if you are interested), it should not be surprising that O&G players tend to, on average, get lower tournament scores than other armies.


Now, I am not saying that this is the only reason, but I bet it is a contributing reason. The quality of the army list certainly counts for something, but my experience is that those who tend to be most dissatisfied with the army list places more emphasis on this one factor than on any other.

Personally, I consider myself moderate, which is to say that I get called both too positive and too negative. I would not say that the army list is hopeless and that you only have a chance against the Dark Elves, but neither would I say that it is overly good.


A lot of the problem, as I see it, comes from people confusing the background of the army with the quality of the army. Orcs & Goblins tend to be portrayed as simple and not overly skilled and somehow the idea has grown up that a greenskin player should have those attributes as well. Hence the "push them across the board, hope for the best and have a laugh" approach. Certainly, the army with its vast number of choices and options, is a lot more difficult to set up than, say, Wood Elves, where next to no choices need to be made, because pretty much everything works great at the basic level. This often surprises people, who think that because Elves are brighter than Orcs, Elf players need to be brighter than Orc players to do well.

And then there is the variations across the editions. Back in 5th edition, greenskins were neither very powerful (if you dismissed certain combos that were really available to most armies) or very easy to play. Then along came 6th edition, where the army got more powerful (pretty much everything got much cheaper, for one thing) and easier to play. Hence you'd run across magic heavy + shooty heavy + savage orc big 'uns with the banner of butchery armies played by people who really did much better than their actual skill level would suggest.

Now, in 7th edition, the army has probably gotten slightly more powerful again, but also more difficult to play (the number of useful units have gone down) and people haven't really adjusted to this yet. Hence they are much more disappointed than they probably would have been if they just went from 5th edition to 7th edition, where the skill level required to play the army well would be roughly the same, but you'd get a more powerful list.

I'll stop rambling now... :o

Heretic Burner
31-10-2007, 16:59
We shall take it as given that a person that is highly competitive and not much into the hobby side (painting, converting, background, etc.) of Warhammer prefers his army to have at least one of two attributes:
1) it consists of few models (and is hence cheaper to buy and quicker to paint), and
2) it consists of models that are easy to paint up to a decent standard


1) Sadly horde armies do indeed fair well in a competitive tournament environment. Skaven have done quite well. Skink hordes have done quite well.
2) O&G are certainly no more difficult to paint than the Brets...who have done quite well. Nor are they any more difficult to paint than Skaven (or most armies for that matter, horde or not). Wood Elves may indeed be one of the most intricate armies to paint - no need to explain how well they tend to do.

I'm afraid your theory that O&G are somehow not seen as a viable army by the "highly competitive" because of their model range simply crumbles in moments. It just doesn't pass even a second of thought on it.

Destroying O&G armies with my Empire is simple. I am not so arrogant to proclaim it is due to me being a superior player, I simply note that one army is vastly stronger than the other.

Of course I like to think logically fronting an argument, providing concrete evidence, and in a manner that doesn't ooze arrogance is appreciated around these parts. I guess that is why I am widely supported and Mr Avian is not.

Kadrium
31-10-2007, 17:11
You guys could always have it out with a warhammer online game, and find out. :P

Grinloc
31-10-2007, 18:13
I checked out your tactics page, looking for battle reports but couldn't find any.

All i found was sample army lists, descriptions of units, special rules, magic items, etc and their corresponding tactical use. This should be something an experienced O&G's player should know already.

Battle reports would be actually revealing to see how this so called "magic formula" is executed.

Grinloc
31-10-2007, 20:43
A lot of the problem, as I see it, comes from people confusing the background of the army with the quality of the army. Orcs & Goblins tend to be portrayed as simple and not overly skilled and somehow the idea has grown up that a greenskin player should have those attributes as well. Hence the "push them across the board, hope for the best and have a laugh" approach. Certainly, the army with its vast number of choices and options, is a lot more difficult to set up than, say, Wood Elves, where next to no choices need to be made, because pretty much everything works great at the basic level. This often surprises people, who think that because Elves are brighter than Orcs, Elf players need to be brighter than Orc players to do well.

So you are saying that O&G's players often enough aren't up to the task of seperating fluff from actual gameplay tactics?


If this is your intent then your "approach", if one could even call it that, is so utterly disrespectful and insulting that i quite honestly don't know what to say.

None of the people i know who started playing warhammer would even come close to such a craptastic perception of greenskins.


You should probably go to some events and tell those defeated O&G's players your reasoning for their performance. Don't know if they would actually agree with you though....

Kahadras
01-11-2007, 07:20
Well speaking from personal experience both of the O&G players at our club have a very good win to loss ratio. Although they both grumbled about the new armies book, the primary complaint seemed to be about the cover art rather than any changes to the rules.

At the end of the day the new O&G armies book may be statisticaly the worst according to reserch carried out by other people but at my club that is simply not the case and will probably be the same case for many other people as well I feel.

Also I think certain people on this thread need to calm down a little because there are quite a few replies that are moving towards flaming territory (if they're not already there)

Kahadras

Avian
01-11-2007, 10:38
I checked out your tactics page, looking for battle reports but couldn't find any.
I have ever claimed to have battle reports on my tactics page?


All i found was sample army lists, descriptions of units, special rules, magic items, etc and their corresponding tactical use. This should be something an experienced O&G's player should know already.
It contains tactics that an experienced player should know? Yes, that is exactly the point.


Battle reports would be actually revealing to see how this so called "magic formula" is executed.
Magic what?

mattschuur
02-11-2007, 03:31
Wow, finally finished all of the posts, so i'll post my own opinion, my first.

I don't think citing tourney stats will tell us that one army sucks or not. I'm pretty successful with my Slaanesh mortal army in fun games, but at tourney's they are horrible because of the armies i face. In the last 3 tourneys i've played in, my opponents were:
4 Bretonian all cav armies,
2 Dwarf gunline armies,
1 empire gunline,
1 HE sea guard,
and 1 Ogre army.

My record in those 9 games was 1-7-1. Does this mean i suck? No. My army is solid against Bretonians who take some peasants, more expensive cav and some trebuchets. But when i'm facing nothing but lance formation cav or all shooting armies, is it really about the book or the players? The players.

I like my O@G, and i'm sorry, tourney placing is irrelevant when most of the players who win take armies that aren't built with Balance in mind. O@G dont have an uber combo like Brets, Empire, Dwarfs, WE or now HE. This doesn't make them bad, just bad against the forementioned armies.

P.s., i'm not a noob, ive played for 6 years i just never knew of this site before.

matt schuur

Heretic Burner
02-11-2007, 04:16
That is precisely the point of the statistics - to determine just what are those armies you are speaking about that tend to win. The tournament rankings don't measure whether an army is fluffy or is sporting - it measures simply how powerful the list is in comparison to others. It certainly isn't the players who are at fault for taking armies that are poorly balanced that fault lies squarely on GW's shoulders. It really is about the book.

I don't know what you mean by "uber combos", certainly some armies have flat out stronger unit selections that can be chosen then say O&G. If O&G doesn't have those unit selections then yes, there is a problem. Either those powerful armies that have been established need radical toning down, O&G need a much needed boost, or more likely a mixture of both.

Me? I'd just like to see them at least start to make the army actually fun to play instead of an exercise in rolling dice to see what turn you lose.

Kahadras
02-11-2007, 08:33
That is precisely the point of the statistics - to determine just what are those armies you are speaking about that tend to win. The tournament rankings don't measure whether an army is fluffy or is sporting - it measures simply how powerful the list is in comparison to others.

Not really it just measures how good the best combo (or set of combos) the army can do. All tournament ranking shows is what armies are significantly unbalanced IMHO (Wood elves and Bretonnians). At the end of the day it doesn't measure how powerful the overall list is, it just measures how unbalanced the armies book is.

Comparing Tournament play is pointless IMHO as there only tend to be a few 'good' lists and if your army doen't have them (like OK, DE and O&G) then 'competitive' players avoid them like the plague.

In a club situation were the army isn't constantly facing Bretonnian RAF's, Empire gunlines and Wood Elf Treemonic legions the O&G do pretty well (at least in my club they do)

Kahadras

Goldenwolf
02-11-2007, 09:32
Any statistics can be skewed how people want it to be. At my local GW ALL of the other O&G players besides myself are 14 or younger, and they tend not to worry about tactics.
Having these youngsters lose repeatedly then start a new army shouldn't reflect on the O&G in general.

I admit that the WE give me fits, but I think all armies have an issue with these tree huggers. The Brets can be an issue, but Empire Gunlines are dust in the wind against an Orc Boy Horde :)

Grinloc
02-11-2007, 13:51
You people talk about the imbalances of several armies or their specific unit compositions which frequently have a fatal effect on the opponent.
The problem i ran into often enough were the armies my gaming friends tend to use...WE, Brets, Empire, Skaven, Dwarves.

We all know what these armies tend to be capable of, but at least my friends played those against my O&G's because they've been collecting the miniatures for years and not for "powergaming" reasons.

And when i take a look at the units after their deployment i often wonder if their respective power was truely intended by GW.
Often enough i couldn't match that power with my O&G's, no matter how hard i tried.

There's really a disheartening balance problem going on at the moment...and my O&G's armybook frequently fell short of compensating.

huron
02-11-2007, 17:20
I would take black orcs and you can olny have one unit of big un's for boyz but you can make boar boys big uns and get some arrerer boyz

Heretic Burner
02-11-2007, 19:29
There are no secret "combos" O&G have trouble with, they have trouble with having an inferior army period. Mobility is an issue for O&G against any army and as everyone knows movement is by far more important than any other phase.

If armies such as OK, DE, and O&G can't field any of these "good lists" then yes, there is a problem. Those armies then absolutely need to have them to compete with all those armies that can field armies that wipe them off the board with no effort. If they don't have the units then they will lose - making any attempt at balancing the game through points values absolutely pointless. It is a game designed for both sides to have an equal chance of winning if that isn't the case then there has been a failure in development.

O&G's tremendous failures have been pointed out at length. They are simply too numerous and disadvantagous to overcome. There is no reason whatsoever that in a club situation those other armies won't be designed to win. None. And indeed they are. The only reason Bret RAFs, Skaven SADs, Thorek Dwarfs, etc aren't fielded is simple - competitive imbalance is not fun.

The ideal is that any player can field whatever units they want with both sides having an opportunity for a well matched game. That ideal is far from being met. Armies such as DE and O&G simply need a major revision to get closer to that ideal.

Kahadras
02-11-2007, 20:30
If armies such as OK, DE, and O&G can't field any of these "good lists" then yes, there is a problem. Those armies then absolutely need to have them to compete with all those armies that can field armies that wipe them off the board with no effort.

So basicaly the problem with the O&G armies book is the lack of an 'uber build' to counter other armies uber builds. I assuming this is the case due to the statistics that have been presented for evidence that the O&G armies book is flawed comes from a tournament.

All the evidence that I've seen at a club level (something not examined by the statistics) shows that O&G are well balanced against armies that don't use their ultra competitive tournament build. I do grant that O&G are a harder army to get to grips with than say Empire or Bretonnians due to the fact you have to cover for their upredicatble nature yet the two people at my club who use O&G seem to have managed perfectly well so far.


The ideal is that any player can field whatever units they want with both sides having an opportunity for a well matched game. That ideal is far from being met. Armies such as DE and O&G simply need a major revision to get closer to that ideal

IMHO you have this the wrong way round. Other armies need a major revision to produce a more well matched game. All you need to do to make the O&G like certain other armies is to give them a few no brainer choices and a certain build that is far 'superior' to any other and that can compete with the other 'uber' builds.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
02-11-2007, 21:16
I still don't follow what you mean by "uber build". Army books list units that may be taken. Many units are certainly more competitive and valuable to field than others. Certainly pegasus knights are way up there while boar boyz are just the opposite. I have certainly never come across any tournament with every list from a particular army contained exactly the same selections.

What is this "uber build" your are speaking about? I've never seen this brought up before. As an Empire player I am most interested in what the "uber build" is for Empire armies.

Kahadras
02-11-2007, 21:29
have certainly never come across any tournament with every list from a particular army contained exactly the same selections.


Yes but they should contain similar selections.


What is this "uber build" your are speaking about? I've never seen this brought up before. As an Empire player I am most interested in what the "uber build" is for Empire armies.

'Uber build' is just the general aplication of competitive gaming to an army list i.e Empire Gunline, Skaven Gunline, High Elf mage/cavalry, Bretonnian knighthammer, treemonic legion etc. It's just a term I'm using instead of cheese.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
02-11-2007, 21:58
'Uber build' is just the general aplication of competitive gaming to an army list i.e Empire Gunline, Skaven Gunline, High Elf mage/cavalry, Bretonnian knighthammer, treemonic legion etc. It's just a term I'm using instead of cheese.


Well the fact there isn't one single selection for any of these lists just proves my point. The army lists contain many units more powerful than another. To fault Brets for taking knights is absurd, their list contains a large number of cavalry units.

As an example, an Empire gunline can be made in countless ways, many effective though in no ways similar. Certainly a xbow/cavalry "gunline" plays quite differently from a handgunner/mage heavy gunline. However the thread remains that these units are indeed much more effective than the crippled units in the O&G or DE book which needs to be addressed.

Kahadras
02-11-2007, 22:38
Well the fact there isn't one single selection for any of these lists just proves my point. The army lists contain many units more powerful than another. To fault Brets for taking knights is absurd, their list contains a large number of cavalry units.

Yes to fault Brets for taking knights is absurd but it also has to be pointed out that quite a few of the choices from the armies book aren't knights. Likewise there are different types of knight but you won't find many Questing knights being fielded in competitive play.

So the question has to be asked why are knight heavy armies so prevelent? Simple answer. They're better. More complex answer. They're so much better that it renders taking pesants pointless in a 'competitive' list apart from maybe a couple of small sacrifical mounted units to act as bait/cannon fodder.

Therefore the concept of not using half your armies book options must seem as equaly absurd to you as not taking knights.


As an example, an Empire gunline can be made in countless ways, many effective though in no ways similar. Certainly a xbow/cavalry "gunline" plays quite differently from a handgunner/mage heavy gunline. However the thread remains that these units are indeed much more effective than the crippled units in the O&G or DE book which needs to be addressed.

There is no real difference in gunlines. What does a gunline do? Shoot/magic your opponant off the board and avoid close combat as much as possible. Cosmetic choices such as xbows vs handguns just comes down to personal preference.

O&G don't have a concept like this within it. The book seems to have an internal balance that other armies books don't have. Lets take Brets for instance. I used to play Bretonnians and it only took me a few minuites of reading the armies book to decide that an all knight army backed up by Pegasus knights was where it was at. The army was fast, tough and did a lot of damage on the charge.

When I read the O&G armies book nothing like this happened. No unit stood out for me as something to automaticaly take loads of it and expect to do well straight off the bat.

I suppose what I'm trying to say at the end of the day is O&G won't do well in a competitive tourney setting because they don't have that 'uber' army that loads out on awesome units and ignores three quaters of the units available to it.

Outside of competitive tournaments, in a more relaxed environment, O&G do fine as generaly people don't field ultra competitive armies (there are, however, the occasional club that seem to think competitive gaming is where it's at). The more well rounded and 'balanced' nature of the armies O&G go up against means that they can compete on an equal footing.

Kahadras

Goldenwolf
03-11-2007, 00:55
Heretic burner is just an O&G hater, so don't waste your breath Kahadras :)

Goofycabal
03-11-2007, 01:43
Okay, just to going back to the tables Dabber created for a moment, and my thoughts on why the results shouldn't be taken as 'gospel'. Great work on collecting and collating all those results by the way, but I think there are far too many limitations in the data that prevent them from showing the whole picture

Dabber himself acknowledges that the results are most likely not a fair representation and that simply removing or adding 1 Tournament's results tends to have a major impact on results. So for that reason right there I can't see why anyone would follow the results as 'gospel' as some have.

Since it tracks pretty much only the battle scores (which is generally the win loss ratio according to his methodology) it is really only a good indicator of which armies are performing well/poorly only in a tournament setting. Why only in that setting?

Well, because there are a number of factors that mean this cannot be extended to cover the entire hobby:

1) New Book syndromes - especially where new players think they can rock up to Torunies without knowing *too* much about the new list yet.

2) No indication of player experience. Percentage of 'veterans' compared to 'newbies' might be likely to skew the results. As with 1) The Orcs, for example, might be comprised of 75% Newbie players due to the new book being out, whereas Legion armies might be close to 80% Veterans...

3) No indication of army list composition. Armies with high win percentages (not nessescarily high ABMs) could very well be 'powergamer' armies rather than balanced armies.

4) No indication of frequency of powergamer armies across the board. Ie *are* a large portion of Skaven Tournament players using SAD armies? Are Bret players using MSU and Pegasus Knight Circus armies?

5) No indication of player 'intentions'. Ie are players turning up with the sole intention of 'winning at all costs' thereby ignoring comp scores and such (powergaming) OR are players turning up with the sole intention of 'having fun' thereby increasing their likelyhood of taking 'soft' army lists? (Soft as in - not specifically designed for competitive play, but more akin to a balanced 'one off' friendly-game-style list).

Personally, I'd say that 2) and 5) are combining together to drop the ratings for O&G in Dabber's findings, because we've recently had an influx of new gamers due to BFSP and the new armybook (hence a likelyhood of more inexperienced players in the tournament scene - a large number of whom are likely to be using mostly Night Goblin armies). Combine this with the trend for O&G that a large proportion of Greenskins play more for 'having fun' than for 'winning at all costs' and once more you'll get a negative skew on results.

The reason these results don't represent the hobby at large in my view, is that in casual gaming those 5 limitiations generally don't seem to matter much at all. Sure a new player playing an experienced player will likely loose, but in a non-competitive environment, you'd expect the veteran to *teach* his opponent at the same time.

Now, I'm not giving a conclusion on whether the army is or is not weak/useless/uncompetitive - there's not enough evidence from any viewpoint to do so. However, the list is arguably one of the most *fun* to use.

Heretic Burner
03-11-2007, 04:59
Yes to fault Brets for taking knights is absurd but it also has to be pointed out that quite a few of the choices from the armies book aren't knights. Likewise there are different types of knight but you won't find many Questing knights being fielded in competitive play.

Certainly not, clearly indicating a blance problem with the unit. No "uber combo" here as other units can, and certainly are, taken.


So the question has to be asked why are knight heavy armies so prevelent? Simple answer. They're better. More complex answer. They're so much better that it renders taking pesants pointless in a 'competitive' list apart from maybe a couple of small sacrifical mounted units to act as bait/cannon fodder.

I certainly haven't seen numerous boar boy heavy armies triumph in tournaments. So the question isn't why knights in general are better, it is why Bret knights are better. Again, a massive difference in power level of units, not combos.


Therefore the concept of not using half your armies book options must seem as equaly absurd to you as not taking knights.

Naturally. Though in O&G case its a matter of dealing with an army with many units that wouldn't be even looked at in other army books but there are little better choices within the O&G list. Swamped with so many bad choices. What Bret player in their right mind would ever take boar boyz if given the opportunity and yet with no other choice of heavy cavalry O&G players are left with only these dreadful units.


There is no real difference in gunlines. What does a gunline do? Shoot/magic your opponant off the board and avoid close combat as much as possible. Cosmetic choices such as xbows vs handguns just comes down to personal preference.

No difference between gunlines? Absurd. If you don't know how massive the difference between xbows and handguns are you certainly can't be much of an Empire player. What next? No difference between mortars and great cannons? None between pigeon bombs and steam tanks? No, you're absolutely wrong. Gunlines come in many different types and the fact that there are many types of personal preference as you state indicates, once again, there is no defining "uber combo".


O&G don't have a concept like this within it. The book seems to have an internal balance that other armies books don't have. Lets take Brets for instance. I used to play Bretonnians and it only took me a few minuites of reading the armies book to decide that an all knight army backed up by Pegasus knights was where it was at. The army was fast, tough and did a lot of damage on the charge.

Indeed lets take Brets. You've stated that multiple units are nowhere near as powerful as knights in the Bret book. Certainly very few O&G players are going to take common goblins over night goblins! It only takes a few minutes of reading the army book to determine that O&G are dreadful throughout, crippled in numerous ways by dreadful rules. So yes, in a few minutes of reading it doesn't take long to know Brets are much more powerful than O&G.


When I read the O&G armies book nothing like this happened. No unit stood out for me as something to automaticaly take loads of it and expect to do well straight off the bat.

Of course not, its a dreadful army throughout. No surprise, its found at the bottom of the tournament standings.


I suppose what I'm trying to say at the end of the day is O&G won't do well in a competitive tourney setting because they don't have that 'uber' army that loads out on awesome units and ignores three quaters of the units available to it.

O&G armies ignore massive sections of the book, simply unusable garbage. Common goblins have been mentioned. Boar Boyz - dreadful. Arrer Boyz? Laughable. Brets certainly have an army book with more powerful, and used, units throughout.


Outside of competitive tournaments, in a more relaxed environment, O&G do fine as generaly people don't field ultra competitive armies (there are, however, the occasional club that seem to think competitive gaming is where it's at). The more well rounded and 'balanced' nature of the armies O&G go up against means that they can compete on an equal footing.

What is this "relaxed environment" that somehow negates animosity? Does this "relaxed environment" somehow negate how devastating always strikes first is against O&G and DE? Does it somehow make shamans worth taking? The answer is, of course, no. No matter what environment it is, O&G units are simply inferior - they are always going to be at a massive disadvantage against such armies as WE and even mid tier armies like Empire. A single scouting choice, no matter how "well rounded and balanced" the opposing army is absolutely wrecks O&G units due to animosity. As does a single flying choice. Or multiple other units. So no, O&G are crippled simply by their astoundingly bad rules.

Heretic Burner
03-11-2007, 05:15
1) New Book syndromes - especially where new players think they can rock up to Torunies without knowing *too* much about the new list yet.

What new armies do you refer to? WE did indeed do absolutely well as a new army, as did Daemonic legions. O&G - not so much. So no, apparently "New Book Syndrome" is no factor.



2) No indication of player experience. Percentage of 'veterans' compared to 'newbies' might be likely to skew the results. As with 1) The Orcs, for example, might be comprised of 75% Newbie players due to the new book being out, whereas Legion armies might be close to 80% Veterans...

And where did this 75% figure come from? Or this 80% figure? In fact we have absolute no, zero, nadda reason to think O&G skew to new players - particularly in tournaments requiring fully painted armies. Now, with this as a consideration O&G can indeed be thought of being more likely to be in the hands of experienced players, those that do indeed put the time and effort to paint a much larger number of troops than say Wood Elves. I, with no reason to believe either way, simply keep the most simple scenario as most likely - no statistical difference between the experience of players until proof is presented.




3) No indication of army list composition. Armies with high win percentages (not nessescarily high ABMs) could very well be 'powergamer' armies rather than balanced armies.

No need for army composition. Of course those at the top are "powergamer" armies, they are much stronger than those at the bottom. No composition is of course the exact point of the table - the armies should be equal regardless of composition.



4) No indication of frequency of powergamer armies across the board. Ie *are* a large portion of Skaven Tournament players using SAD armies? Are Bret players using MSU and Pegasus Knight Circus armies?

Again no reason to believe a RAF force should be more powerful than one that doesn't take them - however the statistics don't lie. There are massive differences in strength between armies.



5) No indication of player 'intentions'. Ie are players turning up with the sole intention of 'winning at all costs' thereby ignoring comp scores and such (powergaming) OR are players turning up with the sole intention of 'having fun' thereby increasing their likelyhood of taking 'soft' army lists? (Soft as in - not specifically designed for competitive play, but more akin to a balanced 'one off' friendly-game-style list).

Totally irrelevant. The sample size alone will blend the results - it simply evens out as sample size increases. If soft style lists were taken it would actually show a much more even distribution, if anything it would skew the results towards parity not away from it!



Personally, I'd say that 2) and 5) are combining together to drop the ratings for O&G in Dabber's findings, because we've recently had an influx of new gamers due to BFSP and the new armybook (hence a likelyhood of more inexperienced players in the tournament scene - a large number of whom are likely to be using mostly Night Goblin armies). Combine this with the trend for O&G that a large proportion of Greenskins play more for 'having fun' than for 'winning at all costs' and once more you'll get a negative skew on results.

And yet, as a starter army in 6th edition...O&G where a mid tier army. No, clearly your theory of (2) being a factor cannot be as it had no indication of being the case last edition. How about (5)? There is no, zero, nadda, absolutely zilch reason to believe O&G players somehow play for more fun than other armies. In fact, as sample size increases the personality traits do indeed become no factor whatsoever - any deviation will be covered by the average personality trait.



The reason these results don't represent the hobby at large in my view, is that in casual gaming those 5 limitiations generally don't seem to matter much at all. Sure a new player playing an experienced player will likely loose, but in a non-competitive environment, you'd expect the veteran to *teach* his opponent at the same time.

Teach what? New player or experienced, all that is marked is the total score. No matter the circumstances - preciesly what makes these results to useful for determining power levels. There is no evidence whatsoever that one army attracts more veteran players than another. Particularly in O&G's case where they were a starter army last edition as well...and did NOT dwell at the bottom of the rankings. Your theory just doesn't make any sense and the numbers don't lie.



Now, I'm not giving a conclusion on whether the army is or is not weak/useless/uncompetitive - there's not enough evidence from any viewpoint to do so. However, the list is arguably one of the most *fun* to use.

Well no, it isn't much fun at all. Animosity takes away from the fun of the movement phase simply by taking the option out of the player's hands. As magic is the very worst in the game that also takes the fun out of the player's hands. So yes, O&G may indeed be the least fun army in the game if you consider the Warhammer game system fun in itself. Of course if you consider the Warhammer core rules an utter chore then the O&G army, which forces you to play the least of these rules, may indeed be the most "fun" by default - though it may be more accurate to state it is the least "unfun". Then again, if you find the Warhammer system a chore why would one play it?

Kahadras
03-11-2007, 09:39
What is this "relaxed environment" that somehow negates animosity? Does this "relaxed environment" somehow negate how devastating always strikes first is against O&G and DE? Does it somehow make shamans worth taking? The answer is, of course, no. No matter what environment it is, O&G units are simply inferior - they are always going to be at a massive disadvantage against such armies as WE and even mid tier armies like Empire. A single scouting choice, no matter how "well rounded and balanced" the opposing army is absolutely wrecks O&G units due to animosity. As does a single flying choice. Or multiple other units. So no, O&G are crippled simply by their astoundingly bad rules.

I'm sorry I thought your complaint was about tournament armies as all the statistics you've been providing (and using to show that O&G are the worst army in the GW range) have been from a tournament environment.

Yes animosity is a problem to overcome but as someone has already pointed out Orcs are dirt cheap compared to other races to make up for that fact and there are ways to get round it or limit it's effect on your army. It's like saying Undead are crippled by their inability to march or reliance on magic.


Heretic burner is just an O&G hater, so don't waste your breath Kahadras

Yeah I'm starting to think it's just 'I hate O&G and no one is going to convince me that they're not as bad as I think they are'

Oh well I tried.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
03-11-2007, 19:16
I'm sorry I thought your complaint was about tournament armies as all the statistics you've been providing (and using to show that O&G are the worst army in the GW range) have been from a tournament environment.

Yes but as far as I know O&G armies used in tournaments come from the very same army book as O&G armies not used in tournaments. They use the very same units. They have the very same points cost. And yes, they are both equally broken.


Yes animosity is a problem to overcome but as someone has already pointed out Orcs are dirt cheap compared to other races to make up for that fact and there are ways to get round it or limit it's effect on your army. It's like saying Undead are crippled by their inability to march or reliance on magic.

Except it doesn't make up for it. It doesn't come close to making up for it. Not to mention O&G are from being dirt cheap, the goblins in the army are 50% more expensive than similar units such as gnoblars and skaven slaves. There are certainly other armies that field units at the points cost of orcs - that don't suffer animosity. No, the benefits of the army don't come close to balancing the crippling drawbacks so to nobody's surprise they are dreadful.

VC's perform as an effectively average army. Evidently their advantage do balance their drawbacks.


Yeah I'm starting to think it's just 'I hate O&G and no one is going to convince me that they're not as bad as I think they are'

Imagine my surprise that backed up with facts and statistics I'm starting to think that you can't be convinced by the truth.


Oh well I tried.

As have I. As upward a battle as playing O&G against WE. :)

Kahadras
03-11-2007, 20:11
Imagine my surprise that backed up with facts and statistics I'm starting to think that you can't be convinced by the truth.

What truth? The only truth is the fact that O&G don't do well at tournaments. That's it. That's all your 'facts and statistics' show. I posted an idea as to why that may be i.e lack of a super competitive army build to compete with the RAF's, SAD's, gunlines and treemonic legion list.

I can't say that animosity isn't the reason why O&G do badly at tournaments but from what I've seen O&G do OK in less competitive club games. This would explain why people like Avien have enjoyed success with their armies if animosity was to blame then they would struggle to win. If this is the case then the O&G armies book is 'broken' just merely not optimised for tournament play which demands different conditions from the armys involved.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
04-11-2007, 08:16
What truth? The only truth is the fact that O&G don't do well at tournaments. That's it. That's all your 'facts and statistics' show. I posted an idea as to why that may be i.e lack of a super competitive army build to compete with the RAF's, SAD's, gunlines and treemonic legion list.

I don't know what you're looking at, but unless you believe tournaments some how inherently differ from the rules printed in the core rulebook than the statistics speak of normal, everyday games of Warhammer. You believe that there is no ultra competitive cheese list and you are likely right - which is every indication the army book is lacking since it can't compete with lists produced by other army books. You have clearly illuminated a major flaw with the army book. Good work.


I can't say that animosity isn't the reason why O&G do badly at tournaments but from what I've seen O&G do OK in less competitive club games. This would explain why people like Avien have enjoyed success with their armies if animosity was to blame then they would struggle to win. If this is the case then the O&G armies book is 'broken' just merely not optimised for tournament play which demands different conditions from the armys involved.

Well we've just got a battle report published by GW itself indicating animosity is a broken rule. I don't know what a less competitive club game is - I believe you mean games where the O&G opponents go out of their way not selecting units that are highly effective. Which of course is no indication whatsoever that the O&G is in any way balanced, its entirely the opposing player taking pity on the greenskin player. I too can take pity on an O&G player by deploying all my missile units backwards but that of course doesn't take away from the fact the O&G book is a competitive disaster.

Tournaments do not have different conditions - every single one I've encountered is based on the core Warhammer rules. Using the core Warhammer rules, O&G aren't competitive - the statistics don't lie. And that sir is the truth you asked about.

Kahadras
04-11-2007, 12:31
I don't know what you're looking at, but unless you believe tournaments some how inherently differ from the rules printed in the core rulebook than the statistics speak of normal, everyday games of Warhammer. You believe that there is no ultra competitive cheese list and you are likely right - which is every indication the army book is lacking since it can't compete with lists produced by other army books. You have clearly illuminated a major flaw with the army book. Good work.


The rules aren't inherantly different in tournament but the style of play is. For me, some army books are flawed as they promote one style of army list over all others. IMHO GW needs more books like O&G and less books like the WE. If I've illuminated a flaw in the O&G armies book then all armies books need this flaw.


Well we've just got a battle report published by GW itself indicating animosity is a broken rule. I don't know what a less competitive club game is - I believe you mean games where the O&G opponents go out of their way not selecting units that are highly effective. Which of course is no indication whatsoever that the O&G is in any way balanced, its entirely the opposing player taking pity on the greenskin player. I too can take pity on an O&G player by deploying all my missile units backwards but that of course doesn't take away from the fact the O&G book is a competitive disaster.

Please lets not use battle reports that GW have published (I assume we are talking about the lastest O&G vs High elves in WD) because those reports are blatently fixed.

Less competitive games; games which are played with people for fun rather than how many times they can win. No one is 'taking pity' in the O&G player they're just playing by the unspoken rule that no one WAAC's. In these environments O&G do OK because they aren't facing the kind of list you get at tournaments.


Tournaments do not have different conditions - every single one I've encountered is based on the core Warhammer rules. Using the core Warhammer rules, O&G aren't competitive - the statistics don't lie. And that sir is the truth you asked about.

Rules might not change but attitudes do. O&G aren't competitive at tournament level but then again neither are half of the armies books out there. Next week lets complain about the Dark elves, the week after that lets complain about the OK, the week after that I was thinking of BoC.

Your statistics might not 'lie' but they don't show the whole picture. If they did show the whole picture then people like me wouldn't be posting on this thread. When you post stuff like 'O&G suck, they're armies books broken, I always massacre O&G armies unless I am feeling sorry for them' then I would be agreeing. Unfortunatly I've seen O&G winning too much at club level to just be able to chalk it down to luck or the opponant 'feeling sorry' for the O&G player.

So really at the end of the day what is the truth? The truth is what we see it as. The truth for me is that O&G don't have an awesome army build and are unpredicatable so competitive tournament players will avoid the list when there are armies like Wood Elves and Bretonnians around. In casual club play I've seen the O&G's do well which disagrees with your 'truth' about the O&G amies book being completely broken.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
04-11-2007, 18:58
The rules aren't inherantly different in tournament but the style of play is. For me, some army books are flawed as they promote one style of army list over all others. IMHO GW needs more books like O&G and less books like the WE. If I've illuminated a flaw in the O&G armies book then all armies books need this flaw.

And yet its been shown that even Empire gunlines contain countless variants. No army book contains just one defining list. And lets not kid ourselves, an army book written as dreadfully as the O&G does not need to be copied in any manner. GW needs less books as poor as Brets and O&G, for widely differing reasons.


Please lets not use battle reports that GW have published (I assume we are talking about the lastest O&G vs High elves in WD) because those reports are blatently fixed.

I do suppose you have proof of this. However the actual battle is irrelevant, more important is the comments by those playing the battle. Comments that show full well they are aware O&G are broken due to animosity.


Less competitive games; games which are played with people for fun rather than how many times they can win. No one is 'taking pity' in the O&G player they're just playing by the unspoken rule that no one WAAC's. In these environments O&G do OK because they aren't facing the kind of list you get at tournaments.

Of course they are. Why wouldn't they? What possible reason should these games restrict me from bringing in a Skaven SAD, Bret RAF, or any other powerful list? They shouldn't of course and they don't, you'll find them just as much everywhere. In fact, in these "relaxed environments" comp isn't even an issue so the poor O&G player doesn't even have that tool to help!


Rules might not change but attitudes do. O&G aren't competitive at tournament level but then again neither are half of the armies books out there. Next week lets complain about the Dark elves, the week after that lets complain about the OK, the week after that I was thinking of BoC.

I don't know where you got the idea half the army books out there aren't competitive. The results clearly show a tremendous dropoff in efficiency from OK to dwarfs indicating the bottom 3 aren't competitive against the mid tier which certainly are competitive amongst each other. Those bottom 3 do indeed include O&G. Though yes, DE certainly have much to complain about and are in a drastic need of a new army book like O&G.


Your statistics might not 'lie' but they don't show the whole picture. If they did show the whole picture then people like me wouldn't be posting on this thread. When you post stuff like 'O&G suck, they're armies books broken, I always massacre O&G armies unless I am feeling sorry for them' then I would be agreeing. Unfortunatly I've seen O&G winning too much at club level to just be able to chalk it down to luck or the opponant 'feeling sorry' for the O&G player.

On the contrary, people like you would post on this thread. People post for all sorts of reasons, even when faced with the undeniable truth presented right there for one and all to see. I have no idea where these winning O&G army lists come from on your club level but they certainly don't engage in tournaments would be a statistical improbability at the sample size already accrued. With the most detailed, and verified, results available O&G are dreadfully poorly balanced. Your "club level" results, unverified, not even presented statistically can of course be discarded outright.


So really at the end of the day what is the truth? The truth is what we see it as. The truth for me is that O&G don't have an awesome army build and are unpredicatable so competitive tournament players will avoid the list when there are armies like Wood Elves and Bretonnians around. In casual club play I've seen the O&G's do well which disagrees with your 'truth' about the O&G amies book being completely broken.


The truth is the statistics show clearly that while playing the Warhammer core rules O&G simply don't compete. The statistics (the very same GW goes by and uses as a measuring stick for game balance themselves) show a major problem and dire need for an immediate army book release along with DE and dwarfs. The truth is your unverified, unsupported, unpresented "club level" statistics have yet to be compiled and are utterly meaningless from a logical standpoint. The truth is GW themselves balance their armies with these statistics and if the very process they balance their other books indicates there is a problem with this one then yes it is certainly the strongest evidence available that this army is currently broken. Kinda renders this "club level" results meaningless doesn't it? :rolleyes:

Kahadras
04-11-2007, 19:36
The truth is the statistics show clearly that while playing the Warhammer core rules O&G simply don't compete. The statistics (the very same GW goes by and uses as a measuring stick for game balance themselves) show a major problem and dire need for an immediate army book release along with DE and dwarfs. The truth is your unverified, unsupported, unpresented "club level" statistics have yet to be compiled and are utterly meaningless from a logical standpoint. The truth is GW themselves balance their armies with these statistics and if the very process they balance their other books indicates there is a problem with this one then yes it is certainly the strongest evidence available that this army is currently broken. Kinda renders this "club level" results meaningless doesn't it?

Not really. I haven't presented any statistics at all. All I've presented is what I've seen i.e that O&G do well at my club. I've also offered some explanations as to why the O&G armies book is poor at tournaments. Really you seem to have made up your mind long ago about O&G and anyone that disagrees is just wrong. I tend to find that dislike blinds people to the 'truth' more than objectiveness does.

To tell the truth I think the only thing that is meaningless at the present moment is this conversation so I'll leave it there.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
05-11-2007, 02:30
Not really. I haven't presented any statistics at all. All I've presented is what I've seen i.e that O&G do well at my club.

Yes, I've stated you haven't presented anything concrete at all. The verifiable facts that has been presented supporting the army being vastly underpowered is available however. I suggest you look them over and come to the logical conclusion that most, including GW, seem to.


I've also offered some explanations as to why the O&G armies book is poor at tournaments. Really you seem to have made up your mind long ago about O&G and anyone that disagrees is just wrong. I tend to find that dislike blinds people to the 'truth' more than objectiveness does.

Your explanations have been refuted. There is nothing there. I have made up my mind about O&G the minute I completed reading the army book. Thoroughly dreadful. Subsequent gaming, compiled statistics, and the complete lack of enjoyment has confirmed it. Nice to see that even GW staff agree. On the other hand you have been presented with the overwhelming volume of evidence and yet still don't seem to come to the logical conclusion. Sadly I have no explanations for that.


To tell the truth I think the only thing that is meaningless at the present moment is this conversation so I'll leave it there.


I'll hold you to your word on that.

Grinloc
05-11-2007, 09:36
I for one would see these tournament results partially as a marketing tool. Wouldn't be surprised at all if plenty of people became interested in this warhammer thing and those greenskins in particular. Then some of them might go to such a GT just to see the O&G's perform dreadfully. Those very same potential newcomers saying "Nah..", losing interest in the process would be understandable.

Maybe too many people play O&G's nowadays and it was GW intent to lessen them in the process by releasing a subpar 7th eiditon army book, so they might be tempted to switch to a different army? Yeah, that sounds crazy, taking the risk of losing a customer who probably would decide to quit warhammer alltogether...though noone really knows what's going on in those creative heads at GW HQ.

***Conspiracy talk mode /off***

Mr. Snazz
05-11-2007, 17:56
I wonder how much the O&G tournament performance (and dwarves, for that matter) is skewed by new players?

I'd love to see the distribution of armies by player experience. If the more experienced players consistently choose certain armies, wouldn't that skew the results in favor of those armies?

I don't think we're seeing the whole picture when we just look at armies and not the ability of the players using them.

Heretic Burner
05-11-2007, 18:04
I wonder how much the O&G tournament performance (and dwarves, for that matter) is skewed by new players?

There is no reason at all to believe O&G (or dwarfs for that matter) are played by gamers that are newer at the game than any other army. None, zero, nadda, zip. If you believe its because they are armies found in the starter box you would be suprised to learn that O&G were armies found in the previous edition starter box and performed nowhere near as badly. If anything the large number of models in an O&G force would take a longer time to paint, thus the player would be within the hobby for a longer period of time!


I'd love to see the distribution of armies by player experience. If the more experienced players consistently choose certain armies, wouldn't that skew the results in favor of those armies?

Why would more experienced player skew towards one army? It doesn't make any sense. No, the larger the sample size, the more this experience factor is balanced out anyway. It has no effect on the results.


I don't think we're seeing the whole picture when we just look at armies and not the ability of the players using them.

Sure we are. We're looking at a large sample size of armies so the ability of players using them will balance out.

Mr. Snazz
05-11-2007, 18:11
Why would more experienced player skew towards one army? It doesn't make any sense. No, the larger the sample size, the more this experience factor is balanced out anyway. It has no effect on the results.


...but you are arguing that O&G are an inferior army. I'm sure you consider yourself to be an experienced player. Don't you think other experienced players would agree with your opinion?

Would you play O&G at a tournament?

Would a smart, experienced player go with O&G at a tournament?

Heretic Burner
05-11-2007, 20:03
...but you are arguing that O&G are an inferior army. I'm sure you consider yourself to be an experienced player. Don't you think other experienced players would agree with your opinion?

Absolutely. As an experienced player I own an O&G army myself. So yes, many experienced players have O&G armies, particularly those that have collected from an earlier edition. Of course many experienced players have sold off their O&G army because it is dreadful, but then again many experienced players have bought up an O&G army because its a buyer's market and perhaps they hold out hope it will improve next edition.


Would you play O&G at a tournament?

Depends very much on the tournament. O&G have very little chance if it is battle point heavy however if it is primarily a comp tournament then its possible. They have a massive disadvantage in that type of environment however comp heavy tournies also tend to handicap the field and give additional comp points to weaker armies.


Would a smart, experienced player go with O&G at a tournament?

Again depends on the tournament. I suppose many experienced players would drag along their only army. I suppose many experienced players would like to play a dreadfully performing army simply because of the effort of painting up the entire force. I suppose many experienced players like to be the massive underdogs and view it as a challenge. I suppose there are many reasons for players to play O&G in tournaments despite knowing full well how broken the army is.

To sum up: Experienced players often own O&G despite its many faults. Experienced players often play O&G despite its many faults. O&G remain dreadfully broken.

Los
11-11-2007, 22:08
Well that settles it. I am starting an O&G army! :D