PDA

View Full Version : What armies are most in need of a new book



kylek2235
18-05-2008, 22:17
I was looking at the release schedule for last edition to vaguely estimate the route of this edition and it got me thinking: some armies are going to suck for a long time to come. Here's my top five armies I believe need to be redone:

1. Hordes of Chaos: This gets my top spot only because of the state of disarray they were left in because of the new Demon book. Otherwise, I'd say the "get you by" list is still more competitive than my next two.
(August/November 2008)

2. Ogre Kingdoms: This army was made to do one thing: own in the combat phase. They lack in just about every other phase though. With every other army getting much better in that phase, has made the Ogres an army in serious decline. It'll be years before a new book gets released though.
(2010?)

3. Dark Elves: Before the Demon and High Elf Book were released, they would have been numero uno on this list, but because the most viable parts of the list, Dragons and RBTs, are still just as effective against the new books as before, armies more in need move up.
(August/November 2008)

4. Beasts of Chaos: Whenever you lose two thirds of your army, you're going to have problems. The consolation prize? You can mark your chariots now. That may not sound like a consolation, but core chariots with a mark are pretty good.
(2009?)

5. Orcs & Goblins : Hard hitting units cost too much. With all of the new "active combat resolution" armies coming out, just static combat resolution isn't going to cut it for much longer. The WAAAGH! isn't bad, but it pretty much insures you're never going to take the overpriced Heavy Cav. Yep, and this is a 7th edition army.
(2013?Never?)

Honorable Mention: Tomb Kings- They almost overtook the O&G, but this whole army is immune to Psych, has Screaming Skull Catapults, potentially core units of Chariots and an unstoppable magic phase. It may not be the most user friendly army, but in the hands of people that know what they're doing, a very tough army.
(2010?)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
18-05-2008, 22:52
Tomb Kings.

They need it. Seriously. Overpriced Skeletons (going on the cost of VC skellies) and not enough options to see varied lists.

Skaven.

It doesn't need more power or owt, just sorting out to make Skryre less of a no brainer.

Bretonnians.

And the Lance is fair how? Especially given the 5 wide rule.

Beasts of Chaos

Mainly because the other two aspects have been done, so it's only fair.

Everything else is either fine and dandy, or already in the works.

Rhamag
18-05-2008, 23:11
Skaven - new clanrat models, better or cheaper Rat Ogres, cheaper Ratling Guns/Warpfire Throwers, more special characters and/or Lord choices.

Tomb Kings - cheaper skeletons and Ushabti, (unfortunately) more expensive Tomb Scorpions, better Icon Bearer.

Beasts/Mortals - more stuff to replace daemons and each other.

Demise Of Sanity
18-05-2008, 23:14
Dogs of War deffinately ....

Lizardmen i would proabably say need one.

Skaven, i would say so....

Chaos "Dwarfs" , of course.
Brign abck the good old forces!!!!

W0lf
18-05-2008, 23:17
Skaven - sort SAD out and better clan rats that rank.

Tomb kings - Tbh ALL they need is a small Update ala dark elf one. Make skeleton warriors 2 pts cheaper and allow the icon bearer to not take up a hero slot (maybe increase cost by 15 pts.)

Brettonians - nerf nerf nerf nerf.... :P

Draconian77
18-05-2008, 23:20
As soon as a book gets redone another book will need balancing alongside it, as soon as 5 books are done a new edition comes out and suddenly everything is up in the air again. I have said it before and I will say it again, we need core rules that do not change and then we can focus on making the armies balanced. Every time the core rules make a shift the whole basis of an armies pts cost gets shafted and we players have to start all over again...

Pavic
18-05-2008, 23:22
I would say Mortal Chaos and Beasts are in most need of books. Skaven come in as a very close second. DE need a book simply because it has been so long. Fortunately all of these are in the works, though I still don't understand why LM are probably now being done before Beasts and Skaven. I know the argument of an "easy" book is the best, but still, Beasts need some serious help now and based on my games against Skaven, I can't see how they don't need help.

scarletsquig
19-05-2008, 00:18
Uh, Chaos Dwarfs definitely get the automatic #1 spot... they've waited for far too long.

GW shouldn't have given them a 6th edition list if they didn't want to support the army any more.

Rhamag
19-05-2008, 00:22
As soon as a book gets redone another book will need balancing alongside it, as soon as 5 books are done a new edition comes out and suddenly everything is up in the air again. I have said it before and I will say it again, we need core rules that do not change and then we can focus on making the armies balanced. Every time the core rules make a shift the whole basis of an armies pts cost gets shafted and we players have to start all over again...

Well said. A case in point is the Skaven weapons teams. In 6th they could sit within the 3" safety zone of the parent unit and blast away. Worth the points (and more, according to many folks!).

Along comes 7th and suddenly they get shot by every man, elf or goblin with a magic spell or some pointy sticks and a bow. Hide them behind a unit and they waste shooting by moving about to get LOS. Not worth the points.

Sorry, not a rant about weapons teams specifically, just stuff in general!

Shamfrit
19-05-2008, 00:29
Ironically, it seems to be a case of getting the Orc & Goblin list if you're an Orc & Goblin player. They're consistently balanced, have every option available to them and have several game changing units and unit options. Animosity is the key as well as the crux, because yes, it can force you to severally change your battle plan, but it can also give you those few extra inches allowing you to charge flanks, and to charger where you otherwise wouldn't, something an army that doesn't hit as hard as Daemons, Ogres or Dwarfs (or most things, now that I think about it) can make plenty use of. A unit of 25 Night Goblins with a fanatic or two and Nets is still one of the most effective rank and file core units in the game at present.

I do think that, despite my being a Skaven player, that Skaven are seriously lacking against the 7th Edition shift, something I've said before, and now that the Daemon book is out, and I've had over 40 games against it with Skaven, I will say again.

Redundant units, over and underpricing in equal measure, little incentive to take Warlords considering the huge focus on hero hammer and magic hammer (the Warlord cannot cut it against most other Lord Combat Characters, and offers no magical protection in an army that already has little defence against magic.) You've either got to take a Warlord to get the edge regarding Leadership against the abundance use of ITP armies and units, because Fear & Auto-break is so stupefyingly game breaking against Skaven it's laughable, especially a Slaneeshi Daemon army, you literally pack up and go home before you start (defeatist attitude I know, but try taking multiple LD tests per turn at -3, when most of your army is LD 7.)

But alas, it's Chaos and Dark Elves (who need a slight update, but not as important as Dark Elf Players think, as the list still performs remarkably well considering it's age and the fragile nature of the Dark Elves.) And then, even Lizardmen (who're still rather powerful) before Skaven, with SAD dead and Skaven players struggling, I guess we'll just have to wait and whinge like everyone else.

kylek2235
19-05-2008, 00:29
I think both the DoW and the Chaos Dwarves deserve books (the evil midgets will be my next "full-time" army), but neither technically has a book that needs redoing...

I really wish Skaven Skyre would be toned down but the rats are Alessio's favorite. Ratling Guns will probably autohit 4d6 with no misfires at S10 and immune to death next edition.... grumble grumble grumble.

Shamfrit
19-05-2008, 00:34
I really wish Skaven Skyre would be toned down but the rats are Alessio's favorite. Ratling Guns will probably autohit 4d6 with no misfires at S10 and immune to death next edition.... grumble grumble grumble.

Empire hero with Longbow, ten points, 3+ 4+ to kill 60/75 points at double the range of the Weapon team.

One of many examples that lead people with a little sense to realise that Skyre's supremacy is long over.

kylek2235
19-05-2008, 01:00
Warplightning cannons, Jezzails, Warplock Engineers... Skyre is far far from dead.
Ratling Guns can still be used effectively, its just a matter of setting up effectively with them. Besides, how many Empire players bring a Captain or Elector Count(non special character), let alone a bow?

I'd love to see Clan Moulder represented more than it is (or my favorite clan, Clan Mors), but I don't see it happening.

Helbracht
19-05-2008, 01:05
and I've had over 40 games against it with Skaven, I will say again.

Good god man, how many games do you play a week?

Draconian77
19-05-2008, 01:11
Pretty much what i was thinking but they might not all be 2k or higher games. At 2k pts I can easily play 4 games a day if I could just figure out how to clone myself.

Jiaolong
19-05-2008, 01:25
Ogres get my vote, they could use a few more options to help round out the different play styles.

Draconian77
19-05-2008, 01:31
They shouldn't really have different play styles. What they should have is a CC army that people actually fear and isn't easily countered by even the most simple tactics.

Hrogoff the Destructor
19-05-2008, 01:50
1. Dark Elves. They have how many good choices? Zero? We'll thank god they're getting fixed right now.

2. Warriors of Chaos. You got only a few options left due to the seperation of chaos, and they are all fairly overpriced. Not to mention the army is completely void of any flavor and interesting elements. Can't really think of anything redeemable apart from good looking models.

3. Tomb Kings. Got a few tricks up their sleves, but they need pretty much a complete overhaul as a whole. A lot of point drops are in order, and they need better magic items. A 50 point magic item that is pretty much just a standard great weapon is not all that impressive for its points.

4. Beasts. Many redundant units, virtually no magic items, and too few people using beast herds (and too many people using minotaur style armies).

5. Ogre Kingdoms. I know many people that play it well, but it seems like a vast majority of the people out there strugle.

6. Orcs and Goblins. You can make armies that work rather well, but all plans can fail quicker than you can say animosity.

And a fairly distant 7. Skaven. Give skryre a swift kick to the nuts, and then continue to improve Eshin and Moulder. Many units need points increases, and many need point drops. Lustria Clan Pestilince (due to all being frenzied, plague spell, and censor bearers), and Skryre are still quite powerful even against 7th edition armies. Warlords need to be improved.

theunwantedbeing
19-05-2008, 01:50
Dark elves...I'de like a book that's finished.
Okay I play dark elves and I am incredibly biased on this....

Urgat
19-05-2008, 02:12
Ogres. They struggle against anything, really. Anything that shoots is the bane of them, any heavy cavalry will own them, any stupid light cav unit can redirect a unit that represents 1/5 of the army, their support unit is slower than them and can bicker (!), and, quite frankly, they're far from being the melee monsters they should be. What is more powerful, a unit of bulls, or a unit of bloodletters? Plus their army selection makes that most armies will look the same. There's only one way with them: MSU (excepted that you can ignore the M of MSU, you won't get many units, no matter how small you make them). And while the fluff makes them tougher than mountains, anything will make a mockering of their T4 and inexistant saves. It's like GW was afrad of going overboard with them, and took every measure possible to weaken them. WHich would be fair, if they didn't take that process so far.

ANd heck, even small units take all that room, if the battleground is a bit crowded, you will lose to the obstacles before the enemy gets you. I'm not far from thinking they should be skirmishers...

Draconian77
19-05-2008, 02:57
I agree that the Ogres need a new book, they just don't seem to be competitive enough. T4 and no armour tends to hurt them against any attack and even their combat isn't that scary. (Apart from their characters which eat Minotaurs for breakfast :D)

Gnoblars could do with being faster but its hard to justify that fluff-wise.
A pts drop is out of the question so really they need a new rule. I'm thinkinh along the lines of Tunnelers. Its sounds perfect to me. Make them cost 3pts and have a minimum squad size of 20 and your set.

Lordmonkey
19-05-2008, 03:07
Overpriced Skeletons (going on the cost of VC skellies)

I don't like this comparison. Different armies may be subject to cheaper/dearer troops depending on the other units available, armywide special rules, racial magic lores, etc. Perhaps they will keep the cost of the 'overpriced' skeletons the same in the next book? Perhaps they will even increase? Who knows. There is no sense in matching points costs based on a statline alone when the troop is used in a completely different army.

Whether it is necessary or not is another matter. But the comparison to VC is no argument at all.

I would say Hordes should be next. BoC could stand to wait a while, but it would be nice to see them straight after hordes. Then Dark Elves, Skaven, Brettonians.

OK need revising completely. Perhaps some weaker, two-wound ogres that can be fielded in greater numbers? Some sort of rank and file would be nice for them (Gnoblars dont count!)

knightwire
19-05-2008, 03:14
1) Dark Elves

2) Ogre Kingdoms

3) Beasts of Chaos

4) Tomb Kings


Skaven and Orcs & Goblins??? I think not.

kylek2235
19-05-2008, 03:57
Ogres. They struggle against anything, really. Anything that shoots is the bane of them, any heavy cavalry will own them, any stupid light cav unit can redirect a unit that represents 1/5 of the army, their support unit is slower than them and can bicker (!), and, quite frankly, they're far from being the melee monsters they should be. What is more powerful, a unit of bulls, or a unit of bloodletters? Plus their army selection makes that most armies will look the same. There's only one way with them: MSU (excepted that you can ignore the M of MSU, you won't get many units, no matter how small you make them). And while the fluff makes them tougher than mountains, anything will make a mockering of their T4 and inexistant saves. It's like GW was afrad of going overboard with them, and took every measure possible to weaken them. WHich would be fair, if they didn't take that process so far.

ANd heck, even small units take all that room, if the battleground is a bit crowded, you will lose to the obstacles before the enemy gets you. I'm not far from thinking they should be skirmishers...

:cries:
Don't forget how Phily Kelly nerfed the Big Stuff chart for the Slavegiant either.....

Seriously, they've never been an easy army to use, but the new 7th edition lists have been really brutal. A come all list that doesn't involve Skrag is getting more and more difficult every new book.

Helbracht
19-05-2008, 04:46
Well think about it, IIRC Ogres are the only kind of their play style. Meaning, it plays completely differently from all other armies in that it's core troops are large-based "monsters" that rely on brute strength over ranks.

I mean, wasn't this GW first time doing an army like this? (I'm not an 1st edition veteran so correct me if I'm wrong) If so, I think they just need another edition to get the kinks worked out.

SuperArchMegalon
19-05-2008, 05:03
GW tried something really new and innovative with the Ogres, they sold it based on a new playstyle not a fancy new stat-line on a Star Dragon. It obviously didn't balance out quite as they wanted but we can expect that to be fixed. I just KNOW that when Ogres are re-done there will be more cheese-crying about them than from any other list - when they finally become the combat-dominant force they should be.

Delicious Soy
19-05-2008, 05:05
I don't like this comparison. Different armies may be subject to cheaper/dearer troops depending on the other units available, armywide special rules, racial magic lores, etc. Perhaps they will keep the cost of the 'overpriced' skeletons the same in the next book? Perhaps they will even increase? Who knows. There is no sense in matching points costs based on a statline alone when the troop is used in a completely different army.

Whether it is necessary or not is another matter. But the comparison to VC is no argument at all.I think thats very true but in terms of a TK army by itself, it does need to fit more rank and file infantry into an average army, which is tough at 2000pts.

Personally I don't think TK are in especially dire need, nor do i think they need a complete rewrite. I think the mistake they made in the current book was to base the skeleton cost of the VC one. Seeing as how new units can't be summoned at all in a TK army cheaper skellies wouldn't really be a problem to my mind. And at the moment thats the only real beef I have with my army.

Also to the person referring to the destroyer of eternities (though its 70, not 50 pts). Its special ability is usuable with the incantation of smiting, hence its massive cost.

snyggejygge
19-05-2008, 06:50
1 Hordes of Chaos, lost 2 thirds of its list, the WD list nerfed them even more.

2 Dark Elves, can be used skillfully, but the army needs to get its pointvalues right & some new rules to even up with their dark cousins.

3 Ogre Kingdoms/ Beasts of Chaos, tie, Beasts did lose out flyers, heavy cavalry & the no-brainer magic items, while herds got pretty nerfed in 7:th edition, but the army is still viable & marked chariots helps a lot imo, just not enough to be competetive in tournaments.
Ogre Kingdoms have been weak for ages, granted Ive only played against them 3 times during my whole gaming career, but they are so easy to defeat, the only things that impress me are Gorgers & Maneaters.

The Exiled One
19-05-2008, 07:25
ogre kingdoms for sure: they cannot compete with other armies in 7th edition,but in 6th they were already competitiveless.... good ideas are to legalize rhinox cavalry, hunter that can move AND shot, units of tigers as light cavalry, gorger 2x1 as rare choice ,all the special choices revised and a general reduction of prices

Ward.
19-05-2008, 07:29
I really wish Skaven Skyre would be toned down but the rats are Alessio's favorite. Ratling Guns will probably autohit 4d6 with no misfires at S10 and immune to death next edition.... grumble grumble grumble.

It's been pretty commonly said that skaven SAD and super SAD favoritism was an accident, Alessio (like most of gw's development team it appears) was a fluff gamer and didn't foresee what people would do with the skaven book. Hopefully GW don't overreact to the old "grrr, nerf skaven attitude" and ruin them completely.

Also right now, swarm armies are the most competitive.


I don't like this comparison. Different armies may be subject to cheaper/dearer troops depending on the other units available, armywide special rules, racial magic lores, etc. Perhaps they will keep the cost of the 'overpriced' skeletons the same in the next book? Perhaps they will even increase? Who knows. There is no sense in matching points costs based on a statline alone when the troop is used in a completely different army.

Whether it is necessary or not is another matter. But the comparison to VC is no argument at all.

I'd say two armies that function in so many similar ways apart from tomb king shooting are the only real candidates for comparison :angel:


My list:
The one GW are doing now, followed by OK then skaven. The rats need more options.

vesp
19-05-2008, 09:14
As someone who's coming back to the hobby after nearly 10 years, I find this thread rather amusing.

Top spot for a new book goes to Chaos Dwarfs, hands down. Since the last CD army book was published, it seems like every other army has had about 3 new books.

Zilverug
19-05-2008, 09:15
1. Dogs of War. The 5th edition book is outdated, as well as the Ravening Hordes lists.

2. Chaos Mortals. See other people's comments above.

3. Chaos Beasts. See other people's comments above.

4. Chaos Dwarfs. They would be on a shared #1 with the Dogs of War (for the same reason), but since both Chaos Mortals and Beasts have been temporarily demolished, those should be fixed first.

5. Ogre Kingdoms. See other people's comments above.

6. Dark Elves. Too many 'errata' need inclusion in the book.

Urgat
19-05-2008, 10:23
I just KNOW that when Ogres are re-done there will be more cheese-crying about them than from any other list - when they finally become the combat-dominant force they should be.


Could be, but I don't see it happening anytime soon... :'(


ogre kingdoms for sure: they cannot compete with other armies in 7th edition,but in 6th they were already competitiveless.... good ideas are to legalize rhinox cavalry, hunter that can move AND shot, units of tigers as light cavalry, gorger 2x1 as rare choice ,all the special choices revised and a general reduction of prices

Yeah, well I can see a variety of things they could do, but let's not turn this into an ogre wishlist (as much as I would like to :p)

Why do people put DE and chaos warriors? They're the two next books, there's no point nominating them, really...

macejase
19-05-2008, 11:55
Dark Elves - now that HE have the new book DE need to catch back up with their nemesis, not to mention they need a new model range especially the characters.

Hordes of Chaos - daemons pretty much left them armybookless so they are a must

Chaos Dwarfs - everyone wants to see the return of these guys

Skaven - clanrats, with smaller hands, plastic slaves. and the rules need tweaking

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
19-05-2008, 12:02
1. Dogs of War

2. Chaos Dwarves

3. Beasts of Chaos

[Warriors of Chaos and Dark Elves should be on the list too, but they will get their list in forseable future]

Lordsaradain
19-05-2008, 12:07
Warriors/Beasts of Chaos. With the current army books getting illegal/nerfed due to the new demon book being released, these guys gotta have an update to become playable again (Beasts, as opposed to mortals, CAn survive on their current codex, but it is quite weak now that so many options have been removed).

Dark Elves. Their list is too weak atm, simple as that.

Chaos Dwarves. These guys have been forced to use the ravening horde codex for TOO LONG. Give them a break.

The weaker armies that would be happy to receive some update to become more in line with the newest books, are mainly Orcs and Goblins, Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms;

Orcs and Goblins were actually nerfed in the 7th Edition compared to the 6th, sure they got some cool new stuff, but losing all usable magic items, and getting a price highjack on all cavalry and the big 'un upgrade was definetly not worth it. Not to mention that you can no longer take two weak wolf chariots as a single special choice. The greenskin book has some "funny" stuff, but they're hardly competative.

TK and OK have already been pretty much covered, so I'm not gonna go over all the arguments again. Ogre kingdoms need some kind of static CR though, it is impossible to feild a ranked unit of ogres, cant ogres get something like bretonnian lance formation, ie they only need 3 models per rank to get rank bonus?

Edit: Dogs of war obviously need their own book and models too.

Jack of Blades
19-05-2008, 13:47
Ogres have a whole horde of issues and annoyances. Why can't Tyrants ride Rhinoxen? why aren't they in the book? why is the Hunter overpriced and the Harpoon Crossbow so bad? why do Bulls with a 4+ save cost a fortune? why do Yheetes have WS3? why are Maneaters so frail? Why are most of the big names and magic items useless? Why do Leadbelchers do more damage to themselves than the enemy? who approved of the Scraplauncher's points cost/model parts? and a whole heap of other things...

Shimmergloom
19-05-2008, 14:56
I think despite what people may want, chaos dwarfs and dogs of war are still way down on the list as far as GW is concerned to ever get a new book.

So for armies that have a shot at getting a new book or just have a crappy book now, I'd say:

1. mortals.
2. beasts.
3. orcs and goblins
4. dark elves

IcedCrow
19-05-2008, 15:17
The day a Chaos Dwarf books is released is the day that they re-release the squats in 40k.

Heretic Burner
19-05-2008, 15:31
O&G clearly. There is no army less competitive currently released and that includes armies years out of date. The rules are flat out broken, the model release was horrific, and the pages and pages of ads in the back certainly isn't going to help. Throw in the fact that O&G were, at least at one point, one of GW's flagship lines and it is a complete no-brainer for a company in such a horrible financial position.

Chaos mortals are another book that could give GW bang-for-the-buck on release. Chaos have always been popular and GW's recent disgusting and shamely splitting of the army will at least give them a much needed short term cash infusion with a Chaos mortal book. As for the long term...? The picture doesn't look very good in any case so maybe the short term is all they have.

Grey Seer Skretch
19-05-2008, 15:38
Everyone's said all the (Skaven) obvious ones already (Skaven) so I won't bother labouring the (Skaven) point on any of (Skaven) those at all except that to (Skaven) say it'd be kinda (SKaven) nice to see a new (Skaven) Skaven book (Skaven)...is the subliminal thing working yet? if not...SKAVEN SKAVEN SKAVEN!!!

Also, give me Cathayans or give me cake! 'Just another variant on the human theme so how would they differ enough from Empire?' ask the design team...well THINK of ways dammit! Do an eastern Empire formed of Cathay and Nippon, or Cathay hiring Nipponese specialists! Introduce a really 'mystical' element to the army (generals that are also level 2 mages in Lore of Heavens, summoned Undead or Daemons but not evil, some kind of Kami bound to aid the Cathayan people, expert warrior Samurai either on foot, on horseback, or with bows, Nipponese mercenaries using western firearms, or Nipponese Ninja Assassin teams practising different specialisations or Temples of the art, mythical beasties in great number ie Dragons, Ki-Rinn etc). C'mon, tell me that wouldn't be cool!

Ixquic
19-05-2008, 15:48
Bretonnians need it pretty bad. I'm not sure how they can make that army more interesting to play but it's basically a watered down Empire list, but with an overpowered army wide rule that lets them dominate on the charge.

Maybe create a foot-knight unit, fix Questing Knights since they are currently useless, make men at arms more useful in hand to hand (at least given the statline of free company, although with less leadership) and something wacky we haven't even thought of yet (possibly the boys stolen by the Fey Enchantress come back as a skirmished Tree Spirit type unit for instance). As it is it's hard to even tell the units apart until you get close. Considering how much they just changed the concept of how Chaos works, they can do something radical and still maintain the central idea of a mostly mounted army. I'm not sure what to do regarding the lance, but it needs something done.

Although Ogres and Dogs of War are lame and need updating, I hope they save them for last because personally I don't think they should have getten lists in the first place. They should have been just been left as stuff you can include in other armies as rare or special choices.

Shamfrit
19-05-2008, 15:49
I get 2-4 real games in a week, a 2K+ and a 1K usually, and then I play on Lorenzo a considerably large amount. When I say I know Skaven Vs. Daemons, I mean it, and it's beyond Uphill Stuggle. I don't ever base my opinions on one or two games, after this many massacres, regardless of the list I bring, I know that anything except pure SAD simply will not work...when 6 Flesh Hounds smash away units of clanrats you know for a fact that something is terribly not right.

Emeraldw
19-05-2008, 15:58
Why so many O&G's? The list isn't that bad, in fact it's pretty good, just not overpowering.

#1: Chaos Dwarves
I mean, come on. How long has it been? If GW intends to continue them then please do so. However CD players have waited this long already...

#2: Ogres
I have played Ogres a few times. There are a lot of things that could be changed to make Ogres better. However they are not nearly as bad an army as some make them out to be.

#3: Beasts
They still work ok as a stand alone army, however some more things to be competitive would be nice.

After that it can go in almost any order. Brets and Wood Elves will probably be the last ones done, as their lists are still effective.

Shimmergloom
19-05-2008, 16:05
Why so many O&G's? The list isn't that bad, in fact it's pretty good, just not overpowering.

play them for a while and find out.

Heretic Burner
19-05-2008, 16:05
Why so many O&G's? The list isn't that bad, in fact it's pretty good, just not overpowering.


Because right now O&G are statistically the very worst performing army in the game.

Not DE.

Not OK.

Certainly not Skaven.

It is O&G.

It is that bad, let alone "pretty good". However, even if they were a solid mid-tier army the book would be in dire need of a complete revamping. The new animosity is a disaster. The rules are unclear or simply broken. The fluff is far from interesting, in fact embarassingly bad. And the enormous number of pages devoted to advertising is simply insulting.

Helbracht
19-05-2008, 16:13
I disagree with O&G. I have an O&G army and I find they still preform rather decently. They're still wacky and fun to play with and I don't find it more difficult to win with than any other army.

Shamfrit
19-05-2008, 16:14
Because right now O&G are statistically the very worst performing army in the game.

It is that bad, let alone "pretty good". However, even if they were a solid mid-tier army the book would be in dire need of a complete revamping. The new animosity is a disaster. The rules are unclear or simply broken. The fluff is far from interesting, in fact embarassingly bad. And the enormous number of pages devoted to advertising is simply insulting.

Looks to me like you're going about your list making in the wrong way :D

And what Greenskin rules are 'broken' exactly? I love the new book, it's why I started them as a second army, there's really nothing wrong with it.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
19-05-2008, 16:14
chaos dwarfs, games workshop has said that they will re-do them at some point, but when???

the last book released was in the early - mid 90s, hell this is longer than the 40k ork book :(

they really need it, if not there will be a lot of players seriously annoyed

fubukii
19-05-2008, 17:18
skaven are in dire need of new models, and new rules as 7th edition as made alot of their upgrades rather pointless. ANd as for the skaven vs daemon issue shamfrit, i disagree i have played daemons twice thus far with pretty good results.

Skaven, along with empire and dwarves have some of the best tools for taking out those extremely expensive daemon killy units of death before the even reach your line. Then say they reach your line they are now gonna have a lovely 54 pt slave unit with musician parked in front of them waiting to redirect that killy daemon unit away from my line or expose its flank.

ZeroTwentythree
19-05-2008, 17:25
Chaos Dwarves and DoW got skipped in 6th, so I suppose they're overdue.

As far as the rest go -- and I am admittedly a bit biased -- I believe Skaven have the oldest armybook and some of the oldest figures in production. Aside from that, there are a few things that really need to be worked out, especially considering changes made in both the 7th ed. rulebook and the 7th ed. armies that have come out since.

Edit
19-05-2008, 21:09
i also have to go with skaven, as many of their items and descriptions are just out of date, like the brass orb doing structural points, etc. and the fact that parry made their elite infantry less useful than their common clanrat. be nice to see more units for the multiple clans, or unit upgrades to make them more in line with current warhammer book style. lower number of options in units, but more options per unit in way of upgrades, equipment and such.

Shamfrit
19-05-2008, 21:41
I'm embarking on a complete re-write and analysis of the Skaven Army Book, expect a thread soon, mainly because I'm bored, and people don't believe lol.

Heretic Burner
19-05-2008, 23:33
Looks to me like you're going about your list making in the wrong way :D

I might be or I might not. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am going by my own opinion like Helbracht. My personal success or failure doesn't matter the least in any case as I am not using my own results. I am simply going by compiled statistical evidence and am speaking free from personal bias. From a play balance perspective they (along with WE for the opposite reason) need a drastic overhaul.



And what Greenskin rules are 'broken' exactly? I love the new book, it's why I started them as a second army, there's really nothing wrong with it.

Fanatic rules remain broken, particularly in relation to terrain. Squig hoppers are completely unplayable with regards to their formation rules. The quality of testing is clearly dismal.

From a play balance perspective the new animosity is a disaster. O&G magic has been crippled and is virtually unusuable. The enormous number of problems has been detailed at length in multiple threads the search function should have no trouble identifying them.

Grinloc
19-05-2008, 23:56
Looks to me like you're going about your list making in the wrong way :D

And what Greenskin rules are 'broken' exactly? I love the new book, it's why I started them as a second army, there's really nothing wrong with it.

As a short overview:
1.) Animosity letting the opponent dictate the movement of a greenskin unit, 1/6th of the time.
2.) Animosity turning shamans (depending on their placement) into a scroll caddy for the opponent, 1/6th of the time.
3.) Animosity, to be more specific, the "waaagh" rule (optional) destroying a horrifically overpriced "heavy" cavalry unit, 1/6th of the time. All while the unit doesn't have ranks to lower the required dice result to make this "waaagh" even work for them.
4.) Black orc characters beating up their units to avoid a squabble, which is somehow meant to be an "advantage". Couple the words "black orc" and "cavalry" to easily notice that something's indeed broken.
5.) Removing almost all of the worthwhile magic items of 6th edition, which were tools to mitigate squabbling, miscasts, etc. (shiny baubles, bag of dices as examples).
6.) Plenty of overpriced units. Cavalry (both kinds), big'uns (all kinds), black orcs, savage orcs, squig hoppers, common goblins.
7.) Pointless nerfing of units. Goblin chariots (no more 2for1) and fanatics (no more armor save negating and worse rules) as examples.
8.) O&G's magic having silly casting values, to make matters worse they got the second to worst miscast table of all armies (trophy for worst goes to OK with thier 3+ value spells).

These points were discussed at length in the past, so just this overview here in case someone missed out on these discussions (new members possibly) and wants to "catch up".
O&G's can do alright in "friendly" environments, noone is denying that. But in tournaments they don't have much of a chance against most of the opposing lists.
O&G's were comparatively a mid tier army in 6th and effectively got nerfed in 7th edition. The effective outcome in tournaments aint surprising really. To make matters worse GW is (significantly) improving the other armies with their 7th edition army books (demons, VC, HE), which tends to make greenskin tournament performance even worse. O&G's just got their update somewhat recently, which most likely means GW won't do anything about them in the next 3 or 4 years.

DE: As of today "high speed" armies tend to be very effective and DE do have several tools to accomplish this. Therefor they can do alright, but this doesn't distract from the fact that they struggle in today's environment. Though for obvious reasons they are still far from the bottom.

OK: They are an "ok" army, the only basic thing is that they are brutally one-dimensional. Some parts of their army book are indeed rather "meh", but others explained that part already.

HOC/BOC: Those players have all my sympathy. A versatile "three-books-army" literally getting split in thirds for fluff/profit reasons is a heavy blow.

Lordmonkey
20-05-2008, 02:01
Chaos Dwarves and DoW got skipped in 6th, so I suppose they're overdue.

This may be a subtle hint. It's sad to say, but I do not believe we will see a new Dow or CD book ever again.

Grinloc
20-05-2008, 03:20
I remember that at some point a tournament in the US declared chaos dwarfs to be illegal. Unfortunately this sounds like they won't get redesigned in the future.
Did actually too few people play with that army, so GW didn't expect a real profit from the sales? Was it sort of a niche army?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
20-05-2008, 09:09
I remember that at some point a tournament in the US declared chaos dwarfs to be illegal. Unfortunately this sounds like they won't get redesigned in the future.
Did actually too few people play with that army, so GW didn't expect a real profit from the sales? Was it sort of a niche army?


This may be a subtle hint. It's sad to say, but I do not believe we will see a new Dow or CD book ever again.


there is hope for the chaos dwarfs, if you go here, there is a letter from jevis johnson on the matter

http://www.chaos-dwarfs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2602&page=1

Dux Ducis
20-05-2008, 12:35
1. Chaos Dwarfs

2. Skaven

ZeroTwentythree
20-05-2008, 13:33
I remember that at some point a tournament in the US declared chaos dwarfs to be illegal. Unfortunately this sounds like they won't get redesigned in the future.

GWUS is currently allowing Chaos Dwarves in the 'Ard Boyz tournament.

The SkaerKrow
20-05-2008, 15:23
Ignoring Dark Elves because they're about to drop, and the .PDF armies because they're not in the running at the moment.

#1 Hordes of Chaos (Only because their book has been gutted, otherwise I'd put them second and TKs first)
#2 Tomb Kings (Seriously. Seriously.)
#3 Skaven
#4 Bretonnians (Their rules need to be made less obnoxious)
#5 Lizardmen

txamil
20-05-2008, 23:39
I thought Beasts would be a more popular answer. Do they beat anyone anymore? The player that I see occasionally playing them gets throttled all the time.

TheDarkDuke
21-05-2008, 01:23
I will state right now Ogres are far from in need of an update, too many people leave the "glue" of the army on the sidelines (Hunters, Sabretusks, Gnoblar, Trappers, Yheete and Gorgers).

1. Chaos Mortals
2. Dark Elves
3. Tomb Kings
4. Beast of Chaos
5. Lizardmen
6. Skaven

Draconian77
21-05-2008, 01:34
Lizardmen ahead of Skaven? I think Skaven need it more. Ignoring DE and Mortals because they are coming out soon I'd go for:

1: Beasts of Chaos
2: Skaven
3: Ogres
4: Tomb Kings
5: Lizards

wallacer
21-05-2008, 02:19
The army that has been waiting the longest for a new book are Chaos Dwarfs.
Therefore, it is difficult to go past them as being the most deserving.

Condottiere
21-05-2008, 07:59
Personally, my biased viewpoint is that GW should come out with:

1. Dogs of War

2. Nippon/Samurai

kroq'gar
21-05-2008, 08:05
Lizards are an easy army to fix, they just need a few tweeks and they'll be right. Skaven on the other hand need an overhaul. Its easy to see why there doing lizzies.


Still, chaos dwarves are long long long overdue.

The SkaerKrow
22-05-2008, 18:27
I thought Beasts would be a more popular answer. Do they beat anyone anymore? The player that I see occasionally playing them gets throttled all the time.Beasts of Chaos are still an amazing army. The players (only two, but still) that I see playing them never lose, even when it looks like the entire battle has turned against them. One is nearly undefeated with the army, and I can't recall the last time I actually saw him score something less than a Massacre.

TheDarkDuke
23-05-2008, 05:22
I think Lizardmen need it far more then Skaven, as of right now lizardmen are not competitive unless you take lots of skinks, and magic. Skaven can still go magic, guns, hoarde or mixture and be competitive.

On a side note, which armies do people think are the easier of the "in need of an update" to update? Mine would be:

1. Lizardmen
2. Beast of Chaos
3. Skaven
4. Tomb Kings

Weldo Rubin
23-05-2008, 09:31
(Ignoring the Dark Elves and the Mortals of Chaos, because gossip-mongerers claim that they are about to jump out)

1: Skaven
2: Tomb Kings
3: Lizardmen
4: Beasts of Chaos
5: Bretonnia

Havock
23-05-2008, 12:56
I agree that the Ogres need a new book, they just don't seem to be competitive enough. T4 and no armour tends to hurt them against any attack and even their combat isn't that scary. (Apart from their characters which eat Minotaurs for breakfast :D)

Gnoblars could do with being faster but its hard to justify that fluff-wise.
A pts drop is out of the question so really they need a new rule. I'm thinkinh along the lines of Tunnelers. Its sounds perfect to me. Make them cost 3pts and have a minimum squad size of 20 and your set.

Ogres should do fine by just raising the toughness across the army (excepting gnoblars of course). A bull with T5 would be tough (pun, haha, laugh) but looking at their pts cost; perfectly justified. Extra wounds... Nah, that doesn't really make them tougher, because the opponent can still do the amount of wounds required to win the combat.

The SkaerKrow
23-05-2008, 19:04
Ogres should do fine by just raising the toughness across the army (excepting gnoblars of course). A bull with T5 would be tough (pun, haha, laugh) but looking at their pts cost; perfectly justified. Extra wounds... Nah, that doesn't really make them tougher, because the opponent can still do the amount of wounds required to win the combat.How about no? Your Ogres should be making combined charges and killing nearly everything in base contact with them when they do so. Toughness 5 Core units? :rolleyes:

Ogres are fine, lacking only that one really broken thing that the top tier armies seem to have. More than anything, it seems like most of the Warhammer community at large just hasn't figured Ogre Kindgoms out yet.

Urgat
23-05-2008, 20:48
Yep, I haven't figured out how to make combined charges when there's no room for more than one unit to fit because, well, my opponents are smart enough to use his units to protect each other's flank. Which is not too hard, since he got twice as many units, btw.
I love how some people make it sound like it's ubber easy to win with ogres. Sounds like we are the one that suck, and not the guys you play against >>

That being said, ogres certainly don't need toughness 5, they need units that can actually support/screen them w/o being M4 and liable to bicker...

knightwire
23-05-2008, 20:59
Ogres are fine, lacking only that one really broken thing that the top tier armies seem to have. More than anything, it seems like most of the Warhammer community at large just hasn't figured Ogre Kindgoms out yet.

I couldn't disagree with you more. From my experience (mostly playing against OK) it's pretty easy to beat these guys with just about any army I regularly play. (HE, OG, LM and a little VC here and there) That also seems to be the case with the rest of the regular group I play with and hence why they seem grossly underpowered from our POV.

Donblas
23-05-2008, 21:01
I would like to see Dragons not an army but the rule book says they are a force like chaos dwarfs or the people off to the east and frankly I find it rather stupid that all these Dragons who are vastly powerful are willing to let their children be ridden around like a horse. But as this will never happen I would say tomb kings or orc/goblins are in the most need for new book.

Shimmergloom
23-05-2008, 21:10
Ogres can be pretty competitive, but it seems like the list needs you to take 3 butchers and the bangstick. Which seems counter to them being a combat army. I guess it helps that butchers are pretty good fighters though.

Out of the 15 supported armies, I'd put them around 11-13 on the power list. Better than DE and Mortals(since they currently have no book) and about on par with Beasts and Greenskins.

Heretic Burner
24-05-2008, 00:14
Out of the 15 supported armies, I'd put them around 11-13 on the power list. Better than DE and Mortals(since they currently have no book) and about on par with Beasts and Greenskins.

They're probably pegged around 10th. Certainly HE have overtaken them and likely they've overtaken Chaos mortals (for the time being) but other than that there isn't any expected big changes statistically that I can foresee.

Beasts were always significantly stronger than OK, I see no reason for them to have been overtaken. In fact Beasts are a solid mid tier army, nowhere near the dismal greenskins.

So yeah, no big changes are required of OK. Lower mid-tier, nothing particularly special, nothing that cripples them like say last lace O&G or near last place DE. Throw in the fact their entire range is relatively new and I just don't see any reason at all OK would require a book anytime soon over others far more in dire need.

vigilant_fiend
24-05-2008, 01:32
Im gonna throw in with the chaos dwarf guys and say that they are in most need of a new book. (although least likely to get one) I love these guys and hope for their return to the game soon. Other than that (and dark elves/ chaos mortals since their on the way) Im gonna vote Tomb Kings, Skaven and Lizardmen.

E-616
24-05-2008, 01:58
Skaven for sure, their current book is about 6 years old now, even their faq isn't up to date with the current rules.

Bob the Butcher
24-05-2008, 02:00
Dark Elves and Lizardmen need it the most.

In our area the Skaven still do well inspite of the targeting of rattling guns etc.

Null_Sheen
24-05-2008, 08:44
From an Australian point of view i find people saying that O&G need a new book not competitive funny.

They are currently the 4th ranked army in the country and steadily rising since their army book came out.

But then we have a more robust comp system than the USA or UK

For the record the top 4 are

WE
Brets
VC
O&G

Havock
24-05-2008, 09:25
How about no? Your Ogres should be making combined charges and killing nearly everything in base contact with them when they do so. Toughness 5 Core units? :rolleyes:

Ogres are fine, lacking only that one really broken thing that the top tier armies seem to have. More than anything, it seems like most of the Warhammer community at large just hasn't figured Ogre Kindgoms out yet.

Other people have core units with a 1+ as, so it evens things out.
What else can you give them beside a serious pts drop?

Storak
24-05-2008, 09:32
From an Australian point of view i find people saying that O&G need a new book not competitive funny.

They are currently the 4th ranked army in the country and steadily rising since their army book came out.

But then we have a more robust comp system than the USA or UK

For the record the top 4 are

WE
Brets
VC
O&G

you do understand that talking about COMPOSITION SCORES (making about 30 points in comparison with 120 battle results in DogCon (http://www.dogcon.org/wiki/index.php/Rules), no special chars!) is directly CONTRADICTING your claim that O&G are competitive?!?

selecta
24-05-2008, 09:53
my top five is the following:
Hordes of chaos
LM
Bret
scaven
Dark elves

Urgat
24-05-2008, 11:16
So yeah, no big changes are required of OK. Lower mid-tier, nothing particularly special, nothing that cripples them like say last lace O&G or near last place DE. Throw in the fact their entire range is relatively new and I just don't see any reason at all OK would require a book anytime soon over others far more in dire need.

I'm sorry but that's a load of bull. I win consistently with my gobs, but no matter how much I read the OK tacticas, the MSU tips, no matter how much I tweak my army list and no matter which strategy I try, the fact remains that this years, my ogre army has won a grand total of one battle. One. Over 5 months.

Heretic Burner
24-05-2008, 17:03
I'm sorry but that's a load of bull. I win consistently with my gobs, but no matter how much I read the OK tacticas, the MSU tips, no matter how much I tweak my army list and no matter which strategy I try, the fact remains that this years, my ogre army has won a grand total of one battle. One. Over 5 months.

Oh, I see. Somehow it is bull by using through compiled statistics from thousands of games but we must take the personal experience of one (1) player against an extremely limited number of opponents and consider that stronger evidence. Uh huh. Why not just go by the results of one game while we're at it, after all the army books must be balanced if an experienced O&G player can squeak out a victory over a WE player playing their very first game of Warhammer. :rolleyes:

Fortunately not even a company as inept as GW goes by such nonsense. They look at the compiled statistics as well and likely have no doubt whatsoever that O&G are currently the weakest army in the game. Sadly they've made no decision to actually correct the problem through White Dwarf, alterations on their website, handouts at their store, or any other possible avenue. So clearly the next resort is to simply overhaul their book and get it right this time (Suggestion #1 - Keep Matt Ward as far away from the design process as possible).

Gobbo Lord
24-05-2008, 18:11
As an Orc and Goblin player i am saddened by a pervailent theme in this thread. A recently upgraded book is being chosen as a candidate for an update. The army is so weak compared to current books it hurts. The rules problems already pointed out in this thread were bad enough, squig hoppers movement and formation after combat etc. The designers statement that boar boys increased in price because all "hard hitting cavalry" was being increased in points for 7th edition was reveleaved as untrue with the release of the empire book, in which knights got cheaper.
The last two armies to be released really are power houses. Vampire counts and Deamons walk all over the Greenskins in an even match up with players of the same skil level.
I would like to see the orc book redone and was happy with them as a mid tier army in 6th, not too powerfull but able to hold thier own. However i also know that they will not be returned to untill all of the armys have had seventh edition updates. I must wait untill 8th edition and hope that more time will be taken in developing and playtesting the rules set.

Xyon
24-05-2008, 18:11
#1 Chaos Dwarfs :-)
#2 Dark Elves
#3 Beasts of Chaos
#4 Ogres

Urgat
24-05-2008, 18:50
Oh, I see. Somehow it is bull by using through compiled statistics from thousands of games but we must take the personal experience of one (1) player against an extremely limited number of opponents and consider that stronger evidence. Uh huh. Why not just go by the results of one game while we're at it, after all the army books must be balanced if an experienced O&G player can squeak out a victory over a WE player playing their very first game of Warhammer. :rolleyes:

Fortunately not even a company as inept as GW goes by such nonsense. They look at the compiled statistics as well and likely have no doubt whatsoever that O&G are currently the weakest army in the game. Sadly they've made no decision to actually correct the problem through White Dwarf, alterations on their website, handouts at their store, or any other possible avenue. So clearly the next resort is to simply overhaul their book and get it right this time (Suggestion #1 - Keep Matt Ward as far away from the design process as possible).

All your statistics come from tourneys with supertailored lists and so on. They're hardly representative of anything, if you mind me saying so (what's the % of O&G armies in a tourney, compared to the actual % of O&G players? Yeah, that's a stupid question, there's no way to know, but I'm willing to be that it's not exactly representative of your average O&G player/number of players). But sure, go ahead, show me numbers of how OK do better than O&G, based on fair ratio (win/loss/number of armies involved).
You know (well, you should, I've whinned enough about it last year) that I'm not any happier than you are about Ward and his "book", but they win, that's a fact. Overal, OK don't, that's another fact. I don't play stupid tourneys, I play pickup games, or games with friends, and it is a fact (to me) that me (or any other O&G player I know) that O&G do better than OK. It's even more a fact when you compare the number of armies. O&G are numerous, and their resulats are balanced, I'd say. OK, they're rare, and they got a very negative win/loss ratio. Never seen them win against WE. Never seen them win against Empire (well, gunlines). Never seen them win against HE. Saw them win once against bretonians (bretonian player had not played for a couple years). I see them win, sometimes against chaos mortals.
I don't care how botched you think the O&G book is (we all know already, anyway), but saying that the OK book has no problem whatsoever, it joust sounds like if you admited otherwise, you just couldn't claim that the O&G are the worst ones anymore, and that's pretty much all there is to it, if you ask me. Anyway, I know how you feel about Ward's book, I know how every topic that slips on that path turns out, I wonder why I'm adding oil to the fire, so I'll just shut up.

Edit: btw, what's the problem with hoppers? They're skirmishers, they behave like any skirmishers. So when the combat is over, they move 2D6" in their next movement phase. What else do you want to do?

Gobbo Lord
24-05-2008, 19:47
hoppers must always travel a full 3d6 in a straight line. coming into contact with an enemy means they rank up for combat. after the combat they must all travel a full 3d6 in a straight line meaning they effectivly remain touching each other for the rest of the battle as they can not change formation. they are not normal skirmishers because of this "boing" rule.

Heretic Burner
24-05-2008, 19:51
All your statistics come from tourneys with supertailored lists and so on. They're hardly representative of anything, if you mind me saying so (what's the % of O&G armies in a tourney, compared to the actual % of O&G players? Yeah, that's a stupid question, there's no way to know, but I'm willing to be that it's not exactly representative of your average O&G player/number of players). But sure, go ahead, show me numbers of how OK do better than O&G, based on fair ratio (win/loss/number of armies involved).

Those armies are checked and scrutinized by tournament organizers and follow the rules of the books. Those armies are allowed by the various army books, are completely legal, and are representative of the rules contained within the army books. I don't know what a "supertailored" list is. I do know they are representative of the rules contained within the army books, far more likely than the unchecked lists found in pickup games.

As for showing OK outperforming O&G, now that is easy. I'll even go so far as showing the % entry:

OK - % entry in tournaments ~ 5.78%. ABM score (100 is expected average) = 83.67

O&G - % entry in tournaments ~ 7.75%. ABM score (100 is expected average) = 58.71

For reference, wood elves have ~ 10.24% entry with an ABM score a monumental 133.30!

Is the methodology perfect? No. It is however what GW uses for play balance even though it actually underestimates how unbalanced an army is (i.e mirror match results aren't discarded). In other words, WE are even stronger than the results indicate (particularly with their high number of entries) and O&G are even worse.


You know (well, you should, I've whinned enough about it last year) that I'm not any happier than you are about Ward and his "book", but they win, that's a fact. Overal, OK don't, that's another fact. I don't play stupid tourneys, I play pickup games, or games with friends, and it is a fact (to me) that me (or any other O&G player I know) that O&G do better than OK. It's even more a fact when you compare the number of armies. O&G are numerous, and their resulats are balanced, I'd say. OK, they're rare, and they got a very negative win/loss ratio. Never seen them win against WE. Never seen them win against Empire (well, gunlines). Never seen them win against HE. Saw them win once against bretonians (bretonian player had not played for a couple years). I see them win, sometimes against chaos mortals.

I'm not sure where you've obtained your 'facts', however mine come directly from compiled tournament battle score results. It is a fact that OK vastly outperform O&G on average. You are correct in saying O&G are more numerous than OK but are not found in numbers as, say, WE. Overall OK simply are a more successful army than O&G based on battlefield performance, the results don't lie. I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt however - I just need to know where you've obtained your 'facts' that seem to go directly against the compiled tournament scores used by GW themselves.



I don't care how botched you think the O&G book is (we all know already, anyway), but saying that the OK book has no problem whatsoever, it joust sounds like if you admited otherwise, you just couldn't claim that the O&G are the worst ones anymore, and that's pretty much all there is to it, if you ask me. Anyway, I know how you feel about Ward's book, I know how every topic that slips on that path turns out, I wonder why I'm adding oil to the fire, so I'll just shut up.

Yes almost everyone except the most avid GW apologist can pretty much agree Matt Ward has been a disaster. On the other hand, nobody (including myself) has suggested OK is free of problems. At 83.67 they somewhat underperform than how they should. However when compared to the absolutely crippled O&G book the answer is obvious - a fix is much more needed for the greenskins. Not only that, it is a fix that will benefit a signifcantly larger number of players.



Edit: btw, what's the problem with hoppers? They're skirmishers, they behave like any skirmishers. So when the combat is over, they move 2D6" in their next movement phase. What else do you want to do?

Hoppers have significant rules problems with regards to their movement, particularly after combat formation. A simple way of visualizing this is consider the skirmishing unit (deployed with typical space between models) ranking up in combat. Now consider their formation afterwards. The current abysmal rules simply don't provide a suitable reference.

Lord Anathir
24-05-2008, 20:19
O+G dont need a revision, they just need to have a stronger general. They have the tools to beat most stuff. And yes, most stuff is not all stuff. No army has a fair fight against everyone else.

Why dont you try this, Heretic Burner. A GT go-er around here does well with them:

Black Ork Lord, Combat Heavy
BSB Orc, a magic banner of your choice (butchery or dd banner)
Lvl 2, 2 scrolls
Lvl 2, 2 scrolls
25 Boyz
20 NG, 2 Fanatics
20 NG, 2 Fanatics
30 NG, 2 Fanatics
5 Fast Cav
5 Fast Cav
6 Boar Boyz
4 Spear Chukkas
Rock Lobber
Doom Diver
4 Trolls

Thats close to 2k I think, I could be a little off on some stuff as I'm writing it from memory. More or less, the big boyz block advances with both combat caharacters beside the trolls in the centre. Fast cav go on flanks, boar boyz go on one flank, NG blocks support big boyz unit and protect flanks via fanatics. 6 Warmachines to hurt an assortment of things.(BT for monsters, DD for knights, RL for infantry).

-----------
As for OK, they do need a revision in my opinion. They don't have the toolbox that O+G have... they have no way to deal with monsters (scraplauncher doesnt count lol), magic defense is expensive and weak, and the very thing they are supposed to be good at: beating RnF infantry... they are terrible at.

They deserver to get impact hits all the time, and at st4, and d3+1 per ogre. Ironguts need a 4+ save, and bulls need to be cheaper.

Heretic Burner
24-05-2008, 20:53
O+G dont need a revision, they just need to have a stronger general.

I'm certain the evidence you have for that will be forthcoming shortly. After all, after thousands of games played and compiled it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem with individual players of the army. This is no isolated incident.



They have the tools to beat most stuff. And yes, most stuff is not all stuff. No army has a fair fight against everyone else.

Whether or not they have the tools to beat most stuff doesn't seem to make a case for them actually having the ability to fit a coherent selection of those tools in an army list. They simply do not have the tools to combat their own animosity for instance.



Why dont you try this, Heretic Burner. A GT go-er around here does well with them: <list snipped>

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was asking for, or even require, advice. I am merely pointing out the statistical evidence showing quite clearly O&G are by far the weakest army out there right now. With a large player base, a significant need for new models, a completely uncompetitive army it seems they do indeed need to be considered first for any revisions.



As for OK, they do need a revision in my opinion. They don't have the toolbox that O+G have... they have no way to deal with monsters (scraplauncher doesnt count lol), magic defense is expensive and weak, and the very thing they are supposed to be good at: beating RnF infantry... they are terrible at.

I'm not sure where you derived this toolbox from. OK have, and continue to do, significantly better than O&G. They are able to utilize whatever tools are available in the army book better than the greenskins. It is quite hard to dispute this, the ABM score differs by almost a monumental 25! Now obviously they have a better capacity of taking on most armies than O&G. The greenskins may or may not have the ideal unit for defeating knights, monsters, RnF, etc - I simply don't know - however armies aren't based on individual units working in a vacuum. Clearly the O&G army needs more work than an OK army, toolbox available to both means very, very little.

Grinloc
25-05-2008, 02:26
I own both OK and O&G's armies, besides DE, myself as Urgat does.
From my own gaming success it's pretty clear which one the broken army is.
OK advantages (in comparison to O&G's):
1.) They got a working army book, which isn't crippled by various special rules that simply don't work.
2.) The army is immune to fear.
3.) The army is designed for offense and the army book actually makes them do that job pretty well. 3+ wounds per model and ironguts come to mind (as basics).
4.) The army doesn't have any army-wide special rules (intended as advantages) which can be flat out exploited by the opponent.

The ABM scores of both armies are quite similar to my own experiences. While i often struggle to get a draw with O&G's i have no such worries with my OK, roughly winning 40-50% of my battles.
The O&G's book was just a major design failure, which could have been easily avoided by simply letting individuals do that job, who are actually interested in the army and know the basics of said army (6th edition book as a near perfect example).

GW normally seems to be perfectly capable of doing that (and then some) when looking at the recent army books. The current overall power level difference between O&G's and (say) VC/Daemons is so immense it's just silly (and way beyond the point of being funny at all, in case it ever was).
Now if the recent army book trend continues in 7th edition, it will only get worse for them.

Donblas
25-05-2008, 02:35
My only exp with Orcs/Goblins is against a really good player who creams just about everyone else at the store the only armies I have seen him lose against were shooty dwarf and shooty HE, everything else he just kinda crushed into goo. But thats just me.