PDA

View Full Version : How Cometitive are Orcs nowadays?



lparigi34
24-05-2008, 00:56
I post it because I read somewhere else about competitiveness of WHFB armies. I do play Orcs as my favorite army, and other armies as well. I was surprised to see the Orcs not so well rated in competitiveness. In my personal experience I have better records with my Empire and OK armies (my OK are just great).

So, please let me know how do you fell about this, and if you have any comments on your whys, It will add a lot.

klinktastic
24-05-2008, 01:14
Orcs are a very hard army to play. WHFB is a game of movement, and animosity hinders your ability to control the movement phase. Even the most well thought out plans mean **** when your blocks or fast cav don't move when you need them too.

Above 2k in points, you have so many units it becomes cumbersome to move, especially if there is terrain. They have solid units, but none that really stand out. It's hard to go magic heavy and still have solid blocks that won't flee in the first round of combat. Leadership is essential, and thus you are almost always forced to take a Warboss.

Some over the top styles of OnG can be competitive such as the all chariots, fast cav, wyverrn, and 2 giants list. Or the NG fanatic, shooting, magic list isn't that bad either. But both are easily beatable by even the most half decent opponent.

OnG balanced lists: 3 blocks of orcs, couple fast cav, chariots, spear chukka, doom diver, etc. are decently competitive, but you can find a different army that does the same thing better.

In summation, OnG is probably the worst book of the most recently revised books (starting with Wood Elves), and you should look to play anything but them. I know its tempting since they are in the starter set, but save yourself the time, money, and lack of enjoyment as OnG should be reserved for the most superior generals who wish to challenge themselves by playing with a handicap.

I hope that helps.

Ipeninrod
24-05-2008, 01:34
Well I'll add on. Are they the most competative of the new armies. Nope.
Can they be competative. Yes.
The movement phase is not your friend.
Reliable troops. There are some but not cost effective in numbers.
Magic: ya it can be devastating at the risk of army ld.

Best scenario play to the strengths.
1) The're a horde army so fill the field.
2) Bring goblin or Orc characters with LD helping items.
3) Cheap things are still good thing. Massed Bolt Throwers and Pump wagons are a steal and very expendable.
4) Be sneaky! Field night goblins without fanatics and have a box nearby with fanatics in it and cackle madly as they rush forward. No one said you had to play straight and fair off the table!
5) Random movement things mess up your oponent once you pass onto their side of the table.

bufordbugman
24-05-2008, 02:46
Orcs are a very hard army to play. WHFB is a game of movement, and animosity hinders your ability to control the movement phase. Even the most well thought out plans mean **** when your blocks or fast cav don't move when you need them too.

Above 2k in points, you have so many units it becomes cumbersome to move, especially if there is terrain. They have solid units, but none that really stand out. It's hard to go magic heavy and still have solid blocks that won't flee in the first round of combat. Leadership is essential, and thus you are almost always forced to take a Warboss.

...

In summation, OnG is probably the worst book of the most recently revised books (starting with Wood Elves), and you should look to play anything but them. I know its tempting since they are in the starter set, but save yourself the time, money, and lack of enjoyment as OnG should be reserved for the most superior generals who wish to challenge themselves by playing with a handicap.

I hope that helps.

The main points are all excellent and dead on correct. I would add that another problem with the magic phase is the lack of any item or ability to mitigate/reduce miscasts, which most other armies have at least one of. So here as elsewhere you are left with a really random situation, especially if you try heavy magic. If you roll well and get IF instead of miscasts, OnG magic can be quite powerful. Get the reverse and you are helpless toast.

My one quibble is with klinktastic's summation. There ARE reasons to play OnG that compensate for their very real problems.
-- First, their randomness makes them hard to control (and this can drive a general up the wall at times, true), but bites the enemy as often as the orc player. Fanatics can go just where you want and cream the guy's best units; animosity can give you extra charge opportunities as well as bickering; etc. So the randomness doesn't always mean you lose. It's just hard to control.
--Second, they are a remarkably flexible army. A good list-builder can refashion them to fight almost any kind of strategy: speedy attack? you bet. Fill the table with static combat res infantry? got it. Shooty? Got that too, both artillery and bows. Damaging magic? sure. Big scary monster-heavy? plenty. Balance of all of these? easiest of all.
--Finally, they have a very high amusement value as an army. Fanatics are nothing if not fun, both for what they can do and faking out foes when you don't even bring them; Squigs and squig hoppers also hilarious and can be very mean; Giants - gotta love stubborn plus that random attack table, which makes them extremely dangerous as well as unpredictable; some very funny yet still nasty/effective magic items. Etc.

So as long as you know what you are getting into with OnG, they are not a bad choice, and don't necessarily put you at a disadvantage.

WhiteKnight
24-05-2008, 04:57
Despite the fact that I'm a high elf player, I still love Orcs and goblins. They weren't that easy to play but with toughness 4 in all orc armies, you can bash those pesky elves and humies.

My idea for a good character is a black orc warboss with the Waagh Cleava or battleaxe of the last waagh! and heavy armour, shield. Even though it's not a souped up lord with a 2+ save with a ward, he can destroy stuff with ease.

For units, it all depends on how you play. You can have a lot of core choices because orcs own like that. I prefer a unit of savage orcs with 3 units of night goblins (2 units with 3 fanatics), a unit of regular orcs but upgraded as big uns. For special, have boar boyz or chariots. The chariots are solid and the boar boyz are just crazy. Tusker charge is a must and thick skinned is a well good special rule. As for rare, snotling pump wagons everywhere.

A fun and laughable list is an all snotling army. The bases are 20 points each and you can have a big line of snotlings. The general would be a goblin warboss and a goblin shaman with the little snotling on his head. The snotling pump wagons will destroy units and you'll be running, but you can lock foes in combat with ease.

Storak
24-05-2008, 05:46
Despite the fact that I'm a high elf player, I still love Orcs and goblins. They weren't that easy to play but with toughness 4 in all orc armies, you can bash those pesky elves and humies.

My idea for a good character is a black orc warboss with the Waagh Cleava or battleaxe of the last waagh! and heavy armour, shield. Even though it's not a souped up lord with a 2+ save with a ward, he can destroy stuff with ease.

For units, it all depends on how you play. You can have a lot of core choices because orcs own like that. I prefer a unit of savage orcs with 3 units of night goblins (2 units with 3 fanatics), a unit of regular orcs but upgraded as big uns. For special, have boar boyz or chariots. The chariots are solid and the boar boyz are just crazy. Tusker charge is a must and thick skinned is a well good special rule. As for rare, snotling pump wagons everywhere.

A fun and laughable list is an all snotling army. The bases are 20 points each and you can have a big line of snotlings. The general would be a goblin warboss and a goblin shaman with the little snotling on his head. The snotling pump wagons will destroy units and you'll be running, but you can lock foes in combat with ease.

sorry, i hope this was meant as a joke. basically everything said above is false and you will improve your performance by doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSIT of his advice.

snotlings for example are no longer unbreakable.
--------------------

it is rather obvious that O&G can NOT compete at all with any of the extreme tournament lists out these days.

---------------------------


don't necessarily put you at a disadvantage.

a devastating statement about an army with a new book, if ever there was one: "the new O&G book does not NECESSARILY put you into a disadvantage"

this transaltes into "avoid at all costs" to anyone who is NOT solely looking for an upward struggle...

Lord Aries
24-05-2008, 06:24
I'm a hardcore tournament army player, and I win a lot. I recently moved from playing O&G to playing VC and Deamons, but I will say I feel the army is very competitive if you play it certain ways.

1st- You said your OK is your best army, which I think is hilarious. They are considered the weakest of all armies for tournament competitiveness. If your group is "bad" enough to let you win with OK, or if you are such a bad @$$ that you can win with OK, then you should have no problems winning with orcs. I am going to bet you probably aren't a large tournament veteran, so no offense, but your group probably isn't the best... which is OK... the point of the game really should be to have fun. Part of having that fun is to playing for a win, because not many people liked getting tossed around like a 5 year old at neverland ranch.

2nd- Diversity. Orcs win because of diversity. Most players will see that you can make a decent horde, or a high magic army. But you can also make a good castle, MSU, Overrun, Channel, or combo army as well. If you don't know what those are... its ok, your probably not playing on the same level as tournament players yet. I did a post on it, LONG ago- somewhere here on the tactics page. Become good enough to play one of the diverse orc armies, and you will stay competitive. If you use basic, simple, easy to figure out strategy, your opponent will easily learn to counter it as well.

3rd- If all else fails, take some hard hittin stuff.

Most people like Night Goblins strictly for fanatics, but they are the best static CR unit you can wield, if given a Black Orc Character.

35 man units- Full command, Nets. With the nets, they are effectively T4 with a 4+ save when in CC. No seriously, the math is the same. They are cheap enough to take a lot... Then put in a black orc hero on boar. ALWAYS take him on a boar. He doesn't have any penalties for being on a boar, in a unit of infantry, he is just as well protected, but gets the +2 armor save. 2+ save for a cheap investment is the way to go. He will keep the unit from failing animosity, and give them LD8. Also, he is T5, but in CC the enemy is -1 str, so he is a hard dude to mess with.

Squigs- Some of the best units in the game... for the points. The hoppers can run rough shot over terrain and kill lots of units when they get into the flank/rear. One of their advantages is being able to charge units they cannot see, by going over terrain to get to them. If you learn to use the hoppers well, you won't worry about getting flanked. The herds are good, but only in units of 20+ models (i run mine 35, it costs 210 points) because with ranks and numbers, and all those attacks, you will eat things faces. HOWEVER you need to keep your LD nearby, preferably a BO lord, with LD9, and/or a BSB.

Goblin boss with one hit wonder/trick is a great pope assasin. Depending on your group, a lot of chariots might get feilded, and its hard for a horde army to stop that. The empire Pope Mobile, is also pretty bad... but you can take a goblin boss on wolf, hide him in an infantry unit and run him out to kill it when it gets close.

Snotlings are good... For using as wizard holders. They are ITP, will not panic, and do not take animosity tests. IF you have more than 5 bases then your wizard can hide and not worry about getting shot at... I would take 7 just to be sure. deploy it BEHIND your horde of boyz and manouver him so that he can see out a crack in between 2 units to give him LOS to what you are going to mess with that turn, IF NEEDED... He will be protected from shooting, not have animosity EVER... that is what you need.

Fanatics- can be the most broken thing about O&G... look up Avian's combat calculator and orc strategy page... you will learn a lot. However the jist of it, is that you can make the enemy pretty much always the enemy land on top of the fanatic, taking 2d6 hits and killing it so it can't come back to harm you... Do that 3 times on one unit, and its toast.

It depends on what your opponent is taking... but its easy to play O&G for the winz.

Storak
24-05-2008, 08:11
35 man units- Full command, Nets. With the nets, they are effectively T4 with a 4+ save when in CC. No seriously, the math is the same.

ahm sorry to correct a hardcore tournament army player, but your math is somewhat off.
NGs do NOT have a 4+ save and the nets make them EFFECTIVELY T4 only in CLOSE COMBAT, unless you ROLL A 1 and against ONE unit only.
effectively you have a 200 points static CR unit, that is effective as long as you keep a 110+ points HERO in it....


Then put in a black orc hero on boar. ALWAYS take him on a boar. He doesn't have any penalties for being on a boar, in a unit of infantry, he is just as well protected, but gets the +2 armor save.

no penalties, apart from paying for a useless "armed to the teeth rule that he can t use..


Snotlings are good... For using as wizard holders. They are ITP, will not panic, and do not take animosity tests. IF you have more than 5 bases then your wizard can hide and not worry about getting shot at... I would take 7 just to be sure. deploy it BEHIND your horde of boyz and manouver him so that he can see out a crack in between 2 units to give him LOS to what you are going to mess with that turn, IF NEEDED... He will be protected from shooting, not have animosity EVER... that is what you need.

7 bases of snotlings, just to make your shaman perform in a similar way to all other magic users in the game? +140 points puts them into the same league as high end magic heroes or even some magic using lord choices!

while you might think about adding 5 snotlings, especially if you have a plan for the moment when the shaman has used his scrolls, you definteltly wouldn t want to use 7!


Fanatics- can be the most broken thing about O&G... look up Avian's combat calculator and orc strategy page... you will learn a lot. However the jist of it, is that you can make the enemy pretty much always the enemy land on top of the fanatic, taking 2d6 hits and killing it so it can't come back to harm you... Do that 3 times on one unit, and its toast.

you can NOT "pretty much alaways" make the enemy end up on a fanatic.
most fanatic tricks wont be accepted, neither in a friendly nor in a competitive environment.
the less dodgy tricks are more of a must. fanatics are expensive and will not be worth their points if not use cleverly.


It depends on what your opponent is taking... but its easy to play O&G for the winz.

i guess you are somewhat alone with this opinion.

-----------------------------------------


Become good enough to play one of the diverse orc armies, and you will stay competitive. If you use basic, simple, easy to figure out strategy, your opponent will easily learn to counter it as well.

hm. so while the other races keep winning tournaments OVER and OVER and OVER with some variants of the VERY SAME list, orcs profit from their "diversity". excuse my, but i have some doubts about this claim!

ps:while your advice makes somewhat sense, it is rather obvious that you are blowing the advanatges slightly out of proportion..

Urgat
24-05-2008, 10:35
2nd- Diversity. Orcs win because of diversity. Most players will see that you can make a decent horde, or a high magic army. But you can also make a good castle, MSU,


Lol, I really, really want to see an efficient MSU O&G list. Nono, really, show me :p (must have a fun deployement phase at 2k points, too). Or castle, as you say (you're gonna love those 6s on animosity, if you try).

Ward.
24-05-2008, 10:47
Lol, I really, really want to see an efficient MSU O&G list. Nono, really, show me :p (must have a fun deployment phase at 2k points, too). Or castle, as you say (you're gonna love those 6s on animosity, if you try).

I'm guessing it would be the goblins on wolves and spiders, orcs on boars and bosses on wyverns, with squigs doing their thing list.

The list surely isn't the most competitive available, and many of the rules added in seem more like nerfs but the army is one of the more enjoyable to play with if you can take the set backs.

lparigi34
24-05-2008, 14:19
...
1st- You said your OK is your best army, which I think is hilarious. They are considered the weakest of all armies for tournament competitiveness...


Well, I heard the same before starting playing it, and the guy that sold me a bunch of them for %75 probably did too...

Probably it just came down to a match between a playstyle and an army.
BTW, Ive defeated a guy that says they are weak at least two times, badly. So I believe he regrets having said that to me :p.

As for the rest of your post, you mentioned a few strategies Ive never thought of, so much appreciated!!! ;). Ill evaluate them under the light of critizism others made to it.

klinktastic
24-05-2008, 15:57
Well, I didn't mean for my initial post to come off as OnG is the weakest army out there. They can be competitive, but only in the right hands. If you are a strategist, then you won't like them. The randomness will **** you off to no end.

I don't necessarily think that being able to win with OK translates well to OnG. OnG is movement 4, and for the most part relies on rank bonuses to win combat. OK is msu and relies on flanking and combo charging to win. Of which, some is appliciable to OnG, but not much.

The good thing about OnG is everyone know they are bottom tier, so you should be able to get models on the cheap. With that said, you need to get a lot, so it ends up balancing out. Additionally, there are so many choices, you need to gather which a bit of models to have the versitility mentioned above. If you lack cash, might be annoying to delve into.

MSU - units of 12 savage orcs with 2 choppas, sav boars, chariots, squigs, giants.... its possible.

Castle - I think its a little bit more loosely defined than perhaps a dwarven or TK castle.

Finally, they are a fun army to play, but just don't be prepared for stunning wins in the first month or so of playing. ****, I'm happy to get a draw most of the time. You have to relish in minor victories and when you play flawless games to only draw. If you set you standards a little lower, you will most always be suprised by what you accomplished and thus you will have more fun than if you were expecting to massacre every battle.

Heretic Burner
24-05-2008, 16:06
Well, I didn't mean for my initial post to come off as OnG is the weakest army out there.

Why not?

From an unbiased, pure statistical point of view O&G are currently the very least competitive army in the game. It isn't even close. They are indeed the very "weakest army out there". There is a wide gap even to the next least successful army (DE). If winning is a concern your best bet is likely another army.

Lord Aries
24-05-2008, 16:36
Just cause people don't agree with me, doesn't make me wrong. There are a lot of scrubs on here...

valdrog
28-05-2008, 14:15
Ive been playing O&G for close to 10 years and i wouldnt trade them for anything, they are one of the most fun armies to play and can be very competitive. Is true that if you like order in your armies then O&G could be frustating, but we are playing a game were evrythign is decided by the roll of a few Dice, you could have the best strat in the world and the uberests character, if the dice are not with you, you are smoked.

I have won many tournaments with my goblin/ng army, you have to look at them as the expendable crap that they are. I never use expensive characters, and i always go magic heavy, if i loose a shaman, oh well, a lvl 2 NG shaman is like 90 pts or so, one down...2-3 more to go!. With O&G you have to use their hard hitting units to compensate your crappy ones,.. playing a 2000 point NG army ?? .. bring two Giants and watch them destroy stuff, 6 savage orc boarboys are very destructive, use those cheap super fast wolf riders to claim table quarters and to flank units, or warmachine hunting. We have the Orc! sooo cheap, a 20 strong unit with shields and full command is just 180 points, and you get a very tough individual that can take it and dish it out.

Night Goblin fanatics are great, couple of 20 strong ngs with or without fanatics in them, can hold a flank on their own, cause nobody wants to have 2-4-6 fanatics smashing into him.

Also take advantage of their 2 for 1 deal, 4 spear chukkas for 140 points. ... cant beat that !

Animosity is tough, but you gotta live with it, evry army has its downside, elves cant take a punch, dwarves slow as molasses, undead go bye bye is general dies, chaos is super expensive, humans are crappy fighters..and so on. A good general plays to the strengths of its army and compensates for its weaknesses.

Kahadras
28-05-2008, 16:21
Orcs are fairly competitve IMHO. They won't win against a hardcore optimised list like you find doing the rounds at tournaments but then again few lists can. A couple of mates of mine play O&G and while they don't have a particularly stellar record they do win fairly regularly.

Kahadras

Embalmed
28-05-2008, 16:43
Hmmm I didn't think orcs were that bad, I've played against them a few times and I figured the animostity/waaagh thing played in OnGs favor + their units are strong and cheap + they have great diversity, but I'm a bit of a noob so I could be mistaken.

rev
28-05-2008, 17:06
I'm a hardcore tournament army player, and I win a lot.

lol - People who say this kind of thing crack me up.

Storak
28-05-2008, 21:01
I figured the animostity/waaagh thing played in OnGs favor

it does NOT.

Gralph!?!
28-05-2008, 22:04
personally i think orcs are a competative army, simplydue to the fact the units are tough, to kill with shields, have a fair few high strength attacks with choppas (4 str4 and 2 str5) and are dirty cheap as a unit of 20 with full command and shields only costs 150pts. now if you have 4 of those units a bunch of fast cav, a couple of chariots, some spear chukkas and trolls (i know, stupidity but aganst knights or infantry they dish out more attacks than a giant and can reliably kill things off)

i think the main issue with orc and goblin generals who say they are not competative aren't using them correctly. the best way they work is when you try not to use too many tactics and roll with the flow as if a unit of orcs gets wiped out, who cares since there are another 3 just like it. if you treat them as expendable then they will do you good. as you can charge wolf riders into a unit and take pot shoots at wizards, you can also get some pretty amusing results from a goblin shaman in a wolf rider unit, if you were to cast mork'll fix it then it becomes a very good hampering unit.

Shimmergloom
28-05-2008, 23:18
Trying playing them that way and see how well it works out for you.

No army can afford to give up 250Vp's at a clip the way you are suggesting with orcs.

Embalmed
29-05-2008, 09:17
it does NOT.

Well ok. In the games I played vs OnG it did, but that was only about a dozen.

From my perspective as an opponent I found that the fact that OnG could get a boost move was disruptive for me and often mean he could get the charge if I didn't play too cautiously.

It could be that from my opponents perspective the '1' results were more annoying and disruptive than I noticed however.

nikkcookie
29-05-2008, 09:23
ever seen a 2k orcs list with a lvl 4 shaman on wyvern, 2 lvl 2 shamans and a BSB then 2 big units of NG's 3 fanatics and nets etc. then 8 spear chukkas then a doom diver then a DOW cannon?.
scary tell me thats not competitive.

Storak
29-05-2008, 12:36
From my perspective as an opponent I found that the fact that OnG could get a boost move was disruptive for me and often mean he could get the charge if I didn't play too cautiously.

the rule in total is a disadvantage to the orcs. a roll of 6 gives an extra move of 1d6, while a roll of 1 removes a complete move, which on avearge will be significantly more.

but the main problem withbthe new animosity rules is the "bonus move", because it isn t any "boost" at all under many circumstances. the move must be made towards the closests visible enemy.
troops in woods and buildings and large targets can seriously mess up orcish formations. give it soem though, and your orcish enemy will soon join the camp of those who don t bother to call a waaagh...

Storak
29-05-2008, 12:41
ever seen a 2k orcs list with a lvl 4 shaman on wyvern, 2 lvl 2 shamans and a BSB then 2 big units of NG's 3 fanatics and nets etc. then 8 spear chukkas then a doom diver then a DOW cannon?.
scary tell me thats not competitive.

i don t think that DOW cannons should be factored into this.

the shaman on a wyvern is a completely useless and fragile 500 points model.

i see how people can claim that O&G are uber compettetive, when they lose against such an army...

lparigi34
29-05-2008, 14:29
About Animosisty ...Just yesterday...

We'll, I really think O&G lists are a bit dwarfed by the animosity rule. I've played quite a few times with different list and If I were given the option I'd choose not to use it.

Like yesterday... I've designed a list that just happened to be very competitive, two units of Savage Boar Boyz with heroes in them and plenty of fast cavalry and shooting support. Magic only for defensive purposes.

3rd turn and I managed to move the two savage boar units into my skaven enemy rear flank, ready to start the carnage when rolled one with one of the units that move directly forward up to the opposite table edge and facing away... that meant two turns doing nothing (aka Stupidity ;))...

I must admit that calling the Waaagh! on the general's unit (usually the only on that ends up moving :rolleyes: ) has given me turning points in few battles, but more than that I have been prevented from charging in critical moments or doing illogical/stupid moves like the one above described...

IMHO, to compensate the liabilty animosity means maybe succesfull charge declaring units should not check for it, or that calling the whaagh gives an additional +1 bonus and rolls of 1 become meaningless, or when calling the Waaagh! units roll two dice and pick the highest (listening the Orc general crying Waaagh! aloud shoud be enough to stop any unit from failing animosisty)

OTOH, I'm just talking about the Animosity/Waaagh! rule in an isolated way, that maybe, and just maybe with the all changes I suggest would make the Orcs too powerfull overall, but maybe OK with one or two of them, as the list as it is maybe is a bit underpowered, just a bit...

Chadjabdoul
29-05-2008, 16:18
I've been playing O&G for more than ten years now, and from all the comments I've read in this thread I mostly agree with gralph.
The army's randomness can make even the best plans come to pieces. With orcs one should avoid complex strategies and simply try to get their units into combat quickly. Your strategies should simply involve knowing what every unit does best (and give it one simple role to fulfill eg. these goblins are there to support these orcs, these hoppers are there to take out skirmishers etc.) and a well thought deployment.
With this in mind, those 6s in animosity can be helpfull.
On a side note, I have never played in a tournament, and a house rule we play by (ignore normal magic banner unit restrictions, and allow one magic banner in the army per lord -so 1 in 2000pts, 2 in 3000pts etc-, which can then be given to any units normally allowed a standard) tends to help out a lot

fubukii
29-05-2008, 16:27
I think orcs are fairly competitive. They may not be the strongest army by any means but i wouldnt say they are a weak army, or even a uncompetitive one. They have alot of tools and useful troops in their book.

A orc boy is a amazing 6pts with a choppah (+1str in first round) toughness 4, and 4+ save and ld7 (not to bad). That sure blows my 5 pt clanrat out of the water :P

As for the rest of the list waagh magic is decent, big waagh imo is better then the little version. Orc casters are very durable due to their high toughness, Orc bsbs are some of the best in the game if made a black orc (up there with dwarf and high elf bsbs, im discounting daemonic herald bsbs bc they are in their own league!) the spirit totem allows you to get great magic defense without using mages.

-black orc characters are great
- Fanactics are still very useful, as are nets
- Cheap bolt throwers great at killing big things like stanks ( a orc player at my store always runs 6 bolt throwers the local empire players hate playing him :))
- Squigs are a great unit
-black orcs while pricey are ok
- Pump wagons (ENOUGH SAID)
- can easily get us5 chariots for under 120 pts (take a cheap gob boss and mount him on a wolf chariot)

Shimmergloom
29-05-2008, 22:06
A orc boy is a amazing 6pts with a choppah (+1str in first round) toughness 4, and 4+ save and ld7 (not to bad). That sure blows my 5 pt clanrat out of the water :P

your 5pt clanrat has no animosity, characters who can lead from the back, strength in numbers and a smaller base.

You give up your LD8 from ranks and test for animosity and I'd let you field 4pt clanrats all day.

Gralph!?!
29-05-2008, 22:18
your 5pt clanrat has no animosity, characters who can lead from the back, strength in numbers and a smaller base.

You give up your LD8 from ranks and test for animosity and I'd let you field 4pt clanrats all day.

smaller base sizes do not make a whole lot of diferance, all it means is that against a unit of 7 knights or similiar sized bases 1 of them isn't going to attack and your wheel moves are slightly shorter. over all not a big differance.

the thing is though people are comparing the orcs to other armies and expecting them to be really obvious in what they do. well what is it they do best? oh yeah they are fairly good fighters for there points, ignore the initative and ws all that means is you hit on a 4 and go after most in second rounds. but to compensate (and help you when charged) you get your self toughness 4 and a 4+ save which is pretty tough to get through, thats as hard as beating up the standard dwarf thunderer. you have the down side which is animosity for the entire army, which isn't a down side, ok yes you may act stupid from game to game, but if you actually count how many times you roll a 1 for animosity during around 5-10 games and see how often you actually get it. i maybe get it around 2-4 times a game but i run around 10 units. of course there are times when half the army gets it but thats what happens you it is a game of chance.

my advice to see how orcs work the best, try looking at the units individually nd see how well each one performs. sometimes they are crap sometimes they kill all but each unit of orcs are still pretty hard by them selves and if you were to see them in a couple of one on one fights then you will see that. and when a unit or two run away then if it is a good list you will have around 2-3 left of basic orc units.

Shimmergloom
29-05-2008, 23:36
It's not so tough to get through T4 when nearly everything is S5 and S6 in the new books.

And bigger base sizes mean that 7 knights get to attack yes. How is that not a big deal? And bigger base sizes mean that you have less room to manuevor all your units. How is that not a big deal? And bigger base sizes give your units a much larger profile for templates to aim at and to hit. How is that not a big deal?

2-4 times a game? You know that's not right. We can't chalk up your personal experiences with what actually happens to every other player. You can only talk averages. And if you have 10 units then on average you should fail 1.7 per turn and 10.2 per game. Not 2-4 times. And when you are paying through the nose for boar boyz or big'uns then you cannot afford to have them sitting around and when you are paying 220pts for a unit of night goblins w/nets and fanatics and command, then you can't afford for them to sit around either.

The main problem with animosity is that greenskins are suppose to get a pts discount on their units because of animosity, but they no longer get that, instead they get a points increase and worse animosity rules.

Gralph!?!
29-05-2008, 23:49
you aready have dirt cheap units that are still fairly hard, the fact that you can get an extra boost in movement more than makes up for it, as having one of your units suddenly legging it forward which is a big boon in the army as it can give you a sudden charge.

the base sizes do not make much of a differance, if you play on a 4x4ft board then it will, a whole lot but on a 6x4 board then not a massive differance. besides the way you are aming it sound, it makes it feel as if by having larger bases the orcs are more suseptable to shooting, which is the same for pretty much all infantry as shooting takes them all out rther happily. for example a stone thrower will hit LESS orcs than elves with there smaller bases.

not EVERYTHING is strength 5 or 6 in the newer books, some things are yes but not everything, and how often do you see them? sword masters, white lions, chariots and dragon princes on the charge in high elves, vampires havecharacters, the varghulf and cairn wraiths as well as blood knights which are strength 5 basic. the daemons have khorne stuff at strength 5. yeah it really is EVERYTHING that has it all. but remember, all of those things are expensive, you are not, if you are able to use your orcs in an expendable way a whole bunch of new tactics become available.

and why make goblins or orcs expensive? kinda defeats the purpose of a horde army doesn't it? the way i have found the army to be very effective is by having lots of cheap blocks of infantry, in 2000pts i have 3-4 blocks of 20 orc boys with shields and 2 choppas (3 shields, 1 with extra choppas, a block of 30 night gobbos and a unit of 15 black orcs, along with 3 fast cavalry units, a boar chariot, some squig herds,s a few hoppers, spear chukkas and a few characters. alot of this stuff is expendable to get me the kills i need to win as in the end, i cost basicly nothing compard to the opponent.

i would love to see the results of people using the orcs in such a way to get them to see the light of basic units of orcs with minimal upgrades instead of this big'un noncence and boarboy crap.

Shimmergloom
30-05-2008, 00:32
you aready have dirt cheap units that are still fairly hard,

no they don't. And they aren't so dirt cheap anymore.


the fact that you can get an extra boost in movement more than makes up for it, as having one of your units suddenly legging it forward which is a big boon in the army as it can give you a sudden charge.

which also means you can find your units wheeling in front of your own units and messing up your battleline and charge arcs. Read the rules.




the base sizes do not make much of a differance, if you play on a 4x4ft board then it will, a whole lot but on a 6x4 board then not a massive differance. besides the way you are aming it sound, it makes it feel as if by having larger bases the orcs are more suseptable to shooting, which is the same for pretty much all infantry as shooting takes them all out rther happily. for example a stone thrower will hit LESS orcs than elves with there smaller bases.

It's a bigger target to aim at. 5x5 inches is bigger than 4x4 inches. This is a simple thing to understand.



not EVERYTHING is strength 5 or 6 in the newer books, some things are yes but not everything, and how often do you see them? sword masters, white lions, chariots and dragon princes on the charge in high elves, vampires havecharacters, the varghulf and cairn wraiths as well as blood knights which are strength 5 basic. the daemons have khorne stuff at strength 5. yeah it really is EVERYTHING that has it all. but remember, all of those things are expensive, you are not, if you are able to use your orcs in an expendable way a whole bunch of new tactics become available.

oh come on. You can not use orcs in an expendable fashion. You cannot give up 250-280VPs with the captured standard willy nilly. You cannot let your orcs get chewed up by magic and shooting and panic and panic nearby goblins in the process as if it were meaningless. When an entire army book had nearly every unit and character go up in points cost and has animosity that became worse than before, then you have far fewer units available than before and far fewer units that you can just use as expendable.


and why make goblins or orcs expensive? kinda defeats the purpose of a horde army doesn't it?

This is exactly what GW did!

They made every core unit more expensive other than the basic orc and snotlings. And black orcs, and all 4 types of boar boyz and stone trolls and every orc and black orc character. The army cost went up across the board while the animosity rules became worse than before.


the way i have found the army to be very effective is by having lots of cheap blocks of infantry, in 2000pts i have 3-4 blocks of 20 orc boys with shields and 2 choppas (3 shields, 1 with extra choppas, a block of 30 night gobbos and a unit of 15 black orcs, along with 3 fast cavalry units, a boar chariot, some squig herds,s a few hoppers, spear chukkas and a few characters. alot of this stuff is expendable to get me the kills i need to win as in the end, i cost basicly nothing compard to the opponent.

dude, you didn't invent the wheel on this. Everyone tries this. But all those little points values add up. And in the end you find that you gave up a lot of small vps but lost the game because you did not claim as much in return.

And the black orcs are a huge juicy target for anyone to take out and mop up mass VPs.

You can't just expend 100's of VPs like that at a clip and not feel it at the end of the game.



i would love to see the results of people using the orcs in such a way to get them to see the light of basic units of orcs with minimal upgrades instead of this big'un noncence and boarboy crap.

Well let's look at orcs w/full command and shields, 25 strong. 5 or 6 wide, your choice. 180pts.

12 Swordsmasters 6 wide w/standard and musician. 198pts.

orcs outnumber more than 2:1. 12 swordsmaster attacks hit 9 times, wound 6 times. Orcs save 1. 5 dead orcs. Assuming you did not target the boss, then whether they are 5 or 6 wide, there's only the boss striking back. 1 hit, 1 wound.

Orcs lose 7-6. Test on 6, 50% shot they are running. And if they don't, then you are going to lose 5 orcs at a clip, which you cannot afford to have happen.

The only shot orcs have is for the HE player to flub his rolls. And that's not army balance.

Gralph!?!
30-05-2008, 01:11
no they don't. And they aren't so dirt cheap anymore.

i am looking at it on the point of view of what everyone else has, my uniits cost alot less than most of the core units in other armies and thus they are cheaper than the others. i am not comparing them to the old rules as in a competative style which is what people are wanting to know about, then there is pretty much no relavance to the old army book at all.


which also means you can find your units wheeling in front of your own units and messing up your battleline and charge arcs. Read the rules.

i know the rules, rather well at that but it has never been a real issue with my units, i spread them apart just enough so they will not bugger about with my battle line.


It's a bigger target to aim at. 5x5 inches is bigger than 4x4 inches. This is a simple thing to understand.

in a competative scenario, it is a pretty safe assumption that people will be able to aim acuratly at you easily, since getting the correct distances are in actuality a little mathematics.


oh come on. You can not use orcs in an expendable fashion. You cannot give up 250-280VPs with the captured standard willy nilly. You cannot let your orcs get chewed up by magic and shooting and panic and panic nearby goblins in the process as if it were meaningless. When an entire army book had nearly every unit and character go up in points cost and has animosity that became worse than before, then you have far fewer units available than before and far fewer units that you can just use as expendable.

except i do with fairly good results. think about it, it is effectivly the same as them destroying a unit in the shooting phase as if it goes according to plan you can easily get the enemy to moveinto a bad position for you to beat them in and regain the banner and theres and if you keep the orcs cheap like they are then it is a worthy sacrifice in my eyes.


This is exactly what GW did!

They made every core unit more expensive other than the basic orc and snotlings. And black orcs, and all 4 types of boar boyz and stone trolls and every orc and black orc character. The army cost went up across the board while the animosity rules became worse than before.

by making a unit of 20 orcs cost around 20 more points, whoop de doo, comparing an extra increase in the points to include the animosty which is both good and bad (yes it does suck when you stand there dithering but early games you often get your self in a good position when you get a 6 as you have to see something and move towards it, that is all, yes scouts and stuff can screw you over but then again you can screw them over if they are close enough to charge.


dude, you didn't invent the wheel on this. Everyone tries this. But all those little points values add up. And in the end you find that you gave up a lot of small vps but lost the game because you did not claim as much in return.

And the black orcs are a huge juicy target for anyone to take out and mop up mass VPs.

i use those as i like the models, they are good in combat and i couldn't face painting up another normal 30 orcs.

You can't just expend 100's of VPs like that at a clip and not feel it at the end of the game.

eh? do you think that i sacrifice everything in order to win? i don't i use my things wisely and thus so should the other orc players, charge if you have a chance of winning, if it will allow you to disrupt the enemy units or even if it is a pot shot attack on a character you want dead. in the end, i will rather have a 65pt unit of wolf rider killed to disrupt a scary unit rather than letting them get at me full strength or on there terms, if they can get the opponent to over run or persue so that i get the advantage of charging or what ever (hell even if they flee that is good enough as it keeps them out of the game longer) as in the end i would prefer a 71pt unit but if i can do this with orcs for the same effect then i will do it, why? cause i have confidence that i can beat said unit and take there banner and mine back.



Well let's look at orcs w/full command and shields, 25 strong. 5 or 6 wide, your choice. 180pts.

12 Swordsmasters 6 wide w/standard and musician. 198pts.

orcs outnumber more than 2:1. 12 swordsmaster attacks hit 9 times, wound 6 times. Orcs save 1. 5 dead orcs. Assuming you did not target the boss, then whether they are 5 or 6 wide, there's only the boss striking back. 1 hit, 1 wound.

Orcs lose 7-6. Test on 6, 50% shot they are running. And if they don't, then you are going to lose 5 orcs at a clip, which you cannot afford to have happen.

The only shot orcs have is for the HE player to flub his rolls. And that's not army balance.

how much will you out number them by? i have played my friends high elf army with my orcs before and i had a good deal of success against him with it, i killed a dragonmage with wolf riders then broke the dragon and ran it down. he still killed 2 dogs first but i still killed it. white lions that he used are scary but they also died, in the end a high elf army has lack of numbers and suffer from such things, i haven't fought dragon princes yet but again if i hold for a single round of combat i can cause alot of damage in return since the orcs have something that others do not get easily, numbers and ranks.


while yes you do bring up some valid points i can't really see your logic that orcs are the complete rubbish you saythey are. i have tried to use orcs in a tactical fashion before, and got pissed off with animosity rolls and crapy leadership while when i changed my view in that putting orcs in dangerous situations (but not handing the victory points over like you seem to think) then i have had alot more luck. think about it, putting an orc unit in a possibly close enough range for the enemy to charge, flee as a response as if they catch you ii am pretty sure they do not get your banner as you must beat them in combat for that only. in doing so it can create good oppertunities to get to the enemy.

letslook at that mathmatically, i am potentially throwing 150 VPs to my opponent to get them in a position to kill off one of there units. which will cost alot more and more importantly hurt there army a whole lot more since most other armies have around 7 units and sometimes some artillery (my experiance of 2000pt games) as well. not a lot while i have around 12-15 units on the board.

bufordbugman
30-05-2008, 02:18
I agree with Shimmergloom for the most part: the large bases do matter, and the comparison with Clanrats is not at all favorable to the orcs when you consider the rats' leadership bonus from ranks, lack of animosity, speed, and initiative. It is true that the new book gave the orcs a nice bump with respect to the choppa: now it gives you the +1 strength the first round and still gets hand weapon/shield bonus, plus orc magic weapons got cheaper. And not all orc units got more expense: basic Trolls actually got cheaper (though their stupidity still makes them borderline unplayable).

But all that does not make up for the uncontrollability of animosity, the big price bump on Boar Boyz, and other problems that have been mentioned.

Not an uncompetitive army - I'd give O&G the edge over, say, Ogres or Dark Elves in general use - but not one of the stronger armies.

fubukii
30-05-2008, 02:50
animosity is as much a good thing as a bad thing u have just as good a chance to move extra inches as failing it, and once per game you can add ur rank bonus to the test.

btw lead from the back is a ok rule but hardly used (bc our characters our worhtless back there no los, except maybe a grey seer who has no los spells). Toughness 4 and str 4 for sacraficing +1mv and some in? seems like more then a fair trade.

bufordbugman
30-05-2008, 03:43
animosity is as much a good thing as a bad thing u have just as good a chance to move extra inches as failing it, and once per game you can add ur rank bonus to the test.

btw lead from the back is a ok rule but hardly used (bc our characters our worhtless back there no los, except maybe a grey seer who has no los spells). Toughness 4 and str 4 for sacraficing +1mv and some in? seems like more then a fair trade.

I agree on lead from the back. But, as has been pointed out above, the cost of a "1" on animosity far, far exceeds the gain of an extra d6 inches aimed at the nearest opponent - sometime you don't want that d6", and you NEVER want the 1!

Shimmergloom
30-05-2008, 04:24
Not an uncompetitive army - I'd give O&G the edge over, say, Ogres or Dark Elves in general use - but not one of the stronger armies.

They are around 11-12th out of the 15-17 armies(if you count CD and DoW).

The problem is that out of those 4 or 5 armies worse than them, DE will be getting a new book very soon, as will Mortals soon and Beasts will get one in about a year probably. So that will only drop them down even further in the months to come. Leaving really only ogres and maybe DoW as lower.

Avian
30-05-2008, 10:22
I agree on lead from the back. But, as has been pointed out above, the cost of a "1" on animosity far, far exceeds the gain of an extra d6 inches aimed at the nearest opponent - sometime you don't want that d6", and you NEVER want the 1!
Well, my Boyz tend to be lead by Black Orcs, so that 1 on the Animosity result is not a biggie.

And don't forget that greenskins get the Size Matters rule, which in my opinion outweighs the disadvantage you get from Animosity.

Urgat
30-05-2008, 13:53
Well, my Boyz tend to be lead by Black Orcs, so that 1 on the Animosity result is not a biggie.

One of these blorc bosses managed to kill 15 boyz in one of my battles... It's a nasty rule, which was not necessary.

woytek
30-05-2008, 13:58
One of these blorc bosses managed to kill 15 boyz in one of my battles... It's a nasty rule, which was not necessary.

So what? If they squable for four turns in the game they are useless anyway. I can live with a few dead orcs.

Storak
30-05-2008, 14:06
Well, my Boyz tend to be lead by Black Orcs, so that 1 on the Animosity result is not a biggie.

i have serious doubts that they factored in the points killed by your own Black Orcs, when the current animosity rule was developted.


And don't forget that greenskins get the Size Matters rule, which in my opinion outweighs the disadvantage you get from Animosity.

it is a nice rule, but i don t think that it even outweights the disadvantages caused by the "positive" animosity effect of rolling a 6.

Storak
30-05-2008, 14:17
So what? If they squable for four turns in the game they are useless anyway. I can live with a few dead orcs.

this is part of the problem! we all include the black orc, because the unit is even worse without him!

as i outlined in the "power up orcs" discussion, orcs are barely better tha empire swordsmen. and if you include losing 15 to your own black orc, they obviously aren t!

there are major problems in the O&G list. a single look at the black knights in the new vampire book and our poor boar boys should be enough...

fubukii
30-05-2008, 15:36
One of these blorc bosses managed to kill 15 boyz in one of my battles... It's a nasty rule, which was not necessary.

i once killed 27 slaves and 33 clanrats with a plague cast by my own grey seer! granted i also killed 10 ironbreakers but still :(

Storak
30-05-2008, 16:23
i once killed 27 slaves and 33 clanrats with a plague cast by my own grey seer! granted i also killed 10 ironbreakers but still :(

a very good comparison, as you are forced to cast pestilence, as your seer risks doing nothing at all if you don t cast that spell!

Malorian
30-05-2008, 16:26
One of these blorc bosses managed to kill 15 boyz in one of my battles... It's a nasty rule, which was not necessary.

Ya but how many boyz would you have lost if had done nothing? How many more enemies were you able to kill?

fubukii
30-05-2008, 16:37
a very good comparison, as you are forced to cast pestilence, as your seer risks doing nothing at all if you don t cast that spell!

I sense the sarcasm in your thread, but actually if you dont roll warped lightning as one of your spells you are pretty much forced to cast plague.

Lets recap the skaven spells
SKitterleap - can be useful from time to time
Warped lightning - great but back fires sometimes
Vermintide - iffy overal only good vs the lightest of targets.
Pest breath - horrible
death frenzy - can be useful sometimes
Plague - great but back fires sometimes

So yes if i planned on using my power dice that my grey seer generate i was pretty much forced to cast plague. as i had skitterleap, plague, pest breath, and death frenzy leaving me with 1 spell that was really effective vs the dwarves.

Gralph!?!
30-05-2008, 17:14
one thing that i do with my orcs is that i will have the spread out enough so that the animosity will not screw my other units up but in the end if it happens, it happens. i personally think that if the orcs are kept cheap then they will not hamper the army as whole. a single unit squabbling should not destroy the army as some seem to think will happen.

lparigi34
30-05-2008, 18:37
one thing that i do with my orcs is that i will have the spread out enough so that the animosity will not screw my other units up but in the end if it happens, it happens. i personally think that if the orcs are kept cheap then they will not hamper the army as whole. a single unit squabbling should not destroy the army as some seem to think will happen.

But this limits the comp to multiple cheap unit armies.

Sometimes I ran a 10 man boar Boyz unit led by a BO. I quite a few battles the BO himself killed more than half the unit. So the unit was too expensive to be led-killed by a BO Boss, but then is Special, so it is not that you can have many to counterweight the factor of the animosity rule.

So, Boar armies are kind of prohibitive now. Still I take them and can say I lived with it, but as I said before, IMO the list is a bit dwarfed when compared to others and particularly to the newer Vampires.

Finally, the conclusion may seem that core Orc / Gobbo horde type armies are the most effective ones (Orcy speaking), supported by non-animosity sufferers found in special & rare choices... Still, not that anoy of them can be considered reliable :rolleyes:

Urgat
30-05-2008, 19:18
So what? If they squable for four turns in the game they are useless anyway. I can live with a few dead orcs.


They can take a charge, they can hold quarters, they can do something. 23 orcs (plus noss on boar) -15 orcs is just a liability. So what, you say? I killed half my unit because I rolled three 1, so what? Lol, whatever. And that was in three turns, not four, btw.

So, in reply to Storak, no "we" don't all field a blorc, because "we" don't all believe that the unit is worse w/o. My units are better off waiting for each other rather than spontaneously bursting by themselves.

Gralph!?!
30-05-2008, 23:39
indeed the black orc leading units while an amusing though is still an ultimatly pointless undertaking as it will then destroy the unit it leads if you roll a 1, when that happens you will lose your advantages of static combat res. oh and a black orc leading a big unit of boar boys...... all i can say about that is that serves you right, ORC UNITS ARE BEST CHEAP. screw all the upgrades to make them big uns, screw boar boys, screw all of that stuff when the core choices in the army a far harder and can do the tactical stuff and things better.

decker_cky
30-05-2008, 23:49
On average, a black orc boss will kill about 2 orcs per game with his animosity protection if they don't start any turns in combat. I hardly think it's as bad as you guys make it out to be. You lose far more tactical flexibility with a failed animosity than with the 12 points you killed because of a black orc boss.

decker_cky
31-05-2008, 00:02
They can take a charge, they can hold quarters, they can do something. 23 orcs (plus noss on boar) -15 orcs is just a liability. So what, you say? I killed half my unit because I rolled three 1, so what? Lol, whatever. And that was in three turns, not four, btw.

You rolled 3 animosities, and got more wounds than you should've averaged rolling 6 for the number of hits on the unit all three turns. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to have a single unit of archers cause those casualties against you over 3 turns than for that to happen.

woytek
31-05-2008, 06:45
indeed the black orc leading units while an amusing though is still an ultimatly pointless undertaking as it will then destroy the unit it leads if you roll a 1, when that happens you will lose your advantages of static combat res. oh and a black orc leading a big unit of boar boys...... all i can say about that is that serves you right, ORC UNITS ARE BEST CHEAP. screw all the upgrades to make them big uns, screw boar boys, screw all of that stuff when the core choices in the army a far harder and can do the tactical stuff and things better.

Like decker_cky said, you make the BO quell animosity rule look worse then it is. It keeps your orcs moving and doesn't do that many casualties on the average. I can't afford to have my main center units squabbling because the orcs NEED to get to the enemy. If a unit squabbles at turn 1 or 2, it is pretty much useless unless cavalry.

I agree, basic orcs with shields are superb. Low cost and nice stats. Can hold a charge and deal some damage at the same time. The boss option is especially nice with his higher stats and he can always strike.

But I do use Savage Orc Boar Boyz Big'Uns! Why? Cause they rock every other unit in the game. Sure six of them cost me 230 points or so, I could get another orc unit from that. But the orc unit doesn't break most enemy units on charge, and my boar boyz do! They are ItP which is just awesome for heavy cav. They hit dead hard and can move 14 inch. Many times they have killed most of the units in the battle.

Shimmergloom
31-05-2008, 19:27
On average, a black orc boss will kill about 2 orcs per game with his animosity protection if they don't start any turns in combat. I hardly think it's as bad as you guys make it out to be. You lose far more tactical flexibility with a failed animosity than with the 12 points you killed because of a black orc boss.

Which also basically means you can only put your black orc character in basic orcs or goblin units(if you really want to waste him).

Cause you can't afford 2-4 dead big'uns, savages, boar boyz of any type.

So again it is a horrible rule. Just because you on average should only lose 2-3 basic orcs or 4 goblins, does not make this a good rule.

They took the black orc big boss, decreased his strength, took away the old quell rule and an extra hero slot and gave him the horrible new quell rule and the near useless armed to the teeth and raised his cost by 5pts.

For 85pts, he should be S5, with armed to the teeth and at worst do D3 S5 hits instead of D6. Then you might have use for him in other units.

And for black orc warlords, they should make the unit they are in, immune to animosity. Make them 155pts with no armed to the teeth if need be. Armed to the teeth on the warlord is again pretty useless and should be an upgrade instead of standard.

Shamfrit
31-05-2008, 21:56
Armed To Da Teef is possibly the best rule going for Black Orcs. You've got two hand weapons, and a Great Weapon, as well as one weapon and a shield for a measly what, 2 bob? How many other characters have that flexibility as a base?

Not to mention, putting your big scary Leadership totting boss on a boar to flank with Boar Boyz? You're debating the usefulness of a rule based entirely on wasting two hundred points in a unit that already packs an extreme amount of (if somewhat expensive) punch?

Next time your shaman's unit rolls a 1 when you need to cast a spell that can change the game, or a unit that needs to MAKE IT'S CHARGE or it's game over. Go ahead and try and tell me why Quell Animosity wasn't a good choice? Because it will happen, at some point. And I find putting one in a large unit of 30 or more goblins to be a very effective combat boost as well as making certain one combat unit can move, absolutely without fail.

Jabroniville
01-06-2008, 05:49
I don't really view Orcs as non-competitive. Honestly, they have a lot of drawbacks (most of which are obvious- Animosity, Low leadership in the base troops, etc.), but their strengths make them pretty scary to face: Cheap troops, GOOD base troops (a basic Orc Boy with a Shield is REALLY tough in the first round of combat, and can be fielded in 25-30-man units easily), devastating hammer units (Savage Orc Boar Boys, Black Orcs), etc. I guess since they can't really wield a full-on beardy "All of one type of unit" army they can be viewed as being on the weaker side, and they CAN screw their whole battle plan on a bad turn of Animosity, but when they DO work, they're terrifying.

Storak
01-06-2008, 06:59
Armed To Da Teef is possibly the best rule going for Black Orcs. You've got two hand weapons, and a Great Weapon, as well as one weapon and a shield for a measly what, 2 bob? How many other characters have that flexibility as a base?

as i said above, i wonder what sort of people make the rather unexplainable choices in the poll above.

black orcs lost the ability to QUELL ANIMOSITY over 6". they went up 3 points in cost. (two hand weapons and great weapon cost 2 points each) they pay for armed to the teeth, and no serious player would get it, if he had the option not to!

it is even more useless for black orc characters, as they will ride a boar 90% of the time.

armed to da teef is either one of many balancing errors in the book, or an obvious attempt to make BOs more expensive and giving them a small benefit for it.

Storak
01-06-2008, 07:05
(a basic Orc Boy with a Shield is REALLY tough in the first round of combat, and can be fielded in 25-30-man units easily),

uhm, yes. they will win (first round of) combat versus a unit of empire swordsmen by 0.5 points.
and they pay for this by having the animosity rule!

so let me rephrase your sentence:
a basic Orc Boy with a Shield is NEARLY as good as an empire swordsmen, but will be worse in prolonged combat!

(the real advantage of the orcs is T4 vs shooting)

woytek
01-06-2008, 10:01
I can now have a BSB on boar with a magic banner (can you guess which one? ;) ) and great weapon giving him +1 strength. That is thanks to Armed to da Teef.

Sure, you might not always need the rule. But if you are going to whine about 2 points on a character..... whooptydoo! another snotling yeah!

The rule is perfect on the black orcs though. Only reason I do not field them that often is their lack of speed. I like my support troups faster like chariots and SOBB.

Urgat
01-06-2008, 10:08
You rolled 3 animosities, and got more wounds than you should've averaged rolling 6 for the number of hits on the unit all three turns. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to have a single unit of archers cause those casualties against you over 3 turns than for that to happen.

Maybe, but those archers would be enemies killing me, not myself killing me.
If I wanted to play based on averages, I wouldn't play orcs. Then again, your averages are wrong, since you assume there's an equal chance of rolling any face, which I don't believe is true (the dots are drilled in, so, if you ask me, even if it's a fraction of gramme, the 1 face is heavier, no?), it doesn't take into account frictions of the table and countless other facts, I suppose.
Anyway, the thing is, it can wipe out a unit in three turns, it shouldn't, that's way overkill. Fluff has (had? the blorc entry in the webstore says otherwise now...) blorcs dealing with problems with headbutts, not with full choppa swings. Was it too weak to resolve quell animosity with the boss unmodified A and S, hitting auto?

Quell animosity belongs to my "hate" trio (waaagh, 6 on animosity, and quell).

As for the topic itself, my gobs are competitive enough, as long as I don't face too much shooting ( the rather impressive army size reduction between 6th and 7th ed ais not too gunline friendly...), and that, w/o blorcs :p

Shamfrit
01-06-2008, 11:03
You have noticed, that a Black Orcs head is considerably larger and heavier and thicker than all the other orcs and goblins around him. It's effectively a mace, more than enough to do damage, especially when covered in metal and spikes!

Urgat
01-06-2008, 13:46
Yeah, I'm wondering why they even bother with choppas, they make more damage with their heads >> fanatics, I laught at thee! Btw, ever realized getting a 1 during a waaagh = free 6th edition fanatic impact for ya? I say 6th because they don't cancel saves anymore, heh. Such wonderful rules.

woytek
01-06-2008, 13:48
Well I guess a unit of goblins CAN withstand a charge from 10 chosen chaos knights of Khorne. But I would not count on it. Same for the quell animosity, yes it can wipe out an entire unit. But no, I would not count on it. And a D6 not fair? Oh come on, be serious! Too small weight differences for it to be unfair.

It is a nice rule to make sure your units move and although I agree it could be D3 hits or at least strength 4, it works fine.

I have the feeling you are playing the wrong army, maybe? The waaagh is a nice rule, although deadly to heavy cavalry.

Jabroniville
02-06-2008, 06:57
uhm, yes. they will win (first round of) combat versus a unit of empire swordsmen by 0.5 points.
and they pay for this by having the animosity rule!

so let me rephrase your sentence:
a basic Orc Boy with a Shield is NEARLY as good as an empire swordsmen, but will be worse in prolonged combat!

(the real advantage of the orcs is T4 vs shooting)


There's a bunch more advantages as well. The obvious bonuses (Strength 4 & Toughness 4 in round one, 4+ Armour Save) are mixed with stuff like: The "Waaaaugh" rule (which, unless you explode in that round, often can mean a successful charge), Immune to Goblin Panic (Swordsmen are certainly NOT Immune to the panic of other Empire units, unless they're detachments), the likelihood of being in a unit of 25 Boyz along with at least another unit beside them, and the fact that Orcs tend of have much fightier characters in the ranks of generic foot infantry units than Empire players tend to (they'd probably rather stick them in Greatswords, Knights, etc.).

They're not perfect, but they're among the best 6-7 point single model units in the game, bang-for-buck-wise.

I really don't get the whole "WAAAHHHH! My army SUCKS!" mentality alot of Orc players (and others) are bringing to the table. It's like people aren't actually playing with or against some of these 'beardy' uber-armies they're talking about, and just talking about the possibilities. I've seen High Elves and their much-ballyhooed ASF rules mean diddly against armies, and I'm sure once my friend builds his Vampire Counts army, they won't be the absolute guaranteed death of my armies. If Orcs are non-competitive, then why do they outnumber and out-flank almost everyone else out there? I'm hardly an expert player, but even I pull off at least two good flank charges a GAME simply because I out-weigh the opponent by a great amount. Rolling a handful of 1s can ruin your entire battle plan (though I still find it hilarious when my 10-man unit of Goblin Wolf Riders blows down into 4 models on the "Waaaaugh!" turn :)), but it's a small price to pay for 12-point excellent Fast Cavalry, 7-point excellent disposable mob units of Boyz, 3-4 point Goblins with nasty traps in the units, etc.

Storak
02-06-2008, 20:11
There's a bunch more advantages as well. The obvious bonuses (Strength 4 & Toughness 4 in round one, 4+ Armour Save) are mixed with stuff like:

ok, let us start with this. the empire swordmen have an advantage in WS and in INI. they have the SAME 4+ save. and as i told you above, this great "advantages" mean, that the orcs win combat on average by 0.5 points (0.5 points!)


The "Waaaaugh" rule (which, unless you explode in that round, often can mean a successful charge),

it is a 2 in 3 chance for an extra move in a direction, perhaps directed by your enemy. it is a 1 in 6 chance to suffer d6 WOUNDS.

even if you roll a 6 once and calla waaagh, and by your opponents stupidity, your unit moves into a desired direction, you will still lose 1 inch of movement, because you will roll a 1 as well on average!
and this is MUCH worse for cav, who only benefit from waaagh on a 6, and will suffer d6 expensive casualties on a 1!


Immune to Goblin Panic (Swordsmen are certainly NOT Immune to the panic of other Empire units, unless they're detachments),

actually, the detachment immunity is basically EXACTLY THE SAME RULE!
and we have NOT factored in any other advantage offered by the deatchment rule!


the likelihood of being in a unit of 25 Boyz along with at least another unit beside them, and the fact that Orcs tend of have much fightier characters in the ranks of generic foot infantry units than Empire players tend to (they'd probably rather stick them in Greatswords, Knights, etc.).

wow, this one is funny. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM!

empire does NOT use swordmen in big numbers as game winners, even though they are basically AS GOOD AS orcs!

they use units (and put chatrs in other units) that they consider to be BETTER than swordmen (and that for orcs!)


They're not perfect, but they're among the best 6-7 point single model units in the game, bang-for-buck-wise.

they cost the same as the swordmen, that is why i did the comparison!

Urgat
02-06-2008, 20:25
Well I guess a unit of goblins CAN withstand a charge from 10 chosen chaos knights of Khorne. But I would not count on it. Same for the quell animosity, yes it can wipe out an entire unit. But no, I would not count on it. And a D6 not fair? Oh come on, be serious! Too small weight differences for it to be unfair.

It is a nice rule to make sure your units move and although I agree it could be D3 hits or at least strength 4, it works fine.

Nah, I don't care about the D6, I mind the S5, and especially the non blorc, waagh version which cancels saves as well. I didn't know my gobs could hit that hard.



I have the feeling you are playing the wrong army, maybe? The waaagh is a nice rule, although deadly to heavy cavalry.

No, when I started playing them, it wasn't like that, mind you. I don't care so much anymore anyway, I've tried it four times, it went well once, I've never used it again since then. Well, most of the time I don't field orcs anyway, so the rule is simply useless for me, to boot (the goblin voices don't waaagh properly, what the hell? >>)
Geez, I don't like a couple rules, and I'm not playing the right army? There must be a lot of people like me who don't play the right army, between the ones who cry about the nerfed raiders, the nerfed chaos warriors, the nerfed men at arms, the nerfed ratlings, the... k, I'll stop there. You know, people complain about the rules of their armies because, well, it's their armies. You'll rarely find someone complaining about another army's rules, unless it is to say it's too good (dunno, like ASF?).

sephiroth87
02-06-2008, 21:29
wow, this one is funny. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM!

empire does NOT use swordmen in big numbers as game winners, even though they are basically AS GOOD AS orcs!

they use units (and put chatrs in other units) that they consider to be BETTER than swordmen (and that for orcs!)

Who is this "they?" Which players use units they consider better than swordsmen? I know a lot of players that swear by swordsmen and will put a character on a horse in the unit. One of the tournament players from warhammer-empire.com (I think that's the site) put characters in the unit BEFORE the 7th edition rules came out and usually won with it.

I put a fighty character in my orc unit the same way as I put a fighty character in my saurus unit, and strangely enough, the same way I put an exalted champ in my marauders. Hmmm...I put thralls in my skeleton units, and even have captains in my pikemen. Other players that play locally with me do the same and tournaments I've been to have been similar.

Kahadras
02-06-2008, 21:41
they cost the same as the swordmen, that is why i did the comparison!

Comparing unit for unit isn't the best way forward IMHO. I just don't get why some people get so upset about O&G. The last time I checked they were still performing well in tournaments with an even spread of O&G players on the scoreboard of the last UKGT. If it was as bad as some people make out O&G wouldn't finnish anywhere bar dead last.

While the list isn't the best it still has fairly solid choices. OK it won't do so well against a dedicate power gaming army or an army that's been specificaly designed to beat O&G but then again most armies struggle against these types of 'builds'.

Kahadras

Heretic Burner
02-06-2008, 22:23
The last time I checked they were still performing well in tournaments with an even spread of O&G players on the scoreboard of the last UKGT.

I am not sure what year you last checked but the 7th edition O&G army book is currently the very worst performing army in the game. Statistically the book is vastly underperforming than the expected value of a balanced army. The available sample size is monumental, there can be little doubt O&G fall outside the expected values for the balance I imagine most players would like to see.


If it was as bad as some people make out O&G wouldn't finnish anywhere bar dead last.

Nobody is suggesting the book will force the army to lose every game. However, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the book has significantly crippled the O&G chances of earning battle points in tournament settings with respect to every other army in the game. It is performing last of all armies in the game. Dead last. And not by a small margin.

Clearly the book needs major work. Will GW stay in business long enough for us to ever see the much needed changes? I'm not sure.

EvC
02-06-2008, 22:35
Sadly Kahadras is dead wrong. Orcs and Goblins did extremely poor at the last UKGT. At the Heat I was at several Orc players did indeed qualify, hurrah! They qualified solely through having some of the best painted armies, however. None placed highly. And few took the army to the final (And fewer did well). There is one build that is doing well in general, a Black Orc Warboss on Wyvern, but generally that is because this build ignores animosity on the most important model plus takes advantage of a wonderful loophole (Hide behind hill, call Waaagh!, charge something that thought it couldn't be seen in your opponent's last turn). But every other Orc and Goblin army? Pure fodder.

Kahadras
02-06-2008, 22:46
Sadly Kahadras is dead wrong.

That's odd in the heat that I was viewing over 10 O&G players ended up in the top half of the table.


I am not sure what year you last checked but the 7th edition O&G army book is currently the very worst performing army in the game. Statistically the book is vastly underperforming than the expected value of a balanced army. The available sample size is monumental, there can be little doubt O&G fall outside the expected values for the balance I imagine most players would like to see.


Well as I pointed out the UKGT heat results (which can be found on this site somewhere) points to the fact that O&G can rank higher than half way up the leaderboard.


Nobody is suggesting the book will force the army to lose every game. However, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the book has significantly crippled the O&G chances of earning battle points in tournament settings with respect to every other army in the game. It is performing last of all armies in the game. Dead last. And not by a small margin.

Clearly the book needs major work. Will GW stay in business long enough for us to ever see the much needed changes? I'm not sure.

So the army is a challenge to use in tournaments then. So what? IMHO when you say 'needs major work' you mean 'needs to be as broken as the other top tier armies'. Seen as most games of Warhammer happen outside of tournaments then there seems little cause for the amount of concern generated. The only people I think would be really upset by the latest armies book are those O&G players who fielded a 'competitive list' with the old book and solely went to tournaments.

Kahadras

Shimmergloom
03-06-2008, 04:53
Sadly Kahadras is dead wrong. Orcs and Goblins did extremely poor at the last UKGT. At the Heat I was at several Orc players did indeed qualify, hurrah! They qualified solely through having some of the best painted armies, however. None placed highly. And few took the army to the final (And fewer did well). There is one build that is doing well in general, a Black Orc Warboss on Wyvern, but generally that is because this build ignores animosity on the most important model plus takes advantage of a wonderful loophole (Hide behind hill, call Waaagh!, charge something that thought it couldn't be seen in your opponent's last turn). But every other Orc and Goblin army? Pure fodder.

That's about the sum of it. The wyvern build and shamans in chariots builds seem to be the only thing that is remotely working and those army builds are much smaller armies than an orc and goblin army should be.

Which is pretty sad.

Daemonfun
03-06-2008, 05:24
I think you guys are sorely Wrong about the Orcs! I've been playing them for 11years now and I personaly feel that 7th edd Orcs are the best list they've brought out yet. The army now has unpredictable movement which the enemy cant cater for, fanatics which are extra nasty if you use them correctly, i.e draw frenzied troops out to land on top of them (6D6 S5 ouch). Hard combat characters with good cheap magic wepons AND my personal favourate the SKUD MISSILE a wolf riding goblin big boss with one hit wonda and bubbles (puts a big dent on what ever it hits and instant kills chariots).

Orc Magic is also very deadly although there miscast table is bit rough!!

Urgat
03-06-2008, 07:00
The army now has unpredictable movement which the enemy cant cater for
Nor can you :p


fanatics which are extra nasty if you use them correctly, i.e draw frenzied troops out to land on top of them (6D6 S5 ouch).
I prefered my fanatics to be efficient against heavy cavalry... that trick you're taking about (sending them from a corner, and just at a small angle in front if your own unit so most of the time it won't go too far, right?) is really cheap, imho.

Conotor
03-06-2008, 11:25
They are very good. Fanatics can be fired in any direction, so if they ge the first turn, u realy can't do anything about em.

sephiroth87
03-06-2008, 12:23
That's about the sum of it. The wyvern build and shamans in chariots builds seem to be the only thing that is remotely working and those army builds are much smaller armies than an orc and goblin army should be.

Which is pretty sad.

Seems to me like most tournament lists don't reflect their own army books. I can't really see the empire sporting two steam tanks in the same army along with a war altar. I don't really imagine it's background friendly to run all four chaos gods in a daemon army, as they might fight a lot. Nor is it background friendly to run 50 wood elf archers, two treemen, and a battle standard bearer all in one army. But it's an effective use of the list. Same goes for the orcs.

The funny thing is, the wyvern build you're talking about actually has a fair number of models. Same goes for the chariot list. It's like players want to complain about the orc and goblin book being bad, then when some people find a way to circumvent this "bad" list, they complain again because it isn't what they'd like to be effective.

Daemonfun
03-06-2008, 13:33
I see your not conviced Urgat about my orcy tactics? well the orcs are there to fight and the goblins are there to be sneaky!!!! I don't see any harm to playing your fanatics like I said - you know the tactic so don't get caught out? at the end of the day the orcy opposition is gonna try there best to bugger up the orcs plans best he can!

After all orcs don't have craazy magic items like BATTLE BANNER (if you can't win the fight then I'll just roll a dice and pray for a 6) Orcs prefere 6 Savage big'un boar boys with banner butchary to do the job. I Reckon Savage Boar boyz as mentioned are one of the hardest hitting cavalry in the game.

As for anamosity well some time it can be a pain but come on you should out number your opponent 2 or 3 to one! If one of your units fails the roll well the other two units should be able to do the job.

Orcs actually have a hell of alot of ST5 A in there army check the book they can dish it out.

I recently played a tournament in my club and won with the Orcs? And the overall gaming talent in my club is a good standard? plus my orcs only had a lvl 1 scroll caddy (3 dispel dice) My combat characters did the business!

Storak
03-06-2008, 14:44
Who is this "they?" Which players use units they consider better than swordsmen? I know a lot of players that swear by swordsmen and will put a character on a horse in the unit. One of the tournament players from warhammer-empire.com (I think that's the site) put characters in the unit BEFORE the 7th edition rules came out and usually won with it.

i gave the answer to a person, who made the claim that empire places its combat chars in other units (knights?).
it doesn t matter a lot though. empire armies containing multiple swordmen unist with fighty chars do NOT dominate the tournament scene. fact.

why would you bring up pre 7th edition things in this topic?


I put a fighty character in my orc unit the same way as I put a fighty character in my saurus unit, and strangely enough, the same way I put an exalted champ in my marauders. Hmmm...I put thralls in my skeleton units, and even have captains in my pikemen. Other players that play locally with me do the same and tournaments I've been to have been similar.

i am not sure, why you bring this up. it is irrelevant. of course players of other aries put chars in units!
the difference is, whether this is the SINGLE way to win battles in an army!

if you read a random tactical advice on O&G, you well get something along this line:

normal orcs are the best unit in the army. take several big blocks.
you should place as many BO chars into this units as possible.

you will NOT find the same advice for empire players, even though the units are so similar!

the same phrase in an empire tactic advice will be more along the line:

don t ovelook swordmen, they are solid infantry and provide static CR...

Storak
03-06-2008, 14:50
Comparing unit for unit isn't the best way forward IMHO.

that is right, because most such comparisosn have a major flaw.

the problem is that orcs and swordsmen are REALLY very close and that other army advantages are mostly in favor of empire as well.

there are even worse compaisons, for example between orc boar boys and black knights (read the rules and weep!). take a look at vampires when you claim how great a BO big boss is as well!


I just don't get why some people get so upset about O&G. The last time I checked they were still performing well in tournaments with an even spread of O&G players on the scoreboard of the last UKGT. If it was as bad as some people make out O&G wouldn't finnish anywhere bar dead last.

their performance is pretty horrible and they are a NEW (7th) BOOK!

Storak
03-06-2008, 14:53
So the army is a challenge to use in tournaments then. So what? IMHO when you say 'needs major work' you mean 'needs to be as broken as the other top tier armies'.

this poll is about being competitive. several people claim, that O&G are "uber" competitive.

there is a real problem, as this is simply false.

a list is not competitive, if it requires other list to not take their top choices, if it wants to compete!

Storak
03-06-2008, 14:57
As for anamosity well some time it can be a pain but come on you should out number your opponent 2 or 3 to one! If one of your units fails the roll well the other two units should be able to do the job.


AGAIN: if you are playing against an empire player, who chose most of his army to be swordsmen, you will NOT outnumber him at all!

the problem is, that empire players who want to be competitive, chose BETTER units, than the one similar to the "best" orcish one!

vesp
03-06-2008, 15:47
Wow. You couldn't get a more 'balanced' poll than that... brilliant distribution. Guess that's the mark of an interesting army, that opinions vary so much. No army wins in every situation (and I don't mean one static army list). If that was possible, there would be little to no variation in tactics or choices, and you might as well play yahtzee.

sephiroth87
03-06-2008, 16:15
i gave the answer to a person, who made the claim that empire places its combat chars in other units (knights?).
it doesn t matter a lot though. empire armies containing multiple swordmen unist with fighty chars do NOT dominate the tournament scene. fact.

why would you bring up pre 7th edition things in this topic?


You gave the answer and you gave a random "they," which you did not back up. I called you on it.

I brought up the idea of the pre 7th edition empire because the guy did it then when it was a lot harsher to keep a mounted character in an infantry unit. The guy still wins, using and infantry heavy army that uses small knight units to flank and clean off the units that hit his infantry. His list works, even though it's not the same crap list that everyone copies on warseer.

If you're quoting facts, back them up. I certainly don't mind you being right if you make a good faith effort to convince me and your info is good. I'm one of the few on this forum who has the guts to be wrong occasionally. But if you're going to be right, back up what you say rather than throwing out blanket statements that can't be refuted or argued. Furthermore, narrow minded statements about what will and won't work don't hold water for me, simply because this game is largely augmented by the skill of the player.

Which percentage of empire tournament armies don't dominate the tournament scene with fighty characters? What part of it is due to the fact that the war altar/steam tank combo is popular right now, especially with the new FAQ about the Stank being a war machine? Can someone not use the cookie cutter list that everyone bitches about?


AGAIN: if you are playing against an empire player, who chose most of his army to be swordsmen, you will NOT outnumber him at all!

the problem is, that empire players who want to be competitive, chose BETTER units, than the one similar to the "best" orcish one!

Just because some people say it's the best orcish one doesn't mean you should max out on them. Every time one of these threads come up, you also get posts from people who've played the army for a long time. They'll usually tell you to take a couple of blocks of orcs, a block of goblins with a fanatic or two, and a balance of other things like war machines, cavalry, squigs, etc. It's like I said: if you take the units that make the orc and goblin army effective in the right numbers, you get complaints from the fluff police about what an orc and goblin army SHOULD look like. Furthermore, some of the overcompetitive players equate the "best" (in their mind) unit in the army with taking 60 of those units. After all, if one or two work, 60 of them will be even better. People slowly find out how naive this is when a new army book comes out negating their idea, or a new rulebook invalidates certain combos. Even better and earlier, they find that their idea doesn't work so well over a large spread of games. In 40k, new ork players are building lists of 45 lootas and 100 orks and not finishing 2 turns in a tournament. In fantasy, taking tons of swordmasters LOOK great until they get whacked with a few chariots and lose chunks of their army on the third turn.

I think you have some platonic ideal of what an empire army looks like, when in fact most armies have slight or major differences depending on the player. Not every player spams out steam tanks, and even in those, different philosophies make different armies.

Kahadras
03-06-2008, 16:36
that is right, because most such comparisosn have a major flaw.

the problem is that orcs and swordsmen are REALLY very close and that other army advantages are mostly in favor of empire as well.


I think the main idea of the two units being dissimilar is the fact that the Orcs are essencialy a horde that rely on their foot troops while Empire commonly don't. My 2000 point Empire army has two blocks of infantry, for example, while my friend commonly fields three plus units of Orc Boys commonly supported by at least two blocks of Goblins.


a list is not competitive, if it requires other list to not take their top choices, if it wants to compete!

IMHO the problem with the campaign for 'tournament competitiveness' is that it isn't a desire to improve the O&G armies book as a whole. It's just a desire to have a couple of combos in order to be able to break the game balance enough to deliver a win under virtualy any circumstances.

Kahadras

EvC
03-06-2008, 17:28
That's odd in the heat that I was viewing over 10 O&G players ended up in the top half of the table.

Orc results for the GT:

Heat 1: 20
99
112
113
126
130
(Average: 100/134 players)

Heat 2: 4
62
71
82
85
96
104
107
108
115
120
146
(Average: 91/151 players)

Heat 3: 13
24
55
59
68
82
90
96
105
114
(Average place: 70/140 players)

That's four Orc and Goblin players that qualified through wins.

And the final itself:
38
51
55
56
98
115
119
(Average place: 76/128)

These results clearly show that Orcs fared terribly in every heat plus the final. They achieved one placing in the top 10 in all four events. At no event did 10 Orc players make it into the top half- I cannot fathom how you would think this was the case. Would you care to explain yourself Karahadras? I'd love to see you regain some credibility, but that will be difficult.

Gazak Blacktoof
03-06-2008, 18:37
Could you edit the post EvC, or explain what those numbers mean, I'm not sure what I'm looking at there. Are those battle points or rankings...?

Kahadras
03-06-2008, 19:07
Would you care to explain yourself Karahadras? I'd love to see you regain some credibility, but that will be difficult.


Like I said I viewed the results posted up on Warseer but glancing at the results it was probably Heat 2; I must have mixed up amount of players with amount of top half finishes (it was several months ago now). Now judging by the fact that it's clear that O&G are awful in tournaments then how did people manage to get into the top half of the table?

Additionaly you're doing your credibility no good whatsoever by posting up comments like the above.

On an interesting note though...

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138733

O&G seemed to do OK at the 'ard boys tournaments.

Kahadras

Shimmergloom
03-06-2008, 21:07
this poll is about being competitive. several people claim, that O&G are "uber" competitive.

there is a real problem, as this is simply false.

a list is not competitive, if it requires other list to not take their top choices, if it wants to compete!

The poll is useless anyway. I'm sure to a dark elf player, greenskins are very competitive, so they would vote that way. So you have no idea who is voting and based on what.

Storak
03-06-2008, 21:50
The poll is useless anyway. I'm sure to a dark elf player, greenskins are very competitive, so they would vote that way. So you have no idea who is voting and based on what.

i think the categories are open to wide imterpretation as well:
is "just competetive" the "norm" or a term for "competetive, but barely so?"

how can O&G be considered "UBER competettive", when they obviously don t dominate tournament play?

Storak
03-06-2008, 22:00
I think the main idea of the two units being dissimilar is the fact that the Orcs are essencialy a horde that rely on their foot troops while Empire commonly don't. My 2000 point Empire army has two blocks of infantry, for example, while my friend commonly fields three plus units of Orc Boys commonly supported by at least two blocks of Goblins.

nobody can stop an empire player from building an infantry horde, centered around multiple blocks of swordsmen. it just isn t a very strong list for empire.


IMHO the problem with the campaign for 'tournament competitiveness' is that it isn't a desire to improve the O&G armies book as a whole. It's just a desire to have a couple of combos in order to be able to break the game balance enough to deliver a win under virtualy any circumstances.

Kahadras

i couldn t care less about tournament compettitiveness. i am discussing it, because it is the obvious topic of this post. ("How Cometitive are Orcs nowadays?")
it makes only sense to discuss the army used at its best. and tournaments are the only basis for STATISTICAL FACTS that we have.
the sad truth is, that O&G don t fare really better in a not so competetive environment. this is just more difficult to show, as people will just talk about random experiences in their playing groups, under complettely different circumstances.

so, which of the european soccer teams is the most competetive in a friendly match?
(please, don t use this to go off topic...)

Kahadras
03-06-2008, 22:23
nobody can stop an empire player from building an infantry horde, centered around multiple blocks of swordsmen. it just isn t a very strong list for empire.


likewise no one can stop an O&G player from building an army that doesn't focus on taking lots of troops. It's just that they seem to work better when you do.


i couldn t care less about tournament compettitiveness. i am discussing it, because it is the obvious topic of this post. ("How Cometitive are Orcs nowadays?")
it makes only sense to discuss the army used at its best. and tournaments are the only basis for STATISTICAL FACTS that we have.


Of course but it is important to note that there is a significant difference between tournament play and casual play and the OP certainly did't focus on tournaments in his opening post. Tournament lists focus on very specific army builds so it comes less down to are O&G better than Empire but are O&G better than an Empire Gunline or a Bretonnian RAF or a Skaven SAD.


so, which of the european soccer teams is the most competetive in a friendly match?
(please, don t use this to go off topic...)

The difference between European football and Warhammer is the fact that the majority of football games take place in a competitive setting while most of the games of Warhammer take place in a casual setting. At the end of the day statistics only take you so far. An adequate statement would be...

Statistics gathered indicates that Orcs and Goblins are conciderably disadvantaged in a tournament setting due to their placings when compared to all of the other armies present.

Even statistics dont show the whole picture. Statistics without a lot of background research is a pointless waste of time. Do they take into account the possibility that people who want to win tournaments are more likely to go for the more obviously easy to buy/paint/play armies for instance? Do the best O&G players actualy attend tournaments? Etc, etc, etc.

Kahadras

Gazak Blacktoof
03-06-2008, 23:05
Even if the list is balanced externally (I think its almost on par with the other books) there's internal balance to consider.

Snotllings, goblin characters and boar boyz are all fairly poor choices currently.

On that note...

I'm going to be trying out reduced price boar boyz and free character slots for goblin big bosses later this week to attempt to remedy some of the book's issues.

Has anybody got any ideas for snotlings (or tactics that might make them useful)? I'm thinking that they should go back to being unbreakable like a proper swarm (with crumbling of course).

Heretic Burner
03-06-2008, 23:37
Of course but it is important to note that there is a significant difference between tournament play and casual play and the OP certainly did't focus on tournaments in his opening post. Tournament lists focus on very specific army builds so it comes less down to are O&G better than Empire but are O&G better than an Empire Gunline or a Bretonnian RAF or a Skaven SAD.


There is no difference between tournament play and casual play as far as army validity goes. None. In fact, tournament army lists are certainly a better gauge of the strength of a particular army being far more likely to be scanned and double checked for rules legality than a "casual" army list.

In fact, there is little to distinguish what a "tournament list" is within the context of rules balance. Clearly those tournament lists more strongly adhere to the rules of the game than casual lists. Is Bret RAF strong? Sure. Legal? Absolutely. Competitive? Ayup. So why is it O&G haven't been able to field an army to compete?

Tournament lists are legal. They can be used just as easily in "casual" and "tournament" play. Where is the "significant difference between tournament and casual play"? Clearly if there is a significant difference it is in the fact that tournament play follows the rules closer than casual.

The OP asked about the competitiveness of the army. Through the best evidence available it is obvious that O&G are the absolutely least equipped to deal with other armies in the game. They are dead last. To answer the OP, no the O&G are not competitive with respects to the other armies. Any other answer, with the evidence available is simply a lie.

Prince Facestab
04-06-2008, 01:28
There is no difference between tournament play and casual play as far as army validity goes. None. In fact, tournament army lists are certainly a better gauge of the strength of a particular army being far more likely to be scanned and double checked for rules legality than a "casual" army list.

This isn't exactly true. There is a big difference between tournament viability and one on one viability, even with unrestricted lists. While the statistics that Heretic Burner loves to wave around do indeed show that O&G are having big problems in the tournament scene, this doesn't tell us very much about how they compare to individual armies. The metagame plays a huge role in tournaments, which will cause armies to perform differently than they would in the absense of a metagame.

So in a tournament setting, O&G do seem to be disadvantaged by something. However, there's a lot of O&G players that seem perfectly capable of winning games. These are two different things, and it's hard to answer a poll like this without knowing which one it's talking about.

woytek
04-06-2008, 06:27
The O&G book cannot produce tournament lists because it is balanced! This is ofcourse different than it being bad. The fact that some armies can field no-fun-to-play-die-hard-power-lists doesn't make the O&G list suck. IMO, tournaments are not the way to compare armies to eachother. Most games are played casual, at home, and people like to play for fun at home.

EvC
04-06-2008, 11:45
Gazak, those numbers were the placings of every Orc and Goblin player in the entire UK Grand Tournament. I posted them because Kahadras falsely claimed that there was an even spread of Orc armies across the UK GT and even that 10 of them were in the top half in a single heat, when that wasn't anywhere close to the truth.

Incidentally Prince Facestab, it wasn't Heretic Burner who started talking stats. That we had to correct the false stats presented in the first place shouldn't be held against those who say Orcs are a poor army...


Like I said I viewed the results posted up on Warseer but glancing at the results it was probably Heat 2; I must have mixed up amount of players with amount of top half finishes (it was several months ago now). Now judging by the fact that it's clear that O&G are awful in tournaments then how did people manage to get into the top half of the table?

The fact that a single player managed to get into the top 10 across four massive tournaments does not mean the army has done well. It means it was indeed an awful army to use in a competitive game.


Additionaly you're doing your credibility no good whatsoever by posting up comments like the above.

I called you on what was at best bad memory, and at worst a blatant lie. At least you accepted you were wrong, however. I can believe it's down to your memory. I think by posting actual facts (which I had remembered correctly in the first place, unsuprisingly since I was there myself), I displayed my own credibility just fine, actually.


On an interesting note though...

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138733

O&G seemed to do OK at the 'ard boys tournaments.

Not at all. 2 qualifying armies out of 50. If they'd done okay, there would have been 4-5. The only armies that did worse were Beasts of Chaos and Dark Elves, both acknowledged as being extremely weak. They did very poorly there, as they do at most tournaments.

In truth the real reason that so few Orc armies do well at tournaments is because the powergamers have long known that Orcs do very badly in competitive games, and so very few of them bring along Orcs. Maybe we'd see more on the top tables if that were the case. But even a tricked-out Wyvern-Chariot horde army has very little chance against the cream of other armies. Perhaps Orcs would do better if anamolies like double Steam Tank and War Altar armies hadn't made it through playtesting intact. Shame we'll never know.

So, we've established without a shadow of a doubt that in a tournament setting Orcs are badly disadvantaged. As usual some people are outraged by this most simple of truths. Of course that does not mean a skilled gamer can't win with an Orc army, it'll just be more difficult. They're still a really fun army to use, as long as you don't mind losing.

Storak
04-06-2008, 11:49
likewise no one can stop an O&G player from building an army that doesn't focus on taking lots of troops. It's just that they seem to work better when you do.

i am not sure, that you understand what i am saying.

so again: a competetive orc army is build around a couple of blocks of orcs. empire has troops, that perform pretty similar to those orcs. that for we should see competetive empire armies based around blocks of swordsmen.

but we don t see those. i conclude that the empire list has options, that they prefer to the troop type, that is similar to orcs. you should be able to determin the implication of this for orcish competetion by yourself...


Of course but it is important to note that there is a significant difference between tournament play and casual play and the OP certainly did't focus on tournaments in his opening post. Tournament lists focus on very specific army builds so it comes less down to are O&G better than Empire but are O&G better than an Empire Gunline or a Bretonnian RAF or a Skaven SAD.

no. it comes down to the fact, that NO orc list is better than the lists you named.


Statistics gathered indicates that Orcs and Goblins are conciderably disadvantaged in a tournament setting due to their placings when compared to all of the other armies present.

yes. and in addition, statistics gathered about O&G in the general community, come to the very same conclusion for friendly games. have you been reading any topics talking about army rankings lately?
but we don t have hard comparable data about this.

even this poll is a pretty devastating result, as i think that "just competetive is a misleading middle category.


Even statistics dont show the whole picture. Statistics without a lot of background research is a pointless waste of time. Do they take into account the possibility that people who want to win tournaments are more likely to go for the more obviously easy to buy/paint/play armies for instance? Do the best O&G players actualy attend tournaments? Etc, etc, etc.

and every information about "casual" games that we have, has this problems and SOME MORE in addition!

Storak
04-06-2008, 12:01
The O&G book cannot produce tournament lists because it is balanced!

this is a wild claim.


This is ofcourse different than it being bad.

well, apart from not performing well in tournaments, O&G are considered to be not beginner friendly. frustrating to play because of massive randomness. they have a broken weak magic, so that many players don t bother to cast spells.
many troop types are obsolete and the "positiv" special rule (waaagh) is avoided by many players.
so yes, if you consider this symptoms of a BALANCED COMPETETIVE army, the O&G are one!

Prince Facestab
04-06-2008, 14:07
Incidentally Prince Facestab, it wasn't Heretic Burner who started talking stats. That we had to correct the false stats presented in the first place shouldn't be held against those who say Orcs are a poor army...

I stand by it. I was referring to the same statistics that Heretic Burner was referring to. Besides, I was mostly in agreement: it does appear that O&G are disadvantaged at tournaments. I just think that tournaments and non-tournaments are two entirely different things, even if we assume that people tend to select the strongest list for their army.

Kahadras
04-06-2008, 17:37
The fact that a single player managed to get into the top 10 across four massive tournaments does not mean the army has done well. It means it was indeed an awful army to use in a competitive game.

I simply think we have a different definition of awful. If an Orc list can go to a GTUK heat and end up doing better than average i.e getting into the top half then that isn't awful for me. Awful, for me, is either nobody bring the army at all or if they do end up right down at the bottom. Like I've already pointed out O&G won't attract the hardcore tourney gamer because it's cheaper, faster and easier to roll with an Empire gunline, a Bret RAF etc.


I called you on what was at best bad memory, and at worst a blatant lie. At least you accepted you were wrong, however. I can believe it's down to your memory. I think by posting actual facts (which I had remembered correctly in the first place, unsuprisingly since I was there myself), I displayed my own credibility just fine, actually.


I wasn't questioning the credibiltiy of your memeory rather of that as a poster as your post was starting to sound distinctly like flaming to me. If you felt that I might have been lying then at least acertain whether it's lying or merely bad memeory before passing judgement.


In truth the real reason that so few Orc armies do well at tournaments is because the powergamers have long known that Orcs do very badly in competitive games, and so very few of them bring along Orcs. Maybe we'd see more on the top tables if that were the case. But even a tricked-out Wyvern-Chariot horde army has very little chance against the cream of other armies. Perhaps Orcs would do better if anamolies like double Steam Tank and War Altar armies hadn't made it through playtesting intact. Shame we'll never know.

So, we've established without a shadow of a doubt that in a tournament setting Orcs are badly disadvantaged. As usual some people are outraged by this most simple of truths. Of course that does not mean a skilled gamer can't win with an Orc army, it'll just be more difficult. They're still a really fun army to use, as long as you don't mind losing.

Much truthery here. For me the crux of the matter is that tournaments only make up a small fraction of the games of Warhammer played. Outside tournaments I believe that Orcs can compete just fine. So my answer to the OP is 'they should be'.


and every information about "casual" games that we have, has this problems and SOME MORE in addition!

Justifying poor data by pointing out equaly poor data does not make the first set of data any more valid IMHO.

Kahadras

the_orc
05-06-2008, 15:31
I believe the distinction between tournament environment and fun games should not exist at all. - It simply prooves that there is some kind of problem: Normally every unit should be priced in a way reflecting its effectiveness in an average game. The tournament results only illustrate that this is not case. Vampires, Bretonia and Empire are doing much better than Dark Elves, Orcs & Goblins or Ogre Kingdoms. So whether the one group is underpriced on average or the other is overpriced.

You cannot say that this problem does not apply for fun games. Even if your opponent fields a nice VC army, your optimized O&G army won't do that well against them. If you have seen the outcome a couple of times you probably won't take your orcs if you play with your friend the next time. - The problem is not everybody has a handful of competitive armies to choose from.

For me the problem is not an O&G problem in particular. It is a general problem of most infantry based close combat armies. O&G are just one of them. - Infantry that is not stubborn and/or has an 2+ armour save (or can be resurrected) and/or has means to shorten the time to get into combat, is usually not a good choice as compared to cavalry/ hard-hitting-rusher or heavy shooting armies. - I believe most infantry units in the game should be notably cheaper to become more attractive (or everything else should be more expensive). Considering the point increase for orc boar boys, pretty much all cavalry units should have become more expensive as well. But it all went wrong, when the imperial knight orders stayed at there 6th edition point values. Now we have 30 point dragon princes that are ridiculously cheap compared to 30 point big un boar boys.

CU - the_orc

Avian
06-06-2008, 10:14
Vampires, Bretonia and Empire are doing much better than Dark Elves, Orcs & Goblins or Ogre Kingdoms. So whether the one group is underpriced on average or the other is overpriced.
It doesn't have to be "on average". If one army has a small number of units that are overly effective and that band of units is enough to make a nasty tournament army, it does not have to be a representation of the units on average. Take the Empire or Vampire armies that tend to do well in tournies and you will see that they use a quite narrow band of units. "Fix" the Steam Tank and War Altar in the Empire army and the tournament-effectiveness of the list as a whole drops considerably. That does not mean that the Empire list on average is underpriced, just that enough of the list is too effective for its own good.



You cannot say that this problem does not apply for fun games. Even if your opponent fields a nice VC army, your optimized O&G army won't do that well against them.
I can indeed say that it isn't a problem in fun games. My un-optimised greenies do quite well against standard Vampires or Empire or whatnot. Problems only really arise when I play someone as good as myself that has taken an extreme list.

Darkspear
06-06-2008, 16:12
Haha if you think Orcs and Goblins are uncompetitive...try Goblins. That's a challenge. I last time i saw someone win, he has to use Sharsnik with the opponent not using any special characters.

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
06-06-2008, 19:52
Hello,

I think that greenskins are a very competive army, but only when they are fielded by a very skilled general. OnG have everything in the list to deal with stuff that can thread them. Hard hitting troops, cheap shooting, decent magic( deadly with luck). And even goblins are competive but those take even more skill to win with but I have won a tourny with a fully goblin list, where there where no limits on army building (special characters, magic dow and such). I chrushed a list with karlf franz and 2 dragons, I chrushed another greenskin army with grimgor, and I chrushed a list with thorek. The first guy was less expierinced then me but his army was the "better" one but I still managed to do a massacre. The other had about the same skillz but I still managed to pull it off.

My current 2000pts list is also very solid and my most impressive result was massacring a brettonian army in 2turns( I called a waaagh in turn 2 and all my units moved).

But if you look to stats keep in mind, many people have started a goblin army trough battle for skull pass. And all veteran greenskins will admit that these guys are very tough for beginning players.

Greetz
G

Laurela
06-06-2008, 20:24
It really depends on the player playing them. Most beginner players around here start off with O&G so they aren't really that competitive, except there's this one guy who has played them for years and years and he can pretty much stomp anyone he goes up against.

valdrog
06-06-2008, 20:45
Ive been playing O&G for arround 10 years, and i have won many more games than i have lost, it can be made a competetive army, but one of the things ive noticed about them is that it can be tough to do enough damage in a game to get a win, this leads to LOTS of draws or minor victories.
When you are competing against Bretonians, Empire, VCs, any other army that can do mass damage real fast, is hard to pull ahead and win some of this tournaments.

Heretic Burner
06-06-2008, 22:31
If O&G results were consisting mainly of draws and minor victories their ABM score would hover around 100. This in no way whatsoever reflects the statistics we have on hand. The truth is O&G are being blown out in games resulting in their lowest battle scores of any armies in the game.

Now the notion that there is some fundamental difference between "tournament lists" and "casual lists" when both lists are constructed from the same base rules is absurd. If army X vastly outperforms army Y with the units available to them then there is a clear problem with balance. There are simply no rules in the core rulebook preventing a player from selecting a unit available to their army in "casual games" and having the freedom of choosing anything they want in "tournament games". "Casual games" consist of every bit as much freedom to select what the player wishes to field as in tournaments.

Whether in "casual" games or "tournament" games the same rules apply to both and the greenskins remain far and away the least competitive army in the game. It would be a monumentally poor idea by GW to let this major problem remain for much longer particularly when it cripples a large portion of their customer base. It seems pretty obvious O&G need a major revamp ASAP, GW simply are not in a position to allow their product to gain such negative press with the release of a major competitor's product around the corner. Will they abandon their foolish idea of only making necessary changes to armies through codexes/army books? Only time will tell.

vesp
06-06-2008, 23:21
Without animosity, and with some tweaks to make it actually possible to field any sort of "wtfpwn" list, O&G would be considered 'tournament competitive'.

for example, their varied troop choices would make them as tactically competitive as eg. Empire (without stanks and KF) IF animosity was not taken into consideration.

Fact is that animosity is simply a 'fluff rule' that seems to exist just because "it's always been like that" and O&G are one of the only armies to be hurt rather than helped fairly significantly in competitive battles by their fluff rules.

spiderhaiku
07-06-2008, 01:25
uhm, yes. they will win (first round of) combat versus a unit of empire swordsmen by 0.5 points.
and they pay for this by having the animosity rule!

so let me rephrase your sentence:
a basic Orc Boy with a Shield is NEARLY as good as an empire swordsmen, but will be worse in prolonged combat!

Orc boys are better then just about any equilvilent core troop point for point. Period. The comparison with the swordmen has the orc boys on top in the first round, even if its the swordmen who have charged (thus negating the emphasis you place on how bad the animosity rule is, they win even if they are out maneuvered) they win by 0.68 if they have charged and they are actually equally as good (0.56 chance of wounding each) after the first round, but considering they will have won the first round taking out one extra swordman this will be a constant advantage for the orcs. But i agree with Kahadras anyway as i think comparing units is not the way to go, especially if you start comparing core troops with special troops worth more points and with the ASF rule...


There is one build that is doing well in general, a Black Orc Warboss on Wyvern, but generally that is because this build ignores animosity on the most important model plus takes advantage of a wonderful loophole (Hide behind hill, call Waaagh!, charge something that thought it couldn't be seen in your opponent's last turn)

I cant see how you can call this a loophole? It is a lagitimate tactic and build that works, the only loophole about it is that orc armies and tactics like this dont fit with your opionion of the competativness of the army.


there are even worse compaisons, for example between orc boar boys and black knights (read the rules and weep!). take a look at vampires when you claim how great a BO big boss is as well!

I actually quite rate boar boyz, especially savage boar boyz big 'uns, 21 st 5 attacks for 200 ish pts is nothing to be sniffed at, not sure how much black knights cost these days. Generally (unless mounted on a wyvern) BO bosses will be half the points of vampires so i dont really see the comparison. Also the game is not certainly over if you lose your BO boss as is the case with vampire lords.

To the OP, from what you can read in this thread so far just about everyone who has said they have been playing Orcs for 10+ years seem to agree that Orcs can be competative, take from that what you will...

Ranmbling Rocket
07-06-2008, 08:38
To the OP, I think your poll answers the question, which seems to indicate that they are 'just' competative.

The current incarnation of animosity is seems to be slightly too severe. I think animosity should remain, but there should be some other kind of tweak to make the 1 in 3 chance animosity more tolerable.

If instead of characters adding +1 to the roll for when a waagh is called, they instead allowed any mob of the same type as them that they join to re-roll the animosity dice (both for normal animosity rolls and the waagh), then Orcs and Goblins would be better able to handle their animosity. This would also have the benifit of giving a reason to use Orc Big Bosses rather than Black Orcs, or to have the appropriate Goblin characters in their related units (This would also mean Shamans would also become more viable to join units). Also I think Black Orcs should only need to crack D3 heads reather than D6 in order to auto retore order. I could even handle the increase in cost of O&G cavalry if these were the cases, but sadly it is not.

As a whole, O&G are still effective, but are a little too reliant on luck than they once were (mainly due to the harsh animosity they currently suffer than due to their other random fun stuff).

Storak
07-06-2008, 08:44
Orc boys are better then just about any equilvilent core troop point for point. Period. The comparison with the swordmen has the orc boys on top in the first round, even if its the swordmen who have charged (thus negating the emphasis you place on how bad the animosity rule is, they win even if they are out maneuvered) they win by 0.68 if they have charged and they are actually equally as good (0.56 chance of wounding each) after the first round, but considering they will have won the first round taking out one extra swordman this will be a constant advantage for the orcs. But i agree with Kahadras anyway as i think comparing units is not the way to go, especially if you start comparing core troops with special troops worth more points and with the ASF rule...

empire swordsmen are core and don t have an ASF rule.

winning on average by 0.5 wounds means, that in 50% of the cases the fight will be a draw (or even lost).

losing the charge is not the only problem of animosity. it breaks up formations, blocks, hinders or exposes other units.
and we haven t factored in detachments at all!

again:
the orcs and the swordsmen behave very similar in combat. but orcs are considered to be the best choice of the O&G army, while the swordsmen aren t in the empire one.




I actually quite rate boar boyz, especially savage boar boyz big 'uns, 21 st 5 attacks for 200 ish pts is nothing to be sniffed at,

frenzy makes it very difficult to compare troops. i was not talking about savage boar boys.


not sure how much black knights cost these days.

two points more than a boar boy. comparing tem is much more difficult though. but take a look at the rules...


Generally (unless mounted on a wyvern) BO bosses will be half the points of vampires so i dont really see the comparison. Also the game is not certainly over if you lose your BO boss as is the case with vampire lords.

again, you need to check those point values. similar stats. and the caster levels come at a pretty low price.


To the OP, from what you can read in this thread so far just about everyone who has said they have been playing Orcs for 10+ years seem to agree that Orcs can be competative, take from that what you will...

funny, but i read them differently. what they are saying is, that O&G are hard to master. that they aren t as competettive as current top lists. and that there are significant problems.

we all read Avians page rather regularly. that he does well with his orcs is not a good indicator for their "competetiveness"!

Gazak Blacktoof
07-06-2008, 09:52
Fact is that animosity is simply a 'fluff rule' that seems to exist just because "it's always been like that" and O&G are one of the only armies to be hurt rather than helped fairly significantly in competitive battles by their fluff rules.


There's no way in hell GW would get rid of animosity and frankly if they did it would suck all the fun out of the army.

The army needs minor tweaks rather than anything as drastic as removing animosity.

Animosity is a drawback and the army gets benefits in other areas to compensate. However these benefits currently aren't big enough, particularly in the magic phase, where animosity can cripple the offencive potential of a list by preventing shamans in units from casting and thereby reduce the power dice your opponent has to worry about.

spiderhaiku
07-06-2008, 11:56
Well let's look at orcs w/full command and shields, 25 strong. 5 or 6 wide, your choice. 180pts.

12 Swordsmasters 6 wide w/standard and musician. 198pts.

orcs outnumber more than 2:1. 12 swordsmaster attacks hit 9 times, wound 6 times. Orcs save 1. 5 dead orcs. Assuming you did not target the boss, then whether they are 5 or 6 wide, there's only the boss striking back. 1 hit, 1 wound.

Orcs lose 7-6. Test on 6, 50% shot they are running. And if they don't, then you are going to lose 5 orcs at a clip, which you cannot afford to have happen.

The only shot orcs have is for the HE player to flub his rolls. And that's not army balance.


empire swordsmen are core and don t have an ASF rule.

I was refering to shimmerglooms comparison obviously.


winning on average by 0.5 wounds means, that in 50% of the cases the fight will be a draw (or even lost).

I dont think you are looking at the statistics correctly, in the first round (even if the swordmen charge) they have a 50% chance of killing a boy where as the orcs will have a 99% chance of killing a swordmen, you cant look at the differential and say that half the time the empire sowrdmen will draw or win.


losing the charge is not the only problem of animosity. it breaks up formations, blocks, hinders or exposes other units.
and we haven t factored in detachments at all!

I agree that animosity can be bad, but if you were to factor in detachments then you would have to factor in a same point equivilent core troop in addition to the orc boys that would be used to take care (charge etc) of detachments.


again:
the orcs and the swordsmen behave very similar in combat. but orcs are considered to be the best choice of the O&G army, while the swordsmen aren t in the empire one.

I dont know who thinks orc boys are the best choice in the army. Perhaps you are getting confused with them being the best core choice in the game point for point?. I would say Squigs (of any kind) doomdivers, cheap shamans on chariots, BO Bosses on Wyverns, SOBB, cheap spear chukkas, BO boss on boar in a 23 orc unit with Morks Spirit Totem are all better choices in the army (tho they do completly different things), but the orc boy is a pretty awesome foundation to work from.


i was not talking about savage boar boys.

fair enough, but i am and i cant see the point of saying how bad regular OBB are when SOBB are so good.


two points more than a boar boy. comparing tem is much more difficult though. but take a look at the rules...


there are even worse compaisons, for example between orc boar boys and black knights (read the rules and weep!). take a look at vampires when you claim how great a BO big boss is as well!

Im not the one trying to compare them, im just saying SOBB are awesome.

spiderhaiku
07-06-2008, 11:59
I agree with Blacktoof, taking away the animosity rule would take away all the fun of the army and should definately not be even considered. Tweaked perhaps, but not removed.

vesp
07-06-2008, 12:07
I don't have any doubt that animosity will continue to be a part of the O&G ruleset, and if you read my post (which Blacktoof quoted) I didn't suggest anywhere that the rule should be removed.

It needs adjusting of course, at the moment it's just a bit too harsh.

Gazak Blacktoof
07-06-2008, 12:54
Nope but it seemed like you were sugesting it should be of some benefit. It shouldn't. Animoisty should be a disadvantage balanced by other adavantages ie numbers and various orcy waagh! rules.

I though 6th edition magic was great for orcs its rather rubbish currently. Without the bonus dice and with the increased likelihood of beeing unable to cast orcy magic is just plain rubbish.

the_orc
10-06-2008, 09:31
If animosity is supposed to be an disadvantage, than it should reduce the point cost of the models suffering from it. - It seems to me that the potential effect on moving forward (on a 6 or as result of calling for Waagh) is quite overrated. - All units suffering from animosity on average still loose more movement by animosity than they gain from it. And it is more likely for anything that is not Orcs with 3+ Ranks. - Also moving forward is not necessarily an advantage: If the unit next it rolls a 1 and does not move at all, you quite likely loose a unit by a flank charge in the next round. - Also you have a mean risk on certain very important troops: If you don't want your boar boys to stand around in the one important round of the game you have to put a BO boss in the unit. But if you do so, rolling a 1 for animosity can wipe out the entire unit without any enemy close to it. The D6 hits form the BO is okay against infantry. Against cavalry or big uns it is way too much.

If a read this thread, many people say something like "look, orcs aren't that bad". Yep, that's true. But they make up only a tiny fraction of all units in the book. The average goblin spearman is just 1 point cheaper than an imperial spearman. That's rediculous. If goblins want to outnumber elves by 2:1 now so that the don't fear them, a unit of goblin spearmen is now more expensive than the elven spearmen standing against them. - Making the goblins 1 point more expensive was a good idea when the AB came out. Goblins tended to be too cheap in 6th edition. But afterwards you can't reduce the point costs for all other infantry in all other armies then. - Cavalry is much too expensive as compared to all other armies cavalry (it is the only cavalry that is prized correctly compared to infantry, I believe, but this doesn't help). Some units have rediculous rules, like the snotlings (what kind of difference is stubborn at leadership 4 going to make) - And everything you have in terms of nice troops is special. Empire has heavy shooting and heavy cavalry as core, but orcs are limited to 6 choices that are not infantry or lumpy light cavalry: Make the boar boys, the squig herds and the blackorcs core or allow them more characters, so that you can beef up your infantry. - But right now o&g suck.

Yes, there are effective o&g lists. But they don't really look like something that can be called a horde. - Someone around here is doing quite well on tournaments with orcs. But he has exactly 2 units of orcs and a unit of spiderriders as core. The remaining troops are: Wyvern, 2 BO bosses on chariot, 2 units of savage orc boar riders, more chariots and a giant. - The other successful army I have seen lately is the well known fanatic, bolt thrower, magic list: 1 BO boss as general, Master shaman, 2 more shamans, 8 bolt thrower and 5 units of nightgoblins with 3 fanatics each. - These armies can't be taken as reference for saying orcs are okay. If a list with a bit of everything would do quite okay, that would be a news.

CU - the_orc

Shimmergloom
10-06-2008, 10:09
The average goblin spearman is just 1 point cheaper than an imperial spearman. That's rediculous. If goblins want to outnumber elves by 2:1 now so that the don't fear them, a unit of goblin spearmen is now more expensive than the elven spearmen standing against them. - Making the goblins 1 point more expensive was a good idea when the AB came out. Goblins tended to be too cheap in 6th edition. But afterwards you can't reduce the point costs for all other infantry in all other armies then.

it's about to get even more hilarious. If dark elf spearmen are indeed 6pts and 7pts with shields, then that's exactly 2pts more than a goblin spearmen. And I read a rumor that DE champs for their spear units were going to be 6pts. LoL. 2pts cheaper than a goblin champ. Cold ones for 27pts? with 2 S4 attacks from the cold one? vs 22pts for a boar boy?

So Fear, Hatred, +2LD, an extra attack from the mount, +2AS, +1WS, +3I and +1S on the charge vs the +1T orcs have is worth 5pts?

And animosity more than makes up for stupidity.

Each book is lowering the costs for everything or heaping positive special rules onto units, while greenskins went up in price and got more negative rules heaped upon them.

And the funny thing is the new DE book doesn't even sound that bad compared to the last 3 books. Only about the level of the Empire book, being more balanced overall.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2008, 10:13
Regarding the black orcs beating up units that has been mentioned previously:-

I failed (rolled a one) on just three animosity tests during my game on sunday. Two were failed by units with black orcs (on the same turn).

The black orc heroes killed three orc boyz and three big'uns.

Annoyingly I didn't actually want to actually move either unit accompanied by a black orc that turn.

Normally the points of the lost orcs would have been worth it (which is why I use black orc characters) but it was just a pain in the ****. At least it got a laugh out my opponent.

The third failure (roll of a one) was a unit of wolf riders that narrowly avoided getting stomped by a unit of bret light cavalry because they were slightly out of charge range.

The rolls of one didn't really hurt too much in the game and the waagh rule proved invaluable in delivering a hammer blow to four out of five lance formations.


The rolls of a six (other than the ones during the waaagh!) were more of a hindrance than the rolls of a one. They cause my refused flank to surge forward several times during the game! Very annoying!

Shamfrit
10-06-2008, 13:00
Animosity is in the mind, (scuse the pun) and should not be seen as a negative influence because negativity breeds contempt, and I firmly (well now at least) believe in positive thinking regardless of circumstances during my games. Especially, especially because I play Skaven and Greenskins.

Firstly, I'd like to address the issue regarding comparing points between Dark Elf Spearmen and Goblins. Now, I presume we're talking Goblins here, and not Night Goblins, if so, fair point, however, look at Night Goblins. They're 3 points with Shields (although they don't have light armour of course) but they also come with Fanatics, and Nets, which more than makes up for the lack of heavier armour on it's own. I think the only mistake Games Workshop made here was making the normal goblins, in all respects, irrelevant when compared to Night Goblins. Night Goblins are one of the best core units I've had the pleasure of playing with, I mean, yes, they've got Low Leadership, and are often panicked (but Size Matters very much makes the difference here) but they're incredibly good at tar-pitting rank and file troops that are S3/4 and do the job incredibly well. They create a death trap for Cavalry, can make your opponent think twice about where your fanatics are (only for them to discover you've none, and they've held back or gone round you needlessly!)

Now we come to Waaagh!! Magic...sorry, did you just say it's 'plain terrible?' It's dangerous, yes, but so is Skaven Magic, and Skaven magic is considered some of the strongest (or was, until the new Daemon Lores were launched) in the game.

The spell lists contain damage, utility, recovery and by far, the best spell in the game from my perspective, Waaagh!! Mork Wants Ya is a great character killer, Fists of Gork can be devastating for a relatively low casting cost, and on top of that, Orc Shamans have a 5+ save, Savage Orcs have a 6+ ward, and you have a decent range of magic items to make it easier to cast or dispel to stabalise your casting. Don't bring up the miscast table, if you miscast, no amount of awesomeness in an army book will save you!

I always take a Night Goblin Shaman (for the Staff) and an Orc Shaman (sometimes Savage) and I have enough magic to get at least one spell off, and with the Totem, enough Magic defence to shut down normal and even over heavy magic lists. This is much more than can be said for current Dark Elves or Skaven. On top of that, Orc casters are T4!

I'll be playing against Vampire Counts again tomorrow, and I'm looking forwards to it.

Once you get to the stage where you can make a failed or succeeded animosity roll seem like a game ending or winning ploy, you can redirect your opponent, ready to Waaagh and cast your way into a surprise recovery. Greenskins are one of the fews armies who can play to their weaknesses, and Animosity, I still retain, is the best blessing of all.

Shimmergloom
10-06-2008, 13:49
I don't think you've actually ever played greenskins.

Orc Shamans do not have a 5+ save.
Skaven warlocks don't have to worry about losing entire magic phases because their clanrat units failed animosity.
And yes, night goblins are 3pts with shields and have -3Ld, -2WS, no spears, only hate dwarfs, while DE warriors will hate everyone, animosity, fear elves, -2I, -1M for only 3pts less.

If my night goblins got all that for +3pts, I'd be estatic.

GW either needs to do away with animosity or make the points of greenskin units reflect the fact that animosity exists.

Because there is no excuse for these new books making units cost only a fraction more than goblins and less if not equal to orcs.

StormCrow
10-06-2008, 13:54
I say no they aren't, because if you go into a game with orcs and goblins only considering their competitive ability then you have totally missed the point of the army.

Shimmergloom
10-06-2008, 14:06
Just because an army is fun, doesn't mean that people want to constantly lose all the time playing them.

An army can be fun and competitive. You're missing the point if you think it can only be one or the other.

Avian
10-06-2008, 15:02
winning on average by 0.5 wounds means, that in 50% of the cases the fight will be a draw (or even lost).
You can run a simulation of the combat on my website: Unit Combat Simulator (http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/calculations/main_simulator.php)

Empire Swordsmen charging Orc Boyz (both 5 wide) will win about 20% of the time, draw about 35% of the time and lose about 45% of the time. In later rounds, the chance of either side winning is about 30% for each and the chance of a draw is around 40%. If Boyz charge they will win about 55% of the time, draw about 30% of the time and lose about 15% of the time.

Shamfrit
10-06-2008, 15:18
I don't think you've actually ever played greenskins.

I've clocked over 60 games this year alone, so no, I've never played greenskins, not at all :eyebrows:


Orc Shamans do not have a 5+ save.

I do apologise, of course they don't. They do however have the option to ride Boars, which I always, always, always take so automatically assumed you'd know this.


Skaven warlocks don't have to worry about losing entire magic phases because their clanrat units failed animosity.

No, not at all. Of course, you're forgetting that Warlocks have the chance to miscast and to wound themselves with a S5 hit every single time they cast a spell. An event which happens far too often.


And yes, night goblins are 3pts with shields and have -3Ld, -2WS, no spears, only hate dwarfs, while DE warriors will hate everyone, animosity, fear elves, -2I, -1M for only 3pts less.

Hatred = bad, and Fanatics and Nets = so worth it.


If my night goblins got all that for +3pts, I'd be estatic.

They don't need it. They've got Fanatics and Nets! How many times, FANATICS AND NETS!


---


And when it all comes down to it, I have fun and win...although from this thread, apparently I'm an oddity amongst the Warhammer World...try different dice, or stop whinging, I stopped whinging about Skaven and lo and behold! I started winning. Thinking positively goes a damned long way.

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
10-06-2008, 15:47
I have to agree with shamfrit, it is a game and it should be about the fun not about winning. And if all players would take decent balanced list and not go over the top the game would be much more fun, altough I only met 1 opponent that I want to face again in my whole warhammer carreer. He was the example of guys that make that new guys who play there first tourny want to quit with warhammer.

Greetz
G

lparigi34
10-06-2008, 19:30
...They don't need it. They've got Fanatics and Nets! How many times, FANATICS AND NETS!...


I agree/disgree wit you :confused:...

I agree that a NG unit with Fanatics and Nets will match almost any core unit in WHFG in terms of points/effectiveness.

But I disagree that not taking some options should harm the relative performance of any unit in the game (always point wise speaking)

So if a NG should be priced at 2pts, it should not be priced @ 3 only because it can take some options. That should be included in the option itself, so, maybe NGs are to be priced 2pts a piece and Fanatics @30 and nets @50, just to make an example (values are only examples, not my opinion on how thing should exactly cost).

To wrap up, maybe a 30 guys NG unit Full CMD Nets & 2 Fanatics is priced OK, but the same unit with no Nets and Fanatics is horribly expensive and a 20 guys unit Full Cmd & 3 Fanatics is a steal. This should not be like that, that is exactly the problem that leads to army homogenization (i.e. everybody playing quite simmilar armies).

I do not expect this to be completely solved out, some armies will be naturally played in certain ways (i.e.MSU and Ogres) and certain odd things should be hampered by the system (i.e. 20 Horsemen Units), but, IMHO, within normal limits flexibility should not be penalized.