PDA

View Full Version : Why these armies are considered weak and how would you fix their problems.



akgaroth
20-01-2009, 18:38
I read different threads and posts arguing that some armies are definitively under-powered (Orcs & Goblins, Beast of Chaos and Ogre Kindoms to be more precise). Even if I think that any competent general should be able to win with these armies, its true that some armies are like a marathonist running with a leg less when others have rollerblades. I particulary, I would like to know how you would fix their problems in a friendly context and don't descourage new players.

Neckutter
20-01-2009, 18:43
beasts of chaos should still be viable, except that damn beast herd rule where they rank up at least 4 wide since 4 wide doesnt give you rank bonus. also BoC lost of a lot of options, when HoC was discontinued.

ogre kingdoms were slightly behind the power curve about 3 years ago, but now with the new HE, DE, DoC, WoC they are way way behind. they should get rank bonus with 3-wide. they shouldnt have to take a tyrant. the hunter should be able to move and fire his bolt thrower. gut magic should not hurt your mages. i dont know if those will be a huge improvement, but they would help.

as far as OnG go, i think they are a third tier army(on par with WE), in a 5 tier environment. 1st tier being DoC, second tier being VC/HE/DE, 4th tier being everyone else, 5th tier being Ogres. so i dont think OnG are underpowered at all. they are midstream and very slightly more powerful than empire.

W0lf
20-01-2009, 18:57
The problem with Beasts is that they really arnt made for drawn out combats which certain armies, like dwarfs, daemons, vamps all excell at forcing.

They have bad LD which is again stuffed over by Vampires, daemons and panic in general.

Unruley is a unecesary handicap they could do without.

They can't deal with terror causes very well.. infact they cant deal with them full stop.

To put it short they struggle vs;

Vampires + TKs - Unbreakable, cause fear, magic heavy usually which bring magic defence to neuter beasts

All 3 elves - ASF, Hydras, wardancers and dryads all give beasts merry hell.

Dwarfs - very hard to break and orgun gun = oh very dear.

Daemons - obviously. Alot of armies do.

Brettonians - with 6+ lances on the table and beasts cant hold a single lance charge, sure they can bait/redirect etc but with 6 lances and a good brett general thats far harder work then the brett player needs to put in.

Thats 8/14 lists. Not pretty tbh.

Walls
20-01-2009, 18:59
I've always thought the ranking system should go not on model count but "counts as" count. Ogres are 3 wide, therefore should be 9 wide.

Of course that's kinda broken so you could go "anyone who counts as more then 1 model or has a certain sized base counts as 2" or whatever, then Ogres could rank a normal 3 wide to get the full rank bonus.

All it takes is a damned FAQ too.

Fredmans
20-01-2009, 19:11
If we talk about doable changes, the easiest solution for the O&G dilemma in a house rule environment is to change the 6 on the animosity list. Make it a do-whatever-you-like-with-it free D6" instead of "towards nearest enemy in sight". Then it is always a benefit, instead of sometimes a hindrance. In the case of Goblins, it could be used for a "cunning" retreat instead of meeting the cavalry charge.

Magic is another issue, perhaps you could agree to a change of the casting values. Given the new lores, both the Little and the Big Waaagh feel more like the Little and Big Yaaaaawn. The Little Waaaagh has utmost ridiculous casting values, seriously restricting your magic phase.

The best solution would of course be a total revamp, but that is unlikely until the 8th edition army books.

/Fredmans

W0lf
20-01-2009, 19:19
Id also drop the pts of boar boys by ~5 pts per model.

Oh and bigguns could probably be a pt cheaper.

Fredmans
20-01-2009, 19:24
For the record, I think it is a bit unfair to include Beasts in this kind of debate since they got neutered by the Chaos division. They are up for a total revamp, which could mean a complete overhaul of how they perform.

Ogre Kingdoms is perhaps too balanced and restricted, and the only problem with the book is that it is hard to come up with power builds. I think they seriously need some Psychology boost, perhaps something like the new Warriors' Mark of Slaanesh. They are seriously hurt by having small units and being forced to take panic checks. They also need something against cavalry. Perhaps the Hunter could be beefed up to carry a real bolt thrower.

/Fredmans

Draconian77
20-01-2009, 19:28
Black Orcs also need to be better/cheaper. I'd probably stick on ItP.

Condottiere
20-01-2009, 19:30
beasts of chaos should still be viable, except that damn beast herd rule where they rank up at least 4 wide since 4 wide doesnt give you rank bonus. also BoC lost of a lot of options, when HoC was discontinued.I thought that got FAQed to five wide? Never mind, maybe it's just our house rule.

Fredmans
20-01-2009, 19:34
I thought that got FAQed to five wide? Never mind, maybe it's just our house rule.

They actually got FAQed to four, just to rub it in :D

/Fredmans

Neckutter
20-01-2009, 19:34
fredmans brings up a great point, that i had forgotten about ogres. they have Ld7 as a base. in the current environment, being a 30+ point model, and not having a base leadership of 8, is really bad. in fact, if ogres got two things i think they could be great:
EVERYTHING in the army could get +1Ld, and second they could get ranks minimum 3-wide instead of 5-wide like the brb says. they could call it "bull fighting formation" or something.

and yeah, the BoC FAQ made me want to puke.

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-01-2009, 19:37
as far as OnG go, i think they are a third tier army(on par with WE), in a 5 tier environment. 1st tier being DoC, second tier being VC/HE/DE, 4th tier being everyone else, 5th tier being Ogres. so i dont think OnG are underpowered at all. they are midstream and very slightly more powerful than empire.


Seriously? OnG on par with Wood Elves?

WE are still at the very least in the top 5 power rating, and IMO miles ahead of the OnG book. It's just not very good. You can make good builds out of it, but you have to be clever with the list to negate things like Animosity from your battle plan etc.

The difference between armies seems at least to a certain extent to be how much of a drawback or randomness there are build into each armies special rule. The more randomness the worse the army, and while some armies gets largely or entirely positive special rules other armies have special rules with a number of very obvious drawbacks.

Fredmans
20-01-2009, 19:46
If you are into changing rules for O&G I would also remove Fear elves. Characterful, perhaps? Its effect, catastrophical. Your goblins suddenly fear every unit in WE, DE, HE in addition to OK, VC, TK and DoC. In an all-takers' list fielding goblins is almost pointless unless you are into night goblins netters or fanatics.

/Fredmans

Guy Fawkes
20-01-2009, 19:46
In general, these three armies are rabble. All other armies are more disciplined. It is very hard to win when you can't control your troops. These armies have low leadership, few unbreakable/stubborn things, and while OnG can panic each other if something big runs first, Ogre units tend to be expensive. Beasts rank up 4-wide, so they never have good static combat resolution, and ambush is not so scary when there are 3 army-wide unbreakable armies out there. These three armies have trouble mustering magic defense, because OnG and Beastmen need characters for leadership and combat and Ogres can't take Butchers (who are very expensive) until they take the very expensive Tyrant. These armies also need a BSB more than other armies, because they are prone to running when things are bad.

Running is especially bad with characters. Most of these characters don't die in combat but are run down, something that rarely happens with other armies. All three armies lack powerful magic and shooting, so must always cross the table to the enemy or lose, which limits tactical flexibility. In return, they can't weaken the enemy by taking out ranks or bringing down numbers very well, so they have to win through kills rather than static CR, something that is dependent on dice and luck. Also, Animosity really hurts Orcs. They block each other up - not controlling your army sucks. Ogres have no relief from shooting, because they lack armor options. Losing one Ogre in combat takes out 3 or 4 attacks, enough to turn a sure-fire win into a loss. Considering their low initiative and the prevalence of ASF, its no wonder they can't take on other elite troops. The Bull Charge is easy to avoid.

lord mekri
20-01-2009, 20:09
I read different threads and posts arguing that some armies are definitively under-powered (Orcs & Goblins, Beast of Chaos and Ogre Kindoms to be more precise). Even if I think that any competent general should be able to win with these armies, its true that some armies are like a marathonist running with a leg less when others have rollerblades. I particulary, I would like to know how you would fix their problems in a friendly context and don't descourage new players.

I just need to go on record about this subject.
Every one says ogres are in the bottom of the heap. And that dark elves are one of the top three.
In my first ever game playing ogres (my 9th army) this past weekend, I won a solid victory against dark elves. The dark elves were a balanced list that did have the fully decked out block of 20 BG with crimson death and hag graef banner. There were two mages. An assassin, some shades, a block of corsairs with general in it, some shooting, some dark riders. A good list.
My ogres were a balanced list as well. a bruiser, a butcher, and hunter, 2 blocks of gnobs, 2 units of trappers, 2 blocks of 6 bulls with champ and bellower, 1 block of 6 ironguts with full command and warbanner. 2 gorgers. 2 units of two leadbelchers.

A simple redirect caused his most deadly unit to be run off in one turn.
This was after his flanks were decimated.

Unless you specifically pick a new, 7th edition army list, and try to make a broken list, the armies are all fine. The only real difference is the 7th edition books all include at least one build that is not designed for casual gaming - one that is specially put there so the guys who pay to go to tourneys can make themselves feel like real men by beating you at a glorified version of rock paper scissors. Have you noticed the majority of these power lists also require a great deal of metal minis? (Think about it – what are the scary demon infantry/ metal horrors and metal plaguebearers – with new metal command! Flesh hounds, remade… as metal again! The only power gamey thing I can think of that’s plastic is a high elf dragon. $50 bucks of plastic, and can be killed by much cheaper artillery.)

The only time the army lists are unbalanced is at tournaments. But if you are going to a tournament, you know this in advance. So either go to play games, and not car about winning or standing, or go in with one of the rock lists and hope to face nothing but scissors.
If you want real fun, get your buddies to get involved in a group hosted round robin with your standard non-GT armies and have some real fun.

Sorry about that - rant over. Wow did I go off on a tangent.:angel:

Fredmans
20-01-2009, 20:18
The Bull Charge is easy to avoid.

If Ogre Kingdoms would have been written today, I dare say it would have been unavoidable.

/Fredmans

darkace77450
20-01-2009, 20:27
I wouldn't change these armies so much as chop all the power armies back down to this level. To me, WFB should be about how you use your troops (tactically) and not so much what your army consists of (composition).

Chicago Slim
20-01-2009, 21:18
Beasts rank up 4-wide, so they never have good static combat resolution

I hate to have to jump in on this, but I've sworn to fight against this terrible untruth whenever I see it unopposed.

Beast herds rank up to a minimum of 4 wide, but otherwise follow the normal rules for ranking-up skirmishers (at least in terms of how wide the unit is).

So, Beast herds DO get rank bonuses, so long as their enemy has a frontage of > 50 mm, and so long as they have enough models to have at least 5 in the rear ranks.

Mozzamanx
20-01-2009, 21:23
Fixing Orcs isn't that hard.

- Roll for Animosity after declaring charges.
- Reduce cost of Big 'Unz by 1pt, 2 for cavalry
- Boar Boyz have a modified Animosity table, where both 1 and 6 are Get 'em, to represent the bad tempered piggies going wacko.
- Let Snotlings use nearby units Ld for Stubborn

Chicago Slim
20-01-2009, 21:40
Beasts actually still have lots of answers to Terror, and to psychology in general-- it's just the beast herds themselves that struggle. Everything else (except Centigors and hounds) either causes Fear, or can be made ItP by a mark, or both.

That said, they definitely lost a lot of options when Hordes of Chaos went out of print, and it's very difficult now to construct a powerful army list with Beasts-- for example, if you're bringing things that make you less affected by psychology, then you're not bringing things to increase your magic output, nor (to some degree) your combat output.



To me, WFB should be about how you use your troops (tactically) and not so much what your army consists of (composition).

There's a sort of heirarchy of strategy and tactics, neatly described by Col. John Boyd (who also described the OODA loop), which I'll summarize as:
Grand Strategy > Strategy > Grand Tactic > Tactic > Prowess

where Grand Strategy is your national objectives
Strategy is the battles and wars you choose to fight
Grand Tactics are your battle plan
Tactics are each unit's actions within the battle plan
and Prowess is the combat effectiveness of individual soldiers

The way the model works, an advantage at a higher level trickles down to create advantages at the lower levels, but not vice versa: the greatest efforts of the greatest soldier will be wasted, if he is put in a tactically untenable position.

In Warhammer,
Prowess is the dice rolls
Tactics is the movement phase
Grand Tactics is the deployment phase
Strategy is the army list
Grand Strategy is choosing to play the game.


So, building a good army list does and should give you an advantage.

One friend of mine, after a disastrous game, joked that he'd made crucial errors at every level:
He brought a poorly-built army. He deployed them badly. He moved them into vulnerable positions. He even used the wrong dice-- throwing artillery dice when he needed 2d6, twice.

zak
20-01-2009, 22:06
The Orcs are not a poor army. They struggle to build a good cheese list, but apart from that are a very viable army. Sure there are some issues, but the army is more than usuable.
The Beasts are an inigma in that the book was written with HoC in mind and therefore has lost a lot of potential units and items that the designers thought they had access to. Even so my BoC have never struggled against any shooty army and certainly not the WE who they perform very well against.
The Ogres are possibly the weakest of the 3 armies mentioned and this is due to new army syndrome. Unfortunately they got the opposite treatment of DoC and were as under powered as the Demons were over powered. This should be rectified in 8th edition (hopefully).

darkace77450
20-01-2009, 22:14
In Warhammer,
Prowess is the dice rolls
Tactics is the movement phase
Grand Tactics is the deployment phase
Strategy is the army list
Grand Strategy is choosing to play the game.


So, building a good army list does and should give you an advantage.

One friend of mine, after a disastrous game, joked that he'd made crucial errors at every level:
He brought a poorly-built army. He deployed them badly. He moved them into vulnerable positions. He even used the wrong dice-- throwing artillery dice when he needed 2d6, twice.

Choosing an army of units that can function well in support of each other is part of the skill needed to play this game well. Choosing an army that plays itself to a victory with minimal tactical ability or strategic understanding is not.

Halelel
20-01-2009, 23:58
Problems and solutions

Beasts :
(Like someone else said, can't really judge them accurately yet as the HoC split really took away a lot of options in the outdated BoC Army Book)
- Monsters are a big problem in BoC lists as almost all of them cause terror and there just isn't really many things in the list right now that can handle some of the tougher monsters out there.
- The whole ranking beast herd skirmishers thing, it should be addressed in the coming book
- Units and items : lost a lot of potent combinations with the split of HoC. Rumors are that dragon ogres, chaos trolls, chaos ogres, and shaggoths will be gone from the list as well as to limit cross-combination units between the Chaos armies. It will be interesting to see what new units are made, especially a monstrous sized creature which is rumored to be the old Gorgon.

O&G :
- Reduce unit point cost on black orcs, big 'uns, and boar boyz. 6th edition Quell animosity needs a comeback.
- Animosity table needs a revamp : infighting should be the worst option with a roll of 1, squabble (no action) should be a 2, but the other rolls should not negatively impact the army. I'd like to see a roll of 6 on the table add frenzy and/or hatred to whatever O&G unit rolls for it for that turn. Maybe the current Waaagh could be the 4-5 option and it let's the army general whether to charge forward or move back (i.e. free additional movement).
- Fanatics need to be brought back up in power, they should rightfully be feared.
-Snotlings re-established as the great tarpit unit they once were (although the single lone troll thing isn't too shabby, I still prefer snotlings)
- Magic Phase revamped, the casting costs are just ridiculous for some spells
- removal of fear elves
- dragon or other large creature mount brought back into the list (wyverns are semi-okay)
-Always found it weird that in the fluff they are these huge Waaghs led by a single character, but when that character dies, the army crumbles. Except on the table this is represented by Vampire Counts, not O&G.

Ogres :
- Rank and panic issues due to MSU need to be addressed. GW needs to determine if they want Ogres to remain a MSU style force or to be in giant packs of fat guys charging an all-you-can-eat buffet.
-Butchers should not be mandatory to the point where almost every list has 3 of them. Maybe add a secondary magic option, like gnoblar shamans (work like traditional caster, lore of beast or something, no gut magic?) or something to garner a cheaper option for a scroll caddy.
-Hunters should be able to move and shoot with their bows.
-Bulls given a little more "oomph". Ironguts are great as is.
- Scraplauncher : would like to see it made more viable
- Greasus : to not be an absolute huge piece of gold-covered crap (literally)
-Rhinox Riders : I don't see how they won't be included in the army revamp
-Gut Charge reworked, it just simply doesn't work as is and impact hits due to the rule are obviously worked into the point costs of Ogres. So Ogre players are paying for something that they will very rarely ever get the chance to use.

Ward.
21-01-2009, 00:21
Fixes for ogre kingdoms from my point of view.

Characters should do D3 impact hits, or at least tyrants should.

GodlessM
21-01-2009, 00:28
Problems and solutions

Beasts :
(Like someone else said, can't really judge them accurately yet as the HoC split really took away a lot of options in the outdated BoC Army Book)
- Monsters are a big problem in BoC lists as almost all of them cause terror and there just isn't really many things in the list right now that can handle some of the tougher monsters out there.
- The whole ranking beast herd skirmishers thing, it should be addressed in the coming book
- Units and items : lost a lot of potent combinations with the split of HoC. Rumors are that dragon ogres, chaos trolls, chaos ogres, and shaggoths will be gone from the list as well as to limit cross-combination units between the Chaos armies. It will be interesting to see what new units are made, especially a monstrous sized creature which is rumored to be the old Gorgon.

O&G :
- Reduce unit point cost on black orcs, big 'uns, and boar boyz. 6th edition Quell animosity needs a comeback.
- Animosity table needs a revamp : infighting should be the worst option with a roll of 1, squabble (no action) should be a 2, but the other rolls should not negatively impact the army. I'd like to see a roll of 6 on the table add frenzy and/or hatred to whatever O&G unit rolls for it for that turn. Maybe the current Waaagh could be the 4-5 option and it let's the army general whether to charge forward or move back (i.e. free additional movement).
- Fanatics need to be brought back up in power, they should rightfully be feared.
-Snotlings re-established as the great tarpit unit they once were (although the single lone troll thing isn't too shabby, I still prefer snotlings)
- Magic Phase revamped, the casting costs are just ridiculous for some spells
- removal of fear elves
- dragon or other large creature mount brought back into the list (wyverns are semi-okay)
-Always found it weird that in the fluff they are these huge Waaghs led by a single character, but when that character dies, the army crumbles. Except on the table this is represented by Vampire Counts, not O&G.

Ogres :
- Rank and panic issues due to MSU need to be addressed. GW needs to determine if they want Ogres to remain a MSU style force or to be in giant packs of fat guys charging an all-you-can-eat buffet.
-Butchers should not be mandatory to the point where almost every list has 3 of them. Maybe add a secondary magic option, like gnoblar shamans (work like traditional caster, lore of beast or something, no gut magic?) or something to garner a cheaper option for a scroll caddy.
-Hunters should be able to move and shoot with their bows.
-Bulls given a little more "oomph". Ironguts are great as is.
- Scraplauncher : would like to see it made more viable
- Greasus : to not be an absolute huge piece of gold-covered crap (literally)
-Rhinox Riders : I don't see how they won't be included in the army revamp
-Gut Charge reworked, it just simply doesn't work as is and impact hits due to the rule are obviously worked into the point costs of Ogres. So Ogre players are paying for something that they will very rarely ever get the chance to use.

Very good solutions here. The rumoured Chaos Harpies for Beasts should help them too.

Nicoca
21-01-2009, 00:32
Hunters should be able to move and shoot with their bows.

Perhaps i'm missing something but i can't i find anywhere where it says that Hunters can't move and fire. Perhaps it does under the artillery rules or bolt thrower rules but i can't see anything.

(I play Ogres btw, so i'm not biased or anyting)

Condottiere
21-01-2009, 07:15
Fixes for ogre kingdoms from my point of view.

Characters should do D3 impact hits, or at least tyrants should.Tyrants maybe, but asking that for the rest of the characters maybe a bit much.

Jack Spratt
21-01-2009, 07:28
In relation to the OP...


Even if I think that any competent general should be able to win with these armies

Thats lame man. Thats like saying that any competent chessplayer should be able to win without the queen and knights... :rolleyes:

Embalmed
21-01-2009, 08:36
Fix for OK:

Problem:
Ogres rely on casualties for CR and these days they just don't cause that many casualties compared to other armies, both because of regen, better AS etc has made opponents tougher to wound and because many opponents now are more deadly on the return.

Solutions:

- Make it easier to perform Bullcharge, this evens the table vs ASF and adds a lot of punch.
- Give them some flaming attacks somewhere, regen really kills ogres.

Chicago Slim
21-01-2009, 11:36
Choosing an army of units that can function well in support of each other is part of the skill needed to play this game well. Choosing an army that plays itself to a victory with minimal tactical ability or strategic understanding is not.

At the very least, the player still has to deploy the army correctly.

Drongol
21-01-2009, 12:07
My OnG force is all Night Goblins and Squigs (what can I say, the fiancee likes Squigs), and I haven't played with BoC, so I'm going to focus on the Ogre Kingdoms here.

Put simply, Ogre Kingdoms suffered from a timid designer not wanting the new army to be all-powerful, and thus received all sorts of unnecessary limitations and restrictions. Luckily, these are pretty easy to fix.

1. (Items) A complete revamp of magic items. Right now, there are perhaps six items that are commonly taken and the rest are worthless. But that holds true for all of these lists, I've found. Anti-magic items that do not require a Butcher to take would be very welcome in this list as well.

2. (Big Names) Big Names should be in their own category and not use Magic Item allowance points, much like Vampire Bloodlines and Daemonic Gifts. It's not like they're particularly powerful anyways.

3. (Gut Magic) Change the spells so that they are not so suicidal. Yes, Butchers are strong wizards, but they do most of the enemy's work for him.

4. (Characters) Remove the restrictions on Tyrants and Slaughtermasters. Hunters should be able to move and shoot with the harpoon launcher.

5. (Core) Aside from the Gnoblars, all Core Units need about a 3-5 point cost reduction. Furthermore, Bull Charge should not require anything other than a charge. It's not like our Bulls run 12" and then stop while the enemy shoots at them, after all. They're moving the whole time, at least as I see it.

6. (Special) Leadbelchers need to only do D3 hits to themselves on a misfire and need to be about 5 points cheaper along with Yhetees (who really, really need new models). The Scraplauncha shouldn't be considered a chariot, either. If GW can do hybrid flesh-and-other-stuff models as monsters now (see Warshrine, Corpse Cart) then the Scraplauncha should fit in this as well.

7. (Rare) Maneaters need to be much less expensive and perhaps moved to special. Gorgers need a new model and making them a 2-for-1 pick certainly wouldn't hurt. Slavegiants should just be regular giants, with the regular attacks and Stubborn. Rhinox Riders needs to be included in the book proper.

Ogres do not need any help with Rank Bonuses whatsoever. Right now, assuming you allow Ogres to rank up 3 wide, it will cost 105 points or so to get +1 combat resolution for Bulls and nearly 150 points to do the same with Ironguts. That's just plain inefficient, and even with a points drop, it'd remain inefficient. Ogres, like any monster army, are pretty much stuck doing an MSU-style build. They just need to have some help making it work.

Drongol

Clegane
21-01-2009, 12:09
Perhaps i'm missing something but i can't i find anywhere where it says that Hunters can't move and fire. Perhaps it does under the artillery rules or bolt thrower rules but i can't see anything.

(I play Ogres btw, so i'm not biased or anyting)

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m470847_Ogre_Kingdoms_FAQ_2008-02_Edition.pdf

First page, second question.

Ixquic
21-01-2009, 12:29
O&G :
- Reduce unit point cost on black orcs, big 'uns, and boar boyz. 6th edition Quell animosity needs a comeback.
- Animosity table needs a revamp : infighting should be the worst option with a roll of 1, squabble (no action) should be a 2, but the other rolls should not negatively impact the army. I'd like to see a roll of 6 on the table add frenzy and/or hatred to whatever O&G unit rolls for it for that turn. Maybe the current Waaagh could be the 4-5 option and it let's the army general whether to charge forward or move back (i.e. free additional movement).
- Fanatics need to be brought back up in power, they should rightfully be feared.
-Snotlings re-established as the great tarpit unit they once were (although the single lone troll thing isn't too shabby, I still prefer snotlings)
- Magic Phase revamped, the casting costs are just ridiculous for some spells
- removal of fear elves
- dragon or other large creature mount brought back into the list (wyverns are semi-okay)
-Always found it weird that in the fluff they are these huge Waaghs led by a single character, but when that character dies, the army crumbles. Except on the table this is represented by Vampire Counts, not O&G.


I'm with you on a bunch of these, but I think fear elves needs to stay in some capacity. It's just been a thing that goblins have always done and it's part of their character. I think a good work around would be you factor in all units already in combat (including Orcs, trolls, etc) or simultaneously charging to see if you fear. For instance a unit of spider riders going in by themselves would fear the unit of 15 elves, but not if they are charging into the flank and a unit of 30 goblins are going in the front.

Snotlings need to be brought back to how they were in 4th edition with mimicry. If the closest unit to them is fine they are unbreakable, until that units runs in which they autobreak. Of course there are other ways to make them viable too but stubborn 4 is so obviously pointless I'm not sure why they even bothered to put it in.

I think animosity should go back to "roll a 1 and something happens" then you roll on the animosity chart to see if your unit stops or goes forward. A 1/3 chance that your unit doesn't do what you want (for instance archers moving into charge range on the roll of a 6) is too much randomness.

Fanatics should be no armor saves allowed. Considering the high possibility of them hitting your units and the fact you have to roll better than average to hit on the initial push and only d6 hits I don't see that as overpowered.

You are 100% right on the spell casting levels. 5+ casting cost for a strength 5 hit with no armor saves and 18" range versus the new Nurgle spell of 5+ casting cost for an auto wound no armor saves with 24" range. The fact that you need los for the Nurgle spell isn't a good balance at all. Also WAAAGH! should not cause your warmachines to run forward unless there's something for them to actually charge. That spells shuts down their shooting for two turns which is ludicrous.

Boar boys are only 2 points less than a Black Knight without barding. That's just stupid.

I don't think OnG should have larger riden monsters than they currently do since it just doesn't fit their background as raiders that have no permanent settlements or facilities to care for them. However I think Wyverns need a small boost. Maybe 4 attacks and switching their strength and toughness stats around or something.

Some way of getting magic banners into goblin units without taking a BSB; like if you have a goblin general one unit can have one or something. A banner that makes a unit stubborn isn't good when the guy holding it has WS4 and no armor.

Gigantic spiders should cause fear. I mean really...

Kadrium
21-01-2009, 14:32
Put simply, Ogre Kingdoms suffered from a timid designer not wanting the new army to be all-powerful, and thus received all sorts of unnecessary limitations and restrictions. Luckily, these are pretty easy to fix.

<Excellent list goes here>

Ogres do not need any help with Rank Bonuses whatsoever. Right now, assuming you allow Ogres to rank up 3 wide, it will cost 105 points or so to get +1 combat resolution for Bulls and nearly 150 points to do the same with Ironguts. That's just plain inefficient, and even with a points drop, it'd remain inefficient. Ogres, like any monster army, are pretty much stuck doing an MSU-style build. They just need to have some help making it work.

Drongol

This is all right on, especially the part about rank bonuses. Even if Ogres are allowed to rank at 3 wide, I would never pay the points required to gain even 1 rank bonus. I would rather have 2 units of 3 ogres which can flank charge for eachother - potentially eliminating a lot of enemy static CR from rank bonus - than pay 100+ points for 1 static CR of my own.

akgaroth
21-01-2009, 18:12
Humm all these problems you are all pointing out are right but I'm not sure that for friendly matches is practical to change all these rules: it would be necessary to make a new armybook for each of these armies (luckily BoC is on the developpement). So I thought that changing 1 or 2 of the more problematic issues in each army are enough to re-equilibrate the things.

O&G:1) just get rid of animosity: is a characteful idea but i think GW approach is wrong, since I think it hasn't to be forcefully a handicap (but a rule that may appear randomly but is beneficial to your troops when it's applied, for example). In fact animosity pushes the player to use as less orc boyz and goblins as possible (which is strange fluffy wise).
2) shamans gets +1 to cast and great shamans gets +2 when they're using the Small and the Big Whaag! lores.

BoC: Since the new army book is coming out in the next months, I think is enough to simply get rid of "unruly" special rule for now(is not even explained so much in the fluff) [and I hope the bestigors will be actually a good option over beasts herds in the next army book, dammit]

OK 1) I agree with the fact that bull charge should cause 1D3 impacts: since ogres don't rely on combat resolution, they should be able to cause enough wounds to win the battle (the same that happens with cavalry, and since they don't have it...) and in any case ogres still need to charge to cause bull charge's impacts.
2) Using gut lore doesn't cause any harm to the ogres sorcerers.

Storak
21-01-2009, 18:56
well, beasts and OK will get their fix with their 7th edition book.

the real problem are O&G, because the words "review" and "update" are missing in the GW dictionary.

for a start, these changes are OK-ish:

O&G :
- Reduce unit point cost on black orcs, big 'uns, and boar boyz. 6th edition Quell animosity needs a comeback.
- Animosity table needs a revamp : infighting should be the worst option with a roll of 1, squabble (no action) should be a 2, but the other rolls should not negatively impact the army. I'd like to see a roll of 6 on the table add frenzy and/or hatred to whatever O&G unit rolls for it for that turn. Maybe the current Waaagh could be the 4-5 option and it let's the army general whether to charge forward or move back (i.e. free additional movement).
- Fanatics need to be brought back up in power, they should rightfully be feared.
-Snotlings re-established as the great tarpit unit they once were (although the single lone troll thing isn't too shabby, I still prefer snotlings)
- Magic Phase revamped, the casting costs are just ridiculous for some spells
- removal of fear elves
- dragon or other large creature mount brought back into the list (wyverns are semi-okay)
-Always found it weird that in the fluff they are these huge Waaghs led by a single character, but when that character dies, the army crumbles. Except on the table this is represented by Vampire Counts, not O&G.

(though i have some doubts about big monsters and my O&G army falls apart pretty fast without the general. our low Ld values don t need an additional special rule...)

to get some facts on power levels, please look at UK GT HEAT results here (http://warhammerworld.typepad.com/warhammer_world_news/events.html).

O&G simply aren t competitive at the moment. major changes are needed, to bring them back on line.

everybody knows that big uns are MUCH too expensive. so are normal boars.
but even units that have been considered good (wolf riders) pale in comparison with their modern counterparts. (marauders: simply better and with TWO POSITIVE special rules, instead a massive negative one! all those cheap flying units..)

PS: for a start, drop all race requirements on magic items.

Kadrium
21-01-2009, 18:58
2) Using gut lore doesn't cause any harm to the ogres sorcerers.

Uhh..... are you saying it shouldn't or it doesn't? Currently half the lore either has a chance to wound or auto-wounds the butcher.

Jack Spratt
21-01-2009, 19:07
I pretty much agree with Drongol about the OK except for

Slave Giant - I like it all broken like that :D, It should just be less points IMO.
More characters and special characters (a Maneater Lord or Hero who came back and took over the tribe, a Slaver of some kind, other interesting stuff)
Characters and unit champions are too expensive IMO.
Rinox Riders (in plastic please) would be cool, but I would love to see at least one other new unit. We do not have that many as it is now.
OK magic should not be remains in play! As it is now your opponent simply removes the one that is a problem for him before he fights you in cc.


But I think that some more changes is needed if our beloved Ogres are to have any chance against...

HE with their ASF
DE with the best army wide charges in the game due to hatred
Vamps with strong magic (and, well the rest of the list...)
Daemons with psycho character, monster ect.
Empire with Volley guns and heavy knights.
And so on...

I do not have any specific ideas right now, but i think they need something to deal with the following problems.
Heavy cavalry. Small groups of heavy cavalry is af huge problem right now and cavalry have not been getting worse these last years (Chaos Knights, Dragon Princes, Undead cavalry and Empire cavalry was always pretty good).

Shooting and charge. Most armies have either units that move faster than 7 and can charge and break most OK units OR units that charge 7 and some means to force you to him (shooting). In general it is very hard, almost impossible, to force any opponent to play on your terms. Other armies almost always gets OK to play on their terms (that is, to their strenghts).

Jack Spratt

akgaroth
21-01-2009, 19:45
Uhh..... are you saying it shouldn't or it doesn't? Currently half the lore either has a chance to wound or auto-wounds the butcher.

Ops... i wanted to say it "shouldn't".

Kadrium
21-01-2009, 19:49
Slave Giant - I like it all broken like that :D, It should just be less points IMO.

Just not good enough. In it's current non-stubborn, retarded-with-chain form, I would maybe pay 125-150 points for it, and at that rate, I'd rather just have 3 ironguts. Of course, I think in the current state of the game that all giants are only marginally useful at best. I have never seen one perform at a level justifying it's cost.

Edit
21-01-2009, 21:30
for OK remove all the silly restrictions, the one gnoblar per bulls unit, must use a combat hero/lord. They just pigeonhole the army into such limited choices it kills the feel of it being your army.

I want a gnoblar heavy list with scraplaunchers and yes it will include bulls, but why am i forced to take 3 units of 3 bulls just to get 3 units of gnoblars. I would like to use a hunter as my general, i am willingly limiting my magic and melee heros so i can make a more thematic army, but this cannot be done.

I understand they are trying to keep people from only taking the bare minimum core, but alot of new books seem basically designed for this (3 units of maurader cav, 3 units of dark riders, HE with being able to take less core) but what of those of us who want to take lots of core but are now restricted by the very rules designed to stop the opposite :(

I bought a bunch of ogre models, tons of gnoblars and hunters and scraplaunchers who now sit in a box in a closet as there is no way i can use this stuff currently, it turned me off them real quick

and btw i play skaven mainly, as you can tell i'm not a fan of the mainstay unit rule either, but with skaven you have lots of unit choices so 2 units of clanrats (who are more useful that 2 units of 3 ogres, and the same relative cost) allows a better variety of options (slaves, nightrunner, nightrunners w/slings, gloabdiers, ratling guns and warpfirethrowers, stormvermin)

RossS
22-01-2009, 00:04
I think that it will be important to consider how the later books in the 7th edition book cycle are constructed. An examination of the trends visible within those texts will point to what GW's designers are planning for the 8th edition. Maybe.

I would contend that the later books in 6th edition (Wood elves and Brettonia in particular) were very much forward thinking in design and general philosophy. There is a reason that they remain competitive in this environment. I realize that the Ogres were released later in the cycle, and that this casts doubt on my assessment of the later books, but I think the problems that afflict that particular army stem from the conservatismof the designers. They did not want their army of big monsters to squash the opposition into a fine paste with ease. It is unfortunate that their concerns badly crippled what was an inventive and distinctive idea for an army.

To be honest, I hope that don't make the Beasts, Tomb Kings etc...competitive in this environment. I hope that these books are designed with an understanding that Warhammer players (I like to think a majority) appreciate movement, static CR and tactics, as opposed to unstoppably powerful characters, super heavy cavalry, monsters and magic.

A return to the commitments of 6th edition is what I hope to see for these future books. Maybe that will make them less competitive against the newer monstrosities GW has concocted, but in the long term it would be healthier for the hobby. The arms race needs to end (a fact that I think is appreciated by GW, since their WOC and Lizardmen texts seem to be better designed and more restrained than, say, the VC, Demon and HE offerings). We shall see.

SuperArchMegalon
22-01-2009, 01:20
Warhammer players ... appreciate movement, static CR and tactics, as opposed to unstoppably powerful characters, super heavy cavalry, monsters and magic.

Amen! Somebody hire this man!

You will notice that BoC, OK, and O&G all rely on many random elements. They either have to do wounds in CC (all at low WS), have to pass multiple leadership tests at low LD, suffer animosity, bicker, or other such random "fun" rules, can't stand up to a charge, or any combination of those. The "best" armies are the most reliable - high LD or resistance to LD-based effects, nothing that's going to misfire, resistance to miscasts, etc.

Also I've noticed that the new "power" armies have some ridiculous magic items no player leaves without. I think GW designers should rethink how powerful they want magical iltems to be. Why have they developed a system where a certain ring happens to be carried to EVERY battle the Dark elves go to, without fail, and changes the entire dynamic of the game with very little cost input?

Halelel
22-01-2009, 01:33
I agree with a lot of what you are saying RossS, however, I honestly don't see GW making Tomb Kings non-magic heavy. In fact, I think they have to make them even more "magicky" (hehe) to compare with Vampire Counts. It honestly would not surprise me in the least if GW gave Tomb Kings the ability to cast incantations like crazy per turn.

I do agree that I movement, static CR, and tactics are the core of the game. It's also why Ogres struggle and why they received such harsh criticism in the past as they went against the common grain, so to speak.

Rutteger1
22-01-2009, 04:35
beasts- update. just update. And maybe a unit in the middle, with better leadership?
same with ogre kingdoms and orks really.... I think a broader range of units. Except maybe orks....

MURPH
22-01-2009, 05:56
Ogre Kingdom Fixes:

Army wide rules: Ogres ignore panic caused by friendly units "More loot for me?! Bonus!"
Ogres massive bulk allows them to build enormous momentum that will seldom be stopped. For every three inches moved (rounding down) while charging the unit generates D3 impact hits. The unit loses this rule if it is reduced to less than 3 models.

Army Composition: Include the Gnoblar Characters and a couple of their characterful units....lucky gitz are pushing it...and a gnoblar wizard.

Army Comp Rule: If led by a gnoblar character the army must contain more gnoblar units than ogre units. If led by an ogre character the army must contain more ogre units than gnoblar units.

Army List:

Tyrant: 0-1 removed May ride a rhinox
Slaughtermaster: May be general
Bruiser: Fine, may ride a rhinox
Butcher: Fine
Hunter: May not be general, may move and fire with bow.

Gut Magic:
Spell 1: May regain any wound lost during the course of the battle.

Ogre Bulls: Fine
Gnoblars: Lovely
Ironguts: WS 4
Trappers: Fine

Special:

Scraplauncher: fine
Yhetees: Any shooting/combat attacks are at -1 to hit.
Leadbelchers: 45pts Suffer D3 wounds per misfire

Rare:
Gorgers: Remove ravenous, now frenzied(never lose it)

Maneaters: WS 5
Rhinox Riders: d3+2 impact hits bull charge
Slave Giant: Stubborn Ld 7 160pts


Just my 2 cents, love the army. Any C&C welcome.

Murph

Jack Spratt
22-01-2009, 07:05
Kadrium: I kinda agree with you. Giants have yet to prove themselves to me as well. At say 140 points I would take the Slave Giant though...

RossS (and others...): I do not agree with your description of the latest books. I take it your are refering to Vamps, DoC, HE, DE, and so on. The game has changed a little, but not that much. Characters was always important. DoC does set a new standart, but this is an extreme case. Vamps have very powerfull characters yes, but then again they were very good in 6edt also.

Monsters have become important, and IMO most were pretty useless in 6edt. This is a big change, but a welcome one to me. To me monsters are just an extra element to the game that raises the complexity of WFB. The MYTH of 'just take a monster and break a ranked up unit with a character in it' has yet to happen to me or any of the people I play with...

I like complex, thats why i much prefer WFB to 40k.

Jack

Mireadur
22-01-2009, 11:58
O&G :
- Reduce unit point cost on black orcs, big 'uns, and boar boyz. 6th edition Quell animosity needs a comeback.
- Animosity table needs a revamp : infighting should be the worst option with a roll of 1, squabble (no action) should be a 2, but the other rolls should not negatively impact the army. I'd like to see a roll of 6 on the table add frenzy and/or hatred to whatever O&G unit rolls for it for that turn. Maybe the current Waaagh could be the 4-5 option and it let's the army general whether to charge forward or move back (i.e. free additional movement).
- Fanatics need to be brought back up in power, they should rightfully be feared.
-Snotlings re-established as the great tarpit unit they once were (although the single lone troll thing isn't too shabby, I still prefer snotlings)
- Magic Phase revamped, the casting costs are just ridiculous for some spells
- removal of fear elves
- dragon or other large creature mount brought back into the list (wyverns are semi-okay)
-Always found it weird that in the fluff they are these huge Waaghs led by a single character, but when that character dies, the army crumbles. Except on the table this is represented by Vampire Counts, not O&G.

I agree with some of the points but others i just dont see them.. Dragons for O&G? i'd prefer not!, also after a warlord dies the waaagh tends to fade ''after'' the battle, not during... In the current ruling your troops dont even take a LD check when the general dies (something i see really bad they removed, at least should have a 12'' range for the check!).

foot goblins, boar cav, big'uns and trolls! need to be some cheaper. While black orcs should keep their price but for god's shake add them some special ruling..

Magic item list.. You forgot that one.. As we are already used to with Matt Ward he makes fagtastic items with really weird ruling which in his mind appear to be the bomb.. but in the end, in game terms, they tend to be useless and overcosted. Keep in mind im not asking for more powerful items, but rather less situational and better pointed ones.

About animosity everybody agrees that was the worst move by far from this edition. Useless Ward wanted to make it more important into battles, because frankly, in 6th edition it never affected the army. But he should have added a system with benefits along the disadvantages that is what we have now (the real problem is that the guy doesnt have a clue about the rules so he thought 6's would actually work well for the army).

Fanatics are ok imho. although nets appear to be expensive?

I see the spell lists as one of the best made (along with the HE one) not overpowering spells which totally force mass dispelling, some useful spells here and there.. Maybe casting costs too high in certain spells for small waagh? Just miss a little bit more of character given to the green waagh rule like being able to draw more than a single dice and make it 10orcs/20gobbos instead just 20orcs for it to work.

Not much needed in truth to make them work. F GTs and WAAC lists.

P.S: oh and i really hope they dont ever remove the fear elves rules as well as the dwarven hate from those armies... WH needs to keep its spirit.

Kadrium
22-01-2009, 13:57
At say 140 points I would take the Slave Giant though...

Why though, when 3 ironguts cost 4 more points and are much more effective and reliable? I might take one to break up the monotony, I guess.

The real problem I have with the Ogre Kingdoms list is that you can cask this question of almost every single thing on the list: Why bother when you can just take more ironguts?

You can make a very successful list with a Tyrant, 3 butchers, 1 unit of trappers, 2 gorgers, and Irongut spam. I hope that GW's solution for this issue is to make other units competitive by improving them, not making ironguts less attractive by toning them down.

Jack Spratt
22-01-2009, 15:15
Kadrium: Again I pretty much agree with you. I usually play 3k or 4k. I would take one or two to get the terror and the movement, also even the slave giant has a chance to beat any opponent, even if it is a small one. Oh and I find it kind of fluffy.

Kadrium
22-01-2009, 15:52
Yeah, if you're playing games of that size, I would take one, if nothing else for the variety.

In a competitive list, I would never field one. It's too bad because I really want to like giants, but they always get shot up, and a non-stubborn one is so hard to babysit.

darkace77450
22-01-2009, 16:52
The real problem I have with the Ogre Kingdoms list is that you can cask this question of almost every single thing on the list: Why bother when you can just take more ironguts?


The only answer I can give you is for theme purposes. I am in the minority, but I will gladly handicap my army to keep it strongly themed.