PDA

View Full Version : How to mitigate the effects of animosity in WFB 8th Edition



Arrahed
29-04-2016, 12:11
I created this thread to continue the discussion on how to deal with the effects of animosity effectively while keeping the T9A clean. :)

I will start by addressing the points from this post in the T9A thread:

As a non-orc&Goblin player, I am going to point out all the ways you can mitigate or just plain prevent that 1/36 event from ever hurting you in 8th edition.

1. Black Orc Character in the unit with the mage.
Yes this is more expensive but so what? You're not limited on the numbers you can take and a basic black orc hero is 92pts, not that expensive and a handy bodyguard for the mage.
If you only have 3 units he's going to be in one of them anyway, may as well be the one with the mage that you don't want squabbling.

A Black Orc is a dedicated melee character. He will help to solve the animosity issue but is also effectively doubling the point costs of a Goblin Shaman. I think this would make Goblin Shamans the most expensive Wizards in the game.
It surely is an option but a very expensive one. I would rather spend my limited Character points on something else.



2. More units.
With 3 units, that 1/36 chance will crippled 2/3rds of your army, with a measly 1/3 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.
With 10 units, that 1/36 chance will cripple just 1/5th of the army, with an 8/10 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.

I will assume that 2/3 of the units have the animosity rule for this estimation:
3 units have a 1/18 chance of crippling 2/3 of my army each turn.
If I take 10 units I will have a chance of roughly 1/5 that I will roll a double one for one unit. Over the course of 5 turns it becomes very likely to happen.
An army with 10 units is also very tightly packed (which is necessary anyway for a low leadership army) making it very unlikely that the unit rolling the double one is not within 12" of an allied unit.
It is also very likely that at least one unit cannot act freely each turn. That makes it very problematic to maintain an effective battle line.



3. Make sure the Mage unit isn't the closest to any of the other Animosty suffering units.
This should be obvious, the 1/36 bad result only harms the nearest unit, so if you're not the nearest then it's impossible for it to hurt you.
Being half an inch further away stops you being the nearest.
Say you have 3 units, the middle one rolls a double 1.
Which unit does it hurt, the one to the right which is 3" away, or the one to the left which is 3.1" away?
The one to the left obviously as it's closer by 0.1".

That sounds obvious on paper but is very difficult in practice.I would guess its manageable in the first turn, challenging in the second and almost pure luck in the subsequent turns. You have to take care that a unit with limited mobility stays out of charge and shooting arcs of the enemy, keep potential shooting and magic targets within range and LoS and keep charging lanes open for your own units. I think that is enough.

Rogue Star
29-04-2016, 12:15
... why not make an points purchasable upgrade that helps nullify animosity if you feel it's too severe but don't want to drop it? Like saying a banner or something grants a re-roll? I dunno, I thought if you took the system and ran with it in T9A, you'd not minding fudging things a bit?

blackcherry
29-04-2016, 12:40
Isn't Animosity a mechanic Orcs have already have that their list is built around, so managing and reducing animosity is part of playing an orc force?

I suppose if you want to reduce it, the best way it to use the tools you have always had in a list - black orc characters or taking units that behave a bit better.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 12:54
Isn't Animosity a mechanic Orcs have already have that their list is built around, so managing and reducing animosity is part of playing an orc force?

I suppose if you want to reduce it, the best way it to use the tools you have always had in a list - black orc characters or taking units that behave a bit better.
In theory yes. But do you honestly think that GW balanced the army around the animosity rule? The same company that release the Chaos Demon book? I am sure there is a reason for mostly seeing O&G gunlines in competitive environments.
The tools are maybe there but it is so restrictive.

In my opinion, the options are:
1. Work around animosity resulting in a gunline or similar lists.
2. Mitigating animosity resulting in a gimped list.
3. Hoping for the best.

Drakkar du Chaos
29-04-2016, 13:14
Or you could play T9A instead :rolleyes:

MLP
29-04-2016, 13:32
In theory yes. But do you honestly think that GW balanced the army around the animosity rule? The same company that release the Chaos Demon book? I am sure there is a reason for mostly seeing O&G gunlines in competitive environments.
The tools are maybe there but it is so restrictive.

In my opinion, the options are:
1. Work around animosity resulting in a gunline or similar lists.
2. Mitigating animosity resulting in a gimped list.
3. Hoping for the best.

I don't think GW really balanced any of the 8th books that deeply tbh. But they have repeated stated that min maxing list is not what they see warhammer being about.

Your option 2 is perfectly acceptable. You may have a less powerful list overall, but it's more reliable. This is the hard choice for a O&G player to get this balance right.

Or if you don't like the way the army plays, play a different army.

blackcherry
29-04-2016, 13:38
In theory yes. But do you honestly think that GW balanced the army around the animosity rule? The same company that release the Chaos Demon book? I am sure there is a reason for mostly seeing O&G gunlines in competitive environments.
The tools are maybe there but it is so restrictive.

In my opinion, the options are:
1. Work around animosity resulting in a gunline or similar lists.
2. Mitigating animosity resulting in a gimped list.
3. Hoping for the best.

Well if you are playing competitively then it may be where you are going wrong. GW have never gone for what is competitive in their army lists - its all about game and army feel with them. So yes, certain lists will become dominant in that mindset, because competitive play wants to reduce anything out of the players control as much as possible. Outside of house ruling things with whoever you play with, there's not much option other than to use the tools provided by GW to deal with animosity.

If that results in a list that isn't how you would want it because certain units are 'gimped' when you take into account rules that added to enhance game feel over competition, that's on you. I don't complain that my wood elves are T3 and have poor armour saves and it cripples them as a force - it's just a part of their army I have to deal with if I want to play using them.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 13:41
A Black Orc is a dedicated melee character.
It surely is an option but a very expensive one.
I would rather spend my limited Character points on something else.
True, but it is an option.
You can put one in multiple units around the one you wish to protect from animosity, this boosts combat ability but can be expensive if it's a list addition rather than part of the list.
It's also unfluffy in a goblin based army.


3 units have a 1/18 chance of crippling 2/3 of my army each turn.
If I take 10 units I will have a chance of roughly 1/5 that I will roll a double one for one unit. Over the course of 5 turns it becomes very likely to happen.
An army with 10 units is also very tightly packed (which is necessary anyway for a low leadership army) making it very unlikely that the unit rolling the double one is not within 12" of an allied unit.
It is also very likely that at least one unit cannot act freely each turn.
That makes it very problematic to maintain an effective battle line.
More units does increase the odds of one of them suffering animosity, but it does mean that less of the army suffers and as it's a more constant effect you are forced to take it into account, rather than it being an unwelcome surprise. Equally with more units on the field it's much easier to work around those that do squabble.

Similarly spreading the mages out means it's far less likely they'll all be unable to cast due to squabbling.


That sounds obvious on paper but is very difficult in practice.
It's a fairly trivial thing to do in reality.

It's merely a case of keeping a smaller gap between pairs of units than you have between anything else.
The gap difference can be a fraction of an inch.
a 1.0" gap between the pairs
a 1.1" gap between the pairs and anything else on the board that has animosity.

MLP
29-04-2016, 13:42
If that results in a list that isn't how you would want it because certain units are 'gimped' when you take into account rules that added to enhance game feel over competition, that's on you. I don't complain that my wood elves are T3 and have poor armour saves and it cripples them as a force - it's just a part of their army I have to deal with if I want to play using them.

Exactly this. Every army plays differently and has pros and cons. It's on each general to build their list to maximise the pros and minimise the cons.

This is the same in any game whether WHFB, 9th age, AoS, KoW, 40k...

There will always be an optimised min-maxed list for each army no matter the way the rules and points or lack of are.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 13:53
Well if you are playing competitively then it may be where you are going wrong. GW have never gone for what is competitive in their army lists - its all about game and army feel with them. So yes, certain lists will become dominant in that mindset, because competitive play wants to reduce anything out of the players control as much as possible. Outside of house ruling things with whoever you play with, there's not much option other than to use the tools provided by GW to deal with animosity.

If that results in a list that isn't how you would want it because certain units are 'gimped' when you take into account rules that added to enhance game feel over competition, that's on you. I don't complain that my wood elves are T3 and have poor armour saves and it cripples them as a force - it's just a part of their army I have to deal with if I want to play using them.

I never played competitively in my live. I simply prefer a balanced game. I don't want the game to be 'on rails' which animosity enforces in some way and I don't like my games to be decided at the list building stage.
The result is that only option 1 (Work around animosity) remains which I don't like either because it reduces the great variety of an O&G army to a small handful of units.

I don't think this is comparable with T3 of elves. Wood elves are in fact my second army besides O&G. Different armies have simply different stat lines. O&G have horrible initiative and that is no problem at all. I know about that factor and I can deal with it.

Horace35
29-04-2016, 13:57
A Black Orc Big Boss comes in at 90 and includes free weapon upgrades and heavy armour. Seems the best bet in terms of mitigating animosity if you have gone all in on one unit. Then all you would have to do is make sure surrounding units have another unit closer by and they are safe from interference.

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 13:59
Keep units as large ass possible and blorcs in between two large units.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 14:10
Keep units as large ass possible and blorcs in between two large units.

That is possible. Unfortunately, it is again a very strict limitation in list building: I have to take Black Orcs. They are quite expensive in large units and MSU with low Initiative is basically throwing away points.
It is a nice way if you want to play a Black Orc heavy list but doesn't work in thematic lists.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 14:17
A Black Orc Big Boss comes in at 90 and includes free weapon upgrades and heavy armour. Seems the best bet in terms of mitigating animosity if you have gone all in on one unit. Then all you would have to do is make sure surrounding units have another unit closer by and they are safe from interference.
That works but you are paying 90 points for the mitigation of animosity for one unit. And you usually want to keep some units close to your wizards to protect them and keep them in BSB range.
That is quite a lot of stuff to do to protect one unit.

Denny
29-04-2016, 14:18
It is a nice way if you want to play a Black Orc heavy list but doesn't work in thematic lists.

But that's the nature of thematic lists; they have weaknesses.
Its like me complaining that my Khorne themed list has a lack of spell casting, my Slayer themed list has poor armour, or my zombie themed list can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 14:30
But that's the nature of thematic lists; they have weaknesses.
Its like me complaining that my Khorne themed list has a lack of spell casting, my Slayer themed list has poor armour, or my zombie themed list can't fight its way out of a wet paper bag.
But isn't that sad? Should the rules punish you for playing a thematic list.
And weaknesses are perfectly fine. They are the essence of what makes these games interesting. But there is a difference between weaknesses and balance. You can have 20 armies with 20 distinct weaknesses and still have a balanced game. An army were the majority of possible builds are significantly weaker than most other armies is just badly designed.

I agree that O&G are not the only army with balancing issues but animosity seems to be the most beloved rule in the world.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 14:36
Keep units as large ass possible and blorcs in between two large units.

The Blorcs don't actually prevent a unit on either side of themselves from causing the other to squabble.

eg.
Unit 1
Black orcs
Unit 2

If Unit 1 squabbles and rolls a 1, and Unit 2 is within 12" of it and is also the nearest unit subject to animosity, it will squabble.

blackcherry
29-04-2016, 14:48
I never played competitively in my live. I simply prefer a balanced game. I don't want the game to be 'on rails' which animosity enforces in some way and I don't like my games to be decided at the list building stage.
The result is that only option 1 (Work around animosity) remains which I don't like either because it reduces the great variety of an O&G army to a small handful of units.

I don't think this is comparable with T3 of elves. Wood elves are in fact my second army besides O&G. Different armies have simply different stat lines. O&G have horrible initiative and that is no problem at all. I know about that factor and I can deal with it.

So you want a disciplined, organised force of Orcs. Games Workshop have said that only Black Orks are like that. If you don't like that...well again, there's house ruling stuff. But Animosity has been a part of the Orc army list for a long, long time, in the same way that Vampire Count armies have Crumble. Players may have a problem with you wanting to get rid of it, instead of using the options GW has provided to you to minimise the effects of it.

So if WFB Orcs aren't for you...well I would suggest playing another army or another gaming system. Because they aren't going to change anytime soon (if ever now!)

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 14:55
The Blorcs don't actually prevent a unit on either side of themselves from causing the other to squabble.

eg.
Unit 1
Black orcs
Unit 2

If Unit 1 squabbles and rolls a 1, and Unit 2 is within 12" of it and is also the nearest unit subject to animosity, it will squabble.

True but it means one animosity immune unit in between two animosity-prone ones. So they won't prevent it but they will mitigate the damage once it happens.


But isn't that sad? Should the rules punish you for playing a thematic list.
If you want a thematic army that's also incredibly competitive then you're basically need to reevaluate your priorities. Build a theme and then figure out a way to make it work.

The theme I'm running is infantry orc only. No goblins, no cavalry, no savage or whatever, just orcs and black orcs. Really limiting but the army looks awesome, and it plays awesome, even when I'm getting my ass kicked. That's what thematic armies are about.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 14:59
So you want a disciplined, organised force of Orcs. Games Workshop have said that only Black Orks are like that. If you don't like that...well again, there's house ruling stuff. But Animosity has been a part of the Orc army list for a long, long time, in the same way that Vampire Count armies have Crumble. Players may have a problem with you wanting to get rid of it, instead of using the options GW has provided to you to minimise the effects of it.

So if WFB Orcs aren't for you...well I would suggest playing another army or another gaming system. Because they aren't going to change anytime soon (if ever now!)
Well, I am playing a different game. I believe that is how the whole discussion started. :)

I don't want O&G to be an disciplined army. I just severely dislike GW's implementation of an undisciplined army because - in my opinion - the cons of that implementation massively outweigh the pros.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 15:01
True but it means one animosity immune unit in between two animosity-prone ones. So they won't prevent it but they will mitigate the damage once it happens.

I don't understand what you mean by that.
How does it does mitigate the damage?

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 15:04
If you want a thematic army that's also incredibly competitive then you're basically need to reevaluate your priorities. Build a theme and then figure out a way to make it work.
Or play a game that allows me to build thematic lists that are just as competitive as any other list.
A game (or a rule) that forces you to decide whether you want to have a fun army or fun playing just seems strange to me. I totally understand that fun is different for each player. To me it is not fun to have a severe advantage over my opponent before that game starts or to have a severe disadvantage.

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 15:06
A failed animosity check means the units hurts a nearby unit and that nearby unit hurts back. If that happens twice to the same units you're in way bigger trouble.


Or play a game that allows me to build thematic lists that are just as competitive as any other list.
A game (or a rule) that forces you to decide whether you want to have a fun army or fun playing just seems strange to me. I totally understand that fun is different for each player. To me it is not fun to have a severe advantage over my opponent before that game starts or to have a severe disadvantage.

Yes, if you care about competitiveness it's recommended to find a game that lets you have your cake and eat it.

Denny
29-04-2016, 15:07
But isn't that sad? Should the rules punish you for playing a thematic list.

A thematic list is, in effect a limited list (you are excluding some units to focus on others).
Assuming individual units have specific functions, strengths, and weaknesses then including only a limited selection will give you advantages against certain units and disadvantages against others.
The only way to mitigate this would be if all units were equally good against each other, in which case what is the point of having different units?

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 15:26
A thematic list is, in effect a limited list (you are excluding some units to focus on others).
Assuming individual units have specific functions, strengths, and weaknesses then including only a limited selection will give you advantages against certain units and disadvantages against others.
The only way to mitigate this would be if all units were equally good against each other, in which case what is the point of having different units?
Of course, taking the thematic aspect to the extreme were you only take one or two different units will necessarily have consequences on the effectiveness of that army. Skewed lists always have that.

But not taking Black Orcs because of thematic reasons is not the same as playing a pure goblin spider rider army.

Malagor
29-04-2016, 15:56
And as Tokamak said, it sounds like you are trying to have the cake and eat it.
If you take a theme list then you are limiting yourself.
I have for example tried an all-knight list for my bretonnia, it did ok but it had some quite heavy drawbacks like me unable to grind and knights forced to deal with chaff. These are drawbacks that I myself added to my list since there are units in the armybook that can deal with those problems so that knights don't have to do that and instead focus on what they do best.
If you want to do a goblin gunline then you are creating drawbacks as well. For example, goblins much like orcs wants to fight so you have to deal with animosity since you won't take a unit that will handle animosity for you.
You also have to contend with overall poor LD, poor WS, low S and low T.
Theme-lists are for those players that are ok with the drawbacks that they created since they either accept them or try to work around them in a effort to win(and have fun of course).
If you can't handle that then sorry but maybe that theme-list isn't for you.

Urgat
29-04-2016, 16:08
Well, personally, I never paid any real attention to animosity in the list building stage. I play goblins, I just multiply units as much as needed. Besides warmachines (ranged and charriots), non-gob units (pump wagons, trolls) and characters, I usually have at least four blocks and two units of wolves minimum. Wolves will always be put in a way that they can intercept incomings if a block decides to squabble at the worst time. Blocks are also generally put by pairs so if one squabbles, the other will cover it. And if they all squabble (it happens from times to times), I simply have too many targets for the enemy to engage. Goblins in 8th ed tend to take charges well anyway. They should be steadfast, and they should also be able to mitigate kills a lot. Night gobs have the nets, they may even be lucky with fanatics. Common gobs have sneaky skewers, with a big boss and a boss, it's likely the enemy unit will have to direct most of his attacks on 5 minis, losing many of them. Up to you to use that to your advantage.
An important thing is to not rush. I know it sounds opposite to what one would want (rushing in melee to stop animosity as fast as possible), but if half your army stops, and the other half rushes forward, you'll have units left to fend for themselves. And what tells you the units that moved forward won't move forward again, while the ones that stayed behind will not decide to keep at it for one more turn, increasing the gap again?
If one or two units squabble, you can move forward leisurely. If it's more, it's better to just stand still, correct your line, take the occasional shot, maybe send sacrificial stuff (wolves usually in my case) forward to disrupt the enemy line a bit.
As for shamans and animosity, well, i'm afraid I have no advice. My shamans are there for one purpose only: dispelling. They will cast a spell whenever there's an interesting opportunity, but magic is never a part of my plans. My shamans are there to make sure my opponent's magic (which will be part of HIS plan) is disrupted. I'd rather my shamans cast nothing and dispell all battle, rather than count on a bad moon curse or whatever that I may not be able to cast because of animosity, or will miscast and kill my shaman and a chunk of a unit.

Oh, and I'm doing rather well, by the way. I got a pretty balanced win/loss ratio.


If you take a theme list then you are limiting yourself.

Tell me about it. I have a problem in that I tend to always take the same list that I'm comfortable with. To counter that, I've written a dozen different lists, all themed, and now I roll for my list before starting a game (I wonder what the 9th Age players would think about that level of randomness :p). It forces me to play other units, and that way I have units that finally leave the shelves.
Some lists are seriously tough:
the all night goblins one is atrocious. The low Ld, the lack of speed, the need to rely on fanatics, it's horrible.
I'm unable to do anything with my all savage orcs list too, I'm too reliant on my wolves, I have a tough time with an army that has no fast throwaway unit. It hits hard, but it gets hit just as hard.
Some are rather random. The all spider list is really hit and miss. The arachnarok usally draws all the attention, the big boss unit on gigantic spiders can do numbers on anything though.
Some have proven surprisingly tough, like the all mounted list (wolves, boars, spiders, chariots, pump wagons. All characters mounted). Fast, but animosity can really ruin your day, and it's terribly fragile.

But they're usually fun. For now, the only one I didn't enjoy was the all night goblins one, coz who'd have guessed? It's boring as hell. Not enough different choices to make it interesting. Which is so weird because it feels like when it's about goblins, it's always about night goblins with GW. But my all common gobs is way more fun, it's a pretty complete army really.

Folomo
29-04-2016, 16:10
Sad to see that people think you can't have cake and eat it in wargaming :(

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 16:11
And as Tokamak said, it sounds like you are trying to have the cake and eat it.
If you take a theme list then you are limiting yourself.
I have for example tried an all-knight list for my bretonnia, it did ok but it had some quite heavy drawbacks like me unable to grind and knights forced to deal with chaff. These are drawbacks that I myself added to my list since there are units in the armybook that can deal with those problems so that knights don't have to do that and instead focus on what they do best.
If you want to do a goblin gunline then you are creating drawbacks as well. For example, goblins much like orcs wants to fight so you have to deal with animosity since you won't take a unit that will handle animosity for you.
You also have to contend with overall poor LD, poor WS, low S and low T.
Theme-lists are for those players that are ok with the drawbacks that they created since they either accept them or try to work around them in a effort to win(and have fun of course).
If you can't handle that then sorry but maybe that theme-list isn't for you.

But my whole point is that you can have the cake and eat it. Just not with GW's implementation of O&G.
I was simply wondering why people apparently don't want to have the cake and eat it. Why keep a rule with so many drawbacks?
Of course different people have very different priorities and a balanced game is obviously not important to everyone. I am just puzzled that a rule that brings so many 'problems' to the game has so many fans.

blackcherry
29-04-2016, 16:19
Arrahed...it seems you are asking for something you can't get. Especially now that WFB is dead - you are stuck with those rules.

House rule them out or see what T9A is offering if you want to play Orcs in the warhammer universe. Otherwise, another game system is for you where Orcs don't suffer from animosity. Those are your options.

Everything else (including trying to convince those who don't agree with your point of view to accept it) is futile. Are you ok with that?

Denny
29-04-2016, 16:25
I was simply wondering why people apparently don't want to have the cake and eat it. Why keep a rule with so many drawbacks?

Rules with drawbacks are just as valid as rules with benefits, providing a unit is cheaper to compensate.
Another example: Undead crumbling when the general dies. I recall back in 4th that when the general died every undead unit was wiped out except characters. This has been toned down considerably since then (grumble grumble) but it was always one of the most fun parts about playing with or against undead; they could just keep making new units and overwhelm you, but if you could somehow take out that one super tough model you could instantly win.

What do greenskins get in place of animosity? Resilience. They are cheaper and tougher than most armies (stats which require no skill to use and are always beneficial). Now if you want to argue that they are not pointed correctly for the trade off then sure, I can accept that, but I'd prefer that their points were adjusted rather than they were made more reliable and bland.

Also (and I don't mean this in a rude way) but I'm not sure you understand what 'have your cake and eat it' means; the idiom points to the fact there should be trade offs. Units that are good at something should have a weakness in another way. If you 'Can have your cake and eat it' then you are basically saying 'I want units that are good at everything and bad at nothing'.

If we applied this to all units then everything would, in effect, be average, which would be pretty dull.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 16:30
But my whole point is that you can have the cake and eat it. Just not with GW's implementation of O&G.
I was simply wondering why people apparently don't want to have the cake and eat it. Why keep a rule with so many drawbacks?
Of course different people have very different priorities and a balanced game is obviously not important to everyone. I am just puzzled that a rule that brings so many 'problems' to the game has so many fans.

I take it you're the type of person who plays all video games on easy mode with a god mode cheat enabled and everything unlocked from the start, correct?
People like a challenge, and animosity presents a challenge.

Plus it means their troops get to be cheaper due to having a negative aspect to them.

Horace35
29-04-2016, 16:33
I don't demand that every rule is positive to the army I play. It is a drawback of the race which causes minor annoyances and can be mitigated against. Occasionally it bones you the same way several things do with O&G. They are one of the more random races and I am fine with that, it is how they are meant to be. They hit like a s**t-ton of bricks when it all comes together.

If you are choosing to deliberately not pick the things that are there to work around a detrimental characteristic I am afraid you just have to lump it as far as I am concerned. Not remove it from the game just because it disrupts your golden plan. Work around it, use your skills!

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 16:41
Arrahed...it seems you are asking for something you can't get. Especially now that WFB is dead - you are stuck with those rules.

House rule them out or see what T9A is offering if you want to play Orcs in the warhammer universe. Otherwise, another game system is for you where Orcs don't suffer from animosity. Those are your options.

Everything else (including trying to convince those who don't agree with your point of view to accept it) is futile. Are you ok with that?
This discussion came up in the T9A thread which is a game I love. The discussion about the benefits and drawbacks didn't really fit there which is why I started another thread to discuss the issue without messing up that thread.
Forums would be a boring place if everyone would state their opinion once and then move along. :)

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 16:42
Rules with drawbacks are just as valid as rules with benefits, providing a unit is cheaper to compensate.

The is not the kind of drawback I meant.
I meant drawback from a game design perspective. You are talking about a rule that brings a disadvantage to certain game elements. Sorry for messing that up.

toonboy78
29-04-2016, 16:43
i always thought the USP of o+G was the animosity

as denny mentioned it is sort of like saying i like dwarves but they are too slow, they should be made faster.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 16:44
I take it you're the type of person who plays all video games on easy mode with a god mode cheat enabled and everything unlocked from the start, correct?
People like a challenge, and animosity presents a challenge.

Is this really the kind of discussion you want to have? I don't.

Vazalaar
29-04-2016, 17:01
i always thought the USP of o+G was the animosity

as denny mentioned it is sort of like saying i like dwarves but they are too slow, they should be made faster.

Lol:)

9th Age made dwarfs faster. They changed the Relentless rule from no LD test for marching when nearby enemy unit to triple movement instead of double when marching.

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 17:02
Is this really the kind of discussion you want to have? I don't.

And what kind of discussion is that?

Urgat
29-04-2016, 17:13
Lol:)

9th Age made dwarfs faster. They changed the Relentless rule from no LD test for marching when nearby enemy unit to triple movement instead of double when marching.

That being said, M3 for dwarfs is an anomaly that shouldn't exist anymore. It's now blamed on them having small legs... it doesn't seem to apply to goblins or, heck, snotlings :p
The M3 thing comes from 4th/5th ed, really. Back then, wearing heavy armour gave you a -1 to M. Dwarfs didn't suffer from that malus, they had M3 instead. But that meant everybody with heavy armor (bar couple exceptions) were M3, not just dwarfs. Everybody was therefore equal. The difference was really just for flavour. And then the malus was dropped, but dwarfs kept on dragging their feets. It's kindda like fear elves, it used to be for balances reasons, but it shouldn't exist anymore, elves really don't need the extra help anymore.

stroller
29-04-2016, 17:18
I don't want O&G to be an disciplined army. I just severely dislike GW's implementation of an undisciplined army because - in my opinion - the cons of that implementation massively outweigh the pros.

I can see where you might be coming from in a tournament. On the other hand, orcs (and orks) are FUN. Part of the planning is being aware of animosity - and - if it's going to be a problem - to plan around that - duplicate units just in case is one option there: others have been mentioned. Otherwise, accept animosity as part of the flavour. Animosity has certainly interfered with my plan on more than one occasion. The enemy having his own plan has tended to be rather more disruptive.

Ultimately, animosity is part of who GW orcs ARE. If your dislike of that rule outweighs the fun the characterisation brings, then I guess stick with 9th, and enjoy it.

Vazalaar
29-04-2016, 17:24
That being said, M3 for dwarfs is an anomaly that shouldn't exist anymore. It's now blamed on them having small legs... it doesn't seem to apply to goblins or, heck, snotlings :p
The M3 thing comes from 4th/5th ed, really. Back then, wearing heavy armour gave you a -1 to M. Dwarfs didn't suffer from that malus, they had M3 instead. But that meant everybody with heavy armor (bar couple exceptions) were M3, not just dwarfs. Everybody was therefore equal. The difference was really just for flavour. And then the malus was dropped, but dwarfs kept on dragging their feets. It's kindda like fear elves, it used to be for balances reasons, but it shouldn't exist anymore, elves really don't need the extra help anymore.

I agree, but with the Relentless change dwarf infantry now moves faster than every other infantry unit except elves and Skaven.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 17:27
I agree, but with the Relentless change dwarf infantry now moves faster than every other infantry unit except elves and Skaven.

They do and I am honestly not sure how I feel about that, yet. But you have to keep in mind that this is only true for marching. The charge range of Dwarfs is still shorter than the charge range of all other factions which could lead to some interesting tactical decisions.

Urgat
29-04-2016, 17:34
I agree, but with the Relentless change dwarf infantry now moves faster than every other infantry unit except elves and Skaven.

Yeah, that's rather stupid. It's typically one of the case of things that worked ok that they shouldn't have touched.
To be honest, GW did that too, with the undead. I don't remember during which edition it happened (probably 7th?), but before, undeads used to be slow, like the slowest, even slower than dwarfs, they couldn't march unless "danse macabre"ed (I don't actually remember if they were allowed to march, or if it was like one more regular move, sorry). And come that fated edition where they could just zip around the terrain because they could be dansed a few times or something, and there they turned from slowest to fastest army in the game, just like that :p


They do and I am honestly not sure how I feel about that, yet. But you have to keep in mind that this is only true for marching. The charge range of Dwarfs is still shorter than the charge range of all other factions which could lead to some interesting tactical decisions.

Please remind me how charges work in 9th ed. I seem to remember it's a blanket M+2D6 for everybody and everything, but that can't be right?

Vazalaar
29-04-2016, 17:35
They do and I am honestly not sure how I feel about that, yet. But you have to keep in mind that this is only true for marching. The charge range of Dwarfs is still shorter than the charge range of all other factions which could lead to some interesting tactical decisions.

Yes, I can't say much about the pro's and con's of that. As I never played against dwarfs.:)

One huge positive thing about 9th Age is how their online rules and armylist works. It so easy to navigate. It's brilliant.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 18:36
Yes, I can't say much about the pro's and con's of that. As I never played against dwarfs.:)

One huge positive thing about 9th Age is how their online rules and armylist works. It so easy to navigate. It's brilliant.
I will have a game against Dwarfs tomorrow. I will report if it feels weird. :)

Malagor
29-04-2016, 18:58
Please remind me how charges work in 9th ed. I seem to remember it's a blanket M+2D6 for everybody and everything, but that can't be right?
Charges work the same as in 8e, M+2d6.
But if you got a champion in the unit then he makes the charge range(the result from the 2d6) atleast a 4 so a dwarf unit with a champion in it atleast got a 7 inch charge range, a unit without has atleast a 5 inch.

Tokamak
29-04-2016, 19:32
Okay I'm not going to touch 9th ever.

Arrahed
02-05-2016, 07:56
As promised some short impressions on 9" marching dwarfs.

Short answer: its fine.

Long answer:
Dwarfs look super intimidating on paper. +1 Str when charging, Ward saves 6++ (5++ in first turn of CC) for all units with shields when attacked from the front, 9" marching, no -1 to-hit for stand&shoot, etc. But what makes everything awesome is that they are not overpowered. They seem to be very much in line with the other armies.
Having movement 3 is still a big disadvantage since charge ranges are considerably shorter for them. That means they still have to move closer to the enemy before charging which makes it easier to outflank them. The only thing that seems to be affected by the triple marching is that it is no longer possible to play full avoidance against dwarfs. Which is good.

Spiney Norman
02-05-2016, 10:03
A failed animosity check means the units hurts a nearby unit and that nearby unit hurts back. If that happens twice to the same units you're in way bigger trouble.

Um no, when you fail an animosity test you roll a dice and on a 1 that happens, there is an equal chance of you rolling a six and being able to make a massively boosted charge.

Other important things to remember: units engaged in combat at the start of their turn do not take animosity tests

There are ways to mitigate the bad result, but first let's be clear on this, the chance of failing an animosity test is 1/6, the chance of rolling the 'Get'em' result after a failed animosity test is 1/6, which means on average, in a six turn game in which you are fielding six units with the animosity rule you would statistically roll that result ONCE during the course of the game only if your animosity units were not engaged in combat at the start of all of your turns (which seems unlikely).

In reality you are unlikely to be taking many animosity checks after T2-3 as you would expect to spend a lot of your time fighting after that.

That said there is an easy way to mitigate the effect of 'Get'em' on your army if you're really worried about it. Simply position a cheap 5-man animosity unit between each of your large block, personally I favour spider riders because I have loads of them and they're manouevrable but if you are strapped for points a unit of 5 squig herders works just as well. The reality is you're unlikely to roll 'Get Em' twice in the same game so the fact that your ablative unit probably wouldn't survive one of those results is largely irrelevent.

The squabble result can hold you up if you roll it early (but iirc you can hand-of-gork a unit that fails animosity so all is not necessarily lost) but the fact that it still enables you to make a charge if you're in range so it's far less likely to screw you over on a crucial turn. The big problem with squabbling is that it prevents spell casting, and the only real solution to that is to take multiple wizards and spread your risk over several units, or put them in a unit that does not suffer animosity like blorcs or trolls. Bound items such as the ruby ring can also ensure you have at least something to throw your casting dice at even on a really bad turn of animosity.




Yes, if you care about competitiveness it's recommended to find a game that lets you have your cake and eat it.
or, you know, design your own, on that note, we should probably point out to the 9A promo team that this is a thread about 8th edition