PDA

View Full Version : Orcs and Goblins revamp?



heychadwick
06-11-2008, 14:28
Someone said on Da Warpath that they might be considering revamping Orcs and Goblins for 7th Ed. due to power creep. I'm thinking more of an errata. Has anyone heard this?

BEEGfrog
06-11-2008, 14:50
Someone said on Da Warpath that they might be considering revamping Orcs and Goblins for 7th Ed. due to power creep. I'm thinking more of an errata. Has anyone heard this?

The O&G is 7th, just pre-power leap (creep does not do justice to VC or DoC), just another 3 or 4 years to wait...

Odin
06-11-2008, 14:54
The book needs more than an errata. And GW don't amend army books that way anyway (some lame excuse about not everyone having internet access).

Also, GW won't release a new army book without models to support it. Given the large variety of units in the O&G army, there's plenty of opportunity for new models (plastic Boar Boyz spring to mind).

But to be honest, I really doubt it will happen for another couple of years at least.

Gimp
06-11-2008, 14:56
The book needs more than an errata. And GW don't amend army books that way anyway (some lame excuse about not everyone having internet access).

Also, GW won't release a new army book without models to support it. Given the large variety of units in the O&G army, there's plenty of opportunity for new models (plastic Boar Boyz spring to mind).

But to be honest, I really doubt it will happen for another couple of years at least.

They did it for the old Dark Elves I dont see why they would not allow it. Maybe they could sell the errats at stores?

Odin
06-11-2008, 15:17
They did it for the old Dark Elves I dont see why they would not allow it. Maybe they could sell the errats at stores?

I don't see why not either, but that's what they have said. The DE amendment was a long time ago, and they don't do that anymore apparently.

OldMaster
06-11-2008, 15:41
Do you think the Dark Elf errata was more urgent than an errata/revamp for O&G? If it wasn't, it's either some very smart thing I don't understand, or just simply ridiculous.

heychadwick
06-11-2008, 15:44
Thanks for the replies. I guess it's too much to hope for.

I know that ONG got the 1st book in the new edition, but it would be nice to get a little bit of a revamp. Having something that dealt fire would be nice for all the regenerating creatures there are these days.

I hope ONG will not be one of the first books (again), but it always seems to be the case. We get a nice balanced army book....until the power creep starts to set in again. How is Waaagh! suppose to compete with Always Strike First?

Gimp
06-11-2008, 15:48
I don't see why not either, but that's what they have said. The DE amendment was a long time ago, and they don't do that anymore apparently.

Agreed. Sigh GW really do know how to make me emo.

Then again not everybody does have the internet although access to internet is not that hard via local internet cafes. I mean I from Africa and we have internet here :/

Tokamak
06-11-2008, 16:15
STOP!!! that was me! I interpreted something wrong here, and please, stop before this goes into a positive feedback loop.

Harwammer
06-11-2008, 16:16
They did a big errata for BoC.

Maybe they'll do one for O&G.

Draconian77
06-11-2008, 16:17
But I mean even without internet access these things could be literally printed off in their thousands and shipped to stores... It would only be a page or two of changes.

The DE update a few years back was urgent. From my time over on Druchii.net I can tell you that much. They created an army so weak and made so many obvious mistakes that they had no option other than to fix it.

While its true that the O&G are in dire straits now thats really because the other armies got better(Some more than others "Cough Cough")

Tokamak
06-11-2008, 16:18
They did a big errata for BoC.

Maybe they'll do one for O&G.

That's because the beastmen stopped functioning properly. The O&G are just relatively weak compared to the new armies. That doesn't really compare I think.

Gimp
06-11-2008, 16:30
But I mean even without internet access these things could be literally printed off in their thousands and shipped to stores... It would only be a page or two of changes.

The DE update a few years back was urgent. From my time over on Druchii.net I can tell you that much. They created an army so weak and made so many obvious mistakes that they had no option other than to fix it.

While its true that the O&G are in dire straits now thats really because the other armies got better(Some more than others "Cough Cough")

The DE errata was only 2 pages but it made a huge difference to the army.

So to create one for Orcs would not be that hard. It would in fact cheap considering a possible increase in sales.

King Vyper
06-11-2008, 16:52
Something needs to be done with O&G. I really feel for there players, they have been taking it on the chin alot lately.

They need something to dealing with all of the regenerating, killing blow, fear & terror causing stuff that has popped up lately.

They really need to address the goblin magic banner issue and little waaagh issue also.

TheDarkDuke
06-11-2008, 17:02
And GW don't amend army books that way anyway (some lame excuse about not everyone having internet access)..

Which is fully justified.

I live about an hour outside of Toronto Ontario. My local gaming store, I would say the vast majority of them do not check the internet for news or updates on the hobby that is already 4 feet away from them on the shelves.

When Ork were pretty much fully explained here on Warseer (for well over a month) and every model already seen, my local gaming store was still talking about wish lists and what they thought was going to be released and possible rules.

How would you justify in a tournament or any fun game where someone strolled into town and started playing with updated rules against someone who had never known of such? The result turns sour and people feel cheated as they had no idea.

It would be like an NFL team going to play another NFL team but the home team started playing with CFL rules because they checked an NFL blogger who said this is now legal (larger fields, extra man on the field to name only but two). The result is that visiting team feels cheated.

Gimp
06-11-2008, 17:22
Which is fully justified.

I live about an hour outside of Toronto Ontario. My local gaming store, I would say the vast majority of them do not check the internet for news or updates on the hobby that is already 4 feet away from them on the shelves.

When Ork were pretty much fully explained here on Warseer (for well over a month) and every model already seen, my local gaming store was still talking about wish lists and what they thought was going to be released and possible rules.

How would you justify in a tournament or any fun game where someone strolled into town and started playing with updated rules against someone who had never known of such? The result turns sour and people feel cheated as they had no idea.

It would be like an NFL team going to play another NFL team but the home team started playing with CFL rules because they checked an NFL blogger who said this is now legal (larger fields, extra man on the field to name only but two). The result is that visiting team feels cheated.

Hmmm

While laziness is never justifiable* GW would need to advertise and promote the changes via White Dwarf and posters and stuff.

*The reason why I am on these forums so often is that I am away from the hobbly and want to keep track of things.

Chadjabdoul
06-11-2008, 17:30
I hope ONG will not be one of the first books (again), but it always seems to be the case. We get a nice balanced army book....until the power creep starts to set in again. How is Waaagh! suppose to compete with Always Strike First?

The book was never balanced nor nice, it sucked from the beginning in many respects.
Fluff was bad, rules were badly thought ought (waagh, animosity, fanatics, snotlings, goblins only banners) - possibly not even playtested.
The only good things the book did was the return of the spiders (both kinds, even though the great one doesn't cause fear and cannot be ridden by a shaman lord) and the sorting out of squigs (both hoppers and herds).
PS where are our ogres? Chaos warriors got them
(in my mind an O&G army would more commonly feature ogres than giants (a pretty rare creature))

heychadwick
06-11-2008, 17:31
Checking fan forum sites and getting an official notice from GW are two separate things. Some people don't go online to the various message boards to check on rumors until they know the truth of the army book before it comes in their stores.

To take your local store as an example, though, they knew that Orks were coming out with new stuff. That came from GW. So, they aren't living in caves or anything (like an orc), but they do hear about official releases. If GW put an errata out, I bet most players would hear about it. At least the ones that go to game stores, occasionally check the official GW site, or at least play outside an insular gaming group of people who never check anything.

I do think that a few things could go far to help OnG along. Most army lists have a weakness, but some way of helping out. Be it with a magic weapon, spell, or special unit. With all the psychology out there these days, it would be good to give OnG a banner or other magic item that would make them ItP or something. Actually, most of the OnG items could use a revamp. From seeing all the crazy stuff that everyone else gets, I was feeling a bit cheated by the OnG magic list. I don't mean a complete revamp, but something flaming to deal with regeneration would be good. Something a little better on the defense, would be nice, too.

I'm not of the school of thought that goblins need to go back down in price or wolf chariots need to be 2-for-1.

Mozzamanx
06-11-2008, 18:44
Goblins don't need a price decrease, 3pts is enough. What they do need is the option to replace Hand Weapons with Spears for free. Paying 40 odd points a unit to gain 5 WS2 attacks and -1 Armour save is NOT worth it.

Possibly just the Common Goblins, so people stop with the Skull Pass Night Goblin spams.

King Vyper
06-11-2008, 19:09
Goblins don't need a price decrease, 3pts is enough. What they do need is the option to replace Hand Weapons with Spears for free. Paying 40 odd points a unit to gain 5 WS2 attacks and -1 Armour save is NOT worth it.

Possibly just the Common Goblins, so people stop with the Skull Pass Night Goblin spams.

You want to get really depressed, Try comparing a Chaos Marauder to a Common Goblin. For a 1 point difference look at what a marauder has compared to a goblin.

SolarHammer
06-11-2008, 19:11
Or a Clanrat or Empire Swordman.

Harwammer
06-11-2008, 19:38
Or even a mighty ungor!

Also compare a goblin to a hobgoblin... hobgoblins kick ass :D

Dark14
06-11-2008, 19:43
wheres a beastmen errata

Draig
06-11-2008, 20:45
Yeah much as we Orc players would love one, it's just not going to happen with so much else on the horizon. They will take the view that the book is playable and can therefore wait for a revamp. Least they can do is some plastic Boar Boyz though...

Jimjim
06-11-2008, 23:26
Revamp would be be very nice indeed.. It's ridiculous, the last 7 games I've played is against the newer army lists.. And the trend today are armies which has some Fear & Terror, some nice-price infantry which is worth far more than their cost, and armywide rules which makes Waaagh! die in comparison.. It's so darn frustrating, I'm either shot to death by a gunline, fleeing from a god darn dragon, autobreaking by fear causing units, or slapped silly in CC since those armywide rules really proves their worth during the game..

PANZERBUNNY
07-11-2008, 01:34
Frankly they need a new plastic kit of orc boyz. I cant STAND those models. Its the reason why I'm putting together a solo goblin list. I'd rather lose every game then use those god awful chunks of mistake.

Things I'd like to see:

1: GW being more creative with their lists. People want custom options.

2: Squig Hopper OR Squig herder upgrades. "Farty squigs for exploding effects, spine squigs to shoot, horned squigs for a harder hitting physical attack". WAR changed the squigs around and it turned out awesome for the lore.

3: Ogres? Where did they go?

4: Gigantic spider for shamans. Like...why not?

5: Seperating Goblins/Night goblins/ forest goblins. Give us a reason to take normal gobbo's. restrict chariots etc to normal gobbo's and open up night goblin slots for trolls and other crazyness.
Give us back the "forest goblin". Make them move through woods/terrain easier or something!!! Hell maybe even make them a small skirmishing unit of gobbo'z?

6: Bring back the double up on big bosses rule from the last edition. Goblin heroes cant even be considered a speed bump.

7: If you have an Orc Lord you need at least 1 orc unit. If you have a Black orc Lord you need at least 1 black orc unit.



I dont know..there could be more...I'm let down with the way that GW is treating the green machine.

Duke Georgal
07-11-2008, 02:57
All I have to say:

I love my Orcs, please stop bashing them.

They do fine.

StormCrow
07-11-2008, 03:04
I'd be much happier to see erratas for demons and vampires rather than orcs and goblins. Nothing needs to be toned up, but there are some horrendous rules than need to be toned down.

Conotor
07-11-2008, 03:33
Someone said on Da Warpath that they might be considering revamping Orcs and Goblins for 7th Ed. due to power creep. I'm thinking more of an errata. Has anyone heard this?

O&G are a very powerful army. You have the most cost effective infantry in the game, and fanatic are AMAZING

If you are playing against mass magic vamps, just take the ASF special character ftw.

King Vyper
07-11-2008, 05:47
O&G are a very powerful army. You have the most cost effective infantry in the game, and fanatic are AMAZING

O&G use to have the most cost effective infantry, Chaos Marauders get that title now. I have always loved the fanatics but they are a two edged sword.


If you are playing against mass magic vamps, just take the ASF special character ftw.

Ideally a Special Character should never have to be a requirement just so you can have a chance at beating another army.

Please people don't get me wrong, I don't think O&G are the "Suck" I just feel that they could use some fine tuning in order to get them inline with the current trends in army books. They just need a few more tools in there tool box that is all. They don't need a complete rewrite.

FuSs
07-11-2008, 06:28
In my opionion O&G need the following rules.

Important

Animosity: On a roll of 6 the orc players choses the movement as long as it takes him closer to the enemy.

Size matters: Orcs are immune to fear from enemies which are the same size or smaller (e.g. orc infantry is immune to fear from zombies but still fears monsters and cavalry).

Nice to have

Common Goblins: Get shields for free

Black Orcs: Get one extra attack in their profile (not the heros and lords of course)

punkned
08-11-2008, 17:55
O&G are a very powerful army. You have the most cost effective infantry in the game, and fanatic are AMAZING

Absolutely! Seriously, do we really need a revamp? I don't see how the ONG can be considered a weak army!
Yes if you make simple comparisons such as gobbos vs marauders (marauders: cost less, higher stats) ONG look weak. But do marauders have tha Fanatics option? Can they have nets that reduces the strenght of ennemies? Moreover we have the most cost-effective infantry in the game: orcs T4 S4(first turn) at 5 points each!

ONG is an army very difficult to evaluate because it's all about SYNERGY, interaction between your troops. Most armies are pretty straightfoward: the strenght and number of units and characters you use determine the effectiveness of your army. With ONG, it's all about understanding throught experience how mixing different troops lead to different chemical reactions on the field.

Ok, I haven't played againt DoC yet but hey, they have 450 points large targets and we have 35 points spear chukkas (and we can have 2 using only one special choice!) Bring them on!

zak
08-11-2008, 18:23
You'll see Orcs next in 2010. 8th edition!!

Napalm
08-11-2008, 19:18
Absolutely! Seriously, do we really need a revamp? I don't see how the ONG can be considered a weak army!

Play against an "all troop cause fear" army and try to do something with sinergy...
Seriously, yes there is a lot of funny things (every squig based troop), the troops are quite cheap, giants and fanatics are really powerful... BUT:

-Weak magic. Play against a dark elve casting lots of dice with it's stupid power or some real strong magic like HE or VC, and you're out.
-Weak banners. Look at the banners of the other army and cry
-Weak leadership. You need to be very lucky against daemons or VC
-spear chukka? With a BS of 3? Wahouuu. Alright, the DE bolt throwers are something like 100 points, but they kill anything quite fast.

Just look at the other recent army. Dark elves are strong, but should be beatable. Empire Is Ok. But High elves are really strong, and VC are untouchable (and even if your fanatics crush a lot of them, they will rise again). Deamon... Well...

Still not convinced?
VC/Daemons = everything cause fear or terror
Elves = always strike first (why bother charging HE lancers?)
Dark Elves = eternal hatred (not unbalancing like those before but still positive)
Orc = Animosity.


Oh yeah, if you put some named characters like Grimgor, yes, they're really better. But my opponents & I never use such characters.
i've played a lot against a VC army, tried a lot of different tactics, and even in the case I get luck and my opponent make a few mistakes, it's not enough (alright, he's not a noob and just by looking at the army list you know you're in trouble). And when you get animosity problem and a terror causing chariot in your ranks, that's not funny anymore.
He tried to make a list, he was thinking I was playing like a kid or something, and I played his VC. He just get crushed.

So yes, I'd really like a revamp. A revamp to crush vamps :)

Draig
08-11-2008, 20:06
I have no major complaints about how they operate in general, a few tweaks I'd like to see:

1) Goblin Shamans able to ride Gigantic spiders, which should also cause fear.
2) Gigantic Cave Squigs to be made useful
3) Orc Shaman able to ride Chariots
4) Vanilla Boar Boyz could use a boost or a slight reduction in points. I'd also like to see them core to make mounted lists a little more viable.
5) Some kind of option for flaming attacks on arrows / warmachines.

King Vyper
09-11-2008, 04:14
Maybe someone could explain to what is the point of having multiple goblin only banners, but no way outside of a BSB to take them. IF there is anything in the O&G books that make same go WTF that it is it.

Storak
09-11-2008, 05:59
Absolutely! Seriously, do we really need a revamp? I don't see how the ONG can be considered a weak army!
Yes if you make simple comparisons such as gobbos vs marauders (marauders: cost less, higher stats) ONG look weak. But do marauders have tha Fanatics option? Can they have nets that reduces the strenght of ennemies? Moreover we have the most cost-effective infantry in the game: orcs T4 S4(first turn) at 5 points each!

you somehow forgot to mention animosity.

all those other good and cheap infantry units (empire swords, marauders, DE spears) perform very similar to orcs in close combat. the orcs will have a tiny advantage during the first turn of combat, because of S4. (typically a 0.5 points advantage in combat result). in all later phases of combat, the fight is completely balanced.


ONG is an army very difficult to evaluate because it's all about SYNERGY, interaction between your troops. Most armies are pretty straightfoward: the strenght and number of units and characters you use determine the effectiveness of your army. With ONG, it's all about understanding throught experience how mixing different troops lead to different chemical reactions on the field.

obviously all those tournament players haven t figured out that synergy thing so far.


Ok, I haven't played againt DoC yet but hey, they have 450 points large targets and we have 35 points spear chukkas (and we can have 2 using only one special choice!) Bring them on!

dwarf bolt throwers cost 45 points, come with Ld 9 crew and have some serious options.

Daemonia
09-11-2008, 06:24
I think the only reason that Goblin armies have a high point cost is so that a person fielding an entire army of them (as I have done in days long gone and forgotten through alcohol) can set them up in under 3 hours.

Seriously though, the list could use some work but won't get it. It's a fun list, plenty of character and decent choices, but it really does lack a lot of the power that the later lists got injected into them...and it won't stop. Play as well and as often as you can and enjoy it. I'm actually glad the ONG isn't a powergame-friendly option because anyone who fields such armies are starting to get a bad reputation.

Avian
09-11-2008, 08:21
The thing about the O&G book was that the things they got which were nice (decent, affordable core infantry, for example) are now handed around to more or less everybody (Empire Swordsmen, Chaos Marauders, Dark Elf Spearmen, Ghouls), while the things that were made worse in the O&G list (seriously overpriced cavalry, for example) were not applied to anyone else.

When your best things are starting to be on level with their average things, the book is starting to lose its charm.

vonzembol
09-11-2008, 11:38
First of all - i think ONG is a great army, with lots of units and options to choose, balancing serious strategies and lots of fun.

Then again i agree it become weak after new releases, while the 7th edition didn't make it any stronger. Tournament results make it obvious for me; O&G armies led by good and experienced players are not any more seen on top places (or even top 10s).

And at last I don't belive there's a chance for e revamp. It's against GW business. Revamping O&G would make players stick to their beloved army, while not making it is a chance to sell new ones to those, who had enough of loosing games. Leaving O&G army behind is just enlarging the sales without the hard work on getting new people into the hobby.

That's all from a newbie :)

Gobbo Lord
09-11-2008, 12:30
Sure some people will get a new army and this is good for GW, but some people wont. They will stop playing altogether.

Take me an Orc player since 4th edition..... I was constantly shocked by how good the armies were getting, ASF Elves were the beggining, my overcosted Boar Boyz losing four ladz when I called a waaagh whilst similary costed Black Knights trounced me, reraising their losses with a low power spell they can spam and 14 power dice. It all culminated with Deamons of Chaos. Playing Skulltaker made me want to cry, but I got angry as well. A game against an all Nurgle list was the last straw. I couldnt touch them, auto poison on 4+, no flank bonus for 10 points, I stopped playing.

I looked into Hordes and decided to give it a go. This is GWs problem, as at my local indie I found not only hordes, but vallejo paints for cheaper and in bigger pots and cheaper supplies such as greenstuff and sand. So whilst the situation will make some people choose the next big release, it also lost them a customer.

Mireadur
09-11-2008, 15:17
I'm guessing your rivals must all be top champ players if you always lose with O&G.

Some of you should focus on making objetive claims, for example when whinning about fear. I dont see much more fear now than 10 years ago while the number of fieldable ITP troops in O&G has grown.

Kauzu
09-11-2008, 18:58
Unless I'm missing something snotlings and squigs are the only ItP units greenskins have. That may be more than 10 years ago but still usually isn't particularly significant all things considered.

Chadjabdoul
09-11-2008, 21:50
No it's not more. Those guys were ItP 10 years ago as well

theunwantedbeing
09-11-2008, 21:57
Orc&goblins are rather good if you ask me.

Night goblins with fanatics and netters, utterly fantastic units.
Savage orcs, fantastic.
Magic banner that gives dispel dice for rank bonus, fantastic.
Ultra cheap mages.
Staff of sneaky stealin.
Giants, lots of fast units.
Decent artillery (stone thrower, doom diver, spear chukka, all good)

I dont really see the issue with them.
Then again I was living with and managing to make the old dark elf army work just fine..so perhaps I'm not really able to see the problem.

Mireadur
09-11-2008, 23:51
There's, in fact, 1 more ITP unit than in the previous edition (hoppers) also herders were a 0-1 unit back then.

Frenzied units are ITP. Basically you can make all the damn army ITP if you feel like doing it.

Storak
10-11-2008, 00:19
I'm guessing your rivals must all be top champ players if you always lose with O&G.

why do you guys always come up with this false "always lose" claim?
why don t you simply provide some links, to all those players who "always lose" with their O&G?

you don t habve to "always lose" to notice, that the army is simple worse than other 7th edition armies...


Some of you should focus on making objetive claims, for example when whinning about fear. I dont see much more fear now than 10 years ago while the number of fieldable ITP troops in O&G has grown.

objective claims, like tournament statistics have been discussed a lot.

the only change to ITP between the last two editions were squig herds. (not that good a unit anyway).
at the same time, snotlings are no longer unbreakable.

the problem with those fear causing armies is, that they became very popular lately. they are dominating the tournament scene, for example. (together with some elves, who cause fear in gobbos as well. and a single empire setup, that does focus on terror causers...)


Orc&goblins are rather good if you ask me.

Night goblins with fanatics and netters, utterly fantastic units.
Savage orcs, fantastic.
Magic banner that gives dispel dice for rank bonus, fantastic.
Ultra cheap mages.
Staff of sneaky stealin.
Giants, lots of fast units.
Decent artillery (stone thrower, doom diver, spear chukka, all good)

I dont really see the issue with them.
Then again I was living with and managing to make the old dark elf army work just fine..so perhaps I'm not really able to see the problem.

Night goblins are Ld5. the moment they leave general range, they are doomed. fanatics have been ra**d. it is quite unclear, whether they are worth their cost at the moment.

Savage orcs are fernzy. in other armies, this is considered a (in part) a disadvantage.

Magic banner that gives dispel dice is good. our only decent banner, btw.

Ultra cheap mages. horrible miscast table. mages can t cast during animosity. the little waaagh contains the most expensive spells in the game. sorry, but this part of your comment is pretty stupid.

Staff of sneaky stealin. good item, but prevents taking scrolls.


Giants, lots of fast units. giants can be taken by anyone, under most rulesets. most people don t take them. ever wondered why? those fast units are Ld6.

Decent artillery (stone thrower, doom diver, spear chukka, all good) orc artillery is paying the normal price, and they field horrible crew.

i am deeply honored to take advice from a player with such a high opinion of his own skills, btw..


There's, in fact, 1 more ITP unit than in the previous edition (hoppers) also herders were a 0-1 unit back then.

is this an attempt to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the O&G army?
hoppers were ItP in last edition.


Frenzied units are ITP. Basically you can make all the damn army ITP if you feel like doing it.

yes. and then you are stuck with units that are frenzy, snotlings and squigs.
this army will seriously rule the battlefield!

Warlord_Grotsnik
10-11-2008, 10:05
Goblins don't need a price decrease, 3pts is enough. What they do need is the option to replace Hand Weapons with Spears for free. Paying 40 odd points a unit to gain 5 WS2 attacks and -1 Armour save is NOT worth it.

Possibly just the Common Goblins, so people stop with the Skull Pass Night Goblin spams.

OK!!! As soon as I saw this, I just had to intervene...

You're saying they're worth 3 points? Considering that Marauders, State Troops and Dark Elf Spearmen all got a reduction in points?

That's completely unfair!

Warlord_Grotsnik
10-11-2008, 10:31
Orc&goblins are rather good if you ask me.

Night goblins with fanatics and netters, utterly fantastic units.
Savage orcs, fantastic.
Magic banner that gives dispel dice for rank bonus, fantastic.
Ultra cheap mages.
Staff of sneaky stealin.
Giants, lots of fast units.
Decent artillery (stone thrower, doom diver, spear chukka, all good)

I dont really see the issue with them.
Then again I was living with and managing to make the old dark elf army work just fine..so perhaps I'm not really able to see the problem.

Really? I think they're quite bad, actually. My two cents:

Overpriced goblins.
Overpriced cavalry.
Utterly ridiculous new animosity rule. Gaining extra movement on a roll of 6 is actually disadvantage.
Useless snotlings.
Useless common goblins.
Useless spears on common orcs.
Useless big'un option.
Magic armour?! Hello...?

The only good things they have compared to last time:

Improved choppa rule. Finally made common orcs good.
Normal Orc warbosses have S5 now.
Arrer boyz much better.

That's pretty much it. Feel free to disagree.

Mireadur
10-11-2008, 12:06
is this an attempt to demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the O&G army?
hoppers were ItP in last edition.



Ahh the irony...There was no hoppers 'per se' in the last edition, they were just some add-on to the herders unit somehow like fanatics.

Mireadur
10-11-2008, 12:28
Really? I think they're quite bad, actually. My two cents:

Overpriced goblins.
Overpriced cavalry.
Utterly ridiculous new animosity rule. Gaining extra movement on a roll of 6 is actually disadvantage.
Useless snotlings.
Useless common goblins.
Useless spears on common orcs.
Useless big'un option.
Magic armour?! Hello...?

The only good things they have compared to last time:

Improved choppa rule. Finally made common orcs good.
Normal Orc warbosses have S5 now.
Arrer boyz much better.

That's pretty much it. Feel free to disagree.

Now these are objetive claims. Theres a few more good ones though comparing to the previous book:

-Hoppers and herders
-doomdiver is more accurate.
-Shaman rules may have been nerfed but the spell lists are some of the best and more balanced. little waagh are quite high casting values, but its a really good lore. (i mean good not as in overpowered but as in useful spells).
Only bad thing about green magic imho is the fact you cant gain or lose more than 1 dice per phase now (independantly of the number of units in CC/fleeing). Also the number of orcs required for the bonus (20) is nonsensical.

As well as a few more bad ones:

- Goblin chariots not being 2x1
- Troll races for 20 points per model (for the price of 2 racial trolls you can take 3 normal ones :wtf:)
- Waaagh rule being a great concept and an awful development.
- Magic banners, the army has 2 nice banners (+1 attack,+2D6movement), 1 ugly as hell banner (+1DD per rank) and a lot of totally worthless ones.
(If you wonder why i say +3DD banner is ugly its because im of the opinion that all banners should be worth 25-40 points and provide just small buffs for the unit).
-Unit champions for big'un/black orc units...+15points for 1 attack?? worse for cavalry.

Im sure theres more good and bad ones still.

EDIT: on a side note, i agree with Mozzamax about goblin pricing. Its just weapon upgrades (or should say downgrades) what make them overpriced.

Mozzamanx
10-11-2008, 13:31
You're saying they're worth 3 points? Considering that Marauders, State Troops and Dark Elf Spearmen all got a reduction in points?

That's completely unfair!

It's not that they're worth the cost, its more that 2pt models should never be the baseline for an army. Representing particularly crap troops, sure, but never as the standard. Otherwise, all the fodder has to go down to 1pt, and that would be obscene...

At 3pts, they're still the cheapest standard troops around, but don't need units of 50+ to steal all your paint and money. Giving them a moderately high base cost, and then free/cheap options is the best way forward IMO.
I think that the free Spear option, coupled with better Animosity rules would fix them up. As for my eariler comments, I think I have a better idea for solving the Night-Common imbalance: Commons get Shields and Light Armour as standard for 3pts, with Spears as a free option. Night Goblins get Shields and option for free Spears, and all the crazy stuff as extra options. That way, take the Common muck if you're cheap and get good frontliners, or spend the points on upgraded Night Goblins for wackiness and tricks.

Warlord_Grotsnik
10-11-2008, 23:08
I'm sorry, but I never saw how 2 points a model was that horrible. It's 2 points...so what?

Common goblins were terrible at combat, combined with animosity and fear elves, they were definitely worth 2 points a piece.

Compared to other 2 point units in other armies, they were terrible! Skaven slaves and gnoblars both outshine goblins at the fodder role.

Chadjabdoul
11-11-2008, 15:29
Right, I have been playing with Orcs n Goblins since 1992. I was out of the hobby during 6th (really hated the 6th edition armybook due to lack of fluff and how it made some of my models obsolete) but got back in for 7th.

The biggest changes between 4th-5th and 7th do not have to do with prices of units or snotlings not being unbreakable in my opinion.
What has really changed the way the army plays is the switch from percentages to slots, and regimantal magic banners allowed.
Let me explain:

When you could use up to 50% for characters, then having cheap characters really made a difference. Back then, I rarely fielded a unit without a big boss to boost its leadership.

Also the 4th-5th armybook allowed: 1 unit of orcs to have a magic banner, 1 unit of goblins to have a magic banner, 1 unit of wolf riders, 1 unit of svg orcs, 1 unit of night goblins to have a magic banner.
These two factors (as well as the great variety of magic banners available) allowed for great experimentation. There were 'no must have units' or 'too expensive for what they do units' because of that. Each unit had a role.

In comparison, the limited options today, make for a very anal approach.
Today you don't see a list without at least 2 spearchukkas, at least 2 (identical) units of 25 orc boyz and so on.

I am not trying to say that Warhammer has changed for the worst. I am simply pointing out what I find are the biggest differences between today's orcs and older ones.

When you could give your wolf riders (or night gobbos) the dread banner (making them cause fear, and thus be immune to fear themselves) then suddenly their low ld was not such a big problem.

I think that the army can benefit the most not if they take back goblins to 2pt, but if they allow OnG more character slots (like they did with HE and special units) or at least 2 for 1 goblin big bosses.

Also change the way regimental banners are distributed. Black Orcs and Boar Boyz are strong enough to do well without a magic banner. Whereas svg orc boyz, goblins and orcs could really use them. (one idea I had was to allow as many rgmental mgc banners as lords, who then distribute the banners to wichever unit they like. But the unwritten rule of "every battle has to be around 2,000 pts" has meant not many like it much).

Heretic Burner
12-11-2008, 00:55
I'm afraid an O&G revamp is simply out of the question. We are talking about GW after all and the more logical an option is, the less likely GW is going to take it. A revamp would be an admission of fault. An admission of an error. GW's policy is to deny, deny, deny at any cost.

Now normally the most helpful suggestion is of course to vote with your wallets. However this only works if the company works in a logical and reasonable manner. Losing money? Make changes. Sadly as has been just pointed out this is not GW's way of doing things. They are more than happy enough to bleed money.

Which leaves only illogical options available. And that one is easy. Bog down games at deployment. Point out every completely broken rule in the unfinished rulebook and exploit that for every last drop of irritation. The games won't be fun for you. The games won't be fun for your opponent. That of course doesn't make it any good for GW. Mutual assured destruction!

And if senseless illogic doesn't work out...well I'm all outta ideas. At the rate GW is going it won't matter much anyway.

Warboss Antoni
12-11-2008, 03:49
Decent artillery (stone thrower, doom diver, spear chukka, all good)
No, theyre actually quite terrible compared to other artillery. You need 3 spear chukkas, at least, to do reliaible damage every turn. The only reason they are though of as good, is because in a ****** list ( especially in the specials ), the mediocre choice stands out.


And Goblins, base, are definately worth 2 pts, no doubt. I'd say 3 with LA, Spear, and Sheild.

Sidorio
12-11-2008, 08:26
Orcs and Goblins aren't as bad as you all percieve them to be, it really comes down to how you use them. i've seen them absolutely trounce the new vc at my club, despite many of you saying they're weak and useless.

punkned
12-11-2008, 16:46
all those other good and cheap infantry units (empire swords, marauders, DE spears) perform very similar to orcs in close combat. the orcs will have a tiny advantage during the first turn of combat, because of S4. (typically a 0.5 points advantage in combat result). in all later phases of combat, the fight is completely balanced.

The orcs' T4 is another very considerable advantage over other cheap troops



obviously all those tournament players haven t figured out that synergy thing so far.

The problem with OnG is that they aren't reliable from game to game. Compared to other armies, there's more uncertainty about how your plan will go. Makes it hard to win consecutive games... But in my opinion OnG have chances to win against any opponent.

By the way, where can I see recent major tournaments results?


dwarf bolt throwers cost 45 points, come with Ld 9 crew and have some serious options.

Yeah, dwarves warmachines rule. But we can have two for 60 points using only one special choice, which is not bad imo. I had great success at getting rid of terror causing large targets with my spear chukkas!

My point is that from my limited experience, OnG are still a competitve army. Maybe it is not consistent enough to perform in major tournaments, but for common friendly games, it is very competitive.

Ixquic
12-11-2008, 17:23
Everyone I know that played Orcs and Goblins either quit the army 7th edition if they had others or Fantasy entirely if that was all they owned. With one exception I haven't seen a game with them played in at least a year and that guy lost pretty badly. That's pretty indicative to me that there is at least something wrong with the book.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Matt Ward shouldn't be the guy in charge of changing the names of squares for Star Wars Monopoly let alone a Warhammer army book.

Avian
12-11-2008, 17:32
I'm afraid an O&G revamp is simply out of the question. We are talking about GW after all and the more logical an option is, the less likely GW is going to take it. A revamp would be an admission of fault. An admission of an error. GW's policy is to deny, deny, deny at any cost.
Is that why we had a Dark Elf revamp just a short while ago?

Mozzamanx
12-11-2008, 17:55
I'd hardly consider 5 years a short while...

Avian
12-11-2008, 18:26
I'd hardly consider 5 years a short while...
Dark Elves were out this august.

Mozzamanx
12-11-2008, 19:36
Oh, I thought you were referring to the White Dwarf update article. Of course Games Workshop will redo them, but not for a good few years. I thought that was the entire focus of this thread, for a small scale rules tweaking.

Blasto
12-11-2008, 20:12
I've seen a few "green" models from GamesDay glass cabints (like the new wyvern). The best chance we Orcs have for a new book is a Summer campain list like in Storm of Chaos book. Beyond that I do not see GW being "nice" and updating the Orc and Goblin book to be competive.

GW has in many interviews state they do not balance the game for Tourny level play.

Grinloc
12-11-2008, 20:49
The orcs' T4 is another very considerable advantage over other cheap troops.

Maybe against low strength shooting. In CC those orc boyz are pretty equal to empire swordsmen. Now the thing is in the O&G's army book the orc boy is probably the best unit for its points cost, so multiple units of 25 are frequently seen. But when it comes to tournament lists those "orc boy equivalents" in armies like empire or DE are considered weak and not worth taking in large numbers. Why take DE spearmen units worth ~350 points when one can buy two hydras for the same points cost? That's where the problem lies in the competitive kinds of 7th edition gaming environments.


The problem with OnG is that they aren't reliable from game to game. Compared to other armies, there's more uncertainty about how your plan will go. Makes it hard to win consecutive games... But in my opinion OnG have chances to win against any opponent.

Yeah, dwarves warmachines rule. But we can have two for 60 points using only one special choice, which is not bad imo. I had great success at getting rid of terror causing large targets with my spear chukkas!

1.) The lack of reliability isn't just an issue in the O&G's army itself. It's more importantly the response of the opponent to those animosity based results. Such as scout units in any sort of terrain, or large targets in general.
In a tournament environment (at least) the intended advantage of animosity gets frequently exploited, which hampers O&G's performance even more. It's not just units squabbling (=losing a whole game turn).
2.) Spear chukkas may seem good when it comes to 6th edition battles, but when looking at their 7th edition targets the job of killing got considerably harder. Blodthirsters, "double hydra" army lists, star dragons, etc.
Since large targets have such a big impact on an O&G's army (way more than they ever should) those spear chukkas are basically a requirement to have any real chance of not losing the battle against those tough lists. Which doesn't take into account that opponents frequently hide their large targets from high strength shooting. Most O&G's infantry can't reliably deal with things like bloodthirsters, hydras (breath), star dragons, etc.
Star dragons and bloodthirsters can fly, so hiding behind terrain for 3 turns aint an issue. A hydra walking through woods like a skirmisher doesn't help an O&G's player either...



My point is that from my limited experience, OnG are still a competitve army. Maybe it is not consistent enough to perform in major tournaments, but for common friendly games, it is very competitive.

Again, friendly game performance is not the issue. It's solely a discussion about competitive environments, like GT tournaments. It seems to me numerous O&G's supporters intentionally bring up the "friendly games" argument to "counter the talk" about O&G's terrible performance in tournaments, maybe to shed some positive light on their army of choice, but it is quite misplaced tbh.
I've had my own chances (with my O&G's) to go up against "GT style" VC and "double hydra monster madness". No point going into that, it was very one-sided due to obvious reasons. Things like ASF BG and assassins didn't help matters...

I normally play with DE in a friendly environment (close friends, long term, you get the picture) and i intentionally don't use "double hydra" lists for obvious reasons when playing against our O&G's player. From a "competitive style" point of view this basically means i'm going easy on him, but that's what friendly environments are for: Causing both sides of the table to have a good time. But that should never distract anyone from the fact that this one O&G's player most likely won't have a good time when facing those two hydras.
Of course i don't blame tournament players for using those, that would be silly. If GW did their job properly this wouldn't have happened, but it clearly did. I have no problem "going easy on an opponent", but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Knowing that there's such a large disparity between two armies, which happen to be in the same game edition.


GW has in many interviews state they do not balance the game for Tourny level play.
Using those tournaments to promote their product and then they turn around and use the line above? Just a blatant excuse for their incompetence and/or intentional misplacement of points values to promote their miniature sales. The points cost of a hydra aint an accident, that's for certain.

Warlord_Grotsnik
12-11-2008, 22:48
I'm afraid an O&G revamp is simply out of the question. We are talking about GW after all and the more logical an option is, the less likely GW is going to take it. A revamp would be an admission of fault. An admission of an error. GW's policy is to deny, deny, deny at any cost.

Now normally the most helpful suggestion is of course to vote with your wallets. However this only works if the company works in a logical and reasonable manner. Losing money? Make changes. Sadly as has been just pointed out this is not GW's way of doing things. They are more than happy enough to bleed money.

Which leaves only illogical options available. And that one is easy. Bog down games at deployment. Point out every completely broken rule in the unfinished rulebook and exploit that for every last drop of irritation. The games won't be fun for you. The games won't be fun for your opponent. That of course doesn't make it any good for GW. Mutual assured destruction!

And if senseless illogic doesn't work out...well I'm all outta ideas. At the rate GW is going it won't matter much anyway.

Sadly, I think you are correct.

That's why I've stopped collecting.

And it does make sense to make a bad book from a financial standpoint. It's keeps the fans yearning for an update so they stay with the hobby.

Spleendokta
13-11-2008, 09:03
As much as I'd love to see it, not gonna happen. Like others have posted, the army is fully functional, just requires skillz to win with.

Ixquic
13-11-2008, 11:49
GW has in many interviews state they do not balance the game for Tourny level play.

This is similar to when they say they are "a model company" when people say their rules could be better written and playtested or "don't play jerks" when people point out gaping holes in their books that can be abused. It's just a huge cop out when they screw up. They officially hold (and charge admittance to) tournies, people would never buy their expensive models if they didn't have a game to play them with and jerks are an inherent part of every nerd hobby.

Moreover it seems that O&G right now aren't balanced for fun unless you like being the super underdog in a fight.

Shimmergloom
13-11-2008, 12:10
Yeah, dwarves warmachines rule. But we can have two for 60 points using only one special choice, which is not bad imo.

If you are taking 2 for 60pts then you are using a different army book than mine. As chukkas are 35pts each. hobgoblin chukkas are 30pts each.

2 chukkas for 70pts or 2 bolt throwers for 90pts. 20pts for crew with +3LD, +1T, +2WS, stubborn and entrenchment rules vs the fear elves rules for the goblins.

And let's not even get into the better upgrades for bolt throwers.

Of the 3 regular bolt throwers(dwarf, hobgoblin and goblin), goblin chukkas are clearly the worst of the 3.

Shimmergloom
13-11-2008, 12:12
Dark Elves were out this august.

uh. Didn't their original book come out in like 2001 or 2? So 6 years between books is not a short while.

Warlord_Grotsnik
13-11-2008, 12:52
As much as I'd love to see it, not gonna happen. Like others have posted, the army is fully functional, just requires skillz to win with.

Yes of course...

A full functional army, that's units are completely thrown into disarray on either a roll of a six or one at the start of a turn. So 1/3 of the time a unit starts a turn, it either stays still or runs forward, completely botching any strategy you had in mind.

Oh yes, a perfectly functional army...:rolleyes:

Ixquic
13-11-2008, 13:02
Yes of course...

A full functional army, that's units are completely thrown into disarray on either a roll of a six or one at the start of a turn. So 1/3 of the time a unit starts a turn, it either stays still or runs forward, completely botching any strategy you had in mind.

Oh yes, a perfectly functional army...:rolleyes:

Clearly the fault is with you, the player since it's inconceivable that there would be problems with the rule-set and you just need to be a better player since I saw the army win once.

Avian
13-11-2008, 13:42
uh. Didn't their original book come out in like 2001 or 2? So 6 years between books is not a short while.
Never said it was, I said we had a DE revamp just a short while ago, which we did.

Thus Mr. Burner's claim that GW never revamp army books that are bad because that would be admitting a mistake is, quite frankly, baseless. Army books DO get revamped.

Warlord_Grotsnik
13-11-2008, 13:53
Clearly the fault is with you, the player since it's inconceivable that there would be problems with the rule-set and you just need to be a better player since I saw the army win once.

This is written strangely...

If you're not being sarcastic:

And that completely justifies your argument, does it? You saw it win once?

No, clearly the fault is with the rules making O&G unreliable. How exactly is it my fault that there is a 1/3 of a chance every turn that my units stand still or run forward like idiots?

If you are being sarcastic:

Yes, it is inconceivable that it's GW's fault for making a bad book. GW does no wrong; just as no company does no wrong. :rolleyes:

punkned
13-11-2008, 15:07
Grinloc brings good arguments. I guess the real measure of an army's strenght is tournament performance, and evidence proves that OnG are in the bottom...

Avian
13-11-2008, 15:22
I guess the real measure of an army's strenght is tournament performance
Sort of. The real measure of an army's strength is how a varied list from that army performs at a tournament. If only one or two very specific builds do well, the army isn't really very strong.

Storak
13-11-2008, 17:55
Sort of. The real measure of an army's strength is how a varied list from that army performs at a tournament. If only one or two very specific builds do well, the army isn't really very strong.

very good point. empire is a list that can still sort of compete, but only with minor variations of one list.

dwarfs perform about as bad as O&G do, but have a single list, that might somehow work.

tournament results are a pretty good indicator. they rarely contradict the general opinion about army power levels. but at the end, a more detailed look should be taken, to determine the real performance.

that is the reason, why WHFB needs more than an O&G book revamp.
daemons need to be toned down a little, at the same time. and even empire, that can still compete needs changes, giving them more options in a competitive environment...

i still believe, that the game needs some sort of a regular online revamp of army books. it is the year 2008, people expect a "patch" to fix errors within months, not "decades"...

Warlord_Grotsnik
13-11-2008, 23:17
Empire is about as horrible as O&G. Dwarfs are a balanced force that is underpowered compared to the armies out now.

Heretic Burner
14-11-2008, 04:04
Never said it was, I said we had a DE revamp just a short while ago, which we did.

Thus Mr. Burner's claim that GW never revamp army books that are bad because that would be admitting a mistake is, quite frankly, baseless. Army books DO get revamped.

I'm not sure what strawman you're attempting to build up here. No 7th edition army book has been revamped. DE received a 7th edition army book recently, it appears you seem to be suggesting this is in any way similar to what the rest of the board is talking about. It isn't.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, perhaps you simply don't understand what the rest of us are talking about. I certainly don't want to believe you are attempting to muddy the waters on purpose. That would simply be deplorable behavior.

Superdan
14-11-2008, 05:02
I never played the tabletop game but i love the books

Grinloc
14-11-2008, 08:46
It wouldn't be so bad if O&G's actually had a "list style" to fall back on when it comes to a GT environment, to expect a reasonable chance to make it into the top 20.
Occasionally one can see people bringing up "halfway cheesy" lists containing 8 chukkas. That is quite telling about the quality of the other special choices in the O&G's army book. Those chukkas might seem "ok" balance-wise, but the term "ok" doesn't cut it in today's GT world. Not by a long shot.
It doesn't take a scientist to notice that something is fishy when one army's units stay the same or get even worse (while recieving no points drop), while pretty much all units of other armies get beneficial treatment in both ways.

The conspiracy theory of GW not having a proper edition wide balancing plan as a starting point for army book updates now looks more appealing and reasonable than ever. Simply because i don't see the sheer downgrading of an army book (in comparison to its competitors) as a smart business plan.
Goblin lists were successful last edition, while orc lists were rather meh. The buffing of orcs and downgrading of goblins i could see as a sneaky plan...but when it comes to the rest of the book? Not likely.
Being turned (in numerous GT situations) into basically a victory point donator for those "power lists" doesn't spell good business to me. Fortunately i earn enough money so i can buy various armies, so i switched to DE (mostly, with the occasional "for the heck of it" OK brawl thrown in).

In the end it's probably just a lack of corporation managment, which occasionally shows its ugly face for everyone to see, including a company's most loyal customers.

Mireadur
14-11-2008, 11:34
i take you made DE for GT's?

Avian
14-11-2008, 14:05
I'm not sure what strawman you're attempting to build up here. No 7th edition army book has been revamped.
You said that they would not revamp a weak army because that would be admitting that they did something wrong. Now, you would have great trouble finding someone who did not agree that the recent Dark Elf revamp was a huge improvement. How is that not admitting that the previous army book was a mistake?

King Vyper
14-11-2008, 15:33
You said that they would not revamp a weak army because that would be admitting that they did something wrong. Now, you would have great trouble finding someone who did not agree that the recent Dark Elf revamp was a huge improvement. How is that not admitting that the previous army book was a mistake?

:confused: OK I am now confused. I thought the reason they redid the Dark Elves because they were using a 5th Ed Army Book? Was there another one that I misssed?

Avian
14-11-2008, 16:46
The army book was from 6th edition (with a WD update and a selection of additional magic items from the Storm of Chaos list). The basic army list was quite weak and by Mr. Burner's logic, GW would therefore not revamp the list since that would be admitting a mistake.

The army list was revamped and it would therefore appear that he is wrong.



However, if what he means is that in the last two years, no army list released in the last two years has been revamped, then that is correct (though perhaps not very shocking).

Grinloc
14-11-2008, 21:23
i take you made DE for GT's?

Nah, i bought enough models so i can play with DE in numerous configurations. As an example i got 60 witch elves, so i can use Hellebron and her witch cult. Basically i can use both "hard" and "soft/fluffy" lists. It depends on the opponent though. When we are going to play one of our campaigns (with the likelyhood of going up against HE and VC) i surely won't use a "dark rider list" or other such silliness.

If one could categorize multiple kinds of lists between 0% (crazy experiment) and 100% ("maximum GT book abuse") i'd say i'm hovering around 60-70%.
Unlike with O&G's this works most of the time, giving me multiple play style options while having a reasonably good chance for success in any kind of gaming environment.
Will it become harder for me with more armies becoming updated in 7th edition? Of course and that gonna be a nice challenge to face. It will also become harder for O&G's, but that doesn't bode well when looking at the army's current shortcomings in competitive play.

Maybe in the future the gap between the greenskins and their enemies will become so big that GW decides to give the army a "DE 6th edition treatment", but as Heretic Burner said on multiple occasions...it's more likely going to be about "snowballs", "hell" and other such things...

Spleendokta
15-11-2008, 00:07
Yes in 5 or 6 years after LOTR is fully revamped. Yay! Buy a WD and find out whats hot in LOTR this month!

Mireadur
15-11-2008, 00:40
Nah, i bought enough models so i can play with DE in numerous configurations. As an example i got 60 witch elves, so i can use Hellebron and her witch cult. Basically i can use both "hard" and "soft/fluffy" lists. It depends on the opponent though. When we are going to play one of our campaigns (with the likelyhood of going up against HE and VC) i surely won't use a "dark rider list" or other such silliness.

If one could categorize multiple kinds of lists between 0% (crazy experiment) and 100% ("maximum GT book abuse") i'd say i'm hovering around 60-70%.
Unlike with O&G's this works most of the time, giving me multiple play style options while having a reasonably good chance for success in any kind of gaming environment.
Will it become harder for me with more armies becoming updated in 7th edition? Of course and that gonna be a nice challenge to face. It will also become harder for O&G's, but that doesn't bode well when looking at the army's current shortcomings in competitive play.

Maybe in the future the gap between the greenskins and their enemies will become so big that GW decides to give the army a "DE 6th edition treatment", but as Heretic Burner said on multiple occasions...it's more likely going to be about "snowballs", "hell" and other such things...

Well it is just because it sounds like you bought DE just so you could win some games because with O&G was impossible (and not because you happen to like the DE). A problem i dont seem to be facing in my friendly enviroment to be truth. (this is not a disclaimer trying to prove the armybook is not retarded, because i think it is :cries:).

Grinloc
15-11-2008, 04:17
Well it is just because it sounds like you bought DE just so you could win some games because with O&G was impossible (and not because you happen to like the DE). A problem i dont seem to be facing in my friendly enviroment to be truth. (this is not a disclaimer trying to prove the armybook is not retarded, because i think it is :cries:).

Winning with O&G's being impossible in a friendly environment is a baseless counter argument by some greenskin PR managers on these boards (trying to pull the naysayers' strings or something), to shed some positive light on their army when it comes to its GT tournament performance. Of course i can see it as psychologically expectable, since they are passionate about their greenskins. Tournament player or not, i think the effect of "getting pushed into the GT underdog role" tends to increase the passion even more. Therefor we are frequently getting those heated arguments we all....love so much ;).
What's for certain is that i'm not the one doing the pushing, neither does anybody else on these boards. GW does.

Occasionally we switched armies around here and i found the playstyle of DE being something i tend to enjoy actually. That happened long before the DE got their 7th edition update and when the update arrived it was basically "the icing on the cake". Thankfully the army's playstyle didn't change (much) during this update process. If i took an army to frequently win with i would have chosen DOC or probably VC. DE aren't the army with a massively abusable book, its resulting lists sometimes smelling of french cheese. They got good core elements, some very good specials and even some too good parts (hydras seem to frequently grow up in pairs...). I couldn't care less if one army book is superior to the others just by mere design, i have no interest in such things. To me those demons lack a lil personality (somewhat like tyranids), at least DE are arrogant pricks (and then some)...

With O&G's in 5th and 6th edition gaming was both "fun" and "funny". But that changed quite significantly in 7th edition. Screwed up animosity checks (and the opponents' reactions to them) and a badly balanced book resulting in a bad gaming experience. I surely wouldn't waste my time playing against a friend's "50% 7th edition list", just so i can have a legitimate 50-50 chance (depending on animosity checks). More importantly it would basically force a playstyle on my gaming group of friends which they most likely wouldn't like (for the sake of friendship so to speak). This is unacceptable. Friends first, GW incompetence last.

Our players here always tend to use "tough lists", including me. Not GT style lists, but something relatively close. For us it's about competition, be it "friendly/relaxed" or "GT style". Due to already known reasons this wasn't a "green issue" in 6th edition, but it became one in 7th.
Basically i demand that an army book is...
#1: competitive in various kinds of gameplay
#2: fluffy
#3: fun to play with
The DE meet all of those criteria nicely, therefor i'm satisfied and happy. O&G's stopped meeting the requirement #1, which also had its bad effect on #3. So i switched, it's just that simple.

There's a reason why i love my 40k Orks, i probably love them more than anything else in WHFB and 40k combined...they fulfill my army book expectations on all three points (especially #3...and then some).
Wish my O&G's would, but they clearly don't, probably for a couple of years no less...

Heretic Burner
15-11-2008, 05:05
The army book was from 6th edition (with a WD update and a selection of additional magic items from the Storm of Chaos list). The basic army list was quite weak and by Mr. Burner's logic, GW would therefore not revamp the list since that would be admitting a mistake.

Once more, there has not been a revamp of any 7th edition army books. It is not in GW's current policy to do so. GW has not admitted to making a mistake with DEs. GW has not admitted to making a mistake with any of the armies. I simply can't even begin to follow your posts.



The army list was revamped and it would therefore appear that he is wrong.

I'm afraid the 7th edition DE army book was not revamped. I am not sure where you got that information from. GW certainly did not admit to any fault. It appears you are wrong.



However, if what he means is that in the last two years, no army list released in the last two years has been revamped, then that is correct (though perhaps not very shocking).

Well considering the absolutely dismal balance of some of these books it is extremely shocking. And as everyone else seems to be on the same page as to what we are discussing, I simply do not understand your confusion on what I mean. It has now been repeatedly explained to you precisely what is meant by both myself and other posters.