PDA

View Full Version : New Greenskins? Maybe not getting a new book would be better.



Shimmergloom
13-01-2010, 17:20
The new beastmen nonsense, makes me even more worried about another O&G book.

The last book was horrible. But I'm fearful that the next one will be even worse.

Let's look at the comparisons:

7th O&G book:

1. Nonsensical points increases.
2. Major loss of character.
3. Major loss of varied playstyles(buy orcs! buy chariots! so long goblin armies!)
4. Terrible spelling, poorly written rules, unclear rules, rules just left out of the book that are obviously missing like fanatics being ItP(had to be errata's months later).
5. No internal or external points balances.

7th Beasts book:

1. Nonsensical points increases.
2. Major loss in character(no more marks, mixed herds, the uniqueness that was beasts).
3. Major loss in varied playstyles(no more ogres, dragon orgres, trolls, but buy more NEW! Minos! Buy another giant or 2 to convert to cyclops!)
4. Jury still out on this one.
5. No internal or external points balances.

Verdict:

Maybe it would be best to not get another O&G book until GW is under new management.

I shudder to think of 4pt goblins and 8pt orcs. But more Monsters! Monsters! Munsters!

The worst thing is that neither the 6th greenskin, nor the 6th beast book was overpowered and neither needed to be nerfed the way they have been.

Malorian
13-01-2010, 17:26
The second you stop looking forward to a brighter tomorrow is when you officially become a cranky old man ;)

"I remember when..."
"Things just aren't as good as they used to..."

Personally I know there will be nerfs and buffs (there always is), and from what we've seen there will also be something new and shiney that I'll need to buy two or three of, but I still look forward to it knowing that whatever happens the 'orc spirit' will still keep it fun :D

snottlebocket
13-01-2010, 17:49
All things considering I still think the current orcs and goblins books is by far the best written book of the current generation.

It's got a lot of flavour. None of the units make the other units subpar choices and there's no idiotic combo's that make you sigh and wonder what the developers were thinking.

Ofcourse the powercreep in the other books is so bad the O&G book can hardly compete which is really the problem. Judged by it's own merits I'd say the O&G book is the standard which all other books should follow. Solid, balanced, fun. Do the rest along the same lines and the game will have improved immeasurably.

DA_WarM
13-01-2010, 18:08
All things considering I still think the current orcs and goblins books is by far the best written book of the current generation.

It's got a lot of flavour. None of the units make the other units subpar choices and there's no idiotic combo's that make you sigh and wonder what the developers were thinking.

Ofcourse the powercreep in the other books is so bad the O&G book can hardly compete which is really the problem. Judged by it's own merits I'd say the O&G book is the standard which all other books should follow. Solid, balanced, fun. Do the rest along the same lines and the game will have improved immeasurably.

I agree with you on this. The other books make this one look bad. If O&G gets a new book, I would suggest less randomness.

Leogun_91
13-01-2010, 19:39
The second you stop looking forward to a brighter tomorrow is when you officially become a cranky old man ;)

"I remember when..."
"Things just aren't as good as they used to..."
But when you can't even finish the sentences about the good old days, that is when you are really old.

The SkaerKrow
13-01-2010, 19:57
All things considering I still think the current orcs and goblins books is by far the best written book of the current generation.The Orc and Goblin book wasn't even up to par when it was released. The animosity rules are an outright catastrophe, several options were severely overpriced and the internal balance, while not being as bad as some of the newer books, still leaves a lot to be desired.

Red Metal
13-01-2010, 20:10
I think with O&G being such a staple army in WFB, GW can't (and won't) really mess it up too badly. I see O&G always maintaining a mid to low power-level, but making up for it with character, fluff, and awesome minis. I know the uber-pricey Greatswords messed it up for Empire, but I believe that Empire is in the same boat as O&G with regards to how much GW may try to experiment (or screw up) the army. Both these and WoC (and maybe some others), will always be good enough to play based on other parameters aside from their power-levels.

Malorian
13-01-2010, 20:15
The Orc and Goblin book wasn't even up to par when it was released. The animosity rules are an outright catastrophe, several options were severely overpriced and the internal balance, while not being as bad as some of the newer books, still leaves a lot to be desired.

I think it's going a bit far to call it a catastrophe :p

I mean it works fairly well and if it was only changed slightly so that on a 6 you gained extra movement that DIDN'T have to be towards the closest enemy unit that would silience the majority of the animosity haters.

It's an interesting rule that adds uncertainty to the list and if the next army book removed it completely I would miss it.

Bac5665
13-01-2010, 20:27
All things considering I still think the current orcs and goblins books is by far the best written book of the current generation.

It's got a lot of flavour. None of the units make the other units subpar choices and there's no idiotic combo's that make you sigh and wonder what the developers were thinking.

Ofcourse the powercreep in the other books is so bad the O&G book can hardly compete which is really the problem. Judged by it's own merits I'd say the O&G book is the standard which all other books should follow. Solid, balanced, fun. Do the rest along the same lines and the game will have improved immeasurably.

You're kidding, right? As SkaerKrow pointed out, the OnG book was terrible when it was written. First, is has surprisingly little fluff and background info, compared to recent books. More importantly, the internal balance is terrible. Goblins, in almost all forms are terribly overcosted. Night goblins are always better than common goblins. Animosity makes the army very difficult to play (and it ruins the usefullness of various boar cav units.)

The Empire book and the lizardmen books are the two best of this generation, and both are full of flaws. In fact, the HE book is the only one I think is a better book than its predecessor, though given that HE had a terrible book in 6E, that's not saying much. 7E is full of terrible internal balance and terrible external balance. 6E only really screwed up balance with the elves, Brets and Skaven. Just about everything else was fairly internally balanced and reasonable in context of the rest of the books.

These days, I've rarely had any dificulty choosing special and rare choices, due to the terrible nature of internal balance.

Lordsaradain
13-01-2010, 21:20
What I hate about the O&G book is that the fluff is incorrect. It says that the supreme patriarch of the collages of magic slew one of Gorbads wyverns during the seige of altdorf. But the collages of magic weren't established untill much later, after the great war against chaos, by Teclis. It's such a blatant mistake.

fubukii
13-01-2010, 21:23
The new beastmen nonsense, makes me even more worried about another O&G book.

The last book was horrible. But I'm fearful that the next one will be even worse.

Let's look at the comparisons:

7th O&G book:

1. Nonsensical points increases.
2. Major loss of character.
3. Major loss of varied playstyles(buy orcs! buy chariots! so long goblin armies!)
4. Terrible spelling, poorly written rules, unclear rules, rules just left out of the book that are obviously missing like fanatics being ItP(had to be errata's months later).
5. No internal or external points balances.

7th Beasts book:

1. Nonsensical points increases.
2. Major loss in character(no more marks, mixed herds, the uniqueness that was beasts).
3. Major loss in varied playstyles(no more ogres, dragon orgres, trolls, but buy more NEW! Minos! Buy another giant or 2 to convert to cyclops!)
4. Jury still out on this one.
5. No internal or external points balances.

Verdict:

Maybe it would be best to not get another O&G book until GW is under new management.

I shudder to think of 4pt goblins and 8pt orcs. But more Monsters! Monsters! Munsters!

The worst thing is that neither the 6th greenskin, nor the 6th beast book was overpowered and neither needed to be nerfed the way they have been.

You are aware that the new Beast book is alot stronger then its last incarnation right? Lets touch on your pts.

1) They get primal fury, tons of new movement spells (remember pt costs are not compared by stats alone, its how they do in their army), And a better ambush and i believe possibly even +1 ld But your complaining about pt costs........ Id gladly pay a couple pts to get hatred on a ld test, and a much better ambush.
2) The book as Alot of character, minotaurs, minotaur characters, ambush, chariots, skirmishers, centigors, razogors Monsters to name some things. Just because it isnt the same as 6th edition does not mean it has no character, in fact the book has alot just not the traditional character you want.
3) Dragon ogres, and ogres basically filled the same exact role of minotaurs.... and now with the increased Boosts to minotaurs who would want them anyway, But besides the point they all pretty much filled the SAME Exact role and play style, minus looking slightly different on the table. If anything adding new monsters add alot of playstyles to the list, flying monsters, anti magic, etc. Not to mention razogors, chariots and tons of other things that are new.
4) agreed
5) the book looks very solid and should be able to compete well in the 7th edition meta game In m opinion.

I say Stop complaining about a book that is alot stronger then its last ( well from the rumors) when it isnt even out yet. As for the orc book it will almost 100% be better then this book so theres no point in complaining there either.

Urgat
13-01-2010, 21:38
First, is has surprisingly little fluff and background info, compared to recent books.

Surprisingly? This book was written by a guy who stated in WD he didn't LIKE greenskins. What did you expect >>

Malorian
13-01-2010, 21:39
What I hate about the O&G book is that the fluff is incorrect. It says that the supreme patriarch of the collages of magic slew one of Gorbads wyverns during the seige of altdorf. But the collages of magic weren't established untill much later, after the great war against chaos, by Teclis. It's such a blatant mistake.

Indeed, that completely ruined the book for me too...


:rolleyes:

I mean seriously? Does that really bug you that much? I'm sure 99% of people who read that don't even notice.

Avian
13-01-2010, 21:44
And not the part about Grom invading Middenheim? Archaon should have gotten hold of a Goblin when he planned that Storm of Chaos. :D


I wouldn't say that the O&G book was a catastrophe when it came out, but it WAS a disappointment, and it didn't get better in time.
Review written when the book came out (http://www.avianon.net/news/orc_armybook.php)

loveless
13-01-2010, 21:46
What I hate about the O&G book is that the fluff is incorrect. It says that the supreme patriarch of the collages of magic slew one of Gorbads wyverns during the seige of altdorf. But the collages of magic weren't established untill much later, after the great war against chaos, by Teclis. It's such a blatant mistake.

Are you going to get mad at me if my goblins aren't painted Goblin Green?

:p

That just seems a silly little nuance to cause so much hate.

The SkaerKrow
13-01-2010, 22:02
I mean it works fairly well and if it was only changed slightly so that on a 6 you gained extra movement that DIDN'T have to be towards the closest enemy unit that would silience the majority of the animosity haters.I have an equal chance each turn to either game (on average) 3" of movement as I do to lose 4/8"? Sorry, Mal, that's a catastrophe. Animosity, at current, is entirely indefensible. Orcs and Goblins aren't even good compared to the majority of the 6th Edition books that are still in circulation, nevermind the gimmicks introduced by 7th.

Malorian
13-01-2010, 22:05
It's only a catastrophe if it didn't go what it was suppose to do.

Animosity is suppose to add uncertainly and it does.

A real catastrophe would be something like screwing up the wording on the storm banner so it can be used every turn ;)

chaos0xomega
13-01-2010, 22:11
The new beasts book isnt even out, we havent seen a preview version, and you're already moaning about it? Really? Its hardly underpowered. If anything the O&G book should be good (especially if cruddance gets ahold of it).

Terraneaux
13-01-2010, 22:14
Animosity is just *********** bad. Seriously. A 1/6 chance to have your unit sit around and waste its points this turn? Now, if it was a 2d6 table and we had a 1/36 chance of something like that, sure. But as it stands its just an unnecessary nerf, and I don't think it affected their points totals at all since the retard designer (par for the course at GW) thought that the '6' result evened things out. How many O&G players would just not roll on the Animosity table if they had the chance?

Storak
13-01-2010, 22:17
i would wait for a couple of games, before i judge the beastmen book.

but the conclusion on O&G is obvious. the next tournament we are planning to go to, will allow me a full 500 points over the daemon army of my friend. (and greater daemons are banned...)
the last tournament that some friends of mine attended, gave boar boys a 5 point discount, and another 5 point discount on the (cavalry) bigun upgrade. you want to guess whether one of the two O&G players won, or how many boar riders they brought along?

animosity needs a bigger fix, than no limits to the "show em" results. animosity has ruined orc cavalry and animosity should simply not prevent charges EVER.

Lemonbrick
13-01-2010, 22:17
I agree with Mal

- animosity is essential to make greenskins greenskins

however there are lots and lots of others things that could do with a tweek...

with a sledgehammer. A part from your basic Orc 6pts for a choppa, Light armour and shield, can't go wrong there really.

regarding beastmen , from the reading time I had with it , I think its a big improvement and evolves the beastmen into the true bast*ard children of chaos, which is cool.
cant see why pumba was worthy of Chaos gifts though.

Darnok
13-01-2010, 22:20
The new beasts book isnt even out, we havent seen a preview version, and you're already moaning about it?

Without commenting on the rest - and I find the topic to be just stupid - you are aware that the Beastmen book is out there in every GW store for free reading? Maybe you are not, and this is not meant as an attack, but everybody with a store near him/her is able to have a close look at the final book, or two.

Terraneaux
13-01-2010, 22:24
- animosity is essential to make greenskins greenskins

Maybe, but make animosity not suck so much. And it's totally out of flavor for Orcs to be bickering when theres a unit of empire troops RIGHT THERE for them to charge. Not charging when you have the chance is not the Orc way.

Slayerthane
13-01-2010, 22:49
OnG is a challenging army, if you don't like a challenge don't play them. I never understand why people moan about army books, accept the changes and adapt. No whining or complaining will do anything. This is after all a strategy game, it just means you need to adapt your strategies strategies to win. Sure certain armies are overpowered, like Demons, but you don't need strategies to win with these armies....so aside from the fact that you win all the time without having to do anything, what do you gain? I would much rather play an underpowered, underdog army and win occasionally knowing that I won mainly because of good tactics, than winning with Demons every time but only doing so because of broken rules. And for the record, I play Dwarfs and Dogs of War right now...not competitive, not great but definitely a challenge. What can I say I'm a sucker for a challenge.

Malorian
13-01-2010, 22:58
Maybe, but make animosity not suck so much. And it's totally out of flavor for Orcs to be bickering when theres a unit of empire troops RIGHT THERE for them to charge. Not charging when you have the chance is not the Orc way.

Orcs want to fight as much and as soon as possible right?

Well the orc beside you who just stepped on your foot is closer and easier to stab than the enemy troops ten feet away ;)

Nephilim of Sin
13-01-2010, 23:00
Orcs want to fight as much and as soon as possible right?

Well the orc beside you who just stepped on your foot is closer and easier to stab than the enemy troops ten feet away ;)

Orcs need animosity, but the way it is handled now is a tad bit off. There is no reason to have a Black Orc take out half your Boars; that doesn't even fit the fluff, and was an 'improvement' we didn't need.

Malorian
13-01-2010, 23:05
Orcs need animosity, but the way it is handled now is a tad bit off. There is no reason to have a Black Orc take out half your Boars; that doesn't even fit the fluff, and was an 'improvement' we didn't need.

And that's fair enough. Or maybe the 1 result when you Waaagh! could be changed, but it certainly isn't a 'catastrophe' of a rule.


(If you ask me a 1 on a Waaagh! should be the same as when you roll a 1 normally.)

theunwantedbeing
13-01-2010, 23:16
Orcs need animosity, but the way it is handled now is a tad bit off. There is no reason to have a Black Orc take out half your Boars; that doesn't even fit the fluff, and was an 'improvement' we didn't need.

Oh how I laugh when somebody complains that his black orc on boar smacks around a bunch of boar boyz he's with.
The rules say thats what will happen if you roll a 1. Shouldn't have rolled a 1 (or put the black orc on a boar in the boar boyz....)

It's the 1 on a waaggh that needs changing, but few people ever complain about that, they go right for the facepalm "black orc in boar boyz" example.
It's like when you burn yourself on a pot you get out the oven.
The oven was on, you put it on. You know its very hot and yet you took the risk with your bare hands and now your hands are burnt and you want somebody to complain at.

A new book will be better than the current one.
Boar boyz(well big'uns) will come down in cost.
As will goblins.
Your item list will get a reshuffle and basically become the best of both lists.

Anyway, the new beasts book is way better than the old one was.
It's more along the lines of the 5th edition book than the 6th edition one, no bad thing really and you got a heap of new uber monsters, spells and items to play around with.

Freman Bloodglaive
13-01-2010, 23:23
Try this tweak to the animosity table.

1. Squabble. The unit can do nothing this turn. A mage in the unit may still cast spells but suffers -1 on the miscast table if he miscasts due to the distraction. If there is an enemy unit within charge range of the greenskin unit, count this as a 6 instead.

2-5. The unit acts as normal.

6. The unit runs D6 inches towards the enemy. The player may decide which enemy unit to move towards. If the move brings the unit into contact with an enemy unit then it counts as a charge, the Greenskin unit does not need to make a psychology test (for example if the target unit causes fear) This is an exception to the normal turn sequence and the unit may subsequently move, charge and shoot as normal (although still counts as having moved).

Remove damage inflicted for squabbling during a Waagh!

Quell animosity for the Black Orcs is changed to a re-roll of the animosity result of a 1 (abiding by the second result) but no attacks inflicted. I'd also say that any unit within six inches of a unit led by a Black Orc (or a unit of Black Orcs) may re-roll their animosity result of a 1.

Nephilim of Sin
13-01-2010, 23:26
Oh how I laugh when somebody complains that his black orc on boar smacks around a bunch of boar boyz he's with.
The rules say thats what will happen if you roll a 1. Shouldn't have rolled a 1 (or put the black orc on a boar in the boar boyz....).

The problem is the change from editions, which is why we complain. Simply saying 'you shouldn't put a good fighter in your hard-hitting unit' doesn't make sense, because it is counter-intuitive to the army, and again, makes no sense.
I also personally complain about the Waaagh! moving my war machine crew, but....that actually makes sense, so that is a senseless complaint. The Boar Boy one, however, is not.

Still, even were it changed to, say, 'roll before the game' and remove those models, I wouldn't care as much, because at least that makes sense (meaning the BO would be getting his boyz into line before the battle, not during). As it is, however, is not the greatest.

The True Mooseman
13-01-2010, 23:42
Surprisingly? This book was written by a guy who stated in WD he didn't LIKE greenskins. What did you expect >>

This never happened. I have searched and searched for proof of this fabled gaffe and I have never come across a shred of evidence for it. To the best of my knowledge it is just an internet urban legend.

This doesn't mean we don't need more fluff though!

sugarwookie
14-01-2010, 00:03
I agree in that it's very hard to compete. There should be some sort of group in the higher ups that takes a look at every book that's out to date and makes sure there is no silent creep in nastiness. I love OnG at heart, but just can't stand knowing my ass is going to be handed to me because someone didn't quite like the task of writing something I love.

As far as Beastmen goes, I guess we'll all have our opinions, but I find the models horrendous. I can't think of a book that was released in the last 15 years where I have looked at the new models and tasted vomit. The razorgor???? Pumba anyone?? I don't get it, but maybe the sculpter had other things on his mine, or a bone to pick with someone. Again, I'm sure some folks will love the chest hair and bug eyed war pig, but it's turned me against investing money into the new book.


wOOkie

Terraneaux
14-01-2010, 00:33
I agree in that it's very hard to compete. There should be some sort of group in the higher ups that takes a look at every book that's out to date and makes sure there is no silent creep in nastiness. I love OnG at heart, but just can't stand knowing my ass is going to be handed to me because someone didn't quite like the task of writing something I love.

It's not like GW does playtesting anyway.


1. Squabble. The unit can do nothing this turn. A mage in the unit may still cast spells but suffers -1 on the miscast table if he miscasts due to the distraction. If there is an enemy unit within charge range of the greenskin unit, count this as a 6 instead.

Squabble needs to go. Seriously. If O&G are gonna be a worthwhile army, they need to not have their units stop working all of a sudden.

Freman Bloodglaive
14-01-2010, 00:36
Without animosity the Orcs would easily outclass humans.

Terraneaux
14-01-2010, 00:42
Without animosity the Orcs would easily outclass humans.

Orcs are still lacking in cannons, helblaster volley guns, *real* heavy cavalry, and a bunch of other stuff that doesn't really make them comparable to humans the same way. Plus that's all in the points adjustment.

theunwantedbeing
14-01-2010, 00:57
The problem is the change from editions, which is why we complain. Simply saying 'you shouldn't put a good fighter in your hard-hitting unit' doesn't make sense, because it is counter-intuitive to the army, and again, makes no sense.

Lets see what the black orc has over the regular orc hero.
15pts in cost
+1 weaponskill (largely meaningless)
Access to heavy armour (which he still has to pay for)

Not a lot really, is it worth that 1/6 chance every turn of him beating the snot out of his unit?
If you say it is, shutup and quit complaining.
If you say it isnt, why the hell is he in that unit then?

Hence the laughing at people who do it and then complain.

Freman Bloodglaive
14-01-2010, 00:59
Orcs are still lacking in cannons, helblaster volley guns, *real* heavy cavalry, and a bunch of other stuff that doesn't really make them comparable to humans the same way. Plus that's all in the points adjustment.

Well helblasters don't really count, rolling to hit has rather weakened them. Granted on the rest. However there are still a lot of people who believe that it's not an Empire army without big blocks of state troops. Big block versus big block Orcs will walk all over humans. Indeed, with the ability to take two strength 4 attacks in the first round of combat Orcs are close to Saurus in offensive ability (though they don't take damage as well).

Shimmergloom
14-01-2010, 01:09
Oh how I laugh when somebody complains that his black orc on boar smacks around a bunch of boar boyz he's with.
The rules say thats what will happen if you roll a 1. Shouldn't have rolled a 1 (or put the black orc on a boar in the boar boyz....)

It's the 1 on a waaggh that needs changing, but few people ever complain about that, they go right for the facepalm "black orc in boar boyz" example.
It's like when you burn yourself on a pot you get out the oven.
The oven was on, you put it on. You know its very hot and yet you took the risk with your bare hands and now your hands are burnt and you want somebody to complain at.

A new book will be better than the current one.
Boar boyz(well big'uns) will come down in cost.
As will goblins.
Your item list will get a reshuffle and basically become the best of both lists.

Anyway, the new beasts book is way better than the old one was.
It's more along the lines of the 5th edition book than the 6th edition one, no bad thing really and you got a heap of new uber monsters, spells and items to play around with.

This is so ridiculous.

So let's say you had the same rule for VC or WoC or Skaven and a vamp lord would do D6 S5 attacks on your vampire cav unit if they rolled a 1 and see how often they were used and see how often there would be complaints.

Not allowing you to put your general in one of your best units for fear of killing them(which can happen far often than just on the Waaagh! most greenskin players who still use boar boyz, never call their waagh! anyway. You can't not call animosity 1 rolls, cause you have to test each turn) is a terrible rule.

And not one that any other army has to face.

Animosity was fine as it was in 6th edition. It was random, but not crippling.

I'd trade all the 3 inch bonus movements in the world for the ability of my black orcs to let me re-roll 1 results.

2 greenskin units who were both subject to animosity fighting each other, rarely happened, but when it did, it was fun. People didn't complain about that.

Why? Because it was rare randomness. That's fun.

Your Black orc killing your own troops is always complained about, rolling 1's during a waaagh! is always complained about. Why?

Because that is not rare randomness. It happens every game.

As for a Waagh! change it should be simple.

The General calls the Waagh! and for that turn all greenskin units are immune to testing for animosity. Black orc units get a D6 move during the waagh! for that one turn.

In effect both sides get what they want. Greenskins still test for animosity, but greenskin generals once a game don't have to worry about their units failing an animosity roll when they have crucial charges set up.

And as for the new beasts book being more powerful. I did not comment on whether the book was more powerful. I don't know if it is or not, it's not out yet.

But I do know that all the powerful stuff seems centered on monsterhammer and special characters. This does not equal fun and exciting book to me.

Nephilim of Sin
14-01-2010, 01:43
Lets see what the black orc has over the regular orc hero.
15pts in cost
+1 weaponskill (largely meaningless)
Access to heavy armour (which he still has to pay for)

Not a lot really, is it worth that 1/6 chance every turn of him beating the snot out of his unit?
If you say it is, shutup and quit complaining.
If you say it isnt, why the hell is he in that unit then?

Hence the laughing at people who do it and then complain.

Or, perhaps, you know, we've been playing the game for a while, and we use the models we have....:rolleyes: If I had Black Orc mounted before for my Boar Boyz (because, besides, it looks cool), then I suppose I should just shut, quit complaining, and buy a new model to lead the unit. Right? Already had to drop shields of the common gobbos to keep them at the same price, right?

But, it is not just about the Boar Boyz. Nor is it with Mathhammer, min/maxing, or any of that. It really is the fact that the rule is a stupid evolution of Quell Animosity, and doesn't belong, no matter how you want to shape it. Yeah, there are other stupid rules in other armies, and people will complain about it.

FailSafe07
14-01-2010, 01:46
The General calls the Waagh! and for that turn all greenskin units are immune to testing for animosity. Black orc units get a D6 move during the waagh! for that one turn.

In effect both sides get what they want. Greenskins still test for animosity, but greenskin generals once a game don't have to worry about their units failing an animosity roll when they have crucial charges set up.

I think that this is a reasonable idea. I would also suggest that we could also allow for this change to the animosity rules during a Waaagh, just eliminate the rules that say all rolls of 1 count as squabbles regardless of animosity modifiers, only rolls of 1 that are still 1's after modifiers count as squabbles.

I would also suggest that Black Orc characters still do Quell Animosity hits, but, they also allow for an initial roll of 1 to be re-rolled. If the roll is failed on a 1 again then you resolve the hits on the unit.

Warhammerrox
14-01-2010, 02:46
There's not much point in us keeping having this conversation, nobody will ever take notice of our ideas, and for every few good ideas there are plenty of fan boy ideas who just want our O&G to be uber hard...

I've had ideas while using my Orcs and and I have to agree with the more moderate ideas that others have brought forward.

Changes to make the new Orcs decent, *read*, not cheesy.....

The Generals unit, what ever it is, never test for animosity, if the hardest Orc in the park is with you personally you sure aren't going to mess about (a lot anyway), even if you are Orcs. The General and his unit auto pass the Waaagggghhhhh.

Black Orc re-rolls his units failed animosity and only his unit, not units with X". I don't care how hard a Blorc is, if he is busy sorting out his own mob he isn't in a position to walk over to somebody else.

A failed animosity test on a 1 is fine, it should stay as is, but a Shaman in the unit should still be able to cast, at say a -1 for distraction or generates 1 less PD due to the distraction? Since characters can't stand alone outside their units now we are forced to have our weak Shamans in units now for survival, I don't see any other armies wizards taking a hit like ours do. (Somebody else came up with the distraction idea but I thought I would include it here as it's a great idea).

A failed animosity test on a Waaagghhh could be changed to a STUPIDITY result instead, fail on the Waagghh and go stupid, this messes up the unit still and stops a Shaman from operating as it's bound by Stupidity. Maybe could use some work, but it's a start.

A good edition would be to have the entire army be ITP on the turn the Waagghh is called, the ITP that's tagged onto the D6" move is pointless as you will invariably be further away than that and will still need to do a normal charge to get to the enemy. At the moment our ITP only lasts on that split second the Waagghh is called, by the time the declare charges phase is here we have all calmed down, bizarrely...
Obviously factor in some sort of compromise, as the ITP boost is only really useful against the Daemons and Vampires of this world who are FEAR causers en mass, and as Orcs isn't it fluffy that we are to go a bit loony when the General channels the big green wave through us?

Saying that though, compromise be damned while other armies Strike First all the time and with a points decrease... (I wonder who I'm talking about?)

Or, recalculate the size of unit that should take animosity tests, I can understand how 20+ greenies can kick off with each other for no reason, seeing as they are tightly compacted in a unit, but I don't see how 5 wolf rider or boar boys should kick off so readily when there are few of them. The current rule is under US 5, well done Matt, you can't count can you? or you aren't aware that a boar boy is US 2. Maybe sort it so a 5 man cavalry unit plus 1 character is immune to animosity?

Change Goblin chariots to be light chariots like the TK have, D3 impacts and less T on the chariot. Wolf chariots are obviously not as heavy as a boar chariot, it's even being pulled by a couple of light wolves and not 2 huge muscular steaming boars... That way they can go back to a 2 for 1 slot, they are weaker so you can get away with 2 for 1... But we got Pump Wagons in this edition didn't we because GW haven't sold any in ten years! :rolleyes:

Bring the price of Big Un upgrades, boar boys and savage boar boys, unit command squads down a tad please, they aren't "all that"...

Add a shield option to an Arrer boy, it's an Orc after all and is predisposed to prefer close combat.

Fanatics are a tad too expensive in comparison to their nerf in power, OR make it so Fanatics can never be triggered by the proximity of the enemy, have them thrown out at the Orc players discretion or used as a charge reaction, 25pt uncontrollable randomness that can be triggered by your opponent on his terms and in your half of the table is just stupid and a waste of points, might as well just get nets...

Add FEAR to the Gigantic Spider and the Giant Squig, it makes sense, they are monstrous mounts.

I think our Bolt throwers could go up by a tad, a 2 for 1 slot is pretty cheesy on our behalf, I do think they undercosted a touch.

Some extra Magic Armours please, they don't all have to be heavy armour as a way to get it on our common Orc bosses, some light armours will do just fine.

And now the subject of Gobbos...
Why not have Common and Night Gobs be set at exactly the same price each, their pluses and minuses should equal them out to be roughly even over the main scheme of things, Common Gobs get access to a better armour save and LD and become the fighty git, where as the Night gobs get better INI and access to nets and become the sneaky gits, I believe these things iron out when you are using them on the table, neither type of Gob has the clear advantage over the other...

Let's face it, if... cough cough Adam Troke cough cough (nearly choked there), can say WLs, SMs and PG are equivalent in use though they have different abilities and stats and can be same points each because it irons itself out over time. Then I don't see why that same logic can't be applied to weedy inferior Gobs.... Oh, I forgot, we had a numpty write our book, didn't we!

Also, drop the 'outnumber Elves 2 to 1 to stop FEAR' nonsense when it comes to Gobs because.....
A) Have you seen how cheap Elves are these days, pmsl, we will never outnumber Elves again.
B) Nothing else in the game has to outnumber by double, only by highest US, let's have some consistency please GW, if that's possible.

Other than that, the rest of the O&G book is pretty good I think, our characters are decent, other things like Trolls and Doom Divers and such are decent and costed appropriately I think. The basic Orc boy is a great defensive troop for 6pts all in. It's just a shame the bread and butter stuff of the army is a bit lacking, but what you gonna do?

Remember ladz... Orcs is du biggist un du strongist an wees is ment fer fiytin an fer winnin!!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Shimmergloom
14-01-2010, 02:52
I would also suggest that Black Orc characters still do Quell Animosity hits, but, they also allow for an initial roll of 1 to be re-rolled. If the roll is failed on a 1 again then you resolve the hits on the unit.

yes this would be good too.

Say it's like this.

Instead of the 6th edition way, where the black orc character made a 6 inch bubble, say they can only quell in the unit they are in(make a talisman that creates a 6 inch bubble if you want, that's fine).

so you roll a 1. The character let's you re-roll the 1. Roll a 1 again and then the character quells the new way.

Extend that to black orc units.

They create a 6 inch bubble. An animosity unit fails within 6 inches they get to re-roll the 1, like in 6th. They fail again and say that the black orcs stare and growl at the unruly unit to the point that the failed unit then takes 'hits' in the way that a character would hit the unit and that many are removed as casualties.

The fluff reason behind it can be that they are not actually being hit, it's just that those models have fled from the field in a state of terror at what the black orcs might do to them for fighting during a battle.

Warhammerrox
14-01-2010, 02:58
I like the unit of Blorcs giving an anti animosity bubble idea, they can pull it off due to there being a whole unit of them and not 1 solitary Blorc trying to sort out his own troops.

Makes Blorcs the backbone of the army then, making them central to keeping the army together.

Storak
14-01-2010, 06:09
Warhammerrox, just a few fast comments:

animosity tests are limited to units with 5 models.

our Bolt throwers are not different from the dwarf ones, and they only pay a few points more. removing the 2 for 1 choice would seriously cripple our army.

Avian
14-01-2010, 07:51
One suggestion I had which might see use in a tournament is this:

- Quell Animosity is removed as it is now

- Instead, units that are within 12" of the army General or within 6" of ANY Black Orc roll 2 dice for their Animosity test and PICK which one to use



That still makes them random, but less so.

ChaosVC
14-01-2010, 08:00
I haven't read the whole thread for a simply reason....too freaking long. But I can see that we are talking a bout quelling animosity right? I believe introducing the old 6th ed black orc rerolling animosity rule would be better without the quelling it but take damage thing. If it fails again, it fails again because they are orcs and thats their main trait!. The problem I see right now is that to justify their screw up O & G units need to get cheaper. They should be scarier and more hordey then they are now. Go Green mushroom go!

Lordsaradain
14-01-2010, 10:16
Indeed, that completely ruined the book for me too...


:rolleyes:

I mean seriously? Does that really bug you that much? I'm sure 99% of people who read that don't even notice.

It's one thing if they CHANGE the fluff, but quite another if they just forget their own fluff, which they obviously must've done in this case. Ok, I don't hate it, but it definetly annoys me. I like warhammer because of the fluff, and I expect the writers to pay at least some attention to it when writing new armybooks.

Obviously, this silly mistake is far from the only thing being wrong with the O&G book.

The price jack on goblins, boar boyz and big 'un upgrade, Black Orcs stupid quell animosity rule, giant spider lacking fear, the price of troll upgrades, the sloppy fanatic rules, removal of doom divers unique misfire chart, lack of magic armour...

lord ugwart
14-01-2010, 10:40
I made a similar comment in a thread a while back. I thought that I would love to see a unit of plastic boar boyz released, that was untill I saw the latest beastmen.
I've always played orcs and goblins no matter how good or bad the rule book was, but I fear for the future, models wise, I dread to think what these so-called 'designers' are going to come up with.

Nuada
14-01-2010, 11:05
models wise, I dread to think what these so-called 'designers' are going to come up with.

The new figures for O&G look very good, i'm impressed with it all so far. No need to worry. But you'll have to take my word for it, they aren't out for a long long time.

Nasher
14-01-2010, 16:03
Well Nuada
Since you work with GW UK, can you just do what is in your limited power. To ensure they DON"T $cr#wthepooch O&G up again. As well as any other army book, of course.
On Topic
The main issue I find with the present army book is the points cost for the troops. The only army with a big disadvantage and has expensive troops for what they do. With us here in Australia an additional 10%-20% in points and extra special slots at tourniments, the army preforms a lot better. Still VERY far away from deamons/DE/Lizards etc.
Animosity should be left in but not at such a huge disadvantage as it now stands.
I would have it for Orcs on a 5+ the have to move forward 1d6+1 towards the nearest enemy.
Goblins would roll but only ever squabble on the roll of a 1.
I think thats a simple and nice fix, on a number of levels and more incharacter.
Oh and savage orcs should fail on a 4+!!!
Anyways thats my thoughs on the matter
8th Ed has gone to print late October and we have no idea what changes that will make to the game. Lets just hope they don't make us wait to 9th Ed to fix it.

Urgat
14-01-2010, 16:22
Animosity should be left in but not at such a huge disadvantage as it now stands.
I would have it for Orcs on a 5+ the have to move forward 1d6+1 towards the nearest enemy.
Goblins would roll but only ever squabble on the roll of a 1.
I think thats a simple and nice fix, on a number of levels and more incharacter.
Oh and savage orcs should fail on a 4+!!!

Lol, you say it's bad and you want to make it worse? 0o

Nasher
14-01-2010, 16:45
Just goes to show that one mans trash is anothers gold. Being able to reform/pivot on ythe spot and move or charge in any direction with a failed animosity check much like the TK reform banner would be gold IMO.
Again 8th Ed could make blocks of infantry gold compared to what is currently available. We will just have to wait and see what happens later this year now won't we.
Also do you think M4" is good?? really!! well you really have a lot to learn prehaps.

Condottiere
14-01-2010, 17:54
Change Goblin chariots to be light chariots like the TK have, D3 impacts and less T on the chariot. Wolf chariots are obviously not as heavy as a boar chariot, it's even being pulled by a couple of light wolves and not 2 huge muscular steaming boars... That way they can go back to a 2 for 1 slot, they are weaker so you can get away with 2 for 1... But we got Pump Wagons in this edition didn't we because GW haven't sold any in ten years! :rolleyes:While I agree that Goblin chariots are more likely lightly constructed, I'm not sure anyone would take light chariots unless you could mass them in a unit like Tomb Kings.

Malorian
14-01-2010, 18:02
Maybe something could be done so that if you have a character on a wolf chariot then regular chariots become 2 for 1 slot, or maybe even core. Same could be done for boar chariots.

Just make it so core chariots don't count for minimum core and I think it would work very well.

Urgat
14-01-2010, 21:20
Just goes to show that one mans trash is anothers gold. Being able to reform/pivot on ythe spot and move or charge in any direction with a failed animosity check much like the TK reform banner would be gold IMO.
Again 8th Ed could make blocks of infantry gold compared to what is currently available. We will just have to wait and see what happens later this year now won't we.
Also do you think M4" is good?? really!! well you really have a lot to learn prehaps.

Her, you're not talking about the same things there. You suggested that the crappy 6 result is increased with 5 or 6 for orcs, and still going towards the closest enemy, but with 1" more... I don't know if I have much to learn, but what I've learned already is that if my opponent knows what he is doing, that 6 messes up my line quite splendidely, and I can do nothing about it apart from blocking LoS (and everybody knows how easy it is to block the LoS of a whole greenskin army).
Gobs, well yeah ok, just squabbling on 1 is better.
As for savage orcs failing on a 4+? With frenzy, it's like the OnG player doesn't have control at all anymore...
Nothing about free reforms or I don't know what in what I quoted, and yeah, M4 is better than either M0 or M4+1D6+1 towards where the opponent wants.
If that's your gold, indeed, I'll keep my trash :p

Gobbies
15-01-2010, 07:10
With movement being so important, animosity ruins our movement and tactics 1/3 times PER unit. Id rather scrap the squabble rule, and maybe they should adopt an animosity where the units lose casualties instead of halting the entire unit or moving the unit forward unpredictably

Volker the Mad Fiddler
15-01-2010, 07:48
Animosity is just *********** bad. Seriously. A 1/6 chance to have your unit sit around and waste its points this turn? Now, if it was a 2d6 table and we had a 1/36 chance of something like that, sure. But as it stands its just an unnecessary nerf, and I don't think it affected their points totals at all since the retard designer (par for the course at GW) thought that the '6' result evened things out. How many O&G players would just not roll on the Animosity table if they had the chance?

Wasn't animosity always a 5/36 to do something bad [either attack your own units or not move] and a 1/36 chance to get some extra movement? [Each unit rolled, on a 1 you rolled on the animosity table, 1- attack, 2-5 squabble, 6- let's show 'em (or whatever the movement was called)? How is 1/6 that much worse when you now also have a 1/6 chance for the 'good' result? Not saying that O&G book is good, but animosity has always been there and has always been that randomness that meant the greenskins could trounce an opponent one day and get whalloped by the same army the next- and that is part of what made them greenskins.

Condottiere
15-01-2010, 08:27
I always thought that Waaagh!!! tended to counter balance animosity, since you had an extra movement phase that could potentially overwhelm your opponent.

Storak
15-01-2010, 18:00
Wasn't animosity always a 5/36 to do something bad [either attack your own units or not move] and a 1/36 chance to get some extra movement? [Each unit rolled, on a 1 you rolled on the animosity table, 1- attack, 2-5 squabble, 6- let's show 'em (or whatever the movement was called)? How is 1/6 that much worse when you now also have a 1/6 chance for the 'good' result? Not saying that O&G book is good, but animosity has always been there and has always been that randomness that meant the greenskins could trounce an opponent one day and get whalloped by the same army the next- and that is part of what made them greenskins.

the problem is, that rolling a "show em" resuklt actually is NOT good. archers move down from their hills. fast cav charges into combat. frenzy boars move into woods.
i had a backwards facing unit leave the table once.

rolling a 6 is not as bas as rolling a 1 is (though a clever opponent abusing it, sometimes can make you think it is), but it is often not good either. unpredictability of our army did double this edition.

at the same time, blackorcs were nerfed. the unit is at least 2 points too expensive. (and doesn t quell animosity over 6 inch any longer. and black orc chars kill memebers of their unit, making it impossible to place them in cavalry.


I always thought that Waaagh!!! tended to counter balance animosity, since you had an extra movement phase that could potentially overwhelm your opponent.

the waagh has the power of blowing up important cavalry units. a good opponent will try to place one unit, though that you have at least to think about calling a waaaagh in turns 2 and 3.

orc cavalry loses 14 inch, on a failed animosity check. it gets 3.5 inch on the show em result, and (very very rarely) an additional 3.5 inch for the waaagh.

in practical terms, our M7 cav is not moving much faster over a game, than M5 infantry does.

Malorian
15-01-2010, 18:15
the problem is, that rolling a "show em" resuklt actually is NOT good. archers move down from their hills. fast cav charges into combat. frenzy boars move into woods.
i had a backwards facing unit leave the table once.

The trick is to not take archers and boar boyz in the first place (most orc players know that), and, since fast cav have 360 LOS, when you run up the fast cav to march block you set them up so they are looking away from the unit. Then they can still shoot and on a 6 they move away rather than into combat.

Shimmergloom
15-01-2010, 19:37
The trick is to not take major portions of your army book?

So never take archers, boar boyz(4 types), so then what should we take lots of chariots and war machines who don't get subjugated to the special rules?

I guess I should go tell HE players to never take swordsmasters or spearelves, so that they don't have to worry with their pesky ASF rules.

Malorian
15-01-2010, 20:28
You and I both know those aren't major portions of the army book... and I like how you included big'uns as a completely seperate choice (for both types).

All books have options but there is also the way the writers are pushing you to play.

Orcs and goblins are a horde army and if you take elite units (boar boyz) you are free to do so but you will have problems. At the same time orcs are unstable but if you really want frenzied archers who are subject to animosity you are once again free to do so but you will have problems.

Don't blame the book when you decide to fill your high elve army with silver helms and ellyrian riders...

ghost of scubasteve
15-01-2010, 20:46
i wish i wouldnt have picked up orcs as an army, animosity just sucks too much

Urgat
15-01-2010, 21:48
The trick is to not take archers and boar boyz in the first place (most orc players know that), and, since fast cav have 360 LOS, when you run up the fast cav to march block you set them up so they are looking away from the unit. Then they can still shoot and on a 6 they move away rather than into combat.

You shouldn't take night goblins with fanatics either, then, because stepping on your own fanatics is nasty I tell you >>

It's funny how you have to take measures to prevent that so called "good" result, like, her... not taking units of having them look away? >>

Shimmergloom
15-01-2010, 23:44
big'uns have different stats and wildly different points values. They are clearly different than regular boar boyz. Would you have said that 6th edition chaos knights and chosen were the same thing?

They are upgrades only insofar as they are space savers(need that book space for the 22pg GW catalog afterall).

UberBeast
16-01-2010, 00:32
All things considering I still think the current orcs and goblins books is by far the best written book of the current generation.

It's got a lot of flavour. None of the units make the other units subpar choices and there's no idiotic combo's that make you sigh and wonder what the developers were thinking.

Ofcourse the powercreep in the other books is so bad the O&G book can hardly compete which is really the problem. Judged by it's own merits I'd say the O&G book is the standard which all other books should follow. Solid, balanced, fun. Do the rest along the same lines and the game will have improved immeasurably.

I disagree. They made some huge mistakes with the Orcs and Goblins that were destined to become problems later on. Upping the cost of goblins by 50%, the overpricing of boarboyz and Black orcs, as well as the nerfing of all the nightgoblin unit options and the removal of most of the magic armor items- just to list the main issues.

Urgat
16-01-2010, 00:50
To be fair, when the OnG book was released, all the armies were supposed to be balanced the same way. Then they did a complete U-turn for some reason.

Nephilim of Sin
16-01-2010, 01:02
To be fair, when the OnG book was released, all the armies were supposed to be balanced the same way. Then they did a complete U-turn for some reason.

It would be interesting to see how they would have fared had all other books been done with the same design philosophy. I still think they would have suffered from some rather idiotic rules, but I doubt they would have been bottom-tier.

sulla
16-01-2010, 01:44
To be fair, when the OnG book was released, all the armies were supposed to be balanced the same way. Then they did a complete U-turn for some reason.I'm not sure I buy into that. The O&G 7th ed book wasn't even all that good vs many 6th edition books. It failed to adress the needs for survivability of combat characters and didn't really do much for the 'elite'orc troops while increasing the price of the cheap goblins needlessly.

The armybook just didn't reward players for playing O&G as an infantry horde.

Urgat
16-01-2010, 02:07
Well, when it was released, they did say how they would make cavalry more expensive, etc, in 7th ed.

Condottiere
16-01-2010, 02:09
Cavalry may be more expensive in some armies, it's also increased in capability.

WolfGuardChris
16-01-2010, 02:23
I dont play Fantasy but I do play Orks which from everything I've read about WF they seem quite similar and on the subject of Animosity, yes Orcs are easily to squabble amongst themselves but at least in 40k fluff they are not stupid enough to start attacking each other in the middle of a batte. They are as prone to fight each other as they are other races however this is usually when they lack any other race to take their aggression out on. If they are about to charge a line of dwarves I feel their orc brains would only be focused on ripping them limb from limb and not standing still knocking each other on the head.

Shimmergloom
16-01-2010, 02:38
To be fair, when the OnG book was released, all the armies were supposed to be balanced the same way. Then they did a complete U-turn for some reason.

I don't buy that for a minute.

The empire book came out less than 3 months after the greenskin book and had NONE of the things that were suppose to be the norm for 7th edition.

Can you honestly tell me they released those two books with no overlap in rules development?

The greenskin book was a fubar from day one, plain and simple.

Nephilim of Sin
16-01-2010, 02:51
I don't buy that for a minute.

The empire book came out less than 3 months after the greenskin book and had NONE of the things that were suppose to be the norm for 7th edition.

Can you honestly tell me they released those two books with no overlap in rules development?

The greenskin book was a fubar from day one, plain and simple.

But how long was the difference in development. I still remember the WD detailing the new focus for Warhammer, and the O&G book fit that role.

Brother Edwin
16-01-2010, 03:41
1. Nonsensical points increases.
Parts of the army were overpowerd. At the time the book was written books were becoming less powerful. Hence why wood elfs and empire also realised around the same time were toned down from what they were previously.

2. Major loss of character.
I thought the adding of the waagh and cheaper infantry added.

3. Major loss of varied playstyles(buy orcs! buy chariots! so long goblin armies!)

As I said goblin armys were overpowerd.

4. Terrible spelling, poorly written rules, unclear rules, rules just left out of the book that are obviously missing like fanatics being ItP(had to be errata's months later).

Fair enough.

5. No internal or external points balances.
Gobbos became more and orks less. Seems fair enough.




1. Nonsensical points increases.
2. Major loss in character(no more marks, mixed herds, the uniqueness that was beasts).
3. Major loss in varied playstyles(no more ogres, dragon orgres, trolls, but buy more NEW! Minos! Buy another giant or 2 to convert to cyclops!)
4. Jury still out on this one.
5. No internal or external points balances.



??????

You have no doubt never actually seen the new book. Let alone play a game with or against them.

Moral of the story.

Don't make decisions on random rumors on the net.

Orc's and gobbo's can only be made better. Just do them.

Malorian
16-01-2010, 05:21
i wish i wouldnt have picked up orcs as an army, animosity just sucks too much

God people... some of you REALLY need help looking for silver linings...

Every book has bad choices, every book has drawbacks. Deal with it and find a way to make it work.


Like I always say, people should try improving their game by playing more and posting less...

I play orcs, I love my orcs, and I win more than I lose! What more can I say other than stop complaining and actually give things a chance.

Storak
16-01-2010, 09:48
The trick is to not take archers and boar boyz in the first place (most orc players know that), and, since fast cav have 360 LOS, when you run up the fast cav to march block you set them up so they are looking away from the unit. Then they can still shoot and on a 6 they move away rather than into combat.

one of the few wins that i scored against an extremely competitive daemon player, was with massed shooting. a recent tournament provided a point reduction for orcs, with archers costing only 4 points. and bigun boar points getting a 10 pts DECREASE.

orcs still didn t dominate the tournament and nobody used boar boyz...

fast cav does not have 360 LOS. it is just that every model can shoot all around.

while i rarely charge with my wolfs, threatening a charge is important.

turning wolfs backwards is a incredibly stupid idea.


Orcs and goblins are a horde army and if you take elite units (boar boyz) you are free to do so but you will have problems. At the same time orcs are unstable but if you really want frenzied archers who are subject to animosity you are once again free to do so but you will have problems.

Don't blame the book when you decide to fill your high elve army with silver helms and ellyrian riders...

the comparison with HE is plainly false. HE are a very competitive army. a few choices are not as good as other choices in the book.

O&G are a terrible book, that is at the bottom of the power range. with a few choices, that still offer some chance at competitions.


God people... some of you REALLY need help looking for silver linings...

Every book has bad choices, every book has drawbacks. Deal with it and find a way to make it work.


Like I always say, people should try improving their game by playing more and posting less...

I play orcs, I love my orcs, and I win more than I lose! What more can I say other than stop complaining and actually give things a chance.

sorry malorian, but you are in denial of facts. basically all tournament results and rankings confirm the horrible state of the O&G book. basically all comp score systems give massive advantages to O&G. (again, 25% additional points is pretty a lot!)

"improving your play" only helps against idiots. real opponents will improve as well. and our lack of useful choices is a massive problem in the long term competition against improving players...

DarkMark
16-01-2010, 11:04
Orcs need to play more like Orks, or even the new skaven, with lots of room for random sillyness but still decent.

I hope they don't get a new book until a few others have in the next edition. This should allow for some power creep and the designers to iron out problems that would handicap the army otherwise for many years.

Modelwise I'm a little worried about the introduction of 10-man boxes to greenskins. NGs should be redone as the current ones aren't really any better than the bfsp ones, though they are a lot more expensive. Fingers crossed for plastic savages and boars. I don't expect any new plastics to be cheaper just a little easier to convert.

Urgat
16-01-2010, 12:42
I don't really want to get into that kind of discussion again but...


I thought the adding of the waagh and cheaper infantry added.
Exactly what infantry got cheaper? Oh yeah, Arrer boyz. And that's it.
The rest stayed the same (orc boyz) or got more expensive (savage orcs, black orcs, every single gob unit).
I'm not going to talk about the Waaagh, it's a matter of taste I suppose.


As I said goblin armys were overpowered.
Lol, and you can say that with a straight face. No, gob armies were not overpowered, they were probably better than all orc armies, but I've never, ever heard anybody complain abot my gob army. Never.
Lol, gobs overpowered, now, at last, I think i've read everything the net could offer >>


Gobbos became more and orks less. Seems fair enough.
Orcs got choppas (which are great, yeah) and, apart from boyz, got a point increase. Yeah, orcs became less.
In the current OnG book, there's certain units that are fine (regular orc boyz), but most of the rest needs work.

yabbadabba
16-01-2010, 13:05
sorry malorian, but you are in denial of facts. basically all tournament results and rankings confirm the horrible state of the O&G book. basically all comp score systems give massive advantages to O&G. (again, 25% additional points is pretty a lot!)
"improving your play" only helps against idiots. real opponents will improve as well. and our lack of useful choices is a massive problem in the long term competition against improving players... I object to you calling people idiots without even knowing them, especially as it has an actual usuage :" Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25."
There is more to life than tournaments. Tournaments are a very minor and warping part of this hobby. Plenty of people (and I would hazard a silent majority) manage to play the game with Orcs happily and successfully and never even step inside a tournament, or go to the tournaments for the joy of it, fully knowing that to win the tournament would be a miracle.
If wining a tournament is important to people then GW have appeared to have catered to the need with Daemons and Vampire Counts. If you love Orcs then go to the tournamnet for the joy of the challenge that you have an army that is not designed for it, and every victory is a major success and justification for taking your Orcs.
Orcs might have some imbalances and corrections needed, but successfully dealing with those issues is part of the joy of this hobby and part of maturing as a wargamer.

Malorian
16-01-2010, 13:37
Storak:

I've managed to beat deamons without freebees or reduced points. I just didit through good ol horde and spear chukkas while bogging him down with wolves. And to say all comp systems give orcs an advantage is an obvious lie.

He brought up the HE comparision, I just followed it.

And like I've said to you a dozen times I don't care what the tournament stats have been. I don't follow those numbers, I look at an army and find a way to make it work. Trust me, it works WAAAAAY better than just going on a forum and going "boo hoo I can't win because orcs suck. If only they hada better book then I would win."

Even simple things like how I said you can face the fast cav the other way so a 6 on the animosity won't push them into combat. Do you see you or others coming up with stuff like this? NO! and this is because you spend more time analyzing tournament rankings and complaining about them rather than actually playing.

Chadjabdoul
16-01-2010, 14:06
@ the OP
While your points are valid you have to take into account that the new OnG book will not be written by an idiot. (unlike the last one)

@ Malorian
The fact that you can beat deamons with Orcs does not make the OnG armybook a well written one.
And just to clarify, I am not saying that strong army builds = well written armybook.
Getting the feel of the army = well written army book.
Thats why I consider Ogre Kingdoms a very good army book while I consider OnG a very bad one.

Schelle
16-01-2010, 14:39
I don't play Orcs, but my warhammer playing partner does and he kicks **** with his army. The magic is usually the one thing which does not have much effect, but the rest is fairly good and sometimes surprisingly effective and destructive. Animosity can be a drawback, but he usually manages to get the units forward to do whatever it is they are supposed to do.

I dread the fanatics, they can completely destroy a unit and get them running off in panic, both friend and foe, which sometimes leads to hilarious moments.

The wolve-riders are extremely good for flank charges, the boar boyz can take a bit of a punch and the black orcs are just super (I love both the models and the stats), they might get a better armour save though, let's face it, they are completely covered in armour, but only get a heavy armour save of 5+. This should be full plate armour and receive a 4+ save as a start.

I really love playing against Orcs and have to say that I only won once against them, and this was in a 40K game. I used my Space Marines.

Malorian
16-01-2010, 14:55
@ Malorian
The fact that you can beat deamons with Orcs does not make the OnG armybook a well written one.
And just to clarify, I am not saying that strong army builds = well written armybook.
Getting the feel of the army = well written army book.
Thats why I consider Ogre Kingdoms a very good army book while I consider OnG a very bad one.

Fair enough.

Now keep in mind I've only been playing orcs since their current book (in fact I only started so I could have first-hand experience to counter threads like this), but to me the fact that there are crazy (and obviously worse) choices in the book only makes it feel more 'orcy' to me.

Brother Edwin
16-01-2010, 15:13
Lol, and you can say that with a straight face. No, gob armies were not overpowered, they were probably better than all orc armies, but I've never, ever heard anybody complain abot my gob army. Never.


Then you obviously did not know how to use it.
OK I admit almost all armys of the time could be overpowerd. However it was far from weak. And would crush a average gamer.

4 Wizzards.
BSB.
Gobbo general.

2 pt core with fanatics.
Wolf riders.
Snotlings were ok.

Bolt throwers and chariots for special.

Giants/pump wagons for rare.


However that is in the past so meh.

However at the moment I agree o and g need a bit of a improvment since dark elves and demons are so powerful. I think amonisity waagh should make them unbreakable for a turn.

Althoug not all is lost, lok at my fanatic catapult army in the army list bit.

This army will beat any greater demon/dragon army easy.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240062

Vandur Last
16-01-2010, 15:35
@those who think fluff errors dont matter.

Blatant errors like the Patriarch thing destroy your ability to beleive that the author is capable of placing hidden meanings and slight nuances in the text. Immersion is ruined and the ability to care about the fluff is prevented.
If alot of the books had errors like that in it back when i started in 4th ed i probly wouldnt have cared about warhammer and likely wouldnt be here now.
So yes, its important.

Malorian
16-01-2010, 15:40
The main thing I'm hoping in terms of fluff in the next book is that they don't go backwards like in other recent books. I'd like to see who is the next big warboss and who we are supposed to be campaigning against next :)

Urgat
16-01-2010, 16:55
Then you obviously did not know how to use it.
OK I admit almost all armys of the time could be overpowerd. However it was far from weak. And would crush a average gamer.

How does that make an army overpowered? Besides, it wouldn't crush, it could. There's a vast nuance, which applied to about every armies back then.
It's like Malorian saying he can beat demons with his army. Why of course, thanks god, it's possible. If it wasn't possible at all, there wouldn't be any argument anymore I believe. I've had a unit of snotlings beat a unit of bloodletters, on their own, from the front, back in 5th edition; that doesn't prove that snots are better than bloodletters. That made my day though, granted :p
Goblin armies were not any stronger than most -normal- builds out there, they still had the usual flaws (super low Ld, etc), and regardless of if I knew how to use it or not (thanks for the gratuitous bash >>), it's the first time ever I've read somewhere that gobs were overpowered, honnestly. But yeah, as you said, that's all in the past. I'll give this to the current armybook though:
the hoppers are vastly better (messed up movement rules put aside), maybe not as fun, but certainly less contraining, complicated and long to play, and the choppas are great. And while I understand how people can be annoyed at things such as the price increase for vanilla trolls, well, I always use river trolls, and they cost exactly the same as they did, so I don't really care. My river trolls are worth their points, I think if they were cheaper, they would be underpriced.

For my part, I have good expectations for the next OnG book, thanks to the new skaven book. Lots of good things in there that could be applied to OnG, especially gobs (2.5pts for a slave? Well 2.5pts for a goblin during 5th ed was just right, 3 is too much, and 2 was not enough). I don't doubt they can make boars better (don't really see any bad cavalry unit in the latest books, besides silver helms maybe, but it's not that they're bad, it's that the DP are just better, really), etc. Here's the list of what I could be worried about (if I would care to worry about something I know knothing about, and had nothing better to do in my life) :
-animosity: what grand idea are they going to drop on us next?
-common gob foot units in regards to night gob ones: I'm not afraid they're going to mess them up, I'm just pretty sure they're not going to do anything. Well, that won't change anything to my army I suppose.
-magic: somehow I don't picture orcs using magic so defensively...
There shouldn't be any worries for the rest of the list (well, black orcs and fanatics maybe?).

Brother Edwin
16-01-2010, 17:23
How does that make an army overpowered? Besides, it wouldn't crush, it could. There's a vast nuance, which applied to about every armies back then.
It's like Malorian saying he can beat demons with his army. Why of course, thanks god, it's possible. If it wasn't possible at all, there wouldn't be any argument anymore I believe. I've had a unit of snotlings beat a unit of bloodletters, on their own, from the front, back in 5th edition; that doesn't prove that snots are better than bloodletters. That made my day though, granted :p

That army would crush the average gamer. They could only win if they themselves had a overpowerd army. You obviously never went to a UKGT.

Goblin armies were not any stronger than most -normal- builds out there, they still had the usual flaws (super low Ld, etc), and regardless of if I knew how to use it or not (thanks for the gratuitous bash >>), it's the first time ever I've read somewhere that gobs were overpowered, honnestly. But yeah, as you said, that's all in the past. I'll give this to the current armybook though:

That is because 99% of the people on the net are scrubs.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

theunwantedbeing
16-01-2010, 17:36
That is because 99% of the people on the net are scrubs.

99% of Greenskin players you mean.

Urgat
16-01-2010, 20:47
That army would crush the average gamer. They could only win if they themselves had a overpowerd army. You obviously never went to a UKGT.

No indeed I didn't, and I'm like Malorian, I don't give a flying rat ass about GTs in general and the UKGT in particular, they're not the norm, and they mean nothing to me. But obviously you did, so I don't care about what you and your elite friends say. I'm fine being a scrub, if that's what you imply I am. It also amuses me how you talk about average players and UKGT like you found the first ones in the second one. I'm so out of this thread, I knew it was a mistake from the begining anyway.

A guide on how to play to win in street fighter lol. I love the pic where it shows two runners, one of them has obviously downed the other, and the guy titles this "there's limits to playing to win, not sure that's one though".
Speaks volumes.

Storak
16-01-2010, 21:25
That is because 99% of the people on the net are scrubs.


i am glad, that we have Edwin around to teach us some stuff. for example how to use the goblin slingshot.

sorry brother, but you write and behave like a fraud.

gobbos never were anywhere like daemons are today.

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

when i reference tournament results, then i do so, because it is the only data we have. personal experience simply doesn t tell a lot about the power level of armies.

i don t think that people should play like at GTs all the time. but power levels of armies will have an effect, even on pretty friendly games.

theunwantedbeing
16-01-2010, 21:41
when i reference tournament results, then i do so, because it is the only data we have. personal experience simply doesn t tell a lot about the power level of armies.

i don t think that people should play like at GTs all the time. but power levels of armies will have an effect, even on pretty friendly games.

The problem with that is we dont have the following:
-armylists
-a blow by blow account of what each player did
-the dice results of each dice roll
-what the terrain was like for the game

Without those the results are pretty meaningless.
Could be down to luck/cheating/them just not being very good gamers or just having an army that was just not suited for facing everyone else who turned up at the tournament.

Shimmergloom
16-01-2010, 22:54
Then you obviously did not know how to use it.
OK I admit almost all armys of the time could be overpowerd. However it was far from weak. And would crush a average gamer.

4 Wizzards.
BSB.
Gobbo general.

2 pt core with fanatics.
Wolf riders.
Snotlings were ok.

Bolt throwers and chariots for special.

Giants/pump wagons for rare.


However that is in the past so meh.

However at the moment I agree o and g need a bit of a improvment since dark elves and demons are so powerful. I think amonisity waagh should make them unbreakable for a turn.

Althoug not all is lost, lok at my fanatic catapult army in the army list bit.

This army will beat any greater demon/dragon army easy.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240062

That would be all well and good if you considered it overpowering to have that list. But those lists were more annoying and not overpowering.

However, all those points could have easily been addressed without them going overboard the way they did.

Magic was already nerfed in the main 7th rulebook(which all books later started trying to find ways around to keep their uber magic).

Further the Big Waagh! could no longer be taken by gobbo shamans and all goblin units could not longer generate power or dispel dice.

Done.

2nd fanatics lost the no armor save ability.

Done and nerfed.

The only remaining annoying all gobbo aspect was the squig bomb, which had it's rules re-written.

Ok. That's all fine and acceptable.

But why do all goblins need to go up in points? Commons lose their shields? Extra big-bosses lost(and then 4 of the last 6 books get extra characters in special character champions and assassins).

Wolf chariots lose 2 for 1?(but beasts keep core chariots?).

And you are going to complain about giants? Have you seen the monster hammer in the last 6+ books?

They went overboard in nerfing goblins. And the goblins were not overpowered to begin with. And then they piled that on with savage orc points increases, boar boyz lies, snotling and pump wagon nerfs, huge points increases to troll upgrades and the nerfs to black orcs and black orc characters.

And they topped it all off with taking out all the cool magic armor and items of the past like the shiney baubles. Oh but you can pay 15pts to be stupid 1/3rd of the time.

UberBeast
17-01-2010, 04:37
Lol, and you can say that with a straight face. No, gob armies were not overpowered, they were probably better than all orc armies, but I've never, ever heard anybody complain abot my gob army. Never.
Lol, gobs overpowered, now, at last, I think i've read everything the net could offer >>


I had a good laugh when I saw that OP goblin post too. Near as I can tell there are more than a few people that think goblins were OP. I think this opinion was based more on theoretical goblin lists on various warhammer forums and not on actual game play.

Anyone who actually bothered to collect, build, paint, and then play an all goblin army in the 6th edition (a rare beast indeed) knew the truth that it was nothing more than a fun gimmick army that looked staggering on paper but couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag on the tabletop.

My experience with my goblin horde was that typically only half of my army even got into contact with the enemy while the rest waited patiently behind the front units for a chance to fail a panic check caused by the front units being destroyed.

I always get a good laugh when the factitious "Goblins were overpowered" complaint gets parroted by someone who doesn't know diddly about it.

Nephilim of Sin
17-01-2010, 06:19
...and all goblin units could not longer generate power or dispel dice.....

Take back what I said about Animosity. This has to be the change that bothered me the most. The ol' 10/Orcs 20/Gobbos was useful (especially since those large blocks of orcs will get shot up in no time now). It actually discourages having a blended army, as well as encouraging having a 'smaller' army that is supposed to be a horde.

This was something that just plainly was not needed. Granted, my Shamans rarely get to make use of the rule as it stands now (again, those bigger units will fall below 20 with some adequate shooting, but at least they had fighting chance of using it prior.

ShaggothLord
17-01-2010, 06:32
I think we need to look towards a bright future for Orcs and Goblins. They have a fun book at the moment, and there's only another year or so left until the new book. Hopefully, Jeremy Vetock will write it. He made the Skaven book great fun, and loves Orcs and Goblins. Some may oppose because he wrote Beastmen and most seem to oppose it, but I am very hopeful.

yabbadabba
17-01-2010, 08:41
This was something that just plainly was not needed. Granted, my Shamans rarely get to make use of the rule as it stands now (again, those bigger units will fall below 20 with some adequate shooting, but at least they had fighting chance of using it prior. If you think it won't unbalance the game, just use the rule with your mates anyway.

What made all goblin armies annoying was for random pick up games. Facing a 2K army with all the characters being shaman, and an acute selection based on fanatics, bolt throwers, chariots, pump wagons and wold riders just made things unpleasant.

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
17-01-2010, 08:53
I had a good laugh when I saw that OP goblin post too. Near as I can tell there are more than a few people that think goblins were OP. I think this opinion was based more on theoretical goblin lists on various warhammer forums and not on actual game play.

Anyone who actually bothered to collect, build, paint, and then play an all goblin army in the 6th edition (a rare beast indeed) knew the truth that it was nothing more than a fun gimmick army that looked staggering on paper but couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag on the tabletop.

My experience with my goblin horde was that typically only half of my army even got into contact with the enemy while the rest waited patiently behind the front units for a chance to fail a panic check caused by the front units being destroyed.

I always get a good laugh when the factitious "Goblins were overpowered" complaint gets parroted by someone who doesn't know diddly about it.

Actually I was crazy enough to build and collect such an army, and in late 6ed, I dominated my local club with them. I would call them overpowered either but when played well they belonged to one of the armies that could do very well in tournament. I played only once with the lv4 and 3lv2 build in 6ed and I got a 5th place in a 80 man tournament, something I didn't managed to pull of with my 7ed greenskins but still I don't complain about the book. If you don't like their rules don't complain about it, just take another army to play with.

I just hope we get some nice improvement for 8ed and maybe a cool new unit( squiq cannons?:D).

Cheers,
G

RGB
17-01-2010, 09:02
That is because 99% of the people on the net are scrubs.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

God, that's a very revealing thing to say.

Anyone quoting that article is really hard to take seriously.

Condottiere
17-01-2010, 09:11
Technically, the author is correct, but societies tend to evolve those constraints as a survival mechanism.

ghostline
17-01-2010, 18:11
I play an all Goblin army, and find that games are usually a lot more entertaining when i play with them.. even if i do lose it's always a fun game(i love it when squigs go loose). Of course, im the type of person to nuke my own troops in command and conquer for the lulz.

On a more serious note, Common Goblins are too expensive. they should have .5 equipment options like skaven slaves.

Shimmergloom
17-01-2010, 23:19
The article is correct in terms of games that are BALANCED.

When this game has any semblance of BALANCE, then you can just claim people are scrubs when they complain about how some armies are overpowered and some are underpowered.

And really, who said just buy another army?

Good Grief.

yabbadabba
17-01-2010, 23:33
And really, who said just buy another army?
Good Grief. They said take another army to play with. So whats "good grief" about that or what you said?

Shimmergloom
18-01-2010, 00:19
To take another army you need to BUY another army to have that 2nd army to begin with.

Either way it's a BS solution.

No one should be forced into using another army because of crappy GW decisions.

neXus6
18-01-2010, 00:33
See I have a real problem with the argument that because the new beastman book is more powerful than the old one that means it is better.

I'm sorry but I used to play Fantasy for fun (recent changes to various armys and other reasons have all but stopped my playing of the game). The Beasts of Chaos book was brilliant, not in terms of power but in terms of character and scope of what you could represent...at least until the whole "rank to 4" problem kicked off which could have been fixed instantly by GW saying "rank to 5 now."

If I wish to play using my current Beastman army with the new book I need to use 50% of my models as "counts as" units now, no Ogres, no Shaggoth, I'd need to rebase my Ungor...etc, not to mention all the wonderful character that has been shredded to give them new rules which yes will probably be more powerful but simply makes them a normal army.

It feels like they went through a checklist of normality, block units, small units of skirmishers, ogre sized monsters, a pile of large monsters, skirmishing flyers, and once all that was checked they threw in some army wide rules.

Orcs and Goblins really are the last withering aspect of Fantasy that hasn't imploded over recent years, they were my first army when I started some 15-16 years ago and I've loved their background and character ever since.

I can possibly predetermine the content of a greenskin update, or what I will think of 8th edition, but basicly those are the last two things left and if those rules don't match my expectations or tastes then I'll have nothing except the background myself which I am a little sad about.

Ach well, all the more reason to build myself a table and play other companies games or older GW games.

yabbadabba
18-01-2010, 07:47
To take another army you need to BUY another army to have that 2nd army to begin with.
Either way it's a BS solution.
No one should be forced into using another army because of crappy GW decisions.
No, but people also shouldnt whinge and moan because of instead of collecting an army, they choose to collect an uber-doom 2k list for tournaments, and then find the synergy of their army has been changed and they can no longer auto-win.

Also, buy another army is an option if you choose to go the route of playing in a single style - math-hammer tournament play, and can't be bothered to work through the issues, create your own FAQ with your mates and carry on enjoying your hobby. Oh and working through the issues even as a tournament player means adding that to GW's FAQ when it does come out.

Finally buying another army is an option because thats how things work. If it is broken, fix it or get another one - or this case get something else to while away the hours until you are satisfied with GW's products. Nobody is forcing anyone to play GW games.

Tokugawa100
18-01-2010, 10:53
[QUOTE=Shimmergloom;4294265]3. Major loss of varied playstyles(buy orcs! buy chariots! so long goblin armies!)QUOTE]

Do you mean goblins or night goblins?

Frankly it could just be my luck but Ive had no trouble winning with my Night Goblins but struggle alot with orcs.
Night Goblins have funner and sometimes better options, plus I dont like the idea of orcs or goblins in chariots.

Love my Squigs:D

Storak
18-01-2010, 14:02
Do you mean goblins or night goblins?

Frankly it could just be my luck but Ive had no trouble winning with my Night Goblins but struggle alot with orcs.
Night Goblins have funner and sometimes better options, plus I dont like the idea of orcs or goblins in chariots.

Love my Squigs:D

what sort of army do you consider to be a "night goblin" army?

an O&G army without fast cav and spear chuckas, will not win games in a competitive environment. or at least will struggle extremely hard.

selone
18-01-2010, 23:40
Technically, the author is correct, but societies tend to evolve those constraints as a survival mechanism.

Your posts always baffle me :)

Brother Edwin
19-01-2010, 00:33
i am glad, that we have Edwin around to teach us some stuff. for example how to use the goblin slingshot.

sorry brother, but you write and behave like a fraud.

gobbos never were anywhere like daemons are today.

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

when i reference tournament results, then i do so, because it is the only data we have. personal experience simply doesn t tell a lot about the power level of armies.

i don t think that people should play like at GTs all the time. but power levels of armies will have an effect, even on pretty friendly games.

I concede that gobbos were not overpowerd. Thow they needed toning down. They made orcs obsolute. I think with the current books about goblins can not be complained about. Making one chariot a special was very harsh. And it encourages taking two bolt throwers instead, which I think is very bad for the game. I think GW always overreacts. If something is powerful you know they will make it almost useless in the next book. For example warlock enginners and the seer council.

I admit they should of stayed at 2 pts. I think skill armys like horde armys should be encouraged. Even at 2 pts a gobbo army would hardly be a no brainer. Shooting, straight damage magic and big fast un-stopabel units like thirsters/dragons should be over priced, since these units are effective without any thought being applied by the player. A army like orcs, beastmen or ogres could hardly be said to play itself.

I guess gobbos were still inferiour to skaven by a lot. The bolt throwers had the range but skaven had the better ld the more nasty magic, ratlings and the not needing line of sight cannon. A nd tunnel teams. :)


Technically, the author is correct, but societies tend to evolve those constraints as a survival mechanism.

But who can decide what is allowed and what is not?

I simply play for fun. With a army book like daemons about I can not take this game seriously. I simply pick a idea and as long as I have a decent chance vs 80% of lists out their I will play it. And even daemons are beatable.

IMO the game is in far better shape for balance than 40k was in 3rd edition and early 4th. My hardest tournament army in those days would get massacres 99% of the time vs the average opponent. Now in fantasy I find all games are a good challenge unless my opponent is a complete beginner. Thow I dont play demons or dark elves. :)

I just think skill plays a very big factor in fantasy, unlike 40k where a weak list will not really have any real way of out playing a stronger list. Thus someone could take a army like orcs and still have a solid chance vs the average oppnent. IMO a weak book in a good game is still worth doing.

stashman
19-01-2010, 01:18
I love my orcs and goblins! They often suck in battle, but atleast I have fun for a couple of hours.

I'm collecting, not buying 2500 pts of "best units around". I have around 7000 pts painted grennskin army with 14 bosses and shamans.

Everytime I buy a boss/hero/shaman - I see forward to paint it, not just to use it in my army.

But the army is now a bit underdog! Some changes is needed, not to overpower or cheese them out, just small adjustments.

* Cheaper Goblins (go back to 2 pts for a Goblin with Light Armour and Handweapon)

* Black Orcs need Immune to psychology! It's not fluffy for Black oRcs to run away from a charge or hesitate to make a charge.

* Make Heroes or just Lords a bit more "characteristic". Black Orcs have heavy armour, quell animosity and better WS. Make the savage orc have tattos that will make him better and give the green ordinary orc the opportunity to take boar boyz as core if he himself is mounted. 2 goblin big bosses/warbosses for each slot of hero, as long as they are not mounted in chariots!!!

* Give Giant Squig and Giant Spider the Fear causing rule! Make the giant squig join with squig hoppers! Give giant squig Killing Blow (he can swallow a man in one)

* Maybe do a Squig Herder champion (something like the master moulder in skaven army)

* About savage orc Tattoos : Always strike first, + strength, + toughness, 4+ wardsave, fear causing, "berserker rage" (+d3 attacks)

* and cheaper boar boys ofcourse.

* trolls need better leadership! If they have to break - they will break!

* make the wyvern a boss choice as an alternative.

* new magic items like a boss's big bad chariot! chariot with killing blow on impact hits or reroll to wound. a mean chariot! orcs only!

* squig pet! use it just like a squig, 2 extra ws4 S5 attacks. if the owner dies or have to flee the squig go "wild squig" just like a squig herd. cool and reckless and fun :D

* make one wolf rider unit have the opportunity to deploy as scouts.

* make the battleaxe of last waaagh to a great weapon so it can be used even if no ranks are counted.

* give back Nobblas Elmet to the goblins

* give back the old mad cap mushrooms

* let one unit of goblins/night goblin take a magic banner if the general is an goblin!

* give us back the spell : ere we go! or atleast let it be a bound warbanner lvl3-5.

Shimmergloom
19-01-2010, 02:29
I concede that gobbos were not overpowerd. Thow they needed toning down.

Which they got. They got it by toning down magic.

All they needed was the 7th rule that didn't allow pooled power dice and then they could have removed the generate power dice rule(let them still generate dispel dice, that's a far more pressing need to combat magic).

Couple that with Big Waaagh! being orc shamans only and the all goblin lists were nerfed fine(without them ever being overpowered to begin with).

Brother Edwin
19-01-2010, 03:13
Well yes I agree with you.

But meh. There is nothing we can do now.....

tezdal
19-01-2010, 04:48
I'd love a new book.........Im not sure if I'd love new models though, im sure if black orcs get redone they'll be 40 bucks a pop too, and other amazing price increases.

Shimmergloom
19-01-2010, 06:25
There's no way they'll do black orcs again.

What we'll get is maybe plastic savages for $25+ for 10. New boar boyz at extreme prices. And maybe regular goblins at the night goblin size, but hopefully at the clan rat price(which is still too expensive) and not in boxes of 10.

Tokugawa100
19-01-2010, 07:07
what sort of army do you consider to be a "night goblin" army?

an O&G army without fast cav and spear chuckas, will not win games in a competitive environment. or at least will struggle extremely hard.

"Huh":confused:

Why?

Ive had no trouble using a horde of night goblins, trolls, squig hoppers, squig herds and fanatics.
I dont see the problem, again maybe Im lucky but I think your underestimating Night Goblin armies.

ChaosVC
19-01-2010, 07:56
"Huh":confused:

Why?

Ive had no trouble using a horde of night goblins, trolls, squig hoppers, squig herds and fanatics.
I dont see the problem, again maybe Im lucky but I think your underestimating Night Goblin armies.

exactly...

Urgat
19-01-2010, 12:16
I'd like to know what you're facing though... Can't see how you can handle armies like bretonians or chaos warriors with the bigger stuff (bigger starting with knights...) w/o at least wolves. Well yes, I can see, actually, I've found some people who are still afraid of fanatics for some reason, but apart from that...

Storak
19-01-2010, 13:32
"Huh":confused:

Why?

Ive had no trouble using a horde of night goblins, trolls, squig hoppers, squig herds and fanatics.
I dont see the problem, again maybe Im lucky but I think your underestimating Night Goblin armies.

let us look at the worst part first:

a typical daemon army will always win. the bloodthirster will beat each of your units. the flyers will draw the fanatics. the ItP units can t flee from a charge.

he will combo charge your units, while you will not charge anything at all. (-2 Ld banner?)

theunwantedbeing
19-01-2010, 13:41
Thirster dies to the 4 spear chukka's the goblin player brought though.
The fliers are also going to be dead to the fanatics as well.
So that's 800vp for the goblin player, at no loss to himself at all and it's not even turn 2 yet.

Whats the fuss? :P

Storak
19-01-2010, 13:54
nightgoblins --> no spear chuckas....

Grupax
19-01-2010, 14:28
depends on how the chukka's are converted :p

anyways even 4 don't do the trick with me, so I use none :p
killing a bloodthirster is really optimistic for them:p
he can hide behind scenery then fly next to your bolt throwers to make them run in terror (or just charge with his bloodthrister as you cant shoot him while he's in combat)

as for "The fliers are also going to be dead to the fanatics as well." then you must be a luckier player then me :D

that being said, I still really like the new book. The only thing that bothered me is that shaman can't ride gaint spiders and night goblin shaman can't ride a gaint cave squig.
I personally think this would even further increase the fun I have with O&G (that and make those mounts cause fear would already balance it better)

Avian
19-01-2010, 14:37
Thirster dies to the 4 spear chukka's the goblin player brought though.
The fliers are also going to be dead to the fanatics as well.
Cute, if nothing else. :p

ghostline
19-01-2010, 14:50
In my experience... Things like Bloodthirsters, Giants, Shaggoths, and Dragons usually end up dying to things like a lucky spearmen...

Tokugawa100
20-01-2010, 06:53
I'd like to know what you're facing though... Can't see how you can handle armies like bretonians or chaos warriors with the bigger stuff (bigger starting with knights...) w/o at least wolves. Well yes, I can see, actually, I've found some people who are still afraid of fanatics for some reason, but apart from that...

Usual stuff, no particular one type of army to beat all. Ill admit Ive only vs daemons in the form of tzeentch heavy and mixed but no bloodthirster in sight.
Again could be my luck, but Im having no trouble winning a more then I lose with Night Goblins and I dont see your point.

stashman
20-01-2010, 11:00
Let the orcs fight in 2 ranks on the turn they charge. That will help the orcs a bit.

Da Black Gobbo
20-01-2010, 11:12
What i'd do to better the orcs??

Animosity on LD tests, if you fail, then you check, make a better animosity table like the old one.

Give orcs +1 to str and +1attack when they charge.
Choppa= amour piercing.
Blorcs prevent animosity in 6 inches.
Cheaper gobbos.
2 Gobbo chiefs pero hero slot.
Better Wivern.
Better magic.
Somekind of gork-mork totem mount (ala skaven bell/furnance) to give abbilities to the boyz.

And i will play orcs with that changes.

Nuada
20-01-2010, 11:19
Give orcs +1 to str and +1attack when they charge.
Choppa= amour piercing..

That would be crazy with savage orcs armed with additional choppas.

4 attacks each for a normal core troop. I go 6 wide with my unit, that would mean with a FC i'd have x20 str4 attacks and x5 str5.

Imagine that combined with the waaagh spell. 25 attacks with rerolls to hit. Nice :)



.....and if you combine that with stashmans idea of letting them fight in 2 ranks when they charge. Even better :)

Da Black Gobbo
20-01-2010, 12:05
That would be crazy with savage orcs armed with additional choppas.

4 attacks each for a normal core troop. I go 6 wide with my unit, that would mean with a FC i'd have x20 str4 attacks and x5 str5.

Imagine that combined with the waaagh spell. 25 attacks with rerolls to hit. Nice :)


.....and if you combine that with stashmans idea of letting them fight in 2 ranks when they charge. Even better :)

Well i think combining both would be a bit too much OTT, but either of the bonuses will be really good for the orcs. Savage orcs would be 4 attacks but with only a 6+wardsave, and easy to bait with their frenzy.

ivrg
20-01-2010, 12:47
Black orcs should have a rule that states they can be choosen as a 0-1 core if there is a black orc hero in the army. If you want more black orc units they should count as special. GW should love this rule as they raised the cost of thier plastic black orcs.

As i have written in another thread, all orc units should gain frenzy the minute the general calls a waagh. I dont know if its for just that turn or the entire game through.

Night goblins and ordinary goblins should cost 3 pts as it stands right now. And that means that spear should be included in that cost.

One goblin hero could be taken without counting towards the max limits of character.

Add some more goblin engineering madness to the army. Like an explosive suicide squig running out from a herd unit and causing 1d6 s5 hits. With risk of exploding on the way to the enemy ofc or running wild and exploding in the unit.

Maybe giant squig riders as a rare?

And o&g does not seem to strike me as the kind of army that require much skill to use. It should require as much skill as DE or the new beastmen.

Urgat
20-01-2010, 13:45
Thirster dies to the 4 spear chukka's the goblin player brought though.
The fliers are also going to be dead to the fanatics as well.

When is the last time you used either, again? :p


Usual stuff, no particular one type of army to beat all. Ill admit Ive only vs daemons in the form of tzeentch heavy and mixed but no bloodthirster in sight.
Again could be my luck, but Im having no trouble winning a more then I lose with Night Goblins and I dont see your point.

Well that's great and I'll just leave it at that then :)


Night goblins and ordinary goblins should cost 3 pts as it stands right now. And that means that spear should be included in that cost.

No, they're probably going to be 2.5 w/o, and that suits me better, I don't want my common gobs to have spears, so I don't want to pay for those any way.


And o&g does not seem to strike me as the kind of army that require much skill to use. It should require as much skill as DE or the new beastmen.

Hem, wow.

rtunian
20-01-2010, 14:46
And o&g does not seem to strike me as the kind of army that require much skill to use.

lol...

first of all, no army requires skill to use. unless you mean modelling skill, because presumably, every army does require being assembled (barring 2nd hand purchases)

second of all, no skill is reqruired to play warhammer (play in the literal sense). the only thing you need to be able to do to play warhammer is rank up models, push trays across a table, and roll dice. every single army in the game is played by pushing models around and rolling dice.

finally, you do not even need to be particularly smart to play warhammer decently or with decent results. in a game of chance, where even the best laid plans can fall apart with a dice roll, either you roll right or you roll wrong. more importantly, most of the strategies implemented in play are relatively basic, and come with experience. you know when to flee and when to hold, for example, by knowing what the opponent is capable of, and you learn that by playing (or by studying, but playing is generally more fun).

playing warhammer well is a factor of intelligence and experience. if you fall short in one category, you can generally make up for it with the other. similarly, winning warhammer games is a factor of playing well and dice rolling, and in the same way, one can make up for the other.

the army book you pick has nothing to do with how well you can play the game or how good your dice roll results are (although, "how well you can play" does sometimes affect what army you pick, since some believe that a harder army will make them better, and some believe the opposite). regardless, o&g is just like every other army: it can be played easily to a basic level, and even the "best" players can achieve poor results due to dice.

UberBeast
20-01-2010, 17:37
What i'd do to better the orcs??

Animosity on LD tests, if you fail, then you check, make a better animosity table like the old one.

Give orcs +1 to str and +1attack when they charge.
Choppa= amour piercing.
Blorcs prevent animosity in 6 inches.
Cheaper gobbos.
2 Gobbo chiefs pero hero slot.
Better Wivern.
Better magic.
Somekind of gork-mork totem mount (ala skaven bell/furnance) to give abbilities to the boyz.

And i will play orcs with that changes.

All the above with improved boar cavalry and I'll be happy.

Shimmergloom
21-01-2010, 03:10
I don't think they need to do anything with basic orcs to make them any better than they are now, beyond fixing the animosity rules as they stand now.

It's not basic orcs that are the problem. It's everything else. And then topping it off with your orcs still having a 1/3 chance to not do what you want them to.

Many DE players still complain about the cold ones with LD9 having to take stupidity tests, when the far inferior boar boys who are only 5pts cheaper have a 1/3 chance of not doing what you want them to do.

Beast players complained about unruly. It was a fluffy and colorful rule.

It no longer exists.

High elf players complained about intrigue at court.

It no longer exists.

And yet O&G players are suppose to sit by and be happy with the horrible animosity rules and the equally horrible goblins fear elves rules.

Dranthar
21-01-2010, 06:19
I love animosity. It's a pain in the **** when you roll that 1, but it's always entertaining and completely in theme for the O&Gs.

What I don't love is looking across the table, seeing some mid or top-tier army with a large near-unkillable terror-causer (eg. Dark Elves w. Hydra, Daemons w. Blood Thirster, High Elves w. Star Dragon) and knowing that for all my efforts, the best I can hope for is a draw.

I think a points reduction for most units would help but hell, even some option for flaming attacks would be nice.

EDIT:
And then topping it off with your orcs still having a 1/3 chance to not do what you want them to.
I think that's a bit melodramatic. Rolling a 1 will obviously take that unit out of action for a turn, but I find that rolling a 6 is rarely as terrible as you're making out. At worst you'll get put out of position or into a charge you didn't want, but in my experience it's normally either had no effect at all on my plans, or it's been beneficial.

Condottiere
21-01-2010, 07:44
As a non-O&G player I find animosity mostly amusing and an integral part of the army, just like the Goblin aversion to Elves.

rtunian
21-01-2010, 13:47
just like the Goblin aversion to Elves.

things like this are colorul and characterful. my problem with them is not that they serve to weaken the army (all gobbos fear all elves, all dwarves hate all greenskins, etc), but other armies do not have anything similar.

it's like all the army books are the result of inbred hillbilly boot-knockin', but only the o&g book came out retarded.

TMATK
21-01-2010, 14:45
I wouldn't mind rolling a 1 on animosity, if rolling 6 was more exciting! Getting a squabble is always bad. Rolling 'we'll show em' could be great, until you roll a 1 or 2 afterwords! I would prefer something like 3+d6 inches.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 15:24
As a non-O&G player I find animosity mostly amusing and an integral part of the army, just like the Goblin aversion to Elves.

I've posted my opinion regarding that ten times already on awrseer I believe, but here I go again
I don't "mind", per say, this kind of rules. I don't want OnG losing animosity, What I mind is that these rules are one way only. Animosity is a random roll, cool, but it's almost always bad for the OnG player (it's pretty much always bad for gob only armies, period). Fear elves is even worse. Those rules are supposed to make OnG fun and random, but they're just the occasional kick in the ribs for the OnG player. Should be random, but not a disavantage gameplay wise.

So you want the fluff about gobs not liking elves represented ingame? Elves smell funny and act strange to gobs, fine. I can see how it can cause "fear". I should also cause hate.
Amendment to the rule: Goblins fear and hate all elves. There. Need a 6 to hit, but can reroll it, at least. And they'll lay down the smack on the smaller units, perfectly in line with how I'd see them bully things they don't like AND are easy picks.

Animosity? Same deal. Should be bad AND good at the same time. I suppose there's no way to get back to the old table, so let's start from the current rules.
The 1, so squabbling. Basically the unit fights amongst themselves. So they're already fighting. Next opponent turn, a unit that charges a unit that squabbled on the previous turn takes 1D6 Sx(base strenght of the unit, so 3 in most cases) hits +1 per ranks of the unit. Why? Because the enemy hasn't even reached the target yets that the orcs are already fighting. There.
Since the 1 result is quite better now, I suppose the 6 can stay as it is, it is good in a way (1D6 move...) and bad (...towards the closest enemy) already.
Quell animosity:
Black orcs don't roll for animosity.
The general's unit diesn't roll
Non-blorc units with blorc characters can reroll animosity once, regardless of the result.
Units with full command (I stress, with full command) can reroll animosity once on a 4+. Yeah, even gobs (again, with full command. you gotta buy a stupid banner for your gobs for that, and a champion too...). Doesn't work anymore if the champion dies, but a character can replace the champion for that purpose (so if you got banner, musician and a shaman it's good)
Hoppers: hoppers don't squabble on a 1, instead, they go "boing" in a random direction (scatter dice).

[the following in brackets is experimental, didn't really think it through, so I favour the 1 result as described above-
Boar boys: I'll have fun and bring back the old boar fluff there, but make it more player friendly. back in 5th ed, they had -1 Ld for being unrully and so difficult to control. That sucks, of course.
Now: Boars don't squabble if in charge range, instead, the boars go berserk, the unit must charge, the boars are frenzied but the orcs cannot fight at all.
Savage boar boyz? I don't know :p]

I know I'm dreaming, but all that would be nice.

yabbadabba
21-01-2010, 16:13
So you want the fluff about gobs not liking elves represented ingame? Elves smell funny and act strange to gobs, fine. I can see how it can cause "fear". I should also cause hate.
Amendment to the rule: Goblins fear and hate all elves. There. Need a 6 to hit, but can reroll it, at least. And they'll lay down the smack on the smaller units, perfectly in line with how I'd see them bully things they don't like AND are easy picks. Gobbos should fear all units with Ld8 or greater that they don't outnumber, and hate all units with Ld5 or less. Far more fluffy and encourages big blocks of gobbos :D


The 1, so squabbling. Basically the unit fights amongst themselves. So they're already fighting. Next opponent turn, a unit that charges a unit that squabbled on the previous turn takes 1D6 Sx(base strenght of the unit, so 3 in most cases) hits +1 per ranks of the unit. Why? Because the enemy hasn't even reached the target yets that the orcs are already fighting. There. Too good. Both units take 1d6+ranks Str3 hits, panic tests apply. The best time to charge would be when a unit is in disarray, but that makes it too harsh on greenies. This should make most units think twice.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 16:43
Gobbos should fear all units with Ld8 or greater that they don't outnumber, and hate all units with Ld5 or less. Far more fluffy and encourages big blocks of gobbos :D
That wouldn't encourage big blocks, that would force big blocks, that's pretty different. It's not so easy to outnumber elves these days, you know... you want to extend that to all units with characters? Make wolf charriot useless against every single LD8 unit in the game and not just elves? They already have to test for more than half the units in the ******* game just to see if they're going to charge...


Too good.

Then remove the rank bonus, but the point is, indeed, to make the opponents unit think twice, coz as it stands, it's a matter of "oh, you rolled a 1? Too bad for you, you're screwed". Not moving is already bad enough, the bonus for the enemy, there, is obvious. D6 S3 hits are not exactly as scary as ASF elves or slaanesh dudes, really, just a bit of compensation for losing a charge, having your battle line disrupted and/or just standing there stupidly waiting to get charged. Well anyway, that's just suggestions, the main idea is to make all the result good and bad for both sides, not just one.

yabbadabba
21-01-2010, 17:23
That wouldn't encourage big blocks, that would force big blocks, that's pretty different. It's not so easy to outnumber elves these days, you know... you want to extend that to all units with characters? Make wolf charriot useless against every single LD8 unit in the game and not just elves? They already have to test for more than half the units in the ******* game just to see if they're going to charge... But you think it is ok to have hate - why? There is no justification to it. In fact the "fear Elves" rule only causes issues in, 3 out of 13 armies? Also with gobbos being - what 2-2 1/2 points it wouldn't be difficult to out number an elf unit.
I can't see the problem with having this rule. Maybe the core rules need some slight adjustment as regards to psychology; this is a rule that has been around since year dot but now its an issue? This is something that you know about when you take on a goblin army, isn't as random as animosity, and can be worked around yet is one of the few truly charaterful successful rules in the game.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 17:39
But you think it is ok to have hate - why?

Because the fluff says gobs don't like elves? Why would fear equal "don't like" more than "hate"?

And on a gameplay perspective, it doesn't even even out fear, rerolling a 6, great... Remember gobs don't just fear elves if they don't outnumber them, they fear elves that they don't outnumber 2 to 1. Now consider the the price of the elf units now, and think about how many elf units that are 20 strong. So yeah, you can fix the autobreak issue by having just one more goblin, but charging or hitting on 6, good luck.

3 out of 13 armies heh? yeah, it's not like DE, WE and HE are not amongst the most played WFB armies >> What's with that argument? You got an even number of each army to face? I mostly play against DE, VC, chaos warriors and bretonians. That's 1 out of 4 armies for me, not one out of 13. And I used to play mostly against DE actually, so that ratio was more like 1 every two games. This is not an argument that can work, it's too dependent on circumstances and players.

If you don't see the problem with that rule, it's because you've never played goblins against elves. I have, a lot, and even w/o that fear rule, it's an uphill struggle. Think about it for a second, how much would elves cost if they actually paid for fear?

And you've been around for a while, no? Fear elves has always been an issue and has been discussed many times here on warseer and before on portent, it made sense when goblins costed nothing and would totally swamp elves under numbers because elves costed a lot (5th ed and earlier), but it's not the case anymore, it hasn't been the case since 6th ed. It's not a successful rule, it's an unfair rule that helps armies that don't need that help at all.

edit: formated a bit.

Storak
21-01-2010, 17:54
But you think it is ok to have hate - why? There is no justification to it. In fact the "fear Elves" rule only causes issues in, 3 out of 13 armies? Also with gobbos being - what 2-2 1/2 points it wouldn't be difficult to out number an elf unit.
I can't see the problem with having this rule. Maybe the core rules need some slight adjustment as regards to psychology; this is a rule that has been around since year dot but now its an issue? This is something that you know about when you take on a goblin army, isn't as random as animosity, and can be worked around yet is one of the few truly charaterful successful rules in the game.

sorry, but you obviously don t know what you are talking about.

fear on three additional armies, together with 3 armies that already cause fear and multiple fear causing units in other armies, basically make charging a hard achievement.

and gobbos need a combo charge, which is simply impossible on Ld5 or 6 and with animosity against a fear causing enemy.

a darkelf costs exactly double the numbers that a gobbo costs. similar numbers of points will NOT provide you with double unit strength.

i think that it is a funny rule that should stay in a form, but should be compensated somehow.

yabbadabba
21-01-2010, 18:38
Because the fluff says gobs don't like elves? Why would fear equal "don't like" more than "hate"?Because Fear and Hate are 2 different things. They chose fear.


And on a gameplay perspective, it doesn't even even out fear, rerolling a 6, great... Remember gobs don't just fear elves if they don't outnumber them, they fear elves that they don't outnumber 2 to 1. Which is why I said outnumber, not outnumber 2:1. A slight change but significant enough.


3 out of 13 armies heh? yeah, it's not like DE, WE and HE are not amongst the most played WFB armies >> What's with that argument? You got an even number of each army to face? I mostly play against DE, VC, chaos warriors and bretonians. That's 1 out of 4 armies for me, not one out of 13. And I used to play mostly against DE actually, so that ratio was more like 1 every two games. This is not an argument that can work, it's too dependent on circumstances and players. As does the counter argument - what doesn't happen for you (personal and anecdotal) works elsewhere (statistical). GW aren't responsible for the army choices of your friends. If there were no Elf players in your group this would be less of an issue for you.


If you don't see the problem with that rule, it's because you've never played goblins against elves. I have, a lot, and even w/o that fear rule, it's an uphill struggle. Think about it for a second, how much would elves cost if they actually paid for fear? The standard internet answer - that you disagree with me means that you obviously have no experience/knowledge/clue/opinion - pure rubbish. As to the second point here, its a matter of points cost (which gets reviewed every army book release) and army selection. If you choose an all goblin army knowing that you have this issue, and then complain you can't make your army work then thats more fool you.


And you've been around for a while, no? Fear elves has always been an issue and has been discussed many times here on warseer and before on portent, it made sense when goblins costed nothing and would totally swamp elves under numbers because elves costed a lot (5th ed and earlier), but it's not the case anymore, it hasn't been the case since 6th ed. It's not a successful rule, it's an unfair rule that helps armies that don't need that help at all. Sorry Warseer and Portent are a poor cross section of the gaming community and the sheer variety of "which army is hardest" and "OMG this army stinks cos I lost, GW couldnt write their own name" doesn't fill me with faith in its balance of opinion. What I will agree with is that changes in the elf armies has affected goblins in this case and their might have to be a small correction in the next army book - a banner or points reduction. What I will also say is that there is evidence of balanced and well thought out approaches to GW to change issues have worked and I would urge players to try that instead of throwing all the toys out of the pram.

yabbadabba
21-01-2010, 18:41
sorry, but you obviously don t know what you are talking about. Another valid opinion :rolleyes:


fear on three additional armies, together with 3 armies that already cause fear and multiple fear causing units in other armies, basically make charging a hard achievement. again not quite right really is it? Goblins only fear elves they don't out number 2:1. All the other fear causing armies cause fear period and are an issue for all armies that are not immune or fear causing. I suggested a change to just outnumber, with a predictable points adjustment and a possible banner/magic item addition.

Chain
21-01-2010, 19:52
Change in Fluff can be a bit annoying, but that's for the fluff part not the game part


It is troublesome indeed when the stories are changed

I looked through an old WE book and started scratching my head seeing Drycha being mentioned as one of the first Dryads to befriend the Elves and have aided them in many battles...
And in 6'th ed shes all hateful and looking over them cursing them and maybe planing a revolution :wtf:

This is confusing fluff

Storak
21-01-2010, 20:03
again not quite right really is it? Goblins only fear elves they don't out number 2:1. All the other fear causing armies cause fear period and are an issue for all armies that are not immune or fear causing. I suggested a change to just outnumber, with a predictable points adjustment and a possible banner/magic item addition.

apart from warmachine crews, most gobbo units will fear most elf units. the fast cav and chariots fear everything.

the few units we don t fear because of the rule, often simply cause fear (dragons, cold one knights etc..) or actually should be feared (swordmasters anyone?)

taking away the double part would fix the problem, but would also remove the relevancy of the rule.

yabbadabba
21-01-2010, 20:23
taking away the double part would fix the problem, but would also remove the relevancy of the rule. Maybe a points balance would mean that the 2:1 ratio could stay in, but I think that with prices of models, options on play etc just outnumbering would give enough of a flavour of the character of the rule without making the player invest in huge units or restricting their variety of choices from the list which both mean more money for GW.

Of course all this is irrelevant if GW take a "Its Orcs and Goblins, not Orcs and/or Goblins" approach to the next book.

Urgat
21-01-2010, 20:37
Because Fear and Hate are 2 different things. They chose fear.
And in a topic regarding what could be changed, I propose to keep fear, and add hatred. So?


Which is why I said outnumber, not outnumber 2:1. A slight change but significant enough.
Fair enough, it's a pretty valid suggestion, I never said otherwise.


As does the counter argument - what doesn't happen for you (personal and anecdotal) works elsewhere (statistical). GW aren't responsible for the army choices of your friends. If there were no Elf players in your group this would be less of an issue for you.
That's totally true, which is why you can't use it any more than I can.


The standard internet answer - that you disagree with me means that you obviously have no experience/knowledge/clue/opinion - pure rubbish. As to the second point here, its a matter of points cost (which gets reviewed every army book release) and army selection. If you choose an all goblin army knowing that you have this issue, and then complain you can't make your army work then thats more fool you.
No, I'm raising the question. So, I have the experience regarding the matter, have you (god this sounds totally arrogant, but I can't find a way to make it sound alright ><)? I'll point out I have not started throwing "fool" and other nice words around at you, and will leave it at that because I feel nice tonight. As you've noticed, we're discussiong here what could happen with the next book, and so it's obvious it's going to be compared to the current book, and that people will make suggestions. But you say you can't see the problem with this rule. Then try it with another army? It's easy, just add the "fear elves" rule to some units, the ones with the lowest Ld for good measure. Hey, skaven players! Take your clanrats and add that rule! My posts were perfectly within the scope of the topic anyway. That you regard the fact that I value my experience more than someone else's lack of experience as "rubbish", again, fair enough.


Sorry Warseer and Portent are a poor cross section of the gaming community and the sheer variety of "which army is hardest" and "OMG this army stinks cos I lost, GW couldnt write their own name" doesn't fill me with faith in its balance of opinion.
Then why are you posting that here? We're on warseer, I'm a warseer user and so you are, and it's a topic based on warseer member's opinions :confused:. If it can please you though, I don't know many greenskins who think it's normal for elves to have fear for free when playing against gobs. I know none actually. The only ones who think it's a cool rule are the ones who don't play them, funnily enough. Oh, I'm sure there's exceptions, I'm sure there's non-greenskin players who think this rule is stupid, and I'm sure there's greenskin players who think this rule is awesome. We got people here posting how hilarious it was that their boar boys squabbled just in front of the unit they were about to charge, so yeah, no doubt you can find counter arguments against that.
Be happy, I didn't raise the problem of dwarfs hating greenskins while only nigh gobs hate them back, because I don't really care, but many do, too.

What I will agree with is that changes in the elf armies has affected goblins in this case and their might have to be a small correction in the next army book - a banner or points reduction. What I will also say is that there is evidence of balanced and well thought out approaches to GW to change issues have worked and I would urge players to try that instead of throwing all the toys out of the pram.
If it affects goblins, it affects OnG armies as a whole, since it's an OnG book. Goblins have roles even in a mixed army, and if they can't perform that role, it affects the whole army, obviously. I don't ask for having things easy with my gobs, I ask for them not to have completly ridiculous handicaps.
Now with that last sentence of yours, I appear to be at fault for posting suggestions in a topic that took that way, so I'll just shut up >>
It appears I get some weakness for stepping into sensitive topics and getting caught up in them, so for once, I'll stop at three posts, better that way. I shared my opinion, that's all I wanted to do, so I'll stop there.

Storak
21-01-2010, 21:07
Maybe a points balance would mean that the 2:1 ratio could stay in, but I think that with prices of models, options on play etc just outnumbering would give enough of a flavour of the character of the rule without making the player invest in huge units or restricting their variety of choices from the list which both mean more money for GW.

i don t see any point balance being possible. it is a rule, that only han an effect against certain armies. the current point costs don t reflect fear elves at all. and i don t see how it could be factored in.

removing the double part would eliminate it for infantry units, and make it rare for cavalry. it would basically be a "wolf chariots are stupid" rule.

Warhammerrox
21-01-2010, 21:17
In fact the "fear Elves" rule only causes issues in, 3 out of 13 armies? Also with gobbos being - what 2-2 1/2 points it wouldn't be difficult to out number an elf unit.

Under the current rules set, and the points values set by the current O&G book and the current High and Dark Elf books, (Woodies not included as they are an older book and are formed and priced differently), it is almost impossible to outnumber any Elven unit...

If there are 15 troops in a given Elven unit at the time of deployment a Gobbo unit will require 30 troops to reach that unit for combat to not suffer FEAR, 30 troops... THIRTY..... Now this is a pretty decent standard size for a Gobbo unit I agree, but just the loss of ONE Gobbo from the unit to shooting or magic before it reaches said Elven unit will result in a 29/15 split, and thus it's a FEAR check...

And that's an Elven unit of 15, Mork or Gork forbid the Elves are not deployed more than 15, or even 20 :eek:

With the points the way they currently are Gobbs will never ever again outnumber Elves on a unit to unit basis needing the 2 to 1 ratio... I haven't even begun to calculate how impossible it is with the absurdly cheap DE spear troops......!

If it used normal outnumber it would work fine cos let's face it, it's not hard to knock them Gobbs down by shooting or close combat, they are weedy gits after all. This will indeed encourage large units of Gobbs, while it will rightly so leave Gobbo artillery and wolf chariots at a disadvantage due to their smaller unit sizes.

Shimmergloom
26-01-2010, 10:23
I could live with the fear elves rule being changed to simply outnumber, instead of outnumber 2:1.

Although that would still severely hurt wolf chariots and wolf/spider-rider units.

Other acceptable changes could be:

1. fear elves they don't outnumber 2:1, if fear test is passed(on unmodified leadership), the goblins will hate elves instead.

Meaning, you take your fear test. If for instance the general is nearby and you pass by rolling say an 8, you don't fear them. But if you pass by rolling a 6(5 for night gobs), then not only do you not fear them, but you now hate them.

2. go back to the 6th version of the rule, where war machines and wolf chariots and lone characters did NOT fear elves. A couple that with price reductions for goblins as a whole.

yabbadabba
26-01-2010, 11:57
2. go back to the 6th version of the rule, where war machines and wolf chariots and lone characters did NOT fear elves. A couple that with price reductions for goblins as a whole. That could be alright - I can quite happily agree with the idea that any goblin mad enough to ride a wolf chariot, or be the focus of gobbo attention wouldn't be afraid of a few elves. War machines I can take or leave. Any Gobbo war machine being attacked by elves should be on a hiding to nothing anyway.

Urgat
26-01-2010, 15:18
2. go back to the 6th version of the rule, where war machines and wolf chariots and lone characters did NOT fear elves. A couple that with price reductions for goblins as a whole.

It was like that last ed? Mmmh... can't remember lone characters not suffering from "fear elves".
edit: just checked, and I can't find anything that would make lone characters immune to it.
I found amusing things though that I'd forgotten. Choppas may not be used by small boys called Kevin or gerbils, for instance :p
I realise that out of all the goblin stuff, there's only three changes between 6th and 7th I'd miss if I went back to the 6th ed armybook: hoppers, netters, and the staff of sneaky stealing (it was one use only...). With all the squigs I have now I could make a massive squig herd :)

I so want to try that.

Dag
26-01-2010, 17:44
orcs AND goblins works, you just have to *dare i say it* LAYER your ong. This alone by turn 2 can hand the game to your opponent, but its how OnG should play. Goblins, then orcs, then blorks/trolls/savageorcs. you can lose 2 lines w/o must cost and not 1 panic check.

again, in theory....

Urgat
26-01-2010, 18:01
In theory, yeah. In practice, you don't have enough room in the deployement zone for that, the troops aren't that cheap (you can lose 2 lines without much cost? What?) that you can make a battleline out of that, then of course if rank 1 fails an animosity test, the rest is stuck, then your units need a good amount of room between them so they can wheel in case of danger to the flank, and, if rank 1 actually holds, you got two useless ranks that will not be able to join the fray, while the enemy is free to maneuver as he pleases.
Nah, even in theory, it doesn't work ;)

Anyway, Orcs and goblins, or orcs, or goblins, they all work (though I'd have a hard time with only orcs, I'm very, very bad if I don't have my fast cavalry tricks). It's just more difficult with each new armybook release. I've won against DE, I've won against VC, I'd like to face demons too, so of course they work. The difference is that one mistake and you're steamrolled, while the guy in front can usually afford a few before being in REAL trouble.