Orcs and Goblins divorce?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Orcs and Goblins divorce?

    Hello everyone,

    I apologise in advance for any typos. I am writing this down on my tablet.

    When I did this evolution of O&G proposal for @Giladis I started to think on some things more in lines of why instead of how. And than @Wesser posted a little comment that made me thinik even more. I often red argument explaining several problems with O&G stating that this is becouse we are basically 2 armies in one book. And I must agree. Orcs and goblins sides are vastly diferent and that cause problems. It like in the old saying, when you do many things, instead of one, you do all of them bad. So maby we maby we should split into 2 armies, for example:
    GT -Goblin Tribes
    OH - Orcs Horde

    Before you start shouting murder, and that this is a bad idea becouse it will kill fluff of the army hear me out, it will not, it can improive it. I think there are several reasons why this might be a solution we might need:
    1) As a community we largely do not know what we want (I am not saying indyvidual players do not know this, just that as a group we are like proverbial heard of cats) goblin players pull their way, orc enthusiast want other things, and players who like both eqaualy are either stuck in the middle dissatisfied by both or just content with status quo and do not want any of it. This has effect of splitting our priorieties and making fixing problems very hard, becouse we cannot agree what those problems are, or which ones are important. If we would split O&G it would be easier to create internally consisten armies and than balancig them both internally and externally. This is even vosible in "how background should look like" thread.
    2) From designing perspective it would be relatively easy to do since we have several units that are artificially cramped together just not to have to many in AB. So Composing two lists full of units will not be that problematic as long as we start to think outside of the box that GW had put us in. We Could easily split both types of orcs, add orcs with bows and crossbows as theoir own unit, split 3 types of goblins, 2 types of goblin riders, as well as trolls. Boom 11 units instead of 4. Hell we even have almost 2 separate hero sections.
    3) Orcs and Goblins being one army is GW remnant. Those two races are without a doubt cousins, but they are bvastly diferent and have very different identities. Defienetly moreso than for example KoE and EoS or HE and DE. Again we are in many ways two armies forcefully merged, to a point of people proposing vastly diferent play styles when concentrating on one. And this all feel forced and wrong. Diferent rules, that do not add to general playability of the army but just enable players to play army the desire is fundamentally wrong somehow.
    4) For those that play both Iike me. Think about it. Out of the sudden you would got second army instantly.
    5) We are stuck with some preconceptions we could, and logically should brake. 9th age wants to be its own game. Not some sad WFB Toadie (gumiebears reference). And this would be a step in this direction. Spiritual successor yes! Slave to WDG predonceptions no!
    6) It would be very much in line with fluff. Think about it, if Orcs have might makes right society, than goblin being chief for tribe of orcs is almost inconsivable. Yet current setting permits that. Yes I could see orcs allying with goblins in certain situations or against common foes and vice versa, just like for example KoE and EoS or WDG and BH but living together like equals? Never. They would start internal bickering as soon as the coast is clear. With that kind of mentality tribes of orcs and goblins would live apart, maby with some trade as orcs would need weapons from goblins, but they can either use goblin slaves or what is more probable just attack goblin settlements and take what they need. This could also explain other things, like why cave goblins live underground. Overall this would give enormous oportunity to build lore and fluff that woud be internally consistent and more in line with rules, not hampered by how overcrowded O&G book are. For example common, forest and cave goblins can vastly differ from each other living in such diferent envioroments. And if goblins would be their own army it would be possible to give them diferent stats, upgrades and equipment, all clearly explained and expanded in fluff.
    7) This split would actually increase potential for building fluff and lore since we would have 2 factions with diferent identities and all the posibielieties of their interactions. Just like all human or elf or dwarf factions interact. Come to think of it only SA and OK do not have some kind of cousins or other versions of themselves out there (well maby VS but there are BH who are suspiciously similar in some regards). This would also make more room for variations in armies and explaining some things. Right now we have basic 3 types of orcs and they are more or less generic, with this cahnge there would be more room for variation. For example. Why some orcs use bows? This is not exactly in their characters? Answer could be that those Orcs that have a shard of cowardness in them prefer to first soften their victimes to than maim thieir weakend victimes.
    8) There would and should be some bleedthrough between the armies (trolls, grotlings, probably some war machines and maby some limited gobbo slaves in orc army) witch is totally ok and nothing new in 9th age. Examples being slave orcs in ID book or various armies with gigants.

    Ok now few very basic ideas on how should it look like. Bear in mind thoise are my ideas. To know whole scope of the topic we would propably need another RT poll.

    General identity
    Goblin Tribes - Very numerous, sneaky, wacky, unpredictable, general feeling should be of army that is very irytatig to the oponent due to sheer number of dirty tricks they use.
    Orcs hordes - Strong, aggresive, bullies, funny, general feeling should be of a great blut object that is on collision course with oponents head.

    Ideas for units
    As I said there is a lot to work with but some options are no brainers or just random ideas I am having right now. I am not doing anything that cannot be contained in fairly typical miniature ranges. I am unsure what quotas for number of units are established so i am throwing evrything here as ideas, there is propably to much of it.
    Goblin Tribes
    Heroes
    Goblin Lords of sneaking
    Forest Lords of sneaking
    Cave Lords of sneaking
    Witchdoctors
    Hunters (solitary goblin heroes specialising in stealth and capturing or hunting other creatures could propably exist in both cave (gnasher hunter) and forest (forest hunter) variants.

    Core
    Goblins (common variant, propably biggest and strongest of the lot)
    Forest sneakers (more solitary propably with ambush option).
    Cave dwellers (smaller than their counterparts but, faster, with mad gits. Propably more disciplined too - fighting in tunels demends higher otrganisation)
    Raidas (generic fast wolf cav).
    Grotlings
    Deleted - (Orc mercynaries) - people keep insisting they are nececery for the book to work but they were added as purerly fluff choice and something for people who have those 10 stray orcs in entire army of goblins and want to use them.

    Special
    Nettas (small units with sneaky debuff options)
    Assassains (what shady gits are when they can do their thing)
    Spider gits (spider riders as separate unit, with lots of movement, disruption (spiderwebs) shenaningans)
    Wolf chariots
    Gnasher dashers (more weird stuff :D for them)
    Gnasher heard

    Death from above (bigger allowance)
    Screwerers (add hgarpoon option for lulz)
    Splaterer
    Git luncher
    Loota lancher (optional - basically catapult shooting trash old rock lobba models would be perfect)
    Sygnalistas (basically small unit of spotters increasing warmachines performance)
    Scrap wagons
    Trolls (races can be split if need be)

    Munchers (those who much on goblins - old Big'n'nasty)
    Wrecking team
    Gargantulas
    Small green idols (optional - multiple with diferent buffs - goblin tents from skull pass can be used here).
    Gigants

    Orcs Hordes
    Heroes
    Iron Lords of fightin'
    Feral Lords of fightin'
    Orc Lords of fightin'
    Shamans
    Slavedrivers (orcs specialising in... motivating goblins and other creatures like gigants or trolls).

    Core
    Orcs
    Feral Orcs
    Orcs shootars (with bows)
    Grotlings
    Deleted - Goblin slaves - people keep insisting they are nececery for the book to work but they were added as purerly fluff choice and something for people who have those 20 stray goblins in entire army of orcs and want to use them.

    Special
    'Evy shootars (advanced variat of shootars, maby even Iron Orcs using crossbows).
    Iron Orcs

    Boar chariots
    Scrap wagons

    Cawardly gits (ranged units, propably shotarz are counted towards it)
    Rock hurler (generic catapult manned by crippled orcs that are unable to participate in batte - and propably very unhappy about it, at least they can now splat things with big rocks).

    Big'n' Nasty
    Trolls (races can be split if need be)
    Gigants
    Great Green Idol
    Tunder riders (optional Monstrous Cavalery)

    I sincerely cannot see any serious downsides to this solution besides it being a lot of aditional work. Maby someone see some downsides I do not? If yes enlighten me please.

    I know it would be a lot of work as it would mean scrapping significant parts of our current book and creating two new, but it could solve so many problems and brong so much improvement. And as stated 9th age is live game that is changing constantly. Maby it is worth to ponder on? And maby 9th age pondered on it already? If yes please tell us your conclusions. Since I am bringing this up and if someone would be interested I can pledge to make those two books, just for 9th age team to have some material to work with and not have to start from scratch. Probably few months worth of work but since we are stuck with a freeze for now... let me know please.

    If you like some form of this idea (not nececarely presented by me) like this post as first post likes increase topics visibility by 9th age team (or so I have been told).

    What do you think?

    Best regards
    Sklodo.
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Sklodo ().

  • Wesser wrote:

    Indeed

    You could still have some Goblins with your Orcs and vice versa (dont want to leave people who only had a few goblin units unable to use them at all for example), but you'd have to do without the more exotic stuff.

    It could alternatively be covered by making those alternative lists (for other armies too) that I for one have clamouring for
    Technically it would be hard to have figures collection that would make you unable to play at least one of those and more propably both. You would have to have very specifiuc set of models to be able to play only one. for example only orcs without goblins at all or only goblins without any orcs. But if you do it is highly propable you are playing themed lists either way.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    No hate, but I dont know why youd want to split them up for the ex-wfb community.

    Many factions have two races, sometimes more. Not all have as many unit differences like O&G but some come close.

    You could split Barbarians from Warriors, Hobgoblins from Infernal Dwarfs, but all you do is lessen list diversification.
    Hey I am not saying this is one and only way. I just sometimes feel we are so packed with units that it is gooing to explode.

    As for many factions have diferent races true. But they basically can and would function good as one society/nation or whatever. Ogres are terrorising scraplings into submission and they live in ogre camps, Saurians big guys and small guys are diferent breeds or casts in their society, Infernal dwarfs keep hobgoblins and/or orcs as slaves/allies to boost their numbers. As for wasteland warriors and barbarians I am uncetain if they are in fact diferent species? Both seem to bew human (mutations aside). Either way both live in the wastes in some form of northern society where warriors are risen form the ranks of barbarians (or so I presume again no concrete lore). But for the love of Gork I cannot see fluffy reason why Iron Orcs would listen to a goblin king, or why porerly treated goblin wolf raiders would not just ride into the sunset leaving their orc overlords far behind. Or why tribe of cave goblins living sucessfully under the mountains and having its own domain would willfully submit to Orc rule? Maby there is some mechanism? WAAARGH!!!? Magic (lazy explanation :P)? I do not know I have not seen Lore.

    I am also not proposing to discard goblins totally from Orc book and vice versa just for it to have sense. But you have to admit there are several contradictions in current setups. Also no other book is so crammed with units. We have like 11 or 12 units that are artificially cramed into 4 units just becouse otherwhise our book would be just to big. And that might be a way to relive some of that pressure.

    I know this idea will meet a lot of resistance becouse it requires very big change of perspective and thinking about stuff in diferent ways. And people do not like it often (myself included). But truth is we are somewhat doing this in imperfect way, by proposing separate rules for O&G armies that are orc or goblin themed (like diferent WAAARGHS!!!, rules dependent on generals race favoring either goblin or orc playstyle). So why not go one step further and make it beneficial for both lore and balance? How much Internal balance would be simplified if you would not have problem with a fact that in one orcs unit you have in fact 3 or 4 diferent units

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Dislike.

    Sklodo wrote:

    Orcs and goblins sides are vastly diferent and that cause problems.
    Well that difference (and those 'contradictions') you mention is exactly our army's unique core character.

    What you're basically proposing is instead of tweaking just deleting a faction and it's characteristic play style. Splitting them to stick to the 'you can still play with your old models' guideline doesn't change that and solves what exactly? If you want new play styles, there's plenty of amazing stuff in the Home brew section already.

    If you really think the only way this army can be enjoyable is by deleting it, recreating it in parts which fit a more specialized particular play style you like;
    1. you haven't picked the right army
    2. you've glossed over the term and results of jack-of-all-trades in the army direction survey
    “Fantasy is hardly an escape from reality. It's a way of understanding it.”
    ✧✧✧ Make Greenskins great again ✧✧✧

    The post was edited 1 time, last by DiaLogical ().

  • Sklodo wrote:

    Hey I am not saying this is one and only way. I just sometimes feel we are so packed with units that it is gooing to explode.
    But for the love of Gork I cannot see fluffy reason why Iron Orcs would listen to a goblin king, or why porerly treated goblin wolf raiders would not just ride into the sunset leaving their orc overlords far behind. Or why tribe of cave goblins living sucessfully under the mountains and having its own domain would willfully submit to Orc rule? Maby there is some mechanism? WAAARGH!!!? Magic (lazy explanation :P)? I do not know I have not seen Lore.

    I am also not proposing to discard goblins totally from Orc book and vice versa just for it to have sense. But you have to admit there are several contradictions in current setups. Also no other book is so crammed with units. We have like 11 or 12 units that are artificially cramed into 4 units just becouse otherwhise our book would be just to big. And that might be a way to relive some of that pressure.

    I know this idea will meet a lot of resistance becouse it requires very big change of perspective and thinking about stuff in diferent ways. And people do not like it often (myself included). But truth is we are somewhat doing this in imperfect way, by proposing separate rules for O&G armies that are orc or goblin themed (like diferent WAAARGHS!!!, rules dependent on generals race favoring either goblin or orc playstyle). So why not go one step further and make it beneficial for both lore and balance? How much Internal balance would be simplified if you would not have problem with a fact that in one orcs unit you have in fact 3 or 4 diferent units

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    I'm also not trying to suggest that it's a bad idea, however I am fairly certain that it leads to a less interesting faction overall. Better put a real split faction that does 1 thing and that's about it.

    Many weaker models can become Generals, I think that the one reason why an Iron Orc would listen to a Goblin King is because he is a Goblin King. What creates the mutual respect is the (for example) Fungal lore that ties them as a family, even if they are nephfews.
    - What I believe is (can) be essential for every Orc and Goblin is battle, to the point where it's in their genes. Meaning that even the weakest of kings will still lead them there. We do not see this completely in our world other than that a Navy Seal could likely thake out the President but still follows command of the President ;). What ties them is a certain convincement of act. In the case of Orcs and Goblins, tying them to warfare also means that an Iron Orc wouldn't care too much who leads him to battle, as long as someone will provide the place, ideally army and so forth.

    Being crammed with units in my opinion is what makes the faction interesting.

    I just have one question and that's what do you think the game gains out of this?

    In responce to your previous points:
    1) Communities never really know what they want because there are too many opinions
    2) You can allready go mono Orc or Goblin :)
    3) Many armies are merged armies, leading to different succesful construction paths of armies
    4) You can allready go mono Orc or Goblin :)
    5) A total break of perception leads to lack of reconistion of the ex-WFB player, latest T9A (Feb 2017) video still mentions that it is the functional succesor of WFB
    6) Fluff can be altered to rules, you can certainly seperate them, the option is there
    7) I dont see how the split increases options for lore (I really dont!)
    8) You can seperate all sub-types in factions, I'm not opposed other than that you will likely end up with 32+ factions, we see this in Age of Sigmar and I personally see this as a daunting prospect for a new player.

    Point 8 isn't made to comment on Age of Sigmar or steer the discussion that way but this is an example of what happens when you go down to a road where splitting things up leads to a point where you start to wonder why things are split up at all.

    If you look at the examples within Chaos, Age of Sigmar, I believe there are now 20 sub-factions within one faction. Because with the points you make the question becomes, where do you stop? And more importantly when do you put things in sub-faction A trough T?

    In our current setting the things are relatively easy. New model entry for O&G is added to O&G. Perhaps the team decides that all armies will gain 1-2 new model entries. Now if you split them into seperate factions all sub-factions need +1-2 model entries. Initially the team has to design 16-32 new things, potentially leading to 32-64 new things.

    Cheers,
  • DiaLogical wrote:

    Dislike.

    Sklodo wrote:

    Orcs and goblins sides are vastly diferent and that cause problems.
    Well that difference (and those 'contradictions') you mention is exactly our army's unique core character.
    What you're basically proposing is instead of tweaking just deleting a faction and it's characteristic play style. Splitting them to stick to the 'you can still play with your old models' guideline doesn't change that and solves what exactly? If you want new play styles, there's plenty of amazing stuff in the Home brew section already.

    If you really think the only way this army can be enjoyable is by deleting it, recreating it in parts which fit a more specialized particular play style you like;
    1. you haven't picked the right army
    2. you've glossed over the term and results of jack-of-all-trades in the army direction survey

    1) I am farily certain I have choosen what I liked.
    2) I am all for jack of all trades. I am not a fan of internal inconsistenciec and being illogical.


    JDAntoine wrote:

    Sklodo wrote:

    Hey I am not saying this is one and only way. I just sometimes feel we are so packed with units that it is gooing to explode.
    But for the love of Gork I cannot see fluffy reason why Iron Orcs would listen to a goblin king, or why porerly treated goblin wolf raiders would not just ride into the sunset leaving their orc overlords far behind. Or why tribe of cave goblins living sucessfully under the mountains and having its own domain would willfully submit to Orc rule? Maby there is some mechanism? WAAARGH!!!? Magic (lazy explanation :P)? I do not know I have not seen Lore.

    I am also not proposing to discard goblins totally from Orc book and vice versa just for it to have sense. But you have to admit there are several contradictions in current setups. Also no other book is so crammed with units. We have like 11 or 12 units that are artificially cramed into 4 units just becouse otherwhise our book would be just to big. And that might be a way to relive some of that pressure.

    I know this idea will meet a lot of resistance becouse it requires very big change of perspective and thinking about stuff in diferent ways. And people do not like it often (myself included). But truth is we are somewhat doing this in imperfect way, by proposing separate rules for O&G armies that are orc or goblin themed (like diferent WAAARGHS!!!, rules dependent on generals race favoring either goblin or orc playstyle). So why not go one step further and make it beneficial for both lore and balance? How much Internal balance would be simplified if you would not have problem with a fact that in one orcs unit you have in fact 3 or 4 diferent units

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    I'm also not trying to suggest that it's a bad idea, however I am fairly certain that it leads to a less interesting faction overall. Better put a real split faction that does 1 thing and that's about it.
    Many weaker models can become Generals, I think that the one reason why an Iron Orc would listen to a Goblin King is because he is a Goblin King. What creates the mutual respect is the (for example) Fungal lore that ties them as a family, even if they are nephfews.
    - What I believe is (can) be essential for every Orc and Goblin is battle, to the point where it's in their genes. Meaning that even the weakest of kings will still lead them there. We do not see this completely in our world other than that a Navy Seal could likely thake out the President but still follows command of the President ;). What ties them is a certain convincement of act. In the case of Orcs and Goblins, tying them to warfare also means that an Iron Orc wouldn't care too much who leads him to battle, as long as someone will provide the place, ideally army and so forth.

    Being crammed with units in my opinion is what makes the faction interesting.

    I just have one question and that's what do you think the game gains out of this?

    In responce to your previous points:
    1) Communities never really know what they want because there are too many opinions
    2) You can allready go mono Orc or Goblin :)
    3) Many armies are merged armies, leading to different succesful construction paths of armies
    4) You can allready go mono Orc or Goblin :)
    5) A total break of perception leads to lack of reconistion of the ex-WFB player, latest T9A (Feb 2017) video still mentions that it is the functional succesor of WFB
    6) Fluff can be altered to rules, you can certainly seperate them, the option is there
    7) I dont see how the split increases options for lore (I really dont!)
    8) You can seperate all sub-types in factions, I'm not opposed other than that you will likely end up with 32+ factions, we see this in Age of Sigmar and I personally see this as a daunting prospect for a new player.

    Point 8 isn't made to comment on Age of Sigmar or steer the discussion that way but this is an example of what happens when you go down to a road where splitting things up leads to a point where you start to wonder why things are split up at all.

    If you look at the examples within Chaos, Age of Sigmar, I believe there are now 20 sub-factions within one faction. Because with the points you make the question becomes, where do you stop? And more importantly when do you put things in sub-faction A trough T?

    In our current setting the things are relatively easy. New model entry for O&G is added to O&G. Perhaps the team decides that all armies will gain 1-2 new model entries. Now if you split them into seperate factions all sub-factions need +1-2 model entries. Initially the team has to design 16-32 new things, potentially leading to 32-64 new things.

    Cheers,
    Ok this analisis speaks to me. I will not pursue this futher. Altho inconsitenceies still bugs me becouse I am a fan of fluff and rules working together. But since we have limited (at best) knowlege on fluff I can propably live with it.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Sklodo wrote:

    Ok this analisis speaks to me. I will not pursue this futher. Altho inconsitenceies still bugs me becouse I am a fan of fluff and rules working together. But since we have limited (at best) knowlege on fluff I can propably live with it.
    Best regards
    Sklodo
    I do think lore allows for enough room to represent all of it.

    There are examples where things become way more sketchy, such as questioning why a Giant would ever be part of a smaller warband, where under most cases you'd say, well, that Giant could probably roll up the whole small warband by himself...

    It's because of this that I believe most games function very well under the trend of applying lore to rules. Don't make it too logical, historical or political. If you create a world where battle is essential you create a game where no excuse for battle feels logical.

    I had a lot of discussion with Giladis on this subject. I hope the team will consider what it's making is a fantasy battle game and not a historical game. There are many reasons why I think it's shifting into the latter, the historical and logical. Then there are many reasons as to why I believe this can leads to a game that feels illogical from a fantasy battle game standpoint. What is important is that game rules are going to feel logical. Lore is also important but the currernt rulesset isn't an emulation of the lore (as rules are largely finished/balanced and the other isn't).

    The boundries of political and historical logic are essentially important within their faction and give as much room as you feel you require. If you don't allow for in-faction battles (for whatever loyal or logical reason) mirror matches feel extremely odd for example.
  • Well-prepared poll could resolve this problem.
    What I understand under these words? Poll with explanation of problem and possible solutions (and possible benefits).

    I see problem and understand it. Question is what other people will think about that. I say don't give up @Sklodo ^^
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Altao ().

  • Absolutely @Altao, throw it into the polls. If the masses want it, they can get it.
    In many cases polls can also lead to a clear indication of how high/low/themed army people want.

    In the case of Warriors of the Dark Gods the option to destroy terrain was voted very highly. This can speak books about what the essence of Chaos was really all about. Indeed, the whole concept of the faction revolved around Chaos :D

    If players really feel that they are either Orc or Goblin than you can test the waters. As a player myself of O&G, WotDG and DL I can say that I only feel the slightest mono-attraction in DL but I don't want to split them into sub-factions, by large because it removes list diversity.

    In many cases I think a common cause will always be found for a common race, but it's then important that lore simply says:
    "Orcs and Goblins are both (for example) fungal beings from the Greenhead Shroom, you have Shroom A1, 2, 3 etc. and B1, 2, 3 etc."
    It's because of this that I'd even wanted to go as far to integrate Hobgoblins, Trolls and Gnoblars (or whatever those are called now) so that you give the world the logical essence that a 'greenskin' is a fungal-being.

    Likewise (and that's more logical for some) humans and sub-humans should indeed be all human-beings. The only issue I have with that is that there are allready so many that to date I don't believe O&G should also be part of this, as this essentially makes them smaller Ogres etc.
  • @Sklodo the main problem is that currently, in terms of playstyles and variety, there is not enough room for new armybooks.
    Merging some armies, like KoE and EoS, or BH and WDG would maybe make sense(im not supporting it, its just an example), but creating new armybooks is not a good idea at the moment.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • It would be absolutely fine to do it in the homebrew section. But, imagine what will happen if we make it official.
    SA players will request skink army, DL players mono-god armies, ID players hobgoblin army, OK players scraplings army, and so on :P

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • I think the idea has merit for the future.

    With this I mean that if all is said and done the Rulesteam could potentially really dig in for smaller Themed books, perhaps leading to an even more viable exclusive Orcs or exclusive Goblin theme.

    A bit like the 6th ed Storm of Chaos book.

    PS Generally I think a lot of deep character stuff can eventually come but that's all, how do you call it, a by/secundair product.

    My wishes for T9A are:
    - Small Lore set up for every army book
    - Army books
    - Starter book
    - Bigger Lore set up (Campaign 1)
    - Deep character Army books (Themes)
    - Bigger Lore set up (Campaign 2)
  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    SA players will request skink army, DL players mono-god armies, ID players hobgoblin army, OK players scraplings army, and so on
    Check structure of these armies you mentioned:
    a) skinks
    - SA got small number of 4 saurus units (combat characters, core, raptors, temple guards) and 10(!) skink units (Thyroscutus, Stygiosaur, Taurosaur, Pteradon, Rhamphodon, Chameleon, Hunters, Core, combat hero, wizard) - basically it is already skink army
    b) DL will change, so no comment beside that it was announced that more units will be universal (marks)
    c) rest of mentioned which are quite small part of book
    - OK got only 3 scrapling units (core, trappers, catapult)
    - ID got only 3 hobgoblin units (combat character, core, wolves)

    And here we have O&G:
    - 3 races for orcs and for goblins
    - orcs - combat characters, shamans, 2x core infantry, 2x boar riders, iron orcs, boar chariot, catapults (overseer) (9 positions)
    - goblins - combat characters, shamans, core infantry, cavalry, skewer, catapults, ghasher dashers and herd and wrecking team, gargantula (10 positions)
    Plus a lot of design space which partially is contained in units that can choose race (characters too).
    It is quite close to 50% - 50% if you look at book structure.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • Altao wrote:

    basically it is already skink army
    yes. "already". :P
    Τhe picture I get is that the saurus are the dominant species so it doesn't seem to me like a "skink" army. Apart from that, if needed, we could make a few additions and have a pure saurus army with units(and models of course), that justify a full army.

    Altao wrote:

    rest of mentioned which are quite small part of book
    Yes but probably not small part of the fluff ;)

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    It would be absolutely fine to do it in the homebrew section. But, imagine what will happen if we make it official.
    SA players will request skink army, DL players mono-god armies, ID players hobgoblin army, OK players scraplings army, and so on :P
    In that case I demand combining all elves into one army, all humans into one army and all dwarfs into one army as they are all related as orcs and goblins ar. Equality for green ... monsters :):):):):):):). Just kidding of course. But that is where logic like that will take us.


    Altao wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    SA players will request skink army, DL players mono-god armies, ID players hobgoblin army, OK players scraplings army, and so on
    Check structure of these armies you mentioned:a) skinks
    - SA got small number of 4 saurus units (combat characters, core, raptors, temple guards) and 10(!) skink units (Thyroscutus, Stygiosaur, Taurosaur, Pteradon, Rhamphodon, Chameleon, Hunters, Core, combat hero, wizard) - basically it is already skink army
    b) DL will change, so no comment beside that it was announced that more units will be universal (marks)
    c) rest of mentioned which are quite small part of book
    - OK got only 3 scrapling units (core, trappers, catapult)
    - ID got only 3 hobgoblin units (combat character, core, wolves)

    And here we have O&G:
    - 3 races for orcs and for goblins
    - orcs - combat characters, shamans, 2x core infantry, 2x boar riders, iron orcs, boar chariot, catapults (overseer) (9 positions)
    - goblins - combat characters, shamans, core infantry, cavalry, skewer, catapults, ghasher dashers and herd and wrecking team, gargantula (10 positions)
    Plus a lot of design space which partially is contained in units that can choose race (characters too).
    It is quite close to 50% - 50% if you look at book structure.
    Your argument seem to be design in nature. That we actually have enough units and model types to fill two armies since we have almost two to one advantage in units if you count all the splits to most other armies?

    I am not saying my idea is a best or only way, but argument in lines of becouse others would demand something similar is not valid here imo becouse not doing something good becouse someone else might want it too is no argument. One that concerns me more would be that what we can actually loose if we would do the split? Any concrete arguments here? I have one but it is rathe foggy and week. I am uncertain if keeping jack of all trades feel would be possible than. On the other hand like with chicken and egg. Was jack of all trades voted becouse we want to be army of multiple diferent faces? Or was it becouse we already were wits such a massive overload of units?

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.