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!

  • Porko wrote:

    I would be happy to have different Waaargh options, but I don´t think it should affect at our unit options or restrict our army.
    Perhaps I should have used a different word than Waaargh here, maybe "Tribe"?

    Anyway, the ideas of these "Tribes", "Formations" or whatever you want to call them is that they restrict some units or some upgrades on certain units, so that you cannot take every possible combination of units, but a only a (very large but restricted) class of possible combinations.


    Porko wrote:

    so why not focus in improving synergies, ... certain units and characters in order to make them more playable, rather than making things more complicated, causing new balance problems and restricting our army?
    carefully chosen restrictions can be used to solve balance problems, not create them, especially if you are trying to make certain unplayed units (forest goblins, feral orc mounted eadbashers) more powerful. IMO balance problems get caused by the chaotic mess that happens when there are no restrictions; those restrictions allow the designer to have enough adjustable parameters to solve balance.
  • Hi so my reply to your red is in green below . Please do not read in any hostility or offense towards you in my reply, it is not intended . I am just replying to your response . I am doing a couple things here and trying to get this reply off . If my replys are short it is NOT intended as malicious or offensive , i am just trying to get the reply off before i have to leave for the night .
    with that said see the green text below .

    Sklodo wrote:

    Dude i think you have red my proposal very fast and without proper consideration. I fully understand you can hate the idea but you arguments are unconvincing. You seem to think only in terms of existing units without any possibility of change or modifications, which obviously would be a big part of this idea. Comments in red.

    No i read your original post and got that you were going to add in a bunch of stuff that would essential duplicate what the orc side of the split would loose in the "Divorce" . essentially you split the armies and re-combine them again .

    ikken wrote:

    NO No No No No No

    much nashing of teeth
    NO!!!

    OK Breath try not so smash things
    very emotional but I can fully accept you dislike the idea for both aesthetic reasons and/or conservatic view of our army.


    Yes I was wondering if I should have added that , I do have a frustration with the Idea but should not have been so forceful , My sincere apologies if this offended you . also please do not read in any offense in my responses which follow . No offense is intended , simply a reply to your response


    I understand on the surface why some one would suggest this , and if you are an all goblin player you would probably be ok . If you are an orc player and all your goblin units just grew a back bone and went on strike then you have a problem . You have no artillery Not true even in my proposal there was one fully orc altilery, and we can make more if need be, no monsters ggi and gigant are monsters, not even counting wyvern, minimal chaff grotlings, possibly scrap wagon, boar riders all can serve this purpose .

    Yes so you are essentially arguing my point here you are going to create a new orc army and get rid of the gobins , but you are going to bring them back , and we will have some new units that essentially do the exact same thing the goblins did b4 we kicked them out but with orcs instead .

    What you have is some average infantry , some below average medium/heavy cav , and average heavily armored infantry and some naked green infantry , and some chariots that's it all of witch would see some changes not to mention possible monstrous cavalry. you can get a wavryn for your lord but that's it . that is not much of an army . again read proposed list of units. I think There are armies that have less.
    yes ok as i mentioned i had read the list originally , see below:

    I won't tackle the goblin side of things as i think the issue is the orc side . Goblins function perfectly fine on their own . If this is a Divorce , they get the house the car and the bank account :) You could hive them off with no issue , they would not even need new units , if you want to give them some great but they would not need them.

    Ok addressing the proposed changes to the orc side of the divorce :

    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).

    basicly everythiung here is the same as we have now with the exception of the slave drivers whose purpose is to add back the gobos we kicked out

    Core
    Orcs
    Feral Orcs
    Orcs shootars (with bows)
    Grotlings
    Goblin slaves (race does not matter when you are in shackles, those would be goblins forced to work with orcs)
    everythig here same as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out

    Special
    'Evy shootars (advanced variat of shootars, maby even Iron Orcs using crossbows).
    Iron Orcs
    not a bad idea but we already have orc units that can carry every weapon ever know so it is redundant

    Boar chariots
    Scrap wagons
    everything here the same as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out

    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).
    everything heresame as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out .
    The Orc lobba is a nice idea but essentially the same as the gobo lobba we have now except instead of 1 crippled orc and a bunch of gobos now you have a bunch of crippled orcs .


    Big'n' Nasty
    Trolls (races can be split if need be)
    Gigants
    Great Green Idol

    everything here same as we have now , it is just a redeployment of existing units


    Tunder riders (optional Monstrous Cavalery)
    **** I have to say I like the Monstrous Cave Idea :) that would be a nice addition to the existing army , ****


    If you split them into 2 armies what you would get is a complete and functional goblin army and half an orc army if done properly you would have to perfectly functional albeit vastly diferent armies.. In the original post it is suggested to keep some goblin units to balance things out so the orcs have all these things there is no such suggestion goblin slaves are added to orcs horde and orcs mercenaries purely for fluff factor. They are in fact optional. Ant those would be single units with very limited equip,ent options and no special toys. But I did not state that explicitly so I understand that this could be red diferently. . Hmmmmmm so basically split the armies and in order to fix the problems splitting them creates merge them back together again .
    I am going to stand by my impression that this idea in practice consists of splitting the 2 armies and then adding back the gobo bits to the orcs to plug the holes that removing the gobo bits in the first place created . Is that 100% accurate probably not but it does cover the vast majority of the proposal .


    Seriously if you take a look at our book you will find that we are a Goblin based army with the option to take our bigger cousins along in the fight we are not 2 separate armies , at best we are 1 and a half armies
    only if you count only number of current units.
    Yes agreed but that is what we have to work with , and in the suggested new units there is only 1 new unit , the monstrous cave , Which I really like the idea of . All the other units are either retooled gobo units or direct transplants

    it is the name that creates the confusion Orc and Goblin it should be Goblins and Orcs or just green skinz .

    As to why an orc unit or more specificly an Iron Orc unit would fallow a goblin king , 2 simple reasons ,:
    1 : that little gobo is commanding a massive horde of gobos and monsters that are about to go pick a fight with someone you can join in and have a good fight or stay home and watch soap operas , and maybe have some tea and crumpets in the afternoon .
    As an orc or black orc what sounds better to you .
    You assume here that if iron orc smashed gobbo king over the head and assumed command battle would not happen for some reason? At worse orcs would start fighting goblins at best said iron orc would become warlord of his own and lead entire force into battle. For green skins win-win scenario really.
    I agree with you he would take over and happily off to battle they would go if he could kill the GoBo general . My point is that he will die in the attempt and his surviving buddies will then fallow the winner . they may not like following a go bo but if he just killed their unit champ what are they going to do . stay home or go fight .


    2: That little gobo can kick their butt , and all green skinz fallow the strongest leader . Seriously take a tooled up Gobo king and role him against an Iron orc unit champion . you will have the answer as to why the rest of the iron orcs are going to fallow the guy that just killed their unit champ .
    unless there is like tooled up iron orc chieftain or gods forbid warlord. Than goblin king is basically gnashers food. And rules still permit to take goblin king as general with other orc characters as his de facto subordinates.
    Yes agreed an Iron orc warlord would probably kill a GoBo king , but if you have an Iron orc war lord in the current book , he is likely your general any way and the argument is moot . I don't see a situation in the current book where a player would pay the points for an Iron orc or even an orc warlord only to promote a gobo king to general.The point of the general in the army is to provide a leadership bubble . if you are not going to put the character with the highest leader ship as the anchor for that bubble it would have to be a very special situation . I personally can't think of a reason nor can I ever remember seeing someone do this in a battle report . The point I was trying to illustrate is that the current situation where a Rank and file Orc/Iron orc unit will follow a goblin army general is not unreasonable or un-fluffy . in the absence on an Orc/Iron orc Warlord character the Gobo King character is the strongest character in the army and Rank and file green skinz will follow him be they orc or gobo .


    Orc rank and file units are no match for a gobo king on a 1:1 fight so they are doing what they instinctively do , fallow the strongest . There is no fluff conflict with having orc units follow a Gobo general .
    there are several assumptions that do not have much sense from both logic and greenhude perspective

    1) You assume green skins will fight 1 on 1.
    in the novels i have read and even old GW fluff the challenge to a leader was a 1 on 1 combat , there is no fluff for T9A so that may change , however that concept seems universal . Plus when you consider it , it makes sense would orcs who fallow the strongest leader follow an orc who needed help to kill a gobo ? If he can't kill the gobo on his own he won't be leading anyone anywhere


    2) You assume only r&f orcs will challenge goblin king and even than only one at a time. Controlling orcs would require intimidation factor 1,2 meter
    Ok ,so some of this i just covered above Orc character vs Gobo character the orc wins and leads no dispute but that is what we have now , you would not play otherwise now anyway so it is not a real situation . I don't see orc characters following gobo generals ( possible exception of an orc wizard )
    Further you are assuming that the orcs just get togeather and go kill the gobo king and just stands there and lets the orcs kill him. If he is the king then he has a crap ton of troops around him so he would have some back up . The orcs as a unit can kill the gobo king , but when he is backed up by a unit of trolls an gargantula and a few thousand of his little green buddies the orcs die before they can get to him .
    as to intimidation , i would think the ability to command a spider 2 stories tall would be a good start .


    3) You assume r&f orcs would not try to subdue r&f goblins even if by some miracle they would accept goblin less than half their size as a leader.
    Ok so you missed the point entirely here my point was in reference to the original idea that orcs or iron orcs would not follow a gobo general . Green skinz be they orc or gobo will follow the strongest leader . so while i won't argue that if there is an iron orc warlord on the table that he would ,on a fluff and in game terms not follow a gobo king. The point is that rank and file orc units would follow a gobo king . in the absence of a orc/iron orc warlord level character a gobo king would be the strongest character on the field and green skinz of either race will follow him into battle .



    To sum up. While I can understand you dislike idea, yore arguments seem to assume this "divorce" would not include any changes in current units, just taking current book and splitting units between the two armies. That was not my intent, as evident by proposed unit lists.

    No I get you proposed changes , and I like the monstrous cave idea that is a great idea ******( monstrous cave are a great idea if any of the army book committee are reading this )****** , but most everything else is a rehash or direct port over to fill gaps that the split would create . I also acknowledge that your list is a rough outline and not intended a verbatim finished idea , but i think it does highlight the problem the army book team will run into . they are either going to have to port over gobo units or rebrand them with an orc label to fill the gaps in which case whats the point .
    certainly there are some new units that could be created but ideally you want units that have models available , otherwise the new units are pointless because there are no models to represent them ( I know you can convert but not everyone enjoys this )



    Best regards
    Sklodo
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    carefully chosen restrictions can be used to solve balance problems, not create them, especially if you are trying to make certain unplayed units (forest goblins, feral orc mounted eadbashers) more powerful. IMO balance problems get caused by the chaotic mess that happens when there are no restrictions; those restrictions allow the designer to have enough adjustable parameters to solve balance.
    I see your point. I actually like the idea of having race related Waaargh! or Tribes, but is it really necessary to restrict more our army? Hasn´t O&G been nerfed enough at every update?

    I just think it would be enough improving a bit certain units that are unplayed, rather than adding new restrictions.
    But, if it has to bee between splitting the army in two or having different tribes I would choose to have different tribes, however, I would prefer to avoid restrictions.

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

  • Porko wrote:

    I just think it would be enough improving a bit certain units that are unplayed, rather than adding new restrictions.
    Something very similar to that argument was made by very smart people like @slivek in 2015:

    slivek wrote:

    CG without stabbers should be as good as CG with fanatics! and CG with stabbers should be as good as CG without fanatics. I strive for that balance.
    @Warboss_R'ok > haha!! OK I think you mistyped there but I get the idea.
    I did not mistyped
    I just want all the build to be pretty equal and balanced on internal level.

    But now it's 2017, and:

    sgu97bjd wrote:

    By far the most common option was a Cave Goblin block making up 80% of the spend. The remaining 20% of the spend was Common Orcs with no spend at all on defensive blocks of Common Goblins or Forest Goblins.

    All core options were taken at least once except Forest Goblins

    Gnasher Herds, Common Orc Eadbashers and Mounted Eadbashers were only in one (/17) army each. There were no Feral Mounted Eadbashers or Bridge Trolls
    (And even I was arguing for pure buffs, no restrictions at the time)

    The argument that we can find points costs for all the massive number of options in the book, such that every unit has at least one viable list it goes into was a lot stronger in 2015 than it is in 2017.

    We have been trying for 18 months and we have not succeeded. And it's not a small miss either - Forest Goblins in 0/17 lists! Zero! Either we were not really trying, or the task is a lot harder than it seems.
  • First - it is hardly representable statistics in this quote.
    Second - you overestimate tries that happen in those months. Count releases which altered the internal balance between goblins which happened then.
    Third - yes we are "not really trying" because there is a lot to do and we cannot do everything at once. And yes the task is not an easy one and I think we all knew that before. I still think the internal balance of the book is much better than it was long time ago. I'd say we are doing sort of progress in overall.
    Fourth - Thanks for kind words :)
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    Do we have any better statistics?
    I think that some useful statistics were created some time ago but surely from older versions of the game.
    Either way - the fact that we do not have better statistics does not mean that we have to base on those which are not really representative. They come from ETC? If yes then it is team environment and 1.0 version of the rules. If they come from some other tournament somewhere then it shows local meta of certain country. IF from 1.0 then it is old data and if from 1.3 then it is underdeveloped meta.
    I'm not saying that every statistics is bad. Every data should count! But we should be aware that those are just statistics and rather far approximations. I wish that we think twice before jumping into direct conclusions. I'm just pointing out that for any useful statistics to be gathered we would have to all care for sending not only tournament results but also list to some DA team.

    Though surely forest goblins right now are on the weaker and underplayed part of the spectrum ;)
  • @Warboss_R'ok Those stats you quote are just for the goblins without missile weapons. There were some common goblins used with bows but cave goblins were still far more popular.

    If you look at what options have been used overall though there was quite a lot of diversity. In a book as big as ours there will always be one or two options that are under used and at the moment this is forest goblins and mounted Eadbashers. There are also a couple of options that are overused being cave goblins and gargantulas.

    We should obviously try to resolve these imbalances but I don't think we are as far away as you suggest.
  • slivek wrote:

    you overestimate tries that happen in those months.
    Also, we are running out of time before v2.0 which will be stable for 4 years. When is the v2.0 deadline?

    slivek wrote:

    But we should be aware that those are just statistics and rather far approximations
    Well it would certainly be nice if we could summon exhaustive statistics whenever we wanted them


    sgu97bjd wrote:

    There were some common goblins used with bows
    BTW @sgu97bjd, did you see any common goblins with shady gits? Do you have a master list of lists to look at?

    sgu97bjd wrote:

    If you look at what options have been used overall though there was quite a lot of diversity.
    True, but diversity isn't even the only problem. There's
    • the issue that orcs are sitting back and shooting (un-fluffiness) and scared of combat - not very orcy.
    • the issue of whether themed lists are viable
    • whether you can have multiple different viable list types (this seems to be good at the moment, as there was a balance between rush-forward CC lists and shooty lists).
    Fixing some of these issues could easily re-break some of the others though. For example, I forsee the Gargantula feeling the bitter-sweet caress of the nerf-bat because it is getting spammed and opponents are complaining about it. Then what will the CC lists do? Maybe we simultaneously put some minor buffs onto something else that is fighty? But that might not work. We might just be left with orcs with bows shooting and boarboys camping at the back and heroically marching to within 6'' of the objectives on turn 6. I feel the impending deadline of v2.0 could make us hit these kinds of problems.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Warboss_R'ok ().

  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    Also, we are running out of time before v2.0 which will be stable for 4 years. When is the v2.0 deadline?
    There is no hard deadline to avoid the stress and pressure of the previous releases. When the work will be done PR will get to work and the release will be made :)

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • I like this concept in principle. I don't mix orcs and goblins in my lists for the most part, both for thematic reasons and because tactically they mostly don't fit together. In practice, however, I don't think a separate book is the way to go. I would prefer the idea that some genius had called "Tribes" that allows for focusing on the individual racial type but still allows for the mixed army that some people want.

    But, and it is a big but, I think O&G are disadvantaged by the idea that all books need to have the same number of entries. For example, a dwarf is pretty much a dwarf. Give them the various skill and weapon combinations you want and you have about 6-7 units, then go have a drink. Make O&G have 6-7 units and you get forced combinations like "all Orcs" and "all Goblins" that don't allow for the variation inherent in this ragtag conglomeration of greenskins. What is the purpose of that concept anyway--all books get the same number of entries? I must have missed it if it was ever explained.

    Anyway, good effort Sklodo, but I can't support this one. Thanks though, I think all ideas help to advance to conversation.

    O&G Community Support


    "I see you are a man who likes to talk. That is good, for I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk." - Caspar Gutman
  • beerbeard wrote:

    What is the purpose of that concept anyway--all books get the same number of entries?
    They don't necessarily - I like to think that it is an O&G particularity to have more choices in units where others might have more choices in magic items-like entries. But there is still a limit of things you can put in the book before they stop to be meaningful choices, if think that is more or less the bottom line.
  • Warboss_R'ok wrote:

    sgu97bjd wrote:

    If you look at what options have been used overall though there was quite a lot of diversity.
    True, but diversity isn't even the only problem. There's
    • the issue that orcs are sitting back and shooting (un-fluffiness) and scared of combat - not very orcy.
    • the issue of whether themed lists are viable
    • whether you can have multiple different viable list types (this seems to be good at the moment, as there was a balance between rush-forward CC lists and shooty lists).
    Fixing some of these issues could easily re-break some of the others though. For example, I forsee the Gargantula feeling the bitter-sweet caress of the nerf-bat because it is getting spammed and opponents are complaining about it. Then what will the CC lists do? Maybe we simultaneously put some minor buffs onto something else that is fighty? But that might not work. We might just be left with orcs with bows shooting and boarboys camping at the back and heroically marching to within 6'' of the objectives on turn 6. I feel the impending deadline of v2.0 could make us hit these kinds of problems.
    I would like to think the rules team knows how to filter out the complainers vs what the actual situation is.
    But...I remember in the Steam Tank thread I had to specifically state that just because people are taking a unit and others are complaining about it, doesn't mean it is overpowered.
    Sometimes people take a unit because it is iconic, and it fills a specific role - such as the steam tank.
    And the exact same reasoning can be applied to the Grragantula. People are always going to take it. And people will keep taking at least 1 of them even if it is slightly under-powered.


    ....orcs with bows. Ya its totally not thematic.
    Hopefully in 2.0 when stregnth is separate from AP, and flank/rear charges give extra attacks - the design space should be enough to make enough viable units.
    Orc could then have strength 4 all the time since it doesn't add AP.
  • beerbeard wrote:

    What is the purpose of that concept anyway--all books get the same number of entries? I must have missed it if it was ever explained.
    It started because some felt Orcs should be better fighters than they currently are, but still be able to field big units.

    While that's fluffy it was argued by some (like me) that it would be pretty broken if Orcs could ALSO have access to dirt cheap tarpits and their powerful shooting.

    If you can't have it all then something have to go, and since many players all-ready play all-Goblin or (almost) all-Orc anyway it could have been an easy solution
  • Ok anwerst in this color.

    ikken wrote:

    Hi so my reply to your red is in green below . Please do not read in any hostility or offense towards you in my reply, it is not intended . I am just replying to your response . I am doing a couple things here and trying to get this reply off . If my replys are short it is NOT intended as malicious or offensive , i am just trying to get the reply off before i have to leave for the night .
    with that said see the green text below .

    Sklodo wrote:

    Dude i think you have red my proposal very fast and without proper consideration. I fully understand you can hate the idea but you arguments are unconvincing. You seem to think only in terms of existing units without any possibility of change or modifications, which obviously would be a big part of this idea. Comments in red.

    No i read your original post and got that you were going to add in a bunch of stuff that would essential duplicate what the orc side of the split would loose in the "Divorce" . essentially you split the armies and re-combine them again .

    Not nececarly. My intention was to go for two diferent armies. Orcs as mostly CC horde army and goblins as horde/tarpit/devious army. Maybe my list of units did not explicetly shoed this, but i thought I stated this in text... Aparently I was not clear on what was my intent.


    ikken wrote:

    NO No No No No No

    much nashing of teeth
    NO!!!

    OK Breath try not so smash things
    very emotional but I can fully accept you dislike the idea for both aesthetic reasons and/or conservatic view of our army.


    Yes I was wondering if I should have added that , I do have a frustration with the Idea but should not have been so forceful , My sincere apologies if this offended you . also please do not read in any offense in my responses which follow . No offense is intended , simply a reply to your response

    I do not feel offended. I would be disapointed if my proposal woiuld not cause any recation. This would mean it was boring :).


    I understand on the surface why some one would suggest this , and if you are an all goblin player you would probably be ok . If you are an orc player and all your goblin units just grew a back bone and went on strike then you have a problem . You have no artillery Not true even in my proposal there was one fully orc altilery, and we can make more if need be, no monsters ggi and gigant are monsters, not even counting wyvern, minimal chaff grotlings, possibly scrap wagon, boar riders all can serve this purpose .

    Yes so you are essentially arguing my point here you are going to create a new orc army and get rid of the gobins , but you are going to bring them back , and we will have some new units that essentially do the exact same thing the goblins did b4 we kicked them out but with orcs instead .
    Aside from goblin slaves I am not bringong back any goblin units. No goblin fast cav, goblin chariots, gargantula, git lunchers or spalterer (although some kind of orc catapult is possible). So I think not. Grotlings are not goblins. And only new units I proposed in OH was monstrous cavalery (who should replace mounted edbashers either way) and slave driver (intention here would be to make some synergies with trolls and gigants). Rest oif the units would be modyfied versions of standard orc units, just split apart not cramed together into few units.


    What you have is some average infantry , some below average medium/heavy cav , and average heavily armored infantry and some naked green infantry , and some chariots that's it all of witch would see some changes not to mention possible monstrous cavalry. you can get a wavryn for your lord but that's it . that is not much of an army . again read proposed list of units. I think There are armies that have less.
    yes ok as i mentioned i had read the list originally , see below:

    I won't tackle the goblin side of things as i think the issue is the orc side . Goblins function perfectly fine on their own . If this is a Divorce , they get the house the car and the bank account :) You could hive them off with no issue , they would not even need new units , if you want to give them some great but they would not need them.

    I would not be so sure. For competetive stage goblins might lack a punch outside of very fragile gnasher heard and expensive trolls.


    Ok addressing the proposed changes to the orc side of the divorce :

    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).

    basicly everythiung here is the same as we have now with the exception of the slave drivers whose purpose is to add back the gobos we kicked out
    Basically yes but split to several units, which would eneble making their stats and gear diferent than now. Slave driver is Idea to provide some wynergoes for trolls and gigant as well as make fluffy option of goblin slaves logical.


    Core
    Orcs
    Feral Orcs
    Orcs shootars (with bows)
    Grotlings
    Goblin slaves (race does not matter when you are in shackles, those would be goblins forced to work with orcs)
    everythig here same as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out
    Again as mentiuoned above. Units that are now just option of 1 unit would be split for diferent stats and options. Goblins would be downwashed without any usual toys and most of gear options. In reality goblins are here for fluff reasons and if someone is a purist can be deleted all together.


    Special
    'Evy shootars (advanced variat of shootars, maby even Iron Orcs using crossbows).
    Iron Orcs
    not a bad idea but we already have orc units that can carry every weapon ever know so it is redundant
    Again basic orcs would not have options of bows, crossbows/heavy armor or being feral, in my proposals those would be difetrent units, propably with their stats modyfied and their own gear options. So no there would be no unit able to carry all weapons as Iron orcs do not have crossbow option. Evy shotarz could also support for example throwing weapons.


    Boar chariots
    Scrap wagons
    everything here the same as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out
    Where. No gobbos mentioned here? Grotlings are not goblins. No wolf chariot.


    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).
    everything heresame as we have now plus the Gobos added back to replace the gobos we kicked out .
    The Orc lobba is a nice idea but essentially the same as the gobo lobba we have now except instead of 1 crippled orc and a bunch of gobos now you have a bunch of crippled orcs .
    Dude? Really? No goblins here what so ever. Entire catapult manned by orcs. And only orcs. Not a single goblin is site. I agree this looks similar to splaterer but as it is generic catapult as in many other armies it is kind of ok I think. It would slightly differ from splaterer in that it would be harder to assasinate with light chaff as it is manned by orcs. We couldof course resing from it but i tried to get this first idea as whide as possible.


    Big'n' Nasty
    Trolls (races can be split if need be)
    Gigants
    Great Green Idol

    everything here same as we have now , it is just a redeployment of existing units
    Yes but bear in mind goblins would not have acces to GGI. Only unit that would be in both armies here would be gigant (as gigants are present in OK and WDG i feel this is ok).


    Tunder riders (optional Monstrous Cavalery)
    **** I have to say I like the Monstrous Cave Idea :) that would be a nice addition to the existing army , ****
    I see them as replacement for mounted edbashers.


    If you split them into 2 armies what you would get is a complete and functional goblin army and half an orc army if done properly you would have to perfectly functional albeit vastly diferent armies.. In the original post it is suggested to keep some goblin units to balance things out so the orcs have all these things there is no such suggestion goblin slaves are added to orcs horde and orcs mercenaries purely for fluff factor. They are in fact optional. Ant those would be single units with very limited equip,ent options and no special toys. But I did not state that explicitly so I understand that this could be red diferently. . Hmmmmmm so basically split the armies and in order to fix the problems splitting them creates merge them back together again .
    I am going to stand by my impression that this idea in practice consists of splitting the 2 armies and then adding back the gobo bits to the orcs to plug the holes that removing the gobo bits in the first place created . Is that 100% accurate probably not but it does cover the vast majority of the proposal .
    Again ONE unit of goblins (you know what erase goblin slaves and orc mercenaries and both lists are still good to go) without toys and much of gear is not adding every single unit of goblins back to the list. So not it does not cover "vast majority" of proposal.


    Seriously if you take a look at our book you will find that we are a Goblin based army with the option to take our bigger cousins along in the fight we are not 2 separate armies , at best we are 1 and a half armies
    only if you count only number of current units.
    Yes agreed but that is what we have to work with , and in the suggested new units there is only 1 new unit , the monstrous cave , Which I really like the idea of . All the other units are either retooled gobo units or direct transplants
    That is general idea. Bear in mind those "retooled" units would have diferent options stats than now. Maby I have not stressed this hard enough. There would be no Orc unit woith option for feral orcs and bows only unit of shootarz, unit of orcs and unit of ferals, all with their respective rules, stats and gear options, similarly with goblins no one unit of goblins but three goblins, forest goblins and cave goblins units all with diferent stats rules and gear options. And so on (same with characters).



    it is the name that creates the confusion Orc and Goblin it should be Goblins and Orcs or just green skinz .

    As to why an orc unit or more specificly an Iron Orc unit would fallow a goblin king , 2 simple reasons ,:
    1 : that little gobo is commanding a massive horde of gobos and monsters that are about to go pick a fight with someone you can join in and have a good fight or stay home and watch soap operas , and maybe have some tea and crumpets in the afternoon .
    As an orc or black orc what sounds better to you .
    You assume here that if iron orc smashed gobbo king over the head and assumed command battle would not happen for some reason? At worse orcs would start fighting goblins at best said iron orc would become warlord of his own and lead entire force into battle. For green skins win-win scenario really.
    I agree with you he would take over and happily off to battle they would go if he could kill the GoBo general . My point is that he will die in the attempt and his surviving buddies will then fallow the winner . they may not like following a go bo but if he just killed their unit champ what are they going to do . stay home or go fight .
    More propable reaction would be IMO. "Look at Bugnab, what a whuss! Hez been kicked in da balls by da tiny gobbo. Well mates now it is my turn!"


    2: That little gobo can kick their butt , and all green skinz fallow the strongest leader . Seriously take a tooled up Gobo king and role him against an Iron orc unit champion . you will have the answer as to why the rest of the iron orcs are going to fallow the guy that just killed their unit champ .
    unless there is like tooled up iron orc chieftain or gods forbid warlord. Than goblin king is basically gnashers food. And rules still permit to take goblin king as general with other orc characters as his de facto subordinates.
    Yes agreed an Iron orc warlord would probably kill a GoBo king , but if you have an Iron orc war lord in the current book , he is likely your general any way and the argument is moot . I don't see a situation in the current book where a player would pay the points for an Iron orc or even an orc warlord only to promote a gobo king to general.The point of the general in the army is to provide a leadership bubble . if you are not going to put the character with the highest leader ship as the anchor for that bubble it would have to be a very special situation . I personally can't think of a reason nor can I ever remember seeing someone do this in a battle report . The point I was trying to illustrate is that the current situation where a Rank and file Orc/Iron orc unit will follow a goblin army general is not unreasonable or un-fluffy . in the absence on an Orc/Iron orc Warlord character the Gobo King character is the strongest character in the army and Rank and file green skinz will follow him be they orc or gobo .
    I can see at least one (propably more but this one is no brainer) situation where you would in fact have goblin king as general while having Orc characters. If you want safe big leadership bubble and take crown of cavern king on goblin general in bunker that supports you frontline units who can have orc characters.


    Orc rank and file units are no match for a gobo king on a 1:1 fight so they are doing what they instinctively do , fallow the strongest . There is no fluff conflict with having orc units follow a Gobo general .
    there are several assumptions that do not have much sense from both logic and greenhude perspective

    1) You assume green skins will fight 1 on 1.
    in the novels i have read and even old GW fluff the challenge to a leader was a 1 on 1 combat , there is no fluff for T9A so that may change , however that concept seems universal . Plus when you consider it , it makes sense would orcs who fallow the strongest leader follow an orc who needed help to kill a gobo ? If he can't kill the gobo on his own he won't be leading anyone anywhere
    Ok i will grant you that that callage for leadership would be one on one. Problem is you would have to consider gobbo leader material in the forst place. More propably he would be ingnored or just stomped to death by orcs foghting for leadership.


    2) You assume only r&f orcs will challenge goblin king and even than only one at a time. Controlling orcs would require intimidation factor 1,2 meter
    Ok ,so some of this i just covered above Orc character vs Gobo character the orc wins and leads no dispute but that is what we have now , you would not play otherwise now anyway so it is not a real situation . I don't see orc characters following gobo generals ( possible exception of an orc wizard )
    Further you are assuming that the orcs just get togeather and go kill the gobo king and just stands there and lets the orcs kill him. If he is the king then he has a crap ton of troops around him so he would have some back up . The orcs as a unit can kill the gobo king , but when he is backed up by a unit of trolls an gargantula and a few thousand of his little green buddies the orcs die before they can get to him . as to intimidation , i would think the ability to command a spider 2 stories tall would be a good start .
    And that is exactly how i see orc mercenaries work. Not entire aremy of orcs led by gobbo character. There is also slight diference beytwen strenght and apearence of strenght. I also wonder if goblin kings fighting stats are not from him just stabbing his oponents in the back? But that is besides the point.


    3) You assume r&f orcs would not try to subdue r&f goblins even if by some miracle they would accept goblin less than half their size as a leader.
    Ok so you missed the point entirely here my point was in reference to the original idea that orcs or iron orcs would not follow a gobo general . Green skinz be they orc or gobo will follow the strongest leader . so while i won't argue that if there is an iron orc warlord on the table that he would ,on a fluff and in game terms not follow a gobo king. The point is that rank and file orc units would follow a gobo king . in the absence of a orc/iron orc warlord level character a gobo king would be the strongest character on the field and green skinz of either race will follow him into battle .
    I guess we just see greenskins behavioral patterns diferently.

    To sum up. While I can understand you dislike idea, yore arguments seem to assume this "divorce" would not include any changes in current units, just taking current book and splitting units between the two armies. That was not my intent, as evident by proposed unit lists.
    No I get you proposed changes , and I like the monstrous cave idea that is a great idea ******( monstrous cave are a great idea if any of the army book committee are reading this )****** , but most everything else is a rehash or direct port over to fill gaps that the split would create . I also acknowledge that your list is a rough outline and not intended a verbatim finished idea , but i think it does highlight the problem the army book team will run into . they are either going to have to port over gobo units or rebrand them with an orc label to fill the gaps in which case whats the point .
    certainly there are some new units that could be created but ideally you want units that have models available , otherwise the new units are pointless because there are no models to represent them ( I know you can convert but not everyone enjoys this )

    If I understand correctly you think I would have to make orc units in OH that would serve goblin functions and goblin units that would serve orc fuctions in GT? That was not my Intent defienetly.


    Best regards
    Sklodo

    As I have fealing my proposal was somewhat misunderstood here (I might be wrong but to be on the safe side) I will make some points:
    1) Do I want to make 2 books by splitting our current book into two? No.
    2) Do I want to make 2 books that would basically encompass every possiible fluff choice we have now (not rulewhise but fluffwhise and possibly modelwhise)? Yes.
    3) Do I want to keep all current stats, rules and units as they are? No
    4) Do I want to remake most units in new books to build them in acrodence to internal and external balance as well as in agreement with fluff? Yes
    5) Do i want to split current units that use several kinds of models to depict diferent upgrades to diferent units with diferent rules and stats (examples feral and common orcs, cave, forest and common goblins)? Yes.
    6) Do I want to keep some units that are neither orcs nore goblin to apear in both armies (Trolls, gigants, grotlings)? Yes.
    7) Do I want to give those armies diferent magic item options, armywhide rules and gear? Yes.

    In short I want to create to totally separate books that would treat our current book as idea pool not as base for statistics and rules.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

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

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Sklodo ().

  • @Sklodo What are your thoughts on General Army Books and possible Thematic Army Books for the future?

    I think your idea has merits, but I also believe a GAB works out well as a general/neutral balancing tool before going very heavy in thematic choices. The market hasn't really done this type of books really well (in my opinion) but I do think this is where T9A could potentially seperate itself in the future.

    Thematic Books are then the next big step for the true fantasy battles fans and could even see the inclusion of Named Special Characters again, have some Thematic battles and campaigns and generally could be a much clearer blend in a fluff heavy book with army adaptation options.

    From my perspective a General Army Book is required before going into details. This all comes from the design principle I use for everything.
    - First do a sketch (1.3.4)
    - Follow up in black and white (2 or General Army Book)
    - Add some colour, but leave a lot for players to colour themselves (lore)
    - Help players get the optimal experiences (Campaign Books)
    - Present new sketches (Thematic Army Book)

    My moral is that I never dislike ideas for Thematic lists but I also think this is a detail where you need to form the bigger picture first. So you basically start with the O&G army as a whole and later start to zoom in for Tribes.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    @Sklodo What are your thoughts on General Army Books and possible Thematic Army Books for the future?

    I think your idea has merits, but I also believe a GAB works out well as a general/neutral balancing tool before going very heavy in thematic choices. The market hasn't really done this type of books really well (in my opinion) but I do think this is where T9A could potentially seperate itself in the future.

    Thematic Books are then the next big step for the true fantasy battles fans and could even see the inclusion of Named Special Characters again, have some Thematic battles and campaigns and generally could be a much clearer blend in a fluff heavy book with army adaptation options.

    From my perspective a General Army Book is required before going into details. This all comes from the design principle I use for everything.
    - First do a sketch (1.3.4)
    - Follow up in black and white (2 or General Army Book)
    - Add some colour, but leave a lot for players to colour themselves (lore)
    - Help players get the optimal experiences (Campaign Books)
    - Present new sketches (Thematic Army Book)

    My moral is that I never dislike ideas for Thematic lists but I also think this is a detail where you need to form the bigger picture first. So you basically start with the O&G army as a whole and later start to zoom in for Tribes.
    Ok first of all both are valid and useful and both should be a thing. Themathic books will be much harder to balance in the same way as general army books and could be an addons for more background/campaing oriented play.

    Saing that my idea was for OH and GT to be GABs. Idea came mostly from some intesting comments and ideas on this forum that pointed to me how overcrouded our book is. We have basically 12 units crammed into 4 AB choices and we are still one of the fattest AB, as far as number of units is concerned, out there. This would make balancie Orcs or goblins internally and externally vastly easier as well as would have sense from background perspective and general AB versus races spread. Look at it that way KoE differs from EoS in many aspects vastly less than orcs from goblins, they are identical as far as race goes for one, and yet they are 2 armies and O&G are one. Same goes for 3 kinds of elves who differ only in culture and lifestyle (as does orcs and goblins, compare for example Iron orc lifestyle to cave goblin lifetyle and "culture"). Same goes for both kinds of dwarfs who at least have some physical differences (albeit minor in comparison). Similarly to a lesser degree there are sirious similarieties between 2 kinds of undead, WDG and Daemons who both serve dark gods and to a lesser degree skaven and BH. Only races that trully do not have any related AB are SA (who as far as I know live as one society bound by common history and culture and OK - altho as far as WFB lore was concerned they were basically mutated offshoot of humans so both realted to Empire and WoCh). Seeing all that I thought making diferent AB for Orcs and Goblins could be a good idea. Many people disagree aparently :). On the other hand idea got nice amount of likes so not everybody hates it.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • @Sklodo I think the Thematic books will be less hard to balance based on the outcome that a General Army book creates. Much like 1.3.4 helps a lot in forming army book 2.0 and so forth. One of the advantages that comes forth out of this is that Thematic Armies close to the armies allready used shouldn't become significantly stronger. In fact a Thematic Army Book can often serve as a 2.1 aswell.

    Where I agree is that O&G is crowded, but more armies are. Generally the armies who remained popular under Games Workshop have a ton of options. Warriors of Chaos is another example of many Special choices (arguably too many) and Brettonia is an example of too few choices (arguably too less) largely because GW supported the other more because of their populairity in sales.

    Your totally right on that certain armybooks where split up, however I believe the populairity again caused this. For a mightly long time Chaos Warriors, Beastmen and Daemons shared one book (till 5th) however the split also caused X players to not pick up Y.

    For me Orcs and Goblins function well in their current form and I am afraid that a split up would hinder the faction more then benifit it. The past also showed us that a split up of factions doesn't always archive a desired result, becomming more interesting. For example the Beast Herds under T9A are way, way, way better designed as Beastmen ever where. Likewise Warriors of the Dark Gods are in a better balanced place in T9A as they ever where in WFB.

    Lastly but perhaps more importantly, a Thematic Book in edition X is a very good tool to test the waters for popularity. Perhaps Goblins and Orcs are equally played and have an equally large background. Hordes of Chaos (Warriors of Chaos and Daemons of Chaos) was only split after the Storm of Chaos thematic book. Which served really well to prove that Mortals of Chaos would work on their own and Daemons of Chaos required a significant larger ammount of new models to enter the scene by themselves.

    So then the question becomes, are there enough models and ideas to make Goblins work by themselves? I can almost say that for Orcs you can do it but also largely because Games Workshop still supports Orcs with new (and larger) models.