Do people want to change O&G?

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!

  • gorfang wrote:



    From my point of view the most important ones are orcs. Let's face it, nobody uses them. I think that they are not competitive. They don't make enough damage, maybe in 20mm squares would be allright but the 25 mm template make them too weak. I don't think they shoud be WDG, however I think that their strenght should be in their number, but their rules don't support this characteristic. I would love to play them on hordes but nowadays the drawbacks are too poor, so they are just seen as archers due to ther low price.

    And this is the second Issue with this army. What does the community want Orcs n Goblins to be? Last year Army Poll shown that the main style of our army shoud be Jack of all trades, with the following strenghts:

    1-Defence in numbers 72%
    2-First turn combat damage 70%
    3-Defence: defence toughtness 59%
    4-Combat: continue damage output 56%
    5- Leadership: units are brave when they ar on the range of the genera 50%
    6- Ranged: Heavy arms fire 33%
    7-Ranged: Small arms fire 33%

    This is what our army should look like but from my point of view right now our main strenght was 7th most important in the last year poll, and I think this is the reason why there are so many OnG generals upset with their army.

    Nowadays we shoot better than any elves, some people say we are green dwarfs! Ow, that really hurts me!

    The archers (nowadays our main strenght) should be the half as important as our capacity to make combat damage in the first turn. I think this is the way where our army shoud go, and giving hordes some good rules could be a good way to achieve this.

    I totally agree with the survey, which is why i think Born to fight is such a cool rule, maybe we can buff it maybe also adds a +1 OS or +1 attack (might get to strong with that like lol)

    Now i agree our core choice shouldnt evolve around shooting (although beacuse orcs are stornger than humans and elves in RL they would be able to shoot futher) that wouldnt really help us. Perhaps we could limit the bows make them more pricy or lower the chance of orcs hitting with them, might give the orcs with crossbows a chance to shine.

    As well as orcs needing a buff (i surgest heavly buffing born to fight)
    we need a reason to take combat goblins.

    Now goblins i see as staying the same stat wise ( while it might be fun to have a res 2 uint on the field they would need huge buffs somewhere else for that) but to make you take combay goblins (instead of just shooty ones) i think they should get extra wacky upgrades like maybe they are hiding wolfs and gnashers in there unit (maybe even a troll) and you use them once in combat in the frist turn for extra attacks and you cant take them if u take bows.
  • Theorox wrote:

    Well, here's a bit of a wall of text... I think it covers most units that need fixing one way or another, though.
    I like this some minor comments but this is overall very insightful.


    Most of our problems are caused by internal balance issues. A lot of units are 3 or 4/10 while only a couple of things are 6's and very few units indeed are better than that. On top of that, a couple of things are just weirdly spammable and some others weirdly restricted. You can make a very decent list out of the book as it stands, but many units just aren't practical to include even if they seem okay individually. Some units need both an improvement and a points increase to be able to fulfill the roles they should have in the army. If you think any of the buffs I suggest below would be too powerful, consider that the units in question should probably get more expensive if they were made more powerful.
    Indeed. There is a limit to how cheap you can make unit, and it still can be crap. So in some cases it is better to increase price and make unit really good.
    • Orcs: If core orcs and Eadbashers were better (either through a merge or some cleverly designed synergy) we'd see less gobbo shooting and an army more focused on close combat. The option to go shooty gobbos + tar pits should (of course!) remain, but it shouldn't feel like the only way to spend core points efficientlyI
    I fully agree on this. I would rather consider merge or merge and some synergies than synergies itself just becouse edbashers are causing some internal problems by there existence.

    • Mad Gits are pretty wonky at the moment. The rules are a bit of a mess (difficult to refer to, and thus confusing) and they seem like they're too good when you can just march forward and release 3 straight into the enemy of your choice. I like playing them now, but I think they need adjusting.
    I think making their rules more in lines with meta could do this, of course it should still leave their randomness and all. I kind of liked idea of making them into random movement unit with both impact hits and grind that is delivering its grind even if they die.

    • Trolls need something. Their damage output isn't high enough to even hold against a decent ranked unit of equal cost a lot of the time. Paired weapons really helped Wasteland Trolls, but trolls shouldn't get an initiative buff IMO. 4 A base would do us nicely, and perhaps an adjustment in points. I understand that the current aim is to discourage trolls being used as diverters, and I applaud the effort. But to be honest, just make them unit size 3+ and scrap the high price for the first troll. That'd solve a lot of problems.
    Trolls are begging for 3+ size making first troll so expensive just does not make sense. Their damage output need something right now cave ones are used as an anvil due to armor/regent combo but for not much else. Abundance of flaming made trolls much less scary than in the old days so they need something to function. I also like idea of troll character or mount for goblin to mitigate stupidly somehow.

    • Gnasher Herds seem super spammable at the moment. You can fit 5 max sized units in a normal game if you really want to. :P It's not a good idea, but I think it illustrates a bit of a problem. 5 hordes with those stats that blow up when they die is...weird. I think the only reason these things aren't massively spammed is because most people don't have the models.
    I have the models (around 80 including fillers) but still do not take more than one unit. They are nice and all but extreamly fragile. Basically they die like flies to any shooting or magic that come their way. On top of that while quite dangerous in cc while fighting against anything with lower I they are next to useless against anything with higher I (all elves, VS and OK) and are one use tool against anything with equal I. So they are good but not to the point of spamming them :).


    Gnasher Wrecking Teams suffer from the same wonkiness rules as Mad Gits, but aren't as easy to use. Mainly they just draw fire, from what I've seen. To me it's weird that they die just like mad gits when stepped on by anything. Perhaps they need to work entirely differently than they currently do.

    • Grotlings should lose their throwing weapons and be made available in bigger units!
    I do not see why bigger maxed units are needed. Right now I use them mostly in min units as they are nice short range tedirectors that are resistant to being shot down or panicked. Still throwing weapons are just waste of points on them so removing them and decreasing price by few points would be welcome.

    • Skewerers might need a slight points drop to be attractive. They're not expensive at all, but they're also not likely to actually do much. And that's fine, but some fine tuning is needed.
    I do not use them mostly becouse they work at all only against very particular targets and even then achieving hit is rare occurannce.

    • Git Launchers kind of suck at the moment. Now that it doesn't negate armour saves it should do D6 hits again. It's not crazy accurate any more, it needs to do some damage when it does hit something.
    Agreed. They were nerfed to compensate for their genome although acuracy. Now they lost it so splaterers are vastly superior. I do not know if D6 will help. Previously their function was killing high AS targets with few expensive models and t of 4 or less. Now they lost it due to being nerfed time and time again. I am uncertain vein d6 will help them now as they lost their function and d6 is random on top of uncertain hit roll...

    • Gargantulas are in kind of a weird place. One isn't hard to deal with, two are pretty powerful if you play them right and three were always a fluffy choice, not actually seen much in a competitive setting. Yet you can't take three any more and the web launcher was limited to one. I'd be inclined to lower its damage (either Area Attack (3) or Str 2) and lift the 0-1 requirement. Maybe simplify its effect a bit and make it easier to remember. -1 or -D3 Initiative and -1 Movement, non-stacking, would be my choice. Dangerous Terrain doesn't really make a lot of sense, even if it's powerful.
    Yes. They were treated preatty bad due to misconception of them being terrific. Onsters while they are nearly ok monsters. I agree with what you wrote on web launchers. Gargantula could also use slight point decrease and fix to spider shrine that would make it worth taking, now it is of worth that points you have to take with witch doctor. Basically big tax for mounting witchdoctor on gargantula.

    • Great Green Idols need...something. They has to either be able to win basic combats like normal monsters or not break from combat res. It should probably grant re-rolls to hit instead of its current buffs which aren't actually very synergistic with our combat blocks. Just plain +1 Attack might work even better, if quantity should go before quality (fitting IMO!). The buff(s) should only work while the GGI is in CC, like currently, but for that to work the GGI must be able to handle itself decently in combat. Scrap the BSB option. Being allowed to take up to 3 strikes me as a bit odd, too. A significantly higher cost for a better unit would be just fine here, as long as it can do what it's supposed to do.
    I personally think this is mostly question of risk-reward. Using GGI is much more risky to the model than other buff wagons and harder placement whise becouse he has to be in cc to function. I love this idea since it is as fluffy as they get. But for that big risks reward if form of his short range buffs is weak. It should be +1A/reroll to hit/reroll to wound thing more fluffy and useful at once. He should also gain some kind immunity to static combat rez and/or defensive capabielieties. Much more expensive unit that would do its job would be awsome. There is also alternative take. We could redesign him totally and instead of giving static buff he could cast bound spells. But that would further increase risk (by forcing player to roll dice for those spells and goving enemy chance to dispel so buffs should be even greater.

    • Giants are apparently being redesigned, which is welcome. They don't have to be better exactly, they just have to be...I don't know. Different.


    Theo
    Overall I very much like this comments they charge essense of several problems in O&G book.

    gorfang wrote:

    Throgg wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    Now that WdG lost Troll, we are the omnly ones left with them. Why not make them part of the Greenhide Race? Trolls yre yours the clumsy stupid cousins of Orcs. They eat everything lying around, therefore they get the coor of the landscape they live in.
    Hmm That's true. It would fit and it would please me immensely.It might surprise no one that I would love a Troll King in our army.
    Well, that sounds great. Also I think it could be a great chance to add the sexiest model ever has been crafted: the troll witch
    Ugh I cannot look at that one... I frankly am not a fan of this model. But if there would be something like gigantic Troll hordes troll kin range is ready :).

    [/quote][/quote][/quote]

    GSbasic wrote:

    So I'm new to the OnG forums, I play DE, but just started OnG and I'm incredibly excited! This book is so interesting! Cheap S5 chariots! Combat monsters that give combat buffs, cheap wizards with cheap bunkers, and the potential for fun synergies! Throwing nets, getting +1 to wound in combat! Declaring a waarg And getting swift stride across the board! So much to be happy about. I do see your guys frustration and desire to further balance the book, but this group needs desperately to concede to what they want. I started this army because I saw them as a jack of all trades, with a brutish combat lean ( I want to field lots and lots of cheap savage orcs!) kind of like empire but not as refined, more tough and strong. It's off putting to see such a divide. Maybe another survey is needed to get direction
    Well we are unruly and prone to animosity like our army so do not expect we will agree on anything any time soon :).
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Wild idea here. Many people - including me - would like to orc shooting to be less prominent in favor of orc cc power. At the same time we do not want it to become totally invalid. So we should think on diferent utility for orc archers that would not see them so universally useful but good at particular more narrow task. I am not certain how to achieve but one idea would be to give them ability to deliver small amount of damage good against particular type of target. Maby for example decrease orcs BS but give them orcs bows that have much higher pull (consivable if orcs are stronger than humans and on top of that have longer arms - wich translates into longer draw and more powerful shot) so their bows would be less accurate but have higher S (of course this would create problem with Xbox orcs who would have to be moved elsewhere too).

    What do you guys think?

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

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

    If your only allowed 60 bows in your army, maybe think twice about buying 50 bows for your cc unit.

    However, I like Orc archers to be "good" at cc. It fits to them imho, not being so vulnerable like elven archers.

    arwaker wrote:

    If your only allowed 60 bows in your army, maybe think twice about buying 50 bows for your cc unit.

    However, I like Orc archers to be "good" at cc. It fits to them imho, not being so vulnerable like elven archers.

    I agree our archers shouldnt be weak in CC but we cant have it so you always have your main combat block of orcs also be archers. Maybe limit the size of the unit if its going to have longbows (beaucse orcs kinda should) like max 10 or somthing.

    so there cool and u want them but you wont want to have like 5 units of them about.
  • Given the different views I thought I would try and find common ground. I am going to try and describe the status of the army - starting with what I see as being the least controversial descriptions and building to more specific but less likely to be universally accepted descriptions.

    1) The army underperforms on average but only slightly. However it has poor internal balance; for all the size of the book there are only a limited number of viable units and even fewer viable strategies.

    2) The army's internal balance is sufficiently poor that there are a large number of units that could be significantly improved without significantly impacting the external balance of the army.

    3) The army is a jack of all trades army. It's strength is that it can use multiple different tools, selecting the best one to deal with each threat. Part of the problem is that the army is a "Jack of few trades" army, with almost unplayable aggressive melee infantry, heavy cavalry and underperforming war machines.

    4) Being a jack of all trades army requires special attention for OnG. For armies such as elves they can use superior movement to use the right tool vs each threat coupled with shooting (including war machines) that are effective at longer ranges to secure victory. OnG, without access to powerful M9 cavalry, M5 base or high ballistic skill need to rely on mass shooting as one of the pillars of their Jack of All trades strategy.

    5) Lack of synergies in the army undermine it's jack of all trades role. More stuff rather than different stuff is often the answer due to narrow viable unit selections - there are few buffing effects that can be used to make units more effective.

    6) The weakness the player base feels most keenly is the lack of viable horde style infantry blocks - both due to low mobility and due to poor performance of low individual models.

    7) OnG deserves it's own set of strengths, own special rules to make its characterful and iconic units viable without having to resort to crude stat increases to do the job.



    How far would I have to go down this list before I would have people disagreeing with me?
  • sgu97bjd wrote:

    BS2 would be too much of a big drop in damage output. It would mean reduced damage of between 33% and 50% which would make them largely useless. If they need anything it is just some kind of overall cap but I suspect if you improved the alternatives in core they might not even need this.
    Well yes number of hits would drop drastically, that is the point. But for that they could be S5 for example. So much less hits but much higher change to would.

    I do not think cap will resolve this problem. I would prefer to devise some utility diferent from standard bow equipped units for bow equipped orcs.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • Orc archers should have a diferent role. Actually there isn't a reason to take them.

    At 1ppm, you just pick bow if you bring orcs to the battlefield. Personally I would make something alas shabty, bring a really good bow but downside in close combat. Something like this:

    - Orc Bow: orc bows are long bow with Strenght 4. A unit with this weapon loses "Born to Fight" special rule.

    This way you show that orcs brink big and bulky bows, but those bows are rought made and require a big amounth of strenght to tense it, resulting in orcs being already tired when the H2H combat happens. Maybe at 2ppm? Dunno the price.
  • Manxol wrote:

    Orc archers should have a diferent role. Actually there isn't a reason to take them.

    At 1ppm, you just pick bow if you bring orcs to the battlefield. Personally I would make something alas shabty, bring a really good bow but downside in close combat. Something like this:

    - Orc Bow: orc bows are long bow with Strenght 4. A unit with this weapon loses "Born to Fight" special rule.

    This way you show that orcs brink big and bulky bows, but those bows are rought made and require a big amounth of strenght to tense it, resulting in orcs being already tired when the H2H combat happens. Maybe at 2ppm? Dunno the price.
    I do not know. Seem like incentive to go even more for gunline. What about xbows then. No reason to take them...
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • heavy armour, BtF... And in 2.0, xbow could be +3 and bow +4. Dunno.

    More caps could be added. Maybe something alas "can't buy extra models".

    Personally I would change, just 8'm not sure how. But it is ridicullous actualy, because at 1 ppm the buy of bow for normal orcs is almost mandatory.

    It is almost ridiculous that if you buy 40 orcs with shield and lance, you cut 3 of them and now you got 37 bows
  • I like Sklodo`s idea of Big Game Hunters. It makes sense. I don`t think that orcs would hunt rabbits, deer or other small and weak game, so what would be the point of them learning to shoot flimsy bows. Plus they don`t use little swords like 'umies, but big choppas, so bow created by an orc would be big, strong, crude and used to kill big animals.

    I wouldn`t mind if it would be expensive or somehow restricted (like mad gits) to represent those rare orc innovators too.
  • Manxol wrote:

    It is almost ridiculous that if you buy 40 orcs with shield and lance, you cut 3 of them and now you got 37 bows
    If you consider normal Orcs as Orc Archers, everything is fine. Question is, why they do not have automatically their bows. Well, maybe it is always better to have the choice. But in general I like the idea that we have the Archer unit that is best in close combat :)
  • Why restrict their weapons? DH crossbow guys can have shields and even great weapons. Neither I think Orc archers are too popular, nor are they somehow op. Just an interesting concept of mish mash unit like HBE seaguard. I like this.

    Goblin archers on the other hand are significantly more a candidate to change something. But maybe their bows deserve simply a small points increase of +1 to balance them. But I even more like the idea of 18" range and quick to fire. This makes static block archers slightly less effective, but wolf archers will profit a lot.
  • I tested 18 range and quick to fire and it was terrible. Not only does it generally mean you are worse at shooting with fewer targets but you get fewer turns of shooting as you get dragged into charge ranges.

    I can see bows being too cheap on Orcs, but bows seem a natural weapon for less tough, more cowardly goblins that don't want to be in close combat. At current prices they don't outperform shooting in other armies. Only whilst standing still, at close range, and not shooting at things in cover do they tend to do better point for point than bs4 archers. This doesn't even compare to higher strength shooting that other armies get. It isn't like you can make a good goblin gunline anayway. War machines are too restricted and unreliable and the shooting can't deal with tough or well armourd units like SE can.

    My suggestion would be to leave goblins unchanged (maybe tighten the cap for archers if OnG is overperforming) and keep orcs at 1ppm for bows but remove volley fire from the orcs. I feel the point about orcs hunting is a good one but you won't use vollies to hunt.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    It is almost ridiculous that if you buy 40 orcs with shield and lance, you cut 3 of them and now you got 37 bows
    If you consider normal Orcs as Orc Archers, everything is fine. Question is, why they do not have automatically their bows. Well, maybe it is always better to have the choice. But in general I like the idea that we have the Archer unit that is best in close combat :)
    But his entry name wasn't "Orc Archers". Indeed, I don't feel like regular orc should be archers.

    If there was a unit of 10-30 orc archers at 1 point more than regular orcs it could be fine, but currently what the army says is that the bow is the comon weapon of orc grunts. That is what I feel odd, not that they are OP.

    Also, the xbow + heavy armor feels odd at their points... You can have bow (volley fire vs S4 of xbow) and shield for just 2 points, but xbow + heavy armor (and no more equipment) is 8ppm.
  • The rules for bows, even including volley fire, are not very powerful in themselves. They are now about what they should be after years of being borderline useless for regular troops. They represent bowfire quite decently on the tabletop.

    A points increase for goblin bows could be in order, because at the moment a lot of people just take them to fill core because of a lack of other attractive options in that category. This isn't because goblin archers are very good (they aren't), but because they actually contribute something unlike 30 Eadbashers or blocks of Orcs that are Str 3 after the first round of combat. If we got decent CC troops in core we'd be seeing fewer archers.

    A points increase or some sort of restriction on orc bows might also be in order, because if you take orcs at all at the moment it's almost a no-brainer to add on bows because they are so cheap. Would this still be the case if bows were 1 point more expensive? Don't know. If they were 2 points more expensive? Probably not. Even if they were turned into longbows and got a points increase we might see fewer of them, since the reason you see so many at the moment largely is because of the "why wouldn't I" effect.

    Orc & Goblin shooting (still) doesn't kill much a lot of the time. We're just starved of good options to fill core, and getting something that can take out chaff at range or put a dent in big blobs with bad armour saves is more useful than CC units that won't win in CC against many other armies' core.

    Theo