Why I think removing Born to Fight in light of edbashers and orcs merge is a bad idea.

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!

  • As I mentioned btf do not have to work exactly as right now or even be named btf. It is all about limited +1S bonus not based on gear. So warcries, battlercries or whatever are all fair game. As mentioned I think making it once per game is not good enough but it could be function of some interactions between units or with characters.
    Best regards
    Sklodo

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

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

  • I also like the improved Waaargh! as I've mentioned before. In conjunction with the added Movement and Swiftstride we currently get, a boost to Strength or Attacks (maybe even Thunderous Charge to put more emphasis on charging in) in the turn of the Waaargh! would be very thematic. Your opponent would know that you are going to have one very dangerous combat turn in the game, and they would have to play accordingly. I think this might be the better option as opposed to S4 BtF Orcs...I know Sklodo doesn't think so, but I think they're too strong for core. From a fluff perspective I favour orc units that buff each other rather than the orcs themselves being incredibly strong.

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

  • jmoddle wrote:

    I also like the improved Waaargh! as I've mentioned before. In conjunction with the added Movement and Swiftstride we currently get, a boost to Strength or Attacks (maybe even Thunderous Charge to put more emphasis on charging in) in the turn of the Waaargh! would be very thematic. Your opponent would know that you are going to have one very dangerous combat turn in the game, and they would have to play accordingly. I think this might be the better option as opposed to S4 BtF Orcs...I know Sklodo doesn't think so, but I think they're too strong for core. From a fluff perspective I favour orc units that buff each other rather than the orcs themselves being incredibly strong.
    if this buffs would work in a way that would make our army really scare I am on board. It would had to put some fear into our enemies for them to prepare for it, set up chaff and all. Not reaction like "ok he is getting waaaarg next turn (where are my headphones) I will loose few extra guys and than murdyfy his entire army"

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • I suggest to see it more like replacing Born to Fight with a permanent +1S. Then we would get rid of this Army wide Special Rule, and hopefully get a magic item in exchange. Bye bye Eadbashers, we don't need you anymore.

    What would that also mean? How about permanent S5 Iron Orcs? Too strong? Maybe we can change something else on them. Do we really need Bodyguard and Immune to Psychology on them?

    Unruly I would replace (not remove unfortunately, as this is not feasible) as well. Reduce basic Orcs LD by 1 and replace it by the "new" special rule (which we could again call "Born to Fight" maybe) which provides +2 LD for Panic and Break tests.

    That additional +1S for our core Orcs could easily be provided by one of our numerous WarCries. In this cae, the price for this would not be in Orcs, but in the WarCry itself.

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

  • I basically agree with everything @arwaker said, except Iron Orcs becoming S5. I think they are pretty solid as they are, and most lists include them currently. So, to recap...

    S4 Orcs standard. Remove 'Eadbashers and remove BtF +1S in first round. Reduce Ld by 1 on troops but maybe not characters and Iron Orcs (giving them an important advantage), and keep +2 Ld for Panic and Break tests. This means orcs need to be in the leadership bubble or in combat to be most effective.

    Finally (and this is the part I think is most important), a few more 'buff' options. Generals' War cries should be improved and potentially come with options that are either chosen in the army list or during battle. I think there have been lots of good suggestions for this in other threads on the forum.The increased movement we get already is great, but it's not enough on its own. We need things that help us do Wounds in combat (to-hit and to-wound bonuses, +1S or +1A, etc).

    The GGI is a good buff unit which is why it's common in many lists. I would argue we need one more buff unit based on other armies that have buff wagons (Empire, Saurians), but we don't really have a model or existing concept for such a unit. Therefore I'd suggest further options for characters that buff. For example, you could have an orc character called the Warchanter (or maybe not that name, since that's GW) who is our equivalent to the Empire's Prelate. He has a statline roughly equivalent to an orc chief and would be loaded out to be more survivable than killy, but he really works his unit up in combat. He could confer special rules on his unit such as Devastating Charge or Thunderous Charge (both providing big improvements to both infantry and cavalry units), maybe even a Magic Resistance to make his unit more survivable and could also cast bound spells to boost their combat skills.

    The reason why I have changed my mind to put so much focus on buffing orcs with characters and buff units is that I think it's the best way to keep orcs units cheap while still allowing them to be strong in combat. Being able to take a bunch of large orc horde units is important, and this way you could still get them at a low price. Then you'd have the option to spend extra on characters and things like the GGI to really make them dangerous in combat. The concept of spamming cheapish combat-oriented orc characters for unit buffs and potentially being able to throw out a number of cheaper bound spells, really resonates with me.
  • jmoddle wrote:

    I basically agree with everything @arwaker said, except Iron Orcs becoming S5. I think they are pretty solid as they are, and most lists include them currently. So, to recap...

    S4 Orcs standard. Remove 'Eadbashers and remove BtF +1S in first round. Reduce Ld by 1 on troops but maybe not characters and Iron Orcs (giving them an important advantage), and keep +2 Ld for Panic and Break tests. This means orcs need to be in the leadership bubble or in combat to be most effective.

    Finally (and this is the part I think is most important), a few more 'buff' options. Generals' War cries should be improved and potentially come with options that are either chosen in the army list or during battle. I think there have been lots of good suggestions for this in other threads on the forum.The increased movement we get already is great, but it's not enough on its own. We need things that help us do Wounds in combat (to-hit and to-wound bonuses, +1S or +1A, etc).

    The GGI is a good buff unit which is why it's common in many lists. I would argue we need one more buff unit based on other armies that have buff wagons (Empire, Saurians), but we don't really have a model or existing concept for such a unit. Therefore I'd suggest further options for characters that buff. For example, you could have an orc character called the Warchanter (or maybe not that name, since that's GW) who is our equivalent to the Empire's Prelate. He has a statline roughly equivalent to an orc chief and would be loaded out to be more survivable than killy, but he really works his unit up in combat. He could confer special rules on his unit such as Devastating Charge or Thunderous Charge (both providing big improvements to both infantry and cavalry units), maybe even a Magic Resistance to make his unit more survivable and could also cast bound spells to boost their combat skills.

    The reason why I have changed my mind to put so much focus on buffing orcs with characters and buff units is that I think it's the best way to keep orcs units cheap while still allowing them to be strong in combat. Being able to take a bunch of large orc horde units is important, and this way you could still get them at a low price. Then you'd have the option to spend extra on characters and things like the GGI to really make them dangerous in combat. The concept of spamming cheapish combat-oriented orc characters for unit buffs and potentially being able to throw out a number of cheaper bound spells, really resonates with me.
    where did you get that orcs are all right with S4 They are not. Only reason you see them at all is becouse one has to fill core with something and not everyone have enough goblin models. I think limited S5 is nececity of orcs will not get something else like second A or something. Static S5 would b ok to especially in light of our complexity strugle and would made orcs quite unique as far as 25 mm infantry goes. Right now we do not have single stat that we would excel in.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

    Retireing for unspecyfied period of time. Sometime I hate the world.
  • I'm just going based on the existing framework that exists in other army books, which is the only thing I have to compare to. There are also lots of changes coming so a rebalance may occur that completely changes things.

    I disagree with you that S4 orcs aren't good enough. S4 is (to my knowledge) the highest strength of any core troop. Additionally, as far as I know BtF is the only army-wide rule that gives a flat bonus to Strength, apart from core dwarf units that have Thunderous Charge. I have difficulty accepting that orcs are not only as strong as Ogre core, they are actually stronger than them in the first round. It doesn't fit thematically to me. Core Orcs aren't supposed to excel at anything. They are supposed to be relentless, overwhelming the enemy in numbers (which for core units means being cheap). You can get 50 orcs for the same price as 30 saurus.

    Many army book's combat-oriented core entries have access to weapons that boost Strength (gws, halberds or flails). Orcs don't have this, so a possible solution would be to grant them access to better weapons.

    My preferred solution is to give them special rules. And since I think it's important to preserve the low model cost in a horde army, I proposed giving these special rules to other units (characters, buff units) instead.
  • jmoddle wrote:

    I'm just going based on the existing framework that exists in other army books, which is the only thing I have to compare to. There are also lots of changes coming so a rebalance may occur that completely changes things.

    I disagree with you that S4 orcs aren't good enough. S4 is (to my knowledge) the highest strength of any core troop. Additionally, as far as I know BtF is the only army-wide rule that gives a flat bonus to Strength, apart from core dwarf units that have Thunderous Charge. I have difficulty accepting that orcs are not only as strong as Ogre core, they are actually stronger than them in the first round. It doesn't fit thematically to me. Core Orcs aren't supposed to excel at anything. They are supposed to be relentless, overwhelming the enemy in numbers (which for core units means being cheap). You can get 50 orcs for the same price as 30 saurus.

    Many army book's combat-oriented core entries have access to weapons that boost Strength (gws, halberds or flails). Orcs don't have this, so a possible solution would be to grant them access to better weapons.

    My preferred solution is to give them special rules. And since I think it's important to preserve the low model cost in a horde army, I proposed giving these special rules to other units (characters, buff units) instead.
    I think a lot of core attacks at S5+. Ogres with great weapons, High born elf lancers, longbeards... S4 and born to fight is entirely in line with these other units.

    Now I haven't added up all the options but I would guess that the number of armies that don't get a consistent S4 attack in core are actually more rare than those armies that do get access to situational or temporary S5 attacks in core.

    Off the top of my head BH, VC, HbE, DE, UD and OnG don't get access to consistent S4. S5+ situational in core goes to HbE, DH, ID, Warriors, KoE, DL, EoS, SA (if you count the Caiman)...

    I would say that with +1S and the same born to fight Boar Riders might warrant a move to special.
  • S4 orcs are good enough, but only when everything works out just right. Comparing them to say ogres makes them seem ok maybe even too good at S4. But ogres don't lose attacks every wound only every 3rd, they are also immune to stomps and have move 6 but just as importantly they put out 24 to 32 attacks at 160mm frontage, even against a narrow opposing frontage of 80mm. This is where the S4 or hell even S6 doesn't do enough for orcs IMO. Their units are too large and slow and that is not represented in damage output or staying power. And by that I don't mean punching bag rating.

    As BB suggested I think we need a topic dedicated to 25mm infantry. I think maybe they need to be the step between infantry and MI.

    I like the idea of preferred enemy on orcs btw and I've suggested similar. Only now I'm thinking bigger picture to include all 25mm infantry. 30 saurus are better than 50 orcs btw, at least in my experience with and against.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • jmoddle wrote:

    I'm just going based on the existing framework that exists in other army books, which is the only thing I have to compare to. There are also lots of changes coming so a rebalance may occur that completely changes things.

    I disagree with you that S4 orcs aren't good enough. S4 is (to my knowledge) the highest strength of any core troop. Additionally, as far as I know BtF is the only army-wide rule that gives a flat bonus to Strength, apart from core dwarf units that have Thunderous Charge. I have difficulty accepting that orcs are not only as strong as Ogre core, they are actually stronger than them in the first round. It doesn't fit thematically to me. Core Orcs aren't supposed to excel at anything. They are supposed to be relentless, overwhelming the enemy in numbers (which for core units means being cheap). You can get 50 orcs for the same price as 30 saurus.

    Many army book's combat-oriented core entries have access to weapons that boost Strength (gws, halberds or flails). Orcs don't have this, so a possible solution would be to grant them access to better weapons.

    My preferred solution is to give them special rules. And since I think it's important to preserve the low model cost in a horde army, I proposed giving these special rules to other units (characters, buff units) instead.
    A lot of armies have acces to S4, S5 and S6 in core. I struggle to find one that does not have S 4 at least. As for ogres bear in mind that bigger not always means stronger. In case of orcs both their unusual fizjology as well as muscle to size ratio can play a role. On top of that ogre would use a lot of his muscle power to actually move his massive body. Provided ogres are descendants of humans they propably reached limit on how big human type body and bones can handle which in turn means much of their strength is used just for them to function. Similarly to sumo wrestlers they are. It particularly strong but when they gain momentum they are very hard to stop.

    Problem is many people wiem orcs same as goblins. Thing that will work as cheap disposable bodies. I want horde tactics too but going for as cheap as possible will not work for orcs as seen but their currrent predicament. Due to large bases, crappy I m mediocre WS and low A orcs need something to make them Killy otherwhise they are just obercosted more unwieldy goblins.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

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

    S4 orcs are good enough, but only when everything works out just right. Comparing them to say ogres makes them seem ok maybe even too good at S4. But ogres don't lose attacks every wound only every 3rd, they are also immune to stomps and have move 6 but just as importantly they put out 24 to 32 attacks at 160mm frontage, even against a narrow opposing frontage of 80mm. This is where the S4 or hell even S6 doesn't do enough for orcs IMO. Their units are too large and slow and that is not represented in damage output or staying power. And by that I don't mean punching bag rating.

    As BB suggested I think we need a topic dedicated to 25mm infantry. I think maybe they need to be the step between infantry and MI.

    I like the idea of preferred enemy on orcs btw and I've suggested similar. Only now I'm thinking bigger picture to include all 25mm infantry. 30 saurus are better than 50 orcs btw, at least in my experience with and against.
    Imho there is no issue with 25mm infantry. Saurus see a lot of play, Wastelands see play, even Barbarians are played. I think the problem is not a general 25mm one, but a simple OnG internal balance thing.

    I am highly convinced that even some very small buffs are enough to push Orcs above the threshold of competitive usefulness (even without bows).
  • arwaker wrote:

    Stygian wrote:

    S4 orcs are good enough, but only when everything works out just right. Comparing them to say ogres makes them seem ok maybe even too good at S4. But ogres don't lose attacks every wound only every 3rd, they are also immune to stomps and have move 6 but just as importantly they put out 24 to 32 attacks at 160mm frontage, even against a narrow opposing frontage of 80mm. This is where the S4 or hell even S6 doesn't do enough for orcs IMO. Their units are too large and slow and that is not represented in damage output or staying power. And by that I don't mean punching bag rating.

    As BB suggested I think we need a topic dedicated to 25mm infantry. I think maybe they need to be the step between infantry and MI.

    I like the idea of preferred enemy on orcs btw and I've suggested similar. Only now I'm thinking bigger picture to include all 25mm infantry. 30 saurus are better than 50 orcs btw, at least in my experience with and against.
    Imho there is no issue with 25mm infantry. Saurus see a lot of play, Wastelands see play, even Barbarians are played. I think the problem is not a general 25mm one, but a simple OnG internal balance thing.
    I am highly convinced that even some very small buffs are enough to push Orcs above the threshold of competitive usefulness (even without bows).
    In itself propably it is not a problem. In combination with rest of crappy stats (in comparison to aftermentionte Saurians and WDG) it is a problem.

    As for small buff. It might be the case. I do not think so but I could be wrong. That is why I think small changes should be implemented as early as possible (2.0 not at AB realease) to be true to small steps policy which would IMO benefit O&G greratly.

    Best regards
    Sklodo
    Best regards
    Sklodo

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

    Stygian wrote:

    S4 orcs are good enough, but only when everything works out just right. Comparing them to say ogres makes them seem ok maybe even too good at S4. But ogres don't lose attacks every wound only every 3rd, they are also immune to stomps and have move 6 but just as importantly they put out 24 to 32 attacks at 160mm frontage, even against a narrow opposing frontage of 80mm. This is where the S4 or hell even S6 doesn't do enough for orcs IMO. Their units are too large and slow and that is not represented in damage output or staying power. And by that I don't mean punching bag rating.

    As BB suggested I think we need a topic dedicated to 25mm infantry. I think maybe they need to be the step between infantry and MI.

    I like the idea of preferred enemy on orcs btw and I've suggested similar. Only now I'm thinking bigger picture to include all 25mm infantry. 30 saurus are better than 50 orcs btw, at least in my experience with and against.
    Imho there is no issue with 25mm infantry. Saurus see a lot of play, Wastelands see play, even Barbarians are played. I think the problem is not a general 25mm one, but a simple OnG internal balance thing.
    I am highly convinced that even some very small buffs are enough to push Orcs above the threshold of competitive usefulness (even without bows).
    Seeing play is somewhat of a biased result when the choices are limited and mandatory.

    Can you elaborate on why you feel 25mm is not a problem. Or more to the point, do you feel there is no difference between 20mm and 25mm infantry?
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • I can. We have made list building statistics over several tournaments (not only EZC). We looked deep into which units people brought. We could not find any systematic under-use of 25mm infantry. Even if considering that core is mandatory, there still have been enough examples showing people did use signifcantly more 25mm infantry than necessary.

    We could find several 25mm infantry units that are very unpopular (Temple Guard). And in some cases the 25mm units were only taken with specific equipment (Orcs with bows). Many configurations of 25mm units are unpopular.

    But there is no evidence in tournament list data that 25mm infantry has a general problem with popularity.There are problems with specific units or configurations, but this is the case also for 20mm infantry (Blades of Nabh for example and many more).
  • 25mm isn't a problem. 25mm on melee models that don't have the stats to justify the base size is a problem.

    My experiences of 25 mm is that these units have two generic weaknesses and some orc specific ones.

    The generic weaknesses I find particularly painful are that you can engage with a 5 wide unit of 20mm models and still have space on either side to combo charge with a chariot or monster. With elite units that can generate CR through casualties it is less of a problem. For cheap per model units potential loss of steadfast and losing combat is tough.

    The other generic problem is the simple 7 wide 20mm unit. 7 attacks against either dimension of 5wide unit. 7 supporting attacks. If the 25mm unit goes wider then it does less well vs narrower frontages.

    Then there are the orc specific problems. Low ld means space near the general is important and wide units use more. Low movement is an issue - longer wheel distances is another problem.

    25mm wide isn't a problem for elite units like cavalry or saurus, but is a serious, serious problem for lower power per model troops, low ld troops and slow troops
  • Well put there Throgg. Thats what I'm getting at but I feel it is more general.
    Maybe not though since your right.. most of the 25mm units ARE rather elite.

    Hell even wotdg garbarian hordes get cra cra with their dirt cheap wrath frenzy flail madness. These guys are ok but look at the stats to see why:

    645 buys 40 perma frenzy guys with s,m, in horde formation with +1 to hit and always S5 at i3 with ws4. In core. And you can spam them only 1 gets the frenzy banner.

    By comparison 740 pts buys only 30 FOEs with s,m, spears. S5 first turn only. At i2 with ws4. 1 unit only.


    Edit- and if these two met on the field (back to picking your battles with mv 4 25mm infantry) then the FOES get their world rocked losing 18.5 bodies before they strike. Then they do 9 wounds lose frenzy and flee the field.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • Take paired weapons on eadbashers and make calculation for that.
    Orcs will do 28 wounds on average.
    Barbarians do 15 wounds on average, striking simultaneously with orcs.
    And that is assuming that barbs reach such combat untouched.

    So please do not present unlikely scenarios to prove your point. Feral orc eadbashers are actually very solid unit and see play, as opposed to barbarians.

    It is the non eadbasher orcs that are too weak.
  • Hmm actually PW FOEs do 20.83 vs 14.81 by the barbarians.
    Thats round 1 vs a 100 pts cheaper enemy though. And thats only 40 barbarians they can still add 10 models meaning they win that encounter (in subsequent rd the FOEs do 11.66 wounds leaving the barbarians at 18 models. The barbs in return completely obliterate the FOEs). Not to mention pw are not optimal configurtion across the field. Spears are.

    I agree FOEs don't need 'help' they need higher model limit. The rest need help.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.