Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

why is this army so bad in you opinion? its great looking army with lots of warriety

They suffer from Animosity, which is pretty much the biggest handicap any army could have.

Unless you're a Black Orc player like me. It's much more controlled.

whats Animosity?

You have to roll a die every turn, and if you roll a 1, you lose.

wow if it isn´t joke thats really horrible

I built and painted a large, great looking Orc army when the current book came out. Played it for a year, and then gladly sold it, and quit playing WFB. Orcs will do that to you.

Animosity is an Orc army special rule that is meant to reflect the Orc’s feral nature. So, every turn most Orc units check to see if they either Squabble (not move or do anything at all) or make an uncontrolled movement towards the closest visible enemy. The problem inherent with this rule is that the chance of one of these results happening is one-in-three, which is way too great. The effect is the Orc’s battle line is always disrupted; making advances difficult without exposing flanks. This leads to the next big problem…

The latest version of the game is dominated by Breaking and Panic, IF an army Breaks or Panics. If an army does not Break or Panic, (Vampires, Daemons, new armies with lot’s of ways to enhance leadership), the army has a huge advantage over those that do B&P. The advantage is so great it calls into question whether the game designers actually play this game. Orcs have no way to ameliorate Break and Panic, except to build a Savage Orc army, which brings in another set of troubles. This places Orcs nearly at the bottom of the power ladder. This would not be so bad if Orcs could consistently win combats, but…

Though they are an army composed of what are supposed to be combat monsters, the average Orc is no better a fighter than the average human swordsman. Orc leaders are not better than human leaders. Basically, this is an army with average combat capability, except maybe Savage Orcs. So, the army slogs across the battlefield, getting shot up, magiked, and fighting Animosity the whole way, only to maybe win a combat, or maybe not. Loosing any combat can be devastating due to the current Panic rules. Oh, Orc magic?…

It was very erratic, but very devastating in the last army book. Now, it is very erratic and only so-so. Usually, it is more cost effective and safer to simply bring some anti-magic.

The Orc army does look great, but it is fundamentally flawed. WFB is a game of maneuver, and the Orcs suffer an adverse army rule that disrupts maneuver. It’s the only adverse army-wide rule. The rule is too disruptive. The guy who designed the current version could not have been play tested the rule. Otherwise, it would have been readily apparent that to offset each advantage with an equivalent disadvantage makes for a poor army. Yes, it can win games, but not consistently. Yes, Orcs should be erratic. Yes, every experienced Orc player has an oh-so-funny story of how his Wolf Riders charged on their own, lost the combat, and drew Chaos Chosen to within charge range of his general’s unit’s flank, causing a Panic avalanche that cost him half his army on turn three. Hur, hur. No, loosing due to silly, repetitive random events does not make for long-term gaming enjoyment.

The good news is there are always fully painted Orc armies for sale at reasonable prices.

uf thats really horrible ruling and design of an army

The Orc and Goblin army is fine, only Boyz woorf 'dere teef play 'em.

Though, mind you, they are far from competitive. Still, they're fine, IMHO. Why everyone complains is beyond me. It's obvious they're not competitive, but they're the most fun, IMHO.

bendercz wrote:why is this army so bad in you opinion? its great looking army with lots of warriety

I think we can safely assume you are referring to their competitiveness. If you want to play a super-tuned list, then it neatly falls into the "don't even bother looking at them" list.

If you are looking to play an army for fun and have some interesting battles, then they are definately worth looking into.


- Blackbone

Instead of asking yourself

"Why is my army so bad" and "When are those bums at GW going to start playtesting their stuff"

You could ask "What can I do to become more competitive tactically?" or "Is there anything I'm missing about my list?"

Because anyone that complains about not being able to blindly push their models forward and win in combat when they finally get there, when they are super, dooper cheap... is sorta missing the point IMO.

Orcs are fun for a while, sure, but after a few months I decided I'd like to have a chance at victory. I've quit playing fantasy battles because no matter how much I tool out my 'uber' units they are easily beaten by almost anything chaos, high elves, vampires, or wood elves throw at them (those are my main opponents).

Its not like orcs can even get close to competing in any other phase. Our only skirmishers have random movement, meaning that their charge range ranges from awesome to horribly insignificant. My wizards have had their heads blown up by 'fun' orc miscasts almost as many times as they've had to sit in a unit twiddling their thumbs for a turn while they suffer animosity. Goblin bolt throwers aren't bad but they aren't game winners.

no i don´t want army that is uber or something like that, i like army that will award me for playing well a clever, using tactics etc.

But this Animosity ruins your tactics

And i didn´t know their weakness in the first place so i asked why they are so bad in your opinion....

And i also asked because theay got many different models and looks nice

bendercz wrote:no i don´t want army that is uber or something like that, i like army that will award me for playing well a clever, using tactics etc.

But this Animosity ruins your tactics

And i didn´t know their weakness in the first place so i asked why they are so bad in your opinion....

And i also asked because theay got many different models and looks nice

Skaven sounds like the best choice ( new codex comming soon too? )

Average to woeful infantry in a game dominated by cav or high movement infantry, that is overpriced by 1-2 points per model compared to any of the last 4 army books.

Fanatics that die when they touch a hill.

Horrendously overpriced medium cavalry.

Pump wagons that should be doing 3d6 mvt per turn to be worthwhile.

Really poor leadership in a game dominated by psychology.

Wow. You guys make me sad that I still love my ladz. On the other hand, you are boosting my ego something fierce, because I can win games with the them too. So I will go with the majority opinion and agree that the army is vastly underpowered compared to newer, more recent armies. And therefore, I am a tactical genius! Go Greenies!!

I all seriousness, orcs are a model for the 'before' picture on 'What is codex creep?' They used to be good, now they are outdated... But they are random and fun!

Gobstomp420 wrote:Wow. You guys make me sad that I still love my ladz. On the other hand, you are boosting my ego something fierce, because I can win games with the them too. So I will go with the majority opinion and agree that the army is vastly underpowered compared to newer, more recent armies. And therefore, I am a tactical genius! Go Greenies!!

I all seriousness, orcs are a model for the 'before' picture on 'What is codex creep?' They used to be good, now they are outdated... But they are random and fun!

Gobstomp, you an' me are da only greenies left.

Cryonicleech wrote:

Gobstomp420 wrote:Wow. You guys make me sad that I still love my ladz. On the other hand, you are boosting my ego something fierce, because I can win games with the them too. So I will go with the majority opinion and agree that the army is vastly underpowered compared to newer, more recent armies. And therefore, I am a tactical genius! Go Greenies!!

I all seriousness, orcs are a model for the 'before' picture on 'What is codex creep?' They used to be good, now they are outdated... But they are random and fun!

Gobstomp, you an' me are da only greenies left.

Mate I'm using Night Goblins!

But they will be expanding with Blck Orcs and regular orcs later in the year.

O&G was a competative army, up until HEs, then they dropped right back. Also one of the problems is that they have been around so long, everone knows how to neutralise them.

Saying that O&G were competitive untill the release of HE does not say anything about the O&G armybook but speaks volumes about the inbalance of the newer armybooks compared to some of the older ones.

IMO GW actually did very well with the O&G this edition, I'd say they're for the most a *GASP* balanced army! Even their traditional fun opponents the Empire got the undercosted War Altar and the easy access to (multiple) Steam Tanks so it's easy to see the list as weak.

I think it's one of the few that GW got right. Animosity can blow chunks but its one of those things that are pack and parcel with this army. So O&G are definately not for competitive gamers. They're excellent for fun gamers though, whose opponents appreciate the fact that everybody is playing a game they enjoy and that this means that going for cooky cutter optimized builds are not what the game is about.

For friendly games I don't bring out the Waltar and Stank(s) to play. Why? Because it's the boring choice.

I play this game for fun, even in tournaments. That doesn't mean that I purposely handicap my list but I don't like bringing the boring choice either. People even expect the boring choices and know how to counter them, while innovative tactics can unbalance their style of play.

Anyway, enough of the soapbox talk.

Determine why you play the game and in what kind of playing environment you'll use the army. Then determine what army you like, keeping the previous things in mind.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:


Gobstomp, you an' me are da only greenies left.

Mate I'm using Night Goblins!

That's it! THe three of us should join up for a super-Waaagh (TM) and smash the non greenies! We could call it...

WAAAGH CryoStomp LeechGonads! Who's with me?

I'm with you, but only as an opponent.

I just love Empire vs O&G matches, they're always great fun!

I had a great one just a few weeks ago. I had just killed a Giant with help from the Sword of Fate and through clever manouvering (and the sacrifice of a knight unit to eat some fanatics) I'd set up a flank charge with 2 knight units (one containing a Templar Grand Master) into two different Orc regiments. Breakthrough with my General's unit was very likely and the other unit should at least have won the combat. This would ahve allowed me an overrun with my General into another Orc unit that was already engaged with another knight unit that had just taken the charge of another Orc infantry unit (I was playing a cavalry army and he infantry heavy Orcs) and held due to the Rod of Command.

Unfortunately my TGM and all the Knights proved to be utterly inept while the Orcs turned into armour cracking killers! I lost both combats, broke and the rest was history. Soon my whole army fell apart and washed away in a tide of green bodies. In the end only my General was left with an accompanying knight and 5 Outriders.

Last time I played Empire with the NGs I almost tabled his all cav (except for great cannon) leaving a stem tank with 2 wounds and Karl Franz on horse with1 wound.

Dwarfs, Empire and O&G are excellently balanced against each other and the best games come amongst those opponents, however an all shooty camping dwarf army is universally annoying. :(

Sounds like fun Waaaagh!

Back in the days of yore, it was accepted that O&G weren't that great. They were just regarded as a fun army to play that didn't always win because of their sheer randomness. In fact, in any WD battle report involving orcs (or indeed orks), they almost always lost.

Now, in a tournament obsessed world, people demand that an army list be capable of winning every single game (which is an oxymoronic demand at that).

The main complaint of tournament gamers (actually just about every WHFB gamer I meet) is that they don't want armies that win every game. They want ones that are competative and win by superior playing, rather than be slowed special rules, undercosted items and too powerful spells (DEs, VCs, Daemons).

Gonads and I are on the same page. I hate the idea of a point-and-click army that you must simply point at the foe to destroy. 40K has that problem a lot and it is why I love fantasy more. Sure, the ladz are underpowered right now. But that is where sneaky tactics and manuvering, (and not a little luck) come in. I have had NG archers defeat and run down chaos knights. On the other hand I have had 4 flesh hounds kill a giant who then fell on both another giant and a unit of goblins killing the giant a 6 goblins, causing the little guys to flee. It's all part of the random fun of the greenies.

Blackbone wrote:

bendercz wrote:why is this army so bad in you opinion? its great looking army with lots of warriety

I think we can safely assume you are referring to their competitiveness. If you want to play a super-tuned list, then it neatly falls into the "don't even bother looking at them" list.

If you are looking to play an army for fun and have some interesting battles, then they are definately worth looking into.


- Blackbone

Except that you can have fun with other armies and still be competative. Those aren't mutually exclusive, except with O&G. If interesting means having silly events determine the outcome of the battle (instead of the skills of the players), the cheapest thing to do is to play against somebody else's Orc army.

But that is where sneaky tactics and manuvering, (and not a little luck) come in.

O&G do not get this ability.

Carefully setup O&G "maneuvering" and counter punches are easily stopped by rolling a 1 or a 6 on any unit with 5 or more models (ie. the vast majority of your army).

This is why a large number of people don't play O&G, because their randomness is not counter balanced by superior combat prowess or low cost.

You could be the best player in a room of 100 people in a GT, but with the Current O&G book, you could have one dice roll turn up a 1 or a 6 and effectively lose the game because it exposed a flank, or denied a charge, which can roll your whole army.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:You have to roll a die every turn, and if you roll a 1, you lose.

QFT.

Gobbla's experience pretty much exactly mirrors my own. My Orcs and Goblins (235 fully painted models) are sitting on a shelf in my closet until I see whether 8th edition will make them worth playing.

I've been working on a Wood Elf army, but honestly the crappiness of the current O&G rules and the ridiculous power imbalances that have developed since 7th ed. came out have pretty much convinced me to just play 40K and Warmachine from now on.

Time to delurk to defend my greenies.
As others have noted they are not a super-uber-omfg-zap army.
But the the sheer fun and variety is what attracted me to them.
My mates play VC HE DOC and skaven and I will admitting when we meet up I am usually in for a face kicking,
but i have also won against them.
My boar boys have so many times been lined up for a perfect flank charge only to discover
that "OI yuz stole my axe" and then continue to fight among themselves.
One thing I do find a bit annoying is the sheer lack of power in the Lords section compared to DOC,
they and others can field a Lord that can take a look at my poor orcs and just go "yumm lunch"
before they gobble up a stupid number of models.
Still I love my greenies and I would happily recommend them to anyone who will be playing in a friendly
non competitive enviroment.
Just my tupence on O&G

WAFFLE ALERT WEAFFLE ALERT uh oh that red light again time to lurk back into a hole and wait for some dorfs to ambush.

I totally agree with Gobbla. If you're asking what's so bad with O&G, IMO, it's GW themselves.
This is a personal experience, so for Ragnar4 and anyone else who thinks we, O&G players are just complaining, think again.
You guys should try the army itself and prove us wrong.

I first started playing O&G because of the Grumlok & Gazbag figure from WHO, they look menacing, in the comic & game they're very powerful. The O&G lore, ...."civilization" and fluff just clicked with me. They're WHFB's hooligans and I love them. At first, I do the usual routine, asking my friends, veterans and organizers in my LGS about the O&G's competitiveness. They said they are, they said that WHFB's races are balanced.... After being assured like that, I continue on and started buying battle for skull pass for the goblins, a batallion, & other stuff

a simple 1k pts game against a friend's VC army proved that it was a big friggin' lie. An anti magic list I made later can minimize the damage, but I still lost at the end. The incredibly wide power gap is just ridiculous

They really need to update the army book, nerf VC & Daemons and change the whole psychology and leadership system. There's just no cure to O&G's horrendous flaws. Animosity is one thing, but this... this is too much. I just hope the change will happen... if not, the $350-400 I spent for O&G will be for naught.