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.

Animosity
because
as the greenskins are likely to squabble amongst themselves at the drop of a hat, so too O&G players are likely to squabble about Animosity!

You know it makes sense

Think that is the thing Wehrkind.
I maybe wrong but there is no equivalent negative "characterful" attribute among the other armies?
So it neads to have some compensation to buffer the O&G.
Or else a similar thing for the other armies (not gonna happen)

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
I maybe wrong but there is no equivalent negative "characterful" attribute among the other armies?

Well technically there the undead crumbling but not too much opposition to that

kenshin620 wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
I maybe wrong but there is no equivalent negative "characterful" attribute among the other armies?

Well technically there the undead crumbling but not too much opposition to that

Because they have all the benefits of being undead as well. Ignoring the majority of the Psychology rules is a very powerful up-side.

There is no up-side to animosity as it stands.

Mr Mystery wrote:You forgot Option 4. Realise that if winning is everything to you, you might not want to play Orcs and Gobbos.

Why should orc players feel they have to play at a handicap to other races? Yes, I play to win, as I do at every game I play from checkers to videogames. Playing to win doesn't mean OMG hardcore tourney player! Warhammer, when boiled down, is a game of strategy and tactics, wanting to win shouldn't be a crime.

There's a difference between WAAC and playing to win, people seem to want to clump those together into a generalized statement these days.

I shouldn't be slammed as being WAAC for wanting a change to what is evidenced as a clear handicap with no upside, no other army rule in all of fantasy is structured as such.

No one (that I have seen) has asked to have the rule removed, just altered to not be such a complete hindrance. My last game of warhammer I played my empire against an orc list, the game was essentially over from the the start as his unit bunkering his lvl 4 spent two turns squabbling before fleeing off the table due to a comet, if that unit was free to move, they could have been the first unit inside the watchtower (the mission we were playing) and took a high advantage as I didn't have much that could have gotten that mob out of there, instead the game was essentially a massacre with him not being able to do anything.

Anyway, rant over.


I'm hoping with the official announcement, more rumors will surface, though I doubt anything substantial will be out till late January at the earliest.

I am especially curious how this new night goblin detachment character will work, obviously he'll be hiding like a fanatic? I wonder how they will make it worth more than just a very poor man's assassin.

yeah but some of us like playing the greenskins because of the crazy fun factor.
Why should we be denied our hilarity.

Having said that, tbh I can understand the frustration.
It will be a difficult one to resolve to keep both parties happy. So here's hoping the new codex pulls the squigg out of the hat. (do Orcs wear hats?)

OnG still have plenty of stuff to make them entertaining, it's why I still play them, there's:

Squig herd explosions
Doom divers
Fanatics
Nets (it's hilarious when other people's S3 troops have to wound your night goblins on 5s, or elite chaos warriors wound you on 4s)
Kamikaze goblin heroes (mounted with the trinket that goes boom and the one hit wunda - had this take out a unit of chaos knights!)

Actually, I find animosity to be one of the least fun things about them, as I stated earlier, it just doesn't make any sense, even from a fluff stand point.

Why are the greenskins getting yet another incoming! ? isnt it time for the tomb kings yet at all maybe ill actually be interested in WHFB then cause I love them but not if everyone else is updated and the kings are left...in the dust

sounds cool. But whats that crazy spider thing going to look like if its going to be that big Better wait and find out i guess

Goblins with bows (not Short bows) would be a positive step-has anyone ever done any damage with shortbows?
I would also like to see wider options of greatweapons-this to me would be the weapon of choice for most orscs (and trolls and giants) rather than the chopper.

Mr Mystery wrote:You forgot Option 4. Realise that if winning is everything to you, you might not want to play Orcs and Gobbos.

See, that's what get's players furious. You seem to make the choice one of "Winning is all that matters!!!" or "I just play to push around pieces of plastic before I lose." Is there no possibility of a middle ground, where a player wants an army that isn't auto-lose, but isn't game breaking? Is it too much to ask that Orcs get to play games where the actual skill of the general matters more than a random special rule? Or is every player who likes the fluff of Orcs and Greenskins required to consign himself to never winning except by dumb luck in order to play?

Winning doesn't have to be everything, but it is nice to be able to do it every once in a while when playing a competitive game. Losing because your army has a very troublesome special rule that is extremely difficult to work around is not fun by any stretch of the imagination. If your actions and your opponent's are not the prime decider in who wins the game, it is a poorly designed game.

Let's see, I think you still failed to see why the animosity is on the army rules in the first place. The animosity is there to compensate the fact that orcs had better stats than humans (mostly because the T4), and they cost the same.
I play with orcs, and I've managed to won tournaments with them. Just mitigate the animosity with black orc bosses, and you'll be fine. In 8th edition this is even more true, because 1d6 S5 hits aren't very troublesome for units of 25+ orcs. And if you're in combat they are no animosity checks.

In 8th I've fount the orcs could be the most fastest army in the game. Start with a march movement of 8". On second turn scream waaagh! with your general, if you have large infantry orc units with a black orc boss in it, you will move 2d6" on a roll of 2+ (on a roll of 1, just take 1d6 S5 and you can move later on movement phase). Then march 8" again. Now in the magic Phase cast Waaagh! (with 6 dice and power scroll), so all your orc units will move 2d6", rerolling misses to hit and having ASF. So you can move 16+4d6" on two turns. From 20" to 40".

Please stop whining and start playing. I play orcs because of the animosity if I wanted an stable and powerfull army, then I choosed Chaos.

What about all goblin lists? Even with black orcs, now you have an army designing itself to taking atleast 1D6 S5 hits every turn if you have more than 6 units? (very likely with orcs).

Also, having to take those black orcs limits the character options. OnG have around 14 character choices, so now we're limited to 2? (black orc warboss/big boss) Sounds like a great idea....

And the strategy you listed can be mitigated with the easiest of strategies, an extra D6" move for a turn, especially if not used fora surprise charge, isn't going to accomplish too much.

That's great you've won a tournament with orcs, I have too, doesn't mean they're adequate. I've heard of necron players and tomb kings players winning tournaments also, does that mean those codexes/armybooks are ok?

It's not whining, it's more of constructive criticism of a poorly designed rule. I play orcs because I love their mentality, what I don't like is an army wide rule that doesn't even make any sense, realistic or fluff wise. I've already stated why, so I'm not going to repeat it.

As far as comparing them to empire troops, even without animosity the comparisons are pretty similar, orcs get +1T, empire get either +1S (halberd) extra attacks (either spears or free company) and all have +1I. And if you give the orcs shields, now compare to swordsmen, same points and get +2I and +1WS. Now tack on animosity, and orcs become very over-costed.

compared with swordsmen orcs also have +1S on first round.
Chances for a orc to wound a swordsmen: 23% (4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 6+ to save, 6+ to save)
Chances for a swordsmen to wound a orc: 12% (3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, 5+ to save, 6+ to save)

Sure they are even? really? I think not.

Still I won more games than I lost with orcs, and I'm not always use black orc bosses.

I don't want to be the new daemon army. I prefer to struggle to win using my strategy than just win because an OP armybook. If you want orcs without animosity then I suggest to look into 40k.

I also miss the 5th edition rule that force you to take a panic test when your general died, that makes a lot of sense on ocs according with the fluff. But I guess it never going to come back.

novice wrote:

I don't want to be the new daemon army. I prefer to struggle to win using my strategy than just win because an OP armybook. If you want orcs without animosity then I suggest to look into 40k..

Thanks for proving you don't read past posts. NO ONE in this thread has asked to remove it, only make it less game changing, or even actually add a positive to it. Also, no one is saying they want to be overpowered, we just want an even playing field when we hit the table.

and as to your example, put together a real combat scenario:

25 orcs, full command vs 25 swordsmen, full command: (numbers rounded to nearest whole number to make this faster)

First round:
Swordsmen swing first needing 3s with 11 attacks - 8 hits - 3 wounds - 2 past saves
Orcs swing back needing 4s to hit with 11 attacks - 6 hits - 4 wounds - 3 past saves

orcs win first round, as expected

Second round:
Swordsmen swing first needing 3s with 11 attacks - 8 hits - 3 wounds - 2 past saves
Orcs swing back needing 4s to hit with 11 attacks - 6 hits - 3 wounds - 2 past saves


So the advantage is only in the first round, my argument wasn't that they *are* equal, but that they are *close* which is proved about. Does animosity really balance it out? It's like using a nuke to kill a fly, a little overkill as far as balance.

once again, I'll say this as I'm sure you didn't read it...NO ONE wants animosity removed, just changed to not be a pure negative effect.

EDIT: sigh...I can't believe I've been letting a troll get to me.

Orcs + Gobs should get hatred - in the background it has always said they hate everyone.
Also if gobs fear elves why dont humans fear almost everything? in the real world people would be scared stiff of orcs, undead, skaven, beastmen, lizards etc-of all these only undead get the rules why? In the background many imperial citizens believe these creatures to be the stuff of legends so to be confronted with them in the flesh would be poop inducing.

Make black orc units quell squabbling like back in 6th and you will see animosity rants disappear faster than beer in a sorority girl's cup.

Mr Mystery wrote:You forgot Option 4. Realise that if winning is everything to you, you might not want to play Orcs and Gobbos.

So you're OK with just conceding every match right? If your opponent claims it will be more fun? And you don't ever at all even remotely consider if any single model at all in the entire game might ever at any point in time possibly be close to worth it's points?

Because winning is completely irrelevant to you?

Or are you just trolling the thread?

Given his grasp of grammar, I am going to suggest that he is somewhere in the larval troll stage, yea.

One other option for Animosity would be to have a 1 result in Frenzy if an enemy is within charge range, and if not result in the hits. It would still leave some uncontrollable aspects to the rule, but would at least give you a moderate bonus for getting it close to the enemy, as opposed to just sitting around while there are targets a few feet from you.

greenbay924 wrote:So the advantage is only in the first round, my argument wasn't that they *are* equal, but that they are *close* which is proved about. Does animosity really balance it out? It's like using a nuke to kill a fly, a little overkill as far as balance.

You forgot that if the orcs won by 1, the swordsmen had to check with 6 or less to stay or run for their lives, witha decent chance of failing and being cut down by the orcs.

greenbay924 wrote:once again, I'll say this as I'm sure you didn't read it...NO ONE wants animosity removed, just changed to not be a pure negative effect.

Look, let me show you the improvements to the animosity over the two last editions:

in 6th: you roll a die, if you roll a 1, then roll in the animosity table. Roll again a die, if you roll a 1 again, your unit shoots or charge another friendly unit subject to animosity. On a 2-5 the unit do nothing. On a 6 it advances.
So, you have 1/36 posibilities for turn of advancing, 1/36 of make damage to another unit (and made both unable to move) and 4/36 possibilities of your unit sit there and do nothing for 1 turn.

in 7th: much more "soft", with a 1 on the die the unid do nothing, with a 6 on the same die you advance. so 6/36 chances of advance (6 timer better than 6th), 6/36 chances of do nothing (slighty more chances than 6th), buy 0 chance of engaging your own units. I call that a real improvement.

Maybe the animosity changes again, following the "soft" tendence, maybe not, who knows. But after I read some comments it seemed to me that some people here are stating that with current animosity the orc army are crippled, and I just want to say that in my point of view they are not. They are just not so reliable as others but as a player I learned to live with it.

So.... no pics yet?

novice wrote:in 6th: you roll a die, if you roll a 1, then roll in the animosity table. Roll again a die, if you roll a 1 again, your unit shoots or charge another friendly unit subject to animosity. On a 2-5 the unit do nothing. On a 6 it advances.
So, you have 1/36 posibilities for turn of advancing, 1/36 of make damage to another unit (and made both unable to move) and 4/36 possibilities of your unit sit there and do nothing for 1 turn.

You forgot to include that the first 1/36 (the charge / shoot) only applies if such is possible, otherwise it's upgraded to the "Squabble". Furthermore, this was when your potential charge range was 8" (as opposed to 16"), I cannot quite recall if they operated under the same principle of Ruglud's (wherein LoS did not matter), and that technically it was 1/216 for the charge, 1/216 for the advance, and 1/54 for the squabble if you held any Black Orcs within 6". As opposed to now, wherein having a Black Orc in a unit provides a 0% chance for a Squabble, but does nothing for the 1/6 / 16% chance of an advancement, and a Black Orc brick (even if only one could be had / army) does not provide an area effect any more. At that time, a solitary Black Orc Hero (more often picked for Warboss, though, due to stats) and a Black Orc unit would often screen about 2/3 to the entirety of the army, so limitations in their numbers aren't quite as bad (was even better in regard to Goblins, who you would / will never put a BOrc hero in and BOrcs can't help).

novice wrote:in 7th: much more "soft", with a 1 on the die the unid do nothing, with a 6 on the same die you advance. so 6/36 chances of advance (6 timer better than 6th), 6/36 chances of do nothing (slighty more chances than 6th), buy 0 chance of engaging your own units. I call that a real improvement.

You act as though an advancing is good. Most of the time, it's neutral or negative. Do you think I want my screening Spider Riders to charge into the brick of Chaos Warriors, get reduced to one, and suddenly put a brick of Chaos Warriors in front of my General with a nice "Declare Charge" open to them next turn (or an early release of Fanatics that they CAN elect to stop for, thus not forcing them to land and take the extra D6 hits, or any hits in general for that matter?).

The advance is only good insofar as when you "control" it, and that only occurs during a Waaagh!.

novice wrote:Maybe the animosity changes again, following the "soft" tendence, maybe not, who knows. But after I read some comments it seemed to me that some people here are stating that with current animosity the orc army are crippled, and I just want to say that in my point of view they are not. They are just not so reliable as others but as a player I learned to live with it.

I'd go back to Old!Animosity style (Black Orcs in 6" quell, only happens on a 1) readily. The advance is not helpful unless all you're doing is Orc-Brick Orc-Brick Orc-Brick (and aren't bothering for tactics either, barring "ram 'em 'till they give up!") or you're using it in conjecture with a Waaagh! / you banked your unit on a 1-in-6 (meaning you made a Battleplan that specifically had a 16% chance of success in optimum conditions).

Oh yeah, one more change from animosity between editions (one that I actually AM favorable of): It went from US5 to 5 Models. US5 meant three Wolf Riders could bicker, now it needs to be 5. Much better, since that did happen now-and-then (US6 unit of three models bicker).


EDIT: Oh yeah, and do something with snotlings GW. WS2, S2, T2, W3, A3, and their current price? You can only use them as very poor screens now, and since anything short of Goblins on level terrain can be seen over Snotlings, they don't help much that way even.

Flashman wrote:Rumours of apparent substance from Warseer (i.e. Harry hints that they're accurate). They've been kicking around for a while, but not seen them here.

Book will be written by Jeremy Vetock and is scheduled for a February/March Release (I would think March as February would mean two big Fantasy releases in two months with Skaven Wave 2 in January - Woo Hoo!)

All current SCs will be kept with a few additions... Wurzzag will be back (makes sense as a model exists already) and the suggestion is two new goblin special characters

The big new army list entry is rumoured to be a giant spider known as an Arachnarok. Much like a Stegadon, it can be used either as a mount for a character or some kind of war machine (rare choice)

Not much else apart from a cryptic comment from Harry...

In 8th edition, and starting with Orcs and Goblins we can expect a whole different kind of army book. Obviously many of the same sections will be there but expect something a bit different.

The 'new format' for army books is not what people will be expecting, but trust me, it's frigging awesome!

Orcs are da biggest, da best and da 'ardest!

A bit OT but if they're dead-set on animosity it should probably just be ''affected by Stupidity for the turn on a 1'' or something. Keeps the flavor of a character keeping unruly boys in line without being quite as harsh as "on a 1 you do nothing regardless of battlefield conditions"

This soudns awesome. I don't play OnG at this moment, but will take a look at getting that arachnid mini.

MikeMcSomething wrote:A bit OT but if they're dead-set on animosity it should probably just be ''affected by Stupidity for the turn on a 1'' or something. Keeps the flavor of a character keeping unruly boys in line without being quite as harsh as "on a 1 you do nothing regardless of battlefield conditions"

The issue with this is that wizards in the unit are still unable to cast magic if they gain stupidity, I mean animosity is in essence stupidity except you don't shamble forwards, that's pretty much the only difference.

Perhaps you could do something like sacrifice d3/d6 models in the unit to negate animosity after failing. You can either accept animosity or lose some models in order to negate it. However this will have unbalanced effects on both orcs and goblins respectively, both being the antithesis of each other when it comes to unit size.

As for sacrificing, that's what Black orc characters are for.

Small update: From Darnok's summary over at Warseer:

The army book is rumoured to be hardcover, and to be a good bit bigger than the current one.
Preorders up 9th February, release of all 5th March, with 15th March possibly the 1.5 wave of Dark Eldar (Succubus heroine, Beastmaster).

We get 3 new plastic sets and 3 new blisters:
Plastic:

* Savage Orc Boyz
* Savage Orc Boar Boys
* the Aracharok Spider

Blister:

* Wurrzag on foot
* Savage Orc Great shaman on boar - He is repudetedly standing on the boar and the boar is a metal version of the new boars with slightly bigger horns and some savage orc adornements (feather/bone)
* a third blister of (yet) unknown content

According to BramGaunt this orc is featured on the next army book cover. Also this:

The Giant Spider is supposed to be able to topple a Screaming Bell without problems, regarding the size. (...)

Black Boxes should be out much sooner in the future, same goes for preorder. It fits with GW to give us a wider frame for announcements (we had GK announcement in early january). Therefor, Black Boxes for OnG should be out the first week of febuary. About 10 more day of waiting for solid infos =)

I'm torn tween Skaven and O&G. I'm thinking I'll hold out a bit to see what happens.

I'm having a hell of a time finding BFSP Goblins though.

I just hope they dont goof with the spider to much and keep it accurate.

NAVARRO wrote:I just hope they dont goof with the spider to much and keep it accurate.

Yes I agree if it doesn't look like the car sized spiders we have walking around the countryside then GW have messed up.

This O&G info better be true as it is the only way I'll paint a GW model ever again.