|
Post by bob on Feb 28, 2012 11:51:15 GMT -5
So I've played with Rod twice now using the new O&G book. I think Rod's army is very solid...there are a lot of matchups in there that I don't like vs. my army, plenty of chaff & deploys, some really hard-hitting units that I don't want to fight, some really fun spells and great lore attributes. All seem to be appropriately priced, and it looks like a solid well-balanced army...
...then you throw in this animosity thing, and 1/3 of the units don't do what you want and screw up your whole plan, and it's game - over.
I don't get it really. It seems like players are almost forced to take a bunch of BO escorts for every unit, or only take certain unit-types that don't suffer animosity.
If you were to take Animosity away completely, I think the Orcs would be a very well-balanced army that's fun to play with and against.
But with Animosity, unless you take just certain things, I don't see how you can control your own army.
I know it's fluffy and fun, but it's not fair nor balanced.
I vote we disable Animosity.
|
|
|
Post by hivemindbob on Feb 28, 2012 12:16:02 GMT -5
I can agree. Fluffy and cute, but crippling and restrictive. And as long as we dont ban Skaven Rare choices I'm happy.
|
|
|
Post by gretchinmike on Feb 28, 2012 16:18:20 GMT -5
Bobby wait till You see next weeks schedule
It's fluffy and fun yes, and also restricting. But I feel that the restrictions actually put the army book in balance. With my army I'm spending quite a bit on lords and heels to deal with animosity, but I f I don't need to spend those points then it can be a very strong force. How would you like it if I got 2 or 3 units of those big uns then bob, since that's anoutthe points I'll be saving on heels and lords. I'm app for it but that's because I'm a little in favor of them. It's the groups choice but then I can field some extreme cheese.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Feb 28, 2012 18:43:45 GMT -5
Mike you can only take one unit of bigunz. Your horde isn't any meaner than some other hordes and has a lot of counters. I think the fact that you MUST take certain units is indicative that there is no balance.
|
|
|
Post by gretchinmike on Feb 28, 2012 18:50:43 GMT -5
I can get as many big uns as I want if ci were to take a special character ( don't remember their name off hand) I just feel like there isn't a lot that can take out so many orcs, and forcing them to come in waves from animosity can help make them easier to dealt with. Although I have no experience with that.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Feb 28, 2012 19:55:09 GMT -5
We play a game with dice, so a degree of random chance is necessary to make the (Old) world go 'round. However, I'm kinda erring in favor of Bob here -- you pay points for units to use them, and you play the game to pretend you're the general of the massive Green Tide. Having a small chance of a unit failing to do something, in return for a large pay off can be cool (40k Daemon Weapons, though most people hate even that tiny mechanic). But having the vast majority of your army totally vulnerable to goofing off and not doing what you as the general want it to do must be frustrating. Makes for some silly situations, but I can't imagine it is making for consistent, fun, competitive games.
How does the current rule work? Perhaps instead of eliminating it, we can find a way to minimize it. For instance, if you fail on the roll of 1 on a d6, maybe we can make it so that it's failed on a 2 on 2d6? Keep the small element for failure there, to preserve the fluff of the army -- but minimize it so it isn't so pervasive on the battlefield. The Orc general still feels like he's in control and has (mostly) reliable units.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 1, 2012 11:41:32 GMT -5
Well, I don't own the O&G Book, but from what I'm reading elsewhere, I think Rod was just doing it wrong.
Rod, I think you were skipping the animosity test itself and going straight to the table to resolve the effect of the animosity. You may want to re-read those rules to make sure!
|
|
|
Post by hivemindbob on Mar 1, 2012 11:55:23 GMT -5
Yeah. There's a roll off first if I'm correct. On a roll of a one the unit suffers from animosity. [Source]
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Mar 1, 2012 23:07:46 GMT -5
I don't have the book in front of me, but it is very close to what I'm about to mention. Ready? Go!
Animosity, roll a dice, on a 2+ unit acts as normal.
On the roll of a 1 you failed animosity, roll again. On the roll of a 1 you attack a nearby unit that also has the animosity rule (D6 S3 hits or something like that on each unit), both units count as having failed animosity and don't do anything else. On a 2-5 you have to charge, if you cannot attempt a charge you don't do much (not sure exactly, maybe not move at all, maybe move forward in a straight line) On a 6 you surge forward a bit (D6 inches?) then charge.
|
|
|
Post by RodTheCid on Mar 6, 2012 10:52:48 GMT -5
oh crab... I think you're right I was applying the rule wrong but I'll check at lunch time
as for the rule itself I'm sure it’s a burden to play with, but if we set it up on the O&G theme it make sense, it is just the way the greenskins psyche works, you have to imagine a huge mob of undisciplined, war-minded creatures brought to the battlefield by a General who promise the chance to “smash-fings” and all of the sudden with the enemy in front he orders to hold the right flank, that although it may be highly tactical could just not set well on eager to fight Orcs; now back to the game, there are ways to “correct” this misfortunes like adding a Black Orc big boss to the ranks and use his ability to Quell Animosity, in the process he might kill one or two of his own gits but it could be useful if you definitely need that unit to do what you want
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 6, 2012 15:23:48 GMT -5
That's kind of my point, Rod...to be able to have a fair shake at things you have to include certain units and/or character types. Not cool IMO
|
|