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, troll stupidity, fanatics, doomdivers. Its all fun stuff that put some fluffy spice in the games. But ofcourse, it should also be balanced in points or possible advantage as well.

Like potent magic miscasts or cannons having misfire. Dont remember how chaos worked back then, but I know GW have been fond of doing "gain bonus or turn into a spawn" rules.

yeah, iirc intrigue was introduced in an era where GW seemed to understand "balance" to mean "if you give them a special rule that gives them a benefit, you also need to give them another special rule that gives them some penalty". The idea that they could account for the benefit by increasing points or reducing stats, etc. didnt seem to register with them.

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 lurch wrote:
what my cousins and I found with orcs in six edition was that the balance for animosity was there points cost, your average orc boy or savage orc boy unit is way cheaper then thier stats and as such you can take multiple units of them to make up for the fact that some are not doing anything on a given turn.

Exactly this; without Animosity, O&G were far too cheap and it was a core balancing feature of the list.
I will say that I hope they find a middle ground with streamlining it. The two roll system (roll once to see if you’re affected then another to see how) was cumbersome and the one-die system (one D6 roll says if you’re affected and how) was too swingy. Maybe a single 2D6 table?

IMHO the best way to do it would be:

1. Have a 2D6 table, possibly one for Orks and one for Goblins.
2. Have characters and some conditions give bonuses in the +1 or +2 range (i.e. shift the bell curve upwards) or maluses in the same range.
3. Have the table give benefits in the upper third, and don't cap at 12 but at something like 16, so that under the right circumstances you can trigger something very beneficial from animosity, but you need to think about setting that up.

Beneficial stuff in the upper range could be something like "devastating charge" on your units, getting some slain models back, spawning a new unit champion/minor hero, rallying nearby units, a free casting of a random spell from the relevant lore or something like that.

Yes, setting up smartly to limit the negatives and possibly getting benefits from Animosity sounds much more interesting than an extra Boredom Phase when you sit and watch dice decide with which of your toys you can't play.

 Darnok wrote:

 Geifer wrote:
I will say I'm a little wary after GW revealed the absence of the magic phase. The magic phase was where wizards went kablooey and you'd better believe that I want my fireworks. There's no strict need for catastrophic failure to be tied to a specific phase, but traditionally making magic and psychic powers an ability used in other phases hasn't resulted in particularly interesting or meaningful perils rules. Remains to be seen how it all shapes out, of course.

You could be right, but the point at which perils happen is not necessarily tied to magic being restricted to its own phase.

Yeah. My concern stems from the idea that if you have a full phase for magic, you'll be inclined to furnish it with more than the act of casting to justify the phase's existence. So you get rules like dice pools and miscasts, a (hopefully) tactical game of assigning your casting and dispel dice, and make it feel as engaged and fleshed out as any other phase of the game. Whereas the temptation to keep magic rules slim if it happens in another phase so as not to interrupt the expected flow. Magic missiles over mundane weapons already adds a step to the resolution of the attack. Keeping failure simple might appeal to the designers.

Like I said, we'll have to see how it goes. It's just something that came to mind immediately when I read that article. Overall I feel positive about the Old World rules we've seen so far, so hopefully that's just paranoia.

Certainly if you called it the waaagh table and one of the lower 2d6 options was animosity where X units stopped to squabble for the turn, but upper outcomes were things like 3d6 pick the highest for charges this turn, +1s in melee, gain +1 armour saves etc, you get a better outcome.

Then it becomes a reflection of the orc psyche in total rather than a focus specifically on one negative aspect.

Something like

All effects last until the next turn
2d6
2 - every Greenskin regiment suffers 1 wound
3-4 - 1d3 Greenskin units of your choice are affected by animosity this turn and may not do anything
5-6 - 1 unit suffers animosity
7-8 - army functions normally
9 - all greenskins roll 3d6 choose highest for charges
10 -all greenskins gain +1 strength
11 - all greenskins gain +1 armour
12+ - waaaaagh! All greenskins receive the effects of 9-11 this turn.

 Just Tony wrote:




Ugh. Mortal Wounds. You've given me another nonstarter strike to look out for if I ever get addled enough for someone to convince me to suddenly like random charges...

Since you have already made a big show of claiming to be out. What happens if there are mortal wounds? Do you declare to be out 'for realsies'?

 Hellebore wrote:
Certainly if you called it the waaagh table and one of the lower 2d6 options was animosity where X units stopped to squabble for the turn, but upper outcomes were things like 3d6 pick the highest for charges this turn, +1s in melee, gain +1 armour saves etc, you get a better outcome.

Then it becomes a reflection of the orc psyche in total rather than a focus specifically on one negative aspect.

Something like

All effects last until the next turn
2d6
2 - every Greenskin regiment suffers 1 wound
3-4 - 1d3 Greenskin units of your choice are affected by animosity this turn and may not do anything
5-6 - 1 unit suffers animosity
7-8 - army functions normally
9 - all greenskins roll 3d6 choose highest for charges
10 -all greenskins gain +1 strength
11 - all greenskins gain +1 armour
12+ - waaaaagh! All greenskins receive the effects of 9-11 this turn.

I see a problem with this system. The animosity is between units of rival orcs. It is hard for me to imagine a fight breaking out in one corner of the battle and another unit in the other corner getting a bonus. Also fights amongst members of the same unit should have been worked out somewhere along the march, not held simmering to break out just in time to ruin a battle against dangerous foes.

I sound like a broken record, but since 3rd is my go to version I will post the animosity rules here and how I dealt with them as an orc and goblin player.

A unit subject to animosity must test if a friendly unit is within 12" that it holds ill will towards. This is most of the army.

This test is not taken if there are enemies within 12" OR charge range; If there is a hated foes in sight; or if they are already fighting another friendly unit.

To take the test roll a D6 and add or subtract modifiers. You get to subtract any leadership bonus, but must add in +1 if there are no enemies in sight, +1 if the friendly unit pissing you off is directly in front, and +1 if it is from a different race.

On a roll of 5 or less, the unit is good. On a 6 it will shoot missiles or hurl insults at the friendly unit, and on a 7+ it will charge them.

As an orc player from the 3rd edition era I could safely deploy most units within range of my general's leadership bonus. Once out side of that range I had to avoid stacking units in front of one another and never put goblins behind orcs without a very good leader. Try to get within 12" ASAP to stop all the nonsense and just cross your fingers when you had to take the tough rolls.

If you had units ranging far on the flank really try to keep them apart. It was better to have one unit of 12 wolf riders doing a flank move instead of 2 units of 6. Most likely they would end up taking pot shots back and forth before they managed to get very far. Although the long charge range meant they got to skip the test earlier than the infantry.

It was a complex system that would really punish an orc player who did not factor it in to deployment and army composition. I often wished I could screen my orcs with goblin skirmishers but that always ended badly.

There was one really gamey move you could take that took advantage of the animosity rules. Give a hero a vampiric blade that boosted a stat for every kill. Then place that unit directly behind a unit likely to cause a failed test in an out of the way place. Usually lowly goblins with no upgrades in front of orcs. The hero mows the goblins down for a couple turns and by the time he meets the enemy he has a massively boosted stat line.

It was a good trade off. Some cheap dead goblins in exchange for an orc that could kill a dragon.

This is the sort of gimmick I now dislike 1988 was a different time and I had not grown weary of such tricks in my gaming.

I am hoping they build a decent system that lets me move forward in time a bit and not stay stuck in the past.

On the topic of O&G and animosity. With all the infantry going to 25mm bases it will finally be practical to put Orc bosses in Goblin units! I wanted to try this a couple of times but never liked to squeeze a 25mm base in with the 20mm ones, alway looked wrong.

Do you think orcs will stay on 25mm bases, those orcs didnt rank up fine, so the will go to bigger ones.

My bet is orcs will go up in base size as well.

I'm pretty sure we've already seen a photo proving that they they are. The article with some gameplay photos still has Orcs and Goblins on visibly different bases, even of they haven't said what size the Orcs are getting.

Removed - rule #1 please and enough of the off-topic - BrookM

ANYWAYS. Back to the plot!

I’m really keen to learn the mechanics behind Push Back, as if I recall the article correctly it’s being included alongside, not replacing, Break Tests and Routing as we currently know them.

Others have mentioned that mechanic existed in at least 3rd Ed, which is before my time, and of course Warmaster, where I simply can’t remember it.

Can anyone weigh in with potted versions of how it worked? I dimly remember Warmaster Combats were sustained affairs?

From a Warmaster perspective:
The first round of combat is the usual affair, +1 Attack for the charger and lots of dice rolled. Add in bonuses for ranks/flanks (Support) to determine the winner.
The loser will then Retreat, moving back 1cm for every point they lost by.
After the Retreat, the winner has several options for what to do. The fun one is a Pursuit, in which they are placed back in contact and immediately fight a second round. There are different bonuses in this Pursuit round and its very easy to turn into an absolute meatgrinder.
Results are then determined as normal. In the (pretty likely) chance that the enemy has been wiped out, the winner can elect to Advance into a second fight and even Pursue again if they keep winning. The Revolution ruleset limits units to a maximum of one Advance per turn however.

At the end of the turn, anyone not in combat is healed back to full hits so there's a definite reason not to go full-ham on Pursuit spam, but when it'll bag you a couple more stands then it's worthwhile to keep the momentum up.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
ANYWAYS. Back to the plot!

I’m really keen to learn the mechanics behind Push Back, as if I recall the article correctly it’s being included alongside, not replacing, Break Tests and Routing as we currently know them.

Others have mentioned that mechanic existed in at least 3rd Ed, which is before my time, and of course Warmaster, where I simply can’t remember it.

Can anyone weigh in with potted versions of how it worked? I dimly remember Warmaster Combats were sustained affairs?

Push back was the one thing I was anxiously awaiting clarification on. If it is a thing of beauty I may nab it as a house rule.

Tsagualsa wrote:1. Have a 2D6 table, possibly one for Orks and one for Goblins.
2. Have characters and some conditions give bonuses in the +1 or +2 range (i.e. shift the bell curve upwards) or maluses in the same range.
3. Have the table give benefits in the upper third, and don't cap at 12 but at something like 16, so that under the right circumstances you can trigger something very beneficial from animosity, but you need to think about setting that up.

Beneficial stuff in the upper range could be something like "devastating charge" on your units, getting some slain models back, spawning a new unit champion/minor hero, rallying nearby units, a free casting of a random spell from the relevant lore or something like that.

Or make it "1D6 + leadership + rare extra modifier" and then compare the result to a table of potential effects that fit the range. That way leadership becomes a bit more useful and those units that get their Ld from the Lord (around the core of the army) are less unruly and more motivated as they know what happens if they don't behave. Due to the wider range of Ld in an O&G army it would have a somewhat similar spread as 2D6 but also depend on how much of a misfit the unity type is. At the lower end there could be results for the more feral types and further up for the more Waaagh motivated ones.

When it comes to the table then I'd not just put all the bad stuff at the bottom and good stuff on the top but mix it up a bit. Give them potential for small upside somewhere in the lower numbers between a bunch of bad results and on the opposite maybe add a high risk/reward (with potential for a negative) result among all the somewhat beneficial ones. Give them a bit of fun random ness and not just "low = bad, high = good". It should add a fun type of randomness that gives the army flavour.

It’s certainly gonna change up how I play.

Normally my lists weigh heavily on “knock out” charges. For instance, I love Chariots. My old Dark List featured four, and I’d usually have them buddied up for high speed “think on, think twice, think don’t drive on the pavement” fun. But when I really, really wanted to collapse your centre? Send in three. And it usually worked pretty well.

But, if Breaking an enemy unit becomes tougher, I will of course have to adapt. Which is fine. I appreciate not everyone particularly enjoys their centre unit being run over and smooshed.

I’m not adverse to having to plan a given combat a couple of turns in advance. Indeed, if the rule works? I welcome that change in strategic consideration. Especially as I’ll need to weigh up “what if I’m the one simply pushed back”.

Push back is a rule that interests me greatly. Along with psychology. Hopefully these get revealed (more or less) in upcoming previews.

Just don't let O&G have the ability to put a Black Orc boss in every unit to negate animosity altogether. Boo to that old trick.

^Could they do that in 8th? I don’t remember.

 Just Tony wrote:

And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.

(Snip...)

Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.

You hate random charges, but you're fine with 1/6 your army taking a turn off every turn?

The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?

No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.

 nathan2004 wrote:
^Could they do that in 8th? I don’t remember.

I think yes because there were no hero slots, just percentile limits? I didn't play but have some recollections of complaints about gobbo death stars where the entire front rank was minor heroes that just spammed challenges to neutralize enemy DPS heroes forever.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Push back is a rule that interests me greatly. Along with psychology. Hopefully these get revealed (more or less) in upcoming previews.

Am I going Mad, or did Fear causing troops eventually lose “auto fail break tests against Fear causing enemies which outnumber you”?

Because that was kind of a staple of Undead tactics.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Push back is a rule that interests me greatly. Along with psychology. Hopefully these get revealed (more or less) in upcoming previews.

Am I going Mad, or did Fear causing troops eventually lose “auto fail break tests against Fear causing enemies which outnumber you”?

Because that was kind of a staple of Undead tactics.

I believe 8E actually removed outnumbering entirely, and so this effect was also removed.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

And maybe the issue is that there CAN be such a thing as too much random.

(Snip...)

Hello. I'm a long time Orc and Goblin player, and I've had fun with the animosity rules ever since I started using the army in 6th. Please don't attempt to speak for everyone.

You hate random charges, but you're fine with 1/6 your army taking a turn off every turn?

The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?

No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.

Black orcs to key units and redundancy compensates. When you have multiple units that can do the work 1 missing out isn't big deal.

Just don't build death stars. And any rule discouraging death stars good.

 Vulcan wrote:
The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?

No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.

I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.

A charge can also fail using fixed distances if the player declaring a charge has misjudged by 1/2" or whatever, and therefore move only half their full distance. Like, they didn't know they were out of range when they started, realised halfway through and then just gave up on trying.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?

No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.

I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.

Yea. Troops always start the charge run precisely at right distance. Never ever too early. Humans are infallible after all carrying laser pointers in middle ages after all.

tneva82 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The risk in random charges can be managed. The risk of Animosity largely can't. Why is the manageable risk 'too random' and the unmanageable risk 'fun'?

No, that's a serious question. Because of the two, Animosity seems to be far better at wrecking battle plans than failing a long-shot random charge. Especially as we don't know yet whether charging will be as combat-wrecking as it was in 7th, or merely a trivial +1 bonus to combat res as in 8th.

I hate random charges because they make no sense. I can't think of a single battle where one side charged the other and then, you know, got winded and stopped. Units have refused to charge, or drifted away from the intended target, but GW is unique in the notion that troops otherwise in position to engage will fail to do so.

Yea. Troops always start the charge run precisely at right distance. Never ever too early. Humans are infallible after all carrying laser pointers in middle ages after all.

There is not such thing as a set distance that someone can charge. You keep running until you get there.
The danger is if troops ran too far, then they would get exhausted and be ineffective when they got to the enemy.