What core units can't you do without?

For the best possible account of answering the OPs question it is thus best to rely on a gutfeeling (which is good thing to do for Ogres anyway), insight and experience as this kind of comparising is far to complicated to actually work out in theory for most people.

The problem with "gutfeeling" are the fallacies involved in bringing it about.

Example:
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

"I see most armies have Lots of Ironguts in them.
Therefore Ironguts must be the best units in the new book."
This could be true, or it could be they have a lot of Irongut models from when they played 7th and had 3 bulls and 12 ironguts for models.

Ignoring a Common Cause

This fallacy has the following general structure:

A and B are regularly connected (but no third, common cause is looked for).
Therefore A is the cause of B.

"When I play my list with only Bulls in it and no Ironguts I win games.
Therefore I win games because of the Bulls"
Ignoring the fact that in that list you also bring a few more Maneaters or a second Ironblaster.

So on and so forth and of course my FAVORITE which contributes very heavily to "gutfeeling".

Misleading Vividness

Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.

This one is also related to Self Fulfilling Prophecy

People who have decided Ironguts or Bulls are a bad unit have a greater chance of remembering when those units have dramatically lost them the game than when they didn't. This one comes up with the Hellheart a good deal. Someone loses 3 Wizards in one turn to the Hellheart and they remember that but the time someone rolled a 1 and missed everything or only hits one and that Wizard has no real bad effect hit them are forgotten leading to a statistical bias in what is remembered.

"Every time I face the Hellheart something bad happens to my Wizards. It blows a couple of them up or something."

"If only I had lost 1 less wound that unit would have had enough attacks to hold and wouldn't have gotten run down. I should have been using Bulls."
"If only I had done 1 more wound that unit would have won by 1 and wouldn't have gotten run down. I should have been using Ironguts."

The problem with "gutfeeling" are the fallacies involved in bringing it about.

and more

Wow, thanks for such an extensive reply

I fully agree with what you say here. Gutfeelings bring the pitfalls you just described and which one must evade, but that doesn't render them obsolete in my opinion when you are sufficiently evasive. When used correctly they are a powerfull and reliable tool and I shall now try to describe where they derive their strength from.

In my earlier post I tried to describe a certain proces which I think is involved in comparing options (suchs as bulls and guts) and I think that it is such a process that should form the guide in developing ones gutfeelings. First of all one plays the game, sees what happens and learns valuable lessons, probably several times. With enough experience it is possible to formulate strategies in abstracta, enter discussions with others and evaluate specific situations. It is this kind of evaluating where I think mathhammer has it's place, as it teaches whether (bad) luck was involved or not, and thus hints at good or bad judgment while executing that part of the game. It gives insight in ones skills, which is a good thing. While it teaches you on particular matchups it doesn't involve bigger pictures though. Insight at that level is too complicated to express in a calculation, for most people. All that is left is connecting the dots between all these little matchups again and again and thus form insight in the flow of the game. Eventually this process takes you beyond the evaluation and connecting of matchups and infusses you with expectations in both known and unknown situations. Call it gutfeeling, call it insight (I should probably have used that word in the first place ), but I don't think the learningprocess has steps beyond this, only refinement of ones insights by repeating the process.

This process evades the fallacies you described ... I think. The first fallacy involved relying on convention, which is not a part of the learningprocess described here. The second fallacy is a very valid one and lies at the core of what I describe. Experience will in time allow you to evade this problem too as it will grant the insight to the fallacy of such reasoning. Definitly a pittfall worth taking note of. The third and fourtht fallacy is reason dependent. No amount of calculating or insight can accomodate for lack of reason [edit]being unreasonable[/edit] and while you make again a very valid point, I don't think that these fallacies will actually occur when ones gutfeelings are formed the way I described.

This is how I think we all develop our playerskills and it is therefor that I think mathhammer is but a bleak tool compared to the gutfeelings I spoke off when comparing units, as it was a tool to form those feelings in the first place. Mathhammer is what it is, it doesn't evolve. Gutfeelings are informed insights though (with an emphasis on informed), constantly changing and improving and while sometimes they are proven wrong and you get surprised, this only helps you improve your insights further. I think the use of insights will surpass mathhammer in usefullness quiet quickly, but shall not deny that calculactions will allways remain a mean of (partly) confirming those insights.

If anyone is going with their gut feeling shouldn't it be an ogre player?

Well, I have to agree that Mathhammer only tells you what is likely. Beyond that we all have to realize that while it is unlikely for 20 dice to all roll 6s it is not impossible. Like you said though, Mathhammer gives us a basis to work with. I use Mathhammer sitting at the table to determine my actions so it goes beyond theoretical for me.

I look at a combat and can roughly figure out what the average result should be in a couple minutes. Then I can look and see if there is anything I can add to it to help. For example, if I get any of the three buff spells off it will alter a combat from a tie to a win in my favor. So I won't go for one big spell, I'll try and get two dispelled so I can sneak the last through.

To further avoid coming to incorrect conclusions I like to document battles.

Ogres T1
Charges - none
Picture
Magic:
7Cast/4Dis
Bullgorger on Bulls 2 - allowed
Bonecruncher 2 dice Slaves - allowed 8 dead(nice) - Panic passed
Trollguts - Disspelled
Shooting:
Ironblast on WLC hit, destroyed.
Picture

Skaven T1
Charges: Slaves at Bulls - Good
Picture
Magic: 9-3 HELLHEART! Hits one, Template kills 4 Clanrats, Wounds Wiz
Shooting: WLC at IG - 4 wounds no saves
CC:
Slaves do 2 wounds, Bulls do 7. Slaves lose, Steadfast make LD.


A lot of this is also going to be determined by your personality. Such as your decision making process and how you take in data. If you have any faith in the Myers-Briggs personality survey then I would be an INTP(Introverted Intuitive Thinking Perceiver)

This makes me a quiet person who enjoys mental exercises and tends to be rather objective in my judgements. It also means I have issues in interpersonal skills and can go the route of looking down on people for letting emotions color their decisions. What you are witnessing is my personal bias against "subjective information".

It sounds like you have some set that includes NF possible INF- and you measure value by determining a base value and then adjusting from observed phenomena from that base value. Thus the Mathhammer lets you get a grasp upon how a unit should more or less perform and then actual field testing in an army allows you to judge if that initial idea is true false or variable and adjust your personal value of it accordingly.

I'm about the opposite. I look at a unit and understand that how it will opperate will be determined by far to many values to properly calculate it out and so use Mathhammer(which is about as empirical as we can get) not only to judge what a unit should be capable of, but to adjust that on the fly as it is on the table. How that unit performed in a similar situation for me is considered slightly misleading(it isn't, but that is my bias against it) as this is this situation and variables are going to alter previous observations far too much for judgement on it.

So I don't tend to "gutfeel" anything. I look at the situation, I get all the information I can, I make a decision based upon what I have observed all the while understand my decision might be flawed by a piece of information I have overlooked(like Assassins in a unit).

Mercules obviously people derive enjoyment out of different things and in different ways. But don't you ever feel like cutting loose and trying the desperate charge you have little chance of making, or taking the challenge with a Maneater captain against a Chaos Lord to try try and get that underdog bonus? I just feel that your style of play is very chess-like and lets be honest, Warhammer is almost nothing like chess.

For you, maybe. I'm with Mercules in that I play the odds, and only deviate from that when I have no choice (i.e. standing pat will lose me the game), or when it will not affect the outcome (I win this game, regardless of whether I make this charge or not).

Sounds like your games need more beer.

Sounds like your games need more beer.

And salty pretzels.

Mercules obviously people derive enjoyment out of different things and in different ways. But don't you ever feel like cutting loose and trying the desperate charge you have little chance of making, or taking the challenge with a Maneater captain against a Chaos Lord to try try and get that underdog bonus? I just feel that your style of play is very chess-like and lets be honest, Warhammer is almost nothing like chess.

My style is nothing Chess Like. I've tried for charges where I need an 11 or 12 to succeed but I've done so against Mv4 troops where 6+11=17" 17-10(6 the most I could go and Mv4)=7. My failed charge would move me forward into their average charge range at worst. So it is worth a shot especially if I've calculated that even charging they wouldn't always win.

I gamble, but I take educated gambles and calculated risks. Risk management is what wins Warhammer. It minimizes bad luck and takes advantage of good.

I've taking chances where there is about a 1 in 3 chance I win the combat but my alternatives are letting myself be put into a worse position and should I win that combat it will pay off in a big way. I've fled from something I "might" remotely survive hoping they might roll high and let me hit them from both flanks.

I see opportunities others don't, that is the intuitive side of my nature.

Example:
Game against Empire. Turn 1 I was able to charge something, kill it, and had a choice to overrun. Good chance of ending up in his lines, but not a great chance of surviving it. It was a unit of Bulls with my SM in it(old book). Well, he has the Blood Cleaver so he might survive. At worst it pulls things back my way if I flee and they follow and disrupts his line.

I go for it and make it into combat. His turn the combat goes against me I lose by about 4 and break with only one Ogre and the SM left. He does not run me down however as I roll well and he less so. This brings him forward. Front charge on Spearmen, but I can handle that.

My Tyrant and other Bulls gladly goes in but something weird happens. The Butcher and terrain are in the way just enough I contact the Spearmen at an angle but they have to finish closing the door offering a flank to his other unit. I hope I blow through the spearmen but he wisely accepts the Tyrant's Challenge with a Champ and the Thundermace is nullified that turn.

He charges me and challenges. Now I know his Archlector has the Speculum. I refuse and my Tyrant moves back. Even so I tie the combat and stick. My turn the Butcher Rallies and I send in IG, WHO FAIL their charge. Crap, Lose by 1 and hold.

On his turn he kills my BSB. Lose by 3 but STILL hold. Now, my SM can charge in. So I do and the IG charge in as well and make it this time. Meanwhile he added another unit on his turn so now we have a huge mess in the middle with flanks being held all over the place.

I cast Bullgorger on the SM, he lets it through. I cast Toothcracker on my SM, he lets it through. I try to cast Trollguts on the Tyrant's poor unit. He dispells.

Challenge rolls around, I make way with the Tyrant to the flank his Archlector is in. He challenges... I accept with my SM. Suddenly he blinks and realizes that SM is +1 Str and +1 To with a 5+ Ward  and regains wounds now with his better WS. Yes he ate the Archlector and came out fully healed. The Tyrant was also freed up to use the Thundermace, poinked it down on the mostly intact unit of Halberds, and I won the combat by something like 11? The IG were just enough to kill his BSB and the two units that were not steadfast ran easily while the steadfast one rolled 9 without a general and BSB around.

I calculated out the SM battle and stuck him back into the fight knowing he could survive, win with buffs, and free up the Tyrant to win it all for them. The spectators at the time wondered why I was charging in the SM as he couldn't kill enough to tip the scales not realizing what else he could do.

That doesn't seem chess like to me.

Sounds like your games need more beer.

Why do people equate drinking with fun? Speaking of which I am drinking a Fat Squirell from New Glarus right now. Woo... my typing has taken on a whole new level of enjoyment. 

I'd like to have more beer at my games, but my LGS has a policy against that. Either way, I play my friends and I play for fun, but don't doubt for a second that I'm trying my utmost to win and collect data on both my army and his army's performance. I don't believe in doing things for the sake of doing them - plus losing never sits well with me.

Sounds like your games need more beer.

Why do people equate drinking with fun? Speaking of which I am drinking a Fat Squirell from New Glarus right now. Woo... my typing has taken on a whole new level of enjoyment. 

Ever heard the term "beer and pretzel game"? It doesn't necessarily mean drinking, it's the general mindset in such a setting.

My play style is to figure out the most important thing not to forget, and then forget it.  I bet my opponents love me for it 

Ever heard the term "beer and pretzel game"? It doesn't necessarily mean drinking, it's the general mindset in such a setting.

I don't think you understand. In fact I am a bit insulted. For some reason you believe I am incapable of calculating rough odds in my head AND enjoying a friendly game. I BS with my friends while playing as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't try to win the game. Winning... Losing... I really don't care as long as we both had fun and got to push some plastic guys around. At the same time I'm not going to NOT try to win.

I don't think you understand. In fact I am a bit insulted. For some reason you believe I am incapable of calculating rough odds in my head AND enjoying a friendly game. I BS with my friends while playing as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't try to win the game. Winning... Losing... I really don't care as long as we both had fun and got to push some plastic guys around. At the same time I'm not going to NOT try to win.

Hey, wait...

Mercules and I are agreeing on something.  That's...  different. 

I don't think you understand. In fact I am a bit insulted. For some reason you believe I am incapable of calculating rough odds in my head AND enjoying a friendly game. I BS with my friends while playing as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't try to win the game. Winning... Losing... I really don't care as long as we both had fun and got to push some plastic guys around. At the same time I'm not going to NOT try to win.

Hey, wait...

Mercules and I are agreeing on something.  That's...  different. 

Don't worry, I got this. ::takes a big mouthful of water and then spits it out in shock:: PFFFFFFFT!

Euhmm.....Trying to get back on topic for a bit here...

I use Ironguts rather then Bulls for several reasons:

- I converted me some really cool looking Ironguts with all the bits and pieces from the new sets
- Opponents fear Ironguts more then Bulls (Greatweapon wielding Ogres are scary)
- I am used to playing hammer units only
- Irongutst perform well against allmost any trooptype (I say type, not unitsize).
- Ironguts have a magical banner option
- Ironguts have better LD

Again, not saying Bulls are crap here, they are very good, and better at some things then Ironguts, but I just love my Ironguts!

D...

Ever heard the term "beer and pretzel game"? It doesn't necessarily mean drinking, it's the general mindset in such a setting.

I don't think you understand. In fact I am a bit insulted. For some reason you believe I am incapable of calculating rough odds in my head AND enjoying a friendly game. I BS with my friends while playing as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I don't try to win the game. Winning... Losing... I really don't care as long as we both had fun and got to push some plastic guys around. At the same time I'm not going to NOT try to win.

And your reply insults me. Did I ever mention nor imply not playing to win? No.
When people say beer and pretzel, they mean the mentality "the objective of the game is to win, the goal is to
have fun". You play trying to win, but always having fun with the other player.

And your reply insults me. Did I ever mention nor imply not playing to win? No.
When people say beer and pretzel, they mean the mentality "the objective of the game is to win, the goal is to
have fun". You play trying to win, but always having fun with the other player.

Yes, you strongly implied that I was taking the game too seriously. That my "mindset" for the game was wrong. That is a pretty big assumption to make since you have never played me or seen me play.

And your reply insults me. Did I ever mention nor imply not playing to win? No.
When people say beer and pretzel, they mean the mentality "the objective of the game is to win, the goal is to
have fun". You play trying to win, but always having fun with the other player.

Yes, you strongly implied that I was taking the game too seriously. That my "mindset" for the game was wrong. That is a pretty big assumption to make since you have never played me or seen me play.

*rolls eyes*
My post was mostly agreeing with you. "the objective of the game is to win, the goal is to have fun" is mostly a summed up version of your post. My original point (pretzel comment) was aimed not at you directly, just the mindset who think the goal of the game (if fact ANY game, by definition) is to win. The goal is to have fun with the other player, with both of you having victory as the objective. When the fun/enjoyment of both players becomes secondary to winning (sometimes referred a Win-At-All-Costs/WAAC), it personally think that is wrong. Nothing wrong with trying to win, just don't let it eclipse the fact you are playing a Game.

Anyway, that's enough off-topicness from me. I'm out.

Can't you see that agreeing is tearing us apart?!?! 


Anyway, to double-hijack the thread back on to track, I noticed that some selected gnoblars as the unit they can't live without. I wonder, what would the results be with that 25% core being made up entirely of gnoblars? A few small trapper units to redirect, a few hordes or tarpits to lock up enemy units, and then 50% in maneaters and mournfangs to crash in flanks and turn combat...

Hmm, with all the debate of Irongut and Bulls, I can't forget they still are ogres and will make up a critical part of the army. Gnoblars, cool tricks, but I can live without. I couldn't field a list without at least some Ironguts/Bulls!

There have been some mentions of an all-Gnoblar core for Ogre "gunline" armies, but I think that's overkill, because the second you get enough Trapper units to cover flanks and sit in front of your Leadbelchers you should be fine, and that likely won't even cover half of your Core needs.

i cant do without my Bulls i love them with those ironfists!

i just dont have any luck with ironguts cant seem to hit anything with them and doing just 2 wounds max...