The Mix-Approach, the way to go?

I have had quite a few games with the new ogres since they came out, and have spent the most of my games trying out different lists. I have found that one of  the most competive ways to approach the new ogre list is by taking a bit of everything in stead of spamming the units, which seem really good on paper.

I usually run a combat SM general in IG/BSB bunker with discipline, 9 Bulls with a death/beasts butcher, 2 sabertusks, a combination of the different special and rare options from game to game, and have found it a lot more effective to have a few more different units than the traditional deathstar approach, backed up by support units or spamming things such as leadbelchers, Ironblasters, Characters, Mournfangs, Yhetees or Maneaters.

The monsters most people think die easily to artillery fire might be right depending on meta, but around here, opponents tend to focus most of their fire on Ironblasters and Irongut bunkers rather than stuff like giants and thundertusks. Especially Giants go very unnoticed in ogre armies compared to the other armies with access to this monster, and it synergises a lot better with the ogre army-list, adding some much needed staying power in support for lone bulls for example.

But enough with individual units. This thread is for the discussion on whether or not a combination of many different units is a better game-wise option than filling in your allowances with one or two particular choices that seem powerful on paper and are refered to as such on forums like these (or mostly places like warseer)

Not that themed or spamming armies can't win games and work out just find, I just find the mix-approach the best possible way to play ogres

(Note that some combos are better than others of course.)

Ogre deathstars are alive and well, but hardly the only or best option anymore.  I like a mixed approach myself.  I'm not a tournament player so I can't say if it's the best approach, but I prefer it to an "all my eggs in one basket" approach.  It helps that almost all of our units including those with support roles can do pretty well in combat.

I do similarly. I hate spamming units that are "good" because it is intensely boring: one reason I picked up ogre's since VC is really only competitive with the most boring of play style...ghoul and magical spam (probably the reason they are likely next to be done).

I like having options, deathstars don't do that. Throwing half your army in one spot and tossing it against things, too, seems boring as hell to me. I play Warhammer for tactics and strategies, if i wanted to get a buncha guys and throw dice with the most badass units I can muster i'll pull out my Space Orks and play some 40krap.

On the other hand, I feel MSU is rather sub-par in 8th overall (I kind of miss my Woody's from early 7th though) and especially with ogre's and their low leadership. So, I always come down to the "MMU" idea, and a fair number of units of a decent size. 10+2character Bull unit, 6+2 character IG unit, and 4 Leady's followed by a slew of support units.

This gives me tactical flexibility (4x3 bull unit 4x2 IG unit, can go norrower if needed...3 ranks on the ogre's if I take only 1 or 2 wounds could prove useful sometimes). Combined with a pair of lone sabers, the ever-amazing ironblaster, and a big gribbly in 2500 points or more I like the look of a balanced force.

It gives options. MSU could be give options too, it's just more risky and splits the punch of ogre's up. MMU-style approach just seems like the better options for ogre's overall. It caters to their strength (3 supporting attacks and +str on impact hits) while not putting too much in one spot and neutering your tactical options to a mere "RUN AT DEM" and hope you don't get lead by the nose the whole game.

Points' denial is well and good, but i'd rather just outplay my opponent and smash HIS lame points denial horde-or-boreingness with well layed battle plans...odd for an ogre army, true, but no one said I had to play Ogre's with an ogre brain 

This is pretty much the theme I'm running with now.  I've got a little bit of everything on the table at 2000 points: Medium units of bulls and guts, a few leadbelchers, some bear cavalry, an ironblaster, a monster of some kind, and just enough characters to get by.

This gives me a nice variety of models on the table and something to do in every game phase.  Just as important from a tactical standpoint, my opponent now has a lot of different problems to overcome instead of just trying to outflank/avoid/Purple Sun my gut star.

We'll see if my tune changes after a lot more play testing, but for the time being the balanced approach is working well and looking good.

I do similarly. I hate spamming units that are "good" because it is intensely boring: one reason I picked up ogre's since VC is really only competitive with the most boring of play style...ghoul and magical spam (probably the reason they are likely next to be done).

But if there is really only one good spamming option, why not use all other units? VC is one of those armies that doesn't have to double or spam anything and still have a very powerfull army. The counts demise in 8th is a great exageration IMO.

I usually go with the mixed approach too, with my O&G and wood elves. I'v allways had a hard time doing that with Ogres, considering how expensive all units are, not to mention our characters. You need a minimum of something to make for a core, whether that be a shooty, a fighty or a sneaky core. I rarely have a lot of points left afterwards. I do try to spread out my characters as to spread out the threat as much as possible. I don't like having one dire threat in my army whilst the rest gets mopped up around you. I do like having elements that attract attention, it gives power over your opponents action and allows you to dictate the flow of the battle (a bit better).

At the moment Im going to spam leadbelchers. I happen to have about 20 and want to find out if a woodelf approach (blasphemy, I know) is possible with ogres. Leadbelchers are about as pointefficient as gladeguards, yet can fight as well. Minimum core, lots of minimum sized leadbelcher units, and some fast units on a flank. This brings me past the 3000 pt. threshold, so a max of 6 leadbelcher units. Should be fun, hard times ahead as well.

Quite frankly no "spamming" army can consistently beat a balanced list.

By having a bit of "everything" you have answers to most/all things and opponent can throw at you and are able to execute uncommon tactics that most "net-listers" won't be able to figure out before being crushed.

In 3000pts the only units I'm taking multiples of is the ironblaster taking a pair of them and 4 lone sabretusks. Can't bring myself to spam units when we've got so much in the new book that's good now.

But if there is really only one good spamming option, why not use all other units? VC is one of those armies that doesn't have to double or spam anything and still have a very powerfull army. The counts demise in 8th is a great exageration IMO.

Don't get me wrong. I don't do the power builds in VC. I haven't had a "casty" lord in my VC army since the end of my second game in 7th after the new book came out...I found it boring as all hell, and have always had a combat/hybrid lord leading my army since.

The problem is, just how ineffective your army feels at times. There is a reason people build certain lists, they are simply better overall with the same general in mind (if he knows how to play said list correctly of course).

I always fight for skeletons when the subject arises, and there are TONS of people who advocate ghouls and ghouls alone...but even with the current book my skeleton unit rocks 7 static CR without charging, and has takin out a chosen star with a flank charge on two occasions.

However, the models SHOULD be half the cost...that would buy me a LOT of support for the unit. Two more wraiths to deny non-magical units against it, another varg...etc.

I always run mixed lists with any army I go with, even my Space Orks, is all i'm saying. I just hate when a book encourages death-stars are has a large supply of sub-optimal choices in it.

The 8th books always amaze me, cuz GW seems to finally have gotten the hang making a GOOD book. Not a powergaming book to sell more stuff, but books with balanced (internal and external) choices. Relatively few units in the new books are "just plain bad," though some get bad mouthed because they simply do not meet standards others have for them...like Yhetees are probably quite a good unit for it's cost: there is just so much competition that they look weaker overall. Yet, they can be taken without hindering you as much as say, taking no ghouls and all skeletons...or all zombies...in the VC book.

Also, it's much more fun to play against a mixed army as opposed to a death-star focused one. 3 units of chaos warriors of various sizes and a hellcannon is rather boring to face in my opinion...or a 3 unit + 2 bolt thrower high elf army that sits there with Teclis lobbing his retarded spells around.

I also believe a balanced approach is decent, partly because ogre units excell neither at magic nor shooting, but these units clearly providing a useful utillity roll. What I mean is that I find leadbelchers and ironblasters excellent units, but not enough so as to build the backbone of an army. I think our units work well together, and there are multiple important roles which need to get filled.

I know this isn't true with other armies, but its a sign how good our new army book is.

I agree that a balanced armylist would have a greater strength due to it's flexibility and ability to counter a number of opponents... However I will admit that placing a greater stress on one aspect of your army can be quite enticing at times. I practically salivate when I think about an army with 2-3 Ironblasters and a Firebelly with Sword of Rhuin.
The flaming volley of cannonballs will spell delicious tenderised doom for any gribbly foolish to stand in it's way. Oh, and cause a bit of fun if my opponent fails his Look out Sir! roll.
 

I allways tend to try different things that go from the norm to surprise my opponents.

When the general consensus was that mounted monsters did not work anymore, I dusted off my Dark Elf Dragonlord. When everybody was convinced that Cavalry did not cut it anymore in 8th, I made an all mounted Dark Elf army.

Straying from the norm has worked well for me. Staying with the Dark Elf example. Since everybody expects a block of Black Guard with AsF banner and a Champion with Crimson Death, and a lvl 4 shadow sorceress with a sacrificial dagger in a block of Spearmen fodder and the rest off core filled with heaps of xbowmen and to top it off offcourse a Hydra or two.......It can really surprise opponents if you come with an army that works extremely different, since their normal counters against the chosen race simply do not work.

To do this you need an army book that gives you many options in trying different things, which luckily the Ogre book is now!

D...

The mixed-approach is a good army to bring with you.  Ogre DS are about as "spammy" as you can get and is very good but, quite frankly, it's boring and has more holes in it than a sponge.  I tend to be stubborn about my army comp, though.  I always, always, always bring 2x Units of 10ish bulls, 1 unit of 8ish Ironguts, even if that means giving up a monster or a chariot.  The core units of the Ogre army make it possible to run light on the support and still do well, though you do need the obligatory shooting unit to take care of flankers. 

The Ironblaster makes making a balanced force very easy, its hard to pass up on that thing!  Though I tend to shy away from monsters in general, I don't really like them.  No particular reason, just feel like its a lot of points to dump into so few wounds.

@Bitharne:  This is fairly offtopic but 40k is more tactical than Fantasy and it is far from "throw dice with the most badass units" in tournament play.  More often than not your "bad ass unit" is actually going to hurt you more than help you.

The Giant is a great under the radar monster, as people will either devote too much or too little attention to it.  Its just not something the Ogres get the best use out of, since their core units already hit so hard and are not much easier to kill.  Its much better in other armies that need a punchy unit to act as a bullet sponge, like goblin armies.

Ogres are always going to revolve around Bulls/Guts in medium to large units and one lord of some sort.  The thing that sets one list apart from the other is going to be the greeat Tyrant/Sm debate and how you spend your special points, as it pertains to Mournfangs, Maneaters, and Leadbeltchers.  Fortunately, we are blessed with a lot of options on this front and no matter what ends up working best, most options are strong in their own way.

The biggest problem with mixed builds, at least in an Ogre army, is that you need a lot of redundancy in all areas which means lots of units.  Ogres are expensive and not numerous, so it generally works better to pick a focus and design around it, whether that is MMU, Gunline, Gutstar, or MSU.  Other armies can get away with more diverse elements due to a better Leadership and less expensive support units.   Ogres risk seriously diluting their power if they do not focus their army in one or two areas.

PS- 40k is less tactical, but thats down to a lack of self restraint by the player base when it comes to comp and the fact that most armies can compensate for poor deployment in a single movement phase.  Spacewolves and Imperial Guard have dominated the tournament scene much more strongly and for far longer than even Dark Elves ever have in Fantasy, as well.  Its still a fun game, though.

I do like the mixed approach to my armies, I guess its what I brought with me from 40k. With having to have a tool for every situation etc.

ive been playing empire before i picked up OK army so i am used to the mixed approach. i do prefer this to deathstar approach as movement phase becomes a lot more tactical. and normally you win games in movement phase, i think.