Power Shift?

Here's a topic I've blatantly stolen from a rather dashing chap on Warseer (insertshiftyemoticonhere) and I was wondering if you guys could perhaps lend your own slants on this:

Please note, this is not intended to be a tiering discussion. To my mind, army tiers are overly crude and fail to account for a range of factors.

 ...That said, I'm interested in people's opinions about broad shifts in army capabilities (or power levels) after a post Phazael made in another topic, mentioning something along the lines of competitive players moving from using Lizzies to Ogres and Warriors after the Slann got taken down a peg, along with some examples of tournaments where Ogres had placed top. Now, when Ogres and Warriors were released they were recognised as powerful books with some very natty tricks, but ultimately held back from what some described as 'The Big Three' or 'The Big Four', usually mentioning Skaven, Dark Elves, Lizzies and Daemons in some combination.

 Now that those latter two have had new books and clearly taken a hit in a competitive sense (perhaps deservingly, according to some) and with Dark Elves due to get a new book and possible de-powerment shortly, have people's evaluations of the card-carrying books changed? Has the past year seen a shift significant enough for Ogres and Warriors to be considered part of that exclusive club? Or are they perhaps overrated, with Empire, VCs and HEs putting up equal or better fights? Your thoughts?

So, guys? We all know we were powerful before, have you noticed a gradual creep in your successes as 8th has progressed?

No to me it is basically on the same level as before - two things why ->

1) We are not the surprise "OMGZ Ogre hit hard, play sneaky with cats, and shoot even better", which was to our advantage earlier especially some time after the new book was released.

2) Some of the books that were hard to begin with (only two remain; DE and Skaven though the latter have not given me any troubles since our new book) have been rectified with new books of their own and thus "lost" some of their earlier potency.

So for me it has been leveled out.

However, because of the stuff hitting us with the 8th books I have seen less and less use of Mournfangs *, the lack of needed mandatory slaughtermasters, as well as a rise in MMU tactics, and I have agree with some of the posts especially against the Hellheart and players with VC and TK especially being more precausios where their casters are in regards to our own on the table.

No doubt this differs from many other Ogre players.

* Maneaters however is something my opponent really have a hard time with.

I like to think that the there is finally some balance to the armies. There is no big three, each army has a chance to fight another. The playing field is even and the power creep has slunk off to wait for another edition.

Let the powergamers tremble and learn to play!

We are one of the strongest 8th edition books along with WoC. With that being said and as most already know about 8th edition that doesn't mean to terribly much as the armies are relatively close in power level. For example I did not take a fully optimized list to a recent tournament and played a monster mash TKs army (I would say the weakest book by a land side in 8th) and I almost poo'd myself like 3 times cause the game was so close. 

I have to strongly agree with the above post stating if anything we have gotten it much harder in the last six months as people know the Ogre book and what to expect. This may also have to do with the sudden outbreak of WoC players 

Ogres are definitely up there with WoC as the class of the 8e books, but I feel that the power band has definitely been narrowed. We'll see once DE and Skaven get looked it, but it's entirely possible that Ogres could be a top-3 book.

That said, I'm in agreement with Shadowlord with regards to the slow but steady devaluing of Mournfang Cavalry. If you can get them into S4 (or less) infantry units, they do well, but there are less and less of those with each release (and the ones that remain tend to have access to solid magic that boosts their Strength).

That said, I'm in agreement with Shadowlord with regards to the slow but steady devaluing of Mournfang Cavalry. If you can get them into S4 (or less) infantry units, they do well, but there are less and less of those with each release (and the ones that remain tend to have access to solid magic that boosts their Strength).

I think that's a fair assessment, but with that in mind, perhaps it simply means we'll have to try playing them in different ways, rather than counting them off completely. I quite like the idea of a unit of 2 MFC combo charging the front of an enemy unit - alongside Guts/ Bulls/ Maneaters - so that you can get extra attacks for the amount of space you have, plus restrict the ability of the enemy to retaliate, as the 2+/ 6++ is better than a Bulls,. You'd also need less characters in the front of the infantry, saving points/ heroes for other units... I'm hoping to try it by the end of the month and will let people know how it goes.

I'm also in the group that will largely overlook MFC in favour of MEs now, but I refuse to give up the ghost on the couple of them that I've already bought :p

Well, the first thing that has to be said here is that Mournfangs are still a good unit - in general, if your opponent is moderately armored and doesn't have great Strength, the Mournfangs will beat it. But the way the meta is going, it might be turning into more of a niche unit than before, and thus more on even footing with units like Leadbelchers and Maneaters (whereas before the consensus was pretty much that Mournfangs had the most upside). I still think that Leadbelchers are the most underrated piece we have, though, as was somewhat reflected in the survey not that long ago (they were easily the lowest-rated unit of the "Big 3" in Special).

I agree on the Leadies, I'm of the opinion that the only reason they don't show up more often is that Maneaters and Mournfangs are prettier-looking toys. Many of the kinds of unit doing well these days are the kind that Leadies do nasty things to.

I think Leadies are good, just that they lack versatility that, say, Maneaters possess.  I think that they are slightly more attractive with the elf armies all coming out and are absurdly good when backed by a Heavens Gruts guy.  I have never been particularly impressed with MFC, but I know I am in the minority on this and I understand their allure.

I still think that Leadbelchers are the most underrated piece we have, though, as was somewhat reflected in the survey not that long ago (they were easily the lowest-rated unit of the "Big 3" in Special).

Indeed, around my parts they are hated by everyone except pure mass cheap infantery armies.

I love mine and field them more often than my fangs.

I think Leadies are good, just that they lack versatility that, say, Maneaters possess.  I think that they are slightly more attractive with the elf armies all coming out and are absurdly good when backed by a Heavens Gruts guy.  I have never been particularly impressed with MFC, but I know I am in the minority on this and I understand their allure.

I must say leadbelchers (4 of) are an auto include in all my list however the MFC are very situational. Running them these days as a unit of 2 they are the ogre chariot in my eyes.

Also upping the leadies to a 6 unit for my next few games

I also believe the armies are leveling out. My main army is Wood Elves, yes I know, and although my playing group is small I general win or draw against most opponents. With the ability to field 3 Treemen at 2400 points with a level 4 caster and armies with 71 archers at 1500 you never know what you will face. Ogres smash face though and are what I play when I don't want to think too hard. With WE's any major screw ups and you are done. Not saying you can play dumb with Ogres, just a little more forgiving. Again, my experience in a very small play group and no hardcore tournament experience. Go Guts.

That said, I'm in agreement with Shadowlord with regards to the slow but steady devaluing of Mournfang Cavalry. If you can get them into S4 (or less) infantry units, they do well, but there are less and less of those with each release (and the ones that remain tend to have access to solid magic that boosts their Strength).

TBH I thought that was always the case. Use their speed to hit your enemys S3 or S4 units and watch the bodies fly.

I came second at my last tournament with a list which I made to be fun and exciting. No lvl 4, a tyrant, no maneaters, only 1 sabretusk ect. The new books have made a great effort to balance out warhammer but there are 3 glaring exceptions. Warriors and Ogres at 1 end and Tomb Kings at the other.

I will admit that it's less ridiculous than it used to be - the game definitely is narrower. Even TK can give Warriors a hard time if they're careful, though the disgusting lists of Warriors do unnerve me somewhat.

That being said, I'm still convinced the best of High Elves is only just emerging - that book can do so much, and there's a rather sick deathstar building I've seen knocking around that worries me.

With the Banner of the World Dragon and the Demon Prince of WoC, I'm starting to worry that the narrow band is looking somewhat fragile - there only needs to be one little mistake and the whole thing could be upended. Hopefully Lizzies won't pull some stuper combo out from nowhere...

Mournfangs were always a niche unit for me. They blend weak masses of infantry and little else.

Now that is an important niche for us. While our main units(Ogres/Ironguts) can take on the enemy masses, they are slightly wasted on them. Don't waste your time killing Slaves when there are Stormvermin to exterminate.

Mournfangs are our form of crowd control the prevent us getting tarpitted. Just like Ironblasters are our way of dealing with Warmachines and Monsters.

Its an important niche that shouldn't be sidelined.

Depends on what your army is built to handle, honestly. I can tell you that Mournfangs won't do a whole lot for you against Warriors of Chaos, for instance, but they will rock the house if you fight a lot of Skaven or VC.

Personally, I'm a Pistoleaters guy first and foremost (Flaming Poisoned guns FTW), and I think that Leadies are underrated. Mournfangs are good, but they perform at their best with a different setup than the one I like. At the end of the day, that's a good problem for the Ogre player to have - you can make a solid list by focusing on any of those 3 Special choices.

I agree on the Leadies, I'm of the opinion that the only reason they don't show up more often is that Maneaters and Mournfangs are prettier-looking toys. Many of the kinds of unit doing well these days are the kind that Leadies do nasty things to.

I don't think it has anything to do with the models.

Maneaters just do everything leadbealchers can and more. Even when it comes to shooting D6 shots with BS3 isn't much better than 2 poison BS4 shots. I'm in no doubt that leadbealchers will do more damage with their shooting but the problem is how they perform in the combat phase.  My maneaters are stubborn and have alot of attacks so I can't justify losing that for a barely improved shooting phase.

I used to use leadies as small chaff clearing units but I bought firebellys and they do it better due to longer range and the ability to turn my ogres fists into fire when all the chaff is gone.  So if you don't use firebellies I would recommend leadbealchers for this.

So there is all that and the fact Maneaters are pretty models.

More tactical flexibility and fancier hats makes Maneaters an almost no brainer for me!

More tactical flexibility and fancier hats makes Maneaters an almost no brainer for me!

How many players have models for each possible Maneater build?
They might have an initial flexibility, but most people stick with the builds they have models for (unless they've magnitised them), rather than change them from one list to the next.

More tactical flexibility and fancier hats makes Maneaters an almost no brainer for me!

How many players have models for each possible Maneater build?
They might have an initial flexibility, but most people stick with the builds they have models for (unless they've magnitised them), rather than change them from one list to the next.

I'm talking about the in-game flexibility of maneaters with brace of pistols, poison and stubborn.  They can do almost as much ranged damage as their points equivalent in leadbealchers but perforn as an anchor unit and a combat unit aswell.

Basicly what you think I'm saying is that maneaters are better because you can change their equipment and role from game to game but what I'm saying is that they are better because you can change their role from turn to turn. Your model collection has no bearing on this.

I went to Bayou Battles last weekend, which admittingly doesn't bring out the 'Ard Boyz lists but at least had 88 people. I think I saw 5-6 ogre lists, most had double ironblasters, most had mournfangs (...mine had gnoblars). There was also a bajesus ton of Warriors of Chaos (and dwarves...?)

I rapidly fell out of love with my Mournfangs, but I still see their use. I never had any success with leadbelchers - but I'm going to try to through a group of 4 leadbelchers in my list, based on this thread


As for maneater models, I really don't want to have to field 6 pirate maneater models if I want to use brace of pistols, then switch those for something else. I want WYSIWYG as much as the next fantasy player (and less than the next 40k player), but since maneaters are about the only unit in the game where it could conceivably matter, I'll just say 'those guys have extra hand weapons and the guys in the back have great weapons' or 'they all have brace of pistols' and go from there

Oh, I'm a huge fan of Maneaters as well, they are the quintessential Ogre in my opinion, but they aren't quite as flexible as they first seem.
During a game, they are still restricted to what their build is capable of doing; yes, if you go with Brace, Poison and Stubborn, then they're extremely flexible, but it still doesn't suit every situation you might find them in.
If your list needs a mass of ranged attacks, you're better off specialising in Leadbelchers for the chance to do massive amounts of damage rather than a guarranteed moderate amount; if you need lots of attacks to whittle down a large squishy unit, you'd be better off with ordinary Ogres to the same value; but if your list needs something that is capable of filling any unexpected gap in the battleline, then yes, Maneaters are the way to go.

How often do you need to change the role of your Maneaters "turn to turn"?
If it's a regular thing, then maybe you need to re-evaluate the list itself. Jack-of-all-trades isn't a benefit if it costs more than specialising.

I'm going to disagree with the "barely improved shooting phase" point. A Leadbelcher is 43ppm to a Pistoleater's 62ppm. That means that while the individual Leadie may not do much more damage than a Pistoleater with his shots, he clocks in at a heck of a lot less points, which in turn you can bring a lot more of them to magnify their impact in the Shooting phase. Moreover, having more shots means you get more juice out of being buffed (as Phazael noted with his suggestion of a Slaughtermaster with Lore of Heavens and Grut's Sickle, though IMO the latter is not strictly necessary).

Consider a unit of 8 Flaming Pistoleaters - that clocks in at 526 points. For just 10 points more, I can have 12 Leadbelchers (2 x 6 with Musician, or 1 x 12 for the same points if you want to keep it all in one unit). The Leadies may not be in the Maneaters' zip code as far as close combat is concerned (even while outnumbering them), but that's 12D6 (average 42) shots to 16, all hitting and wounding on the same value, though I would be remiss if I didn't note the secondary benefits of Poison and Flaming. I say you underestimate Leadbelchers' shooting muscle at your own peril, and I say this as an unabashed Maneater fanboy. As long as you're building your list around the strengths of each (Maneaters troubleshoot problematic enemy models and generally plug gaps, Leabelchers obliterate chaff and thin down blocks), you'll be fine.

Not as flexible as they would first seem? The only advantage 11 leadbealchers have over my 7 maneaters [same points]is the ability to cause about three extra wounds per volley against T3  and about one or two more against T4. Thats about one extra dead empire knight. That's hardly more specialised and all you lose to gain that extra dead knight is the ability to stand and shoot, a point of strength, two attacks per model, a point in LD, fancy hats, stubborn, poison and access to the flaming banner.

Still the advantages of the leadbeaclerss is of course that 11 models could be two or three units going around all over the board clearing up warhounds and great eagles. This is where they have their uses but in my list http://www.ogrestronghold.com/forum/index.php?topic=27343.0 I use my firebellies to do that. It's a bit of an odd comparison considering they're in different slots I know but bear with me. Now the reason I use fireballs to do this is because to hit modifiers can really ruin leadbeachers. So yes I am a fan of leadbealchers if you are using butcher's and slaughter masters as you need ways of dealing with chaff but when it comes to damaging large units leadbealchers just ain't worth it because while they do a wee bit more damage; they won't be able to deal with tough combat units if they fail to kill them with shooting. I can move my maneaters forward to get into range of something tasty to shot because I know my stubborn will allow me to hold against a charge from something hard.

And why would I need to change my list if my maneaters are kicking ass in every phase? They change their role because the threats your opponent creates for you change as the game progresses not the fact my list has glaring weaknesses. I tend to find the punchy punchy units seem a bit more threatening in turn three and four than in turn one and two for example. If any of my units gets charged by any other unit in the game it will hold and I'm confident if I can get it supported I can win the fight. 

EDIT- Yeah Rothgar don't think for a second I would underestimate leadies if I faced them.  They cause serious damage to maneaters and would be thowing every fireball and pistol shot I could into them to make them go away. It's just in my army I really can't justify losing the combat bonuses for those extra couple wounds, Poison closes the gap quite a bit btw.

I like where this thread is going - there are some solid arguments for each of three good special choices.

I would be cautious to do such a 1:1 comparison of LB and ME - but I still like the argumentation Mr. Rothgar13 brings to the discussion. The higher number of wounds in a LB unit is can be key in Ogre armies where the 62ppm ME has only T4 and light armor (I find heavy armor being indifferent here). It is common knowledge that an OK army has a low model count but interestingly my opponents tend to forget just how easy ME are to kill - the sixpack ME unit is the minimum size to be useful in shooting.

But to the decision of choices, it really does depend on the synergies in the army and the overall goal. It is here I dont like the 1:1 comparison of ME and LB. A LB unit of 4 can clear out chaff, your ME would be wasted doing this. a unit of 8 LBs can clear out or at least soak heavy cavalry. Neither jobs the ME can do. The ME are then superb for supporting close combat - another aspect my opponent forget how well the ME perform.

In an overall defensive OK list I can find space for all three choices. my 6-unit ME, 4-6 LB and a unit of 2 MF to serve af a chaff clearer or pseudo-chariot. I am not too happy about mournfangs and their new niche use given the newer MC is sexier.
Does any body have experience using them in units of 4+? Here gw maybe useful to deliver more punch. Any unit of 3-4 will usually in my hands take panic tests before they hit combat if just one model dies.

I don't think it has anything to do with the models.

You're right, should have made myself clearer - I meant 'pretty' in the sense that Maneaters and Mournfangs are rather exotic by the standards of the rest of the book in terms of the equipment, rules and capabilities they possess; Leadies by comparison are rather dull, possessing only a ranged attack roughly analogous to a handgun's output (albeit with fewer modifiers).

I am kind of split on this topic

On one hand, I agree that Ogres are less of a point and click Hulk Smash army that took everybody by surprise when the book came out. People were caught off guard by the power of the Ironblasters, MFC and SM with IG busses.

However, these things are all very strong units that continue to make Ogre Kingdoms one of the stronger armies in the game. MFC specialize in killing lots of weaker troops, but that doesn't mean they cannot defeat other types of troops. Even so, if they are just used to fill this role, they are still extremely useful. If playing against an army such as Skaven, MFC are a huge asset as the rest of our options tend to get weighted down by extreme numbers. I have used MFC to great effect against powerful units - the Impact Hits alone can tip the scales in their favor.

It is the Ironblaster that I feel is still one of the stronger units in the game and what makes us much more competitive than many other armies. The IB is the most accurate cannon in warhammer and also happens to be a tough as nails chariot for only 50pts more than a normal Empire cannon. Many of the older armies struggle heavily to defeat Ogres because of the Ironblaster. Armies like Wood Elves don't really stand a chance against Ogre Kingdoms at all so I feel that it is a little overoptimistic to say that the armies are fairly balanced. People may say that tactics can let you win through with Wood Elves, which is true, but only if your opponent doesn't really have tactical knowledge as well. Given two players with roughly the same skill level, one with Wood Elves and one with OK and the Ogres player will win out the vast majority of games.

That said, I do believe that Ogre Kingdoms require more tactful play to be successful than before. People have learned their tricks and know what to prioritize. However, if a highly skilled Warhammer player uses the Ogre Kingdoms, many armies (even when lead by veteran gamers) will fall to the more powerful Ogres simply because their rules are better. Similar armies such as WoC and Dark Elves still have huge advantages over many of the other armies. Even Daemons, who while they play differently, are still a hugely powerful army that can easily crush many of the other books.

Over time, the meta has shifted away from us running 2-3 units of MFC and steamrolling over our opponents. But we still have some of the most cost effective units in the game. I still personally feel that a unit of MFC is one of the better choices in our book. They never underperform for me whereas other units like Leadies and even Maneaters can be lackluster for their cost. I rarely use Leadies for anything other than chaff-clearers (since spells are unreliable in this area) and Maneaters aren't nearly as good as they look on paper to me since they have no survivability and a huge price tag I always prefer to take more Ironguts or Bulls.

Just my thoughts on this topic,
Triddion

Armies like Wood Elves don't really stand a chance against Ogre Kingdoms at all so I feel that it is a little overoptimistic to say that the armies are fairly balanced. People may say that tactics can let you win through with Wood Elves, which is true, but only if your opponent doesn't really have tactical knowledge as well. Given two players with roughly the same skill level, one with Wood Elves and one with OK and the Ogres player will win out the vast majority of games.

Having seen how devastating an 85% Tree Spirit army can be, I have no illusion that most Ogre Armies would find it an uphill struggle. Ironblasters have made it more manageable, as you can target the Treemen Ancients quickly, but Dryads in even medium sized units will do a hell of a lot of damage to Ogres, and Treekin will rip you to pieces if they get into combat.

That said, I do believe that Ogre Kingdoms require more tactful play to be successful than before.

I agree with you here; Ogres are not a Hulk-Smash army, they require some finesse before you get to the smashing! Sabretusks and redirectors in general take some skill to use effectively, as a High Elf player in my gaming group is learning with his Eagles. More than that, knowing when you can afford to grind with an enemy and when to make sure you have combo-charges and back up is very important in some matchups- against Skaven with the Screaming Bell I would never take on the carrier unit unless I could combo-charge or flank it at the same time, to speed up the process. During my last game at a local tournament I had to use my Tyrant and Ironguts (with CoC + Std. of Discipline) purely as a speedbump against a unit of Tomb King Chariots. I knew I'd lose most of the unit (and did, to the extra attacks spell and impact attacks) and using one of my best units like that is not something I would usually consider, but it was the right move at the time and helped me because none of my other units could have done a similar task (and survived), whilst none of the rest of his army could really match mine.

I think Ogres have always needed a bit of Finesse to be used at full potential even when our book first came out.

Its all about timing your initial charge into the enemy lines. And hopefully you get a decent magic phase to get your buffs up before combat rolls around.

Any army can beat any army.  Some teams have certain items or abilities that might be super synergistic against a certain army, but ogres are a beatable team and they aren't as bad as some players might suggest.

I actually feel like Ogres are a hard fight for a lot of people, unless they specifically take multiple items/ units which can deal with Monstrous Infantry;  recently started playing small 4-man tournaments with some friends (and friends of friends) and I've won all 6 of my games to date. It seems as though none of the other guys can deal with large blocks of Ogres efficiently- I usually take Characters, 3 blocks of infantry, and an Ironblaster or two.

I use very little chaff (usally just four Leadies and/ or a Sabretusk or two) but it's the combat blocks that cause the most trouble; since I can eat up to 8 wounds on a unit and not panic - due to being an 8 man unit of Guts/ Bulls + character(s) - they can't panic me often and if they do I have a ld.9 or 10 general + BSB in the majority of games. They find it hard to attrition me with Magic and shooting (although they're getting better at it thanks to that damned Soulquench!) and can't seem to compete in combat either. I'd like to think some of it is down to my generalship, and picking match-ups which suit me, but it does seem like most of their armies struggle to take me on effectively when they're in an all-comers list format.

There are a couple mid tier armies that can cause matchup headaches for Ogres.  Certain Greenskin builds (Savagestar, Night Gobbo spam) can cause serious issues and I know from playing both sides of the matchup that Nurgle Daemons present fairly serious problems for Ogres.  Any army that can bring knight units with good static CR also present issues for the army, but those are fairly rare builds these days.  By and large, any army based around infantry without good supplemental shooting and magic is going to struggle against Ogres, though.