49 replies to this topic

[Hortennse]

Totally untrue. You have been reading way too much into my words, you disagreed with my stance so I offered to show you where the rules state that i am right. Perfectly logical. No one would ever take that sentence as an accusation that you have not read the rules. Paranoia in the extreme. It takes a real Sherlock Holmes to go around telling other people what they are "implying". Anyway, since you dont want to talk about rules, there is no point talking to you in a rules thread. I'll gladly bow out having made my point many times over. Don't twist my words.

[The Low King]

Accusation? no.

Implied insult? yes.

You have to look at what your words will look like to other people not just what they look like you. However you intended the meaning to be, it was not the meaning it had to me, the person it was directed at.

[Hortennse]

Accusation? no.

Implied insult? yes.

You have to look at what your words will look like to other people not just what they look like you. However you intended the meaning to be, it was not the meaning it had to me, the person it was directed at.

...sigh, the need to correct false statements always draws me back in....

Whether or not something was "implied" is based on the intentions of the speaker/writer, not the interpretations of the reader/listener. This is precisely why I asked you in the very next post why you were being so touchy. Sorry to make this an English lesson, but if you were that worried that I was taking a jab at you, you could have asked me if that was my intention, rather than flat out stating that it was my intention, which you did (and by doing so you tried to twist my words, which is not your right in a discussion, my words are my own). There was no insult in what I wrote there, just evidence to defend my position on a subject.

Edited by Hortennse, 27 May 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[The Low King]

...sigh, the need to correct false statements always draws me back in....

Whether or not something was "implied" is based on the intentions of the speaker/writer, not the interpretations of the reader/listener. This is precisely why I asked you in the very next post why you were being so touchy. Sorry to make this an English lesson, but if you were that worried that I was taking a jab at you, you could have asked me if that was my intention, rather than flat out stating that it was my intention, which you did (and by doing so you tried to twist my words, which is not your right in a discussion, my words are my own). There was no insult in what I wrote there, just evidence to defend my position on a subject.

Whether or not your language implied something is based on the language used, independent of what the speaker/writer intended. Language is the way we communicate meaning to another person, if the language means something to the recipient that the speaker/writer did not intend the meaning is still there. It is not 'twisting your words' to see a meaning that is there, even if it was not intended to be there. In a discussion the onus is on the writer/speaker to ensure that his intended meaning is succesfully conveyed. If i as the listener/reader see a certain meaning in the language used i can only assume that the meaning was intended (paticuarly combined with your attitude towards my comments). If the reader/listener is insulted by a statement then there is an insult there, and if it was not intended then the simple thing to do is say 'sorry you were insulted' and move on. For example, your above post (and my one here) has a very lectureing tone (paticularly the bit about 'giving and English lesson'), implying that the writer is more Knowledgable than the reader (and also of course correct), even if not intended it is still mildly insulting.

[Hortennse]

Ok, you're just being nasty, it's obvious, you busted in on a rules discussion, contributed absolutely nothing valid and made it all personal so I'm done talking to you.

A parting lesson on English, hope it serves you well in the future:

The speaker/writer implies his meaning.

The listener/reader construes the meaning of the speaker/writer (or in your case, misconstrues it).

*I am an English teacher. It's kind of what I do. I totally lost any wish to be cordial with you early into this discussion after your knee-jerk and touchy response, so your analysis of my recent tone isn't valid to your original complaint.

Edited by Hortennse, 27 May 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[The Low King]

Nasty? i analysed my own tone as well.

My original responce was probably a bit aggressive, it was because i found your post insulting and condescending, if it was not intended then i appologise
However, i do feel your responce was just as touchy and knee jerk as mine, you seemed to see insults where none were given (or at least intended).

I am still confused about one thing, why did you find it so offencive that i did not want to debate the scout rule? you seemed to want to bait me into an argument over it.....(this is supposed to be polite, i would just appreciate an explaination).


I was only intending to debate the multiple wounds part of the discussion, i contributed to that. I wanted to avoid any argument over the scout rule, ironic on reflection.

[FullFatMayo]

is this what happens on every topic.
someone wants the answer to a question and 2 others have a 2 page long argument

[The Low King]

Not usually on Bugmans, but every forum has it. The question is answered quickly but soon devolves into a long and pointless argument.

Edited by The Low King, 27 May 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[TheLostHold]

Ogres are not as scary as some would have us believe. The problem we have with them is the same as everyone else - an all-comers list isn't optimal for taking them out.

I like the idea of a couple of bolt throwers, I'm considering doing the same myself. With Engineers, they're not bad, and you'll get two (one with burning) for the same price as a cannon with RoForging, and they won't blow themselves up.

Your cannons should take out their ironblaster(s) first, but your real threat are the mounrfangs. They are defeatable with GW hordes, but if they charge they'll leave most units combat ineffective and most ogre lists have more than one unit.

To mitigate this, give a thought as to how you can deploy differently against them. I would suggest deploying in opposite corners with some war machines. Stick the majority of your force in one corner, and a cannon and/or bolt throwers in the other. They're not a massive amount of points to tempt the bulk of the ogre force away, but if he sends a Mournfang unit against them then great, they're not coming toward your main line (try the master rune of immolation here if your list will be tailored to them). With your enemy angled to move into the opposite corner, you should be able to get a good couple of flank shots in.

Three units of four Mournfang will still present you problems - with Bolt throwers only kicking out D3 wounds and the fact that a failure to kill MInf will stop a cannon ball, a significant number of Mournfang are still going to reach your lines. In this case (and personally, only in this case), consider taking a Lord-or-Slayer-pedo. Take a tank lord on shield bearers with RoResistance,RoPreservation and RoStone for your 1+ rerollable and immune to killing blow, MRoSpite ward save and a great weapon, and put 5 Hammerers behind him 2 wide (so that none are in the front rank). You've now got a Ld 10, Stubborn, Immune to fear and terror unit with a 1+ rerollable armour save. Stick a BSB in the second rank with the MRoChallenge, you've just forced your enemy to take you on in a fight he will really struggle to win.

If the thought of that many points upsets you (a Lord with that loadout plus the hammerers comes in at 320 - that's the equivalent of 30 GW warriors with standard and champion!!!) you could always opt for the Slayerpedo. Run 6 slayers and upgrade one to a giant slayer. Run one wide and six deep will mean that your opponent will only be able to hit the GS in the first turn of combat. Now mournfang have impact hits (distributed as per shooting, see the point of taking 6 now?) so they'll hit the unit, and only the GS will be able to be hit in CC. If you really want to beef this unit up, take a Dragon Slayer and put him behind the GS, and he'll be able to hit back pretty damned hard too.

A quick note on the Lordpedo and Slayerpedo. A lot of people consider them gamey, downright un-fluffy and not much fun. I'd agree 9 times out of 10. However, against 4 units of mournfang cav your options really are limited - they just do too much damage on the charge and really leave our units shattered for the inevitable gutstar to mop up. If the notion of playing like this really offends your constitution then consider upping the numbers in your combat blocks (50 would be a safe bet).

I'm hoping to start playing against ogres at my local store in teh near future - I'll get in touch and let you know how I get on!

Edited by TheLostHold, 28 May 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Hortennse]

Ogres are not as scary as some would have us believe. The problem we have with them is the same as everyone else - an all-comers list isn't optimal for taking them out.

+1

I like the idea of a couple of bolt throwers, I'm considering doing the same myself. With Engineers, they're not bad, and you'll get two (one with burning) for the same price as a cannon with RoForging, and they won't blow themselves up.

I even like to take a bolt thrower without an engineer and put it right by my Master Engineer so it can use his BS 5 if he doesnt have to save any misfire rolls on a given turn.

Your cannons should take out their ironblaster(s) first, but your real threat are the mounrfangs. They are defeatable with GW hordes, but if they charge they'll leave most units combat ineffective and most ogre lists have more than one unit.

Agreed, the problem with mournfangs isnt that they cant be killed, it's that they almost always kill more than their own points value in a single round of combat (against expensive, non-chaff opponents at least).

To mitigate this, give a thought as to how you can deploy differently against them. I would suggest deploying in opposite corners with some war machines. Stick the majority of your force in one corner, and a cannon and/or bolt throwers in the other. They're not a massive amount of points to tempt the bulk of the ogre force away, but if he sends a Mournfang unit against them then great, they're not coming toward your main line (try the master rune of immolation here if your list will be tailored to them). With your enemy angled to move into the opposite corner, you should be able to get a good couple of flank shots in.

Great idea. The most underappreciated advantage the ogres have is their speed. A typical turtle deployment (hard castle) can be great against them if you can hold them off, but if they bust through they will kill your entire army within a couple rounds of combat. Spreading out many inexpensive artillery pieces makes it much harder for ogres to mop up victory points, especially if he spent most of his points on a single gutstar like one of my regular opponents likes to.

If the thought of that many points upsets you (a Lord with that loadout plus the hammerers comes in at 320 - that's the equivalent of 30 GW warriors with standard and champion!!!) you could always opt for the Slayerpedo. Run 6 slayers and upgrade one to a giant slayer. Run one wide and six deep will mean that your opponent will only be able to hit the GS in the first turn of combat. Now mournfang have impact hits (distributed as per shooting, see the point of taking 6 now?) so they'll hit the unit, and only the GS will be able to be hit in CC. If you really want to beef this unit up, take a Dragon Slayer and put him behind the GS, and he'll be able to hit back pretty damned hard too.

A valid point, but the slayerpedo dies quite quickly, whereas a Lordpedo is essentially immortal as long as they dont get flanked (deploy them in the middle of your army and this shouldnt happen).

A quick note on the Lordpedo and Slayerpedo. A lot of people consider them gamey, downright un-fluffy and not much fun. I'd agree 9 times out of 10. However, against 4 units of mournfang cav your options really are limited - they just do too much damage on the charge and really leave our units shattered for the inevitable gutstar to mop up. If the notion of playing like this really offends your constitution then consider upping the numbers in your combat blocks (50 would be a safe bet).

Do you play ETC rules? I hear that mournfangs are totally broken-good under ETC rules. It seems like in America uncomped the tendency tends to be towards the Gutstar for its amazing survivability. Which makes me happy because I love a big target for my anvil

I'm hoping to start playing against ogres at my local store in teh near future - I'll get in touch and let you know how I get on!

You've got the best army book to take them on. I strongly recommend Anvil, lots of artillery, and deploying all the way back in your zone. If you break against ogres the game is pretty much over no matter where you broke from. Whatever reaches you needs to be greatly weakened by turns of shooting. (and preferably reaching you at different times, Wrath and Ruin makes this possible, allowing your units to "gang" up on the units that reached you more quickly)

Edited by Hortennse, 28 May 2012 - 02:30 PM.