home

Author Topic: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys  (Read 1585 times)

Offline The Peacemaker

  • Members
  • Posts: 2234
  • Baron Karl von Balombine of Wissenland
orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« on: October 03, 2016, 08:31:16 AM »
So I went and got the free warscrolls on the GW website.

Why are the ordinary orruk boys 1 wound and the savages are 2 wounds?

And if I'm reading this correctly they are both 100pts for a squad of 10?

Please explain.
For Wissenland and the Countess!!!

My Painting Blog
My Entire Gallery

Offline Baron von Klatz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1683
  • warhammer> All other works of mankind
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2016, 09:11:12 AM »
Reading their warscrolls on the app I'd say it's due to the Orruk boys being far more versatile with a choice of ranged combat if you go bows or their choppas and mob rule which give them extra attacks with rends which the savages don't have access to.

The Orruks also have a better defense with 5+ and shields giving them re-rolls while savages need shields to get to that 5+.

Pretty similar otherwise besides that.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 10:33:59 AM by Baron von Klatz »
"No battle is ever meaningless for all life is merely death post-poned"
-elector count of the Empire.

Offline The Peacemaker

  • Members
  • Posts: 2234
  • Baron Karl von Balombine of Wissenland
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2016, 09:41:41 AM »
Reading their warscrolls on the app I'd say it's due to the Orruk boys being far more versatile with a choice of ranged combat if you go bows or their choppas give them an extra attack while providing rend which the savages don't have access to.

The Orruks also have a better defense with 5+ and shields giving them re-rolls while savages need shields to get to that 5+.

Pretty similar otherwise besides that.

well the savages also have another unit called 'arrer boys'. those are their archers.
So both sets of units have the same amount of options.

that 1 wound is kind of a big deal isn't it? regardless of a slightly better save. I'm not a stickler for slightly better weapon or +1 to hit with 20 models vs re-roll 1's with 20 models. But wounds seems like a defining game stat.
I would have figured that the basic boys having just 1 wound would be like 50% or 40% cheaper in points. 


Did the savages previously have only 1 wound? like before they released the bonesplitters?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 09:45:16 AM by The Peacemaker »
For Wissenland and the Countess!!!

My Painting Blog
My Entire Gallery

Offline Baron von Klatz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1683
  • warhammer> All other works of mankind
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2016, 10:32:52 AM »
Wounds are indeed a pretty good advantage in the game.

The savage arrested boys are a bad comparison as they are far superior and many say are the true under-priced unit in the Bonesplitter force.

I was just comparing the two against one another which I think can go either way in close combat if the Orruk boys keep above 20 models so their extra rending attacks can counter the savage's wounds and grind them down with better defense and shields counter to their re-roll but if put below their ability to use extra attacks are going to be beat by more wounds and a better 3+ to wound profile.

So quantity-wise Orruk boys can win but in quality the savages beat them.

You are most likely right the Bonesplitter book gave them a boost to make their battletome more deadly as they are being their own army instead a supplement force to the greenskin horde.

Still, the Orruk boys still have use in my eyes as a inexpensive wall that can be used for shooting then grinding or pouring on the numbers for a hard hitting horde whose extra attacks and rends can do serious damage. Savage Orruks seem to be overall better for doing damage and taking hits in more situations, though.

(Apologies if my posts seem off at the moment, really late here right now.  :icon_redface:)


« Last Edit: October 03, 2016, 10:39:50 AM by Baron von Klatz »
"No battle is ever meaningless for all life is merely death post-poned"
-elector count of the Empire.

Offline The Peacemaker

  • Members
  • Posts: 2234
  • Baron Karl von Balombine of Wissenland
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2016, 11:34:48 AM »
ok so its not just me thinking the savage arrow boys are really good. ...2 wounds and 2 attacks for the bow for 100pts of 10models.

I was really hoping to avoid this kind of huge balance problems with GW rules.


At least the basic boys are close enough in power its no biggy for me.

See, I got IronJaws and I wanted to add some shooty to the army but don't want to take the cheese and have the game be not fun.
For Wissenland and the Countess!!!

My Painting Blog
My Entire Gallery

Offline Duinila

  • Members
  • Posts: 93
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2016, 02:02:27 PM »
I played against Orcs a lot and honestly, the regular Orcs are more deadly, even the arrow boys. It only needs one flanking unit of cavalry, or ranged unti with rend 1, or whatever just to take the savage arrow boys out. Meanwhile with the regular arrow boys can have bows for decent ranged support of Ironjawz, and additionally choppas and shields for their melee potential and their failed save re-roll. Additionally you need to have at least rend -2 to ignore their save, unlike -1 with the savage arrow boys, which tbh A LOT of units have. I play Empire for example. Technically I could move up my troops with handgunners in the back and shoot at you, each handgun having -1 rend, same with the repeater handgun and the longrifle even has -2m since you need to be close enough for me to shoot at you, just so you can shoot at me as well. Plus give them a Warboss with the Waagh ability and nobody will want to go into melee without a plan against them!

Offline Baron von Klatz

  • Members
  • Posts: 1683
  • warhammer> All other works of mankind
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2016, 09:02:15 AM »
Thanks so much for the greenskin feedback, Duinila.  :-)

I haven't faced them on the battlefield yet so I was in uncharted territory here and don't want to give the wrong advice.

Good to see my thoughts on the Savages is correct then that they have to hit hard and fast(which they certainly do) or risk the consequences of using loincloths as armor.

@Peacemaker, very respectable of you to value fair play and fun over competition.  I'd say the only real thing to avoid or add handicaps to is the Mourngul from Forge World, that's a friendship killer right there. :-P
"No battle is ever meaningless for all life is merely death post-poned"
-elector count of the Empire.

Offline Duinila

  • Members
  • Posts: 93
Re: orruk boys vs savage orruk boys
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2016, 02:38:05 PM »
Do you play with friends or random people at teh club, Peacemakeroony? Because if you play with friends, this is how we do it. Basically we plan a game date and then we talk about what kinda list we wanna make. Like if friend a plays his Slannesh demons, then I will play my War Altar (cause d3 attacks with a potential -2 rend 6 damage per attack :P), so he knows that I'll take a big thing and he will take a big thing. If he takes a lot of nasty stuff, he will tell me and I'll take artillery, etc etc. That IS the idea GW had behind AoS, or it least seems like it to me. We play with points, but they aren't needed, because we talk with each other~