Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After wasting far too long of my life reading this hissy fit of a thread, I only shake my head at the people who take a GAME and turn it into a serious event. I for one am not going to care about how the orks are noobhammer or whatever, the bottom line is that I find the orks fun to play, and games are played for...everyone say it with me....FUN. The guy I play against mostly runs Eldar. Does he have to make more careful decisions than me? yes, as he plays a fragile army. Do I sometimes get away with small errors because of the nature of my army? yes. Do either of us hold any animosity toward each other for it? Of course not. Its a game, we play it for fun, not to show each other who is smarter or a better tactician. I'll show up with my BW orks and NOOB tatooed on my forehead at my next tourney, and in the end I'll have a great time, even with the super fun guy calling my list easy to play. How about from now on everyone only shows up with eldar and mechguard at tournaments and we can have bouncers at the door making sure no one brings in a list that isn't top-tier so we can really find out who the good players are? Thats about as enjoyable as no items on final d every time. (I wonder how many will get that reference). The fact of the matter is everyone is taking a game too seriously, sure there are some armies that lend themselves to being a little less 'strategic' than others, but who cares? The fun in the game is in its diversity, even if every list isn't super competitive. If I showed up at games and was only facing MechVet or whatever the hell is the top tier stuff right now, I'd stop playing. In the end you're still just playing with little plastic men.

F is for friends who do things together.
U is for U and ME
N is for anything and anytime at all, down here at my game tourn-ey.

indigo_jones wrote:After wasting far too long of my life reading this hissy fit of a thread, I only shake my head at the people who take a GAME and turn it into a serious event. I for one am not going to care about how the orks are noobhammer or whatever, the bottom line is that I find the orks fun to play, and games are played for...everyone say it with me....FUN. The guy I play against mostly runs Eldar. Does he have to make more careful decisions than me? yes, as he plays a fragile army. Do I sometimes get away with small errors because of the nature of my army? yes. Do either of us hold any animosity toward each other for it? Of course not. Its a game, we play it for fun, not to show each other who is smarter or a better tactician. I'll show up with my BW orks and NOOB tatooed on my forehead at my next tourney, and in the end I'll have a great time, even with the super fun guy calling my list easy to play. How about from now on everyone only shows up with eldar and mechguard at tournaments and we can have bouncers at the door making sure no one brings in a list that isn't top-tier so we can really find out who the good players are? Thats about as enjoyable as no items on final d every time. (I wonder how many will get that reference). The fact of the matter is everyone is taking a game too seriously, sure there are some armies that lend themselves to being a little less 'strategic' than others, but who cares? The fun in the game is in its diversity, even if every list isn't super competitive. If I showed up at games and was only facing MechVet or whatever the hell is the top tier stuff right now, I'd stop playing. In the end you're still just playing with little plastic men.

F is for friends who do things together.
U is for U and ME
N is for anything and anytime at all, down here at my game tourn-ey.

Amen brother!

Toxxic wrote:

indigo_jones wrote:After wasting far too long of my life reading this hissy fit of a thread, I only shake my head at the people who take a GAME and turn it into a serious event. I for one am not going to care about how the orks are noobhammer or whatever, the bottom line is that I find the orks fun to play, and games are played for...everyone say it with me....FUN. The guy I play against mostly runs Eldar. Does he have to make more careful decisions than me? yes, as he plays a fragile army. Do I sometimes get away with small errors because of the nature of my army? yes. Do either of us hold any animosity toward each other for it? Of course not. Its a game, we play it for fun, not to show each other who is smarter or a better tactician. I'll show up with my BW orks and NOOB tatooed on my forehead at my next tourney, and in the end I'll have a great time, even with the super fun guy calling my list easy to play. How about from now on everyone only shows up with eldar and mechguard at tournaments and we can have bouncers at the door making sure no one brings in a list that isn't top-tier so we can really find out who the good players are? Thats about as enjoyable as no items on final d every time. (I wonder how many will get that reference). The fact of the matter is everyone is taking a game too seriously, sure there are some armies that lend themselves to being a little less 'strategic' than others, but who cares? The fun in the game is in its diversity, even if every list isn't super competitive. If I showed up at games and was only facing MechVet or whatever the hell is the top tier stuff right now, I'd stop playing. In the end you're still just playing with little plastic men.

F is for friends who do things together.
U is for U and ME
N is for anything and anytime at all, down here at my game tourn-ey.

Amen brother!

Ditto

indigo_jones wrote:F is for friends who do things together.
U is for U and ME
N is for anything and anytime at all, down here at my game tourn-ey.

F is for Fire that burns down the whole town.
U is for URANIUM...BOMBS!
N is for No survivors when you're-
Here at the game tourn-ey!

Dashofpepper wrote:*giggles wildly*

Frank, I'm not going to write anything lengthy because the post I contributed to this discussion (above) you answered abrasively,

I don't think it was abrasive at all. Obviously some people are more sensitive than others.

refuting nothing I said,

Everything you said was predicated on your assumption that my standpoint is "Orks suck because they can't deal with AV14". That your opinions revolve around a misconception makes them self-defeating; I'm not going to waste time refuting things that refute themselves.

and hoping that a condescending tone and accusations of mental slowness would glib over refutations of your fanatical and wildly deluded and skewed view of reality.

Aw, petal :( Reread, cogitate and digest the thread properly, then comment, and I promise I'll try not to hurt your feelings again.

Being an ass

Namecalling; I call shenanigans!

Here's a digested version of what I actually said to you, coated in as much sugar as possible; what you're bringing to the party is the assumption that I think Orks suck because they can't deal with AV14. That is demonstrably incorrect, and that'll become clear to you if you re-read the thread.

Obviously you don't want to do that, and I've regurgitated my opinions often enough for one lifetime so I'm not going to do it again, so perhaps bowing out is the best thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

indigo_jones wrote:After wasting far too long of my life reading this hissy fit of a thread,

... you decided to waste more of your life by typing out a big wall of hissy text decrying it? Well done to you!

indigo_jones wrote:After wasting far too long of my life reading this hissy fit of a thread, I only shake my head at the people who take a GAME and turn it into a serious event. I for one am not going to care about how the orks are noobhammer or whatever, the bottom line is that I find the orks fun to play, and games are played for...everyone say it with me....FUN. The guy I play against mostly runs Eldar. Does he have to make more careful decisions than me? yes, as he plays a fragile army. Do I sometimes get away with small errors because of the nature of my army? yes. Do either of us hold any animosity toward each other for it? Of course not. Its a game, we play it for fun, not to show each other who is smarter or a better tactician. I'll show up with my BW orks and NOOB tatooed on my forehead at my next tourney, and in the end I'll have a great time, even with the super fun guy calling my list easy to play. How about from now on everyone only shows up with eldar and mechguard at tournaments and we can have bouncers at the door making sure no one brings in a list that isn't top-tier so we can really find out who the good players are? Thats about as enjoyable as no items on final d every time. (I wonder how many will get that reference). The fact of the matter is everyone is taking a game too seriously, sure there are some armies that lend themselves to being a little less 'strategic' than others, but who cares? The fun in the game is in its diversity, even if every list isn't super competitive. If I showed up at games and was only facing MechVet or whatever the hell is the top tier stuff right now, I'd stop playing. In the end you're still just playing with little plastic men.

F is for friends who do things together.
U is for U and ME
N is for anything and anytime at all, down here at my game tourn-ey.

I think you forget that some people enjoy this aspect of the hobby. I.E. coming on a forum and debating the finer aspects of the hobby. It doesn't make the hobby any less fun for them, and I for one think it's a good thing that people have a lot of passion for the hobby.

Although I also think some people take it tooo far.

GG

Because the ones here are being posted as an addendum to the numbers being posted on Stelek's blog. Unless there's a thread I'm not aware of, three-quarters of the results posted on Stelek's blog don't appear on this site at all.

You say this, which I agree with....But wouldn't it also be fair to look at it in reverse? 3/4 of the results posted on Stelek's blog don't appear here at all? If they did, then this site's numbers would be more accurate.

That'd be a silly thing to do if you agreed with me (and Stelek, apparently), because thinking thus you'd probably come to the realisation that Orks are more competetive than they have a right to be and thus can be used to do well at tournaments providing the match-ups fall for you.

I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, but I doubt the majority of the Stelek followers would use that logic. As much as they trash talk Orks in general, they wouldn't be caught dead playing them.

Not all tournament lists are hard, and not all tournament players are either. What I'd like to know is how a Dark Angels player managed to end up sticking it out in the top 10-15 as long as he did. If that's any indication of the quality of the opposition (and, given the fact a Tyranid player finished in the top ten, I believe it is) then it was either a bad field, or I'm missing something in the DA/ Nids and Ork codexes that allows them to whup hard lists. Either these other awesome tournament players were just not ready to face down the awe-inspiring horror of a Lictor, or they weren't running hard lists.

Ok Frank, you've just lost me again. You say that Orks should not be a competitive army(correct me if I have your premise wrong), but that they are in fact competitive because of the environment, that being that 40k just isn't competitve as a whole on the tournament scene. Then, you provide results, where the Orks have shown to have scored the highest of all the other races. Including the choices that can make the so called "hard" lists.

You then fall back on the defense that, the only reason Orks did well was because of a poor field, you cite examples of Dark Angels and Tyranids also doing well in the same environment, so that should prove your point. However, couldn't you argue that in fact, Orks are the MOST competitive army in 40k? I mean, according to you(you are about to test your theory), pretty much anyone can show up with Orks and do well in a tournament. Whereas the "hard" armies require a lot more effort to win with. Contain your answer to just the current tournament scene, the one you think is not very competitive at all. In that box, if there was an army that took very little effort to win with, consistently scored high, higher than any other army, then couldn't you reach the conclusion that in fact, the Orks are the most competitive army running right now?



Looking forward to your answer.




Clay

Alerian wrote:Shep,
Your wall trick is nice, and I'll have to remember it. However, since I always bring 30 lootas, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

How do you deal with Lootas backing up BW orks?

(P.S. This is a serious question, as I am starting an IG army soon, to go along side my Eldar, DA and Orks)

We've playtested this scenario numerous times. Most of my 1750 lists involve at least 3 wagons with KFF protection and at least 30 lootas. Some have 45. I even run solitary deffkoptas with rockitts and buzzsaws as anti tank tech.

There simply isn't enough shooting to deal with his horde of vehicles. I can't kill them all fast enough. Once my wagons run into his vehicle wall it's usually over since I'm now forced to wait for the lootas to take down his tanks or I must disembark which is even worse than just sitting there in a wagon. The open topped nature of battlewagons makes them a lot more fragile than I'd like, especially when he can easily get side armor shots because of how narrow their front armor side is.

So yeah lootas do some damage but they can only shoot at one vehicle a turn and that isn't a guaranteed destroy result.

Note we don't play with the deffrolla vs. vehicle ruling. If we did that could change the dynamic of the strategy as the vehicle wall would be much less effective if I get to actually steamroll his banewolves.

Primarch wrote:You say this, which I agree with....But wouldn't it also be fair to look at it in reverse? 3/4 of the results posted on Stelek's blog don't appear here at all? If they did, then this site's numbers would be more accurate.

Well yeah, it'd be fair to say that; but it should go without saying really, shouldn't it? If the same numbers appeared here then Dakka's results would be just as useful a barometer as Stelek's blog, common sense tells us that. The results don't appear here though, so it's not. Not really.

I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, but I doubt the majority of the Stelek followers would use that logic. As much as they trash talk Orks in general, they wouldn't be caught dead playing them.

Stelek plays Orks. I've seen various posts of his regarding his Orks. I've never tried them myself but they look like a helluva lot of fun, and I defy anyone to say they dislike the SAG Big Mek model.

Ok Frank, you've just lost me again. You say that Orks should not be a competitive army(correct me if I have your premise wrong), but that they are in fact competitive because of the environment, that being that 40k just isn't competitve as a whole on the tournament scene. Then, you provide results, where the Orks have shown to have scored the highest of all the other races. Including the choices that can make the so called "hard" lists.

You've got the premise down; where you're losing it is in the decryption of those results. Yeah the Orks did well. So did Tyranids. And Dark Angels. And there were more than a few Necrons in there too. I could also postulate that, since an estimated 99% of Chaos Marines players are Lash-merchants, the presence of so many CSM players in the results also attests to the low quality of the opposition; however that'd be conjectural since no army lists are available and a lot of hard lists can be built using the CSM Codex.

The same cannot be said of the Tyranids, Necrons or Dark Angels books. How else did players using these armies place so well if their opposition didn't suck?

However, couldn't you argue that in fact, Orks are the MOST competitive army in 40k?

Assuming their opposition is rubbish, yeah. They're a lot more forgiving to play than almost any other Codex in 40K whilst also being quite dangerous to the uninitiated opponent; the sight of 180 Orks deploying for a 1500pt game will cause some people to panic. People who know what those 180 Orks are capable of will shrug it off.

I mean, according to you(you are about to test your theory), pretty much anyone can show up with Orks and do well in a tournament.

Yup.

Whereas the "hard" armies require a lot more effort to win with.

Yup. They require a far more intimate understanding of the general game to run properly; you can have the hardest list in the world, but give it to a player who doesn't understand that Fast Skimmers can't fire weapons when moving Flat Out or AT weapons suck against infantry, or that Hormagaunts aren't something you need to kill but Carnifexes are, etc etc, and he'll fail with it every time.

The same thing cannot be said of Orks. I'm fairly confident that I could take an Ork list to a tournament and do well having never moved a Git in my life before, provided the opposition I face remains the same gaggle of footslogging Storm Troopers and Drop Pod Dreadding nuggets that currently attend GTs.

Contain your answer to just the current tournament scene, the one you think is not very competitive at all. In that box, if there was an army that took very little effort to win with, consistently scored high, higher than any other army, then couldn't you reach the conclusion that in fact, the Orks are the most competitive army running right now?

I'd agree with that. Thing is, though, if people actually started playing for keeps at tourneys the Orks would rapidly disappear from the placings, because they rely on simplicity, ease of use and weak opposition to be competetive. Hard lists rely on their own units being able to deal with anything in order to win games; the Orks rely on the opponent being unable to deal with their units to win games.

I think you forget that some people enjoy this aspect of the hobby. I.E. coming on a forum and debating the finer aspects of the hobby. It doesn't make the hobby any less fun for them, and I for one think it's a good thing that people have a lot of passion for the hobby.

Although I also think some people take it tooo far.

GG

Dude...paragraphs

You know 60% of the time my army wins all the time.

Proper assessment of armies is not as simple as many on this thread make it. Some people can use tournaments as an example but others will dismiss it those results.

Another form of assessment is looking at the codex and using math to determine what is most point efficient but it doesnt take the mission/players/list at hand

My assessment of armies is based on if the army can dominate 2 of the 3 phases of the game.

Orks can dominate any of the 3 phases of the game simple and easy.

thehod wrote:You know 60% of the time my army wins all the time.

Proper assessment of armies is not as simple as many on this thread make it. Some people can use tournaments as an example but others will dismiss it those results.

Another form of assessment is looking at the codex and using math to determine what is most point efficient but it doesnt take the mission/players/list at hand

My assessment of armies is based on if the army can dominate 2 of the 3 phases of the game.

Orks can dominate any of the 3 phases of the game simple and easy.

Surely that's far more unscientific since it too doesn't take into account the set-up of the board or the opponent's Codex, let alone the players involved or the opponent's army list.

EDIT: Also, how do you define domination in terms of the shooting and movement phases?

A lot of the results posted here have also been posted on Stelek's blog too, and they sort of get lost amidst the sea of other results in which no Ork lists appear at all. Here you go:

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/07/ard-boyz.html

If you've got access to an official national 'Ard Boyz listing I'd be happy to take a look at it. Otherwise this is probably as close as we get for the time being.

From what I can tell Dakka has many more results than there are on Stelek's blog. Here is the data from the Dakka results thread (this is a list of armies that made the semifinals):

UPDATED COUNTS (this thread only):
Space Marines -- 35
Orks -- 31
Imperial Guard -- 18
Chaos Marines -- 20
Eldar -- 16
Chaos Daemons -- 13
Tyranids -- 17
Tau -- 9
Space Wolves -- 5
Necrons -- 6
Blood Angels -- 4
Demon Hunters -- 1
Black Templars -- 4
Dark Eldar -- 4
Dark Angels -- 1

Frank Fugger wrote:

Surely that's far more unscientific since it too doesn't take into account the set-up of the board or the opponent's Codex, let alone the players involved or the opponent's army list.

EDIT: Also, how do you define domination in terms of the shooting and movement phases?

Well im not much for scientific research over a game of toy soldiers. I just see 40k more as a game where as many people treat this as a simulation.

This game is simply broken down into 3 phases: Movement, Shooting, Assault

Orks can dominate the movement phase by using mass battlewagons or bike spam, special abilities such as snikrot's flank march ability can work as well in restricting the movements of the opposing army. You also have the run rule or the waaaagh special rule that can cover the board in no time. Domination of the movement phase can be accomplished too by controlling the battlefield and with 180 orks, that is pretty simple to take up the board. As for shooting, Orks dominate it with volume of fire along with protection from return fire with the introduction of coversaves in 5th and the use of KFF to protect ork forces on their way to target. IMO Orks are weakest in assault due to combat resolution that can kill way more orks than shooting could.

Frank Fugger wrote:Hard lists rely on their own units being able to deal with anything in order to win games; the Orks rely on the opponent being unable to deal with their units to win games.

Frank, don't take either of the following statements the wrong way:

A) It's about time you got around to making a legitimate point as to what is actually "wrong" with the Orks.

B) I agree with you 100%, you're absolutely right about that being the difference between what you consider "hard" and the Orks.

From my experiences, Orks don't actually kill everything, they kill what they can and survive the rest. A smart player will do the same thing with any army: Example-- an Eldar force has had every one of their AT weapons glanced off by destroyers, but hold 4/5 objectives, there's really no need to move a unit off of an objective to try and go pin a haywire grenade or two onto the monolith across the field. By that same token, an Ork army pushes forward and literally denies table access in order to keep nasty units out of the fight. The difference is that where other armies avoid the fights they can't win, an Ork will intentionally engage the same target and tie it up, keeping it from threatening the rest of the table.

Yes, you can probably win a lot of games with Orks just by weight of numbers, and the army doesn't have any one unit that is truly an answer to anything. The difference is that Ork units aren't "hard" by your definition unless you want to count a PowerKlaw with 30 ablative wounds or riding a fast vehicle that can potentially scatter closer to the intended target when destroyed able to deal with anything, but the army list as a whole can be. Yes, a Big Mek can dish out a lot of damage, and so can a squadron of Kans. But make the right choices, and suddenly the synergy of the list becomes a force multiplier, as a Kustom Force Field for the Mek takes away all of his serious damage capabilities, but gives the surrounding units like the aforementioned Kans much more survivability and damage output. Stormboyz will get torn apart relatively quickly for their points, and a big mob of thirty Boyz has trouble reaching the enemy lines at anywhere near full strength. But combine the two, and those Stormboyz can be sacrificed tie up a unit or two long enough to get the rest of the army up close where they can do their work.

Orks have the potential to be a very competitive codex not from what an individual unit can do (such as a tactical squad with a powerfist, flamer, and multimelta), but with a synergy throughout the list to let units work together, compliment each other, and sacrifice themselves to improve the position of the army or prevent the enemy from doing the same. I might lose 10-20 Boyz to Flechettes in the process, but I will bring down that Hammerhead, and stop it from shelling my lines, even if I would only lose another 5-10 or so to the same tank in the game's remaining turns. Why? Not because I'm pushing bodies forward, not because I want to see the tank go down out of pride, not because I'm a pushover player that likes sacrificing models, but because I know which of my units matter to my plan and which don't.

You take the average Joe Ork and put him up against John Space Marine, and all things being equal, Joe and John not being very good at making lists or carrying out a battleplan, and Joe Ork is probably going to come out on top so long as he remembers what the objectives are and doesn't get carried away. I'm not the average Joe ork though. From what I understand, neither is Dashofpepper or any number of other Ork players that have contributed their views in this thread. We are competitive... nay beyond that, dominant. And because of this, I believe that as the competition steps up and begins to rise to the challenge, even if we do not remain dominant, we will continue to be a Tier 1, competitive force for some time to come.

Several people will disagree with these statements, and you are well within your rights to do so. When you do, I will simply smile and nod, consider your points about what makes Orks a tier 3 army, why they're barely competitive, and then I'll go play some more. And win.

A) It's about time you got around to making a legitimate point as to what is actually "wrong" with the Orks.

B) I agree with you 100%, you're absolutely right about that being the difference between what you consider "hard" and the Orks.

I believe his point is that if hard lists can deal with anything, and Ork lists depend on opposing armies not being able to deal with specific units in order to win, then it stands to reason that hard lists can deal with said units and thus always trump Ork lists.

Strangely, you seem to agree with this assertion but then go on to disagree with what logically extends from that premise (that Ork are not "hard", i.e., competitive).

Malecus wrote: ...

QFT

Manimal wrote:

A lot of the results posted here have also been posted on Stelek's blog too, and they sort of get lost amidst the sea of other results in which no Ork lists appear at all. Here you go:

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/07/ard-boyz.html

If you've got access to an official national 'Ard Boyz listing I'd be happy to take a look at it. Otherwise this is probably as close as we get for the time being.

From what I can tell Dakka has many more results than there are on Stelek's blog. Here is the data from the Dakka results thread (this is a list of armies that made the semifinals):

UPDATED COUNTS (this thread only):
Space Marines -- 35
Orks -- 31
Imperial Guard -- 18
Chaos Marines -- 20
Eldar -- 16
Chaos Daemons -- 13
Tyranids -- 17
Tau -- 9
Space Wolves -- 5
Necrons -- 6
Blood Angels -- 4
Demon Hunters -- 1
Black Templars -- 4
Dark Eldar -- 4
Dark Angels -- 1

So basically, Orks enjoyed greater success than Tyranids, Necrons, and Daemonhunters (and Tau, Eldar, and Chaos). Wasn't Frank trying to explain that the presence of qualifying tyranid/necron/DH lists somehow disqualifies any success orks might have in the semis? I think the fact that Orks rival only Vulcanspam in these results suggests that the army might be competitive. Results like this don't look like a 3rd tier army sneaking through a tournament full of scrubs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

A) It's about time you got around to making a legitimate point as to what is actually "wrong" with the Orks.

B) I agree with you 100%, you're absolutely right about that being the difference between what you consider "hard" and the Orks.

I believe his point is that if hard lists can deal with anything, and Ork lists depend on opposing armies not being able to deal with specific units in order to win, then it stands to reason that hard lists can deal with said units and thus always trump Ork lists.

Strangely, you seem to agree with this assertion but then go on to disagree with what logically extends from that premise (that Ork are not "hard", i.e., competitive).

Actually, he's trying to distinguish between Fugger's definition of hard/competitive and his own definition of hard/competitive. Whether or not being competitive can be seen as a logical extension from what Fugger is saying is a matter of debate. Tau, for example, have no effective way to deal with hordes (like horde orks or gaunt hordes) and therefore do not fall into Fugger's definition of competitive, even though he takes the fact that they are seemingly for granted.

thehod wrote:Well im not much for scientific research over a game of toy soldiers. I just see 40k more as a game where as many people treat this as a simulation.

Scientific as in "objective and based in demonstrable fact", rather than scientific as in "meticulously measured and tested to death". You don't need beakers to be scientific about something.

This game is simply broken down into 3 phases: Movement, Shooting, Assault

Orks can dominate the movement phase by using mass battlewagons or bike spam, special abilities such as snikrot's flank march ability can work as well in restricting the movements of the opposing army. You also have the run rule or the waaaagh special rule that can cover the board in no time. Domination of the movement phase can be accomplished too by controlling the battlefield and with 180 orks, that is pretty simple to take up the board.

The thing with all this is, apart from stuff like fielding hordes and Fleeting once per game, most other armies can do all of these things to a far more potent extent than the Orks. Marines and Eldar can Bike-spam. Marines, Daemonhunters and Guard can tank-spam. Eldar and Deldar can Fleet (and they can do it more than once per game), and most Codexes have some unit or other that can Outflank. Sure Snikrot's Outflank is different, but unless your opponent fails at 5th Ed and has something sitting back-field waiting to be gribbled then it's not massively useful. I'll give you that 180 Orks can take up the board, but they're only Orks. T4 and a 6+ save is hardly inspiring, and neither is S3(4) attacks against even AV10; even en masse. Assuming you get near my vehicles to begin with.

So yeah, none of this stuff is particularly novel or impressive in the grand scheme of things, and I'd hardly say any of it amounts to dominance.

As for shooting, Orks dominate it with volume of fire along with protection from return fire with the introduction of coversaves in 5th and the use of KFF to protect ork forces on their way to target.

Again, other armies can do this too, only they tend to do it better. Guard have more shots and a better chance of hitting with them, and it's hard to keep a 30-man Mob in cover; a ten man Tac Squad not so much.

IMO Orks are weakest in assault due to combat resolution that can kill way more orks than shooting could.

Considering the entire army is based on WOARGH MOVE CHARGE LOTS OF DICE that seems like a strange conclusion to reach. Not entirely unwarranted, but strange nonetheless.

Malecus wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:Hard lists rely on their own units being able to deal with anything in order to win games; the Orks rely on the opponent being unable to deal with their units to win games.

Frank, don't take either of the following statements the wrong way:

A) It's about time you got around to making a legitimate point as to what is actually "wrong" with the Orks.

What Danny Internets said. Also what I've been saying since page 1 of this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dumbuket wrote:So basically, Orks enjoyed greater success than Tyranids, Necrons, and Daemonhunters (and Tau, Eldar, and Chaos). Wasn't Frank trying to explain that the presence of qualifying tyranid/necron/DH lists somehow disqualifies any success orks might have in the semis? I think the fact that Orks rival only Vulcanspam in these results suggests that the army might be competitive. Results like this don't look like a 3rd tier army sneaking through a tournament full of scrubs.

13 Daemons, 17 Tyranids and 6 Necron players also got through. The presence of such still devalues the Orks' success; numbers don't really enter into it.

Also, doesn't it seem a bit strange that the most popular army is also the best represented in round 2? Maybe they were all playing Vulkan Bikers.

Actually, he's trying to distinguish between Fugger's definition of hard/competitive and his own definition of hard/competitive. Whether or not being competitive can be seen as a logical extension from what Fugger is saying is a matter of debate.

Seems logical to me. Competetive Codexes will remain competetive even if the opposition is playing for keeps using a hard list. That doesn't happen, though, and so the Orks produce good numbers at tournaments. Tyranids do too, apparently; not as good as Orks, but they're still well represented considering they're a scrub Codex.

Trying to claim that a Codex is hard based purely on a bunch of numbers in a table isn't very subjective.

Tau, for example, have no effective way to deal with hordes (like horde orks or gaunt hordes) and therefore do not fall into Fugger's definition of competitive, even though he takes the fact that they are seemingly for granted.

I dunno, 30-40 S7+ shots per turn plus a couple of Blasts, plus the Broadsides and Pirhanas, plus the Kroot, plus the Smart Missiles, plus... yeah, it all adds up. Seems like a lot of shooting to me. Is it enough to deal with 180 Orks before they can get into combat with the Kroot? Maybe not, but does it really need to be?

It might also be worth noting that horde armies are not "hard".

Well yeah, it'd be fair to say that; but it should go without saying really, shouldn't it? If the same numbers appeared here then Dakka's results would be just as useful a barometer as Stelek's blog, common sense tells us that. The results don't appear here though, so it's not. Not really.

I must be dense or something. According to Manimal(I think), there are far more results posted here, than on Stelek's blog. I still can't see why the numbers there mean so much more to you than the numbers here? It doesnt matter that the results from here aren't there, the numbers from there aren't here either. I will stick to my statement above. You would have to gather all the numbers from there, then add them to these numbers to get a solid single number of results that we can use.

Right?



Clay

@ Frank

I am going to first say that I am in no way an expert in 40k, nor will I claim to be. I just play for the challenge of going against the best players in my area and around the nation if I am playing at GTs/Indy GTs.

As for objective facts:

Fact: Orks swept the 2008 GT season in the US
Fact: The GT circuit winner of 2008 played with orks
Fact: I good player can make a good army better

As for other armies that can tank/bike spam: I do agree that many armies have much of wha the orks have but Orks have a few distinct advantages over other armies.

Vehicles: Most of the vehicles orks have are fast and are cheap. Orks also can take advantage of mounting a KFF giving said vehicles a mobile coversave that most other armies fail to have (Imperial Vehicles) or have to go flat out (DE and Eldar), or can but too but limited range (Tau disruption pods). Grot Riggers can bring an ork vehicle previously thought out of commission, back into the game.

Bikes: Ork bikes come with a coversave attached to them over others whom have to turboboost.

In regards to shooting:

The reason I say orks dominate in the shooting phase is because while they are now currently outshot by guard, their survivability against most of the weapons guard diminishes their firepower. Once again KFF will provide a save against most weapons while Mad Dok Grosnik can confer FNP to the front unit while giving the rear units a cover save. Domination of the shooting phase doesnt just mean having more guns than your opponent but it also means the denial of the full potential of his weapons and minimizing the damage done.

As for the weakness in HtH, remember orks are still I2, S3, T4 with a wifebeater save. A dedicated assault unit can inflict enough casualties on an ork unit to make them lose combat and force plenty of saves through no retreat.

While some armies can fleet always, the orks only need 1 turn for fleet, the rest of the time, they can simply run if needed or move n shoot. What other armies dont have is a Ghazkull to ensure a 6 inch fleet. You also forget that wyrd boyz have a random power that can give the ork army another waaagh, Just to correct you on your statement of them only having 1 fleet roll.

What makes Orks dangerous is the synergy of the armylist that allows for units to perform better than normally or survive better. KFF, Mad Dok Grosnik, and Ghazkull enhance the army.

Peace, Godbless and dont roll unless its for ld tests

thehod wrote:@ Frank

I am going to first say that I am in no way an expert in 40k, nor will I claim to be. I just play for the challenge of going against the best players in my area and around the nation if I am playing at GTs/Indy GTs.

As for objective facts:

Fact: Orks swept the 2008 GT season in the US
Fact: The GT circuit winner of 2008 played with orks
Fact: I good player can make a good army better

As for other armies that can tank/bike spam: I do agree that many armies have much of wha the orks have but Orks have a few distinct advantages over other armies.


Vehicles: Most of the vehicles orks have are fast and are cheap. Orks also can take advantage of mounting a KFF giving said vehicles a mobile coversave that most other armies fail to have (Imperial Vehicles) or have to go flat out (DE and Eldar), or can but too but limited range (Tau disruption pods). Grot Riggers can bring an ork vehicle previously thought out of commission, back into the game.

From a practical point of view. Getting cover saves with guard or marine or imperium armies is quite easy using smoke launchers or leap frog tactics. The KFF save isn't really an advantage as it is a necessity to be on par with other armies.

Ork vehicles are also far more fragile than imperium vehicles. Trukks are only armor 10 where chimeras or rhinos are 12 or 11 in the front. Battlewagon's are a pricier alternative but the AR 14 is easy to get around because of how narrow the vehicle is. They generally aren't much more sturdy than a 50 point chimera and are twice the cost not to mention eating a heavy slot. All ork vehicles are open topped which makes them explode far more often than other vehicles.

I don't consider the ork vehicle selection to be any kind of advantage. Trukks and Wagons are decent and I don't think they suck, but I certainly don't think are they are superior to guard chimeras or even rhinos point for point.

@ Kevin Nash.

I agree that Chimeras are far more superior than trukks. But smoke launchers are only for a round and ork vehicles can also leapfrog as well. BW taking a heavy slot isint a big deal and dont forget that Nobs can buy a BW as a dedicated transport. Orks do have wargear to close the top of said vehicles (works better for the BW than trukks).

Thanks for bringing up a good point Kevin.

Frank Fugger wrote:
You've got the premise down; where you're losing it is in the decryption of those results. Yeah the Orks did well. So did Tyranids. And Dark Angels. And there were more than a few Necrons in there too. I could also postulate that, since an estimated 99% of Chaos Marines players are Lash-merchants, the presence of so many CSM players in the results also attests to the low quality of the opposition; however that'd be conjectural since no army lists are available and a lot of hard lists can be built using the CSM Codex.

The same cannot be said of the Tyranids, Necrons or Dark Angels books. How else did players using these armies place so well if their opposition didn't suck?

Are you still talking about UK GT? If so, there were just two Tyranid players in Top 50, one Necron and no Dark Angels... (results here)

Really, since Ork seemed to be so popular there, and assuming they lose to AV14...shouldn't it logically mean that Land Raider lists ought to do well, since they had so many helpless Ork opponents to crush?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frank Fugger wrote:
I dunno, 30-40 S7+ shots per turn plus a couple of Blasts, plus the Broadsides and Pirhanas, plus the Kroot, plus the Smart Missiles, plus... yeah, it all adds up. Seems like a lot of shooting to me. Is it enough to deal with 180 Orks before they can get into combat with the Kroot? Maybe not, but does it really need to be?

See, it's comments like this which make me think you have not actually played Tau. Sure they have all that stuff in the Codex. But Tau stuff tends to be expensive. You can tune your army to face horde, or face Mech, but it is hard to make it able to face both.

Fugger's just a 40k player with a big mouth. As soon as he started calling orks a "noobhammer" he lost me. If you want a forgiving army that plays itself, you don't play orks. They sell space marines for that.

Primarch wrote:I must be dense or something. According to Manimal(I think), there are far more results posted here, than on Stelek's blog. I still can't see why the numbers there mean so much more to you than the numbers here? It doesnt matter that the results from here aren't there, the numbers from there aren't here either. I will stick to my statement above. You would have to gather all the numbers from there, then add them to these numbers to get a solid single number of results that we can use.

Right?

If I knew where those numbers came from I'd be more inclined to accept them at face value. They're still not indicative of Orky competetiveness, but at least I'd be able to corroborate them for myself.

Even without corroboration, the fact 13 Daemons players managed to make the second round speaks volumes of the quality of the field. This is an army which fails against bolters and meltabombs, which is easily able to fill out most of it's FoC slots at 1250pts (try it, it's fun!), which can take a maximum of 3 vehicles (all Walkers) and which has a distinctive CC bent but must arrive on the board by Deep Strike. There's so much wrong with the Daemons Codex it's untrue; yet there are 13 Daemons players through to round 2. Either they've found some previously unknown way to make the Codex not suck against hard players, or the opposition was poor.

thehod wrote: As for objective facts:

Fact: Orks swept the 2008 GT season in the US
Fact: The GT circuit winner of 2008 played with orks
Fact: I good player can make a good army better

I won't dispute any of these things; what I will say is that none of these things are particularly indicative of the Codex's quality. Especially not the last one; a good player can make a good army better, but he can also make a cruddy one good in the face of poor opposition.

I also think the concept of dominating game phases = competetive is flawed. Grey Knights can arguably dominate all three phases at the same time in each and every turn. If you look at it objectively Orks can do the same thing; they can throw out a lot of shots, have various means by which to protect themselves against return fire, most of their weapons are Assault weapons and they will chew up a lot of armies in CC.

Fact is that throwing either army against a hard list, which can't out-and-out "dominate" phases (you'll never get as many shots from a Raider squad as you would from a load of Shoota Boyz in a Battlewagon, f'rinstance) but which doesn't need to as it's able to dictate how their opponent's phases will play out, well that's just going to end in tears.

Backfire wrote:Are you still talking about UK GT? If so, there were just two Tyranid players in Top 50, one Necron and no Dark Angels... (results here)

Really, since Ork seemed to be so popular there, and assuming they lose to AV14...shouldn't it logically mean that Land Raider lists ought to do well, since they had so many helpless Ork opponents to crush?

Number one; get off AV14. That was a thread and a half ago. We've already established that is but one of the problems the Orks face.

Number two; quality, not quantity. Sure only a single Tyranid player made it into the top ten, but if the other players had been running hard lists even he wouldn't've been there. Neither would the 4 Ork players, nor any CSM Lash merchant.

See, it's comments like this which make me think you have not actually played Tau. Sure they have all that stuff in the Codex. But Tau stuff tends to be expensive. You can tune your army to face horde, or face Mech, but it is hard to make it able to face both.

Not really, considering you can be dropping Submunitions on the horde from across the board and anything that comes within 36-24 inches is liable to get beaned with as much Plasma, Missiles and Smart Missiles as you've got Suits and vehicles. Multi-Trackers are pretty cool considering how cheap they are. Then of course there's the Kroot to consider.

Frank Fugger wrote:

People were saying you were acting like a dick... well, because you were acting like a dick.

Yeah, that wasn't good. Then again I was led to believe that this was a forum of grown-ups; it's apparently not (and I don't mean that in an insulting or derogatory way - simply that there are a lot of younger members here too), and I'll factor that into my dealings from now on.

Well, most of the time.

Friend, even "grown-ups" don't like it when you act like a dick.

Actually, I think "grown-ups" like it even less when you act like a dick.

Saldiven wrote:Friend, even "grown-ups" don't like it when you act like a dick.

Actually, I think "grown-ups" like it even less when you act like a dick.

It's telling that you put grown-ups in quotation marks.

I'd like to see 100% less usage of the word 'dick', as well as some polite conversation.

This topic was an interesting one.

If it could stay on topic, that would be great.

Please remember Dakka's Rule 1.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp