Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

methoderik wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:
Were those top ten by battlepoints or by fluffy hobby competition overall points? The former is somewhat relevant, though one would also have to argue that Necrons and Tyranids are competitive (they're not), and the latter makes this laughable as far as support is concerned.

Dude, just shut up. If you have never played a competitive Nid list in 5th edition you are playing the wrong people.

Obviously you, Frank, and Stelek play in this little bubble of a Universe where Sun revolves strictly around you guys. For the rest of us apparently incapable players, National Tournament Results as well as personal experience will help determine our meta game. Not some flame tactic blog site maintained and created by a guy who was permanently banned from this forum for being a gigantic douche bag.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's priceless.

Read Danny's Blog, maybe you'll learn how to play the game well.

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

You can't claim that Orks doing well in the last UK GT shows they're strong, and that them doing well in Necromonicon proves they're strong, when the army that won the former apparently had no representatives at the latter!

Lack of IG lists also indicates a weak player base.

To put it simply - Those Ork lists may well have been among the best there, or the best players there, but they couldn't even beat Necrons, so they're pathetic.

Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

It will also be interesting to see how the results of the Big Waagh compare in here also (once they finally get them posted).

I know that Marines pretty much dominated the top spots - at least top 3-5. Other top armies going into last round were Eldar and Chaos.

As far as I know there - the few Necron and bug players did rather poorly.

Mahu wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

Frank Fugger has pointed out that Necrons have performed well in UK GTs. One could apply your same logic to them as you currently do to CSM, given their nationwide results and the single instance of a player placing in the top 10 of the Necronomicon.

Danny Internets wrote:

Mahu wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

You can take into account match ups, how favorible the missions played in the match ups, etc. But there is no denying that the same story to come out of this event matches closely with the rest of the country, namely Deamons, Chaos Space Marines, Space Marines, and Orks are producing the more competitive builds.

By looking at these results and coming to that conclusion, you must also logically conclude that Tyranids and Necrons are top competitors. After all, their representation in the top 10 here equals that of CSM, the competitive nature of which you believe to be substantiated by this list.

Not necessarily. The high placing of a single player is indicative of that player and his match ups. The several placings of multiple players playing out of the same codex is indicative of that codexes power.

If you remember, my previous post compared the result of the Necro with the rest of the results nation wide, which is why I included Chaos Space Marine in my list.

Frank Fugger has pointed out that Necrons have performed well in UK GTs. One could apply your same logic to them as you currently do to CSM, given their nationwide results and the single instance of a player placing in the top 10 of the Necronomicon.

There is also less data coming out of the UK results then come out of the US simply due to the amount of events run each year per country. It is fair to say though that US results are by far the best competitive borrometer because we have a more competitive culture, and the results are spread out among a great many region playstyles.

Danny Internets wrote:

Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

Oh don't worry, my butt is fine. I was simply trying to save you from making even more than an ass out of yourself with your comments. While not as dominant as they once were at the end of 4th, Bugs can still hold there own against even your feared mech lists.

Again, if you can't see this... the problem sounds more like you...

There is also less data coming out of the UK results then come out of the US simply due to the amount of events run each year per country. It is fair to say though that US results are by far the best competitive borrometer because we have a more competitive culture, and the results are spread out among a great many region playstyles.

Well, regarding which culture is more competitive, that's simply a matter of opinion. Even if you could definitively say one culture is more competitive on average than another, this means little when all you need to fill out an event is 40-100 potentially cut-throat individuals.

As far as your second point is concerned, from my experience every club is its own little microcosm and unless there are multiple play groups in the same area they are often wildly different from one another, whether they're 5 miles apart or 500. The internet also does a lot to mitigate the effects of physical proximity between groups. While I haven't played in the UK, I doubt the variety of styles is any different when bringing together clubs at a national event.

Elessar wrote:

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

How do you know if there were even any Eldar players there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Elessar wrote:[
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's priceless.

Read Danny's Blog, maybe you'll learn how to play the game well.

Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

If it reflects his opinion on this and the previous threads, I will pass.

methoderik wrote:

Elessar wrote:

No Eldar in the Top Ten, and you think it's a reasonable basis for results? Get real.

How do you know if there were even any Eldar players there?

Because the event results show 4 Eldar players: http://www.thenecro.com/coverage.htm

Also interesting is that there were 12 Ork players there, the majority of which placed in the bottom half of the standings by battle points.

Danny Internets wrote:

Because the event rules show 4 Eldar players: http://www.thenecro.com/coverage.htm

Wow a whole 4, out of how many? And I guess since they are playing Eldar they have to be skilled players?

4 of 68 were Eldar players (5.9%).

For reference, there were 5 Daemon players (7.4%) and 6 Chaos Space Marine players (8.8%). And only 3 Tyranid and Necron players (4.4%).

This thread has received multiple reports now.

STOP the flaming, personal attacks, insults, etc.

This thread is now on a short leash...

Well, shorter than before this.

There was 1 very good mech eldar player who lost to the witch hunters army that was built to be anti-mech. Yermom had the highest placing Nids and he can tell you how the environment was.

As for IG, I think alot of people who took IG either a) didnt have their ideal army yet, b) havent found the competitive build or c) got destroyed by the mission or a bad matchup.

I think one thing that differs in Warhammer 40k compared to say, Magic: the Gathering, is that there is a lot more player skill and randomness involved.

There can be quite a skill gap in Warhammer40k that a lot of people don't want to admit. Really good players can make excellent plays that can allow a "worse" list to win. Heck, I've been playing 40k for 6 years and I have players in my group that are better players than me and have played more games. One of the main reasons I continue to play is to continue improving upon my game.

I guess what I am saying is that unlike, say, Magic: the gathering, you can't look at the winning lists of a tournament and say "those are the top lists". In 40k, you can almost always say "those are some of the best players who entered the tournament".

There are also other factors that can easily change the results of a game such as mission objectives, dice rolls, etc. Then you also have bad matchups or mirror matches that can change the end results. Heck sometimes you even have players who have been playing for years, but havent played a specific army that their gaming group doesn't own. Heck, I've never played a Dark Eldar army yet. Sure, I've read the codex but that doesn't match the experience of actually playing against them. Nobody owns them around here.

Also, I think when some look at an army such as Tyranids and say that they aren't competitive, I think the main thing they are trying to say is that if you take 2 equally skilled players and have them play game after game, the Tyranid player will come out losing more often than winning. We have observed this in our group and we are confident that our Tyranids lists are as good as they come. Yeah, the Tyranids win games and force us to play smart but we definitely take them down more than they take us down. In a tournament, a good Tyranid player with a good list can win some games against top-tier lists with some lucky dice rolls, favorable objectives/matchups or mistakes on their opponents' part.

Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

methoderik wrote:Obviously you, Frank, and Stelek play in this little bubble of a Universe where Sun revolves strictly around you guys.

I wish that were true; a lot of other people in my group are beginning to wake up and smell the new Edition, which means it's getting less and less worthwhile taking my Grey Knights out of their drawer. That makes me go sad-face, because I've grown accustomed to successfully running an outmoded army with a no-brain strategy that will always work as long as my opponent can't deal with the models I put on the table.

Elessar wrote:Orks = Bottom of Competitive. Necrons = Bottom of the Barrel.

A fine summation

@Skipdog, good post indeed.

You are of course right, a good player will beat a poor player most of the time, even with an inferior list.

What Frank, Danny, Stelek, myself, and others are saying is that, in an environment where no player stands out above the others, Orks, Necrons, Daemons and Nids can't really compete.

That said, Stelek posted a new Daemon list that just might.

@TheHod, I saw in Yermum's thread that a MechDar player was top table heading into 5 - but he still came outside the top ten, which proves (to me) the Necron, Daemon and Ork players had an easier time than he. Especially reading the weak-ass lists Yermum had in some of those games. Sounds like he played fairly well, but some of those guys he faced were no contest. In a series of games between 2 good players with balanced lists, there are few/no massacres.

Eldar players don't have to be skilled, and I would in fact say, given their results, that none of them was exceptionally skilled. Apparently one was good, I accept that, since I wasn't there. Still eager to see his list though.

@Frank: Thanks.

Danny Internets wrote:

Dude, just shut up.

No u!

I'm sorry that it gets you all butthurt, but if you honestly think Tyranids are competitive in a 5th edition mech environment then you're playing a different game than everyone else.

Also, what does Stelek have to do with this? Do you throw unprovoked insults at strangers often?

You know you must be making a good point when you piss someone off on this board.


But Yermom did have a good point. The metagame around the area for the Necro is assault oriented and 5th edition does favor assault armies with cover, run, and a far more brutal assault phase. People will play what they like and some can do very exceptional with what they have.

skipdog172 wrote:Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

QFT. All this talk of "tier this" and "competitive that" is just mental masturbation. The fact of the matter is a skilled player with experience with his army can still win in the face of rank and file players with their "uber flavor of the month" army list.

The Green Git wrote:

skipdog172 wrote:Really all I'm saying is that there are a lot more factors that go into performing well in a tournament besides the exact list being played. I also think some people don't realize how mistakes can be made on a game-by-game basis even be really good players who have been playing for many years. I think any very skilled player can take almost any codex and have the capability of performing well and I think that is what we see often in these tournament results.

QFT. All this talk of "tier this" and "competitive that" is just mental masturbation. The fact of the matter is a skilled player with experience with his army can still win in the face of rank and file players with their "uber flavor of the month" army list.

Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

(Apart from silly 'flavour of the month' nonsense you're so fond of. MechDar, MechVets, AirCav, Best of Tau/Marines, Plague/Blit spam...hardly fotm when they're not going away - being as genuinely good list, unlike Orks, means they're here to stay.)

@thehod: Every post I make must be a good point, according to your logic!

Elessar wrote:
Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

I totally understood what you were saying.

Again, I totally disagree.

While certain match ups will always favor a certain side, Orks can still be competitive when facing similar skilled opponents using your "here to stay" lists. (Tyranids as well)

there's only one real way to know if an army is competitive , when someone plays that army does it win?

It does not matter if you think it's because the opposition was weak or that people have not adapted to 5th ed.

In the end what matters is if with his list a guy can win with it reliably then it's competitive.

Elessar wrote:

@thehod: Every post I make must be a good point, according to your logic!

Well you do have valid points, I never said anyone was trully wrong.

methoderik wrote:

Elessar wrote:
Of course that was already stated, in the first of these threads. We don't disagree - but that's not the point. The point isn't what you can do to an inferior player, because it is in fact LOSING in such a situation that proves a point.

The fact, as we see it, is that Orks aren't able to stand against most evenly skilled players. I don't know how anyone can fail to understand that that is what we keep saying.

I totally understood what you were saying.

Again, I totally disagree.

While certain match ups will always favor a certain side, Orks can still be competitive when facing similar skilled opponents using your "here to stay" lists. (Tyranids as well)

The distinction is this:

If using MechDar, there are certain lists (AirCav, for example) that you REALLY don't want to face - it stretches the list to almost breaking point to take it on at it's own level and to get victory is a serious test of the player and the army.

With Necrons, there are lists you CAN'T reliably beat - this is why they aren't competitive. Orks have the same issue.

That, is where we disagree. You don't want to believe that any army is hamstrung to that degree.

The problem here, and where a lot of the anger is coming from, is that many have misread the direction this thread has taken.

The question is not how good a player is, or if lucky match-ups occured, etc. The questions that should be asked is simply this:

1) Do Orks have the tools do deal with everything they need to in a competitive environment; and

2) If yes, do they have these tools in the abundance that other armies do?

Ork players: Try not to treat this as an attack on you as a person or a competitor. Try to focus on the tools you have to perform with. Could they be better?

Ork opposers: Similarly, stop attacking player bases at nonsense 'tournaments'. Take a look at what the codex has to offer.

I think we will have a far more informed discussion if these points are kept in mind. If not, it will at least be a little more civilized.

P.S. Mods: I would hate for this thread to be shut down just because an individual is angry and decides to bomb it. Do you have other options than that?

Shep wrote:

I hope that in the finals, there are swathes of ork players, all hungry to get an offical and IN PRINT ruling on deffrollas. I for one think that they should work on vehicles, and I think a lot of the former ork players that are tired of getting walled off and templated in their local meta will come back into the fold hardcore.

So ork players keep winning next month please! I need to see that deffrolla ruling in print!

This is the one thing keeping me from going back to orks competitively. It needs clarification because it is def a factor keeping the orks from tier 1 right now. And hey GW will sell more "deff rolla bits packs" as well.

@Fearspect:

That's what we started out by doing, but are now constantly needing to rebut the declaration that because Orks beat this that and the other list at PoorListCon 09 that this isn't evidence that contradicts our previous (still unanswered) points.

I have no desire to see this thread locked either.

Elessar wrote:@Fearspect:

That's what we started out by doing, but are now constantly needing to rebut the declaration that because Orks beat this that and the other list at PoorListCon 09 that this isn't evidence that contradicts our previous (still unanswered) points.

I have no desire to see this thread locked either.

I believe your previous points are going unanswered because they lack... a point.

You give us speculation and opinion as to why they suck.

We give you National tournaments results and our own speculation and opinion as to why they don't suck. Who's winning that debate?

You ask for evidence and then provide none in return.

I am sorry you take offense, and think I am mad or upset. I am not. Just arguing the other side. If you call me a sub par or deficient player or insinuate it in some way, expect a retort.

My opinion is just as valid as your opinion, and at least mine has some backing.

Peace out.

Oh, I don't take offence. Bemused would be more accurate.

Facts (again):


Orks can't reliably kill AV14
Orks can't reliably kill Seer Councils
Orks can't get into CC with, and therefore beat, MechDar, or, even worse, DE.
Orks can't cope with Manticores and Multiple Rocket Pods.
Lootas/Burnas require Dedicated Transports in a 5th Edition environment.
The Ork Codex suffers to much from FoC Saturation - ie, too many choices worth taking compete for the same options, the best example being Elites - taking Nob Bikers and Lootas means taking Nobs as Troops. Is this bad? Only if you want Kommandos, Burnas, Tankbustas...or a KFF.
The KFF is too good, because it forces it's inclusion in a sensible Mech Ork list. Thinks that are taken because they're too good to ignore, rather than just being great on their own strength are bad, as they restrict player choice, and strategy.

On the last point, compare to Vulkan. Is he picked for his support prowess? Yes, of course. But he also runs around with 4 S6 Power Weapon attacks, and a re-roll in both sets he has to make. Not incredible, but more than enough to hold his own.

Obviously, the above points also apply primarily to balanced Ork lists - one trick ponies have no place in a serious discussion about the strength of the Codex.

I'm prepared to discuss ANY of the above points.

Elessar wrote:Oh, I don't take offence. Bemused would be more accurate.

Facts (again):


Orks can't reliably kill AV14
Orks can't reliably kill Seer Councils
Orks can't get into CC with, and therefore beat, MechDar, or, even worse, DE.
Orks can't cope with Manticores and Multiple Rocket Pods.

Orks do have a tough time with 14 all around, but that is limited to LRs and Monos. This is the only real weakness in the dex. Even then, Orks can kill them with PKs.

Orks can kill Seer Councils... easier than most armies can. The best way to kill a Council is massed firepower, and Lootas and Shoota boys have that is spades. I have seen plenty of Fortnued councils go down to concentrated Ork firepower.

Orks can kill MechDar - again Loota fire kills AV 12...dead. Also, Deffkoptas work wonders at taking out all medium to light vehicles (Rokkits+Saw).

Again, Koptas kill Maticores dead, as do Lootas (if the have LOS) and Snikrot Kommandos.

Note that nothing that I mentioned is tailored. Most good balanced Ork lists will have Lootas, tons of PKs, and a few Koptas in them. Heck, even Snikrot is in tons of lists.

I disagree that Lootas kill MechDar. I don't know what dice you use, but even 15 hits a turn is still only 5 rolls on the damage table - half of those Glances that can't destroy my lovely AV12 vehicle. Assuming you get to shoot, because I have Prisms.

DeffKoptas can be outmanoeuvred, easily. Dark Eldar have more difficulty against Lootas, in theory. That's why they deploy in the corner of the board, where Night Shields make you too far away.

Manticores hide behind Chimeras against Lootas.
45 Shots, 15 Hits, 2 Glance, 3 Pen (being kind) - ignore a Glance (woop) and one of the pens (again, kind), you've got a 1/3 chance to destroy me with 2 Rolls.

Unless I model my Manticore properly, with no turret, in which case I can see and shoot you from behind a Chimera, you can't draw LOS to a gun, so cannot return fire. Also, Manticores, obviously, kill Lootas easier than they get killed by them.

Seer Councils, in theory, can be torrented by Ork Shooting, I concede. That's not something the Eldar player should allow, however. Smacks of poor decision-making to let them be shot more than once - and before the Prisms open up on the Lootas - Shootas CAN do it alone, but I wouldn't put money on their chances.

Orks have virtually no chance to Pen a mobile LR. They should never encounter a Mono, so it's no issue.

I contend that FoC Saturation is a weakness in the Dex, and in Phil Kelly's writing in general.

Maybe its a fluke but I have seen lootaspam kill anything that wasnt av 13 or higher. This coming from multiple ork players. Again it may be a fluke or maybe quality players using the ork codex.

Quality of players doesn't affect dice rolls, unless they're cheating.

I just told you the odds above - they're slim - even at 45 shots they've got under a probability of 1 @ destroying an AV12 - it actually takes 2 units to make it up to it, 3 if they fire 15 times each. At the same time, I have 2/3 Fire Prisms wounding them on 3+ and killing what they hit. I have a 60" range, and deploy in the corner.

In addition, I deploy similar to this (apologies for poor pic quality, best I can find at short notice) - - cramming 9 Grav Tanks (@1750) into 2 square foot of board isn't easy - but they are all at different heights, and thus confer cover saves upon the Prisms. That makes the odds no better than those of the Manticore being shot.

It could well be instead that the quality of the Ork players you saw was greater than the Eldar players.

WOSH = / = Supreme Eldar Tactics.
Basic Eldar 101, yes.

You noobs should try to improve yourself on the table rather than theorizing. Your theories (to you they are theories, to me they are rubbish) are going to get you to nowhere.

Look up theory in the dictionary. Seriously. Might wanna rethink your terminology if you don't want to lend credence to our arguments.

Also, for the (hopefully) last time, I play often, and have played over 100 times with Orks in 5th. If your comment is levelled at Frank, Danny, and not me, then please make this clear before posting.

Note: I only assume it's directed at me/us, because of my vague memory of your previous...uh...'contribution'...to the thread. For all we know, you're addressing the whole of Dakka, and indeed the Universe, as noob.

Elessar wrote:I play often, and have played over 100 (ONLY?) times with Orks in 5th.

Alright, then I suppose my comment "noob" was meant for you

Yeah, I gave up on playing Orks in February when I realised they were one-dimensional, predictable, and unable to stand against the other races balanced lists.

I say in February...but I'd entered them into a league, so I had to wait until it was over before I could drop that huge Green stone, and play a competitive list.

Sadly, months of sucking meant my early MechDar lists paled in comparison to the shining jewel I play now...but, I'm totally over my addiction to cOrkaine, and in full-on rehab.

Now, my 10,000 points only come out for Apoc...although, if it helps, I'll do BatReps to display how crap Orks are. In September. This thread can easily sustain itself until then.

i really love my ork army. ive been playing with them in various incarnations since rogue trader and i have played a fair few games with them over the years of my green addiction. i have also collected, painted and gamed with just about every army in the system at one time or another over the past 22 years and have competed in more tourneys than i care to remember both as a customer and a staff member.

without wanting to blow my own trumpet, i think this qualifies me as knowing what im talking about when it comes to all things 40k.

the fact of the matter is, that orks just dont compete against good players with good lists. i can play any one of several regular opponents with any one of my armies and be virtually guaranteed to come out on top, but the army i have most experience playing just cant deal with high level competion. ive seen lots of new players get beaten by orks as they dont know how to deal with the number of models, and i have seen veteran players trounced by them because they insisted on bringing a 4th ed anti meq list full of plasma and get swamped.
i think that in time, we will see orks start to slide off the scale as people are forced to adapt.

remember guys, im no ork hater, but i think too many greenskins on here believe that loota spam and deffrollas are the answer to everything.

@ orkish: thanks for the most pointless piece of trolling in an already shaky thread. your teachers must be proud to have produced an individual capable of such well thought out arguments as yourself...

Pringles978 - I agree with everything you said.

Elessar wrote:
In addition, I deploy similar to this (apologies for poor pic quality, best I can find at short notice) - - cramming 9 Grav Tanks (@1750) into 2 square foot of board isn't easy - but they are all at different heights, and thus confer cover saves upon the Prisms.
Basic Eldar 101, yes.

I would love to see that deployment when using my Ghaz Battlewagon spam. Even running away 24" in turn 2 would not save you. And that is even without Deff Rolla's.

Elessar wrote:Quality of players doesn't affect dice rolls, unless they're cheating.

I just told you the odds above - they're slim - even at 45 shots they've got under a probability of 1 @ destroying an AV12 - it actually takes 2 units to make it up to it, 3 if they fire 15 times each. At the same time, I have 2/3 Fire Prisms wounding them on 3+ and killing what they hit. I have a 60" range, and deploy in the corner.

In addition, I deploy similar to this (apologies for poor pic quality, best I can find at short notice) - - cramming 9 Grav Tanks (@1750) into 2 square foot of board isn't easy - but they are all at different heights, and thus confer cover saves upon the Prisms. That makes the odds no better than those of the Manticore being shot.

It could well be instead that the quality of the Ork players you saw was greater than the Eldar players.

WOSH = / = Supreme Eldar Tactics.
Basic Eldar 101, yes.

Wow...that deployment is pathetic. It just screams to be bait for so many things in 40k, even things in the Ork dex.

Say goodbye to at least 3 WS on the first turn to Koptas asaulting rear armor, if the Ork player goes first/siezes. Add another 2 more WS at least being stunned or imobilzed (even if not destroyed outright) to Loota fire. So congratulations, you will be able to use less than 1/2 of your tanks on your first turn... awesome!

As an Eldar player myself I have to say that that is the worst deployment for Mechdar that I have ever seen...you are far better off starting those skimmers in reserve. That looks more like a Chimera spam deployment than a good Mechdar deployment.

Fearspect wrote:The question is not how good a player is, or if lucky match-ups occured, etc. The questions that should be asked is simply this:

1) Do Orks have the tools do deal with everything they need to in a competitive environment; and

2) If yes, do they have these tools in the abundance that other armies do?

[....]

Ork opposers: Similarly, stop attacking player bases at nonsense 'tournaments'. Take a look at what the codex has to offer.

A lot of people seem to think that my opinion that Orks win stuff because their opponents suck came from seeing them win stuff and assuming that their opponents must suck purely because I don't like the Codex. The opposite is the case; I've been rummaging around the Codex for a while now, and have done moreso since I decided to take them to the UK GT. I built at least 12 army lists out of the Codex for my grand experiment, and ended up so frustrated by the sheer god-awful suckiness of every last list I threw together I ended up abandoning the idea in favour of taking my Smurfs instead. Every unit in the Ork Codex has clear and obvious applications against [x] [y] and [z], yet would be absolutely helpless if [a] [b] and/ or [c] showed up on the table; or alternatively relies on the dice rolling right to be awesome. The Daemons Codex has much the same problem. So does the Tyranids one, and the Daemonhunters one, and the Necrons one. The Eldar Codex does not. Neither does the Smurf Codex, the Guard Codex, the Tau Codex or the Witch Hunters Codex. Those Codexes contain a lot of flavour units and random fun units, but they also contain units that you can put on the table and trust to get things done. None of the other Codexes have that; they're either made up entirely of flavour/ fun units (Orks, Daemons), or their army is structured in such a way that it simply cannot provide counters to the problems a hard 5th Edition list will throw at it (Necrons, Daemonhunters, Tyranids).

That's why these Codexes aren't competetive in any meaningful way, and why they will only do well so long as their opponents continue to bring poor, unoptimised lists to tournaments. According to the Ork Codex the answer to question one is a resounding "no", and that makes question two irrelevant.

pringles978 wrote:i really love my ork army. ive been playing with them in various incarnations since rogue trader and i have played a fair few games with them over the years of my green addiction. i have also collected, painted and gamed with just about every army in the system at one time or another over the past 22 years and have competed in more tourneys than i care to remember both as a customer and a staff member.

without wanting to blow my own trumpet, i think this qualifies me as knowing what im talking about when it comes to all things 40k.

the fact of the matter is, that orks just dont compete against good players with good lists. i can play any one of several regular opponents with any one of my armies and be virtually guaranteed to come out on top, but the army i have most experience playing just cant deal with high level competion. ive seen lots of new players get beaten by orks as they dont know how to deal with the number of models, and i have seen veteran players trounced by them because they insisted on bringing a 4th ed anti meq list full of plasma and get swamped.
i think that in time, we will see orks start to slide off the scale as people are forced to adapt.

remember guys, im no ork hater, but i think too many greenskins on here believe that loota spam and deffrollas are the answer to everything.

@ orkish: thanks for the most pointless piece of trolling in an already shaky thread. your teachers must be proud to have produced an individual capable of such well thought out arguments as yourself...

You, sir, are The Man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

methoderik wrote:I would love to see that deployment when using my Ghaz Battlewagon spam. Even running away 24" in turn 2 would not save you. And that is even without Deff Rolla's.

At 1750 your Wagons are dead by turn 2 and your infantry is being pounded with Prism blasts. Guaranteed. No, seriously; guaranteed. Lance weapons hate you. Oh no wait but then comes the WAAAGH! and... oh dear, where are the Skimmers?!

Alerian wrote:Say goodbye to at least 3 WS on the first turn to Koptas asaulting rear armor, if the Ork player goes first/siezes.

Myself, I'd credit The King with a bit more nous than to deploy no blockers or stoppers if there's a chance some Jetbiking nutter is going to get in and mangle his rear AV. The fact he's stacked his flank and hasn't taken the blow-ass route of deploying all-reserve suggests he knows what he's doing.

Add another 2 more WS at least being stunned or imobilzed (even if not destroyed outright) to Loota fire.

Roll some 5-6es, roll some more 5-6es, roll some MORE 5-6es, roll SOME MORE 5-6es, and all is good. And I've STILL got Skimmers to kill you with

As an Eldar player myself I have to say that that is the worst deployment for Mechdar that I have ever seen

But, but, but, it's a solid block deployment that maximises the resilience of each vehicle against shooting, and...

...you are far better off starting those skimmers in reserve.

Oh right, you're one of THOSE people. Always amuses me how people equate all-reserve with insta-pwn, yet when they see a stacked flank they're all like, "OMG U SUCK". Maybe I do, but at least my oppo isn't going to be able to pick my army off one unit at a time when it comes in piecemeal.

What a ridiculous thread. Orks are damn strong at lower point levels; they kill things to death. Nob bikers are competitive and will remain so. The ork codex is not as invincible as weak players claimed it was six months ago but it is strong and generally well rounded.

I just noticed something...

Frank Fugger -> England
Elesar -> England
Pringles978 -> England

Coincidence? Let the reader decide.

@Frank: Spot on answer. Try to keep in mind that that last post I wrote is pointed to everyone reading/commenting on this thread. I just want people to put some thought in before posting, and thus adding to the discussion. You have consistently done that.

@Olympia: My question to you is: Why?

Fearspect wrote:@Frank: Spot on answer. Try to keep in mind that that last post I wrote is pointed to everyone reading/commenting on this thread. I just want people to put some thought in before posting, and thus adding to the discussion. You have consistently done that.

@Olympia: My question to you is: Why?

Why is there some Eldar player posting pictures of his silly deployment? Hell if I know...

I asked because you took the time to write a post that said nothing. Now you have two.

Dont worry fearspect, most of this thread is making statements that are very broad on both sides.

Frank can say Orks lose to an optimized list and thats all I have to say

Other people will go "no they kill stuff"

I mean this all assuming were going back to 4th edition where most of the missions were VP based but in 5th its more about Objective based. You dont need to kill much at all to win a game of objectives. Mech Eldar are a great testament to that along with Orks.

I play orks, they were my first army. I probably have played just about every somewhat serious configuration there is. Here is what I have figured out about the current book:

Lootas are a good unit for the points, they are not overpowered. They can do their job well. That being said, any opponent with 2 brain cells to rub together can handle them in any numbers.

Regular nobs suck. They cost a large number of points. They are really only good in CC, thus requiring transport. They have sketchy armor, you pay out the nose for 4+/5+ with feel no pain. The cost of them means that the enemy can torrent them to death.

Boyz (truck or horde) suck. They can torrent people still playing foot lists, and they can beat people who bring las/plas, but vs templates or lash, they don't do anything. In combat they have a good chance of wiping a sqaud, but if they don't kill each and every model, they lose to combat resolution. And lose even more boyz. The 5ed fearless rule killed the boy mob. After 1 turn of combat, you won't have anything worth your time. Ork truk mobs at least are designed with this in mind.

Burnas need transport, and are strong unit if you can get them one. Its a bit difficult, since they can't take a dedicated one. They are a one dimensional unit, for anti infantry. Not exactly needed for orks. (since that is all they can do)

Tankbustas COULD have been decent. If they could get a Dedicated transport. If they didn't have an idiot fluff rule. If they had a guardsman's ballistic skill. To many ifs.

the ork jet bike is terrible. Sure then can be in your opponents face turn 1, and have BS2 TL rokkits.... but the sad thing is that they only hit 50%, vs AV11 (a rhino) they only pen 50%, and 50% do they do what you want (immobile is the goal) I'm not the best at probabilities, but isn't that a 12.5 percent chance to hurt a weak dedicated transport? VS AV12 (which is common i hear) Its even worse. Since you are S7 on the charge if you take buzzsaws, rear AV10 is actually not a gimme. Esp if the opponent remembers there is wheels/tracks on that tank of his. I just don't see why people think they are good. Esp at 70 points for that. At that point level space marines get land speaders with MM and HF.

The warbuggies aren't bad. 30 points for a TL big shoota on a mobile AV10 platform? That's not bad at all. Still, its more anti infantry in a list that doesn't really need it. A good value at least.

Warbikes: not terrible, they cost a little too much IMHO. The number of S5 shooting these guys can put out is nice. Since they aren't the greatest in combat, they fill the same roll as warbuggies. The lower range, is balanced out by the being ok in combat.

Storm boyz. A boyz mob that can actually get across the board while still being an effective unit? yes please! Keep in mind they are effectively a fast mob, that is capped at 20. They get the job done only if your opponent isn't used to them.

Killa Kans: Not terrible. ok BS and the ability to take blast weapons means they are actually decent fire platforms. Don't make the mistake of thinking they are decent in combat. They can crush troop squads in CC, but who can't? VS real CC units, they get obliterated.

DD: bad BS means he is a CC unit, maybe with skorchas. 4 CC weapons is actually a scary unit, if you can get it up the board. Again, this requires either luck, or the lack of skill on the opponents side.

Big guns, flash gits, looted wagons suck so bad I'm not going to cover them. (though cannons aren't bad)

Battle wagons are decent, and your only chance at reliably getting certain units up the board. The upgrades are mostly just points inflation for idiots. There are a couple of exceptions, like if an organizers says Deffrollas work on vehicles. Its not too bad to buy extra weapons if you plan on using it as a dakka bunker. A solid unit as long you don't spend too much on it.

Mega nobs are probably my favorite sleeper unit. They die to AP2, but if you take small throw away units of them, or give them a Mega armor warboss (or the big guy), they can really tear things up if given transport. Since they are massed PK, and have a chance of surviving vs most normal units, they can actually take down transports that remember to move. Since they have 2+ saves, and multiple wounds, it takes quite a torrent of fire to off them. They are also cheaper than how some people run their regular nobs. (and much cheaper than biker nobs)

Biker nobs are an army by themselves. They cost so many points, you have no room for anything else that matters. The being said, if you are lucky to face off vs an opponent who either A: doesn't know how to beat them, or B: his list/codex CAN'T beat them. You are in good shape. It can give the better lists out their a run for their money, but they aren't what they used to be when they first hit the scene. Still a solid respectable army, just not the uber cheese is was a few months ago.

Gretchen are the best troop choice. A specialist unit that is the best at doing what it does in the game: cheap cannon fodder, or cheap large scoring unit. These little 3 point wonders even have the dubious ability to clear mine fields, an ability that is not reflected in the point cost! Attempts at humor aside, they are the best scoring unit orks have, who is honestly going to try and attack gretchen until they have too?

Kommandos are a good unit, a great unit if they have the special character upgrade.

Other than the weird boy, all the HQ units have a good use. The stand outs being the KFF, and the warboss. Special characters are a bit lame (IMHO), but the big guy, and wazzdakka are great.

So the units worth taking IMHO are: lootas, gretchin, KK and DD, cannons, battle wagons, meganobs, stormboyz, biker nobs, warbuggies, Kommandos, and burnas.

My conclusions:

Fast attack and elite sections are stuffed with units that are good, the elite has too many that you actually really need. If you want lootas, you need multiple units, which means you don't get nobs unless you take warbosses, which means you don't get the KFF. And if you take lootas in the proper numbers, there is no room for kommandos at all. None of the good units can handle heavy armor at range. Only a couple of the good units are actually decent in CC. Most of the units that are worth taking are almost as pricey as a space marine or SoB, or more so. Orks don't get BS 4, 3+ armor, or good leadership. The only points break orks get are on units that are just terrible. Add in no access to melta weapons and poor anti armor in general, I just don't see how they can do well vs a proper 5th ed list.

What they can do is beat up on 4th lists, people who are new to the game, or people who brought an unbalanced list that is weak vs what you brought. (and of course, they beat fluff bunnies)

Event results are a poor indication of how good an army is. Most people who attend, are not as serious about winning as many would think. Quite a few players just show up to have fun, or play with armies they have, not the ones they want. A decent amount of people are really there for the painting competitions.

Quite a few events have a wonky pairing system. Any event which uses soft scores for pairing, or doesn't use random first round pairings is suspect. (and I personally think that a cut to a top 4-8 playoff after swiss pairings is best) What the results are useful for: what armies are being played, and what you should take if you are serous about beating them. If people refuse to bring hard lists to a tourney, then you should show up with a list that beats them. Orks are competitive vs the armies that show up in large numbers at event. They aren't competitive when large numbers of 5th ed mech show up. (were this to actually happen that is)

Sorry about the wall of text, I just figured it would better to just most of thoughts about the subject into one post, than to post multiple times.

Frank Fugger wrote:
At 1750 your Wagons are dead by turn 2 and your infantry is being pounded with Prism blasts. Guaranteed. No, seriously; guaranteed. Lance weapons hate you. Oh no wait but then comes the WAAAGH! and... oh dear, where are the Skimmers?!

Hardly. I bring 4 at minimum. Armor 14, granted against a lance means you need to hit, glance on 4's (I am still moving) and get by my KFF. And you only have 1.5 turns to do it. Sorry, you can't bring enough twin linked lances to that party in 1750, especially if your date is Fire Prisms.

If your that huddled in a corner I just deploy the farthest out I can in a spearhead formation, suck up turn one shooting if have to and then spread my formation to make sure your turn 2 move (are you gonna shoot or move?) will keep you in my 14-27" charge range in turn 2. If you pop some BW's in turn two it really does not matter, cause you shot and my charge at a minimum is going to extend at least 14". That is if you go first.

At that point your rear armor is going to pay.

It could go either way depending on the dice, but far, far from "guaranteed".

At this point in the debate, you guys are going to think what your going to think. I guess I can only hope I draw you at a tournament.

Notabot- I agree with everything you said. I just think the topic has been beaten to death and everything you posted has already been covered (albiet less succinctly, less articulately, and with a more obnoxious tone) by frank fugger.

methoderik wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:
At 1750 your Wagons are dead by turn 2 and your infantry is being pounded with Prism blasts. Guaranteed. No, seriously; guaranteed. Lance weapons hate you. Oh no wait but then comes the WAAAGH! and... oh dear, where are the Skimmers?!

Hardly. I bring 4 at minimum. Armor 14, granted against a lance means you need to hit, glance on 4's (I am still moving) and get by my KFF. And you only have 1.5 turns to do it. Sorry, you can't bring enough twin linked lances to that party in 1750, especially if your date is Fire Prisms.

If your that huddled in a corner I just deploy the farthest out I can in a spearhead formation, suck up turn one shooting if have to and then spread my formation to make sure your turn 2 move (are you gonna shoot or move?) will keep you in my 14-27" charge range in turn 2. If you pop some BW's in turn two it really does not matter, cause you shot and my charge at a minimum is going to extend at least 14". That is if you go first.

At that point your rear armor is going to pay.

It could go either way depending on the dice, but far, far from "guaranteed".

At this point in the debate, you guys are going to think what your going to think. I guess I can only hope I draw you at a tournament.

Could you post your 1750 4 Battlewagon list?

I deployed second. The opponent spread his force out somewhat, knowing I would just refuse the other flank.

If you deploy your Battlewagons first, then I deploy the other side/in Reserve.

If you go first with Koptas, I won't be close enough for you to hit.

PLEASE stop assuming I'm an idiot, huh?

Also, I live in Northern Ireland, not England.


NotaBot, I love you too.

Methoderik, count my Lances. Then, add in what you can't see, 15 Fire Dragons, and Yriel. Plenty to kill BWs with there. Especially when I'm actually shooting you in the side.

@Olympia: On a serious note, if possible, are you going to the Irish GT? Since I intend to go, and will likely play Eldar, perhaps it is YOU who can put their money etc.

methoderik wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:
At 1750 your Wagons are dead by turn 2 and your infantry is being pounded with Prism blasts. Guaranteed. No, seriously; guaranteed. Lance weapons hate you. Oh no wait but then comes the WAAAGH! and... oh dear, where are the Skimmers?!

Hardly. I bring 4 at minimum. Armor 14, granted against a lance means you need to hit, glance on 4's (I am still moving) and get by my KFF. And you only have 1.5 turns to do it. Sorry, you can't bring enough twin linked lances to that party in 1750, especially if your date is Fire Prisms.

Actually it's pretty easy for Wave Serpents to wall off your battle wagons and trap them in a small area. Then you're stuck with the [gakky] choice of disembarking to whack away at SMF or trying to ram your way out... even if Deffrollas work you're still not going to get all those serpents out of the way in a single turn; meanwhile the prisms have shot far away and are still peppering you with blasts. He can split his force and be effective, you can't.

Serpent spam Eldar are very good at dealing with Big Rock armies like BW spam and Raider spam. And BW Orks basically have to play as a Big Rock army because if you try splitting them off you lose KFF and become vulnerable to shooting.

olympia wrote:What a ridiculous thread. Orks are damn strong at lower point levels; they kill things to death. Nob bikers are competitive and will remain so. The ork codex is not as invincible as weak players claimed it was six months ago but it is strong and generally well rounded.

I have also crushed nob bikers with necrons multiple times in 5th ed. What does that say about necrons?

Absolutely nothing. 'Crons are weak in 5th ed. Of course, I have since sold my necron army to said ork player, but meh.

In the world of mathhammer, orks do not cut it in the elite group of army lists, especially in the 'ard boyz. There are many things that 'make' them 'competitive' (soft scores), none of which has anything to do with numbers.

They are not a terrible army and in the hands of a good player can perform well.

But all things being equal, the odds do not favor them...

The Green Git wrote:I just noticed something...

Frank Fugger -> England
Elesar -> England
Pringles978 -> England

Coincidence? Let the reader decide.

Elessar wrote:
Also, I live in Northern Ireland, not England.


quote]

Elessar: im fairly sure its all the same to them, the lack of knowledge about anything outside of their own short history and reciting the state capitals is staggering
amongst the majority of the populance. i was in texas last year and nobody i met could tell me where iraq, afganistan or iran was other than a vague reference to "the middle east", lol