I would just staple that deep strike rule onto the tellyporta blasta.
That way the MA big mek with tellporta blasta could deep strike and bring a unit of meganobz along with him, just like a trygon can bring along some genestealers.
If you want to improve the chances of getting into combat, improving the charge range would be the way to go - either 3d6 or +1, like other armies have. Rolling d3 mortal wounds is also unnecessarily complicated to say "you might lose one dude". Since you will probably only need it once, we could transform it into a stratagem.
For example:
Supa-Charga (CP)
Use when declaring a charge for a unit of MEGANOBZ. Roll 3d6 to determine their charge range, but if you roll any doubles, remove one model as casualty.
For Deep striking I REALLY want to see a stratagem for orkz.
"Tellyporta Strike" or maybe tack that on as an ability if you use Ghazghkull in your army. He is famous for using teleporters to invade planets, most notably Armageddon.
So if Ghaz is in your army you can have 3 units arrive from tellyport strike.
Otherwise I would like it to be similar to others, 1 CP gives you 1 unit in deepstrike, 3 gives you 3 units in deep strike. That would help a tiny bit towards making some units worth taking, especially if it didn't count as movement for the purposes of heavy weapon.
Every deep strike strategem counts as movement. No reason to think orks would be different nor should it.
Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?
Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.
tneva82 wrote: Every deep strike strategem counts as movement. No reason to think orks would be different nor should it.
Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?
Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.
It depends. For horde-like stuff, cost efficiency is key, so stuff like orks and grotz should only have stats/abilities that go so far and have cost do the rest of the work for them. Other things, usually the centerpiece models or the more elite of the army, should be buffed up to compensate for their expensive points cost. There are some exceptions that really require both ends to be used heavily like the Stompa, where its exorbitantly priced for low survivability while also having complete poop damage output.
For your example of Mek Gunz, that would be one where most of the gunz (KMK aside) need to be buffed since making them too cheap infringes on the more discount oriented Big Gunz. So the traktor kannon would have to get +1 to hit against fly targets and have D3 shots instead of just 1, while the bubble chukka just lets you the player choose the stats of the weapon rather than going round-robin with your opponent, and the smasha gun just needs to roll equal to or more than the target's toughness to do D3+3 damage to it, adding +1 to the roll against vehicles or monsters.
Small suggestion, I'd like the painboy to be able to heal monsters (big/garg squiggoth).
And on a squig related note, squig-hoppers/dragoons (cheap stormboyz) would be cool.
Specialists need both efficiency and survivability increase. Specialists should be exactly that - a small, specialized unit. Smaller unit is easier to screen, transport in a trukk and, well, assemble and paint. You should be confident in their damage output that if they get into correct position and have los. Yet their survivability should also be decent, otherwise you get glasscannons like 6+ lootas that rely on having a turn 1 way too much.
(And don’t get me started how outrageous actual point cost vs IRL price tag is, although this is another topic entirely.)
Speaking about trukk. Trukk can transport up to 12 boys while Razorback can carry 10 marines. What is more valuable - transporting a ~150 pts or 72 points? Trukk boys just lack a proper punch and are not worth transporting. You could make trukk a better unit, but it would not become more appealing to use it as intended - carrying boys to the fight(I mean there is literally a kit sold by GW called trukk boys).
So there are multiple solutions here, but only one does not bring even more balance problems with itself. You could make trukks cheaper, but GW does not want to return to a transport spam. You could increase trukk size but then you could transport something other than boys, so you are gaining too much from that. You could make individual boys more cost effective and break the game in half.
Or you could improve the Nob amongst boys to make 12 boys pull their weight. You can’t abuse it since you get only 1 nob per boy mob. Make that single power Klaw be the real threat again (giving it a proper price so spamming it on common nob squad is not a smart thing) and suddenly that trukk has a purpose. Meanwhile boys tank damage for him, making the unit “durable”.
For your example of Mek Gunz, that would be one where most of the gunz (KMK aside) need to be buffed since making them too cheap infringes on the more discount oriented Big Gunz. So the traktor kannon would have to get +1 to hit against fly targets and have D3 shots instead of just 1, while the bubble chukka just lets you the player choose the stats of the weapon rather than going round-robin with your opponent, and the smasha gun just needs to roll equal to or more than the target's toughness to do D3+3 damage to it, adding +1 to the roll against vehicles or monsters.
I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
Also I agree on bubblechukka. That thing is such a timewaster. Never ever bring many of them if you want your game to be finished in a sensible ammount of time. I'd rather just have of its stats be randomly generated by d6's, but allow player to pick a target after generation or swap 2 dice after generation to mitigate random nature of it to some degree. (Maybe having a spanner or mek nearby would allow you to reroll 1 generated stat dice)
tneva82 wrote: Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?
Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.
Pretty much fully agree with you. Many of our infantry units already require three or four boxes to buy (lootaz/burnas, MANz, boyz, gretchin), build and paint just to get a single full unit. For almost every other army, you only need one or two boxes for the same price as the equivalent orks box.
Another issue is when dropping points to the efficiency of boyz or KMK you get ridiculous amounts of orks with special weapons on the table. A few days ago I calculated that a loota would have to cost around 9 ppm in order to be as efficient as a KMK - enabling you to field two spearheads with 180 lootas for just 1620 points, probably making them the next dark reapers.
Most inefficient units are around half the points their output should cost, despite already having a high model count. Any reduction in point cost would push them into the "horde unit" category which could be highly problematic for game balance.
Finally, when I started a competitive army would run about 100-150 models (vehicles and infantry combined), and you would still outnumber other armies by a lot. I would like to return to that amount of models being on the table, rather than 200+ as it is now. That many models are just a chore to paint, transport, move, and roll dice for. I constantly find myself playing my Death Guard army just because they are easier to transport and the games take about half to play to finish of what the same game would take with orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JawRippa wrote: So there are multiple solutions here, but only one does not bring even more balance problems with itself. You could make trukks cheaper, but GW does not want to return to a transport spam. You could increase trukk size but then you could transport something other than boys, so you are gaining too much from that. You could make individual boys more cost effective and break the game in half.
At some point trukk boyz had their own entry - maybe they should return them to be their own entry again. Trukk boyz would be identical to regular boyz in all regards, except they replace the "green tide" with the following rule:
"Speed Freaks: As long as a TRUKK is within 6" of this unit, it's models gain +1 attack."
That way any trukk boyz that reach their target are just as efficient as those blobs of 30 that walk across the board. On the other hand, the opponent can actively prevent them from getting their bonus by blowing up their trukks.
Grimskul wrote: I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
Agree. It should not go down in point though, since a single battery of 5 would average to 2d6 damage against any flyer. Bringing two batteries is pretty much a guaranteed explosion in the middle of an eldar/tau/necron army turn1.
Also I agree on bubblechukka. That thing is such a timewaster. Never ever bring many of them if you want your game to be finished in a sensible ammount of time. I'd rather just have of its stats be randomly generated by d6's, but allow player to pick a target after generation or swap 2 dice after generation to mitigate random nature of it to some degree. (Maybe having a spanner or mek nearby would allow you to reroll 1 generated stat dice)
Eh, they are a decent fun unit, so I wouldn't change them except reduce them in costs. Casting smite when within 24 of an enemy psyker isn't much more time wasting than firing a bubblechukka.
I love the rules for Ork Boyz, Tac Marines, Dire Avengers, and Kabalites. If Da Boyz need retuning, I'd rather it just be points so they can still be Ork Boyz.
Stompas and Reapers, though, I'm not sure can be fixed by just changing points.
So I'm afraid whether to repoint or change rules will vary a lot.
Wouldn’t it be too good for Meganobz though? Imagine insane flexibility of wound allocation with mixed boyz and meganobz. All lasgun shots are allocated to 2+ save while boys keep eating lascannon shots. Feels like there’d be very little an opposing player could do against that.
Isnt that a bit how tau drones work? (i dont play tau so not sure)
Orks ignore all to-hit modifiers because they don't aim anyway. Obvious fix. And make their stuff cheaper, because most of it isn't threatening at the current price point.
Don't think making ork stuff cheaper is the solution, making it worth the price could be though, maybe one of the "clan traits" being army wide 6+++ FnP for the robust metabolism, adding a few wounds to some of the vehicles - and adjusting the degrading profiles so they don't degrade as fast - representing bitz that don't really matter much being shot off
A quick question for more experienced orks: what made looted wagons so popular when they were around? I can't imagine ability to take other faction's vehicle, pay the full price for it and butchering it's BS being good. Converting is fun and all, but I'm talking purely about usability and getting a decent unit for your points. Was it the case as is?
In 4-6th edition the looted wagon could take a large blast 36" S8 AP3 gun (boom gun), so basically they did what KMK would do now. The main reason they saw little play was that you could only bring 3 heavy support choices, and it shared that slot with the highly competitive kanz and battlewagons. The other option was pretty much a rhino with a skorcha, nothing to write home about. You usually saw them as fluffy transports for burnas.
Before 4th edition's codex, you could have a looted rhino, LRBT or land raider. Keep in mind that this was during a time where battlewagons were only available from forgeworld and mek guns didn't exist. Also, rhinos were really, really good. Looted land raiders and rhinos were the only way to get durable transports for nobz and MANz, while a looted LRBT was the only way to get long-range artillery, and BS didn't matter for blasts a whole lot.
When the last codex removed looted wagons, the white dwarf gave us a half-assed version that was not worth using for anything.
Jidmah wrote: In 4-6th edition the looted wagon could take a large blast 36" S8 AP3 gun (boom gun), so basically they did what KMK would do now. The main reason they saw little play was that you could only bring 3 heavy support choices, and it shared that slot with the highly competitive kanz and battlewagons.
The other option was pretty much a rhino with a skorcha, nothing to write home about. You usually saw them as fluffy transports for burnas.
Before 4th edition's codex, you could have a looted rhino, LRBT or land raider. Keep in mind that this was during a time where battlewagons were only available from forgeworld and mek guns didn't exist. Also, rhinos were really, really good. Looted land raiders and rhinos were the only way to get durable transports for nobz and MANz, while a looted LRBT was the only way to get long-range artillery, and BS didn't matter for blasts a whole lot.
When the last codex removed looted wagons, the white dwarf gave us a half-assed version that was not worth using for anything.
I see. I've stumbled upon 7th ed looted wagon article and was wondering why is it like #1 thing that everyone is asking about. Hopefully if it gets implemented, it'll bring more than just BS5+ same price vehicle, since blasts are even worse now for orks.
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.
OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel
When you look at the rules for the Killkrusha, I think forgeworld has it about right. Big explosions should be 2d6 shots for orks, averaging to the same 2 hits marines get.
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.
OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel
And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.
OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel
And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.
I agree with you that we need more reliable rules. I just wanted to point out the fact that blast weapons are kinda meh in general and D6 autohits on heavy weapons would actually be more accurate than marines, thus I felt that it'd be appropriate to have the negative result when 1 is rolled. I guess it'd still be useless.
Having 2D6 instead of D6 for all blast weapons who are controlled by orks would fix them to a certain degree. Also if suggestion about orks ignoring up to one "-1 to hit" modificator were implemented, that'd also make blast weapons a lot more desirable. I guess a SAG also deserves a big boost. BS4+ for Big Mek and 2D6(would 3D6 be too much? I feel like fluffwise it should be 3D6) would be pretty alright. Maybe ability to reroll ammount of shots by inflicting D3 mortal wounds to very unlucky gretchin squad within 3" on top of that.
I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.
And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.
OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel
And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.
We don't need anybody to invent up rules that makes orks from 2/3 of IG to twice the IG.
If orks can outshoot IG at ease(which you are suggesting them to do) what's the bloody point of IG then? IG can't outshoot orks, IG can't out-tough orks, IG can't out-h2h them. Gee.
I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?
1). Lore-wise it should be very easy to hit flying targets with traktor kannon. Just point the beam in their general direction and sooner or later they'll get snagged even when just slightly touched. From GW description: "Mek Gunz equipped with a traktor are the scourge of the skies. When the traktor kannon fires it’s thrumming beam of force high into the air, the grot crew swing this beam about wildly until they manage to latch the humming column onto an airborne target. Once snagged, their hapless victim is wrenched out of the air and smashed to bits on the ground below."
2). Game-wise orks have no way of dealing with fliers. General consensus is just to ignore them and go for objectives.
And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.
And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.
What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?
I agree with you that autohitting makes orks better at landing shots , I even pointed out that it'd have weird interraction with heavy weapon and on average be more accurate that marines. However I doubt that you'll disagree with me that having same D6 for blast weapons when shooter has BS5+ is laughable. (1 hit on average )
I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?
Nobody else has a tractor cannon, duh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.
And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.
And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.
What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?
Last time I checked IG was still vastly superior in strength, range and AP.
In the past always have been just as good at shooting as Marines and IG were, except their weapon profiles were inferior. In exchange, orks get to be better in combat.
We don't need anybody to invent up rules that makes orks from 2/3 of IG to twice the IG.
If orks can outshoot IG at ease(which you are suggesting them to do) what's the bloody point of IG then? IG can't outshoot orks, IG can't out-tough orks, IG can't out-h2h them. Gee.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
He's suggesting making ork d6 blast weapons hit twice as much as IG blast weapons do.
Care to count? d6 autohits=3.5 hits. d6IG shots=1.75 hits.
Lets take a look at that. The Kill Kannon, the weapon I mentioned specifically is ranged 24, S7 Ap-2 2 dmg. its current iteration costs 15pts, it is basically only on the battle wagon (other platforms are significantly more rare) it fires D6 shots for a grand total of 1 hit a turn on average. It costs 2 pts more then a SM Plasma Gun.....It hits 1/3rd more often except at half range then it its 1/3rd less often, it has less AP and 1 more dmg, unless the Plasma gun is overcharged then its worse in every way possible. IF you made that thing Auto D6 hits it would hit 3-4 models on average, I would be fine with going up to 16 maybe even18pts for it, but I am sorry, it is still in no way shape or form equal to a Imperial Guard Battle Cannon which is S8 -2 D3 dmg RANGE 72 D6 shots, ohh and if it doesn't move (and why would it with 72inch range, its 2D6, which is....3.5hits on average) and only costs 22pts.
Jidmah wrote: We are agree on too many things Semper, it's time the codex hits so we can fight over everything again
LMAO, unless I am mistaken (usually) we only fought over perceptions of how good certain units/weapons/tactics would be in the new edition, now that we have analytical evidence to back up those opinions we agree completely because I believe we both use fact/reason/logic as opposed to hopes/dreams. God I do hope our codex isn't hot trash though :( I am sick and tired of playing 150-210 Boyz models and maybe a handful of mek gunz in the vain hopes of being competitive.
Jidmah wrote: I'm sick of green tide as well. Actually, I got so sick, I started a nurgle army. *babum-tish*
But the FAQ and most recent codices have me confident that it will at least be playable in my only slightly competitive environment.
The last tournament I went to here had top tier meta lists.......Green tide will not work for me, I have to constantly think way outside the box and find ways to win through objectives and tricking my opponents into making bad moves. I somehow lured a couple units of nidz to try and charge my Ork horde, it was glorious.
With the looted vehicles, I think I'd prefer they just had a few options with stats loosely based on the concept of being a looted russ/rhino/raider/etc.
It shouldn't cost more points than its fully functional equivalent, since it's just salvage and it's crewed by orks.
And I think the weapons should all be in the ork-index too, either using current equivalents, or maybe listed as salvaged-kannon/bolter/etc (maybe cheaper than equivalent with a jam chance).
Obviously the codex kind of allows for this with custom options on trukks and other vehicles, but I think creating the subclasses would allow for better balancing and let people keep track of what your units can do.
Does anyone else feel that would be better than lifting rules from another codex with some universal stat reductions?
Inversely as someone who never used buggies, how would you feel if the ork buggy range was dropped, and the wargear was instead given to the bikers, directly or maybe as some sort of gretchin fired side-carriage?
Then you can use the bikers as wounds, and you get grot accuracy on a twin-shoota, or a blast from your skorcha prior to the charge.
Good/Horrible/Pointless idea?
Lastly what would you like to see happen to Gaz, hopefully he's getting a new model, hopefully he looks like a dreadnought, what sort of buffs are people after? 9-10 Wounds 6-7 Armor?
And at what price? Would you be happy to lose current Ghaz as he is, to something nearer 400 points (Guilliman at 385)?
He's suggesting making ork d6 blast weapons hit twice as much as IG blast weapons do.
Care to count? d6 autohits=3.5 hits. d6IG shots=1.75 hits.
SemperMortis wrote:
Lets take a look at that. The Kill Kannon, the weapon I mentioned specifically is ranged 24, S7 Ap-2 2 dmg. its current iteration costs 15pts, it is basically only on the battle wagon (other platforms are significantly more rare) it fires D6 shots for a grand total of 1 hit a turn on average. It costs 2 pts more then a SM Plasma Gun.....It hits 1/3rd more often except at half range then it its 1/3rd less often, it has less AP and 1 more dmg, unless the Plasma gun is overcharged then its worse in every way possible. IF you made that thing Auto D6 hits it would hit 3-4 models on average, I would be fine with going up to 16 maybe even18pts for it, but I am sorry, it is still in no way shape or form equal to a Imperial Guard Battle Cannon which is S8 -2 D3 dmg RANGE 72 D6 shots, ohh and if it doesn't move (and why would it with 72inch range, its 2D6, which is....3.5hits on average) and only costs 22pts.
Tneva you need to start backing your arguments up with actual facts rather than your biased beliefs.
Some of your statements come across as poorly thought out because they are so sweeping and generalist. Take a chill pill and think before you write.
D6 autohits on the Traktor cannon would be fine. Or t should be 2d6 shots. Like most of our other guns the volume of fire isnway too low.
wow, I'm behind on this thread... anyone want to update me?
Basically after doing what i do (as a Historian) I feel embarrassed to play 40k in 2018. XD I was reading through a lot of the old codex stuff from 40k and Epic and damn... It sure wasn't balanced but it looked freaking fun! I'm now convinced this is how I want Orks. There should be 1 competitive list for tournament players with skill to win with but the rest of the lists should just be fun! Even if it's unbalanced and we lose every game it should be a blast! A real ork war of confusion and explosions!
This is right now why i feel upset about modern orks. When i charge my battle wagon in I don't feel like I'm an Ork player. Seriously, i do this with my Razorback... I charge it forward with choppy marines inside and I don't feel any difference. In fact, I do this with my dreadnoughts and just forget to even shoot sometimes... It's sad that this is what has happened to Orks...
However, in my mind, the best way to make Orks feel fun again is giving us a bunch of useless upgrades that, when they all work together, becomes one big unified hive mind of multicoloured chaotic fun! I don't want Red paint or anything like that to be a dumb strategy! I want it all ingrained into our army! Having my yellow rockets explode more while my Red trukks charge forwards and my blue Lootas somehow make all their saves against the odds... Even if it isn;t how you paint your army, this should be upgrades you can take (and then just argue your Orks think their colours work that way as well). MAKE ORKS GREAT AGAIN! (basically just give me Red Paint as an option and I will be happy. Even if it just adds 1" onto the movement. XD I want it as an upgrade though!!!!)
Also this would actually encourage me to paint all my troops in lore accurate colours like I have wanted to do for a while now.
Not sure if it would be overpowered, but would like to see a development on Ork open topped transports (which the Chinork should also be). Overwatch should be allowed from the embarked troops on enemy charges against the transport. Also ability to disembark after the transport moves, but with a risk associated. Something along the lines of:
A unit embarked on an open topped vehicle may choose to disembark at the end of a movement phase, after the vehicle has moved. If so, roll a D6 for each model disembarking, and apply the below modifiers. For every result of a 1, a disembarking model from that unit is slain.
Vehicle has moved 6” or less this turn: no mod
Vehicle has moved more than 6” but less than 10”: -1 mod
Vehicle has moved 10” or more: -2 mod
Wording could be tweaked or chart used or something. Maybe only apply it to the Trukk, as Battlewagons loaded up might cause issues?
Way to negative to be of use. A Trukk carrying 11 boyz and a Nob would be used to bumrush forward turn 1, -2 modifier, you are now losing 1/2 your unit to this rule just to have a CHANCE at a 1st turn charge from a Trukk.Conversely, if you made it so you don't have modifiers and can disembark after any movement you run the risk of the opposite effect. A Battlewagon bum rushing forward and disgorging 20 Boyz or nobz and then assaulting enemy lines 1st turn, not good. I think OT vehicles should still be able to move and then have passengers disembark and assault without penalty though.
Just had a slightly inebriated idea... since we cant take more than 3 of the same other than troops now....
- Change Kustom Force field to a 4+ inv. from shooting attacks,
Troops cannot receive this bonus, and make it touch only, not complete within, like 20 points more?
- hurts our mobs life but I usually cant keep them under the current KFF past turn one anyway.
- Makes me want to take stuff in our index that I know would just die usually...
- I think is a bit balanced for boys (since they die in droves) and will help your other units that need that all important inv.
KillerOfMany wrote: Just had a slightly inebriated idea... since we cant take more than 3 of the same other than troops now....
- Change Kustom Force field to a 4+ inv. from shooting attacks,
Troops cannot receive this bonus, and make it touch only, not complete within, like 20 points more?
- hurts our mobs life but I usually cant keep them under the current KFF past turn one anyway.
- Makes me want to take stuff in our index that I know would just die usually...
- I think is a bit balanced for boys (since they die in droves) and will help your other units that need that all important inv.
- might be a bit to ambitious...
Troops and transports actually.
Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.
lolman1c wrote: wow, I'm behind on this thread... anyone want to update me?
Basically after doing what i do (as a Historian) I feel embarrassed to play 40k in 2018. XD I was reading through a lot of the old codex stuff from 40k and Epic and damn... It sure wasn't balanced but it looked freaking fun! I'm now convinced this is how I want Orks. There should be 1 competitive list for tournament players with skill to win with but the rest of the lists should just be fun! Even if it's unbalanced and we lose every game it should be a blast! A real ork war of confusion and explosions!
This is right now why i feel upset about modern orks. When i charge my battle wagon in I don't feel like I'm an Ork player. Seriously, i do this with my Razorback... I charge it forward with choppy marines inside and I don't feel any difference. In fact, I do this with my dreadnoughts and just forget to even shoot sometimes... It's sad that this is what has happened to Orks...
However, in my mind, the best way to make Orks feel fun again is giving us a bunch of useless upgrades that, when they all work together, becomes one big unified hive mind of multicoloured chaotic fun! I don't want Red paint or anything like that to be a dumb strategy! I want it all ingrained into our army! Having my yellow rockets explode more while my Red trukks charge forwards and my blue Lootas somehow make all their saves against the odds... Even if it isn;t how you paint your army, this should be upgrades you can take (and then just argue your Orks think their colours work that way as well). MAKE ORKS GREAT AGAIN! (basically just give me Red Paint as an option and I will be happy. Even if it just adds 1" onto the movement. XD I want it as an upgrade though!!!!)
Also this would actually encourage me to paint all my troops in lore accurate colours like I have wanted to do for a while now.
Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.
Andykp wrote: Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.
I agree with you both but for every one of us there are Ork players who want to be able to compete on the top tables. And they should be able to; a truly balanced army should be able to take both a competitive list that can compete at the top level and a fluffy, in the Orks' case self destructive explosion of fiery death list that is fun but ultimately not going to win any tournaments.
Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.
I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.
Sorry, if you don't give a damn about what your army does, why are even bothering with reading a FAQ?
Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.
I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.
Well you can bring 4 in bigger games. The step between 2000 and 2500 points isn't that huge.
I also played da blitz brigade in 7th and I'm ok with max 3 BWs now, but 3 of my BWs are actually scratch built. We can play the other vehicles as big trakks. 3 BWs and a big trakk seems fine to me, I've played several times with 3 BWs filled up with boyz and two big trakks full of bustas in this edition, plus HQs (bikers or embarked), skorchas and artillery to complete the list.
Unfortunately 7th encouraged to buy tons of stuff of the same kind thanks to formations bonuses. I have 15 meganobz that I won't probably going to use all together in a single game anymore.
Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.
right? who wouldn't want to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on an army whose sole purpose is to lose spectacularly in almost every game? Ohh that is right, almost everyone. You are playing a COMPETITIVE war game. if you don't want to be competitive then you are in the minority. That is like playing in a Soccer (football for my revolutionary war challenged friends) game and not wanting to win, you are just there to have some laughs. I mean I know there are people like that out there and I have met them, but they are always in the minority, for most people the fun is competing, key word being COMPETING, not rolling over and allowing the other side to win easily because you couldn't be bothered to get a goalie.
Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.
I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.
Well you can bring 4 in bigger games. The step between 2000 and 2500 points isn't that huge.
I also played da blitz brigade in 7th and I'm ok with max 3 BWs now, but 3 of my BWs are actually scratch built. We can play the other vehicles as big trakks. 3 BWs and a big trakk seems fine to me, I've played several times with 3 BWs filled up with boyz and two big trakks full of bustas in this edition, plus HQs (bikers or embarked), skorchas and artillery to complete the list.
Unfortunately 7th encouraged to buy tons of stuff of the same kind thanks to formations bonuses. I have 15 meganobz that I won't probably going to use all together in a single game anymore.
No one here plays 2500, even 2000 has become pretty rare since we usually only find time to play on workday evenings or play campaigns on weekends, which means multiple games. I also have four of the official battle wagon kits, all with official bits deff rollas, wreckin' balls (for style) and boarding planks (because they were good in 5th and 7th).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not salty for not being able to play the fourth one anymore - it's not like bringing four currently does anything useful. I just wanted to point out that not every one who had more than three of something is a WAACTFG slimeball.
No one here plays 2500, even 2000 has become pretty rare since we usually only find time to play on workday evenings or play campaigns on weekends, which means multiple games. I also have four of the official battle wagon kits, all with official bits deff rollas, wreckin' balls (for style) and boarding planks (because they were good in 5th and 7th).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not salty for not being able to play the fourth one anymore - it's not like bringing four currently does anything useful. I just wanted to point out that not every one who had more than three of something is a WAACTFG slimeball.
Of course it does, that is why I can't bring 90 Kommandos anymore.
Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.
right? who wouldn't want to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on an army whose sole purpose is to lose spectacularly in almost every game? Ohh that is right, almost everyone. You are playing a COMPETITIVE war game. if you don't want to be competitive then you are in the minority. That is like playing in a Soccer (football for my revolutionary war challenged friends) game and not wanting to win, you are just there to have some laughs. I mean I know there are people like that out there and I have met them, but they are always in the minority, for most people the fun is competing, key word being COMPETING, not rolling over and allowing the other side to win easily because you couldn't be bothered to get a goalie.
The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it. If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u. If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.
I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.
I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.
Andykp wrote: The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it.
GW has explicitly declared the opposite in multiple articles and the basic rule book. In this regard, you are objectively wrong, WH40k in its Matched Play variant is currently a game that is designed to be played as a balanced competitive game.
If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u.
People who pick orks as their favored faction are just as entitled to play the game in any way they want like everyone else. You don't ban Eldar vom playing campaigns either.
If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.
The development studio has entered the Adepticon tournament with their own army, so they seem to disagree. Don't feel insulted when I trust their actions over your words.
I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.
You obviously don't. Your suggestion has already been introduced in the very first iteration of 8th and is called open play. You get a lot less restriction to building your army, have narrative missions you can play (some of those are quite fun, try them!), you can even create your own land raiders and more fun stuff is to come. The cool thing is, they still share the same base rules. So when a friend returns from the big tournament in Vegas, he can shelve his fluff destroying TFG list, whip out his orks and go play a campaign with you without learning a new game - he just needs to ignore all the matched play limitations. Believe it or not - most tournament players also love playing in campaigns and narrative battles where you just do things because they are cool.
I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.
And exactly for that reason, you should be able to enjoy your orks just as much as Semper should be able to enjoy his orks. That's not mutually exclusive, in fact most companies facing similar problems (balancing a game for both competitive and casual) have found that most balance changes for competitive gaming also benefit the casual crowd - and everyone in between.
Andykp wrote: The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it.
GW has explicitly declared the opposite in multiple articles and the basic rule book. In this regard, you are objectively wrong, WH40k in its Matched Play variant is currently a game that is designed to be played as a balanced competitive game.
If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u.
People who pick orks as their favored faction are just as entitled to play the game in any way they want like everyone else. You don't ban Eldar vom playing campaigns either.
If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.
The development studio has entered the Adepticon tournament with their own army, so they seem to disagree. Don't feel insulted when I trust their actions over your words.
I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.
You obviously don't. Your suggestion has already been introduced in the very first iteration of 8th and is called open play. You get a lot less restriction to building your army, have narrative missions you can play (some of those are quite fun, try them!), you can even create your own land raiders and more fun stuff is to come.
The cool thing is, they still share the same base rules. So when a friend returns from the big tournament in Vegas, he can shelve his fluff destroying TFG list, whip out his orks and go play a campaign with you without learning a new game - he just needs to ignore all the matched play limitations.
Believe it or not - most tournament players also love playing in campaigns and narrative battles where you just do things because they are cool.
I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.
And exactly for that reason, you should be able to enjoy your orks just as much as Semper should be able to enjoy his orks. That's not mutually exclusive, in fact most companies facing similar problems (balancing a game for both competitive and casual) have found that most balance changes for competitive gaming also benefit the casual crowd - and everyone in between.
The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun. I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point. Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.
My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy. They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way. 40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big. I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically. Tactics really mattered, not just list building. Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.
If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that. The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter. It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.
Not every tournament is like the most famous big events. I've seen plenty of tournaments through years and not a single list with more than 3 hive tyrants yet.
People that are desperate to win won't have fun in pretty much any context, not only 40k.
IMHO a competitive person in 40k or any other game (but also in real life) is not someone that wants to win or to be the first, it's someone that tries to achieve the best result with the tools he has. If you play a game and enjoy it just because your're good at it and don't play another one beacuse you can't compete you're not a competitive person, but only a WAAC dude or a frustrated guy that wants to be considered a succesful one because he actually lacks something in real life.
Andykp wrote: The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun.
I hate to break it to you, but they are. There wouldn't be three digit attendances at GTs if they weren't fun, especially in the lower brackets most people are aware that they won't be winning anything and are just looking for a good time.
Don't believe me? Just recently there has a thread here on dakka asking if one should go to LVO if you don't have a top tier army. Go search for it, it also has tons of people describing what they were doing at LVO.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point.
Despite repeatingly telling us that you don't get the point you keep making assumption about people playing competitively and on top of that provide a solution for all their troubles. Don't you see the problem?
Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.
No moving goal posts now. You claimed that WH40k is not designed to be a competitive game. Whether their design is successful or not doesn't matter for your argument.
GW is trying to make 40k work in a competitive setting and they are actively working towards that goal. They are obviously not there yet.
My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy.
Didn't you just establish that you don't understand what motivates competitive gamers? How do you know to keep them happy?
They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way.
If you are not playing the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k but some homebrew, changes to the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k don't affect you at all.
If you are playing 8th edition, you will find that as balance improves and unclear rules are eliminated less and less house rules are needed. You could potentially introduce a new member to your gaming group without any overhead - like you can with almost every other game with semi-decent rules and balance.
When some one new joins my kitchen table MtG group, all I need to tell them is that we play 60 cards casual, they can mulligan for free by showing a hand without lands and we are ready to go.
When 8th has reached a decent state I hope to be able to tell a new player that we are playing 1500 points and he can discard impossible maelstrom objectives for free and then we start playing.
40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big.
It can be sufficiently balanced by simply iterating over versions and improving terrible units and nerfing over-performers. Since the number of units is finite, so is the number of needed iterations.
This is a tested and proven concept across all games that try to archive balance in order to improve the gaming experience for everyone.
The narrative will benefit from this, since under-performing units tend to not do what they are supposed to do in the fluff. Deff dreads actually causing havoc in the enemy's lines would be a nice change for both narrative and competitive gamers.
Just an example from League of Legends (please do not claim that video games cannot be compared to WH40k like dozens of idiots before you):
There was a playable character calls "Swain" in this game who is an old frail man with a crutch and raven, and his background fluff is that he is the military mastermind and general of a "morally flexible" nation.
In game he basically played like a juggernaut which had enemies dropping around him if they dared to come too close. Obviously this was a problem with the character constantly flip-flopping between too weak (can't kill stuff) or too powerful (no escape once too close).
Riot Games thought that there was nothing tactical or even mastermind-y about him, so they changed his skill set to match his fluff better, completely reworking how that character operates to make him feel more like frail general and no longer like an unstoppable juggernaut.
GW can do the same. If a unit constantly fails to perform according to its fluff, it's in their power to adjust points, improve stats, add or remove rules or toss everything out the window and build a new, more fitting data slate for the unit in question. This benefits all players.
Note that perfect balance is next to useless in a game that is based on rolling d6. You wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance, even if it was archived.
I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically.
Again, if you don't know how something works, don't make assumptions about it. "Too many options" is hardly a problem of tournaments. If anything, too little options are used in tournaments because they are balanced so poorly against each other.
For example, with the Imperium recently re-discovering that you can shoot plasma without killing yourself, melta has gone all but extinct. If properly balanced, flamer vs plasma vs melta would be an actual decision to make and maybe even decided by personal preference.
Properly balancing would also help the narrative - why should a plasma gun be better at killing tanks than a melta that was build for just this single purpose? Also flamers would match the fluff much more if they were actually semi-decent at killing infantry.
Tactics really mattered, not just list building.
This just means that epic was better balanced than 40k was pre-FAQ. Killing options doesn't make the game faster at all, it just makes it slightly easier to balance.
In the current state most options don't matter to competitive gaming anyways, since in most cases you just always take the best one.
Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.
The thing is narrative players don't need to give up on anything in order for the game to archive balance, and most competitive players actually want some of that flavor and character of 40k in their game.
The very reason why SemperMortis is angry with GW about the state of his orks is because he would love to take his speed freaks to a tournament and not get butchered in the first turn.
Buying the amount of KMK to actually compete in any tournament as an ork right now is more expensive than just buying the all of the recently nerfed-to-the-ground poxwalker farm.
So why are competitive ork players bringing them to tournaments (and other competitive games)? Because they want green guys to hit stuff with their choppa. Because they like to play orks.
If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that.
You must have missed the part where GW also though that those lists sucked and introduced rules to stop them from being possible. Balance is not an equation you can solve by sitting down and finding all the unknowns, you already said that there are too many variables. Therefore it has to be done in steps, constantly getting closer to a balanced game.
"The point" of these specific lists is very simple: You try to win the tournament. Therefore you take the very best list available, regardless of (monetary)costs, army or fluff. But when you go to one of the videos of the tournament and look at the tables around those lists, you'll see a game where someone's Sisters of Battle are purging a Genestealer Cult, which is pretty damn close to fluff.
You are playing this game like an RPG. A regular gamer, who plays the game for just being a fun game, might also ask you what's the point of that. WH40k by itself really isn't much more than an over-complicated board game with expensive game pieces.
The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter.
More assumptions despite having declared that you don't understand how the people you are criticizing work. Background does matter. If have witnessed people at tournaments yelling "For the emperah!" when rolling their armor saves, "Waaagh!" when their ork boyz make a charge and the guy playing Ultramarines telling Mortarion that he is not welcome in Ultramar and that he will send him back to the warp. The guy going 4-0 in that tournament took his time to taunt a model exactly like the commander of an Ultramarine force would, despite the mission played being completely generic.
Outside of the top 10% competitive players, most picked and army because they liked how it plays, its fluff and its models.
The least thing GW can do is to provide a rule set balanced enough so people that picked orks instead of eldar are not excluded from ever winning at tournaments.
Telling us that this is how it should be make no one other than you the fool.
It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.
Jidmah wrote: I'm sick of green tide as well. Actually, I got so sick, I started a nurgle army. *babum-tish*
But the FAQ and most recent codices have me confident that it will at least be playable in my only slightly competitive environment.
You know, I saw an interesting suggestion to make Orks tougher and less of a horde. Basically increase the wounds of most infantry models and bump their cost a bit (say boyz get 2 wounds and cost 8-9 pts). Not sure how many people would like that, but it would make them feel more like tough beasts than they do now.
I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.
When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.
Jidmah wrote: I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.
When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.
Maybe we should define what the ork feel should be though?
Jidmah wrote: I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.
When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.
Maybe we should define what the ork feel should be though?
More Dakka then Any other faction by a metric ton of dice. More crazy characters, abilities and special rules that allow units to be absolutely silly and or SUPER powerful (Shokk Attack Gun or the old Ramshackle rule) The ability to actually field specialist units without thinking "Damn I wish I had taken boyz instead"
And have a fight with all those non-ork players on dakka that will keep chucking in things like "can't shoot", "everything should be random", "should not be better at anything than my army"?
No thanks, we had plenty of threads end up like that before.
For what I care they can make orks more expensive and tougher as long as marines don't start outnumbering us.
In the most recent Dawn of War video game (don't buy it, it's a terrible game), an army of ~40 boyz, a warboss, a trukk and two kanz felt like a proppa ork Waaagh! despite being a fraction of what you would field in 2000 point game, while marines and eldar roughly brought as much as the did on the table top.
I wouldn't mind paying 360 points for a unit of 30 boyz (12pts per boy) if it was actually worth 360 points. I don't know, if they all had nob stat-line or something (don't math this out, I didn't either).
But I somehow doubt that GW would go that far, since it would require a major overhaul of almost every single data sheet in the codex. As of now every codex was just about slightly tweaking the index data sheets, possibly adding or removing rules. Only a single unit got a full overhaul, completely changing how they operate on the battlefield - the tzeench horrors.
Andykp wrote: The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun.
I hate to break it to you, but they are. There wouldn't be three digit attendances at GTs if they weren't fun, especially in the lower brackets most people are aware that they won't be winning anything and are just looking for a good time.
Don't believe me? Just recently there has a thread here on dakka asking if one should go to LVO if you don't have a top tier army. Go search for it, it also has tons of people describing what they were doing at LVO.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point.
Despite repeatingly telling us that you don't get the point you keep making assumption about people playing competitively and on top of that provide a solution for all their troubles. Don't you see the problem?
Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.
No moving goal posts now. You claimed that WH40k is not designed to be a competitive game. Whether their design is successful or not doesn't matter for your argument.
GW is trying to make 40k work in a competitive setting and they are actively working towards that goal. They are obviously not there yet.
My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy.
Didn't you just establish that you don't understand what motivates competitive gamers? How do you know to keep them happy?
They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way.
If you are not playing the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k but some homebrew, changes to the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k don't affect you at all.
If you are playing 8th edition, you will find that as balance improves and unclear rules are eliminated less and less house rules are needed. You could potentially introduce a new member to your gaming group without any overhead - like you can with almost every other game with semi-decent rules and balance.
When some one new joins my kitchen table MtG group, all I need to tell them is that we play 60 cards casual, they can mulligan for free by showing a hand without lands and we are ready to go.
When 8th has reached a decent state I hope to be able to tell a new player that we are playing 1500 points and he can discard impossible maelstrom objectives for free and then we start playing.
40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big.
It can be sufficiently balanced by simply iterating over versions and improving terrible units and nerfing over-performers. Since the number of units is finite, so is the number of needed iterations.
This is a tested and proven concept across all games that try to archive balance in order to improve the gaming experience for everyone.
The narrative will benefit from this, since under-performing units tend to not do what they are supposed to do in the fluff. Deff dreads actually causing havoc in the enemy's lines would be a nice change for both narrative and competitive gamers.
Just an example from League of Legends (please do not claim that video games cannot be compared to WH40k like dozens of idiots before you):
There was a playable character calls "Swain" in this game who is an old frail man with a crutch and raven, and his background fluff is that he is the military mastermind and general of a "morally flexible" nation.
In game he basically played like a juggernaut which had enemies dropping around him if they dared to come too close. Obviously this was a problem with the character constantly flip-flopping between too weak (can't kill stuff) or too powerful (no escape once too close).
Riot Games thought that there was nothing tactical or even mastermind-y about him, so they changed his skill set to match his fluff better, completely reworking how that character operates to make him feel more like frail general and no longer like an unstoppable juggernaut.
GW can do the same. If a unit constantly fails to perform according to its fluff, it's in their power to adjust points, improve stats, add or remove rules or toss everything out the window and build a new, more fitting data slate for the unit in question. This benefits all players.
Note that perfect balance is next to useless in a game that is based on rolling d6. You wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance, even if it was archived.
I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically.
Again, if you don't know how something works, don't make assumptions about it. "Too many options" is hardly a problem of tournaments. If anything, too little options are used in tournaments because they are balanced so poorly against each other.
For example, with the Imperium recently re-discovering that you can shoot plasma without killing yourself, melta has gone all but extinct. If properly balanced, flamer vs plasma vs melta would be an actual decision to make and maybe even decided by personal preference.
Properly balancing would also help the narrative - why should a plasma gun be better at killing tanks than a melta that was build for just this single purpose? Also flamers would match the fluff much more if they were actually semi-decent at killing infantry.
Tactics really mattered, not just list building.
This just means that epic was better balanced than 40k was pre-FAQ. Killing options doesn't make the game faster at all, it just makes it slightly easier to balance.
In the current state most options don't matter to competitive gaming anyways, since in most cases you just always take the best one.
Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.
The thing is narrative players don't need to give up on anything in order for the game to archive balance, and most competitive players actually want some of that flavor and character of 40k in their game.
The very reason why SemperMortis is angry with GW about the state of his orks is because he would love to take his speed freaks to a tournament and not get butchered in the first turn.
Buying the amount of KMK to actually compete in any tournament as an ork right now is more expensive than just buying the all of the recently nerfed-to-the-ground poxwalker farm.
So why are competitive ork players bringing them to tournaments (and other competitive games)? Because they want green guys to hit stuff with their choppa. Because they like to play orks.
If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that.
You must have missed the part where GW also though that those lists sucked and introduced rules to stop them from being possible. Balance is not an equation you can solve by sitting down and finding all the unknowns, you already said that there are too many variables. Therefore it has to be done in steps, constantly getting closer to a balanced game.
"The point" of these specific lists is very simple: You try to win the tournament. Therefore you take the very best list available, regardless of (monetary)costs, army or fluff. But when you go to one of the videos of the tournament and look at the tables around those lists, you'll see a game where someone's Sisters of Battle are purging a Genestealer Cult, which is pretty damn close to fluff.
You are playing this game like an RPG. A regular gamer, who plays the game for just being a fun game, might also ask you what's the point of that. WH40k by itself really isn't much more than an over-complicated board game with expensive game pieces.
The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter.
More assumptions despite having declared that you don't understand how the people you are criticizing work. Background does matter. If have witnessed people at tournaments yelling "For the emperah!" when rolling their armor saves, "Waaagh!" when their ork boyz make a charge and the guy playing Ultramarines telling Mortarion that he is not welcome in Ultramar and that he will send him back to the warp. The guy going 4-0 in that tournament took his time to taunt a model exactly like the commander of an Ultramarine force would, despite the mission played being completely generic.
Outside of the top 10% competitive players, most picked and army because they liked how it plays, its fluff and its models.
The least thing GW can do is to provide a rule set balanced enough so people that picked orks instead of eldar are not excluded from ever winning at tournaments.
Telling us that this is how it should be make no one other than you the fool.
It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.
You might want to research what "e-sports" are.
U seem to be the authority on everything on here so it's not much of a forum if any other ideas or ways of thinking are just discredited straight off the bat. I did not say I didn't understand the people or that people are trying to win, I was saying I don't see the point of behaving like they do. I was basing my suggestion on the constant griping and complaining that goes on on here and all over the Internet. I'll leave it here as my opinion doesn't seem to matter too much and that doesn't matter too much to me. As for looking a fool, I'm a grown man playing with toy soldiers, foolishness has never worried me.
And I'm aware of e-sports. They to are not sports. Neither are darts or snooker. They are games. 40k being a sport is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard, nearly as much as call of duty being a sport.
Back on point I am optimistic for the new codex after the way they actually put some thought into the dark eldar codex, making an army play like it does in the fluff and encouraging those builds. If the harlequin and deathwatch ones have any similar fluffy mechanics then I will be even more interested. Either way I will buy it and play the orks as I always have.
I just don't think it's a very fair or respectful thing to do to tell others the army they love to collect and play shouldn't be allowed to be any good on the table, especially if you've already admitted that you are going to play them and not care regardless of any changes. Someone getting into the hobby who is interested in orks shouldn't have to choose between playing a faction they think is cool and playing a faction that can actually put up a fight on the table. I don't think this type of ork gate-keeping where one says people looking to play TAC-style games and win regularly aren't doing orks "right" and shouldn't be able to play the game in a way they enjoy. Many people don't even have a choice between playing more casual or more competitively. Some local metas just don't have people interested in building fluffy lists, and thus all the available people to play against have optimized lists. I don't really enjoy games where I just pick up half my models T1 and have nothing left by T3 if that, and I'd like the option to scale up my list to compete instead of just playing a different army because "orks aren't meant to be competitive."
If you're going to keep playing orks in a goofy, non-competitive way regardless of what their rules are, that's great. But it makes me wonder why you would tell others to stop advocating for certain rules changes when you've already said it won't affect your enjoyment of the hobby.
Andykp wrote: U seem to be the authority on everything on here so it's not much of a forum if any other ideas or ways of thinking are just discredited straight off the bat. I did not say I didn't understand the people or that people are trying to win, I was saying I don't see the point of behaving like they do. I was basing my suggestion on the constant griping and complaining that goes on on here and all over the Internet. I'll leave it here as my opinion doesn't seem to matter too much and that doesn't matter too much to me. As for looking a fool, I'm a grown man playing with toy soldiers, foolishness has never worried me.
See, people are entitled to opinions, but opinions can be wrong. People trying to build the best ork lists possible and trying to win are having fun doing so, saying the opposite is just wrong. Saying they should drop the army they love because they are "doing it wrong" is also wrong.
By the way, no one is a fool for playing toy soldiers. You are having fun, right? What's foolish about having fun in a hobby you like?
And I'm aware of e-sports. They to are not sports. Neither are darts or snooker. They are games. 40k being a sport is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard, nearly as much as call of duty being a sport.
Chess is considered a sport and played at the olympics. It also doesn't matter at all, since the whole point is that people want to measure their skill in playing 40k against each other, and we can name that whatever
Back on point I am optimistic for the new codex after the way they actually put some thought into the dark eldar codex, making an army play like it does in the fluff and encouraging those builds. If the harlequin and deathwatch ones have any similar fluffy mechanics then I will be even more interested. Either way I will buy it and play the orks as I always have.
That's the whole point - no one should be left out in the rain. No casual beer&prezel gamer, no narrative campaign player and no competitive tournament player. If anyone has less fun playing
Andykp wrote: U seem to be the authority on everything on here so it's not much of a forum if any other ideas or ways of thinking are just discredited straight off the bat. I did not say I didn't understand the people or that people are trying to win, I was saying I don't see the point of behaving like they do. I was basing my suggestion on the constant griping and complaining that goes on on here and all over the Internet. I'll leave it here as my opinion doesn't seem to matter too much and that doesn't matter too much to me. As for looking a fool, I'm a grown man playing with toy soldiers, foolishness has never worried me.
See, people are entitled to opinions, but opinions can be wrong. People trying to build the best ork lists possible and trying to win are having fun doing so, saying the opposite is just wrong. Saying they should drop the army they love because they are "doing it wrong" is also wrong.
By the way, no one is a fool for playing toy soldiers. You are having fun, right? What's foolish about having fun in a hobby you like?
And I'm aware of e-sports. They to are not sports. Neither are darts or snooker. They are games. 40k being a sport is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard, nearly as much as call of duty being a sport.
Chess is considered a sport and played at the olympics. It also doesn't matter at all, since the whole point is that people want to measure their skill in playing 40k against each other, and we can name that whatever
Back on point I am optimistic for the new codex after the way they actually put some thought into the dark eldar codex, making an army play like it does in the fluff and encouraging those builds. If the harlequin and deathwatch ones have any similar fluffy mechanics then I will be even more interested. Either way I will buy it and play the orks as I always have.
That's the whole point - no one should be left out in the rain. No casual beer&prezel gamer, no narrative campaign player and no competitive tournament player. If anyone has less fun playing
Opinions aren't right or wrong they are subjective, you just think you're right and I'm wrong when in fact we both probably make valid points in some respects but you are unable to accept you might not be the be all and end all of things.
Back on tooic, again.
I'd like to see the clans make some major changes to the basic stat line. Some could give you the option to increase BS and lower WS so you could make a classic style ork army. 3rd edition made orks very one dimensional, in my opinion!! I would like to see more randomness too, but maybe in the form of stratagems that could be hugely benificial or a disaster but at least you would have the option to gamble rather than having it stuck in the main unit rules. Anything from maybe experimental ammo or stik bombz to kustomisations to guns or vehicles that you buy like relics but roll for randomly first time they are used. And bring back madboyz, and boarboyz. And ogryn. .....and human mercs and advisors.
Andy, they are subjective, but your opinion was that only you are right and anyone not playing your way is wrong.
Our opinion is that the army should be fun for everyone, whether you play competitive, narrative or beer and pretzel.
So we want the codex to be COMPETITIVE because you can't be competitive with weak units, but you can have a narrative or friendly game with a competitive codex. Units shouldn't be completely useless just because, especially from a standpoint of a company trying to make a profit.
Imagine how great their sales could be if they started listening to the fan base and doing things they want, like making my army competitive, hell I might buy a second Naut if they become relatively good.
SemperMortis wrote: Andy, they are subjective, but your opinion was that only you are right and anyone not playing your way is wrong.
Our opinion is that the army should be fun for everyone, whether you play competitive, narrative or beer and pretzel.
So we want the codex to be COMPETITIVE because you can't be competitive with weak units, but you can have a narrative or friendly game with a competitive codex. Units shouldn't be completely useless just because, especially from a standpoint of a company trying to make a profit.
Imagine how great their sales could be if they started listening to the fan base and doing things they want, like making my army competitive, hell I might buy a second Naut if they become relatively good.
I'm happy to change my opinion if confronted with a good counter argument and I haven't heard one yet anywhere on is forum, so I'm still of the opinion that competative 40k needs a different rule set from narrative 40k. This mythical "balance" everyone is so concerned about sounds like it's impossible to get without it. Not that anyone can actually state exactly what "balance" really means in realistic terms. The drive for balance and this competative abandoning of the narrative is already driving people away from the game. The fella three post back said narrative gamers can't get a game like that in his area. What you want to achieve isn't possible I don't think. I may be wrong. I often am. I don't see orks needing "fixing". The rules as they are work well for me and my group and we have fun games. I'm sorry you don't.
Andykp wrote: I'm happy to change my opinion if confronted with a good counter argument and I haven't heard one yet anywhere on is forum, so I'm still of the opinion that competative 40k needs a different rule set from narrative 40k. This mythical "balance" everyone is so concerned about sounds like it's impossible to get without it.
The are actual scientific papers done by Riot Games (League of Legends) and Wizards of the Coast (Magic: The Gathering) regarding competitive game balance influencing casual gamers. Both companies have succeeded in getting both highly competitive events with hundreds of thousands of dollars for price money and your average once-a-week-after-work gamers into the very same game. Catering to both the competitive and the casual gamers has become the formula for success in the gaming branch.
The result of both papers are that outside of edge cases, striving to make the game playable for competitive players will not hurt casual gaming. Both have come to the conclusion that improving game balance almost always actually helps casual gaming because more people can play what they like instead of what is good and still be reasonably successful with it.
On the other hand, both agree that bad competitive balance hurts or even destroys the casual scene. When game balance is bad after a major patch in League of Legends, the number of players, number of games played and the amount of money spend in the in-game store drops significantly. Obviously, it's not the professional players that stop playing, it's the casual players that got steam-rolled by some overpowered junk that leave to play some other game.
In Magic: The Gathering, big balancing fails of the past have almost caused the game to die (twice), and even today when there are obvious balance problems like overpowered cards or combos, event attendances drop noticeably - with casual events (FNM, GT side-events) being much more affected than the competitive events like PTQs.
So there are facts and data that trying to balance your game will not hurt casual players, while bad balance will drive them away. Which means it is possible to have both your narrative and your competitive players play on the same rule set and both be happy. Currently I'm not aware of a single rule in 8th that prevents the game from being played as a competitive game.
Also note that both companies do a lot of things to support casual play, which doesn't affect competitive play at all. For example, Riot Games has created fun modes for their game and MtG keeps printing cards for certain flavorful deck types that never see competitive play at all. This pretty much translates directly into narrative missions (wouldn't a well done campaign book be awesome?) and fun rules like the bubblechukka, the stratagem with the SW and DA warlord dueling at the start of the battle or the daemonic ascension stratagem for CSM. Creating a balanced game for competitive play in no way excludes GW from providing content for narrative players. The "build your own landraider" rules are testament to that.
In the end what's the difference between a narrative game and a competitive game? The kind mission you are playing and your army list. Your warboss will still be wielding the very same power klaw as mine as will Semper's warboss.
If I want to drive my warboss into Mortarion "to see what da big guy can do", that's my personal decision. He should still be able to flip a rhino if he feels like it, because that's the job he needs to be able to do.
The narrative game is what is happening on the table, it's not happening in the books.
Not that anyone can actually state exactly what "balance" really means in realistic terms.
Well, quite a few people of dakka have given useful definitions of what they think balance is.
First of all, let's clarify some things:
- Balance does not mean that every army is exactly as powerful as every other army. We are rolling dice, so we wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance if it hit us in the face. If the power difference between well built armies and between choices is within 10-20% of each other, the small imbalances will be concealed dice luck or playing errors. For reference: right now a KMK is more than 200% more powerful than lootaz.
- Balance is not a formula you can put all your variables into and solve. Every complex game that has archived some sort of balance in the past has done so through iteration. Collect data, analyze data, change rules, repeat. Not every rule change will improve game balance, but the sum of all rule changes will improve it over time.
- A reasonably balanced game can be archived because many games have done so before. Even getting halfway there is worth trying because you still end up with a much better game for everyone. A common misconception is that because perfect balance cannot be archived, GW shouldn't even try.
With that out of the way, there are three important kinds of balance in Warhammer 40k:
1) No army should be vastly more powerful than every other. No group of armies (top tier) should be vastly more powerful than every other army in the game. Almost every player I have brought into the game selected his or her army because of the optics and/or the fluff. You should never auto-loose a single game because you picked the wrong faction. This is often referred to as "external balance".
2) All models of a codex should be useful. If you want a freeboota army, you should be able to field three units of flash gits and the kaptin without eliminating all hopes of winning the game. This does not mean that you should be able to drop whatever is in your case on the table and hope to win the game. It means that the choice of whether to field a KMK instead of a kopta or lootas for your anti-tank needs should be a matter of taste and not a matter of the KMK simply being 3-10 times as good at the same job. This is often referred to as "internal balance".
3) All options for each unit should make sense. When is the last time you fielded a kustom mega slugga? Why is the tractor kannon worse at shooting planes than the much cheaper KMK? Did you know that cyborked models are less survivable per point than those without? Depending on who is writing, this is also meant by "internal balance".
1) is more important than 2) and 3). I also think it's more important to be able to field nobz in general than to field nobz with killsaws and kombi-rokkits, so 2) is more important than 3).
In 7th none of this was true, the select club of top-tier armies simply outclassed other codices by so much that even playing against soft lists from those armies was an uphill battle at best. Especially the orks had tons of units and formations that were simply a waste of points (even in narrative games!) and there were tons of options that either were bad or even non-functional.
As it is now, there are some clear losers in regards of 1) , but GW is clearly working towards everyone being able to field some army from the faction they love. This is also true for orks, the green tide is working quite well even with everyone getting their codices before us, even though it isn't really fun to play for most of us.
For 2) GW is really in hit-or-miss mode right now. Codex: Tyranids is getting huge praise from nid players far and wide, since everyone can finally play the models they like again without shooting themselves in the leg game-wise. And this is despite most of those armies not actually being able to compete at top competitive events. Apparently casual players especially care for this one. Sadly, other codices like Dark Angels have a huge amount of dead units that really don't do their job on the battlefield or are outclassed by better options. Having awesome internal balance doesn't do jack without "external balance" though, you'd just have codex where all options are equally bad.
3) really isn't something GW has begun to work on. I also think they should get 1) and 2) right first before worrying about such detail.
The drive for balance and this competative abandoning of the narrative is already driving people away from the game.
This is objectively wrong. Read GW's annual report, WH40k has become ridiculously successfully since they have started to drive for an accessible and balanced game. Admins of all big community sites including dakkadakka have reported a huge increase of use activity, events of all sizes have higher attendances than ever, GWs online and brick&mortar stores permanently have product unavailable because they can't produce models as fast as they are selling out.
I don't see orks needing "fixing". The rules as they are work well for me and my group and we have fun games. I'm sorry you don't.
There are really only two reasons for orks to work well for you:
Your army is a variant of the green tide archetype - or - Your house rules improve your army to a point where it works well
Almost all my usual games are against people who play well, but primarily select their purchases by what they think looks cool. So they will have well-rounded lists, but not necessarily the best models for each job and rarely duplicates of anything but basic infantry, dreads or rhinos. Should be the wet dream of a narrative player, right?
The only way to make those games fun and not "kill all the orks in two turns" is by avoiding two thirds of the models I own. Not fun.
Anecdotal evidence? This matches pretty much what every ork player is reporting, the more competitive their environment, the less ork units are viable. Maybe I'm just a terrible player? Unlikely, my Death Guard are on a ten game win streak as of now, and I'm playing what amounts to two sets of the freakin' starter box and a daemon prince against the same armies that tear my orks appart. I also used to have a pretty good track record with orks until 7th edition codices started outclassing them.
I'd also like to point out that some units can't even do the job they should be good at reasonably well, like deff dreads, burnas or lobbas. How does that not need fixing?
Again you make assumptions, 1 about how I play my army and two about house rules. Neither are true. I take units I like. I'm predominantly an evil Sunz fan,I have bikes buggies etc but do take the odd mob of boyz on foot. I have at least one of every unit in the book and like to bring an army that feels right to me. My armies tend to resemble rogue trader armies on steroids. Instead 5 strong boy mobs it's 20 or ten in a truck. Few meks and a few vehicles. House rules we use are just ones that negate non fluffy interpretations of the rules even if they are from an FAQ. Such as not being able to target a character if there is a non eligible target nearer. That's just silly. We don't do it. We use reasonable ideas of vehicle facings. Not hard and fast rules but say an eldar falcon can't fore it s shuriken catapults behind it. No specific rules for my army. I am working on some boar boyz and my mate is building a harlequin on a jet bike but that's about it. We try to base those in existing units if we can.
I think what balances my games is the fact that my opponents and myself are if the same mindset so choose armies that aren't spammy or heavy in one type of play. If we decide to then we talk it over before and adjust our lists accordingly. My mate brought 6 falcons in an eldar army because he'd just bought them and wanted to. So he told me and I changed my list to be a bit better at anti armour. We play stock missions nine times out of ten. I think with your definitions of balance and how some units are so much better than others that is mitigated by your opponents not taking optimised lists. So as a group it seems we've created balance in our 'meta'. (Hate that word).
I based my comment about alienating gamers on the previous post that said just that. In his area casual gamers had to face competative ones. So play like them or get tabled. No fun. I hope this settles this now and I appreciate your time in defining what you mean. I still think that players are he problem not e rules and balancing 40k is a mammoth task but with GW s new attitude might just do. As long as they don't forget us old narrative players then that'd be great.
I'm off any way. No point rehashing old ground here. Laters and hope the ork book makes you happy when we do get it. And hope no prime orks eitherM
Ork players have the right to be competitive as any Space marines or eldar player, period. If GW continues giving us trash then we will still have the right to be frustrated, because 40k is ment to be able to be a competitive game (it can be a fluffy relaxed game also). The fact that all armies should be as balanced as possible is so basic that I cant understand what people have in their heads when they say otherwise... but whatever...
Back on topic, I dont think orks should get those silly random rules that keep making the army unplayable, randomness and sillyness should be there but in manageable ways, for example, keep the bubblechukka as is, with a points drop and let the ork player decide where to put all the results, random, fun, orky and USEFUL.
IMO sillyness should be left for fluff as much as possible
Grotsnik1 wrote: Ork players have the right to be competitive as any Space marines or eldar player, period. If GW continues giving us trash then we will still have the right to be frustrated, because 40k is ment to be able to be a competitive game (it can be a fluffy relaxed game also). The fact that all armies should be as balanced as possible is so basic that I cant understand what people have in their heads when they say otherwise... but whatever...
Back on topic, I dont think orks should get those silly random rules that keep making the army unplayable, randomness and sillyness should be there but in manageable ways, for example, keep the bubblechukka as is, with a points drop and let the ork player decide where to put all the results, random, fun, orky and USEFUL.
IMO sillyness should be left for fluff as much as possible
That's why I think they could add flavour for us old fluffy players that like random by having some, not all strategems be a bit like that. That way you could choose to play it silly or not, like one say for stormboyz where they can make a big random advance or advance and charge but risk blowing up. So I could use them without and be fine or take the risk and be silly. Experimental ammo that has a random effect first time it's fired but can have a gets hot type thing. If you keep it to stratagems it won't force people to put up with a degree of randomness they don't like. Best of both.
I'm not going to comment on points drops as I use power levels nowadays but it makes sense that you should pay less for something that can be dreadful as much as be good.
I know I said I was gone but I'm dropping the argument thing and hope to enjoy a good chat about ork rule ideas.
Andykp wrote: I think what balances my games is the fact that my opponents and myself are if the same mindset so choose armies that aren't spammy or heavy in one type of play. If we decide to then we talk it over before and adjust our lists accordingly. My mate brought 6 falcons in an eldar army because he'd just bought them and wanted to. So he told me and I changed my list to be a bit better at anti armour. We play stock missions nine times out of ten.
I think with your definitions of balance and how some units are so much better than others that is mitigated by your opponents not taking optimised lists. So as a group it seems we've created balance in our 'meta'. (Hate that word).
I guess this is the very reason you are having fun - you and your opponents both under stand the game very well and build your armies to match each other. Your collections are also deep enough to compensate for power problems. In my gaming group we have a similar approach, but there are issues preventing this from working as well as it does for you. One player is pretty new and has a pile of primaris Dark Angels (the DI starter set) and not much else. He simply cannot field something besides those models he owns, and yet they are powerful enough completely wreck an ork army that is not optimized. Another player is collecting multiple armies whose primary aim is to have one coherent, flavorful army with just a few models to switch for each. During 6th he had to shelf his Tau army because any game he brought his riptide ended in a slaughter and he didn't have enough models to compensate for such a huge chunk of his army.
Some units (and sometimes armies) are so far from each other that you simply cannot get in a good game. For example, if your friend hat bought 6 units of black reapers instead of half-decent falcons, your games wouldn't have been fun, no matter what you would have fielded. That's why I firmly believe that balance is important to all players.
I based my comment about alienating gamers on the previous post that said just that. In his area casual gamers had to face competative ones. So play like them or get tabled. No fun. I hope this settles this now and I appreciate your time in defining what you mean. I still think that players are he problem not e rules and balancing 40k is a mammoth task but with GW s new attitude might just do. As long as they don't forget us old narrative players then that'd be great.
I agree, when people are the problem, no amount of rules are going to change that. The most balanced game will not be fun if your opponent is being toxic. Good rules help having fun when you do meet a decent opponent.
As long as there are multiple choices that are more or less viable, I’m okay with a silly unit or two. Note that silly =\= overpriced garbage, but rather unit that can be extremely awesome at the risk of doing unexpected thing from time to time.
I’m with Jiddah in this one. Army needs to have a solid backbone crunch of viable synergising units, competitive part of codex serving as a skeleton. I don’t understand the argument of “orks should not be competitive in order to be fun, leave this to other armies”. It is possible to make fluffy varied lists while having a competitive codex. Not to say that having 80% of units being bad actually sabotages motivation to make a fluffy list, since it probably will get lose really hard by a fluffy list consisting of mostly decent units. Over and over again.
I read in another topic about orks that some fluff style players are worried about orks losing their flavour in the aim for balance or competitiveness. I'm actually confident that GW won't do that this time. The DE , Custodes and what I've seen of deathwatch books makes me think that they can use the mechanisms around to make armies 'feel' right. And from what I've read they are reasonably competative. My mates a big dark eldar fan and he's over the moon with the book. He has always seen his army as a force of small warbands, and that's what he got with the book. It does sound like some units need help and if they can fix that with points then it won't detract from the fell of the army. Fingers crossed.
Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.
so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models
then lift the base BS to 4+
now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.
Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"
leopard wrote: Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.
so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models
then lift the base BS to 4+
now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.
Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"
I'll be honest, that sounds like a horrible idea. The last thing we Orks need is to deal with more negative modifiers, much less ones arbitrarily imposed on our units. I'm not sure if you've noticed our discussion with this thread so far, but its mainly been focusing on how to fix Ork shooting within the context of the 8th ed environment and mods to shooting. Given how much Orks have lost out compared to other factions with how twin linked weapons work now, it would be a much safer bet just to give Orks 4+BS as the baseline or that we ignore enemy imposed negative modifiers to shooting.
leopard wrote: Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.
so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models
then lift the base BS to 4+
now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.
Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"
leopard wrote: Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.
so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models
then lift the base BS to 4+
now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.
Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"
I like it.
Its not a bad idea, but it flies in the face of the fluff of the game. Making everyone BS4 is fine, but then giving us a negative modifier when there are more boyz is just silly, if anything it would be the other way around.
I don't know, I think you could make a rule like that work. Shoota boyz would be better if fielded in units of 10 instead of 30, and for tank bustas or lootas fielding 10 or 15 would be an interesting choice since one is more survivable and the other can shoot better at the beginning of the game. Once the units start shrinking their shooting gets better, so your opponent might actually not want to shoot them? I wouldn't hate it for sure, especially since for units with 10 or less models max size (buggies, koptas, morkanaut) it would be all upside.
The thought was about making the army different to others
concept is that a small bunch of orks get on with what they are meant to be doing, a larger group are more rowdy and less focused, getting carried away with the noise.
the point in game terms is to buff some ork units without making the larger formations into shooting murder machines, as a bigger unit gets shot down to size they start to become a bit more focused
Wow, so many buzz killers here. Reminds me of a qoute from a GW staff member saying how the USA ruined 40k by trying to make a fantasy D&D kinda game competitive. XD Nothing wrong with players wanting competitive 40k but to make the whole game for everyone competitive is also wrong and hypocritical of a lot of people here.
But no really, I did a poll ages ago to ask if competitive was ruining 40k and 259 people said no and 339 people said yes. (This tells me it's pretty much split meaning there is no minority in terms of dakka dakka). Also depends on the country. In Northern England we hate competitiveness in terms of just wanting to win. It's all about the game and most thr time it doesn't matter if we win or lose! Someone mentioned darts and football for example. Sure, competitive players do exist but the vast majority play it in their back garden andnpub for the fun of it and nothing more. This is basically 40k if my experiences are to suggest anything.
In the end remember. We could be out there becoming rich successful competitive sports players with hundred of women and men on our arms and smoking hot muscled bodies but instead we're sat inside getting no sun or excorsise paying a fortune to paint plastic toy soldiers to maybe roll some dice and win a game once in a while.
leopard wrote: Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.
so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models
then lift the base BS to 4+
now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.
Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"
I like it.
Its not a bad idea, but it flies in the face of the fluff of the game. Making everyone BS4 is fine, but then giving us a negative modifier when there are more boyz is just silly, if anything it would be the other way around.
Why does it fly in the face of any fluff? It makes good sense fluff wise and rules wise. And it would encourage a differenet style of play. Why would it make sense that they get accurate in large numbers. The getting rowdy idea is great.
Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.
Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.
JawRippa wrote: Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.
Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.
Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.
JawRippa wrote: Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.
Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.
Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.
Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.
Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.
This is actually fluffy as hell and seems quite effective
JawRippa wrote: Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.
Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.
Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.
Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.
I like it too! Simple but effective. Who would get it? Lootas, tank bustas? It's not a Huge list. I'd give it shoota boyz as well.
It could apply to vehicles too. Or walkers. Bs4+ when they all target same thing. A gorkanaut unloading on you would be quite scary for change! I think anything already bs4+ shouldn't get any benifit. Flash gitz and kanz and the like.
JawRippa wrote: Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.
Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.
Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.
Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.
I agree with the Ork chorus! This is by far the best way to fix this. It keeps the fluff of a disorganised unit with crappy aim, yet provides for a bonus when the orks get down to business. I'd email GW with this, but I'm sure the codexes are already shipped and sitting on pallets somewhere.
lolman1c wrote: ... XD Nothing wrong with players wanting competitive 40k but to make the whole game for everyone competitive is also wrong and hypocritical of a lot of people here.
Where does this stigma come? Out of all the gaming communities I've been in the "Game wont work for casuals if balanced for competitive" train is the strongest in 40k.
As Jidmah brought up - there's solid evidence that suggests the contrary AND a 'competitively balanced game' means your casual lists don't have to change when coming against another power creeped list.
If your Lootas are just as useful your KMK's does that ruin your fun? Whereas if they aren't as useful as one another that unit is *dead* to a competitive player.
Please, just because I don't understand your train of thought - can you give me an example how balancing for 'competitive' ruins casual gaming?
Basically that train of thought comes from GW force feeding it to their fans for three decades, up to the point where designers openly insulted competitive gamers in interviews for playing the game wrong.
Some people see the game as an RPG (similar to D&D miniatures) where competitive gaming is actually toxic to the game play as the goal of those games is not to defeat your GM or your players. But even in those games, a solid and balanced rule-set benefits everyone. WH40k has not been a RPG for a long time though, and it has severely lacked support for that kind of games, no matter how often GW told us to "forge our narrative". Narrative games boil down to regular games with background information and some additional rules. A board game with multiple missions that build on each other really doesn't do any less.
Last but not least, many people think balancing equals streamlining. Streamlining does hurt narrative play, when things get too abstract, it's harder to immerse yourself in the game, which takes the fun out of it. A good example is when D&D changed some rogue skill that was supposed to throw random items into your opponents path to slow them into a 3 feet circular AOE that added a slow status to anyone hit. I don't think that we are in any danger of excessive streamlining this edition though. After the indices did some massive cuts, GW went right back to bloating everything with random rules again like they always have
I think the bigger worry is that if people take ludicrous spammy lists that have no basis fluff wise then those unit are going to get "nerfed" or what ever. So the FAQ brings out limitations that stop people abusing these units or loopholes or actually makes the unit worse. So the rules are being changed to stop that behaviour, these changes affect everyone even those who would never abuse the rules that way. So you end up with restrictions like the rule of three which most people accept as a rule, not a match play suggestion. Limiting army choices for people who aren't try to win at all costs but are trying to build fluffy lists. I for instance have a marine army. I choose to play it primaris only due to fluff reasons. That limits me but being limited to three max of my limited choices hampers me more. So some one taking 7 tyrants or 10 dark reaper squads has made it difficult for me to play a fluffy at,y in bigger battles. As I said before these are genuine concerns as it really happens and all we casual fluffy gamers ask is that GW doesn't just listen to the vocal minority that is the tournememt community. They seem to be doing this ok right now. As we have all discussed before balance can be achieved in many ways not just limitations and streamlining.
General rule: Dakka Dakka Dakka: a roll of a natural 6 to hit when shooting is always considered a hit regardless of modifiers, additionally, for every natural roll of 6 in the shooting phase, infantry models without artillery can fire another shot with the same weapon (this extra shots can not generate extra shots)
Add a stratagem that lets you get the extra shots with a non infantry unit
Benefits from clans:
-Goffs: reroll 1s to hit (shooting and combat)
-Blood axes: infantry gets +1 extra arm in cover
-Evil sunz: infantry can disembarc from an open topped vehicle that has moved if they started the turn inside it, but cant move any further.
Vehicles get +1" M
-Bad moons: every item from the wargear chart (shooty weapons, souped-up weapons, eavy weapons and choppy weapons) cost 5 points less, to a minimum of 0
-Deathskulls: +1 to the inv. save or a 6++ if the model doesnt have one
-Snakebites: +1S and reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase
-New clan focused on shooting: reroll 1s to hit when shooting and Dakka Dakka Dakka gives extra shots on rolls of 5+
Give all HQ and all nobz and meganobz access to cybork body (5++, 5 points)
Big mek bs4 and SAG2d6 shots
Burnas, tankbustas and lootas 5+ arm
Burnas 1d6 shots
Komandos get to apear the first turn (or at least a stratagem for them that works as "strike from the shadows" does)
Bikes cause a -1 to hit penalty when shooting at them and cost down to 25 for regular bikes and 40 for nobz
Dakkajet down to 80 (140 with 6 supa shootas)
Mayor points drop in the other 3 planes
Deffkoptas mayor point drop (~20-25) make bigomms optional at an extra cost, kopta rokkits down to 20
Points drop for skorchas 15, kombiskorchas 17, kombilaunchas 12, rack of rokkits 20, and rokkit launchas 10
Probably points drop for gorkanaut, morkanaut and stompa but dont really care for them
Points drop for all mek gunz except for the kmk, and make the ork player decide where to put all the results for the bubblechukka
Give killa kans some moral inmunity
Battlewagon points drop to ~120, or to ~140 and 3+ arm
What do you think, would it be too much? Maybe the points drops combined with the benefit of the clan+Dakka Dakka dakka might be a little op, but I dont think each of those buffs separately would do enough, thoughts?
(Anyway I know im just dreaming, we wont get even half of this)
Just to save you do the math, bs5 rerolling 1s and getting extra shots with 5 and 6 would end up meaning a number of hits equal to 53% of original shots, which means basically giving bs4, with a penalty of -1 or more, it would end up being 25.7% of original shots, so a mid line between bs5 and bs6, I dont think it is too crazy, I made it only for infantry because mek guns or Dakkajets would have been op though (would have ment 80% of shots). Gretchins would still get 80% from original shots, but those are s3 ap- shots, so I wouldnt be too worried
General rule: Dakka Dakka Dakka: a roll of a natural 6 to hit when shooting is always considered a hit regardless of modifiers, additionally, for every natural roll of 6 in the shooting phase, the model can fire another shot with the same weapon (this extra shots can not generate extra shots)
Interesting spin on the 6+ always hits thing, but are you aware of the math behind this? When shooting at -1 to hit or more the extra shots would do very little. An army-wide extra shot on 6+ is a nice idea, though we should probably exclude some units from this (thinking of TB mostly).
Goffs: reroll 1s to hit (shooting and combat)
Does a lot for combat and little for shooting. I like it, but doesn't really feel goff-y. Still a very elegant buff, maybe find a better place for it?
Blood axes: infantry gets +1 extra arm in cover
Orks don't get cover that often, I'd rather have something like "ORK INFANTRY units are in cover unless they have shot or charged this turn". This would also synergize well with kommandoz as they would receive their cover bonus in the open.
Evil sunz: infantry can disembarc from open topped vehicles if they started the turn inside them, but cant move any further.
Vehicles get +1" M
I like it, but would extend the movement bonus to bikes.
Bad moons: every item from the wargear chart (shooty weapons, souped-up weapons, eavy weapons and choppy weapons) cost 5 points less, to a minimum of 0
While a good idea, not compatible to games outside of matched play. I like the spirit of "flashier gitz" though, so I'd rather reward players for buying expensive upgrades. For example, you could allow all characters, nobz, MANz and boss nobz to shoot twice.
Deathskulls: +1 to the inv. save or a 6+ if the model doesnt have one
I'd change this to the generic "everyone has 6+ FNP" trait everyone has. I really hope Orkimedes' Mega-Force-Field makes it into the relic list, allowing for one 4++ KFF in the army anyways.
In fluff, the most featured units for deffskulls are lootaz. burnas, gretchin and meks plus their creations- 6+++ benefits that play style, since and army made of lootaz, gretchin, kanz, dreads and nauts would benefit a lot from a 6+++ save. A doc wouldn't really fit well in that army since the walkers don't benefit from it, the lootaz are too far away and gretchin aren't worth buying a character just for then.
Snakebites: +1S and reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase
This sounds more like something the goff clan should have. Since most iconic units for snakebites have either gone the way of the dodo or are FW only, I'm not sure how to support their play style. What's left is weird boyz and runtherds, so maybe they could give them some sort of a buff.
A clan that entirely neglects shooting isn't viable in this edition, just look at how well WE are doing right now.
New clan focused on shooting: reroll 1s to hit when shooting and Dakka Dakka Dakka gives extra shots on rolls of 5+
Both deff skulls and bad moons are focused on shooting though. This would be a great trait for Freebootas though.
Give all HQ and all nobz and meganobz access to cybork body (5++, 5 points)
Ironically, they already have access to that. But yeah, it should go back to 5++ saves.
Komandos get to apear the first turn (or at least a stratagem for them that works as "strike from the shadows" does)
I don't think GW wants to go back to alpha-strike hammer, so I don't think they want us to start the game with putting 75 boyz into charge range.
I'd have something that extends kommandoz beyond "deep striking boyz", like reducing leadership or some new grenades.
make the ork player decide where to put all the results for the bubblechukka
That would kind of defeat the whole point of the bubblechukka and make it way overpowered. It's probably one of the most well designed "fun"-units in the game. Don't touch it, just reduce points to match the other guns.
Give killa kans some moral inmunity
Warboss? I really think moral for kanz is done pretty well this edition, they just don't shoot enough for their points.
What do you think, would it be too much? Maybe the points drops combined with the benefit of the clan+Dakka Dakka dakka might be a little op, but I dont think each of those buffs separately would do enough, thoughts?
(Anyway I know im just dreaming, we wont get even half of this)
Well, your point costs are kind of arbitrary, so I won't go into the in detail, but there is nothing among them I wouldn't make cheaper as well. Otherwise, quite a bunch of great ideas in there.
I'd have something that extends kommandoz beyond "deep striking boyz", like reducing leadership or some new grenades.
1). Smokebomm (when Kommandos are deployed, until the next turn enemy suffers a -1 to hit modifier when targetting them or other [kommando] unit within 3") (although that might be overpowered and smokebomm should only affect kommandos themselves)
2). Flash-bang stikk (Select an enemy unit within 9" when Kommandos emerge. Targetted enemy unit can't overwatch this turn.)
3). Burnabomm (Has profile like a stikkbomb, but in addition, enemy unit that was targetted with it has to move 9" or further away from their initial position during their movement phase or roll a D6 for every model and suffer a mortal wound for every 1)
Also giving kommandos access to special kind of shootas would be neat. Something that has mean profile when firing within 10" to synergise with their deep strike ability.
The smokebomm could just be grenade d6 and apply -1 to whatever it hits. You get one average hit out of it and could reduce the shooting of whatever you think is the most dangerous to you.
Special kommando shootas would also be nice. Something like the shotguns cultists and scouts get would be nice:
12" pistol 2 S4 AP0 +1 strength when within half range
Interesting spin on the 6+ always hits thing, but are you aware of the math behind this? When shooting at -1 to hit or more the extra shots would do very little. An army-wide extra shot on 6+ is a nice idea, though we should probably exclude some units from this (thinking of TB mostly).
TB shooting at a vehicle getting extra shots on a 5+ would end up making a number of hits equal to 85% of the original shots. 10 Tb shooting a leman russ would be 8.5 hits, 5.61 wounds, 3.7 wounds after saves so 11.1 damage in total. If ig uses the strat to give it a +1 save then you end up with 8.41 damage. Tankbustas would be 150 points and the leman russ is 122 points (+ weaponry). IDK if its that op, we have serious lack of antitank tec
Love those rules! But I would hope that the Evil Sunz rule would apply to boarding planks instead of a clan. My non-sunz trukk boyz want to get out, too!
Sunz can get +1 movement across the board instead...stacking with rpj of course.
JimOnMars wrote: Love those rules! But I would hope that the Evil Sunz rule would apply to boarding planks instead of a clan. My non-sunz trukk boyz want to get out, too!
Sunz can get +1 movement across the board instead...stacking with rpj of course.
This seems utterly underwhelming.
How about we get to leave combat and charge back in/shoot? Or move and fire assault weapons with no penalty?
From a fluff perspective clan rules I think should be more like,
evil Sunz increase advancing, maybe a bonus to advancing and shooting, they are about going fast on vehicles, not getting off.
Badmoon, fancier kit, extra relic or some thing, maybe increased armour save.
Deathskulls. Shooting buff, like the 6++ maybe a painboy and runtherd buff. Increased abilities. Bionics?
Goffs, extra strengh or attack like the old skar boyz.
Snakebites. They need boarboys back to have any flavour. Keener grots maybe. Free runtherds ???
Blood axes, some kind of bolter drill or moral boost, iron will discipline kind of thing. Camo isn't their thing in the traditional sense. It was always garish, a lavish attempt to look military. Human advisors would be great.
No extra clans, their are six main clans always have had always should be.
Freebooterz should be added but not lose clan abilities for detachments. A bit like tech priests in guard regiments or scourges in Kabal lists. If like to see a pirate unit too.
I'm am primarily evil Sunz at heart and would love clan rules that allowed me to take an army full of bikes and buggies with the odd truck of boyz too.
Kommandos should get special kit but go back to being small squads that infiltrate not deep strike.
I'd have something that extends kommandoz beyond "deep striking boyz", like reducing leadership or some new grenades.
1). Smokebomm (when Kommandos are deployed, until the next turn enemy suffers a -1 to hit modifier when targetting them or other [kommando] unit within 3") (although that might be overpowered and smokebomm should only affect kommandos themselves)
2). Flash-bang stikk (Select an enemy unit within 9" when Kommandos emerge. Targetted enemy unit can't overwatch this turn.)
3). Burnabomm (Has profile like a stikkbomb, but in addition, enemy unit that was targetted with it has to move 9" or further away from their initial position during their movement phase or roll a D6 for every model and suffer a mortal wound for every 1)
Also giving kommandos access to special kind of shootas would be neat. Something that has mean profile when firing within 10" to synergise with their deep strike ability.
I like the flash-bang idea, it'd make kommandoz more interesting, honestly a rule like that could probably be in place for a lot of other task-force units in different factions. The other's seem a like they require a little too much planning ahead for orks.
I've shared my views on Clans before, here's some improvements on my precious ideas...
Goffs (Brutal/Scary): Da Meanest: For every unit that fails a morale test within 1" of a Warboss an additional model must flee from that same unit.
Bad Boyz: For every point Tougher than its opponent an attacking Ork unit may make an additional reroll on its failed WS checks against said opponent.
Get Back Eere!: Before an opponent moves out of engagement range, Ork infantry models within 1" of the retreating opponent may deal 1 Attack at -2 WS.
Bloodaxes (Cunning/Sneaky): Snik'em Behind: On a charge Ork Infantry receive +1 Attack against any unit pre-engaged in melee.
Real Sneaky Like: Infantry containing 10 or less models become -1 to hit when in cover.
Fight diz Way: When a unit of Ork Infantry disengages you may roll a D6 for -1 CP, on a 2+ that unit will retain/reacquire its ability to charge and shoot.
Badmoon (shooty/rich): Protect Ya Gobz: Infantry may take an additional shot when shooting at a target within 6"
Flashiest Gear: At the start of the game any unit of Nobz may gain +1 BS if they equipped with a "Souped-Up Weapon" for -1 CP. This cannot be stacked.
Spare Teef: Ork boyz may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" in addition to any purchased
Deathskullz (Lucky/Hoarders): Lucky Gitz: When using a CP, roll a D6, on a 6 you regain the spent CP.
Free Scrap: Infantry receive +1 WS verses Vehicles
Looted Wagon: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared a "Looted Wagon" for -1 CP. That vehicle may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" and must take one +D2 and one -1 on it's T/M/A stats, this cannot be stacked.
Snakebites (Savages/Venom): Savage Infusiasm: Ork infantry Unit may take +D3 Movement for -1BS that turn.
Untamed Energy: +1 to Psychic Tests.
(Edit) Snake Juice: At the start of a game for -2 CP Any Ork SNAKEBITE Elite Unit may deal +1 Wound with any Melee Weapon
Evil Sunz (Racers/Loons): No Brakes: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared having "No Brakes", any inch of a Charge unmoved will provide the unit an additional attack that round, but on a WS check of 1, the attaker suffers a wound.
Da Red Button: For -1 CP any Vehicle with the rule "Explodes" may detonate at any time on 2+
Pit Stop: When a Vehicle does not move it may recover a Wound on 2+
Freebooters (Untrustworthy/Raiders): Rotten Allies: Any Warboss/Nob/Flash-Git may shoot at a target engaged in close-combat, however; for each failed BS check of 1, inflict a wound to a unit engaging the target.
Raiding Party: Any Unit that has disembarked receives + 1 to attack for that turn..
Sky Fight'a: Flying Units receive +1 BS when attacking a Flying Vehicle.
1). Smokebomm (when Kommandos are deployed, until the next turn enemy suffers a -1 to hit modifier when targetting them or other [kommando] unit within 3" (although that might be overpowered and smokebomm should only affect kommandos themselves)
2). Flash-bang stikk (Select an enemy unit within 9" when Kommandos emerge. Targetted enemy unit can't overwatch this turn.)
3). Burnabomm (Has profile like a stikkbomb, but in addition, enemy unit that was targetted with it has to move 9" or further away from their initial position during their movement phase or roll a D6 for every model and suffer a mortal wound for every 1)
I'm a total fan of these, they are an interesting decision the player has to make (The game in general needs more of these). But how would you put it so Orks dont spam MSU? I'd instead make them a command stratagem for Kommandos.
Goffs (Brutal/Scary): Da Meanest: For every unit that fails a morale test within 1" of a Warboss an additional model must flee from that same unit.
Bad Boyz: For every point Tougher than its opponent an attacking Ork unit may make an additional reroll on its failed WS checks against said opponent.
Get Back Eere!: Before an opponent moves out of engagement range, Ork infantry models within 1" of the retreating opponent may deal 1 Attack at -2 WS.
Bloodaxes (Cunning/Sneaky): Snik'em Behind: On a charge Ork Infantry receive +1 Attack against any unit pre-engaged in melee.
Real Sneaky Like: Infantry containing 10 or less models become -1 to hit when in cover.
Fight diz Way: When a unit of Ork Infantry disengages you may roll a D6 for -1 CP, on a 2+ that unit will retain/reacquire its ability to charge and shoot.
Badmoon (shooty/rich): Protect Ya Gobz: Infantry may take an additional shot when shooting at a target within 6"
Flashiest Gear: At the start of the game any unit of Nobz may gain +1 BS if they equipped with a "Souped-Up Weapon" for -1 CP. This cannot be stacked.
Spare Teef: Ork boyz may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" in addition to any purchased
Deathskullz (Lucky/Hoarders): Lucky Gitz: When using a CP, roll a D6, on a 6 you regain the spent CP.
Free Scrap: Infantry receive +1 WS verses Vehicles
Looted Wagon: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared a "Looted Wagon" for -1 CP. That vehicle may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" and must take one +D2 and one -1 on it's T/M/A stats, this cannot be stacked.
Snakebites (Savages/Tribal): Savage Infusiasm: Ork infantry Unit may take +D3 Movement for -1BS that turn.
Untamed Energy: +1 to Psychic Tests.
Trophy Hunters: All Infantry receive +1 WS vs Monsters
Evil Sunz (Racers/Loons): No Brakes: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared having "No Brakes", any inch of a Charge unmoved will provide the unit an additional attack that round, but on a WS check of 1, the attaker suffers a wound.
Da Red Button: For -1 CP any Vehicle with the rule "Explodes" may detonate at any time on 2+
Pit Stop: When a Vehicle does not move it may recover a Wound on 2+
Freebooters (Untrustworthy/Raiders): Rotten Allies: Any Warboss/Nob/Flash-Git may shoot at a target engaged in close-combat, however; for each failed BS check of 1, inflict a wound to a unit engaging the target.
Raiding Party: Any Unit that has disembarked receives + 1 to attack for that turn..
Sky Fight'a: Flying Units receive +1 BS when attacking a Flying Vehicle.
More great stuff, but I feel like Orks should be the exception to the current 'Subfaction' rule set; allowing for Goffs, Badmoons etc to be in a single detachment.
Otherwise we will see a lot of Battalion detachments ( 90 points for 3x gretchin squads! ) for max CP and subfaction abuse.
For example, we remove the currently baked in "+1 attack while above 20" to the Ork Boyz and have these as subfaction traits:
- Goff Bully Boyz: Infantry and Vehicle units gain +1 attack per 5 models in the unit; If the unit is an Ork Boys, Storm boyz or Kommandos unit they instead get +1 attack per 10 models.
- Snakebites Poisoned Choppas: Infantry and Vehicle units may instead wound on a 4+ during the fight phase
And then we allow CP to spent to 'improve' these subfaction traits
- Badmoons 1CP Extra Teef: Use this stratagem before battle begins. Select a single wargear item purchased by a Klan < BADMOONS > unit, it instead costs 0. This only effects one Wargear purchase per use; can be used multiple times.
- Blood Axes 2CP Painted Purple: Use this stratagem before battle begins. Select a single Klan < BLOODAXES > < Infantry > or < Vehicle > unit in your army, all ranged weapons firing at this unit receive -1 to hit rolls. Can be purchased multiple times. For each additional use double the CP cost. Effect does not stack on the same unit.
And on top of that we change how WAAAAAGH! Works, it is now a stratagem that changes effect based on Klan
WAAAAAGH 3CP - Use at the start of one of your turns, all Ork < Klan > units gain an effect from below until the end of your turn. Double the CP cost of WAAAAAAGH each time this is used.
- Ork < BADMOONS > units Klan generate an additional hit on a ranged hit roll of 6+
- Ork < GOFF > units receive a +1 to all melee wound rolls
- At the end of the fight phase, if an enemy unit took an unsaved wound from an Ork < SNAKEBITES > unit they take an additional 1d3 mortal wounds
- Ork < SPEED FREEKS > units may treat all advance rolls a 6. Additionally they can charge after advancing but if they do so - roll a d6 for each model in that unit, on a 1 they take a single mortal wound. This effect instead deals 1d3 mortal wounds to < VEHICLE > units
I'm a total fan of these, they are an interesting decision the player has to make (The game in general needs more of these). But how would you put it so Orks dont spam MSU? I'd instead make them a command stratagem for Kommandos.
Goffs (Brutal/Scary): Da Meanest: For every unit that fails a morale test within 1" of a Warboss an additional model must flee from that same unit.
Bad Boyz: For every point Tougher than its opponent an attacking Ork unit may make an additional reroll on its failed WS checks against said opponent.
Get Back Eere!: Before an opponent moves out of engagement range, Ork infantry models within 1" of the retreating opponent may deal 1 Attack at -2 WS.
Bloodaxes (Cunning/Sneaky): Snik'em Behind: On a charge Ork Infantry receive +1 Attack against any unit pre-engaged in melee.
Real Sneaky Like: Infantry containing 10 or less models become -1 to hit when in cover.
Fight diz Way: When a unit of Ork Infantry disengages you may roll a D6 for -1 CP, on a 2+ that unit will retain/reacquire its ability to charge and shoot.
Badmoon (shooty/rich): Protect Ya Gobz: Infantry may take an additional shot when shooting at a target within 6"
Flashiest Gear: At the start of the game any unit of Nobz may gain +1 BS if they equipped with a "Souped-Up Weapon" for -1 CP. This cannot be stacked.
Spare Teef: Ork boyz may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" in addition to any purchased
Deathskullz (Lucky/Hoarders): Lucky Gitz: When using a CP, roll a D6, on a 6 you regain the spent CP.
Free Scrap: Infantry receive +1 WS verses Vehicles
Looted Wagon: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared a "Looted Wagon" for -1 CP. That vehicle may take a free "'Eavy Weapon" and must take one +D2 and one -1 on it's T/M/A stats, this cannot be stacked.
Snakebites (Savages/Tribal): Savage Infusiasm: Ork infantry Unit may take +D3 Movement for -1BS that turn.
Untamed Energy: +1 to Psychic Tests.
Trophy Hunters: All Infantry receive +1 WS vs Monsters
Evil Sunz (Racers/Loons): No Brakes: At the start of a game any Vehicle may be declared having "No Brakes", any inch of a Charge unmoved will provide the unit an additional attack that round, but on a WS check of 1, the attaker suffers a wound.
Da Red Button: For -1 CP any Vehicle with the rule "Explodes" may detonate at any time on 2+
Pit Stop: When a Vehicle does not move it may recover a Wound on 2+
Freebooters (Untrustworthy/Raiders): Rotten Allies: Any Warboss/Nob/Flash-Git may shoot at a target engaged in close-combat, however; for each failed BS check of 1, inflict a wound to a unit engaging the target.
Raiding Party: Any Unit that has disembarked receives + 1 to attack for that turn..
Sky Fight'a: Flying Units receive +1 BS when attacking a Flying Vehicle.
More great stuff, but I feel like Orks should be the exception to the current 'Subfaction' rule set; allowing for Goffs, Badmoons etc to be in a single detachment.
Otherwise we will see a lot of Battalion detachments ( 90 points for 3x gretchin squads! ) for max CP and subfaction abuse.
For example, we remove the currently baked in "+1 attack while above 20" to the Ork Boyz and have these as subfaction traits:
- Goff Bully Boyz: Infantry and Vehicle units gain +1 attack per 5 models in the unit; If the unit is an Ork Boys, Storm boyz or Kommandos unit they instead get +1 attack per 10 models.
- Snakebites Poisoned Choppas: Infantry and Vehicle units may instead wound on a 4+ during the fight phase
And then we allow CP to spent to 'improve' these subfaction traits
- Badmoons 1CP Extra Teef: Use this stratagem before battle begins. Select a single wargear item purchased by a Klan < BADMOONS > unit, it instead costs 0. This only effects one Wargear purchase per use; can be used multiple times.
- Blood Axes 2CP Painted Purple: Use this stratagem before battle begins. Select a single Klan < BLOODAXES > < Infantry > or < Vehicle > unit in your army, all ranged weapons firing at this unit receive -1 to hit rolls. Can be purchased multiple times. For each additional use double the CP cost. Effect does not stack on the same unit.
And on top of that we change how WAAAAAGH! Works, it is now a stratagem that changes effect based on Klan
WAAAAAGH 3CP - Use at the start of one of your turns, all Ork < Klan > units gain an effect from below until the end of your turn. Double the CP cost of WAAAAAAGH each time this is used.
- Ork < BADMOONS > units Klan generate an additional hit on a ranged hit roll of 6+
- Ork < GOFF > units receive a +1 to all melee wound rolls
- At the end of the fight phase, if an enemy unit took an unsaved wound from an Ork < SNAKEBITES > unit they take an additional 1d3 mortal wounds
- Ork < SPEED FREEKS > units may treat all advance rolls a 6. Additionally they can charge after advancing but if they do so - roll a d6 for each model in that unit, on a 1 they take a single mortal wound. This effect instead deals 1d3 mortal wounds to < VEHICLE > units
Is kinda strange using cp for free points, id rather see an auto discount as a general bad moons trait and then a strat "extra ammo" that gives a unit extra shots
Goff Klan Sharp Choppas When rolling to wound with a Choppa (Choppa, Big Choppa, etc) a roll of 6+ improves the AP characteristic of the attack by -1 (i.e. AP0 becomes AP-1, AP-1 becomes AP-2).
In the drukhari codex there's a bonus for coven units that improves the AP by -1. It's more powerful than the "Sharp Choppas" idea since it's applied to all units and all melee weapons (with the exception of relics) that belong to that detachment.
I'd like something like that as Bad Moon or Deathskull bonus: super bullets with a -1AP bonus for example would be very fluffy, and something similar was even included in 3rd edition codex.
Jidmah wrote: I'm not sure if -1 AP on shoota boyz and warbikes wouldn't be too strong.
The only reason I could think it would be OP is just because Shoota boyz are cheap...but really they wouldn't be OP simply because against a T4 Tactical Marine (NOT IN COVER) 30 Shoota Boyz with -1 AP kill a grand total of 5 Marines. 180pts shooting managed to kill 65pts. That is almost exactly where the 1/3rd rule says it should be (it should take 3pts of shooting to kill 1pt of models)
For warbikes? not even close. Beyond the hideous short range, complete lack of durability, and no effective point (they aren't good at CC and not that good at shooting) 6 Warbikes against T4 Tac Marines (NOT IN COVER) kill 4 Marines. So 162pts of Warbikers kill 52pts of Marines.
So -1 to AP faction wide wouldn't really be broken, it makes those units almost where they should be in regards to shooting, but definitely not OP.
its ironic that we are talking about shooting buffs and thinking it would be OP for us and then we do the math and realize its still utter crap
Maybe a permanent -1AP for the entire detachment could be too strong, but I think orks need huge buffs to pretty much every unit that is not part of a green tide. What about a stratagem that affects a single unit for 1 CP? I think it would be very nice and definitely not game breaking.
JimOnMars wrote: It doesn't make sense to me that a shoota would ever have more penetrating power than a bolter. Orks just need more shots.
SM don't have crazy meks that are able to assemble eveything, even penetrating bullets if they believe they work
In 3rd edition threre was a unit of shoota boyz that counted as elite which could customized their shootas in order to get some bonuses: +1S, -1AP or a different type of weapon (rapid fire 2 instead of assault 2 I think but I don't remember at all) so it would make perfect sense, it's already been done in the past.
Jorghan wrote: Has anyone submitted some of these requests to GW lately?
Does anyone know how far they are in their process of finishing the codex?
They probably haven't started, and don't care about our input and will push out the index with updates from FAQ/Errata, copy paste some strategems from other factions, give us a different gimmick and then call it mission complete. Bright ray of sunshine I know but its May and GW hasn't even mentioned when our Codex is coming out and some factions have several SUB factions already released for their armies to pick and choose from and we are sitting here waiting on a main codex and being forced to field green tide or lose.
- Something to deal with heavy armor and vehicles = some ways of reducing armor, like my Sharp Choppas idea.
- Army wide 6+++, buffed to 5+++ with a Painboy. In the fluff Orks are described as feeling next to no pain, yet they have crappy FnP options at the moment. Even the flimsy Drukhari are dancing around with 5+++.
- Power klaws straight 3 damage
- A natural 6 is always a hit, because well, Orks don't really aim anyway.
- Generally just WAY MORE DAKKA. Shootas assault 4, big shoota assault 6, sluggas pistol 2, etc.
- Cheaper walkers to make them viable. Or rather, cheaper everything outside of Boyz.
- Klan tactics more of a fluffy seasoning than game breaking op stuff, since they really don't know how to balance different tactics...
Okay that was quite a few, but I don't think any of these or even all would break Orks but would make them that much more bearable to play with.
Jorghan wrote: Has anyone submitted some of these requests to GW lately?
Does anyone know how far they are in their process of finishing the codex?
They probably haven't started, and don't care about our input and will push out the index with updates from FAQ/Errata, copy paste some strategems from other factions, give us a different gimmick and then call it mission complete. Bright ray of sunshine I know but its May and GW hasn't even mentioned when our Codex is coming out and some factions have several SUB factions already released for their armies to pick and choose from and we are sitting here waiting on a main codex and being forced to field green tide or lose.
LOL I completely agree with this. But anyway, lets just hope for the best and expect the worst
- Something to deal with heavy armor and vehicles = some ways of reducing armor, like my Sharp Choppas idea.
- Power klaws straight 3 damage
IMHO we just need a stratagem that makes our pks and Killsaws (and other similar power fists) cause double damage to vehicles and thats it.
- Army wide 6+++, buffed to 5+++ with a Painboy. In the fluff Orks are described as feeling next to no pain, yet they have crappy FnP options at the moment. Even the flimsy Drukhari are dancing around with 5+++.
If cybork body comes out again for all our nobz and hqs (giving a 5++), and Painboy gives a 5+++ (with an increase in points but making the PK optional) I would be happy already
- A natural 6 is always a hit, because well, Orks don't really aim anyway.
- Generally just WAY MORE DAKKA. Shootas assault 4, big shoota assault 6, sluggas pistol 2, etc
Yeah, double shots for all the machine guns and pistols, and a serious decrease in points for rockets and others (except kmk)
- Cheaper walkers to make them viable. Or rather, cheaper everything outside of Boyz.
Yes pls.
- Klan tactics more of a fluffy seasoning than game breaking op stuff, since they really don't know how to balance different tactics...
Goffs: rerolls in combat
Bad moons: extra ammo "all rolls of 6+ generate extra shots" or "once per game you can shoot twice"
Evil suns: infantry gets to disembark after mooving, vehicles and bikes get extra spd Deathskulls: each unit can reroll one die a turn (lootas anyone?)
Snakebites: +1 A when charging
Blood axe: +1 save in cover, I know you are not always in cover, but when you are nobz are saving on a 2+, regular Boys on a 4+ Komandos on a 3+ and snikrot on a 2+, seems good but not game breaking
With this and a couple more of tweaks (big mek bs4, maybe the kff coming out of the vehicles again, zogwort pls come back) I also think is far from op but definately competitive and playable for all the styles
Jidmah wrote: Form experience, 8th editions orks are never in cover.
A better rule would be to mimic the tyranid's tactic: Blood Axes are assumed to be in cover unless they have advanced or charged that turn.
Blood Axes could benefit from this rule if they also received some kind of bonus like the old "Move through cover" special rule.
Back when my 90 Kommando Horde was legal I NEVER deployed in cover because the negatives to charging, plus +1 to armor doesn't really do anything for them, they still died in droves. Conversely they could get a special rule where they are always in cover unless they SHOT, not advanced, AND if they are in cover its +2 not +1. That would also go a bit towards correcting their abysmal price of 9ppm. (Keep in mind they are just regular boyz...literally the same except for special rules).
I do get your point though, Blood axe 30 Boy units will never benefit from that so that rule should probably extend to them as well.
Most terrain doesn't have an effect on charging though. It rarely matters in my games, but I guess it depends on the kind of terrain your playing location has.
very much too strong, negative hit mods for entire armies is broken and needs to not happen again.
The LAST thing the ork codex needs is a klan rule that makes taking any other ones a stupid choice. I don't want to see yellow and black blood axes
Automatically Appended Next Post: I had a cool thought for a slight upgrade to ramshackle.
"When a shooting attack results in a damage roll against a vehicle with ramshackle, the vehicles controlling player may re-roll any single dice pertaining to the number of wounds caused."
A) Cybork bodies 5+ invulnerable save. Optional on Warbosses, Big Meks, Painboys, Nobs. The rift between ork characters and SM equivalents is greater than 2-1 simply because of the invulnerable saves, not to mention the Shield Eternal. A 5++ is not exactly game breaking. Why this was stolen is utterly beyond me. This isn't even close to parity.
B) Deff Dreds now affected by Waaagh
C) 20 pt price reductions on Trukks and BWs
D) Skorchas down to 12 points, Kombi Skorchas at 13 points
E) Big Shootas down to 5 points
F) 'Eavy Armor upgrade available for all Boss Nobs in Boyz units for 4 points
G) 'Ard Boyz unit upgrades for 3-4 PPM. 3 PPM is more mathematically justifiable as it increases survivability by 50% ergo should cost 50% more.
h) Rokkits down to 10 PPM. Can't justify that cost on a BS2 model.
I) Shooting costs need to be adjusted across the board to reflect ballistic skill and impact of -1 to hit on the army.
J) substantial price adjustment of Warbikers based on damage output and survivability
K) substantial price adjustment of Nob Bikers based on damage output and survivability
L) substantial price adjustment of Stompa
M) Slab shields providing a 5+ invulnerable save, similar to a combat shield, for 4-5 PPM. Available for Ork 'Ard Boyz (for 1-2 PPM), Nobs (4 PPM), Warboss (5-10 PPM).
N) Relic Power Klaw with the usual
O) Relic 3+ armor save
P) Rework of Green Tide and Mob Rule so that transports are actually viable
Grotsnik1 wrote: Would a -1 penalty when shooting at a blood axe infantry model be too strong?
Very much. A -1 penalty basically multiplies wounds by 1.3 for BS3, by 1.5 for BS4 and by 2 for BS5. Ork infantry just has way to many wounds for such a buff, 180 ork boyz would have the durability of 234 against marines and 270 against guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TedNugent wrote: F) 'Eavy Armor upgrade available for all Boss Nobs in Boyz units for 4 points
I don't get the point of this one. You don't want wounds on your boss nob, because you have to kill off wounded first. It would never matter unless he is the last one standing.
G) 'Ard Boyz unit upgrades for 3-4 PPM. 3 PPM is more mathematically justifiable as it increases survivability by 50% ergo should cost 50% more.
I would really prefer this to cost CP like the chapter master does. If you get 'ard boyz' cost wrong by 1 point they will never see play.
M) Slab shields providing a 5+ invulnerable save, similar to a combat shield, for 4-5 PPM. Available for Ork 'Ard Boyz (for 1-2 PPM), Nobs (4 PPM), Warboss (5-10 PPM).
What the point of this if we get cybork back?
O) Relic 3+ armor save
I also don't get the point of this. The only characters I would put this on could just be clad in mega-armour.
TedNugent wrote: F) 'Eavy Armor upgrade available for all Boss Nobs in Boyz units for 4 points
I don't get the point of this one. You don't want wounds on your boss nob, because you have to kill off wounded first. It would never matter unless he is the last one standing.
It used to be available in the 4th edition codex. It just bothers me that it was removed. Call it psychological.
G) 'Ard Boyz unit upgrades for 3-4 PPM. 3 PPM is more mathematically justifiable as it increases survivability by 50% ergo should cost 50% more.
I would really prefer this to cost CP like the chapter master does. If you get 'ard boyz' cost wrong by 1 point they will never see play.
This sounds like kiss of death. Regardless, 'ard boyz saw play in 7th. I think the importance of force concentration means I'd rather play them at +4 PPM than jamming 6+ save wound models into a Trukk or shambling them up the board.
It's a preference thing. Ultimately I just want 'ard Boyz back. I think they're tactically important and serve an important list building function. Obviously 3 PPM makes the most sense.
M) Slab shields providing a 5+ invulnerable save, similar to a combat shield, for 4-5 PPM. Available for Ork 'Ard Boyz (for 1-2 PPM), Nobs (4 PPM), Warboss (5-10 PPM).
What the point of this if we get cybork back?
Because I don't believe they're going to give us Cybork back, so I want this as a fluff alternative, plus I think new model kits incorporating this would look great.
It makes more sense than cybork, makes total sense for a lot more Ork units. It's also a lot more defensible as an idea because combat shields and Ogryn slab shields are already a thing. Plus they already exist in Warhammer 40K: Space Marine and Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade. They look and function great and make perfect sense. I love the aesthetic of a tough ork with a shield, and they go together with 'Ard Boyz like milk and honey.
One of my favorite units from Wh40k Space Marine was the Ard Boy with slab shield. I want to build lists around this.
O) Relic 3+ armor save
I also don't get the point of this. The only characters I would put this on could just be clad in mega-armour.
mega armour only has 4" movement speed. That's a significant offset from the 5" of footslogging boyz. Does anyone even use Mega Armour at the index prices?
Anyway, your responses bother me. It's the same mindset that GW has. It's what I want to build. The entire point of having different units is so that there are different, arguably equal options that allow me to list build to my own aesthetic and player preference.
I wasn't trying to pick apart your arguments, I was just legitimately trying to understand them. I'm sorry if that came across wrong.
All other things make plenty sense, I was just wondering about those.
On 'ard boyz: they used to be 10ppm in 5th and they were objectively a waste of points. I'm not sure how math works out with 8th editions AP, but I fear that putting a price tag on them that's off by even one point will leave them benched.
On Mega-Armour: Shouldn't mega-armour just get better/cheaper then? I somehow doubt that a 3+ armor save relic would see a lot of play.
A) Cybork bodies 5+ invulnerable save. Optional on Warbosses, Big Meks, Painboys, Nobs. The rift between ork characters and SM equivalents is greater than 2-1 simply because of the invulnerable saves, not to mention the Shield Eternal. A 5++ is not exactly game breaking. Why this was stolen is utterly beyond me. This isn't even close to parity.
B) Deff Dreds now affected by Waaagh
C) 20 pt price reductions on Trukks and BWs
D) Skorchas down to 12 points, Kombi Skorchas at 13 points
E) Big Shootas down to 5 points
F) 'Eavy Armor upgrade available for all Boss Nobs in Boyz units for 4 points
G) 'Ard Boyz unit upgrades for 3-4 PPM. 3 PPM is more mathematically justifiable as it increases survivability by 50% ergo should cost 50% more.
h) Rokkits down to 10 PPM. Can't justify that cost on a BS2 model.
I) Shooting costs need to be adjusted across the board to reflect ballistic skill and impact of -1 to hit on the army.
J) substantial price adjustment of Warbikers based on damage output and survivability
K) substantial price adjustment of Nob Bikers based on damage output and survivability
L) substantial price adjustment of Stompa
M) Slab shields providing a 5+ invulnerable save, similar to a combat shield, for 4-5 PPM. Available for Ork 'Ard Boyz (for 1-2 PPM), Nobs (4 PPM), Warboss (5-10 PPM).
N) Relic Power Klaw with the usual
O) Relic 3+ armor save
P) Rework of Green Tide and Mob Rule so that transports are actually viable
Your point reductions don't go far enough. Who the hell would willingly pay 5pts for a Big shoota? its equivalent to a Storm Bolter for dmg output and costs twice as much. S5 vs S4 isn't as big a deal as it used to be. I would pay maybe 2pts for a Big Shoota, and even then its a toss up smaller units like Kommandos and what not. A rokkit being 10 is not going to see play either outside Tankbustas. 10pts for a weapon that hits 1 time in 3 turns statistically? and when it eventually does hit you still only have a 2/3rd chance to wound a T5-7 unit and they will most likely still get an armor save against it. So really it should be 5-6pts at most and then we readjust the cost for units like Tankbustas to make it so they aren't spammed.
On 'ard boyz: they used to be 10ppm in 5th and they were objectively a waste of points. I'm not sure how math works out with 8th editions AP, but I fear that putting a price tag on them that's off by even one point will leave them benched.
It's a fair point, and I'm going to stand by 3 points because it's better to have it on the offchance than not to have the option. Personally I find the idea of footslogging over 120 boys in small games unappealing.
But now that the 6+ is more widely available, even 3 points doesn't really cut the mustard. I'm just trying to be conservative and realistic because the most realistic scenario is that is gets the nix again and there is a bunch of copypasta with minor price changes.
On Mega-Armour:
Shouldn't mega-armour just get better/cheaper then? I somehow doubt that a 3+ armor save relic would see a lot of play.
It's still going to be slow. Terminators are slow too. I'm looking for something I could use in a footslogging list. 4+ with no invulnerable save is terribad. It's insulting in comparison to SMhQs.
Even still, it's just the principle. To be honest, I was thinking of a 3+ with an integrated invulnerable save or some other bonus similar to the armor indomitus.
Again, I'm mostly suggesting this just because I think it's absurd that we can't even get a basic 3+ armor save with no invulnerable save.
Like, please papa may I have a loaf of bread. I'm not saying it's good, but it's better than a kick in the nose.
A) Cybork bodies 5+ invulnerable save. Optional on Warbosses, Big Meks, Painboys, Nobs. The rift between ork characters and SM equivalents is greater than 2-1 simply because of the invulnerable saves, not to mention the Shield Eternal. A 5++ is not exactly game breaking. Why this was stolen is utterly beyond me. This isn't even close to parity.
B) Deff Dreds now affected by Waaagh
C) 20 pt price reductions on Trukks and BWs
D) Skorchas down to 12 points, Kombi Skorchas at 13 points
E) Big Shootas down to 5 points
F) 'Eavy Armor upgrade available for all Boss Nobs in Boyz units for 4 points
G) 'Ard Boyz unit upgrades for 3-4 PPM. 3 PPM is more mathematically justifiable as it increases survivability by 50% ergo should cost 50% more.
h) Rokkits down to 10 PPM. Can't justify that cost on a BS2 model.
I) Shooting costs need to be adjusted across the board to reflect ballistic skill and impact of -1 to hit on the army.
J) substantial price adjustment of Warbikers based on damage output and survivability
K) substantial price adjustment of Nob Bikers based on damage output and survivability
L) substantial price adjustment of Stompa
M) Slab shields providing a 5+ invulnerable save, similar to a combat shield, for 4-5 PPM. Available for Ork 'Ard Boyz (for 1-2 PPM), Nobs (4 PPM), Warboss (5-10 PPM).
N) Relic Power Klaw with the usual
O) Relic 3+ armor save
P) Rework of Green Tide and Mob Rule so that transports are actually viable
Your point reductions don't go far enough. Who the hell would willingly pay 5pts for a Big shoota? its equivalent to a Storm Bolter for dmg output and costs twice as much. S5 vs S4 isn't as big a deal as it used to be. I would pay maybe 2pts for a Big Shoota, and even then its a toss up smaller units like Kommandos and what not. A rokkit being 10 is not going to see play either outside Tankbustas. 10pts for a weapon that hits 1 time in 3 turns statistically? and when it eventually does hit you still only have a 2/3rd chance to wound a T5-7 unit and they will most likely still get an armor save against it. So really it should be 5-6pts at most and then we readjust the cost for units like Tankbustas to make it so they aren't spammed.
Right, that was the whole point. It was intentionally understated to be ironic to draw attention to out of parity the index is and how I would actually be satisfied with even mild improvements over the present state.
I don't even really care, for example, if the average Joe doesn't use 'Ard Boyz or if Cybork Bodies is still trash in comparison with a dirt-cheap 3++ Storm Shield that halves all incoming damage or if Power Klaws are trash compared to Thunder hammers with 3 static damage. Or even Waagh in comparison to a reroll of 1 bubble to both melee and ranged attacks.
I would just be happy if they made that very minor step towards making it slightly less outrageous.
Terminators are slow but have deepstrike and can teleport back to the home beacon or whatever the name of that rule, also they are 25pts with a built in 5++, so a 20 point meganob with the option of cybork body for 5pts seems reasonable to me
I think that with a general point adjustment, always hit on 6s, some extra shots and a couple tweaks orks would be awesome, but whatever... lets see if GW finally stops giving us utter crap, we cant do nothing but wait sadly
A rokkit being 10 is not going to see play either outside Tankbustas
I think maybe they need to implement a Cart-Target'a that grants Tankbustas the Tank-Hunters ability, and then take points away from the rokkit and into the Targeter, so that it can be costed better for the trukk and boyz, or just put the points straight into the tankbustas.
I really don't like the way they've done wargear in this edition, with some units taking the cost on the wargear and others the unit (higher cost with free wargear).
A rokkit being 10 is not going to see play either outside Tankbustas
I think maybe they need to implement a Cart-Target'a that grants Tankbustas the Tank-Hunters ability, and then take points away from the rokkit and into the Targeter, so that it can be costed better for the trukk and boyz, or just put the points straight into the tankbustas.
I really don't like the way they've done wargear in this edition, with some units taking the cost on the wargear and others the unit (higher cost with free wargear).
I couldn't agree more. At first I thought it was nice with my Kommando Horde, lots of free Burnas. But then I did the math on a Burna....and in CC its a small fraction better then a regular boy with a choppa. (Choppa gets 3 attacks, 2 hits and 1 wound vs T4 so .333 wounds against a SM, A Burna gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds and vs a 3+ save model thats .44)
But for Rokkitz its just stupid, the ironic part for me is that they didn't buff Big Shootas in any way, shape, or form. But somehow the cost for it went up by 20%? And remember, Rokkitz and Big Shootas used to both be a 5pt upgrade. I was fine wasting 5pts on a Rokkit in 7th, especially back when it instant killed T4 models with a 3+ save, and because it was S8 it caused instant death. now? I have yet to WILLINGLY take a Rokkit on anything beyond Tankbustas, and I don't even field them often because they are too expensive and require a massively over priced trukk to function at all.
Granted, because Trukkz and Wagonz suck so bad in this edition I haven't fielded that many big shootas either. Though I did give it a shot on Deff koptas, but again the price was so restrictive and the unit so crappy that I stopped using those entirely to.
I don't know what a fair price for Rokkitz in 8th should be, but I think 5pts would be a good starting point, and then just add on some cost to Bustas so they don't become cheesy.
How does everyone feel about lootas if their special rule changed from "rolla d3 fo the number of shots for all models in this unit" to "Roll a d3 and add that number to the number of shots each model in this unit fires"
This way each modelgets at least 2 shots, with a swing potential of six
davou wrote: Oh I thought you were asking what their shots were now base.
My idea is leave them at d3, but individual rolls, but before shooting roll a d3 and add that many shots to each dice you roll.
So you roll 1d3 for the whole group, then roll 1d3 for each individual Loota?
That's an awful idea. Not the idea of giving them 2d3 shots-that's fine, with appropriate points cost, whatever that is. But I don't want to roll 16 dice BEFORE SHOOTING when I select Lootas to fire.
I know that's how it works now, deffguns have always had that type of variable shot. IN the past it was a deffgun specific thing through. Now lots of guns have random numbers of shots. They seem to have been designed with a nod towards nostalgia.
The advantage of buckets of dice vs one roll for the unit is it mitigates swings; which are not fun for at least one side of the table at a time.
davou wrote: I know that's how it works now, deffguns have always had that type of variable shot. IN the past it was a deffgun specific thing through. Now lots of guns have random numbers of shots. They seem to have been designed with a nod towards nostalgia.
The advantage of buckets of dice vs one roll for the unit is it mitigates swings; which are not fun for at least one side of the table at a time.
Right, except you're still swingy with the one d3. And if you roll less dice, you can command point it to help get those extra shots.
I would rather Lootas got 2 + D3 shots. On the absolute high end this would give 15 lootas, 75 shots, 25 hits on average and against a T7 vehicle that is 12-13 wounds. On the low end its only 45 shots with 15 hits and 7-8 wounds. As it stands, a 15 boy loota squad costs 255pts, so being able to one shot a rhino or even a predator if its not in cover makes sense, especially when they start melting as soon as you shoot anything at them.
SemperMortis wrote: I would rather Lootas got 2 + D3 shots. On the absolute high end this would give 15 lootas, 75 shots, 25 hits on average and against a T7 vehicle that is 12-13 wounds. On the low end its only 45 shots with 15 hits and 7-8 wounds. As it stands, a 15 boy loota squad costs 255pts, so being able to one shot a rhino or even a predator if its not in cover makes sense, especially when they start melting as soon as you shoot anything at them.
This would be fine...but why shouldn't we just hope for a straight heavy 4? The argument from GW that "orks must be randumb" is getting pretty old.
SemperMortis wrote: I would rather Lootas got 2 + D3 shots. On the absolute high end this would give 15 lootas, 75 shots, 25 hits on average and against a T7 vehicle that is 12-13 wounds. On the low end its only 45 shots with 15 hits and 7-8 wounds. As it stands, a 15 boy loota squad costs 255pts, so being able to one shot a rhino or even a predator if its not in cover makes sense, especially when they start melting as soon as you shoot anything at them.
This would be fine...but why shouldn't we just hope for a straight heavy 4? The argument from GW that "orks must be randumb" is getting pretty old.
Very good point, I would be fine with Heavy 4, give them 4+ armor and I won't even ask for their prices to be reduced
Jidmah wrote: Same here. Heavy 4 lootas with 4+ saves sound great to me. I wouldn't mind 2d3 either though.
I would be fine with Heavy 4 since its the average and realistically its removes 2 dice rolls and multiplication that a lot of people seem to have problems with (intentionally or not). I distinctly remember someone I played against a few months ago who was firing a bunch of Lootas at me, apparently 12 x 2 is 36
Jidmah wrote: I don't think it's a problem with random shots though. I've had people claim 24 shots for a single hurricane bolter
LMAO very true. The ironic part is that a lot of the time they aren't even trying to cheat, they just have no idea what the hell they are talking about. The loota guy i think might have known better, he tended to do that a lot from what I saw.
Jidmah wrote: I don't think it's a problem with random shots though. I've had people claim 24 shots for a single hurricane bolter
It seems silly, to me, to make a second order of randomness for no real purpose. Aren't dice random enough? Why Do I need to roll a random number of random number generators? The only thing is does, IMHO, is waste time. If I knew it was 4 per loota, I could just roll them and be done with it.
making it D3 per model is basically the same thing as making it 2 shots on average. You eliminate a lot of the randomness and narrow it down significantly. I mean you could still get those stupid rare results of all 1s and 2s or 5s and 6s but its unlikely.
So personally I would prefer to have just 4 shots as standard and a 4+ save, keep the price the same and watch as my glass cannons start earning their places back in my list instead of my KMKs.
How much longer is it going to take omg? The wait is killing me, I cant stand this hope of gw finally making us a good codex but knowing deep inside that it is really unlikely Ive heard that most codex have taken into account community feedback, is this true?
Jidmah wrote: I don't think it's a problem with random shots though. I've had people claim 24 shots for a single hurricane bolter
It seems silly, to me, to make a second order of randomness for no real purpose. Aren't dice random enough? Why Do I need to roll a random number of random number generators? The only thing is does, IMHO, is waste time. If I knew it was 4 per loota, I could just roll them and be done with it.
I was just referring to the guy unable to calculate d3 x 15 lootas. Layers of dice rolling are always dumb, since you could just roll all the dice at once with a 4+/5+/6+ chance to succeed for almost the same statistical result. Or, like Semper said, eliminate the dice if you are very unlikely do roll something far from the average.
How would you all feel if orks got slightly less powerfull clan traits than other armies have, but in exchange are allowed to mix and match trains inside of a single detachment to representa warboss absorbing other klans into his waagh? This way we could have boys with one trait, bikers with another, lootas with yet a third, etc etc.
davou wrote: How would you all feel if orks got slightly less powerfull clan traits than other armies have, but in exchange are allowed to mix and match trains inside of a single detachment to representa warboss absorbing other klans into his waagh? This way we could have boys with one trait, bikers with another, lootas with yet a third, etc etc.
I'd go for that, especially if it extended to transports. I've got Evil Sunz trukks and Blood Axe boyz.
davou wrote: How would you all feel if orks got slightly less powerfull clan traits than other armies have, but in exchange are allowed to mix and match trains inside of a single detachment to representa warboss absorbing other klans into his waagh? This way we could have boys with one trait, bikers with another, lootas with yet a third, etc etc.
Eh, you would basically not have clan traits, but just units with some additional rule similar to 'ere we go and mob rule. It's highly unlikely that more than one clan trait is optimal for a lot of units.
Proper clan traits are much preferred.
Also note that in the fluff, while ork clans are united during a Waaagh!, they still stick to their clan within that Waaagh!. For example, in IA8 the local ork forces consist of Evil Suns, Deff Skulls and Goffs, who are all united under Mekboss Buzzgob. However, the evil suns still have separate encampments, their own way of fighting and follow their Warboss Zardsnark. Buzzgob is not giving orders to any of the evil suns, he is giving them to Zardsnark. Same for the deff skulls who were following Skalk Blootoof (who sadly never got a model), Buzzgob needed to bribe him with scrap in order to get his troops into the fight.
So basically, different klan fighting along side each other is represented pretty well by having multiple detachments of different klan in your army.
I know many people, including me, have painted their army to be a mix of klans, but that's actually not what the fluff shows.
davou wrote: How would you all feel if orks got slightly less powerfull clan traits than other armies have, but in exchange are allowed to mix and match trains inside of a single detachment to representa warboss absorbing other klans into his waagh? This way we could have boys with one trait, bikers with another, lootas with yet a third, etc etc.
I wouldn't mind it but I can't see it happening for 3 reasons -
1. In my head canon (which might be totally wrong, mind) when an Ork Warboss subsumes a few Clans into his own those new members start to adopt traits of his favoured Clan by virtue of following the "biggest and da best". Unless they are allowed to be led by a subservient Warboss in the case of Ghazzy and his lieutenants.
2. No other codex operates in this way.
3. It would require more micromanagement and bookkeeping for both players.
I think keeping clan abilities as one per detachment is the way to go, mixing them within detachments would get messy very quickly.
The best way to support mixed armies would be to compensate for the loss of Command Points from taking more smaller detachments from different clans rather than taking one big battalion.
Perhaps this could be done with a Warlord trait that grants bonus Command Points if your army includes more than one clan detachment (excluding certain types, like auxiliary detachments)? For example, you could get 1 bonus CP for every two battle line detachments in your army that belong to a unique clan.
Do you mean the things that are leaked by more or less reliable sources or the forum wishlists that have become rumors?
The actual rumors are pretty slim:
- We have the orky wheel from the rumor mill
- Orks are rumored for both june/july and december. I guess the later was wrong
- There is a rumor for a kult of speed codex, from the same source as the december date
- There is supposed to be an Orks vs Space Wolves box
- I'm not sure if the "new Ghaz model" rumor is an actual rumor
- I'm very sure that the "primorks" rumor in any shape does not come from any leak, but is just constantly brought up by different forum posters for having it read somewhere.
Jidmah wrote: Do you mean the things that are leaked by more or less reliable sources or the forum wishlists that have become rumors?
The actual rumors are pretty slim:
- We have the orky wheel from the rumor mill
- Orks are rumored for both june/july and december. I guess the later was wrong
- There is a rumor for a kult of speed codex, from the same source as the december date
- There is supposed to be an Orks vs Space Wolves box
- I'm not sure if the "new Ghaz model" rumor is an actual rumor
- I'm very sure that the "primorks" rumor in any shape does not come from any leak, but is just constantly brought up by different forum posters for having it read somewhere.
Apparently "industry insiders" are responsible for the new Ghazzy model rumour. It is definitely a rumour though, Valrak maintains its happening.
I'm the same as davou - I have about 4 tabs always open and dedicated to possible Ork rumours on near continuous refresh. I'm finding the lack of noise worrying.
I have a somewhat strong feeling that November-December rumor was not that much of a rumor after all given lack of any leaks or creating hype. They'll probably prefer to release yet another power armor flavor before us.
Personally, I'm very burned after practically 1 year of waiting, so I'm trying to keep my expectations to an absolute minimum.
Jidmah wrote: Do you mean the things that are leaked by more or less reliable sources or the forum wishlists that have become rumors?
The actual rumors are pretty slim:
- We have the orky wheel from the rumor mill
- Orks are rumored for both june/july and december. I guess the later was wrong
- There is a rumor for a kult of speed codex, from the same source as the december date
- There is supposed to be an Orks vs Space Wolves box
- I'm not sure if the "new Ghaz model" rumor is an actual rumor
- I'm very sure that the "primorks" rumor in any shape does not come from any leak, but is just constantly brought up by different forum posters for having it read somewhere.
Apparently "industry insiders" are responsible for the new Ghazzy model rumour. It is definitely a rumour though, Valrak maintains its happening.
I'm the same as davou - I have about 4 tabs always open and dedicated to possible Ork rumours on near continuous refresh. I'm finding the lack of noise worrying.
JawRippa wrote: I have a somewhat strong feeling that November-December rumor was not that much of a rumor after all given lack of any leaks or creating hype. They'll probably prefer to release yet another power armor flavor before us.
Personally, I'm very burned after practically 1 year of waiting, so I'm trying to keep my expectations to an absolute minimum.
I am the same way except I am burned from 5th, 6th, 7th, 7th supplement, 7th 2nd Supplement, 7th Flyer release, 8th index and the numerous FAQs and the CA that has since nerfed orkz even more. Its been so long since we have had a GOOD, up to date codex that I am just hoping that our 8th edition codex isn't as big a steaming pile of crap as our 7th edition was. But I am not holding my breath, especially since the FAQs and the CA have so far just confirmed that orkz are meant to be bad on purpose. I am still pissed at how GW told us that the BWs DO NOT give their rule to passengers, thus making a possible viable build with Flash Gitz unusable......and the BW for that matter
I dont care about the BW not giving its rule to the passengers, what I do care about is it being 160 points with no weapons T7 and 4+ (and of course not being able to disembark after moving), but anyway, its just another thing to add to the list of useless stuff where 85% of our "codex" is already.
What pisses me off is the max 3 weirdboys from the beta rules, because Weirdboy spam+horde was the only viable build..
Grotsnik1 wrote: What pisses me off is the max 3 weirdboys from the beta rules, because Weirdboy spam+horde was the only viable build..
Weridboy spam is toxic to the game, so good riddance. The only way to make spamming weirdboyz balanced would be increasing their costs to a point where single or double weirdboyz would be useless.
Grotsnik1 wrote: What pisses me off is the max 3 weirdboys from the beta rules, because Weirdboy spam+horde was the only viable build..
Weridboy spam is toxic to the game, so good riddance. The only way to make spamming weirdboyz balanced would be increasing their costs to a point where single or double weirdboyz would be useless.
Its also toxic to the game having one way of building the army if you dont want to autolose, and having close to all of your army choices being useless. If we get a decent codex then I agree, Weirdboy spam had to go, if not then... well, bye 40k
I dont care about the BW not giving its rule to the passengers,
Really?? Because if that FAQ had gone the other way, the BW would at least have a great use of shuttling around Flash gitz
I dont think that was the idea of the rule, thats why im ok with it, but BW needs either a point reduction or an increase in durability (and maybe both if we dont get a way to disembark after moving)
Grotsnik1 wrote: Its also toxic to the game having one way of building the army if you dont want to autolose, and having close to all of your army choices being useless. If we get a decent codex then I agree, Weirdboy spam had to go, if not then... well, bye 40k
I don't think you understand what "toxic to a game" means. Having one army suck and have no viable build is terrible, but doesn't ruin the game for any other army.
Having a mechanic that circumvents most defensive mechanisms en masse is terrible to the every single game against that army, affecting a lot more games and players, warping the meta game and pushing a large number of units and armies out of the game. Malefic Lords have sufficiently proven that.
Even if its your own army, having that army to not be viable is better than every other not being viable in the long run.
Or do you think orks would work better if the next CA came around and pushed weirdboyz to 100+ points to balance spam?
Grotsnik1 wrote: Its also toxic to the game having one way of building the army if you dont want to autolose, and having close to all of your army choices being useless. If we get a decent codex then I agree, Weirdboy spam had to go, if not then... well, bye 40k
I don't think you understand what "toxic to a game" means. Having one army suck and have no viable build is terrible, but doesn't ruin the game for any other army.
Having a mechanic that circumvents most defensive mechanisms en masse is terrible to the every single game against that army, affecting a lot more games and players, warping the meta game and pushing a large number of units and armies out of the game. Malefic Lords have sufficiently proven that.
Even if its your own army, having that army to not be viable is better than every other not being viable in the long run.
Or do you think orks would work better if the next CA came around and pushed weirdboyz to 100+ points to balance spam?
As I said, if we get a balanced codex I wouldnt mind if weirdboys get more expensive, anyway is not necessary now that they are limited by the beta rules.
Regarding the toxicity matter, is exactly the same, having an army that sucks ruins the game exactly the same way as having an op army does. If you have an op army you ruin the game for your oponent, if you have an useless army, then the game is ruined for you, either way one of the two players in a game where orks are involved has a bad time. (And btw I dont think weirdboy spam was op).
But anyway it makes no sense arguing about this, what is done is done, we can only wish gw stops giving us crap for once.
Been wish listing the cool traits that each clan will give us, and honestly the one Clan I'm unsure of is Death Skulls. I love Lootaz so I'm hoping they get something relevant, but I can't imagine what! We have Fast Orks, tough Orkz, fighty Orkz, sneaky Orkz, and flashy orkz....
What are the Death Skulls gonna get??
Edit:
Alright, after some thought heres one...
Units in CC with Death Skull units cannot fall back from CC, the Boyz are busy holding on, trying to grab their loot!
Units with Fly will still be an issue, they would be exempt for reasons I'm sure... Hate T'au...
I hope to see it as a stratagem at the very least.
For instance, if I take a Blood Axe army I can use Kommandos as troops instead of boyz, or Stormboyz as troops for Evil Sunz, maybe even nobz for Goffs and Flashgtiz/lootas for Freebootaz and deff skullz.
I can't see kommandos doing that well only being able to take 3 squads of 15 at most, especially since they are no better then boyz with +1 to cover saves and the ability to appear anywhere on the battlefield.
For instance, if I take a Blood Axe army I can use Kommandos as troops instead of boyz, or Stormboyz as troops for Evil Sunz, maybe even nobz for Goffs and Flashgtiz/lootas for Freebootaz and deff skullz.
I can't see kommandos doing that well only being able to take 3 squads of 15 at most, especially since they are no better then boyz with +1 to cover saves and the ability to appear anywhere on the battlefield.
It hasn't happened before as far as I'm aware for any other codex so I can't see it happening now.
I'd expect the standard that every other codex has received, unless we are told otherwise.
U make a lot of presumptions mate, I’ve read that book plenty. Used to own it but its the story of one warband. The others are bibles of ORK greatness and all you ever need to know about Greenskins warfare and kulture. If you don’t have them I suggest you get them or pdfs at least. That was when rule book were great. Had mine for nearly 30 years and they haven’t been bettered.
For instance, if I take a Blood Axe army I can use Kommandos as troops instead of boyz, or Stormboyz as troops for Evil Sunz, maybe even nobz for Goffs and Flashgtiz/lootas for Freebootaz and deff skullz.
I can't see kommandos doing that well only being able to take 3 squads of 15 at most, especially since they are no better then boyz with +1 to cover saves and the ability to appear anywhere on the battlefield.
It hasn't happened before as far as I'm aware for any other codex so I can't see it happening now.
I'd expect the standard that every other codex has received, unless we are told otherwise.
I am sadly aware :( I just don't see how I can use a blood axe army if I am hamstrung to using the rule of 3 for Kommandos. Likewise I don't see the point in fielding a Speed Freakz list if I can't take all 35-40 of my Warbikes in several smaller units as opposed to 3 great big targets.
Andykp wrote: There are more to blood axes than kommandos. Especially if I are happy to use kromlechs awesome range.
Yes there is, but Kommandos are the first unit you think of when you say the word Blood Axe, and 3 max sized units of Kommandos right now tops out at 405pts and as it stands I would say that those Kommandos are about 2ppm over priced for what they do. If GW agrees and brings down the price to where it needs to be you are looking at 315pts for the Blood Axe pinnacle unit. Or another way to put it would be less then 16% of your blood axe army being Kommandos in a 2,000pt army.
Well maybe what they can do instead of making the signature unit of a klan count as troops for that klan is simply allowing double the max, e.g. Deathskulls lootas are still heavy support but you can take 6 instead of 3.
I think deathkull trait will be either an inv save, a feel no pain save or some kind if reroll (they are the lucky ones... or at least they think they are and so they become it)
Andykp wrote: There are more to blood axes than kommandos. Especially if I are happy to use kromlechs awesome range.
Yes there is, but Kommandos are the first unit you think of when you say the word Blood Axe, and 3 max sized units of Kommandos right now tops out at 405pts and as it stands I would say that those Kommandos are about 2ppm over priced for what they do. If GW agrees and brings down the price to where it needs to be you are looking at 315pts for the Blood Axe pinnacle unit. Or another way to put it would be less then 16% of your blood axe army being Kommandos in a 2,000pt army.
I am still in mourning for my 90 Kommando Army :(
Kommandoz might instantly become useful again if they get a stratagem, relic or rule that allows them to make charges more reliably. Snikrot might also give a relevant buff to them. Don't start burying units before we have seen the codex
An interesting change would be to give them the nurgling or scout infiltrate, allowing you to set them up before turn 1.
U make a lot of presumptions mate, I’ve read that book plenty. Used to own it but its the story of one warband. The others are bibles of ORK greatness and all you ever need to know about Greenskins warfare and kulture. If you don’t have them I suggest you get them or pdfs at least. That was when rule book were great. Had mine for nearly 30 years and they haven’t been bettered.
Even though it’s only about one warband, the IA8 lore gives a pretty good accounting of both Sunz and Deff Skulls. For those who aren’t able to acquire the old books, IA8 will provide enough lore on those clans in particular as well as the specific warband in the story.
U make a lot of presumptions mate, I’ve read that book plenty. Used to own it but its the story of one warband. The others are bibles of ORK greatness and all you ever need to know about Greenskins warfare and kulture. If you don’t have them I suggest you get them or pdfs at least. That was when rule book were great. Had mine for nearly 30 years and they haven’t been bettered.
Even though it’s only about one warband, the IA8 lore gives a pretty good accounting of both Sunz and Deff Skulls. For those who aren’t able to acquire the old books, IA8 will provide enough lore on those clans in particular as well as the specific warband in the story.
I’m not saying IA8;isn’t a good book, it’s lovely and evil suns are my fave clan by far, but the fluff and style of the ORKS in the old books are what drew me into 40k in the first place. They have so much flavour and the rules were great. All character. So much more than I have nowadays, the clans have become very one dimensional, as semoermortis demonstrates. All kommandos = blood axes and the fact people refer to speed freaks as a clan nowadays too. Crazy. The new style of armies in 8th where each clan will have dif traits will cause me no end of problems as my army is still very much styled in the rogue trader ways. A warlord and lots of households of different clans.
Like I said, even if you can just download pdfs of the old books they will spread pure joy to any orkophile out there.
I hope we can take the 'Ard Boyz option back again, even if its as a Before the Battle type stratagem upgrade.
I have 2 dozen trukk Boyz fully decked in Plates and Iron Gobz, in matching looted Rhinos, to emulate the Space Marines they love fighting. So far, they're the only painted Orkz i've gotten done.
I’d like to see them back too. Even as an elites choice. I too have a very armoured iron gobbed up squad that are being used as simple boys nowadays. Very sad. A stratagem would work nicely.
I'm really betting that 'ard boyz will be a new kit, and in fact an entirely new model with new stats. 'Ard boyz aren't just orks with armor, they're more elite orks who excel in close combat. What the ork codex needs is the option to take smaller, elite squads that can still have good damage output.
Jidmah wrote: Actually, 'ard boyz are just orks with armor, they are just displayed differently in most WH40k video games.
Nobz are the small elite units.
I say why not take a page from the 40k Space Marine games, though? The 'ardboyz had a sort of beserker thing going on, as opposed to nobz which were walking tanks. I think this would be a fantastic way to go. A cheaper melee only unit focused on beserking while nobz become our tough as nails infantry unit, with meganobz being even more so. One thing that is very often hounded on in the lore is that orks are durable buggers, yet all our units, are paper-thin.
I'd just like to point out that the game is about a single space marine captain murdering an entire Waaagh!, including its warboss. Maybe you shouldn't wish for that
Grotsnik1 wrote: Well maybe what they can do instead of making the signature unit of a klan count as troops for that klan is simply allowing double the max, e.g. Deathskulls lootas are still heavy support but you can take 6 instead of 3.
I think deathkull trait will be either an inv save, a feel no pain save or some kind if reroll (they are the lucky ones... or at least they think they are and so they become it)
Pls gork let us have a good codex for once
Seeing the max 3 rule was in april FAQ at by time ork codex would be finalized rule wise...Don't expect special rules dealing with that change.
Andykp wrote: It’s game wide power creep that a T4 model isn’t considered tough. Now 2+ saves are everywhere and so are strength 4 or 5 weapons.
None of the common S4 and S5 weapons are new. We're talking about hurricane bolters, heavy bolters and heavy flamers here. They have been around for a long time. The only difference is that those weapons are no longer outperformed by autocannons and scatter-lasers, so they actually see play.
There are next to no 2+ saves in actual games. The only time you see 2+ saves is on the few viable terminator variants or on HQs in terminator armor or with relics. Most of those things have already existed in 4th edition unless you want to get angry about captains in gravis armor.
Don't you get tired of all this "get off my lawn" stuff?
Andykp wrote: It’s game wide power creep that a T4 model isn’t considered tough. Now 2+ saves are everywhere and so are strength 4 or 5 weapons.
None of the common S4 and S5 weapons are new. We're talking about hurricane bolters, heavy bolters and heavy flamers here. They have been around for a long time. The only difference is that those weapons are no longer outperformed by autocannons and scatter-lasers, so they actually see play.
There are next to no 2+ saves in actual games. The only time you see 2+ saves is on the few viable terminator variants or on HQs in terminator armor or with relics. Most of those things have already existed in 4th edition unless you want to get angry about captains in gravis armor.
Don't you get tired of all this "get off my lawn" stuff?
It's also funny since T4 got a relative boost this edition compared to previous ones, as short of S8+ you normally can't wound above a 3+. This is in contrast to the S6-7 spam from previous editions which allowed them to wound on 2's from the old to-wound chart. The most I've seen "2+ saves" is from MEQ in cover, which is often irrelevant for Orks since we do most of our damage in CC anyways.
Ok, different idea for Cunning of Mork then: something so silly it'd have to be on an Ork unit.
Cunning of Mork (or Gork): if this unit did not move then enemy attacks that target it in the shootong phase have -1 to hit.
I know it's super silly and random but I think it could fit in with the Ork's theme. This big stompy robot that is as hard to hit as a T'au stealth suit just because all the Orks think it's being sneaky. And I don't think it's too strong either because though it has decent firepower in theory, like was said BS 5+ really hurts shooting.
Andykp wrote: It’s game wide power creep that a T4 model isn’t considered tough. Now 2+ saves are everywhere and so are strength 4 or 5 weapons.
None of the common S4 and S5 weapons are new. We're talking about hurricane bolters, heavy bolters and heavy flamers here. They have been around for a long time. The only difference is that those weapons are no longer outperformed by autocannons and scatter-lasers, so they actually see play.
There are next to no 2+ saves in actual games. The only time you see 2+ saves is on the few viable terminator variants or on HQs in terminator armor or with relics. Most of those things have already existed in 4th edition unless you want to get angry about captains in gravis armor.
Don't you get tired of all this "get off my lawn" stuff?
Don’t you get tired of all this I’m right and your wrong stuff. That was a reasonable comment. From first edition T4 was rare and represented a significantly tougher prospect that T3 which was the standard. Now so many basic models have above average stats, s4 and T4 are very common. 3+ hits can be in most troops of armies, eldar, marines, guard vets, necrons etc. Strength 4 weapons are much more common since the game was first made. In first edition terminators were the only 2+ save. Even power armour was 4+ originally. Hurricane bolters didn’t exist and heavy flamers were rare as rocking horse sh@t.
3 was the average stat of a trained individual. 4 represented elite level work and 5s were heroic. When 3rd edition swept in all that changed and 4s and 5s became more common with each edition. Now T4 isn’t seen as tough. If that’s not power creep what is? Sorry if your experience doesn’t back that far but accept that you may be wrong and do not know everything. I didn’t say T4 wasn’t weaker than it used to be but it’s a game wide problem. U have whole armies of 2+ saves (custodes) with invulnerable saves on top.
The thing I like about primaries marines is that they have made marines seem like they used to. The two wounds and better guns make them feel like a small tough army of elite troops. It’s a shame ORKS don’t feel tough anymore, maybe a better save might help, if you do much to make them tougher they would become too expensive to run in the big squads people like nowadays.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The new knight codex has made me think we could do with another walker, between an ORKAnaut and a stompa. In the mid twenties power level range. Maybe no troop transport just an ORK knight. I didn’t think I would ever think that but like the orkanauts and don’t see how they could be made stronger. Rules to make a transport better if it doesn’t move seems counter productive to me. It’s another case of moving ORKS to hitting on 4+s in shooting being a good option.
All those things have been true since 4th, almost no model has gotten different saves or toughness since then, most models released have gotten the same toughness as everything else in their army. Custodes really aren't anything but another army in the style of Death Wing or Grey Knights.
I found this list of all models released since 4th, see for yourself:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?297915-Games-Workshop-40K-Release-Timeline-(Mk-II)
Almost every T4 model is a space marine, ork, necron, medium sized nid or a T3 model mounted on something. Almost every 2+ armor model is clad in terminator armor. Very little has changed here. if there was any sort of power creep it should be visible over a time span of 10 years, shouldn't it?
I have no experience with the first three edition of the game, but those have been gone for over a decade. Unless you are complaining about the power creep between first and fourth edition of this game. In that case your "now" would be 2009.
Thing is, T4 is tougher in 8th than it was in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th. S5 wounds the same as before, S6 and S7 got -1 to wound and S8+ and higher doesn't outright kill T4 models like nobz or meks any more. That's the whole reason why the green tide is doing so well, T4 is actually worth something again. There is no reason to believe that T4 has gotten weaker.
The reason why orks are no longer tough as they have been is the loss of cover, exhaust cloud, a weaker KFF and weaker pain boyz. In 4th and 5th edition a unit of biker nobs could have 4+ cover and armor, 5++cybork and 5+ FNP. Vehicles would have been protected by a KFF that provides 4+ cover saves, bikers had 4+ cover saves at all times. You could gain cover by having gretchin, kanz or other boyz in front you, the KFF provided cover to everything it touched and bubbled out from trukks or battlewagons.
Almost no weapons besides flamers would ignore cover, so basically the entire army could have 4++ saves against shooting if you wanted, with nob units adding a 5+ FNP to that though pain boyz. Warbosses and Nobz were a serious threat to almost anything since even the deadliest weapons could bounce of 5++ cybork.
All mobs above 10 were fearless, and boss poles allowed re-rolls on smaller mobs so you rarely lost anything from moral.
6th edition weakened cover to 5+ and no more cover from shooting through units, but in general it still mostly worked. Also, fearless wounds and no falling back from impossible combats took their toll on orks, but transport got less explody.
Finally in 7th GW decided that orks cannot have nice things, nerfed cybork into the ground and made it no longer stack with pain boyz, KFF was nerfed to only affect models in range and no longer extended from transports. Transports also became murderous death traps and mob rule randomly killed a bunch of boyz. It gave jink to some of our fast units, I guess that's something.
Cover has been taken away from orks entirely.
Exhaust cloud is gone
Docs only provide a 6+ FNP now
Cybork is a 6+ FNP save and no longer available to characters
KFF is now a 5++ save and requires all models to stay within 9" (instead of one model per unit within 6") and doesn't extend from vehicles
Jink is gone
So, while imperial guardsmen now get to take their 5+ armor saves against a lot of things they couldn't before, orks have lost most of their defensive abilities besides T4. Add that ranged firepower has gone up, while ork's ability to disable threats from a distance has gone down, you can tell why orks are less durable - and it has little to do with more S4/5 weaponry being made, and even less with 2+ saves.
So, yes, I never get tired of pointing out things that objectively simply aren't true.
My now is about 1996 mate. I’m still 18 and ORKS were still bs 3. I do mean the changes that started in the beginning of third edition. What I hear now is that this stat isn’t high enough or these models don’t have an invulnerable save. All these things used to be very rare when the game was born and the profiles that are still used today were created. As you said toughness comes from bonuses and special rules. It used to come from the toughness stat. Cover didn’t affect saves, just to hit. It meant the stats meant more then than they do today but they are still used. ORKS have been T4 for 30years. That’s hasn’t changed. They were tough. The game has grown around them and now T4 isn’t tough. That’s the creep I’m on about. Increase the toughness to 5, they wouldn’t get much better because of the rules and weapons described. Terminators are a great example of how it’s changed. They were beasts in 1st. T4 and the only 2+ save. One squad cost a quarter of your army. Now with out storm shields and an extra wound they suck apparently.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not going all rose tinted. I loved the first two editions of the game but they were far from perfect. 8th is the best version I’ve ever played. 3-7 were not. 2nd had them beat easy.
Ideally I would like to see ORKS revert to a pre third edition style. Decent shots and viable in smaller squads not great big hordes. It’s not going to happen though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So in this case you were right and wrong. Wrong in that you haven’t known the hobby long enough to get my points of reference. Right in that special rules etc have taken over from stats but that started before your time.
Jidmah wrote: ... which brings me back to my "get off my lawn" comment.
Why even bother posting on the internet in 1996?
But seriously, the changes you don't like happened over a decade ago. What's the point in complaining about them now?
And you do realize the idiocy of telling someone that ten years of experience aren't enough to talk about the game, right?
I didn’t say you couldn’t comment on the game I said my points were about things before you’re time. When we discuss models stats it’s good to know where that comes from. When you remember the roots you can see solutions that will pass you by because of your view from 4th onward. The problems with Warhammer were decades in the making and they fixed a lot of them by scrapping the basics and starting again. All new stats. If a model with an above average toughness isn’t tough anymore something is wrong fundamentally with the game. That goes back to first edition.
As for idiocy, there’s no need to be rude. If someone with 30 years of experience is talking and someone with ten comes in maybe the one with ten should listen. There is 20 years he’s missed out on. U might learn something kid.
Age does not warrant respect. There is no effort or skill involved in aging.
What would have warranted respect is accepting that your statement was flat out wrong and that your subjective view didn't match the facts. Instead you are trying to move goalposts and claiming moral high ground to make it appear right.
In case you already forgot due to your advanced age, this is what you posted:
Andykp wrote: It’s game wide power creep that a T4 model isn’t considered tough. Now 2+ saves are everywhere and so are strength 4 or 5 weapons.
...on a thread about improvements to the 8th edition index we would like to see for the 8th edition codex.
Clearly this was talking about the power creep that happened in 2008, right?
Jidmah wrote: Age does not warrant respect. There is no effort or skill involved in aging.
What would have warranted respect is accepting that your statement was flat out wrong and that your subjective view didn't match the facts. Instead you are trying to move goalposts and claiming moral high ground to make it appear right.
In case you already forgot due to your advanced age, this is what you posted:
Andykp wrote: It’s game wide power creep that a T4 model isn’t considered tough. Now 2+ saves are everywhere and so are strength 4 or 5 weapons.
...on a thread about improvements to the 8th edition index we would like to see for the 8th edition codex.
Clearly this was talking about the power creep that happened in 2008, right?
U say experience doesn’t equal respect but expect me to respect your experience and your opinion. My strummer is that T4 should be a tough model, end of. It isn’t it 8th and hasn’t been for a long time but it could be fixed. Talking on more special rules to compensate for mistakes made years ago isn’t a great answer. Make the stats matter again. What would warrant respect from me to you would not be calling me and idiot or saying things I’m saying are wrong. Sorry if you can’t see things went wrong before you started in the hobby and that there could be a fix back in the old days.
It’s clear everything you say is right and everyone who doesn’t agree is wrong. Objectively or subjectively. I think there are simple ways to make ORKS tougher again, higher saves more wounds, maybe even T5. Better that than messing about with cover and stuff. I’ve also noted that if someone doesn’t play the way you do it is wrong, that’s one of the problems in the hobby today. When you say the only new weapons that are str 4 are things like hurricane bolters shows your lack of experience.
This thread had had some good ideas, I’m hopeful that this book will deliver the best of both worlds, competitiveness for you people and fun balanced lists that have character for the fans of fluff based gameplay. The dark eldar book captured the character of that army brilliantly and gave you options to play in that many and rewards to do so. Here’s hoping they can do the same with ORKS. To fix ORKS “lack” of toughness is a systemic thing.
Anyway I’m out of here. Don’t need to argue with you anymore. There’s no point.
Not sure what the arguement is about. T4 is standard toughness. Just because guard are humans and t3 doesnt mean thats standard. t4 should not be hard to kill or easy to kill. It offers a standard amount of resistance to wounding.
What boyz need in the new codex is a 6+ fnp as an ork special rule instead of a 6+ armor save. painboyz nearby can make this +1. they may not wear armor, but they are tough as nails. They still take damage the same (represented by toughness 4) but can fight through even the most grevious wounds, as stated many many times in the fluff.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: Not sure what the arguement is about. T4 is standard toughness. Just because guard are humans and t3 doesnt mean thats standard. t4 should not be hard to kill or easy to kill. It offers a standard amount of resistance to wounding.
What boyz need in the new codex is a 6+ fnp as an ork special rule instead of a 6+ armor save. painboyz nearby can make this +1. they may not wear armor, but they are tough as nails. They still take damage the same (represented by toughness 4) but can fight through even the most grevious wounds, as stated many many times in the fluff.
They definitely need fnp to match the fluff, but they need at least 6+ armor with 6+ fnp. The only problem with that is the massive number of largely ineffective dice rolls.
6+/6+++ is just a little worse than 7+/5+++, which would be perfectly acceptable.
He was just saying that practically a 6+/6+++ might as well be a 5+++ to save on dice rolling.
In general, our entire codex needs to be tougher. Orks are pathetically easy to kill when every bit of our fluff paints us as hulking, towering monsters and clanking, undying machines that keep going forward even when they should have fallen to pieces long ago.
Vitali Advenil wrote: He was just saying that practically a 6+/6+++ might as well be a 5+++ to save on dice rolling.
In general, our entire codex needs to be tougher. Orks are pathetically easy to kill when every bit of our fluff paints us as hulking, towering monsters and clanking, undying machines that keep going forward even when they should have fallen to pieces long ago.
It's a mixed issue of the only things being really cheap enough to spam being boyz, with everything else being too expensive for how fragile they are. Throw in general lack of invulnerable saves in CC outside Ghazzy and a few other fringe units and it means we are far more of a glass cannon than we should be.
I think Boyz are fine as is, its really the support units that have to step up their game. Make Painboyz give 5+ FNP again, potentially make KFF's 4+ invulns with Big Meks also giving some aura buff to shooting (or at least bring back the Mega KFF), Cybork bodies give invulns in CC again and are accessible to all our higher tier units. There just seems to be a distinct lack of real synergy besides having Weirdboyz going super charged with boyz nearby and jumping them/smiting.
They could give us a unit of ard boys, basically boys with 2 wounds and 4+ armor, for 10-12 points each, that way you can go full horde with 6pt Boys or more elite with ard boys. Give 3 wounds to nobs and 4 to meganobs.
6+++ for everyone would also be nice.
Another thing that would be nice too is giving WS2 to nobs and WS1 to warboss
If they went with the 6+++ for everyone, 5+++ near a Painboy they could make a strat that improved it by 1 for a turn also
Grotsnik1 wrote: They could give us a unit of ard boys, basically boys with 2 wounds and 4+ armor, for 10-12 points each, that way you can go full horde with 6pt Boys or more elite with ard boys. Give 3 wounds to nobs and 4 to meganobs.
6+++ for everyone would also be nice.
Another thing that would be nice too is giving WS2 to nobs and WS1 to warboss
If they went with the 6+++ for everyone, 5+++ near a Painboy they could make a strat that improved it by 1 for a turn also
Although 2W ard boyz would be interesting, I feel like they'd still be better off as a CP upgrade stratagem. I would say WS2 and WS1 warboss is a bit much though, I understand this helps mitigate the -1 to hit from Power Klaws, but with WAAAGH! Banners as an option (which would be recosted accordingly) that would seem unnecessary. Also, PK's main issue is the relative lack of consistent damage output. Making them do a flat 3 damage or D6 damage would make it so guys like Meganobz can be a lot better in tackling big scary targets like Knights.
Andykp wrote: There are more to blood axes than kommandos. Especially if I are happy to use kromlechs awesome range.
Yes there is, but Kommandos are the first unit you think of when you say the word Blood Axe, and 3 max sized units of Kommandos right now tops out at 405pts and as it stands I would say that those Kommandos are about 2ppm over priced for what they do. If GW agrees and brings down the price to where it needs to be you are looking at 315pts for the Blood Axe pinnacle unit. Or another way to put it would be less then 16% of your blood axe army being Kommandos in a 2,000pt army.
I am still in mourning for my 90 Kommando Army :(
I’d prefer it if Kommandos stayed the same points or increased, but made them more characterful and interesting (personally, deepstriking boyz is a touch bland). Maybe make them more like Genestealer cult with their deepstriking shenanigans, with Snikrot giving them a buff/reroll to how they deploy.
Grotsnik1 wrote: They could give us a unit of ard boys, basically boys with 2 wounds and 4+ armor, for 10-12 points each, that way you can go full horde with 6pt Boys or more elite with ard boys. Give 3 wounds to nobs and 4 to meganobs.
6+++ for everyone would also be nice.
Another thing that would be nice too is giving WS2 to nobs and WS1 to warboss
If they went with the 6+++ for everyone, 5+++ near a Painboy they could make a strat that improved it by 1 for a turn also
Although 2W ard boyz would be interesting, I feel like they'd still be better off as a CP upgrade stratagem. I would say WS2 and WS1 warboss is a bit much though, I understand this helps mitigate the -1 to hit from Power Klaws, but with WAAAGH! Banners as an option (which would be recosted accordingly) that would seem unnecessary. Also, PK's main issue is the relative lack of consistent damage output. Making them do a flat 3 damage or D6 damage would make it so guys like Meganobz can be a lot better in tackling big scary targets like Knights.
A thousand times yes for the PK thing. These are the bit hitters- they should be hitting just as hard as a lascannon in CC. Hell, take away the penalty to hit while we're at it- there's no sensible reason why CC weapons have a penalty to hit while ranged do not.
Grotsnik1 wrote: They could give us a unit of ard boys, basically boys with 2 wounds and 4+ armor, for 10-12 points each, that way you can go full horde with 6pt Boys or more elite with ard boys. Give 3 wounds to nobs and 4 to meganobs.
6+++ for everyone would also be nice.
Another thing that would be nice too is giving WS2 to nobs and WS1 to warboss
If they went with the 6+++ for everyone, 5+++ near a Painboy they could make a strat that improved it by 1 for a turn also
Although 2W ard boyz would be interesting, I feel like they'd still be better off as a CP upgrade stratagem. I would say WS2 and WS1 warboss is a bit much though, I understand this helps mitigate the -1 to hit from Power Klaws, but with WAAAGH! Banners as an option (which would be recosted accordingly) that would seem unnecessary. Also, PK's main issue is the relative lack of consistent damage output. Making them do a flat 3 damage or D6 damage would make it so guys like Meganobz can be a lot better in tackling big scary targets like Knights.
A thousand times yes for the PK thing. These are the bit hitters- they should be hitting just as hard as a lascannon in CC. Hell, take away the penalty to hit while we're at it- there's no sensible reason why CC weapons have a penalty to hit while ranged do not.
An Ork with a powerklaw does as much damage as a Space Marine with a lascannon, twice as much against a Knight. Lascannons are -1 to hit if you move and shoot. The reason they are -1 to hit is so there's a reason to take other weapons if you're just dealing with infantry, otherwise a powerklaw would be better in every circumstance if you ignore the pts cost.
vict0988 wrote: An Ork with a powerklaw does as much damage as a Space Marine with a lascannon, twice as much against a Knight. Lascannons are -1 to hit if you move and shoot. The reason they are -1 to hit is so there's a reason to take other weapons if you're just dealing with infantry, otherwise a powerklaw would be better in every circumstance if you ignore the pts cost.
While I agree on the -1 to hit thing (and I think Ork-en Man's solution to that awesome), let's not forget the range on lascannons. No amount of PKs will kill a vehicle turn 1.
An Ork with a powerklaw does as much damage as a Space Marine with a lascannon, twice as much against a Knight. Lascannons are -1 to hit if you move and shoot. The reason they are -1 to hit is so there's a reason to take other weapons if you're just dealing with infantry, otherwise a powerklaw would be better in every circumstance if you ignore the pts cost.
Nowhere does a Ork Powerklaw do as much damage as a lascannon armed Marine. A 4 PK Nob Squad has 12 attacks hitting on 4s so 6 hits, against T7 vehicles with a 3+ save he will then do 3 unsaved wounds for an average of 6 damage, of course this is at least on Turn 2 more likely turn 3 because they have to walk up the board or attempt to "Da Jump" and manage a 9 inch charge. On the other hand 4 Lascannon Marines with 48' range aren't having to move really and are shooting from turn 1. They also have several buffs that they will most likely be near just because the SM codex is so filled with them that you almost have to be near one. Those 4 Marines fire 5 shots turn 1. 1 shot is hitting on 2s the other 4 on 3s for 3.4 hits lets assume they aren't near any buffing characters that let them reroll hits or wounds. 3.4 hits = 2.2 wounds which against that 3+ save = about 1.8 Wounds going through x 3.5 = 6.6 damage on average. And again, that is without the plethora of rerolls space Marines get from their characters.
So in a vacuum they are about equal, in reality its completely one sided for Space Marines. For the fact that those PKs have to walk up the board to get in range they need to do a LOT more damage or be so cheap as to matter when they are killed. As it stands its 30pts for a Nob with a PK and they just aren't worth it in my opinion. The only PK i take is on my painboy (because I have to) and on Ghaz.
I would prefer if orks got cheaper or tougher (e.g. toughness stat) or woundier (more wounds) rather than better saves. Taking the hit while wearing a t-shirt is very ork. Additionally, you can mostly make things equally tough just by giving them more wounds. E.g. 6 wounds with a 4++ is exactly as tough as 12 wound with no save, barring some RNG. The latter feels much orkier to me and saves on rolling dice (and therefore time) with an already slow-to-play army due to numbers.
what about upping Nobs to 3W? I feel like that would make them quite sturdy.
Frowny wrote: I would prefer if orks got cheaper or tougher (e.g. toughness stat) or woundier (more wounds) rather than better saves. Taking the hit while wearing a t-shirt is very ork. Additionally, you can mostly make things equally tough just by giving them more wounds. E.g. 6 wounds with a 4++ is exactly as tough as 12 wound with no save, barring some RNG. The latter feels much orkier to me and saves on rolling dice (and therefore time) with an already slow-to-play army due to numbers.
what about upping Nobs to 3W? I feel like that would make them quite sturdy.
Ive been toying around with the idea of keeping boyz the same cost per wound and all the other stats but upping their wounds and reducing numbers. So a unit of 15 Boyz has the same number of wounds and attacks and other stats as 30 boyz but multi damage weapons only take 1 wound off instead of 2. This way you reduce the number of models on the table and speed the game up a bit. Ive tried it and the record keeping is a bit of an issue but otherwise it definitely sped the game up.
Granted, I still say that what really kills the speed of this edition is Imperial and Eldar factions having to reroll everything. My last game against a SM player, he had less then 1/3rd as many models as me and took as long as I did because he had to reroll every single dice roll he made.
Will Shoota boyz ever be worth building a theme around? I can find some use for them... Sometimes. Like shooting down Tau drones. What can we do to make Shoota boyz a viable choice?
Would Assault 3 (maybe for Bad Moons) be too OP, or balanced like a worse off Devil gaunt.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Will Shoota boyz ever be worth building a theme around? I can find some use for them... Sometimes. Like shooting down Tau drones. What can we do to make Shoota boyz a viable choice?
Would Assault 3 (maybe for Bad Moons) be too OP, or balanced like a worse off Devil gaunt.
The only way for shoota boyz to be viable is to give them some kind of gimmick. The sad fact is that even with 60 shots from a full squad, that's only averaging 3 dead MEQs. You give anything else in this game 60 shots, that's a whole lotta dead. Boyz, not so much.
Quick Maths:
Spoiler:
60 shots at BS5 = 20 hits.
20 hits vs T4 = 10 wounds.
10 wounds vs 3+ = 3.333 unsaved wounds
It is far better just to give them the extra attack. Giving them more shots could work but that'd just be more dicerolling. They'd need some gimmick that's both fluffy and balanced to make shootas even remotely worth taking.
Been thinking about Relics today, and all we have to do is check the 7th edition codex for clues.
Finkin Kap can coming back as a fancy Helmet basically, and grant us some CP generation.
Gazbags Blitzbike is gone unless we get an Ork Boss on a bike kit.
Da Lucky Stikk might come back as a fancy Boss Pole, and grant some re-rolls, maybe some CP gimmick.
KillChoppa we know is alive and well.
Fixer Upperz is probably in, to be the dedicated Mek relic.
Dead Shiny Shoota is definitely in, for all those AOBR warbosses.
And I hate to admit it, but I never bought the Waaagh Ghaz supplement, so im probably missing a few give-ins, but I'm pretty sure were going to get a fancy Power Klaw relic as well, for both the Grukk and AOBR warboss model.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, after reevaluating the Index (and my own collection) I have a strong feeling we will get a new Waaagh Banna model.The current model is very out of place for a whole unit to be written for.
An Ork with a powerklaw does as much damage as a Space Marine with a lascannon, twice as much against a Knight. Lascannons are -1 to hit if you move and shoot. The reason they are -1 to hit is so there's a reason to take other weapons if you're just dealing with infantry, otherwise a powerklaw would be better in every circumstance if you ignore the pts cost.
Nowhere does a Ork Powerklaw do as much damage as a lascannon armed Marine. A 4 PK Nob Squad has 12 attacks hitting on 4s so 6 hits, against T7 vehicles with a 3+ save he will then do 3 unsaved wounds for an average of 6 damage, of course this is at least on Turn 2 more likely turn 3 because they have to walk up the board or attempt to "Da Jump" and manage a 9 inch charge. On the other hand 4 Lascannon Marines with 48' range aren't having to move really and are shooting from turn 1. They also have several buffs that they will most likely be near just because the SM codex is so filled with them that you almost have to be near one. Those 4 Marines fire 5 shots turn 1. 1 shot is hitting on 2s the other 4 on 3s for 3.4 hits lets assume they aren't near any buffing characters that let them reroll hits or wounds. 3.4 hits = 2.2 wounds which against that 3+ save = about 1.8 Wounds going through x 3.5 = 6.6 damage on average. And again, that is without the plethora of rerolls space Marines get from their characters.
So in a vacuum they are about equal, in reality its completely one sided for Space Marines. For the fact that those PKs have to walk up the board to get in range they need to do a LOT more damage or be so cheap as to matter when they are killed. As it stands its 30pts for a Nob with a PK and they just aren't worth it in my opinion. The only PK i take is on my painboy (because I have to) and on Ghaz.
Powerklaws do more damage in close combat than a lascannon, unless we are talking Baneblades. You sound like someone suffering from not enough terrain, since that is part of what allows melee to compete. I'm not sure why you are complaining at me about balance, something I never addressed, I just correct you guys because you're being whiny.
Personally, I think HQs should do more damage to avoid pillow fights, other bad melee units should be cheaper as you suggested. I think GW made sure Boys were amazing this edition to avoid competitive Ork lists not being horde lists. The index Orks seem to be balanced by lack of access to competitive anti-tank, still Index Orks remain very effective despite a lack of a codex.
An Ork with a powerklaw does as much damage as a Space Marine with a lascannon, twice as much against a Knight. Lascannons are -1 to hit if you move and shoot. The reason they are -1 to hit is so there's a reason to take other weapons if you're just dealing with infantry, otherwise a powerklaw would be better in every circumstance if you ignore the pts cost.
Nowhere does a Ork Powerklaw do as much damage as a lascannon armed Marine. A 4 PK Nob Squad has 12 attacks hitting on 4s so 6 hits, against T7 vehicles with a 3+ save he will then do 3 unsaved wounds for an average of 6 damage, of course this is at least on Turn 2 more likely turn 3 because they have to walk up the board or attempt to "Da Jump" and manage a 9 inch charge. On the other hand 4 Lascannon Marines with 48' range aren't having to move really and are shooting from turn 1. They also have several buffs that they will most likely be near just because the SM codex is so filled with them that you almost have to be near one. Those 4 Marines fire 5 shots turn 1. 1 shot is hitting on 2s the other 4 on 3s for 3.4 hits lets assume they aren't near any buffing characters that let them reroll hits or wounds. 3.4 hits = 2.2 wounds which against that 3+ save = about 1.8 Wounds going through x 3.5 = 6.6 damage on average. And again, that is without the plethora of rerolls space Marines get from their characters.
So in a vacuum they are about equal, in reality its completely one sided for Space Marines. For the fact that those PKs have to walk up the board to get in range they need to do a LOT more damage or be so cheap as to matter when they are killed. As it stands its 30pts for a Nob with a PK and they just aren't worth it in my opinion. The only PK i take is on my painboy (because I have to) and on Ghaz.
Powerklaws do more damage in close combat than a lascannon, unless we are talking Baneblades. You sound like someone suffering from not enough terrain, since that is part of what allows melee to compete. I'm not sure why you are complaining at me about balance, something I never addressed, I just correct you guys because you're being whiny.
Personally, I think HQs should do more damage to avoid pillow fights, other bad melee units should be cheaper as you suggested. I think GW made sure Boys were amazing this edition to avoid competitive Ork lists not being horde lists. The index Orks seem to be balanced by lack of access to competitive anti-tank, still Index Orks remain very effective despite a lack of a codex.
Why does everyone who can't form an argument immediately go to "you need more terrain lol L2P!"
Also, try not to call people "whiny" its both impolite and useless to the conversation.
I think that even without the Rule of Three Weirdboyz wouldn't have been much of a problem. They only have four wounds and a 6+ save, and they tend to hurt themselves, so if they started becoming a problem I think we'd see people start taking more snipers and Weirdboyz wouldn't last very long. It's true that not every faction has the ability to snipe characters (which is itself a problem, IMO) but enough do that I don't think Weirdboy spam would be viable.
Not that I'm advocating that Weirdboyz get an exemption from the Rule of Three, I don't think there's a need for that either.
What would you guys think about changing choppas to have AP -1 instead of +1 Attack? I was doing the math against various units and while it is better against some and worse against others overall it seems to be mostly the same. The advantage would be less dice rolling required. I like rolling handfuls of dice, but once it gets much over 100 it starts feeling tedious to me. Plus it hearkens back to older editions when choppas were more than your average close combat weapon.
vict0988 wrote:Powerklaws do more damage in close combat than a lascannon,
I wasn't aware that you can't shoot lascannons until turn 3 and lose half of them before you do. Could you point me to the FAQ that makes lascannons as weak as PKs?
You sound like someone suffering from not enough terrain, since that is part of what allows melee to compete.
You sound like someone suffering from not having a damn clue about orks, since orks don't get cover saves in 8th. The only unit that has gotten cover saves in 8th for me are either lootaz or KMK, since you deploy them in cover and they stay there. Anything else is not getting cover.
I'm not sure why you are complaining at me about balance, something I never addressed, I just correct you guys because you're being whiny.
Semper tends to express his opinion in extremes, but he is right about this. PK usually only get to attack once or twice per game, and half or more of them die before doing so. Lascannons will start destroying armor turn 1 and you usually don't lose half of them before you get to use them.
Personally, I think HQs should do more damage to avoid pillow fights, other bad melee units should be cheaper as you suggested. I think GW made sure Boys were amazing this edition to avoid competitive Ork lists not being horde lists. The index Orks seem to be balanced by lack of access to competitive anti-tank, still Index Orks remain very effective despite a lack of a codex.
I don't think there was any intention behind it. Ork boyz have remained unchanged since 4th except for the edition changing around them. The only bone that has been thrown our way was the price dump on the KMK in CA, and even that may have been an attempt to get morkanauts on the field. But gifted horse, so...
Blndmage wrote:Runtherds having an expention to the Rule of 3 would be good.
Why? You should easily be able to herd three units of gretchin per runherd and a warboss can keep them in line as well.
It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Vitali Advenil wrote: It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Powerklaws are nowhere near equal to lascannons.
I feel they just need to have the -1 toHit only apply to the more nimble infantry, the powerklaw should remain a bit clumsy, but should stand a far better chance of tearing into an engaged vehicle. A buff to the damage would also be nice imo.
Vitali Advenil wrote: It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Powerklaws are nowhere near equal to lascannons.
I feel they just need to have the -1 toHit only apply to the more nimble infantry, the powerklaw should remain a bit clumsy, but should stand a far better chance of tearing into an engaged vehicle. A buff to the damage would also be nice imo.
I agree, they should add different variations of damage. For instance PK could be 2D2 damage. This would raise the max and minimum damage while still keeping some random chance in there. This should apply to many armies not just orks.
Vitali Advenil wrote: It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Powerklaws are nowhere near equal to lascannons.
I feel they just need to have the -1 toHit only apply to the more nimble infantry, the powerklaw should remain a bit clumsy, but should stand a far better chance of tearing into an engaged vehicle. A buff to the damage would also be nice imo.
I agree, they should add different variations of damage. For instance PK could be 2D2 damage. This would raise the max and minimum damage while still keeping some random chance in there. This should apply to many armies not just orks.
I honestly don't see why not just bring them to D6. If I can successfully march my model down the field, keep him alive, succeed the charge roll, and survive overwatch, I damn well deserve to do more damage than a lascannon that just has to sit still to do major damage turn one.
Vitali Advenil wrote: It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Powerklaws are nowhere near equal to lascannons.
I feel they just need to have the -1 toHit only apply to the more nimble infantry, the powerklaw should remain a bit clumsy, but should stand a far better chance of tearing into an engaged vehicle. A buff to the damage would also be nice imo.
I agree, they should add different variations of damage. For instance PK could be 2D2 damage. This would raise the max and minimum damage while still keeping some random chance in there. This should apply to many armies not just orks.
I honestly don't see why not just bring them to D6. If I can successfully march my model down the field, keep him alive, succeed the charge roll, and survive overwatch, I damn well deserve to do more damage than a lascannon that just has to sit still to do major damage turn one.
IDK, everyone compares it to the lascannon but it might not be the right comparison. 2nd. at d6 damage, it only has to make 2 hits to take down a carnifex. I don't think that'd be very healthy for the game. This is coming from an ork player who loved PK in 5th and never took them in 5th and 6th because challenges. I think you have to compare how it would affect multiple different factions and the result making a change can have.
Vitali Advenil wrote: It's a straight-up fact that powerklaws are nowhere near as good as lascannons, and anyone who says otherwise clearly has never had to rely on them for anti-tank.
Stats on paper do not equal actual effectiveness in game. Powerklaws need a buff in damage output, and have the negative to hit penalty removed entirely. A powerklaw cannot hit on turn one unless multiple stratagems, psychic powers, or luck is involved, whereas a lascannon can be use immediately with the most basic of positioning all without a negative to hit, better damage, and more safety.
Powerklaws are nowhere near equal to lascannons.
I feel they just need to have the -1 toHit only apply to the more nimble infantry, the powerklaw should remain a bit clumsy, but should stand a far better chance of tearing into an engaged vehicle. A buff to the damage would also be nice imo.
I agree, they should add different variations of damage. For instance PK could be 2D2 damage. This would raise the max and minimum damage while still keeping some random chance in there. This should apply to many armies not just orks.
I honestly don't see why not just bring them to D6. If I can successfully march my model down the field, keep him alive, succeed the charge roll, and survive overwatch, I damn well deserve to do more damage than a lascannon that just has to sit still to do major damage turn one.
IDK, everyone compares it to the lascannon but it might not be the right comparison. 2nd. at d6 damage, it only has to make 2 hits to take down a carnifex. I don't think that'd be very healthy for the game. This is coming from an ork player who loved PK in 5th and never took them in 5th and 6th because challenges. I think you have to compare how it would affect multiple different factions and the result making a change can have.
It's a Power Klaw, not a choppa or Big Choppa. Of course it should have the potential to wreck a Carnifex in 2 hits. It also has the potential to do virtually nothing to the beast. That is the gift that is dice games and lady luck.
They should definitely be D6 damage or the penalty to hit should be removed or even both. I lose count of the number of Nobz that totally whiff. Hitting on 4+ is garbage.
Oh d6 so much, they’re what I want to rely on for big vehicles but as it is I have nothing to rely on. D6 and 3+ is even better, I long for scary Nobs.
So, given other factions in KT seem to have tactics ripped from their stratagems, do you guys think we can expect any of these in the codex?
I really hope they rework Dakka Dakka Dakka into a "shoot twice" thing, it might even be useful. Heh, imagine Flash Gits shooting four times in a turn!
The problem lies in the core rules and has little do do with Orks. Short of dealing with the core shooting rules, changing Ork BS *back* to the 2E equivalency of 4+ and better, plus having quaint Orky weapon rules, is their best bet to dig themselves out of the core shooting rules hole they dug. We'll likely instead get some lame core rules breaking rule(s) that for some reason only applies to Orks. And quaint Orky weapon rules. I don't have much confidence at this point. I like many things about 8E, but there are enough fundamental issues with it that makes it hard for me to believe that the hundreds (or thousands) of people involved in play testing the edition didn't notice it before everything was finalized. Maybe it just got shoved out the door due to deadlines, and people just ate it up anyways.
The problem is that 8th was tested by the competitive community, none of whom had done much with Orks for years thanks to Orks being absolute bottom of the barrel for two editions. So when 8th rolled around they really had no idea what the core issues with the army were and just slapped stuff together. On top of that, there's no-one left in the rules team who likes Orks so we have no-one there who's going to go out of their way to figure out how to write the best book for us, and will instead just fiddle with a few things and call it a day.
Prove me wrong GW but at this point I don't actually have any hope left. The fact that we've heard absolutely nothing for two months also doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about what's coming.
Well IG went from struggling to top tier, so anythings possible. It would be so funny if the Ork codex turns out to be the most OP codex of 8th edition.
Tygre wrote: Well IG went from struggling to top tier, so anythings possible. It would be so funny if the Ork codex turns out to be the most OP codex of 8th edition.
Yeah, and who is running GW's rules department currently? Robin Cruddace, the man who made IG insane back before 8th and an avowed tread-head. Phil Kelly's still on the team and what to his golden-boys, Eldar, get? An insanely strong codex (though let's face it, Eldar haven't been bad in a very, very long time. And Kelly's been on the team the whole time too. Hmm....)
Jidmah wrote: Kelly wrote the best ork codex in two decades!
Well, there were only two, and one was a disaster, but still.
It's true, and barring some outliers at the time (tankbustas weren't so hot, nor were flash gitz), it was an army with enough flavour to try out several types of armies without severely gimping yourself. I'm all for returning to that with the next Ork codex. It would just be really nice to have Ork vehicles that are worth taking over just infantry.
Does anyone else want the Warboss to change? Although I love how cheap they are I think I'd rather see them go up in price and be a bigger, tougher, and killier unit since they are supposed to be the biggest and meanest ork around. With the 4+ save and no invuln though they just don't feel that tough in the games I've played.
DrGiggles wrote: Does anyone else want the Warboss to change? Although I love how cheap they are I think I'd rather see them go up in price and be a bigger, tougher, and killier unit since they are supposed to be the biggest and meanest ork around. With the 4+ save and no invuln though they just don't feel that tough in the games I've played.
They are laughably weak in terms of survivability and there is no reason they don't have at least a 5+ invuln in cqc.
IMO a warboss should feel in combat like daemon princes do. Lots of damage, lots of wounds, hard to kill. Currently striking with a powerklaw feels like some support character is using the melee weapon he comes with, rather than a dedicated CCHQ.
Jidmah wrote: It's not like they didn't use to have one...
IMO a warboss should feel in combat like daemon princes do. Lots of damage, lots of wounds, hard to kill. Currently striking with a powerklaw feels like some support character is using the melee weapon he comes with, rather than a dedicated CCHQ.
A 5+ invuln or some sort of FnP in cqc would definitely be nice. Does anyone see a downside in bumping up the powerklaw damage to 1+d3 or flat 3 damage? I know powerfists would still be d3 but they could probably use a buff as well.
DrGiggles wrote: A 5+ invuln or some sort of FnP in cqc would definitely be nice. Does anyone see a downside in bumping up the powerklaw damage to 1+d3 or flat 3 damage? I know powerfists would still be d3 but they could probably use a buff as well.
Yes to the cqc survivability buff.
PowerKlaw should be D6 or flat 3 damage no diggity doubt. They're supposed to be our most reliable AV weapon. Also they shouldn't be -1 to hit vehicles.
Orks hitting on 5s during overwatch would be out of character for orks, too strong due to the many shots we have to compensate for BS5 and a completely unneeded buff for something we aren't using that often in the first place.
Jidmah wrote: d6 would probably better from a design point of view, otherwise it would invalidate the big choppa.
You seen that new GSC weapon? The Power Sledgehammer?
Str x 2, AP-3, D6 damage but 1's and 2's are resolved as 3 damage. No negative to hit.
This should be the Power Klaw stats IMO.
Love the stat line but it would probably have to go up in price. And if it is doing 3+ damage no matter what then having the negative to hit doesn't feel as painful as it does now.
Jidmah wrote: d6 would probably better from a design point of view, otherwise it would invalidate the big choppa.
You seen that new GSC weapon? The Power Sledgehammer?
Str x 2, AP-3, D6 damage but 1's and 2's are resolved as 3 damage. No negative to hit.
This should be the Power Klaw stats IMO.
Love the stat line but it would probably have to go up in price. And if it is doing 3+ damage no matter what then having the negative to hit doesn't feel as painful as it does now.
Dude this weapon is a straight up copy paste of a GSC weapon.
There's no way GSC should be better in melee combat than Orks.
That's not the stats for a weapon you can have in every squad. Almost every army has a powerful melee weapon like that, but there are very limited models in the army that can use it. PKs can be everywhere.
That said, I would like those stats for a relic powerklaw, thank you very much
PK used to work well when they had the chance to destroy a vehicle, so it needs to go back to that status.
I also see reason in the argument that a PK should not work as well for killing infantry as it does for killing vehicles, because otherwise the PK will be mandatory on every nob again.
Therefore D6 damage and no penalty to hit sounds like what it should be. Fixed three damage is better against elite infantry that has two or three wounds, while d6 is better against models with many wound due to higher average damage.
Just the possibility of a single nob lucking out and one-shotting a tank will change how units with a PK nob play, combared to knowing that the nob will never do more than 9 damage (barring other buffs)
I'm not sure the weapon is exclusive only to the abominant, it may well be for aberrants too. They also have a hench 2 handed weapon and there was talk in the preview of hyper morphs or something with better weapons.
I find this weapon pretty irritating. Its better than SM powerfists, thunder hammers? Why aren't SM using this mining equipment if it's so boss? Its better than a Dread Klaw. Bonkers
An Actual Englishman wrote: I'm not sure the weapon is exclusive only to the abominant, it may well be for aberrants too. They also have a hench 2 handed weapon and there was talk in the preview of hyper morphs or something with better weapons.
I find this weapon pretty irritating. Its better than SM powerfists, thunder hammers? Why aren't SM using this mining equipment if it's so boss? Its better than a Dread Klaw. Bonkers
It's pretty clear from the article that the super sledge hammer is for abominant only, who is either an HQ or elite single character.
It's also worse than a dreadnought chain fist or seismic hammer
General rule: Dakka Dakka Dakka: a roll of a natural 6 to hit when shooting is always considered a hit regardless of modifiers, additionally, for every natural roll of 6 in the shooting phase, infantry models without artillery can fire another shot with the same weapon (this extra shots can not generate extra shots)
Well im happy to see that my prayers were heard, though this working for KMK and overwatch will be crazy
Jidmah wrote: Overwatch? That's a 1 in 36 chance to do something.
lmao, welcome to ork logic Jidmah, "OMG WE GOT A NEW ABILITY THAT WHEN IT WORKS IS AMAZING!" and then you and me the reality players "Yeah but dude, its a 2.77% chance to get 1 extra hit....that won't help much"
I am still unsure if this reaction we see is caused by ork players not running the numbers OR if we, as a community, have been crapped on for so long that any kind of "buff" is viewed as amazing regardless of its effectiveness. I personally think it might be a combination of the two with a strong leaning towards the 1st option. A third option is also the random masochists who enjoy playing this kind of thing
Jidmah wrote: Overwatch? That's a 1 in 36 chance to do something.
lmao, welcome to ork logic Jidmah, "OMG WE GOT A NEW ABILITY THAT WHEN IT WORKS IS AMAZING!" and then you and me the reality players "Yeah but dude, its a 2.77% chance to get 1 extra hit....that won't help much"
I am still unsure if this reaction we see is caused by ork players not running the numbers OR if we, as a community, have been crapped on for so long that any kind of "buff" is viewed as amazing regardless of its effectiveness. I personally think it might be a combination of the two with a strong leaning towards the 1st option. A third option is also the random masochists who enjoy playing this kind of thing
Nah, it's just the Orks=NPC mindset.
"Our shooting is inefficient" - "Orks should be bad at shooting"
"Our PKs are too expensive and do to little" - "It cannot be better than a PF"
"Our elites die too fast" - "Orks are supposed to die fast"
"Look, we got a minor buff!" - "Everyone should have that."
I really struggle to stop myself from trolling the space marine thread by telling them how their army is fine because Gulliman+Razorbacks sometimes places 3rd in some 12 people tournaments. You know, like all the SM players do in our threads.
Jidmah wrote: Overwatch? That's a 1 in 36 chance to do something.
lmao, welcome to ork logic Jidmah, "OMG WE GOT A NEW ABILITY THAT WHEN IT WORKS IS AMAZING!" and then you and me the reality players "Yeah but dude, its a 2.77% chance to get 1 extra hit....that won't help much"
I am still unsure if this reaction we see is caused by ork players not running the numbers OR if we, as a community, have been crapped on for so long that any kind of "buff" is viewed as amazing regardless of its effectiveness. I personally think it might be a combination of the two with a strong leaning towards the 1st option. A third option is also the random masochists who enjoy playing this kind of thing
Nah, it's just the Orks=NPC mindset.
"Our shooting is inefficient" - "Orks should be bad at shooting"
"Our PKs are too expensive and do to little" - "It cannot be better than a PF"
"Our elites die too fast" - "Orks are supposed to die fast"
"Look, we got a minor buff!" - "Everyone should have that."
I really struggle to stop myself from trolling the space marine thread by telling them how their army is fine because Gulliman+Razorbacks sometimes places 3rd in some 12 people tournaments. You know, like all the SM players do in our threads.
Yep that must be it. I do have to say though that it REALLY bothers me when morons say orkz shouldn't be able to shoot...if that is the case then why is 2/3rds of our damn army focused at least primarily on SHOOTING! If we are just supposed to be a horde CC army then what is the point of Nids? why have 2 armies that do literally the same thing?
As for the PK thing, yeah, it seems most of the community has forgotten that the ONLY way orkz were killing vehicles for the last 3 editions has been using a Nob with PK to get into CC and then murder the vehicle. At the moment that doesn't work, nor does shooting it so we are left with killing vehicles with a FETHLOAD of S4 attacks in CC which is extremely boring and highly inefficient to the point where I ignore vehicles where I can because it will just take to long to kill.
Elites dying to fast you say? NO! can't be, they are Orkz so they should die quick right? That is why our Meganobz get a whole 3 wounds each, because multi damage weapons aren't a thing nor are weapons with high AP and a ton of shots. This also rolls over into our other options that aren't "Boyz with different weapons/options" specifically look at Warbikes, ALL of our vehicles, Flash Gitz....I mean seriously 27pts for a Nob model with a 6+ save and a weapon similar to a Plasma gun...except its heavy and hits left often.
And the minor buffs...I am so sick of hearing about how DakkaDakkaDakka is going to be amazing and really buff ork shooting. Its 5% likelihood of another hit and a 15% increase in hits. It would be good if our weapons doubled in shot output but until that happens this is just a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
Would be simpler to cancel the mistake made in 3rd edition and make them bs4+. As it stands I quite like the rule. It’s not crazy over the top but it will stop shooting feeling like a complete waste of time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And depending the size and make of the band aid it’s not the worst thing to do with a sucking chest wound. An arterial bleed would’ve been a better analogy.
I agree, many other armies have varying BS for combat and shooting armies, we could as well. But I guess that ship has sailed. As it is, Bad Moons almost got BS4, and Freebootas have BS4+DakkaDakkaDakka if they manage to kill something.
In general DakkaDakkaDakka makes all our shouting 16.66% less inefficient (yay?), so with some point drops I could see them going places.
Jidmah wrote: I agree, many other armies have varying BS for combat and shooting armies, we could as well. But I guess that ship has sailed. As it is, Bad Moons almost got BS4, and Freebootas have BS4+DakkaDakkaDakka if they manage to kill something.
In general DakkaDakkaDakka makes all our shouting 16.66% less inefficient (yay?), so with some point drops I could see them going places.
It’s not a silver bullet but I think it’s the best we could have hoped for. I would have like to see a switch to bs 4+ as standard and an attempt to make smaller squads viable. But that was never going to happen and won’t sell models so I’m happy with the Dakka rule. I also don’t play much against -1 to hit type armies so it is better for me. Against -2 to hit forces it’s hugely better as you can possibly hit.
Jidmah wrote: Overwatch? That's a 1 in 36 chance to do something.
lmao, welcome to ork logic Jidmah, "OMG WE GOT A NEW ABILITY THAT WHEN IT WORKS IS AMAZING!" and then you and me the reality players "Yeah but dude, its a 2.77% chance to get 1 extra hit....that won't help much"
I am still unsure if this reaction we see is caused by ork players not running the numbers OR if we, as a community, have been crapped on for so long that any kind of "buff" is viewed as amazing regardless of its effectiveness. I personally think it might be a combination of the two with a strong leaning towards the 1st option. A third option is also the random masochists who enjoy playing this kind of thing
Nah, it's just the Orks=NPC mindset.
"Our shooting is inefficient" - "Orks should be bad at shooting"
"Our PKs are too expensive and do to little" - "It cannot be better than a PF"
"Our elites die too fast" - "Orks are supposed to die fast"
"Look, we got a minor buff!" - "Everyone should have that."
I really struggle to stop myself from trolling the space marine thread by telling them how their army is fine because Gulliman+Razorbacks sometimes places 3rd in some 12 people tournaments. You know, like all the SM players do in our threads.
Literally NO Space Marine player said Power Klaws should be worse than Power Fists. Please find a post. I insist.
I'm hoping for a "Kustom Klaw" that does d6 damage and is not a relic, but maybe is limited to Warbosses and Big Meks. Pointed appropriately, of course.
Jidmah wrote: Sure, once you find a post that claims that a space marine player said so.
Go start a fight out of nothing elsewhere.
In your post you literally did that. So I'm calling you out.
Saying that some people have said that Power Klaws shouldn't be better than Power Fists is a different statement than saying that Space Marines players have called for Power Klaws to be worse than Power Fists.
Honestly both powerfists and powerklaws should be better. Even at around 12 points they're still expensive and do crap damage for how difficult it is to get them to actually swing, and even then you have the -1 penalty to hit which should also be removed. The damage should match that of a lascannon to be even remotely effective.
I would love to see Grots taking up 1/2 a transport space. The idea of 40 Grots pouring out of a battlewagon is one I quite like.
I would very much like to get my 'ard boys back, I put some effort into converting them...
I do like the OP's idea of dakka dakka dakka, with orks ignoring all modifiers to hit - I think including buffs. Let's face it, the orks aren't aiming. If you're invisible, you're just as likely to get hit as if you're not. improve their aim? they're still just squeezing the trigger and waving it around, just to see how loud they can make it.
It does seem like we should be able to squeeze more grots into a transport, but on the other hand that might raise questions about why a warboss only takes up one transport slot.
I would also like 'ard boyz back. It's really weird that they weren't even in the index.
General rule: Dakka Dakka Dakka: a roll of a natural 6 to hit when shooting is always considered a hit regardless of modifiers, additionally, for every natural roll of 6 in the shooting phase, infantry models without artillery can fire another shot with the same weapon (this extra shots can not generate extra shots)
Well im happy to see that my prayers were heard, though this working for KMK and overwatch will be crazy
I’m looking forward to using it with the Dakkajet now, and hopefully seeing a slight boost in the shooting of my ‘nauts. Won’t fix a Stompa but nice to get boosts like this army wide. I always used the stratagem on Tankbustas
So saves me spending the CP now I guess too.
I’m looking forward to using it with the Dakkajet now, and hopefully seeing a slight boost in the shooting of my ‘nauts. Won’t fix a Stompa but nice to get boosts like this army wide. I always used the stratagem on Tankbustas
So saves me spending the CP now I guess too.
On a decked out Dakkajet it gives you 1.5 more hits (when at 4+ to hit) on average, not bad by any means but don't expect that "buff" to do more then slightly boost shooting, and by slightly I do mean SLIGHTLY. Not to get negative but Ork shooting right now is a joke, and if this is the only thing they do to address it then we are still screwed because at the moment most of our weapons could DOUBLE their number of shots and it wouldn't break the game.
I’m looking forward to using it with the Dakkajet now, and hopefully seeing a slight boost in the shooting of my ‘nauts. Won’t fix a Stompa but nice to get boosts like this army wide. I always used the stratagem on Tankbustas
So saves me spending the CP now I guess too.
On a decked out Dakkajet it gives you 1.5 more hits (when at 4+ to hit) on average, not bad by any means but don't expect that "buff" to do more then slightly boost shooting, and by slightly I do mean SLIGHTLY. Not to get negative but Ork shooting right now is a joke, and if this is the only thing they do to address it then we are still screwed because at the moment most of our weapons could DOUBLE their number of shots and it wouldn't break the game.
I agree it’s only a slight boost, but I appreciate that it’s free, and always ‘on’. Army wide it can add up. I expect the real tweaks to come in the weapon profiles. I don’t think so much in the number of shots- we already roll enough dice, but in the strength and damage of the weapons. Eg Lootas bumped to any or all of St8 or ap2 or 3 damage flat etc. Think the nauts and battlewagons will see some better damage output. I’d love to see Burma’s get bumped too, so like d3 scorcha or something.
One of biggest hopes tho is that powerklaws just do a flat 2 or 3 and kill saws do a flat 3 or 4 so we have more consistent punch in combat.
I kind of want a generic Warlord in addition to Warboss. Maybe it'd be a stratagem upgrade like Captain to Chapter Master and he'd have a better aura, but I think a massive 7-8 wound dude that can tear things up in melee but can still ride in transports would be fitting for a Warlord since they're supposed to be the Orks that command other Warbosses.
I also think a Warlord model or stratagem would be cool. I was thinking having buff auras that work for all clans would be a good way of representing a warlord's authority.
Edit: By "work for all clans" I mean that his auras work for all friendly ork models, and not just ones that share the same clan keyword.
What if Meganobz had a rule where it converted the damage of d3 damage weapon rolls of 5 or 6 into 1 damage? I know the wording on this would be weird and difficult to track ( I had a hard enough time trying to word it myself) but it would make d3 damage weapons have to spend 2 shots per meganob.
mhalko1 wrote: What if Meganobz had a rule where it converted the damage of d3 damage weapon rolls of 5 or 6 into 1 damage? I know the wording on this would be weird and difficult to track ( I had a hard enough time trying to word it myself) but it would make d3 damage weapons have to spend 2 shots per meganob.
Meganobz have three wounds, so d3 weapons already take two shots to kill them most of the time.
IMO the main issue of meganobz is not survivablilty but low damage output and the lack of a good delivery system.
mhalko1 wrote: What if Meganobz had a rule where it converted the damage of d3 damage weapon rolls of 5 or 6 into 1 damage? I know the wording on this would be weird and difficult to track ( I had a hard enough time trying to word it myself) but it would make d3 damage weapons have to spend 2 shots per meganob.
Meganobz have three wounds, so d3 weapons already take two shots to kill them most of the time.
IMO the main issue of meganobz is not survivablilty but low damage output and the lack of a good delivery system.
My biggest issue is both. They die way to easy AND they lack damage output. At 42ppm they are a PRIME target for enemy anti-armor weapons. Why wouldn't a unit of devestators target Meganobz? basically ignore their armor and on average you can kill 3 of them outright each turn. They either need a hefty price reduction or a lot more durability ON TOP of becoming more deadly against their prime targets (Vehicles and elite infantry).
Dakkadakkadakka is not crazy with overwatch i know, i just think is a buff in something that almost every model is equal and i dont see why orks should be better there, just that
And dakkadakkadakka with deathskull kmk near the roumored fortification will be hitting 4 times, rerolling one wound and one damage rolls, which is pretty good
Also now bad moons and dakkadakkadakka gets bs5 models to hit 44% of the times, its not bs4 but its not that bad either and bs4 models go up to 67.3% which is better than bs3.
Anyway most models will be evil sunz now, +1 on the charge is too good to miss it for most models
And speaking of klans, i think this will be the common picks:
Evil sunz for every melee model, bad moons for every shooty unit or single model with high number of shots and deathskull for single shooty models with low number of shots (kannos and alike).
Also I think its worth mentioning blood axes for vehicles or high armor models; but I dont see goffs or snakebites being popular (though maybe Im wrong)
mhalko1 wrote: What if Meganobz had a rule where it converted the damage of d3 damage weapon rolls of 5 or 6 into 1 damage? I know the wording on this would be weird and difficult to track ( I had a hard enough time trying to word it myself) but it would make d3 damage weapons have to spend 2 shots per meganob.
Meganobz have three wounds, so d3 weapons already take two shots to kill them most of the time.
IMO the main issue of meganobz is not survivablilty but low damage output and the lack of a good delivery system.
My biggest issue is both. They die way to easy AND they lack damage output. At 42ppm they are a PRIME target for enemy anti-armor weapons. Why wouldn't a unit of devestators target Meganobz? basically ignore their armor and on average you can kill 3 of them outright each turn. They either need a hefty price reduction or a lot more durability ON TOP of becoming more deadly against their prime targets (Vehicles and elite infantry).
Pretty much this. I would be happy to pay for their current cost if they were actually worth it. I feel like they need a Bully Boy rule similar to what the Ironjawz brutes have, where if they target units with 3 wounds or they get to either re-roll failed hits. Throw in Cybork bodies to give them 5+ invulns. like they should have to begin with, with the changes we agreed that PK should have (either D6 damage, or no -1 to hit) Makes it so they actually can do something to heavy hitters. It always irked me that besides in 5th ed. with Nob Bikerz, that our Nobz never were able to stand toe-to-toe with other armies' elites. Or maybe even something involving them charging dealing D3 mortal wounds on if they roll 8 or higher to represent the sheer mass they have when they manage to build momentum.
Grotsnik1 wrote: Dakkadakkadakka is not crazy with overwatch i know, i just think is a buff in something that almost every model is equal and i dont see why orks should be better there, just that
And dakkadakkadakka with deathskull kmk near the roumored fortification will be hitting 4 times, rerolling one wound and one damage rolls, which is pretty good
Also now bad moons and dakkadakkadakka gets bs5 models to hit 44% of the times, its not bs4 but its not that bad either and bs4 models go up to 67.3% which is better than bs3.
Anyway most models will be evil sunz now, +1 on the charge is too good to miss it for most models
And speaking of klans, i think this will be the common picks:
Evil sunz for every melee model, bad moons for every shooty unit or single model with high number of shots and deathskull for single shooty models with low number of shots (kannos and alike).
Also I think its worth mentioning blood axes for vehicles or high armor models; but I dont see goffs or snakebites being popular (though maybe Im wrong)
Traits are only a small part of what makes a faction work, strats are the biggest thing (say Goffs have advance and charge, whilst Evil Sun get double advance - which do you pick for your close combat troops then?) alongside warlord traits and relics.
mhalko1 wrote: What if Meganobz had a rule where it converted the damage of d3 damage weapon rolls of 5 or 6 into 1 damage? I know the wording on this would be weird and difficult to track ( I had a hard enough time trying to word it myself) but it would make d3 damage weapons have to spend 2 shots per meganob.
Meganobz have three wounds, so d3 weapons already take two shots to kill them most of the time.
IMO the main issue of meganobz is not survivablilty but low damage output and the lack of a good delivery system.
My biggest issue is both. They die way to easy AND they lack damage output. At 42ppm they are a PRIME target for enemy anti-armor weapons. Why wouldn't a unit of devestators target Meganobz? basically ignore their armor and on average you can kill 3 of them outright each turn. They either need a hefty price reduction or a lot more durability ON TOP of becoming more deadly against their prime targets (Vehicles and elite infantry).
A unit of devastators shooting what weapons? If we are talking lascannons, MANz still have a 5+ armor save against those, 4th edition cybork changes next to nothing. My math also counts an average of 1 dead meganob vs 5 lascannons shooting the unit.
The only AP-4 weapons I'm seeing regularly are helblasters and elder lances. Well, and the volcano lance of a castellan, but you're probably happy if that thing is shooting MANz instead of anything else. 10 Helblasters at 15" cause 4 casualties - which is less than they do against almost all TEQ out there. The extra wound compensates pretty well for a missing 5++ save. The only ones who do slightly better are Blightlord Terminators, and main difference between them and MANz is that blight lords are T5, have great close combat weapons (flail of your unit is dead) and shooting that actually kills things. A bare bones blightlord is also 3 more points than a meganob with klaw and kustom shoota, but slower (yes, that's possible).
Therefore, MANz do not have a weak defense for their points, they compare pretty well to a TEQ unit that has won a GT. The main difference is that blightlords can deep strike onto the battlefield and gun down a unit even if they fail their charge, and if they do make their charge, kill almost anything that's not a vehicle in combat.
In general, MANz are not a unit that should ever be jogging alongside a green tide. It should be in an army that brings walkers, battlewagons, trukks, buggies and other things that also are great targets for anti-tank as well. Target saturation has always been a core strategy for orks.
Tastyfish wrote: Traits are only a small part of what makes a faction work, strats are the biggest thing (say Goffs have advance and charge, whilst Evil Sun get double advance - which do you pick for your close combat troops then?) alongside warlord traits and relics.
Of course, I was just talking about the rumors, we will have to see the full codex. But as it stands right now I keep my prediction.
Also there is a rumor that we will be able to deepstrike with a strat and if we keep da jump then the +1 to charge is still huge for the units that will be teleported
Anyway we will have to wait and see
5 Lascannon shots x.666 (adding in the 1 shot at 2+ to hit) = about 3.5. Wounding on 2s (S9 vs T4) = 3+ wounds. -3 AP means 5+ to save meaning usually 1 saved at the absolute most so that means 2 Dead Meganobz since D6 damage = 3.5 on average.
Unless I am mistaken that means a single Dev squad armed with Lascannons just made back half their points in a single shooting phase and that is without all the craploads of rerolls that Space Marines always have. Throw in those buffs and it is easily 3 dead Meganobz a turn, and on top of that if you have a unit of 5 and you lose 3 you now have a 1/3rd chance to lose more to morale (1/2 if you kill the boss Nob).
My point is that they lack invuln and FNP saves organically and since they are both SLOW, easy targets and soft (no saves beyond their 2+) they become prime targets for enemy units with multiple damage weapons which tend to eat through that 2+ and 3wounds easy
Okay. I used anydice, and assumed they were within range of a Captain and a Lieutenant, so rerolling hits of 1s and wounds of 1.
I also assume that one Lascannon benefits from a Signum, but that the Armorium Cherub has already been used. So that's one 2+ rerolling Lascannon and three 3+ rerolling 1s Lascannons, wounding on 2s rerolling, with a 5+ save.
They have the following odds:
1 Wound...........95.96%
2 Wounds.........75.86%
3 Wounds.........38.86%
4 Wounds.........8.97%
Then, multiply that by 2/3, since that's the odds of gibbing a Meganob.
So that's about a 2/3 chance of taking one down, about a fifty-fifty shot of taking two down, about 1/4 of taking three down, and a very slim chance of taking four down.
Average would be right about two Meganobz dead, not three. And that's with a Captain and Lieutenant.
I didn't add the 2+ roll from the sergeant, but we both missed the part where devs can only have 4 lascannons in the first place.
So let's just assume 5 lascannons from wherever (doesn't really matter in the first place)
5 shots
3.33 hits
2.77 wounds
1.85 unsaved wounds
To kill two MANz, you must roll 3+ on both your damage rolls, which has a chance of 44.44% to be happening.
So, on average, you do not kill two MANz with five lascannons. Averages betray your perception here, as rolling 3+ two times is not the same as rolling a 6+, as the result 6 and 1 would leave 1 meganob alive, despite dealing 7 damage.
My argument for the invulnerable saves was that you wouldn't be using your 5++ against lascannons, plasma, dark reapers, battlecannons and many, many other weapons anyways.
If there are other ork vehicles around, there is no reason why those multi-wound weapons should be shooting MANz instead of them, plus there are multiple ways to provide them with a 5++ save against shooting.
FNP is not needed because they already have an extra wound. A 2+ T4 model with three wounds is more durable than a 2+ T4 models with two wounds and 5+ FNP against almost all weapons. The only reason why blightlord terminators (2+/4++/5+++) are more durable than MANz against helblasters (S8 AP-4 D2) is T5, not FNP or the invulnerable save.
5 Lascannon shots x.666 (adding in the 1 shot at 2+ to hit) = about 3.5. Wounding on 2s (S9 vs T4) = 3+ wounds. -3 AP means 5+ to save meaning usually 1 saved at the absolute most so that means 2 Dead Meganobz since D6 damage = 3.5 on average.
Unless I am mistaken that means a single Dev squad armed with Lascannons just made back half their points in a single shooting phase and that is without all the craploads of rerolls that Space Marines always have. Throw in those buffs and it is easily 3 dead Meganobz a turn, and on top of that if you have a unit of 5 and you lose 3 you now have a 1/3rd chance to lose more to morale (1/2 if you kill the boss Nob).
My point is that they lack invuln and FNP saves organically and since they are both SLOW, easy targets and soft (no saves beyond their 2+) they become prime targets for enemy units with multiple damage weapons which tend to eat through that 2+ and 3wounds easy
Even though I agree meganobz need either a good discount or a good boost your maths fail when saying that a single d6 roll is a 3.5 so every wound is a dead meganob. If you get 2 unsaved wounds you have 1/36 chance of not losing any meganobz and 19/36 of losing just one, so thats a 56% chance of not losing 2.
5 lascannons shooting and rerolling 1s (one hitting on 2) is an average of 4.037 hits, and average of 3.93 wounds, 2.64 after saves.
So... the numbers here are not exact but thats around a 19% chance of losing 3, a 58.3% chance of losing 2, 21.5% chance of losing 1 and 1.2% chance of losing 0, on average with all the rerolls
5 Lascannon shots x.666 (adding in the 1 shot at 2+ to hit) = about 3.5. Wounding on 2s (S9 vs T4) = 3+ wounds. -3 AP means 5+ to save meaning usually 1 saved at the absolute most so that means 2 Dead Meganobz since D6 damage = 3.5 on average.
Unless I am mistaken that means a single Dev squad armed with Lascannons just made back half their points in a single shooting phase and that is without all the craploads of rerolls that Space Marines always have. Throw in those buffs and it is easily 3 dead Meganobz a turn, and on top of that if you have a unit of 5 and you lose 3 you now have a 1/3rd chance to lose more to morale (1/2 if you kill the boss Nob).
My point is that they lack invuln and FNP saves organically and since they are both SLOW, easy targets and soft (no saves beyond their 2+) they become prime targets for enemy units with multiple damage weapons which tend to eat through that 2+ and 3wounds easy
Even though I agree meganobz need either a good discount or a good boost your maths fail when saying that a single d6 roll is a 3.5 so every wound is a dead meganob. If you get 2 unsaved wounds you have 1/36 chance of not losing any meganobz and 19/36 of losing just one, so thats a 56% chance of not losing 2.
5 lascannons shooting and rerolling 1s (one hitting on 2) is an average of 4.037 hits, and average of 3.93 wounds, 2.64 after saves.
So... the numbers here are not exact but thats around a 19% chance of losing 3, a 58.3% chance of losing 2, 21.5% chance of losing 1 and 1.2% chance of losing 0, on average with all the rerolls
)
