koooaei wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I'd like lootas with D6 shots each and 10-12 ppm.

Such lootas would be almost 3 times more killy than autocannon havoks point-per-point. While remaining only ~1.2-1.3 times less durable. That's a glass cannon approach. Not a great thing for i-go-you-go system we currently have. For the game to be more tactical, things should actually be less killy to mitigate the most important dice roll in the game. The dice for who goes first.

I love the glass cannon approach to be honest. Which is also something that fits my second army, drukhari.

I hate highlanders and I love the idea of armored units that can be destroyed in a single turn. IMHO making orks more durable and with a better aim would kill them, the concept of orks taking lots of casualties but still in the game should be their tactics.

First turn has always been very important but I think that orks, even doubling their current shooty abilities, won't evaporate many points of enemy units by shooting. Many weapons, including lootas' ones, have crappy AP, don't cause mortal wounds and they are max 3 damage, most of the times just 1-2.

 Blackie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

I'd like lootas with D6 shots each and 10-12 ppm.

Such lootas would be almost 3 times more killy than autocannon havoks point-per-point. While remaining only ~1.2-1.3 times less durable. That's a glass cannon approach. Not a great thing for i-go-you-go system we currently have. For the game to be more tactical, things should actually be less killy to mitigate the most important dice roll in the game. The dice for who goes first.

I love the glass cannon approach to be honest. Which is also something that fits my second army, drukhari.

I hate highlanders and I love the idea of armored units that can be destroyed in a single turn. IMHO making orks more durable and with a better aim would kill them, the concept of orks taking lots of casualties but still in the game should be their tactics.

First turn has always been very important but I think that orks, even doubling their current shooty abilities, won't evaporate many points of enemy units by shooting. Many weapons, including lootas' ones, have crappy AP, don't cause mortal wounds and they are max 3 damage, most of the times just 1-2.

You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You want orks that can take lots of casualties, but are still in the game. And at the same time you want glass-cannon lootas with insane damageoutput that evaporates when the enemy coughs at them? Those are contradictions, no?

Imagine if lootas had only a single shot each (exactly half of current damage output) and were reduced in price to 8,5 points per model (exactly half of current point cost). Can we agree that lootas would then be a lot better and more viable?

I don't think a model with a boy-statline can ever be viable at more than at 10 points per model. They just become too much of a fragile glass-cannon. So in order to fix lootas/burns/tankbustas you need to reduce (not increase) their damage output, so they can be inexpensive enough to be vaiable, or alternatively they need to be able to take some regular 6 point boyz as ablative wounds. I am partial to the latter solution myself.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


End result is that even elite armies have quite a lot of models! To give orks appropriate number advantage means you are dealing with ridiculous amount of models easily. Resulting in a) expensive to collect b) time consuming to paint c) how you are supposed to fit that army into the board!

That's the exactly the points in collecting orks. To have a huge amount of models and a love for the hobby part which is not only painting stuff but also customizations and conversions (which mitigate a bit their cost in terms of money), orks collections are never finished, there's always something to add. If you're not interested into that you've chosen the wrong faction.

The board is fine, a tipycal 1850 points ork list in 7th edition worths 2500 points now, but it hadn't any problems in fitting into the board. Just make it worth 2000 points instead.

But if model count increases by say 30% that's lots of models for new players to buy and paint. Sure old guys have no problems but what about new players...GW is more interested in selling new army for new players than few additions to old guys.

As for board...Well you fit it with 2500 pts. Whatabout what amounts to old 3250 pts? How much price drop we are looking orks need? 10%? 30%? 50%? People above mentioned 50%. Imagine fitting 3750 pts army into the board. That's a lot of models.

Then GW drops price of IG, marines etc forcing yet cheaper orks to match.

I know it's not the subject, but as a new player I can confirm that. I love my orks and find stimulating to find way to "cheat" the kits (making 15 stormboyz from 2 boxes of 5 etc...) the amount of work to put in them can be a bit depressing.
Even more that I think they need more painting work than say a tactical or eldar guardian (wihich are mostly mono color).

pismakron wrote:
1) The damage output of many Ork shooting units are fine. They are just way too fragile for the cost (17-27 points per model with a 6+ save). This problem is not caused by negative hit-modifiers, and meddling about with hit-modifiers will do nothing to fix that.

The damage output is just barely enough to do their thing, -1 or even -2 to shooting makes it impossible to field lists that can kill vehicles with such a buff. How many fliers have you successfully destroyed with ork shooting in 8th? Currently my most efficient anti-air tools are combi-skorchas and kopta blades.

2) Another related problem is that some of our shooting units needs to be moving about in a transport because of 1), but they cannot hit anything when doing so because of their Heavy weapon profile. Giving Flashgitz and Lootas an assault profile instead would solve a lot of problems, and would not be overpowered in any way.

I agree on Flash Gits, Lootaz are not supposed to go into vehicles though. Making a unit useless without a transport is also questionable, since you should have fire support without transports.

3) Solving the fragility isuue is realtively straightforward: Let deffguns, burnas, rokkits and big shootas be weapon upgrades to a unit with an ordinary shoota-boy profile. Then you could either take some ablative wounds or put them all in a trukk. The same could be done with Flashgitz. Make them base 17 points with a 4+ save, and make the snazzgun a 8-10 point upgrade. We know that Nobz with ammo runts has at least acceptable durability, and that Flash Gits has somewhat acceptable shooting damage output.

Great idea! If you can put units of lootaz in the back with 7-8 of them no carrying deff gunz (and thus costing a lot less) there is also lot less incentive for enemies to take pot shots at them to reduce shooting.

4) A simple (and warranted) point reduction for Big Shootas and Rokkits to 4 and 8 points (down from 6 and 12) would help further, and so would letting the twin option cost 2x the single option (rather than costing a premium).

5) If you could take a special weapon for every 5 boyz rather than for every 10, then shootaboyz would suddenly become half-decent shooting units with some flexibility.

Mostly agree except for the dual rokkits.
Both versions are only found on pretty durable and expensive platforms. Even if kopta rokkits are just 12 points, the kopta would still clock in a 50+ points due to all the things it can do, pretty much the same for buggies and wartrakks.
I think here you would have to double the shots to 4 (for 24 points of course) get get as many rokkits for our points as we did in 7th. Twice as tough koptaz and buggies + twice as many rokkits + twice as many points(all compared to 7th) seems like a good plan for fixing them, as they weren't half-bad in the last editions.

6) I fail to see why some here think that Orks are hurt this much by negative hit-modifiers? We are perhaps the faction that can tolerate negative hit-modfiers best of all. Think about what -2 to hit would do to Imperial Guard or Tau. Or Tesla Immmortals. Even shooty Ork armies have decent melee so we will be fine. The same is true for Tyranids.

When I started common ork wisdom was "shoot the choppy and chop the shooty". There are things that need to be shot because they are either very hard or impossible to assault(fliers, eldar skimmers), hiding in the backfield (rangers, artillery, lascannons) or because it would be a bad idea to assault them (bubble wraps, flamer units, stuff that always fights first/forces you to fight last). Decent melee mostly extends to three units, which is Stormboyz, Choppa Boyz and Nobz, if we assume MANz get buffed to a decent level, those as well. All of those can easily be killed by units that actually are good in assault, like genestealers, buffed daemonettes, primarchs, daemon princes with relics, assault terminators and more. If enemy bubble wrap can no longer be shot, you are pretty much forced to assault into it, take casualties from that, watch them fall back and get gunned down. You are not going to ever reach valuable targets that way.

Both IG and Tau have ways to buff their shooting, models with great BS of up to 2 and no need to shoot at anything but the most dangerous units on the table. Not to mention the option of plasma and/or melta units they can just drop within the 12" bubble and kill their target unhindered.
A tau commander with velocity tracker can just blow a raven guard storm raven out of the sky without breaking a sweat.
Orks have literally no option to do that.

7) An exception to 6) is fliers with Airborne and Hard-to-hit. Orks can do _NOTHING_ to these fliers (and no, Stormboyz does not work). But this problem is not a general problem with negative hit-modifers, and should be solved in other ways. Like giving Orks an ability to ignore the Hard-to Hit rule, or let Rokkits do double damage to fliers, or making the tractor-gun really good.

+1 to hit when shooting fliers for tractor guns would be start. Having ork shooting units hit on 4+ like koooaei would also do a great deal for handling fliers, in the last two editions just shooting with volume of fire was good enough for anti-air.

8) And lets us not forget, that Orks has some very nice units that are largely invulnerable to shooting themselves. Getting hit by 8-15 wounds of smite a turn from our untargetable weirdboyz is no fun for non-horde players.

Yes, orks have characters that actually do jack. Is that too strong now as well?
I can already hear them crying about how Magnus, Mortarion and their malific lords cannot smite enough boyz to reach our weird boyz
No seriously, smiting weirdboyz aren't that overpowered - they tend to blow up all by themselves. When more ork shooting units become viable, the number of weirdboyz in ork armies will normalize to 1-2 instead of 6- 8.
Note that even pure CSM or DG armies without primarchs can easily generate the same amount of mortal wounds.

Hit modifiers disappeared after 2nd edition, as a result, dropping Orks down to a 5+ BS was fine and thematic. Now that hit modifiers are back, Orks need to get bumped back up to a 4+ BS, Nobz need to get better at shooting like every other character in every other faction.

Orks have been hemmed in by the fluff for way too long and it's hindering their functionality as anything but a horde army.

They could possibly give them a robust selection of auto-hit weapons and combo those to affect other things, like weapons that provide bonuses to other units firing at the same target, etc. However, this could have the effect of providing an overly simplistic targeting hierarchy to the Ork opponent, but would probably be better than allowing them to ignore entire sections of game mechanics.

As someone pointed out earlier, GW has painted themselves into a corner with Orks right now. Half their army is basically not viable and army-wide solutions to fixing that issue would have ripple effects across the entire game system.

I don't understand how Flashgitz, with how much plates they have, are 6+save. They should be minimun 5+, with a 1-2 point upgrade to go to 4+. They are the richest of the orks!

I can see a 6+ save in the basic boyz units because they are basically naked, but loota, burna boyz, and Stormboyz should probably have a 5+ save. If Catachan can have a 5+ save being naked, Orks can.

The same goes por BS4+ skill. I think the way Dawn of War did this was better, they didn't had boyz, they had Slugga Boyz and Shoota boyz. Separate the boyz unit in those two. Sluggas with +1 attack with 5+BS, and Shootas with +4 BS with -1 Attack (Make shootas probably 1 point more expensive, so 7ppm), and then use the Shoota profile for shooting based-ork units.

So all your flashgitz, Lootas, Burna boyz, etc... have -1 attack and +1 BS, and your Nobz, Mega Nobz, Kommandoes, Stormboyz, etc... have -1 BS and +1 Attack.

 koooaei wrote:
Some of our most shooty units should just be bs4. Gits are bs4 with heavy weapons. Granted they're still quite underwhelming cause they're like 40-50% overpriced, bs4 orks are still a thing. Dakkajets are bs4 if they shoot one target. Grot gunners are all bs4. I don't mind regular orks to be bs5. Suits them well for points. But dedicated shooty stuff should shoot better. And it's better done with slightly better bs than slightly larger bucket of dice when you also consider to-hit modifiers and time consumption.

If dedicated shooty stuff needs to just be better at shooting, then by that logic my Sternguard should be BS2+ and my Kataphron Destroyers should be BS3+. Also my opponent's Rangers and Dark Reapers should be BS2+.

You can't just say the unit is dedicated to shooting and therefore the platform needs a better BS. That's not how it works. You don't make special exceptions. Armies have wide around stats for a reason and in pretty much every situation they're consistent. You get a few differing (Blood Claws and their kin vs the regular Marine) but that's it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Some of our most shooty units should just be bs4. Gits are bs4 with heavy weapons. Granted they're still quite underwhelming cause they're like 40-50% overpriced, bs4 orks are still a thing. Dakkajets are bs4 if they shoot one target. Grot gunners are all bs4. I don't mind regular orks to be bs5. Suits them well for points. But dedicated shooty stuff should shoot better. And it's better done with slightly better bs than slightly larger bucket of dice when you also consider to-hit modifiers and time consumption.

If dedicated shooty stuff needs to just be better at shooting, then by that logic my Sternguard should be BS2+ and my Kataphron Destroyers should be BS3+. Also my opponent's Rangers and Dark Reapers should be BS2+.

You can't just say the unit is dedicated to shooting and therefore the platform needs a better BS. That's not how it works. You don't make special exceptions. Armies have wide around stats for a reason and in pretty much every situation they're consistent. You get a few differing (Blood Claws and their kin vs the regular Marine) but that's it.

To be honest I believe BS and WS are in general much more higher than they should. In general I think nearly everything should be rolled back 1 point. If you have basic infantry like necron warriors and guardians with 3+ that only leaves you 2+ for both elite units and ULTRA PRIMARCH OF THE DEATH.

I believe things like Tacticals, Eldar Aspect Warriors, etc... should remain 3+BS and +3 WS, but for example, SM Scouts should be 4+4+, like Sister of Battle and Necron Warriors (Conscripts should be 6+6+). Then Assault Marines should be 3+WS and 4+BS, and Devastators should be 4+WS and 3+BS, with Tacticals at 3+BS and +3 WS to better represent their training and evolution.
But this is just wishlisting, is a too big of a change to a core aspect of the game.

There's not enough sides on a D6 to precisely represent the range of units in 40K.

Martel732 wrote:
There's not enough sides on a D6 to precisely represent the range of units in 40K.

Yeah. And the 6 isn't practically used in the BS/WS attribute Plus, with that, everything becomes less deadly. So games last longer.

If only other kinds of dice existed...

Martel732 wrote:
If only other kinds of dice existed...

There have been multiple fan iterations of 40k using other kinds of dice, the ones I remember most recently being d8 and d10. However, the projects suffer from the problem of the entire game having to be rewritten mostly from scratch, which is work not many people want to do, and even fewer have done in a manner functional enough to please Dakka’s capricious standards for custom rulesets. There was at least one that seemed like a good alternative to 7e (IMO) at the time, but I don’t know how any stack up to 8th.

As for the humble d6, it has somewhat more utility that it gets credit for. Using reroll mechanics and flat modifiers you can distinguish multiple things with the same target number, in this case multiple units with the same WS or BS. Due to rerolls mainly being either area buffs that hit all or most units you took, and flat modifiers being only used to make things more difficult, this isn’t particularly evident in 8e, but it still exists.

I'm aware, but flat modifiers to a D6 are actually seismic shifts in probabilities, and make it impossible to distinguish "a little hard to hit" vs "very hard to hit".

Say on a D10, your unit hits on a 5+, you can use modifiers of -1, -2, -3 and still only be down to 50% hit rate by the time you get to -3.

pismakron wrote:
This problem is not caused by negative hit-modifiers, and meddling about with hit-modifiers will do nothing to fix that.

How could negative hit modifiers not be a huge problem? A single modifier instantly cuts the ork unit in half.

How do you balance a unit if it is literally twice as strong in game 1 as it was in game 2? If a loota is correctly balanced at 16 points, a single negative modified changes it's balance point instantly to 8.

This is a fatal problem. Should the loota be 16 or 8 points? GW can never balance that unit, because they do not know which opponent you are playing. Unless GW creates variable point values, the existence of army wide -1 to hit rules makes for an insolvable problem in pricing lootas and other shooting units.

The other issue here...if the orks are pointed at a middle ground, guess which traits your opponent will pick...the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 1300 point army or the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 2600 point army? In either case the game is simply not fun. Why do we play the game if it isn't fun?

Applying a linear modified to a geometric system is THE problem, one no amount of balancing can ever fix.

But that applies to everything. My Taus go from 4+ to 5+, losing 33% of their firepower. Should they be 33% more cheaper agaisn't Raven Guard, etc...?

No. I play around the strategy. If I need to get close, so be it. Or I play to objetives. If my army is balanced, that trait has counter play, be it hitting the things that aren't benefit from it (Eldar ignore that because Eldar), or shooting them up close. Orks are the ones that lose more with a -1 to Hit, I agree (Thats why I said that orks should have two basic stat lines). But then at the same time, even with a pure shooting ork army, they are much better at close distances and meele than IG, or Tau, heck even a Shooty space marine army is worse in Meele than a shooting ork army, so they should be the ones with less of a problem getting close and dirty.

 warhead01 wrote:
I read a few pages back that Orks were shooty in second edition.
I read that every so often in these kinds of threads. I think it would be worth the time to explain what it was about them that made them shooty and compare it to now.

Boyz were BS 3 (4+)
Nobz were BS 4 (3+)
Dreadnaughts were BS 4 (3+)
Bosses were BS 5 (2+)

Nobz Mobs (3-15) were ALL allowed to take Special or Heavy weapons
Deathskullz (lootaz) (3-10) BS 3 (4+) ALL allowed to take Heavy weapons
Stormboyz (5-20) BS 3 (4+) were ALL allowed to take Assault Weapons(which included plasma pistols and power swords) and 1 Heavy Weapon.

Ork Second Edition weapons were identical to their Imperial counterparts, not inferior

Ork Vehicles were BS 3 (4+) and had Imperial Heavy Weapons Choices

2nd Edition Orks were on Par with Imperial Guard in the shooting phase.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd Edition Nobz Mob 15 Heavy Weapons hitting on 3+
8th Edition Nobz Mob 10 Kombi Shoota variants hitting on 5+

2nd Edition Lootaz Mob 10 Lascanons hitting on 4+
8th Edition Lootaz Mob 15 Deffgun (D3 S7 AP -1) hitting on 5+

2nd Editon Dreadnaught Heavy Bolter, Heavy Flamer, and 2 Lascannons, hitting on 3+
8th Edition Dreadnaught 2 Heavy Weapons hitting on a 5+

2nd Edition Stormboyz Mob 20 Plasma Pistols hitting on 4+
8th Edition Stormboyz Mob 20 Sluggas hitting on 5+

In second edition you could bring reliable heavy weapons support for your boyz

Bad Moon Nobz were allowed to upgrade to Mega Armor (2+/5++) and carry LasCannons

pismakron wrote:



You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You want orks that can take lots of casualties, but are still in the game. And at the same time you want glass-cannon lootas with insane damageoutput that evaporates when the enemy coughs at them? Those are contradictions, no?

Imagine if lootas had only a single shot each (exactly half of current damage output) and were reduced in price to 8,5 points per model (exactly half of current point cost). Can we agree that lootas would then be a lot better and more viable?

I don't think a model with a boy-statline can ever be viable at more than at 10 points per model. They just become too much of a fragile glass-cannon. So in order to fix lootas/burns/tankbustas you need to reduce (not increase) their damage output, so they can be inexpensive enough to be vaiable, or alternatively they need to be able to take some regular 6 point boyz as ablative wounds. I am partial to the latter solution myself.

I'd like to take a horde of orks with only a few boyz, that's how I like to play them. 50-60 boyz at most. But lots of transports, bikes, artillery, etc.... that's the concept I'd like for them. A whole squad of lootas evaporated in a turn? I've lost 170ish points, I've got something else. Two trukks down in turn 1? I've got other 3-4 plus the bikes, etc. I accept that orks have t-shirt saves and fragile vehicles, I don't want them to be tougher, just the possibility to take more "toys".

I agree with you with the points reductions, I think orks should be way more cheaper than now but a cut from 17 to 8.5 points is not gonna happen. I'd also prefer lootas with a single shot and that cheap but IMHO it's not realistic. So the only way to make them viable is to reduce their cost a bit but also to buff their guns with more shots, maybe just 3 fixed shots per models, or even a random D3 AP.

In fact I don't wish better BS for the orks and the only weapons I'd like to see improved are deffguns (more shots), snazzguns (assault 6 or assault 3 and D3 damage), KMKs (AP-4 and 3 or D6 damage) and of course the KillKannon which is a joke and doesn't actually kill anything.

I remember when Orks got WS4 and BS3(4+) for the Orks Drift scenario. The one where the IG Praetorian models got released.

Just a spitball idea.
Long Uncontrolled Bursts
When a Shoota or Big Shoota hits in shooting it may roll another shot.

Galas wrote:But that applies to everything. My Taus go from 4+ to 5+, losing 33% of their firepower. Should they be 33% more cheaper agaisn't Raven Guard, etc...?

Your tau, except the commander, fire blade, shadowsun, sky rays, longstrike, hammer heads and anchored storm surge, which can all have their shooting buffed by marker lights, Kauyon, Storm of Fire or Volley Fire. You could potentially equip a commander with velocity tracker, drop him next to a Raven Guard storm raven and hit it on 2+ with two fusion blasters.
Army-wide 4+ for tau is not true, and you should know it.

Orks only buffs to shooting is Badrukk re-rolling 's for flash gits, which does not work in transports (mandatory for flash gits) and does not stack with ammo runts (also mandatory for flash gits) and ammo runts, which allows up to one re-roll for each model in the flash gits or nob units.
Badrukk, flash gits, big gunz, mek gunz and the dakka jet are the only shooting units with BS 4+, and out of those only the kannon and the zzap gun are actually good at shooting vehicles, Badruk and KMK get a higher chance to overheat and kill themselves for -1 hit modifiers.
There are zero units with BS3 and zero units with BS2.

So no, your first world problems do not compare.

No. I play around the strategy. If I need to get close, so be it.

You cannot get close because the bubble wrap has -1 to hit and you need one or two turns to get through it. I just love doing nothing but killing ravenguard scouts in turn 3 while getting shot to pieces by the hard to hit units behind them.

Or I play to objetives. If my army is balanced, that trait has counter play, be it hitting the things that aren't benefit from it (Eldar ignore that because Eldar), or shooting them up close.

This thread is about balancing orks against "half your shooting does nothing", how can you assume the army is balanced when the very problem is that it's not? When your opponent has unkillable fliers and skimmer that can just fly around unhindered and clear objectives all by themselves and then drop troops on them, how do you play the objective game?

Orks are the ones that lose more with a -1 to Hit, I agree (Thats why I said that orks should have two basic stat lines). But then at the same time, even with a pure shooting ork army, they are much better at close distances and meele than IG, or Tau, heck even a Shooty space marine army is worse in Meele than a shooting ork army, so they should be the ones with less of a problem getting close and dirty.

Unless, of course, there things like counter-charged units and bubble wrap.
Did you ever play an army that cannot field multiple units which can reliably kill targets from 48" away like tyranids, orks or daemons? It's very easy to prevent valuable things from getting charged. It's impossible to prevent valuable things from getting shot.
Since you know tau so well, I'll give you an example from a recent game how games against shooting armies work:
- Turn 1 nothing but my planes were in range to shoot anything, in return, tau shooting took out both fliers in one round of shooting despite terrible dice.
- Turn 2 I was unable to shoot the Ghostkeel that simply blew up two kanz on my flank, and had nothing in range that could charge the suit or shoot its stealth drones except the two KMB on the remaining kanz. Of course, they failed to do that. Rokkits on the rest of the army were now in range to shoot fire warriors and path finders, shootas still out of range
- Turn 3 I am taking the first shots at the tau gunline behind the fire warrior and path finder wrap, all rokkits from my army combined taking six wounds off long strike. Tau have gunned down the front line of my army by now, delaying assault another turn.
- Turn 4 One unit of kanz and a banner nob make the first and only charges of the ork army so far, failing to kill a hammerhead.

Due to the power level of tau, weak list (one of everything), lucky maelstrom objectives and the opponent having done multiple misplays I still won the game 12:5 VP. However, I didn't get to do assault until turn 5, simply because the player deployed all the way in the back, had a bubble wrap, and fed me road block units. How am I supposed to survive that against a well played army with the power level of IG or AM if I cannot rely on my shooting? There are not stat lines to blame here, that's all just basic game mechanics. If your army is sufficiently mobile you can delay assault almost all game.

4+ on shooting units would do great deal to solve many problems, including the hit modifiers, but they will not start to outshooting armies with better weaponry any time soon.

 JimOnMars wrote:

pismakron wrote:
This problem is not caused by negative hit-modifiers, and meddling about with hit-modifiers will do nothing to fix that.

How could negative hit modifiers not be a huge problem? A single modifier instantly cuts the ork unit in half.

How do you balance a unit if it is literally twice as strong in game 1 as it was in game 2? If a loota is correctly balanced at 16 points, a single negative modified changes it's balance point instantly to 8.

This is a fatal problem. Should the loota be 16 or 8 points? GW can never balance that unit, because they do not know which opponent you are playing. Unless GW creates variable point values, the existence of army wide -1 to hit rules makes for an insolvable problem in pricing lootas and other shooting units.

The other issue here...if the orks are pointed at a middle ground, guess which traits your opponent will pick...the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 1300 point army or the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 2600 point army? In either case the game is simply not fun. Why do we play the game if it isn't fun?

Applying a linear modified to a geometric system is THE problem, one no amount of balancing can ever fix.

All armies suffer from paying too much for shooting by that logic. Or is it that orks are special snowflakes so THEY deserve point break for suffering from BS modifiers but not others that also suffer from BS modifiers...

Sounds like you just want orks hitting on same roll as everybody else. Why even have different BS then? As it is BS values are too standard as well.

Armies should be different and not just me same with different models. There's other ways to fix issue than just making every army have same BS stat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Some of our most shooty units should just be bs4. Gits are bs4 with heavy weapons. Granted they're still quite underwhelming cause they're like 40-50% overpriced, bs4 orks are still a thing. Dakkajets are bs4 if they shoot one target. Grot gunners are all bs4. I don't mind regular orks to be bs5. Suits them well for points. But dedicated shooty stuff should shoot better. And it's better done with slightly better bs than slightly larger bucket of dice when you also consider to-hit modifiers and time consumption.

If dedicated shooty stuff needs to just be better at shooting, then by that logic my Sternguard should be BS2+ and my Kataphron Destroyers should be BS3+. Also my opponent's Rangers and Dark Reapers should be BS2+.

You can't just say the unit is dedicated to shooting and therefore the platform needs a better BS. That's not how it works. You don't make special exceptions. Armies have wide around stats for a reason and in pretty much every situation they're consistent. You get a few differing (Blood Claws and their kin vs the regular Marine) but that's it.

There is a certain difference between going from 3+ to 2+ and 5+ to 4+. Besides, orks have a number of units that are basically just orks (or operated by orks) but with access to higher bs. Flash gitz are bs4 base. Dakkajets get +1 bs if they shoot all their weapons at one target, blastajet's smasha gun is bs4, Meka dread is bs4. Big meks used to have access to gitfindas that gave +1 BS (but they don't now). As stated previously, ork shooting allready lags behind quite badly. There is no way of making ork shooting more stellar vs -1 to-hit armies without making it a bit too good vs armies without such modifications simply because the effectiveness of shooting drops by 50%. For example, bs3 models loose 25%. BS4 models loose 33%.

Currently there are only two options if we stick to bs5 deidicated ork shooty support units (if there is no special rule to always hit on 5+ introduced):
- Ork shooting doesn't get buffed enough to be relevant vs -1 to-hit armies. We're forced to stick with mellee options and abandon shooting because -1 to-hit armies are quite popular. I'd like to point out that 25% of the unit entries in the ork codex are range support. Marines also have around 25% of their codex as pure ranged support. If you disregard HQ, around 40% of other entries are ranged support. Mind you, i haven't included shootaboyz, bikers and other units with 50/50 shooting-to-mellee options. So, it's a subjective percentage. My point is that a lot of units in the book are shooters. That automatically loose their usefullness vs -1 to-hit armies cause you loose half of your shooting from the get go.
- Ork shooting gets buffed enough to be relevant vs -1 to-hit armies. This means it's going to be too good vs non -1 to-hit armies. Which will also lead to harsh feelings and probably an even larger influx of -1 to-hit armies cause "even orks outshoot us!".

I don't play Orks, never have. I would have no problems playing against them either way (either no modifiers to shooting, or always hitting on a 6)

It only makes sense to me that a person who had a machine gun and was just spraying bullets in another's general direction, would have the same chance to hit whether the target was standing in plain sight or camouflaged. The person shooting is not aiming either way and just filling the area with bullets.

Look, nids get a warlord trait that lets their warlord ignore to hit modifiers

I haven't played a lot of games in 8th yet, so I could definitely be wrong, but aren't Slugga Boyz really good at eating infantry bubble wrap? Whenever I've got my Boyz, even a unit of ten, into assault with T3 infantry the Boyz have wiped the floor with them. I guess I was only facing one layer of bubble wrap, so maybe if he had several squads deep he could have delayed me further.

I like the "standard" ork BS being 5 for most units, but I don't mind some exceptions and I think we need more ways to buff it. Wargear, warlord traits, special unit rules, etc.

tneva82 wrote:


All armies suffer from paying too much for shooting by that logic. Or is it that orks are special snowflakes so THEY deserve point break for suffering from BS modifiers but not others that also suffer from BS modifiers...

Sounds like you just want orks hitting on same roll as everybody else. Why even have different BS then? As it is BS values are too standard as well.

Armies should be different and not just me same with different models. There's other ways to fix issue than just making every army have same BS stat.

The concern is that the worse an armies BS the more they are effected by negative hit modifiers. Imagine we had an army that hit on 6+. With a negative modifier they would literally never hit. You could shoot infinite shots and it wouldn't matter (so shooting units would be far less likely to be taken). It wouldn't matter if the unit fired a million times and was absurdly overpowered it would still do nothing against something with a negative modifier.

The worse somethings ballistic skill the more it is impacted by negative hit modifiers. Space marines shooting something with -1 to hit need to fire 33% more shots to cause the same amount of damage (on average). Orks on the other hand need to fire twice as much (because they hit half as much going from 5+ to hit to 6+). The perspective of some people here is that having your shooting units hitting half as often (shooting against raven guard compared to ultramarines for example) means that they will either be overpowered against certain armies (ie ultramarines) or underpowered versus the other (raven guard). Halving the effectiveness of shooting is seen as a really big change (the equivalent to a 4+ invulnerable save against everything) and effectively makes playing shooting orcs against a -1 to hit army feel like playing scissors against rock. A number of the ork units are designed to be shooty and are getting worse over time as more armies come out with -1 to hit. This contributes to people ignoring the ork shooty units because they are half as effective against others. This means ork armies are likely to be much more one dimensional and just swarms of melee units with the shooting units ignored. This is why people are coming up with suggestions such as guaranteed hits or resistance to hit modifiers.

To the people complaining that always hitting on 5+ would negate army traits. We now have a precedent in the tyranid trait giving an army wide cover save being negated by iron warriors/imperial fists trait to ignore cover. GW is apparently ok with this in some situations.

I think those complaints are frankly absurd. Starting at a baseline of 5+ is already very poor for the Ork player. I've had few issues with Orks playing red marines with NO CHAPTER TACTICS at all. There is nothing more thematic than to-hit penalties not affecting an army that clearly doesn't bother to aim.

I'd like to see a bit of both sides. I think our speshulists (lootas, tank bustas, etc) get 3+ or 4+ BS but are affected by modifiers as normal, and our spray and pray units (shoota boyz, bikers, Nob mobs, and the like) get the 5+ unmodified. This way, our best gunz are still bothered by enemy army traits, but nothing is totally shut down.

Edit: I would love to see options for kommandos to be shooty or choppy. Something like an option to lose the extra attack and maybe reduce WS in exchange for better BS and access to shootas and maybe more heavy weapons.

Luna__7 wrote:

The worse somethings ballistic skill the more it is impacted by negative hit modifiers. Space marines shooting something with -1 to hit need to fire 33% more shots to cause the same amount of damage (on average).

25%. It's 33% for guards.

malcontent999 wrote:
To the people complaining that always hitting on 5+ would negate army traits. We now have a precedent in the tyranid trait giving an army wide cover save being negated by iron warriors/imperial fists trait to ignore cover. GW is apparently ok with this in some situations.

I also think that's an issue as well.

A nice way to fix this is to simply halve the effectiveness of modifiers. If we swapped rolling to hit and wound and saves with D12s mapped to the correct numbers, we can halve the % effect of modifiers to make them important but not so effective as to make things literally unhitable.

Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ right now to hit, wound or save would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+

This would keep the base percentages the same while reducing the impact of modifiers but not making them totally meaningless.

tneva82 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

pismakron wrote:
This problem is not caused by negative hit-modifiers, and meddling about with hit-modifiers will do nothing to fix that.

How could negative hit modifiers not be a huge problem? A single modifier instantly cuts the ork unit in half.

How do you balance a unit if it is literally twice as strong in game 1 as it was in game 2? If a loota is correctly balanced at 16 points, a single negative modified changes it's balance point instantly to 8.

This is a fatal problem. Should the loota be 16 or 8 points? GW can never balance that unit, because they do not know which opponent you are playing. Unless GW creates variable point values, the existence of army wide -1 to hit rules makes for an insolvable problem in pricing lootas and other shooting units.

The other issue here...if the orks are pointed at a middle ground, guess which traits your opponent will pick...the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 1300 point army or the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 2600 point army? In either case the game is simply not fun. Why do we play the game if it isn't fun?

Applying a linear modified to a geometric system is THE problem, one no amount of balancing can ever fix.

All armies suffer from paying too much for shooting by that logic. Or is it that orks are special snowflakes so THEY deserve point break for suffering from BS modifiers but not others that also suffer from BS modifiers...

Sounds like you just want orks hitting on same roll as everybody else. Why even have different BS then? As it is BS values are too standard as well.

Armies should be different and not just me same with different models. There's other ways to fix issue than just making every army have same BS stat.

Total ignorance. Marines lose 25 precent of their shooting with -1. Guard and tau and nids lose 33. Orks lose 50 precent. Does it sound fair an army trait should lower the value of your shooting units 50 precent. What about hard to hit flyers with stupid firepower. Marines hit them half as much, but at least CAN destroy them if they absolutley need them dead. Orks cannot even shoot at it, period. You cant just look at what else is in the potential codex. Oh they are still good in melee. Well so is a dedicated space wolf build with dreads and riders and what have you. They can choose to bring all assault too.

Half the index entries are dedicated shooting. You are saying you are ok with half the codex being unplayable in situations, not "poor choices" but unplayable. And stop with the snowflake buzzword bs. Legitimate issues are not snowflake complaints. It just makes you look like a hater.

 Blackie wrote:
But that would be a SM profile. Orks models with 1W should always have 6+ save and bs5+ IMHO

Your opinion is wrong and does not match with the lore, where there's a number of Ork Boyz that wear "'Eavy Armor" that in previous editions counted as a 4+ save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
And stop with the snowflake buzzword bs. Legitimate issues are not snowflake complaints. It just makes you look like a hater.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 Orock wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

pismakron wrote:
This problem is not caused by negative hit-modifiers, and meddling about with hit-modifiers will do nothing to fix that.

How could negative hit modifiers not be a huge problem? A single modifier instantly cuts the ork unit in half.

How do you balance a unit if it is literally twice as strong in game 1 as it was in game 2? If a loota is correctly balanced at 16 points, a single negative modified changes it's balance point instantly to 8.

This is a fatal problem. Should the loota be 16 or 8 points? GW can never balance that unit, because they do not know which opponent you are playing. Unless GW creates variable point values, the existence of army wide -1 to hit rules makes for an insolvable problem in pricing lootas and other shooting units.

The other issue here...if the orks are pointed at a middle ground, guess which traits your opponent will pick...the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 1300 point army or the one that turns your 2000 point army into a 2600 point army? In either case the game is simply not fun. Why do we play the game if it isn't fun?

Applying a linear modified to a geometric system is THE problem, one no amount of balancing can ever fix.

All armies suffer from paying too much for shooting by that logic. Or is it that orks are special snowflakes so THEY deserve point break for suffering from BS modifiers but not others that also suffer from BS modifiers...

Sounds like you just want orks hitting on same roll as everybody else. Why even have different BS then? As it is BS values are too standard as well.

Armies should be different and not just me same with different models. There's other ways to fix issue than just making every army have same BS stat.

Total ignorance. Marines lose 25 precent of their shooting with -1. Guard and tau and nids lose 33. Orks lose 50 precent. Does it sound fair an army trait should lower the value of your shooting units 50 precent. What about hard to hit flyers with stupid firepower. Marines hit them half as much, but at least CAN destroy them if they absolutley need them dead. Orks cannot even shoot at it, period. You cant just look at what else is in the potential codex. Oh they are still good in melee. Well so is a dedicated space wolf build with dreads and riders and what have you. They can choose to bring all assault too.

Half the index entries are dedicated shooting. You are saying you are ok with half the codex being unplayable in situations, not "poor choices" but unplayable. And stop with the snowflake buzzword bs. Legitimate issues are not snowflake complaints. It just makes you look like a hater.

Unplayable? -2 to shooting is a super rare occurrence.

Okay, folks. I don't have access to all the new codices. How many units exactly are stacking to -2? Not that -1 isn't awful for Orks to begin with. Because D6.

The first time your unit of 30 boyz gets charged by stygies dragoons because they are minus 2 to shoot at range and get wiped to the model ypu will remember.

Lets not forget tau are on the way and could well have a homeworld with the -1 to hit. How about stealth suits that you cant shoot under any circumstances as orks. I would run a crapload of stealth suits at -2 to hit.

 Orock wrote:
The first time your unit of 30 boyz gets charged by stygies dragoons because they are minus 2 to shoot at range and get wiped to the model ypu will remember.

Lets not forget tau are on the way and could well have a homeworld with the -1 to hit. How about stealth suits that you cant shoot under any circumstances as orks. I would run a crapload of stealth suits at -2 to hit.

Yep. It's pretty typical that most non-ork players don't mind fighting an opponent who is forced (through no fault of their own) to be bs 7+. Pretty dang typical.

The -1 to hit modifiers shouldn't stack with each other at all, really.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Orock wrote:
The first time your unit of 30 boyz gets charged by stygies dragoons because they are minus 2 to shoot at range and get wiped to the model ypu will remember.

Lets not forget tau are on the way and could well have a homeworld with the -1 to hit. How about stealth suits that you cant shoot under any circumstances as orks. I would run a crapload of stealth suits at -2 to hit.

Yep. It's pretty typical that most non-ork players don't mind fighting an opponent who is forced (through no fault of their own) to be bs 7+. Pretty dang typical.

Just had a game the other day with deep striking alpha legion obliterators who landed near changling. Thats another -2. Eldar fighters can be-2. Eldar rangers. Even if we leave out things like these that are completely protected at range, is it fair for a no points cost ability to reduce enemy firepower by 50 precent? What if orks got an army wide -1 to hit them in melee. What if a unit that could be 30 strong, teleport next to you rerolling charges with 3 or 4 attacks each could then spend a command point to make that -2 till next turn. Would that be fair? Probably not to tau, doubt guard would have fun either, or most tyranids now hitting on 6's. Kind of dumb for a melee army to suddenly hit on 6.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, folks. I don't have access to all the new codices. How many units exactly are stacking to -2? Not that -1 isn't awful for Orks to begin with. Because D6.

Just from the top of my head:
- Raven guard fliers and vehicles with smoke launchers
- Ultra marine fliers buffed by Tigurius
- Wave Sperpents, Vypers and Rangers either Alaitoc or with Warlock power
- Ghostkeel
- DG land raiders and rhinos using their smoke launchers buffed with cloud of flies
- AM fliers and smoke launcher vehicles buffed with nightshroud

Basically whenever a "natural" -1 to hit meets an army wide rule or a buff that does the same. It's pretty easy to make fliers or transports with deadly cargo immune to ork shooting.

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Okay, folks. I don't have access to all the new codices. How many units exactly are stacking to -2? Not that -1 isn't awful for Orks to begin with. Because D6.

Just from the top of my head:
- Raven guard fliers and vehicles with smoke launchers
- Ultra marine fliers buffed by Tigurius
- Wave Sperpents, Vypers and Rangers either Alaitoc or with Warlock power
- Ghostkeel
- DG land raiders and rhinos using their smoke launchers buffed with cloud of flies
- AM fliers and smoke launcher vehicles buffed with nightshroud

Basically whenever a "natural" -1 to hit meets an army wide rule or a buff that does the same. It's pretty easy to make fliers or transports with deadly cargo immune to ork shooting.

1. Raven Guard fliers and vehicles don't get the -1 to hit in the first place.
2. The Death Guard example requires a Strategem to use on ONE unit.
3. The Imperial Guard example requires a Psyker power to go off on ONE unit.
4. The Tiggy one is an okay example but each unit needs to be 6" away from him. Fliers need to constantly move so not much to say on that.

So most of your examples are non-issues and literally you not knowing rules and therefore complaining to complain.

Also the fact orks even with -1 can't advance and shoot with their assualt weapons. A loota can't even just move because it has heavy weapons. So their -1 has just negated the entire point of having assualt weapons. We might as well be rapid fire at that point while other factions can move advance and all sorts yet still fire tgeir none assault weapons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Raven Guard fliers and vehicles don't get the -1 to hit in the first place.
2. The Death Guard example requires a Strategem to use on ONE unit.
3. The Imperial Guard example requires a Psyker power to go off on ONE unit.
4. The Tiggy one is an okay example but each unit needs to be 6" away from him. Fliers need to constantly move so not much to say on that.

So most of your examples are non-issues and literally you not knowing rules and therefore complaining to complain.

Sure, raven guard was a mistake, all other were correct. Your definition of "most" is not what "most" people agree on what "most" means.

I'd pay all the CP I have to make a battlewagon with Thrakka, Grotznik, and unit of nobz invulnerable to shooting for a turn. DG can do just that to a land raider or rhino. Also to predators, but that's objectively pretty useless.

The Tigurius example was used by the very list that won the Heat tournament.

So all other examples are viable - how many units in the game can literally not be shot by any space marines, tau or IG?

 Orock wrote:

Total ignorance. Marines lose 25 precent of their shooting with -1. Guard and tau and nids lose 33. Orks lose 50 precent. Does it sound fair an army trait should lower the value of your shooting units 50 precent. What about hard to hit flyers with stupid firepower. Marines hit them half as much, but at least CAN destroy them if they absolutley need them dead. Orks cannot even shoot at it, period. You cant just look at what else is in the potential codex. Oh they are still good in melee. Well so is a dedicated space wolf build with dreads and riders and what have you. They can choose to bring all assault too.

Half the index entries are dedicated shooting. You are saying you are ok with half the codex being unplayable in situations, not "poor choices" but unplayable. And stop with the snowflake buzzword bs. Legitimate issues are not snowflake complaints. It just makes you look like a hater.

Total immunity isnt' good and that's why game wise always hits on 6 would be good. But idea that orks should just ignore modifiers is stupid idea.

And no half the index ISN'T dedicated to shooting. Don't twist and lie. I have big as hell ork army so don't try to claim something that isn't even true. Unless you of course go for stupid idea that different mek guns count as different entries but on that logic I say nob with power klaw is different to nob with big choppa.

Only change needed is universal 6 to hit rule and point tweaks. Do that and issues comes away. My orks do just fine shooting wise as it is provided I don't run into -2 to hit(and yes that is problem. 100% incapabability is bad. That's why universal 6 to hit should be. Universal because orks shouldn't be special snowflakes while leaving other BS5+ guys suffering).

You're clearly racist against Orks.

Other than conscripts, what other BS 5 units are there, that see any use on the tabletop ?

Also, your argument has broken down to it's unfair that Orks get immunity to negative modifiers because it would diminish the units that have negatives to hit, but you are advocating a change to tje core rules, which is less likely to happen, that would give every unit in the game a blanket cap to those same rules, diminishing those units verses everything in the game, while still leaving them crippling against Orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, the simplest and best solution to all these problems is to make Orks BS 4 again.

Orks would be no worse off verses negative modifiers than most armies, they'd become more competitive, and they wouldn't be overcosted anymore.

The only other faction that uses 5+ to hit units to any serious extent is guard with conscripts. There are some units with lower to-hit than that but a lot of them don't even have ranged weapons to begin with.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Raven Guard fliers and vehicles don't get the -1 to hit in the first place.
2. The Death Guard example requires a Strategem to use on ONE unit.
3. The Imperial Guard example requires a Psyker power to go off on ONE unit.
4. The Tiggy one is an okay example but each unit needs to be 6" away from him. Fliers need to constantly move so not much to say on that.

So most of your examples are non-issues and literally you not knowing rules and therefore complaining to complain.

Sure, raven guard was a mistake, all other were correct. Your definition of "most" is not what "most" people agree on what "most" means.

I'd pay all the CP I have to make a battlewagon with Thrakka, Grotznik, and unit of nobz invulnerable to shooting for a turn. DG can do just that to a land raider or rhino. Also to predators, but that's objectively pretty useless.

The Tigurius example was used by the very list that won the Heat tournament.

So all other examples are viable - how many units in the game can literally not be shot by any space marines, tau or IG?

Pretty sure Wave Serpents don't get -1 to hit also. Overall, I think that these things should stack in only the rarest of situations (like Ghostkeels, that's the gimmick)

we can probably dial it down a wee bit yeah ?

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Raven Guard fliers and vehicles don't get the -1 to hit in the first place.
2. The Death Guard example requires a Strategem to use on ONE unit.
3. The Imperial Guard example requires a Psyker power to go off on ONE unit.
4. The Tiggy one is an okay example but each unit needs to be 6" away from him. Fliers need to constantly move so not much to say on that.

So most of your examples are non-issues and literally you not knowing rules and therefore complaining to complain.

Sure, raven guard was a mistake, all other were correct. Your definition of "most" is not what "most" people agree on what "most" means.

I'd pay all the CP I have to make a battlewagon with Thrakka, Grotznik, and unit of nobz invulnerable to shooting for a turn. DG can do just that to a land raider or rhino. Also to predators, but that's objectively pretty useless.

The Tigurius example was used by the very list that won the Heat tournament.

So all other examples are viable - how many units in the game can literally not be shot by any space marines, tau or IG?

1. It also proves how ignorant you are for the other side of the argument. You can't prove a point if you have to make stuff up. Speaking of which, Cloud Of Flies has nothing to do with this either. So knock that one off too. So no, your post isn't really correct.
2. So don't shoot the Astra flier or vehicle? How many smoke launched vehicles from the IG are you afraid of when they get the power once per turn? This is a silly complaint.
3. You don't even have your codex out yet. Who knows what Strategems you're going to be getting?
4. Post the Ultramarines list then. Let's see how much of a bonus the -2 to hit comes into play.

So you not only can't name a lot of units or armies, you also made stuff up. Great chatting with ya.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. Raven Guard fliers and vehicles don't get the -1 to hit in the first place.
2. The Death Guard example requires a Strategem to use on ONE unit.
3. The Imperial Guard example requires a Psyker power to go off on ONE unit.
4. The Tiggy one is an okay example but each unit needs to be 6" away from him. Fliers need to constantly move so not much to say on that.

So most of your examples are non-issues and literally you not knowing rules and therefore complaining to complain.

Sure, raven guard was a mistake, all other were correct. Your definition of "most" is not what "most" people agree on what "most" means.

I'd pay all the CP I have to make a battlewagon with Thrakka, Grotznik, and unit of nobz invulnerable to shooting for a turn. DG can do just that to a land raider or rhino. Also to predators, but that's objectively pretty useless.

The Tigurius example was used by the very list that won the Heat tournament.

So all other examples are viable - how many units in the game can literally not be shot by any space marines, tau or IG?

Pretty sure Wave Serpents don't get -1 to hit also. Overall, I think that these things should stack in only the rarest of situations (like Ghostkeels, that's the gimmick)

No, Serpents don't have that either.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. It also proves how ignorant you are for the other side of the argument. You can't prove a point if you have to make stuff up. Speaking of which, Cloud Of Flies has nothing to do with this either. So knock that one off too. So no, your post isn't really correct.

Which part of "from the top of my head" did you not get? Obviously I'm not carrying all my codices everywhere, and despite my obvious incompetence of memorizing rules of armies I don't play, someone gave me a job which at least requires me to act like I'm working.
So sorry, it was the psychic power Miamasma of Pestilence, while Cloud of Flies only does something vaguely similar. Which totally makes everything I have written ever incorrect.
No wait, you're just being a donkeycave because you already knew the first time around.

2. So don't shoot the Astra flier or vehicle? How many smoke launched vehicles from the IG are you afraid of when they get the power once per turn? This is a silly complaint.

Of course I don't shoot it. I can't hit it, genius!
You don't need to be afraid of something for it to be good. No one was afraid of conscripts with commissars. If anything you're the one being silly if you discount invulnerable vehicles blocking movement pathes, holding objectives and preventing charges. You can drive a smoked and shrouded vehicle straight into a full strength tank busta mob and either force them to waste a ton of movement on getting around it or force them to charge it and lose a turn. Try doing that with hellblasters or fire dragons.

3. You don't even have your codex out yet. Who knows what Strategems you're going to be getting?

I'll bet my hat that there won't be one making any of my battle wagons invulnerable to shooting.

4. Post the Ultramarines list then. Let's see how much of a bonus the -2 to hit comes into play.

Go find it yourself.
It was played by Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics as the winning list in one of the heat tournaments. Might also have success in one of those threads fighting about whether tactical marines suck.
Hint. He wasn't buffing those tacticals or Roboute Guilliman.

So you not only can't name a lot of units or armies, you also made stuff up. Great chatting with ya.

argumentum ad hominem do not win arguments, they make you look like a fool.

 Jidmah wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
1. It also proves how ignorant you are for the other side of the argument. You can't prove a point if you have to make stuff up. Speaking of which, Cloud Of Flies has nothing to do with this either. So knock that one off too. So no, your post isn't really correct.

Which part of "from the top of my head" did you not get? Obviously I'm not carrying all my codices everywhere, and despite my obvious incompetence of memorizing rules of armies I don't play, someone gave me a job which at least requires me to act like I'm working.
So sorry, it was the psychic power Miamasma of Pestilence, while Cloud of Flies only does something vaguely similar. Which totally makes everything I have written ever incorrect.
No wait, you're just being a donkeycave because you already knew the first time around.

2. So don't shoot the Astra flier or vehicle? How many smoke launched vehicles from the IG are you afraid of when they get the power once per turn? This is a silly complaint.

Of course I don't shoot it. I can't hit it, genius!
You don't need to be afraid of something for it to be good. No one was afraid of conscripts with commissars. If anything you're the one being silly if you discount invulnerable vehicles blocking movement pathes, holding objectives and preventing charges. You can drive a smoked and shrouded vehicle straight into a full strength tank busta mob and either force them to waste a ton of movement on getting around it or force them to charge it and lose a turn. Try doing that with hellblasters or fire dragons.

3. You don't even have your codex out yet. Who knows what Strategems you're going to be getting?

I'll bet my hat that there won't be one making any of my battle wagons invulnerable to shooting.

4. Post the Ultramarines list then. Let's see how much of a bonus the -2 to hit comes into play.

Go find it yourself.
It was played by Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics as the winning list in one of the heat tournaments. Might also have success in one of those threads fighting about whether tactical marines suck.
Hint. He wasn't buffing those tacticals or Roboute Guilliman.

So you not only can't name a lot of units or armies, you also made stuff up. Great chatting with ya.

argumentum ad hominem do not win arguments, they make you look like a fool.

1. Cloud of Flies doesn't even have close to a vaguely similar effect. Did you read the codex or even the leaks at minimum?
Using your job as an excuse is a no-go to me. I do a bare minimum of recollection if I'm sure I don't have anything memorized. Incorrect information is worse than the absence of knowledge, if you understand that point.
Also I said most of the things you said were incorrect. The Wraith flying thing and Rangers get a -2, you got Tiggy...and that's about the only armies you can create with that bonus. Anything else is maybe 1-2 units per turn. Yeah, SUPER broken.

2. IG don't have a flier worth casting on in the first place based off the damage they do. So if the flier is -2 to hit, who cares? Marines were likely not shooting it in the first place.
Actually I can discount them because any screening unit is gonna be mediocre at shooting and assault. So I couldn't care less if that invulnerable Rhino charged my Scouts. Difference there is you have much cheaper screening units and they want to be in melee. Just because they have shooting options doesn't mean Orks should be played as a gunline with no screening. I don't understand how your Tank Bustaz ended up like that. They have a 24" range don't they?
Also people WERE afraid of Conscripts with a Commisar because they were that good. You couldn't reach the good stuff with a melee army because most units can't kill Conscripts efficiently for the points, or if they did they were mostly glass cannons that, if they failed that job, would have their target fall back and then get shot up.

3. Not everyone needs a strategy like that, hence why not everyone gets one.

4. You mean the list everyone clamored to as proof that Tactical Marines were good, only for the next two tournaments for them to show up in the most minimal numbers? Oh I know the list. I know the list very well as a matter of fact.
There was a singular Storm Raven (which is always moving a foot at minimum) and Razorbacks can't shoot if they use their smoke launchers, which they wouldn't because that means they'd have deployed behind Tiggy and had to advance ahead of him while simultaneously all staying 6" away from him.

5. You DID make stuff up. Wave Serpents never had a natural -1 to begin with, Space Marines never had Chapter Tactics in their vehicles for whatever reason, and you get upset as though the IG/DG examples were being used in multiple units like those last two false examples.
You can't blame me for being annoyed at your posts.

Well orks like to punch things so I guess the best solution is go faster for now.

Yeah, maybe instead of buffing their BS, give choppy Orks faster Movement stat (6 for Slugga boys?) and an extra D6 of charge distance, and give the shooty orks a better save (3+ for Flash Gitz, 4+ for Lootas). This, together with the inevitable (I hope!) point reduction of vehicles and transports should be enough.

Doesn't solve the problem of untargetable units those, but those are pretty rare.

Untargetable units are only going to get more common. I expect most factions to get a <> with the -1 to hit tactic, and with everyone but spehss mahreens getting their tactics on everything that means everyone's fliers are gonna be -2 to hit.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Untargetable units are only going to get more common. I expect most factions to get a <> with the -1 to hit tactic, and with everyone but spehss mahreens getting their tactics on everything that means everyone's fliers are gonna be -2 to hit.

Hhopefully not that common. Tyranids didn't get one. On that predecense maybe not orks. Maybe GW is not giving them to horde armies.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Blood Axes get the RG tactic, actually. It's been given to all the stealthiest subfactions, which certainly fits the Blood Axes' MO.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the Blood Axes get the RG tactic, actually. It's been given to all the stealthiest subfactions, which certainly fits the Blood Axes' MO.

And tyranids could easily fit fluffwise as well. Maybe GW didn't do that for balance reasons and blood axes get the tyranid "always in cover" version.

RULE #1 IS BE POLITE.

AND IT IS MANDATORY.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
5. You DID make stuff up. Wave Serpents never had a natural -1 to begin with, Space Marines never had Chapter Tactics in their vehicles for whatever reason, and you get upset as though the IG/DG examples were being used in multiple units like those last two false examples.
You can't blame me for being annoyed at your posts.

You're right, I can't blame you for getting annoyed with a wildly inaccurate post. Let's (both) just be more polite about this next time.

In any case, it was a response to someone asking about what units can get -2 to hit in the first place and it was a simple list, with only the raven guard and alaitoc army-wide traits being completely wrong for vehicles.
I'm actually just as worried about -1 everywhere as about the units I cannot shoot at all.

 Melissia wrote:


Your opinion is wrong and does not match with the lore, where there's a number of Ork Boyz that wear "'Eavy Armor" that in previous editions counted as a 4+ save.

Actually there was only one unit of boyz with a 4+ save, they were elites in 3rd edition and regular troops later. And, I have to admit, I've never like them so my opinion can be biased about that.

But boyz with a 4+ have never been the norm, in the previous editions boyz with 'eavy armor were 10 ppm, they cost almost twice compared regular boyz. An upgrade from 6+ to 4+ save would not be for free and I think orks are already overcosted, there's no need to make them more expensive just to give them some armor which IMHO won't solve anything.

Armor may suit elites, not troops. It matches better with nobz and flash gitz.

I think the proportion: 2 boyz cost as much as one tac marine should apply to all orks units so deff dreads should be half the point of SM dreads, a trukk half the point of a rhino, etc... Lootas are not overcosted IMHO, I think it's appropriate that they cost 3 times and ork boy but their weapons should fire more shots or have a better AP. With the current profile they need a price reduction instead.

 Blackie wrote:
Actually there was only one unit of boyz with a 4+ save

'Ard Boyz existed as an upgrade to standard boyz up until 8th edition, as well as an upgrade to nobz and HQs.

You can argue it was never a GOOD upgrade, but the same can be said of a lot of upgrades that are still available. The answer to an upgrade being bad in gameplay isn't to remove it, it's to make it good, otherwise we'll remove all upgrades save the best one and then just say screw it and make that default, so that you have no other upgrades.

Or, in other words, yes, 'eavy armor was overcosted. So it should have had its points cost reduced so that it was useful, but still had a tradeoff. But arguing it didn't exist just demonstrates your ignorance of Orks, because it did exist.

40K Orks need Black Orks. Nobz are just a sad copycat.

 Galas wrote:
40K Orks need Black Orks. Nobz are just a sad copycat.

I’ve always seen Nobz as a fairly decent copy over. Are you talking game mechanics or lore?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:

 Galas wrote:
40K Orks need Black Orks. Nobz are just a sad copycat.

I’ve always seen Nobz as a fairly decent copy over. Are you talking game mechanics or lore?

Lore, and to be honest, Aesthetics. But I'm biased. Black Orcs are alongside Krell Lord of Undead and Chaos Warriors my top 3 of all time favourite GW miniatures, with Bel'Akor in top 4

 Galas wrote:
40K Orks need Black Orks. Nobz are just a sad copycat.

You're gonna need to explain this because I don't play Sigmar.

Could they make is so that 6s always hit? Can you think of a problem that could arise with that rule?
Sorry if you talked about that, I'm to lazy to read whole thread.

Well. In one hand, you have this brutal sub-race of Greenskins, breed to be the perfect war machines by their tyranical Chaos Dwarf lords, that did a rebellion agaisn't their masters nearly destroying their empire, and becoming one of the most powerfull type of warriors in the known world. To the point where the Black Orc character headbutted the final bad of the setting.

In the other hand you have Nobzs that are... slighly bigger orks and a little more serious. And I'm pretty sure theres not a chance of Ghaz'kull headbutting a Chaos Primarch, not even Abaddon.

But this comes down to the fact, that I find Greenskins of Fantasy a much better army than Orks of 40k. Much more interesting, well rounded and with much more variety.
And I think thats the problem with Orks. If Gretchins where like Goblins in Fantasy, where they form half of the actual greenskin army, they could have the weight of the shooting power of the Orks, like they do in fantasy.

Azhday wrote:
Could they make is so that 6s always hit? Can you think of a problem that could arise with that rule?
Sorry if you talked about that, I'm to lazy to read whole thread.

Yeah, I think everybody agrees that one should be a core-rule, like a 6 always wound.

Yes, give me Grot snipers please.

(And bomb squig hoppers!)

 Galas wrote:
Well. In one hand, you have this brutal sub-race of Greenskins, breed to be the perfect war machines by their tyranical Chaos Dwarf lords, that did a rebellion agaisn't their masters nearly destroying their empire, and becoming one of the most powerfull type of warriors in the known world. To the point where the Black Orc character headbutted the final bad of the setting.

In the other hand you have Nobzs that are... slighly bigger orks and a little more serious. And I'm pretty sure theres not a chance of Ghaz'kull headbutting a Chaos Primarch, not even Abaddon.

But this comes down to the fact, that I find Greenskins of Fantasy a much better army than Orks of 40k. Much more interesting, well rounded and with much more variety.
And I think thats the problem with Orks. If Gretchins where like Goblins in Fantasy, where they form half of the actual greenskin army, they could have the weight of the shooting power of the Orks, like they do in fantasy.

Azhday wrote:
Could they make is so that 6s always hit? Can you think of a problem that could arise with that rule?
Sorry if you talked about that, I'm to lazy to read whole thread.

Yeah, I think everybody agrees that one should be a core-rule, like a 6 always wound.

Amen to that. I feel the same way and I kinda wish there was more of a way to reflect the inner dichotomy of Orkish society similar to how WHFB did so well with Orcs and Gobbos. They even had the Size Matters rule, where other units wouldn't panic if they were "bigger" than the other Greenskins that were fleeing.

Ork Nobz to me always felt closer to the Big Bosses of WHFB, given their size and stats. I think a better analogue for Black Orcs if we wanted an equivalent in 40K would to bring back Skarboyz, which were the in-between spot between normal Boyz and Nobz. Before the change to boyz having S4 in 8th ed, Skarboyz basically were slightly bigger and stronger so they had S4 rather than S3 like Boyz in previous editions. I think they also had some form of FNP to represent their "battle skars" and how they were calloused and tough.

Skarboyz could effectively replace 'ard boyz in that regard, maybe make them S5 base and have 5+ or 4+ armour to represent their greater toughness and pecking order in having better armour than the ladz. Giving them weapon uprade options like Big Choppas could also reflect the options that Black Orcs had between choppas and great weapons.

tneva82 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Untargetable units are only going to get more common. I expect most factions to get a <> with the -1 to hit tactic, and with everyone but spehss mahreens getting their tactics on everything that means everyone's fliers are gonna be -2 to hit.

Hhopefully not that common. Tyranids didn't get one. On that predecense maybe not orks. Maybe GW is not giving them to horde armies.

Tyranids don't need a -1 to hit trait. They have a unit called a Venomthrope that grants -1 to hit aura. Just as daemons have a Changeling that grants a -1 to hit aura. Two of the horde armies already have -1 to hit access before even getting a codex.

Oh if the new spore cysts stack with the new Venomthrope rules then a Tyranid Carnifex will be -2 to shoot at.

 Arkaine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Untargetable units are only going to get more common. I expect most factions to get a <> with the -1 to hit tactic, and with everyone but spehss mahreens getting their tactics on everything that means everyone's fliers are gonna be -2 to hit.

Hhopefully not that common. Tyranids didn't get one. On that predecense maybe not orks. Maybe GW is not giving them to horde armies.

Tyranids don't need a -1 to hit trait. They have a unit called a Venomthrope that grants -1 to hit aura. Just as daemons have a Changeling that grants a -1 to hit aura. Two of the horde armies already have -1 to hit access before even getting a codex.

Oh if the new spore cysts stack with the new Venomthrope rules then a Tyranid Carnifex will be -2 to shoot at.

Sad face. Too bad squads of tankbustas and lootas that are 1.1 inches away from that carnifex will not be allowed to shoot at it, because rules.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Untargetable units are only going to get more common. I expect most factions to get a <> with the -1 to hit tactic, and with everyone but spehss mahreens getting their tactics on everything that means everyone's fliers are gonna be -2 to hit.

Hhopefully not that common. Tyranids didn't get one. On that predecense maybe not orks. Maybe GW is not giving them to horde armies.

Tyranids don't need a -1 to hit trait. They have a unit called a Venomthrope that grants -1 to hit aura. Just as daemons have a Changeling that grants a -1 to hit aura. Two of the horde armies already have -1 to hit access before even getting a codex.

Oh if the new spore cysts stack with the new Venomthrope rules then a Tyranid Carnifex will be -2 to shoot at.

Sad face. Too bad squads of tankbustas and lootas that are 1.1 inches away from that carnifex will not be allowed to shoot at it, because rules.

Hopefully they won't stack.

I suppose for now the obvious answer (besides "wait for our codex and pray to Gork and/or Mork for some shiny rules of our own") is to smash anything with -2 to hit the proppa Orky way, up close and personal like.

I'm not actually convinced this is such a big deal in practice. Even units with BS 4+ are only hitting on 6's so we're not the only ones that are in trouble. Frankly, not too many armies are going to look at something with a -2 to hit modifier vs shooting and think "shooting that thing is the answer", marines don't put out enough volume of fire to overcome a 5+ to hit for example. Admittedly a 17% or a 33% chance to hit is a different kettle of fish entirely from 0% chance to hit, but Boyz have the close combat power to compensate that, say, Guard for the most part simply don't. Guard needing 6's to hit something basically means they don't have anything that can deal with it, whereas for us it just means that plan B ("dakka") is off the table, while plan A ("krump 'em") still works just fine.

Aside from that, between big/mek guns, kans, dakka jets, grots, and gitz, there's a fair amount of stuff in the codex that has BS 4+ if you really, really want that 6+ to hit vs a -2 modifier, just to say that you can theoretically shoot it.

Eh, the -1 to hits are a big deal. The game wasn't balanced around them. These models weren't priced according to how durable they become when made impossible to shoot at. Alpha Legion marines are more durable than Renegade marines at no additional point cost.

Flyers I can understand. They have -1 to hit and were priced accordingly. But all these auras and legion rules are tacking on bonuses that the game was not built to handle, as the Ork problem is demonstrating. Chaos Lords giving things reroll 1s is at least somewhat fair in that you paid for the model, like buying a psychic power in old editions or some neat aura-based artifact.

It's a big deal but it is what it is.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Sad face. Too bad squads of tankbustas and lootas that are 1.1 inches away from that carnifex will not be allowed to shoot at it, because rules.

At least in the previews it says that the Carnifex upgrade simulates the Venomtrope clouds, so chances are pretty good of them not stacking.

 Jidmah wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Sad face. Too bad squads of tankbustas and lootas that are 1.1 inches away from that carnifex will not be allowed to shoot at it, because rules.

At least in the previews it says that the Carnifex upgrade simulates the Venomtrope clouds, so chances are pretty good of them not stacking.

Chances are good that the intention wasn't for them to stack. Given how GW writes rules though, they very well might stack.

It says it right on the Carnifex datasheet that it doesn't stack with the spore cloud ability.

Since I finally managed to read the new Eldar Codex... what exactly is preventing the Alaitoc Craftworld trait from stacking with Vectored Engines and Conceal? You know, since I was insulted multiple times for not knowing my rules, I'm kind of curious now.

Unless I'm missing something, basically any Alaitoc vehicle with access to vehicle upgrade (all the hover tanks) can now become -2 to hit when advancing for 10 points.

In addition, the Alaitoc relic can also make any infantry character -2 to hit (the actual usefulness of this is questionable, because they are already characters) and Alaitoc Warp Spiders are -2 to hit, though they lose a model on on 2d6 - which is a pretty awesome deal considering getting shot will most likely cause you to lose models anyways.

Why have a Character with -2 to hit? Snipers.

Moriarty wrote:
Why have a Character with -2 to hit? Snipers.

Eh....I guess? Snipers aren't actually in very high supply in most armies and typically aren't very efficient either. You're normally better off using normal dakka to kill off the stuff the HQ's are buffing than investing points in snipers.

On the plus side, I just played a game against new Eldar where he stacked - to hit modifiers like crazy and was exceptionally mad when I told him I didn't bring a single model with anything beyond range 12 S4. That was a pretty quick game.

On the downside, the reason that happened is that I have come to the conclusion that anything in my army that relies on shooting is now unplayable and has been shelved. 35 warbikes, 12 killa kanz , 6 Mek guns, 30 lootas, 2 dakka jets all sitting collecting dust while my huge Kommandos army is stomping faces.

If burna boyz didn’t suck so much already they might have been a decent piece of tech against -to hit modifiers. Maybe the codex will change that?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
If burna boyz didn’t suck so much already they might have been a decent piece of tech against -to hit modifiers. Maybe the codex will change that?

Maybe. Unfortunately, Burna boyz are heavily reliant on several factors to make them viable.

a) cheaper transports. Seems possible but I'd be surprised to see the Trukk price drop any lower than 60.

b) revamped damage potential. The easiest fix is to simply make them have D6 auto hits with their burnas like every other flamer.

c) Cheaper cost. For their current price they are too fragile, slow and expensive to be considered a competitive choice.

We'll be lucky if we get 2 of the three I listed for changes in the codex, so sadly I doubt it :(