Think about it, when you shoot and hit a basic Necron warrior, what gets hit first? That's right, its skin.
Now sure, its skin might be made of metal, but that's not armor per se, and nominally would be better handled by Toughness.
In this way Necron Immortals totally make sense as T5, just as long as we fix their armor save to be 7+.
/s
From what little ive read of Necron appearances in novels, they sort of act like Glass Cannons that can get back up. Pretty fragile and fairly easy to put down, but its gonna get back up and disintegrate you, so probably best to get out of there!
Before the retcon, Warriors had the same stats as Marines, plus a roll to get back up. Immortals were also T5.
Only since Ward and the retcon have Warriors been glass cannons.
OF course all of this is somewhat speciulation right?
On the gameplay side GW will likely up the points, possibly too far. Orks could be OP, balanced or weak based on numbers outside of the T value. (but based on the other Xenos books in 9th we should be fairly okay)
Orks have always been pretty damn tough in the lore, fighting even when considered dead. If GW ups their silly durability and gives it a nice comical swing then i'm up for it. Like an ork's head getting taken off but he still makes a dozen blind axe swings before keeling over. Possibly sinking the axe into one of his mates or some such. Just that fun chaotic energy that I adore from the greenskins.
vipoid wrote: I can't help but think that arguing with Xeno is akin to a game of football where one team pick up the goalposts, start running and never stop.
At first, the bewildered opponents kick the ball after them, trying to score a goal in spite of the moving goalposts.
After a while, however, the ball has long since been lost and now the opposing team have been reduced to merely keeping the speeding goalposts in sight.
I want to let you now that my keyboard is currently sitting upside down in the sun to dry from all the coffee I spit in it. Made my day, take an exalt.
This thread is hilarious. Kudos to semper, JNAProductions and others for actually arguing the topic with xeno in a rational manner, I can't do that any more.
cody.d. wrote: OF course all of this is somewhat speciulation right?
On the gameplay side GW will likely up the points, possibly too far. Orks could be OP, balanced or weak based on numbers outside of the T value. (but based on the other Xenos books in 9th we should be fairly okay)
You think other xeno books in 9th, were fairly okey? DE got hit by a enough unit nerfs, which would kill other armies, yet here they are sitll strong. In fact they probably still are the strongest army in 9th right now.
Orks have always been pretty damn tough in the lore, fighting even when considered dead. If GW ups their silly durability and gives it a nice comical swing then i'm up for it. Like an ork's head getting taken off but he still makes a dozen blind axe swings before keeling over. Possibly sinking the axe into one of his mates or some such. Just that fun chaotic energy that I adore from the greenskins.
The game in 8th had a long history of bad things happening, when cheap models started getting stronger or tougher. Catachans out being better at melee then marines, cultists being better then csm, IG being the core of every imperial army etc. Not knowing the other rules or the point costs, it is hard to judge right now, but just look what low point costs and 9th ed style book did to a cheap chaff unit like witchs or a succubus. The t5 agregates, specially if it is a buff to everything orks have. If orks bikers are cheap enough and get the +1T, they could be a big winner of the codex. Same with nobz .
You might notice...marines went to 2 wounds when all heavy infantry in the game got wound buffs.
They DID? INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!
*aberrants spontaneously get wound buffs*
*tyranid warriors spontaneously get wound buffs*
*Wraithguard spontaneously get wound buffs*
*ogryn spontaneously get wound buffs*
*CSM spontaneously get wound buffs*
*Nobz spontaneously get wound buffs*
*Immortals spontaneously get wound buffs*
THANK YOU, XENOMANCERS, WE'RE CURED!!!!!!!
WG got 3 wounds Im pretty sure in 8th edd.
Warriors apparently had 3 wounds to begin with.
CSM oblitz got more wounds right? Possesed too
Nob bikes have what? 3 wounds? MAN 3 wounds?
Paladins went to 3 wounds?
Terms go to 3 wounds from 1 lol.
That all happened in 8th.
I think it is fair to say they fcked up with standard astatres and csm old marines from the start - they made the primaris which were going to replace the old but then they decided not to.
GW clearly had a philosphy with the game rules to increase wounds on next to anything - your post is a willful misrepresentation of my point and the reality of wounds stat going up on the majority of almost every unit in the game. Forget just heavy infantry. The majority of units in the game saw wounds increasing. AKA intellectual dishonesty. Disgusting. Like I seriously have to argue and waste my time convincing you people of facts.
-Literally says "All Heavy Infantry in the game"
-Point out that other than marine stuff, basically every well known heavy infantry unit in the game did not go up in wounds.
-Counter with "BuT mUh BiKeRs! and BuT mUh TeRmInAtOrs!!" Bikes and cav got increased wounds in 8th, basically all of them. WG might have gone to W3 but I thought they already were. The only thing you can point to here is Oblits going up to W4 with their price increase that made them as expensive as a basic dreadnought, lol.
-Accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
Keep living the meme life Xeno.
Very many units in the game are still identically as durable in 9th as they were in 7th with the exact same defensive statline up against 9th ed levels of lethality. Just because you live in the 'got my updated 'dex' bubble does not mean other armies arent all sitting around wondering why their units melt like hot butter under a blowtorch.
Think about it, when you shoot and hit a basic Necron warrior, what gets hit first? That's right, its skin.
Now sure, its skin might be made of metal, but that's not armor per se, and nominally would be better handled by Toughness.
In this way Necron Immortals totally make sense as T5, just as long as we fix their armor save to be 7+.
/s
From what little ive read of Necron appearances in novels, they sort of act like Glass Cannons that can get back up. Pretty fragile and fairly easy to put down, but its gonna get back up and disintegrate you, so probably best to get out of there!
unless its blood angels in which case hope there are enough vacancies in the hive worlds motels. #stillabetterlovestorythantwilight
cody.d. wrote: On the gameplay side GW will likely up the points, possibly too far. Orks could be OP, balanced or weak based on numbers outside of the T value. (but based on the other Xenos books in 9th we should be fairly okay)
Is this a joke? After DE and Harlequins being broken far beyond supposedly ""OP"" SM, I won't be holding by breath again. Of course there is a big chance of them being 'okay', that is, 'approaching 7th edition Eldar level of nonsense' "okay". In fact, I will be pretty shocked if orkstodes aren't the next 70% winrate army.
Orks have always been pretty damn tough in the lore
T4 IS being tough They literally have the same durability stat as superhuman soldier, they DON'T need to be equal to custodes, sister walkers, or smaller vehicles! If orks need to be tougher than that, give them FNP, not beyond idiotic stat inflation that makes bolters and heavy bolters, two weapons made to COUNTER orks less dangerous than lasguns to them!
Blndmage wrote: Before the retcon, Warriors had the same stats as Marines, plus a roll to get back up. Immortals were also T5.
Only since Ward and the retcon have Warriors been glass cannons.
""Glass cannons"" by going from 3+ to 4+ to differentiate them from Immortals (and being made if anything MORE durable for the points thanks to big points cut). Ward ensured both units had proper place (one didn't even exist in minds of players before) and playstyle allowing for more different army builds any edition before or since did with his troop slow swap idea (which lives on in AoS and it's pretty liked there).
I like when Ward criticism shows up, it's pretty much always laughably wrong nonsense (and in 90% of cases, it's based on fluff Ward didn't even wrote, he was responsible for mechanics side of the book) - not that I should be surprised, seeing most of it is regurgitated 4chan mudslinging that was reaching even back then
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months.
If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
Irbis wrote: If orks need to be tougher than that, give them FNP, not beyond idiotic stat inflation that makes bolters and heavy bolters, two weapons made to COUNTER orks less dangerous than lasguns to them!
As this is the second time I read this: where the (heavy) bolters designed specifically with orks in mind? I really don't know, but would be interested to do so. Did big E see the orks as main adversaries when he planned the equipment of his SMs?
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months. If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
So, I'm coming back to the question I have asked you multiple times now, which you refuse to answer.
Do you believe that GK should remain bad or even be made worse for the same reasons you believe that orks "deserve" should not get any good things?
Irrational hate for a faction is not healthy and you really should stay out of threads regarding that faction if you foster such a feeling.
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months.
If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
God, I feel silly asking this because I know you don't, but I'm honestly actually curious: Do we have any data for how post-nerf drukhari are doing? I've literally only seen like 1 largeish event post-nerf where there was 1 Drukhari player in like 5th place.
Found 1 more event post-nerf - Utah Open GT - top 4 Orks, IK, DG, Space Wolves.
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months.
If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
God, I feel silly asking this because I know you don't, but I'm honestly actually curious: Do we have any data for how post-nerf drukhari are doing? I've literally only seen like 1 largeish event post-nerf where there was 1 Drukhari player in like 5th place.
looking on BCP i don't think we have enough info post nerf yet, maybe after the next few weekends we will have enough data to draw some meaningful info beyond a few small events some of which may have used prefaq DE
Irbis wrote: If orks need to be tougher than that, give them FNP, not beyond idiotic stat inflation that makes bolters and heavy bolters, two weapons made to COUNTER orks less dangerous than lasguns to them!
As this is the second time I read this: where the (heavy) bolters designed specifically with orks in mind? I really don't know, but would be interested to do so. Did big E see the orks as main adversaries when he planned the equipment of his SMs?
Orks being Xeno/Alien - yes. They were specifically designed to be effective against giant monsters and crap back when the imperium conquered 2 MILLION worlds - yes...2 MILLION. Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number. They aren't even presented as being particularly tough - but strong - even measly las guns kill them effectively. Str 5 would honestly make MORE sense than T5. It makes 0 sense that bolters have an easier time wounding other Astartes ether.
Automatically Appended Next Post: https://www.40kstats.com/utahgamersalliance It is utterly hilarious.
Orks take first place in a 68 man tournament against hordes of 70% WR Drukari...
Yes...We should totally give orks T5 and -1 on their choppas to compensate for their weakness.
Irbis wrote: If orks need to be tougher than that, give them FNP, not beyond idiotic stat inflation that makes bolters and heavy bolters, two weapons made to COUNTER orks less dangerous than lasguns to them!
As this is the second time I read this: where the (heavy) bolters designed specifically with orks in mind? I really don't know, but would be interested to do so. Did big E see the orks as main adversaries when he planned the equipment of his SMs?
Orks being Xeno/Alien - yes. They were specifically designed to be effective against giant monsters and crap back when the imperium conquered 2 MILLION worlds - yes...2 MILLION. Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number. They aren't even presented as being particularly tough - but strong - even measly las guns kill them effectively. Str 5 would honestly make MORE sense than T5. It makes 0 sense that bolters have an easier time wounding other Astartes ether.
Automatically Appended Next Post: https://www.40kstats.com/utahgamersalliance It is utterly hilarious.
Orks take first place in a 68 man tournament against hordes of 70% WR Drukari...
Yes...We should totally give orks T5 and -1 on their choppas to compensate for their weakness.
Quick translation of Xeno to human here for folks: "Hordes" should be taken to mean "Five."
God, I feel silly asking this because I know you don't, but I'm honestly actually curious: Do we have any data for how post-nerf drukhari are doing? I've literally only seen like 1 largeish event post-nerf where there was 1 Drukhari player in like 5th place.
Found 1 more event post-nerf - Utah Open GT - top 4 Orks, IK, DG, Space Wolves.
If they were doing bad, then you would be seeing them sold en mass. In europe they are winning a ton, they didn't even have the suppose meta adjustment to the DE lists, US supposably had. Unless of course, main land europe events don't count. Then yeah. I don't know how they are doing, besides that they are probably around the same, maybe a bit better then what harlequins were before the new DE book droped down.
Xenomancers wrote: Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number.
I remember them killing Marines one-on-one in the Dawn of War intro, so, nah. Inb4 another goalpost shift.
Also, for anyone still following this mess of a thread, I want to point out that the idea of bolters being specifically designed to effortlessly kill Orks is a relatively recent addition from the Horus Heresy books. 'Bolters were made to counter Orks' is a concept that doesn't even come from 40K and, with how unimportant that detail is to the greater setting, could just as easily be retconned back to bolters being favored for logistics rather than raw effectiveness.
Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number. They aren't even presented as being particularly tough - but strong. Str 5 would honestly make MORE sense than T5. It makes 0 sense that bolters have an easier time wounding other Astartes ether.
From the 2nd edition Ork codex:
"They have robust and muscular frames, with strong, long arms that end in clumsy fingers capable of a vice-like grip. Their skulls are thick with heavy protruding brow-ridges shading their savage red eyes. ... Orks are brave and tough, and their bodies have a natural resilience with allows them to survive traumatic injuries and the most primitive surgery. They feel very little pain and can keep fighting even if they lose a limb or sustain a major body wound. Their blood carries a symbiotic algae through their veins, digesting and reconstituting damaged body tissue and even rebuilding major organs."
"Because orks feel very little pain they can endure serious wounds without a flinch. Their bodies will readily accept the most crude transplants and prosthetics and serious battle injuries don't bother them much."
4th edition Ork codex:
"An Ork's skull is extremely thick, able to absorb impacts that would cave in a human head. ...Orkoid physique is so robust that it can withstand tremendous punishment. An Ork feels next to no pain even from the most grievous wounds, enabling him to fight on whilst horrifically injured and even for a short while after he is technically dead. The greenskin regenerative process is so powerful that an Ork who has been cut apart in the crucible of battle can simply be stitched back together again, bewildered but ready to fight once more."
I could go on, but that sounds like some pretty great justification for T5 to me. Frankly it's about time that orks got a little bit of love from GW - they've kind of been the generic "mow them all down" bad guy for far too long. Tougher ork boyz will go a long way, and I'm looking forward to playing some games.
Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number. They aren't even presented as being particularly tough - but strong. Str 5 would honestly make MORE sense than T5. It makes 0 sense that bolters have an easier time wounding other Astartes ether.
From the 2nd edition Ork codex:
"They have robust and muscular frames, with strong, long arms that end in clumsy fingers capable of a vice-like grip. Their skulls are thick with heavy protruding brow-ridges shading their savage red eyes. ... Orks are brave and tough, and their bodies have a natural resilience with allows them to survive traumatic injuries and the most primitive surgery. They feel very little pain and can keep fighting even if they lose a limb or sustain a major body wound. Their blood carries a symbiotic algae through their veins, digesting and reconstituting damaged body tissue and even rebuilding major organs."
"Because orks feel very little pain they can endure serious wounds without a flinch. Their bodies will readily accept the most crude transplants and prosthetics and serious battle injuries don't bother them much."
4th edition Ork codex:
"An Ork's skull is extremely thick, able to absorb impacts that would cave in a human head. ...Orkoid physique is so robust that it can withstand tremendous punishment. An Ork feels next to no pain even from the most grievous wounds, enabling him to fight on whilst horrifically injured and even for a short while after he is technically dead. The greenskin regenerative process is so powerful that an Ork who has been cut apart in the crucible of battle can simply be stitched back together again, bewildered but ready to fight once more."
I could go on, but that sounds like some pretty great justification for T5 to me. Frankly it's about time that orks got a little bit of love from GW - they've kind of been the generic "mow them all down" bad guy for far too long. Tougher ork boyz will go a long way, and I'm looking forward to playing some games.
Funny - sounds like feel no paint to me. Considering it literally says they feel practically no pain and can go on fighting after injury. The only thing that really lends it's self to toughness is the part where it says they have a thick skull...Thicker than a humans...It could have said more durable than an Astartes head but it chose a pathetic t3 human.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: All T5 orks and all the reduced damage abilities make me think is that Assault Cannons are back on the menu.
Str 4 non core vs t5? Makes me think Redemptor dreads...
Orkz defensive profile being high T, at the cost of virtually no armour save beyond a rare unit (mega nobz) is a nice design distinction to just T4 W2 which would have people complaining "Ohhh Orkz are enroaching on the marines stateline !!!11!!1!"
We've reached a point in lethality that W1 T4 6+ IS NOT durable or tough. T5 base is a great solution to the issue whilst staying true to a degree of the fluff. T5 Ork - he can take a big hit and keep running. T5 plague marine with DR / Gravis Marines - They can take several Ork killing hits and keep marching.
Marine Tac/ Intercessor at T4 W2 and Sv 3+ (EASILY 2+ in cover) is still magnitudes more durable even on a per point value than a Ork boy. And can shoot across the table with good anti infantry firepower. And contribute meaningfully in close combat. Whilst that ork boy has very little output until he charges and that's never guaranteed to happen.
All complaints so far about "Oh this is a bad change" normally seem to involve "MY army will struggle," or "its not fluffy! Orkz aren't tougher than a maaaarrrriiiine"
Mate, Orkz are tough. Toughness in 40k are shown by 3 stats - Toughness, Wounds and Saves. Marines excel in Wounds and Saves for a mainline infantry model. Orkz only excel in Toughness with this upcoming change. I hope Tyranids get decent toughness, medium saves and high wounds to show their own form of army toughness and some cool regeneration type abilities that isnt just a slap on FNP. Custodes will get all 3 and probably reach 70 points a custode guard
The game is reeling from its overlethality issue. Marines got W2, Necrons have their new RP. DE got... Well they kill you before you kill them, thats a kettle of fish. Let other armies get their new tools and open up the profile of units to not be so much 4's across the board so uniformly.
Funny - sounds like feel no paint to me. Considering it literally says they feel practically no pain and can go on fighting after injury. The only thing that really lends it's self to toughness is the part where it says they have a thick skull...Thicker than a humans...It could have said more durable than an Astartes head but it chose a pathetic t3 human.
And a LOT of people have already consistently pointed out to you why Toughness 5 is a better and alternate design choice compared to FNP. Do you even play orks? Because frankly rolling FNP for every single wound for 120 boyz sounds like misery to me, and I like rolling dice.
Like, WE GET IT. You hate the idea of T5 orks sooooo much. Most of the rest of us commenting in this thread and arguing with you(why am I even bothering?) feel that an increased point in toughness is just fine. Maybe instead of crying that the sky is falling, you could wait and see what happens once the codex actually drops, and how that affects ork armies in a variety of games from casual all the way to a tournament setting.
Funny - sounds like feel no paint to me. Considering it literally says they feel practically no pain and can go on fighting after injury. The only thing that really lends it's self to toughness is the part where it says they have a thick skull...Thicker than a humans...It could have said more durable than an Astartes head but it chose a pathetic t3 human.
And a LOT of people have already consistently pointed out to you why Toughness 5 is a better and alternate design choice compared to FNP. Do you even play orks? Because frankly rolling FNP for every single wound for 120 boyz sounds like misery to me, and I like rolling dice.
Like, WE GET IT. You hate the idea of T5 orks sooooo much. Most of the rest of us commenting in this thread and arguing with you(why am I even bothering?) feel that an increased point in toughness is just fine. Maybe instead of crying that the sky is falling, you could wait and see what happens once the codex actually drops, and how that affects ork armies in a variety of games from casual all the way to a tournament setting.
OFC you think it is fine. You want the change.
You do realize the ork boys are going to get FNP through a pain boy anyways - so all this "time saving" argument is utter garbage. It is just another layer of defense added to a unit that is supposed to die in droves getting. Can't even wait for the T6 Nobs and T8 Warboss on bike. 70% WR here we come.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: Orkz defensive profile being high T, at the cost of virtually no armour save beyond a rare unit (mega nobz) is a nice design distinction to just T4 W2 which would have people complaining "Ohhh Orkz are enroaching on the marines stateline !!!11!!1!"
We've reached a point in lethality that W1 T4 6+ IS NOT durable or tough. T5 base is a great solution to the issue whilst staying true to a degree of the fluff. T5 Ork - he can take a big hit and keep running. T5 plague marine with DR / Gravis Marines - They can take several Ork killing hits and keep marching.
Marine Tac/ Intercessor at T4 W2 and Sv 3+ (EASILY 2+ in cover) is still magnitudes more durable even on a per point value than a Ork boy. And can shoot across the table with good anti infantry firepower. And contribute meaningfully in close combat. Whilst that ork boy has very little output until he charges and that's never guaranteed to happen.
All complaints so far about "Oh this is a bad change" normally seem to involve "MY army will struggle," or "its not fluffy! Orkz aren't tougher than a maaaarrrriiiine"
Mate, Orkz are tough. Toughness in 40k are shown by 3 stats - Toughness, Wounds and Saves. Marines excel in Wounds and Saves for a mainline infantry model. Orkz only excel in Toughness with this upcoming change. I hope Tyranids get decent toughness, medium saves and high wounds to show their own form of army toughness and some cool regeneration type abilities that isnt just a slap on FNP. Custodes will get all 3 and probably reach 70 points a custode guard
The game is reeling from its overlethality issue. Marines got W2, Necrons have their new RP. DE got... Well they kill you before you kill them, thats a kettle of fish. Let other armies get their new tools and open up the profile of units to not be so much 4's across the board so uniformly.
LOL - funny you mention the 2 worst of the updated armies that routinely lose to 8th edition supplements. 9th edd space marine codex was a massive nerf and Crons while they got a big improvement from 8th are not as you say "part of the problem". Unbuffed orks already outperform both of the armies that you mention here....what do you think that does for your arguement?
I like how Xeno laments that the 9th Ed Marine codex was a 'massive nerf', despite the fact that it buffed Marines to W2, then without any critical thinking or self-awareness immediately switches to whinging about how the new Ork codex will be buffing their winrate further simply because Boyz are getting T5.
I'm sure all those Ork players who are doing well right now are doing so on account of the effectiveness of the Ork Boy profile, and not through tricks like Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, or specific standout units, that all could easily be nerfed by a new codex. Let alone points values.
catbarf wrote: I like how Xeno laments that the 9th Ed Marine codex was a 'massive nerf', despite the fact that it buffed Marines to W2, then without any critical thinking or self-awareness immediately switches to whinging about how the new Ork codex will be buffing their winrate further simply because Boyz are getting T5.
I'm sure all those Ork players who are doing well right now are doing so on account of the effectiveness of the Ork Boy profile, and not through tricks like Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, or specific standout units, that all could easily be nerfed by a new codex. Let alone points values.
They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: In any case, its all a mote point now. GW has already announced that Orcs are going to be T5 now. They are not going to backtrack on that now.
Eldenfirefly wrote: In any case, its all a mote point now. GW has already announced that Orcs are going to be T5 now. They are not going to backtrack on that now.
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months.
If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
God, I feel silly asking this because I know you don't, but I'm honestly actually curious: Do we have any data for how post-nerf drukhari are doing? I've literally only seen like 1 largeish event post-nerf where there was 1 Drukhari player in like 5th place.
Found 1 more event post-nerf - Utah Open GT - top 4 Orks, IK, DG, Space Wolves.
From the weekend data which now have all events using the new FAQ Drukhari appeared to sit at 55% winrate. We'll see how the next two weekends will turn out, but so far it seems that the fixes/nerfs to Drukhari have put them into the middle of the pack currently. This is going off weekly threads on r/warhammercompetitive.
Xenomancers wrote: They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
1. You don't know how their points are changing.
2. You don't know how key abilities, namely Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, are changing.
3. You don't know how army-wide abilities like DDD or 'Ere We Go are changing.
4. You don't know how anything else that affects the relevant units is changing.
5. You, frankly, don't know enough about the faction to comment on army composition, unless you've really wised up since those squigbuggy spam predictions.
This isn't a discussion, it's a tantrum, as you completely ignore all the unknowns to instead whinge about how a single change in a vacuum is going to ruin the game.
And at this point I'm absolutely sure that if you end up being proven completely wrong in your predictions once again, it will in no way inform or dissuade your knee-jerk takes in the future.
catbarf wrote: I like how Xeno laments that the 9th Ed Marine codex was a 'massive nerf', despite the fact that it buffed Marines to W2, then without any critical thinking or self-awareness immediately switches to whinging about how the new Ork codex will be buffing their winrate further simply because Boyz are getting T5.
I'm sure all those Ork players who are doing well right now are doing so on account of the effectiveness of the Ork Boy profile, and not through tricks like Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, or specific standout units, that all could easily be nerfed by a new codex. Let alone points values.
They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldenfirefly wrote: In any case, its all a mote point now. GW has already announced that Orcs are going to be T5 now. They are not going to backtrack on that now.
Welp and the setting is broken.
And they'll almost certainly cost more points. Unless you've seen the Orks' 9th edition Codex and see that Boys are still 8 PPM... Could be a net buff. Could be neutral. Could be a net nerf-GW could crank them up to 12 points for all we know, and then they'd be absolute garbage.
And why is the setting broken? The only weapons that are more efficient, on a model-to-model basis, at killing Marines than Orks are Grav Cannons (specifically designed and effective against heavily armored targets over lightly armored ones) and big anti-tank weapons, like Meltas and Dark Lances.
Xenomancers wrote: They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
1. You don't know how their points are changing.
2. You don't know how key abilities, namely Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, are changing.
3. You don't know how army-wide abilities like DDD or 'Ere We Go are changing.
4. You don't know how anything else that affects the relevant units is changing.
5. You, frankly, don't know enough about the faction to comment on army composition, unless you've really wised up since those squigbuggy spam predictions.
This isn't a discussion, it's a tantrum, as you completely ignore all the unknowns to instead whinge about how a single change in a vacuum is going to ruin the game.
And at this point I'm absolutely sure that if you end up being proven completely wrong in your predictions once again, it will in no way inform or dissuade your knee-jerk takes in the future.
Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
Xenomancers wrote: They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
1. You don't know how their points are changing.
2. You don't know how key abilities, namely Endless Green Tide and Da Jump, are changing.
3. You don't know how army-wide abilities like DDD or 'Ere We Go are changing.
4. You don't know how anything else that affects the relevant units is changing.
5. You, frankly, don't know enough about the faction to comment on army composition, unless you've really wised up since those squigbuggy spam predictions.
This isn't a discussion, it's a tantrum, as you completely ignore all the unknowns to instead whinge about how a single change in a vacuum is going to ruin the game.
And at this point I'm absolutely sure that if you end up being proven completely wrong in your predictions once again, it will in no way inform or dissuade your knee-jerk takes in the future.
Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
Yeah, GW is crap at balance. So what makes you think we'll get 7 PPM Ork Boys at T5 and AP-1 Choppas any more than 12 PPM?
They might make Orks broken. Or, they might vastly overcorrect their points with the buffs and make Orks garbage.
Jidmah wrote: And why exactly is two of the worst units being "big winners" a problem?
Because GW do not know what self moderation is, and this two units being "big winners" ended being one of the stones that ended up with DE being exactly the way they are, including the way they are now post nerfs. Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months.
If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
God, I feel silly asking this because I know you don't, but I'm honestly actually curious: Do we have any data for how post-nerf drukhari are doing? I've literally only seen like 1 largeish event post-nerf where there was 1 Drukhari player in like 5th place.
Found 1 more event post-nerf - Utah Open GT - top 4 Orks, IK, DG, Space Wolves.
From the weekend data which now have all events using the new FAQ Drukhari appeared to sit at 55% winrate. We'll see how the next two weekends will turn out, but so far it seems that the fixes/nerfs to Drukhari have put them into the middle of the pack currently. This is going off weekly threads on r/warhammercompetitive.
Welp and the setting is broken.
For you and you only it seems.
Eh. It's one weekend with a small number of results. I don't think we can say one way or another how effective the nerfs/DE are. We also have to give DE players time to re-optimize, I don't think we'll truly know where the faction sits for a few weeks.
Eh. It's one weekend with a small number of results. I don't think we can say one way or another how effective the nerfs/DE are. We also have to give DE players time to re-optimize, I don't think we'll truly know where the faction sits for a few weeks.
Definitely, which is why I suggested that the following weekends will matter more. On another note in the original reddit thread it was mentioned that Ad mech didn't have that many players which may change in the coming weeks and affect future numbers. So in short there are exciting times ahead.
Eh. It's one weekend with a small number of results. I don't think we can say one way or another how effective the nerfs/DE are. We also have to give DE players time to re-optimize, I don't think we'll truly know where the faction sits for a few weeks.
Definitely, which is why I suggested that the following weekends will matter more. On another note in the original reddit thread it was mentioned that Ad mech didn't have that many players which may change in the coming weeks and affect future numbers. So in short there are exciting times ahead.
i play with a lot of tournament players, i also help 3d print things for them... my printers should be renamed the forgeworld of mars at this point its all mechanicum all the time the past 2 weeks
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
23 point M 3" WS6+ BS7+ S 2 T 3 W 1/2 A 1 per 4 ork models L1 save 9+ i feel like would be the result
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
I'm doubtful that's your goal, but even if it was, all the good intentions in the world don't mean anything if you lack the skills needed to achieve them.
So what point cost, statline, and general rules do YOU think are appropriate for a mob of Boys?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
Or does your definition of horde include lack of toughness/strength?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
because the space marine video game and a few black library authors who write space marine violence porn have orks being mowed down. Any references to books where orks are standing toe to toe to space marines were never acknowledged (despite titles and examples being sited) they don't matter, orks exist to make marine players feel stronger apparently.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
23 point M 3" WS6+ BS7+ S 2 T 3 W 1/2 A 1 per 4 ork models L1 save 9+ i feel like would be the result
The result would be ork boys would get nothing because they are already completely balanced. I posted above 2 weekends ago ^^^. During the 70% drukari per nerf. Ork player won a 68 person event (this is a pretty large event)
It looked like this.
1.Orks
2.Drukari
3.Drukari
4.Drukari
The ork list has 70 ork boys in it....Several other armies with a very similar build have also won events. What is interesting here is he had to play against DE at least once. So you can't say he just skipped by.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
because the space marine video game and a few black library authors who write space marine violence porn have orks being mowed down. Any references to books where orks are standing toe to toe to space marines were never acknowledged (despite titles and examples being sited) they don't matter, orks exist to make marine players feel stronger apparently.
Say how many boltgun shots does it take to mow down an ork in the space marine video game?
I seem to recall it being more than 4, usually. Seemed like the spread of them was such that I missed about 1/3 of my shots, and it usually took 6 or 7 shots from the clip to fully down a boy.
Canonically then it does seem like orks ought to be a bit more than T4 6+ W1. When you hit them, it's not kapwinging off their armor plating or anything it's basically causing blood splats, so you'd want to represent it on the tabletop with some kind of stat that represents raw beefiness, and tracking multiple wounds on ork boyz seems like a PITA....hmmm what stat should we use for that then, putting on our game designer hats?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
because the space marine video game and a few black library authors who write space marine violence porn have orks being mowed down. Any references to books where orks are standing toe to toe to space marines were never acknowledged (despite titles and examples being sited) they don't matter, orks exist to make marine players feel stronger apparently.
Actually that is how it always works. Orks invade with armies in the billions. If the battle is close in any way...billions of orks have to die...how do you think that happens?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
because the space marine video game and a few black library authors who write space marine violence porn have orks being mowed down. Any references to books where orks are standing toe to toe to space marines were never acknowledged (despite titles and examples being sited) they don't matter, orks exist to make marine players feel stronger apparently.
Say how many boltgun shots does it take to mow down an ork in the space marine video game?
I seem to recall it being more than 4, usually. Seemed like the spread of them was such that I missed about 1/3 of my shots, and it usually took 6 or 7 shots from the clip to fully down a boy.
Canonically then it does seem like orks ought to be a bit more than T4 6+ W1. When you hit them, it's not kapwinging off their armor plating or anything it's basically causing blood splats, so you'd want to represent it on the tabletop with some kind of stat that represents raw beefiness, and tracking multiple wounds on ork boyz seems like a PITA....hmmm what stat should we use for that then, putting on our game designer hats?
A shooting attack in this game is representative of probably something similar to that. However the damage profile of the weapons is complete unreality. Plus you are a captain not a standard marine. If you shoot them in the face they die faster too obviously. Astartes...do stuff like that.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
23 point M 3" WS6+ BS7+ S 2 T 3 W 1/2 A 1 per 4 ork models L1 save 9+ i feel like would be the result
The result would be ork boys would get nothing because they are already completely balanced. I posted above 2 weekends ago ^^^. During the 70% drukari per nerf. Ork player won a 68 person event (this is a pretty large event)
It looked like this.
1.Orks
2.Drukari
3.Drukari
4.Drukari
The ork list has 70 ork boys in it....Several other armies with a very similar build have also won events. What is interesting here is he had to play against DE at least once. So you can't say he just skipped by.
My question would be who was piloting the list. I don't usually name drop but i do play with very very good tournament players for prep, i may one day get to joining them but my children are young and the wife works weekends so alas cannot yet maybe when the babies are older. Before Siegler moved he was in my area, being across the table he would take tau (or basically anything) and wipe the floor with most people playing to the objectives. Likewise if an ork is piloted by Risch Kilton or a handful of other players that really know the ork book they have a decent shot. The irony here on orks taking events is we can counter DE pretty well so them being popular we have the tools there. now with our new mechanicum overlords ahead gotta say i am not sure our current book can deal with them. To be fair marines are also going to struggle against them too so i guess all hail our new robotic overlords and the sisters who can counter them.
"Actually that is how it always works. Orks invade with armies in the billions. If the battle is close in any way...billions of orks have to die...how do you think that happens?"
as to this part, again i am going to provide a literary example, in Roboute Guilliman Lord of Ultramar they handled it some via ordinance and bombings as the orks were soft targets to those large scale weapons. Its once they were trying to take back the abandoned human ruins and they had to go toe to toe with orks that the marines were struggling. Granted Guilliman had no problem slaughtering them (and to be clear aly primarch levle model should) and the captains/vetrans were holdign thier own but squad embers were falling to individual orks all over
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
23 point M 3" WS6+ BS7+ S 2 T 3 W 1/2 A 1 per 4 ork models L1 save 9+ i feel like would be the result
The result would be ork boys would get nothing because they are already completely balanced. I posted above 2 weekends ago ^^^. During the 70% drukari per nerf. Ork player won a 68 person event (this is a pretty large event)
It looked like this.
1.Orks
2.Drukari
3.Drukari
4.Drukari
The ork list has 70 ork boys in it....Several other armies with a very similar build have also won events. What is interesting here is he had to play against DE at least once. So you can't say he just skipped by.
My question would be who was piloting the list. I don't usually name drop but i do play with very very good tournament players for prep, i may one day get to joining them but my children are young and the wife works weekends so alas cannot yet maybe when the babies are older. Before Siegler moved he was in my area, being across the table he would take tau (or basically anything) and wipe the floor with most people playing to the objectives. Likewise if an ork is piloted by Risch Kilton or a handful of other players that really know the ork book they have a decent shot. The irony here on orks taking events is we can counter DE pretty well so them being popular we have the tools there. now with our new mechanicum overlords ahead gotta say i am not sure our current book can deal with them. To be fair marines are also going to struggle against them too so i guess all hail our new robotic overlords and the sisters who can counter them.
"Actually that is how it always works. Orks invade with armies in the billions. If the battle is close in any way...billions of orks have to die...how do you think that happens?"
as to this part, again i am going to provide a literary example, in Roboute Guilliman Lord of Ultramar they handled it some via ordinance and bombings as the orks were soft targets to those large scale weapons. Its once they were trying to take back the abandoned human ruins and they had to go toe to toe with orks that the marines were struggling. Granted Guilliman had no problem slaughtering them (and to be clear aly primarch levle model should) and the captains/vetrans were holdign thier own but squad embers were falling to individual orks all over
A couple hundred Astartes struggling against thousands of orks in a local setting. Is extremely common in the lore.
How would 200 or often something like...5 marines against an invading ork army have any chance....if their weapons bounced off the ork 2/3 times? They wouldn't. Orks die in droves...the win battles through brutality and overwheliming force. Typically ork players I play against understand this. I'll kill 60 boys in a turn and theyll say..."well they did their job." Cause now they have mega nobs in combat or something. Ork boys are fodder. Fodder units should have t3 - not t5.
T5 is Custodian toughness...
It is really hard to believe this is even debatable...then again...dakka is full of absurd marine haters so...It should really be expected.
What is really hilarious is relic custodian bolters on their spears wounding ork boys on 5's...That really takes the cake - don't it?
Or does your definition of horde include lack of toughness/strength?
because scaling of any ability on horde units is very skewed. +5 inv on a 50 pts 2W model is not much of a protection, +5inv on 10 5pts models is huge. I don't think that besides orks or tyranid players many people want to see ploping down 200 models and sitting on objective with close to zero interaction, becoming a valid way to play in 9th. We went through it in 8th, and it was not fun.
Or does your definition of horde include lack of toughness/strength?
because scaling of any ability on horde units is very skewed. +5 inv on a 50 pts 2W model is not much of a protection, +5inv on 10 5pts models is huge. I don't think that besides orks or tyranid players many people want to see ploping down 200 models and sitting on objective with close to zero interaction, becoming a valid way to play in 9th. We went through it in 8th, and it was not fun.
You seem to forget that points change....so those 5pt models you're talking about may not be 5pts anymore, ya know...to account for more toughness.
He was making a generalization. A cheap T5 wound gets a lot out of that mitigation of incoming wounds because wounds that get through don't cost them a lot of points.
Wounds on a custodian hurt...bad.
This game is about dice pips and getting dice pips to move in your favor. T5 is the most effective dice pip mover in the game. It should not be given to a fodder unit.
BTW - ork boys are fodder. They never have been or were inteded to be an elite unit.
Xenomancers wrote: How would 200 or often something like...5 marines against an invading ork army have any chance....if their weapons bounced off the ork 2/3 times? They wouldn't.
That is correct. And lore-accurate. Go watch the Dawn of War intro.
Now, if the only lore you care about is bolter-porn where the plucky band of heroes holds off a hundred times their number, just say it.
Xenomancers wrote: Orks die in droves...the win battles through brutality and overwheliming force. Typically ork players I play against understand this.
For, like, the thousandth time,
-T5 is still easier to kill than T4/W2 with the overwhelming majority of weapons.
-Orks still won't have 3+ saves.
-They'll still need numbers to beat Marines.
-They're still a horde army compared to Marines.
An ork should be easier to kill than a space marine. By a lot. Not a little.
Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant.
They will still have numbers - they currently do and have higher win rate that every single space marine supplement - each having a different play style and having received new rules for 9th.
They will now be a horde army that got a needless buff against their hardest counter.
That lore is awesome BTW. But it is also Cannon. Orks being fodder is Cannon.
Watch this...I you can stomach watching one of the best pieces of cinema ever created.
Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant.
Some orks will have 5++ saves. KFF's are expensive and don't cover a whole lot of boyz. A 5++ save is a 1 in 3 chance to make your save roll and keep that boy alive. Those aren't great odds. Any ork player is still going to lose a ton of boyz walking up the table, because guess what, big ork mobs are easy targets. ALL space marines have a 3+ armor. And 2 wounds. Some have even more, and better armor saves!
You seem to forget that points change....so those 5pt models you're talking about may not be 5pts anymore, ya know...to account for more toughness.
Or they can be costed, as someone else said on this forum, "aggressively", like DE units were. Why walk on the edge of the rooftop, when you can possibly fall. Especially if the person doing the walking is known to fall often.
-T5 is still easier to kill than T4/W2 with the overwhelming majority of weapons.
-Orks still won't have 3+ saves.
they run around with a +5inv. Now what is better a t5 ork at 10pts or a 20pts marine with a +4 or +5 sv thanks to how many weapon are at least -1AP nowadays. Plus orks being 1W more or less ignore the 2W meta. And this get worse the higher the cost of a marine is.
-They'll still need numbers to beat Marines.
-They're still a horde army compared to Marines.
And they did both of those things already without +1T or a 9th ed rule set. I mean if 5T doesn't matter that much, then neither does 2W on marines, and I can tell you from expiriance that -1W marines, when they are costed as if they had 2W, is not fun thing to expiriance.
daily reminder that including a KFF mek for your boyz blob (because you can only fit one 30-man boyz unit wholly under a KFF, its not like other auras you gotta be WHOLLY in it) effectively adds 2ppm to your boyz already.
....and there are still plenty of weapons that are vastly more effective vs 10ppm T5 5++ than 20ppm T4 4+. For starters, anything with blast, because hey, max shots!
Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant.
Some orks will have 5++ saves. KFF's are expensive and don't cover a whole lot of boyz. A 5++ save is a 1 in 3 chance to make your save roll and keep that boy alive. Those aren't great odds. Any ork player is still going to lose a ton of boyz walking up the table, because guess what, big ork mobs are easy targets. ALL space marines have a 3+ armor. And 2 wounds. Some have even more, and better armor saves!
This is a true story - Unless I was intercepting with a stratagem after the jump or firing overwatch. I have literally never shot an ork unit that didn't have a 5++ save except for a unit of flanking bikers 1 time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: daily reminder that including a KFF mek for your boyz blob (because you can only fit one 30-man boyz unit wholly under a KFF, its not like other auras you gotta be WHOLLY in it) effectively adds 2ppm to your boyz already.
....and there are still plenty of weapons that are vastly more effective vs 10ppm T5 5++ than 20ppm T4 4+. For starters, anything with blast, because hey, max shots!
No it doesn't when those boys die - it covers more boys.
Xenomancers wrote: He was making a generalization. A cheap T5 wound gets a lot out of that mitigation of incoming wounds because wounds that get through don't cost them a lot of points.
Wounds on a custodian hurt...bad.
This game is about dice pips and getting dice pips to move in your favor. T5 is the most effective dice pip mover in the game. It should not be given to a fodder unit.
BTW - ork boys are fodder. They never have been or were inteded to be an elite unit.
So boyz are an elite unit now???
So why does T5 all of the sudden make them elite?
I'd rather them having extra toughness rather than extra wounds, tougher to wound but when you do they go pop.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah it's a tantrum - totally. You are suggesting we should trust GW to balance this properly? It's likely nothing popular will be removed - only additional rules added.
To be honest, the only person who is less likely to get ork balance right than GW is you, Xeno.
You are absurd. My goal is for all armies to be balanced and have a niche. T5 orks boys doesn't have a balance need or a fluff consideration ether. Ork boys are a horde unit.
So why can't they be a T5 horde?
Or does your definition of horde include lack of toughness/strength?
I get the feeling he just wants to play Left4Dead with his marines.
The result would be ork boys would get nothing because they are already completely balanced. I posted above 2 weekends ago ^^^. During the 70% drukari per nerf. Ork player won a 68 person event (this is a pretty large event)
I'd rather we not rely on N=1 anecdote to claim balance.
Actually that is how it always works. Orks invade with armies in the billions. If the battle is close in any way...billions of orks have to die...how do you think that happens?
*cough* IMPERIAL GUARD *cough*...
you know, the guys that also come in the billions... with lasguns that are - in masses - just enough to kill boys resource efficiently in the lore... and with Artillery that is perfect for this job (Wyvern), and potential flamers on practically every single tank/APC/sentinel they have... and Frag grenades on every dude....
Space Marines are Elites for doing elite work (in the fluff). Facing a Billion strong invasion force is Guard (or preferably Navy) work.
JNAProductions wrote: So what point cost, statline, and general rules do YOU think are appropriate for a mob of Boys?
Reposting this because it was missed, apparently. Directed at Xeno primarily, but if anyone else wants to answer, I'd like to hear it.
My initial thought was 9 points each...but -then I started comparing them to similar units like geenstellers and flayed ones (similar damage and durability) I think the minimum for a t5 ork boy with -1 ap attacks is probably 11 (and that is agressive) Flay ones are 14 points/ geens 13.
Geens have some bonus rules 5++ but are t4 (near equal durability vs the majority of Anti infantry weapons) the same weapons - same number of attacks(does get ap-4 on 6's)...ork has a pistol...both are essentially fearless in game. The only real advantage is move speed and advance and charge. Good rules - but the ork has way to get mobility and advance and charge...+2 points seems about right for what the Geen gets. Not to mention 30 man units for orcs another big advantage.
Honestly the flayed s even worse...For all the advantages of the ork - the only thing it gets is a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to a 5+ or 6+ by pretty much every weapon in the game at this point including the orks weapon itself. An 11 point ork boy is better than this POS by a mile.
At 11 - are orks really gonna wanna spam them? Probably not. You'd be better off with current 8 point boys for that. So this is what happens when you confuse a units roll...boys are a horde unit that does a lot of damage but can't take much. T4 offers them decent mitigation without breaking the bank. That has always been the selling point.
Honestly the flayed s even worse...For all the advantages of the ork - the only thing it gets is a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to a 5+ or 6+ by pretty much every weapon in the game at this point including the orks weapon itself. An 11 point ork boy is better than this POS by a mile.
Literally just a page back you tried to argue this:
Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant.
...and made it sound like a 5+ or 5++ armor save is practically unstoppable. Now it's "a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to 5+ or 6+..."
Please make up your mind which one it is. Because it can't be both awesome and the best thing ever when it's on orks, and yet the worst thing in the world when it's a 5+ on Flayed Ones.
Xenomancers wrote: An ork should be easier to kill than a space marine. By a lot. Not a little.
And they are, even with T5.
You're looking at 3.6 bolter hits to drop an Ork compared to 12 bolter hits for a Marine.
Is being over three times easier to kill not 'by a lot' to you?
Xenomancers wrote: That lore is awesome BTW. But it is also Cannon. Orks being fodder is Cannon.
Watch this...I you can stomach watching one of the best pieces of cinema ever created.
You're complaining about T5 Orks not being lore-accurate and fluff-correct, and then brush off an example of Orks going toe to toe with Marines by linking a fan work?
You may like it and it may be a good piece of media, but that doesn't make it canon if being 'true to the lore' is actually what you're concerned about.
You're complaining about T5 Orks not being lore-accurate and fluff-correct, and then brush off an example of Orks going toe to toe with Marines by linking a piece of fan fiction?
So 11 PPM for a T5, AP-1 Choppa Ork Boy. No other changes, Xeno?
Because compare 10 Boys to 3 Bladeguard Veterans.
10 Boys get 30 attacks.
20 hits.
10 wounds.
3-4 failed saves, or one dead Veteran.
3 Veterans get 12 attacks.
8 hits.
4 wounds.
4 dead Boys.
They do more damage (40% of the unit's effectiveness) than the Boys do to them (33%), while being a pretty optimal target for the Boys (2+ saves fear AP-1 more than worse saves) and wasting much of their own power (AP-3 and D2 are both wasted against Boys).
I'd rather fight 120~ ork boys at T5 and it'll be more fun than 240+
$$$ per model + hopefully ork lists have less bodies
Exactly. I have played enough horde armies to know that it gets super boring to just field a mindless amount of bodies. Boring for both parties involved. In one game my opponent ended up just watching football for half an hour while I rolled attacks.
Honestly the flayed s even worse...For all the advantages of the ork - the only thing it gets is a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to a 5+ or 6+ by pretty much every weapon in the game at this point including the orks weapon itself. An 11 point ork boy is better than this POS by a mile.
Literally just a page back you tried to argue this:
Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant.
...and made it sound like a 5+ or 5++ armor save is practically unstoppable. Now it's "a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to 5+ or 6+..."
Please make up your mind which one it is. Because it can't be both awesome and the best thing ever when it's on orks, and yet the worst thing in the world when it's a 5+ on Flayed Ones.
Invune saves...are not armor saves. Armor saves get ignored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So 11 PPM for a T5, AP-1 Choppa Ork Boy. No other changes, Xeno?
Because compare 10 Boys to 3 Bladeguard Veterans.
10 Boys get 30 attacks.
20 hits.
10 wounds.
3-4 failed saves, or one dead Veteran.
3 Veterans get 12 attacks.
8 hits.
4 wounds.
4 dead Boys.
They do more damage (40% of the unit's effectiveness) than the Boys do to them (33%), while being a pretty optimal target for the Boys (2+ saves fear AP-1 more than worse saves) and wasting much of their own power (AP-3 and D2 are both wasted against Boys).
So, are BGV overpowered, Xeno?
I dont use BGV but I have seen a lot math showing them beat lots of melee units. They probably are a little too cheap.
You're complaining about T5 Orks not being lore-accurate and fluff-correct, and then brush off an example of Orks going toe to toe with Marines by linking a piece of fan fiction?
I am glad someone mentioned this.
It is accurate to the novel mostly - quotes directly from the book - 40k Novel sponsored by GW. AKA - not fan fiction. It is GW fiction. Which this whole game is...fiction.
Well, I doubt any of the GW fiction ever stated explicitly that Orks are Toughness 4 just like Space Marines.
Could have sworn there was a quote in a Ciaphas Cain novel where he said something along the lines of "Ah ha! Good thing these hordes of orks are only Toughness 4, it'll be easy to take them down with my trusty bolt pistol."
cody.d. wrote: OF course all of this is somewhat speciulation right?
On the gameplay side GW will likely up the points, possibly too far. Orks could be OP, balanced or weak based on numbers outside of the T value. (but based on the other Xenos books in 9th we should be fairly okay)
Orks have always been pretty damn tough in the lore, fighting even when considered dead. If GW ups their silly durability and gives it a nice comical swing then i'm up for it. Like an ork's head getting taken off but he still makes a dozen blind axe swings before keeling over. Possibly sinking the axe into one of his mates or some such. Just that fun chaotic energy that I adore from the greenskins.
Nail on the head so to speak. Xeno going into cardiac arrest trying to convince everyone that the world is ending over T5 orkz and we haven't even seen the points yet GW has a long and storied history of giving orkz "buffs" that for some reason make them less competitive. I'll just point to the entirety of the 7th edition codex as an example.
Not knowing the other rules or the point costs, it is hard to judge right now, but just look what low point costs and 9th ed style book did to a cheap chaff unit like witchs or a succubus. The t5 agregates, specially if it is a buff to everything orks have. If orks bikers are cheap enough and get the +1T, they could be a big winner of the codex. Same with nobz .
Again, i'll point you back towards the 7th edition codex as a wonderful example of ork "buffs" from GW, and i'll even further point to you the fact that orkz were blessed with not 1 but 2 supplements because the first actually had something marginally competitive in it and GW couldn't tolerate that.
As far as +1 for bikers and nobz. Well, nobz are T4 atm, so going to T5 is guaranteed unless someone at GW is just phoning it in...ohh crap. But I do want to point something out, what is the difference between T5 and T6 for warbikes and other similar units? Honestly, not much. The biggest bump is T3 to T4 and T4 to T5, after that there isn't that much of an appreciable jump in durability until you hit T8. How many S5-6 weapons do you see on a regular basis? honestly I don't see them all that often, at most it will make the heavy bolter less useful against a warbike but not that badly.
T4 IS being tough They literally have the same durability stat as superhuman soldier, they DON'T need to be equal to custodes, sister walkers, or smaller vehicles! If orks need to be tougher than that, give them FNP, not beyond idiotic stat inflation that makes bolters and heavy bolters, two weapons made to COUNTER orks less dangerous than lasguns to them!
Yes, the Old ones super soldiers, purpose built to fight the galaxy spanning war in heaven between literal star gods and the most advanced race ever seen in the Galaxy, they should be more durable than a Superhuman created by a guy who didn't pay child support and caused the galaxies most Devastating Jerry Springer episode.
On a somewhat serious note, its been covered pretty much indepth at this point, but FNP...orkz already have that in abundance, you can take Snakebites and get a 6+ FNP on literally your entire army, or you can take a better klan and just take a few painboyz as needed. A 6+FNP is functionally useless in terms of durability, especially in a meta filled with 2D weapons as Xeno loves to point out. So its roughly a 20% increase in # of shots needed to kill a boy (previously it took 36 wounds to kill 30 boyz, with a 6+ FNP it takes 43ish 7/36 = 19.44% Maffz But against D2 weapons, its basically...non-existent, 42 D2 shots becomes... almost 1 boy saved with a FNP. So in the current meta its not a 20% flat increase, its significantly less and would slow the game down a lot. You could say "Well than just give them a 5+FNP" similar results against D2 but otherwise not bad, problem being 2 fold, 1: i don't see people liking the idea of basic orkz getting a 5+FNP and 2: what would be the point of a Painboy?
Orks were already having a better then marines win rates, why would they need more stuff? Just so the ork players are happy? I guess that could be a argument, if ork players were the majority of all players, which they clearly are not. And all of this is assuming GW did tone stuff down and didn't create a liquifires style problem with some rule for orks. Because if they did the next CA book is in 6 months. If orks still have Jump and don't cost 10pts, the breaks on unit efficiency is going to be huge. Even some units that are not used right now could be used again, specially on multi wound models.
Again, 7th edition ork codex Also, I do this math a lot for you, one day you will read it or at the very least remember it. 4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm. Ork boy took 2.4ish S4 hits to die, Marine took 6. Marine was more than 2x as durable while costing 2.5x as much. 9th edition, Ork boy is 8ppm Marine is 18ppm Ork boy takes 2.4 S4 hits to die, Marine now takes 12, Marine is 5x more durable and costs 2.25x as much. So those Marines are now significantly more durable and cost less in comparison to orkz. Buffing Ork boyz to T5 it will be 3.6 S4 hits to kill an Ork Boy Which makes the Marine only more than 3x as durable as an ork boy, and assuming no price increase, it will still be cheaper than it was in past editions in comparison.
You guys are flipping out over Orkz recovering SOME of the losses they have taken in regards to durability vs Marines over the last 5 Editions.
Orks being Xeno/Alien - yes. They were specifically designed to be effective against giant monsters and crap back when the imperium conquered 2 MILLION worlds - yes...2 MILLION. Orks in literally every iteration of film or written excerpt are fodder whos only threat is being large in number. They aren't even presented as being particularly tough - but strong - even measly las guns kill them effectively. Str 5 would honestly make MORE sense than T5. It makes 0 sense that bolters have an easier time wounding other Astartes ether.
Orks take first place in a 68 man tournament against hordes of 70% WR Drukari... Yes...We should totally give orks T5 and -1 on their choppas to compensate for their weakness.
Couple things, 1: LOTR is a thing, and if I am remembering correctly it was Orkz that conquered most of the human kingdoms, and it was an Ork that destroyed the Dwarven holds....BTW Good job on GW plagiarizing the hell out of LOTR Regardless Lore does not equal Game play.
As far as W/L vs Drukari...yeah, i know, weird right? Its almost like those Drukari players would have competed better against orkz if they hadn't taken as many Anti-Marine weapons...its almost like they purposefully built their lists to beat Marines.
They are literally spamming ork boys and commandoes to win. Mic drop. Lets buff that unit.
Xenomancers wrote: An ork should be easier to kill than a space marine. By a lot. Not a little. Orks will have 5++ saves (KFF is not going anywhere). At that point they are more durable than marines per point. Because -2 ap weapons are abundant. Weapons that ignore toughness are not abundant. They will still have numbers - they currently do and have higher win rate that every single space marine supplement - each having a different play style and having received new rules for 9th.
Yes we are, in fact I just won 5th place in a 20+ tournament by bringing 90 Boyz and 15 Kommandos. Want to know my specific reasoning for doing so? Because the meta is filled with D2 weapons aimed at Murdering Marines and are therefore less efficient when they run pellmell into 90+ bodies, BTW, I did have a KFF Big Mek in Mega Armor, want to know how many boyz he covered? Zero.
As I already showed above with the math, Orkz are now LESS durable point for point than Marines than they were in 4th edition. 2.4 hits to kill an ork, 6 to kill a Marine, you could take 2.5 orkz for every marine. So you needed ...wait for it....6 shots to kill 2.5 Ork boyz and 6 to kill 1 Marine. 9th edition right now its 2.4 hits to kill an Ork and 12 to kill a Marine, you can now take 2.25 Orkz for Every Marine, To kill 2.25 Orkz you need 5.4 S4 bolter hits You need 12 to kill that Marine, which means those Marines are now more than 2x as durable point for point than they were in 4th edition. And when Boyz get bumped to T5 assuming NO price increase the math will be 8.1 to kill 2.25 Orkz so the Marines are STILL more durable vs Orkz than they were in 4th edition (Vs 1dmg weapons) You again are literally complaining because you might have to use actual skill and tactics as opposed to pure list to beat your opponents.
This is a true story - Unless I was intercepting with a stratagem after the jump or firing overwatch. I have literally never shot an ork unit that didn't have a 5++ save except for a unit of flanking bikers 1 time. Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: daily reminder that including a KFF mek for your boyz blob (because you can only fit one 30-man boyz unit wholly under a KFF, its not like other auras you gotta be WHOLLY in it) effectively adds 2ppm to your boyz already. ....and there are still plenty of weapons that are vastly more effective vs 10ppm T5 5++ than 20ppm T4 4+. For starters, anything with blast, because hey, max shots!
No it doesn't when those boys die - it covers more boys.
You are either lying, or you've played like 2 games against Orkz and they brought only a handful of Boyz and put them under the KFF.
As far as "it covers more boys"....what game do you play? I generally don't keep boyz nearby a big mek KFF to replace fallen boyz, usually, and stay with me here, they are playing towards the objectives, and having a 240pt unit babysitting nearby a big mek KFF is a really good way to lose the game. Board control is a bit more important than a 5++ against the plethora of shots coming our way.
My initial thought was 9 points each...but -then I started comparing them to similar units like geenstellers and flayed ones (similar damage and durability) I think the minimum for a t5 ork boy with -1 ap attacks is probably 11 (and that is agressive) Flay ones are 14 points/ geens 13.
Geens have some bonus rules 5++ but are t4 (near equal durability vs the majority of Anti infantry weapons) the same weapons - same number of attacks(does get ap-4 on 6's)...ork has a pistol...both are essentially fearless in game. The only real advantage is move speed and advance and charge. Good rules - but the ork has way to get mobility and advance and charge...+2 points seems about right for what the Geen gets. Not to mention 30 man units for orcs another big advantage.
Honestly the flayed s even worse...For all the advantages of the ork - the only thing it gets is a crappy 4+ save that is going to be brought down to a 5+ or 6+ by pretty much every weapon in the game at this point including the orks weapon itself. An 11 point ork boy is better than this POS by a mile.
At 11 - are orks really gonna wanna spam them? Probably not. You'd be better off with current 8 point boys for that. So this is what happens when you confuse a units roll...boys are a horde unit that does a lot of damage but can't take much. T4 offers them decent mitigation without breaking the bank. That has always been the selling point.
I keep laughing at you when you bring this up. "orkz should be as expensive as genestealers and flayed ones! because they have similar dmg potential and stats". Cool story. How often are Genestealers and flayed ones making an appearance in tournament lists and making it into the top 4? Oh..huh...weird, literally zero this year. How about Flayed ones for Necrons? Surprisingly...zero. Its almost like....those 2 units you like to compare to are...wait for it....over priced garbage that nobody takes because they cost too much for what little they bring to the table.
Also, lets talk about "does a lot of dmg" if you MAGICALLY get all 30 boyz into CC with a unit of Intercessors, you get 120 attacks, 80 hits, 40 wounds and you kill a grand total of 6.6 Marines. Problem being 1: you will never get 30 boyz into CC because of the new CC rules and 2: Even if you did somehow squeeze them all into base to base or within 1' of b2b you will never get 30 boyz across the field unmolested unless you are also spending more points on a Weirdboy or CP on teleporta strike and than you are relying on about a 50/50 chance to fail your charge which basically eliminates those boyz.
But even with your correct statement which shows how god awful boyz are at dealing dmg right now, you keep forgetting that even if they get T5 they will still be less durable compared to those Marines than they were in 4th edition, or hell, 7th edition.
Again, i'll point you back towards the 7th edition codex as a wonderful example of ork "buffs" from GW, and i'll even further point to you the fact that orkz were blessed with not 1 but 2 supplements because the first actually had something marginally competitive in it and GW couldn't tolerate that.
As far as +1 for bikers and nobz. Well, nobz are T4 atm, so going to T5 is guaranteed unless someone at GW is just phoning it in...ohh crap. But I do want to point something out, what is the difference between T5 and T6 for warbikes and other similar units? Honestly, not much. The biggest bump is T3 to T4 and T4 to T5, after that there isn't that much of an appreciable jump in durability until you hit T8. How many S5-6 weapons do you see on a regular basis? honestly I don't see them all that often, at most it will make the heavy bolter less useful against a warbike but not that badly.
Why should we care about 7th ed, when it was clearly writen with a different game system in mind. And yeah t5 on everything is, oh crap, when the main weapons in your entire army are str 4. Unless of course you want to do melee with 40pts+ models vs orks that have -1AP in melee and what 4 attacks each?
As for how many str 6 weapons I see in my army, not many. 2 MM on dreadnoughts and that is more or less it. And I don't think psycanons with their cost and their stats are helping against orks at all.
Again, 7th edition ork codex Also, I do this math a lot for you, one day you will read it or at the very least remember it. 4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm. Ork boy took 2.4ish S4 hits to die, Marine took 6. Marine was more than 2x as durable while costing 2.5x as much. 9th edition, Ork boy is 8ppm Marine is 18ppm Ork boy takes 2.4 S4 hits to die, Marine now takes 12, Marine is 5x more durable and costs 2.25x as much. So those Marines are now significantly more durable and cost less in comparison to orkz. Buffing Ork boyz to T5 it will be 3.6 S4 hits to kill an Ork Boy Which makes the Marine only more than 3x as durable as an ork boy, and assuming no price increase, it will still be cheaper than it was in past editions in comparison.
Was the marine and the boy actually considered the core of the either army in 7th. Because from what I have been told, which is again stories, the basic marine was either a centurion, one of 6+ characters in the same unit with buffs making the whole unit invunerable or the marine was actually a razorback.
You are doing math for units that are not use or who do not face off against each other on the table. Want some bad stats? take 1W scouts in a venguard detachment vs orks, +5 sv , higher costs, 1W just like orks, only t4. And if csm were anything like they were in 8th, then the basic csm had the stats of a cultist. ork t5 is a problem, because they actually do spam and play those lists, and they are a hard skew for lists which can't counter, DE, marines and swarms at the same time, while non marine armies can easily do it, because anit marine meta generaly does not effect their lists that much. But who knows, maybe boys are 14pts and balanced with rules somehow.
Yup yup yup! GW has shown us the statlines of old boyz, snagga lads and Choppas, Big choppas and the new bosses Uge choppas. So yes it's thankfully set in stone and it's why some peeps are hyped and others are panicking.
Personally I'm still super keen to see what our main faction rules are. Dakka Dakka Dakka and Ere we go will shape a lotta our gameplay.
And yeah t5 on everything is, oh crap, when the main weapons in your entire army are str 4.
Cry me a river because last I checked, marines still outshoot orks with a higher ballistic skill of 3+ compared to the orks 5+, not to mention the longer ranges on boltguns and bolt rifles. But go on...
You are doing math for units that are not use or who do not face off against each other on the table.
What does this mean? Are you implying that marines never face off against ork boyz on the tabletop? Because I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.
Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.
The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.
3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.
Why should we care about 7th ed, when it was clearly writen with a different game system in mind. And yeah t5 on everything is, oh crap, when the main weapons in your entire army are str 4. Unless of course you want to do melee with 40pts+ models vs orks that have -1AP in melee and what 4 attacks each?
As for how many str 6 weapons I see in my army, not many. 2 MM on dreadnoughts and that is more or less it. And I don't think psycanons with their cost and their stats are helping against orks at all.
Because it shows a history of GW's inability to "buff" orkz. Take a look at the Stompa, its been functionally useless for its entire life. Kanz haven't been relevant since the 4th edition codex, GW seems to think a Rokkit is worth 10pts....while at the same time pricing a Multi-Melta at 20pts. A single rokkit is 1 shot, S8 AP-2 3D a MM is 2 shots S8 AP-4 D6 and D6+2 dmg. So orkz are paying literally the same price per shot at BS5 as a Marine is at BS3 for a better S8 weapon. And T5 isn't an "oh crap" scenario because your armies main weapon likely isn't Str 4. In the most recent SM tournament placing list the guy only took 15 Troops, none with standard bolters, all were Primaris S4 AP-1 or sniper rifles, next list that won was DA and was just littered with characters and Multi-melta bikes and Deathwing terminators with hammer and shield. List after that another DA list with lots and lots of terminators and Heavy weapons, list after that Smurfs featuring a butt load of Dreads, MM Attack bikes and Devastator squads. List after that another Smurf list featuring a lot of dreads, list after that? White scars featuring dreads, Vanguard vets with Claw and shield and some Bladeguard.
Some of those lists literally didn't have any troops choices, most had more heavy weapons than bolters. So when you say S4 as basic weapons for your army you must not play Marines, because in the tournament meta, people are barely taking Bolters at all.
Again, 7th edition ork codex Also, I do this math a lot for you, one day you will read it or at the very least remember it. 4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm. Ork boy took 2.4ish S4 hits to die, Marine took 6. Marine was more than 2x as durable while costing 2.5x as much. 9th edition, Ork boy is 8ppm Marine is 18ppm Ork boy takes 2.4 S4 hits to die, Marine now takes 12, Marine is 5x more durable and costs 2.25x as much. So those Marines are now significantly more durable and cost less in comparison to orkz. Buffing Ork boyz to T5 it will be 3.6 S4 hits to kill an Ork Boy Which makes the Marine only more than 3x as durable as an ork boy, and assuming no price increase, it will still be cheaper than it was in past editions in comparison.
Karol wrote: Was the marine and the boy actually considered the core of the either army in 7th. Because from what I have been told, which is again stories, the basic marine was either a centurion, one of 6+ characters in the same unit with buffs making the whole unit invunerable or the marine was actually a razorback.
You are doing math for units that are not use or who do not face off against each other on the table. Want some bad stats? take 1W scouts in a venguard detachment vs orks, +5 sv , higher costs, 1W just like orks, only t4. And if csm were anything like they were in 8th, then the basic csm had the stats of a cultist. ork t5 is a problem, because they actually do spam and play those lists, and they are a hard skew for lists which can't counter, DE, marines and swarms at the same time, while non marine armies can easily do it, because anit marine meta generaly does not effect their lists that much. But who knows, maybe boys are 14pts and balanced with rules somehow.
The comparison I made was between 4th edition and 9th edition, and in 4th Edition Space Marines...as well as basically everyone, was required to take a specific number of troops choices. So you usually had at the least 3 troops choices in your list. So yes, it was the "core" of the army. Also, in 4th-6th Orkz were competitive not with green tide but with Warbikes, nob bikers, Kan Wall and battle wagon rush.
But you are correct, I did do math for units that "do not face off against each other on the table" and you want to know why? Because the Marine codex has better options than an model that pays 9pts per T4 3+ wound where as the Ork codex has few builds better than a 6pt per T4 6+ wound. tournament players know they are going to face off against a lot of Marine players, so why bring S4 -1AP bolters to the table when you can instead bring a multi-melta devastator or a MM attack bike, or vanguard vets etc etc. And again you are correct, Ork boyz are a "hard skew" list. But that is because orkz don't have many other options. Our brand new buggies kind of suck, the Scrapjet is in my opinion the best one and it melts in the current meta where I know I will be facing off against 6-12 MM or equivalent weapons. And orkz don't counter DE, in fact, DE have a lot of really solid hard counters to orkz. The thing is, nobody is taking those hard counters because they wont face orkz often, so instead go for the dark lances etc.
Finally. If ork boyz go to 14ppm they will be essentially dead. I honestly think if boyz go to 10ppm they will struggle. But I really want to point out something. I've done the math/comparison a hundred times between orkz and Marines in 4th compared to 9th. Ork boyz are worse in every single possible way to Space Marines in 9th, and yet Marine players don't take as many Tacs or even intercessors as possible. But Orkz spam boyz as much as they can in events. Take that and think about it and get back to me.
Not to disagree with you Semper but there was a period when the stompa was okay. But that was when each time it fired it dropped a terminator killing blast that covered most of a 2x2 quadrant of the board. So unless you had a cover save or an invul you pretty much died on the spot. Good times.
But yes, through 8th and 9th where you had to actually make a hit roll it's been terrible as GW tends to price things at the top end of the capability not the average.
SM can spam ass can razorbacks. Why do some players care so much about T5 boyz and T3 gretchins? Assault cannons would still wound boyz on 3s and gretchins on 2s, like the +1T buff never happened .
Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...
Everything else in your argument though, i agree with. I believe the T5 Orks just need upward points adjustment and it's not doom and gloom. In terms of lore, since the lore only has vague statement like Orks are tough, it's really hard to state whether T5 is too high or not. So trudge along with the discussion guys.
I have no real issues with T5 Ork Boyz, it's not how I would have done it (I would have kept Ork Boyz more or less as is and made them as cheap as possiable, while Making Nobz a troop choice, thus giving Orks 3 distinct grades of troops. grots who are COMPLETE fodder, Boyz whom are "fodder but tougher then say.. guard" and Nobz who would be T5 W2 and be what an Ork player runs if he wants a force where his warriors are individually hard to kill.
blaktoof wrote: Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.
The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.
3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.
I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.
So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.
Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...
In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.
At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.
In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.
blaktoof wrote: Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.
The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.
3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.
I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.
So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.
Green Tide and Da Jump are 100% gone in the new dex.
Da jump in 2000 points games is not that useful for green tides, table is too crowded and boyz should fight in turn 2 against appropriate targets anyway.
It could be very powerful at 1500 points though, but not many players use that format.
blaktoof wrote: Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.
The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.
3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.
I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.
So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.
Green Tide and Da Jump are 100% gone in the new dex.
I hope you are right (I got bored out of using these tricks), but what makes you so sure ? The fact that wracks can't come back via similar strat anymore since new druk dex came out ?
Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...
In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.
At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.
In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.
Shoot, thanks for the clarification and correction Blackie.
I remembered that Orks wasn't cheap (6 ppm) at that time since our resident Ork Player was complaining about it back then before the 4th ed codex. And i don't even remember those Space Wolves guys hahahaha. So rare in my area at that time before 5th.
@addnid If you have been following the design of the previous dexes, the process is always the same. All the crutches that keep a dex afloat get removed, and after this the average level of the dex gets increased.
None of the core strats/combos/gimmicks/exploits survive the transition from 8th to 9th. The cost of having your average power level increased, is losing all your power spikes.
Spoletta wrote: @addnid
If you have been following the design of the previous dexes, the process is always the same.
All the crutches that keep a dex afloat get removed, and after this the average level of the dex gets increased.
None of the core strats/combos/gimmicks/exploits survive the transition from 8th to 9th. The cost of having your average power level increased, is losing all your power spikes.
I see your point, and indeed I agree with you. Sisters and ad mech got their power spike strats nerfed (36 range multimeltas, wrath of mars / kataphron spam related stuff). Probably good design too, as power spikes foster auto include options.
Kudos to GW for this, despite their numerous shortcomings in terms of rule design
I don't like T5 boys. If anything, Ork nobs/meganobs deserve to be a T5 dudes. However the game seems to be so lethal at this stage that this is the only way to increase boys durability without slowing the game down. Personally I'd prefer them to stay T4, get a 5+ save and have a feel no pain which could be buffed by a painboy. Maybe resurrection protocols similar to necrons, but with an orky twist.
What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.
BrianDavion wrote: I have no real issues with T5 Ork Boyz, it's not how I would have done it (I would have kept Ork Boyz more or less as is and made them as cheap as possiable, while Making Nobz a troop choice, thus giving Orks 3 distinct grades of troops. grots who are COMPLETE fodder, Boyz whom are "fodder but tougher then say.. guard" and Nobz who would be T5 W2 and be what an Ork player runs if he wants a force where his warriors are individually hard to kill.
But I'm not a GW designer so *shrugs*
I see where you are coming from, but I really think that neither people playing ork nor those playing against them want to see even more boyz on tables.
Green tide isn't fun to play and isn't fun to play against - every time green tide rises to be the top competitive build orks get vastly less popular among non-ork players.
And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.
So this time around less boyz with more durability is the right way to go.
BrianDavion wrote: I have no real issues with T5 Ork Boyz, it's not how I would have done it (I would have kept Ork Boyz more or less as is and made them as cheap as possiable, while Making Nobz a troop choice, thus giving Orks 3 distinct grades of troops. grots who are COMPLETE fodder, Boyz whom are "fodder but tougher then say.. guard" and Nobz who would be T5 W2 and be what an Ork player runs if he wants a force where his warriors are individually hard to kill.
But I'm not a GW designer so *shrugs*
I see where you are coming from, but I really think that neither people playing ork nor those playing against them want to see even more boyz on tables.
Green tide isn't fun to play and isn't fun to play against - every time green tide rises to be the top competitive build orks get vastly less popular among non-ork players.
And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.
So this time around less boyz with more durability is the right way to go.
Agreed. I tend to internally groan when facing an Ork horde of 120 or so Boyz, especially in 9th. Locally and nearly every tourney I attended utilized the 44x60" board size.
What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.
Maybe the T buff will finally end that "horde unit" tag to boyz. Some players, including me, want to field units of 10-12 boyz in a trukk or 17-20 in a BW as legit alternatives to 30 man blobs.
Having T value close to vehicles also encourages to mix up infantries and vehicles which would be awesome, and that's is something that ork players currently don't do, even outside tournaments, if they want to play with optimized lists. No more skewed lists as the only competitive options to consider.
Vehicles should be tougher, regardless of the ork infantries stats, we all know that.
What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.
Maybe the T buff will finally end that "horde unit" tag to boyz. Some players, including me, want to field units of 10-12 boyz in a trukk or 17-20 in a BW as legit alternatives to 30 man blobs.
Having T value close to vehicles also encourages to mix up infantries and vehicles which would be awesome, and that's is something that ork players currently don't do, even outside tournaments, if they want to play with optimized lists. No more skewed lists as the only competitive options to consider.
Vehicles should be tougher, regardless of the ork infantries stats, we all know that.
That's a good point really, haven't thought about that. I've probably written hundreds of posts here on dakka over the years explaining to some new ork player that his army is gak and has no chance of winning because they mixed vehicles and infantry. I'll gladly see that era come to an end.
blaktoof wrote: Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.
The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.
3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.
I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.
So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.
9ppm choppa boyz for sure. Maybe 8ppm shoota boyz. And I think Endless Green Tide should be removed and Da Jump nerfed (easy fix, the psyker comes with) as well.
Jidmah wrote: Yeah, green tide needs to go. 200 points of free models can't ever be healthy, especially not with free deep strike attached.
I think the poxwalker stratagem does the reinforcement part rather well, though it definitely should cost more CP when applied to orks.
I don't necessarily want unstoppable green tide gone, it is a 3 cp strat and fits the amry of never running out of ork bodies. I would say it could be fixed by removing the "from any board edge". unit is removed and comes in from the controlling player's board edge only instead and more than 9 inches from an enemy model. if they get rid of it i won't be broken up about it but i think narrowing it would be better, can be used as a reaction but has a cost and is not a instant mob on any board edge.
Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...
In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.
At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.
In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.
Shoot, thanks for the clarification and correction Blackie.
I remembered that Orks wasn't cheap (6 ppm) at that time since our resident Ork Player was complaining about it back then before the 4th ed codex. And i don't even remember those Space Wolves guys hahahaha. So rare in my area at that time before 5th.
Blackie covered it well I was using the 4th edition codex points rather than the 3rd edition codex which was in play for most of 4th. However, I did mess up with the 4th edition price of Marines. SO technically I should increase the maths to favor Marines getting more durable by an additional 20%
Yup yup yup! GW has shown us the statlines of old boyz, snagga lads and Choppas, Big choppas and the new bosses Uge choppas. So yes it's thankfully set in stone and it's why some peeps are hyped and others are panicking.
Personally I'm still super keen to see what our main faction rules are. Dakka Dakka Dakka and Ere we go will shape a lotta our gameplay.
Jidmah wrote: And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.
I think this gets buried in discussions of gameplay, but it's an important point for a hobby where buying, building, painting, and having to shove around all those models is a key part of the game. Particularly when the sculpts are detailed and have a lot of fiddly bits that take time and effort to paint. One of my buddies who plays Orks is leaning heavily into vehicles just because he's tired of painting Boyz.
From a hobby perspective, I much prefer when basic troops have identity and value beyond being cheap and numerous. You'll still have Grots to provide cheap meatshields, if you want.
I'm curious to see if this trend of basic troops getting buffed continues through 9th. I like what they've done with Drukhari, AdMech, and now Orks. Makes all the time spent painting those models feel more worthwhile.
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
The AoS team has certainly realized how powerful large squads are. Maybe they can share notes with the 40k team, some time?
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
I think they do. Remember the time they had a whole edition dedicated to adding weapons that had gaurenteed #shots versus larger squads to weaken their effectiveness?
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
I think they do. Remember the time they had a whole edition dedicated to adding weapons that had gaurenteed #shots versus larger squads to weaken their effectiveness?
Nah. I must've been dreaming
Those weapons don't count because they aren't effective at killing vehicles and heavy infantry as well which means they aren't a real choice *sarcasm*
The death of real TAC lists on display in almost every single tournament winning list right now.
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
Uhm yes, I can imagine that because DG could literally do that in 8th. It was removed in the last codex.
Spoletta wrote: Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.
For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.
Uhm yes, I can imagine that because DG could literally do that in 8th. It was removed in the last codex.
also a lot of strats for 9th have been tweked so that you pay more CPs to use on a bigger unit
2 edition focusing on people having to buy units in large 20 or 20+ chunks, so with 3ed GW decides to go full msu?
w40k is the same where are the waves of intercessors with thunder hammers from the 2.0 times now or where are there the razoback spam lists from before 2.0? Gone. 8th was all about hordes , up until 2.0 marines droped. And big kits like eldar flyers or knights. Practicaly non of those things see play anymore. GW did make money out of the need of every imperial player to run the loyal 32. GW seems to do such stuff on a cyclical basis, both for armies and for the entire game.
What you describe are the problems of meta-chasers.
If you need to have the latest hotness to participate at tournaments or to curbstomp your local scene, go and spend the money.
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy stuff. Nobody is forcing anybody to use stuff.
I had a complete "Loyal 32" including Knight and Smash Captains from earlier editions sitting ready on the shelf, when I started in 8th. Haven't used it a single time, still had fun.
My honest advice for people who feel churned out by this:
Don't skew and spam a single unit because right now it might be used at tournaments.
1-2 selections of that unit are still good enough and won't leave you with a bitter feeling when the next balance patch comes around.
You should like the unit to begin with as well, so you want to use it after the meta shifted.
Yes, GW tends to buff underperforming units and nerf overperforming units. You can criticise whether their efforts get the game closer to "balance" - but I don't think its that surprising they do this.
I think its clear GW does recognise the power of larger squads sometimes. Equally however its clear there isn't one central architect for 40k rules so this recognition (and many others) appears to come and go.
No it isn't . I liked how termintors look, and don't like power armoured units. in 8th terminators were in every way worse then power armoured troops. Cost, resililance, melee and shoting efficiency, even the few stratagems we had worked better for strikes then termintors. So no wonder people were buying strikes, because termintors were horrible, in an already not good army. PA waltzs in, and for a short time, you can play GK well, in US or else where, as long as you have the rules for buildings ITC had. and the whole army revolves around 10 paladins sitting in a building outside of LoS shoting, while not being able to be shot back. The rest of the army was still strikes. 9th comes around, GK are still bad, so no meta chasing can be spoken about. And suddenly falchions are horrible, when before they were the only sensible options, and strikes focused armies are worse then terminator armoured. So in order for to make the army work, an army which isn't good in 9th either, you practically have to rebuy large chunks of it, and replace all the basic weapons on each model, in an edition where unpainted=10VPs. So no I don't think it is the case of a meta chaser. Specially when the articles writen by GW on the GW owned sites, were telling knight, custodes and GK to run the loyal 32. And out of those 3, one was good in 8th, and okey is good in 9th.
Don't skew and spam a single unit because right now it might be used at tournaments.
1-2 selections of that unit are still good enough and won't leave you with a bitter feeling when the next balance patch comes around.
Okey, but what are you suppose to do when you have two options , there are no other stand ins, and the other is superior and the other is not just worse, but actually bad, in every way? Play with a terminator army all through out 8th ed? Because I can tell you that was not fun. I have old models, so no falchions problem, but for everyone else playing GK they had to remove them from every model that wasn't an NDK, character, or a hammer bearer. Can they ignore the efficiency and just stick to the falchions? Not really, not in an elite army struggling with points, being forced to pay 4 pts per each falchion armed model and getting practically nothing out of it.
And I use GK as an example, because I know the army. I am sure other people playing other armies have the same problems, specially when they armies are weak and don't have a powerful core that can carry some less optimal option. This is not a case of chasing the meta for those armies. It is a case of having some fun or losing every game, before they even start.
Players have this habit of drastically overvaluing the importance of having a competitive list. Chill down, this isn't 7th. If the other player is better than you, you will lose the game. Don't blame your list/faction. Lists matter only in those few cases where you meet someone about as skilled as you, or if you bring a truly bad list against a truly top tier one (barring exceptional cases like pre nerf Drukhari or IH 2.0)
Karol wrote: No it isn't . I liked how termintors look, and don't like power armoured units. in 8th terminators were in every way worse then power armoured troops. Cost, resililance, melee and shoting efficiency, even the few stratagems we had worked better for strikes then termintors. So no wonder people were buying strikes, because termintors were horrible, in an already not good army. PA waltzs in, and for a short time, you can play GK well, in US or else where, as long as you have the rules for buildings ITC had. and the whole army revolves around 10 paladins sitting in a building outside of LoS shoting, while not being able to be shot back. The rest of the army was still strikes. 9th comes around, GK are still bad, so no meta chasing can be spoken about. And suddenly falchions are horrible, when before they were the only sensible options, and strikes focused armies are worse then terminator armoured. So in order for to make the army work, an army which isn't good in 9th either, you practically have to rebuy large chunks of it, and replace all the basic weapons on each model, in an edition where unpainted=10VPs. So no I don't think it is the case of a meta chaser. Specially when the articles writen by GW on the GW owned sites, were telling knight, custodes and GK to run the loyal 32. And out of those 3, one was good in 8th, and okey is good in 9th.
This is meta chasing. Your army didn't change at all. It still got the rules from 8th. Some random dude at your store or on the internet said that against the current tournament dominant armies Swords or Halberds are the mathematically best options now. Which is true, but Falchions, Swords and Halberds are so close together in performance that it is crazy to feel the need that you have to replace large chunks of the army to stay competitive. So you have Falchions now, rebuy your army to make Swords and in three months for whatever reason Halberds are the best. Gonny buy the army a third time before you realise it isn't worth it? I mean at some point you are going to have so much redundancy, that you can field everything multiple times and then I have to concede my point Against a sensible opponent you might always play the "my whole army got Swords instead of the modelled Falchions this game, hope you don't mind" card as well.
Okey, but what are you suppose to do when you have two options , there are no other stand ins, and the other is superior and the other is not just worse, but actually bad, in every way? Play with a terminator army all through out 8th ed? Because I can tell you that was not fun. I have old models, so no falchions problem, but for everyone else playing GK they had to remove them from every model that wasn't an NDK, character, or a hammer bearer. Can they ignore the efficiency and just stick to the falchions? Not really, not in an elite army struggling with points, being forced to pay 4 pts per each falchion armed model and getting practically nothing out of it.
And I use GK as an example, because I know the army. I am sure other people playing other armies have the same problems, specially when they armies are weak and don't have a powerful core that can carry some less optimal option. This is not a case of chasing the meta for those armies. It is a case of having some fun or losing every game, before they even start.
The whole GK codex only got two options? Didn't realise that. I must have imagined all those 34 datasheets looking at me in Battlescribe.
Skew your army with one unit, feel the burn once the balance changes. It is as simple as that.
I hope there aren't too many people out there who are spamming Vanguard Vets with Shield and Claws right now, or stocking up on at least three Volkite Contemptors.
Again: Against a sensible opponent you might always play the "my whole army got Swords instead of the modelled Falchions this game, hope you don't mind" card. But then again, against a sensible opponent you can TALK before the game if you feel your army is struggling as well.
This is meta chasing. Your army didn't change at all. It still got the rules from 8th. Against a sensible opponent you might always play the "my whole army got Swords instead of the modelled Falchions this game, hope you don't mind" card as well.
My didn't, well it kind of a did suddenly terminators were better then strikes. But GK are still a bad army. A guy who I knew had a more drastic version of this happen to him. over night he turned from, dude everyone laughs at for playing a weak army, to you should never play IH, because they are breaking the game. Also falchions are not even close in performance to other weapons, unless you are in those rare places that don't use points to play. 4pts per model, when you are already paying 20+/40+pts per model is huge difference.
Also I like your life style. 3 months and an army is rebought. If I had money like that, I wouldn't even be playing w40k probably, I would start to save to buy a car in a few years or something. It takes me 4 months to save up enough money to buy the next CA, and that is assuming I don't have to buy a codex or a PA book in the mean time . I also don't think people should buy thousand of points of models they never will use, just in case that maybe they will be that one in 10 or 20 guy who does not quit after an edition of warhammer, and then in another 2-3 editions the stuff that they bought becomes good again, and that in the mean time GW didn't intreduce something like primaris or replace their entire model line. Your type of argument must have worked really well for all those people that bought thousands of points of WFB armies, thinking that in year or two GW "has to" make their army book good. From what I see GW doesn't have to do a darn thing. And are content with armies being bad for multiple editions, only to remove them or phase them out later on.
And the "sensible" opponent argument is just bizzar. The game is WYSIWYG. Unless the opponent is your friend, he is not going to be okey with it. And why should he be, even if he is one.
a_typical_hero 799075 11157857 wrote:
The whole GK codex only got two options? Didn't realise that. I must have imagined all those 34 datasheets looking at me in Battlescribe.
Skew your army with one unit, feel the burn once the balance changes. It is as simple as that.
I hope there aren't too many people out there who are spamming Vanguard Vets with Shield and Claws right now, or stocking up on at least three Volkite Contemptors.
Again: Against a sensible opponent you might always play the "my whole army got Swords instead of the modelled Falchions this game, hope you don't mind" card. But then again, against a sensible opponent you can TALK before the game if you feel your army is struggling as well.
For troop and infantry options of course. There are two, but in reality both 8th and 9th practicaly has one, and even that one is bad, because you are paying 2W marine prices for models with 1W. I don't understand the Venguard Vet or Contemptors examples. Neither can be taken by GK, and armies that can take them very much have options to replace them with. There is the primaris plasma dread, if someone doesn't want to buy recasts . And Vanvets here were run instead of blade guard since the start of 8th. Mostly because there were problems in getting the models. Same with attack bikes, when people in US and UK were spaming the new melta gravis suits, people here were using MM attack bikes. Both options are valid, some are better then other. And that is the main difference between some armies and other. you can have 200 datasheets for your army, but if only 3 are worth taking, then you don't really have an option to run something else. Heck GK players run servitor , because there are no other back line scoring units to take in the price range and 5 strikes cost too much. And the my army is swords argument doesn't work when WYSIWYG is part of the game. And you will find little sympathy on the other side of the table, unless you are in that are situation where you play a GK on GK mirror.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: Players have this habit of drastically overvaluing the importance of having a competitive list.
Chill down, this isn't 7th.
If the other player is better than you, you will lose the game. Don't blame your list/faction.
Lists matter only in those few cases where you meet someone about as skilled as you, or if you bring a truly bad list against a truly top tier one (barring exceptional cases like pre nerf Drukhari or IH 2.0)
Suprise, suprise, people tend to play good armies, and those that have losing armies tend to not stick around for more then an edition. So how does that really work? Plus in store games most people are, more or less on the same level. And not everyone likes to hear that if they want to have a chance to win against army X, they need to get first turn, have good rolls surviving their opponents turn 2, and then have good rolls with their counter attacks. If those 3 don't happen, and the place they play at doesn't have some bizzar terrain set, the result is more or less fixed. Specially if the army they play isn't painted.
I would love to hear the explanation how a person with a regular army beats a 10VP disadvanted going second vs something like DE or Harlequins or SoB.
There's no rule for that in the modern editions. As long as you have a model that represents the datasheet, it's fine.
By the rules, a Grey Knight with 2 falchions is the model that represents a Strike Squad datasheet, so can represent any valid loadout of any Strike Squad member. You could point at the model and say "this guy is my model representing the Strike Squad datasheet, he is equipped with a psycannon" and that is 100% by the rules.
Every single day im grateful for my group that just gives negative gaks about meta chasing in any way.
Basically everybody just chose to continue using pure monofaction lists during the entirety of the "soup edition" of 8th, not one single person bought a castellan during the castellan meta. Literally the only balance shift bad enough to actually hurt the group was the 2.0 marinedex because all the marine fans were suckers for the cool unique rules for their particular beloved chapter, so everybody not playing marines got frustrated and left after a few weeks of 100% win rate marine doninance.
When you lose versus an army, feeling like you never had any chance, and you can walk around the room and see not one single person playing even came close to scratching their marine opponent on 6-7 odd tables, thats an indicator that it's time to take a break or limit your opponents to only other non-marines for a while.
Thankfully people have mostly come back at this point, post-quarantine were nearly back up to pre-2.0 numbers.
Tyel wrote: Yes, GW tends to buff underperforming units and nerf overperforming units. You can criticise whether their efforts get the game closer to "balance" - but I don't think its that surprising they do this.
I think its clear GW does recognise the power of larger squads sometimes. Equally however its clear there isn't one central architect for 40k rules so this recognition (and many others) appears to come and go.
Sure...that is why they nerfed the ork stratagem "mob up" to only impact boyz instead of what it was really used for, lootas.
And the "sensible" opponent argument is just bizzar. The game is WYSIWYG. Unless the opponent is your friend, he is not going to be okey with it. And why should he be, even if he is one.
You and I must be playing in [i]very[i] different environments, because in my area pretty much every opponent I've ever faced has been more than reasonable and sensible, and nobody would think twice at a "Hey these guys with lascannons are all actually missile launchers today, hope that's ok."
Out of interest, am I the only one who couldn't give a rat's arse whether my opponent's army is WYSIWYG or not?
Even in practical terms, I rarely find WYSIWYG to be particularly helpful. It's not uncommon for a pre-game conversation with my opponent to be along these lines:
Me - 'So what's everything armed with?'
Him - 'It's all WYSIWYG.'
Me - 'Okay . . . so what's everything armed with?'
This isn't me being obtuse, this is me just not knowing what a lot of the weapons in 40k look like. I have no clue what a Tau Fusion Gun looks like or how it differs from a Tau Plasma Rifle. I know most of the old imperial weapons but it it's Primaris then it could be anything, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I could recognise even a single piece of Admech gear.
And this is assuming I have time to scrutinise each miniature. When they're clumped together on the opposite side of the table, I'm lucky if I can tell the guns from the swords.
Anyone else have this issue or am I just really dense?
I don't think you are alone. I haven't played so far, but I would definitly feel the same regarding identifying enemy weapons. And also would not mind things like "these missile launchers are lascannons today". Few people have so much money that they can buy and build every option and I assume everyone likes to change the army he pilots now and then.
As long as things are kept simple enough and are not purposely misleading, I don't see a problem.
One of my friends that I play with uses armless Cadians as whatever flavor of summoned daemon they need for Horus Heresy, or Tzaangors for Thousand Sons, or Heresy Contemptors as Daemon Princes or Heresy era automata...
Not sure if I've ever played a WYSIWYG game with him, except maybe drunkenly at a convention at 1am where he was in an event that required painted + WYSIWYG.
Out of interest, am I the only one who couldn't give a rat's arse whether my opponent's army is WYSIWYG or not?
Even in practical terms, I rarely find WYSIWYG to be particularly helpful. It's not uncommon for a pre-game conversation with my opponent to be along these lines:
Me - 'So what's everything armed with?'
Him - 'It's all WYSIWYG.'
Me - 'Okay . . . so what's everything armed with?'
This isn't me being obtuse, this is me just not knowing what a lot of the weapons in 40k look like. I have no clue what a Tau Fusion Gun looks like or how it differs from a Tau Plasma Rifle. I know most of the old imperial weapons but it it's Primaris then it could be anything, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I could recognise even a single piece of Admech gear.
And this is assuming I have time to scrutinise each miniature. When they're clumped together on the opposite side of the table, I'm lucky if I can tell the guns from the swords.
Anyone else have this issue or am I just really dense?
Nope, same here. I can somehow tell for eldar, CSM and maybe IG, since they are very easy to identify and don't have many different options. Outside of that? I have no fethin' clue what most of the ad mech, drukhari or GSC weapons look like, if there is any difference between options at all (rapid fire/assault/heavy primaris weapons).
It's the same the other way around for my orks. "What's that buggy?" "A kustom boosta-blasta." "Cool. What does it do?" "It has a rivet cannon, four burna exhausts, grot blaster, stikk bomb and a spiked ram." "Cool. What does it do?" "Assault 6 autocannon, four burnas and does mortal wounds when charging." "What's a burna?"
Out of interest, am I the only one who couldn't give a rat's arse whether my opponent's army is WYSIWYG or not?
Even in practical terms, I rarely find WYSIWYG to be particularly helpful. It's not uncommon for a pre-game conversation with my opponent to be along these lines:
Me - 'So what's everything armed with?'
Him - 'It's all WYSIWYG.'
Me - 'Okay . . . so what's everything armed with?'
This isn't me being obtuse, this is me just not knowing what a lot of the weapons in 40k look like. I have no clue what a Tau Fusion Gun looks like or how it differs from a Tau Plasma Rifle. I know most of the old imperial weapons but it it's Primaris then it could be anything, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I could recognise even a single piece of Admech gear.
And this is assuming I have time to scrutinise each miniature. When they're clumped together on the opposite side of the table, I'm lucky if I can tell the guns from the swords.
Anyone else have this issue or am I just really dense?
Nope - no one is that dense. Knowing what weapons look like is not a requisite to play the game.
It is only WAAC people that care about this nonsense anyways.
Some tournaments enforce it, but the idea of going "no, you have a guy with a melta gun, I can't possibly let you say its a plasma gun for this game" strike me as... well, a way to not have many friends.
I guess at a certain point I'd kick off (pls treat these Ork boys as Daemonettes.. or this piece of paper as a Leman Russ) but even then as a one off I'm not sure I'd be that bothered about it.
Tyel wrote: There's no official rule on WYSIWYG is there?
Some tournaments enforce it, but the idea of going "no, you have a guy with a melta gun, I can't possibly let you say its a plasma gun for this game" strike me as... well, a way to not have many friends.
I guess at a certain point I'd kick off (pls treat these Ork boys as Daemonettes.. or this piece of paper as a Leman Russ) but even then as a one off I'm not sure I'd be that bothered about it.
I can understand it a little better for tournaments - and again, this is going to vary from tournament to tournament and often between organizers as well. A casual tournament is going to be different from an ITC-level event at a big gaming convention. And even then, it feels like there should be a line between "this space marine squad armed with lascannons actually represents missile launchers" vs "these Cadians are actually Ruinstorm daemons".
The only weapon I feel works for WYSIWYG is plasma because I can easely see the blue/red/green dots in my opponent army.
Nearly everything else? Nah. Is that a missile launcher or a lass cannon? Is not like I can see without reaching to the miniature and at that point Is faster yo just ask.
What I have seen that works is consistence.
Whe all your units of one type have the same equipement. I don't care if your 6 tactical squads have each marine armed with a different weapon both meele and ranged. If you say to me "All my tacticals are 5 man with 1 plasma cannon" then thats good. The game hasnt has enough units to not remember , when they are consistent, what are they equiped with.
The same goes for those old lists that had 90-120 cultists. "They have all autoguns" is enough for me, I don't care if the models have close combat weapons or whatever.
Whe all your units of one type have the same equipement. I don't care if your 6 tactical squads have each marine armed with a different weapon both meele and ranged. If you say to me "All my tacticals are 5 man with 1 plasma cannon" then thats good. The game hasnt has enough units to not remember , when they are consistent, what are they equiped with.
The same goes for those old lists that had 90-120 cultists. "They have all autoguns" is enough for me, I don't care if the models have close combat weapons or whatever.
Yeah, this is what I find helpful as well (and what I try to do if I need to proxy stuff).
Tyel wrote: Yes, GW tends to buff underperforming units and nerf overperforming units. You can criticise whether their efforts get the game closer to "balance" - but I don't think its that surprising they do this.
I think its clear GW does recognise the power of larger squads sometimes. Equally however its clear there isn't one central architect for 40k rules so this recognition (and many others) appears to come and go.
Sure...that is why they nerfed the ork stratagem "mob up" to only impact boyz instead of what it was really used for, lootas.
Or nerfed GK in every FAQ through out 8th ed, to a point where it became a meme.
It is only WAAC people that care about this nonsense anyways.
Or people who had to make their army WYSIWYG. I had to rebase a large chunk of my army for them to be legal in 8th ed. A new player is going to get 0 sympathy points from me for having to do it too. And the same goes for everything else. If someone had to pay a lot to get thunder hammers or plasma for his army, they are not going accept someone saying that this bolter guy has a powerfist , because his headbutts are so strong.
Karol wrote: Or people who had to make their army WYSIWYG. I had to rebase a large chunk of my army for them to be legal in 8th ed. A new player is going to get 0 sympathy points from me for having to do it too. And the same goes for everything else. If someone had to pay a lot to get thunder hammers or plasma for his army, they are not going accept someone saying that this bolter guy has a powerfist , because his headbutts are so strong.
You know, instead of making the hobby experience for a new player as miserable as possible for the sole reason that you had to do it, too, you should take the chance to build a less gakky community. Show them that there is a different, more relaxed way to play, far away from the cutthroat gak that the older players want to enforce.
Get a few people like that and you have your community where the game is - stay with me - fun.
A single person can build nothing. And trying to change or build anything alone, at my age and with my budget is an insane thing to propose. It would sooner end with yout being ostracised and not having anyone to play, then changing anything.
And people do have and care about fun. Their own, and maybe their friends. They care gak about everyone else.
Also it would be hard for me to show new people the "relaxed" way to play when most people build their armies according to meta lists and various forums. Would be like someone coming to a yard football match and saying they, guys lets have fun. Even I know know this would be considered wierd.
A single person by their own can not change the established system, that is correct.
I did not ask you to do it alone, though.
Not every new player is coming to the store with a netlisted 2k army.
Play smaller games with the beginners, pass on a relaxed philosophy. You don't have to play netlists against each other to have fun. You don't have to be WYSIWYG. Have a nice chatter with them.
This way you get like minded people, maybe some friends even, and can play each other. Let the gakky rest play how they want to. You don't need them anymore.
I have the joy to introduce several beginners to 40k at our local club and I make sure to be as welcoming as possible while explaining the game to them.
I'm not trying to persuade them that my preferred way of playing is the only right one, mind you. I let them subconsciously decide how they want to play.
The result is that I have a large pool of players that I enjoy playing with.
a_typical_hero wrote: A single person by their own can not change the established system, that is correct.
I did not ask you to do it alone, though.
Not every new player is coming to the store with a netlisted 2k army.
Play smaller games with the beginners, pass on a relaxed philosophy. You don't have to play netlists against each other to have fun. You don't have to be WYSIWYG. Have a nice chatter with them.
This way you get like minded people, maybe some friends even, and can play each other. Let the gakky rest play how they want to. You don't need them anymore.
I have the joy to introduce several beginners to 40k at our local club and I make sure to be as welcoming as possible while explaining the game to them.
I'm not trying to persuade them that my preferred way of playing is the only right one, mind you. I let them subconsciously decide how they want to play.
The result is that I have a large pool of players that I enjoy playing with.
That is litterally how people start here. They check their money and compare it to the closest thing they can buy with it, that is close to a good army. And the rare cases where people do not check that, of which I know only 2 examples in the span of 4 years now, end really bad. One was me and the other was a guy who came from Holland, and build a IG army in the middle of 8th ed, only to find out that he can't play a krieg army at the store , after he bought and painted the entire army. You would have to be 30+ with big income to even try buying in to a bad army, regular people that are teens are not going to even try to risk spending time and money on an army, which may end up bad.
I also think I would be the worse person to intreduce new players to the game, ignoring my lack of understanding of social interactions. If someone asks me what I play and if I am having fun, how will they ever trust anything I say , If the anwser is GK and generally no. I don't even know how it is to play a powerful army. Because for the short time GK were good at the end of 8th, the store I played was closed for covid.
Every day im so grateful that I play with a group of responsible functioning adults.
Everyone just plays with what theyve got, slowly grown collections built over years, not chasing the meta dragon for two months of easy wins, not being a dick to one another just to perpetuate a cycle of being dicks.
the_scotsman wrote: Every day im so grateful that I play with a group of responsible functioning adults.
Everyone just plays with what theyve got, slowly grown collections built over years, not chasing the meta dragon for two months of easy wins, not being a dick to one another just to perpetuate a cycle of being dicks.
I feel lucky to mostly play in a tournament meta where we have a great time and play hard against one another, but nobody is WAAC or rude. Honestly, the only way I could think to make the atmosphere better would be to allow drinking at the events
the_scotsman wrote: Every day im so grateful that I play with a group of responsible functioning adults.
Everyone just plays with what theyve got, slowly grown collections built over years, not chasing the meta dragon for two months of easy wins, not being a dick to one another just to perpetuate a cycle of being dicks.
I feel lucky to mostly play in a tournament meta where we have a great time and play hard against one another, but nobody is WAAC or rude. Honestly, the only way I could think to make the atmosphere better would be to allow drinking at the events
As an ork player i would not feel right playing without a (fungus?) beer around. I don't get tipsy nor does my group in general but its pretty typical to start a round with a fresh brew and after turn 2 take a quick break to grab another bottle. so basically 2 brews over 2-4 hours
They literally have the same durability stat as superhuman soldier, they DON'T need to be equal to custodes, sister walkers, or smaller vehicles! 
.
