JNAProductions wrote:
Goffs with a Warboss nearby and +1 attack take 1.5 boys to kill a single marine on the charge.
It’s two full boys if they lack the attack boost.

And +1 to-hit matters MORE for MANz than for boys-going from 3+ to 2+ isn’t as impactful as 4+ to 3+.

Sorry - I should have been more specific. I mean in relative terms.

i.e. MANZ with +1 can kill up to 13 things instead of 10. Boyz with +1 can kill 67 things instead of 53.

The outcome, of course, relies on the target and the weapons suitable to hit it.

It doesn’t affect the min (0) or the max (1 kill per hit).
It only affects the average.

Deadalus is just trolling. Stop feeding him.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It doesn’t affect the min (0) or the max (1 kill per hit).
It only affects the average.

I'm not expressing my idea clearly enough.

5 MANZ with +1 will kill 7 or 8 skitarii vets.
20 boyz will kill up to 30.

These are not Goff numbers and your explodes absolutely scale far faster with boyz.

Skitarii don't come in blocks of 30, so the boyz "cap out" even sooner.

You're going to achieve a greater effect when you punch something that doesn't favor MANZ.

With battlesuit and custodes madness that becomes more favorable to MANZ - for the +1 anyway.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Deadalus is just trolling. Stop feeding him.

No. Typically a troll is someone who makes a post that doesn't address or contribute anything.

You can feel free to refute my other points at your leisure.

Goff Boy damage, especially in a Waaagh turn, is fine. The issue is their relative speed and survivability.

The next issue is that there are (kinda) things you could do to help those issues by say not being Goffs. But then your damage is bad.

Seemingly regardless of what you do, a 10 man unit of Boyz makes for a bad toolbox unit, that in other lists would say do actions, tag objectives, screen things out or go +1 with comparable toolbox units in your opponents list.

Yes, I won't argue that speed is a problem.

And, yes, Goffs definitely keep boyz from being viable in other kultures - not that that is necessarily bad depending on how you view orks in general.

I.e. if shootas were interesting Bad Moons would have them on lock.

The recent posts are more about whether the design is appropriate and deliberate.

Goff Boyz have good results even after taking losses. I'll be giving some thoughts on the issue a whirl as soon as I can.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
80 attacks [...]

Warboss used to break heads, which is the same as the strat, but now the strat is "bad".

Yes, a single-target stratagem for 2 CP that replaces 2-4 dead models with d3 dead models is worse than a free aura that affects multiple units. Who would have thought.
Thrakka also used to have twice the range on his aura than the stratagem does now.

Goffs went from 6s give you another attack to 6s give you a hit on top of +1S.

They also had +1S for boyz in the old codex, just as a stratagem. Having an extra hit instead of an extra attack is a pretty trivial upgrade for a unit that already hits on threes or twos with potential re-rolls.
And let's not forget that boyz also had a fight twice stratagem.

KFF may have ben halved, but it works in melee and covers more than one mob.

Having a one in six chance to not die to melee hit does not make up failing twice as many saves. The whole point is that boyz needed the KFF to get to melee, they don't care for the save they get when they are there.
In addition, a 6++ KFF has to cover about 50 boyz to break even, while a 5++ only has to cover 25. It's worse for MA big meks.

They lost +1A for 20 models, but gained an AP, which is phenomenally better.

Unless you are fighting 1+ save models, models with invulnerable saves, models that ignore AP-1 or models with no armor to begin with...

Also note Waaagh.

So 20 Goffs from the past v MEQ with a Warboss nearby --

((80 * .167 * .666) + (80 * .666)) * .5 * .333 = 10.4

And 20 now --

((80 * .167) + (80 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 26.6

Do you honestly think it'd be ok for Boyz to have the same morale when they can produce almost three times the output under the same conditions?

I don't even want to write anything about this. You taking a warboss into the equation which did absolutely nothing for the offensive of boyz but had much greater utility than it does now and claim that it is better isn't even arguing just for the sake of arguing anymore. ESPECIALLY since a +1 to hit character existed in the old codex, for a similar price.
It's straight being dishonest for no other reason than to prove a point. koooaei is right, you are a troll.

Actual math for old boyz being played competitively would be with Thrakka nearby, so 100 attacks, hitting on 3s, re-rolling ones, wounding on 3s due to 'ard boyz, fighting twice, for a total of 34.568 damage, while also advancing and charging and being almost immune to morale for at least two turns (more if Thrakka surivived longer or another warboss was around), not just for one turn.

So, stop trolling. You are contributing nothing to this discussion. Your scenarios and calculation have no value, because they are either wrong, constructed to prove a point or completely removed from reality.
A good data scientists is trying to prove their hypothesis wrong, and only draw conclusions when they fail to do that. Try that for a change.

 Jidmah wrote:

I don't even want to write anything about this. You taking a warboss into the equation which did absolutely nothing for the offensive of boyz but had much greater utility than it does now and claim that it is better isn't even arguing just for the sake of arguing anymore. ESPECIALLY since a +1 to hit character existed in the old codex, for a similar price.
It's straight being dishonest for no other reason than to prove a point. koooaei is right, you are a troll.

A Waaagh Banner was an extra slot and did nothing much else. A Warboss is a totally competent model and brings the buff instead of consuming points and a slot.

Actual math for old boyz being played competitively would be with Thrakka nearby, so 100 attacks, hitting on 3s, re-rolling ones, wounding on 3s due to 'ard boyz, fighting twice, for a total of 34.568 damage, while also advancing and charging and being almost immune to morale for at least two turns (more if Thrakka surivived longer or another warboss was around), not just for one turn.

So, stop trolling. You are contributing nothing to this discussion. Your scenarios and calculation have no value, because they are either wrong, constructed to prove a point or completely removed from reality.
A good data scientists is trying to prove their hypothesis wrong, and only draw conclusions when they fail to do that. Try that for a change.

You're really going to sit there and tell me that a 240 point HQ plus four CP is a valid comparison? Ok.

That's 360 for Ghaz and 20 Boyz @ 6. Twenty new boyz are 180 plus 115 for MA boss. So instead I should have 27 boyz instead.

((108 * .333) + (108 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 41.9

That's 2 CP spend.

Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Sounds like the point you are trying to make is that if you add a rule that Boyz use to have "morale immunity" to the existing Boyz rules, then they would be more viable... Which was deduced on page 1 by numerous others and also is irrelevant to the topic of are "Kroot better than Boyz"

Your web of half-truths and misinformation has gotten tangled. Accept the L and move on.

KROOT ARE BETTER THAN BOYZ.

Not really sure why you guys are getting upset over this.

To my mind I like this discussion because its vaguely rooted in 40k as it is, rather than most threads on this subforum which all focused on how 40k should be a totally different game or was better 10+ years ago, maybe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warboss now gives out +1 to hit. That +1 matters when it's 80 attacks instead of say 20 for MANZ - especially if you want to go take out something with an invulnerable save.

Depends on how good those attacks are at wounding and dealing damage. It increases the effectiveness of each boy attack by 25%, and the effectiveness of each MANZ attack by 33%. Raw number of attacks is not a good metric to go by here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly the mods just need to slap Daedalus with a temp ban for trolling.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Sounds like the point you are trying to make is that if you add a rule that Boyz use to have "morale immunity" to the existing Boyz rules, then they would be more viable... Which was deduced on page 1 by numerous others and also is irrelevant to the topic of are "Kroot better than Boyz"

Your web of half-truths and misinformation has gotten tangled. Accept the L and move on.

If you say so, champ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the mods just need to slap Daedalus with a temp ban for trolling.

You people have some real gaul, you know?

I've been making rational and composed posts and you all come in like gak lords and tell me I'm a troll, because I don't agree with your premise.

In short, current boyz are in some ways better than old boyz if you simply check their damage per point ratio. But are worse in most other ways like being more expensive, loosing semi-fearless which, in turn, makes them more fragile than they used to be.
The biggest hits are: the loss of reliable t1 deep strike and clan +1 to charge bonus, loss of fight twice and unstoppable greentide.

So, we end up with an overall worse version of boyz with a niche useful trick of becoming trukkboyz (which is still quite mediocre but occasionally useful).

But the most important thing is that the power level of the game has progressed significantly. While the boyz have regressed or at very best stayed arguably comparable with what they used to be. Which makes the comparison irrelevant yet again.

If you find this untrustworthy, check tourney ork lists that got somewhere. It's gonna be pretty hard to find someone running 30 boyz and doing good.

Again, this is the 2nd or 3rd thread that basically boils down to "ork boyz aren't great right now and need some rules help". Just let it die... like the boyz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Warboss now gives out +1 to hit. That +1 matters when it's 80 attacks instead of say 20 for MANZ - especially if you want to go take out something with an invulnerable save.
Warboss used to give advance and charge all the time. Now it's once per game, but you gained two turns of +1A - again a thing that increases in effectiveness the more models you have.

Comparison between 8th and 9th is the main point relating to this thread because it shows that Orkz do have bad rules and Kroot on the other hand went from having bad rules to having good rules and being taken in lists with pretty damn good troops choices.

Warboss Now gives +1 to hit, yes he does. The +1 does matter when its 80 attacks. Yes it does. But again, like for like. Last edition a Warboss was taken competitively as a beat stick for the most part. In the end of 8th, the competitive ork players who were running boyz were doing so with GHAZ. Why? Because Ghaz gave them all a host of benefits while the warboss was taken as another melee beat stick, specifically with CP used to buff him with the new additions from psychic awakening which turned him into a more points efficient Mini-Ghaz as far as melee dmg goes. So the example you are doing from the start is flawed because almost nobody was using Warbosses for their advance and charge, they were using them as a delivery system for melee dmg. Ghaz was the de-facto buffing character. And to the point you made about +1 mattering, as Jidmah pointed out we already had that in a host of ways including a banner nob. But yeah +1 does help a bit, but nobody is swinging with 80 attacks because NOBODY is taking 20 boyz, they are taking 10 because again, GW wrote BAD rules for Boyz which completely destroyed them in larger units So your example is a bad faith argument because nobody would take 20 to start with. So in reality its 10 boyz with +1 to hit. And 10 boyz with +1 to hit and 3 attacks each because we aren't assuming waaagh is 25 hits at S4 -1AP. For the exact same price you can take 3 Meganobz which get 9 attacks and 6 hits (With the same +1 to hit) at S10 -3AP So the Meganobz go from 4.5 hits to 6, an increase of 33% Boyz went from 20 hits to 25, or an increase of 25%. Dmg wise its 5 extra S4 hits or 1.5 extra S10 AP-3 hits. Against a Marine those extra hits are Boyz: 0.83 extra dmg Vs. Meganobz: 2.08 extra dmg. So in the scenario you built just changed for reality, the Meganobz receive a significantly greater bump in dmg output

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Morale used to be just straight up lose models, which could happen back then unless you had multiple mobs, which means it was all in or nothing. If you lost 20 then you LD was 10 and you'd still lose every other model in that unit unless you have a 20+ mob nearby. NOW if you lose 20 with a 10 man nearby then you lose 1 and then 1 or 2 more.

except that isn't true either In 8th, I would run multiple blobs of 30 boyz, so if I lost 20 in 1 mob I was still LD30, to actually inflict morale casualties to an ork horde army you had to go hard into every mob of boyz I took because otherwise you wouldn't inflict any morale dmg. But even that isn't true either because NOBODY was letting 1-10 boyz survive in a decimated ork mob because Endless Green tide would just bring back the entire mob and be placed somewhere else on the battlefield where there better Ere We Go special rule allowed them a better than average chance at a successful Charge.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warboss used to break heads, which is the same as the strat, but now the strat is "bad".

As Jid already pointed out, Breaking Eads used to be a Warboss/character Aura that auto-passed morale at the cost of D3 boyz. It wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either. Now I have to pay CP for the honor of killing my own models, and also only if its within of a Warboss/Nobz unit...IE never. So yes, Break Eads is significantly worse than before. And the stratagem is in fact Bad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Goffs went from 6s give you another attack to 6s give you a hit on top of +1S.

yes, I won't argue this point. the Goff Kulture is now significantly better than it was in 8th. I will point out though that while Goffs got better for Ork boyz, every other kulture got markedly worse and thanks to all the aforementioned nerfs, nobody really runs Goff boyz. I for instance am the weird ork player who brings boyz in my competitive list, but only as Trukk boyz WHO DONT BENEFIT FROM GOFF KULTURE!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
KFF may have ben halved, but it works in melee and covers more than one mob.

What matters more Daed, getting into CC with 50% fewer casualties or getting into CC with 50% more casualties but getting a 6+++ when you finally get into CC? IN real game terms, I take 30dmg on a boyz mob, in 8th that left me with 10 boyz alive thanks to the KFF to get stuck in and swing their choppas. In 9th I have 5 left. There is a reason nobody is taking KFF's anymore in competitive lists.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They lost +1A for 20 models, but gained an AP, which is phenomenally better. Also note Waaagh.

Almost every single faction in the entire game is getting an upgraded troop choice weapon that has -1AP. So this isn't a good faith argument either. We lost something we had but gained something that is being given out freely to everyone who they themselves aren't losing anything. Case and point, Kroot. Kroot lost +1S on their weapon but gained -1AP...oh but wait, that +1S got baked into their profile...so they didn't lose anything.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Do you honestly think it'd be ok for Boyz to have the same morale when they can produce almost three times the output under the same conditions? Christ you could fight twice with the old Boyz and STILL be behind.

Another bad faith argument. Even if Ork boyz got their old Morale rules back they still wouldn't put out anywhere near 3x the output. 1: Fewer buffs from characters means fewer are alive. 2: No strat support and 3: and most importantly THE RULES HAVE CHANGED! Boyz were 25mm they are now 32mm. CC range got reduced heavily so you can't have 3 ranks of boyz fighting. Please tell me how 20 boyz who with some work could all get into CC have 3x less dmg output than 20 boyz in 9th who can't reach CC with more than 10 models on average?

If you are going to cherry pick rules/buffs and data points you can make anything look true. But in reality its a bad faith argument. REAL game play last edition, on a regular basis, in competitive tournaments I would have blobs of 30 boyz in CC, 20(ish) of them could swing, they would be +1 Attack for having 20+ Models and +1 attack for Ghaz being nearby, and likely another +1 for the weirdboy casting warpath because i routinely was taking 3 in 8th and had spells to spare. So that was 20 boyz with 6 attacks each, hitting on 3s, re-rolling 1s and wounding on 3s because I had buffed them with +1S pre-game. Now compare that to a current real game scenario, you cant because it doesn't exist and it doesn't for a reason. No please stop lying saying 9th edition boyz put out 3x the dmg as 8th edition boyz, if that was the case you would see them spammed fething everywhere even in 10 man blobs because who cares if you lose 1-2 to morale since if 4 get into CC they apparently have the dmg output of 12 boyz from 8th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You're really going to sit there and tell me that a 240 point HQ plus four CP is a valid comparison? Ok.

That's 360 for Ghaz and 20 Boyz @ 6. Twenty new boyz are 180 plus 115 for MA boss. So instead I should have 27 boyz instead.
((108 * .333) + (108 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 41.9
That's 2 CP spend.
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Since it was a competitive build from 8th, IE how they were routinely taken, Yes. You want to give boyz in 9th all these buffs they never really get, somehow getting their larger bases into the smaller CC range every single time, completely ignoring their lack of mobility in 9th, not to mention the fact that they die pt for pt significantly faster than in 8th...yes, its a valid comparison.

I'll be very blunt. If you kept boyz AS IS right now and gave them back old Mob rule, they still wouldn't be competitive. They might make it into events as a gate keeper army, but even that would be rather rare to see. But the thing is, I don't necessarily want the old Green Tide 180+ body armies running around, I'd be happy with Trukk boyz if they were more competitive, I would be thrilled if Boyz had a purpose on the table similar to the Kroot carnivores who are now being taken in GT WINNING events, even though Tau have troops choices that are better in a lot of different ways.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, I won't argue that speed is a problem.
And, yes, Goffs definitely keep boyz from being viable in other kultures - not that that is necessarily bad depending on how you view orks in general.
I.e. if shootas were interesting Bad Moons would have them on lock.
The recent posts are more about whether the design is appropriate and deliberate.
Goff Boyz have good results even after taking losses. I'll be giving some thoughts on the issue a whirl as soon as I can.

Goff Boyz aren't taken in competitive lists. Like I said, I'm about the closest you can get to a "Goff" player with boyz in my list, and those boyz LOSE their kulture when they become Trukk boyz.

As far as Design being appropriate and deliberate...please explain your aforementioned Shoota boyz. They actually got worse Model for Model at 10-18' range, pt for pt its not even funny to compare because it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Were shoota boyz really that overpowering in the meta and in need of a nerf? Or was it yet another example of GW not being able to write coherent Rules for Orkz. I would expand that further, explain the stupidity behind "Dakka" weapons. Orkz lost MOST of their assault weapons, they either became Heavy or became "Dakka" weapons, but then some clown at GW gave Evil Sunz a rule that lets them advance and shoot assault weapons at full BS...which itself is a pretty bad rule, but teamed with the removal of 90% of ork assault weapons, it was just a hilarious example of GW not knowing what they are doing.

You will literally never change my mind about whether or not GW knows what they are doing when they write ork rules. The consensus among the Ork players here is that GW does not know WTF they are doing. AND to make it even more inexcusable GW themselves said they didn't even have an Ork army. So the clowns writing our rules DONT EVEN PLAY orkz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You people have some real gaul, you know?

I've been making rational and composed posts and you all come in like gak lords and tell me I'm a troll, because I don't agree with your premise.

No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Design being appropriate and deliberate...please explain your aforementioned Shoota boyz.

Seriously this. Dakka should have been a keyword, and the majority of those weapons should have stayed Assault. Someone at GW just was frustrated that Orks had access to shooting like that.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I would agree that Boyz aren't solid, but I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.

4th edition.

Tac Marine 15pts
Ork boy 6pts.

To kill 1 Marine with bolters took 9 Bolter shots at BS3+
To kill 1 Ork boy took 3 Bolter shots.

Took 3 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marines (12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 dead Marine)

Fast forward to 9th edition: Marines now have double their ROF normally, they gained a plethora of special rules which allow them to gain AP depending on phase and of course, most notably they got a 2nd wound. Stratagem wise they have a bunch.

Ork boyz: They are now Base S4 as opposed to being S3(4) Furious Charge and T5 . They lost +1 attack, they lost movement, and their dmg output actually went down.

Tac Marine 18pts
Ork Boy 9pts.

To kill 1 Marine now takes 18 bolter shots at BS3
To kill 1 Ork boy now takes 5.4 bolter shots

Takes 4 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marine (12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds, 1 Dead Marine)

In 4th the math was 18pts of Boyz to kill 15 of Marines
In 9th the math is 36pts of Boyz to kill 18 of Marines.

My belief is that Ork boyz took it to the face in 9th as far as rules go, because at the tail end of 8th the "competitive" ork list was Ghaz Green tide with 90-120 boyz. The problem being that the list wasn't competitive because Boyz were good, it was competitive because nobody was bringing anti-horde firepower and it ran counter meta.

So going back to your quote

I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.

Well lets see, in 8th they were good because nobody brought weapons that worked against them. In 9th GW bumped them up to 9ppm but gave them T5, they then stripped all their stratagem support, nerfed the KFF to be 50% less effective while also costing significantly more, nerfed Weirdboyz so they wouldn't be handing out buffs like they were in 8th and then stripped or destroyed their inherent rules.

Ere we go: lost re-roll 1 or both dice
Mob Rule: Went from Model count = LD to If another mob is nearby and has more than 50% of its models alive you don't take attrition tests on 2s just on 1s.
Completely got rid of the +1 attack for 20+ models.

So yes Ork boyz are absolutely suffering from BAD RULES WRITING for them specifically. GW's intent was pretty clear from the get go "Get rid of hordes" The problem is that GW nerfed boyz so hard that they aren't even worth taking in smaller units. Why? Because their rules teams do not inherently understand orkz, and figured T5 and -1AP on choppas would be good enough compensation for utterly destroying THE most iconic Ork unit.

I noticed you compared how many shots it takes to kill boys and marines, and how many boys it takes to kill a marine but not how many marines it takes to kill a boy. That is not a subtle omission when you’re making the “just boys specificially” argument. Especially around people who tracked the effectiveness of Assault Marines in recent editions after losing all their situational bonus attacks.

Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

Hecaton wrote:
No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my math and it isn't specious in the least.

Things like people saying there is no upside to a KFF that can cover 120 models ( or more ) as opposed to 30 and dismissing that it works in melee isn't a math problem. Just because you don't like how it operates as compared to the past doesn't make the math about a singular unit proof that it doesn't have an effect on the overall design of the units.

Uping the ante with something like Ghaz and 20 fight twice Skarboyz is a comparable outcome without actually taking anything else into account for spending the extra points or CP is actually more dubious than what I've discussed.

Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

And the window where Chainswords and Choppas didn’t give +1A? And how that happened at about the same time not? And that Eviscerators don’t get +1A Even though the model still has a pistol? The Sgt and Boss Nob “lose” an attack for upgrading away from the chain sword/choppa?

Of course the fact that you had to ask what “the difference is” also is kind of my point. Given how much of these things are happening to other units all over everywhere, claiming one army is being singled out might be a little inaccurate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my math and it isn't specious in the least.

Things like people saying there is no upside to a KFF that can cover 120 models ( or more ) as opposed to 30 and dismissing that it works in melee isn't a math problem. Just because you don't like how it operates as compared to the past doesn't make the math about a singular unit proof that it doesn't have an effect on the overall design of the units.

Uping the ante with something like Ghaz and 20 fight twice Skarboyz is a comparable outcome without actually taking anything else into account for spending the extra points or CP is actually more dubious than what I've discussed.

Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

I am sorry daed, normally your input is actually decent but just stop.

Your first exemple under the 6+++ alone proves beyond a doubt that you have serious issues in understanding the ork dex. You don't field a Dok, period, ever. 70 pts for a glorified nob with powerklaw (and btw you also don't see nobs really either soooooo) is not something you field in any ernest matchup and i say this as someone that owns the GOOD old metal dok and uses him in fun matches and actually fields boys. And that is being mercifull because the bossdok is somehow even WORSE than the normal dok.

The KFF argument is laughable, 85 pts for a worse dok in essence and an HQ slot wasted does not make a good choice. a 1/6 permanent as opposed to 5++ against shooting , when geting shot to bits is the issue and not the stabbing (because not much survives an ork charge) is pointless and doesn't resolve the issue that your squads (especially big ones) of boys just disintegrates as soon as something looks at them the wrong way. Slapping a T-shirt save ontopof them has never worked, also its basically just giving them their T-shirt save back, considering the swaths of AP inflation going on. And no T5 as already established means nothing due to the wound table.

Ghaz alone is 300 pts. Wasting him and his aura on a bunch of boys or suggesting something like that ontop of the use of CP is hillarious on its own, NVM that its rare to get 20 boys into melee reach seeing as msu and base size is a thing.Further alone 20 boys and ghaz cost 480 pts.
You know what i also could get for 480 pts?
2 killrigs, a tripplet of squigbuggies, or any other buggy type and a bunch of storm boys, or warbikas etc.
Your maths alone fails to take into account opportunity cost of internal and external balance, nvm that it is based upon scenarios that will basically never happen on the table.

Breton wrote:
I noticed you compared how many shots it takes to kill boys and marines, and how many boys it takes to kill a marine but not how many marines it takes to kill a boy. That is not a subtle omission when you’re making the “just boys specificially” argument. Especially around people who tracked the effectiveness of Assault Marines in recent editions after losing all their situational bonus attacks.

The counter argument surely is that Goff Boyz and Waaagh exist, you have to build around them - and on that basis, just 16.2 points of Boyz kills an 18 point Tactical Marine.
The problem surely is how anemic boyz are without these buffs. 2 buffed up Goff Boyz do more damage than 4 non-Waaaghed Evil Sunz boyz. Conclusion, throwing a squad of Evil Sunz boyz into say an Evil Sunz Speedwaaagh list is probably a bad decision.

But then I think there is a wider issue with comparisons.

I tried this before but trying again - for example - I'd agree, Shoota Boyz are objectively dreadful. There's not really any way to slice things. Making them Bad Moons, which clearly should synergise, gives them a relatively token upgrade in firepower compared with the Goffs in combat above. In fact its so token you'd be better taking Goff Shoota Boyz and charging into combat at which point it should be obvious your rules system is screwed up and needs to be changed.

But if you stack Shoota Boyz against basic 11 point Sisters, which may be how GW worked them through, they are probably not too far off a wash. The Sisters shoot a bit better (and easier with 12" rapid fire versus 9" Dakka), but the Boyz punch quite a bit better while both stack up around the same versus S4 AP- shooting. If you make those Shoota Boyz just 8 points the 1v1 mathammer comparison starts to become quite favourable.
(Then you have Kroot who handily outshoot and outpunch both for their points and get a free 7" move but lets ignore that for now.)

Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are different things needed so A) you see 1 minimum squad of Boyz in a list (and arguably Trukk Boyz already accomplishes this), B) you see 1 maxed out squad of 30 with all bells and whistles and C) you see 150 on the table because Green Tide is back being tournament viable.

Tyel wrote:
Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

55 Points for 5 shoota boyz with a rokkit and a nob to sit on an objective instead of gretchin? Sign me up!

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

And the window where Chainswords and Choppas didn’t give +1A?

The attack stat is still the same? Not sure I'm following this train of thought.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

55 Points for 5 shoota boyz with a rokkit and a nob to sit on an objective instead of gretchin? Sign me up!

I 100% agree and would take this in every patrol I ever needed to take regardless of Klan.

Even spending the extra points for a kombi rokkit on the nob would be viable, and actually really decent for Deathskulls.

I feel like making it so you can take 5 man ork boyz squads would not "fix" ork squads, only allow us to spend less points relegating boyz doing unorky things like *spits out fungus beer at the though* standing on an objective and not getting in the fight maybe even holding sensors as the ork boy gathers octarious data? NO i say, that is Grot work, those boys would be shot immediately as they are obviously a genesteeler cult within the ork kultur.

functionally it really only helps fix the army as a whole as it means you can spend more points not wasted on a poor choice nonfunctioning unit.

9th is all grot work. Missions should go back to being about like, battles and fighting, not sitting on a random point. At least have them be an asymmetric bunker assault or something.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
9th is all grot work. Missions should go back to being about like, battles and fighting, not sitting on a random point. At least have them be an asymmetric bunker assault or something.

i would love special ork objectives that just mess with all of it

replace 'gather octarius data" with "hey stop dat ya git"

points scored when you charge a unit gathering octarius data.

Even then, it’s just going to be the same game every match. It’s an argument someone else made way better, but with how 9th has been leached of all randomness/variability in missions you just play the same zoggin game every time, but maybe with some different armies. This just leads to some armies dominating cause they play that game really well.
I don’t want pickable secondaries, I want good ol asymmetric missions.

That is one of my hopes for 10th, problem is this is warhammer 40k ITC edition. To be clear i love competitive play, and i love the missions when playing 40k as a competitive game at a tournament or doing tournament prep games for people going to tournaments (these days i do more of this, having kids meant less tournaments) I just dislike that level of gamesmanship when i want to have a casual game at my flgs over a couple of beers. those 2 experiences in past editions were hugely different, now its all the same.

I'd like missions like in Risk.

So, say there's 6 objectives on the board. At the beginning of the game you draw your mission card from the mission deck. That tells you what you need to accomplish by the end of the game in order to complete your mission. It could be stuff like hold objective 1 and 6, place a targeting beacon at objective 5 etc.

Your mission will not be known by your opponent and vice versa. So now you can actually make use of deception and feints. Are you attacking objective marker 4 because you need it for your mission? Or maybe this is a trick to try and lure my forces to try and take it from you to deny it, thereby weakening my hold on other parts of the board?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'd like missions like in Risk.

So, say there's 6 objectives on the board. At the beginning of the game you draw your mission card from the mission deck. That tells you what you need to accomplish by the end of the game in order to complete your mission. It could be stuff like hold objective 1 and 6, place a targeting beacon at objective 5 etc.

Your mission will not be known by your opponent and vice versa. So now you can actually make use of deception and feints. Are you attacking objective marker 4 because you need it for your mission? Or maybe this is a trick to try and lure my forces to try and take it from you to deny it, thereby weakening my hold on other parts of the board?

could be fun but then what if both meet the objectives? i could see something like the tiebreaker being who controls a central objective or an objective each player gives to thier opponent. so a tau player might say you have to control that objective in your own deployment vs orks so they have to leave something behind to do that while the ork player says you have to come get that same objective in the back. (to be fair most ork lists won't have models left on the table after turn 3 vs tau but that is a codex problem not a game problem)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my math and it isn't specious in the least.

Things like people saying there is no upside to a KFF that can cover 120 models ( or more ) as opposed to 30 and dismissing that it works in melee isn't a math problem. Just because you don't like how it operates as compared to the past doesn't make the math about a singular unit proof that it doesn't have an effect on the overall design of the units.

Uping the ante with something like Ghaz and 20 fight twice Skarboyz is a comparable outcome without actually taking anything else into account for spending the extra points or CP is actually more dubious than what I've discussed.

Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

I am sorry daed, normally your input is actually decent but just stop.

Your first exemple under the 6+++ alone proves beyond a doubt that you have serious issues in understanding the ork dex. You don't field a Dok, period, ever. 70 pts for a glorified nob with powerklaw (and btw you also don't see nobs really either soooooo) is not something you field in any ernest matchup and i say this as someone that owns the GOOD old metal dok and uses him in fun matches and actually fields boys. And that is being mercifull because the bossdok is somehow even WORSE than the normal dok.

The KFF argument is laughable, 85 pts for a worse dok in essence and an HQ slot wasted does not make a good choice. a 1/6 permanent as opposed to 5++ against shooting , when geting shot to bits is the issue and not the stabbing (because not much survives an ork charge) is pointless and doesn't resolve the issue that your squads (especially big ones) of boys just disintegrates as soon as something looks at them the wrong way. Slapping a T-shirt save ontopof them has never worked, also its basically just giving them their T-shirt save back, considering the swaths of AP inflation going on. And no T5 as already established means nothing due to the wound table.

Ghaz alone is 300 pts. Wasting him and his aura on a bunch of boys or suggesting something like that ontop of the use of CP is hillarious on its own, NVM that its rare to get 20 boys into melee reach seeing as msu and base size is a thing.Further alone 20 boys and ghaz cost 480 pts.
You know what i also could get for 480 pts?
2 killrigs, a tripplet of squigbuggies, or any other buggy type and a bunch of storm boys, or warbikas etc.
Your maths alone fails to take into account opportunity cost of internal and external balance, nvm that it is based upon scenarios that will basically never happen on the table.

Well it is fortunate for me that my noodle list for TTS includes a Doc ( not boss, because I'll agree that one is bleh ).

I might even be tempted into Lootas and Shootas, because I'm a glutton for punishment.

The Ghaz thing wasn't me talking about using him - there's a lot to that discussion, but I won't bother unwinding it, because it's just too exhausting to restate things so people don't get confused on what I'm talking about.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

Interesting to see the support for 5 Shoota Boyz. I guess I hadn't considered throwing a Rokkit in there. Maybe something to suggest to GW.

Admittedly I'm not sure if "Fire Warriors and Pathfinders must be 10 man units" in the Tau Codex is some sort of "we discovered chaff units of 5-6 models were mechanically too good, but clearly we can't retroactively go through past books and change them, so its just going to be a new thing we insist on in new books".

If Morale wasn't an issue it would be interesting to see whether an all Boyz list could take out Vijay's Tau at Beachhead Brawl. To my mind apart from the Crisis suit with flamers (which if buffed up kills 30 boyz easily), there's nothing incredibly efficient at horde clearance. Maybe 40~ or so dead Boyz from the rest? If you went first to get up the board, popped KFF to save a third it could be interesting to see how it would play out.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

It absolutely is not.

This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Similar to the Hammerhead debate among others.

Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

Tyel wrote:
Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

Oh yea they're going to show.

Suits are obnoxious for multiple reasons. Getting cover on 2+ W8 is just....yuck. And the full reroll to wounds in 12" on top of Montka on Crisis is bananas. Out of LOS shooting with no penalty is just too much - it's part of why Rukks got kicked in the nuts so T'au should suffer no less of a fate ( points wise at least ).

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
9th is all grot work. Missions should go back to being about like, battles and fighting, not sitting on a random point. At least have them be an asymmetric bunker assault or something.

i would love special ork objectives that just mess with all of it

replace 'gather octarius data" with "hey stop dat ya git"

points scored when you charge a unit gathering octarius data.

Maybe not that, but if the objective was multiple faction centric - i.e. an Augur array in an Orkoid Fungus patch hiding an altar to Khorne etc etc. something for everyone.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

He uses GW logic, AKA it really doesn't make sense. I'm almost 90% sure he refused the other buffs for other units too but only applied the buffs for the Boyz

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

He uses GW logic, AKA it really doesn't make sense. I'm almost 90% sure he refused the other buffs for other units too but only applied the buffs for the Boyz

At least that would be consistent - but no, he flip-flops between applying random amounts of buffs to whatever units he is comparing. I honestly started to just scroll over his charts and numbers, as I'm tired of figuring out what scenario he cooked up to make a point this time.

Just see his response to me above - instead of comparing most competitive 8th edition boyz build to most competitive boyz build in 9th he insist on using the exact same models despite points rises and massive rules changes.
All of it is utterly worthless.

Tyel wrote:
Interesting to see the support for 5 Shoota Boyz. I guess I hadn't considered throwing a Rokkit in there. Maybe something to suggest to GW.

Admittedly I'm not sure if "Fire Warriors and Pathfinders must be 10 man units" in the Tau Codex is some sort of "we discovered chaff units of 5-6 models were mechanically too good, but clearly we can't retroactively go through past books and change them, so its just going to be a new thing we insist on in new books".

If Morale wasn't an issue it would be interesting to see whether an all Boyz list could take out Vijay's Tau at Beachhead Brawl. To my mind apart from the Crisis suit with flamers (which if buffed up kills 30 boyz easily), there's nothing incredibly efficient at horde clearance. Maybe 40~ or so dead Boyz from the rest? If you went first to get up the board, popped KFF to save a third it could be interesting to see how it would play out.

Yes Tau/Kroot are all stuck to 10 man units.

Even if you took out Morale issues, Vijays Tau list would absolutely roflstomp a Green tide list. As you mentioned those flamers kill an entire mob by themselves, thats a 400pt unit wiping out 270pts in 1 shooting phase, thats a pretty damn good return on investment. The rest of the enemy firepower is also rather formidable and with a few kroot units to act as speed bumps the Tau could theoretically paste upwards of 3-4 mobs before receiving any significant return dmg. Boyz just do not have the durability/speed/dmg output to compete in 9th, especially against the more recent codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

It absolutely is not.
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.
Similar to the Hammerhead debate among others.

Daed, instead of making abstract unit comparisons with ever changing buffs/builds you would be much better off comparing the most competitive 8th edition green tide list vs the most competitive 9th green tide list that you can build. So a unit of Goff Boyz in 8th were running around under a 5++ KFF turn 1-2, with S5, 6 attacks, 6s generated extra attacks, re-rolling 1s most of the rest had 4-5 attacks each. You could once a game regenerate an entire mob of 30 boyz if any were left from a surviving mob. IE turn 1 boy back into 30. You could attack twice if you wanted/needed to, and you were functionally immune to morale checks, especially since Ghaz could just crack D3 over the head and auto-pass.

Now compare that with the best you can think of for boyz in 9th, it won't be nearly as good by any stretch of the imagination.

Tyel wrote:
Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

I think HH's will absolutely make an appearance, but its a scenario similar to Marines at the beginning, why take them when there are already better options available, IE the battlesuits.

As far as Tau receiving nerfs, I don't want to guess because Drukhari and Ad-Mech ran away on the tournament scene for 6+ months before they received even token Nerfs. And I do mean token. Remember Incubi got hit with a massive 2ppm nerf? And then their transport which took 5-6 of them got a 10pt price cut.....almost like it completely voided the point of the incubi nerf . Chickenwalkers are still OP to the point where the LVO list took a bunch of them, and nobody figured they were broken for 6 months which made me LOL.

But then in comparison, Orkz had 2(ish) good months of tournament play, still winning significantly less than Drukhari/Ad-Mech but immediately received a ham fisted nerf which invalidated some peoples entire armies (Can't take multiple units of buggies anymore), and reduced flyers to 2 per army even though GW had already gone through 2 entire editions where armies made up almost exclusively from flyers were running away with tournaments. Apparently it was OK when Marines, Eldar, Nidz did it, but feth the orkz, they can't have that. And then when we finally got our CA points costs, they nerfed Kommandos which hadn't been doing much in top lists same with Killrigs, but don't worry we reduced lootas from being the worst Auto-cannon unit in the entire game to only being tied for worst auto-cannon unit in the game.

GW nerfs/buffs are a lot like the NHL's Department of Player safety handing out Bans. It makes no sense and is always random.

Wow.

People are clearly so incensed that someone disagrees with them that they don't actually stop to fething read what I wrote and just immediately go to insult me.

I'll try one last god damn time. We talked about multiple things in this thread. The most recent topic I was addressing was whether or not the design of the book was intentional. I said it was. I supplied supporting info.

WHAT I AM NOT SAYING

That you can make a Green Tide list work with the current book.

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee. The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide. If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane -- 30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

Ork boyz have lost their moral immunity, they've lost damage, resistance, rule cover, strat cover, ect... while about every other new codices have had only buffs on their troops.

Why would orks be problematic, if not even decent if you give them back something that wasn't even making them broken an extension ago when things weaker in general ?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wow.

People are clearly so incensed that someone disagrees with them that they don't actually stop to fething read what I wrote and just immediately go to insult me.

I'll try one last god damn time. We talked about multiple things in this thread. The most recent topic I was addressing was whether or not the design of the book was intentional. I said it was. I supplied supporting info.

WHAT I AM NOT SAYING

That you can make a Green Tide list work with the current book.

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee. The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide. If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane -- 30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Honestly the more I play orks and try and make this book work compared to my other armies, the more I am sure nobody on the GW team plays, understands, or maybe even likes orks. I think its in the running for the worst 9th edition codex. The unintentionally gave Orks a strong build with freebootas and after one major tournament win nerfed that specific build to oblivion. Many books have options for competitive builds but now orks just don't have units that work together, all the buffing characters do not justify the points for the paultry buffs (looking at you painboy, painboss, kff mek, kff big mek, nob w/waggh banner etc). I honestly think they just overvalued what T5 was going to do and took away everything that added durability, patted themselves on the back and said good enough.

on mob rule it was not immunity from morale it just gave some protection, in this edition i do think bosspole would have made more sense though. take the test, if failed nob may choose to deal D3 wounds to pass instead as they are keeping order.

on KFF just no, in 5th it used to be a 4++ and extend to range even from a vehicle which expanded that range. It still was not winning tournaments then. in 7th they decided to nerf one of our at that point key units and have just kept nerfing it ever since.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

Man, this thread and the treatment of Daedalus sure are making me think differently about the "Ork players are fun and chill" stereotype.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules.

People are asking for old mob rule and breakin' heads, which is not the same as being immune to morale. Losing d3 models to morale is fine. Losing models to morale after taking massive casualties is fine. Having a 66.66% chance to lose 36-45 points worth of models after an opponent has killed 4 boyz is not. That's like having terminators lose an extra model whenever they take a single casualty.

The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

11W with T5/6+ and no other defensive buffs for 90 points is not hard to remove. Continuing to claim otherwise is deceitful and misleading, especially since you have been called out on this multiple times.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee.

It got nerfed, full stop. It does not cover more models, talking about space instead of models is deceitful and misleading.

The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Still pulling worthless KFF meks and worthless docs into the calculation despite a full dozen people explaining to you that these are not a factor AND YOU AGREEING TO THEM is deceitful and misleading.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide.

Thrakka provided a total of four different benefits as 6" auras: extra attacks, advance and charge, re-roll ones and causing d3 mortal wounds instead of failing morale.
The "table wide" rule does one of those four effects for two turns and one of them for a single turn. This is as well deceitful and misleading.

You also claimed earlier that the Waaagh! was a replacement for the mob rule. Now you are moving goalposts to claim that it is a replacement for both?

If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

Skarboyz are 1 CP each, used on three or four mobz. No one ran six full mobs, which could easily have been verified with some research. The only reason to claim 6 CP is to be deceitful and misleading.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane

Goff already had exploding sixes before and were causing more damage through the "fight better" stratagem of the old book. Still insisting on this despite having been shown the math refuting this argument is deceitful and misleading.

30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

You constantly ignoring the physical limitations of getting model within 1/2" of models within 1/2" of the target also is deceitful and misleading. Even more so on such a huge base on a model that can not only comfortably hide all the way in the deployment zone while armigers intercept any mobs headed its way, but also should totally attempt to fire overwatch at the boyz charging it.

Constantly insisting that all boyz will always be goff, not a specialist mob, always using a stratagem, always in range to strike at full unit strength, never receive overwatch and never fight second is deceitful and misleading.

If the stars align perfectly, and you get a night unhideable 280(!) point unit unharmed into your opponent's deployment zone at 5" per movement phase, activate your once per game army rule and then dump even
more CP on them, they should damn well be able to almost down a castellan.
Much cheaper units can destroy castellans without going through all that.


Daed, when all your posts consist of repeating debunked arguments, constructing impossible scenarios and ignoring facts, experience and real-life factors, it's time to accept that you are wrong. This whole thread has become nothing but people calling all your BS. Just stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Honestly the more I play orks and try and make this book work compared to my other armies, the more I am sure nobody on the GW team plays, understands, or maybe even likes orks. I think its in the running for the worst 9th edition codex. The unintentionally gave Orks a strong build with freebootas and after one major tournament win nerfed that specific build to oblivion. Many books have options for competitive builds but now orks just don't have units that work together, all the buffing characters do not justify the points for the paultry buffs (looking at you painboy, painboss, kff mek, kff big mek, nob w/waggh banner etc). I honestly think they just overvalued what T5 was going to do and took away everything that added durability, patted themselves on the back and said good enough.

on mob rule it was not immunity from morale it just gave some protection, in this edition i do think bosspole would have made more sense though. take the test, if failed nob may choose to deal D3 wounds to pass instead as they are keeping order.

on KFF just no, in 5th it used to be a 4++ and extend to range even from a vehicle which expanded that range. It still was not winning tournaments then. in 7th they decided to nerf one of our at that point key units and have just kept nerfing it ever since.

100% agree. The ork book is not a well written book, they just manage to make it work by fluke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Man, this thread and the treatment of Daedalus sure are making me think differently about the "Ork players are fun and chill" stereotype.

Go to any fun and chill group and stat telling them how they are wrong about everything they do, that you know it all better and support that by made up arguments from thin air while ignoring anything they say. See how well that goes for you

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

If Boyz were morale immune they'd be carting around KFF and painboys. But you're telling me that Thin City can walk around with fewer attacks, morale vulnerability and T4 most of the time, but that morale immune Boyz with 6++/6+++ and a stronger melee profile couldn't do well?

5 Crisis suits with twin AFPs, a markerlight, and full rerolls to wound get an average of 15 Boyz under those conditions and you still think they're not durable enough?
60 * .666 * .555 * .833 * .833 = 15

And that 10 Goffs with a PK, Waaagh, +1 to hit, and exploding 6s averages three battlesuits and they're not killy enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
People are asking for old mob rule and breakin' heads, which is not the same as being immune to morale. Losing d3 models to morale is fine. Losing models to morale after taking massive casualties is fine. Having a 66.66% chance to lose 36-45 points worth of models after an opponent has killed 4 boyz is not. That's like having terminators lose an extra model whenever they take a single casualty.

Old mob rule and 180 boyz is effectively immune to morale and you damn well know that.

11W with T5/6+ and no other defensive buffs for 90 points is not hard to remove. Continuing to claim otherwise is deceitful and misleading, especially since you have been called out on this multiple times.

Good thing I didn't fething claim that now, huh?

It got nerfed, full stop. It does not cover more models, talking about space instead of models is deceitful and misleading.

Are you fething kidding me right now? You think you can fit more boyz FULLY within 9" as opposed to one model toe-in within 6"?

This is so fething absurd that I can't even.

I'm done. You guys have your piss and moan bs party.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

If Boyz were morale immune they'd be carting around KFF and painboys. But you're telling me that Thin City can walk around with fewer attacks, morale vulnerability and T4 most of the time, but that morale immune Boyz with 6++/6+++ and a stronger melee profile couldn't do well?

5 Crisis suits with twin AFPs, a markerlight, and full rerolls to wound get an average of 15 Boyz under those conditions and you still think they're not durable enough?
60 * .666 * .555 * .833 * .833 = 15

And that 10 Goffs with a PK, Waaagh, +1 to hit, and exploding 6s averages three battlesuits and they're not killy enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.

Spoiler:

So, you get 10 Boys, give them a certain subfaction trait, a once-per-game (though it does last two turns) buff, and a buffing character, to down 100-150 points worth of models that are faster than them, and have access to charge penalties.

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

Each Suit with that loadout (and the listed buffs-so NOT including the Mont'Ka bonus for AP boost) does...



So, for the same investment in points, strats, and all that... 4 Crisis Suits do just over 29 wounds. If you roll a 1, congrats! You keep the Nob. If you don't, tough tuckus-he's dead.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

You're talking about a unit that has the job of dropping down near an enemy unit and dumping a shedload of shots into them.

AFPs have the utility of shooting from out of LoS. And the strat to get full wound rerolls is, correct me if I'm wrong, used on a unit that Deep Strikes in and is within 12" of their target.

I don't follow tournaments, so I wouldn't be at all shocked to hear that double AFPs are common-but are they used in THAT way?

Thank you for posting that first because I wasn't sure why Daed chose to use twin Frags. Weren't Burst Cannons agreed to be better anyway?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

You're talking about a unit that has the job of dropping down near an enemy unit and dumping a shedload of shots into them.

AFPs have the utility of shooting from out of LoS. And the strat to get full wound rerolls is, correct me if I'm wrong, used on a unit that Deep Strikes in and is within 12" of their target.

I don't follow tournaments, so I wouldn't be at all shocked to hear that double AFPs are common-but are they used in THAT way?

Full reroll wounds is on the commander and is given in the command phase, so, no.

You can see them used that way here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3OKm09ppLs&ab_channel=ArtofWar40k

Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Full reroll wounds is on the commander and is given in the command phase, so, no.

Ah, okay. I was not aware of that-thank you for letting me know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.

Spoiler:

Excellent! Now the debate can properly continue.

I think bar #3 could be representing:
A) the # of basic boyz one would need to take in order to get about 10 of them into melee,
OR
B) the # of posters here in this thread who disagree with Daedalus,
OR
C) The # of ways Kroot squads are better than Boyz squads.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[
Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

Still not an admittance of being wrong

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

Why not? Tyranids have morale-immune hordes of cheap troops and they aren't tearing it up (except with Crusher Stampede, and that explicitly doesn't do that.)

You have not presented sufficient evidence for this line of reasoning but you keep insisting that it's true.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Thank you for posting that first because I wasn't sure why Daed chose to use twin Frags. Weren't Burst Cannons agreed to be better anyway?

AFP's are used primarily because they are an ignore LOS weapon. Strike and fade can only be used on one unit a turn. It makes sense therefore to put all your direct fire weapons on the unit you intend to pop the strat on, and keep the other one out of LOS and still be able to shoot. I would expect that a target lock would be used with the AFP's to counter cover save bonuses. Burst cannons are shorter ranged, and trade an AP for a pip in strength, require LOS, and always get 6 shots. personally i would prefer to use AFP's on the crisis suits for the additional utility and range. If I was going to take anything with a burst cannon, it would be stealth suits, and/or take a coldstar with the HOBC, the DW-02, and perhaps with a splash of 2 AFP's or something like that.

Now, as to the OP, obsec is a really useful ability and troops are worth taking for that alone. I won't take kroot for their offensive output, either ranged or CC (its fairly good, but you know, not awesome. even if they are arguably undercosted, you don't take kroot for killing), but for their speed. pregame move, M7 + Advance means you can get them to where they need to be very quickly to contest objectives. there is no guarantee that there will be cover around so getting a 4+ in cover is nice to have, but cannot be counted on. their main downside is that they have to walk where they are going, and there are other negatives as well such as being almost totally without any synergy with a lot of the Tau book. and being squishy, really squishy

Their main advantage is that they are the cheapest troops unit, 3 units will let you fill out a battalion, and save you 60 points over strike teams, 60 points is a crisis suit loaded up. and strike teams aren't that much more surviveable than kroot. I'm not sure how many strikes you will see (in tournaments) outside of a breacher rush style list.

As to whether Kroot are better or not, there has been some quite in depth analysis. Kroot are (outside of cover, which is not guaranteed) faster and cheaper, Boyz are tougher, killier in taking points and also have more synergy with their codex. I guess it depends on what you want them to do. If boyz were in the Tau codex instead of Kroot, I'd take strikes over boyz, unless of course i was doing a themed list

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

Why not? Tyranids have morale-immune hordes of cheap troops and they aren't tearing it up (except with Crusher Stampede, and that explicitly doesn't do that.)

You have not presented sufficient evidence for this line of reasoning but you keep insisting that it's true.

This is the last reply I'm going to make and then you guys can have at it.

1) Old book
2) Those nids are T3 with a t-shirt save. They can't get both a FNP ( Levi ) and an Invuln ( Custom Fleet). Adaptive ( ignore AP1/2 ) is only ever going to be a single unit.
3) Four bolt rifle shots kill 1.1 with either invuln or FNP and a ( targetable ) vthrope. Same shots at 6++/6+++ boy is 0.6 so they die more than twice as quickly.
4) Two S3 swings at AP0 and rr1s to hit and maybe rr1s to wound at 20+ that hit on 4s versus 4 S5 AP1 exploding 6s that hit on 2s/3s means they'll kill almost nothing that is a legitimate threat
5) Nobody wants to paint that gak

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

Why not? Tyranids have morale-immune hordes of cheap troops and they aren't tearing it up (except with Crusher Stampede, and that explicitly doesn't do that.)

You have not presented sufficient evidence for this line of reasoning but you keep insisting that it's true.

This is the last reply I'm going to make and then you guys can have at it.

1) Old book
2) Those nids are T3 with a t-shirt save. They can't get both a FNP ( Levi ) and an Invuln ( Custom Fleet). Adaptive ( ignore AP1/2 ) is only ever going to be a single unit.
3) Four bolt rifle shots kill 1.5 with either invuln or FNP. Same shots at 6++/6+++ boy is 0.6 so they die almost three times as quickly.
4) Two S3 swings at AP0 and rr1s to hit and maybe rr1s to wound at 20+ that hit on 4s versus 4 S5 AP1 exploding 6s that hit on 2s/3s means they'll kill almost nothing that is a legitimate threat

It's time to get out. This is "boyz are bad" thread 3 and I doubt it'll be the last. We know boyz aren't winning tournaments, we know morale is hurting them lots and we know points adjustments won't sort it. What's left is an endless argument of "they're not that bad" vs "they're that bad". Which is all subjective from here as it falls into the casual play level.

Just let it die here and let it be the last "but boyz are bad" thread.

T3 but also faster and cheaper. We shall see how their abilities will be implemented in their 9th edition books.

Without a tool to severely reduce losses to morale, large blobs of boyz will always be useless, unless they become really really cheap. But in that case they'd be undercosted and corrected ASAP.

Since 3rd edition large units of boyz only existed if either boyz were extremely cheap (in 8th easy/cheap access to invuln, FNP, immunity to morale, respawn and damage bonuses made them cheap even if their naked baseline wasn't) or the rest of the book was trash, sometimes both. Greentides always existed to cheat meta, if they can't boyz won't be taken in large numbers, simple.

Just lurking (barely that) these days cuz I've been busy AF but . . .

1:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

5) Nobody wants to paint that gak

I banged out 120 gants in October. 10/10 would do again.

2. Daedelus's graph made me spit coffee. Nice play

 Insectum7 wrote:
I banged out 120 gants in October. 10/10 would do again

Those look fantastic. Did you go contrast?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
1) Old book

Actually irrelevant. It's still being played.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
2) Those nids are T3 with a t-shirt save. They can't get both a FNP ( Levi ) and an Invuln ( Custom Fleet). Adaptive ( ignore AP1/2 ) is only ever going to be a single unit.

So what's their point for point durability here?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
3) Four bolt rifle shots kill 1.1 with either invuln or FNP and a ( targetable ) vthrope. Same shots at 6++/6+++ boy is 0.6 so they die more than twice as quickly.

Except you're not paying extra points for the FNP, and you are for the 6++/6+++, so that throws the math off significantly.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
4) Two S3 swings at AP0 and rr1s to hit and maybe rr1s to wound at 20+ that hit on 4s versus 4 S5 AP1 exploding 6s that hit on 2s/3s means they'll kill almost nothing that is a legitimate threat

That's not the point. You still haven't shown that orks who are flat out immune to morale would be busted.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
5) Nobody wants to paint that gak

So... don't play orks. Deal with it.

Hecaton wrote:
Except you're not paying extra points for the FNP, and you are for the 6++/6+++, so that throws the math off significantly.

One caveat-Leviathan only gets FNP in Synapse range, so they DO need to pay for the FNP.

The invuln is just a subfaction trait, though.

Is anyone even asking for boys to be completely immune to morale? I think the 8th edition Mob Rule is fine enough fix on the morale front.

Still lack stratagems, synergies, and mobility.

Kroot at least have mobility.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Except you're not paying extra points for the FNP, and you are for the 6++/6+++, so that throws the math off significantly.

One caveat-Leviathan only gets FNP in Synapse range, so they DO need to pay for the FNP.

The invuln is just a subfaction trait, though.

Well yes but you're paying points for Synapse anyway so you don't flee.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Except you're not paying extra points for the FNP, and you are for the 6++/6+++, so that throws the math off significantly.

One caveat-Leviathan only gets FNP in Synapse range, so they DO need to pay for the FNP.

The invuln is just a subfaction trait, though.

Well yes but you're paying points for Synapse anyway so you don't flee.

Yeah-I definitely agree Synapse is more valuable than a Dok, even without Leviathan, but it's still something to be noted.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I banged out 120 gants in October. 10/10 would do again

Those look fantastic. Did you go contrast?

Nope! Old school drybrush and washes. Haven't really integrated any contrast paints into my workflows yet. (And I'll probably use the Army Painter ones rather than GW)

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Is anyone even asking for boys to be completely immune to morale? I think the 8th edition Mob Rule is fine enough fix on the morale front.

Still lack stratagems, synergies, and mobility.

Kroot at least have mobility.

The 8th ed mob rule is nigh on morale immune, you need a blob to be isolated and cut down to 17 before you have any real chance of losing models. After that using the old ead banging routine you'd then lose a max of 4 to morale.

Edit: but yes morale is touted as one of 3 big issues they have.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I banged out 120 gants in October. 10/10 would do again

Those look fantastic. Did you go contrast?

Nope! Old school drybrush and washes. Haven't really integrated any contrast paints into my workflows yet. (And I'll probably use the Army Painter ones rather than GW)

Damn. Bravo. That's a gak ton of work.

 Mr Raptor wrote:
Ork boyz have lost their moral immunity, they've lost damage, resistance, rule cover, strat cover, ect... while about every other new codices have had only buffs on their troops.

Why would orks be problematic, if not even decent if you give them back something that wasn't even making them broken an extension ago when things weaker in general ?

Maybe cause they made 2 new boys kits. One - a reskin for regular boyz and one - primorks. It's hard to find some business logic here but that's kind of what was happening with primaris Marines. They used an overly cautious approach. If you break down the ork new kits you'll end up with something like this:

Buggies - weak rules at start. 1.5 years pass and they become amazing. Than get nerfed down to simply good.

Naughty - extremely weak rules at start. A year passes and they see some buffs and play. Than they get nerfed
to oblivion essentially becoming much worse knights.

Flash gitz - have always been abysmal. Got new models and significant rule improvements making them go to just awful. Than another set of rule improvements making them simply too bad to take but not abysmal. At least that's the best they've been.

Ghaz + Makari - underwhelming at start. Than they got a buff yet remain underwhelming. But occasionally saw play due to some interactions with the new killings and goff pressure (before the nerf to this list). Going back to underwhelming but occasionally useful in niche cases.

Squighogs and krusher nobz - looked decent on paper but happened to be underwhelming due to how the game is played. Are not seen in competitive play.

Squigosaurs - got powerful rules, were often seen in top lists, got nerfed, are probably still fieldable but are very rarely used in top lists right now for reasons I'm not fully aware of. I guess, it's just that goff pressure all ready has a plephora of expensive mellee units that synergise better and speed freak lists can't take anything other than speedfreaks.

Named squigosaur - was promising during the pre-release teases but he's locked to snakebites and didn't see much play in competitive meta even when it was ok to run multiple clans. He's simply worse than generic squigosaurs. Now he got a price hike for some reason and you can't mix clans...so, nerfed to oblivion. Sorry if you bought him...nice model tho.

Killrig - great st start, got nerfed became a bit too pricey but still good in goff lists.

Hunter rig - underwhelming has no place in any lists.

Now, finally, new boyz kits - a lot of people jumped out of their pants after seeing t5 and ap1 choppas but than the loss of a lot of other stuff made boyz an overpruced tax unit with only 1 useable option of becoming trukk boyz. Still not something to build a list around. Maybe, if they were 1/3 cheaper.

Primorks - have 1 decent use in goff pressure lists riding killrigs that got nerfed but still useable, I guess.

... .
Now, why have I written all this. Do you see a trend with ork releases?.. You sure?.. Cause i don't. I have no idea if there's even any plan. Most likely it's all just random stuff.

I think Boyz could be immune to morale and it wouldn't make a huge difference.

Its the same argument for why mass carpet Termagants doesn't work. They die more or less to anything - and consequently are not a meta concern. I mean that's not quite true - devilgaunts definitely have a place - but that's because of their incredible damage they put out with full buffs (that probably won't be in a codex). They then immediately die, usually reasonably efficiently.

The problem with comparisons to Wracks is that they get things base. You don't need a KFF trying to provide its small aura all over the place for a 6++ - I just get it (and, eventually, a 5++). Tempo matters - I don't think even just a near blanket 5++ for a turn is bad - but its not really the same.
Even more strongly, I don't need a Painboy or something providing me with a 6+++ if I essentially stand on him - I get a 5+++ for showing up. Artists of Flesh helps against D2-and we are now potentially seeing a move over to Prophets of Flesh - which helps against seemingly ever more plentiful S5-7 attacks. Its unfortunate that Snakebites has the same limitation - because with T5 anyway so it doesn't help versus S5.

Further to it Wracks are faster. M7" base, advance and charge from turn 2 rather than just for one turn. Rerolls on charges obviously helps the Boyz - but it probably works out about 2" anyway - and you can CP reroll a failed charge if needed.

And its this combination I think is the problem.
Because really - while there's an equally important issue of having good worthwhile characters (which by contrast DE have in spades) - you could run a list with say 10 15-16 strong Boyz mobs. Morale may be an issue but I'm not hugely convinced. As you say no one worries about Morale with Thin City and they are only Ld8 versus Ld7 on the Boyz.

But... the result I just think is a list which is easier to kill and less likely to get where it needs to be. As you say Goffs should hit harder vs most targets - but units that don't connect do no damage.

As an edit.

A big issue in the Boyz saga is that going from T4 to T5 hasn't mattered as much as it probably should, because S5 is increasingly the new S4. Those units which still deal S4 attacks usually have rerolls to wound (either 1s or in total), or deal a bazillion attacks such that you will inevitably get some 5s. If Boyz today were 7 points and T4 I'm not sure they'd be worse. They'd possibly be better.

Tyel wrote:
S5 is increasingly the new S4.

I'm not seeing that. More AP, yes, but not more strength on the volume fire ranged weapons.

I will grant some truth to that on melee weapons though.

Boyz' issues seem to be mechanics of 9th based (the 1/2 inch rule and morale). Honestly they should be 1 point cheaper for what they are--I was surprised to see their points in the new codex.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Is anyone even asking for boys to be completely immune to morale? I think the 8th edition Mob Rule is fine enough fix on the morale front.

Still lack stratagems, synergies, and mobility.

Kroot at least have mobility.

No, we're asking about immunity under some circumstances, like 8th edition mob rule. Or, if not total immunity, an effective tool to reduce the casualties to morale.

 Blackie wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Is anyone even asking for boys to be completely immune to morale? I think the 8th edition Mob Rule is fine enough fix on the morale front.

Still lack stratagems, synergies, and mobility.

Kroot at least have mobility.

No, we're asking about immunity under some circumstances, like 8th edition mob rule. Or, if not total immunity, an effective tool to reduce the casualties to morale.

Some sort of aura or command phase ability that halves the number of models counted toward morale would be pretty good. Even if it's on just one unit.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[
Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

Still not an admittance of being wrong

Can you blame him? Most of the replies he gets are people making fun of him, not arguing with him. He had one person disputing whatever chart it was with concrete points about what was being taken and if it was normal or skew. He had how many people taking potshots when he didn't add a chart telling him he needed one (with nothing else on point) He may or may not have been inaccurate - I tuned out when I saw where everything was heading - but he wasn't the one in the wrong.

 Mr Raptor wrote:
Ork boyz have lost their moral immunity

Au contraire - they're just as amoral as they ever were.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Mr Raptor wrote:
Ork boyz have lost their moral immunity

Au contraire - they're just as amoral as they ever were.

Are you implying that Gork and/or Mork aren't the font from which all morality springs?

Breton wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[
Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

Still not an admittance of being wrong

Can you blame him? Most of the replies he gets are people making fun of him, not arguing with him. He had one person disputing whatever chart it was with concrete points about what was being taken and if it was normal or skew. He had how many people taking potshots when he didn't add a chart telling him he needed one (with nothing else on point) He may or may not have been inaccurate - I tuned out when I saw where everything was heading - but he wasn't the one in the wrong.

You'd have a point if he argued the points made, but instead purposely avoided doing so. He was just being contrary for the sake of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wow.
You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane -- 30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

30 boyz, at best, and I mean absolutely best, you would get 16-20 boyz into CC, lets assume 20 to make you happy. Lets say you popped the strat to get exploding 5s, lets further say its a waaagh turn and lets further say we still get +1 attack for 20+ models and lets FURTHER say all 30 boyz somehow made it into CC, or at least 21 of them survived to this point.

20 boyz with 2 attacks base, +1 for choppa, waaagh and +20 is 6 attacks each, thats 120 attacks, thats 120 hits, thats 40 wounds, at -1AP thats 20dmg.

So as Jid pointed out, if the starts aligned and all of the above things went right you could ALMOST kill a castellan in CC. Fun fact though is that this would never happen because boyz can't do half of that dmg to a knight because they will never get across the board in the first place.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

If Boyz were morale immune they'd be carting around KFF and painboys. But you're telling me that Thin City can walk around with fewer attacks, morale vulnerability and T4 most of the time, but that morale immune Boyz with 6++/6+++ and a stronger melee profile couldn't do well?
And that 10 Goffs with a PK, Waaagh, +1 to hit, and exploding 6s averages three battlesuits and they're not killy enough?

1: No they wouldn't because spending that much on a painboy and that much on a KFF big mek ISN'T WORTH IT Also, the reason those DE guys work is because they have significantly more benefits than the orkz boyz do, and you have already tried in other threads to say that Wracks aren't as good as boyz but were soundly defeated by basic logic.

10 goffs, with a PK Nob (Assuming 9 boyz 1 nob) and +1 to hit...thats a 90pt warboss btw and a once per game buff. So no other buffs? Alright, so thats a 100pt unit buffed by a 90pt character, the aforementioned once per game buff and this is how the dmg works out.

9 boyz is 36 attacks, at +1 to hit that is 36 hits (exploding 6s), 36 hits at S5 = 18 wounds, against a 3+ save that is 9dmg. Nob swings and does 4 attacks, 3.3 hits, 2.2 wounds and 1.8 go through for 3.7dmg. Grand total of 12.7dmg, just enough to kill 3 Suits.....unless of course those battlesuits took drones...which ...i mean, they wouldn't do that right? I mean, we are just going to ignore those because no tau player would take drones with their suits right? Its not like that Tau player would just Tank ALL of that dmg against their drones and leave their suits completely free to unload on the orkz...that wouldn't happen right? You constantly get accused of making up scenarios and here is a great example. You just completely glossed over their inability to even get into CC with those Suits, surviving multiple turns walking across the board, overwatch doesn't happen, and somehow those boyz also have a Warboss nearby to buff them specifically. Christ bud.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Old mob rule and 180 boyz is effectively immune to morale and you damn well know that.

180 boyz is now 1,620pts without any buffs to speak of. Also, they aren't immune to morale, they were FUNCTIONALLY immune to morale back in the day because you couldn't whittle down multiple mobz you had to FOCUS fire 1 because of "Endless Green Tide" without that stratagem there isn't a reason not to pick off 2-3 mobz a turn to gut.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

11W with T5/6+ and no other defensive buffs for 90 points is not hard to remove. Continuing to claim otherwise is deceitful and misleading, especially since you have been called out on this multiple times.

Good thing I didn't fething claim that now, huh?

Except..you did, specifically you said...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

So you didn't say 11W with T5/6+ is hard to remove, you just heavily implied that by making boyz morale immune they would be hard to remove.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It got nerfed, full stop. It does not cover more models, talking about space instead of models is deceitful and misleading.

Are you fething kidding me right now? You think you can fit more boyz FULLY within 9" as opposed to one model toe-in within 6"?
This is so fething absurd that I can't even.
I'm done. You guys have your piss and moan bs party.

I mean, i'll give you this, it definitely covers MORE stuff now since it just has to toe in touch to count the unit, but at the same time its 50% less effective (Went from 5++ to 6++) And of course its SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive. Big Mekz with KFF were dirt cheap in 8th, talking like 50-60pts (can't remember) they are now 85pts and they are absolute garbage rules/stats/strat wise. Not to mention, if 6++ was the best thing ever teamed with morale immune boyz then deathskullz would have been meta for Green tide in 8th since they literally had that baked into their stats.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Is anyone even asking for boys to be completely immune to morale? I think the 8th edition Mob Rule is fine enough fix on the morale front.

Still lack stratagems, synergies, and mobility.

Kroot at least have mobility.

No, they aren't lol. But the comparisons are still fun to work through. Keep in mind those kroot aren't just faster, they are NIGHT AND DAY faster. 7' base movement is +2 over boyz, they also get their pre-game 7' move, so turn 1 they can be 14' + Advance if they need it, from their deployment zone, while even with a BEST possible advance roll of a 6 those boyz are only 11. There is also the fact that those kroot can easily take a midfield objective while hiding in cover and be 1: durable 2: cheap and 3: capable of small minor harassing fire. Boyz can be "durable" ish if they can get into that cover, that is about it. Difference being it will take them 2 turns to accomplish what the Kroot did turn 1.

Dudeface wrote:

The 8th ed mob rule is nigh on morale immune, you need a blob to be isolated and cut down to 17 before you have any real chance of losing models. After that using the old ead banging routine you'd then lose a max of 4 to morale.

Edit: but yes morale is touted as one of 3 big issues they have.

...no, pretty much across the board...no.

An isolated blob of boyz started taking morale casualties around 13 casualties. 17 Models left means LD 17, -13 = 4, so on a 5+. If you want 14 casualties its LD16-14 = LD2, so you lost models on a 3+. Definitely not 17. At 17 you were LD13, you auto lost 4 and than +D6.

You also didn't need to isolate a mob, you just had to target the link unit first and then whittle them down, you rarely had 3 blobs of boyz within range of one another. The problem in 8th was that if you inflicted significant dmg to a boyz mob but didn't finish it off, I could just spend CP to auto-pass and then CP to regenerate the entire mob of boyz and place them in assault range that same turn. That is why you rarely if ever saw a mob being left alone after inflicting morale