This one.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Dakka_Dakka_Ork_Takktica

Still seems pretty solid to me, but stormboys have been getting the frownyface a lot it seems.
Do you guys think this the write up is still good? What would you change?

I've also been curious about the opinion of Stormboyz expressed here.

I've never agreed with it, but I've never been motivated enough to write my own, although I've written extensive tactics that would have made a good tactica. Let me see if I can find my "Dash post" and drop it in here.


*EDIT* Here it is.

I'm going to work off of a couple of assumptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Playing Warhammer 40k is fun.
2. Playing Warhammer 40k and winning is more fun.
3. Playing Warhammer 40k and losing is less fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human nature and natural selection demand that we continually seek to improve ourselves. Having an A type personality probably doesn't hurt this effort, but if you lose a game of 40k and don't reflect on the game with, "What did I do wrong? What could I have done better? How can I prevent this from happening again?" then I can't really talk to you.

If this thought process and those three assumptions *do* apply to you, then read on.

******
Orks are a unique codex. An ork boy is significantly cheaper than just about any other model in 40k, and is basically a platform from which many things spring (other kinds of ork variants - stormboyz, lootas, nobs...). If you read the fluff, every ork starts in the same place, and as they develop, they lean towards on klan/society, which is how they figure out what kind of ork they're going to be.

In other codexes (space marines and their variants being the most prolific), basic troops are well-rounded models. You ever play Final Fight? How about ANY kind of game with character selections? You've got the big, strong guy that's slow...the average Joe....and the weaker but very speedy character. This applies in 40k as well. Space marines are like your average, well-rounded Joe. Orks are NOT. You can't mix and match orks in any order you like to make a generalized list.

This is *not* called power building, its called understanding your codex, how your codex is designed, and using it as such. Every time someone calls "playing a theme" to be "powerbuilding" I want to stab them in the F***** eye. If you look in the Ork codex, do you see the codex writers putting in pictures for the sample armies of some Lootas backing up a squad of meganobs in a trukk, who are advancing next to some buggies and a deffkopta or two?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They even TELL you how to make your army. They tell you what the Ork klans are - Bad Moons, Kult of Speed, Deffskullz, etc.

That kind of thematic army construction is the intent of the Ork codex. That is what makes orks powerful. The ork codex is written so that you can design an army list that is absolutely ridiculously powerful, but it is NOT made up of average Joe units; everything is specialized towards a specific goal. When you build an army list, you should follow the thematic advice given to you in the Codex. PICK a theme. There's a lot of them:

Green Tide. Mechanized Assault. Mechanized Shooting. Ork Gunline (Moar Dakka), Kan-Wall. Dreadz of Fury. Kult of Speed. Outflanking Goodness. Rebel Grotz. Nob Bikers. Super Units. Orky Burnas.

All of those things have something in common - the lists were designed with a theme in mind, and have the synergy to work together towards that goal. When you start combining those themes to make a list, you're being counterintuitive to the very style that the orks were created for.

Remember this: Orks can do anything that any other army can do, and they can do it better than that army. However, orks can only do it one at a time. You can outshoot a Tau Gunline. You can out-assault a khorne army or an army of genestealers. You can put down more templates than IG....whatever your goal in mind is....orks can do it better, but it has to stick to that theme. Orks are not meant to be universal, middle-of-the-line armies.

To give another analogy...if you've ever played an MMO, there are different classes. Fighter, Tank, barbarian, mage, cleric, wizard, hunter, ranger, red mage, death knight, rogue, whatever.....its all based on the game you play. The class you pick sets you on a path for the kind of game you play, the skills you get - they are pre-defined roles.

40k armies fit into that kind of typification. Except for Orks. Orks would be the generic class. You start with a neutral character, with skillpoints to assign, and you can make orks any kind of army you want them to be. People fail with orks because they want some of everything. Instead of making them a fighter, or an archer, or a guardian...and they would be better fighters, archers and guardians than every other type...they split points between all three to make a Figardian.

*edited out inappropriate joke about the acronym for Fighter Archer Guardian*




*EDIT* I'm adding information for the tactics article I'm working on.

If you're running a foot-slogging list, shoota boys are your friend. Slugga boys belong inside vehicles. In fact, I think you should convert your slugga boy mobs into shoota boys. In 5th edition, the shoota boy is the most efficient point purchase across all 40k.

Think on that - for 6 points...SIX POINTS....you get an infantry model with an assault 2 STR4 gun, who is WS4, STR4, T4 on the charge. In terms of math hammer between shoota and slugga boys, it's pretty simple. Slugga boys have +1 attack in close combat, and shoota boys have +1 attack outside of close combat. Since your Orks on the assault are only I3, you're going to strike last meaning that 30 boyz are going to take some casualties before getting their attacks back.

On the flip side, shoota boys get 2 shots before assaulting, and the enemy doesn't get to shoot back first and cause casualties - putting in any kind of hurt before you assault is incredibly valuable. And since it has an 18" range, you can shoot into a unit even when you don't have range to assault this turn. My advice for green tide:

Take all your troops choices as shoota boys. Consider taking a squad of gretchin - you can spread them across your front lines to provide 4+ cover saves for your whole army. Alternatively, you can take a squad of ork boyz to do the same. If you make them 'Ard Boyz they gain considerably in staying power.

Want to get real freaky? Take a squad of 'Ard Boyz, stick Mad Dok Grotsnik with them for a 4+/4+. Spread that unit out 2+ coherence to minimize the damage that blast templates can do, and have the whole thing move+run in front of your army. Your screening unit has 4+ armor saves, 4+ feel no pain, and the rest of your army has 4+ cover saves now. If your points allow it, what really tops off the list is adding some fast attack Stormboyz. You can put them into close combat, or have them multi-assault to shake/stun some tanks/artillery, have them get in fast and tie up enemy units (hello Tau!), or if the situation doesn't call for it, you can leave them behind your screening unit and keep them in reserve to get in where you need supporting assault units at.

I'd love to see that "Dash post" polished up into an article. And imagine how much simpler it would be just to post a link.

As a specific answer to Stormboyz - they're not the most incredible fast attack unit, but they fill a role in certain army styles. Deffkoptas and twin-linked rokkit warbuggies also fill roles in different Ork army types (Mechanized Orks, Kan walls being most prevalent) but it really depends on the kind of army you want to play.

Thanks Dash.
Say, while you're looking this way, I was wondering if you might have a moment to comment on this other thread I posted? Seeing as you have the DE down to a science?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/347456.page

Thanks Dash. I too would love to see a full takktica from you, or even just a full update of
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Dakka_Dakka_Ork_Takktica which does appear a little elderly.

I read it and disagree with many points. However, I think any player could learn something from it.

He listed bikes as suck, also burnas. Tell that to the guy I just played on vassal, when I wiped out 2 squads with burnas alone, just putting templates off the battlewagon.

Stormboyz as good? I don't think so. Thy're about as good as boyz on the round you scream whagh. You might as well spring for Gzazgul and get a guaranteed 6 inches.

I think the Ork takktika has issues. For starters warbikers aren't poor, not by a longshot. I've had some really good success using them and that's just in small squads against a mix of enemies.
Stormboys I call iffy since they're just faster orks. Yay for 6+ armour save... Not a squad I would consider.
Warboss on bike, again not mandatory since you can have a very CC-ish boss in a wagon. Same applies to nobz - a wagon makes more sense for them than a trukk. Trukk is fast and breaks. Wagon is slower yet more durable. Might ruin target priority but I'd be willing to gamble.
Gretchin only seem to be an OBJ holder on your turf or a huge speedbump in a horde army. Not much else for them IMHO.
Buggies aren't as bad as the write makers them out. Granted, twin big shootas isn't what you'd normally put on a warbuggy, and normlly it's twin rokkits. Still speedy anti-tank. Need to try these out.
Koptas apparently need PKs according to people on this board, but I remain unsure about koptas as a whole. They die too fast for me when I tried them.
Deff dread I might consider semi-competitive, mainly in a Kan Wall list or a general horde army. All that snipping and sawing is delightful Again, I don't use them so, reserved judgement.

The takktika needs refining methinks.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:I think the Ork takktika has issues. For starters warbikers aren't poor, not by a longshot.

I couldn't get past that part of your post. =p

Yes, they *are* that poor.

I think it's too biased, every good tactica I've ever seen has broken down the good and the bad of every unit in that particular army without being biased by the writers personal opinion. They provided the best way to use each unit (as each unit does have it's uses) and leave it up to the reader to decide wether or not they'll use it instead of saying "I think these units suck so don't use them, I think these units are great so use them".

Personally I've always used Storm Boyz as a quick Tank Hunter unit or a tie up unit, while they are pretty much the same as normal Boyz they can ignore terrain which gives them an advantage over Boyz on the Waaagh. I just keep them to cover and use them to either take out a tank or other vehicle or assault them into a shooty unit (Long Fangs, Broadsides etc.) to keep them busy. If they die then they kept the enemy from shooting at the rest of my army, if they win then they killed an enemy and kept them from shooting at the rest of my army.

Now yes they may not be the best unit the Orks have, they may not be one of those die hard tournament winning units like Biker Nobs. But that dosen't mean they are useless, so I think it all depends on how you play and what type of army you want. And that goes with every unit for every army.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Juvieus Kaine wrote:I think the Ork takktika has issues. For starters warbikers aren't poor, not by a longshot.

I couldn't get past that part of your post. =p

Yes, they *are* that poor.

Then you're a bad person and very biased in your opinion Or you just don't like them, which is understandable. But they aren't that bad. The alternatives in the Fast Attack slot, mostly the koptas taht everybody on ehre loves lording up, are not as good. I for one don't like buzzkoptas because they don't work for me. They get shot before they hit home eveyr time so they don't make their points back.

So, with all this said, anyone have a link to a "good" Takktika?

I haven't been able to find one Ork tactics page that covered the entire army, there have been a few here and there that covered individual units or army types. I'll try and post links to them later

matphat wrote:So, with all this said, anyone have a link to a "good" Takktika?

Matphat, there isn't one - what I copy/pasted it as close as it gets to "here's how to use Orks."

I can do you one better though: Tell me what you're trying to do, how you want it to work, what you envision happening, and I will help you pick the units, the supplements, and the tactics to get there. I daresay that you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the face of the planet who has been more successful than me with Orks, and anything I can do to further the green kroosade and make OTHER Orks successful is time well spent in my book.

@Juvieus: Warbikers are extremely expensive for an ork model, less effective than nobs who can be just as mobile, undewhelming in shooting, overwhelmed in close combat, without even a serious advantage in mobility to their mechanized counterparts - who can't turbo-boost up to 24", but they can move 13", disembark 2", run 6" on a Waaaugh! and charge 6", and actually cover more ground than the warbikers. On top of all that, they are T4(5) instead of T5, so STR8 will still insta-gib them, which isn't as important as it is with nobs, since warbikers only have one wound, their 3-15 unit size means that they're going to be taking leadership tests long before regular boyz - and I'm not sure I've EVER even seen someone take these in units of 15, and on top of all that, this is for a STR3 model, who is STR4 on the charge, attacking at I3 at best.

Consider this a challenge to your belief in warbikers, but I'd be happy to play a game with you on Vassal; you with your warbiker army (or units) and me with my standard fare, and I show you their ineffectiveness.

@Warboss Imbad Ironskull: You said "....that doesn't mean they are useless, so I think it all depends on how you play and wha type of army you want. And that goes with every unit for every army."

Most codexes *definitely* have units that *are* completely worthless. Here, I believe worthless has the following meaning: Brutally ineffective for their point value at their appointed task compared to other options in the codex. Flashgits: Horribly expensive, underperforming, complete waste of space in an army. That isn't going to stop people from using them - however, I will say that you will probably never see a competitive ork list with Flashgits in them. That's the problem with warbikers - there's nothing that they can't do that something else in the codex can't do better and for less points.

Like I said, it depends on how you play and what type of army you want. As long as a unit can actually do something (i.e kill something ) it isn't worthless, it's just up to the player and their attitude on how they play. If they're out to win a tournament then yes there are always better options then Flashgits that are more cost effective. But the relevance of how cost effective they are is based on the player using them, where you may consider them worthless another player may win games left and right because of them. Every unit in every codex has a use andso isn't worthless, it just depends on if you're willing to use them for that role or use something else.

Dashofpepper wrote:@Juvieus: Warbikers are extremely expensive for an ork model, less effective than nobs who can be just as mobile, undewhelming in shooting, overwhelmed in close combat, without even a serious advantage in mobility to their mechanized counterparts - who can't turbo-boost up to 24", but they can move 13", disembark 2", run 6" on a Waaaugh! and charge 6", and actually cover more ground than the warbikers. On top of all that, they are T4(5) instead of T5, so STR8 will still insta-gib them, which isn't as important as it is with nobs, since warbikers only have one wound, their 3-15 unit size means that they're going to be taking leadership tests long before regular boyz - and I'm not sure I've EVER even seen someone take these in units of 15, and on top of all that, this is for a STR3 model, who is STR4 on the charge, attacking at I3 at best.

Consider this a challenge to your belief in warbikers, but I'd be happy to play a game with you on Vassal; you with your warbiker army (or units) and me with my standard fare, and I show you their ineffectiveness.

I can accept they are rather expensive but it beats koptas. And they can go up to 12, not 15.

As far as experience goes I've had them reach enemy lines with few casualties on a long board, which says alot to me. They're underestimated and besides, it's another power klaw. They're guns aren't rubbish - plenty of dakka. I use nobz in a wagon and bikers and the bikers have always proven useful. Call me stupid for playingf different to you and most other people, but it's how I roll. And sadly I don't use Vassal so I'll have to decline the game.

I like bikers, you don't. We can leave it at that surely?

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: the relevance of how cost effective they are is based on the player using them, where you may consider them worthless another player may win games left and right because of them .

Show me a player who wins games left and right because of Flash Gitz, and I'll show you a player who has never played against a decent army. =D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Juvieus Kaine wrote:
I like bikers, you don't. We can leave it at that surely?

You're welcome to like bikers and use them - I don't take issue with that - personal quirk of yours and you're welcome to it. What I *do* take issue with is you recommending them to someone looking for advice on ork tactics, which goes beyond personally liking them and into the realm of negatively affecting someone elses' competitive ability if they take that advice.

The reason I suggested Vassal is because to be honest, there is no better way to open someone's mind to new ideas than to absolutely crush them into the ground. I do this a couple times a year when someone is particularly ardent about a particularly bad idea. If I table them while only losing a unit or two at most, it breaks through and makes them consider that maybe their idea that they refused to budge on isn't so hot. Even better if I table them with Necrons.

Dashofpepper wrote:What I *do* take issue with is you recommending them to someone looking for advice on ork tactics, which goes beyond personally liking them and into the realm of negatively affecting someone elses' competitive ability if they take that advice.

Well again this is matter of opinion. But I won't argue it anymore.

Dashofpepper wrote:The reason I suggested Vassal is because to be honest, there is no better way to open someone's mind to new ideas than to absolutely crush them into the ground. I do this a couple times a year when someone is particularly ardent about a particularly bad idea. If I table them while only losing a unit or two at most, it breaks through and makes them consider that maybe their idea that they refused to budge on isn't so hot. Even better if I table them with Necrons.

That's just evil

Dashofpepper wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote: the relevance of how cost effective they are is based on the player using them, where you may consider them worthless another player may win games left and right because of them .

Show me a player who wins games left and right because of Flash Gitz, and I'll show you a player who has never played against a decent army. =D

If I still lived in Washington I could in fact show you a player (I'd actually take his picture ) who wins quiet regularly thanks to his Flash Gits in a group of veteran players who've been in the game since the begining.

I take it that you play the game to win every single time? (and believe it or not there are players to whome winning isn't everything) If I'm correct this would lead you to only take the units that are the most effective for the task and there is absolutly nothing wrong with that.

But a player who plays the game just because they enjoy it and is of the mindset that even though they like to win they don't absolutly have to every time they play isn't absolutly going to have to take the unit that doe a particular job best.

And even though they don't take the best unit for the job that dosen't mean that they can't win or don't do it regularly with the less "effective" unit and it dosen't make that unit worthless, and in the same breath it dosen't mean their opponent is unexperienced or has a bad army.

So do you get what I'm saying? you're saying that a unit like Flash Gits is worthless because there are units that do the same thing better and for less points and so give you better chances of winning. But the fact is that there are players who do;ot play the game just to win and so don't need to take the top units because they do;ot have to try and insure their win every time. But that dosen't mean they don't win

There's a good analysis on Kirby's site here. I wouldn't call it a tactics site just like I wouldn't call Dakka article tactics. They are more of a over view and opinions are like ...well lets just say everyones got one.


http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/p/armies-in-5th-edition-articles.html

As always, there is a difference between:

"Unit A is generally poor and should be avoided by most players"

and

"Unit A will accomplish nothing and prevent you from winning games."

In modern 40k, most units aren't good or bad, they are simply useful more or less of the time, and more or less efficient with regards to points.

Bikes and flash gitz have poor utility and poor efficiency. There are times when the really do come through, but less so than many other units.

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
I take it that you play the game to win every single time? (and believe it or not there are players to whome winning isn't everything) If I'm correct this would lead you to only take the units that are the most effective for the task and there is absolutly nothing wrong with that.

if I played the game to win every single time, I wouldn't have a Necron army. And I wouldn't play a Necron army that most Necron players feel is terrible. In order to acquire wraiths, I actually traded out my destroyers. =D

And no, I don't play the game to win. I play 40k for the tactical challenge, to pit my abilities against other people, and ultimately, I play to lose - I play against as varied opponents as I can find in the continual search for my betters so that I can improve myself - which is why I enjoy Grand Tournaments so much; players from around the country gather in one place, and I have a better chance of testing my mettle against the best out there.

Please don't confuse experience with skill. I've played plenty of white haired 40k players who have been around since the days of Rogue Traders, and krumped their armies off the table with little challenge. I've also played (and lost) against a high school student at his first Grand Tournament. There is limited correlation between experience and skill. Rather, experience supplements skill, but you need intelligence and cunning in the first place.

Since I'm the one who wrote the vast majority of that Takktica, I'll chime in.

The Takktica was written right when the Ork dex came out, which means it was written with a 4th Edition mindset and the 4th Edition meta, specifically area terrain being the most common terrain that was completely LOS blocking.

In that context stuff like Storm Boyz were pretty damn good, since you could hide them very easily and advance hopping between different pieces of terrain and hit a target unmolested.

This is also why things like Battlewagons and Deffrollas aren't trumpeted in the Takktica, armor other than skimmers weren't used much at all in 4th, and traditional armor wasn't very survivalble at all.

So since I barely read about current 40k, let alone play it anymore, the Takktica should be freely modified/edited by others who do currently play 40k and Orks.

Polonius wrote:As always, there is a difference between:

"Unit A is generally poor and should be avoided by most players"

and

"Unit A will accomplish nothing and prevent you from winning games."

In modern 40k, most units aren't good or bad, they are simply useful more or less of the time, and more or less efficient with regards to points.

Bikes and flash gitz have poor utility and poor efficiency. There are times when the really do come through, but less so than many other units.

Exactly


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

Warboss Imbad Ironskull wrote:
I take it that you play the game to win every single time? (and believe it or not there are players to whome winning isn't everything) If I'm correct this would lead you to only take the units that are the most effective for the task and there is absolutly nothing wrong with that.

if I played the game to win every single time, I wouldn't have a Necron army. And I wouldn't play a Necron army that most Necron players feel is terrible. In order to acquire wraiths, I actually traded out my destroyers. =D

See that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about, somethings worth is dependant on the person using it. So to some while a Necron army (at least untill their update comes) is worthless to you it has worth. To some while wraiths may be worthless compared to destroyers for you they have some kind of worth which is why you take them you see?

And no, I don't play the game to win. I play 40k for the tactical challenge, to pit my abilities against other people, and ultimately, I play to lose - I play against as varied opponents as I can find in the continual search for my betters so that I can improve myself - which is why I enjoy Grand Tournaments so much; players from around the country gather in one place, and I have a better chance of testing my mettle against the best out there.

Fair enough, but it's still pretty close because in the end you want units that will give you a tactical advantage over your opponents and so you want units that will do a specific job best and for less. To someone who dosen't have that drive Flash Gits probably aren't as useless.

Please don't confuse experience with skill. I've played plenty of white haired 40k players who have been around since the days of Rogue Traders, and krumped their armies off the table with little challenge. I've also played (and lost) against a high school student at his first Grand Tournament. There is limited correlation between experience and skill. Rather, experience supplements skill, but you need intelligence and cunning in the first place.

Ah but without actually knowing the people I'm talking about you can't assume that they aren't both skillfull and experienced. I have no doubt that experience and skill aren't one and the same, I once got beat at a tournament by an 11 year old using his dads IG army who had only been playing a week versus my 10 years

But even at that the point is that even with Flash Gits (which we all know isn't one of the best units in the Ork army) in his army versus having the better units he still wins against players who are just as skilled as anyone when it comes to playing the game and often it is because of the Flash Gits. So somethings worth isn't determined by if there are better alternatives or not, somethings worth is determined by what the user would rather take. To you Flash Gits are worthless, to him (as well as other players I'm sure) they aren't

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Since I'm the one who wrote the vast majority of that Takktica, I'll chime in.

The Takktica was written right when the Ork dex came out, which means it was written with a 4th Edition mindset and the 4th Edition meta, specifically area terrain being the most common terrain that was completely LOS blocking.

In that context stuff like Storm Boyz were pretty damn good, since you could hide them very easily and advance hopping between different pieces of terrain and hit a target unmolested.

This is also why things like Battlewagons and Deffrollas aren't trumpeted in the Takktica, armor other than skimmers weren't used much at all in 4th, and traditional armor wasn't very survivalble at all.

So since I barely read about current 40k, let alone play it anymore, the Takktica should be freely modified/edited by others who do currently play 40k and Orks.

Well when it was written Deffrolla's didn't work on vehicles which made them an over-costed vehicle upgrade as opposed to probably the most feared weapon in the ork codex. Looking over the tactica it gets most things right and misses a few things completely. It's underselling big gunz, buggies, koptaz and burnas but most of the rest of the analysis is correct (aside from the aforementioned stormboyz).

Dashofpepper wrote:
@Juvieus: Warbikers are extremely expensive for an ork model, less effective than nobs who can be just as mobile, undewhelming in shooting, overwhelmed in close combat, without even a serious advantage in mobility to their mechanized counterparts - who can't turbo-boost up to 24", but they can move 13", disembark 2", run 6" on a Waaaugh! and charge 6", and actually cover more ground than the warbikers. On top of all that, they are T4(5) instead of T5, so STR8 will still insta-gib them, which isn't as important as it is with nobs, since warbikers only have one wound, their 3-15 unit size means that they're going to be taking leadership tests long before regular boyz - and I'm not sure I've EVER even seen someone take these in units of 15, and on top of all that, this is for a STR3 model, who is STR4 on the charge, attacking at I3 at best.

Consider this a challenge to your belief in warbikers, but I'd be happy to play a game with you on Vassal; you with your warbiker army (or units) and me with my standard fare, and I show you their ineffectiveness.

In general, I fear Warbikers more than Deffkoptas. Biggest factor is the automatic cover save, it makes Bikes very frustrating to shoot. Whilst Deffkoptas are also scary, they are more like one-shot deal - they come down, assault or shoot something, then are blown out of the sky. Another is that Bikerz have a Nob, which makes the unit more killy in assaults and harder to drive off the board. Even with Buzzsaw, Koptas aren't guaranteed to destroy vehicles or insta-kill IC's in assault, Bikernob (or even better, BikerBoss) is. Also, Warbikerz are somewhat cheaper so for their points value, they pack more dakka than the Koptas, making them scarier for my troops. Of course, I play Tau, maybe it's different for other armies.

I think the whole "Warbikers suck" thing is just in comparison with Nob Bikers, which are of course far more scary and can be taken as troops, without any special character. So if people are looking for most competive choice, Warbikers are usually ignored.

The thing about flash gitz is, they don't suck in the strictest sense. They're just overcosted and unreliable. When you decide to pay their expensive cost, and they happen to come through for you, they are capable of dealing an incredible amount of damage to the right targets - wiping monstrous creatures and terminators off the board. The reason they're uncompetitive is that sometimes you'll roll all 5's and 6's for their AP roll and you've paid through the teeth for some nobs with big shootas.

If you're a good enough player with a good enough army to carry the game for you when you find you've spent 400 points on some big shoota nobs, you can still win games with flash gitz on your list. And some of the time, they'll deal far more than their points' cost in damage and win the game for you.

Y'dig what I'm saying? It's like weirdboys. They obviously aren't that great, but a weirdboy that rolls zap every turn is a stupendous bargain. Overall there are better deals but they've both got devestating potential.

Plus I think that's part of the apeal of an Ork army is that things don't always work as planned.

I think the biggest problem with Flash Gitz is that they take a Heavy Support slot. Orks have so stupidly good choices there, why would anyone waste a HS slot on an unit whichs capabilities are generally matched or exceeded by another Codex entry (Nobz).

Backfire wrote:I think the biggest problem with Flash Gitz is that they take a Heavy Support slot. Orks have so stupidly good choices there, why would anyone waste a HS slot on an unit whichs capabilities are generally matched or exceeded by another Codex entry (Nobz).

Yeah. I remember reading somewhere on this forum of a suggestion that they should be an upgrade on the Nobz entry. Not a bad idea that one.

PLus I like your review of warbikers, pretty much what I thought of them except I use them like stealth missiles I say this because so far nobody shoots the until they're very very close. BY that point they either die or hit home. And it saves me a turn with me trukks which is always a plus

Dashofpepper wrote:Consider this a challenge to your belief in warbikers, but I'd be happy to play a game with you on Vassal; you with your warbiker army (or units) and me with my standard fare, and I show you their ineffectiveness.

Extend that challenge to Stelek. His recommended best ork list consist of MSU of bikers, supported by lootas and kannons I think.

More evidence on Warbikers.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/312197.page

Dash is a known player, and has a lot of good knowledge to share. AFAIK he has not won a GT yet. Wyatt has.

Mannahnin wrote:More evidence on Warbikers.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/312197.page

Dash is a known player, and has a lot of good knowledge to share. AFAIK he has not won a GT yet. Wyatt has.

Nice link, goes to show that the internet full of people telling you there is only one way or a hand full of ways to build a list and if you stray to far off that "path" you fail. The problem is people read this crap and just believe it with out testing out those units or tactics then start regurgitating the same crap on the boards . I believe they just take these things for granted because it make them appear smarter just because there's another idiot out there that agrees with them. Stop being sheep people!

Mannahnin, you should look up 2010 GT standings, you might find yourself surprised.

Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

Dashofpepper wrote:If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

You said the same thing to Stelek before, and we all know what happened at Nova.

Maybe you would like to repeat the challenge to him again since his ork list advocates MSU of ork bikers, exactly against your philosophy.

Strider:

Stelek said that Orks suck. During our game, we tied all three objectives, and had to go to straight victory points. This is *after* I let him rewind the game a turn to do things that he had forgotten that were game-changing, and a few other things I don't discuss publicly; in order to *get* the game I had to promise Mike to be on my best behavior, and I was - things happened that I would *absolutely NOT* let happen in any other game, friendly or tournament.

In addition, your reporting of how my game against Stelek showed up is quite inaccurate. Telling someone who was involved your heresay version of what happened and how it came about is the worst discredit you could do to yourself.

I know this argument has gone beyond the actual effectiveness of warbikes, but I think it's safe to say that for most people, in most lists, warbikes are not the best use of points.

There are exceptions, but as a new ork player I'm putting off that unit until later in my build, as I think that there are units that do what I want more reliably.

Dashofpepper wrote:
This is *after* I let him rewind the game a turn to do things that he had forgotten that were game-changing, and a few other things I don't discuss publicly; in order to *get* the game I had to promise Mike to be on my best behavior, and I was - things happened that I would *absolutely NOT* let happen in any other game, friendly or tournament.

1) It was a totally different story from his blog regarding this (you didn't speak loud enough, and started your turn before he confirm anything, etc). In order not to be biased, I discredited this thing totally - not to trust either side.
2) If I had to exploit on someone's bad memory to win a game, when it is obviously a slip of the mind, I would rather not to. Because tactically, I didnt really win him.

Dashofpepper wrote:In addition, your reporting of how my game against Stelek showed up is quite inaccurate. Telling someone who was involved your heresay version of what happened and how it came about is the worst discredit you could do to yourself.

From my understanding of the battle report, the game appeared closely fought only because it ended on turn 5. And you were lucky it did, because apparently you have nothing much to fight against him, and it would have probably been a massacre if the game went to turn 6 or 7. It was downhill from turn 5 onwards.
So the game wasnt as close as you thought.

With regards to your philosophy on ork bikers, if you bother to issue your challenge to General_Chaos, why not extend it to Stelek instead? I m sure it will give your claim more credit.

It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

Polonius wrote:It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

FLAWED. If a codex is deemed bad, it doesn't have to LOSE BADLY. It probably just can't win. For example if I claim IG to be MUCH superior than Orks, I don't have to table the ork player or win him by a large extent. All I need to do is to deny the ork player that win, even if I only won by a narrow margin. So before you think anything amuses you, think hard again

That being said, that game DOP was almost tabled, and would probably have been tabled if the game didnt ended on turn 5. Check out the battle report to see what he has left.

Dashofpepper wrote:I've never agreed with it, but I've never been motivated enough to write my own, although I've written extensive tactics that would have made a good tactica. Let me see if I can find my "Dash post" and drop it in here.


*EDIT* Here it is.

I'm going to work off of a couple of assumptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Playing Warhammer 40k is fun.
2. Playing Warhammer 40k and winning is more fun.
3. Playing Warhammer 40k and losing is less fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human nature and natural selection demand that we continually seek to improve ourselves. Having an A type personality probably doesn't hurt this effort, but if you lose a game of 40k and don't reflect on the game with, "What did I do wrong? What could I have done better? How can I prevent this from happening again?" then I can't really talk to you.

If this thought process and those three assumptions *do* apply to you, then read on.

******
Orks are a unique codex. An ork boy is significantly cheaper than just about any other model in 40k, and is basically a platform from which many things spring (other kinds of ork variants - stormboyz, lootas, nobs...). If you read the fluff, every ork starts in the same place, and as they develop, they lean towards on klan/society, which is how they figure out what kind of ork they're going to be.

In other codexes (space marines and their variants being the most prolific), basic troops are well-rounded models. You ever play Final Fight? How about ANY kind of game with character selections? You've got the big, strong guy that's slow...the average Joe....and the weaker but very speedy character. This applies in 40k as well. Space marines are like your average, well-rounded Joe. Orks are NOT. You can't mix and match orks in any order you like to make a generalized list.

This is *not* called power building, its called understanding your codex, how your codex is designed, and using it as such. Every time someone calls "playing a theme" to be "powerbuilding" I want to stab them in the F***** eye. If you look in the Ork codex, do you see the codex writers putting in pictures for the sample armies of some Lootas backing up a squad of meganobs in a trukk, who are advancing next to some buggies and a deffkopta or two?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They even TELL you how to make your army. They tell you what the Ork klans are - Bad Moons, Kult of Speed, Deffskullz, etc.

That kind of thematic army construction is the intent of the Ork codex. That is what makes orks powerful. The ork codex is written so that you can design an army list that is absolutely ridiculously powerful, but it is NOT made up of average Joe units; everything is specialized towards a specific goal. When you build an army list, you should follow the thematic advice given to you in the Codex. PICK a theme. There's a lot of them:

Green Tide. Mechanized Assault. Mechanized Shooting. Ork Gunline (Moar Dakka), Kan-Wall. Dreadz of Fury. Kult of Speed. Outflanking Goodness. Rebel Grotz. Nob Bikers. Super Units. Orky Burnas.

All of those things have something in common - the lists were designed with a theme in mind, and have the synergy to work together towards that goal. When you start combining those themes to make a list, you're being counterintuitive to the very style that the orks were created for.

Remember this: Orks can do anything that any other army can do, and they can do it better than that army. However, orks can only do it one at a time. You can outshoot a Tau Gunline. You can out-assault a khorne army or an army of genestealers. You can put down more templates than IG....whatever your goal in mind is....orks can do it better, but it has to stick to that theme. Orks are not meant to be universal, middle-of-the-line armies.

To give another analogy...if you've ever played an MMO, there are different classes. Fighter, Tank, barbarian, mage, cleric, wizard, hunter, ranger, red mage, death knight, rogue, whatever.....its all based on the game you play. The class you pick sets you on a path for the kind of game you play, the skills you get - they are pre-defined roles.

40k armies fit into that kind of typification. Except for Orks. Orks would be the generic class. You start with a neutral character, with skillpoints to assign, and you can make orks any kind of army you want them to be. People fail with orks because they want some of everything. Instead of making them a fighter, or an archer, or a guardian...and they would be better fighters, archers and guardians than every other type...they split points between all three to make a Figardian.

*edited out inappropriate joke about the acronym for Fighter Archer Guardian*




*EDIT* I'm adding information for the tactics article I'm working on.

If you're running a foot-slogging list, shoota boys are your friend. Slugga boys belong inside vehicles. In fact, I think you should convert your slugga boy mobs into shoota boys. In 5th edition, the shoota boy is the most efficient point purchase across all 40k.

Think on that - for 6 points...SIX POINTS....you get an infantry model with an assault 2 STR4 gun, who is WS4, STR4, T4 on the charge. In terms of math hammer between shoota and slugga boys, it's pretty simple. Slugga boys have +1 attack in close combat, and shoota boys have +1 attack outside of close combat. Since your Orks on the assault are only I3, you're going to strike last meaning that 30 boyz are going to take some casualties before getting their attacks back.

On the flip side, shoota boys get 2 shots before assaulting, and the enemy doesn't get to shoot back first and cause casualties - putting in any kind of hurt before you assault is incredibly valuable. And since it has an 18" range, you can shoot into a unit even when you don't have range to assault this turn. My advice for green tide:

Take all your troops choices as shoota boys. Consider taking a squad of gretchin - you can spread them across your front lines to provide 4+ cover saves for your whole army. Alternatively, you can take a squad of ork boyz to do the same. If you make them 'Ard Boyz they gain considerably in staying power.

Want to get real freaky? Take a squad of 'Ard Boyz, stick Mad Dok Grotsnik with them for a 4+/4+. Spread that unit out 2+ coherence to minimize the damage that blast templates can do, and have the whole thing move+run in front of your army. Your screening unit has 4+ armor saves, 4+ feel no pain, and the rest of your army has 4+ cover saves now. If your points allow it, what really tops off the list is adding some fast attack Stormboyz. You can put them into close combat, or have them multi-assault to shake/stun some tanks/artillery, have them get in fast and tie up enemy units (hello Tau!), or if the situation doesn't call for it, you can leave them behind your screening unit and keep them in reserve to get in where you need supporting assault units at.

I regularly win with exactly the sort of army that you proclaim as ineffective. I run three mobs of 30 sluggaboyz with a KFF mek in the middle of them, a deffrolla battlewagon full of meganobs, a trukk full of burna boyz and a unit of 6 warbikers. It wins because I use the ancient and time-honoured "Gorka Morka" tactic invented by my hero, Adrian Wood. I put all of my footslogging units on one side of the board and slam all of my fast units along one side. By the way, I tried running a bunch of shoota boys, backed up with Lootas, and you consistently forget to mention their one glaring weakness, BS 2. The secret is to spread the boys out so that only a small part of the enemy force is able to engage the fast, dangerous elements. Granted, the boys don't accomplish much, but that's not their purpose. They are there to soak up attention. Against highly mobile forces such as Eldar and Blood Angels, I do exactly the last thing they expect, I run away and make them waste their time chasing me while I eliminate one or two units a turn. Against IG, I go for the chimeras first, then hit the rear of their tanks. Against space marines, I form a line that they can't get through, and hit everything at once. It doesn't always work, but it's fun either way. The only armies I cannot get a win against are Daemons and Grey Knights. (Go figure...)

striderx wrote:

Polonius wrote:It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

FLAWED. If a codex is deemed bad, it doesn't have to LOSE BADLY. It probably just can't win. For example if I claim IG to be MUCH superior than Orks, I don't have to table the ork player or win him by a large extent. All I need to do is to deny the ork player that win, even if I only won by a narrow margin. So before you think anything amuses you, think hard again

That being said, that game DOP was almost tabled, and would probably have been tabled if the game didnt ended on turn 5. Check out the battle report to see what he has left.

That's an interesting proposition. So you're saying that I can say that Mech Ig are way better than necrons, squeak out a tie, and claim to have proven my point?

The results of the game are what matter, not the situation. A draw is a draw, no matter how acquired.

If the proof offered to support the claim of "orks are bad" is a draw, that seems.... inadequate.

If the argument was "X is better than Y," that's fine. And maybe I"m mistaken as to the original argument.

The point that you're missing is that in the game in question Stelek didn't "manage to squeak out a tie."

Not that one game proves anything.

I concur with Polonius. When someone asserts that an army is terrible, if it performs even to a mediocre level then their assertion is generally seen to be false. Stelek either was wrong about the army or communicated his actual opinion so badly that he was still in error.

That being said, Dash and Stelek's game is just an anecdote, and not true "proof" either way. The evidence of Ork players who do well and compete against strong armies is closer to proof. But it's not something which can really be proved true or false. Any player who understands the game and plays it with any level of competence can evaluate for themselves how true it is within whatever given metagame environment they play in.

Dash: Now that you recall it to my mind, you got a 3rd place/Best General last year, no? Which is not a GT win, although I'll concede that it's just as good from the perspective of evaluating play performance. Congrats, if I didn't say so before. I still think you're wrong about the warbikes. But I'm judging that based on what I get from other Ork players I personally know who are top tournament players; like Wyatt Traina and Matt Cassidy. I've read a fair amount of your stuff but I don't know you personally. I'm a little surprised to see you post in such adamant terms about any given unit, considering that you've reversed your position about some units between starting posting here and gaining some experience on the GT circuit.

Hey guys, I'm loving all the heat this thread is generating, and I understand you have some axes to grind here, but if I could return to the OT, would someone with a crap ton of experience like to take the time to edit up the Takktica?
Us new players really do appreciate the guidance.
=)

Polonius wrote:That's an interesting proposition. So you're saying that I can say that Mech Ig are way better than necrons, squeak out a tie, and claim to have proven my point?

The results of the game are what matter, not the situation. A draw is a draw, no matter how acquired.

If the proof offered to support the claim of "orks are bad" is a draw, that seems.... inadequate.

If the argument was "X is better than Y," that's fine. And maybe I"m mistaken as to the original argument.

1) Did you read the batrep? It wasn't a tie.
2) It would have been something like a major loss or massacre against DOP if the game went on to turn 6 or 7. DOP was very LUCKY it ended on turn 5.

Again, pull out anything from the BatRep and explain to me how it doesn't seem like it was already downhill for the orks from turn 4 or 5 onwards. Rather than being a close fight, it was more like the orks were trying hard to preserve whatever they have and stay on board.

Mannahnin wrote: I'm a little surprised to see you post in such adamant terms about any given unit, considering that you've reversed your position about some units between starting posting here and gaining some experience on the GT circuit.

Same here. I remember how he used to advocate strongly on Eavy Armor against Cybork bodies, and dismissing everyone who spoke otherwise. Of course, it didn't take too long for him to playtest enough to reverse his position.
So seriously, I doubt the amount of playtesting he has done on ork bikers to dismiss them that strongly (that being said, i m not an advocate of them though). The only way he tries to prove them wrong is to grab someone using ork bikers, challenge him, and if he wins he says :- " Now I win you, so ork bikers are no good."

Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true.

OP: I'll help you build a list or devise a theme, but I'm not a fan of the article or tactica section on Dakka; I'm told that a couple of my things have been turned into articles by mods, but I don't go to those areas.

*EDIT* Mannanhin, I don't post in painting very often...nor even paint my own models (that's my wife's job) because the painting piece of this hobby is uninteresting to me. Where GTs split scoring amongst different categories (painting, sportsmanship, theme, battle points), I only care about battlepoints. Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points, and my models are painted because they must be for me to enter the event. In my opinion, the hobby would be better if GW supplied models already painted and assembled. =D

To that extent, whether the person who "wins" the tournament portion is called Tournament Ace, Tournament Champion, Best General, or something else, that's what I'm competing in. If you feel that doesn't constitute "winning" ....that's fine. That's the criteria I measure myself on.

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

+1 remember, it's like having an inflated statline for a DE army...the louder you yell, the more credible you feel on the subject.

Keep it rolling boys, this argument ain't stopping anytime soon!

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me? Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

Dashofpepper wrote:If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

Your opinion is of little concern to me; I was just keeping score for the folk reading at home.

The point being: There is more than one opinion on the matter. Now go in peace, brohemoth.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points

Then why aren't you tied for first if you went undefeated? What tournaments are you playing in that have the painting score ranked so highly that someone with perfect sports and a 5-0 record could be beaten by someone who lost a game but had a nicely painted army?

Does not compute.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me? Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

LOL, then what's stopping you from issuing that same challenge to Stelek?
If you are willing to spend 3 hours proving General_Chaos (or anyone) wrong on the table about this, I m sure it wouldnt hurt you spending the same 3 hours proving the same thing with Stelek.
What makes things more interesting is that Stelek is on the extreme end of the spectrum on this. He thinks the best ork list is made using MSU of ork bikers.

Dashofpepper wrote:If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

How about we change this a little? If you want to influence anyone's opinion on this, you demonstrate to us. It will be epic to see you table Stelek on the table.

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true.

I credited you, and congratulated you.

I just happen to credit some other people, and their opinions, more highly.

Dashofpepper wrote:*EDIT* Mannanhin, I don't post in painting very often...nor even paint my own models (that's my wife's job) because the painting piece of this hobby is uninteresting to me. Where GTs split scoring amongst different categories (painting, sportsmanship, theme, battle points), I only care about battlepoints.

Understood, which is why I said your Best General score counted equally with a GT win for purposes of giving your opinion weight.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points,

First, your contention undermines your own point. If everyone always gets max points, then it's irrelevant and a non-factor.

Second, IMO this is Stelek-level junk. You have an opinion about the particular stuff you've seen and express it hyperbolically is if it is a law of nature. It's a failure of imagination, at least.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring#The_Pass_/_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

Dashofpepper wrote:...and my models are painted because they must be for me to enter the event. In my opinion, the hobby would be better if GW supplied models already painted and assembled. =D

You're welcome to your opinion. IMO it's misguided and sad, but not unexpected for someone coming from your background, level of experience, and skill set.

Dashofpepper wrote:To that extent, whether the person who "wins" the tournament portion is called Tournament Ace, Tournament Champion, Best General, or something else, that's what I'm competing in. If you feel that doesn't constitute "winning" ....that's fine. That's the criteria I measure myself on.

I said as far as I remembered you haven't won a GT yet. That was true, but didn't account for your GT Best General, which does bear equal weight in the discussion, since the Overall winner didn't do better than you in battles.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me? Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

Bear in mind that there are two different dissents to your opinion here. StriderX raised the issue of Stelek's warbiker army. I cited the example of Wyatt's successful ETC army, which used a bunch of bikers but wasn't focused completely on them. If Wyatt wanted to play you, I'd be happy to put money on him. But this shouldn't honestly be about the people, it should be about the units. Warbikers have useful qualities and have been demonstrated to be able to be used successfully in a highly competitive venue.

Based on your history of playing in large events, and your recent comments about your tournament Ork list having not changed in a long time, it seems that you do not have experience fielding warbikers in a GT-level environment or against GT-caliber opposition, nor have you done testing to figure out what kind of army in which they might work well. And that's okay; they may not suit your play style, or work well in the type of list you prefer to field. But for you to categorically deny their utility in any competitive Ork list seems inappropriate.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, you should look up 2010 GT standings, you might find yourself surprised.

Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

I think this discussion progresses along parallel lines. When assessing whether an unit choice "sucks", it can be done by either within Codex's internal balance, or within universal metagame. I'll take a Tau codex as an example as I am most familiar with that: from Tau Codex viewpoint, Kroot are great, as they offer best value for points in that FOC slot (Troops). But when compared to what all other available codexii have available, they are an average unit at best. OTOH, Vespids suck both within Tau codex, and compared to all other comparable units. A player who uses his points on Vespids instead of Crisis Suits (or even Piranhas or Gun Drones if you want to compare them within the FA slot) will be handicapped in almost every game.

In my opinion, Ork codex has no truly weak units (well some of the Special characters maybe, I dunno). It is just that the Codex' internal balance is flawed, and some units simply do not compare within the book in some other choices, thus there is no point for a competive player to consider them. If you made an army out of the weakest Ork units, it would still at least put a fight against most other armies. By contrast, if you made a Tau army containing all the weakest units in that book, you'd struggle to ever actually kill anything.

+1 to what Backfire said, "absolute suck" versus "relative suck" is a difficult thing to quantify.

If you want to field 6 minimal Grot mobs backed up with MSUs of Bikers and Flash Gits for all your fast/heavy choices because you like the models, that's fine. They're your models and your army. But a Tactica should be written towards a competitive (although, not a WAAC) mindset, towards an audience that wants to win or at least have a chance at it. That's why it's called "Tactica", from the word "Tactics".

It's like when people post in Army Lists and respond to any criticism with "Well, it's fluffy!". If it's fluffy good for it, but posting it in Army Lists means you want a competitiveness audit done (because I can't know your fluff, only you know it. Fluff is subjective, numbers aren't).

Me, I (try to) write tactical lists and then write my fluff to justify it, but I'm a TFG.

To those who support the use of warbikes - I ask this: How do you get around the leadership issue? In my opinion, low leadership is Orks biggest weakness. Orks have many ways of getting around this - but warbikes do not. I love the idea of bikes (I played in 3rd ed when warbikes could shoot their dakka guns on the charge) but I almost always need to take a leadership test before doing anything with them - which means 1/3 of the time they ride away without accomplishing much.

On a straight point for point basis - why would you ever field bikers and not Nob bikers? 20 pts more for: a) 1 more wound b) 1 higher strength c) the ablilty to take better weapons/gear d) whte ability to wound allocate e) nob bikers can be troop choices without having to take a special character

Strider, I'm going to stop responding to you because you don't seem to read what I write. For the last time, Stelek doesn't play Orks. Stelek doesn't play Orks. STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS.

Specific to your "Why don't you demonstrate to us..."

I've offered to demonstrate this. This is getting beyond ridiculous at this point. Stop picking internet people to try championing your cause - back up your own words, justify your thoughts, do more than just be argumentative and provocative for the sake of being argumentative, and for the love of Gork and Mork, CONTRIBUTE something here besides negativity to what I write.

If you think warbikers are all that, justify it. "I do well with warbikers" is not a good answer, which is all that's been offered in their defense here. I've explained in-depth their utility compared to other options in the codex trying to achieve the same ends, none of which has been refuted with anything other than, "They do well for me."

The only way to beat the phrase "I don't care what the codex or common sense says, I like them..." when someone uses it like they believe its an actual refutation to point cost, utility, and worthiness to put in a list is to play against the person who believes that, and destroy them so utterly that they realize they haven't actually been challenged before.

Mannahnin, if you want Wyatt to champion warbikers for you, set us up. I'd take your bet. I'm not going to go into particular detail because this isn't the place for it, but the ETC was worth a laugh. Just like GW Vegas Invitational is worth a laugh. You're right in that I don't field warbikers in a GT environment, but I've both seen them played and played against them in a GT.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that nothing else new is going to come to this thread, and that no one is going to step up to actually back up their opinions counter to mine. Pointing out a single individual who has won some games with a unit is *not* justification for rating them as a valuable part of a codex or advice on utility for new players to that army. Just because I win games with Necrons doesn't mean that I recommend Necrons to aspiring 40k players.

Warbikers are an inferior unit, not worth their points, and not something that an aspiring Ork strategist should consider for their army. I have the knowledge, experience, and impressive slew of documented victories to demonstrate that I know my way around Orks. If anyone wants to go beyond ranged sniping and show me that I'm wrong, PM me and we'll set up a game, and lay down some stakes. I'll even let YOU pick the codex I use (and I only know how to play with three of them), and I'll probably even let you have a say in building my list. Alternatively, you can have one of my standard take-all-comer lists.

Strider, for the last time, STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS! Man up and meet me across a table.

*laughing* I wonder how many people in this thread giving advice on Orks actually play them, or play them with any degree of success?

Dashofpepper wrote:At any rate, I'm pretty sure that nothing else new is going to come to this thread, and that no one is going to step up to actually back up their opinions counter to mine. Pointing out a single individual who has won some games with a unit is *not* justification for rating them as a valuable part of a codex or advice on utility for new players to that army.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, if you want Wyatt to champion warbikers for you, set us up. I'd take your bet. I'm not going to go into particular detail because this isn't the place for it, but the ETC was worth a laugh. Just like GW Vegas Invitational is worth a laugh. You're right in that I don't field warbikers in a GT environment, but I've both seen them played and played against them in a GT.

So someone's tournament record doesn't make them an authority figure on a subject, but yours does. Also, winning games with Warbikers doesn't make them good, but if you played against them and won it would prove that they suck?

Is that what you're saying?

Vrakk wrote:To those who support the use of warbikes - I ask this: How do you get around the leadership issue? In my opinion, low leadership is Orks biggest weakness. Orks have many ways of getting around this - but warbikes do not. I love the idea of bikes (I played in 3rd ed when warbikes could shoot their dakka guns on the charge) but I almost always need to take a leadership test before doing anything with them - which means 1/3 of the time they ride away without accomplishing much.

On a straight point for point basis - why would you ever field bikers and not Nob bikers? 20 pts more for: a) 1 more wound b) 1 higher strength c) the ablilty to take better weapons/gear d) whte ability to wound allocate e) nob bikers can be troop choices without having to take a special character

For me it's a bosspole nob leader, always. That's one thing I learned on ehre actually - every ork unit that can take a bosspole, should take one. However I take the whole precident that orks are meant to die anyway - you're only trying to cause as much carnage as possible in as little time given before you die. Sounds like terrible logic but it works somewhat.

In regards to biker tactica, I use them as the very first unit to hit home. Koptas are in small numbers and ridiculously expensive for what people use them for - I'd take 3 normal bikers over a buzzkopta anyday. This is because there's more wounds and a constant cover save. You need to turboboost with a kopta to gain a save and their klaws are str7 charging. I can get one on a normal nob biker leader thats str9 charging. That causes far more damage than what any kopta could. Another thing I've noticed with koptas vs bikers is that the koptas always get targetted first and shot down with ease. Bikers take a lot more to kill - same weapons but more wounds. And assuming they'll always run away as soon as one falls off his bike won't really help you use them. Outlfanking moves would work well with them - push your main force forward and use the bikers to target something on the side of general importance. And the dakkaguns are quite useful I've found - many a wound caused by the sheer volley of those guns. Against MEQ's thise falters due to armour saves, but this is why you charge those guys as well as shoot them.

Besides when you try and fill the Fast Attack slot for any speedy ork army we really are abit stuffed for choice. We have warbuggies which are only useful as skorchas or rokkit buggies - nice cheap gun platforms of armour 10. Suffers the same issue with the landspeeder typhoon - good (matter of opinion) at range but one shot and bam, it's toast. And almost always you need 3 buggies to keep up the power and anti tank. Now I can take a whole buncha klaws for 120pts which have more attacks and a higher strength charging. Next is stormboys which strike me as a horde - base unit. 20 boys with unreliable jump-packs, not my fancy personally. And koptas, see above paragraph.

I think we can all agree, Dash doesn't like warbikers, maybe because he's found them ineffective for what he wants them to do or just generally can't see the point of them. Others can argue otherwise but we all have our own experiences.

Now to the OP (before this veers off any further), I would happily edit that Takktaki but I don't think I'd do it justive since I'm not exactly an ork veteran (been playing them for a few months and well I'm nearly 19). I think whoever edits it will need to have a good indepth experience of every ork trick in the book. It might be Dash, it may not.

I used bikers in squads of 10 pretty well at the beginning of 5th edition. My biggest issue is still the leadership. If they were still base fearless like 3rd-4th edition I'd rate them extremely highly. The only reason I don't field them more is that I'd have to field them as troops and that means Wazdakka which is a character I don't care for.

However I think they have a place. Just it requires they be taken as troops. In the FA slot there is zero reason to run bikers. That's just my personal opinion though

Dash: One correction to an earlier statement is that Ork Warbikers have 2 wounds each.

My opinion:

Warbikers are an "ok" unit. They aren't great, but they aren't horrible. You've got a fast unit with relatively poor attacks at ranged and good close combat skills.

Stellek's list, posted Feb 14th, is:

1 Wazdakka Gutsmek, 180 pts

10 Lootas, 150 pts
9 Lootas, 135 pts
9 Lootas, 135 pts

3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 135 pts
1 Biker Nob (Power Klaw)

2 Deffkoptas, 115 pts (Twin Linked Rokkit Launcha x2; Buzzsaw x1)
2 Deffkoptas, 115 pts (Twin Linked Rokkit Launcha x2; Buzzsaw x1)
2 Deffkoptas, 115 pts (Twin Linked Rokkit Launcha x2; Buzzsaw x1)

3 Big Gunz, 72 pts (Ammo Runt x3; Additional Gun Krew)
7 Gretchin
3 Big Gunz, 72 pts (Ammo Runt x3; Additional Gun Krew)
7 Gretchin
3 Big Gunz, 75 pts (Ammo Runt x3; Additional Gun Krew)
8 Gretchin

Total Roster Cost: 1999

So, you've got 9-10 fast moving elements, and some gun support. Personally, I would have dropped the extra warbiker in each squad and have added more lootas, but that's my style.

What do we have on the board? A lot of T5 bikes and jetbikes who will always have a 4+ cover. A lot of lootas at T4, who are probably getting a 4+ cover, and 9 Kannons.

I run:
2x KFF Big Mek
2x Deff Dread (2x Rokkits)
2x 20x Boyz, Shootas, 2x Big Shoota, Nob, PK, BP
2x 10x Grotz, Runtherder
3x 14x Loota
2x Deffkopta, Buzzsaw, TL Rokkits
3x Killa Kan, 3x Rokkits

I think my list would walk right over Stelek's list. I deploy my Kans and Dreads up front, and on the sides, with a wide enough deployment that the bikes won't be able to easily buzz past. The shoota boys and meks are behind the kans, giving them cover saves and getting cover in return, the lootas in the back, with a grot screen on each flank to prevent the lootas from getting easily assaulted.

So what does this warbiker list have that can reliably hurt my kans and dreads? Lootas and Kannons. However, his lootas will be shot at by my lootas, quickly putting them out of the picture. The kannons will then get the same. Yes, he will get some str7/8 shots off, but not enough to cripple my kan wall. At the same time, my kans and dreads are shooting rokkits into his warbikes. I won't kill a ton, but I only need one to force a leadership test. And even with a bosspole, he will fail about 25% of the time. Those rokkits will ID his warbikers, and if he's getting close enough to me to threaten my army in assault, I'm close enough to him to get my shoota boys and kans/dreads into assault with his buggies.

My list, which is not in my opinion a super competative GT level list, will easily ruin the day of his warbikers list. And I find the same thing when I run his list in my head against most competative lists. The current meta is using vehicles, and his list has no vehicles in it. Instead, it has a lot of units that are very vulnerable to anti-tank and will be vulnerable to anti-infantry as well.

This list might do well against an IG Leafblower list, which is something I am very vulnerable too, but in general I don't see it as being highly competative.

Heff, warbikers only have one wound. The nob leading them has two.

Edit: WHoops, FAQ'd.

Vrakk wrote:To those who support the use of warbikes - I ask this: How do you get around the leadership issue? In my opinion, low leadership is Orks biggest weakness. Orks have many ways of getting around this - but warbikes do not. I love the idea of bikes (I played in 3rd ed when warbikes could shoot their dakka guns on the charge) but I almost always need to take a leadership test before doing anything with them - which means 1/3 of the time they ride away without accomplishing much.

In the ETC list I linked to there is a large squad of them (starting off 12 strong) with a Nob with the standard mandatory kit of klaw and bosspole. This makes their LD pretty darn reliable, although they are potentially vulnerable (as are all non-Fearless units in 40k) to a PBS.

Vrakk wrote:On a straight point for point basis - why would you ever field bikers and not Nob bikers? 20 pts more for: a) 1 more wound b) 1 higher strength c) the ablilty to take better weapons/gear d) whte ability to wound allocate e) nob bikers can be troop choices without having to take a special character

Okay, so I've got two choices. Take a super-unit which costs an extra 20pts a model, plus more if I want said better weapons and gear, or take the lesser unit which costs less and brings more bodies. You have choices like that in every codex. Does every BA player leave assault marines at home because Sanguinary Guard and Honor Guard are available? If the cheaper unit does the job you need in the context of your list, it's often smarter to take the cheaper unit.

Dashofpepper wrote:@Juvieus: Warbikers are extremely expensive for an ork model, less effective than nobs who can be just as mobile,

Less effective than Nobs, sure, but at a much lower price per model.

Dashofpepper wrote:...undewhelming in shooting,

12 bikes put out 36 TL S5 AP5 shots, averaging about 20 hits. That's the same as 10 SM heavy bolters (albeit with worse AP). That's around 4.4 dead SM , 16.8 dead Wyches (8.4 even with FNP), 13.2 Genestealers, or 2.2 wounds on a Tervigon, or 3.3 wounds on TWC. 20 shoota boyz kill 2.2 SM, 8.8 Wyches, 4.4 stealers, or 1.1 tervigon wounds. The shoota boys are a big more points efficient, but the warbikers do real damage.

Dashofpepper wrote:...overwhelmed in close combat,

Against TWC (without support) or against TH/SS terminators, sure. But part of the point of a mobile unit is to pick your targets. 8-10 (assuming you lost a few to shooting on the way in) T5 models with a bunch of attacks and a klaw nob beats a lot of units. 7 GH (after Warbiker shooting at a 10 model unit) kill ~3 Warbikers, then the bikers kill 2 and the klaw nob a couple more, winning by 1. Yes, the GH are cheaper, but the bikers can beat them in HtH, and the bikers should be picking their fight, having the greater inherent mobility, assuming you're both competent players and go after each other's transports. If you're going after Razorback, Chimera, or Valk-mounted scoring units running around the edges of the table, the Warbikers have the speed, durability, and killiness to take on multiples of these units in a single game and prevent them from scoring.

Dashofpepper wrote:... without even a serious advantage in mobility to their mechanized counterparts - who can't turbo-boost up to 24", but they can move 13", disembark 2", run 6" on a Waaaugh! and charge 6", and actually cover more ground than the warbikers.

A squad in a transport can beat them for assault range for a single turn, but not over two turns (like turns 1 & 2, for example). The squad in a transport is also always subject to losing the transport. The bikes never lose mobility.

Dashofpepper wrote:On top of all that, they are T4(5) instead of T5, so STR8 will still insta-gib them, which isn't as important as it is with nobs, since warbikers only have one wound,

This is actually a significant point in the Bikers' favor, as shooting S8+ stuff at the Nobs garners a substantially higher reward per shot thanks to instant death. ML, Manticores, lascannons, vindicators, etc. are no more threatening to the warbikers than the nobs; actually less so as the warbikers are substantially cheaper per model.

Dashofpepper wrote:their 3-15 unit size means that they're going to be taking leadership tests long before regular boyz - and I'm not sure I've EVER even seen someone take these in units of 15, and on top of all that, this is for a STR3 model, who is STR4 on the charge, attacking at I3 at best.

Let's take a look. Say 20 Boys dismounted from the battlewagon eat a round of bolter fire from a squad of GH. 10 GH = 16 bolter shots and two melta. Bolters kill 5.28, meltas 1.1, so about 6.4 boys, or about 38.4pts worth. The same GH shoot the bikers. 1.76 dead from bolters, .55 from melta = 2.31. That's 46.2pts' worth. So comparably durable there, with the warbikers suffering less reduction in attack output, having lost 2 models to the Boys' 6. Another round of fire like that from a second enemy unit will put either Ork unit below Fearless level. Yes, the Boys are substantially cheaper and put out more attacks in HtH, but they are not actually substantially more resiliant vs. shooting, and they are dependent on their transport for mobility and protection.

I'm not saying I'd consider bikers a substitute for Boyz; not by any means. But they're not terrible either. IMO they can be used with success in a top-level tournament army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote: I'm not going to go into particular detail because this isn't the place for it, but the ETC was worth a laugh. Just like GW Vegas Invitational is worth a laugh.

This is just rude and ignorant. Players you know and respect (or should) participate in the ETC or vie to, and judge it to be a competive event. Guys like Alex Fennell, Ben Mohlie, Wyatt Traina, Paul Miglino, Greg Sparks and Matt Cassidy. I'm sure Hulksmash and Reecius would love to go, and would also consider it a competitive event, but they can correct me if I'm wrong. The ToS event in Vegas this summer's going to be a good event too, with plenty of competition, despite the less-than-stellar scoring system.

Laugh away, if it makes you feel better.

Dashofpepper wrote:At any rate, I'm pretty sure that nothing else new is going to come to this thread, and that no one is going to step up to actually back up their opinions counter to mine.

Well, I hope your long year of GT play hasn't left you a jaded old veteran no longer open to new ideas. I know some of the guys who've been doing it a decade or more have a tendency to occasionally get set in their ways, but I wouldn't think you would so quickly.

Mannahnin I'm not gonna argue that warbikers are a worthless unit, but there are a number of better options in the codex. You can take a warboss biker to unlock nobs as a troop for basically half the cost of Wazzdakka and now you can create a far more potent biker unit. Yes each nob costs more but you already saved almost 100 points taking your HQ, so in the long run the cost is only slightly more for a much better unit.

Now if you want multiple biker units in your list then Wazzdakka with multiple biker troops make a lot of sense but you have to weigh that investment vs. vanilla boyz, 1 or 2 nob troop units, grots and the like. I've made solid biker lists in the past featuring wazzdakka and then several bike units. It makes for a solid list. I don't think it's as optimal as a kan wall with a horde or a battlewagon spam with payload but it's serviceable.

Another way to go is to not use the bikes as troops as simply use them as fast attack. I don't think a 3 unit biker MSU is a terrible idea, but I think you're gonna get more bang out of a loaded CC deffkopta with scout for less points and only 1/3 less wounds or a tricked out buggy unit with double the shooting range and TL shoots for only 15 more points.

Mannahnin, selective scenarios and theoryhammering doesn't make a good debate, which is why I try not to engage on it. I'd rather roll dice, thus my oft-repeated slogan here which you so disapprove of: (Lets play and find out).

Also, your math is incorrect for biker shooting.

The players I know and respect feel the same way I do about the ETC to my knowledge from my conversations with them about it - limited as they were because of a general lack of interest in the event among those just mentioned. Not particularly competitive, and attended by those willing to pay to go. Someone doing well in an event that I don't hold in high regard because I view its structure uncompetitive and limited is nowhere as meaningful as someone doing well in something I respect. As for the ToS in Vegas - they're selling tickets to the general public. My ticket is getting sold to the general public. I don't disagree that there will be competitive games there, but there will not be a competitive ranking system, which is why I dismiss it. The fact that you think my opinion is rude and ignorant shows how different our mindsets are (reinforced by the fact that you've taken more punitive actions against me than every other moderator on Dakka combined).

I respect Matt Cassidy because I've seen him play and played against him. I respect Alex Fennel for much the same reason. And Hulksmash. And Reecius. Etc. I don't know who Wyatt Traina is, I haven't played against him or seen him at any event I've been to, and I travel a *lot*. That doesn't mean I have no respect for him, it means I haven't formed an opinion of him. If he runs warbiker nobs in Grand Tournaments here in the U.S., and I paired up against him, my initial opinion of him will be that he is a brave soul and about to get beat down. If I was right, I would dismiss my game from memory - I don't remember my wins like I remember my losses. If I was wrong, he'd earn my respect and admiration, and a serious reconsideration of his army.

My willingness to consider something I don't believe works requires demonstration. You don't buy a gun without making sure it fires, and you don't buy into a philosophy being claimed as successful without seeing it in action. Is it so strange that I'm asking for a demonstration of the capabilities of something I believe to be inferior?

Dashofpepper wrote:My willingness to consider something I don't believe works requires demonstration. You don't buy a gun without making sure it fires, and you don't buy into a philosophy being claimed as successful without seeing it in action. Is it so strange that I'm asking for a demonstration of the capabilities of something I believe to be inferior?

You could demonstrate your experience with using warbikers. Share with us what good/bad they've been in more than one match and point this as to why you don't like them. We already have a verbal account of why you don't like the stats...

Just a thought

Edit: Not helpful

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, selective scenarios and theoryhammering doesn't make a good debate, which is why I try not to engage on it.

?

Except in your first post in this thread, in the part which you said was drawn from a tactics article you're working on, where you specifically invoked "math hammer" in describing how great and efficient, numerically, slugga and shoota boys are.

Math helps us understand the game better. I completely concur that theoryhammer often fails to tell the entire tale. I carefully chose scenarios comparing common competitive units, not "selective" ones in the sense that they were cherry-picked to get the results I wanted. My math showed that Boys ARE more efficient point for point in shooting, and slightly more resilient in the scenarios I gave, so I'm obviously not distorting anything to support my points.

You posted that you had given a detailed breakdown of why bikers are bad, challenged others to respond, and predicted no one would. Your prediction was incorrect, and IMO so is your assessment.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'd rather roll dice, thus my oft-repeated slogan here which you so disapprove of: (Lets play and find out).

Where do you get the idea that I disapprove of it? Playing real games against real tournament opposition and seeing how the units actually relate on the table; within the contest of missions, maneuver, and terrain, is fundamental for proper understanding. As I just cited in my comments on Jy2's tyranid tournament report over in the Bat Reps forum. You have no BRs (that I can recall) showing good or bad use of Bikers; Wyatt does, so I referenced them.

Dashofpepper wrote:Also, your math is incorrect for biker shooting.

Whoops! Thanks! That's embarassing. I'll go back and correct. It does make them substantially better than I said. Thanks for the honesty, too.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'd The players I know and respect feel the same way I do about the ETC to my knowledge from my conversations with them about it - limited as they were because of a general lack of interest in the event among those just mentioned.

Dashofpepper wrote:I respect Matt Cassidy because I've seen him play and played against him. I respect Alex Fennel for much the same reason.

These two quotes of yours are contradictory.

Dashofpepper wrote: I don't know who Wyatt Traina is, I haven't played against him or seen him at any event I've been to, and I travel a *lot*. That doesn't mean I have no respect for him, it means I haven't formed an opinion of him.

Okay. It's not about Wyatt, of couse. I don't know him very well, personally. But he is on the ETC team, did quite well there with Orks, won the Boston Brawl last year with his SW, and has had excellent showings at Adepticon. You haven't played every good player in the country in a single year of hitting what, a half-dozen GTs? Was it even that many? There's still a lot more people to play and tactics to learn.

Dashofpepper wrote: The fact that you think my opinion is rude and ignorant shows how different our mindsets are

You described these events as "a laugh". That came off a bit contemptuous. The fact that you don't think the ETC is competitive does seem pretty ignorant, given the info available about it online. Although I may have access to a little more info than most people, having had the chance to talk about it in some depth with a couple of the US players and one of the UK players, and having a couple of ETC players on my tournament team.

Taking a quick peek at the ToS thread you started over in the Tournament Forum, it appears that Reece, Dave Fay and Ryan Shepard are going. I know Alex F and Matt C have confirmed. Mike Brandt agreed with me on the first page that the event presents a high likelihood of getting multiple games against some of the most competitive players in the country.

Dashofpepper wrote: (reinforced by the fact that you've taken more punitive actions against me than every other moderator on Dakka combined).

You really want to get into that in public? I'm almost certainly the moderator who is most sympathetic toward you, and the most interested in working with you to keep you on the site as a productive member.

To the OP, good luck getting thru all of this!

As you may have determined, there is no set in stone way to play orks. You can make many things work - it depends on your play style, overall skill, and your local meta.

Proxy models and play some games with friends (just not at a GW store) and see what happens.

I'm not sure if an overall tactika will work for orks. Battlewagon rush plays much differently than kan wall for example. So figure out how you enjoy playing, test it out with proxies, and then post some lists. There are many who will gladly help with fine tuning your list and it hopefully will not get derailed into a fight.

Good luck on your waagh!

Thanks Vrakk!

I've been filtering past the arguments and trying to glean some gems.
It's pretty crazy how heated these debates get, huh?

matphat, this debate has good points to it. I wish that folks would leave personal junk out of it, but that's like wishing for money to appear at your whim. =p

Been happy to help you, mostly via PM - let me know if you have any more questions.

Mannahnin, I know you're a fan of line by line debating, and I have no interest in daisychaining you, so just going to point out two things - the mathhammer you did for your bikers makes them worse, not better. Instead of 16 hits, you should have 13, since you're only rerolling misses, not the whole set (which is how you'd get 16).

And your note on my contradictory statements isn't contradictory. Respecting Matt Cassidy isn't the same as talking to him about the ETC. There are two categories of people I'm referencing: Those who I know and respect...and a subcategory of those people titled, "Those I talk to regularly." I've only played and spoken to Matt once.

And as a sidenote....I thought your defense was that Matt Traina was winning GTs with warbiker armies....not just that he is a good GT player. World of difference there.

matphat wrote:Thanks Vrakk!

I've been filtering past the arguments and trying to glean some gems.
It's pretty crazy how heated these debates get, huh?

It just shows how passionate we are!

As to an Ork takkitca... any seasoned Ork player will stress to pick a "theme" and stick with it.

For instance, my ork theme now are the spead freak. Here's my 1850 list:
1 Warboss on bike + PK + cyborked
9 Nobs on bikes (fully diversified with painboy)
4 trukks full of boys with each having a PK nob with BP
2 Green Baron deffkopta (tl rokkits + BS)

Notice the theme? They're all FAST.

Also in a competitive setting, do NOT go all out on bikers... you'll either win big or get Massacred.

I played two tournaments recently with this list (and a similar 2000 point list) and I came in 3rd and 4th in a really tough, competitive group.

It's also how you play your list (Dash's point). When I play the nob bikers... everyone is quaking in their boots and says "that's priority number 1". They can soak in an enormous amount of shots.

But do you know which unit win my games? The regular ork boyz... you see... if you ignore the ork boyz in a trukk zooming to your back line because the nob bikers just have to be dealt with... well... lemme tell ya something... very few units can withstand a trukk full of boyz if they pull off an assault on their unit.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, I know you're a fan of line by line debating, and I have no interest in daisychaining you, so just going to point out two things - the mathhammer you did for your bikers makes them worse, not better. Instead of 16 hits, you should have 13, since you're only rerolling misses, not the whole set (which is how you'd get 16).

Thanks for the correction. That being said, my other mistakes were forgetting they're assault 3, and that they're AP5. 36 shots at BS2 = 12 hits the first time, and 24 re-rolls at BS2 = 8 more hits for 20 total, instead of the 16 I had gotten. AP5 is also much nastier against Stealers (as well as other stuff like IG).

Dashofpepper wrote:And your note on my contradictory statements isn't contradictory. Respecting Matt Cassidy isn't the same as talking to him about the ETC. There are two categories of people I'm referencing: Those who I know and respect...and a subcategory of those people titled, "Those I talk to regularly." I've only played and spoken to Matt once.

Okay, cool. I was pointing out that guys you've publicly said you respect for their tactical acumen have expressed very different opinions about the ETC.

Dashofpepper wrote:And as a sidenote....I thought your defense was that Matt Traina was winning GTs with warbiker armies....not just that he is a good GT player. World of difference there.

Absolutely. Nowhere did I say that Wyatt's winning GTs with armies centered around warbikers. I actually was really clear about that in my post on page 2, differentiating Striderx's contention from mine. Wyatt's a GT winner, and plays Orks, and did really well at ETC using an Ork army featuring a unit of a dozen warbikers. IIRC you got your Best General with Dark Eldar, right?

Yes, that's correct. Oldest codex in 40k brought in my golden ticket. Oldest codex no more. :( I preferred the old one. At least there my wyches could potentially assault 12", Lelith wasn't garbage, and neither were disintegrators.

Yeah, the old DE codex had some nasty, nasty stuff. I miss the old combat drugs, for one (I miss the Slaaneshi combat drugs in the old chaos dex too, for that matter).

Ah well, out with the old, in with the new! Especially with all the nice new models.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned it is just because you're a respected Ork player, who's done well in big events with them, but actually got your biggest finish with another codex. Similarly, Wyatt has done well with his Orks, but got his GT win with another codex. I also remember a conversation Cassidy and I had as I was picking him up in Boston (where he had been hanging out with Wyatt and playing some games) to carpool down to the Ard Boys final last year; and Cassidy was talking about how good warbikers are, which was fresh on his mind from a game with Wyatt. I genuinely do think they can be darn good. Part of it may just be that they need to be used in particular ways, or in the context of a certain kind of list, and I suspect that you just may not have tried out the right combination yet.

Dashofpepper wrote:Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

YOU pioneered a new wave of Ork Tactics. That's right nobody thought to use battlewagons before you graced the world of 40k...wow your ego is astonishing. I am out of here before this thread gets locked...

General_Chaos wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

YOU pioneered a new wave of Ork Tactics. That's right nobody thought to use battlewagons before you graced the world of 40k...wow your ego is astonishing. I am out of here before this thread gets locked...

If you think I'm talking about the use of battlewagons, I'm comfortable that you've no idea what you're talking about.

I think it may be time for a new community taktika to be written.

As an Ork player I fancied a mixed biker army surrounding a Wazdakka, a Warboss on bike, Two nob biker squads, supplemented by deffkoptas and lootas with x number of mixed trunk boys and biker boys to present confusing target priority. Heavy slot would go to rokkit Kanz.

Shot idea down as too clanky. Went with battlewagons.

Dashofpepper wrote:Strider, I'm going to stop responding to you because you don't seem to read what I write. For the last time, Stelek doesn't play Orks. Stelek doesn't play Orks. STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS.

Stelek does play orks, and HAS an ork army/ ork models. So seriously, don't CAPS and assume you just said a fact. You got your fact wrong.

Stelek plays ork. I don't understand why you are finding excuse not to play him again. You make me feel that you are seeking someone less tactically sound to prove your point, and you know Stelek isn't the best candidate for that.

Dashofpepper wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:YOU pioneered a new wave of Ork Tactics. That's right nobody thought to use battlewagons before you graced the world of 40k...wow your ego is astonishing. I am out of here before this thread gets locked...

If you think I'm talking about the use of battlewagons, I'm comfortable that you've no idea what you're talking about.

I agree with General_Chaos. I seriously don't know what you have pioneered. I mean I really DON'T know, and I can bet the majority here don't know as well

Dashofpepper wrote: Man up and meet me across a table.

Sure. Fly here and I ll play you ANYTIME. But don't give me EVADING THE SWEAR FILTER TO POST PROFANITY IS A VIOLATION OF DAKKA RULES about paying for your airfare, asking me to fly over, whatever. If you propose that we play, I welcome you here ANYTIME. Otherwise, your best choice is to play Stelek (provided he doesnt scare you away, of course, especially after you played him at the Nova Open).

So, I've actually been thinking about this topic, and it seems that bikers have a pretty solid niche: taking out small or non-HtH units anywhere on the board.

It seems that with decent LD, annoying durabiliyt, and immense speed, things like Long Fangs, enemy bikers, broadsides, etc. all have a pretty short lifespan. Plus, anything that shoots the bikes is ignoring the more powerful units following.

Ironically, in a pure mech environment, I think the bikes could pick their targets easier, and worry less about enemy shooting. Against IG gunlines, they become target #1...

striderx wrote:

Sure. Fly here and I ll play you ANYTIME.

Sounds like a spectated Vassal game is in order. Are you familiar with the program?

Polonius wrote:So, I've actually been thinking about this topic, and it seems that bikers have a pretty solid niche: taking out small or non-HtH units anywhere on the board.

It seems that with decent LD, annoying durabiliyt, and immense speed, things like Long Fangs, enemy bikers, broadsides, etc. all have a pretty short lifespan. Plus, anything that shoots the bikes is ignoring the more powerful units following.

Ironically, in a pure mech environment, I think the bikes could pick their targets easier, and worry less about enemy shooting. Against IG gunlines, they become target #1...

Yup... since the meta is usually very mechanized, bikers sometime isn't effective...

But the warbikers are more than just fast, mobile str 5 ap 5 shooting platform... I also use them to "escort" my trukks to their target. That's how I'm usually able to take out a gun line IG or Tau army, because my opponent are either shooting at the bikers (4+ cover/armour saves) or they're shooting at my trukks (which flatted out or biker is screen them for 4+ cover).

The dakkaguns can stun/shaken rinos/razorback spams... they're quite effective against DE Raiders/Ravagers (but then, the squaddies will get gak'ed later with mass splinter shots )

Even to normal space marine squads, bikers can wipe them out (loads of shots and in HtH, they're tough 5!).

Are bikers the most effective Ork unit in a competitive list? Not really... but can it work competitively... sure. But it sure is fun playing them!

So... in short... try 'em out. You may like 'em.

Vassal sounds cool. Can anyone PM me about it?

striderx wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Strider, I'm going to stop responding to you because you don't seem to read what I write. For the last time, Stelek doesn't play Orks. Stelek doesn't play Orks. STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS.

Stelek does play orks, and HAS an ork army/ ork models. So seriously, don't CAPS and assume you just said a fact. You got your fact wrong.

Stelek plays ork. I don't understand why you are finding excuse not to play him again. You make me feel that you are seeking someone less tactically sound to prove your point, and you know Stelek isn't the best candidate for that.

Dashofpepper wrote:

General_Chaos wrote:YOU pioneered a new wave of Ork Tactics. That's right nobody thought to use battlewagons before you graced the world of 40k...wow your ego is astonishing. I am out of here before this thread gets locked...

If you think I'm talking about the use of battlewagons, I'm comfortable that you've no idea what you're talking about.

I agree with General_Chaos. I seriously don't know what you have pioneered. I mean I really DON'T know, and I can bet the majority here don't know as well

Dashofpepper wrote: Man up and meet me across a table.

Sure. Fly here and I ll play you ANYTIME. But don't give me EVADING THE SWEAR FILTER TO POST PROFANITY IS A VIOLATION OF DAKKA RULES about paying for your airfare, asking me to fly over, whatever. If you propose that we play, I welcome you here ANYTIME. Otherwise, your best choice is to play Stelek (provided he doesnt scare you away, of course, especially after you played him at the Nova Open).

Do you think Stelek would play his Ork list against Dash? I'd love to see that.

Dash, I'm curious, do you feel the same about Nob Bikers?

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Dash, I'm curious, do you feel the same about Nob Bikers?

No, I think Nob bikers are fine. I think that they are a dangerous unit to both field and play against. Taking nobs is always a fine line to walk between gaining ability and sacrificing too many points. I use Nobs in a battlewagon because I ultimately feel that they're better - instead of a 4+ cover save with a 4+ Feel no pain....they are not getting shot at in a battlewagon, for 25 points less per nob.

I think that two units of 10 nob bikers led by a warboss each is probably a bit excessive - the last time I ran into one of those, Ghazghkull ate one unit and my burnas did a pretty good job on the other one, although they didn't wipe the unit - but they did a ton of wounds so finishing them was easy enough. You'll see a lot of advocacy for using demolishers and vindicators and STR 8-10 blasts to deal with them. Assaults work just fine too if you have an equally deadly assault unit.

I think that the proper role for Nob bikers is in units of 3-4, with a powerklaw or two, running around the board smacking on tanks and tying up shooting units. I'd like to say dealing with MCs as well, but my invulnerable saves are never that hot when I play Orks.

I'm also always worried about tables with multi-level terrain as well, with nob bikers.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Dash, I'm curious, do you feel the same about Nob Bikers?

No, I think Nob bikers are fine. I think that they are a dangerous unit to both field and play against. Taking nobs is always a fine line to walk between gaining ability and sacrificing too many points. I use Nobs in a battlewagon because I ultimately feel that they're better - instead of a 4+ cover save with a 4+ Feel no pain....they are not getting shot at in a battlewagon, for 25 points less per nob.

I think that two units of 10 nob bikers led by a warboss each is probably a bit excessive - the last time I ran into one of those, Ghazghkull ate one unit and my burnas did a pretty good job on the other one, although they didn't wipe the unit - but they did a ton of wounds so finishing them was easy enough. You'll see a lot of advocacy for using demolishers and vindicators and STR 8-10 blasts to deal with them. Assaults work just fine too if you have an equally deadly assault unit.

I think that the proper role for Nob bikers is in units of 3-4, with a powerklaw or two, running around the board smacking on tanks and tying up shooting units. I'd like to say dealing with MCs as well, but my invulnerable saves are never that hot when I play Orks.

In my 1850 list above, I played against good BA list with 3 las preds and mass number of razor backs.. I got first turn... My deffkopta stunned the flamer tank (don't know its name) and immoblized a razorback.
the Nob bikers flatted out towards the las Preds. On the BA turn, of course he shot the hell out of my nobs... in which he only killed one nob from the las preds and dealt 3 wound to other bikers.

By second turn, I was able to multi assault all 3 of his las Preds either wrecking them or stunning them.

All this time... my 4 trukk boyz are getting in position to either claim objectives, or assault the other razor backs.

If I hadn't had an "OMG, I must take care of his Nob bikers", then my trukk boyz wouldn't get to his back line. And... I really like the trukks...

As for multi level terrain... that's why I have boyz... I've played a mostly biker list before, but my oppoent would place his objectives on 3rd floor ruins or major terrain... tehn only my deffkopta or kommandos could safely get in. So not only you need to build your list to "fit your style", but you also need to think what shenaigan (the meta) you opponent will pull on you.

Yeah I think the review is too critical or warbikes and burnas which imo I always take one or the other (if not both in my army.)

Like the codex says its best to treat orks like a klan. Go for speed, numbers, or dakka as you personally desire and things work out usually.

As far as all the yipping going back and forth, I agree with Dash. Settle it in a game. Face to face if you can, if not, Vassal. I'd pay to see it, actually.

I am a bit pessimistic about bikers, but someone using them effectively may make me a believer. When I look at the list and think about playing against them, I don't wet myself. I think 'free KP'.

I would also like someone to make me a believer or disprove himself trying.

I'm dying to see Vassal.

bucheonman wrote:As far as all the yipping going back and forth, I agree with Dash. Settle it in a game. Face to face if you can, if not, Vassal. I'd pay to see it, actually.

Well, then let us all know how much you are willing to pay.
I may buy a new com just to earn your money.

striderx wrote:

bucheonman wrote:As far as all the yipping going back and forth, I agree with Dash. Settle it in a game. Face to face if you can, if not, Vassal. I'd pay to see it, actually.

Well, then let us all know how much you are willing to pay.
I may buy a new com just to earn your money.

Why don't you borrow a friend's computer for a couple hours then? You said that your computer can't handle vassal - I have a pentium 4 laptop circa 2001 amongst my laptops, and even it can handle Vassal; certainly you know someone that would let you hang out for a couple hours to play a vassal game. 40k buddies? Anything?

Vassal really isn't a good test.

It removes the 3-dimensional aspect of the game which makes testing units on it rather pointless.

I suppose the mature thing to do would be agree to disagree and everyone get on with their lives.

taht's not why a game is pointless. It's pointless because one game can't possibly show the over all value of a unit, especially if you go in knowing that a unit has dramtically different effects on different army types.

Instead, what makes more sense is to analyze your current army, look at it's strengths and weaknesses, and then determine if any given unit will make your army better, in the context of how you play the game, what amries you play against, etc.

That's why I don't feel that conlusory statements (XXX sucks, YYY is awesome) are as valuable as people make them out to be. Instead, explaining what unit's strengths and weakness are (and not just superficially), compared to it's cost (in terms of points, available slots, etc) can allow a person to determine, based on what they need, the final value of a unit in their army.

Classic example is IG. Look at the Vendetta and Stormtroopers. One is considered one of the best units in 40k, and one is seen as overpriced junk. Now imagine that you play a footslogging gunline. How good is a vendetta? How valuable are two deep striking melta guns? I know which I would rather have.

Polonius wrote:taht's not why a game is pointless.

Surely it goes without saying that there are myriad reasons why it is pointless?

We're not making an exhaustive list here.

Ahh, but from a peen measuring perspective, one battle is invaluable.

Not so with warbikers. I say that they are a terrible expenditure of points not from the vantage point of one army....

But from EVERY army I would ever play, every list I would ever play, and against anyone at all who would use a warbiker army, across an infinite series of games.

Yes, a bold statement: I don't believe I would ever lose a game against a warbiker army, regardless of what I'm fielding against it - that's how much I think warbikers are underwhelming and overcosted.

Wow. Extreme hyperbole.

Dashofpepper wrote:Not so with warbikers. I say that they are a terrible expenditure of points not from the vantage point of one army....

But from EVERY army I would ever play, every list I would ever play, and against anyone at all who would use a warbiker army, across an infinite series of games.

Yes, a bold statement: I don't believe I would ever lose a game against a warbiker army, regardless of what I'm fielding against it - that's how much I think warbikers are underwhelming and overcosted.

I bolded the key words. No offense Dash, but you dont' play every army. Different armies are going to be more or less worried about warbikers.

You've also repeatedly stated that you rarely lose to mechanized IG, which makes the "if I don't lose to it, it must be terrible" test lack in specificity. In fact, if you're as good a player as you contend, than it rarely matters what your opponent fields.

Dashofpepper wrote:Not so with warbikers. I say that they are a terrible expenditure of points not from the vantage point of one army....

But from EVERY army I would ever play, every list I would ever play, and against anyone at all who would use a warbiker army, across an infinite series of games.

Yes, a bold statement: I don't believe I would ever lose a game against a warbiker army, regardless of what I'm fielding against it - that's how much I think warbikers are underwhelming and overcosted.

I thinkk you don't like them so much that you've not tested them yourself. I dare you DashOfPepper to make a competitive ork army using warbikers in both minor and major amounts, and test run it. Then come back and tell us how terrible they really are Otherwise, yeah we can argue every single day about this matter.

Warbikers have a 4+ cover save. 24 of them will last longer than 3 Battlewagons in this mech heavy environment, that's for sure. Using Warbikers without Wazdakka is bad, but when they are troops, they gain some use. If you have enough Lootas/Kannon/Warbuggies/Deffkoptas to take out vehicles, Warbikers can be very deadly against infantry that can't catch up to them, and lotas of TL Dakkaguns will cause lots of damage to infantry.

The also have the best anti tank you can get in troops for Orks, a Power Klaw that can go fast. I think they are better than boys honestly. Boys have to pay extra to get a Battlewagon, which also takes up a heavy slot. Trukks are so fragile, that the Bike surpass them in terms of toughness.

They are not the best, but they are more useful than boys in almost any situation.

Dashofpepper wrote:Not so with warbikers. I say that they are a terrible expenditure of points not from the vantage point of one army....

But from EVERY army I would ever play, every list I would ever play, and against anyone at all who would use a warbiker army, across an infinite series of games.

Yes, a bold statement: I don't believe I would ever lose a game against a warbiker army, regardless of what I'm fielding against it - that's how much I think warbikers are underwhelming and overcosted.

Alright, we're on. You'll be fielding an army entirely of Grots with a Warboss, I'll play the Warbikers army.
Put your money where your mouth is, and let's Vassal it up!

I was going to say unupgraded Tac squads with an un-upgraded captain.

pretre wrote:I was going to say unupgraded Tac squads with an un-upgraded captain.

Oh no! There is far worse out there!
Daemon Furies
Tau Vespid
Imperial Guard Ogryn (yes, that's right. 30 Ogryn, with no extras, will cost you 1,200 points.)
and the list goes on.

Che-Vito wrote:

pretre wrote:I was going to say unupgraded Tac squads with an un-upgraded captain.

Oh no! There is far worse out there!
Daemon Furies
Tau Vespid
Imperial Guard Ogryn (yes, that's right. 30 Ogryn, with no extras, will cost you 1,200 points.)
and the list goes on.

I think Ogryn might be better than just Tac squads though. Mine is simple, yet elegant.

Mine only comes out to 1020 points for 60 Tac Marines though. :(
Have to add another 3 Dev Squads without HW, maybe some rhinos.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:I thinkk you don't like them so much that you've not tested them yourself. I dare you DashOfPepper to make a competitive ork army using warbikers in both minor and major amounts, and test run it. Then come back and tell us how terrible they really are Otherwise, yeah we can argue every single day about this matter.

I have tested them. In fact, I have 11 warbikers, a warbiker nob and a Wazdakka that I custom built out of an AoBR warboss, a biker boy, and utilizing Tau burst cannons to make my deffguns.

Compared to what other things in the codex can do along the same lines for less points or more effectiveness.....bikers are simply not worth it. Ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Che-Vito wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Not so with warbikers. I say that they are a terrible expenditure of points not from the vantage point of one army....

But from EVERY army I would ever play, every list I would ever play, and against anyone at all who would use a warbiker army, across an infinite series of games.

Yes, a bold statement: I don't believe I would ever lose a game against a warbiker army, regardless of what I'm fielding against it - that's how much I think warbikers are underwhelming and overcosted.

Alright, we're on. You'll be fielding an army entirely of Grots with a Warboss, I'll play the Warbikers army.
Put your money where your mouth is, and let's Vassal it up!

You and I are supposed to already have a Vassal game rearing to go. And....I didn't say any army that could potentially be created out of a codex, I said any army that I would ever play. I've got Orks, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Vanilla Marines.

I think we are clear on your position at this point. In fact, there is no doubt that I know your position on warbikers.

Chance of anyone changing Dash's mind? 0
Chance of discussion being over? 100

Let's talk about puppies now!

Edit:
This discussion ends at step 1:
http://unrforliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Our-Discussion.jpg

As I've said...my mind can be changed through demonstration.

From my experience playing with and against warbikers, if I see a warbiker army across the table from me, I expect to table my opponent with little effort.

Someone taking a warbiker army and beating me would *seriously* cause me to reconsider their utility. Thus....me asking someone to attempt to do so. I'm willing to consider the idea that there is something I haven't thought of before, but there's nothing in this thread that falls into that category regarding warbikers.

Right, but this is a discussion board, where we discuss ideas.

If every discussion ends with 'My mind is set until you play a game against me and show me empirical evidence of the validity of your point', it is going to lead to a lot of really boring discussions.

It is the equivalent of going to YMDC and saying that I won't accept any argument that does not involve you personally flying to oregon and showing me the rulebook or getting on a skype call and holding it up in front of the camera. Doesn't really help the discussion.

pretre wrote:Right, but this is a discussion board, where we discuss ideas.

If every discussion ends with 'My mind is set until you play a game against me and show me empirical evidence of the validity of your point', it is going to lead to a lot of really boring discussions.

It is the equivalent of going to YMDC and saying that I won't accept any argument that does not involve you personally flying to oregon and showing me the rulebook or getting on a skype call and holding it up in front of the camera. Doesn't really help the discussion.

This is a *TACTICS* discussion board. Where we attempt to help people improve their tactics. Words need not be the limiting mechanism to do so. If I can demonstrate to someone who is a firm believer in warbikers that they are ultimately ineffective against a variety of both competitive and uncompetitive armies, I expect them to reconsider their position - at which point I've helped improve someone's tactical prowess. Either that, or I'll learn something, and improve my tactical prowess.

Its a win/win either way, with additional measures of win scooped in due to being an opportunity to roll dice instead of type words.

Dashofpepper wrote:
This is a *TACTICS* discussion board. Where we attempt to help people improve their tactics. Words need not be the limiting mechanism to do so. If I can demonstrate to someone who is a firm believer in warbikers that they are ultimately ineffective against a variety of both competitive and uncompetitive armies, I expect them to reconsider their position - at which point I've helped improve someone's tactical prowess. Either that, or I'll learn something, and improve my tactical prowess.

Its a win/win either way, with additional measures of win scooped in due to being an opportunity to roll dice instead of type words.

Let me demonstrate the tactic you are using.

I refuse to acknowledge that this is a tactics discussion board and that we can use alternate mechanisms until you come to Oregon and show me on a computer where it says that. Alternatively, we could use some sort of proprietary program to share desktops so that I can be shown this directly.

At some point, however, by only relying on demonstration you basically hold all other experiences other than your own to be without any value. Now, we all rely more on our own experience more than second hand reports, but when you say that nobody anything can report could change your mind, you're basically announcing that you find all other experiences to be without value. That's somewhat presumptious.

It also leads quickly to the logical conclusion in most people's minds: if the experiences, opinions, and theories of others are without merit, than so is yours. If you can't be persuaded by any words, why do you think it proper to attempt to persuade others?

I prefer playing to posting, but I can post at work, but I can't play. So, I talk.

I also think, from the perspective of teaching tactics and unit analysis to others, you're doing a disservice by being so sweeping. Rather than encouraging people to think critically about a unit by dong so yourself, you seem to encourage blind faith.

I don't think you mean to do that, but, and I phrase this delicately, your words are often misinterpreted by others.

I have been playin 40k since i was 12 am 25 now so i'd like to think im pretty experienced at the game, old warbikers were ok, not what i used or thought were usefull but they were ok. 5th edition warbikers are imo a complete waste of time, i have 3 in 5000 pts army that are there to turbo boost as close to the enemy as possible and hopefully buy time for the rest of my army to get there n smash stuff same goes for deffkopters only they may kill a vehicle easier. PTS wise biker nozs are as bad as flash sh.... ahem flash gitz, which are THE worst unit in the dex (if not game lol). so i go to agree on the side of them being a waste of pts. the ony reason i got them and include them in my army was i wanted to paint em and i was a few pts off 5k.

As for stormboyz.....i love em, specially with zagy not the best unit by far but i like em and i like using em, plus the models kick arse lol. If used with kommandos they can be effective, specially against shooty/weak stuff thats going to bug you.

Stormboyz in a green mob environment do fit a role. Yes they are twice as costly as another ork but they are fast (read a scary threat to your opponent) and if you think of the cost of 20 boyz in a battlewagon - using up a heavy slot in the process - or 20 stormboyz they do have their uses. Sure they may not kill any more than 30 boyz on foot do but then again the point of the stormboyz is actually getting a full mob of 30 into contact with the enemy instead of shot up on the way there. So you overwhelm an enemy with 20 storm boyz and they get shot up and reduced to ineffectiveness but then your 20 boyz hit him intact. Also you did not get forced into fielding a 90+ point battlewagon to get them there intact an so field say 3 killa cans or a dreadnought instead.

I disagree with you Dash. Like you, I actually play orks. I've placed in the top ten of major events using orks in each of the the last three years, as well as winning the Chicago club circuit with them, and winning the points chase for this year's circuit playing predominantly orks (I think I brought out eldar once).

Unlike you, I've done it with completely different armies each time. I've won with green tide. I've won with kanwall, I've won with battlewagon bash, and I've won with hybrids.

I've also lost, also with completely different armies. My all-shooty footslogger list didn't do so hot. But, I experiment. I prefer the experience to the win and rarely bring what is optimal, in favour of bringing what I feel like.

I don't say this to brag, simply to get past the obligatory 'are you any good' and 'you don't even play orks' comments. Yes, I'm good, no I'm not hyper competitive enough to stick with one thing (or even playtest), and yes I play orks.


Like the new improved cookie monster would say, warbikers are a sometimes food. They're not as good as they used to be - in the old codex, I frequently played all bikers because they could shoot in the first round of combat and were fearless. Now - well, they're still not awful in combat, and their shooting pre-charge is fairly impressive. Their leadership is a big drawback, and one that pretty much forces you to move up the field early to lessen the risk should you fail a test.

But, if you can pass those Ld tests, they're a lot more resilient than most people expect. And, they're seriously mobile. Reserving battlewagons is often a risky move - if you get one without the mek, you're in trouble. Kanwalls and green tide armies have problems in Dawn of War, and also don't like to be reserved. Bikers - an all biker army can play the reserve game. It can avoid the alpha-strike army. It can wait out a daemon army. It's got tactical possibilities beyond charge.

No, they're not the optimal unit in the codex. But, they're certainly not useless. They may not be a steal, but I don't think they're overpriced. If the bar you're raising is that anything that's not underpriced is worthless, well, I guess that's the ultra-competitive game talking again. But that's not how I approach the game. I'm going to take a wazdakka army to Adepticon in a month or so, and I guess we'll see what happens.

...and in the distance, I could faintly hear a mighty chorus calling "WAAAAAAGH!"

Heffling wrote:
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 140 pts
1 Biker Nob (Bosspole; Power Klaw)
3 Warbikers, 135 pts

1 Biker Nob (Power Klaw)So, you've got 9-10 fast moving elements, and some gun support. Personally, I would have dropped the extra warbiker in each squad and have added more lootas, but that's my style.

What do we have on the board? A lot of T5 bikes and jetbikes who will always have a 4+ cover. A lot of lootas at T4, who are probably getting a 4+ cover, and 9 Kannons.

I dont know. You've got sqauds of 3 bikes- one being a nob for 140pts. For 7 points more you get 12 guys in a trukk with the same Nob load out. Anda bit faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:My willingness to consider something I don't believe works requires demonstration. You don't buy a gun without making sure it fires, and you don't buy into a philosophy being claimed as successful without seeing it in action. Is it so strange that I'm asking for a demonstration of the capabilities of something I believe to be inferior?

Here's the problem:

Your unwilling to accept other people's demonstrations, suggestions and experiences, such as Wyatt's, who has won, without them playing you with warbikes. But we're suppose to accept YOUR experiences, without question. But we dont have to play you to accept them. Now granted you'll play anyone in vassal, but still.

Doesnt quite jive. Its strange that you dont accept others experience and you question it, but we're to accept yours.

And you apparently don't have a very Orky Philosophy. Yes, an Ork does in fact buy a gun without finding out if it shoots. It'll shoot anyways, of course, but he doesn't care if it does or not before he buys it.

carmachu wrote:
Here's the problem:

Your unwilling to accept other people's demonstrations, suggestions and experiences, such as Wyatt's, who has won, without them playing you with warbikes. But we're suppose to accept YOUR experiences, without question. But we dont have to play you to accept them. Now granted you'll play anyone in vassal, but still.

Doesnt quite jive. Its strange that you dont accept others experience and you question it, but we're to accept yours.

It makes perfect sense. I have an immense ego, and am supremely confident in my abilities. If I could put $50 on every game, against every opponent, I would. I'd be rich. I put myself out there/here/everywhere as the best because I *want* people to call me out and challenge me. I *love* to lose, because I gain knowledge; I just don't think many people are up to the challenge.

I accept other peoples' experiences as long as they don't run opposite of my own experiences. When they do, I must presume that either I am wrong, or they are wrong. In the case of Orks....warbikers in particular, I've tested them a bit - played against them far more often. I've never been impressed with their performance, and can't see anyone doing anything to change my lack of being impressed with them. Why would I accept someone elses' experiences when they run counter to my own?

If my laurels aren't enough for someone else to trust my experience because of their own experience, then the only way we can really reconcile the opposing ideas is to pit them against each other to determine a victor.

Dashofpepper wrote:

It makes perfect sense. I have an immense ego, and am supremely confident in my abilities. If I could put $50 on every game, against every opponent, I would. I'd be rich. I put myself out there/here/everywhere as the best because I *want* people to call me out and challenge me. I *love* to lose, because I gain knowledge; I just don't think many people are up to the challenge.

No. It only makes sense to YOU. To everyone else, listening to you toot your own horn about yuor success, then turn around and put down another success with something you disagree with.

I accept other peoples' experiences as long as they don't run opposite of my own experiences. When they do, I must presume that either I am wrong, or they are wrong. In the case of Orks....warbikers in particular, I've tested them a bit - played against them far more often. I've never been impressed with their performance, and can't see anyone doing anything to change my lack of being impressed with them. Why would I accept someone elses' experiences when they run counter to my own?

By the extension of that logic, why should I accept that YOUR testing works and someone elses does not? It makes no sense what so ever for someone like myself sitting on the side lines, reading your posts, Mann's posts and anyone elses.

Sure you tested yours. But then again so has someone else. I dont see why I should have any reason to accept your testing and logic and reasoning, but at the same time I should accept someone else's logic and testing and reasoning.....on the presumption that you disagree.

Its what we call hypocrite.

If my laurels aren't enough for someone else to trust my experience because of their own experience, then the only way we can really reconcile the opposing ideas is to pit them against each other to determine a victor.

Not really. If one game between you and stelek really didnt solve anything, I dont see one game with you vs someone with bikes on vassal reconciling an opposing idea. Too many variables in one game to really conclude. What happens if your dice run cold and the bike army wins? Does that make the idea bikes in orks work? What happens if your opponents run cold? Does that mean your thoughts on warbieks are correct?

carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

One note though. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/346793.page I'm not worried about my dice going bad because they are *always* bad. I still win.

Redbeard wrote:I'm going to take a wazdakka army to Adepticon in a month or so, and I guess we'll see what happens.

Do remember to tell everyone how you do. BatReps would be even better.
And if Mannahnin is there, I ll love to see how well he does as well, since he speaks like a pro

Mann is old school pro. He's been around since forever. Taught me everything I needed to know about getting my ass kicked. I take his opinion pretty seriously because I know that it is backed by experience.

pretre wrote:Mann is old school pro.

Wow, it will be epic to see an OLD school pro perform on the table.
He may even show us things that we might not have seen before, don't you think so?

I do okay. I know several people better than me, and I know of plenty more who may be, whom I've never gotten to play against.

Dash inspired me to do this:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

I feel a little silly, but decided to go ahead and count the stuff on my trophy shelf, and reconstruct some other stuff from tournament reports I wrote. It's missing a bunch of league wins since 2004, as neither Empire Games nor Game Castle give out trophies for those, and I stopped keeping records some years back.

Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

What was uncivil about his post, exactly?

He made succinct points but he didn't insult you. I'd be pretty interested to hear you refute the ideas that he put forward regarding your apparently completely contradictory statements. That is, I would be if I didn't know that this thread is a complete case of






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

That is pretty impressive, man.

How many of those did you use summoned lesser daemons in? I wouldn't feel silly at all. You putting that up there is a testament to your playing ability, not an appeal that your authority on gaming issues should be without question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

I certainly have.

After a few games with Mannahnin I completely rethought the way I build lists.

pretre wrote:Not sure if you're taking the piss or not. But yes, I'm sure you could learn a couple things from him.

I certainly will hope to, but that is if he features some of his games at adepticon.

Actually, if he issues me a challenge via Vassal like DOP did, I guess I ll take it up. I ll find a way to make my Vassal work.

And to be frank, I don't think very much of the majority of the tournaments he has listed. Don't get me wrong, I m not trying to dismiss his achievement. But only certain tournaments (like the NovaCon) are truely competitive. That being said, I still commend him for his enthusiasm in the hobby Like myself, I only pick and choose games/events that are truely competitive. I guess I should start looking at the hobby from a different perspective.

Pretre, you know you are still my 40k brother. Thanks, sir.

That's really flattering, MR. Thanks. I barely beat you in those games. Either could just has easily have been a draw, though the positions I managed to maneuver would have made it tough for you to win.

May 1999-Oct 2002 I fielded Eldar.
Oct 2002-Dec 2003 I mostly played Emperor's Children.
Dec 2003-Winter 2007 I mostly played Dark Angels, with some Codex: Marines mixed in.
Spring 2008-Present I've primarily fielded my Fallen Angels, though I broke out the Eldar again twice for leagues, and I fielded Space Wolves for two events last year. I also finally built my Dark Eldar Harlequin-counts-as army that I've been talking about for years, and am fielding it in the league which is wrapping up now. Finals are March 5th.

I've fielded Lesser Daemons in, IIRC, every league and tournament game for which I've used the current chaos dex, and 95% of the friendly games.

Striderx, I've written up some battle reports and a bunch of tournament after action reports for the bigger events. They're usually in the Battle Reports section, though some of them are in Army Lists, when I had a thread discussing a prospective list then reported on its performance after the fact. I don't play on Vassal. Once you start playing tournaments (as I don't expect, at this point, that you'll take my word for it) you'll learn out that what makes them competitive is the quality of the players. MVBrandt agrees with me on that. He feels that his tournament is more evaluative than most, but that's a different thing.

Mannahnin, you going to the Nova Open? If so, how about a game before the Whiskey Challenge on Friday night? Bring your warbikers and teach me a thing or two, you might be a worthy opponent.

I see that you've been in a lot of leagues...those are always on weekday nights (usually Monday or Wednesday) everywhere I've lived, and I don't have the time for that.

Call me super-competitive, but I like to play someone myself to get a feel for them...in the back of your mind, do you ever wonder if someone still would have won a tournament if you had been there. Why does everyone think it so strange that I'd rather play against someone's hypothesis than try theoryhammering it?

Winning a tournament with Necrons isn't the same as winning a tournament with necrons against known and respected players. A batrep of warbikers beating up on Hulksmash or Reece, or Alex or Paul (or me), etc...while they're using a competitive list well would do wonders to change my mind.

*EDIT* On a probably related note, I'm a visual / hands-on learner. I can't read about it, I have to do it myself. =p

Dash, as you can easily read in this thread, I don't play Orks (well, aside from a couple of fun games; I've tried out a lot of armies). I'd be happy to play you in a game; a challenge or not. I'm no internet celebrity, though. I should be going to the NOVA this year; but it's not locked in yet.

I have played leagues almost continuously since I started playing, and tournaments whenever I could. I spent a couple of years in there working weekends, and a couple of years with the local store where my friends played not being super enthused about GW, and I was the guy running the tournaments rather than winning them. There were also a couple of periods where I wasn't winning tournaments because one of two or three other friends of mine were winning them all; some of my club mates are absolutely brutal players. Alex Fennell, Christian Flores (winner of the Adepticon Championship in 2009, and played on the top table in their Gladiator in 2007; he doesn't get out to a lot of events, though), Jamie Hatcher, Matt Cassidy. All of these guys are outstanding. I believe I'm running over 50% against Jamie at this point, and Alex and I are pretty even. I think both Christian and Matt have the edge on me in league or tournament play, respectively.

Yes, I've certainly wondered if someone would have won certain events if they had played me. Like the one I came 3rd in a few days ago. I tabled two opponents, but only got a moderate win against Troy Esposito (Grimwulfe on here, one of Da Boyz, a club with a couple of GT winners) and his space wolves. A daemon player and a Dark Eldar player managed to get more battle points than me; I would have been happy to face either of them, though.

Mannahnin wrote:That's really flattering, MR. Thanks. I barely beat you in those games. Either could just has easily have been a draw, though the positions I managed to maneuver would have made it tough for you to win.

Don't I know it; that's one of the main things that I took away from those games.

The other thing I realized was the necessity of fast scoring units coming in from reserve late in the game. Maybe even something that could, oh I don't know, smash a unit of havocs that was sitting on an objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Yes, I've certainly wondered if someone would have won certain events if they had played me.

I think everyone who fancies themselves a good player wonders that from time to time. I know I have.

Yeah, one of the things I really had to learn about 5th is how critical it is to have units which can reach the enemy backfield quickly in Spearhead, and in Cap & Control.

I had a disappointing showing at The Conflict because I spent too many points on cult marines so I had Fearless in case of PBS, but didn't have enough backfield attack. I had a similar problem at the NEWCC; I got low-score wins or draws. The lists I ran at Templecon and this last weekend, OTOH, had both outflanking Chosen and DSing terminators, so I could reasonably threaten the enemy backfield, even in Spearhead and when Reserving against a shooty army which had first turn. At TC I won against a strong Daemon army despite terrible dice, wrecked a pretty solid Nids army, and left a BA player with half a Rhino. At the tournament last weekend I had a good solid win against Troy's SW, tabled Tau and Deathwing. Much better.

I remember when 5th came out and people frequently referred to Cap & Control as "drawhammer" or "draw bore", because they hadn't adapted their lists. You still see that occasionally, but more people have wised up.

Mannahnin wrote:I remember when 5th came out and people frequently referred to Cap & Control as "drawhammer" or "draw bore", because they hadn't adapted their lists. You still see that occasionally, but more people have wised up.

Yeah, Capture and Control was an auto-draw and Kill Points was impossible to get a draw on according to conventional wisdom.

At any rate, I hope we can sneak in a friendly game at some point in Chicago.

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before, done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/User:Mannahnin

Very impressive. Thanks.

carmachu wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before,done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.

The conversation is borderline civil, tending towards flippant and standoff-ish with the number of colloquialisms and aphorisms being thrown around.

The highlighted reds indicate a need for rephrasing to make the statement more palpable. Either rephrasing them or excising them from the conversation would be needed.

Instead of saying "nice deflection of the discussion," try instead "You are avoiding the discussion" and citing a reason why.

"Par for the course for you," can translate to a more neutral choice of words such as "harming the discussion."

Finally, adding in the "I've seen it before, done better by folks" line can be removed in it entiretly. You made the point of fighting on vassal as childish, and thus don't need to insult the person further.

But both of you need to take a step back and address the choice of words before it gets out of hand.

Mannahnin wrote:Pretre, you know you are still my 40k brother. Thanks, sir.

I miss the frequent games I used to get in. Different times, I suppose.

Mann's History

And this is why I trust his judgement. 11 years of experience at numerous tournaments, leagues and constant play in hundreds of games along with a consistent, analytical approach to information. Oppose that to OTT internet celebrities with a couple of years play and some wins at GTs and clubbing seals under their belt. Sigh.

M, we should get you a blog and some OTT talking points, you could be an internet celebrity in no time. Say Hi to Christian for me. I remember that guy as being brutal and maybe pulled one win against him, with my cheesy Redemptionist spam, all the times we played. Dakka league was definitely a good time.

WarOne, I'm carefully not saying anything objectionable; I'm not looking for a suspension.

carmachu, I continue not responding to you because you only contribute flamebait. If you do find civility, I'm always happy to chat with you.

Mannahnin, interestingly enough, while I've seen a lot of groans about Capture and Control since I started playing (shortly after 5th edition came out), I don't think I've every actually had a draw on one. I tend to leave my objective unmanned, and throw everything at the enemy, and towards the end of the game, send something to nab an objective as an afterthought. I tend to play every game as if it were annihilation. If every game *was* annihilation, I'm pretty sure nothing would change in my playstyle. In fact, I wish every game was pitched battle and annihilation so that my opponent and I always started closer to each other. DoW is like a delayed normal game minus one turn of krumpin', because it takes me a turn just to get to the deployment line where pitched battle would have put me in the first place.

Umm. That sounds good and all, but don't you take 10 gretchin in your Ork list just for rear objectives?

Kind of at odds with 'Every game is annihilation'.

After my gretchin killed a unit of horrors, they turned around and tied up a soulgrinder for several turns. Everyone knows that even Ghazghkull Thraka fears my gretchin.

Thanks for answering my question seriously. :(

WarOne wrote:

carmachu wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:carmachu, you'd do well to stay civil.

Not much to say against anything else you said since you didn't really....address any of my points.

Number one, that was civil, otherwise you have a strange defination of civil. Firther nice deflection of the discussion. Number 2, your points were addressed, your just choosing to ignore them.

But I'm finding thats par for the course for you in this thread, beyond your middle school antics of "come on lets fight." via vassal. I've seen it before,done better by folks. Ed Maule comes to mind.

The conversation is borderline civil, tending towards flippant and standoff-ish with the number of colloquialisms and aphorisms being thrown around.

The highlighted reds indicate a need for rephrasing to make the statement more palpable. Either rephrasing them or excising them from the conversation would be needed.

Instead of saying "nice deflection of the discussion," try instead "You are avoiding the discussion" and citing a reason why.

"Par for the course for you," can translate to a more neutral choice of words such as "harming the discussion."

Finally, adding in the "I've seen it before, done better by folks" line can be removed in it entiretly. You made the point of fighting on vassal as childish, and thus don't need to insult the person further.

But both of you need to take a step back and address the choice of words before it gets out of hand.

Again, you are doing what Dash has done. Its an old debating trick- dont wish to talk about the actual facts, you deflect it to either a)civility or b) spelling or grammer or c) tone.

Its not borderline uncivil.

Further, it is par for the course- and that again isnt uncivil- before Dash it was Stelek. Before Stelek came along and left, it was Ed Maule. Before ed ran with it it was an old fellow named Ronin. Its the same thing, different people and follows the same pattern.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about civility and bolding in red you could, you know, convince Dash to actually answer the questions instead of throwing challeneges and playing tough guy and then turning around an talking about civility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

carmachu, I continue not responding to you because you only contribute flamebait. If you do find civility, I'm always happy to chat with you.

Right of course. Its easier to ignore the facts laid out then answer them. Got the translation. There was nothing uncivil about the first post-

YOU choose to expect us to accept your experiences without question, while at the same time question someone elses, unless they play you on vassal. Its a typical double standard.

carmachu, I urge you to go back and read this thread - your questions have all been asked and answered by other people, though you may not choose to read them.

When someone copies someone elses' content to hammer in a point, even if its been addressed, and does so in a very hostile manner, there's no point engaging - in this case you. I don't believe anything I'd type would do anything present you an opportunity to pull something out of context (or not) and continue being hostile, looking to flame my aggression.

That *is* the last time that I'll address you until you decide to post something civil, topical, unique, and not personal.

This thread is closed while I review as it has been reported. I am keeping closed as there's too much flaming. Its amazing to me people think there are "right ways" to play-which seem to consist only of their method of play. Each person has a different play style and what works for them may not work for others. There's nothing wrong with multiple tacticas to represent differnt viewpoints. To think otherwise is short sighted and smacks of false pride.

But to the original topic I think Voodoo summed it up easily early on:

Since I'm the one who wrote the vast majority of that Takktica, I'll chime in.

The Takktica was written right when the Ork dex came out, which means it was written with a 4th Edition mindset and the 4th Edition meta, specifically area terrain being the most common terrain that was completely LOS blocking.

In that context stuff like Storm Boyz were pretty damn good, since you could hide them very easily and advance hopping between different pieces of terrain and hit a target unmolested.

This is also why things like Battlewagons and Deffrollas aren't trumpeted in the Takktica, armor other than skimmers weren't used much at all in 4th, and traditional armor wasn't very survivalble at all.

So since I barely read about current 40k, let alone play it anymore, the Takktica should be freely modified/edited by others who do currently play 40k and Orks.