In our little group we run our own version of the rules but many things are still reflected by the current 7th Ed rules, such as shooting being stronger than close combat. Would improving the armor save for orks help them without making them too strong (especially in close combat since a 5+ save does little against most ranged attacks anyway)? Would it unfairly give them an edge over other close combat oriented lists such as tyranids, etc.?

Any thoughts are welcome!

I would say no because they dont have armor on.

RIght now nids and orks are very meh, nids especially are weak since they still are working off a 6th ed codex.

besides even with a 5+ still wont get saves from bolter weapons I think honestly it would not effect it in much of a meaningful way.

Just my thoughts on it.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I would say no because they dont have armor on.

RIght now nids and orks are very meh, nids especially are weak since they still are working off a 6th ed codex.

besides even with a 5+ still wont get saves from bolter weapons I think honestly it would not effect it in much of a meaningful way.

Just my thoughts on it.

Well, it matters vs scatterlaser, but not much else. Anything that nerfs the scatterlaser is a okay with me.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I would say no because they dont have armor on.

RIght now nids and orks are very meh, nids especially are weak since they still are working off a 6th ed codex.

besides even with a 5+ still wont get saves from bolter weapons I think honestly it would not effect it in much of a meaningful way.

Just my thoughts on it.

Well, it matters vs scatterlaser, but not much else. Anything that nerfs the scatterlaser is a okay with me.

Ill second that my friend.

Orks honestly just need a base FNP save, period.

right now t-shirt armor is a joke, I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten to roll a save, mostly involving trukks going boom and that dumbass mob rule.

Give boyz a 6+, Nobz a +5, and characters a 4+. It's fluffy and the orks still die to raw strength outright.

Some Orks should have a better save, like Lootas and Tank Bustaz and Flash Gitz etc.

The basic Ork? No.

As silly as it might sound, I've always been a fan of the idea of the size of the Mob of Boyz affecting their armor save.

Example:
A 10 Ork Mob is 6+.
20 Ork Mob is 5+.
30 Ork Mob is 4+.

And that's before adding in 'Eavy Armor or anything like that.

I like the idea of them getting tougher like that as their numbers get bigger. Orks are meant to be able to take a fair bit of damage aren't they? 5+ standard wouldn't be too much really.

As an ork player/collector I dont have a problem with them having a 6+ save. The boyz generally dont have much but scraps of metal to 'protect' them. FNP would be ok but I would rather see a change in the system as a whole (moving to D10/D12 for wound chart) so that theres more granularity. Points wise I think theyre ok atm but the mob rule and Ork Nobz could do with a change. I think the problem is the proliferation of heavy weapons and ott stuff (WK, Knight, massively undercosted stuff in comparison). Where games are played against mostly infantry in an almost 2nd ed like way then things even out a bit more

Thanks for the replies!

Although I like the idea that their save gets better the more that are in the squad, I don't think we'd want to deal with the extra bookkeeping. It would encourage larger squads which is pretty orky though!

A FNP roll makes some sense, but then it adds quite a bit more dice rolling that this game just doesn't need.

Fluffwise I don't have a serious issue with their armor being equal to a 5+; it's simply representative of their overall toughness without actually raising their Toughness stat. But perhaps 5+ is too much of a stretch?

As far as not being effective enough of a change, well that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Let's just give them Necron reanimation protocols but call it "Yer not ded yet ya git"

Ork boyz cost 6 points each, a 6+ armor save is fair. They should run as an army composed by a lot of expendable units. The 6+ save is not really a weakness for the orks. As an ork player i'd suggest many improvements for our codex, but a better armor save is not one of them. Also a FNP without a Painboy attached doesn't make any sense, orks are just big naked guys, not machines, beasts or super soldiers. Being T4 and having 6+ armor is fair imho.

^ I'd say that's a fair point. Boyz are pretty inexpensive.

I think there should more be a bonus towards a FNP depending on the numbers.

10-20 is 6+++, 21-30 is 5+++, and 31+ is 4+++. Then Pain Boyz add +1 to an existing score, or 5+++ if nothing.

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz cost 6 points each, a 6+ armor save is fair. They should run as an army composed by a lot of expendable units. The 6+ save is not really a weakness for the orks. As an ork player i'd suggest many improvements for our codex, but a better armor save is not one of them. Also a FNP without a Painboy attached doesn't make any sense, orks are just big naked guys, not machines, beasts or super soldiers. Being T4 and having 6+ armor is fair imho.

Nope they aren't fairly costed at all. They are currently quite overcosted instead of slightly undercosted as they should be. Just look at all the ork lists no ork player is currently running a large number of them they they are supposed to instead we are running all sorts of strange things. This is all the proof you need that they are wrongly balanced as the core of an ork army. If you don't agree with me just listen to Andy Cambers explaining his logic. https://youtu.be/tdM9AUEGBGM?t=12m14s
Now on the role Ork boys should take. They are not meant to be armored hulks they are meant to be a horde of nasty brutes and be the obvious take for ork players.

I would say cutt their point cost in half making them 3 point each and add +1 to their str. I hear you cry but but this is not fair at al unit x has stats y and cost now more than an ork boy.
Yes this might be the case, but ork boys are used differently and are in a different list or are also priced before the new valuation of points in the second half of 7th.
You should not compare Ork boyz with guardsmen. You should compare them with genestealer hybrid acolytes. They are the obvious core take for a genestealer cult, have a similar role ( -> assault the enemy in hordes although the hybrids can also be used in MSU), and are priced using the current point cost system.
Hybrids vs Boyz.

Point cost hybrid 7 boy 6
Close combat attacks. Hybrid base 3, S4 rending Ws 4 Boy base 3 S3 furious charge Ws4
Survivability Hybrid T3, 5+ sv Ld8 fearless return to the shadows ( this heals their entire squad back + adds special weapons), ork boy T4, ld7, mob rule
unit size. Hybrid 5-20 Boy 10-30
sarg point cost. hybrid 10 boyz 10
Close combat weapon upgrades available to the squad. Hybrids: hand flamer for any model, 1 in 5 a special close combat weapon good non I1 weapon available for sarg. Boyz: only a power klaw for the nob.
Delivery system: Cult ambush, and open topped transport. Boyz: foot slogging, ere we go waag and open topped transports

or even better just skip the comparing with other models and try to come up with a point cost for them by trying to fix the following situations.
- Multiple blobs have to be able to walk towards an equal amount of points of Tau gun line with the result of them both being nearly decimated at the end of the game.
- Multiple blobs will walk into an equal point sized Wulfen squad and also result in mutually assured destruction.

I never understand this forum too much. But I would want a unique idea to increase survivability, not just reanimation protocols on orkz, or an armor save increase, because I need less reasons to take heavy armor.

Here is a thought, how about giving most orkz "all 6's rolled on the 'to-wound' phase of shooting have to be rerolled". They are tough, rumored to take wounds that would kill a man and keep on going, this represents this bit of fluff well, and isn't just blanket FnP.

FnP should be for the important orkz, you know, the one's who would be too strong woth the special rule I mentioned above.

I think we should tell GW to add this nao! (Idgi)

I'd rather the Boyz became stronger offensively (since that would mean you would need less to survive while still being effective) than either a better save or FNP and make 'Eavy Armour cost less so that those who do want tougher boyz can do so without shooting the cost of the unit into the atmosphere

I really like universal feel no pain for Orks. They take a substantial amount of damage i the fluff, and seem to somehow fight through it. This helps represent how tough they are, while still making an armor value a useful thing.

This would make painboys useless, but giving painboys the ability to resurrect killed models could fix that as well.

But ultimately, they need a new codex and some new models.

I like the idea of them having NO armour save, but a 6+ FNP due to being so tough. Actually captures the idea of them sometimes surviving things they have no right business living through. Would also make their 6+ the same effectiveness in close combat, but give them some extra survivability at range too.

That said, my personal favourite is to make it so Ork Mobs don't have to obey standard casualty selection, but can instead remove whatever models from a squad they want.

Orks should also have a special rule where casualties come from the rear. Call it enthusiasm.

 Rismonite wrote:
I never understand this forum too much. But I would want a unique idea to increase survivability, not just reanimation protocols on orkz...

I need to make it more obvious when I'm being sarcastic.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks should also have a special rule where casualties come from the rear. Call it enthusiasm.

Oh my god I need this in my life

All this stuff about orks being tough is already represented in game, by their toughness. IIRC they have the same survival traits as marines. IE stabilizing blood loss and organ failure when they aren't immediately killed. They are far tougher than normal humans, but then again so are marines. Keeping them in parity makes sense.

Orks need more FNP across the entire army considering they really don't feel much pain in the fluff and can survive some fairly extreme wounds.

5+ is just useless, really. That wouldn't make them any better, especially if it came with a slight points increase. Plus, it doesn't really fit in with the fluff.

S4 on profile though, now we're talking.

I like the idea of army-wide 6+ FNP though. It's a good change game-wise (and not too powerful) while fitting in with the background of the army quite well. A (reduced-cost) Painboy could then increase the FNP to 5+, and you could add a couple of other things into the codex that increased it further, such as Cybork Bodies and an artefact that effects the whole unit. Or say it increases by 1 during a Waaagh. But then never allow it to be taken beyond a 4+. I think that's a fair set of rules for an update... new codex anyone?

5+ saves are also worthless, due to the proliferation of AP5 weapons. In the past you could use cover, but ignores cover takes care of that.

Orks should be cheaper, mob rule should go back to how it was in 4th ed, and army wide FNP does sound interesting. Maybe it should be an effect of the mob rule; the more boys you have in a squad, the better the FNP.

Honestly I'd rather the boyz have no armour save and be a point cheaper than have a 5+ and potentially get a points increase.

It's not like 6+ armour ever does anything (IMO)

A 6+ armor save in close combat against most things (anything without AP, which is most things) increases survivability by 17%, almost one-fifth, which is very statistically significant and very much can be the difference between winning and losing a combat.

Alcibiades wrote:
A 6+ armor save in close combat against most things (anything without AP, which is most things) increases survivability by 17%, almost one-fifth, which is very statistically significant and very much can be the difference between winning and losing a combat.

Except that after the 1st round of combat Ork boyz at the moment are useless, so having those 1-2 extra boyz live isn't going to make a difference at all. Boyz should be 4ppm with Eavy Armor being a 3pt upgrade.

Every competitive Ork list these days is mostly bikes and specialty units, the only time I see Ork Boyz in any kind of numbers at tournies is from newbies or from people fielding Green Tide, and the green tide guys always lose horribly because most players have figured out easy strategies to neutralizing the Tide.

I recently fought an Ork Vs Ork game where my opponent took Boyz in the super formation that gives them Waaagh Every turn. I took a Kan Wall army because I wanted to play friendly. Turn 1 the game was basically over because it was easy for me to explode 3 Trukkz which resulted in about 45% casualties for those inside and then my Grotzookaz went to work and polished off another two trukkz (didn't explode) and killing a ton of boyz who spilled out of the other trukkz.

I played another game where my opponent took a Green Tide and I took a Zhadsnark biker army. Turn 1 18 bikes did work on his tide inflicting 28 Casualties, turn 2 I shot them again doing another 22 casualties and then assaulted him with my T5 S4 4+ Save models and guess what? I won horribly.

At the moment Boyz are to expensive, lack Dakka and have minimal CC ability because S3, Low initiative and no staying power (durability)

 amanita wrote:
In our little group we run our own version of the rules but many things are still reflected by the current 7th Ed rules, such as shooting being stronger than close combat. Would improving the armor save for orks help them without making them too strong (especially in close combat since a 5+ save does little against most ranged attacks anyway)? Would it unfairly give them an edge over other close combat oriented lists such as tyranids, etc.?

Any thoughts are welcome!

No, definitely not. In fact they should have thier armor save removed...and have thier T improved by one, yes Boyz should be T 5 with no armor save

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 amanita wrote:
In our little group we run our own version of the rules but many things are still reflected by the current 7th Ed rules, such as shooting being stronger than close combat. Would improving the armor save for orks help them without making them too strong (especially in close combat since a 5+ save does little against most ranged attacks anyway)? Would it unfairly give them an edge over other close combat oriented lists such as tyranids, etc.?

Any thoughts are welcome!

No, definitely not. In fact they should have thier armor save removed...and have thier T improved by one, yes Boyz should be T 5 with no armor save

T5 Ork Boy compared to T4 Ork Boy with Armor save.

12 S4 hits = 6 wounds against T4 and 4 against T5

the T4 would save 1 wound because 6+ armor so 5 Casualties, the T5 models would lose all 4 so 4 casualties. So if they don't increase the price of the Boy this would be fine. I would also prefer Ork boyz to get S4 instead of S3.

The only problem I see is that then Ork Nobz would have to be T5 (Which they should already have been) and Warbosses need to be T6 (Which they should already have been) and Ghaz would then need to be T7. This would also justify the stupidly high price for Warbikes on Ork Boyz, Nobz and Special Characters. Plus it would be a lot more fun for my Biker army to have T6 Warbiker and T7 Warbosses on bike.

A toughness increase would be fitting. 5+ armour is pretty questionable in the game, with anything more potent than a potato gun seemingly able to pierce it.

SemperMortis wrote:


T5 Ork Boy compared to T4 Ork Boy with Armor save.

12 S4 hits = 6 wounds against T4 and 4 against T5

the T4 would save 1 wound because 6+ armor so 5 Casualties, the T5 models would lose all 4 so 4 casualties. So if they don't increase the price of the Boy this would be fine. I would also prefer Ork boyz to get S4 instead of S3.

The only problem I see is that then Ork Nobz would have to be T5 (Which they should already have been) and Warbosses need to be T6 (Which they should already have been) and Ghaz would then need to be T7. This would also justify the stupidly high price for Warbikes on Ork Boyz, Nobz and Special Characters. Plus it would be a lot more fun for my Biker army to have T6 Warbiker and T7 Warbosses on bike.

Totally fine with the T increases. That is what I meant across the board T increase. It would make playing against orks less like playing against tough guardsmen with axes and more like tough green skins that are kinda scary.

Not sure about the S increase though seems like that would be a bit much. I would say something like "cleave: to wound rolls of 6 have AP 4"
Helps them get through the horde armies but doesn't make them any better against more elite armies that would struggle with dealing with a very large number of T 5 mobs.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


T5 Ork Boy compared to T4 Ork Boy with Armor save.

12 S4 hits = 6 wounds against T4 and 4 against T5

the T4 would save 1 wound because 6+ armor so 5 Casualties, the T5 models would lose all 4 so 4 casualties. So if they don't increase the price of the Boy this would be fine. I would also prefer Ork boyz to get S4 instead of S3.

The only problem I see is that then Ork Nobz would have to be T5 (Which they should already have been) and Warbosses need to be T6 (Which they should already have been) and Ghaz would then need to be T7. This would also justify the stupidly high price for Warbikes on Ork Boyz, Nobz and Special Characters. Plus it would be a lot more fun for my Biker army to have T6 Warbiker and T7 Warbosses on bike.

Totally fine with the T increases. That is what I meant across the board T increase. It would make playing against orks less like playing against tough guardsmen with axes and more like tough green skins that are kinda scary.

Not sure about the S increase though seems like that would be a bit much. I would say something like "cleave: to wound rolls of 6 have AP 4"
Helps them get through the horde armies but doesn't make them any better against more elite armies that would struggle with dealing with a very large number of T 5 mobs.

How about Choppas Granting +1 strength, and Shootas getting +1 BS or +1 Shots something like that. Realistically S3 boyz are trash, Anything T5 and above just laughs at them. 10 Boyz with S3 have 30 attacks at WS4, so 20 hits. Against T5 that is 3 wounds......So if they have a 3+ save thats 1 wound...... Getting S4 means that those same 10 boyz with 30 attacks will be inflicting 6-7 wounds which means 2 casualties against T5 3+ saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To put that another way, Ork charges should be SCARY not average. When orks charge they should have the ability to feth up things, but after that 1st turn they shouldn't be neutered to S3 where they have little to no chance to win in CC, especially since at Initiative 2 they almost never catch anyone in a sweeping advance.

How about a basic boy reboot?

Increase strength to 4 and toughness to 5, but reduce weapon skill to 3, number of attacks to 1 basic and skip the armor saves.

Too different? Too weak? I've just always thought it was odd that orks had the same skill and more attacks than a space marine.

 amanita wrote:
How about a basic boy reboot?

Increase strength to 4 and toughness to 5, but reduce weapon skill to 3, number of attacks to 1 basic and skip the armor saves.

Too different? Too weak? I've just always thought it was odd that orks had the same skill and more attacks than a space marine.

And what you just did there was make a boy slightly more tough and significantly weaker in every other way. In other words RUINED ork boyz.

I would actually be fine with your proposal if you make the new point cost 3ppm. Otherwise all you've done is made boyz just as weak, just in a different way.

Why not just add a wound to ever Ork type? They'll still die to double toughness like everything else but maybe survive falling out of an exploding trukk?

T5 would make the Ork boy too expensive.

I don't think the costs should go up. Apparently core units should be over powered and undercosted.

 warhead01 wrote:
Why not just add a wound to ever Ork type? They'll still die to double toughness like everything else but maybe survive falling out of an exploding trukk?

Do you really want to deal with that lvl of book keeping though? Granted the rules state you have to remove as many models as possible instead of wound spreading but still

BTW on a side note Does that rule apply in CC as well? I have a guy at my game shop who says if several models are in base to base he can allocate one wound to each one before removing some as casualties.

Also the problem with adding 1 wound to every ork is Nobz would then be 3 wounds each, That would almost make Nobz appropriately priced

Ya, it's not that bad and yes it's the same in close combat.
I think you guy is playing it incorrectly. after a model is wounded they'd have to take the next and the next until they die. ( I have to look that up to be sure though)
Which is why I don't think it's that big of a deal. a power fist would still kill a whole nob. or several. Biker nobs get a boost but they cost a tone of points. ( I remember you mentioning that a lot lol)
Maybe it's not the right answer for "fixing orks".
But it would be interesting. 30 boys becomes "60". and should have enough bodies left to slap fight it out once they get stuck in. While still being properly squished by double toughness wounds. Maybe they go up to 7 points pre model. But not much above the 6 points they are now. If points were less fixed on modls and equipment over all in 40K, like how they are in AoS then you could get shootas or sluggas and choppas for the same cost. And a 4+ save would be a better thing...or maybe more noticibly good) if orks( boys) had 2 wounds. But I'm not sure if Evy' Armour should stay the same points or go up. Ideally just keeping the troops cheap is what I'd want.

SemperMortis wrote:

 amanita wrote:
How about a basic boy reboot?

Increase strength to 4 and toughness to 5, but reduce weapon skill to 3, number of attacks to 1 basic and skip the armor saves.

Too different? Too weak? I've just always thought it was odd that orks had the same skill and more attacks than a space marine.

And what you just did there was make a boy slightly more tough and significantly weaker in every other way. In other words RUINED ork boyz.

I would actually be fine with your proposal if you make the new point cost 3ppm. Otherwise all you've done is made boyz just as weak, just in a different way.

What? Bumping the strength to 4 is weaker? They still hit the same with a lower WS, they just get hit back more often. I was hoping for more serious debate, not hyperbole.

What? Bumping the strength to 4 is weaker? They still hit the same with a lower WS, they just get hit back more often. I was hoping for more serious debate, not hyperbole.

Well, that's a drastically different Ork.
If your saying it's attack stat should become 1 then shoota boys becomes my ork of choice. 2 attacks on the charge vs 3 is huge and 3 vs 4 is to me still a problem. In my experience just having the capability of all of those attacks from a mob is a deterrent. My usual opponent doesn't want anything to do with that if it can be avoided. ws 3 means orks get hit more than they do now. so I don't like that at all. (to me if the WS goes down their BS needs to go up.

Army Special Rule: Oi lads, this is a well good scrap: Once per game when a Waaagh is declared the Ork player may roll a D6 for each fully destroyed unit of Ork Boyz and Ork Nobz, on a 4+ the unit returns as outflanking reserves where a flanking roll of 5 or 6 is treated as arriving from the Ork player's board edge. (Units that started the game with transports or attached independent characters do not return with them). This rule represents nearby Orks being attracted by a particularly nasty part of a battle, or a strong enemy.

 amanita wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 amanita wrote:
How about a basic boy reboot?

Increase strength to 4 and toughness to 5, but reduce weapon skill to 3, number of attacks to 1 basic and skip the armor saves.

Too different? Too weak? I've just always thought it was odd that orks had the same skill and more attacks than a space marine.

And what you just did there was make a boy slightly more tough and significantly weaker in every other way. In other words RUINED ork boyz.

I would actually be fine with your proposal if you make the new point cost 3ppm. Otherwise all you've done is made boyz just as weak, just in a different way.

What? Bumping the strength to 4 is weaker? They still hit the same with a lower WS, they just get hit back more often. I was hoping for more serious debate, not hyperbole.

Going from WS4 and 2 attacks base with S3 to WS3, 1 attack base and S4 s a problem.

ON the charge the old ork would be Hitting on 4s against SM players, he would have 4 attacks (2 base, 1 charge 1 CCWs) so 2 hits and S4 vs T4 = 1 wound. In return the SM player would hit back with 1 attack, at WS4, S4 and would result in .25 wound with a 6+ save = .21 wounds inflicted. NOW the Ork player on the charge (Factoring in Furious charge still) will be hitting on 4s, wounding on 3s but with only 3 attacks, so 1.5 hits 5/6 chance to wound. In return that SM is now hitting on 3s and wounding on 5s so 2/3rd and 1/3rd chance to wound = .22 wounds inflicted.

So orks are easier to kill and hurt less in CC for the benefit of being slightly harder to kill in ranged combat against any weapon with a AP value.

So what you've done is made orks Tougher to kill overall (slightly) but weaker in CC (the only place they can do damage).

I don't think they need a gimmicky rule. I don't think most core troop units should. It would just cause clutter and be another thing that a lot of people would forget exists in game.

As for stats, the s3 is a huge problem. Coupled with the I3 it makes small squads of slugga boyz entirely useless. You can charge 5 space marines and not even kill one. At least shoota boyz have 20 shots in a squad of 10. Its a weird design aspect of orks if you think about it. On the charge they slice through marines with sheer number of dice like they're made of paper, but after a turn goes by they might as well be braindead grots in terms of combat prowess? What...? With the fact that they attack after Marines and Eldar you could honestly bump the strength to 4, KEEP furious charge, and you'd still be weaker.

I3? They wish they had I3, they're I2!

 Charistoph wrote:
I3? They wish they had I3, they're I2!

Ha! Right?

Well, after crunching some numbers, assuming the boys' target is a squad of marines and some orks boys received a few shots on the way in, their damage output with a lower weapon skill and one less attack is nearly the same as before (furious charge to both versions). What really separates them are subsequent rounds of combat where their higher toughness and strength make them better even with fewer attacks. No point in posting my findings here; everyone has their own criteria for what constitutes a typical encounter so they can do their own math. Not sure if changing so many stats is the best solution, but I believe Toughness 5 is more feasible than a 5+ save. Probably more in line with the fluff too.

I want to try the below out with a friend (all subject to tweaking, of course)...
Orks up S by one.
Remove Furious Charge
Give boyz FNP6+
Nobs and up get FNP5+
Painboy increases FNP by 1 for the unit instead of a flat FNP.
Change Mob Rule to - unit can use squad number of wounds for leadership. If it's more than 10 then the unit is fearless.
Make WAAAGH also grant Rage for the turn, perhaps.

I think boyz should get a 6+ FNP on top of their armor. These are aliens who can laugh off having a limb blown off, then beat you to death with said limb. Since Boyz don't get their T-shirt save 9 times out of 10 anyway it wouldn't add that much more rolling

Honestly, I don't get why FNP 6+ is such a popular notion, especially for orks. If I lose 12 boyz to a boatload of incoming fire, now I have to re-roll 12 dice in the hopes of saving 2 of them on average??? How is this not more pointless dice rolling?

Just alter another stat and be done with it.

Honestly, I don't get why FNP 6+ is such a popular notion, especially for orks. If I lose 12 boyz to a boatload of incoming fire, now I have to re-roll 12 dice in the hopes of saving 2 of them on average??? How is this not more pointless dice rolling?

I think it actually encourages mobs to buy evy armour.
Unless you'd rather "speed up your play" buy just picking up your models.
I'd don't see it being very much help but getting to roll is better than not getting to roll.

Just alter another stat and be done with it.

What do you mean? Just get rid of saves all together?

 warhead01 wrote:

Honestly, I don't get why FNP 6+ is such a popular notion, especially for orks. If I lose 12 boyz to a boatload of incoming fire, now I have to re-roll 12 dice in the hopes of saving 2 of them on average??? How is this not more pointless dice rolling?

I think it actually encourages mobs to buy evy armour.
Unless you'd rather "speed up your play" buy just picking up your models.
I'd don't see it being very much help but getting to roll is better than not getting to roll.

Just alter another stat and be done with it.

What do you mean? Just get rid of saves all together?

No. Increase either the Toughness or improve the Save.

Start by letting orks take models off the back of units. Then make shooty units in other codices PAY for their damn shootiness. Then see if there's still a problem.

I am all for 6+ fnp and either no armor or 6+ followed by a 6+ fnp . painboy then decrease fnp to 4+ , keep ard boys a purchasable upgrade for a 4+ armor then whatever fnp they have. current math I played with has a boy as it is worth about 4 points (slightly less) comparing to other book's troops the 6+ fnp would bring em alone to almost worth 5 points which would be an improvement. still get outclassed by most armies but less useless

 oldzoggy wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz cost 6 points each, a 6+ armor save is fair. They should run as an army composed by a lot of expendable units. The 6+ save is not really a weakness for the orks. As an ork player i'd suggest many improvements for our codex, but a better armor save is not one of them. Also a FNP without a Painboy attached doesn't make any sense, orks are just big naked guys, not machines, beasts or super soldiers. Being T4 and having 6+ armor is fair imho.

Nope they aren't fairly costed at all. They are currently quite overcosted instead of slightly undercosted as they should be. Just look at all the ork lists no ork player is currently running a large number of them they they are supposed to instead we are running all sorts of strange things. This is all the proof you need that they are wrongly balanced as the core of an ork army. If you don't agree with me just listen to Andy Cambers explaining his logic. https://youtu.be/tdM9AUEGBGM?t=12m14s
Now on the role Ork boys should take. They are not meant to be armored hulks they are meant to be a horde of nasty brutes and be the obvious take for ork players.

I would say cutt their point cost in half making them 3 point each and add +1 to their str. I hear you cry but but this is not fair at al unit x has stats y and cost now more than an ork boy.
Yes this might be the case, but ork boys are used differently and are in a different list or are also priced before the new valuation of points in the second half of 7th.
You should not compare Ork boyz with guardsmen. You should compare them with genestealer hybrid acolytes. They are the obvious core take for a genestealer cult, have a similar role ( -> assault the enemy in hordes although the hybrids can also be used in MSU), and are priced using the current point cost system.
Hybrids vs Boyz.

Point cost hybrid 7 boy 6
Close combat attacks. Hybrid base 3, S4 rending Ws 4 Boy base 3 S3 furious charge Ws4
Survivability Hybrid T3, 5+ sv Ld8 fearless return to the shadows ( this heals their entire squad back + adds special weapons), ork boy T4, ld7, mob rule
unit size. Hybrid 5-20 Boy 10-30
sarg point cost. hybrid 10 boyz 10
Close combat weapon upgrades available to the squad. Hybrids: hand flamer for any model, 1 in 5 a special close combat weapon good non I1 weapon available for sarg. Boyz: only a power klaw for the nob.
Delivery system: Cult ambush, and open topped transport. Boyz: foot slogging, ere we go waag and open topped transports

or even better just skip the comparing with other models and try to come up with a point cost for them by trying to fix the following situations.
- Multiple blobs have to be able to walk towards an equal amount of points of Tau gun line with the result of them both being nearly decimated at the end of the game.
- Multiple blobs will walk into an equal point sized Wulfen squad and also result in mutually assured destruction.

I understand your points but i disagree. I hate hordes of boyz, orks are not beasts or tyranides, they're savages that have a resemblance with mad max characters. So lots of vehicles to carry the boyz and specialists, bikes and buggies. I only see orks like this, the concepts of blobs of 30 on foot or even the greentide are not interesting at all in my opinion and i don't want to play orks like that. Also they're a troop choice and many troops in 40k are weak. It's absolutely acceptable to me that orks are massacred if they get shot. The only think i found a bit unbalanced about them is the S3, i mean the same as guardsmen and eldar. And orks have arms and muscles that are twice the normal humans or eldars. But with furious charge this issue is almost balanced too. Also you can't compare them to wulfen as they're an elite choice and probably the best unit in close combat in the entire game. Throw a blob of boyz in close combat against the same amount of points of blood claws, those wolves don't stand a chance. 30 boyz have a very different role than 5 wulfen. Even if you talk about points, a standard ork boy costs 6 points, seems balanced to me if compared to other troops.The stompa, the kans, the 'naughts and the flyers and the burnaboyz cost too many points, not ork boyz.

 amanita wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

Honestly, I don't get why FNP 6+ is such a popular notion, especially for orks. If I lose 12 boyz to a boatload of incoming fire, now I have to re-roll 12 dice in the hopes of saving 2 of them on average??? How is this not more pointless dice rolling?

I think it actually encourages mobs to buy evy armour.
Unless you'd rather "speed up your play" buy just picking up your models.
I'd don't see it being very much help but getting to roll is better than not getting to roll.

Just alter another stat and be done with it.

What do you mean? Just get rid of saves all together?

No. Increase either the Toughness or improve the Save.

They aren't getting their Toughness increased. A points decrease (5pts, the same as a Guardsman) is astronomically more likely then T5 or better than a 6+ save baseline.

The FNP is the most fluffy option by far. Perhaps that with the drop to 5pts.

They already can get FNP via a Pain Boy if you're that concerned about it.

Instead they should be getting bonuses depending on how many models are in the unit, kinda like how I feel Tyranids should get different bonuses depending on the Synapse creature near them.

 War Kitten wrote:
I think boyz should get a 6+ FNP on top of their armor. These are aliens who can laugh off having a limb blown off, then beat you to death with said limb. Since Boyz don't get their T-shirt save 9 times out of 10 anyway it wouldn't add that much more rolling

Okay here is the problem with that anything that has no AP now has to deal with a LOT more Orks then before, 33% more on average. So while it would make them more viable against every army with AP armies without AP would be on the receiving end of a BGC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 would make the Ork boy too expensive.

No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
They aren't getting their Toughness increased. A points decrease (5pts, the same as a Guardsman) is astronomically more likely then T5 or better than a 6+ save baseline.

The FNP is the most fluffy option by far. Perhaps that with the drop to 5pts.

Yes because when I think Orks I think what they need is more unreliable dice rolls. FnP would simply make a game longer and increase their points by a lot.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 War Kitten wrote:
I think boyz should get a 6+ FNP on top of their armor. These are aliens who can laugh off having a limb blown off, then beat you to death with said limb. Since Boyz don't get their T-shirt save 9 times out of 10 anyway it wouldn't add that much more rolling

Okay here is the problem with that anything that has no AP now has to deal with a LOT more Orks then before, 33% more on average. So while it would make them more viable against every army with AP armies without AP would be on the receiving end of a BGC.

You math is wrong. It's a 6+ FNP so its only 16.6% normally. But you take that out of the 5/6 chance of failing a 6+ armor save so adding 6+ FNP to 6+ armor only makes them 13.8% more survivable then before, not 33%. Very underwhelming

Also it doesn't matter if its against AP- or not because either way they are getting 1 additional 6+ save regardless of AP. It is equal in both regards

"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

Thinking about the addition of a unit sized FnP, 6+ 5+ 4+.
I was wondering if that was determined at the start of the turn or just when over the unit wound need to make the roll.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks should also have a special rule where casualties come from the rear. Call it enthusiasm.

Step up to da fight ladz!

I think this is the best suggestion I've ever seen you make. It helps so much stuff; casualties probably increase distance from the board edge, mitigating falling back. It helps them get into combat against overpowered over watches. It lets them swing back better in close combat. So many fixes to things that are complained about!

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

It all depends. Some stats are worth more than others. T5 means not being wounded by a scatterlaser on a 2+, and that should be pretty expensive.

Martel732 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

It all depends. Some stats are worth more than others. T5 means not being wounded by a scatterlaser on a 2+, and that should be pretty expensive.

yea, toughness is in the equation as one of the most expensive things to make a model cost more. T4-5 is worth about 2 points per model. but ork boys now should be about 4 points per model (3.8) and are instead 6

compare them to a guardsman who costs a little less than 5 points (factor in serg). guardsman loses a WS, gains a BS, gains an I, loses and A, and loses a toughness, gains +1 armor and most importantly gets a 24" gun with rapid fire (granted minus 1 str compared to orks but twice the range and rapid fire) guardsman can receive orders, orks get an odd leadership mechanic and one dice reroll on charges. the guardsman is almost better than the ork even at the same points. (and guardsman is not a high bar they are also on the low power end)

No need to become worse vs grav.

I don't think the armor save needs to be improved, I think AP values need to tweaked. Really seems like only true Anti-tank sort of weapons should interfere with armor saves; something like only having AP -, AP 3, AP 2 and AP 1 equivilants.

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

If you let Ork Boyz in squads of 20+ take a pain boy or big mek instead of a Nob you'd help the codex.

You'd have troops with a 6+ And a 5+ FNP
Or with a 5++ with a Kustom Force Field.

Plus you'd free the HQ slot up for Warbosses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or use the HQ to take the other so you get a 5++ and a FNP

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

here is the difference between the two changes.

T increase has a higher effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) but no effect on high S weapons (7+)

FnP has a lower effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) and a much larger effect on high S weapons (7+)

So the differences between the two changes lay at the very low and very high S. There is a small difference in low S weapons, about .6 wounds per 6 wounds caused, which would make the T increase be a higher points cost, but the FnP has a much higher effect on S 7 weapons. Overall the total changes would put FnP slightly higher over all, about .4 difference in wounds if you combine all the differences in S, the big thing here is you end up with a full 1 wound per 6 wounds at S7.

Now, the low S changes are fairly easy and cheap to get around, troop choices are not hard to come by. The high S changes are harder to deal with because they come on more expensive models (usually) and are more expensive in general, usually costing 15 points per model for the upgrade. So while the T change is easily mitigated by adding a few more cheap easy to get models, the FnP models need expensive less available models (usually) to make up for the loss in fire power.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

here is the difference between the two changes.

T increase has a higher effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) but no effect on high S weapons (7+)

FnP has a lower effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) and a much larger effect on high S weapons (7+)

So the differences between the two changes lay at the very low and very high S. There is a small difference in low S weapons, about .6 wounds per 6 wounds caused, which would make the T increase be a higher points cost, but the FnP has a much higher effect on S 7 weapons. Overall the total changes would put FnP slightly higher over all, about .4 difference in wounds if you combine all the differences in S, the big thing here is you end up with a full 1 wound per 6 wounds at S7.

No, compared to 6+ FnP an increase from T4 -> T5 has a bigger effect on every result from S3 up to S6, with the effect being MUCH bigger on S3 but only slightly bigger on S6.

The 6+ FnP ONLY has a better effect on S7. Not S7+ because S8 and up causes Insta Death and negates FnP, and at S7 it's only a 16.6% improvement.

So you're arguing that FnP is worth more than T4 -> T5 solely because of S7 weapons because T5 is better for all other results.

I haven't played much 40k in a while, but I'm pretty sure S7 still isn't the dominant strength and you'd much rather have a 50%/33%/25% better chance of surviving S3/4/5 attacks than a 16.6% better chance of surviving S7.

I don't know how you calculated your "0.6 in 6" and whatnot, but the way to calculate an improvement in survivability is...

[1 - (new chance of surviving)/(old chance of surviving)] * 100 %

For a toughness increase, since your number of attack/to hit/to save is all the same they cancel out in the division of new/old, so you're just left with...

[1 - (new chance of wounding)/(old chance of wounding)] * 100 %

For a save increase you use the same method....

[1 - (new chance of failing save)/(old chance of failing save)] * 100 %

...but since you started with no FNP and are adding a 6+ FNP, the "old chance of failing save" = 1, so it just becomes

[1 - (5/6)] * 100 % = 16.6%

Crunch the numbers and an increase in toughness is better under all circumstances except S7 attacks.

Personally I'd be more than happy to play a game against you where all my units got +1 T and all your units gained a 6+ FnP save because statistically I'd be coming out way better (especially if you're willing to pay more points for the 6+ FnP)

Now, the low S changes are fairly easy and cheap to get, troop choices are not hard to come by. The high S changes are harder to deal with because they come on more expensive models (usually) and are more expensive in general, usually costing 15 points per model for the upgrade. So while the T change is easily mitigated by adding a few more cheap easy to get models, the FnP models need expensive less available models (usually) to make up for the loss in fire power.

I don't know what you're trying say with this paragraph, sorry.

I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

To be fair, ork boyz look much more like very large gorillas. Although they resemble humans physiologically, they are made of much more resilient stuff. You blow off a couple limbs, and not only do they not bleed out but pain isn't even debilitating. In fact you can just sew a completely different set of limbs on and they will work fine in a short time.

Now, this isn't to say they need a toughness upgrade. It's just that you can justify almost anything in the fluff. I'm more concerned with making boyz viable, and many fair points have been already made, including that boyz may not be the biggest issue with the codex. My group has already addressed most of the current complaints, but we use a reaction phase which allows a more efficient version than GW's overwatch mechanic so our assault armies need a little bump. So we're still crunching numbers to see what works best, and it may not be as appropriate to the current 40K game as a whole. But thanks to everybody for their input!

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

Don't get me wrong, the Ork Codex is a pile of hot garbage. So many different things in there need a buff.

However, this is a discussion about Ork Boyz specifically. And no, they are NOT ok as is. SMs can take scouts or regular Tacticals which are better then boyz in a number of ways, Tau Firewarriors turn Boyz into mincemeat, Eldar.....Yeah lets not talk about Eldar, Necron Warriors? Seriously? you don't think they are better? hell, even IG are better then a Boy in any situation not directly involving chopping people up with a sword or an axe.

No, Ork boyz need a fix, and dropping the price by a point won't fix it. I would love to see T5 boyz but I feel that would be to over powered at the moment, even if you dropped the 6+ save, granted it would make those 50pt Painboyz more appealing in infantry units. Overall I do think that has been the best suggestion so far, give Boyz T5, Increase to S4 (keep furious charge) and increase price by 1-2pts. Their biggest weakness (leadership) hasn't been fixed but at least now your boyz will actually get to CC and will actually hurt your opponent in CC!.

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

It won't be the end all be all for orks but it would be a step in the right direction.

I'd like to see orks have the options to upgrade their Boss Nobz to Eavy Armour without having to pay for the entire squad.

SemperMortis wrote:

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

Boyz being S4/T5 would be too strong. Looking at 10 Boyz is what, 60 points?

Also if your boys are charging with 2xCCW then that's 4 attacks per Boy.

 Marmatag wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

Boyz being S4/T5 would be too strong. Looking at 10 Boyz is what, 60 points?

Also if your boys are charging with 2xCCW then that's 4 attacks per Boy.

Math! Assume the Boyz are exactly 24" away. 5 Tacs versus 10 Boyz (Boyz are cheaper by 10 points).

Marines fire 5 shots, 10/3 hits, 10/9 wounds, one dead Boy. Boyz move up 9.5 inches.

Marines retreat 6 inches, fire 5 shots, 20/9 wounds now. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 13 away.

Marines retreat 6 inches, hit the table edge, and fire. 30/9 dead Boyz. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 9.5 inches away.

Marines rapid fire now, bringing the total up to 50/9 dead Boyz. But the Boyz move up 6 inches, leaving them 3.5 away, fire their guns (S4 AP6 Pistol, right?) dealing 5/3 hits, 5/6 wounds, 5/18 dead Marines. Then they charge. (Overwatch deals a measly 10 shots, 5/3 hits, 5/9 wounds.) Assume S4 Furious Charge. Marines get 5 attacks, 5/2 hits, 5/6 wounds, and 25/36 go through their saves, leaving 245/36 Boyz dead, or over 6. So the 4 remaining Boyz dump 16 attacks in, 8 hit, 16/3 wound, 16/9 more dead, for 37/18 total. Two dead Marines, six dead Boyz. The Boyz win combat, but Space Marines don't care. (Do note, though, that ANY failed morale test at this point means the Marines are likely to die, since they're on the table edge.)

Next round of combat, 3 Marines deal 3 attacks, 3/2 hits, and 1/2 wounds, for 5/12 through the saves. 255/36 Boyz dead, or 85/12, or just over 7. 3 Boyz strike back, with 9 attacks, 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 3/4 through the saves. 101/36 dead, or around 3 Marines. Tied combat.

Next round, 2 Marines deal 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1/3 wound, for 5/18 through the saves. 265/36 Boyz dead, or still about 7. 3 Boyz strike back, doing 3/4ths of a wound again, for 128/36 (32/9). About 3 and a half, so we'll say no one dies this time.

Next round, 2 Marines, 5/18 wounds, or 275/36 Boyz dead. A bit over 7 and a half, but hell, we'll round up. 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz swing back, 6 attacks, 3 hits, 3/2 wounds, 1/2 through the saves. 73/18 Marines are dead now, for 4. Tied combat.

It's now 2 Boyz, 1 Marine. 1 attack from the Marine, 1/2 hits, 1/6 wounds, 5/36 through the saves. 280/36, still 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz do 1/2 a wound again, for 82/18.

Same thing happens next round. Marines do 5/36 wounds, 285/36, or just under 8 Boyz dead. The two Boyz then swing, doing 1/2 a wound, for 91/18. More than 5 dead Marines.

60 Point Boyz Squad beats a 70 Point Tac Squad. You could add a flamer for cheap, but that gives the Boyz the points needed to add 2 more Boyz, and reduces firepower overall if you're playing defensively, since for the first few turns, you aren't shooting the flamer. If you play aggressively, the Boyz charge sooner.

Thank you for posting that. It's a good model of the scenario, and shows that while Boyz might have the edge in base TAC vs base Boyz, it's effectively balanced at the infantry level.

I won't deny there are bigger issues, but changing their toughness by +1, or giving the Boyz a FNP, would be really problematic for any semblance of balance.

I liked the idea of "Enthusiasm," where deaths occur in the back of the formation, or at the controlling players choice.

The best suggestions so far have been 5pts per ork, casualties from the rear, and I like making painboys like the regular meks are in the codex, one per every other hq choice, doesn't count as an hq. Heck I'd trade the 6+ armour to shave just 1 pt off.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Math! Assume the Boyz are exactly 24" away. 5 Tacs versus 10 Boyz (Boyz are cheaper by 10 points).

Marines fire 5 shots, 10/3 hits, 10/9 wounds, one dead Boy. Boyz move up 9.5 inches.

Marines retreat 6 inches, fire 5 shots, 20/9 wounds now. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 13 away.

Marines retreat 6 inches, hit the table edge, and fire. 30/9 dead Boyz. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 9.5 inches away.

Marines rapid fire now, bringing the total up to 50/9 dead Boyz. But the Boyz move up 6 inches, leaving them 3.5 away, fire their guns (S4 AP6 Pistol, right?) dealing 5/3 hits, 5/6 wounds, 5/18 dead Marines. Then they charge. (Overwatch deals a measly 10 shots, 5/3 hits, 5/9 wounds.) Assume S4 Furious Charge. Marines get 5 attacks, 5/2 hits, 5/6 wounds, and 25/36 go through their saves, leaving 245/36 Boyz dead, or over 6. So the 4 remaining Boyz dump 16 attacks in, 8 hit, 16/3 wound, 16/9 more dead, for 37/18 total. Two dead Marines, six dead Boyz. The Boyz win combat, but Space Marines don't care. (Do note, though, that ANY failed morale test at this point means the Marines are likely to die, since they're on the table edge.)

Next round of combat, 3 Marines deal 3 attacks, 3/2 hits, and 1/2 wounds, for 5/12 through the saves. 255/36 Boyz dead, or 85/12, or just over 7. 3 Boyz strike back, with 9 attacks, 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 3/4 through the saves. 101/36 dead, or around 3 Marines. Tied combat.

Next round, 2 Marines deal 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1/3 wound, for 5/18 through the saves. 265/36 Boyz dead, or still about 7. 3 Boyz strike back, doing 3/4ths of a wound again, for 128/36 (32/9). About 3 and a half, so we'll say no one dies this time.

Next round, 2 Marines, 5/18 wounds, or 275/36 Boyz dead. A bit over 7 and a half, but hell, we'll round up. 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz swing back, 6 attacks, 3 hits, 3/2 wounds, 1/2 through the saves. 73/18 Marines are dead now, for 4. Tied combat.

It's now 2 Boyz, 1 Marine. 1 attack from the Marine, 1/2 hits, 1/6 wounds, 5/36 through the saves. 280/36, still 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz do 1/2 a wound again, for 82/18.

Same thing happens next round. Marines do 5/36 wounds, 285/36, or just under 8 Boyz dead. The two Boyz then swing, doing 1/2 a wound, for 91/18. More than 5 dead Marines.

60 Point Boyz Squad beats a 70 Point Tac Squad. You could add a flamer for cheap, but that gives the Boyz the points needed to add 2 more Boyz, and reduces firepower overall if you're playing defensively, since for the first few turns, you aren't shooting the flamer. If you play aggressively, the Boyz charge sooner.

You didn't include ld7 checks for the boyz and chapter tactics for marines. Also, if the boyz are that close and there are just a couple of them, it's not a bad idea to charge with marines. You still get the grenade and 4 bp shots and than deal 2 times more damage and face 1 less attack and str and have significant chances of sweeping the boyz.

Anywayz, that's a vaccum comparison. And it simply doesn't work. Footslogging boyz are bad in current meta. It's hard to say what can you do to help them out. But the trukkboyz are passable if you don't overinvest. It mostly has to do with the trukk being a decent cheap assault transport than the boy'z effectiveness, to be honest, but it does help them out tremendously. Like a truck of 10 boyz with a nob or even without - it still works. It's a cheap and effective way of running them. Regular boyz can still clear out weak stuff for comparable price. They can be used as a source of obsec trukk and if your meganob'z transport gets stopped, you just hop the boyz out and use their trukk to transport meganobz.

If you want the boyz to be good on their own while footslogging, it's probably gona take a csm or marine type overhaul with a lot of free extra rules. The current ruleset and other codexes just don't support footslogging hordes as a viable tactics outside of trying to tactically waste time to get better victory point conditions in limited time tourneys. You COULD have a decent greentide list like a year or so ago but that was before the mass magic madness that counters it pretty badly.

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz cost 6 points each, a 6+ armor save is fair. They should run as an army composed by a lot of expendable units. The 6+ save is not really a weakness for the orks. As an ork player i'd suggest many improvements for our codex, but a better armor save is not one of them. Also a FNP without a Painboy attached doesn't make any sense, orks are just big naked guys, not machines, beasts or super soldiers. Being T4 and having 6+ armor is fair imho.

Yeah it would make sense, orks are described in the fluff as being able to fight through horrendous injuries. Plus, I'm not sure if it's still cannon but they're supposed to be half mushroom half ''animal'' (a possible explanation to their natural resiliency). Personally, I'd like them to have a more unique rule than FNP to define them, but it would help them and it would fit (even better if it gets better the more orks they are in the unit). Having the option to gear them with better c.c. weapons (at least a big choppa) would definitively help too.

But if you gave me free reign, I'd give Orks a unique flavor that reflects their alien nature instead of the myopic IG on steroids they now are. IMO, the most interesting aspect about orks in the fluff is the latent psychic power they each possess (red vehicle go faster because they believe so, run down piece of junk becomes a gun in their hand,...) and it increasing exponentially when they gather. I'd like to see it reflected in the rules. The increasing FNP already suggested would keep up with this philosophy (with Cybork bodies and Pain Boyz giving a further +1). I'd also like to see it apply to their HoW strength (or the S bonus from Furious charge). Maybe apply it to shoota and slugga S value too.

Waaagh now feels totally unorky, I'd change it so that it gives rage and that each model gets a ++ corresponding to their current FNP (of course we'd have to lose the waaagh every turn shenanigan, which is frankly bs).

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

Don't get me wrong, the Ork Codex is a pile of hot garbage. So many different things in there need a buff.

However, this is a discussion about Ork Boyz specifically. And no, they are NOT ok as is. SMs can take scouts or regular Tacticals which are better then boyz in a number of ways, Tau Firewarriors turn Boyz into mincemeat, Eldar.....Yeah lets not talk about Eldar, Necron Warriors? Seriously? you don't think they are better? hell, even IG are better then a Boy in any situation not directly involving chopping people up with a sword or an axe.

No, Ork boyz need a fix, and dropping the price by a point won't fix it. I would love to see T5 boyz but I feel that would be to over powered at the moment, even if you dropped the 6+ save, granted it would make those 50pt Painboyz more appealing in infantry units. Overall I do think that has been the best suggestion so far, give Boyz T5, Increase to S4 (keep furious charge) and increase price by 1-2pts. Their biggest weakness (leadership) hasn't been fixed but at least now your boyz will actually get to CC and will actually hurt your opponent in CC!.

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

It won't be the end all be all for orks but it would be a step in the right direction.

I think SM, tau, necrons and eldar are overpowered, they should be fixed, not ork boyz. Honestly T5 for troops is too much, there are some T6 creatures in the game that are absolutely huge, ork boyz can't be just one point below. Dark eldar grotesques are T5 and twice an ork boy. I don't understand why humans with a armour should have s4 when orks, that are bigger, only s3 with furious charge. I think only blood angels and space wolves should be s4 as they are brutal, but regular marines should be weaker. SM should be s3 indeed. I see lots of changes that would balance the game but still think that ork boyz shouldn't be upgraded. Maybe just increase their strenght to 4 with furious charge, i can agree with that.

 Marmatag wrote:
I liked the idea of "Enthusiasm," where deaths occur in the back of the formation, or at the controlling players choice.

Give that rule to tyranids while we're at it, CC horde armies getting their front "ranks" wiped out sucks for both Orcs and Nids.

Part of 40k's current problems is that the past several editions have been an arms race so what used to be decently survivable is now average and what used to be average gets wiped off the table. Things are getting killier but not more resilient.

It could sound strange but i'm all up for SemperMortis's approach of making boyz significantly stronger while increasing their point cost. But not t5. I'd not go for t5 but maybe an in-built fnp. But that has nothing to do with me thinking that it would "fix" the boyz. It would rework them. And i think it's a good thing for them to start costing 8-9 or even 10 ppm with being appropriately buffed. Simply cause it makes a game with running footslogging boyz more manageable in a sensible amount of time. Hordes are very time-consuming - especially mellee hordes.

As for the problem of footslogging boyz being significantly worse compared to mounted boyz, there's one simple trick that can fix the problem. And it's been proposed countless times. Bonuses scaling with the number of models left alive in squad. But this bonuses should take shootaboyz into consideration and not overbuff the bikers that are considered superior to ork boyz anywayz (also, shootas should cost 0 pts or 1-2 pts if they're taken in addition to a slugga - and they should be allowed to be taken on a per-model basis).

If we leave the current ork statline as is, i'd go with this table:
10+ models - Hammer of Wrath, re-roll 1-s to hit with shooting.
15+ models - Hammer of Wrath with +1 str, re-roll 1-2 to hit with shooting.
20+ models - Hammer of Wrath with +1 str, re-roll 1-2 to hit with shooting, +1 to FNP.

Nobz, Meganobz and Flash gitz recieve the same bonuses when they're at 5/7/10 strength respectively.

Seems fluffy, doesn't make bikers any better, promotes larger squad sizes that are only achievable either on foot or for a brief time in battlewagons. Hammer of wrath is not that overpowered as boyz are still s3 and it only works for models in btb. It also helps out regular nobz a bit - they can have s5 hammer of wraths or 4+++ with a painboy in a trukk/battlewagon. Flash gitz also recieve a slight buff that they really need. So do larger squads of lootas and tankbustas but we can't say they're amazing as is and it would definitely not make them overpowered.

After crunching lots of numbers and scenarios I've come to the conclusion that Blackie essentially has it right - ork boyz are costed fairly and aren't the real problem.

Now I admit our group has already made some changes to the basic boy and nobs. We have S4 boys with one less attack but re-roll 1's in close combat. Nobs have a toughness of 5 with one less attack and re-roll 1's in close combat. And our mob rule is much more like the 3rd Ed. rule where broken squads can reform with other squads.

The bigger issue seems to be how the army functions as a whole. Many of the support units (burnas, lootas, tankbustas, etc) are overly specialized so they become really expensive if you purchase enough lads to give them any resiliency. They need the option to take regular, cheaper boyz so they can absorb losses more efficiently and remain effective. That and some needed price breaks here and there along with some less random and more effective equipment and upgrades are all this army really needs.

This is not an attempt to balance them with the 7th Ed. meta because that is a freaking disaster of GW proportions. It's just our attempt to keep them competitive and interesting to play among our group and I think we are getting there.

I think the earlier comparison with marines that seems to have made some people come to a conclusion is flawed imo.
It does not take into account the following:
-Marines have ATSKNF, orks have ld7
-Marines have FAR better equipment options
-Marines have chapter tactics
-Marines can combat squad and excel at MSU tactics whilst Ork boys rely on unwieldy blobs
-Marines can take drop pods to deploy anywhere on the field Turn 1.
-Marines have grenades.
-Tac Marines are close to one of the most sub-par units in their dex
In the direct confrontation - none of this is taken into account.

Imo, as a non Ork player, I would be very happy with Orks getting a Strength boost to 4 and a Painboy being a squad option for any squad rather than an HQ. That is nothing drastic like a Toughness increase which is by far the most powerful base stat in the game and it all requires no bookeeping whatsoever. If that is not enough, Martel's idea of 'Enthusiasm' removing from the rear, could also be brought in.

Not all space marines are overpowered. BA is full of marines, and Orks are still a big threat to them. Vanilla marines would have the exact same problems if not for free stuff and a handful of gimmicks.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I think the earlier comparison with marines that seems to have made some people come to a conclusion is flawed imo.
It does not take into account the following:
-Marines have ATSKNF, orks have ld7
-Marines have FAR better equipment options
-Marines have chapter tactics
-Marines can combat squad and excel at MSU tactics whilst Ork boys rely on unwieldy blobs
-Marines can take drop pods to deploy anywhere on the field Turn 1.
-Marines have grenades.
-Tac Marines are close to one of the most sub-par units in their dex
In the direct confrontation - none of this is taken into account.

Imo, as a non Ork player, I would be very happy with Orks getting a Strength boost to 4 and a Painboy being a squad option for any squad rather than an HQ. That is nothing drastic like a Toughness increase which is by far the most powerful base stat in the game and it all requires no bookeeping whatsoever. If that is not enough, Martel's idea of 'Enthusiasm' removing from the rear, could also be brought in.

You say that they have Chapter Tactics as though it always mattered.

Of course it matters. Whilst it may not play a part in a direct slugfest between them if it's not ultramarines or some of the others, it's part of a SMs points cost and helps them be more versitile for other situations. It would be like comparing Ruburics to Orks and completely ignoring the sorcs powers who is part of the points cost. To compare two units you can't just do a straight slugfest, you have to take them out of the vacuume.
I would take my 70pt rapier battery (which is very undercosted) over ork boys any day of the week, but in a straight fight, im pretty sure 12 orks would win.

Orks with cover are still more efficient vs scatterlasers than marines. Not guardmen efficient, but still.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks with cover are still more efficient vs scatterlasers than marines. Not guardmen efficient, but still.

Did you include ld7, mob rule and deaths from the front in your calculations of being effective? And the fact that scatterlasers tend to be on mobile platforms that can roll around cover and that if you try to stick to it, you get your movement randomly reduced.

Do marines not die from the front?

I think he means that the shooting as the Orks cross the table will reduce the number arriving in combat.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I'd rather the Boyz became stronger offensively (since that would mean you would need less to survive while still being effective) than either a better save or FNP and make 'Eavy Armour cost less so that those who do want tougher boyz can do so without shooting the cost of the unit into the atmosphere

I've always thought this too. 5+ armour save would not be my choice. I'm happy with my boyz dying.. in droves... that's what they are there for. However, should my boyz get to you, I don't want them to hit like a wet fish.

If we get a point drop then I just need to buy/assemble/paint/base more boyz ... I'd rather not to be honest (I already field 90 footsloggers in most games). If we get given higher stats some people will feel boyz are getting too much for their points and perhaps they are right. So perhaps we can re-arrange what we already have... Why not just swap our STR and WS scores. If that feels too strong you can always swap Furious charge for an different rule that gives + 1 WS on the charge rather than +1 Str, but I'd be very happy with STR 5 attacks on the charge.

Also give me more weapon options for the nob, the old tankbusta bombs back, cost nobs appropriately, get rid of 'cowardly grots', cost the 'orkanauts appropriately, do something with flashgitz and give us the ability to take painboyz more easily. Infact just rewrite the bloody codex.

Martel732 wrote:
Do marines not die from the front?

Dying from the front matters more to horde armies that rely on getting close either because of short ranged guns or being melee focused.

It matters a lot to BA. Trust me.

Martel732 wrote:
It matters a lot to BA. Trust me.

The difference is there's up to 3 times less distance lost with marines compared to orks.

 koooaei wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It matters a lot to BA. Trust me.

The difference is there's up to 3 times less distance lost with marines compared to orks.

On the other hand, you have a squad left after the ion accelerator hits. Orks are just the mirror opposite of marines. They are both inferior to firewarriors, necron warriors and scatbikes atm.

+1 Strength instead of toughness and reduce cost of eavy armour to 3 per add heavy option to all ork types (not gretchin)
and remove painboy from hq add pain boss..have pain boy be one ofthe odd boy options like mekboy to be used anywhere..

At least just make them s4 across the board, even if it means giving up fc. If anything, orks should get stronger as the fight goes on. Instead they wilt after the charge and run. Too much like grots. Too weedy this edition.

Martel732 wrote:
It matters a lot to BA. Trust me.

You can hear my Tyranid horde playing the world's smallest violin for your poor BA having to be removed from the front.

I never said being removed from the front doesn't matter to anyone but horde armies, I said it matters *more* because they lose more models and get reduced to a crawling pace or can't bring their short ranged guns to bear.

It depends on what you are getting hit with.

On the other hand, we could just increase strength to 4, and change WS to actually matter.

WS4+ is almost irrelevant. Ohh no my (Insert unit) has WS2, I guess i'll still hit those WS4 Orks half the time. and then theres "Ohh yeah! My Ork unit has WS4, i'll be hitting everything with lesser WS on 3s".

The fact that WS doesn't matter for most people is ridiculous. The only WS that really matters for people is 7+ and 9+, why? Because most WS's are 3 or 4. So when you double +1 your opponent is hitting on 5s instead of 4s.

Ballistic skill on the other hand is great until you hit BS6 and then it drops off in value pretty heavily until 8 or so.

The WS chart is absolute trash, I agree.

Replace Furious Charge with +1 Strength.
Give Hammer of Wrath to all models with Ere We Go by default. Models that have Hammer of Wrath from another source (a Bike, etc) inflict two Hammer of Wrath hits instead.

Yeah, it's good but not really helping the footslogging issue. Still not enough to matter vs strong and fast mellee and in no way helps us mitigate senemy shooting.