It's an easy comparison. For every 6 shots you get 4 hits on the storm bolters vs 2 hits on the kustom shoota. That replaces the shear number of shots from the kustom. Plus the storm bolters is farther range and at 12 doubles it's shots. With those choices, it's the storm bolters.
Azuza001 wrote: It's an easy comparison. For every 6 shots you get 4 hits on the storm bolters vs 2 hits on the kustom shoota. That replaces the shear number of shots from the kustom. Plus the storm bolters is farther range and at 12 doubles it's shots. With those choices, it's the storm bolters.
Very good points, now would you like me to tell you the ridiculous part?
A Stormbolter costs 2pts, a Kustom shoota costs 4. But so far everyone thinks the Storm Bolter is better. wouldn't it make more sense then for the Kustom to either be 1pt or get double those shots?
mrhappyface wrote: Orks need a massive errata to reduse the cost of all of their crap guns and units (which is all of them).
LOL pretty much, it doesn't help that every buff we have is focused on melee. We have zero auras or unit buffs that directly effect shooting except for Grots, and giving grots +1 to hit when they are only allowed to be armed with pistols is a bit Fething stupid.
As it stands still nobody thinks a Kustom Shoota is better. So my next question is do you think 1pt for the upgrade is justified or do you think the Stormbolter and Kustom Shoota should switch points costs?
Azuza001 wrote: It's an easy comparison. For every 6 shots you get 4 hits on the storm bolters vs 2 hits on the kustom shoota. That replaces the shear number of shots from the kustom. Plus the storm bolters is farther range and at 12 doubles it's shots. With those choices, it's the storm bolters.
Very good points, now would you like me to tell you the ridiculous part?
A Stormbolter costs 2pts, a Kustom shoota costs 4. But so far everyone thinks the Storm Bolter is better. wouldn't it make more sense then for the Kustom to either be 1pt or get double those shots?
Stormbolter is seriously under priced though. I think they costed it based around free bolters for marines, but forgot that most everyone else has to pay for bolters. A heavy stubber costs more than a stormbolter, despite being pretty clearly inferior.
Yeah the kustom shoota is way over priced. Not being an ork player myself I never looked at it until it was brought up here. If you took the bs of the user out of the equation though the kustom isn't a bad gun, and 4pts would be fine by me. It's that orks can't aim worth crap and have no way to get better (heck, give them some elite "Sharp Shoota Boyz" with BS4 and that would make the gun a he'll of a lot better.
Poor orks. With bs like that their best friend is a flamer isn't it? Not that that's much help at 8"......
Azuza001 wrote: Yeah the kustom shoota is way over priced. Not being an ork player myself I never looked at it until it was brought up here. If you took the bs of the user out of the equation though the kustom isn't a bad gun, and 4pts would be fine by me. It's that orks can't aim worth crap and have no way to get better (heck, give them some elite "Sharp Shoota Boyz" with BS4 and that would make the gun a he'll of a lot better.
Poor orks. With bs like that their best friend is a flamer isn't it? Not that that's much help at 8"......
we have 3 types of flamers,
1: Burna: D3 instead of D6, Expensive as hell. 14pts for a Burna Boy, whose only difference between him and a regular boy is the flamer.
2: Skorcha: D6 and at S5. only way to get a skorcha though is through Kombi weapons. A kombi Skorcha costs 19pts by itself, and the model that carries it is a Nob which costs 17pts. So for 1 Skorcha you are paying 36pts. Or you can take a Skorcha Buggy which costs 66pts.
And lastly we have 3: Supa Skorcha: 4D3 S6 -2AP 1 damage and range 24. Nice right? Its forgeworld, and it costs 28pts on a Big Trakk which together with its Supa Skorcha costs 160pts. Its T6 4+ save but it does have 15wounds. It will draw fire like a mofo and again, most importantly, its a Forgeworld model.
A massive FAQ/Errata redoing Orks seems unlikely, though - and any effort spent doing so might even detract from just outright working on releasing their Codex instead.
Based on the Codices we've seen so far, feeling a bit positive about what we'll see for the Orks. Though they may never return to the kind of prominence they enjoyed with Andy Chambers championing them.
The ballistic skill of the models that can take it should never be a factor in determining the price of a gun as ballistic skill is priced by the model, not by the weapon. Marines for example, have already paid for that accuracy in their points cost, Orks have not.
An example of this is that a bs2+ character pays the same as a bs3+ sergant. Guard are the anomaly externally for this (on some weapons) but are the same internally, a bs4+ Sergant, a bs3+ veteran sergant and a bs2+ comissar Lord pay the same for a plasma pistol.
That being said, the Kustom shooter should be priced the same as a storm bolter. The storm bolter gets 2 more shots between 18"-24", the kustom shoota 2 more shots between 12"-18" and they get the same below 12". If anything, the kustom shoota is slightly better as it is assault so can be fired during an advance, that however isn't enough to justify it costing a point more, let alone 2. Please bear in mind I am not taking the b.s. of the firer into account as that is a model not weapon costing.
I think games workshop overvalues Assault as a weapon type, especially when it comes to orks. Normally I'm the type of person who prefers weapons to be costs purely on their own merits rather than on who's using them (otherwise you get problems like Guard where the discount special weapons fall in the hands of units who are already cheap but still have 3+ to hit) but assault's new rule feels really meh compared to the other weapons types now being able to charge (and moving with a heavy weapon is a slap on the wrist compared to before
GhostRecon wrote: A massive FAQ/Errata redoing Orks seems unlikely, though - and any effort spent doing so might even detract from just outright working on releasing their Codex instead.
Based on the Codices we've seen so far, feeling a bit positive about what we'll see for the Orks. Though they may never return to the kind of prominence they enjoyed with Andy Chambers championing them.
Phil Kelly's codex wasn't that bad either. At least he seemed to understand how to play orks, unlike most people writing rules for us since then. In 5th we had 2 actual competitive lists and 6-7 semi-competitive army styles.
I wouldn't mind him writing another codex, as long as someone else brings rules quality in line with what we have now.
The custom shoota is a better gun, the problem is that it goes on an ork and needs to be priced based on the unit that is using it.
This is one of my disappointments in 8th. I get that it is easier to change points when a weapon costs the same for all models, but that makes things less balanced.
That said all orks that can take a kustom shoota are BS 5+ so it should be an easy fix. Kustom shootas should probably be 2pts and Storm bolters should be 4.
Azuza001 wrote: It's an easy comparison. For every 6 shots you get 4 hits on the storm bolters vs 2 hits on the kustom shoota. That replaces the shear number of shots from the kustom. Plus the storm bolters is farther range and at 12 doubles it's shots. With those choices, it's the storm bolters.
Very good points, now would you like me to tell you the ridiculous part?
A Stormbolter costs 2pts, a Kustom shoota costs 4. But so far everyone thinks the Storm Bolter is better. wouldn't it make more sense then for the Kustom to either be 1pt or get double those shots?
Stormbolter is seriously under priced though. I think they costed it based around free bolters for marines, but forgot that most everyone else has to pay for bolters. A heavy stubber costs more than a stormbolter, despite being pretty clearly inferior.
a heavy stubber has 36 in range - and 3 shots past 12". In other words - it's way better than a storm bolter.
The pts costs for weapons in the indices and codices are not necessarily representing the true value of those weapons. Those values are only used to compute the complete cost of a model/unit. In an effort to make the system simpler for us but mostly for themselves they have tried to give each weapon one pts cost to be applied to each model with that weapon option. This means that the only way to compare weapon pts costs directly is if both of the compared weapon options have a common reference point. For instance we can compare the cost of a Kheres pattern assault cannon directly to the cost of a regular assault cannon because those weapon options both have the option of being replaced by a multimelta. When you compare weapons that have no common reference points you can get very skewed results - auto boltstorm gauntlets for 14 pts look like a much better deal than a boltstorm gauntlet for 25 pts.
So TLR: Those pts cost values are not directly comparable.
Sweet, we finally had someone vote the Kustom Shoota is better!
So the current voting is
42 for Stormbolter
And
1 for Kustom Shoota.
As for the argument that its better, well no, its the same. A stormbolter has longer range and can shoot from 24-19 where as the Kustom only gets to shoot 4 at 1-18. But then the Storm bolter makes up for its lack of shots from 13-18 by doubling its shots from 1-12. So if we discount the bearers BS skill they are roughly the same, The Kustom has the ability to shoot after advancing at a -1 to hit which is a slight buff over a stormbolter I guess, but again, The stormbolter won't have to advance to get into range as often because its got a 33% longer range.
And for the person who posted that weapons should be independent of the bearer entirely because they already paid for their statlines....well then why are Imperial Guard weapons cheaper across the board then Space Marines? It is literally the same weapons in the hands of different people. A lascanon for Marines costs 25pts, for IG...the exact same weapon is 20pts. So clearly they haven't given weapons a base cost for everyone, they adjust by faction at the very least. And since it is the EXACT SAME WEAPON we then have to look at how they adjusted the cost. the only difference between a SM with a Lascannon and a IG Heavy weapons team with a lascannon is BS and armor. The Armor isnt that important since the HWT gets an extra wound and will most likely be hunkered down in cover somewhere and I would argue a 4+ with 2w is as good as a 3+ with 1 wound. Plus IG get orders which make that lascanon better in some situations. So the real difference is the BS. Marines have +1 BS and their weapon is 5pts higher for it. SO for orks, wouldn't that mean at the very least our Similar heavy weapons should be at least 10pts cheaper? more so since we have ZERO synergy to make those ranged weapons any better? so maybe 15pts cheaper, or more accurately we should use percents, An ork equivalent item should be roughly 40-60% cheaper?
How is this even a question? Especially since the storm bolter is half the points cost to boot, and is typically equipped on units that can deep strike, which means it's almost always in rapid fire range.
I love how storm bolters essentially got twin linked for free, while twin linked shootas turned into kustom shootas and doubled in cost for no reason.
I suppose, if the question was if space marines could take kustom shootas v. storm bolters, it might be somewhat of a comparison, but even if BS was the same for both, I would still say the storm bolters. Only 6" less rapid fire range, 6" longer overall range, and HALF the points.
If they were the same points cost, AND they both could be put on the same units............there could be a reasonable debate. But as it is now, it's storm bolter, no contest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrhappyface wrote: Orks need a massive errata to reduse the cost of all of their crap guns and units (which is all of them).
Oh, you mean how a big shoota is more expensive that a damned HURRICANE BOLTER.
Like someone already said, it's the 'not space marines tax'.
Kap'n Krump wrote: How is this even a question? Especially since the storm bolter is half the points cost to boot, and is typically equipped on units that can deep strike, which means it's almost always in rapid fire range.
I love how storm bolters essentially got twin linked for free, while twin linked shootas turned into kustom shootas and doubled in cost for no reason.
I suppose, if the question was if space marines could take kustom shootas v. storm bolters, it might be somewhat of a comparison, but even if BS was the same for both, I would still say the storm bolters. Only 6" less rapid fire range, 6" longer overall range, and HALF the points.
If they were the same points cost, AND they both could be put on the same units............there could be a reasonable debate. But as it is now, it's storm bolter, no contest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrhappyface wrote: Orks need a massive errata to reduse the cost of all of their crap guns and units (which is all of them).
Oh, you mean how a big shoota is more expensive that a damned HURRICANE BOLTER.
Like someone already said, it's the 'not space marines tax'.
That would be a better debate probably, if Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas each cost 2pts which would be better, I would still give it to stormbolters but not by as much. That extra 6in range is really important, especially when you realize that the no mans land in most games is 24inches across.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow, I didn't realize how ridiculous hurricane bolters are....
For those that don't understand. A big Shoota is 6pts is Assault 3 no ap 1 damage, range 36.
A hurricane bolter is 4pts, rapid fire 6, S4 no ap 1 damage range 24.
So 2 Big shootas put out 6 shots, 2 hits and against T4 about 1.66 wounds for 12pts.
for 12 pts you get 3 hurricane bolters which put out 18 shots, 12 hits and 6 wounds vs T4, at half range they double that to be 12 wounds.....
In the SM Index* a Heavy Bolter is 10 points. I think that is still a better deal for the points than the Big Shoota once BS is factored in.
The reason I bring it up is that I don't think the Hurrican Bolter is necessarily an example of bias, considering it is less than half the cost of a Heavy Bolter. Either it was just a mistake, or the possibly the units that can mount it have some of the cost built in. I mean, I think Burna Boyz are too expensive, but in a vacuum someone could point out 0 point Ork burnas compared to 9 point* Space Marine flamers and claim that GW is biased in favor of the Orks.
*I don't have the new SM Codex, so I don't know if the points have changed from the Index values.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow, I didn't realize how ridiculous hurricane bolters are....
For those that don't understand. A big Shoota is 6pts is Assault 3 no ap 1 damage, range 36.
A hurricane bolter is 4pts, rapid fire 6, S4 no ap 1 damage range 24.
So 2 Big shootas put out 6 shots, 2 hits and against T4 about 1.66 wounds for 12pts.
for 12 pts you get 3 hurricane bolters which put out 18 shots, 12 hits and 6 wounds vs T4, at half range they double that to be 12 wounds.....
GW at this point is being blatantly biased
Want to know something even funnier?
Marines pay 10 points for a heavy bolter, and 17 for a twin heavy bolter. So, the second one is 3 points cheaper. Honestly, I can see that making a bit of sense.
However, orks pay 6 points for a big shoota, and pay 14 points for a twin big shootas. So, we pay 2 more points for the second one.
Rokkits are even worse. Launchers are 12, rokkit packs (basically twin rokkits ) are 28. We pay 4 more for the second rokkit.
So, for orks, taking double single weapons is cheaper than taking the twin version of that same weapon.
I am unsure how common that is, but I'd be willing to be that it happens more to xenos than GW's poster boyz.
*Edit* I looked a little more into it, and eldar and necron twin weapons are across the board exactly 2x the price of their single counterparts. Fair. As are marine twin lascannons and multimeltas. But marine twin assault cannons are only a 14 point increase (21 to 35), and twin heavy plasma cannons are, hilariously, 4 whole extra points for an extra gun (30 to 34). To the best of my knowledge, orks are the only ones who get to pay extra for a twin gun.
SemperMortis wrote: Sweet, we finally had someone vote the Kustom Shoota is better!
So the current voting is
42 for Stormbolter
And
1 for Kustom Shoota.
As for the argument that its better, well no, its the same. A stormbolter has longer range and can shoot from 24-19 where as the Kustom only gets to shoot 4 at 1-18. But then the Storm bolter makes up for its lack of shots from 13-18 by doubling its shots from 1-12. So if we discount the bearers BS skill they are roughly the same, The Kustom has the ability to shoot after advancing at a -1 to hit which is a slight buff over a stormbolter I guess, but again, The stormbolter won't have to advance to get into range as often because its got a 33% longer range.
And for the person who posted that weapons should be independent of the bearer entirely because they already paid for their statlines....well then why are Imperial Guard weapons cheaper across the board then Space Marines? It is literally the same weapons in the hands of different people. A lascanon for Marines costs 25pts, for IG...the exact same weapon is 20pts. So clearly they haven't given weapons a base cost for everyone, they adjust by faction at the very least. And since it is the EXACT SAME WEAPON we then have to look at how they adjusted the cost. the only difference between a SM with a Lascannon and a IG Heavy weapons team with a lascannon is BS and armor. The Armor isnt that important since the HWT gets an extra wound and will most likely be hunkered down in cover somewhere and I would argue a 4+ with 2w is as good as a 3+ with 1 wound. Plus IG get orders which make that lascanon better in some situations. So the real difference is the BS. Marines have +1 BS and their weapon is 5pts higher for it. SO for orks, wouldn't that mean at the very least our Similar heavy weapons should be at least 10pts cheaper? more so since we have ZERO synergy to make those ranged weapons any better? so maybe 15pts cheaper, or more accurately we should use percents, An ork equivalent item should be roughly 40-60% cheaper?
You keep changing the question. The title asks which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota, then the poll asks which is better, a storm bolter at bs3+ or a kustom shoota at bs5+... two entierly different questions. Then in this post you have changed it back to which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota again. People have voted for the poll question but you seem to be taking it back and forth.
Of course the storm bolter is better when you take ballistic skill into account, that's pure and simple maths. They are both pretty similar power-wise as weapons however - the storm bolter gets 2 more shots in a particular 6" range, the kustom shoota gets 2 more shots in a different 6" range, and they get the same in a 12" range. The difference is that the Kustom shoota is assault whilst the storm bolter is longer range. So they should be worth the same points.
Now I also said that The ballistic skill is included in the models points cost not the weapons points cost, and if you had read my post properly you would see I had said that Guard were the anomaly. But I have given plenty of examples where ballistic skill does not affect the price of weapons, even in the same index. If you want a more obvious example, compare the Guard and Renegade indexes, one has majority ballistic skill 4+, one has majority ballistic skill 5+ and ALL the weapons are exactly the same cost.
Now if Orks got cheaper guns to the extent that they put out the same firepower for the same points then they would have a major advantage because they would be paying for their melee capabilities fairly but wouldn't be paying for their firepower fairly, as the points cost for an Ork is mainly taking into account its toughness and melee capabilities. If we said, for example, that a shoota should fire 6 shots if a marine bolter fired 3 to make sure they got the same amount of hits, and therefore should be priced the same... Then WHERE is the Orks weakness? The marine has paid for his ballistic skill in his points cost to get those two hits but the Ork hasn't, but is getting them anyway, just because. Do you see the imbalance with that 'logic'?
Kap'n Krump wrote: How is this even a question? Especially since the storm bolter is half the points cost to boot, and is typically equipped on units that can deep strike, which means it's almost always in rapid fire range.
I love how storm bolters essentially got twin linked for free, while twin linked shootas turned into kustom shootas and doubled in cost for no reason.
I suppose, if the question was if space marines could take kustom shootas v. storm bolters, it might be somewhat of a comparison, but even if BS was the same for both, I would still say the storm bolters. Only 6" less rapid fire range, 6" longer overall range, and HALF the points.
If they were the same points cost, AND they both could be put on the same units............there could be a reasonable debate. But as it is now, it's storm bolter, no contest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrhappyface wrote: Orks need a massive errata to reduse the cost of all of their crap guns and units (which is all of them).
Oh, you mean how a big shoota is more expensive that a damned HURRICANE BOLTER.
Like someone already said, it's the 'not space marines tax'.
That would be a better debate probably, if Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas each cost 2pts which would be better, I would still give it to stormbolters but not by as much. That extra 6in range is really important, especially when you realize that the no mans land in most games is 24inches across.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wow, I didn't realize how ridiculous hurricane bolters are....
For those that don't understand. A big Shoota is 6pts is Assault 3 no ap 1 damage, range 36.
A hurricane bolter is 4pts, rapid fire 6, S4 no ap 1 damage range 24.
So 2 Big shootas put out 6 shots, 2 hits and against T4 about 1.66 wounds for 12pts.
for 12 pts you get 3 hurricane bolters which put out 18 shots, 12 hits and 6 wounds vs T4, at half range they double that to be 12 wounds.....
I think that advance and shoot would put the Kustom shoota over the Storm bolter if BS and cost were the same. On average the kustom shoota is going to have 21.5" range (which can be unreliable), As if you had BS 3+ you would average 2 hits at up to 24" (21.5 average) which is more than a storm bolter at that range.
In the end some of it depends on the unit in question. If the unit wants to be advancing the kustom shoota is better, if you want to kite an enemy the storm bolter is better.
But with Ork BS the kustom shoota is meh, because you average 1.33 hits., and less than 1 on an advance.
In the SM Index* a Heavy Bolter is 10 points. I think that is still a better deal for the points than the Big Shoota once BS is factored in.
The reason I bring it up is that I don't think the Hurrican Bolter is necessarily an example of bias, considering it is less than half the cost of a Heavy Bolter. Either it was just a mistake, or the possibly the units that can mount it have some of the cost built in. I mean, I think Burna Boyz are too expensive, but in a vacuum someone could point out 0 point Ork burnas compared to 9 point* Space Marine flamers and claim that GW is biased in favor of the Orks.
*I don't have the new SM Codex, so I don't know if the points have changed from the Index values.
Burnas are pretty worthless though. A good example of GW's bias against Orks.
"Oh, Orks have the worst BS, that would mean that flamer weapons would actually be pretty useful and fluffy for them to take! So lets reduce them from D6 to D3 hits, and make them more expensive than other options, so that it's not actually worth taking any. That'll teach those filthy peasants who chose not to buy our speshmareenz."
Since you're factoring in ballistic skill into the equation, you should also factor in the cost of the model to wield it. In Grey Knights I pay 21 points for my cheapest troop unit, which has a compulsory storm bolter.
How many Kustom Shootas can you have firing for 21 points?
SemperMortis wrote: And for the person who posted that weapons should be independent of the bearer entirely because they already paid for their statlines....well then why are Imperial Guard weapons cheaper across the board then Space Marines? It is literally the same weapons in the hands of different people. A lascanon for Marines costs 25pts, for IG...the exact same weapon is 20pts. So clearly they haven't given weapons a base cost for everyone, they adjust by faction at the very least. And since it is the EXACT SAME WEAPON we then have to look at how they adjusted the cost. the only difference between a SM with a Lascannon and a IG Heavy weapons team with a lascannon is BS and armor. The Armor isnt that important since the HWT gets an extra wound and will most likely be hunkered down in cover somewhere and I would argue a 4+ with 2w is as good as a 3+ with 1 wound. Plus IG get orders which make that lascanon better in some situations. So the real difference is the BS. Marines have +1 BS and their weapon is 5pts higher for it. SO for orks, wouldn't that mean at the very least our Similar heavy weapons should be at least 10pts cheaper? more so since we have ZERO synergy to make those ranged weapons any better? so maybe 15pts cheaper, or more accurately we should use percents, An ork equivalent item should be roughly 40-60% cheaper?
Their weapons are not cheaper across the board, a bolter costs 1 pts where it costs 0 pts for space marines. That could be considered just as egregious as your example, but it is explained by the same reasons. The cost of a weapon in the indices/codices will depend on what the baseline of the units able to equip that weapon is, among other factors, which is why you can't compare weapons that don't share a common reference point since the baseline cost of weapons in a certain pool with the same reference point is built into the cost of the models in that pool. It makes as much sense as comparing the cost of an LRBT battlecannon to the cost of a predator autocannon directly. The system will often make it seem like weapons are balanced around their cost, but that is mostly an artifact of many weapons sharing the same reference point within a certain army. Comparing weapons directly between armies will be misleading - not because those armies are designed to be balanced on different terms, but because of this system.
Marmatag wrote: Since you're factoring in ballistic skill into the equation, you should also factor in the cost of the model to wield it. In Grey Knights I pay 21 points for my cheapest troop unit, which has a compulsory storm bolter.
How many Kustom Shootas can you have firing for 21 points?
Since a 'Boss Nob' is a free upgrade on a single boy, the cheapest kustom shoota with model is 10pts (That includes 2 wounds, strength 5 and 4 attacks with his choppa). So 2 for cheaper than your 1 storm bolter.
Marmatag wrote: Since you're factoring in ballistic skill into the equation, you should also factor in the cost of the model to wield it. In Grey Knights I pay 21 points for my cheapest troop unit, which has a compulsory storm bolter.
How many Kustom Shootas can you have firing for 21 points?
Since a 'Boss Nob' is a free upgrade on a single boy, the cheapest kustom shoota with model is 10pts (That includes 2 wounds, strength 5 and 4 attacks with his choppa). So 2 for cheaper than your 1 storm bolter.
Thank you. This makes sense. Something that costs half the price should be less effective on a unit by unit basis. This doesn't hold true for imperial guard plasma scions, though, and other things. I get that this edition isn't totally balanced.
But I wouldn't call this specific comparison imbalanced.
Marmatag wrote: Since you're factoring in ballistic skill into the equation, you should also factor in the cost of the model to wield it. In Grey Knights I pay 21 points for my cheapest troop unit, which has a compulsory storm bolter.
How many Kustom Shootas can you have firing for 21 points?
Since a 'Boss Nob' is a free upgrade on a single boy, the cheapest kustom shoota with model is 10pts (That includes 2 wounds, strength 5 and 4 attacks with his choppa). So 2 for cheaper than your 1 storm bolter.
Thank you. This makes sense. Something that costs half the price should be less effective on a unit by unit basis. This doesn't hold true for imperial guard plasma scions, though, and other things. I get that this edition isn't totally balanced.
But I wouldn't call this specific comparison imbalanced.
Yeh I agree, Guard are most certainly the obvious exception to the weapons balance. But Scions look like garbage compared to Elysians for their points (Elysian vets/command squads are 7 pt models with scions deepstrike abilities and vet/command squad options - insane!)... and anything that can make the current amazing Scions look garbage, well... that spells trouble.
Marmatag wrote: Since you're factoring in ballistic skill into the equation, you should also factor in the cost of the model to wield it. In Grey Knights I pay 21 points for my cheapest troop unit, which has a compulsory storm bolter.
How many Kustom Shootas can you have firing for 21 points?
Um... Zero, I think. Only boss nobs can take the upgrade in Boyz squads, so to get one kustom shoota I would need to get a unit of 10 boyz. So its 64 Points total to get 1 kustom shoota.
Actually no, Nobs in a Nobz squad can take them too, and they are 17 points each. +4 points for the Kustom shoota. So 21 points.
So a Nob+Kustom shoota is the same price as a Grey Knight space marine with storm bolter.
And the grey knight gets:
1" more movement
+2 better ballistic skill
+2 leadership
+1 armour save
Grey knight is also a psyker, so can cast a power or smite on top of the storm bolter.
The Nob Gets:
+1 strength
+1 wound
+1 attack
Wounds vs armour saves are probably fairly even, depending on what weapons they are facing. Nob would be slightly better in melee, GK would be much better at shooting and ranged damage in general.
Between the two, I would choose the Grey Knight. Better weapon, more damaging, plus psychic, faster, more access to supporting weapons and abilities. Same points cost.
Edit:
While I was writing this, someone said that the cheapest is 10 points due to the boss nob upgrade. But you can only have one boss nob in a unit as an upgrade, so I didnt really see this as a fair comparison. Hence me choosing the Nobz squad, which is the closest like-for-like comparison Orks have.
Not even close. The only thing the kustom shoota can do that the storm bolter can't is shoot after advancing... and does so hitting on a 6+. It's a joke.
Burnas are pretty worthless though. A good example of GW's bias against Orks.
"Oh, Orks have the worst BS, that would mean that flamer weapons would actually be pretty useful and fluffy for them to take! So lets reduce them from D6 to D3 hits, and make them more expensive than other options, so that it's not actually worth taking any. That'll teach those filthy peasants who chose not to buy our speshmareenz."
In fairness, burnas are also close combat AP2 weapons, and you can shoot and use them in melee in the same turn. So, yes, they don't get as many shots, but also are potent in melee.
They also roll D3 for a unit, not individually (just like lootas).........though I'm honestly not sure if that's an improvement.
Marines pay 10 points for a heavy bolter, and 17 for a twin heavy bolter. So, the second one is 3 points cheaper. Honestly, I can see that making a bit of sense.
However, orks pay 6 points for a big shoota, and pay 14 points for a twin big shootas. So, we pay 2 more points for the second one.
Rokkits are even worse. Launchers are 12, rokkit packs (basically twin rokkits ) are 28. We pay 4 more for the second rokkit.
Probably because those twin guns are heavy level stats without heavy move penalties.
You keep changing the question. The title asks which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota, then the poll asks which is better, a storm bolter at bs3+ or a kustom shoota at bs5+... two entierly different questions. Then in this post you have changed it back to which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota again. People have voted for the poll question but you seem to be taking it back and forth.
No I don't. you can blame that one firmly on the mods who decided to alter the title without my consent or knowledge.
Of course the storm bolter is better when you take ballistic skill into account, that's pure and simple maths. They are both pretty similar power-wise as weapons however - the storm bolter gets 2 more shots in a particular 6" range, the kustom shoota gets 2 more shots in a different 6" range, and they get the same in a 12" range. The difference is that the Kustom shoota is assault whilst the storm bolter is longer range. So they should be worth the same points.
Now I also said that The ballistic skill is included in the models points cost not the weapons points cost, and if you had read my post properly you would see I had said that Guard were the anomaly. But I have given plenty of examples where ballistic skill does not affect the price of weapons, even in the same index. If you want a more obvious example, compare the Guard and Renegade indexes, one has majority ballistic skill 4+, one has majority ballistic skill 5+ and ALL the weapons are exactly the same cost.
Now if Orks got cheaper guns to the extent that they put out the same firepower for the same points then they would have a major advantage because they would be paying for their melee capabilities fairly but wouldn't be paying for their firepower fairly, as the points cost for an Ork is mainly taking into account its toughness and melee capabilities. If we said, for example, that a shoota should fire 6 shots if a marine bolter fired 3 to make sure they got the same amount of hits, and therefore should be priced the same... Then WHERE is the Orks weakness? The marine has paid for his ballistic skill in his points cost to get those two hits but the Ork hasn't, but is getting them anyway, just because. Do you see the imbalance with that 'logic'?
What melee abilities do orkz have that Space Marines dont? The correct answer is they have +1 attack factored into their model....that is LITERALLY IT. And up until this edition it wasn't even an advantage because of initiative. So the Ork has paid for his BS and WS as well, so why do we then feth with the points cost of weapons to give a bigger advantage to Space Marines? Or did you forget that Space Marines have the same toughness and WS? and only lack the +1 attack stat orkz have, they are also faster for some reason. The imbalance isn't their, the point of the game for GW is to make money and as it stands they are selling a PLETHORA of models that are ranged attack only for Orkz but they are utterly worthless because they suck so bad, so GW is pushing out models that won't sell because they want your speesemehreens to be better at shooting by a long shot and only slightly worse at CC. In reality Space Marines are almost as good as Orkz in CC as well, and when you factor in the buffs they get from cheap characters....wow! Your basic Marine has 2 attacks with a chainsword and with girlyman nearby you are hitting on 3s rerolling and wounding on 4s rerolling. Orkz on the other hand are hitting on 3s (2s with banner) and wounding on 4s no reroll. So yeah, maybe you should have the costs of your CC abilities increased dramatically to make up for it? No? Then stop trying to justify a BS5+ model paying 4pts for what amounts to a crappier version of a Stormbolter which costs HALF as much.
I typically face 3 squads of 30 Orks 2 of them shoota boyz and the other Slugga.
There is this small matter of having leadership at the same number as they have guys in the mob.
Oh, and any mobs within 6" near them.
They get you in melee (never mind shooting) it is typically 3 attacks on assault for a non-elite unit.
It makes sense then for most if not all weapons to be assault.
Shooting is a bonus, melee is the money maker.
I have made the tactical error to not shoot enough and get a full SM 10 man squad eaten in short order.
Mind you, a wagon full of "Tankbustas" can evaporate a dreadnaught in one round of shooting.
It is impressive even with the poor shooting skill.
I must admit I am quite impressed with how a storm bolter worked out for this edition.
I am still figuring out if the GK have benefitted a lot or if the price went up accordingly.
Burnas are pretty worthless though. A good example of GW's bias against Orks.
"Oh, Orks have the worst BS, that would mean that flamer weapons would actually be pretty useful and fluffy for them to take! So lets reduce them from D6 to D3 hits, and make them more expensive than other options, so that it's not actually worth taking any. That'll teach those filthy peasants who chose not to buy our speshmareenz."
In fairness, burnas are also close combat AP2 weapons, and you can shoot and use them in melee in the same turn. So, yes, they don't get as many shots, but also are potent in melee.
They also roll D3 for a unit, not individually (just like lootas).........though I'm honestly not sure if that's an improvement.
Burna Boyz aren't that great right now, but my point was along the lines of if you just pick points costs for weapons in a vacuum the burna seems like a way better deal for the points than a flamer.
On one hand rolling a single d3 for the unit makes it so a command point can be used to re-roll the number of hits for the whole unit, making some abysmally low roll less likely. On the other hand if we were rolling individually for each Burna Boy chances are things would be pretty close to average considering how many dice we would be rolling, so I think overall it is just a tad bit worse because it means we need to use more command points. Of course orks can get lots of command points relatively easily, but on the other hand we might often have several units of Lootas and/or Burna Boyz so we might roll low for more than one unit a turn. I can see why they chose to have the whole unit roll for the sake of speeding up the game, but I hope the Codex will include some ways to mitigate this through Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Clan abilities, etc.
I can see why they chose to make the burna a d3 flamer, considering it is also an AP -2 melee weapon. It's not as good as either an Imperial flamer or an Imperial power weapon. I think their intent was to make it not as good at either thing, but okay at both in order to keep the cost of the unit down. I think that Burna Boyz aren't quite killy enough for their cost and fragility, but I don't think that it's because of some malicious attempt to make orks bad.
Right now we've got a few units that are really good (possibly undercosted) like Boyz and Weirdboyz. We've also got a whole bunch of units that are just kind of "meh" and aren't truly terrible, but aren't worth taking when we could have more Boyz. A lot of these units could probably be fixed by minor points drops and/or good stratagems. I'm pretty confident that will happen. (There are a few units that might need a major points drop or a significant change to their rules, because they're either way too expensive and/or difficult to use.)
Marmatag wrote: I mean seriously, neither the Storm Bolter, nor the Kustom Shoota, are going to win you games.
It's a competition between Storm Bolter, and Kustom Shoota! Who will win?
The answer might surprise you! It's "Who cares?"
So you make a BS point, and when proven wrong you claim the argument doesn't matter. About what I expect.
I mean hey, shooting doesn't matter for orks, right? We should just play greentide and rush into the enemy guns all the time, right? These other options are just traps designed to punish us for not playing our true calling: getting grounded merciless into the dirt by the good guy factions
Marmatag wrote: I mean seriously, neither the Storm Bolter, nor the Kustom Shoota, are going to win you games.
It's a competition between Storm Bolter, and Kustom Shoota! Who will win?
The answer might surprise you! It's "Who cares?"
I would tend to disagree with that statement, especially coming from a grey knight player. Getting double shots on storm bolters for free combined with risk-free deep striking is a devastating combo for certain armies with low armor save, high cost ranged infantry (lootas, burnas, flash gitz, etc).
Hell, even vehicles, at least ork ones, are little protection from a massed storm bolters. I lost an entire battlewagon to nothing but smites n' storm bolters - mostly the latter.
This can be somewhat mitigated by careful deployment, but still, massed deep striking storm bolters packs a hell of a punch.
jhnbrg wrote: "A wagon full of tankbustas" is over 500pts while a dread costs 100?
A Dakka-dread is a wee bit more.
The Predator and the two skimmers in short order racked-up rather quick.
I am unsure it was "full" but it did not seem to keep him from getting a death-roller on the thing as well.
Took some lascannon pot-shots and sending in a squad of marines to kill of the remainder while the 3 squads of 90- odd orks total were running up the field.
Good times... ish.
Bah, it was glorious carnage, it made me happy for all the troops I did take.
You keep changing the question. The title asks which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota, then the poll asks which is better, a storm bolter at bs3+ or a kustom shoota at bs5+... two entierly different questions. Then in this post you have changed it back to which is better, a storm bolter or a kustom shoota again. People have voted for the poll question but you seem to be taking it back and forth.
No I don't. you can blame that one firmly on the mods who decided to alter the title without my consent or knowledge.
Of course the storm bolter is better when you take ballistic skill into account, that's pure and simple maths. They are both pretty similar power-wise as weapons however - the storm bolter gets 2 more shots in a particular 6" range, the kustom shoota gets 2 more shots in a different 6" range, and they get the same in a 12" range. The difference is that the Kustom shoota is assault whilst the storm bolter is longer range. So they should be worth the same points.
Now I also said that The ballistic skill is included in the models points cost not the weapons points cost, and if you had read my post properly you would see I had said that Guard were the anomaly. But I have given plenty of examples where ballistic skill does not affect the price of weapons, even in the same index. If you want a more obvious example, compare the Guard and Renegade indexes, one has majority ballistic skill 4+, one has majority ballistic skill 5+ and ALL the weapons are exactly the same cost.
Now if Orks got cheaper guns to the extent that they put out the same firepower for the same points then they would have a major advantage because they would be paying for their melee capabilities fairly but wouldn't be paying for their firepower fairly, as the points cost for an Ork is mainly taking into account its toughness and melee capabilities. If we said, for example, that a shoota should fire 6 shots if a marine bolter fired 3 to make sure they got the same amount of hits, and therefore should be priced the same... Then WHERE is the Orks weakness? The marine has paid for his ballistic skill in his points cost to get those two hits but the Ork hasn't, but is getting them anyway, just because. Do you see the imbalance with that 'logic'?
What melee abilities do orkz have that Space Marines dont? The correct answer is they have +1 attack factored into their model....that is LITERALLY IT. And up until this edition it wasn't even an advantage because of initiative. So the Ork has paid for his BS and WS as well, so why do we then feth with the points cost of weapons to give a bigger advantage to Space Marines? Or did you forget that Space Marines have the same toughness and WS? and only lack the +1 attack stat orkz have, they are also faster for some reason. The imbalance isn't their, the point of the game for GW is to make money and as it stands they are selling a PLETHORA of models that are ranged attack only for Orkz but they are utterly worthless because they suck so bad, so GW is pushing out models that won't sell because they want your speesemehreens to be better at shooting by a long shot and only slightly worse at CC. In reality Space Marines are almost as good as Orkz in CC as well, and when you factor in the buffs they get from cheap characters....wow! Your basic Marine has 2 attacks with a chainsword and with girlyman nearby you are hitting on 3s rerolling and wounding on 4s rerolling. Orkz on the other hand are hitting on 3s (2s with banner) and wounding on 4s no reroll. So yeah, maybe you should have the costs of your CC abilities increased dramatically to make up for it? No? Then stop trying to justify a BS5+ model paying 4pts for what amounts to a crappier version of a Stormbolter which costs HALF as much.
Again you have failed to read what I have said. I have repeatedly said that it should cost the same as a storm bolter. Go back and re read.
Second, an Ork has paid for his toughness and melee capabilities - he's paid 6 points for it. The space marine has paid for this too, plus he's also paid for his ballistic skill and his other advantages with the other 7 points. Your post makes it sound like you want marines and orks to be as good in melee as each other and as good at shooting as each other yet you fail to take into account that a marine is over twice the price. Of course the Ork is going to be worse. That's. How. Points. Costs. Work.
Again you have failed to read what I have said. I have repeatedly said that it should cost the same as a storm bolter. Go back and re read.
Second, an Ork has paid for his toughness and melee capabilities - he's paid 6 points for it. The space marine has paid for this too, plus he's also paid for his ballistic skill and his other advantages with the other 7 points. Your post makes it sound like you want marines and orks to be as good in melee as each other and as good at shooting as each other yet you fail to take into account that a marine is over twice the price. Of course the Ork is going to be worse. That's. How. Points. Costs. Work.
Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas shouldn't be the same cost, Kustom Shootas should be cheaper because you have to take into account the BS of the army. And YES I do want Ork shooting to be as good as Marines, otherwise what is the point of taking the fething units that are specialized as ranged support? That is like saying Assault Marines shouldn't get Chainswords because they aren't a CC faction and therefore they shouldnt be good at assault.
Lootas, Flash Gitz, Tank Bustas, Mek Gunz, Dakkajet, Burna bommer, Blitza bommer, Wazbom flyer and Big Gunz are units dedicated SOLELY to dakka. So if orkz shouldn't be good at shooting we should get rid of these units, because nobody will take them if we are suppose to be a CC Only army.
And A kustom shoota can be taken on Nobz, Meganobz and Boss Nobz as well as a few HQs, it wouldn't be ground breaking to make them 1pt or hell even a standard issue free upgrade. And if you are going to point out "well they can advance and shoot!, well yeah they can but it takes 3 Kustom Shootas advancing to get 1 wound on a T4 model who then has an armor save. So against a Space Marine it would take 9 Kustom Shootas totaling 36 shots to guarantee a single marine DIED from Kustom Shootas that advanced. 36 shots = 6 hits = 3 wounds, Vs a 3+ save = 1 unsaved wound.
Again you have failed to read what I have said. I have repeatedly said that it should cost the same as a storm bolter. Go back and re read.
Second, an Ork has paid for his toughness and melee capabilities - he's paid 6 points for it. The space marine has paid for this too, plus he's also paid for his ballistic skill and his other advantages with the other 7 points. Your post makes it sound like you want marines and orks to be as good in melee as each other and as good at shooting as each other yet you fail to take into account that a marine is over twice the price. Of course the Ork is going to be worse. That's. How. Points. Costs. Work.
Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas shouldn't be the same cost, Kustom Shootas should be cheaper because you have to take into account the BS of the army. And YES I do want Ork shooting to be as good as Marines, otherwise what is the point of taking the fething units that are specialized as ranged support? That is like saying Assault Marines shouldn't get Chainswords because they aren't a CC faction and therefore they shouldnt be good at assault.
Lootas, Flash Gitz, Tank Bustas, Mek Gunz, Dakkajet, Burna bommer, Blitza bommer, Wazbom flyer and Big Gunz are units dedicated SOLELY to dakka. So if orkz shouldn't be good at shooting we should get rid of these units, because nobody will take them if we are suppose to be a CC Only army.
And A kustom shoota can be taken on Nobz, Meganobz and Boss Nobz as well as a few HQs, it wouldn't be ground breaking to make them 1pt or hell even a standard issue free upgrade. And if you are going to point out "well they can advance and shoot!, well yeah they can but it takes 3 Kustom Shootas advancing to get 1 wound on a T4 model who then has an armor save. So against a Space Marine it would take 9 Kustom Shootas totaling 36 shots to guarantee a single marine DIED from Kustom Shootas that advanced. 36 shots = 6 hits = 3 wounds, Vs a 3+ save = 1 unsaved wound.
Actually a better comparison is that Assault Marines get their Chainsword but someone complaining they aren't good enough in melee compared to Orks. Which they aren't and shouldn't be.
Until the Ork Codex comes this thread is largely a waste, unfortunately. Pretty much everyone agrees Orks need some love; so do Tau, Craftworld Eldar, and the Inquisition to list some of the other prominent victims. Fortunately, with a Codex every month or so rather than every year or more, we shouldn't have terribly long to wait. The real question is whether the wait will be worth it - though that may be tempered or biased based on how one thinks/wants the Codex to turn out. Someone hoping the Ork Codex puts Orks onto the undisputed top of the meta may be disappointed, for example.
Again you have failed to read what I have said. I have repeatedly said that it should cost the same as a storm bolter. Go back and re read.
Second, an Ork has paid for his toughness and melee capabilities - he's paid 6 points for it. The space marine has paid for this too, plus he's also paid for his ballistic skill and his other advantages with the other 7 points. Your post makes it sound like you want marines and orks to be as good in melee as each other and as good at shooting as each other yet you fail to take into account that a marine is over twice the price. Of course the Ork is going to be worse. That's. How. Points. Costs. Work.
Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas shouldn't be the same cost, Kustom Shootas should be cheaper because you have to take into account the BS of the army. And YES I do want Ork shooting to be as good as Marines, otherwise what is the point of taking the fething units that are specialized as ranged support? That is like saying Assault Marines shouldn't get Chainswords because they aren't a CC faction and therefore they shouldnt be good at assault.
Lootas, Flash Gitz, Tank Bustas, Mek Gunz, Dakkajet, Burna bommer, Blitza bommer, Wazbom flyer and Big Gunz are units dedicated SOLELY to dakka. So if orkz shouldn't be good at shooting we should get rid of these units, because nobody will take them if we are suppose to be a CC Only army.
And A kustom shoota can be taken on Nobz, Meganobz and Boss Nobz as well as a few HQs, it wouldn't be ground breaking to make them 1pt or hell even a standard issue free upgrade. And if you are going to point out "well they can advance and shoot!, well yeah they can but it takes 3 Kustom Shootas advancing to get 1 wound on a T4 model who then has an armor save. So against a Space Marine it would take 9 Kustom Shootas totaling 36 shots to guarantee a single marine DIED from Kustom Shootas that advanced. 36 shots = 6 hits = 3 wounds, Vs a 3+ save = 1 unsaved wound.
And the Orks are cheaper. Hence being worse at shooting. It is built into their points cost. I'm struggling to see what you are struggling to see about that. Weapons should always be based on their own separate cost. If you want to make an individual Ork as good at shooting as a Marine, that's fine then as long as you increase the points cost of the Ork. Otherwise Marines will be out numbered, worse in melee and worse at shooting due to being outnumbered. Orks indeed need some buffs thrown their way, but making them as good at shooting as other forces, keeping them as good at melee as they currently are and keeping their points cost the same would be insanely broken. It would also be defeating the whole point of the Ork faction.
Again you have failed to read what I have said. I have repeatedly said that it should cost the same as a storm bolter. Go back and re read.
Second, an Ork has paid for his toughness and melee capabilities - he's paid 6 points for it. The space marine has paid for this too, plus he's also paid for his ballistic skill and his other advantages with the other 7 points. Your post makes it sound like you want marines and orks to be as good in melee as each other and as good at shooting as each other yet you fail to take into account that a marine is over twice the price. Of course the Ork is going to be worse. That's. How. Points. Costs. Work.
Stormbolters and Kustom Shootas shouldn't be the same cost, Kustom Shootas should be cheaper because you have to take into account the BS of the army. And YES I do want Ork shooting to be as good as Marines, otherwise what is the point of taking the fething units that are specialized as ranged support? That is like saying Assault Marines shouldn't get Chainswords because they aren't a CC faction and therefore they shouldnt be good at assault.
Lootas, Flash Gitz, Tank Bustas, Mek Gunz, Dakkajet, Burna bommer, Blitza bommer, Wazbom flyer and Big Gunz are units dedicated SOLELY to dakka. So if orkz shouldn't be good at shooting we should get rid of these units, because nobody will take them if we are suppose to be a CC Only army.
And A kustom shoota can be taken on Nobz, Meganobz and Boss Nobz as well as a few HQs, it wouldn't be ground breaking to make them 1pt or hell even a standard issue free upgrade. And if you are going to point out "well they can advance and shoot!, well yeah they can but it takes 3 Kustom Shootas advancing to get 1 wound on a T4 model who then has an armor save. So against a Space Marine it would take 9 Kustom Shootas totaling 36 shots to guarantee a single marine DIED from Kustom Shootas that advanced. 36 shots = 6 hits = 3 wounds, Vs a 3+ save = 1 unsaved wound.
Actually a better comparison is that Assault Marines get their Chainsword but someone complaining they aren't good enough in melee compared to Orks. Which they aren't and shouldn't be.
Exactly this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also look at a Power axe.
I could start a thread with a poll...
Whats better:
A 5pt power axe on a st3 2 attack model
Or
A 5pt power axe on a st4 4 attack model
Guess what the answer would be. Does that mean that Guard should pay 2 points for poweraxes? No. Because the difference has been built into the models points cost.
And the Orks are cheaper. Hence being worse at shooting. It is built into their points cost. I'm struggling to see what you are struggling to see about that. Weapons should always be based on their own separate cost. If you want to make an individual Ork as good at shooting as a Marine, that's fine then as long as you increase the points cost of the Ork. Otherwise Marines will be out numbered, worse in melee and worse at shooting due to being outnumbered. Orks indeed need some buffs thrown their way, but making them as good at shooting as other forces, keeping them as good at melee as they currently are and keeping their points cost the same would be insanely broken. It would also be defeating the whole point of the Ork faction.
The whole point of the Ork faction is crazy, random, insane, balls-to-the-wall dakka and general mayhem. They used to have a character that basically had a 50/50 chance of turning an enemy character into an, and I quote, "Angry Squig". You even had to provide the Squig model. -This- is what Orks should be like.
They shouldn't be accurate.
Their guns shouldn't be efficient.
They shouldn't be comparable, Ork to Git, in any of their shooting abilities.
What you should get from orks, is a big bucketful of dice. When tankbustas or lootas fire their weapons, they should be throwing dozens of shots out.
And a lot of them will miss.
BUT - The average result should end up being about equal to what other armies can put out, for the same points cost. The difference will be that, if the Orks roll badly, the enemy barely feel it. And if Gorks (or Mork) smile upon them, and they get a lot of lucky 6's, then they should be capable of wiping whole squads off the board in a storm of dakka.
The downside of this, of course, is that Orks die fast, and as they die the chances of them getting those lucky rolls drop just as fast. Whereas other, more survivable units (like those pesky space mareenz) are far more consistent, reliable, and efficient.
Unfortunatly, in their efforts to "normalise" all the rules, they took away all of the Orkish flavour and randomness and general insanity. But didnt replace it with anything. So you're left with Orks firing off 2 or 4 shots a turn, and hitting maybe twice per *game*, with no real benefit to lucky rolls.
Hell, AdMech get a load of bonus mortal wounds on some of their weapons when they roll sixes. This would be PERFECT for orks. Crap weapons, but you throw out enough of them and some of dat dakka is gunna hit yoo inna face!
Marmatag wrote: I mean seriously, neither the Storm Bolter, nor the Kustom Shoota, are going to win you games.
It's a competition between Storm Bolter, and Kustom Shoota! Who will win?
The answer might surprise you! It's "Who cares?"
So you make a BS point, and when proven wrong you claim the argument doesn't matter. About what I expect.
I mean hey, shooting doesn't matter for orks, right? We should just play greentide and rush into the enemy guns all the time, right? These other options are just traps designed to punish us for not playing our true calling: getting grounded merciless into the dirt by the good guy factions
Not even close. the cost of fielding storm bolters is very high. Nobz aren't supposed to be a shooting platform. Saying an extra wound doesn't matter? Really? There's literally no point replying to people when they have a serious bias in their heads.
The cost of fielding storm bolters isn't actually very high. You can basically pop them on any vehicle you want, pop them on any sarge you want without stopping the sarge from carrying a power weapon, and put them on your melee HQs for a cheap boost to their ranged damage without adding the cost of a combiweapon. And so on. In fact it's a common way to fill out those last few points in your list.
I was about to say the same thing. Think about your "logic" there for a second:
Because orks are not meant to be a shooting army, their shooting should be more expensive. There for, 4 point kustom shoota (compared to 2 point storm bolters for space marines).
Yet AT THE SAME TIME, because orks ARE an assault army, they should pay more for their assault equipment. There for, 25 point power klaws (compared to the 20 point power fists for space marines before the codex).
So Orks pay more for the things they're not good at... and pay more for the things they are good at.
I'd also like to point out that Space Marine Thunder Hammers cost five points less on non-character models because non-character models are worse at using them. But apparently that logic should only be applied to spess marnies, not every other army. Because only speshial mraines deserve anything good according to all these absurdist arguments about how Orks need to have everything overpriced.
The hypocrisy shown in this thread is hilarious, and also tragic.
Poly Ranger wrote: Guess what the answer would be. Does that mean that Guard should pay 2 points for poweraxes? No. Because the difference has been built into the models points cost.
Guard pay less for power fists than Space Marines, who themselves play less than orks do for power klaws. Even before the price drop that power fists got in the Space Marine Codex it was the case that Orks were paying more. Most Ork players (although certainly not all) seem to think this is okay since Orks that can take power klaws generally have more attacks and higher strength than Marines that can take power fists.
I think that the Big Shoota might be an example of GW adjusting the points of a weapon down to make up for the poor BS of Orks. Big Shootas aren't considered worth taking most of the time by most Ork players. They're usually taken when we're forced to take something, and Rokkits and most other things being way too expensive so we just go with the cheapest thing (Big Shoota). Most people aren't upgrading any of their Boyz to have Big Shootas. That said, if a unit can hit on 3+ a 36", Assault 3, Strength 5 weapon seems like a real bargain at 6 points.
I don't think that pricing for the model's stat line and pricing for weapon upgrades completely independently from each other will necessarily work. If they charge a model more points for better stats and then just give out cheap weapons to other units to make them even then you're right, it would create an unfair advantage. On the other hand if you have units that are more heavily balanced towards shooting or close combat, and you price weapons independently from ability, then it will never make sense to pay extra points for a shooting upgrade in armies more focused on close combat (orks) or for a close combat upgrade in armies more focused on shooting (Guard). Might as well get rid of a lot of both armies' options if that is the case.
What I think GW usually tries to do is actually split the cost between the weapon and the unit's stat line. I think they try to keep the units themselves with their basic gear roughly balanced, but then they partially adjust the points of various upgrades to reflect how good they will be on models that will normally be taking them. This is just a guess on my part. They don't always do a perfect job of it, which is why we get things like Kustom Shootas being overcosted, but I think they'll gradually work a lot of that stuff out over time with things like the codexes and Chapter Approved. They also don't always do things the same way. For instance, burnas are 0 points because they've limited burnas to Burna Boyz and they charge significantly more for a Burna Boy than a regular Boy despite being mostly the same plus one minor special rule and having Spanner Boyz instead of a Nob (Spanner Boyz being mostly pointless while a Nob is good, especially when it's free). On the other hand, lots of things can take rokkits so they can't give them a cost of 0 points, and instead they actually made Tankbustas cheaper than regular Boyz despite being mostly the same plus a really good special rule. Some times they charge the same for equivalent weapons across factions, and sometimes they seem to adjust it based on the stat line of the models that can take them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote: I was about to say the same thing. Think about your "logic" there for a second:
Because orks are not meant to be a shooting army, their shooting should be more expensive. There for, 4 point kustom shoota (compared to 2 point storm bolters for space marines).
Yet AT THE SAME TIME, because orks ARE an assault army, they should pay more for their assault equipment. There for, 25 point power klaws (compared to the 20 point power fists for space marines before the codex).
So Orks pay more for the things they're not good at... and pay more for the things they are good at.
ergo, the "not space marine tax"
While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns. I haven't seen any comments suggesting that the Kustom Shoota should cost more than the Storm Bolter, but rather that roughly equivalent weapons should have roughly the same cost regardless of what model is using it. I'm guessing the people who have been arguing that the Storm Bolter and Kustom Shoota should have the same cost would also argue that the Power Klaw and Power Fist should have the same cost.
(As I previously commented I think it needs to be a little bit of both in order to keep things fair but also keep different options viable.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Nobz aren't supposed to be a shooting platform.
For not being a shooting platform they seem to have an awful lot of shooting upgrades available. Nobz are supposed to be an assault unit that can be upgraded to shoot as well. Of course, they should pay a fair price for those upgrades. Currently, most of their shooting upgrades seem to cost a little too much, other than Ammo Runts which might actually be undercosted. Ammo Runts are great more for the extra wound than the re-roll.
The cost of the model and its role have to be factored into the analysis or its pointless.
If you compare 2 plasma guns, but one is on a Scion and one is on a TAC marine, what's the difference? Because one of these is really OP and the other isn't.
Orks have problems but it isn't because a Kustom Shoota is 2 points more than a Storm Bolter, or because a Power Klaw is more than a Power Fist.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.
Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.
Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.
I've seen that in other threads, but I must have missed it in this thread.
It's not as easy as it might sound initially. Who can equip a kustom shoota to begin with? Bosses, nobz, meganobz, meks and big meks. You usually don't see meks, so we're left with bosses, big meks and nobz/meganobz. Footslogging bosses and nobz/meganobz need to be able to advance and charge as they're mellee-oriented units and a couple extra inches of movement before charging is better than this couple extra s4 bs5+ shots they might put out. Thus, k-shoota is superior than stormbolter for them. Big mek is probably better off with a storm-bolter if you don't kit him for mellee. Biker bosses, nobz and meks can't advance and charge, so they're better off with a stormbolter.
However, this logic only works when you make a comparison between k-shoota and stormbolter. There's another weapon that comes into equasion. And that's a shoota. Which is only half as good as a k-shoota but costs 0 pts down from 4 pts. And if we've clearly seen that k-shoota is better than a stormbolter for orks in many cases, regular shoota is even better than a k-shoota by virtue of being cheaper. Those who can take a free shoota over a k-shoota should probably do it. 4 pts doesn't sound like much but that's an extra ammo runt or 2/3 of a boy.
I wasn't necessarily saying there were people in this thread or other threads who say that orks should pay more for their melee weapons (although I'm sure those people exists), I was more pointing out that GW prices those weapons that way, and people supporting the current GW prices are not following the logic that one or the other should be more expensive.
unless the logic is actually "ork equipment should be overpriced in general", which I'd like to hope no one believes in
Luke_Prowler wrote: I wasn't necessarily saying there were people in this thread or other threads who say that orks should pay more for their melee weapons (although I'm sure those people exists), I was more pointing out that GW prices those weapons that way, and people supporting the current GW prices are not following the logic that one or the other should be more expensive.
I apologize then, I didn't read your post correctly.
@DFF: Nah, it was me being unclear and kinda angry. don't rage and post, kids.
I think there's also a weird mental gymnastics about the idea of ork shooting suddenly being better than proper shooting armies if they got a points cut. We're still talking about weapons that lack AP, are short ranged, and are on 5+ bs models. They're not suddenly going to out dakka tau even if the ork weapons became cheaper than their imp counterparts
Not that there examples of that or anything *coughwarofdakkacough*
Guard pay less for power fists than Space Marines, who themselves play less than orks do for power klaws.
Yep, to me this is silly. Guard, Marines and Orks should be paying the same for it. Guard should pay 20pts for a fist like marines and Marines should pay 20pts a Lascannon like Guard. Orks should pay 20pts a claw. This is one of the reasons that Guard are so incredibly powerful - the fact that they get not only bodies for cheaper but also weapons. A plasma guns should be the same whoever is wielding it.
For instance, burnas are 0 points because they've limited burnas to Burna Boyz and they charge significantly more for a Burna Boy than a regular Boy despite being mostly the same plus one minor special rule and having Spanner Boyz instead of a Nob (Spanner Boyz being mostly pointless while a Nob is good, especially when it's free). On the other hand, lots of things can take rokkits so they can't give them a cost of 0 points, and instead they actually made Tankbustas cheaper than regular Boyz despite being mostly the same plus a really good special rule. Some times they charge the same for equivalent weapons across factions, and sometimes they seem to adjust it based on the stat line of the models that can take them.
This is because only Burna boyz can have burnas and they MUST have burnas, so GW went right ahead and included it in their price anyway, so the price includes model + gun, not just the model costing more and the gun being free - it just seems that way. Much like Necron warriors, their gauss weapon is already included whilst the necron immortals have a choice between tesla and gauss and so dont have their price already included as they dont HAVE to take it.
I haven't seen any comments suggesting that the Kustom Shoota should cost more than the Storm Bolter, but rather that roughly equivalent weapons should have roughly the same cost regardless of what model is using it. I'm guessing the people who have been arguing that the Storm Bolter and Kustom Shoota should have the same cost would also argue that the Power Klaw and Power Fist should have the same cost.
You understood my viewpoint 100% there, I would definitely say a claw should be as much as a powerfist not more. Same that the Kustom shoota should cost the same as a stormbolter. What's funny is that all I spoken about is the fact that equivalent weapons should cost the same, I have said a Kustom Shoota should be reduced in price to the same as a storm bolter as they are equivalent in most respects. Yet this is not enough apparently. Just because I think they should be costed the same (despite this meaning I agree that it requires a point deduction), some people have automatically assumed that I am saying Orks are ok and don't need buffing and that I am biased against them. Not once have they actually bothered to ask what I actually think about the faction as a whole, and just because I think that equivalent guns should cost equivalent points means that I must be anti-Ork. I think they would be surprised by my response if they bothered to ask.
What's even more ironic in a thread which has highlighted numerous times how Guard pay less for their equivalent weapons compared to marines, is the fact that people are calling this a "not marine tax"... they must have missed all those times when people mentioned that Guard get so much for cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luke_Prowler wrote: @DFF: Nah, it was me being unclear and kinda angry. don't rage and post, kids.
I think there's also a weird mental gymnastics about the idea of ork shooting suddenly being better than proper shooting armies if they got a points cut. We're still talking about weapons that lack AP, are short ranged, and are on 5+ bs models. They're not suddenly going to out dakka tau even if the ork weapons became cheaper than their imp counterparts
Not that there examples of that or anything *coughwarofdakkacough*
If Orks got weapons that meant they hit as much as somebody with a higher BS for the same points (what the OP has been suggesting in his replys to me), then yes, they would out Dakka the Tau. Using the example I used earlier on. If a bolter had three shots, a marine would expect to hit twice. That doesnt mean a shoota should get 6 shots to compensate - that is the whole reason of having lower/higher bs in the first place. If a shoota did get 6 shots, then it shouldnt cost as much as a 3 shot bolter. The OP wants Orks to have the same firepower per model as a space marine (read his replys to me and the original premise - that a kustom shoota should have the same output at a different bs as a stormbolter). That would mean they would out dakka space marines as they would also outnumber them, massively. Same as everyone else.
I am not saying Orks dont need a buff, but people have to realise, models with BS4+, BS3+ or BS2+... Have already paid for it in their points cost!, so if you want the same amount (of same quality) of shots hitting, and you dont increase the BS and price of the model, but instead increase the shots of the gun, then you must also increase the price of the gun. Inversely (as is usually the case now) if you get the same shots, you pay the same price despite the ballistic skill that models have already paid for (yes - kustom shootas should be 2 points).
Dakka Flakka Flame wrote: While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.
Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.
I've seen that in other threads, but I must have missed it in this thread.
Yeah me too :-s, just read through it as well. Odd.
I think every Ork boy should be able to bring a lascannon equivalent for lascannon points, what is that 25? His wounds, CC attack profile, ballistic skill, mobility, and point costs are irrelevant. I think changing the profile of this ork lascannon to Assault would be balanced as well, since there really isn't any difference between Heavy, Assault, and Rapid anyway, I really would like my Ork boy to still use his three attacks.
edit: I thought of another great idea, since bolt rifles are free, and so are shootaz, and really a marine and an ork are the same, I should be able to put bolt rifles on my orkz. Since orkz are 6 points hitting on 5's and marines are double hitting twice as often, that's balanced! But I still want to bring my choppaz, okay? Orkz should attack three times as much as marines.
Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.
In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.
Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.
Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.
I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.
Tyel wrote: Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.
In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.
Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.
Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.
I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.
Your example is exactly why models DO pay for their weapon stats. Because your example is clearly biased towards the 3+ if the weapons cost the same.
edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.
Tyel wrote: Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.
In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.
Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.
Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.
I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.
Models do pay for their stats, that is why a carnifex is more than a conscript.
You can't say BS is worth a particular amount as models are priced on their stats overall and the role those stats help them achieve.
Where are people getting the idea that others are saying that Orks shouldn't be a shooty army when the absolute worst anyone on this thread has said is that a kustom shoota should be costed the same as a stormbolter?
That being said, basic Orks Boyz should put out the same dakka for the same points cost when Guard, Tau, Eldar etc can all counter assault the things that are threatening their gunline just as effectively as Orks and when they have the same ability to weather opponents small arms fire as Orks.
Orrrrrr, Orks shouldn't have the same Dakka for the same points because they have other advantages like more attacks, strength, powerful squad leaders, toughness and numbers and some points are going to be required to pay for those things..
Edit: I also want to add before anyone jumps on it that by 'same dakka' I meant same number of hits not shots.
What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points
please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.
I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.
I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.
I think the issue is less really with the Kustom shoota than the fact that Ork shooting units pay for +1 attack in CC that they never use (don't have the choppa so not +2 attacks))
You could add option 3 which would be more fair Space Marine Chain Sword (S4 A1 WS3+) +1 Atk 0 points. Oh look exactly the same. Tactical marines would be better compared to shoota boyz, the choppa is a chainsword.
So I would say a kustom shoota should likely cost the same as a storm bolter because the weapons are basically equivalent.
Really the issue with ork shooting in this edition is that it isn't durable enough to withstand opposing shooting. If you look at equivalently pointed units orks shoot pretty similarly.
5 Havocs with 4 autocannons = 145 points
8 Lootas = 136 points
Havocs average 5 autcannon hits
Lootas average 5.3 Deff gun hits.
The Lootas are a bit more swingy (they may have more than 2 shots each, or less), but really the issue is those havocs in cover have 2+ saves, the orks have 5+ saves. 5 2+ save wounds are more durable than 8 5+ save wounds. Assuming no AP, it takes 30 wounds to remove the 2+ save wounds, and 12 to remove the 8 orks,.
5 Missile devastators =165 points
10 Tank Bustas = 170 points
devastators average 3 missile hits
tank bustas (without re-roll against vehicles) average 3 missile hits
The problem is the devastators have 48" range, the bustas have 24", so likely it is 5 marines in cover, vs 10 orks in the open. Or that the orks need to spend points on transportation to do anything (Trukk 82 points, or Weirdboy 62 points)
So pretty close. Durability is close here as well assuming no cover it takes 26 wounds to kill the orks, and 30 to kill the marines.
The kustom shoota actually comes out as one of the worst comparison given what can take it. and actually reverses this trend.
10 Nobz with Kustom shootas = 210 points
10 man GK strike squad = 210 points
At 12"
Nobz = 13.33 hits
Gk = 26.67 hits
GK win hands down on shooting, but the Nobz are more durable with 2 wounds and a 4+ save. Against Damage 1 weapons with no AP it takes 40 wounds to kill the Nobz and 30 to kill the Strikes. They are more or less equal in combat (assuming the GK take Flacions) against MEQ This really tells me it is likely that Nobz are over priced, as they lack all the special rules GK have that make them able to get to combat more easily, they are bad at shooting and taking special weapons makes them too expensive. Comparisons against things like Marine veteran squads look even worse for the Nobz as then the marines are cheaper.
The other place where orks lose out is with 1 off shooting upgrades. A single combi-weapon is wasted on orks (except maybe the skorcha), you will never use the -1 firing both because you will miss. Single shots are also bad for orks, so taking a single Rokkit in a squad is largely a waste of 12 points, whereas a single missile, plama gun or melta gun in a marine squad is points well spent, as the rokkit will hit maybe twice in a game if it survives all game long. Where as the marine weapon will hit ~4 times.
BS is factored into the models cost and that is why Orkz should be terrible at shooting, they aren't paying for that BS right?
And then we have similar arguments about why Orkz should pay more for CC abilities, because they are really good at CC right?
The problem is that the #1 reason orkz suck at shooting is shot output, not BS. Orkz in fluff are supposed to put out a wall of lead and lasers and plasma that misses 2/3rds of the time but makes up for it with sheer quantity. This is fine and the problem is that it doesn't happen, other armies with better BS have better ranged weapons. Key point is that the number of ranged attacks a model gets is INCLUDED in the weapon profile not the models profile.
Now in CC Orks are considered amazing, but the difference is that the weapon doesn't make them amazing at CC, its their profile. 2 attacks base. The ork by the same arguments put forth why Marines are better at shooting doesnt apply because while we paid for that +2 attacks, it is definitely factored into our base cost where as the Space Marine firing a twin assault cannon didn't have 12 S6 -1AP shots factored into his.
So when we are talking specifically about the Kustom Shoota and the Storm bolter, The storm bolter is roughly equal to the Kustom Shoota, I would argue it is better because of range but that point is based on preference rather then true effectiveness. The people here who are arguing that the Kustom shouldn't be cheaper are saying orkz shouldn't be as good at shooting as Marines. But they fail to realize that their argument is based on Comparing a the BS stat of a Marine to the attack Stat of an Ork, when a more fair comparison would be the BS AND Shots of a weapon and the BS shots of an Ork weapon, or if you are doing a cross comparison of Ranged to CC The fair comparison would be the BS and shots of a Space Marine to the WS and attacks of an Ork. And a further comparison would be WS and base # of attacks of a Space Marine to the WS and base attacks of an Ork boy.
or have we forgotten that a BS is only for hitting not wounding? So therefore the Marines WS is the SAME as an Orkz, but I thought orkz were supposed to be CC monsters? So then shouldn't Marines be WS3? to make up for Orkz being BS2?
I have read, participated and authored numerous threads about orkz and the consensus I have gotten from the majority who aren't ork players is That orks should Pay more for CC weapons because they are a CC army and have access to buffs in CC that make them really good at CC. And then when talking about Ranged combat people point out that since orkz are great at CC they should have to pay more or suck more at shooting.
So lets take that first line of thought about CC and apply it to Marines shooting, because Marines shooting this edition is bonkers. A marine is a ranged combat beast, he comes equipped with a longer ranged weapon then my orkz and even more importantly, when parked in cover has a 2+ save. So because Marines are so good at shooting their ranged weapons should cost significantly more then my Orkz. So therefore the Stormbolter which is equivalent to a Kustom shoota should cost 6pts instead of 2pts to use the logic of PKs compared to PFs. Likewise an assault Cannon should probably be doubled in cost because he is using BS4 on those 6 shots.
See how that logic fails to make sense in your army?
The marine himself costs significantly more than the Ork. He has already paid for the same WS as the Ork and a better BS. No need to charge him twice with making the equivalent gun more expensive too. You keep talking as though Marines and Orks cost the same.
Orks should not pay more for melee options as they have already paid for it in their points cost.
The cost for the number of shots is always included in the weapons cost, hence a Punisher Russ, a Punisher Tank Commander and Punisher Pask all paying the same for the Punisher cannon despite having Bs4+, Bs3+ and Bs2+ respectively. Otherwise why do you have to pay for the BS increase in the first place? Take Pask compared to a Punisher Russ for instance, he hits 167% as many times as the normal Russ, so should he pay 167% more for his weapons? If so, why pay for his Bs increase at all if it doesn't make his shooting more efficient in comparison to the price of his gun?
Also don't bring assault cannons into it - I think we can all agree that they are bonkers broken for their points cost. They need a serious price hike.
What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points
please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.
I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.
I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.
I think the issue is less really with the Kustom shoota than the fact that Ork shooting units pay for +1 attack in CC that they never use (don't have the choppa so not +2 attacks))
You could add option 3 which would be more fair Space Marine Chain Sword (S4 A1 WS3+) +1 Atk 0 points. Oh look exactly the same. Tactical marines would be better compared to shoota boyz, the choppa is a chainsword.
So I would say a kustom shoota should likely cost the same as a storm bolter because the weapons are basically equivalent.
Really the issue with ork shooting in this edition is that it isn't durable enough to withstand opposing shooting. If you look at equivalently pointed units orks shoot pretty similarly.
5 Havocs with 4 autocannons = 145 points
8 Lootas = 136 points
Havocs average 5 autcannon hits
Lootas average 5.3 Deff gun hits.
The Lootas are a bit more swingy (they may have more than 2 shots each, or less), but really the issue is those havocs in cover have 2+ saves, the orks have 5+ saves. 5 2+ save wounds are more durable than 8 5+ save wounds. Assuming no AP, it takes 30 wounds to remove the 2+ save wounds, and 12 to remove the 8 orks,.
5 Missile devastators =165 points
10 Tank Bustas = 170 points
devastators average 3 missile hits
tank bustas (without re-roll against vehicles) average 3 missile hits
The problem is the devastators have 48" range, the bustas have 24", so likely it is 5 marines in cover, vs 10 orks in the open. Or that the orks need to spend points on transportation to do anything (Trukk 82 points, or Weirdboy 62 points)
So pretty close. Durability is close here as well assuming no cover it takes 26 wounds to kill the orks, and 30 to kill the marines.
The kustom shoota actually comes out as one of the worst comparison given what can take it. and actually reverses this trend.
10 Nobz with Kustom shootas = 210 points
10 man GK strike squad = 210 points
At 12"
Nobz = 13.33 hits
Gk = 26.67 hits
GK win hands down on shooting, but the Nobz are more durable with 2 wounds and a 4+ save. Against Damage 1 weapons with no AP it takes 40 wounds to kill the Nobz and 30 to kill the Strikes. They are more or less equal in combat (assuming the GK take Flacions) against MEQ This really tells me it is likely that Nobz are over priced, as they lack all the special rules GK have that make them able to get to combat more easily, they are bad at shooting and taking special weapons makes them too expensive. Comparisons against things like Marine veteran squads look even worse for the Nobz as then the marines are cheaper.
The other place where orks lose out is with 1 off shooting upgrades. A single combi-weapon is wasted on orks (except maybe the skorcha), you will never use the -1 firing both because you will miss. Single shots are also bad for orks, so taking a single Rokkit in a squad is largely a waste of 12 points, whereas a single missile, plama gun or melta gun in a marine squad is points well spent, as the rokkit will hit maybe twice in a game if it survives all game long. Where as the marine weapon will hit ~4 times.
I really like the way Breng77's post is laid out. It's not intellectually dishonest, it focuses on realistic and comparable examples, and it highlights clear strengths and weaknesses. To be honest if we did similar comparisons with matched CC I would hope similar biases towards Orkz. I think you're right that the durability looks like the issue in these comparisons, but I don't personally think that is a major problem. This could be a discussion that involves terrain, mobility, transport, and appropriate army weaknesses. You can also discuss HQ aura's, stacking benefits, and strength based army lists/strategy. I think it remains appropriate that points for points Orkz are significantly weaker in shooting than marines, as I feel you have clearly highlighted. (BTW I play Orkz).
I think your initial comment on the space marine chain sword giving +1 attack is still not equivalent, because the marine is twice the cost of a boy, so you're still down two attacks as a marine compared to two boyz. You need +3 attacks per marine to make it even points per wound in CC.
And as for you, SemperMortis, you're cherry picking two different peoples opinions and pretending they come from the same person, stating one person wants melee to cost more and one person wants shooting to cost more. Holding those two opinions together would mean the person thinks Orkz are overpowered and need nerfing; no one is saying that in this thread, or at all, for that matter.
hollow one wrote: [spoiler]
And as for you, SemperMortis, you're cherry picking two different peoples opinions and pretending they come from the same person, stating one person wants melee to cost more and one person wants shooting to cost more. Holding those two opinions together would mean the person thinks Orkz are overpowered and need nerfing; no one is saying that in this thread, or at all, for that matter.
you misunderstood what i posted, what i said was that the majority consensus on that issue throughout numerous threads and topics is that people believe orks pay more for CC because they are good at it and pay more for shooting because they are bad at it. I never said one person said both those things, though if i had the time to go through the old threads I bet you I could find a couple who have said exactly that in different threads.
As for Breng's well thought out shooting comparisons, you missed a key point here. We can take more units with weapons for less, that makes sense since our BS is garbage. specifically in regards to the havocs and lootas. They are hitting about the exact same, as it should be. The important part is that the durability is hugely different. Those Lootas will die to a stiff breeze where as the havocs will take dedicated anti elite infantry weaponry to kill when they are in cover. This goes back to someone elses point. Ork shooting should be devastating when lucky dice are rolled but it should fade as the games go on because they die really quickly. To me having the same hit/dmg rate as others doesn't really equate to that difference. But thats another debate entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also, regarding Power Klaw costs, remember it's getting a point drop when the codex hits due to the precedent that was set.
hollow one wrote: edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.
I just love how all the marine players in this thread totally ignore that their models have 3+ armor instead of 6+ armor. Also how all their ranged weapons are strictly better than corresponding the ork variants.
Three boyz with rokkit launcha are 3x(6+12) = 52 points with a whooping 30% chance to completely miss with all three rokkits. One tactical marine equipped with a missile launcher is 13 - 25 = 38. Even those if those 3 boyz drop to 36 points (6 points per rokkit launcha) the marine still has twice the range, has a secondary fire mode and can sit in cover for 2+ armor while the boyz mob needs to move towards whatever they want to shoot, not to mention how impossible it is to get most ork units in cover due to size.
A nob with a kustom shoota is 21 points, just like a GKSS marine with storm bolter. It has a +1S +1W +3A (1A is lost when buying a CCW) over the Grey Knight, which can deep strike, has smite, +1 to armor +2 to BS, at least AP-2 in combat and the choice between d3 damage and AP-3 or +1A or +1S for free. So it's not like marines are suddenly inferior to nobz when kustom shootas drop by two or three points.
So worry not, shiny defenders of mankind, you will not be outgunned by orks any times soon, even if they hit as often per point as you do.
What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points
please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.
I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.
I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.
I think the issue is less really with the Kustom shoota than the fact that Ork shooting units pay for +1 attack in CC that they never use (don't have the choppa so not +2 attacks))
You could add option 3 which would be more fair Space Marine Chain Sword (S4 A1 WS3+) +1 Atk 0 points. Oh look exactly the same. Tactical marines would be better compared to shoota boyz, the choppa is a chainsword.
So I would say a kustom shoota should likely cost the same as a storm bolter because the weapons are basically equivalent.
Really the issue with ork shooting in this edition is that it isn't durable enough to withstand opposing shooting. If you look at equivalently pointed units orks shoot pretty similarly.
5 Havocs with 4 autocannons = 145 points
8 Lootas = 136 points
Havocs average 5 autcannon hits
Lootas average 5.3 Deff gun hits.
The Lootas are a bit more swingy (they may have more than 2 shots each, or less), but really the issue is those havocs in cover have 2+ saves, the orks have 5+ saves. 5 2+ save wounds are more durable than 8 5+ save wounds. Assuming no AP, it takes 30 wounds to remove the 2+ save wounds, and 12 to remove the 8 orks,.
5 Missile devastators =165 points
10 Tank Bustas = 170 points
devastators average 3 missile hits
tank bustas (without re-roll against vehicles) average 3 missile hits
The problem is the devastators have 48" range, the bustas have 24", so likely it is 5 marines in cover, vs 10 orks in the open. Or that the orks need to spend points on transportation to do anything (Trukk 82 points, or Weirdboy 62 points)
So pretty close. Durability is close here as well assuming no cover it takes 26 wounds to kill the orks, and 30 to kill the marines.
The kustom shoota actually comes out as one of the worst comparison given what can take it. and actually reverses this trend.
10 Nobz with Kustom shootas = 210 points
10 man GK strike squad = 210 points
At 12"
Nobz = 13.33 hits
Gk = 26.67 hits
GK win hands down on shooting, but the Nobz are more durable with 2 wounds and a 4+ save. Against Damage 1 weapons with no AP it takes 40 wounds to kill the Nobz and 30 to kill the Strikes. They are more or less equal in combat (assuming the GK take Flacions) against MEQ This really tells me it is likely that Nobz are over priced, as they lack all the special rules GK have that make them able to get to combat more easily, they are bad at shooting and taking special weapons makes them too expensive. Comparisons against things like Marine veteran squads look even worse for the Nobz as then the marines are cheaper.
The other place where orks lose out is with 1 off shooting upgrades. A single combi-weapon is wasted on orks (except maybe the skorcha), you will never use the -1 firing both because you will miss. Single shots are also bad for orks, so taking a single Rokkit in a squad is largely a waste of 12 points, whereas a single missile, plama gun or melta gun in a marine squad is points well spent, as the rokkit will hit maybe twice in a game if it survives all game long. Where as the marine weapon will hit ~4 times.
I really like the way Breng77's post is laid out. It's not intellectually dishonest, it focuses on realistic and comparable examples, and it highlights clear strengths and weaknesses. To be honest if we did similar comparisons with matched CC I would hope similar biases towards Orkz. I think you're right that the durability looks like the issue in these comparisons, but I don't personally think that is a major problem. This could be a discussion that involves terrain, mobility, transport, and appropriate army weaknesses. You can also discuss HQ aura's, stacking benefits, and strength based army lists/strategy. I think it remains appropriate that points for points Orkz are significantly weaker in shooting than marines, as I feel you have clearly highlighted. (BTW I play Orkz).
I think your initial comment on the space marine chain sword giving +1 attack is still not equivalent, because the marine is twice the cost of a boy, so you're still down two attacks as a marine compared to two boyz. You need +3 attacks per marine to make it even points per wound in CC.
I think the chain sword is still a better comparison because in all likely hood the orks will still only have +1 attack vs the marines (22 orks are highly unlikely to ever benefit from their +1 attack bonus due to overwatch). That said if we looked at orks with 3 attacks each vs assault marines with 2 attacks each, the Orks win out in combat with 7.33 unsaved wounds dealt to marines whereas the marines do 5.83 to the orks.
If we are just looking at hits the orks make out a ton (assuming they all get to attack) with their bonus to CC, they would have 58.67 hits while the marines get 14. But the reason you compare the Choppa to a chainsword and not to a bolter marine is because they are equivalent, a shoota boy would be the equivalent to a bolter marine, and still better in close combat, but they only have +1 attack not +2.
The issue with orks is that they do have "dedicated" shooting units like lootas/tank bustas who are paying extra to be good at something they will never do. I'd be more ok with this if those units could be equipped to be more CC units. If Tank hammers did not kill the model using them but instead did 1 mortal wound per hit, or were just high strength, AP and Damage. If lootas could move and fire, and maybe shoot their guns in CC, same with Flashgitz. I'm fine with the game saying "hey orks aren't meant to shoot a whole lot, they want to be up close and in the fight." if they didn't give you specialized shooting units. But if they bother with specialized shooting options I want those options to be usable. Which means having them be durable enough to do their job, or cheap enough that models dying doesn't matter.
Now some of this may change with the codex. If a particular klan gets +1 cover, or -1 to hit beyond 12" etc that could make some of the shooting options more attractive because I can expect them to survive a turn. Though it is important to note that some of these bonuses make ork shooting even more crap now. -1 to hit raven guard makes lootas pretty useless.
This is a small factor, but I'd also add in that both Tactical Marines and Assault Marines have bolt pistols. Shoota Boyz don't have pistols, while Slugga Boyz do but they're hitting on a 5+. This is shooting, not assault, but with the ability to shoot pistols in close combat I think it's worth mentioning.
Poly Ranger wrote: The marine himself costs significantly more than the Ork. He has already paid for the same WS as the Ork and a better BS. No need to charge him twice with making the equivalent gun more expensive too. You keep talking as though Marines and Orks cost the same.
Orks should not pay more for melee options as they have already paid for it in their points cost.
The cost for the number of shots is always included in the weapons cost, hence a Punisher Russ, a Punisher Tank Commander and Punisher Pask all paying the same for the Punisher cannon despite having Bs4+, Bs3+ and Bs2+ respectively. Otherwise why do you have to pay for the BS increase in the first place? Take Pask compared to a Punisher Russ for instance, he hits 167% as many times as the normal Russ, so should he pay 167% more for his weapons? If so, why pay for his Bs increase at all if it doesn't make his shooting more efficient in comparison to the price of his gun?
Also don't bring assault cannons into it - I think we can all agree that they are bonkers broken for their points cost. They need a serious price hike.
How many points does -1 to hit cost?
How many points does +1 save cost?
I would call the two guns a wash, at the same BS. One has more shots at 18"-24", the other has more shots at 12"-18". One can advance and fire, one has longer range.
I think one of the issues with orks, as someone has already pointed out, is that all the models are essentially "paying" for their improved wounds, Weapon skill and Attacks stats. Even the backline shooting units, that you never want to get into combat with. This either means that their points costs are too high, making them prohibitively expensive, or their guns are made worse, making their costs ok but the units not good at their given job role.
This is why I would like to see Grots used more in the codex. They have the better BS already built in, but the rest of their stats are awful. Give them some options to take a multitude of shooty dakka, something in between the current options of a crappy grot pistol and the full blown Big Gunz. Grot snipers would work well (essentially ratlings), and Grot Scions would work great too.
I mean come on -
Grot Sui-scions (Minimum squad size 10, Max 20)
Deep Strike
For every 5 Grots, you can take 1 Kustom Mega-Slugga.
Kustom Mega-Slugga - Rapid Fire 1, S8 AP-3 D3 (If you roll a one, your unit takes D3 mortal wounds).
Does this sound overpowered? No, it can be cheaper than scions and still be fairer, as grots would be easy to kill if they don't kill themselves. No runt herder to keep them from running away. I mean I've clearly just copied the scions ability, but given it an orky twist, but I think it would be fun and above all give orks some shooting units they sorely need without having to change their core orkiness.
Breng77 wrote: I think the chain sword is still a better comparison because in all likely hood the orks will still only have +1 attack vs the marines (22 orks are highly unlikely to ever benefit from their +1 attack bonus due to overwatch). That said if we looked at orks with 3 attacks each vs assault marines with 2 attacks each, the Orks win out in combat with 7.33 unsaved wounds dealt to marines whereas the marines do 5.83 to the orks.
If we are just looking at hits the orks make out a ton (assuming they all get to attack) with their bonus to CC, they would have 58.67 hits while the marines get 14. But the reason you compare the Choppa to a chainsword and not to a bolter marine is because they are equivalent, a shoota boy would be the equivalent to a bolter marine, and still better in close combat, but they only have +1 attack not +2.
The issue with orks is that they do have "dedicated" shooting units like lootas/tank bustas who are paying extra to be good at something they will never do. I'd be more ok with this if those units could be equipped to be more CC units. If Tank hammers did not kill the model using them but instead did 1 mortal wound per hit, or were just high strength, AP and Damage. If lootas could move and fire, and maybe shoot their guns in CC, same with Flashgitz. I'm fine with the game saying "hey orks aren't meant to shoot a whole lot, they want to be up close and in the fight." if they didn't give you specialized shooting units. But if they bother with specialized shooting options I want those options to be usable. Which means having them be durable enough to do their job, or cheap enough that models dying doesn't matter.
Now some of this may change with the codex. If a particular klan gets +1 cover, or -1 to hit beyond 12" etc that could make some of the shooting options more attractive because I can expect them to survive a turn. Though it is important to note that some of these bonuses make ork shooting even more crap now. -1 to hit raven guard makes lootas pretty useless.
5 missile devastators (w/ seargant), 6 attacks WS3+ S4
10 tank bustas (w/ nob), 21 attacks, WS3+ S4 (three of these attacks are S5)
10 tac marines w/ searg, 11 attacks WS3+, S4
22 shoota boyz w/ nob, 45 attacks WS3+, S4 (three are S5)
and if by some miracle this unit gets into CC at full strength, that's actually 67 attacks.
see how I can use your examples of comparable dakka with worse durability, and note a minimum of three times as much CC?
"dedicated shooting units" don't exist in the ork rulebook because they are terrible at shooting, however points for points, even their shooting units are far superior in CC when compared to marines. Now if we are talking about durability and armour, I think that's a different and more difficult conversation, but just looking at pure damage output like you were with shooting, it's MUCH clearer here that orkz have a substantial lead in CC (whereas the shooting was actually almost comparable per points I'd say).
Cheaper models with high attack profiles are significant. Everyone is ignoring that fact. Sure a lootah isn't a nob with a power klaw, but he's a boy still, and he swings twice as often as a marine. Flashgitz have Nob profiles, they are S5 three attacks each buddy, they are no joke in CC!
I understand that everyone wants Orkz to have a unit that shoots well, has poor melee capabilities, and is durable. Doesn't everyone want that in their army? You want pure balance you're not going to get it, starcraft balances three dynamic races and has been doing it over decades and there are still balance discussions. You want GW to balance 10+ races, make them feel different from each other, and have all units viable? You guys are just kidding yourselves that's impossible. You're complaining about the lack of range dakka in comparison to quite excellent CC. Orkz as a race have a clear profile with a strength that can be competitive, shoring up all the vulnerabilities of a race will make every race feel the same, and they will start printing exactly the same profile weapons for the exact same cost. That's boring, for you and me. Orkz durability is in their wounds and model counts, its not as good as a good armour save, but it comes with the advantage of substantially more CC.
hollow one wrote: edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.
I just love how all the marine players in this thread totally ignore that their models have 3+ armor instead of 6+ armor. Also how all their ranged weapons are strictly better than corresponding the ork variants.
I play Orkz. No ones ignoring the armour save, Orkz have more wounds per point and more CC per point to compensate for their poor durability and mediocre shooting.
Melissia wrote: No, they just want Ork units to be useful, while you don't.
There are a lot of useful Ork units, there are even more Ork units in the codex. They want every unit to be useful, whereas I'm aware of the strengths of my army and am focusing on how to make that part better.
Poly Ranger wrote: The marine himself costs significantly more than the Ork. He has already paid for the same WS as the Ork and a better BS. No need to charge him twice with making the equivalent gun more expensive too. You keep talking as though Marines and Orks cost the same.
Orks should not pay more for melee options as they have already paid for it in their points cost.
The cost for the number of shots is always included in the weapons cost, hence a Punisher Russ, a Punisher Tank Commander and Punisher Pask all paying the same for the Punisher cannon despite having Bs4+, Bs3+ and Bs2+ respectively. Otherwise why do you have to pay for the BS increase in the first place? Take Pask compared to a Punisher Russ for instance, he hits 167% as many times as the normal Russ, so should he pay 167% more for his weapons? If so, why pay for his Bs increase at all if it doesn't make his shooting more efficient in comparison to the price of his gun?
Also don't bring assault cannons into it - I think we can all agree that they are bonkers broken for their points cost. They need a serious price hike.
How many points does -1 to hit cost?
How many points does +1 save cost?
It's almost impossible to say since they price units based on roll and how characteristics interact with each other (a +1 save on a Russ is better than a +1save on a Grot) and their roll but I'll give it a go:
A conscript compared to a vet is 3pts difference, with this you get +2BS (why I used this comparsion), +2LDs, +1WS, a Vet Sarge and unlocking of multiple weapon options.
A Scion compared to an Elysian Drop Vet gets +1save for 2pts more (Although many say the Elysians are broken but let's go with that), so +2save is 4pts.
So an Ork boy upgraded to 13pts should look like it has similar stats as a SM:
M5 WS2+ BS3+ S4 T4 W1 A2 LD8 Sv4+
Marine
M6 WS3+ BS3+ S4 T4 W1 A1 LD7 Sv3+
Ork has a chopp a for +1 attack, SM does not, Ork has a comparable gun to a bolter if taking the shoota. Ork has Ere We Go, Mob rule and Green Tide, SM has ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics.
Mob rule > ATSKNFimo whilst Ere We Go and Green Tide stack well together and with the Orks melee abilities and character buffs to equate to CTs.
So an Ork would get 1 extra WS, 2 extra attacks and 1 extra leadership than the equivalent marine in return for 1 worse save and one worse move. So the Ork certainly takes it.
Thus we can say that the Marine has definitely paid for his BS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: No, they just want Ork units to be useful, while you don't.
Where are you getting this from? All we've been saying is that they should get equivalent Weaponary for the same price. Your stretching and overexaggeration reminds me of hardline vegetarians comparing us meat eaters to Hitler because we don't mind farm animals being killed for food.
Melissia wrote: No, they just want Ork units to be useful, while you don't.
There are a lot of useful Ork units, there are even more Ork units in the codex. They want every unit to be useful, whereas I'm aware of the strengths of my army and am focusing on how to make that part better.
And what is wrong with having every unit in one's codex useful? if units like flash gitz, lootas, tank bustas, burnaboyz, or non-kff big meks are supposed to be intentionally bad to take, then why bother having them in the codex?
Melissia wrote: No, they just want Ork units to be useful, while you don't.
There are a lot of useful Ork units, there are even more Ork units in the codex. They want every unit to be useful, whereas I'm aware of the strengths of my army and am focusing on how to make that part better.
And what is wrong with having every unit in one's codex useful? if units like flash gitz, lootas, tank bustas, burnaboyz, or non-kff big meks are supposed to be intentionally bad to take, then why bother having them in the codex?
beat me to it. But there is always this
You're complaining about the lack of range dakka in comparison to quite excellent CC.
Orks do not have "excellent" CC. What we have is Boyz. Literally just boyz. What else in our codex is "Excellent" at CC? I mean beyond our characters who are good at CC? Are Meganobz good at CC? how about Warbikers? Or Killakanz?
No, the only thing we are good at is HORDE CC. which is fine, its just BORING AS HELL to play the same list over and over and over. I want to be able to take a gunline and not automatically lose, or god forbid i bring a tactical list with both ranged weapons and CC units. At the moment my tournament list is 90 Boyz, 40 Stormboyz, 35 Kommandos and a couple support pieces like weirdboyz. Stormboyz are this editions trukk Boyz and Kommandos are just garbage, but they distract my opponent for a turn so they are worth it, and more importantly I can drop them on an objective turn 3.
If ork shooting isn't supposed to be good then GW has failed as a company because why buy the models if the rules are so crap that they wont even be played and instead will sit on a shelf collecting dust?
Melissia wrote: No, they just want Ork units to be useful, while you don't.
There are a lot of useful Ork units, there are even more Ork units in the codex. They want every unit to be useful, whereas I'm aware of the strengths of my army and am focusing on how to make that part better.
Not including characters (as they're not really units) there's maybe 3 useful ork units, from a "serious" viewpoint.
Boyz, Boyz, and Boyz.
Seriously though, the actually decent units are Boyz, Maybe Stormboyz, and... You know, I just had to open the codex and scan through to find a third thing to say, and I honestly couldn't find anything that didn't have a huge problem. Actually, the Mek Gunz aren't too terrible, nor are Big Gunz, but they're a bit flimsy and overpriced. So lets be nice and call it two and a half useful units.
I still run a mek mob list though, cos frankly I like the models more and its more fun than moving a couple hundred boyz. But I would never expect to actuall win a game with it, unless I got *very* lucky with the dice.
I don't know what lists you guys are looking at, but if you check out competitive lists pretty much everyone has a spammed army with two or three things. You saying that Orks deserve their entire codex to be competitive and viable?
Orkz bring boyz, weirdboyz, stormboyz, warbosses, nobz with banners, painboyz, big mekz, and some fools bring trukks, big gunz, and tankbustahs. All that stuff is borderline competitive or down right good.
You guys are just complaining for complaining's sake. Yeah there are units like lootahs that totally suck, but people sometimes bring them coz they look cool, and maybe in a niche position they might be useful; I don't know mayhbe against ork mirror, tyranidz, maybe khorne demons, who knows. But competition? yeah only a few units are good, like everyone's army list! And then you sit here and say: "why do they include units if they are not as good as boyz!?" and the answer is obvious, for fun and variety.
edit: I'll have you know that i consistently bring sub-optimal lists to my local groups games, I bring a battlewagon converted to look like a pirate ship and I load it up with flash gitz and it runs around while we all have a good laugh. I'm not taking that to a tournament, I'm taking boyz and weirdboyz and maybe a couple of units I think are overlooked or I'm priced into bringing because I don't own 150 boyz. That's what everyone is doing right now, find what works and spam it. Complaining that other things don't work AS WELL is just not a functional argument, of course certain things are going to be better than others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Orks do not have "excellent" CC. What we have is Boyz. Literally just boyz. What else in our codex is "Excellent" at CC? I mean beyond our characters who are good at CC? Are Meganobz good at CC? how about Warbikers? Or Killakanz?
No, the only thing we are good at is HORDE CC. which is fine, its just BORING AS HELL to play the same list over and over and over. I want to be able to take a gunline and not automatically lose, or god forbid i bring a tactical list with both ranged weapons and CC units. At the moment my tournament list is 90 Boyz, 40 Stormboyz, 35 Kommandos and a couple support pieces like weirdboyz. Stormboyz are this editions trukk Boyz and Kommandos are just garbage, but they distract my opponent for a turn so they are worth it, and more importantly I can drop them on an objective turn 3.
If ork shooting isn't supposed to be good then GW has failed as a company because why buy the models if the rules are so crap that they wont even be played and instead will sit on a shelf collecting dust?
You just said Orkz do not have "excellent" CC then went on to name Boyz, which are excellent in CC. Why do you want so much more? How greedy are you? HORDE CC is fun to play, its complex, CC is difficult and multi-staged and can capitalize on opponents poor movement and deployment. It has WAY more depth than shooting in my opinion. It rewards good positioning and landing successful charges first, and the order of sequencing matters more than shooting IMO. Landing a CC alpha strike is much more complicated than a shooting alpha strike and requires substantially more wits and effort. That is A LOT of fun for me. Your opinion is that is not fun, and I respect that. But that's really your only good argument as to why you want other things (such as greater dakka), that you find boyz boring. That's fine, but it's not actually a good reason for Orkz to have more options.
edit: damnit I could go on man, weirdboyz are REALLY hard to use optimally. Keeping them in position to smite where you want, while not blowing up their head AND deciding to buff units or not is difficult. Weirdboyz are typically your heavy hitters so you have to protect them while putting them in precarious positions to allow them to get useful smites. Balancing an army with stormboyz also makes your list more complex, do you bring a big mek on a bike now to keep up? When do you jump? Can you get your support units like painboy or waagh banner near da jump in an effective way? Can your jump surround vehicles and delete transported units? Boyz on their own are seriously complex, how far do you conga line? how many shootaz? where is the best part of the board to get maximum surface area on your charges? how do you bait your opponent into those windows?
Instead, we're discussing if a Kustom Shoota should be 4 or 2 points... Man who cares. We don't need it, get better at the tools you have.
Orks are doing terribly right now, because most of their units are garbage. You don't really know all that much about the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hollow one wrote: You saying that Orks deserve their entire codex to be competitive and viable?
Yes.
fething duh?
Marines have more useful units in their book than Orks have units.
So we should count the amount of useful units until they are even? A month ago it would've been stormravens and Guilliman as the only viable imperium units, you think they were complaining? No one army has an entire codex of competitive units, sure some will have more than others, but look at the lists people are bringing to BAO for example, you won't see more than 4 types of units in literally every single list.
hollow one wrote: So we should count the amount of useful units until they are even?
Your argument is poorly thought through and unhelpful in proving your point; the existence of stormravens and guilliman doesn't prove ANY Ork units are useful, nevermind "a lot".
hollow one wrote: So we should count the amount of useful units until they are even?
Your argument is poorly thought through and unhelpful in proving your point; the existence of stormravens and guilliman doesn't prove ANY Ork units are useful, nevermind "a lot".
When a space marine looks at his list, and realises he has to bring stormravens and old gil to be competitive, do you think he gets angry that his melee units are crap? Do you think that they count these two units, and go "damnit I wish the rest of my codex was viable!". Nah, when that was the best option, they spam the stormravens. Just like any reasonable ork player trying to win will spam boyz at the moment.
hollow one wrote: When a space marine looks at his list, and realises he has to bring stormravens and old gil to be competitive, do you think he gets angry that his melee units are crap?
I already know for a fact that the answer to this is yes. Have you not read any Space Marine thread on this forum?
hollow one wrote: When a space marine looks at his list, and realises he has to bring stormravens and old gil to be competitive, do you think he gets angry that his melee units are crap?
I already know for a fact that the answer to this is yes. Have you not read any Space Marine thread on this forum?
Then the discussion will never change. Everyone want's something literally unattainable. Eventually things will get boiled down to the strictly best thing (or two or three) to bring, and people bring that. To achieve anything else would be a godlike display of balancing that no company has EVER shown with 10+ races. It's just not possible. Why not just enjoy the fact that Orkz can win games?
So do you have anything of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here to whine about Ork players wanting their book to be better than it currently is?
Your argument thus far can be summed up as "Boyz, Weirdboyz, and Warbosses are good, therefor stop your complaining about everything else not being good", which you may find convincing in your own mind, but you're not really convincing many people here.
Yeah alright, even if I clearly think Orkz are doing better than most people in this thread, I wouldn't mind something exciting and new like everyone else. But damn if it's just a marine painted green I will be sorely disappointed. This discussion, the original weapon vs weapon discussion is remarkably unhealthy for moving forward, in my opinion, which was why I started in this thread fairly sarcastically. Orkz have two or three fairly outstanding units, if you bring the codex up to snuff compared to those three units, Orkz will be over powered AND have variety. Balance is a tightrope, it's elegant when employed well, but just giving Orkz comparable weapons/dakka to marines is a redundant and ham-fisted way to approach it. Comparing the weapon effectiveness to ONE other race and stating that Orkz fall short, is short sighted, simplistic, and virtually irrelevant in the scope of the effectiveness of what Orkz do. You want to have a discussion that benefits Orkz dakka? Maybe discuss adding benefits that come with situational shortcomings, such as high randomness in their damage output or chance to hit, or more "gets hot" rules, multiple profiles for weapons, single shooting weapons, etc. Putting a bolt rifle in the hands of an Ork is not only boring, but it has the capacity to overpower Orkz, because their CC is important and very good, and making comparisons in a vacuum is absolutely NOT how you balance a game. Another example, substantial changes to the terrain rules or your setup (such as adding heaps of LOS terrain, or having objectives in close quarter buildings) will dramatically change the effectiveness of Orkz.
Strawman argument. No one here has suggested "a marine painted green", in spite of your wild and unjustified assertions to the contrary.
People in this thread are literally asking for storm bolters to be put on Orkz.
edit: the very nature of the thread is comparing a specific marine and a specific ork shooting load-out and stating that it is a problem that one is worse than the other.
Strawman argument. No one here has suggested "a marine painted green", in spite of your wild and unjustified assertions to the contrary.
People in this thread are literally asking for storm bolters to be put on Orkz.
edit: the very nature of the thread is comparing a specific marine and a specific ork shooting load-out and stating that it is a problem that one is worse than the other.
Lol, you are missing the point on purpose, thats not very honest of you.
Alright I'll take the long way around. If the weapons are not the same, they are imbalanced. The general discussion has been should they cost the same? Where do the points go, should we weigh the points of the individual unit when considering the weapon cost? How come other armies pay less for their guns and Orkz pay more? Orkz should pay less for at least comparable weaponry etc. etc.
Some people are saying, no the weapon cost should be the same across armies, despite the cost of the unit holding it. That is the nature of comparing the two weapons in the first place, its quite clear that under certain circumstances one weapon will always be better than another. So, you can either be dissatisfied with that comparison and ask for a normalisation of the weaponry (which some people are doing by way of saying they need to cost the same) OR you can compensate for the unit holding the gun and discuss other strengths and weakneses of units. Breng77 for example discussed the durability difference between comparable weaponry, others such as Semper are merely dissatisfied with the fact that the kustom shooter is CLEARLY overcosted compared to a stormbolter.
So there are some people having good discussions, such as breng, and others who want equality across the races with comparable weaponry that does not account for the units holding them.
This may not have been explicitly said by someone, but for me it is clear that if you are dissatisfied with comparisons that are unequal then you probably seek equality. Seeking equality is sort of like wanting a marine painted green.
In regards to comparing Ork shooting to Marine shooting, there's something that I haven't seen anyone else really bringing up:
To-hit penalties.
This edition, to-hit penalties are really, really common, (some armies can get them pretty much universally,) and Orks are particularly screwed over by them. When you write a shooty Marine list, your options for dealing with those penalties are to either just fire away regardless, keeping your Plasma on cool fire mode and dealing with the -1 since it's only a 25% reduction in accuracy, or find a source of re-rolls to mitigate the penalty. If they manage to stack two sources of penalties for a total of -2, then you're still hitting at 50% efficiency, and still can get rerolls to mitigate that.
If you're playing Orks, you don't have any counter to that. If someone brings to-hit penalties, you can't suck it up and keep firing away, because you're at a 50% to-hit penalty, and if it's a -2, then Orks literally cannot do anything about it. There are also few sources of re-rolls for Orks (outside of Ammo Runts, which are very limited in availability, and on Tankbustas, who are actually one of the better shooty units in the codex, though they still kind of aren't great) that could otherwise help mitigate the penalty.
Shooty Orks are not a viable option, not because they're weak, but because hard counters exist that don't just weaken them, but literally make them unable to do any damage. If you're paying for orky guns, you are paying for weapons that - depending on your opponent - might be firing at a massive, insurmountable handicap or even simply be unable to fire.
hollow one wrote: Alright I'll take the long way around. If the weapons are not the same, they are imbalanced.
*sigh*
Oh, this argument again.
1: The basis of the argument being a load of bollocks-- points, army playstyle, supporting units, terrain, stratagems, player skill, etc all make a huge difference in balance; two wildly different armies can still be balanced against each other. As much as I think the game is a blithering festival of mediocrity taht doesn't deserve 1/100th of the accolades given it, I bring up Starcraft as a rebuttal. A game with wildly different factions, but popularly considered highly balanced. GW's 40k of course has not gotten to that point, and probably never will, because 40k is immensely more complex... but the defeatist argument of "it's hard therefor don't even try" is unconvincing.
2: You're still making the same absurdist logical fallacy of "if Ork players aren't content with their lot of having inherently inferior gear than everyone else, they clearly just want to be space marines". The repeated use of this argument is inherently dishonest, and you know it. There's plenty of ways to make kustom shootas worth 4 points while not being identical to storm bolters, and while fitting in with the Ork mentality-- for example, giving kustom shootas more shots than they currently have, which indeed would be very Orky. Or they can be made cheaper than 4 points, allowing them to be more easily spammed-- again, this fits in with the Ork mentality.
hollow one wrote: Alright I'll take the long way around. If the weapons are not the same, they are imbalanced.
*sigh*
Oh, this argument again.
1: The basis of the argument being a load of bollocks-- points, army playstyle, supporting units, terrain, stratagems, player skill, etc all make a huge difference in balance; two wildly different armies can still be balanced against each other. As much as I think the game is a blithering festival of mediocrity taht doesn't deserve 1/100th of the accolades given it, I bring up Starcraft as a rebuttal. A game with wildly different factions, but popularly considered highly balanced. GW's 40k of course has not gotten to that point, and probably never will, because 40k is immensely more complex... but the defeatist argument of "it's hard therefor don't even try" is unconvincing.
2: You're still making the same absurdist logical fallacy of "if Ork players aren't content with their lot of having inherently inferior gear than everyone else, they clearly just want to be space marines". The repeated use of this argument is inherently dishonest, and you know it. There's plenty of ways to make kustom shootas worth 4 points while not being identical to storm bolters, and while fitting in with the Ork mentality-- for example, giving kustom shootas more shots than they currently have, which indeed would be very Orky. Or they can be made cheaper than 4 points, allowing them to be more easily spammed-- again, this fits in with the Ork mentality.
I think you're missing my point a little as well. If people were discussing the things in this thread that I have bolded in your comment, I probably wouldn't have started posting in the first place. Because I agree with you, 100% on that point. And I also agree that starcraft is a great rebuttal, I used it earlier myself. My point is mostly, balancing is complex, and for me personally when people make vacuum comparisons (like the premise of this thread) I feel like that is a waste of time and an unhealthy balance discussion.
You and I are in accord with your #1 point, although I'm not saying "don't balance", I'm saying "please consider everything when discussing balance". Comparisons are not useful and spawn debates that go no where, because you could always compare it to something else and be dissatisfied.
And to #2, you're right there are plenty of ways to make kustom shootas worth 4 points, and we should discuss that without comparing them to weapons that are held by different armies who have different points costs and have different auras/advantages.
Waaaghpower wrote: In regards to comparing Ork shooting to Marine shooting, there's something that I haven't seen anyone else really bringing up:
To-hit penalties.
This edition, to-hit penalties are really, really common, (some armies can get them pretty much universally,) and Orks are particularly screwed over by them. When you write a shooty Marine list, your options for dealing with those penalties are to either just fire away regardless, keeping your Plasma on cool fire mode and dealing with the -1 since it's only a 25% reduction in accuracy, or find a source of re-rolls to mitigate the penalty. If they manage to stack two sources of penalties for a total of -2, then you're still hitting at 50% efficiency, and still can get rerolls to mitigate that.
If you're playing Orks, you don't have any counter to that. If someone brings to-hit penalties, you can't suck it up and keep firing away, because you're at a 50% to-hit penalty, and if it's a -2, then Orks literally cannot do anything about it. There are also few sources of re-rolls for Orks (outside of Ammo Runts, which are very limited in availability, and on Tankbustas, who are actually one of the better shooty units in the codex, though they still kind of aren't great) that could otherwise help mitigate the penalty.
Shooty Orks are not a viable option, not because they're weak, but because hard counters exist that don't just weaken them, but literally make them unable to do any damage. If you're paying for orky guns, you are paying for weapons that - depending on your opponent - might be firing at a massive, insurmountable handicap or even simply be unable to fire.
I think orks were better in 7th than now. Yes we have the greentide spam that can be mid tier but even in 7th edition we did have some mid tier lists with tons of bikers and/or the bullyboyz.
This edition is better than previous one but orks are even more terrible, that says enough about them.
My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Assault Marines aren't good at the whole ASSAULT thing compared to other units but I don't complain.
I always weep for the Orks as they are always Game Workshop's whipping boys... that Flamer comparison really rubs it in.
Shame as Warhammer has the best Lore for Orks since their conception by Tolkin so long ago, they should be given some Rule love as well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Assault Marines aren't good at the whole ASSAULT thing compared to other units but I don't complain.
Orks have always been both shooting and close combat, more than half the choises in the codex (index?) are about shooting ffs!
jhnbrg wrote: Orks have always been both shooting and close combat, more than half the choises in the codex (index?) are about shooting ffs!
QFT.
Saying Orks are not a shooty army is a proof of ignorance. Some editions have made them stronger in CC (3rd with the Choppa rule) or stronger in shooting (6th with Hull points and stupid duels that rendered the Nobz useless), but it's always been a balanced army.
The problem nowadays, as it's been pointed out, is that most armies have a much higher rate of fire AND a better BS, for CHEAPER and on much more resistant chassis. The point-for-point effectiveness of Orks has dropped really low for almost all their shooty units, and even lower if you considere that almost all their shooty units *need* a Battlewagon in order to survive at least 1 turn.
All of that leads to Boyz, Stormboyz and Kommandoes being the only non-HQ units worth their salt. Which is sad if you don't like playing a horde army or at least, not a full horde.
Blackie wrote: I think orks were better in 7th than now. Yes we have the greentide spam that can be mid tier but even in 7th edition we did have some mid tier lists with tons of bikers and/or the bullyboyz.
This edition is better than previous one but orks are even more terrible, that says enough about them.
Footslogging is by far much stronger in 8-th for orks. Mech and biker hordes are not nearly as strong as they used to be.
We all know that footslogging boyz work now - which is a mighty feat cause the last time they did was in 5-th. Well, greentide formation had a brief period of relevancy in the hands of experienced players because they countered the meta and were resilient and fast enough to soak non anti-horde weaponry and kill stuff with power klaws. But than invisible super-friends with a million attacks, scatbike spam and time limitations stopped greentide in it's tracks. Also, stormboyz are great now. Can't think of any time in 40k tabletop historythis was true at all.
However, footslogging hordes have always been pretty restrictive to what you can take alongside them cause their sole purpose is redundancy. It's simple - boyz got to outnumber the amount of led thrown in their general direction before they reach combat. And decent support stuff is very expensive and takes away from the amount of boyz you can field - thus taking away from this very important redundancy aspect.
As for the other lists, i'd argue that walker wall is more effective than in 7-th - still pretty bad but not unplayable any more.
Mech and biker lists are the ones taking the biggest hit with how vehicles, transports and cover saves work now. Ork mech lists relied on cheapish transports, speed and...also redundancy. Everything was so fast, relatively inexpensive yet choppy enough to deal with non mellee-oriented opponents without invisibility or re-rollable saves. Vehicles could be effectively protected with voidshields providing an extra av12 3 hp wall that also had good chances of going back up as the game went on but most importantly, provided some sort of 1-st turn protection for a fair amount of points. Even a regular trukk was not that easy to take down with VSG and a cover save. And bikers were just pretty cheap and shooty for the points. And had decent survivability vs non-ignore cover weapons.
Now transports are so expensive, running boyz is a waste. You got to field nobz and tankbustas in there but those are very pricey and take away from the numbers substantially. Wagons are like 180 a piece. Yes, they don't go down to 1 lucky melta shot any more but they still go down in 1-2 turns of shooting. And it's hard to fit more than 2 wagons and a trukk or 1 wagon and 3 trukks in a 1500 game. And it's in no way enough to get this redundancy we're used to. Oh and bikers aren't that horrible, just too expensive and can't do anything vs plasma - and plasma seems to be everywhere.
So, what i want to say is that it's not entirely correct to say that orks have become weaker. Boyz are WAY stronger, walkers are definitely stronger (still meh but better than they used to be).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Assault Marines aren't good at the whole ASSAULT thing compared to other units but I don't complain.
Orks have always been both shooting and close combat, more than half the choises in the codex (index?) are about shooting ffs!
You could say the same for Tyranids but that isn't how it works. The stereotype for these armies is CC.
Also remember that Tau players don't complain that Kroot and Vespid have never been super great at melee because the army is about shooting. They COULD be better, but what's the limit?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Assault Marines aren't good at the whole ASSAULT thing compared to other units but I don't complain.
Orks have always been both shooting and close combat, more than half the choises in the codex (index?) are about shooting ffs!
You could say the same for Tyranids but that isn't how it works. The stereotype for these armies is CC.
Also remember that Tau players don't complain that Kroot and Vespid have never been super great at melee because the army is about shooting. They COULD be better, but what's the limit?
Keyword there. Stereotype, a one dimensional idea on how something work or acts. Orks, and all armies, should be given the tools to play a number of different roles rather than playing the same list repeatedly. it doesn't have to be ALL roles, but the different ways army can act can be done without relying on making choices intentionally bad
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Quite the opposite. Tons of orks units are pure shooty ones. We have 10ish different kinds of artillery, lootas, tankbustas, flash gitz, 4 flyers, buggies that are completely focused on shooting and several other units that rely on shooting as much (if not more) as close combat like bikers, kanz, burnaboyz, koptas but also bigger walkers like dreads, nauts and stompa are full of guns, the morkanaut in particular is more focused on shooting and giving a KFF bubble to friendly orks than looking to assault things. In fact we probably have more shooty units than choppy ones, and this is true since 3d edtion at least.
Orks always loved to fire big guns. No one wants them to be accurate but they should have a volume of fire that makes their firepower average, compared to other armies. Like orks close combat, which relies on a high number of low-mid strength hits, nothing is an absolute beast in combat, not even ghaz or the gorkanaut. Meganobz were decent in 7th, now they're more useful for blocking enemies' movements than smashing faces.
Right now orks shooting is almost useless, that's why many competitive lists are just boyz + characters.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
Assault Marines aren't good at the whole ASSAULT thing compared to other units but I don't complain.
Orks have always been both shooting and close combat, more than half the choises in the codex (index?) are about shooting ffs!
You could say the same for Tyranids but that isn't how it works. The stereotype for these armies is CC.
Also remember that Tau players don't complain that Kroot and Vespid have never been super great at melee because the army is about shooting. They COULD be better, but what's the limit?
I didnt know that the absolute majority of the tau units are kroots, you are perhaps being a bit deceptive maybe?
Poly Ranger wrote: The ballistic skill of the models that can take it should never be a factor in determining the price of a gun as ballistic skill is priced by the model, not by the weapon. Marines for example, have already paid for that accuracy in their points cost, Orks have not.
Doesn't seem like that would work at all from a perspective of balancing the game though, since the value of the BS scales with the effectiveness of the gun, so if fixed points are charged for each, it does not take into account that high BS has a multiplicative effect with the powerful gun, and in many cases they are bought separately.
Big Mek on Warbike with Kustom force field (stays near the Kill Tanks)
10 Gretchin
9 Boyz with shootas, 1 Nob with Power Klaw (in Kill Tank)
9 Boyz with shootas, 1 Nob with Power Klaw (in Kill Tank)
3 Grot Tanks with Kustom Mega Blastas 1 Kommanda with 2 Kustom Mega Blastas
3 Grot Tanks with Kustom Mega Blastas 1 Kommanda with 2 Kustom Mega Blastas
3 Grot Tanks with Kustom Mega Blastas 1 Kommanda with 2 Kustom Mega Blastas
5 Mek Guns with Kustom Mega Kannons
5 Mek Guns with Kustom Mega Kannons
5 Mek Guns with Kustom Mega Kannons
Kill Tank with Bursta Kannon and 2 twin big shootas
Kill Tank with Bursta Kannon and 2 twin big shootas
1999pts
That's 4D6 st10 ap-4 D2, 24 st5 D1, 15 st8 ap-3 Dd3 and 15D6 st8 ap-3 Dd3 shots all at BS4+, all on durable platforms for their points. A lot of those will also have a 5++ due to the kustom force fields. Only the Grot Tanks have a range under 36". There is also the grots, boyz and bike shooting as well. If you don't like the lack of Boyz, you can get rid of a shooting unit or Kill Tank to afford more.
I do not have any opinion on the potential issues and their fixes, but reading that Orks are not a shooty army or a CC only one, drives me absolutly crazy.
It's wrong on a fluffy POV.
It's wrong on a 'historical' POV (bolters used to be orks favorite weapons... in v2 if I recall correctly).
It's wrong on a faction tactic POV. Orks have a lot of dakka options and dakka specialists / plateform. Heck we have two two dakka characters and one is HQ (mek and bigmek).
The only thing that I'm sure of concerning the current situation, is that I can't play a decent ork gunline when I feel that I should, even if its way less strong than full cc, cc/dakka mix, combined arm, etc...
Tbf the weakest for their points of all the shooty options in that list were the Grot Tanks, which I only included because they were FA, I was trying to keep it as a battalion and trying to fit as many guns in as possible. I think replacing the Grot Tanks with Stormboyz would make the list stronger even if less shooty (still a shooty list overall though). The only other FW is the Kill Tanks.
On a side note, Mek Guns and Kill Tanks are amazingly shooty for their points! Wow!
Although having said that, a missile launcher heavy weapons team in a HWS for Guard is pretty close in output to a grot tank with Kustom Mega blasta (worse ap but better damage) and is 24pts to the tanks 39, is considerably less durable and definitely less mobile being heavy with shorter potential movement. So the Grot Tank is pretty decent for its points (especially the kommander - he's excellent for 48pts), it's just that they look terrible compared to Mek Guns.
It's wrong on a 'historical' POV (bolters used to be orks favorite weapons... in v2 if I recall correctly).
..
I believe so. Also they were fond of heavy plasma cannons (still got a load of 1st gen plastic orks with the shoulder mounted heavy plasma cannons...if they ever get fielded nowadays I count them as lootas.)
Hold the phone... forgot to include the Grot gunners, take off 3 Mek Guns, change the Power Klaws to a big choppas and increase both boyz squads to 12 and add a grot to the grot squad. 12D6 st8 ap-3 Dd3 shots from the Mek Guns now not 15d6. 2000 on the nose.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: My question is why shooty Orks should even be viable. That's not what the army is about. It could be more viable, but that's really not the play style of the army and never has been.
You might want to read any piece of fluff for orks or any novel that is about fighting orks. I can recommend the novel "Helsreach" if you actually care.
The style of the ork army was and always has been shooting until you reach combat. In 5th some ork armies could outshoot necrons or marines if they dedicated their army to that cause.
Orks are not khorne daemons.
Blackie wrote: Orks always loved to fire big guns. No one wants them to be accurate but they should have a volume of fire that makes their firepower average, compared to other armies.
Actually, I think most players would be happy if we just kept the weapons as average as they are right now, as long as they were costed according to their actual output.
Of some of the potential options that could give Ork shooting some needed attention - such as rules to benefit their BS while moving, etc. - what I hope the Codex goes for is increasing the ROF. That seems the 'Orkiest' solution.
I don't really understand why Ork shooting should be bad.
The key point is that uou can't spend a point twice. If ork shooting was reasonable people would put points into these units. Which would mean that they wouldn't just run at you with 150~ choppa armed boy variants. Its not being suggested that Orks get to keep all that and two units of flash gits and a big squad of Lottas on top.
As I see the inverse isn't Tau because they simply do not have dedicated close combat units. Kroot are not obviously meant to assault. Sadly GW has never given them a second thought since they were first release so many years ago, so its not obvious they are meant to do anything. Maybe they will get a codex of their own some time before 2020.
Its more like Dark Eldar. You can say DE have always been venom spam and lances to taste. In practice however thats because those have been the good units. If you looked at the codex you have countless assault units and they are pretty universally bad.
Unfortunately because of Ynnari this will probably never be fixed but you can't spend points on a venom and a unit of wyches. Its an either or. If your opponent is running a unit of one thing he isn't running another.
Orks are not "balanced" by having crap shooting. It just means those units do not appear on the table.
hollow one wrote: ...balancing is complex, and for me personally when people make vacuum comparisons (like the premise of this thread) I feel like that is a waste of time and an unhealthy balance discussion.
You and I are in accord with your #1 point, although I'm not saying "don't balance", I'm saying "please consider everything when discussing balance". Comparisons are not useful and spawn debates that go no where, because you could always compare it to something else and be dissatisfied.
Totally agreed. I feel like the productive way forward is to discuss realistic, specific changes that will bring various underpowered/overcosted units up to scratch, with the hope that they may be factored into the codex. Though with 'what would like to see in the Ork Codex' being pretty much a wishlist, I understand completely why semper has gone with what is more or less a bait thread in order to draw attention to the deficiencies.
I thoroughly dislike the idea that 8th ed Orks have been put into this CC dominant stereotype. To me, what balances Orks to other factions isn't that they're specialists in one type of warfare but that they go at everything with random and crazy abandon.
The current situation is a lot to do with the necessary Index blandness in my mind. Shooty weapons have had their extremes flattened out, and BS 5+ does not help the averages at all. I don't think the Index writers really understood how rubbish that BS is.
I don't feel like it'd be fluffy or even necessary to give bonuses to Ork BS (although Gitfinda would be good to put back on a Big Mek) but numerous weapons and costs should be adjusted to take it into account.
I love some of the ideas that I've seen for new Grot units, be great to get some of them but im not holding out too much hope.
I've always liked Big/Mek Gunz but they feel too expensive and very few have enough range.
Lobbas should be useful but without blast and barrage, they no longer do enough. Could be cheaper so you can take a larger battery of them.
I've found the Bubblechukka to be one the most Orky things in the book. It has the fun factor and the good old crazy swing. With a CP reroll it can be quite devastating. Dedicating a CP to it means you'll only get good use out of one though, no one wants to bring one of a thing.
A possibility that occurs to me is a full gun crew operating as an ammo runt reroll. I think that would go a long way to helping out all gun units.
One of my other favourite backfield shootas has always been the SAG but they're almost completely ineffective now. Gitfinda would help immeasurably but I do feel like they should be 2D6 shots. Thing used to spit out a vortex pie plate if you got really lucky. And it was cheaper! I used to bring 2 in case one immolated himself.
Obviously 6+ save on Flash Gits is useless on such expensive models.
Same goes for Lootas, although as they're just Boyz with Toys, I don't think they should get better. Perhaps just cheaper/bigger units.
The FW stuff does help. I use a Meka Dread and a Kill Tank or Supa Skorcha Trakk, all are pretty mean. But ofc, none of them will be Codex.
All in all, I'm in favour of more shots and more wild and random swing, with a handful of points reductions than I am sweeping changes or Marine like buffs, auras and other such unfluffy things.
Edit. A buff that just occurred to me as fluffy, to mitigate all the to hit penalties flying around: Enough Dakka- Orks always hit something on a roll of 6...
Another issue with ork shooting units is that combined with lack of durability, and expensive price point for that durability, they lack the ability to have ablative wounds. I think ammo runts serve this purpose a bit for flash gits, so if flash gits had guns that were say rapid fire, or assault not heavy, I think that they might actually be ok.
So maybe if ork shooting units could utilize gretchin similar to tau drones, where they could shift wounds off to a cheap unit. A unit of say 10 lootas might be a bit more attractive if they cost 200 points and had 20 wounds.
It would also make gretchin useful.
Now this helps units like Tankbustas a little less as it would create issues with transportation for them.
Other than that I have said before I think ork weapons that used to be blast weapons either need a fixed number of shots (large blast a 6 shots, Small as 3) or to be based on more dice (large blast could be 3D3, Small could be say 2D2) to allow for them to actually be usable. When you have terrible BS, random shots is a killer on expensive weapons. Especially when they also have random damage. As you are highly likely to miss, rolling a 1 or 2 punishes Orks far more than it does for armies with better BS, or ways to boost their accuracy (re-rolls, +1 bonuses etc)
Blackie wrote: Orks always loved to fire big guns. No one wants them to be accurate but they should have a volume of fire that makes their firepower average, compared to other armies.
Actually, I think most players would be happy if we just kept the weapons as average as they are right now, as long as they were costed according to their actual output.
Orks are doing terribly right now, because most of their units are garbage. You don't really know all that much about the army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hollow one wrote: You saying that Orks deserve their entire codex to be competitive and viable?
Yes.
fething duh?
Marines have more useful units in their book than Orks have units.
So we should count the amount of useful units until they are even? A month ago it would've been stormravens and Guilliman as the only viable imperium units, you think they were complaining? No one army has an entire codex of competitive units, sure some will have more than others, but look at the lists people are bringing to BAO for example, you won't see more than 4 types of units in literally every single list.
Stormravens and Gulliman aren't the only good units in the Marine codex though. They have -loads- of good units.
They can take ANY units from ANY corner of the imperium for a start, which gives them literally dozens of strong units and combinations.
Even if you take away the options they have to take units from imperial armies, and limit them to just one space marine chapter, they still have strong choices from flyers, assault squads, tanks, gunlines... pretty much everything.
Gulliman and Stormravens became the spam lists not because they were the only good units that space marines have, but because they happened to be the best units space marines have. Space marine unit options are mostly good, but gulliman/ravens were brokenly good.
With Orks, Boyz are... probably good, or at least slightly above average compared to other units in the game. But pretty much every other unit Orks have are far below average. Boyz spam isn't used because its brokenly overpowered (like gulliman/raven are/were), but because they're the only unit choice that can even vaguely compare with the "average" choices from other armies such as space marines.
There's a huge difference here, between the reasons people spam boyz, and the reasons people spammed stormravens/used gulliman.
Boyz - Have to be fielded to even stand a chance at competing.
Gulliman/Ravens - So overpowered that fielding them gives a very good chance of winning.
Space marines could field far more varied lists, and still have a better competitive edge than a boyz spam list.
Blackie wrote: Orks always loved to fire big guns. No one wants them to be accurate but they should have a volume of fire that makes their firepower average, compared to other armies.
Actually, I think most players would be happy if we just kept the weapons as average as they are right now, as long as they were costed according to their actual output.
Cheaper guns = More guns/more volume of fire
Exactly. I have no problems with Orks actual stats right now, we should be innaccurate and generally firing wildly. But the costs for these options should be cheap enough that we can end up winning with sheer weight of dice.
That's basically the only reason we are good in melee too, so it's not like its an unusual concept for orks.
Exactly. I have no problems with Orks actual stats right now, we should be innaccurate and generally firing wildly. But the costs for these options should be cheap enough that we can end up winning with sheer weight of dice.
That's basically the only reason we are good in melee too, so it's not like its an unusual concept for orks.
This is it right here. We should be inaccurate as all hell, but our choices should be so cheap that we are good at shooting simply because we can bring 2 or 3x as many ranged weapons as our opponents.
You also hit the nail on the head with Close combat and the Ork faction as well, we ARE NOT good at CC. A S4 T4 2 attack base model with 5in movement and a 6+ save isn't scary at ALL. Literally nobody is scared of that, but when you put 90 of them on the table, then they become frightening, and that is how our shooting should be as well.
So everyone seems to agree that there is (at least) a problem with the point costing of orks ranged options. May the gods hear you.
I wonder because I've never tried it, is it still a problme when you play power point ? Seems that the fact you don't pay the points for equipment may atune the overpricing prob.
IronSlug wrote: So everyone seems to agree that there is (at least) a problem with the point costing of orks ranged options. May the gods hear you.
I wonder because I've never tried it, is it still a problme when you play power point ? Seems that the fact you don't pay the points for equipment may atune the overpricing prob.
yup, orkz still suck using power levels instead of points. Our only good unit (Boyz) doesn't have any upgrades worth taking, not in the sense that its to expensive points wise, but in the sense that why would I give my Boyz 3 Big shootas/Rokkits when they take away from CC attacks and will likely do almost nothing in the game (3 Big shootas = 3 S5 hits, 2 wounds and against a 3+ save .66 dead Marines) (3 Rokkitz = 1 hit and 5/6th chance to wound with -2AP on a 3+ that is a 5/6th chance to wound).
Everything in our Codex is priced pretty atrociously and our upgrades, the few we actually have, barely do anything to help. There are no good shooting options, there are no good Mech options and there are no good Speed freak options, its basically 100% horde 100% of the time.
To tie that in with the original comment about Kustom Shoota, even if they were free they wouldn't make Nobz worth taking. They might make Nob bikers almost worth taking though, but still not overly worth the price nor the power level cost.
IronSlug wrote: So everyone seems to agree that there is (at least) a problem with the point costing of orks ranged options. May the gods hear you.
I wonder because I've never tried it, is it still a problme when you play power point ? Seems that the fact you don't pay the points for equipment may atune the overpricing prob.
yup, orkz still suck using power levels instead of points. Our only good unit (Boyz) doesn't have any upgrades worth taking, not in the sense that its to expensive points wise, but in the sense that why would I give my Boyz 3 Big shootas/Rokkits when they take away from CC attacks and will likely do almost nothing in the game (3 Big shootas = 3 S5 hits, 2 wounds and against a 3+ save .66 dead Marines) (3 Rokkitz = 1 hit and 5/6th chance to wound with -2AP on a 3+ that is a 5/6th chance to wound).
Everything in our Codex is priced pretty atrociously and our upgrades, the few we actually have, barely do anything to help. There are no good shooting options, there are no good Mech options and there are no good Speed freak options, its basically 100% horde 100% of the time.
To tie that in with the original comment about Kustom Shoota, even if they were free they wouldn't make Nobz worth taking. They might make Nob bikers almost worth taking though, but still not overly worth the price nor the power level cost.
Yeah Power level often just means I take upgrades because I'm paying for them anyway. PL doesn't help orks because many of our units don't have upgrades (Lootas) or upgrades worth taking (tankbustas). In fact Nobz are really the only squad that benefits from PL and it really just makes them super over equipped (all with killsaws, Skorchas and Ammo runts).
Nobz in general are really over priced in their own squad, especially given the expense of their upgrades. I continually look at taking them, but they essentially cost the same as 3 Ork boyz (prior to any upgrades) So from a durability standpoint you are looking at 2 T4 4+ wounds vs 3 T4 6+ wounds, so that is a slight edge to the Nob against damage 1 weapons with No AP (it takes on average 4 wounds to kill the nob, it takes 3.6 to kill the 3 boyz.) as soon as weapons have multiple damage or AP it swings hugely in the favor of the boyz (AP -1 means it takes 3 wounds to kill both the Nob and the Boyz). Offensively Boyz are far superior in shooting they are 3 shots vs 1 shot (with sluggas), and in the assault you are looking at 4 S5 attacks vs 9(or 12) S 4 attacks. Using the 9 attacks the boyz are better against every single target point for point. now Nobz can take close combat special weapons, but taking those means you aren't taking even more boyz (a big choppa nob = 4.33 boyz) big choppas against T8 multi wound models big choppa nobz are about equal to an equal number of points worth of boyz (assuming no bonus attacks for the boyz), Power klaw Nobz are better against T8 multi wound models than boyz.
Breng77 wrote: Nobz in general are really over priced in their own squad, especially given the expense of their upgrades. I continually look at taking them, but they essentially cost the same as 3 Ork boyz (prior to any upgrades) So from a durability standpoint you are looking at 2 T4 4+ wounds vs 3 T4 6+ wounds, so that is a slight edge to the Nob against damage 1 weapons with No AP (it takes on average 4 wounds to kill the nob, it takes 3.6 to kill the 3 boyz.) as soon as weapons have multiple damage or AP it swings hugely in the favor of the boyz (AP -1 means it takes 3 wounds to kill both the Nob and the Boyz).
Don't forget the ammo runts. A full squad of nobz with runts is 210 points for 30 wounds, 20 of those with a 4+ save, a mob boyz is just 30 cheaper and provides 31 wounds with a 6+ save. Since you can just throw gretchin at the first ten multi-damage shots coming your way, the swing towards boyz is not huge at all. Thanks to that my nobz could easily walk through the shooting of a vindicator without loosing a single nob to multiple damage wounds.
Offensively Boyz are far superior in shooting they are 3 shots vs 1 shot (with sluggas),
Shootas are free on both, so it's 60 shots on boyz and 20 shots with 10 rerolls, which basically means 30 shots without loosing their choppa. Still not stellar, but better than you make it out to be. This is actually where the original questions of the threat was aimed, if the kustom shoota was less points, nobz could have comparable shooting to boyz. Or if any of their ranged weapons were priced fairly at all.
and in the assault you are looking at 4 S5 attacks vs 9(or 12) S 4 attacks. Using the 9 attacks the boyz are better against every single target point for point. now Nobz can take close combat special weapons, but taking those means you aren't taking even more boyz (a big choppa nob = 4.33 boyz) big choppas against T8 multi wound models big choppa nobz are about equal to an equal number of points worth of boyz (assuming no bonus attacks for the boyz), Power klaw Nobz are better against T8 multi wound models than boyz.
I don't think there is a point to taking pure choppa nobz. The strength of nobz squads is bringing two klaws (or killsaws!) or any number of big choppas/powa stabbas and actually being able to get the entire unit in combat each time. 30 boyz might outperform 10 nobz, but have you tried getting 30 boyz in contact into combat without rolling a lot more on your charge roll than you needed?
Before you start defending your math: No, nobz are not better than boyz. But they are not far behind - as long as you don't buy any upgrades besides the few good ones.
I would love to be able to take Kustom Shootas on significantly over priced Nob Bikers and not know from the start that the game was going to be a loss, it would be highly amusing to have that much dakka on such a fast platform, most would miss but it would be hilarious.
R: Those pts cost values are not directly comparable.
