I think at this point that is a fair enough statement to make. 7th edition codex was terrible, both supplements weren't good. Our new units that came out were terrible (Nauts, Wazbom) the 8th index is crap behind boyz and a handful of units (most of which are basically just boyz) and now we just got our Chapter approved strategy..... 1CP allows a unit to shoot and every hit of 6 generates an extra shot that can't itself generate another shot.

To put that in perspective. 30 shoota boyz teleport in front of a target so all are in range. Normally that's 20 S4 hits. With this strategy that becomes a whopping 23 hits. Who the hell wrote that and thought "Hmm yes this is a good strategy for Orkz" while next door someone wrote a strategy that have troops the ability to fire all their weapons and every 6 let them fire the entire weapon again...at better BS mind you.

Honest opinion please. Do you guys really think that strategy is worth spending CP on and do you think the "price cuts" they have been talking about will fix much?

Of course they don't. Orks arent real, you silly.

 Galas wrote:
Of course they don't. Orks arent real, you silly.

They're real, they just can't write.

I'm of the opinion the the rules writers and fluff writers are actual orks based on quality of writing and overall forethought.

Òrks haven't had a champion in the dev team for going on a decade as past codexes prove,

the good dev's left long ago.

 Galas wrote:
Of course they don't. Orks arent real, you silly.

Dis iz wot ya fink, ya git

I agree with the original post, it seems fairly obvious that no one at GW is particularly passionate about Orks.

Who wrote the seventh edition codex?

I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

I'm still optimistic. At first blush the Stratagem doesn't seem that great, and it is wasted on regular Boyz, but for a few units it's not that bad.

It's good for Tankbustas, especially with Rokkit Pistols. It's also good for Flash Gitz, and maybe good for large mobs of Warbikes and strangely Grots. Of course Flash Gitz, Warbikes and Grots currently aren't worth taking, but that's for other reasons, and price drops could definitely make them more viable. Regular Nobz with Kombi Rokkits and Ammo Runts could also be a good use for it, but again the Kombi weapons cost way too much.

The main reason I'm optimistic is the Codexes I've seen so far there don't seem to be very many Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Chapter Tactics equivalents that don't synergize pretty well. There are exceptions, I'm sure, but for the most part they seem pretty good.

I could easily see us getting a shoot twice stratagem like a lot of other armies, and that could be stacked with the Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. Orks can fill out detachments and get lots of command points pretty easy, so I think it might be kind of cool if our codex encouraged us to stack stratagems in crazy ways (at appropriate cost). The Tyranid codex does this a bit. (I liked the idea that the person in the Ork Tactics thread had about giving the Psycho Dakka Blasta rule out to all Orks, but I think it would be more appropriate as a stratagem. It's a cool somewhat random risk-reward type thing that is more fitting for the Orks than just shooting twice, IMO.)

So maybe all Bad Moons get an Clan ability that lets them Advance and shoot Assault Weapons or move and shoot Heavy weapons without penalty, and their Warlord Trait is +1 to hit to Bad Moons within 6", and you can stack up a shoot twice ability with the Dakka Dakka Dakka stratagem. That could be a crazy good combo. Of course I'm just making this up and there's a good chance none of it will happen.

Yeah, there's a chance that GW could write a really bad codex full of things that are overcosted, don't synergize and don't fit the lore. I'm not too worried about it. I figure there will probably be a few stinkers in the Codex but based on the other ones that have been released it will probably be pretty good.

I am, however, very concerned about how much might be cut considering how we rely on kitbashing for so much.

My favourite use of Ork-style thinking is their use in Forbidden Stars. In it, they aren't totally random, but rather, they make their opponent's stuff more random! In this way, their opponent's become weaker, and stuff being done TO the Orks is more Random, rather than the Orks doing it to themselves.

How could that be translate into 40k?

#1 - Intrinsic "Bad" Rerolls; Your opponent must reroll hit rolls of 6 when making attack rolls to hit Orks. This makes all forces a little less effective. Hilariously, hurts enemy Ork armies the most, but what else do you expect from a Big Ork Brawl?

#2 - Ramshackle; Your opponent must reroll damage rolls of 4 or higher against Ork Trukks; they aren't hard to hurt, but they can lose huge chunks at almost no ill effect!

#3 - The Orks ignore -1AP effects. This isn't super random, but it does mean that the Orks get their T-Shirt saves now and then!

#4 - Big Mek aura bonus; Your opponent must reroll saving throws of 6 against Orks.

That's a good start!

Hmm i can also see lootas making good use of it, in particular if you can join 2 units of lootas together.

It's not like the stratagem isn't good, for 1 CP +1/6 damage (or more in case of rerolls) to a unit isn't bad... it's just that orks don't have good shooting infantry/bikers to begin with. Now if the other stratagem can indeed join together 2 squads, then things become really interesting.

Dey iz mukkin' abaut.

M.

Well, if the faeit rumors are to be believed, dakka dakka is the only bad part of the Ork rules.

Combined Squad stratagem has the potential to be bonkers, and the relic and WL trait synergize excellently together.

If we get those I'll happily just not use dakka dakka. I'll take my S8 AP-2 D3 damage warboss who dishes mortals on a 6+ to wound and my da jump squads of 30x Boyz 9x meganobz.

SemperMortis wrote:


Honest opinion please. Do you guys really think that strategy is worth spending CP on and do you think the "price cuts" they have been talking about will fix much?

Price cuts can fix quite literally everything. Orkanauts in 7th would have been absolutely broken if they cost 50 points each. You would have seen Orks sweeping every tournament.

Now, do I think GW's price cuts for the Ork codex will actually fix stuff? No. I'm sure there will be points cuts handed out, I just don't have any faith in GW knowing the kind of price cuts needed. The Ork index and what we've seen of CA so far for Orks makes me think exactly what you have said: that there is no-one left on the rules team who is really passionate about Orks. It's no co-incidence that Cruddace is the main rules writer, a long established tread-head, and Guard gets themselves probably the best codex release thusfar.

Without someone on the rules team to champion Orks, we're going to be stuck in the same rules pit more or less indefinitely. Points costs will continue to be basically random and we'll just have to try and muddle through each year.

 Glane wrote:

Price cuts can fix quite literally everything. Orkanauts in 7th would have been absolutely broken if they cost 50 points each. You would have seen Orks sweeping every tournament.

Points cuts can only so far. If you reduce points ranges too mus this leads to the lesser troops such as guard, gaunts, orks etc to a narrower point range.

If Z is better than X and X is better than Y. If Z is 5 points and Y is 4 points where do you put X. If you put X at 5 points it cannot compete with Z. If you put X at 4 points Y cannot compete with X. If you put X at 4 points and drop Y to 3 points, W is going to cry foul. If Z was 10 points and Y 8 points at least you could make X 9 points.

When 3rd ed basically halved all points it became much harder to price lower tier troops appropriately. Space Marines are now 13 pts/model they used to be 30.

So until everything, and I mean everything, has a huge points increase we have to be careful about points cuts.

If I was in charge of the orks codex, I'd focus on the ramshackle style of gameplay, and harken back to 2nd edition. Green tide is a fine way to play, but it should absolutely not be the only way to play.

First I'd remove the combat bonus for having large groups of ork boyz, because it makes players think they should only be running orks in hordes. Next, I'd give ork boyz a special rule for riding in transports, that lets them attack while still inside the trukk or wagon. That would make trukks supremely useful, because you could cruise straight up to the enemy and charge right into him. While using this special rule, the orks would be targetable in CC however.

For battlewagons, I'd let them carry dreadnoughts and killa kans. Killa kans could cost 3 slots, and dreadnoughts 5.

In my opinion, clan rules should not be like chapter tactics, where your whole detachment has to be one clan. Ork armies are fluff wise often made up of a mix mash of clans. Instead, I would make the buff more like the old style chaos buffs, where you pick it for each individual unit.
- Goffs would get +1 attack. Or maybe +1 strength.
- Deathskulls would get +1 armor save and 6" extra range on weapons for all their looting.
- Badmoons would get +1 to BS and WS to represent that their gear is better than anyone elses.
- Kommandos would get a kick ass deployment option.
- Snakebites would get a +1 invuln save for their tattoos and being so barbaric.

Those are my ideas. I think orks need to move beyond being just a horde of awful shooting and good melee. That wasn't always what they were.

I always peferred Speed orkz than horde, so anything that makes Trukks more usable will be great.I have enough models to run 6 units of Trukk boyz, but not enough to run slogging, (66). Layered with lots of Lootaz for support, it was my favorite army to run in 7th.

The codex is gonna absolutely NEED a model release, at least for a Mega Armored warboss. No model No entry in the main Codex means foot Boss only. I would also like an alternative to the FW Biker boss personally. Buggies, Koptaz will be Legacy.

yeah I preferred speed freakz over hordes as well. I have a enough warbikes to run 3 squads of 12 and 6 Koptas, as well as 45 Storm Boyz and 3 Trukkz 3 Wagonz.

Sadly, none of them are worth taking right now because of how massively over priced and weak they are.

SemperMortis wrote:
yeah I preferred speed freakz over hordes as well. I have a enough warbikes to run 3 squads of 12 and 6 Koptas, as well as 45 Storm Boyz and 3 Trukkz 3 Wagonz.

Sadly, none of them are worth taking right now because of how massively over priced and weak they are.

The most annoying thing is that you cannot run a mix. If you mix walkers with infantry or mech then all three parts suffer. I really like the greentide but the current meta is simply too extreme. Making pile in and consolidate with two-hundred models is pretty stressful under a time-limit. It does not help when your opponent looks at you as you are purposefully trying to kill him with boredom.

Not as bad as when the Thousand Sons rules were written by someone who not only didn't play them, but played Space Wolves! They got shafted too, what a coincidence....

I suspect Orks are in the same boat.

We putting any bets when it comes to "warband traits" they will do something stupid like "speed freaks : all orks units with this clan rule gets +1 to their close combat attack rolls" or something completely not speed related?

pismakron wrote:
The most annoying thing is that you cannot run a mix. If you mix walkers with infantry or mech then all three parts suffer. I really like the greentide but the current meta is simply too extreme. Making pile in and consolidate with two-hundred models is pretty stressful under a time-limit. It does not help when your opponent looks at you as you are purposefully trying to kill him with boredom.

In my head I always pictured IG infantry advancing behind the shelter of Leman Russ tanks, kind of like how tanks were used in WW1. I always pictured Orks doing the same thing with their Deff Dreads and Killa Kanz. I believe there are examples of this in the fluff, but I can't recall any off of the top of my head.

I was hoping that there would be a stratagem along the lines of choosing an infantry squad that is wholly within 3" of a walker (for Orks) or LRBT (for IG) when they are declared the target of an enemy shooting attack. Until the end of the shooting phase all hits against the squad actually hit the walker/tank on a 3+. That way when the enemy tries to hose down your Tankbustas or Veterans with anti-infantry weapons they actually mostly bounce harmlessly off the vehicles. It could really help the survivability of all the glass cannon Ork elites, and would make a mixed infantry and walker army more viable. (Obviously it would need to be worded better, as what I wrote is kind of a mess.)

The Astra Militarum Codex didn't include anything like that so I'm guessing the Orks won't get it either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
The codex is gonna absolutely NEED a model release, at least for a Mega Armored warboss. No model No entry in the main Codex means foot Boss only. I would also like an alternative to the FW Biker boss personally. Buggies, Koptaz will be Legacy.

They still sell Buggies, Trakks and Deffkoptas, they're just ancient models that are webstore exclusives.

But yeah, it could get really bad for us, especially if they decide to get really strict about kitbashing and only allowing what's in the box. Like, Ammor Runts are one of our very best upgrades. If they got super strict they could say that only regular Nobz can take them and they can only have one for every five Nobz. That would be horrible for Nobz and Flash Gitz (Flash Gitz already being bad).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 argonak wrote:
First I'd remove the combat bonus for having large groups of ork boyz, because it makes players think they should only be running orks in hordes. Next, I'd give ork boyz a special rule for riding in transports, that lets them attack while still inside the trukk or wagon. That would make trukks supremely useful, because you could cruise straight up to the enemy and charge right into him. While using this special rule, the orks would be targetable in CC however.

The Boarding Plank vehicle upgrade used to allow embarked Ork units to attack vehicles near their transport without disembarking, rather than adding inches to how far the Orks can disembark. It would be cool if that would come back.

 argonak wrote:
If I was in charge of the orks codex, I'd focus on the ramshackle style of gameplay, and harken back to 2nd edition. Green tide is a fine way to play, but it should absolutely not be the only way to play.

First I'd remove the combat bonus for having large groups of ork boyz, because it makes players think they should only be running orks in hordes. Next, I'd give ork boyz a special rule for riding in transports, that lets them attack while still inside the trukk or wagon. That would make trukks supremely useful, because you could cruise straight up to the enemy and charge right into him. While using this special rule, the orks would be targetable in CC however.

While I agree it shouldn't be the only way to play I don't like that proposed change. I for one am really enjoying how "good" my mobs of boys are on the table now. reducing the number of attacks would increase the number of models I would want on the field. That said my last list had one mob of 10 shoota boys and 1 mob of 30 boys and the rest of the army was dreads and Artillery and other shooty stuff and trukks. Things were challenging but over all went well enough.
I think when it comes to lists a lot of people are afraid to take a risk when picking units that don't appear "optimal".

depending on how this chapter approved shakes out I'm looking at taking more trukk boys and more flash gitz. And if the rumored mob up turns out to be true losing the green tide ability would hurt a list build around smaller units. I want to keep every tool I've been given to use.

 warhead01 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
If I was in charge of the orks codex, I'd focus on the ramshackle style of gameplay, and harken back to 2nd edition. Green tide is a fine way to play, but it should absolutely not be the only way to play.

First I'd remove the combat bonus for having large groups of ork boyz, because it makes players think they should only be running orks in hordes. Next, I'd give ork boyz a special rule for riding in transports, that lets them attack while still inside the trukk or wagon. That would make trukks supremely useful, because you could cruise straight up to the enemy and charge right into him. While using this special rule, the orks would be targetable in CC however.

While I agree it shouldn't be the only way to play I don't like that proposed change. I for one am really enjoying how "good" my mobs of boys are on the table now. reducing the number of attacks would increase the number of models I would want on the field. That said my last list had one mob of 10 shoota boys and 1 mob of 30 boys and the rest of the army was dreads and Artillery and other shooty stuff and trukks. Things were challenging but over all went well enough.
I think when it comes to lists a lot of people are afraid to take a risk when picking units that don't appear "optimal".

depending on how this chapter approved shakes out I'm looking at taking more trukk boys and more flash gitz. And if the rumored mob up turns out to be true losing the green tide ability would hurt a list build around smaller units. I want to keep every tool I've been given to use.

I think part of the +1 Attack at 20+ models ability is to offset the fact that it is hard to get all of a huge mob of Boyz into combat. In my anecdotal experience more often than not I have about half my big mob actually fighting, but I might just be bad at positioning. I can see an argument being made that the problem of not getting to attack with all the Boyz is actually a good thing and helps out elite close combat units. Things like Terminators would be harder to bring down through weight of dice, while right now Terminators are easy for my Boyz to kill in close combat and their Storm Bolters scare me more than their power fists. I can also see the argument that Mob Rule is advantage enough to take big mobz.

I do think it could be a good thing to have different Troop choices of Boyz that got different benefits, including ones that weren't dependent on unit size. The ones that aren't dependent on unit size would probably need to be not as good of a bonus as +1 Attack to offset the advantage of still working while the mob size is smaller. Maybe we get Trukk Boyz who's special rule is that they re-roll ones when determining who dies when their vehicle explodes and/or they can add distance to their disembarkation range. Maybe Shoota Boyz get to add +6" to the range if they don't Advance, or maybe instead of +6" they get to re-roll ones. Maybe they even keep the mob-size and get something better like +1 to hit when they have 20+ models.

I thought they didn't have a Tyranid rules writer either, that book is both decent and an utter change to the last few - appears they do no how to have a xenos army thats something other than "target"

I like the buffs for large units, goes nicely with the mob rule stuff and provides an incentive for the enemy to split fire against multiple units not just wipe one out before moving on.

Also feels nice without making smaller units also more dangerous.

Expecting something for each of the main clans to allow you to theme a list round a single clan and if the Tyranid book is anything to go by expecting a unit to start actually doing what the fluff says it does as opposed to being unable to do it at all

BA feel your pain about not having a rules writer with interest in the faction for the last half decade. It makes the lack of quality really shine through. Here's hoping both our armies get some people who really want to see the army represented on the table and not just phoned in books again.

leopard wrote:
I like the buffs for large units, goes nicely with the mob rule stuff and provides an incentive for the enemy to split fire against multiple units not just wipe one out before moving on.

And if the stratagem rumors are right about being able to combine squads this will help us foil attempts to reduce each unit down to where Mob Rule and Green Tide no longer benefit us.

I've been running a big unit of Boyz with one or two small units of Boyz nearby. The small units help me fill out Brigades cheaply, and they are useful for screening buffing characters and intercepting speed bumps without slowing the big mob down (plus the extra free Nobz are a nice bonus). The big mob is more free to run as fast as possible towards the desired target and is usually still within range to make the small units immune to morale. I haven't played a ton of games yet, but it has seemed to work pretty well so far.

Azuza001 wrote:We putting any bets when it comes to "warband traits" they will do something stupid like "speed freaks : all orks units with this clan rule gets +1 to their close combat attack rolls" or something completely not speed related?

Hey, it makes perfect sense if you think about a different kind of speed.

M.

Sweet!!! Leaked images of chapter approved show Orkz getting massive price cuts across the board!!!! We are finally competitive!!!!!

Just kidding, GW screwed us again.

I think it will all come down to Klan rulez and strategems.

A +1 to hit with ranged attack for a klan ability would be on top of my wishlist

 adamsouza wrote:
I think it will all come down to Klan rulez and strategems.

A +1 to hit with ranged attack for a klan ability would be on top of my wishlist

And I am willing to bet it comes with massive negatives attached.

It would be interesting if they made the Evil Sunz clan ability only effect vehicles and bikes and the Snakebites ability only effect infantry.

I'm not saying that's definitely what they should do, as I'd like to see Evil Sunz trukk boyz being viable. It would also be cool if GW would be nice to Forge World and future-proof their own book by making the Snakebites clan ability also apply to Monsters and Beasts. This isn't to say that Snakebites have no vehicles, but maybe they could have some sort of special rule where they only advance d3" but get +2 wounds to represent their more basic technology? That would probably take too many words and GW seems to be trying to be brief with their Chapter Tactics equivalents.

If they gave Evil Sunz a bonus to advance and the ability to fall back and still shoot/charge that would be really powerful and work well with a bunch of units, but in some ways I hope they don't do it because it seems like we might see a bunch of Evil Sunz dread mobs haha.

I really feel like this most of the time. I don't understand how one faction can be so poor in comparison to another? It just doesn't make any logical sense! You would think the rule writers would want to make thier faction OP and try to sneak in everything they can! Hell it would mean increased sales as every faction seems powerful in their own way! The fact orks and several other factions have gone on over 5+ years like this is baffling! Any other design team woukf be fired or moved restricted to what they do best while a new team would be brought in. If I was in charge I would have a team of like 3-5 people per codex (they can mix between codecies) and based on passionate players who know the lore and the game (obviously with qualifications as well). Then I would have a tester team who would cut out the terrible OP ideas and send them back to be cut down. Honestly, they've had plenty of years to do this by now... you could create a solid game that would have both the meta for rich kids to follow and the balance for friendly fun games. Everyone buys models, everyone happy.

However, if we truely felt like gw was screwing orks over then we should vote with our wallets and just not buy orks... My in depth study of the 40k community (from talking to players throughout the world and in person) shows that the only reason gw does this lazy half arsed job is because it's a cheap way to manufacture money from people who believe they're supporting their local gw (when really it doesn't matter how much you spend the design team don't get paid enough to care and the shop workers get barely enough to live... all while the guys at the top get richer). I've even interviewed people from within GW. They told me the conditions in the manufacturing processes is poor and half the team has this cult mentality like they're working in a church (no joke, that's what i was told). If anything we should petition for better pay for these workers and a push away from this cult mentality then we might get better rules. XD

 lolman1c wrote:
I really feel like this most of the time. I don't understand how one faction can be so poor in comparison to another? It just doesn't make any logical sense! You would think the rule writers would want to make thier faction OP and try to sneak in everything they can! Hell it would mean increased sales as every faction seems powerful in their own way!

However, if we truely felt like gw was screwing orks over then we should vote with our wallets and just not buy orks... simple.

GW being GW this would likely have the opposite effect. "Nobody is buying Orks? Don't waste resources supporting them". GW does the opposite to what you think would happen if you don't buy something; they'll focus on what is selling rather than figure out why things don't sell.

I'd like to see an obvious expansion to the range, "savage boyz" and bring some of the old warhammer models in.

Thinking boar riders etc, needs a single new sprue of arms with weapons and a few other bits ala the Tzangors and basically thats the range expanded by a fair bit for no real work

If gw basically gave AOS orcs all 40k ork rules (just make them 5pts orks with no shootas) I would actually waste my money on an entire savage ork army!

I still think it's worth withholding judgement until the codex drops. No need to jump the gun.

I went from very optimistic about the Ork codex to cautiously optimistic after Chapter Approved. I think that all the points changes they made were steps in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a few went too far. I think they really need to change more units than they did, but maybe they were limited for space (but in that case I don't understand their priorities).

So I remain cautiously optimistic until the codex releases. I imagine the codex will have some stinkers, but if they do mostly a good job I'll be cautiously optimistic about them fixing those with FAQs and Chapter Approved 2018. If the Ork codex is pretty garbage* then I'll be pretty pessimistic about them fixing it any time soon, but I'll wait until Chapter Approved 2018 to give them another chance. If it is still messed up I'll write them to let them know I'm going to shifting a lot of my money to 3rd party models and scratch-building, because if I'm only going to be playing super fun casual games anyway I don't really need to worry about proxying and counts-as.

*By garbage I mean really bad, not just mid-tier. Some people seem to think if it's not top-tier it is trash. If all of the codexes are relatively close in power then it's not such a bad deal to even be bottom-tier. To be fair, though, I'm not very competitive and I'd rather have a codex that was super thematic and fun and mid-tier (or even bottom tier) than a top-tier codex that was bland and breaks with the lore.

^ "gw messed up again. I geuss I'll giver them 500 more chances". If we keep using this mentality we'll be waiting forever! It's been god knows how long since the last time orks were worth their weight and we act like this is the first time gw have ignored orks.

 lolman1c wrote:
^ "gw messed up again. I geuss I'll giver them 500 more chances". If we keep using this mentality we'll be waiting forever! It's been god knows how long since the last time orks were worth their weight and we act like this is the first time gw have ignored orks.

I think it's reasonable to give them more of a chance, since they seem to have turned around in so many ways. I think that the problems with Chapter Approved are pretty minor, and while the Index definitely had it's problems it gave us 1.5 good builds and I think we can only expect so much out of the Index. The Index is good for what it is, something to get us by for a short period of time.

So I don't think I'm giving them a ton of chances. I gave them a chance on the Index, and while not amazing it's good for what it is. Chapter Approved was a slight disappointment, but I think a lot of us were expecting too much out of it. Really, the thing that matters is the Codex. Since it is a relatively short time in between the Index and the Codex getting worked up about anything before the the Codex is released doesn't seem very reasonable to me. That's their big chance, and most of what I think we should be judging them on.
If they do a really good job, great.
If they do a mediocre job they can probably fix it with FAQs and Chapter Approved 2018.
If they do a terrible job there's probably no fixing it. That's when we should be up in arms.

leopard wrote:
I'd like to see an obvious expansion to the range, "savage boyz" and bring some of the old warhammer models in.

Thinking boar riders etc, needs a single new sprue of arms with weapons and a few other bits ala the Tzangors and basically thats the range expanded by a fair bit for no real work

Snakebite Boar Boyz used to be a thing.

Unfortunately the Boar Boy sprues are mixed pretty well, with boars, bits of riders and weapons strewn across the sprues. Not even Savage Orc Boar Boyz and regular Orc Boar Boyz share sprues.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:


I think that all the points changes they made were steps in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a few went too far.

I would really like you to explain this one to me. What went "Too far" in your opinion?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:


I think that all the points changes they made were steps in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a few went too far.

I would really like you to explain this one to me. What went "Too far" in your opinion?

I think that the points hike on the Kill Tank probably went a little too far and the points drop on the Warcopta probably went a little too far. I think they're both closer to where they should be than they were in the FW Index though.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:


I think that all the points changes they made were steps in the right direction. Many didn't go far enough, while a few went too far.

I would really like you to explain this one to me. What went "Too far" in your opinion?

I think that the points hike on the Kill Tank probably went a little too far and the points drop on the Warcopta probably went a little too far. I think they're both closer to where they should be than they were in the FW Index though.

Ok, I just wanted you to clarify. I can agree with the kill Tank, the Warcopta is most likely going to be acceptable because realistically its only marginally better then a Trukk which in my opinion is over priced.

I'm not sure why people would take Deffkoptas instead of Warkoptas after the points drop, but on the other hand Deffkoptas aren't really worth taking anyway.

I use them in fun games because I like them, but even in Power Level terms I don't understand why Deffkoptas are so expensive.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

leopard wrote:
I'd like to see an obvious expansion to the range, "savage boyz" and bring some of the old warhammer models in.

Thinking boar riders etc, needs a single new sprue of arms with weapons and a few other bits ala the Tzangors and basically thats the range expanded by a fair bit for no real work

Snakebite Boar Boyz used to be a thing.

Unfortunately the Boar Boy sprues are mixed pretty well, with boars, bits of riders and weapons strewn across the sprues. Not even Savage Orc Boar Boyz and regular Orc Boar Boyz share sprues.

Pretty much nothing GW does really share sprues. Eldar jetbikes and farseer on jetbike? Completely different sprues.

I think it's partially due to 3d design process. Easier to develop new sprues so if total sprue count would still be about same might just as well go for unique sprues and ensure each sprue is as brimming with parts as possible.

The regular AoS Orcs are pretty interchangeable with 40k Orks. The Savage Orcs/Bonesplittaz definitely look more feral though.

I'm going to give GW a little bit longer to do something with regular AoS Greenskinz. I don't think they will, because I think they want to make units that are more unique to the AoS setting. Eventually if nothing happens I'm going to convert all of my old WHFB Orcs & Goblins to 40k.

Yeah fantasy AOS orcs are ver very similar to 40 ork boyz, I've made 60 boyz out of fantasy orcs since I bought them on ebay for dirt cheap.

Legs, torsos, arms and heads all match perfectly and the fantasy orcs already have choppas and several decent heads, they basically just need the slugga. Or a shoota.

Seems to me Ork vehicle costs are balanced around the KFF. It feels you pay a KFF tax for everything basically. I would prefer the vehicles were much cheaper but the KFF significantly more expensive. Say in the 50-100pt ballpark.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the fact that a Big Trakk with Supa Skorcha costs 163 points and a Hellhound is 101 points. Something is off.

 Weazel wrote:
Seems to me Ork vehicle costs are balanced around the KFF. It feels you pay a KFF tax for everything basically. I would prefer the vehicles were much cheaper but the KFF significantly more expensive. Say in the 50-100pt ballpark.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the fact that a Big Trakk with Supa Skorcha costs 163 points and a Hellhound is 101 points. Something is off.

Cruddace costing at work. This is a notable trend, where he overcosts base units on the assumption they will have said supportpieces. See: 8th ed Empire where basic Empire Swordsmen got more expensive as other similar units got cheaper, since you now could "totally" buff a parent and child detachments or take an (admittedly kitbashable) Hurricanum. The end result was Halberds became the choice unit instead of Swords.

Playing "edition roulette" with "does my army work?" is a good way to sour a playerbase.

I was waiting for the chapter approved changes before I dropped £600 on a new ork army, having seen the laughable job gw has, I will be spending none of it and waiting for the codex, but I'm not holding out hope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was waiting for the chapter approved changes before I dropped £600 on a new ork army, having seen the laughable job gw has, I will be spending none of it and waiting for the codex, but I'm not holding out hope.

There are many rules writers at Games Workshop who have a similar style, and are passionate about the same armies and factions. This crossover has left the studio lacking in diversity of concepts and army interest.

 Weazel wrote:
Seems to me Ork vehicle costs are balanced around the KFF. It feels you pay a KFF tax for everything basically. I would prefer the vehicles were much cheaper but the KFF significantly more expensive. Say in the 50-100pt ballpark.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the fact that a Big Trakk with Supa Skorcha costs 163 points and a Hellhound is 101 points. Something is off.

This is one of the issue I have with Buffs in the game, it makes balancing things extremely difficult. Either things are appropriately costed on their own, or they are appropriately costed when buffed. This works a bit better with things like targeted buffs (psychic powers) because you can reasonably bake the cost of the buff into the buffing unit. With Aura buffs it is much more difficult because the effect buffing multiple units.

The KFF has exactly the same mechanic that it had in previous edtions, I wouldn't call it a "buff".

FNP, ghaz aura, waaagh banner, etc... these are 8th edition's buffs, the KFF is always the same thing.

X helps unit y? It's a buff. Buffs aren"t new 8th ed invention.

Honestly, we need to spam the 40k facebook page with ork memes until they recognise orks and tell us who is writing our codex!
#GreenIsBest #Orksoverbeakies

 lolman1c wrote:
Honestly, we need to spam the 40k facebook page with ork memes until they recognise orks and tell us who is writing our codex!
#GreenIsBest #Orksoverbeakies

You'll trigger them and just end up blocked.

tneva82 wrote:
X helps unit y? It's a buff. Buffs aren"t new 8th ed invention.

Some buffs modify the units profiles. It's completely different than giving cover/invuln to units under the bubble. Basically buffs replaced the bonuses that characters gave to the units they joined, now they cannot join a unit but they give the buffs to units nearby. That's the difference with the previous editions.

SemperMortis wrote:
Sweet!!! Leaked images of chapter approved show Orkz getting massive price cuts across the board!!!! We are finally competitive!!!!!

Just kidding, GW screwed us again.

Well, apart from the kill tank, your first sentence is correct, many things did receive substantial points cuts. And in some fairness, kill tanks were pretty undercosted, though 150 extra was a bit hefty.

For the stratagem, I'm not going to say that it's good, but I will say that for reference, it is objectively better than the similar space marine stratagem. The space marine one is only for imperial fists, only infantry, and only bolters.

The ork one has some utility in things like lootas and flash gitz. I'm not saying it's good, but it is better than what space marines get, which is surprising. I used it a couple times on Saturday, and it helped flash gitz kill a helbrute. For 1 CP, and given our lack of stratagems, it's ok for now, I guess.

But yeah, I will agree that, generally speaking, GW is incredibly bad at writing ork rules.

I think sometimes people look at the number of wounds Ork vehicles have and overestimate how durable they are. I mean, a Battle Wagon isn't that much tougher than a Rhino, depending on whether it had a 'Ard Case and what is shooting at it.

Ugh, not only is a battlewagon no tougher than a rhino, but it's got a worse save to boot.

I feel like it should be T8 base, and its 'ard case ups its save from 4+ to 3+. Or as it is now, but has a 3+ save base.

That's another thing, it feels like basic troop transports are too expensive and too durable.

For example, a rhino is harder to kill than a dreadnought. Same toughness, same save, 2 more wounds. Why? That makes no sense.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Ugh, not only is a battlewagon no tougher than a rhino, but it's got a worse save to boot.

I feel like it should be T8 base, and its 'ard case ups its save from 4+ to 3+. Or as it is now, but has a 3+ save base.

That's another thing, it feels like basic troop transports are too expensive and too durable.

For example, a rhino is harder to kill than a dreadnought. Same toughness, same save, 2 more wounds. Why? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure about gameplay wise, but I've got to admit thematically I like the extra wounds and 4+ armor save of the Battlewagon. Seems fitting. I think the 'Ard Case is a fair tradeoff as it is, but I could definitely see giving it some further benefit like 3+ armor save or maybe extra wounds for a price.

The Big Mek with KFF does work pretty well with the Battlewagon, but of course that's adding a decent number of points and taking up transport space.

One thing I'd really like to see is them putting Ramshackle on most every Ork vehicle. That would probably add a lascannon hit or two worth of durability to a Battlewagon, and while might never help out a buggy or kopta theoretically we'd be taking gobs of them anyway and it would still be a good rule. Plus, I think it's really thematic.

I think there are several things they could do to make the Battlewagon better. I kind of like the idea of doing the following:
Drop the base points (it's overcosted anyway) that way it's worth taking it as a taxi for big mobs on Boyz.
Make the 'Ard Case a substantial upgrade to durability at an appropriate points cost. Right now I'm kind of scared to put big, expensive units in it like MANz because it isn't that hard to blow it up and leave them sitting in my backfield.
Give it a version of Grinding Advance that works with all of it's Heavy weapon options. This makes Kannons and Killkannons worth taking at BS 5+, and helps turn the wagon into a mobile bunker.


I also think that Trukks need to be made less durable, and get a substantial points drop. I'll take a drop to 6 wounds even if it means a single lucky Lascannon might destroy the trukk, if the points drop makes it worth putting Boyz in the trukk and not caring when it blows up and leaves them in my deployment zone.

I understand why they wanted to make vehicles more durable in this new edition. It makes sense that people were upset that all of their expensive vehicles were so easy to destroy up. The thing with Orks is that we're supposed to have loads of cheap vehicles, and when one gets blown up we don't care because they have plenty more.

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
X helps unit y? It's a buff. Buffs aren"t new 8th ed invention.

Some buffs modify the units profiles. It's completely different than giving cover/invuln to units under the bubble. Basically buffs replaced the bonuses that characters gave to the units they joined, now they cannot join a unit but they give the buffs to units nearby. That's the difference with the previous editions.

It's still a buff! Buff's have existed since rogue trader in the game. Before there were buffs that affected all close enough and buffs that affected only unit buffer had joined. 8th ed invented nothing new there. If anything it removed stuff.

KFF was hard to balance before as buffs you can apply to arbitary unit, it still is. Nothing changed there.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Sweet!!! Leaked images of chapter approved show Orkz getting massive price cuts across the board!!!! We are finally competitive!!!!!

Just kidding, GW screwed us again.

Well, apart from the kill tank, your first sentence is correct, many things did receive substantial points cuts. And in some fairness, kill tanks were pretty undercosted, though 150 extra was a bit hefty.

Many things = pks, killsaws, buggies and KMKs. Stop.

Big choppas got a price reduction but 7 or 9 points doesn't change anything, and the morkanaut is still overcosted. The pk points drop means that warbosses and nobz leading boyz units let you save some points and the painboy become more reliable. But meganobz are still quite expensive considering that they must take a ride. 80% of the codex currently needs a points reduction so CA just helped us a little bit. In fact with that release you basically save from your ork list an average of 20-40 points without modifying your style because of CA. Don't care about the kill tank, it's FW, and I agree about the fact that it wasy pretty undercosted.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Ugh, not only is a battlewagon no tougher than a rhino, but it's got a worse save to boot.

I feel like it should be T8 base, and its 'ard case ups its save from 4+ to 3+. Or as it is now, but has a 3+ save base.

That's another thing, it feels like basic troop transports are too expensive and too durable.

For example, a rhino is harder to kill than a dreadnought. Same toughness, same save, 2 more wounds. Why? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure about gameplay wise, but I've got to admit thematically I like the extra wounds and 4+ armor save of the Battlewagon. Seems fitting. I think the 'Ard Case is a fair tradeoff as it is, but I could definitely see giving it some further benefit like 3+ armor save or maybe extra wounds for a price.

The Big Mek with KFF does work pretty well with the Battlewagon, but of course that's adding a decent number of points and taking up transport space.

One thing I'd really like to see is them putting Ramshackle on most every Ork vehicle. That would probably add a lascannon hit or two worth of durability to a Battlewagon, and while might never help out a buggy or kopta theoretically we'd be taking gobs of them anyway and it would still be a good rule. Plus, I think it's really thematic.

I think there are several things they could do to make the Battlewagon better. I kind of like the idea of doing the following:
Drop the base points (it's overcosted anyway) that way it's worth taking it as a taxi for big mobs on Boyz.
Make the 'Ard Case a substantial upgrade to durability at an appropriate points cost. Right now I'm kind of scared to put big, expensive units in it like MANz because it isn't that hard to blow it up and leave them sitting in my backfield.

As you can probably guess from my avatar, I play battlewagons a lot, even in 8th. They are plenty durable, it takes a ton of shooting to take down even one battlewagon protected by a KFF, 'ard case roughly adds 50% to its durability due to bolters, flamers, autocannons and missiles doing a lot less damage, which seem to be the most common weapon profiles.

The big issue is that battlewagons simply are too expensive, considering that any units you would want to transport are very expensive. In previous editions, you would field three BW at 1500 and four at 2000. If I could simply field those lists I used to play, I'm confident they would work just fine. All those lists are 200-400 points more expensive than before though, so I cannot.
For example a burna wagon is 390 points, a wagon with 10 nobz with runts is also 390 (before adding cc weapons), tank bustaz are 435 (485 with squigs), boyz are 312. You could remove the deff rolla for 19 points less but rarely makes a big difference.
Battlewagon boyz are very lackluster. You usually don't get +1 attack from having 20 models because you either needed one slot for a character or because you took one or more casualties from overwatch/explosion. I'd actually field burnaz instead of boyz despite their ridiculous price tag, but cannot afford to do so because I would be left with too few models on the table.
In addition, both trukk boyz and koptaz, who used to be my support elements both got immense price hikes without actually getting better at their role, so there's that.

Basically dropping points on battlewagons to 5th edition level (when they had 4++ KFF, AV12 and would simply ignore all damage results below 4) would solve most problems of BW armies. We're simply missing the points to field a fourth wagon and/or bring some elite passengers.

Give it a version of Grinding Advance that works with all of it's Heavy weapon options. This makes Kannons and Killkannons worth taking at BS 5+, and helps turn the wagon into a mobile bunker.

You meant "that works with all weapons". There has never been a single rokkit bit for the battle wagon, so that option is probably going away. A codex dakka wagon should be sporting kannon, killkannon and four big shootas. Did you know the quad gun from the ADL fits onto battlewagons?
Stickkbomb chuckas should also make a return as low range low damage weapon.

I also think that Trukks need to be made less durable, and get a substantial points drop. I'll take a drop to 6 wounds even if it means a single lucky Lascannon might destroy the trukk, if the points drop makes it worth putting Boyz in the trukk and not caring when it blows up and leaves them in my deployment zone.

Agree, currently a trukk is simply half a battlewagon. The more efficient one will always outperform the other, currently I see little reason to put something in an open topped battle wagon instead of in a trukk.

I understand why they wanted to make vehicles more durable in this new edition. It makes sense that people were upset that all of their expensive vehicles were so easy to destroy up. The thing with Orks is that we're supposed to have loads of cheap vehicles, and when one gets blown up we don't care because they have plenty more.

The thing is, unlike a predator on the other side of the battlefield, a battlewagon is not that hard to kill. Weapons with AP -1 or -2 work pretty well to take a lot of wounds from them, and all of them will be in range since you're coming close instead of hiding in a corner. Plasma is also pretty dangerous, but luckily I've already reached my goal when someone with 12 pt guns is shooting at me from 12" away

 Blackie wrote:
The KFF has exactly the same mechanic that it had in previous edtions, I wouldn't call it a "buff".

FNP, ghaz aura, waaagh banner, etc... these are 8th edition's buffs, the KFF is always the same thing.

It does not have the exact same mechanic that it had in previous editions (close but not exact), and it has always been a buff and therefore always something that made balance more difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
X helps unit y? It's a buff. Buffs aren"t new 8th ed invention.

Some buffs modify the units profiles. It's completely different than giving cover/invuln to units under the bubble. Basically buffs replaced the bonuses that characters gave to the units they joined, now they cannot join a unit but they give the buffs to units nearby. That's the difference with the previous editions.

There is no inherent difference between modifying a unit profile and giving it a different or better save. Buffs given to a single unit are still tricky to balance for, but are much easier to do so than for one that applies to multiple units.

Darsath wrote:
There are many rules writers at Games Workshop who have a similar style, and are passionate about the same armies and factions. This crossover has left the studio lacking in diversity of concepts and army interest.

This is pretty much the problem. Most of the current crop of GW designers seem to just be Marine/Imperium fanboys so find it hard to write for anything else because they are buying into the narrative of "mankind's struggle against foes in the 41st millenium". Back in the day they had people who played Orks a lot, who played Chaos a lot, who played Eldar a lot, and it showed in the fact they would be passionate about their forces to make them thematic and good. But now, when all of them play various flavors of Marine or Guard, you end up with not much love being thrown to the other factions.

Wayniac wrote:

Darsath wrote:
There are many rules writers at Games Workshop who have a similar style, and are passionate about the same armies and factions. This crossover has left the studio lacking in diversity of concepts and army interest.

This is pretty much the problem. Most of the current crop of GW designers seem to just be Marine/Imperium fanboys so find it hard to write for anything else because they are buying into the narrative of "mankind's struggle against foes in the 41st millenium". Back in the day they had people who played Orks a lot, who played Chaos a lot, who played Eldar a lot, and it showed in the fact they would be passionate about their forces to make them thematic and good. But now, when all of them play various flavors of Marine or Guard, you end up with not much love being thrown to the other factions.

For fanboys they seemed to do the Marines a poor job.

M.

 Infantryman wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Darsath wrote:
There are many rules writers at Games Workshop who have a similar style, and are passionate about the same armies and factions. This crossover has left the studio lacking in diversity of concepts and army interest.

This is pretty much the problem. Most of the current crop of GW designers seem to just be Marine/Imperium fanboys so find it hard to write for anything else because they are buying into the narrative of "mankind's struggle against foes in the 41st millenium". Back in the day they had people who played Orks a lot, who played Chaos a lot, who played Eldar a lot, and it showed in the fact they would be passionate about their forces to make them thematic and good. But now, when all of them play various flavors of Marine or Guard, you end up with not much love being thrown to the other factions.

For fanboys they seemed to do the Marines a poor job.

M.

Contrary to what some people may see on here, Marines aren't actually that bad. They're just mono-build, and the codex has very poor internal balance. But that's common of most 8th edition codexes, not specific to marines.

Btw - post from the Facebook page. "the same team is working on all the codexes so you can be assured that it is getting the same care and attention that all our books receive." In ref to the ork codex.

Let's hope at least one person on that team has actually played orks or at least has read their fluff.

The last we need is more of this "orks can't shot" idiocy.

I'm onboard with low BS, high dice.

Gimme that Assault 4 Shoota...

M.

 Jidmah wrote:
As you can probably guess from my avatar, I play battlewagons a lot, even in 8th. They are plenty durable, it takes a ton of shooting to take down even one battlewagon protected by a KFF, 'ard case roughly adds 50% to its durability due to bolters, flamers, autocannons and missiles doing a lot less damage, which seem to be the most common weapon profiles.

The big issue is that battlewagons simply are too expensive, considering that any units you would want to transport are very expensive. In previous editions, you would field three BW at 1500 and four at 2000. If I could simply field those lists I used to play, I'm confident they would work just fine. All those lists are 200-400 points more expensive than before though, so I cannot.

I think I pretty much agree with you. The Battlewagon is fairly durable, just not for the price. If I did the math right it takes 1-2 more Lascannon hits to take down a Battlewagon than a Rhino. Granted, if it's Missile Launchers then the Battlewagon can be made more durable with the 'Ard Case sidegrade, and Battlewagons gain a lot of benefit from a Big Mek with KFF, but one of those costs more than a Rhino by itself.

A Battlewagon is certainly a lot better than a Rhino and shout cost more, I just don't think it should cost more than twice as much.

 Jidmah wrote:

Give it a version of Grinding Advance that works with all of it's Heavy weapon options. This makes Kannons and Killkannons worth taking at BS 5+, and helps turn the wagon into a mobile bunker.

You meant "that works with all weapons". There has never been a single rokkit bit for the battle wagon, so that option is probably going away. A codex dakka wagon should be sporting kannon, killkannon and four big shootas. Did you know the quad gun from the ADL fits onto battlewagons?
Stickkbomb chuckas should also make a return as low range low damage weapon.

Shooting everything twice would definitely be better, and I don't think it would be overpowered on a BS 5+ model. If they did make that the rule I hope they don't get rid of Rokkits on the Battlewagon.

I had the idea of shooting Heavy Weapons twice because I was planning to write to GW and suggest that they include the Grinding Advance-type rule as part of the wording for Mobile Fortress, as then it easy to FAQ it to apply to all the Forge World units that have it. I was thinking it would make Battlewagons with Supa Kannons and Lifta-Droppas a lot better, as well as the Heavy Weapon options on the Big Trakk without allowing the Supa Skorcha to be fired twice which seems a little overkill. However, when I looked up the Big Trakk in the Index I discovered that the Supa Skorcha was actually a heavy weapon, and Kill Tanks also have Mobile Fortress, so just letting everything with Mobile Fortress shoot their heavy weapons twice probably isn't a good idea. Your suggestion of all weapons and just limiting it to Battlewagons for now is probably a better way of doing it.

I wonder if something they might do is give one price for Rokkits on Killa Kans and Tankbustas, and a different price for everything else. Similarly maybe they'll give Spanner Boyz really cheap versions of Killsawz and Kustom Mega weapons, to acknowledge that the Killsaw isn't worth it on a regular Boy and that they're giving up expensive weapons to start with.

Does anyone else also feel our strats in CA feel like cheap knock off bootlegs of other more powerful chapters strats... being able to combined squads but only if one is less than 10 and the other is more than 10 is very situational and laim (would have much rather had any number can combine with any number like the ig one) and the 6s only giving you 1 extra shot... come on! Shooting armies get to re fire their entire weapon! We needed a buff and got less than they got! How are ork players even still playing this game? It baffles me!

Orks really should get a 1CP you get to shoot twice Strategem. Tyranids get it for 2CP and they are more effective at range. It would be entirely fluffy for Orks to just empty their clips while shooting at something.

 Blackie wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Sweet!!! Leaked images of chapter approved show Orkz getting massive price cuts across the board!!!! We are finally competitive!!!!!

Just kidding, GW screwed us again.

Well, apart from the kill tank, your first sentence is correct, many things did receive substantial points cuts. And in some fairness, kill tanks were pretty undercosted, though 150 extra was a bit hefty.

Many things = pks, killsaws, buggies and KMKs. Stop.

Big choppas got a price reduction but 7 or 9 points doesn't change anything, and the morkanaut is still overcosted. The pk points drop means that warbosses and nobz leading boyz units let you save some points and the painboy become more reliable. But meganobz are still quite expensive considering that they must take a ride. 80% of the codex currently needs a points reduction so CA just helped us a little bit. In fact with that release you basically save from your ork list an average of 20-40 points without modifying your style because of CA. Don't care about the kill tank, it's FW, and I agree about the fact that it wasy pretty undercosted.

nailed it. PKs aren't even worth taking in my opinion. The -1 to hit and the huge reduction in damage vs vehicles they suffered pretty much rendered them null and void to me. Killsaws i will have to start looking at, KMKs as well. Buggies (all 3 versions) are still crap. They are marginally better then a regular Warbike, and with the price reduction, cost slightly more. Ive said it before and I will say it again, Buggies will be getting a new model with the codex release (or around that time) but they are still terrible....which is itself a travesty because if the new model is good I would love to buy 3-9 of them for a huge speed freak army (I already have 30+ Warbikes).

Our 2 Strats are utter garbage, and the Marines one with reroll 1s is significantly better because......they hit on 3s. So those handful of sixes have a 2/3rds chance to become new hits where as our handful of 6s have a 1/3rd chance. Finally, +1 strength for our Warlord? Does anybody on the design team play Orkz? or understand game mechanics?

100% agree! We needed toughness not strength!

 adamsouza wrote:
Orks really should get a 1CP you get to shoot twice Strategem. Tyranids get it for 2CP and they are more effective at range. It would be entirely fluffy for Orks to just empty their clips while shooting at something.

Tbh, there's a huge balance problem in the game right now with Stratagems. Some increase your damage by 100% for 1CP with no condition (Daemon Forge), some by 100% with conditions (Fire Frenzy) and some by 16%... (Dakka dakka dakka).

IMO, firing twice (+100% damage) should cost 3CP without condition (Endless Cacophony, Tyranids, etc...) and 2CP with conditions (staying immobile, closest ennemy, no shooting next turn, etc...). 1CP should be the territory of 16.67%-33.33% stratagems at most.

Does anyone else also feel our strats in CA feel like cheap knock off bootlegs of other more powerful chapters strats... being able to combined squads but only if one is less than 10 and the other is more than 10 is very situational and laim

Is that an Ork stratagem now? That is very cool, harking back to the mob up rule of 3rd edition. I can see it being very useful as our squads are not vulnerable to morale until their numbers dwindle, and then you just mob them up!

Both stratagems are not completely useless, but I find that I'd rather spend my CP on rolling single charge dice or using counter-attack. The also compare in no way to any of the good stratagems other armies get.

I guess it can't hurt to drop a CP on DakkaDakkaDakka for a unit of tank bustaz or lootaz during first turn - anything you kill that turn will not be shooting back for the entire game.

 lolman1c wrote:
Does anyone else also feel our strats in CA feel like cheap knock off bootlegs of other more powerful chapters strats... being able to combined squads but only if one is less than 10 and the other is more than 10 is very situational and laim (would have much rather had any number can combine with any number like the ig one) and the 6s only giving you 1 extra shot... come on! Shooting armies get to re fire their entire weapon! We needed a buff and got less than they got! How are ork players even still playing this game? It baffles me!

Important note it is 10 or less, and 10 or more. So it is not super situational in that you can plan to do it Take a squad of 10 boyz to fill out a troop slot, turn 1 merge them with a squad of 30 boyz, then Da-jump the unit of 40 into the enemy. Or disembark a unit from a transport and join it with another to get up to having bonus attacks. Also allows for 2 Nobz in a squad, or multiple special weapons. The IG strategy is flat out worse than what we got, as it only works on a single unit (the Infantry Squad)that is max size 10 models.

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Dakka Dakka Dakka-is flat out better than the marine equivalent

I'm not going to pretend these are the best stratagems that exist, but they are not flat worse than most stratagems that exist. There are really a very few high end abilities in each codex (space marines have maybe 1 great ability, with a few other decent ones).

What these aren't are the : Unit gets to shoot twice, or fight twice, or infiltrate style stratagems that other books have been getting.

They are decent strategies that I can see using if I have a bunch of CP in my list.

Breng77 wrote:

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Have we seen the exact wording yet? I have seen idea of combining different types of squads but haven't heard it actually works like that for sure and not say only with ork boyz.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Have we seen the exact wording yet? I have seen idea of combining different types of squads but haven't heard it actually works like that for sure and not say only with ork boyz.

listened to a guy read verbatim it on you tube, same data sheet is the wording. So it works on more than boyz.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Have we seen the exact wording yet? I have seen idea of combining different types of squads but haven't heard it actually works like that for sure and not say only with ork boyz.

As I said and was told I was lying bpin another thread... I have seen CA. The strat is that the two units have to share the same data sheet. That was the wording.

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Have we seen the exact wording yet? I have seen idea of combining different types of squads but haven't heard it actually works like that for sure and not say only with ork boyz.

listened to a guy read verbatim it on you tube, same data sheet is the wording. So it works on more than boyz.

Okay so that's good. And at least dispels wildest hopes of merging meganobz/tank bustas with ork boyz!

Though still bit situational. Most of the time you want to be on small units if you don't have special bonus for being big. Strategem and jump being prime uses for this.

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Have we seen the exact wording yet? I have seen idea of combining different types of squads but haven't heard it actually works like that for sure and not say only with ork boyz.

listened to a guy read verbatim it on you tube, same data sheet is the wording. So it works on more than boyz.

Okay so that's good. And at least dispels wildest hopes of merging meganobz/tank bustas with ork boyz!

Though still bit situational. Most of the time you want to be on small units if you don't have special bonus for being big. Strategem and jump being prime uses for this.

I mean all ork units benefit to an extent from being big do to mob rule, Da-jump, Warpath, Use of other stratagems. To me it will often be something you plan to do and not super situational. You might also use it occasionally do it for some on the fly advantage. Same with Dakka Dakka Dakka, it is not really situational, you will either plan to use it, or you will likely never use a CP for it.

Upset we didn't get any cool psychic powers this CA

Breng77 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Does anyone else also feel our strats in CA feel like cheap knock off bootlegs of other more powerful chapters strats... being able to combined squads but only if one is less than 10 and the other is more than 10 is very situational and laim (would have much rather had any number can combine with any number like the ig one) and the 6s only giving you 1 extra shot... come on! Shooting armies get to re fire their entire weapon! We needed a buff and got less than they got! How are ork players even still playing this game? It baffles me!

Important note it is 10 or less, and 10 or more. So it is not super situational in that you can plan to do it Take a squad of 10 boyz to fill out a troop slot, turn 1 merge them with a squad of 30 boyz, then Da-jump the unit of 40 into the enemy. Or disembark a unit from a transport and join it with another to get up to having bonus attacks. Also allows for 2 Nobz in a squad, or multiple special weapons. The IG strategy is flat out worse than what we got, as it only works on a single unit (the Infantry Squad)that is max size 10 models.

You could also make use of both, by joining 25 lootas into a single squad, possible 75 shots could make decent use of the extra shot on a 6 stratagem. Or join 2 10 man tank bust squads, or a 10 and 15, then jump them and use the extra shot strat firing 20-25 Rokkits + squigs.

Dakka Dakka Dakka-is flat out better than the marine equivalent

I'm not going to pretend these are the best stratagems that exist, but they are not flat worse than most stratagems that exist. There are really a very few high end abilities in each codex (space marines have maybe 1 great ability, with a few other decent ones).

What these aren't are the : Unit gets to shoot twice, or fight twice, or infiltrate style stratagems that other books have been getting.

They are decent strategies that I can see using if I have a bunch of CP in my list.

I like and appreciate your optimism and enthusiasm for the new chapter approved stuff but I just can’t really see where you are coming from. What does a squad of 40 boyz do that 30 can’t do? Not a lot in my opinion, definitely not more Cc attacks with that model count. As for two nobs in a squad Is that really that good? With the heavy supports mobbing up 1. Does anyone have 25 lootas or tankbusta? 2. How many points is that, about 500 for each type? 3. How are these units surviving the big target that’s just been put on them? (Because they don’t fit in any transports?). Off the top of my head I thing you would end up with about 5 extra hits from 75 loota shots with those two combined strategems.

All in all I just can’t see any real value to either of them, especially the mob up one.

Marklarr you aren't forging the narrative hard enough, and you clearly aren't dakka dakka or waaaghing enough! Duhh.

Sarcasm aside, great points. I agree across the board on your post, Mobbing up for that kind of strategy is useless, in fact the only use I have found for mobbing up as a sneaky kind of maneuver is to have a bunch of trukk boyz get close to the enemy on turn 1, turn 2 they get out to assault and that is when you Da Jump 30 boyz 9inches away from the enemy, but 3 inches from 10 trukk boyz, because then you can theoretically close the charge range from 9 to basically 1in if you wanted. The only problem with this strategy is that its easy to defeat and A Trukk is so prohibitively expensive that there isn't a real benefit because you've used to many points to even get the trukk.

As for the Dakka Strategem. the only use, and I mean the ONLY use for it is to help guarantee a kill on a game critical unit. and even then it isn't much of a benefit and won't guarantee that kill for you. If you do that little Mobbing up trick to get 25 Lootas, then use a CP reroll and magically get 3 shots each you will statistically roll 12 6s which nets you 4 more Hits on average.

So you spent all those CP and got a grand total of.....4 extra Hits with a S7 weapon. Ohh and you guaranteed that units destruction next turn because you made it such an appealing target.

Dakka Dakka strategy should cost 1 CP and let that unit shoot a 2nd time, or up to 3CP to let 3 units shoot twice. Otherwise with our BS it isn't worth doing at all.

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

 Vankraken wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

exactly this. Randomness should always be a part of the ork army, but the good needs to heavily outweigh the bad results. Beyond the examples given, look at the iconic Shokk Attack Gun. In 7th the amazing result was it became a destroyer weapon on double 6. The bad results were: You die, you kill your unit, your opponent decides which unit to kill (yours or his) you teleport your expensive ranged unit into CC with your target, you only get a small blast OR your attack is so weak it doesn't scratch the paint on the armor. THAT is why GW messed up. 1 good result, 4-6 bad results does not a balanced weapon make.

Zzap gunz and smasha gunz were meh at best, but then you factor in their random strength AFTER you target a vehicle.....GG. Not to mention our KMK which are arguably our best ranged option right now. you have 1/2 as much chance to hurt yourself as to hit your opponent. If they have - to hit modifiers....then its even worse.

Idea for mobtacular dakka: For every 3 Boyz in a unit, add another to-hit die. This counds as just another attack in every way.

Might make that mob merging thing slightly more attractive.

M.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

exactly this. Randomness should always be a part of the ork army, but the good needs to heavily outweigh the bad results. Beyond the examples given, look at the iconic Shokk Attack Gun. In 7th the amazing result was it became a destroyer weapon on double 6. The bad results were: You die, you kill your unit, your opponent decides which unit to kill (yours or his) you teleport your expensive ranged unit into CC with your target, you only get a small blast OR your attack is so weak it doesn't scratch the paint on the armor. THAT is why GW messed up. 1 good result, 4-6 bad results does not a balanced weapon make.

Zzap gunz and smasha gunz were meh at best, but then you factor in their random strength AFTER you target a vehicle.....GG. Not to mention our KMK which are arguably our best ranged option right now. you have 1/2 as much chance to hurt yourself as to hit your opponent. If they have - to hit modifiers....then its even worse.

I agree as well. There are good examples of random weapons in 8th already. For example, the DG Foul Blight Spawn has a flamer with 2d6 strength but is still considered one of the better units of the codex.

Space Marine with Missle Launcher BS3+ 48" D1d6 38pts 1W SV3+
Astra Militarum Missle Launcher Team BS4+ 48" D1d6 26pts 2W SV5+
Ork Rokkit Boy BS5+ 24" D3 18pts 1W SV6+

The Ork has half the range, half the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Space Marine counterpart for HALF the points.

The Ork has half the range, 2/3 the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Astra Militarum counterpart for 2/3 the points.

Why do they have 6+ saves ?
Why do they only have 24" range ?
Why is their survivability NOT factored into their point costs?

 adamsouza wrote:
Space Marine with Missle Launcher BS3+ 48" D1d6 38pts 1W SV3+
Astra Militarum Missle Launcher Team BS4+ 48" D1d6 26pts 2W SV5+
Ork Rokkit Boy BS5+ 24" D3 18pts 1W SV6+

The Ork has half the range, half the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Space Marine counterpart for HALF the points.

The Ork has half the range, 2/3 the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Astra Militarum counterpart for 2/3 the points.

Why do they have 6+ saves ?
Why do they only have 24" range ?
Why is their survivability NOT factored into their point costs?

They reroll hits against vehicals - thats a pretty huge factor to leave out - also 3 flat damage is pretty comparable to d6 and in fact - I'd take Flat 3 over d6 on just about every weapon every single time. It's also an assault weapon so you can move and shoot with no pentalty (or in the case of a tank busta - shoot from inside of a truck or battlewaggon with no penalty.) They also have that awesome grenade for d3 actaul rocket launcher shots at 6 range. That's pretty funny.

Imperial Missile launchers don't need to move and shoot because 4 feet is a pretty big portion of the board.

If you factor in the durability with the trukk then you have to factor in the 80+pts that the trukk costs as well.

3 damage is .5 less on average then D6. D6 has a 1/3rd. Chance to do less damage, a 1/6th chance to do the same damage and a 50% chance to do 1-3 more damage. I will take D6 any day of the week. Especially when you factor in CP rerolls.

The grenade is great but the range is extremely prohibitive. And the grenade basically just makes 1 tankbustas act as 2. Not exactly a huge boon.

Rerolls against vehicles are good but IG has access to orders and SMs get reroll everything so it's not a benefit really.

Also the fact ig and beakies have rerolls built in to many of their units and orders as well... meaning we reroll to hit on 5/6s on vehicles while cadian troops reroll for anything if given an order to hit on 4.... the reroll to hit 5/6s in no way justifies being double the price of imperial units.

I will echo the randomness is nice for flavor, but it seems GW prices out models as if we will always get the highest number of shots and somehow make them all hits. they need to either cut points dramatically or make the random less random.

all of the special squads should be able to have some sort of armor lootas. nobz, tank bustas etc. should be rocking eavy armor for a 4+, I get ork boys just charging in but any warboss would want some protection for the specialty squads.

one of our only long range units is lootaz for 17 points averages 2 shots resulting in .66 hits. if you get 1 shot you get .33 hits, best case you get 3 and average 1 hit per loota. str 7 ap -1 D2 . The loota is T4 with a 6+ save. the closest comparable is probably a Guard heavy weapons team at 21 points, they are T3, but have an additional wound and a 5+ armor. They also hit on a 4+ and get a flat 2 shots. str 7 ap -1 D2. they also have a lasgun in case they shoot something in 24", or 2 shots if 12". So they average 1 hit of auto cannon and either .5 hit or 1 hit with the lasgun depending on range.

so to recap heavy weapons team gets significantly better hits 66% of the time, 1 more wound, an extra (albeit lower power)gun, +1 armor save, all for 4 points.... and the heavy weapons team are not even really considered one of the more efficient Guard units.

other units with random shots also either need points adjustments or a more steady number of shots. our big stompa super gatler... instead of 2D6 why not 6+ d6. keep the random but you don't get completely screwed. Lootas make it 1+D2 take that possibility of just having wasted points by eliminating the terrible and turning it into you might get 2 shots and you might get 3 shots. or .66 hits/1 hit

In my opinion GW really doesn't adjust the randomness AND the durability issue. Lootas are weaker then Heavy weapons teams but not by a whole lot, especially when you factor in the points difference. But then you look at durability and it's astounding. Heavy weapons teams are almost always in cover for a 4+ save where as lootas can't fit anywhere unless they are taken in small squads which make them extremely susceptible to morale issues. So if you want a useful unit you need 10+ and have to put them in a trukk because they die to a stiff breeze so really the cost per loota is almost 25ppm and they still aren't as durable as heavy weapon teams and are significantly less deadly.

SemperMortis wrote:
In my opinion GW really doesn't adjust the randomness AND the durability issue. Lootas are weaker then Heavy weapons teams but not by a whole lot, especially when you factor in the points difference. But then you look at durability and it's astounding. Heavy weapons teams are almost always in cover for a 4+ save where as lootas can't fit anywhere unless they are taken in small squads which make them extremely susceptible to morale issues. So if you want a useful unit you need 10+ and have to put them in a trukk because they die to a stiff breeze so really the cost per loota is almost 25ppm and they still aren't as durable as heavy weapon teams and are significantly less deadly.

I get currently they need a trukk, but I would say no unit should require a vehicle to be useful.

the issue with random is just that, it cannot be counted on in competitive play due to being to random. I would see a different set of profiles for match play and open play. say lootaz are 2 shot in matched and D3 in open play. or supa galter 6 shot in match 2d6 in open play.

I think both durability and randomness need to be addressed for orks to ever make a middle of the road competitive army.

I disagree in I generally find it pretty easy to find cover for full units of lootas, but I agree that regardless of whether or not lootas are in cover, it's basically useless. Facing down, say, 24 hurricane bolter shots, it really doesn't matter whether or not my save is 6+ or 5+, those lootas are dying in droves.

It's not my biggest gripe about 8th, but I hate that cover is nigh-useless for hordes, who need it most, and incredibly useful and easy to achieve for elite armies, who need it least.

The stompa is another whole level of craziness. That thing is literally 50% over priced and it's shooting is almost completely irrelevant.

As for lootas in cover, yeah you can get them in cover but in doing so you are blocking a lot of their firepower unless you find one of those golden pieces of cover

 Xenomancers wrote:

They reroll hits against vehicals - thats a pretty huge factor to leave out - also 3 flat damage is pretty comparable to d6 and in fact - I'd take Flat 3 over d6 on just about every weapon every single time. It's also an assault weapon so you can move and shoot with no pentalty (or in the case of a tank busta - shoot from inside of a truck or battlewaggon with no penalty.) They also have that awesome grenade for d3 actaul rocket launcher shots at 6 range. That's pretty funny.

Only tankbustas re-roll against vehicles, every other unit that fires rokkits doesn't. And bustas are 17ppm for 6+ save guys with BS5+.

Rokkitz are over priced on tankbustas by 2-4ppm. On a regular unit without benefits to the weapon? It's a 5pt upgrade at most