lolman1c wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
There's a problem with this logic. Guards have access to all sorts of mellee units that can mulch orks without any problems via soup while orks don't have access to really good shooty units.

So? Soup is another problem entirely and a single codex probably shouldn't be as powerful or versatile as 3-4 others combined. Personally, I have no interest in other Imperial factions, so I play pure Guard, I'd rather not feel like I should player other factions to match Xenos that can't have friends.

Well "I'd rather not feel like I should play" pure greentide to match IG or even compete against any other army. Especially when for years I've happily seen Ork armies focus on shooty units. What the hell is with all these self centered IG players that have come out of the wood work. For years you guys were lower tear just like Orks and we use to sit together and laugh about how our armies were the "real" armies! Now, all of a sudden you've all forgot about every edition before 8th and just presumed Orks are meant to be this way... You were my brothers! We loved you! Now some of you get one taste of power and you act like the friend who gets rich and forgets about how life used to be so hard for us...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't scions deepstrike? How dobthey die turn 1 before their job has been done?

lolman, don’t engage with bobthehero, you’ve got the right read on him.

As for lootaz, they really need to be a lot cheaper points wise (compare with devilgaunts, which have comparable toughness/save, and can pump out a minimum of three S4 shots per model, and 6 with a stratagem, for only 8 ppm). Considering the higher potential damage output they have, they should be like 11 or 12 points per guy. They could also use a special rule (possibly a racial trait for evil suns or something like that would work too) where they can outright ignore negative to-hit modifiers due to the excessive amounts of dakka they are throwing down range.

If lootas fire enough shots to ignore modifier, surely everything that fires 15+ shots should have the same rule, right?

No. Orks are famous for making things that shouldn't work function. Like ramshackle vehicles that should fall apart yet speed across the battlefield, or just filling the air with so much fire that they mysteriously hit things because there is nowhere to stand an be missed.

Filling the air with shots, kinda like a punisher would do, uh uh, go on...

 Bobthehero wrote:
Filling the air with shots, kinda like a punisher would do, uh uh, go on...

I feel like you are intentionally missing the point here, or are at the very least unfamiliar with ork lore. Maybe go have a quick read of a wiki page? Orks are famous for going all out with their guns, lootas especially. A good, fluffy representation of ork shooting would be to double the shots of all of their guns. That way we actually get an army of lunatics that can't aim (still bs5+) that make up for it with sheer Dakka . Right now we are stuck with an army of lunatics who can't aim and are stuck with the same guns as everyone's else yet for some reason pay more for each weapon. Great balancing

I am unfortunately aware of Ork lore. I also agreed that their shooting needs a buff, I disagreed with the suggestions to buff them (having it match IG shooting, having them ignore shooting penalties)

What is it about ignoring penalties that you don't agree with? I loved the idea as soon as I heard it. Fits the fluff, gives orks a buff to shooting (which they desperately need, but still keeps them from becoming op by keepig the current bs5), and provides a slight counter to the negative hit modifier problems that everyone seems to complain about on the forums.

It make no sense to give to Orks only, when you got weapons that put out more shots than they do. I'd just let everyone hit on a 6 always and be happy with it (or remove penalties to hit/introduce more bonuses to hit to cancel out penalties)

Every army should have exactly the same point efficiency in all aspects of the game. So if lootas are worse at shooting than autocannons, and have worse armor, and half the wounds, they should cost less. MUCH less.

What should limit armies is not point inefficiency, just the availability of options and combinations.

 Bobthehero wrote:
It make no sense to give to Orks only, when you got weapons that put out more shots than they do. I'd just let everyone hit on a 6 always and be happy with it (or remove penalties to hit/introduce more bonuses to hit to cancel out penalties)

I'm not really on the "ignore penalty" side, but what does number of shots have to do with it? The logic goes: Orks don't aim but shoot a lot, therefore if there is any trickery or magic that makes something hard to hit, well Orks don't care because they weren't aiming in the first place. IG punishers however do aim, and would thusly be affected by shenanigans.

Though, I still think the easiest and best solution is to just give them a better BS. It has the same effect as increasing the number of shots: 2 shots hitting on 4s will land 1 hit, while 3 shots hitting on 5s will land 1 hit.... It's also easier to balance since you can more easily compare output across factions.

 hippyjr wrote:
What is it about ignoring penalties that you don't agree with? I loved the idea as soon as I heard it. Fits the fluff, gives orks a buff to shooting (which they desperately need, but still keeps them from becoming op by keepig the current bs5), and provides a slight counter to the negative hit modifier problems that everyone seems to complain about on the forums.

Howabout rules that ignore something flat out are not good? That makes hard to balance things out. Suddenly -1 trait guys are paying too much for it. Such hard counters are bad for game.

Also it makes no sense. And there are other ways to deal with ork shooting. More shots for points and then universal rule that says 6 always hits(for all armies).

tneva82 wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:
What is it about ignoring penalties that you don't agree with? I loved the idea as soon as I heard it. Fits the fluff, gives orks a buff to shooting (which they desperately need, but still keeps them from becoming op by keepig the current bs5), and provides a slight counter to the negative hit modifier problems that everyone seems to complain about on the forums.

Howabout rules that ignore something flat out are not good? That makes hard to balance things out. Suddenly -1 trait guys are paying too much for it. Such hard counters are bad for game.

Also it makes no sense. And there are other ways to deal with ork shooting. More shots for points and then universal rule that says 6 always hits(for all armies).

How many shots should lootas get to be effective and to deal with -1 to hit?

 Bobthehero wrote:
You want them equal, that's what your post is about, its wrong, the Ork equivalent of a Punisher shouldn't be 30 shots, it should be 25, at best, the point being that the Guard one is better.

Ah Bob, to be so wrong so many times in a single thread.

An Ork ranged specialist vehicle should have the capability to put out as much damage as an Imperial Guard, (or any other army) equivalent. That is balance. You seem to conveniently forget that Ogryns and Bullgryns are cqc powerhouses that are arguably better than their Ork counterpart. Boys and the like should stay as they are, Orks are supposed to favour cqc. Our ranged specialists should lose their ability to perform in combat as well as they do and get an appropriate buff to their ranged ability though. No question.

Our tanks, unless given an appropriate buff to their combat damage, need to be able to perform at range or need another buff (durability) to make them balanced. Don't get me started on our warbosses, why they have BS5+ when things like Tau Commanders have WS2+ is beyond reason.

So what would then stop orks from making army that equals IG in shooting? Which they shouldn't be able to do. As it is let's say you make lootas equal to IG shooting and h2h equal with IG(let's see...Guess if you make lootas WS4+, S3, A1 that works. Kinda drastic changes to ork physiology just for taking up big gun). You know what? Lootas would still be superior to IG guys...So army of lootas would thus be superior to IG equilavents. GG.

Orks shouldn't be as good shooting as IG. Useful support yes but not equal to army that's supposed to be one of the shootiest armies out there. Give orks tools to equal that and orks are then let's see...Able to out CC IG. Capable of out-toughing it out IG. Capable of equal shooting. Where IG is supposed to be good?

I've fought Bulgrins myself and although I can't agree with you (on the aspect IG can make an entire army out of them) they have stopped many of my big cc troops in their tracks only to crush them. They're pretty good bubble wraps.

But that's the thing! Ig have cheap bubble wraps (and like they should do because it's IG). They don't even have to care about cc. They can just wrap their front line in double the amount of our Ork boyz and sit and wait. Orks charge in? Just pull out and fire (because IG can just negate the negatives to pulling out of cc) to absorb another attack. All while shooty units behind fire as well. Heck, I've seen this method used perfectly before and even with a shadow sword (or something) that halfed the movement of the units it fired at. It trampled a genestealer shooty tyranid force! A force superior in both ranged and cc than Orks can be!

To be honest i thought about orks not being 'as good' as guard in the shooting dept... they are a CC army i say to my self thats 'orks' no they should't be that good.

But then i considered nids these days... they used to be 'CC'! back in the 90s now they can compete with everyone on shooting and still obviously have that CC focus. Its an army that has the likes of genestealers running with exocrines/hiveguard/tyrannofex.

If we are comparing orks to anyone it should be nids.

tneva82 wrote:
So what would then stop orks from making army that equals IG in shooting? Which they shouldn't be able to do. As it is let's say you make lootas equal to IG shooting and h2h equal with IG(let's see...Guess if you make lootas WS4+, S3, A1 that works. Kinda drastic changes to ork physiology just for taking up big gun). You know what? Lootas would still be superior to IG guys...So army of lootas would thus be superior to IG equilavents. GG.

Orks shouldn't be as good shooting as IG. Useful support yes but not equal to army that's supposed to be one of the shootiest armies out there. Give orks tools to equal that and orks are then let's see...Able to out CC IG. Capable of out-toughing it out IG. Capable of equal shooting. Where IG is supposed to be good?

Just so we don't have this argument again. It's a common misconceptions that Orks don't aim. Sure, newly spawned Ork boyz might just get giddy at the sound if their own weapons and lootas themselves try to make the loudest weapons to scare the enemy but many Orks do train every day and aim. It wasn't until 3rd edition Orks were turned into a "zulu" tribal type race ( i say zulu because this is basically what the 3rd dev team called them if i remember) that Orks actually couldn't aim. So to many Orks have had perfect aim for just as many years as we've had BS5. So lore wise, there can be support for a good shooty Ork army.

However, I don't think Orks should have an amazing shooty loota Ork army. But what they should have is the Death Skulls lore accurate mech army... And army made up of mostly shooty units that benifit them as they head into cc. Ig will always have a major defence and benifit over CC armies built like Orks so Orks need a way to counter this and adapt. I'm not talking just slapping some troops on the table and winning. I'm talking about a player selecting the right combination of troops to fit his play style and using tactics like heavy fire into the front lines to soften up the bubble wrap before the troops hit. Or (if you're a goof players) better defence to help negate some of the negatives to cc. Or even an Evil sunz player... blah blah...

We might get this in the codex but right now we don't have any other play style to fit our lore. IG had lots of choice even in the index. You could mass infintry, mass tank, flyer spam or combined arms. Jungle sneaky fighters, elite warriors, hell you could even have a detachment of space marines with girlyman man in if you wanted to (just because some people want a oure ig army doesn't mean you can't do it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
To be honest i thought about orks not being 'as good' as guard in the shooting dept... they are a CC army i say to my self thats 'orks' no they should't be that good.

But then i considered nids these days... they used to be 'CC'! back in the 90s now they can compete with everyone on shooting and still obviously have that CC focus. Its an army that has the likes of genestealers running with exocrines/hiveguard/tyrannofex.

If we are comparing orks to anyone it should be nids.

Oh yeah. And also nids have pretty epic shooting! I watched a nids vs Orks game the other day and the nids had killed every single important unit (including 2 nauts) with shooting and then tore up the Orks in cc. XD so why do they get both?

Yea basically:

Would you rather have 3 hive guard or 8 lootas... it's pretty obvious the hiveguard are better in every way.

Look up both dataslates and its apples and oranges both are an 'assault cc army'

t5 3 wounds each (9 wounds) 4+ save
vs
t4 1 wounds each (8 wounds 6+ save

6 36" s8 -2 d3 damage shots hitting on 3 which dont need los and ignore cover
vs
8-24 48" s7 -1 2 damage shots hitting on 5

If you luck out and get 24 shots without any snuffing it yet thats 3 marines dead to the hiveguard killing 2.
Against a rhino even if you get the full 24 shots thats 4 dmg vs hive guard 3.5

Again this is if you roll up a max 5-6 for all the shots and none of them have died
All the while the hive guard are behind LoS blocking terrain you cant shoot them and they can shoot you...

this highlights how bad lootas really are.

tneva82 wrote:
So what would then stop orks from making army that equals IG in shooting? Which they shouldn't be able to do. As it is let's say you make lootas equal to IG shooting and h2h equal with IG(let's see...Guess if you make lootas WS4+, S3, A1 that works. Kinda drastic changes to ork physiology just for taking up big gun). You know what? Lootas would still be superior to IG guys...So army of lootas would thus be superior to IG equilavents. GG.

Orks shouldn't be as good shooting as IG. Useful support yes but not equal to army that's supposed to be one of the shootiest armies out there. Give orks tools to equal that and orks are then let's see...Able to out CC IG. Capable of out-toughing it out IG. Capable of equal shooting. Where IG is supposed to be good?

Why are you imposing restrictions on an army that don't exist in the fluff nor should they exist in game? If an Ork player wanted to try to make a shooty army they absolutely should be able to. Bad Moonz are notorious for having guns on top of guns. Is it Deffskulls that are 'unorky' and use humie tactics? Why wouldn't they field a gun line? The army likely wouldn't be made of Boyz and I'm not suggesting a total rewrite of the Toughness for a unit either but the point is that they'd have suitable weaknesses in melee and the psychic phase to compensate.

You're making a whole load of incorrect assumptions - my suggestions are simple - we should be given flexibility to field different types of armies. Units that are RANGED SPECIALISTS should be able to perform that role properly (equivalent to other ranged specialists from other factions) otherwise they are entirely pointless.

Correction there English. Deathskullz make big guns and are still Orky (just untrustworthy because theire meks scam you a lot for loot). Blood axes use human tactics. They wear camouflage and even use human weaponry like rhinos, landraiders and even IG tanks. They were modt likely intended to be the leaders and diplomats for the Ork race but other Orks don't trust them because they're less Orky. It's the reason why some of the most horrifying WAAAGHS were run by Blood Axe warlords. They used terrifying weaponry and tactics that were far more advanced than the usual Goff warband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But as I always say! The Ork who turned a moon into a weapon and then smashed that moon into a Imperial planet outshot the IG that day! I'm sure he rolled a few 6s to hit!

 lolman1c wrote:
Correction there English. Deathskullz make big guns and are still Orky (just untrustworthy because theire meks scam you a lot for loot). Blood axes use human tactics. They wear camouflage and even use human weaponry like rhinos, landraiders and even IG tanks. They were modt likely intended to be the leaders and diplomats for the Ork race but other Orks don't trust them because they're less Orky. It's the reason why some of the most horrifying WAAAGHS were run by Blood Axe warlords. They used terrifying weaponry and tactics that were far more advanced than the usual Goff warband.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But as I always say! The Ork who turned a moon into a weapon and then smashed that moon into a Imperial planet outshot the IG that day! I'm sure he rolled a few 6s to hit!

Ah I always get those two confused! Thanks for clearing it up!

As to your comment on my previous point, I'm not suggesting IG can make an army of Bull/Ogryns. My point is that they are melee specialists that perform their role at least as good (if not better) than our own. We should have the same treatment for our units, no question. Particularly our tanks. Or, as I said before, they should have an appropriate increase to their melee damage output and/or durability.

Ahhh, I get you. So like if we use the same idea the IG player is using... their Ogryn should never be anywhere near our Orks but yet 8ur shooting isn't allowed. I get yah now.

SemperMortis wrote:


Can't speak for everyone else but i've tried almost every ork unit in the index several times, but in reality, you don't even have to try a unit to see how bad it is, all you have to do is pit it against a similar unit or a unit in the same army and compare its strategic values. So for a unit like lootas. You can take 15 and have decent morale but you just sunk WAY to many points into a shooting unit that averages 10 S7 hits a turn, that isn't atrocious damage until you consider that it cost you more then a predator or two. Add to that there complete lack of armor and you see why they aren't worth taking. They are the epitome of glass cannon...except they have the glass part, they just don't have the cannon part.

For flashgitz the math is even easier. Heavy weapon with 24in range, 6+ armor, massively expensive? yeah, not going to work foot sloggin, and since none of our vehicles allow passengers to ignore movement they are just not worth the points investment. The real kicker is when you compare them to a similar points amount of boyz and the damage/durability the boyz have compared to the ranged unit.

You mean 30 S7 shots average, but closer to 35 shots when you spend CP, because it's worth it.

255 points is is one predator plus 50 to 70 points. They are a glass cannon, which means they do REQUIRE KFF and a painboy, so that's another 128 (if my math is correct). That will get you two predators with AC/LC.

Lootas
30 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5 damage

Predators
8 * .666 * .666 * .5 = 1.8
8 * .666 * .833 * .5 = 2.2




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
It make no sense to give to Orks only, when you got weapons that put out more shots than they do. I'd just let everyone hit on a 6 always and be happy with it (or remove penalties to hit/introduce more bonuses to hit to cancel out penalties)

I'm not really on the "ignore penalty" side, but what does number of shots have to do with it? The logic goes: Orks don't aim but shoot a lot, therefore if there is any trickery or magic that makes something hard to hit, well Orks don't care because they weren't aiming in the first place. IG punishers however do aim, and would thusly be affected by shenanigans.

Though, I still think the easiest and best solution is to just give them a better BS. It has the same effect as increasing the number of shots: 2 shots hitting on 4s will land 1 hit, while 3 shots hitting on 5s will land 1 hit.... It's also easier to balance since you can more easily compare output across factions.

Not the same effect.

When ignoring modifiers they're only "better" against armies with modifiers. And let's be real. Orks will never be 4+ especially because Gretchin would then be 3+. Giving ignore to Orks and dropping the cost of some weapons should be more than enough.

 lolman1c wrote:
Ahhh, I get you. So like if we use the same idea the IG player is using... their Ogryn should never be anywhere near our Orks but yet 8ur shooting isn't allowed. I get yah now.

You got it brother!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You mean 30 S7 shots average, but closer to 35 shots when you spend CP, because it's worth it.

255 points is is one predator plus 50 to 70 points. They are a glass cannon, which means they do REQUIRE KFF and a painboy, so that's another 128 (if my math is correct). That will get you two predators with AC/LC.

Lootas
30 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5 damage

Predators
8 * .666 * .666 * .5 = 1.8
8 * .666 * .833 * .5 = 2.2

Have you forgot to add the Predator's damage on to it's calculation or have I read your maths wrong?

Shouldn't it be 2 and 3.5 for their damage respectively?

Have you forgot to add the Predator's damage on to it's calculation or have I read your maths wrong?

Shouldn't it be 2 and 3.5 for their damage respectively?

Sorry - that was a fight of lootas vs preds. Which may seem disingenuous, but I was just making a straight comparison for a real scenario when the opponent doesnt have anti infantry that can reach them.

Lootas are a middling AT weapon that is better off shooting primaris, which is why I prefer tankbustas.

tneva82 wrote:
So what would then stop orks from making army that equals IG in shooting? Which they shouldn't be able to do.

What makes you believe orks shouldn't be able to create a successful shooty list? More than half of our units are shooty units with no mellee whatsoever.

My stance is Orks should have a shooty army. It shouldn't be as good as a shooting army like Tau or IG (Who are like 85+% shooting units) but should be comparable to marines or Tyranids level of shooting who have mixtures of CC and Shooting like the Orks.

 lolman1c wrote:
My stance is Orks should have a shooty army. It shouldn't be as good as a shooting army like Tau or IG (Who are like 85+% shooting units) but should be comparable to marines or Tyranids level of shooting who have mixtures of CC and Shooting like the Orks.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a Nid/genestealer cult player, and both of those armies are primarily cc armies, but can bring significant shooting to the table to supplement their cc elements, and it works (more so for Nids right now, but GSC is still waiting for their codex). Orks should be the same, just maybe with a suitably orky twist.

It used to be you couldn't play Tyranids competitively unless you brought a Genestealer baneblade. XD

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You mean 30 S7 shots average, but closer to 35 shots when you spend CP, because it's worth it.

255 points is is one predator plus 50 to 70 points. They are a glass cannon, which means they do REQUIRE KFF and a painboy, so that's another 128 (if my math is correct). That will get you two predators with AC/LC.

Lootas
30 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5 damage

Predators
8 * .666 * .666 * .5 = 1.8
8 * .666 * .833 * .5 = 2.2

Dakka dakka strat is not worth it. It adds about 16% more hits at the cost of a CP. Not worth the investment.

But I see you left out a few things, 15 lootas with a KFF and a Painboy supervising them, which is a really bad tactical decision because now you have hamstrung the rest of your army to give a unit of lootas a 5++ and a 6+++, costs 383pts.
two predators fully kitted out with Auto-cannons, 2 lascannons and a stormbolter is 364pts. The two predators have 4D3 autocannon shots for 8 total on average, 4 lascannon shots and 4 stormbolter shots.

Predators
8 x .666 x .666 = 3.55 Vs that 5++ its 2.36 and the 6+++ is basically irrelevant because you have to make the 6+++ for each dmg done to the model from a AutoCannon which is 3 damage, so that is 2-3 dead Lootas.
4 x .666 x .833 = 2.21 Vs that 5++ its 1.47 and the 6+++ is again basically irrelevant because you have to make a 6+++ VS each piece of dmg and its D6, so another 1-2 dead lootas
4 x .666 x .5 x .666 x .833 = .73 or another dead loota basically. So really you are losing anywhere from 4 to 6 Lootas

The lootas on return fire (at full strength) fire 30 shots so you got that part right, of course you also discounted cover but hey it is what it is.

So at the end you have 2 Predators, one at full strength and 1 missing 4-6 damage (4 unaffected, 6 he is losing some stats) The Lootas on the other hand have just lost 4-6 guys which reduces their leadership and more importantly, severely degrades their future dakka. If they lost 4 they don't have to worry about leadership, if they lost 6 then they have a 50% chance of losing D3 more lootas. Turn 2 is the same as turn 1 except now the lootas are dead regardless because they will lose another 4ish models which reduces them so low they are now taking morale.

So at most you kill 1 predator and lose 255pts of lootas and have used another 128pts of elites/HQs to babysit a borderline useless unit. Now again this is in a vacuum I understand that, but if it wasn't the orkz lose even harder because SMs can easily liquidate a unit of Lootas turn 1 even with 128pts of buffs. And those predators are clearly not optimized to killing infantry, where as Lootas are supposed to be targeting tanks/light vehicles/elite infantry.

SemperMortis wrote:


So at the end you have 2 Predators, one at full strength and 1 missing 4-6 damage (4 unaffected, 6 he is losing some stats) The Lootas on the other hand have just lost 4-6 guys which reduces their leadership and more importantly

Yea, so I did the FNP incorrectly, but I did twice as many lascannon shots as there would be, so your damage actually comes out less - 2.4 + 1.5 instead of 2.2 + 1.8. No SB in that, because in no reality will a predator be in range with storm bolters. Why? Because you're not going to move them.

Additionally, Lootas do damage in 2s. So they would need 3 shots to go through to degrade a predator, which is pretty high given it's 4% to wreck a predator in one turn and 35% in 2 turns. Bracketing a Predator drops it's effectiveness by 25% -- or 12.5% for two overall. Losing 4 our of 15 Lootas is 27%. So, it depends who goes first. To get the second bracket they need only two shots to go through so even if they've lost some it's still entirely feasible. I'd move on after the second bracket depending on objectives, but Predators still keep the advantage, because Lootas are not where they should be overall.

Leadership is absolutely a concern and I wouldn't be caught without a tail to another bigger unit for LD, which is considerably easy to do on turn 1. More points, yes, but they're also doing their own thing on the table, too.

Show me a list that easily liquidates said Lootas on turn 1 and let's not pretend any deepstrikers would be able to get anywhere near them in a proper Ork deployment. Not even Assbacks would have range on them.

Edit: final point - my CP reference was for reroll on shots, but I totally forgot Dakka Dakka, which is actually a 50% increase in shots for them and completely worth it in this scenario.

Wut? Forgive my maths but how is dakka dakka a 50% increase in shots? It's only a 1/6 chance to even attempt to fire again meaning it's a 1/18 chance it gets you more another hit. I can't deal with percentages as I haven't done maths since high school 10 years ago. XD

I think I get you because 5 is hit and 6 is another chance to hit but the 50% is very misleading. I know the whole "percentage and maths rule the world" kinda thing we got going but you're talking 50% more of very low numbers. Compared to Necrons tesla who (excluding Mwbd) still get an extra hit (an auto hit btw) on 6s but also have the hits 3,4,5s. It's really only like 25% more hits if I think I know what you mean but in reality it's more than the 50% more on Orks because there is only a 1/3chance to hit in the first place compared to the 2/3 necron tesla gets.

I tbink my maths os correct but I might be off because I have no idea how to math but....

5 immortals with tesla: 85pts
5 lootas: 85pts

Immortals have a reliable flat 2 shots and have a 3+ save and ld 10 to keep them upfront on the lines. Their also a unit choice for people who want to full brigades out.

With tesla on a 6 ur looking at about 8-9 hits.

With the Lootas at 15 shots with dakkadakka ur looking at about 7 hits or 1 if you roll d1 shots. 4 if d2.

Not saying tesla and immortals are better weapons but 50% extra of 4 is 2 while 25% extra of 8 is also 2. Or some crap... my head hurts... i prefer to use passionate arguments than this panzy maths!

Lol about the 50% increase in shots using the dakkadakka stratagem

Even if you consider the full mob of 15 dudes that rolled that 3 on the number of shots the stratagem gives 7-8 additional shots on average, which means 2-3 hits at S7 and AP-1, tipycally 0-2 more wounds caused than the regular roll without the stratagem. And I'm considering the best case scenario in which I have 15 lootas that fire 45 shots

That stratagem is very lackluster, and it can be maybe decent on a large blob of tankbustas because rokkits have better S, AP and D and bustas re-roll failed hits against vehicles, so you have more odds to get those lucky 6s and they worth more than lootas shots.

What is it about 40k that makes everyone so defeatist?

"My Lootas die to a stiff breeze"
"48 inches just isn't a safe range anymore"
"This orange is somehow comparable and superior to 15 of your apples"

Ya'lls meta is some of that harder-then-everyone-elses meta that apparently chews up 200 orkz a turn, at least that is what I can tell.

I field 30 Lootas often;
-They get first blood often in situations where I can get first blood.
-I can often use their influence on the middle of the battlefield to force enemy 48 inch assets to move forward to shoot them
-You can't compare Tankbustas or Shoota boyz to Lootas, they are different tools in the green tide kit.

Some other thoughts;
-Green tide will often have more units to deploy then an enemy, you should use this disadvantage to your benefit by deploying Lootas near last at a pre measured distance away from the things that will point and remove them if you can. I understand a couple of you live in meta's that only field models that shoot 100 shots each at 72 inches, I'm sorry, Lootas aren't for you.
-Your turn one jumped unit of boyz, and your stormboyz, and your kommandos, should probably be what wins the game for you on turn one and two if you have a chance at winning. The 700 Orkz you brought are only to ensure you run out of time by turn four. Your Lootas should be focused on removing just one or two things that might actually kill all your boyz.

I won't pretend to be good however, most ork lists I produce get tabled in six, even green tide lists that I actually get to play six turns seem to lose in six.

 Blackie wrote:
Lol about the 50% increase in shots using the dakkadakka stratagem

Even if you consider the full mob of 15 dudes that rolled that 3 on the number of shots the stratagem gives 7-8 additional shots on average, which means 2-3 hits at S7 and AP-1, tipycally 0-2 more wounds caused than the regular roll without the stratagem. And I'm considering the best case scenario in which I have 15 lootas that fire 45 shots

That stratagem is very lackluster, and it can be maybe decent on a large blob of tankbustas because rokkits have better S, AP and D and bustas re-roll failed hits against vehicles, so you have more odds to get those lucky 6s and they worth more than lootas shots.

7 shots is 7 shots. I'd totally rather it on rokkits, too, but they have one shot and so less of a chance of triggering.

A havoc with autocannon, which is basically the same gun is 33 points - 145 for a squad. Three of those is 435...slap on 3 more Lootas to make it even. That's 12 AC for CSM and 18 for Lootas. CSM : 24 * .666 = 16 hits / Lootas : 18 * .333 = 12 hits. If the Lootas score 3 shots they get 18 hits.
So it's not too far off. A boy is 6 points making the deffgun gun 11 or 12 points. A rokkit is 12. I can see both dropping a couple points, but not too much more. Autocannons are just in a bad spot, because they don't wound T7 on 3s and T4 on 2s.

Wut? Forgive my maths but how is dakka dakka a 50% increase in shots?

Sorry I worded that poorly - 50% of their hits will get you another shot. That's what I get for posting on the phone.

A havok with an autocannon is 28. Has access to buffs and is much better than lootas overall. Yet they don't hit the table very often cause there are better units for the job. In this regard they're identical to lootas.

Rismonite:

Lootas went from a 4+ cover save to a 5+ save in cover, they die very easily to a number of units in an enemy list and at the hefty price they are worth targetting. If you are bringing 30 Lootas then you are investing 1/4th of your list (2,000pt) into a unit that is considered utter crap across the board. They don't do much damage and die very easily due to low armor save. If you want to compare apples to apples then compare them (our number 1 48in ranged anti-vehicle weapon) to enemy units with a similar purpose. We lose every time.

Your 30 Lootas are getting 60 shots, 20 hits and against a SM Tac squad thats 13ish wounds at -1 AP so you can only kill 6-7. If they lose morale then yeah you get first blood, if not then you just used 500+ points to kill about 100pts of Space Marines.

Daedalus: Dakka Dakka gives you 1 more shot on a hit roll of 6. If you have 45 shots thats 7ish extra SHOTS on average which is 2 extra hits on average.
So how is 2 50% more? hell, how is 7 50% more? it adds 1/6th more hits on average, which is mediocre at best. As someone already pointed out, the only useful unit to use that on is Tankbustas because they get rerolls against vehicles and have higher S, AP and Dmg, and even then it is questionable to use.

Lootas need a hefty increase in their Dmg output to be worth taking, I am fine with keeping them absurdly priced but I want D3+2 shots and at least 5+ armor. And an army wide special rule that lets us either always hit on 6s or completely ignore hit modifiers.

 koooaei wrote:
A havok with an autocannon is 28. Has access to buffs and is much better than lootas overall. Yet they don't hit the table very often cause there are better units for the job. In this regard they're identical to lootas.

Ah, yea, it's so unpopular I didn't remember that they got a 5 point discount in CA. If the Deffgun gets half the hits then it should be half the price technically, so 8 points for 13 to 14 total - a 3 point discount.

I think autocannons are fine for their role if they're cheap enough. A ML for 10 points more starts to feel like a heavy price.

Okay... What about (in my mind their opposite unit because of how they're boxed) the Burna Boy! How does he play? I own about 8 of them and they kinda don;t do much but always look cool in a trukk. XD I think it's also hard to price these units. 10 of them could get 30 shots or they could get 10 shots... that's a major problem with Orks! they tunred their randomness into DX shots... They really need to move away from that and focus on more stuff like Ramshackle (which was a good idea). Random fun rare little things that help Orks out.

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay... What about (in my mind their opposite unit because of how they're boxed) the Burna Boy! How does he play? I own about 8 of them and they kinda don;t do much but always look cool in a trukk. XD

I don't like what they did with the rules. D3 shots is....bleh and Orks are better off with more attacks instead of a meh power weapon. They need a stratagem to make them interesting (and a point drop).

 lolman1c wrote:
Okay... What about (in my mind their opposite unit because of how they're boxed) the Burna Boy! How does he play? I own about 8 of them and they kinda don;t do much but always look cool in a trukk. XD

What I don't get is Lootas having a mek with them now. Lore wise and 7th edition it was fine but doesn't make too much sense in 8th and kinda feels like GW is making you buy 2 boxes to just get 5 Orks. XD

Honestly, don;t think I've even see a single mek by himself in 8th edition... everyone just gets another big mek.

SemperMortis wrote:

So how is 2 50% more? hell, how is 7 50% more? it adds 1/6th more hits on average, which is mediocre at best.

See here:

Sorry I worded that poorly - 50% of their hits will get you another shot. That's what I get for posting on the phone.

Lootas need a hefty increase in their Dmg output to be worth taking, I am fine with keeping them absurdly priced but I want D3+2 shots and at least 5+ armor. And an army wide special rule that lets us either always hit on 6s or completely ignore hit modifiers.

Yea D3+2 would be absurd. They're a few points off in shooting effectiveness of CSM AC Havocs. I'm onboard for ignoring modifiers.

 lolman1c wrote:
What I don't get is Lootas having a mek with them now. Lore wise and 7th edition it was fine but doesn't make too much sense in 8th and kinda feels like GW is making you buy 2 boxes to just get 5 Orks. XD

Honestly, don;t think I've even see a single mek by himself in 8th edition... everyone just gets another big mek.

I used meks and sag big meks together with a bunch of bombers in one game to abuse character rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

So how is 2 50% more? hell, how is 7 50% more? it adds 1/6th more hits on average, which is mediocre at best.

See here:

Sorry I worded that poorly - 50% of their hits will get you another shot. That's what I get for posting on the phone.

Lootas need a hefty increase in their Dmg output to be worth taking, I am fine with keeping them absurdly priced but I want D3+2 shots and at least 5+ armor. And an army wide special rule that lets us either always hit on 6s or completely ignore hit modifiers.

Yea D3+2 would be absurd. They're a few points off in shooting effectiveness of CSM AC Havocs. I'm onboard for ignoring modifiers.

if you also c

onsider that havok in cover is 4 times more durable than a loota, it's actually what lootas need to be equal to havoks when shooting at something without to-hit modifiers. They need even more than that if you face -1 to hit.

I actually have an unpainted mek with the Kustom Pistol and chain saw. It looks cool but haven't had the time or need to paint it.

Mek can be useful to fill a slot or to score an objective since it's the cheapest character we can get outside grot crews.

 koooaei wrote:
if you also consider that havok in cover is 4 times more durable than a loota, it's actually what lootas need to be equal to havoks when shooting at something without to-hit modifiers. They need even more than that if you face -1 to hit.

There is a fine line to how cheap you can make something before it becomes ridiculously spammable and broken especially when you factor in other advantages they can receive.

But if you put them alongside a Loota they kinda just sit there and do nothing. You could put them with Lootas in a trukk but then they would have to have the whole unti leave the trukk to repair the trukk by 1 wound and then have your units exposed... it's stupid!

 Daedalus81 wrote:


7 shots is 7 shots.

7 shots with orks means 2 hits that also have to wound and pass the saves. Lootas' targets are usually T7+ 4+ save models. Those +7 shots actually means +0-1 more hit that goes through the saves. So +2 wounds if you're lucky. 2-4 wounds if you target something with T6 or less.

And we're talking about the max squad with no casualties taken before and the luck roll on the D3 shots.

 lolman1c wrote:
But if you put them alongside a Loota they kinda just sit there and do nothing. You could put them with Lootas in a trukk but then they would have to have the whole unti leave the trukk to repair the trukk by 1 wound and then have your units exposed... it's stupid!

I'm talking about independent meks. They're not there to fix stuff usually. Just to be the cheapest possible unit to be left on an objective and that can't be targeted if something else is nearby. Can be quite useful in small and mid-sized games where you need all your boyz at the front and want to use mek gun crews for other purposes like bauble wrapping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
if you also consider that havok in cover is 4 times more durable than a loota, it's actually what lootas need to be equal to havoks when shooting at something without to-hit modifiers. They need even more than that if you face -1 to hit.

There is a fine line to how cheap you can make something before it becomes ridiculously spammable and broken especially when you factor in other advantages they can receive.

Yeah but are havoks really that rediculous? We're just trying to make lootas AS effective as them and you're saying - no, you can't have that because reasons.

SemperMortis wrote:
Rismonite:

Lootas went from a 4+ cover save to a 5+ save in cover, they die very easily to a number of units in an enemy list and at the hefty price they are worth targetting. If you are bringing 30 Lootas then you are investing 1/4th of your list (2,000pt) into a unit that is considered utter crap across the board. They don't do much damage and die very easily due to low armor save. If you want to compare apples to apples then compare them (our number 1 48in ranged anti-vehicle weapon) to enemy units with a similar purpose. We lose every time.

Your 30 Lootas are getting 60 shots, 20 hits and against a SM Tac squad thats 13ish wounds at -1 AP so you can only kill 6-7. If they lose morale then yeah you get first blood, if not then you just used 500+ points to kill about 100pts of Space Marines.

I personally think we are just in need of a points update the model doesn't need a fundamental change. I think Lootas at 9 points would be OP, Lootas at 12 points would be 'a tiny bit expensive'. Even overpriced like they are now they seem like a tool with uses, their range helps pressure an opponent to close range with the mob who will make the points back for the Lootas hand over fist.

SO MUCH MATHSSSS! But no really... I laugh at the people who say Ork weapons are powerful enough even if they only hit on a 6. Because you still got to go through a stupid amount of chances....

Okay so Let's get the number for how possible it is to wound a rhino at max strength.

Okay because I like to be cheeky let's say Ork's didn't role well to get to go first. This means we have a 1/6 chance to go first.

Now let's have the D3 shots. we need 1/3 chance to get that max 45 shots. So we're at 1/18 chance.

Then now we got to hit. If yah lucky and your opponent doesn't have -1 to hit you got a 1/3 chance to hit! So now we're at a 1/54 to have optimal firing and hits.

Now the wounds! Because we're S7 we now got a 1/2 chance to wound! best chance we have had all day! woot woot! we now on 1/108 chance we actually get perfect hits and wounds.

But that Rhino has an armour save! Luckily he was out in the open so an easy armour save of 4+ boyz! (1/2 chance we will wound).

That's a 1/216 chance our unit will be 100% effective and actually blow every bodies mind! So if you do some backwards dumb not real math you get 15/72 or something... I don't know...

The point is! None of this means anything and I just want to look smart!

 koooaei wrote:


Yeah but are havoks really that rediculous? We're just trying to make lootas AS effective as them and you're saying - no, you can't have that because reasons.

I'm saying at 14 points they'd be pretty close..maybe 13. Beyond that is asking too much when you get two wounds per havok (yes with a crap save).

 koooaei wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
But if you put them alongside a Loota they kinda just sit there and do nothing. You could put them with Lootas in a trukk but then they would have to have the whole unti leave the trukk to repair the trukk by 1 wound and then have your units exposed... it's stupid!

I'm talking about independent meks. They're not there to fix stuff usually. Just to be the cheapest possible unit to be left on an objective and that can't be targeted if something else is nearby. Can be quite useful in small and mid-sized games where you need all your boyz at the front and want to use mek gun crews for other purposes like bauble wrapping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
if you also consider that havok in cover is 4 times more durable than a loota, it's actually what lootas need to be equal to havoks when shooting at something without to-hit modifiers. They need even more than that if you face -1 to hit.

There is a fine line to how cheap you can make something before it becomes ridiculously spammable and broken especially when you factor in other advantages they can receive.

Yeah but are havoks really that rediculous? We're just trying to make lootas AS effective as them and you're saying - no, you can't have that because reasons.

But why would you ever take a mek with a group of Lootas and why does GW still sell them in the same box! I really Wish GW would just do boxes of 5 lootas with maybe the option to turn one into a mek... for Mork sake GW! Stop scamming people!

 lolman1c wrote:
SO MUCH MATHSSSS! But no really... I laugh at the people who say Ork weapons are powerful enough even if they only hit on a 6. Because you still got to go through a stupid amount of chances....

Who said that?

Okay so Let's get the number for how possible it is to wound a rhino at max strength.

Okay because I like to be cheeky let's say Ork's didn't role well to get to go first. This means we have a 1/6 chance to go first.

Now let's have the D3 shots. we need 1/3 chance to get that max 45 shots. So we're at 1/18 chance.

I'm not sure what any of that had to do with wounding a rhino, which...

The point is! None of this means anything and I just want to look smart!

....just makes you look disingenuous and ridiculous.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


Yeah but are havoks really that rediculous? We're just trying to make lootas AS effective as them and you're saying - no, you can't have that because reasons.

I'm saying at 14 points they'd be pretty close..maybe 13. Beyond that is asking too much when you get two wounds per havok (yes with a crap save).

13pts puts them at still useless because as already pointed out, Havocs can function in smaller squads and enjoy easier access to cover. So getting them a 2+ save isn't that hard, so if you want to count wounds, I can get 2 wounds for your 1, BUT I have a 1/6 chance to survive a bolter wound, you have a 2/3rd chance to survive a bolter wound without cover. a 5/6th chance with cover. So yeah my guy is 1/2 the cost but he will statistically die 75% quicker. So now we get to the aspect of Glass Cannon. I am fine with them being glass cannons and for them to stay at the absurd price they are at, but they better be doing some serious damage when they do get to shoot before they are wiped out. D3+2 at most gives them 5 shots each, statistically 4. But lets go with 5. 15 of them will net you 75 shots, 25 hits and against a T7 3+ save target (rhino) you will do 12-13 wounds and 6-7 unsaved wounds for 12-14 damage. So a 250pt+ unit managed to kill a 75pt unit in 1 turn of shooting, that doesn't sound to bad to me. And if they have -1 to hit (smoke launchers) that gets cut in half. That sounds reasonable to me still.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
SO MUCH MATHSSSS! But no really... I laugh at the people who say Ork weapons are powerful enough even if they only hit on a 6. Because you still got to go through a stupid amount of chances....

Who said that?

Okay so Let's get the number for how possible it is to wound a rhino at max strength.

Okay because I like to be cheeky let's say Ork's didn't role well to get to go first. This means we have a 1/6 chance to go first.

Now let's have the D3 shots. we need 1/3 chance to get that max 45 shots. So we're at 1/18 chance.

I'm not sure what any of that had to do with wounding a rhino, which...

The point is! None of this means anything and I just want to look smart!

....just makes you look disingenuous and ridiculous.

Looks like someone here doesn't see a joke when he reads one! The whole thing was a lead up for that last line that made the whole thing funny. Can't have a good debate with good jokes! (and don't you dare do the joke "Well I'm still waiting for the good joke" because damn this joke is amazing!)

SemperMortis wrote:


13pts puts them at still useless because as already pointed out, Havocs can function in smaller squads and enjoy easier access to cover. So getting them a 2+ save isn't that hard, so if you want to count wounds, I can get 2 wounds for your 1, BUT I have a 1/6 chance to survive a bolter wound, you have a 2/3rd chance to survive a bolter wound without cover. a 5/6th chance with cover. So yeah my guy is 1/2 the cost but he will statistically die 75% quicker. So now we get to the aspect of Glass Cannon. I am fine with them being glass cannons and for them to stay at the absurd price they are at, but they better be doing some serious damage when they do get to shoot before they are wiped out. D3+2 at most gives them 5 shots each, statistically 4. But lets go with 5. 15 of them will net you 75 shots, 25 hits and against a T7 3+ save target (rhino) you will do 12-13 wounds and 6-7 unsaved wounds for 12-14 damage. So a 250pt+ unit managed to kill a 75pt unit in 1 turn of shooting, that doesn't sound to bad to me. And if they have -1 to hit (smoke launchers) that gets cut in half. That sounds reasonable to me still.

Except that also kills a predator so it's not good to say that it's fair that it killed a rhino. It takes 10 lascannons to do the same amount of damage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:


Looks like someone here doesn't see a joke when he reads one! The whole thing was a lead up for that last line that made the whole thing funny. Can't have a good debate with good jokes! (and don't you dare do the joke "Well I'm still waiting for the good joke" because damn this joke is amazing!)

Well, it is the internet.

 koooaei wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:
What is it about ignoring penalties that you don't agree with? I loved the idea as soon as I heard it. Fits the fluff, gives orks a buff to shooting (which they desperately need, but still keeps them from becoming op by keepig the current bs5), and provides a slight counter to the negative hit modifier problems that everyone seems to complain about on the forums.

Howabout rules that ignore something flat out are not good? That makes hard to balance things out. Suddenly -1 trait guys are paying too much for it. Such hard counters are bad for game.

Also it makes no sense. And there are other ways to deal with ork shooting. More shots for points and then universal rule that says 6 always hits(for all armies).

How many shots should lootas get to be effective and to deal with -1 to hit?

A full clip.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


13pts puts them at still useless because as already pointed out, Havocs can function in smaller squads and enjoy easier access to cover. So getting them a 2+ save isn't that hard, so if you want to count wounds, I can get 2 wounds for your 1, BUT I have a 1/6 chance to survive a bolter wound, you have a 2/3rd chance to survive a bolter wound without cover. a 5/6th chance with cover. So yeah my guy is 1/2 the cost but he will statistically die 75% quicker. So now we get to the aspect of Glass Cannon. I am fine with them being glass cannons and for them to stay at the absurd price they are at, but they better be doing some serious damage when they do get to shoot before they are wiped out. D3+2 at most gives them 5 shots each, statistically 4. But lets go with 5. 15 of them will net you 75 shots, 25 hits and against a T7 3+ save target (rhino) you will do 12-13 wounds and 6-7 unsaved wounds for 12-14 damage. So a 250pt+ unit managed to kill a 75pt unit in 1 turn of shooting, that doesn't sound to bad to me. And if they have -1 to hit (smoke launchers) that gets cut in half. That sounds reasonable to me still.

Except that also kills a predator so it's not good to say that it's fair that it killed a rhino. It takes 10 lascannons to do the same amount of damage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:


Looks like someone here doesn't see a joke when he reads one! The whole thing was a lead up for that last line that made the whole thing funny. Can't have a good debate with good jokes! (and don't you dare do the joke "Well I'm still waiting for the good joke" because damn this joke is amazing!)

Well, it is the internet.

I'm a comical none serious guy. Only 25% of the stuff i say here is serious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 hippyjr wrote:
What is it about ignoring penalties that you don't agree with? I loved the idea as soon as I heard it. Fits the fluff, gives orks a buff to shooting (which they desperately need, but still keeps them from becoming op by keepig the current bs5), and provides a slight counter to the negative hit modifier problems that everyone seems to complain about on the forums.

Howabout rules that ignore something flat out are not good? That makes hard to balance things out. Suddenly -1 trait guys are paying too much for it. Such hard counters are bad for game.

Also it makes no sense. And there are other ways to deal with ork shooting. More shots for points and then universal rule that says 6 always hits(for all armies).

How many shots should lootas get to be effective and to deal with -1 to hit?

A full clip.

So a hundred or potentially a thousand depending on how many orks there are and how good the Lootas mek was.

Unlimited so long as the ork's believe they are fully loaded =P

Lootas should be 10 ppm. Maybe 12 if the codex provides some effective buffs by strategems or clan bonuses. Single wound orks with t-shirt save are overcosted if they cost more than 10-12 ppm. Unless maybe our transports become 40pts for a trukk and 80 for a BW.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:


Yeah but are havoks really that rediculous? We're just trying to make lootas AS effective as them and you're saying - no, you can't have that because reasons.

I'm saying at 14 points they'd be pretty close..maybe 13. Beyond that is asking too much when you get two wounds per havok (yes with a crap save).

Why? Calculate it. To make lootas as effective as havoks - counting in durability and not even touching to-hit modifiers and absolute lack of synergy:

1 havok in cover has 2+ armor save, gets an average of 1.33 hits and costs 28 pts. Durability coefficient is (5/6) / 28 = 0.0298, damage coefficient is 1.33 / 28 = 0.0457
1 loota in cover has 5+ armor save, gets an average of 0.67 hits and costs 17 pts. Durability coefficient is (2/6) / 17 = 0.0196, damage coefficient is 0.67 / 17 = 0.0394

To make lootas equal point-wise in both fields, they need to be 0.0298 / 0.0196 = 1.518 times cheaper for durability and 0.0457 / 0.0394 = 1.1599 times cheaper for damage output.

17 - 17/1.518 = 5.8 pts cheaper for durability
17 - 17/ 1.1599 = 2.34 pts cheaper for damage output.

8.14 pts cheaper total. Rounding up to 8 pts cheaper. Means lootas should cost 9 ppm to be equal to unbuffed havoks.

 Blackie wrote:
Lootas should be 10 ppm. Maybe 12 if the codex provides some effective buffs by strategems or clan bonuses. Single wound orks with t-shirt save are overcosted if they cost more than 10-12 ppm. Unless maybe our transports become 40pts for a trukk and 80 for a BW.

A boy with a big shoota is 12. Now, surely the big shoota should be like...2 or 3. Still why would I ever want to do that when I can pay 2 points for +2S, +1AP, +1D and +12"?

I guarantee if they went to 10 points you'd see armies like this - 30 boyz to peg down morale. A painboy for FNP. Enough KFFs for decent coverage. Enough points for a grot screen, too.

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
Painboy
30 Boyz
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
Weirdboy
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:

Why? Calculate it. To make lootas as effective as havoks - counting in durability and not even touching to-hit modifiers and absolute lack of synergy:

1 havok in cover has 2+ armor save, gets an average of 1.33 hits and costs 28 pts. Durability coefficient is (5/6) / 28 = 0.0298, damage coefficient is 1.33 / 28 = 0.0457
1 loota in cover has 5+ armor save, gets an average of 0.67 hits and costs 17 pts. Durability coefficient is (2/6) / 17 = 0.0196, damage coefficient is 0.67 / 17 = 0.0394

To make lootas equal point-wise in both fields, they need to be 0.0298 / 0.0196 = 1.518 times cheaper for durability and 0.0457 / 0.0394 = 1.1599 times cheaper for damage output.

17 - 17/1.518 = 5.8 pts cheaper for durability
17 - 17/ 1.1599 = 2.34 pts cheaper for damage output.

8.14 pts cheaper total. Rounding up to 8 pts cheaper. Means lootas should cost 9 ppm to be equal to unbuffed havoks.

What you're essentially saying is the a boy would cost 0 to 1 points. And the Deffgun instead of being 11 points would be 9 or so. While the math is sound it in no way makes a properly costed unit.

The number of bullets one can shoot in a game is finite. Other armies are not suddenly getting more shots to deal with the cheaper bodies.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

What you're essentially saying is the a boy would cost 0 to 1 points. And the Deffgun instead of being 11 points would be 9 or so. While the math is sound it in no way makes a properly costed unit.

The number of bullets one can shoot in a game is finite. Other armies are not suddenly getting more shots to deal with the cheaper bodies.

I'm not saying how much a boy should cost. I've calculated how much a loota should cost to be equal to an autocannon havok in damage output and durability combined. And please take note i haven't even included ld issues a loota would have over a havok.

If you want to prove my math wrong, you're welcome to try.

Btw, do you have any experience with ork units in question on tabletop (lootas, deff dreads)? I can't understand why you so fiercely protect this garbage?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Lootas should be 10 ppm. Maybe 12 if the codex provides some effective buffs by strategems or clan bonuses. Single wound orks with t-shirt save are overcosted if they cost more than 10-12 ppm. Unless maybe our transports become 40pts for a trukk and 80 for a BW.

A boy with a big shoota is 12. Now, surely the big shoota should be like...2 or 3. Still why would I ever want to do that when I can pay 2 points for +2S, +1AP, +1D and +12"?

I guarantee if they went to 10 points you'd see armies like this - 30 boyz to peg down morale. A painboy for FNP. Enough KFFs for decent coverage. Enough points for a grot screen, too.

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
Painboy
30 Boyz
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
Weirdboy
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas

Spearhead
Mek, KFF
15 Lootas
15 Lootas
15 Lootas

Except a Big Shoota boy is way overcosted too so maybe don't make that comparison please.

At 9 points per Loota our damage per point is right there with a Heavy Weapons Squad armed with Autocannons and per what Kooaei said it's on par with Havocs if you include durability as a factor . At 10 or 11 points I believe you see maybe what a Loota should cost considering our small increase in S and T vs the HWT.

 koooaei wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

What you're essentially saying is the a boy would cost 0 to 1 points. And the Deffgun instead of being 11 points would be 9 or so. While the math is sound it in no way makes a properly costed unit.

The number of bullets one can shoot in a game is finite. Other armies are not suddenly getting more shots to deal with the cheaper bodies.

I'm not saying how much a boy should cost. I've calculated how much a loota should cost to be equal to an autocannon havok in damage output and durability combined. And please take note i haven't even included ld issues a loota would have over a havok.

If you want to prove my math wrong, you're welcome to try.

Btw, do you have any experience with ork units in question on tabletop (lootas, deff dreads)? I can't understand why you so fiercely protect this garbage?

I'm not refuting the math. I'm saying it's bad logic.

You're not saying how much a boy should cost, but you're trying to point them on that durability comparison.

My most common opponent is an Ork player and we go back and forth often.

Let's face it. You guys would be bored if I didn't defend it.

OP: Does anyone hate this unit?
Poster#1: I hate it!
Poster#2: Me too!
OP: Well, looks like we're done here. Good job guys!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rismonite wrote:


Except a Big Shoota boy is way overcosted too so maybe don't make that comparison please.

At 9 points per Loota our damage per point is right there with a Heavy Weapons Squad armed with Autocannons and per what Kooaei said it's on par with Havocs if you include durability as a factor . At 10 or 11 points I believe you see maybe what a Loota should cost considering our small increase in S and T vs the HWT.

Slow down.

It absolutely needs to be made, because a big shoota needs to be able to occupy a valuable space or else the book will have no internal balance.

If a Loota is 9 that makes the Deffgun 3 points. Are you going to make Boyz with Big Shootas 6 points?

I like that we keep creeping down across these posts...13..12..11...10...9. There is no floor!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It absolutely needs to be made, because a big shoota needs to be able to occupy a valuable space or else the book will have no internal balance.

If a Loota is 9 that makes the Deffgun 3 points. Are you going to make Boyz with Big Shootas 6 points?

It should be implied that the big shoota boy, who is also grossly overcosted, would receive a points reduction of his own and that his proposed changes are not what is being discussed here. At least to me, the last few pages of this thread have had nothing to do with internal balance of proposed changes in an ork codex that isn't out yet. However, it does seem to be about external balance of wishlist changes involving Lootas specifically to things already current in print. I don't know why you are hammering home a point that is much more irrelevant when there are units in current codices that we should be comparing our wishlisted proposed values with.

But, lets dilute and derail the point and bring up Big Shoota boy changes in the Loota thread;
-I think one Boy per ten should upgrade to a big shoota for free because otherwise few even build that model and he is otherwise cool to see
-I think the Big Shoota upgrade should cost +2 points in the rest of the codex

Wait, I think someone a while ago said Orks bring the most models to the table? Have you not played 8th edition?

 Rismonite wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It absolutely needs to be made, because a big shoota needs to be able to occupy a valuable space or else the book will have no internal balance.

If a Loota is 9 that makes the Deffgun 3 points. Are you going to make Boyz with Big Shootas 6 points?

It should be implied that the big shoota boy, who is also grossly overcosted, would receive a points reduction of his own and that his proposed changes are not what is being discussed here. At least to me, the last few pages of this thread have had nothing to do with internal balance of proposed changes in an ork codex that isn't out yet.

Sure, but we've reached a point where the proposed changes severely alter that outlook.

If the logic is that the durability of an Loota should be directly reflective to that of a marine then what should the cost of a Primaris be? It has two wounds and so is doubly durable, right?

I had a good laugh when Daedalus compared lootas being to cheap to Big Shoota Boyz

I did a thread a while back where the majority agreed a big shoota should cost 2-3pts at most, and honestly in a boyz squad they should be a free upgrade because it sucks in general. A big shoota is a side upgrade for a slugga squad and a minor upgrade to a shoota squad. Its equivalent to a Stormbolter at most.

SemperMortis wrote:
I had a good laugh when Daedalus compared lootas being to cheap to Big Shoota Boyz

I did a thread a while back where the majority agreed a big shoota should cost 2-3pts at most, and honestly in a boyz squad they should be a free upgrade because it sucks in general. A big shoota is a side upgrade for a slugga squad and a minor upgrade to a shoota squad. Its equivalent to a Stormbolter at most.

You should probably go read my posts more closely.

Answer this question -

If a Loota is 9 or 10 points why would I NOT pick a Loota over a basic Shoota Boy?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I had a good laugh when Daedalus compared lootas being to cheap to Big Shoota Boyz

I did a thread a while back where the majority agreed a big shoota should cost 2-3pts at most, and honestly in a boyz squad they should be a free upgrade because it sucks in general. A big shoota is a side upgrade for a slugga squad and a minor upgrade to a shoota squad. Its equivalent to a Stormbolter at most.

You should probably go read my posts more closely.

Answer this question -

If a Loota is 9 or 10 points why would I NOT pick a Loota over a basic Shoota Boy?

For one thing, they have two completely different roles. Being troops makes shoota boyz able to fill out battalions rather than spearheads for more CP's. Shoota Boyz can be taken in mobs of 30 vs Lootas being only 15, making them ideal for "the jump" psychic power since they can do something in the case where they don't make the 9" charge. They can have a Nob with PK/BC leading them, and Shoota Boyz still have a lot more utility in CC getting the +1 attack buff for having 20 or more models. Also, given the abundance of -1 to hit modifiers, Lootas still have a lot of issues against many of their ideal targets. I agree with Jidmah's earlier suggestion that Lootas do 2D3 shots and only a slight point decrease rather than simply slashing prices. Bringing costs down only do so much (prime example is the stompa...) and in the case of the big shoota, making it AP-1 or Rapid Fire 3 would make it a much more palatable option.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Answer this question -

If a Loota is 9 or 10 points why would I NOT pick a Loota over a basic Shoota Boy?

They don't fill the same battlefield role.

They don't have obsec.

They are more expensive.

They are less durable, point for point.

They are less likely to ever use their cqc ability.

To be clear I'm talking literal shoota boyz not slugga, which is more directed to the above post.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Answer this question -
If a Loota is 9 or 10 points why would I NOT pick a Loota over a basic Shoota Boy?

They don't fill the same battlefield role.

As in detachment slot? I can fill brigades with gretchin and runtherds.

They don't have obsec.

Useful, but not always relevant.

They are more expensive.

Well, yea, and a better gun.

They are less durable, point for point.

And will have fewer anti infantry guns targeting them from the start,

They are less likely to ever use their cqc ability.

Same with Havoks, but you don't see people scrambling to field CSM.

Let me further demonstrate the problem.

Quad Lad Pred is 190.
That's 19 Lootas (or 21 depending if you go to 9 points).

Shooting something T7 3+
//2 shots
38 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 6

//3 shots
54 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 9

And the Predator:

4 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 5.2

So a 44% chance (using CP reroll on shots - 33% otherwise and 33% to cripple) to likely smoke a Predator in one round of shoot which a Laspred can't likely hope to do in 2.

Because even at 9 ppm lootas won't win you games. You still need boyz. Lots and lots of boyz. Lootas just become decent.

 koooaei wrote:
Because even at 9 ppm lootas won't win you games. You still need boyz. Lots and lots of boyz. Lootas just become fieldable.

Exactly. At some point, cutting costs gives you diminishing returns. Also, you never addressed my points. Grotz used as filler means you lose a lot on opportunity cost of taking more boyz and taking multiple runtherds brings the same issue, where they are there literally to babysit. Grotz just act as bullet catchers when Mek Gun Grot Gunnerz do the same thing but even cheaper and they effectively have the character rule when it comes to being shot at.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
snip

Listen, you've kinda admitted why you're here with your previous assertion. It's good to have someone who constantly plays devil's advocate and tries to open a discussion.

I think we're kinda passed that point now though. You're trying to defend a unit that has no place and is not fit for purpose. I understand some of your points and I agree with some of them. But stating that Lootas can't be 9ppm because it makes 6ppm Shoota Boyz redundant is not an intelligent argument.

Always hitting on a 6+ won't fix Lootas. They need more, as can be said for a lot in our index. It's even more clear when you compare them to units in other armies that fulfill a similar role.

What I would like to see is synergy across our codex as well as the comparable reductions that units in other codexes have received. Perhaps Big Meks can provide some sort of buff to nearby units in the shooting phase. Give us a reason to take SAG Meks and Lootas together, as we'd imagine them in the fluff.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
snip

Listen, you've kinda admitted why you're here with your previous assertion. It's good to have someone who constantly plays devil's advocate and tries to open a discussion.

I think we're kinda passed that point now though. You're trying to defend a unit that has no place and is not fit for purpose. I understand some of your points and I agree with some of them. But stating that Lootas can't be 9ppm because it makes 6ppm Shoota Boyz redundant is not an intelligent argument.

Always hitting on a 6+ won't fix Lootas. They need more, as can be said for a lot in our index. It's even more clear when you compare them to units in other armies that fulfill a similar role.

What I would like to see is synergy across our codex as well as the comparable reductions that units in other codexes have received. Perhaps Big Meks can provide some sort of buff to nearby units in the shooting phase. Give us a reason to take SAG Meks and Lootas together, as we'd imagine them in the fluff.

More than simply Devil's Advocate.

We're all in agreement. Lootas are not costed well.

(Also i'm not sure where the always 6+ to hit for Lootas comes from. I haven't argued for that.)

In any case we're now squabbling over the details and suggesting 9 or 10ppm Lootas will break the game and the army. Even simply compare to 5 havoks w/ 4LC is cheaper at 165. That's 16 (10ppm) to 18 (9ppm) Lootas.

Lootas shoot marines
32 * .333 * .666 * .5 = 3.5 dead marines

30 Shoota Boyz shoot marines
60 * .333 * .5 * .333 = 3.3 (don't get me started about cover)

Marines shoot Lootas
4 * .666 * .833 = 2.2 (They wouldn't, but this is illustrative)

Lootas shoot a T7 3+ tank
32 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 5.3

Marines shoot a T7 3+ tank
4 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 5.2

So Lootas are:
-Better than LC at hurting T7 and below (at 2 shots)
-Also capable of taking on infantry
-Better than Shoota Boyz at killing infantry - from 48"

When marines lose a LC they lose 25% of their effectiveness.
When Lootas lose a model that's 6% of their effectiveness.

I can't see how any person can rationally argue for this - and that's at 10ppm without even considering a 3 shot round.

QED Shoota Boyz as any sort of functional unit would be irrelevant. Sure, you'd take them for bodies, but you'd do the work with Lootas.

 koooaei wrote:
Because even at 9 ppm lootas won't win you games. You still need boyz. Lots and lots of boyz. Lootas just become decent.

Lootas at 9 ppm will win games.

You wouldn't need boys, you wouldn't need anything beyond Lootas, an HQ and maybe a few screens.

The only thing that would counter 9ppm lootas would be negative hit modifiers.

I think 11 or 12pts per model is fair. It's about half the price of a dev with a heavy bolter.

Tyran wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Because even at 9 ppm lootas won't win you games. You still need boyz. Lots and lots of boyz. Lootas just become decent.

Lootas at 9 ppm will win games.

You wouldn't need boys, you wouldn't need anything beyond Lootas, an HQ and maybe a few screens.

The only thing that would counter 9ppm lootas would be negative hit modifiers.

Are autocannon havoks dominating games? We've just literally made lootas as effective as autocannon havoks.

I'm not saying that lootas SHOULD cost 9-10 ppm. I'm just pointing out how awful they currently are and that their mathematical point cost with current rules is 9 ppm if you compare them even to such a mediocre unit as csm autocannon havoks. Which proposes lootas are almost two times overpriced. Would you protect a 140 pts rhino in a same way you're protecting lootas?

If they continue to cost 17 ppm, they bloody well need some good buffs like more shots, better bs and better armor. If they get down to ~13 pts they still need buffs.

If i were to fix lootas, i'd increase their bs first because it not only deals with price issues, it deals with negative modifier being too gravy.

Tyran wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Because even at 9 ppm lootas won't win you games. You still need boyz. Lots and lots of boyz. Lootas just become decent.

Lootas at 9 ppm will win games.

You wouldn't need boys, you wouldn't need anything beyond Lootas, an HQ and maybe a few screens.

The only thing that would counter 9ppm lootas would be negative hit modifiers.

Negative modifiers that basically everyone have.

Even at 10-11ppm I wouldn't take more than 30 at most, but even 15 don't sound like an auto take.

They're still t-shirt save dudes with bs5+. Unleashing a massive amount of S4 with no ap in combat and tarpit the enemy shooters with the blobs is the way to go with orks, not shooting with an army of lootas.

 koooaei wrote:

Are autocannon havoks dominating games? We've just literally made lootas as effective as autocannon havoks.

I'm not saying that lootas SHOULD cost 9-10 ppm. I'm just pointing out how awful they currently are and that their mathematical point cost with current rules is 9 ppm if you compare them even to such a mediocre unit as csm autocannon havoks. Which proposes lootas are almost two times overpriced. Would you protect a 140 pts rhino in a same way you're protecting lootas?

No, in your rush to drop their cost for durability you made them better than LC Havoks. This is why I play "Devil's Advocate" - if you guys can't see why this is such a terrible idea how the hell are you properly judging the value of other units?

But let's do AC Havoks again, which is 12 10ppm Lootas.

v T7 3+
Lootas
24 * .333 * .5 * .5 * 2 = 4

Havoks
8 * .666 * .5 *.5 * 2 = 2.7

For every death of a Havok with AC they lose 25% of their effectiveness.
For every death of a Loota they lose 8% of their effectiveness.

Lootas shoot Havoks
2.7 die and Havoks are now 50 to 75% effectiveness

Havoks shoot Lootas
3.5 die and Lootas are 75%

And once again 3 shots would upend the whole unit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

No, in your rush to drop their cost for durability you made them better than LC Havoks.

I can see that. However, keep in mind that lootas loose 50% effectiveness vs -1 to hit. Means they can't even reposition without severe dps losses unlike bs3 units that loose only half of that. And they suffer from morale. And there is no way to buff their shooting outside of an extremely underwhelmng dakka dakka strategem.

 koooaei wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

No, in your rush to drop their cost for durability you made them better than LC Havoks.

I can see that. However, keep in mind that lootas loose 50% effectiveness vs -1 to hit. Means they can't even reposition without severe dps losses unlike bs3 units that loose only half of that. And they suffer from morale. And there is no way to buff their shooting outside of an extremely underwhelmng dakka dakka strategem.

-1 to hit definitely needs to be addressed for Orks, but it isn't the majority of armies with such a rule. Mob Rule gives Orks better LD than my Rubrics until half their unit is gone...and it's more than easy enough to tail a unit of 30 boyz to them.

 koooaei wrote:

Are autocannon havoks dominating games? We've just literally made lootas as effective as autocannon havoks.

AC Havok.
28 points. 2 shots, bs3+, 4/3 hits. 21 points for each hit.
9ppm Loota. 2 shots, bs5+, 2/3 hit. 13.5 points for eac hit.

I don't see how in the math's hell a AC Havok is equal to a 9ppm Loota.

We've also included durability and lack of access to buffs.

okay, this maths is confusing me... seriously... no idea what we are even walking about anymore. I have a Masters but it aint in maths!

 lolman1c wrote:
okay, this maths is confusing me... seriously... no idea what we are even walking about anymore. I have a Masters but it aint in maths!

You don't know math, but you know more Dakka! This isn't simply Dakka Dakka, but Dakka Dakka Dakka DAKKA!!!

I hope that helps.

The big difference between Havoks or any other SM unit and Lootas is that they sit in cover enjoying a 2+ save while someone farts in the general direction of the Lootas and they die then run away.

Morale is definitely an issue for Lootas, I'm sorry but in an actual game you're not going to string back a squad of 30 Boyz. You're also not going to have a Painboy or KFF Big Mek after turn 1 (if at all).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The big difference between Havoks or any other SM unit and Lootas is that they sit in cover enjoying a 2+ save while someone farts in the general direction of the Lootas and they die then run away.

Morale is definitely an issue for Lootas, I'm sorry but in an actual game you're not going to string back a squad of 30 Boyz. You're also not going to have a Painboy or KFF Big Mek after turn 1 (if at all).

Why would you not have your generally untargetable characters after turn 1?

The cost calculation koooaei made to get Lootas to 9ppm included marines in cover so this cost makes them "equal", but people forget that also increases their overall shooting effectiveness, too.

1 havok in cover has 2+ armor save, gets an average of 1.33 hits and costs 28 pts. Durability coefficient is (5/6) / 28 = 0.0298, damage coefficient is 1.33 / 28 = 0.0457
1 loota in cover has 5+ armor save, gets an average of 0.67 hits and costs 17 pts. Durability coefficient is (2/6) / 17 = 0.0196, damage coefficient is 0.67 / 17 = 0.0394

Daedalus81, how's tabletop simulator stuff going on?

 koooaei wrote:
Daedalus81, how's tabletop simulator stuff going on?

Confusing as frig. We might have to do Vassal, but the missus is gone tomorrow morning so once the baby goes down for a nap i'm going to try and config it to be ready in the evening when all the kids are down. (Just a bit after 8PM EST)

 koooaei wrote:
We've also included durability and lack of access to buffs.

How do you math lack of access to buffs anyway?

As for durability:

Cover wounds

6 needed to kill a Havoc
1.5 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is 4 times more durable than Loota.

ap0 wounds.
3 needed to kill a Havoc
6/5 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is 2.5 times more durable than Loota.

ap-1 wounds.
2 needed to kill a Havoc
1 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is 2 times more durable than Loota.

ap-2 wounds.
1.5 needed to kill a Havoc
1 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is 1.5 times more durable than Loota.

ap-3 wounds.
6/5 needed to kill a Havoc
1 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is 6/5 times more durable than Loota.

ap-4 and better wounds.
1 needed to kill a Havoc
1 needed to kill a Loota.

Havoc is equal to a Loota.

Even only using durability, there is no way to justify a 9ppm Loota which would be more than 3 times cheaper than a Havoc, unless the entire game is based on being on cover and lack of any AP whatsoever.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Why would you not have your generally untargetable characters after turn 1?

You would? They just wouldn't be anywhere near your Lootas.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Daedalus81, how's tabletop simulator stuff going on?

Confusing as frig. We might have to do Vassal, but the missus is gone tomorrow morning so once the baby goes down for a nap i'm going to try and config it to be ready in the evening when all the kids are down. (Just a bit after 8PM EST)

Weekend is the way to go. Working during the week.

 koooaei wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Daedalus81, how's tabletop simulator stuff going on?

Confusing as frig. We might have to do Vassal, but the missus is gone tomorrow morning so once the baby goes down for a nap i'm going to try and config it to be ready in the evening when all the kids are down. (Just a bit after 8PM EST)

Weekend is the way to go. Working during the week.

Blarg. Weekends are very difficult...let me try and get approval from the boss.

News just in! Gw doesn't even try to hide it anymore!

 lolman1c wrote:
News just in! Gw doesn't even try to hide it anymore!

Spoiler:

How would you hide such a massive pile of junk?

 lolman1c wrote:
News just in! Gw doesn't even try to hide it anymore!

Spoiler:

Well, that's salt in the wound!

Also is it just me or did they spell invulnerable wrong?

 lolman1c wrote:
Also is it just me or did they spell invulnerable wrong?

Nope, you're right, they definitely spelled it wrong. Bravo GW, Bravo.

 lolman1c wrote:
News just in! Gw doesn't even try to hide it anymore!

Spoiler:

I hope someone slapped that down in front of Reese.

Gw needs to hire proof readers or even an editing company! I have a professional friend who will do it for them for a tenner per document!

Lootas disappeared a long time ago....the weapon they use at the moment looks like it was looted from er orks!!!
The days of "proper" looting ie using las cannons/plasma/missile launchers will never come back.

Generally speaking how often are Ap -2+ weapons used to kill havocs and or lootas? in my experience Lootas are killed by everything looking at them funny. S4 bolters for example. Now for Havocs which we all know are a subpar unit at best, how often are they targeted with AP-2+ weapons? again not that often from my experience. Usually if they are that means someone is using a VERY expensive weapon to kill a relatively cheap model where as it could be used to kill a vehicle so there is always a trade off.

So for durability, not really fair to compare -3 AP and more because obviously nobody is shooting that except in rare circumstances.

Now as for Lootas at 9-10pts being more effective then Lascannon armed units....funny how we keep comparing them to T7 units, how about we up that to T8 2+ save...like a landraider, who is better then? unfair comparison is unfair

Lascannons are designed to kill HEAVY VEHICLES, lootas are for killing light to medium vehicles and laying a smack down on medium infantry like Tactical Marines, in a pinch you could use them against heavy infantry like terminators. I would be fine with reducing them to 15ppm, giving them a 4+ save and giving them D3+2 or 2D3 shots. But if you don't want to heavily increase there stats then 9-10ppm is what they should be...and even then i probably won't take them because negative to hit modifiers will make them irrelevant, and I have yet to come across a tournament where at least 1 of my opponents wasn't rocking a -2 to hit on some units.

SemperMortis wrote:
Generally speaking how often are Ap -2+ weapons used to kill havocs and or lootas? in my experience Lootas are killed by everything looking at them funny. S4 bolters for example. Now for Havocs which we all know are a subpar unit at best, how often are they targeted with AP-2+ weapons? again not that often from my experience. Usually if they are that means someone is using a VERY expensive weapon to kill a relatively cheap model where as it could be used to kill a vehicle so there is always a trade off.

So for durability, not really fair to compare -3 AP and more because obviously nobody is shooting that except in rare circumstances.

Now as for Lootas at 9-10pts being more effective then Lascannon armed units....funny how we keep comparing them to T7 units, how about we up that to T8 2+ save...like a landraider, who is better then? unfair comparison is unfair

Lascannons are designed to kill HEAVY VEHICLES, lootas are for killing light to medium vehicles and laying a smack down on medium infantry like Tactical Marines, in a pinch you could use them against heavy infantry like terminators. I would be fine with reducing them to 15ppm, giving them a 4+ save and giving them D3+2 or 2D3 shots. But if you don't want to heavily increase there stats then 9-10ppm is what they should be...and even then i probably won't take them because negative to hit modifiers will make them irrelevant, and I have yet to come across a tournament where at least 1 of my opponents wasn't rocking a -2 to hit on some units.

Unfair to compare them against the most common profile in the game? I haven't even seen a landraider at a tournament this edition.

But let's compare anyway...

LC
4 * .666 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 4.1

or

Lootas
36 * .333 * .333 * .333 * 2 = 2.7

Pretty acceptable considering you'd only ever see one every blue moon. And a 3 shot would be 4 damage, which is on par.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Generally speaking how often are Ap -2+ weapons used to kill havocs and or lootas? in my experience Lootas are killed by everything looking at them funny. S4 bolters for example. Now for Havocs which we all know are a subpar unit at best, how often are they targeted with AP-2+ weapons? again not that often from my experience. Usually if they are that means someone is using a VERY expensive weapon to kill a relatively cheap model where as it could be used to kill a vehicle so there is always a trade off.

So for durability, not really fair to compare -3 AP and more because obviously nobody is shooting that except in rare circumstances.

Now as for Lootas at 9-10pts being more effective then Lascannon armed units....funny how we keep comparing them to T7 units, how about we up that to T8 2+ save...like a landraider, who is better then? unfair comparison is unfair

Lascannons are designed to kill HEAVY VEHICLES, lootas are for killing light to medium vehicles and laying a smack down on medium infantry like Tactical Marines, in a pinch you could use them against heavy infantry like terminators. I would be fine with reducing them to 15ppm, giving them a 4+ save and giving them D3+2 or 2D3 shots. But if you don't want to heavily increase there stats then 9-10ppm is what they should be...and even then i probably won't take them because negative to hit modifiers will make them irrelevant, and I have yet to come across a tournament where at least 1 of my opponents wasn't rocking a -2 to hit on some units.

Unfair to compare them against the most common profile in the game? I haven't even seen a landraider at a tournament this edition.

But let's compare anyway...

LC
4 * .666 * .666 * .666 * 3.5 = 4.1

or

Lootas
36 * .333 * .333 * .333 * 2 = 2.7

Pretty acceptable considering you'd only ever see one every blue moon. And a 3 shot would be 4 damage, which is on par.

And conversely, if you get 1 shot its 1.35 dmg. So its worse by far at killing Heavy vehicles, and the fact that you haven't seen a T8 vehicle this edition is astounding, I just played a game against 3 of them, my orkz literally had no answer other then trying to tarpit them. But again, i don't want 9ppm Lootas, I want 14-15ppm lootas with MORE shots, MORE ARMOR and some kind of increase to BS. i am fine with paying 3x the cost of a boy for a heavy weapons model, i just want it to be WORTH taking it as opposed to a self inflicted wound.

SemperMortis wrote:


And conversely, if you get 1 shot its 1.35 dmg. So its worse by far at killing Heavy vehicles, and the fact that you haven't seen a T8 vehicle this edition is astounding, I just played a game against 3 of them, my orkz literally had no answer other then trying to tarpit them.

And that's what CP is for. Obviously that won't apply to multiple units, but it's so far from being a problem that it's not worth worrying about. I've seen T8 vehicles. It's why I use Vindis, but pretty much no one wants to run those so IG is the only other source for those. So one "bad" matchup.

But again, i don't want 9ppm Lootas, I want 14-15ppm lootas with MORE shots, MORE ARMOR and some kind of increase to BS. i am fine with paying 3x the cost of a boy for a heavy weapons model, i just want it to be WORTH taking it as opposed to a self inflicted wound.

On that we'll agree - maybe not the BS part, because I don't see Orks getting that, but dodging minus to hit would be nice.