Basically, Warboss on Bike can now allow bikes to advance and charge (yey... no idea why this wasn't there from the start (in fact, I thought it was and had to open my index to see how it changed)). Stormboyz don't have to suffer mortal wounds anymore! And something to do with mob up my small brain couldn't be bothered to try to understand!
Discuss mah Orky boyz!
In my opinion this actually scares me. It makes me think that the warboss on bike won't be in our codex if they are having to change his rules in our index almost 6 months after it came out. *Gulp*.
I've always wanted one... so much thai i paint my orks red. XD all i got though is a trukk, wagon, 3 koptas and a dakka jet. My Morkanaut and kans can count I geuss.
I want bikes but never saw a use for them... might reconsider if they don't kill of bike hqs.
I've always wanted one... so much thai i paint my orks red. XD all i got though is a trukk, wagon, 3 koptas and a dakka jet. My Morkanaut and kans can count I geuss.
I want bikes but never saw a use for them... might reconsider if they don't kill of bike hqs.
We may see the return of 'Red onez go fasta' as at least part of their trait - maybe a full 6" advance. Stack that with advance and charge from the boss...good stuff.
Give the kult of speed vehicles an extra 3" movement, the ability to reroll advance and charge rolls and the kult of speed warbosses waaagh! ability should affect vehicles as well. I don't think my kult of speed are ever going to be very good but I hope they increase the viability of them. Also, without looking at the index, I really don't understand how that mob up rule is different either.
PiñaColada wrote: Give the kult of speed vehicles an extra 3" movement, the ability to reroll advance and charge rolls and the kult of speed warbosses waaagh! ability should affect vehicles as well. I don't think my kult of speed are ever going to be very good but I hope they increase the viability of them. Also, without looking at the index, I really don't understand how that mob up rule is different either.
That was a bit....underwhelming to say the least. Got an ability which has ZERO impact on the game because nobody wants to take bikers right now and if for some weird Fething reason they do take them, they don't want to be in CC as they are pretty much a shooting only platform...unless your opponent is scared of a handful of S4 attacks.
SemperMortis wrote: That was a bit....underwhelming to say the least. Got an ability which has ZERO impact on the game because nobody wants to take bikers right now and if for some weird Fething reason they do take them, they don't want to be in CC as they are pretty much a shooting only platform...unless your opponent is scared of a handful of S4 attacks.
Yea they definitely were not a focus. Hopefully a codex this summer rather than this winter.
SemperMortis wrote: That was a bit....underwhelming to say the least. Got an ability which has ZERO impact on the game because nobody wants to take bikers right now and if for some weird Fething reason they do take them, they don't want to be in CC as they are pretty much a shooting only platform...unless your opponent is scared of a handful of S4 attacks.
Yea they definitely were not a focus. Hopefully a codex this summer rather than this winter.
I still say GW missed a golden opportunity to release orkz in October...Orktober. and I would rather not have to wait until October now to get a codex which my negative side thinks is going to be trash and my positive side thinks is going to be rubbish
I think the warboss change was just an oversight. Because the warboss on a bike would not allow himself to advance and charge, because he was a biker. So this minor change makes his threat range much better than before. And I bet most people were playing him wrong anyway, it feels un-intuitive to have warboss on foot be able to advance and charge, but warboss on bike to not.
Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
There's however one nice thing we did get. Open top chinork. Not sure if that's still worth the points but at least we now have flying fast burna platform. Problem is to really use that we need lots of them as they so easily...Anybody know alternative model that isn't as expensive as FW one?
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
There's however one nice thing we did get. Open top chinork. Not sure if that's still worth the points but at least we now have flying fast burna platform. Problem is to really use that we need lots of them as they so easily...Anybody know alternative model that isn't as expensive as FW one?
It has no effect on da jump. Da jimp is not a DS it's an ability that happens during the game. You can still Da Jump on turn 4 for example.
Also the 0-3 data rule is just a suggestion for tournament players... I've never cared about tournaments and just think they end up hurting casual more so would rather that stook away for now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
There's however one nice thing we did get. Open top chinork. Not sure if that's still worth the points but at least we now have flying fast burna platform. Problem is to really use that we need lots of them as they so easily...Anybody know alternative model that isn't as expensive as FW one?
For a FW models most Ork stuff are actually priced well. It's funny... but i'm waiting until our codex before I buy anything at all.
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
There's however one nice thing we did get. Open top chinork. Not sure if that's still worth the points but at least we now have flying fast burna platform. Problem is to really use that we need lots of them as they so easily...Anybody know alternative model that isn't as expensive as FW one?
It has no effect on da jump. Da jimp is not a DS it's an ability that happens during the game. You can still Da Jump on turn 4 for example.
It takes unit out of game and then they are set on table. No turn 1 da jump outside your deployment zone.
After turn 1 you are still forced to deploy more than 9" from enemy which since we are h2h army makes simply better to have more boyz since we get often more likely T2 charge with them foot slogging than by da jumping!
Also the 0-3 data rule is just a suggestion for tournament players... I've never cared about tournaments and just think they end up hurting casual more so would rather that stook away for now.
max 3 detachments is also "suggestions". In practice I have run into more gamers who disallow premeasuring than allow more than 3 detachments.
For a FW models most Ork stuff are actually priced well. It's funny... but i'm waiting until our codex before I buy anything at all.
370£ for 5 cheap transports is "bit" more than I would be willing to pay. Especially as it's still not super awesome unit that I would be taking often to the field.
It takes unit out of game and then they are set on table. No turn 1 da jump outside your deployment zone.
After turn 1 you are still forced to deploy more than 9" from enemy which since we are h2h army makes simply better to have more boyz since we get often more likely T2 charge with them foot slogging than by da jumping!
OK this is wrong. The ruling in the FAQ is in reference to TACTICAL RESERVES not units arriving as reinforcements per se. Obviously if a squad is Da Jumped they must not be tactical reserves so aren't bound by those rules. Both RAW and common sense support this.
Check the da jump rule. It says setting up on table. New rules refer to setting up on table top. Just like grey knights lost their turn 1 teleporting so did orks.
Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
I would LOVE to be wrong I just converted weirdboy and have another coming. Was planning to send in kommandos, then jump 30 shoota boyz turn 1 and stormboyz rushing in as well along with 2nd wave of boyz. Alas kommandoes died. At least da jump would give bit extra initial pressure and ease up deployment road block issues another block swarming in creates.
lolman1c wrote: And something to do with mob up my small brain couldn't be bothered to try to understand!
The Mob Rule change means you can no longer use a nearby Ork unit's Leadership, just their number of models. It's to stop people claiming that "I'm using this unit's Ld, and their Ld is equal to this other unit's Ld, which is equal to the number of models in this big mob over here, which is 30!" and chaining Leadership values across the board. Unfortunately, it also stops units from benefiting from the Leadership of nearby Ork characters, which is a shame.
tneva82 wrote: I would LOVE to be wrong I just converted weirdboy and have another coming. Was planning to send in kommandos, then jump 30 shoota boyz turn 1 and stormboyz rushing in as well along with 2nd wave of boyz. Alas kommandoes died. At least da jump would give bit extra initial pressure and ease up deployment road block issues another block swarming in creates.
Hopefully GWFAQ's a FAQ.
I’ve popped them a query on fb, so let’s see! This is definitely one of those cases where I can see both sides of the argument.
Nazrak wrote: Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
They've already clarified this in the BRB's FAQ.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Treating them as if they're arriving as reinforcements would presumably mean no Jumping out of your deployment zone on turn 1.
Nazrak wrote: Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
They've already clarified this in the BRB's FAQ.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Treating them as if they're arriving as reinforcements would presumably mean no Jumping out of your deployment zone on turn 1.
Irrelevant since the question and hence the answer both refer to with regard to tiring heavy weapons. Also reinforcements aren't the same as tactical reserves. The rule specifically refers to units entering the battle field.
Nazrak wrote: Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
They've already clarified this in the BRB's FAQ.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Treating them as if they're arriving as reinforcements would presumably mean no Jumping out of your deployment zone on turn 1.
Irrelevant since the question and hence the answer both refer to with regard to tiring heavy weapons. Also reinforcements aren't the same as tactical reserves. The rule specifically refers to units entering the battle field.
The question is about heavy weapons, but the answer seems to have a broader scope than that. Other FAQs have also clarified that abilities and powers like Da Jump can trigger stratagems like Auspex Scan which only target units being set up as if they were reinforcements, further suggesting that Da Jump's "remove and set up again" should be treated as reinforcements.
Additionally, the first line of the new Tactical Reserves rule states "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements." It's not making a distinction between reinforcements and tactical reserves at all.
koooaei wrote: Well, turn 2 kommandoes can srill support foot boyz. Wejust lost the ability to do anything turn 1
Problem is by the time kommandos come enemy has moved forward their chaff so basically your kommando's will likely be having HIGHER charge roll to do than boyz who have moved 10+2d6...
So basically boyz are faster than kommando are. While costing 3 pts more per model and not getting +1A for being 20+ models. Not a good thing for kommando...
Nazrak wrote: Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
They've already clarified this in the BRB's FAQ.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Treating them as if they're arriving as reinforcements would presumably mean no Jumping out of your deployment zone on turn 1.
As I said earlier. This would mean we could never da jump the boyz after turn 3... but we can and we do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yes... GW (in their infinite wisdom as always) have made a weird mistake this time.
1. they announce this as a Beta while many places (I personally know a few) will take those rules as law and will play them... They really need to emphasis this is for play testers only. Maybe even produce a beta pdf for people to download and make notes on. Perhaps push a play testing day at local GWs where for 3 or 4 hours each Wednesday (I picked a random day) the rules are enforced and people (at the end) tell the staff what they did and did not like. The staff would then write this down and send the information to the head office.
2. Many armies are going to be effected on different levels with an overall sweeping nerf. Sometimes I think GWdevs forget that they have more than just their own collections. The developer talking on the livestream mentioned how he plays GSC and that's probably why they aren't effected by these rules. He knows the race and knows something like this will damage their play style. GW needs to understand something like this won't just effect their own armies... Sure a space marine force now has to wait until turn 2 to bring in the 1 squad of terminators they might have (who are now actually more over costed in the many places that adopted these rules) but a deathwing force is pretty much dead (I mean it was already dead but not the force has being consumed for bio material). These rules don't seem like beta rules they seem like pre alpha ideas some people have sat around in a room.
As much as I love he new beat stuff and GW interacting with us they still have to maintain some professionalism. Really it should go:
The have an idea. They then send this idea to a think tank with many other ideas to throw off any would be leaks. They then get a response from those ideas and then develop upon them. At this stage they then go into internal testing with every single army (this is why GW needs a dedicated testing team not just dev testing... most game developers have this). Then they develop on the idea more and send the idea out as an alpha to external testing. Then at that point they get the feed back, develop upon the idea and finally send the idea out as a beat to the public.
Honestly, it seems like a lot of work but I've worked for many developers who do this all the time to make good games. And in the time it takes them to write the FAQ (be it 6 months or that 1 month they took to come out with the "march" FAQ) they could have done all this! People will always complain but this might make some people complain less.
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
We can still field 18 mek gunz, 18 big gunz, 9 dreads, 18 kanz, 45 lootas, 3 gorkanauts and 3 morkanauts. And battallions give more CPs, I don't see the issue. Maybe people that used to play the blitz brigade, like me, now have 2 useless BWs but since I converted three of them they can count as big trakks.
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
We can still field 18 mek gunz, 18 big gunz, 9 dreads, 18 kanz, 45 lootas, 3 gorkanauts and 3 morkanauts. And battallions give more CPs, I don't see the issue. Maybe people that used to play the blitz brigade, like me, now have 2 useless BWs but since I converted three of them they can count as big trakks.
yeah.. this is the least of our worries. Even a bike squad can get a lot in there if you play max unit size. This really only effects the stuff with little to no unit choice.
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
We can still field 18 mek gunz, 18 big gunz, 9 dreads, 18 kanz, 45 lootas, 3 gorkanauts and 3 morkanauts. And battallions give more CPs, I don't see the issue. Maybe people that used to play the blitz brigade, like me, now have 2 useless BWs but since I converted three of them they can count as big trakks.
Dreads, kanz, lootas, nauts. All useless piece of crap no player with sense will field.
Mek gunz are about only thing but that's 3 datasheet=1 spearhead. I said multiple spearheads died. One you can field. Second requires you to burn points on useless piece of junk that is more of hindrance to you.
tneva82 wrote: Orks got overall hit badly by FAQ. 0-3 data sheet hurts us(multiple spearheads just died) and beta deep strike rule just killed kommandos and da jump.
We can still field 18 mek gunz, 18 big gunz, 9 dreads, 18 kanz, 45 lootas, 3 gorkanauts and 3 morkanauts. And battallions give more CPs, I don't see the issue. Maybe people that used to play the blitz brigade, like me, now have 2 useless BWs but since I converted three of them they can count as big trakks.
yeah.. this is the least of our worries. Even a bike squad can get a lot in there if you play max unit size. This really only effects the stuff with little to no unit choice.
We don't HAVE much of unit choice. Boyz, stormboyz, kustom mega kannon, weirdboy, warboss, big mek w/force field, dakkajet. Maybe painboy. Whoo! Such a huge list of choices! Well at least faq added chinork as semi-choice.
Nazrak wrote: Hm, I’m not so sure. The Tactical Reserves Rule refers to “any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn” – jumped units have already arrived on the battlefield before the turn begins, so I’d say it’s a little unclear whether this is an accidental loophole, or an intentional exception. Could probably do with being clarified.
They've already clarified this in the BRB's FAQ.
Q: If a unit uses a rule that removes them from the battlefield and then sets them up again, such as the Teleport Homer ability or the Gate of Infinity psychic power, does that unit count as having moved for the purposes of moving and firing Heavy weapons?
A: Yes. Treat such units as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements.
Treating them as if they're arriving as reinforcements would presumably mean no Jumping out of your deployment zone on turn 1.
Irrelevant since the question and hence the answer both refer to with regard to tiring heavy weapons. Also reinforcements aren't the same as tactical reserves. The rule specifically refers to units entering the battle field.
The question is about heavy weapons, but the answer seems to have a broader scope than that. Other FAQs have also clarified that abilities and powers like Da Jump can trigger stratagems like Auspex Scan which only target units being set up as if they were reinforcements, further suggesting that Da Jump's "remove and set up again" should be treated as reinforcements.
Additionally, the first line of the new Tactical Reserves rule states "Instead of being set up on the battlefield during Deployment, many units have the ability to be set up on teleportariums, in high orbit, in Reserve, etc., in order to arrive on the battlefield mid-game as reinforcements." It's not making a distinction between reinforcements and tactical reserves at all.
You're adding meaning and inflection where there is none.
The question and answer is in regard to heavy weapons firing, that is all. You can say it applies to other things but that is wrong RAW.
In addition, the new Tactical Reserves rule does make a distinction between these and other abilities as it explicitly states "when these units enter the battlefield". If you have been targeted by a psychic power you must have already been on the battlefield (as per another question in the same FAQ) so you can't by definition enter again.
There seems to be a weird culture on here of desperately trying to misunderstand the most clear of rules for either gain or just to insult the ability of gw to write rules and its really toxic as well as bizarre. Here, the RAW is abundantly clear as is the intention. If you want to purposefully misunderstand then go ahead but I suspect you'll struggle to find people to play against if this is how you act IRL.
In addition, the new Tactical Reserves rule does make a distinction between these and other abilities as it explicitly states "when these units enter the battlefield". If you have been targeted by a psychic power you must have already been on the battlefield (as per another question in the same FAQ) so you can't by definition enter again.
Except you have just LEFT the battlefield. You were no longer on battlefield. What happens when unit comes to battlefield it was not? Yes that right they enter it.
In addition, the new Tactical Reserves rule does make a distinction between these and other abilities as it explicitly states "when these units enter the battlefield". If you have been targeted by a psychic power you must have already been on the battlefield (as per another question in the same FAQ) so you can't by definition enter again.
Except you have just LEFT the battlefield. You were no longer on battlefield. What happens when unit comes to battlefield it was not? Yes that right they enter it.
You haven't LEFT the battlefield, you've been relocated. You are 'considered as reinforcements' for the purposes of shooting only. Also by your argument if you enter a vehicle you magically enter the realm of "reinforcements" so are automatically destroyed after turn 3 which we know isn't true. This is so abundantly clear that I can't believe it's even up for dispute. Do any of you actually use these arguments in real life? Surely not? Surely you don't legit say to your opponent "you can't use 'da jump' to move outside your deployment zone on turn one lololol"? It must be too embarrassing when you don't have the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
Use your common sense. Has a unit that was already on the field of battle but been teleported somewhere else arriving as a "tactical reserve"? Exactly.
E - wait, my god, do you guys think that if i leave a vehicle on turn 1 I have to leave in my own deployment zone too?! Is that also 'entering' the battlefield? Lolol.
nitpicking aside I am HOPING, let me re-emphasize that, HOPING that the change to the warboss signals a MASSIVE buff/points reduction to Speed Freakz when the codex comes out, I might have to start dusting off my warbikes again. I do hope 35 warbikes and 9 deff koptas will be enough
But again, this is most likely wishful thinking since GW doesn't know how to find its rear end with either hand.
SemperMortis wrote: nitpicking aside I am HOPING, let me re-emphasize that, HOPING that the change to the warboss signals a MASSIVE buff/points reduction to Speed Freakz when the codex comes out, I might have to start dusting off my warbikes again. I do hope 35 warbikes and 9 deff koptas will be enough
But again, this is most likely wishful thinking since GW doesn't know how to find its rear end with either hand.
Did you see the rules for those discontinued units in the IA xenos FAQ? They seemed pretty tasty and perhaps a sign of what's to come.
I'm with you, the biker boss change would be well accompanied by a change in the way warbikers and nob bikers operate.
You haven't LEFT the battlefield, you've been relocated. You are 'considered as reinforcements' for the purposes of shooting only. Also by your argument if you enter a vehicle you magically enter the realm of "reinforcements" so are automatically destroyed after turn 3 which we know isn't true. This is so abundantly clear that I can't believe it's even up for dispute. Do any of you actually use these arguments in real life? Surely not? Surely you don't legit say to your opponent "you can't use 'da jump' to move outside your deployment zone on turn one lololol"? It must be too embarrassing when you don't have the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
You REMOVE THE UNIT from battlefield. What do you think that means? You remove the unit from battlefield but simultaneously it still is.
I remove my phone from my table. Is phone still on table?
And note I'm the one who would be using Da Jump. I just try to read rules without bias. If it hurts me tough. I can't pick up rules which benefit me and ignore rules that hinder me.
You haven't LEFT the battlefield, you've been relocated. You are 'considered as reinforcements' for the purposes of shooting only. Also by your argument if you enter a vehicle you magically enter the realm of "reinforcements" so are automatically destroyed after turn 3 which we know isn't true. This is so abundantly clear that I can't believe it's even up for dispute. Do any of you actually use these arguments in real life? Surely not? Surely you don't legit say to your opponent "you can't use 'da jump' to move outside your deployment zone on turn one lololol"? It must be too embarrassing when you don't have the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
You REMOVE THE UNIT from battlefield. What do you think that means? You remove the unit from battlefield but simultaneously it still is.
I remove my phone from my table. Is phone still on table?
And note I'm the one who would be using Da Jump. I just try to read rules without bias. If it hurts me tough. I can't pick up rules which benefit me and ignore rules that hinder me.
You REMOVE THE UNIT from the battlefield to set it up immediately somewhere else. You don't take it out of the battlefield and put it into reserves. You don't put it into reinforcements. You immediately put it somewhere else on the battlefield.
You are clearly interpreting the rules completely wrong. They couldn't be clearer. Or do you also destroy any units that are embarked on vehicles after turn 3? Again, according to your logic, you do.
You haven't LEFT the battlefield, you've been relocated. You are 'considered as reinforcements' for the purposes of shooting only. Also by your argument if you enter a vehicle you magically enter the realm of "reinforcements" so are automatically destroyed after turn 3 which we know isn't true. This is so abundantly clear that I can't believe it's even up for dispute. Do any of you actually use these arguments in real life? Surely not? Surely you don't legit say to your opponent "you can't use 'da jump' to move outside your deployment zone on turn one lololol"? It must be too embarrassing when you don't have the anonymity of the internet to protect you.
You REMOVE THE UNIT from battlefield. What do you think that means? You remove the unit from battlefield but simultaneously it still is.
I remove my phone from my table. Is phone still on table?
And note I'm the one who would be using Da Jump. I just try to read rules without bias. If it hurts me tough. I can't pick up rules which benefit me and ignore rules that hinder me.
The rule is in reference, and specifically mentions, tactical reserves. Nowhere does it say that a unit that is ALREADY deployed can't be moved on your 1st turn. As has already been mentioned, that same restriction that you are attributing to "Da Jump" would also apply to any unit that is in a transport, that means they would not be able to deploy anywhere from that vehicle EXCEPT there own deployment zone AND furthermore, that would mean you couldn't have units embarked past turn 3 because they would count as being destroyed. The wording also says "any unit that arrives on the battlefield during a player’s first turn" this means that a unit that is appearing for the first time, not a unit that has already deployed. You are assuming that Da Jump works as tactical reserves when the rules for Da Jump do not say the unit is coming in as a tactical reserve, in fact they say nothing of the sort and specify that this unit counts as having MOVED for purposes of firing heavy weapons. So the other argument that since we count as having moved for purposes of firing heavy weapons like tactical reserves is irrelevant.
lolman1c wrote: I don't see this as a problem because I don't play tournaments and this is specified as a tournament only rule.
That's how I look at it. Getting really tired of Tournament play infecting 40K outside of tournaments. It has and it will.
Thinking about what I would do I was only allowed 3 Kommandos mobs. I guess I would run 15, 10 and 5. 15+10 mob up on turn two when they arrive an 5 go after an objective and try to score back field objective on turn 3. So, this need other units to charge on turn one to draw open a landing spot for those Kommandos. So, Mek guns need to soften up a spot to one side of what I plan to charge to help force those enemy units to move in the direction I want them to go. Just a thought no idea really how to make that happen yet. It's good to have a plan though. I guess storm boys are back in as a better faster unit now with a Biker boss.
Not thrilled with the direction da Jump seems to be headed but I haven't used it in a few games because of screening. Don't get me wrong my weird boy has that power but hasn't had a reason to cast it. As long as the other play parks units, the wrong units hopefully, in the back... well at least they aren't doing anything productive with them.
Meh.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You REMOVE THE UNIT from the battlefield to set it up immediately somewhere else. You don't take it out of the battlefield and put it into reserves. You don't put it into reinforcements. You immediately put it somewhere else on the battlefield.
And when you do, you treat the unit as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements, as per the FAQ. That is crystal clear.
Note that this does not mean they are destroyed if it's after turn 3. That's a rule about units in reserves. Units that relocate don't go back into reserves! But when you're placing them, you have to follow all the rules for arriving as reinforcements.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You are clearly interpreting the rules completely wrong. They couldn't be clearer. Or do you also destroy any units that are embarked on vehicles after turn 3? Again, according to your logic, you do.
Please cite a rule that says units in transports are treated like reinforcements.
In addition, the new Tactical Reserves rule does make a distinction between these and other abilities as it explicitly states "when these units enter the battlefield". If you have been targeted by a psychic power you must have already been on the battlefield (as per another question in the same FAQ) so you can't by definition enter again.
Too early to argue. People asked this question on facebook page and gw doesn't know the answer yet. Can be either of those.
"as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements"
You treat them like they are arriving as reinforcements not that they ARE reinforcements. That's my interpretation anyways, so i think using da jump and gate of infinity will still be legal turn one. Seeing how many people are having a problem with this I am sure GW will FAQ this soon(soon for GW anyways lol).
An Actual Englishman wrote: You REMOVE THE UNIT from the battlefield to set it up immediately somewhere else. You don't take it out of the battlefield and put it into reserves. You don't put it into reinforcements. You immediately put it somewhere else on the battlefield.
And when you do, you treat the unit as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements, as per the FAQ. That is crystal clear.
Note that this does not mean they are destroyed if it's after turn 3. That's a rule about units in reserves. Units that relocate don't go back into reserves! But when you're placing them, you have to follow all the rules for arriving as reinforcements.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You are clearly interpreting the rules completely wrong. They couldn't be clearer. Or do you also destroy any units that are embarked on vehicles after turn 3? Again, according to your logic, you do.
Please cite a rule that says units in transports are treated like reinforcements.
Please cite a rule that says units that are moved elsewhere on the battlefield arrive as reinforcements for anything except firing heavy weapons?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Please cite a rule that says units that are moved elsewhere on the battlefield arrive as reinforcements for anything except firing heavy weapons?
The question is about heavy weapons, but the answer doesn't say "treat these units as arriving from reserves for the purposes of firing heavy weapons." It says to treat them as arriving from reserves, full stop.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Please cite a rule that says units that are moved elsewhere on the battlefield arrive as reinforcements for anything except firing heavy weapons?
The question is about heavy weapons, but the answer doesn't say "treat these units as arriving from reserves for the purposes of firing heavy weapons." It says to treat them as arriving from reserves, full stop.
Ok since you want to use that as definitive proof you are right then that means you can not use Da Jump or any other similar ability after turn 3 because you aren't allowed to use reserves after Turn 3.
kadeton wrote: The question is about heavy weapons, but the answer doesn't say "treat these units as arriving from reserves for the purposes of firing heavy weapons." It says to treat them as arriving from reserves, full stop.
It also doesn't say "treat these units as arriving from reserves for every other rule in the game, regardless of the topic of this question." The implication is clear, particularly when we look at every other FAQ answer. You can't just add meaning where there is none. That's not how FAQs work. If that were the case I could be like such; "well it doesn't specify that I can't punch you in the face after I successfully manifest a psychic power, so I guess I can huh?" *cracks knuckles*. You can't just make up rules and add them to things without GW specifically stating it's the case.
The rules, as we should all know, are permissive. If it gives you explicit permission to do something or treat something as something, then you do. In this case all the specific FAQ answer gives us is how to treat firing heavy weapons for units that have arrived via psychic powers. Nothing else. No other inferences can be made and to try and do so from this is wrong.
Semper man honestly this is why we can't have nice things. The Ork community is self destructive and actively wants to nerf themselves, it seems. It doesn't make any sense to me, if an opponent of mine tried to claim this bs I would start packing up. Genuinely. But here we have guys who supposedly have thousands of points of Orks desperately arguing that we have been nerfed when we haven't?! What's going on ladz?! Get on board with da Great WAAAAGGGHH!!! and stop kickin' yerself!
I can be pretty trolly sometimes but you guys saying Da Jump is DS are just insane! I believe it isn't and my boyz think it isn't so it's fine. Tbh, they need to make a rule where if you have enough boyz you can interpret the rules however you believe them.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You REMOVE THE UNIT from the battlefield to set it up immediately somewhere else. You don't take it out of the battlefield and put it into reserves. You don't put it into reinforcements. You immediately put it somewhere else on the battlefield.
And when you do, you treat the unit as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements, as per the FAQ. That is crystal clear.
Note that this does not mean they are destroyed if it's after turn 3. That's a rule about units in reserves. Units that relocate don't go back into reserves! But when you're placing them, you have to follow all the rules for arriving as reinforcements.
An Actual Englishman wrote: You are clearly interpreting the rules completely wrong. They couldn't be clearer. Or do you also destroy any units that are embarked on vehicles after turn 3? Again, according to your logic, you do.
Please cite a rule that says units in transports are treated like reinforcements.
Please cite a rule that says units that are moved elsewhere on the battlefield arrive as reinforcements for anything except firing heavy weapons?
Auspex Scan is a Space Marine stratagem that states "Use this Stratagem immediately after your opponent sets up a unit that is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements within 12" of one of your ADEPTUS ASTARTES Infantry units."
The Space Marine FAQ includes the following;
Q: Can the Auspex Scan Stratagem be used to shoot an enemy unit that is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, for example, when using a teleport homer?
A: Yes.
Therefore, when an enemy unit is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, they are considered to be reinforcements.
It's also worth pointing out that it may well be the case that Da Jump is thus not able to be used after turn 3 without killing the Jumped unit, as there are other situations in which you can accidentally kill the target unit - by using the Aeldari stratagem Fire and Fade on a flier, for instance.
Burnage wrote: Auspex Scan is a Space Marine stratagem that states "Use this Stratagem immediately after your opponent sets up a unit that is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements within 12" of one of your ADEPTUS ASTARTES Infantry units."
The Space Marine FAQ includes the following;
Q: Can the Auspex Scan Stratagem be used to shoot an enemy unit that is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, for example, when using a teleport homer?
A: Yes.
Therefore, when an enemy unit is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, they are considered to be reinforcements.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
I've bolded the part that is wrong.
You have, like so many others, inferred something that is not in the answer from the FAQ. All the FAQ allows you to do in that instance is use Auspex Scan to fire upon units that are teleported in via a psychic power or stratagem or whatever. That's it dude. Nothing else. There is no more information from the answer and you are assuming/making things up.
If the FAQ question was such; "Are units that are removed from the battlefield and then set up again considered to be reinforcements for the purposes of 'Tactical Reserves'?" and their answer was "Yes." then I'd be in total agreement with you. As it is, that isn't the case.
E - right lets get off this topic, the thread is becoming derailed. I'll keep schtum about it, I have my thoughts and some of you have other thoughts on the matter. Let's make a new thread or simply agree to to disagree until we know either way what the ruling is.
On the changes - MagicJuggler brought up a very good point about our limit of 3 Weirdboyz now and it potentially causing us trouble.
What other units might be hurt by the max 3 datasheet rule?
My min biker squads don't like it, that's for sure. I'm guessing Kommandos and aren't happy either. KMKs can be taken in larger units right? Anything else that this jumps out? Does it give Meks more of a purpose?
Burnage wrote: Auspex Scan is a Space Marine stratagem that states "Use this Stratagem immediately after your opponent sets up a unit that is arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements within 12" of one of your ADEPTUS ASTARTES Infantry units."
The Space Marine FAQ includes the following;
Q: Can the Auspex Scan Stratagem be used to shoot an enemy unit that is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, for example, when using a teleport homer?
A: Yes.
Therefore, when an enemy unit is removed from the battlefield and then set up again, they are considered to be reinforcements.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
I've bolded the part that is wrong.
You have, like so many others, inferred something that is not in the answer from the FAQ. All the FAQ allows you to do in that instance is use Auspex Scan to fire upon units that are teleported in via a psychic power or stratagem or whatever. That's it dude. Nothing else. There is no more information from the answer and you are assuming/making things up.
If the FAQ question was such; "Are units that are removed from the battlefield and then set up again considered to be reinforcements for the purposes of 'Tactical Reserves'?" and their answer was "Yes." then I'd be in total agreement with you. As it is, that isn't the case.
The initial rule reads; when Y, do Z.
The FAQ is asking; is X an example of Y?
It isn't asking "Is the initial rule actually 'when X or Y, do Z'?"
And since the answer is "yes", we can conclude that X is indeed an example of Y, and that abilities or powers which cause units to be removed and then set up again are a type of reinforcement.
If you think that doesn't follow then fair enough, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree (and roll off if we ever play a game!).
Burnage wrote: The initial rule reads; when Y, do Z.
The FAQ is asking; is X an example of Y?
It isn't asking "Is the initial rule actually 'when X or Y, do Z'?"
And since the answer is "yes", we can conclude that X is indeed an example of Y, and that abilities or powers which cause units to be removed and then set up again are a type of reinforcement.
If you think that doesn't follow then fair enough, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree (and roll off if we ever play a game!).
It doesn't follow because the FAQ is actually asking 'can I do Z to X?' (because X is not an example of Y).
The response is simply 'Yes'.
Again, you're adding meaning where there is none. Don't worry though, I'm sure we'll never play and soon enough it'll be FAQ'd.
In case you all missed my last edit, here it is again -
Right lets get off this topic, the thread is becoming derailed. I'll keep schtum about it, I have my thoughts and some of you have other thoughts on the matter. Let's make a new thread or simply agree to to disagree until we know either way what the ruling is.
On the changes - MagicJuggler brought up a very good point about our limit of 3 Weirdboyz now and it potentially causing us trouble.
What other units might be hurt by the max 3 datasheet rule?
My min biker squads don't like it, that's for sure. I'm guessing Kommandos and aren't happy either. KMKs can be taken in larger units right? Anything else that this jumps out? Does it give Meks more of a purpose?
Yeah, it's like saying "if there are no red pebbles left then all blue pebbles should count as red pebbles for scorin". It doesn't mean the pebbles are red. It just means for that situation the pebbles act as red for scoring only. And if GW themselves say different then they're wrong themselves and don't know their own rules!
That slight change to the mob rule - getting rid of just sharing LD between Ork models - makes the already terrible trukk-mounted Ork boys utterly useless. Their only option for even a tiny amount of morale mitigation was being able to sit next to high-LD characters. Now it's multiple warbosses or nothing - Nobs don't help at all with only a meagre 6+ save against running away... why don't they get 'Breaking Heads' as well?
I've played Speed Freaks since 4th ed and for the first time I can think of, the army is really kind of unplayable. As soon as I switched to a horde build, I've started winning my first games in 8th.
It's sad, part of the reason I liked Orks in the first place was the variety of playstyles. The sooner this mono-build attitude towards Orks goes away, the better. I don't have high hopes for the codex at this point, though, I won't lie. It gives the impression that nobody in the design team is putting much effort toward the faction at all, we keep getting these placeholder patches nobody asked for and no real polish.
Jambles wrote: That slight change to the mob rule - getting rid of just sharing LD between Ork models - makes the already terrible trukk-mounted Ork boys utterly useless. Their only option for even a tiny amount of morale mitigation was being able to sit next to high-LD characters. Now it's multiple warbosses or nothing - Nobs don't help at all with only a meagre 6+ save against running away... why don't they get 'Breaking Heads' as well?
I've played Speed Freaks since 4th ed and for the first time I can think of, the army is really kind of unplayable. As soon as I switched to a horde build, I've started winning my first games in 8th.
It's sad, part of the reason I liked Orks in the first place was the variety of playstyles. The sooner this mono-build attitude towards Orks goes away, the better. I don't have high hopes for the codex at this point, though, I won't lie. It gives the impression that nobody in the design team is putting much effort toward the faction at all, we keep getting these placeholder patches nobody asked for and no real polish.
I really don't see how this makes any real difference. If you have 2-3 blobs of 12 boyz next to each other, then either one can use the size of a neighbour blob for leadership tests. It is not that we have a lot high LDHQs that are not warbosses anyway.
And yes, it sucks that trukk-boyz are not viable. It sucks a lot.
But the new mobrule has nothing to do with that. A trukk is simply too good/expensive to carry 6 point models around. It either needs to be cheapened, its capacity increased, or a combination. I would love to see a slightly more fragile trukk (with 8 wounds perhaps) costing 50 points including the big shoota. Then the battle-wagon could be the more expensive, durable transport for high value units.
I wouldn't field those trukkz at 40pts let alone 50. Last edition I never used them at 35pts, and the durability increase wasn't significant enough to justify raising their cost by over 150%.
Son of Russ wrote: "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements"
You treat them like they are arriving as reinforcements not that they ARE reinforcements. That's my interpretation anyways, so i think using da jump and gate of infinity will still be legal turn one. Seeing how many people are having a problem with this I am sure GW will FAQ this soon(soon for GW anyways lol).
Hopefully! I'm hoping it's possible as da jump helps with roadblock issues orks can suffer from. With loss of kommandos i would need to buy like 7 more stormboyz sets without
SemperMortis wrote: I wouldn't field those trukkz at 40pts let alone 50. Last edition I never used them at 35pts, and the durability increase wasn't significant enough to justify raising their cost by over 150%.
I coudl write a phd on the cost of Ork trukks. Even before the marine codex we couldn't figure out why the rhino was some how cheaper. Just because it's opened topped doesn't make it 3 times the price it used to be!
Son of Russ wrote: "as if they are arriving on the battlefield as reinforcements"
You treat them like they are arriving as reinforcements not that they ARE reinforcements. That's my interpretation anyways, so i think using da jump and gate of infinity will still be legal turn one. Seeing how many people are having a problem with this I am sure GW will FAQ this soon(soon for GW anyways lol).
Hopefully! I'm hoping it's possible as da jump helps with roadblock issues orks can suffer from. With loss of kommandos i would need to buy like 7 more stormboyz sets without
Storm boyz are the biggest ripp of GW can come up with. Selling 5 6+ save 40pts in total models for £15 is criminal! You need at least 20 to have a semi useful squad and 60 to play a real speed freaks list! That's almost £200 for 2 units! You can outright get a Ork titan for that or (if you were smart) a completely new army! Even with 20% off (if you found a place tbat does that) that's still £160! I would be upset if they were 10 for £15 but I'd probably buy them.
Ork boyz are so common because they're cheap and come in all different sizes. You can buy 20+ Or boyz for £15. I got all my 120+ boyz for abiut £30... there are so many of them I only got 30 painted. XD and they're all official GW models that range from old to new ork boyz creating a unique look!
SemperMortis wrote: Kommandos are even worse, you get 5 for $45, and guess what? they cost 45pts A dollar a point apparently.
This is especially annoying because they're not even that much different from boyz... most people just make their own kommandos by painting boyz purple or brown. XD
I've been playing orks in 40k for 30 years near enough and all this whining about the lack of units and that this or that are worth taking or you'd only use this if you were mad is crazy talk and very un-orky. For ever I've had useless units that killed more of my own army than anyone else's and that is the joy of playing orks, you should think like one and play what makes you smile. If you limit yourself to only units that are any 'good' you would have misse out on the joys or 1st edition gems like Storm boyz, madboyz and Kustom vehicles and guns. All which killed so many of my own troops it's crazy. I have always played evil Sunz as my warboss and so all my armies include warbikes and I'm happy the bike boss got a boost. I don't care if they die a lot. Or don't kill much. At least they don't shoot your own troops nowadays. Folks need to chill and if you can't and winning matters that much go play eldar!
SemperMortis wrote: Kommandos are even worse, you get 5 for $45, and guess what? they cost 45pts A dollar a point apparently.
This is especially annoying because they're not even that much different from boyz... most people just make their own kommandos by painting boyz purple or brown. XD
Well at least that problem just vanished.
For the record I was planning to do some capes and cloaks by greenstuff for them and then paint them up in "camoflage". Might still do as bit extra fancy blood axe boyz mob. Maybe magnetize bunch to give them burna in the home games where we can say "screw the faq" and have actual kommandos that are worth a damn.
Andykp wrote: I've been playing orks in 40k for 30 years near enough and all this whining about the lack of units and that this or that are worth taking or you'd only use this if you were mad is crazy talk and very un-orky. For ever I've had useless units that killed more of my own army than anyone else's and that is the joy of playing orks, you should think like one and play what makes you smile. If you limit yourself to only units that are any 'good' you would have misse out on the joys or 1st edition gems like Storm boyz, madboyz and Kustom vehicles and guns. All which killed so many of my own troops it's crazy. I have always played evil Sunz as my warboss and so all my armies include warbikes and I'm happy the bike boss got a boost. I don't care if they die a lot. Or don't kill much. At least they don't shoot your own troops nowadays. Folks need to chill and if you can't and winning matters that much go play eldar!
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone noticed that Boss Nobs now cost six points?
they always have in 8th
I think some people were taking them for free. Like they were paying for 29 boyz and 1 free nob.
It is a free upgrade, not a free model
Andy and Nazrak, Orkz aren't the fun wacky army anymore. We have literally lost all of our fun rule and are left with bad rules. I mean they can be fun if your a masochist, who wouldn't want to waste an entire shooting phase against a target you can't really hurt because you had to roll for strength after targeting a vehicle. Or, that good old wacky SAG, which used to kill its user more often then its target, thats fun right? No, that is just stupid. The wacky rules were the ones like the old Ramshackle where the vehicle had its own destruction chart and would sometimes take out an entire squad of Space Marines OR kill your own unit next to the trukk as well as the unit inside. That was fun, not the current crap GW is pushing out. I mean hell, even our favorite weirdboy who could turn people into squigs got taken away from us :(
Andykp wrote: I've been playing orks in 40k for 30 years near enough and all this whining about the lack of units and that this or that are worth taking or you'd only use this if you were mad is crazy talk and very un-orky. For ever I've had useless units that killed more of my own army than anyone else's and that is the joy of playing orks, you should think like one and play what makes you smile. If you limit yourself to only units that are any 'good' you would have misse out on the joys or 1st edition gems like Storm boyz, madboyz and Kustom vehicles and guns. All which killed so many of my own troops it's crazy. I have always played evil Sunz as my warboss and so all my armies include warbikes and I'm happy the bike boss got a boost. I don't care if they die a lot. Or don't kill much. At least they don't shoot your own troops nowadays. Folks need to chill and if you can't and winning matters that much go play eldar!
This guy gets it.
You've both missed the point - it's not about playing to win and only taking stuff that's 'meta', it's just being able to play without feeling like it's a waste of time.
I'm not getting upset that I'm losing with Orks - as Nazrak points out, the army has always been perceived as a more 'casual' one - I just find it frustrating when I want to enjoy a game of 40k with my roommate, and it's already basically over by turn 2 and I didn't really get to play. He's feeling the same thing across the table - unless you're a particular type, it's generally not much fun to play a completely one-sided match.
That's my whole point really, freaks just aren't very fun to play currently - in the horde list I bring Lootas, Bikes and Burna Boyz, cause they're my favourite painted models.
Jambles wrote: That slight change to the mob rule - getting rid of just sharing LD between Ork models - makes the already terrible trukk-mounted Ork boys utterly useless. Their only option for even a tiny amount of morale mitigation was being able to sit next to high-LD characters. Now it's multiple warbosses or nothing - Nobs don't help at all with only a meagre 6+ save against running away... why don't they get 'Breaking Heads' as well?
I've played Speed Freaks since 4th ed and for the first time I can think of, the army is really kind of unplayable. As soon as I switched to a horde build, I've started winning my first games in 8th.
It's sad, part of the reason I liked Orks in the first place was the variety of playstyles. The sooner this mono-build attitude towards Orks goes away, the better. I don't have high hopes for the codex at this point, though, I won't lie. It gives the impression that nobody in the design team is putting much effort toward the faction at all, we keep getting these placeholder patches nobody asked for and no real polish.
I really don't see how this makes any real difference. If you have 2-3 blobs of 12 boyz next to each other, then either one can use the size of a neighbour blob for leadership tests. It is not that we have a lot high LDHQs that are not warbosses anyway.
And yes, it sucks that trukk-boyz are not viable. It sucks a lot.
But the new mobrule has nothing to do with that. A trukk is simply too good/expensive to carry 6 point models around. It either needs to be cheapened, its capacity increased, or a combination. I would love to see a slightly more fragile trukk (with 8 wounds perhaps) costing 50 points including the big shoota. Then the battle-wagon could be the more expensive, durable transport for high value units.
You're right - I was clearly not understanding about how the rule worked in the first place. I like the idea of more fragile trukks being a justification for reducing their cost, especially if they bring back the old ramshackle rule for the occasional damage mitigation on a 6.
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone noticed that Boss Nobs now cost six points?
they always have in 8th
I think some people were taking them for free. Like they were paying for 29 boyz and 1 free nob.
Andy and Nazrak, Orkz aren't the fun wacky army anymore. We have literally lost all of our fun rule and are left with bad rules. I mean they can be fun if your a masochist, who wouldn't want to waste an entire shooting phase against a target you can't really hurt because you had to roll for strength after targeting a vehicle. Or, that good old wacky SAG, which used to kill its user more often then its target, thats fun right? No, that is just stupid. The wacky rules were the ones like the old Ramshackle where the vehicle had its own destruction chart and would sometimes take out an entire squad of Space Marines OR kill your own unit next to the trukk as well as the unit inside. That was fun, not the current crap GW is pushing out. I mean hell, even our favorite weirdboy who could turn people into squigs got taken away from us :(
I'm really back and forth on this. MY random Bubble chukka easily out preformed 5 KMK's in a single game. You do have a point but I just don't know that "redundant" options actually pay off, my dice are like..Nope.
I've found better results with a larger mix of units than playing to any one extreme, which I have done. Once dice are involved you can have as much mathhammer as you want it never seems to matter for me.
So for one am willing to put points back into units that "shouldn't work". Prior to this edition wacky rules just irked my nerves. That old ramshackle rule did not make me happy and was a reason to leave the trukks at home. I think it was fun in one game of 6th edition, I had skipped all but the last few months of 6th edition. It's all subjective really. (A little unfortunate.)
Andykp wrote: I've been playing orks in 40k for 30 years near enough and all this whining about the lack of units and that this or that are worth taking or you'd only use this if you were mad is crazy talk and very un-orky. For ever I've had useless units that killed more of my own army than anyone else's and that is the joy of playing orks, you should think like one and play what makes you smile. If you limit yourself to only units that are any 'good' you would have misse out on the joys or 1st edition gems like Storm boyz, madboyz and Kustom vehicles and guns. All which killed so many of my own troops it's crazy. I have always played evil Sunz as my warboss and so all my armies include warbikes and I'm happy the bike boss got a boost. I don't care if they die a lot. Or don't kill much. At least they don't shoot your own troops nowadays. Folks need to chill and if you can't and winning matters that much go play eldar!
This guy gets it.
I used to play like this as well but noe that a lot of my army costs more points wise than their more durable space marine counterparts I am okay with being upset. Don't get me wrong, I want to send orks to their death but I can't! Lootas cost the same as immortals, trukks and battlewagons cost more than Marine rhinos and raxor backs, even the mega nobz and nobz are priced like crazy! Most of thr time (when I play mechanized lists) I find my space marine and guardsmen opponents bringing more troops than I did! Right now the Ork index is un orky!
In terms of the lack of “characterful” rules, I agree to an extent at the moment (particularly with regard to the Shokk Attack Gun, a long-time fave of mine), but I think on that front, we just need to hold tight for our Codex. Someone had to be last out of the gate, but we can be fairly sure it’s coming sooner rather than later, and it’s only what, nine months since 8th dropped?
The fun randomness of Orks used to have a much better weighting of risk versus reward, IMO. They were a gamblin' army - they risked more harm to themselves, so when the dice gods smiled upon them the results were more devastating. Maybe your Shokk Attack gun would just explode, or maybe it would completely annihilate a unit of Terminators (back when that actually meant something).
Somewhere along the way, that was commuted into just introducing a high chance of failure to everything they do, with none of the spectacular payoff when things go their way. Even the interesting weaponry is crippled - like, even if you roll four sixes with a bubble-chukka, you've got pretty good odds of still doing no damage with it. For the most part, Orks just have slightly worse versions of common weaponry, and they use it badly.
They really need to inject a lot more into the "reward" side of the trade-off.
kadeton wrote: The fun randomness of Orks used to have a much better weighting of risk versus reward, IMO. They were a gamblin' army - they risked more harm to themselves, so when the dice gods smiled upon them the results were more devastating. Maybe your Shokk Attack gun would just explode, or maybe it would completely annihilate a unit of Terminators (back when that actually meant something).
Somewhere along the way, that was commuted into just introducing a high chance of failure to everything they do, with none of the spectacular payoff when things go their way. Even the interesting weaponry is crippled - like, even if you roll four sixes with a bubble-chukka, you've got pretty good odds of still doing no damage with it. For the most part, Orks just have slightly worse versions of common weaponry, and they use it badly.
They really need to inject a lot more into the "reward" side of the trade-off.
100% this. There is virtually no reward for having our objectively worse guns fired from worse platforms.
I mean, I agree with what has been discussed in the thread. Too many random elements without the potential reward to justify it, no good way of transporting boys cheaply in vehicles. (I'm still holding out for that 2 grots per slot in vehicle rule) But several armies have been pretty massively improved when their codex came out, like dark eldar, which was a faction not a lot of people had high hopes for in terms of viability so I'm cautiously optimistic that ork builds other than green tide will get buffed. Due to the random nature of ork stats I never think they'll be objectively good/great but the codex will hopefully bridge the gap between that and where we are now.
PiñaColada wrote: I mean, I agree with what has been discussed in the thread. Too many random elements without the potential reward to justify it, no good way of transporting boys cheaply in vehicles. (I'm still holding out for that 2 grots per slot in vehicle rule) But several armies have been pretty massively improved when their codex came out, like dark eldar, which was a faction not a lot of people had high hopes for in terms of viability so I'm cautiously optimistic that ork builds other than green tide will get buffed. Due to the random nature of ork stats I never think they'll be objectively good/great but the codex will hopefully bridge the gap between that and where we are now.
Problem is GW hasn't shown much interest in orks for years. They had decent(not amazing but decent) army briefly with nob bikers until new codexes vaporized that build. Apart from that generally uninspired mediocre codexes. Not having avid ork fan in develop team hurts(Adrian Smith to the developer team would have been interesting! Maybe then orks would have got characterful codex that doesn't suck)
kadeton wrote: The fun randomness of Orks used to have a much better weighting of risk versus reward, IMO. They were a gamblin' army - they risked more harm to themselves, so when the dice gods smiled upon them the results were more devastating. Maybe your Shokk Attack gun would just explode, or maybe it would completely annihilate a unit of Terminators (back when that actually meant something).
Somewhere along the way, that was commuted into just introducing a high chance of failure to everything they do, with none of the spectacular payoff when things go their way. Even the interesting weaponry is crippled - like, even if you roll four sixes with a bubble-chukka, you've got pretty good odds of still doing no damage with it. For the most part, Orks just have slightly worse versions of common weaponry, and they use it badly.
They really need to inject a lot more into the "reward" side of the trade-off.
This is what a lot of people have been saying for years now and it's made a lot of people jump ship to AoS. I believe it was my friend who said the Skaven dev team would understand Orks the most. I do not play AoS but I hear Skaven are the perfect balance of risk vs reward vs sacrificing lots of troops for fun timez.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PiñaColada wrote: I mean, I agree with what has been discussed in the thread. Too many random elements without the potential reward to justify it, no good way of transporting boys cheaply in vehicles. (I'm still holding out for that 2 grots per slot in vehicle rule) But several armies have been pretty massively improved when their codex came out, like dark eldar, which was a faction not a lot of people had high hopes for in terms of viability so I'm cautiously optimistic that ork builds other than green tide will get buffed. Due to the random nature of ork stats I never think they'll be objectively good/great but the codex will hopefully bridge the gap between that and where we are now.
From my discussions with other members I know i speak for a lot of people when i say a lot of us couldn't give a squig if our codex was good or not. What we want is a fun Orky codex! Orks are a highly unique race in 40k and we want this represented in our army! The index is so boring! Nothing feels unique... I started playing space marines recently and i honestly don't even notice I'm playing a different army sometimes. We want cheap expendable vechiles and rewards! But we don't want them because it's good! We want them because it's the bets feeling in the world when you roll a tripple 6 and mork himself smiles upon the battle feild as your shokk attack gun warps snottlings into the head of girlyman to cause him to explode! Not "well younrolled a 6... I geuss you can now go onto trying to wound like any normal gun now..."
The saddest part is my Morkanaut. He looks cool and has this beig glowing blue gun! I fire it and finally manage to get 6 shots with 3 hits! But now i just wound like a lazz cannon and only do d3 wounds... it just feels like a bad anti tank weapon that took a stupid amount of luck to even use... It doesn't feel like I'm blasting pure energy accross the feild and vaporising elite warriors with the advanced tecknolgy of an ancient race so advanced they basically made most living things in the universe.
Even if i was hitting on 2s, wounding on 2s and doing 6 damage I wouldn't be happy. I do not want to just fire weapons like a marine player! I want cool things! So maybe the gun melts people and splashes onto nearby units, or maybe it pushes enemy units around! Maybe it sets people on fire and causes imperial guards men to physical move backwards on the table as they run in pain (potentially blocking paths for their tactics and causing all kind of orky choas! Hell... maybe when the Morkanaut rolls lots of 1s it causes the weapon to just explode and spray shrapnel everywhere while the Morkanaut continues to use its claw to fight.
I'm not an ork player but isn't the rule clarification that you can charge up on e.g a first floor building if there's enough space basically a dealbreaker for melee focused orkbuilds?
I'd just park my plaguemarines in the first floor of a building, they're essentially enough to block the whole space and you'll never get me off there unless you shoot me with something very heavy.
mungkorn88 wrote: I'm not an ork player but isn't the rule clarification that you can charge up on e.g a first floor building if there's enough space basically a dealbreaker for melee focused orkbuilds?
I'd just park my plaguemarines in the first floor of a building, they're essentially enough to block the whole space and you'll never get me off there unless you shoot me with something very heavy.
If I brought 200 slugga boyz to a seige game where there was a castle wall and no room for my guys to get up then basically I would have to line up outside the wall and fire 200 5BS S4 shots into you all game until you destroyed my army. So yes... it kinda is...
mungkorn88 wrote: I'm not an ork player but isn't the rule clarification that you can charge up on e.g a first floor building if there's enough space basically a dealbreaker for melee focused orkbuilds?
I'd just park my plaguemarines in the first floor of a building, they're essentially enough to block the whole space and you'll never get me off there unless you shoot me with something very heavy.
Pretty much yeah. Orks best hopes are KMK's and then maybe like tank bustas. Against anything with -1 to hit would be burnas etc but those are expensive(planning squad of 10 with chinork to give 32" flamer range).
But that change is going to screw h2h armies without good shootings quite a lot.
I always bring 8 burnas to make room for stuff in trukks but really I don't think they have ever being useful. I fired at a character once and got 16 shots but only did like 1 wound. XD they look good though.
lolman1c wrote: I always bring 8 burnas to make room for stuff in trukks but really I don't think they have ever being useful. I fired at a character once and got 16 shots but only did like 1 wound. XD they look good though.
Well chinork might help them. For one it's faster than trukk with 24" movement and fly. This can actually help with character sniping as if enemy is careless you can simply fly past him and ignore the character protection. Even if he's not careless that does affect how he deploys and moves.
10 burnas+skorcha from copter is 23.5 autohit(3.5 of those better than others) That worries marine commander.
Still not tournament-competive but maybe casual-okay to avoid simply 240 boyz spam.
I think the DS nerf might wlrk if you could only DS you own zone on turn 1 but you coukd wlso move after that. That was you get the cover of DS but can also move. Because right now DS turn 1 is kinda useless.
Also I'm kinda sad they fully confirmed you can't repair on an open top vehicle. I know that was always the case but would have been a nice sneaky bonus for Orks and would encourage me to bring a mek on my vechiles. Right now I just leave Meks at home on the shelf and bring my big mek.
Everything fun about our Ork army is basically dead, this FAQ really added a few nails into the coffin though.
On the plus side, they are attempting to market Chinorkz to us, finally making a vehicle with literally no roof an open topped vehicle.
Deep striking turn 1 significantly hampers my Ork army build (90 Kommandos teamed with 30 Jumped Boyz) So I guess I have to go back to the GW approved way to play Orkz which is to not take any vehicles at all and just field 300 Ork Boyz and some characters.
I am now at the point where I can't use more then 2/3rds of the different models I own because GW nerfed them so hard that even my friends don't want me to play with them because it basically makes the game a foregone conclusion. "Dude, please don't play your Kan List, I want this game to go beyond turn 3" or "What about taking a green tide list instead of those speed freakz, those bikers don't stand a chance against my gunline man".
I even tried taking a gun line army as a fun joke against my Tau buddy, the game ended turn 2 when I had lost over 1200pts to his 100.
SemperMortis wrote: Everything fun about our Ork army is basically dead, this FAQ really added a few nails into the coffin though.
On the plus side, they are attempting to market Chinorkz to us, finally making a vehicle with literally no roof an open topped vehicle.
Deep striking turn 1 significantly hampers my Ork army build (90 Kommandos teamed with 30 Jumped Boyz) So I guess I have to go back to the GW approved way to play Orkz which is to not take any vehicles at all and just field 300 Ork Boyz and some characters.
I am now at the point where I can't use more then 2/3rds of the different models I own because GW nerfed them so hard that even my friends don't want me to play with them because it basically makes the game a foregone conclusion. "Dude, please don't play your Kan List, I want this game to go beyond turn 3" or "What about taking a green tide list instead of those speed freakz, those bikers don't stand a chance against my gunline man".
I even tried taking a gun line army as a fun joke against my Tau buddy, the game ended turn 2 when I had lost over 1200pts to his 100.
I feel the bets way to play blood axe warband is to have a lot of dummies (cheap grots maybe with cheap vechiles (truuks arnt exsactly cheap but you get what I mean) and paint them all in camo. Then don't tell your opent how much stuff is in DS (should be a rule... Blood Axes are allowed to not tell their opponents how many kommandos they have in DS). Let them move um and wreck your stuff then start spamming every inch of the board with blood axe boyz!
The major issue I feel we face now is no way to counter snipers outside of hidding out characters. I onky ever used koptas or DS orks to stop snipers from killing my painboy and warboss on turn 1. Assassins are now free to dominate on turn 1 because opponents don't even need to worry about where they're placed or giving them a screen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
Agreed totally, but we need that precisely worded question to combat the TFGs willing to clobber us with rules. Of course there is a chance GW will rule the other way, too...
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
Agreed totally, but we need that precisely worded question to combat the TFGs willing to clobber us with rules. Of course there is a chance GW will rule the other way, too...
What in Mork name? How are we o the same side for once?
What in Mork name? How are we o the same side for once?
Because i'm like a mysterious ninja.
I otherwise try to drag people to the middle a lot, which gets me into trouble.
I just enjoy trolling because a lot of the time I see most people here as virgin nerds who need to get lives. Oh wait... no, that's only when I get my computer mixed up with my mirror.
But no seriously, some people on this forums need to seriously pull their heads out of their own weirdboy hole. Not saying it's any of you guys but these last few days have been insane! Some of the things I have read remind me of my studies of the witch hunts... people outright just make up crap and attack anyone who says different. I know a few colleges who would love to study this forums for behaviours in hysteria, manipulation, masochism and insanity!
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
But it's still not clear. ALSO source is 100% unofficial. Source themselves have noted that their answers are not to be treated as official rule answers. It's basically that guy's house rule.
Until GW puts up something OFFICIAL I have nothing official but the original FAQ which is unclear if opponent says "no". Then it comes to arqument using the original FAQ.
Would love to get Da Jump for sure but until clear answer comes from official source it's up for discussion with each opponent as currently only official thing is the original unclear ruling.
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
But it's still not clear. ALSO source is 100% unofficial. Source themselves have noted that their answers are not to be treated as official rule answers. It's basically that guy's house rule.
Until GW puts up something OFFICIAL I have nothing official but the original FAQ which is unclear if opponent says "no". Then it comes to arqument using the original FAQ.
You're on ork players so you're most likely older than the player... just give him a wedgie and tell him to toughen up acpnd accept the 30 boyz in the face.
If it's a woman you're playing against then no excuse! Orks treat everyone equal so make sure you also give them a wedgie and tell them to toughen up and accept the 30 boyz in the face!
(Just to be clear this is a joke, I do not condone hurting or harming your opponent no matter their gender).
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
Agree 100%. This rule will also be used to deny units disembarking outside of their deployment zone turn 1.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: Why are we all over the chinork's nuts all of a sudden?
Deepstriking open topped transport. Pop up with a bunch of tankbustas and let 'em loose.
Yeah. Deep strike on turn 2, unload rokkits and squigs and be safe.
I'm also interested in trying out might this make burna's if not super competive then at least casual-competive(local gaming group is fairly casual in power level). Before getting within range was hard. Now with 32" range for your burnas and fly to get past enemy(and drop some big bomms) that at least gets solved. Forces enemy also to take care of characters least you simply zoom next unloading average 23.5 flamer hit of various types. That actually threatens even marine commanders. (tank bustas could work for this as well and certainly might scare them more but for that fast you need to advance so tank bustas hit on 6+)
Hopefully my conversion works out decent enough to play the model! Might not be most competive choice but maybe not huge self-shooting anymore and gives some variety to 240+ boyz armies(which I struggle to play in 2h time...)
Galas wrote: The wording of the question makes the answer useless, because yeah, you can use them to redeploy in your first turn.
But can you redeploy outside your deployment zone? Or not?
-_- it's pretty obvious what they mean. This is getting stupid... it's one thing having gw having rules that can be easily manipulated but they basically say it here but because they do not word it exsactly it is not good enough? Erghhhhhh. This is like playing monopoly with someone and them saying "Well they weren't clear on what I an do with my money so i'm turning it all in to buy the win the game house I made up... it doesn't say i can't do that!".
Agree 100%. This rule will also be used to deny units disembarking outside of their deployment zone turn 1.
It also means that abilities outright designed to be used only on turn 1 (like the necron ca'tan stuff and scout stuff) would be arguably useless. Gw needs to just put out a confirmation already saying it's DS only and DS is when the unit doesn't start on the battlefield. Da Jump isn't even really alpha strike in my mind because you can only use it on 1 unit per turn which is pretty balanced.
It also means that abilities outright designed to be used only on turn 1 (like the necron ca'tan stuff and scout stuff) would be arguably useless. Gw needs to just put out a confirmation already saying it's DS only and DS is when the unit doesn't start on the battlefield. Da Jump isn't even really alpha strike in my mind because you can only use it on 1 unit per turn which is pretty balanced.
Of course same thing will affect other units that allow same ability to be used more than 1 per turn.
Though to be fair one of those isn't particularly good as it is and other desperately needs help as it is.
It also means that abilities outright designed to be used only on turn 1 (like the necron ca'tan stuff and scout stuff) would be arguably useless. Gw needs to just put out a confirmation already saying it's DS only and DS is when the unit doesn't start on the battlefield. Da Jump isn't even really alpha strike in my mind because you can only use it on 1 unit per turn which is pretty balanced.
This isn't aimed at you lolman because you actually have common sense but this is exactly what they have done with their fb answer. They say that the unit that has the power cast on it is already on the battlefield and has already satisfied the criteria of needing to enter in the deployment zone. I genuinely have no idea how people are still misunderstanding this outside of trolling.
E - GW also confirmed on fb that the C'Tan stuff was fine because they had already entered the battlefield...just like da jump and GOI.
It also means that abilities outright designed to be used only on turn 1 (like the necron ca'tan stuff and scout stuff) would be arguably useless. Gw needs to just put out a confirmation already saying it's DS only and DS is when the unit doesn't start on the battlefield. Da Jump isn't even really alpha strike in my mind because you can only use it on 1 unit per turn which is pretty balanced.
This isn't aimed at you lolman because you actually have common sense but this is exactly what they have done with their fb answer. They say that the unit that has the power cast on it is already on the battlefield and has already satisfied the criteria of needing to enter in the deployment zone. I genuinely have no idea how people are still misunderstanding this outside of trolling.
Also, why would you redeploy your units exsactly where they are? The guy wasn't asking whether you could or not do the ability. He just asked if itis effected by the rules.
But seriously, i know scouts aren't effected but because of the poor wording Incan easily argue a case for them nit being effected! Hell, I could argue that IG troops moving up and using their ability to exist the transport (like a Valkyrie) now can't exist the vehicle turn 1.... xd Kind of a joke and I do not believe it will but you can see people already suggesting that. Even the Scions didn't get nerfed though because you can plop them in an already good valkyrie and fly them even closer to where they need to be.
Also you got a screenshot of that post? But the joke is, people are saying it doesn't matter because the fb team are not the dev team so no matter what they say we will still have arguements.
Also, why would you redeploy your units exsactly where they are? The guy wasn't asking whether you could or not do the ability. He just asked if itis effected by the rules.
But seriously, i know scouts aren't effected but because of the poor wording Incan easily argue a case for them nit being effected! Hell, I could argue that IG troops moving up and using their ability to exist the transport (like a Valkyrie) now can't exist the vehicle turn 1.... xd Kind of a joke and I do not believe it will but you can see people already suggesting that. Even the Scions didn't get nerfed though because you can plop them in an already good valkyrie and fly them even closer to where they need to be.
Also you got a screenshot of that post? But the joke is, people are saying it doesn't matter because the fb team are not the dev team so no matter what they say we will still have arguements.
Lol dude I know man. It makes no sense.
Unfortunately I did not take a screenshot as I didn't realise I would be taken to the high court of 40k to prove everything I say. Also as you said, apparently screenshots of GW employees saying something don't count for diddley anyways on here lol.
Also, why would you redeploy your units exsactly where they are? The guy wasn't asking whether you could or not do the ability. He just asked if itis effected by the rules.
But seriously, i know scouts aren't effected but because of the poor wording Incan easily argue a case for them nit being effected! Hell, I could argue that IG troops moving up and using their ability to exist the transport (like a Valkyrie) now can't exist the vehicle turn 1.... xd Kind of a joke and I do not believe it will but you can see people already suggesting that. Even the Scions didn't get nerfed though because you can plop them in an already good valkyrie and fly them even closer to where they need to be.
Also you got a screenshot of that post? But the joke is, people are saying it doesn't matter because the fb team are not the dev team so no matter what they say we will still have arguements.
You seriously can't come up with any use for T1 Da Jump even within your own deployment zone? I can think up 2 right away. Probably could come up with more if I spent some time on it but these two took me about 3 seconds to come up. Sure not huge game breaking moments but still better than nothing.
But the issue is the FB team's answers are by their own words no better than house rules. Why you think players should treat them as official WHEN THEY TELL YOU NOT TO TREAT THEM AS OFFICIAL!
You are being told to not treat them as official and you treat them as official?
Until GW provides official word I have nothing official to show for opponent that yes I can use Da Jump to go out of my DZ on turn 1. Only official word for the matter so far is the beta rules which is 100% unclear on the matter. Then there's just unofficial house rule.
If you are happy with GW providing such a unclear badly written ruleset that you need to spend time with each new opponent to sort out house rules fair enough. I would expect company that makes millions to be able to hire at least one guy with some basic english skills to go over rule texts to ensure they are well written.
It's always going to be a good idea to talk it over with your opponent beforehand - you might agree, in which case, no problem, play it how you like.
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to allow Da Jump / GoI / etc on the first turn, but I don't think the FAQ currently supports it. And the rando support dude on Facebook managed to answer the question in a way that didn't help at all. It was almost like he was answering a different question (which, y'know, kind of par for the GW course).
In a world where there are rules just being straight-up added to the game in the answers to FAQs, rather than as errata, who even knows what's real any more? Here's hoping it gets clarified, and hopefully those abilities are allowed to be useful in Turn 1. Even more hopefully, maybe they'll do that in a way that doesn't directly contradict or conflict with other rules or answers!
kadeton wrote: It's always going to be a good idea to talk it over with your opponent beforehand - you might agree, in which case, no problem, play it how you like.
But that should not be required to have game that even works...Pre-game talk can be used to house rule things that while rules might be clear players feel that's not fun. Like 8th ed LOS rules. House ruling windows blocking LOS isn't that unusual house rule. That's stuff pre-game talk can be used.
But to be required to talk so that it is even technically POSSIBLE to play? No way. Game has too much stuff where rules simply don't cover one way or another so you are REQUIRED to house rule or rules don't work at all. That's not cool. Especially for big company making tons of profit and claiming to be "best in the world".
Problem for me isn't and never was can or can't they. I can live either way. End result of games are going to be same anyway. But rules that don't work without house ruling sucks. Playing 2k games in 2h in 8th ed(one of the slowest editions ever) with orks is already hard enough without having to talk through basic rules before game.
Bombard GW like hell hoping they finally decide to wake up and give official fixings.
Though seeing how there's still known bugs from the day 1 of 8th ed not fixed despite them knowing about it shows pretty well they don't care too much about fixing wordings.
If you are happy with GW providing such a unclear badly written ruleset that you need to spend time with each new opponent to sort out house rules fair enough. I would expect company that makes millions to be able to hire at least one guy with some basic english skills to go over rule texts to ensure they are well written.
I never said I was happy. In fact you can find many posts of me saying GW needs to hire a team of proof readers and a think tank.
But you can also not deny that some people manipulate rules for their own gain and blame gw. I have experienced this first hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Bombard GW like hell hoping they finally decide to wake up and give official fixings.
Though seeing how there's still known bugs from the day 1 of 8th ed not fixed despite them knowing about it shows pretty well they don't care too much about fixing wordings.
Also we have done that for years. I'm only still here because the community is awesome, the rare pure casual friendly game I get is fun and I love painting, building and putting my models in my shelf.
That clears that up! Jump away Boyz waaagggggghhhhhh
Nah, some people are outright crazy mega "That guy" and saying because an official GWdev didn't put this in a FAQ on the community site it's not real and theynwill keep their head in the sand. Hope the Ork player they play against just packs up his stuff and moves into another person.
That "someone" is going straight back to my ignore list after I took him off for actually posting some interesting ideas about orks. Sadly he went straight back to just being toxic.
That clears that up! Jump away Boyz waaagggggghhhhhh
Nah, some people are outright crazy mega "That guy" and saying because an official GWdev didn't put this in a FAQ on the community site it's not real and theynwill keep their head in the sand. Hope the Ork player they play against just packs up his stuff and moves into another person.
I just had a long conversation with a Chaos player in my area whose army relies HEAVILY on turn 1 assault. We are going to both do our best to follow the beta rules and play as competitively as we can with the tools we have. Then we intend to send all that feedback to GW and see if they do anything with it, but as mentioned, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see his army which uses that Khorne in your face tactic is going to suffer pretty badly having to walk up the board or arrive turn 2. Heres hoping though right?
Well the biggest complaint I can see from day 1 is that GW now has to re price every single DS unit in 40k. For 200+ points terminators were already expensive but now you're paying 200+ points for a unit that basically misses the first and most essential turn in 40k.
Basically, even with the popcorn army, everything needs a price slash to represent their nerf. The Korn on the cobs especially need one as their survival rates against shooty armies will be terrible now.
I remember losing over 800pts of my marines to a competitive 1k shooty list. Can you imagine how DS armies and Deathwing is going to play? In a 1k point game 500pts of troops have to be on the feild and thus if you miss the first turn you could lose all 500pts and insta lose turn 1. Before this could have happened but now you have two full rounds of shooting at your units before anything else comes in. And once all the ground troops are gone youn have auto lost. You could put them in your deployment zone turn 1 but they're terminators! They're not meamt to be lange troops... and what if you equipped them with lighting claws? They now have to 5" their way up the board.
lolman1c wrote: Well the biggest complaint I can see from day 1 is that GW now has to re price every single DS unit in 40k. For 200+ points terminators were already expensive but now you're paying 200+ points for a unit that basically misses the first and most essential turn in 40k.
Basically, even with the popcorn army, everything needs a price slash to represent their nerf. The Korn on the cobs especially need one as their survival rates against shooty armies will be terrible now.
I remember losing over 800pts of my marines to a competitive 1k shooty list. Can you imagine how DS armies and Deathwing is going to play? In a 1k point game 500pts of troops have to be on the feild and thus if you miss the first turn you could lose all 500pts and insta lose turn 1. Before this could have happened but now you have two full rounds of shooting at your units before anything else comes in. And once all the ground troops are gone youn have auto lost. You could put them in your deployment zone turn 1 but they're terminators! They're not meamt to be lange troops... and what if you equipped them with lighting claws? They now have to 5" their way up the board.
On the plus side they might drastically reduce the price of my Kommandos now, since in effect they sucked in every way imaginable except as being a turn 1 alpha strike that let me pile in reinforcements without getting shot off the table. 9pts now for a model that can only come in turn 2 or 3 and be useful, Gets +1 to cover save, but has a 6+ save still, so in effect he gets the 4+ every ork was getting last edition, except this 4+ can be ignored with -AP weapons, and since they want to get into CC as quickly as possible you won't be deep striking them into Cover because that reduces your charge range to 11 instead of 9. They don't benefit from +1 attacks for having more models and they are equipped exactly the same as a Boy except that they can take 2 specialist weapons including a Free Burna which is a SUPER INCREDIBLY MINOR buff over a Choppa (Do the math, I am not kidding, the difference is negligible). With all of that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't reduce the cost down to 7ppm, which would be wonderful for me because I love my Blood Axe Kommandoz!
Honestly, they should be 6pts or 7pts. Right now Ork Boyz are hands down better and with the new rules actually more likely to be already at the front lines. XD da jump 60 boyz in by the time Kommandos are ready... the weirdboys price is probably better than the extra price of 60 kommandos and witht the amount of +1 you get to a weird boy you can basically make it where you never fail.
this is what gives me a small amount of hope for Orks. At the start of 8th edition GW had no idea what was going on. Many index stuff was just out of the ordinary broken in both ways. So hopefully, GW basically has a full grasp of how 8th edition works and so will price everything correctly for Orks while also adding fun risk vs reward stuff... maybe sit them down and make them read the Skaven AoS codex. XD
lolman1c wrote: Well the biggest complaint I can see from day 1 is that GW now has to re price every single DS unit in 40k. For 200+ points terminators were already expensive but now you're paying 200+ points for a unit that basically misses the first and most essential turn in 40k.
Basically, even with the popcorn army, everything needs a price slash to represent their nerf. The Korn on the cobs especially need one as their survival rates against shooty armies will be terrible now.
I remember losing over 800pts of my marines to a competitive 1k shooty list. Can you imagine how DS armies and Deathwing is going to play? In a 1k point game 500pts of troops have to be on the feild and thus if you miss the first turn you could lose all 500pts and insta lose turn 1. Before this could have happened but now you have two full rounds of shooting at your units before anything else comes in. And once all the ground troops are gone youn have auto lost. You could put them in your deployment zone turn 1 but they're terminators! They're not meamt to be lange troops... and what if you equipped them with lighting claws? They now have to 5" their way up the board.
On the plus side they might drastically reduce the price of my Kommandos now, since in effect they sucked in every way imaginable except as being a turn 1 alpha strike that let me pile in reinforcements without getting shot off the table. 9pts now for a model that can only come in turn 2 or 3 and be useful, Gets +1 to cover save, but has a 6+ save still, so in effect he gets the 4+ every ork was getting last edition, except this 4+ can be ignored with -AP weapons, and since they want to get into CC as quickly as possible you won't be deep striking them into Cover because that reduces your charge range to 11 instead of 9. They don't benefit from +1 attacks for having more models and they are equipped exactly the same as a Boy except that they can take 2 specialist weapons including a Free Burna which is a SUPER INCREDIBLY MINOR buff over a Choppa (Do the math, I am not kidding, the difference is negligible). With all of that, I can't imagine why they wouldn't reduce the cost down to 7ppm, which would be wonderful for me because I love my Blood Axe Kommandoz!
I agree, kommandos should be 7ppm and with a better cover save bonus. Maybe even ì a -1 to hit for the turn they arrive and of course the subsquent opponent's turn. Blood axes kommandos should get some faction bonus that penalizes the enemy Ld.
We should get purple Orks. 0pts per model, have 0 attacks, can't shoot, can't charge, can't claim objectives and are basically not part of the game in any way. Almost like they're not there at all.
Zachectomy wrote: Has anyone noticed that Boss Nobs now cost six points?
they always have in 8th
I think some people were taking them for free. Like they were paying for 29 boyz and 1 free nob.
Andy and Nazrak, Orkz aren't the fun wacky army anymore. We have literally lost all of our fun rule and are left with bad rules. I mean they can be fun if your a masochist, who wouldn't want to waste an entire shooting phase against a target you can't really hurt because you had to roll for strength after targeting a vehicle. Or, that good old wacky SAG, which used to kill its user more often then its target, thats fun right? No, that is just stupid. The wacky rules were the ones like the old Ramshackle where the vehicle had its own destruction chart and would sometimes take out an entire squad of Space Marines OR kill your own unit next to the trukk as well as the unit inside. That was fun, not the current crap GW is pushing out. I mean hell, even our favorite weirdboy who could turn people into squigs got taken away from us :(
I'm really back and forth on this. MY random Bubble chukka easily out preformed 5 KMK's in a single game. You do have a point but I just don't know that "redundant" options actually pay off, my dice are like..Nope.
I've found better results with a larger mix of units than playing to any one extreme, which I have done. Once dice are involved you can have as much mathhammer as you want it never seems to matter for me.
So for one am willing to put points back into units that "shouldn't work". Prior to this edition wacky rules just irked my nerves. That old ramshackle rule did not make me happy and was a reason to leave the trukks at home. I think it was fun in one game of 6th edition, I had skipped all but the last few months of 6th edition. It's all subjective really. (A little unfortunate.)
It's as fun as you make it. I take bikes and and gorkanauts and all these useless units and have fun. I couldn't, as a long time evil Sunz fan, not take bikes in an army, and buggies. The rules aren't as fun as they used to be but in first edition most games couldn't go last turn two because the weekend was over, it'd taken so long. What's bad is all the very unorky whining. I don't get why youneould even want yo play them if doing well is so important.
As for your mate beating you in two turns, play more narrative games. Mix up missions and forces. Take double the points of him see what you can do. Make the game fun. Leave match play to the green tide/waac players.
No matter how much you tip the scales in your favor, unless your opponent goes out of his way to build a bad army on purpose, a biker army will not be able to last past turn 3.
Someone who puts down the current starter set will table you with next to no effort. That's how bad GW made some of our units.
It's not the player's job to fix this, it's GWs job. Considering how much better they have gotten at this in just the last year, I'm confident that at least casual and semi-competitive players will be having fun with their orks again.
As much as I agree an Ork player should just have fun... we're not Orks... it's a bad move for a company to do a terrible job and then the consumer (who has paid them £100s) goes "it's unlike my faction to complain or want anything else". You see, what you call "Un-orky" I call Blood Axey. The Blood Axe orks would sit there and go "yeah this is not working, something is wrong".
Andykp wrote: It's as fun as you make it. I take bikes and and gorkanauts and all these useless units and have fun. I couldn't, as a long time evil Sunz fan, not take bikes in an army, and buggies. The rules aren't as fun as they used to be but in first edition most games couldn't go last turn two because the weekend was over, it'd taken so long. What's bad is all the very unorky whining. I don't get why youneould even want yo play them if doing well is so important.
As for your mate beating you in two turns, play more narrative games. Mix up missions and forces. Take double the points of him see what you can do. Make the game fun. Leave match play to the green tide/waac players.
Ah so because GW can't be arsed to do their job and make armies balanced we should just suck it up rather than let them know what they are doing is unacceptable?
Don't lie blame on players for wanting fun balanced game. Blame lies on GW flat and square. They are the ones who are incompetent and arent' doing their job. If I did my job like they do I would have been kicked out long time ago.
you have to admit... it has been 40+ years... In the time it has taken GW to make a kinda okay game (8th edition) the human race and developed computers to be easily mass produced, the internet, developed cell phones, sent hundreds of satellites into space and actually sent real robot to Mars. We're actually closer to the Martian cult of technology in real life than the 40kdev team is to making a balanced game!
As I keep saying I love GW because they do do a lot of fun and good things right but also 40kdev team do a lot of weird thing. They're models, however, are awesome to paint and display it's it's the main thing I'm here for... I would just maybe like to use the models or have incentive to use the models.
Andykp wrote: It's as fun as you make it. I take bikes and and gorkanauts and all these useless units and have fun. I couldn't, as a long time evil Sunz fan, not take bikes in an army, and buggies. The rules aren't as fun as they used to be but in first edition most games couldn't go last turn two because the weekend was over, it'd taken so long. What's bad is all the very unorky whining. I don't get why youneould even want yo play them if doing well is so important.
As for your mate beating you in two turns, play more narrative games. Mix up missions and forces. Take double the points of him see what you can do. Make the game fun. Leave match play to the green tide/waac players.
Ah so because GW can't be arsed to do their job and make armies balanced we should just suck it up rather than let them know what they are doing is unacceptable?
Don't lie blame on players for wanting fun balanced game. Blame lies on GW flat and square. They are the ones who are incompetent and arent' doing their job. If I did my job like they do I would have been kicked out long time ago.
There's _zero_ reason index armies should be weaker than codex. Less options yes but if GW was willing to do it's job both would have equal chance to win.
Don't excuse GW like a white knight. They screwed up. I'm paying money for their products. Is it too much to ask at least half professional attitude from them for that? Are you happy paying for flawed items?
I hope your work ethics are better than GW's. I know I would have been fired long time ago if I was as inept in my work as GW developers are.
There's plenty to critique GW's CURRENT line. I'm not even commenting on future items because there's no need. GW's current work are so crappy quality you could poke holes in them for century and not run out of flaws to point out.
He has a point. If my mate built a crappy wall and said "Well when we get some new material in we'll just build a better one next to it" theynwould fire him on the spot! And I bet building high rise buildings in Asia is more difficult than balancing 40k. XD
Now you're being silly. You're blaming GW for not balancing the index against codices they haven't started writing at that point.
Adding stratagems, relics, warlord traits, chapter tactics and adjusting points alone makes a codex much more powerful than an index. They would have to make everything in a codex worse than their index incarnation in order to keep the power level the same. What a ridiculous suggestion.
You're just being negative for the sake of being negative again.
All of this will be forgiven once our codex is released assuming we get a few new models.
Let's be honest, we want our cake and eat it. I would like to take a fluffy army that can compete. Currently I struggle with Evil Sunz, like Andy above, but it's not impossible. The sad thing is the less "Evil Sunz" I make my army the more powerful it becomes.
I've no doubt we'll get some good treatment once the codex is released.
An Actual Englishman wrote: All of this will be forgiven once our codex is released assuming we get a few new models.
I've no doubt we'll get some good treatment once the codex is released.
LOL you must be new here (sarcasm). But seriously did you get to endure the transition from our amaze-balls 4th edition codex to the 7th edition hard cover book equivalent of a gut punch?
lolman1c wrote: He has a point. If my mate built a crappy wall and said "Well when we get some new material in we'll just build a better one next to it" theynwould fire him on the spot! And I bet building high rise buildings in Asia is more difficult than balancing 40k. XD
Don't be dazzled by bs.
If Orks got all the point decreases they want right now they'd get a ton of point increases when the book comes out.
It is not stupid for GW to take a ponderous path on those changes.
An Actual Englishman wrote: All of this will be forgiven once our codex is released assuming we get a few new models.
I've no doubt we'll get some good treatment once the codex is released.
LOL you must be new here (sarcasm). But seriously did you get to endure the transition from our amaze-balls 4th edition codex to the 7th edition hard cover book equivalent of a gut punch?
I think you must be new. Did you miss the transition to new management?
Let's not allow our painful past experiences to cloud our judgement now. Other codexes who have suffered in an similar vein now find that they have some of the most competitive books available. If anything our previous treatment should all but guarantee a book so OP it would instantly break the meta.
I'm curious as I can think of only one person, but did any of you get into Orks to compete at the top level? Surely you all realised, when you decided to go with the big green ladz, that you were picking a largely underpowered army?
An Actual Englishman wrote: All of this will be forgiven once our codex is released assuming we get a few new models.
I've no doubt we'll get some good treatment once the codex is released.
LOL you must be new here (sarcasm). But seriously did you get to endure the transition from our amaze-balls 4th edition codex to the 7th edition hard cover book equivalent of a gut punch?
lol. That 4th edition codex was for suck., just about as poor as the 7th ed codex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: Let's not allow our painful past experiences to cloud our judgement now. Other codexes who have suffered in an similar vein now find that they have some of the most competitive books available. If anything our previous treatment should all but guarantee a book so OP it would instantly break the meta.
I'm curious as I can think of only one person, but did any of you get into Orks to compete at the top level? Surely you all realised, when you decided to go with the big green ladz, that you were picking a largely underpowered army?
I have a feeling the codex this edition will be fitting for this edition and hold up against the others fairly well.
When I got into Orks the idea of top tier armies for competition wasn't really as much of a thing as it is now. What with army comp, painting and Sportsmanship scores being needed for taking the total win.
But I did expect to hold my own at the time and I did fair enough in that environment.
Nothing under powered about big shootas, rokkits and choppas back then. Hell, Flash Gitz in a Battle Wagon were super supper nasty. (Once upon a time.)
warhead01 wrote: lol. That 4th edition codex was for suck., just about as poor as the 7th ed codex.
We had two competitive lists that could regularly place well in tournaments, battlewagon bash and kan wall.
We also had a ton of semi-competitive builds that would work well in less competitive environments: Dread Mob, Green Tide, Footsloggers (less boyz and more toyz than tide), Deff Wing, Kult of Speed (trukks), Nob Bikers and Wazzdakka bike horde
We had multiple useful anti-tank options: Lootas, kannons, deff rollas, warbosses, nobz, nob bikers, kanz, koptas and buggies. All those could destroy enemy tanks.
We had a KFF that extended 6" from the hull of a battlewagon or trukk and provided 4+ cover saves to any unit within 6".
We had boarding planks that allowed a PK to attack from inside a vehicle.
We had ramshackle trukks that turned into ballistic missiles when killed.
We had the option to use nobz, nob bikers, MANz or bikers as troops.
We had burna wagons that actually did something.
We could turn enemy characters into squigs.
We had characters and nobz with 5++ saves.
And the best part? Most models actually costed less points then than they do now. Sure, the codex was full of useless units and non-functional rules, but that's how WH40k was back then for everyone.
So don't you dare put the 4th edition codex on the same lave as the rip-off the 7th edition piece of junk was.
warhead01 wrote: lol. That 4th edition codex was for suck., just about as poor as the 7th ed codex.
We had two competitive lists that could regularly place well in tournaments, battlewagon bash and kan wall.
We also had a ton of semi-competitive builds that would work well in less competitive environments: Dread Mob, Green Tide, Footsloggers (less boyz and more toyz than tide), Deff Wing, Kult of Speed (trukks), Nob Bikers and Wazzdakka bike horde
We had multiple useful anti-tank options: Lootas, kannons, deff rollas, warbosses, nobz, nob bikers, kanz, koptas and buggies. All those could destroy enemy tanks.
We had a KFF that extended 6" from the hull of a battlewagon or trukk and provided 4+ cover saves to any unit within 6".
We had boarding planks that allowed a PK to attack from inside a vehicle.
We had ramshackle trukks that turned into ballistic missiles when killed.
We had the option to use nobz, nob bikers, MANz or bikers as troops.
We had burna wagons that actually did something.
We could turn enemy characters into squigs.
We had characters and nobz with 5++ saves.
And the best part? Most models actually costed less points then than they do now. Sure, the codex was full of useless units and non-functional rules, but that's how WH40k was back then for everyone.
So don't you dare put the 4th edition codex on the same lave as the rip-off the 7th edition piece of junk was.
What ever dude, they both were no good. That stupid 4th ed codex had a few "good builds" , so what. A few good builds doesn't make a codex good.
It was an large step down from the codex prior and nothing will change my mind about that. One of the larger problem it had was that it was expected to cover down between 4th,5th and 6th edition.
We've beaten the 7th ed codex issues to death we already know what and why.
lolman1c wrote: He has a point. If my mate built a crappy wall and said "Well when we get some new material in we'll just build a better one next to it" theynwould fire him on the spot! And I bet building high rise buildings in Asia is more difficult than balancing 40k. XD
Don't be dazzled by bs.
If Orks got all the point decreases they want right now they'd get a ton of point increases when the book comes out.
It is not stupid for GW to take a ponderous path on those changes.
An Actual Englishman wrote: All of this will be forgiven once our codex is released assuming we get a few new models.
I've no doubt we'll get some good treatment once the codex is released.
LOL you must be new here (sarcasm). But seriously did you get to endure the transition from our amaze-balls 4th edition codex to the 7th edition hard cover book equivalent of a gut punch?
I think you must be new. Did you miss the transition to new management?
If I wanted a viable well priced army I'd sell my Orks and buy IG. I couldn't give a flipping squig if all our stuff gets priced appropriately! I want an Orky army and this is why I didn't like the index! We didn't play orks for nearly 10 years hoping they migh4 be priced right. We played them because ofmall the fun Orky rules like looted vechiles, kustom scratch built HQs, ect... and my feelings is that even biker boses will vanish in the codex. Removing the last peice of Orky creativeness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I miss squig catapults, splatta kannons, pulsa rokkits, and weird boyz that needed "minderz".
Those were the days.
This is what i mean! The Ork index was just marines painted green... nothing was really Orky about it as most factions just did what we did but better. I want to have stuff that isn't game winning but is unique as hell!
This is what i mean! The Ork index was just marines painted green... nothing was really Orky about it as most factions just did what we did but better. I want to have stuff that isn't game winning but is unique as hell!
I think it still has a lot of the essence. The Bubblechukka is just awesome and if it didn't take so long to resolve i'd take 10 of them. The SAG, Zzap, and Tellyporta are also good representations.
And i'm certain the codex will have more of the Orky essence. I bet you'll even see Pulsa Rokkits as a stratagem. Something like causes D3 mortal wounds and halves unit movement.
That's just names... I don't want to do D3 wounds.... I want a warboss who can take 20 shootas, I want to teleport enemy units about at random, I want to turn gillymannn into a squig and I want my red vechiles to naturally go faster with no dumb stratagems needed! All stuff (apart from the 20 shootas) we used to have built into the army. If all we can expect is stratadumbs that are just like everyone elses but have names in reference to all the cool stuff we used to have then I can understand why people are disappointed. 7thed was bad for Orks but at least we felt like Orks.
I don't want to play a imperial army painted green (in the sense I just move, roll to shoot, roll to wound, maybe do a few mortal wounds). I want wacky but dangerous adventures of warbands of Orks crashing their way through space as they mash together unique looking units with abilities you wouldn't find anywhere else in the galaxy!
lolman1c wrote: That's just names... I don't want to do D3 wounds.... I want a warboss who can take 20 shootas, I want to teleport enemy units about at random, I want to turn gillymannn into a squig and I want my red vechiles to naturally go faster with no dumb stratagems needed! All stuff (apart from the 20 shootas) we used to have built into the army. If all we can expect is stratadumbs that are just like everyone elses but have names in reference to all the cool stuff we used to have then I can understand why people are disappointed. 7thed was bad for Orks but at least we felt like Orks.
I don't want to play a imperial army painted green (in the sense I just move, roll to shoot, roll to wound, maybe do a few mortal wounds). I want wacky but dangerous adventures of warbands of Orks crashing their way through space as they mash together unique looking units with abilities you wouldn't find anywhere else in the galaxy!
Yea we'll never see something super random again. The pulsar was such a chore in the past anyway. I'll bet speed kult will get automatic extra move anyway.
There might be narrative stuff in the future, but not for matched play.
This is what i mean! The Ork index was just marines painted green... nothing was really Orky about it as most factions just did what we did but better. I want to have stuff that isn't game winning but is unique as hell!
I think it still has a lot of the essence. The Bubblechukka is just awesome and if it didn't take so long to resolve i'd take 10 of them. The SAG, Zzap, and Tellyporta are also good representations.
And i'm certain the codex will have more of the Orky essence. I bet you'll even see Pulsa Rokkits as a stratagem. Something like causes D3 mortal wounds and halves unit movement.
This got me thinking. How about a stratagem, Choppas, resolve wounds in close combat against target unit at AP-2. (Can not be used with Grots, they just too weedy.)
This got me thinking. How about a stratagem, Choppas, resolve wounds in close combat against target unit at AP-2. (Can not be used with Grots, they just too weedy.)
This got me thinking. How about a stratagem, Choppas, resolve wounds in close combat against target unit at AP-2. (Can not be used with Grots, they just too weedy.)
Fun, but absurdly powerful.
I agree. Probably set it at 3 CP's maybe even 4, would be funny if Orks got the first 4CP costed Stratagem. Still, it would be glorious. lol
An Actual Englishman wrote: Personally I'd rather have decent -AP tools to deal with high armoured units, without having to rely on a costly stratagem that can now be cancelled.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Personally I'd rather have decent -AP tools to deal with high armoured units, without having to rely on a costly stratagem that can now be cancelled.
Canceled how? Is that a new thing?
Just for DE. Nothing that would really be a wider problem.
I think you must be new. Did you miss the transition to new management?
Ahhh yes. New management which gifted us the most op stratagem in the game currently..6s to hit give an extra shot which still
Must be rolled for. Yes I’m tweeking my nipples with anticipation at the thought of a book full of OP stratagems like this!
I’m awaiting this codex with my hands covering my eyes out peeking through my fingers like a 5 year old. I’m terrified they will turn my beloved orks into a joke. And not a good joke like the old ork ways where that joke could possibly murder your face, but a joke that lands as flat and insulting like that 7th edition codex was. 4th edition orks were lit. There were SOME units that were pointless except for lols or fun...but orks were feared and respected. Never broken, never bad. Always had a chance against any list and always great games.
I think you must be new. Did you miss the transition to new management?
Ahhh yes. New management which gifted us the most op stratagem in the game currently..6s to hit give an extra shot which still
Must be rolled for. Yes I’m tweeking my nipples with anticipation at the thought of a book full of OP stratagems like this!
I’m awaiting this codex with my hands covering my eyes out peeking through my fingers like a 5 year old. I’m terrified they will turn my beloved orks into a joke. And not a good joke like the old ork ways where that joke could possibly murder your face, but a joke that lands as flat and insulting like that 7th edition codex was. 4th edition orks were lit. There were SOME units that were pointless except for lols or fun...but orks were feared and respected. Never broken, never bad. Always had a chance against any list and always great games.
And on the other hand Mob Up makes Trukk Boyz viable if people would get over their hate for them.
Have you also not seen the weak index armies that got codexes get sorted out pretty well?
I wrote a really cool and well thouht out resoonse the my net lost connection when posting so now you will have this response:
Mob up strat sucks! I can name a few reasons and even within a few seconds of reading it I can think of a few more ways you could have made the rule more exciting and Orky!
For one, I shouldn't have to rely on a stratadumb to make my style of play useful! I want my trukk boyz to be usable from the start! Stratadumb were meant to be useful bonuses to help out in make or break situation but now they're becoming a crutch which is wrong!
Secondly, mob up isn't amazing. It would have been useful if you could mob up any number of boyz to a max for 30 or 40 in a unit. Then I could send in two wagons or a wagon and a trukk full of boyz to really hit the front lines hard.
Finally, what would have made Mob up a freaking amazing stratagem would have been if you could mob up any infintry unit with each other (if Deathwatch can do this then why can't we in exchange for cp!). Not only would this have been Orky fun and fluffy but it might have possibly fixed our entire index until the codex came out.
Imagine if you will.... a death skullz warband! And in this warband you have some weak but expensive 10 lootas who are maybe stuck on an objective you don't even need. Boom! Mob them up with 20 boyz and you got yourself a hell of a team up! 10 lootas with 20 wounds and 40 extra short range shots. Move them or da jump them about onto different objectives would be epic!
Tank Bustas.... people complain about them needing to get close.... Boom! 20 wounds in front of them and up in yah face! Take that tanks! Might even encourage you to add rockets to the mob! Hell... those hammers tank bustas have? Now you mob up 10 tank bustas with hammers with 20 boyz and finally Ork boyz have an awesome anti tank boyz mob!
Useless burna boyz? Not anymore! 15 of with with 15 boyz and suddenly the front line buffer of guards men is toast before you make that charge!
Hell, why not use grots like they're supposed to be used for! Mob 10 up in 20 boyz and you got an awesome 10 wound buffer shield as you foot slog accross the board!
THE LIST GOES ON! Hell.... why not mob up a hq into a mob? Not only would this make up for Orks lack of snipers and anti snipers, it opens up so many new fluffy play styles (maybe balance it by limiting the HQ auras to that unit like it was in 7th edition). Suddenly Trukk boyz have a warbos and nobz mixed amongst their small mob. A painboy can keep that unit safe without needing to duck and cover! A weirdboy might be able to da jump a single unit accross the board with himself. Even a Mek could get a lot of use with trukk unit.
The list goes on about how a change to this rule could drastically improve the Orkiness of gameplay! It's pure amazing how with 10 seconds of reading the rule i thought of a better more orky rule back then... helll even came up with all the ways to deal with the balance.
For one, I shouldn't have to rely on a stratadumb to make my style of play useful!
Ok, that's a fair criticism.
Secondly, mob up isn't amazing.
It's not Vect, but it's pretty handy. Like you said - wagon w/ deffrolla plus a trukk w/ ball gets you a mob of 30 and two solid melee overwatch absorbers.
Finally, what would have made Mib up a freaking amazing stratagem would have been if you could mob up any infintry unit with each other (if Deathwatch can do this then why can't we in exchange for cp!). Not only would this have been Orky fun,
It would be super abusable with Ork morale. I wanted it that way initially, too.
For one, I shouldn't have to rely on a stratadumb to make my style of play useful!
Ok, that's a fair criticism.
Secondly, mob up isn't amazing.
It's not Vect, but it's pretty handy. Like you said - wagon w/ deffrolla plus a trukk w/ ball gets you a mob of 30 and two solid melee overwatch absorbers.
Finally, what would have made Mib up a freaking amazing stratagem would have been if you could mob up any infintry unit with each other (if Deathwatch can do this then why can't we in exchange for cp!). Not only would this have been Orky fun,
It would be super abusable with Ork morale. I wanted it that way initially, too.
1 second, re read the full post, i missed half of it out when i lost connection again so you missed half of it.
Sal4m4nd3r wrote: Ahhh yes. New management which gifted us the most op stratagem in the game currently..6s to hit give an extra shot which still
Must be rolled for. Yes I’m tweeking my nipples with anticipation at the thought of a book full of OP stratagems like this!
I’m awaiting this codex with my hands covering my eyes out peeking through my fingers like a 5 year old. I’m terrified they will turn my beloved orks into a joke. And not a good joke like the old ork ways where that joke could possibly murder your face, but a joke that lands as flat and insulting like that 7th edition codex was. 4th edition orks were lit. There were SOME units that were pointless except for lols or fun...but orks were feared and respected. Never broken, never bad. Always had a chance against any list and always great games.
I lol'd at this.
We have 2 options ladies and gents. We can be pessimistic or hopeful. I'm choosing to be hopeful. I could be wrong and mistaken, if so I'll just focus on the hobby rather than the gaming aspect of 40k.
I really think we'll get some good stuff though. The stratagems for DE in CA were also bland and awful, but look how they turned out!
For one, I shouldn't have to rely on a stratadumb to make my style of play useful!
Ok, that's a fair criticism.
Secondly, mob up isn't amazing.
It's not Vect, but it's pretty handy. Like you said - wagon w/ deffrolla plus a trukk w/ ball gets you a mob of 30 and two solid melee overwatch absorbers.
Finally, what would have made Mib up a freaking amazing stratagem would have been if you could mob up any infintry unit with each other (if Deathwatch can do this then why can't we in exchange for cp!). Not only would this have been Orky fun,
It would be super abusable with Ork morale. I wanted it that way initially, too.
So that stratagem makes Trukk boyz good if you take them with a Battlewagon full of boyz and then mob them up. So you gain better movement and a unit of 30 boyz (including 2 nobz) showing up undamaged for the low low cost of......440pts. 440pts and 2CP? I can't remember because I never use it because it is so terrible. What else could I do with 440pts...Ohh yeah, I could take 60 boyz and a Weirdboy and have 20pts left over. yeah that sounds better then 440pts for HALF the boyz as well as a useless trukk whose only purpose now is to eat overwatch and a Battlewagon which while effective in CC, isn't nearly as effective as another MOB of boyz against MOST targets.
A wagon without a roller is almost as useless as a trukk. I don't have a roller on mine because I thouht it looked cool without one at the time so didn't take one. Don't think I even have the hardcase model anymore (it's lost to time). But uou have a point. 50% of a 1k list is dedicated to getting 60 boyz across and you don't even get a turn 1 charge due to how rules work. I would love evil sunz to have the ability to charge in with trukks and wagons and then have boyz unload out of the trukk into cc. The negative to balance it being you have to position your trukk correctly or most of your units can't attack.
So that stratagem makes Trukk boyz good if you take them with a Battlewagon full of boyz and then mob them up. So you gain better movement and a unit of 30 boyz (including 2 nobz) showing up undamaged for the low low cost of......440pts. 440pts and 2CP? I can't remember because I never use it because it is so terrible. What else could I do with 440pts...Ohh yeah, I could take 60 boyz and a Weirdboy and have 20pts left over. yeah that sounds better then 440pts for HALF the boyz as well as a useless trukk whose only purpose now is to eat overwatch and a Battlewagon which while effective in CC, isn't nearly as effective as another MOB of boyz against MOST targets.
1 CP for Mob Up.
Trukks and Jump means I you can get 90 in 2 turns instead of 60 - with 30 of those way closer than a normal jump. I'll record a game when I get a chance.
So that stratagem makes Trukk boyz good if you take them with a Battlewagon full of boyz and then mob them up. So you gain better movement and a unit of 30 boyz (including 2 nobz) showing up undamaged for the low low cost of......440pts. 440pts and 2CP? I can't remember because I never use it because it is so terrible. What else could I do with 440pts...Ohh yeah, I could take 60 boyz and a Weirdboy and have 20pts left over. yeah that sounds better then 440pts for HALF the boyz as well as a useless trukk whose only purpose now is to eat overwatch and a Battlewagon which while effective in CC, isn't nearly as effective as another MOB of boyz against MOST targets.
1 CP for Mob Up.
Trukks and Jump means I you can get 90 in 2 turns instead of 60 - with 30 of those way closer than a normal jump. I'll record a game when I get a chance.
So 440pts for 30 Boyz and two useless vehicles (the wagon does ok but not worth its points at all) and then 360pts for another 60 Boyz and 60pts for a weirdboy. So your strategy can deliver 90 Boyz in 2 turns at the low low cost of 860pts.
Prior to this FAQ I could deliver 30 Boyz and almost 70 Kommandos 1st turn for that same price. Or after that I could just deliver 90 boyz by turn 3 (1 turn later then your strategy) for 600pts (1 weirdboy and 90 boyz)
Trukk Boyz and Wagon boyz DONT WORK because the transports are too expensive and too fragile and too useless after they drop off their passengers.
*shrug* I think you're wrong on their utility. And the calculus is only going to get more steep. DW is coming with potential charge eliminating frag cannons and most of the T'au at the next GT were T'au Sept - a few with multiple SMS/HBC Riptides.
Not to mention most people don't have the resources for 90 stormboyz/kommandos.
Trukks block overwatch, get you closer, and kill a couple things while doing it. They're quite durable - especially with support. 21 LC shots score ~18 wounds when factoring in ramshackle & KFF. So, almost two Trukks die to a number of shots that would kill almost 3 predators. And you have a BW on top. And for me, dreadnoughts or a 'naut. Oh I know. Those are "bad", too. But they're there to take heat and they do it well.
Daedalus81 wrote: *shrug* I think you're wrong on their utility. And the calculus is only going to get more steep. DW is coming with potential charge eliminating frag cannons and most of the T'au at the next GT were T'au Sept - a few with multiple SMS/HBC Riptides.
Not to mention most people don't have the resources for 90 stormboyz/kommandos.
Trukks block overwatch, get you closer, and kill a couple things while doing it. They're quite durable - especially with support. 21 LC shots score ~18 wounds when factoring in ramshackle & KFF. So, almost two Trukks die to a number of shots that would kill almost 3 predators. And you have a BW on top. And for me, dreadnoughts or a 'naut. Oh I know. Those are "bad", too. But they're there to take heat and they do it well.
21 LC shots hit 14 times, wound 9-10 times and ignore the armor save so they require that KFF which (again you keep moving the goal posts), adds another 101pts to the cost (Big Mek On Bike +KFF). BUT that saves 3 shots, so now its 6 to 7 going through. Ramshackle reduces 1 to 1dmg. So its 5-6 x 3.5 which is 17.5-21 + 1 so 18.5-22dmg on AVERAGE. Not factoring in the Sergeant nor the cherub which they will all have. Last time I checked a Trukk has 10 wounds so you have EASILY killed 1 trukk and reduced that BW by 8.5-12 dmg which knocks it down to its 2nd wound profile so its now slower, weaker and has D6CC attacks instead of 6. So lets tally that up a bit. Lets say you were facing 3 units of Devs and 2 Las Preds, this is still CHEAPER mind you then the 90 boyz, 1 trukk, 1 wagon, 1 weirdboy and 1 KFF Big Mek on bike you are recommending So i can EASILY afford 2 Scout squads to act as Screens for my long range Lascannons. So turn 1 I pop 3 Cherubs and use the sergeants SIGNUM on 3 lascannons. So round 1 I get 23 shots, 20 hitting on 3s and 3hitting on 2s. So about 16 hits, 11-12 wounds, minus the 5+++ saves makes it 7-8 Wounds. 1 will be saved on average by the Ramshackle so 6-7 wounds +1dmg. That is 21-24.5dmg. So turn 1 trukk is dead, stranding those 10 Boyz, the battlewagon is reduced GREATLY and now is moving slower and only S6 D6 attacks in CC. Orkz jump 30 Boyz into range of my scouts, you charge, most likely fail (less then 50% chance) lose 1 model to overwatch. Turn 2, the Lascannons FINISH OFF the Battlewagon (which was down to less then 6 wounds using 1 Predator annihilator) and start using their weapons on the jumped squad as well as the tanks which will start taking wounds off of it easily, the scout squads go rapid fire on the boyz as well So 3 Dev squads and 1 predator annihilator + 2 5 man scout squads = 13 bolters, 1 storm bolter and 16 lascannon shots.....Assuming 10 of the bolters (scouts) are in double tap range and that nobody else is we have 25 S4 shots and 16 S9 shots. They won't be in range of the KFF so that means 8ish wounds from bolters and 10ish from lascannons which brings the boyz down to 11 models with a -17 to 18 leadership modifier....they are almost assuredly destroyed. Turn 2 for orkz you move everyone forward, jump another unit of boyz and maybe get some pot shots out of your assault weapons...ohh did you want to include a Warboss to give them the ability to charge after advancing? No? ok so they aren't charging, that 1 unit that jumped can try, but again they have a less then 50% chance.
SO after 2 game turns your strategy has maybe inflicted some wounds on scouts but has lost both its vehicles and a 30 boy unit. and keep in mind this is going on averages, so I am not saying that you won't get insanely lucky rolls sometime, but that ON AVERAGE this will fail horribly.
Want me to tell you why this fails so horribly? Because you are spending the better part of 270pts on 2 transports. That more than anything else is why this fails. Last edition that same trick could have been done using JUST Trukkz for the cost of 90pts (Trukkz were 30ish pts) So to get the same Bang for your buck in transports your spending 3x as many points. Or if you REALY wanted to spend 270pts on transports, last edition you could have done so and transported about 108boyz using 9 Trukkz for the same price.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Durability isn't as important as you make it seem for trukkz. Those Preds are also dropping vehicles from turn 1 while the trukkz can't do anything except eat overwatch or tie a unit up in CC for a turn after they drop their cargo off.
As for the walkers, yes they are absolutely garbage this edition, giant, slow walkers with no dakka and only make their points back when they get into CC (Kanz don't even do it there), and once they do, they suffer because they don't have an invuln at all and rely on Toughness value to save them because most Anti-tank weapons eat through their 3+ saves as easily as they would a SM tactical.
I love how the Orks just stood there and got shot. And, as I said before I take a 'naut or dreadnoughts to draw AT fire. If you're spending two turns with all your AT on the trukks you might have a bad time.
The point on the number of lascannons is that it takes a LOT of them. A number that barely any list has.
Reviewing some lists from the London GT for LC count :
6,3,1,4, 9, 3, 4, 4, 12 (backed up by RG agressors - I'd like to be in transports for those), 7, 12, 4
Almost no one is taking massive amounts of anti-tank. The only notable exception is triple shadowsword lists.
Heavy Bolter 294
Assault Cannon 48
Hurricane Bolter 145 (and there are a gak ton of these and mortars when you factor in quantity)
Mortar 159
Heavy / Burst Cannon 91
Smart Missile System 71
PGC 28
Boltstorm Gauntlets 32
I love how the Orks just stood there and got shot. And, as I said before I take a 'naut or dreadnoughts to draw AT fire. If you're spending two turns with all your AT on the trukks you might have a bad time.
The point on the number of lascannons is that it takes a LOT of them. A number that barely any list has.
Reviewing some lists from the London GT for LC count :
6,3,1,4, 9, 3, 4, 4, 12 (backed up by RG agressors - I'd like to be in transports for those), 7, 12, 4
Almost no one is taking massive amounts of anti-tank. The only notable exception is triple shadowsword lists.
Heavy Bolter 294
Assault Cannon 48
Hurricane Bolter 145 (and there are a gak ton of these and mortars when you factor in quantity)
Mortar 159
Heavy / Burst Cannon 91
Smart Missile System 71
PGC 28
Boltstorm Gauntlets 32
This is what is called Moving the Goal posts, something you have done several times now. If you want to include Nauts and dreads into the equation that gives me several hundred more points to work with. Most lists don't SPAM lascannons because why should they when plasma is so prevalent and useful. And I would ALWAYS shoot transports first because boyz are as good at CC as a Naut. And a Naut only takes 1 turn to kill with dedicated anti-tank fire from lascannons or equivalents. The fact is, no matter how many times you move those goal posts, that Trukkz and Wagonz SUCK at being transports right now. And it is easy to see simply because they cost more then the units they are supposed to transport.
Daedalus81 wrote: No, I'm not moving goal posts. I'm giving context and it's been mentioned in many posts already.
A naut under KFF is considerably difficult to bring down.
33% to be exact, and at the cost of 100pts or so.
So again, if you want to play this scenario out in real life, just go look at how many competitive armies bring trukkz and battlewagons as transports. The answer is not surprising at all, the most you see trukkz is as a expensive buff to Tankbusta survivability, NOT as a transport for Trukk Boyz.
And yes you are in fact moving the goal posts, you started by saying that trukk boyz and wagon boyz were good, I showed you they weren't. You came back with showing how a plethora of lascannons weren't that effective against them, i showed you the opposite was true. You came back with dreadz and nauts are great for distracting against Lascannons, I then showed you how yet again you moved the goal posts and how they were utter crap still.
You labor under this belief that the Ork index is good, and that the reason these units are bad isn't because they are in fact bad but because people aren't using them right. Nobody thinks trukkz are good, nobody should either. Or do you really believe that a Trukk should cost more then a Rhino, or be so useless as to be able to transport 72pts worth of boyz while that Rhino can transport almost double that in standard Marines without upgrades. The same is true for a Battle Wagon.
Daedalus81 wrote: No, I'm not moving goal posts. I'm giving context and it's been mentioned in many posts already.
A naut under KFF is considerably difficult to bring down.
33% to be exact, and at the cost of 100pts or so.
So again, if you want to play this scenario out in real life, just go look at how many competitive armies bring trukkz and battlewagons as transports. The answer is not surprising at all, the most you see trukkz is as a expensive buff to Tankbusta survivability, NOT as a transport for Trukk Boyz.
And yes you are in fact moving the goal posts, you started by saying that trukk boyz and wagon boyz were good, I showed you they weren't. You came back with showing how a plethora of lascannons weren't that effective against them, i showed you the opposite was true. You came back with dreadz and nauts are great for distracting against Lascannons, I then showed you how yet again you moved the goal posts and how they were utter crap still.
You labor under this belief that the Ork index is good, and that the reason these units are bad isn't because they are in fact bad but because people aren't using them right. Nobody thinks trukkz are good, nobody should either. Or do you really believe that a Trukk should cost more then a Rhino, or be so useless as to be able to transport 72pts worth of boyz while that Rhino can transport almost double that in standard Marines without upgrades. The same is true for a Battle Wagon.
Orks are the most challenging army for me - moreso than Tyranids. Opponents often bring Trukks with Boys that mob up when they reach my lines. I don't target the Trukks right away, focusing instead on their second wave and any specialists.
It's disastrous when a mob of Boys gets past my screens. I'm a lot less concerned about units arriving from Da Jump, since they have to set up 9 inches away and will only be able to charge my screens. OTOH, models disembark from Trukks anywhere they want and then get to move, which makes it almost certain they are going to get into my lines. Not to mention, if that Trukk charges, it can severely limit the fall back options for my screens. It's very bad when I pop a Trukk full of Boys in close combat, they can easily surround other units, make it impossible to fall back, and take away the space necessary for beatsticks to get into the fight.
I get it, point for point, Trukks look bad on paper, but, tactically, they are a crowbar for peeling apart gunlines. There are usually no good options for Gunlines facing Trukk Boys. Part of why Trukks work is the fact they are stupidly underpowered - there is always a better option to be shooting at, until suddenly there's not and my Gunline is devolving into a fistfight with big infantry squads who have a massive advantage because of board control. Not to mention, the turn after they reach your lines, their buddies are all set up and ready to charge.
I always have the belief that Orks are bad but because of this Ork playes are good.
I an not deny that I ince beat necrons by charging in a wagon, deploying my 20 boyz, pulling the wagon out then charging my boyz in. While on the other side my trukk hit their flanks with burna boyz.
So again, if you want to play this scenario out in real life, just go look at how many competitive armies bring trukkz and battlewagons as transports.
Yep and i'll be curious to see the results of the upcoming tournament and their matchups.
And yes you are in fact moving the goal posts, you started by saying that trukk boyz and wagon boyz were good, I showed you they weren't. You came back with showing how a plethora of lascannons weren't that effective against them, i showed you the opposite was true. You came back with dreadz and nauts are great for distracting against Lascannons, I then showed you how yet again you moved the goal posts and how they were utter crap still.
You need to go back and reread my posts.
You labor under this belief that the Ork index is good
Never said that.
and that the reason these units are bad isn't because they are in fact bad but because people aren't using them right.
Didn't say that either.
Or do you really believe that a Trukk should cost more then a Rhino, or be so useless as to be able to transport
1: A) They don't unless they succeed in their charge
B) They get chargers closer then deepstrike....on Turn 3 yeah, but by that point I have already had 2 turns of CC for about half my deep strikers and 1 turn for the rest. So yeah no this isn't a good point at all.
2: A) A reduction in price will in fact drastically change lists, if Trukkz go back down to 30-40ish points they might be feasible in a Trukk boy/Speed Freak list.
B) 60pts minimum is WAY to high, especially since you left off the gun, so you go from 82 to 66, 16pts isn't enough to make me want to even try trukk boyz again.
3: A) Completely ignores Auto-Cannons and Plasma and every other S6 and S7 gun in the game....not a good point
B) It has no access to a KFF, It relies on taking a HQ character on a bike OR inside the trukk, either way you are adding about 100pts to your list to give either 1 trukk or about 3 a 5++ save, not a good point, Which is more durable 3 Trukkz with a 5++ or almost 5 Rhinos?
4: A) They were never an Easy go to, in fact I was one of the few who actually used them a lot. But this new update completely screwed them over why take them when Jumping boyz is now significantly cheaper and as effective?
B) Stormboyz being expensive in $$ is in no way related to how useful they are on the table. Plus we are orkz, kitbashing and kustom jobz is our speciality.
C) This is a very valid point, and completely ruins most lists. YAY for the FAQ right?
D) Yeah...no. Change my mind though, show me the top 5 winners from major events and see how drastically their lists have changed to counter Infantry instead of vehicles, preferably using codex to codex not index to codex.
5: A) It is very relevant. Why spend 180pts on a transport that might get 20 boyz into CC on turn 2-3 when I can spend 180pts on more boyz who will get to CC by turn 2-3? Transports have to have an intrinsic value, a benefit of some kind other then keeping them remotely safe for a few turns.
B) comparing cargo's isn't doing you any favor. 10 Marines fit in a Rhino and are SIGNIFICANTLY better and scarier then 12 Boyz in a Trukk. 10 Marines can lay down a lot of hate.
6: I AGREE!!!! Which is why last edition you saw trukk boy lists with 6-10 Trukkz. Those would cost the player 180-300pts NOW those transports cost upwards of 480-800pts. You can't saturate if you are spending 25%-50% of your points on crappy transports that have little to no function after dropping off their units. mounting JUST boyz, nothing else the difference in price between 10 units of Trukk boys in 7th and 10 units in 8th is 1020pts vs 1520. One is a major investment in points but plenty of room to kustomize and have a secondary threat. the other is almost your entire list and requires you to focus what few points you have left into detachment requirements like HQs and a couple of upgrades for your boyz units, like Powerklaws or maybe one of those Rokkitz you seem to think is worth taking.
Point 5.b is an interesting and correct one. I genuinely use 10 tactical marines in a rhino and end up doing a lot more damage with it. Hell, put in a HQ chap, ec4.. with 9 marines and I'm rerolling all hits in cc. It's not as effective as 30 boyz but basically the same as 12 (20 s4 shots hitting on 3s then 10 s4 cc on 3s from marines is 30 possible attacks which is not worth it so whynwould 12 boyz be worth it?).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A few points to question though.
1.in 7th ed your guys just got out. Now they have to roll to leave if the trukk dies.
2. Trukks explode now on a 6.
3. Open top is different. Before, you guys could die while in the trukk.
4. The boarding ramp and red paint upgrades did make getting into cc easier.
5. You can't just get out of the trukk now, it has to be before the movement phase.
All of these changes create a mess when it comes to comparison of 7ed trukks vs 8th ed.Never mimd the fact orks had 4+ armor saves last edition. However, they are now S4.
lolman1c wrote: Point 5.b is an interesting and correct one. I genuinely use 10 tactical marines in a rhino and end up doing a lot more damage with it. Hell, put in a HQ chap, ec4.. with 9 marines and I'm rerolling all hits in cc. It's not as effective as 30 boyz but basically the same as 12 (20 s4 shots hitting on 3s then 10 s4 cc on 3s from marines is 30 possible attacks which is not worth it so whynwould 12 boyz be worth it?).
The marines will certainly be better at shooting, but that's the point of the trukk. For *11* points more I get 12 boyz, a PK, and a trukk for that 10 man marine squad. So in a real comparison (in a vacuum) the marines have no chance. Like...at all...
Trukkboyz are pretty underwhelming now because of ld, pk and the fact that they can no longer kill even remotedly hard targets. They used to be much better in 7-th. Trukk meganobz too. Basically, anything inside a trukk was better in 7-th than it is in 8-th. The only unit that's worth running inside a trukk now are tankbustas.
lolman1c wrote: Point 5.b is an interesting and correct one. I genuinely use 10 tactical marines in a rhino and end up doing a lot more damage with it. Hell, put in a HQ chap, ec4.. with 9 marines and I'm rerolling all hits in cc. It's not as effective as 30 boyz but basically the same as 12 (20 s4 shots hitting on 3s then 10 s4 cc on 3s from marines is 30 possible attacks which is not worth it so whynwould 12 boyz be worth it?).
The marines will certainly be better at shooting, but that's the point of the trukk. For *11* points more I get 12 boyz, a PK, and a trukk for that 10 man marine squad. So in a real comparison (in a vacuum) the marines have no chance. Like...at all...
12 boyz is 72pts not 61 and I am assuming you meant free nob not PK Nob.
lolman1c wrote: Point 5.b is an interesting and correct one. I genuinely use 10 tactical marines in a rhino and end up doing a lot more damage with it. Hell, put in a HQ chap, ec4.. with 9 marines and I'm rerolling all hits in cc. It's not as effective as 30 boyz but basically the same as 12 (20 s4 shots hitting on 3s then 10 s4 cc on 3s from marines is 30 possible attacks which is not worth it so whynwould 12 boyz be worth it?).
The marines will certainly be better at shooting, but that's the point of the trukk. For *11* points more I get 12 boyz, a PK, and a trukk for that 10 man marine squad. So in a real comparison (in a vacuum) the marines have no chance. Like...at all...
12 boyz is 72pts not 61 and I am assuming you meant free nob not PK Nob.
Yup, sorry - hand went awol there. Still, it's not terribly far.
lolman1c wrote: Point 5.b is an interesting and correct one. I genuinely use 10 tactical marines in a rhino and end up doing a lot more damage with it. Hell, put in a HQ chap, ec4.. with 9 marines and I'm rerolling all hits in cc. It's not as effective as 30 boyz but basically the same as 12 (20 s4 shots hitting on 3s then 10 s4 cc on 3s from marines is 30 possible attacks which is not worth it so whynwould 12 boyz be worth it?).
The marines will certainly be better at shooting, but that's the point of the trukk. For *11* points more I get 12 boyz, a PK, and a trukk for that 10 man marine squad. So in a real comparison (in a vacuum) the marines have no chance. Like...at all...
12 boyz is 72pts not 61 and I am assuming you meant free nob not PK Nob.
Yup, sorry - hand went awol there. Still, it's not terribly far.
well if we are going to compare Trukk boyz vs Rhino Marines then the cost would be 72 + 82 = 154pts for 12 boyz, a trukk and a big shoota.
Marines get 9 Marines with vet sgt for 130pts + Rhino with Double Storm bolters for 74 = 204. So 50 more pts nets you a 3+ armor save for 10 bodies vs a 6+ for Orkz, it also gives you a T7 3+ save transport to the Orkz T6 4+ save and you also get significantly better ranged weapons across the board.
You should probably get 2 x 5 marines in there. Filling 2 troop slots at once, getting a free sarge and access to 2 plasmas and stormbolters significantly increasing the squad's effectiveness. Even though tacticals are pretty ok (i'd like to point out that they win boyz hands down on an individual level point for point), marine players usually take them as a source of CP rather than a main strike force whereas orks are basically stuck with boyz eq.
koooaei wrote: You should probably get 2 x 5 marines in there. Filling 2 troop slots at once, getting a free sarge and access to 2 plasmas and stormbolters significantly increasing the squad's effectiveness. Even though tacticals are pretty ok (i'd like to point out that they win boyz hands down on an individual level point for point), marine players usually take them as a source of CP rather than a main strike force whereas orks are basically stuck with boyz eq.
Well now we're up to 234 points. It doesn't change that those Orks can kill half those marines in combat. In the broader context you've spent 124 above and beyond the typical scouts that would fill those slots and that is going to come out of your list elsewhere (but I wholly support it).
And beyond that you have plasma guns that will kill the marines, but obviously you wouldn't be OC without a captain nearby so we're up even more and things get even more complex.
And this is why mathhammer is great, but it shouldn't be the ultimate governor to what you do.
Anyway - at long range this setup does 1 to 5 damage 82% of the time. 3 is most common. In RF it is 3 to 9 81% of the time. 6 is most common.
So if I go first you'll backpedal to 12" and pull most of it's wounds off, but it doesn't matter. You're still in threat range. Doing a sideways charge on the trukk with the rhino is probably the best move to eliminate some distance, but the rhino is the first thing my TBs will focus, because I recognize the threat it offers to gumming up the works. Fortunately many people don't take rhinos just as orks don't take trukks. The trukk itself will still have a 6 to 8" move (if not stuck by the rhino). If it has 1 wound left it's probably dead on the charge. 2 or 3 gives me good odds. The rest is history.
If I go second then the odds of the Trukk dying turn 2 are pretty high. If it doesn't die the rhino still charges. If it does then the rhino charges the boyz. If I failed to cripple or take out the rhino with TBs i'm in trouble. But then again there are also 30 boyz that jump whomped nearby. What will the priority for the bolters be?
And then it just gets more complex from there since you might decide to toss a missile or LC at a trukk here and there, so redundancy is important, because some trukks WILL die.
Jidmah wrote: You can't really afford to waste your TB's shooting on a rhino though. It's not like you have an abundance of anti-vehicle shooting to spare.
Which is kind of the whole point of the discussion.
Depends what is in range. And what I'm facing. I set TBs on the table and shield them from view. If I see an opportunity I'll unload boyz and load TB. Otherwise they'll hoof it or get jumped.
koooaei wrote: You should probably get 2 x 5 marines in there. Filling 2 troop slots at once, getting a free sarge and access to 2 plasmas and stormbolters significantly increasing the squad's effectiveness. Even though tacticals are pretty ok (i'd like to point out that they win boyz hands down on an individual level point for point), marine players usually take them as a source of CP rather than a main strike force whereas orks are basically stuck with boyz eq.
Well now we're up to 234 points. It doesn't change that those Orks can kill half those marines in combat. In the broader context you've spent 124 above and beyond the typical scouts that would fill those slots and that is going to come out of your list elsewhere (but I wholly support it).
And beyond that you have plasma guns that will kill the marines, but obviously you wouldn't be OC without a captain nearby so we're up even more and things get even more complex.
And this is why mathhammer is great, but it shouldn't be the ultimate governor to what you do.
Anyway - at long range this setup does 1 to 5 damage 82% of the time. 3 is most common. In RF it is 3 to 9 81% of the time. 6 is most common.
So if I go first you'll backpedal to 12" and pull most of it's wounds off, but it doesn't matter. You're still in threat range. Doing a sideways charge on the trukk with the rhino is probably the best move to eliminate some distance, but the rhino is the first thing my TBs will focus, because I recognize the threat it offers to gumming up the works. Fortunately many people don't take rhinos just as orks don't take trukks. The trukk itself will still have a 6 to 8" move (if not stuck by the rhino). If it has 1 wound left it's probably dead on the charge. 2 or 3 gives me good odds. The rest is history.
If I go second then the odds of the Trukk dying turn 2 are pretty high. If it doesn't die the rhino still charges. If it does then the rhino charges the boyz. If I failed to cripple or take out the rhino with TBs i'm in trouble. But then again there are also 30 boyz that jump whomped nearby. What will the priority for the bolters be?
And then it just gets more complex from there since you might decide to toss a missile or LC at a trukk here and there, so redundancy is important, because some trukks WILL die.
What are you arguing for? I can't see.
Are you trying to prove trukkboyz are good? Well, they aren't. Or that marines are not good? Well, they're better than trukkboyz. Not saying they're amazing but a squad of 13 ppm guyz that has easy access to 2+ save are useful in a shooty army. Plasmas are always great and sbs are an amazing weapon point-for point.
I leave for one day and you guys go onto graphs!? Wow... I knew we were nerds but his is going too far! New rule for all my threads! No graphs allowed!
I would love for trucks to be fixed with points cost but also rules help. TO show how shoody the construction of all their vehicles are any armored units like dreds tanks and such blow up on a 2+ cause they carry explosives. 2-5 D3 mortal wounds within 6 and on a 6 D6 mortal wounds...what do you guys think?
After playing quite a few games with tank bustas in trukks, I came to the conclusion that trukks really aren't the problem. It wouldn't hurt to shave off a few points, but they really do their job well when their cargo is pulling its own weight. Main issue with trukks is that neither units of 12 boyz nor 3 MANz are really a danger to anything and therefore not worth being transported in a trukk. If that changes, I think people would gladly pay ~80 points for a trukk that will deliver its passengers to their target more often than not, where in 7th you could easily lose 6+ trukks in turn 1.
I think if trukk boyz got some sort of a push, a battalions that run 3 trukks with 12 boyz each insider as troops and a KFF mek and a warboss on a bike would be just 662 without potential reduction from the codex. By fielding two or even three such battalions this would allow such list to have a great amount of CP to burn on stratagems, assuming we get something better than mob up.
Jidmah wrote: After playing quite a few games with tank bustas in trukks, I came to the conclusion that trukks really aren't the problem. It wouldn't hurt to shave off a few points, but they really do their job well when their cargo is pulling its own weight. Main issue with trukks is that neither units of 12 boyz nor 3 MANz are really a danger to anything and therefore not worth being transported in a trukk. If that changes, I think people would gladly pay ~80 points for a trukk that will deliver its passengers to their target more often than not, where in 7th you could easily lose 6+ trukks in turn 1.
I think if trukk boyz got some sort of a push, a battalions that run 3 trukks with 12 boyz each insider as troops and a KFF mek and a warboss on a bike would be just 662 without potential reduction from the codex. By fielding two or even three such battalions this would allow such list to have a great amount of CP to burn on stratagems, assuming we get something better than mob up.
I definitely wouldn't be saying trukks are useful if Mob Up wasn't available for sure. 22 boyz is a pretty decent unit (one needs to be 10 and under). With point costs I think it'd be pretty solid. Maybe if they made Mob Up for size 12, too.
Jidmah wrote: After playing quite a few games with tank bustas in trukks, I came to the conclusion that trukks really aren't the problem. It wouldn't hurt to shave off a few points, but they really do their job well when their cargo is pulling its own weight. Main issue with trukks is that neither units of 12 boyz nor 3 MANz are really a danger to anything and therefore not worth being transported in a trukk. If that changes, I think people would gladly pay ~80 points for a trukk that will deliver its passengers to their target more often than not, where in 7th you could easily lose 6+ trukks in turn 1.
I think if trukk boyz got some sort of a push, a battalions that run 3 trukks with 12 boyz each insider as troops and a KFF mek and a warboss on a bike would be just 662 without potential reduction from the codex. By fielding two or even three such battalions this would allow such list to have a great amount of CP to burn on stratagems, assuming we get something better than mob up.
I definitely wouldn't be saying trukks are useful if Mob Up wasn't available for sure. 22 boyz is a pretty decent unit (one needs to be 10 and under). With point costs I think it'd be pretty solid. Maybe if they made Mob Up for size 12, too.
Yeah, I hope they loosen the restrictions on mob up a bit. The smaller unit should be increased to 12 but as long as one group is 12 or fewer I don't understand why the other has a required size at all. If I want to mob up a group of 4 orks and a group of 3 for whatever reason, why shouldn't I be able to?
Yeah, I hope they loosen the restrictions on mob up a bit. The smaller unit should be increased to 12 but as long as one group is 12 or fewer I don't understand why the other has a required size at all. If I want to mob up a group of 4 orks and a group of 3 for whatever reason, why shouldn't I be able to?
Good point. That would make Trukk MANZ more useful, too. I can't really think of a way to abuse that very easily either.
koooaei wrote: Mob up would have been amazing if it had no restriction on unit profile. Not as amazing as is. There'd be a reason to actually use meganobz.
I think it would have been great, but maybe 2+ CP for that otherwise you'll have MANZ buried lick ticks in a mob with unwavering morale. Like...jump full sized Manz. Mob them up at the end of move phase with a unit that's already near charging. Gross.
That'd be an interesting stratagem but for the sake of clarity, I was just asking them to loosen the restrictions in regards to number of models, not types of units merging.
PiñaColada wrote: That'd be an interesting stratagem but for the sake of clarity, I was just asking them to loosen the restrictions in regards to number of models, not types of units merging.
Yea I got that and I think it's a good idea.
Why we can't merge two units of infantry that are less than 10 models is bizarre IMO.
Maybe the Bosspole will return as a cheap piece of wargear that allows smaller units to mob up? IIRC the Bosspole gave a bonus to mobbing up back in 3rd edition.
Trukkz are most assuredly the problem. Saying they aren't because Tankbustas survive for an extra turn doesn't change that fact.
Put literally anything else in a trukk and its a waste, hell I still think Tankbustas in a trukk isn't that great either. You just make a target that much more of a priority for lascannons and other anti-vehicle weapons. I would prioritize tankbustas every turn because killing the trukk is an 80pt hit and then the bustas take another 1/6th wounds, then i can kill the remainder with bolter fire or equivalent.
You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
What does hold its own mean? It means it accomplishes its primary goal without needing a secondary unit to back it up. Tankbustas DONT WORK without a second unit because they die to a stiff breeze.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
What does hold its own mean? It means it accomplishes its primary goal without needing a secondary unit to back it up. Tankbustas DONT WORK without a second unit because they die to a stiff breeze.
Ok. and this is an issue why? did you forget to bring the rest of your army? How many Tankbustas are in that unit? what are they shooting at?
So. Duh? Why are people fixated with Tankbustas anyway?
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
What does hold its own mean? It means it accomplishes its primary goal without needing a secondary unit to back it up. Tankbustas DONT WORK without a second unit because they die to a stiff breeze.
Ok. and this is an issue why? did you forget to bring the rest of your army? How many Tankbustas are in that unit? what are they shooting at?
So. Duh? Why are people fixated with Tankbustas anyway?
5-10 usually, what are they shooting at? Vehicles. Why? because they are the only reliable anti-tank we have. Why are we fixated on tankbustas? because they REQUIRE a transport to function at all.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
What does hold its own mean? It means it accomplishes its primary goal without needing a secondary unit to back it up. Tankbustas DONT WORK without a second unit because they die to a stiff breeze.
Ok. and this is an issue why? did you forget to bring the rest of your army? How many Tankbustas are in that unit? what are they shooting at?
So. Duh? Why are people fixated with Tankbustas anyway?
5-10 usually, what are they shooting at? Vehicles. Why? because they are the only reliable anti-tank we have. Why are we fixated on tankbustas? because they REQUIRE a transport to function at all.
Sounds like a waste of points. I thought KMK's were all the rage. And why wouldn't I just take Kannons for that sweat D6 damage. Or throw boys into combat with a tank. Relying on one unit seems silly. especially given what we already know about them. I will never understand why any one would expect a single Ork unit to "work". that way. why isn't the Ork player using all of their unit to support each other to "get work done".
Damb things are BS5+ How much can you really expect. even with a roll that's not that many more hits at all.
Even still so what if Tankbustas need a trukk. They have a 6+ save.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
What does hold its own mean? It means it accomplishes its primary goal without needing a secondary unit to back it up. Tankbustas DONT WORK without a second unit because they die to a stiff breeze.
Ok. and this is an issue why? did you forget to bring the rest of your army? How many Tankbustas are in that unit? what are they shooting at?
So. Duh? Why are people fixated with Tankbustas anyway?
5-10 usually, what are they shooting at? Vehicles. Why? because they are the only reliable anti-tank we have. Why are we fixated on tankbustas? because they REQUIRE a transport to function at all.
Sounds like a waste of points. I thought KMK's were all the rage. And why wouldn't I just take Kannons for that sweat D6 damage. Or throw boys into combat with a tank. Relying on one unit seems silly. especially given what we already know about them. I will never understand why any one would expect a single Ork unit to "work". that way. why isn't the Ork player using all of their unit to support each other to "get work done".
Damb things are BS5+ How much can you really expect. even with a roll that's not that many more hits at all.
Even still so what if Tankbustas need a trukk. They have a 6+ save.
KMKs are great but Tankbustas get Rerolls vs vehicles, and a 2+ rerollable squig bomb. As to why they are fixated? no idea, I never use them simply because they DO require a trukk to function. as to why that is a big deal? because If I take 1 or 2 or even 3 trukkz, I have unwittingly given my opponent the perfect targets for his plethora of anti-vehicle weapons while my boyz run up the field. since target saturation is how Orkz win, splitting off 250pts for useless transports to move anywhere from 250-500+pts of Tankbustas seems kind of dumb. So the fact that they need a trukk that serves ZERO purpose beyond giving them a chance to survive means that you are basically adding the value of the trukk to the cost of the unit of Tankbustas, so in a unit of 10 bustas you are adding 8pts per model to their cost to give them T6 4+ save for however long it takes before it explodes and kills 1-2 Tank bustas. So with that 8pts added to the cost the bustas in my humble opinion become to over priced to be worth fielding and I would rather have more boyz then a unit of bustas.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
Wow... this just sounds kinda hateful towards me for some reason. Just because I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words doesn't mean you have to analyse a sentence like I'm a politician. Futhermore, everything I said has context in the meaning of the overall conversation going on in this thread and "hold it's own" is a common expression used by a kot of people and the other guy clearly understood it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the reason we simply can't just have Orks working together is because a squad of about 10 tankbustas in their trukk with squigs is 300pts. You're paying 200+pts for a unit with a 6 up save and 1 wound that needs be 18" away from the enemy. So you gotta add that 80+pts to even get in range if the enemy. In the end (I play mainly 1k-1.5k games) you're looking at spending 1/3 of your points on a single unit that's an easy target. We're Orks! We should be abke to use synergy like you said but most our units cost more than the marine counterparts! Hell, in some games I watched the marine brought more units and models than the ork player because he wanted to play something other than boyz. Now you want a manz unit in a trukk? 5 of them with no upgrades is again about 300pts in a trukk. Hell, give them kill saws snd we're getting eveb higher. So you want a trukk army you're now spending 600+pts on two units that arnt boyy, can't survive outside the trukk until you get to your destination, and die to simple anti infintry weapons. At this point you might as well get 90boyz for the same price and da jumped the units in by the time the tukks make it. I want these units i paid money for to be something i want to use....
As someone who is building an entirely mobile list where everything either has to be on wheels or start in a transport with wheels. (yes I know it won't be good but it's fun) I certainly wouldn't be opposed to some point changes of our transports. I don't know how much a trukk is worth but it's certainly less than a rhino. I'd be happy if they landed on 60 points although they could without a doubt go lower without it being weird. Same thing with battlewagons, a naked one should be 120ish points but these are changes I just assume we'll get.
The problem with a trukk and tankbustas is that both of them are overpriced, however I seem to think tankbustas are less overpriced than a lot of people. Lower them from 17ppm to 13 and I'd be really happy with that. I also hope bombsquigs can attack anything not supersonic, not just flyers since that invalidates them against many armies (all those space elves). That combined with a change to the dakka dakka dakka stratagem, which should be hit rolls of 6+ generate extra hits, not shots. If people thinks that's too good for 1 CP then make it 2 but as of right now that stratagem seems so underwhelming.
SemperMortis wrote: Trukkz are most assuredly the problem. Saying they aren't because Tankbustas survive for an extra turn doesn't change that fact.
Put literally anything else in a trukk and its a waste, hell I still think Tankbustas in a trukk isn't that great either. You just make a target that much more of a priority for lascannons and other anti-vehicle weapons. I would prioritize tankbustas every turn because killing the trukk is an 80pt hit and then the bustas take another 1/6th wounds, then i can kill the remainder with bolter fire or equivalent.
Well, if you put 12 boyz or 3 MANz on the table, they suck no matter what you do. That's why rhinos full of tactical marines suck and rhinos with berzerkers or plague grenade bomb inside work really well. A trukk does a decent job of protecting what's inside.
If you had two battalions with 6 units trukk boyz, 3 MANz missiles that were actually dangerous to your enemy, some KMK and planes, I wouldn't bet on your tank bustaz taking those lascannon shots. When I field my wagons with Thrakka+boyz in one and nobz in the other, my tankbusta trukks are the least of my opponent's concern. They'll take some missile hits over a character dreadnought in the middle of their army any day.
Maybe a stratagem that allows all models that disembarked from a transport this turn to add +1 to their attacks could help trukk boyz and MANz.
lolman1c wrote: You shouldn't have to buy two models to kake 1 model work. A tankbusta unit should be able to hold it's own geound without a trukk. The trukk shouod just increase its mobility and effectiveness.
This seems poorly thought out to me.
It's not two models it's two units.
Transported units are more or less all protected the same way as well as transported to where ever.
Saying gunned down doesn't really say anything with out more context.
What does "hold it's own" even mean.
Wow... this just sounds kinda hateful towards me for some reason. Just because I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words doesn't mean you have to analyse a sentence like I'm a politician. Futhermore, everything I said has context in the meaning of the overall conversation going on in this thread and "hold it's own" is a common expression used by a kot of people and the other guy clearly understood it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the reason we simply can't just have Orks working together is because a squad of about 10 tankbustas in their trukk with squigs is 300pts. You're paying 200+pts for a unit with a 6 up save and 1 wound that needs be 18" away from the enemy. So you gotta add that 80+pts to even get in range if the enemy. In the end (I play mainly 1k-1.5k games) you're looking at spending 1/3 of your points on a single unit that's an easy target. We're Orks! We should be abke to use synergy like you said but most our units cost more than the marine counterparts! Hell, in some games I watched the marine brought more units and models than the ork player because he wanted to play something other than boyz. Now you want a manz unit in a trukk? 5 of them with no upgrades is again about 300pts in a trukk. Hell, give them kill saws snd we're getting eveb higher. So you want a trukk army you're now spending 600+pts on two units that arnt boyy, can't survive outside the trukk until you get to your destination, and die to simple anti infintry weapons. At this point you might as well get 90boyz for the same price and da jumped the units in by the time the tukks make it. I want these units i paid money for to be something i want to use....
First.
No, I am sorry if you thought I was being hostile I spent some time on my reply to not come off as a jerk. That was the best I could do and.well.. Sorry.
I was readying your post full of generality and that just incited my reply, But I was trying to ask you to be more technical, I thought it was implied in my reply in the language.
As to the second part. We've talked before about how I view 'tactics" in 40K. We differ. I kinda feel bad for you if the game your playing so so one dimensional for you. No matter how poor a unit is, if it's in my list it's thre for a reason and with an idea of how to get the most out of it. And then we'll see what happens. You mention the large chunk of points, well what are you doing to get that unit to do what you want it to do for as long as you are able.? Like everything Ork one is bad 3 be much better. so 1 unit in 1 trukk, I have very low expectations that anything beyond moving will happen. using more than one of a kind changes things from can't to anything to other player has to deal with.
And again, what is the rest of your army doing?!!!
Taking things in a bubble is not very helpful. Another thing, going back to your mention of the points investment. well some units are just better in larger games. So, look for another unit that fill a roll better and for less points in a smaller game. No it doesn't fix tankbustas but it may well help your list.
Good luck.
Haha, yeah... for some unknown baffling reason the rhino is cheaper than a trukk... even before the marine codex came out! I know it's the index and all but who in the office sta there and went "yeah... that sounds okay... NEXT!"
lolman1c wrote: Haha, yeah... for some unknown baffling reason the rhino is cheaper than a trukk... even before the marine codex came out! I know it's the index and all but who in the office sta there and went "yeah... that sounds okay... NEXT!"
I'm not even mad about that. lol Marines suck any way.
Think about this, if the rhino costed more Marine players would nonstop be upset because of the double tax. the cost of the rhino and Nu-Marines can't even use it. They'd be up in arms probably. Likely now and if it cost more Razor backs would still be a better choice for the points.
Don't get me wrong I'd like a points drop for the trukk but have no expectations that it will or even should happen.
I think the most trukks I have had in a list has been 3 or 4 and that's worked out very well for me.
I have had low expectations from Lootas and Tankbustas so I don't tend to field them in units larger than 5 or 6. But this also lets me field more than one unit in more than one place. In or out of trukks.
MY current thinking with lootas is 10, but 3 of them will be spanners and all of this blobbed with my Mek gunz so I can return a wound ever turn. I'll give them KMB's just to have a ranged attack. Or not, doesn't matter too much either way. The only threats to them either have to be in range to hurt me and take the risks or are long ranged indirect fire. So they were in trouble any way, same same.
I'm thinking tank bustas as well, but 5 in a trukk along with some nobz. MY usual Scrumgrod likes to rush a bunch of vehicle transports at me. I tend to kill them all but it's sloppy.
Meh.
lolman1c wrote: Haha, yeah... for some unknown baffling reason the rhino is cheaper than a trukk... even before the marine codex came out! I know it's the index and all but who in the office sta there and went "yeah... that sounds okay... NEXT!"
I'm not even mad about that. lol Marines suck any way.
Think about this, if the rhino costed more Marine players would nonstop be upset because of the double tax. the cost of the rhino and Nu-Marines can't even use it. They'd be up in arms probably. Likely now and if it cost more Razor backs would still be a better choice for the points.
Don't get me wrong I'd like a points drop for the trukk but have no expectations that it will or even should happen.
I think the most trukks I have had in a list has been 3 or 4 and that's worked out very well for me.
I have had low expectations from Lootas and Tankbustas so I don't tend to field them in units larger than 5 or 6. But this also lets me field more than one unit in more than one place. In or out of trukks.
MY current thinking with lootas is 10, but 3 of them will be spanners and all of this blobbed with my Mek gunz so I can return a wound ever turn. I'll give them KMB's just to have a ranged attack. Or not, doesn't matter too much either way. The only threats to them either have to be in range to hurt me and take the risks or are long ranged indirect fire. So they were in trouble any way, same same.
I'm thinking tank bustas as well, but 5 in a trukk along with some nobz. MY usual Scrumgrod likes to rush a bunch of vehicle transports at me. I tend to kill them all but it's sloppy.
Meh.
I mena comparing the two I am not sure how one could think a trukk should not go down in points. a Rhino could use a points drop, and a trukk should be even lower costed than said cheaper rhino. most armies have the firepower to drop a fleet of trukks in a single shooting phase. I would honestly rather see the codex increase durability and make a trukk worth the points it is now as opposed to just a cheaper trukk. But I doubt GW will do that so if they keep the profile as now they need a significant drop in points.
I don't know how I would compare the two in a meaningful; way. Probably something silly cost of vehicle + cost of transported unit vs the same from another faction. cost total vs cost total. Other than that I don't know.
So 12 boys + trukk vs 10 marines + rhino.
I don't know I think things are costed depending on the faction no depending on every faction. So GW probably thought the trukk was costed correctly enough at the time. Who knows, now they probably thing it's under costed. lol.
It really doesn't matter at all how much a rhino costs. A trukk needs to be properly costed within the context of the ork army. Anything else is nonsense.
Comparing units costs across codices has never been a useful metric.
Jidmah wrote: It really doesn't matter at all how much a rhino costs. A trukk needs to be properly costed within the context of the ork army. Anything else is nonsense.
Comparing units costs across codices has never been a useful metric.
Exactly this.
When a 62 pt Weirdboy exists that can just teleport units up the field instantly with virtually no risk it's not hard to see why Trukks aren't seeing much use.
If Trukks were priced well and a decent option we'd see more of them on the competitive circuit.
The two biggest problems with Orks (sans Fallback rules), are imo;
1) "Da Jump"
2) +1A for squads of 20+ Boyz
Having access to "Da Jump" limits the amount of space you have to work with for Ork trasports/movement abilities, as that'll either always be the baseline, or, if you make their movement shenanigans strong, a great addition to their abilities.
+1A for squads of 20+ boyz doesn't allow you to balance smaller squads without making larger squads that much stronger. It also creates a very binary situation - you either reduce the squad to 19 and below (say from overwatch or general shooting), in which case they will do significantly less damage; or the squad of 20+ hits your lines and gets that many more attacks.
You can't have stronger movement and access to "Da Jump", and you can't make smaller squads stronger without buffing larger squads, thanks to the +1a/20+ rule.
Everything else is just points cuts; minus the fact that they get destroyed by -1/-2 to hit modifiers.
Da Jump is happening less and less in my games of late. I bring the weird boy with da Jump but my opponent is so worried about it I get screened out deeply. The only good side to that is the units that sit around in the back no doing anything productive on the table. So trukks have been my go to. I'm still thinking about bringing a Battle Wagon in place of 2 trukk. Even though I will still need an extra trukk even still.
SemperMortis wrote: Trukkz are most assuredly the problem. Saying they aren't because Tankbustas survive for an extra turn doesn't change that fact.
Put literally anything else in a trukk and its a waste, hell I still think Tankbustas in a trukk isn't that great either. You just make a target that much more of a priority for lascannons and other anti-vehicle weapons. I would prioritize tankbustas every turn because killing the trukk is an 80pt hit and then the bustas take another 1/6th wounds, then i can kill the remainder with bolter fire or equivalent.
Well, if you put 12 boyz or 3 MANz on the table, they suck no matter what you do. That's why rhinos full of tactical marines suck and rhinos with berzerkers or plague grenade bomb inside work really well. A trukk does a decent job of protecting what's inside.
If you had two battalions with 6 units trukk boyz, 3 MANz missiles that were actually dangerous to your enemy, some KMK and planes, I wouldn't bet on your tank bustaz taking those lascannon shots. When I field my wagons with Thrakka+boyz in one and nobz in the other, my tankbusta trukks are the least of my opponent's concern. They'll take some missile hits over a character dreadnought in the middle of their army any day.
Maybe a stratagem that allows all models that disembarked from a transport this turn to add +1 to their attacks could help trukk boyz and MANz.
Well of course, you are clearly talking about last edition where trukk spam was not bad. But here's the thing, at a tournament competitive level, I didn't even like trukkz, at 30pts (35 with a ram) I thought they were too flimsy and lacked purpose so I tended to not take them and instead relied on Wagonz. So at 30pts I thought they were over priced, at 82, i haven't even bothered to field them. But in this edition, the scenario you are describing would be 10 Trukkz, 6 of boyz, 3 of manz and 1 of bustas. Those 10 trukkz cost you 820pts. the boyz cost you 432pts without upgrades The manz cost you 378 for 3 units of 3 naked, and the 1 unit of 10 bustas with 2 squigs is 190. that is 1820pts without the required HQ choice for 10 Trukkz. Now if Manz were appropriately priced, if Tankbustas were appropriately priced and if Trukkz cost 40-45pts (about where they should be) this list would have easily another 400-500pts to work with and would actually be decent if not competitive. But as it stands, I will continue to run my list with Weirdboyz and just use Da Jump because none of our transports are worth taking except as a shooting platform.
Da jump is only one use per turn though. Having 5+ fast units on the ground is completely different.
Orks vehicles shouldn't compete with da jump and in fact they don't since 1-2 transports have never been a good built for an ork list. You go heavy on transports and vehicles (or walkers) or you don't use them at all. Mixing footsloggers and vehicles should be a thing but again there would be multiple vehicles anyway in the list.
Trukk boyz aren't poor because of da jump, not only at least, they're a poor choice because other than 30-40 teleported boyz we can also make use of up to 90 stormboyz. And kommandos arriving anywhere from turn 2.
With the current state of things a 2000 points ork list that relies heavily on transports, vehicles and/or walkers should get massive points reductions (like 500ish points) other than clan bonuses, relics, stratagems, traits, etc...In fact basically 90% of the codex should be 25-50% cheaper.
the +1 attack for 20-+ models is huge for me. I prefer to play MSU, and all the army wide buffs for orks play into taking huge blobs.... None of which fit into trukks.
Thats the worst sin of the trukk design IMO, if you want to use them, you have to pay their arbitrarily high cost and lose Mob rule and +1 attack.
Blackie wrote: Da jump is only one use per turn though. Having 5+ fast units on the ground is completely different.
Orks vehicles shouldn't compete with da jump and in fact they don't since 1-2 transports have never been a good built for an ork list. You go heavy on transports and vehicles (or walkers) or you don't use them at all. Mixing footsloggers and vehicles should be a thing but again there would be multiple vehicles anyway in the list.
Trukk boyz aren't poor because of da jump, not only at least, they're a poor choice because other than 30-40 teleported boyz we can also make use of up to 90 stormboyz. And kommandos arriving anywhere from turn 2.
With the current state of things a 2000 points ork list that relies heavily on transports, vehicles and/or walkers should get massive points reductions (like 500ish points) other than clan bonuses, relics, stratagems, traits, etc...In fact basically 90% of the codex should be 25-50% cheaper.
'
I agree, but lets do the math on this, Stormboyz I would argue they are about equal to regular boyz, maybe even giving the edge to regular boyz point for point. So with that in mind a Stormboy is 2pts more then a regular boy, this 2pts only gives him 12in movement, that is it, therefore a Trukk, which gives 12in movement, but provides added durability (a bit) should cost a similar points cost. So 12 boyz = 24pts, now clearly the durability needs to be factored in so lets DOUBLE that. 48pts. I include the weapons cost because a Big shoota or random rocket is basically useless, if you disagree I would happily NOT take any weapons on this thing. So 48pts is a 34pt price drop on trukkz and I would argue this wouldn't even fix them entirely but that it would be a huge step in the right direction and make them at least playable. As it stands for Trukk Boyz, each boy in the trukk is equivalent to 13ppm (12 boyz = 72pts, trukk = 82+ Boyz = 154/12 =12.83). Correct me if I am wrong but 13ppm is what a SM costs. Now while a SM is definitely slower then Trukk boyz they are infinitely more durable and better overall then 12 Trukk boyz. Hell in CC 12 trukk boyz are only a bit better then 10 Space Marines, and even then if you factor in the next turns pistol shooting I would give it to the SMs).
So this boils down to what the appropriate cost of a trukk is, and again, it clearly isn't 82ppm, I don't think 48is low enough either but at that point we can get into fine tuning and using the CA or FAQ to fix it as needed instead of leaving it at 82pts for an entire year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
davou wrote: the +1 attack for 20-+ models is huge for me. I prefer to play MSU, and all the army wide buffs for orks play into taking huge blobs.... None of which fit into trukks.
Thats the worst sin of the trukk design IMO, if you want to use them, you have to pay their arbitrarily high cost and lose Mob rule and +1 attack.
I couldn't agree more. It basically negates the entire MSU or specialist play style for Orkz
SemperMortis wrote: Well of course, you are clearly talking about last edition where trukk spam was not bad. But here's the thing, at a tournament competitive level, I didn't even like trukkz, at 30pts (35 with a ram) I thought they were too flimsy and lacked purpose so I tended to not take them and instead relied on Wagonz. So at 30pts I thought they were over priced, at 82, i haven't even bothered to field them. But in this edition, the scenario you are describing would be 10 Trukkz, 6 of boyz, 3 of manz and 1 of bustas. Those 10 trukkz cost you 820pts. the boyz cost you 432pts without upgrades The manz cost you 378 for 3 units of 3 naked, and the 1 unit of 10 bustas with 2 squigs is 190. that is 1820pts without the required HQ choice for 10 Trukkz. Now if Manz were appropriately priced, if Tankbustas were appropriately priced and if Trukkz cost 40-45pts (about where they should be) this list would have easily another 400-500pts to work with and would actually be decent if not competitive. But as it stands, I will continue to run my list with Weirdboyz and just use Da Jump because none of our transports are worth taking except as a shooting platform.
I wasn't talking about running that army with the current index rules and points costs. My point was that trukk suffer mostly from there not being any useful passengers for them. TB in trukks have shown up in many well-placing ork lists all over the place, since they are weak against the same weapons KMK and dakka jets are. That's where you get your target saturation from.
Dropping trukks down to half their point cost is ridiculous though. That would put battlewagons at 80 points, and you could do silly things like just buy 10 trukks for the heck of it and wall off parts of the battlefield. There is no way a model as durable as a trukk is going to be 40-45 points without breaking the game. In 7th edition you could lose 10 trukks in turn one, there is no way in hell for that happening in 8th.
Dropping trukks down to half their point cost is ridiculous though.
Agree; trukks dont need a points drop, they need some kind of rules that account for their cost. Something like boarding planks allowing a move then dismebark. Having grot gunners for an additional point of BS, or allowing them to explode when they are destroyed and on a 4 plus the controlling player can drive them 6 inches before doing so.
And boys need something baked in that incentivizes smaller mobs.
koooaei wrote: Mob up would have been amazing if it had no restriction on unit profile. Not as amazing as is. There'd be a reason to actually use meganobz.
I think it would have been great, but maybe 2+ CP for that otherwise you'll have MANZ buried lick ticks in a mob with unwavering morale. Like...jump full sized Manz. Mob them up at the end of move phase with a unit that's already near charging. Gross.
Maybe i'm just over thinking it.
You can't mob up after da jump. Mobbing up happens at the end of the movement phase.
Dropping trukks down to half their point cost is ridiculous though.
Agree; trukks dont need a points drop, they need some kind of rules that account for their cost. Something like boarding planks allowing a move then dismebark. Having grot gunners for an additional point of BS, or allowing them to explode when they are destroyed and on a 4 plus the controlling player can drive them 6 inches before doing so.
And boys need something baked in that incentivizes smaller mobs.
I like these ideas...all of them. Plus as you mention, we need a major incentive to smaller units of boyz and we need a fix to our specialist units like burnas and Meganobz. Otherwise we will have a good transport with nothing worth transporting. If you REALLY wanted to keep them the same cost though (76pts without any upgrades) you need to make a lot of those upgrade to the trukk free. Because again, if we are talking about bringing a Trukk heavy list (6-10) you are talking about a fairly substantial investment in those transports.
Orrrrrr... we make the trukks cheap and the upgrades cost more to the point it's the orginal price. Therefore, if you want a cheap trukk for 1 unit it's there but if you want a god trukk you have the option for that as well.
Eh, I could see a -10 on the trukk but not -20 or more.
It's not like those trukks do nothing after dropping their payload like in previous editions - they can force units to fall back, prevent overwatch, tank characters and even sometimes kill a model or two.
Trukks need to be much cheaper to make them worth taking (30-40 pts). To limit the ability to spam trucks (to lock things up in cc or block access), they should be a unit upgrade (like Eldar weapon teams). That would keep them with their unit and let the orks use the truck as mobile cover.
It's not only a matter of points, there's also the lack of synergies and bonuses that other armies have thanks to codex and we haven't that must be factored in. Cheaper trukks with stratagems or clan bonuses that buff the choice of fielding spead freaks is what we need, not a pure spam of cheap vehicles.
I agree that trukks and other stuff shouldn't be highly spammable but fielding 7-8 transports in an ork list should be legit, not game breaking.
Drukhari can easily have that many transports with venoms and raiders being viable and useful even in high numbes plus the flyers or ravagers as gunboats; I tipycally play with 10 vehicles myself and there's nothing overpowered in that.
Jidmah wrote: Eh, I could see a -10 on the trukk but not -20 or more.
Well, a rhino is 72 points and way tougher than a trukks. No one complains about rhinos. Drukhari have venoms which are the trukks equivalent since they're designed for MSU style, just like trukks, and they're 65ppm with better weapons than trukks, less W but -1 to hit and 5+ invuln. I honestly can't see why trukks shouldn't be 20-30 points cheaper.
If you want 70 points trukks or 150 points BWs it's ok, just give them more wounds, more/better weapons, and add more buffs to the units inside. I'd accept a 70ppm trukk if it comes with 5 big shootas included in that cost.
Jidmah wrote: Eh, I could see a -10 on the trukk but not -20 or more.
It's not like those trukks do nothing after dropping their payload like in previous editions - they can force units to fall back, prevent overwatch, tank characters and even sometimes kill a model or two.
They provided cover and scored in previous editions. To be honest, i prefered empty trukks to then-popular koptas. And they did work better for me. Much better in fact. Bully boyz loved spare trukks.
Blackie wrote: IWell, a rhino is 72 points and way tougher than a trukks.
They aren't that much tougher at all. In practice, the main difference is that the trukk takes more damage from anti-infantry weaponry due to worse armor and toughness. When people are pointing S8+ weaponry at them, rhinos don't die any slower than trukks, thanks to ramshackle compensating for the missing armor. Against AP-4 weapons like eldar lances or melta the trukk is even more durable than a rhino.
No one complains about rhinos. Drukhari have venoms which are the trukks equivalent since they're designed for MSU style, just like trukks, and they're 65ppm with better weapons than trukks, less W but -1 to hit and 5+ invuln. I honestly can't see why trukks shouldn't be 20-30 points cheaper.
Venoms are W6 T5 trukks are W10 T6, you are basically combaring a warbuggy to a rhino, the difference is huge.
If trukks were W6 as well, sure 40 points wouldn't be an issue. I doubt that GW would do such a massive change to a dataslate though - they a haven't done it for any other army.
If you want 70 points trukks or 150 points BWs it's ok, just give them more wounds, more/better weapons, and add more buffs to the units inside. I'd accept a 70ppm trukk if it comes with 5 big shootas included in that cost.
A trukk with big shoota and wrekin' ball is definitely worth ~70 points. You really don't get anything a lot worse than a rhino for your points.
Blackie wrote: IWell, a rhino is 72 points and way tougher than a trukks.
They aren't that much tougher at all. In practice, the main difference is that the trukk takes more damage from anti-infantry weaponry due to worse armor and toughness. When people are pointing S8+ weaponry at them, rhinos don't die any slower than trukks, thanks to ramshackle compensating for the missing armor. Against AP-4 weapons like eldar lances or melta the trukk is even more durable than a rhino.
Yeah you're absolutely right, but against weapons that are AP-1, -2 or nothing the 3+ save matters, not to mention the -1 to hit in first turn that rhinos usually have and trukks don't. T7 is also better against S6 and S7 weapons, which are not extremely common but do exist. The ability of self repairing is usually more efficient than ramshackle.
No one complains about rhinos. Drukhari have venoms which are the trukks equivalent since they're designed for MSU style, just like trukks, and they're 65ppm with better weapons than trukks, less W but -1 to hit and 5+ invuln. I honestly can't see why trukks shouldn't be 20-30 points cheaper.
Venoms are W6 T5 trukks are W10 T6, you are basically combaring a warbuggy to a rhino, the difference is huge.
If trukks were W6 as well, sure 40 points wouldn't be an issue. I doubt that GW would do such a massive change to a dataslate though - they a haven't done it for any other army.
W6, T5, 4+ save but also 5+ invuln and -1 to hit is pretty similar to W10, T6 and 4+ save. Probably even better. Black Heart venoms can also ignore wounds on 6+ in addition of other layers.
They also work for carrying MSU, just like trukks are supposed to work. Buggies are shooting platforms, and way weaker than venoms since they don't have any invuln, -1 to hit or 6+ fnp. I play both orks and drukhari and never noticed a huge difference between venoms and trukks in terms of survivability.
If you want 70 points trukks or 150 points BWs it's ok, just give them more wounds, more/better weapons, and add more buffs to the units inside. I'd accept a 70ppm trukk if it comes with 5 big shootas included in that cost.
A trukk with big shoota and wrekin' ball is definitely worth ~70 points. You really don't get anything a lot worse than a rhino for your points.
A trukk is basically a transport, nothing else. The single ranged weapon and the wrecking ball don't make any real difference. You also have to factor in the value of embarked units which usually are better on foot, unless they are tankbustas. Venoms are ok not only for their profile but also because carrying 5 kabalites with a blaster is useful, and there are other combinations that worth the effort of bringing a venom to the battlefield. Carrying 12 boyz isn't useful at all, same for flash gitz which don't want to move or meganobz who love extra bodies (like 10-12 boyz that shares the same BW), and burnaboyz are bad. Maybe 6 nobz plus 6 ammo runts. But even tankbustas + trukk is an overpriced combo with the current stats.
You get everything worse for even more points at the moment. It's less durable and it carries units that are overpriced or better on foot.
I regularly play all three vehicles considered above (venoms, trukks, rhinos) and the ork transports are certainly the less effective among those ones. And I don't play chaos, which makes use of rhinos even more efficiently.
davou wrote: the +1 attack for 20-+ models is huge for me. I prefer to play MSU, and all the army wide buffs for orks play into taking huge blobs.... None of which fit into trukks.
Thats the worst sin of the trukk design IMO, if you want to use them, you have to pay their arbitrarily high cost and lose Mob rule and +1 attack.
I get what your saying but I don't really see the problem. I put 12 boys in one trukk and 10 in another. When I am ready they get out and mob up and charge, or what ever. that's 22 modes, two of which are nobs.
and two trukks ready to charge. This could easily be supported by another large unit or two. between Storm boys and Da Jump. That, could be 40 boys or 40 Storm boys depending on the turn you plan to dismount the Trukk boys. Granted you may not want those units if your bringing an MSU list. I personally wont build a list that leaves out a means of strong Mob rule LD.
I guess it just depends on what that list is meant to do. (And other self imposed restrictions.)
davou wrote: the +1 attack for 20-+ models is huge for me. I prefer to play MSU, and all the army wide buffs for orks play into taking huge blobs.... None of which fit into trukks.
Thats the worst sin of the trukk design IMO, if you want to use them, you have to pay their arbitrarily high cost and lose Mob rule and +1 attack.
I get what your saying but I don't really see the problem. I put 12 boys in one trukk and 10 in another. When I am ready they get out and mob up and charge, or what ever. that's 22 modes, two of which are nobs.
and two trukks ready to charge. This could easily be supported by another large unit or two. between Storm boys and Da Jump. That, could be 40 boys or 40 Storm boys depending on the turn you plan to dismount the Trukk boys. Granted you may not want those units if your bringing an MSU list. I personally wont build a list that leaves out a means of strong Mob rule LD.
I guess it just depends on what that list is meant to do. (And other self imposed restrictions.)
2 units of trukk boyz that then mob up is a HUGE waste of points. 164pts to transport 22 bodies, 2 CP to combine the two units just to give you the bonus. You can literally do the same trick with Da Jump with more bodies for less points and no CP use. You could literally do the same things with just Stormboyz and be AS fast and have more bodies. 164+ 22 Ork boyz = 294 which in turn = almost 37 Storm boyz. So 22 Boyz and two trukkz, one of which if not both will be popped easily by enemy fire compared to 37 stormboyz.
davou wrote: the +1 attack for 20-+ models is huge for me. I prefer to play MSU, and all the army wide buffs for orks play into taking huge blobs.... None of which fit into trukks.
Thats the worst sin of the trukk design IMO, if you want to use them, you have to pay their arbitrarily high cost and lose Mob rule and +1 attack.
I get what your saying but I don't really see the problem. I put 12 boys in one trukk and 10 in another. When I am ready they get out and mob up and charge, or what ever. that's 22 modes, two of which are nobs.
and two trukks ready to charge. This could easily be supported by another large unit or two. between Storm boys and Da Jump. That, could be 40 boys or 40 Storm boys depending on the turn you plan to dismount the Trukk boys. Granted you may not want those units if your bringing an MSU list. I personally wont build a list that leaves out a means of strong Mob rule LD.
I guess it just depends on what that list is meant to do. (And other self imposed restrictions.)
2 units of trukk boyz that then mob up is a HUGE waste of points. 164pts to transport 22 bodies, 2 CP to combine the two units just to give you the bonus. You can literally do the same trick with Da Jump with more bodies for less points and no CP use. You could literally do the same things with just Stormboyz and be AS fast and have more bodies. 164+ 22 Ork boyz = 294 which in turn = almost 37 Storm boyz. So 22 Boyz and two trukkz, one of which if not both will be popped easily by enemy fire compared to 37 stormboyz.
I'm just saying it's an option not that it's optimal. It also, as I said, comes down to the list that person whats to play and their self imposed restrictions.
I've stopped using stormboys, they have been slaughters, they were too good in one game and after that marked for death in every game after that. I do wantthe use them again but I need other units, like trukks full of shtuff rushing ahead of them to make them less of a target.
If two trukks cost too much why not 2 mobs of 10 in a battle wagon.
Your worried about command points? why. what else are you going to use them on and how many are you bringing. Battalions now give like (is it?) 5 cps each now so, 2 battalions+ a what ever detachment and 3 cp's for being battle forged more is totally possible. (13 to 14 cp's.) Just what else are you doing with them that spending 2 is a big deal?
It really sucks that trukks are a waste of points for you. I don't have that problem at all.
Without the codex 9 CPs (battallion+spearhead usually) are more than enough.
2x battallions means 6 troops which are a tax since MSU don't work at the moment, gretchins are suboptimal, 180 boyz are too boring to play and something like 4x30 + 2x10 may be decent but I'm not a fan of Mob Up and I prefer maximized units and optimized lists for less CPs since I'm not going to use CPs effectively anyway having a single crappy stratagem and not many D6 to re-roll.
wonderful for you, but in a competitive environment, either in META or tournament play, Trukkz are well beyond sub optimal and are firmly in the realm of Crap. As to what I spend my CP on? Rerolls and CC initiative. You can reroll once per phase, generally I do that 1-2 times a turn,sometimes more if its a really important turn, that eats up most CP right there. So why would I waste 2 to combine 22 boyz together? seems both redundant and silly.
Blackie wrote: Without the codex 9 CPs (battallion+spearhead usually) are more than enough.
2x battallions means 6 troops which are a tax since MSU don't work at the moment, gretchins are suboptimal, 180 boyz are too boring to play and something like 4x30 + 2x10 may be decent but I'm not a fan of Mob Up and I prefer maximized units and optimized lists for less CPs since I'm not going to use CPs effectively anyway having a single crappy stratagem and not many D6 to re-roll.
I'm getting different results with my Grots. Work fine for me. I only have a few MSU elements in my lists. So it's a mix of large and small units.
I bring about 60 boys in my lists because more than that has proven to be too much for my opponents and I drive for an hour forty just to play so I want every thing to be fun.
I plan my use of CP's into my list so I know I want 2 to 4 of them for mob up before we even set up models.
Any thing after that tends to be a reroll on a damage dice for like a Dr damage weapon, some times it's a good call. Until this year I had forgotten completely about the combat interruption stratagem.
It hadn't really been important anyway. No, not because I'm that good, lol. I just know how to take my lumps and deal with it.
MY usual opponent is fairly ruthless at this game so I expect and give no quarter to him. He wants to be tables or crushed but plays like a computer on hard mode. Due to having to schedual my games well in advance I am isolated from all the game nonsense I read about on line for the most part. Except for that one guy, I beat him he buys more tanks or what ever to "fix the wholes in his list for the next game." I'm forever ice skating up hill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: wonderful for you, but in a competitive environment, either in META or tournament play, Trukkz are well beyond sub optimal and are firmly in the realm of Crap. As to what I spend my CP on? Rerolls and CC initiative. You can reroll once per phase, generally I do that 1-2 times a turn,sometimes more if its a really important turn, that eats up most CP right there. So why would I waste 2 to combine 22 boyz together? seems both redundant and silly.
Well, your competitive environment sounds simply miserable. Good luck in your future endeavors? I've read your posts for a few years. There's no point arguing with you at all. Hell, you know what's best, just do that and I'm sure everything will be fine!
SemperMortis wrote: wonderful for you, but in a competitive environment, either in META or tournament play, Trukkz are well beyond sub optimal and are firmly in the realm of Crap. As to what I spend my CP on? Rerolls and CC initiative. You can reroll once per phase, generally I do that 1-2 times a turn,sometimes more if its a really important turn, that eats up most CP right there. So why would I waste 2 to combine 22 boyz together? seems both redundant and silly.
Well, your competitive environment sounds simply miserable. Good luck in your future endeavors? I've read your posts for a few years. There's no point arguing with you at all. Hell, you know what's best, just do that and I'm sure everything will be fine!
LMAO, again with this nonsense "I don't play competitive games so therefore I must know whats best for game balance." I am glad you have a friendly META and enjoy playing friendly games instead of competitive, more power to you. But for those of us who enjoy the thrill of competition we want the game to be as balanced as possible. So to summarize, I am happy for you, but stop trying to dictate the needs of the game based upon non-competitive gaming. If the game becomes more balanced for competitive gamer's then the game becomes more balanced and fun for friendly gamers. You do it the other way around and we are left with huge imbalances and crap play in competitive environments.
You might be able to reasonably expect a Trukk will go to 60 or 65 points.
Drukhari Raider is 65 points.
- T5 4+
- Open topped
- 5++
- Fly
- +2" move
- Hits on 4s for melee
Ramshackle is sort of like a 6+++, but more random.
It can get a 5++, but we shouldn't really cost it for that - no law against it though.
Trukk is marginally tougher.
Can't fly and negligibly slower (imo).
55 points might be the absolute bottom, but I'd anticipate 60 or 65 with some tweaks.
Daedalus81 wrote: You might be able to reasonably expect a Trukk will go to 60 or 65 points.
Drukhari Raider is 65 points.
- T5 4+
- Open topped
- 5++
- Fly
- +2" move
- Hits on 4s for melee
Ramshackle is sort of like a 6+++, but more random.
It can get a 5++, but we shouldn't really cost it for that - no law against it though.
Trukk is marginally tougher.
Can't fly and negligibly slower (imo).
55 points might be the absolute bottom, but I'd anticipate 60 or 65 with some tweaks.
55pts might be doable if they give it a buff, 60-65 is still in the realm of too much for too little. T5-T6 is almost the same thing, throw in the 5++ and it goes completely to the DE vehicle. its faster, can fly and hits better in melee...so its ONE downside is its T5 instead of T6 with fewer wounds.
Trukks are a hard thing to make work. They're currently passable for transporting tankbustas. But transporting boyz is close to pointless. Boyz need a whole different transport. Cheaper. Much cheaper in fact.
Daedalus81 wrote: You might be able to reasonably expect a Trukk will go to 60 or 65 points.
Drukhari Raider is 65 points.
- T5 4+
- Open topped
- 5++
- Fly
- +2" move
- Hits on 4s for melee
Ramshackle is sort of like a 6+++, but more random.
It can get a 5++, but we shouldn't really cost it for that - no law against it though.
Trukk is marginally tougher.
Can't fly and negligibly slower (imo).
Something to consider is though contents. Trukk as is works(though overpriced) for...Tank bustas. For boyz it's not that good. Trukk with 12 boyz just isn't as much of a threat as raider with warriors is. What you can put into transport factors in heavily how useful it actually is.
Oh and that 5++ and fly are huge. Meanwhile T6 isn't nearly as much of a help. It's good vs basically heavy bolters. Yey. 5++ is much more useful and ability to disengage freely and ignore enemy models is pretty darn sweet.
55 points for a trukk may be ok if the embarked units gain significant buffs. Like the +1A for boyz that are 10+ instead of 20+, D6 damage power klaws, cheaper tankbustas/nobz/meganobz, more effective burnaboyz, etc...
A raider with warriors works well because it has a good weapon mounted plus the poisoned shots and a couple of blasters fired by the units embarked. It's a nice amount of firepower for less than 180 points. Raiders also work well because the best drukhari units are all T5-7 and compete for the same weapons while it's hard to bring a full mechanized ork list that is also efficient.
Not an Ork change, but a change that does need to happen in a future FAQ or CA is some kind of penalty to falling back. At the moment I am sick and tired of my opponent just hopping out of CC like it was nothing and leaving my unit that just advanced for 2 turns through a hail of fire and then overwatch completely exposed to yet another round of shooting.
The arguments against it so far aren't exactly strong, this is how i view it.
If your unit is stuck in CC against a superior foe then you 3 options. 1: stay stuck in and hope you survive one more round of combat and die on HIS turn. 2: Assault into combat with a better CC unit and then turn the tide that way or 3: Flip the enemy the finger and slowly walk out of combat with no penalty other then not shooting/assaulting.
Option 3 is the most prevalent and most annoying, and I say it has no real penalty because your other options were to stand and die or stay stuck in CC indefinitely. So walking out of combat and letting everyone shoot the hell out of the enemy isn't exactly a penalty as its a trade off, not shoot because your in CC or not shoot because your fleeing CC.
Even something as little as the enemy getting 1 free round of CC against your unit that is fleeing would be fairer then just walking away.
That wouldn't exactly fix all the problems right now with CC but it would at least make it a bit more fair, and might justify using trukk boyz a bit more if they get some kind of bonus to CC.
Option 2 really isn't an option in reality. In order for it to happen 1) The assaulting unit must be better in combat than when shooting. While may sound silly, almost every space marine unit in the game is better at shooting than it is at combat. Having one unit drop from combat and shooting you with the other is always superior to charging both of them into combat and taking additional casualties. 2) You need the unit already in combat to finish the fight. Which means that you charged something into combat that is not strong enough to finish the fight, but somehow manages to finish the fight if helped by a unit that has already taken one fight phase worth of casualties. If I'm charging a daemon prince, I'm sure as hell pulling my plague marines from that combat. He is going to wipe the floor with whatever I've charged, and if something is still alive to fight back, I do not want it to hit and potentially kill a 17 pt plague marine. I'm already not shooting this turn, the only thing to lose is 5-8 S4 attacks that probably won't kill a single model.
Not disagreeing with you, but you don't really need to stay in combat if you have an assault unit near to clean up the mess. The only reason to stay in combat is to keep the charging unit tied down.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for trukks vs. venoms:
I'm not going to do the math to show that trukks are vastly more survivable than venoms against a lot of things. T6 matters a lot against a bunch of weapons like assault cannons, lasguns, plague grenades, star cannons, scatter lasers, heavy bolters and more that are very common in many armies. 5++ is not going to compensate for lasguns wound twice as often.
Four additional wounds also matter a lot, try to kill a venom with your warboss and then try to kill a trukk. Last, but not least, smite is still a thing, two or three smites are enough to kill a venom.
Stat-wise, a trukk is not a venom, but a rhino.
The real issue is that orks don't need rhinos, we need venoms. We used to have rhinos for many years (looted wagon) and no one used them. The only reason trukks see play at the moment because BW are even worse.
In 5th a trukk had the same stat line as a warbuggy. If it went back to that, we could drop the points by a lot and solve most issues trukks have.
Alas, I don't think GW is willing to make such a drastic change.
Dropping trukks with their current stat line to 40 points like some suggested will break the game.
You could take 10 of them just for the heck of it and use them to wall in Moration - even if every single one of his attacks and shots hits and wounds and he does not degrade, it will take him five turns to fight through all of them and you could completely neutralize him by following him around the the swarm of trukks, blocking his movement and charging him - for just 400 points. And now think about what they could do if you were trying to tarpit something that's not the most powerful combatant in the game.
I'm not going to do the math to show that trukks are vastly more survivable than venoms against a lot of things. T6 matters a lot against a bunch of weapons like assault cannons, lasguns, plague grenades, star cannons, scatter lasers, heavy bolters and more that are very common in many armies. 5++ is not going to compensate for lasguns wound twice as often.
Four additional wounds also matter a lot, try to kill a venom with your warboss and then try to kill a trukk. Last, but not least, smite is still a thing, two or three smites are enough to kill a venom.
Stat-wise, a trukk is not a venom, but a rhino.
I'm too lazy to do the math as well, but venoms don't have only the 5+ invuln, there's also the -1 to hit to consider (good against everything, amazing vs plasma) and sometimes even the 6++ FNP granted by the black heart obsession which is very common, I always rely on that bonus and with 10ish veicles the 6++ ignore wound is huge.
And yet at 65 points venoms are considered overcosted by many drukhari players.
Another thing to consider about trukks vs venoms is that venoms can be the transport of 1-2 lone HQs or 5 kabalites with a blasters. Both cheap and effective options, while a unit of trukk boyz is way more expensive (167 points vs 112) and not very performing. Carrying specialists is even more expensive and only tankbustas make a decent combo with trukks. Unless the units embarked gain some significant bonus by the codex a 70ish points trukk will always be sub optimal.
Well, i've done some math. It takes around 12 overheating plasma shots to kill a trukk and 16 to kill a venom. 7 lazcannon shots to kill a trukk and 9 to kill a venom. A trukk is only more durable vs some s5+ anti-infantry weapons with low ap. Don't forget that a venom shoots better, has fly, is faster, doesn't degrade iirc and is cheaper to boot.
koooaei wrote: Well, i've done some math. It takes around 12 overheating plasma shots to kill a trukk and 16 to kill a venom. 7 lazcannon shots to kill a trukk and 9 to kill a venom. A trukk is only more durable vs some s5+ anti-infantry weapons with low ap. Don't forget that a venom shoots better, has fly, is faster, doesn't degrade iirc and is cheaper to boot.
I genuinely don't think GW know this. I'd put money on it.
The one thing we do have (that doesn't make a massive difference but still) is Meks that can repair our armour at will.
koooaei wrote: Well, i've done some math. It takes around 12 overheating plasma shots to kill a trukk and 16 to kill a venom. 7 lazcannon shots to kill a trukk and 9 to kill a venom. A trukk is only more durable vs some s5+ anti-infantry weapons with low ap. Don't forget that a venom shoots better, has fly, is faster, doesn't degrade iirc and is cheaper to boot.
Average damage of an overcharged plasma gun against trukk, including ramshackle: 1.630 = 6.13 shots
Same against venom, including nightshields and flickerfield: 0.889 = 6.76 shots
7 overcharged BS 3+ plasma shots will kill either on average, while the venom might set a few imperials on fire in the process. In reality, venoms will probably not get shot by overcharged plasma
Average damage of lascannon against trukk, including ramshackle: 1.370 = 7.30 shots
Same against venom, including nightshields and flickerfield: 0.778 = 7.71 shots
So yes, the trukk is more vulnerable to high AP weapons due to not having an invulnerable save without a KFF nearby, but not by huge amount. I doubt you will see the difference in a regular game, a lucky damage roll might destroy a venom in a single shot, or a string of successful 5++ saves can make it seem invulnerable.
Just for fun:
Warboss on warbike, with PK, attack squig and combi-skorcha
Shooting:
1.167 to trukk
1.417 to venom
Combat:
4.814 to trukk
4.814 to venom
Total:
5.981 to trukk
6.231 to venom
Venom is dead, trukk lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
An Actual Englishman wrote: The one thing we do have (that doesn't make a massive difference but still) is Meks that can repair our armour at will.
Not practical with trukks though, since the biker big mek is forbidden from repairing after moving more than 5", while the big mek on foot can advance up to 11" and still repair stuff
A big mek close enough to repair the trukk would provide a KFF save though, which does make a massive difference. KFFs aren't free though, especially if you bring enough to cover an entire army of trukks.
koooaei wrote: Well, i've done some math. It takes around 12 overheating plasma shots to kill a trukk and 16 to kill a venom. 7 lazcannon shots to kill a trukk and 9 to kill a venom. A trukk is only more durable vs some s5+ anti-infantry weapons with low ap. Don't forget that a venom shoots better, has fly, is faster, doesn't degrade iirc and is cheaper to boot.
Average damage of an overcharged plasma gun against trukk, including ramshackle: 1.630 = 6.13 shots
Same against venom, including nightshields and flickerfield: 0.889 = 6.76 shots
7 overcharged BS 3+ plasma shots will kill either on average, while the venom might set a few imperials on fire in the process. In reality, venoms will probably not get shot by overcharged plasma
First of all, I was assuming rapid fire range, so your result is simply half of mine. But yeah, I said "shots" which is misleading when I actually meant "models shooting plasma guns".
Second, you are assuming that all venoms are getting 6+ FNP, which is not true unless they are bought for one specific obsession of the kabal sub-faction. Any army without a Kabal of the Black Heart detachment will not have a single venom with FNP - a pure wytch kult army, for example. Might as well factor in the KFF for the trukk, which would ruin any advantage the venom has.
lolman1c wrote: Wtf is even going on? I missed the last 3 lages... we come to a conclusion yet or are we still spitting numbers at each other like nerds?
1) There will never be a conclusion - even when the book is out. 2) Math is fun!
and I still argue that they don't work for Tankbustas either because target saturation is a thing and by bringing 1-2 trukkz filled with bustas you are opening yourself up to target priority for Anti-armor weapons which will happily forego 1 turn of killing 3-4 Ork boyz to liquidating a Trukk and killing 1-2 Tankbustas in the process.
And I tell you again, that the argument is completely irrelevant if you actually do bring other things for anti-tank weaponry to shoot like KMK, battlewagons, gargantuan squiggoths and dakkajets - all currently showing up in top placing ork lists.
Jidmah wrote: Dropping trukks down to half their point cost is ridiculous though. That would put battlewagons at 80 points, and you could do silly things like just buy 10 trukks for the heck of it and wall off parts of the battlefield.
Jidmah wrote: First of all, I was assuming rapid fire range, so your result is simply half of mine. But yeah, I said "shots" which is misleading when I actually meant "models shooting plasma guns".
Second, you are assuming that all venoms are getting 6+ FNP, which is not true unless they are bought for one specific obsession of the kabal sub-faction. Any army without a Kabal of the Black Heart detachment will not have a single venom with FNP - a pure wytch kult army, for example.
Might as well factor in the KFF for the trukk, which would ruin any advantage the venom has.
Well the black heart obsession is very common if you want multiple vehicles, maybe just the flayed skull obsession can be preferred over it and with that venoms don't get the 6++ but become killier. But if we talk about competitive games pure wych cult armies are very very uncommon. Since drukhari can spam battallions for cheap a kabal battallion would be included in any competitive list and all the vehicles would be included in that detachment since wych cult bonus don't affect vehicles.
The KFF is a nice advantege for trukks, and in fact I always bring it if I have vehicles but it's another investment in terms of points that must be factored in and I suspect that biker meks would be even cut from the codex.
At the end of the day a min squad of kabalites with a blaster in a venom is just 112 points, have decent firepower and unlocks battallions. This put venoms way over trukks in terms of performance. In 7th edition trukks cost half the points of a venom and no one complained about that. Now trukks are even more expensive than venoms, which also aren't as popular as previous editions when venoms spam was very common. There's some issue in this thing that must be fixed and IMHO it can't be fixed if trukks are more than 50-55 points and the units embarked don't get significant buffs. Again I'd accept 70 points trukks only if the units embarked become really really strong. What really matters is the combo transport+unit embarked and its sinergy with the rest of the army not the single profile of the transport.
So in summary - Trukks are too expensive and other things do their role better/cheaper. We are actively discouraged from taking Boyz in them because of the buffs Boys get in larger numbers.
Personally I'd like to see three things from the codex
1. Ramshackle changed to degrading invuln save or fnp ala meka dread.
2. Boarding planks to allow disembarking after movement to incentivise us taking melee units in them.
3. Let them do more in cqc or significantly drop their price.
When you do the math, Ramshackle is a slightly worse version of FNP, except it is (obviously) better against high damage weapons.
Against weapons with two damage like overcharged plasma, ramshackle saves one in twelve damage
Against three damage weapons like rokkits, you save one in nine damage
Against weapons with six damage, you save slightly less than one in six.
If you really wanted to improve the durability, you could just bump it to 5+ and make it more powerful than 6+ FNP against anything but 1 damage weapons.
But pretty much everyone agreed that we don't want or need more durable trukks, we need cheaper trukks. All of their rules but points, transport capacity and speed (your planks would be add to speed) are largely irrelevant.
Jidmah wrote: And I tell you again, that the argument is completely irrelevant if you actually do bring other things for anti-tank weaponry to shoot like KMK, battlewagons, gargantuan squiggoths and dakkajets - all currently showing up in top placing ork lists.
Mek Gunz are T5; not exactly the best targets for Anti-armor weapons. The rest I will give you, but again. Battlewagons currently suck, I've never used a Gargantuan Squig so I won't comment and Dakkajets only make their points back when the enemy doesn't shoot at them the entire game.
So the list would have to be completely made of Trukkz and Wagonz in order to saturate the field with high T/wound models. I have yet to see a mechanized ork list do well, ive seen a weird garg squig list do well but only twice but I haven't followed it that much.
My original point still stands, trukkz suck at what they do and need help somehow. If you want to target saturate (A very good and legitimate tactic) then we need to improve the other things you mentioned because right now most aren't worth taking or they don't fit into the same category as trukkz. Personally I am still trying to figure out how a Mek gun dropped so much durability and stayed the same in price....
tneva82 wrote: Well whether biker meks gets cut out or not is irrelevant. You get same model with same effort anyway
Yeah but with index points cost. Which means way overcosted.
I bet 60-70% of the orks units and wargear are going to be way cheaper than now. But of course if something remains only on the index is probably going to be completely ignored in competitive games because it would be too expensive compared to the rest of the army. Like trueborn for drukhari.
But pretty much everyone agreed that we don't want or need more durable trukks, we need cheaper trukks. All of their rules but points, transport capacity and speed (your planks would be add to speed) are largely irrelevant.
Exactly, trukks have never been so tough. But they have only one purpose, being a pure transport. They have basically no shooting and very little melee ability while other transports can be also good in something else than carrying units, usually they provide some firepower. As long as they are pure transports they need to be cheaper and/or carry units that are way stronger and more efficient than the current ones.
Jidmah wrote: And I tell you again, that the argument is completely irrelevant if you actually do bring other things for anti-tank weaponry to shoot like KMK, battlewagons, gargantuan squiggoths and dakkajets - all currently showing up in top placing ork lists.
Mek Gunz are T5; not exactly the best targets for Anti-armor weapons. The rest I will give you, but again. Battlewagons currently suck, I've never used a Gargantuan Squig so I won't comment and Dakkajets only make their points back when the enemy doesn't shoot at them the entire game.
So the list would have to be completely made of Trukkz and Wagonz in order to saturate the field with high T/wound models. I have yet to see a mechanized ork list do well, ive seen a weird garg squig list do well but only twice but I haven't followed it that much.
My original point still stands, trukkz suck at what they do and need help somehow. If you want to target saturate (A very good and legitimate tactic) then we need to improve the other things you mentioned because right now most aren't worth taking or they don't fit into the same category as trukkz. Personally I am still trying to figure out how a Mek gun dropped so much durability and stayed the same in price....
All of those models have appeared in multiple top 3 placing ork lists this year, including the battlewagon. So your opinion simply doesn't match the data.
Jidmah wrote: And I tell you again, that the argument is completely irrelevant if you actually do bring other things for anti-tank weaponry to shoot like KMK, battlewagons, gargantuan squiggoths and dakkajets - all currently showing up in top placing ork lists.
Mek Gunz are T5; not exactly the best targets for Anti-armor weapons. The rest I will give you, but again. Battlewagons currently suck, I've never used a Gargantuan Squig so I won't comment and Dakkajets only make their points back when the enemy doesn't shoot at them the entire game.
So the list would have to be completely made of Trukkz and Wagonz in order to saturate the field with high T/wound models. I have yet to see a mechanized ork list do well, ive seen a weird garg squig list do well but only twice but I haven't followed it that much.
My original point still stands, trukkz suck at what they do and need help somehow. If you want to target saturate (A very good and legitimate tactic) then we need to improve the other things you mentioned because right now most aren't worth taking or they don't fit into the same category as trukkz. Personally I am still trying to figure out how a Mek gun dropped so much durability and stayed the same in price....
All of those models have appeared in multiple top 3 placing ork lists this year, including the battlewagon. So your opinion simply doesn't match the data.
I am not saying otherwise, but out of curiosity, when was the last time they did well? I am wondering if maybe they did well against index and now against codex not so much. Likewise I wonder if they just went so counter meta that people didn't know how to play against them.
I just don't see trukkz being feasible for anything beyond tankbustas right now and even they aren't that good due to price. But this is again my opinion.
SemperMortis wrote: I am not saying otherwise, but out of curiosity, when was the last time they did well? I am wondering if maybe they did well against index and now against codex not so much. Likewise I wonder if they just went so counter meta that people didn't know how to play against them.
We have a 1st place from an ITC tournament from this friday. Same guy place second last month with a similar list fielding two wagons but more weird boyz (pre rule of 3) at a different tournament.
I just don't see trukkz being feasible for anything beyond tankbustas right now and even they aren't that good due to price. But this is again my opinion.
I think everyone agrees on that. We are just arguing why this is the case for sport
SemperMortis wrote: I am not saying otherwise, but out of curiosity, when was the last time they did well? I am wondering if maybe they did well against index and now against codex not so much. Likewise I wonder if they just went so counter meta that people didn't know how to play against them.
We have a 1st place from an ITC tournament from this friday. Same guy place second last month with a similar list fielding two wagons but more weird boyz (pre rule of 3) at a different tournament.
I just don't see trukkz being feasible for anything beyond tankbustas right now and even they aren't that good due to price. But this is again my opinion.
I think everyone agrees on that. We are just arguing why this is the case for sport
.....OK, I thought these were major events....these two events had 13 players each. ....this is not evidence of anything beyond a list winning a local tournament at most. I am talking about major events, this is nothing, that is like me winning my local tournament which has the same turnout and posting a ridiculous list that happened to win that one time.
I just converted weirdboy and have another coming. Was planning to send in kommandos, then jump 30 shoota boyz turn 1 and stormboyz rushing in as well along with 2nd wave of boyz. Alas kommandoes died. At least da jump would give bit extra initial pressure and ease up deployment road block issues another block swarming in creates.
