Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 06:35:52


Post by: Alwrath


So, after a big second place GT win after crushing 2 Space Marine armies ( Ultra Marines, Blood Angels ), how do Ork players feel about the current meta? Are you happy that Orks are strong in 8th/9th edition? Are you glad the green tide is strong right now? How many Space Marine armies have you killed at your local meta? I honestly am considering ebaying my Primaris in favor of Orks atm, the PA book and codex look amazing, and I honestly cant wait to see what the 9th edition codex brings to the green players since 8th/9th has proven they are already an amazing army to play, especially in objective games.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 06:37:42


Post by: BrianDavion


8th edition?
....... Did you miss the last 2 months?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 06:39:19


Post by: Alwrath


BrianDavion wrote:
8th edition?
....... Did you miss the last 2 months?


Sorry had a few beers, corrected ; )


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 06:41:06


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Flukes happen. If Ork players cannot replicate the same success they're not to be taken seriously, just like in 8th.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 06:42:29


Post by: Alwrath


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Flukes happen. If Ork players cannot replicate the same success they're not to be taken seriously, just like in 8th.


So I guess take the Ork codex seriously, but not the players?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 08:09:18


Post by: some bloke


I think the issue there is that playing orks, to some extent, requires that you take things less seriously!

I've been winning more than losing with my Orks in 8th/9th, so I'm quite pleased with how things are going. I'm happy as long as it feels like a fight and not a slaughter, though, so I'm not too fussed about the win or lose as I am about trying to win!

Maybe I've fallen too far into the ork mentality...


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 08:46:51


Post by: Mixzremixzd


 Alwrath wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Flukes happen. If Ork players cannot replicate the same success they're not to be taken seriously, just like in 8th.


So I guess take the Ork codex seriously, but not the players?


More like let's wait for consistency at the top tables before decrying Orks a 9th edition competitive success. That's at least how I took Slayer's comment.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 09:12:25


Post by: Blackie


Orks are not like SM that can field whatever they want and worst case scenario they'll end up with "just" a solid list.

Orks MUST play with optimized lists otherwise they're trash. Some optimized lists are also boring as hell to play with, starting with the green tide. Which by the way gains a lot in games with time limitations, don't trust data about GTs without analyzing them. Top tables results are based on very different games than the average ones, that the majority is playing, based on lots of skew lists that aren't common at all.

Overall orks look solid at them moment, far from being overpowered but with multiple builds that work. I'm quite happy with their current state.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 09:25:12


Post by: keithandor


Where are these winning Orks lists.
MY Orks are Zero from three in 9th :(


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 09:56:15


Post by: Jidmah


When green tides become the only competitive build for orks, everyone loses. It's usually a sign of a highly unhealthy meta where infantry skew manages to eek out wins because everyone is gearing towards another big bad.

Most ork players don't enjoy playing green tide lists, especially not at tournaments. Moving and transporting that amount of models is cumbersome, especially when you move, charge and pile-in 30 models to kill one and a half primaris marines.
A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
keithandor wrote:
Where are these winning Orks lists.
MY Orks are Zero from three in 9th :(


We have 4 top 4 placements so far, two were running tide variants, one buggy list and one buggies with massed trukkboys.

Lists can be found at the end of the first post in this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/790345.page


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 14:25:34


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Mixzremixzd wrote:
 Alwrath wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Flukes happen. If Ork players cannot replicate the same success they're not to be taken seriously, just like in 8th.


So I guess take the Ork codex seriously, but not the players?


More like let's wait for consistency at the top tables before decrying Orks a 9th edition competitive success. That's at least how I took Slayer's comment.

Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 14:51:18


Post by: Tycho


Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


I would even add to this that, even in an established meta (which we don't have yet), Orks are known for throwing up the occasional odd-ball list that has great success at a major tournament and is never heard from again. For example in 8th, when everyone said green tide was the only competitive list, there was that Australian player who won a tourney using nothing but MANZ in vehicles. Basically an "elite" style army, but no one else was really able to make that work. Orks are weird like that.

Our Ork players kind of like 9th so far. Hordes took a small hit, but morale is significantly more forgiving (since they made it even less meaningful than it was in 8th), and they've had a lot of success on the smaller board size. They've been able to screen people out of reserves, and encircle objectives easier.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 15:38:31


Post by: Jidmah


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


Shush.
We need meta-chasers to believe that they can get easy wins by switching to orks and then fail miserably so people really interested in orks can buy painted ork boyz for cheap on ebay.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 16:48:11


Post by: blaktoof


I am going to suggest the reason we are seeing non marine armies doing well is that Marines have not adjusted their lists for 9th.

Marines are still doing well despite often playing the game like its 8th edition.

Specific ork lists are doing well because they are playing 9th edition in 9th edition, they are swarming objectives for primary and are scoring most of their secondaries from board table based objectives.

Marine shooty/gunline lists are just as kill now as in 8th, but they need units that can go up and start on objectives.

Once we start seeing people taking 3-4 units of incursors or infiltrators as their core with some of the warsuits to support where they start in control of the middle objectives and have hard hitting units designed to clear and hold where the other player pushes up on them we will see SM on top a lot again, this of course could all change again in 1 month when the new SM codex comes out if there are points increases to SM.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 16:54:25


Post by: Void__Dragon


Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 17:02:00


Post by: Mixzremixzd


Edit: Nah don't worry about it.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 17:40:32


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Jidmah wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


Shush.
We need meta-chasers to believe that they can get easy wins by switching to orks and then fail miserably so people really interested in orks can buy painted ork boyz for cheap on ebay.

Oh don't get me wrong, I want Orks to be good, but there's nothing to suggest they are.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 17:41:48


Post by: SemperMortis


 Alwrath wrote:
So, after a big second place GT win after crushing 2 Space Marine armies ( Ultra Marines, Blood Angels ), how do Ork players feel about the current meta? Are you happy that Orks are strong in 8th/9th edition? Are you glad the green tide is strong right now? How many Space Marine armies have you killed at your local meta? I honestly am considering ebaying my Primaris in favor of Orks atm, the PA book and codex look amazing, and I honestly cant wait to see what the 9th edition codex brings to the green players since 8th/9th has proven they are already an amazing army to play, especially in objective games.


They were "crushing" victories...maybe in points but not in killing, and that is the point. The Ork lists are geared towards taking and holding objectives and scoring secondaries. This benefits players who know how to use their armies and maximize strengths, this is in contrast to a lot of SM players I have fought who see the game as a shooting gallery where the only goal is killing everything as fast as possible, if you don't table your opponent was it even worth playing?

There is also the fact that a lot of players are gearing their lists towards anti space marine/vehicle. So lots of elite killing firepower and enough punch to knock out heavy vehicles. The UM list that was shared earlier that the Ork list beat is a great example of that. LOTS of plasma and high strength shots but very few units capable of killing infantry in large numbers. Go ahead and shoot those Plasma guns at an Ork boy, i'll take that as a win, especially since I'll still likely get at least a 5++ and/or a 6+ FNP.

Once the tournament scene stabilizes in a few months, you are going to see competitive players taking more anti-horde fire power just in case they do come across some of these ork infantry skew lists.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 17:50:29


Post by: Dysartes


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


Shush.
We need meta-chasers to believe that they can get easy wins by switching to orks and then fail miserably so people really interested in orks can buy painted ork boyz for cheap on ebay.

Oh don't get me wrong, I want Orks to be good, but there's nothing to suggest they are.


And what threshold must they hit, in order to convince you?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 17:57:27


Post by: the_scotsman


 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


It's weird, I thought the definition of "consistent" was doing well, MANY TIMES, not "on average not doing very well, but doing extremely well a few times" which is what we are currently seeing with orks.

7 Ork armies in total in tournaments considered by Goonhammer, with 4 doing very well, and 3 doing extremely poorly. Doesn't seem like "consistency".


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 18:21:43


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Dysartes wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Bingo. Random lists will top time to time, but that doesn't mean everything is cheeky when it comes to balance or army consistency.
The fact that the OP would sell their current army in favor of Orks because of a couple of tournaments really says more about the OP wanting Orks to be good rather than them actually being good.


Shush.
We need meta-chasers to believe that they can get easy wins by switching to orks and then fail miserably so people really interested in orks can buy painted ork boyz for cheap on ebay.

Oh don't get me wrong, I want Orks to be good, but there's nothing to suggest they are.


And what threshold must they hit, in order to convince you?

Consistency in placings. As of now, we are still at the beginning of the edition and are settling into what is good. 3 tournament placings LOOKS good, but I don't think it'll hold steam like how the beginning of 8th looked with various lists placing (Roboute parking lot didn't last as long as people expected after all.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/16 22:21:20


Post by: BrianDavion




and not a suit of power armor to be seen in the top 3


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 06:54:26


Post by: Jidmah


Who cares. This thread is about orks, we already have enough marine threads to found a chapter from them.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 07:02:05


Post by: Alwrath


 Jidmah wrote:
Who cares. This thread is about orks, we already have enough marine threads to found a chapter from them.


I think he was giving credit to the Orks with that statement my friend


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 07:26:24


Post by: Void__Dragon


the_scotsman wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


It's weird, I thought the definition of "consistent" was doing well, MANY TIMES, not "on average not doing very well, but doing extremely well a few times" which is what we are currently seeing with orks.

7 Ork armies in total in tournaments considered by Goonhammer, with 4 doing very well, and 3 doing extremely poorly. Doesn't seem like "consistency".


Your seven army figure is from an article that is almost a month old. Since then Orks have had even more success.

Are they overpowered or top tier? No, probably not. I think they're worse than Marines, Custodes, and Harlequins, and possibly worse than Chaos armies leaning heavily into Nurgle (Death Guard or otherwise).

But this whiny bs about how an army that has placed highly on several occasions while leaning into different units depending on the list since ninth edition started and continue to do so is actually bad is nonsense.

Genestealer Cults are actually awful, and you might notice haven't placed on gak yet. In fact, in the stats you referenced IIRC they weren't even played a single time!


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 08:01:14


Post by: Breton


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
(Roboute parking lot didn't last as long as people expected after all.


I never expected Robute Soup to last. I think depending on how Core shakes out he could make a come back but unless they screw up and forget to change his bubble to core, still only in UM lists.

The biggest factors for 9th meta are things we don’t know yet. How do the marine chapters redistribute after their merge and purge supplements, what happens to Necrons? The Gladiator Tanks and Speeders could have a huge impact but we haven’t seen a data sheet yet.

Bear with me here to get it back to orks....

Impulsor is about a hundred points. The gladiator Lancer is an impulsor with a Heavy Laser Destroyer Turret. About 40-50 points. If you get a discount on the turret for giving up carrying capacity they get pretty cheap. The anti infantry version, 100 points of Impulsor, 60 points of turret, and.. whatever the hell Tempest Not Quite Hurricane Bolters are. 4x Bolt Rifle? Rapid fire 30” s4 -1 D1 for 8-10 points? 160-180 points, 40 shots? With a non-transport discount it could put a crimp in ork tide meta, full price and it’s less so. If they are cheaper, it also depends on if you can squadron them.

What I’m getting at is there’s a lot of new “hotness” that both could go either way on the meta, AND will have to be tested for strengths, weaknesses and surprises.

Nor have we seen what they’re doing, if anything, to grots and other ork units that are getting reshuffled.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 08:16:26


Post by: Dysartes


Breton wrote:
The Gladiator Tanks and Speeders could have a huge impact but we haven’t seen a data sheet yet.


We have seen a datasheet for one of the Storm Speeders, during the Codex preview - and it led to many complaints from Eldar & Dark Eldar players regarding its speed.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 09:24:10


Post by: Jidmah


 Alwrath wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Who cares. This thread is about orks, we already have enough marine threads to found a chapter from them.


I think he was giving credit to the Orks with that statement my friend


... aaaand two posts later we are discussing marines again.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 09:28:52


Post by: BrianDavion


 Dysartes wrote:
Breton wrote:
The Gladiator Tanks and Speeders could have a huge impact but we haven’t seen a data sheet yet.


We have seen a datasheet for one of the Storm Speeders, during the Codex preview - and it led to many complaints from Eldar & Dark Eldar players regarding its speed.


maybe but we'd best not derail this thread too much with Marine talk.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 13:03:31


Post by: the_scotsman


 Void__Dragon wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


It's weird, I thought the definition of "consistent" was doing well, MANY TIMES, not "on average not doing very well, but doing extremely well a few times" which is what we are currently seeing with orks.

7 Ork armies in total in tournaments considered by Goonhammer, with 4 doing very well, and 3 doing extremely poorly. Doesn't seem like "consistency".


Your seven army figure is from an article that is almost a month old. Since then Orks have had even more success.

Are they overpowered or top tier? No, probably not. I think they're worse than Marines, Custodes, and Harlequins, and possibly worse than Chaos armies leaning heavily into Nurgle (Death Guard or otherwise).

But this whiny bs about how an army that has placed highly on several occasions while leaning into different units depending on the list since ninth edition started and continue to do so is actually bad is nonsense.

Genestealer Cults are actually awful, and you might notice haven't placed on gak yet. In fact, in the stats you referenced IIRC they weren't even played a single time!


I'm in complete agreement with you as to where orks fall on the general tier-list. Right now, my orks are probably my second-most competitive army.

My disagreement with you is only with the term "consistency". Orks seem to find success when they are able to counter a power armor focused meta where everyone brings either power armor or things to kill power armor, and they show up with a mobility/scoring focused list that is good against low-S high-AP weaponry, and then a few ork lists hit those matchups several times in a row and get extremely good results.

I'd rank orks as the very highest in the "middle tier" of strong factions, right about with Tau Admech and Daemons, not quite as strong as Harlequins Custodes Marines. They're good, but not consistent, as their good-ness is highly matchup dependent as it generally is with orks whose competitive shtick tends to be the ability to bring skew to the table.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 13:34:45


Post by: Jidmah


I'd argue that one aspect why so many different ork builds are doing well is because most missions play into their strengths and some of their weaknesses like low movement speed or short ranges on weapons matter a lot less.

In 8th I had a quote from daedalus in my signature where semper was making fun of him for assuming that someone would actually deploy on the edge of their deployment zone. Now, in 9th this is actually what people are doing. Marines are and other things that would normally be hidden safely 3-4" into their deployment zone are now running towards us to grab objectives and score those precious primary VPs. You no longer need to weather the fire of a gunline for two turns or deep strike massive amounts of boyz so you can get some charges off, you are pretty much guaranteed to be fighting turn two now, with fast units having no issues getting stuck in in their first turn.
The ork player basically plays into the strengths of his army as he has always done but suddenly is vastly more successful with it.

On the other hand, I find many players struggling to adapt to the new missions. People fall back on strategies they have knows for many editions, are trying completely new things to overcome new challenges or simply bring lists that are ill prepared to clear or contest objectives.

While I hope the trend of orks doing well continues, I think there still is time until the dust has settled and everyone has adapted properly to 9th.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 13:44:24


Post by: G00fySmiley


Honestly I find "take all comers" lists to be highly skewed to handle marines. as a primary ork player this is great for me as they often forgo blast weapons or flamers in favor of expensive high str, high ap multidamage weaposn that get wasted on boys. against a true take all comers list its pretty even matches trading punches and as long as I follow the old go all mech or all infantry i can do well. if the oppenent knows they are facing orks and change the list to nothign but flamers and blasts... well i am off the table on bottom of turn 3, might have 1 or 2 mek guns left but the rest is destroyed.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 13:51:31


Post by: the_scotsman


 G00fySmiley wrote:
Honestly I find "take all comers" lists to be highly skewed to handle marines. as a primary ork player this is great for me as they often forgo blast weapons or flamers in favor of expensive high str, high ap multidamage weaposn that get wasted on boys. against a true take all comers list its pretty even matches trading punches and as long as I follow the old go all mech or all infantry i can do well. if the oppenent knows they are facing orks and change the list to nothign but flamers and blasts... well i am off the table on bottom of turn 3, might have 1 or 2 mek guns left but the rest is destroyed.


^This. Skewing your list to not care about the AP stat (by bringing all-KFF orks, or daemons, or harlequins) is EXTREMELY good right now with marines having boatloads of AP and everyone bringing lists to target marines.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 13:59:39


Post by: SemperMortis


 Jidmah wrote:
I'd argue that one aspect why so many different ork builds are doing well is because most missions play into their strengths and some of their weaknesses like low movement speed or short ranges on weapons matter a lot less.

In 8th I had a quote from daedalus in my signature where semper was making fun of him for assuming that someone would actually deploy on the edge of their deployment zone. Now, in 9th this is actually what people are doing. Marines are and other things that would normally be hidden safely 3-4" into their deployment zone are now running towards us to grab objectives and score those precious primary VPs. You no longer need to weather the fire of a gunline for two turns or deep strike massive amounts of boyz so you can get some charges off, you are pretty much guaranteed to be fighting turn two now, with fast units having no issues getting stuck in in their first turn.
The ork player basically plays into the strengths of his army as he has always done but suddenly is vastly more successful with it.

On the other hand, I find many players struggling to adapt to the new missions. People fall back on strategies they have knows for many editions, are trying completely new things to overcome new challenges or simply bring lists that are ill prepared to clear or contest objectives.

While I hope the trend of orks doing well continues, I think there still is time until the dust has settled and everyone has adapted properly to 9th.


Exactly, and I miss your signature

We just had a MASSIVE change in how the game is played. No longer are you going to win by just sitting back and gunning everyone else down. And a lot of players are realizing that they weren't using actual skill to win games, but instead were relying on codex power to win them those games for them. A host of tournament players are quickly adapting but the orkz get to sneak into some good standing because most armies are built towards removing 3+ T4-5 multi-wound stat lines. Firing a 40pt plasma gunner at a 20pt+ Primaris makes a lot of sense and will likely result in you making your points back for that unit relatively quickly as well as being able to remove enough bodies to cap an objective. On the flipside of that, shooting that 40pt plasma into a horde of boyz...going to take a long time to get those points back, and even after you unload a full volley, those pesky orkz are still going to have enough ObSec troops to hold the objective...not to mention the likely 5++ and 6+ FNP they will use to negate a third or more of those shots.

As you mentioned and I 100% agree with, we need to let the dust settle and honestly, with the plethora of new toyz Marines are getting, not to mention their toyz which are underused....Marine players can easily build a list that destroys any of the Ork tournament lists, they just don't want to because then they won't do as well vs other Marine lists.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 14:14:19


Post by: Xenomancers


 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.

There are a lot of reasons why this is happening.
Da jump is a great ability. Literally any psyker would take this ability as auto include out of 2 choices - that makes it one of the best powers in the game. That is part of the reason.
When objectives are scored is another reason. You have to overtake in melee to score the objective...
9th edition to me plays like WW1 trench battles where you reward the side which sacrifices the most troops to take meaningless ground they have no chance of holding. Orks are pretty good at that because #1 they can hold large units back and hold their base objectives and then in 1 turn they can shunt a big unit to the weak flank with a realistic chance of charging too and be put in position to score.



How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:05:32


Post by: Jidmah


Xeno, as always your insights on ork strategy are as hilarious as they are incorrect.

Only the two oldest lists out of those five top placing armies actually brought a weird boy, one buggy list and one tide, both placed at the same event.

On top of that, two of the buggy lists actually brought 0 units of troops.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:30:42


Post by: tulun


Da jump is way less relevant on smaller boards where it’s not that difficult to screen out deep strikers, especially large squads like boys.

It’s great to see orks placing with both green tide and mech but I think it’s unlikely Orks are a high or top tier army. Mid tier can still win. Hell, there is a necron player who is crushing with his current “low tier” codex.

Once all of these melta changes come into place I expect buggy lists with show up less.

Edit: If people also decide to gear up to kill hordes more, green tide lists will also disappear. Killing 30-60 boys a round is trivial to a lot of armies. Green tide benefits from the fact that several of the scariest armies (Custodes, Marines, Death Guard, Admech) are all quite resilient.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:38:51


Post by: Breton


 Dysartes wrote:
Breton wrote:
The Gladiator Tanks and Speeders could have a huge impact but we haven’t seen a data sheet yet.


We have seen a datasheet for one of the Storm Speeders, during the Codex preview - and it led to many complaints from Eldar & Dark Eldar players regarding its speed.
. We’ve seen part of it. No points cost tho. We need to see em all and how it shakes out to know what the meta even is.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:38:52


Post by: Xenomancers


tulun wrote:
Da jump is way less relevant on smaller boards where it’s not that difficult to screen out deep strikers, especially large squads like boys.

It’s great to see orks placing with both green tide and mech but I think it’s unlikely Orks are a high or top tier army. Mid tier can still win. Hell, there is a necron player who is crushing with his current “low tier” codex.

Once all of these melta changes come into place I expect buggy lists with show up less.

Edit: If people also decide to gear up to kill hordes more, green tide lists will also disappear. Killing 30-60 boys a round is trivial to a lot of armies. Green tide benefits from the fact that several of the scariest armies (Custodes, Marines, Death Guard, Admech) are all quite resilient.
Intersting...why take it then? If it's so bad.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:48:02


Post by: tulun


 Xenomancers wrote:
tulun wrote:
Da jump is way less relevant on smaller boards where it’s not that difficult to screen out deep strikers, especially large squads like boys.

It’s great to see orks placing with both green tide and mech but I think it’s unlikely Orks are a high or top tier army. Mid tier can still win. Hell, there is a necron player who is crushing with his current “low tier” codex.

Once all of these melta changes come into place I expect buggy lists with show up less.

Edit: If people also decide to gear up to kill hordes more, green tide lists will also disappear. Killing 30-60 boys a round is trivial to a lot of armies. Green tide benefits from the fact that several of the scariest armies (Custodes, Marines, Death Guard, Admech) are all quite resilient.
Intersting...why take it then? If it's so bad.


I don't generally take weirdboys.

Da Jump is a fine power, but we don't have 5 man strike squads and gak that unload a bunch of firepower. Different armies benefit differently from the same power, you see. I can just infiltrate kommandos if I want small units to show up somewhere for 45 or 55 points on an uncompetitive slot.

HQ slots are preciously few for Orks.

As a caveat -- it's why Blood Axes fallback and shoot or charge is absolutely garbage on Orks, but is insane on other armies.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:48:33


Post by: Xenomancers


 Jidmah wrote:
Xeno, as always your insights on ork strategy are as hilarious as they are incorrect.

Only the two oldest lists out of those five top placing armies actually brought a weird boy, one buggy list and one tide, both placed at the same event.

On top of that, two of the buggy lists actually brought 0 units of troops.
Yikes dude...obviously there is more than one type of ork list winning. That is how this one does it. Buggy list doesn't need a weird boy...why? Becuase not only can 1 of the popular buggies DA JUMP itself. Buggies are fast on their own and can get accross the table on their own. The key to this edition is overloading an objective with melee because you cant shoot things off and get onto the objective afterwards and with the game being a turn shorter...you have to get onto that objective now. Nothing I stated is incorrect.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:49:54


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Xenomancers wrote:
tulun wrote:
Da jump is way less relevant on smaller boards where it’s not that difficult to screen out deep strikers, especially large squads like boys.

It’s great to see orks placing with both green tide and mech but I think it’s unlikely Orks are a high or top tier army. Mid tier can still win. Hell, there is a necron player who is crushing with his current “low tier” codex.

Once all of these melta changes come into place I expect buggy lists with show up less.

Edit: If people also decide to gear up to kill hordes more, green tide lists will also disappear. Killing 30-60 boys a round is trivial to a lot of armies. Green tide benefits from the fact that several of the scariest armies (Custodes, Marines, Death Guard, Admech) are all quite resilient.
Interesting...why take it then? If it's so bad.


honestly da jump imo is most useful late game to send something scary up the board to deal with a problem. if your opponent was silly enough to leave you a place to drop 29 boyz and a nob... great but they are rarely so polite. but if i run up clear most of a tabel quarter but they have an objective there and a unit or 2 nearby ... da jump a group of 3 meganobz there and ... well meganobz start byy holding my own objectives with grots out of line of sight of most thigns but also denying deep strike, then grots move up late game to take the objective and the meganobz go to work. assumign skorchas get the 12 inch flamers too then here comes 3 skorchas in the party to fire at one target before charging with ere we go honestly there is not much in the game that doesn't fear a group of meganobz materializing in thier back lines and charging... other than tau who kill them in overwatch without any problem.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 15:58:45


Post by: Xenomancers


tulun wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
tulun wrote:
Da jump is way less relevant on smaller boards where it’s not that difficult to screen out deep strikers, especially large squads like boys.

It’s great to see orks placing with both green tide and mech but I think it’s unlikely Orks are a high or top tier army. Mid tier can still win. Hell, there is a necron player who is crushing with his current “low tier” codex.

Once all of these melta changes come into place I expect buggy lists with show up less.

Edit: If people also decide to gear up to kill hordes more, green tide lists will also disappear. Killing 30-60 boys a round is trivial to a lot of armies. Green tide benefits from the fact that several of the scariest armies (Custodes, Marines, Death Guard, Admech) are all quite resilient.
Intersting...why take it then? If it's so bad.


I don't generally take weirdboys.

Da Jump is a fine power, but we don't have 5 man strike squads and gak that unload a bunch of firepower. Different armies benefit differently from the same power, you see. I can just infiltrate kommandos if I want small units to show up somewhere for 45 or 55 points on an uncompetitive slot.

HQ slots are preciously few for Orks.

As a caveat -- it's why Blood Axes fallback and shoot or charge is absolutely garbage on Orks, but is insane on other armies.
Da Jump is for 30 man boys or gazz. Not that commandos are bad...you just are limitied to 10 rather than 30...can't be scar boys. Plus they can't DS turn 1. GK have GOI as well. Also autotake. Could take same stratagey work for GK? Doubtful. With strike squads at 2 wounds...probably. Strikes can DS naturally anyways - still - a GK player would never not take GOI. Teleporting objective secured melee units to the objective you want to take is gonna be pretty effective this edition.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 16:05:08


Post by: tulun


Few things:

1) Ghaz can't Da Jump. He's not infantry.

2) Kommandos are 5-15. They deep strike for free.

3) Risking Skar Boys on a roughly 50/50 charge chance turn 1 is a great way to lose 250 points of your army for nothing. They aren't evil suns, they don't have any way to get a +1 to charge. Also, most armies screen their stuff out... like, rather easily. Especially when we've lost like 20% of board area.

You might not really know the army to comment, mate.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 16:44:16


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:

A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


It doesn't sound like that one guy had trouble killing. Not all his games were perfect and he struggled to connect against the Custodes.

His turn 1 shooting saw the majority of a boyz squad get obliterated (UM Aggressors, ouch). To speed through the next 2 turns, I was able to kill the Invictors, Inceptors, Aggressors and the majority of his characters. An Invictor died to a tankbusta bomb, exploded and shaved off Ghaz’s last 4 wounds
At the end of my turn 2, only the 2 wound Invictor, the 2 Sang Guard and 3 characters remain of the Blood Angels forces. I tabled him turn 3.
At the end of my turn 2 only the Culexus, some rangers, and the Captain hanging out with my Meganobz are left. The game more or less ends after that, just clean up.




How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 16:59:14


Post by: blaktoof


 Void__Dragon wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


It's weird, I thought the definition of "consistent" was doing well, MANY TIMES, not "on average not doing very well, but doing extremely well a few times" which is what we are currently seeing with orks.

7 Ork armies in total in tournaments considered by Goonhammer, with 4 doing very well, and 3 doing extremely poorly. Doesn't seem like "consistency".


Your seven army figure is from an article that is almost a month old. Since then Orks have had even more success.

Are they overpowered or top tier? No, probably not. I think they're worse than Marines, Custodes, and Harlequins, and possibly worse than Chaos armies leaning heavily into Nurgle (Death Guard or otherwise).

But this whiny bs about how an army that has placed highly on several occasions while leaning into different units depending on the list since ninth edition started and continue to do so is actually bad is nonsense.

Genestealer Cults are actually awful, and you might notice haven't placed on gak yet. In fact, in the stats you referenced IIRC they weren't even played a single time!


Hard to comment on GSC being awful when by your own omission they aren't played within the stats referenced. On paper GSC should be really good in this edition, just a lot of people that played them are butt hurt that aberrants went up in points and can't get a guaranteed 100% charge off when they come in from reinforcements. The ability to drop 100+ bodies in the middle of the table and basically blank out 20% of your opponents shooting during the game are really powerful.

That aside ork lists placing highly have a few builds, but are usually based on being able to grab primaries and secondaries early on hold them for 2-3 turns.

Most of the non marine armies that are placing well have similiar builds.

The marine armies which are placing high tend to also be builds which can go to the middle of the table early and hold things.

In general builds that are highly shooty, aren't placing well- because the tend to play in a manner where the opponent can take objectives early, the shooty lists kills models as it moves up but still doesn't get on objectives, opponent then reclaims objectives, and the shooty list moves up shoots again clearing some of the objectives again but doesn't really get onto them until turn 4-5 at which point they can't score enough points. A lot of marine players are still playing the game like its 8th edition and they can just shoot their opponent off the table to victory.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 17:37:03


Post by: Xenomancers


blaktoof wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
Lot of delusional people desperately trying to come up with excuses for why orks are nearly consistently placing in top tables.


It's weird, I thought the definition of "consistent" was doing well, MANY TIMES, not "on average not doing very well, but doing extremely well a few times" which is what we are currently seeing with orks.

7 Ork armies in total in tournaments considered by Goonhammer, with 4 doing very well, and 3 doing extremely poorly. Doesn't seem like "consistency".


Your seven army figure is from an article that is almost a month old. Since then Orks have had even more success.

Are they overpowered or top tier? No, probably not. I think they're worse than Marines, Custodes, and Harlequins, and possibly worse than Chaos armies leaning heavily into Nurgle (Death Guard or otherwise).

But this whiny bs about how an army that has placed highly on several occasions while leaning into different units depending on the list since ninth edition started and continue to do so is actually bad is nonsense.

Genestealer Cults are actually awful, and you might notice haven't placed on gak yet. In fact, in the stats you referenced IIRC they weren't even played a single time!


Hard to comment on GSC being awful when by your own omission they aren't played within the stats referenced. On paper GSC should be really good in this edition, just a lot of people that played them are butt hurt that aberrants went up in points and can't get a guaranteed 100% charge off when they come in from reinforcements. The ability to drop 100+ bodies in the middle of the table and basically blank out 20% of your opponents shooting during the game are really powerful.

That aside ork lists placing highly have a few builds, but are usually based on being able to grab primaries and secondaries early on hold them for 2-3 turns.

Most of the non marine armies that are placing well have similiar builds.

The marine armies which are placing high tend to also be builds which can go to the middle of the table early and hold things.

In general builds that are highly shooty, aren't placing well- because the tend to play in a manner where the opponent can take objectives early, the shooty lists kills models as it moves up but still doesn't get on objectives, opponent then reclaims objectives, and the shooty list moves up shoots again clearing some of the objectives again but doesn't really get onto them until turn 4-5 at which point they can't score enough points. A lot of marine players are still playing the game like its 8th edition and they can just shoot their opponent off the table to victory.
Reminds me of the first game I played in 9th were I lost literally 1 intercessor the entire game but lost on objectives. I didn't move out early enough...thing is though - walking into close combat units is antithetical strategy. Good general are going to lose the game because it is too short. Players have figured out pretty quick. shooting units have been made pretty useless.

Cant shoot through walls but you can walk through them...
Cant shoot and claim but you can assault and claim...
Winning war of attrition is basically meaningless (actual generalship not rewarded)...Only thing that matters is board control.

This version of the game really reminds me of shadespire. Which while fun I always had the complaint the game is over to quick. The game going strategy that always worked for my buddy was to ignore killing entirely and just score his objective cards. I went at the game trying to kill his units (granted I stacked the deck with those objectives) and basically always lost. Ofc that game is also about who has the most OP cards in their deck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


It doesn't sound like that one guy had trouble killing. Not all his games were perfect and he struggled to connect against the Custodes.

His turn 1 shooting saw the majority of a boyz squad get obliterated (UM Aggressors, ouch). To speed through the next 2 turns, I was able to kill the Invictors, Inceptors, Aggressors and the majority of his characters. An Invictor died to a tankbusta bomb, exploded and shaved off Ghaz’s last 4 wounds
At the end of my turn 2, only the 2 wound Invictor, the 2 Sang Guard and 3 characters remain of the Blood Angels forces. I tabled him turn 3.
At the end of my turn 2 only the Culexus, some rangers, and the Captain hanging out with my Meganobz are left. The game more or less ends after that, just clean up.


Boys are gonna kill pretty much anything they come in contact with that doesn't have a 2+ save. Even those can be overwhelmed with like...120 attacks at str 5. Killing power is there. You just have to get it into melee. If opponent has to come to the middle of the table that is incredibly easy and if there is a giant wall in the middle of the table...just forget about it.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 18:15:57


Post by: Jidmah


 Xenomancers wrote:
Yikes dude...obviously there is more than one type of ork list winning. That is how this one does it. Buggy list doesn't need a weird boy...why? Becuase not only can 1 of the popular buggies DA JUMP itself. Buggies are fast on their own and can get accross the table on their own. The key to this edition is overloading an objective with melee because you cant shoot things off and get onto the objective afterwards and with the game being a turn shorter...you have to get onto that objective now. Nothing I stated is incorrect.


The hilarious part is that you could just look at the lists which all have been linked in this thread instead of doubling down on your baseless opinion and producing even more incorrect nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


It doesn't sound like that one guy had trouble killing. Not all his games were perfect and he struggled to connect against the Custodes.

His turn 1 shooting saw the majority of a boyz squad get obliterated (UM Aggressors, ouch). To speed through the next 2 turns, I was able to kill the Invictors, Inceptors, Aggressors and the majority of his characters. An Invictor died to a tankbusta bomb, exploded and shaved off Ghaz’s last 4 wounds
At the end of my turn 2, only the 2 wound Invictor, the 2 Sang Guard and 3 characters remain of the Blood Angels forces. I tabled him turn 3.
At the end of my turn 2 only the Culexus, some rangers, and the Captain hanging out with my Meganobz are left. The game more or less ends after that, just clean up.




True, he was running all goff scarboyz though, which are on a completely different level than ES or deff skulls boyz we were seeing so far and they can get +1A and re-rolls from Thrakka to hit even harder.
That said, from a purely logistic point of view, it's unlikely that more than two mobs were fighting at a time, so the tedious issue of moving over a hundred models up to four times per turn (move, charge, pile-in, consolidate) remains. The army is simply hell to play and he has my highest respects for going through that all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Boys are gonna kill pretty much anything they come in contact with that doesn't have a 2+ save. Even those can be overwhelmed with like...120 attacks at str 5. Killing power is there. You just have to get it into melee. If opponent has to come to the middle of the table that is incredibly easy and if there is a giant wall in the middle of the table...just forget about it.

Boyz don't get to make 120 attacks.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 18:34:02


Post by: Xenomancers


Its simple math. boys have 2 attacks 3 with choppas and 4 with gaz. 30x4 = 120. str 5 if they are scar boys. They could also get +1 attack from banner as well. True their is a nob in there - but that is just more attacks - I am generalizing.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/17 19:25:11


Post by: SemperMortis


 Xenomancers wrote:
Its simple math. boys have 2 attacks 3 with choppas and 4 with gaz. 30x4 = 120. str 5 if they are scar boys. They could also get +1 attack from banner as well. True their is a nob in there - but that is just more attacks - I am generalizing.


2 base, +1 for choppa, +1 for 20+ Models, +1 for ghaz = 5 attacks each, 150 attacks at Str 5 ONLY if they paid for the CP upgrade. Even then you will never get more than 20ish into combat, so 100 attacks at most, You could buff them with Warpath from a weirdboy for another 20 attacks. Regardless, its not very useful and at the end of the day, even if you got the most amazing buffs, 180 attacks. Against T5 3 wound Primaris it works out to almost 7 dead Primaris Marines. All for the low low cost of 240pts for the boyz, 75pts for a weirdboy and another 300pts for Ghaz.

So over 600pts of boyz and buffs is able to kill slightly less than 7 Primaris marines...amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the flip side, if I took 600pts worth of Smasha gunz I would get 30 shots (36 with dakka) for 18 hits wounding on 5+ (2D6) = 15 wounds at -4AP, inflicting D6 dmg each = 15 Dead Primaris realistically with overkill and under kill, probably 10. But still a feth load better


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 04:34:36


Post by: Jidmah


 Xenomancers wrote:
Its simple math. boys have 2 attacks 3 with choppas and 4 with gaz. 30x4 = 120. str 5 if they are scar boys. They could also get +1 attack from banner as well. True their is a nob in there - but that is just more attacks - I am generalizing.


Uh-huh. That's a beautiful theory from someone who has never played boyz even a once, but there are rules which limit who can make attacks and there are new coherency rules which limit where models can go. You usually have no more than 10-12 boyz making attacks, especially when arriving from deep strike as you keep advertising.
I think the highest number of attacking models in a unit I had so far in 9th was 18, and that was a mob fully surrounding a strung out unit of 5 terminators, after a 10" charge from 4" away.

Oh, and the banners don't give extra attacks, just to add to the list of things you are wrong about.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 04:49:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


So we all understand this thread is a joke right? The OP is trying to define the performance of an entire codex based on one tournament result! Like, can I find one tournament where my army did badly and declare that the codex sucks?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Its simple math. boys have 2 attacks 3 with choppas and 4 with gaz. 30x4 = 120. str 5 if they are scar boys. They could also get +1 attack from banner as well. True their is a nob in there - but that is just more attacks - I am generalizing.


Uh-huh. That's a beautiful theory from someone who has never played boyz even a once, but there are rules which limit who can make attacks and there are new coherency rules which limit where models can go. You usually have no more than 10-12 boyz making attacks, especially when arriving from deep strike as you keep advertising.
I think the highest number of attacking models in a unit I had so far in 9th was 18, and that was a mob fully surrounding a strung out unit of 5 terminators, after a 10" charge from 4" away.

Oh, and the banners don't give extra attacks, just to add to the list of things you are wrong about.
I have told the story before; Xeno once declared that plants breathe in through their roots and out through their leaves, and boldly corrected those who attempted to explain otherwise. Just to warn you about the level of discussion you are wading into.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 07:04:31


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
When green tides become the only competitive build for orks, everyone loses. It's usually a sign of a highly unhealthy meta where infantry skew manages to eek out wins because everyone is gearing towards another big bad.

Most ork players don't enjoy playing green tide lists, especially not at tournaments. Moving and transporting that amount of models is cumbersome, especially when you move, charge and pile-in 30 models to kill one and a half primaris marines.
A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


That is true for any type of skew that suddendly places top, the same can be said when mono knights sit in the top bracket aswell, allbeit it is a less time consuming army.





How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 07:20:10


Post by: Blackie


But really, what Jidmah said is true, boyz typically fight with less than 15 models, even if their 30 man mob never suffered a single wound before.

It's 40-60 attacks typically for a full mob, definitely not 120 or 150.

Yeah close combat isn't shooting where the entire unit can make all its attacks.

And people that are used to play armies with 3-10 man squads really need to try something that relies on 20-30 man melee oriented mobs instead of theoryhammering without any real experience.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 07:53:07


Post by: Jidmah


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
When green tides become the only competitive build for orks, everyone loses. It's usually a sign of a highly unhealthy meta where infantry skew manages to eek out wins because everyone is gearing towards another big bad.

Most ork players don't enjoy playing green tide lists, especially not at tournaments. Moving and transporting that amount of models is cumbersome, especially when you move, charge and pile-in 30 models to kill one and a half primaris marines.
A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


That is true for any type of skew that suddendly places top, the same can be said when mono knights sit in the top bracket aswell, allbeit it is a less time consuming army.


Nah, it's the other way around. The green tide isn't actually all that powerful and hasn't ever been. It's just when the meta tilts heavily in one direction, like it did with space marines 2.0 or the early knight meta, people start focusing heavily on beating those kinds of lists at which point they lack the tools to beat the tide. For example when nurgle hordes, poxwalker farms and similar armies were all the rage, the green tide actually did rather poorly, and the same was the case when gulliman castles or do-everything-twice Ynnari were on an about, because those had not issues clearing out large amounts of infantry models.

It's also important to note that this currently does not seem to be the problem. The ork lists are pretty varied, even the tide and buggy lists among themselves look vastly different.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 08:27:39


Post by: vict0988


Orks have a 67% win-rate in 9th tournament stats recorded on 40kstats, that's close to Salamanders, the best SM chapter (it might be as low as 59% I'm not sure how the numbers are different between faction vs faction and subfaction results). Goffs have an 80% win-rate, which is kind of absurd, but not necessarily representative and the breadth of lists that have topped for Orks makes it hard to pinpoint exactly what does and does not need a nerf and a buff.

My gut feeling is that Gretchin need a buff, but if they get any more top placings then that won't be something I can justify any longer, my gut still says that it was just bad list builders playing their army well that led Gretchin to feature in top 4s. The Burna Bommer Strat seems an obvious target for a nerf, but Burna Bommers don't actually feature in a majority of top Orks lists. Not even Boyz, Warbosses or Thraka consistently show up, although I think Thraka might need to go up by 10 pts, surprising given how small of a buff he got from 8th -> 9th, maybe that guy who said Thraka was the most OP unit in 8th because he can survive a titan shooting at him was right

The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested. But it features in 100% of top lists and probably around 90% of lists overall and it is obviously crazy. That alone will probably impact Ork win-rates, other than that I think some units might need tiny nerfs of 5ish % pts increase in order to put Orks in a healthier place. I am certainly very surprised with how well Ork players have handled the new edition, kudos to the players with the cajones to ignore the nay-sayers, especially the ones that brought 5 pt Gretchin and got top 4.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 08:29:02


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
When green tides become the only competitive build for orks, everyone loses. It's usually a sign of a highly unhealthy meta where infantry skew manages to eek out wins because everyone is gearing towards another big bad.

Most ork players don't enjoy playing green tide lists, especially not at tournaments. Moving and transporting that amount of models is cumbersome, especially when you move, charge and pile-in 30 models to kill one and a half primaris marines.
A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


That is true for any type of skew that suddendly places top, the same can be said when mono knights sit in the top bracket aswell, allbeit it is a less time consuming army.


Nah, it's the other way around. The green tide isn't actually all that powerful and hasn't ever been. It's just when the meta tilts heavily in one direction, like it did with space marines 2.0 or the early knight meta, people start focusing heavily on beating those kinds of lists at which point they lack the tools to beat the tide. For example when nurgle hordes, poxwalker farms and similar armies were all the rage, the green tide actually did rather poorly, and the same was the case when gulliman castles or do-everything-twice Ynnari were on an about, because those had not issues clearing out large amounts of infantry models.

It's also important to note that this currently does not seem to be the problem. The ork lists are pretty varied, even the tide and buggy lists among themselves look vastly different.

I agree, but i mean in general the concept of any Skew profiting off the "big bad" meta and placing top, is an issue, regarldess how the skew looks or plays.,


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 08:57:07


Post by: Blackie


 vict0988 wrote:


The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested.


Warboss with killa klaw is on par with SM captain with TH, except the latter can also take jump packs to be mobile, deepstrike and assault flyers. I really don't see anything overpowered here, with the melee oriented commander getting a damage 3 close combat weapon which is allowed on one model only; if anything it's the standard power klaw and killsaw that should be buffed to be at least flat 3 damage now that thunder hammers are flat 4, and other relics to be buffed. Killa Klaw is litterally the only relic worth taking in the entire codex, again we're not SM that have tons of them.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 08:58:30


Post by: vict0988


 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:


The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested.


Warboss with killa klaw is on par with SM captain with TH, except the latter can also take jump packs to be mobile, deepstrike and assault flyers. I really don't see anything overpowered here, with the melee oriented commander getting a damage 3 close combat weapon which is allowed on one model only; if anything it's the standard power klaw and killsaw that should be buffed to be at least flat 3 damage now that thunder hammers are flat 4, and other relics to be buffed. Killa Klaw is litterally the only relic worth taking in the entire codex, again we're not SM that have tons of them.

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 09:21:50


Post by: Blackie


 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


No, TH costs 15, 40 only on characters. It is possible to spam multiple damage 4 melee weapons for SM, killa klaw is only a single relic and only works on a 5'' M dude. Any ork player will be happy to get rid of the killa klaw if the army gets a thunder hammer equivalent for 15/40 points just like SM. Spamming powerful melee weapons across multiple units is way more effective than bringing a single footslogging melee specialist character and it was a thing for any ork army pre-8th edition.

And again, for the 100th time, we're not SM so give us 10ish good relics and we would be cool about the eventual nerf of the killa klaw.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 09:35:50


Post by: vict0988


 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


No, TH costs 15, 40 only on characters. It is possible to spam multiple damage 4 melee weapons for SM, killa klaw is only a single relic and only works on a 5'' M dude. Any ork player will be happy to get rid of the killa klaw if the army gets a thunder hammer equivalent for 15/40 points just like SM. Spamming powerful melee weapons across multiple units is way more effective than bringing a single footslogging melee specialist character and it was a thing for any ork army pre-8th edition.

And again, for the 100th time, we're not SM so give us 10ish good relics and we would be cool about the eventual nerf of the killa klaw.

Do you mean 10 relics like Drake Smiter? The thunder hammer relic that adds less than 1 to damage on average and -1 AP but doesn't add +1 to hit and doesn't let you re-roll wounds? Orks have a high win-rate the only thing that appears in every Ork list is Da Killa Klaw, I don't give a crap if they have any good relics, overpowered things need to be nerfed. Da Lucky Stick is good, Da Fixer Upperz, Buzzbomb and Dead Shiny Shoota are decent, remember relics are supposed to be worth no more than 2CP at the absolute most and Da Killa Klaw is easily worth that much. The old arguement for needing the Da Killa Klaw was that it was a needed crutch because Ork win rates were low and you didn't want to lose your crutch before knowing you would get a replacement, now Orks don't need a crutch, they have a high win-rate, it's time to walk without your crutch. I don't care if you feel like power klaws should be 3 damage and 20 pts, they're D3 damage and 10 pts.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 09:49:05


Post by: Jidmah


 vict0988 wrote:
Orks have a 67% win-rate in 9th tournament stats recorded on 40kstats, that's close to Salamanders, the best SM chapter (it might be as low as 59% I'm not sure how the numbers are different between faction vs faction and subfaction results). Goffs have an 80% win-rate, which is kind of absurd, but not necessarily representative and the breadth of lists that have topped for Orks makes it hard to pinpoint exactly what does and does not need a nerf and a buff.

I'd like to point out that 40k stats has all of 8 events on record and 9 ork lists. These numbers are all but meaningless.

My gut feeling is that Gretchin need a buff, but if they get any more top placings then that won't be something I can justify any longer, my gut still says that it was just bad list builders playing their army well that led Gretchin to feature in top 4s. The Burna Bommer Strat seems an obvious target for a nerf, but Burna Bommers don't actually feature in a majority of top Orks lists. Not even Boyz, Warbosses or Thraka consistently show up, although I think Thraka might need to go up by 10 pts, surprising given how small of a buff he got from 8th -> 9th, maybe that guy who said Thraka was the most OP unit in 8th because he can survive a titan shooting at him was right

Relevant numbers:
2 armies out of 5 brought gretchin. One as tax for a battalion, one as tax for a patrol to get a 4th HQ.
1 armies out of 5 brought Burna bommers
3 armies out of 5 brought Thrakka

So what exactly are you basing these "obvious" problems on? I hope not on the gak that youtubers who have no clue about orks keep spewing out into the world. Almost all players doing well with orks right now are ones who also had top 4 placements during 8th, so it's not like a sudden power spike is launching them to levels where they shouldn't be.

The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested. But it features in 100% of top lists and probably around 90% of lists overall and it is obviously crazy.

What other relics do you suggest orks should take? What other HQ should we bring? Ever thought about that? The main reason why killa klaw bosses show up because there are few alternatives for both HQ and relic choices. The killa klaw merely put a warboss on the same level as captains and daemon princes, and it's bad enough that we need a relic and a stratagem to make them useful at all.
I'd also like to point out that damning all criticism of your interpretation of highly unreliable numbers as "whine and scream" in advance doesn't shine a good light on you or your argument.

That alone will probably impact Ork win-rates, other than that I think some units might need tiny nerfs of 5ish % pts increase in order to put Orks in a healthier place. I am certainly very surprised with how well Ork players have handled the new edition, kudos to the players with the cajones to ignore the nay-sayers, especially the ones that brought 5 pt Gretchin and got top 4.

As above, almost all of them have already done well with orks and never left them. People trying to jump onto the ork bandwagon tend to fail horribly with them - see Nick Nanavati. His best placement with them was 10th place despite ork veterans doing well at the same time and him immediately going back to topping tournaments after dropping them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
Orks have a high win-rate the only thing that appears in every Ork list is Da Killa Klaw, I don't give a crap if they have any good relics, overpowered things need to be nerfed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
You really need to chill here. If you have a reason to believe that a killa klaw warboss is OP, we can discuss that, but "all orks are bringing the only viable relic in the entire book" is hardly it.

Da Lucky Stick is good

Not, it's a terrible relic in a clan that doesn't need it. It provides +1 hit aura to CHARACTERs only and is clan-locked to GOFF. All characters that could take it either have no business being in combat or gain no benefit from it like Thrakka himself or the banner nob.

Da Fixer Upperz

Actually a decent one, but only if you are bringing vehicles in the first place and it only makes sense on the wartrike. Also clan-locked.

Buzzbomb

Clan-locked into an otherwise completely worthless clan.

Dead Shiny Shoota are decent

Besides only being usable by a warboss and the massively overcosted banner nob, do you really think 2 S4 hits on average at 18" is decent? Would you pay 2 CP to shoot with three intercessors?

I don't care if you feel like power klaws should be 3 damage and 20 pts, they're D3 damage and 10 pts.

Well, if you don't care, why are you raging about it?
I suggest taking a cold shower and getting some sleep.

Afterwards, how about bringing some arguments besides "I don't care".


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 10:21:13


Post by: vict0988


 Jidmah wrote:
Relevant numbers:
2 armies out of 5 brought gretchin. One as tax for a battalion, one as tax for a patrol to get a 4th HQ.
1 armies out of 5 brought Burna bommers
3 armies out of 5 brought Thrakka

So what exactly are you basing these "obvious" problems on? I hope not on the gak that youtubers who have no clue about orks keep spewing out into the world. Almost all players doing well with orks right now are ones who also had top 4 placements during 8th, so it's not like a sudden power spike is launching them to levels where they shouldn't be.

Didn't I say that the solutions weren't obvious? I said that the Burna Bommer Strat seemed obvious until you look at how little it featured in tournament topping lists, you posting relevant numbers I already read makes no sense. Do you think Orks should have a win rate over 60%? That's just how much better the players are than the rest of the field? How about Necron players, are they just bad? How many lists with a 60% win rate using Da Killa Klaw do we need before you agree that it should be nerfed?

I predicted what I see. Nothing will convince Ork players that Da KIlla Klaw needs a nerf, it's your holiest relic, the object of your worship. Someone brought it on a MA Big Mek, ever heard of someone bringing a relic weapon on anything but their most bad-ass character? Imagine Astra Militarum putting a relic sword on a Platoon Commander because they just needed to include that relic but didn't feel like taking a Company Commander. I care because I think 40k should be as fair as the writers can make it, Da Killa Klaw is obviously unfair compared to the majority of relics in the game, Orks are doing well in tournaments and Da Killa Klaw is the only obvious way to bring down Orks in a fair manner. I think you need to stop worshipping Da Killa Klaw and take a bubble bath.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 10:30:10


Post by: Jidmah


 vict0988 wrote:
Do you think Orks should have a win rate over 60%? That's just how much better the players are than the rest of the field? How about Necron players, are they just bad?

No I think they shouldn't. But I know that 8 events are not enough to draw conclusions. Might as well ask 8x4 people on the street who they are going to vote for and draw conclusions from that.
How many lists with a 60% win rate using Da Killa Klaw do we need before you agree that it should be nerfed?

Actually, I think that even deleting the killa klaw would have zero impact on the performance of these lists. Warbosses would simply disappear and people would bring something else instead.
I predicted what I see. Nothing will convince Ork players that Da KIlla Klaw needs a nerf, it's your holiest relic, the object of your worship.

You are exclusively using ad hominem attacks to prove your point. So In a manner, you are correct. You have brought absolutely nothing to the discussion and this nothing you brought does, in fact, not convince me.
Someone brought it on a MA Big Mek, ever heard of someone bringing a relic weapon on anything but their most bad-ass character? Imagine Astra Militarum putting a relic sword on a Platoon Commander because they just needed to include that relic but didn't feel like taking a Company Commander.

You do realize that this MA Big Mek was upgraded into a MA warboss because their most bad-ass character was Thrakka who can't take relics, right?
Do you know what's more badass than a MA big mek with da cleverest boss in a list that has Thrakka in it?
Nothing.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 10:38:32


Post by: Blackie


 vict0988 wrote:

Do you mean 10 relics like Drake Smiter? The thunder hammer relic that adds less than 1 to damage on average and -1 AP but doesn't add +1 to hit and doesn't let you re-roll wounds? Orks have a high win-rate the only thing that appears in every Ork list is Da Killa Klaw, I don't give a crap if they have any good relics, overpowered things need to be nerfed. Da Lucky Stick is good, Da Fixer Upperz, Buzzbomb and Dead Shiny Shoota are decent, remember relics are supposed to be worth no more than 2CP at the absolute most and Da Killa Klaw is easily worth that much. The old arguement for needing the Da Killa Klaw was that it was a needed crutch because Ork win rates were low and you didn't want to lose your crutch before knowing you would get a replacement, now Orks don't need a crutch, they have a high win-rate, it's time to walk without your crutch. I don't care if you feel like power klaws should be 3 damage and 20 pts, they're D3 damage and 10 pts.


Aaaaah the old argument "They're have a high winning rate in tournaments, nerf them!!!". Orks aren't top tier, regardless of what data you may have. Tournament lists don't always reflect the real state of 40k.

Not to mention that the killa klaw has actually little impact on these tournament lists, they placed for other reasons. One is that many players still need to adapt their lists to 9th edition, and get familiar with the new combos, while orks didn't need to change much from previous builds.

And by your logic I don't care if you feel like the Killa Klaw is overpowered, it's +1 dmg and re-rolling wounds.

Let's not even start with the "overpowered things need to be nerfed" or half the SM codex will suddenly disappear


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:
Da Killa Klaw is obviously unfair compared to the majority of relics in the game


And most of ork weapons, both shooting and melee oriented, are obviously unfair (in the sense that they're flat out inferior) compared to the majority of their equivalent weapons in the game.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 14:06:36


Post by: Daedalus81


 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


I get your point, but you pay CP for what a relic does - not points. We can't assume all Character PKs will be DKK and charge 40 points for it. The base PK is nowhere near a TH.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 15:53:51


Post by: vict0988


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


I get your point, but you pay CP for what a relic does - not points. We can't assume all Character PKs will be DKK and charge 40 points for it. The base PK is nowhere near a TH.

My point is that the buff DKK provides should not be vastly larger than its cost and since relics have no balance levers other than rules that is what has to be changed. We cannot increase the pts or CP cost of the relic so the magnitude or number of buffs needs to shrink.
 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Do you mean 10 relics like Drake Smiter? The thunder hammer relic that adds less than 1 to damage on average and -1 AP but doesn't add +1 to hit and doesn't let you re-roll wounds? Orks have a high win-rate the only thing that appears in every Ork list is Da Killa Klaw, I don't give a crap if they have any good relics, overpowered things need to be nerfed. Da Lucky Stick is good, Da Fixer Upperz, Buzzbomb and Dead Shiny Shoota are decent, remember relics are supposed to be worth no more than 2CP at the absolute most and Da Killa Klaw is easily worth that much. The old arguement for needing the Da Killa Klaw was that it was a needed crutch because Ork win rates were low and you didn't want to lose your crutch before knowing you would get a replacement, now Orks don't need a crutch, they have a high win-rate, it's time to walk without your crutch. I don't care if you feel like power klaws should be 3 damage and 20 pts, they're D3 damage and 10 pts.


Aaaaah the old argument "They're have a high winning rate in tournaments, nerf them!!!". Orks aren't top tier, regardless of what data you may have. Tournament lists don't always reflect the real state of 40k.

Who gets to determine when Orks are or are not top tier? The Ork players of Dakka? I think I read someone saying that we cannot trust the more or less pro 40k players say in their podcasts, although I haven't heard anyone of them saying Orks were OP.

And by your logic I don't care if you feel like the Killa Klaw is overpowered, it's +1 dmg and re-rolling wounds.

What I don't care about is what you feel is cool or fluffy, what matters is whether it is OP. You also forgot the +1 to hit modifier DKK provides when compared to similar pieces of wargear. I know you like it when your Warboss deals tonnes of damage and you feel that is how the world should be for every Warboss and not just one with DKK, but all of that doesn't change the facts of DKK being overrepresented in competitive lists and it providing an overly large amount of buffs when compared to other relics.

Let's not even start with the "overpowered things need to be nerfed" or half the SM codex will suddenly disappear

They wouldn't disappear, they'd just cost more pts. Anyone who argued the Ironstone did not need a nerf must have been missing more than half their brain, now it's Orks' turn because their win rate is high enough to justify a nerf, DKK needs a nerf and is the only thing we see in every top Ork list. There are also still some SM relics and WL traits that need nerfs, but the Seal of Oath UM successor relic is for a legion that doesn't currently need a nerf, when the legion does need a nerf I will advocate for Seal of Oath to get nerfed. When Necrons start doing better with infantry based lists you can sign me up for the hate letter for Veil of Darkness, yes it feels good to use Veil of Darkness, but that should not put it into a protected class and if Veil of Darkness is the only constant factor in all top-performing and overperforming Necron lists then it will need to be nerfed.

 vict0988 wrote:
Da Killa Klaw is obviously unfair compared to the majority of relics in the game


And most of ork weapons, both shooting and melee oriented, are obviously unfair (in the sense that they're flat out inferior) compared to the majority of their equivalent weapons in the game.

How are big choppas inferior to power mauls? How are power klaws inferior to warscythes or power fists? Do you really want to pay 40 pts for a thunder hammer on your Warboss? But all of this is about how you want your Orks to krump the meanies and has nothing to do with whether it's balanced for DKK to have the rules it currently does. Maybe power klaws should be more like thunder hammers than power fists, but that shouldn't come for free.
 Jidmah wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Do you think Orks should have a win rate over 60%? That's just how much better the players are than the rest of the field? How about Necron players, are they just bad?

No I think they shouldn't. But I know that 8 events are not enough to draw conclusions. Might as well ask 8x4 people on the street who they are going to vote for and draw conclusions from that.

Do you have a number in mind? I totally agree that it could just be an early lucky streak, so is it 15 or 25 lists before we are sure that Orks need a nerf? Would me looking into the data for smaller tournaments be enough to convince you or are we sticking with GTs? I won't go looking into smaller tournament data if you don't care. Do you want to discuss how many top 4 GT placings is needed before we can agree that Orks need to be nerfed? Is it 6 or 10? I think 4/19 lists placing top 4 in 30+ person events already says quite a bit, maybe my math is off and it's actually quite likely to be due to chance, but my gut feeling is that it isn't.
How many lists with a 60% win rate using Da Killa Klaw do we need before you agree that it should be nerfed?

Actually, I think that even deleting the killa klaw would have zero impact on the performance of these lists. Warbosses would simply disappear and people would bring something else instead.

Did you not say DKK was the only good Ork relic? If it's the only good one then people taking another relic would make their list worse, no? Or is that power klaw characters are so overpriced that even with a free relic they don't compare to your other more efficient choices?
I predicted what I see. Nothing will convince Ork players that Da KIlla Klaw needs a nerf, it's your holiest relic, the object of your worship.

You are exclusively using ad hominem attacks to prove your point. So In a manner, you are correct. You have brought absolutely nothing to the discussion and this nothing you brought does, in fact, not convince me.

Exclusively, this word does not mean what you think it does. I provided several reasons for why DKK should be nerfed, prevalence in current and previous metas and comparison with other relics such as Salamander's Drakesmiter. Your argument for why Orks should not be nerfed is "wait and see", which is fair enough, your argument for not nerfing DKK is as far as I can see "Orks should krump good, DKK krump good, DKK = ".
Someone brought it on a MA Big Mek, ever heard of someone bringing a relic weapon on anything but their most bad-ass character? Imagine Astra Militarum putting a relic sword on a Platoon Commander because they just needed to include that relic but didn't feel like taking a Company Commander.

You do realize that this MA Big Mek was upgraded into a MA warboss because their most bad-ass character was Thrakka who can't take relics, right?
Do you know what's more badass than a MA big mek with da cleverest boss in a list that has Thrakka in it?

That was my whole point, if it is worth bringing on a MA Big Mek it's clearly leaps and bounds too OP. No Necrons player would ever put weapon relic on a Lord because they are not proper fighting characters and Necrons do have a couple of weapon relics worth 1 CP, just not on a Lord, in the same manner I would argue that other relics should be more optimal than DKK when you don't have anything better than a MA Big Mek to put it on.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 16:05:15


Post by: SemperMortis


 vict0988 wrote:


Orks have a 67% win-rate in 9th tournament stats recorded on 40kstats, that's close to Salamanders, the best SM chapter (it might be as low as 59% I'm not sure how the numbers are different between faction vs faction and subfaction results). Goffs have an 80% win-rate, which is kind of absurd, but not necessarily representative and the breadth of lists that have topped for Orks makes it hard to pinpoint exactly what does and does not need a nerf and a buff.


Ah, well, we better change the entire meta because have 9 lists used so far in 9th edition and are played by people competent enough to place well. And those Goffs with their 80% win rate with a whole...2 lists used. We just started 9th editions tournament play due to covid and the entire Ork faction has 9 lists recorded in 40k stats and you are going to try and use that as justification for nerfs for an entire faction? Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Maybe let SM players realize they still need to take anti-infantry weapons to a tournament before trying to sabotage an entire faction.

 vict0988 wrote:
My gut feeling is that Gretchin need a buff, but if they get any more top placings then that won't be something I can justify any longer, my gut still says that it was just bad list builders playing their army well that led Gretchin to feature in top 4s. The Burna Bommer Strat seems an obvious target for a nerf, but Burna Bommers don't actually feature in a majority of top Orks lists. Not even Boyz, Warbosses or Thraka consistently show up, although I think Thraka might need to go up by 10 pts, surprising given how small of a buff he got from 8th -> 9th, maybe that guy who said Thraka was the most OP unit in 8th because he can survive a titan shooting at him was right


Your gut feeling is that T2, S2, 6+ save model that can only equip a S3 pistol needs a buff to be worth 5pts? Yes, Grots indeed need some kind of major buff to make their 66% point increase seem less ridiculous. As far as placing in top 4s with grotz...doesn't take much to realize they are just the cheapest troop tax. In 8th that is almost exclusively why they were taken, that and Grot shielding a specific unit or two. The Burna Bommer is exactly where it should be, without that 1 strategy nobody brings the stupid thing because its inefficient and useless. Its guns/bombs are just a nice addition to it being a ork version of Kamikaze. As far as Thraka needed a price raise...no. Ghaz is ridiculously easy to kill if you actually have tools in your kit beyond "haha i shooty everything". My Campaign ork army was able to 1 shot ghaz so many times that my opponents stopped taking him.

 vict0988 wrote:
The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested. But it features in 100% of top lists and probably around 90% of lists overall and it is obviously crazy. That alone will probably impact Ork win-rates, other than that I think some units might need tiny nerfs of 5ish % pts increase in order to put Orks in a healthier place. I am certainly very surprised with how well Ork players have handled the new edition, kudos to the players with the cajones to ignore the nay-sayers, especially the ones that brought 5 pt Gretchin and got top 4.


The only competitive Relic we have which is almost the same as a standard SM TH needs to be nerfed? Well, we used to have the Relic SSAG but SM players got so incredibly mad at it that GW hit it with the ban hammer for all intents and purposes. Literally caused the Big Mek w/SAG to become unplayable with how much of a price increase it got. The reason the Killa Klaw is taken is because its our only choice worth taking, and why not upgrade your melee beat stick character with some extra gubbinz? Plus, I would really like to know what Ork units need 5% pts increases.

And finally, the nay sayers were correct, 5pt grots are useless, they are just the cheapest troop tax you can take unless you would rather just drop CP on a detachment so you don't have to take troops.

 vict0988 wrote:
Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


The difference between a Killa Klaw and the regular PK is that the PK has -1 to hit the relic does not, The Relic also allows reroll failed wounds (almost exactly the same as a reroll 1s because warboss is S12 with a klaw) and it has a flat 3 dmg as opposed to D3 for a klaw. I agree the TH is over priced on the SM HQs, but maybe that is the price you pay for not having to take a relic slot to equip what is fundamentally the same weapon as an Ork relic. Also, its 10pts not 9



How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 16:20:16


Post by: blaktoof


Im sorry we are comparing a single relic per army that takes up a relic slot to a spammable option that squad sgts can take and saying the relic option is OP?

I hope its more powerful than a thunderhammer, because if it's not then thunderhammers need to become 40/80pts. Maybe +/-10 pts depending on how expensive you think 1 CP is worth in points.

Not that it matters to you, but the entire ork faction has only a couple of relic weapons. Both the big mek and Warboss model which most people have comes with a powerklaw, so there is only 1 relic melee option for that...it is the killa klaw. If all the Space marine factions had 3 relic weapons total for all of them, and all the space marine captain models had a sword you would see that relic sword taken more than the relic power axe that is on a metal model that isnt for sell anymore.

The nonsensical idea that a relic shouldn't be OP compared to a non relic item from a different faction that can take many of them in a single army aside...

I think 9th favors the main play styles orks were using. Most ork lists had moved away from a shooty build to a hold the middle build back when mobbing up bad moon lootas was errata-ed out of the game. 9th heavyily favors army builds that take the middle of the table. Overall I think this has given orks a strong initial win rate versus armies that in 8th favored builds that set back most of the game and shot things, then later maybe moved up. When those factions begin to make more lists that are centered around the 24-36" range and taking the middle of the table we may see a different tournament outcome.

I think the real loss for orks in 9th is gretchin, and CP. Looking at various factions in 8th it seems as if many horde factions have more expensive stratagems, which were mostly powered by taking 3x battalions so you start with many CPs. Horde factions cannot do that anymore, so they have lower CP but tend to have stratagems which cost more CP for similiar effect stratagems in non horde factions. This overall is a nerf to horde factions.

The loss of gretchin is also rough, I say loss because their increase in points makes them non viable to take in large quantities. Unfortunately they are still tied to making various other units viable (lootas, Flash Gitz, shooty units), which makes that a nerf not just to gretchin but to other units as well. I hope in 9th gretchin get revisited and as MODELS at least, and the models basically become a 2W 2A unit with the rest of the stats the same and there are 2 gretchin models on a 32mm base and they are 5-6ppm with grot shields doing 1 unpreventable wound to a gretchin unit. Gretchin would again be worth taking and would make ork shooting units more viable. Yes I realize there is more terrain now, but if your shooting unit can see through the terrain to shoot it can be shot back at in most cases- and -1 to hit and +1 save ona T4 6+ model isn't viable defense for their points cost.





How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 16:39:42


Post by: DrGiggles


 vict0988 wrote:


I predicted what I see. Nothing will convince Ork players that Da KIlla Klaw needs a nerf, it's your holiest relic, the object of your worship. Someone brought it on a MA Big Mek, ever heard of someone bringing a relic weapon on anything but their most bad-ass character? Imagine Astra Militarum putting a relic sword on a Platoon Commander because they just needed to include that relic but didn't feel like taking a Company Commander. I care because I think 40k should be as fair as the writers can make it, Da Killa Klaw is obviously unfair compared to the majority of relics in the game, Orks are doing well in tournaments and Da Killa Klaw is the only obvious way to bring down Orks in a fair manner. I think you need to stop worshipping Da Killa Klaw and take a bubble bath.


You could make DKK just do flat 3 damage without the reroll wounds and ork players would still take it. The relic is the only way to make warbosses not bounce off whatever they are trying to fight. If it was removed all warbosses would just take 'Eadwoppa's instead since it would be better than a d3 damage powerklaw.

All of the other relics in the ork codex are situational at best or flat out bad, it really isn't a mystery why DKK is taken in virtually every list.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 17:10:05


Post by: tulun


Someone's tilted about Orks. Woof.

I'll be convinced Orks are better than mid tier after we have 20-30 tournaments with consistent top placings.

And complaining our one good relic is too good is a bit much from a space marine player who might literally have 30+ relics between all the books that are top tier amazing and where a Thunder hammer is ROUGHLY as good as it. I would take a Thunder Hammer any day over the relic Klaw.

Oh, and your TH are going to 4 damage now. That hits as hard as GHAZ.

Ork relics suck. To the point I rarely bother taking a second one.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 18:06:18


Post by: vict0988


 DrGiggles wrote:
You could make DKK just do flat 3 damage without the reroll wounds and ork players would still take it.

I agree, that's another good reason to nerf it in my book. Although, I would probably just give it -1 to hit because being more likely to hit its target or being less unwieldy is AFAIK not in any way part of Da Killa Klaw's identity. That would make it a klaw with an extra damage and re-roll failed wounds (which is either re-roll 1s or 1s and 2s) this puts DKK on par with other weapon relics in terms of how much better it is.
blaktoof wrote:
I hope its more powerful than a thunderhammer, because if it's not then thunderhammers need to become 40/80pts. Maybe +/-10 pts depending on how expensive you think 1 CP is worth in points.

1CP = roughly 20 pts, depends on how under or overcosted the Stratagems of a faction is. A thunderhammer on a Captain is 40, a power klaw is 10 on a Warboss. A relic power klaw should not be as powerful as a thunderhammer if you buy into thunderhammers being worth 40 and 1CP = 20 pts because 10+20 =/= 40. But I don't want to kill Da Killa Klaw, I just want to rein it in by removing one of the three effects it has, which would still make it superior to a thunderhammer, but not superior to a relic thunderhammer. I think it is fair to say a 40 pt relic weapon should be superior to a 10 pt relic weapon.
SemperMortis wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:


Orks have a 67% win-rate in 9th tournament stats recorded on 40kstats, that's close to Salamanders, the best SM chapter (it might be as low as 59% I'm not sure how the numbers are different between faction vs faction and subfaction results). Goffs have an 80% win-rate, which is kind of absurd, but not necessarily representative and the breadth of lists that have topped for Orks makes it hard to pinpoint exactly what does and does not need a nerf and a buff.


Ah, well, we better change the entire meta because have 9 lists used so far in 9th edition and are played by people competent enough to place well. And those Goffs with their 80% win rate with a whole...2 lists used. We just started 9th editions tournament play due to covid and the entire Ork faction has 9 lists recorded in 40k stats and you are going to try and use that as justification for nerfs for an entire faction? Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Maybe let SM players realize they still need to take anti-infantry weapons to a tournament before trying to sabotage an entire faction.

We shouldn't talk too loudly about competency in 40k, we'll alert the 40k requires no skill crowd, if you think me asking for reasonable nerfs is bad... I don't think I asked for a change to the entire meta, I don't think I've asked for anything concrete other than a DKK nerf which another Ork player claims will have no effect, I said that maybe a few units need 5% pts increases, which might include Ghazzy, that's all I said, a 5% nerf is about as small as you can make a nerf if you want to have any hope of it having an effect.
As far as placing in top 4s with grotz...doesn't take much to realize they are just the cheapest troop tax.

And finally, the nay sayers were correct, 5pt grots are useless, they are just the cheapest troop tax you can take unless you would rather just drop CP on a detachment so you don't have to take troops.

If a unit regularly gets brought in top 4 lists it does not need a price decrease. Doesn't matter if the unit gets brought because another unit is undercosted or because of troop tax or whatever, unless you nerf the HQs that Gretchin are being brought to allow into a list then I don't think Gretchin can get a buff until they stop showing up in top 4 GT lists. But as I said I imagine people will stop bringing additional detachments for more HQ at the cost of bringing Gretchin and then Gretchin can get the buff they most likely deserve, but if they don't then I think it would be unfair to buff them given that there are units that aren't being brought in top 4 GT lists at all.
Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.

The difference between a Killa Klaw and the regular PK is that the PK has -1 to hit the relic does not, The Relic also allows reroll failed wounds (almost exactly the same as a reroll 1s because warboss is S12 with a klaw) and it has a flat 3 dmg as opposed to D3 for a klaw. I agree the TH is over priced on the SM HQs, but maybe that is the price you pay for not having to take a relic slot to equip what is fundamentally the same weapon as an Ork relic. Also, its 10pts not 9

Those differences between DKK and a regular PK are too large. People were bringing thunder hammers and doing well with them even when they cost 40 with 3 Damage, so for certain Captains, I actually don't think 40 is too much.I don't know by what math you can justify DKK having the rules that it currently does, do you think all relic weapons should provide value in the realm of what DKK provides? If you had access to relics of similar value as DKK would you not be taking at least 2 relics every game? Would everybody taking at least 2 relics every game not be a show of relics being overpowered? The removal of specialist detachments in favour of just giving the majority of armies more relics and Stratagems for free was asinineas was thoroughly nerfing a unit based on it being overpowered with a relic that is no longer allowed in tournaments. That being said, doubling the firepower of a weapon with so much firepower already was silly and the SSAG will need a nerf for casual pts play after SAG Meks come down in pts.
tulun wrote:
Someone's tilted about Orks. Woof.

I'll be convinced Orks are better than mid tier after we have 20-30 tournaments with consistent top placings.

And complaining our one good relic is too good is a bit much from a space marine player who might literally have 30+ relics between all the books that are top tier amazing and where a Thunder hammer is ROUGHLY as good as it. I would take a Thunder Hammer any day over the relic Klaw.

Oh, and your TH are going to 4 damage now. That hits as hard as GHAZ.

Ork relics suck. To the point I rarely bother taking a second one.

I'm not tilted about Orks, I'm surprised and happy they are doing so well, I was sure they were going to be crap, I think I congratulated Ork tournament toppers in an earlier comment, really don't know why you would think I'm tilted about Orks. I agree that we currently have too little data to be sure of anything other than a need for nerfing DKK, I'll take three pieces of oddly layed dog poops on my lawn as a sign that DKK needs a nerf though. I'm not a Marine player, Necrons do have better relics than Orks though. Both our best and our median is better than what Orks get, although I think the worst Necron relic is worse than anything Orks have on offer. I've only played 1 game with IF and less than a dozen with Flesh Tearers and I have used neither in 9th, I don't think it's fair to judge me as a Space Marines player. TH going up to 4 makes me retch, it's a good idea, but not fair if it doesn't happen to other faction's melee weapons like warscythes and power klaws, ideally this change would come with a reduction in the power of Stratagems because getting up to 30 D4 thunderhammer attacks or 30 D3 power klaw attacks for 3CP is too much IMO. I don't think second relics should be the standard as I said earlier in this comment, but Scorched Gitbones, Supa Cybork Body and Da Lucky Stick are either worth 1CP or just under on the right kinds of characters, none other than DKK are worth 2CP though, which is how it should be IMO.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 18:47:35


Post by: blaktoof


I think you are in denial if you think 1 CP is 20 pts.

Most of the faction terrain which grants an effect similiar to 1 CP costs about 80pts.

Regardless in crazy town where 1 CP is worth about 20pts, you still have the issue that you can take 1 killa klaw in an entire ork army.

Whereas you could have 6 intercessor squad sgts, an unit of elites who all have Thammers and 2 characters with thunderhammers in a SM army.

Simple question, would you give up having thunder hammers as an army option for the ability to take 1 relic hammer with the same stats as the killa klaw? You can still get powerfists and chain fists.

I would give up the killa klaw for MANz with thunder hammers, nobz with thunder hammers, and a non relic thunderhammer on a warboss.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 20:14:32


Post by: G00fySmiley


i don't agree on the DKK being OP i mean compared to other relics its good but its not feeding us command points every turn good. compare it to the other ork relics though and its pretty obvious why it is taken almost always

our basic ones


super cybork, 5++ i mean its nice but most orks bring a painbody to buff right beside the warboss so a 6++ becomeng a 5++ seems unremarkable. I suppose it "saves" us the 65 points of a painboy, but you need the 6++ to run boys anyway so you still have to buy it.

gitstoppa shells +1 str, dmg and ap to the damage... ok this looks nice until... on the ork's shooting attacks. hitting on 5+ or flamer which if you are in flamer range you often don't want to use them because opponents will pull models away from the warboss making charges more difficult.

da deadly shooter even worse than above tripple the worthless shots (12 instead of 4. still str 4, but adds -1 ap. 18" range. so with ork BS its 2.64 more hits at str 4 ap-1 damage 1... as a relic.

headwoppa's lkillchoppa is +2 str, -2 AP and damage 2 rips through primaris space marines, 6+ to wound means 2 mortal wounds instead. problem is the same as big choppas though, 5 points more buys a claw. a big choppa should be included loadout on a warboss. being so close in cost and no superior over the claw I would say if it were ap-4 it would be worth considering.

the last is by far the worst. scorched gitbonez just means you blow yourself up more often. wierdboys already have +1 for each 10 infantry near them up to +3. this relic is +1 to psychic tests no perils protection so he still blows up. if it gave protection from perils it might be worth considering as wierdboys often die so fast to themselves.


that is it, end of list, the rest are clan specific.

orks are cp starved. if you gave us a relic of 5+ to gain a cp when a stratagem it used (max 1 per turn) like most armies have i think most of us would prefer that


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 20:21:22


Post by: tulun


If Da Killa Klaw lost re-roll to wound and kill saws went to 3 damage, at 15 points a pop? I'd call it a win.

Calling for our lone good relic, now that the Souped Up SAG is gone, to be nerfed is insulting and shows zero understanding of the current state of our army.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/18 22:57:43


Post by: Billagio


The killa klaw is the only good relic in the ork codex, especially now that the SSAG is gone. If you want GW to nerf the killa klaw because every list uses it then they should give us actually useable relics to take its place.

Ever consider that its used in every list because its the only thing worth taking?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 00:21:01


Post by: Rismonite


 Alwrath wrote:
So, after a big second place GT win after crushing 2 Space Marine armies ( Ultra Marines, Blood Angels ), how do Ork players feel about the current meta? Are you happy that Orks are strong in 8th/9th edition? Are you glad the green tide is strong right now? How many Space Marine armies have you killed at your local meta? I honestly am considering ebaying my Primaris in favor of Orks atm, the PA book and codex look amazing, and I honestly cant wait to see what the 9th edition codex brings to the green players since 8th/9th has proven they are already an amazing army to play, especially in objective games.


-I think the current meta is still finding itself, I feel like it's seen a considerable shakeup and orkz are the lowest common denominator at the moment.

-It's great news to hear orkz are doing well, like I wanna go home and paint models now.

-I haven't racked up any games in 9th yet.

-I hope you join us in our quest to frustrate TAC armies with our spam and slam objectives game.

From what I read orkz are throwing paper, and people are bringing rock



How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 00:34:33


Post by: Void__Dragon


tulun wrote:
Someone's tilted about Orks. Woof.

I'll be convinced Orks are better than mid tier after we have 20-30 tournaments with consistent top placings.

And complaining our one good relic is too good is a bit much from a space marine player who might literally have 30+ relics between all the books that are top tier amazing and where a Thunder hammer is ROUGHLY as good as it. I would take a Thunder Hammer any day over the relic Klaw.

Oh, and your TH are going to 4 damage now. That hits as hard as GHAZ.

Ork relics suck. To the point I rarely bother taking a second one.


If you think a thunder hammer right now is roughly as good as DKK then you're even more delusional than the guy who thinks it should be nerfed just because the only good Ork relic is showing up in Ork lists lol.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 00:49:02


Post by: Grimskul


I looked into the thread and wonder what all the hullaballoo is about and then I see the poster who caused all the Ork players to descend into the comments and I wasn't surprised.

I've mainly encountered vict0988 in the Proposed Rules sub-thread and almost any time Orks have been brought up in some fashion, it's always that they're too strong or that they need to be nerfed in some fashion. He clearly has some sort of bias given that he somehow extrapolates one remotely good thing about the Ork army as indicative of the army being broken in some way. You'd think someone who plays Necrons would get a thing or two about suboptimal internal codex balance, but I guess we'll see how he feels when the new Necron codex comes out and people want to nerf whatever viable options are revealed for them.

Btw, no joke, this is the same guy who thought the Bad Moons klan trait is better than other faction equivalent's (not factoring the better BS and synergy for other factions like Cadians) and thought Da Jump should cast on an 8/9, AND wanted to nerf our 3CP fight again (already nerfed) and 2CP fight again on death strats.

I asked him that just because we are competitive in 8th ed (at the time), that we should be nerfed? His answer? Yes.

Here's the link to the thread if you don't believe me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

So I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him when it's clearly his agenda to put Orks down from the get-go.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 01:52:06


Post by: cjmate8


I haven't had any success with green tide lists against seriously competitive lists. Blast weapons are too good. Guard players can consistently eat like 2 units of 30 a turn.

I spent an entire game in my deployment zone against an ad mech player who was halving my movement with the new flyer and keeping me from moving with his hounds that can move 12" when they get charged.



How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 02:08:48


Post by: Billagio


 Grimskul wrote:
I looked into the thread and wonder what all the hullaballoo is about and then I see the poster who caused all the Ork players to descend into the comments and I wasn't surprised.

I've mainly encountered vict0988 in the Proposed Rules sub-thread and almost any time Orks have been brought up in some fashion, it's always that they're too strong or that they need to be nerfed in some fashion. He clearly has some sort of bias given that he somehow extrapolates one remotely good thing about the Ork army as indicative of the army being broken in some way. You'd think someone who plays Necrons would get a thing or two about suboptimal internal codex balance, but I guess we'll see how he feels when the new Necron codex comes out and people want to nerf whatever viable options are revealed for them.

Btw, no joke, this is the same guy who thought the Bad Moons klan trait is better than other faction equivalent's (not factoring the better BS and synergy for other factions like Cadians) and thought Da Jump should cast on an 8/9, AND wanted to nerf our 3CP fight again (already nerfed) and 2CP fight again on death strats.

I asked him that just because we are competitive in 8th ed (at the time), that we should be nerfed? His answer? Yes.

Here's the link to the thread if you don't believe me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

So I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him when it's clearly his agenda to put Orks down from the get-go.


Jfc. Him and Xenomancers should be banned from talking about Orks lol


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 02:32:47


Post by: Grimskul


 Billagio wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
I looked into the thread and wonder what all the hullaballoo is about and then I see the poster who caused all the Ork players to descend into the comments and I wasn't surprised.

I've mainly encountered vict0988 in the Proposed Rules sub-thread and almost any time Orks have been brought up in some fashion, it's always that they're too strong or that they need to be nerfed in some fashion. He clearly has some sort of bias given that he somehow extrapolates one remotely good thing about the Ork army as indicative of the army being broken in some way. You'd think someone who plays Necrons would get a thing or two about suboptimal internal codex balance, but I guess we'll see how he feels when the new Necron codex comes out and people want to nerf whatever viable options are revealed for them.

Btw, no joke, this is the same guy who thought the Bad Moons klan trait is better than other faction equivalent's (not factoring the better BS and synergy for other factions like Cadians) and thought Da Jump should cast on an 8/9, AND wanted to nerf our 3CP fight again (already nerfed) and 2CP fight again on death strats.

I asked him that just because we are competitive in 8th ed (at the time), that we should be nerfed? His answer? Yes.

Here's the link to the thread if you don't believe me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

So I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him when it's clearly his agenda to put Orks down from the get-go.


Jfc. Him and Xenomancers should be banned from talking about Orks lol


I'm fine with open discussion about our faction regardless of critcism, but only if its in good faith. When they clearly come from places of either (often wilful) ignorance of our army and clearly want to put down Orks as an army out of spite or their own twisted idea of what balance is, then there's really no discussion anymore.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 03:01:30


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Grimskul wrote:
 Billagio wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
I looked into the thread and wonder what all the hullaballoo is about and then I see the poster who caused all the Ork players to descend into the comments and I wasn't surprised.

I've mainly encountered vict0988 in the Proposed Rules sub-thread and almost any time Orks have been brought up in some fashion, it's always that they're too strong or that they need to be nerfed in some fashion. He clearly has some sort of bias given that he somehow extrapolates one remotely good thing about the Ork army as indicative of the army being broken in some way. You'd think someone who plays Necrons would get a thing or two about suboptimal internal codex balance, but I guess we'll see how he feels when the new Necron codex comes out and people want to nerf whatever viable options are revealed for them.

Btw, no joke, this is the same guy who thought the Bad Moons klan trait is better than other faction equivalent's (not factoring the better BS and synergy for other factions like Cadians) and thought Da Jump should cast on an 8/9, AND wanted to nerf our 3CP fight again (already nerfed) and 2CP fight again on death strats.

I asked him that just because we are competitive in 8th ed (at the time), that we should be nerfed? His answer? Yes.

Here's the link to the thread if you don't believe me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

So I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him when it's clearly his agenda to put Orks down from the get-go.


Jfc. Him and Xenomancers should be banned from talking about Orks lol


I'm fine with open discussion about our faction regardless of critcism, but only if its in good faith. When they clearly come from places of either (often wilful) ignorance of our army and clearly want to put down Orks as an army out of spite or their own twisted idea of what balance is, then there's really no discussion anymore.


it really is obvious people who have never played horde armies. the idea that you can magically get 30 boyz into a single combat is just extremely unlikely. Maybe if you get the perfect terrain setup and roll a 12 on your charge after da jumping. I have been doing well against lists meant to counter space marines, but when people pull out the flamers and blasts i run out of models pretty damn fast.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 04:09:12


Post by: Nitro Zeus


 Grimskul wrote:
 Billagio wrote:
 Grimskul wrote:
I looked into the thread and wonder what all the hullaballoo is about and then I see the poster who caused all the Ork players to descend into the comments and I wasn't surprised.

I've mainly encountered vict0988 in the Proposed Rules sub-thread and almost any time Orks have been brought up in some fashion, it's always that they're too strong or that they need to be nerfed in some fashion. He clearly has some sort of bias given that he somehow extrapolates one remotely good thing about the Ork army as indicative of the army being broken in some way. You'd think someone who plays Necrons would get a thing or two about suboptimal internal codex balance, but I guess we'll see how he feels when the new Necron codex comes out and people want to nerf whatever viable options are revealed for them.

Btw, no joke, this is the same guy who thought the Bad Moons klan trait is better than other faction equivalent's (not factoring the better BS and synergy for other factions like Cadians) and thought Da Jump should cast on an 8/9, AND wanted to nerf our 3CP fight again (already nerfed) and 2CP fight again on death strats.

I asked him that just because we are competitive in 8th ed (at the time), that we should be nerfed? His answer? Yes.

Here's the link to the thread if you don't believe me. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/779167.page

So I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him when it's clearly his agenda to put Orks down from the get-go.


Jfc. Him and Xenomancers should be banned from talking about Orks lol


I'm fine with open discussion about our faction regardless of critcism, but only if its in good faith. When they clearly come from places of either (often wilful) ignorance of our army and clearly want to put down Orks as an army out of spite or their own twisted idea of what balance is, then there's really no discussion anymore.


This sounds like every single post I've ever seen from at least one of them though. It's simply clearer to recognise it when its your own army being discussed. When someone can't even talk about his own army from a place of anything other than ignorance, they probably need to rethink clambering for nerfs for other people's. Orks are definitely good in 9th, but NERFS? And those ones? Cmon. What a meme. Practice, get better. Stop being such a bad player. That's all there is to it.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 04:17:40


Post by: Breton


 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:


The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested.


Warboss with killa klaw is on par with SM captain with TH, except the latter can also take jump packs to be mobile, deepstrike and assault flyers.
At least the old school ones until/unless they get squatted.

I really don't see anything overpowered here, with the melee oriented commander getting a damage 3 close combat weapon which is allowed on one model only; if anything it's the standard power klaw and killsaw that should be buffed to be at least flat 3 damage now that thunder hammers are flat 4, and other relics to be buffed. Killa Klaw is litterally the only relic worth taking in the entire codex, again we're not SM that have tons of them.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 04:19:06


Post by: vict0988


blaktoof wrote:
I think you are in denial if you think 1 CP is 20 pts.

Most of the faction terrain which grants an effect similiar to 1 CP costs about 80pts.

Regardless in crazy town where 1 CP is worth about 20pts, you still have the issue that you can take 1 killa klaw in an entire ork army.

Whereas you could have 6 intercessor squad sgts, an unit of elites who all have Thammers and 2 characters with thunderhammers in a SM army.

Simple question, would you give up having thunder hammers as an army option for the ability to take 1 relic hammer with the same stats as the killa klaw? You can still get powerfists and chain fists.

I would give up the killa klaw for MANz with thunder hammers, nobz with thunder hammers, and a non relic thunderhammer on a warboss.

Mekboy Workshop grants a kustom job, a place to hide models and two additional abilities and it still isn't worth 80 pts, I was talking more abstractly, not by whatever hugely flawed method GW implements their pts. How insane is it to overpay for Gretchin and lose 2CP just to bring 1 HQ if each CP is worth 80 pts? That's 170 pts added to the HQ's cost, is a Weirdboy worth more than 200 pts at any time?

Sure, I mostly ran power fists on my Intercessors and thunder hammers being 40 pts were not worth it on HQ other than Smash Caps which I avoided, upgrading my power fist Lieutenant with DKK would be great. On second thought I don't think it'd be a good fit for my Flesh Tearers, it'd cost 2CP since my list already features 2 relics and at that cost I'd rather keep access to 3D TH. At 4D TH are going to be insane I think and leaving other weapons with half their damage output seems hugely unfair.
tulun wrote:
If Da Killa Klaw lost re-roll to wound and kill saws went to 3 damage, at 15 points a pop? I'd call it a win.

Calling for our lone good relic, now that the Souped Up SAG is gone, to be nerfed is insulting and shows zero understanding of the current state of our army.

I hope something like that happens if it'd make you happy, seems fair to me.

People get insulted over the insults to their prophet, but getting insulted over suggesting a nerf to a relic is a little silly right Imagine a world where DKK won you the game on a 2+ and every other Ork relic lost you the game on a 6+, Orks win 90% of their games and 95% of tournaments by bringing this relic and it's the only common feature, people are bringing Mekboy Workshops, Stompas, Flywings, everything but other relics. Would it be an insult to suggest nerfing that DKK to winning on 6+? How about Iron Hands Ironstone? It was the only relic that was in its class in terms of how good it was, the only good Iron Hands relic as it was, I suggested it should be nerfed because Iron Hands had a really good win rate and the relic was worth too much more than 1CP, was that an insult to Iron Hands players? Do you want to be the person who was like the Iron Hands players that complained when suggestions for nerfing their faction were coming up or when they finally did get nerfed? Because saying you are insulted is not an argument and saying it's your only good relic is a bad argument as I have highlighted by taking the argument to the extreme in my example above. I think knowing what your best relic in tournaments is shows some understanding of the current state of your army so "zero understanding" is factually wrong.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 07:58:04


Post by: Jidmah


 vict0988 wrote:

Do you have a number in mind? I totally agree that it could just be an early lucky streak, so is it 15 or 25 lists before we are sure that Orks need a nerf? Would me looking into the data for smaller tournaments be enough to convince you or are we sticking with GTs? I won't go looking into smaller tournament data if you don't care. Do you want to discuss how many top 4 GT placings is needed before we can agree that Orks need to be nerfed? Is it 6 or 10? I think 4/19 lists placing top 4 in 30+ person events already says quite a bit, maybe my math is off and it's actually quite likely to be due to chance, but my gut feeling is that it isn't.

At the very least I would expect twice that number of events recorded. My gripe with drawing conclusions from 40kstats right now that they are recording a very small amount of events and that their numbers actually contradict those of other people like goonhammer. If orks were so OP, why did they only win 15 out of 29 games that were observed?
Due to 40kstats mostly recording US events and the pandemic being completely out of control there, we now have the amount data of what would have been two weekends before the pandemic. Asking for a nerf of a faction after just two weekends of data would not have made sense then and doesn't make sense now.

Did you not say DKK was the only good Ork relic? If it's the only good one then people taking another relic would make their list worse, no? Or is that power klaw characters are so overpriced that even with a free relic they don't compare to your other more efficient choices?

It would make the list worse, but it's not essential to its strategy. To understand this problem, you need to understand ork listbuilding.

I provided several reasons for why DKK should be nerfed, prevalence in current and previous metas and comparison with other relics such as Salamander's Drakesmiter.

Neither of those are arguments.
If you follow the wiki link I provided, you'll find out that the correlation between killa klaws and ork wins is not an argument by itself. It's similar to how in the 90s the user count of the Internet Explorer perfectly correlated with the number of murders in Chicago. Obviously the Internet Explorer did not cause people to commit more murders. Well, it might have, but then the phenomenon would not have been limited to Chicago. You also need to provide proof (for example from battle reports) that the killa klaw is crucial to an ork list's success for your observation to actually be an argument.
On the issues of that salamanders hammer - you are really comparing apples to oranges here. Salamanders get to re-roll one hit and one wound, the captain wielding it re-rolls ones to hit anyways, it can be vastly faster than a warboss and three times faster than a mek, has a 4++ save, has more AP and the ability to double its damage. A captain with the Drakesmiter is still vastly superior to a warboss with da killa klaw.

Your argument for why Orks should not be nerfed is "wait and see", which is fair enough, your argument for not nerfing DKK is as far as I can see

Da Killa Klaw has clearly not been a problem for the last three years, despite a much more powerful character than a foot warboss or MA big mek wielding it. There is no reason to believe it has suddenly become OP overnight.

"Orks should krump good, DKK krump good, DKK = ".

Look, another ad hominem attack.

That was my whole point, if it is worth bringing on a MA Big Mek it's clearly leaps and bounds too OP. No Necrons player would ever put weapon relic on a Lord because they are not proper fighting characters and Necrons do have a couple of weapon relics worth 1 CP, just not on a Lord, in the same manner I would argue that other relics should be more optimal than DKK when you don't have anything better than a MA Big Mek to put it on.

Ah, now I understand.
You have no fething clue how orks work, and you clearly don't even know their statlines. Go check a rulebook before you continue to make yourself look like a fool.
"MA Big Meks are not proper fighting characters"
Hilarious.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 09:28:57


Post by: Nym


All this crap about the Killa Klaw while Marines get the Fist of Terra that does virtually the same thing but tirades reroll wounds for +1 attack (which as a Deathskull I'd rather have)...


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 09:35:55


Post by: Tyel


This thread is comedy gold. How anyone can believe a faction is winning games because of a buffed up power claw is beyond me.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 09:41:51


Post by: a_typical_hero


 vict0988 wrote:
A lot of ranting


I don't play Orks myself and don't have an active Ork player in my local meta, but even without actual gameplay knowledge in 8th/9th edition, reading all your rant about a single relic feels more like you are personally offended by the existance of it, rather than basing your opinion on something more solid.

DKK is a good relic that makes a melee HQ function well for its purpose, but nothing more. In the same way Smash Captains get dangerous with Thunder hammers, but don't win games on their own.

---
Honest question without intented to be demeaning:
Did you lose to Orks with that relic in the past and feel treated unfairly? Maybe we can give tactical advice if you want to share some battle report.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 10:33:54


Post by: tneva82


 Nym wrote:
All this crap about the Killa Klaw while Marines get the Fist of Terra that does virtually the same thing but tirades reroll wounds for +1 attack (which as a Deathskull I'd rather have)...


Or near invulnerable captains for cheap. Or guy that does easily like 18 S6 -2 D2 hits. Hopefully those people complaining about killa klaw aren't playing marines.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 10:44:00


Post by: vict0988


 Jidmah wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Do you have a number in mind? I totally agree that it could just be an early lucky streak, so is it 15 or 25 lists before we are sure that Orks need a nerf? Would me looking into the data for smaller tournaments be enough to convince you or are we sticking with GTs? I won't go looking into smaller tournament data if you don't care. Do you want to discuss how many top 4 GT placings is needed before we can agree that Orks need to be nerfed? Is it 6 or 10? I think 4/19 lists placing top 4 in 30+ person events already says quite a bit, maybe my math is off and it's actually quite likely to be due to chance, but my gut feeling is that it isn't.

At the very least I would expect twice that number of events recorded. My gripe with drawing conclusions from 40kstats right now that they are recording a very small amount of events and that their numbers actually contradict those of other people like goonhammer. If orks were so OP, why did they only win 15 out of 29 games that were observed?
Due to 40kstats mostly recording US events and the pandemic being completely out of control there, we now have the amount data of what would have been two weekends before the pandemic. Asking for a nerf of a faction after just two weekends of data would not have made sense then and doesn't make sense now.

Goonhammer has only recorded 7 Ork armies 29 games, 40kstats has recorded 10 armies and 45 games. If I were to take action right now I wouldn't have enough justification to buff Gretchin so waiting until early January with finishing the pts errata and then publishing it in late January would be what I am advocating for any serious 20% pts increases, I said maybe 5% to some units. DKK has needed a nerf since the release of the codex and has only not been justified after SM2 when Orks suffered for a while.
Did you not say DKK was the only good Ork relic? If it's the only good one then people taking another relic would make their list worse, no? Or is that power klaw characters are so overpriced that even with a free relic they don't compare to your other more efficient choices?

It would make the list worse...

Thank you for conceding the point.
I provided several reasons for why DKK should be nerfed, prevalence in current and previous metas and comparison with other relics such as Salamander's Drakesmiter.

Neither of those are arguments.

Premise 1: Relics weapons are allotted a certain amount of improvements over the base weapon such as Drakesmiter making some improvements over the base Thunderhammer.
Premise 2: DKK provides more and better improvements than Drakesmiter or any other weapon relic that buffs the premium weapon for a faction.
Conclusion: DKK is overpowered.

Premise 1: No relic should be taken in more than 90% of lists for a given faction. DKK is.
Premise 2: If DKK was nerfed as to be less overpowered it would be taken less.
Conclusion: DKK should be nerfed so it is taken less.

These are logical arguments of the deductive variety. What I dismissed were not logical arguments as far as I could see.
If you follow the wiki link I provided, you'll find out that the correlation between killa klaws and ork wins is not an argument by itself.

It does not show that DKK is OP, but it does show that every tournament topping Ork player thinks that it is the best Ork relic and I refer to their expert opinions to show that it is the best Ork relic by a long shot. Mads Kapstad did not bring DKK and got a draw and dropped out of the tournament he was attending leaving him in 55th place. That shows that players that don't use DKK did worse on average making DKK overpowered. What did you expect? I'm not going to go through the rest of Ork lists in 8th or 9th to find the other person who didn't bring DKK and see how well they did, are you?
It's similar to how in the 90s the user count of the Internet Explorer perfectly correlated with the number of murders in Chicago. Obviously the Internet Explorer did not cause people to commit more murders. Well, it might have, but then the phenomenon would not have been limited to Chicago.

No, what you put in your 40k list having an impact on how well you do is logical, Internet Explorer users increasing leading to more murders is not logical, you are being silly.
You also need to provide proof (for example from battle reports) that the killa klaw is crucial to an ork list's success for your observation to actually be an argument.

You would not apply that same argument to any other discussion about 40k balance. You are being pedantic to the point of trolling.
On the issues of that salamanders hammer - you are really comparing apples to oranges here. Salamanders get to re-roll one hit and one wound, the captain wielding it re-rolls ones to hit anyways, it can be vastly faster than a warboss and three times faster than a mek, has a 4++ save, has more AP and the ability to double its damage. A captain with the Drakesmiter is still vastly superior to a warboss with da killa klaw.

No, you are being pedantic, two relic weapons are not incomparable, maybe it's comparing apples to oranges but it makes sense to compare these two in this context. The Captain might only have M5 as well and he might be a successor with no relevant bonuses to melee. You can get the same melee buffs he gets by being from the right klan. A Captain with jump pack and Drakesmiter costs vastly more than a Warboss with DKK which is why you have to compare the upgrades each relic provides. Never being able to compare different relics is a really neat thing for someone trying to defend that his relic should not be nerfed, would you say the same logic could or could not be applied to stall a nerf for the Ironstone?
"Orks should krump good, DKK krump good, DKK = ".

Look, another ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem does not mean what you think it means. I was attacking the argument as I percieve it, not the person making it. You have presented some arguments here that I can interact with and I thank you for that, but the quoted line was not a personal attack, but an attack on your argument or lack thereof.
You have no fething clue how orks work, and you clearly don't even know their statlines. Go check a rulebook before you continue to make yourself look like a fool.

Do you know the line about stones and glasshouses?
Look, another ad hominem attack.
We can add that to all the silly attacks on my intentions which I have disproven time and time again.
"MA Big Meks are not proper fighting characters"
Hilarious.

He has 3 attacks he hits on 3+ compared to the Warboss' 4 attacks hitting on 2+. Necron Overlord has 3 attacks hitting on 2+, Destroyer Lord has 4 attacks hitting on 3+, Lord has 3 attacks hitting on 3+. Necrons sometimes put weapon relics on Destroyer Lords and Overlords, but never on Lords, so why do you put one on a MA Big Mek?
 Nym wrote:
All this crap about the Killa Klaw while Marines get the Fist of Terra that does virtually the same thing but tirades reroll wounds for +1 attack (which as a Deathskull I'd rather have)...

Fist of Terra adds +1 to hit and +1 attack but is d3 damage instead of flat 3, that's two buffs 50% more damage, it can be confusing that D both stands for dice and Damage, I don't know if they could replace Damage with Impact or something. DKK provides 3 buffs 149% more damage, it's probably a fair relic on a Deathskull character, although still better than Fist of Terra.
a_typical_hero wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
A lot of ranting

Premise 1: Orks should crump good.
Premise 2: DKK crump good.
Conclusion: DKK working as intended

Do I need to say more? I'm not offended by its existence, I just think Ork players that worship a Codex Orks relic are silly although I am hugely saddened by the amount of personal attacks coming my way and hope the mods will crack down on it since they do not approve when I return heat.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 11:30:52


Post by: Blackie


If Killa klaw didn't exist at all but orks could take 15 thunder hammer equivalents on any unit and 40 ppm ones on characters they'd be certainly empowered. And by a significant margin. I'd take it immediately.

I personally couldn't care less about that specific relic. It just doesn't seem right that a warboss should be extremely bland in combat compared to a SM captain while:

1) Lorewise it's supposed to be an excellent fighter and with D2 or DD3 weapons he is not.

2) Balance wise it's nothing gamebreaking.

The most competitive Goffs lists using Ghaz typically give da killa klaw to the painboy, with no meaningful impact to the game. They'd go with no relics at all if the first one wasn't free.

In a vacuum Da killa klaw could seem overpowered, but in practise it really isn't. Lots of other ork units/wargear are extremely bland compared to other factions equivalents. Different factions should have different tools to shine, it's the whole balance that matters.

Countering a single melee specialist dude with 5'' M (6'' if it's evil sunz) is very easy and if a warboss manages to kill something valuable on regular basis you should definitely learn how to play

If orks become too solid on the tournament scene, players will adapt. Bringing anti SM lists and complaining that orks can counter them is pointless. Adapt your lists with also orks in mind next time and their winning rate will also change.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 11:30:58


Post by: BrianDavion


 vict0988 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


I get your point, but you pay CP for what a relic does - not points. We can't assume all Character PKs will be DKK and charge 40 points for it. The base PK is nowhere near a TH.

My point is that the buff DKK provides should not be vastly larger than its cost and since relics have no balance levers other than rules that is what has to be changed. We cannot increase the pts or CP cost of the relic so the magnitude or number of buffs needs to shrink.


Chainsword: no str bonus, no AP (for now) grants one additional attack. Cost: 0 points:
Teeth of Terra: Relic upgrade for Chainsword: +1 STR AP -2 Damage :2 grants an extra attack Cost: 0 points and 1 CP (assuming not taken as your free relic)
Power Klaw: STR X2 AP -3, Damage 1d3, subtract 1 from your to hit roll Cost: 10 Points
Da killa Klaw: STR X2, AP -3 Damage: 3, may re-roll wounds.

please note that Orks have no access to re-roll auras. Space Marines do (at least for now)

Let's be realistic here, you can't claim Da Killa Klaw is broken while being cool with teeth of Terra, a weapon that even without ANY changes made for 9th edition will outperform a basic power sword with ease. AND COSTS NO POINTS.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 11:43:12


Post by: RedNoak


 vict0988 wrote:

"MA Big Meks are not proper fighting characters"
Hilarious.

He has 3 attacks he hits on 3+ compared to the Warboss' 4 attacks hitting on 2+. Necron Overlord has 3 attacks hitting on 2+, Destroyer Lord has 4 attacks hitting on 3+, Lord has 3 attacks hitting on 3+. Necrons sometimes put weapon relics on Destroyer Lords and Overlords, but never on Lords, so why do you put one on a MA Big Mek?


because you have no idea on how orks work... you spend a strat called "kleverest boss" to give the the mek +1A +1Wound and a WS of 2+ ....essentially giving him a warboss profile. get it now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
... but i'll guess this is somehow OP too xD


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 12:02:40


Post by: Seabass


 Jidmah wrote:
When green tides become the only competitive build for orks, everyone loses. It's usually a sign of a highly unhealthy meta where infantry skew manages to eek out wins because everyone is gearing towards another big bad.

Most ork players don't enjoy playing green tide lists, especially not at tournaments. Moving and transporting that amount of models is cumbersome, especially when you move, charge and pile-in 30 models to kill one and a half primaris marines.
A game using the green tide mostly revolves around removing models and standing in the right places while doing little to no damage to your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
keithandor wrote:
Where are these winning Orks lists.
MY Orks are Zero from three in 9th :(


We have 4 top 4 placements so far, two were running tide variants, one buggy list and one buggies with massed trukkboys.

Lists can be found at the end of the first post in this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/790345.page


I'm struggling to understand the point you are making here. It seems like, after looking at the 4 lists (which, I personally consider a top 4 finish at a biggerish event as being a "win", YMMV) that orks have a lot of different ways to build their lists. Just looking at the lists, there are a lot of different units that are used from each of one of them, maybe with more change between the models and playstyle of each list than most orks have.

Im struggling to see how this is a sign of an unhealthy faction. Im not being snarky, I'm am just not understanding the point you are making.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 13:27:34


Post by: vict0988


BrianDavion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


I get your point, but you pay CP for what a relic does - not points. We can't assume all Character PKs will be DKK and charge 40 points for it. The base PK is nowhere near a TH.

My point is that the buff DKK provides should not be vastly larger than its cost and since relics have no balance levers other than rules that is what has to be changed. We cannot increase the pts or CP cost of the relic so the magnitude or number of buffs needs to shrink.


Chainsword: no str bonus, no AP (for now) grants one additional attack. Cost: 0 points:
Teeth of Terra: Relic upgrade for Chainsword: +1 STR AP -2 Damage :2 grants an extra attack Cost: 0 points and 1 CP (assuming not taken as your free relic)
Power Klaw: STR X2 AP -3, Damage 1d3, subtract 1 from your to hit roll Cost: 10 Points
Da killa Klaw: STR X2, AP -3 Damage: 3, may re-roll wounds.

please note that Orks have no access to re-roll auras. Space Marines do (at least for now)

Let's be realistic here, you can't claim Da Killa Klaw is broken while being cool with teeth of Terra, a weapon that even without ANY changes made for 9th edition will outperform a basic power sword with ease. AND COSTS NO POINTS.

The opportunity cost of taking ToT is not taking a relic power sword for 5 pts or a relic power fist for 10 pts. A relic choppa would have to equal DKK - 10 pts not choppa + 1CP because otherwise you wouldn't spend a relic slot on it. ToT does seem OP. 5 attacks -1 to hit S8 AP-4 3D 6D on wound rolls of 6 40 pts, 6 attacks S8 AP -3 d3D 10 pts vs 8 attacks S5 AP-2 2D 0 pts, I'd say it ought to lose a little somewere, AP-1 is probably enough, am I going to get in trouble with SM players if I say this? Teeth of Mars might be okay because its IH and their successors only, making DKK Painboy or Mekboy only would fix it. DKK is not that broken, it breaks Ork relics, but that's a tiny part of the game, even on a Bike Boss (who is coming back thankfully) it's at most 40 pts undercosted, small beans all things considered, but then this all based on 45 games where Orks have done well.
RedNoak wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

"MA Big Meks are not proper fighting characters"
Hilarious.

He has 3 attacks he hits on 3+ compared to the Warboss' 4 attacks hitting on 2+. Necron Overlord has 3 attacks hitting on 2+, Destroyer Lord has 4 attacks hitting on 3+, Lord has 3 attacks hitting on 3+. Necrons sometimes put weapon relics on Destroyer Lords and Overlords, but never on Lords, so why do you put one on a MA Big Mek?


because you have no idea on how orks work... you spend a strat called "kleverest boss" to give the the mek +1A +1Wound and a WS of 2+ ....essentially giving him a warboss profile. get it now?

... but i'll guess this is somehow OP too xD

Yes, thank you, I just skimmed the lists and forgot DKB Strat existed, but I also forgot DBB Strat existed, the Stratagems do close the gap, but DBB Warbosses still get an extra attack compared to a DKB MABM if I am not mistaken?

DBB and DKB are both OP yes, a third of Stratagems in the game are OP IMO, Orks Strat PL is relatively high though, I would say its an Ork strongpoint, but I don't think DBB or DKB are the best. I appreciate the Stratagems more than DKK and making Ork Stratagems balanced might kill the faction without pts reductions. I am open to being educated but some people aren't interested in having a conversation. I believe I have yet to see an Ork player suggest a nerf or a rules change that would not benefit them, might just be confirmation bias because I don't like one of the Ork posters.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 15:24:42


Post by: Blackie


How is giving a 4++ OP for the warboss for 1 CP when SM captains have 4++ for free?

That's the biggest buff the warboss is getting from the stratagem, otherwise a warboss with DBB compared to a SM captain has +2S, +1T, +2W, +2A and advance+charge aura but the captain has +1''M, +3BS, +1save, re-rollin 1s (massive on high BS armies, even if restricted to CORE units) and the possibility of taking jump packs (also massive, it means 12'' + possiblity of charging flyers + free deepstrike). Captain a bit more expensive in points but it doesn't cost 1CP and it doesn't need a relic to work.

I think that DBB and DKB only makes the warboss and the big mek the units they should have been in the first place, without paying 2CPs for that.

One of the problems ork have is that many units really need CPs to work.

An equivalent of ToT would be extremely good for the big mek with KFF since he can only have slugga & choppa as wargear. It means it does absolutely nothing more than passing a 5++ aura as it is now. A choppa with the stats of that relic chainsword could give him some versatility and a real alternative to Da Killa Klaw as that warboss with Follow Me Ladz and a relic choppa like ToT can certainly replace a warboss in any greentide formation.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 15:45:56


Post by: Grimskul


 Blackie wrote:
How is giving a 4++ OP for the warboss for 1 CP when SM captains have 4++ for free?

That's the biggest buff the warboss is getting from the stratagem, otherwise a warboss with DBB compared to a SM captain has +2S, +1T, +2W, +2A and advance+charge aura but the captain has +1''M, +3BS, +1save, re-rollin 1s (massive on high BS armies, even if restricted to CORE units) and the possibility of taking jump packs (also massive, it means 12'' + possiblity of charging flyers + free deepstrike). Captain a bit more expensive in points but it doesn't cost 1CP and it doesn't need a relic to work.

I think that DBB and DKB only makes the warboss and the big mek the units they should have been in the first place, without paying 2CPs for that.

One of the problems ork have is that many units really need CPs to work.

An equivalent of ToT would be extremely good for the big mek with KFF since he can only have slugga & choppa as wargear. It means it does absolutely nothing more than passing a 5++ aura as it is now. A choppa with the stats of that relic chainsword could give him some versatility and a real alternative to Da Killa Klaw as that warboss with Follow Me Ladz and a relic choppa like ToT can certainly replace a warboss in any greentide formation.


Another big thing is that DBB and DKB are only once per game on a specific unit as well. Heck, if you want Ghaz in your list, you can't even have DBB on a separate Warboss. If he's calling it OP, don't let him know about all the SM upgrades for Chapter Masters, Master of Sanctity or Chief Apothecary. Hell, he'll say the Ardboyz strat is broke too because god forbid an Ork "OP" unit (boyz) overpay for a 5+ save


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 15:53:54


Post by: Jidmah


Seabass wrote:
I'm struggling to understand the point you are making here. It seems like, after looking at the 4 lists (which, I personally consider a top 4 finish at a biggerish event as being a "win", YMMV) that orks have a lot of different ways to build their lists. Just looking at the lists, there are a lot of different units that are used from each of one of them, maybe with more change between the models and playstyle of each list than most orks have.

Im struggling to see how this is a sign of an unhealthy faction. Im not being snarky, I'm am just not understanding the point you are making.


No, you got it exactly right. I was responding to two different people. The faction is quite healthy, otherwise we would have one big winning list with minor changed rather than two archetypes revolving around a ~1000 point core, which IMO is sign for great internal balance.

The other point I was in response to the OP who was basically asking whether ork players are happy that the green tide is a top competitive build, to which I replied the green tide being the only choice for orks is usually a sign to bad game health, as it relies on dumping almost all of your points into a single troops choice.
That said, some of the Thrakka lists wouldn't even be considered green tides by 8th standards, when 150 boyz was pretty much the minimum a tide could get away with.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 16:07:22


Post by: Jidmah


 vict0988 wrote:
Goonhammer has only recorded 7 Ork armies 29 games, 40kstats has recorded 10 armies and 45 games.

And here I thought you knew enough about statistics to combine two sets of data and calculate a new win rate.
If I were to take action right now I wouldn't have enough justification to buff Gretchin so waiting until early January with finishing the pts errata and then publishing it in late January would be what I am advocating for any serious 20% pts increases, I said maybe 5% to some units. DKK has needed a nerf since the release of the codex and has only not been justified after SM2 when Orks suffered for a while.

I'm 100% sure that you are just rambling about random things considering that up to September only 20% of the winning lists have 2.5-5% of their points in gretchins, while 0% of the people here are discussing a troops choice that has become 100% irrelevant to competitive gaming.

Premise 1: Relics weapons are allotted a certain amount of improvements over the base weapon such as Drakesmiter making some improvements over the base Thunderhammer.
Premise 2: DKK provides more and better improvements than Drakesmiter or any other weapon relic that buffs the premium weapon for a faction.
Conclusion: DKK is overpowered.

Premise 1: No relic should be taken in more than 90% of lists for a given faction. DKK is.
Premise 2: If DKK was nerfed as to be less overpowered it would be taken less.
Conclusion: DKK should be nerfed so it is taken less.


These are logical arguments of the deductive variety. What I dismissed were not logical arguments as far as I could see.

Premise1: vict0988 has no clue about orks
Premise2: vict0988 doesn't understand statistics
Conclusion: Any and all of vict0988 posts are wrong
See how that logic works? You need to prove premises to be correct before drawing conclusions if you want to claim being logical.
Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause


'm not going to go through the rest of Ork lists in 8th or 9th to find the other person who didn't bring DKK and see how well they did, are you?

Well, you could also just keep quite about things you repeatably have proven to neither understand nor are willing to put effort into.

You would not apply that same argument to any other discussion about 40k balance. You are being pedantic to the point of trolling.

Oh, but I do. Go read my posts. Any of them. It's even part of the rules for the ork tactics thread.
As someone caring so much about logic, you should be aware of this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
You are the only one claiming the killa klaw is op. Provide proof or go away.

it's comparing apples to oranges

Thank you for conceding the point.

"Orks should krump good, DKK krump good, DKK = ".

Look, another ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem does not mean what you think it means. I was attacking the argument as I percieve it, not the person making it. You have presented some arguments here that I can interact with and I thank you for that, but the quoted line was not a personal attack, but an attack on your argument or lack thereof.

The quoted line clearly tries to ridicule ork players, which is nothing but a thinly veiled attack against ork players arguing in favor of da killa klaw. Especially since it's just a permutation of insults you have flung around in prior posts.

You have no fething clue how orks work, and you clearly don't even know their statlines. Go check a rulebook before you continue to make yourself look like a fool.

He has 3 attacks he hits on 3+ compared to the Warboss' 4 attacks hitting on 2+.

Let me enlighten you:
A warboss has WS2+, 4 Attacks, 6 wounds and a 4+ save and a rather worthless kustom shoota.
A MA big mek with da kleverest boss has WS2+, 4 Attacks, 6+1 wounds, a 2+ save as well as a 5++ save against shooting and a KMB. It is objectively a more powerful version of the warboss and the armor save allows it to contest objectives by itself.
Da Biggest Boss, or "DBB" as no one but you calls it, cannot be used when you have Thrakka in your army. That is the reason why the player brought the big mek. But you surely knew that, considering how I mentioned that in my first response to you.
I don't know, but I'd feel like a fool if I was writing so many words to be wrong on a stratagem whose exact wording is literally the first result when you google it.

This will be my last response to you on this topic. Your arguments have been thoroughly debunked, you openly admitted to have read nothing but the 40kstats page on this topic and you are impolite in every single post. The only constant in your posts is a clear misunderstanding of how statistics work and an irrational hate for orks despite not even knowing the army very well. There is no point in arguing with irrational people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimskul wrote:
Another big thing is that DBB and DKB are only once per game on a specific unit as well. Heck, if you want Ghaz in your list, you can't even have DBB on a separate Warboss. If he's calling it OP, don't let him know about all the SM upgrades for Chapter Masters, Master of Sanctity or Chief Apothecary. Hell, he'll say the Ardboyz strat is broke too because god forbid an Ork "OP" unit (boyz) overpay for a 5+ save


We should apply all this "logic" to his necrons and see how that works out


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 16:48:13


Post by: Billagio


 Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimskul wrote:
Another big thing is that DBB and DKB are only once per game on a specific unit as well. Heck, if you want Ghaz in your list, you can't even have DBB on a separate Warboss. If he's calling it OP, don't let him know about all the SM upgrades for Chapter Masters, Master of Sanctity or Chief Apothecary. Hell, he'll say the Ardboyz strat is broke too because god forbid an Ork "OP" unit (boyz) overpay for a 5+ save


We should apply all this "logic" to his necrons and see how that works out


Destroyers are OP. Pls nerf. Necrons too strong. My lootas cant get rerolls like they can. Theyre in every list so they must be busted


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:05:31


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Nym wrote:
All this crap about the Killa Klaw while Marines get the Fist of Terra that does virtually the same thing but tirades reroll wounds for +1 attack (which as a Deathskull I'd rather have)...

But...Deathskulls only get to reroll one wound roll and the Fist is stuck being with Crimson Fists, which are an awful Chapter.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:05:33


Post by: Grimskul


 Billagio wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimskul wrote:
Another big thing is that DBB and DKB are only once per game on a specific unit as well. Heck, if you want Ghaz in your list, you can't even have DBB on a separate Warboss. If he's calling it OP, don't let him know about all the SM upgrades for Chapter Masters, Master of Sanctity or Chief Apothecary. Hell, he'll say the Ardboyz strat is broke too because god forbid an Ork "OP" unit (boyz) overpay for a 5+ save


We should apply all this "logic" to his necrons and see how that works out


Destroyers are OP. Pls nerf. Necrons too strong. My lootas cant get rerolls like they can. Theyre in every list so they must be busted


Destroyers are also broke because of that crazy value 1CP strat that lets them reroll everything. They can even deep strike with a full squad as Nephrekh for only 1 CP. Clearly both of these strats should cost 3CP and Destroyers can only have a unit of 1.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:06:34


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Billagio wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimskul wrote:
Another big thing is that DBB and DKB are only once per game on a specific unit as well. Heck, if you want Ghaz in your list, you can't even have DBB on a separate Warboss. If he's calling it OP, don't let him know about all the SM upgrades for Chapter Masters, Master of Sanctity or Chief Apothecary. Hell, he'll say the Ardboyz strat is broke too because god forbid an Ork "OP" unit (boyz) overpay for a 5+ save


We should apply all this "logic" to his necrons and see how that works out


Destroyers are OP. Pls nerf. Necrons too strong. My lootas cant get rerolls like they can. Theyre in every list so they must be busted

Are you really going to argue that 1CP to reroll all hits and all wounds isn't overpowered in the first place?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:24:34


Post by: Jidmah


They could make it 0CP and necrons would still get their asses handed because it's the only thing that has a reliable chance of removing hard targets in their current codex.

Context is everything.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:30:31


Post by: Grimskul


 Jidmah wrote:
They could make it 0CP and necrons would still get their asses handed because it's the only thing that has a reliable chance of removing hard targets in their current codex.

Context is everything.


Exactly. Things that may be broken in one codex is not necessarily the case in another. The Ork Bad Moons trait would be great in an Eldar, SM or IG army, but in the Orks army, it's pretty meh given our low BS and inability to really make the most of it compared to what you miss out on other klanz like Deathskullz, especially with the current weapons we have.

Now the Necron Destroyer strat SHOULD change once the rest of the army has had a makeover, but if you were to only nerf that in the Necron army while leaving everything else, you're just kicking someone while they're down.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 17:37:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Remember guys, violating rule #1 is OK as long as it takes the form of bad-faith or passive-aggressive posts.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 18:25:27


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Jidmah wrote:
They could make it 0CP and necrons would still get their asses handed because it's the only thing that has a reliable chance of removing hard targets in their current codex.

Context is everything.

You're not looking at what the rule is in the first place though. If a unit isn't good without it, and it upholds an army, there's a design issue. That's basically what you're defending. Regardless if it were Marines or Orks or even Eldar using the Killa Klaw, the straight upgrade for a Power Fists stats to reroll all wounds, removing the negative modifiers to hit, and the constant 3 damage is pretty bad design.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 19:07:44


Post by: Jidmah


Well, obviously the most powerful ork HQ hitting like a wet noodle up to the point where where it is unplayable without a relics bad design.
PKs are just utterly terrible weapons - the number of powerfists across marine and eldar lists are pretty telling. There are plenty examples of PF relics which do slightly less then the killa klaw, and none of them ever see play anywhere. Because they suck. You need these amounts of buffs to make a PK/PF worthwhile.

However, the quality of GW's rules is completely off topic. Either a warboss/klever big mek with killa klaw is a problem or it isn't. Everything else is irrelevant.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 20:34:40


Post by: Hecaton


 vict0988 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:


The only thing that 100% needs a nerf is Da Killa Klaw, but Ork players will whine and scream if it happens, they whine and scream as soon as it is suggested.


Warboss with killa klaw is on par with SM captain with TH, except the latter can also take jump packs to be mobile, deepstrike and assault flyers. I really don't see anything overpowered here, with the melee oriented commander getting a damage 3 close combat weapon which is allowed on one model only; if anything it's the standard power klaw and killsaw that should be buffed to be at least flat 3 damage now that thunder hammers are flat 4, and other relics to be buffed. Killa Klaw is litterally the only relic worth taking in the entire codex, again we're not SM that have tons of them.

Killa Klaw cost 9, thunder hammer costs 40. So you agree Killa Klaw should go up by 30 pts? There is no SM thunder hammer that provides re-roll failed wounds, +1 damage and +1 to hit one of these needs to go.


What's the final cost and effectiveness of the unit?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 21:58:19


Post by: blaktoof


If DKK is showing up in 90% of lists, but is not OP as a relic- maybe the problem is the limited selection and poor choices for ork relics.

Rather than remove DKK, maybe Orks need more relic options.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 22:02:53


Post by: Grotrebel


 Alwrath wrote:
So, after a big second place GT win after crushing 2 Space Marine armies ( Ultra Marines, Blood Angels ), how do Ork players feel about the current meta? Are you happy that Orks are strong in 8th/9th edition? Are you glad the green tide is strong right now? How many Space Marine armies have you killed at your local meta? I honestly am considering ebaying my Primaris in favor of Orks atm, the PA book and codex look amazing, and I honestly cant wait to see what the 9th edition codex brings to the green players since 8th/9th has proven they are already an amazing army to play, especially in objective games.


Right now a lot of players are still adapting to 9th edition, not to mention many are not able to play at all or visit tournaments/ hobby clubs.
In our city it's kinda ok right now so I had the chance to play against different factions in my hobby club and got in 20+ games so far.

So personally I feel like I had a small head start in my hobby club, as I was one of the more active players right at the start.
Horde Orks do what they always have done, and it feels like they do it even better. But honestly, as a few have mentioned here, not everybody has had the chance to get into 9th, so especially the tournament results are not really meaningfull right now.

Orks had always the possibility to go for board control and 9th edition punishes players that still play like 8th. With more and more armies pushing for board control, using infiltrating units like Nurglings and fast and / or durable units to take objectives after cleaning them it might get harder for horde soon.

The Buggie lists are quite good as well with some variances and personally I enjoy them. They are fast to play, killy, leave room for movement tactic and are not as taxing as fielding 200+ models, even with movement trays.

Overall it feels like a lot units are worth considering for specific lists and it's not like we have that one or two builds that are our only viable option.
Also after I initially thought that 9th would be kinda hard for orks with the new rules, there have been many changes & things i realised, that were beneficial after all, especially the mission design.

Of course there is a year with lots of changes ahead of us if GW is about to drop 1-2 new books a month, but hey that's the game, right?


So to answer your question: Quite happy, a good (head)start with upcoming challenges and new books keeping everything interesting. Also had the chance to try out a lot more stuff than I did in 8th.




How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 22:07:13


Post by: Grimskul


blaktoof wrote:
If DKK is showing up in 90% of lists, but is not OP as a relic- maybe the problem is the limited selection and poor choices for work relics.

Rather than remove DKK, may e Orks need more relic options.


Pretty much this. I would LOVE to take other relics, if the opportunity cost of not taking the DKK wasn't so great. As mentioned before previously, the vast majority of offensive relics in Orks for some reason are bizarrely ineffectual shooting options that you'd manage to shoot, at best, maybe for 2 rounds to little to no impact. The ones worth taking are klan locked behind traits that are sub-optimal, which is why you never see them. The one other melee option is grossly ineffective compared to DKK and even some stuff that I would consider taking (the Supa Cybork Body) isn't optimal since making a tanky boss is somewhat redundant with all the crazy high damage weapons flying all over the place since if you fail the 4+ invuln. save for the Warboss with DBB, you're likely already dead.

Tone the DKK down, once we have other things to use worth taking.

It's pretty much the equivalent of Veil of Darkness in Necron lists. It's auto-take because it's the only one that consistently does something every game.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/19 22:09:33


Post by: thegreatchimp


How does we feel about da melta? We feels burnt is wot we feel 'umie!


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 02:13:19


Post by: McMagnus Mindbullets


Orks are in a really good spot as a faction.
They're performing well on top tables, the edition really benefits their play style, and for once they can be good with a variance of builds.

Plus they're still extremely fun! And now playing them the fun wacky way is even better than just cheesy shooting with them.

A faction is in a good place when it's got too many good options to fit into a list.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 04:34:45


Post by: Breton


 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
Orks are in a really good spot as a faction.
They're performing well on top tables, the edition really benefits their play style, and for once they can be good with a variance of builds.

Plus they're still extremely fun! And now playing them the fun wacky way is even better than just cheesy shooting with them.

A faction is in a good place when it's got too many good options to fit into a list.


Orks are one of the factions this edition inherently favors. They have a fight-oriented basic troop, that already has one of the +1A replacement rules on their default fight weapon in a ruleset that favors fight to score while also making Fight universally less efficient. The armies/units with built in fixes are going to shine. Tau and Necron players should be in a fetal ball right now. Nid players should be throwing an epic tantrum. Kroot don't have a +1A, Necrons don't even have a Fight based Troop, Nid Players get a +1A rule, but then can't put it on their Fight Troops.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 06:49:07


Post by: Jidmah


Goonhammer article relevant to the topic:
https://www.goonhammer.com/9th-edition-tier-list-expectations-vs-reality/

Just scroll to orks if you don't care about the other armies. The also agree with Breton's analysis above on why certain armies aren't doing well.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 06:57:58


Post by: BrianDavion


 Jidmah wrote:
Well, obviously the most powerful ork HQ hitting like a wet noodle up to the point where where it is unplayable without a relics bad design.
PKs are just utterly terrible weapons - the number of powerfists across marine and eldar lists are pretty telling. There are plenty examples of PF relics which do slightly less then the killa klaw, and none of them ever see play anywhere. Because they suck. You need these amounts of buffs to make a PK/PF worthwhile.

However, the quality of GW's rules is completely off topic. Either a warboss/klever big mek with killa klaw is a problem or it isn't. Everything else is irrelevant.


there is however, a light at the end of the tunnel. IIRC the power fist is getting a revision in the marines codex, so Orks can expect the Power Klaw to be similarily upgraded when they get their codex. it'll be frustrating to have to wait, but at least we know GW reckongizes their mistake


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 07:14:15


Post by: Jidmah


Do you have a source on that? I'm genuinely curious.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 07:36:55


Post by: Dysartes


 Jidmah wrote:
Do you have a source on that? I'm genuinely curious.


Indeed - they weren't listed in the WHC article regarding weapon updated.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 07:49:36


Post by: BrianDavion


 Jidmah wrote:
Do you have a source on that? I'm genuinely curious.


vanguard vetern sheet

Spoiler:


it COOOULD be an error but given how unpopular 1d3 dmg has been...


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 08:00:55


Post by: Breton


BrianDavion wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Do you have a source on that? I'm genuinely curious.


vanguard vetern sheet

Spoiler:


it COOOULD be an error but given how unpopular 1d3 dmg has been...
D3 should average out to D2 so it's just smoothing the random. If it still has the 1 to hit or some other drawback - like always fights last - they love giving it Meh.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 08:46:55


Post by: Jidmah


Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes. d3 basically means an additional 5+ save for those units. Even before the points update, anyone who could would pick a killsaw over a PK for that reason.
But it really wouldn't change the problem that warbosses' damage is way to low for a dedicated HQ melee monster with no other function that tends to die after fighting once or twice.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 12:00:08


Post by: Blackie


If GW makes power klaws flat 2 and nothing else change they could just remove them entirely from the codex.

For the same points we can bring killsaws that are exactly the same weapon but AP-4, and they can also be taken in pairs granting +1A.

I know that D3 damage is worse than flat 2, but it's basically the only reason why someone could prefer a klaw instead of a killsaw. Because he feels lucky against 3W models.

An eventual change to flat 2 damage to klaws must necessarily come with other changes to either klaws themselves or killsaws or both.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 17:17:28


Post by: Grimskul


 Blackie wrote:
If GW makes power klaws flat 2 and nothing else change they could just remove them entirely from the codex.

For the same points we can bring killsaws that are exactly the same weapon but AP-4, and they can also be taken in pairs granting +1A.

I know that D3 damage is worse than flat 2, but it's basically the only reason why someone could prefer a klaw instead of a killsaw. Because he feels lucky against 3W models.

An eventual change to flat 2 damage to klaws must necessarily come with other changes to either klaws themselves or killsaws or both.


Yeah...I can't see them just giving the 2 damage to klaws and leaving the points the same between Killsaws and PK. Worst case scenario, they just boost up the price of Killsaws to make the PK look "better" in terms of points efficiency, which would really suck. Or best case scenario, PK get 3 damage base while going up 5 points, while Killsaws stay the same. Now there's a tradeoff between more flat damage with less AP and attacks compared to Killsaws, and it makes regular MANZ hit a hell of a lot harder when going with their base equipment.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 17:39:17


Post by: Blackie


I think killsaws will probably go up in points as powerklaws have always been identical to power fists and they'll probably get the same profile with damage 2.

Maybe killsaws become 15 (20 for the pair) but with damage 4, like thunder hammers. Or "just" flat 3 or D6, who knows. But my guess is killsaws will be some sort of thunder hammers equivalents, aka more expensive than klaws but also more powerful.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 17:59:58


Post by: Breton


 Jidmah wrote:
Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.
Well yeah, obviously flat 2 is better vs 2 wound models when having a chance of 1 or 3 don’t help. But d3 averages 2, so it’s not a boost so much as flattening the high and low spikes. Isn’t that what I said originally?

d3 basically means an additional 5+ save for those units. Even before the points update, anyone who could would pick a killsaw over a PK for that reason.
But it really wouldn't change the problem that warbosses' damage is way to low for a dedicated HQ melee monster with no other function that tends to die after fighting once or twice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
I think killsaws will probably go up in points as powerklaws have always been identical to power fists and they'll probably get the same profile with damage 2.

Maybe killsaws become 15 (20 for the pair) but with damage 4, like thunder hammers. Or "just" flat 3 or D6, who knows. But my guess is killsaws will be some sort of thunder hammers equivalents, aka more expensive than klaws but also more powerful.


Maybe kill saws get reroll wounds, and +1A for two like lightning claws?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 19:50:27


Post by: Jidmah


Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.
Well yeah, obviously flat 2 is better vs 2 wound models when having a chance of 1 or 3 don’t help. But d3 averages 2, so it’s not a boost so much as flattening the high and low spikes. Isn’t that what I said originally?

Yes, you said that originally, and I disagreed with it. Going from d3 to flat 2 is a boost, because reliably killing 2 wound models is a very important thing to do.
That said that boost would not make PK worth taking, considering how we already have the killsaw.

Maybe kill saws get reroll wounds, and +1A for two like lightning claws?

Re-roll to wound wouldn't matter much, and they already get +1A for two. No model besides MANz can have more than one though. With just 3-4 attacks neither d3 nor 2 damage will ever threaten anything of worth.
What ork melee weapons are lacking is damage, nothing else - hence the reason why da killa klaw is used so much. If orks had access to thunder hammers all PKs and killsaws would instantly replaced by them on every possible model, 40 pts nor not.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 21:07:04


Post by: Blackie


 Jidmah wrote:

Yes, you said that originally, and I disagreed with it. Going from d3 to flat 2 is a boost, because reliably killing 2 wound models is a very important thing to do.
That said that boost would not make PK worth taking, considering how we already have the killsaw.


Exactly, on meganobz in particular damage 2 is far superior than D3. Against 2W or 4W models it's simply more reliable and against 3W models there's always the stratagem that puts killsaws at damage 3. Damage 2 vs D3 is basically the same only against vehicles or models with lots of wounds, and single wound bodies of course.

 Jidmah wrote:

If orks had access to thunder hammers all PKs and killsaws would instantly replaced by them on every possible model, 40 pts nor not.


They pay only 15 points for those, 40 is the price for characters.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 21:59:45


Post by: Galas


It does not matter than d3 damage averages 2 because maybe your first roll is 1 damage and your second one is 3 damage and it is wasted. 2 damage is always better than d3 damage.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 22:22:23


Post by: Jidmah


 Blackie wrote:
They pay only 15 points for those, 40 is the price for characters.

I stand by my word that I don't give a damn about what other armies get for what point cost. A weapon needs to makes sense in the context of its army irrespective of what other armies have.
A thunderhammer on a warboss would be decent even at 40 points, TH on regular nobz for 15 would probably be auto-takes.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/20 22:52:19


Post by: tulun


 Jidmah wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
They pay only 15 points for those, 40 is the price for characters.

I stand by my word that I don't give a damn about what other armies get for what point cost. A weapon needs to makes sense in the context of its army irrespective of what other armies have.
A thunderhammer on a warboss would be decent even at 40 points, TH on regular nobz for 15 would probably be auto-takes.


To be honest, they are often auto takes for marines, too. People are even saying heavy intercessors are way less interesting over regular intercessors (although we don't have full info yet) *strictly* because the sarg cannot take a thunder hammer.

Regardless, the PK is insultingly bad. Kill Saws are actually fine, but unfortunately are not wide spread enough in the army. I really hope the new Ork codex unlocks the potential for a warboss to take a Kill Saw. Hell, if we get other good relics, it might even make me not take Da Killa Klaw, because I can already find ways of making Kill Saws good (Flat 3 with a Brutal but Kunnin) -- it's just not takeable on the precise platform you want it to be.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 01:58:25


Post by: NinthMusketeer


As a non-Ork player I think PKs should be a flat 3. It looks like a weapon that could gut my Tyranid warriors in one blow. Certainly tear the head, leg or breastplate off a terminator.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 03:40:28


Post by: Breton


 Jidmah wrote:
Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.
Well yeah, obviously flat 2 is better vs 2 wound models when having a chance of 1 or 3 don’t help. But d3 averages 2, so it’s not a boost so much as flattening the high and low spikes. Isn’t that what I said originally?

Yes, you said that originally, and I disagreed with it. Going from d3 to flat 2 is a boost, because reliably killing 2 wound models is a very important thing to do.
That said that boost would not make PK worth taking, considering how we already have the killsaw.
. That’s ok, I don’t mind if you’re wrong. Trading a 33% chance to one-shot the incoming influx of 3 wound models for an extra 33% chance to one shot 2 wound models is far more side-grade than upgrade. Remember those 2W bikes you mentioned are probably going to 3 Wound bikes when Tacs go to 2W.

Maybe kill saws get reroll wounds, and +1A for two like lightning claws?

Re-roll to wound wouldn't matter much, and they already get +1A for two. No model besides MANz can have more than one though. With just 3-4 attacks neither d3 nor 2 damage will ever threaten anything of worth.
That’s Lightning Claws rules. I’m suggesting if you make one roughly parallel to fists/TH, make the other roughly comparable to Lightning Claws.

What ork melee weapons are lacking is damage, nothing else - hence the reason why da killa klaw is used so much. If orks had access to thunder hammers all PKs and killsaws would instantly replaced by them on every possible model, 40 pts nor not.
Thunder Hammers are getting nerfed. Or everything else is getting a boost. I would be only mildly surprised if they bring back strikes last for TH this edition to go with extra damage. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see it FAQed or supplemented back in before 10th. I more than half expect it in 10th. I’d be most surprised if they boost the rest of melee weapon damage to keep up with it.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 04:44:08


Post by: Void__Dragon


Breton wrote:
That’s ok, I don’t mind if you’re wrong. Trading a 33% chance to one-shot the incoming influx of 3 wound models for an extra 33% chance to one shot 2 wound models is far more side-grade than upgrade. Remember those 2W bikes you mentioned are probably going to 3 Wound bikes when Tacs go to 2W.


No, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Against anything that is 2W d3 is just flat-out worse than flat 2 damage. 66% of the time you'll kill it with one unsaved wound, sure. But then 33% of the time you fail to do so. And the thing is, that 33% chance to do 3 damage does not in any way make up for doing 1 damage 33% of the time because damage doesn't carry over. If you roll a 1 then no matter what you have to roll damage again to kill that enemy model.

Against 3 wound models d3 is better sometimes but then there are those fun occasions where you roll three 1s to kill one model, when flat 2 will always allow you to kill it in two.

Against 4 wound models d3 is universally worse because it will always take at least two unsaved wounds to kill the enemy unit and sometimes can take fething four, when flat 2 damage will always kill it in two.

There is pretty much never a scenario where I'd prefer having d3 damage to a flat 2, and I know this because I play Custodes where every fething melee weapon is d3 damage. Reliability is always better than variance, and is especially so in melee where shitrolling can make your melee dude just bounce off something much less expensive than he is, like when I had a Bloodthirster just bounce off a basic ass dreadnought by rolling nothing but 1s and 2s for the damage.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 04:49:30


Post by: Breton


 Void__Dragon wrote:
Breton wrote:
That’s ok, I don’t mind if you’re wrong. Trading a 33% chance to one-shot the incoming influx of 3 wound models for an extra 33% chance to one shot 2 wound models is far more side-grade than upgrade. Remember those 2W bikes you mentioned are probably going to 3 Wound bikes when Tacs go to 2W.


No, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Against anything that is 2W d3 is just flat-out worse than flat 2 damage. 66% of the time you'll kill it with one unsaved wound, sure. But then 33% of the time you fail to do so. And the thing is, that 33% chance to do 3 damage does not in any way make up for doing 1 damage 33% of the time because damage doesn't carry over. If you roll a 1 then no matter what you have to roll damage again to kill that enemy model.
Yes, I'm absolutely wrong for pointing out that in this scenario there's a slight boost, while in that scenario it's a slight nerf. I particularly enjoy the part where you point out the scenario where Flat 2 is better like I didn't do so myself in the first place.

Against 3 wound models d3 is better sometimes but then there are those fun occasions where you roll three 1s to kill one model, when flat 2 will always allow you to kill it in two.
The guy who pretends I didn't point out 2W vs 3W scenarios chooses to specifically point out the 3 1's but not 3 3's scenario. An honest debate is always fun.

Against 4 wound models d3 is universally worse because it will always take at least two unsaved wounds to kill the enemy unit and sometimes can take fething four, when flat 2 damage will always kill it in two.

There is pretty much never a scenario where I'd prefer having d3 damage to a flat 2, and I know this because I play Custodes where every fething melee weapon is d3 damage. Reliability is always better than variance, and is especially so in melee where shitrolling can make your melee dude just bounce off something much less expensive than he is, like when I had a Bloodthirster just bounce off a basic ass dreadnought by rolling nothing but 1s and 2s for the damage.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 08:23:16


Post by: Jidmah


Breton wrote:
That’s ok, I don’t mind if you’re wrong. Trading a 33% chance to one-shot the incoming influx of 3 wound models for an extra 33% chance to one shot 2 wound models is far more side-grade than upgrade. Remember those 2W bikes you mentioned are probably going to 3 Wound bikes when Tacs go to 2W.

Oh, you mean those bikes which absolutely no one takes? Because marines got much better bikes with 4 wounds against which a 2W weapons is far better once more? 3W models are not common at all. The two or three units you see per game can be blown up with KMB, rokkits or the killa klaw.
Trading a 33% chance to kill rare units for a 33% chance to kill one of the most common profiles in the game is not a side-grade.
And I suggest keeping the snark to yourself if you feel like complaining about "honest discussions" in the same post.

That’s Lightning Claws rules. I’m suggesting if you make one roughly parallel to fists/TH, make the other roughly comparable to Lightning Claws.

Why on earth would orks want trade their best melee weapon on their best melee unit for a gakky melee weapon no marine in any codex, both chaos and loyalist wants to use? I'm always surprised about this marine mindset that xenos weapons should not be better than the stuff they wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole because it sucks so much.
Killsaws are the equivalent of chainfists by the way, but I can't blame anyone for forgetting about them if they can have TH instead.
Thunder Hammers are getting nerfed. Or everything else is getting a boost. I would be only mildly surprised if they bring back strikes last for TH this edition to go with extra damage. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see it FAQed or supplemented back in before 10th. I more than half expect it in 10th. I’d be most surprised if they boost the rest of melee weapon damage to keep up with it.

Is there a source for any of this? Orks also wouldn't care about striking last either. We've already done that for four editions. None of the ork melee specialists work because they can't threaten hard targets because they lack the damage to take them down and then get gunned down because the hard target just fell back. All units were designed around the fact that a single PK had a decent chance of severely damaging or destroying a vehicle or cause instant death to other multi-wound models, even if it meant taking a full round of combat to the face first.
The two sole exceptions to this rule are the one HQ with a relic that does more damage and the unit which has a stratagem that does more damage.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 09:41:43


Post by: Tyel


I think D3 damage is about 28% better versus 3 wound models than 2 damage, but 2 damage in turn is 20% better versus 2 wound models. If 3 wounds became a normal statline there might be an argument for it. There is however an argument that you want to protect against the downside more than hoping for the upside - i.e. rolling a load of 1s impacts your game more than that time you rolled a loads of 3s and overkilled it by miles.

With that said, Imo any weapon with a minus 1 to hit should be 3 damage (Hi there Archite Glaive). If the Thunder Hammer needs some special snowflakiness because Imperium gotta be better, then give it something in addition.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 09:51:48


Post by: Jidmah


Well, it used to stun units, you could attach a "fights last" or -1 to hit debuff to it.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 10:52:04


Post by: Galas


The problem that most d3 damage defenders forget is that yeah you can roll a 3 and kill a 3 wound model in one strike. But you can roll that 3 after rolling a 1 and it becomes useless because damage doesnt spill over.

As Void_Dragon, being a Custodes player, I would pay anything to have all our weapons become damage 2.

And it looks like thunder hammers are going to damage 4, so many -1 weapons can become flat damage 3.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 11:51:10


Post by: Breton


 Jidmah wrote:
Breton wrote:
That’s ok, I don’t mind if you’re wrong. Trading a 33% chance to one-shot the incoming influx of 3 wound models for an extra 33% chance to one shot 2 wound models is far more side-grade than upgrade. Remember those 2W bikes you mentioned are probably going to 3 Wound bikes when Tacs go to 2W.

Oh, you mean those bikes which absolutely no one takes? Because marines got much better bikes with 4 wounds against which a 2W weapons is far better once more? 3W models are not common at all. The two or three units you see per game can be blown up with KMB, rokkits or the killa klaw.
Trading a 33% chance to kill rare units for a 33% chance to kill one of the most common profiles in the game is not a side-grade.
And I suggest keeping the snark to yourself if you feel like complaining about "honest discussions" in the same post.
Like the Tacticals noone takes that are going to 2W? To be fair, the Bikes may go to 4W. Bikes could be +1T +100% or +1W (i..e 3W or 4W) - too early to tell. By rare do you mean the Aggressors, Eradicators, and (potentially) Heavy Intercessors nobody takes, but everyone is complaining about? Bikes can take 2 Specials, and extra bikers, Outriders cannot. If Old Marines go 2A and 2W base Bikes could be more popular than Outriders. If they don't go 2A, probably not.


That’s Lightning Claws rules. I’m suggesting if you make one roughly parallel to fists/TH, make the other roughly comparable to Lightning Claws.

Why on earth would orks want trade their best melee weapon on their best melee unit for a gakky melee weapon no marine in any codex, both chaos and loyalist wants to use? I'm always surprised about this marine mindset that xenos weapons should not be better than the stuff they wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole because it sucks so much.
Killsaws are the equivalent of chainfists by the way, but I can't blame anyone for forgetting about them if they can have TH instead.
Is there a source for you saying I think Xenos weapons shouldn't be "better" or is that easier than honesty? As you pointed out only MANz can take two, MANz are a corollary to Terminators thus TH/LC comparisons especially 2LC vs 2 saws making two different and useful instead of two overlapping neither good options.

Thunder Hammers are getting nerfed. Or everything else is getting a boost. I would be only mildly surprised if they bring back strikes last for TH this edition to go with extra damage. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see it FAQed or supplemented back in before 10th. I more than half expect it in 10th. I’d be most surprised if they boost the rest of melee weapon damage to keep up with it.

Is there a source for any of this? Orks also wouldn't care about striking last either. We've already done that for four editions. None of the ork melee specialists work because they can't threaten hard targets because they lack the damage to take them down and then get gunned down because the hard target just fell back. All units were designed around the fact that a single PK had a decent chance of severely damaging or destroying a vehicle or cause instant death to other multi-wound models, even if it meant taking a full round of combat to the face first.
The two sole exceptions to this rule are the one HQ with a relic that does more damage and the unit which has a stratagem that does more damage.

No, there's no source for a prediction beyond past GW performance and tendencies. Did I say Orks would care about striking last? I don't see where I mentioned anything other than predicting TH would get a negative rule to offset their boost sometimes soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
The problem that most d3 damage defenders forget is that yeah you can roll a 3 and kill a 3 wound model in one strike. But you can roll that 3 after rolling a 1 and it becomes useless because damage doesnt spill over.

As Void_Dragon, being a Custodes player, I would pay anything to have all our weapons become damage 2.

And it looks like thunder hammers are going to damage 4, so many -1 weapons can become flat damage 3.


It looks like the D3D weapons are going Flat 2 not Flat 3. I think Fists went flat 2.

The extra damage from 2x D2 don't spill over either.

I absolutely agree a Flat 2 is easier and more comfortable to work with than D3D, but its not really a performance upgrade, is it? I mean you still lose damage to overkill on 3W right?


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 12:07:28


Post by: the_scotsman


BrianDavion wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Well, obviously the most powerful ork HQ hitting like a wet noodle up to the point where where it is unplayable without a relics bad design.
PKs are just utterly terrible weapons - the number of powerfists across marine and eldar lists are pretty telling. There are plenty examples of PF relics which do slightly less then the killa klaw, and none of them ever see play anywhere. Because they suck. You need these amounts of buffs to make a PK/PF worthwhile.

However, the quality of GW's rules is completely off topic. Either a warboss/klever big mek with killa klaw is a problem or it isn't. Everything else is irrelevant.


there is however, a light at the end of the tunnel. IIRC the power fist is getting a revision in the marines codex, so Orks can expect the Power Klaw to be similarily upgraded when they get their codex. it'll be frustrating to have to wait, but at least we know GW reckongizes their mistake


True, presumably because they are identical weapons we'll be seeing the same rebalance where powerfist-equivalent gets slightly buffed and chainfist-equivalent gets slightly nerfed.

In some ways though, i've started to view being an NPC codex as an advantage. GW's too lazy to hand out obvious rules fixes to non-marine codexes in a reasonable timeframe, but they're also too lazy to hand out obvious rules nerfs! So yes I will enjoy my lack of CORE restrictions, obvious auto-take weapon choices, etc until my codexes actually come out.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 13:08:04


Post by: Blackie


Breton wrote:


I absolutely agree a Flat 2 is easier and more comfortable to work with than D3D, but its not really a performance upgrade, is it? I mean you still lose damage to overkill on 3W right?


It depends on the unit with damage 2 weapons. Meganobz for example, basically the only ork unit with multiple melee damage 2 weapons, have a stratagem to increase their damage by 1. So they can be damage 3 if they need to be, for example against 3W models, and those killsaws outperform power klaws in any possible way. Unless we really consider a downside paying 40 points for a model instead of 38. D3 damage can also mean 3 unsaved wound rolls against 3W models if the first two damage rolls are 1, while damage 2 is overkill but there isn't any chance to waste 3 successfull wound rolls for a single enemy model.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/21 14:11:15


Post by: Jidmah


Breton wrote:
Like the Tacticals noone takes that are going to 2W?

Now you are the one arguing in bad faith. Not just tacticals, but the entire marines codex minus scouts will be 2W. Especially all the primaris marines everyone is already playing and which are unlikely to just vanish into thin air.
To be fair, the Bikes may go to 4W. Bikes could be +1T +100% or +1W (i..e 3W or 4W) - too early to tell.

You were the one to bring them up *shrug*
If it's to early to tell, your argument has been debunked.

By rare do you mean the Aggressors, Eradicators, and (potentially) Heavy Intercessors nobody takes, but everyone is complaining about?

In reality, you are unlikely to see more than ~12-15 gravis models in a marine army because they cost so much. Especially the ones you mentioned need to be killed through shooting before melee ever becomes an option. You also really don't want to assault aggressors with an ork unit.
I have no opinion about heavy intercessors, but I don't see marines exclusively switching to them unless their points are insanely low - at which points the next CA will axe them. But as you said yourself, it's too early to tell.

Bikes can take 2 Specials, and extra bikers, Outriders cannot. If Old Marines go 2A and 2W base Bikes could be more popular than Outriders. If they don't go 2A, probably not.

We already know they won't be going to 2A from the leaked datasheets. So this argument debunked as well.

As you pointed out only MANz can take two, MANz are a corollary to Terminators thus TH/LC comparisons especially 2LC vs 2 saws making two different and useful instead of two overlapping neither good options.

Terminators get neither TH nor LC though. They get PF and chainfists, just like MANz. From the leaks we know chainfists are going to d3 damage, so the same might happen to killsaws.

Did I say Orks would care about striking last? I don't see where I mentioned anything other than predicting TH would get a negative rule to offset their boost sometimes soon.

There is no need to be this defensive. You are posting in a thread discussing orks, and I merely responded that orks would even gladly take those nerfed TH as long as they provide 3 damage per unsaved wound.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 01:54:30


Post by: Breton


 Jidmah wrote:
Breton wrote:
Like the Tacticals noone takes that are going to 2W?

Now you are the one arguing in bad faith. Not just tacticals, but the entire marines codex minus scouts will be 2W. Especially all the primaris marines everyone is already playing and which are unlikely to just vanish into thin air.
For pointing out the most obvious but not a full list? Sure. And if mentioning only the Tacs was bad faith, what is claiming the entire codex will be 2W and not mentioning all the 3W Gravis, 3W Terminators, 4W Attack bikes, and so on and so on? That's OK, don't bother answering. Its Different When You Do It.

To be fair, the Bikes may go to 4W. Bikes could be +1T +100% or +1W (i..e 3W or 4W) - too early to tell.

You were the one to bring them up *shrug*
Actually you were, but why start with honesty now?
Jidmah wrote:Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:


As you pointed out only MANz can take two, MANz are a corollary to Terminators thus TH/LC comparisons especially 2LC vs 2 saws making two different and useful instead of two overlapping neither good options.

Terminators get neither TH nor LC though. They get PF and chainfists, just like MANz. From the leaks we know chainfists are going to d3 damage, so the same might happen to killsaws.
My TH/SS and TwinLC Terminators are going to be shocked as hell they have power fists and chainfirsts.

Did I say Orks would care about striking last? I don't see where I mentioned anything other than predicting TH would get a negative rule to offset their boost sometimes soon.

There is no need to be this defensive. You are posting in a thread discussing orks, and I merely responded that orks would even gladly take those nerfed TH as long as they provide 3 damage per unsaved wound.


There's no need to be defensive as I put words in your mouth, and then ad hom you for those words. That I put in your mouth.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 06:40:42


Post by: r_squared


Turn it in lads, you're boring as F, no one cares.

Back to the point of the thread. What do I think about the meta? Won some games, lost others, getting to try out different army lists and styles. It's all early doors and our codex hasn't dropped yet.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 07:09:56


Post by: Jidmah


Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Breton wrote:
Like the Tacticals noone takes that are going to 2W?

Now you are the one arguing in bad faith. Not just tacticals, but the entire marines codex minus scouts will be 2W. Especially all the primaris marines everyone is already playing and which are unlikely to just vanish into thin air.
For pointing out the most obvious but not a full list? Sure. And if mentioning only the Tacs was bad faith, what is claiming the entire codex will be 2W and not mentioning all the 3W Gravis, 3W Terminators, 4W Attack bikes, and so on and so on? That's OK, don't bother answering. Its Different When You Do It.

Seriously? Arguing in bad faith and then moving goal post in bad faith to argue that the other person is doing it? You are one of the worst people to argue with on this forum. You are impolite, twist and turn your own and other's words to fit whatever point you want to be true and every one of your posts reeks of logical fallacies.
You counter-argument to d3 being better than flat 2 was cleary that tacticals were not being played, while fully knowing that the vast majority of units would either be 2 or 4 wounds.

Actually you were, but why start with honesty now?
Jidmah wrote:Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.

The hell? Nice job taking that one out of context and moving more goalposts
I wasn't talking about marine bikes, but bikes in general like tomb blades, shininig spears, warbikers and so on. Oh and actual marine bikes which are 2 wounds right now.
You were the one to claim that *marine* bikes were going to 3 wounds and therefore d3 was superior against them. To which you then replied that we can't know yet whether they'll go up. You have proven yourself wrong.

Breton wrote:
My TH/SS and TwinLC Terminators are going to be shocked as hell they have power fists and chainfirsts.

They'll be more shocked to learn that their owner is intentionally confusing terminators and assault terminators for yet another bad faith argument.

Considering you are investing vastly more energy into being impolite and condescending than into your arguments or checking facts, I have no interest in reading any post from you ever again. Your contribution to this forum is less than worthless, so I'll use the technical means of dakka to improve the quality of content visible to me.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 09:56:34


Post by: Breton


 Jidmah wrote:


Actually you were, but why start with honesty now?
Jidmah wrote:Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.

The hell? Nice job taking that one out of context and moving more goalposts
I wasn't talking about marine bikes, but bikes in general like tomb blades, shininig spears, warbikers and so on. Oh and actual marine bikes which are 2 wounds right now.
You were the one to claim that *marine* bikes were going to 3 wounds and therefore d3 was superior against them. To which you then replied that we can't know yet whether they'll go up. You have proven yourself wrong.
So Primaris and ALL THE OTHER BIKES EVER.

Breton wrote:
My TH/SS and TwinLC Terminators are going to be shocked as hell they have power fists and chainfirsts.

They'll be more shocked to learn that their owner is intentionally confusing terminators and assault terminators for yet another bad faith argument.
Last I checked they were all terminators. Cataphracti, Tartaros, Shooty, Assault, Deathwing, etc. They're all referred to as Terminators with the two seat butt size.

Considering you are investing vastly more energy into being impolite and condescending than into your arguments or checking facts, I have no interest in reading any post from you ever again. Your contribution to this forum is less than worthless, so I'll use the technical means of dakka to improve the quality of content visible to me.


Well that was certainly polite and more interested in correcting the facts while complaining when I actually DID point out Bikes could actually be a different Stat Modifier than assumed.. I give back what I get, so perhaps a mirror isn't a good look for you. See ya.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 11:39:19


Post by: the_scotsman


So worth noting yall, because everyone seems to forget:

-CHAINFISTS (and presumably killsaws) will now be -1 to hit, Sx2, AP-4, D3d

-POWERFISTS (and presumably power klaws) will now be -1 to hit, Sx2, AP-3, D2

Chainfists (and Killsaws) will still have an additional point of AP meaning that most preferred targets with Sv3+ will not get a save against them, somewhat offsetting the damage efficiency loss vs meqs that flat 2 provides and making the weapons kind of a reasonably balanced choice.

For Meganobz, it's mostly about the fact that they get 2 killsaws vs 1 power klaw 1 kustom shoota. It's a 7-point upgrade (I think) where mostly you're paying for the extra attack they get via a rule on their datasheet. I suspect since they will have that stratagem to make htemselves damage minimum 2, killsaws will still be the way to roll with the d3 damage instead of 2 damage change. Because a kustom shoota is in no way worth 3 points.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 12:59:05


Post by: Blackie


the_scotsman wrote:
So worth noting yall, because everyone seems to forget:

-CHAINFISTS (and presumably killsaws) will now be -1 to hit, Sx2, AP-4, D3d

-POWERFISTS (and presumably power klaws) will now be -1 to hit, Sx2, AP-3, D2

Chainfists (and Killsaws) will still have an additional point of AP meaning that most preferred targets with Sv3+ will not get a save against them, somewhat offsetting the damage efficiency loss vs meqs that flat 2 provides and making the weapons kind of a reasonably balanced choice.

For Meganobz, it's mostly about the fact that they get 2 killsaws vs 1 power klaw 1 kustom shoota. It's a 7-point upgrade (I think) where mostly you're paying for the extra attack they get via a rule on their datasheet. I suspect since they will have that stratagem to make htemselves damage minimum 2, killsaws will still be the way to roll with the d3 damage instead of 2 damage change. Because a kustom shoota is in no way worth 3 points.


Although it would be a straight nerf to killsaws it also looks fair. I mean power klaws would have the reliable damage 2, killsaws get a better AP. Now they are in competition, like they should be.

Meganobz still have their strategem to add 1 damage if the ork player wants to eliminate those wasted damage rolls of 1 against 2W enemy models.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:12:55


Post by: catbarf


Also, D3 damage is more effective than flat 2 damage against 3-wound models, to the tune of about 15%. Some people earlier in the thread were discounting that, but it's the same level of improvement as getting re-rolling 1s to hit, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Taking better AP into account, against Gravis (or anything else W3/3+), that chainfist/killsaw profile is just under 40% better than powerfists/powerklaws.

Against Primaris, both weapons perform identically (ave 1.2 wounds needed to kill).


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:16:12


Post by: Nitro Zeus


Jidmah, just give it a rest. He pointed out the statements you genuinely made, while you are also the one spending far more time attacking the person and not the argument. As is usual for you. Basically everything you've accused him of is more accurately aimed at yourself, and as r_squared said - nobody even gives a damn what you are trying to argue about right now.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:28:52


Post by: the_scotsman


 catbarf wrote:
Also, D3 damage is more effective than flat 2 damage against 2-wound models, to the tune of about 15%. Some people earlier in the thread were discounting that, but it's the same level of improvement as getting re-rolling 1s to hit, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Taking better AP into account, against Gravis (or anything else W3/3+), that chainfist/killsaw profile is just under 40% better than powerfists/powerklaws.

Against Primaris, both weapons perform identically (ave 1.2 wounds needed to kill).


wait, how does that work? D3 damage surely is worse against W2 models than flat 2, I would assume about 33% worse because you can roll a 1 and then your next wound is wasted.

I buy that powerfists and chainfists would be identical against primaris (because the AP-4 matters vs Sv3+) but that would be offset by the damage 2, not an additional bonus of the damage d3.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:34:44


Post by: Jidmah


I'm running Deathshroud Terminator a lot currently, which are very similar to those potential MANz with d3 and a +1damage stratagem. 1d3+1 is reliable enough to murder 3W units as they tend to not have a large amount of models and they get overkilled anyways. When they touch a unit of destroyers or harlequin bikes, they simply disappear.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:48:46


Post by: Breton


the_scotsman wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Also, D3 damage is more effective than flat 2 damage against 2-wound models, to the tune of about 15%. Some people earlier in the thread were discounting that, but it's the same level of improvement as getting re-rolling 1s to hit, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Taking better AP into account, against Gravis (or anything else W3/3+), that chainfist/killsaw profile is just under 40% better than powerfists/powerklaws.

Against Primaris, both weapons perform identically (ave 1.2 wounds needed to kill).


wait, how does that work? D3 damage surely is worse against W2 models than flat 2, I would assume about 33% worse because you can roll a 1 and then your next wound is wasted.

I buy that powerfists and chainfists would be identical against primaris (because the AP-4 matters vs Sv3+) but that would be offset by the damage 2, not an additional bonus of the damage d3.


Yeah, I don't get that either. D3D does have a chance of hitting D1, but the improved chance against 3W is the offset along wtih the potential 5+ or 6+/4++ The new SS on a 2+ (Terminator or Artificer) at -3 +1 = 4+/4++ at -4+1 = 5+/4++ without SS it's 5+/5++ or 6+/5++ so even vs Terminators, Armor Save is pretty well bypassed by both.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 13:58:37


Post by: catbarf


the_scotsman wrote:wait, how does that work? D3 damage surely is worse against W2 models than flat 2, I would assume about 33% worse because you can roll a 1 and then your next wound is wasted.

I buy that powerfists and chainfists would be identical against primaris (because the AP-4 matters vs Sv3+) but that would be offset by the damage 2, not an additional bonus of the damage d3.


Breton wrote:Yeah, I don't get that either. D3D does have a chance of hitting D1, but the improved chance against 3W is the offset along wtih the potential 5+ or 6+/4++ The new SS on a 2+ (Terminator or Artificer) at -3 +1 = 4+/4++ at -4+1 = 5+/4++ without SS it's 5+/5++ or 6+/5++ so even vs Terminators, Armor Save is pretty well bypassed by both.


Because I meant W3 models, and instead typo'd that post into nonsense

What I meant is that D3 damage is significantly more effective against W3 than flat 2 damage, but worse by about the same margin against W2.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 14:05:54


Post by: Nitro Zeus


I figured that might be what you meant.

Tho I guess if I wanted to tool to fight Gravis I'd prefer the Thunder Hammer for a handful of extra points, everytime.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 14:34:50


Post by: Breton


 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I figured that might be what you meant.

Tho I guess if I wanted to tool to fight Gravis I'd prefer the Thunder Hammer for a handful of extra points, everytime.


TH did do the best. I think it was 4.5 dead per 5 TH/SS Terminators/VV


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 15:13:22


Post by: Pyroalchi


Just for the sake of the math, how many unsaved wounds d2 and dD3 weapons need to kill a model:

W2: 1 (d2), 4/3 (dD3)
W3: 2 (d2), 16/9 (dD3)

So d2 kills +33% W2 models
dD3 kills +12.5% W3 models

Edit:Math
Spoiler:

Chance of a dD3 model to kill W2 with
1 shot: 2/3
2 shots: 1/3
=> 1x2/3+2x1/3=4/3 shots on average
=> d2 kills 4/3 as many models, therefore +33% damage

Chance of a dD3 model to kill W3 with
1 shot: 1/3
2 shots: 5/9 (rolling a 2 and anything else or rolling a 1 followed by 2 or 3)
3 shots: 1/9
=> 1x3/9+2x5/9+3x1/9=16/9
=> d2 needs 2=18/9 shots/W3 model, so dD3 kills (18/9)/(16/9)=18/16=9/8 = 112.5% as many W3 models


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 17:07:14


Post by: Hecaton


Breton wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Actually you were, but why start with honesty now?
Jidmah wrote:Well, flat 2 is a lot better than d3 when you are hitting something like primaris or bikes.

The hell? Nice job taking that one out of context and moving more goalposts
I wasn't talking about marine bikes, but bikes in general like tomb blades, shininig spears, warbikers and so on. Oh and actual marine bikes which are 2 wounds right now.
You were the one to claim that *marine* bikes were going to 3 wounds and therefore d3 was superior against them. To which you then replied that we can't know yet whether they'll go up. You have proven yourself wrong.
So Primaris and ALL THE OTHER BIKES EVER.

Breton wrote:
My TH/SS and TwinLC Terminators are going to be shocked as hell they have power fists and chainfirsts.

They'll be more shocked to learn that their owner is intentionally confusing terminators and assault terminators for yet another bad faith argument.
Last I checked they were all terminators. Cataphracti, Tartaros, Shooty, Assault, Deathwing, etc. They're all referred to as Terminators with the two seat butt size.

Considering you are investing vastly more energy into being impolite and condescending than into your arguments or checking facts, I have no interest in reading any post from you ever again. Your contribution to this forum is less than worthless, so I'll use the technical means of dakka to improve the quality of content visible to me.


Well that was certainly polite and more interested in correcting the facts while complaining when I actually DID point out Bikes could actually be a different Stat Modifier than assumed.. I give back what I get, so perhaps a mirror isn't a good look for you. See ya.


It looks like you're running away from an argument when your falsehoods don't hold up anymore.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 17:20:55


Post by: tulun


 Pyroalchi wrote:
Just for the sake of the math, how many unsaved wounds d2 and dD3 weapons need to kill a model:

W2: 1 (d2), 4/3 (dD3)
W3: 2 (d2), 16/9 (dD3)

So d2 kills +33% W2 models
dD3 kills +12.5% W3 models


In the grand scheme of things, removing variance is worth it. I'll gladly lose some efficiency against 3 wound models to KNOW I need 2 attacks -- That is incredibly valuable, because I have a certain amount of resources I can use at any given moment. I often have to make hard choices where I need to split attacks and such, and even the chance of whiffing a roll is not worth it. I'll take losing the chance of rolling a 3 when I could roll three 1's and that might lose me the game.

And frankly, 2 wound models are still going to be the most common thing you see when you face space marines given now all firstborn at 2 wounds, and regular intercessors are still likely to be a great unit.

People arguing the other side know this and choose to be obtuse because they want Orks to have bad choices? hell if I know. Why don't we drop TH by 5 points for regular and 10 for characters and reduce it to Dd3 and see how quickly people's tunes change.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/22 19:45:51


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Reliability is extremely valuable. It adds up to d2 being better than dD3 in all but the most niche circumstances, TBH I assumed that was common knowledge.


How do Ork players feel about the meta? @ 2020/09/23 02:36:27


Post by: Breton


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Reliability is extremely valuable. It adds up to d2 being better than dD3 in all but the most niche circumstances, TBH I assumed that was common knowledge.


Reliability - quality vs quantity - is a psychological advantage, not really a statistical or performance one. 10 models with 20 wounds that get 20 shots hitting 67% of the time vs 20 models with 1 wound that get 40 shots hitting 33% of the time doesn’t provide a substantial upgrade either way, even tho half the shots landing twice as often is more “reliable”.

And I’m not sure I’d call either 2W or any and every other wound profile that isn’t 2W niche.

If you scroll back up far enough, this was about not considering either D2 or D3D an upgrade over the other, instead suggesting they were side-grades.