Honest question here, I saw the new Kroot statline and rules and it immediately struck me that Kroot are now better than boyz. I know they don't get sept rules and don't benefit from markerlights (except for a strat I think) but overall, do you think their profiles are better than the boyz profile?
A Boy is 9ppm, M5, WS3 BS5 S4 T5 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
A Kroot is 6ppm, M7, WS3 BS4, S4 T3 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
Weapons wise the Boy has a 12' S4 pistol the Kroot has a 24' S4 rapid fire rifle. Both have -1AP CC weapons.
Inherent rules I'm not sure on everything the kroot have yet, but the boy has Ere We go and Mob Rule. I know for certain kroot have a version of "infiltrate" in that they get a free movement of 7' before the game starts and they get +1 in light cover giving them a 4+ save while in cover.
Pt for Pt, boyz are still better in CC, but the durability buff (in cover) and the ranged dmg I think more than makes up the difference, as does the points cost difference which means you are less inclined to care about morale casualties if they do happen and of course the benefit of a 7' pre-game move which means you can likely be holding most midfield objectives turn 1...and if there happens to be cover there as well...all the better.
Yes I know we don't have the full codex yet so we are jumping the gun a wee bit, but I feel these could see competitive play where as with boys I just don't think they serve much of a purpose. Let me know what you think
Point for Point they are equal in melee with 0 outside buffs.
3 kroot = 2 boyz = 6 WS3, s4 -1ap 1d attacks
Kroot are on smaller bases = better
Kroot are faster
Kroot have a better save when in cover
Kroot have a better shooting profile (at bs4!)
Orks have higher toughness
How do we know Kroot are gonna be 6ppm? If it’s been shown, then totally fair enough.
But remember. Kroot are about as good as it’s gets for Tau when it comes to fisticuffs. Boyz? Not so much.
These things matter, and affect relative point values. Not necessarily accurately, but it’s still a factor which prevents direct comparisons.
Was leaked, and all the other leaks from that same source have been correct. Also....Tau now have one of...if not THE best Melee characters in the game
Yes I know we don't have the full codex yet so we are jumping the gun a wee bit, but I feel these could see competitive play where as with boys I just don't think they serve much of a purpose. Let me know what you think
I think your comparison is pointless.
Different armies, different functions for similar units.
Kroot:
You may see Kroot in competitive lists because they provide some Tau players something they want/need - some sort of bulk CC options. They fight better than Firewarriors & they're cheaper and more expendable than suits.... so they may have a place in some people's lists.
Likewise, if you removed Kroot but let those same Tau players use ork boyz instead? They'd use ork boyz. Because they still need that CC.
Ork boyz:
Ork boyz in an ork list.... Well, at their base, they provide what every other ork does.
Their "thing"? Is that they can be fielded in larger mobs than the more specialized orks - something it seems many ork players are adverse to doing. And since they aren't making use of those larger squad sizes they'd rather pay the pts for more of the specialized orks.
SemperMortis wrote: Honest question here, I saw the new Kroot statline and rules and it immediately struck me that Kroot are now better than boyz. I know they don't get sept rules and don't benefit from markerlights (except for a strat I think) but overall, do you think their profiles are better than the boyz profile?
A Boy is 9ppm, M5, WS3 BS5 S4 T5 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
A Kroot is 6ppm, M7, WS3 BS4, S4 T3 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
Weapons wise the Boy has a 12' S4 pistol the Kroot has a 24' S4 rapid fire rifle. Both have -1AP CC weapons.
Inherent rules I'm not sure on everything the kroot have yet, but the boy has Ere We go and Mob Rule. I know for certain kroot have a version of "infiltrate" in that they get a free movement of 7' before the game starts and they get +1 in light cover giving them a 4+ save while in cover.
Pt for Pt, boyz are still better in CC, but the durability buff (in cover) and the ranged dmg I think more than makes up the difference, as does the points cost difference which means you are less inclined to care about morale casualties if they do happen and of course the benefit of a 7' pre-game move which means you can likely be holding most midfield objectives turn 1...and if there happens to be cover there as well...all the better.
Yes I know we don't have the full codex yet so we are jumping the gun a wee bit, but I feel these could see competitive play where as with boys I just don't think they serve much of a purpose. Let me know what you think
You've removed a critical factor from consideration here - the boy gets +1A from his choppa, while the Kroot Rifle does not grant +1A.
So damage wise a Kroot is 2A S3 AP-1 while a boy is 3A S4 AP-1.
Also, if you place both in cover, T3 Sv4+ vs T5 Sv5+? No contest Boyz are gonna be tougher.
The main reason I think we WILL see Kroot and WONT see boyz is the points cost. Kroot work extremely well as action monkey units and in a pinch as a screen with the pregame move.
Ork boyz:
Ork boyz in an ork list.... Well, at their base, they provide what every other ork does.
Their "thing"? Is that they can be fielded in larger mobs than the more specialized orks - something it seems many ork players are adverse to doing. And since they aren't making use of those larger squad sizes they'd rather pay the pts for more of the specialized orks.
^this, as well. Part of the reason we don't see Boyz is because straight up Stormboyz and Kommandos exist and just do the exact same thing but better. It's part of why the Goonhammer take on "Hammerhead Good but Skyray Also Good???" i think is silly - the Hammerhead has worse variance than the Skyray, sure, but it pays LITERALLY TEN POINTS to IGNORE INVULN SAVES. the amount of heavy units out there sans invuln saves is so laughably small that I really, REALLY do not see anyone taking a Skyray, or a Broadside or Stormsurge, basically ever. Why would you? Slap an appropriate number of hammerheads into the list for whatever the tank/monster meta looks like and be done.
How do we know Kroot are gonna be 6ppm? If it’s been shown, then totally fair enough.
But remember. Kroot are about as good as it’s gets for Tau when it comes to fisticuffs. Boyz? Not so much.
These things matter, and affect relative point values. Not necessarily accurately, but it’s still a factor which prevents direct comparisons.
Was leaked, and all the other leaks from that same source have been correct. Also....Tau now have one of...if not THE best Melee characters in the game
A coldstar commander with Onager+proto flamer+2 fusions+shield generator is 170 points. it is pretty hella strong in melee, 4 S12 Ap-4 D3 WS3+ attacks and D6+2 S4 Ap-2 D2 attacks, all with reroll to hit and wound, plus 2 fusion guns to melt things at range.
numbers-wise that's enough to deal 13 wounds vs a T7 3+ vehicle profile. Pretty impressive. But its also not that difficult to make a smash character with a real melee profile that can put out similar numbers, while also dealing more damage in the form of unavoidable sources like Mortal Wounds and at a cheaper point cost. A Beastboss on Squigosaur costs fewer points, does slightly more damage, and on average 3.4 of the 13.4 wounds come in the form of Mortals.
People are comparing this Tau smash commander to stuff like "a 120pt space marine captain" when a more accurate point of comparison is something like a Lord Discordant for his points cost. He also cares about basically every special rule that exists. Mostly, people seem to care about him because...theyre offended, I guess. if you could outfit a special salamanders jump captain with this loadout for 170pts or some kind of special flying custode character nobody would blink an eye.
SemperMortis wrote: Also....Tau now have one of...if not THE best Melee characters in the game
I mean people have been saying that about every codex. Remember the video of that DA character that was "totally insane"....and then no one ever took it?
T'au get punchy character with a gakload of guns. Not sure it breaks any barriers though.
SemperMortis wrote: Also....Tau now have one of...if not THE best Melee characters in the game
I mean people have been saying that about every codex. Remember the video of that DA character that was "totally insane"....and then no one ever took it?
T'au get punchy character with a gakload of guns. Not sure it breaks any barriers though.
True, but that was in response to the comment that Kroot carnivores make up the majority of Tau CC. With Suits now able to shoot in CC...they actually aren't bad , just gotta pick the right targets to get stuck in with.
Gotta remember that little bit when it comes to the Tau commander, he is punchy AND he can shoot in Combat now. That is a hell of a +
SemperMortis wrote: Honest question here, I saw the new Kroot statline and rules and it immediately struck me that Kroot are now better than boyz. I know they don't get sept rules and don't benefit from markerlights (except for a strat I think) but overall, do you think their profiles are better than the boyz profile?
A Boy is 9ppm, M5, WS3 BS5 S4 T5 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
A Kroot is 6ppm, M7, WS3 BS4, S4 T3 LD6 2 attacks and 6+ save.
Weapons wise the Boy has a 12' S4 pistol the Kroot has a 24' S4 rapid fire rifle. Both have -1AP CC weapons.
Inherent rules I'm not sure on everything the kroot have yet, but the boy has Ere We go and Mob Rule. I know for certain kroot have a version of "infiltrate" in that they get a free movement of 7' before the game starts and they get +1 in light cover giving them a 4+ save while in cover.
Pt for Pt, boyz are still better in CC, but the durability buff (in cover) and the ranged dmg I think more than makes up the difference, as does the points cost difference which means you are less inclined to care about morale casualties if they do happen and of course the benefit of a 7' pre-game move which means you can likely be holding most midfield objectives turn 1...and if there happens to be cover there as well...all the better.
Yes I know we don't have the full codex yet so we are jumping the gun a wee bit, but I feel these could see competitive play where as with boys I just don't think they serve much of a purpose. Let me know what you think
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
It just gets worse when you look at a lot of the anit-"horde" ranged weapons. Most of them are S4-S5 - Heavy Bolters, Hurricane Bolters, Regular Onlsaught, etc - but then you get into the new sweetspot. S6/S7 Autocannons, Heavy Onslaught, Assault Cannons, Kheres Assault Cannons and the like will wound Kroot on 2's and Orks on 3's.
Lets assume you're going up against Marines (since its 1: the most popular-ish army, and 2: the one I know) How many of those armies have Dreads right now? We just hit a ton of Assault or (Assorted) Onslaught cannons. How about Boltstorm Aggressors with a ton of S4 -0? Intercessors with S4 -1? Speeders (especially the HB/AC Tornados gathering dust in too many storage cases), The Hailstrikes that just went down in price, OGC ATV's, Stormtalons or Stormhawks. I doubt we'll see a lot Landraiders or Repulsors because even with good guns they're bad points. I suppose there's also an outside shot of seeing some Gladiator Reapers or Predator Anhilators (with Chronus potential).
I'm not saying we won't see a Meta shift, but I will guess any Meta Shift we would see is more likely to be small and "sidegrade" than "upgrade". By which I mean most of the units you see hit the table will be the same or were already coming from points drops. They'll just either be better, or get a slightly different loadout. Some will be new, I doubt you've seen many Tornadoes lately, but people were already complaining about Dreads, now you just may see them more with Heavy Onslaught or old schools with AssCans.
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no save = 9 AP1 bolter shots to kill 2 boyz. Takes 10.12 bolter shots to take down kroot in cover.
If we go to no AP 10,8 bolter shots vs 3 boyz vs 13.5 shots.
So if you want to show how boyz is tougher better to find up better examples As vs those bolters you are flat out wrong.
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no save = 9 AP1 bolter shots to kill 2 boyz. Takes 10.12 bolter shots to take down kroot in cover.
If we go to no AP 10,8 bolter shots vs 3 boyz vs 13.5 shots.
So if you want to show how boyz is tougher better to find up better examples As vs those bolters you are flat out wrong.
9 shots, (3+ so 2/3 hit) 6 hits, (3+ 2/3 again) 4 wound, (4+ cover -1 AP is 5+ so a little more than half) 2+ die. Did you forget to go down to T3 for Kroot?
vs Boys 9 shots, 6 hits, (T5 is 5+ so 1/3) 2 wounds No Save or 1/6 save with cover and a little under 2.
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no save = 9 AP1 bolter shots to kill 2 boyz. Takes 10.12 bolter shots to take down kroot in cover.
It's 10,13 not 10,12 bolter shots to kill 3 Kroot in cover Why do the Orks not get a cover save? 9*1,2=10,8. 10,8>10,13. With no cover it's 9 shots to take down 2 Orks vs 6,75 shots to take down 3 Kroot, either way the Orks come out slightly on top in terms of durability per point assuming you don't give one cover while leaving the other out in the open. The Boyz take no damage from most weapons if they sneak behind a ruin and remain out of LOS, best durability ever.
3 kroot = 2 boyz = 6 WS3, s4 -1ap 1d attacks
Kroot are on smaller bases = better
That cancels out though, if the Kroot had the same size bases they wouldn't be able to get in there with 50% more models.
PenitentJake wrote: Boyz I would guess can benefit from more strats and auras too.
Not really, which is one of the biggest problems of boyz. GW pretty much axed or nerfed into oblivion everything that could support boyz in 8th. Their best stratagems are the tankbusta bomb and ignoring modifiers to charge range, and the only aura they might have is +1 to hit in melee if you brought a foot warboss(neither speed bosses nor beast bosses buff them) and rarely a 6++ KFF.
PenitentJake wrote: Boyz I would guess can benefit from more strats and auras too.
Not really, which is one of the biggest problems of boyz. GW pretty much axed or nerfed into oblivion everything that could support boyz in 8th. Their best stratagems are the tankbusta bomb and ignoring modifiers to charge range, and the only aura they might have is +1 to hit in melee if you brought a foot warboss(neither speed bosses nor beast bosses buff them) and rarely a 6++ KFF.
I mean, you can have a squad of truckboyz..... which work.... kinda.... (just why waste truckboyz on boys if you can pick Nobs, or warbosses...)
Also only lord knows what it is with gw constantly shafting the shoota, which supposedly is one of the favourite weapons of boyz for its effectiveness and noise...
In all fairness, trukk boyz do work and since you have to bring boyz as tax anyways, might as well make them good at something. Quite a few competitive players are using trukk boyz+trukk warboss to actually shift something, but at that point you are using 150+ points and 2CP and 2 special mobs to make a troops unit not garbage.
Jidmah wrote: In all fairness, trukk boyz do work and since you have to bring boyz as tax anyways, might as well make them good at something. Quite a few competitive players are using trukk boyz+trukk warboss to actually shift something, but at that point you are using 150+ points and 2CP and 2 special mobs to make a troops unit not garbage.
10 boys are 90, the truck alone is 70, the warboss is 90 again if i am not wrong. Bare minnimum.
lets be honest, you are paying a lot more, otoh, CP not very usefull for orks i feel like, so that cost i think one can discard (unless you play speedmob), the specialists otoh does sting a bit.
Its honestly surprising how non integrated ork units feel , compared to say GSC.
Sorry, I was somehow stuck in wishful thinking assuming the warboss was 90 including the PK
But yeah, I also had the impression the ork codex doesn't even feel like it was by written by the same company as the DG codex was. It works well on the tabletop, but not because it was a well designed codex.
Spoletta wrote: From the rumors I saw, Kroots don't have a pregame move.
Those are the kroot hounds.
Kroot Carnivores do have a pregame move, just like Kroot Hounds, Krootox Riders and Kroot Shapers.
It's "Ambushing Predators" and it's the first rule on their datasheet: a 7" pregame move.
As for their comparison to Ork Boys: Kroots will not be taken for combat purposes, to take objectives or to charge stuff.
They are the cheapest troop choice in the codex (60 points min size unit) and that's the main reason why they'll see play. "Toys before boys" works quite well in a codex packed with interesting units that deal a ton of damage.
The fact that they can be T1 screens/speedbumps vs fast armies is an added bonus.
As for the railgun Hammerhead debate: 1-2 per list will be more than enough, Broadsides are insanely good for their cost so they'll see even more play.
A railgun is efficient vs 10+ wounds targets. Anything less and you're wasting damage, lowering it's efficiency. Broadsides with d3+3 damage + 1 mortal are way more flexible and they still have S9 with access to +1 to wound in Tau Sept, on top of all the other buffs that being CORE infantry means.
Also in septs different than Tau or FSE you have a single shot 3+ to hit (rerollable), that wounds T8 on a 3+. It's not guaranteed damage by any means. Even if you keep the CP reroll for it, it's a 3+ rerollable followed by a 3+ rerollable. A 79% chance of going through, provided you have line of sight and no defensive buffs on the target (transhuman, no rerolls, -1 to hit, -1 to wound, ...). And the CP reroll only works once per phase, obviously.
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
3+ to hit, 5+ to wound, no save = 9 AP1 bolter shots to kill 2 boyz. Takes 10.12 bolter shots to take down kroot in cover.
If we go to no AP 10,8 bolter shots vs 3 boyz vs 13.5 shots.
So if you want to show how boyz is tougher better to find up better examples As vs those bolters you are flat out wrong.
You didn't grant cover to the boyz.
10 S4 AP0
1.5 Boyz in cover = ~13 points
2.2 Kroot in cover = ~13 points
10 S4 AP1
1.8 Boyz in cover = ~17 points
3.0 Kroot in cover = ~17 points
2.2 Boyz w/ no cover = ~20 points
4.4 Kroot w/ no cover = ~27 points
I’d say they wouldn’t even be worth it at 6, best thing to come from that would be stuff like burna boyz goin down more cause of the chassis gettin cheaper.
I don't think Boyz should be 7, let alone 6 points - but I do think Kroot are incredibly overpushed.
There are I think two takes. The first is just why they are good generally in a competitive setting.
These are excellent utilitarian obsec units at 60 points. They are very fast with the free move and 7" movement which means they can get where you want them to be. They have the offensive power to bully comparable units - or situationally trade up. At just 60 points they don't offer great trades for your opponent.
If Ork players really want to feel sad forget Boyz and compare a 60 point Kroot squad to a 50 point grot squad. The idea went that grots had to be kind of expensive because of their potential game utility despite being terrible at doing damage. Well apparently you can have both.
The second is a meme spam build rooted in the amount of buffs Kroot can get. Take Dal'yth and Mont'ka, a couple of warlord traits some 25 point (...) shapers and some marker lights.
Oh look, my 6 point kroot now hit on 3s (okay one unit per markerlight, but still), rerolling 1s, wound on whatever, rerolling 1s, at AP-1. Then charge in, 2 attacks hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s, wounding on whatever, at AP-1.
At the Intercessor standard, a 60 point unit does the following:
20*2/3*7/6*1/2*7/6*1/2=4.5 wounds. Or 45 points from a 60 point unit (and I guess the relatively cheap support).
Then I charge (potentially 3d6 from WL trait, pick the highest).
20*2/3*7/6*1/2*1/2=3.88 further wounds - 38 points from a 60 point unit and a shaper. Add both together for 83 points, or a 138% return. Which is just dumb.
Therefore, if you lined up a whole army of Intercessors on your deployment line, and I had a whole army of Kroot on mine, I've got an incredibly high chance to just table you in my first turn.
Am I reaching? I don't think so. I'm not pushing the relic for instance - or the heroic intervention stratagem (which really ups the value of the unit in the top part). Or say an Ethereal casting power of the tides for +1 to wound (since its a bit pricy and so I feel you'd have to factor it into costs in the way a 25 point buffbot isn't). Take the markerlight out if you want - and I'll do 56% return at shooting rather than 75%. Its still around 120% points return.
Mass undercosted S4 AP-1 attacks isn't the be all and end all of 40k. But you can bring 100 kroot and say 2 shapers and that's just 650 points. From an initial take Dal'yth isn't the most desirable Sept but that's really the only sacrifice you are making. I'm not even sure Kroot need it - but it is a huge buff to their shooting. Helps out Vespid out a bit too - although again its perhaps less obvious they need the help (how are these guys toting S5 AP-3 2 damage guns just 12 points?).
Famous Dakka exaggeration perhaps - but I don't see how this book isn't completely busted in a casual setting and with these sorts of numbers should appear in the competitive space. I feel Tau will get Buggie/Ad Mech-esque turn 1 tablings, that can only be constrained with massive amounts of LOS and movement blocking terrain (when everything that wants to shoot gets a free advance with Mont'ka its hardly slow to cover the table). Those numbers above are average - if you get lucky, they become even more absurd.
I am interested in seeing the comparison with 7ppm Daemonettes for both units. I personally believe the Daemonettes are actually better than both but are still not great.
I'd rather have the boys. Vs "Bolters" - AKA the mostly-standard S4 line unit gun - the boys are wounded on 5's, while the Kroot on 3's. Also the earlier the "defensive" bonus comes the better it is. Being hit 1/3 less often is better than being wounded 1/3 less often is better than making 1/3 more saves. Misses fail 100% of wound rolls and make 100% of their saves. So a 16% boost to saves, and then only in cover, isn't nearly as good as 33% more wound failures.
It just gets worse when you look at a lot of the anit-"horde" ranged weapons. Most of them are S4-S5 - Heavy Bolters, Hurricane Bolters, Regular Onlsaught, etc - but then you get into the new sweetspot. S6/S7 Autocannons, Heavy Onslaught, Assault Cannons, Kheres Assault Cannons and the like will wound Kroot on 2's and Orks on 3's.
Lets assume you're going up against Marines (since its 1: the most popular-ish army, and 2: the one I know) How many of those armies have Dreads right now? We just hit a ton of Assault or (Assorted) Onslaught cannons. How about Boltstorm Aggressors with a ton of S4 -0? Intercessors with S4 -1? Speeders (especially the HB/AC Tornados gathering dust in too many storage cases), The Hailstrikes that just went down in price, OGC ATV's, Stormtalons or Stormhawks. I doubt we'll see a lot Landraiders or Repulsors because even with good guns they're bad points. I suppose there's also an outside shot of seeing some Gladiator Reapers or Predator Anhilators (with Chronus potential).
I'm not saying we won't see a Meta shift, but I will guess any Meta Shift we would see is more likely to be small and "sidegrade" than "upgrade". By which I mean most of the units you see hit the table will be the same or were already coming from points drops. They'll just either be better, or get a slightly different loadout. Some will be new, I doubt you've seen many Tornadoes lately, but people were already complaining about Dreads, now you just may see them more with Heavy Onslaught or old schools with AssCans.
Your math isn't correct. Lets assume 100 shots at S4 BS3 against two different targets, one has -1 to hit and one is T5 so its -1 to wound.
Unit 1 has -1 to hit so its 50 hits, 25 wounds Unit 2 has T5 so its 66.6 hits, 22.2 wounds.
Unit 1 had the -1 to hit but still took more wounds. This is because its completely subjective to what the level of loss is. Going from BS3 to BS 4 is only a 25% drop in hits, going from wounding on 4s to wounding on 5s is a 33% drop in wounds.
Same math except the shooting unit is BS4.
Unit 1 has -1 to hit, so its 33.3 hits, 16.65 wounds. Unit 2 has T5 so its 50 hits, 16.66 wounds
See how the math leveled out? So in the case of Kroot vs Boyz we can do 60 hits (not shots) at S4. 60 hits is 40 wounds and in cover because kroot have a 4+ save thats 20dmg. 60 hits is 20 wounds and in cover Orkz have a 5+ save thats 13.3dmg
Kroot lost 120pts of Models, Orkz lost 119.7 or basically the same amount. So durability wise, even with +2 toughness over kroot, they are essentially the same. And against S3 weapons the kroot are significantly better (those are rarer) and against S5 weapons. The split point is S6-9 weapons again favor the orkz, but only by the same amount as S4 does, in other words it makes kroot and orkz the same level of durable.
Also, those kroot I believe are still on smaller bases which make them easier to position and more likely to be in cover, especially with their significant increase in speed compared to boys.
Spoletta wrote: I think that everyone here is missing one huge detail about this comparison.
Kroots don't get Sept bonuses. Boyz do.
You don't compare a Kroot to a Boy. You compare a Kroot to a Goff Boy.
Correct. The issue is that you don't take boyz by themselves because they are too slow and vulnerable to enemy fire to make it to the enemy lines. So in reality its 90pts of boyz +70pts of Trukk. And if you make them trukk boyz (as I do for instance) they lose their goff kulture which is worth it believe it or not...but just barely.
Jarms48 wrote: I'm pretty sure we'll see Kroot go up to 7 PPM. Though I'm also hoping we see Boys go down to 8 PPM.
I actually think kroot are fine at 6ppm. I think they fulfill their purpose wonderfully at this price point. I don't think simply dropping boyz to 8 would do anything at all though. Kroot function because they are incredibly fast. 7' pre-game move and 7' movement means they are almost completely across an 18' no mans land turn 1. They are absolutely capable of a turn 1 assault, and more importantly, they serve the same purpose now as 12ppm Kommandos in mid field objective capping. I think Kommandos at 12 is a bit too pricey, but 6ppm kroot hiding in cover on an objective for 60pts with a 4+ save is pretty damn nice
Dudeface wrote: I feel you missed books Semper, you used to put a "unit in new codex makes orks bad" thread for most releases, I feel you skipped a few.
Not at all dudeface. Kroot don't make "orkz bad" or specifically ork boyz. GW did that with their rules writing I have no desire to make kroot worse than boyz. I'd love GW to realize that kroot work because they serve a purpose based on their special rules and speed and find a way to have boyz fulfill a similar role. I think "Trukk Boyz" was a really good solution for that. I just wish they could keep their kulture and not be limited to 1 per detachment.
Boyz are lacking a delivery mechanism. Stats wise and points wise they are decent enough for a troop unit, but since they need to footslog they don't see much play.
Right now, without a decent delivery mechanism they could be dropped to 8ppm and they wouldn't break the game for sure.
I actually think kroot are fine at 6ppm. I think they fulfill their purpose wonderfully at this price point. I don't think simply dropping boyz to 8 would do anything at all though. Kroot function because they are incredibly fast. 7' pre-game move and 7' movement means they are almost completely across an 18' no mans land turn 1. They are absolutely capable of a turn 1 assault, and more importantly, they serve the same purpose now as 12ppm Kommandos in mid field objective capping. I think Kommandos at 12 is a bit too pricey, but 6ppm kroot hiding in cover on an objective for 60pts with a 4+ save is pretty damn nice
Okay. Now compare them to Gretchin, Cultists, and Conscripts. All are 1 point less and infinitely worse. Kroot have a better statline, better weapons, and better abilities. We know those 3 models aren't going down in points because of the 5 point floor, so that means there's only one way for Kroot to go.
Aenar wrote: Boyz are lacking a delivery mechanism. Stats wise and points wise they are decent enough for a troop unit, but since they need to footslog they don't see much play.
Right now, without a decent delivery mechanism they could be dropped to 8ppm and they wouldn't break the game for sure.
The issue is honestly them losing their special rules (and kinda warboss change). Cause space marines lost their charge reroll it meant the filthy lower classes had to as well, and we couldn’t have orks being fearless (like they’ve been since 3rd en masse). Combine this with a really weird nerf to weirdboyz and big meks abilities that have similarly been there since the start, and now we have this weird scenario where boyz have lost everything that made them boyz. They’re not cheap, or even durable for the points. They don’t do bonkers damage for their relative slow speed for a melee unit, and they can’t be buffed.
Best change for boyz is just rip the boyz datasheet straight from 8th alongside our warbosses and other hq’s.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you wanted 9th boyz plain though, 6 points is pretty reasonable for the gak I’ve seen done with pox walkers.
In General: A lot of units/armies are losing their delivery systems. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Scout and outflank are becoming less common. Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective. The teleportation power Imperials used to get is now (potentially) Ravenguard only, and still has the not-within 9" thing.
Again that was in general, there are exceptions to the "rule" like The Sanguinor getting to deep strike into engagement range (which still requires another unit having already done so) or the Harlequinn games, but in general it feels like they're working very hard to prevent surprise and/or early charges.
Look at SM transports: At one point Rhinos were like 35 points. Now they're triple that. Impulsors have a max capacity of 6. Repulsors are 10, but they're an arm and a leg plus they're so very very bad. Drop Pods are still one-and-done points-based upcharges for Deepstrike. I think Catalyst used to be extra movement, but now its damage control. Have you seen Fleet recently?
I actually think kroot are fine at 6ppm. I think they fulfill their purpose wonderfully at this price point. I don't think simply dropping boyz to 8 would do anything at all though. Kroot function because they are incredibly fast. 7' pre-game move and 7' movement means they are almost completely across an 18' no mans land turn 1. They are absolutely capable of a turn 1 assault, and more importantly, they serve the same purpose now as 12ppm Kommandos in mid field objective capping. I think Kommandos at 12 is a bit too pricey, but 6ppm kroot hiding in cover on an objective for 60pts with a 4+ save is pretty damn nice
Okay. Now compare them to Gretchin, Cultists, and Conscripts. All are 1 point less and infinitely worse. Kroot have a better statline, better weapons, and better abilities. We know those 3 models aren't going down in points because of the 5 point floor, so that means there's only one way for Kroot to go.
This, but apply upwards to the top - they claimed armies were shrinking in 9th, time to make good on that promise/threat and actually make that required granularity.
Breton wrote: In General: A lot of units/armies are losing their delivery systems. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Scout and outflank are becoming less common. Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective. The teleportation power Imperials used to get is now (potentially) Ravenguard only, and still has the not-within 9" thing.
Again that was in general, there are exceptions to the "rule" like The Sanguinor getting to deep strike into engagement range (which still requires another unit having already done so) or the Harlequinn games, but in general it feels like they're working very hard to prevent surprise and/or early charges.
Look at SM transports: At one point Rhinos were like 35 points. Now they're triple that. Impulsors have a max capacity of 6. Repulsors are 10, but they're an arm and a leg plus they're so very very bad. Drop Pods are still one-and-done points-based upcharges for Deepstrike. I think Catalyst used to be extra movement, but now its damage control. Have you seen Fleet recently?
....Your entire premise of delivery system is false with just 1 word, Drukhari.
Rhinos were 35, and Trukkz were 30. Everything went up dramatically in 8th because as was mentioned already, they were trying to make the game somewhat smaller sized. The problem is that I think that is why boyz suck so bad right now. In 8th they were arguably the biggest "Horde" offender army. Kroot meanwhile saw little to no game play so they got a nice hefty buff which I think they honestly deserved. I Just would like boyz to at least function in a useful manner in my army as opposed to being useless.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I’d say they wouldn’t even be worth it at 6, best thing to come from that would be stuff like burna boyz goin down more cause of the chassis gettin cheaper.
And this is why we can't have community led balancing.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: I’d say they wouldn’t even be worth it at 6, best thing to come from that would be stuff like burna boyz goin down more cause of the chassis gettin cheaper.
And this is why we can't have community led balancing.
I’m not saying they couldn’t be good at 6, just that they wouldn’t be worth it. Internal balance vs external really.
Rhinos were 35, and Trukkz were 30. Everything went up dramatically in 8th because as was mentioned already, they were trying to make the game somewhat smaller sized. The problem is that I think that is why boyz suck so bad right now. In 8th they were arguably the biggest "Horde" offender army. Kroot meanwhile saw little to no game play so they got a nice hefty buff which I think they honestly deserved. I Just would like boyz to at least function in a useful manner in my army as opposed to being useless.
Dedicated Transports definitely need some kind of drop. I was thinking something like:
Orks:
- Trukks: 60 points. It just needs to be cheaper. I'd also remove the grabbin’ klaw and wreckin’ ball restriction of being limited to only 1 attack. 1 attack hitting on 5's is so bad. If you're going to pay for the upgrade, make it an actual melee upgrade. This would also affect things like the Gunwagon and Battlewagon for example, but those have access to the Deff rolla anyway which is way better.
Imperial Guard:
- Chimera: 75 points. Includes hull heavy bolter/heavy flamer. I would reduce cost of turret upgrade by 5 points, to represent swapping the multi-laser. IE: Turret heavy bolter or heavy flamer would be a 5 point upgrade.
- Taurox: 75 points. It's bad, especially for 90 points currently, it's firepower is no better than a Chimera with 2 heavy bolters.
- Taurox Prime: 110 points. It's good but needs some tweaks to make all of its weapon options more viable. So we drop the base cost to make the Taurox battle cannon a bit cheap then we increase the gatling cannon upgrade to 10 points (so still 120 points) and reduce the missile launcher upgrade to 10 points.
- Hades Breaching Drill: 75 points.
- Trojan Support Vehicle: 75 points.
GSC:
- Goliath Truck: 75 points. I'm not sure what the new datasheet looks like, but the old one is what I would consider a balanced transport.
Space Marines:
- Rhino: 75 points. Much less firepower but very similar statlines, you also have to factor in its cargo which is vastly superior. This would also apply to all other factions that use Rhinos.
- Razorback: 90 points. It's just far too expensive for what it does. This would at least make it viable. I would also reduce the twin assault cannon upgrade to 10 points, then you can either get that or a twin lascannon Razorback for 100 points.
- Impulsor: 100 points. I'd also reduce the cost of the bellicatus missile array to 10 points, it's just a missile launcher with a bad AA option.
Ad-Mech:
Skorpius Dunerider: 90 points. No-one uses it. Also, either change its transport rule to include Secutarii, or give Secutarii the <Forge World> keyword they kinda need the buff anyway.
Necrons:
- Ghost Ark: 135 points. It's just too expensive for what it does.
Breton wrote: In General: A lot of units/armies are losing their delivery systems. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Scout and outflank are becoming less common. Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective. The teleportation power Imperials used to get is now (potentially) Ravenguard only, and still has the not-within 9" thing.
Again that was in general, there are exceptions to the "rule" like The Sanguinor getting to deep strike into engagement range (which still requires another unit having already done so) or the Harlequinn games, but in general it feels like they're working very hard to prevent surprise and/or early charges.
Look at SM transports: At one point Rhinos were like 35 points. Now they're triple that. Impulsors have a max capacity of 6. Repulsors are 10, but they're an arm and a leg plus they're so very very bad. Drop Pods are still one-and-done points-based upcharges for Deepstrike. I think Catalyst used to be extra movement, but now its damage control. Have you seen Fleet recently?
....Your entire premise of delivery system is false with just 1 word, Drukhari.
Alexa what does "The exception that proves the rule" mean? Also let me add some code to the quote for emphasis. How many armies are there? What percentage of that is Drukhari?
Rhinos were 35, and Trukkz were 30. Everything went up dramatically in 8th because as was mentioned already, they were trying to make the game somewhat smaller sized. The problem is that I think that is why boyz suck so bad right now. In 8th they were arguably the biggest "Horde" offender army. Kroot meanwhile saw little to no game play so they got a nice hefty buff which I think they honestly deserved. I Just would like boyz to at least function in a useful manner in my army as opposed to being useless.
Probably also playtesting for the new objective based stuff showed how often 30ish point transports could swing games because they weren't important enough to shoot at, then would have been and changed the game in ways they didn't want.
Tyel wrote: Play some games where you get 270~ boyz and some characters and get back to us. I think you'd find it kind of busted.
270 boyz atm is 2,430. At 6ppm that would be 1620, and would require 9 MAX mobz of boyz.
ready for a demonstration for how ridiculously bad Ork boyz are atm? Using Richard Sieglers LVO winning list which is ABSOLUTELY not built in the slightest to deal with non-existent hordes, this is how it would work against 270 boyz.
Turn 1, he split fires his 2 blobs of Rangers into 3 units of boyz who are in range. Without external buffs at all thats 76 shots, 50.6 hits, and 8 dead boyz per mob. Those 3 mobz are down to 22, all fail morale, down to 21, roll and lose 3.5 more each. So rangers alone just killed upwards of 33 boyz for a total of 198pts dead. That is a 45% return on investment turn 1 just from those guys.
The Vanguards go after a unit as well, thats 30 shots, 20 hits, (3 auto-wounds) and 8.6 wounds for 7 dead boyz. Fail morale, down to 22, lose another 3.66 to attrition, likely down to 18 so a 110pts of Vanguard just killed 72pts of Boyz turn 1.
Infiltrators plunk 15 shots, 10 hits, 3.33 wounds and 2.7 casualties, and join 3 units of Laschickens for 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds and 2.6 more dead boyz, so -6, fail leadership, down to 23, lose another 4 to attrition.
The Disintegrators each get 9 shots, 6 hits, 3 wounds and 3 dead boyz with their cannons, Their Stubbers do 4 shots, 2.6 hits, 0.88 wounds for 0.75 dead boyz, the Disruptor does 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.6 wounds for 2.6 more dead boyz. So each kill 6, fail morale, 7 and 4 more to attrition. for a total of 11 dead. and the pair works out to 22 more dead.
So Turn 1, without buffs, without strats, without doctrinas, without forgeworld (Army of Renown) buffs Sieglers list would hit 7 out of the 9 mobz of boyz and inflict a grand total of: 79 casualties. And that isn't even using his Rust-stalkers which make up about 25% of his list So this un-optimized list just plunked 474pts of boyz off the table turn 1 without using anything except their raw, un-upgraded stat sheets. To put it another way, his list, without using CC kills 1/3rd of your boyz turn 1. Those boyz have to move 5, advance D6 and hope for a 10+ inch charge to even get to their enemies lines turn 1 and inflict any return dmg.
If siegler uses his Ruststalkers btw, which have a better than average chance to get into CC turn 1, those guys murder. He has 3 units, 1 of 10 and 2 of 8.
The unit of 10 AVERAGES 31 attacks, 20.3 hits, 10.15 wounds (1.66 mortals) and 11-12 dead Orkz
The units of 8 average 25 attacks, 16.6 hits, 8.3 wounds (1.3 mortals) and 9-10 dead boyz.
That means each unit, unbuffed, will MAUL a unit of boyz. The 3 units alone on the low end will inflict 29 casualties along with 3 more from Morale and 10 more from attrition, grand total of 43 out of 90 dead in 1 turn of CC.
Boyz are just bad atm and need something to help them along because even at 6ppm they will get mauled to death by un-optimized lists.
Breton wrote: In General: A lot of units/armies are losing their delivery systems. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Scout and outflank are becoming less common. Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective. The teleportation power Imperials used to get is now (potentially) Ravenguard only, and still has the not-within 9" thing.
Again that was in general, there are exceptions to the "rule" like The Sanguinor getting to deep strike into engagement range (which still requires another unit having already done so) or the Harlequinn games, but in general it feels like they're working very hard to prevent surprise and/or early charges.
Look at SM transports: At one point Rhinos were like 35 points. Now they're triple that. Impulsors have a max capacity of 6. Repulsors are 10, but they're an arm and a leg plus they're so very very bad. Drop Pods are still one-and-done points-based upcharges for Deepstrike. I think Catalyst used to be extra movement, but now its damage control. Have you seen Fleet recently?
....Your entire premise of delivery system is false with just 1 word, Drukhari.
Alexa what does "The exception that proves the rule" mean? Also let me add some code to the quote for emphasis. How many armies are there? What percentage of that is Drukhari?
Probably also playtesting for the new objective based stuff showed how often 30ish point transports could swing games because they weren't important enough to shoot at, then would have been and changed the game in ways they didn't want.
Drukhari use transports incredibly heavily, i'll bet you Eldar will bring theres in as well, as will Harlies. SoB use rhinos pretty heavily. GSC at LVO brought goliaths, top Chaos list brought that ridiculous Dreadclaw Drop Pod and a terrax Transports are appearing somewhat regularly.
I'll readily agree with you though that 30pt trukks would dominate the meta due to sheer numbers/durability even though they can't inflict any real return dmg. But buffing them to at least be useful would be nice realistically what is a trukk right now? Its a relatively durable transport of 12 models. It sucks in CC, and its only ranged option is a required Big Shoota which is 3 shots at S5 or 5 shots in half range...but its BS5 so you aren't going to hit often and it lacks AP or 2D so it mostly bounces off things. To speed up games I routinely ignore their shooting and CC abilities. Give them some kind of CC ability thats worthwhile, make them faster, give them a ranged threat. Do something! LOL
I’m not saying they couldn’t be good at 6, just that they wouldn’t be worth it. Internal balance vs external really.
60 points for a 10 man squad of T5 dudes sounds really solid to me. Use them for secondaries.
Transports like trukks and rhinos are much better now, they are more expensive but they don't die to a single heavy bolter/ass cannon shot. Their problem is they lack precious cargo to deliver while in older editions they had that purpose. They are much more resilient now and might worth their points cost if only they had units that benefit for a transport.
I wish I had 70 points trukks with T6 10W and 4+ in 3rd-7th editions.
Tyel wrote: Semper what happens if I go first, give most of those boys a 5++/6+++, and I get lucky and pass 3-4 morale tests?
I guess you'll say that's not fair - but I'm facing Siegler, I'm going to need some luck.
270 boyz would certainly be a gatekeeper list, but that analysis is ham fisted. You could create a strong list with 6 point boyz especially using reserves, da jump, and tellyporta at the very least.
Breton wrote: In General: A lot of units/armies are losing their delivery systems. Deepstrike, Infiltrate, Scout and outflank are becoming less common. Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective. The teleportation power Imperials used to get is now (potentially) Ravenguard only, and still has the not-within 9" thing.
Again that was in general, there are exceptions to the "rule" like The Sanguinor getting to deep strike into engagement range (which still requires another unit having already done so) or the Harlequinn games, but in general it feels like they're working very hard to prevent surprise and/or early charges.
Look at SM transports: At one point Rhinos were like 35 points. Now they're triple that. Impulsors have a max capacity of 6. Repulsors are 10, but they're an arm and a leg plus they're so very very bad. Drop Pods are still one-and-done points-based upcharges for Deepstrike. I think Catalyst used to be extra movement, but now its damage control. Have you seen Fleet recently?
....Your entire premise of delivery system is false with just 1 word, Drukhari.
Alexa what does "The exception that proves the rule" mean? Also let me add some code to the quote for emphasis. How many armies are there? What percentage of that is Drukhari?
Probably also playtesting for the new objective based stuff showed how often 30ish point transports could swing games because they weren't important enough to shoot at, then would have been and changed the game in ways they didn't want.
Drukhari use transports incredibly heavily, i'll bet you Eldar will bring theres in as well, as will Harlies. SoB use rhinos pretty heavily. GSC at LVO brought goliaths, top Chaos list brought that ridiculous Dreadclaw Drop Pod and a terrax Transports are appearing somewhat regularly.
I'll readily agree with you though that 30pt trukks would dominate the meta due to sheer numbers/durability even though they can't inflict any real return dmg. But buffing them to at least be useful would be nice realistically what is a trukk right now? Its a relatively durable transport of 12 models. It sucks in CC, and its only ranged option is a required Big Shoota which is 3 shots at S5 or 5 shots in half range...but its BS5 so you aren't going to hit often and it lacks AP or 2D so it mostly bounces off things. To speed up games I routinely ignore their shooting and CC abilities. Give them some kind of CC ability thats worthwhile, make them faster, give them a ranged threat. Do something! LOL
Transports are getting (even) less desirable/effective
realistically what is a trukk right now?
Remember when you could charge from Open-Topped or Assault Vehicles same turn after moving? That 9" bubble is pretty hard and fast when it comes to any delivery system. Not within 9, which means 3 of 11, or about a 1 in 4 chance of a successful charge after disembarking. How much better would a trukk be if you could drive up 3" away, disembark and charge all on the same turn?
Are Goliaths (the Dedicated Transport or the Heavy Support? The Rockgrinder is unimpressive, the Dedicated Transport is even better and basically slot free) being taken as cheap gun platforms or as transports? Because they look like slightly faster slightly more durable slightly less shooty significantly cheaper Firestrike Turret, that happens to also have transport capacity. I'd think about taking Taurox as gun platforms and Goliaths are pretty much the same thing but 25% off. Now the Wave Serpents, Transport first, or Gun Platform first? The Terax Termite with a 12" Heavy 5 Melta T8 14W? for roughly 200 points (Fudging exact points for copyright reasons)? Compare that to a Storm Speeder Hammerstrike - for 30ish points it gets to deep strike, add 2T, 4W, and the mother of all Chainfists. AND Transport Capacity. Take the Drop Pod Bomb. How many points are 5 Sternguard with melta and a drop pod (18 W half T4 half T6?) Roughly 200 points? What was in the Rhinos? Dominions with Meltas? Another riff on the Drop Pod Alpha Strike? As for the Dreadclaw, was he playing something that could fall back and charge on the same turn? It also has enough punch to be (taken empty) more than a dedicated transport between mortals and fist attacks.
Even if Sisters are using Rhinos en masse for their line troops (not a horrible idea given their makeup - T3 1W gunline with all their best close combat coming from Power Sword Jump Packs) I'm guessing that's still only 2 taking (Dedicated) transports for transports first. For most armies the Transport has been relegated to the Alpha Bomb Drop Pod schtick. And its not worth it. The ability to drive up and dump a Ginsu unit onto the other guy's unit is mostly gone, and especially in the current system to assault your way onto objectives - that's what people would want a transport for. Today you have to drive up. (Usually)Wait a turn. Drop them off, then chase after the target unit. Assuming they didn't pulp your unit during the couple turns they could have blown up your transport, or the turn you sat there twiddling your thumbs.
The forced pause is most of the Transport Killer for most of those armies. Yeah an assault ramp/vehicle/open-topped disembark and charge rule isn't going to save Land Raiders or Repulsors, but I bet you'd see more Bladeguard in Impulsors, How many priests in Dunestalkers? Hormugants in a Tyrranocyte? How about Bullgryns in a Chimera? That one is a no-brainer - the Bullgryns get to shoot (Lasgun arrays) while moving up to charge range and still swap to the maul instead of the wristband
I don't know what I'd do with Ghost Arcs other than allowing some sort of melee unit to ride in them. Either giving Necron Warriors a melee build, or create a new Troop choice like Assault Intercessors. Maybe allow Flayed Ones. I don't know.
There's 20 results from all factions for Dedicated Transports on the webpage. One of those results is an upgrade sprue, one is the Land Speeder Tempest that won't see play unless/until scouts do (and they won't). That leaves 18. Of which 1-2 see use as Transports, and 1-3 might see use as a Gun Platform with transport capability for a total of four. It gets worse when you start adding in things that can transport but take up a "real" slot.
To bring it back full circle, delivery systems do appear to be slowly phasing out. Most armies do not use their Transports - and those that do usually do not use them primarily as transports.
The biggest change would be disembarking after moving. Right now, transports offer you almost no mobility advantage (presumably what they would offer). You can run as far as a transport can carry you and still participate in the game.
Transports offer durability, but at a cost - and durability alone in 40k isn't very useful (as pointed out multiple times in multiple threads).
The table is smaller. Allowing disembark and charge universally from open-topped would be absolutely brutal.
Transports give protection, mobility, and extensive redeploy. An empty transport is a valuable tool. The movement you get from move, advance, embark, move, advance, and then on the next turn 3" disembark, move, and advance is quite considerable. For those keeping track at home that's going to be between 35 and 40 inches depending on the units -- plus the width of the transport if you embark and disembark on different sides.
People have to stop playing like the game is just "beep beep, push it forward!".
Tyel wrote: Semper what happens if I go first, give most of those boys a 5++/6+++, and I get lucky and pass 3-4 morale tests?
I guess you'll say that's not fair - but I'm facing Siegler, I'm going to need some luck.
A 5++ is a once a game buff from a Big Mek with a KFF, and after using it, it explodes rendering it useless for the rest of the game, so your 85pt Big Mek just became a slightly better Nob. It does cover a wide swathe but nowhere near 270 boyz unless you conga line all of them, which if you do the game is basically already over. And the 6+++...not really worth it. A Painboy is 70pts, in order for him to make back his points cost he needs to save 12 boyz. Thats 12 x 6 or 72 wounds. So in order for him to make his points back you need to roll 12 6s, and if that happens your units are likely already screwed because it only has a range of ... 3' Good luck stacking more than 2-3 units near a 3' bubble.
As far as Morale tests, again, in the example I gave you would need to pass them on a roll of a 1. At absolute best you can expect 1 successful Morale test, 2 would be rare and 3 would be ridiculously lucky. If you pass 4? GG the dice gods favor you this game and you likely win by killing his Warlord with a lucky round of shooting from your pistols.
270 boyz would certainly be a gatekeeper list, but that analysis is ham fisted. You could create a strong list with 6 point boyz especially using reserves, da jump, and tellyporta at the very least.
Not really though. Da Jump is unreliable now that Weirdboy doesn't benefit from being near boyz, its a single mob of boyz a turn and once they arrive they need a 9' charge with no way of really buffing that reliably (like we used to with Evil Suns) Your chance of rolling 9+ with a reroll is less than 50%, and if you fail your charge, your boyz are in double tap range of everyone. Same thing with Tellyporta strike except the cost is now CP and rather expensive. You are still left with a sub 50% chance to successfully charge, and any mobz that don't are effectively dead next turn.
The biggest problem with boyz right now is that they are slow, they aren't all that deadly and they have little to no support from the rest of the codex. The Painboy and KFF Big Mek (not popping for a 5++) only increase the durability of boyz from taking 3.6 Bolter Hits to kill to 4.32 bolter hits to kill. Thats only a durability increase of 16.66%. Even against -1AP its not a huge increase, goes from 3 Bolter hits to 4.32, a Not exactly worth the 155pts (minimum) it costs to get those buffs.
On the other hand, Kroot Carnivores are incredibly fast by comparison. 14' movement without advancing compared to boyz 5. They are basically as durable point for point, and while not great at either ranged or CC, they do offer something boyz can't. A ranged threat to hang out on objectives, and enough oomph in CC to keep smaller units and less CC oriented units off the objective. Boyz can do 1 but not the other.
But to finish off my point about 270 boyz. If that became a meta list and players like siegler took even 200pts of other stuff and put it towards anti-horde....it would be GG for that list. In my opinion there isn't a points value where boyz become good vs just spammed because they are cheap wounds. In this regard, boyz are a lot like trukkz. Too over priced for what little they do, but if you dropped them low enough they would be taken for the sheer durability per wound offered.
You don't have to jump boyz into charges. You jump into cover / obscuring for a turn 2 advance and charge with Waaagh
Trukks and BWs will put pressure on and keep units safer
'Nauts can TP in alongside 30 mans with KFF and pickup a 3D6 charge with the ability to reroll only one dice and swipe on 2s
The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
Dudeface wrote: The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
A list with 3x10 Snaggas went 6-0 at LVO, so, at the very least they don't hurt. That's far from needing a total rewrite, I think. The concept of the all boyz horde is dead. It's a boring and laborious skew list that wasn't ever very fun to play with or against. Narratively? Good fun. Do you balance or do you want narrative though?
You don't have to jump boyz into charges. You jump into cover / obscuring for a turn 2 advance and charge with Waaagh
Trukks and BWs will put pressure on and keep units safer
'Nauts can TP in alongside 30 mans with KFF and pickup a 3D6 charge with the ability to reroll only one dice and swipe on 2s
Keep in mind, I am talking about a competitive 40k environment, maybe not GTs but at least local events and with that said, good luck getting 30 boys into Cover/obscuring terrain, Trukkz and wagonz are severely over priced for what little they do, and if you bring trukkz/wagonz you are limiting yourself to mobz of 10-20(depending on transport type). And at 6ppm a trukk is -11.6 boyz and a wagon is almost -20.
Only Morkanauts can take a KFF, and to do so requires a Super Heavy detachment now, and throwing away 380pts. You could DOUBLE a Morkanauts firepower and it still wouldn't be worth 380pts.
So again, even at 6ppm you wouldn't see boyz being taken except as cheap throwaway troop tax/objective holders.
Dudeface wrote: The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
As previously noted, I didn't bring up boyz for several codex releases. So why did I this time? Because Kroot are incredibly similar to boyz. And I honestly believe that kroot are going to see significantly more game play than boyz are thanks to their bonus move, cover bonus and their low price.
As previously noted, I didn't bring up boyz for several codex releases. So why did I this time? Because Kroot are incredibly similar to boyz. And I honestly believe that kroot are going to see significantly more game play than boyz are thanks to their bonus move, cover bonus and their low price.
But... why? What are you aiming to do by opening this thread? Are you wanting to see if everyone else thinks kroot carnivores are a more competitive unit?
What does it really have to do with the ork book? The only real comparison is they're cheap(ish) melee troops. They're from factions with utterly different scopes and intents for play styles and supporting units.
Point being that Kroot prove that GW can make a CC centric troops choice at least usable in the general sense. But I admit I am fallible so if a large swathe of people came in and said "no, i think boyz are still better" I would have listened to their arguments and re-evaluated my position.
I suspect this is something we'll just never agree on without playing it - but going back to the 6 point scenario.
I'll give you the painboy is a bit rubbish and you'd almost certainly spend the points better on other things even with this rather silly list. (Makari for 55 might be worth chucking in to fill the slot). The KFF would however help even if it is only for the first turn - because it probably saves 20ish boyz. Which seems like a decent thing to have - not merely due to the points, but because it means I have them to use next turn.
But regardless I accept the Ad Mech list (and most lists tbh - boyz are not that tough) will kill a lot.
The point being that say you do lose 100-110ish boyz in a turn. At 9 points that's half your list. Here its about a third - in practical terms I've got say 160~ boyz left. Maybe the KFF just counters the buffs the Ad Mech would inevitably have - whatever. If he hasn't focus fired units down to maximise morale losses, those units are still in a viable spot. 15-18~ Goff boyz with Waaagh up for 4 attacks will proceed to kill (or mangle anyway) just about any unit in the list they successfully charge. So I think its reasonable to say all the Rust Stalkers, assuming they poked something themselves - and a reasonable number of other units (between the Vanguard, the Infiltrators, the Ballastari etc) that are presumably screening more important targets and the primaries. I've now got obsec bodies flooding forward onto the objectives, and the units you'd use to shift primaries back are dead.
Next turn between morale and shooting maybe the Ad Mech kills another 60-70 boyz. At 9 points my army would basically be finished and the game is all over. Here however I've still got 90-100ish boyz left. Which is plenty. I charge the big squads of rangers and tie up the Disintegrators (assuming I couldn't do so earlier) - and at this point I don't see how he'll ever retake the primary from me or be doing much damage at all while the Boyz keep chopping. I should get a massive lead on the primary and that's game.
As Daed said I'm sure this list could be optimised several ways - but that seems to be a realistic breakdown to me.
Dudeface wrote: The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
A list with 3x10 Snaggas went 6-0 at LVO, so, at the very least they don't hurt. That's far from needing a total rewrite, I think. The concept of the all boyz horde is dead. It's a boring and laborious skew list that wasn't ever very fun to play with or against. Narratively? Good fun. Do you balance or do you want narrative though?
And a Snagga....is not an ork boy, so...not sure what you're on about here, tbh.
this is like someone making a thread about how bad tactical marines are and going "oh but someone just won a GT with a list that included Incursors" it's a different unit, IDK what to say.
Dudeface wrote: The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
A list with 3x10 Snaggas went 6-0 at LVO, so, at the very least they don't hurt. That's far from needing a total rewrite, I think. The concept of the all boyz horde is dead. It's a boring and laborious skew list that wasn't ever very fun to play with or against. Narratively? Good fun. Do you balance or do you want narrative though?
And a Snagga....is not an ork boy, so...not sure what you're on about here, tbh.
this is like someone making a thread about how bad tactical marines are and going "oh but someone just won a GT with a list that included Incursors" it's a different unit, IDK what to say.
Either they were action/holding units where the 6++ just kept them alive or they were a more active unit.
If it was the former then you get 2 extra wounds for the same cost. If it's the latter then you get 6 extra attacks ( but all at S4 ).
If you're banking on a 6++ to keep you viable and on the table...it just won't swing the battle at all.
By the time a unit in a transport has actually gone anywhere (as opposed to being off the table in the transport) then it could have just moved there in the same time period, at least for the vast majority of transports in the game. So, no, not mobility.
It's telling that a full transport is less valuable than an empty one. What's that transport capacity even for?
Daedalus81 wrote: The movement you get from move, advance, embark, move, advance, and then on the next turn 3" disembark, move, and advance is quite considerable.
Considerable enough that you: 1) didn't participate in the game Turn 1 (since you had to let the transport advance in front of you, since you both had the same starting line and move almost the same speed) 2) Didn't participate in the game Turn 2 (now you can move up to catch up to the transport) 3) Gained something like 15" of extra movement by turn 3, if the transport hasn't been degraded by then.
Daedalus81 wrote: For those keeping track at home that's going to be between 35 and 40 inches depending on the units -- plus the width of the transport if you embark and disembark on different sides.
Over two turns, and only if the unit started out a move+advance behind the transport from where it wanted to go. In a game where the unit and the transport can just start at pretty much exactly the same starting line.
Guess what?
If that transport were another unit of the same type as the one that you just pulled your trick with, then you could've just moved that unit to the location and not even had to worry about the first unit, which is free to still participate in the game at it's current location, too.
Daedalus81 wrote: People have to stop playing like the game is just "beep beep, push it forward!".
For someone who calls people who can't read his data donkey-caves, you sure are an donkey-cave.
Daedalus81 wrote: The table is smaller. Allowing disembark and charge universally from open-topped would be absolutely brutal.
Probably. Meta and Tactical decisions would change to reign it in though.
Transports give protection, mobility, and extensive redeploy. An empty transport is a valuable tool. The movement you get from move, advance, embark, move, advance, and then on the next turn 3" disembark, move, and advance is quite considerable. For those keeping track at home that's going to be between 35 and 40 inches depending on the units -- plus the width of the transport if you embark and disembark on different sides. Most infantry is move 6, most transports are 12-14.
Are you counting that first move and advance before the embark as part of the 35-40 inches? And the move/advance/charge of the unit after moving? The difference between a transport and not a transport is 6-8-ish inches and a turn. That means at least one shooting phase, potentially two fight phases.
People have to stop playing like the game is just "beep beep, push it forward!".
Tau are awful because they can't fight people off of objectives to score on their next command phase.
Transports are great even though you... can't fight people off objectives to score on your next command phase.
Most of the transports - especially the Dedicated Transports - are not universally useful because transporting is not universally useful. It's almost always situational - scoring a secondary, or one trick ponies like the Drop Pod Bomb, and so on. You're also in effect getting double billed. You have to pay the Transport cost (many of them have an upcharge for the transport capacity) and you have to "pay" 20% of the points cost of the unit being transported because they're off the table and can't do anything for a turn. Even a shooting unit that deletes the unit already on the objective can't score, the best they can do is prevent an opponent score. 10 grots can keep the Intercessors in the Impulsor off the objective by preventing them from unloading close enough to contest. 18 (Rapid Fire impulsor + 5 Rapid Fire Intercessors) shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds, 2 grots are still there. A reroll bubble probably deletes the unit but adding more points to prevent a score is just throwing more points after bad transports. you've already spent 200+ points to win tactically but lose strategically to 50 points of grots.
By the time a unit in a transport has actually gone anywhere (as opposed to being off the table in the transport) then it could have just moved there in the same time period, at least for the vast majority of transports in the game. So, no, not mobility.
It's telling that a full transport is less valuable than an empty one. What's that transport capacity even for?
Daedalus81 wrote: The movement you get from move, advance, embark, move, advance, and then on the next turn 3" disembark, move, and advance is quite considerable.
Considerable enough that you: 1) didn't participate in the game Turn 1 (since you had to let the transport advance in front of you, since you both had the same starting line and move almost the same speed) 2) Didn't participate in the game Turn 2 (now you can move up to catch up to the transport) 3) Gained something like 15" of extra movement by turn 3, if the transport hasn't been degraded by then.
Daedalus81 wrote: For those keeping track at home that's going to be between 35 and 40 inches depending on the units -- plus the width of the transport if you embark and disembark on different sides.
Over two turns, and only if the unit started out a move+advance behind the transport from where it wanted to go. In a game where the unit and the transport can just start at pretty much exactly the same starting line.
Guess what?
If that transport were another unit of the same type as the one that you just pulled your trick with, then you could've just moved that unit to the location and not even had to worry about the first unit, which is free to still participate in the game at it's current location, too.
Daedalus81 wrote: People have to stop playing like the game is just "beep beep, push it forward!".
For someone who calls people who can't read his data donkey-caves, you sure are an donkey-cave.
I rarely, if ever, agree with unit, bit this is spot on. Trukk boyz only function because they ignore the one rule that made all transports that don't double a gunboats useless.
It's also quite questionable whether disembarking after moving would be such a big issue when you consider that there are droves of units which can pull off first turn charges with less investment than a 70+ point model that can easily be blown up. Both warbikers and storm boyz are almost as fast as the worst case scenario you are trying to paint daed, and I bet there are a ton of eldar units even faster than that.
Facilitating turn 1 charges would obviously make Trukks (and other transports etc) better - but equally it would also make 40k faster. And I think part of the problem for transports is that the game is becoming faster - such that being 10" further forward but only in turn 2 really isn't worth that much.
Spoletta wrote: Transports don't need different rules, they simply need contents.
By its nature a transport is only as good as what it can transport.
The humble rhino has no special rules, no special defenses, no weapons and yet sees regular competitive use in sister lists.
We're just going to ignore the fact that the Rhino gets a pregame move? Effectively letting it move + disembark turn 1... the exact thing Trukk Boyz had to give up their Klan Kulture for? But sisters can do this by just putting a 5man squad of Dominions in it... that also have one of the best, if not the best shooting strategem in the game?
Regarding transports, there's also the matter of fire-points, which appear to have vanished from the face of the earth.
In the past, these allowed units in transports to still contribute to a battle to some extent (often with their special or heavy weapons). So even if a unit wasn't disembarking in a turn - whether for protection or in the aim of moving further in subsequent turns - it wasn't out of the battle entirely.
I'll grant this probably wouldn't change much for orks but it might help stuff like Rhinos and Chimeras see play.
I'm also of the opinion that a unit should absolutely be able to disembark after a transport has moved. That doesn't mean that the unit needs to be able to make a full move afterwards - just have them set up within 3" of the transport. IOW, very similar to the current system except that the unit gets to use its transport's movement speed, rather than its own.
Relevant to Orks, you could also say that the unit can't disembark if the transport Advanced, unless it's open-topped.
Tyel wrote: Facilitating turn 1 charges would obviously make Trukks (and other transports etc) better - but equally it would also make 40k faster. And I think part of the problem for transports is that the game is becoming faster - such that being 10" further forward but only in turn 2 really isn't worth that much.
I don't think that the game would be that much faster/deadlier if people spend 200 something points on underarmed transports instead of on guns that can shoot across the entire board anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: If only there were some way to make the few extra inches of movement per turn matter ok the long run.
You know. Slow the game down and make movement distance relatively more important.
Something like a larger board...
... Ahh a man can dream.
That isn't going to matter though, the problem already existed in 8th when boards were the same size and moving towards the enemy was a meme instead of a necessary tactic to win the game.
As long as the game is partially decided by how much of the enemy army you can kill in the first 2 turns, transports will never matter if they don't give you an advantage until turn 3, even if you play on a 12x6 table.
vipoid wrote: Relevant to Orks, you could also say that the unit can't disembark if the transport Advanced, unless it's open-topped.
Honestly, I would scrap the "unless open-topped". Being able to shoot out of the transport with the entire unit when no one else can is already a great thing, and jumping out of open tropped transport after advancing is just bound to result in something terrible for the other two armies with open topped vehicles: Harlequins and Drukhari.
I don't remember clearly how it worked in 5th, but IIRC you also had to slow down to have models jump out and charge. Maybe even return to how it was back then, jump out and shoot for everyone, charge only when stationary, open topped or if you had an assault ramp.
Blackie wrote: If tankbustas, flash gitz or lootas were valuable units, trukks as they currently are would see a lot of play.
But they'd still be glorified gunboats, not transports.
when the boards are so small, between reserves and tellyporta / other stratagems, most transports are either A: Extra hide or B: glorified gunboats C: superseded by unlimited slots of FA / other availability.
Jidmah wrote: charge only when stationary, open topped or if you had an assault ramp.
That's about where I am, and I'd make sure (nearly?) every Dedicated Transport was either open topped or had an assault ramp, then go checking all the transports that aren't dedicated for fluff/rules/etc. for which ones should get it too. Thunderhawks/Stormravens/other Transport aircraft should have it flip on and off with their Aircraft rule.
Blackie wrote: If tankbustas, flash gitz or lootas were valuable units, trukks as they currently are would see a lot of play.
But they'd still be glorified gunboats, not transports.
when the boards are so small, between reserves and tellyporta / other stratagems, most transports are either A: Extra hide or B: glorified gunboats C: superseded by unlimited slots of FA / other availability.
I wouldn't be surprised to see boards either get bigger, or movement rates for most footsloggers to get chopped down a couple inches. Even outside of the transport thing, mid-field is too close.
Hold up. Everyone talks about how lethal the game is and not protection has no value? Sisters literally live in transports. It doesn't HAVE to be a unit of great value. It has to be a unit that will be able to out-obsec, out-melee, or action when it gets where it needs to go.
.
By the time a unit in a transport has actually gone anywhere (as opposed to being off the table in the transport) then it could have just moved there in the same time period, at least for the vast majority of transports in the game. So, no, not mobility.
No. An advance roll doesn't guarantee you a 12" to 14" move.
What does this mean? It's telling that a full transport is less valuable than an empty one. What's that transport capacity even for?
Ok let me illustrate.
Transport with unit gets deployed. Another backfield unit is also deployed.
Turn 1 - transport moves up and disgorges payload
Turn 2 - payload is dead, but opponent is weak on that flank; redundant unit takes control of backfield unit and previous objective holder moves into transport; transport pushes forward as fast as possible
Turn 3 - unit jumps out and rushes onto opponent's objective / target
Hold up. Everyone talks about how lethal the game is and not protection has no value? Sisters literally live in transports.
The reason protection has no value is because lethality is so high. And sisters live in transports for now - Argent Shroud no longer counting as stationary when disembarking will kill that.
By the time a unit in a transport has actually gone anywhere (as opposed to being off the table in the transport) then it could have just moved there in the same time period, at least for the vast majority of transports in the game. So, no, not mobility.
No. An advance roll doesn't guarantee you a 12" to 14" move.
Depending on the army it absolutely can - and even the worst advance rolls are 8" vs a transport's 12. But the turn they embark, the transport has to be back far enough to get the whole unit in embark range, which means it has to back up to only be 10" away before the advance roll anyways or things start to fall apart.
What does this mean? It's telling that a full transport is less valuable than an empty one. What's that transport capacity even for?
*sigh* ok let me illustrate.
Transport with unit gets deployed. Another backfield unit is also deployed.
Turn 1 - transport moves up and disgorges payload
Turn 2 - payload is dead, but opponent is weak on that flank; redundant unit takes control of backfield unit and previous objective holder moves into transport; transport pushes forward as fast as possible
Turn 3 - unit jumps out and rushes onto opponent's objective / target
Spoiler:
So you literally can't do that, because you can't do the disembark turn 1 as you described (it's disembarking after moving).
Having a second unit blobbed up amongst the first achieves the same thing, but that unit also likely has more to contribute than the transport itself.
So you literally can't do that, because you can't do the disembark turn 1 as you described (it's disembarking after moving).
Having a second unit blobbed up amongst the first achieves the same thing, but that unit also likely has more to contribute than the transport itself.
You can with Impulsor, which is what mentally informed the graphic. You can otherwise disembark turn 2 and have that unit go fight then pick up the other unit and go from there. The details aren't what's important. It's that a transport is still a tool and thinking ahead a turn or two on how to continue to get mileage out of it ( literally ) is a valuable use.
Ah yes well I agree transports are very useful if they ignore the normal rules for transports or if the enemy takes no actions against you and your plans for 3 or 4 turns.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah yes well I agree transports are very useful if they ignore the normal rules for transports or if the enemy takes no actions against you and your plans for 3 or 4 turns.
Even a static transport is a launching pad if you want it to be. A Trukk is 5". An average run for Boyz is 8". Shave 3 to 4" off to be fully within. Disembark the next turn fully within 3" then advance 8". That's a 20" move. Boyz on foot would otherwise go 16" assuming the same advance rolls. If the unit is smaller then getting fully within is easier and you go "further".
But, I forgot that opponents can kill anything at will, everything dies instantly, there is no positional play in 40K, and there is absolutely no reason to plan turns in advance.
I will let Ork players decide whether or not paying 70 points is worth 4" of extra movement for a 10-12 man unit of boys provided everything works out in their favor.
Oh and in that situation the boys couldn't charge until turn 3 (turn 1 the transport spends getting ahead of them and they embark. Turn 2 they disembark. Turn 3 they can finally charge).
Without the truck they can charge on Turn 2 - and if you are in charge range that charge is likely to be longer than 4".
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah yes well I agree transports are very useful if they ignore the normal rules for transports or if the enemy takes no actions against you and your plans for 3 or 4 turns.
Even a static transport is a launching pad if you want it to be. A Trukk is 5". An average run for Boyz is 8". Shave 3 to 4" off to be fully within. Disembark the next turn fully within 3" then advance 8". That's a 20" move. Boyz on foot would otherwise go 16" assuming the same advance rolls. If the unit is smaller then getting fully within is easier and you go "further".
But, I forgot that opponents can kill anything at will, everything dies instantly, there is no positional play in 40K, and there is absolutely no reason to plan turns in advance.
You're strawmanning other people's arguments to avoid admitting that you're wrong.
The argument of "the game rules are always right and nothing is wrong" is getting tiresome buddy.
Daedalus81 wrote: Even a static transport is a launching pad if you want it to be. A Trukk is 5". An average run for Boyz is 8". Shave 3 to 4" off to be fully within. Disembark the next turn fully within 3" then advance 8". That's a 20" move. Boyz on foot would otherwise go 16" assuming the same advance rolls. If the unit is smaller then getting fully within is easier and you go "further".
But, I forgot that opponents can kill anything at will, everything dies instantly, there is no positional play in 40K, and there is absolutely no reason to plan turns in advance.
Have you looked at what tournament players are routinely doing even after the nerfs? 40k when played with good lists is very much a game where hiding is difficult and anything on the board has the potential to be killed or crippled turn one almost regardless of positioning. That goes double for something as 'durable' as a Trukk.
You're strawmanning other people's arguments to avoid admitting that you're wrong.
The argument of "the game rules are always right and nothing is wrong" is getting tiresome buddy.
JFC
No. I'm not. I'm literally telling you that games play out this way. As in first hand experience as well as publicly available battle reports.
But I get lectured by people who don't even play this edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: Have you looked at what tournament players are routinely doing even after the nerfs? 40k when played with good lists is very much a game where hiding is difficult and anything on the board has the potential to be killed or crippled turn one almost regardless of positioning. That goes double for something as 'durable' as a Trukk.
Hiding is NOT difficult if you're playing on GW terrain. I get that lots of people don't want to do that, but if we don't want to discuss the game as it is currently designed I don't know what else to tell you.
No. I'm not. I'm literally telling you that games play out this way. As in first hand experience as well as publicly available battle reports.
But I get lectured by people who don't even play this edition.
Please tell me what exactly you'd have done to stop Richard Siegler's Mars Veteran Cohort from doing whatever he wants to your list? The game doesn't just exist within whatever collection of models you and your group use, it exists within the entire scope of 40k including tournament play. How does your list stand up to a list that is designed, first and foremost, to win?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Hiding is NOT difficult if you're playing on GW terrain. I get that lots of people don't want to do that, but if we don't want to discuss the game as it is currently designed I don't know what else to tell you.
Which exact GW terrain? GW ruins often have tons of windows, the craters and pipes aren't tall enough (or have gaps beneath them) and can't hide anything. If you have to cherrypick GW terrain and specifically include big LOS blockers in every deployment zone that is a failure of design.
Canadian 5th wrote: Please tell me what exactly you'd have done to stop Richard Siegler's Mars Veteran Cohort from doing whatever he wants to your list? The game doesn't just exist within whatever collection of models you and your group use, it exists within the entire scope of 40k including tournament play. How does your list stand up to a list that is designed, first and foremost, to win?
To play 40K you have to put models on the table. For me to tell you how I would even think of approaching Siegler would require me to look at his deployment, the mission, consider secondaries, and reshape the plan on in game developments.
This isn't even a question that is remotely answerable without 20 pages of what-ifs.
Which exact GW terrain? GW ruins often have tons of windows, the craters and pipes aren't tall enough (or have gaps beneath them) and can't hide anything. If you have to cherrypick GW terrain and specifically include big LOS blockers in every deployment zone that is a failure of design.
This makes it so painfully obvious that you have zero experience in 9th.
I'm out. I can't take these ridiculous posts. You guys can bitch and moan your hypotheticals all you want now.
Daedalus81 wrote: To play 40K you have to put models on the table. For me to tell you how I would even think of approaching Siegler would require me to look at his deployment, the mission, consider secondaries, and reshape the plan on in game developments.
This isn't even a question that is remotely answerable without 20 pages of what-ifs.
Nonsense, the ITC results, table layouts, etc. are all out there, you don't need to guess about it. sub your army into the finals and tell me how you win that game. You seem to think it's easy to do, so show us plebs how it's done.
Blackie wrote: If tankbustas, flash gitz or lootas were valuable units, trukks as they currently are would see a lot of play.
But they'd still be glorified gunboats, not transports.
when the boards are so small, between reserves and tellyporta / other stratagems, most transports are either A: Extra hide or B: glorified gunboats C: superseded by unlimited slots of FA / other availability.
Fully agree. For several armies it's also rare to see transports survive more than a single turn if you do bring them.
No. I'm not. I'm literally telling you that games play out this way. As in first hand experience as well as publicly available battle reports.
But I get lectured by people who don't even play this edition.
Dude, I was at LVO, I have friends who are very serious about the 40k tournament scene, I know what's up. You saying that games play out this way at a high level is just wrong. Your retreat when asked how you'd handle Siegler's setup just shows that you know you're just bluster.
Vaktathi wrote: Hey all, if we can take the down of the conversation down here, it'll help a lot. Make use of the "Ignore" function if necessary. Thanks!
At a certain point it's trolling if someone keeps stating something despite being shown to be wrong.
No. I'm not. I'm literally telling you that games play out this way. As in first hand experience as well as publicly available battle reports.
But I get lectured by people who don't even play this edition.
Dude, I was at LVO, I have friends who are very serious about the 40k tournament scene, I know what's up. You saying that games play out this way at a high level is just wrong. Your retreat when asked how you'd handle Siegler's setup just shows that you know you're just bluster.
Daed didn't mention "high level", where oddly the vast majority of games don't take place. For what it's worth I play every game like the LVO champ is going to be waiting at my brothers house in a different country ready to kick the teeth in on my PL crusade force, I know some people who did stuff too so listen to me for internet points.
Hecaton wrote: Dude, I was at LVO, I have friends who are very serious about the 40k tournament scene, I know what's up. You saying that games play out this way at a high level is just wrong. Your retreat when asked how you'd handle Siegler's setup just shows that you know you're just bluster.
That's not a retreat. That's knowing that it's a stupid exercise that you think is some amazing query but it's such a ridiculous non sequitur. "Hey rando, how would you beat Michael Jordan at basketball?!" GOOOTCHA!
Also, I never said high level. Why? Because those armies are almost all transport barren right now.
Vaktathi wrote: Hey all, if we can take the down of the conversation down here, it'll help a lot. Make use of the "Ignore" function if necessary. Thanks!
At a certain point it's trolling if someone keeps stating something despite being shown to be wrong.
I didn't know that firsthand experience was fake and that being "shown" means some people who mostly don't play make an assertion. Good to know.
Dudeface wrote: Daed didn't mention "high level", where oddly the vast majority of games don't take place.
But he was replying to people who clearly were talking about that kind of play, in-context. So he either misunderstood the conversation he's in, or misunderstands 40k.
Dudeface wrote: Daed didn't mention "high level", where oddly the vast majority of games don't take place.
But he was replying to people who clearly were talking about that kind of play, in-context. So he either misunderstood the conversation he's in, or misunderstands 40k.
You mean this comment?
Keep in mind, I am talking about a competitive 40k environment, maybe not GTs but at least local events
Daedalus81 wrote: That's not a retreat. That's knowing that it's a stupid exercise that you think is some amazing query but it's such a ridiculous non sequitur. "Hey rando, how would you beat Michael Jordan at basketball?!" GOOOTCHA!
How do you beat that style of list on tournament terrain tables? You don't have to beat the man or even the list, just explain how you would approach the list with your own usual list and what value transports would bring to such a battle.
Also, I never said high level. Why? Because those armies are almost all transport barren right now.
Might that be because transports aren't that valuable right now? This, by my reading, is what this entire thread has been telling you.
Might that be because transports aren't that valuable right now? This, by my reading, is what this entire thread has been telling you.
Because Crusher Stampede has transports? Why would Wracks need transport when they're already super durable and mobile? Custodes? GK has Interceptors and teleport, soo....
Canadian 5th wrote: How do you beat that style of list on tournament terrain tables? You don't have to beat the man or even the list, just explain how you would approach the list with your own usual list and what value transports would bring to such a battle.
It's literally an opportunity play. It isn't something you explicitly plan to do when you start a game. As the game develops you make a plan and react.
Against that list I have three major concerns: 1) losing backfield to Disintegrators, 2) the exploding 6s Stalkers, and 3) the Telemetry Rangers ( because I simply won't be able to kill them ). My opportunity target is the Marshall with rr1s to hit and wound.
I am absolutely not concerned about his ranged anti-tank capability.
If the mission is Take and Hold I have time to let him come towards me since he has no teleport. Domination might be harder. Rhinos will be important to redeploy away from the Telemetry Rangers because I won't even bother attacking them, put flamer Rubrics in the ( indirect ) path of Stalkers, and to keep units safe from indirect fire when possible.
If the Rhinos are sufficiently wounded there will be move blocking opportunities to place the Rhinos between Stalkers and my backfield objectives. If they have too much health he won't kill them and could potentially wrap me and stay in combat until his turn. Otherwise it puts them in a spot where I can move and advance on them with flamers. Someone like Siegler would be unlikely to make that blunder so I might stash a rhino within one of the larger ruins to keep other blocks easily coming through that angle.
There is no way I will be able to open holes in his backfield so my terminators will just be deepstriking towards the side away from Telemetry Rangers and trying to push the other block out. If I have transports and I feel like I can make headway into his objective then I'll pick up my units and start rotating them - A goes to B, B goes to C.
But how I react depends on the number of objectives, my secondaries and his ( of which I know one ), as well as the deployment zones and mission itself among a million other things that can happen.
Dudeface wrote: The tl;dr of the multiple threads about orks/boyz now is that boyz aren't going to get close to being used this edition without needing a total rewrite, might as well let it slide for now rather than having a new thread about it.
A list with 3x10 Snaggas went 6-0 at LVO, so, at the very least they don't hurt. That's far from needing a total rewrite, I think. The concept of the all boyz horde is dead. It's a boring and laborious skew list that wasn't ever very fun to play with or against. Narratively? Good fun. Do you balance or do you want narrative though?
And a Snagga....is not an ork boy, so...not sure what you're on about here, tbh.
this is like someone making a thread about how bad tactical marines are and going "oh but someone just won a GT with a list that included Incursors" it's a different unit, IDK what to say.
Either they were action/holding units where the 6++ just kept them alive or they were a more active unit.
If it was the former then you get 2 extra wounds for the same cost. If it's the latter then you get 6 extra attacks ( but all at S4 ).
If you're banking on a 6++ to keep you viable and on the table...it just won't swing the battle at all.
They go in Kill Rigs, if you made me guess.The lack of a non-deadweight delivery mechanism for boyz is one of the primary issues with them, and one of the reasons their inclusion is not worth the 3CP you save by including some.
Boyz are just not an efficient unit for their *actual* (not theoretical) cost - i.e. the cost of 10 boyz, a klaw, and a trukk.
And Gretchins are SO beyond the pale terrible that theyre literally not even worth as a 50pt action monkey unit. You wanna talk about a laughable comparison with kroot.....yeaaaaaahhhhh......
Snaggas would seem to be enough of a useful unit to justify taking a minimum amount of them in a couple competitive lists.
Not exactly high praise IMO. Just anecdotally - Boyz feel like absolute ass on the tabletop. Theyre hideously slow, they get shredded by basically anything your opponent points at them, and when you actually build around them they wind up being like 650pts of your 2000pts list just for 3 basic squads with the necessary delivery support. Youve got about as much reason to take Boyz as you have to take squads of 10 tactical marines in rhinos with a powerfist sergeant and trying to charge them into melee.
the_scotsman wrote: They go in Kill Rigs, if you made me guess.The lack of a non-deadweight delivery mechanism for boyz is one of the primary issues with them, and one of the reasons their inclusion is not worth the 3CP you save by including some.
Boyz are just not an efficient unit for their *actual* (not theoretical) cost - i.e. the cost of 10 boyz, a klaw, and a trukk.
And Gretchins are SO beyond the pale terrible that theyre literally not even worth as a 50pt action monkey unit. You wanna talk about a laughable comparison with kroot.....yeaaaaaahhhhh......
Snaggas would seem to be enough of a useful unit to justify taking a minimum amount of them in a couple competitive lists.
Not exactly high praise IMO. Just anecdotally - Boyz feel like absolute ass on the tabletop. Theyre hideously slow, they get shredded by basically anything your opponent points at them, and when you actually build around them they wind up being like 650pts of your 2000pts list just for 3 basic squads with the necessary delivery support. Youve got about as much reason to take Boyz as you have to take squads of 10 tactical marines in rhinos with a powerfist sergeant and trying to charge them into melee.
Boyz do work in melee.
It becomes a matter of priorities. If you have a 30 mob just hanging in the wind it will get shot to hell. If you have MANZ in one transport and Boyz in another, which are you going to spill out first? If you also have 10 Kommandos in cover where is your focus? Grots on the backfield? What are you doing to shield from Jump and Tellyporta Boyz?
If HH go bananas then knocking transports becomes easy ( though BW don't go terribly easy ) and the terrain you use becomes way more important.
So you literally can't do that, because you can't do the disembark turn 1 as you described (it's disembarking after moving).
Having a second unit blobbed up amongst the first achieves the same thing, but that unit also likely has more to contribute than the transport itself.
You can with Impulsor, which is what mentally informed the graphic. You can otherwise disembark turn 2 and have that unit go fight then pick up the other unit and go from there. The details aren't what's important. It's that a transport is still a tool and thinking ahead a turn or two on how to continue to get mileage out of it ( literally ) is a valuable use.
Sisters live in Rhinos.
Here's an example for transports.
You can't do that with a Rhino.
You can with an Impulsor
Sisters don't live in Impulsors.
Daedalus81 wrote: It becomes a matter of priorities. If you have a 30 mob just hanging in the wind it will get shot to hell. If you have MANZ in one transport and Boyz in another, which are you going to spill out first? If you also have 10 Kommandos in cover where is your focus? Grots on the backfield? What are you doing to shield from Jump and Tellyporta Boyz?
Ah yes, the infamous "Your opponent will be distracted and shoot the wrong thing! That's why they're good!"
I've seen it across multiple game lines, with people arguing why X trash choice is actually secretly good. It's a bad argument, because it relies on your opponent making mistakes, and they will likely not make it, and that unit will remain a suboptimal choice.
Sisters live in Rhinos.
Here's an example for transports.
You can't do that with a Rhino.
You can with an Impulsor
Sisters don't live in Impulsors.
Yes, exactly. He's forced to retreat from his own examples when they (inevitably) fail.
Just admit you're wrong, dude, and move on. The game isn't ingeniously balanced by GW, and yes some yahoos on a forum like us can identify part of what's wrong.
the_scotsman wrote: They go in Kill Rigs, if you made me guess.The lack of a non-deadweight delivery mechanism for boyz is one of the primary issues with them, and one of the reasons their inclusion is not worth the 3CP you save by including some.
The thing with kill rigs and beast snaggas is actually that people bring the beast snagga boyz as an "upgrade" for the kill rig, similar to how the DAVU used to work back in the days. If kill rigs could transport any other unit or if they weren't as good as they are, beast snaggas would immediately be out of the equation.
Against what? T3 units with bad saves that can't fight back? Do you need a unit that is slightly above average at killing something that can be killed by anything?
Drop your armchair theory for a moment, proxy some boyz and do some actual charges and dice rolls against some common objective campers like any of the primaris troops, necron warriors, a unit of sisters or rubrics using common army traits and stratagems. See how that works for you. If you want to do it in a scientific way, do it ten times and record those tries.
Without the Waaagh! boyz already struggle to take down pox walkers, and that is generously assuming they didn't take casualties from overwatch, their transport exploding or other things.
It becomes a matter of priorities. If you have a 30 mob just hanging in the wind it will get shot to hell. If you have MANZ in one transport and Boyz in another, which are you going to spill out first?
The correct answer is, that instead of boyz, you bring more MANz. MANz are 105 points now, a unit of boyz with a PK is 100. There is no reason not to upgrade.
If you have maxed out MANz, you bring, kommadoz. If you have maxed out those, you bring storm boyz. Maxed out storm boyz? Bring warbikers or squig hogs. There is nothing boyz can do that these units can't do more efficiently - except fill a troops slot for a free patrol.
If you also have 10 Kommandos in cover where is your focus?
Once again, don't bring boyz, bring more kommandoz. Bring more anything but boyz.
The 270 points you spend on that mob of 30 is 270 points wasted on not bringing units that are strictly better than boyz.
What are you doing to shield from Jump and Tellyporta Boyz?
Nothing, because both are crap and no one uses them. Casting Da Jump is unreliable and when multiplied with the chance to fail the charge is already doing a great job of protecting the ork's enemies from it all by itself, let alone how unlikely you are to find a good spot to plonk down 30 32mm bases if you go second.
Tellyporta boyz are slightly more reliable, but kommandoz and storm boyz do the very same thing better and more reliably.
And that doesn't even account for the multitude tools that some armies have for blocking powers, shooting at reserves or creating bubbles where no one can arrive.
This isn't 8th edition anymore where you got +1 to charges from the ES culture and bonusses to casting while a gunline meta and larger tables made charges from deep strike easy to set up.
Seriously, get yourself TTS, set up a game against your best army, build an ork army focused on boyz and try to win against yourself.
Boyz might look good on paper, but they absolutely aren't on the table top. I'm convinced that your opinion solely stems from never having experienced that first hand.
It'll also be interesting to see what - if any- change the new Nachmund missions will make. For a majority of those missions you're looking at objectives beyond the second being 15-21 inches away rather than 12" opening a minor time crunch to get on them.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was an attempt to beat us into transports with the meta, but will more likely just increase the value of deep strike and infiltrate.
I think Goff Boyz in a Waaagh work in melee. I agree however delivery and just getting around the board is however a major problem - and trukks don't cut it.
Moreover, if say you didn't want to go Goffs - say you went ES for the extra movement (which will add up over 2-3 turns). Now as Jidmah suggests your boyz can't reliably deal with anything above guardsmen. Which is just bad.
With that said, Semper was I think making Trukk Boyz work? Unless you've changed your list/moved on to Manz/I'm just misremembering. But I guess the issue is first turn charge into what you want tends to beat "2nd turn, probably running into a screen".
Hecaton wrote: Ah yes, the infamous "Your opponent will be distracted and shoot the wrong thing! That's why they're good!"
I've seen it across multiple game lines, with people arguing why X trash choice is actually secretly good. It's a bad argument, because it relies on your opponent making mistakes, and they will likely not make it, and that unit will remain a suboptimal choice.
No, I'm saying that if you play your lines of sight well and control objectives in a way that makes your opponent need to push them off then your units that aren't as visible and aren't in priority regions will not get targeted as much. It has nothing to do with the unit itself.
Yes, exactly. He's forced to retreat from his own examples when they (inevitably) fail.
Just admit you're wrong, dude, and move on. The game isn't ingeniously balanced by GW, and yes some yahoos on a forum like us can identify part of what's wrong.
It doesn't fail. It works with any transport. I'm sorry that I tried to make a quick simplified example to demonstrate the concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bibotot wrote: The best army right now is Drukhari and we know T5 doesn't mean anything to them. So Kroot >>> Boyz.
This misses so much about DE, which bring T4/T5 troops in some lists and transports in others.
Blackie wrote: If tankbustas, flash gitz or lootas were valuable units, trukks as they currently are would see a lot of play.
But they'd still be glorified gunboats, not transports.
With 5'' M they might need LoS. That's one of the main reasons why open topped transports exist. Problems of those units are they're either too expensive for what they do, have an obsolete weapon's profile or suffer from carrying a heavy weapon which comes with a penalty if the unit moves. Sometimes they have multiple of those problems.
the_scotsman wrote: They go in Kill Rigs, if you made me guess.The lack of a non-deadweight delivery mechanism for boyz is one of the primary issues with them, and one of the reasons their inclusion is not worth the 3CP you save by including some.
Boyz are just not an efficient unit for their *actual* (not theoretical) cost - i.e. the cost of 10 boyz, a klaw, and a trukk.
And Gretchins are SO beyond the pale terrible that theyre literally not even worth as a 50pt action monkey unit. You wanna talk about a laughable comparison with kroot.....yeaaaaaahhhhh......
Snaggas would seem to be enough of a useful unit to justify taking a minimum amount of them in a couple competitive lists.
Not exactly high praise IMO. Just anecdotally - Boyz feel like absolute ass on the tabletop. Theyre hideously slow, they get shredded by basically anything your opponent points at them, and when you actually build around them they wind up being like 650pts of your 2000pts list just for 3 basic squads with the necessary delivery support. Youve got about as much reason to take Boyz as you have to take squads of 10 tactical marines in rhinos with a powerfist sergeant and trying to charge them into melee.
Boyz do work in melee.
It becomes a matter of priorities. If you have a 30 mob just hanging in the wind it will get shot to hell. If you have MANZ in one transport and Boyz in another, which are you going to spill out first? If you also have 10 Kommandos in cover where is your focus? Grots on the backfield? What are you doing to shield from Jump and Tellyporta Boyz?
If HH go bananas then knocking transports becomes easy ( though BW don't go terribly easy ) and the terrain you use becomes way more important.
You're not, because nobody's stupid enough to TAKE da jump and tellyporta boyz.
Time was, Boyz were the unit that you took because they were the defensive choice. They were stripped down, not paying for any equipment, so they were the unit that you had the option to sit and take some firepower and they'd be able to hold onto objectives or charge up the field with some buffers and make it into combat.
9th ed has put paid to the idea that ANYTHING should be able to take firepower, at all, without just folding basically instantly, and boyz are still trapped in the paradigm of "Do not instantly appear on the battlefield within their preferred range band ready to attack."
Theres a reason why you dont generally see hardly any units that work like that anymore. Now, if you want to come and play, you gotta be able to
-deploy within threat range
-deep strike within threat range
-move fast enough to just go from your dz to the opponent's dz
-have the range to pop out from behind obscuring and fire with full effect
if you dont do that? You dont have a place in the 9e meta. And that's where boyz are at. There are alternative units to boyz that DO do that (warbikers, stormboyz, kommandos) which attack in generally the same S4-S5 D1 chaff clearing weight of fire style as boyz but unlike boyz can instantly be ready to go...but boyz cant, not reliably or cost-effectively. Da Jump is a bad joke, cumulatively over a 50% chance that your MASSIVE points investment does fething nothing, either by the psychic power failing or by the boyz failing to get in.
To the point of the thread - invidiually, no, kroot's statline is worse than ork boyz statline, but as an actual usable unit? Yeah, youre going to see Kroot, you will not see Boyz. It is what it is.
Hecaton wrote: Ah yes, the infamous "Your opponent will be distracted and shoot the wrong thing! That's why they're good!"
I've seen it across multiple game lines, with people arguing why X trash choice is actually secretly good. It's a bad argument, because it relies on your opponent making mistakes, and they will likely not make it, and that unit will remain a suboptimal choice.
No, I'm saying that if you play your lines of sight well and control objectives in a way that makes your opponent need to push them off then your units that aren't as visible and aren't in priority regions will not get targeted as much. It has nothing to do with the unit itself.
So, why have we not seen your tournament wins with Ork Boyz and Transport tactics?Because it sure seems like from...basically all the meta that has existed since the start of 8e, that mechanized tactics with transports are actually trash, because as it turns out, you dont HAVE to choose delayed gratification with other types of units. Basically everyone can just choose to build their list out in the strategy layer to have everything in range on demand, and turns out, that works better!
In 9e if you present your opponent with "oooo lots of targets what are you gonna shoot???" the answer is "All of it.
Its interesting to work out how low shoota boyz would have to go to be attractive. 6 points for T5 seems a bit crazy - but I think I'd still prefer Kroot, assuming the full suite of synergies.
Jidmah wrote: The correct answer is, that instead of boyz, you bring more MANz. MANz are 105 points now, a unit of boyz with a PK is 100. There is no reason not to upgrade.If you have maxed out MANz, you bring, kommadoz. If you have maxed out those, you bring storm boyz. Maxed out storm boyz? Bring warbikers or squig hogs. There is nothing boyz can do that these units can't do more efficiently - except fill a troops slot for a free patrol.
Those units cost more, swing less, and are limited by Ro3. I'm not advocating for replacement of all other units to the exclusion of Boyz. And I'm not saying Boyz are better than those units.
Against what? T3 units with bad saves that can't fight back? Do you need a unit that is slightly above average at killing something that can be killed by anything?
Drop your armchair theory for a moment, proxy some boyz and do some actual charges and dice rolls against some common objective campers like any of the primaris troops, necron warriors, a unit of sisters or rubrics using common army traits and stratagems. See how that works for you. If you want to do it in a scientific way, do it ten times and record those tries.
Without the Waaagh! boyz already struggle to take down pox walkers, and that is generously assuming they didn't take casualties from overwatch, their transport exploding or other things.
I use Unit Crunch, which essentially rolls dice so things like D3 damage gets rolled instead of averaged. I guess we can use AotF Wracks, Emperor's Chosen Saggitarum ( popular pick, but no benefits ), and some marines ( GK ).
Manz v Boyz
Wracks
Spoiler:
Saggitarum
Spoiler:
Marines
Spoiler:
These show Boyz are on par or better than MANZ in melee against stuff they want to face. Boyz could actually get through Wracks -- MANZ will be tied up for the rest of the game. MANZ can catch a clear edge against W3 stuff with their 2CP strat.
Obviously Boyz are soft. MANZ are also soft when they get hit by Dark Lances. Boyz take better advantage of Waaagh as a force multiplier. I do wish they had some useful ( but not overbearing strats ) and that spells were easier to get onto them.
Casting Da Jump is unreliable and when multiplied with the chance to fail the charge is already doing a great job of protecting the ork's enemies from it all by itself, let alone how unlikely you are to find a good spot to plonk down 30 32mm bases if you go second.
You don't need to charge after Jump if you can get good sight blocking. You just need to be in a good position to go next turn and honestly I'd do 20 Boyz instead of 30.
I'm convinced that your opinion solely stems from never having experienced that first hand.
Negatory. My primary play partner is Orks. When I get some time I'll put the list on TTS and give it a go against someone.
Ok let me illustrate.
Transport with unit gets deployed. Another backfield unit is also deployed.
Turn 1 - transport moves up and disgorges payload
Turn 2 - payload is dead, but opponent is weak on that flank; redundant unit takes control of backfield unit and previous objective holder moves into transport; transport pushes forward as fast as possible
Turn 3 - unit jumps out and rushes onto opponent's objective / target
Let me illustrate, specifically in terms of Ork boyz since this topic relates to that and not rhinos or impulsors.
Turn 1: Transport moves and advances D6 because even without advance the unit inside CAN NOT GET OUT.
Turn 2: Unit gets out within 3, moves 5, advances D6. Total movement now is 12+3.5+3+5+3.5 for a grand total of 27 inches. WITHOUT the trukk those boyz would have moved 17 inches on average. So that 70pts of a trukk bought you 10' inches of movement. Regardless, Turn 2 call WAAAGH and charge 2D6, Turn 2 you will be in CC. Unfortunately you are left with 36 S4 attacks hitting on 3s wounding most things on 4-5s. you also get whatever you equipped the nob with, i personally run mine naked with an extra choppa for 6 attacks at S5.
Turn 2 - Part2: Transport after disembarking than either A: Runs forward to eat overwatch, use ramming speed, or just tie something valuable up, or B: as you mentioned, runs backwards to pickup its next unit which will then not be USEFUL until turn 4.
At absolute best you are using a Trukk to propel a unit of boyz into a more likely turn 2 charge, but that really isn't worth the 70pt price tag, nor is a unit of boyz all that scary to begin with.
Even a static transport is a launching pad if you want it to be. A Trukk is 5". An average run for Boyz is 8". Shave 3 to 4" off to be fully within. Disembark the next turn fully within 3" then advance 8". That's a 20" move. Boyz on foot would otherwise go 16" assuming the same advance rolls. If the unit is smaller then getting fully within is easier and you go "further".
But, I forgot that opponents can kill anything at will, everything dies instantly, there is no positional play in 40K, and there is absolutely no reason to plan turns in advance.
There is literally no point for this. First off, the unit benefits most from starting inside the transport, so turn 1 it has a unit inside. Turn 2 that first unit gets out and the 2nd unit which ran behind it gets in, turn 3 it uses that as a 5-8' additional movement, which means at best your infantry unit is assaulting turn 3...where the game is likely decided already. Especially since this little tactic of yours relies on a unit of 10 boyz in the open surviving a full turn exposed to enemy firepower. And while no, your opponent can't kill everything at will, its not exactly a great tactic to rely upon your opponent not seeing a relatively squishy 90pt unit on the table and not at least dedicating a few anti-infantry weapons to it. And remember, kill 3-4 boyz and the unit likely fails morale and more importantly loses 1-2 more models to that.
Hiding is NOT difficult if you're playing on GW terrain. I get that lots of people don't want to do that, but if we don't want to discuss the game as it is currently designed I don't know what else to tell you.
Hiding is in fact rather hard to do on tables, especially tournament tables. While yes you can absolutely hide a unit behind LOS blocking terrain, that piece is usually so big that it defeats most movement next turn because its so large that it takes an extra 5-6' just to maneuver around it. And a unit not being productive for likely 2 turns is a unit that doesn't get played with. 1st turn hide, 2nd turn maneuver around terrain, 3rd turn deploy/assault. That isn't even a beta strike list, thats a tertiary strike list
Boyz do work in melee.
It becomes a matter of priorities. If you have a 30 mob just hanging in the wind it will get shot to hell. If you have MANZ in one transport and Boyz in another, which are you going to spill out first? If you also have 10 Kommandos in cover where is your focus? Grots on the backfield? What are you doing to shield from Jump and Tellyporta Boyz?
If HH go bananas then knocking transports becomes easy ( though BW don't go terribly easy ) and the terrain you use becomes way more important.
....No...they don't. If they did work in Melee they would be a lot more prevalent. The problem is that they aren't durable, they aren't fast and when they finally do get into CC they are S4 and have 4 attacks during a WAAAGH at -1AP. They have no support from strats worth mentioning, and if your opponent has a fights first/last option they can significantly degrade what little those boyz can do. And nobody, literally NOBODY in the competitive meta is running 30 blobs or even 20 because morale guts them and getting them into CC relies on da jump or teleport strike which leaves them exposed more than 50% of the time which means you just pissed away a solid 10%+ of your army for nothing other than a bullet sponge.
In your example, yeah target priority. But lets put that into perspective. Why would I spend 160pts on a Boyz trukk missile when I could just take a Manz missile for the same price? And i'm of the opinion that manz suck mind you
As far as "shielding" from Da Jump and Tellyporta? Nobody is because nobody does this because its too unreliable and even when it does work its not that impressive. Those were 8th edition tactics that worked because of reliability and destructive potential. "Oh no my 30 boyz didn't finish off their target...whatever shall I do? Oh thats right, fight twice strat" And more importantly "Oh no, my boyz got heavily mauled when they failed their charge! Whatever shall I do? Oh yeah Endless green tide, I just brought back a unit from 3 models left to having a full 30" Those strats are both gone which leaves boys unsupported for the most part.
Honestly, I would scrap the "unless open-topped". Being able to shoot out of the transport with the entire unit when no one else can is already a great thing, and jumping out of open tropped transport after advancing is just bound to result in something terrible for the other two armies with open topped vehicles: Harlequins and Drukhari.
I don't remember clearly how it worked in 5th, but IIRC you also had to slow down to have models jump out and charge. Maybe even return to how it was back then, jump out and shoot for everyone, charge only when stationary, open topped or if you had an assault ramp.
Shooting out of open Topped: I Agree...except we don't have any units worth doing this with. Burna boyz? 8 D6 S4 auto-hits...averages 28 hits, 14 wounds and against Marines that is 4.6dmg or 2 dead Marines. Not exactly enticing at 180pts Tankbustas suck, flashgitz are over priced and not worth it...shoota boyz make burna boyz look like gold etc etc.
Honestly, I think the only way to make Trukkz and boyz worth taking in 9th would be to allow boyz to be trukk boyz without the loss of Kulture. Maybe limit that to rule of 3? but that is still a hefty investment. A Naked boyz mob of 10 in a naked trukk is 160pts. 3 of those are 480pts or 1/4th your army basically. I'd be fine with this not being a strictly open topped rule and only for boyz and trukks. It might actually make them playable. Likewise though, I'd still likely take 2-3 detachments because I want my warbosses
Tyel wrote: I think Goff Boyz in a Waaagh work in melee. I agree however delivery and just getting around the board is however a major problem - and trukks don't cut it.
Goff Boyz in a WAAAGH DO work in Melee, the problem is getting them into CC without them being dead or over costed thanks to a Trukk. 10 boyz (no nob for simplicity) as Goff in a waaagh get 40 attacks, 33.3 hits, against T4 thats 22.2 Wounds and 11.1dmg vs a 3+ that is pretty damn good! But its incredibly difficult/impossible to get them into that CC scenario because 5' movement, bad transport options, no durability, morale issues etc.
Tyel wrote: Moreover, if say you didn't want to go Goffs - say you went ES for the extra movement (which will add up over 2-3 turns). Now as Jidmah suggests your boyz can't reliably deal with anything above guardsmen. Which is just bad.
Correct. 10 boyz without Goff, just with WAAAGH get 40 attacks, 26.6 hits, 13.3 wounds and against 3+ Marines that is 4dmg. So again, 160pts kills 40ish in their best phase...garbage tier.
Tyel wrote: With that said, Semper was I think making Trukk Boyz work? Unless you've changed your list/moved on to Manz/I'm just misremembering. But I guess the issue is first turn charge into what you want tends to beat "2nd turn, probably running into a screen".
I absolutely make trukk boyz work, and I still use them in every competitive list I use. Why? Because they tie things up and are relatively durable in my list thanks to turn 1 threat overload.
To make them work though my entire list except for 3 mek gunz is dedicated to Turn 1 Alpha strike and 3 Warbosses who are a Turn 2 Beta strike. The thing is, I never expect them to accomplish anything except tying something up so any units that didn't make it to CC turn 2 aren't shot off the board.
Recently played a tournament with my Alphork strike list, Kommandos and deffkoptas yet again proved their worth while my trukk boyz were just as disappointing as ever in terms of dmg output. The highlight for them though was a game against an Ad-Mech player with 3 Disintegrators. I was able to tie all 3 up turn 1 with trukk boyz and trukkz and surround him to the point where he couldn't escape. The 160pt investment to tie up a 145pt Ad-mech asset was steep but I was able to hold out long enough to tie them up for 3 full turns, or another way to put that, until my Kommandos, Warbosses and Deffkoptas had finished off the rest of his army and could come over and assist.
And I really want to focus on this before Daed gets any ideas... The only reasons they work is because A: They are surrounded by other Alpha Strike threats and B: because they get a 1 per detachment special rule which allows them to Move inside the trukk, disembark, move, advance and charge all first turn. That gives them an AVERAGE threat range of about 31' and a MAX threat range of 38' TURN 1!
Thats why Trukk boyz work in my alphork strike list...Why do Kommandos work? Because they can start the game 9' from the enemy lines, why do I think Kroot work? Because they get a free 7' movement which means without advancing, turn 1 they could likely have as little as a 4' charge.
You could try and waste points to do something like da jump which has unreliability on every step, the casting, the having space to put boyz part, the charge or having cover nearby.
Or you could just use kommandos, bikers, or stormboyz.
Boyz just don’t work at any point level, and I don’t think they should be buffed to match their 9 point thing. Just revert boyz to 8th alongside kff. Put 8th boyz (old mob rule and ere we go) at 7 points, and alls good.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: You could try and waste points to do something like da jump which has unreliability on every step, the casting, the having space to put boyz part, the charge or having cover nearby.
Or you could just use kommandos, bikers, or stormboyz.
Boyz just don’t work at any point level, and I don’t think they should be buffed to match their 9 point thing. Just revert boyz to 8th alongside kff. Put 8th boyz (old mob rule and ere we go) at 7 points, and alls good.
Buuutttttt were old boyz actually good or were they simply the best of a bad bunch? If you get the option to rewrite a unit, take advantage.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: You could try and waste points to do something like da jump which has unreliability on every step, the casting, the having space to put boyz part, the charge or having cover nearby.
Or you could just use kommandos, bikers, or stormboyz.
Boyz just don’t work at any point level, and I don’t think they should be buffed to match their 9 point thing. Just revert boyz to 8th alongside kff. Put 8th boyz (old mob rule and ere we go) at 7 points, and alls good.
Buuutttttt were old boyz actually good or were they simply the best of a bad bunch? If you get the option to rewrite a unit, take advantage.
They like, don’t really need one?, 8th boyz were basically the same as going all the way back to 3rd boyz, just built in strength from furious charge and a good charge reroll. They’re simple guys, and the only issues I have stem from kit stuff. I’d love to have the option for ‘ard armor, kmb, skorcha, burna, zzap, more big choppas, and kombis, but that’s wargear. Rules wise they were really perfect in 8th, though maybe a point too high.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because Crusher Stampede has transports? Why would Wracks need transport when they're already super durable and mobile? Custodes? GK has Interceptors and teleport, soo....
Didn't you just say:
"Also, I never said high level. Why? Because those armies are almost all transport barren right now."
So are good armies transport barren or not? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.
It's literally an opportunity play. It isn't something you explicitly plan to do when you start a game. As the game develops you make a plan and react.
Against that list I have three major concerns: 1) losing backfield to Disintegrators, 2) the exploding 6s Stalkers, and 3) the Telemetry Rangers ( because I simply won't be able to kill them ). My opportunity target is the Marshall with rr1s to hit and wound.
I am absolutely not concerned about his ranged anti-tank capability.
If the mission is Take and Hold I have time to let him come towards me since he has no teleport. Domination might be harder. Rhinos will be important to redeploy away from the Telemetry Rangers because I won't even bother attacking them, put flamer Rubrics in the ( indirect ) path of Stalkers, and to keep units safe from indirect fire when possible.
If the Rhinos are sufficiently wounded there will be move blocking opportunities to place the Rhinos between Stalkers and my backfield objectives. If they have too much health he won't kill them and could potentially wrap me and stay in combat until his turn. Otherwise it puts them in a spot where I can move and advance on them with flamers. Someone like Siegler would be unlikely to make that blunder so I might stash a rhino within one of the larger ruins to keep other blocks easily coming through that angle.
There is no way I will be able to open holes in his backfield so my terminators will just be deepstriking towards the side away from Telemetry Rangers and trying to push the other block out. If I have transports and I feel like I can make headway into his objective then I'll pick up my units and start rotating them - A goes to B, B goes to C.
But how I react depends on the number of objectives, my secondaries and his ( of which I know one ), as well as the deployment zones and mission itself among a million other things that can happen.
I gave you all of that. Take the ITC setup he just won and sub your forces in for Matt's. You're going first, how do you play the game out? Does your list even have a prayer of making it a close game?
I ask this because I don't feel like you're building or playing optimized lists against opponents who want to beat you. You seem to be playing games on tables with a larger than average level of terrain, with lists that aren't optimized, against players who don't treat the game seriously. Your meta cannot be used as a measuring stick because it doesn't produce enough data and doesn't feature the kinds of outlier lists that cause balance concerns in the first place.
It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
I wouldn't sat THAT painful. They can kill 3 Necron Immortals on the charge, which honestly isn't impressive once you factor in how long it took to get there.
Kroot will only be better than Boyz once they can take a hidden leader in their unit that has access to a power fist. The novelty of Boys is that they are a meat shield for something that CAN cause pain. A single Nob with ablative wounds can mess up a marine unit pretty good if it gets the charge.
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
What are you letting Ork Boyz charge that they're doing 'painful' damage to? Space Wolves have some tough units and enough screens that any unit of Boyz should only hit what you let them hit.
cuda1179 wrote: Kroot will only be better than Boyz once they can take a hidden leader in their unit that has access to a power fist. The novelty of Boys is that they are a meat shield for something that CAN cause pain. A single Nob with ablative wounds can mess up a marine unit pretty good if it gets the charge.
Daedalus81 wrote: Because Crusher Stampede has transports? Why would Wracks need transport when they're already super durable and mobile? Custodes? GK has Interceptors and teleport, soo....
Didn't you just say:
"Also, I never said high level. Why? Because those armies are almost all transport barren right now."
So are good armies transport barren or not? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.
...I'm not...nothing in my statements conflict. I'm not talking about high level armies, because those armies run in configurations where transports don't make sense. You don't put a carnifex in a transport...
Good =/= "high level"
"high level" =/= a specific set of armies ( e.g. Siegler )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: I gave you all of that. Take the ITC setup he just won and sub your forces in for Matt's. You're going first, how do you play the game out? Does your list even have a prayer of making it a close game?
I ask this because I don't feel like you're building or playing optimized lists against opponents who want to beat you. You seem to be playing games on tables with a larger than average level of terrain, with lists that aren't optimized, against players who don't treat the game seriously. Your meta cannot be used as a measuring stick because it doesn't produce enough data and doesn't feature the kinds of outlier lists that cause balance concerns in the first place.
Man alive. Lists are optimized. I play Thicc City and Iron Hands bodyguard spam all the time. I'm just not jumping armies to win. Terrain is literally GW spec.
Daedalus81 wrote: ...I'm not...nothing in my statements conflict. I'm not talking about high level armies, because those armies run in configurations where transports don't make sense. You don't put a carnifex in a transport...
Good =/= "high level"
"high level" =/= a specific set of armies ( e.g. Siegler )
So can a "good" list ever compete against a "high level"? Beyond that, where's the line between "good", "high level", and then, presumably, "average" and "bad"?
Man alive. Lists are optimized. I play Thicc City and Iron Hands bodyguard spam all the time. I'm just not jumping armies to win. Terrain is literally GW spec.
GW spec =/= tournament spec. Do you play on terrain that looks like common tournament tables?
Terrain is same type and quantity as LVO minus player placed terrain unless we're at a GT that does that, which is fairly rare on the east coast so far it seems. There's even Necron Tomb World stuff that is super hard to navigate and hide behind. Our group frequents majors and super majors.
So can a "good" list ever compete against a "high level"?
Yes.
Beyond that, where's the line between "good", "high level", and then, presumably, "average" and "bad"?
You'd have to study the degree of loss ( separation in points ) and the quality of loss ( how much you were tabled by ). Armies or lists who go 95 to 80 against Thicc City are not "bad" ( this is an opinion ) even if they lose 70% of their games.
When we look at win rates we're seeing nothing about the severity of wins between these armies. Playing DE means you can't make mistakes if you want to win, but not that you don't get a good game.
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
10 Ork boyz, on a regular turn, no extra buffs. 30 attacks, 20 hits, against T4 thats 10 wounds and against 3+ thats 5 dmg. That is 2.5 dead Marines. Against Tau firewarriors its 13-14ish wounds and against their 4+ save thats 8.8 dead Tau. So an incredibly slow CC only unit can inflict marginal dmg against Medium-Heavy infantry and significant dmg against light infantry. Not exactly "Painful" especially when you consider that 10 Man Tau firewarrior unit kills 2-3 boyz a turn at max range and 5 at half range. And since half range is 18' that is still pretty far away. 2 rounds of shooting will GUT a boyz unit to hte point where it dies to morale.
cuda1179 wrote: Kroot will only be better than Boyz once they can take a hidden leader in their unit that has access to a power fist. The novelty of Boys is that they are a meat shield for something that CAN cause pain. A single Nob with ablative wounds can mess up a marine unit pretty good if it gets the charge.
no...that is how orkz used to be. That hasn't been true in 2 editions now. A nob with PK is pathetic compared to what he used to be. 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, likely 1.25 wounds and -3AP means likely 1 dead Marine. I'll put it to you this way. I don't take PK's anymore EXCEPT on warbosses and only to get the relic one, and only on Kommandos because its a 5pt upgrade and ALWAYS wounds on 2s thanks to their +1 to wound special rule.
Daedalus81 wrote: Terrain is same type and quantity as LVO minus player placed terrain unless we're at a GT that does that, which is fairly rare on the east coast so far it seems. There's even Necron Tomb World stuff that is super hard to navigate and hide behind. Our group frequents majors and super majors.
So you're on the tournament grind but won't change factions to really compete and are thus stuck bringing second or third-tier armies that can take the earlier rounds, maybe win against a gatekeeper, and then struggle against the top cuts running killer lists. I'm guessing a lot of 3-2 and 2-3 scores with wins in early rounds and then a bunch of near wins and close losses as things tighten up.
Where do you rank in terms of rating within the faction you play?
You'd have to study the degree of loss ( separation in points ) and the quality of loss ( how much you were tabled by ). Armies or lists who go 95 to 80 against Thicc City are not "bad" ( this is an opinion ) even if they lose 70% of their games.
This is where our disagreement lies. Given that Thicc City isn't taking top-8 results regularly it is itself only a good or even an average list, so failing to beat it is the sign of a bad list or a bad player piloting it. Essentially, to me, a bad list is one that can't reasonably beat even an average list without some luck or a large skill gap. An average list could beat all-comers but is poorly favored in key matchups and also doesn't routinely beat the meta's gatekeepers. A good list can beat any list but is poorly favored against the top tier of lists, these are the gatekeepers of the format. Above that, you get top lists and tier 0 lists that need balance adjustments.
I don't view fluffy lists and garage hammer as worth balancing because more often than not player skill gaps will trump the lists at that level.
-----
But none of this has to do with the topic.
Do you think Boyz + Trukk is actually better than two units of Kroot for the same cost and are transports, in a general sense, actually worth it in a list that has pretensions of taking consistent top-16s at majors? The few cases where transports are used are generally due to very specific cases, often down to the subfaction level but you seem to think they have general uses cases and can be "good". I'm trying to figure out if the breakdown is in how good is defined or if we disagree on the value of transports within the top-16 and better meta at major tournaments.
Only got two majors in so I don't really rank highly, but that's roughly correct. Always second bracket instead of first so far. I'm 40% WR vs DE of various flavors.
I don't particularly mind if I don't podium and I don't think switching armies is necessary. There has always been something to learn from in my games. Until that isn't a thing switching does me no good. There's absolutely a mental and, to a lesser extent, physical fortitude necessary for a two day tournament.
I'm only referencing Thicc City since it the meme of the moment ( until Crisis Bombs or some other T'au nonsense hits ).
Do you think Boyz + Trukk is actually better than two units of Kroot for the same cost
In gakky math-hammer world two units of Kroot in Mont'ka targeting a Trukk will kill it 4.4% of the time. 10 Boyz Waaaghing into Kroot would kill 18, so total wipeout, basically. Kroot are LD6 if they don't outpace their Shaper / Ethereal. Obviously if a HH can ace the Trukk and then the Kroot shoot they'll kill all but 1 or 2 Boyz, but put twice the points into doing so. If you can cut down the angles from anti-tank and keep the Trukk alive until Boyz are in then you're trading positive and stripping their objective control.
Trukk and Boyz are absolutely not as utilitarian as two infantry units scouting, but Boyz are obsec and the can trade positive.
If that unit was somehow 20 points cheaper did it massively change your game or your list? Not likely. The math-hammer assessment gets nicer, but the unit still does what it does.
If points go to 7 then does someone having an extra Mek Gun in their list suddenly make people think Boyz are viable?
It's like people trade in these absolute terms and if they can't absolutely spam a unit then it must be trash. Once it crosses the tiny threshold it can totally transform. That doesn't make sense to me.
are transports, in a general sense, actually worth it in a list that has pretensions of taking consistent top-16s at majors
It really depends on several factors. I see enough people unload the transport and simply leave it in place treating it like it's done a job and is now worthless. In Stacraft Majors the people who did well were the ones who tried to keep units alive and used them to their fullest. This isn't really very different. Should GK take transports? Hell no. They have cover tide and teleporting. Should non-Duplicity TS take them? Sure, unless you're comfortable warp timing one unit at a time.
Transports aren't a magic bullet. They're a tool like anything else. Either you use them to their fullest or you don't. The latter doesn't generally help.
Can you make top 16 at a major? One TS player did a couple times at the very least by using rhinos to launch flamer rubrics. We'll see if something similar can happen again.
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
What are you letting Ork Boyz charge that they're doing 'painful' damage to? Space Wolves have some tough units and enough screens that any unit of Boyz should only hit what you let them hit.
Wait, what? Are screens a thing again? Do you have to shoot the closest unit?
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
What are you letting Ork Boyz charge that they're doing 'painful' damage to? Space Wolves have some tough units and enough screens that any unit of Boyz should only hit what you let them hit.
Wait, what? Are screens a thing again? Do you have to shoot the closest unit?
I highlighted some key points you might have missed.
Niiai wrote: It guess it depends within the contest of the armies. VS orks so much of my wound rolls wound on 5 and 6. It is a huge bummer. And the Ork boy performs different jobs in his army then kroot do in the Tau army. In particular the 10 man ork unit is very unpleasant to get charged by. You can say what ever you want about boys, but when they charge it is very painful.
What are you letting Ork Boyz charge that they're doing 'painful' damage to? Space Wolves have some tough units and enough screens that any unit of Boyz should only hit what you let them hit.
Wait, what? Are screens a thing again? Do you have to shoot the closest unit?
I highlighted some key points you might have missed.
Ahh, I thought you meant general screens, I didn't realize (charge) screens was what you meant. I started to wonder if I missed something else in the 9th book.
Spoletta wrote: I think that everyone here is missing one huge detail about this comparison.
Kroots don't get Sept bonuses.
Boyz do.
You don't compare a Kroot to a Boy.
You compare a Kroot to a Goff Boy.
You compare a kroot to a 5 ppm grot...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anywayz, that's an odd comparison. No doubt a lot of stuff in the game will be better than ork boyz. Boyz are at their lowest point in ork history atm.
Daedalus81 wrote: Those units cost more, swing less, and are limited by Ro3.
See, this is where you are wrong. They don't cost more because you get more for your points. They don't swing less because they have stratagems, wargear and synergies which boyz do not. They aren't limited because you will run out of points before you run out of units to field which are better than boyz.
I'm not advocating for replacement of all other units to the exclusion of Boyz. And I'm not saying Boyz are better than those units.
If boyz aren't better, why should you run them in the first place? There is zero need to bring them.
Spoiler:
I use Unit Crunch, which essentially rolls dice so things like D3 damage gets rolled instead of averaged. I guess we can use AotF Wracks, Emperor's Chosen Saggitarum ( popular pick, but no benefits ), and some marines ( GK ).
Manz v Boyz
Wracks [spoiler]
Saggitarum
Spoiler:
Marines
Spoiler:
These show Boyz are on par or better than MANZ in melee against stuff they want to face. Boyz could actually get through Wracks -- MANZ will be tied up for the rest of the game. MANZ can catch a clear edge against W3 stuff with their 2CP strat.
Obviously Boyz are soft. MANZ are also soft when they get hit by Dark Lances. Boyz take better advantage of Waaagh as a force multiplier. I do wish they had some useful ( but not overbearing strats ) and that spells were easier to get onto them.[/spoiler]
Sorry, but all that is exactly the worthless armchair general garbage I was talking about. It doesn't account for actual tactics on the board, units not being in the right place, terrain interfering with charge moves, best or worse case scenarios. Heck, it doesn't even account for the enemy charging you first, firing overwatch or pulling a counter-attack. It just teleports 10 boyz in perfect striking position during the first round of your Waaagh! to a target and somehow has them all in pristine condition within engagement range. That's not how games are.
On top of that, the only thing your graphs really shows is that MANz are just as good at killing even boyz' preferred targets under perfect conditions, which enforces my point that you shouldn't ever bring boyz when you could bring MANz instead. MANz are more flexible at what they can kill, more durable and rely less on the Waaagh!.
A decent unit has to function even when stars don't align, and that simply is not the case for boyz.
You don't need to charge after Jump if you can get good sight blocking. You just need to be in a good position to go next turn and honestly I'd do 20 Boyz instead of 30.
The next time you play a game and go second, try placing 20 32mm bases out of sight of your enemy. Just for fun.
Negatory. My primary play partner is Orks. When I get some time I'll put the list on TTS and give it a go against someone.
"I play against orks" is pretty much the worst qualification for understanding how orks work. Observating and drawing conclusions is not the same as understanding how things work. But if you do play that game, make sure to make a video or a battle report. I'd totally would offer to play that game with you, but I'm afraid my schedule currently doesn't allow that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Canadian 5th wrote: I gave you all of that. Take the ITC setup he just won and sub your forces in for Matt's. You're going first, how do you play the game out? Does your list even have a prayer of making it a close game?
I ask this because I don't feel like you're building or playing optimized lists against opponents who want to beat you. You seem to be playing games on tables with a larger than average level of terrain, with lists that aren't optimized, against players who don't treat the game seriously. Your meta cannot be used as a measuring stick because it doesn't produce enough data and doesn't feature the kinds of outlier lists that cause balance concerns in the first place.
You don't need to pull the competitive card though. My primary way of playing these days is 50PL crusade games and boyz still suck
I think people playing against decent ork players often mistake player skill for army strength. Boyz applied in the right moment to the right part of the game do pack a punch and feel scary to play against. What opponents don't see is the work it takes to get them there as well as the 9 other times out of 10 they just blow them off the table without any afterthought.
cuda1179 wrote: Kroot will only be better than Boyz once they can take a hidden leader in their unit that has access to a power fist. The novelty of Boys is that they are a meat shield for something that CAN cause pain. A single Nob with ablative wounds can mess up a marine unit pretty good if it gets the charge.
That's, uh... One dead Marine from the Nob with a Klaw.
Which isn't horrible for a 19 point model. 22 boys with a claw is still a couple points cheaper than 10 intercessors with a fist. If the boys charge they kill 6.3 intercessors. If the intercessors charge they kill 8 boys. Looks like the Boyz are better in melee, but I will admit the intercessors are still useful when shooting.
Daedalus81 wrote: If that unit was somehow 20 points cheaper did it massively change your game or your list? Not likely. The math-hammer assessment gets nicer, but the unit still does what it does.
If points go to 7 then does someone having an extra Mek Gun in their list suddenly make people think Boyz are viable?
It's like people trade in these absolute terms and if they can't absolutely spam a unit then it must be trash. Once it crosses the tiny threshold it can totally transform. That doesn't make sense to me.
I tend to agree and disagree with this at the same time.
I mean yes - its common online to always jump to a meme spam build which usually isn't effective precisely because its one-dimensional. It is sort of academic to go "how low would Boyz (or anything else) have to be until they just run over everything or you always max them out".
But equally if you want to Green Tide again that's sort of what you have to do. If Boyz went down to 7 points, and you wanted to run at least 90 of them, that's 180 points to spend elsewhere. Or another unit of 25~ boyz. Which is a lot.
The tipping point I think is often "I can run this and get an extra Mek gun". Because as you say - everything performs as it did before - but now you have another unit. Which can hold a position on a board and therefore do some damage, take some shooting, screen a charge, secure an objective - ultimately, increase your chance to win games.
cuda1179 wrote: Which isn't horrible for a 19 point model. 22 boys with a claw is still a couple points cheaper than 10 intercessors with a fist. If the boys charge they kill 6.3 intercessors. If the intercessors charge they kill 8 boys. Looks like the Boyz are better in melee, but I will admit the intercessors are still useful when shooting.
I don't think there is a scenario where you will have a squad of 22 Boyz make it into melee. In the unlikely case that you do somehow make it, they will likely not have all 22 in range to attack.
Tyel wrote: But equally if you want to Green Tide again that's sort of what you have to do. If Boyz went down to 7 points, and you wanted to run at least 90 of them, that's 180 points to spend elsewhere. Or another unit of 25~ boyz. Which is a lot.
Personally...I don't want Green Tide back. I think the stratagem should come back with Boyz at their current price and I imagine GW will make some AoR in some stupid DLC book for it.
The tipping point I think is often "I can run this and get an extra Mek gun". Because as you say - everything performs as it did before - but now you have another unit. Which can hold a position on a board and therefore do some damage, take some shooting, screen a charge, secure an objective - ultimately, increase your chance to win games.
Sorry, but all that is exactly the worthless armchair general garbage I was talking about. It doesn't account for actual tactics on the board, units not being in the right place, terrain interfering with charge moves, best or worse case scenarios. Heck, it doesn't even account for the enemy charging you first, firing overwatch or pulling a counter-attack. It just teleports 10 boyz in perfect striking position during the first round of your Waaagh! to a target and somehow has them all in pristine condition within engagement range. That's not how games are.
On top of that, the only thing your graphs really shows is that MANz are just as good at killing even boyz' preferred targets under perfect conditions, which enforces my point that you shouldn't ever bring boyz when you could bring MANz instead. MANz are more flexible at what they can kill, more durable and rely less on the Waaagh!.
A decent unit has to function even when stars don't align, and that simply is not the case for boyz.
We kind have to be armchair generals on a forum. There's no way I could sit and elaborate on every potential scenario. It's the same thing with the transport stuff. It requires certain conditions, awareness, and opportunity for it to come together.
As for MANZ - those graphs only scratch the surface. The point of Boyz is that they take force multipliers on considerably more quickly. To illustrate:
Both units are under the same effect. Boyz just benefit more. They get huge mileage out of +1S. Now pop 5+ explodes and you'd get an effect that would benefit Boyz three times as much.
Spoiler:
This, of course, can create bad internal balance for Boyz if Goffs are the only ones that stand out.
The next time you play a game and go second, try placing 20 32mm bases out of sight of your enemy. Just for fun.
It's doable, but perhaps 16 or so would be the easiest. The types of terrain matters, but it's important to remember that stepping into obscuring turns it off by model so it depends how fast enemy units are if they wanted to come forward and risk it.
Spoiler:
"I play against orks" is pretty much the worst qualification for understanding how orks work. Observating and drawing conclusions is not the same as understanding how things work.
I play Orks, too. I just don't take them out as often since they're not battle ready.
But if you do play that game, make sure to make a video or a battle report. I'd totally would offer to play that game with you, but I'm afraid my schedule currently doesn't allow that
Can do. Though I need to steal a video card from my other PC. New rig has been running on CPU graphics for too long.
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?
With how easy and popular Tabletop Simulator is right now, people who currently are claiming in this thread that Ork Boyz are still useful in any capacity in large numbers really should put their money where their mouth is and actually put in some games online as Orks against competent players and see how quickly an Ork list with large Ork boyz squads crumble after being put through the ringer that is the 9th ed death valley. Not only are large Ork Boyz squads slow and unwieldy, but as stated numerous times above, it's not cost-efficient, they don't do a lot of damage and their resilience is lacklustre in the face of enemy units with 1+ or 0+ save units in cover, often with 4+ invuln saves.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?
Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.
Breton wrote: Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”
So you add +1" for getting fethed by Explosive, morale, even more so than boys are already fethed by?
Nope, chief, that ain't fixing the problem.
+1 to charge at 20+ then?
boyzs already can (like all ork infantry, ) reroll charge throws. Adding +1 to a unit that just doesn't perform due to points, for supposed increased durability (which is worthless due to the T-shirt save making the increased T value not matter basically at all) and in an environment where your average opponent has ap-1 / ap-2 just for existing there is no way for melee boys to be effective, and melee boys are the better boys. Shota boys are just a tragedy compared to normal boys and the later you are not seeing. (because Dakka weapons don't also count as assault weapons, thank you GW...) beyond the occaisional truckboys.
That is the difference between boys and say acolythes, which also got nerfed kinda but atleast are still viable, and they got double the armor, -1 t (which ain't mattering realistically, ) got inbuilt deepstrike, more AP, better balistic skills, standard nades that actually do something, function as body guards, can be fielded in 5 man squads so can avoid explosives entirely , etc. Oh and can deepstrike closer aswell Indeed they can deepstrike in nade and flamer pistol range. for the same points.
If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles do, and indeed should, face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame. Terrain has been the enemy of armoured vehicles like tanks since crews were getting knocked out after driving over trenches in WW1. Not everywhere on a battlefield is accessible to heavy tanks, so why should that be the case in a wargame?
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles are and indeed should face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame.
They "faced limitations" in 4th when they risked damaging themselves plowing through terrain.
In 9th, the terrain rules are so awful that they don't just "face limitations", they outright can't participate. It's not even realistic, it's just bad.
The problem isn't "limitations and penalties" exist. It's that they are so binary. Either you benefit from Obscuring, or you don't. The end. Either you can move through it, or you can't, the end.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles are and indeed should face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame.
Well, the image is a little misleading as those big blocks are open on the back so you can traverse more space than is pictured.
Daedalus81 wrote: We kind have to be armchair generals on a forum. There's no way I could sit and elaborate on every potential scenario. It's the same thing with the transport stuff. It requires certain conditions, awareness, and opportunity for it to come together.
That is correct absolutely correct, so why are you continuously trying to tell people whose combined experience with playing orks is easily over a thousand games with the new codex alone that they are wrong?
The ork community of dakka rarely agrees on anything, so if people like semper, blackie, tim, koooaei, grimskul and even the scotsman who all play different types of games in different types of metas and all have different opinions on how orks should work agree that boyz are not bringing any value to their armies, what makes you think that your armchair theory can hold a stick to their experience?
The experience of playing actual games does take into account all those potential scenarios and conditions, which make all the difference.
As for MANZ - those graphs only scratch the surface. The point of Boyz is that they take force multipliers on considerably more quickly. To illustrate:
Both units are under the same effect. Boyz just benefit more. They get huge mileage out of +1S. Now pop 5+ explodes and you'd get an effect that would benefit Boyz three times as much.
Well, except trukk boyz can have neither the 5+ explodes nor the +1 strength. MANz charge out of the trukk and do significant damage to pretty much any enemy without having to rely on anything but their exclusive, clan-independent stratagem.
It's also worth noting that there are pretty much no other force multipliers of relevance in the codex, because GW has killed them all off.
The next time you play a game and go second, try placing 20 32mm bases out of sight of your enemy. Just for fun.
It's doable, but perhaps 16 or so would be the easiest. The types of terrain matters, but it's important to remember that stepping into obscuring turns it off by model so it depends how fast enemy units are if they wanted to come forward and risk it.
You need 20 models to have a second cast though. You also don't really gain anything from those positions outside of setting yourself up for getting charged which never ends well for boyz. Especially marines have no issues just moving into the ruin, shooting those boyz and then charging them. At 190 points for 20 boyz with PK, they will still be trading up if they lose their unit after it has butchered enough boyz to cause a guaranteed morale failure.
Worst case you even speed up slow melee hammer units like terminators.
And when you are already down to 16 models, why not make it 15? And instead of paying 205 for 15 boyz and a weird boy, why not pay 185 for 15 kommandoz?
They do the very same thing with a 100% chance to succeed, get deployed where you want them before your opponent moves when going first, get a 3+ save in cover and +1 to wound against anyone near cover.
Or you could pay 175 points to have storm boyz just advance to those positions without fail.
Spoiler:
Those boyz aren't really hidden well though, and you need to take into account that your opponent will most like have moved towards the center - even a slow infantry unit like blightlords or deathwing will have cast their deep strike denial bubble 2" across the center line, advancing or even faster units might make all three positions invalid for deep strike. If your opponent has infiltrators or scout moves (like kroot ), you might not be able to deep strike outside of your deployment zone at all.
These are the reasons why da jump and tellyporta aren't used any more.
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?
Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.
And yes, you are totally screwed if you bring a large model. Scratch bringing a baneblade, good luck getting a land raider or defiler across the board.
Then again, this kind of terrain setup is not meant for people like you and me, so we simply can elect to not play on those kinds of tables.
However, it does not really have an impact on the discussion, as this is a sufficiently obscured table and we are talking about infantry.
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
Maybe make their leadership tied to how many boyz are around them, and have them reroll one or both on charges?, I know it’s sort of a preposterous idea that’s never been tested, but it might just work.
In terms of shootas, no idea how to make those work. Maybe go back to when they were stronger than boyz pre-charge, bump em to s5 or something, or potentially just 4 shots at s4. Either way, just have em be assault.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.
So did everyone, that was and still is the problem. Morale isn't right still now, but it's the intended handicap to hordes of cheap trash.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.
So did everyone, that was and still is the problem. Morale isn't right still now, but it's the intended handicap to hordes of cheap trash.
Orks had ignore morale before the other gitz, and boyz aren’t exactly cheap, they really start adding up price wise. We have the handicap now too of way too many too good shots, and stuff like blast. Web spinners are going to be s6 ap1 blast flamers. Bye bye boyz.
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
8th edition's mob rule wasn't that terrible, I wonder why they tossed it out completely. If they wanted to reduce its effect, they could just have it give the mob +1ld for every 3 models in the mob or something like that.
Then again, I'm a total fan of that super-old mob rule where fleeing models would join nearby mobs. In modern 40k, it would look something like this:
Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.
You'd also instantly have reason to field boyz again.
I wish morale would go back to actual effects, not just instantly deleting more models. I remember having fun with things actually fleeing.
I don’t even get peoples issues with hordes though. It’s not like more bodies than bullets actually works nowadays, any experienced player knows the tricks to move units pretty dang quick, and the opponent gets to watch a pretty cool spectacle. If anything I feel like it’s some sort of ego thing, having your “super mega ultra warriors of the big gold man” wiped out by some grots.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?
Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.
And yes, you are totally screwed if you bring a large model. Scratch bringing a baneblade, good luck getting a land raider or defiler across the board.
Then again, this kind of terrain setup is not meant for people like you and me, so we simply can elect to not play on those kinds of tables.
However, it does not really have an impact on the discussion, as this is a sufficiently obscured table and we are talking about infantry.
Thanks, Jidmah. I can add it to my list of wonky things about tournaments, haha.
I thought knights at least were supposed to be able to participate, but I guess not.
EDIT: I guess you could turn them sideways and move forwards with the narrow end of their base, since facing doesn't matter. That's... not appealing though.
Just move the front row carefully, push the rest forward at once. Bam, solved it. The dice aren’t an issue either looking at other elite armies throwing out gak loads.
Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.
It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...
Orks are expensive as gak no matter which way you run them. The price for 3 meganobz, which are now 90 points . I think it’s more people want the ability to run their 180 lads, cause I certainly do. 120 boyz is no more gatekeepy than any sort of meta thing otherwise.
Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.
It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...
How is that any different than the gatekeeper lists that exist now? There's always going to be a gatekeeper for any competitive meta, why care what that gatekeeper ends up being?
Which lists would you describe as gatekeepers at the moment?
I guess 170 Wracks would qualify, but its not exactly something you encounter in the wild. Maybe that will change given GW have nerfed Talos and Cronos (a bit).
Knights feel like a gatekeeper skew, as they have done since inception - but they are currently in the "not very good" phase, so its not a huge barrier to climb.
Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.
It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...
Becomes a gatekeeper to what? Their opponents? Diversity in list options is a good thing.
Tyel wrote: Which lists would you describe as gatekeepers at the moment?
I guess 170 Wracks would qualify, but its not exactly something you encounter in the wild. Maybe that will change given GW have nerfed Talos and Cronos (a bit).
Knights feel like a gatekeeper skew, as they have done since inception - but they are currently in the "not very good" phase, so its not a huge barrier to climb.
I define a gatekeeper as the list that knocks a 2-0 player running a weaker list to 2-1 in a 5 round tournament. The lists which mark the divide between those who have a chance at a top-8 and those that have no hope, while also not having much chance to hit that mark itself. Dark Angels and Sisters seem to be in that position right now.
Jidmah wrote: That is correct absolutely correct, so why are you continuously trying to tell people whose combined experience with playing orks is easily over a thousand games with the new codex alone that they are wrong?
The ork community of dakka rarely agrees on anything, so if people like semper, blackie, tim, koooaei, grimskul and even the scotsman who all play different types of games in different types of metas and all have different opinions on how orks should work agree that boyz are not bringing any value to their armies, what makes you think that your armchair theory can hold a stick to their experience?
The experience of playing actual games does take into account all those potential scenarios and conditions, which make all the difference.
Why were people dismissive of my experience with transports?
Besides if I didn't challenge you then the forum would be boring.
I challenge, because someone was capable of taking an army with below 50% WR to a 9-0 victory. Because Wracks were a pointless until someone ( the same guy ) decided to use them. DE on foot was supposedly junk and why wouldn't you just do Wyches?
And while Boyz are NOT the same as the examples above 40K is not a solved game and with the rate of new books things change all the time.
That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.
Yea, but that's not fun for either participant at some point. 40K is made a better game when there's fewer "listbuilding losses". We can't stop people from making bad decisions, of course, but we can round off the edges.
Canadian 5th wrote: I define a gatekeeper as the list that knocks a 2-0 player running a weaker list to 2-1 in a 5 round tournament. The lists which mark the divide between those who have a chance at a top-8 and those that have no hope, while also not having much chance to hit that mark itself. Dark Angels and Sisters seem to be in that position right now.
That's the practical result - and I guess that fits how a lot of people use the term - but to my mind Daed meant a different phenomenon.
I tend to use the word differently. As I see it a gatekeeper isn't just a B-Tier faction that expects to beat ones below but struggle to the ones above. Its instead a list that represents a hurdle in the meta (which works out the same practically). So if mass boyz became effective but not tournament winning, it might become a skew you'd need to be aware of - or risk running into it and losing your run - even if your list had a decent win percentage versus Custodes, Dark Eldar and Tyranids. Maybe we need a different word for it.
As it stands right now if you stood to lose versus say Sisters, Grey Knights, Orks, DA, maybe DG (looking at the LVO) etc, and also Custodes, DE, Tyranids, well, you stood to lose versus a huge percentage of lists. A lot of factions in 40k seem capable of going 4-1 at the moment. It seems weird to define them all as Gatekeepers if they aren't really keeping each other out.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.
Niiai wrote: To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.
Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.
They do - generally people don't find transports valuable and/or don't like having to stress about losses from morale.
Canadian 5th wrote: I define a gatekeeper as the list that knocks a 2-0 player running a weaker list to 2-1 in a 5 round tournament. The lists which mark the divide between those who have a chance at a top-8 and those that have no hope, while also not having much chance to hit that mark itself. Dark Angels and Sisters seem to be in that position right now.
That's the practical result - and I guess that fits how a lot of people use the term - but to my mind Daed meant a different phenomenon.
I tend to use the word differently. As I see it a gatekeeper isn't just a B-Tier faction that expects to beat ones below but struggle to the ones above. Its instead a list that represents a hurdle in the meta (which works out the same practically). So if mass boyz became effective but not tournament winning, it might become a skew you'd need to be aware of - or risk running into it and losing your run - even if your list had a decent win percentage versus Custodes, Dark Eldar and Tyranids. Maybe we need a different word for it.
As it stands right now if you stood to lose versus say Sisters, Grey Knights, Orks, DA, maybe DG (looking at the LVO) etc, and also Custodes, DE, Tyranids, well, you stood to lose versus a huge percentage of lists. A lot of factions in 40k seem capable of going 4-1 at the moment. It seems weird to define them all as Gatekeepers if they aren't really keeping each other out.
Unless we're going to add sideboards, this is already the reality in a lot of scenarios. Also, what percentage of the meta do you think a skew list that has no hope of winning and gets hard countered sometimes will actually obtain?
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
8th edition's mob rule wasn't that terrible, I wonder why they tossed it out completely. If they wanted to reduce its effect, they could just have it give the mob +1ld for every 3 models in the mob or something like that.
Then again, I'm a total fan of that super-old mob rule where fleeing models would join nearby mobs. In modern 40k, it would look something like this:
Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.
You'd also instantly have reason to field boyz again.
Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength [And Larger than the testing mob]. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit. Boys running away from attrition would join a bigger mob, but probably not a smaller one, plus attrition boys pinballing between two different boyz mobs isn't healthy either.
Niiai wrote: To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.
Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.
Boys start out with M5, so 12 +5 +3.5 makes us talk about a movement reach (depending of course upon placement, 8.5. on average. with a 12 " reach for a charge which you will rarely see. Further advance and charge is only the first turn of the waagh. Second turn is just +1A
Compared to actually troop melee capable armies like GSC (and i run both) boys on foot are a joke and in a truck only worth it if you go truckboys and even then you are talking about a 160 pts dysfunctional semi-isolated unit that can't profit from other effects to increase their melee capability. Even less than normal boys
For the record for 160 pts you can upgrade a bunch of acolythes with sprung trap for 15 pts, a cult hornblade and 4 power weapons and just commit an 40k reenactment of chainsaw massacre on an enemy unit, doubly hillarious considering huntersinstinct +ice cold killers. and that is just the way i run my acolythes.
Which for the record still can profit from basically all other buff charachters whilest "truckboys" just lose basically anything at all. (not that the ork codex has much synergy, forcing units to stand on their own merits or basically be obsolete.)
And spammable, which is against what GW wants. Not gonna happen. 9ppm boyz can be good as long as they get some purpose. I think damage output in melee is fine, it's durability, aka morale, their main issue.
I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob
You think? The goal here is to make boyz viable, not just the greentide archetype. Also a single blob or multiple 10-20 man squads matter.
In 3rd edition Mob rules was an additional check after failing morale. Roll 2D6 and if the result is equal or lower to the number of the orks in the squad then morale is passed. So flat out fearless as long as they were 12 models. Close to fearless for 10ish man squads. 3rd edition was also the last time boyz were 9ppm before dropping to 6ppm.
Canadian 5th wrote: Unless we're going to add sideboards, this is already the reality in a lot of scenarios. Also, what percentage of the meta do you think a skew list that has no hope of winning and gets hard countered sometimes will actually obtain?
I don't know really. 5-10% perhaps?
I mean Orks were about 7% of the LVO - if Green Tide was the best way to run them, and it performed about as well, logically it would be about that.
For interest, Custodes, DE and Tyranids/Hive Mind made up less than 25% of lists - or lower than just Marines.
Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.
The short answer is that any army that revolves around spamming one unit is bad for the game, no matter how fluffy. A healthy green tide archetype should have boyz as a core, but not 150+ of them.
Tyel wrote: I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.
Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.
8th edition's mob rule wasn't that terrible, I wonder why they tossed it out completely. If they wanted to reduce its effect, they could just have it give the mob +1ld for every 3 models in the mob or something like that.
Then again, I'm a total fan of that super-old mob rule where fleeing models would join nearby mobs. In modern 40k, it would look something like this:
Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.
You'd also instantly have reason to field boyz again.
Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength [And Larger than the testing mob]. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit. Boys running away from attrition would join a bigger mob, but probably not a smaller one, plus attrition boys pinballing between two different boyz mobs isn't healthy either.
Good point, maybe scratch the half strength limitation then.
Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.
Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.
And spammable, which is against what GW wants. Not gonna happen. 9ppm boyz can be good as long as they get some purpose. I think damage output in melee is fine, it's durability, aka morale, their main issue.
I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob
You think? The goal here is to make boyz viable, not just the greentide archetype. Also a single blob or multiple 10-20 man squads matter.
Within the constraints of ork themes and balance to the other armies - for example Poxmongers. Even DA only got Pass Attrition Only, while UM got +1 to LD only not some sort of fearless blanket immunity to all things morale.
In 3rd edition Mob rules was an additional check after failing morale. Roll 2D6 and if the result is equal or lower to the number of the orks in the squad then morale is passed. So flat out fearless as long as they were 12 models. Close to fearless for 10ish man squads. 3rd edition was also the last time boyz were 9ppm before dropping to 6ppm.
You mean similar to the mechanic I’ve just been suggesting about improving them based on mob size you didn’t like because it was “green tide”?
Which isn't horrible for a 19 point model. 22 boys with a claw is still a couple points cheaper than 10 intercessors with a fist. If the boys charge they kill 6.3 intercessors. If the intercessors charge they kill 8 boys. Looks like the Boyz are better in melee, but I will admit the intercessors are still useful when shooting.
For a unit which only functions in the CC phase...yes, this is in fact terrible. If i have to literally cross the board with nothing but a T-shirt armor save, all while moving only 5' a turn, when I get there I better hit like a damn Wrecking ball because otherwise wtf was the point?
Breton wrote: Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”
So I have to take 21 models to get the same movement characteristic that Kroot already get, and as I lose models it degrades heavily. Which wouldn't be terrible in and of itself except that being over 10 models means I am fully exposed to blast, and since nothing has changed from my Morale problem I'm likely losing 40% of my models to Morale/attrition. Not worth it even slightly. Boyz btw got reduced to 5' movement in 8th edition, this, in my opinion, was done to counter the speed bonuses given to orkz in Evil Sunz. Without the nerf you could have had Boyz moving 7, Advancing 4.5 and Charging 2D6+1 with full re-rolls turn 1. Sadly, when they nerfed Evil sunz they never changed this.
So did everyone, that was and still is the problem. Morale isn't right still now, but it's the intended handicap to hordes of cheap trash.
Breton wrote: I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob
Breton wrote: Within the constraints of ork themes and balance to the other armies - for example Poxmongers. Even DA only got Pass Attrition Only, while UM got +1 to LD only not some sort of fearless blanket immunity to all things morale.
Dude kind of has it right, Breton, you are completely wrong. They are 100% not "Trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game" they are using it to KILL certain play styles and that is it. in 9th so far we have what? 16ish codex's released? How many of them have significant portions of their units with morale issues? I'll give you a hint, its 1. Marines of all flavor are functionally immune to Morale. Units of 5 don't really care about LD8 since they basically have to lose 80% to have a chance at failing morale. And GW went even further by saying they are immune to attrition modifiers so if they lose 60% they have little to no chance to lose 2 models, because that just wouldn't be fair...even though it would have been a 1/6 chance to fail morale followed by a 1/3 chance to lose 1 model to attrition, nope instead its a 1/6th chance followed by a 1/6th chance, or another way to view that is double box cars or a 1/36 chance
Now compare that to Orkz, a 30 mob loses 6 and fails morale 83.3% of the time, so they lose 1 more to morale, then they roll attrition and lose 4 more. So you kill 6 models but the unit loses 11 thanks to morale. How about with Mek gunz, LD4. Kill 1 in a unit of 3 and you have a 50% chance to fail morale and lose 1 whole extra model. THEN for attrition you have a 33% chance to lose that 3rd gun lol. How about with Buggies, units of 3 seem rather powerful, but are LD7, Kill 2 of them and there is a chance similar to that of the Marine to lose 1 model..except instead of it being an 18pt model, its a 90-110pt model. I can keep going. No, LD is not being introduced into the game except to punish certain factions to force them not to play a certain way.
Where dude gets it wrong is that Boyz are no longer Cheap Trash. At 9ppm they are the most expensive they have ever been, in both game terms and compared to their #1 adversary, Marines. In prior editions Ork boyz were 6ppm and Marines were 15. thats 2.5x more expensive. Now, boyz are 9 and those same Tacs are only 18. 2x more expensive.
Niiai wrote: To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.
Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.
They aren't S5, they are goff which means on a charge turn they are S5. Orkz move 5, advance 3.5 turn 1, they are now 10+ inches from the enemy, a charge isn't likely to succeed and likely won't happen. Turn 2 they move another 8.5 and this turn they call WAAAGH and charge, they've covered a grand total of 16-17' before the charge....in 2 turns. That is not by any means "tremendous threat range". That is in fact, "Terrible threat range". And it requires a once a game buff to pull off. Compare that to Warbikes which move 14' turn 1, advance 6 and can then charge turn 1. That is a first turn threat range of 22-32. That is a "tremendous threat range". What about Kommandos with 9' from enemy lines forward deploy, on their first turn they move 6, advance 3.5 and then charge 2D6. That means that turn 1 they can reach literally ANYWHERE on the board. They effectively get a 1st turn movement of 9+6+3.5 for 18-19 inches and then get to charge. So again, no, boyz do not have a good threat range.
As for MANZ - those graphs only scratch the surface. The point of Boyz is that they take force multipliers on considerably more quickly. To illustrate:
Both units are under the same effect. Boyz just benefit more. They get huge mileage out of +1S. Now pop 5+ explodes and you'd get an effect that would benefit Boyz three times as much.
Boyz don't have force multipliers worth mentioning. +1S is for Goffs only and only on charge turns, yes boyz benefit more from it because the difference from going to S4 to S5 is massive compared to going from S10 to S12 (or S11 not really sure this edition). Except of course unless you had different target priorities, like T6 vehicles in which case its no chance to boyz but significant improvement for meganobz (if you go to S12 instead of 11). Exploding 5s...yes, when you have more attacks any modifier which gives explosions is better...but it kind of depends on whats happening here...so even with +1S and more exploding hits from strats those Boyz are still the same in regards to dmg output as Meganobz against Marines. Against T6 Vehicles though...(assuming S12) Those same meganobz are doing significantly more dmg. So again...no, boyz don't benefit more from buffs. The other buffs you didn't mention, and in your defense fairly so because they suck, are 6+ invuln or FNP from Big Mek w/KFF and Painboy. You could give them +1 attack with a weirdboy, its unreliable but that would be +10 attacks vs +3, but again its kind of a wash thanks to difference in AP and S. There is also +1 to hit which is mostly a wash as well...and I believe that is it. No strats for the boyz except Tankbusta bomb but the meganobz do get a strat to increase dmg by 50% so there is that.
Against Marines.
10 boyz is 90pts, 3 meganobz is 30 points. Assuming both are goff and charged this turn.
10 Boyz get 30 attacks, 30 hits, 20 wounds, 10 dmg and 5 dead Marines.
3 Meganobz get 9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds and 5.2 Dead Marines.
Against T6 vehicles with 3+ armor
10 boyz, 30 attacks, 30 hits, 10 wounds, 5dmg.
3 Meganobz, 9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds and 10.4dmg.
I highlighted this because this is the false assumption I see a lot of people still make even though the ork codex has been out for about 5 months now. NO, boyz no longer have a plethora of stacking buffs that benefit them more than other units, nor are they stacking to the point of making boyz useful/durable. That was an 8th edition tactic that has since been removed from the game by GW.
But with that in mind, Kroot on the other hand, do have access to a number of stacking buffs which do benefit them greatly. But again, I'm not saying kroot are going to be the best thing since sliced bread, just that they can at least exist in the game and serve a purpose rather than being a 90pt troop tax.
Dude kind of has it right, Breton, you are completely wrong. They are 100% not "Trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game" they are using it to KILL certain play styles and that is it. in 9th so far we have what? 16ish codex's released? How many of them have significant portions of their units with morale issues? I'll give you a hint, its 1. Marines of all flavor are functionally immune to Morale. Units of 5 don't really care about LD8 since they basically have to lose 80% to have a chance at failing morale. And GW went even further by saying they are immune to attrition modifiers so if they lose 60% they have little to no chance to lose 2 models, because that just wouldn't be fair...even though it would have been a 1/6 chance to fail morale followed by a 1/3 chance to lose 1 model to attrition, nope instead its a 1/6th chance followed by a 1/6th chance, or another way to view that is double box cars or a 1/36 chance g. No, LD is not being introduced into the game except to punish certain factions to force them not to play a certain way.
You probably should have looked up the Poxwalkers. They don’t have morale issues, the CAUSE morale issues. As do the Night Lords Chaos Marines. Or Reivers, Or those The Kabal of the poisoned tongue, the cult of the trophy takers, and probably may army books have a way to build an army around or weighted to the morale phase like that. They ARE trying to work Morale into a significant part of the game between units, prebuilt and customized doctrines. I found what five? of them in a half assed look through 6 different books? They’re just not doing it as well, plus the play style isn’t as universally sexy as “blow stuff up”.
And no, Dude does not have it completely right. Even the SM you’re trying to establish best case immunity for don’t have total immunity. What happens to your best case immunity space marine math when they’re -3 to LD from Night Lord Terror Troops? Do 5 model units care about morale when they’re LD 5?
Even Nids aren’t 100% immune to morale, requiring Synapse in range.
I think the general reason small units generally don't care about morale is that the sort of... harvesting of units that Semper describes is often hard to do.
Its the Scotsman's bit - but generally speaking when anything in 9th looks at an MSU squad (say 100ish points or less) - it dies. So yes - the logic of what happens when Marines are LD 5 and you kill 2-3 is reasonable. But... you could also just kill all 5.
Tyel wrote: I think the general reason small units generally don't care about morale is that the sort of... harvesting of units that Semper describes is often hard to do.
Its the Scotsman's bit - but generally speaking when anything in 9th looks at an MSU squad (say 100ish points or less) - it dies. So yes - the logic of what happens when Marines are LD 5 and you kill 2-3 is reasonable. But... you could also just kill all 5.
. Yes, MSU is the extreme and also debunked. Even they aren’t “fearless” and immune to morale and attrition. Even Synapse - while slowing down the morale-attrition aspect even more than MSU Marines aren’t completely fearlessly immune to the phase.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.
Yea, but that's not fun for either participant at some point. 40K is made a better game when there's fewer "listbuilding losses". We can't stop people from making bad decisions, of course, but we can round off the edges.
Ah, I deserve to win taking exclusively anti tank weapons against an infantry force. Splendid.
Jidmah wrote: Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.
Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.
There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.
These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.
Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.
I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.
I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.
Jidmah wrote: Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.
Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.
There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.
These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.
Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.
I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.
I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.
Their worth isn’t exactly zero, but literally any other thing is going to be better. In any case, if you read the title of the discussion, kroots have just much more value than boyz.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.
Yea, but that's not fun for either participant at some point. 40K is made a better game when there's fewer "listbuilding losses". We can't stop people from making bad decisions, of course, but we can round off the edges.
Ah, I deserve to win taking exclusively anti tank weapons against an infantry force. Splendid.
That's not what I said.
If you take 180 Boyz and face an opponent who took a well rounded list, but simply can't compete, because all you did was overwhelm the dice available to them. Not every army has a Punisher available just in case hordes of Boyz show up.
You didn't win by being clever and they didn't lose by being dumb. The game was decided before models hit the table.
That's the dynamic I'm referencing even if Boyz aren't the same horde threat they used to be.
You probably should have looked up the Poxwalkers. They don’t have morale issues, the CAUSE morale issues. As do the Night Lords Chaos Marines. Or Reivers, Or those The Kabal of the poisoned tongue, the cult of the trophy takers, and probably may army books have a way to build an army around or weighted to the morale phase like that. They ARE trying to work Morale into a significant part of the game between units, prebuilt and customized doctrines. I found what five? of them in a half assed look through 6 different books? They’re just not doing it as well, plus the play style isn’t as universally sexy as “blow stuff up”.
And no, Dude does not have it completely right. Even the SM you’re trying to establish best case immunity for don’t have total immunity. What happens to your best case immunity space marine math when they’re -3 to LD from Night Lord Terror Troops? Do 5 model units care about morale when they’re LD 5? Even Nids aren’t 100% immune to morale, requiring Synapse in range.
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs? in the example you highlighted, 5 Marines, -3LD, they lose 2 models which puts them at LD3, they now have a 50% chance to fail morale. think about what I just said, with stacked debuff and losses they still have only a 50% chance to fail. So half the time they lose 1 model, they then have a 1/3 chance to lose 1 more model (kind of, its 1/6 x2) to attrition. Will I give a damn about a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after that 50% to lose 1 more? no. But again, apply that logic to the aforementioned ork 30 blob. -3 means you kill 1 Boy...yup, 1 boy, and I have a 50% chance to fail morale. Kill 3 and I am all but guaranteed to fail morale. So I have lost 3 models, I fail morale, down 4 models, now I do an attrition test, suddenly I just lost 4-5 more models. So you kill 3 I lose 8-9. So again, I would argue that LD/morale is functionally useless, not a factor, for those Marines, but for my Boyz its devastating. And if you are worried about a comparison between Marines/Boyz as far as points/durability differential. It takes 36 bolter shots to kill 2 Marines. 36 shots, 24 hits, 12 wounds, 4dmg. Those same 36 shots do, 24 hits, 8 wounds and 6.6dmg to Ork boyz. So 36-40pts of dead Marines pre-Morale compare to 60pts of Dead boyz before Morale. With those Morale debuffs as mentioned, Marines have a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after to lose 1 more. The boyz have a 83% chance to fail morale, they then average about 4 more boyz dead to Attrition.
So yeah, no. Those factions still don't give a damn about Morale, but it does severely limit how Ork units can function. I'll put it this way, if I could take mobz of 5 boyz...I would. Makes no sense, but its half the cost and they would at least be significantly less likely to die from morale.
It’s a wargame, the game being decided before anything happens is just a result of the medium. “Balance” is a sort of stupid concept for anything relating to wargames, and it gets even worse when you put people on symmetrical battlefields. It’s why tournament 40k is a huge mistake imo.
Additionally, a well balanced force doesn’t mean you can take on everything, just that your power against most things is going to be equal.
There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.
These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.
Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.
I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.
I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.
There is a distinction between Boyz do nothing in melee and boyz cant get to melee...but only in a semantic argument. Because most say boyz don't do much in melee because they either A: Can't get there or B. when they do get there they are so under strength that they can't achiever their mission. And in my opinion, Boyz don't do much in melee because 3 S4 AP-1 attacks an edition ago would seem crazy good, but by today standards its below average. Meganobz in my opinion need at least 1-2 more attacks each to realistically be competitive...and they already do as much if not more dmg than Boyz.
As far as Wracks/Cronos...i'm not a huge DE guy, but that just isn't true in the slightest. 40k stats records top 4 lists and going all the way back to April of last year they had a huge number of wracks in their lists. So unless you mean, literally as the DE codex dropped Siegler was the dude saying "WRACKS!" and everyone went "YES!" it just isn't true.
Meganobz just suffer from a lot of issues. They’re dedicated melee terminators, but they have no delivery method, no inbuilt invuln or even a shield option, subpar melee compared to others, but I guess a slight amount of durability over them in the toughness regard?
They’re the bosses personal retinue, it wouldn’t be wrong to give em tellyporta strike, some sort of 5+ fnp to show the amount of armor they have, just sloughing off when hit, and even better guns.
SemperMortis wrote: As far as Wracks/Cronos...i'm not a huge DE guy, but that just isn't true in the slightest. 40k stats records top 4 lists and going all the way back to April of last year they had a huge number of wracks in their lists. So unless you mean, literally as the DE codex dropped Siegler was the dude saying "WRACKS!" and everyone went "YES!" it just isn't true.
Yeah - Daed's said this before, and I feel its just not true.
Siegler won the Austin GT which seemed to cause the internet to go crazy - and sure, I guess his list was only 35 points "up" from where it was before due to the points changes...
But it was really just an evolution of DE thought throughout the year.
In practice Wracks were good from the Codex drop - indeed DT liquifiers had to be removed from the game. DT Cronos were likewise good from the Codex drop. Both are staples in lists from April onwards.
Talos were initially thought to be kind of mediocre - but as the meta shifted (blame Speedwaaagh imo) you started to see them. Then they bizarrely got a 10 points drop, and became excellent. 20 points on a 4 man grot unit adds up too.
Meanwhile Wyches, Incubi and raiders got a significant hike.
Its a fair argument that you could have run a broadly similar list earlier - but you had other options, and it would have been more expensive.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Meganobz just suffer from a lot of issues. They’re dedicated melee terminators, but they have no delivery method, no inbuilt invuln or even a shield option, subpar melee compared to others, but I guess a slight amount of durability over them in the toughness regard?
They’re the bosses personal retinue, it wouldn’t be wrong to give em tellyporta strike, some sort of 5+ fnp to show the amount of armor they have, just sloughing off when hit, and even better guns.
Nobz in general have issues atm. Meganobz mainly get by because they have access to the "Hit Em Harder" strat, which lets them bypass a bit of the plethora of -1D abilities around nowadays, and that with a 2+ save they can actually benefit from cover at some level. The core issue is that Nobz in general don't really have a good role in the Ork army since they don't really hit that hard and they also aren't very durable. As you mentioned, their cost is inflated by having to be transported by strat or vehicles, and there aren't any other supporting elements to make them worth considering. Their weapon choices also are fairly limited. GW had a chance to give them more utility by giving them either the bodyguard rule or some meaningful morale rule that would have made taking boyz and other large boy squad reasonable, but alas, we stuck with iffy combat units.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: They’re the bosses personal retinue, it wouldn’t be wrong to give em tellyporta strike, some sort of 5+ fnp to show the amount of armor they have, just sloughing off when hit, and even better guns.
They're supposed to have a medical squig in there, a 5+ FNP would be entirely appropriate.
Ah yes, "My experience with my thing is relevant, but your experience with your thing is not!"
And, "My claim that something doesn't kill anything unsupported by data means this data is irrelevant".
Neat. Disingenuous forum arguments gooooo!
The difference is that your argument flies against how the game is actually played at a high level, whereas the people arguing against you acknowledge and account for how the game is actually played.
ccs wrote: So after 7 pages, 6 being arguments & playing lets-make-a-wish concerning ork boyz, what was the verdict on Kroot vs Boyz?
(sorry, if this was actually answered, it got buried & I didn't see it.)
Tl;dr
People A say Kroot are better.
People B who don't understand the question talk about how Boyz aren't bad because X Y Z
People C, Ork players, call people B out for not understanding the flaws of Boyz.
No one has been able to dispute People A claim.
So I think People A win.
Fairly solid summary of the debate so far
Kroot serve a purpose, are faster, cheaper and a decent MSU troop tax unit. Boyz...none of those.
Fascinatingly, in a vacuum, a fight between 15 kroot and 10 boyz (both 90 points) would result in an exact tie.
15 kroot, rapid-firing and charging will inflict 10.8 wounds on the boyz (11 w with nob)
10 boyz shooting and charging will kill 15.8 kroot.
You may argue about the kroots mobility vs the boyz klan buffs and stratagems, but in the end it doesnt matter, because kroots serve an actual role in a tau army,
whereas orks have multiple options which are boyz+1. Therefore kroot win.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Their worth isn’t exactly zero, but literally any other thing is going to be better. In any case, if you read the title of the discussion, kroots have just much more value than boyz.
I do think Kroot have more utility, worse in melee, and better at shooting. That doesn't make up for the shortcomings of Boyz, obviously.
Kroot suffer the same morale problem as Boyz with worse leadership. You can get a Shaper or Ethereal in there, but then the indirect cost of a 10 man goes up. You can spread that cost with 20 of them, but then you lose the flexibility of those units. But no one complains about Kroot morale as much as Boyz.
Everyone is going to assume Kroot are in cover though so the durability question comes down to what exactly is going to shoot them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: In practice Wracks were good from the Codex drop - indeed DT liquifiers had to be removed from the game. DT Cronos were likewise good from the Codex drop.
To be clear - I'm referencing DE post initial nerf.
Hecaton wrote: The difference is that your argument flies against how the game is actually played at a high level, whereas the people arguing against you acknowledge and account for how the game is actually played.
A number of high level players seem to be using Snaggas in Kill Rigs at the moment. I recognize that this doesn't mean it will go any further than that.
Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.
Again. For the same points. It is the same melee profile. The stat line is identicle for points : offensive output in melee.
If you factor in other rules, such as waagh, then it gets murky because you need to evaluate the bonus of that vs the bonuses kroot have, and that can ultimatley be up to preference, mission, or other factors external to the offensive stat line.
Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.
Again. For the same points. It is the same melee profile. The stat line is identicle for points : offensive output in melee.
If you factor in other rules, such as waagh, then it gets murky because you need to evaluate the bonus of that vs the bonuses kroot have, and that can ultimatley be up to preference, mission, or other factors external to the offensive stat line.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kroot don't get Tenets - Boyz get clans ( as limited as they can be ). Kroot can be in Dal if they want to get the T'au equivalent of Waaagh. Even in Dal they don't benefit from the full Tenet.
The idea that a 3:2 ratio is how it plays on the table doesn't really flow. Kroot will be 10 models and will produce 20 attacks. Boyz at 10 models will be 30 or 40 attacks. Kroot don't get to have an appropriate ratio to Boyz where ever they engage.
Why does that matter? Because when those Kroot swing they won't take the target down and will face reprisals. Boyz might take the target down a bit faster and may not take as many swings.
It isn't as if Kroot scout and Boyz do nothing, either.
Kroot might advance and get better cover.
Boyz can advance and charge, reroll charges, can get +1A, can mitigate attrition ( not that anyone cares ), +1S, exploding 6s ( or 5s ). They can also be given a further +1A through psychic, a 6+++, a 6++. There's also a 6" pile-in, a way to pass morale ( yes with D3 MW ), ignore charge mods ( hello T'au ), and toss a tankbusta bomb.
And the unit Nob still has 2 wounds.
Yes some of that costs points and other considerations.
Kroot have other stuff, too, but are not CORE and so miss out on quite a bit, too. The WL traits are 3D6D1 charge, ignore cover in 12", and something else. And then there's a +1 to wound from an ethereal. I'm sure I'm missing things though.
Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.
Kroot are 6ppm, Boyz are 9, so for every 2 boyz you can take 3 Kroot. 2 Boyz is 6 attacks, 3 kroot is 6 attacks. If you are going to count in the "WAAAAGH" than you have to add in the 100pts for hte warboss who has to be in the list and your warlord to call the WAAAGH. And as far as kultures, as you mention Goff is the only good one for boyz and if you are taking boyz they are coming as Trukk Boyz which means they don't get kulture. So its a moot point.
As far as leadership, yes they have "worse" leadership...except they don't because taking a Shaper is a no brainer in this list. For 25pts you get +2 leadership and re-roll 1s to hit aura for all Kroot units within 6'. So 30 boyz is 270pts, A Shaper and 40 Kroot is 265pts. Those kroot get 40 shots at 24' range or 80 at 12. At 40 shots its 23.3 hits with re-roll aura. The Orkz get...nothing. At 12' range the kroot get 46.6 hits, at S4 the Orkz get 10 hits. The shaper btw, is Rapid Fire 2, S4 -1AP so hes getting 1 hit at 24' range and 2 at 12. His shots pierce armor In CC the disparity is less noticeable. 40 Kroot get 80 attacks 62.2 hits and 20.7 wounds for 20.7 dead Orkz. The shaper gets 3 attacks, 3 hits (hitting on 2s re-rolling 1s) 1.5 wounds for 1.5 more dead Boyz. So the Kroot kill 22 Boyz out of 30, morale will kill another 3 or so, thats a pretty hefty return. The 30 boyz at full strength get 90 attacks, 60 hits, 40 wounds, wiping out the two kroot squads. So in reality, if kroot swing first they will win, if orkz swing first they will win. For a unit which is head and shoulders better at Ranged combat I would say that is a pretty damn good unit in comparison.
Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.
No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.
Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.
At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.
Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.
Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.
No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.
Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.
At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.
Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.
I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.
So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.
Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.
No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.
Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.
At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.
Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.
What the hell do you think the other squad of Kroot will be doing? Nothing? One of those ork mob is gonna get double teamed, probably.
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.
You probably should have looked up the Poxwalkers. They don’t have morale issues, the CAUSE morale issues. As do the Night Lords Chaos Marines. Or Reivers, Or those The Kabal of the poisoned tongue, the cult of the trophy takers, and probably may army books have a way to build an army around or weighted to the morale phase like that. They ARE trying to work Morale into a significant part of the game between units, prebuilt and customized doctrines. I found what five? of them in a half assed look through 6 different books? They’re just not doing it as well, plus the play style isn’t as universally sexy as “blow stuff up”.
And no, Dude does not have it completely right. Even the SM you’re trying to establish best case immunity for don’t have total immunity. What happens to your best case immunity space marine math when they’re -3 to LD from Night Lord Terror Troops? Do 5 model units care about morale when they’re LD 5?
Even Nids aren’t 100% immune to morale, requiring Synapse in range.
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
in the example you highlighted, 5 Marines, -3LD, they lose 2 models which puts them at LD3, they now have a 50% chance to fail morale. think about what I just said, with stacked debuff and losses they still have only a 50% chance to fail. So half the time they lose 1 model, they then have a 1/3 chance to lose 1 more model (kind of, its 1/6 x2) to attrition. Will I give a damn about a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after that 50% to lose 1 more? no. But again, apply that logic to the aforementioned ork 30 blob. -3 means you kill 1 Boy...yup, 1 boy, and I have a 50% chance to fail morale. Kill 3 and I am all but guaranteed to fail morale. So I have lost 3 models, I fail morale, down 4 models, now I do an attrition test, suddenly I just lost 4-5 more models. So you kill 3 I lose 8-9. So again, I would argue that LD/morale is functionally useless, not a factor, for those Marines, but for my Boyz its devastating. And if you are worried about a comparison between Marines/Boyz as far as points/durability differential. It takes 36 bolter shots to kill 2 Marines. 36 shots, 24 hits, 12 wounds, 4dmg. Those same 36 shots do, 24 hits, 8 wounds and 6.6dmg to Ork boyz. So 36-40pts of dead Marines pre-Morale compare to 60pts of Dead boyz before Morale. With those Morale debuffs as mentioned, Marines have a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after to lose 1 more. The boyz have a 83% chance to fail morale, they then average about 4 more boyz dead to Attrition.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
So yeah, no. Those factions still don't give a damn about Morale, but it does severely limit how Ork units can function. I'll put it this way, if I could take mobz of 5 boyz...I would. Makes no sense, but its half the cost and they would at least be significantly less likely to die from morale.
Breton wrote: The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
If large mobs of orks hadn't historically been very resilient to morale, and other armies didn't have abilities and squad setups (i.e. small squads) that invalidated morale, you'd have a valid argument.
Breton wrote: The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
If large mobs of orks hadn't historically been very resilient to morale, and other armies didn't have abilities and squad setups (i.e. small squads) that invalidated morale, you'd have a valid argument.
I'd say make Orks immune to Combat Attrition when at ten boyz or more.
That is not fearlessly immune to the entire phase. I liked the other idea better though, orks that flee from one unit (via attrition and/or even the intial morale loss boy) "Mob Up" into another nearby same-datasheet unit if it's = or larger, if there isn't a nearby one that is = or larger THEN they're lost. Of course I'd also change most of these sorts of things to work better on bigger units. Transhuman? Its 1CP if your unit started at max, 2CP if it started below max for example. The two stages of the WAAGH! are now based on starting unit size, not turn number. These boost rules are perfect for offsetting the BLAST rule. Or at least making it a tough choice. Some wiggle room is needed for some units of course. Stuff like Terminators, all the 3-6 units I hate, or the 3 and only 3 I hate even more, Trukk Boys (Make the Trukk count as X boys for morale/LD only as long as it's on the table and nearby or something) LRBT etc. squadrons and so on. Blast as a general rule - not ork specific - needs an offset that makes people choose between Blast and their best "goodies" in the most cost effective way. Transhuman is all kinds of backwards. It should have been the carrot pushing people into 10 man Intercessors. Or 5 Man Assault intercessors with an Impulsor.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.
So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.
Didn't you argue the Objective Secured as a selling point over other Ork units though?
Breton wrote: You mean similar to the mechanic I’ve just been suggesting about improving them based on mob size you didn’t like because it was “green tide”?
They're nothing similar. That old mechanic I quoted meant 100% fearless as long as the unit had 12+ bodies. Not just a buff, but total immune to morale. Units of 8-9 orks also still had good odds to pass moral tests. My point is ork units shouldn't need to be 20+ models to get strong mechanics to mitigate morale, but 10ish+.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
It would be great if min-sized units of Boyz could do the whole toolbox thing - i.e. claim objectives, screen DS, screen charges, maybe get reasonable exchanges with comparably priced units etc and win you the game by virtue of your decision making. But being relatively slow/low reach outside a Waaagh turn, fragile for the points and not really synergizing with anything sort of precludes them from this. They are just going to be on the table for a bit, then your opponent will decide its time to take them off. And 90 points isn't really the same as losing a 60 or 40 point unit - even if, theoretically, getting 10 Goff Boyz in the face in a Waaagh turn hurts.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?
Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.
Dudeface wrote: What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?
Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.
I like them getting a higher LD because that will also affect psychic powers - so many of them are compare your LD vs their LD etc. Of course less of both is also an option.
Dudeface wrote: What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?
Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.
I like them getting a higher LD because that will also affect psychic powers - so many of them are compare your LD vs their LD etc. Of course less of both is also an option.
LD altering abilities are already of such low value and niche application that I feel they should actually be encouraged or still given fair reward or benefit, so increasing the LD rendering other factions abilities etc less useful just moves these complaints to other factions.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
Going out on a limb, I don't think morale is the main problem.
I mean if it was there are options. Take 30 man blob. Someone kills 6. Haha, 5/6 chance to lose another 5. Very efficient as Semper complains about etc. Well, break out Insane Bravery - as its not like you were using it or the CP for anything else, now you have 24 Boyz to go do whatever.
I think the bigger issue is first that this "whatever" is quite weak - and second that opponents go "right, time to kill some boyz" and instead of killing 6, wipe out 20+ from a unit - then morale takes a few more. Now the unit's below a critical mass. Many things can weather a charge from 5-6 boyz and a nob, and then just delete it when they fight back.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
The benefit of a large squad is: I lose tons (up to 18) of models, I'm still fearless. Doesn't happen with a min squad.
It doesn't make sense that a squad of 15-25 orks lose a significant amount of models due to morale. 6-7 orks might be scared of what's happening, 10+ of them should feel very brave . Never forget we're talking about a unit that doesn't deal much damage, nor is significantly resilient.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.
After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
The benefit of a large squad is: I lose tons (up to 18) of models, I'm still fearless. Doesn't happen with a min squad.
It doesn't make sense that a squad of 15-25 orks lose a significant amount of models due to morale. 6-7 orks might be scared of what's happening, 10+ of them should feel very brave . Never forget we're talking about a unit that doesn't deal much damage, nor is significantly resilient.
And 30 orks will be braver than 25 will be braver than 20 than 15 and so on. If diminishing returns diminish to 0 there's no benefit to going above 12. The mechanic should slide in scale across the entire size of the unit, not just 2 more than minimum so there's always thought going into bigger or big enough.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
We talked about that earlier as well - I had the idea of making Orks faster the more there are as they push each other forwards (Angry Mob). 10ish orks are 5" (and should be in a Trukk because as long as we're dreaming we're also making Transports not suck). 20ish- are 6" 30ish are 7" You can't give the minimum size (read default stat line) unit too much because they're still halfway between a guardsman and a Necron warrior unless you want to jump their points costs up. If guardsmen and fire warriors (i haven't seen the new stats) get a boost similar to Aeldari Guardians - then boys will have some room on their default stat line. Of course doing the research for this was depressing. A battle sister at marginally more than a Boy is much better than a Boy is significantly more than a guardsman in price. And a Battle Sister vs a Chaos Space Marine...
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Then ask gw to saddle one of the factions you play with a mechanic that's functionally useless against the majority of the other factions in the game. Fear mechanics have never worked, don't currently work, and probably never will in 40k. The other mechanics Night Lords have had over the years do though: cover mechanics (Stealth Adept in 3.5, Stealth in Traitor Legions), speed mechanics (extra FA and Raptors in 3.5, Raptors as troops and rerolling charges in Traitor Legions), "dirty fighting" mechanics (A Talent For Murder in HH). I'll take those, thank you very much.
I'm just not a fan of units gaining abilities as you put more of them in a squad. I see the issue that if a unit's fast enough the Trukk does nothing - but... well... yeah. I think that's a bigger question than just what to do about Boyz.
I also fear comparing Boyz to Sisters raises the ERJAK symbol over Gotham, and you are destined for a fairly accurate paragraph on why basic sisters are decidedly not great (and would be downright Boyz level catastrophic if their minimum unit size jumped to 10.)
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
Tyel wrote: I'm just not a fan of units gaining abilities as you put more of them in a squad.
That's OK. I still like it as a lean into the mob mentality gimmick they get.
I see the issue that if a unit's fast enough the Trukk does nothing - but... well... yeah. I think that's a bigger question than just what to do about Boyz.
Yeah there was another thread around here about Dedicated Transports in general being bad.
I also fear comparing Boyz to Sisters raises the ERJAK symbol over Gotham,
Oh not just sisters, I opened a datasheet for Sisters, Firewarriors, Guardsmen, Chaos Marines, Boys, and Eldar Guardians. That's what I meant about it being depressing. Trying to draw a smooth power curve between 5 point this, and 12 point that just didn't work. Battle Sisters look a whole lot better than Boys for a smaller point difference than Boys over Guardsmen. Or Firewarriors at the same price and not as interesting as even Boys. Or Skitarii Vanguard and Boys at the same price. Perhaps the first thing we ought to do if we're pretending to be a competent GW is balance all the troops against each other, then use the troops to balance the rest.
and you are destined for a fairly accurate paragraph on why basic sisters are decidedly not great (and would be downright Boyz level catastrophic if their minimum unit size jumped to 10.)
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
I'd play Battle Sisters before I played boys, but I'd play boys before I played (pre-new-release) Fire Warriors or Guardsmen, so you don't have to tell me about troops being bad. I still laugh every time I see the Veteran Intercessor entry in the Codex. I mean they're not awful, but paying more for a Troops Choice pretending to be an Elites choice so that it doesn't get ObSec is... not the best choice. Eventually GW will figure out a "Troop Tax" is not the healthy balance model they're looking for. Well I hope they will.
What the hell do you think the other squad of Kroot will be doing? Nothing? One of those ork mob is gonna get double teamed, probably.
Your argument is incredibly disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.
No, again it seems people to like to run away with comments.
I'm saying you don't go put 10 Kroot into marines and say they would have done just as good as Boyz had I had five more models in that fight. Saying Kroot are as good as Boyz in a fight when they're 3:2 doesn't play like that on the table.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: Didn't you argue the Objective Secured as a selling point over other Ork units though?
Obsec is always going to be useful. If you roll up on Custodes with Kommandos you won't kill them. If you tag the objective with enough Boyz you'll still steal it before they score.
Kroot getting three units to the Boyz two means they cover more territory, but not that they necessarily do more on the table overall.
And 30 orks will be braver than 25 will be braver than 20 than 15 and so on. If diminishing returns diminish to 0 there's no benefit to going above 12. The mechanic should slide in scale across the entire size of the unit, not just 2 more than minimum so there's always thought going into bigger or big enough.
You're completely ignoring reality here. We're talking about morale for suffering casualties, a unit of 12 suffering 5-6 casualties will defintiely suffer from morale. That's why you may want to go up in numbers. 30 is better than 20 since losing 15-20 models is super easy. You may want a max unit of 30 to soak a lot of firepower and casualties before starting losing models to morale since with 18 dead you're still fearless; if you bring two squads of 15 it takes less casualties overall to start suffering from morale since with 9 dead for each squad the units are both very vulnearable to morale. That's where the benefit is.
Units' rules shouldn't changed according to their size. SM morale rule is the same for every squad's size. Same should be about orks. And since malus (Blast) against hordes are triggered at 11+ I don't see why also bonus towards hordes shouldn't be triggered at 11+.
Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz. At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa. Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.
I see where you are coming from here Daed. But the game scenario you are trying to build is a bit of a strawman/red herring combination because we are talking about Point for Point whats better. In a game setting yeah you will never have that match up happen likely, but its the only fair metric, that and comparing how boyz stand up to return fire as well as kroot and the dmg they inflict on their likely targets. Add in the movement element and the cover element and you get the point. In a 1 for 1 comparison a boy is better than a 6pt kroot, but a point for point comparison, I'm going to have to give it to the kroot. They are head and shoulders faster while being significantly more deadly at ranged combat than the boyz can ever hope to be. They actually do the job of choppa boyz point for point almost as good and do the job of Shoota boyz better.
So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.
Its not just objective game. Kroot are significantly faster and inflict more dmg in the shooting phase than the boyz by a significant margin. They are better objective holders AND they are better alpha strike troops since they can basically move to within 4' of the enemy deployment zone turn 1. They have decent strats btw as well. Being able to give a blob of Kroot a FNP for 1-2CP is pretty good, not great, but pretty good.
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
Same logic than, MSU Marines are 5, 10 is max. So 1-5 should be the "weak" zone, 6-8 should be the "Swing zone" and 9-10 should be the "Strong" zone. I'll even go a step further, Marines should be IMMUNE to morale at 9-10 models. At 6-8 they should have their current "normal" Morale, and at 1-5 they should be LD 5 because screw you just like you are saying to orkz
Dudeface wrote: What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed? Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.
Not sure what you are asking for here Dudeface. Are you suggesting Boyz should test when 21+ models are left with a result of a 1? I'm assuming you mean Models lost +1 as opposed to just fearless because otherwise boyz would be fearless at the start of the game. The only problem I have with that is that its not all that difficult to kill 7 boyz which causes you to auto-fail Morale now as opposed to still having a 16% chance to pass on a 1. Look above, to kill 7 boyz takes 38 Bolter shots, not exactly hard to do right now (dmg to boyz that is) The same is true for units between 11-20 btw. Not hard to remove the minimum requirement, maybe play it more risky and only kill 6 now so you fail 66% of the time, id likely just finish off the mob. And the 10 or less is just normal as it is now...no change, so again, screw you to the specialist mobz. Compare this again to the Kroot who for 25pts can get LD8 on squads of 10-20 as well as re-roll 1s to hit.
Tyel wrote: Going out on a limb, I don't think morale is the main problem. I mean if it was there are options. Take 30 man blob. Someone kills 6. Haha, 5/6 chance to lose another 5. Very efficient as Semper complains about etc. Well, break out Insane Bravery - as its not like you were using it or the CP for anything else, now you have 24 Boyz to go do whatever.
I think the bigger issue is first that this "whatever" is quite weak - and second that opponents go "right, time to kill some boyz" and instead of killing 6, wipe out 20+ from a unit - then morale takes a few more. Now the unit's below a critical mass. Many things can weather a charge from 5-6 boyz and a nob, and then just delete it when they fight back.
They are too slow and too fragile for 9 points. So the answer's probably giving them say M7", the ability to reroll advances and maybe a 5+ save.
Spending CP to fix an inherent problem with a unit is bad game design. But more so in the fact that you can only use that Strat once per game. yes the orkz have a 2CP strat they can use once per turn as well, but you still end up killing 2 of your own guys for the privilege.
I do like the Movement buff, re-roll to advance should probably be given to a buffing character or a kulture, and I think honestly a 5+ save would be the minimum. At that point they might be worth 9ppm and worth taking MSU mobz of 10 and damn the morale casualties.
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
LVO top 4 lists were riddled with troops.
Siegler had over 25% of his list as Troops choices.
The two Custodes players below him had just under and just over 25% troops choices.
The GSC/Nid guy had 1/3rd of his army as troops, without including the transport.
So some armies can make troops work very well. That is 3 right there that can.
The biggest issue here is that in no world are Kroot considered the "go to" Tau troops choices. You have Breachers and Strike teams. Both of which are somehow 1pt cheaper than Ork boyz and are beyond a shadow of a doubt significantly better. So Tau have 3 troops choices which are competitive, and make Boyz look bad by comparison. Orkz have Boyz, Beastsnaggas and Grots. None of them are competitive, the Beast snaggas see some play at top tables but only because the player was taking a KillRig and only beastsnaggaz can ride in it, so you might as well take a Battalion as opposed to several patrols or lose out on CP.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
No, Gw has failed with early dexes and troop design.
Aswell as the current ruleset makes some types of troops (marine equivalents / more expensive marine equivalents) not desireable.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
And CSM players have been avoiding bringing actual Chaos Space Marines since Cultists became available to all of the Legions/Renegades in the 6th edition codex. So, 10 years now?
One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
A) That's not what he said. I went and checked and nowhere did he ever mention "90%". He said he wanted a trait that works. He said "Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons." He listed three "other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes" and I mentioned a fourth in Nids. How many army books are there? 16? We're at what, 25%? Please tell me what the other 65% are.
B) A sample size of 1 is quite the high ground.
C) For not whining about Marines you're only talking about Marines. Again.
D) I'd like to be able to secure an objective with my 95 points of Intercessors or my 130 points of Custodes, vs your 90 points of Boys. But it aint gonna happen. That's one of the elite army weaknesses.
E) What exactly do you think hypocrisy means? I've said I want to see MSU Marines get enticed into going 10 man squads. I've said I hate the 3 and only 3, the 3/6 and (most of) the 5 man min squads. I've said I don't think any army should be fearlessly immune to morale. Including Marines. I'd even say Nids are closer to it and it's bad for the game. I've said I want to see anti-leadership armies and traits work better for more variety. Which of these is what you're calling hypocritical?
Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.
Same logic than, MSU Marines are 5, 10 is max. So 1-5 should be the "weak" zone, 6-8 should be the "Swing zone" and 9-10 should be the "Strong" zone. I'll even go a step further, Marines should be IMMUNE to morale at 9-10 models. At 6-8 they should have their current "normal" Morale, and at 1-5 they should be LD 5 because screw you just like you are saying to orkz
Could you show me where I said "Screw You" to orks? Was it when I said they should get a boost? I believe I said Orks should get a boost but not to fully immune to morale. Because- again- nobody should be immune to the morale phase. I also believe I said Marines should face hard choices between 5 and 10 man units and the game should be flipped in some areas to penalize 5's and reward 10s. Finally Orks aren't LD5. This isn't worth it if you have to be fact checked.
The thing is a lot of troops do not see play right now. Boyz are not alone in that. Its just "mass boyz" has been a staple of Orks for years and years - usually though because the rest of their Codex was severely overcosted.
The two Custodes players below him had just under and just over 25% troops choices.
3 min size Custodian Guard Squads are 20% of 2,000. Four of them are just over 25%, 3 of them each at 5 to squeak under Blast is closer to 33%. 3 of them with 3 weilding the blade and shield upgrade are 22.5% - Custodes and % of army may not be the best measuring stick
The GSC/Nid guy had 1/3rd of his army as troops, without including the transport.
So some armies can make troops work very well. That is 3 right there that can.
The biggest issue here is that in no world are Kroot considered the "go to" Tau troops choices. You have Breachers and Strike teams. Both of which are somehow 1pt cheaper than Ork boyz and are beyond a shadow of a doubt significantly better. So Tau have 3 troops choices which are competitive, and make Boyz look bad by comparison. Orkz have Boyz, Beastsnaggas and Grots. None of them are competitive, the Beast snaggas see some play at top tables but only because the player was taking a KillRig and only beastsnaggaz can ride in it, so you might as well take a Battalion as opposed to several patrols or lose out on CP.
But to my mind Sisters do not run basic Sisters.
Marines don't want to run Intercessors.
DG don't want to run Plague Marines.
Grey Knights tend to minimise strike squads.
GW does however seem to have made most other troops effective, either due to raw stats or synergy stacking.
I don't usually run intercessors, but my current list is assault intercessors, 2 heavy intercessors, and infiltrators.
They haven't made troops ineffective exactly; I mean they still do the job (of sitting on an objective and counting to enemy unit +1) - but they have made troops boring. And we've fed the meme. It's a "troop tax" to take the "fun stuff" - and sitting on an objective twiddling your thumbs isn't fun. Troops are usually not a jack-of-all-trades. They usually don't do anything special. They cost as much as the "fun stuff" in a point for point pound for pound kind of way. Jidmah was talking about this a couple pages back - his MANZ are roughly the same points as Boys wound per wound, but they just have more versatility.
Lets say TH/SS is 100% of what you can expect for man-portable anti-tank (it's probably not, nor is whatever is that important - but for the sake of argument) Whatever It Is - now lets say that troops units all get a thematic way to reliably do a points ratio balanced % (expensive units get closer to 100%, cheaper units get less close) of a TH/SS vs a vehicle/Dread/Monster/etc because Krak Grenades are good, and hormagaunts can slash hydraulic lines and even run-flat tires. Now let's say Troops are also significantly cheaper than the "fun stuff" point for point and pound for pound. You still want the "fun stuff" for your army shenanigans and/or the 100% of whatever they specialize in, but now Troops are your safety valve. All of your special purpose "fun stuff" can be replaced by your Troops if you're in a pinch. And one of the problems troops will have is they're expected to sit on objectives to secure them. They're not moving, they only get to "do stuff" when the opponent brings someone into actionable range. Give them an action on the secured objectives. At the beginning of your command phase troops on primary objectives can start a rearm and reload action. It finishes at the end of your movement phase. Until your next command phase pick another unit to get +1A or +1 shot, or -1 to armor save or whatever. Command and Control - start this action at the beginning of your command phase, and the end of your movement phase, get a command point. These actions can be done in addition to any other actions the unit does, but can only be done by troops. I'm sure those are wildly unbalanced and wacky, but I was just going for the theme not something to playtest.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
...or it is a sign of a deliberate design decision that you don't like.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: One thing I keep getting annoyed by is how people keep just saying that ork boyz should take leadership stuff. I mentioned it earlier, but their base design since 3rd has had them be completely immune to it once there’s like more than 10 orks. Especially with new leadership stuff that just straight kills more it’s a needed thing, and the lack of a way to ignore it just shows how rushed the new ork dex was.
...or it is a sign of a deliberate design decision that you don't like.
Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
If I'm not mistaken, a good portion of why LD isn't considered meaningful is because of the prevalence of various things like Mob Rule and ATSKNF that outright negate or severely limit the impact of LD on actual play. I definitely agree that LD should be more than "how many extra dudemen do I lose after they get shot/stabbed", and I've no problem with Boyz getting morale immunity, but we'd have to be careful to make other changes as well or else it just functions as more of a "feth you" to the few armies that don't get some reliable means of negating it (and for my part, I don't believe that something like Insane Bravery is a good fix here - relying on that just means that you're playing at -2 CP/turn and hoping that you only need to use it for a single unit).
And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs?
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.
As already stated by the 1 nightlords player I have ever met that isn't true though. As he himself stated, those morale debuffs are functionally useless against 90% of the game and only work on factions like Orkz. Lets put this in perspective. Marines lose 4 models (80% of a squad) they have a 1/3rd chance to fail morale and lose 20pts (intercessors). To kill 4 Marines takes 72 bolter shots. 72 shots, 48 hits, 24 wounds, 8 failed armor saves, 4 dead Marines. so that level of effort to kill Marines nets you a 33% chance to have that last Marine fail morale and lose 20 more points. That same level of dmg against boyz does 72 shots, 48 hits, 16 wounds and 13.3 dead Orkz. Those orkz now have a 83% chance to fail morale, when they inevitably do they lose 3 more models to attrition. But the more apt comparison since we are talking about Kroot vs Orkz here is Kroot. Those Kroot can take MSU squads of 10 just like boyz, but the difference is, they can pay 25pts more for a shaper who can buff 1-3 units with relative ease and give them +2 leadership (Marine level) AND re-roll 1s to hit. Hes also significantly better than a normal kroot to the point where hes a no brainer for 25pts.
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
Not hating on Marines, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in your statement. Marines take MSU units of 5. They have LD8, they just don't worry about Morale in the slightest. You can lose 80% of your unit and still have a better than average chance to pass morale. Compare that to Orkz, I would love for my orkz to be functionally immune to Morale until they are down to 20%. And again, the only night lords player here calls BS on your comment because their army rule DOESN'T WORK against most armies.
A) That's not what he said. I went and checked and nowhere did he ever mention "90%". He said he wanted a trait that works. He said "Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons." He listed three "other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes" and I mentioned a fourth in Nids. How many army books are there? 16? We're at what, 25%? Please tell me what the other 65% are.
SemperMortis said "90% of the game", so was probably referencing the fact that the majority of opponents out there are running some form of Marines. And did you just count all Marines as one codex? Even ignoring that the loyalist codex covers multiple chapters, and the aforementioned fact that they comprise a LARGE portion of the player base, that just isn't correct.
First off, ignoring factions without a codex (Inquisition, Ynnari, and Assassins), and those soon to be rolled into another codex (Harlequins) there are 19 codexes in the game. And "other Marines" are 5 of those. So even ignoring all of the Chapters and their supplements covered in the loyalist codex, you have these codexes that just don't care about Anti-leadership mechanics:
1: Loyalist Scum - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 2: Death Guard - Ld8-9 except Cultists (which no one uses) and Poxwalkers (who auto-pass morale), usually run as MSU, all Marines ignore attrition modifiers
3: Thousand Sons - Ld8-9 except Cultists (see above) and Tzaangors. Rubrics and SOTs auto-pass morale, usually run as MSU 4: Grey Knights - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 5: Chaos Space Marines- Ld8-9 except Cultists, usually run as MSU 6: Custodes - everything is Ld11
7: Necrons - everything is Ld10
8: Tyranids - Synapse
(And the two we both forgot, because factions made up of single model vehicle units just don't care about morale)
9: Imperial Knights
10: Chaos Knights
So, no not 90% of the codexes out there, just over half. And then you have factions like Orks that can be gutted by Anti-leadership mechanics. It's bad design, and I hope that leaked Night Lords Legion trait is wrong.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Agreed. Morale should mean more than just "more stuff dies". And I'd be thrilled if gw would focus on other aspects of Night Lords than "Scary Marines".
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
I think the only argument against what you're saying is just "You're playing it wrong!" Which is ridiculous.
But people in this thread have been making that argument.
I do know that at various times GW has made certain units underpowered specifically to make them underpowered; or vice versa, in the case of Matt Ward's army book for Chaos Demons, which was made overpowered on purpose according to him.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
What makes you think that? Run some numbers and come back to is on that horde that's "unkillable."
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Buddy. Buster brown. Bucko.
T5 with a 6++ is the same as t4 with a 5++. But now we’re more expensive, don’t have unstoppable green tide, and run faster than a conscript fighting a titan. We’re less durable than in 8th, and the DLC train has skipped boyz station.
Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote: Nearly nothing about the ork codex feels deliberate. Talk with anyone and you’ll agree it’s very rushed feeling.
For sake of argument however let’s posit that this is a deliberate change. What you’re saying is that GW wants ork boyz to be complete gak, purposefully removing their ability to negate loads of extra damage, discouraging taking them as they’re supposed to be taken, and gimping all of their support options.
If gw purposefully wants them to be bottom of the barrel, and removing morale ignoring abilities is how they do that, then I’m still correct that in order to function they need old mob rule.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Buddy. Buster brown. Bucko.
T5 with a 6++ is the same as t4 with a 5++. But now we’re more expensive, don’t have unstoppable green tide, and run faster than a conscript fighting a titan. We’re less durable than in 8th, and the DLC train has skipped boyz station.
T5 6++ isn't always the same as T4 5++.
It's worse against Strength 1-3, 6-7, and 10+. Wound the same, save worse.
Against Strength 4, 5, and 8-9...
S4 vs. T4 5++ does .33 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .28 wounds per hit
S5 vs. T4 5++ does .44 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .42 wounds per hit
S8-9 vs. T4 5++ does .56 wounds per hit
T5 6++ does .56 wounds per hit
So, with that math done...
Strength 1-3, 6-7, and 10+ hit the T5 Orks HARDER.
Strength 8-9 hits them equally hard.
Strength 5 does 96% of the damage that T4 Orks took.
Strength 4 does 85% of the damage that T4 Orks took.
Given that Orks went from 8 to 9 points, an 11% increase, that means that, point for point, S4 is 95% as effective as it used to be, S5 is 107% as effective as it used to be, S8-9 is 111% as effective as it used to be, and all other Strength values are 141% as effective as it used to be.
Now, admittedly, S4 is hecking COMMON. A crapload of weapons are S4. But... It's still 95% as effective as it used to be.
Now fit 120 models in wholly within 9" for those T4 Boyz and apply that 5++ ONLY in shooting whereas is applies in melee now, too.
Not as cut and dry as sterile math hammer would have you believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: What makes you think that? Run some numbers and come back to is on that horde that's "unkillable."
Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
I'm a variety junkie. I'd love it if they made the Terror Troops thing work. Most armies should have a phase focused subfaction - Obviously some parent factions will just naturally be at least somewhat phase focused - Like Thousand Sons in the Psychic phase. But most of the main factions should have a variety of themes to their subfactions. touching on the various phases as either a strength or weakness.
Then ask gw to saddle one of the factions you play with a mechanic that's functionally useless against the majority of the other factions in the game.
You mean like +1LD? or being able to fall back with a -1 to shooting on my Inceptors that could already fall back without the -1 to shooting? Or like Hatred: (Race)? I've been on that end - that's probably why I've also been against hard-counters when I'm agreeing boys need a boost and want all armies to work with their special sauce not just my own. I've been for Marines into larger units, reducing Synapse and other parts of this "solution".
Fear mechanics have never worked, don't currently work, and probably never will in 40k.
It worked OK in 2nd Edition. Bringing back the 2nd Ed psychology and updating a bit would help but might confuse on the difference between fear and FEAR.
The other mechanics Night Lords have had over the years do though: cover mechanics (Stealth Adept in 3.5, Stealth in Traitor Legions), speed mechanics (extra FA and Raptors in 3.5, Raptors as troops and rerolling charges in Traitor Legions), "dirty fighting" mechanics (A Talent For Murder in HH). I'll take those, thank you very much.
Especially given how weak Anti-LD Mechanics are you should absolutely have a second "power". As someone else mentioned most of these CT/Superdoctrines/etc have two powers.
SemperMortis said "90% of the game", so was probably referencing the fact that the majority of opponents out there are running some form of Marines. And did you just count all Marines as one codex? Even ignoring that the loyalist codex covers multiple chapters, and the aforementioned fact that they comprise a LARGE portion of the player base, that just isn't correct.
Yep, when its an army wide rule I count the whole codex. When its subfaction specific I count the supplement. How many Klans are in the Ork book? Legions in the CSM book? Kabals in the Thousand Sons book? We don't have 5+ Space Marine codexes anymore. They're now one army book.
First off, ignoring factions without a codex (Inquisition, Ynnari, and Assassins), and those soon to be rolled into another codex (Harlequins) there are 19 codexes in the game. And "other Marines" are 5 of those. So even ignoring all of the Chapters and their supplements covered in the loyalist codex, you have these codexes that just don't care about Anti-leadership mechanics:
1: Loyalist Scum - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 2: Death Guard - Ld8-9 except Cultists (which no one uses) and Poxwalkers (who auto-pass morale), usually run as MSU, all Marines ignore attrition modifiers
3: Thousand Sons - Ld8-9 except Cultists (see above) and Tzaangors. Rubrics and SOTs auto-pass morale, usually run as MSU 4: Grey Knights - Ld8-9, ignores attrition modifiers, usually run as MSU 5: Chaos Space Marines- Ld8-9 except Cultists, usually run as MSU 6: Custodes - everything is Ld11
7: Necrons - everything is Ld10
8: Tyranids - Synapse
(And the two we both forgot, because factions made up of single model vehicle units just don't care about morale)
9: Imperial Knights
10: Chaos Knights
So, no not 90% of the codexes out there, just over half. And then you have factions like Orks that can be gutted by Anti-leadership mechanics. It's bad design, and I hope that leaked Night Lords Legion trait is wrong.
And 5 of your 8 are on the list because they "usually run as MSU". If they don't they're not "immune". I've also pointed out the game should encourage them to run as 10 in most units. I've already said Synapse should probably change - even without the anti-LD mechanic it shouldn't be autopass for every synapse, so there's 6. That leaves Necrons and Custodes. I've got no problem with tweaking them to be susceptible to Anti-LD mechanics.
Breton wrote: Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.
As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.
What we need is for LD to matter for other reasons. For example, would you say the LD debuff would be more worth it if units had to pass a LD check to fall back? I'd argue yes.
You're not wrong they should focus on other aspects though. With everyone getting two parts to their Traits, they can definitely add a rule to focus on how dirty they fight.
Agreed. Morale should mean more than just "more stuff dies". And I'd be thrilled if gw would focus on other aspects of Night Lords than "Scary Marines".
It does, they just haven't supported it enough. Lower LD can affect the psychic phase, it affects SOME decision making like Deathwing/InnerCircle/whatever Falling back, (which probably means -LD abilities should be +/- at the discretion of the owning player) Attrition should also be explained as more than people running away. It should just be explained as Attrition with various examples of it from various armies. The Space Marine who dies/hibernates from injuries sustained, but doesn't run away. The termagant that gets clawed to death during the BLAST explosion by another Termagant trying to get away. The commisar shooting a guardsmen in the back. The Nob cracking two eadz together. Right now Morale and Attrition are daisy-chained. You can only suffer attrition if you fail morale - they should be seperate. I don't know how - but theoretically morale for any casualties, attrition for many (however many many are) casualties. And like undead who couldn't fail Morale attrition should probably be worse for units that find it harder to fail morale. - i.e. lets say attrition comes from losing half current strength 10 intercessors get shot to pieces. They have to roll morale (they fail morale and its like the old shaken rule - can't move towards the enemy and -1 to hit in shoot and fight - or whatever but morale would need its own penalty) they lost MANY so they also have to roll attrition(same way you roll morale - I'd do straight LD test roll with modifiers). And you lose 1 wound for each point you miss attrition by. The difference is for morale you have to roll under, for attrition you have to roll over.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
I said do the math. I don't want to hear your explanations about what "should" happen, which always seem to favor the idea that everyone's army except yours is perfectly balanced and they should shut up. Do the math so we can see if you're right or wrong.
Just to clarify one thing though. Ork boyz' min size squad is 10, correct. But specialists such as tankbustas, burnaboyz, lootas, kommandos and stormboyz, which are all just boyz basically, are all 5-15 or 5-20. And they all are affected by orks morale issues unless playing the cheap min squad.
10 guys is definitely perceived as a full mid sized squad, even for orks standards. It's just that boyz can't run small squads, that's it. 11+ is a large squad even for orks as it's pretty close to the max squad for multiple units of 1W models. For multiwounds units like nobz, meganobz and flash gitz 10 models is the max squad.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
I said do the math. I don't want to hear your explanations about what "should" happen, which always seem to favor the idea that everyone's army except yours is perfectly balanced and they should shut up. Do the math so we can see if you're right or wrong.
See, again with the pretending there's no terrain and nothing else to consider. And I have made absolutely zero claims that my army is unbalanced nor have I ever told anyone to shut up.
So here's something to chew on:
The 8 Stalkers from Siegler with TBs with MW on 6s, exploding 6s to hit, +1S strat, +1 canticle, and +1WS doctrina has an 80% chance to kill 20 T5 6++/6+++ Boyz( or less ).
10 remaining Goffs with PK and no Waaagh and exploding 5s have a 47% chance to kill all 8 Stalkers - 5 or more is 93%. 10 such Boyz with Waaagh kill 8 Stalkers 86% of the time ( which means they can kill more than 8 pretty easily ) - and that's without considering Warboss +1 to hit.
18 Rangers with BS2 and rr wounds and hits of 1 kill up to 11 80% of the time:
( chart shows % chance to kill X Boyz - pink line is the cumulative from that point forward )
He has two of those. Disintegrators can kill 2.5 each. So all of his shooting kills MAYBE a mob a turn. MAYBE. Once it comes down to melee engagement a Waaagh and bad placement will wipe out the Ruststalkers pretty quickly.
And you still have to deal with the rest of the army.
Cue comments, "omg so you think you can beat Siegler with that army?!"
An 8-man squad of Stalkers, costing about 150 points, kills 2/3rds of a 30-strong Boys squad, then gets an additional four from Morale unless a 1 is rolled for an auto-pass. That's a 140% return on the points invested with Morale, or 120% if Morale is passed.
Not to mention, a big squad of Boys means that it'd be pretty easy to charge with two squads of Stalkers.
Daedalus81 wrote: Ok, I'll restate. Incredibly hard to inflict enough casualties before they get to you ( remember that you still have to get objectives ) and then you have the other half of the army to worry about.
I said do the math. I don't want to hear your explanations about what "should" happen, which always seem to favor the idea that everyone's army except yours is perfectly balanced and they should shut up. Do the math so we can see if you're right or wrong.
See, again with the pretending there's no terrain and nothing else to consider. And I have made absolutely zero claims that my army is unbalanced nor have I ever told anyone to shut up.
So here's something to chew on:
The 8 Stalkers from Siegler with TBs with MW on 6s, exploding 6s to hit, +1S strat, +1 canticle, and +1WS doctrina has an 80% chance to kill 20 T5 6++/6+++ Boyz( or less ).
10 remaining Goffs with PK and no Waaagh and exploding 5s have a 47% chance to kill all 8 Stalkers - 5 or more is 93%. 10 such Boyz with Waaagh kill 8 Stalkers 86% of the time ( which means they can kill more than 8 pretty easily ) - and that's without considering Warboss +1 to hit.
18 Rangers with BS2 and rr wounds and hits of 1 kill up to 11 80% of the time:
( chart shows % chance to kill X Boyz - pink line is the cumulative from that point forward )
He has two of those. Disintegrators can kill 2.5 each. So all of his shooting kills MAYBE a mob a turn. MAYBE. Once it comes down to melee engagement a Waaagh and bad placement will wipe out the Ruststalkers pretty quickly.
And you still have to deal with the rest of the army.
Cue comments, "omg so you think you can beat Siegler with that army?!"
Do you think lists would stay 100% the same if Ork hordes became a top level threat? I rather suspect that players would build in more anti-horde either via lots of attacks or by feeding the works tarpit units and preventing them from tying up units of value.
Daedalus81 wrote: See, again with the pretending there's no terrain and nothing else to consider. And I have made absolutely zero claims that my army is unbalanced nor have I ever told anyone to shut up.
That's definitely the subtext of what you're saying, considering you're ignoring people's evidence and saying that they're wrong regardless.
I'll just repeat what was said by others, and say that those are not even points. This is something you did earlier in the thread, refused to compare point-to-point, presumably because it would make your arguments fail.
Daedalus81 wrote: See, again with the pretending there's no terrain and nothing else to consider. And I have made absolutely zero claims that my army is unbalanced nor have I ever told anyone to shut up.
That's definitely the subtext of what you're saying, considering you're ignoring people's evidence and saying that they're wrong regardless.
I'll just repeat what was said by others, and say that those are not even points. This is something you did earlier in the thread, refused to compare point-to-point, presumably because it would make your arguments fail.
Hence why I asked if the points for the Painboy to give the 6+++ was taken into consideration.
I'm sort of lost on what people are even arguing now. Is it "would Boyz be good if they were just immune to morale full stop?"
To my mind the issue is threat range and therefore who likely gets the jump. Which doesn't just apply to Boyz, but to everything in 9th. Because yes - Stalkers do a reasonable number on boyz. But in some slightly contrived scenario where 30 Goff boyz (or even 3 units of 10, whatever) could charge 2-3 big Stalker units, they have good odds to delete them for a very efficient points return too.
The issue however is that Stalkers are naturally M8" to Boyz M5". There's lots of things you can do to boost both - but I don't think you can make up that gap. So the working assumption is that the Stalkers should charge. And if that means feeding a 45 point chaff unit to the Boyz to set things up, that's fine. Orks can't obviously do the same (although I guess 5 man Kommando squads can contribute here.)
Tyel wrote: I'm sort of lost on what people are even arguing now. Is it "would Boyz be good if they were just immune to morale full stop?"
To my mind the issue is threat range and therefore who likely gets the jump. Which doesn't just apply to Boyz, but to everything in 9th. Because yes - Stalkers do a reasonable number on boyz. But in some slightly contrived scenario where 30 Goff boyz (or even 3 units of 10, whatever) could charge 2-3 big Stalker units, they have good odds to delete them for a very efficient points return too.
The issue however is that Stalkers are naturally M8" to Boyz M5". There's lots of things you can do to boost both - but I don't think you can make up that gap. So the working assumption is that the Stalkers should charge. And if that means feeding a 45 point chaff unit to the Boyz to set things up, that's fine. Orks can't obviously do the same (although I guess 5 man Kommando squads can contribute here.)
Not full stop. Just as long as they are a decent size squad.
An 8-man squad of Stalkers, costing about 150 points, kills 2/3rds of a 30-strong Boys squad, then gets an additional four from Morale unless a 1 is rolled for an auto-pass. That's a 140% return on the points invested with Morale, or 120% if Morale is passed.
Sorry there seems to be some confusion about the exercise based on this and a couple other posts.
The situation was a hypothetical where Boyz got their old morale back and why the codex has deliberate design decisions to avoid creating a scenario where hordes are the best pick in a mission set that values objective control.
The Stalkers may kill 2/3, but the return from just 100 points of Boyz has a great chance to kill that 150. If Boyz are the initiators and there's no fight last the damage they can do is likely quite higher and without the level of investment Admech makes into a single squad of Stalkers.
Not to mention, a big squad of Boys means that it'd be pretty easy to charge with two squads of Stalkers.
Certainly, but it all comes down to positioning, Waaagh timing, and advance rolls.
I don't think you can make any argument to dispute that Kroot excel over Boyz as the "cheap melee horde unit"
Sure. But, and just to be clear here, I'm not arguing that ork boyz have a place INTERNALLY in the ork codex as there are several units that outclass them, but...
...you do have to acknowledge that Kroot have access to almost zero -
-buffs
-subfaction bonuses (boyz have access to several which decrease the mobility gap, the firepower gap, increase the melee damage gap, etc)
-army-wide bonuses, namely Waaagh
-special weapon upgrades
Do I think boyz are probably in need of a buff? Yes. a 1pt drop and some return of an ability (maybe even a defensive ability, horror of horrors) to incentivize taking more than 10 would be what id go with.
but we are being a bit silly in this thread. Kroot and Boyz arent intended to do the same thing. 120 kroot surging forward towards enemy lines and trying to deal and soak damage in enemy lines are going to fail, just as hard if not harder than boyz. Theyre totally reliant on hiding in Light Cover to stay difficult to kill, which means theyll probably wind up being fairly handy-dandy screen/action monkey units.
Hecaton wrote: That's definitely the subtext of what you're saying, considering you're ignoring people's evidence and saying that they're wrong regardless.
I am sorry if I have made people feel as though I am ignoring their evidence. I do genuinely understand the arguments made and I feel like I do take that into posts even if they seem edgy in text. I myself find my points get roundly ignored so I think perhaps we're talking past each other a bit.
I'll try and be less of a dick.
I still think people get far too locked into a mindset and stop trying to think around the problem though.
I'll just repeat what was said by others, and say that those are not even points. This is something you did earlier in the thread, refused to compare point-to-point, presumably because it would make your arguments fail.
Point for point is good for surface level analysis and I think that's where people get too caught up. The Hammerhead has some great math behind it, but at the Beachhead Brawl this past weekend there wasn't a single HH in any list ( I think one Longstrike ) -- because the math doesn't tell the whole story when you factor in the big picture including how missions operate.
Kroot were pretty rare as well aside from a guy who went Dal - triple SS and 130 Kroot. His record was WLLWWDL. Lost to Knights, Custodes, and Admech. Draw was against Harlies&DE soup. The wins were all against marines.
I think drones are probably too good (is anyone remotely surprised?). The result is awkward to kill Crisis blobs with numerous buffs seem the way to go versus HH.
I'm sure someone will have the courage (and models?) to run the 240 Kroot Carpet at some point.
Tyel wrote: I think drones are probably too good (is anyone remotely surprised?). The result is awkward to kill Crisis blobs with numerous buffs seem the way to go versus HH.
I'm sure someone will have the courage (and models?) to run the 240 Kroot Carpet at some point.
Yea...drones are good, but perhaps not necessary either ( though top players had tons ). Lots of T'au did well with limited or no drones. Definitely a wide variety of lists.
To me it all feels deliberate...but stripped so that they can add back with DLC. You just can't do old mob with T5, because once you do then one KFF covers 120 models easy and you have a 6+++ and basically an unkillable horde that you have to strip to the model.
Points changes have been nuts recently and I can't find my old 8th codex so if I'm incorrect let me know, but I believe in 8th boyz were 7ppm. So yes, a T4 boy with a 5++ was MORE durable point for point than a T5 ork with a 6+++.
To kill a T5 boy with a 6+++ it takes 3.6 bolter hits. (3.6 hits, 1.2 wounds, 1 failed save)
To kill a T4 Boy with a 5+++ it takes 3.0 Bolter hits. (3 hits, 1.5 wounds, 1 failed save)
Find the common denominator which is 63. So T5 boyz get 7 models, T4 boyz get 9.
T5 takes 25.2 hits, T4 takes 27.
So yes, based on points percentages the T4 boyz were in fact slightly more durable than T5 would be if given similar morale invulnerability....and that isn't even factoring in the increase in cost to the KFF which has gone up as well.
The 8 Stalkers from Siegler with TBs with MW on 6s, exploding 6s to hit, +1S strat, +1 canticle, and +1WS doctrina has an 80% chance to kill 20 T5 6++/6+++ Boyz( or less ).
10 remaining Goffs with PK and no Waaagh and exploding 5s have a 47% chance to kill all 8 Stalkers - 5 or more is 93%. 10 such Boyz with Waaagh kill 8 Stalkers 86% of the time ( which means they can kill more than 8 pretty easily ) - and that's without considering Warboss +1 to hit.
18 Rangers with BS2 and rr wounds and hits of 1 kill up to 11 80% of the time:
( chart shows % chance to kill X Boyz - pink line is the cumulative from that point forward )
He has two of those. Disintegrators can kill 2.5 each. So all of his shooting kills MAYBE a mob a turn. MAYBE. Once it comes down to melee engagement a Waaagh and bad placement will wipe out the Ruststalkers pretty quickly.
The biggest problem you are leaving out here is that turn 1 those boyz are 18' from their enemy. Even with WAAAGH and a slightly above average advance roll of 4' they are still an 9' charge from the enemy lines if your opponent deployed on the line. What this translates to is likely a turn 1 failed charge at best. And realistically it translates to taking the bulk of enemy anti-infantry firepower to the face, and at this point, likely in double tap range. Not something you really want to do. Those stalkers on the other hand are lightning fast by comparison and can get a first turn charge off, they can also deploy back and wait for the enemy to advance and complete both a screen AND a Beta strike threat.
Sure. But, and just to be clear here, I'm not arguing that ork boyz have a place INTERNALLY in the ork codex as there are several units that outclass them, but...
...you do have to acknowledge that Kroot have access to almost zero -
-buffs
-subfaction bonuses (boyz have access to several which decrease the mobility gap, the firepower gap, increase the melee damage gap, etc)
-army-wide bonuses, namely Waaagh
-special weapon upgrades
except they do. They have a shaper which buffs them with +2 morale making them SM level morale, and it gives them re-roll 1s to hit in both ranged and CC. They can also receive buffs from the ethereal, warlord traits and a few strats. Overall, I would say Kroot have more bonuses that are meaningful then Boyz. Because Boyz have Kultures, none of which are competitive except Goff and Freeboota. 1 makes them better in CC, the other does basically nothing to them. The Army wide bonus is only if you take a normal waaagh which is/was rare until now, and its advance+charge and +1 attack. Which is good. And Special weapon upgrades...Yep, kroot don't have the option of wasting points on useless weapon upgrades like boyz do. Nothing screams points efficiency like giving a CC Ork boyz unit (the only way to run boyz in a competitive game) a Big shoota....
the_scotsman wrote: Do I think boyz are probably in need of a buff? Yes. a 1pt drop and some return of an ability (maybe even a defensive ability, horror of horrors) to incentivize taking more than 10 would be what id go with.
but we are being a bit silly in this thread. Kroot and Boyz arent intended to do the same thing. 120 kroot surging forward towards enemy lines and trying to deal and soak damage in enemy lines are going to fail, just as hard if not harder than boyz. Theyre totally reliant on hiding in Light Cover to stay difficult to kill, which means theyll probably wind up being fairly handy-dandy screen/action monkey units.
The difference is that Boyz are a direct tax unit with no purpose. They aren't significantly more durable in cover, they aren't a good screening force, and they have no abilities which make them useful except that they are troops. Generally speaking, the only time they are taken in lists is as a 1 off troop tax. IN comparison Kroot are taken more in just hte recent tournaments.
Point for point is good for surface level analysis and I think that's where people get too caught up. The Hammerhead has some great math behind it, but at the Beachhead Brawl this past weekend there wasn't a single HH in any list ( I think one Longstrike ) -- because the math doesn't tell the whole story when you factor in the big picture including how missions operate.
Kroot were pretty rare as well aside from a guy who went Dal - triple SS and 130 Kroot. His record was WLLWWDL. Lost to Knights, Custodes, and Admech. Draw was against Harlies&DE soup. The wins were all against marines.
I guess you are going to completely ignore the #1 list that WON the Beachhead Brawl with an undefeated list which included 2 units of Carnivores and 1 unit of Kroot Hounds? Yeah they aren't spammed ridiculously, but they were taken in lieu of Tau Firewarriors. The two lists that went undefeated and took 1st and 2nd place at the BHB were both Tau and both HEAVILY featured Battlesuits. Which means those Kroot are going to be little more than action monkeys and mid field objective grabbers, while the opponent is busy dealing with Battlesuits running rampant all over the battlefield, especially since they can now shoot in CC.
To put it more bluntly. MSU kroot carnivore squads, with a 7' more before the game starts and the ability to turn 1 be on midfield objectives synergize significantly more with the Tau style of play than boyz currently do with orkz.
***Side Note*** Vespids made an appearance in both lists as well. It appears GW finally figured out how to make the Tau auxiliaries work.
The biggest problem you are leaving out here is that turn 1 those boyz are 18' from their enemy. Even with WAAAGH and a slightly above average advance roll of 4' they are still an 9' charge from the enemy lines if your opponent deployed on the line. What this translates to is likely a turn 1 failed charge at best. And realistically it translates to taking the bulk of enemy anti-infantry firepower to the face, and at this point, likely in double tap range. Not something you really want to do. Those stalkers on the other hand are lightning fast by comparison and can get a first turn charge off, they can also deploy back and wait for the enemy to advance and complete both a screen AND a Beta strike threat.
I'm not suggesting people use this as the basis for a list. It's just a thought exercise on old morale and there's so many other variables to consider in making such a thing work.
I guess you are going to completely ignore the #1 list that WON the Beachhead Brawl with an undefeated list which included 2 units of Carnivores and 1 unit of Kroot Hounds? Yeah they aren't spammed ridiculously, but they were taken in lieu of Tau Firewarriors. The two lists that went undefeated and took 1st and 2nd place at the BHB were both Tau and both HEAVILY featured Battlesuits. Which means those Kroot are going to be little more than action monkeys and mid field objective grabbers, while the opponent is busy dealing with Battlesuits running rampant all over the battlefield, especially since they can now shoot in CC.
To put it more bluntly. MSU kroot carnivore squads, with a 7' more before the game starts and the ability to turn 1 be on midfield objectives synergize significantly more with the Tau style of play than boyz currently do with orkz.
***Side Note*** Vespids made an appearance in both lists as well. It appears GW finally figured out how to make the Tau auxiliaries work.
Definitely not ignoring those Kroot, but they don't seem any more prevalent than Boyz in recent tournaments ( except for the guy who went bananas with Kroot ). To me their existence in that list doesn't answer the thread's question in a meaningful manner.
The comparison semper did gets even worse for 9th boyz when the leadership is considered, as well as the loss of unstoppable green tide, giving you ~20-22 boyz from my experience for free.
What's the point to argue, I think it's a consensus right now:
Kroot are a good option in an army with a bunch of good troop choices. Take them when needed.
Boyz are a bad option in an army with a bunch of bad troop choices. Try to avoid taking them.
koooaei wrote: What's the point to argue, I think it's a consensus right now:
Kroot are a good option in an army with a bunch of good troop choices. Take them when needed.
Boyz are a bad option in an army with a bunch of bad troop choices. Try to avoid taking them.
koooaei wrote: What's the point to argue, I think it's a consensus right now:
Kroot are a good option in an army with a bunch of good troop choices. Take them when needed.
Boyz are a bad option in an army with a bunch of bad troop choices. Try to avoid taking them.
Daedalus disagrees.
It's my job!
I think I can get a TTS game in tomorrow and we'll see how it goes ( if there's someone ready to go between kid drop-off and supper ). I'll probably be playing either T'au or Custodes based on how TTS goes.
koooaei wrote: What's the point to argue, I think it's a consensus right now:
Kroot are a good option in an army with a bunch of good troop choices. Take them when needed.
Boyz are a bad option in an army with a bunch of bad troop choices. Try to avoid taking them.
Daedalus disagrees.
It's my job!
It's one thing to think outside the box, but it's a whole other can of worms to not only just disagree for the sake of it but also deny responsibility from GW for their garbage rules creation.
koooaei wrote: What's the point to argue, I think it's a consensus right now:
Kroot are a good option in an army with a bunch of good troop choices. Take them when needed.
Boyz are a bad option in an army with a bunch of bad troop choices. Try to avoid taking them.
I'd say boys are a bad option in an army with exclusively bad troops choices
And I say that as someone that runs two units of trukk boys.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It's one thing to think outside the box, but it's a whole other can of worms to not only just disagree for the sake of it but also deny responsibility from GW for their garbage rules creation.
I definitely don't disagree for the sake of it. I would agree that Boyz aren't solid, but I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It's one thing to think outside the box, but it's a whole other can of worms to not only just disagree for the sake of it but also deny responsibility from GW for their garbage rules creation.
I definitely don't disagree for the sake of it. I would agree that Boyz aren't solid, but I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.
I think GW was partially hedging against complaints about orks going to T5 and not wanting them to be too strong, and then just forgot the reason orks had boss pole and mob rule to start with. I appreciate them being willing to play aroudn with survival on units, I think 2 wound marines was good for the game just liek i think T5 orks make sense, they just points costed one correctly and gave them good strategems and mechanics (marines) and the other not so much (bad mechanics to eb useable and to many points)
on kroot, my all kroot army is now up to 40 kroot, 3 hounds and 5 shapers, working those prints in between other 3d printing projects, cannot wait to field 2k points of all kroot
Daedalus81 wrote: I would agree that Boyz aren't solid, but I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.
4th edition.
Tac Marine 15pts
Ork boy 6pts.
To kill 1 Marine with bolters took 9 Bolter shots at BS3+
To kill 1 Ork boy took 3 Bolter shots.
Took 3 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marines (12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 dead Marine)
Fast forward to 9th edition: Marines now have double their ROF normally, they gained a plethora of special rules which allow them to gain AP depending on phase and of course, most notably they got a 2nd wound. Stratagem wise they have a bunch.
Ork boyz: They are now Base S4 as opposed to being S3(4) Furious Charge and T5 . They lost +1 attack, they lost movement, and their dmg output actually went down.
Tac Marine 18pts
Ork Boy 9pts.
To kill 1 Marine now takes 18 bolter shots at BS3
To kill 1 Ork boy now takes 5.4 bolter shots
Takes 4 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marine (12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds, 1 Dead Marine)
In 4th the math was 18pts of Boyz to kill 15 of Marines
In 9th the math is 36pts of Boyz to kill 18 of Marines.
My belief is that Ork boyz took it to the face in 9th as far as rules go, because at the tail end of 8th the "competitive" ork list was Ghaz Green tide with 90-120 boyz. The problem being that the list wasn't competitive because Boyz were good, it was competitive because nobody was bringing anti-horde firepower and it ran counter meta.
So going back to your quote
I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.
Well lets see, in 8th they were good because nobody brought weapons that worked against them. In 9th GW bumped them up to 9ppm but gave them T5, they then stripped all their stratagem support, nerfed the KFF to be 50% less effective while also costing significantly more, nerfed Weirdboyz so they wouldn't be handing out buffs like they were in 8th and then stripped or destroyed their inherent rules.
Ere we go: lost re-roll 1 or both dice
Mob Rule: Went from Model count = LD to If another mob is nearby and has more than 50% of its models alive you don't take attrition tests on 2s just on 1s.
Completely got rid of the +1 attack for 20+ models.
So yes Ork boyz are absolutely suffering from BAD RULES WRITING for them specifically. GW's intent was pretty clear from the get go "Get rid of hordes" The problem is that GW nerfed boyz so hard that they aren't even worth taking in smaller units. Why? Because their rules teams do not inherently understand orkz, and figured T5 and -1AP on choppas would be good enough compensation for utterly destroying THE most iconic Ork unit.
G00fySmiley wrote: I think GW was partially hedging against complaints about orks going to T5 and not wanting them to be too strong, and then just forgot the reason orks had boss pole and mob rule to start with. I appreciate them being willing to play aroudn with survival on units, I think 2 wound marines was good for the game just liek i think T5 orks make sense, they just points costed one correctly and gave them good strategems and mechanics (marines) and the other not so much (bad mechanics to eb useable and to many points)
I agree, they simply changed too much at once and ended up with broken boyz.
SemperMortis wrote: Well lets see, in 8th they were good because nobody brought weapons that worked against them. In 9th GW bumped them up to 9ppm but gave them T5, they then stripped all their stratagem support, nerfed the KFF to be 50% less effective while also costing significantly more, nerfed Weirdboyz so they wouldn't be handing out buffs like they were in 8th and then stripped or destroyed their inherent rules.
Ere we go: lost re-roll 1 or both dice
Mob Rule: Went from Model count = LD to If another mob is nearby and has more than 50% of its models alive you don't take attrition tests on 2s just on 1s.
Completely got rid of the +1 attack for 20+ models.
So yes Ork boyz are absolutely suffering from BAD RULES WRITING for them specifically. GW's intent was pretty clear from the get go "Get rid of hordes" The problem is that GW nerfed boyz so hard that they aren't even worth taking in smaller units. Why? Because their rules teams do not inherently understand orkz, and figured T5 and -1AP on choppas would be good enough compensation for utterly destroying THE most iconic Ork unit.
Hang on though.
Warboss now gives out +1 to hit. That +1 matters when it's 80 attacks instead of say 20 for MANZ - especially if you want to go take out something with an invulnerable save.
Warboss used to give advance and charge all the time. Now it's once per game, but you gained two turns of +1A - again a thing that increases in effectiveness the more models you have.
Morale used to be just straight up lose models, which could happen back then unless you had multiple mobs, which means it was all in or nothing. If you lost 20 then you LD was 10 and you'd still lose every other model in that unit unless you have a 20+ mob nearby. NOW if you lose 20 with a 10 man nearby then you lose 1 and then 1 or 2 more.
Warboss used to break heads, which is the same as the strat, but now the strat is "bad".
Goffs went from 6s give you another attack to 6s give you a hit on top of +1S.
KFF may have ben halved, but it works in melee and covers more than one mob.
They lost +1A for 20 models, but gained an AP, which is phenomenally better. Also note Waaagh.
So 20 Goffs from the past v MEQ with a Warboss nearby --
Do you honestly think it'd be ok for Boyz to have the same morale when they can produce almost three times the output under the same conditions? Christ you could fight twice with the old Boyz and STILL be behind.
And to make sure I did the math right -- those two scenarios charted -- the old goff boyz at just about their best are the worst possible outcome for new goff boyz. You absolutely cannot expect to have these rules alongside the old ones. And we didn't even get to exploding 5s....
And because I'll catch flakk - the charts show % chance to kill X MEQ.
As vs those bolters you are flat out wrong.
), you might not be able to deep strike outside of your deployment zone at all.
. I think it’s more people want the ability to run their 180 lads, cause I certainly do. 120 boyz is no more gatekeepy than any sort of meta thing otherwise.
