Having played a friendly game recently against Harlequins and then against a Custards player who was using the -1 to hit banner i can say with some confidence that Orkz need a rule that they always hit on at least 5s and it needs to be faction wide!

The impact of -1 to hit is pretty important to a lot of factions. A Marine player shooting with -1 to hit loses 25% of his accuracy, a Guardsmen player loses 33%, a Custards player loses 20% Here is the problem though, with a few rare exceptions, -1 to hit against an Ork player is a 50% decrease in hits. 50%!!

With custards having their banner, Harlequins, Eldar, Nidz etc having easy access to loads of -1 to hit...there just isn't a real way for a gunline Ork army to even have a chance. One more example of GW not understanding how their rules interact with the Ork faction, a 50% reduction in accuracy is just too big of a mountain for Ork shooting to overcome.

Put it another way, lets say I get 3 koptas into range against a voidweaver, USUALLY, against a target like that they would get 12 shots, 4 hits, 2.6(ish) wounds and 1.7ish would go through for 5.3dmg. Against -1 to hit voidweavers with their 4+ invuln it actually works out to 12 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds and 0.67 unsaved wounds for about 2dmg a turn. Without the invuln its slightly better but not much. So to kill 1 voidweaver with deffkoptas would require 450pts worth of them. 450pts to kill 90. Without the -1 to hit it would be 4dmg a turn and would only require 4-5 koptas to kill 1, or 200-250pts to kill 90.

Keep in mind, -1 to hit in CC is fine, but against any army with 5+ to hit at range? Its devastating. I like the -1 to hit mechanic, I just think it needs to be more balanced across the armies that play the game. Mind you, a balancing mechanic might be to give bad BS units a lot more shots to compensate for their horrendous accuracy. Problem with that approach though is that then against units without -1 to hit you end up with just too much dmg output. I'd love to hear others opinions on this.

With the way the rules are going if I was you I'd be pulling for something a bit more ambitious.

Orks have a few BS4 options. And a few flamer options.
So if your regularly facing -1 to hit? Adapt. Make use of those options.

Looking at the complaints about the lethality of the game I'd say we need much more -1 to hit and it should stack. Moving heavy weapons, shooting through cover, shooting at something with an inherent -1 should all stack. This would help Orks, too because they can only ever receive -1 while Custodes can be hit by up to -4.
We had that in 8th and it's one of the most problematic changes from 9 th, especially since 6s always hit now for everyone.

No, that's much worse. Giving the active player the feeling that they can't accomplish anything is horrifyingly frustrating.

And it doesn't help orks at all. I'm not sure why it would- 'another faction can suck as much as we do if they happen to run into someone who can stack penalties beyond all reason' isn't a positive thing.

I suppose this is why Orks have descent Close Combat options. They soften you up with shooting before they get to Krumpin. After all Orks tend to have WS 3+ with a Warboss aura of +1 to Hit in Fights.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Looking at the complaints about the lethality of the game I'd say we need much more -1 to hit and it should stack. Moving heavy weapons, shooting through cover, shooting at something with an inherent -1 should all stack. This would help Orks, too because they can only ever receive -1 while Custodes can be hit by up to -4.
We had that in 8th and it's one of the most problematic changes from 9 th, especially since 6s always hit now for everyone.

This pretty much. They created the rule where a 6 to hit always hits. However there's not a lot of stuff with a shooting profile and BS6+. It was silly and an overreaction.
It also shows GW is unable to experiment with the various profiles of units and rules (which really showed when they made their new wounding chart). For example, Iron Hands could have a rule where they ignore the first modifier on their to hit roll due to all the bionics or some crap like that.

SemperMortis wrote:
Having played a friendly game recently against Harlequins and then against a Custards player who was using the -1 to hit banner i can say with some confidence that Orkz need a rule that they always hit on at least 5s and it needs to be faction wide!

The impact of -1 to hit is pretty important to a lot of factions. A Marine player shooting with -1 to hit loses 25% of his accuracy, a Guardsmen player loses 33%, a Custards player loses 20% Here is the problem though, with a few rare exceptions, -1 to hit against an Ork player is a 50% decrease in hits. 50%!!

With custards having their banner, Harlequins, Eldar, Nidz etc having easy access to loads of -1 to hit...there just isn't a real way for a gunline Ork army to even have a chance. One more example of GW not understanding how their rules interact with the Ork faction, a 50% reduction in accuracy is just too big of a mountain for Ork shooting to overcome.

Put it another way, lets say I get 3 koptas into range against a voidweaver, USUALLY, against a target like that they would get 12 shots, 4 hits, 2.6(ish) wounds and 1.7ish would go through for 5.3dmg. Against -1 to hit voidweavers with their 4+ invuln it actually works out to 12 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds and 0.67 unsaved wounds for about 2dmg a turn. Without the invuln its slightly better but not much. So to kill 1 voidweaver with deffkoptas would require 450pts worth of them. 450pts to kill 90. Without the -1 to hit it would be 4dmg a turn and would only require 4-5 koptas to kill 1, or 200-250pts to kill 90.

Keep in mind, -1 to hit in CC is fine, but against any army with 5+ to hit at range? Its devastating. I like the -1 to hit mechanic, I just think it needs to be more balanced across the armies that play the game. Mind you, a balancing mechanic might be to give bad BS units a lot more shots to compensate for their horrendous accuracy. Problem with that approach though is that then against units without -1 to hit you end up with just too much dmg output. I'd love to hear others opinions on this.

Yeah wow, that -1 really does mess up Orks. I'm not very familiar with them; do they have access to any strats/ auras/ clan rules/ relics that confer a +1 they could use to cancel it out? I mean, I know that's an extra thing, and that imbalance still exists- I'm not saying that access to +1 means everything is okay- I'm just genuinely curious as a guy who doesn't have access to the Ork dex.

Freebooterz can counter the -1 to hit. Their Klan Kultur is part of why Orks got hit with the nerf bat last year.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Freebooterz can counter the -1 to hit. Their Klan Kultur is part of why Orks got hit with the nerf bat last year.

Probably going to be tough to pop say a skyweaver hitting on 6s and have enough left to take advantage of it though.

SemperMortis wrote:
Having played a friendly game recently against Harlequins and then against a Custards player who was using the -1 to hit banner i can say with some confidence that Orkz need a rule that they always hit on at least 5s and it needs to be faction wide!

And you've already put more thought into Ork rules than GW.

The problem with Orks is not this specifically, it's that consistently they're given underpowered options, and when they have powerful options accidentally they're nerfed quickly. GW doesn't want Orks to be good; they're not one of the "chosen" factions. They're meant to make little Timmy feel good for having beaten them with his space marines.

Hecaton 804403 11338879 wrote: They're meant to make little Timmy feel good for having beaten them with his space marines.

In 9th ed? Unless he plays a WS tournament list, he ain't beating no orks unless the dice gods smile on the marine player.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Looking at the complaints about the lethality of the game I'd say we need much more -1 to hit and it should stack. Moving heavy weapons, shooting through cover, shooting at something with an inherent -1 should all stack. This would help Orks, too because they can only ever receive -1 while Custodes can be hit by up to -4.
We had that in 8th and it's one of the most problematic changes from 9 th, especially since 6s always hit now for everyone.

Sure. Just give same bs to all

ccs wrote:
Orks have a few BS4 options. And a few flamer options.
So if your regularly facing -1 to hit? Adapt. Make use of those options.

Ork BS4 options are Mek gunz (No kulture, no strats, can only take 3 total in 3 separate squads otherwise morale kills them)
Flashgitz (24' heavy weapon so if they move they are right back to 5+ to hit, massively overpriced for their dmg output, still incredibly flimsy defensive wise)
Big Mekz (its an HQ, all its weapons are terrible, SAG is garbage level bad now)
Grots (No kulture, not Obsec, S3 Pistols, 7+ save armor and -1 to attrition tests)
Grot Mega Tank and Grot tanks (Incredibly expensive FW units, slightly better than Ork versions of similar vehicles but still not good)
SJD (limited to 3 per army at most, only counts on its main gun which is assault 2 S8)
Rukkatrukk squigbuggy (Nerfed to hell and back, still only averages 3.5 hits a turn at S5 -2AP 2dmg)
Kannon Wagon: (150pts for 2D6 shots at BS4 S8 -2 3dmg blast....not worth it)

Flamer options are
Burnas: (Over priced, low dmg output, NO DURABILITY)
Skorchas: (Basically heavy flamers, few units can take them and the ones that can generally dont want to do to points constraints)

So there are options, none are competitive, and none will hold up on the tournament scene.

 alextroy wrote:
I suppose this is why Orks have descent Close Combat options. They soften you up with shooting before they get to Krumpin. After all Orks tend to have WS 3+ with a Warboss aura of +1 to Hit in Fights.

Ork boyz are now worse than ever before, Meganobz are ok but outshown by basically any other 30-40pt CC infantry, Stormboyz are just faster more expensive boyz,IE don't do much dmg..I can keep going but the point I am making is that orkz aren't particularly good in CC either compared to a lot of other competitive options.

PenitentJake wrote:

Yeah wow, that -1 really does mess up Orks. I'm not very familiar with them; do they have access to any strats/ auras/ clan rules/ relics that confer a +1 they could use to cancel it out? I mean, I know that's an extra thing, and that imbalance still exists- I'm not saying that access to +1 means everything is okay- I'm just genuinely curious as a guy who doesn't have access to the Ork dex.

The only real +1 to hit offered in the codex is Freeboota Kulture, and it only goes off after you kill a unit, its good, but somewhat unreliable in the current meta.

Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

Dakka is an Ork term, you know.

You CAN build a melee-focused or almost exclusively melee Ork list.
But you shouldn’t have to-Orks might not be the most elegant of marksmen, but they’re damn well effective with the sheer storm of bullet they put down.

Unfortunately, the rules don’t reflect that well.

Karol wrote:
In 9th ed? Unless he plays a WS tournament list, he ain't beating no orks unless the dice gods smile on the marine player.

I'm talking about what's meant to happen. The power creep is also real. The lack of care and thought put into the ork codex really shows.

Question: Is it still the case that special ork guns (thinking lootas, flashgitz, etc.) are pretty cheap for their profiles? I remember being able to look at the cost of a loota vs a dark reaper and sort of see how GW landed on their respective prices with the lootas losing out due to lack of durability and buff support more than baked-in killing power. Wondering if the new 'dex (and in the increased Toughness stat) has further skewed the effectiveness of ork dakka infantry.

Still getting my feet wet with the new eldar book. Are harlequins really all that durable now? I see that they still have a lot of the same durability tricks they did before, but they're also still a T3 army with a (usually) 4+ save. (It just happens to be a 4+ save that doesn't care about AP or light cover.)

A change in the ‘to hit’ mechanism, where BS vs Height is compared in the same way as S vs T, might help.

But Ork shooting has been consistently downgraded since 3rd Ed (or other factions’ has improved), and they have become more vulnerable. Various army lists I play consistently die vs Eldar, the only way I have of causing damage is to spam Tankbustas in 5 man units. And no, I can’t ‘play the mission’ when my units are being deleted.

The rules have been in an absolute state of mess for years now.

There is only one option.

Rules need to be free, available in Digital PDF format, downloaded from their website or through an app for a small fee (1.99$).

The reason for this is so that they can make changes and adjustments on the fly, and have all of the data for what is overperforming and underperforming and then make corrections for it.

This constant drip feed of rules, only to see them completely redone again next year is starting to cause problems. A lot of people are choosing to look for their rules elsewhere, thus not buying the books as much anymore.

I'm reading from this that Harlequins need fixing, not that ork shooting is suddenly a bust. Most armies have some -1 to hit, internally or externally, including the battlefield. Its when it's on most of the army who also pack decent invulns you're seeing the issue.

Edit: not to say that ork gunlines are fine and a competitive option, I'm just pointing out you're using the most durable, unfriendly and unbalanced units to fire into to make a point.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

They used to, when power klaws could instant kill multiwound models and even vehicles. Now melee is a joke for orks, we are below average in close combat. And the majority of the ork units in the codex are shooting oriented, aka only shooting or mix shooting/melee with shooting part being better than melee part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Freebooterz can counter the -1 to hit. Their Klan Kultur is part of why Orks got hit with the nerf bat last year.

Not that easy to get when the best shooters hit on 6s before triggering that bonus. Especially against really tough units like custodes ones. Against aeldari or tyranids (unless they leave the squishy stuff at home) it's certainly easier to get that armywide +1 to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Question: Is it still the case that special ork guns (thinking lootas, flashgitz, etc.) are pretty cheap for their profiles? I remember being able to look at the cost of a loota vs a dark reaper and sort of see how GW landed on their respective prices with the lootas losing out due to lack of durability and buff support more than baked-in killing power. Wondering if the new 'dex (and in the increased Toughness stat) has further skewed the effectiveness of ork dakka infantry.

Lootas and flash gitz are utterly expensive for their profiles. That's why they never see the table.

"Cheap" gun platforms are bikes, a couple of planes, deffkoptas, buggies, a couple of mek gunz. So typically S5 AP0/AP-1 D1 or S8 AP-2/AP-3 D3/DD6 weapons.

SemperMortis wrote:

ccs wrote:
Orks have a few BS4 options. And a few flamer options.
So if your regularly facing -1 to hit? Adapt. Make use of those options.

Ork BS4 options are Mek gunz (No kulture, no strats, can only take 3 total in 3 separate squads otherwise morale kills them)
Flashgitz (24' heavy weapon so if they move they are right back to 5+ to hit, massively overpriced for their dmg output, still incredibly flimsy defensive wise)
Big Mekz (its an HQ, all its weapons are terrible, SAG is garbage level bad now)
Grots (No kulture, not Obsec, S3 Pistols, 7+ save armor and -1 to attrition tests)
Grot Mega Tank and Grot tanks (Incredibly expensive FW units, slightly better than Ork versions of similar vehicles but still not good)
SJD (limited to 3 per army at most, only counts on its main gun which is assault 2 S8)
Rukkatrukk squigbuggy (Nerfed to hell and back, still only averages 3.5 hits a turn at S5 -2AP 2dmg)
Kannon Wagon: (150pts for 2D6 shots at BS4 S8 -2 3dmg blast....not worth it)

Flamer options are
Burnas: (Over priced, low dmg output, NO DURABILITY)
Skorchas: (Basically heavy flamers, few units can take them and the ones that can generally dont want to do to points constraints)

So there are options, none are competitive, and none will hold up on the tournament scene.

1) You left out Kanz, the Wazbomb, & the Legendary Big Gunz.
2) So, as-is, the army you field is gak against the particular problem you're facing. You've got several units that although flawed do counter it, but you dismiss the options citing their non-competitiveness tourney wise.
Oh no, not that.... I mean, what's going to happen? They''ll preform worse than whatever you're already doing?? At least you'll land a few more shots on the way to your loss.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

I really do wonder why there are so many people who keep parroting up this nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence of it being wrong.

ccs wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

ccs wrote:
Orks have a few BS4 options. And a few flamer options.
So if your regularly facing -1 to hit? Adapt. Make use of those options.

Ork BS4 options are Mek gunz (No kulture, no strats, can only take 3 total in 3 separate squads otherwise morale kills them)
Flashgitz (24' heavy weapon so if they move they are right back to 5+ to hit, massively overpriced for their dmg output, still incredibly flimsy defensive wise)
Big Mekz (its an HQ, all its weapons are terrible, SAG is garbage level bad now)
Grots (No kulture, not Obsec, S3 Pistols, 7+ save armor and -1 to attrition tests)
Grot Mega Tank and Grot tanks (Incredibly expensive FW units, slightly better than Ork versions of similar vehicles but still not good)
SJD (limited to 3 per army at most, only counts on its main gun which is assault 2 S8)
Rukkatrukk squigbuggy (Nerfed to hell and back, still only averages 3.5 hits a turn at S5 -2AP 2dmg)
Kannon Wagon: (150pts for 2D6 shots at BS4 S8 -2 3dmg blast....not worth it)

Flamer options are
Burnas: (Over priced, low dmg output, NO DURABILITY)
Skorchas: (Basically heavy flamers, few units can take them and the ones that can generally dont want to do to points constraints)

So there are options, none are competitive, and none will hold up on the tournament scene.

1) You left out Kanz, the Wazbomb, & the Legendary Big Gunz.
2) So, as-is, the army you field is gak against the particular problem you're facing. You've got several units that although flawed do counter it, but you dismiss the options citing their non-competitiveness tourney wise.
Oh no, not that.... I mean, what's going to happen? They''ll preform worse than whatever you're already doing?? At least you'll land a few more shots on the way to your loss.

Also Flash Gitz are the perfect counter because, once they've moved, they can't be lowered further thanks to the cap of the -1.

Flash Gitz are utterly overcosted though, espectially if they can't hit on 3s reliably, let alone if they're forced to hit on 5s at most.

 Jidmah wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

I really do wonder why there are so many people who keep parroting up this nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence of it being wrong.

Shall i Grab the old ork dex? 4th ed one and it's description of the humble shoota in relation to ork society?
Or is said Poster too far gone?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

I really do wonder why there are so many people who keep parroting up this nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence of it being wrong.

Shall i Grab the old ork dex? 4th ed one and it's description of the humble shoota in relation to ork society?
Or is said Poster too far gone?

Personally, I prefer the part about the war of dakka, when orks pushed back the farsight enclave because they were outgunning them.

that rule is called "Freebootas" lol.

 Jidmah wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?

Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

I really do wonder why there are so many people who keep parroting up this nonsense despite the overwhelming evidence of it being wrong.

"Should" meaning thats not how it currently is

The design studio gave all the Ork gunz extra shots to seemingly balance back to hitting on 5's For example that's why the Rokkit Kannon went from 2D3 to 3D3 and Dakka weaponry increased in shots.

However, I think they totally failed to factor in that certain factions can essentially put -1 to hit onto the entire army meaning against those factions orks can't hit a cows behind with a banjo. If you are the Ork shooty build and you run into Light Saedath you are essentially screwed.

A far more elegant solution from the get go would have been to keep the number of shots roughly as they were and orks always hit on a 5+ (bit like the old Tomb kings rule)

When the ork codex dropped I said it was bad and after GW removed the broken spam buggy list (which no Ork play either wanted or asked for)
Then we got hit with the side effects of the plane restrictions, and more importantly the inability to take multiple clans (which has always been in the lore of Orks) the ork codex is now just a shell of its former self.

Between that and the heavy handed nerfs to things like Beastbosses on Squigosaur with a frankly ridiculous 30 point increase, to the point barely anybody takes them anymore.
I mean compare a 175 point beastboss on Squigosaur to something like Trajan? or a 90 point Farseer. It's a nonsense..

The internal balance of the Ork codex is still a massive problem, half the unit entries are irrelevant. You don't see that as much in the newer codexes.

IMO Orks are now one of the weakest codexes and this will be born out in the coming months when the stats start to equalise.

They need to fix orks but I don't think anybody at the design studio plays them to a competitive level.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
Orks shoot to make noise, not to kill. So, who cares?
Orks are a close combat army, they should win games assaulting, not shooting

I gotta be honest, I'm really sick of this nonsensical line that keeps appearing. Orkz have MORE units that focus either exclusively or primarily on shooting than they do CC options. Orkz in CC right now are...crap. Compare a Meganob to any similar unit from other armies, the meganob loses. Our basic CC infantry are boyz who are so bad that they rarely if ever appear in lists anymore. Our once fearsome Dreadmobz or DeffDreadz, Killakanz and Nautz are currently collecting dust. The only highlight in the ork codex right now are Kommandos who are decent in CC but who just took a 20% nerf.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Question: Is it still the case that special ork guns (thinking lootas, flashgitz, etc.) are pretty cheap for their profiles? I remember being able to look at the cost of a loota vs a dark reaper and sort of see how GW landed on their respective prices with the lootas losing out due to lack of durability and buff support more than baked-in killing power. Wondering if the new 'dex (and in the increased Toughness stat) has further skewed the effectiveness of ork dakka infantry.

Still getting my feet wet with the new eldar book. Are harlequins really all that durable now? I see that they still have a lot of the same durability tricks they did before, but they're also still a T3 army with a (usually) 4+ save. (It just happens to be a 4+ save that doesn't care about AP or light cover.)

Sadly no, GW in the last "balance" patch gave lootas -2ppm which was a very nice little pat on the head for a unit that is literally and I am not exaggerating, THE WORST Auto-cannon unit in the game that has a 9th edition codex. 15ppm for what amounts to an auto-cannon that hits on 5s isn't bad, except that you have to put them in a trukk unless you want them to die turn 1, and even if they do live past turn 1 they won't do much especially with all the "Ignore -1AP" and "-1Dmg" abilities running around right now. Not to even touch on the fact that GW hit them with a 15pt tax for every 4 lootas in the form of the Spanner who is armed cheaply with a big shoota and if equipped with a KMB has more Oomph but is 50% as likely to kill himself as the enemy.

GW gave orkz bad weapon stats for an army that hits on 5s and then exacerbated the problem with their incredibly dumb "Dakka" weapon rule and with giving orkz basically 0 Durability and stratagem support.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm reading from this that Harlequins need fixing, not that ork shooting is suddenly a bust. Most armies have some -1 to hit, internally or externally, including the battlefield. Its when it's on most of the army who also pack decent invulns you're seeing the issue.

Edit: not to say that ork gunlines are fine and a competitive option, I'm just pointing out you're using the most durable, unfriendly and unbalanced units to fire into to make a point.

And Nidz who start the game with basically the entire army at -1 to hit, and custodes who do the same thing etc etc etc. -1 to hit is so prevalent that its absurd that GW wouldn't have baked a rule into the ork codex that we always hit on 5s.

Pickled_egg wrote:
The design studio gave all the Ork gunz extra shots to seemingly balance back to hitting on 5's For example that's why the Rokkit Kannon went from 2D3 to 3D3 and Dakka weaponry increased in shots.

However, I think they totally failed to factor in that certain factions can essentially put -1 to hit onto the entire army meaning against those factions orks can't hit a cows behind with a banjo. If you are the Ork shooty build and you run into Light Saedath you are essentially screwed.

But here is the problem, the Rokkit Kannon went up 1D3 shots or 2 on average. That works out to an average of 0.66 extra hits a turn, against a T7 target thats 0.44 wounds and against a 3+ that works out to 0.88 extra dmg a turn. compare that to Melta weapons that Imperials got, or the D3+3 weapons a lot of factions got, yeah we hit 0.66 more with that weapon, but the dmg only went up a fraction compared to everyone else who went up markedly, and all of that is even before we factor in the -1 to hit which is everywhere now.

Dakka weapons....yeah no, they all suck. The only Dakka weapons I can think of who benefited from that rule are the Supa Shootas on the Dakkajet and the Dakkagunz on the Warbikes. And even then the -1 to hit is just absolutely absurd on them. A Unit of 5 Warbikers, in Dakka range (9') get 50 shots, usually thats 16.6 hits, against -1 to hit it becomes 8.3. Yep, 125pts of Warbikers average 8 hits at S5 no AP 1dmg a turn. Against a Marine profile that works out to 1.85dmg, in other words, they dont even kill a Marine on average with the -1 to hit. Not exactly great that a unit only good at shooting is not even killing a 20pt Marine a turn.

Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

"Better at melee than shooting" doesn't mean "Useless at shooting".

It's fine if a standard Ork list is more melee than shooting, but shooting should 100% be an option.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

"Better at melee than shooting" doesn't mean "Useless at shooting".

It's fine if a standard Ork list is more melee than shooting, but shooting should 100% be an option.

Obviously, i'm just explaining the current state (and the argument that people misinterpret)

So how do you compensate for an army that gets -1 to hit as a subfaction ability? It’s not very enjoyable to have your rules just get negated by another army. I’m not denying something needs to change for the orks but I’d rather see it in a way that doesn’t take away from other armies.

Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

It’s the lore that orks don’t hit as often with their guns as their melee, but they’re just as effective with it. Bolter shells aren’t the size of red bull cans, shoota bullets are, and they come out way faster. Also, ork melee is done by boyz and vanguards of specialists, that’s it really. The horde is backed up by massed shooting and artillery vehicles, has been since the beginning.

It's like people don't know that "Dakka" is an Ork term, and a call for "More Dakka" is a call for more shooting. . .

And Shoota Boyz were downright dangerous to Marines in previous editions.

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

The issue is that people like you keep repeating this nonsense which has absolutely no support in the actual lore. What you are citing is meme headcannon and 1d4chan lore, or you are one of those people who doesn't understand that bad at aiming doesn't mean the same as bad at shooting.

The actual lore is full of examples where orks reduce enemy fleets, cities, fortifications and entire armies to rubble without fighting hand to hand and shows them quite capable to outdo the imperial guard, tau and especially marines in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
So how do you compensate for an army that gets -1 to hit as a subfaction ability? It’s not very enjoyable to have your rules just get negated by another army. I’m not denying something needs to change for the orks but I’d rather see it in a way that doesn’t take away from other armies.

How about your army loses 50% of its shooting as compensation? That isn't taking anything away from you is it?

-1 to hit subfaction traits are a thing which shouldn't exist in a game where an entire army hits on 5+.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm reading from this that Harlequins need fixing, not that ork shooting is suddenly a bust. Most armies have some -1 to hit, internally or externally, including the battlefield. Its when it's on most of the army who also pack decent invulns you're seeing the issue.

Edit: not to say that ork gunlines are fine and a competitive option, I'm just pointing out you're using the most durable, unfriendly and unbalanced units to fire into to make a point.

And Nidz who start the game with basically the entire army at -1 to hit, and custodes who do the same thing etc etc etc. -1 to hit is so prevalent that its absurd that GW wouldn't have baked a rule into the ork codex that we always hit on 5s.

OK, but why? As Jidmah says orks aren't very accurate when shooting, why would they mysteriously be superb yet simultaneously crap marksmen?

Why just orks? There will be other units in the game that hit on 5's.

If you give orks a 4+ are you going to up everyone else's to maintain parity or is the ork stance of more bullets over accuracy no longer part of their fluff?

Stop trying to make orks better and tackle root problem that impacts all armies.

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

It's not like arbitrarily picking one of the four numbers 2,3,4 and 5 is an accurate description of the fluff to begin with.

The number on the datasheet don't have to match the fluff, the unit on the table has to.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

It's not like arbitrarily picking one of the four numbers 2,3,4 and 5 is an accurate description of the fluff to begin with.

The number on the datasheet don't have to match the fluff, the unit on the table has to.

The fluff isn't that Orks hit 50% of the time, they're renown for being inaccurate, so if the other armies are more accurate you need to increase the other armies chance to hit surely? Likewise more shots would actually be a better representation for orks at this point, now that DakkaDakkaDakka has been removed more shots wouldn't result in stupidly long shooting phases.

Potential fixes for more shots:
Dakka weapons get more shots/range (simple)
Dakka weapons get max shots regardless of range if the user doesn't move
Dakka weapons get max shots as long as the user moves at least half their movement and ends up closer to the target unit
Give units ability to advance and fire dakka weapons

All of those would alleviate the pain somewhat and give currently underperforming units a bit of a shot in the arm

@dudeface.
They GAVE orks more shots, they just did so in a very full stupid way for some weapons.
In the same vein that also lead to issues thanks to freebota and planes and certain buggies, which got nerfed to hell for all orks.
Same with rockits which were always assault weapons now are heavy.

Further Orks HAD BF4+ in the past standardised so no you have not really an historic argument either.

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

No, they stay as they are. Tau, guard, eldar, marines, etc... have plenty of cheap/free tools to improve their firepower significantly. Orks don't. Only a single specific klan maybe, but at that point the Freeboota trait can be re-written from scratch.

And the sad part is that multiple armies already fire way more shots than orks. Not to mention combat, they're supposed to be good fighters at least and yet they aren't.

Not Online!!! wrote:@dudeface.
They GAVE orks more shots, they just did so in a very full stupid way for some weapons.
In the same vein that also lead to issues thanks to freebota and planes and certain buggies, which got nerfed to hell for all orks.
Same with rockits which were always assault weapons now are heavy.

Further Orks HAD BF4+ in the past standardised so no you have not really an historic argument either.

See my reply above I edited in some ways around it, but given they've been hitting on 5's base for 6 editions now, I think the weight of evidence is more on that side.

Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

No, they stay as they are. Tau, guard, eldar, marines, etc... have plenty of cheap/free tools to improve their firepower significantly. Orks don't. Only a single specific klan maybe, but at that point the Freeboota trait can be re-written from scratch.

And the sad part is that multiple armies already fire way more shots than orks. Not to mention combat, they're supposed to be good fighters at least and yet they aren't.

No thanks, an army is allowed to be bad/worse at something, that's the point of the identity and character of the army. Orks have always been worse at laying down accurate firepower, they're renown for getting excited and just firing loosely at their opponent while running at them. Why would that be the same accuracy in game as a trained gunline?

Native BS4+ with no to little tools to enhance it IS being bad/worse than all the other BS4+. And not by a small margin.

Tau with all their shenanigans aren't really BS4+. Neither is guard with all their double shooting, etc...

The accuracy of an army is just an abstraction. It doesn't matter if it's achieve by giving them countless shots or preventing them to have access to tools to improve their firepower. Only thing it matters is the average results, not how they are achieved. And number of shots is already inferior to some armies, not to mention that there's a limit on the amount of dice rolling that a human being can bear.

A suggestion I had around when the original Dakka Dakka Dakka rule was rumoured was to make most Ork units hit on a 5+, but with the DDD rule being "This unit can ignore hit penalties when shooting."

That was meant to represent the sheer storm of firepower being laid down-there's so much that you can't properly dodge it or use your fancy hologram technology or whatever. (A similar or the same rule could be used for Blast weapons.)

Grots would not get that rule-they don't get the good gear. But even BS 4+ Meks would, because they're still good ol' proppa Orks.

Also, another poster mentioned that other units hit on a 5+, not just Ork units... To which I say, how many units that hit on a BS 5+ baseline are meant to do damage with? I can't think of any, excepting Ork units.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:@dudeface.
They GAVE orks more shots, they just did so in a very full stupid way for some weapons.
In the same vein that also lead to issues thanks to freebota and planes and certain buggies, which got nerfed to hell for all orks.
Same with rockits which were always assault weapons now are heavy.

Further Orks HAD BF4+ in the past standardised so no you have not really an historic argument either.

See my reply above I edited in some ways around it, but given they've been hitting on 5's base for 6 editions now, I think the weight of evidence is more on that side.

that is not how a historic argument works. Atleast not for gw, else we would get elysians and R&H / corsairs instead of squats.


And sure you "could" do all of the above, or you could make ork shooting imune to circumstance aka always 5+ to represent the bullet storm and balance weapons accordingly instead of having things like freebota make additional shots gained problematic and by extention triggering what i dubbed the slaaneshdoubleshooting syndrom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Also, another poster mentioned that other units hit on a 5+, not just Ork units... To which I say, how many units that hit on a BS 5+ baseline are meant to do damage with? I can't think of any, excepting Ork units.

Standard R&H infantry did in 8th, and it was problematic to say the least.
But that isn't an issue anymore since they ended up in legends and noone runs that list for a multitude of reasons, if said person hasn't already gotten rid of their R&H collection.

 Blackie wrote:
Native BS4+ with no to little tools to enhance it IS being bad/worse than all the other BS4+. And not by a small margin.

Tau with all their shenanigans aren't really BS4+. Neither is guard with all their double shooting, etc...

The accuracy of an army is just an abstraction. It doesn't matter if it's achieve by giving them countless shots or preventing them to have access to tools to improve their firepower. Only thing it matters is the average results, not how they are achieved. And number of shots is already inferior to some armies, not to mention that there's a limit on the amount of dice rolling that a human being can bear.

But again, much like with other armies, this is "everyone else gets good gak and is too overturned, so I want to be too". Maybe guard shouldn't be firing twice, maybe tau shouldn't have easy access for +1 to hit. But I'm sorry, the moment you give more elite stats to a unit to reduce the number of dice rolls, so that you can more easily represent: rolling more dice, then it's gone too far.

BS4 seems like a simple mechanical solution.
Otherwise yes, you are BS5+, but immune to -1 to hit, and a bucket of dice. But that' bucket still isn't seemingly big enough when it comes to Shootas, Lootas and Flash Gitz etc - so lets give them all 5 shots per model.

Its roughly the same as 2 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s, so seems fair. The fact you'll need to pick up 150 dice with 30 shoota boyz is intentional. Get bigger hands.

Tyel wrote:
BS4 seems like a simple mechanical solution.
Otherwise yes, you are BS5+, but immune to -1 to hit, and a bucket of dice. But that' bucket still isn't seemingly big enough when it comes to Shootas, Lootas and Flash Gitz etc - so lets give them all 5 shots per model.

Its roughly the same as 2 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s, so seems fair. The fact you'll need to pick up 150 dice with 30 shoota boyz is intentional. Get bigger hands.

Ok, lets unpack you just compared a 9pt boy to the output of an 18 point marine with HQ support in an attempt to make them equal. I actually wouldn't mind 5 shots inside of 9", because it'd be a challenge getting there.

But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

How many shots does a Bolter fire in a turn?
Shouldn’t it be the same dice, but discard half the hits of you aren’t in Rapid Fire range?
For that matter, how long is a turn, in-game?

The game is ALREADY quite abstracted. This seems an odd hill to die on.

I'd actually be down for more units hitting on 5+. Cultists would be a great example to show they're less trained than Guard and evil Guard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
BS4 seems like a simple mechanical solution.
Otherwise yes, you are BS5+, but immune to -1 to hit, and a bucket of dice. But that' bucket still isn't seemingly big enough when it comes to Shootas, Lootas and Flash Gitz etc - so lets give them all 5 shots per model.

Its roughly the same as 2 shots hitting on 3s rerolling 1s, so seems fair. The fact you'll need to pick up 150 dice with 30 shoota boyz is intentional. Get bigger hands.

Or just that the more specialist units and then Nobs/Bosses can get BS4+.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

How many shots does a Bolter fire in a turn?
Shouldn’t it be the same dice, but discard half the hits of you aren’t in Rapid Fire range?
For that matter, how long is a turn, in-game?

The game is ALREADY quite abstracted. This seems an odd hill to die on.

Lets just have every unit hit on 3's all the time in that case? If we're not trying to ground rules interactions based on the fluff (lots of inaccurate fire in this case), then why bother having any variance at all?

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

How many shots does a Bolter fire in a turn?
Shouldn’t it be the same dice, but discard half the hits of you aren’t in Rapid Fire range?
For that matter, how long is a turn, in-game?

The game is ALREADY quite abstracted. This seems an odd hill to die on.

Lets just have every unit hit on 3's all the time in that case? If we're not trying to ground rules interactions based on the fluff (lots of inaccurate fire in this case), then why bother having any variance at all?

Hyperbole doesn’t help make your point.

Concessions have to be made to keep the game playable-4+ BS on Ork units could be one of them. It’s not necessarily the best way to handle it, but if this is what you makes you go “Too much, doesn’t make sense,” more than anything else… like I said, odd hill to die on.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

How many shots does a Bolter fire in a turn?
Shouldn’t it be the same dice, but discard half the hits of you aren’t in Rapid Fire range?
For that matter, how long is a turn, in-game?

The game is ALREADY quite abstracted. This seems an odd hill to die on.

Lets just have every unit hit on 3's all the time in that case? If we're not trying to ground rules interactions based on the fluff (lots of inaccurate fire in this case), then why bother having any variance at all?

Hyperbole doesn’t help make your point.

Concessions have to be made to keep the game playable-4+ BS on Ork units could be one of them. It’s not necessarily the best way to handle it, but if this is what you makes you go “Too much, doesn’t make sense,” more than anything else… like I said, odd hill to die on.

It's not unplayable with 5+ BS and increasing it isn't the only solution, it's just the quickest and the one that breaks character the most. To be fair I'm also someone who disagreed with daemon engines going up in BS I dislike that some nids are, I aren't a big fan of aynone crying out for their army to hit better in any phase just for the sakes of efficiency either. It might be an obscure hill to die on but I see plenty of people complaining about escalating lethality, power creep etc then immediately discrediting any unit that isn't hitting on a 3+ with buffs a lot of the time.

The d6 system isn't very granular or well defined as it is and we've spent since the dawn of 8th heading to a stat squish where we only use 50% max of the values for hitting stuff because otherwise it's not efficient enough for people.

So what’s your suggestion to help Ork shooting?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So what’s your suggestion to help Ork shooting?

As I put on the last page:

Potential fixes for more shots:
Dakka weapons get more shots/range (simple)
Dakka weapons get max shots regardless of range if the user doesn't move
Dakka weapons get max shots as long as the user moves at least half their movement and ends up closer to the target unit
Give units ability to advance and fire dakka weapons

I'd add "always hit on an unmodified 5+" as an option as well.

Remove dakka as a thing, orks aren’t impacted by hit modifiers, increase number of shots (and ap in a few cases). Shootas being 3 ap 1 shots would make them actually good.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Remove dakka as a thing, orks aren’t impacted by hit modifiers, increase number of shots (and ap in a few cases). Shootas being 3 ap 1 shots would make them actually good.

Assault 3 18" s4 ap-1 d1 and always hit on a 5+ seems reasonable to me

We dont need the "always hits on a 5+" because stacking modifiers no longer exist. You just need to fix the Dakka rule and increase shots.

We do because at 5+ bs anything we have is immediately halved in output by a -1 to it.

 Blackie wrote:


Boyz are one of the few ork units that don't need better shooting. Assuming your 4+/4+ means they get WS4+ and BS4+ that would be a significant nerf rather than a buff. Fighting as "well" as tau or guard? Worse than necrons? Lol. Orks fighting is already a joke due to lack of S and AP in combat.

No, leave the WS as it is. In fact I think some untis should even have better WS. But BS could easily be BS4+ minimum, armywide I mean.

They should be balanced and costed appropriately, but I think it'd be reasonable to give them those accuracy stats. The changes I suggested shouldn't be made in a vacuum.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Again

IN THE LORE orks are better at killing with melee than guns (which are used for their noise).

9th has the codexes follow the lore a lot more than 8th

the problem isnt that ork shooting isnt good enough, its that their melee isnt good enough

The War of Dakka begs to differ. You might have heard of it, it was when an ork WAAAAGH ran into the Tau and were outgunned, so the Ork Warboss said Zog those Grotfondlers and ordered all his mekz to make bigger and better guns and hired loads of Flashgitz and lootas to fight the Tau. Next time they fought the Orkz OUT GUNNED THE TAU. There is a host of more fluff related anecdotes, my favorites are always "Accuracy through Volume" related.

So in the fluff your average ork isn't very accurate, but he makes up for this by using a lot of shots to hit the target. If a Marine hits his target most of the time with a single burst of bolter fire, the ork hits his target most of the time but with 5+ Bursts of fire. The problem is that this isn't reflected in the game to the point where most ork shooting is now garbage, and this has not been the case historically in the game not just the fluff. In 8th the Loota bomb was scary, in 9th we had the freeboota shenanigans before they got nerfed into oblivion by players upset they had to play against competitive orkz. In 4th-7th we had Big Gunz and other tricks that relied on explosives for accuracy, The Killkannon was actually useful back then.

Hecaton wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Orks just need to go back to being BS 4+ base.

This is honestly true. Boyz should be 4+/4+.

If boyz go to WS4+ they would be functionally worse across the board compared to Kroot let alone imperial guard. WS3 is a must, the difference is that WS is a lot harder to utilize than BS and therefore should be discounted somewhat heavily. You can utilize BS from turn 1 onward, WS is usually a Turn 2 at best stat to have.

Dudeface wrote:

OK, but why? As Jidmah says orks aren't very accurate when shooting, why would they mysteriously be superb yet simultaneously crap marksmen?
Why just orks? There will be other units in the game that hit on 5's.
If you give orks a 4+ are you going to up everyone else's to maintain parity or is the ork stance of more bullets over accuracy no longer part of their fluff?
Stop trying to make orks better and tackle root problem that impacts all armies.

That is why I said 5s always hit. Its to simulate the sheer volume of fire hitting targets that are evading or hiding behind holofields/trees etc. I don't think the 4+ is a requirement, but a lot of ork units, even with the 5s always hit rule, would still need their base # of shots heavily increased.

Dudeface wrote:

So the fluff and historically least accurate army becomes 4+, next up in guard & tau going up to 3+, then marines and eldar base 2+, sound good?

Again, not advocating for BS4, but going back into the past, before the memes/shenanigans started, Orkz were BS4. Again though, I think i would prefer more shots and 5s always hit.

Dudeface wrote:

Potential fixes for more shots:
Dakka weapons get more shots/range (simple)

This is honestly a must in my opinion.

Dudeface wrote:
Dakka weapons get max shots regardless of range if the user doesn't move

This is just Rapid Fire, which is already a thing. Honestly no, this would be a bad solution to the problem, especially since as it currently stands a lot of those ranged options still wouldn't be worth much. A 15pt loota getting 3 shots at 5s to hit at 48' wouldn't be bad necessarily but it wouldn't be competitive in the slightest, especially with all the -1Dmg and +1 armor floating around right now.

Dudeface wrote:
Dakka weapons get max shots as long as the user moves at least half their movement and ends up closer to the target unit

Again no, Ork basic movement is 5. So thats 2 inches. A Shoota is Ranged 18, that means you would be out of range to even use the damn thing for the first 2 turns.

Dudeface wrote:
Give units ability to advance and fire dakka weapons

This is also a weapon type already, Assault. And its what most Ork weapons USED TO BE! Before some idiot at GW tried to write orkz and is an incompetent muppet who doesn't understand the army. Assault 1 Rokkitz are AS GOOD as Heavy 3 rokkitz, especially with the blast keyword introduced.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We dont need the "always hits on a 5+" because stacking modifiers no longer exist. You just need to fix the Dakka rule and increase shots.

As someone who plays orkz, an army which predominantly hits on 5s...Yes, yes we do need something like this. Go ahead and buff shots and not fix this issue and see what happens. Against an army without -1 to hit a rokkit which gets 5 shots is going to be broken, where as against that -1 to hit army its not nearly as bad. The easy/simplest solution is to always hit on 5s so that already anemic ork shooting isn't even worse.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
So how do you compensate for an army that gets -1 to hit as a subfaction ability? It’s not very enjoyable to have your rules just get negated by another army. I’m not denying something needs to change for the orks but I’d rather see it in a way that doesn’t take away from other armies.

You don't compensate them Why? Because its not enjoyable at all to play a faction that loses 50% of its shooting capacity against a certain sub faction or against an army heavily using -1 to hit auras/abilities.

I'll put it to you this way, If i take a loota squad of 12 (3 spanners with KMB) if they are all within half range I get 36 shots and 3 KMB shots. Against your -1 to hit army that works out to 6 hits at S7 -1AP 2dmg and 0.5 hits with S8 -3AP D6 dmg shots. Against a T6 4+ invuln vehicle (Voidweaver) thats a 240pt unit putting out 6 hits, 4 wounds and 4 dmg while the KMB does 0.33 wounds and 0.16 failed saves for 0.58dmg on average. So a 240pt unit fails to kill a 90pt vehicle at -1 to hit. Also, those KMBs have a better chance to kill themselves than the enemy. 1s kill you instantly a 6 generates a hit which has a 66% to wound and a 33% chance to go through the invuln.

Army wide -1 to hit is just stupid to begin with, and the sheer amount on the table right now is ludicrous.

SemperMortis wrote:


You don't compensate them Why? Because its not enjoyable at all to play a faction that loses 50% of its shooting capacity against a certain sub faction or against an army heavily using -1 to hit auras/abilities.

I'll put it to you this way, If i take a loota squad of 12 (3 spanners with KMB) if they are all within half range I get 36 shots and 3 KMB shots. Against your -1 to hit army that works out to 6 hits at S7 -1AP 2dmg and 0.5 hits with S8 -3AP D6 dmg shots. Against a T6 4+ invuln vehicle (Voidweaver) thats a 240pt unit putting out 6 hits, 4 wounds and 4 dmg while the KMB does 0.33 wounds and 0.16 failed saves for 0.58dmg on average. So a 240pt unit fails to kill a 90pt vehicle at -1 to hit. Also, those KMBs have a better chance to kill themselves than the enemy. 1s kill you instantly a 6 generates a hit which has a 66% to wound and a 33% chance to go through the invuln.

Army wide -1 to hit is just stupid to begin with, and the sheer amount on the table right now is ludicrous.

It’s almost like voidweavers are a unit that are currently a massive issue in the game that everyone is struggling with. If your entire argument is a unit can’t body the most meta choices, you might want to rethink your approach to game balance. A 265 point land raider produces a whopping 3.3 damage. 4 lascannon havoks produce 2.333. Those are both dedicated AT platforms that bounce off it too.

Would you take always hitting on 5+ in exchange for your kulture bonus? It might be a bit more fair if you essentially make both sides go without their subfaction rules. Frankly trying to make a balanced game by invalidating other armies rules doesn’t seem like a good plan. Unless of course you only care about buffing your own armies.

Considering that several armies only get -1 to hit at 12” or greater in range, I don’t think you would have a problem avoiding those rules. For that matter what about the -1 to hit psychic powers? Sucks for anyone that chose those I guess?

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
It’s almost like voidweavers are a unit that are currently a massive issue in the game that everyone is struggling with. If your entire argument is a unit can’t body the most meta choices, you might want to rethink your approach to game balance. A 265 point land raider produces a whopping 3.3 damage. 4 lascannon havoks produce 2.333. Those are both dedicated AT platforms that bounce off it too.

Just because of the nature of the X-Weaver defensive profile, low-accuracy weapons of all types suffer, and low-shot, high-damage weapons suffer to a certain degree because of the invulnerable saves. What you want, point-for-point, is accurate high-volume fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So do y'all think that the reflexive Ork nerf was in part because of a segment of the competitive community who played Drukhari or whatever who didn't want anything else to compete with the, and then GW listened?

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

Well in the fiction orks are great fighters, yet in the game they hit like wet noodles.

In the fiction orks poor aim is compensated by them firing tons of shots. And yet on the tables multiple armies have much higher rate of fire.

In the fiction space marines are extremely rare superhumans, on the table they're not as elite (and expensive in points) as their lore suggests, etc...

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

Hitting 15 times with 30 shots at BS4+ matches the lore just as much as hitting 15 times with 45 shots at BS5+ does. The only real difference is that you run into less of disconnected statistics issues, like smoke grenades being vastly more effective against ork lootas who supposedly weren't aiming to begin with than against a marine eliminators who are trying to make every shot count.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

Hitting 15 times with 30 shots at BS4+ matches the lore just as much as hitting 15 times with 45 shots at BS5+ does. The only real difference is that you run into less of disconnected statistics issues, like smoke grenades being vastly more effective against ork lootas who supposedly weren't aiming to begin with than against a marine eliminators who are trying to make every shot count.

Then change it so they hit 15 times with 45 shots at a 5+ that can't be modified, it even makes rokkits more useful then.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
But why increasing the number of shots instead of the BS to accomplish the same result, only slower?

Because I'd like my fictional game to adhere to fiction somewhat rather than being an utterly disconnected statistic game.

Well in the fiction orks are great fighters, yet in the game they hit like wet noodles.

In the fiction orks poor aim is compensated by them firing tons of shots. And yet on the tables multiple armies have much higher rate of fire.

In the fiction space marines are extremely rare superhumans, on the table they're not as elite (and expensive in points) as their lore suggests, etc...

I agree, they need more punch back in melee, not that they're bad per se as it is now, the rest of the game hass just gone nuts around them. Other armies need dialling back, not orks shifting up a gear, it's the same lethality spiral people complain about constantly then beg for offensive buffs.

Regards the elite superhuman marines, careful with that one it almost sounds like you'd like them buffed and repriced accordingly which will go down like a lead balloon despite being a valid point.

Dudeface wrote:
Then change it so they hit 15 times with 45 shots at a 5+ that can't be modified, it even makes rokkits more useful then.

You have not provided a single reason to do so. Ignoring game mechanics is always bad for the game, see earlier complaints about orks invalidating defensive mechanisms of certain armies.

Codices and novels do not state that orks always hit precisely one third of their shots instead of half, neither do they state that all members of an entire race have the exact same chance at hitting stuff, nor does the fluff explicitly state that orks dedicated to shooting can't shoot as well as a disorganized unit of guardsmen.

Ballistic skill, just like the number of shots of a gun or the number of wounds a model has, is an entirely abstract and artificial property and you cannot justify any specific value by using the background.

On topic, I would love to get the old "Moar Dakka!" stratagem back, it allowed you to tackle one hard to hit unit per turn, at a price.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Then change it so they hit 15 times with 45 shots at a 5+ that can't be modified, it even makes rokkits more useful then.

You have not provided a single reason to do so. Ignoring game mechanics is always bad for the game, see earlier complaints about orks invalidating defensive mechanisms of certain armies.

Codices and novels do not state that orks always hit precisely one third of their shots instead of half, neither do they state that all members of an entire race have the exact same chance at hitting stuff, nor does the fluff explicitly state that orks dedicated to shooting can't shoot as well as a disorganized unit of guardsmen.

Ballistic skill, just like the number of shots of a gun or the number of wounds a model has, is an entirely abstract and artificial property and you cannot justify any specific value by using the background.

On topic, I would love to get the old "Moar Dakka!" stratagem back, it allowed you to tackle one hard to hit unit per turn, at a price.

They covered the lack of accuracy more in older books:

3rd ed:

The deafening clamour of a mob of Shoota Boyz opening fire is legendary. Each Ork will try to outdo his neighbour by letting fly with the most ammo and loudest gun. Hitting the target is less of an objective than terrorising the enemy!

4th ed:

Shoota Boyz form roving mobs that are continually on the lookout for something to kill, gleefully firing ear splitting fusillades of bullets whenever they see something moving up ahead. Though each shoota boy loves firing his sturdily constructed weapon, he often has more success when using his shoota to bash out the brains of his target

There are a lot of novels that repeatedly describe orks just firing for the sakes of it without hitting much, not got passages to hand but the battle for armageddon has plenty, the Cain series as well. Generally speaking all the fluff evidence points to less than 50% accuracy.

I agree just ignoring core rules isn't great, but artificially boosting stats to compensate for game/army wide mechanics is worse.

I'd also argue you can't provide me a reasonable reason for giving them BS4+ beyond "it negates -1 to hit". Provide me with evidence of Orks being at least as accurate as gaurdsmen. Conversely there are passages that orks believe that a noisier gun is more likely to hit and so it does, which would explain the ability to ignore the hit modifiers.

Bonus pass for 9th ed as they've scaled back on the "ork accuracy is bad" to simply not commenting it is the description on the Smoky Gubbinz: "but has little detriment on the Orks’ own accuracy, which often owes more to guesswork than to aiming at the best of times".

And of course the caption text for Dakka! Dakka! Dakka!: "Nothing aids accuracy like the simple expedient of firing so many shots that you just can’t miss." - sounds like they should fire less and hit more.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:

It’s almost like voidweavers are a unit that are currently a massive issue in the game that everyone is struggling with. If your entire argument is a unit can’t body the most meta choices, you might want to rethink your approach to game balance. A 265 point land raider produces a whopping 3.3 damage. 4 lascannon havoks produce 2.333. Those are both dedicated AT platforms that bounce off it too.

Its almost like I chose a random unit to prove the point but I could just as easily have gone with a host of other units to prove the exact same point if you really want to be pedantic about it. Almost the entirety of the Harlequins codex has -1 to hit, Custodes start the game under their banner and with the exception of the bikers, usually spend most of the game underneath it for -1 to hit, they also all have 4+ invulns as well. Nidz have -1 to hit in spades and their biggest targets all have invulns, -1dmg and a FNP. I can keep going if you really want to make the -1 to hit the hill you want to die on. The point which you tried to gloss over was that -1 to hit on an army wide, detachment wide or aura wide basis is a bad design mechanic in a game which has the majority of a faction hitting on 5s. -1 to hit against a custards player is a drop off of 20% efficiency, against Orkz its 50%. That is why its a bad design mechanic and that is why orkz need to either become BS4 base or have their old rule which was given to EVERYONE (6s always hit) turned back on again, but now its 5s always hit for them. If you don't think an entire faction losing 50% efficiency against an army is a bad game design, than you don't care about balance in the slightest and just want to play an easy mode game where you always win.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Would you take always hitting on 5+ in exchange for your kulture bonus? It might be a bit more fair if you essentially make both sides go without their subfaction rules. Frankly trying to make a balanced game by invalidating other armies rules doesn’t seem like a good plan. Unless of course you only care about buffing your own armies.

Harlequins -1 to hit almost army wide is not a faction/kulture bonus, its just in their individual unit rules. Custards almost army wide -1 to hit is a buff from a specific unit, nidz have it from specific unit, again, I can keep going if you really want to be pedantic, the point being that armies utilizing -1 en mass aren't using it as a faction/kulture whatever bonus exclusively. For a lot of them its just an extra rule they get from taking a unit, relic, item etc.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Considering that several armies only get -1 to hit at 12” or greater in range, I don’t think you would have a problem avoiding those rules. For that matter what about the -1 to hit psychic powers? Sucks for anyone that chose those I guess?

Yes, my ranged units, sitting in my deployment zone would have no problem being within 12' of an enemy unit in their deployment zone....Can't tell if you are serious or just trying to troll me at this point.

But lets address the key point you are attempting to make "its unfair that armies invalidate rules!" What if i run into an army using units with "ignore first -1AP" en-mass? is it wrong because my choppas are all -1AP and therefore its unfair and the game is broken and nobody cares about fairness? Nope, its just part of the game and you learn to live with it, plus ignoring -1AP isn't that big of a deal. What about Crusher Stampede which basically turns D2 weapons into D1 weapons? I can also keep going with this because its the same mindset, yeah it sucks but its part of the game. The problem is that a -1 to hit which is used almost army wide has a 50% reduction in ranged dmg output on the ork faction and that is just too much of a loss to those units to have any impact on the game. My last GT I brought 450pts of Deffkoptas which for almost the entirety of the event, were hitting on 6s. Even before anything happened on the table my 450pts were basically reduced in efficiency to that of a 225pt unit, so before a single die was cast I had already lost 225pts just in those deffkoptas. My Warbikers also lost 50% of their shooting for the majority of the event so there went another 175pts. So in effect, i started the game at 1600pts because so many other factions reduced my shooting by 50% it was ridiculous. In the case of the deffkoptas, they at least are OK in CC, the bikers suck there as well.

So is it fair/fun for me to start the game knowing I've functionally already lost 400pts of shooting? But that is ok right, because its a faction/kulture rule...sometimes, and therefore its part of the game and you just have to accept the auto-loss that it entails.

Hecaton wrote:

So do y'all think that the reflexive Ork nerf was in part because of a segment of the competitive community who played Drukhari or whatever who didn't want anything else to compete with the, and then GW listened?

Honestly? Yes. Anytime orkz have anything that reaches the competitive level it inevitably gets nerfed hard. Sometimes, non-competitive things which the community gets scared about get nerfed as well.

8th Edition: Loota Bomb. 15 lootas combine with 10 Lootas (1CP) they are then shielded by 90-120 grots using grot shields (1CP) they then get 5s and 6s grant extra shots (2CP) and then they shoot twice (3CP) and when rolling for # of shots if its a 1 or a 2 they re-roll it (1CP) All of that combined for 100 shots on average and about 45ish hits a turn At S7-1AP 2Dmg. Was it broken? honestly no, it was horrendously expensive and it was a one trick gimmick. You are talking about 270-360pts of grots shielding 500ish points of lootas and you are burning through 7-8CP a turn so you only got to do this once maybe twice before you ran out of CP. But it scared the top meta players, so what did GW do? got rid of the "Mob Up" stratagem so it only effected Boyz. or to put it another way, made it functionally useless.

Boyz Spam: end of 8th the only competitive way to run Orkz was to flood the table with cheap bodies and hope you lived long enough to cap enough primary points to win, you could also use Endless Green Tide strat to bring back up to 29 boyz once a game. This worked thanks to the huge number of buffs boyz had access to. Warboss gave Advance/Charge, Ghaz gave +1 attack and reroll hits, Painboy gave 6+FNP to huge #s of boyz, Big Mek with KFF gave big swathes of your mob a 5+ invuln save, Weirdboy getting +3 on casts from being near the boyz, casting Da Jump, Warpath (+1 attack on 30 boyz) and Fist of Gork (+2 attacks/Strength on characters) every turn as well as smites. They also had other strats like fight twice and fight on death which made them fairly good in CC, especially since most of the mobz were buffed to be S5 with a pre-game strat.

As to what happened to boyz spam.... Yeah, since 9th dropped most lists don't even take boyz let alone a green tide. Last week the meta roundup showed that only 1 ork infantry made an appearance out of 3 ork lists that placed in the top 10 at events. Weirdboyz got nerfed, KFF got nerfed hard, Painboy is too expensive and without huge mobz doesn't do much, Boyz got a huge price increase, Mob Rule got nerfed to death so that boyz are now running away more than ever, Ere We Go got nerfed etc etc etc. Point being that so many complained that they dramatically over-corrected so that boyz went from borderline competitive when leaned into hard core to being useless.

And into 9th. Buggy spam, it lasted literally weeks before GW pushed an emergency patch out to nerf orkz specifically, which was itself hilarious since Drukhari and Ad-Mech were still running away with tournament wins while orkz were just competing with them, definitely not dominating.

Kommandos were seen as too good, so GW hit them with a 20% price increase, The Beastboss on Squig which wasn't even making regular appearances in any list let alone top performing lists was hit with a 35pt price increase, not because it was OP but because so many complained about it thinking it was OP.

Compare the above mentioned nerfs to Ad-Mech in just 9th. You had Chickenwalkers making appearances in every Ad-Mech list that placed well, they were clearly OP at 60pts or whatever they were with 2 D3+3 Lascannons hitting on 3s (2s for a turn), so what did GW do? First nerf they took away Core, when that did nothing they hit them with a 10pt price hike in the 2nd Nerf. They are still appearing regularly in lists. Or you could compare them to my favorite nerf which was Drukhari. Incubi in their transports are OP! So we are going to increase Incubi points by 10pts! also, the transport is dropping 10pts....

Dudeface wrote:
I'd also argue you can't provide me a reasonable reason for giving them BS4+ beyond "it negates -1 to hit".

You just handwaved the exact problem which has been the topic of this thread. Fixing the huge problems related to -1 to hit which has become a core mechanic of the game for the last two edition is more than enough of a reason for that change.
Note that most people here want to mitigate -1 to hit, not to negate it. You are the one who wants to completely negate it. Most ork players here are fine with simply not having their shooting completely crippled.

Provide me with evidence of Orks being at least as accurate as gaurdsmen. Conversely there are passages that orks believe that a noisier gun is more likely to hit and so it does, which would explain the ability to ignore the hit modifiers.

Do you even understand what "abstraction" is? There are sources which say that orks fire 10 rounds for every shot a marine makes, and yet shootas somehow aren't dakka 15/10.
You also should have realized that the dakka type itself is a representation of orks being worse at aiming than other races firing regular rapid fire weapons.

To summarize your highly flawed argument:
1) Ork ballistic skill absolutely has to be 5+ because every shoota shoots exactly twice and will hit exactly one third of those shots, according to the lore. Hitting 16.66% more shots is completely unacceptable and not supported by the background in any way.
2) You would rather introduce a game-breaking mechanic than change an arbitrarily chosen number, because you feel like every single number on a datasheet has to be an exact representation of the lore.
3) What matters is that the numbers in the column "ballistic skill" is the right one, not that units perform according to the lore on the tabletop.

Considering how you insist on those absolutes which I all consider to complete nonsense, there is nothing left to discuss.

Buggies got nerfed for much the reason Voidweavers are going to get nerfed. The professional scene hate it when "mathhammer lists" start winning tournaments.

Cynically I feel this is partly real concern with the game and partly ego. 40k can be (indeed is) a skillful game of trading units, keeping stuff back, using various movement abilities (that may be gimmicky but do need to be mastered) to get around the table, control objectives and your opponent etc.

That always disappears when someone can just rock up with a list - and a load of squigbuggies/scrapjets and flyers qualified - and just roll well to destroy anything. You don't need to be especially good to crush people with 9 voidweavers today - just somehow get hold of them and not roll abysmally.

The second that Ork list at the final of So Cal killed 1800 points on turn 1 they were doomed (and there were similar blowouts). Ad Mech had earned the same with similar performances a few weeks earlier. The forums, blogs and videos go crazy, and GW (eventually) is prodded into action.

Quite why they also nerfed all the beast snagga stuff is less clear.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'd also argue you can't provide me a reasonable reason for giving them BS4+ beyond "it negates -1 to hit".

You just handwaved the exact problem which has been the topic of this thread. Fixing the huge problems related to -1 to hit which has become a core mechanic of the game for the last two edition is more than enough of a reason for that change.
Note that most people here want to mitigate -1 to hit, not to negate it. You are the one who wants to completely negate it. Most ork players here are fine with simply not having their shooting completely crippled.

Provide me with evidence of Orks being at least as accurate as gaurdsmen. Conversely there are passages that orks believe that a noisier gun is more likely to hit and so it does, which would explain the ability to ignore the hit modifiers.

Do you even understand what "abstraction" is? There are sources which say that orks fire 10 rounds for every shot a marine makes, and yet shootas somehow aren't dakka 15/10.
You also should have realized that the dakka type itself is a representation of orks being worse at aiming than other races firing regular rapid fire weapons.

To summarize your highly flawed argument:
1) Ork ballistic skill absolutely has to be 5+ because every shoota shoots exactly twice and will hit exactly one third of those shots, according to the lore. Hitting 16.66% more shots is completely unacceptable and not supported by the background in any way.
2) You would rather introduce a game-breaking mechanic than change an arbitrarily chosen number, because you feel like every single number on a datasheet has to be an exact representation of the lore.
3) What matters is that the numbers in the column "ballistic skill" is the right one, not that units perform according to the lore on the tabletop.

Considering how you insist on those absolutes which I all consider to complete nonsense, there is nothing left to discuss.

OK, you wish to mitigate a -1 to hit, you increase bs to 4+ arbitrarily, you play against my army which have no -1 to hit. You've just gained 50% more hits to mitigate something I don't have. How is that a fair or eloquent solution?

I understand perfectly fine what an abstraction is, you know what else is an abstraction? The need to hit at all to some degree, 15 hits can be accomplished by 45 shots at 5+, 30 at 4+ or 15 at auto hitting.

The fluff does not state how many rounds if fire compared to a bolter, they do not give rates of fire or accuracy. They consistently state that Orks are bad at aiming and hit by virtue of rate of fire. BS is a direct correlation of a units ability to shoot.

BS: this shows how accurate a unit is when shooting ranged weapons

- 9th ed core rules

If you increase their chances to hit you're breaking their fluff and you're skewing against armies that don't have -1 to hit anywhere. The number in that column is the units ability to perform according to the lore on the tabletop.

SemperMortis wrote:

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:

It’s almost like voidweavers are a unit that are currently a massive issue in the game that everyone is struggling with. If your entire argument is a unit can’t body the most meta choices, you might want to rethink your approach to game balance. A 265 point land raider produces a whopping 3.3 damage. 4 lascannon havoks produce 2.333. Those are both dedicated AT platforms that bounce off it too.

Its almost like I chose a random unit to prove the point but I could just as easily have gone with a host of other units to prove the exact same point if you really want to be pedantic about it. Almost the entirety of the Harlequins codex has -1 to hit, Custodes start the game under their banner and with the exception of the bikers, usually spend most of the game underneath it for -1 to hit, they also all have 4+ invulns as well. Nidz have -1 to hit in spades and their biggest targets all have invulns, -1dmg and a FNP. I can keep going if you really want to make the -1 to hit the hill you want to die on. The point which you tried to gloss over was that -1 to hit on an army wide, detachment wide or aura wide basis is a bad design mechanic in a game which has the majority of a faction hitting on 5s. -1 to hit against a custards player is a drop off of 20% efficiency, against Orkz its 50%. That is why its a bad design mechanic and that is why orkz need to either become BS4 base or have their old rule which was given to EVERYONE (6s always hit) turned back on again, but now its 5s always hit for them. If you don't think an entire faction losing 50% efficiency against an army is a bad game design, than you don't care about balance in the slightest and just want to play an easy mode game where you always win.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Would you take always hitting on 5+ in exchange for your kulture bonus? It might be a bit more fair if you essentially make both sides go without their subfaction rules. Frankly trying to make a balanced game by invalidating other armies rules doesn’t seem like a good plan. Unless of course you only care about buffing your own armies.

Harlequins -1 to hit almost army wide is not a faction/kulture bonus, its just in their individual unit rules. Custards almost army wide -1 to hit is a buff from a specific unit, nidz have it from specific unit, again, I can keep going if you really want to be pedantic, the point being that armies utilizing -1 en mass aren't using it as a faction/kulture whatever bonus exclusively. For a lot of them its just an extra rule they get from taking a unit, relic, item etc.

 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
Considering that several armies only get -1 to hit at 12” or greater in range, I don’t think you would have a problem avoiding those rules. For that matter what about the -1 to hit psychic powers? Sucks for anyone that chose those I guess?

Yes, my ranged units, sitting in my deployment zone would have no problem being within 12' of an enemy unit in their deployment zone....Can't tell if you are serious or just trying to troll me at this point.

But lets address the key point you are attempting to make "its unfair that armies invalidate rules!" What if i run into an army using units with "ignore first -1AP" en-mass? is it wrong because my choppas are all -1AP and therefore its unfair and the game is broken and nobody cares about fairness? Nope, its just part of the game and you learn to live with it, plus ignoring -1AP isn't that big of a deal. What about Crusher Stampede which basically turns D2 weapons into D1 weapons? I can also keep going with this because its the same mindset, yeah it sucks but its part of the game. The problem is that a -1 to hit which is used almost army wide has a 50% reduction in ranged dmg output on the ork faction and that is just too much of a loss to those units to have any impact on the game. My last GT I brought 450pts of Deffkoptas which for almost the entirety of the event, were hitting on 6s. Even before anything happened on the table my 450pts were basically reduced in efficiency to that of a 225pt unit, so before a single die was cast I had already lost 225pts just in those deffkoptas. My Warbikers also lost 50% of their shooting for the majority of the event so there went another 175pts. So in effect, i started the game at 1600pts because so many other factions reduced my shooting by 50% it was ridiculous. In the case of the deffkoptas, they at least are OK in CC, the bikers suck there as well.

So is it fair/fun for me to start the game knowing I've functionally already lost 400pts of shooting? But that is ok right, because its a faction/kulture rule...sometimes, and therefore its part of the game and you just have to accept the auto-loss that it entails.

Is it fun for you? Doesn't sound like you had fun....

Is it fair? Yes.
YOU chose to take your bs5 Orks into an environment you knew would be filled with this -1 to hit rule. You knew your odds of facing that were really high and that you'd have no option (short of dropping out) to avoid it. You knew you'd be playing with a significant handicap & you knew you wouldn't enjoy the resulting losses. And yet you chose to do this anyways.

CCS, what other options do Ork players have?

-1 to-hit isn't something only cutting-edge tourney lists have. It's all over the place. So, unless your advice is "Change factions" what should an Ork player do?

 JNAProductions wrote:
CCS, what other options do Ork players have?

-1 to-hit isn't something only cutting-edge tourney lists have. It's all over the place. So, unless your advice is "Change factions" what should an Ork player do?

Accept they'll hit on 6s into a -1 to hit and use their armies melee strengths where possible instead.

In fact you can take the previous statement and replace orks with any army. It's weird that this wasn't a complaint in 8th though given they hit with the same %.

 JNAProductions wrote:
CCS, what other options do Ork players have?

-1 to-hit isn't something only cutting-edge tourney lists have. It's all over the place. So, unless your advice is "Change factions" what should an Ork player do?

Pick those 4+ units and freebota?
Except that ain't working considering pricetag and unit design on kanz and posaz and meks. And mekgunz will have been gunz if you go over 3 due to morale sooo , basically there is not much you can do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


Accept they'll hit on 6s into a -1 to hit and use their armies melee strengths where possible instead.

In fact you can take the previous statement and replace orks with any army. It's weird that this wasn't a complaint in 8th though given they hit with the same %.

It actually was a complaint by r&h players aswell and melee strength of orks is on a majority of units very much even more lackluster than shooting.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Then change it so they hit 15 times with 45 shots at a 5+ that can't be modified, it even makes rokkits more useful then.

You have not provided a single reason to do so. Ignoring game mechanics is always bad for the game, see earlier complaints about orks invalidating defensive mechanisms of certain armies.

Codices and novels do not state that orks always hit precisely one third of their shots instead of half, neither do they state that all members of an entire race have the exact same chance at hitting stuff, nor does the fluff explicitly state that orks dedicated to shooting can't shoot as well as a disorganized unit of guardsmen.

Ballistic skill, just like the number of shots of a gun or the number of wounds a model has, is an entirely abstract and artificial property and you cannot justify any specific value by using the background.

On topic, I would love to get the old "Moar Dakka!" stratagem back, it allowed you to tackle one hard to hit unit per turn, at a price.

I agree. The argument that Orks can't be BS4+ for fluff reasons is an odd hill to die on. We already have veteran Guardsmen with space-ironsights shooting at the same accuracy as century-old genetically-enhanced Space Marines with computerized targeting.

When we roll dice we're not measuring whether individual bullets hit, we're checking whether the fire produced effective results. Two shots at 4+ could be a Guardsman making a quick burst of aimed semi-auto fire where we want to know whether none, some, or all of it was effective; or it could just as easily be an Ork cutting full cyclic with his Shoota and we're determining whether none, some, or a lot of it hit.

And from a design perspective, the main reason you'd use more shots at lower chance to hit is if you want Orks to be disproportionately impacted by penalties to hit.

So, yeah, if the main problem is that Ork shooting is disproportionately harmed by accuracy penalties, then making them BS4+ makes sense. If that bothers someone, but not the fact that their Orks are just as likely to hit a Titan right in front of them as a Ratling at maximum range, then there's some serious picking-and-choosing about fluff accuracy going on.

It's OK, some may say I've died on this hill already, may my corpse be long forgotten in warhammer 40,000 10th edition, introducing the d4 to hit because we don't need granularity and everything dies faster again because we just start popping the numbers up in columns.

Personally as a quick and simple band-aid, I would make two changes. Bear in mind these wouldn't automatically fix everything but would be a step in the right direction IMO.

Dakka weapons become Assault weapons, with a second number of shots, effectively becoming combinations of assault and rapid fire weapons. So for example a Big Shoota would be Assault 3 (6), can be fired while advancing and you can charge afterward.

Orks then gain a universal rule (not Gretchin)
Dakka Dakka Dakka - Orks always hit on an unmodified roll of a 5+ in the shooting phase.

So our shooting is still relying on overwhelming quantity of shots over quality, but we at least know that we don't care about -1s.


We then need to go through and sort out AP values across the board, but that's a separate issue.

People raised concerns that "getting rid of an army's mechanics" is a bad thing for the game, but then you have armies going about that are fast, hit like a truck and you can't shoot them back. Armies that are absolutely decimating the concept of balance in 40k. Which is far, far worse for the game than orks being able to compete in the shooting phase.

ccs wrote:

YOU chose to take your bs5 Orks into an environment you knew would be filled with this -1 to hit rule. You knew your odds of facing that were really high and that you'd have no option (short of dropping out) to avoid it. You knew you'd be playing with a significant handicap & you knew you wouldn't enjoy the resulting losses. And yet you chose to do this anyways.

I chose about 2 decades ago to play orkz. I don't have a 2nd army and have no intention of getting a 2nd army. I like collecting orkz and as such i'll not be happy until my WAAAGH is the biggest in the world. With that said, I knew I would be running into these armies, I literally had nationally ranked players apologize in advance because GW is incompetent at writing rules for Orkz and that all my shooting would be functionally useless for most of the game. As far as Enjoying the losses...Dude I had a blast at the event, but I went in knowing full well I had no chance against the top lists, and that was even before harlequins dropped. It would just be nice to actually have a chance at winning as opposed to knowing full well i'll have to settle for middle of the pack at absolute best.

Dudeface wrote:

Accept they'll hit on 6s into a -1 to hit and use their armies melee strengths where possible instead.

In fact you can take the previous statement and replace orks with any army. It's weird that this wasn't a complaint in 8th though given they hit with the same %.

Orkz are currently .... terrible at Melee. A unit of Kommandos, arguably our best melee infantry right now, at 150pts vs 150pts of Sag custodes. Who wins? If the Sags swing first they do (without any buffs/katahs etc) 12 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds for 5 dead Orkz. If the Kommandos swing first, they get 33 attacks, 22 hits, 7.3 wounds and do 2.4dmg, the Nob with PK swings and gets 3 attacks, 1.5 hits 1.25 wounds and 1.25dmg so finishes off the wounded Custard. Kommandos fail morale at -5 (can only pass on a 1-2) lose 1 more, and then another 1 to Attrition. So all told the 12 Kommandos (150ish pts) are down to 5 or 41% strength, the Custards are at 66% strength.

And those Sag custards are definitely not a melee oriented unit. Their primary weapon is the Bolt Caliver which is basically an assault 3 heavy bolter with a 2nd firing mode which is Assault 1 S5 -3 3dmg and it can use both at the same time.

So when you say "use their armies melee strengths" ...we don't have much. Also, in 8th it was such a complaint that they literally gave Orkz a special rule which said they always hit on 6s, because the game was so bad for ork shooting that they literally couldn't even shoot.

Tyel wrote:
Buggies got nerfed for much the reason Voidweavers are going to get nerfed. The professional scene hate it when "mathhammer lists" start winning tournaments.
Cynically I feel this is partly real concern with the game and partly ego. 40k can be (indeed is) a skillful game of trading units, keeping stuff back, using various movement abilities (that may be gimmicky but do need to be mastered) to get around the table, control objectives and your opponent etc.
That always disappears when someone can just rock up with a list - and a load of squigbuggies/scrapjets and flyers qualified - and just roll well to destroy anything. You don't need to be especially good to crush people with 9 voidweavers today - just somehow get hold of them and not roll abysmally.
The second that Ork list at the final of So Cal killed 1800 points on turn 1 they were doomed (and there were similar blowouts). Ad Mech had earned the same with similar performances a few weeks earlier. The forums, blogs and videos go crazy, and GW (eventually) is prodded into action.
Quite why they also nerfed all the beast snagga stuff is less clear.

Again, buggies weren't even OP in the meta in which they existed, which is proven by their Win/Loss ratio, their top 4 placing ratio, the lack of top players moving to Orkz etc. What buggies were though is a competitive shooting ork army that caused more than a fair few Tournament players to lose their minds because they have played the majority of their lives with Orkz being the NPC, easy win army. So whenever orkz get a competitive build, they lose their minds and scream NERF! The irony is that when orkz are "OP" they usually aren't its just that they are being piloted by lunatics like myself who have played orkz and only orkz for decades and know the ins and outs of their tactics, strengths and weaknesses to the point where when we are given a competitive codex, we tend to over perform, but when those top tier meta chasing players try, they tend to under perform (Nick Nanavati at LVO for example).

The So Cal list was abusive to a degree with their placement of Aircraft i'll give you that, but the fact remains that the DE player bum rushed forward and proceeded to FAIL his charges, which left his entire army exposed turn 1. He admitted after the fact that he did so because he only had a few blasters in the entire list and was completely un-equipped to deal with a Buggy list due to Ramshackle.

As far as Snagga stuff getting nerfed, again, its perception is reality when it comes to Orkz. A lot of tournament meta players and podcasters PERCEIVED ork beastsnaggas to be OP, so therefore they were OP. It doesn't matter that the tournament data proved otherwise, it didn't matter nobody was taking the named beastboss on squigosaur let alone the regular one. They were PERCEIVED as being OP and therefore they had to die. I was trying to find it, but there was a youtube video review of the Beastboss on squigosaur and Mozrog skragbad by this one guy and it was hilarious because he kept losing his cool about "HOW OP" the models were...boy was he wrong.

Orks are competent at melee.

11 Kommandoz plus Grot v Sags

Kommandos kill one 50% of the time,2 @ 32%, and 3 @ 5%. ( without the grot and one extra komando it is 1 @ 55%, 2 @ 19%, and 3 @ 1% )
Sags kill 1 @ 20%, 2 @ 32%, 3 @ 27%, 4 @ 12%, and 5 @ 3%.

That means 91% of the Sag results kill less points than 87% of the Kommandoz results. Toss in Waaagh and Goffs and they would absolutely overwhelm them.

f you had 16 Goff Boyz instead...it would be 1 @ 12%, 2 @ 38%, and 3 @ 50%. Custodes melee specialists should kill half a squad and then drop 2 to morale, which still outnumbers on obsec.

It isn't a big gap, really.

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Snagga stuff getting nerfed, again, its perception is reality when it comes to Orkz. A lot of tournament meta players and podcasters PERCEIVED ork beastsnaggas to be OP, so therefore they were OP. It doesn't matter that the tournament data proved otherwise, it didn't matter nobody was taking the named beastboss on squigosaur let alone the regular one. They were PERCEIVED as being OP and therefore they had to die. I was trying to find it, but there was a youtube video review of the Beastboss on squigosaur and Mozrog skragbad by this one guy and it was hilarious because he kept losing his cool about "HOW OP" the models were...boy was he wrong.

That can be a real thing in a community, where the top players or designers are ok with certain factions being overpowered (Matt Ward with Chaos Demons in WHF, very famously) but lose their gak when other factions start racking up wins.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks are competent at melee.

11 Kommandoz plus Grot v Sags

Kommandos kill one 50% of the time,2 @ 32%, and 3 @ 5%. ( without the grot and one extra komando it is 1 @ 55%, 2 @ 19%, and 3 @ 1% )
Sags kill 1 @ 20%, 2 @ 32%, 3 @ 27%, 4 @ 12%, and 5 @ 3%.

That means 91% of the Sag results kill less points than 87% of the Kommandoz results. Toss in Waaagh and Goffs and they would absolutely overwhelm them.

f you had 16 Goff Boyz instead...it would be 1 @ 12%, 2 @ 38%, and 3 @ 50%. Custodes melee specialists should kill half a squad and then drop 2 to morale, which still outnumbers on obsec.

It isn't a big gap, really.

Classic daedalus math attack.
"look, this one unit in your codex with +1 to wound and a special deployment rule can kill a single model from random unit from another codex better than that unit can kill them back. All your units are great in combat, no changes needed!"

 Jidmah wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks are competent at melee.

11 Kommandoz plus Grot v Sags

Kommandos kill one 50% of the time,2 @ 32%, and 3 @ 5%. ( without the grot and one extra komando it is 1 @ 55%, 2 @ 19%, and 3 @ 1% )
Sags kill 1 @ 20%, 2 @ 32%, 3 @ 27%, 4 @ 12%, and 5 @ 3%.

That means 91% of the Sag results kill less points than 87% of the Kommandoz results. Toss in Waaagh and Goffs and they would absolutely overwhelm them.

f you had 16 Goff Boyz instead...it would be 1 @ 12%, 2 @ 38%, and 3 @ 50%. Custodes melee specialists should kill half a squad and then drop 2 to morale, which still outnumbers on obsec.

It isn't a big gap, really.

Classic daedalus math attack.
"look, this one unit in your codex with +1 to wound and a special deployment rule can kill a single model from random unit from another codex better than that unit can kill them back. All your units are great in combat, no changes needed!"

I mean to be fair it's not like you only attack Custodian Guard with shields in melee either, so it's not a wholly encompassing exercise.

Daed fancy comparing some bs5 orks vs bs4 orks into some common targets if you get bored please? Both with and without a -1 to hit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks are competent at melee.

11 Kommandoz plus Grot v Sags

Kommandos kill one 50% of the time,2 @ 32%, and 3 @ 5%. ( without the grot and one extra komando it is 1 @ 55%, 2 @ 19%, and 3 @ 1% )
Sags kill 1 @ 20%, 2 @ 32%, 3 @ 27%, 4 @ 12%, and 5 @ 3%.

That means 91% of the Sag results kill less points than 87% of the Kommandoz results. Toss in Waaagh and Goffs and they would absolutely overwhelm them.

f you had 16 Goff Boyz instead...it would be 1 @ 12%, 2 @ 38%, and 3 @ 50%. Custodes melee specialists should kill half a squad and then drop 2 to morale, which still outnumbers on obsec.

It isn't a big gap, really.

Conveniently giving the Kommandos an upgrade that costs points and is a once a game ability while just accidentally not giving The Sag custards their FREE misericordia? 3 sag custards get 12 attacks without any other rules interactions just stats and misers. Thats 10 hits, at S5 for 5 dead Orkz. On average. So your math is to put it bluntly, useless. If you include their re-rolls they all get it works out to 6 or more and going beyond that they have easy access to even more attacks and strats and rules etc that buff that to ungodly levels. I used a unit to unit comparison without adding in any other factors and showed that they don't stand a chance. You had to strip FREE equipment from the Custards while giving the Kommandos an equipment upgrade that costs points just to make that bad math work.

Dudeface wrote:

I mean to be fair it's not like you only attack Custodian Guard with shields in melee either, so it's not a wholly encompassing exercise.

Sags don't have shields, I literally chose the SHOOTY custards to prove the point. Those SHOOTY custards out perform CC only Kommandos point for point, and that isn't even getting things involved like durability. And I promise you, a T5 1 wound 6+ save model doesn't have anywhere near the durability as a T5 3 wound 2+/4++ model.

Hecaton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Snagga stuff getting nerfed, again, its perception is reality when it comes to Orkz. A lot of tournament meta players and podcasters PERCEIVED ork beastsnaggas to be OP, so therefore they were OP. It doesn't matter that the tournament data proved otherwise, it didn't matter nobody was taking the named beastboss on squigosaur let alone the regular one. They were PERCEIVED as being OP and therefore they had to die. I was trying to find it, but there was a youtube video review of the Beastboss on squigosaur and Mozrog skragbad by this one guy and it was hilarious because he kept losing his cool about "HOW OP" the models were...boy was he wrong.

That can be a real thing in a community, where the top players or designers are ok with certain factions being overpowered (Matt Ward with Chaos Demons in WHF, very famously) but lose their gak when other factions start racking up wins.

Yup, unfortunately, there are always going to factions that lack strong advocates on the rules team or the test players, which inevitably skew some of the rules design and decisions to favour some armies more than others, and Orks typically fall under the "neglected" category. Not in terms of models usually, but definitely in terms of consistency for how our rules are written to bogglingly worst standards than those of other armies (i.e. specialist boyz like Trukk Boyz were RAW unplayable upon release).

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Snagga stuff getting nerfed, again, its perception is reality when it comes to Orkz. A lot of tournament meta players and podcasters PERCEIVED ork beastsnaggas to be OP, so therefore they were OP. It doesn't matter that the tournament data proved otherwise, it didn't matter nobody was taking the named beastboss on squigosaur let alone the regular one. They were PERCEIVED as being OP and therefore they had to die. I was trying to find it, but there was a youtube video review of the Beastboss on squigosaur and Mozrog skragbad by this one guy and it was hilarious because he kept losing his cool about "HOW OP" the models were...boy was he wrong.

That can be a real thing in a community, where the top players or designers are ok with certain factions being overpowered (Matt Ward with Chaos Demons in WHF, very famously) but lose their gak when other factions start racking up wins.

Yup, unfortunately, there are always going to factions that lack strong advocates on the rules team or the test players, which inevitably skew some of the rules design and decisions to favour some armies more than others, and Orks typically fall under the "neglected" category. Not in terms of models usually, but definitely in terms of consistency for how our rules are written to bogglingly worst standards than those of other armies (i.e. specialist boyz like Trukk Boyz were RAW unplayable upon release).

Well also the goal of the new Ork codex was to sell a lot of Snaggas. Not to make a fun codex. Good internal balance would have been against the goal.

Hecaton wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Snagga stuff getting nerfed, again, its perception is reality when it comes to Orkz. A lot of tournament meta players and podcasters PERCEIVED ork beastsnaggas to be OP, so therefore they were OP. It doesn't matter that the tournament data proved otherwise, it didn't matter nobody was taking the named beastboss on squigosaur let alone the regular one. They were PERCEIVED as being OP and therefore they had to die. I was trying to find it, but there was a youtube video review of the Beastboss on squigosaur and Mozrog skragbad by this one guy and it was hilarious because he kept losing his cool about "HOW OP" the models were...boy was he wrong.

That can be a real thing in a community, where the top players or designers are ok with certain factions being overpowered (Matt Ward with Chaos Demons in WHF, very famously) but lose their gak when other factions start racking up wins.

Yup, unfortunately, there are always going to factions that lack strong advocates on the rules team or the test players, which inevitably skew some of the rules design and decisions to favour some armies more than others, and Orks typically fall under the "neglected" category. Not in terms of models usually, but definitely in terms of consistency for how our rules are written to bogglingly worst standards than those of other armies (i.e. specialist boyz like Trukk Boyz were RAW unplayable upon release).

Well also the goal of the new Ork codex was to sell a lot of Snaggas. Not to make a fun codex. Good internal balance would have been against the goal.

Fair point, though it's funny that I would say only Kill Rigs and maybe Squighog Boyz were the only ones that really made most people go out and buy the new stuff.

I gave the Sag misers.

I'm not really sure its adding much - but I broadly agree with you Semper. The Professional/Competitive sphere seems to go nuts on Orks, then tries them out, find they don't play like Marines/Eldar, and ditches them. I've never understood or seen the weird hype when the 8th book dropped explained. The views of the Squigosaur (and even Kill Rig although I think it was pushed) were disproportionate to the table outcome. Certainly by the standards of the meta today - although perhaps because it was just a more competitive space even if DE were clearly undercosted and we all knew it.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think Buggies+Flyers was great for the 3ish months after the Snagga Box until they nerfed everything. If you go through a list of GTs (winners and top 4s) in that period, I think Orks are comfortably 3rd Army after DE and Ad Mech - and its overwhelmingly that buggies/flyers archetype. GK then turn up to settle in 4th for a month or so.

 Jidmah wrote:
Classic daedalus math attack.
"look, this one unit in your codex with +1 to wound and a special deployment rule can kill a single model from random unit from another codex better than that unit can kill them back. All your units are great in combat, no changes needed!"

So you tax max Kommandos and don't take a grot? I also provided the grot-less numbers for your enjoyment. You could always fight Custodes on terrain, which is where they're going to be.

If melee specialists from both sides crank each other out and there isn't a huge gap? No, I don't see a need for sweeping changes. I see a need for changes in other parts of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
I mean to be fair it's not like you only attack Custodian Guard with shields in melee either, so it's not a wholly encompassing exercise.

Daed fancy comparing some bs5 orks vs bs4 orks into some common targets if you get bored please? Both with and without a -1 to hit.

I would, but this is an Ork thread and I don't feel like being gaslighted today.

Just thinking about it, when’s the last time the very best unit in an ork dex has been a melee unit, last few editions for me it’s been shooty things that have always been the models carrying the codex.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Just thinking about it, when’s the last time the very best unit in an ork dex has been a melee unit, last few editions for me it’s been shooty things that have always been the models carrying the codex.

I mostly owe this to 40k heavily favoring shooting. I WILL say this edition favors melee a little more than prior editions, but not by enough.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Classic daedalus math attack.
"look, this one unit in your codex with +1 to wound and a special deployment rule can kill a single model from random unit from another codex better than that unit can kill them back. All your units are great in combat, no changes needed!"

So you tax max Kommandos and don't take a grot? I also provided the grot-less numbers for your enjoyment. You could always fight Custodes on terrain, which is where they're going to be.

If melee specialists from both sides crank each other out and there isn't a huge gap? No, I don't see a need for sweeping changes. I see a need for changes in other parts of the game.

Your analysis is worthless for two reasons:
1) You picked the only unit in the codex which has somewhat viable melee capabilities and only has those due to a math-warping bespoke rule unique to them. Ironically, that unit isn't even a melee specialist unit (and not used as such), but a utility infiltrator unit used to gather VP.
2) A kills B better than B kills A is and always has been a useless statement. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You usually neither run max units of kommandoz nor the grot, by the way.

I didn't pick the unit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I didn't pick the unit.

Wait, what? You're the one who followed up the premise from the previous page to begin with, you don't get to back down after attempting to use it to justify your bias against Orks.

Nice try attempting to abdicate your accountability for showing that you don't know what you're talking about again.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I didn't pick the unit.

Wait, what? You're the one who followed up the premise from the previous page to begin with, you don't get to back down after attempting to use it to justify your bias against Orks.

Nice try attempting to abdicate your accountability for showing that you don't know what you're talking about again.

When was any bias displayed?

Hecaton wrote:

Well also the goal of the new Ork codex was to sell a lot of Snaggas. Not to make a fun codex. Good internal balance would have been against the goal.

But that's the thing....it didn't do anything to sell snaggas. The new "Beast Snagga" units were Beastsnagga boyz, Squighog boyz, Beastboss, Beastboss on Squigosaur, Named beastboss on squigosaur, Killrig, Hunta Rig, painboss, wurrboy, nob on smasha squig. (think that was it) Of all those new units, Beastboss on Squigosaur, Squighog boyz, Killrig and maybe nob on smash squig were ok/good ish The rest range from bad to hot garbage. And when I say "ok/good" i mean just that, they weren't broken, they weren't OP and they weren't even the best choices within their own FOC spots. Small tweaks could have made all these units good to competitive, they just decided not to do so.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I gave the Sag misers.

Sag's get 12 attacks, they get 10 hits without any rerolls, thats 5 dead boyz on average. And again, that's without any of there easy access to re-rolls which they always have in spades. Thats 150pts of RANGED custodes killing 60pts of CC only Kommandos in a single turn on AVERAGE. Those Kommandos AVERAGE (144pts or 12 models) 36 attacks, 24 hits, 8 wounds and against -1AP thats 2.66dmg or just shy of 1 dead Custard. If you include even a single round of shooting its even worse, but the math is just there to point out that a RANGED COMBAT custodes unit is likely to win an equal engagement in CC against Kommandos. If you include the Throat slittas ability going off it goes to 24 hits, 12 wounds and 4dmg on average So 144pts of CC oriented infantry kill 50pts of ranged oriented custards. Still not a great trade off for the orkz. if you want to stack buffs like goffs, waaagh etc that is fine, i'll do likewise for the custards and lets incorporate a round of shooting, see how well that works out for the kommandos. You can dance around the point being made to your hearts content, but it still stands. Orkz are NOT competitive in CC in a meta that has a RANGED Custards unit beating up a Kommandos unit, the fact that its even close is terrible for those kommandos and just shows how skewed the game has become recently.

Tyel wrote:

The only thing I disagree with is that I think Buggies+Flyers was great for the 3ish months after the Snagga Box until they nerfed everything. If you go through a list of GTs (winners and top 4s) in that period, I think Orks are comfortably 3rd Army after DE and Ad Mech - and its overwhelmingly that buggies/flyers archetype. GK then turn up to settle in 4th for a month or so.

overall, yes Orkz did wonderful before the nerfs, we were solidly in 3rd place even though it relied exclusively on that 1 build and as Jidmah and i have stated in the past and for a change agree with one another, it was a FLUKE build rather than GW intentionally giving orkz a competitive build. That opinion is proven rather quickly by GW's immediate and hamfisted emergency nerf to that build.

But it is rather telling that Orkz had success as the THIRD most powerful army in the game and received incredibly quick and over compensating nerfs. The squigbuggy which is pathetically weak compared to the Voidweavers, received a 22.2% points increase AND it was limited from 3 squadrons of 3 to 1 squadron of 1-3. What did chickenwalkers get? You know the thing ad-mech were maxing out with? At first it just lost core, a few months later they finally hit it with a crushing, borderline debilitating....*Checks notes* 10pt price increase.

Drukhari and Ad-mech both continued to dominate the meta until Custards/harlies/Tau came out even after those nerfs, in contrast, orkz fell off a cliff in W/L rate and tournament top 4 placings.

Actually, they had three build, and the weakest one of the three, goff pressure, was nerfed into the ground for unknown reason despite being a perectly healthy archetype which was causing no problems whatsoever.