Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are ork bikers able to move and shoot their full distance if they so choose?

Bikes have the special rule Relentless.

So in other words, YUP!!

Of course their range is a rather pathetic 18''

Ascalam wrote:Of course their range is a rather pathetic 18''

until you realize you can move 12" then fire the 18" weapon for a total of a 30" threat range.

Leaving your bikers in easy charge /retaliatory fire range if you aren't careful.

The threat range is decent, but bikers don't do too well in close combat (barring nob bikers) and are worse if they are the ones being charged.

I would have liked a longer range on their guns, given their cost and low BS, but it's not a big deal, really.

Thanks for the feedback guys.
Does Boss Wazdakka also benefit from the relentless rule i.e. how many of his weapons can he fire?.
Also could bikers fire their dakka guns and fire their sluggas if close enough for a total of 4 attack rolls?

Orky_nman wrote:Thanks for the feedback guys.
Does Boss Wazdakka also benefit from the relentless rule i.e. how many of his weapons can he fire?.
Also could bikers fire their dakka guns and fire their sluggas if close enough for a total of 4 attack rolls?

Check Page 15 of the BRB. 3rd Graph, 1st sentence. This answers your question. (Bikes are also noted on P.53 under shooting, 3rd graph, 1st sentence.)

Ascalam wrote:Leaving your bikers in easy charge /retaliatory fire range if you aren't careful.

The threat range is decent, but bikers don't do too well in close combat (barring nob bikers) and are worse if they are the ones being charged.

I would have liked a longer range on their guns, given their cost and low BS, but it's not a big deal, really.

Ork bikers aren't that bad in CC either... their T5 basic orks for cripes sake!

The issue is that ork bikers and by extension nob bikers are so expensive. So, you REALLY need to have good fire discipline (target priority) and you need to know when to commit in close combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orky_nman wrote:Thanks for the feedback guys.
Does Boss Wazdakka also benefit from the relentless rule i.e. how many of his weapons can he fire?.
Also could bikers fire their dakka guns and fire their sluggas if close enough for a total of 4 attack rolls?

Like most other non-vehicular models, you may fire only one weapon...

In Wazzie's case, you may fire either is DakkaKannon, DakkaGuns, or his Kustom Mega Blaster (don't remember if he had a slugga tho).

When I field Wazzie, I just have him turbo all game long firing is Kannons for go old tank hunting...

They are a SMALL mob of 1 wound T 5 orks.

In a CC its like having a slightly tougher trukker boyz mob. They are still S3 if charged instead of charging, but have a bit of durability.

You will generally be fielding under-max sized untis too due to cost and the fact that a 12-strong biker mob is seriously unwieldy. I usually run mine in units of 7.

I can target prioritise all i like, but they will still miss, a lot (even with twin-linked BS 2 is BS 2 ), and generally if someone's charging me i don't get to refuse to fight . If a unit gets to close i tend to zoom them away, shooting merrily, but the battlefield gets crowded fast with soem armies.

Bikers work well as small hit and zoom flanking units, but they aren't nearly as durable as they might look on paper

Doesn't stop me running Wazdakka biker lists though I love bikers, but i could wish for a little more range

DeathReaper wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Of course their range is a rather pathetic 18''

until you realize you can move 12" then fire the 18" weapon for a total of a 30" threat range.

"Threat range", assuming they hit in the first place, they are Orks after all

That's why they throw a lot of dice. Squad of space marines with missile launcher hits on average 2 turns out of three, and maxes out at 3 hits if they get lucky. Squad of orks with 3 rokkits hits an average of 3 times out of three turns, and can get up to 9 if they're lucky.

Squad of 10 Grey Hunters (~150pts if you don't take other upgrades, which you will, but let's ignore for this example) shoots 10 bolters within 12", hits ~13 times on average. Squad of 25 shoota boys (also 150pts) shoots 50 times within 18", averages around 17 hits, and can potentially get a lot more.

Ork bikers are probably a bit overpriced, but they do throw a lot of S5 twin-linked shots down range.

Not that i don't agree, but the SM missile launchers also have 2 fire modes, better range, better armour, don't run aways if they lose a few guys (or at least not for long) and in the case of Long Fangs can split their fire... Ork Rokkits are assualt weapons, though. I like the look on an opponent's face when they've not run across orks before, and that heavy weapons unit is now charging, swinging their empty launchers and rokkits on poles...

Bikers can throw a heap of shots downrange, (3 per bike, twin-linked is nothing to sneeze at. I'veseen them devastate units at close range. I've also seen them fail to deveestate units at close range completely, due to an inability to shoot straight, and then get chargd and stomped in reprisal

Generally speaking, if you move toward the Orks to charge the bikes, you will get drowned in a sea of more Orks afterward.

I agree, but I find them a bit hit 'n' miss (literally). Sometimes they'll do amazing, other times they'll be a load of gak. Guess that's just Orks

Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing

Ascalam wrote:Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing

ENTIRELY FALSE.

Orks give you a result closer to the average due to the "Law of Large numbers".

Ork Bikers are quite reliable anti-infantry when taken in a max squad size. Expensive? Certainly. But it's also 36 Strength 5 shots. BS2 but twin-linked bumps that accuracy up a bit. Against MEQs it is quite effective, you can reduce a squad of 10 marines to under half strength with decent rolls. If you fire from the max range nobody is going to be able to assault you unless they're transported there or have fleet and lucky rolls.

T4(5) with a 4+ cover save makes them hardy targets. Their mobility makes them a threat to much of the battlefield. It's how they're used that counts. A Nob w/ BP is essential, a PK is nice to have on them if you want to single out some armor. Bear in mind, in conjunction with, say 3 Battlewagons, they make an excellent distraction and if ignored dish out great firepower. They have my thumbs up.

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing

ENTIRELY FALSE.

Orks give you a result closer to the average due to the "Law of Large numbers".

Sez you.

I find that regardless of the larger number of shots, a BS of 4 tops a BS of 2

Hitting on 5, with a reroll isn't nearly as prone to yeidling results, for me at least, as hitting on 3+ in the first place


Orks are more random and erratic than any other race. I can't thing of any SM units (for example) that fires 15 shots one turn and 45 the next, without the user having any say in how many shots the unit fires (lootas). The unit is both random and erratic. The same number of shots may hit the target, compared to a similar unit from another codex, but the chances of the Lootas results being off from tbe average (in either direction) are far greater, due to that randomness. The other unit will consistently pump out X amount of shots, and witll hit with X number.

If you don't think orks are the random and erratic ones take a look at the Shokk Attack Gun, or the Wierdboy

Ascalam wrote:

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing

ENTIRELY FALSE.

Orks give you a result closer to the average due to the "Law of Large numbers".

Sez you.

I find that regardless of the larger number of shots, a BS of 4 tops a BS of 2

Hitting on 5, with a reroll isn't nearly as prone to yeidling results, for me at least, as hitting on 3+ in the first place


Orks are more random and erratic than any other race. I can't thing of any SM units (for example) that fires 15 shots one turn and 45 the next, without the user having any say in how many shots the unit fires (lootas). The unit is both random and erratic. The same number of shots may hit the target, compared to a similar unit from another codex, but the chances of the Lootas results being off from tbe average (in either direction) are far greater, due to that randomness. The other unit will consistently pump out X amount of shots, and witll hit with X number.

If you don't think orks are the random and erratic ones take a look at the Shokk Attack Gun, or the Wierdboy

I don't think you understand the law of large numbers.

5+ with reroll of course cannot be comparable to a single 3+. But that's because the probability is different - nothing to do with law of large number.

3 Tac Marine cost 48 points
8 shoota boys cost 48 points

With rapid firing, 3 marines roll 6 dice. Average 4 hits.
8 shoota boys rolls 16 dice, average 5.33 hits

Since you are rolling more dice (16) for orks, you should expect your result to tend closer to the averge of 5.33 hits. Anyone 1 or 2 dice (out of 16) is not going to screw you too much, because there are more other dice to average the bad result. Whereas for the marines, a one or two screwed up rolls is going to impact you more significantly.

So your statement that orks give more erratic result is ENTIRELY false.

I love my bikers; they are often the most reliable fire base in my army. I run as many as I have room for, and with Wazdakka to make them troops, I can run 70+ in a single game. That is a large amount of T4(5) with a constant 4+ save to deal with, especially once it starts shooting back!.

For the law of large numbers, I generally hit average results with orks, so I can look at the field, crunch some numbers in my head, and tell you how many marines should be dead once the dice stop falling. The massive number of dice means that they will do what they do more reliably than any smaller force.

-cgmckenzie

I don't think you understand the law of large numbers.

5+ with reroll of course cannot be comparable to a single 3+. But that's because the probability is different - nothing to do with law of large number.

3 Tac Marine cost 48 points
8 shoota boys cost 48 points

With rapid firing, 3 marines roll 6 dice. Average 4 hits.
8 shoota boys rolls 16 dice, average 5.33 hits

Since you are rolling more dice (16) for orks, you should expect your result to tend closer to the averge of 5.33 hits. Anyone 1 or 2 dice (out of 16) is not going to screw you too much, because there are more other dice to average the bad result. Whereas for the marines, a one or two screwed up rolls is going to impact you more significantly.

So your statement that orks give more erratic result is ENTIRELY false.

While I always appreciate seeing math taken into account for the benefit of Orks, I think what he was really getting at is that Orks tend to have a more erratic nature, evidenced by things like "Don't Press Dat" in Looted Wagons, "Ramshackle" in Trukks, casualties in Stormboy movement/assault out of deepstrike with Zagstruck, several weapons (albeit ones Ork players rarely take) with the Gets Hot! rule, "Glory Hogs" with Tankbustas, and of course others like SAG results and Weirdboy pyschic powers. In the Necron codex, Imotekh the Stormlord's "Hyperlogical Strategy" can allow the player to seize the initiative on a 4+ except against Orks who always confound his logic, and prevent him from ever seizing the initiative against greenskins. One only needs to read through an Ork Codex to see how much is written on the unreliability, disorganization, and chaos that are present in Ork battle tactics and weaponry. It is probably the reason Orks are my favorite army. While I agree that Shoota Boyz (and some other units) are much more reliable than many give them credit for, I definitely don't think that disproves the erratic nature and results you get from a myriad of Ork forces.

Reckoner wrote:While I always appreciate seeing math taken into account for the benefit of Orks, I think what he was really getting at is that Orks tend to have a more erratic nature, evidenced by things like "Don't Press Dat" in Looted Wagons, "Ramshackle" in Trukks, casualties in Stormboy movement/assault out of deepstrike with Zagstruck, several weapons (albeit ones Ork players rarely take) with the Gets Hot! rule, "Glory Hogs" with Tankbustas, and of course others like SAG results and Weirdboy pyschic powers. In the Necron codex, Imotekh the Stormlord's "Hyperlogical Strategy" can allow the player to seize the initiative on a 4+ except against Orks who always confound his logic, and prevent him from ever seizing the initiative against greenskins. One only needs to read through an Ork Codex to see how much is written on the unreliability, disorganization, and chaos that are present in Ork battle tactics and weaponry. It is probably the reason Orks are my favorite army. While I agree that Shoota Boyz (and some other units) are much more reliable than many give them credit for, I definitely don't think that disproves the erratic nature and results you get from a myriad of Ork forces.

What you have just illustrated is a result of a poor list, nothing more.

Most competitive/proper ork list don't field units like the SAG Mek, Zagstruk or WeirdBoy.

Good units like the lootas aren't really that Erratic again because of law of large number. You wiill expect bad results to be soon compensated by good results if you roll enough dice.

Rewrite for civility/caffiene.



When did i mention a thing about a list, poor or not? DId i say at any point that the SAG or wierdboy were optimal choices for a tournament optimized list? Please quote me if i did.

I listed them as examples of ork units that are erratic. Lootas are erratic. You can expect good results from a SAG or a Wierdboy is you roll enough dice too. Lootas have a random number of shots per round. It's entirely possible to go an entire game with 1 shot per, or to have a whole game with 3 shots per. That's what random and unpredictable means

'I don't think you understand the law of large numbers.

5+ with reroll of course cannot be comparable to a single 3+. But that's because the probability is different - nothing to do with law of large number.

3 Tac Marine cost 48 points
8 shoota boys cost 48 points

With rapid firing, 3 marines roll 6 dice. Average 4 hits.
8 shoota boys rolls 16 dice, average 5.33 hits

Since you are rolling more dice (16) for orks, you should expect your result to tend closer to the averge of 5.33 hits. Anyone 1 or 2 dice (out of 16) is not going to screw you too much, because there are more other dice to average the bad result. Whereas for the marines, a one or two screwed up rolls is going to impact you more significantly.

So your statement that orks give more erratic result is ENTIRELY false.'


If you keep it to shootaboyz (who aren't random or erratic perticularly) this holds more or less true. A heap of Shootaboyz will outshoot a handful of Marines. You are also assuming that the ork unit (which is less survivable) has all it's members when both sides are in optimal firing rangem, but that's beside the point.


We weren't talking about Shootaboyz though, were we? We were talking about bikers (before you jumped in with your ENTIRELY FALSE!!! crap that too the remark (made about bikers ) out of context ) and the number of shots is a much lower factor with them, as they only fire one more shot per bike than a SM bike (albiet with a bit more kick, but less range) and the unit size is about the same at max. We weren't talking about accuracy per points value either IIRC, just that the orks in question are less reliably accurate in and of themselves. Orks can bring weight of fire very well, i'll not argue that. Shootaboytz aren't the only unit orks have, and i'm talking about Orks in general as being random and erratic:

I said:

'Orks are more random and erratic than any other race. I can't thing of any SM units (for example) that fires 15 shots one turn and 45 the next, without the user having any say in how many shots the unit fires (lootas). The unit is both random and erratic. The same number of shots may hit the target, compared to a similar unit from another codex, but the chances of the Lootas results being off from tbe average (in either direction) are far greater, due to that randomness. The other unit will consistently pump out X amount of shots, and witll hit with X number.

If you don't think orks are the random and erratic ones take a look at the Shokk Attack Gun, or the Wierdboy '

And you started in about Shootaboyz outshooting SM at even points, which kindof misses the point . The SM will be hit more, incidentally, but will save almost all those hits, on average, whereas every ork hit and wounded dies. Marines hit 4 times, and wound with 2 - 2 dead orks. Orks hit 5.33 times (lets call it 6 for generosity from the dice gods) wound with 3, and kill one marine on average (less than one if the dice gods aren't being generous ).




Orks are more erratic, as they have many units with random results and effects. You may decree the use of any of them as 'bad list building', but we aren't TALKING about list building or competitiveness. I didn't claim the SAG or Weirdboy were optimal competitive choices, but that they were examples of Ork erratic/random units.

We are asking the question 'are orks more erratic than other races? '. The answer would be yes, as they have many units with unpredicatable results. You can mathmammer the average for these units to get an idea of equivilent power, but the fact remains that they will rarely if ever roll that average result, and will not do it on demand.


My statement:

'If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing '

All Space Marine units are reliably good. Good armour, good stats, Good BS, Good WS, Good Str etc..I think scouts may have an average stat and less armour, but they are still reliably good within that.

Ork units have far more random or erratic units, love them or hate them. Their basic transport has a random roll when destroyed to see what happens, their best Pieplate cannon and light AT options are random in the extreme. Randomness is and has been a part of Orks since RT.

Besides, "Proper"=\=Competitive. Especially in an Ork list. Proper can mean competitive, if that's what the player is trying for, but often it means Fluffy, or Fun (also both different). Not everyone plays tournaments, and even those that do don't always play tournies specifically to win. Remember, improper terminology is the cause of 50% of all flame wars.

Reckoner wrote:

I don't think you understand the law of large numbers.

5+ with reroll of course cannot be comparable to a single 3+. But that's because the probability is different - nothing to do with law of large number.

3 Tac Marine cost 48 points
8 shoota boys cost 48 points

With rapid firing, 3 marines roll 6 dice. Average 4 hits.
8 shoota boys rolls 16 dice, average 5.33 hits

Since you are rolling more dice (16) for orks, you should expect your result to tend closer to the averge of 5.33 hits. Anyone 1 or 2 dice (out of 16) is not going to screw you too much, because there are more other dice to average the bad result. Whereas for the marines, a one or two screwed up rolls is going to impact you more significantly.

So your statement that orks give more erratic result is ENTIRELY false.

While I always appreciate seeing math taken into account for the benefit of Orks, I think what he was really getting at is that Orks tend to have a more erratic nature, evidenced by things like "Don't Press Dat" in Looted Wagons, "Ramshackle" in Trukks, casualties in Stormboy movement/assault out of deepstrike with Zagstruck, several weapons (albeit ones Ork players rarely take) with the Gets Hot! rule, "Glory Hogs" with Tankbustas, and of course others like SAG results and Weirdboy pyschic powers. In the Necron codex, Imotekh the Stormlord's "Hyperlogical Strategy" can allow the player to seize the initiative on a 4+ except against Orks who always confound his logic, and prevent him from ever seizing the initiative against greenskins. One only needs to read through an Ork Codex to see how much is written on the unreliability, disorganization, and chaos that are present in Ork battle tactics and weaponry. It is probably the reason Orks are my favorite army. While I agree that Shoota Boyz (and some other units) are much more reliable than many give them credit for, I definitely don't think that disproves the erratic nature and results you get from a myriad of Ork forces.

This also.

Said it better than i could.

Orks are erratic because they are orks. No other race has such inherent erraticness in their units.

I also agree that Proper and Competitive are NOT the same word You can run a very Proppa ork list that isn't all optimized to hell, and you can run a competitive ork list that doesn't feel particularly orky.

What you have just illustrated is a result of a poor list, nothing more.

Most competitive/proper ork list don't field units like the SAG Mek, Zagstruk or WeirdBoy.

Good units like the lootas aren't really that Erratic again because of law of large number. You wiill expect bad results to be soon compensated by good results if you roll enough dice.

I know very well what makes a competitive Ork list and what doesn't. What I have illustrated is that people play WH40k and many other Wargames not simply to construct cookie-cutter competitive lists like green tides, battlewagon spam, and kanwalls to name some of the most popular competitive archetypes for Orks. They play because there is substance and character to the armies they use, and many appreciate the stories and fluff. They also like to use varied units and try new things and gamble, lest the game become dry. This doesn't render any list using one of these types of units "poor".

Reckoner wrote:I know very well what makes a competitive Ork list and what doesn't. What I have illustrated is that people play WH40k and many other Wargames not simply to construct cookie-cutter competitive lists like green tides, battlewagon spam, and kanwalls to name some of the most popular competitive archetypes for Orks. They play because there is substance and character to the armies they use, and many appreciate the stories and fluff. They also like to use varied units and try new things and gamble, lest the game become dry. This doesn't render any list using one of these types of units "poor".

I concur with the above. But this has nothing to do with the statement "Orks are a more erratic army", especially when making specific reference to the ork bikers.

Any codex can attempt to build a funny and erratic army, Marbo comes to mind. So that point is a moot one. The only way for a fair basis of comparison is to compare a properly build ork list with a proper build list from any other codex. Orks due to their sheer number of shots, hits, etc, should more often than not give you a more stable result per game.

Ascalam wrote:We weren't talking about Shootaboyz though, were we? We were talking about bikers

LOL? Then all the more I do not see how Bikers are erratic.

Ascalam wrote:(before you jumped in with your ENTIRELY FALSE!!! crap that too the remark (made about bikers ) out of context ) and the number of shots is a much lower factor with them, as they only fire one more shot per bike than a SM bike (albiet with a bit more kick, but less range) and the unit size is about the same at max. We weren't talking about accuracy per points value either IIRC, just that the orks in question are less reliably accurate in and of themselves.

None of what you have mentioned here has anything to do with "randomness"

"orks in question are less reliably accurate " is compensated by volume of fire. To put it simply, one would prefer to roll 18 shots at 5+ instead of 9 shots at 3+, even though for both cases the expected average is 6.

And again he misses the point... Ah well.

Nice selective editing to avoid most of my post there btw

The bikers do not enjoy the superiority of numbers approach to shooting,as they can't put that much more fire downfield. SM bikers can almost equal their firepower at better range, with far greater likelyhood of hitting, and can field uinits of comparable size, which negates the effect of massively outnumbering the opposing unit you'd be wanting to shoot.

Bikers are very hit and miss. this was the topic under discussion before you shoehorned in

If you are rolling 3 shots hitting on 5's with a reroll you have a far more randomized range of shots hitting, even though the average might be similar They haven't got enough firepower even in a max-sized unit to reliably do much damage, as they will only be hitting with one hit on average per biker, before rerolls, and might be able to squeeze two with the reroll, per bike and with luck.

Oddly enough the average doesn't come up all that often. It's just the midrange result.

If i flip a coin, the midrange would be 'edge' after all. Mathhammer a result from that?



Taking the comment as a blanket statement of orks being erratic and random, it still holds true. Orks have many more erratic and random units, and the whole flavour of the ork race is that it's erratic and random. Playing without this random element is pretty much not playing Orks, for me, as they've been this way for 25 years, and i've been playing them about that long.

If you'll take a shufti at the rest of my post, i laid out examples as to why orks are a more random/erratic race.

Discussing 'properly built' ork lists is a pretty subjective judgment anyway, as a competitively optimised ork list isn't necessarily the same thing as a properly built ork list

If you don't believe that orks have competitively useful random and erratic effects i take it you've never used Deffrollas (found in many competitive builds) which deal a random number of hits to the target or Lootas (also found in many competitive builds) who shoot a random number of times per round. They average at 2 per, but they far more often shoot one or three. Odd that


For a quick test here:

Erratic:
inconsistent: not predictable, regular, or consistent, especially in being likely to depart from expected standards at any time

Random:

Statistics . of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

How many Space Marine unit choices use a random or erratic roll or effect besides the normal ones for rolling to hit and wound.

Plasmagun armed troops are the only one that comes to mind for me, offhand, where the randomly rolled one very occasionally wounds someone.

How many Ork units have a random element in their use:

Orks have Looted Wagons, Stormboyz, Flash Gitz, KMB's. Wierdboyz, Meganobz (S + P), Waaagh movement,, ZZapp Guns, Lootas, Grot minefield clearance/Grothound losses, SAG's, Ramshackle rules....

This would seem to to prove my assertion that if i want reliable i will use Space Marines, and if i want erratic and random i'll use orks. Orks are simply better at random and erratic than any other race.

Marbo is one guy. Adding him to an IG army gives you a slightly random element, but the rest of the IG codex is fairly straightlaced and predictable units.

Ascalam wrote:The bikers do not enjoy the superiority of numbers approach to shooting,as they can't put that much more fire downfield. SM bikers can almost equal their firepower at better range, with far greater likelyhood of hitting, and can field uinits of comparable size, which negates the effect of massively outnumbering the opposing unit you'd be wanting to shoot.

THIS, has nothing to do with "randomness" . So i seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. You are arguing utility & efficiency here.

Ascalam wrote:Bikers are very hit and miss. this was the topic under discussion before you shoehorned in

I dont get you here. When do they hit, and when do they miss?

Ascalam wrote: If you are rolling 3 shots hitting on 5's with a reroll you have a far more randomized range of shots hitting, even though the average might be similar

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Larger number of dice rolls reduces the randomness. You might as well claim the sky is pink.

Ascalam wrote:Oddly enough the average doesn't come up all that often. It's just the midrange result.

If i flip a coin, the midrange would be 'edge' after all. Mathhammer a result from that?

If you flip the coin enough times, the result will tend to the average.

Up to this point, i m pretty sure you don't know the concept of "Law of Large Number".

Ascalam wrote:Taking the comment as a blanket statement of orks being erratic and random, it still holds true. Orks have many more erratic and random units, and the whole flavour of the ork race is that it's erratic and random. Playing without this random element is pretty much not playing Orks, for me, as they've been this way for 25 years, and i've been playing them about that long.

That's you, sadly it doesnt prove your point. If i wanted to play fluffy, I can make any codex random, erratic, and funny. Ork just happen to have more of those funny units that you can take.

Ascalam wrote:If you'll take a shufti at the rest of my post, i laid out examples as to why orks are a more random/erratic race.

Discussing 'properly built' ork lists is a pretty subjective judgment anyway, as a competitively optimised ork list isn't necessarily the same thing as a properly built ork list

This is fair enough. So now i m telling you, the irony is that if you look at it from a competitive point of view, ork IN FACT is the least random or the army that gives the most predictable results because of the sheer number of dice you have to roll for them.

Ascalam wrote:If you don't believe that orks have competitively useful random and erratic effects i take it you've never used Deffrollas (found in many competitive builds) which deal a random number of hits to the target or Lootas (also found in many competitive builds) who shoot a random number of times per round. They average at 2 per, but they far more often shoot one or three. Odd that

I take Deffrolla in multiples. I take lootas in multiples. I take good units in multiples. And i see the same in successful tournament lists. I m not sure about you. But that's how i make use of the law of large number to reduce the effects of randomness and improve predictability.

I'm going to step out of this one before i get banned


A mathematical problem for you:

A small Space Marine squad and a larger ork squad (mathhammer the exact numbers if need be) in optimal firing range have the same AVERAGE number of hits. Lets say that the Marines can shoot 6 times and the orks 18, to make the BS line up, but feel free to adjust the numbers if my math is off. Can the Marines roll 18 hits on 6 dice? Can the Orks?, How about 17, 14 , 12 ?



The orks are capable of a wider range of random results, due to their larger dice pool. The average may be the same, but the chance of non-average results is wider, due to the unlikelyhood of all the dice reading 3.5 on the same roll Orks have more dice to throw, therefore more possible combinations of those dice. Their unit rolls are more random, and their results more unpredictable.

I'm familiar with the Law of large numbers (a probability theorem not a proven LAW btw), and as I understand it, It theorises a tendency towards the average, not a guarantee, and becomes stronger dependent on the number of dice rolled over a very large sample only. It predicts stable results for a long term occurance, not stable results for a short term event.

It would be more applicable to an entire gamers life, for example, than a single game. It also ignores 'freak' events, which do crop up. It also works only with very large numbers of rolls. The expectation that your dice rolls within a single game will average out is a fallacy, more in tune with the Law of Averages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers



You are still missing the point i'm trying to make, that orks as an army are more random and erratic than others in play. They have more units with random effects, and a wider range of potential results from units with more dice to roll, as the more dice you add, the more combinations can occur. The average might be predictable, but in general they will not be rolling that average result nearly as consistently

That randomness is what makes them Orks. You've admitted you use the random units when they are good, but you seem violently opposed to the statement that orks are random and erratic.


The law of large numbers would tend the orks, like any of the races, towards the average if you roll enough dice, assuming the theorem to be true.. They might even reach the average a little sooner overall, but in play, and for all practical purposes, Orks are capable of far more variation of results and rolls than most other armies in the short term (like in any game you actually play with them) as the Law of large numbers doesn't apply well to small samples of rolling, but to large ones. You only roll a few hundred dice in the average game, which isn't enough for the law of Large numbers to have much effect on it regarding consistent results.



If i want reliable i will go for SM - true- they are reliably predictable. They will roll their average number of hits consistently, with 2 out of 3 shots hitting on the average, and one not.

If i want random and erratic i will go for Orks- Orks have a greater probablility of random and erratic effects in their codex, and many units have these random effects. These effects over the course of a game will be more unpredictable. One out of three per dice will hit on average for your average ork plinking away, but with more dice there will be more hits. Fair enough. Shoot more shots, and you will eventually hit more times. Not always true, but a decent rule of thumb.

There is however a wider range of possible results from those dice per unit roll. They may well average to a certain figure across the whole game, or the year, or the decade (becoming more reliable per the theorem with the more dice rolled over the longer time) but the fact remains that each unit's rolling will have the potential (like in any random roll) for a massive number of hits well above the average (and beyond the capability of smaller, more reliably accurate units) , or a complete whiff with 30 guyz blazing away like 80's action movie extras and hitting nothing. The probability of the actual result of a units shooting being the statistical average is pretty low, especially if you expect that as a consistent result. The more dice you add the less chance that it will actually match that average, as each new dice added adds to the number of combinations of rolls that are possible, hence making it MORE RANDOM

I'm done, as you seem unable to grasp this extrordinarily simple premise.


Oh and BTW the sky is sometimes pink, doofus

http://www.google.com/search?q=pink%20sky&biw=1366&bih=530&sei=1LJXT5G-NeObiQLsgtmqCw&tbm=isch