Switch Theme:

The Toyification of Orks (and all of 40k?)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






I think it's worth drawing a line between models whose entire concept now lacks rules support and models where the kit has few options or a minor weapon option no longer exists. If your rough riders lose rule support that's a big deal, there isn't really anything else that makes any sense for them rules-wise. If your ork vehicle loses the ability to take an additional machine gun then the driver leaning out the window to do a drive-by is just a cool aesthetic thing, the model still works fine for that vehicle. And of course if the model never had upgrades in the first place there's nothing lost, and you're free to add aesthetic bits without worrying about whether or not they're the right choice rules-wise.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Purged Thrall





FL

I haven't read all 4 pages worth of responses, but based on what I've read so far I think on dakka I've got an unpopular option.

I support and am happy with the streamlining of models and rules to match.

I think I've restarted playing this game from scratch three times now, and 8th was by far one of the smoothest starts. For me personally, once I had dug into a faction my list building would hit a paralysis due to overabundance of individual options (some to many of which were bad). Having fewer options per unit/model works better for me, but I think if helps the game overall too.

By restricting options it gives units clear roles and improves total balance. If one unit comes with all plama weapons (but has drawbacks to balance that), but another unit has no drawbacks (but can pay to take all plasma) then one is clearly the better choice, and invalidates the other.

Moreover, restricting options takes out a lot of exploitable rules interactions. GW is better now, but they're still pretty terrible at good explicit RAW and patches to issues. Simple options decreases the chance that a new stratagem will be broken OP in an unforseen interaction, or that a new character aura only buffs what it was designed to.

TL;DR, toyification is good for players as it tightens rules, even if it's more challenging to create a visually unique army.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


There's a wealth of variety in the Ork book. Just because you got 3 datasheets for wagons doesn't actually mean you can't make varied wagons anymore. The fact that there are stock buggies doesn't mean the buggies don't have variety overall.

And absolutely none of any of the rules stops you from cutting up any of these kits and making your own stand-in versions of them. There are tons of youtube videos on how to cut up trukks to make multiple mek gunz.

So don't make a "Boomshock Dakkawagon". Make a scrapjet, or a rukkatrukk, or a dragsta, or a boosta blasta.

My buddy cut up Roboute and turned him into Ghaz. He took Centurions and made them MANZ. Literally nothing stops you.


All those converting possibilities you listed are about models that are fully WYSIWYG, which is not the matter here. What about loadouts and combinations that were included at index times and now completely forgotten in the new codex? Sure we can convert a weirdboy, manz or ghaz from other models, but what about players that own biker characters, or big meks with KFF? Transports with rokkits? Kanz with KMB? Kommandos with special weapons? It's always possible to scratch built a vehicle, like a trukk, but then it must be a fixed loadout because the new GW trend is to remove options. So all trukks with big shootas, no possible variations. Good thing I magnetized all my scratch built stuff.

That's the issue. We're going towards an ork army with half the possible combinations, which is bad. SM didn't lose pretty much anything, their TACs and other dudes still have everything and there's no proof that regular marines are going to disappear in 9th edition.


Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.

After all you couldn't arm an Ork with whatever you wanted before. You still had restrictions. And yet you can still make tons of creative changes...

What about modeling this?

"The result was a selfloading ammunition microfactory (quite possibly cobbled together
from looted T’au weaponry) that plugged into Skarkrusha’s shoota
and allowed it to fire armour-piercing high-explosive thermobaric
shells, or, as Skarkrusha preferred to call them, Gitstoppaz."

or this?

"Orkimedes himself fashioned this fearsome weapon from the blades
of a Soul Grinder of Khorne"

or a blunderbuss full of teef?

"Requiring an entire chest of teef to be loaded into its breach before
each shot, the Gobshot Thunderbuss’ worky gubbinz plates its
unconventional ammunition in gold before firing it in an inescapable
cone of fanged death"


[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Tampa, FL

I actually like having simplified rules. It means you can convert with impunity because it doesn't matter if you make a model with a cool glaive, the datasheet has an axe on it, so it functions like the axe. It removes confusion with your opponent and gives you MORE opportunities to do crazy conversions because you don't have to worry about your opponent not knowing what your model has, since it doesn't matter how you convert it as long as you use the rules on the sheet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 14:19:50


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





@DaRealJDB
- I think you need to separate the idea of conversion, from the need for available options for your conversion. What I mean by that is you seem to feel that unless you have options (in some cases for which no stock option exists) that you are unable to make your army cool, themed, converted etc. This simply is a very narrow view of things which to me is harmful to the game as a whole, especially for new players. It is frustrating for new players to look at the rules for a kit, decide "I want a bunch of guys with x upgrade" go buy the kit, only to find that they cannot actually make the models they want out of said kit, they either need to source bitz, buy additional kits, or scratch build the options. TO you this seems like a win, but to many it is exceedingly frustrating, and expensive in an already expensive game. Nothing about streamlined rules prevents conversion, you use the Morkanaut and Gorkanaut as examples of when this started, but I have 2 Gorkanauts, one is the standard model, the other a converted orky Knight. You can convert because you like the aesthetics, not because you are forced to just to make a WYSIWYG model. At the start of 8th they really have cracked down on only allowing models to have options that come in the kit, because they don't want people to need to convert just to play the game. Conversion should be an option to make things interesting, not a requirement to use your models.
   
Made in it
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.


I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.

Orks 9000
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator






 Blackie wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.


I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.


yeah the index/codex thing is pissing me off, not just with orks now Ironpriests of TWC have just disappeared for some reason, even after converting like 3 through the years which are now kinda useless.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.


I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.


That is demonstrably false.

The charity hammer players - LVO contenders - did not have index options. Nick even took Orks to the final round there, too.

Ork lists do not lose competitiveness without index. Orks are very competitive. Could you bleed out more effectiveness from the index? Probably, but that's wanting something broken and not something actually being wrong with the codex.

Deathskullz can pull from FW (which are incredibly easy to kitbash from plastic kits). That they need some sort of crutch from stuff like rokkits on trukks is, in my opinion, nonsense. And none of this has anything to do with "toyification".

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in gb
Ork-Hunting Inquisitorial Xenokiller





 Blackie wrote:

I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options

This is one of those "Fake News" things I've heard so much about, right?

Death Before Dishonour - February 9th and 10th 2019 - Element Games, Stockport, UK.
A new Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
https://deathbeforedishonour.co.uk/ 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Breng77 wrote:
Conversion should be an option to make things interesting, not a requirement to use your models.


This is very true. OOTB, everything should be playablea as-is. If you want to make something else, great, but don't expect it to get snowflake rules.

JHDD's Grand Hobby Ominbus
-- $k Kingdom Death : Monster P&M blog
-- 9k Craftworld Tian-Bing Eldar
-- 7k Ragnarok 1st "Einherjar" Imperial Guard
-- 4k Solland's Ghosts WFB Dogs of War 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 Peregrine wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
At the moment the ork codex only has two types of big mek: the one with SAG and the one in megarmor. Now a footslogging dude with KFF is too different to be one of those without calling a full proxy, as the dude clearly doesn't have any big gun or heavy armor on him, and the footslogging big mek with KFF was an official monopose model and an extremely popular unit on the table, not something done by crazy kitbashing.


I did not know that part. Is the model really so lacking in armor that it wouldn't be at all reasonable for the heavy armor version? There is no generic big mek that has the option to take neither upgrade? If that's the case then yeah, it's a rules failure and GW needs to either reintroduce a mek option that makes the KFF model a reasonable representation of something or consolidate all big mek rules into a single unit so it doesn't matter which of the three models you use. You can't have a situation where two of the three have separate rules but the third is WYSIWYG for neither of them.




This guy. Not particularly usable as either IMO.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die." 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Why not as a SAG.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 Desubot wrote:
Why not as a SAG.


Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die." 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grimtuff wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
Why not as a SAG.


Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...


Well, hopefully, they told you the first turn when they shot it.

I use reasonable counts-as all the time and a simple heads up before the start of the game resolves all issues.

[im]https://imgur.com/kEUzFF0.png[im]

http://insighthammer.com/ 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 Grimtuff wrote:

Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...

Why would you only be finding out about it mid-game?


If you're using something an obsolete model as something different, you point it out before the game. It's not ideal, but it lets you put the model on the table. Worked for all those marine players with Las/plas razorbacks for the 3 or 4 editions where they had no rules...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 DeffDred wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
Most people haven't played third, myself included. I started in 5th and played 5th 6th 7th and 8th.


Where did you come up with that stat? I'd guess that 'most' started in 2nd. Myself included.

Forums tend to be skewed towards longer-term, more 'committed' players, but from my experience the majority of people who pick up 40K don't last more than 3-5 years. GW made a similar observation in their financials some years back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 19:50:38


   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Grimtuff wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
Why not as a SAG.


Because that's clearly not a SAG? Not even close. I'd be pissed if someone told me mid game that that was a SAG...


if its no longer a kff then its clearly some sort of ork energy contraption. id be more pissed if some one tried to pass off a Nob with a power claw as a SAG but as long as that mek was clearly defined as a sag from the start then personally id have no issue with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.

bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






leopard wrote:
I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.

bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing


Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





 Desubot wrote:
leopard wrote:
I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.

bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing


Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models


Right you cannot on one hand complain about the removal of a unit from the game, then complain that the model for that unit cannot represent another similarly sized unit because the unit is still part of the game. The real complaint with the KFF is that the wargear still exists for the Mega Armored Mek. That said with little to no conversion it could be a SAG, and I don't think most people would complain.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Desubot wrote:
leopard wrote:
I would have an issue with the big mek with KFF being passed off as a big mek with SAG, firstly because it looks nothing like the SAG and secondly because the big mek with KFF is still a game legal index unit.

bit like I'd have an issue with a rhino standing in for a land raider or predator, its just needlessly confusing


Then why not run a big mek with kff if its game legal. also so long as the list doesn't have multiple mixed kff,sag counts as then it shouldn't make any difference. they are both infantry sized models


Personally I do run a big mek with KFF, custom model though., not that one, there is a good reason not to run that as the SAG though, to start with the SAG model is significantly larger due to the bulk of the weapon, but even if there is no KFF mek in the list its using one currently legal model as another when they look nothing like each other
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Breng77 wrote:
You can convert because you like the aesthetics


But what if I like the aesthetics, and also want to play under the WYSIWYG expectation in tournaments and other more formal events?

It seems like I basically have two choices- build GW's kits as instructed with minimal room for creativity or deviating from inexplicable impositions (why can't my commissar have a chainsword? why is it my Sergeants can't take lasguns, but can take boltguns? etc), or do as I wish and then resign myself to not being able to play in tournaments, and needing to explain to every player 'okay, so this unit is actually armed with X, and this unit counts as Y, and...' Even if they're not a stickler for WYSIWYG, it's annoying for everyone involved to have to remember what wargear isn't what it looks like.

That's really not a satisfying answer, and I don't buy that it's a terrible thing for new players to have options in the codex that the kit doesn't come with. If you're suggesting that the player will be happy with X options in the codex and X options in the kit, then there's really no reason they should be unhappy with X+Y options in the codex and X in the kit. They can simply ignore the Y options that they don't want to build.

I especially think that citing the potential frustration from not being able to build a codex option is a poor justification when GW does that anyways. Many kits don't come with nearly enough weapon options to equip the whole squad. If I want two five-man squads of Skitarii Rangers with Transuranic Arquebuses, I need to buy a minimum of four times my desired number of models to get enough arquebuses. Sure, if I'm using any Rangers or Vanguard with other weapons I might have spares- but if spare parts from other kits are fair game, what's wrong with letting the Ork players use wargear from one kit on another, and providing that option in the codex?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/10 21:24:04


 
   
Made in us
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle






How is having to use multiple copies of the same weapon from one kit the same thing as being able to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?

 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






catbarf wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
You can convert because you like the aesthetics


But what if I like the aesthetics, and also want to play under the WYSIWYG expectation in tournaments and other more formal events?


Then you would have to make a compromise aesthetics over a competitive tournament.

Or you ask the TO to see if its ok or not. if it is then you are good to go. if its not then have a back up model that is correct.

WYSIWYG tournament exception is not a GW direct rule. its the individual organizations prerogative.

i mean you can play with altered magic cards but you cant expect a pro tournament to allow you to play with it.

but FNM or local events im sure some may allow it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/10 21:36:40


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






It’s pretty lame that Orks lost so many options from index to codex. I was in the middle of converting a Painboy on bike that has now been put away. I have a few KFF Big Meks/on bike that I converted and in some rulesets I’m unable to use them. Looted wagons down the drain.

I don’t really understand the mindset either. Converting models has been a facet of Orks since their conception. I also dislike the fact that the buggies are all stock. Options are fun and allow players to be more competitive.
   
Made in ch
Maddening Mutant Boss of Chaos





 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It’s pretty lame that Orks lost so many options from index to codex. I was in the middle of converting a Painboy on bike that has now been put away. I have a few KFF Big Meks/on bike that I converted and in some rulesets I’m unable to use them. Looted wagons down the drain.

I don’t really understand the mindset either. Converting models has been a facet of Orks since their conception. I also dislike the fact that the buggies are all stock. Options are fun and allow players to be more competitive.



Most options were also more for fun choices or thematic, then again same can be said about the loss of options for IG veterans f.e. Or even worse case of option loss the Fw indexes.

I also quite liked the looted wagon.


   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Luciferian wrote:How is having to use multiple copies of the same weapon from one kit the same thing as being able to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?


Who's asking to use any weapon from any unit on any other unit in the faction?

Desubot wrote:Then you would have to make a compromise aesthetics over a competitive tournament.


And that's exactly why loss of game-represented options is a bad thing, not an opportunity to let creative freedom fly like some are saying. 'Owning a creative and unique army' and 'participating in official events' shouldn't be mutually exclusive things.

Desubot wrote:i mean you can play with altered magic cards but you cant expect a pro tournament to allow you to play with it.


We're not talking about house rules. We're talking about retaining options that used to be part of the game and have been removed without explanation, and whose removal leaves anyone who wants to play in a tournament, avoid house rules, and/or be considerate and WYSIWYG to their opponent out of luck.
   
Made in gb
Using Inks and Washes




U.k

There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






Andykp wrote:
There’s no lack of options in 40k now. U can make what ever you want. It’s the easiest edition to make up your own rules for and worth power levels pricing them has never been easier either. The problem is the player base has become too up tight about rules and balance and all that rubbish. Do what you like and play people who do the same. You’ll have fun and less angst.

I don’t need a £40 rule book from GW to tell me I can make up rules. I disagree that pricing is easier - in the past I could price options easily enough because they had a points cost and I could elect to take the option or not. Finally I’d posit that if the majority of the player base is ‘too uptight about rules and balance and all that rubbish’ that just shows that it’s the favoured way to play? This isn’t DnD or another role playing game, intelligent, clear rules are key to enjoyment of a war game and ultimately, removing options because GW don’t have an overpriced model to sell you doesn’t encourage brand loyalty and smacks of old GW.
   
Made in it
Ichor-Dripping Talos Monstrosity




Italy

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Orks lost more than most there, sure, but it's such a small impact to the actual game and to the actual act of being Orky.


I disagree, it's a huge impact on gaming. If you look at competitive lists, there's not a single one of them that is pure codex, all have some index options. Just consider the warboss on bike, probably the most popular auto-take for the ork army, is index only. If you play without index options allowed orks lists change dramatically. Also their level of competitiveness drops significantly. The deathskulls for example can be quite competitive on their own if they can take index options, especially KMBs on meks and koptas and rokkits on transports, other than the biker boss of course. Without the index options that's really no reason to go full death skulls unless it's for purely fluff reasons.


That is demonstrably false.

The charity hammer players - LVO contenders - did not have index options. Nick even took Orks to the final round there, too.

Ork lists do not lose competitiveness without index. Orks are very competitive. Could you bleed out more effectiveness from the index? Probably, but that's wanting something broken and not something actually being wrong with the codex.

Deathskullz can pull from FW (which are incredibly easy to kitbash from plastic kits). That they need some sort of crutch from stuff like rokkits on trukks is, in my opinion, nonsense. And none of this has anything to do with "toyification".


Wait, I though LVO was an upcoming event. We shall see how those orks lists perform, at the moment it's just pure theoryhammer. And a warboss on bike, burnas on kommandos or some KMB spam are nothing broken at all if soups and their overpowered combo are allowed.

I don't the get the FW advice. What are those FW units that deathskulls may like?

And the lack of alternative weapons on vehicles is the perfect example of toyification, now those vehicles are just monopose models all with fixed loadout like the ugly new imperim/chaos dudes.

About the big mek with KFF I've settled on making him count as weirdboy once the index options are banned. After all he's just a nob sized ork with a close combat weapon and gubbinz on his back, nothing more, and the weirdboy is basically a nob sized ork with a staff.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/11 08:15:58


Orks 9000
Space Wolves 6500
Drukhari 4500 
   
Made in gb
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine






 Blackie wrote:
Wait, I though LVO was an upcoming event. We shall see how those orks lists perform, at the moment it's just pure theoryhammer. And a warboss on bike, burnas on kommandos or some KMB spam are nothing broken at all if soups and their overpowered combo are allowed.

I don't the get the FW advice. What are those FW units that deathskulls may like?

And the lack of alternative weapons on vehicles is the perfect example of toyification, now those vehicles are just monopose models all with fixed loadout like the ugly new imperim/chaos dudes.

About the big mek with KFF I've settled on making him count as weirdboy once the index options are banned. After all he's just a nob sized ork with a close combat weapon and gubbinz on his back, nothing more, and the weirdboy is basically a nob sized ork with a staff.


Yea I’ve yet to see any particular evidence that Orks are a competitive army. 3 x 3rd place finishes in December does not a competitive army make and as a faction Orks have massive, glaring weaknesses that are easily exploited.

I’m looking forward to seeing if LVO helps prove some of this wrong but we mustn’t forget the very specific terrain rules that are used in the event and how they help certain factions, Orks included.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: