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.

If I knew where those numbers came from I'd be more inclined to accept them at face value. They're still not indicative of Orky competetiveness, but at least I'd be able to corroborate them for myself.

The numbers came from this thread

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/247793.page

I am not claiming this is a definative list of results nor do I claim that I know for certain that everything reported here is true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However as far as orky competitiveness is concerned, I believe these results indicate that in an average tournament with variety of army types and player skills the orks are very competitive.

As I originally stated, I completed another tourney with my Orks. 1850 points and used my Necronomicon army list.

Game 1 vs. IG w/ Demonhunter allies: Minor Win w/ bonus pts
Game 2 vs. Iyanden Eldar: Minor Win w/ bonus pts
Game 3 vs. IG: Minor Win w/ bonus pts

This tourney was pretty smaller than expected. As a result, there were only 6 players. It had soft scores, and I scored well in both Painting and Sportsmanship.

The armylists weren't completely min/maxed, but neither is mine, so it pretty much was a wash.

In the end, I won Overall by a single point.

Again, mathhammer dictates one thing, but I prefer to play it out on the table. I can't choose whom I compete against and can't write their armylists in a tourney.

What is the definition of these tiers? What does tier 1,2, and 3 mean?

Not sure the exact definition, but Tier 3 affords the lowest probability to win tourneys.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Even without corroboration, the fact 13 Daemons players managed to make the second round speaks volumes of the quality of the field. This is an army which fails against bolters and meltabombs, which is easily able to fill out most of it's FoC slots at 1250pts (try it, it's fun!), which can take a maximum of 3 vehicles (all Walkers) and which has a distinctive CC bent but must arrive on the board by Deep Strike. There's so much wrong with the Daemons Codex it's untrue; yet there are 13 Daemons players through to round 2. Either they've found some previously unknown way to make the Codex not suck against hard players, or the opposition was poor.

Hmm...again, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Daemons done pretty well in tournament scene? So you say they suck too?

Ever thought that perhaps it is you who is wrong, and not the real world...?

Frank Fugger wrote:
Not really, considering you can be dropping Submunitions on the horde from across the board and anything that comes within 36-24 inches is liable to get beaned with as much Plasma, Missiles and Smart Missiles as you've got Suits and vehicles. Multi-Trackers are pretty cool considering how cheap they are. Then of course there's the Kroot to consider.

Lets take the suits for example: assume you've got ten Fireknife suits (Commander + three full Crisis teams). These suits will cost you something like 650+ points. At typical ranges (12 to 24 inch) they will put out 30 S6/S7 shots - but outside of your Commander, they will be at BS3. (you can buy Targeting arrays for your team leaders, but that will cost you more). So you will be looking at maybe 17 hits, causing perhaps 14 wounds - and when you figure in that some of the opponents will be getting cover saves, your suits are lucky to kill ten Ork Boyz per turn. It's not that killy. You can, of course, make your suits more efficient against hordes (AFB, flamers, drones etc.) but that will make them less effective against other opponents.

Sarigar wrote:Again, mathhammer dictates one thing, but I prefer to play it out on the table. I can't choose whom I compete against and can't write their armylists in a tourney.

Which sort of lends credence to what I'm saying. Although if you COULD do those things, would you choose to compete against the bearded Mechdar bloke with the Bolt-Thrower t-shirt, or the kid who brought his Superfriends?

Manimal wrote:However as far as orky competitiveness is concerned, I believe these results indicate that in an average tournament with variety of army types and player skills the orks are very competitive.

Which suggests that in the current climate of competetive 40K the Orks do well. Something I've been saying all along. Awesome.

You might as well ignore the numbers; unless there's some way to find out how many players of each army actually entered the heats they're pretty much meaningless. Por ejemplo, 35 Smurf players got through. I know precisely 1 40K player who doesn't own some form of Smurf army. Conversely, I know about 3 players who haven't ever owned an Ork army. I'm one of them.

Backfire wrote:Hmm...again, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Daemons done pretty well in tournament scene? So you say they suck too?

I am indeed, for all the reasons I gave you just there.

Ever thought that perhaps it is you who is wrong, and not the real world...?

Are you trying to say that Daemons are a competetive army?

Lets take the suits for example: assume you've got ten Fireknife suits (Commander + three full Crisis teams). These suits will cost you something like 650+ points.

Yeah. So what? 650+pts ain't bad considering I can move them into Rapid Fire range, shoot, then move them back out again in the same turn. How's non-Fleet stuff supposed to catch me?

At typical ranges (12 to 24 inch) they will put out 30 S6/S7 shots - but outside of your Commander, they will be at BS3. (you can buy Targeting arrays for your team leaders, but that will cost you more).

And that's bad because.... Tau vehicles cost a lot? Their Troops are humongosly expensive?....

So you will be looking at maybe 17 hits, causing perhaps 14 wounds - and when you figure in that some of the opponents will be getting cover saves, your suits are lucky to kill ten Ork Boyz per turn. It's not that killy. You can, of course, make your suits more efficient against hordes (AFB, flamers, drones etc.) but that will make them less effective against other opponents.

At this point I have to ask; are the Suits all I'm allowed to use? Because I have this 1500pt net-deck list here you see, and it's got 2 Multi-Trackered Hammerheads, 2 Broadsides, a unit of Pathfinders, a Multi-Trackered PF Devilfish with my cruddy mandatory Fire Warriors in it, plus 20 Kroot and 9 Fireknife suits. Well, 8 Fireknife suits and a Commander. I think in total that gives me 2 Submunitions, 18 MP shots, 9-18 Plasma shots, 20 Smart Missiles, plus God knows what else the Drones and Kroot and Fire Warriors are carrying per turn, and some Markerlights. Oh, and all the Suits and Vehicles have lovely Targeting Arrays on them so they're all BS4. It seems very shooty to me, but of course I could be wrong. Maybe if I throw out the Pathfinders and add a couple of shooty Pirhanas, or throw out the Broadsides as well, stick another Hammerhead in there AND some shooty Pirhanas?... I dunno.

Maybe you're right. I mean, it's not like the horde player is going to deploy as close to me as possible because his sod-awful shooting won't cut it and he needs to get into CC with stuff in order to stand a chance of killing it is it?

If all your suits have Targetting Arrays then how are you getting both 18 MP shots and 9-18 Plasma shots? You'd be losing one or the other on at least 5 models (assuming 3 team leaders and the commander). Let's give you all the shots you've claimed and see how many orks behind a KFF you kill shall we. Just mathhammer since that seems to be what you base most things off of.

I'll give you 5 Orks hit per submunition shot.

2 Submunition:10 Hits-9 Wounds-6 Dead Orks, 4.5 w/4+ Cover
18 MP Shots-12 Hits-10 Wounds-6.66 Dead Orks, 5 w/4+
18 Plasma-12 Hits-10 Wounds-6.66 Dead Orks, 5 w/4+
20 Smart Missiles-13 Hits-11 Wounds-8 Dead Orks- 5.5 w/4+

Congrats dude, all your shooting has killed 27 Orks, 20 if they have a 4+ save. That is assuming you get all your shots and that all are BS4. Tau don't fair well in a horde situation. Granted using the markerlights could mean you kill a whole squad instead of leaving 3-10 orks but your using over 1k points to kill 220pts.

And your suggestions to make it more "shooty" leave you much more vulnerable to other lists. So you pointing out you can change your list to beat orks doesn't make orks bad.

Hulksmash wrote:If all your suits have Targetting Arrays then how are you getting both 18 MP shots and 9-18 Plasma shots? You'd be losing one or the other on at least 5 models (assuming 3 team leaders and the commander).

OK maybe not ALL of the Suits have Targeting Arrays. In fact lets say only one Suit has a Targeting Array, because I forgot. Still a lot of shots, innit? Not more than, say... a mob of 30 Slugga Boyz, but then again mine aren't S4, hitting on 5s and 12" in range.

Let's give you all the shots you've claimed and see how many orks behind a KFF you kill shall we. Just mathhammer since that seems to be what you base most things off of....

Some time later....

Congrats dude, all your shooting has killed 27 Orks, 20 if they have a 4+ save. That is assuming you get all your shots and that all are BS4. Tau don't fair well in a horde situation. Granted using the markerlights could mean you kill a whole squad instead of leaving 3-10 orks but your using over 1k points to kill 220pts.

While your army is doing what, exactly? Moving 6" towards me each turn? Oh no wait, there's WAAAGH! to consider also; good job I've got my Multi-Trackers on, otherwise I'd never be able to escape the 6"+D6" fury!

But that's just Orks, innit? What about a big Guard Horde with Priests and Commissars, or horde Eldar with Guardians and a big old Avatar, or maybe even some Tyranids? Meh... here's some Submunitions for your Command Squads/ Railguns for your Avatar/ Synapse Creatures. Enjoy your Instinctive Behaviour, Ld test failures, and being guided off the board by my Suits (PF Devilfish Deep Striking, it's the wave of the future). As for the rest of you here's some more Submunitions for you to eat.

And your suggestions to make it more "shooty" leave you much more vulnerable to other lists. So you pointing out you can change your list to beat orks doesn't make orks bad.

It's not a tailored list; it's a NetDeck ripped from one of Stelek's "Best Of" lists. Seriously; if you're tailoring a list to beat hordes, and I mean seriously tailoring it SPECIFICALLY to kill lots of low-grade infantry every turn, you use Flamers and Cyclic Ion Blasters and Airburst Fragmentation Doofers and Kroot up the wazoo. You don't rely on Smart Missile Systems, Missile Pods and Plasma.

It is heartening to know that you can, though

The Tau answer to Orks isn't their shooty suits, who do quite well at gibbing a squad a turn or so, but in Kroot. 2-4 big squads of Kroot or Kroot Hounds are an excellent anti-Ork screen, and their shooting isn't inconsiderable. Point for point, charging Kroot are better than Orks, and on the defensive in terrain they're an even match.

They don't even need to be particularly big; 2 squads of 10 with 5 Hounds is usually sufficient unless you're tailoring a list. Otherwise you're just cutting into precious Battlesuit points.

Frank, I agree with you pretty much on you points, but the conclusion you (and Stelek) come to is still incorrect.

Yes, I find Orks pretty easy to beat with my armies (except my DE versus foot hordes...too much stuff to kill!), but we have the closest thing to a scientific experiment on the question with tournaments all across the country, and orks do well.

Yes, you can draw an alternate conclusion that it only shows people play dumb armies/poorly, but really, army lists are geared toward the competitors metagame, and orks win pretty handily, even at national level events, so they must be a Tier 1 army because they are a viable/realistic choice for winning a major event. Sure, any list COULD win, but no one would seriously consider a pure GK list as being a viable competitor for a major event.

Really, if it's so easy to beat, there are enough people across the country improving their game through alternate sources (again, like Stelek's site) that there should be some evidence it tourney results, but I'm not really seeing it (not that I'd notice it much if it were occurring, probably).

@Frank

You have read the Ork codex right? The fact that sluggas are 18" (so 24" if i'm not running) assault 2. The numbers I ran for you drop significantly by the way if you go down to BS3 on most of your suits. Funny how you point out how much extra stuff you get to use but ignore that Orks will have supporting units as well.

And as for the other "horde" armies you listed they are a joke. No one takes a close combat guard horde or a guardian horde.

Your response truly leave me wondering how much you actually play the game. How do 3-4 Railguns get rid of my synapse in a Nid army? Or kill an Avatar? If your using submunition on the command squads what are you using on the heavier tanks? Your response only show me you have a limited grasp of what a lot of armies can actually do as a whole.

And as for disregarding tournament results because people might bring unoptomized lists that's a little silly since only in the first 2 games of a 5 game tournament are they likely to play a lower geared list. After that the toughest lists start to play each other.

Grimaldi wrote:Frank, I agree with you pretty much on you points, but the conclusion you (and Stelek) come to is still incorrect.

Yes, I find Orks pretty easy to beat with my armies (except my DE versus foot hordes...too much stuff to kill!), but we have the closest thing to a scientific experiment on the question with tournaments all across the country, and orks do well.

Yes, you can draw an alternate conclusion that it only shows people play dumb armies/poorly, but really, army lists are geared toward the competitors metagame, and orks win pretty handily, even at national level events, so they must be a Tier 1 army because they are a viable/realistic choice for winning a major event.

So you agree with the points, yet somehow manage to come to the conclusion that they're all irrelevant because "Orks do well"? Of course lists are geared to face off against the players a person plays regularly; that's one of the reasons they're not proper hard lists. Sure they might tweak them a bit before game-day, try and make them "all-comers" lists by adding a few more Meltaguns or something, but they're still not proper hard lists. You should see some of the crap that passes for all-comers round these parts; "mech" Sisters with that Living Saint character who destroys your ability to generate Faith the first time she's killed, footslogging Eldar with a ton of BS3 Bright Lances, Eldrad, and, for some reason, an Avatar, dual Lash DPs with footslogging Noise Marines and 2 Obliterators, something called a "Kroot-mongler" list that, as far as I can see, is an attempt at some sort of Tau horde, and, of course, Raider-spam.

If that's the quality of army list people are taking to tournaments (and, by and large, it is), it's no surprise that the Orks do well, and are at the top of Tier 1, or The Leaderboard, or whatever you want to call it. That's what the evidence points to. If people stopped gearing their armies towards playing people they play every week and instead built them towards taking on 5th Edition armies, the Orks would most likely stop doing well. That won't happen though, at least not when the GTs are played at 2000pts and above, and so Orks will continue to do well, and thus people will continue to play them in droves.

Sure, any list COULD win, but no one would seriously consider a pure GK list as being a viable competitor for a major event.

Why not? Orks are considered competetive because they "do well". Pure Grey Knight armies also have the ability to "do well", yet nobody uses them, and when people DO use them they treat them like Berzerkers, filling out their lists with asinine garbage like Holy Relics and Mastercrafted Weapons on all their Justicars (as though rerolling one WS5 hit per turn was going to make 15pts of difference). Ork lists can't be filled out with crap. Everything in the Codex will do SOMETHING, even if it's just dying so's your opponent can't shoot at other stuff; yet at the same time, because they're so low-grade and simple, once someone figures out what exactly your units are capable of and how best to counter it, you'll get rolled every time. Therein lies the difference between Orks and the Codexes I consider to be truly "competetive"; you can figure out how THEY work all you want, but they're still difficult to play against and beat even when you do.

Orks aren't. Not even for pure Grey Knights lists. Assuming, of course, you're not running 20 Terminators and a Grand Master with a Master-crafted Thunder Hammer at 1500pts.

Oh yes, it happens.

Really, if it's so easy to beat, there are enough people across the country improving their game through alternate sources (again, like Stelek's site) that there should be some evidence it tourney results,

This is quite a bold statement, and not one you can really back up with anything empyrical, because the fact is a lot of people don't really "get it" when it comes to what Stelek calls "Advanced 40K". I know some of the stuff that's said on that site confuses even me; I'm still trying to work out how the hell Dark Eldar can be good, when they used to be so bloody awful.

So essentially, Frank, you're saying that orks only win because their opponents are idiots who make terrible lists?

He's been saying the same (stupid) thing since the beginning of the last thread.

Hulksmash wrote:You have read the Ork codex right? The fact that sluggas are 18" (so 24" if i'm not running) assault 2.

That's some serious BS2 firepower right thurr! And at 24" too. Impressive. No really.

The numbers I ran for you drop significantly by the way if you go down to BS3 on most of your suits. Funny how you point out how much extra stuff you get to use but ignore that Orks will have supporting units as well.

Such as what? OHNOES not a Looted Wagon, they don't suck at all! No, wait... Kan-Wall is the done thing now, isn't it? Because they're difficult to kill AND are BS3! Damn you, Gretchins!

And as for the other "horde" armies you listed they are a joke. No one takes a close combat guard horde or a guardian horde.

ALL horde armies are a joke. Ork ones are just worse, because they substitute steely support units (yeah, the Guard and Eldar get support units too!) for another boat-load of low-grade infantry and then rely on the opponent to not have enough shots to kill enough Orks per turn to deal with the mongling horde. The Codex admits as much itself. And yet again we return to the inescapable truth that the entire play-style of Orks relies more heavily on your opponent NOT having the tools to deal with what you bring than it does upon you being equipped to deal with your opponent.

Which is why when you play your Ork horde against people who know what it can do, it falls flat on it's arse wether they have the shots to kill 180 Orks or not.

Your response truly leave me wondering how much you actually play the game. How do 3-4 Railguns get rid of my synapse in a Nid army? Or kill an Avatar? If your using submunition on the command squads what are you using on the heavier tanks?

The point is, even without tailoring a Tau list, you can handle most (if not quite all) of the rubbish a horde army throws at you each turn, and what you can't handle you ignore. Or throw the Kroot at. Or run away from. Or whatever. It's nice to have options is what I'm saying.

What do you do with your Orks? Mongle forward and WAAAGH! What happens when you have to deal with "heavier tanks"? Mongle forward and WAAAGH! What happens when the heavier tanks aren't there to deal with? Mongle forward and... oh, we used it already.

And as for disregarding tournament results because people might bring unoptomized lists that's a little silly since only in the first 2 games of a 5 game tournament are they likely to play a lower geared list. After that the toughest lists start to play each other.

So we wait for the end of the tournament. Except we've already done that a few times, and the Orks have fared well. Against Dark Angels players, Superfriends Smurfs and Tyranids. And the tri-Monolith Necrons. Can't forget those, because we all know how great Monoliths are. They must be good because people who use them get to finals of 40k tournaments. It's true; I've seen it.

So generally, Stelek's argument is that Orks aren't competitive against hard lists assuming top level players.
I think this analysis is flawed for several reasons:

1. Tier standings are determined by matchup with what people play. Look at how fighting game tiers are calculated. We assign a ranking for every character that is used in the game.
You can't discount the effect of low tier characters on a ranking. To consider tiers, you have to count all armies used in high level play, not only the hardest lists.
Why is this important? Because the matchup changes the game. Also note that the ranking are calculated on who is more likely to win. A mathcup might be 7-3, or 8-2, and a mark of a great player is the ability to win bad matchups.

2. His opinion assumes perfect play. The best players in the world stil make mistakes. An example> in marvel vs. capcom 2, top players agree that sentinel stride doom is a competitive team. Only one top player plays this team. Why? Because the team is extremely execution heavy. In a perfect world with perfect timing and ability, it can handle anything. In practicality it can't because no one can execute it.
That sort of analysis is way more useful than saying, "Hard lists, hard players, perfect world." There is no such thing.

3. Stelek's analysis is also that orks suffer because people are becoming more mechanized...and that's somewhat true. Once again, you gotta take into account mission, play styles, and matchup. WHat about kill points? All those rhinos are extra kill points on the table. What if there's a lot of terrain on the board, making driving around more difficult? WHat about different point levels? Is it always the same when talking about 2500 vs. 1500?
Also, every list has a bad matchup. Why is it Orks are suddenly worse because of a matchup?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and about the Dark Angel's at the GT. Darkangeldentist took pretty much the only viable build, which was deathwing/ravenwing.

Look at Stelek's best of dark angels. That army is crap compared to doublewing.

Don't knock doublewing. Sadly, it's the only competitive build in Dark Angels, but if you master the army it's a hell of an army. Bad learning curve and weak to mistakes hamstring it for most people.

It's one of those builds that your playstyle vastly changes depending on your matchup. If you haven't faced a particular style before it struggles.

It can handle orks, lash, necrons (it's really good against necrons), mech lists, etc.

It's weak matchups are eldar and dark eldar.

Frank Fugger wrote:
So you agree with the points, yet somehow manage to come to the conclusion that they're all irrelevant because "Orks do well"?

At the end of the day, winning does seem to be the best, most objective criteria for successful list building, right? The flashy swordsman may be the more skilled fighter, but Indiana Jones blew him away all the same, and that's what really matters.

Frank Fugger wrote:You should see some of the crap that passes for all-comers round these parts; "mech" Sisters with that Living Saint character who destroys your ability to generate Faith the first time she's killed, footslogging Eldar with a ton of BS3 Bright Lances, Eldrad, and, for some reason, an Avatar, dual Lash DPs with footslogging Noise Marines and 2 Obliterators, something called a "Kroot-mongler" list that, as far as I can see, is an attempt at some sort of Tau horde, and, of course, Raider-spam.

Oh, no surprise there. I think most local scenes are similar (mine included). The frustrating part is how they never seem to evolve, even after getting destroyed by the few good players every tournament.

Frank Fugger wrote:If that's the quality of army list people are taking to tournaments (and, by and large, it is), it's no surprise that the Orks do well, and are at the top of Tier 1, or The Leaderboard, or whatever you want to call it. That's what the evidence points to.

"That's what the evidence points to"? Now you sound like you're agreeing with me!

Frank Fugger wrote:If people stopped gearing their armies towards playing people they play every week and instead built them towards taking on 5th Edition armies, the Orks would most likely stop doing well. That won't happen though, at least not when the GTs are played at 2000pts and above, and so Orks will continue to do well, and thus people will continue to play them in droves.

See, that's the catch, though. What makes an environment? What could be, or what is? Right now, many (most?) players still haven't optimized for 5th edition and the new rules/objectives. Orks, as you mention, thrive on that, which is why they're doing well. Until a large percentage of players make that jump, orks remain a very competitive army. You're judging on potential...no, not even that...an idealized version of what the 40K scene should look like based on your thoughts. Again, I think we both agree on many of the things that could/should come about to make the environment more competitive, but until that happens, it doesn't count.

Frank Fugger wrote:

grimaldi wrote:Really, if it's so easy to beat, there are enough people across the country improving their game through alternate sources (again, like Stelek's site) that there should be some evidence it tourney results,

This is quite a bold statement, and not one you can really back up with anything empyrical, because the fact is a lot of people don't really "get it" when it comes to what Stelek calls "Advanced 40K".

I think you're the one making bold statements in this discussion. The only empirical evidence available shows that Orks win. Often. That means it's more than just a fluke from a few games with lucky dice rolls. IF most people are playing crappy 4th edition lists/tactics and IF orks are especially poor, THEN decent-good players using "advanced 40K" style lists should be quickly racking up wins and getting attention (because you know if they mentioned winning because of advice from Stelek, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth of Dakka and elsewhere). I haven't heard it, so I'm assuming it's not true. 'Ard boyz should be an interesting challenge, because I know several Stelek-inspired players have competed, so if there are several of them (who comprise a fraction of players overall, I'm sure) in the top standings, I think your detractors on this thread will be in a tough spot to disagree with you.

Until it's proven empirically, though, it's still an unproven thesis (which I tend to believe is correct).

It's not like anyone could possibly prove Frank's theory wrong. His defense is irrefutable:

1. Orks suck.
2. Orks only win when the other guy sucks more.

How can you argue with that logic

@ Frank: I'd play anyone that would give me a fun and challenging game. Not sure I get your analogy of players you previously posted (maybe I'm just lost on the humor being from the U.S.)

What will be funny is how well I've done with my Necro army trying to figure out how to play it, only to get pasted at the actual event.

Frank Fugger wrote:
OK maybe not ALL of the Suits have Targeting Arrays. In fact lets say only one Suit has a Targeting Array, because I forgot. Still a lot of shots, innit? Not more than, say... a mob of 30 Slugga Boyz, but then again mine aren't S4, hitting on 5s and 12" in range.

As I said, ten Fireknives cost you ~650 points. A mob of 30 Ork Boyz costs 180 points...

Frank Fugger wrote:
While your army is doing what, exactly? Moving 6" towards me each turn? Oh no wait, there's WAAAGH! to consider also; good job I've got my Multi-Trackers on, otherwise I'd never be able to escape the 6"+D6" fury!

Honestly, you may want to listen to those who ACTUALLY HAVE PLAYED TAU AGAINST ORKS. The list you presented would pretty much suck against horde Orks. Real strength of Tau is not the volume of fire (which isn't all that great) or accuracy (again, mostly BS3 with some BS4), but ability to concentrate the fire to most threatening enemy unit. Horde army is troublesome for most Tau builds, because it comes to you everywhere at once and you often simply don't have enough dakka to deal with all enemy units before they are at assault range. Not to mention that Shoota Boyz actually outshoot your infantry. Kroot, particularly, are horribly vulnerable against Ork shooting, unless you manage deploy them to forest. Another problem are bikes and koptas - they turboboost 1st round, giving you a dilemma - either shoot them, and waste lots of shots to cover saves, or ignore them, giving them chance to assault one of your pricey units next turn.

scuddman wrote:1. Tier standings are determined by matchup with what people play. Look at how fighting game tiers are calculated. We assign a ranking for every character that is used in the game.
You can't discount the effect of low tier characters on a ranking. To consider tiers, you have to count all armies used in high level play, not only the hardest lists.
Why is this important? Because the matchup changes the game. Also note that the ranking are calculated on who is more likely to win. A mathcup might be 7-3, or 8-2, and a mark of a great player is the ability to win bad matchups.

That only really hangs together if we accept that a tier system exists in 40K. I don't. I can take my Ork list to 5 tournaments and win them all, then get crushed by an army composed entirely of Kroot in the first game I play afterwards. On the other hand I could take my Grey Knights to 5 tournaments and bomb out of every one in the first heat, yet have a flawless winning record against the Mechdar player who wins the tournament. Tiers just don't work in 40K the same way they do in fighting games, because there you've only got two variables; the players and the characters they're using. In 40K you've got dice, terrain, and at tournaments third-party adjudication to take into account.

I'm not going to argue that being able to scrounge something from a game against a tough opponent during which everything goes wrong is the mark of a decent player, but by the same token being able to table poor opposition repeatedly doesn't mark you out as a good one, nor does it mean the army you're using is necessarily brilliant.

2. His opinion assumes perfect play. The best players in the world stil make mistakes. An example> in marvel vs. capcom 2, top players agree that sentinel stride doom is a competitive team. Only one top player plays this team. Why? Because the team is extremely execution heavy. In a perfect world with perfect timing and ability, it can handle anything. In practicality it can't because no one can execute it.
That sort of analysis is way more useful than saying, "Hard lists, hard players, perfect world." There is no such thing.

It doesn't, though. His analysis, as far as I can see, assumes a fairly average set of dice rolls and is far more concerned with the composition of the list and it's ability to handle whatever it's opponent might throw at it. A lot of the Best Of... lists look like a load of old nonsense; until you play with or against one, and find that even with an average set of results an average player can, at worst, make life extremely difficult for you using one. The Best Of Tau list is a great example of this. A lot of people look at it and think it's a big pile of arse; that's what I though when I first saw it. Received wisdom always suggested to me that you took at least one squad of Deep Striking Fusion Suits to get at vehicles, Pirhanas were "meh" at best, and that since mech was good, mech Fire Warriors were good. Then someone proxies it against you, you spend the first two turns having your Bike Squads pounded into hamburger by Railguns and chased around by Pirhanas and Fireknives, and the last two turns trying to circumnavigate a load of Kroot so you can at least say you Swept his Broadsides or something. You might well win (I didn't), but it's a lot harder than it would've been normally.

3. Stelek's analysis is also that orks suffer because people are becoming more mechanized...and that's somewhat true. Once again, you gotta take into account mission, play styles, and matchup. WHat about kill points? All those rhinos are extra kill points on the table. What if there's a lot of terrain on the board, making driving around more difficult? WHat about different point levels? Is it always the same when talking about 2500 vs. 1500?

I agree with this to an extent. Stelek constantly says he's a fan of taking as few Troops units as possible and doesn't pay much attention to keeping the Kill Point down when he's building lists, plus a lot of the Best Of lists don't particularly look as if they're optimised for ground-grabbing missions.

The thing is, the Best Of lists are built around balance, and the ethos of taking units that are useful over units that are "necessary". The reasoning behind this is that a non-scoring unit that increases your list's overall ability to "deal" is far better than taking a unit whose only value lies in it's ability to count as scoring. In that, I find it difficult to argue with him; let's face it, if you have 6 Rhino-mounted Tactical Squads while I have only 2, but a load of Land Speeders, Predators and DreadPods backing them up, who's more likely to win the argument that this plastic tree belongs to me? Your scoring units have to deal with my specialist units, whereas mine just have to score. In that sense, the ethos behind Best Of... lists scales incredibly well with points values. As to the board set-up, that's something you can only account for at game-time, but with a list based on balance rather than just the ability to hold ground, you're a lot more able to handle stuff like 12 square feet of terrain.

The ironic thing is that the entire Ork Codex seems to have been built around a similarly utalitarian concept to the Best Of... lists (why else would you have so many options for Troops?), yet for some reason they chose to tack on the whole "low-grade lots of dice comic relief" thing onto it.

One other thing Stelek says that I agree with; Kill Points suck arse, and that ignoring them for the sake of making a list that's balanced is a far better method to employ than worrying about them and trying to keep them to a minimum. If you're furrowing to try and keep your list under 9 KPs the likelihood is you'll go without something you'll probably need, whereas simply not worrying about them allows you to have enough firepower that KPs don't matter. KPs are one of the stupidest things in 5th Edition; Victory Points were a far more fair and sensible way of working stuff out, why did they need to change it? I mean, I get the whole "streamlining" thing, really I do, but VPs weren't complicated and worked fine whereas Kill Points don't. My Death Cult Assassin is worth the same as his Dakka Flyrant? Come on....

Also, every list has a bad matchup. Why is it Orks are suddenly worse because of a matchup?

Not every list has a bad match-up; they all have armies that'll give them problems, but the thing with the likes of Best Of... lists is that they're built around overall competence and as such can meet whatever's thrown at them. A lot of them are optimised to beat 5th Edition mech lists (hence masses of Melta), but they're also able to kill off infantry and either survive any damage they take, or have enough about them to mean it doesn't matter. Or both. The Orks are worse because they RELY on being someone's bad match-up to succeed.

Oh, and about the Dark Angel's at the GT. Darkangeldentist took pretty much the only viable build, which was deathwing/ravenwing.

Look at Stelek's best of dark angels. That army is crap compared to doublewing.

Don't knock doublewing. Sadly, it's the only competitive build in Dark Angels, but if you master the army it's a hell of an army. Bad learning curve and weak to mistakes hamstring it for most people.

It's one of those builds that your playstyle vastly changes depending on your matchup. If you haven't faced a particular style before it struggles.

It can handle orks, lash, necrons (it's really good against necrons), mech lists, etc.

It's weak matchups are eldar and dark eldar.

So basically fast mech, right? Which seems strange, given that all the competetive Dual-Wing armies I've seen have been more Raven than Death. I still contend that, as awesome as Sammael is (and he is indeed awesome), Ravenwing just doesn't work right. There's too much.... "stuff", too much form and not enough function (300pts+ for what amounts to a Fearless Bike Squad? No thanks; I get mine for 100pts less, and I can live without the Troops Speeder). They feel flabby, and making a reasonably balanced list with them at anything less than 1750pts is a fool's errand. Any higher than that and you're fine.

Personally I reckon they seriously need to knock the Space Wolves Codex back to next year and make October the month for a new DA Codex. The potential to build armies that are not only fun but also incredibly stompy exists in abundance in the DA Codex, it just needs to be made 5th Ed compatible. Nobody cares about the Puppies; we're all about the Green.

Grimaldi wrote:At the end of the day, winning does seem to be the best, most objective criteria for successful list building, right?

Assuming you win by some mechanism other than hoping your opponent doesn't have the tools to deal with you, yeah. Otherwise it's a highly qualified and subjective criteria for judging success.

The flashy swordsman may be the more skilled fighter, but Indiana Jones blew him away all the same, and that's what really matters.

If that's how you want to look at it that's fine, as long as you're also willing to accept that just because something does well it doesn't necessarily mean it's good.

Oh, no surprise there. I think most local scenes are similar (mine included). The frustrating part is how they never seem to evolve, even after getting destroyed by the few good players every tournament.

Which is, I think, the whole problem Stelek and his ilk are railing against. I'm not Stelek. That people continue to bring fail-lists to tourneys and Orks continue to place well isn't really that big a bother to me. It would, however, be nice if people would accept what's in front of them.

"That's what the evidence points to"? Now you sound like you're agreeing with me!

Well, our opinions aren't in opposition

We've already established that we agree on all points relating to the Ork Codex and it's worth as a book to build "hard" lists from. The only logical conclusion we can reach from that is that the Ork Codex isn't a "hard" one. It's not a proper 5th Edition Codex, as much as people will try to claim otherwise, because it relies on a sucky and/ or unprepared opponent to do well. It obviously finds those opponents at tourneys, and as such it DOES do well.

Our only divergence seems to be that you believe this makes them a competetive Codex, whereas I don't. It makes them a successful one, sure, but if the match-ups don't fall for your Waaagh! your Boyz are f***ed. Even with a well-composed list. The same can't be said of Serpent-spam Mechdar armies, Vulkan Bikers, Power-Tau, or any of the other bona fide "hard" army builds.

See, that's the catch, though. What makes an environment? What could be, or what is? Right now, many (most?) players still haven't optimized for 5th edition and the new rules/objectives. Orks, as you mention, thrive on that, which is why they're doing well. Until a large percentage of players make that jump, orks remain a very competitive army. You're judging on potential...no, not even that...an idealized version of what the 40K scene should look like based on your thoughts. Again, I think we both agree on many of the things that could/should come about to make the environment more competitive, but until that happens, it doesn't count.

Which is part of my point. In fact it's the whole of my point >_<

I think you're the one making bold statements in this discussion. The only empirical evidence available shows that Orks win. Often.

Well... it shows they place well in tournaments; but we've already established that, whilst that makes them a successful Codex, it doesn't make them a de facto competetive one. I couldn't build an Ork list from the current Codex that everyone would struggle against, yet gimme the Eldar book and I could do it in five minutes.

That means it's more than just a fluke from a few games with lucky dice rolls. IF most people are playing crappy 4th edition lists/tactics and IF orks are especially poor, THEN decent-good players using "advanced 40K" style lists should be quickly racking up wins and getting attention (because you know if they mentioned winning because of advice from Stelek, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth of Dakka and elsewhere). I haven't heard it, so I'm assuming it's not true.

A lot of people have been moaning for quite some time about how hard Mechdar lists are to beat and that's hardly an army build that requires much grey matter to throw together ("Wave Serpents rock... who knew?!", and Vulkan Bikers are a list that anyone who's been running a Biker army for a while could well have stumbled upon by accident without bothering to read the Best Of Bikers and thinking "I know what makes this better... Vulkan!". The very fact a lot of Tau players are still running Fail Warriors (in Devilfish, no less) and are bemoaning the suckiness of Broadside suits sort of suggests they haven't caught the Best Of... bug yet, and yet they're constantly whinged about. Then there's the Deldar; I don't think I've seen a "... vs Dark Eldar" batrep where the Dark Eldar player hasn't won, though that could possibly be because only 4 people in the entire world play Dark Eldar and they're all reclusive loonies who have spent every day since the death of 2nd Ed mastering the art of the spiky elves. Then, of course, there's the good old CSM Dex; I know I said Lash was a noobhammer, but that's because in 90% of cases it is. Use it right and it'll never do you wrong, and if it does you can always drop it and do something else equally hurty.

So, yeah. I'd contend that Hard lists are indeed doing well, and have been for some time (the bloke who won the UK GT was running Mechdar, I believe). Thing is not everyone is running them, and thus the Orks are still able to benefit from match-ups against poor opposition in order to place well.

'Ard boyz should be an interesting challenge, because I know several Stelek-inspired players have competed, so if there are several of them (who comprise a fraction of players overall, I'm sure) in the top standings, I think your detractors on this thread will be in a tough spot to disagree with you.

Well not really; if there are no Ork players at all in the top ten and the standings are dominated by the hard Codexes they'll be completely screwed, but if there are Orks there in any shape or form they'll still be able to contend that this demonstrates competetiveness, I'll still contend that it doesn't, and they'll call me a dick.

Until it's proven empirically, though, it's still an unproven thesis (which I tend to believe is correct).

You can't prove a theory, only evince and espouse it until it gains credence. I've seen the lists people run at tournaments (the Living Saint is a common thing, as are Psyker Battle Squads for some reason I've yet to unravel), and applying that knowledge to tournament results gives them better context than simply saying "Oh well, five Ork players in the top ten; therefore, Orks are competetive".

As I said before, if the only criteria you have for judging competetiveness is "they win lots" then Orks are competetive. If you judge what's competetive based on how competetive it actually is, then they're not.

Here's some evidence of Orks not sucking.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/217725.page

Stelek lost to an Ork army and he took his 5th edition army.

Personally I dont think 40k is much of a tier system rather than rock/paper/scissors

The only vehicle in dualwing is master of the ravenwing. You never take full bike squads or the speeders unless you need to bulk your list, you take 3 bikes and an attack bike.

Oh, i've played his best of dark angels list. It's utter rubbish. It'll do fine against normal armies, but it'll lose badly to certain lists. Like eldarzilla and tyranidzilla. Or doublewing. It loses badly to doublewing. Kill the speeders first, and watch all of his low ap firepower disappear. You got an army built around avoiding normal shots like bolters? Totally rapes the list.

About tiers: If you do statistical analysis, whatever that is, and come up with numbers, tier 1 are things at the top outside of standard deviation, tier 2 is stuff in the middle within standard deviation, tier 3 is bottom stuff outside standard deviation.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:You have read the Ork codex right? The fact that sluggas are 18" (so 24" if i'm not running) assault 2.

That's some serious BS2 firepower right thurr! And at 24" too. Impressive. No really.

The numbers I ran for you drop significantly by the way if you go down to BS3 on most of your suits. Funny how you point out how much extra stuff you get to use but ignore that Orks will have supporting units as well.

Such as what? OHNOES not a Looted Wagon, they don't suck at all! No, wait... Kan-Wall is the done thing now, isn't it? Because they're difficult to kill AND are BS3! Damn you, Gretchins!

And as for the other "horde" armies you listed they are a joke. No one takes a close combat guard horde or a guardian horde.

ALL horde armies are a joke. Ork ones are just worse, because they substitute steely support units (yeah, the Guard and Eldar get support units too!) for another boat-load of low-grade infantry and then rely on the opponent to not have enough shots to kill enough Orks per turn to deal with the mongling horde. The Codex admits as much itself. And yet again we return to the inescapable truth that the entire play-style of Orks relies more heavily on your opponent NOT having the tools to deal with what you bring than it does upon you being equipped to deal with your opponent.

Which is why when you play your Ork horde against people who know what it can do, it falls flat on it's arse wether they have the shots to kill 180 Orks or not.

Your response truly leave me wondering how much you actually play the game. How do 3-4 Railguns get rid of my synapse in a Nid army? Or kill an Avatar? If your using submunition on the command squads what are you using on the heavier tanks?

The point is, even without tailoring a Tau list, you can handle most (if not quite all) of the rubbish a horde army throws at you each turn, and what you can't handle you ignore. Or throw the Kroot at. Or run away from. Or whatever. It's nice to have options is what I'm saying.

What do you do with your Orks? Mongle forward and WAAAGH! What happens when you have to deal with "heavier tanks"? Mongle forward and WAAAGH! What happens when the heavier tanks aren't there to deal with? Mongle forward and... oh, we used it already.

And as for disregarding tournament results because people might bring unoptomized lists that's a little silly since only in the first 2 games of a 5 game tournament are they likely to play a lower geared list. After that the toughest lists start to play each other.

So we wait for the end of the tournament. Except we've already done that a few times, and the Orks have fared well. Against Dark Angels players, Superfriends Smurfs and Tyranids. And the tri-Monolith Necrons. Can't forget those, because we all know how great Monoliths are. They must be good because people who use them get to finals of 40k tournaments. It's true; I've seen it.

Wow Frank, not only do you not logically address my objections but you then head off on tangents. If you don't have answers for my questions it's ok. You can just ignore me

Quick question, what do you consider a horde? How many models does it take to make a horde? I'm curious as my response to your absurd statement that Tau can deal with most "horde" lists needs that information. Just because you got rocked by tau doesn't mean everyone will be or that it's the greatest list ever. Don't get me wrong I think Tau can make a very strong list but it is one that suffers against horde/target rich armies.

Oh and as for your last statement you either didn't get my point or your deliberately avoiding it. My point was the last 3 games of a 5 game tournament means that those "super-friends" and dark angel armies aren't going to be there. Tyrannids might but that is because they are still a very strong list if built properly. Not the Nidzilla of old but a new hybrid style w/deathspitter spam is just nasty. Yes, you might get one random non optomized list in the top 8 but you won't see them in the top 4. My nid's make short work of most almost all armies (excluding LR heavy Black Templars, the scissor to my rock ).

Yelling Orks are bad because the people playing against them suck is a little silly. But we're all entitled to our opinions. Not to mention maybe your right and they do suck across the Atlantic though even your results (GT's which are far more cutthroat than ours) don't show that but hey everyone they played against were horrible players so it's all good

@ Frank: What about if the Ork army isn't completely optimized? Surely, that would offset some of the statements regarding Orks going against non optimized lists. The Necro has a comp section which will dictate first round pairings. Army Comp basically made me build a bit of a softer list. My list isn't horribly optimized, yet it is still doing well thus far.

Wait, I remember; all my opponents sucked

What I do concur with. Orks not having something in the army that is equivelant to a Melta weapon does make things harder in a mechanized enviornment. But, I don't count Weirdboyz (which isn't going to be reliable).

What I also will agree with from what I've been observing. Folks have a hard time building a balanced list that can handle any army. Sure, there can be an army that can easily deal with 180 orks, but then it goes against an IG armored column and gets pasted. My Orks in particular have difficulty with armor 14 (big surprise). In the last two tourneys (2500 pt Ard Boyz, 1850 pt RTT), I've ran into the following armor 14 tanks:

Ard Boyz
Game 1. 2 Land Raiders
Game 2. 1 Land Raider
Game 3. 4 Land Raiders

RTT
Game 1. 1 Leman Russ
Game 2. 0 (Eldar army, Eldrad/Avatar combo)
Game 3. 2 Leman Russ

I did not destroy every armor 14 tank in any game. However, it wasn't necessary to do this in order to win.

Folks can copy any 'uber' list on the internet and play it. However, the armies don't play themselves. Somewhere along the line, player skill has to be factored.

I think this is where I think Frank's arguement falls down. We don't play this game on paper. There will always be players of various skill levels and armylists of varying opinions of effectiveness.

A good player can do well with any codex. Frank, you read Stelek's blog and seem to pretty much agree with him. You do realize he took a Demonhunter army to a no comp GT last year and went 5-0. He utelized a less than stellar codex and still won. Like him or not, I give him credit in regards to player skill. Something, you seem to not want to give credence to.

It is quite mind-boggling how anyone so naturally assumes that most people will take crappy, non-competetive lists to tournaments - everyone except, for some or the other reason, Nids, Daemons and Orks apparently. Is there some substance used in the production of their codices that can be held accountable for this phenomenon? Do their books require a higher IQ to buy than other codices? Are they all played by Stelek or his clones?

The assumption that all those Eldar, SM, CSM...players are readily taking uncompetative lists into a competetive environment is not very convincing. There hasn't been any "evidence" of this apart from some anecdotes of "lists I've seen". What lists do people *actually* take to the UKGT or any equivalent?

But that is not all. It is then also assumed that people do not play Orks outside of tournaments, so that their peers are not used to them. Exactly how anyone gained this information is unknown. For all I know, all those other players could face them every weekend and still struggle. I know I do, and I play against them for what feels like a century, and I know so many others do who are in fact rather canny players.

Frank Fugger wrote:
Which is why when you play your Ork horde against people who know what it can do, it falls flat on it's arse wether they have the shots to kill 180 Orks or not.

Regarding bold statements, and with all due respect but I think this is but bragging. At the end of the day, such broad statements aren't convincing. How you will gain the needed KP's from such a horde without the tools needed to do it, especially when ignoring the whole mission concept in *your* list, or how you are going to get rid of a mob going to ground in some good real estate when their friends are bearing down on you, some of your units are tied up with outflanking deffkoptas, how you are escaping the (big) shootas for more than one turn AND avoiding Snikrot and all of that with one hand tied to your back will probably remain your secret.

Frank Fugger wrote:
The ironic thing is that the entire Ork Codex seems to have been built around a similarly utalitarian concept to the Best Of... lists (why else would you have so many options for Troops?), yet for some reason they chose to tack on the whole "low-grade lots of dice comic relief" thing onto it.

Hu? When all you do is to take the Best Of troops, you don't need many options. You only need a single good one. The reason that they or any others have several options is simply variety.

If you do not know for what reason they chose to give Orks lots of dakka and attacks then I'm afraid you are talking about some other thing called "Ork" than I do.

Orks *can* meet most of what is thrown at them. Of course they cannot kill everything all the time, everywhere under all conditions but yet they can usually handle it. Even Land Raiders do not change that picture much. I'm afraid we disagree at a very basic level.

As I said before, if the only criteria you have for judging competetiveness is "they win lots" then Orks are competetive. If you judge what's competetive based on how competetive it actually is, then they're not.

Actually...you mean some theoretical actuality or the real one? Because for your theory to hold any water, you rely on the crutch of assuming that everyone else sucks. Or plays "for fun" at the UKGT. Yes, it happens, or so I hear.

Frank Fugger wrote:
The thing with all this is, apart from stuff like fielding hordes and Fleeting once per game, most other armies can do all of these things to a far more potent extent than the Orks. Marines and Eldar can Bike-spam. Marines, Daemonhunters and Guard can tank-spam. Eldar and Deldar can Fleet (and they can do it more than once per game), and most Codexes have some unit or other that can Outflank.

No, they cannot do that to a "far more potent" extent. Eldar bikes may be faster, Guard tanks more resilient and deadly at range and so on but they are all hampered by other factors, such as much lower numbers or extreme fragility in close combat.

Being caught by Snikrot is certainly not equivalent to failing at 5th ed. That's just ridiculous. You're invited to move closer towards the rest of the Orks in order to avoid that one unit, in which case you're limiting your freedom of movement, and neuter your heavy weapons. If you either do that or did not take such units, then that Guard army won't be doing the shooting any better, BS 3-4 or not.

I'll give you that 180 Orks can take up the board, but they're only Orks. T4 and a 6+ save is hardly inspiring, and neither is S3(4) attacks against even AV10; even en masse. Assuming you get near my vehicles to begin with.

Au contraire. All those stats barring their armour save are impressive, especially en masse. Apart from the fact that AV10 will never ever face S3 (tanks do not charge Orks, and sentinels will face a powerklaw), they will kill any vehicle they chance upon barring Raiders, or at least render it ineffective, a majority will have at the very least a 5++ save, and then there are the PK nobs. Having said that, why would they even need to touch your vehicles? Anything short of a Hellhound is not going to dent that horde, so there's little need to take them out, and when the passengers wish to approach any objective, they will more often than not move closer to the Orks.

Again, other armies can do this too, only they tend to do it better. Guard have more shots and a better chance of hitting with them, and it's hard to keep a 30-man Mob in cover; a ten man Tac Squad not so much.

Very few armies tend to do shooting any better than Orks. Even less armies do shooting while moving and being able to beat 99 percent of the opposition to a bloody pulp any better.

Regarding your Tau comment, no, that isn't enough to worry a horde. IME of course.

It might also be worth noting that horde armies are not "hard".

I disagree. A conscript horde is not hard. An Ork horde is a steep proposition though - depending on what you face of course. If everyone tools up for Biker Nobs, Nidzilla, and Termi spam, then it's quite easy to see how a horde could do very well. And that doesn't have anything to do with player skill.

Kevin Nash wrote:
From a practical point of view. Getting cover saves with guard or marine or imperium armies is quite easy using smoke launchers or leap frog tactics. The KFF save isn't really an advantage as it is a necessity to be on par with other armies.

As has been pointed out, the KFF holds several noticeable advantages over smoke launchers. The latter give you a save for a single turn and then are spent. The KFF is always on. Smoke launchers increase your survivability at the cost of offensive power - the KFF doesn't. Using leap frog tactics with non-squadroned vehicles may or may not work, and usually breaks down when terrain is involved and/or when you want to keep some fire lanes open, and then there's the fact that infantry can benefit from the KFF as well.

Frank Fugger wrote:
Even without corroboration, the fact 13 Daemons players managed to make the second round speaks volumes of the quality of the field.

Only if you're convinced that the codex is fail boat, which I'm not. You might be able to fell T5 with re-rollable inv saves with those bolters (how many will you have in your list, in range, in LoS etc. exactly?) and meltabombs; I'm pretty sure that few others could repeat that. In the same vein, power armour is nearly useless against Daemons, so it's a wash.

I realize that you judge the codex to be poor but the results do not indicate anything like that. As long as you assume that some supposedly competetive factions were even involved, then you must also assume that these were all played by weak players and bad / outdated codices by better players in order for your argument to make sense. This assumption however is completely unfounded.

Number two; quality, not quantity. Sure only a single Tyranid player made it into the top ten, but if the other players had been running hard lists even he wouldn't've been there. Neither would the 4 Ork players, nor any CSM Lash merchant.

That doesn't hold any water. The hardest lists on earth won't guarantee a result, or there wouldn't be any need to play at all. A single Nid placing high doesn't tell us anything about the quality of the players involved. If at all, it says something about the quality of that particular Nid player.

Frank Fugger wrote:
Which suggests that in the current climate of competetive 40K the Orks do well. Something I've been saying all along. Awesome.

That's what *everyone* is saying all along and has never been in doubt. We "only" come to different conclusions. Whereas I believe that the quality of the codex lies at the heart of this, you argue that the competition is weak. It is I believe a classic case of circular logic: Everyone is weak, ergo Orks (and Nids, and Daemons) perform well, and because Orks (and Nids, and Daemons) perform well, everyone is weak.

I'll chime in on this and then I'm done.

If the Stelek argument assumes perfect competition through perfect lists and perfect play, then it has no real world validity.

WOW! Finally reached the end. Comment time, yay!

1) I own over 10k of Orks, and have played them most of the 15 years I've played 40k.
2) I absolutely LOVE the fun of playing Orks.
3) Orks can't make a reliable balanced list.
4) Few (if any) of you play the game right. Insult? No, fact. Infantry do not have a 360 LOS, so Tankbustas are a hell of a lot better than most people think. In fairness, I haven't used them since coming to this realisation, but, they are lot better than they were in 4th.
5) HulkSmash: Please reread YOUR codex. Slugga =/= Shoota.
6) DoubleWing is okay. It's very much NOT a competitive list.
7) MechDar, the way I use it, at 1750, only has 3 Prisms, and Yriel's face, to reliably kill hordes. Yet, I laugh at them.
8) The UK GT winner's list was, frankly, crap. Better at the time, than now, but not good even then. He must be SOME player.
9) ElfZilla is also crap, but more so. Vendetta = Dead Wraithlord.
10) A lot of Ork wins, mine included, ARE because I'm a better player than the opponent. Not all, but a lot. Conversely, my worst game with the Orks, this year certainly, possibly ever, was against a highly Mech'd Nilla SM list that was in no way tooled. It was a poor list. Mine was also fairly poor, but, on paper, better than his - except that I couldn't kill armour quickly/reliably. I should have gotten tabled, only luck, and the realisation that it was the most likely outcome in good time, saved me. Orks don't suck...but they're below Chaos, Eldar, DEldar, SM and IG in competitiveness. Even Lash.
11) EDIT: Remembered. Those of you who play that a Battlewagon is only AV14 on the tiny front plate need to reread the vehicle arc rules.

Elessar wrote:WOW! Finally reached the end. Comment time, yay!


5) thehod: Please reread YOUR codex. Slugga =/= Shoota.

can you show me where I said that? I didnt see it.

Response,


1. That doesn't really mean anything. Ive played Orks for about the same length of time, and don't agree with most of what you have posted here. Doesn't make either one of us right of course, but it certainly throws a monkey wrench in your "fact" statements.

2. Same here.

3. I disagree, but it seems we have both had different results.

4. See, here is where your statements go a bit off key. How do you know, beyond a reasonable doubt(you did use the term fact here right?) That we are the ones who don't play the game right? Your results against local competition really don't mean any more than my results against local competition.

5. no comment

6. no comment

7. 3 Prisms can stand up to all the Lootas? Depends on who gets first turn I guess. If the Orks go first, your Prisms won't do much thereafter. If the Prisms go first, they better kill some Lootas.

8. He probably is a very good player.

9. Agreed

10. Since we don't know how "good" you actually are, your comments can only be taken with a grain of salt here. I would venture to say that 99% of all 40k wins are because one player is better than the other, so again, whats your point here?

11. I'll just wait this one out and see what comes up.


Basically this, we are all spouting off our opinions here. Noone can definitivly say Orks are a top tier army, any more than they can say they are crap. Your mileage may vary from mine, and thats all related to local meta. The ONLY thing we could possibly use as some sort of guideline, are national results, where local meta doesn't matter any more. So far, those results seem to be telling us that Orks are just fine.