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.

SemperMortis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.

Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.

This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.

*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.

Yes, top players thought orkz would be good, just like Reece thought Stompa's and Killa Kanz would be top tier in 8th edition and dominate the meta. Take their "thoughts and ideas" with a grain of salt, just because they have success with other armies does not immediately make them an expert on all armies and the competitive balance of those armies. The fact remains that the guy who WON LVO last year couldn't even crack the top 8 this year because he took Orkz. You can argue that it was bad matchups, but again, that is the point of LVO, you don't know what armies you are going to face and have to prepare for everything....Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.

Regardless, the key take away on this for me is the fact that A lot of power gamers thought orkz would be competitive and beat out Imperial soup/aeldari soup and other top factions to win LVO, none of them got into the top 8, including players who won serious tournaments last year with other factions. (Nick was Aeldari last year)

I'm going to throw my two penneth in here because this is something that particularly interests me.

First, many of those people who are very good at the game and thought Orks would be top tier do not play Orks. This is a common theme I've noticed.

Of the cross section of players who are good at the game and who 'main' Orks, almost all said that they felt Orks had certain weaknesses that made it unlikely they finished in a high position at an event at the LVO. Reece said this (paraphrased).

People keep citing the fact that the two best Ork players lost to the same Eldar flyer list, as if this somehow justifies our low placing. It doesn't. We had those 2 players in the top 50. In the top 100 lists we had 5 players, most of which were sub 80 position (excluding the two previously mentioned). Yet over 10% of the meta were Ork players. Sure, some of these are new players that we'd expect to under perform, but in there also exist some of the most tactically sound and experienced players any faction has to offer. If the faction were top tier, we'd see them do better.

I play Orks and only Orks, despite owning a few other armies. I play them regularly. I feel that I'm in a position to know our strengths and, most importantly, weaknesses pretty well. Our faction had problems both internally and on a meta level and these things combined stop us achieving the top level status. We are too reliant on stratagems for durability and damage output - meta issue. We have units that are so poorly costed we are virtually mono build - faction and meta issue. We are simple by design - meta issue. Other armies can take our competitive niche and do it better - meta issue. We have no competitive niche of our own - faction and meta issue.

Semper is spot on. People are used to seeing Orks get obliterated and wiped from a competitive table. All it takes is a whiff that we may pose a slightly credible threat and the internet explodes thinking we're too strong. The truth of the matter is our codex brought nothing new to the party and we were the only faction to receive nerfs on our troop units from index to codex. Perhaps some of us Ork players, particularly myself, have been too strong when voicing our opinions on the changes and how they have negatively impacted on the army in terms of viability. But please understand that we do this from a position of knowledge. We play the faction all the time. We are passionate players and we have been mistreated by GW many times before. We have played the Imperial soup list and it beats us out. We have played Dark Eldar/Ynarri and their lists often tear through us, particularly if you bring the dreaded Loota bomb (and what do you take if not that?).

What I'm saying is that our faction is a one trick pony, this has been forced on to us because of the design of the codex and unfortunately it is not good enough to compete at the highest level. And when GSC hit the meta it will become even worse.

Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

Indeed. The same thing can be said for many of our units. Burna Boyz. All the buggies. Our bikes. Tankbustas aren't a good unit in any other dex. We lack durability which is odd given we're supposed to be one of the most durable races according to the fluff.

I kinda don't think you can make a tier list for 40k as it largely is based on the missions your playing.

Obviously we can know GK are the poorest faction.

The best army is Soup [insert faction]

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Lol why do people keep placing Orks so high when none of the stats reflect these assumptions? Orks have a 45% win rate. We have yet to win one of the big big tournaments. Our codex is the most recent and our faction does not perform well under time constraints that are becoming the norm.

E - mono DE performs well in large part thanks to AoV. GSC and their allies are about to get a slice of that hot pie. It’s ridiculous to me that only a few factions have such a ridiculous, mechanics breaking ability. I hope GW roll it out to all factions or remove it from all. Stopping a key stratagem is game winning. You can’t put a price on such a powerful ability and in my opinion it’s too much for so few factions to have access to.

My personal belief about that is because Orkz have had such a god awful codex for so long (No codex in 5th or 6th edition and arguably the worst codex in 7th) that players became used to seeing orkz as the "NPC" Race and/or the "Easy Win" race so much so that now that we have a mid tier codex it feels like we are top tier simply because opponents now have to actually try as opposed to being handed wins. Not to mention that the competitive players who stuck it out with orkz are now winning even more so simply because they were used to having to scrape out wins by just out smarting their opponents on almost every turn and now the Ork army is a bit easier to play.

I don't think so. People who are very good at the game (as measured by tournament placings) thought Orks would be near to the top. Not forum warriors - not random people who never play.

Now its fair to ask why did they seem to underperform at the LVO. To be fair, part of this might be bad matchups. Both of the theoretical stars ran into that 2nd placing Ynnari list and lost.
That list was partly designed to have more anti-horde (which is really anti-ork) firepower. - again, because people who are good at the game thought Orks would be a problem.

This suggests to me that Orks may have a meta problem. Its relatively easy to tailor a list which has a little more anti-Ork stuff, and this significantly skews your odds of winning that game, without disproportionately harming you against other lists.
Whereas there doesn't appear to be an anti traditional Imperial Soup list* which is why that list tends to win out.

*I don't think one has been identified even though it might have horrible matchups, which is usually a sign of being the meta defining list.

Nick Nanavati thought he could win it all with Orks. He didn't but losing just one game in 6 is no indictment.

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

If T4 1w 6+ for 17 pts is bad then what does that make GKs? T4 1w nothing else for 19 points.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

If T4 1w 6+ for 17 pts is bad then what does that make GKs? T4 1w nothing else for 19 points.

Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:


Nick Nanavati thought he could win it all with Orks. He didn't but losing just one game in 6 is no indictment.

Nick and several other powergamers thought they could win it all with orkz, nick is the most notable comparison because he was the DEFENDING LVO CHAMP! The fact is that unarguably one of the best players in the game as well as several others like him, were unable to break into the top 8 with Orkz. The fact remains that ONE OF THE BEST players failed. So your average run of the mill player and even your average tournament player doesn't stand a chance.

And as previously mentioned, those of us who play orkz and have played orkz as our main army for years knew from the moment the codex dropped that we weren't top tier nor were we going to have a fair shot against the top lists. We rely on a massively overpriced codex that itself relies on stratagems to make function. Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.

SemperMortis wrote:
Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?

Look we all know from listening to marine players whine for twenty years that armor saves don't really matter, damn the math.

Actually I thought the 6+ was referring to a feel no pain roll. I thought most orks had one.

SemperMortis wrote:
Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.

It isn't really though. Just to show why it probably didn't work out:

On average dice (level 1, bad Mathhammer).
50*1/3*8/6*7/6*2/3*1/2=8.6.=17 on a Crimson Hunter Exarch. The Razorwings have a 4+ save, but have Black Heart Saves.

I'm sure there are apps that could do it for me out there - but I don't really want to spend an hour or so creating the code to run 1000 tests to come up with a rough percentage on killing a flyer.
What I take away though is that your odds of killing 1 are reasonable, your odds of killing 2 are quite low. If you were to fire 25 shots at two planes, there is a reasonable chance you would fail to kill either.

And since 25 lootas is 425 points (although I think Nanavati only took 22), plus the grots who need to be nearby to serve as meatsheilds, dropping a Hemlock is just about worth it but nothing special. Dropping a Razorwing (or the slightly more expensive Crimson Hunter) is pretty bad.

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Also, the Loota bomb should be relatively good against a Flyer list in general because with 1 strat they don't suffer from -1 to hit (and orkz don't go beyond -1 to hit) and can shoot twice. So blasting away with 25-75 S7 -1AP 2Dmg shots a turn and than doing it twice with a strat, all hitting on 5s and 6s with each hit causing another shot as well as any rolls of 1 being rerollable, I would have thought that an Aeldari Flyer list would get decimated turn 1.

It isn't really though. Just to show why it probably didn't work out:

On average dice (level 1, bad Mathhammer).
50*1/3*8/6*7/6*2/3*1/2=8.6.=17 on a Crimson Hunter Exarch. The Razorwings have a 4+ save, but have Black Heart Saves.

I'm sure there are apps that could do it for me out there - but I don't really want to spend an hour or so creating the code to run 1000 tests to come up with a rough percentage on killing a flyer.
What I take away though is that your odds of killing 1 are reasonable, your odds of killing 2 are quite low. If you were to fire 25 shots at two planes, there is a reasonable chance you would fail to kill either.

And since 25 lootas is 425 points (although I think Nanavati only took 22), plus the grots who need to be nearby to serve as meatsheilds, dropping a Hemlock is just about worth it but nothing special. Dropping a Razorwing (or the slightly more expensive Crimson Hunter) is pretty bad.

22 Lootas = 44 shots on average, using bad moons and dakkax3 on 5s you average 22-24 hits a turn. Don't know the toughness but lets just say its 7 because why not? that is 11-12 wounds and against a 4+ that is 10-14 damage that goes through, that will degrade it if not flat out kill it, now use shoot twice strat and you just killed or heavily degraded 2 flyers so you can finish them off with ease the following turn or use other means (Mek Gunz) to finish it off.

Eldar flyers are T6 (thank gork) so you'd get more wounds through than that.

The flyers are fast enough that they could've all been out of range T1 though, so the lootas might not have had a good target unless you risk da jumping them into the open, but then it's doubtful you have enough grots around for a shield covering all angles.

SemperMortis wrote:
22 Lootas = 44 shots on average, using bad moons and dakkax3 on 5s you average 22-24 hits a turn. Don't know the toughness but lets just say its 7 because why not? that is 11-12 wounds and against a 4+ that is 10-14 damage that goes through, that will degrade it if not flat out kill it, now use shoot twice strat and you just killed or heavily degraded 2 flyers so you can finish them off with ease the following turn or use other means (Mek Gunz) to finish it off.

T6 for Eldar Flyers.

But I'd expect them to Vect the shoot twice stratagem if you got the first turn and could therefore do this.
Or they would vect grotshields and nuke you in their turn 1.

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.

I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Eldar and DE, without allies, pale in comparison to IG.

No. Mono-craftworld and mono-DE can fight perfectly on par with mono-IG.

I mean, this is a lie, but keep doing you man.

>Goes to 40kstats.com
>Win % as primary
>Guard 53.89%
>DE 57.10%
>Yanari 62.49%
>Asuryani 51.87%
>Thousand suns 57.84%
>Harlaquins 54.04%

yeah I mean guard is clearly leaps and bounds in front of everything else it's insane

40K stats is utterly meaningless in a discussion of mono factions because it uses the ITC faction definitions which are not mono. The top AM list at LVO was AM + Castellan, the top Mechanicus list at LVO was Mechanicus + Castellan + AM, all the top Eldar lists I saw were souped up etc.

The only thing you can take from 40K stats for a mono-faction discussion are those (unlucky) few that have zero soup options; Necrons, T'au, Orks. Tyranids quite often do not soup even in the more competitive builds so maybe include those as well. Everything else that is winning is very probably soup so not helpful to a discussion of how strong mono factions are.

Also just to repeat myself, those are ITC stats. That means that most of the figures come from the ITC missions and a great many of them from games using the ITC house rules on terrain. Those missions and terrain rules have a huge impact and have a dramatic balance impact. If you look at results from outside the ITC then things look very different, they put up results from the latest GW GT heat today and the top 5 were
Adeptus Astartes (G-man and pals)
Mixed Chaos
T'au
Mixed Chaos
Mixed Imperium

Typically the mission formats and tables that GW use put a premium on highly durable armies that can get onto objectives and hold them a while - e.g nurgle lists that just will not die[1]. So the GW meta has been revolving more around super-durable stuff and armies that can counter super-durable stuff. The new missions may change that around a bit, time will tell. Very brief early feedback is that unlike the LVO it was not dominated by the Castellan/Ynnari meta at all. So when we are talking about tiers we need to understand the mission set we are using as context and any house-rules in place. The ITC meta is really nothing like a GW-standard meta.

[1] They have had serious issues with slow-play, I am waiting to hear if they have managed to resolve that in some way. I'm not burning all my pink passes on taking a whole weekend to go play toy soldiers if none of my games go past turn 3 because some jerks reckon that is how to win.

Considering that a pure space marine list managed to place higher than orks did at LVO, I'm a bit questioning if that equals to orks being "high tier".

There's other problems with orks besides their heavy crutch on Stratagems. Unreliable anti-tank means Knights are always going to have an advantage over them. And our ability to sustain drops like a brick once our big units are whittled down, so an army like guard can outlast us.

I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

Scissors paper rock basically

Scissors = Eldari
Paper = Everything else
Rock = Imperial Knight Soup

Scissors is sharp, can cut paper like mad, can itself scratch rock and is durable enough to take a few hits before going blunt, but can still be used to stab back.
Paper, can smother rock but rock can still grind it down and rip it apart.
Rock, a blunt basic easier to use instrument.

 Smirrors wrote:
Scissors paper rock basically

Scissors = Eldari
Paper = Everything else
Rock = Imperial Knight Soup

Scissors is sharp, can cut paper like mad, can itself scratch rock and is durable enough to take a few hits before going blunt, but can still be used to stab back.
Paper, can smother rock but rock can still grind it down and rip it apart.
Rock, a blunt basic easier to use instrument.

Yes, everything other than Eldari beats Imperial Knights. Such an accurate analogy.

happy_inquisitor wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.

I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Eldar and DE, without allies, pale in comparison to IG.

No. Mono-craftworld and mono-DE can fight perfectly on par with mono-IG.

I mean, this is a lie, but keep doing you man.

>Goes to 40kstats.com
>Win % as primary
>Guard 53.89%
>DE 57.10%
>Yanari 62.49%
>Asuryani 51.87%
>Thousand suns 57.84%
>Harlaquins 54.04%

yeah I mean guard is clearly leaps and bounds in front of everything else it's insane

40K stats is utterly meaningless in a discussion of mono factions because it uses the ITC faction definitions which are not mono. The top AM list at LVO was AM + Castellan, the top Mechanicus list at LVO was Mechanicus + Castellan + AM, all the top Eldar lists I saw were souped up etc.

The only thing you can take from 40K stats for a mono-faction discussion are those (unlucky) few that have zero soup options; Necrons, T'au, Orks. Tyranids quite often do not soup even in the more competitive builds so maybe include those as well. Everything else that is winning is very probably soup so not helpful to a discussion of how strong mono factions are.

Also just to repeat myself, those are ITC stats. That means that most of the figures come from the ITC missions and a great many of them from games using the ITC house rules on terrain. Those missions and terrain rules have a huge impact and have a dramatic balance impact. If you look at results from outside the ITC then things look very different, they put up results from the latest GW GT heat today and the top 5 were
Adeptus Astartes (G-man and pals)
Mixed Chaos
T'au
Mixed Chaos
Mixed Imperium

Typically the mission formats and tables that GW use put a premium on highly durable armies that can get onto objectives and hold them a while - e.g nurgle lists that just will not die[1]. So the GW meta has been revolving more around super-durable stuff and armies that can counter super-durable stuff. The new missions may change that around a bit, time will tell. Very brief early feedback is that unlike the LVO it was not dominated by the Castellan/Ynnari meta at all. So when we are talking about tiers we need to understand the mission set we are using as context and any house-rules in place. The ITC meta is really nothing like a GW-standard meta.

[1] They have had serious issues with slow-play, I am waiting to hear if they have managed to resolve that in some way. I'm not burning all my pink passes on taking a whole weekend to go play toy soldiers if none of my games go past turn 3 because some jerks reckon that is how to win.

I can't find the GW GT results, where did you find those?

Spoletta wrote:


I can't find the GW GT results, where did you find those?

Posted on Facebook by GW.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GWWarhammerWorld/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2372331756119624&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARDF-hKJcq5RrOZODG1tbQgvJfsOkRD__ex8-NF7BjfpVchjx85hbc06vp1E96gnv0DFo1YwwaGUnC9AbjnXrguWMr9CEcWUxNR-ee2f9cKwDdRMYIyQ8mpGt6rR8WB4Jdl0QSPVie3yAdT4WO2bIY3JFJe--6FYm6Eu8TlVpT0Zw507TI4nY59ZC4y1T2pqzHx402tq2olPR8S22i3HmOO0G6UAuFa2vY5Q6IFo-daxKqHNVmc42VdlkQUi1I2xrwomShI1OlvGSmVKKDNt6gU38eDm-j9O1SzGHWgUQqu7yLy6eWKq6FtLbt8Z0aZ11bPTUj7cjYzPZuTsTBP5Q_oSwvG3N8ULzypijcE8Y6QLlawK8-26SQx1O5CviTaPpoOch_JQoaYRDJRacZCzPKPdZbMUohcZ6Gs53rPTEUQxbvhUbAEg0Qvac_WmtGVjlEEMcp4Y71SCqlsF1gPiZHeiYs-S_lpGJqKZfaZPx6TTUzfwXim_Up1awL3gi10VVpC_CL_RkczH39qE8GXdDeHzprnCwsrWDRgBa5SMUg&__tn__=-UC-R

Thanks. The meta seems indeed to be quite different.

happy_inquisitor wrote:


This really shows up why trying to understand the tier of a list is really problematic. Orks are actually really strong but what makes them strong can be countered by one faction (OK, two now that GSC have the same trick) and they are crippled. If you do not have a counter to the grot stratagem Orks can devastate you, if you do have a counter you will be left wondering why anyone would ever take Orks to a tournament. Given how prevalent Eldar soup are that means that Orks could rampage through an RTT with a little luck but are unlikely to win many GT events.

I think that makes Orks a classic gatekeeper list. They have enduring popularity with part of the player-base and they have power that can blow a lot of things straight off the table but when they hit their counter they hit it hard and fold. As that counter is usually to be found at the top tables that is the one place that Ork lists will struggle to stay for very long.

I would argue that a list that relies on an easily-countered strategy to perform in any way competitive is by definition not a top tier list.

I would also argue that if a faction can only put forward one competitive list that is easily countered then the faction is not competitive.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

Lol this is rich.

Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc).
SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is."
*LVO happens*
Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen."
SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"

This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[snipped for space]

Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

Indeed. The same thing can be said for many of our units. Burna Boyz. All the buggies. Our bikes. Tankbustas aren't a good unit in any other dex. We lack durability which is odd given we're supposed to be one of the most durable races according to the fluff.

Didn't like 2 or 3 ork armies that were having a good run at the event got paired against each other and then had to play their nemezis in form of eldar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Glaring hole there is that you just left out the save of those greyknights...i wonder why. 17pts for a 6+ save or 19pts for a 3+ save?

Look we all know from listening to marine players whine for twenty years that armor saves don't really matter, damn the math.

I don't know about other marines, but vs GK the weapons being used this edition either leave them with no or +6 sv, or there are saves to be rolled going in their tenths per turn, which means those +3 or +4 GK die faster then IG that technicaly have worse stats. 5 GK termintors cost more then a whole detachment of IG, but they are no where near as resilient as the IG.

 Melissia wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[snipped for space]

Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.

Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction.
In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.

Spoletta wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[snipped for space]

Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.

Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction.
In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.

*Orks perform badly with the best pilots taking them at the largest competitive event.*
"Orks are a solid mid tier faction with a couple of semi-OP tricks...."

What?

We're below pure SM insofar as results at the LVO go and I don't hear anyone talking about how they need nerfs to their tricks. In fact all I hear are people telling me how bad they are as a faction, despite countless statistics showing the opposite to be true. And GW are stupid enough to listen by implementing beta bolter rules and the like.

Orks need buffs or all other factions need nerfs. It's as simple as that. We are a low tier army. Our performances are under average. Our win rate is below average.

Is suspect the issue orks have isn't necessarily unique to them ( having a mandatory strategum build), but they are probably getting a bigger boost from said strategums and hence fall harder when they hit a unit that can shut down that strategum/build.

I know Tau can gain stupidly out of atacking strategums, but without that stack they don't have a competitive list.

This wasn't great fun to play but was ok ish untill Drukari aka codex Nope came along and to give orks the same weakness and then hand out unnerfed vect ro CSG shows GW rules team apparently being totally disjointed.

You can't make factions dependent on strategums then hand out No strategum strategums. It reduces the game back into rock paper scissors instead of actually being skill based.
Enter a tournament and hit CSG or Vect well your not winning with Orks or Tau, pull Guard or marines and your stand a good chance of winning.

I really don't get why the codex appear to be written by two sperate teams where one is out to screw over every codex written by the other team.

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

This isn't true.

It just isn't.

Vect is not nearly as common as you represent. And, Imperial Guard does not have access to Vect, and they are far and away the most common faction.

Orks were being played by some of the top players at LVO, and they run into the same thing most players do. Time, and not enough terrain. I spoke with the #1 Orks player (coming into LVO) and he lost his game 4 (first loss) because he ran out of time on the clock and his opponent got 3 consecutive turns - even then, he only lost by 2 points.

Further, if you go up against Imperial Guard, Tau, or any other shooty list without decent terrain, you're going to get rolled. In case you didn't know, the terrain on LVO tables was far more scant than at SoCal.


Lastly, people adjusted. One of the top Ynnari lists had 72 scatterlaser dice. People expected Orks and built to counter them. Except Guard, they already counter orks by having cheaper, better boyz in the form of guardsmen.

Also lootas are amazing.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
[snipped for space]

Yeah I gotta side with An Actual Englishman here, I don't think I saw a single actual Ork player say Orks were top tier before the tourney and the tourney certainly hasn't proven Ork players wrong.

Orks are a solid mid tier faction (i.e. where every faction should be), with a couple of semi-OP tricks which push them into competitive range. Those tricks have counters that happen to be in really popular lists. That's the truth of the faction.
In general it's a good one, IMHO no changes are necessary, and if there are then they are nerfs to those tricks.

*Orks perform badly with the best pilots taking them at the largest competitive event.*
"Orks are a solid mid tier faction with a couple of semi-OP tricks...."

What?

We're below pure SM insofar as results at the LVO go and I don't hear anyone talking about how they need nerfs to their tricks. In fact all I hear are people telling me how bad they are as a faction, despite countless statistics showing the opposite to be true. And GW are stupid enough to listen by implementing beta bolter rules and the like.

Orks need buffs or all other factions need nerfs. It's as simple as that. We are a low tier army. Our performances are under average. Our win rate is below average.

Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"

And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list. And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.

Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.

It wasn't overestimated. Orks are dependent on terrain. The terrain at LVO, on some tables, was not conducive to Ork success. Also, playing the clock is difficult. If one in 6 tables are sparse, you're not winning lvo if you need decent terrain.

And looking at the top 10 in a 650+ person event is silly. You're looking at the top 1% of lists. Guard and Ynnari are consistently there in events because they're overpowered, but the rest of the factions kind of depend on luck, matchups, terrain, and missions versus the right opponent at the right time to make it.

Look at a sample of the lists that went 5-1 or better, or lists that won 4 games. Winning 4 games out of 6 is not bad.

People have acknowledged for some time that Guilliman lists can win. If you get first turn, you're going to roll. I lost the roll-off for first turn every game at LVO except once, and my opponent seized on me. I went second all 6 games. Unlikely, but it happens. Going first with a Guilliman gunline is amazeballs. But that doesn't change that space wolves, dark angels, and any other variant of marines are basically trash tier right now. Guilliman props up ultramarine vehicles. That's it.