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.

Thank Gork that stupid argument about Deffdreads is over! I was literally writing a bit asking you both to stop but it seems that it's ended naturally anyway.

Can you do me a favour and put that massive wall of text in a spoiler tag please because I'm assuming it's mostly for Jidmah?

As to the notion of Orks are a 'horde' army I don't think this is exactly true but it's not far off. What I would suggest is that Orks have had a habit since as long as I can remember of having slightly cheaper units that are slightly worse than the Imperial counterpart. Not dramatically, 3 Deffdreads = a Dreadnought worse, but slightly worse and slightly cheaper. Normally it's the durability that is slightly worse. Hence we could often squeeze a few more bodies in to our lists than others. This is why I'm so interested in what they do with the new Buggies and why I personally think they will be less durable, but faster and slightly cheaper versions of other factions' tanks. This, for me at least, is the classic "Orky" defining feature. Our stuff might not be as good on paper, but when we get to throw in a unit of Boyz, a Nobz squad or a Biker squad because of savings it's suddenly a different kettle of fish. #prosegway

SemperMortis wrote:
18 Bolter shots = 12 hits, 3 rolls of a 1 which means 2 more hits which is good.

18 SHoota shots = 6 hits and 3 rolls of a 1 which means 1 extra hit.

So yeah, each one increases the percent hit by the same amount but the proportionality is WAY DIFFERENT. Would you rather have 50% of a million dollars or 50% of 10 dollars? which is better?

So for the comparison, 2 Extra hits is 100% better then 1 extra hit, to put it bluntly, increasing something crappy by 5% isn't the same as increasing something good by 5%.

This doesn't really matter though - if point wise you can get 36 shoota shots for the cost of 18 bolter shots (and you can) - both get 2 hits.

The issue is reliability. You fire a few melta gun or wave a SW thunderhammer hitting on 2s rerolling 1s - and that freak occasion when get a disproportionate number of 1s (which could turn a tournament) will most likely turn out to be hits after all.

By contrast if you are only hitting on 5s or 6s, a lot of the time your rerolls won't get you anything. Statistically it will even out but since the game is dependent on discrete dice rolls at a certain point in time this matters. You are hoping to be disproportionately lucky - the guy above is hoping to not to be disproportionately unlucky.

This is why hitting on 5s versus hitting on 6s, but 6s counting as an extra hit isn't the same. Theoretically the outcome should be - but in practice you are skewing the outcomes. So for instance there will be that time when you fire say 4 rokkits and get 8 hits versus the 48% of all times where you miss the lot. By contrast hitting on 5s, the odds of you missing with 4 rokkits is just 20% - but you will never get more than 4 hits.

===

The ork dreads have always been considered comparable to SM dreads, wraithlords, talos etc.
Orks already have a horde dread - its called a Killa Kan.

yeah,im not used to using the spoiler tag, but we are on a new page anyway.

wanted that argument to end, went on a little too long and most everyone else on the thread were ignoring us anyway.

i guess my idea of what a deffdredd is is based on both fluff and tabletop performance.
sure, i guess they are comparable to units like the waithlords/talos/etc since they possibly fill similar battlefield roles of slow and melee focused (except when they are not melee focused, which is a disconnected with our dredd since it really doesn't do shooting).

all through 7th and even 8th my deffdredds have barely compared to enemy dreadnought types, so i assume they are meant to be taken in large number to be more effective. just like you take a whole squad of boys to be sure to take care of a few space marines.

man, 7th sucked with the vehicle damage table plus initiative system, my friends dreadnought ripped through a deffdredd and a morkanuat in the same game. that is not comparable.

fluff often isn't very reliable with consistency, you'll see countless forums debating how awesome individual spacemarines are based on fluff, but my experience with them is they are just "ok" because a basic spacemarine was hardly hot stuff and as superhuman as they claim. so my opinions on orks walkers are based on both fluff and tabletop performance.

thats why i always want cheaper units, i want to field a large dreddmob someday that will make my opponent quiver with fear.

geargutz wrote:
tldr
I would argue fluff supports me more then you, but you’ve proven you are very unwilling to listen and change your own mind (I get it, im a little stubborn git too), so I guess i will let bygones be bygones and agree to disagree. Ill end this now, but when in the future you eventually start another argument with me on a different topic then I’ll be more than willing to debate back. This has been the most active I’ve been on dakka dakka in a long time.

I honestly thank you for this answer. I'm on this forum to discuss topics in civil manner and not to get into mudfights.
I will stop this discussion for the sake of the thread and will send you the blurbs of fluff I'm referring to via PM when I'm near my books again (might not be today).

So... 1 stompa vs 3 dreadnoughts?

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
18 Bolter shots = 12 hits, 3 rolls of a 1 which means 2 more hits which is good.

18 SHoota shots = 6 hits and 3 rolls of a 1 which means 1 extra hit.

So yeah, each one increases the percent hit by the same amount but the proportionality is WAY DIFFERENT. Would you rather have 50% of a million dollars or 50% of 10 dollars? which is better?

So for the comparison, 2 Extra hits is 100% better then 1 extra hit, to put it bluntly, increasing something crappy by 5% isn't the same as increasing something good by 5%.

This doesn't really matter though - if point wise you can get 36 shoota shots for the cost of 18 bolter shots (and you can) - both get 2 hits.

The issue is reliability. You fire a few melta gun or wave a SW thunderhammer hitting on 2s rerolling 1s - and that freak occasion when get a disproportionate number of 1s (which could turn a tournament) will most likely turn out to be hits after all.

By contrast if you are only hitting on 5s or 6s, a lot of the time your rerolls won't get you anything. Statistically it will even out but since the game is dependent on discrete dice rolls at a certain point in time this matters. You are hoping to be disproportionately lucky - the guy above is hoping to not to be disproportionately unlucky.

This is why hitting on 5s versus hitting on 6s, but 6s counting as an extra hit isn't the same. Theoretically the outcome should be - but in practice you are skewing the outcomes. So for instance there will be that time when you fire say 4 rokkits and get 8 hits versus the 48% of all times where you miss the lot. By contrast hitting on 5s, the odds of you missing with 4 rokkits is just 20% - but you will never get more than 4 hits.

Except it does matter, I gave you a rough comparison, points cost doesn't factor into this equation. Would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 3s or would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 5s? Which is going to benefit more? The simple and obvious answer is that the unit hitting on 3s will benefit more from rerolling 1s because they will get a 2/3rd chance to hit compared to the other unit who will get a 1/3rd chance to hit.

I used Bolters and shootas as a simple comparison because it was easy, I could do a similar comparison for other models with similar style weapons. Lootas for instance compared to Chaos Havocs with autocannons. I think the Havocs cost 22pts a piece? and a Loota is 17, so 4 havocs = 5 Lootas or there about. 4 havocs get 8 Shots with 1 maybe 2 rolls of a 1, they then get a 2/3rd chance to hit with those misses, those lootas get 10 shots on average and 1-2 rolls of a 1 and a 1/3rd chance to hit, who does the reroll benefit more? The simple answer is and always will be the unit with a BETTER CHANCE TO HIT. That is why I said the rerolling 1s for Orkz is both stupid and a waste of time. I don't want to reroll a handful of dice and have a 1/3rd chance to get another hit.

SemperMortis wrote:

Except it does matter, I gave you a rough comparison, points cost doesn't factor into this equation. Would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 3s or would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 5s? Which is going to benefit more? The simple and obvious answer is that the unit hitting on 3s will benefit more from rerolling 1s because they will get a 2/3rd chance to hit compared to the other unit who will get a 1/3rd chance to hit.

Simple and obvious but still wrong. You will get same % of hit increase either way.

I'm beginning to agree with the just give them 4+ to hit guy.

Sorry if I missed the boat, but was just looking at the rumoured Ork Clan Rules over at BoLS: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/40k-rumors-ork-clan-rules.html

Not being an Ork player I don't have much invested, except that I play against an Ork player, and so hope his army is fun and strong to play with and against. Looking at the bonuses I see them all as pretty good, with no one really standing out as an auto-choose ... except for the Free Booters' 'Units become +1 to-hit after an allied unit has destroyed an enemy unit.'

Thought this one might be worth a bit of discussion, particularly if this might be a change that applies to all -1 to hit army traits. I really hope that's not the case. The -1 to hit is already great, and I like the idea of making there be a trigger. But to have it be destroying an enemy unit makes no sense to me. This just makes it just as good for the player who goes first, but no where near as good for the one that goes second. Going first is already a major advantage without this on top of it! I would much prefer it if your army gets -1 to hit when one of YOUR units is destroyed. The point of the whole trait was to cause problems for gunlines, but this surely does the exact opposite for the person going second without addressing the fact that, when present, it's the auto go-to trait.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Sorry if I missed the boat, but was just looking at the rumoured Ork Clan Rules over at BoLS: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/40k-rumors-ork-clan-rules.html
...

Already been discussed in a few places.

BoLS stooping to new lows within the realms of 'journalism' and regurgitating a video from 'popular' YouTuber Valrak. It's incredibly unlikely there is any validity at all to the person who anonymously messaged Valrak claiming to be a play tester with some badly worded Clan Rules.

But hey ho, people don't seem to like applying common sense and logic to information before swallowing it whole.

(P.S I'm going to look rather silly if these are the exact Clan Traits we get.)

(P.P.S I'm a GW play tester and I know these are not the actual Clan Traits so my internet pride shall remain intact.)

tneva82 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Except it does matter, I gave you a rough comparison, points cost doesn't factor into this equation. Would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 3s or would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 5s? Which is going to benefit more? The simple and obvious answer is that the unit hitting on 3s will benefit more from rerolling 1s because they will get a 2/3rd chance to hit compared to the other unit who will get a 1/3rd chance to hit.

Simple and obvious but still wrong. You will get same % of hit increase either way.

The increase to hit is flat across the board but rerolling your hits is inherently better the better you are at hitting. even if it is just 1s. You end up with a better chance of your reroll hitting

tneva82 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Except it does matter, I gave you a rough comparison, points cost doesn't factor into this equation. Would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 3s or would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 5s? Which is going to benefit more? The simple and obvious answer is that the unit hitting on 3s will benefit more from rerolling 1s because they will get a 2/3rd chance to hit compared to the other unit who will get a 1/3rd chance to hit.

Simple and obvious but still wrong. You will get same % of hit increase either way.

Incorrect my friend. If two units of equal cost shoot the same number of shots but one hits on 3s and the other on 5s and they both get reroll ones then the unit with 3+ to hit will always benefit more from rerolling 1s then the other army. I just proved it with the loota comparison. you get the same number of rerolls but the unit hitting on 3s benefits more because they hit twice as often, it doesn't matter that this is the same % of increase as the other unit because again, if you get 10% more of 10 and 10% more of 100 which one benefits more?

Yeah, it's simple maths.... you reroll the 1 and on a 1,2,3,4 you miss while they reroll and only on a 1,2 they miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

crzylgs wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Sorry if I missed the boat, but was just looking at the rumoured Ork Clan Rules over at BoLS: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/40k-rumors-ork-clan-rules.html
...

Already been discussed in a few places.

BoLS stooping to new lows within the realms of 'journalism' and regurgitating a video from 'popular' YouTuber Valrak. It's incredibly unlikely there is any validity at all to the person who anonymously messaged Valrak claiming to be a play tester with some badly worded Clan Rules.

But hey ho, people don't seem to like applying common sense and logic to information before swallowing it whole.

(P.S I'm going to look rather silly if these are the exact Clan Traits we get.)

(P.P.S I'm a GW play tester and I know these are not the actual Clan Traits so my internet pride shall remain intact.)

Honestly, I never believe rumours but in the 40k rumour world stranger things have happened. Thismone dude claimed to be a necron play testers and next thing we know he shows us a vido of the entire codex weeks before it was even ready for preorder.

To be fair, he also didn't do a very good playtesting since the necron codex is one of codices that has impressed its players the least

SemperMortis wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Except it does matter, I gave you a rough comparison, points cost doesn't factor into this equation. Would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 3s or would you rather have reroll 1s when you hit on 5s? Which is going to benefit more? The simple and obvious answer is that the unit hitting on 3s will benefit more from rerolling 1s because they will get a 2/3rd chance to hit compared to the other unit who will get a 1/3rd chance to hit.

Simple and obvious but still wrong. You will get same % of hit increase either way.

Incorrect my friend. If two units of equal cost shoot the same number of shots but one hits on 3s and the other on 5s and they both get reroll ones then the unit with 3+ to hit will always benefit more from rerolling 1s then the other army. I just proved it with the loota comparison. you get the same number of rerolls but the unit hitting on 3s benefits more because they hit twice as often, it doesn't matter that this is the same % of increase as the other unit because again, if you get 10% more of 10 and 10% more of 100 which one benefits more?

Yes but your number of hits goes up same %. 16% is 16%. Do math. Both tac and ork increases number of hits they get by same %. Which is 16.6666666666666666....%

Which doesn't change the fact that it's useless for orks, because our shooting is less efficient because space marines don't cost 3 times what orks cost..
16.6% of 3 is more than 16.6% of 1

Also +1 BS and flat re-rolls are better than re-roll '1' for orks than it is for space marines.

hey,wanted to get your opnion.

so if all vehicles got ramshackle that would be great, but that increases dice rolling too much, making the game longer.

so maybe this rule for all our vehicles and maybe meganobz
"dead 'ard"
"this unit ignores one rend"
its common in aos, i encounter it when i fight my brothers dwarf longbeards, it hampers the fairly common rend one wpns and decreases the higher penetration types.

this way we dont have to roll so many dice and we get better saves against those tank killer wpns.

what do you guys think?

I think the original idea behind ramshackle was that a lascannon or missile hit something, just to find out that the part they have blown off was either completely useless or redundant.

Your idea goes more towards being resilient to medium arms fire, which IMO is an intended weakness for ork vehicles. It also exists in 40k, but usually on exceptionally durable units. I don't picture trukks as such.

But I agree, the string of 6+ rolls (ramshackle, FNP, armor, to hit with advancing assault weapons, shoot again on 6+, etc, ect) really gets annoying when playing orks, you roll a lot of dice that never amount to anything.

In the end, ramshackle is just a creative implementation of FNP, I have an entire army which rolls FNP for every single damage done ever. So maybe we should just have it trigger on a 5+ to make it feel less like a wast of time and more like actual protection for our vehicles.

I think a rule similar to Necron's Quantum Shielding would be both fluffy and useful for Ork vehicles. For multi D wounds, roll a dice, and if you roll less than the amount of damage, it is ignored.

This would easily represent a lascannon hitting, but just going straight through without damaging anything important, and still leaving our vehicles vulnerable to high volume D1 fire (as they should be).

 TonyH122 wrote:
Thought this one might be worth a bit of discussion, particularly if this might be a change that applies to all -1 to hit army traits. I really hope that's not the case. The -1 to hit is already great, and I like the idea of making there be a trigger. But to have it be destroying an enemy unit makes no sense to me. This just makes it just as good for the player who goes first, but no where near as good for the one that goes second. Going first is already a major advantage without this on top of it! I would much prefer it if your army gets -1 to hit when one of YOUR units is destroyed. The point of the whole trait was to cause problems for gunlines, but this surely does the exact opposite for the person going second without addressing the fact that, when present, it's the auto go-to trait.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here? You don't want a -1 to hit modifier to be dependent on a trigger? It's not, currently? This isn't the place for discussions on -1 to hit modifiers except to state that they obviously break Ork shooting and probably shouldn't exist at all.

 Oguhmek wrote:
I think a rule similar to Necron's Quantum Shielding would be both fluffy and useful for Ork vehicles. For multi D wounds, roll a dice, and if you roll less than the amount of damage, it is ignored.

This would easily represent a lascannon hitting, but just going straight through without damaging anything important, and still leaving our vehicles vulnerable to high volume D1 fire (as they should be).

This is a great idea! Therefore, it won't be included in any of our datasheets

It does make a lot of sense though. Congrats on hitting with your lascannon, it's just a shame you hit the decorative spikes, ya git!

tneva82 wrote:
Yes but your number of hits goes up same %. 16% is 16%. Do math. Both tac and ork increases number of hits they get by same %. Which is 16.6666666666666666....%

Tneva, what's 16.66666% of 0? Then tell me what 16.66666% of 100 is. Please explain how these 2 numbers are the same and why the benefit is equal? We've done the math dude, you've been shown it above, it's clearly better to have rerolls on units that have a better chance to hit because the total number of extra hits you get is much larger.

DAKKA-DAKKA-DAKKA: Hit rolls of 6 and 1 always hit, no matter the modifiers, if the entire <ork> unit used all of it's weapons on the same target.

(Essentially a +1 BS, but I think it has a bit more flavor, also kmb actually does something)

I like that

Quick question: is that just a deff dread conversion at the foot of the stompa or..? I haven't seen it anywhere else, along with that big banner next to it
If it is just a conversion are there better images of it somewhere? It looks cool with dual miniguns and a KFF

Looks like a deff dread conversion, though I think miniguns would be awesome wargear

 Billagio wrote:
Looks like a deff dread conversion, though I think miniguns would be awesome wargear

Does look really cool!

I always thought Killa Kanz should be allowed specialise as either dual ranged weapons (or dual klaw), rather than 1 ranged + klaw. This would take advantage of Grot BS4+ and actually make them a nice shooting platform for Dread Mob lists. Rather than them being kinda Jack of all trades 'meh don't really pose a ranged threat BUT they can also CC a bit if they walk forwards for 3 turns...'

I think Killa Kans are actually kinda fine in the role they fill, they’re just – as with so much stuff that isn’t just boyz – a bit too expensive to justify taking them over like ten more boyz. If they were clocking in at like 45 points I’d be more into them.

As far as names go a lot of the new GW names sound weird to me. I'd guess that they're trying to make things more unique and easy to copyright, but I don't know. I'd also guess that part of it is that I'm used to the made up nonsense names that have been around since I was a child, so they don't sound weird to me even though they are probably equally strange. The new models look great though.

I wouldn't mind a boss character in between a nob and a warboss. I don't think it is at all necessary, I just think it would be cool. It could help make some army compositions make sense narratively. From a gameplay perspective I don't know what they'd really add, as the Orks already have redundant morale mitigation and don't need anymore. Maybe they could give the Warboss a better aura ability and give the junior warboss the old Knockin' Heads ability and/or make the junior warboss more points efficient as a beat stick unit while the Warboss is less points efficient as a beat stick but does a better job buffing.

I think the only way I would feel a junior warboss would be kind of necessary (as opposed to just cool) would be if they came out with a new warboss model that made the existing ones look puny (I'm waiting for more details on the giant blurry ork in the background of the Speed Freeks image). On the other hand if they came out with a new plastic ork that was a lot bigger than the current warbosses it could be a Warlord instead of a Warboss, which would definitely be cool.

I'm pretty excited for Orktober. If rumors of Moonclan are accurate we might also get more squig bits for kitbashing.

That’s a great idea! Bring out an ever bigger, badder Warlord, and let the current Warboss be the lieutenant-level character.

Damn, it would be so awesome and such an Orky thing to do.

They could create a "Warlord" type Ork with the warbosses as his lietenants, and Ghazzy with hopefully a new models as a named character Warlord

Keep the warboss as the "big" boss but create a Big Nob.