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.

I have some humble pie in my cubbard. You might need some milk to wash it down.

G

Care to cite some examples of these lists that crush orks?

To be completely honest one of my biggest fears with my SW's is Orks. But then again I do consider them very competitive and have an Ork army that would make my Space Wolves cry if it's run by someone competant. Of course now it'll be said I should build a "better" SW's list

Actually, he'd done a great job of un-painting himself out of the corner. By claiming that ALL tournaments are biased towards Orks, any empirical evidence is completely discounted.

And then, staking his position on the winner of the Nova tournament, is positively genius. Larger tournaments tend to favor the most recently released armies. Look at the number of Guard armies present at Adepticon as an example.

So, assuming that Orks will be under-represented, and that they out of all the other potential armies don't win over-all, then he's "proven" his point? Brilliant! Well done!

So, let's just summarize shall we? If you're playing Orks, and have won a tournament with them, it's only because you played "bad opponents". Either they weren't good players or they had a bad list. It wasn't the strength of your list, nor your good generalship.

And if you've lost to such a mediocre army as Orks, then tsk, tsk, tsk. You must be REALLY bad, or it's those "wacky" scenarios. So put down the green paint boyz and start buying Chimeras, the jig is up! We've been declared mediocre!

Care to cite some examples of these lists that crush orks?

Mech IG
Semi-mech IG
Speeder-heavy mech SM
Mech Vulkan
Immolator spam
Maximum overdrive
Footdar (just kidding)

So, let's just summarize shall we? If you're playing Orks, and have won a tournament with them, it's only because you played "bad opponents". Either they weren't good players or they had a bad list. It wasn't the strength of your list, nor your good generalship.

Oh barontuman, how many times do we need to emphasize the importance of basic reading comprehension? You get your panties in a bunch when I call you out on vomiting up strawman arguments and then you turn around and do it again. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not doing it on purpose, but are genuinely incapable of understanding simple passages like "Are there Ork armies that can hold their own in a competitive environment? Certainly! Winning games of 40k is not a simple function of army list strength." and "I do think that an Ork army in the hands of a good player will perform very well, particularly if it is one of the better Ork builds (ie, not a foot horde)."

In my experience, playing in tournaments, against the lists you mentioned that I've played against (mech ig, semi-mech ig, speed marines, mech vulkan, and maximum overdrive (???? - if that's massed space wolf razorbacks, then I played it with my orks, if not, I have no idea what maximum overdrive is), I've beat them almost every time. I ended up with one draw against a mech-guard army that was able to contest an objective a full 38 inches from its initial position (really lucky on both the drop-line scatter for his vendetta team and then also his run move), which would have been a win apart from that one insane move.

I played mech-guard at Adepticon, and at the last AWC tournament. I've played many games against my friend's semi-mech guard. I played razorback spam wolves at Adepticon, as well as TWC wolves, and biker marines. I don't see a lot of Vulkan, but I did face off against him in a tournament maybe six months ago?

So, either I'm a good enough player that I can beat the lists that supposedly crush orks - probably because they're always played by bad players (in spite of these bad player's finishes in the tournaments), or somehow your theory and my reality just don't intersect. I don't know what else to say. Your position is unassailable, because whenever anyone presents any evidence, you have a reason that it shouldn't count.

I've never played against immolator spam - I think it's a fairly rare list. I do not doubt that it can own orks though...

Mech Vulkan ?? Care to explain that one?

G

mech vulkan. Sounds like you play a marine army with vulkan in a tank

Let's start at the beginning shall we?

Danny Internets wrote:I think they've gained significant ground due to the deffrollas clarification, but still aren't in line with IG and SW.

Danny Internets wrote:Furthermore, while Orks can go mech, their big weakness is that they need to disembark to do anything, which breaks the #1 rule of mounting up: STAY IN THE TANK.

I understand that since you play IG it makes you feel good to think that IG are better than Orks on a fundamental basis. But your claim to ANECDOTAL evidence still isn't sufficient to prove your point. That's something the rest of us are waiting for you to demonstrate.

As an Ork player, I look forward to seeing lists that you've described. Orks EXCEL at killing stuff without getting out of their vehicles. As you've already noted, Boarding Planks, and Deffrollas allow a lot of damage to be done to vehicles without getting out. Further, mobile units like Snikrot Kommandoz and Deffkoptas kill everything except land-raiders with relative ease. And once you do decide to get out of the tank, even the basic troopers are the best in the game for killing vehicles.

So, vehicles aren't really a problem. Though you seem to think that they are.

Is it anti-infantry that you think they lack? Really?

Could it be that the Ork armies you're used to seeing aren't well designed or well played? Or is it more likely that all the OTHER Ork armies in competitive environments are just facing "bad" lists/players? Could it be that you tend to play at low points values where IG are stronger? I've heard it many times that at over 1750 or 1850 IG has already put all their "good stuff" on the table, yet Orks can still expand linearly. Strangely enough, I'm surprised at how balanced 40K actually is. Old books (with exceptions like Necrons) are still quite competitive with the new "wacky" scenarios from the book. Blood Angels aren't the game breakers that people once thought they to be, and even WH can be strong. Do foot-slogging Orks suffer the worst from Mech IG. Yes, I'll admit that easily. But I don't play the Black Horde for my Templars any longer either. If you're complaining that Orks are better at killing bad armies, but are still competitve, that doesn't hold much water either. Seems to me that makes them good against good lists, and great against bad lists.

Really, I'm anxious and waiting for you to actually MAKE A POINT. Perhaps then your claims of a straw-man argument would be valid. Until then, you're doing a lot of hand-waving and double talk to say absolutely nothing. So far, it seems like you're saying "Orks are in the middle, and IG are da best!" Wow, such insight!

IG and SW are in a top tier right now in terms of their potential. This is a fact based on their combination of mobility, surviveability and damage potential. Both armies are high in these areas.

Orks, unfortunately, are lacking. You have the ability to do great damage, but depending on which of the two main builds you are going with (wagons or foot), you are sacrificing your mobility or your surviveability. IG and SW do not have to make this choice (as an example).

Danny Internets wrote:They made a game where mechanized armies are powerful and then decided to run what they bill as a competitive tournament where you're supposed to bring the hardest list possible, but at the last second changed the game so that if you take the hardest archetype of list you get massively penalized (unless you're lucky to get matched up against a similar list).

Yup that's exactly how I see it as well. That's why I decided to skip the hardboy this year. It is basically a farce because of that unique mission. I really liked your Necron example later in the thread.

Been lurking for a while DI, just chiming in to say I agree.

On the Ork topic, I will say it too, I think Orks are mediocre as well.

At Adepticon this year I played an Ork team with battlewagons, meganobs, Warbike Boss, truck boys, buggies and a nice mech Ork list.

Examples of armies that crushed them?

Our Space Wolf mechanized list with long fangs and JOTWW priests.

We killed all their tanks with Long fangs, and swept them off the objectives in melees and destroyed their low I HQs with jotww. High points included killing the battlewagon then killing the warboss and half his retinue inside with Jotww and watching them route off the board in a single turn. They were just outclassed.

Also beat them with mech eldar at last years hardboy multiple times, as the foot sloggers they just had insufficient antitank to knock down the waveserpents, they were totally outclassed in melee by the seer council with Eldraad and Yriel who slaughtered 10-15 orks every round, and they were to slow to even reach all the objectives on the board. Any objectives they had were easily contested in the final turns with tank shocks in 3 inches.

Orks are a troop spam novelty gizmo army. They have awful tanks, poor shooting, non existant psychic defense and the classic T3 poor save dilemma as well. To many detriments to outway with lootas, nob bikers and volume with hidden power claws.

Fearspect wrote:IG and SW are in a top tier right now in terms of their potential. This is a fact based on their combination of mobility, surviveability and damage potential. Both armies are high in these areas.

Orks, unfortunately, are lacking. You have the ability to do great damage, but depending on which of the two main builds you are going with (wagons or foot), you are sacrificing your mobility or your surviveability. IG and SW do not have to make this choice (as an example).

I would have to totally agree with about the surviveability of the SW and IG , both of these armies are in the top tier select. If both of these goes first, most of the time its going to win, with the massive amount of firepower (IG)(SW)and melee power that (SW) have.

I won't dispute that Orks are not as good as SW and IG (given identical list building and generalship), but to call Orks a weak army when all the actually statistical evidence is to the contrary is pure folly. I would venture to say that they are a step down from the top, pretty much in the mix with Vanilla SM and BA, which puts them ahead of over half the armies out there. The army is very versitile and has some of the most point efficient units (outside of Grey Hunters) in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The death rolla clarification helped a lot, to be sure. Being able to trot 3-4 rollerwagons with KFF protection into multiple mech lines really countered one of the last things the army was weak to (AV14). Even without the Rollaspam, they still had options, though. I mean is anyone honestly going to argue that they are worse than Eldar, DA, GK, SoB, Necrons, or Tyranids?

Augustus wrote:On the Ork topic, I will say it too, I think Orks are mediocre as well.

At Adepticon this year I played an Ork team with battlewagons, meganobs, Warbike Boss, truck boys, buggies and a nice mech Ork list.

Examples of armies that crushed them?

Our Space Wolf mechanized list with long fangs and JOTWW priests.

We killed all their tanks with Long fangs, and swept them off the objectives in melees and destroyed their low I HQs with jotww. High points included killing the battlewagon then killing the warboss and half his retinue inside with Jotww and watching them route off the board in a single turn. They were just outclassed.

Also beat them with mech eldar at last years hardboy multiple times, as the foot sloggers they just had insufficient antitank to knock down the waveserpents, they were totally outclassed in melee by the seer council with Eldraad and Yriel who slaughtered 10-15 orks every round, and they were to slow to even reach all the objectives on the board. Any objectives they had were easily contested in the final turns with tank shocks in 3 inches.

Orks are a troop spam novelty gizmo army. They have awful tanks, poor shooting, non existant psychic defense and the classic T3 poor save dilemma as well. To many detriments to outway with lootas, nob bikers and volume with hidden power claws.

First, orks are T4.

Second, I see your Adepticon anecdote, and raise you - using a Kan wall build, DD1 finished 7th overall (6th in Battle Points). We beat IG, Space Wolves, more IG, and an Ork/IG hybrid, and we did it when 3/4 of us have never used Orks before or since.

Janthkin: When the only tactical option your army has is to run every single unit forward, of course you don't need practice with it.

Fearspect wrote:Janthkin: When the only tactical option your army has is to run every single unit forward, of course you don't need practice with it.

Oh yes. Because THAT'S exactly how we played it. It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the volume of fire shoota boy units put out, or the counter-assault flexibility provided by Killa Kans, or the durability of Ork units under KFF coverage. Nope, it's all just "Run straight at 'em!"

The Kan Wall is a SHOOTING list.

And you seemed to have missed the point, with your snide one-liner - a "mediocre" army book shouldn't perform that well, regardless of how simplistic the tactics, over a series of 8 games, now should it?

Considering that the 1st place team was also an all-ork team, with a completely different build, and you have to figure that either everyone is only playing lousy players, or maybe the codex does have some teeth, even in a metagame where 30% of the armies were mech-guard and 30% were space wolves.

I did pretty good got 5th but to be honest I hated the mission not having a secondary and Tetiary hurt. It was really win or lose the game on one thing. As much in fun games that might work but in a tourney you can't tell how the game really went by that like the other player might have almost tabled you yet tie on CPs kind of sucks to still draw. (happened to me yay 2 models left for him yay)

Oh and just for fun, back to the graph.

Danny what equation did you use to obtain the wonderful reverse Sigmoid curve?
Where did your data come from?
What is the scale?
What are we actually measuring?
Does this grap actually end at the boundaries or continue forever this isn't clear...
What was your sample size?
Am I to understand that if a player of X skill plays no-ork opponents then their performance will fit a liner model, I'm struggling with the as there is again no scale and we could be looking at an apparently straight section of a larger graph?
If we were to differentiate your S-curve what would the rate of change of orkish success against players of varying skill be at various points be?
Again no scale makes this hard.
One could conclude however that if one's performance with orks was already high then playing opponents of higher and higher skill would not influence ones success, that we can conclude without scale but we can't conclude at what levels of success or skill this happens.

So, just a few of the problems with your 'Graphs'. Which I'll let you know they aren't actually - because of some important elements that are missing from them.

Please stop committing maths abuse and showing off your innumeracy.

Danny Internets wrote:Orks were mediocre 11 months ago just as they are mediocre now.

Danny Internets wrote: I don't claim that Orks suck. I've made that clear at least twice before this post (more reading comprehension fail). I said they are mediocre, and, in fact, slightly less so due to the ruling on Deffrollas. Mediocre != bad, mediocre = mediocre. I'm really not sure how to simplify this statement for you any further.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediocre wrote:
Mediocre

Main Entry: me·di·o·cre
Pronunciation: \ˌmē-dē-ˈō-kər\
Function: adjective

of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance

So how are are you not calling Orks bad. So where's the reading comprehension fail? You are calling them of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance

The Ork codex has proven with the amount of "ANECDOTAL" evidence of top places and wins in tournaments that it has been one of the best written codexes. Consider the lists that have won. Nob bikers, Kan Wall, Dreadbash, Deffwagon, etc... Orks are not mediocre as the dictionary defines it, nor does it suck.

Orks are fine. There are many good army lists out there to play. Why is it so important to try and get Danny to see this? Why not just let him be in his own world. He doesn't play in many nationwide tourney's so we won't see him anyway. Let him be.

Redbeard - I'd like to get some games in against you with the Foot Eldar. Do you have time coming up?

I might be able to find some time. My schedule is kind of hurry-up-and-wait at the moment, I've got some really painful house repairs that need doing, but juggling the schedules of the contractors is being tricky. I can probably work something out though. PM me if you've got a specific time in mind.

Why is it so important to try and get Danny to see this? Why not just let him be in his own world. He doesn't play in many nationwide tourney's so we won't see him anyway. Let him be.

Good advice. It was fun to watch him squirm for a while, but it has gotten out of hand.

Janthkin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Janthkin: When the only tactical option your army has is to run every single unit forward, of course you don't need practice with it.

Oh yes. Because THAT'S exactly how we played it. It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the volume of fire shoota boy units put out, or the counter-assault flexibility provided by Killa Kans, or the durability of Ork units under KFF coverage. Nope, it's all just "Run straight at 'em!"

The Kan Wall is a SHOOTING list.

And you seemed to have missed the point, with your snide one-liner - a "mediocre" army book shouldn't perform that well, regardless of how simplistic the tactics, over a series of 8 games, now should it?

1) lol @ shooty orks

2) I don't get why everyone is taking this so personally. Just because the codex you enjoy playing isn't the best doesn't make you a bad person or player. It is just not optimal and there are better ones out there. This is a fact of balancing so many different armies while keeping them unique in playstyle. Please stop tying your self-worth in the performance (potential or otherwise) of your toys :(

DarthDiggler wrote:Orks are fine. There are many good army lists out there to play. Why is it so important to try and get Danny to see this? Why not just let him be in his own world. He doesn't play in many nationwide tourney's so we won't see him anyway. Let him be.

I don't have any real problem with any stance re armies he takes. What I do have a problem with is his lack of mathematical knowledge, rigor or possibly supporting of misinformation.

Fearspect wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Fearspect wrote:Janthkin: When the only tactical option your army has is to run every single unit forward, of course you don't need practice with it.

Oh yes. Because THAT'S exactly how we played it. It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the volume of fire shoota boy units put out, or the counter-assault flexibility provided by Killa Kans, or the durability of Ork units under KFF coverage. Nope, it's all just "Run straight at 'em!"

The Kan Wall is a SHOOTING list.

And you seemed to have missed the point, with your snide one-liner - a "mediocre" army book shouldn't perform that well, regardless of how simplistic the tactics, over a series of 8 games, now should it?

1) lol @ shooty orks

2) I don't get why everyone is taking this so personally. Just because the codex you enjoy playing isn't the best doesn't make you a bad person or player. It is just not optimal and there are better ones out there. This is a fact of balancing so many different armies while keeping them unique in playstyle. Please stop tying your self-worth in the performance (potential or otherwise) of your toys :(

Laugh away. How'd your team do over an 8-game tournament, out of a field of 119 teams, again?

Oh, right. You're expounding these hypotheses without having actually tested them.

It's not "my" army. I've played 4 games with Orks, ever, and will probably never use them again (Yakface took possession of the army after we were done). I just can't let the declarations of internet "gurus" stand unchallenged, when it is contrary to everything that actually happens at tournaments.

No one is claiming that Orks are the "best" codex. And I don't think anyone is linking their own feelings of adequacy to the perceived success of the codex. But slapping a label like "bad" or "mediocre" on one of the more competitive lists available, and one that is successful in a variety of forms, is counter to all available evidence.

DarthDiggler wrote:Orks are fine. There are many good army lists out there to play. Why is it so important to try and get Danny to see this? Why not just let him be in his own world. He doesn't play in many nationwide tourney's so we won't see him anyway. Let him be.

You're right, of course. The horse doesn't HAVE to drink.

(Adepticon was not a 40k tournament)

Except for the part where it's the largest 40k tournament in the world (excepting 'ard boyz, which is actually a bunch of smaller tournaments when you get right down to it), your statement makes perfect sense.

DarthDiggler wrote:Orks are fine. There are many good army lists out there to play. Why is it so important to try and get Danny to see this? Why not just let him be in his own world. He doesn't play in many nationwide tourney's so we won't see him anyway. Let him be.

Uh, this is exactly what I've been saying. MEDIOCRE DOES NOT MEAN BAD. IT MEANS AVERAGE. AVERAGE IS FINE. I've been explicit on this point no less than half a dozen times in this thread already. If all armies were average we'd have a perfectly balanced game.

You did actually read the thread before posting in it, right?

Danny - except mediocre does NOT mean average, it means poor to average.

Stop complaining of reading comprehension problems with others when you're unable to express yourself correctly.