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.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which makes it swingier.
And also punishes Daemons or anything else tough but without good armor.

they have a decent armor save. 4++ on many/most of them is pretty good, and any AP makes an attack better against units with trash armor like orks and guard.

If the damage is scaled so that a 2+ armor save can be killed at a reasonable rate with only one out of every six wounds going through, that would be far too effective against something with only a 4++.

 Forceride wrote:
Had same discussion with a friend of mine, he is a data scientist math is his thing.

The conclusion we got is that while pulsa rocket is nice to have versus high saves the loss of 1 extra d3 is kinda big the window of opportunity is pretty small as well. Over the course of a game if well played it will even out the odds. So the upgrade while good is mostly a side grade.

We were taking in account the game we were playing and he is Eldar.

As for the SAG, it consistently causes issues to my opponents, the rookits tend to whiff a lot.. on the other hand there is the usual i am f when they roll for the SAG.. I do admit it's rare for me to face sv3 vehicles but in general in that department, SAG is the main dealer, unless i catch a vehicle in the open there the -2 starts to rack up. That has been my experience so far.

My opponents tend to hide pretty well from shooting, so they gain cover consistently, the other thing is i rarely dismount t1 since i rather do some pot shots from trucks and wait on waghhh and bait opponent closer.

While I don’t agree every tankbusta unit needs pulsa rokkit…Tankbustas don’t live long enough to make it back during a game and firing them from a trukk prevents a few buffs from targeting them. The pulsa rokkit is for 1 use getting through 2+/3+ save units. Once you unload that tankbusta unit near that regal dorn tank commander that’s when it’s time to use pulsa rokkits, bomb squigs etc. Becuase that unit will not survive the return fire.

I can give it another go next game.

Still on the fence though.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Then increase the damage per shot so when it gets through it hits harder.
Besides I’d rather have a better chance of causing a saving throw than less chance to wound but more likely for them to fail.

I'm not talking about preferences. The math simply doesn't support your approach. Statistics don't end with averages, despite what the average wargamer thinks.

Number of shots, hit chances, wound chances and armor penetration chance are the four parameters that modify the shape of the bell curve of "damage done", while damage just stretches it. If you put too many extremes in those, you end up with extreme results which result in bad game experiences. Orks already have one extreme of low BS, if you put two more extremes in there (number of shots and AP), the unit becomes unreliable and spikey.

When orks rain down dozens of rokkits on a target, they are not supposed to be unreliable and spikey, quite the opposite. Even the most well armored foes are supposed to worry about all those rokkits hitting them, while less armored enemies are supposed to be obliterated. The current rokkit profile captures this feeling better than ever before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:

 Forceride wrote:
Had same discussion with a friend of mine, he is a data scientist math is his thing.

The conclusion we got is that while pulsa rocket is nice to have versus high saves the loss of 1 extra d3 is kinda big the window of opportunity is pretty small as well. Over the course of a game if well played it will even out the odds. So the upgrade while good is mostly a side grade.
<snip>

While I don’t agree every tankbusta unit needs pulsa rokkit…Tankbustas don’t live long enough to make it back during a game and firing them from a trukk prevents a few buffs from targeting them. The pulsa rokkit is for 1 use getting through 2+/3+ save units. Once you unload that tankbusta unit near that regal dorn tank commander that’s when it’s time to use pulsa rokkits, bomb squigs etc. Becuase that unit will not survive the return fire.

Same here. In my current lists, tank bustas are my solution to well armored targets and they direly need the pulsa for that. My opponents will go as far as to sacrifice units to take out their trukk, so it needs to stay where it's safe. Once they disembark, they will absolutely be dead the turn afterwards.

I agree that the extra rokkit is great when riding battlewagons or the gargantuan squig, so the option is definitely not a no-brainer. Especially when you have other solutions to high armor, like breaka boyz or a morkanaut.

I wonder why you find it useless against eldar tanks though. Going to wounding them on 2+ is a huge increase in damage.

Range, 36 or more means you have to bait them closer even on a good map.

If the vehicle has 24' like my friends vindis it's a different story

While i do agree for the pulsa for sv2 the fact i gain a d3 with blast helps a lot clearing chaff/elites and stuff that might be a threat.

This gives a lot of breath and while tanks are very common, unsupported they do not feel a threat and i have many other stuff i can move around clog or even be a threat with out tankbustas

I generally run a pair inside trucks with extra bodies like lootas or flamers, if it blows up i direct the damage to those, if not i use them as extra oc and to clog charges to trucks in general i barely ever lose 1 group entirely even with my opponent pushing up aggressively.

The most aggressive ones have genestealers on my side of deploy t1, so i am used to pressure lists.

I do admit i never faced knights and IG, since those are the biggest offenders when it comes to having high T. Friends went to tourney and those were the biggest issues, they came 5th on it. I still think i would be fine though.

Hope it sheds some light in my perspective. Also i agree with Mordian glory that the meta is shifting into elites ever since Eldar dropped. But that's my opinion lol.

Oh i also forgot that i play a lot against grey knights, it's an entire different game since you have to plan so much ahead with their 3 unit tely after your movement phase.

Maybe enough dakka? Meta Monday this week looks like this. Orks 4th most played faction. More Dakka 67% win rate. And it is a 1 week people just give it a try!

Emergency nerfhammer comes very soon I hope.

Edit: some math about in on Goonhammer too. It seems More Dakka got into douchbag area. I don 't like it. https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-mo-dakka-mo-problems/

I am sry but need's to be said:

Need more DAKKA!

 Tomsug wrote:
Maybe enough dakka? Meta Monday this week looks like this. Orks 4th most played faction. More Dakka 67% win rate. And it is a 1 week people just give it a try!

Emergency nerfhammer comes very soon I hope.

Edit: some math about in on Goonhammer too. It seems More Dakka got into douchbag area. I don 't like it. https://www.goonhammer.com/hammer-of-math-mo-dakka-mo-problems/

I hope they just delete the detachment because orks were in a good place before more Dakka detachment and I fully expect GW to do thier typical overdone triple nerf to destroy orks with massive point hikes, kill the detachment with multiple nerfs and then nerf the datasheets for good measure… when in reality the only issue was more Dakka was way over pushed.

Hopefully they just do a ctrl+F on the detachment and replace "infantry and walker models" to "Speed Freekz and Battle wagons"

Well, Gungo is almost right…

So emergency dataslate this weekend or start of next week? Any bets?

No point in feeling down... we are going to get hit again and probably going to be rammed through GW style.

Let's grab popcorn and just bask in the comparison with 9th where freebotas and buggies went insane. GW really can't balance orks.. ahhh down the hatch we gooo...

 Tomsug wrote:
Well, Gungo is almost right…

Pathetic.

With how salty the competitive scene tends to get whenever Orks go above their station in terms of wins, I expect a very brutal nerf that unfortunately will likely include the units themselves in the crossfire unfortunately. It does seem premature to already ban them that quickly though after 2 tournies. I'm only aware of Votann on their first release in 9th getting similar treatment.

I really do not love reactionary community bullying like that. I 100% believe GW needs to patch this ASAP, but throwing a tantrum like that is not a good way to go about it.

Outright banning a whole detachment just feels bad. And really, as we've seen, the problems usually aren't with the detachment itself, but rather the stupid wombo-combos and the juvenile need to win at all costs.

The detachment is stupid good though. Orks were already performing well, and this detachment is an all-upside buff to our best units with no drawbacks whatsoever.

It clearly was never tested in combination with the new tankbusta datasheet, and that completely blew up in GW's face.

An emergency nerf is direly needed, especially since a nerf would have absolutely no negative impact on casual play.

Is it common for tourneys to ban Detachments that are doing well in games?

Nope, it's rare... we only see things like these when GW screws up really badly.

There have been situations in the past but GW stepped in and nerfed the offenders to oblivion.

The best we can hope is GW does not hit anything else but the detach.

Exactly. This is a rare situation. MD detachement is really seriously broken.

And btw. GW can balance somehow. The game as a whole exept this nonsensce is balanced very well. And even the infamous buggies (an planes) was after some iterations ok. Last versions of Speedmob were absolutely ok.

To scratch the whole detach is simple, fast and effective solution. It brings nothing significantly new to the game. And the rest works fine.

 Quixote wrote:
Is it common for tourneys to ban Detachments that are doing well in games?

I think it happend like four times in recent history? And each time it was well deserved.

And this time we aren't even talking about banning an army like what happened to Eldar or LoV. We are talking about banning a detachment which is just running almost exactly the same units as taktiks or dread mob would run, with a better detachment rule and better stratagems.

 Jidmah wrote:
It clearly was never tested in combination with the new tankbusta datasheet, and that completely blew up in GW's face.

I don't think it was tested at all.

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It clearly was never tested in combination with the new tankbusta datasheet, and that completely blew up in GW's face.

I don't think it was tested at all.

Personally, I think GW forgot the tendency of tournament players to just spam the ever-loving crap out of things. Sprinkle in some non-Mek characters and big units of Boyz to actually fight in melee for objectives, and the whole thing actually becomes reasonable. In fact, this might actually be the best argument against getting rid of the FOC...

I wish countess, if it were just that we would attribute it to a simple oversight.

But like mentioned before by both me and Jidmah and others, orks are a mathy army. Crazy right? I know!

I myself needed to use some apps to crunch numbers in order to get an idea of their performance.

In our case like mentioned we are consistently on the end of the bell curve and rarely in the top meaning we are inconsistency with spike tendency. But this spike is what makes it so hard to balance.

Had they made the average calculation of what meant a Sustained 2 for the army, then amazing waagg strat and it's insanity... this might have been avoided. Human suck at perceiving probability and risk btw.

what i saw?... a normal loota doing 24 to 22 hits not counting spana for 100pts? in ideal conditions... that's insane for the game...

There was this argument that GW balances by what it feels is right, throw's a few dice and is math averse... I don't appreciate conspiracies but it's hard to justify this one...

 BorderCountess wrote:
Personally, I think GW forgot the tendency of tournament players to just spam the ever-loving crap out of things. Sprinkle in some non-Mek characters and big units of Boyz to actually fight in melee for objectives, and the whole thing actually becomes reasonable. In fact, this might actually be the best argument against getting rid of the FOC...

You could at least bother to look up some of the winning lists before judging people

Most of the dozen or so top 8 placements last weekend do exactly what you are suggesting.

The FOC has never solved the spam problem, and would fail to solve this one as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Afrodactyl wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
It clearly was never tested in combination with the new tankbusta datasheet, and that completely blew up in GW's face.

I don't think it was tested at all.

Without tank bustas and the 1CP Waaagh! stratagem, I'd argue the detachment would be fairly reasonable. For most of our units, doubling their shooting would be fairly unnoticable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Forceride wrote:
I wish countess, if it were just that we would attribute it to a simple oversight.

I bet Tankbustas vs Dakka detachment was just corporate communication at work
The Zodgrod combo was an oversight
Pricing an extra Waaagh! at one CP was stupid, period.

Human suck at perceiving probability and risk btw.

You can say that again... the worst part is the Dunning-Kruger effect making people assume that they understand statistics.

Tankbustas aren’t the best unit in this detachment. I’d argue lootas are better…
I mean tankbustas are even more broken when combined with the rapid fire 1 enhancement in ideal range with big Mek w shokk. But lootas are just absurdly broken all the time.

I’m hoping more tournaments ban more Dakka as I truly believe the data will show none of the ork datasheets are broken when more Dakka isn’t included. As I don’t think ork win rates or placings justify any major changes to datasheets with more Dakka removed.

The big strength of Tankbustas in the list is the ability to decide who you attach the SAG to depending on matchup.

On non UK tables, the Dakka is okey, powerful but okey as long as you remove the ability from grot units to go in to a wagghh state. It is a very shoty detachment, but it is also very dice roll dependant , has practicaly no re-rolls for shoting and the core units (bustas/lootaz) have paper thin resiliance the way w40k functions right now. Especialy comparing to what the units cost.

The only problem with the detachment is the super grots+scout+beefy character+1CP waagh. combo. That ends games turn 1, especialy for armies that don't spam infiltrators . Now if GW, wasn't GW they would fix Zog and the grots. But what they will probably do is carpet bomb the whole unit section with point hikes and direct rules nerfs to the detachment. This will not just stomp the detachment in to oblivion, but will make it extremly unfun to use the nerfed units outside of the Dakka detachment. It is nothing new for w40k, heck orks alone were hit by such a change 2 or was it 3 times this edition?


Never again will I post from(christ the thing just correct it to form) a phone. my english is bad enough, but th stuff auto correct does it, makes it hard for me to read it.

^
Brings up an excellent point.

Do you think GW will:
A) Scrap the detachment altogether.
B) Fix the key issues with the Detachment.
C)Hike the points up unilaterally across-the-board.
D)Ignore the issue until the next dataslate update period.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
^
Brings up an excellent point.

Do you think GW will:
A) Scrap the detachment altogether.
B) Fix the key issues with the Detachment.
C)Hike the points up unilaterally across-the-board.
D)Ignore the issue until the next dataslate update period.

First they'll ignore it, then go, "Oops, yeah, we should fix that," and nerf both the detachment itself (expect the Waaagh! stratagem to go to 2CP) and increase the points of Lootas and Tankbustas.

Honestly, if More Dakka was changed to sustained 1, I think it would be just fine. Basically a shooty version of the War Horde detachment.