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.

One of the trends in 40k is that people tend to play bad (ie, poorly optimized) lists, even in tournaments. This has been stated numerous times throughout the thread, and is central to the position that Orks are not competitive.

But that is just answering subjective data with a subjective argument.

It requires a fair amount of personal bias to say that the results and trends taking place is because of conditions that favor a particular argument.

I am not arguing that looking at the results of any sort of tournament, albeit National or Local, is concrete evidence. You have too many factors you have to account for that can dictate a particular races performance. You can argue that the majority of Ork players play the list badly, just as much as you can argue that the majority of their opponents are pants-on-head mentally handicapped. Each supports one side of the argument but neither can be taken seriously.

And to counterbalance your own experience, my club has a lot of competitive players that perform exceedingly well in tournaments. None of us have any problems with Orks, and as a result Orks tend to fare very poorly in this area (with respect to competitive events). In fact, I haven't seen an Ork player even place in the top 3 in any of the last 12 tournaments I've attended in the past year.

What kind of lists are prevalent in your area, and have Orks adapted? Some more data for a comparative study helps keep this discussion on the level.

It requires a fair amount of personal bias to say that the results and trends taking place is because of conditions that favor a particular argument.

It also requires a fair amount of personal bias to say that the results and trends taking place are NOT because of said conditions.

What kind of lists are prevalent in your area, and have Orks adapted? Some more data for a comparative study helps keep this discussion on the level.

Orks actually have a strong presence at the tournaments in this area (not performance-wise, but in terms of overall representation). Mostly Nob bikers and, more recently, fully mechanized armies, but there are also some horde Ork players and miscellaneous as well. Both of the good Ork players I know who participate in tournaments have given them up in favor of other armies though, citing their inability to keep up with better armies (they have since enjoyed more success with Vulkan Marines and Daemon Hunters, respectively).

And to extend the frame of reference, MEQs are more prevalent here than usual, at least from my experience playing in a few different areas on the east coast. With the exception of the last tournament I attended (mech vets won), marines usually sweep the top spots. And the tournaments are fairly large, each consisting of 35-40 participants.

Primarch wrote:Unfair generalization here Frank. You don't seem to lump all Marine players into one category, why would you lump all Ork players into one?

In response to:

It isn't. Ork players don't make competetive lists - at best they look through their Codex and think "opponents won't be able to deal with this -- I'll put that in my list!". Look at the AV14 coping strategies for evidence. Most players use the balance of their list to cope with AV14-heavy armies; Ork players throw Battlewagons and Power Klaws galore at them in an attempt to out-spam the Raider-spam.

It's not a generalisation. It's not a jab at Ork players. It's not that I'm saying Ork players deliberately buy the Codex just so's they can no-brain their way through useless opposition. A lot of Ork players probably put a helluva lot of thought into their lists and models and whatnot.

All I'm saying is that, no matter how much thought you put into your Ork list, the net result is the same; if you meet someone who isn't worried by you, with a list that can handle what your Orks are bringing to the table, you're liable to get a pounding. Same could be said of a lot of Smurf lists too, except that the Smurf Codex also contains a lot of useful stuff amidst the fluff-driven crap.

Secondly, if you played an army with no melta weapons, wouldn't you figure out what in the codex could kill a Land Raider and include at least some of that?

There's a lot in the Ork Codex that can kill a Land Raider, under the right circumstances. If you manage to get your Deffrolla into a Ram it might work. If you manage to get a few Powerklaws hitting the thing, it might work. A properly played Land Raider though, probably not.

So yeah, include all the Powerklaws and Deffrollas you want, and throw in some Zzap Guns and whatever else you fancy too. Fact is none of them work with more than 50% reliability against properly-played LRs, whereas the LRs will do what they do on every single turn of the game.

I really think you are being very close minded about this. You spout off a lot of things as if they were fact, then ignore anyone else who counters with a different opinion.

I don't "ignore" anyone; I've spent a lot of time answering the things people put to me. What I'm doing is refuting what I find to be untrue, which is a lot different from ignoring it. What's the point in taking someone else's opinion on board when I know it's wrong? All that does is muddle the data.

As far as hurting people's feelings by refuting what they're saying and calling the Ork Codex out for what it is, all I can say is "meh". If reading this stuff bothers you it's your own fault for beating nuggets with an uncompetetive army and then thinking you're awesome because of it.

Everyone's opinion in this thread is worth exactly the same thing, nothing. That's all you have is opinion, and my opinion is different.

The thing is your opinion doesn't seem to be based on observable evidence. A lot of the Ork players I know have bought Orks to use as a "tournament army", some because they've seen all the whingeing people do about Orks and decided to get them some of the powergame goodness, some because they realise that the Orks are incredibly powerful against unprepared opposition. These folks bring hard lists to pretty much every game they play, and I haven't seen a single one yet that hasn't crumbled in the face of a properly played 5th Edition list.

The people in the Stelek camp have a perfect opportunity to show us all up in the Ard Boyz. They should bring a "best of" list from his site, or put together a competitive all-comers 5th edition codex list, and wipe us all out right? Let's see how well that works out for them in round 2.

Apparently there are a lot of Vulkan Bikers in round 2, plus at least one Best Of Tau list that I know of. So yeah, I suppose we'll see.

The thing is, I live/play in a very competitive environment in the Atlanta area. There are a lot of strong players here, and they don't bring "weak" lists. These guys rummage through the codexes with the best of them, and find every competitive edge they can get their hands on, and guess what? They bring Chaos with Lash, Daemons, Orks and the like to events. That runs exactly opposite of what you and Stelek have to say.

No it doesn't. That's the same thing people do round here, and it's the same mentality that people have when they bring Raider-spam and Drop Pod armies to tournaments thinking they can cheese their way to a decent placing. Nine times out of ten it works, but, just like the Orks, once you meet someone who has your Lash/ Raiders/ Sternies figured out, you're going to lose a game. It usually doesn't matter in the long run because you can still place by winning the other 4 or whatever, but you'll still lose a game.

Now, are these guys such bad players that they have it that far wrong? No way, no how, at least until you prove otherwise.

The only way we can prove otherwise is when everyone else brings a hard 5th Edition list that accounts for and deals with the cheese, and indeed everything else, to a tourney. Otherwise these people will still be able to reap the rewards their poorly-constructed lists bring against dodgy oppo.

Primarch wrote:Point taken, but shouldn't you be addressing Frank here? We are saying that national level events, Adepticon, Ard Boyz, and things like that are STILL a better gauge of how good an army is, than a local group playing against themselves. While Frank, is disregarding any national level event, to insist that local play has born out the FACT that Orks aren't a competitive list at all.

9 pages and you're still not on the trolley yet.

Play locally, play nationally, play wherever you want to. Go and play on Mars if you like (don't wake the Dragon though). Until they either A) release a new Orks Codex, or B) release 6th Edition and gear it towards armies whose only strategy is to rely on their opponents to suck, then the Orks won't be a competetive codex.

Keyasa wrote:I seriously don't see what the problem is here. The whole arguement is based on subjective opinions; Orks are bad because they can't deal with AV14.

No, that's not it at all. Read the thread back.

But can't Orks deal with everything else just as well as anybody else?

No.

I am really confused with this discussion. Orks suck because they suck against Landraiders? Ok, what's 3 lascannons going to do against 30 boys and a PK? Oh, the guys inside the raider are going to bail out and fight- nice, you just lost your AV14 advantage. I'm still befuzzled (c)

That's because you're focussing far too much on the fact that Orks have no reliable way to crack AV14. Reread the thread. Start from page two. I know it's a lot of work, but it'll allow you to ground yourself in the actual discussion taking place and join in properly.

It also requires a fair amount of personal bias to say that the results and trends taking place are NOT because of said conditions.

This can get circular really fast, but you are arguing the greater fallacy. You are taking the results and what you see from your local area and applying it to the greater whole.

It's like only ever watching your favorite football team at home, seeing an outside team constantly loose to your home team, and then have outside team make it to the super bowl. The only "obvious" rational was that the rest of the teams must be such loosers as to loose to this outside team which clearly sucks from your personal experience.

Warhammer 40k doesn't have the player stats, the game reporting, or the honest assessment of skill levels that professional sports do to accurately judge the performance of a particular race.

That is not to say there isn't a definitive competitive gap between races. I can quote how well Necrons do all day, but that isn't going to make Necrons magically better by proxy.

We will see what the second round of the Aard Boyz brings and see if the results are clearer. Another tournament to look at is this week's Necro that has a fair amount of cometitive gamers and a fair amount of Ork players (and a fair amount of cross over between the two).

Frank Fugger wrote:

Keyasa wrote:

I am really confused with this discussion. Orks suck because they suck against Landraiders? Ok, what's 3 lascannons going to do against 30 boys and a PK? Oh, the guys inside the raider are going to bail out and fight- nice, you just lost your AV14 advantage. I'm still befuzzled (c)

That's because you're focussing far too much on the fact that Orks have no reliable way to crack AV14. Reread the thread. Start from page two. I know it's a lot of work, but it'll allow you to ground yourself in the actual discussion taking place and join in properly.

I tried, I really did, but it's nine pages and I couldn't focus (too much brandy). Plus there was a patch of paint drying on the wall which kept distracting me.

However, in the interests of properly joining in with what is turning into a good debate, I'll commence with a glad heart...

Keyasa wrote:(too much brandy)

Rupert's Ruin, old bean.

Another salient point I feel I should mention; if you want to join in the discussion feel free, just make sure you're on the same page as the rest of us. Seems like common courtesy to me. If you find it boring, don't participate. It's fine. If you can't spend ten minutes of your life reading back over the thread, just go and do something else. Don't fret about it; nothing of value will be lost. Go and watch Corrie or something. Seriously, we'll manage without you.

If you look back through the thread, both sides are using fallacy to push their point forward, either:

a) I have seen Orks do well in my local area/tournament, therefore they are good (you may have seen a special case), or;

b) I believe that Orks cannot do well, because they cannot deal with this list of things... (that may be irrelevant to winning the majority of your games), or even;

c) Army lists and codex strength is irrelevant, all that matters is the skill of the player (better tacticians will prevail with superior tools).

My personal opinion is that Orks do not do well against my army, a meched up and Landraidering Vulkan list. Others have different opinions.

What I find strange is that you can draw a parallel between this and discussions about Necrons, for example. A larger portion of the community agrees that Necrons have a poor codex (possibly the worst). Similarly for Tyranids. Yet several Necron and Tyranid armies have moved on to the next round.

I think the safest bet is to hold on to opinions deciding the 'best' armies out there based on the number of people that got through the first round of 'Ard Boyz. Let us see what armies are weeded out in at least the next round. It may even turn out that Orks, while not the 'best', will solidly announce themselves as 'competitive'.

Elessar wrote:Yes, but target is determined by LOS - you cannot turn to shoot something that no member of the unit was not previously facing.

Page 16 defines targeting, and states you require LOS to declare something a target. Ergo, you must end the MOVEMENT phase facing any potential target.

Everyone note this thread entry.


This is positively a SURE-FIRE way to get people to never want to play you again. A great example on how to become TFG.


Personal Note: If someone tried this on me in a tournement I would use the "model can see thru his own head because models in the unit dont block line of sight" defense.

Thats hilarious, seriously.

I've been watching this thread for all of the incredble 9 pages plus the previous locked incarnation.

The basic argument I have seen from the people proposing Orks suck/are overrated..whatever,

1)Orks in their area aren't doing well so this must mean that everyone else experience is the same or should be.
2)Orks have a hard time with certain lists-namely highly mechanized and more specifically landraider spam
3)Orks are a noobhammer army that don't require as much skill and tactics to win with, so therefore anyone that wins with orks are playing against inferior oponents or inferior lists.

Those 3 basic elements keep getting repeated over and over again.

OK we get it.......Now I suggest that the people defending the ork codex realize that the people attacking it are opinionated, and their opinions are based on their experiance that cannot be backed up by any facts whatsoever........and move on.

Your not going to convince them, and quite frankly you are just spinning your wheels here.

This thread has become a peeing contest IMO.

GG

Ok I'll try my hand at this.

Could orks be better in lower points games ?

I went to stelek's blog and all of his Ork killer list are 2000 or 2500 pts.

Where i play our local tourney and games are usually 1500 or 1700 pts which limits a lot more the heavy/shiny stuff.

Also I've only seen once a raider spam army (3) and let me tell you that with all the melta running around in 5th ED they don't last that long once in range. So that's a lot of points in dead raider for a 1500 to 1700 game.

Frank Fugger wrote:
There's a lot in the Ork Codex that can kill a Land Raider, under the right circumstances. If you manage to get your Deffrolla into a Ram it might work. If you manage to get a few Powerklaws hitting the thing, it might work. A properly played Land Raider though, probably not.

For the sake of argument say that Deffrollas work, how does a Land Raider heavy list, or even one with only one or two, deal with 4-6 Battlewagons with Deff Rollas/KFF? Long range shooting is failure against obscured AV14, even with open topped, and to use short range shooting you run a definite risk of being wiped out by Deff Rolla rams.

Yes, some lists have the mobility or firepower to deal with it, basic Marines to my knowledge don't really have the options.

The thing is your opinion doesn't seem to be based on observable evidence. A lot of the Ork players I know have bought Orks to use as a "tournament army", some because they've seen all the whingeing people do about Orks and decided to get them some of the powergame goodness, some because they realise that the Orks are incredibly powerful against unprepared opposition. These folks bring hard lists to pretty much every game they play, and I haven't seen a single one yet that hasn't crumbled in the face of a properly played 5th Edition list.

I could use the same first sentence against you. Then follow up with this; A lot of Ork players I know have bought Orks to use as a "tournament army", some because they've seen all the whingeing people do about Orks and decided to get them some of the powergame goodness, some because they realise that the Orks are incredibly powerful against unprepared opposition. These folks bring their hard lists to pretty much every game they play, and I haven't seen a single one yet that has crumbled in the face of a properly played 5th Edition list.

You are only using the evidence of the local players that play Orks. I am doing the same, but with one exception. I am adding in all the national results. Where you are choosing to believe those results are worthless.

properly played 5th Edition list.

I'm willing to test your theory. Shoot me a pm with your definition of the above quote. Give me a list that I can take and use against some of the Ork lists, and I will give you a fair assessement when I'm done. You may convince me yet, but it's going to take something like this. Your definition of a properly played 5th edition list must somehow differ from mine.



Clay

Every army has its inherent weaknesses.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Every army has its inherent weaknesses.

Wrong, if you lose with an army your a noob.

I hope that was sarcastic...

Everyone is a noob to me.

Primarch wrote:I know we aren't talking RAW here, because since Models in the firing unit do not block line of sight, cant he just look through the back of his own head? I mean, thats the RAW version, which would indeed mean they have a 360 degree arc of fire....

No, because "Line of sight literally represents your warriors’ view of
the enemy – ... players will have to stoop
over the table for a ‘model’s eye view’. This means
getting down to the level of your warriors, taking in
the view from behind the firing models to ‘see what
they can see’.

You are allowed to shoot 360° (by turning the models - no need to do that if they had 360° field of vision) but you are not forced to turn them facing anywhere you don't want them to. After that, you take a look from behind, not by staring at their eyes.

Frank Fugger wrote:
Nowhere near as hard as 10 Grey Knights in a Land Raider.

One would hope so, seeing as that is considerably more points than 30 Orks. How hard it is to get them off of an objective is of course relative. Fire Dragon + Banshees would naturally have an easier time against the GK's.

There's also a third "some" who run balanced 5th Edition lists rather than taking "cheese" lists (the 1st "some") or whatever they have to hand (the 2nd "some"). The third "some" are the minority.

Fine, although I consider a strong list to contain some balancing elements, and a balanced list to be inherently stronger in an all comers environment than one taken with background or real life reasons in mind. Dunno how far we disagree here.

It isn't. Ork players don't make competetive lists - at best they look through their Codex and think "opponents won't be able to deal with this -- I'll put that in my list!". Look at the AV14 coping strategies for evidence. Most players use the balance of their list to cope with AV14-heavy armies; Ork players throw Battlewagons and Power Klaws galore at them in an attempt to out-spam the Raider-spam.

I don't know if the majority really thinks this way. I can imagine it is nice to have at least something that could possibly work in a pinch but the thought that opponents won't be able to handle X or Y as such doesn't strike me as outlandish. People take plaguebearers or AV14 or Wave Serpents or whatnot with precisely this motto, and if a majority of opponents cannot in fact deal with that, then you *have* brought a competetive list.

None of those three armies are anywhere near as forgiving as the Orks. Inb4 "BUT IG CAN GET FIVE MILLIONSANDDREAD TANKS!" Build a 1500pt IG list and see what you get for your points.

That is why I offered alternative adjectives instead. I am painfully aware that IG tanks are expensive.

It will, and indeed I hope it does too; that way when I come to a club and kick the reigning super-champ Ork player around the table with my grotty Tau list, people will think I'm awesome.

Wait...they don't already?!? What the...

As in, the opponents that they play every week. Codexes don't enter into it. If you play an Ork player every week you will most likely gear your list towards beating him. That's fine; just don't call that list an "all-comers" list, take it to a tournament and expect it to be able to beat every Ork list going.

"Taking into account" is very different from "tailoring towards a single build". The latter is utter folly, and if that is indeed what is happening in tournaments, my world view lies in tatters. The former is the simple thought process (and, hopefully, according action) of "What if I chance upon X?", so you include some templates for crowd control, some autocannon for transport hunting etc.

If I'm Doin' It Wrong, and I usually play an Ork player who takes no vehicles and a million SHoota Boyz, my list will be geared towards killing lots of Boyz. If I then Do It Moar Wrong, go to a tournament and face a Battlewagon spammer, my list is geared towards killing lots of Boyz. Do you see how that's bad?

I see how Doin' It Wrong is bad but you did not need to explain that, seeing as it is dangerously close to a tautology. I do not see that people actually Do It Wrong though. Of course the codex comes into this: The sheer variety of possible builds gives Orks as a faction an edge.

All of whom play a list that is a variation on a theme - the theme being "boy howdy I sure hope my opponent hasn't got any [x/y/z] to kill/ avoid my [a/b/c]!" A list that contains lots of [x] to counter lots of [a] will invariably fail it against a list that contains much [b] instead. Simple algebra. If, however, your list contains no specific counters to [a/b/c], but is built and played around the idea of tackling everything, you'll do better.

The first part I agree with, the second, not so much. You need counters to threats, otherwise you cannot tackle everything. You need to include stuff to deal with monsters, vehicles, infantry of all calibres, fast stuff, resilient stuff etc. Sometimes, some tools will be wasted, as flamers don't help much against a Termi-heavy opponent. For example. To be more concrete, autocannon, assault cannon and scatter lasers will probably mince Speed Freaks/Trukk heavy Orks - if they can get enough shots off that is. I'm not really sure how they'd impress a horde or Kan Wall of Death. Of course one can argue that a horde player hopes not to meet a flamer-heavy opponent but I've yet to see a list with enough templates to worry - not if you'd like to have some tools for other jobs, too.

First, you tell me how you optimise an Ork list. How do you do that? Lootas? Rokkits? Tankbustas (alololol)? What?

By taking the best you can get in spades - basic Orks, with a little support from elsewhere (Deffkoptas, Nobs, Kans). Note that I'm not saying one cannot deal with that at all. People could deal with the old IW lists, or EldarAirCav with indestructable skimmers, too - 'twas just a minority.

Way I see it you can't optimise an Ork list. It relies on the opponent being unable to deal with what it brings to the table

Which I insist is a far too general statement and as such applies to each and every list. Not being able to deal with skimmers, MEQ, AV12, AV14, the opponent's mobility, not being able to handle FNP + T5, or T5 + 3+/5++ Sv, or re-rollable saves, you name it.

Platitudes?... Well lah-di-dah, Mr. "I have failed to comprehend anything that's been going on thus far but I demand in a Teutonically arrogant way that you answer my non-points anyway!"

That was actually pretty funny, Frank. :-)

Ok, followed Frank's advice and read through whilst sober. I also read Stelek's stuff, and a few other pages here and there. I am afraid I am starting to agree with Frank. I play Orks, usually when completely p*ssed, and I only have to make a coulple of mistakes to get punished royally by my friends Mech Marine list (landraiders, vindicators, rhinos, oh my). Whereas it seems to me I have to get really lucky with rolls/bad decisions by him in order to gain ANY kind of foothold. I don't play tournaments (someone might see me in the store if I'm there longer than 5 minutes. Quick like Ninja) but reading all the bumf on the net it would seem to support Frank, the current metagame favours mech and Orks struggle somewhat against a well-played mech list.

Apologies if earlier posts were argumentitive but I was getting involved in something without researching first (always a fools move).

And this is from an Ork player who loves his Orks, and his Necrons (only cos they paint up real easy)

This can get circular really fast, but you are arguing the greater fallacy. You are taking the results and what you see from your local area and applying it to the greater whole.

There's nothing circular about it.

One can argue a point based on subjective data.

One cannot refute it on the grounds that it is subjective by using one's own subjective data without being hypocritical. You can acknowledge potential flaws in the data and doubt the conclusions drawn from them, but you cannot refute them any more definitively than they were made in the first place.

Danny Internets wrote:One cannot refute it on the grounds that it is subjective by using one's own subjective data without being hypocritical. You can acknowledge potential flaws in the data and doubt the conclusions drawn from them, but you cannot refute them any more definitively than they were made in the first place.

Actually, it seems like one can, amirite?

If one claims subjective data is an insufficient source from which to draw valid conclusions, then one can't use other subjective data to refute said conclusions. By one's own logic, the refutation is not adequately supported.

Then you're essentially arguing that this debate is purposeless. Because we'll never have the perfectly objective competition required to test the hypothesis. And since no real-world competition will ever meet this criteria, it doesn't really matter why Orks generally do well in competitions. It just matters whether or not they do.

If you're looking for perfect objectivity, then, yes, this debate is pointless. There's no such thing. That's kind of why you need to take the whole "your experience doesn't mean anything" argument with a grain of salt, because there is no golden treasure trove of objective tournament data from which to draw conclusions.

Some of the experience is broader (and therefore embodies greater external validity) than others, but it's all subjective.

Danny Internets wrote:If one claims subjective data is an insufficient source from which to draw valid conclusions, then one can't use other subjective data to refute said conclusions. By one's own logic, the refutation is not adequately supported.

What an eloquent way of pointing out what I giant turd this thread has become. Man it really smells like piss in here.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Elessar wrote:Yes, but target is determined by LOS - you cannot turn to shoot something that no member of the unit was not previously facing.
Page 16 defines targeting, and states you require LOS to declare something a target. Ergo, you must end the MOVEMENT phase facing any potential target.

Everyone note this thread entry.
This is positively a SURE-FIRE way to get people to never want to play you again. A great example on how to become TFG.

Thanks for reminding me why I plonked Elessar.

gorgon wrote:Then you're essentially arguing that this debate is purposeless. Because we'll never have the perfectly objective competition required to test the hypothesis. And since no real-world competition will ever meet this criteria, it doesn't really matter why Orks generally do well in competitions. It just matters whether or not they do.

Danny Internets wrote:If one claims subjective data is an insufficient source from which to draw valid conclusions, then one can't use other subjective data to refute said conclusions. By one's own logic, the refutation is not adequately supported.

I thought there was a vague consensus that while the first round results of 'Ard Boyz is flawed by a myriad of issues, further rounds will - to a reasonable amount - push this disagreement solidly into a single camp?

The Green Git wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Elessar wrote:Yes, but target is determined by LOS - you cannot turn to shoot something that no member of the unit was not previously facing.
Page 16 defines targeting, and states you require LOS to declare something a target. Ergo, you must end the MOVEMENT phase facing any potential target.

Everyone note this thread entry.
This is positively a SURE-FIRE way to get people to never want to play you again. A great example on how to become TFG.

Thanks for reminding me why I plonked Elessar.

Plonked? Not familiar with the word in this context.

Anyway,

You are allowed to shoot 360° (by turning the models - no need to do that if they had 360° field of vision) but you are not forced to turn them facing anywhere you don't want them to. After that, you take a look from behind, not by staring at their eyes.

- See the Rules thread on this - http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/249229.page#857606

Personal Note: If someone tried this on me in a tournement I would use the "model can see thru his own head because models in the unit dont block line of sight" defense.

- Do you allow Drop Pods to shoot through their own hull? If not, this is not a valid stance. Anyone who tries to pull this on you does so because they wish to actually use TLOS - as Alessio said he intended.

Whatever way you choose to play is fine, I really don't care, but don't kid yourself your playing RAW over RAI by ignoring this distinction. Note, that my way only makes Orks better than Frank says.

Now, so my post, unlike some, actually deals with the topic...

@Fearspect:

Yes, waiting for Ard Boyz Round 2 makes some sense...but, if Frank is right about the extent of players who take weak lists to tournies - we all know at least some do, even Ard Boyz, then Orks will continue to thrive against poor lists. I don't consider 'competitive against poor lists' to = 'competitive'.

Elessar wrote: Do you allow Drop Pods to shoot through their own hull? If not, this is not a valid stance. Anyone who tries to pull this on you does so because they wish to actually use TLOS - as Alessio said he intended.

I hardly see how you can compare vehicle LOS with normal unit LOS, they are a completely different set of rules.

No its not. The only difference is that vehicle LOS, and therefore vision, is drawn from the gun mounting, and along the barrel. Infantry LOS is drawn from the eyes.

Allowing an Infantryman to shoot through his OWN head is the exact same as allowing a vehicle to shoot through it's own hull.