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.

We get reroll on any of the charge dice which is very good and Waagh! does what´s expected; lets us charge better. It feels silly complaining about that imho.

We need some points and subfaction adjustments over a slew on combat enhancing rules. Deff Dreads are over costed compared to Imps, Kulturs are iffy, but in all we are ok. WE are hordy, we are good at melee and there´s a bit of quirky randomness.

 Scactha wrote:

We need some points and subfaction adjustments over a slew on combat enhancing rules. Deff Dreads are over costed compared to Imps, Kulturs are iffy, but in all we are ok. WE are hordy, we are good at melee and there´s a bit of quirky randomness.

Imps dreads are a problem not ours. 100ppm for a walker sounds about right, if not even cheap. 340 points also feels right for a naught, while kanz should be ok at 50-60 but need a better profile. Stompa is one of the few models in the ork line that is overcosted. Most of other units that don't work aren't overcosted, they just need better rules.

Nauts could easily come down by 50 points or so. They aren't horrible, but compare poorly to other units with similar offensive abilities like redemptors. Another path, one that I would prefer, is actually making them worth that many points by adding some rules.

They also should gain the TITANIC keyword.

 Rismonite wrote:
I just started playing 9th edition this weekend. A couple of 500 point games, went 2-1. Both my opponents are marines and the +1 wound on them is really troubling for my ork boyz in CC.

I also had a few unfortunate moments were PK's wounded for one damage and that felt underwhelming.

Grotz seem like trash.

Are PK's out right now? Are boyz still using Slugga/Choppa?

I always go Killsaw over Powerklaw, the pts are the same, the Killsaw is AP4 and it reliably does 2 damage. Now if we get the Powerfist/Chainfist change we would probably all move back to Powerklaws to keep the 2 damage with Meganobz still being dual Killsaws for the extra attack. For my Boyz im a big fan of Shootas but that all depends on your Clan. Im Evil Sunz, so I can advance and shoot with no penalty, move quicker to get into range and generally get a turn or 2 more output than a mob of Sluggas who do nothing but advance and charge making the already pointless slugga even more pointless on a model that advanes and charges and either kills whatever it locks in combat or dies.

I think someone else on here loves Shoota Boyz and ive seen other suggest a 50/50 split between both weapons. I just pefer Shootas, especially with Da Jump, you can get some dakka in, maybe kill an exposed support character or a small backline unit on a point and still charge. And if you dont make the charge, well atleast you did more than Sluggas. Special weapons wise, I run them naked. Until they do something with Big Shootas I just keep the Boyz cheap as possible, Boss Nobs with either a single or dual Killsaw.

But if you play Goffs or Deathskulls, your better off Slugga and Choppa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Scactha wrote:

We need some points and subfaction adjustments over a slew on combat enhancing rules. Deff Dreads are over costed compared to Imps, Kulturs are iffy, but in all we are ok. WE are hordy, we are good at melee and there´s a bit of quirky randomness.

Imps dreads are a problem not ours. 100ppm for a walker sounds about right, if not even cheap. 340 points also feels right for a naught, while kanz should be ok at 50-60 but need a better profile. Stompa is one of the few models in the ork line that is overcosted. Most of other units that don't work aren't overcosted, they just need better rules.

Well at a time our dreads were pretty much the same, we were better at combat they were better at shooting, but toughness and speed was the same. In 8th it was kind of the same still but then with things like Shock Assault, Duty Eternal and synergies with Captains/Lieutenants/Techmarines the gap between the two widened until where we are today. We are 15-5pts cheaper than a bog standard Dreadnought and we are vastly worse. Deff Dreads are ok if we dont have a comparison to make, Ill still run them. But in the arms races they are lacking, but thats an 8th ed to 9th ed Codex thing.

Now Nauts are expensive, I agree 100% with Jid. If we look at a Redemptor Dread he kind of does everything a Gorkanaut does but better, yeah he isnt toughness 8 or holds 6 models, but he is 1/3rd the cost, shoots better, does close combat just aswell to multi wound models and vehicles/monsters, plus with Duty Eternal and 13 wounds he is deceiptively tough and can still be Obscured. Id like the Morka to atleast be BS4 standard (along with all Mek units) the Grogklaw KJ to be standard (we are seeing D3+3 become the norm for all these big vehicles/monsters CC weapons) and a nice 50pts drop. I dont know if it should be Titanic, a Land Raider isnt? And they roughly in the same weight class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scactha wrote:
We get reroll on any of the charge dice which is very good and Waagh! does what´s expected; lets us charge better. It feels silly complaining about that imho.

We need some points and subfaction adjustments over a slew on combat enhancing rules. Deff Dreads are over costed compared to Imps, Kulturs are iffy, but in all we are ok. WE are hordy, we are good at melee and there´s a bit of quirky randomness.

I dont think its silly to want for improvements and changes, settling for fine doesnt make it good. We are seeing with GW that they are doing more than just points adjustments in 9th. They are giving each army more personality, whether that is Doctrine, Protocols, Contagions, Tides, etc. Having Waaagh! evolve in to a turn based momentum style ability is cool and thematic, it doesnt mean we have to loose advance or charge or 'Ere We Go! If we look at the directions they took Orruks in AoS then I think we might get something simular. Ironjaws kept Eager for Battle (+1 to Charge), Smashing and Bashing (If an IJ unit kills an enemy unit the closest IJ unit imediately fights without interruption), gained Mad as Hell (if damage was dealt to an IJs unit and they are more than 9" away from the enemy then they move D6" in any direction at the end of the phase) and then their Waaagh! got reworked. Or you can go for the Big Waaagh! allegience and gain a Waaagh! gauge that you fill up and more stuff happens

4WP - Zog 'em: Its the Mad as Hell rule before.

6WP - Zap 'em: Better casting.

8WP - Get 'em: Eager to battle rule.

12WP - Laugh at 'em: 6+++.

16WP - Smash 'em: +1 to hit in melee.

20WP - Bash 'em: +1 to wound in melee.

24WP - WAAAGH!: +1 attack to all Orruk units within 24" of the general when he uses the Big Waaagh! command ability.

These abilites are cumulative, but Zap 'em and WAAAGH! drains the gauge by a certain amount.You gain Waaagh! Power through characters, charging, being in melee, number of models.

That feels like a thematic and powerful representation of what a Waaagh! is, the 40k version is just a wet fart in comparison. I know comparing stuff isnt allowed in the rules, but probably not a lot of 40k players know what their fantasy counterparts get and its good to see what they get and how GW could adapt it for us.

 deffrekka wrote:

Now Nauts are expensive, I agree 100% with Jid. If we look at a Redemptor Dread he kind of does everything a Gorkanaut does but better, yeah he isnt toughness 8 or holds 6 models, but he is 1/3rd the cost, shoots better, does close combat just aswell to multi wound models and vehicles/monsters, plus with Duty Eternal and 13 wounds he is deceiptively tough and can still be Obscured. Id like the Morka to atleast be BS4 standard (along with all Mek units) the Grogklaw KJ to be standard (we are seeing D3+3 become the norm for all these big vehicles/monsters CC weapons) and a nice 50pts drop. I dont know if it should be Titanic, a Land Raider isnt? And they roughly in the same weight class.

For what they do yes, they're a bit overcosted. For a 75£ model that is as big as knight they aren't, other models that size and price cost many more points. Nauts need to be improved eventually, not to be cheaper.

Last thing I want is to bring more models to the battlefield. Current army size for standard games seems appropriate to me, one of the best things of 9th edition was the points hikes.

With the buffs you propose, including the points drop, a Land Raider should be 150 points then. And a Battlewagon around 80-100. I'd settle with 24W, maybe a Duty Eternal equivalent or some self repair ability, and slighly better killyness for a 350 points model. 13W for the equivalent of a knight (model wise) wouldn't make any sense.

Redemptors should be much more expensive, just like several other marines units. Comparisons with SM overpowered stuff is always misleading, "fixing" underperforming models by elevating them to imperial counterparts is the opposite of fixing, it just creates more overpowered units.

GW has to decide if SM are the thing you balance against.

Either they go up in points or things readjusts to them.

I believe they won’t significantly increase their prices so it’s fair to call for our stuff to be cheaper or way stronger per point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Almost makes me wanna pick up a Kustom Stomp...

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794694.page#11008818

 Blackie wrote:

 deffrekka wrote:

Now Nauts are expensive, I agree 100% with Jid. If we look at a Redemptor Dread he kind of does everything a Gorkanaut does but better, yeah he isnt toughness 8 or holds 6 models, but he is 1/3rd the cost, shoots better, does close combat just aswell to multi wound models and vehicles/monsters, plus with Duty Eternal and 13 wounds he is deceiptively tough and can still be Obscured. Id like the Morka to atleast be BS4 standard (along with all Mek units) the Grogklaw KJ to be standard (we are seeing D3+3 become the norm for all these big vehicles/monsters CC weapons) and a nice 50pts drop. I dont know if it should be Titanic, a Land Raider isnt? And they roughly in the same weight class.

For what they do yes, they're a bit overcosted. For a 75£ model that is as big as knight they aren't, other models that size and price cost many more points. Nauts need to be improved eventually, not to be cheaper.

Last thing I want is to bring more models to the battlefield. Current army size for standard games seems appropriate to me, one of the best things of 9th edition was the points hikes.

With the buffs you propose, including the points drop, a Land Raider should be 150 points then. And a Battlewagon around 80-100. I'd settle with 24W, maybe a Duty Eternal equivalent or some self repair ability, and slighly better killyness for a 350 points model. 13W for the equivalent of a knight (model wise) wouldn't make any sense.

Redemptors should be much more expensive, just like several other marines units. Comparisons with SM overpowered stuff is always misleading, "fixing" underperforming models by elevating them to imperial counterparts is the opposite of fixing, it just creates more overpowered units.

I never said a Naut should be 150pts or a Battlewagon 80-100pts. 50pts is a fine adjustment to a Naut. A Redemptor is a 175-180pt walker that is just flat out better in nearly aspect of combat than a Naut and as Tulun said GW deems it if SM are the thing we must compare to and right now they are being the predominant 9th ed codex. A Land Raider is neither a Naut or a Redemptor and has its own problems and a Battlewagon again isnt in the same field as the Nauts. 340pts for a Naut is obscene, it doesnt shoot all too well and it isnt durable, then its transport capacity is pretty negligible. 60pts more you get a Knight Gallant with 6 more wounds an Invun vs shooting, is Titanic, fights better and is quicker. The Naut is in a weird spot, it has guns but it isnt very good with them. It fights in CC but its better at killing infantry than vehicles/monsters (again a Redemptor is better at this than a Gorka). It has a transport capacity but not big enough to carry anything of note. Its relatively tough, but its slow and cant be Obscured (and advancing and charging means it cant fire its main gun). So to get the most out of either variant you need CP to deepstrike it and CP for its KJ. Not exactly amazing in my book, you have to jump through a lot of hoops with a bit of luck to get some value out of it.

God knows how long itll take for CA to come out, it could be spring it could be winter and will it even do much to SMs at all. I dont think a Naut should ever be 24 wounds or have Duty Eternal, make them unique instead. It suffers from being BS2 with crap guns, who cares about 2 Rokkit Launchas, 4 Big Shootas, a Skorcha/Kustom Mega-Blasta, you take the Naut due to its main gun and CC prowess and it isnt that great at both of those these days. Using CP pregame to make something viable and how it should be to begin with isnt a good system to go off.

Weapons need improving, core faction rules need tweaking or changing as we have seen for the 9e Codexes so far. Im not asking for a 100pt Battlewagon, but 50pts off a Naut is fine, that brings it to 290pts and with some changes to its weapons I think its good, with it being BS2 and only 18 wounds that cant be Obscured. Not exactly game breaking when it can still get destroyed fairly easy in a single turn.

I disagree, 340 points for both nauts are already fair, both are already decent at least.

The things you mentioned, like redemptors or knight gallant should be 100+ points more expensive, that's my point. Those are all undercosted units and the solution isn't to make anything else undercosted as well.

I'm also against the idea of bringing a legion of models on the table and I praised 9th price hikes. A model as huge (and expensive moneywise) as a naut should cost a lot, and worth a lot. It shouldn't be some sort of distraction carnifex, that's the role for dreads.

"GW has to decide if SM are the thing you balance against". I think SM will always be the main faction in the game, the dudes all the other players need to counter. GW don't want other factions to be exactly on par with them, but to counter them in some different ways: I don't think we should have the equivalent of redemptors, but cheaper and less effective walkers (dreads) and knights equivalent big walkers (nauts). The equivalent of redemptors are those walkers from FW, something in between dreads and nauts.

You don't need to look at places where the grass is more ultramrine blue. If we can agree that both the KBB and the scrapjet are decently costed, a naut is simply too expensive in comparison.

Whenever you have to take the decision whether you take 3 buggies or one naut, the buggies always win out.

 Blackie wrote:
I disagree, 340 points for both nauts are already fair, both are already decent at least.

The things you mentioned, like redemptors or knight gallant should be 100+ points more expensive, that's my point. Those are all undercosted units and the solution isn't to make anything else undercosted as well.

I'm also against the idea of bringing a legion of models on the table and I praised 9th price hikes. A model as huge (and expensive moneywise) as a naut should cost a lot, and worth a lot. It shouldn't be some sort of distraction carnifex, that's the role for dreads.

"GW has to decide if SM are the thing you balance against". I think SM will always be the main faction in the game, the dudes all the other players need to counter. GW don't want other factions to be exactly on par with them, but to counter them in some different ways: I don't think we should have the equivalent of redemptors, but cheaper and less effective walkers (dreads) and knights equivalent big walkers (nauts). The equivalent of redemptors are those walkers from FW, something in between dreads and nauts.

You will change your mind when you will look at the profile of 18w tyranid beasts (that is both hireodule variants and the dimachaeron) in the FW book that just came out. Nids are easier to compare to orks than SM (also an NPC faction). Nauts should indeed go down at the very least by 50 points. Mork has the KFF, Gork has the 3d6 charge strat, so they each have their own thing (they also have the two CC attack modes, one to clear infantry, the other to clear SM dreadnoughts, new DG disgustingly resilient stuff and other "-1 damage" stuff), but those things ain't worth that much.

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need to look at places where the grass is more ultramrine blue. If we can agree that both the KBB and the scrapjet are decently costed, a naut is simply too expensive in comparison.

Whenever you have to take the decision whether you take 3 buggies or one naut, the buggies always win out.

With the current stats yes, if you look at the models then no. A naut should definitely worth 3 or 4 buggies, maybe even 5. If it's not, the answer isn't to make it cheaper but to make it better.

KBB and scrapjets are also very good units, IMHO even cheap, not just "decently costed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:


You will change your mind when you will look at the profile of 18w tyranid beasts (that is both hireodule variants and the dimachaeron) in the FW book that just came out. Nids are easier to compare to orks than SM (also an NPC faction). Nauts should indeed go down at the very least by 50 points. Mork has the KFF, Gork has the 3d6 charge strat, so they each have their own thing (they also have the two CC attack modes, one to clear infantry, the other to clear SM dreadnoughts, new DG disgustingly resilient stuff and other "-1 damage" stuff), but those things ain't worth that much.

Nah, I prefer a naut as a very powerful and/or resilient model, not just a discount knight equivalent that is overperformed by its imperial counterpart in any possible way. I'd like a model that is actually close to a knight in terms of effectiveness. A bit cheaper and a bit more unrealiable, not 50% cheaper though.

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need to look at places where the grass is more ultramrine blue. If we can agree that both the KBB and the scrapjet are decently costed, a naut is simply too expensive in comparison.

Whenever you have to take the decision whether you take 3 buggies or one naut, the buggies always win out.

With the current stats yes, if you look at the models then no. A naut should definitely worth 3 or 4 buggies, maybe even 5. If it's not, the answer isn't to make it cheaper but to make it better.

KBB and scrapjets are also very good units, IMHO even cheap, not just "decently costed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:


You will change your mind when you will look at the profile of 18w tyranid beasts (that is both hireodule variants and the dimachaeron) in the FW book that just came out. Nids are easier to compare to orks than SM (also an NPC faction). Nauts should indeed go down at the very least by 50 points. Mork has the KFF, Gork has the 3d6 charge strat, so they each have their own thing (they also have the two CC attack modes, one to clear infantry, the other to clear SM dreadnoughts, new DG disgustingly resilient stuff and other "-1 damage" stuff), but those things ain't worth that much.

Nah, I prefer a naut as a very powerful and/or resilient model, not just a discount knight equivalent that is overperformed by its imperial counterpart in any possible way. I'd like a model that is actually close to a knight in terms of effectiveness. A bit cheaper and a bit more unrealiable, not 50% cheaper though.

We will never have a Knight equivalent in a Naut so Ill have to strongly disagree. A Naut will always be inferior to any imperial counterpart because 1. its BS will always be worse. 2. It will never have the durability of a Knight and 3. It will never have the mobility of a Knight. They are in two different weight classes... A Naut is in the same category as a Land Raider (one is tracked one is a walker) with it being a heavy assault transport, it isnt a Super Heavy. 50pts off 340pts isnt 50% cheaper, that as a bit of an exaggeration... thats a mere 14.71%. 170pts is 50%.

They can make it powerful and resilient but it will never live up to an Imperial Knight. Both variants have pretty abyssmal shooting with their small arms and their claw attack is inferior to things smaller than it (Redemptor) and things bigger than it (Knight). Things can get improved and lowered in cost. 50pts isnt world breaking, its not gonna make you field Legions of models but as Orks we should outnumber our foe (except Nids). The Nauts just arent Knights and the divide between the two is fairly large.

The things that make Knights strong is their access to Relics/Traits/Stratagems. What do the Nauts have? They have to pay a CP for a KJ to even be what they should be from the beginning and that is still inferior to a Knight.

50% cheaper than a knight I meant .

A land raider is a transport with some firepower, a naut is a different thing. Land raider is basically an empowered battlewagon. Nauts are worse knights.

I'm not saying they should be excatly as good as knights, but closer to them than they might be compared to land raiders. Nauts aren't super heavies because GW said so, they definitely look more super heavies than "just" land raiders with klaws. Same height, same base, similar aesthetic. I can't understand why you're so inclined to accept points reductions but not changes in units' datasheets.

A redemptor dread costs (in money) half the price of a naut, while knights are just a 20-25% more expensive than nauts. They can't cost twice in terms of points.

A flat comparison between a naut and a knight is also disingenuous because nauts are part of an army with a huge line of models, knights are a skew army. I don't think it's so absurd to ask for a unit that worths 350-400 points considering the nature of the model and the army roster.

If you make nauts 50ppm cheaper than how they are now then several other units will look overcosted in comparison and need points reductions. We'll be back to 8th points costs.

Anyway I don't want to derail the thread, this debate isn't about tactics so I'll end it here.

I hope they update the damage profile for the Nauts close combat weapon profile, Crush, so instead of dealing D6 damage, it should deal 3+D3 damage, like the new stats for the Mega Dreads klaw.

It kinda makes no sense such a huge being would deal 1 damage. So i like the idea of the 3+D3 for a minimum of 4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
50% cheaper than a knight I meant .

A land raider is a transport with some firepower, a naut is a different thing. Land raider is basically an empowered battlewagon. Nauts are worse knights.

I'm not saying they should be excatly as good as knights, but closer to them than they might be compared to land raiders. Nauts aren't super heavies because GW said so, they definitely look more super heavies than "just" land raiders with klaws. Same height, same base, similar aesthetic. I can't understand why you're so inclined to accept points reductions but not changes in units' datasheets.

A redemptor dread costs (in money) half the price of a naut, while knights are just a 20-25% more expensive than nauts. They can't cost twice in terms of points.

A flat comparison between a naut and a knight is also disingenuous because nauts are part of an army with a huge line of models, knights are a skew army. I don't think it's so absurd to ask for a unit that worths 350-400 points considering the nature of the model and the army roster.

If you make nauts 50ppm cheaper than how they are now then several other units will look overcosted in comparison and need points reductions. We'll be back to 8th points costs.

Anyway I don't want to derail the thread, this debate isn't about tactics so I'll end it here.

Well.

A naut is the exact same buying price as a Stompa, yet the Stompa is closer related to a Knight than a Naut.

Yet the Knights are more expensive. It wouldnt hurt the Naut to be cheaper than the Stompa, price wise (in real life money).There is a massive difference in the ppm between the Naut and Stompa, yet no difference in real life money.

I feel like the Naut should be a bit cheaper in real life money, and the stompa either the same or a tiny bit more expensive (not that i want more expensive but if we look at a comparison between ppm and real life money).

If 3 buggies do the job better than a Naut then thats a bit of a problem i feel that should be addressed.

 Blackie wrote:
50% cheaper than a knight I meant .

A land raider is a transport with some firepower, a naut is a different thing. Land raider is basically an empowered battlewagon. Nauts are worse knights.

I'm not saying they should be excatly as good as knights, but closer to them than they might be compared to land raiders. Nauts aren't super heavies because GW said so, they definitely look more super heavies than "just" land raiders with klaws. Same height, same base, similar aesthetic. I can't understand why you're so inclined to accept points reductions but not changes in units' datasheets.

A redemptor dread costs (in money) half the price of a naut, while knights are just a 20-25% more expensive than nauts. They can't cost twice in terms of points.

A flat comparison between a naut and a knight is also disingenuous because nauts are part of an army with a huge line of models, knights are a skew army. I don't think it's so absurd to ask for a unit that worths 350-400 points considering the nature of the model and the army roster.

If you make nauts 50ppm cheaper than how they are now then several other units will look overcosted in comparison and need points reductions. We'll be back to 8th points costs.

Anyway I don't want to derail the thread, this debate isn't about tactics so I'll end it here.

A Naut is closer to a Land Raider than a Knight. Being a Walker no longer exists in 9e and the same for 8e. In the past there was a clear divide between a tank and a walker, like turning arcs, close combat, how the damage table effected them and how they interacted with types of terrain. Thats not a thing now. A Land Raider is a 16 wound, toughness 8 heavy assault transport. A Naut is a 18 wound, toughness 8 heavy assault vehicle/transport. Neither a Land Raider or a Naut is close to a Super Heavy like a Knight, they both lack the movement, added durability and the firepower.

GW in their infinite wisdom designed a Naut needed to transport 6 models, why who knows, 6 models for Orks is pretty mediocre because thats either 3 Meganobz, 5 Nobz and a Character or some form of Specialist unit like Burnas/Bustas/Flashgitz, all of which suck in it and further more when this thing dies, which it will, these are all high value models to be loosing when it eventually implodes. I dont know about you but I dont want to loose 1 or Manz to an explosion, especially when the squad size is so small. So we pay for the transport in the models cost, even if we never use it. 6 is fine if your an Elite army like SM with Razorbacks/Impulsors or with Harlies and DE with Venoms and Star Weavers.

Not everything in 9th went up in pts when the CA2020 came out, others sky rocketed for not reason like DE/Admech. A Gorka was 311pts in 8th ed at the tail end, and that was still viewed as overcosted by the community (a Gallant was 372pts, a Land Raider 277pts, which increased a whopping 8pts in CA2020 and then went up an earth shattering 0pts in the codex where as our poor Gorka went up 29pts because?). Some armies still have units that cost their 8th ed versions or just a hair off the amount and those costs arent really wallet and game breaking. I know some people that lost like a unit but my Admech lost 300pts.

I see this argument a lot about real life money. It doesnt really have an impact on the meta. I know some on who has 30 serberys Raides in the Admech tactica, I own 6. £35 for 3... If someone is willing to chase the meta they will fork out the cost, and thats quite common in GTs, people change armies each month to keep up with the arms race. A Redemptor being £40 doesnt mean much when it still does more than a Naut. Our Mek Gunz are crazy priced but that isnt reflected in the units pts and never has been.

Id rather the Naut be a unique hybrid rather than a "cheap" and crappy counterpart to a Knight. It has a transport cap that should be capitalised on, give it the same ability the Impulsor has where it can disembard its cargo after its moved or they can deploy right into the thick of melee that the Naut is engaged in without it classing as falling back.

They could do loads to it if they are creative but I dont want it to be Knight like because it will always be outclassed. Instead define its role better within the Ork codex. It suffers from doing a bit of everything which, unfortunately, drives up its cost and as others have said, it is overcosted, it was overcosted in 8th no matter how man times they kept dropping it. The thing shouldnt be over 300pts period. The Morka? Maybe if it has a KFF.

Yeah this is all off topic but atm there isnt much for us to go off, every 8th ed Codex is in the same spot which is waiting. We know the meta is MEQ, its been that way for a long while even in the last days of 8th. So I think we are all just venting and brainstorming with our other fellow Warbosses until our Codex or Campaign book drops and gives us something that is more suited for 9th and how it plays.

The major thing I am wary of in giving Nauts the TITANIC keyword is that GW is likely to do what they did to Necron Monoliths and just make them LoW when they really don't need to be. Not only will missing out on Klan Traits in the LoW auxiliary slot reduce their potency, but forcing them into a SHV detachment means you'll only ever be able to use them in a walker-heavy archetype rather than the flexibility of having a Morkanaut in several styles of army.

They definitely need a few tweaks to make Nauts a bit more competitive, but let's not get carried away.

Beardedragon wrote:

If 3 buggies do the job better than a Naut then thats a bit of a problem i feel that should be addressed.

3 Scrapjets, 27 T6 4+ wounds, put out 36 Big shoota shots, 18 at BS4 and 18 at BS5. They also get 6D3 Rokkitz and 3 Wing missiles. In CC they get 12 S8 -2AP D3 dmg attacks, they also get 3 chances at a 4+ to inflict D3 mortal wounds to a unit on the charge.

A Morkanaut which is about the same price (10pts off) gets 12 Big shoota shots, 2 rokkitz, 1 KMB shot and 3D3 Kustom Mega Zappa Shots (KMK on steroids). It gets 4 or 12 attacks in CC hitting on 3s. The 12 attacks have a similar profile to the Scrapjets who hit on 4s.

So in ranged combat scrapjets are just better. They have enough small caliber dakka to handle hordes and relatively tough infantry, and their Rokkit kannons are great for dealing with NUMarines and Gravis Marines, the Wing missiles are great for pot shotting vehicles.

In CC the Morkanut is better, but if the Scrapjets get their mortal wounds off they are better.

And most importantly, the Morkanaut has 18w at T8 with a 3+. Sounds tougher, except its on a single model which makes it actually weaker.

SemperMortis wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

If 3 buggies do the job better than a Naut then thats a bit of a problem i feel that should be addressed.

3 Scrapjets, 27 T6 4+ wounds, put out 36 Big shoota shots, 18 at BS4 and 18 at BS5. They also get 6D3 Rokkitz and 3 Wing missiles. In CC they get 12 S8 -2AP D3 dmg attacks, they also get 3 chances at a 4+ to inflict D3 mortal wounds to a unit on the charge.

A Morkanaut which is about the same price (10pts off) gets 12 Big shoota shots, 2 rokkitz, 1 KMB shot and 3D3 Kustom Mega Zappa Shots (KMK on steroids). It gets 4 or 12 attacks in CC hitting on 3s. The 12 attacks have a similar profile to the Scrapjets who hit on 4s.

So in ranged combat scrapjets are just better. They have enough small caliber dakka to handle hordes and relatively tough infantry, and their Rokkit kannons are great for dealing with NUMarines and Gravis Marines, the Wing missiles are great for pot shotting vehicles.

In CC the Morkanut is better, but if the Scrapjets get their mortal wounds off they are better.

And most importantly, the Morkanaut has 18w at T8 with a 3+. Sounds tougher, except its on a single model which makes it actually weaker.

The Scrapjets can also be in several different locations at once versus the Morkanaut being in one spot, limiting your board control in comparison and how Scrapjets can potentially contest objectives/get linebreaker.

SemperMortis wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

If 3 buggies do the job better than a Naut then thats a bit of a problem i feel that should be addressed.

3 Scrapjets, 27 T6 4+ wounds, put out 36 Big shoota shots, 18 at BS4 and 18 at BS5. They also get 6D3 Rokkitz and 3 Wing missiles. In CC they get 12 S8 -2AP D3 dmg attacks, they also get 3 chances at a 4+ to inflict D3 mortal wounds to a unit on the charge.

A Morkanaut which is about the same price (10pts off) gets 12 Big shoota shots, 2 rokkitz, 1 KMB shot and 3D3 Kustom Mega Zappa Shots (KMK on steroids). It gets 4 or 12 attacks in CC hitting on 3s. The 12 attacks have a similar profile to the Scrapjets who hit on 4s.

So in ranged combat scrapjets are just better. They have enough small caliber dakka to handle hordes and relatively tough infantry, and their Rokkit kannons are great for dealing with NUMarines and Gravis Marines, the Wing missiles are great for pot shotting vehicles.

In CC the Morkanut is better, but if the Scrapjets get their mortal wounds off they are better.

And most importantly, the Morkanaut has 18w at T8 with a 3+. Sounds tougher, except its on a single model which makes it actually weaker.

Wouldn't the scrapjets be superior in melee as well since you can pay 1 cp and double their attacks as well as give them even more movement in fight phase? Granted the nauts get a strat too but I don't remember any of them matching up to the boost the skrapjet Kustom job provides.

Well..

On most of what you guys said i agree, but they dont do better in melee.

The Scrapjet hits of 4s the Gorkanaut on 3s (if not injured too much).

Further more the Smash characteristics, if you use that, has 18 attacks at fullest (6x3 = 18), the Scrapjet has a max of 12 attacks for all 3.

The Scrapjet only gets to fight twice i believe, if what ever it fought died and thus consolidates.

So if you went for a melee force you get more power from the Gorkanaut, but i agree on the firepower otherwise. And also you cant be multiple places at once with a gorkanaut, thats a point too.

Beardedragon wrote:
Well..

On most of what you guys said i agree, but they dont do better in melee.

The Scrapjet hits of 4s the Gorkanaut on 3s (if not injured too much).

Further more the Smash characteristics, if you use that, has 18 attacks at fullest (6x3 = 18), the Scrapjet has a max of 12 attacks for all 3.

The Scrapjet only gets to fight twice i believe, if what ever it fought died and thus consolidates.

So if you went for a melee force you get more power from the Gorkanaut, but i agree on the firepower otherwise. And also you cant be multiple places at once with a gorkanaut, thats a point too.

Scrapjets can always fight twice, just like Khorne Berserkers, so it's not just when they consolidate into a new unit (which they wouldn't be able to fight anyways if they charged that turn and didn't nominate them as the other charge target). So realistically, Scrapjets have a total of 24 attacks rather than the 12 you've posted down. It is possible for your opponent to counter attack and kill one before their second round of attacks though, which is the only real downside they have comparatively to the Gorkanaut.

For reference, I compared a Morkanaut to 3 scrapjets, not the Gorkanaut.

I also left off all strats and Kustom Jobs because than we get into some fun territory that I didn't want to have to math hammer out. For instance, the Morkanaut can get Sparklybitz and depending on kulture, shoot twice, so all its shooting gets significantly better where as the Scrapjets can get the aforementioned Corkscrews which makes them really good in CC (Fight twice for 1CP)

SemperMortis wrote:
For reference, I compared a Morkanaut to 3 scrapjets, not the Gorkanaut.

I also left off all strats and Kustom Jobs because than we get into some fun territory that I didn't want to have to math hammer out. For instance, the Morkanaut can get Sparklybitz and depending on kulture, shoot twice, so all its shooting gets significantly better where as the Scrapjets can get the aforementioned Corkscrews which makes them really good in CC (Fight twice for 1CP)

I don't believe the Morkanaut could ever shoot twice outside of the old Dread WAAAGH! Vigilus Detachment, which is basically outdated at this point, since the Bad Moonz strat only affects Infantry.

i'd be surprised if they make nauts LoW. They keep stuffing the idea of multiple nauts down our throat, if anything they'd do something to incentivize bringing multiples.

Nauts arent a knight. Theyve never been depicted as being as big or mean as a knight, more of a "budget knight" where theyre pretty dang close but still obviously inferior for various reasons.
Monoliths going to LoW is only weird because its a pre-existing unit that wasnt one before. If it was a brand new unit there wouldnt be anybody scoffing that its a LoW (scoffing that its not that great of one yes but not that its a LoW in general).

The only way they could get away with making them a LoW is either give us a way to field them with kultures despite the detachment issues (both cost and aux restriction), which they definitely wouldnt do, or buff it to knight status...which doesnt make sense. Nauts are a fair bit smaller so them being equals is kinda odd, especially when usually comparative ork stuff is oddly larger than what theyre being compared to traditionally.

Unfortunately, they either need to get cheaper, or stronger.

Stronger probably means LoW.

At 18 wounds, they are functionally always going to be a B or C tier unit at best, though, unless they get like a 4++ and ramshackle. Damage going up is not going to bode well for these nauts, and 18 wounds is by far the worst wound count you can be.

I'd rather they make them LoW than keep them like they are now, or put them at 16 wounds with some other adjustments, I just doubt that makes much sense.

SemperMortis wrote:
For reference, I compared a Morkanaut to 3 scrapjets, not the Gorkanaut.

I also left off all strats and Kustom Jobs because than we get into some fun territory that I didn't want to have to math hammer out. For instance, the Morkanaut can get Sparklybitz and depending on kulture, shoot twice, so all its shooting gets significantly better where as the Scrapjets can get the aforementioned Corkscrews which makes them really good in CC (Fight twice for 1CP)

The Morkanaut cant shoot twice anymore, Dreadwaaagh! and its Kustom Ammo strat is no longer allowed to Tournament play and Badmoons only effect Infantry even though the riches members of the Clan would own a Gorka/Morka, but yano GW couldnt have had Showin' Off be too good and have it increase in CP for certain units/PL (5 Lootas shooting twice costs the same CP as 15 Lootas ).

Even with Sparkly Bits id still say its worse than 3 Scrapjets. They move quicker (and can actually advance and fire all their weapons though you still dont want to unless your ES) with more board prescience due to being 3 individual models, they have 18 BS4 Str 5 shots instead of 12, then ontop of that 18 BS5 Str 5 shots, 6D3 BS5 Str 8 AP2 D3 shots and 3 Str 8 AP2 D3 shots that will most likely hit on 4s because why arent you targeting a vehicle instead of 2 BS Rokkits, a KMB and 3D3 Kustom Mega-Zzappa shots. Then they get the chance to cause 3D3 MWs between them ontop of 12 WS4 Str 8 AP2 DD3 CC attacks.

Individually sure they arent as tough or killy, but 3 stacks up, they break up debuffs better due to being 3 units of 1, can get better angles of fire, can be Obscured unlike the poor Morka and they dont really care about transporting 6 models. What the Morka has going for it is the KFF if you take it and somewhat better combat. The MTSJs dont need to pay a CP to be viable, but Korkscrew is more impactful (a second activation with all the pile ins and consolidates associate with it) for that 1CP instead of Sparkly Bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i'd be surprised if they make nauts LoW. They keep stuffing the idea of multiple nauts down our throat, if anything they'd do something to incentivize bringing multiples.

Nauts arent a knight. Theyve never been depicted as being as big or mean as a knight, more of a "budget knight" where theyre pretty dang close but still obviously inferior for various reasons.
Monoliths going to LoW is only weird because its a pre-existing unit that wasnt one before. If it was a brand new unit there wouldnt be anybody scoffing that its a LoW (scoffing that its not that great of one yes but not that its a LoW in general).

The only way they could get away with making them a LoW is either give us a way to field them with kultures despite the detachment issues (both cost and aux restriction), which they definitely wouldnt do, or buff it to knight status...which doesnt make sense. Nauts are a fair bit smaller so them being equals is kinda odd, especially when usually comparative ork stuff is oddly larger than what theyre being compared to traditionally.

Yeah making the Monolith a LoW was so strange and something I didnt agree with. Its THE iconic Necron vehicle, before all the Arks, Barges, Scythes were even conceived. The Monolith was already suffering in 8th, like Land Raiders and to a degree our Nauts, and they decided to shunt it into a LoW force org slot, practically sealing the deal. So odd.

If Nauts EVER became LoWs then I hope they get Deffdread Treatment and come in squadrons of 1-3 Morkas/Gorkas (taking either in the 3) and then becoming seperate after deployment. 1 Naut should never be a LoW on its on, it cant tango with any of the big boys and it just doesnt impact the board as much as a Baneblade/Knight/Lord of Skulls (although neither does our Stompa!!! ).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tulun wrote:
Unfortunately, they either need to get cheaper, or stronger.

Stronger probably means LoW.

At 18 wounds, they are functionally always going to be a B or C tier unit at best, though, unless they get like a 4++ and ramshackle. Damage going up is not going to bode well for these nauts, and 18 wounds is by far the worst wound count you can be.

I'd rather they make them LoW than keep them like they are now, or put them at 16 wounds with some other adjustments, I just doubt that makes much sense.

Id personally take the 16/17 wounds over keeping 18 and going LoW. Obscuring would help it quite a lot instead of having to rely on deepstriking it and doing Ramming Speed just to get some use out of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like to see Orks be one of the first armies that get to actually "destroy" terrain, stripping them of qualities. In AoS Mega-Gargants and Ironjaws can basically pick a terrain piece and it looses all abilities because they smash it down (takes a dice roll for ironjaws and its a Command Trait). Having a Naut just bulldoze a Forest or Ruin would be so unique and fluffy for Orks.

*Sees an image of a deffrolla lawnmowing a treeline* hehehehehe...

 Grimskul wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Well..

On most of what you guys said i agree, but they dont do better in melee.

The Scrapjet hits of 4s the Gorkanaut on 3s (if not injured too much).

Further more the Smash characteristics, if you use that, has 18 attacks at fullest (6x3 = 18), the Scrapjet has a max of 12 attacks for all 3.

The Scrapjet only gets to fight twice i believe, if what ever it fought died and thus consolidates.

So if you went for a melee force you get more power from the Gorkanaut, but i agree on the firepower otherwise. And also you cant be multiple places at once with a gorkanaut, thats a point too.

Scrapjets can always fight twice, just like Khorne Berserkers, so it's not just when they consolidate into a new unit (which they wouldn't be able to fight anyways if they charged that turn and didn't nominate them as the other charge target). So realistically, Scrapjets have a total of 24 attacks rather than the 12 you've posted down. It is possible for your opponent to counter attack and kill one before their second round of attacks though, which is the only real downside they have comparatively to the Gorkanaut.

How can it always attack twice? are we talking the Kustom Job? Because i cant see an inherent ability to fight twice otherwise.

KORKSCREW:
"MEGATRAKK SCRAPJET unit only. The first time this unit finishes a consolidation move in each Fight phase, it can immediately fight again."

According to wahapedia it can only fight twice if it makes a consolidation move, unless there is something i have missed. I see, Explodes, Grot Gunner, and Spiked Ram as inherent abilities.

You always have the option to make a consolidation move in combat from what I understand. You don't need to kill the unit to do so, it's still a part of the fight phase. Kind of like how you always have a pyschic phase even if you don't have a pysker in your army. So if I understand it correctly, you charge, pile in, fight, consolidate (say just a 1/4" closer or even just rotate the skrapjet a bit to be in b2b with more models, still works) then pile in again, fight again, consolidate again, and you're done.

The only way I can think of not getting to fight twice would be if you were physically blocked in and could not move whatsoever, like if someone charged in and tripointed you or something, and even that may not count, I'd need to ask a rules expert on how exactly that would go down.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
You always have the option to make a consolidation move in combat from what I understand. You don't need to kill the unit to do so, it's still a part of the fight phase. Kind of like how you always have a pyschic phase even if you don't have a pysker in your army. So if I understand it correctly, you charge, pile in, fight, consolidate (say just a 1/4" closer or even just rotate the skrapjet a bit to be in b2b with more models, still works) then pile in again, fight again, consolidate again, and you're done.

The only way I can think of not getting to fight twice would be if you were physically blocked in and could not move whatsoever, like if someone charged in and tripointed you or something, and even that may not count, I'd need to ask a rules expert on how exactly that would go down.

Im not sure why i assumed you had to kill a unit to be able to consolidate. it even says that a unit has consolidated even if it didnt move if you moved up too close to the enemy. So you still get to fight twice even if you dont move.

Im uncertain at this point if ive played with something needing to die before i can make a consolidation move? hmmm..

I dont know. But i am wrong anyway.

The Scrapjet sure does have two attacks regardless of anything.