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.

Is it wrong that as a long time ork player I feel a sick sort of glee at people complaining about broken orks?
Take that, eldar and chaos players!
*achem*

On a different note, if you break down the 3 U.S. GT's solely on Battle Points, it falls out as follows (to the best I can tell):

Chicago:
Orks 94
Eldar 87
Orks 81
CSM 80
Daemons 74
Eldar 74
Orks 73
Necrons 73
Tyranids 70
Daemons 70

LV:
Orks 100
Daemons 89
Eldar 84
WH 83
WH 82
Daemons 82
CSM 81
Orks 81
Tyranids 79
Eldar 75
CSM 75
WH 75
Tau 75

Baltimore:
Orks 98
Orks 92
Daemons 87
Orks 83
Daemons 82
DE 82
Tyranids 81
CSM 79
Daemons 78
WH 78
WH 78

Make of this what you will. Assuming an even mix of skill levels across all armies (which is probably a fallacy), Orks and Daemons comprise 10 of the 15 top 5 places (3x5 = 15).

This is probably a combination of several things:

1. Newer codex's written with this edition in mind;

2. Terrain/cover rules benefiting low cost/no save troops disproportionately more;

3. The missions; and

4. Running.

I do not think any one specific factor can be singled out as defnitive to the overall improvement to these armies; rather it is a global change to the rules as a whole, taken in tandem with the newer books which makes the results so skewed. Case in point is the Tyranid book, which is one of the oldest around, yet they still make an appearance.

The one consistent thread to almost all of these armies is lots of models and leadership rules which are beneficial. If it was models alone, 200+ model IG armies would be in the results lists as well, but they simply are not.

If anyone else has any insights, criticisms or other theories, please feel free to share them.

Orks, Orks, Orks, oh, more Orks, and Orks again.

Anyone else wanna argue about Orks not being overpowered?

I kind of wish the US tournaments were more based on the W/T/L system. Seems to even things out a bit more. That's how it was when I was running around playing magic. I really don't think there should be a difference between absolutely crushing your opponent and just beating him.

Edit: I play Chaos Marines. I just like to see a more open field.

Man Orks keep winning!

I guess that just goes to show you that people who play Orks are exceptionally skilled and have a great knowledge of tactics and strategy, and are really good looking.

At least that's what I got from it.

(Also, I agree on the W/T/L comment. A win's a win.)

Da Boss wrote:Is it wrong that as a long time ork player I feel a sick sort of glee at people complaining about broken orks?
Take that, eldar and chaos players!
*achem*

No.

Stuff like this just brings a smile to me face, even though I've just about stopped all 40k and definitely don't want to play competitively anymore.

A straight W/T/L system versus a more tiered system allowing for grades of wins really all depends on what you are trying to do with battle points.

The problem with the simpler system is it tends to log jam up much more and you really cannot tell who is the better general.

you can though- by having the w/l/d and still keeping track of VPs so that you can sort out any ties and rank people on the same number of wins- thats actually what they do at the UK GTs... that way the person on 6 wins by the skin of their teeth is still below the 6 win "wipe out everything placed before me" player

As an ork player who ran orks pre 5th and new codex at the gt's,

guess it's deserved to those true ork players. But also ruins my plans to bring orks to the gt.

any word on the necron list?

It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

@ Blackmoor:

Agreed.

Just a hard score breakdown of the US GT based on Eldanar's List posted above:


Orks 8
Daemons 7
Eldar 4
CSM 4
Nids 3
WH 3
Necrons 1
Tau 1
DE 1

So if you can beat Orks and nids well once you get through the first couple rounds, you should have a shot. Notice no SM, no BT, no BA, no DA. 1 Necron (yay!).

I'd guess that WH, Necron, and DE armies are poorly represented, while Daemons, Orks, CSM and SM are well represented. Seems drop podding is the suck against orks and daemons lol.

The effect is greatly diluted by a lot of the top players taking the top armies, where as they could probably top 10 with almost any codex if they wished.

Also, if you're a hardcore tournament player, there is an expectation (over here at least!) that you do a new army every year. This naturally leads to running the newest, shiniest figures out!

I was interested to see that of the 60 armies listed in the OP, they came from 13 different Codices - the only armies that didn't make it into the top 10 at any event are:

Imperial Guard
Dark Eldar
Space Wolves

and before you could say 'codex creep' all 3 of these are slated to get a new book next year!

Necrons only appeared once (9th at Chicago) but are also getting a new 'dex.


Daemonhunters and Witchhunters had one each (9th at Baltimore and 4th at Las Vegas respectively) and Tau popped up twice (both in the UK) but none of these are in line for a new dex yet. What bets are we taking on 2010 being the year for these?


Space Marines are the odd one, with only one army from the main 'dex making the top 10 at any event, but 5 armies from the variant lists (BT, DA, BA) showing up.
This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Except for orks the game is more balanced now. I am not sure how the new Marines will fare since most veterans seem to shun them.

G

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I

Space Marines are the odd one, with only one army from the main 'dex making the top 10 at any event, but 5 armies from the variant lists (BT, DA, BA) showing up.
This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Don't hold your breath, the new codex weakened them considerably and they had enough trouble placing well already.

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

What's worse is that people lose to Ork 'newbies' with cobbled together Blackreach armies and don't blame themselves.
Last time I checked Blackreach didn't come with shootas, lootas, or nob warbikers.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Most people set up for MEQ because the majority of the armies at most tournaments are MEQ. If a player does not setup for MEQ, they risk taking a loss in the early round to some MEQ player who rolls well. These players also risk not being able to blow the doors off any opponents, thus lowering their battle score.

I tried taking a balanced army that was setup to put out a high volume of fire. Against horde armies I did OK, but still had issues because I didn't have any flamers. Againest MEQ, I drew the Deathwing guy and thus lost because I didn't have enough AP2 weapons. For some armies, this isn't an issue because they have such a high volume or are heavily melee based.

GW should allow two army lists for tournaments as PP does. This will allow the specialist to switch up their army for certian armies. SM have vastely different load outs when playing certian armies, while Orks probably has the same load out regardless of who their opponent is. Same goes for lash CSM.

I dunno, I could think of plenty of ways to gain significant advantage by being allowed two builds with orks.

Techboss wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Most people set up for MEQ because the majority of the armies at most tournaments are MEQ. If a player does not setup for MEQ, they risk taking a loss in the early round to some MEQ player who rolls well. These players also risk not being able to blow the doors off any opponents, thus lowering their battle score.

I tried taking a balanced army that was setup to put out a high volume of fire. Against horde armies I did OK, but still had issues because I didn't have any flamers. Againest MEQ, I drew the Deathwing guy and thus lost because I didn't have enough AP2 weapons. For some armies, this isn't an issue because they have such a high volume or are heavily melee based.

GW should allow two army lists for tournaments as PP does. This will allow the specialist to switch up their army for certian armies. SM have vastely different load outs when playing certian armies, while Orks probably has the same load out regardless of who their opponent is. Same goes for lash CSM.

I couldn't agree less. Surely the hallmark of a skilled player, and indeed, one skilled enough to place well in a Tournament is the ability to write a truly all comers list? Flamers are cheap, and useful. In a short ranged firefight (like, for instance, Marines trying to take an objective with a combination of Pistol fire and a follow up assault) they are truly fantastic.

MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote. I stated that SM have a harder time in tournaments because the majority of people set up their army for MEQs as the primary enemy. They then hope they can out play the horde armies, while devestating the MEQ armies.

The only thing that comes remotely close to saying Orks are overpowered is when I stated that their MEQ list would be basically the same as their anti-horde list. Orks have no power weapons for their characters, so people will still take power klaws. Lootas are have superior range to burnas, therefore they will still be taken. I would assume nob bikers would still be taken as they are fast, tough and hit hard, maybe not because they are expensive. On the flip side, SM would take HBs over lascannons, flamers over plasma guns and probably more power weapons than powerfists.

I don't particularly care about the Ork codex being OP or not. If everyone starts playing them, the players will set up form for Orks than MEQs and the issue will self resolve. Better yet, GW will release the next OP codex and they'll get relegated to 2nd or 3rd best.

Eldanar wrote:The problem with the simpler system is it tends to log jam up much more and you really cannot tell who is the better general.

And the tiered system shows us that all ork players are some of our greatest tactical minds?

Techboss wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote. I stated that SM have a harder time in tournaments because the majority of people set up their army for MEQs as the primary enemy. They then hope they can out play the horde armies, while devestating the MEQ armies.

The only thing that comes remotely close to saying Orks are overpowered is when I stated that their MEQ list would be basically the same as their anti-horde list. Orks have no power weapons for their characters, so people will still take power klaws. Lootas are have superior range to burnas, therefore they will still be taken. I would assume nob bikers would still be taken as they are fast, tough and hit hard, maybe not because they are expensive. On the flip side, SM would take HBs over lascannons, flamers over plasma guns and probably more power weapons than powerfists.

I don't particularly care about the Ork codex being OP or not. If everyone starts playing them, the players will set up form for Orks than MEQs and the issue will self resolve. Better yet, GW will release the next OP codex and they'll get relegated to 2nd or 3rd best.

Sorry, was partially replying to something you said, rather than yourself and shot off on a tangent. I do apologise.

However, one is interested to see how Burnas proceed now with the Plastic Battlewagon available. I'd imagine one or two stuffed with Burnas and left open topped (yes, it's risky. But a Big Mek Powerfield could help there) to be quite a nasty proposition. After all, it drives out, 10 Burnas leap out, roast you in the Cover, and then assault.... Mind you, now I mention it, I seem to recall Burnas can be either or in a single turn, and not both, so depending on what you are using, they might not roast you at all and instead merely settle for slicing you up in HTH. Thats a *lot* of S4 power weapon attacks, and one would imagine, a very taken objective, and not one I would enjoy trying to take back. Get your ranges slightly off and you are literally toast!

I have yet to lose to the new orks.

G

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

Orks were my first tournament army. I took a racetrack worth to Adepticon '06. Finished in the top-10 in the gladiator at Adepticon '07 with the old codex. Did it again this year with the new codex - and haven't really played them much since. They just don't seem like much of a challenge to play anymore, and there's a lot of 'hate' towards ork players now that I never experienced under the old codex.

I liked it more when orks were the underdogs.

Similar to Green Blow Fly, I have not had many losses to Orks since their book came out either (and my regular Ork opponent won two Tournament Circuit GT's this past year). But their sheer numbers are extremely problematic. And too, I recognized early on that they were going to be ratcheted up in the power brackets.

Bignutter wrote:you can though- by having the w/l/d and still keeping track of VPs so that you can sort out any ties and rank people on the same number of wins- thats actually what they do at the UK GTs... that way the person on 6 wins by the skin of their teeth is still below the 6 win "wipe out everything placed before me" player

Instead of going to all of that trouble, why not just use the U.S. system. You will effectively have the same result without having to keep up with two sets of math.

Yep, I don't think my IG would have had any problems with either of the top two Ork armies at Baltimore. Thing is, I'll never face them as I can't quite get the massive victories needed to be at the top tables.

I'd have though IG were one of the better armies at halting an Orky horde. Lots of sidearm fire, lots of targets, and a fair bit of big gun muscle to help out. Granted, if the horde makes it to HTH relatively intact your stuffed, but I can see it being win big lose big type situations.

However, please take into account I haven't played 40k since early 4th Edition!

@ don_mondo & Mad Doc Grotsnik

IG are at a significant disadvatage to Orks, heres why:

Morale: Orks are well poised to pass ALL the route tests from shooting while IG are almost certainly going to fail any morale checks from CC, this means even a few assaulters can destroy entire units in a single charge.

KP: Ork armies have a significantly less amount of KP than IG, its almost a loss at setup, assuming generally equal factors otherwise just by the numbers

Assault and OBJ taking: IG have no decent take ground units and no assault units, they would have a very difficult time advancing to claim OBJs vs. Orks, while the Ork list is basically filled with great units for this purpose.

I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

sirisaacnuton wrote:I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

Here is the 2nd place army in Vegas:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=300005&pIndex=2&aId=9900001&start=3

The Eldar army that was 8th in Vegas, and 4th in Chicago were Iyanden.