Is Dakka's Ork Takktica still viable?

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.

**Juvieus Kaine**

Backfire wrote:I think the biggest problem with Flash Gitz is that they take a Heavy Support slot. Orks have so stupidly good choices there, why would anyone waste a HS slot on an unit whichs capabilities are generally matched or exceeded by another Codex entry (Nobz).

Yeah. I remember reading somewhere on this forum of a suggestion that they should be an upgrade on the Nobz entry. Not a bad idea that one.

PLus I like your review of warbikers, pretty much what I thought of them except I use them like stealth missiles

I say this because so far nobody shoots the until they're very very close. BY that point they either die or hit home. And it saves me a turn with me trukks which is always a plus

**striderx**

Dashofpepper wrote:Consider this a challenge to your belief in warbikers, but I'd be happy to play a game with you on Vassal; you with your warbiker army (or units) and me with my standard fare, and I show you their ineffectiveness.

Extend that challenge to Stelek. His recommended best ork list consist of MSU of bikers, supported by lootas and kannons I think.

**Mannahnin**

More evidence on Warbikers.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/312197.page

Dash is a known player, and has a lot of good knowledge to share. AFAIK he has not won a GT yet. Wyatt has.

**General_Chaos**

Mannahnin wrote:More evidence on Warbikers.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/312197.page

Dash is a known player, and has a lot of good knowledge to share. AFAIK he has not won a GT yet. Wyatt has.

Nice link, goes to show that the internet full of people telling you there is only one way or a hand full of ways to build a list and if you stray to far off that "path" you fail. The problem is people read this crap and just believe it with out testing out those units or tactics then start regurgitating the same crap on the boards . I believe they just take these things for granted because it make them appear smarter just because there's another idiot out there that agrees with them. Stop being sheep people!

**Dashofpepper**

Mannahnin, you should look up 2010 GT standings, you might find yourself surprised.

Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

**striderx**

Dashofpepper wrote:If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

You said the same thing to Stelek before, and we all know what happened at Nova.

Maybe you would like to repeat the challenge to him again since his ork list advocates MSU of ork bikers, exactly against your philosophy.

**Dashofpepper**

Strider:

Stelek said that Orks suck. During our game, we tied all three objectives, and had to go to straight victory points. This is *after* I let him rewind the game a turn to do things that he had forgotten that were game-changing, and a few other things I don't discuss publicly; in order to *get* the game I had to promise Mike to be on my best behavior, and I was - things happened that I would *absolutely NOT* let happen in any other game, friendly or tournament.

In addition, your reporting of how my game against Stelek showed up is quite inaccurate. Telling someone who was involved your heresay version of what happened and how it came about is the worst discredit you could do to yourself.

**Polonius**

I know this argument has gone beyond the actual effectiveness of warbikes, but I think it's safe to say that for most people, in most lists, warbikes are not the best use of points.

There are exceptions, but as a new ork player I'm putting off that unit until later in my build, as I think that there are units that do what I want more reliably.

**striderx**

Dashofpepper wrote:
This is *after* I let him rewind the game a turn to do things that he had forgotten that were game-changing, and a few other things I don't discuss publicly; in order to *get* the game I had to promise Mike to be on my best behavior, and I was - things happened that I would *absolutely NOT* let happen in any other game, friendly or tournament.

1) It was a totally different story from his blog regarding this (you didn't speak loud enough, and started your turn before he confirm anything, etc). In order not to be biased, I discredited this thing totally - not to trust either side.
2) If I had to exploit on someone's bad memory to win a game, when it is obviously a slip of the mind, I would rather not to. Because tactically, I didnt really win him.

Dashofpepper wrote:In addition, your reporting of how my game against Stelek showed up is quite inaccurate. Telling someone who was involved your heresay version of what happened and how it came about is the worst discredit you could do to yourself.

From my understanding of the battle report, the game appeared closely fought only because it ended on turn 5. And you were lucky it did, because apparently you have nothing much to fight against him, and it would have probably been a massacre if the game went to turn 6 or 7. It was downhill from turn 5 onwards.
So the game wasnt as close as you thought.

With regards to your philosophy on ork bikers, if you bother to issue your challenge to General_Chaos, why not extend it to Stelek instead? I m sure it will give your claim more credit.

**Polonius**

It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

**striderx**

Polonius wrote:It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

FLAWED. If a codex is deemed bad, it doesn't have to LOSE BADLY. It probably just can't win. For example if I claim IG to be MUCH superior than Orks, I don't have to table the ork player or win him by a large extent. All I need to do is to deny the ork player that win, even if I only won by a narrow margin. So before you think anything amuses you, think hard again

That being said, that game DOP was almost tabled, and would probably have been tabled if the game didnt ended on turn 5. Check out the battle report to see what he has left.

**warpcrafter**

Dashofpepper wrote:I've never agreed with it, but I've never been motivated enough to write my own, although I've written extensive tactics that would have made a good tactica. Let me see if I can find my "Dash post" and drop it in here.

*EDIT* Here it is.

I'm going to work off of a couple of assumptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Playing Warhammer 40k is fun.
2. Playing Warhammer 40k and winning is more fun.
3. Playing Warhammer 40k and losing is less fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human nature and natural selection demand that we continually seek to improve ourselves. Having an A type personality probably doesn't hurt this effort, but if you lose a game of 40k and don't reflect on the game with, "What did I do wrong? What could I have done better? How can I prevent this from happening again?" then I can't really talk to you.

If this thought process and those three assumptions *do* apply to you, then read on.

******
Orks are a unique codex. An ork boy is significantly cheaper than just about any other model in 40k, and is basically a platform from which many things spring (other kinds of ork variants - stormboyz, lootas, nobs...). If you read the fluff, every ork starts in the same place, and as they develop, they lean towards on klan/society, which is how they figure out what kind of ork they're going to be.

In other codexes (space marines and their variants being the most prolific), basic troops are well-rounded models. You ever play Final Fight? How about ANY kind of game with character selections? You've got the big, strong guy that's slow...the average Joe....and the weaker but very speedy character. This applies in 40k as well. Space marines are like your average, well-rounded Joe. Orks are NOT. You can't mix and match orks in any order you like to make a generalized list.

This is *not* called power building, its called understanding your codex, how your codex is designed, and using it as such. Every time someone calls "playing a theme" to be "powerbuilding" I want to stab them in the F***** eye. If you look in the Ork codex, do you see the codex writers putting in pictures for the sample armies of some Lootas backing up a squad of meganobs in a trukk, who are advancing next to some buggies and a deffkopta or two?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They even TELL you how to make your army. They tell you what the Ork klans are - Bad Moons, Kult of Speed, Deffskullz, etc.

That kind of thematic army construction is the intent of the Ork codex. That is what makes orks powerful. The ork codex is written so that you can design an army list that is absolutely ridiculously powerful, but it is NOT made up of average Joe units; everything is specialized towards a specific goal. When you build an army list, you should follow the thematic advice given to you in the Codex. PICK a theme. There's a lot of them:

Green Tide. Mechanized Assault. Mechanized Shooting. Ork Gunline (Moar Dakka), Kan-Wall. Dreadz of Fury. Kult of Speed. Outflanking Goodness. Rebel Grotz. Nob Bikers. Super Units. Orky Burnas.

All of those things have something in common - the lists were designed with a theme in mind, and have the synergy to work together towards that goal. When you start combining those themes to make a list, you're being counterintuitive to the very style that the orks were created for.

Remember this: Orks can do anything that any other army can do, and they can do it better than that army. However, orks can only do it one at a time. You can outshoot a Tau Gunline. You can out-assault a khorne army or an army of genestealers. You can put down more templates than IG....whatever your goal in mind is....orks can do it better, but it has to stick to that theme. Orks are not meant to be universal, middle-of-the-line armies.

To give another analogy...if you've ever played an MMO, there are different classes. Fighter, Tank, barbarian, mage, cleric, wizard, hunter, ranger, red mage, death knight, rogue, whatever.....its all based on the game you play. The class you pick sets you on a path for the kind of game you play, the skills you get - they are pre-defined roles.

40k armies fit into that kind of typification. Except for Orks. Orks would be the generic class. You start with a neutral character, with skillpoints to assign, and you can make orks any kind of army you want them to be. People fail with orks because they want some of everything. Instead of making them a fighter, or an archer, or a guardian...and they would be better fighters, archers and guardians than every other type...they split points between all three to make a Figardian.

*edited out inappropriate joke about the acronym for Fighter Archer Guardian*

*EDIT* I'm adding information for the tactics article I'm working on.

If you're running a foot-slogging list, shoota boys are your friend. Slugga boys belong inside vehicles. In fact, I think you should convert your slugga boy mobs into shoota boys. In 5th edition, the shoota boy is the most efficient point purchase across all 40k.

Think on that - for 6 points...SIX POINTS....you get an infantry model with an assault 2 STR4 gun, who is WS4, STR4, T4 on the charge. In terms of math hammer between shoota and slugga boys, it's pretty simple. Slugga boys have +1 attack in close combat, and shoota boys have +1 attack outside of close combat. Since your Orks on the assault are only I3, you're going to strike last meaning that 30 boyz are going to take some casualties before getting their attacks back.

On the flip side, shoota boys get 2 shots before assaulting, and the enemy doesn't get to shoot back first and cause casualties - putting in any kind of hurt before you assault is incredibly valuable. And since it has an 18" range, you can shoot into a unit even when you don't have range to assault this turn. My advice for green tide:

Take all your troops choices as shoota boys. Consider taking a squad of gretchin - you can spread them across your front lines to provide 4+ cover saves for your whole army. Alternatively, you can take a squad of ork boyz to do the same. If you make them 'Ard Boyz they gain considerably in staying power.

Want to get real freaky? Take a squad of 'Ard Boyz, stick Mad Dok Grotsnik with them for a 4+/4+. Spread that unit out 2+ coherence to minimize the damage that blast templates can do, and have the whole thing move+run in front of your army. Your screening unit has 4+ armor saves, 4+ feel no pain, and the rest of your army has 4+ cover saves now. If your points allow it, what really tops off the list is adding some fast attack Stormboyz. You can put them into close combat, or have them multi-assault to shake/stun some tanks/artillery, have them get in fast and tie up enemy units (hello Tau!), or if the situation doesn't call for it, you can leave them behind your screening unit and keep them in reserve to get in where you need supporting assault units at.

I regularly win with exactly the sort of army that you proclaim as ineffective. I run three mobs of 30 sluggaboyz with a KFF mek in the middle of them, a deffrolla battlewagon full of meganobs, a trukk full of burna boyz and a unit of 6 warbikers. It wins because I use the ancient and time-honoured "Gorka Morka" tactic invented by my hero, Adrian Wood. I put all of my footslogging units on one side of the board and slam all of my fast units along one side. By the way, I tried running a bunch of shoota boys, backed up with Lootas, and you consistently forget to mention their one glaring weakness, BS 2. The secret is to spread the boys out so that only a small part of the enemy force is able to engage the fast, dangerous elements. Granted, the boys don't accomplish much, but that's not their purpose. They are there to soak up attention. Against highly mobile forces such as Eldar and Blood Angels, I do exactly the last thing they expect, I run away and make them waste their time chasing me while I eliminate one or two units a turn. Against IG, I go for the chimeras first, then hit the rear of their tanks. Against space marines, I form a line that they can't get through, and hit everything at once. It doesn't always work, but it's fun either way. The only armies I cannot get a win against are Daemons and Grey Knights. (Go figure...)

**Polonius**

striderx wrote:
Polonius wrote:It amuses me that this is still argued.

When somebody asserts a strident viewpoint "X is bad," showing that X is merely mediocre actually disproves it.

The stakes weren't if Orks were better than whatever else, but rather that Orks couldn't even compete with whatever else.

They did.

QED

FLAWED. If a codex is deemed bad, it doesn't have to LOSE BADLY. It probably just can't win. For example if I claim IG to be MUCH superior than Orks, I don't have to table the ork player or win him by a large extent. All I need to do is to deny the ork player that win, even if I only won by a narrow margin. So before you think anything amuses you, think hard again

That being said, that game DOP was almost tabled, and would probably have been tabled if the game didnt ended on turn 5. Check out the battle report to see what he has left.

That's an interesting proposition. So you're saying that I can say that Mech Ig are way better than necrons, squeak out a tie, and claim to have proven my point?

The results of the game are what matter, not the situation. A draw is a draw, no matter how acquired.

If the proof offered to support the claim of "orks are bad" is a draw, that seems.... inadequate.

If the argument was "X is better than Y," that's fine. And maybe I"m mistaken as to the original argument.

**Monster Rain**

The point that you're missing is that in the game in question Stelek didn't "manage to squeak out a tie."

Not that one game proves anything.

**Mannahnin**

I concur with Polonius. When someone asserts that an army is terrible, if it performs even to a mediocre level then their assertion is generally seen to be false. Stelek either was wrong about the army or communicated his actual opinion so badly that he was still in error.

That being said, Dash and Stelek's game is just an anecdote, and not true "proof" either way. The evidence of Ork players who do well and compete against strong armies is closer to proof. But it's not something which can really be proved true or false. Any player who understands the game and plays it with any level of competence can evaluate for themselves how true it is within whatever given metagame environment they play in.

Dash: Now that you recall it to my mind, you got a 3rd place/Best General last year, no? Which is not a GT win, although I'll concede that it's just as good from the perspective of evaluating play performance. Congrats, if I didn't say so before. I still think you're wrong about the warbikes. But I'm judging that based on what I get from other Ork players I personally know who are top tournament players; like Wyatt Traina and Matt Cassidy. I've read a fair amount of your stuff but I don't know you personally. I'm a little surprised to see you post in such adamant terms about any given unit, considering that you've reversed your position about some units between starting posting here and gaining some experience on the GT circuit.

**matphat**

Hey guys, I'm loving all the heat this thread is generating, and I understand you have some axes to grind here, but if I could return to the OT, would someone with a crap ton of experience like to take the time to edit up the Takktica?
Us new players really do appreciate the guidance.
=)

**striderx**

Polonius wrote:That's an interesting proposition. So you're saying that I can say that Mech Ig are way better than necrons, squeak out a tie, and claim to have proven my point?

The results of the game are what matter, not the situation. A draw is a draw, no matter how acquired.

If the proof offered to support the claim of "orks are bad" is a draw, that seems.... inadequate.

If the argument was "X is better than Y," that's fine. And maybe I"m mistaken as to the original argument.

1) Did you read the batrep? It wasn't a tie.
2) It would have been something like a major loss or massacre against DOP if the game went on to turn 6 or 7. DOP was very LUCKY it ended on turn 5.

Again, pull out anything from the BatRep and explain to me how it doesn't seem like it was already downhill for the orks from turn 4 or 5 onwards. Rather than being a close fight, it was more like the orks were trying hard to preserve whatever they have and stay on board.

Mannahnin wrote: I'm a little surprised to see you post in such adamant terms about any given unit, considering that you've reversed your position about some units between starting posting here and gaining some experience on the GT circuit.

Same here. I remember how he used to advocate strongly on Eavy Armor against Cybork bodies, and dismissing everyone who spoke otherwise. Of course, it didn't take too long for him to playtest enough to reverse his position.
So seriously, I doubt the amount of playtesting he has done on ork bikers to dismiss them that strongly (that being said, i m not an advocate of them though). The only way he tries to prove them wrong is to grab someone using ork bikers, challenge him, and if he wins he says :- " Now I win you, so ork bikers are no good."

**Dashofpepper**

Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true.

OP: I'll help you build a list or devise a theme, but I'm not a fan of the article or tactica section on Dakka; I'm told that a couple of my things have been turned into articles by mods, but I don't go to those areas.

*EDIT* Mannanhin, I don't post in painting very often...nor even paint my own models (that's my wife's job) because the painting piece of this hobby is uninteresting to me. Where GTs split scoring amongst different categories (painting, sportsmanship, theme, battle points), I only care about battlepoints. Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points, and my models are painted because they must be for me to enter the event. In my opinion, the hobby would be better if GW supplied models already painted and assembled. =D

To that extent, whether the person who "wins" the tournament portion is called Tournament Ace, Tournament Champion, Best General, or something else, that's what I'm competing in. If you feel that doesn't constitute "winning" ....that's fine. That's the criteria I measure myself on.

**Monster Rain**

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

**Che-Vito**

Monster Rain wrote:
Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

+1 remember, it's like having an inflated statline for a DE army...the louder you yell, the more credible you feel on the subject.

Keep it rolling boys, this argument ain't stopping anytime soon!

**Dashofpepper**

Monster Rain wrote:
Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true. .

No, but the links provided to people saying otherwise (GT winners, to wit) certainly seem to indicate that there is room for debate on the matter.

If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me?

Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

**Monster Rain**

Dashofpepper wrote:If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

Your opinion is of little concern to me; I was just keeping score for the folk reading at home.

The point being: There is more than one opinion on the matter. Now go in peace, brohemoth.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points

Then why aren't you tied for first if you went undefeated? What tournaments are you playing in that have the painting score ranked so highly that someone with perfect sports and a 5-0 record could be beaten by someone who lost a game but had a nicely painted army?

Does not compute.

**striderx**

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me? Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

LOL, then what's stopping you from issuing that same challenge to Stelek?
If you are willing to spend 3 hours proving General_Chaos (or anyone) wrong on the table about this, I m sure it wouldnt hurt you spending the same 3 hours proving the same thing with Stelek.
What makes things more interesting is that Stelek is on the extreme end of the spectrum on this. He thinks the best ork list is made using MSU of ork bikers.

Dashofpepper wrote:If anyone wants to influence my opinion on the matter....as I've said repeatedly, demonstrate it to me.

How about we change this a little? If you want to influence anyone's opinion on this, you demonstrate to us. It will be epic to see you table Stelek on the table.

**Mannahnin**

Dashofpepper wrote:Attempting to discredit me isn't going to make the statement, "Warbikers are a poor choice in an army" any less true.

I credited you, and congratulated you.

I just happen to credit some other people, and their opinions, more highly.

Dashofpepper wrote:*EDIT* Mannanhin, I don't post in painting very often...nor even paint my own models (that's my wife's job) because the painting piece of this hobby is uninteresting to me. Where GTs split scoring amongst different categories (painting, sportsmanship, theme, battle points), I only care about battlepoints.

Understood, which is why I said your Best General score counted equally with a GT win for purposes of giving your opinion weight.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship is a sham of a score, moreso because almost everyone always gets max points,

First, your contention undermines your own point. If everyone always gets max points, then it's irrelevant and a non-factor.

Second, IMO this is Stelek-level junk. You have an opinion about the particular stuff you've seen and express it hyperbolically is if it is a law of nature. It's a failure of imagination, at least.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_Pass_or_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring#The_Pass_/_Fail_Method_of_Tournament_Sportsmanship_Scoring

Dashofpepper wrote:...and my models are painted because they must be for me to enter the event. In my opinion, the hobby would be better if GW supplied models already painted and assembled. =D

You're welcome to your opinion. IMO it's misguided and sad, but not unexpected for someone coming from your background, level of experience, and skill set.

Dashofpepper wrote:To that extent, whether the person who "wins" the tournament portion is called Tournament Ace, Tournament Champion, Best General, or something else, that's what I'm competing in. If you feel that doesn't constitute "winning" ....that's fine. That's the criteria I measure myself on.

I said as far as I remembered you haven't won a GT yet. That was true, but didn't account for your GT Best General, which does bear equal weight in the discussion, since the Overall winner didn't do better than you in battles.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'm confident that I can table an Ork warbiker army; I don't care who pilots it. Stelek thinks Orks suck; he doesn't even play them, so I'm not sure that's been mentioned. I for one would appreciate less arguments and more dice rolling. Certainly one of you warbiker advocates is willing to put your money where your mouth is and roll dice with me? Prove me wrong. I'm always more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, and will give credit where its due. But you have to earn it first.

Bear in mind that there are two different dissents to your opinion here. StriderX raised the issue of Stelek's warbiker army. I cited the example of Wyatt's successful ETC army, which used a bunch of bikers but wasn't focused completely on them. If Wyatt wanted to play you, I'd be happy to put money on him. But this shouldn't honestly be about the people, it should be about the units. Warbikers have useful qualities and have been demonstrated to be able to be used successfully in a highly competitive venue.

Based on your history of playing in large events, and your recent comments about your tournament Ork list having not changed in a long time, it seems that you do not have experience fielding warbikers in a GT-level environment or against GT-caliber opposition, nor have you done testing to figure out what kind of army in which they might work well. And that's okay; they may not suit your play style, or work well in the type of list you prefer to field. But for you to categorically deny their utility in any competitive Ork list seems inappropriate.

**Backfire**

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, you should look up 2010 GT standings, you might find yourself surprised.

Geneal_Chaos: I'm not going to spend two paragraphs telling you how I pioneered a new wave of Ork tactics and spew out my own awesomeness. Instead, I'll tell you this: If you feel one way about the validity of claiming something to be competitive that I disagree with, the best way to settle it is over a 40k game, preferably with stakes. Bring forth your wallet and your warbikers. Either meet me on Vassal or meet me at one of the GTs this year for a pre-GT challenge, and I'll be happy to table you and take your money.

Warbikers are *not* it.

I think this discussion progresses along parallel lines. When assessing whether an unit choice "sucks", it can be done by either within Codex's internal balance, or within universal metagame. I'll take a Tau codex as an example as I am most familiar with that: from Tau Codex viewpoint, Kroot are great, as they offer best value for points in that FOC slot (Troops). But when compared to what all other available codexii have available, they are an average unit at best. OTOH, Vespids suck both within Tau codex, and compared to all other comparable units. A player who uses his points on Vespids instead of Crisis Suits (or even Piranhas or Gun Drones if you want to compare them within the FA slot) will be handicapped in almost every game.

In my opinion, Ork codex has no truly weak units (well some of the Special characters maybe, I dunno). It is just that the Codex' internal balance is flawed, and some units simply do not compare within the book in some other choices, thus there is no point for a competive player to consider them. If you made an army out of the weakest Ork units, it would still at least put a fight against most other armies. By contrast, if you made a Tau army containing all the weakest units in that book, you'd struggle to ever actually kill anything.

**Doctor Optimal**

+1 to what Backfire said, "absolute suck" versus "relative suck" is a difficult thing to quantify.

If you want to field 6 minimal Grot mobs backed up with MSUs of Bikers and Flash Gits for all your fast/heavy choices because you like the models, that's fine. They're your models and your army. But a Tactica should be written towards a competitive (although, not a WAAC) mindset, towards an audience that wants to win or at least have a chance at it. That's why it's called "Tactica", from the word "Tactics".

It's like when people post in Army Lists and respond to any criticism with "Well, it's fluffy!". If it's fluffy good for it, but posting it in Army Lists means you want a competitiveness audit done (because I can't know your fluff, only you know it. Fluff is subjective, numbers aren't).

Me, I (try to) write tactical lists and then write my fluff to justify it, but I'm a TFG.

**Vrakk**

To those who support the use of warbikes - I ask this: How do you get around the leadership issue? In my opinion, low leadership is Orks biggest weakness. Orks have many ways of getting around this - but warbikes do not. I love the idea of bikes (I played in 3rd ed when warbikes could shoot their dakka guns on the charge) but I almost always need to take a leadership test before doing anything with them - which means 1/3 of the time they ride away without accomplishing much.

On a straight point for point basis - why would you ever field bikers and not Nob bikers? 20 pts more for: a) 1 more wound b) 1 higher strength c) the ablilty to take better weapons/gear d) whte ability to wound allocate e) nob bikers can be troop choices without having to take a special character

**Dashofpepper**

Strider, I'm going to stop responding to you because you don't seem to read what I write. For the last time, Stelek doesn't play Orks. Stelek doesn't play Orks. STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS.

Specific to your "Why don't you demonstrate to us..."

I've offered to demonstrate this. This is getting beyond ridiculous at this point. Stop picking internet people to try championing your cause - back up your own words, justify your thoughts, do more than just be argumentative and provocative for the sake of being argumentative, and for the love of Gork and Mork, CONTRIBUTE something here besides negativity to what I write.

If you think warbikers are all that, justify it. "I do well with warbikers" is not a good answer, which is all that's been offered in their defense here. I've explained in-depth their utility compared to other options in the codex trying to achieve the same ends, none of which has been refuted with anything other than, "They do well for me."

The only way to beat the phrase "I don't care what the codex or common sense says, I like them..." when someone uses it like they believe its an actual refutation to point cost, utility, and worthiness to put in a list is to play against the person who believes that, and destroy them so utterly that they realize they haven't actually been challenged before.

Mannahnin, if you want Wyatt to champion warbikers for you, set us up. I'd take your bet. I'm not going to go into particular detail because this isn't the place for it, but the ETC was worth a laugh.

Just like GW Vegas Invitational is worth a laugh. You're right in that I don't field warbikers in a GT environment, but I've both seen them played and played against them in a GT.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that nothing else new is going to come to this thread, and that no one is going to step up to actually back up their opinions counter to mine. Pointing out a single individual who has won some games with a unit is *not* justification for rating them as a valuable part of a codex or advice on utility for new players to that army. Just because I win games with Necrons doesn't mean that I recommend Necrons to aspiring 40k players.

Warbikers are an inferior unit, not worth their points, and not something that an aspiring Ork strategist should consider for their army. I have the knowledge, experience, and impressive slew of documented victories to demonstrate that I know my way around Orks. If anyone wants to go beyond ranged sniping and show me that I'm wrong, PM me and we'll set up a game, and lay down some stakes. I'll even let YOU pick the codex I use (and I only know how to play with three of them), and I'll probably even let you have a say in building my list. Alternatively, you can have one of my standard take-all-comer lists.

Strider, for the last time, STELEK DOES NOT PLAY ORKS! Man up and meet me across a table.

*laughing* I wonder how many people in this thread giving advice on Orks actually play them, or play them with any degree of success?

**Monster Rain**

Dashofpepper wrote:At any rate, I'm pretty sure that nothing else new is going to come to this thread, and that no one is going to step up to actually back up their opinions counter to mine. Pointing out a single individual who has won some games with a unit is *not* justification for rating them as a valuable part of a codex or advice on utility for new players to that army.

Dashofpepper wrote:Mannahnin, if you want Wyatt to champion warbikers for you, set us up. I'd take your bet. I'm not going to go into particular detail because this isn't the place for it, but the ETC was worth a laugh. Just like GW Vegas Invitational is worth a laugh. You're right in that I don't field warbikers in a GT environment, but I've both seen them played and played against them in a GT.

So someone's tournament record doesn't make them an authority figure on a subject, but yours does. Also, winning games with Warbikers doesn't make them good, but if you played against them and won it would prove that they suck?

Is that what you're saying?

**Juvieus Kaine**

Vrakk wrote:To those who support the use of warbikes - I ask this: How do you get around the leadership issue? In my opinion, low leadership is Orks biggest weakness. Orks have many ways of getting around this - but warbikes do not. I love the idea of bikes (I played in 3rd ed when warbikes could shoot their dakka guns on the charge) but I almost always need to take a leadership test before doing anything with them - which means 1/3 of the time they ride away without accomplishing much.

On a straight point for point basis - why would you ever field bikers and not Nob bikers? 20 pts more for: a) 1 more wound b) 1 higher strength c) the ablilty to take better weapons/gear d) whte ability to wound allocate e) nob bikers can be troop choices without having to take a special character

For me it's a bosspole nob leader, always. That's one thing I learned on ehre actually - every ork unit that can take a bosspole, should take one. However I take the whole precident that orks are meant to die anyway - you're only trying to cause as much carnage as possible in as little time given before you die. Sounds like terrible logic but it works somewhat.

In regards to biker tactica, I use them as the very first unit to hit home. Koptas are in small numbers and ridiculously expensive for what people use them for - I'd take 3 normal bikers over a buzzkopta anyday. This is because there's more wounds and a constant cover save. You need to turboboost with a kopta to gain a save and their klaws are str7 charging. I can get one on a normal nob biker leader thats str9 charging. That causes far more damage than what any kopta could. Another thing I've noticed with koptas vs bikers is that the koptas always get targetted first and shot down with ease. Bikers take a lot more to kill - same weapons but more wounds. And assuming they'll always run away as soon as one falls off his bike won't really help you use them. Outlfanking moves would work well with them - push your main force forward and use the bikers to target something on the side of general importance. And the dakkaguns are quite useful I've found - many a wound caused by the sheer volley of those guns. Against MEQ's thise falters due to armour saves, but this is why you charge those guys as well as shoot them.

Besides when you try and fill the Fast Attack slot for any speedy ork army we really are abit stuffed for choice. We have warbuggies which are only useful as skorchas or rokkit buggies - nice cheap gun platforms of armour 10. Suffers the same issue with the landspeeder typhoon - good (matter of opinion) at range but one shot and bam, it's toast. And almost always you need 3 buggies to keep up the power and anti tank. Now I can take a whole buncha klaws for 120pts which have more attacks and a higher strength charging. Next is stormboys which strike me as a horde - base unit. 20 boys with unreliable jump-packs, not my fancy personally. And koptas, see above paragraph.

I think we can all agree, Dash doesn't like warbikers, maybe because he's found them ineffective for what he wants them to do or just generally can't see the point of them. Others can argue otherwise but we all have our own experiences.

Now to the OP (before this veers off any further), I would happily edit that Takktaki but I don't think I'd do it justive since I'm not exactly an ork veteran (been playing them for a few months and well I'm nearly 19). I think whoever edits it will need to have a good indepth experience of every ork trick in the book. It might be Dash, it may not.