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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:


Paying 2000€ for having a quarantee defeat against WAAC gamers would definitly be a legit BDSM experience.

GW needs to care for all the potential costumers of the "Warhammer Hobby".

I mean I do own an over 2000pt all-grots ork army, that's essentially as close to that experience as you can actually get.

Theyre also the 'joke, designated loser' faction in AOS! The way GW likes to convey models that are 'just for fun' is that they give them no rules, no abilities, no weapons and then they massively overcost them and go "haha, isn't this funny? Aren't you having fun? Look, we're making you pay the same points as a chaos cultist, but we're only giving you a laspistol, downgrading your weapon skill to 5, your leadership to 4 and your strength to 2, and also you don't even get an armor save if you're outside of cover! WE EVEN TOOK AWAY YOUR OBSEC SO YOU CANT SECURE OBJECTIVES HAHAHAHAHA ISNT THAT HILARIOUS? you know, because the fluff is that orks dont care about objectives so they usually send grots to do that job which is why theyre troops choices in the first place, that was the fluff, but we got rid of it because it's so goddamn funny!!!"

I think its less that and more --> Ork army must field orks, Grots are not orky enough.
Same for CSM which shouldn't field cultists.

Atleast i rekon its that logic for those two armies that come to mind with that scenario...

There's also the other option, the one were your army gets taken behind the Legendsshed which also is baseline that "joke-army" except of course that rather than being a funny side show like in BB there its more a joke at the player of said army and normally people don't laugh about that one.

Cost is a major bar.

Mentality is also an issue I think.

To my mind *good* Blood Bowl is about the narratives, characters etc that develop over a league. Necromunda/Mordheim were meant to be like this too. The moment people start explicitly playing to win and yes, munchkining every choice to build the most cheese thing you can, the magic tends to disappear.

But if you can maintain that, you can see how you can play say Halflings, and yes expect to lose almost every game, but live for those times when one of your guys stomps to death your mate's super Witch Elf (or whatever) that's got all the good skillups. And as people have said, cost is such that nothing stops you playing halflings for a bit, then playing something decidedly top tier. If you are in a sufficiently large league, nothing stops you doing both at the same time.

40k however is increasingly streamlined to be a "game" rather than a narrative (arguably this has been going on since it started, but its very much there now). As such playing a bad faction doesn't really satisfy a narrative - it just feels frustrating, likely because you just can't do what your opponent is doing. I mean nothing stops you playing GSC, Tau, Guard etc against the top factions and trying to win - but I don't find it fun. You are usually not creating memories in the same way. "Remember when you rolled a disproportionate number of 1s and 2s and I rolled a disproportionate number of 5s and 6s? Good times."

So far lack of proper mentality and cost seem to be an obstacle. Though I don't believe the latter is a valid reason as no one forces you to collect a large 40K army.

Which armies due to fluff should be presented as underdogs? Imo Traitor Guard, GSC and to some extent Orks would fit in that category. I can still remember a couple of White Dwarf battle reports in which the greenskins were used to make the other factions look good.

 Strg Alt wrote:
So far lack of proper mentality and cost seem to be an obstacle. Though I don't believe the latter is a valid reason as no one forces you to collect a large 40K army.

Which armies due to fluff should be presented as underdogs? Imo Traitor Guard, GSC and to some extent Orks would fit in that category. I can still remember a couple of White Dwarf battle reports in which the greenskins were used to make the other factions look good.

Except traitor guard is probably one of the bigger threats to the IoM. the GSC cults are a sever internal danger aswell and orks are about the only species thriving in this galaxy?

If anything there should be a sever check on the whole heroic IoM theme going on.

Tyel wrote:

40k however is increasingly streamlined to be a "game" rather than a narrative (arguably this has been going on since it started, but its very much there now). As such playing a bad faction doesn't really satisfy a narrative - it just feels frustrating, likely because you just can't do what your opponent is doing. I mean nothing stops you playing GSC, Tau, Guard etc against the top factions and trying to win - but I don't find it fun. You are usually not creating memories in the same way. "Remember when you rolled a disproportionate number of 1s and 2s and I rolled a disproportionate number of 5s and 6s? Good times."

That is kind of what I'm running into with my grot army.

I love modeling them - I could paint and convert grot stuff all day long, and incorporating all the incredibly goofy gloomspite gitz range into my army was a joy and a delight.

but the game has increasingly changed from 'a goofy system you throw your models at to see what happens' to 'a mental challenge of wills and wits and remembering what all your stratagems do!' and frankly there's just not much fun to be squeezed out of a 'silly' army with that kind of a setup.

All the weapons and abilities that made grot based stuff 'funny' are now just..nothing. Grotzookas used to be kind of funny to resolve, because you had like a million of these cheap little walkers that could each shovel out 2 small blasts if you got them in range, meaning you'd fling out like 12 small blasts out of a decent sized squad, and when they took casualties sometimes they'd toddle away from the enemy for a turn before rallying.

Now, you walk up to an enemy and go 'ok, how many shots, let me roll 10 d3s....now I'll roll to hit wound and you save as normal, this was all just a Big Shoota with 1 extra step. And when your kanz fail morale it's just 'sigh...OK, now we've got to the second extra phase where I lose even more models that you don't even have to worry about...'

Or lets say I include a Shokk Attack Gun - the classic, silly, orky weapon. In days of yore, I would include snotling bases in my army to use as ammo, and I'd roll on a collossally zany table to figure out what happened to the poor snots depending on what unit type I was firing them at. Maybe if I shot them at a tank theyd end up crawling through the engine workings, and it would be just a matter of time before they gum up the works and the vehicle exploded - every turn I'd roll a die and on a 6, that vehicle would blow up. Or maybe they wound up inside the opposing warrior's armor, and i'd make the snotlings melee attacks against the unit with no armor saves allowed.

Now? D6 shots, strength 2D6. oh, I hit you two times, with a strength of (rolls) six. Fun....

there's nothing really there to latch on to to tell a story. Even if I for example go 'the goal of the grotvolushun is not victory, it's visibility! We shall choose the Green Tide objective and simply flood the battlefield full of our glorious peoples' bodies for the grotvolushun and secure victory through numbers!' I just get shoveled off the table so quickly and efficiently that the objective is only possibly achievable for 1 turn. Pretty much any basic infantry unit or anti-infantry unit in the game can just kill their points value in grots straight through every available defensive buff that grots have. at 5ppm I can put down about ~100 of them on the table before I start having to bring models to contend with the task of actually kiling some of my opponent's models, and without exaggeration if I get a really good board position to attack with a lot of them they tend to kill about ~5 GEQ infantry. I have to bring my other units like Squig "Beast Snagga Boyz", a mangler squig "Beastboss" and boingrot bounderz "Stormboyz" to actually try to kill anything and inevitably it just feels like playing 1500pts vs 2000pts every time.

 the_scotsman wrote:

I mean I do own an over 2000pt all-grots ork army, that's essentially as close to that experience as you can actually get.

Theyre also the 'joke, designated loser' faction in AOS! The way GW likes to convey models that are 'just for fun' is that they give them no rules, no abilities, no weapons and then they massively overcost them and go "haha, isn't this funny? Aren't you having fun? Look, we're making you pay the same points as a chaos cultist, but we're only giving you a laspistol, downgrading your weapon skill to 5, your leadership to 4 and your strength to 2, and also you don't even get an armor save if you're outside of cover! WE EVEN TOOK AWAY YOUR OBSEC SO YOU CANT SECURE OBJECTIVES HAHAHAHAHA ISNT THAT HILARIOUS? you know, because the fluff is that orks dont care about objectives so they usually send grots to do that job which is why theyre troops choices in the first place, that was the fluff, but we got rid of it because it's so goddamn funny!!!"

Obvious (and, from the sound of it, entirely justified) snark aside, I think this does raise a good point - if you're going to have underpowered armies, don't make them boring.

I mean, this was something Orks had going for them in past editions. Even if they weren't strong, they had a lot of unpredictable but very flavourful rules that generally made them a lot of fun for both players.

Similarly (prior to 8th-9th), Dark Eldar have generally been one of the weaker factions but (especially in the 5th edition book) also enjoyed a lot of dirty tricks - single-use weapons that could cause instant death, ways to attack units by flying over them, a unit that could 'kidnap' an independent character from his unit, portals from which their reserves could emerge through.

To my mind, these sorts of things are key. I think there are many people who wouldn't mind playing underpowered armies so long as those armies are actually fun to play. In scotsman's example, where's the fun in playing an army of grots if they're just inferior guardsman?

Hell, from my own perspective, DE are good now but they've also lost almost everything that made me want to play them in the first place. Each to their own but, given the choice, I'd far rather they were underpowered but with a lot of tricky rules than being strong but bland.

The thing is, I suspect that this is at least partially due to 9th's core rules and design philosophy. For example, the removal of scatter dice means you can't just have vehicles careen off in a random direction before exploding. The changes to deep strike mean that dropping deployment portals would be almost pointless Not to mention simplifying almost everything into X mortal wounds or reroll 1s (seriously, it's crazy how every unit now has bespoke rules, yet at the same time there's so little actual variety).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this sort of thing almost certainly can work but GW would need to put the effort in so that people have an actual reason to play the underpowered factions over the alternatives.

I think the points raised here actually speak to maybe my worst problem with 9th, and the_scotsman has hit the nail on the head.

In 4th, my Leman Russ tank company rarely won games - it couldn't hold objectives well (though better than in 5th) and generally folded to close combat.

Even in Victory Point kill missions, the Russes would struggle because their weapon profile wasn't actually that good at killing whole units - their battlecannons prevented their other weapons from firing, and unless the enemy was reallllly clumped together, it took three to five tanks (1/3rd to 1/2 of my army) to achieve a full kill on a unit and thus earn a unit's full worth, whereas the tanks themselves were relatively easy to damage and destroy if my opponent was able to preserve his anti-tank power.

I had to carefully consider every option: Do I bring the Demolisher? It's short range puts it at risk, but it's got slightly thicker armor. Do I bring the Vanquisher? My likelyhood of earning the "big score" vp from a Vehicle Annihilated Land Raider or the like goes up, but I'm paying ~25 odd extra points for what amounts to a gambler's chance (i.e. not too much). I can bring the regular Russ, but then I don't get much in the way of anti-tank or anti-fortification power...

so, decision is how are my squadrons laid out?

Then, the decision about doctrines, which can inform the latter: thicker side armor for extra points? Anti-tank shells for the regular Russ? They become very immobile vanquishers then, so if I need AT I could just take the vanquishers... do I take ace sponson gunners or evasive driving to try to survive CC? Etc. Etc.

All these concerns affected how my army played on the tabletop, and it was not a very victorious army (against opponents who were mentally prepared to face it; I did win a lot of psychological victories where my opponent convinced themselves they couldn't win and made wrongheaded decisions therefore - which in itself is fluffy, though an NPE that is best avoided).

Anyways, my point is that in 8th-9th paradigm, ALL of those decisions are gone. Playing a Russ company in 8th and 9th doesn't make me feel like an Imperial Guard tank commander, having to make decisions about how my regiment goes to war (do we bring Tech-Priests as Rare Troops? Do we overcharge the engines on our tanks? Do we have a preponderance of well-trained crews or skimp for the cheaper crews, increasing overall numbers, etc) as well as how it behaves on the battlefield.

The decisions for silly niche armies like tank company Guard and, obviously, Grots aren't there. There are no anti-tank shells for the Leman Russ, no side-armor plating upgrades, no overcharged engines, no Rare Troops blessing/curse, no choice about crew quality in the basic Russes, no evasive driving for protection from CC, ace sponson gunners is now a stratagem that works nothing like how it used to, etc. etc.

I still have the army, but every time I break it out for 9th in preparation for a game, I decide not to play it, because the decisions I am asked to make just have so little impact.

Anyways, rant over...

 Strg Alt wrote:


The first army was in essence a WHFB Chaos army ported into 40K. So you would have chaos warriors in plate armour on foot or mounted, trolls, minotaurs, beastmen, etc. Ranged weapons were... scarce. Lol!

It's not possible to do in 40k because of the strength of the basic infantryman. Its not the autogun that makes a chaos cultist worth taking, its his cheap T3 body that can sit on objectives or S3 knife that can wound a titan on a 6.

Either you ignore that a chaos warrior in plate armour with a sword should have advantage in close combat over a guy with a pistol and rusty crowbar or you have created 'more elite' cultists. Either way breaks immersion.

 Strg Alt wrote:
So far lack of proper mentality and cost seem to be an obstacle. Though I don't believe the latter is a valid reason as no one forces you to collect a large 40K army.

Which armies due to fluff should be presented as underdogs? Imo Traitor Guard, GSC and to some extent Orks would fit in that category. I can still remember a couple of White Dwarf battle reports in which the greenskins were used to make the other factions look good.

Why should orks be underdogs? They are a threat to humanity on a level only tyranids and chaos as a whole exceed. They have multiple large empires across the galaxy, have wiped out or almost wiped out multiple chapters, including big shots like the crimson fists and imperial fists, killed a primarch and directly attacked terra. I also don't think anyone but orks has fought a hive fleet to a halt. And that's before you even start to take Thrakka's deeds into consideration.
The primary reason why orks haven't archived more is because the Imperium has actually learned from the War of the Beast and now invests large amount of resources into the Deathwatch and the Ordo Xenos to make sure that orks don't rise to the same level as the did then.

They are used a lot as punching bags all over the lore and battle reports, but orks as a whole are one of the most dire threats to everyone.

 Jidmah wrote:


Doesn't even need to be a WAAC army. I could probably randomly generate an army from my ork collection and utterly curb-stomp a R&H player with it.

Probably the main problem with GW games, bigger then cost, inconsistern rules etc. Nothing worse then two guys buying in to their Start collecting or Patrol box, one or two other box. and finding out that through share luck one picked an army which gives him something that is a 1/3 of a tournament lists, and the other just bought in to a lot of unit that should have the ,don't buy or buy after you buy an army, label stuck to it.

And it creates really angry people too. Because there are few things as far as table top gaming goes, when you ask your friend to buy and play a more casual list, and they tell you they are already doing that.

This is maybe a bit off-topic, but I actually kind of like the idea of embracing the "NPC faction" thing in certain contexts. Like, it could be cool to see some asymmetrical narrative missions (like the Challenge missions from one of the Chapter Approveds) that have juicy, flavorful rules that would be too clunky or imbalanced for competitive games.

So maybe there's a mission where my opponent's marines get to wipe out wave after wave of my tyranids, and the mission is designed such that he'll probably win or at least kill a disproportionate number of point sworth of models. But my tyranids get rules that let me respawn endless gaunts or shut off character auras with my lictors or place reusable ravener/trygon tunnels halfway through the game.

But that's probably a topic for a different thread.

Wyldhunt wrote:
This is maybe a bit off-topic, but I actually kind of like the idea of embracing the "NPC faction" thing in certain contexts. Like, it could be cool to see some asymmetrical narrative missions (like the Challenge missions from one of the Chapter Approveds) that have juicy, flavorful rules that would be too clunky or imbalanced for competitive games.

So maybe there's a mission where my opponent's marines get to wipe out wave after wave of my tyranids, and the mission is designed such that he'll probably win or at least kill a disproportionate number of point sworth of models. But my tyranids get rules that let me respawn endless gaunts or shut off character auras with my lictors or place reusable ravener/trygon tunnels halfway through the game.

But that's probably a topic for a different thread.

I've done this before and it is, tbf, great fun.

I had an opponent ask for a game and his list was basically just...never going to be something that with my collection I could give him a good time against. it was a cadian list that included every single named character cadians could bring, plus a big hefty unit of regular ogryns (the terrible kind), every unit had mismatched special and heavy weapons and sergeant upgrades, etc.

So the game we played was essentially, the genestealer cultists are trying to break through a fortified imperial guard line. We didnt use Cult Ambush, and instead we had a new rule that allowed any completely destroyed GSC unit to move back on from the board edge, and any GSC unit in the charge phase could elect to fling themselves into the enemy's guns, destroying themselves and preventing that enemy unit from firing overwatch or using Set to Defend (this was our way of ensuring there was no value to the guard player NOT wiping out a unit and instead leaving 1-2 models alive)

I scored points for units that successfully broke through, he scored points for destroying units, with bonus points if his characters destroyed units in close combat (this would also allow a free use of the auto-pass morale stratagem, as they inspired the men with their bravery). it was a fun little challenge, and something i'd gladly repeat any time anyone was interested in it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
So far lack of proper mentality and cost seem to be an obstacle. Though I don't believe the latter is a valid reason as no one forces you to collect a large 40K army.

Which armies due to fluff should be presented as underdogs? Imo Traitor Guard, GSC and to some extent Orks would fit in that category. I can still remember a couple of White Dwarf battle reports in which the greenskins were used to make the other factions look good.

Why should orks be underdogs? They are a threat to humanity on a level only tyranids and chaos as a whole exceed. They have multiple large empires across the galaxy, have wiped out or almost wiped out multiple chapters, including big shots like the crimson fists and imperial fists, killed a primarch and directly attacked terra. I also don't think anyone but orks has fought a hive fleet to a halt. And that's before you even start to take Thrakka's deeds into consideration.
The primary reason why orks haven't archived more is because the Imperium has actually learned from the War of the Beast and now invests large amount of resources into the Deathwatch and the Ordo Xenos to make sure that orks don't rise to the same level as the did then.

They are used a lot as punching bags all over the lore and battle reports, but orks as a whole are one of the most dire threats to everyone.

because imperium players still no matter how many specific examples you give them from books will clam a space marine should be able to face an entire horde of orks (likely because the only lore they know is the space marine video game) and that a imperial guardsman should somehow be able to fix bayonet and go toe to toe with an ork. They don't even read the parts in the big rulebook that always tend to basically say "if orks banded together they could and would take over the galaxy, fortunately for all involved they are too busy fighting among themselves"

Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

should have specified, Catachans vs orks being the claims i have heard. Also Ogryn, though the ogryn probably actually do have a chance 1v1

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

should have specified, Catachans vs orks being the claims i have heard. Also Ogryn, though the ogryn probably actually do have a chance 1v1

ogryn have more than a chance 1v1 - one ogryn can generally kill 2-3 boyz with decent rolling.

but yea, fair, the catachan vs orks matchup is less interesting now that orks are t5 i guess.

The average Ogryn would rip the average Ork in half one on one actually. They don't just have a "chance", they're superior. Just like Space Marines are superior to Boyz one on one. And bluntly even most Nobs.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

should have specified, Catachans vs orks being the claims i have heard. Also Ogryn, though the ogryn probably actually do have a chance 1v1

ogryn have more than a chance 1v1 - one ogryn can generally kill 2-3 boyz with decent rolling.

but yea, fair, the catachan vs orks matchup is less interesting now that orks are t5 i guess.

I am more speaking to the fluff than the tabletop performance. Though admittedly I have not read very much about ogryns fluff, they have not been a significant part of any novels i have read yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The average Ogryn would rip the average Ork in half one on one actually. They don't just have a "chance", they're superior. Just like Space Marines are superior to Boyz one on one. And bluntly even most Nobs.

except space marines are not superior to ork boys or nobz. read the Primarch series Roboute Guilliman: Lord of Ultramar book and you see space marines struggling 1v1 vs orks and some falling to them. but go ahead provide me actual fluff citations vs "frankly my big bad marine generics can beat nobz 1v1 every one of them because my head cannon says so"

note marines will kill plenty of orks in open field war but mostly via bolter and ranged weapons, once it get to a melee battle it generally gets ugly for marines

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

should have specified, Catachans vs orks being the claims i have heard. Also Ogryn, though the ogryn probably actually do have a chance 1v1

ogryn have more than a chance 1v1 - one ogryn can generally kill 2-3 boyz with decent rolling.

but yea, fair, the catachan vs orks matchup is less interesting now that orks are t5 i guess.

I am more speaking to the fluff than the tabletop performance. Though admittedly I have not read very much about ogryns fluff, they have not been a significant part of any novels i have read yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The average Ogryn would rip the average Ork in half one on one actually. They don't just have a "chance", they're superior. Just like Space Marines are superior to Boyz one on one. And bluntly even most Nobs.

except space marines are not superior to ork boys or nobz. read the Primarch series Roboute Guilliman: Lord of Ultramar book and you see space marines struggling 1v1 vs orks and some falling to them. but go ahead provide me actual fluff citations vs "frankly my big bad marine generics can beat nobz 1v1 every one of them because my head cannon says so"

note marines will kill plenty of orks in open field war but mostly via bolter and ranged weapons, once it get to a melee battle it generally gets ugly for marines

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

BrianDavion wrote:

Spoiler:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Guard is a designated loser faction as well, there's absolutely nobody I've ever met who's claimed that guardsmen vs orks in melee should be anywhere close to parity.

should have specified, Catachans vs orks being the claims i have heard. Also Ogryn, though the ogryn probably actually do have a chance 1v1

ogryn have more than a chance 1v1 - one ogryn can generally kill 2-3 boyz with decent rolling.

but yea, fair, the catachan vs orks matchup is less interesting now that orks are t5 i guess.

I am more speaking to the fluff than the tabletop performance. Though admittedly I have not read very much about ogryns fluff, they have not been a significant part of any novels i have read yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The average Ogryn would rip the average Ork in half one on one actually. They don't just have a "chance", they're superior. Just like Space Marines are superior to Boyz one on one. And bluntly even most Nobs.

except space marines are not superior to ork boys or nobz. read the Primarch series Roboute Guilliman: Lord of Ultramar book and you see space marines struggling 1v1 vs orks and some falling to them. but go ahead provide me actual fluff citations vs "frankly my big bad marine generics can beat nobz 1v1 every one of them because my head cannon says so"

note marines will kill plenty of orks in open field war but mostly via bolter and ranged weapons, once it get to a melee battle it generally gets ugly for marines

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

Where? What's the quote?

BrianDavion wrote:

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

You mean the 3rd-4th edition era?

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

You mean the 3rd-4th edition era?

nah I mean ther Horus Heresy era. a theme that the HH and War of the beast brought on was that the orks of modern 40k are just babies compared to what they'd be like if they where given time to grow etc.... which of course is the real threat of orks in 40k.. if they're not dealt with, decesivly and "soon" they could become too big a problem to stop.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

You mean the 3rd-4th edition era?

nah I mean ther Horus Heresy era. a theme that the HH and War of the beast brought on was that the orks of modern 40k are just babies compared to what they'd be like if they where given time to grow etc.... which of course is the real threat of orks in 40k.. if they're not dealt with, decesivly and "soon" they could become too big a problem to stop.

Instead we get Space Marines who get bigger (Primaris/Heavy Intercessors) when they have their own supreme leader with gigantism (Guilliman). :/

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

Orks are noted to be considerably more dangerous in the HH era

You mean the 3rd-4th edition era?

nah I mean ther Horus Heresy era. a theme that the HH and War of the beast brought on was that the orks of modern 40k are just babies compared to what they'd be like if they where given time to grow etc.... which of course is the real threat of orks in 40k.. if they're not dealt with, decesivly and "soon" they could become too big a problem to stop.

Instead we get Space Marines who get bigger (Primaris/Heavy Intercessors) when they have their own supreme leader with gigantism (Guilliman). :/

the secret ingrediant (in space marines) is Ork

BrianDavion wrote:

the secret ingrediant (in space marines) is Ork

Negative. The more the game progresses the more Space Marines pull from other factions.

I think they meant the genetical ingredient, not the game.

But yes, for the game it's also ork.

BrianDavion 800484 11209072 wrote:

the secret ingrediant (in space marines) is Ork

how is that even possible, when marines were gene engineered in a time where humanity had no contact with them. Plus the triple helix DNA orks have is only compatible with eldar, for some strange reason. Trying to improve anything human with ork DNA would have the same effect as trying to saw in an piano in to a human body.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion 800484 11209072 wrote:

the secret ingrediant (in space marines) is Ork

how is that even possible, when marines were gene engineered in a time where humanity had no contact with them. Plus the triple helix DNA orks have is only compatible with eldar, for some strange reason. Trying to improve anything human with ork DNA would have the same effect as trying to saw in an piano in to a human body.

That's War in Heaven lore, Eldar and Orks were both created by The Old Ones. Eldar as a servant race and Orks as a biological weapon for the war against the Necrons.

I didn't knew that. Thank you for the information. Kind of a explains why they are both psychic races, with genetic memory jobs inprinted on the entire race.

Karol wrote:
I didn't knew that. Thank you for the information. Kind of a explains why they are both psychic races, with genetic memory jobs inprinted on the entire race.

Yes - one of them is an advanced, post-scarcity, ideal society with a galactic inheritance to bring their enlightened ways to the rest of the foolish races, and the other mucks about with wraithbone and writes poetry.