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.

I'm just here to say I like the Ork infantry aesthetic. All of them. The old Boyz kit is still great, the nobz might be one of GWs best kits, Stormboyz, lootaz, the new Kommandoz, the metal Tankbustas, they're all outstanding models. I also like the new Beastsnaggas, but due to limited options I'll get only one Set of them and will fill the unit with Black Orks.

I don't like Ork vehicles, though. I can't say why, they just don't speak to me. I'll use squigs to proxy them.

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

Next time you watch a soccer match your team won't wear a single main colour but four different ones. Will look great.

Different armies look better or worse with mixed paint schemes.


For example, a proper Bretonnia army was extremely cool looking, with each knight painted in his own regalia. Harlequins, also look better when every miniature is painted in his own way. And even old fantasy empire armies, specially the big ones, when painted in 2-3 elector count colors to represent a mix of different states was very cool.

Dwarfs or Imperial Guard don't look as good because the colorfull variety of color doesnt feel right with the organized nature of the faction.

Space Marines it depends. I always tought Dark Angels with their three paint schemes looks very cool because they complement each other, but in general I believe they look better with a unified paint scheme.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

Next time you watch a soccer match your team won't wear a single main colour but four different ones. Will look great.

All orks wear green, my friend. An army can have a coherent look despite not having everyone wear the same color on every part of their armor, pants, boots, helmets, shoulder pads and every single armor plate built into evrey vehicle.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

Next time you watch a soccer match your team won't wear a single main colour but four different ones. Will look great.

This is a poor example for your argument. I can't agree. If anything painting a multicolored army will just be a higher challenge to pull off than maybe GW wants for a player who is also new to painting. But it can be done. Painting models in several clan colors "not looking good on the table" is not a good reason to exclude that as an army build. Besides Eldar already come in all the skittles colors as often as the Eldar player wishes to paint and play them that way.

 warhead01 wrote:
This is a poor example for your argument. I can't agree. If anything painting a multicolored army will just be a higher challenge to pull off than maybe GW wants for a player who is also new to painting. But it can be done. Painting models in several clan colors "not looking good on the table" is not a good reason to exclude that as an army build. Besides Eldar already come in all the skittles colors as often as the Eldar player wishes to paint and play them that way.

This. Also Dark Angels exist with their three different wings in different colors. Chaos Daemons have at least four different completely different color schemes.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

Next time you watch a soccer match your team won't wear a single main colour but four different ones. Will look great.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand orkz I have boyz in purple for morkz sake

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans:
This is suitable for an Epic army where you have a very large force. However in 40K it just looks odd with different paint jobs applied to the models as if the painter couldn't decide with which clan to go. Army cohesion just stops working here.
Eldar have the same problems with their colourful Aspect shrines.

Not sure "my personal aesthetic preferences mean this thing shouldn't exist, in-game" is that strong an argument, chief. It's like going "I don't think Space Marines look good in red" and using that to argue Blood Angels should be deleted from the rules and background material.

Next time you watch a soccer match your team won't wear a single main colour but four different ones. Will look great.

except that soccer matches are orginized events etc. Orks aren't nesscarily that orginized. which is kinda the point. Orks at war are less "pro-sports league" and more "kids playing street hockey"

Orks are more like "drunk hooligans from a nearby bar entering a kids's game of street hockey and fighting everyone".

Just wanted to add Blood Angels to the list of armies that bring different colors.

Red, Black and Gold.

 Jidmah wrote:
Orks are more like "drunk hooligans from a nearby bar entering a kids's game of street hockey and fighting everyone".

heh sure, but by that I mean the Orks don't fight in regimented orders etc, they're basicly a buncha folks to get together and are like ".. jeeze bert, I'm bored, whadda wanna do?" "I dunno Gert, but them humies over there look like they'd be a right good fight, maybe we should krump em!"

a_typical_hero wrote:
Just wanted to add Blood Angels to the list of armies that bring different colors.

Red, Black and Gold.

True.

Dark Angels: Green, Black and White. Though this doesn't change a thing as those multiple main colours are also not good for army cohesion.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Though this doesn't change a thing as those multiple main colours are also not good for army cohesion.

As pointed out, that's just your personal opinion that isn't even shared by the makers of this game and thus largely irrelevant as an argument.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Though this doesn't change a thing as those multiple main colours are also not good for army cohesion.

As pointed out, that's just your personal opinion that isn't even shared by the makers of this game and thus largely irrelevant as an argument.

Eh. He's allowed to have his opinion-if Strg Alt thinks multiple colors are a bad look, that's his feelings on the matter, and that's fine. I wouldn't call him wrong for saying it or anything like that, I'd just say that it's definitely not universally shared.

Although I don’t feel like they are in a bad spot, if given the chance I would have done something different for the faction. I have always wanted Orks to be designed around two primary concepts.

Their Warboss and The Waggh Field.

I thought it always fit nicely as the effect of the Warboss put constraints on your army building and the effect of the Waggh field is more tied to moment-to-moment gameplay in a match.
The way I always imagined it could work is Orks would need to abide by different Force organizational charts based on which background the warboss had. You will receive Waagh Bonus Objectives once the background of your warboss is determined. When the objectives are complete the horde gains a bonus for [X] turns. The idea of this being that the Warboss embodies the soul or personality of a horde, that horde should reflect him, without adding specific rule that makes [X] unit 5x more efficient than they would normally be.

For example: A Warboss with a background of Biker Nob has a bonus objective that reads “If 4 or more units each move 12 or more inches in a single Movement phase they gain, [X] bonus”
The objective here is relatively simple and supports the idea behind the Kult of Speed but doesn’t specifically force the Ork player to spam a specific type of fast attack option. Only requires that the player bring a decent number of them.

The specific minutia of balance for each background or bonus could be refined overtime if this was the primary gimmick. Personally, I think this method incentivizes fluffy or thematic army building while giving the game itself more depth of decision making.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Though this doesn't change a thing as those multiple main colours are also not good for army cohesion.

As pointed out, that's just your personal opinion that isn't even shared by the makers of this game and thus largely irrelevant as an argument.

Eh. He's allowed to have his opinion-if Strg Alt thinks multiple colors are a bad look, that's his feelings on the matter, and that's fine. I wouldn't call him wrong for saying it or anything like that, I'd just say that it's definitely not universally shared.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it's not subject to disagreement. That's my opinion - I think strg alt is wrong, and that completely monocolored armies look both boring and wrong.

Tons of historical armies had different uniform colors denoting different units or less than coherent uniforms. Plus some people get bored painting stuff all the same color. So sue them.

Also, I love the example here: imagine if you watched a football match and all the players on a team weren't all wearing the same colors! Lol yeah imagine....

Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Though this doesn't change a thing as those multiple main colours are also not good for army cohesion.

As pointed out, that's just your personal opinion that isn't even shared by the makers of this game and thus largely irrelevant as an argument.

Eh. He's allowed to have his opinion-if Strg Alt thinks multiple colors are a bad look, that's his feelings on the matter, and that's fine. I wouldn't call him wrong for saying it or anything like that, I'd just say that it's definitely not universally shared.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it's not subject to disagreement. That's my opinion - I think strg alt is wrong, and that completely monocolored armies look both boring and wrong.

Tons of historical armies had different uniform colors denoting different units or less than coherent uniforms. Plus some people get bored painting stuff all the same color. So sue them.

Also, I love the example here: imagine if you watched a football match and all the players on a team weren't all wearing the same colors! Lol yeah imagine....

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.

When there's a leader keeping them in line and an enemy to fight, are they?

I could see something impacting them if the Warboss and other leadership Orks are taken down, but just as a baseline, the whole point of the Warboss (besides hitting real good) is keeping the Boys in line.

The 7e leadership/mob rule chart had one possible result where the orks in a mob start fighting each other out of confusion. You'd lose like 1d3 models as a result of the "squabble".

Hankovitch wrote:
The 7e leadership/mob rule chart had one possible result where the orks in a mob start fighting each other out of confusion. You'd lose like 1d3 models as a result of the "squabble".

7th edition mob rule was god awful. 8th was significantly better, new 9th one is god awful and to put it bluntly...stupid.

New Mob rule limits a unit to MSU where possible, And usually never above 10 models for the obvious reasons of Blast and the fact that orkz aren't long for this world once targeted, (6+armor doesn't last long). So new Mob rule is you can ignore Attrition modifiers if you are within range of another ork unit that is above 50% strength.

So lets put that in perspective to show how fething stupid it is.
Mob of 10 models suffers 5 casualties and fails morale, bringing them to 4 models, or below 50% strength. Now, instead of losing 1.32 models to attrition, you lose 0.66. Yup, new Mob rule just saved you from losing 0.66 of a model, and in a boyz unit, or a kommando unit or a Stormboyz unit that equals....about 5-6pts.

Now the most extreme example as far as unit size. Unit of 30 boyz suffers 15 casualties and fails morale. Now below 50%, Normal attrition means they lose 4.6 models, New Mob Rule means they lose 2.3 So you saved 2.3 Boyz, which is...ready for this one? 21pts saved.

Only problem being that nobody is going to take 30 blobs in competitive play because morale is so bad for Orkz right now. Losing 2-4 models to attrition every turn isn't feasible when the models are 9pts each.

I get it, 8th Mob rule made players upset that they couldn't make orkz flee easily, but damn, we are the only faction that actually gives a damn about morale.

Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.

Animosity was an awful rule to deal with in WHFB Orcs and Goblins armies and it would be just as awful to deal with in 40k.

Hankovitch wrote:
The 7e leadership/mob rule chart had one possible result where the orks in a mob start fighting each other out of confusion. You'd lose like 1d3 models as a result of the "squabble".

That was one of the worst rules GW has ever written.

Did you know that in 7th a lascannon hitting a trukk full of boyz could cause you to roll up to 108 dice that did absolutely nothing?

 Mr. Grey wrote:

Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.

Animosity was an awful rule to deal with in WHFB Orcs and Goblins armies and it would be just as awful to deal with in 40k.

I remember all the complaints when The Ninth Age removed animosity from greenskins.

"Orcs without animosity aren't orcs!"

What a load of crap. I mean, thats the kind of rule you put to balance an OP statline. Greenskins didn't had that. Our special army rule was a fething disadvantage? And you had high elves with always strike first and if your initiative (they had the highest in the game) is allready higher you reroll all to hit rolls?

Moronic.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.

Animosity rule ? as a lot of other have said. Worst idea ever. Complete waste of my time. If an army becomes simply unplayable out of the box no one will want to spend money on it. I wasted too much money and time on Orcs for wfb I completely regret spending any money on them and that game. If you want your Orks to suffer from animosity then more power to you. GW hasn't saddled the rest of us with that trash but more power to you if that's what you want from your Orks.

Gotta echo that bringing 7th ed style Mob Rule is a terrible idea, not to mention that Animosity isn't even all that fluffy given that a lot of the infighting happens outside of a proppa fight or only after the boss has been publicly killed, since the scrap is what keeps the WAAAGH! and green tide together. It's also never been balanced well since the downsides almost always outweigh the minor positives (and even then it can force you into a charge you didn't want or take you out of position). Anything that removes player agency is generally not a good thing, especially when its your own faction rules. The funniest part is that it wasn't even offset by OnG stats or pricing, since there were plenty of factions that either outfought or were more cost efficient than OnG (WoC, Skaven...) so it really didn't add anything except a mandatory Black Orc BSB to your main block unit.

I guess I’ve avoided commenting because I actually care about this

1. Ork shooting is totally different than guard even if they have the same BS. When you use the 3-4 rokkits in a unit, that’s pretty much all your getting. The guard can spare 5-6 heavy weapons on that same target. Almost every guard unit has a long range weapon and they’re often higher S and D than rokkits.

2. Ork shooting skill was lowered and cc skill raised for exactly one scenario where they were simulating the Zulu army from the film Zulu and the battle or rourke‘s drift. The reason the Zulu used mass close assault is that they didn’t have their own independent factories for rifles and so the rifles they did have had to be incorporated into existing tactics. It would have been absolutely bananas to build a rifle unit without enough ammunition to even train them, or for them to be available for combat when needed. Orks clearly do have a constant supply of firearms and enormous amounts of ammunition.

3. Orks have become a less prominent, popular, and supported faction as a result of being so simplified to horde close combat. They can still be feral and brutal while being a full spectrum 40k army with just a smattering, a smattering, of lascannons or fast meltas that hit on 4+. They’re naked for Pete’s sake, nobody is going to confuse them with marines or all the IFVs and tanks available to guard.

 Galas wrote:

 Mr. Grey wrote:

Mixing clans in a skirmish game environment should also incorporate some sort of animosity rule like daemons had in the past. Orks are notorious for picking fights among themselves after all.

Animosity was an awful rule to deal with in WHFB Orcs and Goblins armies and it would be just as awful to deal with in 40k.

I remember all the complaints when The Ninth Age removed animosity from greenskins.

"Orcs without animosity aren't orcs!"

What a load of crap. I mean, thats the kind of rule you put to balance an OP statline. Greenskins didn't had that. Our special army rule was a fething disadvantage? And you had high elves with always strike first and if your initiative (they had the highest in the game) is allready higher you reroll all to hit rolls?

Moronic.

9th Age players are mostly players who want total control of their armies. So they don't like OnG & Daemon animosity, unhinged Chaos Dreadnoughts and unpredictable skaven wargear.
This however doesn't apply to all gamers out there. To assume otherwise is MORONIC!

Trying to squeeze Black Orks in every regiment was possible, if you want to kill the humor of the greenskins. Not every army which GW released should play the same and they made sure in the past that the Orks were very different than all the others.

It was even stated in the 3rd Ork codex that this army is unsuited for stick in the muds who would be better served with playing Eldar or the Sisters.