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 would just staple that deep strike rule onto the tellyporta blasta.

That way the MA big mek with tellporta blasta could deep strike and bring a unit of meganobz along with him, just like a trygon can bring along some genestealers.

If you want to improve the chances of getting into combat, improving the charge range would be the way to go - either 3d6 or +1, like other armies have. Rolling d3 mortal wounds is also unnecessarily complicated to say "you might lose one dude". Since you will probably only need it once, we could transform it into a stratagem.

For example:
Supa-Charga (CP)
Use when declaring a charge for a unit of MEGANOBZ. Roll 3d6 to determine their charge range, but if you roll any doubles, remove one model as casualty.

For Deep striking I REALLY want to see a stratagem for orkz.

"Tellyporta Strike" or maybe tack that on as an ability if you use Ghazghkull in your army. He is famous for using teleporters to invade planets, most notably Armageddon.


So if Ghaz is in your army you can have 3 units arrive from tellyport strike.

Otherwise I would like it to be similar to others, 1 CP gives you 1 unit in deepstrike, 3 gives you 3 units in deep strike. That would help a tiny bit towards making some units worth taking, especially if it didn't count as movement for the purposes of heavy weapon.

Every deep strike strategem counts as movement. No reason to think orks would be different nor should it.

Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?

Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.

tneva82 wrote:
Every deep strike strategem counts as movement. No reason to think orks would be different nor should it.

Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?

Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.

It depends. For horde-like stuff, cost efficiency is key, so stuff like orks and grotz should only have stats/abilities that go so far and have cost do the rest of the work for them. Other things, usually the centerpiece models or the more elite of the army, should be buffed up to compensate for their expensive points cost. There are some exceptions that really require both ends to be used heavily like the Stompa, where its exorbitantly priced for low survivability while also having complete poop damage output.

For your example of Mek Gunz, that would be one where most of the gunz (KMK aside) need to be buffed since making them too cheap infringes on the more discount oriented Big Gunz. So the traktor kannon would have to get +1 to hit against fly targets and have D3 shots instead of just 1, while the bubble chukka just lets you the player choose the stats of the weapon rather than going round-robin with your opponent, and the smasha gun just needs to roll equal to or more than the target's toughness to do D3+3 damage to it, adding +1 to the roll against vehicles or monsters.

Small suggestion, I'd like the painboy to be able to heal monsters (big/garg squiggoth).
And on a squig related note, squig-hoppers/dragoons (cheap stormboyz) would be cool.

Specialists need both efficiency and survivability increase. Specialists should be exactly that - a small, specialized unit. Smaller unit is easier to screen, transport in a trukk and, well, assemble and paint. You should be confident in their damage output that if they get into correct position and have los. Yet their survivability should also be decent, otherwise you get glasscannons like 6+ lootas that rely on having a turn 1 way too much.

(And don’t get me started how outrageous actual point cost vs IRL price tag is, although this is another topic entirely.)

Speaking about trukk. Trukk can transport up to 12 boys while Razorback can carry 10 marines. What is more valuable - transporting a ~150 pts or 72 points? Trukk boys just lack a proper punch and are not worth transporting. You could make trukk a better unit, but it would not become more appealing to use it as intended - carrying boys to the fight(I mean there is literally a kit sold by GW called trukk boys).

So there are multiple solutions here, but only one does not bring even more balance problems with itself. You could make trukks cheaper, but GW does not want to return to a transport spam. You could increase trukk size but then you could transport something other than boys, so you are gaining too much from that. You could make individual boys more cost effective and break the game in half.

Or you could improve the Nob amongst boys to make 12 boys pull their weight. You can’t abuse it since you get only 1 nob per boy mob. Make that single power Klaw be the real threat again (giving it a proper price so spamming it on common nob squad is not a smart thing) and suddenly that trukk has a purpose. Meanwhile boys tank damage for him, making the unit “durable”.

 Grimskul wrote:

For your example of Mek Gunz, that would be one where most of the gunz (KMK aside) need to be buffed since making them too cheap infringes on the more discount oriented Big Gunz. So the traktor kannon would have to get +1 to hit against fly targets and have D3 shots instead of just 1, while the bubble chukka just lets you the player choose the stats of the weapon rather than going round-robin with your opponent, and the smasha gun just needs to roll equal to or more than the target's toughness to do D3+3 damage to it, adding +1 to the roll against vehicles or monsters.

I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".
Also I agree on bubblechukka. That thing is such a timewaster. Never ever bring many of them if you want your game to be finished in a sensible ammount of time. I'd rather just have of its stats be randomly generated by d6's, but allow player to pick a target after generation or swap 2 dice after generation to mitigate random nature of it to some degree. (Maybe having a spanner or mek nearby would allow you to reroll 1 generated stat dice)

tneva82 wrote:
Anyway on more generic view do you guys prefer boosts by CHEAPENING models or bufffing them? Say mek gunz. You could give hefty point discount which would make them worth taking. Or you could buff the stats to make it worth current price. Which is what you would generally prefer?

Myself: Stat boosts especially on stuff like vehicles(battlewagons, walkers, mek gunz) rather than price drops. Though some infantry need that too. But if points just get dropped that a) makes army very expensive to buy b) time consuming to paint c) time consuming to play d) eventually loses use. There's only so much models you really BENEFIT from having at army. Army becomes too big and it's losing benefits from further point drops without increasing board and changing scenarios.

Pretty much fully agree with you. Many of our infantry units already require three or four boxes to buy (lootaz/burnas, MANz, boyz, gretchin), build and paint just to get a single full unit. For almost every other army, you only need one or two boxes for the same price as the equivalent orks box.
Another issue is when dropping points to the efficiency of boyz or KMK you get ridiculous amounts of orks with special weapons on the table. A few days ago I calculated that a loota would have to cost around 9 ppm in order to be as efficient as a KMK - enabling you to field two spearheads with 180 lootas for just 1620 points, probably making them the next dark reapers.
Most inefficient units are around half the points their output should cost, despite already having a high model count. Any reduction in point cost would push them into the "horde unit" category which could be highly problematic for game balance.

Finally, when I started a competitive army would run about 100-150 models (vehicles and infantry combined), and you would still outnumber other armies by a lot. I would like to return to that amount of models being on the table, rather than 200+ as it is now. That many models are just a chore to paint, transport, move, and roll dice for. I constantly find myself playing my Death Guard army just because they are easier to transport and the games take about half to play to finish of what the same game would take with orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JawRippa wrote:
So there are multiple solutions here, but only one does not bring even more balance problems with itself. You could make trukks cheaper, but GW does not want to return to a transport spam. You could increase trukk size but then you could transport something other than boys, so you are gaining too much from that. You could make individual boys more cost effective and break the game in half.

At some point trukk boyz had their own entry - maybe they should return them to be their own entry again. Trukk boyz would be identical to regular boyz in all regards, except they replace the "green tide" with the following rule:
"Speed Freaks: As long as a TRUKK is within 6" of this unit, it's models gain +1 attack."
That way any trukk boyz that reach their target are just as efficient as those blobs of 30 that walk across the board. On the other hand, the opponent can actively prevent them from getting their bonus by blowing up their trukks.

 Grimskul wrote:
I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".

Agree. It should not go down in point though, since a single battery of 5 would average to 2d6 damage against any flyer. Bringing two batteries is pretty much a guaranteed explosion in the middle of an eldar/tau/necron army turn1.

Also I agree on bubblechukka. That thing is such a timewaster. Never ever bring many of them if you want your game to be finished in a sensible ammount of time. I'd rather just have of its stats be randomly generated by d6's, but allow player to pick a target after generation or swap 2 dice after generation to mitigate random nature of it to some degree. (Maybe having a spanner or mek nearby would allow you to reroll 1 generated stat dice)

Eh, they are a decent fun unit, so I wouldn't change them except reduce them in costs. Casting smite when within 24 of an enemy psyker isn't much more time wasting than firing a bubblechukka.

Depends on the unit.

I love the rules for Ork Boyz, Tac Marines, Dire Avengers, and Kabalites. If Da Boyz need retuning, I'd rather it just be points so they can still be Ork Boyz.

Stompas and Reapers, though, I'm not sure can be fixed by just changing points.

So I'm afraid whether to repoint or change rules will vary a lot.

 JawRippa wrote:

Wouldn’t it be too good for Meganobz though? Imagine insane flexibility of wound allocation with mixed boyz and meganobz. All lasgun shots are allocated to 2+ save while boys keep eating lascannon shots. Feels like there’d be very little an opposing player could do against that.

Isnt that a bit how tau drones work? (i dont play tau so not sure)

Drones are separate units that can intercept shots and take mortal wounds when doing so. Most bodyguard units in the game work like that.

Ok,

I really like the idea of large mixed mobs and squadrons

Orks ignore all to-hit modifiers because they don't aim anyway. Obvious fix. And make their stuff cheaper, because most of it isn't threatening at the current price point.

You might want to read the thread before giving the same bad advice multiple other non-ork players have given because they haven't read the thread.

I would say that OP needs a list of things not to suggest with brief explanation, or link to post with explanation.

Don't think making ork stuff cheaper is the solution, making it worth the price could be though, maybe one of the "clan traits" being army wide 6+++ FnP for the robust metabolism, adding a few wounds to some of the vehicles - and adjusting the degrading profiles so they don't degrade as fast - representing bitz that don't really matter much being shot off

A quick question for more experienced orks: what made looted wagons so popular when they were around? I can't imagine ability to take other faction's vehicle, pay the full price for it and butchering it's BS being good. Converting is fun and all, but I'm talking purely about usability and getting a decent unit for your points. Was it the case as is?

In 4-6th edition the looted wagon could take a large blast 36" S8 AP3 gun (boom gun), so basically they did what KMK would do now. The main reason they saw little play was that you could only bring 3 heavy support choices, and it shared that slot with the highly competitive kanz and battlewagons.
The other option was pretty much a rhino with a skorcha, nothing to write home about. You usually saw them as fluffy transports for burnas.

Before 4th edition's codex, you could have a looted rhino, LRBT or land raider. Keep in mind that this was during a time where battlewagons were only available from forgeworld and mek guns didn't exist. Also, rhinos were really, really good. Looted land raiders and rhinos were the only way to get durable transports for nobz and MANz, while a looted LRBT was the only way to get long-range artillery, and BS didn't matter for blasts a whole lot.

When the last codex removed looted wagons, the white dwarf gave us a half-assed version that was not worth using for anything.

 Jidmah wrote:
In 4-6th edition the looted wagon could take a large blast 36" S8 AP3 gun (boom gun), so basically they did what KMK would do now. The main reason they saw little play was that you could only bring 3 heavy support choices, and it shared that slot with the highly competitive kanz and battlewagons.
The other option was pretty much a rhino with a skorcha, nothing to write home about. You usually saw them as fluffy transports for burnas.

Before 4th edition's codex, you could have a looted rhino, LRBT or land raider. Keep in mind that this was during a time where battlewagons were only available from forgeworld and mek guns didn't exist. Also, rhinos were really, really good. Looted land raiders and rhinos were the only way to get durable transports for nobz and MANz, while a looted LRBT was the only way to get long-range artillery, and BS didn't matter for blasts a whole lot.

When the last codex removed looted wagons, the white dwarf gave us a half-assed version that was not worth using for anything.

I see. I've stumbled upon 7th ed looted wagon article and was wondering why is it like #1 thing that everyone is asking about. Hopefully if it gets implemented, it'll bring more than just BS5+ same price vehicle, since blasts are even worse now for orks.

For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.

OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel

When you look at the rules for the Killkrusha, I think forgeworld has it about right. Big explosions should be 2d6 shots for orks, averaging to the same 2 hits marines get.

 JawRippa wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.

OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel

And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.

OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel

And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.

I agree with you that we need more reliable rules. I just wanted to point out the fact that blast weapons are kinda meh in general and D6 autohits on heavy weapons would actually be more accurate than marines, thus I felt that it'd be appropriate to have the negative result when 1 is rolled. I guess it'd still be useless.

Having 2D6 instead of D6 for all blast weapons who are controlled by orks would fix them to a certain degree. Also if suggestion about orks ignoring up to one "-1 to hit" modificator were implemented, that'd also make blast weapons a lot more desirable. I guess a SAG also deserves a big boost. BS4+ for Big Mek and 2D6(would 3D6 be too much? I feel like fluffwise it should be 3D6) would be pretty alright. Maybe ability to reroll ammount of shots by inflicting D3 mortal wounds to very unlucky gretchin squad within 3" on top of that.

 JawRippa wrote:

I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".

What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.

And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.

What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?

tneva82 wrote:

And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.

And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.

What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?

Twice as good as IG?

Super shooters?

Care to clarify?

E - tneva do you actually play Orks? All I see you doing is suggesting that we're too strong and trying to nerf us through a bizarre reading of rules.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

That seems too much in comparisson. Even Space marines on average will get 2 hits (3 shots, 1/3 out of them will miss). Also it bypasses heavy gun restrictions. I'd say change all our current D6 weapons to D3 autohits and it'd be fair. I'm talking about guns with BS5+ like SAG.

OR maybe it could be D6 autohits with all the benefits, but on a roll of 1 the bearer takes mortal wounds(1 or D3, I'm not sure what'd be more appropriate), as crudely crammed ammunition explode inside a barrel

And poof, nobody will take blast weapons still because they are overpriced crap. would you really take a KillKannon if it had D3 auto hits? What about a Kannon with D3 S4 auto hits? And please for the love of Mork STOP GIVING CRIPPLING RULES TO BUFFS. we have enough of that BS as is, we don't need to give GW more ideas on how to make a ranged weapon ok and then nerf it with a rule that kills the bearer.

We don't need anybody to invent up rules that makes orks from 2/3 of IG to twice the IG.

If orks can outshoot IG at ease(which you are suggesting them to do) what's the bloody point of IG then? IG can't outshoot orks, IG can't out-tough orks, IG can't out-h2h them. Gee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.

And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.

What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?

Twice as good as IG?

Super shooters?

Care to clarify?

He's suggesting making ork d6 blast weapons hit twice as much as IG blast weapons do.

Care to count? d6 autohits=3.5 hits. d6 IG shots=1.75 hits.

tneva82 wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:

I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".

What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?

1). Lore-wise it should be very easy to hit flying targets with traktor kannon. Just point the beam in their general direction and sooner or later they'll get snagged even when just slightly touched. From GW description: "Mek Gunz equipped with a traktor are the scourge of the skies. When the traktor kannon fires it’s thrumming beam of force high into the air, the grot crew swing this beam about wildly until they manage to latch the humming column onto an airborne target. Once snagged, their hapless victim is wrenched out of the air and smashed to bits on the ground below."
2). Game-wise orks have no way of dealing with fliers. General consensus is just to ignore them and go for objectives.

tneva82 wrote:


And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.

And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.

What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?

I agree with you that autohitting makes orks better at landing shots , I even pointed out that it'd have weird interraction with heavy weapon and on average be more accurate that marines. However I doubt that you'll disagree with me that having same D6 for blast weapons when shooter has BS5+ is laughable. (1 hit on average )

tneva82 wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:

I'd say that traktor kannon should autohit targets with "FLY".

What's the justification for automatically hitting fast moving target? What makes traktor kannon such an aiming monster nobody else in game has?

Nobody else has a tractor cannon, duh.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
For Orkz, Blast weapons need to be D6 AUTO HITS not the current rules. A D6 Blast weapon for Orkz now statistically hits a target ONCE per turn. So who really wants to pay 20+pts for a crap weapon? really the only ranged gun we have that is worth its points is the KMK.

And this would mean hefty price tag as they would be way better shooters than orks then.

And makes no sense that orks suddenly become such a super shooters.

What makes orks suddenly twice as good as IG?

Last time I checked IG was still vastly superior in strength, range and AP.

In the past always have been just as good at shooting as Marines and IG were, except their weapon profiles were inferior. In exchange, orks get to be better in combat.

tneva82 wrote:

We don't need anybody to invent up rules that makes orks from 2/3 of IG to twice the IG.

If orks can outshoot IG at ease(which you are suggesting them to do) what's the bloody point of IG then? IG can't outshoot orks, IG can't out-tough orks, IG can't out-h2h them. Gee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


He's suggesting making ork d6 blast weapons hit twice as much as IG blast weapons do.

Care to count? d6 autohits=3.5 hits. d6 IG shots=1.75 hits.

Lets take a look at that. The Kill Kannon, the weapon I mentioned specifically is ranged 24, S7 Ap-2 2 dmg. its current iteration costs 15pts, it is basically only on the battle wagon (other platforms are significantly more rare) it fires D6 shots for a grand total of 1 hit a turn on average. It costs 2 pts more then a SM Plasma Gun.....It hits 1/3rd more often except at half range then it its 1/3rd less often, it has less AP and 1 more dmg, unless the Plasma gun is overcharged then its worse in every way possible. IF you made that thing Auto D6 hits it would hit 3-4 models on average, I would be fine with going up to 16 maybe even18pts for it, but I am sorry, it is still in no way shape or form equal to a Imperial Guard Battle Cannon which is S8 -2 D3 dmg RANGE 72 D6 shots, ohh and if it doesn't move (and why would it with 72inch range, its 2D6, which is....3.5hits on average) and only costs 22pts.

We are agree on too many things Semper, it's time the codex hits so we can fight over everything again