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.

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

LMAO, unless I am mistaken (usually) we only fought over perceptions of how good certain units/weapons/tactics would be in the new edition, now that we have analytical evidence to back up those opinions we agree completely because I believe we both use fact/reason/logic as opposed to hopes/dreams. God I do hope our codex isn't hot trash though :( I am sick and tired of playing 150-210 Boyz models and maybe a handful of mek gunz in the vain hopes of being competitive.

I'm sick of green tide as well. Actually, I got so sick, I started a nurgle army. *babum-tish*

But the FAQ and most recent codices have me confident that it will at least be playable in my only slightly competitive environment.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm sick of green tide as well. Actually, I got so sick, I started a nurgle army. *babum-tish*

But the FAQ and most recent codices have me confident that it will at least be playable in my only slightly competitive environment.

The last tournament I went to here had top tier meta lists.......Green tide will not work for me, I have to constantly think way outside the box and find ways to win through objectives and tricking my opponents into making bad moves. I somehow lured a couple units of nidz to try and charge my Ork horde, it was glorious.

Some more thoughts...

With the looted vehicles, I think I'd prefer they just had a few options with stats loosely based on the concept of being a looted russ/rhino/raider/etc.
It shouldn't cost more points than its fully functional equivalent, since it's just salvage and it's crewed by orks.
And I think the weapons should all be in the ork-index too, either using current equivalents, or maybe listed as salvaged-kannon/bolter/etc (maybe cheaper than equivalent with a jam chance).
Obviously the codex kind of allows for this with custom options on trukks and other vehicles, but I think creating the subclasses would allow for better balancing and let people keep track of what your units can do.
Does anyone else feel that would be better than lifting rules from another codex with some universal stat reductions?

Inversely as someone who never used buggies, how would you feel if the ork buggy range was dropped, and the wargear was instead given to the bikers, directly or maybe as some sort of gretchin fired side-carriage?
Then you can use the bikers as wounds, and you get grot accuracy on a twin-shoota, or a blast from your skorcha prior to the charge.
Good/Horrible/Pointless idea?

Lastly what would you like to see happen to Gaz, hopefully he's getting a new model, hopefully he looks like a dreadnought, what sort of buffs are people after? 9-10 Wounds 6-7 Armor?
And at what price? Would you be happy to lose current Ghaz as he is, to something nearer 400 points (Guilliman at 385)?

tneva82 wrote:

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.

SemperMortis wrote:
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.

Tneva you need to start backing your arguments up with actual facts rather than your biased beliefs.

Some of your statements come across as poorly thought out because they are so sweeping and generalist. Take a chill pill and think before you write.

D6 autohits on the Traktor cannon would be fine. Or t should be 2d6 shots. Like most of our other guns the volume of fire isnway too low.

wow, I'm behind on this thread... anyone want to update me?

Basically after doing what i do (as a Historian) I feel embarrassed to play 40k in 2018. XD I was reading through a lot of the old codex stuff from 40k and Epic and damn... It sure wasn't balanced but it looked freaking fun! I'm now convinced this is how I want Orks. There should be 1 competitive list for tournament players with skill to win with but the rest of the lists should just be fun! Even if it's unbalanced and we lose every game it should be a blast! A real ork war of confusion and explosions!

This is right now why i feel upset about modern orks. When i charge my battle wagon in I don't feel like I'm an Ork player. Seriously, i do this with my Razorback... I charge it forward with choppy marines inside and I don't feel any difference. In fact, I do this with my dreadnoughts and just forget to even shoot sometimes... It's sad that this is what has happened to Orks...

However, in my mind, the best way to make Orks feel fun again is giving us a bunch of useless upgrades that, when they all work together, becomes one big unified hive mind of multicoloured chaotic fun! I don't want Red paint or anything like that to be a dumb strategy! I want it all ingrained into our army! Having my yellow rockets explode more while my Red trukks charge forwards and my blue Lootas somehow make all their saves against the odds... Even if it isn;t how you paint your army, this should be upgrades you can take (and then just argue your Orks think their colours work that way as well). MAKE ORKS GREAT AGAIN! (basically just give me Red Paint as an option and I will be happy. Even if it just adds 1" onto the movement. XD I want it as an upgrade though!!!!)

Also this would actually encourage me to paint all my troops in lore accurate colours like I have wanted to do for a while now.

Not sure if it would be overpowered, but would like to see a development on Ork open topped transports (which the Chinork should also be). Overwatch should be allowed from the embarked troops on enemy charges against the transport. Also ability to disembark after the transport moves, but with a risk associated. Something along the lines of:

A unit embarked on an open topped vehicle may choose to disembark at the end of a movement phase, after the vehicle has moved. If so, roll a D6 for each model disembarking, and apply the below modifiers. For every result of a 1, a disembarking model from that unit is slain.

Vehicle has moved 6” or less this turn: no mod
Vehicle has moved more than 6” but less than 10”: -1 mod
Vehicle has moved 10” or more: -2 mod

Wording could be tweaked or chart used or something. Maybe only apply it to the Trukk, as Battlewagons loaded up might cause issues?

Way to negative to be of use. A Trukk carrying 11 boyz and a Nob would be used to bumrush forward turn 1, -2 modifier, you are now losing 1/2 your unit to this rule just to have a CHANCE at a 1st turn charge from a Trukk.Conversely, if you made it so you don't have modifiers and can disembark after any movement you run the risk of the opposite effect. A Battlewagon bum rushing forward and disgorging 20 Boyz or nobz and then assaulting enemy lines 1st turn, not good. I think OT vehicles should still be able to move and then have passengers disembark and assault without penalty though.

I agree, every open topped vehicle in the game should allow the movement-disembark-charge combo.

Just had a slightly inebriated idea... since we cant take more than 3 of the same other than troops now....

- Change Kustom Force field to a 4+ inv. from shooting attacks,
Troops cannot receive this bonus, and make it touch only, not complete within, like 20 points more?

- hurts our mobs life but I usually cant keep them under the current KFF past turn one anyway.

- Makes me want to take stuff in our index that I know would just die usually...

- I think is a bit balanced for boys (since they die in droves) and will help your other units that need that all important inv.

- might be a bit to ambitious...

KillerOfMany wrote:
Just had a slightly inebriated idea... since we cant take more than 3 of the same other than troops now....

- Change Kustom Force field to a 4+ inv. from shooting attacks,
Troops cannot receive this bonus, and make it touch only, not complete within, like 20 points more?

- hurts our mobs life but I usually cant keep them under the current KFF past turn one anyway.

- Makes me want to take stuff in our index that I know would just die usually...

- I think is a bit balanced for boys (since they die in droves) and will help your other units that need that all important inv.

- might be a bit to ambitious...

Troops and transports actually.

Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.

 lolman1c wrote:
wow, I'm behind on this thread... anyone want to update me?

Basically after doing what i do (as a Historian) I feel embarrassed to play 40k in 2018. XD I was reading through a lot of the old codex stuff from 40k and Epic and damn... It sure wasn't balanced but it looked freaking fun! I'm now convinced this is how I want Orks. There should be 1 competitive list for tournament players with skill to win with but the rest of the lists should just be fun! Even if it's unbalanced and we lose every game it should be a blast! A real ork war of confusion and explosions!

This is right now why i feel upset about modern orks. When i charge my battle wagon in I don't feel like I'm an Ork player. Seriously, i do this with my Razorback... I charge it forward with choppy marines inside and I don't feel any difference. In fact, I do this with my dreadnoughts and just forget to even shoot sometimes... It's sad that this is what has happened to Orks...

However, in my mind, the best way to make Orks feel fun again is giving us a bunch of useless upgrades that, when they all work together, becomes one big unified hive mind of multicoloured chaotic fun! I don't want Red paint or anything like that to be a dumb strategy! I want it all ingrained into our army! Having my yellow rockets explode more while my Red trukks charge forwards and my blue Lootas somehow make all their saves against the odds... Even if it isn;t how you paint your army, this should be upgrades you can take (and then just argue your Orks think their colours work that way as well). MAKE ORKS GREAT AGAIN! (basically just give me Red Paint as an option and I will be happy. Even if it just adds 1" onto the movement. XD I want it as an upgrade though!!!!)

Also this would actually encourage me to paint all my troops in lore accurate colours like I have wanted to do for a while now.

Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.

Andykp wrote:
Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.

I agree with you both but for every one of us there are Ork players who want to be able to compete on the top tables. And they should be able to; a truly balanced army should be able to take both a competitive list that can compete at the top level and a fluffy, in the Orks' case self destructive explosion of fiery death list that is fun but ultimately not going to win any tournaments.

 Blackie wrote:
Troops and transports actually.

Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.

I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.

Sorry, if you don't give a damn about what your army does, why are even bothering with reading a FAQ?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Troops and transports actually.

Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.

I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.

Well you can bring 4 in bigger games. The step between 2000 and 2500 points isn't that huge.

I also played da blitz brigade in 7th and I'm ok with max 3 BWs now, but 3 of my BWs are actually scratch built. We can play the other vehicles as big trakks. 3 BWs and a big trakk seems fine to me, I've played several times with 3 BWs filled up with boyz and two big trakks full of bustas in this edition, plus HQs (bikers or embarked), skorchas and artillery to complete the list.

Unfortunately 7th encouraged to buy tons of stuff of the same kind thanks to formations bonuses. I have 15 meganobz that I won't probably going to use all together in a single game anymore.

Andykp wrote:


Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.

right? who wouldn't want to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on an army whose sole purpose is to lose spectacularly in almost every game? Ohh that is right, almost everyone. You are playing a COMPETITIVE war game. if you don't want to be competitive then you are in the minority. That is like playing in a Soccer (football for my revolutionary war challenged friends) game and not wanting to win, you are just there to have some laughs. I mean I know there are people like that out there and I have met them, but they are always in the minority, for most people the fun is competing, key word being COMPETING, not rolling over and allowing the other side to win easily because you couldn't be bothered to get a goalie.

 Blackie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Troops and transports actually.

Seriously who cares about the new limitations about the number of the same datasheet? It only affects kommandos and those lists that had tons of them. 99% of the orks lists are untouched by this limitation. Now you can't spam single mek gunz anymore in order to get some spearhead but you can always bring 18 mek gunz and 18 big gunz and battallions give more CPs so it's not an issue.

I tell you who is affected: Me. You can now only field 3 battlewagons. I have fielded 4 ever since the model was released, even in 5th when the FOC was still around. 7th actively encouraged you to buy a 5th one in order to field the formation, I'm lucky that I only borrowed a fifth one from a friend for such occasions.

Well you can bring 4 in bigger games. The step between 2000 and 2500 points isn't that huge.

I also played da blitz brigade in 7th and I'm ok with max 3 BWs now, but 3 of my BWs are actually scratch built. We can play the other vehicles as big trakks. 3 BWs and a big trakk seems fine to me, I've played several times with 3 BWs filled up with boyz and two big trakks full of bustas in this edition, plus HQs (bikers or embarked), skorchas and artillery to complete the list.

Unfortunately 7th encouraged to buy tons of stuff of the same kind thanks to formations bonuses. I have 15 meganobz that I won't probably going to use all together in a single game anymore.

No one here plays 2500, even 2000 has become pretty rare since we usually only find time to play on workday evenings or play campaigns on weekends, which means multiple games. I also have four of the official battle wagon kits, all with official bits deff rollas, wreckin' balls (for style) and boarding planks (because they were good in 5th and 7th).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not salty for not being able to play the fourth one anymore - it's not like bringing four currently does anything useful. I just wanted to point out that not every one who had more than three of something is a WAAC TFG slimeball.

 Jidmah wrote:

No one here plays 2500, even 2000 has become pretty rare since we usually only find time to play on workday evenings or play campaigns on weekends, which means multiple games. I also have four of the official battle wagon kits, all with official bits deff rollas, wreckin' balls (for style) and boarding planks (because they were good in 5th and 7th).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not salty for not being able to play the fourth one anymore - it's not like bringing four currently does anything useful. I just wanted to point out that not every one who had more than three of something is a WAAC TFG slimeball.

Of course it does, that is why I can't bring 90 Kommandos anymore.

SemperMortis wrote:

Andykp wrote:


Here's someone who gets it. This is what orks are supposed to be. If you're trying to be competitive don't play orks. They should be fun and random and dangerous, if it all comes together then ey will steam roller anything if not they kill them selves in a great big multicoloured fire ball. I used to love deploying my orks all hopeful and organised and then on turn one all hell would break loose. And it would be ace.

right? who wouldn't want to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on an army whose sole purpose is to lose spectacularly in almost every game? Ohh that is right, almost everyone. You are playing a COMPETITIVE war game. if you don't want to be competitive then you are in the minority. That is like playing in a Soccer (football for my revolutionary war challenged friends) game and not wanting to win, you are just there to have some laughs. I mean I know there are people like that out there and I have met them, but they are always in the minority, for most people the fun is competing, key word being COMPETING, not rolling over and allowing the other side to win easily because you couldn't be bothered to get a goalie.

The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it. If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u. If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.

I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.

I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.

Andykp wrote:
The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it.

GW has explicitly declared the opposite in multiple articles and the basic rule book. In this regard, you are objectively wrong, WH40k in its Matched Play variant is currently a game that is designed to be played as a balanced competitive game.

If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u.

People who pick orks as their favored faction are just as entitled to play the game in any way they want like everyone else. You don't ban Eldar vom playing campaigns either.

If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.

The development studio has entered the Adepticon tournament with their own army, so they seem to disagree. Don't feel insulted when I trust their actions over your words.

I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.

You obviously don't. Your suggestion has already been introduced in the very first iteration of 8th and is called open play. You get a lot less restriction to building your army, have narrative missions you can play (some of those are quite fun, try them!), you can even create your own land raiders and more fun stuff is to come.
The cool thing is, they still share the same base rules. So when a friend returns from the big tournament in Vegas, he can shelve his fluff destroying TFG list, whip out his orks and go play a campaign with you without learning a new game - he just needs to ignore all the matched play limitations.
Believe it or not - most tournament players also love playing in campaigns and narrative battles where you just do things because they are cool.

I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.

And exactly for that reason, you should be able to enjoy your orks just as much as Semper should be able to enjoy his orks. That's not mutually exclusive, in fact most companies facing similar problems (balancing a game for both competitive and casual) have found that most balance changes for competitive gaming also benefit the casual crowd - and everyone in between.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The thing is you are playing a wargame p, that is designed to be fun first and everything else after, as if it's a competative game which is balanced. If you want a balanced equal game that's for competative players then 40k isn't it.

GW has explicitly declared the opposite in multiple articles and the basic rule book. In this regard, you are objectively wrong, WH40k in its Matched Play variant is currently a game that is designed to be played as a balanced competitive game.

If you love orks then tournament play isn't for u.

People who pick orks as their favored faction are just as entitled to play the game in any way they want like everyone else. You don't ban Eldar vom playing campaigns either.

If you love tournememt games then orks aren't for u. 40k isn't a tournememt game.

The development studio has entered the Adepticon tournament with their own army, so they seem to disagree. Don't feel insulted when I trust their actions over your words.

I keep saying they should have a stripped down tournememt version of the game and a big detailed loose rules set the gamers who want to enjoy the game for what it is. A system like epic 40000 where units do X damage and dont have weapon options. I look at tournememt lists and gAmes and they aren't set in the 40k universe so I don't get the point.

You obviously don't. Your suggestion has already been introduced in the very first iteration of 8th and is called open play. You get a lot less restriction to building your army, have narrative missions you can play (some of those are quite fun, try them!), you can even create your own land raiders and more fun stuff is to come.
The cool thing is, they still share the same base rules. So when a friend returns from the big tournament in Vegas, he can shelve his fluff destroying TFG list, whip out his orks and go play a campaign with you without learning a new game - he just needs to ignore all the matched play limitations.
Believe it or not - most tournament players also love playing in campaigns and narrative battles where you just do things because they are cool.

I honestly have never played 40k and been happy to win or unhappy to lose. I enjoy the story. I am a competitive person, used to play your funny American football and loved winning but don't wargame for the same experience. I wargame for the story and the experience. It's like a film or book to me.

And exactly for that reason, you should be able to enjoy your orks just as much as Semper should be able to enjoy his orks. That's not mutually exclusive, in fact most companies facing similar problems (balancing a game for both competitive and casual) have found that most balance changes for competitive gaming also benefit the casual crowd - and everyone in between.

The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun. I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point. Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.

My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy. They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way. 40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big. I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically. Tactics really mattered, not just list building. Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.

If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that. The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter. It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.

Not every tournament is like the most famous big events. I've seen plenty of tournaments through years and not a single list with more than 3 hive tyrants yet.

People that are desperate to win won't have fun in pretty much any context, not only 40k.

IMHO a competitive person in 40k or any other game (but also in real life) is not someone that wants to win or to be the first, it's someone that tries to achieve the best result with the tools he has. If you play a game and enjoy it just because your're good at it and don't play another one beacuse you can't compete you're not a competitive person, but only a WAAC dude or a frustrated guy that wants to be considered a succesful one because he actually lacks something in real life.

Andykp wrote:
The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun.

I hate to break it to you, but they are. There wouldn't be three digit attendances at GTs if they weren't fun, especially in the lower brackets most people are aware that they won't be winning anything and are just looking for a good time.
Don't believe me? Just recently there has a thread here on dakka asking if one should go to LVO if you don't have a top tier army. Go search for it, it also has tons of people describing what they were doing at LVO.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point.

Despite repeatingly telling us that you don't get the point you keep making assumption about people playing competitively and on top of that provide a solution for all their troubles. Don't you see the problem?

Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.

No moving goal posts now. You claimed that WH40k is not designed to be a competitive game. Whether their design is successful or not doesn't matter for your argument.
GW is trying to make 40k work in a competitive setting and they are actively working towards that goal. They are obviously not there yet.

My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy.

Didn't you just establish that you don't understand what motivates competitive gamers? How do you know to keep them happy?

They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way.

If you are not playing the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k but some homebrew, changes to the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k don't affect you at all.
If you are playing 8th edition, you will find that as balance improves and unclear rules are eliminated less and less house rules are needed. You could potentially introduce a new member to your gaming group without any overhead - like you can with almost every other game with semi-decent rules and balance.
When some one new joins my kitchen table MtG group, all I need to tell them is that we play 60 cards casual, they can mulligan for free by showing a hand without lands and we are ready to go.
When 8th has reached a decent state I hope to be able to tell a new player that we are playing 1500 points and he can discard impossible maelstrom objectives for free and then we start playing.

40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big.

It can be sufficiently balanced by simply iterating over versions and improving terrible units and nerfing over-performers. Since the number of units is finite, so is the number of needed iterations.
This is a tested and proven concept across all games that try to archive balance in order to improve the gaming experience for everyone.
The narrative will benefit from this, since under-performing units tend to not do what they are supposed to do in the fluff. Deff dreads actually causing havoc in the enemy's lines would be a nice change for both narrative and competitive gamers.

Just an example from League of Legends (please do not claim that video games cannot be compared to WH40k like dozens of idiots before you):
There was a playable character calls "Swain" in this game who is an old frail man with a crutch and raven, and his background fluff is that he is the military mastermind and general of a "morally flexible" nation.
In game he basically played like a juggernaut which had enemies dropping around him if they dared to come too close. Obviously this was a problem with the character constantly flip-flopping between too weak (can't kill stuff) or too powerful (no escape once too close).
Riot Games thought that there was nothing tactical or even mastermind-y about him, so they changed his skill set to match his fluff better, completely reworking how that character operates to make him feel more like frail general and no longer like an unstoppable juggernaut.
GW can do the same. If a unit constantly fails to perform according to its fluff, it's in their power to adjust points, improve stats, add or remove rules or toss everything out the window and build a new, more fitting data slate for the unit in question. This benefits all players.

Note that perfect balance is next to useless in a game that is based on rolling d6. You wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance, even if it was archived.

I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically.

Again, if you don't know how something works, don't make assumptions about it. "Too many options" is hardly a problem of tournaments. If anything, too little options are used in tournaments because they are balanced so poorly against each other.
For example, with the Imperium recently re-discovering that you can shoot plasma without killing yourself, melta has gone all but extinct. If properly balanced, flamer vs plasma vs melta would be an actual decision to make and maybe even decided by personal preference.
Properly balancing would also help the narrative - why should a plasma gun be better at killing tanks than a melta that was build for just this single purpose? Also flamers would match the fluff much more if they were actually semi-decent at killing infantry.

Tactics really mattered, not just list building.

This just means that epic was better balanced than 40k was pre-FAQ. Killing options doesn't make the game faster at all, it just makes it slightly easier to balance.
In the current state most options don't matter to competitive gaming anyways, since in most cases you just always take the best one.

Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.

The thing is narrative players don't need to give up on anything in order for the game to archive balance, and most competitive players actually want some of that flavor and character of 40k in their game.
The very reason why SemperMortis is angry with GW about the state of his orks is because he would love to take his speed freaks to a tournament and not get butchered in the first turn.
Buying the amount of KMK to actually compete in any tournament as an ork right now is more expensive than just buying the all of the recently nerfed-to-the-ground poxwalker farm.
So why are competitive ork players bringing them to tournaments (and other competitive games)? Because they want green guys to hit stuff with their choppa. Because they like to play orks.

If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that.

You must have missed the part where GW also though that those lists sucked and introduced rules to stop them from being possible. Balance is not an equation you can solve by sitting down and finding all the unknowns, you already said that there are too many variables. Therefore it has to be done in steps, constantly getting closer to a balanced game.
"The point" of these specific lists is very simple: You try to win the tournament. Therefore you take the very best list available, regardless of (monetary)costs, army or fluff. But when you go to one of the videos of the tournament and look at the tables around those lists, you'll see a game where someone's Sisters of Battle are purging a Genestealer Cult, which is pretty damn close to fluff.
You are playing this game like an RPG. A regular gamer, who plays the game for just being a fun game, might also ask you what's the point of that. WH40k by itself really isn't much more than an over-complicated board game with expensive game pieces.

The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter.

More assumptions despite having declared that you don't understand how the people you are criticizing work. Background does matter. If have witnessed people at tournaments yelling "For the emperah!" when rolling their armor saves, "Waaagh!" when their ork boyz make a charge and the guy playing Ultramarines telling Mortarion that he is not welcome in Ultramar and that he will send him back to the warp. The guy going 4-0 in that tournament took his time to taunt a model exactly like the commander of an Ultramarine force would, despite the mission played being completely generic.
Outside of the top 10% competitive players, most picked and army because they liked how it plays, its fluff and its models.
The least thing GW can do is to provide a rule set balanced enough so people that picked orks instead of eldar are not excluded from ever winning at tournaments.
Telling us that this is how it should be make no one other than you the fool.

It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.

You might want to research what "e-sports" are.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm sick of green tide as well. Actually, I got so sick, I started a nurgle army. *babum-tish*

But the FAQ and most recent codices have me confident that it will at least be playable in my only slightly competitive environment.

You know, I saw an interesting suggestion to make Orks tougher and less of a horde. Basically increase the wounds of most infantry models and bump their cost a bit (say boyz get 2 wounds and cost 8-9 pts). Not sure how many people would like that, but it would make them feel more like tough beasts than they do now.

I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.

When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.

When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.

Maybe we should define what the ork feel should be though?

 CaffeineIsGood wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm open for anything as long as they keep the ork "feel" alive. Of course, you can't just add +1W to everything in the army and call it a day, but I can see it working.

When a tyranid army uses all gene stealers for troops they still feel an operate like a proper horde - even though gene stealers are 10 points a piece. So I don't thinks this would actually take the horde out of orks, which is good. Some players are in it for the green tide, but I doubt they would complain a lot if they would be fielding "just" 120 boyz instead of 200.

Maybe we should define what the ork feel should be though?

More Dakka then Any other faction by a metric ton of dice. More crazy characters, abilities and special rules that allow units to be absolutely silly and or SUPER powerful (Shokk Attack Gun or the old Ramshackle rule) The ability to actually field specialist units without thinking "Damn I wish I had taken boyz instead"

 CaffeineIsGood wrote:
Maybe we should define what the ork feel should be though?

And have a fight with all those non-ork players on dakka that will keep chucking in things like "can't shoot", "everything should be random", "should not be better at anything than my army"?

No thanks, we had plenty of threads end up like that before.

For what I care they can make orks more expensive and tougher as long as marines don't start outnumbering us.

In the most recent Dawn of War video game (don't buy it, it's a terrible game), an army of ~40 boyz, a warboss, a trukk and two kanz felt like a proppa ork Waaagh! despite being a fraction of what you would field in 2000 point game, while marines and eldar roughly brought as much as the did on the table top.

I wouldn't mind paying 360 points for a unit of 30 boyz (12pts per boy) if it was actually worth 360 points. I don't know, if they all had nob stat-line or something (don't math this out, I didn't either).
But I somehow doubt that GW would go that far, since it would require a major overhaul of almost every single data sheet in the codex. As of now every codex was just about slightly tweaking the index data sheets, possibly adding or removing rules. Only a single unit got a full overhaul, completely changing how they operate on the battlefield - the tzeench horrors.

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The first rule in 40k is have fun, it's in the book. It doesn't sound like all these tournememt players are having fun.

I hate to break it to you, but they are. There wouldn't be three digit attendances at GTs if they weren't fun, especially in the lower brackets most people are aware that they won't be winning anything and are just looking for a good time.
Don't believe me? Just recently there has a thread here on dakka asking if one should go to LVO if you don't have a top tier army. Go search for it, it also has tons of people describing what they were doing at LVO.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be playing the way they do I'm just saying I don't get the point.

Despite repeatingly telling us that you don't get the point you keep making assumption about people playing competitively and on top of that provide a solution for all their troubles. Don't you see the problem?

Just because GW say 40k is a competitive game doesn't mean it is or works as one.

No moving goal posts now. You claimed that WH40k is not designed to be a competitive game. Whether their design is successful or not doesn't matter for your argument.
GW is trying to make 40k work in a competitive setting and they are actively working towards that goal. They are obviously not there yet.

My idea about a separate rule set it us it seems to be the only way to keep both styles happy.

Didn't you just establish that you don't understand what motivates competitive gamers? How do you know to keep them happy?

They try to balance it and up and it doesn't benifit me at all, I will play exactly the same after the FAQ as before it. We house rule lots either way.

If you are not playing the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k but some homebrew, changes to the 8th edition of Warhammer 40k don't affect you at all.
If you are playing 8th edition, you will find that as balance improves and unclear rules are eliminated less and less house rules are needed. You could potentially introduce a new member to your gaming group without any overhead - like you can with almost every other game with semi-decent rules and balance.
When some one new joins my kitchen table MtG group, all I need to tell them is that we play 60 cards casual, they can mulligan for free by showing a hand without lands and we are ready to go.
When 8th has reached a decent state I hope to be able to tell a new player that we are playing 1500 points and he can discard impossible maelstrom objectives for free and then we start playing.

40k gas grown from a narrative skirmish game to the monster we have now with millions of potential combinations. I'm saying to try and make it "balanced" and keep the narrative possibilities is impossible. It's too big.

It can be sufficiently balanced by simply iterating over versions and improving terrible units and nerfing over-performers. Since the number of units is finite, so is the number of needed iterations.
This is a tested and proven concept across all games that try to archive balance in order to improve the gaming experience for everyone.
The narrative will benefit from this, since under-performing units tend to not do what they are supposed to do in the fluff. Deff dreads actually causing havoc in the enemy's lines would be a nice change for both narrative and competitive gamers.

Just an example from League of Legends (please do not claim that video games cannot be compared to WH40k like dozens of idiots before you):
There was a playable character calls "Swain" in this game who is an old frail man with a crutch and raven, and his background fluff is that he is the military mastermind and general of a "morally flexible" nation.
In game he basically played like a juggernaut which had enemies dropping around him if they dared to come too close. Obviously this was a problem with the character constantly flip-flopping between too weak (can't kill stuff) or too powerful (no escape once too close).
Riot Games thought that there was nothing tactical or even mastermind-y about him, so they changed his skill set to match his fluff better, completely reworking how that character operates to make him feel more like frail general and no longer like an unstoppable juggernaut.
GW can do the same. If a unit constantly fails to perform according to its fluff, it's in their power to adjust points, improve stats, add or remove rules or toss everything out the window and build a new, more fitting data slate for the unit in question. This benefits all players.

Note that perfect balance is next to useless in a game that is based on rolling d6. You wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance, even if it was archived.

I honestly think the tourney scene would be happy with a game that played quicker and was more balanced. The way to do that is strip it down. You can't lose factions or even units, so options it is. I loved epic 40000, the units had basic stats whatever they were armed with and it played slick and tactically.

Again, if you don't know how something works, don't make assumptions about it. "Too many options" is hardly a problem of tournaments. If anything, too little options are used in tournaments because they are balanced so poorly against each other.
For example, with the Imperium recently re-discovering that you can shoot plasma without killing yourself, melta has gone all but extinct. If properly balanced, flamer vs plasma vs melta would be an actual decision to make and maybe even decided by personal preference.
Properly balancing would also help the narrative - why should a plasma gun be better at killing tanks than a melta that was build for just this single purpose? Also flamers would match the fluff much more if they were actually semi-decent at killing infantry.

Tactics really mattered, not just list building.

This just means that epic was better balanced than 40k was pre-FAQ. Killing options doesn't make the game faster at all, it just makes it slightly easier to balance.
In the current state most options don't matter to competitive gaming anyways, since in most cases you just always take the best one.

Non of this is meant as an insult it's just my opinion, a suggestion of how to achieve balance and keep narrative style players happy. It wouldn't stop people playing both.

The thing is narrative players don't need to give up on anything in order for the game to archive balance, and most competitive players actually want some of that flavor and character of 40k in their game.
The very reason why SemperMortis is angry with GW about the state of his orks is because he would love to take his speed freaks to a tournament and not get butchered in the first turn.
Buying the amount of KMK to actually compete in any tournament as an ork right now is more expensive than just buying the all of the recently nerfed-to-the-ground poxwalker farm.
So why are competitive ork players bringing them to tournaments (and other competitive games)? Because they want green guys to hit stuff with their choppa. Because they like to play orks.

If someone could explain to me the point of tournememt style lists? 7 flying tyrants fighting half a dozen captains on jet bikes or dozens of one aspect temple all hidden in a corner of the battlefield??? It doesn't seem to correlate with any version of the 40k universe I know, so why play '40k' like that.

You must have missed the part where GW also though that those lists sucked and introduced rules to stop them from being possible. Balance is not an equation you can solve by sitting down and finding all the unknowns, you already said that there are too many variables. Therefore it has to be done in steps, constantly getting closer to a balanced game.
"The point" of these specific lists is very simple: You try to win the tournament. Therefore you take the very best list available, regardless of (monetary)costs, army or fluff. But when you go to one of the videos of the tournament and look at the tables around those lists, you'll see a game where someone's Sisters of Battle are purging a Genestealer Cult, which is pretty damn close to fluff.
You are playing this game like an RPG. A regular gamer, who plays the game for just being a fun game, might also ask you what's the point of that. WH40k by itself really isn't much more than an over-complicated board game with expensive game pieces.

The game is imbalanced and clunky, lots of rerolls, poorly worded rules. Why not play a balanced tournememt ready game if the background doesn't matter.

More assumptions despite having declared that you don't understand how the people you are criticizing work. Background does matter. If have witnessed people at tournaments yelling "For the emperah!" when rolling their armor saves, "Waaagh!" when their ork boyz make a charge and the guy playing Ultramarines telling Mortarion that he is not welcome in Ultramar and that he will send him back to the warp. The guy going 4-0 in that tournament took his time to taunt a model exactly like the commander of an Ultramarine force would, despite the mission played being completely generic.
Outside of the top 10% competitive players, most picked and army because they liked how it plays, its fluff and its models.
The least thing GW can do is to provide a rule set balanced enough so people that picked orks instead of eldar are not excluded from ever winning at tournaments.
Telling us that this is how it should be make no one other than you the fool.

It's like forcing a dog to be a horse. I even heard someone describe it as a 'sport', which is ridiculous. It's a game.

You might want to research what "e-sports" are.

U seem to be the authority on everything on here so it's not much of a forum if any other ideas or ways of thinking are just discredited straight off the bat. I did not say I didn't understand the people or that people are trying to win, I was saying I don't see the point of behaving like they do. I was basing my suggestion on the constant griping and complaining that goes on on here and all over the Internet. I'll leave it here as my opinion doesn't seem to matter too much and that doesn't matter too much to me. As for looking a fool, I'm a grown man playing with toy soldiers, foolishness has never worried me.

And I'm aware of e-sports. They to are not sports. Neither are darts or snooker. They are games. 40k being a sport is one of the most rediculous things I've ever heard, nearly as much as call of duty being a sport.

Back on point I am optimistic for the new codex after the way they actually put some thought into the dark eldar codex, making an army play like it does in the fluff and encouraging those builds. If the harlequin and deathwatch ones have any similar fluffy mechanics then I will be even more interested. Either way I will buy it and play the orks as I always have.

I just don't think it's a very fair or respectful thing to do to tell others the army they love to collect and play shouldn't be allowed to be any good on the table, especially if you've already admitted that you are going to play them and not care regardless of any changes. Someone getting into the hobby who is interested in orks shouldn't have to choose between playing a faction they think is cool and playing a faction that can actually put up a fight on the table. I don't think this type of ork gate-keeping where one says people looking to play TAC-style games and win regularly aren't doing orks "right" and shouldn't be able to play the game in a way they enjoy. Many people don't even have a choice between playing more casual or more competitively. Some local metas just don't have people interested in building fluffy lists, and thus all the available people to play against have optimized lists. I don't really enjoy games where I just pick up half my models T1 and have nothing left by T3 if that, and I'd like the option to scale up my list to compete instead of just playing a different army because "orks aren't meant to be competitive."

If you're going to keep playing orks in a goofy, non-competitive way regardless of what their rules are, that's great. But it makes me wonder why you would tell others to stop advocating for certain rules changes when you've already said it won't affect your enjoyment of the hobby.