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.

leopard wrote:
Hope the Truck becomes viable, have one built and two unbuilt here, ditto a pair of unbuilt battlewagons, points drop of any sort warmly welcomed - even if its the base vehicle is cheaper with the upgrades being more expensive.

Expect the Big Shoota to drop in cost, its currently somewhat ridiculous, you could actually make it a zero cost option, anything that can take it is limited in how many so its not like you can spam them and with Ork ballistic skill its if anything a downgrade on an ork boy - especially if boyz become more expensive having it a zero or low cost makes sense.

hoping the new buggies are decently cheap in points (though then likely boosted early next year or maybe even in CA2018) but to be honest can;t see buying them anyway

The battlewagon is rumoured to drop 41 points in base cost from that french youtuber. Hopefully rokkit launchas and big shootas drop a bit as well so it's not unlikely that they end up a full 50 points cheaper if those rumours are to be trusted.

Edit: I seriously doubt Orks are going to be changed at all in this Chapter Approved. The releases are too close to each other since that's a printed resource, so any errors are most likely fixed in that two week after errata or spring 2019 FAQ

Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

PiñaColada wrote:

leopard wrote:
Hope the Truck becomes viable, have one built and two unbuilt here, ditto a pair of unbuilt battlewagons, points drop of any sort warmly welcomed - even if its the base vehicle is cheaper with the upgrades being more expensive.

Expect the Big Shoota to drop in cost, its currently somewhat ridiculous, you could actually make it a zero cost option, anything that can take it is limited in how many so its not like you can spam them and with Ork ballistic skill its if anything a downgrade on an ork boy - especially if boyz become more expensive having it a zero or low cost makes sense.

hoping the new buggies are decently cheap in points (though then likely boosted early next year or maybe even in CA2018) but to be honest can;t see buying them anyway

The battlewagon is rumoured to drop 41 points in base cost from that french youtuber. Hopefully rokkit launchas and big shootas drop a bit as well so it's not unlikely that they end up a full 50 points cheaper if those rumours are to be trusted.

Edit: I seriously doubt Orks are going to be changed at all in this Chapter Approved. The releases are too close to each other since that's a printed resource, so any errors are most likely fixed in that two week after errata or spring 2019 FAQ

had heard the wagons are dropping, given I'm after battle taxis that can move, advance and still fire the quad big shoota option is about all they will get (plus the spiked death roller of death obviously). rokkits getting cheaper though may see to as yet old style Leman Russ chassis (sans tracks) being built up as BRDM-2 with a rack of rokkits on the back if I can find suitable wheels.

as for changes, well yes an errata or day one FAQ is more likely, depends on the lead times, will be expecting buggies to have a lower cost initially and be raised at some point if it becomes a problem/when GW have something else to sell


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

Playtesting is Heresy, report to your nearest termination booth

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

I mean, are you assuming the Ork codex is going to be crap? Anecdotally from the few playtesters I know (as in sort of know) their answers regarding whether or not Imperial Knights were too strong were always "wait until the orks get here". Now maybe it's one broken build, maybe they just said that to get everyone off their back, maybe whatever they referred to doesn't work any longer because of the newest FAQ or changes made to the codex since playtesting..Point being, there's no reason to claim the sky is falling quite just yet

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

They have strictly limited man hours to play test stuff. After all, they want to release it at some point. Said man hours are dwarfed as soon as the book hits shelves and people start playing it.

That we have anything even dimly approaching absolute balance is a bloody miracle, given the sheer number of non-pointed variables at play (such as relative player skill, terrain being used etc). Knights for example struggle on multilevel terrain, because they can’t assault stuff on it (unless an FAQ changed that). Any vehicle heavy army has a tricker time on terrain dense boards.

And dare I say it, there’s those with an axe to grind always willing to make up Horror battle reports (remember ramshackle? Some gimp on BoLS claimed he rolled the worst possible at all times, across 6 Trukks. Even admitted he’d made it up, but still whined).

PiñaColada wrote:

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

I mean, are you assuming the Ork codex is going to be crap? Anecdotally from the few playtesters I know (as in sort of know) their answers regarding whether or not Imperial Knights were too strong were always "wait until the orks get here". Now maybe it's one broken build, maybe they just said that to get everyone off their back, maybe whatever they referred to doesn't work any longer because of the newest FAQ or changes made to the codex since playtesting..Point being, there's no reason to claim the sky is falling quite just yet

I was more referring to the points costs of various new units and gws policy to errata points costs rather than get them right first time.


No idea if the new ork book will be good or not.

PiñaColada wrote:

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

I mean, are you assuming the Ork codex is going to be crap? Anecdotally from the few playtesters I know (as in sort of know) their answers regarding whether or not Imperial Knights were too strong were always "wait until the orks get here". Now maybe it's one broken build, maybe they just said that to get everyone off their back, maybe whatever they referred to doesn't work any longer because of the newest FAQ or changes made to the codex since playtesting..Point being, there's no reason to claim the sky is falling quite just yet

And one playtester claimed stompas rock when 8th ed comes. Yeah rock the top lists in worst unit in game!

tneva82 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

Guyver 3 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Don’t forget, books go for printing some three or more months before release.

Which means FAQs have plenty of time to skew things. Hence we get FAQs and occasionally flat out eratta on release.

It’s not perfect, and better job probs could be done. But it’s still worth bearing in mind.

Maybe taking an army and playing a few hundred games with them before printing may help iron out those problems, or is that crazy talk!!

I mean, are you assuming the Ork codex is going to be crap? Anecdotally from the few playtesters I know (as in sort of know) their answers regarding whether or not Imperial Knights were too strong were always "wait until the orks get here". Now maybe it's one broken build, maybe they just said that to get everyone off their back, maybe whatever they referred to doesn't work any longer because of the newest FAQ or changes made to the codex since playtesting..Point being, there's no reason to claim the sky is falling quite just yet

And one playtester claimed stompas rock when 8th ed comes. Yeah rock the top lists in worst unit in game!

Ï mean, yes, obviously these are opinions and can as such be wrong. In some cases, extremely wrong However that example is at least from the beginning of the 8th edition and very few codices (if any) were out. I'm not saying the stompa looked good even back then but now that almost all codices are out and some players are saying Orks are going to be really good (these guys are good players too) I'm inclined to believe them. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

PiñaColada wrote:



Ï mean, yes, obviously these are opinions and can as such be wrong. In some cases, extremely wrong However that example is at least from the beginning of the 8th edition and very few codices (if any) were out. I'm not saying the stompa looked good even back then but now that almost all codices are out and some players are saying Orks are going to be really good (these guys are good players too) I'm inclined to believe them. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

You don't even have to playtest to know if a unit will be crap. Just compare it to similar units from other factions and then compare durability, damage output and utility to one another. The stompa has 2 units that are roughly similar to it, Imperial Knights and Wraithknights. The Stompa three times as expensive, has LESS dakka and is about as durable as the Knights. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that RAISING the price of one of the worst units in the Ork codex wasn't going to make it better.

As for the playtesters for our 8th edition codex. Well we don't know what the official verdict is yet and we don't even know what they have said beyond hearsay. But I have to tell you, so far the Ork playtesters are terrible in 8th and it will take a LOT of change in the codex for me to change my opinion on them and GW in general.

I’ll stop you there.

Stompa can come with a border of same faction infantry. Knights don’t. So that affects the sorts of armies you can build.

Wraithknights? Somewhere between the two in terms of infantry.

So where Imperial Knights will struggle to control objectives, Stompas and Wraithknights don’t, because they come in specific codecies.

Now that’s not to say the Stompa is actually fine and fairly pointed. Just that one can’t compare Super Heavy A to Super Heavy Z so neatly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll stop you there.

Stompa can come with a border of same faction infantry. Knights don’t. So that affects the sorts of armies you can build.

Wraithknights? Somewhere between the two in terms of infantry.

So where Imperial Knights will struggle to control objectives, Stompas and Wraithknights don’t, because they come in specific codecies.

Now that’s not to say the Stompa is actually fine and fairly pointed. Just that one can’t compare Super Heavy A to Super Heavy Z so neatly.

The fact that the stompa is 300 more than it’s nearest rival but lacks the survivability and damage output of those units says it all really!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll stop you there.

Stompa can come with a border of same faction infantry. Knights don’t. So that affects the sorts of armies you can build.

Wraithknights? Somewhere between the two in terms of infantry.

So where Imperial Knights will struggle to control objectives, Stompas and Wraithknights don’t, because they come in specific codecies.

Now that’s not to say the Stompa is actually fine and fairly pointed. Just that one can’t compare Super Heavy A to Super Heavy Z so neatly.

Did you forget that allies exist or something?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll stop you there.

Stompa can come with a border of same faction infantry. Knights don’t. So that affects the sorts of armies you can build.

Wraithknights? Somewhere between the two in terms of infantry.

So where Imperial Knights will struggle to control objectives, Stompas and Wraithknights don’t, because they come in specific codecies.

Now that’s not to say the Stompa is actually fine and fairly pointed. Just that one can’t compare Super Heavy A to Super Heavy Z so neatly.

Amen, a wraithknight and a imperial knoght also cant carry thirty of whatever infantry they want inside as well.

As for the playtesters for our 8th edition codex. Well we don't know what the official verdict is yet and we don't even know what they have said beyond hearsay. But I have to tell you, so far the Ork playtesters are terrible in 8th and it will take a LOT of change in the codex for me to change my opinion on them and GW in general.

There is a lot of collaboration now between the testers and rules writers. This didn't exist prior to 8th. It gets a little better with each release. However, even with hundreds of testers (I don't know the exact number, but its impossible to have enough), the thousands of actual players will quickly find ways to exploit and loophole their way to maximum efficiency. It's just a numbers game. It's part of the reason they are now trying the "Beta" codex in CA for sisters. Trying to see if putting it out there to the overall community + testers + multiple teams of rules writers = a balanced system.

A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

Guyver 3 wrote:
A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

Yeah but that's only because GW has limited playtesting time and it's impossible for them to see all the little loopholes that literally everyone else spots on their first leaf through a codex.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Guyver 3 wrote:
A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

Yeah but that's only because GW has limited playtesting time and it's impossible for them to see all the little loopholes that literally everyone else spots on their first leaf through a codex.

I'm surprised they didn't fix the points cost in any of the previous chapter approved.

CA: Change points cost of Stompa from "STUPID" to "STUPID-400"

Guyver 3 wrote:
A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

The stompa is certainly not costed correctly, but trying to ask why it cant do things that knights can is like asking why you can't hammer in a nail with a backsaw.

 davou wrote:


Amen, a wraithknight and a imperial knoght also cant carry thirty of whatever infantry they want inside as well.

Stompa can carry 20 infantry...same as a Battlewagon or 2 Trukkz. So take a knight, add on the price of a Battlewagon and its about 1/2 the price of the stompa

GW just doesn't know how to correctly price orkz

Yeah, the whole stompa argument is a bit strange. Obviously you can make the argument to point out that whatever playtesters say shouldn't be treated as gospel but as far as I know there wasn't some sort of concensus in the playtester community that it was super good. Reece pointed it out, I don't know if anyone else mirrored that statrement. So it shouldn't be used to void the credibility of an entire playtester community. This edition is very much still a "living entity" in that codices are still coming out, so balance will be difficult.

Are there obvious things that need fixing? Yes, without a doubt. But I think playtesters are hamstrung by GWs way too lax allies system., I don't think anything resembling balance can be expected when you can cherry pick units from a library consisting of thousands

PiñaColada wrote:
Yeah, the whole stompa argument is a bit strange. Obviously you can make the argument to point out that whatever playtesters say shouldn't be treated as gospel but as far as I know there wasn't some sort of concensus in the playtester community that it was super good. Reece pointed it out, I don't know if anyone else mirrored that statrement. So it shouldn't be used to void the credibility of an entire playtester community. This edition is very much still a "living entity" in that codices are still coming out, so balance will be difficult.

Are there obvious things that need fixing? Yes, without a doubt. But I think playtesters are hamstrung by GWs way too lax allies system., I don't think anything resembling balance can be expected when you can cherry pick units from a library consisting of thousands

Well we can all agree that it ruined Reece's credibility when it comes to all thinks Orky. It just blows my mind that nobody can be bothered to run the numbers and comparisons. The stompa believe it or not actually became MORE fragile this edition. I believe it is only more durable vs Melta, everything else it became more vulnerable to.

PiñaColada wrote:
Yeah, the whole stompa argument is a bit strange. Obviously you can make the argument to point out that whatever playtesters say shouldn't be treated as gospel but as far as I know there wasn't some sort of concensus in the playtester community that it was super good. Reece pointed it out, I don't know if anyone else mirrored that statrement. So it shouldn't be used to void the credibility of an entire playtester community. This edition is very much still a "living entity" in that codices are still coming out, so balance will be difficult.

Are there obvious things that need fixing? Yes, without a doubt. But I think playtesters are hamstrung by GWs way too lax allies system., I don't think anything resembling balance can be expected when you can cherry pick units from a library consisting of thousands

I agree but that’s the issue with allies,

is it is an impossible task to correctly point every unit? maybe! But is it impossible or even difficult to see that some units are just insanely priced.

Gw is about sales as well as games it’s not out of the realm of possibility that a fairly costed unit will sell more than a badly costed one, I don’t understand why gw aren’t totally on top of this.

Guyver 3 wrote:
A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

Stompas can benefit for Kustom Force Fields, and have a healthy perimeter of Boyz to prevent really nasty stuff assaulting them. They also block LoS for other units in their army really quite nicely. Ork armies tend to do pretty well when it comes down to Objectives. It can also be backed up with cheapo Deff Dredds and Kans.

Do you see the fundamental difference between the two armies yet?

For clarity. Nobody is saying the Stompa is correctly or fairly pointed. Just that comparing an Imperial Knight to a Stompa doesn’t work.

Even as someone skeptical about buggies, and similarly disappointed by kit updates, you have to admit that those buggies are amazing sculpts, totally unexpected, with flavorful rules, and a new specialty game they can be played in that is 100% Ork themed.

It's not gorkamorka, but. It's not exzoggly a kick in da teef.

pismakron wrote:
The new boxes could be twice as expensive and I would still buy two of each. GW got me by the balls. I am a total junkie

considering your cost is only $117.50 by today's conversion standards for retail price in USD and ours is $150 before discounts if i could get them for 117 plus probably a 15% discount I might order two also. but not at $300 the value isnt there and quite frankly I think it is where I put my foot down like I do with Forgeworld if the value is not there reguardless of how much I love my orks I just can't buy it. Speed freeks are like mek guns for me. I never saw the value in mek guns and never bought them.

It is only when people especially Americans, Canadians, and Austriallians stop buying the products that GW maybe will adjust their prices. (and stop their rediculous self imposed tarriffs on these countries and I am sure others some real first order stuff going on there.) GW have been putting out a lot of decent deals in box sets that I have been getting but this is definately not one of them. At $150 for a game with limited models there are plenty of games on Kickstarter with nicer models and greater value so the dual purpose is a selling point but not a strong enough one when probably the only thing i would use them for is 40k . I will admit it is harder for me to pass on because Orks are my favorite army and I was excited and planned on ordering them since we first started seeing the new kits, but I did a hard pass on Adeptus Mechanicus and never had one regret about it. I was a starry eyed dreamer when they said it was going to be Orktober I got excited but seeing this as the first release at the end of October just got me thinking that GW has similiar issues as small companies have about putting stuff out as promised... ***Cough*** Fallout ***Cough*** I don't see me getting Speed Freeks either sorry GW you lost me at $150. I was thinking it would be below the $130 mark of the Kill Team box set as there was a ton of value there. Maybe if I got it for $117 like UK does I would consider it. After seeing the release and what you actually get for $150 it really is a no brainer to pass on. even though it breaks my orky heart.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Guyver 3 wrote:
A crusader and a gallant both fully loaded with Melta and carapace weapons is cheaper than a single stompa!

Need I say more?

Stompas can benefit for Kustom Force Fields, and have a healthy perimeter of Boyz to prevent really nasty stuff assaulting them. They also block LoS for other units in their army really quite nicely. Ork armies tend to do pretty well when it comes down to Objectives. It can also be backed up with cheapo Deff Dredds and Kans.

Do you see the fundamental difference between the two armies yet?

For clarity. Nobody is saying the Stompa is correctly or fairly pointed. Just that comparing an Imperial Knight to a Stompa doesn’t work.

For more clarity, since you skipped over it - Allies exist. Despite efforts to make monofaction builds more appealing, Soup continues to be so commonplace that it's functionally the default state for Imperial forces. Knights can benefit from Techpriests. Knights can bubblewrap with cheapo Guardsmen who also grant them oodles of CP. Knights can grab cheapo support vehicles from Guard or Skitarii, or elite units they can LoS block for from Marines etc. To say that Knights aren't comparable because Orks can do all sorts of stuff that a pure Knights list can't do is a nonsense when you have the option of simply not running pure Knights thus gain access to everything you point out Orks can do, without sacrificing the strength of Knights as a unit. So once you stop imposing the entirely artificial in 8th limitation of only considering pure army lists, comparing Knights and Stompas works great, and further emphasises the Stompa's issues.

It’s not a nonsense though.

That’s a flaw in the Allies system only.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not a nonsense though.

That’s a flaw in the Allies system only.

No, it works (roughly) as intended. Knights were always meant to use allies, they were even in the same book with Ad Mech in this very edition. Stompas just suck.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s not a nonsense though.

That’s a flaw in the Allies system only.

That's a terrible argument. Units need to be statted and pointed according to their actual value in the game as it is played. If a unit is bad within the context of the core rules, then that is a fault with the unit, not the core rules (even if the core rules are dumb in the first place).