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.

Ratbarf wrote:

Big surprise.

Quite honestly, I hate Orks. They are (you were just waiting for this) so overpowered it's not even funny. Seriously though, you'd have thought that they would have made Orks orange to complete their cheesiness.

Sure, they have a 6+ armor save. It doesn't matter, though, since they have T4, and will pretty much always get a 4+ cover save.

Oh please they are not cheesy. Have you tried the thirty DA Vets with Storm bolters against them yet? Yah its 750 points, but that 750 points can stay out of range of your armies boyz, will easily get cover saves from your own boyz that protect your lootas. And should eat said boyz in combat if they get to close. Throw in two two whirlies and you have an Ork killing army.

Even better? Try the the three thunderfire list. Have fun with 12 cover ignoring str 5 blast templates a turn for only 300 points.

Oh whats that? is that cheassing I hear? Oh noes...

Oh wait! I get it! Thank you, sir, for helping me figure out what is wrong with my army.

I don't play Space Mureenz! Well, this clears everything up. If I had played Space Mureenz, I wouldn't have problems!

Gosh, I guess that I should go plunk down some serious $ into them, eh?

Anyway, is saying that Orks are cheesy a bad thing? Perhaps, I guess that it may lie in my attitude towards them.

It's not because I'm an incompetent general, oh, and before any of your say anything, I've compensated and added more anti-horde to my army.

My friend who plays Orks says that I did EVERYTHING right in my games against his Orks. There has to be something wrong with that, I'm sorry, but there has to be.

It is one thing to say that a unit is overpriced or suboptimal. Those are statements of, more or less, fact.

It is another to call a unit cheesy.

The difference is in the inference. Language is a neat tool. By stating that a unit is underpriced, you make a simple statement that doesn't try and force values on the unit.

By saying that it is cheesy, you imply that it is somehow unethical, or not-valid. Declaring something as cheesy is a way of writing it off, without considering alternatives or solutions. The player who says, "I can't beat lootas, they're cheesy" is setting themselves up to fail everytime they encounter lootas.

If you want to have a rational discussion, use words that don't attach values to the subject of conversation. Lootas are possibly underpriced. Now, how do we deal with them?

If you want to rant and protect your ego from losses against people running lootas, by all means, keep calling them cheesy (or lame, or beardy or whatever other slur you come up with).

What do you play then? You had earlier said that orks are way overpowered. Well guess what, I gave a list that should be able to wipe lootas before they do too much damage to the rest of your army. I don't think I ever read what you played in your posts. But serioulsy tell me what you play. I bet there is something in there that can beat orks.

Hi again.
I suppose the reason most people use emotive language in reference to thier games of 40k is they get emotionaly attached to thier armies. (Even if its just frustration from spending X amount of time and money , and it NOT being able to live up to expetations on the games table! .)

The gamers that like competative play, bemoan the lack of provable ballance and the undercosting -overcosting of units in 40k.
A valid and reasonable argument, IMO.

The reason 'casual gamers' dont want GW to move 40k towards a more suitable for competative rule sets is simply this.
They belive GW can only achive ballance by reducing the amount of player options.
(With very valid reasons.GW have systematicaly removed the narrative rules/options from 40k game play , and STILL fail to sufficiently improve ballance... )

Currently the 40k rule set is a marketing strategy, with some concessions made to game play at the eleveth hour.The fact that the game play is a good as it is, is testiment to the talent of the GW studio staff.IMO.

IF GW actualy wrote a rule set specificaly for 40k ,I am sure they could get much better results.

As a lot of forum members have only played GW games and some only 40k.
Its a bit difficult for me to point out the basic development -design flaws with the current 40k rule set.I am NOT attacking the art -background or anyone in particular.

Perhaps an analagy might help?
40k has a wide and varied units that needs to be covered effectively by rules and stats.
If we compare this diversity to the diversity found in fruit.

How to define fruit,
Size.
Shape.
Colour.
Mass.
Skin texture.
Firmness of pulp.
Sweetness.
Pip frequency
Pip location.
Etc.
All fruits can be ACCURATLEY defined by using the apropriate statistics.And we can easily directly compare fruit to each other.

GWs 40k method applied to fruit.
'Most fruit is either an Apple or an Orange!Grapes are like small apples and Satsumas Clemantines are like small oranges...yeah that works great!'

So we get, Apple Variants and Orange Variants.
And have to describe everything in reference to this very limited frame work.
Bannana, is an 'Orange' with the 'elongated pale variety ','no pips' special rules.Strawberry is an 'Apple' with the 'small red variety', 'pips on the out side', special rules. Etc

So we end up with lots of additional data(special rules) that STILL fails the define the element-unit with any sort of accuracy.(Especialy in direct comparison.)

The current 40k rule set allows for a co-operative narrative dice rolling game.

A 40k rule set developed for a ballanced competative game play (tournaments) would have to be very different to the current rule set.(Especialy if it was to be a tactical rich wargame.)
Defining 'in game abilities' directly and accuratley.(Mobility, Defencive capability, Offencive capability, Command and Control.)

I hope this helps to explain my thoughts a bit better.

TTFN
Lanrak.

It seems to me that non-tournament players wanting a wide range of clearly defined unbalanced options with freewheeling possibilities is (a) a contradiction in terms and (b) useless given that if you want to play narrative games you can just invent what you want.

On what Polonius said about codices getting better all the time, I'd just like to chime in.
I was on the train recently with my 2nd edition and 4th edition ork codices. Let me tell you, things have come a long way!
For one, army variety and fun is better catered for. The rules fit the fluff better. There is actually miles more fluff in the new book, and it's better written and makes more sense. There's better artwork, and the miniatures are leagues ahead.
They actually provide stats for all the units in the book, shock horror!
2nd edition was far more wildy unbalanced and unfun. You think Lootas are bad, check out Vortex Grenades.
So while I'm so unhappy with GWs current design philosophy as expressed by Jervis via Redbeard that I've cancelled my planned Daemon army and won't be touching WFB for the next few releases at best, I still think they are improving. I just don't see the point of feeding their stupid notion that players like me are doing it "wrong". I'd also like to support H.B.M.C. in his post about what is and isn't fun for people.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again.
I suppose the reason most people use emotive language in reference to thier games of 40k is they get emotionaly attached to thier armies.

Most of the 'emotive language' is just plain bullying.

Whats the fuss about Lootas?

Yeah, they effectively stot about with Autocannons, but they are still BS2, lightly armoured and fairly easy to kill if you put your mind to it.

And how do they slaughter Marines every time? The Guns are AP4, which means, statiscally, 1 in 3 wounds will actually nobble something. Even if they roll the magic 30 shots....

Ratbarf wrote:What do you play then? You had earlier said that orks are way overpowered. Well guess what, I gave a list that should be able to wipe lootas before they do too much damage to the rest of your army. I don't think I ever read what you played in your posts. But serioulsy tell me what you play. I bet there is something in there that can beat orks.

Perhaps cheesy is the wrong word. Underpriced would be a better one. Or perhaps, more like frustrating because they are way better than they should be. On the charge, they're like a normal Space Marine, except that they're less than half the cost of a Space Marine.

My armies are in my signature. Imperial Guard/LatD, and Eldar. I haven't tried the Eldar against them yet, but I'll probably end up winning as the Eldar list I've made is purely for killing hordes. (I.e. Lots of Wraithlords, Striking Scorpions, the Avatar, and flamers)

I don't mind losing, quite honestly. It's not that big of a deal. I've lost against my friend's Ravenwing/Deathwing, but why didn't I call them overpowered/underpriced? Because it was fair.

It's just frustrating when I'm playing IG, as Orks have better guns, just as good shooting, and annihilate me in melee. And there is quite literally no feasible way to deal with it. Of course, it didn't help that I had to fight against them AND against a Chaos army, and that I didn't get any help from my ally.

I'm just rambling now, by this point I can't even really say that I care much anymore, except that I still stand by my comments. I'll just wait for everyone to call me a bigot or a sore loser.

But what I never understood is the argument that if something is cheesy or overpowered, then it's my fault. It's not my fault.
For some reason, to me that just doesn't seem right, it just doesn't seem right at all. Some things are overpowered, no matter how good you are.

I agree that in general the newer books are better written. However, I just can't get over what GW is doing to the chaos background. That was really what got me into warhammer in the first place. And in my opinion, GW is ruining the background for the sake of sales. Can I get pill that makes me forget all about how cool chaos is?

Vladsimpaler:

Have you tried a guard army maxing HBs and battle cannons? If there is one thing that orks have tough times getting rid of heavy tanks. Take 3 russes, position them so you can only see their frount armour or stick them in cover. (Better if you can do both but only advisable if it gives you good firing lanes. Though am not sure if the BC is barrage or not.) So in all your squads the heavy weapon should be HB and possibly a grenade launcher for the special. (Or a plasma but grenade is cheaper and frag is better against horde in my opinion.) If you can get enough HB shots downwind and use the BCs to devastate the Lootas you should be able to kill the orks.

As for Eldar, Take two fire prisms and a Tooled up falcon to deliver some Striking Scorpian goodness. Or take a Storm Guardian horde. Avater, 120 Storm Guardians, and three Fire prisms should be able to do away with thos epesky orks, seeing as your faster foot wise than they are and your entire army strikes before they do and is fearless. (But watch the Avater as he will get really hurt by 45 lootas. Would advise blocking him with a Prism or waiting until the pirsms have killed his lootas to take him out of cover and into the advance. The Fleet rule of Eldar should let you move fast enough to cover the board in thre turns or so.

So what you're saying is that a list designed to beat Orks is capable of beating Orks?

What a shocking revelation.

BYE

Yep, he asked for one, kinda.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Whats the fuss about Lootas?

Yeah, they effectively stot about with Autocannons, but they are still BS2, lightly armoured and fairly easy to kill if you put your mind to it.

And how do they slaughter Marines every time? The Guns are AP4, which means, statiscally, 1 in 3 wounds will actually nobble something. Even if they roll the magic 30 shots....

Pick up a calculator and do some basic math, and/or play with or against Lootaz a few times. Lootaz don't deserve all of the fuss they get, but they certainly do lay down efficient, and versatile firepower from great distances, even against T4 SV3+ units. Furthermore, most boards have little or no terrain that significantly interferes with line of sight.

volair wrote: Furthermore, most boards have little or no terrain that significantly interferes with line of sight.

This, of course, is a bigger problem than any perceived unit imbalance, and more easily solved by individual players. Don't play this way. The book says use a mix of LOS blocking terrain. Make some.

This is the problem here and what will diminish the game by every period of time untill they adress it. I know this is just a forum rant buy ill tag along on it.

For start I was a competative player for years, both 40k and fantasy. Owned 6-7 armies and spent ALOT of money on gw stuff, not because of the minis but because of the game. Now im a casual gamer in my friends basements and spend less then 1/10 probably closer to 1/100 of what I used to spend, so thats a huge netloss for them. And the main reson of this is that they cant do their damned job and write decent rules(im not expekting perfect). Thats not sound buisness in my opinion at least.

And ofcourse having the spokesman of a company go out and tell pepole that they know they are doing a very poor job and they dont care, doesnt really fill you with credibility for that said company(regardless of buisness).

To top if off, since Orcs are totally dominating everything ever since that book came out, it really does diminish the victories people get from them. The strategy part is severly flawed and is pretty much like people said, like playing with multiple queens in a chess game. Kudos to everyone winning with them but it really doesnt show anything about your skill, except for brining the optimal army at the current ruleset.

Why exactly are Lootas considered death to everything on the board?

Against MEQs they get:
30 shots
10 hits
8.33 wounds
2.77 failed saves

So you have 225 points of pure, imobile shooting killing 45 points a turn. On average, they won't make their cost back until turn 5, and they're not exactly the game's most resilient unit.

Guard have a harder time against horde orks than many other armies because they can't beat them with combat resolution and they don't have the ammount of anti-infantry that tau have.

Heavy bolters aren't the greatest anti-ork weapon around actually. I would recomend sacrificial squads backed up by squads with flamers; I know some guard players haven't fully used 5th edition's inability to consolidate into close combat.

Russes and demolishers can also be hard for orks to kill, especially if they have infantry guarding them. Hellhounds can take lootas out of the picture quickly, if they don't get shot down first (hide them behind you battle tanks).

Dear Orkesaurus,

The issue is that there are THREE units of Lootas. So, that's 8 dead marines a turn (8 used to be a large squad). They don't have to be mobile because they have the range to reach across the board. Properly positioned you should only be taking 1 hit from a plasma cannon and 3 hits from a Demolisher cannon per turn. Oh, and you can penetrate light armor....

But, I digress. I suggest in this thread that the Codex Orks is broken for tournament play. Evidence, EVERY GT THIS YEAR WAS WON BY ORKS. At the Baltimore GT, guess what, ORKS WIN TOP TWO BATTLE SCORES!!!!!

Orks are underpriced by at least a point per figure. The newest SM codex does not appear to have affected Ork dominance. Have fun playing against Orks, game after stinking game. I've lost interest.

Yes...three units of 10 Lootas, with T4 and a 6+Sv costing....225x3...anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? No? Dust?

675 points of exceedingly easily killed Orkses. And frankly, if it takes the combined firepower of 3 units to threaten a single unit of my own, I think I'm doing something right, especially when such a massive chunk of my opponents army is tied up in 3 fairly easily killed units.

8 Marines cost 120 points. Over 6 turns, this equates to 720 points killed, assuming no upgrades etc are killed. Assuming of course that none of the Orks ever get killed, and ingoring the average number of shots would be 2 each (or 60 shots, 20 hits, 18ish wounds and 6 dead Marines) things like even less Rosey.

But I'm sure you number crunched this accurately of course.

Now now, it's not that bad. You only have to play against orks on the top tables. Just avoid the top tables and everything is sunshine, rainbows, and new marine codex.

The real issue here is thread necromancy.

...but I'll leave it open for now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Yes...three units of 10 Lootas, with T4 and a 6+Sv costing....225x3...anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? No? Dust?

8 Marines cost 120 points. Over 6 turns, this equates to 720 points killed, assuming no upgrades etc are killed. Assuming of course that none of the Orks ever get killed, and ingoring the average number of shots would be 2 each (or 60 shots, 20 hits, 18ish wounds and 6 dead Marines) things like even less Rosey.

But I'm sure you number crunched this accurately of course.

I actually did the number crunching for a squad of 15.

Thats even cacker then!

Good lord!

And a Demolisher only hitting 3 of them...thats a big old template...which means the Boyz are neatly spread out, which of course means, when I assult them, I can kill loads, and they can't. Even betterer!