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.

Wow. Just wow.
Are orks the absolute best army in 40k? No.
Are orks overpowered and unstoppable? No.
Can an intelligent general build a solid list to challenge any build out there? Yes.

Orks are solid when run properly? Absolutely.

I have taken too many tier 1 lists down with orks to agree that they are not a tier 1 army.

All of this theoryhammer is funny. You say I would <insert asinine claim that can neither be substantiated nor implemented under most circumstances> and the orks have no answer.

Every unit in every codex has a paper to it's rock.

Army build, deployment, movement, and sound strategy and tactics are what win games, and orks are as capable as any.

This thread is a monstrous creature that won't die.

I play orks, and beat people who are skilled players. Against a talented opponent a sledgehammer is still a valid weapon if swung skillfully.

sourclams wrote:

Toxxic wrote:This thread is the king of theoryhammer. You guys need to take into account your opponents skill level and army comp.

Actually the premise of the thread is that skill level is equal, and at a very high level, making the sheer mechanics of the lists the fundamental driver in determining their strength/weaknesses.

You can be the most bad ass player on the planet, but unless you are using tricksey dice, The dice roll is the great equalizer. Taking into account a high skill level is fine and all, but all the theory hammer I'm seeing is under the assumption that the dice are going your way. That's not always the case. I know alot of the twin linked, special "roll dice until you get the result you want" abilities that some armies have in a way negates that, but that is not always the case.

Fearspect wrote:The problem here, and where a lot of the anger is coming from, is that many have misread the direction this thread has taken.

The question is not how good a player is, or if lucky match-ups occured, etc. The questions that should be asked is simply this:

1) Do Orks have the tools do deal with everything they need to in a competitive environment; and

2) If yes, do they have these tools in the abundance that other armies do?

Ork players: Try not to treat this as an attack on you as a person or a competitor. Try to focus on the tools you have to perform with. Could they be better?

I see it is happening again. The question should not be "Can Orks do well with..." and a list of conditions a mile long like "played by a strong player" and "if the planets align". See my questions 1 & 2. Take all other variables out of it, do Orks have all the tools, in enough abundance, to be the top competitors.

Many opposers are saying, 'No, because they cant reliably deal with x,y,z. Here is the mathematical reasons why...' While proponents are stating, 'Well I am great and I always win'. I just don't see how the latter argument really stands up to the former.

Elessar wrote:

PLEASE stop assuming I'm an idiot, huh?

Methoderik, count my Lances. Then, add in what you can't see, 15 Fire Dragons, and Yriel. Plenty to kill BWs with there. Especially when I'm actually shooting you in the side.

First, your not really making that too easy on us . Second, sure deployments are going to be purely situational I get that. I kinda figured that was assumed. Third, if you think my BW list is about the BW's themselves, well then I don't really know what to tell you. What is inside is what matters.

sourclams wrote:

Actually it's pretty easy for Wave Serpents to wall off your battle wagons and trap them in a small area. Then you're stuck with the [gakky] choice of disembarking to whack away at SMF or trying to ram your way out... even if Deffrollas work you're still not going to get all those serpents out of the way in a single turn; meanwhile the prisms have shot far away and are still peppering you with blasts. He can split his force and be effective, you can't.

Serpent spam Eldar are very good at dealing with Big Rock armies like BW spam and Raider spam. And BW Orks basically have to play as a Big Rock army because if you try splitting them off you lose KFF and become vulnerable to shooting.

I agree, my post was really in response to that silly deployment pictured. At 1,750 with Yriel, 15 Dragons, and Fire Prisms how many wave serpents is he really bringing? And I would welcome a wall off. The wave serpents are going to die very quickly in that situation. I am going to charge with around 50 Power Klaw attacks, and if they are walling me off, I am probably going to charge multiple if not all. They're armor 10 in the rear right, so my boyz are going to get in on the action as well. And once the Wave serpents are done, then what? Now possibly add in Deff Rollaz, and you get a whole new scenario, or boarding planks and grabbing klaws. It is so situational.

And really that is my point to this whole stupid thread. It is all situational. Frank, Elessar and whoever coming in here and saying orks suck "guaranteed" and crap like that just makes them sound... well dumb.

I am not arguing that Orks are some all powerful codex that smash through competition with auto wins. I'm not that arrogant and pompous. All I am saying is that they are competitive at the highest level. Any real gamer knows that winning a tournament or placing well is just as much luck as it is skill/list. Again, situational.

Fearspect wrote:
Many opposers are saying, 'No, because they cant reliably deal with x,y,z. Here is the mathematical reasons why...' While proponents are stating, 'Well I am great and I always win'. I just don't see how the latter argument really stands up to the former.

That's because the answer is yes the orks have all the tools they need. It's up to the player to correctly adapt to the battle. The only thing orks might be a bit worried about is AV14. If someone is spamming LRs then it's a valid scenario to field tankbustas. Even without tankbustas I'd still mass charge the LRs and grabba klaw em, boarding plank and PK them to death. If deff rollas are allowed to hit vehicles than that's just another boon. Orks can be geared to meet any situation.

If your list can't beat the LRs then deny the LRs kills by any means and kill all the other stuff on the table. You can always resort to a long range regular ram if you are desperate.

Usually you can present a list to counter any other list. That's the way the game is designed so all this theory hammer being thrown around is just one large circular argument.

Toxxic wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Toxxic wrote:This thread is the king of theoryhammer. You guys need to take into account your opponents skill level and army comp.

Actually the premise of the thread is that skill level is equal, and at a very high level, making the sheer mechanics of the lists the fundamental driver in determining their strength/weaknesses.

You can be the most bad ass player on the planet, but unless you are using tricksey dice, The dice roll is the great equalizer. Taking into account a high skill level is fine and all, but all the theory hammer I'm seeing is under the assumption that the dice are going your way. That's not always the case. I know alot of the twin linked, special "roll dice until you get the result you want" abilities that some armies have in a way negates that, but that is not always the case.

Which is why you should always assume average dice rolls when theorizing.. You can't rely on good dice rolls or bad dice rolls when discussing anything like this :/

Fearspect wrote:

Fearspect wrote:The problem here, and where a lot of the anger is coming from, is that many have misread the direction this thread has taken.

The question is not how good a player is, or if lucky match-ups occured, etc. The questions that should be asked is simply this:

1) Do Orks have the tools do deal with everything they need to in a competitive environment; and

2) If yes, do they have these tools in the abundance that other armies do?

Ork players: Try not to treat this as an attack on you as a person or a competitor. Try to focus on the tools you have to perform with. Could they be better?

I see it is happening again. The question should not be "Can Orks do well with..." and a list of conditions a mile long like "played by a strong player" and "if the planets align". See my questions 1 & 2. Take all other variables out of it, do Orks have all the tools, in enough abundance, to be the top competitors.

Many opposers are saying, 'No, because they cant reliably deal with x,y,z. Here is the mathematical reasons why...' While proponents are stating, 'Well I am great and I always win'. I just don't see how the latter argument really stands up to the former.

Could you point me at all the posts in this thread where one of the opposers throws out all this "math" you speak of? I have seen a little, but your post makes it seem like they have been proving their point with math for pages now, and none of the Orks can counter anything they say.

It's getting frustrating because they haven't really "proven" anything, and are not likely to. Orks may not be the best army in the game, but I think they are competitive, and I've played them a lot, and in a very competitive environment. The naysayers say, we can't handle[insert long list of opinions, or things that all armies have trouble with]. The Ork players say, they can handle most of those things, as well as other armies, and better than some. Thats just all we are ever going to get to really.

Unless the guys on both sides of this argument meet up at the Ard Boyz finals and face eachother in the tournament. Then, I guess we shall see what we shall see.




Clay

But Clay, they also dismiss the ard boyz as a measure of competitiveness and think its a tourney for noobs.

The problem is the anti-ork faction assume that since a balanced ork list is weak than the orks are a weak army. That is precisely why no sane ork player takes a balanced ork list to a tournament. You spam beyond the enemies ability to counter your tactic. Even if you field an army specifically geared toward fighting a particular ork list, how will that list stand up agianst other ork lists in the tournament. How about a SM list, or a DE list. Most of this thread isn't taking into account the big picture.

phillosmaster wrote:The problem is the anti-ork faction assume that since a balanced ork list is weak than the orks are a weak army. That is precisely why no sane ork player takes a balanced ork list to a tournament. You spam beyond the enemies ability to counter your tactic. Even if you field an army specifically geared toward fighting a particular ork list, how will that list stand up agianst other ork lists in the tournament. How about a SM list, or a DE list. Most of this thread isn't taking into account the big picture.

Didn't we do this, like, 10 pages ago?

Frank Fugger wrote:

phillosmaster wrote:The problem is the anti-ork faction assume that since a balanced ork list is weak than the orks are a weak army. That is precisely why no sane ork player takes a balanced ork list to a tournament. You spam beyond the enemies ability to counter your tactic. Even if you field an army specifically geared toward fighting a particular ork list, how will that list stand up agianst other ork lists in the tournament. How about a SM list, or a DE list. Most of this thread isn't taking into account the big picture.

Didn't we do this, like, 10 pages ago?

And 8 pages ago....and 6 pages ago.....and 4 pages ago.....and the band plays on.

GG

and I never saw a decent come back in all my 20 years of reading this ridiculous thread. It's the truth.

Let me put it to you this to you this way. Take a similar easier to understand game. What is the ork strategy in bloodbowl. They can't pass, can't catch, can't run...what can they do? They can hit. An ork bloodbowl player will hit you with everything they got and hope you never get up. While you are on the ground dieing they can drop the ball as much as they want as they jog into the end zone. It's the same here. 40k orks hit and hit hard and hope you never get up. Just because a strategy isn't elegant or balanced doesn't mean it's not effective. It's just a different play style.

I like sledgehammers!

But Clay, they also dismiss the ard boyz as a measure of competitiveness and think its a tourney for noobs.

If you think the first round of 'Ard Boyz is competitive then I've got some magic beans to sell you.

Turnout was so poor this year that in some places you literally could have brought anything and placed in the top 3. Literally anything (there were 3 players at my store).

thehod wrote:But Clay, they also dismiss the ard boyz as a measure of competitiveness and think its a tourney for noobs.

Not FOR noobs, FULL OF noobs.

Having now read some more about Necro, I say, in my opinion, that is was a pathetic excuse for a competition, and that I have no idea how ANYONE Top Ten'd with such dreadful lists. I read somewhere that the MechDar player who lost to Marc parker was good - maybe so, but I've read his list, and it is not.

I can't recall all the previous points, and I'm not re-scrolling 2 pages to quote various posters, sorry.

I think I've mathmatically proved that Lootas are not a reliable answer to AV12, especially AV12 that has Holo-Fields.

That 1750 list includes 9 Grav Tanks, and Pathfinders to get in your way. It's amazing what optimising things allows you to squeeze in.

Deploying 1st against Orks, I spread out, one prism per corner, one in the middle, with a FD escort.

Deploying 2nd relies on your deployment - but assume I can't physically place my Lances further back, and everything else is Reserved, except Pathfinders.

@phillosmaster: - not even my cOrkaine gag? Oh well. In fairness, I think we've made more points against orks than "I play Orks and they're good" - not everyone says this, but it IS the most common argument against our claims. Obviously, an unbalanced ork list, attempting to One Trick Pony the opponent is going to beat at least 3/5 lists...thing is, if it hits the counter, or even someone who can deny them a win, they're screwed. It's unwise to assume (if this really were a competitive environment) that you wouldn't hit the counter.

I also don't think that Ard Boyz is the best points level to prove the point anyway. 2500 points allows you to take those 3 Battlewagons and 45 Lootas, while STILL fielding 200+ Boyz. Now, if there were no time limit on games, maybe. Timing the opponent out for 1KP wins is poor sportsmanship, and makes for a hollow win indeed.

@Number9dream: - I'm the only person I reemember posting maths, and I did use average rlls, except for number of Loota shots - so I don't understand Toxxic's posts either.

Not all your vehicles have holo-fields. Serpents may be a big FU to meltas, Ordiance, and Assault Cannons but lootas still scare my Grav tanks and I run a sam-hain list (not optimized according to your standards but its my fun army). Mech Eldar's true weakness is one thing: random game length. Good players know that and will wait for your last turn objective grab and do their damage. Remember, your miles may vary when it comes to quality of opponents. Apparently I got the guy who got the 5th edition memo.

Memo, I like it.

Most of my opponents have caught up, or are playing semi-5th at least. There are a few kids, and several fluff bunnies, but in no way do I tone it down for them, because then they won't learn.

In my current list, there are actually no Holos - but the maths above didn't take them into account anyway.

RGL certainly hurts MechDar. Fortunately this can be circumvented in general Tourny play, as even if there isn't a set turn limit (as Ard Boyz) there is a time limit, and it's easy to judge, with practice. By the end of turn one you should know how many turns it's going to, and adjust accordingly.

Sadly, I'm the best Ork player I know, so it's difficult to get in decent practice against Orks at their best. Being a better player than the other Ork players I encounter certainly skews the results a bit, but it shouldn't skew it as much as it does.

When I return from holiday, however, I plan to lend my Eldar to an equally skilled friend (although he's never played Eldar) while I take him on with Orks. BatReps will be forthcoming. Admittedly, I expect to beat him in the first game at least - but we'll see what happens.

I think I understand why you guys feel the pro-Ork faction are not countering your arguments.

It's because you expect the Ork player to show you math. Ork players don't do math. Ork players smash skulls. An Ork's strategy is like an Orks technology. It works just because he believes it works much to the surprise and horror of the Ork's enemy.

But seriously why is making a one trick pony list any less risky than making one of the optimized lists presented in this thread. I've seen counter lists posted for each configuration. There is always a risk that someone will field your lists counter. There is no golden list for any army because every good list builder is always changing his line up to counter popular lists. Once people start fielding these "5th edition armies" people will just start fielding their counters to stay competitive. That's been going on for years. The game is about match ups. If you get stuck with a bad match up then you have to hope that you can out think your player on the field or you can get good dice rolls. That is all there is to it. The problem is this thread assumes that list building is 100% of what makes a player and his army competitive.

No, not 100%, but we're assuming equal skill levels - in which case player is irrelevant, so it's list, and luck. Luck can't be planned for, so we can only discuss list.

Also, unless it was a typo, I said OTP lists are more risky.

List building, by that the ability to make balanced and powerful lists from a respective codex, is 100% what makes an ARMY competitive.

The point that is trying to be shown is that those same 'good ork players' would enjoy more success with other options than that limiting codex.

Hah it was a typo. I meant why is OTP any more risky.

Seriously I know you are tired of the I see orks win therefore orks are competitive argument, but I just finished reading that lengthy batrep about an ork player clean sweeping the Liber Animus tournament.

My argument still stands though that someone could always post a counter to any other list. You can say skill and luck is irrelevant for this argument, but if we are only discussing list match ups, whether you are going to win over a random set of other skillfully built lists is always going to come down to luck because someone can always field your counter. Even with a tier 3 army.

If the anti-orks want to post statistics to prove that an OTP list is more risky than an optimized list than go ahead. That's a hell of alot of work. I'm certainly not going to post counter statistics. I could potentially make that my graduate thesis since there are so many floating variables. I think I'll just trust my experience, tournament results, and the batreps I read. Everything I see tells me those OTP list work just as often.

I still think it's debatable that balanced lists are the only way to go. In fact OTP lists are meant to bring down balanced lists specifically by spamming beyond the balanced players ability to counter his threat. Therefore optimized list can be countered and certainly OTP lists can be countered. List building is about anticipating what your opponents will bring to the tournament not about building a completely balanced list. If you have one of everything and I have tons of one thing I have a good chance of destroying your one thing that threatens me. This is especially true since the orks spam unit is usually PK nob with boys squad mech squad. You get mobility, anti-horde and anti-armor all in one cheap package. What is it that you think ork players fear so much that they can't counter it? It's not armor 14. It's not template spam. We've shown counter to both of those. I'd certainly like TL rail guns on my battlewagon and meltaguns in my boyz squads, but I don't think the orks need them.

Elessar wrote:
Having now read some more about Necro, I say, in my opinion, that is was a pathetic excuse for a competition, and that I have no idea how ANYONE Top Ten'd with such dreadful lists. I read somewhere that the MechDar player who lost to Marc parker was good - maybe so, but I've read his list, and it is not.

I can't recall all the previous points, and I'm not re-scrolling 2 pages to quote various posters, sorry.

So while sitting in Northern Ireland you have deduced that the Necronomicon, a very large annual 40K tournament in the state of Florida (an ocean and continent away), is a pathetic excuse for a competition. And... you learned this from the "internets". In one broad sweep you have managed to insult the hundreds of people who attended that event and helped organize it.

While I risk banning with my next statement, I can't really help myself.

You are one of the biggest F@cktards I have ever had the displeasure of coming in contact with on this forum.

You wouldn't take it easy on a kid "cause it wouldn't help them learn anything". What a dick.

I said nothing about children. Inexperienced player =/= child.

It's a tournament badly written by Fantasy players, who gave a low comp score to a freaking Nidzilla list.

I've read about 1/3 of the participating lists, including at least half of the top ten.

They were all, barring Marc Parker's, terrible. His was merely mediocre.

If this is what passes for competitive play in your mind, then Orks are the best Codex everz, and Tic Tac Te is a difficult game.

Go suck a lemon.

Also, as for insulting the players who attended, it's not the first time today I've done so, and it won't be the last. They have every right to play the game however they want, but they can't seriously call that competitive. FYI, I've been reading up on it for over a month now - the poor quality wasn't the surprise, just the extent of the crapness.

I really don't care if you get banned or not, because you have little of interest to say - so i haven't even reported your post. Edit it out, and you might not get the thread locked, which probably doesn't matter to you either way I suppose.

Hang on, I didn't even say anything about inexperienced players...If you're referring to comments I made on YTTH, then man up and say so, share with the class.

Could both side of the argument explain what a competitive list means ?

Is it: My list makes me win against my opponents lists ?

or: The statistical average of the combined stats in my list beat the statistical average of the combined stats in my opponents lists ?

or something else i'm not getting ?

I would define a competitive list as one that stood a decent (ie, statistically plauible) chance of beating any other list.

One that has the tools, in sufficient number, to take out virtually any threat, or to circumvent said threats in such a way that they may as well be eliminated.

Ideally, they would also be versatile enough to deal with OTP lists, but that's not a given.

Elessar wrote:

Most of my opponents have caught up, or are playing semi-5th at least. There are a few kids, and several fluff bunnies, but in no way do I tone it down for them, because then they won't learn.

Elessar wrote:

Sadly, I'm the best Ork player I know

sad, sad. sad that you are hanging out with a bunch of noobs

Wow - this is quite the insane thread!

Orks suck....no orks good....no they suck.....I play Eldar - thus I have the superior army and tactics (not to mention the stylish clothes and immaculately done nails). It's really entertaining.

Fact- Orks have won tournaments - several. Armies/tactics have evolved to neuter the builds that won those tournaments. Orks may not win as much now.

Fact - Marines and Sisters have won tournaments (Waagh/Necro). Armies will evolve to deal with those builds. Although the Marine build that won the Waagh was more an INCREDIBLE general than list - my opinion which along with $2.75 gets you coffee at Starbucks.

Most important fact - GOOD GENERALS win tournaments. More important than the lists, theory hammers, etc. The lists will HELP a good general win - but they aren't the answer. Guys like Parker, Muetschler, Crew, Cauley, Sparks, Swanson, etc - that consistently and constantly win or place high in pretty much every tourney they play in are....GOOD GENERALS. They do it in spite of all the theory hammer, internet lists, etc. They do it - contrary to what a lot of internet tools want to say - without loaded dice or cheating or "insert gimmick here that makes them not be better than me so my frail fragile ego won't be crushed by a game".

So...if you want to be the best, have others call you the best (instead of saying it yourself), cowboy up and beat the best. I.E. Show me 'da money....

In before the lock!!!

No you understand perfectly. This is precisely why this argument has gone on so long. I believe the argument is can an ork list be constructed that can beat the statistical average of the set of all other lists in 40K. We are presented with an impossible point to defend. What is the statistical average of the set of all other possible lists in 40K. Instead of proving or disproving this monumental task we are getting into small deterministic arguments about can this list beat this list. My point is that argument can never end, since every list can be counter somehow. To suggest that there is an uncounterable list that could always defeat orks assumes that there is a threat that the orks cannot possibly defend agianst and I have yet to see that threat defined.