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.

Andykp wrote:
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.

See, people are entitled to opinions, but opinions can be wrong. People trying to build the best ork lists possible and trying to win are having fun doing so, saying the opposite is just wrong. Saying they should drop the army they love because they are "doing it wrong" is also wrong.

By the way, no one is a fool for playing toy soldiers. You are having fun, right? What's foolish about having fun in a hobby you like?

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.

Chess is considered a sport and played at the olympics. It also doesn't matter at all, since the whole point is that people want to measure their skill in playing 40k against each other, and we can name that whatever

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.

That's the whole point - no one should be left out in the rain. No casual beer&prezel gamer, no narrative campaign player and no competitive tournament player. If anyone has less fun playing

 Jidmah wrote:

Andykp wrote:
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.

See, people are entitled to opinions, but opinions can be wrong. People trying to build the best ork lists possible and trying to win are having fun doing so, saying the opposite is just wrong. Saying they should drop the army they love because they are "doing it wrong" is also wrong.

By the way, no one is a fool for playing toy soldiers. You are having fun, right? What's foolish about having fun in a hobby you like?

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.

Chess is considered a sport and played at the olympics. It also doesn't matter at all, since the whole point is that people want to measure their skill in playing 40k against each other, and we can name that whatever

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.

That's the whole point - no one should be left out in the rain. No casual beer&prezel gamer, no narrative campaign player and no competitive tournament player. If anyone has less fun playing

Opinions aren't right or wrong they are subjective, you just think you're right and I'm wrong when in fact we both probably make valid points in some respects but you are unable to accept you might not be the be all and end all of things.

Back on tooic, again.

I'd like to see the clans make some major changes to the basic stat line. Some could give you the option to increase BS and lower WS so you could make a classic style ork army. 3rd edition made orks very one dimensional, in my opinion!! I would like to see more randomness too, but maybe in the form of stratagems that could be hugely benificial or a disaster but at least you would have the option to gamble rather than having it stuck in the main unit rules. Anything from maybe experimental ammo or stik bombz to kustomisations to guns or vehicles that you buy like relics but roll for randomly first time they are used. And bring back madboyz, and boarboyz. And ogryn. .....and human mercs and advisors.

Andy, they are subjective, but your opinion was that only you are right and anyone not playing your way is wrong.

Our opinion is that the army should be fun for everyone, whether you play competitive, narrative or beer and pretzel.

So we want the codex to be COMPETITIVE because you can't be competitive with weak units, but you can have a narrative or friendly game with a competitive codex. Units shouldn't be completely useless just because, especially from a standpoint of a company trying to make a profit.

Imagine how great their sales could be if they started listening to the fan base and doing things they want, like making my army competitive, hell I might buy a second Naut if they become relatively good.

SemperMortis wrote:
Andy, they are subjective, but your opinion was that only you are right and anyone not playing your way is wrong.

Our opinion is that the army should be fun for everyone, whether you play competitive, narrative or beer and pretzel.

So we want the codex to be COMPETITIVE because you can't be competitive with weak units, but you can have a narrative or friendly game with a competitive codex. Units shouldn't be completely useless just because, especially from a standpoint of a company trying to make a profit.

Imagine how great their sales could be if they started listening to the fan base and doing things they want, like making my army competitive, hell I might buy a second Naut if they become relatively good.

I'm happy to change my opinion if confronted with a good counter argument and I haven't heard one yet anywhere on is forum, so I'm still of the opinion that competative 40k needs a different rule set from narrative 40k. This mythical "balance" everyone is so concerned about sounds like it's impossible to get without it. Not that anyone can actually state exactly what "balance" really means in realistic terms. The drive for balance and this competative abandoning of the narrative is already driving people away from the game. The fella three post back said narrative gamers can't get a game like that in his area. What you want to achieve isn't possible I don't think. I may be wrong. I often am. I don't see orks needing "fixing". The rules as they are work well for me and my group and we have fun games. I'm sorry you don't.

Rule of 3 kinda shafts Grot lists, since we can only take 3 Runtherders, 2 at 1,000 or lower :(

1,000 points of Grots is a lot of Grots!

Andykp wrote:
I'm happy to change my opinion if confronted with a good counter argument and I haven't heard one yet anywhere on is forum, so I'm still of the opinion that competative 40k needs a different rule set from narrative 40k. This mythical "balance" everyone is so concerned about sounds like it's impossible to get without it.

The are actual scientific papers done by Riot Games (League of Legends) and Wizards of the Coast (Magic: The Gathering) regarding competitive game balance influencing casual gamers. Both companies have succeeded in getting both highly competitive events with hundreds of thousands of dollars for price money and your average once-a-week-after-work gamers into the very same game. Catering to both the competitive and the casual gamers has become the formula for success in the gaming branch.

The result of both papers are that outside of edge cases, striving to make the game playable for competitive players will not hurt casual gaming. Both have come to the conclusion that improving game balance almost always actually helps casual gaming because more people can play what they like instead of what is good and still be reasonably successful with it.
On the other hand, both agree that bad competitive balance hurts or even destroys the casual scene. When game balance is bad after a major patch in League of Legends, the number of players, number of games played and the amount of money spend in the in-game store drops significantly. Obviously, it's not the professional players that stop playing, it's the casual players that got steam-rolled by some overpowered junk that leave to play some other game.
In Magic: The Gathering, big balancing fails of the past have almost caused the game to die (twice), and even today when there are obvious balance problems like overpowered cards or combos, event attendances drop noticeably - with casual events (FNM, GT side-events) being much more affected than the competitive events like PTQs.

So there are facts and data that trying to balance your game will not hurt casual players, while bad balance will drive them away. Which means it is possible to have both your narrative and your competitive players play on the same rule set and both be happy. Currently I'm not aware of a single rule in 8th that prevents the game from being played as a competitive game.
Also note that both companies do a lot of things to support casual play, which doesn't affect competitive play at all. For example, Riot Games has created fun modes for their game and MtG keeps printing cards for certain flavorful deck types that never see competitive play at all. This pretty much translates directly into narrative missions (wouldn't a well done campaign book be awesome?) and fun rules like the bubblechukka, the stratagem with the SW and DA warlord dueling at the start of the battle or the daemonic ascension stratagem for CSM. Creating a balanced game for competitive play in no way excludes GW from providing content for narrative players. The "build your own landraider" rules are testament to that.

In the end what's the difference between a narrative game and a competitive game? The kind mission you are playing and your army list. Your warboss will still be wielding the very same power klaw as mine as will Semper's warboss.
If I want to drive my warboss into Mortarion "to see what da big guy can do", that's my personal decision. He should still be able to flip a rhino if he feels like it, because that's the job he needs to be able to do.
The narrative game is what is happening on the table, it's not happening in the books.

Not that anyone can actually state exactly what "balance" really means in realistic terms.

Well, quite a few people of dakka have given useful definitions of what they think balance is.
First of all, let's clarify some things:
- Balance does not mean that every army is exactly as powerful as every other army. We are rolling dice, so we wouldn't be able to tell perfect balance if it hit us in the face. If the power difference between well built armies and between choices is within 10-20% of each other, the small imbalances will be concealed dice luck or playing errors. For reference: right now a KMK is more than 200% more powerful than lootaz.
- Balance is not a formula you can put all your variables into and solve. Every complex game that has archived some sort of balance in the past has done so through iteration. Collect data, analyze data, change rules, repeat. Not every rule change will improve game balance, but the sum of all rule changes will improve it over time.
- A reasonably balanced game can be archived because many games have done so before. Even getting halfway there is worth trying because you still end up with a much better game for everyone. A common misconception is that because perfect balance cannot be archived, GW shouldn't even try.

With that out of the way, there are three important kinds of balance in Warhammer 40k:
1) No army should be vastly more powerful than every other. No group of armies (top tier) should be vastly more powerful than every other army in the game. Almost every player I have brought into the game selected his or her army because of the optics and/or the fluff. You should never auto-loose a single game because you picked the wrong faction. This is often referred to as "external balance".
2) All models of a codex should be useful. If you want a freeboota army, you should be able to field three units of flash gits and the kaptin without eliminating all hopes of winning the game. This does not mean that you should be able to drop whatever is in your case on the table and hope to win the game. It means that the choice of whether to field a KMK instead of a kopta or lootas for your anti-tank needs should be a matter of taste and not a matter of the KMK simply being 3-10 times as good at the same job. This is often referred to as "internal balance".
3) All options for each unit should make sense. When is the last time you fielded a kustom mega slugga? Why is the tractor kannon worse at shooting planes than the much cheaper KMK? Did you know that cyborked models are less survivable per point than those without? Depending on who is writing, this is also meant by "internal balance".

1) is more important than 2) and 3). I also think it's more important to be able to field nobz in general than to field nobz with killsaws and kombi-rokkits, so 2) is more important than 3).
In 7th none of this was true, the select club of top-tier armies simply outclassed other codices by so much that even playing against soft lists from those armies was an uphill battle at best. Especially the orks had tons of units and formations that were simply a waste of points (even in narrative games!) and there were tons of options that either were bad or even non-functional.

As it is now, there are some clear losers in regards of 1) , but GW is clearly working towards everyone being able to field some army from the faction they love. This is also true for orks, the green tide is working quite well even with everyone getting their codices before us, even though it isn't really fun to play for most of us.
For 2) GW is really in hit-or-miss mode right now. Codex: Tyranids is getting huge praise from nid players far and wide, since everyone can finally play the models they like again without shooting themselves in the leg game-wise. And this is despite most of those armies not actually being able to compete at top competitive events. Apparently casual players especially care for this one. Sadly, other codices like Dark Angels have a huge amount of dead units that really don't do their job on the battlefield or are outclassed by better options. Having awesome internal balance doesn't do jack without "external balance" though, you'd just have codex where all options are equally bad.
3) really isn't something GW has begun to work on. I also think they should get 1) and 2) right first before worrying about such detail.

The drive for balance and this competative abandoning of the narrative is already driving people away from the game.

This is objectively wrong. Read GW's annual report, WH40k has become ridiculously successfully since they have started to drive for an accessible and balanced game. Admins of all big community sites including dakkadakka have reported a huge increase of use activity, events of all sizes have higher attendances than ever, GWs online and brick&mortar stores permanently have product unavailable because they can't produce models as fast as they are selling out.

I don't see orks needing "fixing". The rules as they are work well for me and my group and we have fun games. I'm sorry you don't.

There are really only two reasons for orks to work well for you:
Your army is a variant of the green tide archetype - or - Your house rules improve your army to a point where it works well

Almost all my usual games are against people who play well, but primarily select their purchases by what they think looks cool. So they will have well-rounded lists, but not necessarily the best models for each job and rarely duplicates of anything but basic infantry, dreads or rhinos. Should be the wet dream of a narrative player, right?
The only way to make those games fun and not "kill all the orks in two turns" is by avoiding two thirds of the models I own. Not fun.
Anecdotal evidence? This matches pretty much what every ork player is reporting, the more competitive their environment, the less ork units are viable. Maybe I'm just a terrible player? Unlikely, my Death Guard are on a ten game win streak as of now, and I'm playing what amounts to two sets of the freakin' starter box and a daemon prince against the same armies that tear my orks appart. I also used to have a pretty good track record with orks until 7th edition codices started outclassing them.

I'd also like to point out that some units can't even do the job they should be good at reasonably well, like deff dreads, burnas or lobbas. How does that not need fixing?

Again you make assumptions, 1 about how I play my army and two about house rules. Neither are true. I take units I like. I'm predominantly an evil Sunz fan,I have bikes buggies etc but do take the odd mob of boyz on foot. I have at least one of every unit in the book and like to bring an army that feels right to me. My armies tend to resemble rogue trader armies on steroids. Instead 5 strong boy mobs it's 20 or ten in a truck. Few meks and a few vehicles. House rules we use are just ones that negate non fluffy interpretations of the rules even if they are from an FAQ. Such as not being able to target a character if there is a non eligible target nearer. That's just silly. We don't do it. We use reasonable ideas of vehicle facings. Not hard and fast rules but say an eldar falcon can't fore it s shuriken catapults behind it. No specific rules for my army. I am working on some boar boyz and my mate is building a harlequin on a jet bike but that's about it. We try to base those in existing units if we can.

I think what balances my games is the fact that my opponents and myself are if the same mindset so choose armies that aren't spammy or heavy in one type of play. If we decide to then we talk it over before and adjust our lists accordingly. My mate brought 6 falcons in an eldar army because he'd just bought them and wanted to. So he told me and I changed my list to be a bit better at anti armour. We play stock missions nine times out of ten. I think with your definitions of balance and how some units are so much better than others that is mitigated by your opponents not taking optimised lists. So as a group it seems we've created balance in our 'meta'. (Hate that word).

I based my comment about alienating gamers on the previous post that said just that. In his area casual gamers had to face competative ones. So play like them or get tabled. No fun. I hope this settles this now and I appreciate your time in defining what you mean. I still think that players are he problem not e rules and balancing 40k is a mammoth task but with GW s new attitude might just do. As long as they don't forget us old narrative players then that'd be great.

I'm off any way. No point rehashing old ground here. Laters and hope the ork book makes you happy when we do get it. And hope no prime orks eitherM

Ork players have the right to be competitive as any Space marines or eldar player, period. If GW continues giving us trash then we will still have the right to be frustrated, because 40k is ment to be able to be a competitive game (it can be a fluffy relaxed game also). The fact that all armies should be as balanced as possible is so basic that I cant understand what people have in their heads when they say otherwise... but whatever...
Back on topic, I dont think orks should get those silly random rules that keep making the army unplayable, randomness and sillyness should be there but in manageable ways, for example, keep the bubblechukka as is, with a points drop and let the ork player decide where to put all the results, random, fun, orky and USEFUL.
IMO sillyness should be left for fluff as much as possible

 Grotsnik1 wrote:
Ork players have the right to be competitive as any Space marines or eldar player, period. If GW continues giving us trash then we will still have the right to be frustrated, because 40k is ment to be able to be a competitive game (it can be a fluffy relaxed game also). The fact that all armies should be as balanced as possible is so basic that I cant understand what people have in their heads when they say otherwise... but whatever...
Back on topic, I dont think orks should get those silly random rules that keep making the army unplayable, randomness and sillyness should be there but in manageable ways, for example, keep the bubblechukka as is, with a points drop and let the ork player decide where to put all the results, random, fun, orky and USEFUL.
IMO sillyness should be left for fluff as much as possible

That's why I think they could add flavour for us old fluffy players that like random by having some, not all strategems be a bit like that. That way you could choose to play it silly or not, like one say for stormboyz where they can make a big random advance or advance and charge but risk blowing up. So I could use them without and be fine or take the risk and be silly. Experimental ammo that has a random effect first time it's fired but can have a gets hot type thing. If you keep it to stratagems it won't force people to put up with a degree of randomness they don't like. Best of both.

I'm not going to comment on points drops as I use power levels nowadays but it makes sense that you should pay less for something that can be dreadful as much as be good.

I know I said I was gone but I'm dropping the argument thing and hope to enjoy a good chat about ork rule ideas.

Andykp wrote:
I think what balances my games is the fact that my opponents and myself are if the same mindset so choose armies that aren't spammy or heavy in one type of play. If we decide to then we talk it over before and adjust our lists accordingly. My mate brought 6 falcons in an eldar army because he'd just bought them and wanted to. So he told me and I changed my list to be a bit better at anti armour. We play stock missions nine times out of ten.

I think with your definitions of balance and how some units are so much better than others that is mitigated by your opponents not taking optimised lists. So as a group it seems we've created balance in our 'meta'. (Hate that word).

I guess this is the very reason you are having fun - you and your opponents both under stand the game very well and build your armies to match each other. Your collections are also deep enough to compensate for power problems.
In my gaming group we have a similar approach, but there are issues preventing this from working as well as it does for you. One player is pretty new and has a pile of primaris Dark Angels (the DI starter set) and not much else. He simply cannot field something besides those models he owns, and yet they are powerful enough completely wreck an ork army that is not optimized. Another player is collecting multiple armies whose primary aim is to have one coherent, flavorful army with just a few models to switch for each. During 6th he had to shelf his Tau army because any game he brought his riptide ended in a slaughter and he didn't have enough models to compensate for such a huge chunk of his army.

Some units (and sometimes armies) are so far from each other that you simply cannot get in a good game. For example, if your friend hat bought 6 units of black reapers instead of half-decent falcons, your games wouldn't have been fun, no matter what you would have fielded. That's why I firmly believe that balance is important to all players.

I based my comment about alienating gamers on the previous post that said just that. In his area casual gamers had to face competative ones. So play like them or get tabled. No fun. I hope this settles this now and I appreciate your time in defining what you mean. I still think that players are he problem not e rules and balancing 40k is a mammoth task but with GW s new attitude might just do. As long as they don't forget us old narrative players then that'd be great.

I agree, when people are the problem, no amount of rules are going to change that. The most balanced game will not be fun if your opponent is being toxic. Good rules help having fun when you do meet a decent opponent.

As long as there are multiple choices that are more or less viable, I’m okay with a silly unit or two. Note that silly =\= overpriced garbage, but rather unit that can be extremely awesome at the risk of doing unexpected thing from time to time.

I’m with Jiddah in this one. Army needs to have a solid backbone crunch of viable synergising units, competitive part of codex serving as a skeleton. I don’t understand the argument of “orks should not be competitive in order to be fun, leave this to other armies”. It is possible to make fluffy varied lists while having a competitive codex. Not to say that having 80% of units being bad actually sabotages motivation to make a fluffy list, since it probably will get lose really hard by a fluffy list consisting of mostly decent units. Over and over again.

I read in another topic about orks that some fluff style players are worried about orks losing their flavour in the aim for balance or competitiveness. I'm actually confident that GW won't do that this time. The DE , Custodes and what I've seen of deathwatch books makes me think that they can use the mechanisms around to make armies 'feel' right. And from what I've read they are reasonably competative. My mates a big dark eldar fan and he's over the moon with the book. He has always seen his army as a force of small warbands, and that's what he got with the book. It does sound like some units need help and if they can fix that with points then it won't detract from the fell of the army. Fingers crossed.

Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.

so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models

then lift the base BS to 4+

now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.

Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"

leopard wrote:
Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.

so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models

then lift the base BS to 4+

now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.

Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"

I'll be honest, that sounds like a horrible idea. The last thing we Orks need is to deal with more negative modifiers, much less ones arbitrarily imposed on our units. I'm not sure if you've noticed our discussion with this thread so far, but its mainly been focusing on how to fix Ork shooting within the context of the 8th ed environment and mods to shooting. Given how much Orks have lost out compared to other factions with how twin linked weapons work now, it would be a much safer bet just to give Orks 4+BS as the baseline or that we ignore enemy imposed negative modifiers to shooting.

leopard wrote:
Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.

so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models

then lift the base BS to 4+

now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.

Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"

I like it.

Andykp wrote:

leopard wrote:
Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.

so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models

then lift the base BS to 4+

now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.

Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"

I like it.

Its not a bad idea, but it flies in the face of the fluff of the game. Making everyone BS4 is fine, but then giving us a negative modifier when there are more boyz is just silly, if anything it would be the other way around.

I don't know, I think you could make a rule like that work. Shoota boyz would be better if fielded in units of 10 instead of 30, and for tank bustas or lootas fielding 10 or 15 would be an interesting choice since one is more survivable and the other can shoot better at the beginning of the game. Once the units start shrinking their shooting gets better, so your opponent might actually not want to shoot them?
I wouldn't hate it for sure, especially since for units with 10 or less models max size (buggies, koptas, morkanaut) it would be all upside.

The thought was about making the army different to others

concept is that a small bunch of orks get on with what they are meant to be doing, a larger group are more rowdy and less focused, getting carried away with the noise.

the point in game terms is to buff some ork units without making the larger formations into shooting murder machines, as a bigger unit gets shot down to size they start to become a bit more focused

Wow, so many buzz killers here. Reminds me of a qoute from a GW staff member saying how the USA ruined 40k by trying to make a fantasy D&D kinda game competitive. XD Nothing wrong with players wanting competitive 40k but to make the whole game for everyone competitive is also wrong and hypocritical of a lot of people here.


But no really, I did a poll ages ago to ask if competitive was ruining 40k and 259 people said no and 339 people said yes. (This tells me it's pretty much split meaning there is no minority in terms of dakka dakka). Also depends on the country. In Northern England we hate competitiveness in terms of just wanting to win. It's all about the game and most thr time it doesn't matter if we win or lose! Someone mentioned darts and football for example. Sure, competitive players do exist but the vast majority play it in their back garden andnpub for the fun of it and nothing more. This is basically 40k if my experiences are to suggest anything.

In the end remember. We could be out there becoming rich successful competitive sports players with hundred of women and men on our arms and smoking hot muscled bodies but instead we're sat inside getting no sun or excorsise paying a fortune to paint plastic toy soldiers to maybe roll some dice and win a game once in a while.

SemperMortis wrote:

Andykp wrote:

leopard wrote:
Had a though the other day, Orks have a rule that makes them better in combat in large units, why not have one that makes them worse at shooting in large units.

so we have +1A at 20+ models, add -1BS at 11+ models

then lift the base BS to 4+

now smaller elite units are better, but the larger combat capable hordes don't get a buff.

Call it something like "rowdy mob: when there are more than 10 models in a unit orks spend too much time arguing and trying to impress each other, such units insure a -1BS modifier in the shooting phase"

I like it.

Its not a bad idea, but it flies in the face of the fluff of the game. Making everyone BS4 is fine, but then giving us a negative modifier when there are more boyz is just silly, if anything it would be the other way around.

Why does it fly in the face of any fluff? It makes good sense fluff wise and rules wise. And it would encourage a differenet style of play. Why would it make sense that they get accurate in large numbers. The getting rowdy idea is great.

Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.

Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.

 JawRippa wrote:
Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.

Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.

Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.

You just wouldn't count grots when counting number of models. No ork is going to get excited being near a grot.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:
Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.

Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.

Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.

Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.

This is actually fluffy as hell and seems quite effective

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:
Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.

Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.

Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.

Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.

I like it too! Simple but effective. Who would get it? Lootas, tank bustas? It's not a Huge list. I'd give it shoota boyz as well.

It would possibly help Flashgitz, make them BS3+ but when moving they would revert to 4+ (Where they should be in my opinion).

I'd like options though for our stupid Walkers Nautz, Dreadz Kanz and even the Stompa need a LOT MORE DAKKA!

It could apply to vehicles too. Or walkers. Bs4+ when they all target same thing. A gorkanaut unloading on you would be quite scary for change! I think anything already bs4+ shouldn't get any benifit. Flash gitz and kanz and the like.

Well, a rule called dakkadakkadakka should apply to everything that goes dakkadakkadakka, not things that go zzap or boom.

Basic ork logic.

 Vitali Advenil wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:
Actually I do like idea of Leopard. It gives needed buffs to orky shooting without making shooty greentide a no brainer.

Bikers, buggies and deffdreads would love it. The only unit that is kinda left out is probably Flashgits, since they need ammo runts to be viable and thus will have more than 10 models.

Or they could just make everything that isn't Boyz bs4+.

Or give every specialist shooting unit that isn't boyz the same "dakka dakka dakka" rule the dakkajet has. If the whole squad fires at one target, add +1 to the hit role in the shooting phase. It's both fluffy and a buff that's not overblown.

I agree with the Ork chorus! This is by far the best way to fix this. It keeps the fluff of a disorganised unit with crappy aim, yet provides for a bonus when the orks get down to business. I'd email GW with this, but I'm sure the codexes are already shipped and sitting on pallets somewhere.