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.

In another topic i made the statement that if i wanted relaibility I would play Space Marines (I do, BT in fact) and that Random and Erratic is more an Ork thing (I play them too).

I was told that the statement that rand om and erratic was more of an ork thing was 'Entirely False'.

So, i thought i'd see what you all thought. Which is the more random army?

Feel free to factor in playstyle, fluff, specific units..


*Edited for accuracy of quote'

Orks.

Orks, by far.

A better question would be 'Are orks random and erratic?'

Comparing them to C:SM, the most 'stable', beginner-friendly and basic 'dex is going to result in a pretty skewed poll result.

Henners91 wrote:A better question would be 'Are orks random and erratic?'

Comparing them to C:SM, the most 'stable', beginner-friendly and basic 'dex is going to result in a pretty skewed poll result.

Yes, but look at his original post. This thread is in response to someone's claim that orks are more erratic than SM.

I answered orks, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could make a serious case otherwise. Could you provide a link to the other thread that sparked this conversation? I'm interested to see if there's any supporting evidence, or if there's something else going on, or what.

The argument is because orks have a lot of weak hits you will be closer to your average then the SM few strong hits.

If a unit of Orks roll 30 dice and average 5 kills for the same number of points SM roll 12 dice to get 5 kills the orks will be more consistent with their 5 kills because a single off roll will have less impact than the SM few rolls.

Chaos. Ever see a khorne lord with a bloodfeeder? 65 percent of the time he wipes out a squad. 35 percent of the time he cuts off his own balls.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Henners91 wrote:A better question would be 'Are orks random and erratic?'

Comparing them to C:SM, the most 'stable', beginner-friendly and basic 'dex is going to result in a pretty skewed poll result.

Yes, but look at his original post. This thread is in response to someone's claim that orks are more erratic than SM.

Actually, It was my claim that Orks were erratic and random, whereas SM are reliable.


Feel free to answer the question 'Are Orks Random and Erratic? ' Instead though. I just wanted to open this up to a wider audience.

The statement was not just a request for the mathematical efficiency of the races basic trooper in question, but also the feel and fluff of the races in question, and the number of units that have a random efffect or whose performance is dependent on a random roll in either codex,

I'm well aware that a 30 strong boyz unit has a higher average number of hits than a 10 strong marine squad (though mine generally don't, as the dice gods hate me). That's not the only question in play Are the Orks as an army erratic in effect and prone to random events in play?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kevlar wrote:Chaos. Ever see a khorne lord with a bloodfeeder? 65 percent of the time he wipes out a squad. 35 percent of the time he cuts off his own balls.

Better than a one in three chance of cabaret instead of carnage. That's why Chaos is so great


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's the link to the other thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/434105.page

Orks have more choices which involve "rolling on this unit's custom table of death" special rules than any other army I can think of. I've seeen an ork player with two Big Meks blow up half his army first turn. Weirdboyz, Shokk Attack Gun, that crazy table Trukks have to roll on, plus the Painboy table and probably another half-dozen I missed. Most similar units in other Codices have a minimum result of 'no result.' Orks have way over the top cool stuff that can happen on these tables, and hugely terrible things that can happen as well. That's why they got my vote.

Actual, the person who is telling you that would be correct at some levels. It's depends on what you are rolling for.


For example if you have thirty boys when you roll dice in theory and by looking at a bell curve you could get a better distribution. When rolling your say 90 attacks from charging your going to get a better average +or - some from the bell curve.


With marines you have better chance of hitting but since your rolling a smaller sample set such as 5 dice or your shooting your more prone rolling lopsided or a miss. Like when you see someone roll 5 1's. It's a lot harder to do that with 30 orks.


You could view it in different ways but there is some truth to what the person told you.

I aknowledge that on some levels, with certain units, orks can be more reliable than SM.


His statement was that calling Orks erratic and random was ENTIRELY WRONG (yes he did all-caps it) which is incorrect.

I say orks. It's why I like them. It's funny when bad stuff happens to my own units. I like to just toss the dice and see what happens. I'll laugh as much as my opponent will.

Orks can be very random and whacky. More so in fluff then on table top, but they do have a random streak.


Shock Attack Guns are all about random, Trukks blow up randomly, Looted Wagons may just drive forward, Lootas have a random number of shots...

Plenty of random coupled with reliability.

Darkwynn wrote:Actual, the person who is telling you that would be correct at some levels. It's depends on what you are rolling for.


For example if you have thirty boys when you roll dice in theory and by looking at a bell curve you could get a better distribution. When rolling your say 90 attacks from charging your going to get a better average +or - some from the bell curve.


With marines you have better chance of hitting but since your rolling a smaller sample set such as 5 dice or your shooting your more prone rolling lopsided or a miss. Like when you see someone roll 5 1's. It's a lot harder to do that with 30 orks.


You could view it in different ways but there is some truth to what the person told you.

LOL, i feel consoled that there are at least some people who speaks sense and from a competitive level.

And EVERYONE, please don't be misled by false claims. The claim :-

Ascalam wrote:I was told that the statement that orks are random and erratic was false in every way.

is a lie, LOL You guys have the link to the thread. In fact, you guys would realize that Ascalam started rebuting my point with reference to "number of hits", and "number of shots", until he realized the mathhammer trumped him. Seeing that he can no longer argue from that perspective, he then switches and decides to make accusations that i said orks were not random in other aspects (fluff, fluffy units), when my argument was all along based solely on the Law of Large Number.

Ascalam, i have only 1 word for you - PATHETIC

I think the poll speaks for itself.

You have the link.

I repeatedly brought up non-mathhammer related sources of Ork randomness, which were ignored.

Make up your own minds In any case this poll is an open ended question, regarding all aspects of Ork randomness.


Isseyfaran: One word back at you. Chill

Mathhammer is not the only thing this game runs on, and not everyone subscribes to it as the be all and end all.

Orks are a random and erratic race in my opinion (not everyone's, mine.) because their codex contains more random-roll based units, more variance of possible results due to higher shot count (despite the tendency for numbers to lean towards the average number ofr a D6 of 3.5) and the fluff stating that they are so.

Feel free to disagree with me, but keep it civil.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ascalam wrote:
Pretty much.

If i wanted reliably good i'd play SM.

Randomly erratic is more of an ork thing


ENTIRELY FALSE.

Orks give you a result closer to the average due to the "Law of Large numbers".


That wasn't your statement then?

Ascalam wrote:I repeatedly brought up non-mathhammer related sources of Ork randomness, which were ignored.

Because my argument hinges on mathhammer theory right FROM the start. Anything else wasn't what i was arguing for. If you wanted to explain that by "erratic and random" you meant it in a fluffy way, you could have said that right from the beginning. But amusingly, you didnt, and actually rebuted my point based on mathhammer (or rather the Law of Large Number theory), until the point when you realise you got your interpretation all wrong. That's when you started to stir a drama (in order to conceal your embarassment) and accuse me of arguing for something which i didnt in the first place. That's plain sad.

You know what? You are as funny as Death Reaper is. Take that as a compliment though

Actually being a Comedian is my day job.

DeathReaper wrote:Actually being a Comedian is my day job.

I should have guessed it. Your comments are mostly nothing more than jokes.

in 40k General that is true.

In YMDC that is not true.

Isseyfaran wrote:

Ascalam wrote:I repeatedly brought up non-mathhammer related sources of Ork randomness, which were ignored.

Because my argument hinges on mathhammer theory right FROM the start. Anything else wasn't what i was arguing for. If you wanted to explain that by "erratic and random" you meant it in a fluffy way, you could have said that right from the beginning. But amusingly, you didnt, and actually rebuted my point based on mathhammer (or rather the Law of Large Number theory), until the point when you realise you got your interpretation all wrong. That's when you started to stir a drama (in order to conceal your embarassment) and accuse me of arguing for something which i didnt in the first place. That's plain sad.

You know what? You are as funny as Death Reaper is. Take that as a compliment though

Actually i argued in part from a mathematical perspective, and part from a fluff/number of random units perspective.

Check the other thread. I don't mind waiting.

I suggested random units in the ork codex, and that their fluff indicated that they were random, You told me that this was bad list building IIRC, despite the fact we weren't discussing a list or the competitiveness of these units in a tournament setting, but their random nature.


If this topic gets you so riled up, why do you keep posting? I have already suggested agreeing to disagree, but it only works if we both shut up

Ascalam wrote:Actually i argued in part from a mathematical perspective, and part from a fluff/number of random units perspective.

Check the other thread. I don't mind waiting.

I suggested random units in the ork codex, and that their fluff indicated that they were random, You told me that this was bad list building IIRC, despite the fact we weren't discussing a list or the competitiveness of these units in a tournament setting, but their random nature.


If this topic gets you so riled up, why do you keep posting? I have already suggested agreeing to disagree, but it only works if we both shut up

I am posting because you told everyone a lie.
The mathematical perspective was what i am after, and was also the basis upon which i said your comments "erratic and random" was wrong. If you wanted to explain that you meant it in other ways, say so. You didnt. You thought your interpretation of the math theory was right, but ended up totally wrong.

The fluffy perspective wasnt what i am after, and so i ignore them whenever you tried to argue on that. Why should i argue that water are liquid? I don't argue for the sake of arguing, and only argue the things that i put forth in the first place - unlike you.

Whatever, man,

That thread is done, and people can make up their own minds.

*ignored*

Of course 30 orks fighting 10 SM will have a higher chance of killing them. The SM are out numbered 3:1

By your logic, Tau are good in CC as 15 FWs have a high chance of beating 5 orks.

How is this even a question? The answer is insanely obvious. Hint: It's the codex with a table for deciding what happens when your common transport explodes, random numbers associated with half the special guns, and variable squad leadership based on number of models.

/buckleybox: It's Orks.

Brother SRM wrote:How is this even a question? The answer is insanely obvious. Hint: It's the codex with a table for deciding what happens when your common transport explodes, random numbers associated with half the special guns, and variable squad leadership based on number of models.

/buckleybox: It's Orks.

Because some posters just can't stand common sense and logic.

Shokk Attack Gun and WeirdBoyz, nothing else is needed.

But another two good examples are "Dont touch dat" and "Ramshackle."

TedNugent wrote:Shokk Attack Gun and WeirdBoyz, nothing else is needed.

But another two good examples are "Dont touch dat" and "Ramshackle."

And stormboyz and zzap kannons and deffgunz and snazz guns...

I love orks.

I've said it before, but:

What other race would have a man portable, shoulder mounted, unstable warphole generator ordinance weapon, and actually field it, knowing that there are good odds that it won't provide the result you were actually after.

Only Orks, because whatever happend itz dead gud anywayz, or ovverwyz gud fer a Laff