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.

I'm more or less hoping that Mekz and Painboyz can be taken as HQ's that don't take up a spot in the force org chart like other factions have gotten, that way we can get a few extra wrenches for our vehicles or some extra stim packs for our Boyz, able to throw them around in squads that normally didn't have access to such goodies. But, we will see what happens.

I figure Weirdboyz will stay as HQ choices, which I'd be alright with. Would allow us to choose between Shooty, Assault, or potentially Psychic motifs for our attack strats, depending on how good the Weirdboyz Psychic table is (assuming we get our own)

 adamsouza wrote:

 BigMekGearGrinda wrote:

Thanks Deunstephe! So the Warboss version (don't know where I got Warlord from ) is the one rumored to be $ 200, correct?

Were not the other limited edition codex priced at $100 ?

Just like the versions, prices are all over the map too. I'm trying to figure out how much the Warboss version is going to set me back. A $ 100 delta between the various posts is a huge difference.

 Multimoog wrote:

TableTopJosh wrote:
I understand that, but it would suck if our 2 HQ choices are clogged up more. We orks need our warbosses on bikes and mega warbosses to do some big killing and to make our nobs and meganobs troops.

Clearly we are not AM but AM was obviously made for 7th edition and thats why they made the pyskers not count towards HQ.
So if we orks dont get some of same love I will be disappointed. Hence my previous comment.

Well, if you need more HQ, just take another detachment. That way, you can have a detachment with a Warboss that unlocks Nobz troops (assuming that Nobz can still be taken as troops - rumors are that bikes are no longer troops in any case).

Unless playing a super friendly match, multiple primary detachments are really silly and usually restricted t one, so saying use multiple force charts or unbound isnt really a fix Hell even GW restricted it for 1 in their tournament rules.
I just hope they give us lots of options like they did for AM, thats all im sayong

what gw tournament rules are you talking about?

TableTopJosh wrote:
]Unless playing a super friendly match, multiple primary detachments are really silly and usually restricted t one, so saying use multiple force charts or unbound isnt really a fix Hell even GW restricted it for 1 in their tournament rules.

This is not something I've seen or heard of coming up anywhere at all and sounds incredibly arbitrary/pedantic. Then again my local meta had nothing against playing double FOC at 2000+ so maybe we're just incredibly laid back, fun-loving players.

Lol.

Well Frontline gaming was talking about a tournament run by GW or something like that and they were limiting the primary detachments to 1.
Myself and I'm sure a ton of other people don't want to play a completely imbalanced game straight out of the rule book intended for complete causal play. It has nothing to do with being lless laid back or enjoying the game less, but rather creating a competitive game that rewards strategic and tactical list building and play. Of course you are always free to play unbound games and fun campaigns, no one is stopping you.

TableTopJosh wrote:
Lol.

Well Frontline gaming was talking about a tournament run by GW or something like that and they were limiting the primary detachments to 1.
Myself and I'm sure a ton of other people don't want to play a completely imbalanced game straight out of the rule book intended for complete causal play. It has nothing to do with being lless laid back or enjoying the game less, but rather creating a competitive game that rewards strategic and tactical list building and play. Of course you are always free to play unbound games and fun campaigns, no one is stopping you.

Nobody's saying anything about playing unbound - multiple detachments is completely in line with the FOC. You were the one complaining that GW might not allow for as many infantry types/characters as you'd like in the Ork FOC, when there's an option to field as many as you like/need. What would be the difference in making Meks/Painboyz/Weirdboys be models you can only take with other units versus having them be HQ? Are you suggesting the abilities they bring to the game be pared back as well (not bloody likely)? Which is sillier - a special FOC for Orks or just using the rules as stated for a Battle Hardened FOC Army in the BRB? What's not strategic in working within the guidelines provided for creating a Battle Hardened FOC Army? Where's the imbalance if your opponent has access to the same rules when creating their own Battle Hardened FOC Army? Baseless complaints for the sake of complaining.

oh i completely agree with you josh, i was just asking what gw tournament you were referring to. i didn't know they had any involvement in that scene anymore. i have more fun playing the balanced player restricted games, if i wanted to play a spend more money to win game, id play MTG.

i also agree that saying play 4x detachments or unbound isn't a fix, it needs to be balanced in the codex to be competitive without spamming detachments.

But placing a restriction on how many primary detachments you can use unfairly advantages armies that have a decent array of useful units evenly distributed amongst the various slots, and disadvantages armies that are purposefully built as "horde armies".

It's like how in Fantasy the most recent edition moved to percentages instead of a 0-3 restriction on types of characters. O & G and Skaven players loved the change because it made the cost of their characters actually make some kind of difference, allowing them to take multiples and properly representing the kinds of armies that kind of race would field.

Same thing here, limiting the number of primary detachments to 1 unnecessarily advantages armies like Space Marines or Tau, whilst disadvantaging Orks and Tyranids.

Uh, I mean, lol no u

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
Same thing here, limiting the number of primary detachments to 1 unnecessarily advantages armies like Space Marines or Tau, whilst disadvantaging Orks and Tyranids.

ESPECIALLY in larger games where you might need more support units/HQ to take care of fragile troops. Making Ork characters be restricted to inclusion with units is actually more unbalanced than simply making therm be HQ accessible with multiple detachments (see: Painboys only being available to Nob mobz). The argument that taking more than one detachment is imbalanced is ridiculous on its face. It also frees players to field more diverse army types as well, rather than just relying on one acceptable "'net build" that was so common in previous editions, leaving most of the Codex to sit on the shelf.

" The argument that taking more than one detachment is imbalanced is ridiculous on its face." Lmao.

If you think allowing multiple detachments gives weaker armies a better chance and more detachments balances the game then you really don't understand the current state of it. Because obviously with more detachments the higher tier armies won't take more of the units that make them higher tier. Allowing a weaker army to bring an extra HQ to protect your troops is a lot worse then 3 more riptides, 2 more farseers, more Daemons, and more Wraithknights.
This has nothing to do with Ork rumors anymore. All I want is for Orks to have flexibility to take painboyz and weridboyz with their HQ's without having to do multiple detachments.

Anyone else getting the feeling that the codex is not going to be much different than the last one?

TableTopJosh wrote:
" The argument that taking more than one detachment is imbalanced is ridiculous on its face." Lmao.

If you think allowing multiple detachments gives weaker armies a better chance and more detachments balances the game then you really don't understand the current state of it. Because obviously with more detachments the higher tier armies won't take more of the units that make them higher tier. Allowing a weaker army to bring an extra HQ to protect your troops is a lot worse then 3 more riptides, 2 more farseers, more Daemons, and more Wraithknights.
This has nothing to do with Ork rumors anymore. All I want is for Orks to have flexibility to take painboyz and weridboyz with their HQ's without having to do multiple detachments.

Does this mean you play with no points limit?

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Anyone else getting the feeling that the codex is not going to be much different than the last one?

No, not really.

Johnnytorrance wrote:
Anyone else getting the feeling that the codex is not going to be much different than the last one?

Very much so. I think the new mob rule table, psychic powers and rearranging the FOC are going to be the only really major changes.

However, minor changes can have big consequences for tactics in a system as complicated as 40k. One unit getting 10% cheaper while another gets 10% less powerful and a few new choices totally changes what could be the best tool for a given job. Tankbustas replacing Lootas as the medium-vehicle hunters of choice would alter ork playstyle dramatically, because they have a much shorter range but are more mobile.

+1 for hoping that tank bustas get better. Been holding on to the bombs from the dakkajet kit to make tank hammers.

Makinit wrote:
+1 for hoping that tank bustas get better. Been holding on to the bombs from the dakkajet kit to make tank hammers.

Well, Rokkits on vehicles got cheaper, so Tankbustas may drop in price as well.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
What I'm getting from this is that the "Green Mob" table is a d6 roll whenever the boyz need to take a leadership test. On the roll of a 1 they automatically pass whatever they need to.

Awesome. More random cinematic tables!

People should be happy that they're heard, and the rules are going to be in white dwarf allowing for a more organic game with solutions to issues outside of 2+ years between codicies.

So they did something dumb (taking a unit out of the book) and then decided to put it back in... and charge for it... and we should be happy about this?

Or, to put it another way:

 insaniak wrote:
Although fewer of them might be unhappy if GW didn't remove an option from the codex just because they couldn't be bothered to release a model for it sometime in the last 15 years, and are all paranoid about other companies 'stealing' sales of the model that they don't make...

Weird, it was a double post and now it isn't a double post. Crazy forum be crazy.


Anyway I was just responding to H.B.M.C's mention of the new "Green Mob" table, just to say that I hope that it's simply an addition to the rule, and not a complete revision of it.

Being fearless/able to substitute leadership for # of Orks PLUS the ability to potentially stick around anyway even if you fail, that'd be good.

Having no usual immunity and relying on rolling a 1 to get back what we once had...not great.


EDIT: Cheers for the advice, H.

Whenever you see a double post, hold down the control key and hit F5. It will do a fresh load of the page, and you'll see there's no double post.

If you quickly edit the double post when you see it, then really you're just editing the original post, so when you come back you'll have effectively deleted your post because there was no double post in the first place. It was a display error. This forum software is weird.

 zachwho wrote:
what gw tournament rules are you talking about?

He must be talking about the rules for warhammer world event.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

 paqman wrote:

 zachwho wrote:
what gw tournament rules are you talking about?

He must be talking about the rules for warhammer world event.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

Funny thing is that the rumoured new Ork detachment will be able to be taken as many times as you like at Throne of Skulls, as it's not a "Combined Arms" detachment!

MaxT wrote:

 paqman wrote:

 zachwho wrote:
what gw tournament rules are you talking about?

He must be talking about the rules for warhammer world event.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2014/05/24/new-warhammer-40000-rules-and-our-events-in-2014/

Funny thing is that the rumoured new Ork detachment will be able to be taken as many times as you like at Throne of Skulls, as it's not a "Combined Arms" detachment!

So I can go Warboss, Warboss, Warboss, 10 grots, 10 grots, 10 grots
Warboss, Warboss, Warboss, 10 grots, 10 grots, 10 grots
Warboss, Warboss, Warboss, 10 grots, 10 grots, 10 grots
Warboss, Warboss, Warboss, 10 grots, 10 grots, 10 grots ad nauseum?

Is this a new deathstar? A unit of 15 warbosses, like an ultra-nobz mob!

Sure, why not?

But, how would that be a good army?

 Jidmah wrote:
Sure, why not?

But, how would that be a good army?

15 warbosses stomping around a battlefield krumping 'eadz and blowing stuff up is a good army.

It won't win much but then I don't think I'd care that much, I'd be too busy laughing my arse off everytime they beat an Imperial Knight to death with a combination of big choppaz and power klaws.

For an apocalypse game once i used 2 bigmeks, a weirdboy and 7 warbosses in a stomps and they wrecked 3 baneblades in cc

Anyone else notice the Looted Wagon's unit composition is 1 Gorkanaught, hello 38 point Walker army

 Krellnus wrote:
Anyone else notice the Looted Wagon's unit composition is 1 Gorkanaught, hello 38 point Walker army

Just 1 or 2 people. Per page.

 Koppo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sure, why not?

But, how would that be a good army?

15 warbosses stomping around a battlefield krumping 'eadz and blowing stuff up is a good army.

It won't win much but then I don't think I'd care that much, I'd be too busy laughing my arse off everytime they beat an Imperial Knight to death with a combination of big choppaz and power klaws.

An army that doesn't win much is not a good army.

It actually isn't much of a surprise that 900 points of warboss beat 300 points of knight. The knight might kill one or two though.

UltraPrime wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:
Anyone else notice the Looted Wagon's unit composition is 1 Gorkanaught, hello 38 point Walker army

Just 1 or 2 people. Per page.

Have an exalt.