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.

tneva82 wrote:

Ming wrote:
Going back to tactics.

Now the bikers became a viable Option thanks to the Warboss Aura. What do you think?

Are the bikers + stormboyz enough for a first turn Charge to build up some pressure? And then, on turn 2 bring in the chinorks and Kommandos?

How people keep getting first turn charges so easily? 12+3.5+7=way less than 24". Even warbike shouldn't be getting in easily if opponent isn't careless. Is there something I'm missing that gives extra speed besides advance?

Yea bikes move 14". 14+3.5+7=24.5".

Stormboyz are better because you can use mob up to sling stragglers forward if a unit bombs its advance roll.

Bikers have become better but they're still exceptionally overpriced. It could theoretically be a thing to help out the first 30 boyz but i'd not put my money on an opponent placing something valueable on the front edge of his deployment zone all the time. And it's the only case this tactics work.

I'd say that it's situationally useful but don't build an army around it. Bikers won't kill anything meaningful and won't be able to tie up the enemy cause they won't be able to surround the unit, so you'll just loose a bunch of points for no good reason if something goes slightly wrong.

I've pulled turn 1 stormboy charges a couple times but ended up with a bunch of dead stormboyz in exchange of a couple wounds to vehicles here and there.

I wonder if Meganobz have more of a place with the FAQ changes? They're slow as all hell, that's their issue but they can definitely absorb fire as they trundle up the field.

tneva82 wrote:

Ming wrote:
Going back to tactics.

Now the bikers became a viable Option thanks to the Warboss Aura. What do you think?

Are the bikers + stormboyz enough for a first turn Charge to build up some pressure? And then, on turn 2 bring in the chinorks and Kommandos?

How people keep getting first turn charges so easily? 12+3.5+7=way less than 24". Even warbike shouldn't be getting in easily if opponent isn't careless. Is there something I'm missing that gives extra speed besides advance?

Think about it this way: A bike has a 50% chance of charging something 27" away on its first turn, with both Waaagh and Ere we go. For Stormboyz that drops to about 25", (28" if they deploy from a transport in their first turn). Those are not reliable first-turn charges, but they are good enough that you will pull them off from time to time.

Secondly, a lot of people will underestimate their threat range. They will look at the Stormboyz statsheet and think, okay they move 12", and then they will be surprised when the stormboyz charge something 25" away from their starting point.

Thirdly if you cannot charge something in turn one, stormboyz usually has enough movement to find someplace without line of sight to the enemy, where they can shelter for a reliable 2nd turn charge.

The downside to bikes has been discussed at length: Warbikes are essentially boyz, but much more expensive. They have mediocre durability against small-arms, but they will be utterly annihilated by overcharged plasma. And overcharged plasma is everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I wonder if Meganobz have more of a place with the FAQ changes? They're slow as all hell, that's their issue but they can definitely absorb fire as they trundle up the field.

Unfortunately they are not very durable. Any antitank weapon will kill more points per shot when targeting Meganobz than when targeting a Leman Russ, Vindicator or Wave Serpent.

On the other hand, they are not really slow as hell. With Ere We Go and Waaag, Meganobz can run across the field and on their second turn, they will charge something 24" way, 50% of the time. 4+4+2D6 is 15", and 50% to make the 9" charge. That is a lot quicker than most people expect from a unit with 4" of movement.

tneva82 wrote:

How does that even work? Pretty much every ork army worth anything has one or two weird boyz. You smite a hole into whatever is standing on top of the ruin/landing pad and put your charging model there.

I really don't get how anything becomes "immune" to assault unless it's a single model standing on a very small platform.

You go to platform, enemy cannot assault you, you just became immune to assault. Explained many times. There's even pictures showing how it is. You just need ~1.3" high platform on which to stand and you are safe from assaults. Note not even dramatically high ruin or something. Barely taller than your models is sufficient.

Yet again. I kill one or two of those models on the platform. There is now room to place my warboss/daemon prince/hive tyrant/tau fire warrior onto the platform without any part of it's base hanging off the landing pad.
What exactly is preventing me from assaulting them?

pismakron wrote:
Unfortunately they are not very durable. Any antitank weapon will kill more points per shot when targeting Meganobz than when targeting a Leman Russ, Vindicator or Wave Serpent.

On the other hand, they are not really slow as hell. With Ere We Go and Waaag, Meganobz can run across the field and on their second turn, they will charge something 24" way, 50% of the time. 4+4+2D6 is 15", and 50% to make the 9" charge. That is a lot quicker than most people expect from a unit with 4" of movement.

Are you sure on the anti-tank weapon comparison? A single lascannon can conceivably kill a Meganob but it can't kill a Leman Russ, Vindicator or Wave Serpent? How is this comparison made?

I agree they're quicker than people expect with WAAAGHHH!! buff but we're making 2 big assumptions here - one is that the enemy units are exactly 24" away and the other is that they want to get in to combat with the unit that is closest at all. Using Meganobz to clear a screen is not using Meganobz correctly. I'm thinking stick them in cover turn 1 so they get a better save vs -AP weaponry then Da Jump them to bypass the screen and start nailing tanks. Obviously if everyone can agree we can Da Jump turn 1 is that a possible use for them? Combined with Trukk Bustas to help with other vehicles and some Storm Boyz for the screen to try and give them a first turn scare?

pismakron wrote:
Think about it this way: A bike has a 50% chance of charging something 27" away on its first turn, with both Waaagh and Ere we go. For Stormboyz that drops to about 25", (28" if they deploy from a transport in their first turn). Those are not reliable first-turn charges, but they are good enough that you will pull them off from time to time.

So enemy deploys 3.5" away.

Secondly, a lot of people will underestimate their threat range. They will look at the Stormboyz statsheet and think, okay they move 12", and then they will be surprised when the stormboyz charge something 25" away from their starting point.

My IG will be more like bit over 28" away...Stormtroopers will be looking to roll 10" even on max advance.

Thirdly if you cannot charge something in turn one, stormboyz usually has enough movement to find someplace without line of sight to the enemy, where they can shelter for a reliable 2nd turn charge.

That's what I do if possible though the way 8th ed LOS rules work out that's very rare. Hiding 25 stormboyz when tiniest 1mm sliver visible through window or something is visible from foot of shooter is bloody hard

The thing is that the buff also affects a warboss on warbike and other characters on warbikes (painboy and big mek). Those too could also Keep up with stormboyz providing some aura effects for durability. Of course it cost some Points but it builds up for some nice pressure on your Opponent. Then on turn 2 you bring in the kommandoz and you Keep jumping boyz. That will considerably reduce mobility of your enemy leaving time and space to camp on objectives.

Thoughts on that?

Rather than kommandos just get boyz. you are looking at reliable turn 3 charge with kommando's anyway so might just as well do it with boyz. Who will hit harder and be more survivable due to there being 50% more of them.

I do not want to pay 50% more for turn 3 kommando charge.

tneva82 wrote:
Rather than kommandos just get boyz. you are looking at reliable turn 3 charge with kommando's anyway so might just as well do it with boyz. Who will hit harder and be more survivable due to there being 50% more of them.

I do not want to pay 50% more for turn 3 kommando charge.

Of course there will be boyz. The good Thing about Kommandos is their versatilitym maybe I do no Need to Charge but secure an objective...

I would rather use da jump for that. Not likely I need 2+ objectives and can either send in cheap unit or more survivable than kommando.

 TedNugent wrote:
Question:

What about using mob up on units coming out of Trukks/Battlewagons?

Has anyone tried this strategem on Boyz mobs? How effective is it?

Its pretty damn effective. Personally, Its what I ran at a local tournament recently and it did great. I ran 2 trucks. 1 with 12 boyz and the other with 10 boyz in it with a warboss. Hopped out, advanced, mob up and charged. Because the boyz are 20+ they get a bonus attack. (4 attacks per) That gave me 8 pk attacks from that squad. You can push that number up higher but its really good. I think its the way to play orks. Always try to get as many buffs for attacks on the boyz as you can. Get up to 5-6 and you can kill almost anything in the game with a mob.

 Glitcha wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
Question:

What about using mob up on units coming out of Trukks/Battlewagons?

Has anyone tried this strategem on Boyz mobs? How effective is it?

Its pretty damn effective. Personally, Its what I ran at a local tournament recently and it did great. I ran 2 trucks. 1 with 12 boyz and the other with 10 boyz in it with a warboss. Hopped out, advanced, mob up and charged. Because the boyz are 20+ they get a bonus attack. (4 attacks per) That gave me 8 pk attacks from that squad. You can push that number up higher but its really good. I think its the way to play orks. Always try to get as many buffs for attacks on the boyz as you can. Get up to 5-6 and you can kill almost anything in the game with a mob.

What else did you take out of interest?

I've done a similar build but with double the units and it always felt risky because if I lost a few Boyz on the charge I'd be back to 3 attacks per which is a big hit on our damage output.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I wonder if Meganobz have more of a place with the FAQ changes? They're slow as all hell, that's their issue but they can definitely absorb fire as they trundle up the field.

I've tried fielding footslogging meganobz. Every time i did this, i wish i would have just taken more boyz. They simply don't work because suddenly any weapon with ap or multiple damage in your opponent's arsenal gets an ideal target.

And even if you get there, meganob'z damage output is quite underwhelming. You won't be nailing tanks left and right with meganobz. Be happy if you manage to wreck a single rhino with 5 killsaw ones. Yeah, boyz are plain better.

 koooaei wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I wonder if Meganobz have more of a place with the FAQ changes? They're slow as all hell, that's their issue but they can definitely absorb fire as they trundle up the field.

I've tried fielding footslogging meganobz. Every time i did this, i wish i would have just taken more boyz. They simply don't work because suddenly any weapon with ap or multiple damage in your opponent's arsenal gets an ideal target.

And even if you get there, meganob'z damage output is quite underwhelming. You won't be nailing tanks left and right with meganobz. Be happy if you manage to wreck a single rhino with 5 killsaw ones. Yeah, boyz are plain better.

Its sadly the same thing with our vehicles, war bikes, or walkers, all you have done is taken up more points with a vehicle that could be used for a boyz mob and have given the enemy a prime target for their anti-tank weapons, of which there will be many. The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY REASON we do reasonably well in tournaments right now is because we are a horde army in a competitive META filled with vehicles, Primarchs and monstrous creatures.

Sharing this with Orks players since they seem to be suffering too

 GuardStrider wrote:
The official FB posted this.

Edit: Uh and deleted it. Maybe they decided to fix the wording better.

it's been posted back up again


LINK

Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

Nope. Because problem still remains. Only OFFICIAL word currently is the beta rules which doesn't say clearly one way or other. Then we have posts from source which notes themselves they are not official. Thus if opponent wants to say "no" for my Da Jump I have no official source.

Unlike you I don't claim to know rule writers meaning better than they. And so far all we have from the rule writers is the beta rules which is very unclear on the matter which can't be used to prove either way.

Unofficial source does not proof make. I need proof if I want to be sure to be able to use Da Jump.

And btw I haven't claimed it's no for sure. What I have been saying it's not clear either way and can be read either way. I WANT it to be yes. I think it was intended to be yes. BUT RULES AS WRITTEN ARE UNCLEAR ON THE MATTER! And so far we have no official source clearing up meaning if I'm in enviroment where RAW is important unofficial house rules don't cut it. Expecting opponents to have to follow FB teams house rules is same as claiming they should follow my or your house rules as well.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

Nope. Because problem still remains. Only OFFICIAL word currently is the beta rules which doesn't say clearly one way or other. Then we have posts from source which notes themselves they are not official. Thus if opponent wants to say "no" for my Da Jump I have no official source.

Unlike you I don't claim to know rule writers meaning better than they. And so far all we have from the rule writers is the beta rules which is very unclear on the matter which can't be used to prove either way.

Unofficial source does not proof make. I need proof if I want to be sure to be able to use Da Jump.

And btw I haven't claimed it's no for sure. What I have been saying it's not clear either way and can be read either way. I WANT it to be yes. I think it was intended to be yes. BUT RULES AS WRITTEN ARE UNCLEAR ON THE MATTER! And so far we have no official source clearing up meaning if I'm in enviroment where RAW is important unofficial house rules don't cut it. Expecting opponents to have to follow FB teams house rules is same as claiming they should follow my or your house rules as well.

So even though that picture above clearly shows their intent (not to mention this is BETA rules after all), nothing short of it being printed out on the Big FAQ will make the Jump work for you? Seems like its more of an issue with you having obtuse opponents rather than the rules team being the main problem.

 Grimskul wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

Nope. Because problem still remains. Only OFFICIAL word currently is the beta rules which doesn't say clearly one way or other. Then we have posts from source which notes themselves they are not official. Thus if opponent wants to say "no" for my Da Jump I have no official source.

Unlike you I don't claim to know rule writers meaning better than they. And so far all we have from the rule writers is the beta rules which is very unclear on the matter which can't be used to prove either way.

Unofficial source does not proof make. I need proof if I want to be sure to be able to use Da Jump.

And btw I haven't claimed it's no for sure. What I have been saying it's not clear either way and can be read either way. I WANT it to be yes. I think it was intended to be yes. BUT RULES AS WRITTEN ARE UNCLEAR ON THE MATTER! And so far we have no official source clearing up meaning if I'm in enviroment where RAW is important unofficial house rules don't cut it. Expecting opponents to have to follow FB teams house rules is same as claiming they should follow my or your house rules as well.

So even though that picture above clearly shows their intent (not to mention this is BETA rules after all), nothing short of it being printed out on the Big FAQ will make the Jump work for you? Seems like its more of an issue with you having obtuse opponents rather than the rules team being the main problem.

Correct. This needs to be in the FAQ, not a two-bit promo facebook post. Why is this so hard for you to get?

This is why we can't have nice things.

Dude tneva clock the link. They literally said this was written by the rules studio. It’s legit.
Any unit that is deployed on the board and uses any ability to move after the game begins is good to good.

 ZoBo wrote:
This is why we can't have nice things.

I know, right?

Has anyone told poor GW that their stuff isn't allowed to be official, and they have to follow "rules" not write them?

I don't know why I'm bothering honestly, because hurdur it's just a screenshot, hurdur it's just the GW facebook team, hurdur whatever other random excuse I can think of...nevertheless, read the comments

There are a lot of abilities that are allowed to move outside your deployment zone turn 1. All psychic powers, most strategem , several abilities/items/effects and all genestealers. As long as you deploy on the board first you can port to anywhere on the table. However you have to deploy without knowing if you go first or second. This only limits units with traditional deepstrike from reserves which includes kommandos. Which do have a purpose as turn 2+ objective grabbers.
I think the rules are good and address the issue with heavy alpha strike armies or the old 7th edition entire drop pod army null deploy nonsense. However drop pods are basically useless now and should have some form of exception to this rule or drop the price significantly.

I'm super glad I have something to point to now. I've lost this argument in a tournament before (Da Jump counts as reserves) and obviously I want to Da Jump turn 1.

I'll say one thing though, that facebook direct quote from the studio is exactly the reason why we had this issue: "treat these units as having arrived from reserves" is shorthand for "these units can not move again for any reason and count as moved when firing heavy weapons". That's honestly quite arbitrary. Being treated like reserves has huge implications; however, being unable to move again is extremely clear and narrow in its implications. They should not be used interchangeably IMO.

I guess I'm just kinda on the same mental wavelength as whoever worded that FAQ...it's intention was always perfectly clear to me

...that said, me and my particular mental wavelength are also not in charge of wording official rules for a ravenous mob of overly pedantic rules lawyers...and frankly, I wouldn't want to be

...basically, they really should hire an overly pedantic rules-lawyer type, to go over this stuff, and report back on the myriad of ways it can be misread and loopholed, and generally unfeth it.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

Nope. Because problem still remains. Only OFFICIAL word currently is the beta rules which doesn't say clearly one way or other. Then we have posts from source which notes themselves they are not official. Thus if opponent wants to say "no" for my Da Jump I have no official source.

Unlike you I don't claim to know rule writers meaning better than they. And so far all we have from the rule writers is the beta rules which is very unclear on the matter which can't be used to prove either way.

Unofficial source does not proof make. I need proof if I want to be sure to be able to use Da Jump.

And btw I haven't claimed it's no for sure. What I have been saying it's not clear either way and can be read either way. I WANT it to be yes. I think it was intended to be yes. BUT RULES AS WRITTEN ARE UNCLEAR ON THE MATTER! And so far we have no official source clearing up meaning if I'm in enviroment where RAW is important unofficial house rules don't cut it. Expecting opponents to have to follow FB teams house rules is same as claiming they should follow my or your house rules as well.

Directly at you.. just you, nobody else.. Explain to me how models from a transport can legally disembark outside of your own deployment zone on turn 1.

tneva82 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Oh would you look at that. GW clarifies further what it shouldn't have had to in the first place. Man imagine how many more models we'd get out of GW if they didn't have to waste their time doing gak like this.

Tneva and the rest of the no da jump brigade you happy now?

Nope. Because problem still remains. Only OFFICIAL word currently is the beta rules which doesn't say clearly one way or other. Then we have posts from source which notes themselves they are not official. Thus if opponent wants to say "no" for my Da Jump I have no official source.

Unlike you I don't claim to know rule writers meaning better than they. And so far all we have from the rule writers is the beta rules which is very unclear on the matter which can't be used to prove either way.

Unofficial source does not proof make. I need proof if I want to be sure to be able to use Da Jump.

And btw I haven't claimed it's no for sure. What I have been saying it's not clear either way and can be read either way. I WANT it to be yes. I think it was intended to be yes. BUT RULES AS WRITTEN ARE UNCLEAR ON THE MATTER! And so far we have no official source clearing up meaning if I'm in enviroment where RAW is important unofficial house rules don't cut it. Expecting opponents to have to follow FB teams house rules is same as claiming they should follow my or your house rules as well.

OK. Some people aren't worth arguing with. You are one of those people.

You can wait for 'official' confirmation while the rest of us play the game. This community is unreal. Genuinely.