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.

Also, lets be honest; GW has historically pushed "spam as theme" in a lot of places to sell more units. It's only recently we're seeing them clamp down on things that aren't great for the game and limit people's need to overspend on a single SKU.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

IG is an exception because in the fluff they are supposed to work togther to eventually bring the needed diversity of soldiers. On the table it is comletly logical, to respect the fluff, to have a few soldiers at least being part of troops through infantry platoons because either they are the regimen't light infantry, which is mandatory even in small number, or they are from another regiment, but the code is'nt varied whatsoever.

So i don't believe the lore here is an excuse as you claim it.

It is if you insist on fielding one full company as your army with nothing else permissible (which is Unit's thing).

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

IG is an exception because in the fluff they are supposed to work togther to eventually bring the needed diversity of soldiers. On the table it is comletly logical, to respect the fluff, to have a few soldiers at least being part of troops through infantry platoons because either they are the regimen't light infantry, which is mandatory even in small number, or they are from another regiment, but the code is'nt varied whatsoever.

So i don't believe the lore here is an excuse as you claim it.

It is if you insist on fielding one full company as your army with nothing else permissible (which is Unit's thing).

Here we return to the themes of Dakka Expanded Universe Canons. In the DEUC in question, the only reality that is pertinent is that which applies to armies composed of nothing but 3 tanks with a 12" x 10" footprint.

In the context of such a reality, comments like "Fall Back is a rule that is nearly impossible to utilize and the only instance when one player might fall back is if they have heavily outplayed their opponent!" and "spamming a single unit type is entirely fluffy but is not hindered by the rule of three" begin to make far more sense.

I choose to adhere to the theory that in this particular reality, hobby money is presented bi-annually to citizens in the form of a 200$ credit which must be used on only one single purchase. Constructing an army that includes such frivolous elements as "unit diversity" and "infantry support" would therefore be both incredibly time-consuming and expensive.

In future, I would refrain from such presumptuous and dismissive attitudes towards other users' DEUC, and consider the universal constants of the reality from which they hail.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

IG is an exception because in the fluff they are supposed to work togther to eventually bring the needed diversity of soldiers. On the table it is comletly logical, to respect the fluff, to have a few soldiers at least being part of troops through infantry platoons because either they are the regimen't light infantry, which is mandatory even in small number, or they are from another regiment, but the code is'nt varied whatsoever.

So i don't believe the lore here is an excuse as you claim it.

It is if you insist on fielding one full company as your army with nothing else permissible (which is Unit's thing).

Here we return to the themes of Dakka Expanded Universe Canons. In the DEUC in question, the only reality that is pertinent is that which applies to armies composed of nothing but 3 tanks with a 12" x 10" footprint.

In the context of such a reality, comments like "Fall Back is a rule that is nearly impossible to utilize and the only instance when one player might fall back is if they have heavily outplayed their opponent!" and "spamming a single unit type is entirely fluffy but is not hindered by the rule of three" begin to make far more sense.

I choose to adhere to the theory that in this particular reality, hobby money is presented bi-annually to citizens in the form of a 200$ credit which must be used on only one single purchase. Constructing an army that includes such frivolous elements as "unit diversity" and "infantry support" would therefore be both incredibly time-consuming and expensive.

In future, I would refrain from such presumptuous and dismissive attitudes towards other users' DEUC, and consider the universal constants of the reality from which they hail.

I'm not 100% sure what you're on about, but I do bring infantry in my superheavy tank list. I just make sure to have the 3 tanks first.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then why do we have FOC charts that actively avoid you having to use troops?

To not upset players who built stupid lists during 7th "what is a FOC lol just use whatever" edition.

tneva82 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
It's almost like GW realized that 120 orks charging on turn one with little to no counterplay involved isn't fair, balanced, or fun, and fixed the issue with the rule of three and deepstrike changes. Go them.

IF GW thought orks were broken before then they are even bigger idiots than I have thought. Lol. If so what a losers they are if they manage to lose to orks.

I actually didn't say broken. I want orks to have as many competitive builds and chances to win game as any other faction. I hope their codex is amazing.

What I don't want is any faction having the ability to force a game that is not fun, fair, or balanced in a tournement setting. It's a problem if it never wins, or if it wins every time.

Having half your army show up on turn one, shooting, and trying to assault isn't really what the game should be like. Orks don't do as well as some other factions (nids, BA, etc) but that doesn't make it okay.

It's boring for both players, assuming their goal is to have a tactical competitive contest between two people that share the same hobby, and not to build a list that effectively relies on a coin flip to see how many units make the charge and how many chaff units are in the way.

It also typically makes the mission irrelevant as one army (either one, depending on how that charge goes) usually just destroys the other.

These are all reasons for the needs of the game to override the possible facts of the fluff in a competitive setting.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then why do we have FOC charts that actively avoid you having to use troops?

To not upset players who built stupid lists during 7th "what is a FOC lol just use whatever" edition.

And that's stopped GW from doing things before?

The new CEO kind of didn't like how they operated before.

 SHUPPET wrote:

What your army was, was terrible game design. After it went, you are asking for a bunch of fairly designed armies to be destroyed for no other reason than "they deserve to feel this too". Assault is fine. Orks are getting a codex in due time.

And as I feel I have been following rule #1, the content of my posts will not be changing. It's not a "waaa I don't like when people disagree with me" button, I think you are whining because your spam army is no longer playable as opposed to actually trying to improve balance, so I'm going to call it.how I see it.

My army was a terrible game design because it was fluffy? So every army prior to right now that took more then 3 of the same option was a terrible game design? Now, i'll agree that certain spam armies are broken, but that doesn't mean the game was inherently broken. Some were just ridiculously obvious though, most from the Eldar codex, taking infinite scat bikes, Spiders or wraith knights as an example. But I don't really see how 90 Blood Axe Kommandos falls into that category since they are literally more expensive and notably worse versions of a regular boy, and also since you will on average only get 45-60 to successfully charge. Since screening is a thing I usually only kill a couple of screening meat shield units and then set myself up for a turn 2 assault that might accomplish something notable, this also helps as it forces my opponent to focus exclusively on the threat in front of them instead of the threat Walking up the field, the main force of 90 Ork Boyz with nobz and Warboss accoutrements. And as for "After it went" I am not asking for anything, I am just saying that an entire Klan of Orkz is now basically not playable in that theme because it doesn't allow enough specialty units from that theme, now if GW writes us a good codex that lets me give the Kommando key word to a number of different units then maybe it will be doable again.

Finally as to your "waaa I don't like when people disagree with me" comment, that is a wonderful example of Rule 1: Try to be polite instead of antagonistic, it actually makes the conversations more enjoyable.

 Jidmah wrote:


Yeah, you totally played that list because of the awesome fluff behind it

I have 3 passions with Orkz, Kult of Speed, Walker Lists and Kommandos. I dislike green tide, in fact I would go as far as to say I HATE green tide. Honestly, at this point, so long as GW gives us other options besides green tide to play in a competitive game I don't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:


I actually didn't say broken. I want orks to have as many competitive builds and chances to win game as any other faction. I hope their codex is amazing.

What I don't want is any faction having the ability to force a game that is not fun, fair, or balanced in a tournement setting. It's a problem if it never wins, or if it wins every time.

Having half your army show up on turn one, shooting, and trying to assault isn't really what the game should be like. Orks don't do as well as some other factions (nids, BA, etc) but that doesn't make it okay.

It's boring for both players, assuming their goal is to have a tactical competitive contest between two people that share the same hobby, and not to build a list that effectively relies on a coin flip to see how many units make the charge and how many chaff units are in the way.

It also typically makes the mission irrelevant as one army (either one, depending on how that charge goes) usually just destroys the other.

These are all reasons for the needs of the game to override the possible facts of the fluff in a competitive setting.

Well as it stands, the game is basically "Coin Flip did I make my Da Jump Charge" and then if I did, pray god it does enough to distract my opponent because on his 1st turn he will be wiping out entire sections of my army with his shooting phase. -1 and -2 to hits all over enemy armies negates all of our shooting to basically being pointless and then enemy units being so tough that the handful of units we can get into assault usually don't finish them off.

Just remember I am not advocating for Alpha Strike or Deep strike alpha strike, I am actively saying to get rid of it, but as it stands right now, Assault oriented armies have no way to inflict damage turn 1 and the enemy can fire their entire gun line at us with little to no repercussions. Watch any Batrep of IG or Tau Vs an Ork Horde army, turn 1 they annihilate anywhere from 45-80 Boyz.

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

What your army was, was terrible game design. After it went, you are asking for a bunch of fairly designed armies to be destroyed for no other reason than "they deserve to feel this too". Assault is fine. Orks are getting a codex in due time.

And as I feel I have been following rule #1, the content of my posts will not be changing. It's not a "waaa I don't like when people disagree with me" button, I think you are whining because your spam army is no longer playable as opposed to actually trying to improve balance, so I'm going to call it.how I see it.

My army was a terrible game design because it was fluffy?

Huh? Who even implied that? Fluffy armies are fine. Hell most armies are. There wouldn't be a game if we removed every fluffy army from the game, how does this even make sense? Gameplay design wise, your army was garbage. That's not how a match of 40k should play out. An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

SemperMortis wrote:
So every army prior to right now that took more then 3 of the same option was a terrible game design?

Did I say that.... hmmm you'll have to show me where I said that. My own army takes more than 3 of the same option, right now.


You've just gone off on a tangent with a complete strawman, arguing something we both know I didn't said. Come back and try again I guess.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


Yeah, you totally played that list because of the awesome fluff behind it

I have 3 passions with Orkz, Kult of Speed, Walker Lists and Kommandos. I dislike green tide, in fact I would go as far as to say I HATE green tide. Honestly, at this point, so long as GW gives us other options besides green tide to play in a competitive game I don't care.

That's kind of my point. You didn't play all those kommadoz because of their fluff, but because they were a good unit. You probably wouldn't have touched them with a pole in previous editions.

Yeah I feel like that's exactly what you were implying.


In one breath he's acting like I'm trying to say the list is bad because "its fluffy and we hate fluffy lists, stop restricting our fluff", in the next breath he's saying "yeah I only took it because its the strongest possible army I can make for Orks".


It's the most selfcontradictory nonsense I've seen on here in a while and that's quite a feat.

I'm not really seeing how 120 ork infantry models is not a green tide.

Just because they are kommandos and aren't running up the board doesn't change the fact that they are still massed infantry.

120 ork models is pretty much the minimum required without throwing the game. Any army that even tries to win a game in a tournament is running about twice as many infantry models.

Keep in mind that 120 orks is just 4 units of troops - most chaos armies run more.

In general "green tide" refers to an ork army archetype that relies on bringing more boyz than your opponent can kill. 120 is definitely not enough to archive that.

 SHUPPET wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

My army was a terrible game design because it was fluffy?

Huh? Who even implied that? Fluffy armies are fine. Hell most armies are. There wouldn't be a game if we removed every fluffy army from the game, how does this even make sense? Gameplay design wise, your army was garbage. That's not how a match of 40k should play out. An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

But doesn't it just buff the good armies even further? Someone with an army that has 6-8 really good options from they choices, will just have to take all 6 or 8, instead of the best 3. On the other hand someone whose codex has 2-3 good options that they had to spam ad infinitum to get a good list, suddenly find themself in a situation where their opposing armies didn't get weaker, but just different, while their own armies just got worse. How is that good design?

120 ork models is pretty much the minimum required without throwing the game. Any army that even tries to win a game in a tournament is running about twice as many infantry models.

Trick question, lets say an orc players comes to a tournament with 360+ models, counting the tide and the support. And then takes the full hour to do his first turn, gets maybe first blood and some points for objectives. How do orgenisers stop people from doing stuff like that. Spreading 360 models in the ideal 2" formation with checking LoS to each model, can easily take more then 60 sec per model.

By handing them a chess clock.

The issue here is that the ork index is simply not well designed. No one should be forced to field that many models in order to play his army. Once that issue is resolved, slow play and stalling is just a matter of judge awareness.

And there is seriously no reason to take 60 seconds to move an ork boy. You should at least be able to move half a mob in that time. Otherwise, don't bring orks, try knights or custodes.

Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Hah!

Even a horde army should be able to take a few big vehicles and such without severely gimping themselves though.

Karol wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

My army was a terrible game design because it was fluffy?

Huh? Who even implied that? Fluffy armies are fine. Hell most armies are. There wouldn't be a game if we removed every fluffy army from the game, how does this even make sense? Gameplay design wise, your army was garbage. That's not how a match of 40k should play out. An entire field of almost one unit, rushed at someones face turn one. Zero tactics. Good job to GW for removing this and similar armies by limiting the amount of units that can be taken which play like this in a single army.

But doesn't it just buff the good armies even further? Someone with an army that has 6-8 really good options from they choices, will just have to take all 6 or 8, instead of the best 3. On the other hand someone whose codex has 2-3 good options that they had to spam ad infinitum to get a good list, suddenly find themself in a situation where their opposing armies didn't get weaker, but just different, while their own armies just got worse. How is that good design?

Is there an example of an army that used to take it's only good unit 6 times and was considered good, but now it's considered bad because it can't? I've heard this argument tossed around but can't think of any actual case where the rule of three tipped an army over into garbage teir.

The deepstrike changes definitely hurt grey knights quite a bit, but that was less because they were actually good than it was the overwhelming power of first turn deepstrike propping up their garbage codex. Same goes for Kommando orks and whatever other first turn nonsense people were playing.

Removing broken elements of the game is likely to hurt certain armies is the short term, but is also slowing moving everyone towards a better gaming experience as long as GW is committed to fixing things in CA and FAQs.

I do think this CA is going to be the important one. If they don't do something to buff the Marines a lot of people are going to lose faith I think.

Stux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Hah!

Even a horde army should be able to take a few big vehicles and such without severely gimping themselves though.

I mean, 180 orks is only just over 1000 points. I'm not sure on a BW's cost, but if the BW is 200 then you can put 180 orks, 4 battlewagons, and a couple of HQs into the list fairly trivially.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Hah!

Even a horde army should be able to take a few big vehicles and such without severely gimping themselves though.

I mean, 180 orks is only just over 1000 points. I'm not sure on a BW's cost, but if the BW is 200 then you can put 180 orks, 4 battlewagons, and a couple of HQs into the list fairly trivially.

His point was more that the big stuff is all a waste of points. Being a horde army should not mean that only the horde is any good and everything else is rubbish.

That would make as much sense as saying that Guard is all about russes so everything except russes should be rubbish and you shouldn't expect to be able to make a good guard list that doesn't have a bunch of russes in it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Orks are as much a horde army as Tau are.

Seriously, I think the point difference between a boy and a fire warrior is like 1.

Why are

-warbikes
-battlewagons
-nobz
-killa kanz
-deff dreads
-deffcoptas
-meganobz
-deffbuggies

etc, etc etc etcetectectetecerete the ork codex has a TON of units in it, why are ALL those units doomed to be unviable because "orks are supposed to be nothing but a low quality horde thats their fluff."

Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Stux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Hah!

Even a horde army should be able to take a few big vehicles and such without severely gimping themselves though.

I mean, 180 orks is only just over 1000 points. I'm not sure on a BW's cost, but if the BW is 200 then you can put 180 orks, 4 battlewagons, and a couple of HQs into the list fairly trivially.

His point was more that the big stuff is all a waste of points. Being a horde army should not mean that only the horde is any good and everything else is rubbish.

That would make as much sense as saying that Guard is all about russes so everything except russes should be rubbish and you shouldn't expect to be able to make a good guard list that doesn't have a bunch of russes in it.

1) I have literally seen that argument (wrt Imperial Guard) before in the past.
2) I understand now - it's not that you're forced to take lots of orks, it's instead that taking anything other than just more orks is bad. I agree that is bad, and that's probably one of the things GW will address with the codex.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wait are people seriously suggesting that Orks shouldn't have to take tons of models to be competitive despite being a horde army?

That's like saying "knights shouldn't be restricted to taking only big LOW in their codex"

Orks are horde, and Knights aren't. You shouldn't really see a horde of knights anymore than you should see 5 Ork models.

Orks are as much a horde army as Tau are.

Seriously, I think the point difference between a boy and a fire warrior is like 1.

Why are

-warbikes
-battlewagons
-nobz
-killa kanz
-deff dreads
-deffcoptas
-meganobz
-deffbuggies

etc, etc etc etcetectectetecerete the ork codex has a TON of units in it, why are ALL those units doomed to be unviable because "orks are supposed to be nothing but a low quality horde thats their fluff."

I never once said they should be unviable. I just think expecting Orks not to horde it up is silly. Currently, those units are unviable for much the same reason anything other than Wulfen and Fliers are unviable for SW: lack of a codex.

That's the thing, there's a big difference between hording it up because boyz are good and hording it up because boyz are the only thing in your codex that's any good.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
That's the thing, there's a big difference between hording it up because boyz are great and hording it up because boyz are the only thing in your codex that's any good.

Yes, there is. I suspect the other stuff will improve when the codex drops, though I still wouldn't ask for Orks not to be a horde army that takes 180 boys.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
That's the thing, there's a big difference between hording it up because boyz are great and hording it up because boyz are the only thing in your codex that's any good.

Yes, there is. I suspect the other stuff will improve when the codex drops, though I still wouldn't ask for Orks not to be a horde army that takes 180 boys.

Totally but you should be able to take a list that isn't boy centric without it automatically being terrible. Same way that you can take a guard list that has no russes or artillery and only minimal guardsmen (because you need screens of some sort in this edition) and it can still be good.

Hopefully GW will pull out a decent codex for Orks. (and a really good buggy model!!!)

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
That's the thing, there's a big difference between hording it up because boyz are great and hording it up because boyz are the only thing in your codex that's any good.

Yes, there is. I suspect the other stuff will improve when the codex drops, though I still wouldn't ask for Orks not to be a horde army that takes 180 boys.

Totally but you should be able to take a list that isn't boy centric without it automatically being terrible. Same way that you can take a guard list that has no russes or artillery and only minimal guardsmen (because you need screens of some sort in this edition) and it can still be good.

Hopefully GW will pull out a decent codex for Orks. (and a really good buggy model!!!)

I dunno that guy running pretty much nothing but mek gunz and big gunz seemed like he did rather well at the London GT, finished in the top 10% iirc

Remember when Nob Troops were a thing in 5th with Warbosses? It was theoretically possible to build a Deffwing in those days (with Grot screens and other support elements) and it almost work.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Remember when Nob Troops were a thing in 5th with Warbosses? It was theoretically possible to build a Deffwing in those days (with Grot screens and other support elements) and it almost work.

I remember that phase in 5th where Nob Bikers absolutely broke the game, being the first unit (iirc) to be able to do the infamous wound allocation shenanigans.

I enjoy that the arguments on Dakka always seem to fluctuate between players demanding armies with a large model diversity have access a wide variety of competitive build options and armies with little to no diversity be limited to their "playstyle".

That said, I'm in the camp where, yeah, all the Ork stuff that isn't boyz should probably have a place in a competitive setting. Part of the reason it shouldn't be crippling if Orks never got allies is simply because they have a fantastic variety of model types and mostly just need them to actually be good.