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.

TLR

Burnas can mishap in the movement phase on the roll of a 1 and blow up (if they roll badly on the mishap table)

Burnas provide 4+ cover for all units within 2" ( potentially could pump it up to a 3+ for the burnas themselves or give the unit shrouded)

Meks are partially there to watch over the Burnas so they add rerolls on the mishap table 1 per Mekboy (Including big meks)

Burnas are now bulky, If a mek is in the unit and the unit mishaps inside a vehicle it always count as rolling a 1 (Mekboys care about their toys)

I guess a speed of play change could be to just have set averages for the wounds a loted for the blasts










Ok, so basically the idea is to increase the utility of burna boys by themselves, Kommandos and Lootas are pretty efficient on their own as units, but burna boys aren't.

You have to give them additional assets like transportation, or somehow walk them behind a wall.

So, my idea is to give them a buff, and a nerf...which (hopefully) in total increases their utility on their own, while not breaking them, and giving them a bit more fluffy characteristics.


So the idea is to do something similar to Stormboyz, on the role of a 1 in the movement phase, they get bored and light someones pants on fire. They're pretty keen on fire as a group, and so they've gained a bit of a resistance to it. A roll of a 5+ and the Burna notices his pants on fire puts it out, and then randomly krumps a nearby ork whom he thinks lit him on fire. (fluff a random burna suffers a wound)

on a 3 the ork gets the fire under control and wounds a random nearby burna/ 2 and the unit suffers a small blast template no cover save/ 3 and the unit suffers a large blast template no cover save (dunno what the strengths aught to be)

Adding a Mekboy lets you re-roll the mishap table for however many Meks you have in the unit (including big meks)

The upside to giving Burnas this sort of mishap table is that now, they become mobile cover, like the Bikes, everyone in 2" around them gets a 4+ cover save

To further differentiate different uses of Burnas we could also consider making Burnas bulky, and add modifiers based on being in vehicles, something along the lines of "Meks pay more attention when their toys are at risk."


Thematically orks and smoke/clouds make sense so potentially I could see this unit giving everyone in 2" shrouded. That would potentially open them up in stealthier lists using kommandos. I don't honestly know...I'm just trying to think of interesting ways to pump Burnas so they can stand on their own without the support of walls or transports.

I don't think the idea is good. Cause you design them to give cover for models around like a Big Mek that can do it without mishap. And can sit in a wagon in the meanwhile. So they've basically got the same role cept for mek's more reliable, can sit in a transport, has better range for cover but is 5+ while this boyz are more expensive, can mishap, are usable only with footslogas but give 4+.

See, a 4+ cover horde with a small expensive unit slogging amidst it with a 6+ armor that gives that very 4+ cover...They'll be dead turn 1-2 anywayz.

I think you could go some other direction for them.

Eh you could be right for the team supporting roll overlap portion. If I honestly want them to have a more unique core utility I could just make them harder to hit, and a sorta repairing/burning unit.

I mean them not shooting already has utility by giving them power weapons in a fight, and most the time they're out of range, and by using that angle to them I could give them a stronger place is walker lists where the elite slot is just...lootas because they're good... and walkers are struggling anyway, so it would help them there.


I think my ideas for them mishapping are interesting, and probably ok, but I haven't really thought hard enough about playability and all that. Although if they had more utility in walker lists, you could save a gak load of time by just not having as many units to walk....so maybe it balances out time-wise there.

Potentially I could see a reason to instead give them some form of "gets hot"...because it makes sense, and because they have compelling alternatives to firing so that the drawback...wouldn't be ridiculous, the added utility to them is only going to be marginal.


I still think that cover saves or shrouded aught to be given to the burnas just like with bikers, to keep them more survivable (also to keep smoke clouds and Ork pollution fluffy/consistent)


Burnas becoming better partners to walkers/vehicles by way of repairing units as they go across the board may affect vehicle balance negatively, I guess, but I think walkers probably can use all the help they can get in this edition and its probably not huge concern, because the better ork transport vehicles already have about as much repair support by carrying burnas/lootas.

You know... There are even more ways to apply the cover save buff that create interesting counter-play.

For instance if there was a special character burna...instead of the unit having burnas changing to be more polluting it could just be a killable character who applies the buff to his burna unit. Some form of elite burna nob could do.

There's a few big problems I have with this, but I'll just go off of quoting and pointing out things from your TLDR before I offer my thoughts.

Burnas can mishap in the movement phase on the roll of a 1 and blow up (if they roll badly on the mishap table)

This is a false weakness. It sounds bad when you say it, but what does it mean on the tabletop? It means that, on average, you lose 1 Burna MAYBE. More often than not, this is a flaw that does nothing to harm the unit as a whole, which flows into...

Burnas provide 4+ cover for all units within 2" ( potentially could pump it up to a 3+ for the burnas themselves or give the unit shrouded)

Comparing them to a KFF Mek, you have something that you can daisy chain out into a long line, essentially guaranteeing a high level of cover for the entire army. I'm not against buffing Orks or Burnas, but right now this is a situation where they do something massively superior to any Mek. And, as others have pointed out, they can also go on the road in a transport with this amazing power.

There is no reason to choose a Mek anymore with this arrangement. This does not fix the situation or add variety, it just makes one thing the clear choice.

Meks are partially there to watch over the Burnas so they add rerolls on the mishap table 1 per Mekboy (Including big meks)

And now their false drawback is reduced to the point of meaninglessness. Why even have the mishap at this point?

Burnas are now bulky, If a mek is in the unit and the unit mishaps inside a vehicle it always count as rolling a 1 (Mekboys care about their toys)

Again, false drawback given how many advantages they have now. And frankly, I don't understand it.



Now I like the idea of making Burnas better. But making them the premiere DEFENSIVE unit for Orks is not the way to do it. I'd say the best route is to upgrade their weapons. Either in the form of a Mek weapon that is a torrent flamer with Gets Hot, or allow them to combine fire into a more impressive (still Gets Hot) torrent shot.

I agree 100% with the criticism outside that, I don't think the debuff needs to be a huge one.

effectively burnas aren't good enough to run on their own. I want that to switch a little.

That may just need to be a small thing, I think my draw back before was too convoluted and while it makes meks a more valuable asset...I think something else should be done to make them more palatable.

Bulky makes sense to limit them to either walk, or have fewer numbers. Forcing rolls, still agree for what that was doing, it wasn't enough.

I really like the idea of torrent. Think that's gona make them more than viable. But it needs some limitations on use not to make them a spam option.

Scorchas can choose to use a s4 ap5 Torrent profile. Now options on which to decide:
-Once per game
-Once per game with 'Gets hot'
-Once per game with 'Gets hot' with rerolls for meks (1 reroll per mek or big mek / just rerolls if there's a mek or big mek in squad)
-Once per game with 'Remove d3 models'
-Once per game with 'Remove d3 models' with a modifier for meks (distract the number of meks from the d3 result)
-Whenever you want with 'Gets hot'
-Whenever you want with 'Gets hot' with mek's modifier
-Whenever you want with 'Remove d3 models'
-Whenever you want with 'Remove d3 models' with mek's modifier

I think that once per game with 'Gets hot' and 1 reroll per mek is the way to go.

Also, i'd like to see a real buff to mellee capabilities if you forego shooting. Ap3 for mellee attacks for guyz that will strike last, will suffer overwatch, will sometimes have problems with charging ranges, will hit with str 4 and will get swept if they loose combat...The only situation i see is if there are a few marines - like 1 or 2 - right in front of you, and you've got like 4-5 burnas left and you need this marines dead to the last till the next turn cause they're on the point and it's turn 5-6. Or there are sisters with rerolls of armorsaves. Anywayz, last time i saw anyone foregoing scorcha flamers for mellee buffs was somewhere in the mid 5 ed

Maybe they should get shred and/or rending. Any ideas?