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.

Doubly agreed.

John is right to say Ogryn are too expensive for what you get. Leave the point cost alone, but make them actually worth those points.

Made some grammar and spelling fixes to my first post, and added a big ugly Guardsmen.

H.B.M.C. wrote:We still have an exception to an exception. They're T5, except they're not, because they're T4(5), except in combat that is, where they are T5.

It's just so much simpler for them to be T5 and be done with it.

BYE

Jervis, is that really you?

T5 is a bad call, lascannon should be able to take them down. You are overcompensating.

The point of the problem with Ogryn survivability is how devastating powerfists are against them. Upping toughness in any order doesnt work as while big Ogryns are essentially human in physiology, in many respectsd marines are tougher an ork of the same size (Warboss) certainly would be. if orks can only grow the odd T5, why should humies grow a whole race of T5.
I have no problems with the odd T5 Ogryn special character, likely as a bionic upgrade.

Any higher than T4 doesnt fit. Besides tougher in close combat doesnt maske sense either, if it is T4 against the lasgun, its T4 against the bayonet.

The Bulky proposed rule makes sense simply because their size procludes taking out several at once. It itches where is scratches and makes sense. T5 in close combat is a crass rule that covers all close combat, not ther issue that needs fixing. T5 total is an over-reaction.

Orlanth wrote:Jervis, is that really you?

Were you any other man I would kill you where you stood... uhh... typed.

Orlanth wrote:T5 is a bad call, lascannon should be able to take them down. You are overcompensating.

I never said it was a good idea.

Once again, there is no good solution to the 'Ogryn Problem'. There are simply a list of bad solutions, some less bad than others. T5 is the least bad.

Furthermore I go back to the size comparison between Ogryn and other T5 or better models. Compare them to Warbosses. Compare them to Tyrant Guard. Ogryn are beasts. I have no issue with them being T5.

BYE

I'm actually going to say this; T5 is a good solution.

That being said, it is not a PERFECT solution. The perfect solution would be T4.5 for instant death purposes, or some such, in my opinion. However there are those who believe that that is too complicated. If you ask me, it is actually pretty simple, and would only come up when instant death applies. Example:

Gamer A (attacking Player) : Passed my roll to wound and that weapon is strength 8, Ogryn toughness 4, no armor save, so that is Instant Death!

Gamer 1 (Ogryn Player) : Actually, Ogryn counts as having T4.5 for Instant Death, so you would need Strength 9 weapon to do that. Minus one wound.

Gamer A : That is so bs, DUDE!!! Imperial Guard is so CHEESE NOW! That's stupid, I HATE YOU! I am NEVER playing against Imperial Guard again, they are so CHEAP!!! Ogryns should be toughness 2! They're only humans, and they're really stupid! They should be toughness 2 and cost 156,000 points a model! They get all these benefits in close combat! They should instant death to failed difficult terrain tests! They're so bs!!! I paid +5pts for that weapon I used! Everyone should instant death to it! Even Abbadon and Warbosses, armor value 23 should just melt away to my +5pts weapon! That is so STUPID!!! I'm quitting 40k now and going home to play Halo 2! This is so bs!! GW is ruining this game every way they can imagine (continued rantings).

Or, Gamer A: Okay then, I fire my lascannons at you.

Gamer 1: (Removes several Ogryns from play)

Don't just assume that every player is going to complain. It's not like Ogryns are that big of a deal anyway. :S


There are rules that are much much more confusing than this.

@ Vlad : Well, A, I was trying to be humorously exaggerative, I don't think many gamers would be very upset to find out that their shots only inflicted one wound. B: That example does not cover S8 weapons as is the focus of misconceptions that an Ogryn would only be T4 on their stats (instead of T4.5 since there are no precedences for that).

Resoundingly Tough : Ogryns are tough codgers, and very belligerent to the idea of dying quietly! In cases of Instant Death, a weapon of Strength 9 is required, unless otherwise stated. [I have encountered a few weapons (none come to mind ATM) that inflict Instant Death regardless of the model's Toughness, such as victims of Rending].

I wonder about the idea of Ogryns being immune to Rending.... What are the rules exactly for Monstrous Creatures? I think they are immune to Rend AND Instant Death? I'm not at home at the moment so I don't have my Rulebook....

How about this:

Rugged
When an ogrin suffers a wound from a streinght 8 weapon it does not suffer instant death but takes D3 wounds instead, this has no effect on weapons that automaticlly cause instant death.

This gives them a 2/3 chance of surviving PF and krak attacks without making them too powerfull... I think. How about you?

EDIT: major spelling issues

Everyone keeps coming up with slight variations on special rules that all equate to exceptions to rules.

Wouldn't it be better to have a simple elegant solution that requires no special rules and no exceptions to exceptions?

T5 is that solution.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Everyone keeps coming up with slight variations on special rules that all equate to exceptions to rules.

Too complicated? Didnt stop us before. Didnt stop GW for writing IIRC four different rulesets for Terminators to deepstrike in one edition. The proposed alt rules for Ogryns are not excessively complicated or out of pattern with special rules for other units. In fact as a trend many units now have more in the way of special rules, Sternguard and Vanguard come to mind here.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to have a simple elegant solution that requires no special rules and no exceptions to exceptions?

Steamlining is good yes? So you are a fan of Codex CSM then. No clans, no craftworlds, etc. Of course you will want IG to have no doctrines without a corresponding special character, just to make it fit in with the rest.

Is this really how you think

I'm with H.B.M.C., if they're statline/price not changing is important (for some reason) then why bother with a new rule, either go T5 or Eternal Warrior, not some halfway inbetween choice. It's a better design decision.

Jack

At the most convoluted, they should be toughness 4 (5 in CC) - akin to something like the SM on Bike.

At its simplest, use a pre-existing rule like Eternal Warrior (or toughness 5!). For something that cost 25 points (and this can be adjusted) and for a full squad with Bone 'Ead costs equal to three squad of infantry and a JO + retinue with 20 points left to spare.

At this price, they either deserve a special rule or toughness 5.

Unless we give them some ridiculous rule that will let them do some sort of unspeakable thing, then 25pts will be far too much. I would hazard T5 AND 15-20ppm, more than 20 just starts making them run up hill against the odds of survival.

Skinnattittar wrote:Unless we give them some ridiculous rule that will let them do some sort of unspeakable thing, then 25pts will be far too much. I would hazard T5 AND 15-20ppm, more than 20 just starts making them run up hill against the odds of survival.

Indeed, they cannot realistically cost much more then 3 guardsmen (whatever that may be end up as in the new book)...

Jack

Oh Orlanth... I expected so much more of you than... than this.



Tsk tsk.

Orlanth wrote:Too complicated? Didnt stop us before. Didnt stop GW for writing IIRC four different rulesets for Terminators to deepstrike in one edition.

And that's something we should avoid, yes?

Orlanth wrote:The proposed alt rules for Ogryns are not excessively complicated or out of pattern with special rules for other units. In fact as a trend many units now have more in the way of special rules, Sternguard and Vanguard come to mind here.

But it's completely unecessary. T5 solves the problem. It's not a great solution but then again there is no great solution to the Ogryn problem, as I keep saying. T5 is an elegant solution that requires no special rules, not exceptions to exceptions and no ambiguity. Why is that a bad thing?

Orlanth wrote:Steamlining is good yes? So you are a fan of Codex CSM then.

Oh dear...

Orlanth, this isn't even remotley a similar issue. What's worse is that you know that. This is about solving (as best we can) a problem with a broken unit - Ogryn. Ogryn don't work because despite their W3 they are very fragile models. To combat this we must find a solution to this problem, and the best way to do that is the KISS method. T5 is the simplest method. It's got nothing to do with GW blandifying the Chaos Codex so don't even try to make the comparison.

And I'm not a fan of the CSM Codex because it lost its flavour. It's boring. It's not interesting. It's dull. As a Codex however people can still make half-way decent lists out of it, they're just as boring as bat $hit.

Orlanth wrote:No clans, no craftworlds, etc.

*sigh*

I am really surprised this is coming from you.

Orlanth wrote:Of course you will want IG to have no doctrines without a corresponding special character, just to make it fit in with the rest.

Now you're just lying.

Of course I want Doctrines. I want Doctrines to be a platoon-by-platoon thing.

And I don't want them tied to special characters.

Have I not made it clear enough in the past few months just how much I utterly despise Jervis' love affair with Special Characters and how they're ruining each Codex, especially because army-altering rules are now attached to them?

When I make comments (and I have made comments about this) about Doctrines being tied to Special Characters, it's not because I want that to happen, it's because I think that that is what is going to happen because it makes the most sense given GW's history. Does't make me happy about it.

Orlanth wrote:Is this really how you think

Of course not. And you fething know that Orlanth.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Oh Orlanth... I expected so much more of you than... than this.

Dont worry. I know generally how you think and firmly agree and respectfully with you.

This is the point of my post. What you offered was quite out of character. Not the T5 idea, that is in its own way potentially plausible (you havent given a background based justification yet though) along with the many other suggestions onn this thread but the methodology of thinking.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Is this really how you think

Of course not. And you fething know that Orlanth.

Indeed I do.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
But it's completely unecessary. T5 solves the problem. It's not a great solution but then again there is no great solution to the Ogryn problem, as I keep saying. T5 is an elegant solution that requires no special rules, not exceptions to exceptions and no ambiguity. Why is that a bad thing?

Right it is bad because it fixes part of the problem while breaking the rules elsewhere.

Let us run a list which of the following should kill and Ogryn outright:

-S4 powerfist single target only
-S4 powerfist ripping up several ogryns a turn
-S4 furious powerfist single target
-S4 furious powerfist ripping up ogryn
-meltagun
-missile launcher
-lascannon
-railgun

Looking at the various options:

1. T4.5, likely clarified as a rule saying S9 to instant kill.
Only the furious powerfist, lascanon and railgun instant kill

2. T4, T5 in close combat
Only meltagun, missile launcher, lascannon and railgun instant kill (all the ranged weapons listed, none of the close combat attacks)

3. Bulky: Close combat must be directed at one target only.
All instant kill except for multiple target fists.

4. T5
Only a railgun instant kills.

Can you honestly say that Option 4 makes the most sense, leaving out rule complexity. Frankly and in all honesty it makes the least sense to me. Powerfist should be able to gut ogryn, meltaguns certainly qualify.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Steamlining is good yes? So you are a fan of Codex CSM then.

Oh dear...

Orlanth, this isn't even remotley a similar issue.

In for a penny in for a pound. Ok, if you think Option 4 is the best for the purposes of game balance or background alone so be it. If not then my points stand.
T5 is simple granted, but it is simplistic, it does not (in my opinion) make Ogryn fair in game, nor does it allow proper adherence to prior or current background. Ogryn just are not that resilient.
The only excuse for T5, simplicity, is on the same level of simplicity as the various idiotic ideras which we both know fully well should never have been perpetrated by Gw studio.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What's worse is that you know that. This is about solving (as best we can) a problem with a broken unit - Ogryn. Ogryn don't work because despite their W3 they are very fragile models. To combat this we must find a solution to this problem, and the best way to do that is the KISS method. T5 is the simplest method. It's got nothing to do with GW blandifying the Chaos Codex so don't even try to make the comparison.

I disagree on both points.

T5 is not a boost, its a break. Suddenly IG will have one of the better assault units in the game cheap monsters with S5 attacks (but no armour negating I admit) that are very hard to kill. T5 is very powerful, most line weapon attacks will bounce, especially if a 4+ save is involved. High sttrength attacks also fail to take them down quicjkly. The only good weapons against Ogryn will be heavy bolters, and you will need a full set of hits and wounds to kill one. I am sorry Ogryn will be borken and cvan only be compensated for with a high points value that will make the unit unattractive again.
Now I certainly can see GW making the T5 rule, its typical of them, but it is far less typical of you.

Taking the CSM codex as our example, the old codex was accessible. I know of plenty of FLGS kids who put together lists without difficulty, and in general most chaos players liked to sift through the book to build something new.
As for the blandifying of the codexes, special character doctrines and all these other problems. They have been done under a watchword of simplification. Likely even Jervis doesnt want to rob players of their armies background, it is just that the designers think the books should be simplified for all, removing most special rules and unique options - but as usual adding a whole lot of new ones onto Space Marines, who are ever the exception.

Simplicity for the sake of simplicity being the common theme between the two. A good games designer should alwayslook for the elegant simple solution, but that is way away from the basic simplistic solution.

If you believe there is room for various daemons in the CSM codex rather than just the bland greater and lesser daemon, then by logic you should not be adverse to Ogryns having a special rule regarding instant kill. They are after all an elite slot unit and very few IG units have special rules. It would be no burden.

If you honestly think T5 is better please say so, but I dont think you have thought this through. Lascannon and meltaguns not instant killing Ogryn, that is the sort of sloppy mistake Jervis would make, and it would have far reaching consequences. IG would suddenly have a very powerful assault unit completely out of character with the army in all its prior incarnations. While you dislike the comments I make them because while the circumstances are different the mentality is similar. GW studio do not deliberately screw up the books they write, but they write them according to various dogmas, simplicity and standardisation being the current watchwords, with ridiculous results. Thus it is right for me to challenge when you claim simplicity for simplicities sake, yet you are a noted and respected critic of the brainfarts eminating from Nottingham from using exactly the same methodology.

I've thought it through. I've looked at the previous suggestions (FNP and T(5) and things like that) and saw that none of them solved the problem. I've looked at the current crop of solutions (T4.5, T5 in HTH and things like that) and saw that they all solved the problem, but in a clunky or inelegant manner that created needless new special rules or more exceptions to exceptions.

Then I got the Battle for Black Lagoon plastic Warboss, stood him next to my current-edition Ogryn, and went "Holy $hit! That Ogryn is huge!!!".

You're 100% correct when you say it doesn't make sense that Lascannons and Meltaguns will bounc off an Ogryn, and that only Railgins and Demolishers being able to insta-kill them doesn't make a lot of sense. But then I look at the Ork Warboss, see that he is T5, and then wonder what the big deal is.

I really do think that you're wrong when you say that Guard will get some of the 'best' HTH troops if they're made T5. They aren't. Ogryn can't kill anything. They're a wall. A tarpit unit in a small area. They have no armour save to speak of. One out of every two HB hits will take off a wound. They're not that tough.

They don't have power weapons. They don't have Invukl or FNP saves. They don't have a good armour save. They're just gig and tough, which is exactly what Ogryn should be.

T5 doesn't make them powerful, it makes them viable.

BYE

Ogryn are Ws4 and have S6 attacks quiaff.

The only thing they dont do well is take down heavy armoured troops. Ogryns as they stand are counterassult troops they are not very resileint but hit quite hard for a short time. IMHO this is correct for guard. Give thme too much resilience and they lose their vulnerability and bwecome tarpits with a good close combat attack, i.e assault units.

You could compensate for increasing the points value, but that would defeat the object of changing the unit. Ogryns are only importent in close combat because they have low I and therefore die to powerfists and monsters before they strike. Increase the toughness and you change the dynamic and the role, the same low price now encouraging use on a different scale.

Guard and Tau should not have a unit capable of sustained assault moves, it would make the army a hybrid assault/shooty army which is not the style at all.
Yes many better assault units exist, but in other lists without the benefits of Guard shooting.

Finally regarding the warboss to Ogryn comparison. Yes Ogryn are bigger but still basically human. All the squishy bits are there, just in large target format. what will kill a man will likely kill an Ogryn. The warboss on the other hand is an orkoid and naturalkly tougher. In many ways it is like comparing a medium sized statue of cast bronze against a larger statue of stone. The bronze statue is tougher.

Man, we're still on Ogryns?

The more I think about Ogryns in a Guard context, the more I think they just need to be bog simple and cheap, with minimal USRs. Just bump the statline and it's easy:
- S6 instead of FC & Rending
- T5 W2 instead of FNP & EW
- Ld9 instead of Stubborn

Ogryn
WS4 BS2 S6 T5 W2 I3 A4 Ld9 Sv5+ = 20 pts

Ripper Gun
R12" S4 AP- Assault 3 Rending

S6 A4 lets these guys throw out enough strong basic attacks to make them dangerous in HtH, usually wounding on 2+. T5 makes them very hard for S3 enemies, while also solving the SM PF problem. W2 Sv5+ helps keeps them cheap enough to be viable. BS2 A3 Rending gun gives them a solid Alpha strike.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Man, we're still on Ogryns?

Yes John. Sadly none of us are like you and therefore we are incapable of breezing from thread to thread, making statements with no support, immediately declaring ourselves correct on all counts, ignoring all rebuttal and then drifting off again to fight the next battle.

How we envy you John. How we envy you...

BYE

Orlanth wrote:Increase the toughness and you change the dynamic and the role, the same low price now encouraging use on a different scale.

Guard and Tau should not have a unit capable of sustained assault moves, it would make the army a hybrid assault/shooty army which is not the style at all.

At 20 pts each, they're not cheap. And being limited to 6 models per unit (for Transport), and taking limited non-Scoring Elite spots, they're not going to dramatically transform a Guard army that is required to take human Troops, especially Platoons.

Guard should have mobility and some assault punch. It's only since 3E that IG have been denied decent HtH capability. In RT and 2E, you could have Beastmen and Ogryns in quantity for solid assault capability. There is no reason that would work for Guard.

Make the Guard playable with decent mobility and adequate assault, but de-emphasize assault by making it Elite. If someone wants to have 3+ Ordnance pieces (500+ pts), and 3+ units Ogryns (600+ pts) in Chimeras (150+ pts), that is 1250+ pts in Heavy and Elite. In a standard 1500-pt game, that leaves only 250 pts for HQ and 2+ Troops (assume Grenadiers). Very fragile and limited Scoring ability.

Just from what Orlanth is saying, I'm getting the feeling he has neither used nor played against Ogryns where S8 attacks are involved in more than a few models. Once attention is turned their way, they rarely last past turn two of shooting and/or a turn of assault. Because they are the scariest assault troop on the board, highest point value per model (out front), and actually pretty soft, guess where your opponent's assault troops with power fists and Melta-type weapon is going? That's right, half the point as your squad of 5-10 Ogryns is about to be wiped out by half to equal points value unit in one turn. There is a major problem with that....

If they are going to stay the same stats they are now, they would have to be 15pts, keeping W3 (both because they need to be hard, and also because they have ALWAYS been W3). If they go to a two squad limit, I wouldn't complain.

Ogryn are a typical broken unit. They don't work. Period. They're not bad. They actually don't work.

T5 doesn't break them. T5 (almost) fixes them. I say almost because it is an imperfect solution, but the best imperfect solution there is.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes John. Sadly none of us are like you and therefore we are incapable of breezing from thread to thread, making statements with no support, immediately declaring ourselves correct on all counts, ignoring all rebuttal and then drifting off again to fight the next battle.

John Hwang is a verbal Dark Eldar?

Skinnattittar wrote:Just from what Orlanth is saying, I'm getting the feeling he has neither used nor played against Ogryns where S8 attacks are involved in more than a few models. Once attention is turned their way, they rarely last past turn two of shooting and/or a turn of assault.

Well I dont see them often, does anyone?

A mass of S8 vs Ogryn, that is a mismatch where your ogryn die. Its the single powerfist you find in an average squad gutting half the quad that is the principle weakness. Ogryn are not supposed to be truly mighty, just rather big.

As a start especially with the new minis Ogryn require a 4+ save standard.

If we go down H.B.M.C's route and take T5 then the unit needs to lose a wound in compensation. At two wounds each its less of a problem to see how poorly a squad of Fire Dragons or a Pred Annihilator does trying to gun them down. Its still not a good solution.

If we go for bulky or one of the other power fist limiters we wont need to lose a wound.

Either way the unit needs a small price drop c20-22pts and the option for a second ccw (+3pts).

The power weapon weakness might be easily fixed dependent on what happens to the advisors rule. Ogryns led by a Commisar or Priest (both fixed) might get nasty.

How do you justify that Ogryns NEED to be W2? Or that T5 is out of the question? Or that Ogryns require a 4+ save with the new mini? Cadians have more armor than any other Guard Model ever had since 2E, yet they are not 4+ armor, they are still just 5+. Advisors should not be required to fix an Ogryn squad, and at least one having access to the Officer Armory to get a powerfist (which will be the only time that 20pts for a powerfist in the Guard is justifiable) for anti-tank duty. You say "Guard can't have [argueably] the best HtH unit in the game!" (I am paraphrasing a bit there) and I say "why not?" Guard used to be the best Shooty army, then along came Tau and blew Guard out of the water and off the board with shooty. Not just that, but the Guard has always been known for "power concentration." The Ogryns to begin with is evidence of this history, it is just that since RT days they have been broken, so broken that nobody knows of their potential.

T5 is not my solution, it is too much in my book, but it is preferable to T4(5) in close combat, which only holds back one of the problems Ogryns have. T4.5, not how it would be written in their profile, but just the abreviation for needing S9 to inflict instant death, cuts into into shooting affects and in close combat. Lascannon and lascannon similiar weapons are more common than you may think. One lascannon have about a 50/50 chance of knocking out an Ogryn a turn, which means by the time you get into assault with an Ogryn squad there will be two or three fewer Ogryns. Compare this to your typical assault squad from more other armies, and that is pretty normal/acceptable loss. Remember, they would still be T4 for wounding purposes.

Comparing them to Ork Warbosses may not be THE best comparison, as they are not of the same race. Compare them to Scouts, however, and you get a more reasonable comparison. Scouts are T4, and are barely a quarter the size of an Ogryns. Yes, they are an Astarte, but they are still made of human bits.

Skinnattittar wrote:How do you justify that Ogryns NEED to be W2? Or that T5 is out of the question?

Read the above thread. I dont feel like repeating myself again.

Skinnattittar wrote:Or that Ogryns require a 4+ save with the new mini? Cadians have more armor than any other Guard Model ever had since 2E, yet they are not 4+ armor, they are still just 5+.

Ogryns have the same level of overall cover, but the plates themselves are clearly thicker. It is synonymous with ork 'eavy armour. Which ias 4+ based on the lots or none armouring depending on where you hit the ork.

Skinnattittar wrote: Advisors should not be required to fix an Ogryn squad,

No it is not, I never stated it was. TRY READING THE THREAD. The Advisors can help by adding power weapons where there are none.

Skinnattittar wrote:
and at least one having access to the Officer Armory to get a powerfist (which will be the only time that 20pts for a powerfist in the Guard is justifiable) for anti-tank duty.

S6 powerfists are not anti tank. If an officer could have a chainfist you would have more of a point.

Skinnattittar wrote:
You say "Guard can't have [argueably] the best HtH unit in the game!" (I am paraphrasing a bit there)

They will be good, but far from the best.

Skinnattittar wrote: and I say "why not?" Guard used to be the best Shooty army, then along came Tau and blew Guard out of the water and off the board with shooty. Not just that, but the Guard has always been known for "power concentration." The Ogryns to begin with is evidence of this history, it is just that since RT days they have been broken, so broken that nobody knows of their potential.

To start with Guard can match Tau in a gunfight. Fire Warriors outgun basic guardsmen but the support weapons loadouts are inferior. Guard have the indirect artillery, guard have the massed numbers, guard have the lascannon and they have special weapons in squads. Also if you dont take plenty of Broadsides Tau will have problems with Russ.
I dont know how Ogryns did in Rogue Trader and 2nd edition, but that isn't really relevant. There were plenty of borken units then that have since been toned down, some more than others.
The point of the exercise is to make Ogryn worth taking, not to make them r0xx0r if this is what they did back in the early days of 40K.

Skinnattittar wrote: T5 is not my solution, it is too much in my book, but it is preferable to T4(5) in close combat, which only holds back one of the problems Ogryns have. T4.5, not how it would be written in their profile, but just the abreviation for needing S9 to inflict instant death, cuts into into shooting affects and in close combat.

I would basically agree with you here in your analysis, but not your conclusion - T5 is not preferable.

Skinnattittar wrote: Lascannon and lascannon similiar weapons are more common than you may think. One lascannon have about a 50/50 chance of knocking out an Ogryn a turn, which means by the time you get into assault with an Ogryn squad there will be two or three fewer Ogryns. Compare this to your typical assault squad from more other armies, and that is pretty normal/acceptable loss. Remember, they would still be T4 for wounding purposes.

Ogryns ought to be counterassult units. They dont march up the board taking lascanon hits they remainm in the line and wait for the enemy. Sure they can take lascannon hits there, but you get a choice of targets. Ogryn should get shot to pieces if you try and make them linebreakers. Lascannon death is not a problem, unless it is blocked by T5.

Skinnattittar wrote: Comparing them to Ork Warbosses may not be THE best comparison, as they are not of the same race. Compare them to Scouts, however, and you get a more reasonable comparison. Scouts are T4, and are barely a quarter the size of an Ogryns. Yes, they are an Astarte, but they are still made of human bits.

Sure scouts are small, but they have two hearts fused ribcage and all sorts of toughening add ins. The SM scout is an ubermensch, just one that is poorly equipped. I have background problems about scout armour, as you have already invested in the space marine, why send him into battle without the right protection. It makes no sense, but that is not the issue here.

On Orlanth's Post : I'm not quite sure how to address this one.... it doesn't make much sense.... I have been reading this thread, heck I started it.... Also, I'm not quite sure if Orlanth knows how paranphases work... because I don't know where S6 powerfists came in with S5 Ogryns.... Also, he said that Advisors would fix the lack power weapons in the Ogryn squad if one is allowed to be led by a Commissar or Priest (once fixed). That is saying that they would REQUIRE an advisor to fix their lack of power weapons... my statement was that they shouldn't require an Advisor to be fixed.... As far as my "best HtH unit" you're right, they wouldn't be, that was my implication, if I exagerated what you said, then take that at face value, that is how I took it, which is why I stated I was paraphrasing in my own words. Not a perfect use of paraphrase, but one doesn't have to get their panties in a bunch. As for Scouts, they are light infantry, quicker, smaller and easier to remain unseen, that is why you would want them from an IRL stand point, for scouting, hence the name "Scout." And as to Ogryns vs. Scouts, Ogryns are still massive compared to Scouts, larger, hearts, larger lungs, thicker skin like leather, ect... Elephants can take a .50 cal round through the upper torso, right past the heart, documented, so bigger organs do make a creature tougher. A fused ribcage is still made of bone, Ogryns, have bones, supposed to be big bones too... you know what, we could argue Ogryn physiology untill the cows come home. Ogryns are still easily four times the size of scouts, they could easily be 25% tougher. Armor wise, hey, thin flimsy armor would not look as nice as thicker armor, and it still doesn't defeat the fact that Cadians have thicker armor than everyone else but are still only 5+ save.

So far Orlanth has only stated that T5 would make Ogryns too good and would be out of character. That is hardly scientific or objective. Now am I agreeing that T5 is preferable to other options such as T4.5 in my opinion. HBMC is opposed to special rules, very simple special rules even, for the sake of not cheesing a unit. T5 not only makes Ogryns proof against S8 weapons, but it also means they are T5 for purposes of being wounded, making them 6+ to wound against S3 and 5+ to wound against S4, which I don't think is necessary.

I am still for T4.5 and W3 with access to Officer Equipment for the Bone 'ead.

I'm ok with T5 as there is lots of old fluff of Ogryns fighting genestealers and other nasties successfully in hand to hand (thinking specifically of the planetary invasion story from Space Hulk 1st ed). And it feel right that they ought to be tougher then a marine on a bike (so far as versus isntant death) given their size and reputed fortitude.

Jack

I think T5 is what the Ogryns need to be worthwhile and useful as a unit. In 40k the thing that justifies a models toughness most is bulk and Ogryns are pretty dang bulky. That really should be enough to justify it. They're bulkier than almost every infantry unit and yet have the toughness of marines who are half their size.

So far the argument is that with T5 they're too good. When a T5 is the only real thing that would be going for them I don't think there is a problem.

They're a close combat unit that doesn't have a true close combat weapon; they have clubbish short ranged guns. They're bulky and have limitation in being mounted in a transport, so they're slow. They're suppose to be a unit that can soak up damage but they have paper thin armor and either get gunned down before they even get close enough to shoot or chopped down by every dedicated close combat unit that gets so many more attacks.

They do have somethings going for them but those benefits are ineffectual. Whats the point of having 3 wounds if you end up dead after one shot?

I don't think cheapening them is the answer because it just avoids the problem of them being ineffectual. When you look at the elite units of other armies compared to their basic troops there is a noticeable step up in how worthwhile they. This quality is lacking from the IG more than any other army. Maybe it because IG are just "human." For whatever reason, despite all the sci-fi and over the top explanations for everything else, IG are always pulled down and grounded by some pretext that their units can't be as effective as other armies'. I see enough IG armies without any elite choices taken and its because the IG are the only army in the game where there is no reason to take its Elite options. The IG need all their elites reworked to be worthwhile.

The IG need a T5 Ogryn unit, now if that means adjusting their cost or re-working their fluff so be it, because its a necessary gain.