Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd rather have a mek or big mek upgrade that just gave +1 to hit for shooting. Re-rolls require extra rolling for not much more benefit. A 5+ re-roll is about the same as just hitting on a 4+ (56% vs 50%), but the +1 to hit would also help with negative modifiers, and would save time on needing to re-roll a bunch of dice. I just don't like re-rolls as an ork mechanic. I would like things that allowed re-rolling number of shots/rolling 2 dice pick the highest for number of shots for random shot weapons though.

I don't know much about orks but after looking at their index they need to always hit on 6s

I think having a fixed "always hit on 6's" is probably too much. Orks' solution to a -2 to hit vs shooting should be to charge and do things the proper Ork way. Having said that, we'll probably get something like this:

Ork Stratagem
Dakka dakka dakka - 1 CP
Orks make up in enthusiasm what they lack in accuracy.
Ignore negative modifiers to hit with shooting attacks with the selected unit until the end of your shooting phase.

 office_waaagh wrote:
I think having a fixed "always hit on 6's" is probably too much. Orks' solution to a -2 to hit vs shooting should be to charge and do things the proper Ork way. Having said that, we'll probably get something like this:

Ork Stratagem
Dakka dakka dakka - 1 CP
Orks make up in enthusiasm what they lack in accuracy.
Ignore negative modifiers to hit with shooting attacks with the selected unit until the end of your shooting phase.

The issue with that is if you took a decent percentage of your army in shooting heavy units they become largely useless, so an opponent can negate a portion of your army by doing nothing.

Breng77 wrote:

The issue with that is if you took a decent percentage of your army in shooting heavy units they become largely useless, so an opponent can negate a portion of your army by doing nothing.

Sure, but the Orks aren't meant to be a shooting heavy army anyway. I would humbly suggest that anyone that wants to play a gunline army should probably not be playing Orks, any more than someone that wants to play an assault army should be playing Tau or Guard. Not that it couldn't be a fun time to try it, but you wouldn't expect it to be competitive and it would be pretty easy to counter.A

To borrow a previously floated idea, an alternative would be a "git finda" upgrade for a mek or big mek that replaces the KFF (ie you can take either a KFF or a git finda) that allows units within 3" to ignore negative modifiers to hit.

I don't think Orks should be able to tailor an army to compete with Guard or SM in the shooting phase no matter what units they take or stratagems they use, though.

 office_waaagh wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

The issue with that is if you took a decent percentage of your army in shooting heavy units they become largely useless, so an opponent can negate a portion of your army by doing nothing.

Sure, but the Orks aren't meant to be a shooting heavy army anyway. I would humbly suggest that anyone that wants to play a gunline army should probably not be playing Orks, any more than someone that wants to play an assault army should be playing Tau or Guard. Not that it couldn't be a fun time to try it, but you wouldn't expect it to be competitive and it would be pretty easy to counter.A

To borrow a previously floated idea, an alternative would be a "git finda" upgrade for a mek or big mek that replaces the KFF (ie you can take either a KFF or a git finda) that allows units within 3" to ignore negative modifiers to hit.

I don't think Orks should be able to tailor an army to compete with Guard or SM in the shooting phase no matter what units they take or stratagems they use, though.

While orks may not be a purely shooty army like Tau, I feel like you're missing out on a huuuuge part of Orks if you think shooting is not one of the central aspects of Orks. Orks embrace practically all aspects of warfare, shooting included. The whole adage of this site "dakka dakka" comes from Orks and if you've ever played previous editions with Orks you'd know that our schtick is quantity over quality, with an emphasis of mass attacks in CC and overwhelming firepower in shooting. We weren't originally so bad at shooting either, being the bog standard of BS3 (hitting on 4's) before the 5th ed codex came in and gave us BS2 in return for the sheer quantity of shots we had over a lot of armies. The problem now is that so many negative to hit modifiers are being thrown like candy, our amount of shots aren't keeping up with it, especially when we get penalized so much more and our pricing is so off (compare our twin big shoota costs to twin assault cannons for example). So either we need something to compensate ala the ignore modifiers racial rule or at least a global USR where you always hit on a natural 6.

 office_waaagh wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

The issue with that is if you took a decent percentage of your army in shooting heavy units they become largely useless, so an opponent can negate a portion of your army by doing nothing.

Sure, but the Orks aren't meant to be a shooting heavy army anyway. I would humbly suggest that anyone that wants to play a gunline army should probably not be playing Orks, any more than someone that wants to play an assault army should be playing Tau or Guard. Not that it couldn't be a fun time to try it, but you wouldn't expect it to be competitive and it would be pretty easy to counter.A

To borrow a previously floated idea, an alternative would be a "git finda" upgrade for a mek or big mek that replaces the KFF (ie you can take either a KFF or a git finda) that allows units within 3" to ignore negative modifiers to hit.

I don't think Orks should be able to tailor an army to compete with Guard or SM in the shooting phase no matter what units they take or stratagems they use, though.

Then what are lootas for? Are you suggesting that we charge with a 17 point model that is much, much worse in combat than a 6 point one?

 office_waaagh wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

The issue with that is if you took a decent percentage of your army in shooting heavy units they become largely useless, so an opponent can negate a portion of your army by doing nothing.

Sure, but the Orks aren't meant to be a shooting heavy army anyway. I would humbly suggest that anyone that wants to play a gunline army should probably not be playing Orks, any more than someone that wants to play an assault army should be playing Tau or Guard. Not that it couldn't be a fun time to try it, but you wouldn't expect it to be competitive and it would be pretty easy to counter.A

To borrow a previously floated idea, an alternative would be a "git finda" upgrade for a mek or big mek that replaces the KFF (ie you can take either a KFF or a git finda) that allows units within 3" to ignore negative modifiers to hit.

I don't think Orks should be able to tailor an army to compete with Guard or SM in the shooting phase no matter what units they take or stratagems they use, though.

For an army that's "not supposed to shoot" we sure have a lot of units devoted to shooting. Lootas, flashgitz, killa kanz, Mel gunz, big gunz, morkanaut, tankbustas, warbikes, Big Mek/SAG, war buggies, war tracks, deffkoptas, burnas, Burnabommers, dakka jets, blitzabommer,wazbom; the list is actually over HALF of our codex. Our only truly devoted CC unit worth a damn is Boyz, Kommandos and stormboyz.

 Grimskul wrote:
While orks may not be a purely shooty army like Tau, I feel like you're missing out on a huuuuge part of Orks if you think shooting is not one of the central aspects of Orks. Orks embrace practically all aspects of warfare, shooting included. The whole adage of this site "dakka dakka" comes from Orks and if you've ever played previous editions with Orks you'd know that our schtick is quantity over quality, with an emphasis of mass attacks in CC and overwhelming firepower in shooting. We weren't originally so bad at shooting either, being the bog standard of BS3 (hitting on 4's) before the 5th ed codex came in and gave us BS2 in return for the sheer quantity of shots we had over a lot of armies. The problem now is that so many negative to hit modifiers are being thrown like candy, our amount of shots aren't keeping up with it, especially when we get penalized so much more and our pricing is so off (compare our twin big shoota costs to twin assault cannons for example). So either we need something to compensate ala the ignore modifiers racial rule or at least a global USR where you always hit on a natural 6.

It was actually 3rd edition when we went from BS 3 to BS 2 (4+ to 5+ in 8th ed parlance). I played 2nd edition with Orks hitting on 4+ with shooting. I played the Feral Orks rules for 3rd ed that had Orks hitting on 4+ with shooting. I played a ton of Gorkamorka with Orks hitting on 4+ with shooting. We never actually got a codex in 5th ed, the 4th ed codex lasted all the way until 7th. In every one of those lists we paid for it with decreased close combat capability: a WS of 3 (roughly equivalent to 4+ in 8th), one attack, and no Furious Charge.

To put it into "real world" terms, a lot more goes into hitting your enemy than pointing your gun and pulling the trigger. Fire discipline, careful management of ammunition expenditure by a leader controlling rates of fire, proper weapons handling drills, and the ability to apply marksmanship principles under stress all contribute to your ability to hit a target under combat conditions. Orks went to the "volume of fire" school of marksmanship.

In game terms, the army is balanced around close combat power being our mainstay. We pay comparatively more points for shooting units for what they're capable of because they fill a deliberate weakness in our army that balances our strength. I could see "always hit on 6's" or "ignore to hit modifiers" as either a stratagem or an aura buff from a character, or maybe a psychic power, but building it into the makeup of the army is, in my humble opinion with which you are free to disagree, contrary to the spirit of the army.

Then what are lootas for? Are you suggesting that we charge with a 17 point model that is much, much worse in combat than a 6 point one?

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that all units in the list are meant for assault. I'm just pointing out that Orks are a melee-focused army and the shooting units are there as backup. Again, I'm not saying you can't make an Ork gunline army, just that it shouldn't be as effective as an AM or SM gunline army any more than making a melee Tau army should be as effective as an Ork melee army. Shooting is our "plan B", it constitutes a not insignificant but still very much secondary part of our army's combat power.

I don't think the shooting part of orks should be minimized. Yeah, it shouldn't be like IG or Tau, and a good Ork army should be balance both in shooting and meele, even if you can go more one way or the other.

But saying "Orks should be the assault horde army with shooting as a support" just makes Orks Green Tyranids.

 office_waaagh wrote:
I think having a fixed "always hit on 6's" is probably too much. Orks' solution to a -2 to hit vs shooting should be to charge and do things the proper Ork way. Having said that, we'll probably get something like this:

Ork Stratagem
Dakka dakka dakka - 1 CP
Orks make up in enthusiasm what they lack in accuracy.
Ignore negative modifiers to hit with shooting attacks with the selected unit until the end of your shooting phase.

Too limited. I'd recommend rather that you choose an enemy unit and your units don't suffer negative modifiers shooting at it.

 office_waaagh wrote:
I think having a fixed "always hit on 6's" is probably too much. Orks' solution to a -2 to hit vs shooting should be to charge and do things the proper Ork way. Having said that, we'll probably get something like this:

Ork Stratagem
Dakka dakka dakka - 1 CP
Orks make up in enthusiasm what they lack in accuracy.
Ignore negative modifiers to hit with shooting attacks with the selected unit until the end of your shooting phase.

You may be right, if only orks close combat was something really powerful. If pks, killsaws and other choppy options were brutal I can agree, if the shooting is invalidated our CC could resolve things. But since orks melee ability is basically reduced to tons of S4 with no AP attacks, we're not even a good close combat oriented army. Having a weak melee ability and the shooting completely invalidated means that orks can't do anything against those kind of armies that give negative modifiers.

I might not remember correctly, but I was reasonably sure Ork boyz in 4th-7th edition were BS 2 and WS4 with 2 base attacks.

And before that I can't remember much, but I do remember that Ork choppa weapons had an armor modifier built in which made them better at CC.

Plus your reasoning of why Ork shooting should be extra expensive is ridiculous. I've heard this broken logic argument more then I care to remember. One side says "Orks are good at CC so their shooting should be bad (IE over priced). The other side says "Ork CC is too good it needs to be expensive! (IE why our PKs should cost more then a SM PF)".

You can't have both and yet we do. Ironically our "good" cc unit is nothing more then a spammed boyz list with tons of AP- S4 attacks.

Ork players need to tell GW to stop with this nonsense and when other Ork players say what you just did it invalidates so much of the problems we face it's ridiculous. Orks aren't good at CC and we aren't good at shooting. We just have a Feth load of boyz models. That's it.

SemperMortis wrote:
I might not remember correctly, but I was reasonably sure Ork boyz in 4th-7th edition were BS 2 and WS4 with 2 base attacks.

And before that I can't remember much, but I do remember that Ork choppa weapons had an armor modifier built in which made them better at CC.

Plus your reasoning of why Ork shooting should be extra expensive is ridiculous. I've heard this broken logic argument more then I care to remember. One side says "Orks are good at CC so their shooting should be bad (IE over priced). The other side says "Ork CC is too good it needs to be expensive! (IE why our PKs should cost more then a SM PF)".

You can't have both and yet we do. Ironically our "good" cc unit is nothing more then a spammed boyz list with tons of AP- S4 attacks.

Ork players need to tell GW to stop with this nonsense and when other Ork players say what you just did it invalidates so much of the problems we face it's ridiculous. Orks aren't good at CC and we aren't good at shooting. We just have a Feth load of boyz models. That's it.

We have been emailing GW...oh boy we have been... gamefaqs@gwplc.com And we need to keep it up until they change.

The way it should be is this:

Orks are bad at shooting...therefore they cannot fit as much firepower into a small space on the board. I.e. Our models, which are 1/2 as effective as another army's 24 point model, should cost 12 points.

But some say--that doesn't make them "bad at shooting" anymore!!! Yes it does. "Bad at shooting" should never mean "shooting models must be overpriced."

What it means is that there are OTHER effects which make us bad; IE can't fit all those models into cover, can't fit all the models in the good spot on the board, can't fit all those models on the objective, can't fit all those models in the terrain, can't fit all those models in the transport, can't fit all those models in the building, can't fit all those models in the deployment zone.

As a result, in a perfect game, orks are "bad at shooting," even if they are just as points efficient as every other army.

In other words, we are penalized for being bad at shooting by making the shooting game tactically difficult. Challenge Accepted, and Welcomed!!

We need to keep hammering on GW until they get it.

(and in case you are wondering...it should work both ways as well. Kroot Carnivores are S3, T3 with 1 attack. They should be 4 points, not 6.)

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

I'm not sure what to say besides "I disagree". I'm not sure where the idea that Orks aren't good in close combat comes from...compared to what exactly? As for "spamming Boyz" (can you spam your basic troops? Is that still spamming?) being bad...maybe this is my bias showing (my job in the army was infantry) but I don't see how "our basic troops are so good that it's easy to base an effective army around them" is something to be unhappy about, much less a sign that our army is weak.

I like the relic and mobbing up stratagem that we're getting. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

In practice, how bad is the -2 to hit situation? I've not encountered it yet, is this something that is actually costing people games? Do we need a faction-wide special rule specifically to counter it in order to even have a chance, or is it just a nuisance?

 office_waaagh wrote:
I'm not sure what to say besides "I disagree". I'm not sure where the idea that Orks aren't good in close combat comes from...compared to what exactly? As for "spamming Boyz" (can you spam your basic troops? Is that still spamming?) being bad...maybe this is my bias showing (my job in the army was infantry) but I don't see how "our basic troops are so good that it's easy to base an effective army around them" is something to be unhappy about, much less a sign that our army is weak.

I like the relic and mobbing up stratagem that we're getting. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

In practice, how bad is the -2 to hit situation? I've not encountered it yet, is this something that is actually costing people games? Do we need a faction-wide special rule specifically to counter it in order to even have a chance, or is it just a nuisance?

There isn't anything inherently wrong with having a ton of troops. It's fitting as well, the problem is that to be competitive, it's literally the only way.

As far as Orks not being good at CC....well they aren't. Meganobz are a joke, regular nobz are squishy and not worth taking compared to boyz, Burma boyz suck, the only "good" CC units are boyz being spammed in numbers that the enemy can't deal with. Compare 180pts of Boyz Vs 180pts of Lhorne Berserkers, who wins? 11 Zerkers is 176pts they have 3 attacks each (4 for the champ) are strength 5 ohh and they get to swing TWICE in every fight phase. So that is 68 S5 attacks hitting on 3s so 45ish hits and 30ish wounds. Against Ork 6+ armor that's 25 casualties. 5 Orkz swing back and get 15 attacks 10 hits and 5 wounds VS 3+ armor that's only 1-2 dead Marines.

 office_waaagh wrote:
I'm not sure what to say besides "I disagree". I'm not sure where the idea that Orks aren't good in close combat comes from...compared to what exactly? As for "spamming Boyz" (can you spam your basic troops? Is that still spamming?) being bad...maybe this is my bias showing (my job in the army was infantry) but I don't see how "our basic troops are so good that it's easy to base an effective army around them" is something to be unhappy about, much less a sign that our army is weak.

I like the relic and mobbing up stratagem that we're getting. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

In practice, how bad is the -2 to hit situation? I've not encountered it yet, is this something that is actually costing people games? Do we need a faction-wide special rule specifically to counter it in order to even have a chance, or is it just a nuisance?

The reason to be unhappy about any one unit being the obvious choice, is that it makes it so that taking the "cool" units a penalty, rather than a bonus and kills list diversity. It is great that boyz are good. I don't want them to be bad, but I want taking a unit of Nobz to be an improvement over taking a unit of boyz. They are supposed to be a stronger unit, now I don't want them to be so good that you never want to take boyz either. I just want it to be a choice. Right now there is basically no time where given the choice between more boyz and another unit in our army, where you look at it and think "for x role this unit is better than boyz, or at least not enough to make them a better choice than boyz." want to kill a tank, boyz aren't great, but equal points of boyz are pretty on par with most other options especially when you look at durability as well. For instance 10 tank bustas are 170 points, and average 6 wounds to most tanks. For those same points I can get 28 boyz. Those same boyz are way more durable (more than twice) and average 8 wounds to the same tank (only including combat). So why take tank bustas especially when they become target #1 when compared to the boyz mobs.

Meganobz are far from a joke, especially if you can buff them with a waaaagh banner and a painboy. 2+ saves are effectively a 5+ invlun, which is a huge help.

Normal nobz are a bit squishy, but ammo runts help quite a bit with that.

And as for the boyz v. zerkers comparison, remember that's dependent on who gets the charge. If those boyz charge the zerkers, you're looking at very, very different numbers.

SemperMortis wrote:

 office_waaagh wrote:
I'm not sure what to say besides "I disagree". I'm not sure where the idea that Orks aren't good in close combat comes from...compared to what exactly? As for "spamming Boyz" (can you spam your basic troops? Is that still spamming?) being bad...maybe this is my bias showing (my job in the army was infantry) but I don't see how "our basic troops are so good that it's easy to base an effective army around them" is something to be unhappy about, much less a sign that our army is weak.

I like the relic and mobbing up stratagem that we're getting. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

In practice, how bad is the -2 to hit situation? I've not encountered it yet, is this something that is actually costing people games? Do we need a faction-wide special rule specifically to counter it in order to even have a chance, or is it just a nuisance?

There isn't anything inherently wrong with having a ton of troops. It's fitting as well, the problem is that to be competitive, it's literally the only way.

As far as Orks not being good at CC....well they aren't. Meganobz are a joke, regular nobz are squishy and not worth taking compared to boyz, Burma boyz suck, the only "good" CC units are boyz being spammed in numbers that the enemy can't deal with. Compare 180pts of Boyz Vs 180pts of Lhorne Berserkers, who wins? 11 Zerkers is 176pts they have 3 attacks each (4 for the champ) are strength 5 ohh and they get to swing TWICE in every fight phase. So that is 68 S5 attacks hitting on 3s so 45ish hits and 30ish wounds. Against Ork 6+ armor that's 25 casualties. 5 Orkz swing back and get 15 attacks 10 hits and 5 wounds VS 3+ armor that's only 1-2 dead Marines.

Well to be fair turn that around to the orks charging 29 boyz is 174 points. They get 116 attacks hitting on 3s, so 77 hits, 38 wounds = 12 dead berserkers. So it comes down to who gets the charge. The problem boyz have is they lack other units to back them up, and lack ways other than a weirdboy to get to combat.

Ohh and the negative to hit modifiers are usually -1. But that's huge for our army because it negates about 1/2 of our shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng, csm are also FASTER then Ork boyz. They are more likely to get the charge off, especially with their abilities.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Meganobz are far from a joke, especially if you can buff them with a waaaagh banner and a painboy. 2+ saves are effectively a 5+ invlun, which is a huge help.

Normal nobz are a bit squishy, but ammo runts help quite a bit with that.

And as for the boyz v. zerkers comparison, remember that's dependent on who gets the charge. If those boyz charge the zerkers, you're looking at very, very different numbers.

The issue with MANZ is that they need the banner or they are pretty bad. They really need to be able to hit on a 3+. They are decently durable unless the opponent has mortal wound spam. Further, if they need character support that means they also need a transport and that gets expensive fast. 5 MANZ + painboy + Banner + transport is minimum of almost 500 points (496).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Ohh and the negative to hit modifiers are usually -1. But that's huge for our army because it negates about 1/2 of our shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng, csm are also FASTER then Ork boyz. They are more likely to get the charge off, especially with their abilities.

Sure right now with the ability to infiltrate berzerkers, run effective squads in a transport, or use psychic powers. Our only way is to Da Jump and pray for a 9. Just pointing out that the math of who charges matters, and the lack of support is the issue, not the capability of the unit. You could easily also screen the berserkers and counter charge, but then your army is doing very little because our shooting sucks.

I still don't really understand why MANZ hitting on a 4+ counts as 'bad' this edition.

Last edition, hitting on 4s was pretty normal for EVERYTHING, unless you were fighting units who were awful in CC.

But I'll happily take hitting 4+s and going first on the charge instead of hitting on 4s and always going last. That seems like a straight buff to me.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I still don't really understand why MANZ hitting on a 4+ counts as 'bad' this edition.

Last edition, hitting on 4s was pretty normal for EVERYTHING, unless you were fighting units who were awful in CC.

But I'll happily take hitting 4+s and going first on the charge instead of hitting on 4s and always going last. That seems like a straight buff to me.

It isn't a nerf compared to last edition. It is just that everything else got buffed, so given their points cost they need to hit better to be reliable.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I still don't really understand why MANZ hitting on a 4+ counts as 'bad' this edition.

Last edition, hitting on 4s was pretty normal for EVERYTHING, unless you were fighting units who were awful in CC.

But I'll happily take hitting 4+s and going first on the charge instead of hitting on 4s and always going last. That seems like a straight buff to me.

I think it has more to do with the fact that Power klaws now only do D3 damage each which means their damage potential is a LOT lower than the previous edition, especially since our ideal targets are now wounded normally on 3's rather than 2's. With the amount of wounds vehicles/monsters have now and the unreliability of D3 damage per klaw hit (and now even 3+ save models have a chance of saving against them, unlike before), a unit of 3 Meganobz has a surprisingly mediocre chance of killing a rhino outright in one round of combat, whereas before it was basically a sure thing. Definitely a transition to get used to but currently the price point they are at does not reflect their damage output and the plethora of plasma and lascannons firing about makes their 2+ save largely moot.

I can see the argument about their random damage output, that's something I honestly have noticed as well.

But hell, I still love their 2+ save. At least they now get a 5+ save against plasma/las/power fists - last edition their 2+ save really WAS moot against those weapons.

Powerfist can't kill vehicles anymore. No matter the unit that uses them, be it a ork or space marines.

Heck, even a squad of Deathknight Knights without the -1 penalty in their Thunderhammer-like maces that have 1 less of AP have problems killing a rhino.

So I don't think thats how one should measure that. Chain Fist and Powerfist are now for killing elite infantry, not vehicles.

 Galas wrote:
Powerfist can't kill vehicles anymore. No matter the unit that uses them, be it a ork or space marines.

Heck, even a squad of Deathknight Knights without the -1 penalty in their Thunderhammer-like maces that have 1 less of AP have problems killing a rhino.

So I don't think thats how one should measure that. Chain Fist and Powerfist are now for killing elite infantry, not vehicles.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems with the Ork index right now. PKs and Killsaws aren't good at killing vehicles so what the hell do we use to kill them? I am at the point in my gaming where I ignore vehicles or keep them tied up in combat because I have NO answer beyond sending Ghaz after them. And don't say "tankbustas" because they are trash right now as well. If they aren't in a trukk minimum they are killed turn 1 and even then it's not guaranteed because trukkz and wagons are so expensive we can't spam them like we used to. Plus 10 tank bustas will be lucky to kill a rhino in one round of shooting. Anything heavier then that or T8 and forget about it.

So our glorious CC style army can't CC vehicles and can't shoot them.

Yeah, I don't bother with big choppas or pks anymore, all my nobz just have the free choppa. The only good thing about that is the fact that I finally use my AOBR nobz, which never went into battle in the previous edition with the exception of a couple of them the very few times I've brought the council of the Waaagh. Wow

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, I don't bother with big choppas or pks anymore, all my nobz just have the free choppa. The only good thing about that is the fact that I finally use my AOBR nobz, which never went into battle in the previous edition with the exception of a couple of them the very few times I've brought the council of the Waaagh. Wow

I Have gone back to issuing BCs to my nobz simply because I run into far to many vehicles and MCs in my games now. Having 2-4 BCs attacking something along with 30-60 Boyz tends to get the desired result (Unless its T8).

We really need some Anti-Tank options that don't suck. Even if they slashed Tank Bustas price in half it woldn't be enough because you still need to buy a transport for the :(

I don't have the current Xeno index (I should buy that?). Is Orky shootaz Rapid Fire or Assault?

M.