Switch Theme:

What is going to happen to Ork Nobz?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


I'd argue tacs and intercessors shouldn't, happy to see a move to primaris only. Saying that tacs have broader load out options at least.

Would giving meganobz a 2+/5+++ (note not invuln) base with t5 and an extra wound with no increase to melee firepower give them the niche of durable while leaving space for nobz to be the killy unit?


Not especially. The biggest threat to meganobz is anti-tank weaponry and the same things that target gravis marines. So going to 4W T5 with a 5+ FNP wouldn't really increase their durability by an appreciable amount, unless of course we are going to keep them roughly the same price, and I doubt that would happen. Against a multi-Melta weapon (likely the most common thing used against them in the future) its D6+2 most of the time. Currently its wounding on 2s, so 6 hits = 5 wounds. against a 6+ armor save that is 4.16 unsaved wounds for guaranteed 4 dead Meganobz. If you increase T to 5 and give them an extra wound its 6 hits = 4 wounds = 3.33 unsaved wounds each one does D6+2 which averages 5.5dmg. which against a 5+FNP = 3.66 unsaved dmg. so again likely 3-4 dead Meganobz. Basically, in order for Meganobz to be "durable" they need an invuln save of some sort, preferably a 4+.


With my suggestion they'd happily eat 50 s4 ap - d1 hits per meganob, my issue is you're viewing them and treating them like tanks. If you're buffing them to the point people are forced to fire anti tank weapons at infantry, then I'd argue they're working as intended, or you're simply preventing them from dieing in nearly any and every circumstance.

If you gave them a 4++ you've essentially made ork custodes, which seems wrong given meganobs have never has invulns or force fields iirc.

I want an honest suggestion of what a nob and mega nob should look like with a rationale at this point because it seems that altering one causes the other to need altering and it spirals into oblivion.

   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Hecaton wrote:
 Mr Raptor wrote:
I think it is pointless to compare an individual unit to another unit from another faction, especially when they don't have the same role. Yes a firstborn marine is clearly superior to a Nob for about the same points (an actual gun with good BS, better save, doctrines, better leadership, troop slot, ect...) but it doesn't really matter.


40k does not have the sublime balance that would make that a sensical approach. Cross-faction point comparisons are usually valid.


Well, that's kind of backwards. Cross-faction point comparisons are worthless precisely because you can't calculate point values for most of the things that make factions different. And even if you could, it wouldn't be precise enough.

The only thing you really can compare is whole armies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/12 22:53:20


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
Hecaton wrote:
 Mr Raptor wrote:
I think it is pointless to compare an individual unit to another unit from another faction, especially when they don't have the same role. Yes a firstborn marine is clearly superior to a Nob for about the same points (an actual gun with good BS, better save, doctrines, better leadership, troop slot, ect...) but it doesn't really matter.


40k does not have the sublime balance that would make that a sensical approach. Cross-faction point comparisons are usually valid.


Well, that's kind of backwards. Cross-faction point comparisons are worthless precisely because you can't calculate point values for most of the things that make factions different. And even if you could, it wouldn't be precise enough.

The only thing you really can compare is whole armies.


If you want to argue about whether thing A or thing B should be X points or X+1 points, sure. But surely you feel competent to eyeball the fact that a Space Marine gets more and better special rules/support ability interactions than an Ork?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:

With my suggestion they'd happily eat 50 s4 ap - d1 hits per meganob, my issue is you're viewing them and treating them like tanks. If you're buffing them to the point people are forced to fire anti tank weapons at infantry, then I'd argue they're working as intended, or you're simply preventing them from dieing in nearly any and every circumstance.

If you gave them a 4++ you've essentially made ork custodes, which seems wrong given meganobs have never has invulns or force fields iirc.

I want an honest suggestion of what a nob and mega nob should look like with a rationale at this point because it seems that altering one causes the other to need altering and it spirals into oblivion.

T5, 4W and a 5+ FNP takes about 110 S4 ap - D1 hits to kill. But again, meganobz are already durable enough vs S4 ap - d1 shots. It takes 36 S4 shots to kill a meganob atm or slightly tougher than a Gravis Marine, giving them a 4th wound or T5 would give them more than enough durability vs that type of weaponry. The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?

As far as turning Meganobz into Custodes....didn't SM's have access to a 3++ not that long ago? I think its a 4++ now but still, its not unheard of, and Terminators (Meganob equivalents) have access as well.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

With my suggestion they'd happily eat 50 s4 ap - d1 hits per meganob, my issue is you're viewing them and treating them like tanks. If you're buffing them to the point people are forced to fire anti tank weapons at infantry, then I'd argue they're working as intended, or you're simply preventing them from dieing in nearly any and every circumstance.

If you gave them a 4++ you've essentially made ork custodes, which seems wrong given meganobs have never has invulns or force fields iirc.

I want an honest suggestion of what a nob and mega nob should look like with a rationale at this point because it seems that altering one causes the other to need altering and it spirals into oblivion.

T5, 4W and a 5+ FNP takes about 110 S4 ap - D1 hits to kill. But again, meganobz are already durable enough vs S4 ap - d1 shots. It takes 36 S4 shots to kill a meganob atm or slightly tougher than a Gravis Marine, giving them a 4th wound or T5 would give them more than enough durability vs that type of weaponry. The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?

As far as turning Meganobz into Custodes....didn't SM's have access to a 3++ not that long ago? I think its a 4++ now but still, its not unheard of, and Terminators (Meganob equivalents) have access as well.


But you want them resistant to small arms, resistant to anti armour fire, killy in close combat and no less points efficient than nobz. That seems an unreasonable request at that point, but more importantly again, leaves nobz even more pointless. Making a walking tank vulnerable to anti tank seems fair.

I'm sure you know as well as I do terminators have fluffwise always have had a refractor field build into their armour, where as a meganob is a collection of hydraulic and metal pieces cobbled together. Giving them an invuln would need a retcon of the fluff and make a kff big mek less relevant.

Again, how would you differentiate a role between nobz and mega nobz?
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?


You say "problem", I say "people correctly identifying which unit to shoot with which weapon".

Isn't that the sort of tactical decision-making people keep claiming they want to see in this game?

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




 Dysartes wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?


You say "problem", I say "people correctly identifying which unit to shoot with which weapon".

Isn't that the sort of tactical decision-making people keep claiming they want to see in this game?


I'm with you, firing anti vehicle at infantry models is a decision someone has made to leave a vehicle alive instead. If they cover all their weaknesses, what is the point.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you want to argue about whether thing A or thing B should be X points or X+1 points, sure. But surely you feel competent to eyeball the fact that a Space Marine gets more and better special rules/support ability interactions than an Ork?


Comparing *a* Space Marine to *an* ork just as useless as comparing their points. Armies are more than the sum of their parts. There is a reason why half the armies would totally want to play 5 pts gretchin while orks don't touch them with a ten foot pole, and it's neither points nor rules interactions.

Orks have two rather variable archetypes which can clearly compete with what marines can bring - and the main reason why one of them is not topping tournaments anymore are the secondary kill objectives, which are part of neither codex.
Nobz could theoretically fit into either of them, but they are nowhere to be seen, while MANz and boyz constantly do appear in lists.

Bringing nobz in line with intercessors does nothing for orks, making them alternative to MANz and/or boyz without does.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
Bringing nobz in line with intercessors does nothing for orks, making them alternative to MANz and/or boyz without does.


This might be right in terms of "winning all the tournaments" - but alternate builds which produce different ways to play can still be interesting. (I mean this is what you are saying - but I'm saying making them comparable to intercessors would surely do that. I guess.)

I'm mixed on the debate. I agree you have to consider armies in the context of all the buff architecture available to them - so unit X in faction Y will perform differently to the same unit in faction Z.

But at the same time, you can look at "damage output+resillience+movement"/"points" and usually get a reasonable handle on what will perform and what won't across all factions.

I don't think they'll get significant buffs - but I don't think making basic Nobz a troops choice would break the game - any more than thinking Heavy Intercessors will make all the Marine troops choices obsolete.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/13 11:05:57


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






I think you got what I was trying to say.

Essentially, if you would just turn nobz into intercessors with the exact same statline, rules, points and bolt rifle shootas shooting twice as often to compensate for BS5+, they would remain unused because orks simply have no need for intercessors.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
I think you got what I was trying to say.

Essentially, if you would just turn nobz into intercessors with the exact same statline, rules, points and bolt rifle shootas shooting twice as often to compensate for BS5+, they would remain unused because orks simply have no need for intercessors.


You see I'm not sure about this. Leaving aside the issues in the base game rules - if you were running a speed freaks sort of list, don't you think a bunch of Orkcessors in a trukk would beat say 10 boyz?
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





My thought on that is that Nobz need the versatility and anti-elite/anti-tank power that boyz lack, but still remain easier to kill than meganobz.
They should be deadly in melee and not utter trash at range. Whether they're troops or not is irrelevant to their use imo and somehow I doubt GW will give orks a heavy infantry choice for troops. However, they should get these upgrades without sacrificing their point cost.

Dudeface wrote:
Then following your arguments either manz or nobz needs to get the cut, there isn't much more you can do to 1 without upsetting the other by definition.


I actually forgot MANz were W3 now. It still stands for toughness though. If nobz got to T5 (which I doubt) then obviously MANz will too. The opposite isn't necessarily true though.
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




 Mr Raptor wrote:
My thought on that is that Nobz need the versatility and anti-elite/anti-tank power that boyz lack, but still remain easier to kill than meganobz.
They should be deadly in melee and not utter trash at range. Whether they're troops or not is irrelevant to their use imo and somehow I doubt GW will give orks a heavy infantry choice for troops. However, they should get these upgrades without sacrificing their point cost.

Dudeface wrote:
Then following your arguments either manz or nobz needs to get the cut, there isn't much more you can do to 1 without upsetting the other by definition.


I actually forgot MANz were W3 now. It still stands for toughness though. If nobz got to T5 (which I doubt) then obviously MANz will too. The opposite isn't necessarily true though.


I feel this sums it up, nobz need to be semi fragile damage dealers, while the meganobz need to be nigh unstoppable but with lower damage output.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






Tyel wrote:
You see I'm not sure about this. Leaving aside the issues in the base game rules - if you were running a speed freaks sort of list, don't you think a bunch of Orkcessors in a trukk would beat say 10 boyz?


Maybe, but only if you make them troops. Trukkboyz plus a unit of kommandoz would still be cheaper and do the forward objective capping thing better. As a shooting unit they definitely won't be useful, as you could get three buggies or a buggy and a plane for the same costs.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/13 18:30:29


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Hecaton wrote:
 Mr Raptor wrote:
I think it is pointless to compare an individual unit to another unit from another faction, especially when they don't have the same role. Yes a firstborn marine is clearly superior to a Nob for about the same points (an actual gun with good BS, better save, doctrines, better leadership, troop slot, ect...) but it doesn't really matter.


40k does not have the sublime balance that would make that a sensical approach. Cross-faction point comparisons are usually valid.
Not only that. When Ork player A goes up against Marine player B and discovers the units he paid the same points for are inferior it feels bad. It is bad optics. Now the greater tactical synergy is also important; if there is a ready counter argument of "yes, but your Ork unit can do [useful thing]" that largely resolves the problem, ASSUMING that useful thing is an adequate counter-balance. But recognition of that dynamic is important because without the base stat comparison there isn't groundwork for how strong the 'extra' needs to be.

Consider; Games Workshop rules not so much games but as toolboxes for players to craft an experience from, and open/narrative/matched play just examples of how things can be put together. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Jidmah wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you want to argue about whether thing A or thing B should be X points or X+1 points, sure. But surely you feel competent to eyeball the fact that a Space Marine gets more and better special rules/support ability interactions than an Ork?


Comparing *a* Space Marine to *an* ork just as useless as comparing their points. Armies are more than the sum of their parts. There is a reason why half the armies would totally want to play 5 pts gretchin while orks don't touch them with a ten foot pole, and it's neither points nor rules interactions.

Orks have two rather variable archetypes which can clearly compete with what marines can bring - and the main reason why one of them is not topping tournaments anymore are the secondary kill objectives, which are part of neither codex.
Nobz could theoretically fit into either of them, but they are nowhere to be seen, while MANz and boyz constantly do appear in lists.

Bringing nobz in line with intercessors does nothing for orks, making them alternative to MANz and/or boyz without does.


Armies may be more than the sum of their parts, but if all the parts of army 1 are better than all the parts of army 2 that doesn't, I don't know, telegraph a little that maybe army 1 is better?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armies may be more than the sum of their parts, but if all the parts of army 1 are better than all the parts of army 2 that doesn't, I don't know, telegraph a little that maybe army 1 is better?


What makes you think that space marines are better than orks?

See, this demonstrates the problem perfectly. You assume that space marines are better because of their stats and rules, but yet orks have a winrate that is significantly higher than marines in general and slightly better than their best chapters.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/13 20:54:01


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





If you are talking about marines being the end all be all of broken, I don't think this is relevant to the conversation. Sure they have insanely good cost efficient units, but i'd rather see nobz being balanced internally first rather than having them be the complete equals of intercessors point for points. At that point, why even bother having multiple armies if we want all units to have a similar statline throughout all codices.

Units are not only their statlines. They have special rules, army buffs, stratagems, ... some of these things being about impossible to value properly in term of points. So personally, i don't care if nobz are less efficient point for point than intercessors. I want them to be actually useful in an (or at least certain) ork army. Which is not the case right now because they are not good enough at what they're supposed to be good at, making them a poor choice to take.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






 Mr Raptor wrote:
If you are talking about marines being the end all be all of broken, I don't think this is relevant to the conversation. Sure they have insanely good cost efficient units, but i'd rather see nobz being balanced internally first rather than having them be the complete equals of intercessors point for points. At that point, why even bother having multiple armies if we want all units to have a similar statline throughout all codices.

Units are not only their statlines. They have special rules, army buffs, stratagems, ... some of these things being about impossible to value properly in term of points. So personally, i don't care if nobz are less efficient point for point than intercessors. I want them to be actually useful in an (or at least certain) ork army. Which is not the case right now because they are not good enough at what they're supposed to be good at, making them a poor choice to take.


Amen.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Dudeface wrote:


But you want them resistant to small arms, resistant to anti armour fire, killy in close combat and no less points efficient than nobz. That seems an unreasonable request at that point, but more importantly again, leaves nobz even more pointless. Making a walking tank vulnerable to anti tank seems fair.

I'm sure you know as well as I do terminators have fluffwise always have had a refractor field build into their armour, where as a meganob is a collection of hydraulic and metal pieces cobbled together. Giving them an invuln would need a retcon of the fluff and make a kff big mek less relevant.

Again, how would you differentiate a role between nobz and mega nobz?


nowhere did I make that claim though. I think nobz need more durability AND a huge increase to their Damage output, leaving them with T5 2w and 4+ armor does not make them as tanky as a Meganob. On the meganob, their dmg output is fine, but they need to be tankier, as far as never having an invuln save....may I introduce you to "Cybork" enhancements which used to give the Orkz a 5+ invuln save. and were primarily used on...nobz.

 Dysartes wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?


You say "problem", I say "people correctly identifying which unit to shoot with which weapon".

Isn't that the sort of tactical decision-making people keep claiming they want to see in this game?


Yeah its a problem because at the moment, nobody is using S4 No AP 1 dmg weapons to take down tanky units. When was the last time you thought to yourself "you know what would be a good idea? Im going to shoot all my S4 weapons at those Gravis Marines". So making Meganobz more resistant to S4 weaponry doesn't fix their core issue which is them being vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry which is currently being spammed.

 Jidmah wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armies may be more than the sum of their parts, but if all the parts of army 1 are better than all the parts of army 2 that doesn't, I don't know, telegraph a little that maybe army 1 is better?


What makes you think that space marines are better than orks?

See, this demonstrates the problem perfectly. You assume that space marines are better because of their stats and rules, but yet orks have a winrate that is significantly higher than marines in general and slightly better than their best chapters.


We covered this in the Ork tactics thread, but basically, the reason Orkz are doing well with goff spam is because its counter meta. Most armies correctly assume they will be facing off against Primaris/Gravis type models and therefore bring weapons designed to kill that sort of target, so when you get swamped by 90-120 ork bodies that don't mind being incinerated by a S8 melta blast as much as they do getting hit with a plethora of Hurricane bolters, yeah we win. The beauty about the goff spam is that not only is it counter meta, but its currently great based on 9th edition scoring rules. In other words we bring more troops than the enemy can handle and therefore hold objectives better.

If at first you don't succeed then Sky Diving isn't for you. 
   
Made in us
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote:


But you want them resistant to small arms, resistant to anti armour fire, killy in close combat and no less points efficient than nobz. That seems an unreasonable request at that point, but more importantly again, leaves nobz even more pointless. Making a walking tank vulnerable to anti tank seems fair.

I'm sure you know as well as I do terminators have fluffwise always have had a refractor field build into their armour, where as a meganob is a collection of hydraulic and metal pieces cobbled together. Giving them an invuln would need a retcon of the fluff and make a kff big mek less relevant.

Again, how would you differentiate a role between nobz and mega nobz?


nowhere did I make that claim though. I think nobz need more durability AND a huge increase to their Damage output, leaving them with T5 2w and 4+ armor does not make them as tanky as a Meganob. On the meganob, their dmg output is fine, but they need to be tankier, as far as never having an invuln save....may I introduce you to "Cybork" enhancements which used to give the Orkz a 5+ invuln save. and were primarily used on...nobz.
Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?


You say "problem", I say "people correctly identifying which unit to shoot with which weapon".

Isn't that the sort of tactical decision-making people keep claiming they want to see in this game?


Yeah its a problem because at the moment, nobody is using S4 No AP 1 dmg weapons to take down tanky units. When was the last time you thought to yourself "you know what would be a good idea? Im going to shoot all my S4 weapons at those Gravis Marines". So making Meganobz more resistant to S4 weaponry doesn't fix their core issue which is them being vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry which is currently being spammed.

 Jidmah wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Armies may be more than the sum of their parts, but if all the parts of army 1 are better than all the parts of army 2 that doesn't, I don't know, telegraph a little that maybe army 1 is better?


What makes you think that space marines are better than orks?

See, this demonstrates the problem perfectly. You assume that space marines are better because of their stats and rules, but yet orks have a winrate that is significantly higher than marines in general and slightly better than their best chapters.


We covered this in the Ork tactics thread, but basically, the reason Orkz are doing well with goff spam is because its counter meta. Most armies correctly assume they will be facing off against Primaris/Gravis type models and therefore bring weapons designed to kill that sort of target, so when you get swamped by 90-120 ork bodies that don't mind being incinerated by a S8 melta blast as much as they do getting hit with a plethora of Hurricane bolters, yeah we win. The beauty about the goff spam is that not only is it counter meta, but its currently great based on 9th edition scoring rules. In other words we bring more troops than the enemy can handle and therefore hold objectives better.



SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Spoiler:

With my suggestion they'd happily eat 50 s4 ap - d1 hits per meganob, my issue is you're viewing them and treating them like tanks. If you're buffing them to the point people are forced to fire anti tank weapons at infantry, then I'd argue they're working as intended, or you're simply preventing them from dieing in nearly any and every circumstance.

If you gave them a 4++ you've essentially made ork custodes, which seems wrong given meganobs have never has invulns or force fields iirc.

I want an honest suggestion of what a nob and mega nob should look like with a rationale at this point because it seems that altering one causes the other to need altering and it spirals into oblivion.



T5, 4W and a 5+ FNP takes about 110 S4 ap - D1 hits to kill. But again, meganobz are already durable enough vs S4 ap - d1 shots. It takes 36 S4 shots to kill a meganob atm or slightly tougher than a Gravis Marine, giving them a 4th wound or T5 would give them more than enough durability vs that type of weaponry. The problem is that people aren't shooting meganobz with T4 no AP weapons that often, they are shooting them with Plasma and now melta. Because why waste bolters on Meganobz when you can shoot boyz instead and than use your plasma/melta to delete a 38pt meganob. T5 does a lot, so does giving them a 4th wound, but i'll bet you dollars to donuts that GW than prices them closer to 50-60ppm instead of 38, and at that point why wouldn't you pop them with a melta gun?

As far as turning Meganobz into Custodes....didn't SM's have access to a 3++ not that long ago? I think its a 4++ now but still, its not unheard of, and Terminators (Meganob equivalents) have access as well.


You said here you want meganobz to be resilient to anti infantry, anti armour and the whole thread is saying that they're more points efficient than nobz so nobz are pointless. You've confused yourself replying to (your) posts about meganobz and thinking it relates to regular nobz somehow.

The point is if meganobz have similar damage output per point at greater survivability nobz just become useless again. If nobz have greater damage output because they're notably cheaper, you'd stop bringing meganobz.

Their roles need splitting out or the gap between survivable and damage output needs widening notably.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/13 21:55:15


 
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike






SemperMortis wrote:
We covered this in the Ork tactics thread, but basically, the reason Orkz are doing well with goff spam is because its counter meta. Most armies correctly assume they will be facing off against Primaris/Gravis type models and therefore bring weapons designed to kill that sort of target, so when you get swamped by 90-120 ork bodies that don't mind being incinerated by a S8 melta blast as much as they do getting hit with a plethora of Hurricane bolters, yeah we win. The beauty about the goff spam is that not only is it counter meta, but its currently great based on 9th edition scoring rules. In other words we bring more troops than the enemy can handle and therefore hold objectives better.


We didn't cover this, buggy spam also has part in those win rates and some of that is objectively wrong. And frankly I just didn't discuss this because with you I don't want to have another discussion where you math out how much more powerful intercessors are than nobz when it's completely irrelevant in the first place.

There are no facts that back up that marines as an army are more powerful than orks as an army.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mr Raptor wrote:
If you are talking about marines being the end all be all of broken, I don't think this is relevant to the conversation. Sure they have insanely good cost efficient units, but i'd rather see nobz being balanced internally first rather than having them be the complete equals of intercessors point for points. At that point, why even bother having multiple armies if we want all units to have a similar statline throughout all codices.

Units are not only their statlines. They have special rules, army buffs, stratagems, ... some of these things being about impossible to value properly in term of points. So personally, i don't care if nobz are less efficient point for point than intercessors. I want them to be actually useful in an (or at least certain) ork army. Which is not the case right now because they are not good enough at what they're supposed to be good at, making them a poor choice to take.


Nobz need to be balanced externally first, *then* internally. It's better if a given army has only one good build than none.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Hecaton wrote:
 Mr Raptor wrote:
If you are talking about marines being the end all be all of broken, I don't think this is relevant to the conversation. Sure they have insanely good cost efficient units, but i'd rather see nobz being balanced internally first rather than having them be the complete equals of intercessors point for points. At that point, why even bother having multiple armies if we want all units to have a similar statline throughout all codices.

Units are not only their statlines. They have special rules, army buffs, stratagems, ... some of these things being about impossible to value properly in term of points. So personally, i don't care if nobz are less efficient point for point than intercessors. I want them to be actually useful in an (or at least certain) ork army. Which is not the case right now because they are not good enough at what they're supposed to be good at, making them a poor choice to take.


Nobz need to be balanced externally first, *then* internally. It's better if a given army has only one good build than none.


Thats not how... you balance a game. I mean, ideally you would be the doing the two things at once. But orks aren't in so a bad shape that balancing nobz internally would let them to still be utter trash externally.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/13 23:27:50


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in fr
Fresh-Faced New User





 Jidmah wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
We covered this in the Ork tactics thread, but basically, the reason Orkz are doing well with goff spam is because its counter meta. Most armies correctly assume they will be facing off against Primaris/Gravis type models and therefore bring weapons designed to kill that sort of target, so when you get swamped by 90-120 ork bodies that don't mind being incinerated by a S8 melta blast as much as they do getting hit with a plethora of Hurricane bolters, yeah we win. The beauty about the goff spam is that not only is it counter meta, but its currently great based on 9th edition scoring rules. In other words we bring more troops than the enemy can handle and therefore hold objectives better.


We didn't cover this, buggy spam also has part in those win rates and some of that is objectively wrong. And frankly I just didn't discuss this because with you I don't want to have another discussion where you math out how much more powerful intercessors are than nobz when it's completely irrelevant in the first place.

There are no facts that back up that marines as an army are more powerful than orks as an army.


What does a "powerful army" mean anyway ?
Does it mean that it has exactly 1 army cheese comp that wins tournaments but the other 80% of the codex is garbage ?
Is it that the whole codex is better than most others in any role with only strong cost efficient units ?
Is it just because its winrate is above 50% ?

The SM problem right now is that they have a long list of strong options and a few decent options (in comparison, the necron codex has a long list of decent options and a few strong options). Whether or not SM crash tournaments isn't really bothering me (and they seem to get a fair amount of wins without crowding tops either).
It however becomes more problematic in casual/pick-up games, where people play what they have/like/could come up with. Right now THAT is the demographic SM are crushing. You can hardly go wrong and have so many ways to make a good army. Orks can't do that. Orks require a lot more thought and skill to equal the average SM list.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Galas wrote:
Thats not how... you balance a game. I mean, ideally you would be the two things at once. But orks aren't in so a bad shape that balancing nobz internally would let them to still be utter trash extrenally.



It's better than balancing internally with no regard for external balance, but unfortunately that seems to be GW's tack lately.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




The problem you've got is that Orks are placing *reasonably* regularly in tournaments. They don't do so all the time, but they are clearly not down with the bad factions.

So saying Nobz are bad, fix Nobz - okay. How you do this without stepping on toes is a bit unclear, but its fair enough.
But the view that boyz and Manz need to be buffed prompts a bit of a "???" response from me.

This increases even further if you take the view Harlequins and Custodes are doing so well because they didn't really get a 9th edition points hike, and are so just undercosted compared to everyone else by about 10%. As are certain Marine units.
   
Made in us
Preacher of the Emperor




Tacoma, WA, USA

Call me a outsider, but what exactly is wrong with?:

Boyz S4 T4 W1 A2 Sv 6+
Nobz S5 T4 W2 A3 Sv 4+
Meganobz S5 T4 W3 A3 Sv 2+

It looks like a similar progression to Space Marines:

Scouts S4 T4 W1 A1 Sv 4+
Marine S4 T4 W2 A1 Sv 3+
Terminator S4 T4 W3 A2 Sv 2+/5++

The big difference is the SMs are weighted towards defense while the Orks are weighted toward offense. If they keep the points adjusted correctly, all should be well.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:
Call me a outsider, but what exactly is wrong with?:

Boyz S4 T4 W1 A2 Sv 6+
Nobz S5 T4 W2 A3 Sv 4+
Meganobz S5 T4 W3 A3 Sv 2+

It looks like a similar progression to Space Marines:

Scouts S4 T4 W1 A1 Sv 4+
Marine S4 T4 W2 A1 Sv 3+
Terminator S4 T4 W3 A2 Sv 2+/5++

The big difference is the SMs are weighted towards defense while the Orks are weighted toward offense. If they keep the points adjusted correctly, all should be well.


Primaris existing gives the lie to that progression.
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Cary, NC

 Nazrak wrote:
Am I the only person who thinks making Nobz Troops is a horrible idea? Completely contradicts like 30-odd years of lore. Boyz have always been the core of an Ork army.


No, you are not. I hate, hate, hate the idea. I don't know what to do to better balance the game, and I know that GW seems to be hell-bent for leather on eliminating anything 'normal' in each army, but I sincerely hope they don't do this. I feel like nobs, thematically, need some boys to boss around. I think it would be fine to have certain missions/scenarios/whatever where 'the tough guys' all show up, but at the core of what makes an Ork army seem like an ork army is more boyz than nobs.

Now, admittedly, I am the doddering old fart who thinks the IG should be fielding infantry squads with command squads, etc, as well, and Tyranids should be fielding loads of Gaunts.

I get that people want the cool models, and the best performing models, and they want to use the models that they buy. But I also don't see the point of having a "force organization" of some sort if regular, basic troops aren't the Troops choices and elite, specialist squads aren't Elites. Yes, Marines do have better troops--but that's the POINT of marines, isn't it? I think so much of the problem is more from the points costs than the stats. If insanely elite, insanely well-equipped troops like Space Marines were actually expensive, rather than the baseline, it wouldn't be quite as annoying.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: