Switch Theme:

Army Skill Level  [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 nz
Cog in the Machine




New Zealand

Hey Dakka,

As a relativity new player experience wise, I'm curious about the army skill level required on the tabletop to be effective and master any given faction.

For example if I am correct (I'm not sure I am, this is post just an example). Orks have a low skill level required to play the army, but if you are not simply hording boys and using "Da Jump" then the army gets quite difficult to master, especially the non meta builds like speed freaks etc.

So my question would be what would the faction list look like for the required skill level to play them as a starter, an experienced or a mastered player/army.

I don't know how to rank this or what it would look like, so if we were to use a scale of 1-10 for required skill level, it might work.

E.g.

Orks Starter army = 1 (Required skill)
Orks experienced army = 4
Orks mastered army = 8

Admech Starter = 3
Admech Experienced = 6
Admech Mastered = 8

The above is only my thoughts as I'm not really sure this is a good way of depicting it, and I have absolutely no idea on most of the other factions especially the elitist factions like GK, Custodes, and DE etc.

What say you? I Guess I'm trying to build a picture of all the factions as I have very little table top experience.




Building towards 1000pts
 
   
Made in ca
Focused Fire Warrior




Canada

Way to contextual to reduce to a 1-10 scale. Especially considering the same list can go from brain dread to highly nuanced and skill required vs two different lists. There's no standard skill level... Even then a massive chunk of tourny play is designing the right list for the right localized meta, expected terrain set up and mission.

On top of that a large amount of 'skill' has to do with knowing your op stuff (imo matters more then mastery of your stuff) and mystery of formats like picking ITC secondaries and understanding primaries.

Imo which is heavily biased I would put mastery of your own faction (micro management on the table) at maybe 20% of the games 'skill' so even rating that 1-10 is pretty meaningless.

A 'brain dead" army piloted by a master of the meta with good math skills and knowledge base of the game will win events....Nick plaguebearer army with tons of chars like do as an example is a brain dead army that a bot could play...but if you don't have to think about the micro of your own army you can think about your op macro and such. A skilled player might purposefully play a brain dead army for that reason and others.

You are just going to get peoples heavily biased opinions that largely formed based off semi relevant criteria.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 22:34:50


 
   
Made in nz
Cog in the Machine




New Zealand

Ozomoto wrote:

You are just going to get peoples heavily biased opinions that largely formed based off semi relevant criteria.


Indeed, but if I get enough of them then I may be able to sort through the BS.

Then again it could be a completely failed experiment, and an exercise in futility.

It doesn't hurt to try though!
   
Made in ca
Focused Fire Warrior




Canada

 Beersarius Drawl wrote:
Ozomoto wrote:

You are just going to get peoples heavily biased opinions that largely formed based off semi relevant criteria.


Indeed, but if I get enough of them then I may be able to sort through the BS.

Then again it could be a completely failed experiment, and an exercise in futility.

It doesn't hurt to try though!


I believe it's an exercise in futility.

People love to put things in there little boxes and compartmentalize everything .

It's how humans think...something is only a something because of this other something.

95%+ of the "high level tactics' you read on table top games are a waste of time. A lot of things are also only true conditional to players playstyles etc. The correct unit /play might be right for one and not the other

There is no objective truth in 'strategy' for once there is it is no longer strategy and merely a mathematical proof.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/09 22:39:48


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






The sad truth is in 8th edition there is no skill involved with the actual gameplay, it boils down to list-building and deployment. Everything else is irrelevant compared to those two.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/09 22:46:04


Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++There are currently ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT(108) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
+++++List of "broken" RaW in Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities
Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users.
Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Some are for sure harder than others, like CWE is for sure easier than Harlequins, Tau is easier than necrons, etc..

But any army that focuses on mostly shooting will be easier than melee armies.

15k+ :Harlequin: 4k
12k+ SOLD (to many armies)
5k
Beastmen 6500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




Necrons aren't hard to play, we're just bad. There aren't any complex combos or careful positioning we need.

I'd say Cults are probably the most skillful army, based on my limited experience anyway.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




No one has yet defined what "skill" is, so your question is a bit difficult.

We know that it is an extremely important factor, because with the same list in a major event you can end up top place or close to last.

What is skill though?

Being able to put together a good list?
Being able to deploy correctly?
Being able to predict the flow of the game and create a battle plan accordingly?
Being able to run math in your head really fast to decide between possible scenarios during the game?
Being able to foresee your opponent moves?
Being able to correctly assess a meta?
Being fast at moving your models and performing actions?
Knowing all rules by memory?

There are a lot of aspects that define a "good" 40K player.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 11:05:15


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






IanVanCheese wrote:
Necrons aren't hard to play, we're just bad. There aren't any complex combos or careful positioning we need.

I'd say Cults are probably the most skillful army, based on my limited experience anyway.


Skill in 40k is.. different for everyone, for me it is "How badly will a mistake punish you"

Thats why i said Tau is easier than Necrons, b.c Necrons are going to get punish harder than Tau.


But IMO the Hardest army to play IMO is GSC. They need to have timing, deployment, and movements dont perfectly or you will be punished extremely hard, but at the same time when play well they are a good army.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/10 11:21:51


15k+ :Harlequin: 4k
12k+ SOLD (to many armies)
5k
Beastmen 6500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Despite some people telling you otherwise, list building is only a part of it. Units in a list are like tools in a box. You need to select the correct tools for what you want to achieve.
From what I've seen, mostly via YouTube interviews with top level competitive players, is that movement is the number one skill for success. Sometimes a fraction of an inch mistake in deployment or general movement can cost the game.
Net lists are easily duplicated but it's usually the same names that appear at the top of tree regardless of which army they play. Even grey knights have won tournaments!
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




Coming from a competitive perspective here, so I am not going to be doing a ton of "monofaction" looks, instead thinking about the current meta builds and setups.

Orks: Very low bar. Current meta builds for orks are the easiest competitive orks have been in an incredibly long time. They tend to rely on swarming objectives, longrange stationary firepower that really only matters where you deploy. The only technical aspect is the placement and micro of your da jump blob for maximum interference and distraction while you rack up mission points, and timing of your critical stratagems, which for orks are kind of a game of chicken. How low can the boyz blob go before you pop strats to save them and endless green tide them? When do you pull the trigger on Grot Shields? When are you safe to burn CP fishing for a good SUS result?

Tau: Very low bar. A casual player can very easily pilot a competitive Tau triptide list and win games. No psychic powers, very point and click killer units, no tricky stratagems, mostly longrange shooting.

Imperial Soup: Low bar. Generally shooting-focused, generally long ranged, but more difficult to characterize because they're always always changing and tweaking small amounts. But most iterations are fairly simple to pilot.

Aeldari (Covens): Mid bar. Any melee list takes more planning, micromanagement and risk management than any shooting focused list, but as melee lists go covens are 100% the simplest in the meta. They're just a straightforward wall o' meat.

Aeldari (Flyerspam): Mid to high bar. Here's where we get into lists that can win tournaments in the hands of a good player and will go 0 wins in the hand of a poor player. Aeldari flyers are strong but do not win games unless the player piloting them knows how to use them properly to prevent the opponent from moving and scoring.

GSC: High bar. Very technical list in terms of risk/reward and micromanagement of close combat moves when you get your stuff in to maximise damage and inconvenience.

Chaos: Tends to be high bar, primarily due to how you maximise your psychic power impact.

Any offmeta list: High bar. The players who bring wacky stuff and win are playing at a purposeful disadvantage no matter what they do.
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

Given how open army building is at this point, I'm not sure that any particular faction can be said to require more or less skll to play than others, as opposed to army build type.


 BaconCatBug wrote:
The sad truth is in 8th edition there is no skill involved with the actual gameplay, it boils down to list-building and deployment. Everything else is irrelevant compared to those two.
To be fair, list building and deployment have been the most important elements of 40k in every editon I've played, 8E isn't new there, about the only difference is they took out fire arcs/armor facings for vehicles (which didn't exist for any other unit type after 3E anyway).

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





Also, list building is a vital element of strategy.

You should be thinking about what you're bringing and why your bringing it, because you chose to field that unit for a reason to accomplish an objective on the field.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




 Vaktathi wrote:
Given how open army building is at this point, I'm not sure that any particular faction can be said to require more or less skll to play than others, as opposed to army build type.


 BaconCatBug wrote:
The sad truth is in 8th edition there is no skill involved with the actual gameplay, it boils down to list-building and deployment. Everything else is irrelevant compared to those two.
To be fair, list building and deployment have been the most important elements of 40k in every editon I've played, 8E isn't new there, about the only difference is they took out fire arcs/armor facings for vehicles (which didn't exist for any other unit type after 3E anyway).


Well there are definitely some armies (Imperium, Chaos) where that holds true, others like xenos factions do get kind of shoehorned into a particular build.

Except orks, who have a bizarre gunline no-funline build foisted upon them atm because someone at GW got told to sell more mek gunz "Kit too expensive? Let's just require 400$ of THIS ONE KIT for orks to run a competitive army! It's brilliant!"
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Okay, I wrote a whole post about how you can't really do this, because 40k is a very skill based game, and most of the skills for 1 army apply to all armies. In my opinion, BCB is wrong, and that the game is very skilled.


But that doesn't answer your question.

So, instead, let me list for you a numerical scale on how easy it is to build a competitive list for each faction. 1 will be "omg, so hard!" and 10 will be "oops, my casual list wins tournaments". The main idea here is to ignore player skill. The best player in the game will lose with a terrible list against a good player with an insane list (even if they're just told what the stats of the weapon are and nothing else). NOTE, this doesn't mean these are the tourney-winning lists, just how easy it could be to make a list for a tourney with them.

10's:
- Imperial Knights
- Chaos Knights

9's:
- Thousand Sons

8's:
- Craftworld Eldar
- Dark Eldar
- Ynnari

7's:
- Astra Militarum
- Adeptus Custodes
- Space Marines (codex-adherent)
- Chaos Daemons
- Chaos Space Marines
- Death Guard
- Orks

6's:
- Tyranids
- Genestealer Cult
- Blood Angels

5's:
- Deathwatch

4's:
- Grey Knights
- Harlequins
- Space Wolves

3's:
- Dark Angels

2's:
- Sisters of Battle

1's:
- Assassins

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

You forgot Tau.
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






I think a lot here depends on skill level of the player

It has i believed remained true for several editions now that space marines are probably the easiest army to get started with. basic marines that is, codex space marines not blood angels dark engels or space wolves etc. just plan vanilla marines.

primaris based marines are probably the easiest to be effective with early on. good armor, 2 wounds, fairly forgiving and not to many weapon profiles to worry about.

The dark imperium box is really a great starting point there as you get some primaris and some deathguard which are also pretty straightforward (the models in the box not the whole army)

tau are another army that is pretty easy as you ignore a lot of phases and have super powerful shooting plus some mobile units for objectives just be ready for some matches that are low percentage for wins from deployment.

that said as skill ramps up every army becomes much more difficult to play. no army would be easy to master though some armies (especially GSC) are really hard to start with let alone master.




10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in ca
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





London, Ontario

I think part of this always comes down to preferred play style.

For example, I am naturally good at assessing attrition style conflict. Imperial Guard has always been easy for me to play, and so I would say I’m a skilled Guard player, whether or not the army takes skill to play. I can dig more “complicated” scenarios out of my head to ensure efficient trades of units over several turns to create board control for the end-game of scoring objectives. With a complete lack of humility, I’ll say I’m a “better” guard player than most, so could win most mirror matches. By extension, I’d be more likely to do well with a pure Guard list at a tournament.

Does that skill give me a shot against a less-skilled opponent running a meta-busting list? Yes. Will I beat an equally skilled opponent using a super-list? Probably not, as I’m not a meta chaser. I just do the best I can with what I have.

My point, is that I don’t do well with Eldar. For some reason, I have trouble judging their performance. I tend to overkill some things while underkilling others... losing those units in the process. They are unforgiving of losses, and part of my style is to take predictable losses... so I guess you’d say I’m unskilled at piloting Eldar.

But I used to do great with Dark Eldar back in 3rd /4th edition. So whatcha gonna do?

Like anything, knowing your own strengths and weaknesses will help to inform how easy / difficult a given faction would be for you to pilot.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 flandarz wrote:
You forgot Tau.


7

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in nz
Cog in the Machine




New Zealand

 Yarium wrote:
Okay, I wrote a whole post about how you can't really do this, because 40k is a very skill based game, and most of the skills for 1 army apply to all armies. In my opinion, BCB is wrong, and that the game is very skilled.


But that doesn't answer your question.

So, instead, let me list for you a numerical scale on how easy it is to build a competitive list for each faction. 1 will be "omg, so hard!" and 10 will be "oops, my casual list wins tournaments". The main idea here is to ignore player skill. The best player in the game will lose with a terrible list against a good player with an insane list (even if they're just told what the stats of the weapon are and nothing else). NOTE, this doesn't mean these are the tourney-winning lists, just how easy it could be to make a list for a tourney with them.

10's:
- Imperial Knights
- Chaos Knights

9's:
- Thousand Sons

8's:
- Craftworld Eldar
- Dark Eldar
- Ynnari

7's:
- Astra Militarum
- Adeptus Custodes
- Space Marines (codex-adherent)
- Chaos Daemons
- Chaos Space Marines
- Death Guard
- Orks

6's:
- Tyranids
- Genestealer Cult
- Blood Angels

5's:
- Deathwatch

4's:
- Grey Knights
- Harlequins
- Space Wolves

3's:
- Dark Angels

2's:
- Sisters of Battle

1's:
- Assassins


This will suffice, cheers, Maybe I asked the question in the wrong format or I didn't really know how to frame it, but this is pretty much what I wanted to get to, the limbo bar for armies.

by the way where would Blood Angles and Ad Mech fit on this scale?

Building towards 1000pts
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Blood Angels are a 6 right now, as per my post. Admech are a 5.

Note, I didn't list soup at all, so these values are also kind of based on going mono-faction.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




As much as I don't want to say it. Not a whole lot of skill goes into 40k these days. I find most wins feel meh and loses about the same. It isn't so much the flash has faded but as mentioned you almost always win or lose based on faction played, souping or not and deployment with said best lists you can field.

It kind of saddens me that movement and facing doesn't matter as it does take away a lot of the importance of movement. Even deep strike used to feel more meaningful now its just another thing. So I'd say they are all about the same difficulty level of play, the only difference is finding out the viable builds, buying those models with those set ups and how strong the books are you're using skill doesn't factor in as much as I'd like.
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






AngryAngel80 wrote:
As much as I don't want to say it. Not a whole lot of skill goes into 40k these days. I find most wins feel meh and loses about the same. It isn't so much the flash has faded but as mentioned you almost always win or lose based on faction played, souping or not and deployment with said best lists you can field.

It kind of saddens me that movement and facing doesn't matter as it does take away a lot of the importance of movement. Even deep strike used to feel more meaningful now its just another thing. So I'd say they are all about the same difficulty level of play, the only difference is finding out the viable builds, buying those models with those set ups and how strong the books are you're using skill doesn't factor in as much as I'd like.

That's objectively wrong based purely on the win-percentages of individual people in the ITC. Movement does matter, Deep Strike is meaningful and involves things like screening instead of just rolling that 1/3 hit within 7" of your opponent.
Spoletta wrote:
No one has yet defined what "skill" is, so your question is a bit difficult.

We know that it is an extremely important factor, because with the same list in a major event you can end up top place or close to last.

What is skill though?

If we're going to use a definition other than rolling hot...
Being able to put together a good list? Being able to correctly assess a meta?

Yes, these two are the same thing, but it is a skill. It's also one that's largely unimportant since you can just netlist the latest top list for your faction in a relevant format.
Being able to deploy correctly?

Most important skill in the game, if you deploy your melee Knights on the wrong side of the table you're going to have a bad time, even against a weak list. You might be surprised how many people in my experience are bad at this. You can also get really advanced and never make any deployment mistakes.
Being able to predict the flow of the game and create a battle plan accordingly? Being able to foresee your opponent moves?

I'd say this is the same thing, the flow of the game will change if your opponent rushes out instead of staying in his magic bunker. It's the second most important skill IMO, when you listen to podcasts with all the best generals you really get the feeling that this is what sets them apart from the average Joe wargamer that knows how to screen and not to put their units outside of range T1.
Being able to run math in your head really fast to decide between possible scenarios during the game?

I might be taking it for granted but I don't think it's that important, especially for a shooting army. It's much more important for a melee army where you are dedicating a resource much more fully by changing its position rather than just pointing your guns in the right direction. The dice do not conform perfectly to the rules of statistics is why I think this skill is less valuable than the others.
Being fast at moving your models and performing actions?
Knowing all rules by memory?

I don't think that's a skill, it just makes the game go more smoothly, as long as you know how to play you don't need to know why you play how you play. It's also worth something in terms of catching cheaters which is an important skill IMO, both in casual and competitive, first part is either knowing the rules like an encyclopedia or being aware of when your opponent is being shifty. Being a robot I am much better at the former.

In casual people don't read the rules too closely and don't keep up with the FAQs and of course, there is the rare grog that cheats on purpose to win barbiewar, if you know the rules your opponent will be less able to cheat which will let you win more games. In competitive you have fewer people that cheat on accident, but cheating gives you an advantage so if you're winning you're going to end up playing cheaters more than if you were losing, unfortunately winning by cheating leads people to be on camera and that's bad for everyone. The cheater gets caught more often, the tournament looks bad and the community as a whole looks bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 06:50:43


 
   
Made in au
Been Around the Block





GSC get even harder when you add Nids in. That's my vote for most skill intensive.

Tau is not easy to play at the highest level. Anyone who disagrees needs to listen to Richard Siegler (9-0 with Tau at NOVA last month, 1st place) discuss how he plays Tau on his interview with Nick Nanavati. He's doing so much and playing a more skill intensive army than most out there
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Screening ? Is that why movement matters ? Most players got that pretty well down within the first couple games. I don't think it takes a whole lot of skill to know buy cheap troops, sprinkle them around table in front of better troops push back deep strikers and those from reserve then profit.

Movement only really matters in so far as taking objectives, which is really an auto pilot move. CC is eh, you'll get crushed if you're bad, crush if you're good, don't grind the unit down they typically pull out. Not really a lot of depth.

Anyone that has played for awhile can list well, and deploy well, so fi those are the skills that is kinda sad.Knowing the flow of the battle is as easy as experience as well. So yeah, I've seen people be bad with all this but that may be more from the churn and burn and lack of people staying in for the long haul than the high skill state of the game.

I mean for each point I put out for why the game lacks some depth someone will counter point how a small feature makes all the difference. All I do know is movement means less now than it did in editions prior, I know this because I played them.

Is it a fun game ? Sure, but it's not a very deep skillful game. Though by all means, feel you are a tactical genius when you win a match who am I to poo poo someones dreams.

I know when I screen out deep strikers and mob up objectives and crush targets with the copious amounts of fire power this edition floods the game with, I feel pretty skillful too.
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






AngryAngel80 wrote:
Screening ? Is that why movement matters ? Most players got that pretty well down within the first couple games. I don't think it takes a whole lot of skill to know buy cheap troops, sprinkle them around table in front of better troops push back deep strikers and those from reserve then profit.

Movement only really matters in so far as taking objectives, which is really an auto pilot move. CC is eh, you'll get crushed if you're bad, crush if you're good, don't grind the unit down they typically pull out. Not really a lot of depth.

Anyone that has played for awhile can list well, and deploy well, so fi those are the skills that is kinda sad.Knowing the flow of the battle is as easy as experience as well. So yeah, I've seen people be bad with all this but that may be more from the churn and burn and lack of people staying in for the long haul than the high skill state of the game.

I mean for each point I put out for why the game lacks some depth someone will counter point how a small feature makes all the difference. All I do know is movement means less now than it did in editions prior, I know this because I played them.

Is it a fun game ? Sure, but it's not a very deep skillful game. Though by all means, feel you are a tactical genius when you win a match who am I to poo poo someones dreams.

I know when I screen out deep strikers and mob up objectives and crush targets with the copious amounts of fire power this edition floods the game with, I feel pretty skillful too.

It's funny how people can go 13/0 at tournaments where other players go 2/13. I don't know, maybe you and your local playgroup learned everything there is to learn in the first 5 games but how does your playgroup do at events? I don't think there is anything wrong with making mistakes, learning from them, getting better, making those mistakes less and feeling good about it. I'm playing a game, not roleplaying. You could probably become a really good Warhammer player in 20 games if you're super intensive and play against top-rate players, but if you're not super intensive, you're not taking notes, playing against people that don't know the ins and outs of the game you can play 20 games and be no further than someone on their third game. There are people in the most competitive tournaments that fail to screen properly or deploy their models wrongly, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's difficult to do it perfectly every time. The difference in balance between a bad list and an amazing list this edition is tiny compared to what it was last edition, you have re-rolls and less random mechanics impacting the game and making it more of a question of who is the better player. I think you're just being humble if you never make mistakes, that's awesome and you should be proud, you've mastered a lot of difficult things.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






It's all about the combination. Take the idea that "Orks with hordes of boys and da jump is easy".

It depends entirely on what you're facing. if you're facing a short-range anti-infantry gunline, the last thing you want to do is use da jump to get to 9" from them. your boys will just get lunched.

I believe that any army can build a balanced list, and in the hands of a skilled player can do very well.

So far as ease of play, it would have to be whichever army uses the least auras and buffs to accomplish its tasks - the more independent each unit is, the less complex the structure of your turn becomes (do you lose a buff if you move or charge, do you need to keep a character around, where is best to place so-and-so, and so on.) it's more forgiving to move a unit if it isn't relying on another one.

Orks in 8th, W/D/L
2/0/1 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Screening ? Is that why movement matters ? Most players got that pretty well down within the first couple games. I don't think it takes a whole lot of skill to know buy cheap troops, sprinkle them around table in front of better troops push back deep strikers and those from reserve then profit.

Movement only really matters in so far as taking objectives, which is really an auto pilot move. CC is eh, you'll get crushed if you're bad, crush if you're good, don't grind the unit down they typically pull out. Not really a lot of depth.

Anyone that has played for awhile can list well, and deploy well, so fi those are the skills that is kinda sad.Knowing the flow of the battle is as easy as experience as well. So yeah, I've seen people be bad with all this but that may be more from the churn and burn and lack of people staying in for the long haul than the high skill state of the game.

I mean for each point I put out for why the game lacks some depth someone will counter point how a small feature makes all the difference. All I do know is movement means less now than it did in editions prior, I know this because I played them.

Is it a fun game ? Sure, but it's not a very deep skillful game. Though by all means, feel you are a tactical genius when you win a match who am I to poo poo someones dreams.

I know when I screen out deep strikers and mob up objectives and crush targets with the copious amounts of fire power this edition floods the game with, I feel pretty skillful too.

It's funny how people can go 13/0 at tournaments where other players go 2/13. I don't know, maybe you and your local playgroup learned everything there is to learn in the first 5 games but how does your playgroup do at events? I don't think there is anything wrong with making mistakes, learning from them, getting better, making those mistakes less and feeling good about it. I'm playing a game, not roleplaying. You could probably become a really good Warhammer player in 20 games if you're super intensive and play against top-rate players, but if you're not super intensive, you're not taking notes, playing against people that don't know the ins and outs of the game you can play 20 games and be no further than someone on their third game. There are people in the most competitive tournaments that fail to screen properly or deploy their models wrongly, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's difficult to do it perfectly every time. The difference in balance between a bad list and an amazing list this edition is tiny compared to what it was last edition, you have re-rolls and less random mechanics impacting the game and making it more of a question of who is the better player. I think you're just being humble if you never make mistakes, that's awesome and you should be proud, you've mastered a lot of difficult things.


I could just be being salty and cranky, it's possible. I am humble by nature and I'd never say I am better than anyone else, or anyone else is worse than me, doesn't feel right. I've played for a long time and it may just be the skills of this edition I've wrapped my head around. I do know the wins or loses have been easy to see from the first few lists I brought out where as in editions prior they felt like I had to do more for a more unsure outcome. Perhaps its the access to re rolls now makes it feel much easier, I don't know. I'm just voicing my opinion and probably being all humbug about the topic because I wish the skills went deeper. For me I like the nuance of the rules, having to make lots of decisions, and feeling like the decisions in unit use matter more than deployment, screening. list selection and then application of fire power, even if I know not every player has all of those things down. Heck, you'd be surprised the amount of times I've had to talk people into understanding target priority and saturation of targets to prevent that easy priority selection.

Ok, it's not entirely without any kind of skill, but I wish the game was a bit deeper than it currently stands I'll just say that.
   
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike





the_scotsman wrote:
Orks: Very low bar. Current meta builds for orks are the easiest competitive orks have been in an incredibly long time. They tend to rely on swarming objectives, longrange stationary firepower that really only matters where you deploy. The only technical aspect is the placement and micro of your da jump blob for maximum interference and distraction while you rack up mission points, and timing of your critical stratagems, which for orks are kind of a game of chicken. How low can the boyz blob go before you pop strats to save them and endless green tide them? When do you pull the trigger on Grot Shields? When are you safe to burn CP fishing for a good SUS result?

I wonder where this idea comes from, considering that only long-term players seem to do really well with orks. Even a guy like Nick Nanavati failed to produce decent results with them (not for the lack of trying), while topping tournaments with pretty much everything else.

In my experience, the opposite is much more true. Orks punish mistakes heavily, picking up some inefficient units or just not using efficient units in an optimal way, minor movement errors, using CP at the wrong time, being half an inch short for an arrest or a single mistake in target priority will outright cost you the game. Everything in the current meta builds (which vary wildly between players) is about understanding every single unit you brought and having them perform to their maximum. Orks have lots of potential, but it's by no means easy to unlock.

New ork players tend to lose a lot of games before they start winning, some never get to that point. People running the same lists as me, or even lists I build for them have failed with them because they didn't use it to their full potential.
Even experienced people moving from imperium or chaos to orks fail to pilot them properly, simply because they are not used to playing an army where your opponent gets to pick what remove from your army at will, with grot shield being the only way to influence that.
And before it comes up: KFF and pain boyz don't protect units, they make killing them less efficient, they still die one way or another. Armor and thus cover doesn't do jack and no one can hide 60+ boyz out of LoS and still get a use out of them.

In comparison, playing Death Guard is a joke. I went undefeated with them for a dozen games after starting them, and I didn't know what the feth I was doing. All your stuff just sticks around forever, you still have anti-tank options to kill enemy vehicles by turn 4. That doesn't ever happen with orks.

The reason why orks are so much easier to play in this edition than before is because orks were terrible in 6th and 7th. You had to be an exceptional player to make them perform well even at casual levels.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Yes, because everyone lines up on the deployment line when facing off against orkz, especially when said orkz are fielding 3 Bonebreakers...which rely exclusively on getting into CC to inflict any kind of actual harm. All of your arguments rely upon your opponent being a brain dead muppet who just lets you maul him.


Yea...that's called board control.
 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




 Jidmah wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Orks: Very low bar. Current meta builds for orks are the easiest competitive orks have been in an incredibly long time. They tend to rely on swarming objectives, longrange stationary firepower that really only matters where you deploy. The only technical aspect is the placement and micro of your da jump blob for maximum interference and distraction while you rack up mission points, and timing of your critical stratagems, which for orks are kind of a game of chicken. How low can the boyz blob go before you pop strats to save them and endless green tide them? When do you pull the trigger on Grot Shields? When are you safe to burn CP fishing for a good SUS result?

I wonder where this idea comes from, considering that only long-term players seem to do really well with orks. Even a guy like Nick Nanavati failed to produce decent results with them (not for the lack of trying), while topping tournaments with pretty much everything else.

In my experience, the opposite is much more true. Orks punish mistakes heavily, picking up some inefficient units or just not using efficient units in an optimal way, minor movement errors, using CP at the wrong time, being half an inch short for an arrest or a single mistake in target priority will outright cost you the game. Everything in the current meta builds (which vary wildly between players) is about understanding every single unit you brought and having them perform to their maximum. Orks have lots of potential, but it's by no means easy to unlock.

New ork players tend to lose a lot of games before they start winning, some never get to that point. People running the same lists as me, or even lists I build for them have failed with them because they didn't use it to their full potential.
Even experienced people moving from imperium or chaos to orks fail to pilot them properly, simply because they are not used to playing an army where your opponent gets to pick what remove from your army at will, with grot shield being the only way to influence that.
And before it comes up: KFF and pain boyz don't protect units, they make killing them less efficient, they still die one way or another. Armor and thus cover doesn't do jack and no one can hide 60+ boyz out of LoS and still get a use out of them.

In comparison, playing Death Guard is a joke. I went undefeated with them for a dozen games after starting them, and I didn't know what the feth I was doing. All your stuff just sticks around forever, you still have anti-tank options to kill enemy vehicles by turn 4. That doesn't ever happen with orks.

The reason why orks are so much easier to play in this edition than before is because orks were terrible in 6th and 7th. You had to be an exceptional player to make them perform well even at casual levels.


I'm mostly referring to the current crop of mek gunz spam+Souped Up Shokka+1-2 blobs of jump boyz lists that have been cropping up. A lot of the local competitive players in my area (including Steve Pampreen) tend to regularly play Orks whenever they can get away with them, and they're all super sick of the current point and click gunline iteration of the competitive ork list.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: