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.

Shep,
Your wall trick is nice, and I'll have to remember it. However, since I always bring 30 lootas, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

How do you deal with Lootas backing up BW orks?

(P.S. This is a serious question, as I am starting an IG army soon, to go along side my Eldar, DA and Orks)

sourclams wrote:Just for clarification, your Tankbustawagon has a total point cost of something like ~280-300 pts, right?

360 points.

Battlewagon is 125, Tankbustas are 235.

I like Tankbustas, especially in an open topped Battlewagon. I do usually take a HQ unit or Nob to supply the all important Bosspole, or else they tend to run off quickly.

One favorite configuration is to put them in the BW with the KFF Big Mek. He gets the Bosspole, the Tankbustas get a ride, and the Battlewagon supplies the rest of the units around it with the KFF.

Don't forget that Tankbustas have tankbusta bombs, which act like krak grenades used by Monstrous Creatures. Rolling 9+ on 2D6 x10 is pretty good odds. Tankhammers are nice, and work against non-vehicle units, but volume is what counts with Orks.

Dashofpepper wrote:And Frank Fugger, to put the burden of proof back on you....

I am the best 40k player on the planet Earth, and I play Orks. I do not need to beat every single 40k player on the planet earth in every possible scenario to prove it. Instead, I can remain undefeated as an Ork player through every possible scenario. Until an individual topples me, I am the best 40k player on the planet Earth.

I don't need to prove that I'm right, you need to prove me wrong.

I don't see how presenting this hypothetical scenario burdens me in any way.

My opinion is that Orks wouldn't do anywhere near as well as they currently do if competetive 40K was more competetive. The ToS rankings show that not everyone is bringing the most competetive of Codexes to the party at the UK's premier GT event, which (along with the raft of other results from other tournaments I've seen over the years, including the Round 1 results from 'Ard Boyz) sort of bears out my reasoning that competetive 40K isn't competetive. Obviously without proper army lists it's difficult to give this evidence any sort of meaty context, but since you're trailing into hypothesis I feel I have a bit of leeway to do the same.

Nobody would try to classify the Dark Angels Codex as balanced, or "competetive", or whatever. It was a test-bed for the 5th Edition Smurf Codex, and as such pretty much everything available in it is also available to Smurf players, only cheaper, better, and punchier. The exception is Deathwing, and thus we can hypothesise that the only reason you'd take a DA army to a GT is because you want to play Deathwing. Now, Deathwing aren't fantastic. There are multiple reasons for this, but for the sake of brevity we'll just say they're not great and allow people to look them up and judge for themselves. They are, however, the only unique factor when it comes to the DA Codex (inb4 Dualwing, because that sucks. Also inb4 Greenwing, Ravenwing and/or Mech-DA, because those all have analogues within the Smurf Codex which are better and cheaper). Deathwing are also, arguably, one of very few "competetive" ways to build your DA list.

So, supposing the DA player who finished in the top 10 for the first two rounds was playing a Deathwing army. That's a "competetive" list built from a rubbish Codex. What does that say about his opposition? I've got about 6 army lists swimming around my head right now that would have a DW player conceding at deployment; and one of them is from the Orks Codex.

We could argue that that's a bad analogy because any-Wing armies suck utter cod-milt at 1500pts. So assuming he was playing DA Mech instead, because that doesn't suck (as bad) at 1500pts as a DA-Wing army. It still sucks, though. It's still expensive, stiff and silly compared to Mech Smurfs. How, then, did he manage to do so well with it?

I know it seems like I'm picking on DA players, and to an extent I suppose I am. I also realise that, if the DA player from the ToS is reading this he'll likely feel slighted at my suggestion that the reason he did so well up until heat 3 is because he was playing gimps. I'd apologise, but the price you pay for taking a rubbish Codex to a GT and succeeding with it, then thinking the fact you did makes you awesome.

Unless you can find someone with the tactical combination and army list that can take me down, then Orks are the best army in 40k. And if we throw your logic into the mix, even if I get beaten...Orks are STILL the best army in 40k, I just lost with them because I'm a noob.

But you're the best player in the world. You can't be the best and also a noob.

You seem to be either misinterpreting and/ or misrepresenting what I'm saying. It's not the case that Ork players who succeed at tournaments are "noobs" or whatever. Far from it. It could be argued that the ability to spot a noobhammer Codex, recognise that the scene sucks balls, and then use said noobhammer to do well is actually quite canny. What I'M saying is that, when other the hammered noobs start recognising it too, the hammer will stop working. It's also not the case that the Ork Codex doesn't contain solutions to certain things (like, for instance, AV14). In the last thread I suggested this was the case, and after thinking on it for a while I realised that it's not at all; solutions to anything can be found. The only problem is the solutions in the Ork Codex are neither as reliable nor as flexible, multi-purpose and resilient as the solutions in other Codexes.

That's basically what Stelek means when he says they're "bottom of competetive" and also the reasoning behind his forming of this opinion, and if we look at the standings from UK ToS they sort of bear that out. Orks didn't win. They placed well, though. If there weren't so many of them, and people hadn't been bringing flabby DA/ Tyranid lists to the party, they probably wouldn't have done so well.



As an aside... What would be helpful if people would stop feeling personally slighted by what I'm saying and take a step back, look at 40K for what it is, and try to apply my logic to it. In the grand scheme of things this is just a thread on a messageboard, but in terms of 40K it's a discussion worth having if you've got the patience and the motivation to sit through it. If you can do these things, and you find some objective evidence that you feel counters my argument, by all means throw it out there. I assure you that if I'm proven wrong in a conclusive way, I'll hold my hands up and admit it. It needs to be conclusive, though, rather than conjectural or hypothetical.

If you can't do that, and would instead prefer to continue bawwing and RAEGing at me personally... meh. It's your dime, I suppose. For my part I'll do my best to keep you folks entertained, but I'm afraid that with the sudden emergence into the debate of people able to form coherent sentences and cohesive arguments I might be too busy to respond to you personally. I'll be thinking of you though. Honestly.

Frank Fugger wrote:
That's basically what Stelek means when he says they're "bottom of competetive" and also the reasoning behind his forming of this opinion, and if we look at the standings from UK ToS they sort of bear that out. Orks didn't win. They placed well, though. If there weren't so many of them, and people hadn't been bringing flabby DA/ Tyranid lists to the party, they probably wouldn't have done so well.

As an aside... What would be helpful if people would stop feeling personally slighted by what I'm saying and take a step back, look at 40K for what it is, and try to apply my logic to it. In the grand scheme of things this is just a thread on a messageboard, but in terms of 40K it's a discussion worth having if you've got the patience and the motivation to sit through it. If you can do these things, and you find some objective evidence that you feel counters my argument, by all means throw it out there. I assure you that if I'm proven wrong in a conclusive way, I'll hold my hands up and admit it. It needs to be conclusive, though, rather than conjectural or hypothetical.

If you can't do that, and would instead prefer to continue bawwing and RAEGing at me personally... meh. It's your dime, I suppose. For my part I'll do my best to keep you folks entertained, but I'm afraid that with the sudden emergence into the debate of people able to form coherent sentences and cohesive arguments I might be too busy to respond to you personally. I'll be thinking of you though. Honestly.

Are you Stelek's spokesman now?

People were saying you were acting like a dick... well, because you were acting like a dick.

That said your "New" argument certainly comes across better now that it doesn't contain the insults and talking down tone.

Still, the Ork codex is very competitive regardless of the environment. Even the most recent tournament results support this. All the other hard lists got to play the easy lists as well, so I do not see how that makes much difference.

I did notice a significant decrease in the number of Ork players at the 2 tournaments I attended this weekend. Guard and Chaos are for sure the flavor of the month. I wonder Frank how this will effect your future studies?

methoderik wrote:Are you Stelek's spokesman now?

Do you have to be someone's spokesman to agree with their ideas? Funny way to run a world.

People were saying you were acting like a dick... well, because you were acting like a dick.

Yeah, that wasn't good. Then again I was led to believe that this was a forum of grown-ups; it's apparently not (and I don't mean that in an insulting or derogatory way - simply that there are a lot of younger members here too), and I'll factor that into my dealings from now on.

Well, most of the time.

That said your "New" argument certainly comes across better now that it doesn't contain the insults and talking down tone.

Still, the Ork codex is very competitive regardless of the environment. Even the most recent tournament results support this.

Show them to me, if you'd be so kind. From where I'm sitting (ear-deep in the UK ToS tables and the 'Ard Boyz first round results, which are the two most recent that I'm aware of) it looks like this is wishful thinking rather than hard fact.

All the other hard lists got to play the easy lists as well, so I do not see how that makes much difference.

It's not a case of "everyone got to play the crap"; it's that, without the crap to play, the Orks wouldn't be as competetive as they currently are whereas the truly hard lists still would be.

It's also questionable how "hard" some of the hard lists truly are.

I did notice a significant decrease in the number of Ork players at the 2 tournaments I attended this weekend. Guard and Chaos are for sure the flavor of the month. I wonder Frank how this will effect your future studies?

Time will tell, though since the number of Ork players decreasing means a new Codex is less likely, and since the book is the core issue, I'd be willing to bet "not at all".

I'm also curious as to how you think an army that is one of the most prominent at tournaments, i.e Chaos, is "flavour of the month"?

Another aside, the prevalence of CSM lists at tournaments is further proof of the crappy standards I'm talking about, especially when you consider that 90% of these lists will contain Plague Marines ago-go, dual-Lash, Berzerkers, Kharn, or any combination of the above. None of these things should be "hard" for a 5th Ed army to deal with.

Frank Fugger wrote:Another aside, the prevalence of CSM lists at tournaments is further proof of the crappy standards I'm talking about, especially when you consider that 90% of these lists will contain Plague Marines ago-go, dual-Lash, Berzerkers, Kharn, or any combination of the above. None of these things should be "hard" for a 5th Ed army to deal with.

I just can't agree with your assessment that CSM aren't competitive anymore. That does seem to be what you are saying. Regardless, a well-built CSM lash list is still a force to be reckoned with in the hands of a skilled general, even against these mech lists.

So what army do you believe is the best right now? I just want to know how you judge what is currently out there, especially now that you are implying that the BEST units in the CSM codex are proof of "crappy touranment standards".

I'm willing to agree with your assessments regarding Orks, but Chaos have both one of the best/most versatile shooting units (Oblits) and one of the strongest basic troops (regular CSM) and basic transports (Rhino) for the point values. When you add together how well all of those things synergize with mech Chaos guiding Deep Striking Oblits via icons, I mean, it's basically a perfect storm for army optimization.

It's not undefeatable and shooty mech builds like IG, DE, and Tau have the tools to take them off of the table, but against the majority of matchups lash/mech Chaos is going to do fine.

skipdog172 wrote:I just can't agree with your assessment that CSM aren't competitive anymore. That does seem to be what you are saying.

They're not uncompetetive. They're just not a proper "hard" Codex, not in 5th Edition.

Regardless, a well-built CSM

... list is just as hard and competetive as any C: SM mech list because CSM squads are cheap and nasty, Chosen squads will eat your face, and Warptime Daemon-Princes are nose-bitingly tremendous?

lash list is still a force to be reckoned with in the hands of a skilled general, even against these mech lists.

No, we're back to Lash. I just don't see how people can NOT have figured Lash out yet; put all of your units in transports and poof goes the crutch. Be as skilled as you want, Lash still doesn't work on tracked vehicles.

So what army do you believe is the best right now? I just want to know how you judge what is currently out there, especially now that you are implying that the BEST units in the CSM codex are proof of "crappy touranment standards".

If you think that Lash lists are the best the CSM Codex all I can say is try some other builds. Obviously you can take the best the CSM Codex has to offer alongside your Lashing DPs and/ or Sorcerors, but the best units in the CSM Codex are the best precisely because they don't need Lash to be awesome.

Define what you mean by "best" army out there. If we mean the Codexes which contain the most viable hard lists it'd go something like, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Codex: Smurfs (damn you Vulkan!), Chaos Spurfs (note: not Lash. Never Lash), Witch Hunters (nobody expected the Inquisiton ) and The Guard. The Tau only really have one or two options for building hard lists and tend to fail it when it comes to doing anything other than showering people with shots, but that works too. Why hold objectives when you can just S10 AP1 and Plasma your opponent off the board in 3 turns? Probably the easiest hard list to counter (mobile AV14, Fast Skimmers and templates will eat it's face), but still harder than most other things.

I must have missed something Frank.


I do check Stelek's blog occasionally, and I posted the results for our first round, both here, and there. You are saying that Stelek's numbers show that Orks didn't do well? But here, they did VERY well as an army in the first round. Did he have tons more data than is posted here? I might have missed that thread, but what I did see, was less actual numbers supported on his site as compared to here.


Can you link me the numbers you are getting from his site? A quick search here should show you that Orks were either the highest, or 2nd highest placing army in the first round nationally. If you consider the numbers here to be enough to calculate some basic stats.



Thanks,


Clay

sourclams wrote:I'm willing to agree with your assessments regarding Orks, but Chaos have both one of the best/most versatile shooting units (Oblits) and one of the strongest basic troops (regular CSM) and basic transports (Rhino) for the point values. When you add together how well all of those things synergize with mech Chaos guiding Deep Striking Oblits via icons, I mean, it's basically a perfect storm for army optimization.

I agree totally, and the only reason I haven't got much of a CSM collection is because I'm a loyalist lapdog trying to put together a Biker list AND a 1500pt Ork army to take to the Throne of Skulls in October (I've got my list sorted by the way, and the name; Captain Scrudmongler's Scruds. They shall be pink, and there shall be nary a Loota in sight).

Problem is, how many Chaos Spurf players do you know who run anything other than crumby dual-Lash/ Plague Marines/ oh look it's Zerkers in Rhinos/ here's a random Defiler lists? The CSMs are not a bad Codex by any manner or means, and to be honest I'm probably overstating the case against Lash a bit because it can be made to work to devastating effect when combined with Oblits, Termicide squads and other such stuff. The overuse of Lash and it's (somewhat undeserved) status as a "crutch" isn't what makes the CSMs a depressing sight on tourney tables. It's the knowledge that 90% of the people who play Chaos Spurfs do so for the Lash above all else, and the further realisation that 99% of that 90% are thus going to be flavour of the monthers who want Pink-Powah! because they think it's an I-WIN button, a fact largely reflected in their list composition.

Frank Fugger wrote:No, we're back to Lash. I just don't see how people can NOT have figured Lash out yet; put all of your units in transports and poof goes the crutch. Be as skilled as you want, Lash still doesn't work on tracked vehicles.

I don't think it has anything to do with "figuring it out". Even against mech armies, Lash is very effective. It very much affects how/when/where the mech player can drop his units and greatly limits their options. It isn't an auto-win for an army just because its models are in transports. Lash also is not solely what makes the list dangerous. It looks like we can just agree to disagree, as I don't think I can change your mind.

Primarch wrote:You are saying that Stelek's numbers show that Orks didn't do well? But here, they did VERY well as an army in the first round.

Yes, because local success and personal experience are what count when determining how competetive armies are. I've lost, sum-total, 3 games with my pure Grey Knights Raider-spam list; therefore, pure Grey Knights are competetive. Right?

Can you link me the numbers you are getting from his site? A quick search here should show you that Orks were either the highest, or 2nd highest placing army in the first round nationally. If you consider the numbers here to be enough to calculate some basic stats.

I don't. A lot of the results posted here have also been posted on Stelek's blog too, and they sort of get lost amidst the sea of other results in which no Ork lists appear at all. Here you go:

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/07/ard-boyz.html

If you've got access to an official national 'Ard Boyz listing I'd be happy to take a look at it. Otherwise this is probably as close as we get for the time being.



Also, for the people asking my why I'm going to take an Ork army to a GT and attempt to do well if I'm trying to prove they suck, read the thread back again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skipdog172 wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:No, we're back to Lash. I just don't see how people can NOT have figured Lash out yet; put all of your units in transports and poof goes the crutch. Be as skilled as you want, Lash still doesn't work on tracked vehicles.

I don't think it has anything to do with "figuring it out". Even against mech armies, Lash is very effective. It very much affects how/when/where the mech player can drop his units and greatly limits their options. It isn't an auto-win for an army just because its models are in transports. Lash also is not solely what makes the list dangerous. It looks like we can just agree to disagree, as I don't think I can change your mind.

Frank Fugger wrote:

sourclams wrote:I'm willing to agree with your assessments regarding Orks, but Chaos have both one of the best/most versatile shooting units (Oblits) and one of the strongest basic troops (regular CSM) and basic transports (Rhino) for the point values. When you add together how well all of those things synergize with mech Chaos guiding Deep Striking Oblits via icons, I mean, it's basically a perfect storm for army optimization.

I agree totally, and the only reason I haven't got much of a CSM collection is because I'm a loyalist lapdog trying to put together a Biker list AND a 1500pt Ork army to take to the Throne of Skulls in October (I've got my list sorted by the way, and the name; Captain Scrudmongler's Scruds. They shall be pink, and there shall be nary a Loota in sight).

Problem is, how many Chaos Spurf players do you know who run anything other than crumby dual-Lash/ Plague Marines/ oh look it's Zerkers in Rhinos/ here's a random Defiler lists? The CSMs are not a bad Codex by any manner or means, and to be honest I'm probably overstating the case against Lash a bit because it can be made to work to devastating effect when combined with Oblits, Termicide squads and other such stuff. The overuse of Lash and it's (somewhat undeserved) status as a "crutch" isn't what makes the CSMs a depressing sight on tourney tables. It's the knowledge that 90% of the people who play Chaos Spurfs do so for the Lash above all else, and the further realisation that 99% of that 90% are thus going to be flavour of the monthers who want Pink-Powah! because they think it's an I-WIN button, a fact largely reflected in their list composition.

Funny how that works, innit? And I posted that before your reply.... PIME TARADOX


EDIT: For clarity's sake; I'm not suggesting that the CSM Codex sucks, because that's just silly since it doesn't. I'm also not even saying Lash is necessarily a "bad thing", because a hard list can be built around it. What I'm saying is that a lot of Lash players don't do this, and instead choose to try and run their army as disparate blocks of (points-intensive) models rather than having the whole thing revolve around each other. Which is a silly way to run any list. This happens more with CSMs than most other Codexes because of Lash's reputation as an I-WIN button and a broken ability, which it ain't.

I think that the real lesson that we should take away from all of this is that there is no magical codex and magical army list that will always win.

Frank conjectures that Orks should hypothetically do less well than other codexes, but that entire supposition is based on the idea that Orks don't have an answer to AV14. I can't speak to anyone elses' experience, but not every game I play is riddled with 5 land raiders, and when I *do* run up against a land raider or two, I have no problem destroying them.

If Frank's belief is that a lack of long-ranged STR9 and STR10 weaponry constitute a weakness in an Ork armylist, I could counter that armies are simply different. If I wanted long ranged firepower and anti-tank, I'd whip out my Tau. Not having a railgun certainly makes an Ork army different, but it doesn't make Orks a weaker army.

It really seems to boil down to one thing: You appear to have a single-minded viewpoint of how all situations in 40k should be dealt with. You view Orks as not having the same arsenal as space marines/other xenos, which makes them a weaker army. Yet, the debate about which army is an endlessly unprovable debate. Is vanilla icecream inferior to chocolate icecream? Can you prove it? Can you prove that Orks are inferior to *ANY* other codex? Can you prove that Orks are not the absolute best codex in existence?

That's my point. I believe the Orks codex is the single most powerful codex currently in existence. In every venue I participate in, my Orks have absolutely dominated the playing field. I have no reason to believe that Orks are not the most powerful codex in existence. To my eyes, you have an opinion that runs contrary to my empirical evidence, and in any analytical discourse, fact will always prevail over countering opinion, lest that countering point of view be backed up by equal fact.

For example, if your argument was, "Orks are an inferior army, I regularly stomp ork players. I've played every Ork player in my area time and again, and it isn't even fun anymore because they lose so hard." I'd at *least* take a look at the merits of your argument. It could be mismatched army lists, unbalanced lists, poor generalship, or it could be a true weakness in the Ork army. Yet...that isn't your argument. Orks are destroying competition left and right. Absolutely destroying competition. You mentioned that Orks didn't win the UK GT....do Orks have to win every single competition to not be a 3rd tier army?

I just think that you're attempting to turn your opinion, which is fact-less and largely based on contrived beliefs about how 40k should be played into an actual "side" when there simply is neither grounds nor merit for your beliefs.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Primarch wrote:You are saying that Stelek's numbers show that Orks didn't do well? But here, they did VERY well as an army in the first round.

Yes, because local success and personal experience are what count when determining how competetive armies are. I've lost, sum-total, 3 games with my pure Grey Knights Raider-spam list; therefore, pure Grey Knights are competetive. Right?

Can you link me the numbers you are getting from his site? A quick search here should show you that Orks were either the highest, or 2nd highest placing army in the first round nationally. If you consider the numbers here to be enough to calculate some basic stats.

I don't. A lot of the results posted here have also been posted on Stelek's blog too, and they sort of get lost amidst the sea of other results in which no Ork lists appear at all. Here you go:

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/2009/07/ard-boyz.html

If you've got access to an official national 'Ard Boyz listing I'd be happy to take a look at it. Otherwise this is probably as close as we get for the time being.


Also, for the people asking my why I'm going to take an Ork army to a GT and attempt to do well if I'm trying to prove they suck, read the thread back again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skipdog172 wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:No, we're back to Lash. I just don't see how people can NOT have figured Lash out yet; put all of your units in transports and poof goes the crutch. Be as skilled as you want, Lash still doesn't work on tracked vehicles.

I don't think it has anything to do with "figuring it out". Even against mech armies, Lash is very effective. It very much affects how/when/where the mech player can drop his units and greatly limits their options. It isn't an auto-win for an army just because its models are in transports. Lash also is not solely what makes the list dangerous. It looks like we can just agree to disagree, as I don't think I can change your mind.

Frank Fugger wrote:

sourclams wrote:I'm willing to agree with your assessments regarding Orks, but Chaos have both one of the best/most versatile shooting units (Oblits) and one of the strongest basic troops (regular CSM) and basic transports (Rhino) for the point values. When you add together how well all of those things synergize with mech Chaos guiding Deep Striking Oblits via icons, I mean, it's basically a perfect storm for army optimization.

I agree totally, and the only reason I haven't got much of a CSM collection is because I'm a loyalist lapdog trying to put together a Biker list AND a 1500pt Ork army to take to the Throne of Skulls in October (I've got my list sorted by the way, and the name; Captain Scrudmongler's Scruds. They shall be pink, and there shall be nary a Loota in sight).

Problem is, how many Chaos Spurf players do you know who run anything other than crumby dual-Lash/ Plague Marines/ oh look it's Zerkers in Rhinos/ here's a random Defiler lists? The CSMs are not a bad Codex by any manner or means, and to be honest I'm probably overstating the case against Lash a bit because it can be made to work to devastating effect when combined with Oblits, Termicide squads and other such stuff. The overuse of Lash and it's (somewhat undeserved) status as a "crutch" isn't what makes the CSMs a depressing sight on tourney tables. It's the knowledge that 90% of the people who play Chaos Spurfs do so for the Lash above all else, and the further realisation that 99% of that 90% are thus going to be flavour of the monthers who want Pink-Powah! because they think it's an I-WIN button, a fact largely reflected in their list composition.

Funny how that works, innit? And I posted that before your reply.... PIME TARADOX


EDIT: For clarity's sake; I'm not suggesting that the CSM Codex sucks, because that's just silly since it doesn't. I'm also not even saying Lash is necessarily a "bad thing", because a hard list can be built around it. What I'm saying is that a lot of Lash players don't do this, and instead choose to try and run their army as disparate blocks of (points-intensive) models rather than having the whole thing revolve around each other. Which is a silly way to run any list. This happens more with CSMs than most other Codexes because of Lash's reputation as an I-WIN button and a broken ability, which it ain't.

Thats where I think I am getting confused. How are Stelek's numbers any better/more important than the ones here? Stelek basically has the same info, just from different people. I think, you'd have to combine both lists, and cross out the dual posts, to get any semblance of a real number. It's fairly obvious that a lot of the posters there agree with you and Stelek, and so, would never take Orks to a tournament. That being said, they are also probably some good players there as well as here, so if they are against Orks, or think Orks are a poor army choice, they won't take them, and their results will show that other armies are doing well. If some of the good players here, disagree with that assessment, and do take Orks, and do well, then there will be a much higher percentage of Orks doing well on this board, compared to that one. That doesn't prove that Orks are bad however. If the best players in the nation all decided to take Tyranids, you know Tyranids woulda cleaned out most of these first round events. So, in the end, we are left with what?

Absolutely no way to prove that Orks are not as good as everyone thinks. Unless we could find 2 equally skilled players, and let them pair off with each codex, and do a round by round elimination tournament, where they could choose their army list before each game.


You are right about the local thing, but that also goes for the "meta game". It just doesnt exist in my opinion outisde of your local play area. If the local Meta favors Nids, they will do well, if they move on from there to a meta that doesnt favor Nids, then they will do poorly. There is no national "meta" to speak of, just little pockets of meta everywhere.



Clay

Enough with quoting other people's entire posts, or quoting people's posts broken up into disparate parts. If we want to check what they wrote, we can scroll back up the thread. Stop making the thread difficult to read. Use the quote function for rules or identify inconsistency, but not as a substitute for writing a coherent post. See Dashofpepper's last post as an example of how to write posts.

They are quite dear.

It seems like quoting multiple parts of somebody's post to reply to those different parts separately is a core and useful function of internet forums that does help the reader digest an argument. It can be very difficult to respond to exact separate points made by others by not quoting. Is that in the forum rules somewhere that I missed?

Well, due to your sincere and nicely worded request, I shall attempt to refrain from quoting a quote any more than I have in this thread(one time, I think?)



Clay

Frank Fugger wrote:
That's basically what Stelek means when he says they're "bottom of competetive" and also the reasoning behind his forming of this opinion, and if we look at the standings from UK ToS they sort of bear that out. Orks didn't win. They placed well, though. If there weren't so many of them, and people hadn't been bringing flabby DA/ Tyranid lists to the party, they probably wouldn't have done so well.

Well hmm...looking at results, there were 8 Ork armies in Top 20, and 14 in Top 50 (more than any other). Best vanilla Marine was 20th, best Tau was 21st, best IG 23rd (old codex though). There were only two SM, one Tau and one IG in Top 50. So though best Ork was "only" 5th, I don't see the results as evidence of anything else than the Orks seem to have done just fine...

Alerian wrote:Shep,
Your wall trick is nice, and I'll have to remember it. However, since I always bring 30 lootas, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

How do you deal with Lootas backing up BW orks?

(P.S. This is a serious question, as I am starting an IG army soon, to go along side my Eldar, DA and Orks)

armor 12 with 4+ cover falls into a really tricky spot for lootas. The average loota shot gets 10 hits, of which only 1.6 glances and 1.6 pens. Cut that in half for cover and you are left with a very slim margin of killy-ness.

Every list I've playtested against has fielded 45 lootas. they go after my screen every time. And it seems like weapons get blown off, I get crew stunned which downgrades to shaken, maybe I lose one. but the screen tends to hold. Its part of what is sometimes very maddening about killing vehicles without ap1. You roll to hit, roll to "wound", maybe there is a cover save. But then there is this new "save" which is the damage table. So many results keep me moving and blocking movement.

Lootas certainly kill some of my tanks every game. But I usually have more than enough fast vehicles left after a round of shooting to shut down BW movement for a turn.

If i feel i need to deal with lootas in a hybrid BW list, I go with some manticore shots. Also, remember that the devildogs, if untouched, are in range of 12" move and souffle on the lootas, but usually they don't make it past turn 2. Realistically, they (lootas) are hard for anyone to deal with. I tend to take out one full unit of them and then let the rest go to town on me. Just tough to deal 30 wounds to T4 models that are 40+" away.

Dashofpepper wrote:Frank conjectures that Orks should hypothetically do less well than other codexes,

No I don't. I'm suggesting that Orks wouldn't do so well if everyone brought hard lists to tourneys. It's vastly different.

but that entire supposition is based on the idea that Orks don't have an answer to AV14.

No it's not. Not entirely. Please try to keep up.

I just think that you're attempting to turn your opinion, which is fact-less and largely based on contrived beliefs about how 40k should be played into an actual "side" when there simply is neither grounds nor merit for your beliefs.

This is wrong. It's made wronger because your thinking is predicated on a fallacy. See above. You need to sort that out before we can really start dialogue-ing in any meaningful way. If you've read everything I've said and still think I'm bashing Orks based solely on the fact that they have no answer to AV14, well... I dunno what to tell you.

Primarch wrote:Thats where I think I am getting confused. How are Stelek's numbers any better/more important than the ones here?

Because the ones here are being posted as an addendum to the numbers being posted on Stelek's blog. Unless there's a thread I'm not aware of, three-quarters of the results posted on Stelek's blog don't appear on this site at all.

I think, you'd have to combine both lists, and cross out the dual posts, to get any semblance of a real number. It's fairly obvious that a lot of the posters there agree with you and Stelek, and so, would never take Orks to a tournament.

That'd be a silly thing to do if you agreed with me (and Stelek, apparently), because thinking thus you'd probably come to the realisation that Orks are more competetive than they have a right to be and thus can be used to do well at tournaments providing the match-ups fall for you.

That's the mission for Captain Scrudmongler's Scruddy WAAAGH!; to boldly go to ToS 09-10 and do well despite Captain Scrudmongler (that's me!) never having played a game with an Ork army before, thereby proving that a) the competetive 40K scene isn't competetive, and b) Orks are so simplistic that a basic understanding of the game is all that's needed to trounce shoddy opposition with them.

Should have enough to get my Warboss, Big Mek and Nobs Mob this Saturday; watch this space. It's going to be pink, green, and sexy.

You are right about the local thing, but that also goes for the "meta game". It just doesnt exist in my opinion outisde of your local play area. If the local Meta favors Nids, they will do well, if they move on from there to a meta that doesnt favor Nids, then they will do poorly. There is no national "meta" to speak of, just little pockets of meta everywhere.

QFT, with caveat; even local meta can be cut through by hard lists. If the meta in your area favours Nids,

Backfire wrote:Well hmm...looking at results, there were 8 Ork armies in Top 20, and 14 in Top 50 (more than any other). Best vanilla Marine was 20th, best Tau was 21st, best IG 23rd (old codex though). There were only two SM, one Tau and one IG in Top 50. So though best Ork was "only" 5th, I don't see the results as evidence of anything else than the Orks seem to have done just fine...

Please re-read the thread and understand the discussion taking place around it. Primarch/ Clay has taken the time to do it, why can't you?

You can only beat what's in front of you.

It's a game with the human factor- hypothetical statistics can only be taken so far. Statistics cannot deal with the "human" factor.

I can wax lyrical all day long about how LIVERPOOL football club is statistically better than EVERTON, they have more valuable players, a bigger squad, more money and so on. However, add a dash of the human element, and watch Everton beat them 1-0 in the FA cup quarter final. POW! Go ORKS!

Statistics can be made to say anything. I repeat- You can only beat what's in front of you.

Keyasa wrote:You can only beat what's in front of you.

Didn't work for Lennox Lewis' claim to be the best heavyweight of all time and it ain't gonna work here either ;D

It's a game with the human factor- hypothetical statistics can only be taken so far. Statistics cannot deal with the "human" factor.

It's also a game with a rigid set of rules that don't deviate (... much) between games, standardised and strictly regulated methods by which models interact with the board and other models, and dice. In such an environment the human factor only comes into play when we're talking about the ability to play to and through the rules and processes of the game; people who can do that run hard lists, because they know that while they may not be able to deal their own hand, they can at least stack the deck in their favour.

I can wax lyrical all day long about how LIVERPOOL football club is statistically better than EVERTON, they have more valuable players, a bigger squad, more money and so on. However, add a dash of the human element, and watch Everton beat them 1-0 in the FA cup quarter final. POW!

If footy was a turn-based sport this might be a reasonable analogy. It's not, so it's not.

EDIT: David Moyes is an onion-head.

Statistics can be made to say anything.

So can maxims

Frank Fugger wrote:

Backfire wrote:Well hmm...looking at results, there were 8 Ork armies in Top 20, and 14 in Top 50 (more than any other). Best vanilla Marine was 20th, best Tau was 21st, best IG 23rd (old codex though). There were only two SM, one Tau and one IG in Top 50. So though best Ork was "only" 5th, I don't see the results as evidence of anything else than the Orks seem to have done just fine...

Please re-read the thread and understand the discussion taking place around it. Primarch/ Clay has taken the time to do it, why can't you?

Honestly, I can't understand how that particular result proves anything else that the Orks are (or at least were, at the time of that tournament) very competive. Whereas the armies which you have claimed to be superior to Orks fared much, much worse. Which leaves me at loss why you even brought that one out.

Backfire wrote:Honestly, I can't understand how that particular result proves anything else that the Orks are (or at least were, at the time of that tournament) very competive. Whereas the armies which you have claimed to be superior to Orks fared much, much worse. Which leaves me at loss why you even brought that one out.

Not all tournament lists are hard, and not all tournament players are either. What I'd like to know is how a Dark Angels player managed to end up sticking it out in the top 10-15 as long as he did. If that's any indication of the quality of the opposition (and, given the fact a Tyranid player finished in the top ten, I believe it is) then it was either a bad field, or I'm missing something in the DA/ Nids and Ork codexes that allows them to whup hard lists. Either these other awesome tournament players were just not ready to face down the awe-inspiring horror of a Lictor, or they weren't running hard lists.

*giggles wildly*

Frank, I'm not going to write anything lengthy because the post I contributed to this discussion (above) you answered abrasively, refuting nothing I said, and hoping that a condescending tone and accusations of mental slowness would glib over refutations of your fanatical and wildly deluded and skewed view of reality.

Being an ass to people doesn't constitute your own ability to "keep up" with a thread either. This is the part where I bow out because the meaningful things have been said, and you've degenerated a thoughtful discussion into petty name-calling.

skipdog172:

Part of the problem with responding to individual points by quoting said points is that you miss the forest for the trees. By breaking a post down into individual points, you fail to address the point made by the entire post. That's why no one does that in the real world, because in the real world people can read and write well enough to follow all sides of a discussion. Likewise nobody needs to quote entire posts in their own posts because, as I've pointed out, people are literate enough to read a conversation without parts of it being repeated in their entirety.

Quoting other people's posts, and breaking them down into a series of disconnected quotations, to which you append your own disconnected non sequitors, demonstrates not only an inability to digest and analyze information, but also an inability to evaluate and synthesize your own ideas. Simply address the poster whose post you are addressing, and get on with composing your own thesis or counter-thesis the way you would compose any essay.

By following the standard format of thesis statement, argument, and re-statement of thesis, you can make the content of your posts clear, as well as better develop your own positions and arguments. At the least, it will make your posts more legible, and more interesting to read. Proof-reading and multiple drafts will go a long way to improving the quality of your posts. If people have a problem with "blocks of text", then maybe they should go find some activity that doesn't require stuff like reading...

I have found locally orks do well, some lists are a bad match up but that happens sometimes. The only armies that got totally screwed over are the ones that could not mech up. With the survivability of vehicles now, it is a huge advantage.