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.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

 Vankraken wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

exactly this. Randomness should always be a part of the ork army, but the good needs to heavily outweigh the bad results. Beyond the examples given, look at the iconic Shokk Attack Gun. In 7th the amazing result was it became a destroyer weapon on double 6. The bad results were: You die, you kill your unit, your opponent decides which unit to kill (yours or his) you teleport your expensive ranged unit into CC with your target, you only get a small blast OR your attack is so weak it doesn't scratch the paint on the armor. THAT is why GW messed up. 1 good result, 4-6 bad results does not a balanced weapon make.

Zzap gunz and smasha gunz were meh at best, but then you factor in their random strength AFTER you target a vehicle.....GG. Not to mention our KMK which are arguably our best ranged option right now. you have 1/2 as much chance to hurt yourself as to hit your opponent. If they have - to hit modifiers....then its even worse.

Idea for mobtacular dakka: For every 3 Boyz in a unit, add another to-hit die. This counds as just another attack in every way.

Might make that mob merging thing slightly more attractive.

M.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Vallhund wrote:
I agree. It seems as though the people who knew what they where doing with the orks left GW, and now we're left with the same guys who write up the other armies. It's as if they've just decided that orks aren't worth putting time and thought into. Maybe they'll figure themselves out with the codex.

problem is Orks have always been highly random and wacky, but all GW's heard the past.... age is "WE HATEZ RANDOM!"

Problem is GW is terrible at balancing random (see "blast" weapons now). If something is highly volatile in its results then its positive results need to be very rewarding while its negative results need to be risky or weak. Random weapons are a gamble and should pay out like a gamble but the issue has been that most Ork weapons are barely better than their more reliable counterparts when they get the good rolls while being far too weak when they don't. 7th edition Zzap Guns, Bubblechukka, and Smasha Kannons are prime examples that fail to do what they should do while having relatively poor payouts when they get their small % of good results. Reliable weapons still have a level of unreliability to them (roll to hit, roll to wound, saves, etc) but Ork randomness just throws in another failure point which means that your more likely to have ineffective results and fewer productive outcomes.

exactly this. Randomness should always be a part of the ork army, but the good needs to heavily outweigh the bad results. Beyond the examples given, look at the iconic Shokk Attack Gun. In 7th the amazing result was it became a destroyer weapon on double 6. The bad results were: You die, you kill your unit, your opponent decides which unit to kill (yours or his) you teleport your expensive ranged unit into CC with your target, you only get a small blast OR your attack is so weak it doesn't scratch the paint on the armor. THAT is why GW messed up. 1 good result, 4-6 bad results does not a balanced weapon make.

Zzap gunz and smasha gunz were meh at best, but then you factor in their random strength AFTER you target a vehicle.....GG. Not to mention our KMK which are arguably our best ranged option right now. you have 1/2 as much chance to hurt yourself as to hit your opponent. If they have - to hit modifiers....then its even worse.

I agree as well. There are good examples of random weapons in 8th already. For example, the DG Foul Blight Spawn has a flamer with 2d6 strength but is still considered one of the better units of the codex.

Space Marine with Missle Launcher BS3+ 48" D1d6 38pts 1W SV3+
Astra Militarum Missle Launcher Team BS4+ 48" D1d6 26pts 2W SV5+
Ork Rokkit Boy BS5+ 24" D3 18pts 1W SV6+

The Ork has half the range, half the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Space Marine counterpart for HALF the points.

The Ork has half the range, 2/3 the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Astra Militarum counterpart for 2/3 the points.

Why do they have 6+ saves ?
Why do they only have 24" range ?
Why is their survivability NOT factored into their point costs?

 adamsouza wrote:
Space Marine with Missle Launcher BS3+ 48" D1d6 38pts 1W SV3+
Astra Militarum Missle Launcher Team BS4+ 48" D1d6 26pts 2W SV5+
Ork Rokkit Boy BS5+ 24" D3 18pts 1W SV6+

The Ork has half the range, half the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Space Marine counterpart for HALF the points.

The Ork has half the range, 2/3 the accuracy, and is at best about a quarter as survivable as the Astra Militarum counterpart for 2/3 the points.

Why do they have 6+ saves ?
Why do they only have 24" range ?
Why is their survivability NOT factored into their point costs?

They reroll hits against vehicals - thats a pretty huge factor to leave out - also 3 flat damage is pretty comparable to d6 and in fact - I'd take Flat 3 over d6 on just about every weapon every single time. It's also an assault weapon so you can move and shoot with no pentalty (or in the case of a tank busta - shoot from inside of a truck or battlewaggon with no penalty.) They also have that awesome grenade for d3 actaul rocket launcher shots at 6 range. That's pretty funny.

Imperial Missile launchers don't need to move and shoot because 4 feet is a pretty big portion of the board.

If you factor in the durability with the trukk then you have to factor in the 80+pts that the trukk costs as well.

3 damage is .5 less on average then D6. D6 has a 1/3rd. Chance to do less damage, a 1/6th chance to do the same damage and a 50% chance to do 1-3 more damage. I will take D6 any day of the week. Especially when you factor in CP rerolls.

The grenade is great but the range is extremely prohibitive. And the grenade basically just makes 1 tankbustas act as 2. Not exactly a huge boon.

Rerolls against vehicles are good but IG has access to orders and SMs get reroll everything so it's not a benefit really.

Also the fact ig and beakies have rerolls built in to many of their units and orders as well... meaning we reroll to hit on 5/6s on vehicles while cadian troops reroll for anything if given an order to hit on 4.... the reroll to hit 5/6s in no way justifies being double the price of imperial units.

I will echo the randomness is nice for flavor, but it seems GW prices out models as if we will always get the highest number of shots and somehow make them all hits. they need to either cut points dramatically or make the random less random.

all of the special squads should be able to have some sort of armor lootas. nobz, tank bustas etc. should be rocking eavy armor for a 4+, I get ork boys just charging in but any warboss would want some protection for the specialty squads.

one of our only long range units is lootaz for 17 points averages 2 shots resulting in .66 hits. if you get 1 shot you get .33 hits, best case you get 3 and average 1 hit per loota. str 7 ap -1 D2 . The loota is T4 with a 6+ save. the closest comparable is probably a Guard heavy weapons team at 21 points, they are T3, but have an additional wound and a 5+ armor. They also hit on a 4+ and get a flat 2 shots. str 7 ap -1 D2. they also have a lasgun in case they shoot something in 24", or 2 shots if 12". So they average 1 hit of auto cannon and either .5 hit or 1 hit with the lasgun depending on range.

so to recap heavy weapons team gets significantly better hits 66% of the time, 1 more wound, an extra (albeit lower power)gun, +1 armor save, all for 4 points.... and the heavy weapons team are not even really considered one of the more efficient Guard units.

other units with random shots also either need points adjustments or a more steady number of shots. our big stompa super gatler... instead of 2D6 why not 6+ d6. keep the random but you don't get completely screwed. Lootas make it 1+D2 take that possibility of just having wasted points by eliminating the terrible and turning it into you might get 2 shots and you might get 3 shots. or .66 hits/1 hit

In my opinion GW really doesn't adjust the randomness AND the durability issue. Lootas are weaker then Heavy weapons teams but not by a whole lot, especially when you factor in the points difference. But then you look at durability and it's astounding. Heavy weapons teams are almost always in cover for a 4+ save where as lootas can't fit anywhere unless they are taken in small squads which make them extremely susceptible to morale issues. So if you want a useful unit you need 10+ and have to put them in a trukk because they die to a stiff breeze so really the cost per loota is almost 25ppm and they still aren't as durable as heavy weapon teams and are significantly less deadly.

SemperMortis wrote:
In my opinion GW really doesn't adjust the randomness AND the durability issue. Lootas are weaker then Heavy weapons teams but not by a whole lot, especially when you factor in the points difference. But then you look at durability and it's astounding. Heavy weapons teams are almost always in cover for a 4+ save where as lootas can't fit anywhere unless they are taken in small squads which make them extremely susceptible to morale issues. So if you want a useful unit you need 10+ and have to put them in a trukk because they die to a stiff breeze so really the cost per loota is almost 25ppm and they still aren't as durable as heavy weapon teams and are significantly less deadly.

I get currently they need a trukk, but I would say no unit should require a vehicle to be useful.

the issue with random is just that, it cannot be counted on in competitive play due to being to random. I would see a different set of profiles for match play and open play. say lootaz are 2 shot in matched and D3 in open play. or supa galter 6 shot in match 2d6 in open play.

I think both durability and randomness need to be addressed for orks to ever make a middle of the road competitive army.

I disagree in I generally find it pretty easy to find cover for full units of lootas, but I agree that regardless of whether or not lootas are in cover, it's basically useless. Facing down, say, 24 hurricane bolter shots, it really doesn't matter whether or not my save is 6+ or 5+, those lootas are dying in droves.

It's not my biggest gripe about 8th, but I hate that cover is nigh-useless for hordes, who need it most, and incredibly useful and easy to achieve for elite armies, who need it least.

The stompa is another whole level of craziness. That thing is literally 50% over priced and it's shooting is almost completely irrelevant.

As for lootas in cover, yeah you can get them in cover but in doing so you are blocking a lot of their firepower unless you find one of those golden pieces of cover

 Xenomancers wrote:

They reroll hits against vehicals - thats a pretty huge factor to leave out - also 3 flat damage is pretty comparable to d6 and in fact - I'd take Flat 3 over d6 on just about every weapon every single time. It's also an assault weapon so you can move and shoot with no pentalty (or in the case of a tank busta - shoot from inside of a truck or battlewaggon with no penalty.) They also have that awesome grenade for d3 actaul rocket launcher shots at 6 range. That's pretty funny.

Only tankbustas re-roll against vehicles, every other unit that fires rokkits doesn't. And bustas are 17ppm for 6+ save guys with BS5+.

Rokkitz are over priced on tankbustas by 2-4ppm. On a regular unit without benefits to the weapon? It's a 5pt upgrade at most