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.

 Multimoog wrote:
In practice and taking advantage of the new mechanics introduced to the codex (Boy mob FNP, 5++), the new Mob Rule will be much less detrimental than people are making it out to be.

 44Ronin wrote:

In fact, at low model counts, its fully possible for the wounds taken from mob rule to force the boyz to take another mob rule test and lose even more models, in some circumstances.

According to what?

Can you explain in detail please

It's not possible: once the wounds have been taken the test counts as having been passed

You shoot my small unit with a pinning weapon, causing me to lose 1 model. I fail my pinning check, mob rule does some wounds and I lose 25% of my models to Mob Rule. This forces another LD check, which if failed would force another Mob Rule check.

Unlikely, but certainly possible.

 44Ronin wrote:

In fact, at low model counts, its fully possible for the wounds taken from mob rule to force the boyz to take another mob rule test and lose even more models, in some circumstances.

According to what?

Can you explain in detail please

Pinning->mob rule->casualties->morale check->mob rule->casualties.

Basically anything that requires a morale check other than the morale check for taking casualties.

Quick Boyz question: Are basic boys the same cost as before or cheaper? What if you give them shootas? Heavy Armor?

Because it feel slike a row of 'Eavy Armor Orks in front (Sav 4+ can absorb small arms fire) will provide a cover save for the ones behind, who come in mob sizes. Say twice as many Slugga Boys as 'Eavy, and as many shootas as 'Eavy or maybe as many as Slugga ... that's a right 'ard core marching up the line, and could be dang cheap, depending on how expensive the upgrades are.

Vehicles are tricky, since each one you field can be a bomb for the Boys, so the old "Boys before Toys" rule might be back in effect, skimping on vehicles for footsloggers. Any vehicles should be kept away from the mobs and either A) big and heavy or B) light and fast. They're not really supposed to *do* anything, just keep people busy while the mobs move up.
.
It's like playing the bugs, basicly. Depends on if Sluggas and Shootas are comperable to Hormagaunts and Termagants, really.

Armor 14 is not that common we don't need a lot of ways to deal with Iit, and at least not spamable ways. I thinks orks ran more armor 14 than any one else with BW spam.

i dunno what you'fe talking about here, or what your local community is like, but just about every time i played against non-ba or da marines, including chaos, there was a land raider on the table, usually with a really nasty unit of guys in similarly hard armor with big hammers inside. and there's a big difference between av14 on the front and av14 all the way around, especially when your army has no s9-10 ranged attacks, no meltas, and no lance weapons. the only chance to crack one of those boxes was to get it on the charge with a pk-wielding nob, or to get tanbustas right up against it, which isn't easy in rickety av10 transports or sloggin' it on foot. meanwhile, a buncha scouts with krak grenades or an assault cannon shooting at the rear could pop a bw without breaking a sweat.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
Sample unit: seven or fewer orks, T 4, 6+ save, led by nob with bosspole, not locked in combat.

Old rule:

~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~25% chance to pass on second try, taking an average of 0.83 wounds.
~17% chance to fail second try and take the wound anyway.

New rule:
~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~23% chance to get the 2-3 result with the bosspole re-roll, passing the test and taking an average of 1.46 wounds.
~19% chance to fail the test, but at least you don't take any extra wounds.

Overall it's a nerf to large units and no real benefit to even the small ones.

I did quick mental math for no bosspole, and didn't run the numbers for with a bosspole.

It's hilarious that the new Mob Rule is even a nerf for ultra small units.

Even for meganobs, the benifit is tiny unless they have a character and a bosspole. Although, a unit of 10+ meganobs and characters can pass fear tests like a boss.

...of course they used to be fearless.

Wakshaani wrote:
Quick Boyz question: Are basic boys the same cost as before or cheaper? What if you give them shootas? Heavy Armor?

Because it feel slike a row of 'Eavy Armor Orks in front (Sav 4+ can absorb small arms fire) will provide a cover save for the ones behind, who come in mob sizes. Say twice as many Slugga Boys as 'Eavy, and as many shootas as 'Eavy or maybe as many as Slugga ... that's a right 'ard core marching up the line, and could be dang cheap, depending on how expensive the upgrades are.

Vehicles are tricky, since each one you field can be a bomb for the Boys, so the old "Boys before Toys" rule might be back in effect, skimping on vehicles for footsloggers. Any vehicles should be kept away from the mobs and either A) big and heavy or B) light and fast. They're not really supposed to *do* anything, just keep people busy while the mobs move up.
.
It's like playing the bugs, basicly. Depends on if Sluggas and Shootas are comperable to Hormagaunts and Termagants, really.

Blob viability is conditional on being able to survive gak like the new Wyvern. Currently I'm not convinced they can do that.

That said, I have 120 Orks that want to give it a try! But as somebody mentioned before, got no interest in being the NPC for another player.

Shake hands.
Take the Boyz out of the box.
Put them back in the box.
Shake hands.
Repeat.

What's the definition of insanity again?

 Toburk wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
Sample unit: seven or fewer orks, T 4, 6+ save, led by nob with bosspole, not locked in combat.

Old rule:

~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~25% chance to pass on second try, taking an average of 0.83 wounds.
~17% chance to fail second try and take the wound anyway.

New rule:
~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~23% chance to get the 2-3 result with the bosspole re-roll, passing the test and taking an average of 1.46 wounds.
~19% chance to fail the test, but at least you don't take any extra wounds.

Overall it's a nerf to large units and no real benefit to even the small ones.

I did quick mental math for no bosspole, and didn't run the numbers for with a bosspole.

It's hilarious that the new Mob Rule is even a nerf for ultra small units.

Oh, God. I have to put this in a new post to bring attention to it.

This means Nobs/Meganobs ACTUALLY GOT WORSE, once you factor in the bosspole.

*11.8% greater chance of breaking and running in 7th. (19% instead of 17%)

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 matphat wrote:
It seems like the new mob rule would be VERY easy to math hammer if one were so inclined and knew how (I don't) for most of the obvious circumstances. After that, it seems like it would be a small jump to compare it to the old Mob Rule.

Any takers?

Sample unit: seven or fewer orks, T 4, 6+ save, led by nob with bosspole, not locked in combat.

Old rule:

~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~25% chance to pass on second try, taking an average of 0.83 wounds.
~17% chance to fail second try and take the wound anyway.

New rule:
~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~23% chance to get the 2-3 result with the bosspole re-roll, passing the test and taking an average of 1.46 wounds.
~19% chance to fail the test, but at least you don't take any extra wounds.

Better armour saves reduce your chances of taking wounds, but they do so equally for both the old and new rules.

Bikers take only two thirds the wounds that T 4 orks do.


Tailoring the example to lead to specific conclusion here
Overall it's a nerf to large units and no real benefit to even the small ones.

Example tailoring lol

 44Ronin wrote:
Example tailoring lol

He did tailor the example...

...to the best case senario for the new Mob Rule!

 44Ronin wrote:
Example tailoring lol

How many examples would you like?

I already pointed out how armour doesn't make any difference to the change between the rules.

I noted the difference that T 5 would make. It's nearly enough to make the new rules better than the old one, but not quite.

Units of 8-10 models do better under the old rule, because they have higher Ld.

Units of 11+ models did much better under the old rule because they were Fearless (although I do appreciate being able to Go to Ground now).

The way I see it is this. I'm not taking anything in this thread at face value. Regardless of someone claims they have the book, until I see pics or I have the book in hand, this all sounds way too terrible to be a thing. Granted, it's not outside of GW's ballpark to feth up so badly, but regardless. I'll retain all panic until I'm holding my own Codex and can see for myself. A lot of people getting too uppity of what we ASSUME is to be truth with no hard evidence to back any of it up.

 streamdragon wrote:

You shoot my small unit with a pinning weapon, causing me to lose 1 model. I fail my pinning check, mob rule does some wounds and I lose 25% of my models to Mob Rule. This forces another LD check, which if failed would force another Mob Rule check.

Unlikely, but certainly possible.

Once you take wounds from Mob Rule you don't have to take another test. It retroactively causes you to have passed the initial test; no further tests are required for that unit until it loses more models from an outside source.

Melevolence wrote:
The way I see it is this. I'm not taking anything in this thread at face value. Regardless of someone claims they have the book, until I see pics or I have the book in hand, this all sounds way too terrible to be a thing. Granted, it's not outside of GW's ballpark to feth up so badly, but regardless. I'll retain all panic until I'm holding my own Codex and can see for myself. A lot of people getting too uppity of what we ASSUME is to be truth with no hard evidence to back any of it up.

No offence but that's stupid. Some people have the codex and are sharing. Why no belief? I only don't have it because I forgot my bank card on Friday. No assumption here. It is fact. It won't be as bad as you make out. Accept it and move on!

 Multimoog wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

You shoot my small unit with a pinning weapon, causing me to lose 1 model. I fail my pinning check, mob rule does some wounds and I lose 25% of my models to Mob Rule. This forces another LD check, which if failed would force another Mob Rule check.

Unlikely, but certainly possible.

Once you take wounds from Mob Rule you don't have to take another test. It retroactively causes you to have passed the initial test; no further tests are required for that unit until it loses more models from an outside source.

Does it explicitly state that if the unit suffers 25% casualties due to Mob Rule wounds that it does not need to take a morale check at the end of the phase for suffering 25% casualties in one phase? Because that second test is completely different to the initial non-25% casualty test (ie Pinning) and so Mob Rule could not have retroactively passed it.

rtb01 wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
The way I see it is this. I'm not taking anything in this thread at face value. Regardless of someone claims they have the book, until I see pics or I have the book in hand, this all sounds way too terrible to be a thing. Granted, it's not outside of GW's ballpark to feth up so badly, but regardless. I'll retain all panic until I'm holding my own Codex and can see for myself. A lot of people getting too uppity of what we ASSUME is to be truth with no hard evidence to back any of it up.

No offence but that's stupid. Some people have the codex and are sharing. Why no belief? I only don't have it because I forgot my bank card on Friday. No assumption here. It is fact. It won't be as bad as you make out. Accept it and move on!

I'll believe it when I actually see it. Nothing wrong with being skeptical. And they have the 'allegedly leaked' version, which again, they have posted no solid proof of the gak thats being said. It's possible its true, the things they are saying. Which is what it is, and we will know for sure at the end of this week. *shrug* But until then, whatever.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Does it explicitly state that if the unit suffers 25% casualties due to Mob Rule wounds that it does not need to take a morale check at the end of the phase for suffering 25% casualties in one phase?

Yes, that's what the wording in the rule means. The wounds you resolve due to Mob Rule are the "cost" of being able to autopass the initial check. Once you've resolved those wounds, you have passed the check, and as such it's as if the initial check never failed. Therefore, you don't need to resolve any more checks, as you already passed the first.

 Multimoog wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Does it explicitly state that if the unit suffers 25% casualties due to Mob Rule wounds that it does not need to take a morale check at the end of the phase for suffering 25% casualties in one phase?

Yes, that's what the wording in the rule means. The wounds you resolve due to Mob Rule are the "cost" of being able to autopass the initial check. Once you've resolved those wounds, you have passed the check, and as such it's as if the initial check never failed. Therefore, you don't need to resolve any more checks, as you already passed the first.

However the second leadership test is completely unrelated to the original test. It even happens at a different time.

You passed the pinning test which you had to take immediately after suffering an unsaved wound from a pinning weapon. But now you've lost 25% of the unit in one phase, which means you have to test to see whether you fall back at the end of the phase. That test must be taken as it is completely unrelated to the initial pinning test.

Hypothetically, let's say this Ork unit is hit by a psychic power which required them to take a leadership test or be pinned. They fail the test and then Mob Rule kicks in and they've now passed. Then they are hit by the same power from a different psyker. They would have to take the test because it's a different test to the first one, right?

Look, if you're going to fight for a ruling that seems designed to deliberately cause a cascade effect that results in wiping out a unit in one turn, you're either an incredibly masochistic Ork player or an incredibly pedantic WAAC TG rules lawyer I'm glad I don't have to play with.

 Multimoog wrote:
Look, if you're going to fight for a ruling that seems designed to deliberately cause a cascade effect that results in wiping out a unit in one turn, you're either an incredibly masochistic Ork player or an incredibly pedantic WAAC TG rules lawyer I'm glad I don't have to play with.

So you suggest that we just ignore rules we dont like?

So you suggest that we just ignore rules we dont like?

Why the feth not.

 Multimoog wrote:
Look, if you're going to fight for a ruling that seems designed to deliberately cause a cascade effect that results in wiping out a unit in one turn, you're either an incredibly masochistic Ork player or an incredibly pedantic WAAC TG rules lawyer I'm glad I don't have to play with.

The morale check caused due to taking 25% casualties can't create another morale check due to taking 25% casualties. However, any other check can cause one instance of having to take another morale check due to taking 25% casualties from the mob rule hits.

Mob rule doesn't even have to do all the casualties itself. If it is a few short, your opponent can just shoot a Rhino's stormbolter or something into the mob to bump it past 25%.

Unless there's something in the codex that says this can't happen, casualties from Mob checking a pinning test could force a morale test, but casualties from Mob checking a morale test due to 25% casualties could not force a second morale test, because you only take a morale test for casualties once per phase.

 Toburk wrote:


The morale check caused due to taking 25% casualties can't create another morale check due to taking 25% casualties.

This is all I'm saying.

 Toburk wrote:

 Multimoog wrote:
Look, if you're going to fight for a ruling that seems designed to deliberately cause a cascade effect that results in wiping out a unit in one turn, you're either an incredibly masochistic Ork player or an incredibly pedantic WAAC TG rules lawyer I'm glad I don't have to play with.

The morale check caused due to taking 25% casualties can't create another morale check due to taking 25% casualties. However, any other check can cause one instance of having to take another morale check due to taking 25% casualties from the mob rule hits.

Mob rule doesn't even have to do all the casualties itself. If it is a few short, your opponent can just shoot a Rhino's stormbolter or something into the mob to bump it past 25%.

My Brain Hurts!

 Toburk wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Example tailoring lol

He did tailor the example...

...to the best case senario for the new Mob Rule!

Small unit no boss pole.

Which one wins out when you fail ld. Because old rules you flee.

Because examples where the new rules is favourable is banned from discussion

 44Ronin wrote:
Small unit no boss pole.

Which one wins out when you fail ld. Because old rules you flee.

Because examples where the new rules is favourable is banned from discussion

1-9 boyz fail the new Mob Rule on a 1+.

 Multimoog wrote:

 Toburk wrote:


The morale check caused due to taking 25% casualties can't create another morale check due to taking 25% casualties.

This is all I'm saying.

.. Which is not what they're saying. They're talking about a pinning test being the initial test which causes the events to trigger, not 25% losses.

This isn't related to the new Mob Rule so it could be considered off topic, but what do you guys think a list like this?

Primary Detachment

HQ

Warboss (probably with a PK, 'eavy armor, cybork body and a relic or two)

2*Big Mek with KFF

Troops

3*30 Slugga Boyz with Nob (PK, Bosspole)

Secondary Detachment

HQ

3*Painboy

Troops

3*30 Slugga Boyz with Nob (PK, Bosspole)

3 of the mobs get painboys for that FNP and the guys at the front will also get the KFF invuln against shooting. The warboss is there so you can Waaagh! when you need to and to add a bit more close combat punch.

Depending on how many points this is, you could fill out the rest with deffkoptaz or buggies so you have a bit more anti-tank.

If you guys want to hear about the Ghaz book, I'll have it by next week like the other warboss edition buyers. I can give a report on it if you want!

 Toburk wrote:

 Toburk wrote:

 Perfect Organism wrote:
Sample unit: seven or fewer orks, T 4, 6+ save, led by nob with bosspole, not locked in combat.

Old rule:

~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~25% chance to pass on second try, taking an average of 0.83 wounds.
~17% chance to fail second try and take the wound anyway.

New rule:
~58% chance to pass Ld test first try.
~23% chance to get the 2-3 result with the bosspole re-roll, passing the test and taking an average of 1.46 wounds.
~19% chance to fail the test, but at least you don't take any extra wounds.

Overall it's a nerf to large units and no real benefit to even the small ones.

I did quick mental math for no bosspole, and didn't run the numbers for with a bosspole.

It's hilarious that the new Mob Rule is even a nerf for ultra small units.

Oh, God. I have to put this in a new post to bring attention to it.

This means Nobs/Meganobs ACTUALLY GOT WORSE, once you factor in the bosspole.

*11.8% greater chance of breaking and running in 7th. (19% instead of 17%)

19% instead of 17% ? honestly in game it won’t make a difference.
The real gap should be in combat. For me, small unit rolling Ld cause it loses combat pretty much=wiped unit /sweep advanced. Now the new mob rule can make a difference.