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.

 PhillyT wrote:

TableTopJosh wrote:

NamelessBard wrote:
People should stop thinking in terms of one CAD.

This is not going to last; with every new codex it's going more obvious.

I'd probably go for the Warband detchment if I were running trukk boyz anyway.

A lot of people play single CAD, so it is still important to have a functioning army within the normal FOC restrictions
.

Maybe people need to reduce unnecessary restrictions?

Most people play at least the ability to use more than a single FOC

NO NO NO NO NO!
thats a big nogo.

why you guys think FoC's where implemented in the first place?

its there so you can/must build diverse and balanced armylists. if you take multiple FoCs or go straight unbound you can come up with some reeaally gamebreaking stuff.
since gretchin costs 35 point you can basically field whatever you want for an extra tax of 70points...

for friendly fun games thats totally fine... you dont even need some special GW rules just do what you want.
but if you want to play competitive (and i'm not talking about tounaments! i mean friendly games) you need some boundries.

just spamming heavy support, hq and elite or whatever demonic ubercombo your codex inherits, has nothing to do with skill or a fair balanced game, its just cheesy power gaming.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
here is why the codex is bad...

You mean people might have to use strategy and tactics in a tactical strategy game? That people might have to think on their feet in order to play a wargame game well and competitively, rather than work from one years-old netlist that's practically guaranteed to do well? THE VERY IDEA, harrumph, well I never, etc. guess i better sell all these minis

EDIT: the pride I feel that this was my 200th post... *sniff*

 frgsinwntr wrote:
soooo... I have the codex in hand... its AWFUL...

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON IT...

Burna is now ALWAYS AP 3 in combat... but not if you shoot first.... sorry edit

you have to choose like before to use it as either shooting or close combat... can't do both

Thats how it always was

Lets be honest...we all wanted a dedicated transport that could launch a meganob off a catapult, with a range of 60 inches, ignoring terrain, that caused a Str 8 AP3 D6 hammer of wrath when it hit, and allowed the meganob to immediately enter assault at init 9.

But if you rolled a 1, the meganob's armor fell apart, and landed without any weapons and went splat.

RedNoak wrote:

NO NO NO NO NO!
thats a big nogo.

why you guys think FoC's where implemented in the first place?

its there so you can/must build diverse and balanced armylists. if you take multiple FoCs or go straight unbound you can come up with some reeaally gamebreaking stuff.
since gretchin costs 35 point you can basically field whatever you want for an extra tax of 70points...

for friendly fun games thats totally fine... you dont even need some special GW rules just do what you want.
but if you want to play competitive (and i'm not talking about tounaments! i mean friendly games) you need some boundries.

just spamming heavy support, hq and elite or whatever demonic ubercombo your codex inherits, has nothing to do with skill or a fair balanced game, its just cheesy power gaming.

The FOC was de-implemented with 7th edition by the designers, so none of your arguments are actually valid. The rules are as they are, banning multiple detachments is like banning riptides, wave serpents or the grimoire.
The extra tax of 70 point is actually quite a lot when you try it in a couple of lists, and the ork codex doesn't exactly have any "ubercombos" which is one of the reasons for the amount of whining in this thread.

OK so with the stompa being in the codex and all, can we still use the Buzzgobs Kustom Sompta builder in IA8 Instead? The one in the codex looks really overpriced and dosent have any cool options.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering that MANz were usually LD7 before and had no way of getting a boss pole outside of an IC, they've got a huge buff from mob rule.

Dunno that I would call it "huge", given that a single casualty suddenly eliminates half the Mob Rule chart, but yes a buff. Really, it's more that the unit itself now has a character by default, and can access a bosspole on its own. Without those, the unit would still be pretty boned.

Which is why I said if you want full squads, you should probably add a character (though they sadly wont fit in a BW then ). Otherwise you are better off with small units that will generally be dead before LD checks come into play.

Fully squads have never been a good a idea, for a simple reason which has not changed at all: What unit can survive 20 powerklaw attacks, but will fold to 40?

Either the opponent will kill half your unit, in which case you shouldn't be fighting him, or your MANz were already stomping them flat into the ground, in which case you wouldn't need the full unit.

 greggles wrote:
Lets be honest...we all wanted a dedicated transport that could launch a meganob off a catapult, with a range of 60 inches, ignoring terrain, that caused a Str 8 AP3 D6 hammer of wrath when it hit, and allowed the meganob to immediately enter assault at init 9.

But if you rolled a 1, the meganob's armor fell apart, and landed without any weapons and went splat.

Great. Now I have to figure out how to scratch build this.

Many units in various armies in both 40k and Fantasy have never been good ideas. People still field them though.

To answer your question though: perhaps a full brood of Fexes?

40 attacks at 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound = 22.222 wounds
20 attacks at 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound = 11.111 wounds

One unit wipes the Fexes out completely, the other leaves 2 Fexes alive (and pretty pissed off).

Of course, why arent you shooting Fexes with Rokkits or something, but that wasnt what you asked.

225 points for a unit in which every model can take a PK, TL shoota, 2+ save and bosspole is kinda wacky. I'll take 5 and use them on artillery wimps hiding in the backfield.

Are meganobs still 40 pts each?

 Jidmah wrote:

The FOC was de-implemented with 7th edition by the designers, so none of your arguments are actually valid. The rules are as they are, banning multiple detachments is like banning riptides, wave serpents or the grimoire.
The extra tax of 70 point is actually quite a lot when you try it in a couple of lists, and the ork codex doesn't exactly have any "ubercombos" which is one of the reasons for the amount of whining in this thread.

it wasnt "deimplemented" they just fraked it over by implementing unbound and forcing us to accept it by frelling with the codices.

70points is a joke if i can field 3 extra slots of elite, support and additional hq's -.-



...oh, and just between us: i dont think it were the "designers" whom came up with this unbound stuff...

I'm surprised that so many people are still in thread talking about it. You guys should be pouring over the codex, making lists, and planning games for the weekend!

I need to hear some Bat Reps!

Great. Now I have to figure out how to scratch build this.

Or how bout a sag that you could "preload" with snotlings. Each snotling extra you sucked into the gun gave you a +1 to the STR roll, but if you rolled over a 10, the gun overloaded, and sucked the big mek in as well.

 streamdragon wrote:
Many units in various armies in both 40k and Fantasy have never been good ideas. People still field them though.

To answer your question though: perhaps a full brood of Fexes?

40 attacks at 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound = 22.222 wounds
20 attacks at 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound = 11.111 wounds

One unit wipes the Fexes out completely, the other leaves 2 Fexes alive (and pretty pissed off).

Of course, why arent you shooting Fexes with Rokkits or something, but that wasnt what you asked.

The fexes would instant-death a whole bunch of them though, which would put them into the category of "you shouldn't be there".

RedNoak wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The FOC was de-implemented with 7th edition by the designers, so none of your arguments are actually valid. The rules are as they are, banning multiple detachments is like banning riptides, wave serpents or the grimoire.
The extra tax of 70 point is actually quite a lot when you try it in a couple of lists, and the ork codex doesn't exactly have any "ubercombos" which is one of the reasons for the amount of whining in this thread.

it wasnt "deimplemented" they just fraked it over by implementing unbound and forcing us to accept it by frelling with the codices.

70points is a joke if i can field 3 extra slots of elite, support and additional hq's -.-
...oh, and just between us: i dont think it were the "designers" whom came up with this unbound stuff...

Uh, what? Unbound has nothing to do with this.
A battleforged list is allowed to pick up any amount of detachments. Each detachment can be a Combined Arms Detachment, Allied Detachment, Ork Horde Detachment or Formation. Unbound can field whatever the feth they like. Major difference.

And 70 points are not a joke, considering how worthless gretchin are in this edition. That's almost two MANz, four kannons, two trukks, three powerklaws, a painboyz or whatnot. Not a single choice from the ork codex is worth paying 70 points tax on it. The only reason to get a second (or third) detachment would be fielding four or six mobs of boyz anyways.

Does anyone know how Bomb Squigs work now?

 MagicMan wrote:
Does anyone know how Bomb Squigs work now?

18" S8 AP4 Assault 1 single shot attack that hits on 2+ but can't target flyers, skimmers or FMC.

Can't be used for snapshots, but no requirement to target a vehicle.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
soooo... I have the codex in hand... its AWFUL...

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON IT...

Burna is now ALWAYS AP 3 in combat... but not if you shoot first.... sorry edit

you have to choose like before to use it as either shooting or close combat... can't do both

Hey man, does the codex have "art" or "model photos" in the unit entries?

 matphat wrote:
I'm surprised that so many people are still in thread talking about it. You guys should be pouring over the codex, making lists, and planning games for the weekend!

I need to hear some Bat Reps!

Well according to a lot of the people here there Ii no need to play a game. The codex is so bad they have already math hammered and theory hammered the out comes of all games. Why would they need to actually play they have the codex and that should be enough to determine out comes of games.

...right ?

 Dakkamite wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:
soooo... I have the codex in hand... its AWFUL...

DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON IT...

Burna is now ALWAYS AP 3 in combat... but not if you shoot first.... sorry edit

you have to choose like before to use it as either shooting or close combat... can't do both

Hey man, does the codex have "art" or "model photos" in the unit entries?

Photos. A lot of new art in the fluff part though. Fluff also seems to be rewritten. It has similar content to the old codex, but the actual words a different. No major retcon as far as I can tell, besides Flash Gits no longer being part of Bad Moons and the "orks become spores on death"-theory stated as one of many theories rather than fact.

the art is iffy... seems like a lot of reprints of art form old sources

 Jidmah wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
eehhmm... quick question..

only warbosses and bigmeks can take relics?

Correct. They get the relic on top of everything else they have, nothing is traded.

Verified (just backing you up), Only the Warboss & Big Mek have "Gifts of Gork & Mork" on their lists.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
the art is iffy... seems like a lot of reprints of art form old sources

Like every codex in the last 20 years?

They are all majority reprints with minority new stuff.

 Jidmah wrote:

And 70 points are not a joke, considering how worthless gretchin are in this edition. That's almost two MANz, four kannons, two trukks, three powerklaws, a painboyz or whatnot. Not a single choice from the ork codex is worth paying 70 points tax on it. The only reason to get a second (or third) detachment would be fielding four or six mobs of boyz anyways.

ill say it again...

RedNoak wrote:

70points is a joke, if i can field 3 extra slots of elite, support and additional hq's -.-

3 extra slots of support + 2HQ's are well worth the 70 points... especially in the ork dex... since our hq and support section are the ones that are extremely crowded

 ciaflayed1 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

RedNoak wrote:
eehhmm... quick question..

only warbosses and bigmeks can take relics?

Correct. They get the relic on top of everything else they have, nothing is traded.

Verified (just backing you up), Only the Warboss & Big Mek have "Gifts of Gork & Mork" on their lists.

Correct... even tho "da fixer uppers" mentions meks in their entry... they have no access to it

Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

 frgsinwntr wrote:


Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

hmm seems like a fishy finish-line rule change to me

RedNoak wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:


Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

hmm seems like a fishy finish-line rule change to me

exactly... seems like shenanigans....

 frgsinwntr wrote:
Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

More likely it was a fluff rule. Lots of GW rules have almost no importance aside from fluff.

 frgsinwntr wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:


Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

hmm seems like a fishy finish-line rule change to me

exactly... seems like shenanigans....

Eh, I don't know if I'd go that far. Grotsnik is famously a cyborg dok, it would be weird for him not to have the rules, even though they overlap

Leerjawise wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:

RedNoak wrote:

 frgsinwntr wrote:


Its kinda funny that mad doc grotsnik has cybork body... and docs tools... its like the change to cybork was a last minute thing...

hmm seems like a fishy finish-line rule change to me

exactly... seems like shenanigans....

Eh, I don't know if I'd go that far. Grotsnik is famously a cyborg dok, it would be weird for him not to have the rules, even though they overlap

But it's still a hilarious oversight, right? That piece of equipment serves absolutely no purpose, and for all we know could have affected the overall point cost of the model! It's a microcosm of all the criticisms leveled at Games Workshop's game design philosophy...