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.

"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

Thinking about the addition of a unit sized FnP, 6+ 5+ 4+.
I was wondering if that was determined at the start of the turn or just when over the unit wound need to make the roll.

Martel732 wrote:
Orks should also have a special rule where casualties come from the rear. Call it enthusiasm.

Step up to da fight ladz!

I think this is the best suggestion I've ever seen you make. It helps so much stuff; casualties probably increase distance from the board edge, mitigating falling back. It helps them get into combat against overpowered over watches. It lets them swing back better in close combat. So many fixes to things that are complained about!

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

It all depends. Some stats are worth more than others. T5 means not being wounded by a scatterlaser on a 2+, and that should be pretty expensive.

Martel732 wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"No it wouldn't if they simply take away the armor save that they never get anyways. They could leave the points alone."

T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

they are already over-costed compared to other troops for the comparing points to stats. given how high toughness increases survivability and most metrics II have seen a T5 increase and leaving everything else alone would make them close to average for troops sticks em above a chaos space marine and below a vanilla marine about on par with a fire warrior

It all depends. Some stats are worth more than others. T5 means not being wounded by a scatterlaser on a 2+, and that should be pretty expensive.

yea, toughness is in the equation as one of the most expensive things to make a model cost more. T4-5 is worth about 2 points per model. but ork boys now should be about 4 points per model (3.8) and are instead 6

compare them to a guardsman who costs a little less than 5 points (factor in serg). guardsman loses a WS, gains a BS, gains an I, loses and A, and loses a toughness, gains +1 armor and most importantly gets a 24" gun with rapid fire (granted minus 1 str compared to orks but twice the range and rapid fire) guardsman can receive orders, orks get an odd leadership mechanic and one dice reroll on charges. the guardsman is almost better than the ork even at the same points. (and guardsman is not a high bar they are also on the low power end)

No need to become worse vs grav.

I don't think the armor save needs to be improved, I think AP values need to tweaked. Really seems like only true Anti-tank sort of weapons should interfere with armor saves; something like only having AP -, AP 3, AP 2 and AP 1 equivilants.

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

If you let Ork Boyz in squads of 20+ take a pain boy or big mek instead of a Nob you'd help the codex.

You'd have troops with a 6+ And a 5+ FNP
Or with a 5++ with a Kustom Force Field.

Plus you'd free the HQ slot up for Warbosses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or use the HQ to take the other so you get a 5++ and a FNP

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

here is the difference between the two changes.

T increase has a higher effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) but no effect on high S weapons (7+)

FnP has a lower effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) and a much larger effect on high S weapons (7+)

So the differences between the two changes lay at the very low and very high S. There is a small difference in low S weapons, about .6 wounds per 6 wounds caused, which would make the T increase be a higher points cost, but the FnP has a much higher effect on S 7 weapons. Overall the total changes would put FnP slightly higher over all, about .4 difference in wounds if you combine all the differences in S, the big thing here is you end up with a full 1 wound per 6 wounds at S7.

Now, the low S changes are fairly easy and cheap to get around, troop choices are not hard to come by. The high S changes are harder to deal with because they come on more expensive models (usually) and are more expensive in general, usually costing 15 points per model for the upgrade. So while the T change is easily mitigated by adding a few more cheap easy to get models, the FnP models need expensive less available models (usually) to make up for the loss in fire power.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T5 is way better than 6+ armor. Their cost would have to go up.

T 5 is way better if your moving from T3 but if your going from T 4 to T 5 your looking at a .165 decrease in wounds with weapons from S 3 to S 6 and anything with no AP at all, removing the armor save which decreases the number of wounds by (GASP!) .165.

Now compare that to adding 6+ FnP which affects everything from S 3 to S 7, AP doesn't matter unless you have no AP which means Orks become more durable to everything that isn't S 8. So if a T increase which is a mild increase to durability then FnP is a much larger increase to durability AND would demand a large points upgrade.

That's not how probability works.

Going from T4 -> T5
against S3: 50% damage reduction (going from 2/6 chance in wounding to 1/6 chance)
against S4: 33% damage reduction (going from 3/6 chance in wounding to 2/6 chance)
against S5: 25% damage reduction
against S6: 20% damage reduction

Adding a 6+ save is always a 16.6% damage reduction.

So 6+ FnP is better than T5 vs T4 against S7, but the increased toughness is better against everything else.

Unless I screwed up the maths somewhere, I am very tired, but I think I did it correctly.

here is the difference between the two changes.

T increase has a higher effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) but no effect on high S weapons (7+)

FnP has a lower effect on low S weapons (3 and 4) same effect on mid S weapons (5 and 6) and a much larger effect on high S weapons (7+)

So the differences between the two changes lay at the very low and very high S. There is a small difference in low S weapons, about .6 wounds per 6 wounds caused, which would make the T increase be a higher points cost, but the FnP has a much higher effect on S 7 weapons. Overall the total changes would put FnP slightly higher over all, about .4 difference in wounds if you combine all the differences in S, the big thing here is you end up with a full 1 wound per 6 wounds at S7.

No, compared to 6+ FnP an increase from T4 -> T5 has a bigger effect on every result from S3 up to S6, with the effect being MUCH bigger on S3 but only slightly bigger on S6.

The 6+ FnP ONLY has a better effect on S7. Not S7+ because S8 and up causes Insta Death and negates FnP, and at S7 it's only a 16.6% improvement.

So you're arguing that FnP is worth more than T4 -> T5 solely because of S7 weapons because T5 is better for all other results.

I haven't played much 40k in a while, but I'm pretty sure S7 still isn't the dominant strength and you'd much rather have a 50%/33%/25% better chance of surviving S3/4/5 attacks than a 16.6% better chance of surviving S7.

I don't know how you calculated your "0.6 in 6" and whatnot, but the way to calculate an improvement in survivability is...

[1 - (new chance of surviving)/(old chance of surviving)] * 100 %

For a toughness increase, since your number of attack/to hit/to save is all the same they cancel out in the division of new/old, so you're just left with...

[1 - (new chance of wounding)/(old chance of wounding)] * 100 %

For a save increase you use the same method....

[1 - (new chance of failing save)/(old chance of failing save)] * 100 %

...but since you started with no FNP and are adding a 6+ FNP, the "old chance of failing save" = 1, so it just becomes

[1 - (5/6)] * 100 % = 16.6%

Crunch the numbers and an increase in toughness is better under all circumstances except S7 attacks.

Personally I'd be more than happy to play a game against you where all my units got +1 T and all your units gained a 6+ FnP save because statistically I'd be coming out way better (especially if you're willing to pay more points for the 6+ FnP)

Now, the low S changes are fairly easy and cheap to get, troop choices are not hard to come by. The high S changes are harder to deal with because they come on more expensive models (usually) and are more expensive in general, usually costing 15 points per model for the upgrade. So while the T change is easily mitigated by adding a few more cheap easy to get models, the FnP models need expensive less available models (usually) to make up for the loss in fire power.

I don't know what you're trying say with this paragraph, sorry.

I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

To be fair, ork boyz look much more like very large gorillas. Although they resemble humans physiologically, they are made of much more resilient stuff. You blow off a couple limbs, and not only do they not bleed out but pain isn't even debilitating. In fact you can just sew a completely different set of limbs on and they will work fine in a short time.

Now, this isn't to say they need a toughness upgrade. It's just that you can justify almost anything in the fluff. I'm more concerned with making boyz viable, and many fair points have been already made, including that boyz may not be the biggest issue with the codex. My group has already addressed most of the current complaints, but we use a reaction phase which allows a more efficient version than GW's overwatch mechanic so our assault armies need a little bump. So we're still crunching numbers to see what works best, and it may not be as appropriate to the current 40K game as a whole. But thanks to everybody for their input!

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

Don't get me wrong, the Ork Codex is a pile of hot garbage. So many different things in there need a buff.

However, this is a discussion about Ork Boyz specifically. And no, they are NOT ok as is. SMs can take scouts or regular Tacticals which are better then boyz in a number of ways, Tau Firewarriors turn Boyz into mincemeat, Eldar.....Yeah lets not talk about Eldar, Necron Warriors? Seriously? you don't think they are better? hell, even IG are better then a Boy in any situation not directly involving chopping people up with a sword or an axe.

No, Ork boyz need a fix, and dropping the price by a point won't fix it. I would love to see T5 boyz but I feel that would be to over powered at the moment, even if you dropped the 6+ save, granted it would make those 50pt Painboyz more appealing in infantry units. Overall I do think that has been the best suggestion so far, give Boyz T5, Increase to S4 (keep furious charge) and increase price by 1-2pts. Their biggest weakness (leadership) hasn't been fixed but at least now your boyz will actually get to CC and will actually hurt your opponent in CC!.

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

It won't be the end all be all for orks but it would be a step in the right direction.

I'd like to see orks have the options to upgrade their Boss Nobz to Eavy Armour without having to pay for the entire squad.

SemperMortis wrote:

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

Boyz being S4/T5 would be too strong. Looking at 10 Boyz is what, 60 points?

Also if your boys are charging with 2xCCW then that's 4 attacks per Boy.

 Marmatag wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

Boyz being S4/T5 would be too strong. Looking at 10 Boyz is what, 60 points?

Also if your boys are charging with 2xCCW then that's 4 attacks per Boy.

Math! Assume the Boyz are exactly 24" away. 5 Tacs versus 10 Boyz (Boyz are cheaper by 10 points).

Marines fire 5 shots, 10/3 hits, 10/9 wounds, one dead Boy. Boyz move up 9.5 inches.

Marines retreat 6 inches, fire 5 shots, 20/9 wounds now. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 13 away.

Marines retreat 6 inches, hit the table edge, and fire. 30/9 dead Boyz. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 9.5 inches away.

Marines rapid fire now, bringing the total up to 50/9 dead Boyz. But the Boyz move up 6 inches, leaving them 3.5 away, fire their guns (S4 AP6 Pistol, right?) dealing 5/3 hits, 5/6 wounds, 5/18 dead Marines. Then they charge. (Overwatch deals a measly 10 shots, 5/3 hits, 5/9 wounds.) Assume S4 Furious Charge. Marines get 5 attacks, 5/2 hits, 5/6 wounds, and 25/36 go through their saves, leaving 245/36 Boyz dead, or over 6. So the 4 remaining Boyz dump 16 attacks in, 8 hit, 16/3 wound, 16/9 more dead, for 37/18 total. Two dead Marines, six dead Boyz. The Boyz win combat, but Space Marines don't care. (Do note, though, that ANY failed morale test at this point means the Marines are likely to die, since they're on the table edge.)

Next round of combat, 3 Marines deal 3 attacks, 3/2 hits, and 1/2 wounds, for 5/12 through the saves. 255/36 Boyz dead, or 85/12, or just over 7. 3 Boyz strike back, with 9 attacks, 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 3/4 through the saves. 101/36 dead, or around 3 Marines. Tied combat.

Next round, 2 Marines deal 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1/3 wound, for 5/18 through the saves. 265/36 Boyz dead, or still about 7. 3 Boyz strike back, doing 3/4ths of a wound again, for 128/36 (32/9). About 3 and a half, so we'll say no one dies this time.

Next round, 2 Marines, 5/18 wounds, or 275/36 Boyz dead. A bit over 7 and a half, but hell, we'll round up. 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz swing back, 6 attacks, 3 hits, 3/2 wounds, 1/2 through the saves. 73/18 Marines are dead now, for 4. Tied combat.

It's now 2 Boyz, 1 Marine. 1 attack from the Marine, 1/2 hits, 1/6 wounds, 5/36 through the saves. 280/36, still 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz do 1/2 a wound again, for 82/18.

Same thing happens next round. Marines do 5/36 wounds, 285/36, or just under 8 Boyz dead. The two Boyz then swing, doing 1/2 a wound, for 91/18. More than 5 dead Marines.

60 Point Boyz Squad beats a 70 Point Tac Squad. You could add a flamer for cheap, but that gives the Boyz the points needed to add 2 more Boyz, and reduces firepower overall if you're playing defensively, since for the first few turns, you aren't shooting the flamer. If you play aggressively, the Boyz charge sooner.

Thank you for posting that. It's a good model of the scenario, and shows that while Boyz might have the edge in base TAC vs base Boyz, it's effectively balanced at the infantry level.

I won't deny there are bigger issues, but changing their toughness by +1, or giving the Boyz a FNP, would be really problematic for any semblance of balance.

I liked the idea of "Enthusiasm," where deaths occur in the back of the formation, or at the controlling players choice.

The best suggestions so far have been 5pts per ork, casualties from the rear, and I like making painboys like the regular meks are in the codex, one per every other hq choice, doesn't count as an hq. Heck I'd trade the 6+ armour to shave just 1 pt off.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Math! Assume the Boyz are exactly 24" away. 5 Tacs versus 10 Boyz (Boyz are cheaper by 10 points).

Marines fire 5 shots, 10/3 hits, 10/9 wounds, one dead Boy. Boyz move up 9.5 inches.

Marines retreat 6 inches, fire 5 shots, 20/9 wounds now. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 13 away.

Marines retreat 6 inches, hit the table edge, and fire. 30/9 dead Boyz. Boyz move up 9.5 inches, leaving them 9.5 inches away.

Marines rapid fire now, bringing the total up to 50/9 dead Boyz. But the Boyz move up 6 inches, leaving them 3.5 away, fire their guns (S4 AP6 Pistol, right?) dealing 5/3 hits, 5/6 wounds, 5/18 dead Marines. Then they charge. (Overwatch deals a measly 10 shots, 5/3 hits, 5/9 wounds.) Assume S4 Furious Charge. Marines get 5 attacks, 5/2 hits, 5/6 wounds, and 25/36 go through their saves, leaving 245/36 Boyz dead, or over 6. So the 4 remaining Boyz dump 16 attacks in, 8 hit, 16/3 wound, 16/9 more dead, for 37/18 total. Two dead Marines, six dead Boyz. The Boyz win combat, but Space Marines don't care. (Do note, though, that ANY failed morale test at this point means the Marines are likely to die, since they're on the table edge.)

Next round of combat, 3 Marines deal 3 attacks, 3/2 hits, and 1/2 wounds, for 5/12 through the saves. 255/36 Boyz dead, or 85/12, or just over 7. 3 Boyz strike back, with 9 attacks, 9/2 hits, 9/4 wounds, 3/4 through the saves. 101/36 dead, or around 3 Marines. Tied combat.

Next round, 2 Marines deal 2 attacks, 1 hit, 1/3 wound, for 5/18 through the saves. 265/36 Boyz dead, or still about 7. 3 Boyz strike back, doing 3/4ths of a wound again, for 128/36 (32/9). About 3 and a half, so we'll say no one dies this time.

Next round, 2 Marines, 5/18 wounds, or 275/36 Boyz dead. A bit over 7 and a half, but hell, we'll round up. 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz swing back, 6 attacks, 3 hits, 3/2 wounds, 1/2 through the saves. 73/18 Marines are dead now, for 4. Tied combat.

It's now 2 Boyz, 1 Marine. 1 attack from the Marine, 1/2 hits, 1/6 wounds, 5/36 through the saves. 280/36, still 8 dead Boyz. 2 Boyz do 1/2 a wound again, for 82/18.

Same thing happens next round. Marines do 5/36 wounds, 285/36, or just under 8 Boyz dead. The two Boyz then swing, doing 1/2 a wound, for 91/18. More than 5 dead Marines.

60 Point Boyz Squad beats a 70 Point Tac Squad. You could add a flamer for cheap, but that gives the Boyz the points needed to add 2 more Boyz, and reduces firepower overall if you're playing defensively, since for the first few turns, you aren't shooting the flamer. If you play aggressively, the Boyz charge sooner.

You didn't include ld7 checks for the boyz and chapter tactics for marines. Also, if the boyz are that close and there are just a couple of them, it's not a bad idea to charge with marines. You still get the grenade and 4 bp shots and than deal 2 times more damage and face 1 less attack and str and have significant chances of sweeping the boyz.

Anywayz, that's a vaccum comparison. And it simply doesn't work. Footslogging boyz are bad in current meta. It's hard to say what can you do to help them out. But the trukkboyz are passable if you don't overinvest. It mostly has to do with the trukk being a decent cheap assault transport than the boy'z effectiveness, to be honest, but it does help them out tremendously. Like a truck of 10 boyz with a nob or even without - it still works. It's a cheap and effective way of running them. Regular boyz can still clear out weak stuff for comparable price. They can be used as a source of obsec trukk and if your meganob'z transport gets stopped, you just hop the boyz out and use their trukk to transport meganobz.

If you want the boyz to be good on their own while footslogging, it's probably gona take a csm or marine type overhaul with a lot of free extra rules. The current ruleset and other codexes just don't support footslogging hordes as a viable tactics outside of trying to tactically waste time to get better victory point conditions in limited time tourneys. You COULD have a decent greentide list like a year or so ago but that was before the mass magic madness that counters it pretty badly.

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz cost 6 points each, a 6+ armor save is fair. They should run as an army composed by a lot of expendable units. The 6+ save is not really a weakness for the orks. As an ork player i'd suggest many improvements for our codex, but a better armor save is not one of them. Also a FNP without a Painboy attached doesn't make any sense, orks are just big naked guys, not machines, beasts or super soldiers. Being T4 and having 6+ armor is fair imho.

Yeah it would make sense, orks are described in the fluff as being able to fight through horrendous injuries. Plus, I'm not sure if it's still cannon but they're supposed to be half mushroom half ''animal'' (a possible explanation to their natural resiliency). Personally, I'd like them to have a more unique rule than FNP to define them, but it would help them and it would fit (even better if it gets better the more orks they are in the unit). Having the option to gear them with better c.c. weapons (at least a big choppa) would definitively help too.

But if you gave me free reign, I'd give Orks a unique flavor that reflects their alien nature instead of the myopic IG on steroids they now are. IMO, the most interesting aspect about orks in the fluff is the latent psychic power they each possess (red vehicle go faster because they believe so, run down piece of junk becomes a gun in their hand,...) and it increasing exponentially when they gather. I'd like to see it reflected in the rules. The increasing FNP already suggested would keep up with this philosophy (with Cybork bodies and Pain Boyz giving a further +1). I'd also like to see it apply to their HoW strength (or the S bonus from Furious charge). Maybe apply it to shoota and slugga S value too.

Waaagh now feels totally unorky, I'd change it so that it gives rage and that each model gets a ++ corresponding to their current FNP (of course we'd have to lose the waaagh every turn shenanigan, which is frankly bs).

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't get why orks should be tougher, they look like muscle guys that wear trousers and a t-shirt. Getting a FNP without a painboy attached, T5 or a better armor save doen't make any sense. Orks are my main army and i'd like to improve many things for our beloved greenskins, but certainly not to make them more resilient. I'd prefer some 3+ invlun in close combat for the HQs or some other vehicles that can be selected as dedicated transport for boyz, tankbustas, burnaboyz, even the battlewagon could be good, but we can't waste a precious heavy support slot just for a transport... Also we need more serious weapons, some melta equivalent for the tankbustas maybe or some s9-10 ap 1-2, not some gunz that may be s9-10 if you're lucky. Dropping the points of every ork walker in the codex could be very nice too, and maybe some of that units could be viable then. But to increase the survivability of the boyz really shouldn't be something to think about, the majority part of the troop choices in the game is weak. The infantry ones at least, not those overpowered bikes.

Don't get me wrong, the Ork Codex is a pile of hot garbage. So many different things in there need a buff.

However, this is a discussion about Ork Boyz specifically. And no, they are NOT ok as is. SMs can take scouts or regular Tacticals which are better then boyz in a number of ways, Tau Firewarriors turn Boyz into mincemeat, Eldar.....Yeah lets not talk about Eldar, Necron Warriors? Seriously? you don't think they are better? hell, even IG are better then a Boy in any situation not directly involving chopping people up with a sword or an axe.

No, Ork boyz need a fix, and dropping the price by a point won't fix it. I would love to see T5 boyz but I feel that would be to over powered at the moment, even if you dropped the 6+ save, granted it would make those 50pt Painboyz more appealing in infantry units. Overall I do think that has been the best suggestion so far, give Boyz T5, Increase to S4 (keep furious charge) and increase price by 1-2pts. Their biggest weakness (leadership) hasn't been fixed but at least now your boyz will actually get to CC and will actually hurt your opponent in CC!.

10 boyz at S3 (Furious charge) on the charge versus SM tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7 wounds, 3+ saves = 2 dead marines.

10 Boyz at S4 (Furious CHarge) on the charge versus SM Tacticals = 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 3+ saves = 3 Dead Marines.

It won't be the end all be all for orks but it would be a step in the right direction.

I think SM, tau, necrons and eldar are overpowered, they should be fixed, not ork boyz. Honestly T5 for troops is too much, there are some T6 creatures in the game that are absolutely huge, ork boyz can't be just one point below. Dark eldar grotesques are T5 and twice an ork boy. I don't understand why humans with a armour should have s4 when orks, that are bigger, only s3 with furious charge. I think only blood angels and space wolves should be s4 as they are brutal, but regular marines should be weaker. SM should be s3 indeed. I see lots of changes that would balance the game but still think that ork boyz shouldn't be upgraded. Maybe just increase their strenght to 4 with furious charge, i can agree with that.

 Marmatag wrote:
I liked the idea of "Enthusiasm," where deaths occur in the back of the formation, or at the controlling players choice.

Give that rule to tyranids while we're at it, CC horde armies getting their front "ranks" wiped out sucks for both Orcs and Nids.

Part of 40k's current problems is that the past several editions have been an arms race so what used to be decently survivable is now average and what used to be average gets wiped off the table. Things are getting killier but not more resilient.

It could sound strange but i'm all up for SemperMortis's approach of making boyz significantly stronger while increasing their point cost. But not t5. I'd not go for t5 but maybe an in-built fnp. But that has nothing to do with me thinking that it would "fix" the boyz. It would rework them. And i think it's a good thing for them to start costing 8-9 or even 10 ppm with being appropriately buffed. Simply cause it makes a game with running footslogging boyz more manageable in a sensible amount of time. Hordes are very time-consuming - especially mellee hordes.

As for the problem of footslogging boyz being significantly worse compared to mounted boyz, there's one simple trick that can fix the problem. And it's been proposed countless times. Bonuses scaling with the number of models left alive in squad. But this bonuses should take shootaboyz into consideration and not overbuff the bikers that are considered superior to ork boyz anywayz (also, shootas should cost 0 pts or 1-2 pts if they're taken in addition to a slugga - and they should be allowed to be taken on a per-model basis).

If we leave the current ork statline as is, i'd go with this table:
10+ models - Hammer of Wrath, re-roll 1-s to hit with shooting.
15+ models - Hammer of Wrath with +1 str, re-roll 1-2 to hit with shooting.
20+ models - Hammer of Wrath with +1 str, re-roll 1-2 to hit with shooting, +1 to FNP.

Nobz, Meganobz and Flash gitz recieve the same bonuses when they're at 5/7/10 strength respectively.

Seems fluffy, doesn't make bikers any better, promotes larger squad sizes that are only achievable either on foot or for a brief time in battlewagons. Hammer of wrath is not that overpowered as boyz are still s3 and it only works for models in btb. It also helps out regular nobz a bit - they can have s5 hammer of wraths or 4+++ with a painboy in a trukk/battlewagon. Flash gitz also recieve a slight buff that they really need. So do larger squads of lootas and tankbustas but we can't say they're amazing as is and it would definitely not make them overpowered.

After crunching lots of numbers and scenarios I've come to the conclusion that Blackie essentially has it right - ork boyz are costed fairly and aren't the real problem.

Now I admit our group has already made some changes to the basic boy and nobs. We have S4 boys with one less attack but re-roll 1's in close combat. Nobs have a toughness of 5 with one less attack and re-roll 1's in close combat. And our mob rule is much more like the 3rd Ed. rule where broken squads can reform with other squads.

The bigger issue seems to be how the army functions as a whole. Many of the support units (burnas, lootas, tankbustas, etc) are overly specialized so they become really expensive if you purchase enough lads to give them any resiliency. They need the option to take regular, cheaper boyz so they can absorb losses more efficiently and remain effective. That and some needed price breaks here and there along with some less random and more effective equipment and upgrades are all this army really needs.

This is not an attempt to balance them with the 7th Ed. meta because that is a freaking disaster of GW proportions. It's just our attempt to keep them competitive and interesting to play among our group and I think we are getting there.

I think the earlier comparison with marines that seems to have made some people come to a conclusion is flawed imo.
It does not take into account the following:
-Marines have ATSKNF, orks have ld7
-Marines have FAR better equipment options
-Marines have chapter tactics
-Marines can combat squad and excel at MSU tactics whilst Ork boys rely on unwieldy blobs
-Marines can take drop pods to deploy anywhere on the field Turn 1.
-Marines have grenades.
-Tac Marines are close to one of the most sub-par units in their dex
In the direct confrontation - none of this is taken into account.

Imo, as a non Ork player, I would be very happy with Orks getting a Strength boost to 4 and a Painboy being a squad option for any squad rather than an HQ. That is nothing drastic like a Toughness increase which is by far the most powerful base stat in the game and it all requires no bookeeping whatsoever. If that is not enough, Martel's idea of 'Enthusiasm' removing from the rear, could also be brought in.

Not all space marines are overpowered. BA is full of marines, and Orks are still a big threat to them. Vanilla marines would have the exact same problems if not for free stuff and a handful of gimmicks.

Poly Ranger wrote:
I think the earlier comparison with marines that seems to have made some people come to a conclusion is flawed imo.
It does not take into account the following:
-Marines have ATSKNF, orks have ld7
-Marines have FAR better equipment options
-Marines have chapter tactics
-Marines can combat squad and excel at MSU tactics whilst Ork boys rely on unwieldy blobs
-Marines can take drop pods to deploy anywhere on the field Turn 1.
-Marines have grenades.
-Tac Marines are close to one of the most sub-par units in their dex
In the direct confrontation - none of this is taken into account.

Imo, as a non Ork player, I would be very happy with Orks getting a Strength boost to 4 and a Painboy being a squad option for any squad rather than an HQ. That is nothing drastic like a Toughness increase which is by far the most powerful base stat in the game and it all requires no bookeeping whatsoever. If that is not enough, Martel's idea of 'Enthusiasm' removing from the rear, could also be brought in.

You say that they have Chapter Tactics as though it always mattered.