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.

 davou wrote:

 Hades wrote:
Heard the burna boyz killteam box comes with 32mm bases. Whos ready to rebase all their orks when our codex drops T-T

Show me one codex that has a base size rules section?

Agreed. Lots of folks in here are suggesting that you have to re-base.

that's bonkers. Rebasing is optional.

I am looking forward to basing my lootas and burnas, because their guns are larger, but all of my tankbustas, kommandos, stormboyz and boyz will remain on 25s.

Sure its optional. Gw even has that rule where you can use the base it came with. However you go to your local GT and its the opposite. You cant show up to a sigmar tourny anymore with square bases.

I've always been adamant that players should be using the most up to date base size for years now, so for me to NOT re-base, would make me a huge tool.

I'm not refusing games or anything, but playing against other opponents square bases, Space Hulk bases, sometimes no base at all, mixed in with 25s and 32s gets my OCD bonkers.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Hades wrote:
Heard the burna boyz killteam box comes with 32mm bases. Whos ready to rebase all their orks when our codex drops T-T

Show me one codex that has a base size rules section?

Agreed. Lots of folks in here are suggesting that you have to re-base.

that's bonkers. Rebasing is optional.

I am looking forward to basing my lootas and burnas, because their guns are larger, but all of my tankbustas, kommandos, stormboyz and boyz will remain on 25s.

Age of Sigmar already has a "base size list". 40k will follow suit

On the topic of tactics, here is a pretty decent article on fighting knights.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/07/30/warhammer-tactics-operation-knightfall/

Just ignore everything he says about ork units and it's a pretty solid guide.

 Jidmah wrote:
On the topic of tactics, here is a pretty decent article on fighting knights.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/07/30/warhammer-tactics-operation-knightfall/

Just ignore everything he says about ork units and it's a pretty solid guide.

To summarize for ork players who don't want to read it. "*crying Orkz don't die fast enough to my speshul knights!"

Of course a knight can liquidate a 30 blob of boyz relatively quick, and if a knight army does that to 2 mobz a turn (only need to kill 30-40 to wipe them out with morale) he will win by turn 4 easily. but hey fun stuff right?

You obviously haven't read it. It's a guide for playing against knights.

Most tactics in that post work perfectly fine for orks, especially when facing only a single knight. For example, just surrounding the knight with orks or gretchin instead of charging it is a very good hint - it cannot move over infantry unless stuck in combat, and most armies have no way of killing models until movement is over.

The most dangerous knight to us right now is the dual gatling renegade knight (imperium can't take that one), which kills about 20 boyz per turn (15 with KFF protection) if it has used the 2 CP stratagem to re-roll all hits. Over the course of a game it will kill about 450-600 points of boyz, which is easily more than what the knight costs.

So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

I wonder what that means if true. How long is the lead time on a codex, from finished writing to available? I mean I guess this could be a much smaller window if they know they have to hurry but still.. I also wonder how much something like this would screw up their schedule for the coming months.. White dwarf and not to mention quartely reports would surely be affected, right?

When you say broken, did you get any sense if it was "too good" broken or "unplayable" broken? Because I assume it's more than just one clan having a infiltrate ability that's far too good, that seems like something an errata would fix

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

If GW is actually sending orks back for a re-write, that is a good thing though. It means that they care enough to get it right to scrap something that has already cost a lot of money to make it better.

I'm also quite happy that a clutch like "they can't into combat and get shot apart turn1? Infiltrate all the orks!" got the axe. I would very much prefer orks getting into combat via trukk, wagon and bikes again.

PiñaColada wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

I wonder what that means if true. How long is the lead time on a codex, from finished writing to available? I mean I guess this could be a much smaller window if they know they have to hurry but still.. I also wonder how much something like this would screw up their schedule for the coming months.. White dwarf and not to mention quartely reports would surely be affected, right?

When you say broken, did you get any sense if it was "too good" broken or "unplayable" broken? Because I assume it's more than just one clan having a infiltrate ability that's far too good, that seems like something an errata would fix

I got the impression that it was completely game breakingly broken.

I'm not sure if it was a faction, clan or stratagem thing, but it had such a massive impact on the game that it made orks completely unplayable for most armies - if not all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

If GW is actually sending orks back for a re-write, that is a good thing though. It means that they care enough to get it right to scrap something that has already cost a lot of money to make it better.

I'm also quite happy that a clutch like "they can't into combat and get shot apart turn1? Infiltrate all the orks!" got the axe. I would very much prefer orks getting into combat via trukk, wagon and bikes again.

I fully agree, and if it is true (i'm pretty much feeling a 99% true from the impressions i got and the chat) it is a big "win" for GWs playtesting "project"... Not that they'd use their common sense and come out and say so.

I'm not sure how to feel hearing about this really. It's good from the perspective that they at least cared enough to fix it. Hopefully by removing the broken bits from the codex they add some new stuff to balance it up and maybe give it a little extra bit of love considering how late it is.. At the same time I fear this means we get our codex Q1 2019, hopefully these rumours represent something that happened a while back but it's getting tough drowning out the pessimist in me

I think thats the first time ive ever heard of something being "Broken" for orks and being in a "Overpowered" way and not "shiity/unuseable" way

 Billagio wrote:
I think thats the first time ive ever heard of something being "Broken" for orks and being in a "Overpowered" way and not "shiity/unuseable" way

Automatically Appended Next Post:

PiñaColada wrote:
I'm not sure how to feel hearing about this really. It's good from the perspective that they at least cared enough to fix it. Hopefully by removing the broken bits from the codex they add some new stuff to balance it up and maybe give it a little extra bit of love considering how late it is.. At the same time I fear this means we get our codex Q1 2019, hopefully these rumours represent something that happened a while back but it's getting tough drowning out the pessimist in me

Hopefully it isn't something that will take too much time to resolve, but, i am a bit concerned about time scales myself.

Really was expecting to be on codex round 2.0 in the next month or so, but i guess waiting for big FAQ 2 and CA 2018 will change things up first.

If nothing had gone to print until after play testing, then i can't help but think a couple of months max - based on what happened with the big faq being re-tested and re-written (and that had larger implications across the board, rather than just 1 army). So, based on that, we might see a quicker turn around.

Oh yea, better get the OP Orks fixed up before releasing OP infiltrating GSC.

Wishlisting again, but it would be actually really awesome and fix a lot of our issues if they made the KFF affect units and not models ala 4th edition. Simple change that would help out walker heavy lists and green tide as well. I dont think its that game breaking of an idea with how much more shooting and anti hoard every army can bring nowadays

 Jidmah wrote:
You obviously haven't read it. It's a guide for playing against knights.

Most tactics in that post work perfectly fine for orks, especially when facing only a single knight. For example, just surrounding the knight with orks or gretchin instead of charging it is a very good hint - it cannot move over infantry unless stuck in combat, and most armies have no way of killing models until movement is over.

The most dangerous knight to us right now is the dual gatling renegade knight (imperium can't take that one), which kills about 20 boyz per turn (15 with KFF protection) if it has used the 2 CP stratagem to re-roll all hits. Over the course of a game it will kill about 450-600 points of boyz, which is easily more than what the knight costs.

Did you count melee and morale in?

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

Sounds like bs to me.

A few things to consider -

1. I don't think GW have ever made Orks broken good.
2. I can't see the playtesters having such an impact on release schedules.
3. Many other codexes have released with totally broken things that were not fixed prior to release.
4. I could not imagine any circumstance where GW allowed an entire Ork army to infiltrate/deep strike/forward deploy turn one. It would render certain units completely useless and redundant.
5. Its not really an Orkish thing, much more GSC.

This feels to me like some hard trolling. 'Orks were strong but are preemptively nerfed lol', doesn't sound legit at all.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So, i was at an event last weekend, and there was a lot of talk between some people about the Ork codex.

Essentially, from what we can gather from the hints coming from known play testers, is that the Ork codex has gone back for a re-write. I'm not sure how long ago it happened or how much the release date has changed but it sounds like they messed up MASSIVELY with it.

Essentially, it's been said that the codex was perfect for open play and narrative.

However, it was a diabolically broken rule set for matched play. And i mean EXTREMELY broken.
The main point issue (though apparently there were several) was that they were allowed to infiltrate their entire army in deployment or turn 1 (don't know which).

Which, as you can image..... .... ....... .....

I don't have any names or sources to give you, only what was being discussed in hushed voices by certain groups of players.

Sounds like bs to me.

A few things to consider -

1. I don't think GW have ever made Orks broken good.
2. I can't see the playtesters having such an impact on release schedules.
3. Many other codexes have released with totally broken things that were not fixed prior to release.
4. I could not imagine any circumstance where GW allowed an entire Ork army to infiltrate/deep strike/forward deploy turn one. It would render certain units completely useless and redundant.
5. Its not really an Orkish thing, much more GSC.

This feels to me like some hard trolling. 'Orks were strong but are preemptively nerfed lol', doesn't sound legit at all.

Agree
They did a lot of changes in the Big FAQ in ordet to avoid alfa strike lists.

Yeah, non-shooty alpha strike is not ok...

 koooaei wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You obviously haven't read it. It's a guide for playing against knights.

Most tactics in that post work perfectly fine for orks, especially when facing only a single knight. For example, just surrounding the knight with orks or gretchin instead of charging it is a very good hint - it cannot move over infantry unless stuck in combat, and most armies have no way of killing models until movement is over.

The most dangerous knight to us right now is the dual gatling renegade knight (imperium can't take that one), which kills about 20 boyz per turn (15 with KFF protection) if it has used the 2 CP stratagem to re-roll all hits. Over the course of a game it will kill about 450-600 points of boyz, which is easily more than what the knight costs.

Did you count melee and morale in?

Melee yes (12 stomps), moral no, since it depends a lot on what else is shooting, how much models are left in the target mobs, etc. You should consider the renegade relic though, since it does -1 or -2 ld depending on how close you are.
As a rule of thumb I'd say it will wipe one unit per turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

1. I don't think GW have ever made Orks broken good.

Rolling assaults from trukks, nob bikers.

3. Many other codexes have released with totally broken things that were not fixed prior to release.

Oh? Please do make a list.

'Sup team, I've been playing nurgle daemons for the past 6 months (doing pretty well tbh) since the horde meta basically turned orks off in competitive town.

Anyway, titans have turned up and made things excellent for us again (I think), everyone's going to be running smash captains and titans. This is SUPER good for Orks IMO so I've decided to give them a go over my next few tournies.

Here's the list I'm going with (keeping in mind Australia is VERY super heavy). This is what I think is the most competitive list I can formulate in the current meta. It's very HQ heavy. I would love some critique:



Sorry I've not been chatting, but yeah... wishlisting and complaining is not my style.

give that big mek a grot oiler to round it out to 2000 points (or a kustom shoota on the warboss...some 4-point upgrade, whatever)...the 1996 is buggin me!

...but yeah, looks decent to me...a good amount of boyz, a good amount of KMK's, some fast stuff, some buffs, yeah, looks like a fairly solid take-all list really...switching something out for some tankbustas could be nice against some armies, but eh.

oh, and I'd probably give warlord to Gazza, and give him Legendary fighter, for an extra attack on the charge...not really sure what good the leadership WLT would do on the big mek...

(reposting this from the "Delicious, sweet, intoxicating Ork speculation/chat " thread)

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1905700039750626/?type=3&theater

been noticing this guy on the main post on the 40k facebook page (jerome swensen). hes been posting everyday for about a week asking if there's going to be any ork related news coming up. so far has only gotten a single non answer from the facebook guys (said he would keep posting until gw posts an article or something).(if you want to look at all of the the guys posts youll have to make sure the facebook comments are set to "new" and then you can see his comments going back about a week).

so, what you guys think? is it worth hounding the Facebook guys with constant questions? would it be worth while for us to try joining in?

personally im not sure of what to think of this. this is on the facebook page so no telling if these questions will ever be relayed to GW proper, but its much more public and easier for the community to see there are many who are wanting to know about the greenskinz. in the past many here on dakka dakka have said to "email GW" or something like that, maybe instead of emails that can easily be mass trashed we can try flooding the main facebook post with our detest of "why no ork news" (of course if we do this it would be best to be civil). who knows, maybe gw might cave in and say something.

 hollow one wrote:
but yeah... wishlisting and complaining is not my style.

You seem to be lost, this is the unofficial ork wishlisting, complaining, maffhammerin, and sometimes taktikz thread not the 40k Army Lists forum.

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

1. I don't think GW have ever made Orks broken good.

Rolling assaults from trukks, nob bikers.

Broken good Jidmah. Unless you can point me to all those tournament wins Orks picked up using this build, that far outweighed any other wins from another faction?

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
3. Many other codexes have released with totally broken things that were not fixed prior to release.

Oh? Please do make a list.

Any army with an army-wide -1 to hit (bonus points if they can take cheap troops that gain -2 to hit).
Any army with the ability to 'forward operate' any unit.
3 ppm Conscripts.
Agent of Vect, the most broken stratagem in the game.
Flyrant spam.
The fact that soup exists with absolutely no negatives.
Missiles that can snipe characters without line of sight and remove their invulnerable save.
Slamguinius.
Flying models' immunity to cqc exploiting terrain.

How's that to get you started?

geargutz wrote:
(reposting this from the "Delicious, sweet, intoxicating Ork speculation/chat " thread)

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1905700039750626/?type=3&theater

been noticing this guy on the main post on the 40k facebook page (jerome swensen). hes been posting everyday for about a week asking if there's going to be any ork related news coming up. so far has only gotten a single non answer from the facebook guys (said he would keep posting until gw posts an article or something).(if you want to look at all of the the guys posts youll have to make sure the facebook comments are set to "new" and then you can see his comments going back about a week).

so, what you guys think? is it worth hounding the Facebook guys with constant questions? would it be worth while for us to try joining in?

personally im not sure of what to think of this. this is on the facebook page so no telling if these questions will ever be relayed to GW proper, but its much more public and easier for the community to see there are many who are wanting to know about the greenskinz. in the past many here on dakka dakka have said to "email GW" or something like that, maybe instead of emails that can easily be mass trashed we can try flooding the main facebook post with our detest of "why no ork news" (of course if we do this it would be best to be civil). who knows, maybe gw might cave in and say something.

oh yeah, because relentlessly nagging the hell out of someone always has the best possible outcome...

they'll release it when it's ready. I'm sure they must have a pretty keen idea of how many hungry ork players are out there who want their new shinies...and I'm sure they want to get stuff out as quickly as possible so we can all give them a ridiculous amount of money.

it's in everyone's interests to release this stuff, so they will, as soon as they can. No sense in giving the poor long-suffering social media crew even more grief than they already have to deal with...

 hollow one wrote:
Here's the list I'm going with (keeping in mind Australia is VERY super heavy). This is what I think is the most competitive list I can formulate in the current meta. It's very HQ heavy. I would love some critique:

Spoiler:

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Orks) [92 PL, 1525pts] ++

+ HQ +

Big Mek [5 PL, 75pts]: 2. Inspiring Leader, Choppa, Kustom Force Field, Warlord

Ghazghkull Thraka [11 PL, 215pts]

+ Troops +

Boyz [13 PL, 169pts]
. Boss Nob: Big Choppa, Slugga
. 26x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa

Boyz [13 PL, 187pts]
. Boss Nob: Big Choppa, Slugga
. 29x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa

Boyz [13 PL, 187pts]
. Boss Nob: Big Choppa, Slugga
. 29x Ork Boy W/ Slugga & Choppa

+ Elites +

Painboy on Warbike [6 PL, 103pts]: Power Klaw

+ Fast Attack +

Stormboyz [13 PL, 253pts]
. Boss Nob: Power Klaw
. 29x Stormboy

+ Heavy Support +

Mek Gunz [9 PL, 168pts]
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon

Mek Gunz [9 PL, 168pts]
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon
. Gun: 5x Grot Gunner, Kustom Mega Kannon

++ Supreme Command Detachment +1CP (Orks) [12 PL, 186pts] ++

+ HQ +

Weirdboy [4 PL, 62pts]: 3. Da Jump

Weirdboy [4 PL, 62pts]: 3. Da Jump

Weirdboy [4 PL, 62pts]: 2. Warpath

++ Supreme Command Detachment +1CP (Orks) [17 PL, 285pts] ++

+ HQ +

Big Mek on Warbike [6 PL, 101pts]: Choppa, Kustom Force Field

Warboss [4 PL, 62pts]: Headwoppa's Killchoppa, Shoota

Zhadsnark Da Ripper [7 PL, 122pts]
. Da Beast: 2x Big Shoota

++ Total: [121 PL, 1996pts] ++

Sorry I've not been chatting, but yeah... wishlisting and complaining is not my style.

Painboy on a bike is, in my experience, a complete waste. You can afford to take 2 on foot if you take him out. Is there a particular reason you've left him in? Apart from that the list looks good but nothing really groundbreaking here... (hence the wishlisting/complaining).

E - stupid formatting, grumble.

geargutz wrote:
(reposting this from the "Delicious, sweet, intoxicating Ork speculation/chat " thread)

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1905700039750626/?type=3&theater

been noticing this guy on the main post on the 40k facebook page (jerome swensen). hes been posting everyday for about a week asking if there's going to be any ork related news coming up. so far has only gotten a single non answer from the facebook guys (said he would keep posting until gw posts an article or something).(if you want to look at all of the the guys posts youll have to make sure the facebook comments are set to "new" and then you can see his comments going back about a week).

so, what you guys think? is it worth hounding the Facebook guys with constant questions? would it be worth while for us to try joining in?

personally im not sure of what to think of this. this is on the facebook page so no telling if these questions will ever be relayed to GW proper, but its much more public and easier for the community to see there are many who are wanting to know about the greenskinz. in the past many here on dakka dakka have said to "email GW" or something like that, maybe instead of emails that can easily be mass trashed we can try flooding the main facebook post with our detest of "why no ork news" (of course if we do this it would be best to be civil). who knows, maybe gw might cave in and say something.

I don't see the harm, personally. People forget that GW is a business. This Jerome fella is simply a potential customer telling a business what he wants, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In many ways, GW should encourage it.

Also don't feel sorry for the social media team, you haven't put them in this position, their company has put them in this position. It is GW's decision not to release the Ork codex (still). It was GW's decision to say "codex coming soon" then release a ton of other things before it and give no further news. They're also paid to respond and deal with these sorts of social media queries, complaints etc. It is literally their job.

I would recommend bombarding every channel that GW has open, social media, their email etc until something is released, if it makes you feel better and if you think you might achieve something.

 ZoBo wrote:

geargutz wrote:
(reposting this from the "Delicious, sweet, intoxicating Ork speculation/chat " thread)

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1905700039750626/?type=3&theater

been noticing this guy on the main post on the 40k facebook page (jerome swensen). hes been posting everyday for about a week asking if there's going to be any ork related news coming up. so far has only gotten a single non answer from the facebook guys (said he would keep posting until gw posts an article or something).(if you want to look at all of the the guys posts youll have to make sure the facebook comments are set to "new" and then you can see his comments going back about a week).

so, what you guys think? is it worth hounding the Facebook guys with constant questions? would it be worth while for us to try joining in?

personally im not sure of what to think of this. this is on the facebook page so no telling if these questions will ever be relayed to GW proper, but its much more public and easier for the community to see there are many who are wanting to know about the greenskinz. in the past many here on dakka dakka have said to "email GW" or something like that, maybe instead of emails that can easily be mass trashed we can try flooding the main facebook post with our detest of "why no ork news" (of course if we do this it would be best to be civil). who knows, maybe gw might cave in and say something.

oh yeah, because relentlessly nagging the hell out of someone always has the best possible outcome...

they'll release it when it's ready. I'm sure they must have a pretty keen idea of how many hungry ork players are out there who want their new shinies...and I'm sure they want to get stuff out as quickly as possible so we can all give them a ridiculous amount of money.

it's in everyone's interests to release this stuff, so they will, as soon as they can. No sense in giving the poor long-suffering social media crew even more grief than they already have to deal with...

I bet they would completely underestimate and be ill prepared for a WAAAGH! to come flying to their next article and comment and respond 'WAAAGH!' in every nook and cranny of the community page. Might be fun to watch.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Any army with an army-wide -1 to hit (bonus points if they can take cheap troops that gain -2 to hit).
Any army with the ability to 'forward operate' any unit.
3 ppm Conscripts.
Agent of Vect, the most broken stratagem in the game.
Flyrant spam.
The fact that soup exists with absolutely no negatives.
Missiles that can snipe characters without line of sight and remove their invulnerable save.
Slamguinius.
Flying models' immunity to cqc exploiting terrain.

How's that to get you started?

While I certainly agree with most of these (especially army wide-1 to hit in a game where negative to hits stack) and that soup has no drawbacks whatsoever & flyers parking on ruins to avoid CC. However I really don't think the IK shieldbreaker missiles are that good, realistically they're not killing any somewhat decent character in one shot and I think they mostly work on putting fear into the opponent rather than pure effectiveness.

I mean, I could see that GW overlooked something they thought was a pretty basic clan tactic that playtesters figured you could combine with a stratagem to get some bonkers synergy. I don't think they would reprint a book for it but if this was like a rough PDF draft they send out to playtesters (don't know if this is actually how it works) for them to basically sign off on before starting to print the codexes then this scenario doesn't sound all that unlikely to me. As you stated, yes they have screwed up some stuff in the past, but maybe they're more careful now? The army wide -1 to hit hasn't been seen since what? Craftworlds? (Although I hope they FAQ those away or at least stacking negative modifiers)