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.

The Shokk Attak Gun is one of the few things that I think perhaps ought to be removed from the game all together.

Right now the SAG simply does not have enough damage output for its 80 points cost. But if the SAG were even mildly competetive, it would very easily become OP. It would be a high damage artillery piece with the character rule. Not exactly good for the game.

In my opinion characters work best when they can influence the game over short distances, either via shooting, buffing or assaulting.

They did have 25 wins, just not many in large tournaments.

We got below average scores at ITC events...and these events are almost custom-made for Ork armies.

That's part of the difference--a lot of us don't play ITC formats which favor orks.

We play 40k.

 JimOnMars wrote:
They did have 25 wins, just not many in large tournaments.

We got below average scores at ITC events...and these events are almost custom-made for Ork armies.

That's part of the difference--a lot of us don't play ITC formats which favor orks.

We play 40k.

Which is why I said GT wins, 25 wins including RTTs don't really matter much. RTTs generally go to the best player in an area, if he happens to play orks it pads the stats. To be fair orks are not much worse of in 40k at this point if you include maelstrom and chapter approved missions.

pismakron wrote:
The Shokk Attak Gun is one of the few things that I think perhaps ought to be removed from the game all together.

Right now the SAG simply does not have enough damage output for its 80 points cost. But if the SAG were even mildly competetive, it would very easily become OP. It would be a high damage artillery piece with the character rule. Not exactly good for the game.

In my opinion characters work best when they can influence the game over short distances, either via shooting, buffing or assaulting.

It might work for orks though. It should not move, while most of an ork army is moving towards the enemy. So best case you leave some artillery, lootaz or gretchin as body guard, all of them a juicy targets for units that deep strike in your backfield, fliers or flanking units like ravenguard.

If everything else fails, snipers also work ok, since he is just a 4W models with 4+ armor.

In any case, it's not harder to kill than a basilisk hiding behind LOS-blocking terrain.

I was going to buy thraka, but I heard rumors of a bigger and more size appropriate model for him coming, do you think this is true?

Breng77 wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
They did have 25 wins, just not many in large tournaments.

We got below average scores at ITC events...and these events are almost custom-made for Ork armies.

That's part of the difference--a lot of us don't play ITC formats which favor orks.

We play 40k.

Which is why I said GT wins, 25 wins including RTTs don't really matter much. RTTs generally go to the best player in an area, if he happens to play orks it pads the stats. To be fair orks are not much worse of in 40k at this point if you include maelstrom and chapter approved missions.

A lot of tournaments in their data pool only had 3 rounds played, so I somehow doubt that they were GT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ballzonya wrote:
I was going to buy thraka, but I heard rumors of a bigger and more size appropriate model for him coming, do you think this is true?

Maybe? Those rumors are just that. there is not as much as a hint of them being true. Worst case, you could still use the old model as MA warboss.

pismakron wrote:
The Shokk Attak Gun is one of the few things that I think perhaps ought to be removed from the game all together.

Right now the SAG simply does not have enough damage output for its 80 points cost. But if the SAG were even mildly competetive, it would very easily become OP. It would be a high damage artillery piece with the character rule. Not exactly good for the game.

In my opinion characters work best when they can influence the game over short distances, either via shooting, buffing or assaulting.

I think it would balance out alright if the model could take a gitfinda in it's other weapon slot. Having +1 to hit during the shooting phase would make it actually have an impact on play. If you could extend the +1 in a bubble, it would make lootas worthwhile, and potentially save us from the large number of negative to hit modifiers like on flyers. For a high cost HQ character, I don't think that would be out of line, especially considering many other army HQs are hitting on 2+.

pismakron wrote:
The Shokk Attak Gun is one of the few things that I think perhaps ought to be removed from the game all together.

That would make me sad :(. I loves me some snotlings and that's the only remnant of them left in 40K it seems... plus, how can you not love the idea of teleporting a snotling INSIDE those crazy oomie's power armor?

ballzonya wrote:
I was going to buy thraka, but I heard rumors of a bigger and more size appropriate model for him coming, do you think this is true?

Maybe, those rumors are basically wishlists not leaked infos. Eldar and tyranids codexes dropped and they didn't received new plastic HQs.

However even if those rumors are true and you like the current model I'd encourage to get it since it will be legal even after the new model drops and it may be very hard to find it at reasonable price.

Whats the view on best loadout for Deffkoptas. Keep them cheap and basic to harass small units (scouts, 5 man dev teams etc)?
No point in squading them up I presume due to their dire leadership?

Has anyone had any success with 20 tankbustas riding around in a battlewagon? (do the bomb squigs take up a transport slot by the way?).

 Ratius wrote:
(do the bomb squigs take up a transport slot by the way?).

Yes they do.
As do Ammo Runts and Oilers.

Squigs do take up a transport slot. I've not used a wagon full of Bustas, screams turn 1 priority target to me. I lean more towards using them disposably in a trukk or with something else in the wagon that can shield them or threaten in melee for when it pops.

Deffkoptas are horrendously over priced even at their lowest unfortunately. Ultimately I feel they're only a distraction atm and that can be achieved more cost effectively elsewhere. For a pure fun game, I still like em with rokkits, but they're only feasible in the type of environment where you just bring them and damn the cost.

 JimOnMars wrote:
They did have 25 wins, just not many in large tournaments.

We got below average scores at ITC events...and these events are almost custom-made for Ork armies.

That's part of the difference--a lot of us don't play ITC formats which favor orks.

We play 40k.

So you expect balance... yet play non-altered 40k?

Yeah, how'd you enjoy that "auto first player" rule that I and ITC ditched pretty much day 1

The highest ranked Ork ITC tournament player is ranked in the low 90s. So if Orkz are winning all the time and are super awesome why are they more then 1/3rd points lower then the #1 player? Ork tournament lists are counter meta which works well for them but it's still mostly boyz and the occasional Squiggoth.

No, that is your (wrong) belief rvd. IF you had bothered to read the thread before commenting on things that you have literally no idea or experience of, you'd have understood that the majority of people here are concerned because they feel that *outside of hordes of Boyz* GW have little idea how Orks should be played. For those of us who like to build elite, mobile, mech or a mix of the aforementioned Ork armies, this is an issue. GW loves all armies, because they all make them money.

Where is your evidence that Orks are "quite above average"? Reading your own stats their performance seems lower than average? The following armies have a higher number of players performing better;

Guard: 24
Chaos Soup: 21
Chaos Space Marines: 21
Aeldarii+(mostly)Ynarri: 16
Imperial Soup: 13
Chaos Daemons: 6
Grey Knights: 6
TAU: 5

I'm assuming SM should be somewhere here too but for some reason aren't included in your list. I very much doubt there were no pure SM players with 4 wins and 1 loss.

No-one has denied that spamming Boyz, Weirdboyz in a Trukk and KMK Mek Gunz is effective. Unfortunately outside of this we have little to no viable options and the more varied options you take outside of this very limited set of units, the worse your army becomes.

The best thing about all this is that you have no experience of actual play. You are commenting on units' cost, their usage and functionality without any experience of playing with them. You claim the green tide list is fun to play but you've never actually played it. Your comments are mostly inflammatory, rude and/or push your agenda that Orks are amazing. You will learn. Particularly if you purchased the Kult of Speed because the Trukk and Battlewagon are vastly overcosted, Burnas and Lootas are OK and the SAG is a complete waste of points.

But, hey, what do I know, not like I've played Orks for years amirite?

I'm 100% with da legit English git.

Necrons, Dark Eldar, Deathwatch, Ynarri, Harlequinns, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, Inquisition, Thousand Sons, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Actual chaos deamons armies are all worse.

12 armies are worse pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Others that might be about on par/worse/not enough data:
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Adeptus Sororitas, Imperial Knights

4 armies

17/23 seems above average to me

And every army that is better has a codex already. Which should make them stronger... right?

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm 100% with da legit English git.

Up until he said Burnas and lootas are ok, I agreed with him as well. You could DOUBLE lootas shot output and they would still not be an auto include.

And yes people are constantly crying and complaining. Reading stuff like
"gw is looking for ways to make our army worse"
"people don't want orks to be competitive"
"we don't get any new models"
etc... makes me imagine red eyed faces from constantly crying.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Necrons, Dark Eldar, Deathwatch, Ynarri, Harlequinns, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, Inquisition, Thousand Sons, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Actual chaos deamons armies are all worse.

12 armies are worse pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Others that might be about on par/worse/not enough data:
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Adeptus Sororitas, Imperial Knights

4 armies

17/23 seems above average to me

And every army that is better has a codex already. Which should make them stronger... right

So according to your own data Harlies are equal (4), Daemons are stronger (6), Ynarri are stronger (16), Sisters have 1 less person with your random number of wins/losses. "Actual Chaos deamons"?

You are a classic example of a stats man manipulating the data to suit their argument. You have no idea how many players of Orks there were in these events compared to the other factions. Guess what, if you have a tournament with only Ork players, an Ork player will win! Crazy right?! Guess that makes them super hyper powerful!!111one Similarly; you may have events that include no Deathwatch, Pure Tsons, Pure Ynarri, Necrons, pure AdMech etc etc etc that means they pick up no top table players.

SemperMortis wrote:
Up until he said Burnas and lootas are ok, I agreed with him as well. You could DOUBLE lootas shot output and they would still not be an auto include.

Lol in niche circumstances they have a use. Maybe. Kinda.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
And yes people are constantly crying and complaining. Reading stuff like
"gw is looking for ways to make our army worse"
"people don't want orks to be competitive"
"we don't get any new models"
etc... makes me imagine red eyed faces from constantly crying.

"Constant"? You've taken many of those comments entirely out of context. They are often jokes and/or aimed at our own players.

You read into things because you have this bizarre perception about the group here. If you don't like it - leave. You clearly don't want advice and aren't interested in listening to it. You clearly know better despite not playing a single game?

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
Necrons, Dark Eldar, Deathwatch, Ynarri, Harlequinns, Space Wolves, Adeptus Mechanicus, Inquisition, Thousand Sons, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Actual chaos deamons armies are all worse.

12 armies are worse pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Others that might be about on par/worse/not enough data:
Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Adeptus Sororitas, Imperial Knights

4 armies

17/23 seems above average to me

And every army that is better has a codex already. Which should make them stronger... right?

Really we are going to use Inquistion as a faction to make our argument now? The "army" has like 4 units, I can all but guarantee that no one has run inquisition primary since say 5th ed when they were GK. What about sisters of silence and custodies then? As pure factions? As was pointed out Ynnari have actually been better (post nerf and elder codex I'm not sure how that will pan out, there is not enough data on that.) I'll grant that the limited ork build is pretty good as far as index armies go. But that puts them tier 3 at best, which to me is average, and lack of diversity would put them below average. As I've said, in big events they do well early and then drop games late when they face better opponents.

I'm talking about the current state of things(which is the most important). Ynarri are now dead-er than dead. Harleyquinns just got outclassed.
Actual daemons means more than brimstones, changeling, eflamers. It means running an actual Greater chaos daemon, some troops/elites/fast attack and not just using brims+changeling to screen for CSM.
And I love all the "leave" "quit" "be gone" from you. You do realise that won't work and it just makes me want to post more?
Also, who's the one looking for circumstantial evidence here, when you present what's basically "ork only tournaments = ork winners" and "the bad armies are just not getting played". Come on

Inquisition I was thinking of including or skipping. But it doesn't matter anyway. 16/22 or 17/23.
Ynnari are, again, deader than dead right now.

If orks are T3, list me your T2 and T1.


aaaaand before people see and post the FLG average ITC scores - guess what. The average 40k player isn't even semi-competitive. I would not be surprised if an average player thought 2 stompas is a competitive 2000 pts list.

You can't site ITC as a source to prove your point and then deny it to others when they show the same data in the full spectrum as opposed to your limited desire.

I'm with English, you are giving classic examples of "lying with statisics".

Please elaborate.
Important: people winning tournaments, people going 4+ 1 w/l in major tournaments
Not Important: average player results, FLGS results

Also, like 30 seconds ago on the FLG podcast, they said Orks are the best performing Xenos army.
https://clips.twitch.tv/CrepuscularPolishedGarlicCharlieBitMe

Tier 1 - Chaos Space marines, Chaos Soup, Imperium Soup, Astra Millitarum, Eldar
Tier 2- Nids, Space Marines, Sisters (probably BA and DA)
Tier 3 - Orks, Tau, Ad mech,
Tier 4 - most everyone else

I think there is a pretty big gap between tiers 1,2 and tier 3.

FLG podcast cites Orks lost 25% of its player base after NOVA (so once codices really started dropping).

Someone also mentioned that the best ITC ork player is in the 90s, that shows that there is not consistent results from players using orks.

Ok, I've typed this in and deleted it a half-dozen times, but...

I realize that I'm Johnny-come-lately, I have even less experience playing Orks than rvd, and less knowledge than basically anyone else on that thread.

But.

Can we please stop arguing over how good or bad Orks are as compared to other armies, and focus on how to best utilize the units we have? What synergizes well with this or that, and what doesn't?

What's the best way to field my grotz, 20 in a battlewagon or a blob of 30 footslogging?

If I'm going to field some outriders, are Wartrakks worth the extra points over Buggies? What about Skorchas? How about that chinork copta?

FLG also said stompas were going to be amazing this edition and that Killa Kanz were going to do work. So with that in mind I don't take anything said by FLG seriously. I do take the proven results of tournaments from ITC but not the peanut gallery commentators who don't know a Shoota from a PK.

In regards to what synergizes well with etc etc. we've rehashed that more then I care to think about. Atm the answer 99 times out of a 100 is going to be boyz/Squiggoth And KMK.

As above, for the love of Gork can we go back to tactics in the tactics thread?

Take tournament ranking to another thread.

Since this hasn't really been Tactics thread for some time, more Army List and General Discussion kind of thread (I didn't help with this ^^') would it be a good idea to make another 8th Ork Tactics?

In the new thread we would discuss about how to use different units and unit combinations, post ideas and tips&tricks, and all of that presuming that current state of Orks is unchangable. It would be forbidden to discuss rules, points value and current state of Orks (and posting lists would be frowned upon, but tolerated).

I even got a name for it: How to Krump Propa in 8th


+Stuff from this thread that I found useful or interesting as an example for new thread:
*Ammo Runts as must take ablative wounds
*target saturation - spam same T & same Sv stuff (like Bikes and Trukks)
*make all of your transports carry similar payload so there isn't obvious target for your opponent
*infiltrate 10 + 15 Kommandos and Mob them Up
*use Burna-bomma to clear infantry so you get an opening for deep striking

Don't forget "actual guard", only containing the bad units, lol. What a joke.

In ITC, orks were averaging 60 when the overall average is 64. They have a more randomness...which means more outliers...more wins AND losses.

Note rvd "conveniently" forgets that. What do you stand to gain in all this, rvd? Is somebody paying you?