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.

But with FLG saying no until GW says otherwise america will likely go no. And if some big tournament says no in England then that\s going to be pretty much worldwide standard followed by any big gaming group.

Good thing I hadn\t yet got around getting more than 2 weirdboys. Apart from more than 3 getting banned not even sure would I want 3rd one with this. Expensive smite casters. One for warpath, another as backup plus smite. Good enough.

Yup, we unfortunately have to list build assuming the worst until we hear otherwise, else we risk building around something that could no longer be a valid option.

I don’t get the love for chinorks, they are so weak! Not a hardship for an opponent to shoot them down turn 1. Before the price hike I ran 12 tankbustas in a killtank and it was awesome. It was worth the points investment because it was survivable. Chin orks just seem like giving away easy points.

Lot depend on terrain but if you have enough LOS blocking terrain hide them, then zoom in 24" and fire either rockets or 10 burnas. 24"+weapon range gives them reach anywhere. And unlike killtank it's open topped allowing you to shoot from INSIDE. With killtank you need to move turn 1, then unload turn 2 and then you are in the open. With chinork you can fire from turn 1 onward and before getting to the infantry you have to kill chinork first. Oh and chinork deep strikes removing fear of getting shot down before it gets to shoot.

Oh and for points chinorks gives you 40 wounds vs killtanks 24. Albeit killtank has the FNP and T boost but save is same. And generally 8th ed is numbers>quality.

Chinorks allow you to deepstrike your tankbustas instead of your trukks and battlewagons getting shot off the board turn 1.

It’s simple compare chinorks vs trucks to get your 24in range rokkits to thier target or even better your 18in range bomb squigs which are insanely efficient vs vehicles.
Trukk
T6 10w 4+ movement 12/8/6(turbo d6)and ramshackle which means a 6 reduce damage by 1= 82pts and it’s only offense worth buying is a shoota

Chinork
T5 8w 4+ movement 16(turbo +8) and cost 80pts with 2 deff guns and big shoota, iit also has fly which makes it ignore terrain.

So as a transport which is all we buy these vehicles for the chinork is cheaper, has better offense and is reliably faster then the trukk and the difference between t5/t6 is negligible. There are very few str10 shooting weapons and very few str6 shooting. The trade off is 2 less wounds but with the lack of deepstrike plasaguns/meltaguns in the new faq. Hopefully your transports survive the first turn now!!!

(As an added bonus it does d6 mortal wounds when it explodes in your enemy lines)

Chinorks aren't open topped, right?

They're like Trukks; sure, they can deepstrike - but the units inside can't disembark until the next turn, meaning the transport, followed by the units inside, can be removed during the opponents turn; trukks aren't durable, and the units inside doubly so.

Sure, it has some guns - but they're all heavy, meaning they hit on 6+ if the vehicle moves; and that's before any -1 modifiers.

Chinorks seem really difficult to get use out of. That said, maybe the ability to deepstrike them allows you to get some use; they're essential Ork Drop Pods. Also, with the deepstrike changes, maybe they can maneuver into position, for a disembark during the second round?

fe40k wrote:
Chinorks aren't open topped?

They weren't until the recent FAQ. Now they are!

Chinorks are NOW open topped use them as turn 1 tankbusta gunships. You can move them 16in without loss of shooting ability or 24in if you need to get your tankbustas squigs in range.

Oh, snap - that makes them amazing. Thanks!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
He also reckons that Orks will be fine and that they only received buffs.

Nor does he work for GW so his opinion, though valuable, is not gospel.

They haven't "only received buffs," we've just pointed out two concrete ways in which they've been nerfed. The assault-ruins FAQ and the significant nerf to Da Jump and Kommandos turn 1 charges.

Conversely Storm Boyz received a buff to vertical distance, waaagh, and weirdboys were protected from the psyker nerf.

In less serious news, Grotsnik lost the ability to use dok's tools after super cybork.

You could say that's a "net buff," which I'll just defer to the opinion of an LVO champ, but that's still probably debatable. Does he even play 8E orks?

Outside wobbly model syndrome I’ve been playing ruins that way since 8th started. I’m not sure what you people have been doing? Have you honestly been playing it as your unit can charge anything even if it can’t get within 1in?

That’s not really a nerf that’s how I’ve seen every tournament and game played.

Personally I think we should be allowed to measure ranges from any point on a model. So a monstrous creature can reach the 2nd and sometimes 3rd level of ruins and most infantry can reach the 2nd level. It will solve a decent amount of unchargeable unit issues.

Before this wobbly model syndrome was used to assault stuff. Now instead we have unchargeable stuff even when logically there should be way to fight. Not good.

Wobbly model didn’t mean you could assault anything l. It meant you were afraid your model was going to fall and break. If it doesn’t fit you can’t assault was always then rule.

I’m not sure why people are up in arms about this. It’s not something new. I use wobbly model a lot when my orks surround a unit and is on uneven terrain and I don’t want i the model to fall. It’s not meant to get more models into melee range than can realistically fit.

gungo wrote:
Wobbly model didn’t mean you could assault anything l. It meant you were afraid your model was going to fall and break. If it doesn’t fit you can’t assault was always then rule.

I’m not sure why people are up in arms about this. It’s not something new. I use wobbly model a lot when my orks surround a unit and is on uneven terrain and I don’t want i the model to fall. It’s not meant to get more models into melee range than can realistically fit.

Infantry can climb up buildings.

Wobbly model rule let you represent them scaling up the walls to attack; when you couldn't place your model on a vertical/limited surface.

gungo wrote:
Wobbly model didn’t mean you could assault anything l. It meant you were afraid your model was going to fall and break. If it doesn’t fit you can’t assault was always then rule.

I’m not sure why people are up in arms about this. It’s not something new. I use wobbly model a lot when my orks surround a unit and is on uneven terrain and I don’t want i the model to fall. It’s not meant to get more models into melee range than can realistically fit.

a) pretty sure previous FAQ even specified wobbly models on ruins representing scaling up. So as it is now it doesn't even make any sense and game needs this thing called "suspension of disbelief".
b) this now is unfair and unbalanced. It's simply too easy to block assaults to top. Objective there and assault armies(especially orks) are basically lol screwed.

As it is this means for terrain to be fair it shouldn't include any multi-level terrain. ESPECIALLY anywhere objectives can go. Which then makes it hard to have LOS blocking terrain which makes shooty gunlines even better. You need huge thin walls now basically. Not particularly most interesting terrain layouts...

^^^ this is correct. The person I play against most is an Eldar player.

Someone please tell me how I'm supposed to remove a group of Alaitoc rangers from a ruin when they occupy all available space?

How do I get to their tanks and jetbikes that can leave combat and park on top of buildings?

It's all well and good saying 'play to da objectifs' but any decent opponent will put their objectives where it hurts you - on ruins covered by their troops that you can't attack.

It's a fething awful rule.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
^^^ this is correct. The person I play against most is an Eldar player.

Someone please tell me how I'm supposed to remove a group of Alaitoc rangers from a ruin when they occupy all available space?

How do I get to their tanks and jetbikes that can leave combat and park on top of buildings?

It's all well and good saying 'play to da objectifs' but any decent opponent will put their objectives where it hurts you - on ruins covered by their troops that you can't attack.

It's a fething awful rule.

Take some flamer weapons and pray like hell they somehow survive...Tall order!

Well the chinork could be some help as that's 32" reaching 10 flamers if you want for ~250 pts. Not sure if that's good enough for TAC but at least those alaitoc rangers those are useful.

Big trakk with 4 skorchas for 176 pts.

Alas we don't have much of effective shooting so if something gets 100% immunity from h2h like these it's tough one.

Lol that's a lot of points for the sake of 70 odd points of rangers! Thanks for the help though, it is appreciated.

I really don't like that there's so many situations where we literally can't do anything. Its extremely bad game design and it was the sort of gak they were supposed to be removing in 8th. Why are they now adding more? Why can't they get it through their idiotic brains that it's not fun or tactical to have a well painted unit of troops sat unable to do anything to anyone.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Lol that's a lot of points for the sake of 70 odd points of rangers! Thanks for the help though, it is appreciated.

I really don't like that there's so many situations where we literally can't do anything. Its extremely bad game design and it was the sort of gak they were supposed to be removing in 8th. Why are they now adding more? Why can't they get it through their idiotic brains that it's not fun or tactical to have a well painted unit of troops sat unable to do anything to anyone.

I did say not that effective shooting though at least he has to invest some firepower or they keep burning stuff. And burnas might be able to hurt 2 squads if they are close enough.

But yeah not ideal situation. 100% immunity sucks big time. It was bad enough enemy often enough can be 100% immune to our shooting but now they can be immune to h2h? Are we supposed to look evilly at them and hope they leave the objective?

6+ needs to hit regardless of modifiers and this assault ruling needs to go. It's hard enough to rush into combat as it is. Then to find out you even can't charge...

Unless things change terrain needs to be much more flat. Especially on places you can put objectives. Alas this leads to less interesting terrains.

Terrain doesn't need to be more flat, it needs less isolated ledges.

Instead of three sections of floor completely cut off from each other in a ruin there needs to be staircases, fallen collumns or girders etc. which serve to provide access to the different floors.

So you could have a ruined building with a ground, 1st and 2nd floor and then a roof. There's a large fallen collumn from the ground floor to the 1st floor, a crumbling but still substantial staircase from the 1st to the 2nd, then an external fire escape staircase from the 2nd to the roof.

This way there is always some way to get some models into combat as it is impossible to take up all the space due to each level being connected to another level. If someone is hiding on the second you could jump a unit to the top and come down, make your way up through the building or both for a nice pincer attack. The only way to block an enemy getting to that unit on the second floor would be to have units on both the roof and the 1st floor so the enemy has to fight their way through.

And how amazing a story would that be? A unit of scouts guarding the objective they were sent to hold, hearing their comrades above and below screaming and dying as they buy them time with their lives, desperately hoping that their evac can come before they are overrun completely?

My answer to Alaitoc Rangers has been the Big Trakk with Supa-Skorcha, with no extra wargear. It's 170 points. I know rangers are 70 points for a 5 man unit, but I'm certain you'll find at least another 100 points of units that the Supa-Skorcha can deal with.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Terrain doesn't need to be more flat, it needs less isolated ledges.

Instead of three sections of floor completely cut off from each other in a ruin there needs to be staircases, fallen collumns or girders etc. which serve to provide access to the different floors.

Problem there is stairways etc can't be more than 1" high. Even 1.1" and you are same as now. And shorter than that stairway to 3"+ height takes quite a width.

gungo wrote:
Outside wobbly model syndrome I’ve been playing ruins that way since 8th started. I’m not sure what you people have been doing? Have you honestly been playing it as your unit can charge anything even if it can’t get within 1in?

That’s not really a nerf that’s how I’ve seen every tournament and game played.

Personally I think we should be allowed to measure ranges from any point on a model. So a monstrous creature can reach the 2nd and sometimes 3rd level of ruins and most infantry can reach the 2nd level. It will solve a decent amount of unchargeable unit issues.

Or we could go back to using 3" for determining close combat range in ruins like we did in the past three editions.

 Quackzo wrote:
My answer to Alaitoc Rangers has been the Big Trakk with Supa-Skorcha, with no extra wargear. It's 170 points. I know rangers are 70 points for a 5 man unit, but I'm certain you'll find at least another 100 points of units that the Supa-Skorcha can deal with.

Assuming it doesn't get blown out after dealing with rangers. T6, 4+, 15 wounds isn't toughest thing in the world.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
^^^ this is correct. The person I play against most is an Eldar player.

Someone please tell me how I'm supposed to remove a group of Alaitoc rangers from a ruin when they occupy all available space?

The most efficient way is using a skorcha, smite, burna bomb or a crapton of shots to cause one casualty and then have your warboss or other character like Grotsnik or a weird boy move up there and educate them about the viability of camouflage in close combat. Don't try big meks or pain boyz though, they might fail to kill the rangers and die.
You could also just get the nob of some unit up there, but you will need two turns to grind through a unit that is supposed to waste your time. Try to avoid this unless you are multi-charging a second unit as well.

How do I get to their tanks and jetbikes that can leave combat and park on top of buildings?

KMK and Tankbustas mostly, don't forget about the tankbusta bomb. For wave serpents, I have found it best to ignore them unless they deliberately come to close to get charged with a unit of boyz, nobz or Thrakka.
Fire prisms are giving me the most head-aches, but if you can force them to move, they do a lot less damage.

It's all well and good saying 'play to da objectifs' but any decent opponent will put their objectives where it hurts you - on ruins covered by their troops that you can't attack.

Note that you can try to prevent that. If there is a piece of terrain that allows this kind of shenanigans, put an objective in the open right in front of it. Your opponent won't be able to put another objective within 12" of that marker. Against mobile eldar, you won't be able to hold backfield objectives anyways, so might as well just put your objective markers in his half.

Am I missing something with chinork's big bombs? It says it can take 2 of them. Point costs seems to be 0. Really? So basically automatic choices? Don't have CA at hands so maybe they got changed there...

Also would land speeder storm work as base for conversion? Have bunch of deth kopta wrecks so was planning combining those, extending cargo area with plasticard and do twin rotors with plasticards. Sounds like plan? Biggest Q is how to attach deth kopta to the land speeder.

Initial plan is to convert 2. One with deffguns and skorcha, one with big shoota and rattler guns. Yeah that's not best weapons due to heavy and expensive but it's just 22 pts spare and I hate identical kits.

One will be used to carry tank bustas, one burnas.

Will get more when I get more squads that can ride in them meaningfully! Apart from tank bustas and burnas what would be useful? Not boyz. Maybe nobz? Well for those might make 3rd one actually.

Maybe try cutting of the motor part with the rotor and attach what's left to the front of the speeder?

And yes, bombs are auto-take. They aren't that game-breaking anyways.

Flash gits are probably better passengers than nobz, as their gun is better than a kustom shoota and costs the same.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
^^^ this is correct. The person I play against most is an Eldar player.

Someone please tell me how I'm supposed to remove a group of Alaitoc rangers from a ruin when they occupy all available space?

How do I get to their tanks and jetbikes that can leave combat and park on top of buildings?

It's all well and good saying 'play to da objectifs' but any decent opponent will put their objectives where it hurts you - on ruins covered by their troops that you can't attack.

It's a fething awful rule.

You take a bit of glue and stick the base to a wall within 1' of your enemy's base.

I need to convert a nob that is using a base on a stick as big choppa. Nothing says I can't have more than one base.