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.

I was about to say the same thing. Think about your "logic" there for a second:

Because orks are not meant to be a shooting army, their shooting should be more expensive. There for, 4 point kustom shoota (compared to 2 point storm bolters for space marines).

Yet AT THE SAME TIME, because orks ARE an assault army, they should pay more for their assault equipment. There for, 25 point power klaws (compared to the 20 point power fists for space marines before the codex).

So Orks pay more for the things they're not good at... and pay more for the things they are good at.

ergo, the "not space marine tax"

I'd also like to point out that Space Marine Thunder Hammers cost five points less on non-character models because non-character models are worse at using them. But apparently that logic should only be applied to spess marnies, not every other army. Because only speshial mraines deserve anything good according to all these absurdist arguments about how Orks need to have everything overpriced.

The hypocrisy shown in this thread is hilarious, and also tragic.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Guess what the answer would be. Does that mean that Guard should pay 2 points for poweraxes? No. Because the difference has been built into the models points cost.

Guard pay less for power fists than Space Marines, who themselves play less than orks do for power klaws. Even before the price drop that power fists got in the Space Marine Codex it was the case that Orks were paying more. Most Ork players (although certainly not all) seem to think this is okay since Orks that can take power klaws generally have more attacks and higher strength than Marines that can take power fists.

I think that the Big Shoota might be an example of GW adjusting the points of a weapon down to make up for the poor BS of Orks. Big Shootas aren't considered worth taking most of the time by most Ork players. They're usually taken when we're forced to take something, and Rokkits and most other things being way too expensive so we just go with the cheapest thing (Big Shoota). Most people aren't upgrading any of their Boyz to have Big Shootas. That said, if a unit can hit on 3+ a 36", Assault 3, Strength 5 weapon seems like a real bargain at 6 points.

I don't think that pricing for the model's stat line and pricing for weapon upgrades completely independently from each other will necessarily work. If they charge a model more points for better stats and then just give out cheap weapons to other units to make them even then you're right, it would create an unfair advantage. On the other hand if you have units that are more heavily balanced towards shooting or close combat, and you price weapons independently from ability, then it will never make sense to pay extra points for a shooting upgrade in armies more focused on close combat (orks) or for a close combat upgrade in armies more focused on shooting (Guard). Might as well get rid of a lot of both armies' options if that is the case.

What I think GW usually tries to do is actually split the cost between the weapon and the unit's stat line. I think they try to keep the units themselves with their basic gear roughly balanced, but then they partially adjust the points of various upgrades to reflect how good they will be on models that will normally be taking them. This is just a guess on my part. They don't always do a perfect job of it, which is why we get things like Kustom Shootas being overcosted, but I think they'll gradually work a lot of that stuff out over time with things like the codexes and Chapter Approved. They also don't always do things the same way. For instance, burnas are 0 points because they've limited burnas to Burna Boyz and they charge significantly more for a Burna Boy than a regular Boy despite being mostly the same plus one minor special rule and having Spanner Boyz instead of a Nob (Spanner Boyz being mostly pointless while a Nob is good, especially when it's free). On the other hand, lots of things can take rokkits so they can't give them a cost of 0 points, and instead they actually made Tankbustas cheaper than regular Boyz despite being mostly the same plus a really good special rule. Some times they charge the same for equivalent weapons across factions, and sometimes they seem to adjust it based on the stat line of the models that can take them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I was about to say the same thing. Think about your "logic" there for a second:

Because orks are not meant to be a shooting army, their shooting should be more expensive. There for, 4 point kustom shoota (compared to 2 point storm bolters for space marines).

Yet AT THE SAME TIME, because orks ARE an assault army, they should pay more for their assault equipment. There for, 25 point power klaws (compared to the 20 point power fists for space marines before the codex).

So Orks pay more for the things they're not good at... and pay more for the things they are good at.

ergo, the "not space marine tax"

While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns. I haven't seen any comments suggesting that the Kustom Shoota should cost more than the Storm Bolter, but rather that roughly equivalent weapons should have roughly the same cost regardless of what model is using it. I'm guessing the people who have been arguing that the Storm Bolter and Kustom Shoota should have the same cost would also argue that the Power Klaw and Power Fist should have the same cost.

(As I previously commented I think it needs to be a little bit of both in order to keep things fair but also keep different options viable.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Nobz aren't supposed to be a shooting platform.

For not being a shooting platform they seem to have an awful lot of shooting upgrades available. Nobz are supposed to be an assault unit that can be upgraded to shoot as well. Of course, they should pay a fair price for those upgrades. Currently, most of their shooting upgrades seem to cost a little too much, other than Ammo Runts which might actually be undercosted. Ammo Runts are great more for the extra wound than the re-roll.

The cost of the model and its role have to be factored into the analysis or its pointless.

If you compare 2 plasma guns, but one is on a Scion and one is on a TAC marine, what's the difference? Because one of these is really OP and the other isn't.

Orks have problems but it isn't because a Kustom Shoota is 2 points more than a Storm Bolter, or because a Power Klaw is more than a Power Fist.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.

Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.

Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.

I've seen that in other threads, but I must have missed it in this thread.

It's not as easy as it might sound initially. Who can equip a kustom shoota to begin with? Bosses, nobz, meganobz, meks and big meks. You usually don't see meks, so we're left with bosses, big meks and nobz/meganobz. Footslogging bosses and nobz/meganobz need to be able to advance and charge as they're mellee-oriented units and a couple extra inches of movement before charging is better than this couple extra s4 bs5+ shots they might put out. Thus, k-shoota is superior than stormbolter for them. Big mek is probably better off with a storm-bolter if you don't kit him for mellee. Biker bosses, nobz and meks can't advance and charge, so they're better off with a stormbolter.

However, this logic only works when you make a comparison between k-shoota and stormbolter. There's another weapon that comes into equasion. And that's a shoota. Which is only half as good as a k-shoota but costs 0 pts down from 4 pts. And if we've clearly seen that k-shoota is better than a stormbolter for orks in many cases, regular shoota is even better than a k-shoota by virtue of being cheaper. Those who can take a free shoota over a k-shoota should probably do it. 4 pts doesn't sound like much but that's an extra ammo runt or 2/3 of a boy.

I wasn't necessarily saying there were people in this thread or other threads who say that orks should pay more for their melee weapons (although I'm sure those people exists), I was more pointing out that GW prices those weapons that way, and people supporting the current GW prices are not following the logic that one or the other should be more expensive.

unless the logic is actually "ork equipment should be overpriced in general", which I'd like to hope no one believes in

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
I wasn't necessarily saying there were people in this thread or other threads who say that orks should pay more for their melee weapons (although I'm sure those people exists), I was more pointing out that GW prices those weapons that way, and people supporting the current GW prices are not following the logic that one or the other should be more expensive.

I apologize then, I didn't read your post correctly.

@DFF: Nah, it was me being unclear and kinda angry. don't rage and post, kids.

I think there's also a weird mental gymnastics about the idea of ork shooting suddenly being better than proper shooting armies if they got a points cut. We're still talking about weapons that lack AP, are short ranged, and are on 5+ bs models. They're not suddenly going to out dakka tau even if the ork weapons became cheaper than their imp counterparts

Not that there examples of that or anything *coughwarofdakkacough*

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

Guard pay less for power fists than Space Marines, who themselves play less than orks do for power klaws.

Yep, to me this is silly. Guard, Marines and Orks should be paying the same for it. Guard should pay 20pts for a fist like marines and Marines should pay 20pts a Lascannon like Guard. Orks should pay 20pts a claw. This is one of the reasons that Guard are so incredibly powerful - the fact that they get not only bodies for cheaper but also weapons. A plasma guns should be the same whoever is wielding it.

For instance, burnas are 0 points because they've limited burnas to Burna Boyz and they charge significantly more for a Burna Boy than a regular Boy despite being mostly the same plus one minor special rule and having Spanner Boyz instead of a Nob (Spanner Boyz being mostly pointless while a Nob is good, especially when it's free). On the other hand, lots of things can take rokkits so they can't give them a cost of 0 points, and instead they actually made Tankbustas cheaper than regular Boyz despite being mostly the same plus a really good special rule. Some times they charge the same for equivalent weapons across factions, and sometimes they seem to adjust it based on the stat line of the models that can take them.

This is because only Burna boyz can have burnas and they MUST have burnas, so GW went right ahead and included it in their price anyway, so the price includes model + gun, not just the model costing more and the gun being free - it just seems that way. Much like Necron warriors, their gauss weapon is already included whilst the necron immortals have a choice between tesla and gauss and so dont have their price already included as they dont HAVE to take it.

I haven't seen any comments suggesting that the Kustom Shoota should cost more than the Storm Bolter, but rather that roughly equivalent weapons should have roughly the same cost regardless of what model is using it. I'm guessing the people who have been arguing that the Storm Bolter and Kustom Shoota should have the same cost would also argue that the Power Klaw and Power Fist should have the same cost.

You understood my viewpoint 100% there, I would definitely say a claw should be as much as a powerfist not more. Same that the Kustom shoota should cost the same as a stormbolter. What's funny is that all I spoken about is the fact that equivalent weapons should cost the same, I have said a Kustom Shoota should be reduced in price to the same as a storm bolter as they are equivalent in most respects. Yet this is not enough apparently. Just because I think they should be costed the same (despite this meaning I agree that it requires a point deduction), some people have automatically assumed that I am saying Orks are ok and don't need buffing and that I am biased against them. Not once have they actually bothered to ask what I actually think about the faction as a whole, and just because I think that equivalent guns should cost equivalent points means that I must be anti-Ork. I think they would be surprised by my response if they bothered to ask.

What's even more ironic in a thread which has highlighted numerous times how Guard pay less for their equivalent weapons compared to marines, is the fact that people are calling this a "not marine tax"... they must have missed all those times when people mentioned that Guard get so much for cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
@DFF: Nah, it was me being unclear and kinda angry. don't rage and post, kids.

I think there's also a weird mental gymnastics about the idea of ork shooting suddenly being better than proper shooting armies if they got a points cut. We're still talking about weapons that lack AP, are short ranged, and are on 5+ bs models. They're not suddenly going to out dakka tau even if the ork weapons became cheaper than their imp counterparts

Not that there examples of that or anything *coughwarofdakkacough*

If Orks got weapons that meant they hit as much as somebody with a higher BS for the same points (what the OP has been suggesting in his replys to me), then yes, they would out Dakka the Tau. Using the example I used earlier on. If a bolter had three shots, a marine would expect to hit twice. That doesnt mean a shoota should get 6 shots to compensate - that is the whole reason of having lower/higher bs in the first place. If a shoota did get 6 shots, then it shouldnt cost as much as a 3 shot bolter. The OP wants Orks to have the same firepower per model as a space marine (read his replys to me and the original premise - that a kustom shoota should have the same output at a different bs as a stormbolter). That would mean they would out dakka space marines as they would also outnumber them, massively. Same as everyone else.

I am not saying Orks dont need a buff, but people have to realise, models with BS4+, BS3+ or BS2+... Have already paid for it in their points cost!, so if you want the same amount (of same quality) of shots hitting, and you dont increase the BS and price of the model, but instead increase the shots of the gun, then you must also increase the price of the gun. Inversely (as is usually the case now) if you get the same shots, you pay the same price despite the ballistic skill that models have already paid for (yes - kustom shootas should be 2 points).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
While there certainly have been people in other threads arguing that Orks should pay more for decent shooting (things like Lootas and Tankbustas) I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that Orks should pay more for both their melee gear and their guns.

Err, yeah, actually that is the combined argument being put forth in this thread.

I've seen that in other threads, but I must have missed it in this thread.

Yeah me too :-s, just read through it as well. Odd.

I think every Ork boy should be able to bring a lascannon equivalent for lascannon points, what is that 25? His wounds, CC attack profile, ballistic skill, mobility, and point costs are irrelevant. I think changing the profile of this ork lascannon to Assault would be balanced as well, since there really isn't any difference between Heavy, Assault, and Rapid anyway, I really would like my Ork boy to still use his three attacks.

edit: I thought of another great idea, since bolt rifles are free, and so are shootaz, and really a marine and an ork are the same, I should be able to put bolt rifles on my orkz. Since orkz are 6 points hitting on 5's and marines are double hitting twice as often, that's balanced! But I still want to bring my choppaz, okay? Orkz should attack three times as much as marines.

Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.

In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.

Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.

Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.

I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.

Tyel wrote:
Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.

In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.

Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.

Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.

I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.

Your example is exactly why models DO pay for their weapon stats. Because your example is clearly biased towards the 3+ if the weapons cost the same.

edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.

Tyel wrote:
Models dont pay for their stats. The current system separating platform and gun is arbitrary and based on options.

In any case keeping the guns the same does not work unless all units are kept in a perfect ratio.

Lets imagine bs 3+ was worth 13 points and bs 5+ was worth 6. A lascannon was worth 25. So a 3+ lascannon was 38 and a 5+ lascannon was 31.

Well for a 7 point increase (under 25%) you double your damage output. Or triple it if there is a minus 1 effect. So its pretty obvious the 3+ would be better. Orks dont get lascannons but you can work it through with other guns like this thread.

I dont see why Orks shouldn't be a shooty army if you put the points in. Saying Ork shooting should suck for its points is why they are always reduced to green tide and lucky charges.

Models do pay for their stats, that is why a carnifex is more than a conscript.

You can't say BS is worth a particular amount as models are priced on their stats overall and the role those stats help them achieve.

Where are people getting the idea that others are saying that Orks shouldn't be a shooty army when the absolute worst anyone on this thread has said is that a kustom shoota should be costed the same as a stormbolter?

That being said, basic Orks Boyz should put out the same dakka for the same points cost when Guard, Tau, Eldar etc can all counter assault the things that are threatening their gunline just as effectively as Orks and when they have the same ability to weather opponents small arms fire as Orks.
Orrrrrr, Orks shouldn't have the same Dakka for the same points because they have other advantages like more attacks, strength, powerful squad leaders, toughness and numbers and some points are going to be required to pay for those things..

Edit: I also want to add before anyone jumps on it that by 'same dakka' I meant same number of hits not shots.

Exactly. New thread discussion:

What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points

please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.

I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.

hollow one wrote:
Exactly. New thread discussion:

What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points

please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.

I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.

I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.

Poly Ranger wrote:

hollow one wrote:
Exactly. New thread discussion:

What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points

please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.

I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.

I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.

I think the issue is less really with the Kustom shoota than the fact that Ork shooting units pay for +1 attack in CC that they never use (don't have the choppa so not +2 attacks))

You could add option 3 which would be more fair Space Marine Chain Sword (S4 A1 WS3+) +1 Atk 0 points. Oh look exactly the same. Tactical marines would be better compared to shoota boyz, the choppa is a chainsword.

So I would say a kustom shoota should likely cost the same as a storm bolter because the weapons are basically equivalent.

Really the issue with ork shooting in this edition is that it isn't durable enough to withstand opposing shooting. If you look at equivalently pointed units orks shoot pretty similarly.

5 Havocs with 4 autocannons = 145 points
8 Lootas = 136 points
Havocs average 5 autcannon hits
Lootas average 5.3 Deff gun hits.

The Lootas are a bit more swingy (they may have more than 2 shots each, or less), but really the issue is those havocs in cover have 2+ saves, the orks have 5+ saves. 5 2+ save wounds are more durable than 8 5+ save wounds. Assuming no AP, it takes 30 wounds to remove the 2+ save wounds, and 12 to remove the 8 orks,.

5 Missile devastators =165 points
10 Tank Bustas = 170 points
devastators average 3 missile hits
tank bustas (without re-roll against vehicles) average 3 missile hits

The problem is the devastators have 48" range, the bustas have 24", so likely it is 5 marines in cover, vs 10 orks in the open. Or that the orks need to spend points on transportation to do anything (Trukk 82 points, or Weirdboy 62 points)

10 tactical Marines = 130 points
22 Shoota Boyz =132 points
at 12"
Marines = 13.33 hits
Orks = 14.67 hits.

So pretty close. Durability is close here as well assuming no cover it takes 26 wounds to kill the orks, and 30 to kill the marines.

The kustom shoota actually comes out as one of the worst comparison given what can take it. and actually reverses this trend.
10 Nobz with Kustom shootas = 210 points
10 man GK strike squad = 210 points
At 12"
Nobz = 13.33 hits
Gk = 26.67 hits

GK win hands down on shooting, but the Nobz are more durable with 2 wounds and a 4+ save. Against Damage 1 weapons with no AP it takes 40 wounds to kill the Nobz and 30 to kill the Strikes. They are more or less equal in combat (assuming the GK take Flacions) against MEQ This really tells me it is likely that Nobz are over priced, as they lack all the special rules GK have that make them able to get to combat more easily, they are bad at shooting and taking special weapons makes them too expensive. Comparisons against things like Marine veteran squads look even worse for the Nobz as then the marines are cheaper.


The other place where orks lose out is with 1 off shooting upgrades. A single combi-weapon is wasted on orks (except maybe the skorcha), you will never use the -1 firing both because you will miss. Single shots are also bad for orks, so taking a single Rokkit in a squad is largely a waste of 12 points, whereas a single missile, plama gun or melta gun in a marine squad is points well spent, as the rokkit will hit maybe twice in a game if it survives all game long. Where as the marine weapon will hit ~4 times.

Here is the problem with that line of thought.

BS is factored into the models cost and that is why Orkz should be terrible at shooting, they aren't paying for that BS right?

And then we have similar arguments about why Orkz should pay more for CC abilities, because they are really good at CC right?

The problem is that the #1 reason orkz suck at shooting is shot output, not BS. Orkz in fluff are supposed to put out a wall of lead and lasers and plasma that misses 2/3rds of the time but makes up for it with sheer quantity. This is fine and the problem is that it doesn't happen, other armies with better BS have better ranged weapons. Key point is that the number of ranged attacks a model gets is INCLUDED in the weapon profile not the models profile.

Now in CC Orks are considered amazing, but the difference is that the weapon doesn't make them amazing at CC, its their profile. 2 attacks base. The ork by the same arguments put forth why Marines are better at shooting doesnt apply because while we paid for that +2 attacks, it is definitely factored into our base cost where as the Space Marine firing a twin assault cannon didn't have 12 S6 -1AP shots factored into his.

So when we are talking specifically about the Kustom Shoota and the Storm bolter, The storm bolter is roughly equal to the Kustom Shoota, I would argue it is better because of range but that point is based on preference rather then true effectiveness. The people here who are arguing that the Kustom shouldn't be cheaper are saying orkz shouldn't be as good at shooting as Marines. But they fail to realize that their argument is based on Comparing a the BS stat of a Marine to the attack Stat of an Ork, when a more fair comparison would be the BS AND Shots of a weapon and the BS shots of an Ork weapon, or if you are doing a cross comparison of Ranged to CC The fair comparison would be the BS and shots of a Space Marine to the WS and attacks of an Ork. And a further comparison would be WS and base # of attacks of a Space Marine to the WS and base attacks of an Ork boy.

or have we forgotten that a BS is only for hitting not wounding? So therefore the Marines WS is the SAME as an Orkz, but I thought orkz were supposed to be CC monsters? So then shouldn't Marines be WS3? to make up for Orkz being BS2?


I have read, participated and authored numerous threads about orkz and the consensus I have gotten from the majority who aren't ork players is That orks should Pay more for CC weapons because they are a CC army and have access to buffs in CC that make them really good at CC. And then when talking about Ranged combat people point out that since orkz are great at CC they should have to pay more or suck more at shooting.

So lets take that first line of thought about CC and apply it to Marines shooting, because Marines shooting this edition is bonkers. A marine is a ranged combat beast, he comes equipped with a longer ranged weapon then my orkz and even more importantly, when parked in cover has a 2+ save. So because Marines are so good at shooting their ranged weapons should cost significantly more then my Orkz. So therefore the Stormbolter which is equivalent to a Kustom shoota should cost 6pts instead of 2pts to use the logic of PKs compared to PFs. Likewise an assault Cannon should probably be doubled in cost because he is using BS4 on those 6 shots.

See how that logic fails to make sense in your army?

The marine himself costs significantly more than the Ork. He has already paid for the same WS as the Ork and a better BS. No need to charge him twice with making the equivalent gun more expensive too. You keep talking as though Marines and Orks cost the same.
Orks should not pay more for melee options as they have already paid for it in their points cost.
The cost for the number of shots is always included in the weapons cost, hence a Punisher Russ, a Punisher Tank Commander and Punisher Pask all paying the same for the Punisher cannon despite having Bs4+, Bs3+ and Bs2+ respectively. Otherwise why do you have to pay for the BS increase in the first place? Take Pask compared to a Punisher Russ for instance, he hits 167% as many times as the normal Russ, so should he pay 167% more for his weapons? If so, why pay for his Bs increase at all if it doesn't make his shooting more efficient in comparison to the price of his gun?
Also don't bring assault cannons into it - I think we can all agree that they are bonkers broken for their points cost. They need a serious price hike.

I really like the way Breng77's post is laid out. It's not intellectually dishonest, it focuses on realistic and comparable examples, and it highlights clear strengths and weaknesses. To be honest if we did similar comparisons with matched CC I would hope similar biases towards Orkz. I think you're right that the durability looks like the issue in these comparisons, but I don't personally think that is a major problem. This could be a discussion that involves terrain, mobility, transport, and appropriate army weaknesses. You can also discuss HQ aura's, stacking benefits, and strength based army lists/strategy. I think it remains appropriate that points for points Orkz are significantly weaker in shooting than marines, as I feel you have clearly highlighted. (BTW I play Orkz).

I think your initial comment on the space marine chain sword giving +1 attack is still not equivalent, because the marine is twice the cost of a boy, so you're still down two attacks as a marine compared to two boyz. You need +3 attacks per marine to make it even points per wound in CC.

And as for you, SemperMortis, you're cherry picking two different peoples opinions and pretending they come from the same person, stating one person wants melee to cost more and one person wants shooting to cost more. Holding those two opinions together would mean the person thinks Orkz are overpowered and need nerfing; no one is saying that in this thread, or at all, for that matter.

Also, regarding Power Klaw costs, remember it's getting a point drop when the codex hits due to the precedent that was set.

hollow one wrote:
[spoiler]
And as for you, SemperMortis, you're cherry picking two different peoples opinions and pretending they come from the same person, stating one person wants melee to cost more and one person wants shooting to cost more. Holding those two opinions together would mean the person thinks Orkz are overpowered and need nerfing; no one is saying that in this thread, or at all, for that matter.

you misunderstood what i posted, what i said was that the majority consensus on that issue throughout numerous threads and topics is that people believe orks pay more for CC because they are good at it and pay more for shooting because they are bad at it. I never said one person said both those things, though if i had the time to go through the old threads I bet you I could find a couple who have said exactly that in different threads.

As for Breng's well thought out shooting comparisons, you missed a key point here. We can take more units with weapons for less, that makes sense since our BS is garbage. specifically in regards to the havocs and lootas. They are hitting about the exact same, as it should be. The important part is that the durability is hugely different. Those Lootas will die to a stiff breeze where as the havocs will take dedicated anti elite infantry weaponry to kill when they are in cover. This goes back to someone elses point. Ork shooting should be devastating when lucky dice are rolled but it should fade as the games go on because they die really quickly. To me having the same hit/dmg rate as others doesn't really equate to that difference. But thats another debate entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also, regarding Power Klaw costs, remember it's getting a point drop when the codex hits due to the precedent that was set.

we hope

hollow one wrote:
edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.

I just love how all the marine players in this thread totally ignore that their models have 3+ armor instead of 6+ armor. Also how all their ranged weapons are strictly better than corresponding the ork variants.

Three boyz with rokkit launcha are 3x(6+12) = 52 points with a whooping 30% chance to completely miss with all three rokkits. One tactical marine equipped with a missile launcher is 13 - 25 = 38. Even those if those 3 boyz drop to 36 points (6 points per rokkit launcha) the marine still has twice the range, has a secondary fire mode and can sit in cover for 2+ armor while the boyz mob needs to move towards whatever they want to shoot, not to mention how impossible it is to get most ork units in cover due to size.

A nob with a kustom shoota is 21 points, just like a GKSS marine with storm bolter. It has a +1S +1W +3A (1A is lost when buying a CCW) over the Grey Knight, which can deep strike, has smite, +1 to armor +2 to BS, at least AP-2 in combat and the choice between d3 damage and AP-3 or +1A or +1S for free. So it's not like marines are suddenly inferior to nobz when kustom shootas drop by two or three points.

So worry not, shiny defenders of mankind, you will not be outgunned by orks any times soon, even if they hit as often per point as you do.

hollow one wrote:

Spoiler:

Breng77 wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

hollow one wrote:
Exactly. New thread discussion:

What's better:
1) the tactical marine melee attack (S4 A1 WS3+), zero points
2) the ork choppa (S4 A1 WS3+) +1atk, zero points

please also take into consideration the fact that the ork costs half the price.

I personally think this means marines should all be issued with daggers that give them +3 attacks in CC, otherwise its literally not balanced.

I think you've summed up that extreme end of the train of thought that is being put across, quite well with your satire there. Kudos.

I think the issue is less really with the Kustom shoota than the fact that Ork shooting units pay for +1 attack in CC that they never use (don't have the choppa so not +2 attacks))

You could add option 3 which would be more fair Space Marine Chain Sword (S4 A1 WS3+) +1 Atk 0 points. Oh look exactly the same. Tactical marines would be better compared to shoota boyz, the choppa is a chainsword.

So I would say a kustom shoota should likely cost the same as a storm bolter because the weapons are basically equivalent.

Really the issue with ork shooting in this edition is that it isn't durable enough to withstand opposing shooting. If you look at equivalently pointed units orks shoot pretty similarly.

5 Havocs with 4 autocannons = 145 points
8 Lootas = 136 points
Havocs average 5 autcannon hits
Lootas average 5.3 Deff gun hits.

The Lootas are a bit more swingy (they may have more than 2 shots each, or less), but really the issue is those havocs in cover have 2+ saves, the orks have 5+ saves. 5 2+ save wounds are more durable than 8 5+ save wounds. Assuming no AP, it takes 30 wounds to remove the 2+ save wounds, and 12 to remove the 8 orks,.

5 Missile devastators =165 points
10 Tank Bustas = 170 points
devastators average 3 missile hits
tank bustas (without re-roll against vehicles) average 3 missile hits

The problem is the devastators have 48" range, the bustas have 24", so likely it is 5 marines in cover, vs 10 orks in the open. Or that the orks need to spend points on transportation to do anything (Trukk 82 points, or Weirdboy 62 points)

10 tactical Marines = 130 points
22 Shoota Boyz =132 points
at 12"
Marines = 13.33 hits
Orks = 14.67 hits.

So pretty close. Durability is close here as well assuming no cover it takes 26 wounds to kill the orks, and 30 to kill the marines.

The kustom shoota actually comes out as one of the worst comparison given what can take it. and actually reverses this trend.
10 Nobz with Kustom shootas = 210 points
10 man GK strike squad = 210 points
At 12"
Nobz = 13.33 hits
Gk = 26.67 hits

GK win hands down on shooting, but the Nobz are more durable with 2 wounds and a 4+ save. Against Damage 1 weapons with no AP it takes 40 wounds to kill the Nobz and 30 to kill the Strikes. They are more or less equal in combat (assuming the GK take Flacions) against MEQ This really tells me it is likely that Nobz are over priced, as they lack all the special rules GK have that make them able to get to combat more easily, they are bad at shooting and taking special weapons makes them too expensive. Comparisons against things like Marine veteran squads look even worse for the Nobz as then the marines are cheaper.


The other place where orks lose out is with 1 off shooting upgrades. A single combi-weapon is wasted on orks (except maybe the skorcha), you will never use the -1 firing both because you will miss. Single shots are also bad for orks, so taking a single Rokkit in a squad is largely a waste of 12 points, whereas a single missile, plama gun or melta gun in a marine squad is points well spent, as the rokkit will hit maybe twice in a game if it survives all game long. Where as the marine weapon will hit ~4 times.

I really like the way Breng77's post is laid out. It's not intellectually dishonest, it focuses on realistic and comparable examples, and it highlights clear strengths and weaknesses. To be honest if we did similar comparisons with matched CC I would hope similar biases towards Orkz. I think you're right that the durability looks like the issue in these comparisons, but I don't personally think that is a major problem. This could be a discussion that involves terrain, mobility, transport, and appropriate army weaknesses. You can also discuss HQ aura's, stacking benefits, and strength based army lists/strategy. I think it remains appropriate that points for points Orkz are significantly weaker in shooting than marines, as I feel you have clearly highlighted. (BTW I play Orkz).

I think your initial comment on the space marine chain sword giving +1 attack is still not equivalent, because the marine is twice the cost of a boy, so you're still down two attacks as a marine compared to two boyz. You need +3 attacks per marine to make it even points per wound in CC.

I think the chain sword is still a better comparison because in all likely hood the orks will still only have +1 attack vs the marines (22 orks are highly unlikely to ever benefit from their +1 attack bonus due to overwatch). That said if we looked at orks with 3 attacks each vs assault marines with 2 attacks each, the Orks win out in combat with 7.33 unsaved wounds dealt to marines whereas the marines do 5.83 to the orks.

If we are just looking at hits the orks make out a ton (assuming they all get to attack) with their bonus to CC, they would have 58.67 hits while the marines get 14. But the reason you compare the Choppa to a chainsword and not to a bolter marine is because they are equivalent, a shoota boy would be the equivalent to a bolter marine, and still better in close combat, but they only have +1 attack not +2.

The issue with orks is that they do have "dedicated" shooting units like lootas/tank bustas who are paying extra to be good at something they will never do. I'd be more ok with this if those units could be equipped to be more CC units. If Tank hammers did not kill the model using them but instead did 1 mortal wound per hit, or were just high strength, AP and Damage. If lootas could move and fire, and maybe shoot their guns in CC, same with Flashgitz. I'm fine with the game saying "hey orks aren't meant to shoot a whole lot, they want to be up close and in the fight." if they didn't give you specialized shooting units. But if they bother with specialized shooting options I want those options to be usable. Which means having them be durable enough to do their job, or cheap enough that models dying doesn't matter.

Now some of this may change with the codex. If a particular klan gets +1 cover, or -1 to hit beyond 12" etc that could make some of the shooting options more attractive because I can expect them to survive a turn. Though it is important to note that some of these bonuses make ork shooting even more crap now. -1 to hit raven guard makes lootas pretty useless.

This is a small factor, but I'd also add in that both Tactical Marines and Assault Marines have bolt pistols. Shoota Boyz don't have pistols, while Slugga Boyz do but they're hitting on a 5+. This is shooting, not assault, but with the ability to shoot pistols in close combat I think it's worth mentioning.

Poly Ranger wrote:
The marine himself costs significantly more than the Ork. He has already paid for the same WS as the Ork and a better BS. No need to charge him twice with making the equivalent gun more expensive too. You keep talking as though Marines and Orks cost the same.
Orks should not pay more for melee options as they have already paid for it in their points cost.
The cost for the number of shots is always included in the weapons cost, hence a Punisher Russ, a Punisher Tank Commander and Punisher Pask all paying the same for the Punisher cannon despite having Bs4+, Bs3+ and Bs2+ respectively. Otherwise why do you have to pay for the BS increase in the first place? Take Pask compared to a Punisher Russ for instance, he hits 167% as many times as the normal Russ, so should he pay 167% more for his weapons? If so, why pay for his Bs increase at all if it doesn't make his shooting more efficient in comparison to the price of his gun?
Also don't bring assault cannons into it - I think we can all agree that they are bonkers broken for their points cost. They need a serious price hike.

How many points does -1 to hit cost?
How many points does +1 save cost?

I would call the two guns a wash, at the same BS. One has more shots at 18"-24", the other has more shots at 12"-18". One can advance and fire, one has longer range.

I think one of the issues with orks, as someone has already pointed out, is that all the models are essentially "paying" for their improved wounds, Weapon skill and Attacks stats. Even the backline shooting units, that you never want to get into combat with. This either means that their points costs are too high, making them prohibitively expensive, or their guns are made worse, making their costs ok but the units not good at their given job role.

This is why I would like to see Grots used more in the codex. They have the better BS already built in, but the rest of their stats are awful. Give them some options to take a multitude of shooty dakka, something in between the current options of a crappy grot pistol and the full blown Big Gunz. Grot snipers would work well (essentially ratlings), and Grot Scions would work great too.

I mean come on -

Grot Sui-scions (Minimum squad size 10, Max 20)
Deep Strike
For every 5 Grots, you can take 1 Kustom Mega-Slugga.

Kustom Mega-Slugga - Rapid Fire 1, S8 AP-3 D3 (If you roll a one, your unit takes D3 mortal wounds).



Does this sound overpowered? No, it can be cheaper than scions and still be fairer, as grots would be easy to kill if they don't kill themselves. No runt herder to keep them from running away. I mean I've clearly just copied the scions ability, but given it an orky twist, but I think it would be fun and above all give orks some shooting units they sorely need without having to change their core orkiness.

Give us more Grots, I say!

Breng77 wrote:
I think the chain sword is still a better comparison because in all likely hood the orks will still only have +1 attack vs the marines (22 orks are highly unlikely to ever benefit from their +1 attack bonus due to overwatch). That said if we looked at orks with 3 attacks each vs assault marines with 2 attacks each, the Orks win out in combat with 7.33 unsaved wounds dealt to marines whereas the marines do 5.83 to the orks.

If we are just looking at hits the orks make out a ton (assuming they all get to attack) with their bonus to CC, they would have 58.67 hits while the marines get 14. But the reason you compare the Choppa to a chainsword and not to a bolter marine is because they are equivalent, a shoota boy would be the equivalent to a bolter marine, and still better in close combat, but they only have +1 attack not +2.

The issue with orks is that they do have "dedicated" shooting units like lootas/tank bustas who are paying extra to be good at something they will never do. I'd be more ok with this if those units could be equipped to be more CC units. If Tank hammers did not kill the model using them but instead did 1 mortal wound per hit, or were just high strength, AP and Damage. If lootas could move and fire, and maybe shoot their guns in CC, same with Flashgitz. I'm fine with the game saying "hey orks aren't meant to shoot a whole lot, they want to be up close and in the fight." if they didn't give you specialized shooting units. But if they bother with specialized shooting options I want those options to be usable. Which means having them be durable enough to do their job, or cheap enough that models dying doesn't matter.

Now some of this may change with the codex. If a particular klan gets +1 cover, or -1 to hit beyond 12" etc that could make some of the shooting options more attractive because I can expect them to survive a turn. Though it is important to note that some of these bonuses make ork shooting even more crap now. -1 to hit raven guard makes lootas pretty useless.

5 havocs w 4 autocannons, I'm guessing 5 attacks?
8 lootas, 16 attacks, WS3+ S4

5 missile devastators (w/ seargant), 6 attacks WS3+ S4
10 tank bustas (w/ nob), 21 attacks, WS3+ S4 (three of these attacks are S5)

10 tac marines w/ searg, 11 attacks WS3+, S4
22 shoota boyz w/ nob, 45 attacks WS3+, S4 (three are S5)
and if by some miracle this unit gets into CC at full strength, that's actually 67 attacks.

see how I can use your examples of comparable dakka with worse durability, and note a minimum of three times as much CC?

"dedicated shooting units" don't exist in the ork rulebook because they are terrible at shooting, however points for points, even their shooting units are far superior in CC when compared to marines. Now if we are talking about durability and armour, I think that's a different and more difficult conversation, but just looking at pure damage output like you were with shooting, it's MUCH clearer here that orkz have a substantial lead in CC (whereas the shooting was actually almost comparable per points I'd say).

Cheaper models with high attack profiles are significant. Everyone is ignoring that fact. Sure a lootah isn't a nob with a power klaw, but he's a boy still, and he swings twice as often as a marine. Flashgitz have Nob profiles, they are S5 three attacks each buddy, they are no joke in CC!

I understand that everyone wants Orkz to have a unit that shoots well, has poor melee capabilities, and is durable. Doesn't everyone want that in their army? You want pure balance you're not going to get it, starcraft balances three dynamic races and has been doing it over decades and there are still balance discussions. You want GW to balance 10+ races, make them feel different from each other, and have all units viable? You guys are just kidding yourselves that's impossible. You're complaining about the lack of range dakka in comparison to quite excellent CC. Orkz as a race have a clear profile with a strength that can be competitive, shoring up all the vulnerabilities of a race will make every race feel the same, and they will start printing exactly the same profile weapons for the exact same cost. That's boring, for you and me. Orkz durability is in their wounds and model counts, its not as good as a good armour save, but it comes with the advantage of substantially more CC.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

hollow one wrote:
edit: also, orkz shooting should suck because their melee is so good. Give me an expensive ork with 1 attack and no choppa, and i'll give you some cheap shooty weapons for him. Oh wait, that's just a marine.

I just love how all the marine players in this thread totally ignore that their models have 3+ armor instead of 6+ armor. Also how all their ranged weapons are strictly better than corresponding the ork variants.

I play Orkz. No ones ignoring the armour save, Orkz have more wounds per point and more CC per point to compensate for their poor durability and mediocre shooting.