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.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Eldar have traditionally been good-to-broken throughout the editions, and that is for 2 reasons.
1: Most of their units are specialized at something, which means the Eldar usually have a tool for any particular job.

I would say that also changed somewhat with 6th and 7th, where the eldar gained a lot of all-purpose firepower on tough, cheap, and mobile units.

Rangers had a 3+ or 2+ if they went to ground. SM Scouts had one worse cover, a 4+ vs a 5+, S/T4, much more options for weapons, and Scout. I do agree that they weren't terrible in the 7th ed book, but I wouldn't call them great. The 6e ones were bad.

The 'multiple special weapon[s]' is 2. Flamer or Melta. Their chaff-cleaning with Flamers is about that of a Flamer Tac squad, minus a bit. With GEQ survivability. For only a little less. A 2xMelta squad isn't that much worse an option than a Tac MG/Combi-MG. It's a couple points less, but less incidental dakka, less than half the survivabiliy, and roughly equivelent CC punchiness. In either case, the oft-lamented (for good reason) Tac squad outperforms. They are bad.

I can see some use of them in Highlander, because you can't take more than 1 FD squad and/or 1 Wraithguard squad. Plus, it's the only CWE troops that can take either a Melta or Flamer.

Crap units is when they're outclassed by options in *most codexes*. Storm Guardians are outclassed in CC by *guardsmen* (4ppm vs 7 - same survivability, slightly more killy per model on the Storm Guardians).

Why would you ever take storm guardians? Take Guardian defenders.

A.T. wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Eldar have traditionally been good-to-broken throughout the editions, and that is for 2 reasons.
1: Most of their units are specialized at something, which means the Eldar usually have a tool for any particular job.

I would say that also changed somewhat with 6th and 7th, where the eldar gained a lot of all-purpose firepower on tough, cheap, and mobile units.

That's something of an issue with the Eldar. The lore focuses very much on precision strikes and specialised units. Which is what Aspect Warriors are all about in both lore and (usually) gameplay. But when you have other things like scatbikes you don't need the special unit because you can blast through almost anything.

Martel732 wrote:

You must have had the weakest possible player pool to think 2nd ed loyalists were "pretty good". There were plenty of games where loyalist marines didn't get a single turn in 2nd. Tabled on the top of 1. This assessment makes me question every single thing you claim about marines.

Won one tournament, came in 2nd in another tourney. They were 400 miles away from each other, so it wasn't even just my local meta. I don't know what you were doing to get tabled in turn 1, but I don't think I ever had the experience.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

You must have had the weakest possible player pool to think 2nd ed loyalists were "pretty good". There were plenty of games where loyalist marines didn't get a single turn in 2nd. Tabled on the top of 1. This assessment makes me question every single thing you claim about marines.

Won one tournament, came in 2nd in another tourney. They were 400 miles away from each other, so it wasn't even just my local meta. I don't know what you were doing to get tabled in turn 1, but I don't think I ever had the experience.

To be fair 2nd ed Eldar could get an easy first turn victory. It required a special mission card where you needed to get a unit in your enemy's deployment zone and Warp Spiders. If you had it and the first you could just hand them the card and say "Look, I win! Can you give me a new card so we can start playing?" Lol

Skaorn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

You must have had the weakest possible player pool to think 2nd ed loyalists were "pretty good". There were plenty of games where loyalist marines didn't get a single turn in 2nd. Tabled on the top of 1. This assessment makes me question every single thing you claim about marines.

Won one tournament, came in 2nd in another tourney. They were 400 miles away from each other, so it wasn't even just my local meta. I don't know what you were doing to get tabled in turn 1, but I don't think I ever had the experience.

To be fair 2nd ed Eldar could get an easy first turn victory. It required a special mission card where you needed to get a unit in your enemy's deployment zone and Warp Spiders. If you had it and the first you could just hand them the card and say "Look, I win! Can you give me a new card so we can start playing?" Lol

I dont think that was automatic victory, probably some number of victory points. Besides, marines could have done the same thing with bikes or teleporting terminators.

A virus grenade could also wipe out an entire non-armored (e.g. Ork, IG) army too, and almost every army had a way to deliver a character to do that, one of the few times GW advised actually dumping something entirely

 Vaktathi wrote:
A virus grenade could also wipe out an entire non-armored (e.g. Ork, IG) army too, and almost every army had a way to deliver a character to do that, one of the few times GW advised actually dumping something entirely

Vaccine squig in the ork dex - a wargear item to prevent first turn wipeouts.
Also the vortex detonator in one of the expansions to ward off the eldar hawk wings/vortex grenade combo.

The objective was 5 victory points for having an undamaged vehicle or squad at more than half strength in the enemy deployment zone at the end of the game (usually turn 4).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

You must have had the weakest possible player pool to think 2nd ed loyalists were "pretty good". There were plenty of games where loyalist marines didn't get a single turn in 2nd. Tabled on the top of 1. This assessment makes me question every single thing you claim about marines.

Won one tournament, came in 2nd in another tourney. They were 400 miles away from each other, so it wasn't even just my local meta. I don't know what you were doing to get tabled in turn 1, but I don't think I ever had the experience.

To be fair 2nd ed Eldar could get an easy first turn victory. It required a special mission card where you needed to get a unit in your enemy's deployment zone and Warp Spiders. If you had it and the first you could just hand them the card and say "Look, I win! Can you give me a new card so we can start playing?" Lol

I dont think that was automatic victory, probably some number of victory points. Besides, marines could have done the same thing with bikes or teleporting terminators.

I never played 2nd, I just saw the exchange I described take place.

Isn't that a common pattern for where these complaints come from?

A hated faction can do something OP. Doesn't matter that other factions can do the exact same thing with different units - it becomes legendary about just how OP the hated faction is.

We still have people who can't accept that Marines have not always been trash. I don't think the hobby will ever get away from that. Peoples' recollections are colored by their prejudices.

"Marines" have not always been trash. Even in 2nd, it was night and day playing SW or playing any other loyalist space marine faction. However, if you weren't playing SW, you had a very different view of 2nd than a SW player.

In 3rd ed, they made tactical marines remotely effective, and its been largely downhill for the marine statline since 3rd. I think this is the source of a lot of marine self-hate.

Bharring wrote:
Isn't that a common pattern for where these complaints come from?

A hated faction can do something OP. Doesn't matter that other factions can do the exact same thing with different units - it becomes legendary about just how OP the hated faction is.

We still have people who can't accept that Marines have not always been trash. I don't think the hobby will ever get away from that. Peoples' recollections are colored by their prejudices.

Some of it is grounded in fact. Eldar usually do end up with some very powerful things, often influenced by not the best design choices and then all the edition changes where everyone was usually not playing with a codex with whatever the rules were at the time. For instance the Star Cannon in 3rd (Heavy 3 S6 AP2 or 3 36") was bordering on broken based on other armies' weapons, availability, and the occasional boost from guide. You could take it no matter who you fought and it would do well.

They usually have enough special units so the dice do come up in some units favor when things get up end with edition changes. Though they also get their share of bad units to go with it. It's also possible what some people remember as broken might be the result of an army being designed for a previous edition and not mixing well with the new.

Eldar are also a specialist army and can be really strong in the hands of someone good, who knows how to use them. I've been tabled by people like that with Eldar but ultimately I rate them as better than me. I have stomped all over Eldar players who a worse and had close games With those I'd say I'd equal. Of course I've also been tabled by bad luck so phenomenal that I think my opponents felt much worse about the game than I did. I've also seen good players with a generalist SM list table an ok Eldar players with list tailored for MEQs.

These things blend together to give the illusion that Eldar are a super powered army favored by GW. If that were true though, then you'd think Eldar would get more plastic Aspect Warriors and codexes each edition. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out things that are overpowered with the Eldar as it can lead to change. Simply saying that the Eldar are just too good and/or bashing on people for pointing out the flaws with the Eldar is kind of implying an "anyone who plays them is part of the problem". It breeds communities were anyone who sticks up for an army is immediately called out and dismissed as a crying player of said army or just being told to get good even when there are legitimate issues.

Being a powerful army does not make one a good army.

 Blacksails wrote:


You basically just said something wasn't good, then proceeded to explain why that unit was, in fact, good. To clarify, I never said they were amazing, but no one can deny that they were a powerful, versatile unit that could fit in most Ork lists and could be as small or large as your point level needed to be.

Ultimately, they were fun, and the modelling opportunities and available models were awesome (though expensive). Nob bikers were definitely one of a few aspects of Orks in that edition that made them a solid codex.

Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

I did some maths. Even on the move flash gitz outgun rangers point for point vs GEQ, MEQ and TEQ in 7th. Standing still they could do twice the damage vs GEQ and MEQ. It seems like you don't get what a bad unit is.

Umm.....what???????? Flashgitz were also severely over priced for their complete lack of durability. Or are you saying T4 with a 6+ save is durable? So while they might have out shot rangers...at 24in range....they died to a stiff breeze and the loss of 1 was a huge deal compared to the loss of a single ranger.

Here is a hint, don't retroactively go back and explain to ork players how their units were actually good because X when every facet of the game says otherwise.

SemperMortis wrote:


Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

...which still makes them a good unit. Its also important to note that they needed to be multi-save with wargear options. No one was terrified of Ogryn despite beingh multi-wound models.

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

...which still makes them a good unit. Its also important to note that they needed to be multi-save with wargear options. No one was terrified of Ogryn despite beingh multi-wound models.

And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying? Nob bikers didn't change at all from 4th to 7th except the wound shenanigans went away. In 4th-6th Nob Bikers were 45pts (20 for nob and 25 for bike) in 7th they were 45pts (18 for Nob and 27 for Bike) In 7th they could still take a Painboy on a Bike if they wanted to, so why were Nob bikers crap in 7th compared to 4th? because wound shenanigans, not multi save. They were a decent unit, but no better then any unit with multi-wounds. And realistically, if you took 10 of them, you were looking at a MASSIVE investment in them BEFORE you equipped them with any PKs or gave them that Painboy on a bike, which cost another 75pts.

But honestly this is my opinion based on my belief that they were over priced and not that difficult to kill.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

...which still makes them a good unit. Its also important to note that they needed to be multi-save with wargear options. No one was terrified of Ogryn despite beingh multi-wound models.

And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying? Nob bikers didn't change at all from 4th to 7th except the wound shenanigans went away. In 4th-6th Nob Bikers were 45pts (20 for nob and 25 for bike) in 7th they were 45pts (18 for Nob and 27 for Bike) In 7th they could still take a Painboy on a Bike if they wanted to, so why were Nob bikers crap in 7th compared to 4th? because wound shenanigans, not multi save. They were a decent unit, but no better then any unit with multi-wounds. And realistically, if you took 10 of them, you were looking at a MASSIVE investment in them BEFORE you equipped them with any PKs or gave them that Painboy on a bike, which cost another 75pts.

But honestly this is my opinion based on my belief that they were over priced and not that difficult to kill.

Remember that in 5th, a full time cover save in an edition with less ignores cover weaponry was not something to laugh at. Now, I never said they were terrifying, and maybe that's my fault for saying I was blown away the first time I faced them, and then didn't explain how I learned how to deal with them (a regular at my club was an avid Ork player, the classic kind who cannibalized random toys to make 'battlewagons'). I felt I was pretty clear they were a good, fun unit, to which I don't think there's any disagreement. Part of their strength came from multi-wound shenanigans, but the stacking bonus of full time cover save, FnP, Inv, rapid movement, decent shooting (for Orks anyways) and near unrivaled melee killingness made them a good unit. They were distinctly better than a good chunk of multi-wound units, like Ogryn as one example.

They dropped off in power as the edition wore on, but I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge they were a strong point in the Ork codex in 5th, which, if you recall, was the context of the original post you responded to.

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

...which still makes them a good unit. Its also important to note that they needed to be multi-save with wargear options. No one was terrified of Ogryn despite beingh multi-wound models.

And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying? Nob bikers didn't change at all from 4th to 7th except the wound shenanigans went away. In 4th-6th Nob Bikers were 45pts (20 for nob and 25 for bike) in 7th they were 45pts (18 for Nob and 27 for Bike) In 7th they could still take a Painboy on a Bike if they wanted to, so why were Nob bikers crap in 7th compared to 4th? because wound shenanigans, not multi save. They were a decent unit, but no better then any unit with multi-wounds. And realistically, if you took 10 of them, you were looking at a MASSIVE investment in them BEFORE you equipped them with any PKs or gave them that Painboy on a bike, which cost another 75pts.

But honestly this is my opinion based on my belief that they were over priced and not that difficult to kill.

Remember that in 5th, a full time cover save in an edition with less ignores cover weaponry was not something to laugh at. Now, I never said they were terrifying, and maybe that's my fault for saying I was blown away the first time I faced them, and then didn't explain how I learned how to deal with them (a regular at my club was an avid Ork player, the classic kind who cannibalized random toys to make 'battlewagons'). I felt I was pretty clear they were a good, fun unit, to which I don't think there's any disagreement. Part of their strength came from multi-wound shenanigans, but the stacking bonus of full time cover save, FnP, Inv, rapid movement, decent shooting (for Orks anyways) and near unrivaled melee killingness made them a good unit. They were distinctly better than a good chunk of multi-wound units, like Ogryn as one example.

They dropped off in power as the edition wore on, but I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge they were a strong point in the Ork codex in 5th, which, if you recall, was the context of the original post you responded to.

Fair enough I just never liked them. Like I said, for me most games in 4th-6th were 1500, with some going to 1750 or 1850 occasionally. And 10 Nobz on bike with 4 PKs and a Painboy on bike was 625ish points, So more then a third and closer to 1/2 at 1,500. Especially if you gave them those 5++ saves which I never did because why bother when I have 4+ armor and a 4+ jink save?

I do have to point out though that there dakka was less then good. In that aforementioned 11 bike unit (10 nobz 1 painboy) you have 33 TL shots, which equals 18 hits and 12 wounds with no AP against T4 at 18' range. Against a SM that equals 4 Dead Marines on average, So almost 700pts kills about 50 in the shooting phase. On the other hand, in CC they were beasts. 24 S5 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 3s and 16 S9 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with the ability to instant kill anything with multi wounds or put -1 on the damage chart to vehicles. Basically you were wiping out any unit they hit in CC. The trick was hiding them or getting them stuck in with something so tough that they got to hide during the enemies shooting phase so they didn't get blasted off the table

SemperMortis wrote:
And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying?

4+, 5++, 4+ cover, 4+ FnP.

4e was an era where a 4++ was a still a 1/army relic option for most and almost nothing had FnP. Good scoring units were all important, WS5 and T5 were very powerful, and a solid S8 power weapon hit killed anything short of a daemon prince or tyranid MC. Biker nobs took all of this and added wound shenanigans on top, and were dirt cheap by 4e standards.

A different game back then.

SemperMortis wrote:

I did some maths. Even on the move flash gitz outgun rangers point for point vs GEQ, MEQ and TEQ in 7th. Standing still they could do twice the damage vs GEQ and MEQ. It seems like you don't get what a bad unit is.

Umm.....what???????? Flashgitz were also severely over priced for their complete lack of durability. Or are you saying T4 with a 6+ save is durable? So while they might have out shot rangers...at 24in range....they died to a stiff breeze and the loss of 1 was a huge deal compared to the loss of a single ranger.

Here is a hint, don't retroactively go back and explain to ork players how their units were actually good because X when every facet of the game says otherwise.

Did I ever say they were good? No. I said rangers were also bad. I also said the orks were more durable IN COMBAT, which they are, T4 6+ is more durable than T3 5+ against S3, S4 and S5 which is the normal strength of units. They also have 2w each I believe.

Skaorn,
I agree.

There is a lot of cheese CWE have had, especially in the 6e and 7e book. The 6e book had a couple bonkers OP options, and a number of outright trash options by nearly any army's standards. The 7e book nerfed DAVU, and buffed just about everything else - even things that were already good. With the 6e book, I could easily make a list that was reasonable at most levels. The 7e book made it so I had to try hard to not make an OP army.

I was so excited going into the CWE 7e book, because most of the preceeding books were extremely well balanced around a shared power level. I was worried because Necrons had Wraiths and the Decurion - but aside from that, toed line on what appeared to be the new balance. Really exciting. Then they released the preview of the Bikes. Gah.

"Good" can mean many different things. "Good" as in "Quality", I'm not sure CWE win that award often. "Good" as in "OP" - yeah, they win it even more than Marines do.

I think it's important to check our colored views of what was against eachother, because just reconsidering it yourself, in your own head, is a mini echo chamber. So I find it useful to correct things like "Bladestorm made CWE OP" or "Marines have never been good". In part, to help those who are part of the conversation, whether reading or participating, to challenge the beliefs they hold - in hopes they form more accurate understandings. But also, in part, to help dislodge biases I myself have - such as I had underestimated how bad Tacs have it in the current edition.

So have at thee, all you "Marines have always sucked, everything CWE is OP" posters.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Incorrect, I pointed out how EVERY unit with Multi-wound models was good. Wound shenanigans wasn't a strategy used only by Orkz.

...which still makes them a good unit. Its also important to note that they needed to be multi-save with wargear options. No one was terrified of Ogryn despite beingh multi-wound models.

And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying? Nob bikers didn't change at all from 4th to 7th except the wound shenanigans went away. In 4th-6th Nob Bikers were 45pts (20 for nob and 25 for bike) in 7th they were 45pts (18 for Nob and 27 for Bike) In 7th they could still take a Painboy on a Bike if they wanted to, so why were Nob bikers crap in 7th compared to 4th? because wound shenanigans, not multi save. They were a decent unit, but no better then any unit with multi-wounds. And realistically, if you took 10 of them, you were looking at a MASSIVE investment in them BEFORE you equipped them with any PKs or gave them that Painboy on a bike, which cost another 75pts.

But honestly this is my opinion based on my belief that they were over priced and not that difficult to kill.

Remember that in 5th, a full time cover save in an edition with less ignores cover weaponry was not something to laugh at. Now, I never said they were terrifying, and maybe that's my fault for saying I was blown away the first time I faced them, and then didn't explain how I learned how to deal with them (a regular at my club was an avid Ork player, the classic kind who cannibalized random toys to make 'battlewagons'). I felt I was pretty clear they were a good, fun unit, to which I don't think there's any disagreement. Part of their strength came from multi-wound shenanigans, but the stacking bonus of full time cover save, FnP, Inv, rapid movement, decent shooting (for Orks anyways) and near unrivaled melee killingness made them a good unit. They were distinctly better than a good chunk of multi-wound units, like Ogryn as one example.

They dropped off in power as the edition wore on, but I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we didn't acknowledge they were a strong point in the Ork codex in 5th, which, if you recall, was the context of the original post you responded to.

Fair enough I just never liked them. Like I said, for me most games in 4th-6th were 1500, with some going to 1750 or 1850 occasionally. And 10 Nobz on bike with 4 PKs and a Painboy on bike was 625ish points, So more then a third and closer to 1/2 at 1,500. Especially if you gave them those 5++ saves which I never did because why bother when I have 4+ armor and a 4+ jink save?

I do have to point out though that there dakka was less then good. In that aforementioned 11 bike unit (10 nobz 1 painboy) you have 33 TL shots, which equals 18 hits and 12 wounds with no AP against T4 at 18' range. Against a SM that equals 4 Dead Marines on average, So almost 700pts kills about 50 in the shooting phase. On the other hand, in CC they were beasts. 24 S5 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 3s and 16 S9 attacks hitting on 4s wounding on 2s with the ability to instant kill anything with multi wounds or put -1 on the damage chart to vehicles. Basically you were wiping out any unit they hit in CC. The trick was hiding them or getting them stuck in with something so tough that they got to hide during the enemies shooting phase so they didn't get blasted off the table

I always thought they were pretty cool, especially with scoring bikers with Wazdakka (really should have been any warboss on a bike) for a fun, effective army.

The shooting by universal standards wasn't great, but I did mention it was good for Orks, especially on a unit geared for melee.

Then again, Orks have always been a cool army, shame they've been mostly relegated to bottom rung power levels in recent editions.

Iirc nob bikers were one of the very few competitive ork units in 6th. Nob bikers, lobbas and probably lootas. Not outstanding ovedall but great for orks.

A.T. wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying?

4+, 5++, 4+ cover, 4+ FnP.

4e was an era where a 4++ was a still a 1/army relic option for most and almost nothing had FnP. Good scoring units were all important, WS5 and T5 were very powerful, and a solid S8 power weapon hit killed anything short of a daemon prince or tyranid MC. Biker nobs took all of this and added wound shenanigans on top, and were dirt cheap by 4e standards.

A different game back then.

4+ armor they get, 4+ JINK if they Jink and ruin their shooting and doesn't stack with Invuln, cover or armor, 5+ FNP IF they take a Painboy on bike (75pts) 5++ Invuln IF they take a 5+ upgrade per model, so on a 10 nob unit (11 if you count the painboy) thats 55 more points, 5++ Cover save if they took a Big Mek on a Bike with a KFF which costs 125pts, There was no option to take a 4+ FnP at all. So if you want the 4+ armor, 4+ jink, 5+ Cover save and the 5+ FnP on 10 bikers (+2 for Big Mek and Painboy) you are looking at a 650pts for just the nobz and 2 Characters, if you want that 5+ Invuln then its 705. Add in 4 PKs so they actually do dmg and that Waaagh Banner for that WS5 and you are looking at another 115pts so now your 12 Biker unit costs 820pts. But on the bright side they have 4+ armor, 4+ Jink, 5+ Invuln, 5+ FnP and 5+ Cover. Of course they can only ever use 1 of the armor, jink, cover saves and the 1 FnP so 1 save at 4+ or worse and 1 5+FnP. Not what I would call game changing.

Tau has always been bad - just ask Tau players!

I kid. In all honestly I think Eldar has always been at a minimum, pretty good, and Orks have rarely been much outside of a fun army. I do think Orks had a decent run with something strong at some point, but my memory may be shorting out on me, it's vague.

 ShredderShards wrote:
Tau has always been bad - just ask Tau players!

I kid. In all honestly I think Eldar has always been at a minimum, pretty good, and Orks have rarely been much outside of a fun army. I do think Orks had a decent run with something strong at some point, but my memory may be shorting out on me, it's vague.

4th edition and into early 5th we had Kan Wall, Bikers/speed freakz and Wagon Rush.

SemperMortis wrote:
Not what I would call game changing.

Based on your post you are thinking of later edition ork bikers (4e bikers had a built in cover save for instance).

Ork bikers were pretty awful in earlier edition due to how much they cost. There was close to no reason to run them when you could just use trukkboyz with better results. Nob bikers were a different story because of possiblr buffs and musical wounds.

A.T. wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Not what I would call game changing.

Based on your post you are thinking of later edition ork bikers (4e bikers had a built in cover save for instance).

You are correct, it was in 7th they had to jink to get the 4+ in 4th they had a built in 4+ cover save. So the difference is their shooting stayed relatively lackluster but again, 4+ Cover +5FnP isn't "Game Changing"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Ork bikers were pretty awful in earlier edition due to how much they cost. There was close to no reason to run them when you could just use trukkboyz with better results. Nob bikers were a different story because of possiblr buffs and musical wounds.

Couldn't agree more. I loved my Speed Freakz list, I miss them :(

SemperMortis wrote:

A.T. wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
And a 4+ and a 5+++ was terrifying?

4+, 5++, 4+ cover, 4+ FnP.

4e was an era where a 4++ was a still a 1/army relic option for most and almost nothing had FnP. Good scoring units were all important, WS5 and T5 were very powerful, and a solid S8 power weapon hit killed anything short of a daemon prince or tyranid MC. Biker nobs took all of this and added wound shenanigans on top, and were dirt cheap by 4e standards.

A different game back then.

4+ armor they get, 4+ JINK if they Jink and ruin their shooting and doesn't stack with Invuln, cover or armor, 5+ FNP IF they take a Painboy on bike (75pts) 5++ Invuln IF they take a 5+ upgrade per model, so on a 10 nob unit (11 if you count the painboy) thats 55 more points, 5++ Cover save if they took a Big Mek on a Bike with a KFF which costs 125pts, There was no option to take a 4+ FnP at all. So if you want the 4+ armor, 4+ jink, 5+ Cover save and the 5+ FnP on 10 bikers (+2 for Big Mek and Painboy) you are looking at a 650pts for just the nobz and 2 Characters, if you want that 5+ Invuln then its 705. Add in 4 PKs so they actually do dmg and that Waaagh Banner for that WS5 and you are looking at another 115pts so now your 12 Biker unit costs 820pts. But on the bright side they have 4+ armor, 4+ Jink, 5+ Invuln, 5+ FnP and 5+ Cover. Of course they can only ever use 1 of the armor, jink, cover saves and the 1 FnP so 1 save at 4+ or worse and 1 5+FnP. Not what I would call game changing.

Of note Nob bikers did not need to Jink for cover in 4th/5th. They had the smoke cloud rule which gave them 4+ cover for existing. You also say they were as good as any other multi-wound unit. They were honestly better than most because they could exploit the wound allocation rules better than most of those units, the only unit that did it better was paladins late in 5th. Most other multi-wound units (there were not that many of them honestly) could not mix match wargear. Also of note T5 meant no instant death for the most part making them durable against the things that typically killed multi-wound units. They began to show their age in mid-5th ed, but that had as much to do with lack of supporting options as anything else. IF I recall they were also a troop choice in the 5th ed book if you too a warboss. IN 5th though they were 4+ armor, 4+ cover (all the time) with 4+ FNP which they basically always got. SO they saved on average 75% of wounds that came their way, except in CC where they might not get a save other than the FNP or a couple guys who you gave 5++ saves to. It was a unit that took a lot to put down. It seems to me like you are mixing editions in your remembrance of the unit as it was in late 4th/early 5th.