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.

geargutz wrote:
Let's just say your argument is invalid. The fluff is there, its supported, I can play it, why are you trying to argue against that? What's is even the point of us arguing about this anymore?

Your argument was that to quote "[you] dont expect a defdredd to got toe to toe with a dreadnought and win, [you] expect a dreadnought to fall under the weight of 3 deffdredds."
I provided the you with the official background on deff dreads to show you that your idea of what deff dreads are doesn't match up with it. A deff dread should indeed be a fair match for a space marine dreadnought.

You are not arguing, you are just constantly being rude because I disagree with your ideas.

1st you try to argue to against fluff that it isn't as fluffy as other fluff? It's still in the fluff, it doesn't stop existing or become irelavent just because it disproves your argument.

ok, i might agree with you if there isnt literal fluff that supports large collections of about any ork vehicle. from dreadmobs to blitz brigades to bully boyz to bundles of gmorkanauts or hordes of dakkajets... i can go on and on. and its not an argument that these things "only happen in exceptionally large accumulations of orks".....so you mean that ork vehicles horde up when orks horde up.... .....your logic is undeniable.

My argument:

Jidmah wrote:Same for about any other larger walker or vehicle. They are pet projects of the clan's mek or priced possessions of their warboss. Ork infantry and bikes are horde units. You will not find any fluff that will support hordes of deff dreads or battlewagons. Hordes of walkers, planes or battlewagons only happen in exceptionally large accumulations of orks, like on Armageddon or on Castorel Novem. In novels, a single ork dread or battlewagon usually is a massive problem to overcome for the imperial protagonists.

How about arguing the actual argument instead of being rude?
So far you have provided zero proof for your claims.

The argument is that the vast majority of orks in the galaxy do not have the numbers to field as many vehicles as the Great Waaagh! does.
Exactly like the vast majority of Tau are not lead by Commander Farsight and have not given etherals the boot.
Exactly like the vast majority of the Imperial Guard are not from Cadia.
Therefore, orks, in general, do not have hordes of vehicles.

As for "fluff" supports this:
Dreadmob: 15 models, 13 of those are vehicle. About as much a horde as half a mob of orks. Considering this formation is most of your army (IIRC ~1600 points) it's a dreadMOB not a dreadHORDE or even a dreadTIDE.
Blitz brigade: 5 vehicles. Maybe transports for a horde, though not a horde themselves. Note that the difference between this formation and regular ork armies was being able to take one(!) additional battlewagon.
Bully boyz: 15-30 models. At 30 models, this formation would have been more expensive than my 3500 point Death Guard army. Bully boyz are not a vehicle unit though, so it's questionably why you brought it up in the first place. Bad Moon Deff Wing has been part of the fluff for a long time.
Gorkanaut Krushin' Krew: 3 walkers. Next you are going to tell me that two stompas are a horde
Skyboss Wingnutz' Sky Armada: 5 planes and a rule that implies that they are actually way more planes. So I guess you could count this as a horde of planes from a fluff view, but on the tabletop it's still not.

So all these formations that aren't actually hordes. So even looking at orks your way, you are wrong about vehicle hordes. There is no support for deff dreads outnumbering space marine dreads 3:1 except the terribly balanced rules of 7th edition orks.

Thing is, you should still have the ability to take nine deff dreads to fulfill your vision of a dread horde. Making deff dreads a horde unit would mean that you would have to play that many deff dreads (at $50 per models) in order to have them do anything, while the odd 1-3 deff dreads everyone has would be as useless as a unit of five boyz.

2nd, you try to argue that I'm being elitist because I say we need to pay alot for orks? We are a horde army....how many orks do you have, I highly doubt you've paid little and only have around only 20 models (unless you only have a killteam). This can be said for tyranids and imp guard as well, the only exception is if we only bought the superheavies.

180 points of brand new ork boyz cost about $90 (less considering nob wargear), 180 points of gaunts cost $120, 180 points of guardsmen cost $135.
Tyranid monstrous creatures and elite units like hive guard and warriors are not horde units.
Imperial tanks, artillery, fliers and elite units like ogryns or ratlings are not horde units either.
There is no reason to believe that ork vehicles outside of (current) buggies, trukk or kanz are horde units either.

My 5th edition 2000 point tournament list had 109 models, including transports. It was slightly more expensive than a pure green tide army and a lot less expensive than the vehicle hordes you are suggesting and yet was only one wagon short of a blitz brigade. Go figure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Sounds like GW is gonna push this kult of speed angle with flashy new kits that everyone will need to keep their orks 'competitive' by making the board even smaller first turn. Why not just start placing units in base to base contact... err, wait, maybe they are saving that for 9th edition. Then, we can get 3000pts on a MtG table and finish the game in 15minutes, just what everyone has been wanting right? Shorter games, smaller tables, more models to play with - yeay!

There is one deployment in the Eternal War cards deck that has both deployment zones touching each other. Some of the most fun games I've had so far.
In general, the reduced no-mans land of those cards have made games lot more fun. Maybe 18" between deployment zones should become the norm to help out assault armies.

crzylgs wrote:
Do you guys not roll enough dice already? Why are people suggesting a really bad 'fix' like army wide DakkaDakkaDakka, so that you have to count and faff with even more re-rolls!

One reason why I don't hope massive price drops at least for infantry or rerolls. And why I loath FNP. I avoid painboy just to save on dice rolls.

 Jidmah wrote:
I think Nazrak started playing orks at a time when taking more than one warboss was unusual - the lore used to say only one warboss could lead an army, two would just fight until there is only one.

Haha, yep, rumbled!

Not generally a big fan of duplicate HQs across the board, tbh.

I keep seeing grumbles about Ork shooting come up, but in my view, our shooting stuff’s mostly fine as is, rules-wise, it’s just that we’re paying way more points for most of it that BS 5+ warrants. Drastically drop the points on our ranged options, and suddenly it becomes a viable alternative to just plugging those points into more basic boyz. Case in point: we currently pay only one point less for a deffgun than Guard pay for an autocannon (statistically, the D3 shots evens out at 2, so I think it’s fair to say they’re functionally equivalent), despite Guard being a minimum of 50% better at shooting than us.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Billagio wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Did no one watch the youtube video posted earlier?

The rumor is orks now always hit on 6+ and there is now an army wide "Dakka Dakka Dakka", also known as "Bolter Drill".

I honestly think that's a pretty elegant solution by GW (If true)

Im assuming with those extra genterated attacks on 6s I still have to roll to hit with them on 5s...which is much less impressive. Only 1/3rd of your extra attacks will actually hit, and those are only going to occur 1/6th of the time to begin with....

Don't forget that we'll also be able to reroll 1's to hit for < BADMOONS > units.
As it stands Dakka Dakka Dakka is great for Tank bustas because they reroll those 1's.

There's also the Freebootaz trait that seems to be a bit too good, but if true will have massive synergy with Dakka.

Thing is, re-rolling ones is worse the lower your BS is, same for the additional shots. A single shot a 5+ has a 33.3% chance to hit, with a 16.6% chance to re-roll a failed miss, which then hits on 33.33% again, for a total of 38.88% chance to hit. So, you gained 5.55% hits. Half of those hits generate an additional shot, which then has another 38.88% chance to hit, for a grand total of 7.5% additional hits. In total, both rules combined turn 46.45% of your shots into hits.

You are basically rolling a ton of dice to have something inferior to BS4+ (50%) or re-roll failed hits (55.55%).

How about if you take a penalty on your hit roll, you also get +1 to it? That way we still get affected by penalties, but only if the total is -2 or worse. So if you're facing raven guard, you get a penalty if you are advancing and firing assault weapons or moving and firing heavy ones. If your opponent has a -1 to hit them trait and the airborne rule, you have a penalty to shoot them.

Someone on the other thread suggested ignoring -1 to hit modifiers, but be fully affected by -2 to hit, similar to certain units ignoring -1 AP weapons, but being fully affected by higher AP values.

This would not completely negate -1 to hit armies, units or models with stacked modifiers would still be immune to shooting and you could no longer move/advance and shoot them with heavy/assault weapons..

@ everyone talking about deff dreads and lore crap... a freaking Titan can be mathematically be taken down by equal number of conscripts or guard or orks... when in thenlore they would level entire armies and cities. In the lore a single space marine could take out 100 orks... in the lore an entire space marine chapter can get a sturn look from a necron and they all fall over... the lore is widely all over the place anyway and the game certainly does not support the lore in many ways.
So the lore argument is an auto lose for bkth sides (although I wish it wasn't and i wish the game was lore accurate).

 Jidmah wrote:
Thing is, re-rolling ones is worse the lower your BS is, same for the additional shots. A single shot a 5+ has a 33.3% chance to hit, with a 16.6% chance to re-roll a failed miss, which then hits on 33.33% again, for a total of 38.88% chance to hit. So, you gained 5.55% hits. Half of those hits generate an additional shot, which then has another 38.88% chance to hit, for a grand total of 7.5% additional hits. In total, both rules combined turn 46.45% of your shots into hits.

You are basically rolling a ton of dice to have something inferior to BS4+ (50%) or re-roll failed hits (55.55%).

Re-rolling 1s provides the same proportional increase regardless of your BS.

BS5+ is 0.33 hits normally, 0.39 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

BS3+ is 0.67 hits normally, 0.78 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

If they can make up for the lower accuracy with volume of fire, then those abilities are just as worth it as they would be for a model/unit with better BS.

I think the 6 always hit thing is going to come, but its not going to be ork excliusive. Thats gonna be a beta rule in the xmas patch

SemperMortis wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Did no one watch the youtube video posted earlier?

The rumor is orks now always hit on 6+ and there is now an army wide "Dakka Dakka Dakka", also known as "Bolter Drill".

I honestly think that's a pretty elegant solution by GW (If true)

....except it wouldn't do nearly enough to justify our plethora of shooting options. Dakka Dakka Dakka is a garbage strat anyway. you have a 1/6th chance to roll a 6, now you get a 1/3rd chance to hit, so your chances of pulling this off is 5.55%. Army wide? for Free? that is fine, just don't expect it to do anything to your damage output. 30 Loota shots at a T7 vehicle = 10 hits with 5 rerolls on average, those 5 rerolls = 1.66 more hits so now instead of 5 wounds on average you get 5.8 Whooopee!

That btw, is why I always said Dakka Dakka Dakka strategy was a waste of command points.

Like others here have said, if it is a unmodified 6 always hits AND generates 1 Extra hit that would be ok, but otherwise its just a waste of time rolling more dice for a minimal impact to the game.

Agreed, its a waste of CP if its extra shots, not hits. Army wide for "free" would be ok. I put "free" in quotes because GW will likely price that into units (rather than it being worth CP or an extra upgrade/wargear that you have to pay for) so then its not really "free" and GW usually does a pretty poor job at estimating the effectiveness to points value of something like that.

catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Thing is, re-rolling ones is worse the lower your BS is, same for the additional shots. A single shot a 5+ has a 33.3% chance to hit, with a 16.6% chance to re-roll a failed miss, which then hits on 33.33% again, for a total of 38.88% chance to hit. So, you gained 5.55% hits. Half of those hits generate an additional shot, which then has another 38.88% chance to hit, for a grand total of 7.5% additional hits. In total, both rules combined turn 46.45% of your shots into hits.

You are basically rolling a ton of dice to have something inferior to BS4+ (50%) or re-roll failed hits (55.55%).

Re-rolling 1s provides the same proportional increase regardless of your BS.

BS5+ is 0.33 hits normally, 0.39 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

BS3+ is 0.67 hits normally, 0.78 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

If they can make up for the lower accuracy with volume of fire, then those abilities are just as worth it as they would be for a model/unit with better BS.

I know, and the rules for additional shots basically work the same. Yet, a space marines with both rules would have a 90.7% hit rate, which is better than +1 BS (83.3%) and re-roll to hit (88.8%), while an ork is better off with the +1 to hit or the re-roll.

Something that just occurred to me: I've sort of had this assumption that the fact that ork units have the same stats in Kill Team as they do in the index doesn't necessarily mean all that much because they might not want to spoil whatever the upcoming changes would be. So the fact that the burna is still d3 shots didn't bother me that much. However with the kill team set Krogskullz Boyz you get some additional stratagems. One of them is Pyromaniak which switches the burnas shots from D3 to D6 during that phase.

So if they were to upgrade burnas from D3 to D6 in the ork codex that stratagem would be completely invalidated, which I doubt they would. That leaves, in my mind three different scenarios on their approach with burnas:

1, They do nothing

2, They lower the point cost of burnas

3, They switch the burna profile from D3 S4 AP0 D1 to D3 S5 AP-1 D! (meaning D3 skorchas)

Thoughts? Do you think there's a chance they'll become D6 and they just tell players to forget about that stratagem? Or that they'll have different profiles in 40k and KT?

PiñaColada wrote:
Something that just occurred to me: I've sort of had this assumption that the fact that ork units have the same stats in Kill Team as they do in the index doesn't necessarily mean all that much because they might not want to spoil whatever the upcoming changes would be. So the fact that the burna is still d3 shots didn't bother me that much. However with the kill team set Krogskullz Boyz you get some additional stratagems. One of them is Pyromaniak which switches the burnas shots from D3 to D6 during that phase.

So if they were to upgrade burnas from D3 to D6 in the ork codex that stratagem would be completely invalidated, which I doubt they would. That leaves, in my mind three different scenarios on their approach with burnas:

1, They do nothing

2, They lower the point cost of burnas

3, They switch the burna profile from D3 S4 AP0 D1 to D3 S5 AP-1 D! (meaning D3 skorchas)

Thoughts? Do you think there's a chance they'll become D6 and they just tell players to forget about that stratagem? Or that they'll have different profiles in 40k and KT?

Kill Team is a completely different rule-set, so there's nothing saying they have to use the same weapon profiles, stratagems or anything in 40k. That said, I doubt that burnas are going to change. Probably just drop the cost of burna boyz.

PiñaColada wrote:

So if they were to upgrade burnas from D3 to D6 in the ork codex that stratagem would be completely invalidated, which I doubt they would. That leaves, in my mind three different scenarios on their approach with burnas:
?

Why strategem would be invalidated? 40k orks can't use and if burna changes in codex it leaves kt stats as they were

Well, that's sort of my point. If they did update 40k burnas to d6 would KT burnas still be d3? That's a pretty significant difference and as far as I know there are very few instances of different stats regarding the weapon profiles between 40k and KT. (Aside from point cost)

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, that's sort of my point. If they did update 40k burnas to d6 would KT burnas still be d3? That's a pretty significant difference and as far as I know there are very few instances of different stats regarding the weapon profiles between 40k and KT. (Aside from point cost)

Forgebane necron stats were invalid once codex came out. If the Ork codex changes the stats from kt, kt could faq it or they could just be divergent rules

PiñaColada wrote:
If they did update 40k burnas to d6 would KT burnas still be d3?

Yes. KT is obviously derived from 8th ed. 40k, but it is a completely different game. Changing the rules in one doesn't change them in the other.

you may see a 40k strat to shift a unit of burna to d6 from d3

catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Thing is, re-rolling ones is worse the lower your BS is, same for the additional shots. A single shot a 5+ has a 33.3% chance to hit, with a 16.6% chance to re-roll a failed miss, which then hits on 33.33% again, for a total of 38.88% chance to hit. So, you gained 5.55% hits. Half of those hits generate an additional shot, which then has another 38.88% chance to hit, for a grand total of 7.5% additional hits. In total, both rules combined turn 46.45% of your shots into hits.

You are basically rolling a ton of dice to have something inferior to BS4+ (50%) or re-roll failed hits (55.55%).

Re-rolling 1s provides the same proportional increase regardless of your BS.

BS5+ is 0.33 hits normally, 0.39 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

BS3+ is 0.67 hits normally, 0.78 with re-rolling 1s, for an increase of 17%.

If they can make up for the lower accuracy with volume of fire, then those abilities are just as worth it as they would be for a model/unit with better BS.

18 Bolter shots = 12 hits, 3 rolls of a 1 which means 2 more hits which is good.

18 SHoota shots = 6 hits and 3 rolls of a 1 which means 1 extra hit.

So yeah, each one increases the percent hit by the same amount but the proportionality is WAY DIFFERENT. Would you rather have 50% of a million dollars or 50% of 10 dollars? which is better?

So for the comparison, 2 Extra hits is 100% better then 1 extra hit, to put it bluntly, increasing something crappy by 5% isn't the same as increasing something good by 5%.

 Billagio wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Did no one watch the youtube video posted earlier?

The rumor is orks now always hit on 6+ and there is now an army wide "Dakka Dakka Dakka", also known as "Bolter Drill".

I honestly think that's a pretty elegant solution by GW (If true)

....except it wouldn't do nearly enough to justify our plethora of shooting options. Dakka Dakka Dakka is a garbage strat anyway. you have a 1/6th chance to roll a 6, now you get a 1/3rd chance to hit, so your chances of pulling this off is 5.55%. Army wide? for Free? that is fine, just don't expect it to do anything to your damage output. 30 Loota shots at a T7 vehicle = 10 hits with 5 rerolls on average, those 5 rerolls = 1.66 more hits so now instead of 5 wounds on average you get 5.8 Whooopee!

That btw, is why I always said Dakka Dakka Dakka strategy was a waste of command points.

Like others here have said, if it is a unmodified 6 always hits AND generates 1 Extra hit that would be ok, but otherwise its just a waste of time rolling more dice for a minimal impact to the game.

Agreed, its a waste of CP if its extra shots, not hits. Army wide for "free" would be ok. I put "free" in quotes because GW will likely price that into units (rather than it being worth CP or an extra upgrade/wargear that you have to pay for) so then its not really "free" and GW usually does a pretty poor job at estimating the effectiveness to points value of something like that.

This.

I'm a little nervous about our Boyz. If the Goffs trait is true (iirc its 6's in melee generate an extra hit) that means our boyz are no way priced at 6 points anymore.

Typhus's Destroyer Hive has the rule I want to see Orks get - always hits on 5+ for shooting, regardless of modifiers +/-. It makes sense to me, as Orks are more shooting to shoot rather than for legs/heads/whatever. Or maybe take it a step further and just say that Orks are not affected by to-hit modifiers +/- for shooting at all.

As for an army-wide "DakkaDakkaDakka", if paired with the above it might be too much, or might be right what the Dok ordered.

Regarding always getting BS5+...I'm not holding my breath.

Regarding always getting BS6+...not holding my breath for that either.

Letting one faction have it and not the others would create a firestorm...a different kind of grief that they get from Ork players, which they are so good at sloughing off.

If there is a natural-6 rule, it will probably not be in our codex, and possibly not in CA. More like a "beta rule" that they will not ever get around to making official.

Meaning we still will have to argue tooth and claw to get everyone else to agree to it.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Regarding always getting BS5+...I'm not holding my breath.

Regarding always getting BS6+...not holding my breath for that either.

Letting one faction have it and not the others would create a firestorm...a different kind of grief that they get from Ork players, which they are so good at sloughing off.

If there is a natural-6 rule, it will probably not be in our codex, and possibly not in CA. More like a "beta rule" that they will not ever get around to making official.

Meaning we still will have to argue tooth and claw to get everyone else to agree to it.

They don’t fix the BS problem with Orks then they might as well discontinue any and all ork models with guns. Just release a new line that’s entirely melee focused. I don’t even think that’s a bad idea tbh.

If they ever do an 8.5 or 9th edition they really need to get rid of all the minus to hit rules.

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, that's sort of my point. If they did update 40k burnas to d6 would KT burnas still be d3? That's a pretty significant difference and as far as I know there are very few instances of different stats regarding the weapon profiles between 40k and KT. (Aside from point cost)

Why you think KT burna's would change? They don't take their stats from codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
I'm a little nervous about our Boyz. If the Goffs trait is true (iirc its 6's in melee generate an extra hit) that means our boyz are no way priced at 6 points anymore.

GW values traits worth as 0. They go "all have them, all are equal, no point hike needed"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
If they ever do an 8.5 or 9th edition they really need to get rid of all the minus to hit rules.

Haha. I spent 7th ed reading forums all "GW needs to implement to hit modifiers"

tneva82 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, that's sort of my point. If they did update 40k burnas to d6 would KT burnas still be d3? That's a pretty significant difference and as far as I know there are very few instances of different stats regarding the weapon profiles between 40k and KT. (Aside from point cost)

Why you think KT burna's would change? They don't take their stats from codex.

I'll freely admit that I don't know what I'm talking about in the sense that this is just my observation, not based on any facts.. But don't they? The parity between weapon profiles betwixt the two games is so strong that they're basically mirrored. I'm sure there are quite a few weapon profiles that are slightly different, the only one of the top of my head is the Admech radium carbine which has a stronger added effect on the wound roll of 6+ in KT compared to 40k. Otherwise the differences seem to be point cost and "unmodified hit rolls of 1" for overcharging plasma (which they might implement in 40k as well, as we start to see that wording more and more)

Obviously they're different games and no such update to the rules would have to occur but, and maybe I'm the only one here, I think it'd be weird if that unit got a signifcant boost in 40k and didn't get a KT errata to to try and keep the similarities between the two games.

As for always hitting on a unmodified 6 rule, if they don't implement at least that as a specific ork rule then they basically have to throw out a small 40k FAQ where that rule goes into effect. Fine, index ork shooting is pretty terrible but if we're one of the last armies getting a codex (and as such the -1/2 to hit modifiers are well established) and issue still isn't resolved thus rendering at least half of our units worthless I'd be real disappointed.

Well yeah they are quite similar but are you required to have 40k codex to play? NO! If GW feels d6 shots in 40k is needed but would be too good for KT they can do so. They are separate rule sets so they can and should be looked separatedly _what's balanced within that ruleset_.

Scale is different. In 40k you are flaming entire units generally. In KT you are generally flaming individual models. Maybe more hits in 40k in average represents generally hitting more than 1 guy most of the time.

Now do I believe 40k burna's will get d6 shots? Not really. Maybe they get, maybe they don't but if GW has any sense they shouldn't need constrained by different game rules and would look what is right _for the game involved_

I agree with you, obviously the balance to be struck within that game is different due to the scale.

But at the same time, a guardsman with a flamer is 8 points in KT whereas a burna boy is 12.

The guardsman is roughly as durable (-1T, +1Sv) far worse in close combat (fewer & weaker attacks without AP) but has d6 hits with an identical weapon instead of d3.

Point is, would it really upend the balance of that game if burnas got upgraded to d6? I don't think so considering they're just not worth the price premium over a guardsman with a flamer as of right now IMO.

Burnas could be fixed without increasing them to d6 permanently. In all the games I have played burnas across editions,they rarely got to use their burnas more than once or twice per game.

Considering how cheap and good our troops are we will have no issues getting CP for our stratagem, so spending one or two CP to get 15 d6 out of them will work well.

Add in a point reduction and something that actually does anything for the pyromaniacs rule and I could see them being useful again without changing their stats.

 Jidmah wrote:
Burnas could be fixed without increasing them to d6 permanently. In all the games I have played burnas across editions,they rarely got to use their burnas more than once or twice per game.

Considering how cheap and good our troops are we will have no issues getting CP for our stratagem, so spending one or two CP to get 15 d6 out of them will work well.

Add in a point reduction and something that actually does anything for the pyromaniacs rule and I could see them being useful again without changing their stats.

Yes, there are other ways of fixing burnas than upping their shots from d3 to d6. The point of my whole tangent was that because of the stratagem in the Krogskull kit I'd find that upgrade to burnas unlikely. However most people seem to disagree that the rule update would overlap so I guess this whole thing turned into a "nevermind then"

As a small aside, I personally hope that the fix to burnas isn't to make them super cheap. Make them better, the burnaweapon is humongous, compare it to a kombiskorcha! Why is it so underwhelming?

Ahh jidmah, someday I might miss our arguments…. When im old and have permanent glasses with nostalgia prescription lenses.
Here has been our debate for this topic on this thread for those more interested in how this started (im preety sure i got them all)….

geargutz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

geargutz wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You are not arguing, you are just constantly being rude because I disagree with your ideas.

i dont remmeber being really rude at all. feel free to look back through these and point out anytimes i was "rude" and if its reasonble i will apologise.

So, 1st off, this whole “deffdredds are comparable to dreadnaughts” that you want to still debate…let’s see here, what does the article (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Deff_Dread) say…. oh, would you look at that, the only thing it says that it’s an “Deff Dreads are deadly Ork walkers. Similar way to Space Marine Dreadnoughts, a Deff Dread's pilot must be permanently wired into the machine”, oh, so the whole argument that you have is on shaky ground. In the context of the sentence it clearly hints that the very concept of the deffdredd is like the dreadnaught…. but says nothing about it being similar in combat prowess. For all we know similar means that they are both combat walkers with either an ork or a sm cybernetically entombed inside to control it. Unless you can find specific fluff where a dreadnought and a deffdredd go head to head (with unbalanced shooting involved) and its anyone’s game then your whole premise is very questionable.

But what were we really arguing about…. now that I look back it looks like you started this after a comment I made. I wanted ork vehicles to get good price cuts to make them more useful, you want them instead to get more durable and effective. I then argue that I would prefer to host my ork walkers/vehicles in a horde because its fluffy, you argue that it’s not fluffy and that there is nowhere in the fluff besides one place, I rebuttal that it’s in the fluff, then you say it doesn’t count because its only in 1 or 2 spots in the fluff, I says fluff is fluff, rarity does not negate it, then you go on and say that these hordes are not hordes.
What’s the point with arguing with you? You seem deadest to disagreeing with me, and while I didn’t start this I am going to finish it with some final thoughts. You can keep debating me…but I I’ll have moved on.

So, about the fluff issue, in relation to the formations I mentioned, they are all supported by fluff, unless you forgot that all those formation datasheets have little fluff blurbs on them. heck the 7th edition codex even mentions escentric bigmeks that desire to build and make hordes of clanking walkers (though they are usualy exciled because of this) fluff proves you wrong (i could dig out my codexs and supplements out of storage to prove this, but this reply is too long already, but i have a feeling you already new all this "fluff" existed).

But whenever fluff doesn’t agree with your argument then you pretty much say “it’s too uncommon”, oh wow, that’s just great, lets dictate to the whole 40k community that only 1/10 of them can play space marines and the rest have to play imp guard, I say this since space marines make up “fluff wise” only a small fraction of the imperium’s fighting forces. While we are at it lets tell all the xenos players they either play necrons or tyranids or orks because the elder and tau are minuscule compared to what I just listed. Styles of armies and the player base doesn’t match to the fluff nor should it, if you want to join a more fluff friendly distribution of armies then 30ks expensive doors are open and willing.

And that is a good segue into cost. Let’s see here, the most common fluffy ork build by your standards would be a green tide. If we are only doing 120 boyz (some suggest at that point to do more boyz, but let’s stick with just this) then that is 360$us, ours is not a cheap hobby if you wanted to just run the basic meta orks. If you want to be stingy with money, I don’t blame you. you can find cheaper for 2nd hand, but why argue the price? Many agree GW prices are ridiculous anyway, but that shouldn’t stop you from “eventually” building and playing a fun ork force to your liking (of course many can get around this with good conversions). I have collected an ork walker horde, and my only regrets is that I can’t field more of them because of their points inefficiency.

Then you say the formations I had listed are “hardly hordes”. the term “horde” means “a large group of people.”, unless you have a set number on a horde then I suggest don’t judge too quickly what is and is not a horde. 10 boyz might not seem like a horde to a guardsmen regiment, but a whopping 90 can be intimidating. A lemun russ MBT might laugh at 3 killakans marching at it, but would be set in reverse gear if 12 were charging towards it. Horde is based on a matter of perspective, and to me a Dredd mob is a horde of walkers, and if they were cheaper points wise then I would bring even more then what the formation allowed (or the equivalent of multiple spearheads to do that for 8th).

So let’s see, orks are known, whether they are at novem or on Armageddon or possibly anywhere else in the galaxy, for bringing large formations of vehicles and elites. You argue their stats should be changed to make them more elite…but I say they should be cheaper because the fact they like to overwhelm their enemies with everything from their arsenal.

tldr
I would argue fluff supports me more then you, but you’ve proven you are very unwilling to listen and change your own mind (I get it, im a little stubborn git too), so I guess i will let bygones be bygones and agree to disagree. Ill end this now, but when in the future you eventually start another argument with me on a different topic then I’ll be more than willing to debate back. This has been the most active I’ve been on dakka dakka in a long time.