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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

geargutz wrote:



a good way to determine if a codex is good or not is get rid of the strats and traits. see how well a codex does without the toys that are more or less window dressing for imbalance.

I think that's possibly the worst possible way to look at the power level of anything. The most OP thing back before the FAQ was CP farm because of the stratagems it supported. Stratagems are how the game works and can literally decide whether or not a unit is any good.

I wonder how good Iron Warrior cultists would be without Cold & Bitter, Veterans of the Long War, and Tide of Traitors (a stratagem which has already been nerfed once).

Stratagems propel bad units into good ones, and good units to the highest tiers of the game.

Thing is other armies got just as cool if not better strategems AND buffs/price drops to units.

So yeah MAYBE orks got bit better vs other codexes compared to index vs codex period but got worse off compared to index vs index period. Fine if orks were uber broken army in index but they were sub-standard to begin with.

Its not elitist to expect a regular Ork player to understand the nuance of his army better than someone who has never played Orks. That is common sense.

I run my Orks every other week when I can. They are the only army I currently play. I think it should be expected that I have a greater idea of how Ork units, particularly those I regularly run perform on the tabletop. I know how good Zhadsnark is because I run him every game. I also know his weaknesses (4+ save, no invulnerable if you're interested). I know how well Warbikers perform on the tabletop because I take a ton of them every game. A player who has never used these units on the board I don't think will ever have the same level of insight as someone who has, unless they run a very similar unit in their army. Some Ork units don't have other analogues though. We always pay for a melee profile that some units will never use. I don't think other players get this.

That being said I'm not a competitive player per se. I don't take the WAAC lists and I never will. I would literally rather lose. That doesn't mean I should expect to be blown off the table by another list at the bottom of turn 2. Other codexes have managed to mix strength and flexibility so even varied lists can perform well at the top tables. This is all I wanted from the release. My concerns stem from that and selfishly my army theme seems rather weak, in comparison to others.

E - spelling

Shooting contest on Planet Billiard Table.

100 Pts Ork Shoota vs 100pts Astra Militarum at 12 inch range.

NB, this is a shooting contest, ignoring Orders, Strategems etc.

Orks do four unsaved wounds in one round, AM do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership results in another six unsaved wounds for Orks, none for AM. Orks tabled.

Melee contest on Planet Billiard Table.

Same points, same units same conditions.

Orks charge, take two potential wounds from Overwatch, do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership does another two wounds, four to six AM left.

AM charge, take one potential wound from overwatch, do three, probably unsaved wounds to Orks. Average Leadership means no further wounds.

Given that AM table the Orks in one out of two scenarios, and Orks cannot, I would suggest there is a problem with the points system.

YMMV.

Guys, the topic here is the new ork codex. Not the qualifications of some podcast presenter, not the validity of other posters' opinions due to their army choices, and not speculation over whether or not a given poster is trolling.

If you see a post that you feel crosses a line, report it. Don't respond in kind, escalate the whole business, and leave us with a page and a half of nonsense to clean out of the thread.


Any more silliness and the thread will be locked and those responsible shown the door for a spell.

fair enough insaniak. though i hope its fine i post something from one of my deleted comments.

so orks have telyport. my brother said there was an faq about not using a reserve strategem more then once. i cant seem to find it. does anyone here know about this?
i would like to use that strat mutable times and i am already planning a list around that. dont want to get ahead of myself if its forbidden by faq.

Moriarty wrote:
Shooting contest on Planet Billiard Table.

100 Pts Ork Shoota vs 100pts Astra Militarum at 12 inch range.

NB, this is a shooting contest, ignoring Orders, Strategems etc.

Orks do four unsaved wounds in one round, AM do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership results in another six unsaved wounds for Orks, none for AM. Orks tabled.

Melee contest on Planet Billiard Table.

Same points, same units same conditions.

Orks charge, take two potential wounds from Overwatch, do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership does another two wounds, four to six AM left.

AM charge, take one potential wound from overwatch, do three, probably unsaved wounds to Orks. Average Leadership means no further wounds.

Given that AM table the Orks in one out of two scenarios, and Orks cannot, I would suggest there is a problem with the points system.

YMMV.

Wanna walk through the maths on the tabling? Not sure how you are getting it. Bear in mind I'm hazy on a lot of AM stats so could be very wrong.

100 pts of guard is 25 men yeah? So 50 shots at 12 inch range (dunno if sergeants have lasguns). Guards have BS of 4+? So 25 hits.
Str3 las gun vs T4 orks is 8.333 wounds (so already less than 12). 6+ save means that falls to about 7.

14 orks for 100 pts, so 28 shoota shots. 28 * 1/3 * 7/6 (Dakka Dakka Dakka) is 10.888 hits.
Str4 vs T3 is 7.222 wounds. 5+ save means 4.8 so through, lets say 5.

So 5 kills vs 7 kills, or 20pts vs 49pts.
In you melee scenario is 12 vs 3 so 48 pts vs 21pts.

Doesn't sound too unbalanced?

(I've ignored leadership because of all the thigns to ignore in planet billiard table, this one is a fundamental part of how guard and orks play. Arguably so are orders granted).

FURTHER EDIT: Just to be clear, I largely agree, and think guardsmen should increase in cost.

There's no FAQ against it at all.
However some of the teleport stratagems in other codexes are limited to one use only (the Eldar ones are X cost for 1, Y cost for 2 ans can't be used multiple times like the Relic stratagems).
Others (like Daemons) are similar to the Ork one - no restriction on the number of times it can be used.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
There's no FAQ against it at all.
However some of the teleport stratagems in other codexes are limited to one use only (the Eldar ones are X cost for 1, Y cost for 2 ans can't be used multiple times like the Relic stratagems).
Others (like Daemons) are similar to the Ork one - no restriction on the number of times it can be used.

ok, thank you. now i can telyport without fear.
the meta will rule the day they blasted away my walkers on 1st turn.

man, i wish i didn't have to rely on this broken trait to be competitive with our walkers.

Salt donkey wrote:


Ok mate whatever you say. Not entirely sure how your so certain that stuff like boyz and stormboyz will be worse from index to codex (I guess stuff like options between essentially +2 to movement, 6+++, and 6++ with tons of free re-rolls as well as stratagem support and better rules are just not worth a1 point per model increase and a larger base size). You're also ignoring all the other units which dropped in points. While it may not matter for some, do you honestly expect that every single bad index unit will still stay bad in the codex? You remind me of the eldar players who called their codex trash when it was first revealed. Just because the Ork codex isnt exactly what you wanted doesn't mean it's bad.

My prediction is that Orks to be a top tier army that will be heavily played by the time LVO rolls around. It will be interesting to see which one of us is right

I believe you are wrong on the first part, those buffs are not worth 1ppm since no other codex had to pay an increase for similar treatments. Also, the units that received price cuts didn't receive nearly enough to make them playable. Warbikes are meh at best even with a 4pt reduction. Keep in mind in 7th they were 18, so they are still 5ppm more then they were. Nobz and Biker Nobz are still hot garbage, hell the Biker nob is worse then the Meganobz and that is saying something. As for the 2nd part. You are 100% correct. Orkz will be top tier, but not because the codex is good, only because I can now teleport OVER 1/2 of my army on turn 2 to be right behind the enemies lines and have an 8' charge where I get to reroll 1 or both dice. Taking Evil Sunz means i will not be fielding bikes, nope, i'll be fielding tons of Boyz with choppas, a Gorkanaut or possibly some other stuff as well as Kommandos and Stormboyz so I can literally appear on turn 2 in charge range with over half my army (because i'll da jump a unit) and the charge range will be 8' with rerolls so better then 50% chance to get in combat.

geargutz wrote:

strats/traits/etc
these are formation bonuses all over again.
it gives buffs. in 8th you pay for it with cp, in 7th you pay for it by being required to take units you wouldn't normally take. but it was maliciously;y abused, and its still going to be abused. strats will give outrageous bonuses for very little cp, just like how many formations got outrageous bonuses without requiring any poor units.
some are favored, some arnt. but if orks are favored with the strats this edition, it is only covering up how badly balanced our codex is. playing without formations or strats is like playing any edition before 7th.
GW doesn't have to worry about doing the hard maths (or even the simple maths) if they just throw us shiny new bling to drape over our horrifically ugly balanced codex. dont be fooled by the bling. see it for what it is.
its fun, strats are fun, but its like an explosion in a Michael bay film, its there to distract you that your actually watching a poorly made movie.

This is my new favorite analogy The Ork codex is a Michael Bay film with our decent strats being really cool explosions

SemperMortis wrote:

This is my new favorite analogy The Ork codex is a Michael Bay film with our decent strats being really cool explosions

i wish our codex was more like madmax fury road....no, not for the theme. but with good pacing, compelling and well thought out characters and explosions so artfully inserted that your surprised with how original and epic an explosion can become.

Weird stuff needed edit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

geargutz wrote:
my opinion on the codex is its a very lateral change for orks. we get all these cool strats/traits yet very little in the codex changed much.

Something I want to give you to consider:

From what I gather, you probably have started during 7th edition, right?
Which means you have started with orks and learned to love the army and how it works in the context of 7th, which also means your collection will probably consist mostly of the stuff that was doing well in 7th.

I started during the dawn of 5th. The bulk of my collection consist of stuff that was decent to competitive in 5th: battlewagons, koptas, lootas, burnas, kanz, nob bikers, planes and almost all my units of boyz are 20 or 12 strong (there was 0 reason to bring 30 boyz in 5th, quite the opposite).
Imagine how amazed I was by the 7th edition which gave almost all those units a kick in the nuts. Battlewagon up in price, deff rolla useless, koptas useless, lootaz move to heavy, up in points and useless, kanz overpriced and extra useless, nob bikers overpriced and useless and your best way of fielding boyz was blobs of 30. None of my stuff was any good anymore. Still, I adapted my army to the new edition and still had a few games that were quite fun - more fun than running a 4th edition army against 6th edition codices anyways. Then the decurion power-creep kicked in and finished off my love for 40k (never for orks though) until 8th.

The point is not to tell you that you are too new to the hobby, but that new editions and codices tend to shake up an army a lot. Probably a good part of your collection that was focused on what's good in 7th and index-8th is no longer top dog anymore, has not received necessary buffs or has even received nerfs. I know this can be very frustrating, but this doesn't mean orks in general no longer work.
I hate the 8th edition green tide playstyle we had until now, and most of my collection was useless in actual games. I still wouldn't say index orks were terrible compared to other indices.

 Jidmah wrote:
The point is not to tell you that you are too new to the hobby, but that new editions and codices tend to shake up an army a lot. Probably a good part of your collection that was focused on what's good in 7th and index-8th is no longer top dog anymore, has not received necessary buffs or has even received nerfs. I know this can be very frustrating, but this doesn't mean orks in general no longer work.
I hate the 8th edition green tide playstyle we had until now, and most of my collection was useless in actual games. I still wouldn't say index orks were terrible compared to other indices.

thats funny!
seriously, that got a chuckle from me. i came in the end of 6th, tasted a little bit of the nob biker squad, but then 7th happened. my love of orks focused around all our walkers. that was my collection. killakans/defdredds/gmorkanauts/stompa! it sucked since those units did suck (the dredmob formation just made them a little bit better). i actively tried to resist in becoming a 7th edition biker player but i gave in at the end, but i still brought stormboys and defkoptas. man, i love defkoptas (i still think they were great in 7th).

i know the state changes. 6th=boys b4 toys, 7th=toys b4 boys, 8th index=boys b4 toys, 8th codex=toys b4 boys it looks like.

i see the pattern. but in previous editions this change was brought on by pts changes and character buffs. in 8th though its seems the change is purely based on stratagems and not on the actual merits of the units themselves. our strats are good and all, but if the unit sucks then as soon as cp run out then the unit sucks. or if the unit is destroyed before you get to use any cp then i have a bunch of cp to use for nothing.

Moriarty wrote:
Shooting contest on Planet Billiard Table.

100 Pts Ork Shoota vs 100pts Astra Militarum at 12 inch range.

NB, this is a shooting contest, ignoring Orders, Strategems etc.

Orks do four unsaved wounds in one round, AM do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership results in another six unsaved wounds for Orks, none for AM. Orks tabled.

Melee contest on Planet Billiard Table.

Same points, same units same conditions.

Orks charge, take two potential wounds from Overwatch, do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership does another two wounds, four to six AM left.

AM charge, take one potential wound from overwatch, do three, probably unsaved wounds to Orks. Average Leadership means no further wounds.

Given that AM table the Orks in one out of two scenarios, and Orks cannot, I would suggest there is a problem with the points system.

YMMV.

And that's why you don't do analysis in a vacuum, because you're always going to mislead yourself - especially when it comes to force multipliers.

SemperMortis wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:


Ok mate whatever you say. Not entirely sure how your so certain that stuff like boyz and stormboyz will be worse from index to codex (I guess stuff like options between essentially +2 to movement, 6+++, and 6++ with tons of free re-rolls as well as stratagem support and better rules are just not worth a1 point per model increase and a larger base size). You're also ignoring all the other units which dropped in points. While it may not matter for some, do you honestly expect that every single bad index unit will still stay bad in the codex? You remind me of the eldar players who called their codex trash when it was first revealed. Just because the Ork codex isnt exactly what you wanted doesn't mean it's bad.

My prediction is that Orks to be a top tier army that will be heavily played by the time LVO rolls around. It will be interesting to see which one of us is right

I believe you are wrong on the first part, those buffs are not worth 1ppm since no other codex had to pay an increase for similar treatments. Also, the units that received price cuts didn't receive nearly enough to make them playable. Warbikes are meh at best even with a 4pt reduction. Keep in mind in 7th they were 18, so they are still 5ppm more then they were. Nobz and Biker Nobz are still hot garbage, hell the Biker nob is worse then the Meganobz and that is saying something. As for the 2nd part. You are 100% correct. Orkz will be top tier, but not because the codex is good, only because I can now teleport OVER 1/2 of my army on turn 2 to be right behind the enemies lines and have an 8' charge where I get to reroll 1 or both dice. Taking Evil Sunz means i will not be fielding bikes, nope, i'll be fielding tons of Boyz with choppas, a Gorkanaut or possibly some other stuff as well as Kommandos and Stormboyz so I can literally appear on turn 2 in charge range with over half my army (because i'll da jump a unit) and the charge range will be 8' with rerolls so better then 50% chance to get in combat.

To me the 1 point increase reeks of playtester recommendations. I can’t be sure of this true, but I have some logic to back this up. IMO you are comparing apples to oranges when you say “those buffs are not worth 1ppm since no other codex had to pay an increase for similar treatments.” The key here is that Orks where actually a pretty strong index army (you can check tournament results early in 8th to verify this if you like) and that is large part due to the units that got point increases. Heck these units allowed orks to still have a competive presence up until now despite being the second to last “real” army to receive a codex. Other armies came from different spots. Here’s an example that I know, Dark eldar. Clearly a top tier army now, but they where actually quite bad in the months leading up to their codex. Stuff like the talos, wychs, raiders, wracks and even somewhat warriors where all bad to various degrees. So GW gave them price reductions and codex updates like traits, stratagems, new special rules, etc, and now they all are top tier. The reason I bring this up to illustrate that giving both points reductions and codex buffs to a unit is often enough to turn garbage unto gold. Before the ork codex came out stuff like boyz and storm boys where already silver, so it makes sense that GW feels that they don’t need both points drops and codex buffs. I have a feeling they’re right, and that these units will see more not less competitive use.

Your warbiker example shines a light on the difference in mindset between the various posters on here. In your analysis of bikes you make no mention of kutlures or bike stratagems, leading me to believe you don’t value those things very highly. There seems to be 3 groups debating here. I and the people that agree with me, who think kultures, various stratagems, points drops, and new special rules will make the codex top tier. Your group who are unimpressed with the kultures, new special rules, and the units which decreased in points, but still believe the codex will be carried by tellyporting gimmicks. And the group who just think the codex is bad. Time will tell which one of us is right, but I feel history agrees more with me and my peers more than your side.

Salt donkey wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:


Ok mate whatever you say. Not entirely sure how your so certain that stuff like boyz and stormboyz will be worse from index to codex (I guess stuff like options between essentially +2 to movement, 6+++, and 6++ with tons of free re-rolls as well as stratagem support and better rules are just not worth a1 point per model increase and a larger base size). You're also ignoring all the other units which dropped in points. While it may not matter for some, do you honestly expect that every single bad index unit will still stay bad in the codex? You remind me of the eldar players who called their codex trash when it was first revealed. Just because the Ork codex isnt exactly what you wanted doesn't mean it's bad.

My prediction is that Orks to be a top tier army that will be heavily played by the time LVO rolls around. It will be interesting to see which one of us is right

I believe you are wrong on the first part, those buffs are not worth 1ppm since no other codex had to pay an increase for similar treatments. Also, the units that received price cuts didn't receive nearly enough to make them playable. Warbikes are meh at best even with a 4pt reduction. Keep in mind in 7th they were 18, so they are still 5ppm more then they were. Nobz and Biker Nobz are still hot garbage, hell the Biker nob is worse then the Meganobz and that is saying something. As for the 2nd part. You are 100% correct. Orkz will be top tier, but not because the codex is good, only because I can now teleport OVER 1/2 of my army on turn 2 to be right behind the enemies lines and have an 8' charge where I get to reroll 1 or both dice. Taking Evil Sunz means i will not be fielding bikes, nope, i'll be fielding tons of Boyz with choppas, a Gorkanaut or possibly some other stuff as well as Kommandos and Stormboyz so I can literally appear on turn 2 in charge range with over half my army (because i'll da jump a unit) and the charge range will be 8' with rerolls so better then 50% chance to get in combat.

To me the 1 point increase reeks of playtester recommendations. I can’t be sure of this true, but I have some logic to back this up. IMO you are comparing apples to oranges when you say “those buffs are not worth 1ppm since no other codex had to pay an increase for similar treatments.” The key here is that Orks where actually a pretty strong index army (you can check tournament results early in 8th to verify this if you like) and that is large part due to the units that got point increases. Heck these units allowed orks to still have a competive presence up until now despite being the second to last “real” army to receive a codex. Other armies came from different spots. Here’s an example that I know, Dark eldar. Clearly a top tier army now, but they where actually quite bad in the months leading up to their codex. Stuff like the talos, wychs, raiders, wracks and even somewhat warriors where all bad to various degrees. So GW gave them price reductions and codex updates like traits, stratagems, new special rules, etc, and now they all are top tier. The reason I bring this up to illustrate that giving both points reductions and codex buffs to a unit is often enough to turn garbage unto gold. Before the ork codex came out stuff like boyz and storm boys where already silver, so it makes sense that GW feels that they don’t need both points drops and codex buffs. I have a feeling they’re right, and that these units will see more not less competitive use.

Your warbiker example shines a light on the difference in mindset between the various posters on here. In your analysis of bikes you make no mention of kutlures or bike stratagems, leading me to believe you don’t value those things very highly. There seems to be 3 groups debating here. I and the people that agree with me, who think kultures, various stratagems, points drops, and new special rules will make the codex top tier. Your group who are unimpressed with the kultures, new special rules, and the units which decreased in points, but still believe the codex will be carried by tellyporting gimmicks. And the group who just think the codex is bad. Time will tell which one of us is right, but I feel history agrees more with me and my peers more than your side.

your 3 seems to be the 1. thinks the codex is bad, 2. those who think it is great, and 3 those that think it is trash.

I think a lot of us are within a different catagory. I think the codex is a mid tier codex, but as an competitive army orks are likely going to be low tier still. The codex is not great, it is not terrible. it will be playable; but it lacks the tools at the points to compete with imperial soup or ynarri. Therein lies the rub, we have some good units but lack a good unit for everything and so lacking the ability to pull a great unit for every role from several books will remain a fun army to play in casual and narrative play, will take some local level tournaments without issue, but we will be kept out of the top levels of play due to lack of allies. Now on that note it would have been hard to write one book that could have competed with allies in mind, if GW would just open up to the allies liek in 6th or 7th where everybody ahd a few I think we would have a real winner here.

Moriarty wrote:
Shooting contest on Planet Billiard Table.

100 Pts Ork Shoota vs 100pts Astra Militarum at 12 inch range.

NB, this is a shooting contest, ignoring Orders, Strategems etc.

Orks do four unsaved wounds in one round, AM do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership results in another six unsaved wounds for Orks, none for AM. Orks tabled.

Melee contest on Planet Billiard Table.

Same points, same units same conditions.

Orks charge, take two potential wounds from Overwatch, do 12 unsaved wounds. Average Leadership does another two wounds, four to six AM left.

AM charge, take one potential wound from overwatch, do three, probably unsaved wounds to Orks. Average Leadership means no further wounds.

Given that AM table the Orks in one out of two scenarios, and Orks cannot, I would suggest there is a problem with the points system.

YMMV.

Yes, and everyone knows that Guardsmen are undercosted and will likely go to 5 ppm. Also, Boyz are better with Choppa's in the majority of situations. Shoota has it's niche, but generally ChoppaSlugga is better. This means 50% more attacks without other buffs, so 18 unsaved Guardsmen wounds. Average Leadership would then have inflicted another 2+6=8 wounds, tabling AM (100 points is 100/4=25 Guardsmen, you deal 26 wounds worth of damage).

Pandabeer wrote:

Yes, and everyone knows that Guardsmen are undercosted and will likely go to 5 ppm.

the "everyone knows its bad/op and so its going to get a pts change" argument is all good and all. it relies on the hope that some at GW are smart and also have balance on mind.

all we need to look at is the stompa. im pretty sure everyone knew the stompa was trash before the codex, and many expected a good price decrease.

not only did we get barely any change to the stompa but GW actively showed they had no clue about its effectiveness in the codex with that stream they pulled.

so whenever someone says "everyone knows" then just point to the stompa.

GW either "downt know" and/or they dont have "balance in mind".

and the "the other superheavies will get changed in CA" is just more wishful thinking. knights are a bread winner for GW, i doubt they will bother to harm its sales with paying heed to a little concept called "balance".

geargutz wrote:
all we need to look at is the stompa. im pretty sure everyone knew the stompa was trash before the codex, and many expected a good price decrease.

Even with the boosts it got(and nerf on degrade table) 600 pts would be pushing it. Knights are more or less equal toughness, shoot better, h2h comparable, better degrade table. And strategem/warlord trait/relic wise trumps them. Oh and unlike stompa knights aren't totally screwed in trait department requiring supreme commander detachment to have one.

No passion in design team, rules suck.

After further though today on how to run orks and be competitive I keep running math and even running how my orks would do against certain things. given the rules, weapons, stategems etc.

1st . orks cannot deal with imperial knights. they do not have a can opener big enough and with the knights strategies they take so many points for the orks to deal with they can't do much else.

2nd properly bubblewrapped imperial guard around a Guilliman parkinglto are going to be giving orks a hard time.

3rd. more positively here orks are the paper to the custodes rock. see the same for slamguinius or space wolf wolf priests.

4th ynarri DE and eldar we have the tools to reach them now so its going to be a more even fight than it currently s. with the changes to ere we go being either one or both dice we can potentially do well.

5th tyranids most the competitive lists will come down to player skill and or lists being better against each other. once genesteeler cults is out though I think they will be ahead again btu time will tell.

6th monoguard we have no answer to we can try and get in but if they bubblewrap properly its going to be a bad time, see the same for admech.

7th tau and necrons seem to be in about the same place as us with some winning matchups and some losers. we all need allies but like tyranids its going to be down to player and lsit for actual advantages.

It's very possible Orks/gsc codexes were made with knowledge of changes in CA2 during their playtesting and design. If this is true it may not be entirely valid to compare Ork units to other units right now.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


your 3 seems to be the 1. thinks the codex is bad, 2. those who think it is great, and 3 those that think it is trash.

I think a lot of us are within a different catagory. I think the codex is a mid tier codex, but as an competitive army orks are likely going to be low tier still. The codex is not great, it is not terrible. it will be playable; but it lacks the tools at the points to compete with imperial soup or ynarri. Therein lies the rub, we have some good units but lack a good unit for everything and so lacking the ability to pull a great unit for every role from several books will remain a fun army to play in casual and narrative play, will take some local level tournaments without issue, but we will be kept out of the top levels of play due to lack of allies. Now on that note it would have been hard to write one book that could have competed with allies in mind, if GW would just open up to the allies liek in 6th or 7th where everybody ahd a few I think we would have a real winner here.

Fair enough. I’m glad to see some people on the middle ground, I just made my point to address the people on the more extreme side of this issue.

Interesting that you bring up allies. While undoubtably a downside, I don’t think lack of allies are really going to hurt orks all that much. This is because allies are primarily used to shore up a faction’s weaknesses, but I don’t see many areas where orks struggle. The Traktor Kannon and dakka-dakka-dakka means that orks have scary shooting aginst everyone. Cheap troops like grots and boyz mean lots of chaff and easy command points. The changes to weirdboyz and the warp head stratagem means you have a strong physic presence as wellx

Orks also threaten early. I actually think a single large biker squad with a deffkilla watrike might be really good, as the wartrike has an average dice threat range of around 32-33 inches (14+2 Kulture+ (6 +1 advance and Kulture )+ [8- 10 charge from ere we go and the kulture) The bikes can also really benefit from -1 to hit stratagem. With stuff like this, da jump, and tellyport, orks have a ton of mobility.
Orks also can assult and take a hit, as expected.

So IMO orks can play in all phases of the game, meaning they need allies less
Than say necrons and tau, who only really use shooting. I believe the index struggled more because it lacked stratagems and Kultures rather than because it had no allies.

blaktoof wrote:
It's very possible Orks/gsc codexes were made with knowledge of changes in CA2 during their playtesting and design. If this is true it may not be entirely valid to compare Ork units to other units right now.

Here’s hoping you’re right. The comparison between Lootas and Primaris Hellblasters is worse.

shouldnt you compare flashgitz with hellblasters?

I'm very excited about this book, but I may just wait until Chapter Approved (and alot of paint) before playing them.

Knights, Guard, Ad-mech, and Deathwatch are all over the tables at my local game shop.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I'm very excited about this book, but I may just wait until Chapter Approved (and alot of paint) before playing them.

Knights, Guard, Ad-mech, and Deathwatch are all over the tables at my local game shop.

My other main force is admech, they shouldn't pose any real problems to orks. Obviously watch out for their dragoons and the conqueror doctrina (those exploding tasers) & the kastelans need to be tied up pronto but admech is almost exclusively T3 troops and T7 vehicles, they'll fold. Hard.

As far as competitive play goes, if your faction doesn’t have an answer to the meta lists you aren’t at the table.

As goofy smiley said earlier - we lack an answer to knights, particularly when they are screened by cheap, efficient chaff.

I think we’ll want to run brigades where possible and I agree every list will have a contingent of 3x10 Grots. Can someone clarify exactly when the grot shields stratagem comes into play and if there are any limitations for me?

I’ve listened to a lot of reviews of the codex now and I feel that there’s a light at the end of our fungal tunnel. The key will be selecting a play style and going all out on it I think. I have noticed some combinations that seem particularly savage but as always we’ll need redundancy. I have no points efficient answer to knights that isn’t a tailored skew list.

I really do think the Snakebites with the 12" Fearless aura for Grots is gonna be amazing. That's such a large aura to make use of a footprint.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
As far as competitive play goes, if your faction doesn’t have an answer to the meta lists you aren’t at the table.

As goofy smiley said earlier - we lack an answer to knights, particularly when they are screened by cheap, efficient chaff.

I think we’ll want to run brigades where possible and I agree every list will have a contingent of 3x10 Grots. Can someone clarify exactly when the grot shields stratagem comes into play and if there are any limitations for me?

I’ve listened to a lot of reviews of the codex now and I feel that there’s a light at the end of our fungal tunnel. The key will be selecting a play style and going all out on it I think. I have noticed some combinations that seem particularly savage but as always we’ll need redundancy. I have no points efficient answer to knights that isn’t a tailored skew list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=schAySKQcJQ

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
As far as competitive play goes, if your faction doesn’t have an answer to the meta lists you aren’t at the table.

As goofy smiley said earlier - we lack an answer to knights, particularly when they are screened by cheap, efficient chaff.

I think we’ll want to run brigades where possible and I agree every list will have a contingent of 3x10 Grots. Can someone clarify exactly when the grot shields stratagem comes into play and if there are any limitations for me?

I’ve listened to a lot of reviews of the codex now and I feel that there’s a light at the end of our fungal tunnel. The key will be selecting a play style and going all out on it I think. I have noticed some combinations that seem particularly savage but as always we’ll need redundancy. I have no points efficient answer to knights that isn’t a tailored skew list.

i would recommend the MWG codex review. MWG is often times too 'hyped' by new stuff, but steve (the reviewer) is pretty good at atleast arguing why he thinks stuff is good (instead of just blabbeling on how good that 'theoratically' sounds)

but to answer your question:

RedNoak wrote:
its the 2nd option. pick a unit that is shot at, if there are gretchin within 6" and they are closer to the shooting unit, for the rest of the phase you roll a dice for every UNSAVED wound. on a 2+ the gretchin unit suffers a mortal wound instead. 1CP works only on infantry models (i think)