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.

@Jidmah, please re-read what I typed, seems you have missed the point, and/or not read what I typed.

It is poor game design, not just because it allows Orks to hit regardless of the number of modifiers, but because the core mechanics don't have enough + modifiers to hit. The central core rules are at fault, the 6 always hits should be a core rule, and not exclusive to one faction. A faction that I might add was re-designed in 3rd to poor at shooting, but good in combat, hence the stat change. 3rd edition didn't have any to hit modifiers, so it was fine. Now in 8th we do, and as a result the Ork stat line is at odds with the system, due to be designed with 3rd in mind.

If the rule isn't rolled out and GW insist on - modifiers to hit, they need to balance it out by having + modifiers to hit, which would mean that things that hit on a 2+ could roll a 1 and score a hit. Now, I am willing to bet that no one wants that, and rightly so. What I have shown is the opposite side of the spectrum of the current system to hit. If a 7+ is an auto miss, than there also needs to be a facility for an auto hit.

This is why it is poor game design.

Using a D6 is poor design when you don't even let people hit on 7-9+ as in earlier editions. Imagine what could've been with a focus on smaller battles with 2D6 or a D10 as the base roll? Sigh.

PS: Still looking for a cheap classic buggy with no luck so far. I hope people will try to unload them once Speedfreekz hits.

 stonehorse wrote:
@Jidmah, please re-read what I typed, seems you have missed the point, and/or not read what I typed.

It is poor game design, no just because it allows Orks to hit regardless of the number of modifiers, but because the core mechanics not have enough + modifiers to hit. The central core rules are at fault, the 6 always hits should be a core rule, and not exclusive to one faction.

First of all, the game does not allow orks to hit regardless of the number of modifiers. The first modifier still cuts the shooting in HALF, while most of the game is just slightly annoyed by it.
What's wrong with not being able to shoot some unit on the battlefield? Most games have plenty of units that temporally cannot be shot, most notably stuff hidden out of LOS or characters.

A faction that I might add was re-designed in 3rd to poor at shooting, but good in combat, hence the stat change.

This is incorrect. Orks never were designed to be bad at shooting prior to 7th edition codex (and I don't think "game design" was part of that codex).
In 4th/5th orks could match space marines shooting 1:1, assuming they were in range. Orks simply shot three times as often for the same points. Orks were redesigned to have bad weapons, not to be bad at shooting.
They were supposed to be jacks of all trades, just like space marines. The trade-off for our additional attacks was lower range and less AP on our weapons.

If the rule isn't rolled out and GW insist on - modifiers to hit, they need to balance it out by having + modifiers to hit, which would mean that things that hit on a 2+ could roll a 1 and score a hit. Now, I am willing to bet hat no one wants that, and rightly so.

Why? Sorry if I sound like a two-year-old but this is not a matter of fact - there is no reason why some models should not be unable a few other models in very uncommon situation.
Tau sniper drones not hitting a buffed Ultramarine Stormraven is not problem of game design because that tau player will very likely at least have commander that still hits the thing on 4+ and a vast array of other units that still hit on sixes. Meanwhile, the sniper drone can just go shoot Tigurius in the face with no modifiers at all.

What I have shown is the opposite side of the spectrum of the current system to hit. If a 7+ is an auto miss, than there also needs to be a facility for an auto hit.

Like auto-hitting weapons?
Again, there is no reason given by you for it to be so. You just state that B logically follows A without explaining the logic in between.

This is why it is poor game design.

Sorry, but your argument is "this is poor game design because it is poor game design".

An army not being able to shoot another army is poor game design, because what's the point in playing that army then? This is why orks got this rule.
A unit not being able to shoot another unit is normal in 40k.

 davou wrote:
There is no place in the game that specifies which models sit on what bases;

Wrong, AoS just got PDF stating what should be based on which size bases. There is only a matter of time before 40K gets that too.

even if they 'change' what shipped with them, you dont have to rebase

Well, if you plan to skip tournaments and don't want your army to be matched play legal, sure. But, to me it still smells of modelling for advantage, though perhaps a bit less so than using old tiny metal models of big monsters with new Codex (as opposed to their original Index) rules in plain cheating mode.

You got new fancy Codex rules, then play them with models they were intended to be used (and balanced for) with. You want to use old bases/models? Fine, as long as you use Index, as they were meant to go with that. Simple.

Danny76 wrote:
One - Time/effort/money. Each model would have to be changed and new bases bought etc and the work to redo them all, I need to be working on unpainted minis...

Yeah, because clipping the sides of a base and gluing it on top of bigger one or simply using the enlarging adapting rings is really time and money consuming, and totally not takes less than a hour and a few $ for even a big army (just wait for base bag sales on ebay). Hell, even if you were then PVA the rim and re-sand or re-flock it for uniformity it's still less than a day job...

PiñaColada wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Orks need BS 4+ and one attack less. The always hits on 6 for ranged weapons rule is okay but not thrilling, if all the other factions are way better shots.

Orks in general? No, but it might be a good rule for shoota boyz

Yes, in general. There are negative but no positive to hit modifiers. Factions with BS 5+ should not exist in that kind of environment. Just think of all the units which rely on heavy weapons in the Ork Codex: Some infantry units, vehicles, bikes, walkers and big walkers. All pay premium points for weapons which don´t function properly. This has to go away asap. Make Orks weaker in close combat so that Tyranids can shine again.

In a nutshell: Make Dakka Dakka great again.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Binabik15 wrote:
Using a D6 is poor design when you don't even let people hit on 7-9+ as in earlier editions. Imagine what could've been with a focus on smaller battles with 2D6 or a D10 as the base roll? Sigh.

PS: Still looking for a cheap classic buggy with no luck so far. I hope people will try to unload them once Speedfreekz hits.

Agreed.

I am lucky enough to be able to field three vintage wartrakks & buggies.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
They had BS 3 ( hits on a 4+) in 2nd edition, but back then they were in units about the same size as everyone else.

Yes, but then Gorkamorka hit, which dulled the palette of the Orks, making them all grungey browns and generic Goffs.

Then the flanderisation set in. "Orks can't hit the broadside of barn" was morphed into "Orks are always bad shots all the time, even the ones primarily armed with guns!", and eventually became BS2 across the board. Of course, in a game without To Hit modifiers that worked fine, but as soon as 8th Ed started and modifiers came back, this becomes a new problem, hence "Always Hit on 6's". It's a solution to a problem they created themselves, based upon something in the fluff that really should never have been emphasised that much.

I mean, imagine if GW hadn't latched onto the "Orks are bad shots!" idea and instead latched onto that "Ork tech only works 'cause they think it does" piece of fluff, and now all Ork shooting only works if the unit takes an Ld check before firing, and if they fail they can't shoot that turn. Then there would be upgrades (and in 8th, aura abilities) to combat that ie. solutions to a problem they made themselves.

6's always hits is what Orks need, but they only need it because of the laughable twisting of a (once upon a time) simple concept of Orks not being as accurate as Marines.

 Irbis wrote:

 davou wrote:
There is no place in the game that specifies which models sit on what bases;

Wrong, AoS just got PDF stating what should be based on which size bases. There is only a matter of time before 40K gets that too.

even if they 'change' what shipped with them, you dont have to rebase

Well, if you plan to skip tournaments and don't want your army to be matched play legal, sure. But, to me it still smells of modelling for advantage, though perhaps a bit less so than using old tiny metal models of big monsters with new Codex (as opposed to their original Index) rules in plain cheating mode.

You got new fancy Codex rules, then play them with models they were intended to be used (and balanced for) with. You want to use old bases/models? Fine, as long as you use Index, as they were meant to go with that. Simple.

Danny76 wrote:
One - Time/effort/money. Each model would have to be changed and new bases bought etc and the work to redo them all, I need to be working on unpainted minis...

Yeah, because clipping the sides of a base and gluing it on top of bigger one or simply using the enlarging adapting rings is really time and money consuming, and totally not takes less than a hour and a few $ for even a big army (just wait for base bag sales on ebay). Hell, even if you were then PVA the rim and re-sand or re-flock it for uniformity it's still less than a day job...

That AoS chart is not a rule it's a suggestion for Tournament Organizers.
I play at most 10 games of 40K a year, I am not going to rebase or spend any money on adapters . My army will still be valid for matched play. If my local T.O. has an issue with my 25MM bases then I will simply not attend. At most that's 2 local tournaments a year or 6 of my 10 games a year.
On your last parts about how it will only take an afternoon to "fix my bases". Hahaha, No. My bases aren't just a little bit of sand and paint. And I already said no to base adapters.
If GW wanted Orks on 23MM bases they should have thought about that when they released their plastics back in 1998. But that's just an opinion.
If they want Orks on larger bases they need to up the number of attacks on the stat line and lower the mob cap size.
I'm looking forward to the treads about moving Am infantry up to 32mm bases.

I am really not sure why Boys should be forced on to 32MM bases. If 30+ boys are simply deleted every turn by enemy shooting then where is the issue with leaving them on 25MM bases. Or is Close Combat suddenly King in 40K again. If so fear my random 2D6 charge rolls, which are clearly better than a fixed charge distance.

Using the models you bought and paid for on the bases they were supplied with to represent the unit you bought them to represent = cheating.

LOL, never change matched play dudes, never change.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Using the models you bought and paid for on the bases they were supplied with to represent the unit you bought them to represent = cheating.

LOL, never change matched play dudes, never change.

The best part is the asumption that the change from 25mm to 32mm is being made for "balance" reasons and not for purely aesthetical ones. As if GW had in account the base of the model when they write rules

Now, I'll say, that I understand how going from 25mm to 32mm nerfs ork boyz. But lets not pretend the change was made, from GW, for anything related to the game.

How has this thread turned into pages and pages about rebasing models, in case they change the base size and the rule about which bases to use. It’s a real non issue. As it stands use anybase you want and be happy. The Dakka rule is a good fix for the misconception that ORKS cant shoot.

Dandelion wrote:

 Davespil wrote:
The amount of people whining over the Orks always being able to hit on 6's is staggering!

The amount of people who don't care to read, and more importantly understand, is staggering. You see, NO ONE is complaining that Orks hit on 6s. NO ONE.
A couple people made some comments on how it'd be nice for the game if every faction could hit on 6s as a core rule. Then... it all began.

Ork players started showing their true colors, claiming that they, and only they, are deserving of this most grandiose rule. Never mind that other factions have had similar problems, though to a lesser extent. Apparently, they just don't care and they label any who would bring to light similarly maligned units as a cry baby. They only care about themselves and their faction and it is THAT attitude that irks me.

Pure hypocrisy.

I'm leaving before I burst a blood vessel from the contradictions and entitlement. Any sympathy I had for Ork players just evaporated because of this thread.

Good day.

I don't play Orks and I say only they deserve this rule.

Want to counter Raven Guard, Ailtoc, Alpha Legion, and Stygies? Stop running pure gunline or use more Markerlights if you're Tau. I REALLY don't care someone's poor Infantry cannot hit something. Boohoo.

 Irbis wrote:

 davou wrote:
There is no place in the game that specifies which models sit on what bases;

Wrong, AoS just got PDF stating what should be based on which size bases. There is only a matter of time before 40K gets that too.

Your counter argument to my saying it does not exist in 40k is to point to another game?

 Yodhrin wrote:
LOL, never change matched play dudes, never change.

Don't do that Yod. Don't give him the credit of speaking for people who like tournaments.

Is a new codex coming out? I haven't seen anything saying this. I know about the Ork game coming out, but I have read nothing about a codex. Can anyone provide a link saying a codex is coming out please.

This thread needs more dakka and less wakka.

Davor wrote:
Is a new codex coming out? I haven't seen anything saying this. I know about the Ork game coming out, but I have read nothing about a codex. Can anyone provide a link saying a codex is coming out please.

Gw have confirmed it... The dakka dakka dakka rule is from it... The month? Orktober, really?!

Davor wrote:
Is a new codex coming out? I haven't seen anything saying this. I know about the Ork game coming out, but I have read nothing about a codex. Can anyone provide a link saying a codex is coming out please.

From the first page of Warhammr Community

rtb02 wrote:

Davor wrote:
Is a new codex coming out? I haven't seen anything saying this. I know about the Ork game coming out, but I have read nothing about a codex. Can anyone provide a link saying a codex is coming out please.

Gw have confirmed it... The dakka dakka dakka rule is from it... The month? Orktober, really?!

I have been seeing the word Orktober just like Nidvember for so long and not being true I just thought this was for Speed Freaks.

Mr_Rose wrote:

Davor wrote:
Is a new codex coming out? I haven't seen anything saying this. I know about the Ork game coming out, but I have read nothing about a codex. Can anyone provide a link saying a codex is coming out please.

From the first page of Warhammr Community

Thank you. I missed it. Since this wasn't on Page one here and usually on Dakka page one has all the recaps that is why I didn't think an Ork codex was coming. That is why I asked.

think the dakka dakka debate has filled enough pages guys? its the news and rumours thread the dakka dakka rule isn't really news or a rumour now.

 Latro_ wrote:
think the dakka dakka debate has filled enough pages guys? its the news and rumours thread the dakka dakka rule isn't really news or a rumour now.

It’s better than the umpteenth Rebasing Rage thread since 32mm bases first came out...

 Latro_ wrote:
think the dakka dakka debate has filled enough pages guys? its the news and rumours thread the dakka dakka rule isn't really news or a rumour now.

"It's been two days since they released this new army-wide rule for orks, stop discussing it now."

Dandelion wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I've learned to expect nothing from others when it comes to an honest discussion, at least online.

Honest discussion? I already told you my reasoning. I simply don't feel bad because only a Guard player would complain about it.

You people aren't thinking like proper Orks.

Orks aren't innately bad shots, they just simply don't care about working at being good shots. They just enjoy the chaos of putting lead and missiles downrange, regardless. Orks don't have firing ranges, they have enemies. Now, if some clans, like Deathskulls or Blood Axes were shown as more interested in accuracy, that's another (fluffy) matter.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
You people aren't thinking like proper Orks.

Orks aren't innately bad shots, they just simply don't care about working at being good shots. They just enjoy the chaos of putting lead and missiles downrange, regardless. Orks don't have firing ranges, they have enemies. Now, if some clans, like Deathskulls or Blood Axes were shown as more interested in accuracy, that's another (fluffy) matter.

They've always just pointed at a general direction. That's why they were surprisingly effective at killing Flyers last edition.

Damn...

Orks were my first great love in 40K all the way back in 2001. Since I've started and built at least 4 armies of them, most of which sit in storage.

I am feeling the itch to start another force looking at these now models. It's all gonna come down to whether or not we get new boyz kit. If they make one at the quality of modern orks... I'm gonna be a poor man real soon.

 Jidmah wrote:

This is why it is poor game design.

Sorry, but your argument is "this is poor game design because it is poor game design".

Yes, because that is the crunch of my argument. [/Sarcasm]

If we look at Kill Team we see that they (the design team) added that a natural 1 is a miss and a natural 6 is a hit, for all players, thus creating a level playing field. GW have a history of trying out new ideas in games to see what stick and then later incorporating them into their core mechanics.

This reminds me why I try to stay clear of these types of discussions on DakkaDakka. I'll leave with this, arguing here is not going to influence GW's game design team.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I've learned to expect nothing from others when it comes to an honest discussion, at least online.

Honest discussion? I already told you my reasoning. I simply don't feel bad because only a Guard player would complain about it.

I play Orks too you walnut. Besides, this whole guard apologist angle stems from your misunderstanding of my mockery of your (and others) arguments. Which makes me believe you do not read to understand, only to refute with a quipy one liner and an ad hominem. Which is why an honest discussion is impossible.

 Hive City Dweller wrote:
Damn...

Orks were my first great love in 40K all the way back in 2001. Since I've started and built at least 4 armies of them, most of which sit in storage.

I am feeling the itch to start another force looking at these now models. It's all gonna come down to whether or not we get new boyz kit. If they make one at the quality of modern orks... I'm gonna be a poor man real soon.

I also,, but at the same time,,, a happy man... started working up a huge cult of speed, a few years ago,, never got them finished,, did a couple of moves with the army, went to finish them,,,, and can't find any of their arms.........WTF??? So replacing will all new boyz,,,, happy face time...

Davor wrote:
I have been seeing the word Orktober just like Nidvember for so long and not being true I just thought this was for Speed Freaks.

After that comes the Summer of Flyers.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Now, if some clans, like Deathskulls or Blood Axes were shown as more interested in accuracy, that's another (fluffy) matter.

As said, all of that thinking went away when all the colour was drained from the Orks in 3rd Ed, and everything became BS2 because "All Orks are bad shots!". So even units that should be somewhat decent at shooting (Tankbusters and Lootas come to mind) are still terrible.

Dandelion wrote:

The amount of people who don't care to read, and more importantly understand, is staggering. You see, NO ONE is complaining that Orks hit on 6s. NO ONE.
A couple people made some comments on how it'd be nice for the game if every faction could hit on 6s as a core rule. Then... it all began.

Ork players started showing their true colors, claiming that they, and only they, are deserving of this most grandiose rule. Never mind that other factions have had similar problems, though to a lesser extent. Apparently, they just don't care and they label any who would bring to light similarly maligned units as a cry baby. They only care about themselves and their faction and it is THAT attitude that irks me.

Pure hypocrisy.

I'm leaving before I burst a blood vessel from the contradictions and entitlement. Any sympathy I had for Ork players just evaporated because of this thread.

Good day.

arnt ork true colors green, because green is best, and isnt green envy or some other thing

feel free to leave. now i try to keep form making this type of comment because i myself am not a fan of the "if you dont like it then dont participate" argument, but ill make an exception here.

to make the claim that you no longer care for other ork players because of a single thread? inst that just a little extreme?

you can ignore the many ork players in this thread with reasonable arguments, or you can cheery pick out the unreasonable ones...and that shows more about you then you realize. you were looking for the bad, when ive seen the good. your entitled to your opinon and we are entitled to ours, you just decided you opinion would paint the whole of ork players on this forum (heck, you make it sound like you no longer care for any ork player that doesn't happen to be you) . that is an extreme generalization. its fine to be extreme here, as its part of the anonymous internet, just dont be surprised to be lambasted by all the ork players you have lost all sympathy for.

Removed by BrookM