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.

 lolman1c wrote:
Painting up my big mek in mega armour with kff (I made one myself out of an Ork head, spare KFF and marine armour) as I'm terrified that the mek won't have a kff. XD Still kinda hyped though to paint up buggies and stuff.

considering all the missing rules are either super old or didnt exist i doubt this is a problem.
There is official regular Big Mek w/ KFF and the new MANz box we got in 7th has the pieces for a MA Mek w/ KFF.

I highly, highly doubt that goes away.

 Jidmah wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
I know this is going back into the PL vs points argument, I apologize. Wasn't it stated that PL is the median between cheapest option and most expensive? Therefore we could see points drops for most units also since they could have upgrades we don't know about yet that are factored in.

I'm not sure about the median thing, they said that PL is somewhere between minimal and maximum cost. However, especially nobz seem to be paying a lot of PL for options you'd never give them - usually because you simply don't have models that have both a close combat weapon and a kombi-shoota. It's a safe bet that not a whole lot of thought as gone into the PL seen in the index, but all codices seem to be roughly following the 1 PL = 20 points rule, with most load-outs that you cannot build from the box being axed and thus driving max points possible down.

The median thing is how it works, and here is the math on Nobz to prove it: first you take the base of 85pts for 5 Nobz with no upgrades
Then add the maximum amount of upgrades which is; +240(5x 28p killsaws+20p kombi-rokkits), +20 ammo runts x5, +5 cybork body + 85 Nobz x5= 350
Add minimum 85 and maximum upgraded total 350 to get 435. Then divide by two for the median = 217.5 which rounds up to 11PL which is exactly what Nobz are in the Index

It is the massive difference between the minimum point value for Nobz versus maximum upgrades that shifts that median so high. That being said, there are some discrepancies, especially now that many of the Index point values are outdated without any matching updates being done to PL, but overall that is how it is intended to function.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
I know this is going back into the PL vs points argument, I apologize. Wasn't it stated that PL is the median between cheapest option and most expensive? Therefore we could see points drops for most units also since they could have upgrades we don't know about yet that are factored in.

I'm not sure about the median thing, they said that PL is somewhere between minimal and maximum cost. However, especially nobz seem to be paying a lot of PL for options you'd never give them - usually because you simply don't have models that have both a close combat weapon and a kombi-shoota. It's a safe bet that not a whole lot of thought as gone into the PL seen in the index, but all codices seem to be roughly following the 1 PL = 20 points rule, with most load-outs that you cannot build from the box being axed and thus driving max points possible down.

The median thing is how it works, and here is the math on Nobz to prove it: first you take the base of 85pts for 5 Nobz with no upgrades
Then add the maximum amount of upgrades which is; +240(5x 28p killsaws+20p kombi-rokkits), +20 ammo runts x5, +5 cybork body + 85 Nobz x5= 350
Add minimum 85 and maximum upgraded total 350 to get 435. Then divide by two for the median = 217.5 which rounds up to 11PL which is exactly what Nobz are in the Index

It is the massive difference between the minimum point value for Nobz versus maximum upgrades that shifts that median so high. That being said, there are some discrepancies, especially now that many of the Index point values are outdated without any matching updates being done to PL, but overall that is how it is intended to function.

This would be a great system if anything about GWs point costing made sense.

But here we are, knowing the complete stats of three buggies, and knowing that the most expensive one is the worst of the three we've seen...

the_scotsman wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
I know this is going back into the PL vs points argument, I apologize. Wasn't it stated that PL is the median between cheapest option and most expensive? Therefore we could see points drops for most units also since they could have upgrades we don't know about yet that are factored in.

I'm not sure about the median thing, they said that PL is somewhere between minimal and maximum cost. However, especially nobz seem to be paying a lot of PL for options you'd never give them - usually because you simply don't have models that have both a close combat weapon and a kombi-shoota. It's a safe bet that not a whole lot of thought as gone into the PL seen in the index, but all codices seem to be roughly following the 1 PL = 20 points rule, with most load-outs that you cannot build from the box being axed and thus driving max points possible down.

The median thing is how it works, and here is the math on Nobz to prove it: first you take the base of 85pts for 5 Nobz with no upgrades
Then add the maximum amount of upgrades which is; +240(5x 28p killsaws+20p kombi-rokkits), +20 ammo runts x5, +5 cybork body + 85 Nobz x5= 350
Add minimum 85 and maximum upgraded total 350 to get 435. Then divide by two for the median = 217.5 which rounds up to 11PL which is exactly what Nobz are in the Index

It is the massive difference between the minimum point value for Nobz versus maximum upgrades that shifts that median so high. That being said, there are some discrepancies, especially now that many of the Index point values are outdated without any matching updates being done to PL, but overall that is how it is intended to function.

This would be a great system if anything about GWs point costing made sense.

But here we are, knowing the complete stats of three buggies, and knowing that the most expensive one is the worst of the three we've seen...

We all know how GW loves to overprice generalists...

Looks at... you know who

To be fair, GW also overprices specialists...GK and Deathwatch.

 JimOnMars wrote:
To be fair, GW also overprices specialists...GK and Deathwatch.

Nope. They are specialised generalists, thats why they are overpriced.

 Galas wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
To be fair, GW also overprices specialists...GK and Deathwatch.

Nope. They are specialised generalists, thats why they are overpriced.

Lol, fair enough.

 Latro_ wrote:
the main thought with the 'you can use whatever bases you like' is there any cunning tactics you can use with a big unit of boyz with a mix of smaller and larger bases

Using the larger base ones to chain the boyz to an aura while putting the smaller base ones in melee to maximize the attacks ?

the_scotsman wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:
Do all of the buggies come with the 1-3 squad size rule?

All the ones we've seen so far.

Not a stretch to assume they will.

this is what gives me hope they'll come in boxes of 2 for $40 and not 1 each.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/10/19/18th-oct-ork-vehicles-through-da-agesgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-3/

Well that's a nice trip down memory lane.

 Vineheart01 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Painting up my big mek in mega armour with kff (I made one myself out of an Ork head, spare KFF and marine armour) as I'm terrified that the mek won't have a kff. XD Still kinda hyped though to paint up buggies and stuff.

considering all the missing rules are either super old or didnt exist i doubt this is a problem.
There is official regular Big Mek w/ KFF and the new MANz box we got in 7th has the pieces for a MA Mek w/ KFF.

I highly, highly doubt that goes away.

there is no current big mek with kff. The only one is the old metal one and GW doesn't sell this any more. They do sell the MANz one though and that's the one I am making.

Samko wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
the main thought with the 'you can use whatever bases you like' is there any cunning tactics you can use with a big unit of boyz with a mix of smaller and larger bases

Using the larger base ones to chain the boyz to an aura while putting the smaller base ones in melee to maximize the attacks ?

The problem with the "big bases give more area coverage" argument is that it doesn't take into account that large bases do not allow you to move any farther. The front edge of the base is still in exactly the same place with either size.

This allows you to leave more boyz in the deployment zone, and you do get more board control there. But where orks really need board control is on the leading edge of the wave, which is entirely a function of movement speed and not base size.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Samko wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
the main thought with the 'you can use whatever bases you like' is there any cunning tactics you can use with a big unit of boyz with a mix of smaller and larger bases

Using the larger base ones to chain the boyz to an aura while putting the smaller base ones in melee to maximize the attacks ?

The problem with the "big bases give more area coverage" argument is that it doesn't take into account that large bases do not allow you to move any farther. The front edge of the base is still in exactly the same place with either size.

This allows you to leave more boyz in the deployment zone, and you do get more board control there. But where orks really need board control is on the leading edge of the wave, which is entirely a function of movement speed and not base size.

but then it doesn't matter. Because no matter what you're still screwed so you might as well have smaller bases and more orks up front to deal with it?

 lolman1c wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Samko wrote:

 Latro_ wrote:
the main thought with the 'you can use whatever bases you like' is there any cunning tactics you can use with a big unit of boyz with a mix of smaller and larger bases

Using the larger base ones to chain the boyz to an aura while putting the smaller base ones in melee to maximize the attacks ?

The problem with the "big bases give more area coverage" argument is that it doesn't take into account that large bases do not allow you to move any farther. The front edge of the base is still in exactly the same place with either size.

This allows you to leave more boyz in the deployment zone, and you do get more board control there. But where orks really need board control is on the leading edge of the wave, which is entirely a function of movement speed and not base size.

but then it doesn't matter. Because no matter what you're still screwed so you might as well have smaller bases and more orks up front to deal with it?

Of course.

There are those out there, however, that will see the pile of 32mm orks stuck in your deployment zone, and the dead ones that can't escape a vehicle, and those out of cover, and those out of combat, and those out of the kff, and call that an advantage to orks. These people actually exists.

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Outside the echo chamber of forums like this one, I'd wager that "look cool" is important to a very large majority of GW's customers.

 beerbeard wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Outside the echo chamber of forums like this one, I'd wager that "look cool" is important to a very large majority of GW's customers.

I'm just imagining these supposed horde of Ork players who are pissed that they only got new models, a new codex, 6 clan options, about 20 community articles devoted to them, and a new board game. THEN GW HAD TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY AND CHANGE THE BASE SIZE.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 beerbeard wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Outside the echo chamber of forums like this one, I'd wager that "look cool" is important to a very large majority of GW's customers.

I'm just imagining these supposed horde of Ork players who are pissed that they only got new models, a new codex, 6 clan options, about 20 community articles devoted to them, and a new board game. THEN GW HAD TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY AND CHANGE THE BASE SIZE.

They're there, they're just hard to see behind the space marine players pissed about only getting new models, several new codexes, 9 chapter options, 100+ community articles devoted to them, several board games, and an entire spin off game.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Yes, they probably did it, because they do look better, but there's an argument to be made that a good unit that comes in large numbers unit shouldn't be rocking 25s. And if boyz are still good at 7 points on 32s with everything else they're going to be able to bring then your bluster is for nothing, really.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 beerbeard wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Outside the echo chamber of forums like this one, I'd wager that "look cool" is important to a very large majority of GW's customers.

I'm just imagining these supposed horde of Ork players who are pissed that they only got new models, a new codex, 6 clan options, about 20 community articles devoted to them, and a new board game. THEN GW HAD TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY AND CHANGE THE BASE SIZE.

They're there, they're just hard to see behind the space marine players pissed about only getting new models, several new codexes, 9 chapter options, 100+ community articles devoted to them, several board games, and an entire spin off game.

The best part of that comment was that before the Primaris controversy was the Space Marine 32mm controversy
It's funny because it's so damn true.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 beerbeard wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Of course, game designers at GW are oblivious to all of this, and put orks on 32mm bases because they "look cool". It's a sad state of affairs when a game we love is controlled by such people.

Outside the echo chamber of forums like this one, I'd wager that "look cool" is important to a very large majority of GW's customers.

I'm just imagining these supposed horde of Ork players who are pissed that they only got new models, a new codex, 6 clan options, about 20 community articles devoted to them, and a new board game. THEN GW HAD TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY AND CHANGE THE BASE SIZE.

And by doing so, we lose 39% of the models in combat, models in the kff, models in cover, models that can fit after embarking, and models that can fit in the deployment zone.

You get that, right? What if guardsmen lost 39% of their shooting range because shorter guns "look better"?

Haha, I know... I also love how people can't understand how you can be hyped and excited for something but also be critical of the same thing.

I mean if I won the lottery but was also stabbed in the shoulder on the same day should I be told I'm not allowed to be angry at the dude who stabbed me? I'd be hyped I won the lottery but also pissed someone stabbed be in the shoulder.

 lolman1c wrote:
Haha, I know... I also love how people can't understand how you can be hyped and excited for something but also be critical of the same thing.

I mean if I won the lottery but was also stabbed in the shoulder on the same day should I be told I'm not allowed to be angry at the dude who stabbed me? I'd be hyped I won the lottery but also pissed someone stabbed be in the shoulder.

No, clearly you must continue to be hyped as now you have the money from the lottery to completely sue/destroy the pants off the guy who stabbed you in the most expensive way possible.

Deploying from vehicles only requires you to have some of your base within range of the vehicle, right? So larger bases could give you a slight advantage in reaching the enemy.

 JimOnMars wrote:

And by doing so, we lose 39% of the models in combat, models in the kff, models in cover, models that can fit after embarking, and models that can fit in the deployment zone.

You get that, right? What if guardsmen lost 39% of their shooting range because shorter guns "look better"?

Your nerdrage sustains me. Please, keep going. I'm almost there.

 xttz wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

And by doing so, we lose 39% of the models in combat, models in the kff, models in cover, models that can fit after embarking, and models that can fit in the deployment zone.

You get that, right? What if guardsmen lost 39% of their shooting range because shorter guns "look better"?

Your nerdrage sustains me. Please, keep going. I'm almost there.

Dude.. you're on dakkadakka. We're all nerds...

Also is your comment supposed to sound like a dirty pervert over the phone?

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Warhammer-40000-Speed-Freeks-2018-eng

NZ preorders are up, with some sweet 360 degree angles of the models and also the terrain

Edit: It looks like each buggy fits on one sprue, albeit they're pretty densly packed

Yep, same price as Tooth and Claw, so that’s confirmed.

Makes you wonder what the price of the new individual buggies is going to be.....

PiñaColada wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Warhammer-40000-Speed-Freeks-2018-eng

NZ preorders are up, with some sweet 360 degree angles of the models and also the terrain

Edit: It looks like each buggy fits on one sprue, albeit they're pretty densly packed

Man that Dragster is pretty. I couldn't really make out the gunner before now.

I'll probably pass on 150 for right now.

Wait until I get a codex in hand and have a firm idea of what is what.

I am honestly confused. Every model within an inch of a model who is within an inch of an enemy model is able to attack.

Wouldn't the width of the bases mean that more models to the side would be in range, mitigating the loss of attacks due to base size?

Having a larger base would mean that the buble they project to allow combat would be larger as well...