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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks have yet to win, because its been out for a week. We will see what happens at LVO.

I don't agree with grandiose statements, but this codex WILL change up lists.

Possibly. Possibly not. Even of Orks perform well at LVO it won't prove that the codex is 'OP'. Could be any number of reasons (like Ork players have had to eke put any advantage without a dex for the last 18 months, making us more competitive players by virtue of having no choice).

Either way I'm struggling to see why this is a bad thing? Surely codex releases absolutely should shake up the meta? Aren't we bored of the Ynarri/Knight+IG+SM lists winning each and every event.

Those claiming 'Orks won before they had their dex though' are being completely disingenuous. I'd love to know how many events Orks have won since IG was released or since IK were released. *Gets real close to xeno, uncomfortably close* *whispers* Vanilla Marines have won more events.

E - As much as I love these anecdotal stories about how the best player in store x was beaten to a pulp by Orks its probably best you wait until we have data from events to back up these honkers statements. Unless your friend happens to be Nick Nanavati or another proven excellent player (in which case name them).

Why are you so negative ?
You orc players should be happy that you get codex, yes boyz get more expensive, but now they can do more things.
I really believe orcs can do good job with the codex.
l

Saying that index orks were good and outperformed some codex armies is like saying that ultramarines are OP because "Guilliman's castle" and "5 Stormravens" lists won a lot of competitive events.

In fact I think SM are still very solid BA even top tiers, no doubt about that.

I'd rate the codex something about 7/10. I'm quite disappointed with several things to be honest but thankfully now orks play 8th edition and we have variety, which is IMHO the most important thing.

 lolman1c wrote:

Spoiler:

Loved this battle report here. Joke is the index options are actually pretty good with all the new traits. Shame a lot of events don't allow them anymore. XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


If any question you're asking has to do with "did GW plan the competitive meta to fall out the way it did" the answer is pretty much always "no, no they did not."

Don't fool yourself that GW suddenly cares at all about competitive gaming. They want to put in the very bare minimum effort required to make the most vehement screeching from the competitive scene go away, so they've hired one or two people to periodically poke the top tier meta with a small stick once in a while.

It's the tried and true e-sports video game balance strategy, and it's working exactly as intended for them.

I can agree with your first statement. The rest is just pure baseless conjecture.

It's not baseless. I've spoken to a few employees of older Gw and read some articles from higher ups (so might have changed now as it was 5 years go). It seems like most the rule writers despised the tournament scene but the marketing department love it and pushed for it.

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

 lolman1c wrote:

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

Well I mean they’re kinda right about tourney players. If they had their way each codex would only contain around 3 units total and every match would be a mirror match.

ork codex 8/10 pretty good. there were some winners and some losers in there but overall its a very stong book that as a single army puts orks in the upper mid tier... but lacking soup I am guessing in tournament play they are middle of the pack army. they will get some wins but not make the top tables. IE expect to see them in top 16 lists but not to break into top 4 very often.

Ork Codex without index options 7.5/10. With index options 9/10.

The codex can be competitive on its own, but I feel the additions of biker bosses and normal big meks ect. really adds a lot with the points you save.

vindicare0412 wrote:
Ork Codex without index options 7.5/10. With index options 9/10.

The codex can be competitive on its own, but I feel the additions of biker bosses and normal big meks ect. really adds a lot with the points you save.

Haha, yeah, the index options are super strong and being abused by a lot of people. Kind of funny. XD The ability to shove damage 3 weapons on absolutely everything and then reroll it when ever you want...

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

Well I mean they’re kinda right about tourney players. If they had their way each codex would only contain around 3 units total and every match would be a mirror match.

How does that track at all? Demonstrably poor balance hurts everyone, whether competitive or not. I've played in major tournaments for a few different games in the past, and I'd love to be able to take all sorts of stuff to tactically challenging games, not be limited to a few overbalanced units. More viable units/chapter tactics/etc. means more strategies being available and more tactical choices being made during a game, which is what competitive people actually want.

The stompa's a great example. The idea is amazing and I'm part way through building a custom one, myself, but there's no way I can bring one to a game and not be at a serious disadvantage. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose from almost everything in a book and have a good game?

A designer's job is to produce the best game they can. They got a lot of the fun/cool aspects right, but there are some serious failures on the balance front with this book that we can't discount. Having cool ideas is great, but on a professional product you have to do the less flashy parts, too. It's not a hobby, it's a job.

Overall, I'd give this book a 7/10. Solid stuff with a few different approaches that seem workable, but some rough corners that should have been sanded off before release.

 Trimarius wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

Well I mean they’re kinda right about tourney players. If they had their way each codex would only contain around 3 units total and every match would be a mirror match.

How does that track at all? Demonstrably poor balance hurts everyone, whether competitive or not. I've played in major tournaments for a few different games in the past, and I'd love to be able to take all sorts of stuff to tactically challenging games, not be limited to a few overbalanced units. More viable units/chapter tactics/etc. means more strategies being available and more tactical choices being made during a game, which is what competitive people actually want.

The stompa's a great example. The idea is amazing and I'm part way through building a custom one, myself, but there's no way I can bring one to a game and not be at a serious disadvantage. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose from almost everything in a book and have a good game?

A designer's job is to produce the best game they can. They got a lot of the fun/cool aspects right, but there are some serious failures on the balance front with this book that we can't discount. Having cool ideas is great, but on a professional product you have to do the less flashy parts, too. It's not a hobby, it's a job.

Overall, I'd give this book a 7/10. Solid stuff with a few different approaches that seem workable, but some rough corners that should have been sanded off before release.

I think there is an argument either way. Some games I've seen only survive because of the competitive scene. Other games I've seen ruined by it.

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

Well I mean they’re kinda right about tourney players. If they had their way each codex would only contain around 3 units total and every match would be a mirror match.

Some of the GW people at NOVA had interesting things to say about tournaments. I wouldn't assume cultural changes have occurred as a result of turnover, there's still some hostility to way tourneys shape the game.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Some of the GW people at NOVA had interesting things to say about tournaments. I wouldn't assume cultural changes have occurred as a result of turnover, there's still some hostility to way tourneys shape the game.

It's a tactical RPG, balance is not a primary concern.

You also could go the Snakebites route and use their Strategem. Your whole army getting +1 to wound a Knight, especially when Tankbustaz reroll to hit them, is pretty insane.

My friend the Ork player found his biggest complaint was some options missing due to the GW stance on "no model, no rules".

First time I ever saw him field a Wierdboy recently, "Da Jump" became an evil laugh favorite.
(Nevermind Telyportas)

He made good use of the Warbosses with the guys in the front (not teleported) for advance/shoot/assault fun.

I think it was the "Goffs" which gave a S5 melee stat which tends to be death for marines.

Still seeing the "Tankbustas" in some beefy soft/open top vehicle is a favorite.

He seemed particularly pleased with the "on a 6" extra hit rolls, it does not have a huge impact on increased hits but definitely better than on 6's only.

It seems that Goffs/Evil Sunz is the combo of choice in his eyes.

The form of "stealing initiative" is deadly at the right time to be able to go first in melee.

The enormous blobs teleporting in, declaring assault, usually getting in and then doing the "pile-in" move into other units is just brutal.

I play Black Templar so it is a bit hard to come up with a good reply to that.

Well, it has been the most fun I have seen him have in a while so I think the Ork Codex is a hit... for Ork players.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

Would make sense for the rules writers to dislike the group of people who regularly highlight how incompetent the rules writers are.

From what I hear they believed tournament players ruined the game. 40k was meant to be a fun narrative game /hobby like DnD and ended up being a competitive matched play system that required huge balance and constant attention from people who were trained and had experience with fun narrative books for years.

Sam Pearson was the lead writer on our codex though and he's pretty young so they probably fired all those guys I heard from.

Well I mean they’re kinda right about tourney players. If they had their way each codex would only contain around 3 units total and every match would be a mirror match.

Some of the GW people at NOVA had interesting things to say about tournaments. I wouldn't assume cultural changes have occurred as a result of turnover, there's still some hostility to way tourneys shape the game.

I must admit... I hate it when a new rule comes out because a few people were at tournaments were abusing a data sheet. You've basically punished 90% of players for 10% being dicks.

Ya’ll are crazy...deffskull brigades are beyond good and are perfect tournament lists (TAC by design with lots of RNG mitigation) as well as being hilarious fun and thematic. Baring Lootas being the single worst unit for deffskullz to take

Lootas are kind of weird pricing wise.
I mean, they also take spanna boyz, which are the exact same thing as what burnas can take, but they are double the price because of the loota's base points cost.

Wtf GW?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lootas are kind of weird pricing wise.
I mean, they also take spanna boyz, which are the exact same thing as what burnas can take, but they are double the price because of the loota's base points cost.

Wtf GW?

They did not care enough to add a basic cost for the spanna in a different line.
They cared enough to re-work the limitation on the number of spannas, now 1 every 5 and killing certain configurations for the Burnas. because of the Post-Chapterouse Stress Disorder (it matches more what found in the box, assuming the spanna needs a specific spanna head, albeit is particularly idiotic).

If the CA rumours are to be true the marines twin linked weapons are going down in price even more... while we still pay double for ours despite being BS 5+

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Lootas are kind of weird pricing wise.
I mean, they also take spanna boyz, which are the exact same thing as what burnas can take, but they are double the price because of the loota's base points cost.

Wtf GW?

They did not care enough to add a basic cost for the spanna in a different line.
They cared enough to re-work the limitation on the number of spannas, now 1 every 5 and killing certain configurations for the Burnas. because of the Post-Chapterouse Stress Disorder (it matches more what found in the box, assuming the spanna needs a specific spanna head, albeit is particularly idiotic).

This is 100% legal-team-choice as you can make only one spanna per box.

As someone with absolutely zero interest in the competitive scene, "shaking up the meta", tiers etc, I'm pretty chuffed with the Codex now I've had a bit of time to mull it over. Seems like the adjustments that have been made mean it's possible to take pretty much any options you like, without feeling like you've mugged yourself off by not just taking more boyz.

I'm a little bit disappointed with the way the Clan Kultures have been handled – making them directly analogous to Chapter Tactics doesn't really make sense from a background point-of-view, but I can see why it was done in the interests of simplicity. And I'm a little bit disappointed with the removal of some of the units/options which are missing models. But then there's always the Index I guess.

For the love of whatever-deity-or-deities-you-prefer, people, will you spoiler those giant quote blocks - especially when you're just tagging one line on the end?

Sheesh...

Indeed.

If we can spoiler up large quote pyramids it's better.

Ta.

Where's the fun in that?

I've no idea about the power side of things anymore. But, from a model and lack-of-rules perspective, I have to say, I'm massively disappointed.

Orphans (not necessarily orphaned this codex, but orphaned recently enough):

Mega-armour boss
KFF Mek
Warboss on Bike
Nob w/ Banner and Powerklaw (The most recent model I'm aware of even has a powerklaw)
Nob w/ banner on Bike
Pain Boy on Bike
Wartrakks
Buggies
Skorchas
Kannons
Lobbas
ZZap Guns
Wazdakka - mentioned, but no rules.
Trukks w/ Rokkits.

FFS, I've got a 2000 point army of models that aren't even given an entry in this codex. Easily.

No Looted vehicle rules (again)
Burnas are only half as effective as every other flamer in the game (still)


The new models are great a stand-alone kits, but come on, we're ork players here. The heads aren't even interchangeable with other kits, something that's been consistent for years. And no options. Every dragster gets the same stuff, every squigbuggy gets the same stuff. Totally non-orky.

And from a game-play perspective, I don't care how cool the gun your put on an ork buggy is, it's still one roll from dying and probably not hitting its target. Buggies worked because they were expendable, and priced appropriately. These new cars all seem overpriced for their durability.

Too much entry-bloat. Same as they did with the planes. You could have had one entry for ork planes, and detailed what options they can take, but instead, there's four different plane entries, each one superficially different. Now we get the same thing with the buggies. This is what orphaned all our existing models.

Imagine if they were all just called buggies, and you could pick your options - jump motor, rokkits, rivvet cannon, etc. And if the kits had been designed so you could swap the wheels, the motors, the crew, the weapon mounts. These kits are nice, but I feel like it's just a huge wasted opportunity.

Also characters meks with KMB, rokkit launcha or just slugga & choppa, painboy with killsaw, big mek on bike, all the options on kommandos but the nob's power klaw, and BWs with rokkits disappeared. Nobz and Flash Gitz can only take one Ammo Runt every five dudes now. Big Mek with SAG cannot have an Ammo Runt.

It definitely feels like there was a codex-wide purging by the GW beancounters and legal team regarding the strict "no model, no rules policy" That's why I agree with a previous poster that if we include index options, the Ork codex feels like an 8.5/10. Going by pure codex, it feels like a 7/10, possibly 6.5/10. It's certainly better than before, but there's a lot less freedom, particularly HQ choices, outside of relics and traits. Also, pretty disappointed with how grots have been left behind as far as Kulturs go, I really feel none of them would have made them OTT, especially since people are already taking them now anyways. It would certainly make Kanz a better consideration than MANZ as it is.

I don't play orks but i am curious: Did they buff up Thrakka to the point he can fight guilleman evenly or not? I'd heard ork players wanting their own guilliman on the form of a buffed thrakka, I wondered if they got him.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I don't play orks but i am curious: Did they buff up Thrakka to the point he can fight guilleman evenly or not? I'd heard ork players wanting their own guilliman on the form of a buffed thrakka, I wondered if they got him.

No hes the exact same but about 20 points more expensive now.

 Billagio wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
I don't play orks but i am curious: Did they buff up Thrakka to the point he can fight guilleman evenly or not? I'd heard ork players wanting their own guilliman on the form of a buffed thrakka, I wondered if they got him.

No hes the exact same but about 20 points more expensive now.

You forgot he has the best WL trait in the Ork codex....+1 attack! Ol' Guilly's screwed in the knickers now! /s

Ghazzy hasn't changed at all except being slightly more pricey, but more importantly he's got the Goffs Kultur which can give him a few more shots in, and with support from Fists of Gork he can really lay down the smack on Guilly more than before. Even if Guilly manages to slice him up before he gets to kill him, the stratagem that allows him to fight one more time before dying is helpful.