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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Have you seen the ork Dakka jet?
16 str 6 ap-1 shots hitting on 3's? Kiss fire warriors goodbye. Competitive ork lists are going to have 3 of these. No question about it.

Then you can DA jump a 30 man boy with an 8" reroll charge.
Advance and charge turn 1 with 30 storm boys with a biker warboss. All the while you got 10 nobs in a truck coming up the middle for auto charge turn 2. While 9 or so smash guns are ripping your army apart with d3 d6 damage shots for like 45 points. The army is so good it's not even funny.

Don't get me wrong, dakkajets ain't bad, but they definitely do not hit on 3's against fire warriors, I'm assuming you're including the stratagem that gives them +1 to hit? That only applies to units with fly. Otherwise, dakkajets only hit on a 4+ at best, and that's assuming they target only one unit. You might be able to get 3+ if you make them freebootas and you manage to kill something within 24" of it, but most people will run it as Bad Moonz. They're also fairly fragile as far as flyers go.

They got a 4+ save - which is weak - but that's not really an issue. You are going to get a save vs a lot of guns - and most anti tank guns that shoot you don't give something like a storm raven or a storm talon a save ether - or they will get a 6+. IDK about what trait is best - freebootas does seem like the best one for them though.

Probably badmoons or freebootas.
Both are good choices, but you do have to kill something first with something else to proc freebootas.
If it does proc it, then it will hit more than bad moons.

Deathskullz and snakebitez are also possible, because of the extra protection. It would do hardly anything offensively, but it will annoy the hell out of your opponent if you roll to 6s to negate damage.
Likewise for Bloodaxes. I think you can give it cover, but I'm not sure.

SemperMortis wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Meh, competitive tournaments are such a small minority of games I say screw thinking about them half the time... if it was up to me all tournament players would be forced to be analysed with a fun o-meter and if any of them were not having fun, regardless of winning or losing, then they get banned from 40k forever and arrested on sight if they're within a mile of a 40k store.

I'm very bitter about competitive players since they killed many of my games in the past. And I'm talking about outright killed them... developers focused on them too much, rest of the old player base left because the game was jo longer about having fun, only people left now had a pure competitive game (or in one case a game retrofitted poorly to be more competitive ) moaned about for a week before moving onto the next big thing. Nothing wrong with wanting to win and being competitive but pure competitive players can all become chess players for all I care.

It is my opinion that competitive players make a game better/more balanced. Without competitive players trying to maximize unit potential and army potential the broken combos would never get fixed. Plus, a big profit motive for this game is created by the competitive players.

This is something I've always felt competitive players tell themselves.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Meh, competitive tournaments are such a small minority of games I say screw thinking about them half the time... if it was up to me all tournament players would be forced to be analysed with a fun o-meter and if any of them were not having fun, regardless of winning or losing, then they get banned from 40k forever and arrested on sight if they're within a mile of a 40k store.

I'm very bitter about competitive players since they killed many of my games in the past. And I'm talking about outright killed them... developers focused on them too much, rest of the old player base left because the game was jo longer about having fun, only people left now had a pure competitive game (or in one case a game retrofitted poorly to be more competitive ) moaned about for a week before moving onto the next big thing. Nothing wrong with wanting to win and being competitive but pure competitive players can all become chess players for all I care.

And so your answer to that has been to spit acid, attempt to chase away players, put people down, and otherwise be the shining definition of "Casual at all cost". Color me unsympathetic.

What I'm unhappy about is that it looks like mek guns are still the top choice for shooting and grots will be spammed for CP batteries. I was hoping ork armies going forward would look more like ork armies.

I expect to see grots and bigmeks in ork armies though. What I don't expect is that ork armies are going to be obliterating me with shooty characters I can't even shoot back at. Yeah the shock attack gun is random - but their average for their cost is pretty good - and good rolls put out battle tank numbers with more ap for like 1/3-1/4 of the cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Meh, competitive tournaments are such a small minority of games I say screw thinking about them half the time... if it was up to me all tournament players would be forced to be analysed with a fun o-meter and if any of them were not having fun, regardless of winning or losing, then they get banned from 40k forever and arrested on sight if they're within a mile of a 40k store.

I'm very bitter about competitive players since they killed many of my games in the past. And I'm talking about outright killed them... developers focused on them too much, rest of the old player base left because the game was jo longer about having fun, only people left now had a pure competitive game (or in one case a game retrofitted poorly to be more competitive ) moaned about for a week before moving onto the next big thing. Nothing wrong with wanting to win and being competitive but pure competitive players can all become chess players for all I care.

It is my opinion that competitive players make a game better/more balanced. Without competitive players trying to maximize unit potential and army potential the broken combos would never get fixed. Plus, a big profit motive for this game is created by the competitive players.

This is something I've always felt competitive players tell themselves.

I totally disagree. Casual players benefit even more from balanced rules. Because they just want to pick the units they want to play and hope to have a good game (which is fine - this is how the majority of game I play have been lately). The problem is when Casual Jimmy plays DE and loves to play his 9 venoms with khabs and 3 Ravagers vs someone that just wants to play their space marine tacticals in rhinos. Sure the players can come to an agreement about army power levels and agree not to play certain units because they are too strong. How is that better than the situation where both players can play whatever units the want because they are all reasonably balanced? It's really not better. Competitive players also like to play the game too and often they play with who is available...and we know how that goes. What happens is you have 2 groups of people playing the same game but they can't play with each other because they don't like how the other player approaches the game.

 Grimskul wrote:
I feel like there's a balance to be struck. Competitive players are needed to make sure that some things are reigned in and to find exploits or issues that the rules designers can't or don't find in their play-testing and thus tweak accordingly. On the other hand, you also want to consider flavour and fluff with regards to how the faction should actually function. I find a lot of WAAC players get tunnel vision regarding what's acceptable and what's trash, and it can often lead to binary and often arbitrary unit design where a unit has to overexceed in one or even several areas to worthy of being included in an army. This often leads to the cookie cutter netlists we see and while that's not necessarily a bad thing in of itself, it is indicative that their expertise doesn't necessarily always lay with thinking outside of the box.

As i said earlier. In the game I helped make we had entire competitive groups telling us that a weapon was OP Nd needed to be nerfed. People outright left the game calling the weapon unbalanced and giving the other faction an unfair advantage. One clan boycotted an event because they believed we had coded the game so the other clan would always win (I'm not even joking here... they belived we had inbuilt hacks into the game that some how only one clan could use? Wtf were they even thinking?) And in the end the scripts for the two guns were almost identical! Only one fired blue lasers while the other fired red! They did the same exsact damage! But the competitive players persuaded half the community the game was unbalanced and that we were favouring other factions and giving them better weapons and hacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Nah, it's just an elaborate lie they tell themselves to make themselves seem important when in reality they are more of an annoyance to developers than a benefit.

 lolman1c wrote:

Nah, it's just an elaborate lie they tell themselves to make themselves seem important when in reality they are more of an annoyance to developers than a benefit.

Stop dissing players who want something different from the game than what you do. Look at every sport/multiplayer video game ever. Surprise surprise, competition is everywhere. And it is a fact that competition leads to people adapting to increase their chances of winning as much as possible, training, and broadening their strengths.

Competitive players didn't ruin your game, they found out how to exploit it/strongest combos etc. And that is OK. It doesn't mean competitive players are more or less important than casual players. You play the game how you want, and get from it what you want. Competitive players will attempt to find ways to break the game, and that is a good thing, because it lets an active developer iron out those creases.

Neither competitive players nor casual players kill games. Toxic attitudes kill games. There are more than enough toxic attitudes on both sides of the fence.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Meh, competitive tournaments are such a small minority of games I say screw thinking about them half the time... if it was up to me all tournament players would be forced to be analysed with a fun o-meter and if any of them were not having fun, regardless of winning or losing, then they get banned from 40k forever and arrested on sight if they're within a mile of a 40k store.

I'm very bitter about competitive players since they killed many of my games in the past. And I'm talking about outright killed them... developers focused on them too much, rest of the old player base left because the game was jo longer about having fun, only people left now had a pure competitive game (or in one case a game retrofitted poorly to be more competitive ) moaned about for a week before moving onto the next big thing. Nothing wrong with wanting to win and being competitive but pure competitive players can all become chess players for all I care.

And so your answer to that has been to spit acid, attempt to chase away players, put people down, and otherwise be the shining definition of "Casual at all cost". Color me unsympathetic.

What I'm unhappy about is that it looks like mek guns are still the top choice for shooting and grots will be spammed for CP batteries. I was hoping ork armies going forward would look more like ork armies.

Yep, and I couldn't care less.

CAAC much lol. I find people who actively try to chase away players who play differentially then themselves to be even more cancerous then people who just want to win a bit more then usual. Actively putting people down and telling them to play different games is never going to help your game grow, maybe the reason all these games you played died isn’t because of the competative people, but people like you looking to scare them off...

Yep, and I couldn't care less.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Have you seen the ork Dakka jet?
16 str 6 ap-1 shots hitting on 3's? Kiss fire warriors goodbye. Competitive ork lists are going to have 3 of these. No question about it.

I expect 0 in a tournament top tier list, 1 in some semi competitive lists. Up to 3 in casual games. However at top strenght they even have more shots, that 18 shots with dakkadakkadakka and the re-roll of 1s if bad moons which means 9 hits on average among those 18 shots plus 3 re-rolls and 3 more hit rolls thanks to dakkadakkadakka, on average you should get 12ish hits against a single target. Barely enough to clear one small screen, nothing more for 150 points.

Deepstriking 40 shoota boyz is a more efficient way to clear screeners, and you'll probably want to deepstrike boyz anyway.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Casual players benefit even more from balanced rules. Because they just want to pick the units they want to play and hope to have a good game (which is fine - this is how the majority of game I play have been lately). The problem is when Casual Jimmy plays DE and loves to play his 9 venoms with khabs and 3 Ravagers vs someone that just wants to play their space marine tacticals in rhinos.

Casual DE with venoms and ravagers against casual SM with tacs (that's also the rest of the list to consider) and rhinos isn't particularly unbalanced. Is competitive primaris against competitive drukhari that is unbalanced, but we have competitive imperium lists using SM that are very balanced against aeldari soups, easily even way better than aeldari. At casual or semi competitive levels pure SM are more than decent, some tipycal armies are even good while armies like drukhari to be even mid tiers they must rely on very optimized lists.

 lolman1c wrote:
Nah, it's just an elaborate lie they tell themselves to make themselves seem important when in reality they are more of an annoyance to developers than a benefit.

Well, of course they're an annoyance to developers, they make it obvious to everyone that the developers are incompetent.

 Blackie wrote:
Casual DE with venoms and ravagers against casual SM with tacs (that's also the rest of the list to consider) and rhinos isn't particularly unbalanced. Is competitive primaris against competitive drukhari that is unbalanced, but we have competitive imperium lists using SM that are very balanced against aeldari soups, easily even way better than aeldari. At casual or semi competitive levels pure SM are more than decent, some tipycal armies are even good while armies like drukhari to be even mid tiers they must rely on very optimized lists.

Venoms and Ravagers is quite competitive and you will roll over tacticals in rhinos.

Sorry but this is just wrong. DE are top tier. Marines are not.

Orks are clearly top tier too. I am enjoying the slow forum orthodoxy develop.
"codex sucks, all sucks, GW have screwed us"
"But these units quite good."
"Yeah well those units are okay, maybe, but the rest of the army sucks, its horrible, its rubbish."
"This guy just won a GT with Orks."
"Uh, well, yeah, but... but... but.. boyz suck. Yeah they suck. Rubbish. Trash tier."
"His list had 82 boyz in it...."
"..... Just die."

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Casual DE with venoms and ravagers against casual SM with tacs (that's also the rest of the list to consider) and rhinos isn't particularly unbalanced. Is competitive primaris against competitive drukhari that is unbalanced, but we have competitive imperium lists using SM that are very balanced against aeldari soups, easily even way better than aeldari. At casual or semi competitive levels pure SM are more than decent, some tipycal armies are even good while armies like drukhari to be even mid tiers they must rely on very optimized lists.

Venoms and Ravagers is quite competitive and you will roll over tacticals in rhinos.

Sorry but this is just wrong. DE are top tier. Marines are not.

DE are top tiers (not even 100% true, soups are), marines aren't. OK, I (basically) agree with that. But at casual levels you won't have optimized tournament lists from both factions. Drukhari have a lot of units that underperform, and some others like grots, talos and even ravagers that are amazing only with some specific synergies and loadouts. Take lots of dark lances instead of dis cannons, use the Coven of 12 bonus... those scary units will be very far from being overpowered. The top drukhari lists usually have zero venoms.

Some drukhari lists are highly competitive, but there's a clear overreaction towards them, which comes mostly from SM players who only consider competitive lists.

 Blackie wrote:

DE are top tiers (not even 100% true, soups are), marines aren't. OK, I (basically) agree with that. But at casual levels you won't have optimized tournament lists from both factions. Drukhari have a lot of units that underperform, and some others like grots, talos and even ravagers that are amazing only with some specific synergies and loadouts. Take lots of dark lances instead of dis cannons, use the Coven of 12 bonus... those scary units will be very far from being overpowered. The top drukhari lists usually have zero venoms.

Some drukhari lists are highly competitive, but there's a clear overreaction towards them, which comes mostly from SM players who only consider competitive lists.

The point of the post you're needlessly trying to nitpick is that a casual game won't be enjoyable if one person brings a list that happens to be more competitive by chance, and that better overall balance will benefit casual games because it will reduce the chance of that kind of thing happening.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
Nah, it's just an elaborate lie they tell themselves to make themselves seem important when in reality they are more of an annoyance to developers than a benefit.

Well, of course they're an annoyance to developers, they make it obvious to everyone that the developers are incompetent.

We have a winner!

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Casual DE with venoms and ravagers against casual SM with tacs (that's also the rest of the list to consider) and rhinos isn't particularly unbalanced. Is competitive primaris against competitive drukhari that is unbalanced, but we have competitive imperium lists using SM that are very balanced against aeldari soups, easily even way better than aeldari. At casual or semi competitive levels pure SM are more than decent, some tipycal armies are even good while armies like drukhari to be even mid tiers they must rely on very optimized lists.

Venoms and Ravagers is quite competitive and you will roll over tacticals in rhinos.

Sorry but this is just wrong. DE are top tier. Marines are not.

DE are top tiers (not even 100% true, soups are), marines aren't. OK, I (basically) agree with that. But at casual levels you won't have optimized tournament lists from both factions. Drukhari have a lot of units that underperform, and some others like grots, talos and even ravagers that are amazing only with some specific synergies and loadouts. Take lots of dark lances instead of dis cannons, use the Coven of 12 bonus... those scary units will be very far from being overpowered. The top drukhari lists usually have zero venoms.

Some drukhari lists are highly competitive, but there's a clear overreaction towards them, which comes mostly from SM players who only consider competitive lists.

LOL - dude lay off the koolaid. SM and DE don't even belong in the same discussion.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

DE are top tiers (not even 100% true, soups are), marines aren't. OK, I (basically) agree with that. But at casual levels you won't have optimized tournament lists from both factions. Drukhari have a lot of units that underperform, and some others like grots, talos and even ravagers that are amazing only with some specific synergies and loadouts. Take lots of dark lances instead of dis cannons, use the Coven of 12 bonus... those scary units will be very far from being overpowered. The top drukhari lists usually have zero venoms.

Some drukhari lists are highly competitive, but there's a clear overreaction towards them, which comes mostly from SM players who only consider competitive lists.

The point of the post you're needlessly trying to nitpick is that a casual game won't be enjoyable if one person brings a list that happens to be more competitive by chance, and that better overall balance will benefit casual games because it will reduce the chance of that kind of thing happening.

I agree, but the hate SM player have towards durkhari is hilarious.

What about casual AM and casual Knights? They will shoot off the board the majority of other casual armies, including drukhari, but the bad apple must be drukhari of course. I play a lot of casual games against SM since every kids here starts with SM, and even with drukhari balanced casual games are easy to get.

People that don't actually play and only do mathammer, assuming that data tournament is all that matters because 40k doesn't exist outside competitive gaming, have no clue about the real state of 40k. Now I read about some fear that the ork codex might be too powerful as well. And not a single word to imperial knights power creep. I guess it's because they can ally a knight but can't ally a ravager or hire some grot shields.

Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

yeah, we had like 3 pages of people complaining about them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

And yet in a thread dealing with orks, a SM player complains about drukhari. For no reason at all. Among all the examples he could make, did he consider knights which are the ultimate casual metas breakers? No, of course. Drukhari all the way.

Now please go back to the topic thread, let's discuss about orks.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

And yet in a thread dealing with orks, a SM player complains about drukhari. For no reason at all. Among all the examples he could make, did he consider knights which are the ultimate casual metas breakers? No, of course. Drukhari all the way.

Now please go back to the topic thread, let's discuss about orks.

I've watched three games so far of orks vs drukhari with both time the orks playing horribly inefficient and crap lists... 2/3 times Ork kicked their asses into submission. The 1/3 times was fair play as the dark pointy ears did well, the other times they just couldn't handle the amount of orks on the table all coming into cc and squishing their tiny T3 heroes. This is the thing about DE, they're not really OP they're just Anti tournament (basically anti knight and tank) meta. As long as you have a pretty even spread list they're actually not that hard to defeat. But Knights on the other hand do well all at Anti-Tank and infantry. There is no hard counter for them other than DE with their invulns and anti tank.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

And yet in a thread dealing with orks, a SM player complains about drukhari. For no reason at all. Among all the examples he could make, did he consider knights which are the ultimate casual metas breakers? No, of course. Drukhari all the way.

Now please go back to the topic thread, let's discuss about orks.

Maybe because that's the army that frustrates that particular player the most? Does the existence of the most broken thing ever negate the fact there's other broken weapons?

Hell didn't we have one person on this forum saying Disintegrators weren't broken? Even though they are?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

And yet in a thread dealing with orks, a SM player complains about drukhari. For no reason at all. Among all the examples he could make, did he consider knights which are the ultimate casual metas breakers? No, of course. Drukhari all the way.

Now please go back to the topic thread, let's discuss about orks.

Maybe because that's the army that frustrates that particular player the most? Does the existence of the most broken thing ever negate the fact there's other broken weapons?

Hell didn't we have one person on this forum saying Disintegrators weren't broken? Even though they are?

It's usually the online armchair-commander mantra - "Nerf everything because it's OP, unless I use it.. then it's definitely not OP and needs a buff"

Anyone who says Orks are not amongst the top codexes is deluding themselves - albeit locked to certain cookie cutter builds, but since when is any competitive tournament list not top loaded with spam - it's how you win tournaments.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Literally everyone complained about the Knight codex. What are you babbling about?

And yet in a thread dealing with orks, a SM player complains about drukhari. For no reason at all. Among all the examples he could make, did he consider knights which are the ultimate casual metas breakers? No, of course. Drukhari all the way.

Now please go back to the topic thread, let's discuss about orks.

I've watched three games so far of orks vs drukhari with both time the orks playing horribly inefficient and crap lists... 2/3 times Ork kicked their asses into submission. The 1/3 times was fair play as the dark pointy ears did well, the other times they just couldn't handle the amount of orks on the table all coming into cc and squishing their tiny T3 heroes. This is the thing about DE, they're not really OP they're just Anti tournament (basically anti knight and tank) meta. As long as you have a pretty even spread list they're actually not that hard to defeat. But Knights on the other hand do well all at Anti-Tank and infantry. There is no hard counter for them other than DE with their invulns and anti tank.

Exactly this. Drukhari are hated because tournament players create their lists with knights in mind. And a list focussed in dealing with knights is terrible against drukhari, simple. Knights are the most annoying army, not drukhari, just bring a tac imperium list and drukhari will be a fair opponent. Orks are eventually going to replace this hate since tournaments lists in a knight based meta could spam lots of gretchins and invulnerable lootas (which can melt drukhari in one-two turns) and fast boyz. Effective green tides with tons of cheap wounds and lots of shooting, how does it sound to those players that create their list in order to 1-shot a knight?

One thing may be undercosted or maybe even broken, but unless it's something really broken, like a formation with 300+ points of free stuff or some unkillable super characters, it shouldn't define the state of an army. The 25 lootas combo can end some games in turn 1 and it can be absolutely tournament top tier but it doesn't make orks overpowered because in a real game they can be countered well enough.

In tournaments TAC lists don't work, it's all based around the rock-paper-scissor concept. If knights are rock and drukahri or orks are scissior you can't be paper and then cry if you have to face scissor and not rock as expected. In order to win a tournament you must chose whatever you want to be and hope to avoid your nemesis, that's it. And this conept shouldn't be taken into account when it comes to re-balance the armies, because it doesn't reflect the real status of the game.

It would be silly to have 5ppm gretchins, 22ppm Lootas and 2+CP Grot Shield strategem only because this combo is tournament metas breaking.

This is an Ork thread tho, not a Drukhari balance thread. They were used as an example, there's no need to fly off the rails over it.

You're coming across as someone who shouts CARS ARE FINE BECAUSE CATTLE FARMING IS SO MUCH WORSE STOP HATING ON MY HONDA when someone says we should reduce vehicle emissions because of global warming.

 Blackie wrote:
Orks are eventually going to replace this hate since tournaments lists in a knight based meta could spam lots of gretchins and invulnerable lootas (which can melt drukhari in one-two turns) and fast boyz.

Wouldn't you think the best counter to grot shield lootas would be Drukkari with that stratagem vekt stopping grot shield from working? I have yet to play Drukkari with the new Ork codex but I figure that works?

Edit:words

 Sluggaloo wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Orks are eventually going to replace this hate since tournaments lists in a knight based meta could spam lots of gretchins and invulnerable lootas (which can melt drukhari in one-two turns) and fast boyz.

Wouldn't you think the best counter to grot shield lootas would be Drukkari with that stratagem vekt stopping grot shield from working? I have yet to play Drukkari with the new Ork codex but I figure that works?

Edit:words

Agents of Vect is 4 CPs and Black Heart only though. An ork player that knows the opponent will just put looas out of line of sight and teleport by Da Jump. More Dakka eliminates the penalty from moving and also grants additional shots. If the ork player starts first it doesn't even matter since the volley of autocannon shots is terrible for drukhari. Drukhari aren't also very efficient in taking out infantries from distance, it's all about the diss cannons which maybe have to move forward and end up outside the archon's aura. If they're not Black Heart the game is end turn 1. Don't forget that all the lootas castle costs 700ish points, there's plenty of room to field a bunch of super fast evil sunz boyz that give a lot of pressure and become priority targets as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
This is an Ork thread tho, not a Drukhari balance thread. They were used as an example, there's no need to fly off the rails over it.

You're coming across as someone who shouts CARS ARE FINE BECAUSE CATTLE FARMING IS SO MUCH WORSE STOP HATING ON MY HONDA when someone says we should reduce vehicle emissions because of global warming.

The thread is about thoughts on the new ork codex, so a comparison between them and some of the most competitve armies, inlcuding drukhari, is on topic. Complaints about drukhari and examples that have nothing do to with orks are not.

Orks won the renegade open event a week ago. I think we can say the codex is pretty solid.

 lolman1c wrote:

pismakron wrote:
7 ppm Boyz are fine. They are not as good as they were, but they were very, very good before. A slight nerf was not uncalled for.

but they do have a point... when looking at 40k as a whole there are a lot of troops just as good as boyz that are almost half the price, a few points less or equal points. But because nobody took them on mass (because they had other good units in their codex) then they are ignored. I feel CA should make everyone go up 1pt at least and make marines go down a point or two.

I do not want my Guardian Defenders and Dire Avengers going up a point, 8 and 12 points respectively for a yes fast, but incredibly squishy and short ranged weaponry is already too much.

My Dark Eldar counterparts though, kabalite warriors ARE criminally undercosted compared to Craft World Eldar

Came here to discuss the ORK codex but find an argument between competitive gamers and normal people. No mention of ORKS really. My take on the current argument, casual players do not affect the competitive scene at all but the way the competitive scene behaves has a knock on effect on the casual gamer and believe it or not competitive types, it isn’t positive. I haven’t benefited from any of the “balance” you people have have forced into the developers by using loopholes and ignoring the fluff. Because I never did that. Me and my gaming group of mates balanced each other by all wanting to have a fun game. I hardly ever have to refer to FAQs or errata because the rules work fine as are. At least now gw has matched play only rules and suggestions so we can easily avoid such things. So my comments to competitive 40k players is just leave us casual types to get on with it.

As for the ORK codex I like it. Lots of flavour and style, different clans will play as they should if you do it for effect not for min max glory. The missing units aren’t a problem as the index has it covered. Overall I’m very happy and I’m glad they waited to do it later. They really got their eye in with the character of armies after the dark eldar book. They seemed a bit cut and paste before that.

Maybe this is the reason for the Stompa's pricetag: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/a00l09/i_was_at_the_vigilus_weekender_and_live_reported/?st=jow39cne&sh=7dd15fae

Apparently the Orks will be able to make a Stompa their Warlord and give it a trait from a special Stompa table