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.

I've used Gitz this edition, and I think they work fine. In certain builds. If those Gitz are the most threatening thing on the board, yeah... they'll probably get slaughtered. But if you got enough threats around to make the Gitz a secondary target, they can put in some good work. I usually just grab 9, paired with an Ammo Runt, and put them in a Trukk with Badrukk. Neither the Trukk nor the Gitz are gonna scare anyone compared to the Gorkanaut, Mekadread, Mek Gunz, SSAG, or Dakkajets I also bring. The Trukk helps them get into range, and if it pops, they can Loot It for a 3+ Save. Even better if you can Disembark them into some Cover and make that an effective 2+.

As for the "if they Move and there's a -1 to hit, they're useless" comment, that is literally what would happen to almost every unit in our army. Having pretty much a universal 5+BS makes it difficult to deal with penalties to hit.

Lastly, I think looking at the "top 4" is fine. Though it might be more accurate to just say that Orkz make it to the semi-finals instead. And, if what was said above is correct, a difference of 7% in win/loss isn't a huge deal. I'll start thinking Orkz are on the downswing when that number goes beyond 10%.

i dont get why looking at top 4 is a problem in a 1on1 pairing game.

The final game is between 2 people, if its large enough of a tournament those 2 people faced someone else already in a semi-finals format. So why's the 3rd guy being recognized for being that far but not the 4th when its effectively the same position?

The -1 when gitz move doesnt bug me, its still 27 5+ and 3 4+ (kaptin +1) hits of pretty good stats. My issue is they cost just enough to usually shaft more than 1 thing i want in my list to deal with chaff or elites. As a result im usually sacrificing something that i feel really naked not having to try and use them. I really should bite the bullet and just try it, i have the models and theyre just collecting dust.

Yeah, I agree. Gitz are pretty expensive (a full mob costs as much as a Gorkanaut). They could really use a price drop to make them more palatable.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Englishman was preaching how orks were bad when they got bumped up to 7ppm. I defended orks as being top tier at the time, and look where they are. They have either won or come in the top of almost every event.

Citation needed.

Here you go buddy:



Orks were OK then. They are OK now.

Edit2: Scratch that. They weren't OK. They were competitive. They still are.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i dont get why looking at top 4 is a problem in a 1on1 pairing game.

The final game is between 2 people, if its large enough of a tournament those 2 people faced someone else already in a semi-finals format. So why's the 3rd guy being recognized for being that far but not the 4th when its effectively the same position?

He just randomly declared that my argument was void because he quite obviously missed the rest of us discussing top 4 tournament results as reported by panda for almost half a year now. Just like he found an excuse to declare any other argument void that contradicted any of his opinions.
All he ever posts is logical fallacies, "alternate facts", lies, whining and personal attacks and he will declare himself right no matter what arguments he is represented with.

We should just stop responding to him and hope he goes away again. The ork community is a much nicer place without him.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i dont get why looking at top 4 is a problem in a 1on1 pairing game.

The final game is between 2 people, if its large enough of a tournament those 2 people faced someone else already in a semi-finals format. So why's the 3rd guy being recognized for being that far but not the 4th when its effectively the same position?

He just randomly declared that my argument was void because he quite obviously missed the rest of us discussing top 4 tournament results as reported by panda for almost half a year now. Just like he found an excuse to declare any other argument void that contradicted any of his opinions.
All he ever posts is logical fallacies, "alternate facts", lies, whining and personal attacks and he will declare himself right no matter what arguments he is represented with.

We should just stop responding to him and hope he goes away again. The ork community is a much nicer place without him.

Bit harsh

I dunno if you've dealt with him that much, Slug, but he's basically the Ork version of Xenomancer. Ie: he likes to complain that the army is awful and no one can ever change his mind. I personally don't mind it myself (some good criticism is healthy), but he has a habit of never backing down when multiple people tell him he's wrong. And, I get it: it can be hard on your pride to admit that you're wrong. It's even harder when you think you're right in the face of overwhelming opposition. But you gotta learn to pick your battles, and if you find yourself in the vast minority on a subject, you might wanna let it drop and just concede that you and your opponents aren't gonna see eye to eye on it.

I'd be more than happy to be convinced of the opposite. But that's on him.

Back to something productive, I just dragged this list out of the SM thread which is supposedly the wet dream of an Ultramarine player:

Bat 1
HQ
Super Calgar (Warlord)
Super Tiggy
Troop
3x5 scouts
3x6 Aggressors (Bolt+Frag)
1x Primaris Ancient (Relic Banner)
1x Primaris Apothecary
1x6 Centurion Devastators (Grav Cannon and amp, Hurricane Bolters)

Bat 2
HQ
Primaris Captain (Master-Crafted Auto Bolt Rifle, Power Sword Relic)
Primaris Lieutenant (Relic Auto Bolt Rifle)
3x5 scouts

Doesn't look unbeatable to me. If you manage to take out the centurions and agressors (36 T5/3+ wounds and 24 T5/2+ wounds) you just need to mob up the rest. I wouldn't jump anything near their fire base though, those hurricane bolters and agressors will evaporate any infantry they can get a hold of.

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Englishman was preaching how orks were bad when they got bumped up to 7ppm. I defended orks as being top tier at the time, and look where they are. They have either won or come in the top of almost every event.

Citation needed.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i dont get why looking at top 4 is a problem in a 1on1 pairing game.

The final game is between 2 people, if its large enough of a tournament those 2 people faced someone else already in a semi-finals format. So why's the 3rd guy being recognized for being that far but not the 4th when its effectively the same position?

He just randomly declared that my argument was void because he quite obviously missed the rest of us discussing top 4 tournament results as reported by panda for almost half a year now. Just like he found an excuse to declare any other argument void that contradicted any of his opinions.
All he ever posts is logical fallacies, "alternate facts", lies, whining and personal attacks and he will declare himself right no matter what arguments he is represented with.

We should just stop responding to him and hope he goes away again. The ork community is a much nicer place without him.

Accurate

definitely want a lot of rokkits for that list.
Im glad Nobz in a boy unit can take a combi rokkit. Never noticed that. Since i play badmoonz i kinda have no point in taking a powerklaw anyway, it only really does any noticable damage when i Warpath a 20+ unit (5 PK attacks ftw)
Dunno why but in my area people tend to forget boy rokkitz exist, even though i routinely cause a lot of pain with them. The other 3 ork players dont use special weapons at all in boyz, course 2 of them are goff users so fair i guess.

On topic again, looks at this hammer of wrath Ork list. I might just steal it. https://www.40kstats.com/hammerofwrath

Also a bit more productive: anyone else feel like Ghaz shouldn't be Kultur locked? The dude is the biggest and baddest Ork around, finding folks to follow him that ain't just Goffz should be well within canon. I also feel like he needs some more... oomph to really make him worth the pricetag they're asking. Maybe some "auto pass morale" type of aura, or extra CP like G-Man.

 Jidmah wrote:
He just randomly declared that my argument was void because he quite obviously missed the rest of us discussing top 4 tournament results as reported by panda for almost half a year now. Just like he found an excuse to declare any other argument void that contradicted any of his opinions.
All he ever posts is logical fallacies, "alternate facts", lies, whining and personal attacks and he will declare himself right no matter what arguments he is represented with.

We should just stop responding to him and hope he goes away again. The ork community is a much nicer place without him.

How do you not see the irony of this post? You claim that all I ever post is personal attacks while literally personally attacking me. So far you've yet to respond to my concerns/counterpoints with anything but personal attacks, by the way. In fact so far you've been nothing but rude and obnoxious.

 flandarz wrote:
I dunno if you've dealt with him that much, Slug, but he's basically the Ork version of Xenomancer. Ie: he likes to complain that the army is awful and no one can ever change his mind. I personally don't mind it myself (some good criticism is healthy), but he has a habit of never backing down when multiple people tell him he's wrong. And, I get it: it can be hard on your pride to admit that you're wrong. It's even harder when you think you're right in the face of overwhelming opposition. But you gotta learn to pick your battles, and if you find yourself in the vast minority on a subject, you might wanna let it drop and just concede that you and your opponents aren't gonna see eye to eye on it.

I see you guys like to project on to me huh? I haven't stated, as one of you implied, that Orks are "bottom tier". I haven't even said we're bad. What I HAVE SAID is that we're on the downward swing of competitive viability and we're middle tier/gatekeeper. I've also cited actual evidence to back this opinion up.

Since I've joined this cess pit of a 'conversation' I've been repeatedly personally attacked, insulted. mocked and villified. For what? Not agreeing that we're the best army in the game? I think some, if not many of you need to take a step away from the keyboard and think about why you're on a "discussion board" if you have no intention of actually discussing anything.

Some of you must have missed the fact that the win rate for Orks has been steadily deceasing for some time and now sits at sub 50%.

We are no longer a top level faction. Tyranids perform better.

A dropping, sub 50% win rate is not 'in a good spot' in my opinion. Other armies are literally getting buffed while we stagnate or receive nerfs.

We are dropping below factions generally considered to be middle to bottom tier. That does not describe a top tier army.

Now, have you "technically" said Orkz are bottom tier or that they are bad? No. But when you say things such as these quotes I pulled from just the last page of comments, you are implying as much.

People have shown you statistics of Orkz doing well in the past two months. Hollow One, for example, even provided links to the information that supports his position that Orkz have made it to the Semi-Finals in every tournament in that timeframe, as well as having pulled 1st place in 5 of them.

I am always willing to discuss our flaws and what we can do to improve upon them. Hell, I was the first person to reply to your original comment and go "We were here when Orkz sucked and we'll be here when Orkz suck again." But I feel it's yourself who needs to take a more objective stance in this instance. When presented with information that contradicts your stance, you need to look at it with an open mind and be willing to say "Huh. That's neat. Guess I was wrong. My bad."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note: you have a tendency to word things in literally the worst possible manner. No idea if you do it on purpose or not, but it DOES seem to happen more when it's in support of a point you want to prove. Ex: "Orkz are at a sub-50% W/L ratio" sounds a whole lot worse than "Orkz are at a 48% W/L ratio, and the top performing Factions is at 55%". Just some food for thought.

 flandarz wrote:
Now, have you "technically" said Orkz are bottom tier or that they are bad? No. But when you say things such as these quotes I pulled from just the last page of comments, you are implying as much.

How? Not being a top level faction =/= bottom tier. No one needs to try and second guess my opinion either - I've laid it out for all of you in what I believed was extremely clear language;

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It was noted very early on that we're likely a 'gatekeeper' faction and lo and behold that's exactly what the data shows.

 flandarz wrote:
People have shown you statistics of Orkz doing well in the past two months. Hollow One, for example, even provided links to the information that supports his position that Orkz have made it to the Semi-Finals in every tournament in that timeframe, as well as having pulled 1st place in 5 of them.

Ugh. I have gone through the data. I know how many times we've finished in the top 3 compared to other factions. I also know how many times we've finished first. I've been through every event that's listed. There are periods when we perform well, I haven't disputed this once. This doesn't disprove the fact that our win % is dropping though? It also doesn't prove that our faction is primarily made up of "jokers" and "pro players". There are a number of different names on the lists of top performing Ork players, as well as the obvious honour guard members. Some names I don't recognise.

 flandarz wrote:
I am always willing to discuss our flaws and what we can do to improve upon them. Hell, I was the first person to reply to your original comment and go "We were here when Orkz sucked and we'll be here when Orkz suck again." But I feel it's yourself who needs to take a more objective stance in this instance. When presented with information that contradicts your stance, you need to look at it with an open mind and be willing to say "Huh. That's neat. Guess I was wrong. My bad."

I've literally posted what, 5, 6 times in this thread since returning? In that period you specifically have called me the "Ork version of Xenomancer" and then went on an Ad Hominem tirade. I have been accused of using win % to justify my apparent losses. I've been accused of using logical fallacies, alternate facts (lies, presumably?), whining and personal attacks to justify/defend my position. I've been told I was using Ad Hominem when I asked why we are using 4 as a reference point for top lists and if this supported a certain stance.

And you're telling me that I need to be more objective?

The responses that I've had to the few recent posts I've made in this thread make it pretty obvious that my opinion, whether sensible and based in reality or not, is going to be utterly ignored/criticised/insulted. There is no point presenting the numbers to anyone here because it's clear that nobody wants to listen.

 flandarz wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note: you have a tendency to word things in literally the worst possible manner. No idea if you do it on purpose or not, but it DOES seem to happen more when it's in support of a point you want to prove. Ex: "Orkz are at a sub-50% W/L ratio" sounds a whole lot worse than "Orkz are at a 48% W/L ratio, and the top performing Factions is at 55%". Just some food for thought.

I used the terminology "sub 50%" because when I made the post I couldn't remember the exact percentage.

We are dropping below factions generally considered to be middle to bottom tier.

This is you, again. So, tell me, if we are dropping below bottom tier Factions, what does that make us? Cuz it kinda sounds like you're saying "bottom tier" right there.

I never argued that the win percentage isn't dropping. Just that Orkz are still doing well. And, from what I've seen, that is all everyone else has been saying as well. That said, I believe you're wrong that we're "gatekeepers" based on the numbers presented thus far. As I said earlier, I'll be more willing to accept that Orkz aren't "good" army when the difference between our win percentage and the win percentage of the top armies breaks 10%.

Let me be frank: I don't think ill of Xenomancer. I just think he has a very negative view on his army. And I feel similarly about you. If I implied that Xenomancer is someone to be ostracized or disliked, I apologize. I made a comparison to someone who, I feel, shared a similar view to their army as you do to Orkz. The rest of that post, if it offended you, again was not meant to do so. I just wanted to share that I understand how it feels to be in those shoes and my experience in how to best handle them.

You can present numbers to me. I'll listen. I can't speak for the others, but I am always, 100%, willing to engage in a discussion about Da Boyz. I am also, however, free to disagree with your opinion if I feel it is wrong. You also have this freedom.

OK kids - with all respect to your great warboss skills - what about a beer and focus on topic of the thread? It seems to be "No more muckin' about - Proppa Ork Tactics Thread".

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
Now, have you "technically" said Orkz are bottom tier or that they are bad? No. But when you say things such as these quotes I pulled from just the last page of comments, you are implying as much.

How? Not being a top level faction =/= bottom tier. No one needs to try and second guess my opinion either - I've laid it out for all of you in what I believed was extremely clear language;

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It was noted very early on that we're likely a 'gatekeeper' faction and lo and behold that's exactly what the data shows.

 flandarz wrote:
People have shown you statistics of Orkz doing well in the past two months. Hollow One, for example, even provided links to the information that supports his position that Orkz have made it to the Semi-Finals in every tournament in that timeframe, as well as having pulled 1st place in 5 of them.

Ugh. I have gone through the data. I know how many times we've finished in the top 3 compared to other factions. I also know how many times we've finished first. I've been through every event that's listed. There are periods when we perform well, I haven't disputed this once. This doesn't disprove the fact that our win % is dropping though? It also doesn't prove that our faction is primarily made up of "jokers" and "pro players". There are a number of different names on the lists of top performing Ork players, as well as the obvious honour guard members. Some names I don't recognise.

 flandarz wrote:
I am always willing to discuss our flaws and what we can do to improve upon them. Hell, I was the first person to reply to your original comment and go "We were here when Orkz sucked and we'll be here when Orkz suck again." But I feel it's yourself who needs to take a more objective stance in this instance. When presented with information that contradicts your stance, you need to look at it with an open mind and be willing to say "Huh. That's neat. Guess I was wrong. My bad."

I've literally posted what, 5, 6 times in this thread since returning? In that period you specifically have called me the "Ork version of Xenomancer" and then went on an Ad Hominem tirade. I have been accused of using win % to justify my apparent losses. I've been accused of using logical fallacies, alternate facts (lies, presumably?), whining and personal attacks to justify/defend my position. I've been told I was using Ad Hominem when I asked why we are using 4 as a reference point for top lists and if this supported a certain stance.

And you're telling me that I need to be more objective?

The responses that I've had to the few recent posts I've made in this thread make it pretty obvious that my opinion, whether sensible and based in reality or not, is going to be utterly ignored/criticised/insulted. There is no point presenting the numbers to anyone here because it's clear that nobody wants to listen.

 flandarz wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note: you have a tendency to word things in literally the worst possible manner. No idea if you do it on purpose or not, but it DOES seem to happen more when it's in support of a point you want to prove. Ex: "Orkz are at a sub-50% W/L ratio" sounds a whole lot worse than "Orkz are at a 48% W/L ratio, and the top performing Factions is at 55%". Just some food for thought.

I used the terminology "sub 50%" because when I made the post I couldn't remember the exact percentage.

How does one deal with a 6 model unit of Hive Guard armed with Impaler cannons? Does one absolutely require Mek Gunz to deal with them? Because I have none.

Also, I just discovered that Wartrike's Speedwaagh can affect non-speed freak units.
This makes me really happy, as my Deff Dredd can now actually do something.

I'm kind of curious about how you guys feel about the new marine codex

It sounds like bolter drill and a free attack on turn 1 of combat for all units has become standardized.

I'm kind of alarmed by this as it means that a standard 12 point tacticool marine has 2 attacks turn 1 and a basic primaris marine of any type has 3 attacks. This also affects killy units like jump captains and has the potential to make reiver jumps kinda scary.

The doctrines also appear to give out -1 AP like crazy.

I may be misinterpreting literally all of this but this is my vague understanding from a codex review on YouTube that I suggest you guys watch.

What do you guys think about the new Angels of death rule as far as close combat orks/boys are concerned?

PS apparently intercessor sergeants can now get thunder hammers, e g. They would have 4 attacks on turn 1 of combat.

I think GW needs to hand out buffs like those to everyone. Especially necrons.
Oh, and the make your own chapter / faction mechanic is great.

I wouldnt be too worried about the new Marines, they got more killy but theyre not more durable and Orks were either blowing them off the board with shooting or swamping them with numbers.

ANd to get the shiny bonuses they can only take marines, so no cheap loyal 32 or knights.

In regards to the extra attack, it really will only come into effect if you multicharge units, now the 2cp to interrupt can really hurt Orks. 6 man depleted ork squads are not going to want to charge a 5 man tac squad to tie them up.

Oh, I also like that they are now introducing bonuses that can only be obtained if you field pure armies. Now allies and soup isn't as easy as a choice as before.

I don't think orks are going to be in that bad in a spot against the new marines, as they should still have the numbers and damage output to deal with them. Get those grot shields and mek gunz up.

Yea you just will have to be careful about your support characters. between the eliminators and the stalker boltgun strat to snipe, anything that is within range will probbaly die. Rely on your units and not characters.

Orks relied on characters before?
SSAG is the closest i'd say to be reliant on a character, and that massive reach protects him more than the grots infront of him.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Orks relied on characters before?
SSAG is the closest i'd say to be reliant on a character, and that massive reach protects him more than the grots infront of him.

The waagh and speedwaagh ability is useful for getting stuck in quickly. Pretty important if you are running Evil Sunz or Goffs.
Weirdboyz are the only source of ork psy defense and psychic powers.
Those are the only characters from the top of my head that are worth caring about, imo.

The changes to the KKF makes it less useful at protecting hordes of boyz, and the carrier is so slow its pointless to protect vehicles. Even walkers can outpace a MA Big Mek.
Pain boys have such a low success chance that its not really worth it.
Waagh Banners are nice but they aren't necessary.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How does one deal with a 6 model unit of Hive Guard armed with Impaler cannons? Does one absolutely require Mek Gunz to deal with them? Because I have none.

Also, I just discovered that Wartrike's Speedwaagh can affect non-speed freak units.
This makes me really happy, as my Deff Dredd can now actually do something.

They can't fall back and shoot so usually the best way to neutralize them isn't by killing them it's to touch them in close combat.

 vercingatorix wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How does one deal with a 6 model unit of Hive Guard armed with Impaler cannons? Does one absolutely require Mek Gunz to deal with them? Because I have none.

Also, I just discovered that Wartrike's Speedwaagh can affect non-speed freak units.
This makes me really happy, as my Deff Dredd can now actually do something.

They can't fall back and shoot so usually the best way to neutralize them isn't by killing them it's to touch them in close combat.

Yeah, but they have such long range that they just hide behind their screen or behind a building that its impossible to reach them without taking heavy casualties. Remember that impaler cannons have 36" range and can ignore line of sight. Which is pretty filthy but whatever.
I'm tempted to start kitbashing some lootas from spare parts and have a go with those.

Wartrike just doesnt do anything for me except that very likely T1 charge on vehicles. I love sending two wagons with rollas up like that, even if they just charge chaff they still distract the ever living crap out of my opponent so my wazbom/naut is usually ignored for awhile lol. After that initial charge though, i could care less.
He dies so freakin' easy thanks to that huge footprint i almost WANT you to attack him because hes not worth my time trying to protect anyway. Unless he has Brutal but Kunning or Might is Right hes not even that deadly anyway, which of course means im giving up slay the warlord. Even in games where i completely flattened my opponent, hes died every game.
I dont have that problem with the bikerboss, thanks to the smaller footprint. Which is funny because i tend to suicide-missile him at something lol

I don't think the bikerboss can allow vehicles to charge though.
But yeah, the trike is surprisingly fragile.
Once his screen is gone he's pretty much dead, and that fancy klaw is not only worse than a powerklaw, but can't even be upgraded to a relic. Still, that speedwaagh sure is handy if you have a bunch of vehicles and bikes and want to be agressive.