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:
Let me give you guys an idea of how messed up the current meta is;

Marines make up 25% of the field.
Marines make up 45% of all lists that go 4-0 at a tournament.
Iron hands make up 40% of all marine lists so roughly 10% of the field.
Iron hands make up 27% of all lists that go 4-0 at a tournament.

The primary counter to Iron Hands are daemons or other marines. Most factions have a 20% - 30% win rate vs them.

Orks win rate has dropped 7% since marine releases. Our TWiP is way down. Average first loss is below 2 (so we lose most often in the 2nd round). Boyz we are fethed.

Can you send us the sources?

 Emicrania wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Let me give you guys an idea of how messed up the current meta is;

Marines make up 25% of the field.
Marines make up 45% of all lists that go 4-0 at a tournament.
Iron hands make up 40% of all marine lists so roughly 10% of the field.
Iron hands make up 27% of all lists that go 4-0 at a tournament.

The primary counter to Iron Hands are daemons or other marines. Most factions have a 20% - 30% win rate vs them.

Orks win rate has dropped 7% since marine releases. Our TWiP is way down. Average first loss is below 2 (so we lose most often in the 2nd round). Boyz we are fethed.

Can you send us the sources?

I've given them already - google "40k stats centre - falcone breaks down the marine meta" and go from there. By extension 40k stats is the source.

Any time you base you argument on data, you should provide a direct link to your source. And yes, it's annoying to do on the phone, but if you can't be bothered to provide sources, why should anybody bother arguing your point?

Anyways, you just blindly compare numbers without interpreting them or asking yourself what they actually do tell us.
First of all, those stats do not exclusively reference people playing the game competitively, they reference the entire bandwidth of people playing tournaments. And no, that is not the same. Many people, even on dakka, have said that they don't go to these events for to win, but for the event itself. Seasoned competitive players have said multiple times that the vast majority of tournament players just builds the hardest list available from their collection and try to do well with it, few do massive changes to their armies when the meta shifts. The people who do that tend to show up in the top 4s regularly.
Second, those stats have a real hard time compensating for people switching armies. Many names you used to see running eldar, knights or chaos soup to top finishes are now running iron hands and white scars. If people have two or armies to chose from, the chance is extremely high that one of them is a marine army, because they are both cheap to start from box sets, and have been competitive during this edition before. There is no way of knowing how many ork players have switched to marines because they win more or because they own an army that does better in a marine-polluted environment. In addition, ork tend to attract more hobby-oriented players than other factions because of aesthetics and modeling opportunities.

So, saying orks have no way of beating marines is not a conclusion you can draw from those, considering that we have six examples of ork player going undefeated or 4-1 at GTs despite marine meta.

So what do those numbers tell us?

In general, they say that the average ork player has a hard time beating the average marine player. To which I would agree, marines were already a tough nut to crack for a non-optimized ork list, which might very well have become impossible to do now. Something you can take away from the orks that did do well since Marines 2.0 is that most of them have brought 12-18 smashas.
Which is definitely not something your average ork player has, since you can buy pretty much the entire ork range instead of those 18 mek guns and tournaments rarely allow kitbashes or third party models for them. Before we had many lists substituting them with lootas, tank bustas, flash gits or planes, most ork collections can do that, many still have 15+ lootas from 5th edition.
Or, in other words: you beat marines by throwing money at them.

Competitive ork lists no longer allow you the freedom of not bringing those extremely efficient smashas if you want to beat competitive marines, while a marine list has much more freedom of what to bring since even third tier units are quite powerful due to all the power and utility the new units, stratagems, doctrines and chapter traits provide.
So our army is once again hinging on an obviously badly balanced choice to pull us through competitive games, which is not good at all, we can tell from experience.

So you are essentially not wrong. However, since you have been crying wolf ever since GW announced speed freeks, other ork players stopped listening to you. You might want to reflect on that.

I believe the point of every discussion is to put you facts vs somebody else facts and that try to find a solution. If the point of discussing is to be right , than is a monologue. Which is not very interesting to hear of this thread since we are trying to find solutions to a problem

tneva82 wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:
2 weeks guys. December should be a decent month for us as CA and our PA books come along.

Otherwise, and after digesting them, rage again.

That assumes CA is actually good for orks. PA book for december is BA vs tyranids though. Ork one rumoured to be for january.

Maybe January, PA3 is on preorder the 30th Nov. So technically...november.

PA4 might still be a december thing

 Jidmah wrote:
Any time you base you argument on data, you should provide a direct link to your source. And yes, it's annoying to do on the phone, but if you can't be bothered to provide sources, why should anybody bother arguing your point?

I had no convenient way to post the source I have provided like 3 times already. If you're on here you must have internet connection and can find it yourself, stop being lazy.

Anyways, you just blindly compare numbers without interpreting them or asking yourself what they actually do tell us.

No. I don't. I listen to a podcast that goes into detail on all of these numbers and more while trying to make sense of them. Though I share these opinions, they aren't entirely my own. The guy who runs 40k stats breaks all this down.

First of all, those stats do not exclusively reference people playing the game competitively, they reference the entire bandwidth of people playing tournaments. And no, that is not the same. Many people, even on dakka, have said that they don't go to these events for to win, but for the event itself. Seasoned competitive players have said multiple times that the vast majority of tournament players just builds the hardest list available from their collection and try to do well with it, few do massive changes to their armies when the meta shifts. The people who do that tend to show up in the top 4s regularly.

So? This isn't a problem unique to Orks is it? Presumably every faction had a roughly equal split of 'casual' to 'meta defining' tournament players so its a wash.
Also most if not all people go to a tournament hoping to win all of their games, no matter how unlikely.

Second, those stats have a real hard time compensating for people switching armies. Many names you used to see running eldar, knights or chaos soup to top finishes are now running iron hands and white scars. If people have two or armies to chose from, the chance is extremely high that one of them is a marine army, because they are both cheap to start from box sets, and have been competitive during this edition before. There is no way of knowing how many ork players have switched to marines because they win more or because they own an army that does better in a marine-polluted environment.

Yes and doesn't the fact that our best players have left to play Marines tell you that something might be a bit iffy? Doesn't this prove my point, in that if Orks were competitive they would retain and/or attract better players?

In addition, ork tend to attract more hobby-oriented players than other factions because of aesthetics and modeling opportunities.

And those players don't go to tournaments and you're exaggerating the point. Orks aren't riddled with awful players. Quite the opposite because to have a decent game for like 3 editions you had to literally be a better player than your opponent if you played Orks, we were that bad.

So, saying orks have no way of beating marines is not a conclusion you can draw from those

Nor is it a conclusion I have made. Anywhere. What I have said is that were nonviable in the current meta and that we can't compete. You might beat a marine list. Its very unlikely you beat the 4th and 5th round marine list though.

considering that we have six examples of ork player going undefeated or 4-1 at GTs despite marine meta.

Do those lists face marines on their way to going 4-0? Did they have an easy route to get there? How many Marine lists have gone undefeated or 4-1 in the same time? Too few variables.

So what do those numbers tell us?

In general, they say that the average ork player has a hard time beating the average marine player. To which I would agree, marines were already a tough nut to crack for a non-optimized ork list, which might very well have become impossible to do now. Something you can take away from the orks that did do well since Marines 2.0 is that most of them have brought 12-18 smashas.

If you'd listen to the podcast you'd know that we've seen a consolidation of lists, the 'non-optimised' Ork lists simply aren't taken. Ben Jurek's Freeboota list has disappeared from competitive play, for example. You're right on Smashas though.

Which is definitely not something your average ork player has, since you can buy pretty much the entire ork range instead of those 18 mek guns and tournaments rarely allow kitbashes or third party models for them.

Rubbish. As if tournaments disallow the classic Trukk + 4 Mek Guns kitbash. This is simply wrong. Plenty Ork players have access to 12-18 Smashas (if they want to take them), the problem is that they give up too many kill points in ITC format. Which is why they're taken a lot more here and in Europe.

Before we had many lists substituting them with lootas, tank bustas, flash gits or planes, most ork collections can do that, many still have 15+ lootas from 5th edition.
Or, in other words: you beat marines by throwing money at them.

Again. This is bull. You think top players like Steve Pampreen lack the means to acquire 18 Smashas or do you think he reckoned his chances of winning were better with Marines than Orks? We're getting into tinfoil territory here Jid.

Competitive ork lists no longer allow you the freedom of not bringing those extremely efficient smashas if you want to beat competitive marines, while a marine list has much more freedom of what to bring since even third tier units are quite powerful due to all the power and utility the new units, stratagems, doctrines and chapter traits provide.
So our army is once again hinging on an obviously badly balanced choice to pull us through competitive games, which is not good at all, we can tell from experience.

So you are essentially not wrong. However, since you have been crying wolf ever since GW announced speed freeks, other ork players stopped listening to you. You might want to reflect on that.

I can live without randoms on the internet listening to me Jid and your bizarre fallacies. Don't worry, my fragile psyche will cope, somehow. I thought it might be useful for others who might be wondering why their 'competitive' Ork list is no ljger performing.

CA will be interesting. It had the potential to open up options or completely ruin us.

deleted. AAE is not worth a single line.

The only person who has shared any facts for the last 3 pages is me. Just because they don’t align with your opinion it doesn’t mean you need to take it out on me. Please share those facts of yours that I’ve continuously ignored? It’s literally the opposite lol. I’ve posted stats, podcast information on the current meta that you have literally spent a massive post trying to debunk. Is this a personal thing or something? Do you have a problem because I’m posting this?

There are no ad hominem attacks in my post. Perhaps you need to take a break or something because you’re coming across very badly, again. Get a grip.

I think you should both look up and research dissonance theory, then apply some self analysis. Then take a fresh look at your position.

In short, I think both of you to varying degrees are letting the result you want bias your thinking. This is why you can both look at the same or very similar statistics and draw opposite conclusions.

Here is what I view to be the facts.
1. Marines have gotten a significant boost in all areas.
2. The new supplemental codexes are very strong, with Iron hands providing stratagems that are very very good.
3. More players are playing space marines
4. Orks have received no help and only nerfs since their codex was released.

This means that orks are less powerful and are going to have a harder time competing. However, this doesn't answer the question being batted about, which is

Are orks still competitive, meaning can a player win a good sized, competitive tournament with orks?

I think the answer is yes, orks can win, but I also think that in order for an ork player to do so he either has to have better luck, or be a better player than his marine opponent based on the lists that orks were taking before new marines showed up.

I think it is also too early to tell if orks can shift and make better anti marine builds. In other words we don't have the data yet to determine if orks can adjust to the new marine meta, but ork players in order to compete are going to need to tailor their lists to beat marines

This last is what we should be discussing, not whether or not orks can beat marines, or how powerful our codex is but we should focus on what can be done to compete.

Only after orks move away from our lists designed to counter aeldari flyer, and Knight soup lists to lists focused on beating marines will we know if orks are out of the running or not.

So, how about it, to beat the new marines what do our lists need to look like?

In essence, that's the same I wrote in my previous post.

Summary of Englishman's arguments:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
stop being lazy.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Rubbish.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Again. This is bull.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We're getting into tinfoil territory here Jid.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
your bizarre fallacies.

This data should be taken with a grain of salt; drawing definitive explanations is tougher than you think. We aren't measuring on base percentage and stuff here.

Data for Orks since September til today (https://www.40kstats.com/faction-vs-faction)



We have some winning matches and losing matchups. Looks like SW and Marines seem to be our worst, and Sisters is off to a bad start (but lets give that a few months).

Portions of the Ork build I think is about to go out of style. Infiltrators are busted, and a few armies can easily wreck the boy blob before it does much (which is a huge waste of points if they can't infiltrate, yay for 12" no DS bubble). But to honest, I think there are game winning strategies still. Mek Gunz are still insanely undercosted, SAG spam is still incredibly powerful, even against marines.

I think a grot tide that really leans into our shooting is probably a winner, even against nuMarines, it's probably just miserable to field / paint / expensive to build. Most armies will not be happy to face down 300 models, and they can't get to our SSAG (snipers trying to kill your SSAG? Grot shield them! Good luck getting the eliminators through that gak).

CA and PA may actually shake things up for us; there are a ton of underutilized models that they may drop in points just to sell them (looking at you, buggies!). PA has been mixed, but there has been some legitimately powerful stuff released. Ork psychic stuff, although useful, seems to really be under developed. I'm curious to see if they actually make Weirdboyz more interesting.

Unbelievable. There’s no bias here, if people actually read what I’ve written before rage-typing a stupid response they’d see that I’ve stated that this issue isn’t unique to Orks. This isn’t me banging a ‘woe is me, Orks are awful’ drum, I’ve literally presented facts. GSC, IK, Tyranids, Custodes are all in a similar position to us. CWE can’t seem to beat Iron Hands. Literally every power armour army, including non-codex Astartes has had a boost.

It is a fact that our first loss in the Marine meta is now below 2 (this isn’t a good thing).
It is a fact that our win percentage has dropped some 7% since marines launched.
It is a fact that we have a much smaller TWIP than we have had (it’s proportionally smaller than our player base) since marines launched.

The funniest/most insane thing is that I’ve repeatedly provided my source for this and some of you are so desperate to strawman or ad hominem that you’ve completely ignored it. I’m genuinely baffled how you can possibly think you’re anything but biased if you’re unwilling to even educate yourself when a source of information is offered to you. But whatever. You know better than people who spend hours every week analysing the stats on competitive 40k, I guess.

The facts above are a summary of my arguments. I’ll add that if far better players than me decided that it would be better/easier to join marines rather than figure out what the anti marine Ork list is then there probably isn’t a great list out there.

But hey, best of luck to you if you want to keep chasing that unicorn.

Would Lootaz work well against nuMarines? S7, AP-1, and D2 seems like it should be pretty decent against their statblock, and paired with SAGs and Smashas, we should have enough firepower to deal with most anything they throw at us. Of course, Grot Spam could work too, for just holding down Objectives and being a pain to get rid of (but you better bring some means to mitigate those Morale losses), but it's obviously not a very satisfying way to win (and of there's a chess clock situation, you could end up running out of time by T3).

 flandarz wrote:
Would Lootaz work well against nuMarines? S7, AP-1, and D2 seems like it should be pretty decent against their statblock, and paired with SAGs and Smashas, we should have enough firepower to deal with most anything they throw at us. Of course, Grot Spam could work too, for just holding down Objectives and being a pain to get rid of (but you better bring some means to mitigate those Morale losses), but it's obviously not a very satisfying way to win (and of there's a chess clock situation, you could end up running out of time by T3).

Lootas weapons are great Primaris killers, but I think the issue you run in to is keeping them alive long enough for them to make a game lasting impact.

If we could keep Lootas reliably (at full strength) around even 2 full turns with Showing Off, they might be god tier for us in the marine meta. With 1 round of shooting? I dunno. Good, but maybe not game winning.
I heard a point recently. The new marines are so good because they are incredibly deadly *and* durable. If you can keep a model or unit on the board 4-6 turns, it's probably doing more for you then something that's slaughtered in 1-2 turns (even if on paper, it has way less killing power).
I am wondering if MANz get a decent point drop they'll have a resurgence, as they are one of the few things we can field that can take a punch without too much support.

Grot horde is definitely tough on the clock, but you might be able to get good enough at it to keep it under; just probably miserable to use even if you do. And runtherds are a cheap enough investment if you are actually fielding that many grots anyway. Fun fact! Their "breaking grot heads" ability isn't even clan locked.
Painboy aura would also be relatively easy to pass to a lot of grot units as well. With some decent KFF coverage, you could make this army *incredibly* annoying to remove from shooting.

Lootaz have the range, ap, damage and St to do the job. The question is how to find the points, keep them on the table, keep los and get them to hit.

All of these can be addressed - smaller armies, cover, multiple units, stratagems - but then we are playing the Marine game with Ork tools.

Flooding the board with Grots has worked 100% for me. But that was one game, at 500pts, vs Eldar, using Snakebites for the Fearless Grot trait around a Warboss :j

Have not played tournaments for a while, but learned long ago that you do not take Orks to tournament in the expectation of sweeping the board. Right or wrong, to do that you have to be prepared to spend money regularly and practice your game exhaustively.

The problem with Lootas is the 6+++ of iron hands and always in cover Raven Guard abilities. They're no longer reliable marine killers and they require significant investment to work.

Hopefully some of our vehicles can see a point drop in CA, cuz we have some decent Marine killers in there, if only they were priced appropriately. Bikers come to mind, and if they were cheaper, they'd be an excellent unit to use in the current meta.

I kinda feel like GW forgot that Ork durability is dependent on how much stuff we can field, rather than Saves or Toughness, and haven't been pricing us correctly for that.

I'll chime in with the lootas not being the the solution to marines

My reason is that you don't win the game by just blowing up all the primaris.
The units I want gone most when facing a marine army are the TF cannons, eliminators, executioners, centurions, interceptors and agressors, Lootas aren't good against any of those, either because they are hidden from view, have good armor saves, 3 wounds or T8.
Lootas are great against invictors, impulsors, storm talons and storm ravens though, which also see a fair amount of play, so they aren't worthless either. Right now I feel like tank bustas are a much better choice, as they work well against all those targets besides centurions.

In general, point drops could solve that problem for us - bone breakers, scrap jets, SJD, morkanauts and the wazbomm are all really good at killing those priority targets, but they cost too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/d4758fa7.pdf

Shower thought: Does the red gobo help enabling brigades?
He is one point less than a KMB mini-mek, and if you're not deff skulls he's better at shooting when you are not running deff skulls (BS 3+!). If you are feeling silly, he can even be your warlord.
Especially when trying to build a speed freeks army, I often find that none of the elite choices really snyergize with any of the fast things, but just throwing a 30 point grot with a decent gun in any of my transports seems like a good deal.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'll chime in with the lootas not being the the solution to marines

My reason is that you don't win the game by just blowing up all the primaris.
The units I want gone most when facing a marine army are the TF cannons, eliminators, executioners, centurions, interceptors and agressors, Lootas aren't good against any of those, either because they are hidden from view, have good armor saves, 3 wounds or T8.
Lootas are great against invictors, impulsors, storm talons and storm ravens though, which also see a fair amount of play, so they aren't worthless either. Right now I feel like tank bustas are a much better choice, as they work well against all those targets besides centurions.

Another issue is also primaris marines aren't exactly short of ways to remove those. Even pre-new codex I have had 15 lootas vaporized T1 behind 60 grots. Now with bolter drill and new codex and all the boosts...

Shower thought: Does the red gobo help enabling brigades?
He is one point less than a KMB mini-mek, and if you're not deff skulls he's better at shooting when you are not running deff skulls (BS 3+!). If you are feeling silly, he can even be your warlord.
Especially when trying to build a speed freeks army, I often find that none of the elite choices really snyergize with any of the fast things, but just throwing a 30 point grot with a decent gun in any of my transports seems like a good deal.

Could be. Of course being legends and not recommended for competive plays # of tournaments you can expect to use him are limited. Locally here he's 100% quaranteed to be out of usability.

Isn't he gonna be Legnd aswell in December?

tneva82 wrote:
Another issue is also primaris marines aren't exactly short of ways to remove those. Even pre-new codex I have had 15 lootas vaporized T1 behind 60 grots. Now with bolter drill and new codex and all the boosts...

That's actually a very valid concern, especially since TF cannons are terrifyingly good at blowing up gretchin. Tank bustas can be hidden in the tellyporta, another advantage for them.

Could be. Of course being legends and not recommended for competive plays # of tournaments you can expect to use him are limited. Locally here he's 100% quaranteed to be out of usability.

Of course. I will be able to use legends indefinitely, but most likely tournaments will put an end to that.
Model-wise he might also be a good proxy for Badrukk.

 Emicrania wrote:
Isn't he gonna be Legnd aswell in December?

As well? He's already legend. There's not been single day he hasn't been legend.

Every time I see "I lost 75 models in a single Turn" I have a small heart attack. Even with a 2+ BS, S8, and AP-1+, that's about 110 shots, on average (175 with a 3+, S5-7, and AP-1+). Guess it just makes me glad that my local meta doesn't include Marines, cuz that's just a crazy amount of firepower for 2k points. Especially if they still have units left to shoot after all that.

In my experience lootas aren't great against marines. Their AP-1 means that the humies will save a lot of hits (half or even more) while the green dudes still die pretty easily even with Grot Shields. Flash Gitz are more efficient but also more expensive and they need to be positioned in a perfect spot due to their worse range. Those pirates are also decent against marines but not so much against many other armies while lootas are tipycally more TAC oriented.

I'm not a fan of shielding units with gretchins since many armies can throw them too many shots that the unit you want to save suffers a significan amount of casualties, crippling the unit. Deepstriking bustas costs +1CP than shielding lootas but it's a guaranteed massacre as they'll shoot at full strenght no matter what. The only drawback is to make them arrive within range of the most juicy target but even if the opponent is smart enough to make impossible for the bustas to aim at it they will still have valuable targets to get their points back.

My personal take is to avoid both lootas and flash gitz against SM and field tons of Smasha guns. As many as you can. Then I'd bring the deepstriking max unit of 15 (+6 bomb squigs) tankbustas which should melt 3 tanks/flyers or a knight. The souped up SAG and eventually up to other two SAG will complete the shooting options in my typical list against competitive marines.

It's the typical boring green tide with boyz, grots, characters, mek gunz and a shooty unit that is very CPs thirsty but it does ok against marines. At least for 2-3 turns which is what you need in a tournament.

I have been tabled playing a Pampreen FG/Tankabusta grot inspired list with 190 models. I NEVER lost more than 30/40 models per round. I honestly believe if you lose 75 models a turn, you either playing on planet bowling ball, either you are a bad player. Honestly. Use cover.

Also, playing ITC I learned one thing, I can completely wipe my opponent in 2/3 rounds, or I can get wrecked, a lot depend from my ability to play the mission. Than again. SM at the moment they do everything good and that sucks. Let's see what x-mas bring...

 Blackie wrote:
In my experience lootas aren't great against marines. Their AP-1 means that the humies will save a lot of hits (half or even more) while the green dudes still die pretty easily even with Grot Shields. Flash Gitz are more efficient but also more expensive and they need to be positioned in a perfect spot due to their worse range. Those pirates are also decent against marines but not so much against many other armies while lootas are tipycally more TAC oriented.

The -1 isn't that bad as many targets have inv save anyway so it wouldn't matter much. And being cheaper than flash gits they cause more casualties by sheer numbers anyway. Plus longer range. No -1 to hit first time to move, more quaranteed for range(my necrons struggle in T1 to cause much casualties with M5 and 24" range...Good thing I play nephrek so I can auto advance 6" with my tesla immortals). And due to short range harder to keep alive.

I'm not a fan of shielding units with gretchins since many armies can throw them too many shots that the unit you want to save suffers a significan amount of casualties, crippling the unit. Deepstriking bustas costs +1CP than shielding lootas but it's a guaranteed massacre as they'll shoot at full strenght no matter what. The only drawback is to make them arrive within range of the most juicy target but even if the opponent is smart enough to make impossible for the bustas to aim at it they will still have valuable targets to get their points back.

Who fires lootas directly then? You shoot them once to pull up stratagem, then you blow the T2 grots directly. More efficient than gunning down T4 targets.

One issue with that is that you come on T2. If you get first opponent has basically shot 2/3 of the turns that really count.

I actually think Lootas would be fine against more units than suggested *if* we could keep them alive more than 1 turn. Because we can’t they are lacklustre.

It’s hard to field more than 1 unit of any of our shooty infantry. It’s why I hope our wagons get way cheaper so we can field them as proper gun platforms.

I agree about Grot shields. I think it’s a bit of a red herring; the tellyporta combo is way more useful and consistent.

Has anyone who has lost a billion grots done so when they’ve been under a KFF + painboy on turn 1?

It’s probably better to hide Lootas and da jump / move them into LOS then hope your shields hold up. Or use them similar to tankbustas and just more Dakka them on landing. Grots are probably best against indirect fire, since it’s unlikely they’ll be able to field enough to both trigger and wipe the grots out. But at that point, maybe you should just tellyporta.

Dont thunderfirecannons fire indirect anyway? So hiding the lootas will technically help as non-thunderfires cant hit them but the thunderfires are the main threat anyway?

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Dont thunderfirecannons fire indirect anyway? So hiding the lootas will technically help as non-thunderfires cant hit them but the thunderfires are the main threat anyway?

Yeah... I dunno how you deal with suppression fire and tremor shells for a model that can hide almost anywhere and be in range. It can also tag multiple units with shaken. Woof. Basically a massive middle finger to slogging infantry.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Dont thunderfirecannons fire indirect anyway? So hiding the lootas will technically help as non-thunderfires cant hit them but the thunderfires are the main threat anyway?

They can usually just shell the gretchin, it's hard to hide both the lootas and the gretchin.