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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Nym wrote:
Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect). Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be payable. Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad.

This isn't true.

It just isn't.

Which part?

"Orks did not place well because their (only) top list relies on a single Stratagem that's countered by one of the most played faction's strat (Vect)." - TRUE. All the Ork lists I looked at (around 10 or so) relied on the Loota bomb. Dark Eldar made up a massive proportion of the playership at LVO (greater than Orks even I understand) and the most common subfaction within the DE detachments was Black Heart by a country mile.

"Lootas utterly suck, only Grot shield allows them to be p[l]ayable." - TRUE if you take Grot shields out of the game Lootas never see play. They are absolutely reliant on it.

"Anyone who thinks 17pts is a fair price for a T4 1w 6+ model is clearly mad." - also TRUE. Even our GK player from earlier was shot down when he started to compare the two.

I'm struggling to see which part of Nym's statement is in any way false?

 SHUPPET wrote:
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

In shuppet's defense, I did say orkz would do well in the first few months after the codex came out because people were adjusting to the new meta....of course the codex came out in November and its currently mid February, so about twice as long as i said the ork codex would be doing well by relying on people not understand it. I have also seen people saying that the ork faction will be over represented in the top rankings because some of the best players in the game are playing Orkz....something that was proven true by the simple fact that the two best players finished in the top 20 and nobody else came even close even though we had something like 10% of the armies at LVO. And of course I am definitely one of those "trumpeting how poorly orks did at LVO" but mostly because I was proven right in my prediction perfectly.

Orkz are mid tier at absolute best. We have two tricks that work in any competitive sense. 1: Loota bomb, easily countered by GSC and Aeldari soup, not to mention, not exactly hard to wipe out grot shields...you know T2 and 6+ save and all, but even if you don't shoot them off the table, I have had Eldar jetbikes assault them and kill them. And 2: Codex: Deepstrike which is easily countered by meat shields.

Beyond the two tricks we have which rely exclusively on strats to be worth using, all of our units are over priced and under-performing, boyz went up in price, lootas are unusable without 3 strats being used on them, Burna's are a joke, Rokkitz on anything beyond tankbusta's is a waste, basically our entire fast attack slot is a tax for brigades.

Honestly without our Shoot twice stratagem I would rate the Ork codex as slightly below mid tier.

 Galas wrote:

Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"

Cry me a river. How is SM relying on Guilliman to be competitive any different from Orks having to rely on Bad Moon Lootas using a very specific set of stratagems to be competitive? Or Eldar relying on Ynarri Shining Spears, Reapers and Clown Bikes? Or IG relying on massed Infantry? It isn't. If you want to compete you will take the best thing available to your faction. And the biggest joke? The most competitive pure SM list is evidently better than the most competitive Ork list.

And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list.

When we had the best player in the world using the faction? When the guy who literally finished first the year before couldn't do better than 16th? When we have less players in the top groupings of the tournament than we should have had percentage-wise? When we lose more times than we win? I do. Any reasonable person would.

And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.

Not what I said. What I said is that we had a tiny percentage of the top 50 and top 100 compared to the total number of players using Orks. That should be easier to compute?

Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.

How? Please explain to me how you can claim when a faction loses more times than it wins, has an awful performance (overall, accounting for the entire Ork playership) at the largest competitive 40k event and the best player in the world is unable to take it to a better place than 16th even with many variables advantaging the faction (magic boxes for example) that the faction is anything but low tier? Please explain to me using your stats that show us to be better than those I have provided.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Most people I have seen said that Space Marines can compete (Not much anymore but they can still appear in TOP20-30 of big tournaments or even TOP15) by using Guilliman. But thats it. People doesn't say "Space Marine suck, buff guilliman gunline". People say "Space marines suck, buff the 90% rest of our army so we can play it, do whatever you want with guilliman"

Cry me a river. How is SM relying on Guilliman to be competitive any different from Orks having to rely on Bad Moon Lootas using a very specific set of stratagems to be competitive? Or Eldar relying on Ynarri Shining Spears, Reapers and Clown Bikes? Or IG relying on massed Infantry? It isn't. If you want to compete you will take the best thing available to your faction. And the biggest joke? The most competitive pure SM list is evidently better than the most competitive Ork list.

And I don't see a TOP16 in a 700-800 person tournament to be "doing poorly", specially when the top1 and top 8 are 60% small variations of the same list.

When we had the best player in the world using the faction? When the guy who literally finished first the year before couldn't do better than 16th? When we have less players in the top groupings of the tournament than we should have had percentage-wise? When we lose more times than we win? I do. Any reasonable person would.

And sorry but the "10% players had orks so if less than 10% of the top 50 are orks then they are in a bad spot" just doesn't compute.

Not what I said. What I said is that we had a tiny percentage of the top 50 and top 100 compared to the total number of players using Orks. That should be easier to compute?

Not to say that orks are OP or ultra competitive or anything. I also think their power was overly estimated. But to say that they are a low tier army is just wrong.

How? Please explain to me how you can claim when a faction loses more times than it wins, has an awful performance (overall, accounting for the entire Ork playership) at the largest competitive 40k event and the best player in the world is unable to take it to a better place than 16th even with many variables advantaging the faction (magic boxes for example) that the faction is anything but low tier? Please explain to me using your stats that show us to be better than those I have provided.

Stop downplaying it and people may actually take what you say seriously.

The question here is whether Orks are a top tier faction capable of fighting it out with top soup lists or just an AM level codex limited by not having access to soup, because having lists in the top 50 and a 16th place means being not as good as Tau as a monocodex but at least as good as CWE.
SM had ONE good result, and that's it. Check how many more lists were in the top 50! SM had WORSE results than Orks, because the most important result in a tournament of that size is actually the number of lists that did 4-2 or better compared to the total number of lists of that faction. I think that even AM had worse results than Orks, but with soups being a thing is always hard to judge how good AM did. The really funny thing though is that the best mono AM list had no infantry squads.

Spoletta wrote:
Stop downplaying it and people may actually take what you say seriously.

The question here is whether Orks are a top tier faction capable of fighting it out with top soup lists or just an AM level codex limited by not having access to soup, because having lists in the top 50 and a 16th place means being not as good as Tau as a monocodex but at least as good as CWE.
SM had ONE good result, and that's it. Check how many more lists were in the top 50! SM had WORSE results than Orks, because the most important result in a tournament of that size is actually the number of lists that did 4-2 or better compared to the total number of lists of that faction. I think that even AM had worse results than Orks, but with soups being a thing is always hard to judge how good AM did. The really funny thing though is that the best mono AM list had no infantry squads.

I'm not downplaying anything. The results speak for themselves. Nor do I particularly care whether people take what I say seriously on here or not. This place isn't exactly known for it's high level, intelligent discussion.

How do you figure Orks are as good as CWE as a monofaction since all good players using CWE will also be souping, for obvious reasons?

Can you post how many other pure SM lists were in the top 50? Same for pure IG lists? Also how many of each of those monofaction lists were there total? Then compare the Ork results to any list that had an SM or IG contingent.

This misdirection is getting tiresome. Let me make something abundantly clear - I don't care if mono IG and mono SM are both weaker than mono Orks, if the game is to be balanced around soup they probably should be. Luckily for them they have the option of allying and cherrypicking the best units from the largest faction in the game - Imperium. Orks, Tau and Necrons don't have this luxury. We stand on the strength of our own faction. Necrons are largely considered trash tier. Tau have performed well consistently since their codex and received a load of price drops in CA, they also performed well in this tournament. Orks have, so far at least, performed poorly. I don't have the luxury that your faction of choice might have, in that I can just go "Oh well, guess I'll see what this Castellan/Ynarri/[insert a staple of competitive soup play here] fuss is all about" if I am losing games. I also don't have the luxury that I can add most the new releases, should their rules be particularly strong, to my force, unlike soup players. Instead I have to wait until GW finally decide to look at Orks again which, given the amount of time it took for our codex release and given past performance, should be sometime in the next 2-3 years.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

Lol this is rich.

Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc).
SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is."
*LVO happens*
Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen."
SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"

This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.

Hmmmmmm... how bout you, just for once, for the first time ever, actually provide some proof to YOUR claim? If you can source me at ANY point saying this, I will admit you were right.

No, really I'm waiting. I don't recall EVER saying that at all or anything even resembling it that you could paraphrase down to this. But you seem confident that I did, so if you're right please prove it? This should be an easy win for you if what you say is true. You won't be able to do it though, because akin to your proven fabricated Geoff Robinson quotes, your fabricated Pablo Martinez quotes, your current quote of me is one that was simply never said.


For someone who makes liberal use of the term "strawman" without actually understanding it's meaning, you need a better tactic other than inventing non-existant statements to argue against and then pretending "you can't be bothered" to source them. This revisionist history doesn't work on a forum where everything is a click or two away.



My only point was that certain people were dismissing the validity of LVO stats beforehand, who are now waving them around as proof of their perspective. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways, either it was going to be representative of their status or not and you can't just option select whichever one suits you best retrospectively lol and it's funny to see this in action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

In shuppet's defense, I did say orkz would do well in the first few months after the codex came out because people were adjusting to the new meta....of course the codex came out in November and its currently mid February, so about twice as long as i said the ork codex would be doing well by relying on people not understand it. I have also seen people saying that the ork faction will be over represented in the top rankings because some of the best players in the game are playing Orkz....something that was proven true by the simple fact that the two best players finished in the top 20 and nobody else came even close even though we had something like 10% of the armies at LVO. And of course I am definitely one of those "trumpeting how poorly orks did at LVO" but mostly because I was proven right in my prediction perfectly.

Orkz are mid tier at absolute best. We have two tricks that work in any competitive sense. 1: Loota bomb, easily countered by GSC and Aeldari soup, not to mention, not exactly hard to wipe out grot shields...you know T2 and 6+ save and all, but even if you don't shoot them off the table, I have had Eldar jetbikes assault them and kill them. And 2: Codex: Deepstrike which is easily countered by meat shields.

Beyond the two tricks we have which rely exclusively on strats to be worth using, all of our units are over priced and under-performing, boyz went up in price, lootas are unusable without 3 strats being used on them, Burna's are a joke, Rokkitz on anything beyond tankbusta's is a waste, basically our entire fast attack slot is a tax for brigades.

Honestly without our Shoot twice stratagem I would rate the Ork codex as slightly below mid tier.

Thank you Semper for recognising the sentiment I'm talking about here and that not everyone who shared it has put it as mildly and amiably as you did pre-LVO. I respect your opinion, mid tier may just be accurate but one thing I speak out against is people claiming they are only competitive "gatekeepers". They are definitely more than a "gatekeeper" army as certain others have labelled in the past. Having a poor match-up doesn't condense an entire army into a niche of gatekeeping, any more than Tyranids for example are a gatekeeper, who have two very iconic and edition persistent match ups. Nah, thats just downplay, Nids are (or at least we're before GSC) a solid mid, like Orks may be now.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO, turns out the stats do matter in the end. I genuinely find this hilarious, the complete, utter and total lack of self-awareness could not be any more brazen.

Lol this is rich.

Ork players - "We believe our army isn't top tier as we play the army a ton and all the stats back up our thoughts (45% win rate, very few GT wins etc).
SHUPPET - " Nah those stats don't count for anything, we need to see how a top player handles the army to truly see how strong it is."
*LVO happens*
Ork players - "See, we told you this before but you wouldn't listen."
SHUPPET - "ROFL you dismissed stats ahead of time! Look at this straw man! Isn't it pretty?"

This is bogus. Provide proof to back up your claim.

Hmmmmmm... how bout you, just for once, for the first time ever, actually provide some proof to YOUR claim? If you can source me at ANY point saying this, I will admit you were right.

No, really I'm waiting. I don't recall EVER saying that at all or anything even resembling it that you could paraphrase down to this. But you seem confident that I did, so if you're right please prove it? This should be an easy win for you if what you say is true. You won't be able to do it though, because akin to your proven fabricated Geoff Robinson quotes, your fabricated Pablo Martinez quotes, your current quote of me is one that was simply never said.


For someone who makes liberal use of the term "strawman" without actually understanding it's meaning, you need a better tactic other than inventing non-existant statements to argue against and then pretending "you can't be bothered" to source them. This revisionist history doesn't work on a forum where everything is a click or two away.

SHUPPET I wasn't being literal. Clearly my statements weren't you verbatim. Regardless, people in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones but it's a bit too late for that so please do go first as I asked in the very post you quoted.

Show us any proof of this statement; "I love how the EXACT same people who were already dismissing the Ork stats at LVO ahead of time ("it will do well because people haven't bothererd learning how to beat dex!" - "its just because good players are playing it not because the dex is good!" - etc), are the exact same people now trumpeting how poorly Orks did at LVO". Show that you aren't strawmanning. I'll wait. And if you manage to prove it I'll gladly admit I was wrong and that you aren't just strawmanning.

Oh and both my Geoff Robinson and Pablo Martinez quotations were real, but you already know this. Pablo was the second podcaster I heard refer to Orks as a gatekeeper army. If you weren't some random on a forum I would bother to find the exact video timestamp for you, but I'm sure you'll have some ridiculous response, or you'll simply leave the thread, happy at having wasted my time.

My only point was that certain people were dismissing the validity of LVO stats beforehand, who are now waving them around as proof of their perspective. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways, either it was going to be representative of their status or not and you can't just option select whichever one suits you best retrospectively lol and it's funny to see this in action.

Who? Who are these "certain people"? To be fair, if that was the case I agree. But I didn't notice anyone doing it. Certainly not any Ork players but, again, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

lol @ "I wasn't being literal".

You literally put quotation marks around a statement and claimed I said it. I didn't ask you to quote me verbatim, I specifically asked you to provide proof of ANY statement I made that could even be paraphrased to resemble what you are claiming I said. What does not being literal mean here? Is this another way of admitting that you just completely invented a perspective I absolutely never expressed, and yet unmistakeably attributed it to me?


SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?

 SHUPPET wrote:
SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?

Yea I saw that. you also admitted to not be referring to him in your post. So who WERE you referring to? No I couldn't care less if you were referring to me particularly.

To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?

Still waiting on that proof.....

Orks representation in the top chunk of LVO was quite good. While they can't compete with Imperial Guard or Ynnari, no one really can, which is why those two factions always win everything.

Other than that, Orks overall outperformed all flavors of space marines, Necrons, Tyranids, Ad-Mech, and were on par with Tau, Craftworlds, and Dark Eldar.

Orks are the perfect example of a good codex. Intensely powerful but with real weaknesses. And unlike other good armies (Dark Eldar) they don't depend on allies to prop them up (not that they can take allies, but still).

Naturally the Genestealer Cults codex is going to gak on them, but it's going to ruin everyone except Imperial Guard.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
SemperMortis admitted to doing just that where I quoted him in the second half of the post, so if you are trying to argue that there weren't people doing this then that's a road that doesn't go very far. Is what you are actually asking is whether or not I'm referring to you?

Yea I saw that. you also admitted to not be referring to him in your post. So who WERE you referring to? No I couldn't care less if you were referring to me particularly.

Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others. However If I wanted to target people by name, I would have in my original post, I don't feel I need to go that far nor do I want to - the people in question know who they are. I'll mention Semper's name now as he put his hand up, and he was also one of the people who was a bit more amicable and a lot less declamatory in his delivery. If you don't feel it applies to you, you needn't get this defensive over it, as it was not directed towards you. My statement stands, certain people who dismissed LVO stats beforehand are now rallying behind it. This proof that what I claimed was happening, exists simply a few posts above my own, at this point the validity of my statement is not in question, there is no onus for me to find further sources for something left intentionally openended.

You on the other hand, chose to name me by name. You choose to paraphrase a "non-verbatim" perspective I supposedly expressed (even though it directly clashes with actual statements I've made in the past) so please, for the first time ever - source one of your nonsense, invented quotes that you make on other people's behalf. Your Geoff "quote" was disproven, your Pablo "quote" remains unsourced, and now you are refusing to do the simple thing of quoting me on it. I have barely posted in weeks, it should be easy - this is an easy win for you, PROVE I SAID SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THIS, or stop quoting me with falsified statements IMMEDIATELY. Literally the ONLY reason not do so is because you have outright lied about it. Which you have.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?

Oh, I didn't realise we were being pedants now.

FTR, claiming "the codex only does well because people haven't spent enough time adjusting to it" is almost identical to "the codex only does well because people haven't learned how to beat it yet", but if you want to separate them into two different reasons for dismissing the LVO results, that's absolutely fine. It was encompassed in my post by the fact that I gave two examples of reasons why people were doing it and said "etc". My point doesn't die by a new reason being used to dismiss the LVO results and then later rally behind lol, it just expands upon it.

Curious, as I don't play them nor do I have the codex. Why are GK considered flaming dumpster tier?

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
Curious, as I don't play them nor do I have the codex. Why are GK considered flaming dumpster tier?

in short terms, everything pays a bit too much for what they gets. It's difficult to point at any one thing besides that, because the tools it needs are there technically, they just aren't at a reasonable cost.

I personally probably wouldn't go as far as "flaming dumpster tier", though they are the worst in the game.

They are Space Marines (A faction of overcosted generalist) that is even more overcosted for a couple of advantages that aren't really that usable. They aren't unusable, as a couple of people in LVO has shown. They have some tricks that they can pull off.

But is like playing Ganondorf in a Smash Bros Game. You aren't playing to win, you are playing to try to humiliate your opponent with a bad faction.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others.

This is new. And I note you've edited your post when you said literally the opposite. You actually said "Semper I wasn't referring to you" in that post you've edited 4 times above. Shame I didn't quote that part of your post before you had a chance to edit it. Lol unreal. You realise I can see when you edit posts right?

However If I wanted to target people by name, I would have in my original post, I don't feel I need to go that far nor do I want to - the people in question know who they are. I'll mention Semper's name now as he put his hand up, and he was also one of the people who was a bit more amicable and a lot less declamatory in his delivery. If you don't feel it applies to you, you needn't get this defensive over it, as it was not directed towards you. My statement stands, certain people who dismissed LVO stats beforehand are now rallying behind it. This proof that what I claimed was happening, exists simply a few posts above my own, at this point the validity of my statement is not in question, there is no onus for me to find further sources for something left intentionally openended.

I'm defensive because I know your statement is false and I dislike the way you throw around these falsehoods to claim an entire subsection of the playerbase is speaking rubbish. Since you've yet to provide any proof and since you've said two things directly contradicting each other ('Semper, you're not one of the people I'm referring to' and then 'Semper was one of the people I was referring to') and you've now edited the post to remove your contradictory statement I can safely say that you don't discuss things in good faith.

You on the other hand, chose to name me by name. You choose to paraphrase a "non-verbatim" perspective I supposedly expressed (even though it directly clashes with actual statements I've made in the past) so please, for the first time ever - source one of your nonsense, invented quotes that you make on other people's behalf. Your Geoff "quote" was disproven, your Pablo "quote" remains unsourced, and now you are refusing to do the simple thing of quoting me on it. I have barely posted in weeks, it should be easy - this is an easy win for you, PROVE I SAID SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THIS, or stop quoting me with falsified statements IMMEDIATELY. Literally the ONLY reason not do so is because you have outright lied about it. Which you have.

Have you finished going back and editing all those posts yet or do you need more time?

I can't prove you said something because apparently you go back and rewrite the silly things you've said and unless I quote everything you write there and then you will simply change it later when it suits. Just as you have done with Semper above. This is a waste of time. You've really shown your true colours here.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
To be clear Semper didn't admit to saying what you claimed people said either. What he actually stated was that the codex would do well for the first few months while people adjusted to it (you can see this in your own post), he did not state that the codex would do well at LVO because "people hadn't bothered to learn how to beat it". You see the difference there?

Oh, I didn't realise we were being pedants now.

FTR, claiming "the codex only does well because people haven't spent enough time adjusting to it" is almost identical to "the codex only does well because people haven't learned how to beat it yet", but if you want to separate them into two different reasons for dismissing the LVO results, that's absolutely fine. It was encompassed in my post by the fact that I gave two examples of reasons why people were doing it and said "etc". My point doesn't die by a new reason being used to dismiss the LVO results and then later rally behind lol, it just expands upon it.

Well "almost identical" is not identical is it? People "almost" stating the things you claimed they stated is not the same thing as actually stating them is it? In future, please don't use falsehoods to try and belittle, patronise and call into question the validity of what an entire player base have said. As I said in my very first post to you, it is bogus. But then, apparently, you are also bogus.

E - formatting.

 Zande4 wrote:
Have been out of the hobby pretty much since 8th dropped.

I've heard good things and that the game is a lot more balanced thab 7th.

Is a tier list still relevant? Are certain armies still well above others or is everything that's had a standalone coded somewhat close.

Any armies excel at certain missions or rule sets while falling flat in others?

Thing is, there has to be two sets of tiers. Tournament play tiers and normal game tiers.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, that's wrong. Semper was one of the people I was referring to, among others.

This is new. And I note you've edited your post when you said literally the opposite. You actually said "Semper I wasn't referring to you" in that post you've edited 4 times above. Shame I didn't quote that part of your post before you had a chance to edit it. Lol unreal. You realise I can see when you edit posts right?

What? I called my own statement wrong, and went back and corrected it - there was nothing being concealed here. I admitted that Semper was one of the people in question (I actually confused him for another poster with a similar name), and decided it was okay to put him by name anyway as he had put his own hand up. This was me conceding to you. My statement has been unmistakably proved, this line of arguing that it doesn't count because Semper says it is beyond absurd. Your claims however, as always, remains as unsourced, completely fabricated nonsense.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


I can't prove you said something because apparently you go back and rewrite the silly things you've said and unless I quote everything you write there and then you will simply change it later when it suits. Just as you have done with Semper above. This is a waste of time. You've really shown your true colours here.

All my posts have editing. It's rare that I make a single unedited post, no matter what I talk about and no matter what its about. I post off my phone and I need to fix multiple mistakes, formatting errors, and intent clarifications that weren't immediate to me in my initial post. Take the tinfoil hat off please. I'm pretty outspoken in my opinion and I stand by them and admit mistakes when I'm wrong, anyone familiar with me on these forums may attest to that. Why don't you just admit you can't source your statement? This is utter tripe from you. How bout this - if I can source a past statement of my own that CONFLICTS with what you claim I said, will you then admit that it's not a perspective that I hold and you completely invented it? Lol, I'd just like to hear it from you first before I do so, or at least what excuse you will come up with to dismiss it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

you throw around these falsehoods to claim an entire subsection of the playerbase is speaking rubbish.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
In future, please don't use falsehoods to try and belittle, patronise and call into question the validity of what an entire player base have said. As I said in my very first post to you, it is bogus. But then, apparently, you are also bogus.

At no point did I call into question anything said by an entire player base, nor did I use falsehoods. I quite clearly said "Certain people", at no point was this directed at anything beyond two or three people nor was it implied to be, this is just another of the strawmen you are notorious for using at every single turn.


Thanks for all the personal attacks though.

I usually play Chaos Soup. I've never attended a tournament, likely never will (not through any ill will, more just because i'm a casual player that doesn't have it in him atm to get too competitive about the game).

So I usually play purely casual and we often mix and match. I don't think any of us consider the competitiveness of armies in any grand scheme. I've seen it cited a few times that 'the casual gamer' wants to know how competitive their army is' but that's kind of an oxymoron from the oft. Having played for just short of twenty years and about to become acquainted with 30 I can say that most of the players I have encountered have armies we found to be interesting and liked. Most of us have units we could afford to buy and liked the look of and most of us make army lists from a variable combination of units we fancy using (within the confines of the rules) and react in strategy and tactics when we arrive and know what scenario we're playing. There have been a couple of guys who took the game very seriously and purposefully bought and played the best/competitive lists they could for 'casual' play and they were fine - yeah, people threw things and laughed, but we played with them all the same.

None of that is to say we approached games with the utter absence of any strategy but really it was just about what we enjoyed within the defined rules. This whole 'meta' of what tier is what is, at best, a passing interest that, from what I can see, is currently being tailored and inflated by some to be something major to suit some form of anti-soup argument. I personally would be upset without soup. To me, CSM and Daemons belong in an army together without significant consequence. To me, any and every chaos model should be able to be used in an army under the banner of Abaddon the Despoiler because that's the setting these armies live in.

It seems fairly obvious to me that if you take much interest in what rank your army is to the level of needing to winge about it not being good enough to stand on its own against the creme of the crop from an entire faction, I kind of think you're a bit more on the competitive side than casual and probably need to come to terms with the fact that the only way you can seemingly be truly competitive right now is to use soup (hell, I know the pain, i've been there 40k siblings). If you don't like that and don't think that should be the way of things, then only play in games against mono factions and bring in that restriction for yourself, whatever you enjoy, but don't presume to ruin it for a group of people who are fine with that rule set as that's a bit poor in spirit.

I'd wager that the majority of casual gamers play with and make the best of what they like and can afford. The issue with soup almost exclusively lives and dies in discussion forums and is more an issue with the attitude of some players rather than a game that's now been designed for soup. Soup certainly isn't perfect, I get that, but removing it isn't a solution to what is an evolution and what I consider to be a feature of the game. We could talk about balance for hours but really, if you want perfect balance, go play chess (I love chess) or start fighting the purple guy with the scrotum chin for the infinity stones.

SemperMortis wrote:

Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.

I think thats a bit of exxageration. I played with the Index and thought it was pretty good. It wasn't "the new Bad Moonz" good. But it was good.

I think that we also need to accept that 9th out of 660 people isn't a sad showing. Lol. Dice ARE involved. The Orks are very good and they will win tournaments and have been. We won't ever REALLY know what dice roll here or there screwed Nick. But I think its fair to say the Orks are in no way suffering now like they have before.

Lootas average 80 hits with their special magic, assuming 3 shots per weapon. 80 str 7, -1 AP shots HIT. 2 dmg each is significant as well. Keeping in mind that these hits are in two waves, meaning they can kill by splitting fire, MULTIPLE targets with that. I think we can safely say this is absolutely a huge return on 425 points. No Imperial Knight does better than that. None.

The thing that will REALLY hurt the Orks just dropped. Genestealer Cult Acolyte unit could be the doom of all 25 Lootaz in one go. It's scary. Further, they can flip the switch off on the firing twice for the Lootaz. Its a mega hard counter, and one that frankly might have gone too far. The actual money cost of doing it will dissuade many, but for the elite, I doubt seriously that it will.

THAt is the real problem with Orks now.

The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.

 Marmatag wrote:
The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.

Their problem is not their damage output.

It is their utter lack of durability. T4, 6+, 17pts. An opponent doesn't need to shutdown Moar Dakka if he has already killed the Lootas by denying Grot Shields.

That is the stratagem they are tied to.

Why are you arguing so much whether Orks are top tier? they're not. Sure they have some nice tricks up their sleeve and may seem powerful now as they are a new codex, but the fact is that soup is so powerful and GW is increasingly encouraging it and making it more powerful is proof that nothing is top tier unless it is soup.

 Jancoran wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Take away Shoot twice strat for Bad moonz and poof, lootas never see the board again, take away tellyporta and most of our vehicles never get played with again.

I think thats a bit of exxageration. I played with the Index and thought it was pretty good. It wasn't "the new Bad Moonz" good. But it was good.

I think that we also need to accept that 9th out of 660 people isn't a sad showing. Lol. Dice ARE involved. The Orks are very good and they will win tournaments and have been. We won't ever REALLY know what dice roll here or there screwed Nick. But I think its fair to say the Orks are in no way suffering now like they have before.

Lootas average 80 hits with their special magic, assuming 3 shots per weapon. 80 str 7, -1 AP shots HIT. 2 dmg each is significant as well. Keeping in mind that these hits are in two waves, meaning they can kill by splitting fire, MULTIPLE targets with that. I think we can safely say this is absolutely a huge return on 425 points. No Imperial Knight does better than that. None.

The thing that will REALLY hurt the Orks just dropped. Genestealer Cult Acolyte unit could be the doom of all 25 Lootaz in one go. It's scary. Further, they can flip the switch off on the firing twice for the Lootaz. Its a mega hard counter, and one that frankly might have gone too far. The actual money cost of doing it will dissuade many, but for the elite, I doubt seriously that it will.

THAt is the real problem with Orks now.

The problem is that its 425pts for the 25 lootas AND its another 150 to 180pts for the grots you need to shield them (ive used 40 grots to shield a loota bomb and had them shot off the table turn 1) So before you spend any CP on making them worth taking you have already invested 575 to 605 for a one trick pony. So 1/3rd of your army is tied up in a single unit.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The ability to shoot twice defines a unit in a big way. It doesn't mean that without the stratagem they aren't worth it, but it is such amazing value, it's hard to perceive using them without it.

Their problem is not their damage output.

It is their utter lack of durability. T4, 6+, 17pts. An opponent doesn't need to shutdown Moar Dakka if he has already killed the Lootas by denying Grot Shields.

That is the stratagem they are tied to.

Exactly the point. So yeah you get decent damage potential....so long as you spend 600pts and are fine with using the following stratagems on them: Grot Shields, Mob Up, Showing off, MOAR DAKKA and probably a command reroll for when you roll that dreaded 1 or 2 for number of shots. Now You have 25 T4 bodies and 50-60 T2 bodies all with 6+ saves to survive past turn 2. A Castellan knight with 2 siegebreaker Cannons costs the same as that and it is T8 with a 3+ save and 28 wounds, furthermore its almost always running around with a 4+ invuln save and most of the time its going to have that 1 strat to give it a 3+ Invuln save, for pure dakka output the Castellan is significantly better against T7+ targets due to the better ap of its weapons and the fact that it has a fething Volcano Cannon which is S14. Against lighter infantry and vehicles the Lootas are better, but which is harder to get rid of? A Horde of 50 grotz or a T8 vehicle with a 3+ invuln save?

Lootas are the Ork version of the Imperials Knight Castellan except lootas are worse vs basically everything except the one thing orkz didn't need help in killing, infantry and light vehicles.

If you don't like that and don't think that should be the way of things, then only play in games against mono factions and bring in that restriction for yourself, whatever you enjoy, but don't presume to ruin it for a group of people who are fine with that rule set as that's a bit poor in spirit.

This maybe a stupid question, but how does one achive that? I mean what argument would be valid to make someone play, maybe even buy models, they do not want ? I would love to face armies that were my tier, thing is no one seems to be playing them. I know that saying that the game is unfun to you doesn't work, people don't care if you have fun or not, unless they are your close friends or family.

If your playing with people who don't care if you have fun, then your playing with the wrong people.

No. Gretchen give incredibly cheap cp. Youd want them with or without 25 lootaz.

 Jancoran wrote:
No. Gretchen give incredibly cheap cp. Youd want them with or without 25 lootaz.

Except all they are good for is cheap CP where as a guardsmen which is 1pt more can actually be an effective unit and was heavily utilized by recent winners of LVO.

Grotz suck except for CP and I would rather have boyz, I still take 30 grotz for CP to fill out battalions but that is it.

Is it time to compare the humble grot to an Infantryman again? Shall we see what 1pt buys us?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Is it time to compare the humble grot to an Infantryman again? Shall we see what 1pt buys us?

1pt gets you +1 toughness, +1 strength +1 armor +12 weapon range, +1 weapon skill and a bunch of other fun things But i mean...orkz are the absolute best codex in the game right?

I posted earlier in the Tournament Discussion and also on Reddit about some statistical analyses I did of the 2018 win rate data posted on 40kstats.com. Some of you might find that discussion relevant to the current discussion.

You can see the rest of the analyses in those threads, but from my quick first pass (using a k-means clustering of mean win rankings), it seems like army rankings can be boiled down into 3 "tiers" of armies (see the figures in the Spoiler). Bad, Average, and Good. Adding additional "tiers" didn't explain a whole lot more variance in these data over lower cluster solutions. The 4 "tier" solution, for instance, just explains a little more variance than the 3 cluster solution, and splits Drukhari and Ynnari into their own top-tier ranking. Obviously, we can nit-pick individual armies and make more fine-grained rankings, but ranking armies in 3 tiers does a pretty good job and explained the preponderance of variance in the data.

Figures are in the spoiler:


This is of course, limited in many ways, but is an interesting first pass at a data-driven way to organize the faction rankings from an evidence based perspective.