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.

And the pattern is certainly disputable.

Were all the new ork models OP? Just go backward and ask that question of all new models. The answer is no.

Sometimes they're good, sometimes they're crap. Sometimes they're OP, sometimes they're passable.

KurtAngle2 wrote:


False since you can't even equip Aberrants with nothing and they are FORCED to get power picks as the cheapest choice there, otherwise I would be comparing Space Marines (13 PPM with free weapons) with Necron Immortals (who clock at 8 PPM without weapons) and say that necron immortals are OP.

When people say that these whines come from low skilled players they do not lie

Sure champ. I'm well aware they're required to take weapons.

The base cost of the unit represents it's durability. Nobz are 14. Aberrants are 16. Whether the Nobz take Choppas or Klaws is completely irrelevant to a direct comparison of the base cost.

You *could* have a point if the weapons the Aberrants got were garbage, but they're not. If you want to make a like for like comparison then you give the Nobz a similar weapon.

32 for an Aberrant with a hammer.
27 for a Nob with a PK.

//What a Nob with PK/chooppa does to an Aberrant
3 * .5 * .833 * 1 * .666 = 0.83
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.2


//What an Aberrant with a Hammer does to a Nob
2 * .5 * .833 * 3 = 2.5
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.3

Zoinks. One of these things is not like the other.

And we haven't even made it to the buffs.

+1A for Nobz from Warpath. +1A and +1S for Aberrants.
+1 to hit from Nob Banner. +1 to hit and reroll 1s to wound for Aberrants
5++ for shooting only for the Nobz. 4+++ with reroll 1s.

And there's more than that.

the_scotsman wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

drbored wrote:
They're thinking from the perspective of professional rules writers that have been writing rules for this game and others for decades, combining a mixture of playtesting from groups in the US and England as well as feedback from every other department in the company to create new mechanics and try to price things accordingly. They look at it from a scientific perspective and a fun perspective.

As much as I respect the tonal change you're trying to bring to this pity party, that's a very generous interpretation of the skills associated with the GW game design interns.

Their mistakes are almost always slanted towards selling new models, almost to the point of discouraging the use of old models. If this had happened once or twice, I'd chalk it up to an honest mistake, but the pattern is pretty indisputable at this point.

Luckily they manage to 'correct' their mistakes once they've hit their sales goals, which, given the rabid nature of the fanbase, usually happens within the first few months. Clearly Knights have not hit their sales goals yet.

Yeah, why, in this release alone, let's see....

ONE

of the models is considered to be actually problematic by people who aren't just blanket condemning the whole codex.

That's definitely...something.

That one model is the Nexos right?

 SHUPPET wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

drbored wrote:
They're thinking from the perspective of professional rules writers that have been writing rules for this game and others for decades, combining a mixture of playtesting from groups in the US and England as well as feedback from every other department in the company to create new mechanics and try to price things accordingly. They look at it from a scientific perspective and a fun perspective.

As much as I respect the tonal change you're trying to bring to this pity party, that's a very generous interpretation of the skills associated with the GW game design interns.

Their mistakes are almost always slanted towards selling new models, almost to the point of discouraging the use of old models. If this had happened once or twice, I'd chalk it up to an honest mistake, but the pattern is pretty indisputable at this point.

Luckily they manage to 'correct' their mistakes once they've hit their sales goals, which, given the rabid nature of the fanbase, usually happens within the first few months. Clearly Knights have not hit their sales goals yet.

Yeah, why, in this release alone, let's see....

ONE

of the models is considered to be actually problematic by people who aren't just blanket condemning the whole codex.

That's definitely...something.

That one model is the Nexos right?

Have I missed something? What about the Nexos rules make him problematic?

I don't know if they meant the Nexos, but generally speaking CP regen stapled onto the HQ you were already gonna take for your barebones battalion to access Gribbly Vect for your Tyranid army reads as an obnoxious auto-take.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I don't know if they meant the Nexos, but generally speaking CP regen stapled onto the HQ you were already gonna take for your barebones Tyranid ally battalion to access Gribbly Vect comes off as obnoxiously auto-take in nature.

Yeah, I said basically this a page ago. As a Tyranid main who would like GSC to be a fun side army to ally in an option here and there, Nexos + Vect seem to be the main offenders of breaking that balance and actively hurting me for not taking GSC. There's nothing else in the dex I feel compelled to take for anything other than a bit of fun.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:


False since you can't even equip Aberrants with nothing and they are FORCED to get power picks as the cheapest choice there, otherwise I would be comparing Space Marines (13 PPM with free weapons) with Necron Immortals (who clock at 8 PPM without weapons) and say that necron immortals are OP.

When people say that these whines come from low skilled players they do not lie

Sure champ. I'm well aware they're required to take weapons.

The base cost of the unit represents it's durability. Nobz are 14. Aberrants are 16. Whether the Nobz take Choppas or Klaws is completely irrelevant to a direct comparison of the base cost.

You *could* have a point if the weapons the Aberrants got were garbage, but they're not. If you want to make a like for like comparison then you give the Nobz a similar weapon.

32 for an Aberrant with a hammer.
27 for a Nob with a PK.

//What a Nob with PK/chooppa does to an Aberrant
3 * .5 * .833 * 1 * .666 = 0.83
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.2


//What an Aberrant with a Hammer does to a Nob
2 * .5 * .833 * 3 = 2.5
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.3

Zoinks. One of these things is not like the other.

And we haven't even made it to the buffs.

+1A for Nobz from Warpath. +1A and +1S for Aberrants.
+1 to hit from Nob Banner. +1 to hit and reroll 1s to wound for Aberrants
5++ for shooting only for the Nobz. 4+++ with reroll 1s.

And there's more than that.

Sure, the base cost of the model is just its durability. They never fluctuate that base cost around what other models in a codex have access to the shared weaponry. Which is why the durability cost of a 3+ save eldar based on Dark reapers is 5. And the durability of a rhino is the same as the durability of a vindicator!

I can certianly see myself wanting to take a Nexos anyway for messing around with the blips, the CP regen is nice but generally far less powerful now since the FAQ whilst the 4 Armed Emporer seems like a good option to go with for your assault units anyway. He seems like a decent character but I'm not sure I'm seeing enough to make him an autotake myself.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I don't know if they meant the Nexos, but generally speaking CP regen stapled onto the HQ you were already gonna take for your barebones battalion to access Gribbly Vect for your Tyranid army reads as an obnoxious auto-take.

Nexos is an elite. As are most of the new characters we are getting. The only new HQ is the Jackal Alphas if I remember right.

Again, it's on a 6+ normally, modified if you take two other characters (Primus to make your CP 5+ and the clamavas to make opponents a 5+), and it still restricted by the rule allowing only 1 CP regeneration a turn by abilities like that.

Btw, above, someone said Abberants can get a rerolls of 1 on wounds? How?

So the Four-Armed Emperor Gang will (probably) consist of a Nexos, Kellermorph and a blob of Abberants all led by an Abominant. It's still garbage design when allies are considered, but at least they don't get +5CP?

What Ork threads are people going on about? The only threads I legit remember are the new kits stats sucking, Prime orks possibly existing, Ork hitting on 6s causing another hit. I feel like a large portion of you are just making up the idea there was an OP ORK THREAD, in the same vein as people saying I make everything about GK like donkey-caves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found ONE thread on Traktor Kannon autohits.

 Quickjager wrote:
What Ork threads are people going on about? The only threads I legit remember are the new kits stats sucking, Prime orks possibly existing, Ork hitting on 6s causing another hit. I feel like a large portion of you are just making up the idea there was an OP ORK THREAD, in the same vein as people saying I make everything about GK like donkey-caves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I found ONE thread on Traktor Kannon autohits.

I don't think it got it's own thread like this one, it was just scattered all through them. This thread is just the natural expansion of dakka growing more confident in it's ignorance even though people seem to be getting more things wrong than ever. It's actually quite marvelous to watch.

That I could agree with, it being scattered through threads itself.

Not going to be going through those threads though, the search function breaks for me after the 7 page.

 Quickjager wrote:
That I could agree with, it being scattered through threads itself.

Not going to be going through those threads though, the search function breaks for me after the 7 page.

I find the search function difficult to use on here too, and results difficult to quickly sift through. I actually find it easier to use sitesearch on google and look for keywords (those keywords often being the names of certain... profound "posters" ) .



To be honest though, while it did exist and was scattered through threads with people claiming they would be too OP, I had the same experience you did, there wasn't anywhere near as much complaining about Orks being too OP at all. I actually thought the narrative on Dakka was the opposite, all things considered. It was the more competent groups I follow that recognised the codex as strong, but on here I just heard a lot of whining about how weak the new Ork codex was. I notice that it's quite a few Ork posters in this thread too making quite a few very bold declarations once again. Lol.

the_scotsman wrote:


Sure, the base cost of the model is just its durability. They never fluctuate that base cost around what other models in a codex have access to the shared weaponry. Which is why the durability cost of a 3+ save eldar based on Dark reapers is 5. And the durability of a rhino is the same as the durability of a vindicator!

Ah, so I guess IS aren't good for their cost. They're just surrounded by bad units!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Sure, the base cost of the model is just its durability. They never fluctuate that base cost around what other models in a codex have access to the shared weaponry. Which is why the durability cost of a 3+ save eldar based on Dark reapers is 5. And the durability of a rhino is the same as the durability of a vindicator!

Ah, so I guess IS aren't good for their cost. They're just surrounded by bad units!

Literally all the other units are bad, of course.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming your numbers are accurate, Daedalus, even with triple Battalions, you're probably out by the end of three.

So about same as orks. And as by then game is pretty much done with winner just mobbing up no big deal. Even optimal

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If it breaks the game GW will nerf it fairly quickly.

Like they have nerfed knights...oh wait they haven't.

You are assuming GW wants balance. They don't. They want opposite.

at what point were they able to nerf Knights?

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming your numbers are accurate, Daedalus, even with triple Battalions, you're probably out by the end of three.

So about same as orks. And as by then game is pretty much done with winner just mobbing up no big deal. Even optimal

Is that genuinely how all your matches go?

 SHUPPET wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If it breaks the game GW will nerf it fairly quickly.

Like they have nerfed knights...oh wait they haven't.

You are assuming GW wants balance. They don't. They want opposite.

at what point were they able to nerf Knights?

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming your numbers are accurate, Daedalus, even with triple Battalions, you're probably out by the end of three.

So about same as orks. And as by then game is pretty much done with winner just mobbing up no big deal. Even optimal

Is that genuinely how all your matches go?

Did you forget that Chapter Approved was released not too long ago?

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Sure champ. I'm well aware they're required to take weapons.

The base cost of the unit represents it's durability. Nobz are 14. Aberrants are 16. Whether the Nobz take Choppas or Klaws is completely irrelevant to a direct comparison of the base cost.

You *could* have a point if the weapons the Aberrants got were garbage, but they're not. If you want to make a like for like comparison then you give the Nobz a similar weapon.

32 for an Aberrant with a hammer.
27 for a Nob with a PK.

//What a Nob with PK/chooppa does to an Aberrant
3 * .5 * .833 * 1 * .666 = 0.83
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.2


//What an Aberrant with a Hammer does to a Nob
2 * .5 * .833 * 3 = 2.5
1 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 0.3

Zoinks. One of these things is not like the other.

And we haven't even made it to the buffs.

+1A for Nobz from Warpath. +1A and +1S for Aberrants.
+1 to hit from Nob Banner. +1 to hit and reroll 1s to wound for Aberrants
5++ for shooting only for the Nobz. 4+++ with reroll 1s.

And there's more than that.

Sure, the base cost of the model is just its durability. They never fluctuate that base cost around what other models in a codex have access to the shared weaponry. Which is why the durability cost of a 3+ save eldar based on Dark reapers is 5. And the durability of a rhino is the same as the durability of a vindicator!

Irrelevant. Look at the comparison. The Pick Abs vs double choppa Nobs is a red herring. Ork players take Nobs for AV. We have plenty of low str no AP attacks from Boys. You know this. Again, look at the comparison in the very post your quoted.

If you can't see a problem and massive discrepancy there I don't know what to tell you.

It's not even close.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If it breaks the game GW will nerf it fairly quickly.

Like they have nerfed knights...oh wait they haven't.

You are assuming GW wants balance. They don't. They want opposite.

at what point were they able to nerf Knights?

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming your numbers are accurate, Daedalus, even with triple Battalions, you're probably out by the end of three.

So about same as orks. And as by then game is pretty much done with winner just mobbing up no big deal. Even optimal

Is that genuinely how all your matches go?

Did you forget that Chapter Approved was released not too long ago?

Knights missed the cut off date for Chapter Approved. Literally the entire team was unanimously in agreement that Knights need nerfs.


But I guess you missed that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
It was the more competent groups I follow that recognised the codex as strong, but on here I just heard a lot of whining about how weak the new Ork codex was. I notice that it's quite a few Ork posters in this thread too making quite a few very bold declarations once again. Lol.

[Citation needed]

Note that competitive players, including your favourite Geoff Robinson are placing Orks as a 'gatekeeper' army at best. Aka - mid tier.

Note that we have no results to support the rhetoric that the Ork codex is particularly strong.

Note that the bolter beta rule, CA18 and indeed this codex release all weaken the competitive ability of the Ork codex.

 SHUPPET wrote:

at what point were they able to nerf Knights?

Two week codex specific FAQ. Either of the two big FAQs. CA18. Anytime they wanted to help balance the game and stop raking in Castellan sales. Don't give me this cut off garbage. If they wanted to fix them, they've had ample time. Storm Raven spam didn't last long iirc.

I don’t tknow why people are complaining about gsc being powerful allies for nids, you don’t HAVE to take them. They’re just now in a similar position to mono-imperium lists being inferior to soup. And lets be real, how many top level nids lists didn’t include a gsc detachment already for abominants/magus?

Can we please make sure the discussion remains civil? Rule 1 is there for a reason.

Thanks.
ingtaer.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Note that competitive players, including your favourite Geoff Robinson are placing Orks as a 'gatekeeper' army at best. Aka - mid tier.

My favorite? Lel yeah don't listen to breakdowns from GT winners who have been playing an army for months, instead listen to the wisdom and insight that is dakka's outrage having never even put hands on the dex yet. Otherwise YOU'RE PICKING FAVORITES




BTW what Geoff actually said about Orkz was that they are one of the best armies in the game, openly mocked Pablo for "predicting" that they'd be top 8 at LVO as if it's not even in question, and the entire podcast agreed, even Paulo going back to admit "yeah thats not really a prediction at all".

But I guess just flat lying about it is cool too, you do you.

InControl is easy to get in contact with, if you're curious about his opinions on Orkz just swing him a message, rather than inventing false statements on other people's behalf.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Two week codex specific FAQ. Either of the two big FAQs. CA18. Anytime they wanted to help balance the game and stop raking in Castellan sales. Don't give me this cut off garbage. If they wanted to fix them, they've had ample time. Storm Raven spam didn't last long iirc.

Hmmmmmm I guess unlike some of the more vocal players in this community, they chose to wait until the dex is actually been played competitively and see if anything was too strong before nerfing it. Why would they nerf something when nothing has changed from release state lol? You know well and truly that 2 week FAQs are for fixing editor mistakes and clarifying rules.

Big FAQ's aren't for points changes anymore. They are deliberately trying to keep them to Chapter Approved, and overall game changes to FAQ to keep everything in as minimal places as possible, which even still has people complaining about too many loose ends. Anyway the point was made as they made a conscious decision not to nerf Knights in CA2018, that was factually incorrect, so let's just take that L and move on.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


Sure, the base cost of the model is just its durability. They never fluctuate that base cost around what other models in a codex have access to the shared weaponry. Which is why the durability cost of a 3+ save eldar based on Dark reapers is 5. And the durability of a rhino is the same as the durability of a vindicator!

Ah, so I guess IS aren't good for their cost. They're just surrounded by bad units!

Uh, no. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that the base point cost of a model is "its durability" is.

Right off the bat it's obvious that a models cost also includes it's offensive output and mobility, as well as access to special rules (see Neophyte vs Infantry squad. One gets CA). There are also tons of examples of models whose base cost gets partially shifted to a weapon or a weapon gets baked into the base cost.

All orks get and pay for dakkadakka, ere we go, and mob rule, three extremely good base rules. Ere we go for example us better at getting any ork unit from any clan into combat off deep strike than the cult of the four armed emperor trait.

the_scotsman 770982 10336635 wrote:
Uh, no. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that the base point cost of a model is "its durability" is.

Right off the bat it's obvious that a models cost also includes it's offensive output and mobility, as well as access to special rules (see Neophyte vs Infantry squad. One gets CA). There are also tons of examples of models whose base cost gets partially shifted to a weapon or a weapon gets baked into the base cost.

All orks get and pay for dakkadakka, ere we go, and mob rule, three extremely good base rules. Ere we go for example us better at getting any ork unit from any clan into combat off deep strike than the cult of the four armed emperor trait.

But units paying for both offense and defense is just not true. IG troops for example, the way they are costed, have either their resilience not accounted in their units cost or their offensive power, and that is pre adding stuff like being cadian or catachan, which boosts them even further at no cost.

I guess unlike some of the more vocal players in this community, they chose to wait until the dex is actually been played competitively and see if anything was too strong before nerfing it. Why would they nerf something when nothing has changed from release state lol? You know well and truly that 2 week FAQs are for fixing editor mistakes and clarifying rules.

Now don't take it as an attack or that I don't agree with your, but I have serious doubts that any of the top tier tournament players who either know or are playtesters themselfs have to wait after a codex comes out to test the rules it have. Sometimes the composition of lets say Inari lists pre rule of 3 nerf, switched to to post nerf army list , even before the nerfs actually did happen.

Karol wrote:

the_scotsman 770982 10336635 wrote:
Uh, no. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your assertion that the base point cost of a model is "its durability" is.

Right off the bat it's obvious that a models cost also includes it's offensive output and mobility, as well as access to special rules (see Neophyte vs Infantry squad. One gets CA). There are also tons of examples of models whose base cost gets partially shifted to a weapon or a weapon gets baked into the base cost.

All orks get and pay for dakkadakka, ere we go, and mob rule, three extremely good base rules. Ere we go for example us better at getting any ork unit from any clan into combat off deep strike than the cult of the four armed emperor trait.

But units paying for both offense and defense is just not true. IG troops for example, the way they are costed, have either their resilience not accounted in their units cost or their offensive power, and that is pre adding stuff like being cadian or catachan, which boosts them even further at no cost.

Uh huh. It's just not true. A plague marine definitely does not cost more than a tactical marine despite the same damage output. A company vet with storm bolter definitely does not cost more than a tactical marine despite the same durability.

The fact that some units in the game are balanced poorly does not change what the balancing metric actually is. Just because points for weapons and points for the units are separated does not mean you can claim "ah, this means GW always prices the body based on the capabilities of the model and the weapon based on how much damage it does!" Because that's patently absurd and it takes 6 seconds to disprove. SO MANY WEAPONS ARE PRICED AT ZERO because the entire value of the weapon is baked into the base cost of the unit. And then on the flipside when multiple units have access to the same weapon (say, a basic infantry trooper and a BS2+ character, in the case of a Dark Reaper and an Eldar Autarch) you have units where the base cost of the body is deflated in order to make the weapon more expensive for the other unit that can take it. The body of a dark reaper is 5 points and almost all their points cost is in the gun because Autarchs also have access to the gun. If only dark reapers had it, you can bet your ass the cost of the gun would be a big fat 0 and all the points cost would be in the body of the dark reaper.

The costs of separated bodies and weapons is a balance lever for the designers and that. is. it. ONLY TOTALS MATTER. Trying to separate the body when a weapon "upgrade" is mandatory is asinine. So either find a comparable upgrade to compare if you're trying to compare two units, or don't compare them because their roles are different, don't pull out some dishonest-ass "Oh, well, if you look at the price of the body, clearly this is better..." bs, or I am going to make you explain why naked dark reapers are the end all be all power in the universe.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
It was the more competent groups I follow that recognised the codex as strong, but on here I just heard a lot of whining about how weak the new Ork codex was. I notice that it's quite a few Ork posters in this thread too making quite a few very bold declarations once again. Lol.

[Citation needed]

I guess is bad because its prolonging a fight - but citation, I was there. Dakka was incredibly negative about the Ork codex. Any post to the tune of "this unit looks good" got a hostile response, typically followed by three more lamenting that the Stompa still sucks.

Still, back on GSC, not really convinced the Nexos is problematic. Its 50 points. Sure if there is a warlord trait/artifact you value at more than 50 points (since this is how most armies get this ability) then its a good exchange but I am not convinced there is - or at least not for GSC/Tyranids. (Okay you are getting a guy as well, but he has an autopistol, he isn't doing much aside from providing the ability). A lot of codexes have a CP farm ability and then a list of clearly inferior options (Tau, DE). Since CP farming is near mandatory he is going to be played - but I don't think he's dramatically too low.

the_scotsman is quite right.

There's more to a model's worth than it's durability. What role does it perform? What sort of firepower is it packing? What sort of damage can it feasibly do in HTH? How does it interact with the rest of the army? How common are they in the FoC? What alternatives are there? Do they buff other units? Are they recipients of buffs?

The whole reason they separated out wargear costs the way they did was to allow for easier tinkering. If the actual model is too good, up it's points, but leave the wargear be, and vice versa, including when something is actually a bit bobbins and not really performing the role they intended for it. Giving the weapon a separate cost, even if it's zero gives them wider options.

Take Bolter Drill. My word Marines needed that. It helps them. But it doesn't make the humble Bolter so much better it needs a points boost. Yet in the future, they may also grant Bolters -1 AP - which could entail upping their cost to 1pt to reflect it's a significant boost to the damage output of the wider army.