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.

the_scotsman wrote:
Weird, I thought orks were a gatekeeper army that couldn't seriously compete with the top meta lists.

Anything can compete when tournament is customised for it. Give me free hand with tournament rules and I'll give you tournament even stompa will dominate ;-)

How many turns the orks in questions played in average? Particularly the one list with bazillion grot units seemed like do they even get anywhere near 5-6 turns game is supposed to play? If they play 2-3 turns and call it due to time then he's not even playing the same game as the rest of us.

Also one major thing that's going to hurt orks a lot(the assasins) were not even used. Orks rely on their squishy characters and with assasin's in imperium being basically mandatory from now on those characters will be dying fast.

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Weird, I thought orks were a gatekeeper army that couldn't seriously compete with the top meta lists.

Anything can compete when tournament is customised for it. Give me free hand with tournament rules and I'll give you tournament even stompa will dominate ;-)

How many turns the orks in questions played in average? Particularly the one list with bazillion grot units seemed like do they even get anywhere near 5-6 turns game is supposed to play? If they play 2-3 turns and call it due to time then he's not even playing the same game as the rest of us.

Also one major thing that's going to hurt orks a lot(the assasins) were not even used. Orks rely on their squishy characters and with assasin's in imperium being basically mandatory from now on those characters will be dying fast.

Looking at the mission packet, if anything it seems like the rules were modified from standard GW eternal war missions in such a way that they should disadvantage extreme ork MSU.

There's a secondary objective that can earn you 12 points (compared to 30 points total possible from the primary objective) just for causing unsaved wounds to your opponent.

On top of that, you don't have the ITC houserule of the LOS blocking bottom floors of buildings.

Other than the standard "it's not ITC" do you have any specific details of this mission set that makes you think it's "tailored" towards orks specifically? And if so, why did we end up seeing hordes of orks dominate, rather than, for example, hordes of guardsmen, hordes of fire warriors or hordes of nids? in fact it doesn't seem like most of the top lists that aren't orks are hordes at all, besides the one GSC list.

tneva82 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Weird, I thought orks were a gatekeeper army that couldn't seriously compete with the top meta lists.

Anything can compete when tournament is customised for it. Give me free hand with tournament rules and I'll give you tournament even stompa will dominate ;-)

How many turns the orks in questions played in average? Particularly the one list with bazillion grot units seemed like do they even get anywhere near 5-6 turns game is supposed to play? If they play 2-3 turns and call it due to time then he's not even playing the same game as the rest of us.

If you're playing 2-3 turns and time runs out, you're playing much closer to GW/Warhammer World tournament standard of 40K than more heavily house-ruled and less balanced versions like ITC do.

addnid wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Cynista wrote:
- GW waiting to take Adepticon data into account
- 4 Ork lists in top 10
- Ork nerf incoming
- Dakka meltdown incoming

Haha, truth!!

I guess the infamous Loota bomb could do with some kind of nerf, but gw woul have to boost something in return, like flash gitz !!

Lol, no. It doesn't need a nerf. It's fine as it is. I played it and played against it at LVO, it requires finesse and timing to effectively pull off, not something anyone can rely on 100% of the time to save them.

 Togusa wrote:


Lol, no. It doesn't need a nerf. It's fine as it is. I played it and played against it at LVO, it requires finesse and timing to effectively pull off, not something anyone can rely on 100% of the time to save them.

LVO experience isn't really relevant for normal 40K. Long range shooty units generally underperform there compared to the standard rules due to LVO house rules on terrain (some exceptions apply, e.g. fire-&-fade Reapers that benefit from ITC terrain and are far less scary in the vanilla game). .

addnid wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Cynista wrote:
- GW waiting to take Adepticon data into account
- 4 Ork lists in top 10
- Ork nerf incoming
- Dakka meltdown incoming

Haha, truth!!

I guess the infamous Loota bomb could do with some kind of nerf, but gw woul have to boost something in return, like flash gitz !!

Just make it so you cannot mob up a unit until it's at or under half strength. Any and all potential problems fixed!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also wondering about the number of turns... if they only made it to turn 2-3 most games, well then that's why the Orks and GSC did so well.

the_scotsman wrote:
Looking at the mission packet, if anything it seems like the rules were modified from standard GW eternal war missions in such a way that they should disadvantage extreme ork MSU.

There's a secondary objective that can earn you 12 points (compared to 30 points total possible from the primary objective) just for causing unsaved wounds to your opponent.

On top of that, you don't have the ITC houserule of the LOS blocking bottom floors of buildings.

Other than the standard "it's not ITC" do you have any specific details of this mission set that makes you think it's "tailored" towards orks specifically? And if so, why did we end up seeing hordes of orks dominate, rather than, for example, hordes of guardsmen, hordes of fire warriors or hordes of nids? in fact it doesn't seem like most of the top lists that aren't orks are hordes at all, besides the one GSC list.

Looking at the packet myself, the secondary objectives are based on A) 1 VP per 100 points killed by end of game (rounding to nearest 100), and B) a minimum amount of wounds killed per turn, with vehicles needing less wounds

The first is ork beneficial, since grots are very cheap, and if they're protected by KFF (which all ork lists had) would make that process of getting points by the end of the game a strain, while the more expensive units were either protected by grot wall (lootas), in reserve (kommandoes, Deffkoptas, boys for tellyporta), hiding (Boyz for Da Jump) or characters. If these games were ending in 2-3 turns, then it makes sense the more expensive units were more intact. Ork's main weakness is attrition, and shorter game always are better for orks (even aside from slow play).

The second makes sense to balance, but it's the other half of that which is suspicious. the ork lists were light on vehicles other than the obligatory mek guns, but with kff and being individual units it's likely unit fire had to be split and some of those lascan shots were bounced by that 5++, vs something like a knight which could be focus fired.

Edit: I also absolutely expect grots to get nerfed, for the same reason cultist/conscript got nerfed: since they're not the "main focus", they'll get raised a point to encourage more ork boyz.

Wow daemons are #1. Time to bust out the 666th chapter!

Yea thats some absurd scoring. You would need to kill 51 grechin to hit your second VP, all with a 5++ Can they also benefit from the pain boy?

Since Gretchen are <Clan> Infantry , they can be effected by a painboy.

Conversely though, grot wall makes any grot hit is slain (ie ignoring any saves). So over-stacking on grot defense just results in outplaying yourself when your opponents just ignores the grots and aims for the loota bomb only.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Since Gretchen are <Clan> Infantry , they can be effected by a painboy.

Conversely though, grot wall makes any grot hit is slain (ie ignoring any saves). So over-stacking on grot defense just results in outplaying yourself when your opponents just ignores the grots and aims for the loota bomb only.

Sure, but having that level of durability at not much more cost makes it that much harder to clear them and earn points.

....so, we just going to ignore the fact that guardsmen are more durable per point than kff buffed gretchin (which have to be entirely within 9" of that big mek as well) and do things like have 4x the firepower, more mobility, two more ld, access to morale immunity....

Even if you fantasize kff big Meks and doks to be free ld5 and t2 makes grots far easier to clear en masse.

the_scotsman wrote:
....so, we just going to ignore the fact that guardsmen are more durable per point than kff buffed gretchin (which have to be entirely within 9" of that big mek as well) and do things like have 4x the firepower, more mobility, two more ld, access to morale immunity....

Even if you fantasize kff big Meks and doks to be free ld5 and t2 makes grots far easier to clear en masse.

Don't disagree with you but you are comparing apples and oranges. Those guardsmen also don't stop your opponent from killing heavy weapons teams or vets or scions or ogryn etc. either. Wouldn't surprise me to see something done concerning the grot shield be it CP hike grot cost hike or making it a 3+ instead of a 2+ or something. Giving lootas 10 extra wounds for 30 points is a steal, if it wasn't why does literally every list do it and not just 10 but 30-60.

Its not hard to counter grot shields if you're a good player.

Similarly the reason Orks did so well at Adepticon was due to the packet.

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements' and they are the bane of Orks. The scoring benefitted Orks being point based and the lack of chess clocks also benefitted Orks.

The recent Assassin rules weren't in play (bye KFF Mek, SAG Mek, Pain boy) either.

Look at other tournament results and you'll see that Orks are mid tier at best.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Since Gretchen are <Clan> Infantry , they can be effected by a painboy.

Conversely though, grot wall makes any grot hit is slain (ie ignoring any saves). So over-stacking on grot defense just results in outplaying yourself when your opponents just ignores the grots and aims for the loota bomb only.

At which point you benefit from T4 rather than T2. Do you want to shoot at T4 5++ or T2 5++?

60 bolter vs lootas=20 wounds past inv save=16.66 grot and 3.33 loota. Against grots 33 dead grots.

Repulsor isn't even best tools out there but pair of those in army vaporized 15 lootas and 60 grots. Only reason more lootas didn't die was there wasn't any more left! 11 ork boyz did die though so 25 lootas and 60 grots would have died with ease.

Grots have been great help...when opponent shoots at lootas. If they first vaporize grots they do that so fast that lootas are soon out of grots. 10 strong units also expose yourself to T1 charges and flyers unless you have like 8 units protecting yourself.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

Anyone have the 2nd day 40k results? I'm curious to see how the Tau player did

I do not access to a facebook

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Its not hard to counter grot shields if you're a good player.

Similarly the reason Orks did so well at Adepticon was due to the packet.

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements' and they are the bane of Orks. The scoring benefitted Orks being point based and the lack of chess clocks also benefitted Orks.

The recent Assassin rules weren't in play (bye KFF Mek, SAG Mek, Pain boy) either.

Look at other tournament results and you'll see that Orks are mid tier at best.

Knights were so virtually unplayable that there were two lists with 3+ knights in the top 16.

The mission pack does seem to benefit orks, being heavily objective based rather than kill points based...you know, like virtually every single mission actually from the official rules of 40k.

So what we're saying here is that if you artificially design rules to disadvantage orks, they're only mid tier, but if you play the missions that the people who design the game probably playtested orks with, orks are good.

So orks should be....buffed? Endlessly complained about?

 Stevefamine wrote:
Anyone have the 2nd day 40k results? I'm curious to see how the Tau player did

I do not access to a facebook

The Tau list lost to GSC in the round of 16, was horrible matchup for the tau since it was a vehicle car park without FtGG to protect it from a whole bunch of rock saws.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

So they house-ruled terrain such that small pieces of non-ruin terrain blocked Knights and larger models from moving between them?

Well yea, I wonder why Knights didn't do so well....

 Horst wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

So they house-ruled terrain such that small pieces of non-ruin terrain blocked Knights and larger models from moving between them?

Well yea, I wonder why Knights didn't do so well....

The elements made 0 difference to the game, all the terrain was fine. It was like a bush and crate here.

tneva82 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Since Gretchen are <Clan> Infantry , they can be effected by a painboy.

Conversely though, grot wall makes any grot hit is slain (ie ignoring any saves). So over-stacking on grot defense just results in outplaying yourself when your opponents just ignores the grots and aims for the loota bomb only.

At which point you benefit from T4 rather than T2. Do you want to shoot at T4 5++ or T2 5++?

60 bolter vs lootas=20 wounds past inv save=16.66 grot and 3.33 loota. Against grots 33 dead grots.

Repulsor isn't even best tools out there but pair of those in army vaporized 15 lootas and 60 grots. Only reason more lootas didn't die was there wasn't any more left! 11 ork boyz did die though so 25 lootas and 60 grots would have died with ease.

Grots have been great help...when opponent shoots at lootas. If they first vaporize grots they do that so fast that lootas are soon out of grots. 10 strong units also expose yourself to T1 charges and flyers unless you have like 8 units protecting yourself.

My point was that orks benefited from how the secondaries work, not that grots are somehow amazballs. They still die in mass by even basic infantry weapons and are not a threat in turn.

People are already trying to make this out to being orks being top tier, but guess what? Orks have only done well in three major touraments (including adepticon), meanwhile Space Marines, the self styled worse codex ever, have been in the top 10s in almost every tournament. Either orks are as bad as SM or SM are as good as orks supposedly are, and people need to stop crapping on ork players when we're talking about our codex's problems espcially when SM players invade every other thread on this site to rant about their codex or about Guardsmen.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

I don't get it. Do people generally move pieces of terrain without this rule?

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

I don't get it. Do people generally move pieces of terrain without this rule?

In my experience, yes.

A lot of the Adepticon terrain was made for and during editions past (4th/5th edition). I know, I was one of them back then helping make it. Some of the terrain has trees/rocks/crystals that slot into the larger terrain piece and are removable. Very often people would remove those objects to allow for a vehicle or other large model to be placed there since, at the time of creation, those elements of the "area terrain" were representative for aesthetics and not actually required since the base of the terrain piece represented the actual footprint of the area under the effect of the area terrain rules.

I believe that even up through the editions since, the habit of doing that has stuck with a lot of people and it is still performed. No harm in making a point in stating not to do that anymore.

the_scotsman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Its not hard to counter grot shields if you're a good player.

Similarly the reason Orks did so well at Adepticon was due to the packet.

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements' and they are the bane of Orks. The scoring benefitted Orks being point based and the lack of chess clocks also benefitted Orks.

The recent Assassin rules weren't in play (bye KFF Mek, SAG Mek, Pain boy) either.

Look at other tournament results and you'll see that Orks are mid tier at best.

Knights were so virtually unplayable that there were two lists with 3+ knights in the top 16.

The mission pack does seem to benefit orks, being heavily objective based rather than kill points based...you know, like virtually every single mission actually from the official rules of 40k.

So what we're saying here is that if you artificially design rules to disadvantage orks, they're only mid tier, but if you play the missions that the people who design the game probably playtested orks with, orks are good.

So orks should be....buffed? Endlessly complained about?

Knights weren’t taken in large numbers because of the unique rule set.

Lol ITC, the meta you endlessly reference, highly value kill points compared to objectives.

No, we’re saying if you play ITC (which is generally vernacular for “competitive” in here) with ALL of the current rules of the game (Assassins mate - as I said in the post you literally quoted) Orks are nowhere near as good as at this event where the rules favoured them much more, you know, like what I said 2 pages back.

Enough with your snide comments Scotsman. They don’t help.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements'

What's that?

From the pack:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

I don't get it. Do people generally move pieces of terrain without this rule?

Imagine your 500+ point Knight is unable to move all game because a rose bush is in the way. Imagine you can’t even place him because his base is so big and there’s just too many privetts around. That’s what this rule allows.

Also consider that your oppponent can earn their secondaries by killing the Knight alone.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Its not hard to counter grot shields if you're a good player.

Similarly the reason Orks did so well at Adepticon was due to the packet.

Knights were virtually unplayed because of a rule called 'elements' and they are the bane of Orks. The scoring benefitted Orks being point based and the lack of chess clocks also benefitted Orks.

The recent Assassin rules weren't in play (bye KFF Mek, SAG Mek, Pain boy) either.

Look at other tournament results and you'll see that Orks are mid tier at best.

Knights were so virtually unplayable that there were two lists with 3+ knights in the top 16.

The mission pack does seem to benefit orks, being heavily objective based rather than kill points based...you know, like virtually every single mission actually from the official rules of 40k.

So what we're saying here is that if you artificially design rules to disadvantage orks, they're only mid tier, but if you play the missions that the people who design the game probably playtested orks with, orks are good.

So orks should be....buffed? Endlessly complained about?

Knights weren’t taken in large numbers because of the unique rule set.

Lol ITC, the meta you endlessly reference, highly value kill points compared to objectives.

No, we’re saying if you play ITC (which is generally vernacular for “competitive” in here) with ALL of the current rules of the game (Assassins mate - as I said in the post you literally quoted) Orks are nowhere near as good as at this event where the rules favoured them much more, you know, like what I said 2 pages back.

Enough with your snide comments Scotsman. They don’t help.

I am incredibly confused by this entire response. To me, and you can correct me where I'm wrong here, it seems like you are responding in this way:

1) "There were two lists that took 3+ knights in the top 16 alone"

Your response: "Knights were not taken in large numbers."

2) "If you modify the rules of the game to heavily disadvantage Orks, orks will be heavily disadvantaged. if you play a ruleset that is closer to the base rules of the game, Orks appear to be fine."

Your response: "ITC heavily disadvantages orks by highly valuing kill points over objectives."

For point number 1, I'm not getting where you think you know that. It seems like at least two lists included knights HEAVILY (i.e. more than the ITC standard of 1) and did extremely well, with this ruleset. One would expect, in a perfectly even playing field, that Knights would make up 1/22nd of all lists. Having 1/8 of the top table be represented by knights does not seem, to me, to be a huge under-representation. I don't think it's much of a stretch for me to say that the representation of knights in the ITC ruleset is ridiculously overrepresented.

For point number 2, I don't know if you're misunderstanding my point and disagreeing with what you think I'm saying or whether you're trying to agree. The ITC houserule set artificially disadvantages orks. It doesn't make sense to me to want GW to buff orks based on their underrepresentation in a competitive ruleset that gives them a disadvantage that does not exist in the actual main rule set.

Yes. Assassins (or more accurately, the Vindicare assassin) will be something that will absolutely disadvantage orks that does exist in the base rules of the game and does not in this tournament.

However, I don't know of any missions in the ruleset GW publishes that includes "kill points" in any capacity. As far as I know, in this edition every time I've played a mission that included "kill stuff" as an objective, it was based on power level or points killed, not number of units.

Any complaints you might have with power level, you must admit it's a FAR better way to measure "how much you killed" than number of units. At this point the only thing "old style" kill points do is provide a disadvantage to MSU that is not intended to exist in the game. And at least where I'm standing, it seems to drastically reduce the number of viable factions by doing that, basically down to factions that can operate in an old 7th ed style deathstar paradigm of a single huge, impactful unit and everything else in a supportive role.

Orks definitely can't do that. Their version of that is horrendous compared to the Castellan, Harlequin ynnari bikestar, Magnus+Mortarion etc.

Marius Xerxes wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Reminder: ‘Elements’ (small, removable pieces of terrain on flats) are NOT to be removed, or moved, for ANY reason during games, nor are players legally allowed to place non-flying models on the elements. Models that do not fit between the elements may not move through them. Elements must be considered when determining line-of-sight.

I don't get it. Do people generally move pieces of terrain without this rule?

In my experience, yes.

A lot of the Adepticon terrain was made for and during editions past (4th/5th edition). I know, I was one of them back then helping make it. Some of the terrain has trees/rocks/crystals that slot into the larger terrain piece and are removable. Very often people would remove those objects to allow for a vehicle or other large model to be placed there since, at the time of creation, those elements of the "area terrain" were representative for aesthetics and not actually required since the base of the terrain piece represented the actual footprint of the area under the effect of the area terrain rules.

I believe that even up through the editions since, the habit of doing that has stuck with a lot of people and it is still performed. No harm in making a point in stating not to do that anymore.

Ah, OK. I see.


-----

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Imagine your 500+ point Knight is unable to move all game because a rose bush is in the way. Imagine you can’t even place him because his base is so big and there’s just too many privetts around. That’s what this rule allows.

Also consider that your oppponent can earn their secondaries by killing the Knight alone.

But did they actually have things like bushes there, or was everything believably more substantial? As I understand from Xerxes's post, only terrain identified as "elements" would allow for this, or are you saying that all pieces of terrain at Adepticon were identified as elements? I mean, you're scenario does seem silly, but maybe it's the case that stuff like bushes were still considered aesthetic terrain but more substantial stuff was identified as elements. I don't know, I'm just asking because I do believe that some stuff should be movable and some stuff shouldn't.

The elements had no effect on the games, and no effect on knights.