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.

Oh no something different has happened and this is bad. A crime has been committed by the developers of the game. Those little fethers. Can't do a thing right. What fools they are.

 Olthannon wrote:
Oh no something different has happened and this is bad. A crime has been committed by the developers of the game. Those little fethers. Can't do a thing right. What fools they are.

Yeah people totally get upset about every change and dislike everything GW does because change is bad and no one has ever expressed positive feelings about a change ever.

Am I doing it right?

 Lhunephellion wrote:


Ok, then go and lets tell Craftworlds, Daemons, Tyranids, GSC, Tau, IK, Chaos IK, Chaos SM, Guard...players that they should stop playing or at least stop their desires to win, because it does not make sense to play until you get your new codex. That is insane.

Tournaments wise? Absolutely. But tournament players chase the flavour of the month anyway. In casual metas, or games against friends, anyone who own an old codex should get a fair game, if not you're probably playing in an overly toxic environment, which IMHO isn't fun to be in it anyway.

 Lhunephellion wrote:

I have Space Marines and Tyranids. For the Space Marines I already feel quite bad with this HUGE power creep, but man, the armies without codexes like Tyranids...what a bad spot. I've read some post this morning that defines my current feeling:

SM codex is powerful enough to deal with anything, including drukhari. Just learn how to counter them, adjust your lists and make some experience. Maybe you won't get a 50/50 ratio, but out of 10 games you could win 3 or 4 at least, which isn't bad. I used to play with orks against SM, tau and eldar in 7th despite the odds.

 Lhunephellion wrote:

"I have worries that if they get too aggressive with it(the power creep), we will see veteran players who had re-entered the hobby in 8th grow weary and leave again, concluding that GW are up to the same old tricks."

This is probabbly the feeling my current gaming scene(competitive gaming wise). People that got back in 8th are loosing the interest in the game, because every new codex breaks the game and the meta. It does not matter what you prepare/learn, the next codex will invalidate your previous trainning. This situation is exhausting for players.

Also, people that are ok with T5 Orks priced 8-10 ppm (2A WS 3+, with the AP -1 choppa) are not seeing the big picture. The current 9th armies (not talking about the poor 8th codexes) are not prepared to deal with 120 Boys with T5, they will just take the table, play the mission and then by the time you can play and do something, is turn 4, you lost the game.

This whole post looks like a cry , but this is worrysome for the status of the game.

This is some kind of mentality that I can't stand. It implies that people build a single list which is powerful and last forever, while meta needs to be shifted. People should never play with ther entire collections, rather with 30% to 50% in order to make significant changes and be ok pretty much everytime. Also skewed lists should be avoided.

Yes, this means that the majority of players could never be able to play the most optimized OP lists of the moment, but that's the entire point of casual/friendly games.

Current 9th edition armies can definitely deal with 120 boyz with T5, they just need to refine their lists. SM have tons and tons of S4,5,6 weapons, all with some AP, with high rate of fire or tons of attacks in combat: take more of them and less plasma/melta. Of course armies can't deal with 120 T5 boyz AND elite oriented armies at the same time and still be competitive, and they shouldn't. It's called making TACs lists: lists that won't be wonferful against anything but they also won't be terrible against anything.

And don't overestimate AP-1 on troops, since no more than 10-15 will actually be in range to fight. Blood Claws have 4A each at S4 AP-1 (Ap-2 from turn 3) hittin on 2s pretty much everytime, and nobody says they're OP.

I think the issue with the 9th ed vs 8th ed Codices thing is that there's literally no solution which would have kept everyone happy.

• Change nothing: people who felt their army needed a boost/adjustment to better represent the fluff in-game get mad.

• Do Index books at the start of the edition again: people get mad their 8th ed Codex has been invalidated.

• Update/tweak profiles as the books are released: people who play factions further back in the queue get mad that they're left lagging behind.

I agree it all feels a bit janky and lopsided at the moment, but in fairness I think the extent of that's been exacerbated by circumstances largely beyond GW's control.

I also think not giving a stopgap update to the really egregious stuff (e.g. some Marines not getting 2W yet) is ridiculous – why not do something like when Chapter Approved gave some little boosts to the 8th ed armies still playing with Indices?

However, it looks an awful lot like GW are ramping up the speed of releases again now the disruption's dying down, so hopefully everyone will have new books sooner rather than later.

People aren't expecting to build a single list and have it remain powerful forever, they are just asking that they build a single list then have it remain at least viable for at least an edition. Instead they are being told 'you just have to adapt with a few hundred dollars of additional miniatures plus all the labor it will take to get them looking nice, and they may not even be miniatures you like, but the option is available so it's your fault if the army you do want to run totally sucks now.'

Obviously a bit hyperbolic on my part (mostly...) but the sentiment is there.

 Olthannon wrote:
Oh no something different has happened and this is bad. A crime has been committed by the developers of the game. Those little fethers. Can't do a thing right. What fools they are.

Who are you replying to, other than that scarecrow over there?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm only still in 40k for Crusade but stuff like this really does dampen my already limited enthusiasm. My suspension of disbelief is already stretched to the limit when S5/T5 unarmored ork infantry walk up to my S4/T4 Tyranid Warriors.

That they still only have 1 wound only makes it worse. It has never been that orks are hugely difficult to damage in the fluff, it is that they can suffer so much of it before they actually go down with missing flesh/limbs/organs not stopping them. That is obviously a high wounds count, toughness doesn't make sense. That in turn makes it apparent that orks were given T5 instead of W2 because they didn't want them to be similar to marines. Except with BS5+ and armor 6+ they were never going to be in the first place.

It isn't a good change mechanically or thematically. It just makes the game less fun for me.

Wound count is determined by size for GW. Look at the ork boy. Is that equal in size to tyranid warriors?

And good to know you already know what tyranid warriors are going to be in new codex. Care to share more spoilers?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People aren't expecting to build a single list and have it remain powerful forever, they are just asking that they build a single list then have it remain at least viable for at least an edition. Instead they are being told 'you just have to adapt with a few hundred dollars of additional miniatures plus all the labor it will take to get them looking nice, and they may not even be miniatures you like, but the option is available so it's your fault if the army you do want to run totally sucks now.'

Obviously a bit hyperbolic on my part (mostly...) but the sentiment is there.

Play smaller formats, like 1000-1250-1500 ones. This way a 2000ish points collection will likely be enough to play decently for an entire edition.

It took me something like 5 years to complete a 2000ish points army, this is a combination of a game and a hobby. I was a child and I'll definitely complete an army that size way faster now but I think that an entire edition is a really small window to complete an army and play with it for long. People that demand EVERYTHING NOW!!! are annoying.

 Lhunephellion wrote:


Ok, then go and lets tell Craftworlds, Daemons, Tyranids, GSC, Tau, IK, Chaos IK, Chaos SM, Guard...players that they should stop playing or at least stop their desires to win, because it does not make sense to play until you get your new codex. That is insane.

So GW shouldn't change anything ever whatsoever unless they update every codex at once...

Tyranids get their 9e codex later. That's life in GW games. So admit you want zero new codexes ever again. Or at most new codex with just new codex. Because if they change then other codexes are obviously going to feel like you now and feel unfair because they werent' changed simultaneously.

Marines would be W1 A1 forever etc. Ork boyz S4/T4 no stat changes forever. Tyranid warriors locked S4 T4 W3 forever. No weapon changes whatsoever unless GW changes everything at once.

So. We now know you don't want ever any codexes. GW should have stopped codex changes and no 9e codexes now. Good to know your stance.

 Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lhunephellion wrote:


Ok, then go and lets tell Craftworlds, Daemons, Tyranids, GSC, Tau, IK, Chaos IK, Chaos SM, Guard...players that they should stop playing or at least stop their desires to win, because it does not make sense to play until you get your new codex. That is insane.

Tournaments wise? Absolutely. But tournament players chase the flavour of the month anyway. In casual metas, or games against friends, anyone who own an old codex should get a fair game, if not you're probably playing in an overly toxic environment, which IMHO isn't fun to be in it anyway.

I like playing casual games with friends, but mostly competitive games and going to torunaments and the community around it. That does not implies I am a meta chaser or switch armies every month, so not valid point.
Well, I do not buy your assumption of "overly toxic environment", even when it is friendly, you want to create a good list and play a "fair game" against any army, and even with some of the worst units options, some codex are way ahead on performance from the 8th edition codexes, due to under costed point values or just better unit stats.

 Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lhunephellion wrote:

I have Space Marines and Tyranids. For the Space Marines I already feel quite bad with this HUGE power creep, but man, the armies without codexes like Tyranids...what a bad spot. I've read some post this morning that defines my current feeling:

SM codex is powerful enough to deal with anything, including drukhari. Just learn how to counter them, adjust your lists and make some experience. Maybe you won't get a 50/50 ratio, but out of 10 games you could win 3 or 4 at least, which isn't bad. I used to play with orks against SM, tau and eldar in 7th despite the odds.

I said feel bad for SM not because they do not have options, but because they are falling behind in the power creep meta (let's not talk about Necrons...).

 Blackie wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lhunephellion wrote:

"I have worries that if they get too aggressive with it(the power creep), we will see veteran players who had re-entered the hobby in 8th grow weary and leave again, concluding that GW are up to the same old tricks."

This is probabbly the feeling my current gaming scene(competitive gaming wise). People that got back in 8th are loosing the interest in the game, because every new codex breaks the game and the meta. It does not matter what you prepare/learn, the next codex will invalidate your previous trainning. This situation is exhausting for players.

Also, people that are ok with T5 Orks priced 8-10 ppm (2A WS 3+, with the AP -1 choppa) are not seeing the big picture. The current 9th armies (not talking about the poor 8th codexes) are not prepared to deal with 120 Boys with T5, they will just take the table, play the mission and then by the time you can play and do something, is turn 4, you lost the game.

This whole post looks like a cry , but this is worrysome for the status of the game.

This is some kind of mentality that I can't stand. It implies that people build a single list which is powerful and last forever, while meta needs to be shifted. People should never play with ther entire collections, rather with 30% to 50% in order to make significant changes and be ok pretty much everytime. Also skewed lists should be avoided.

Yes, this means that the majority of players could never be able to play the most optimized OP lists of the moment, but that's the entire point of casual/friendly games.

Current 9th edition armies can definitely deal with 120 boyz with T5, they just need to refine their lists. SM have tons and tons of S4,5,6 weapons, all with some AP, with high rate of fire or tons of attacks in combat: take more of them and less plasma/melta. Of course armies can't deal with 120 T5 boyz AND elite oriented armies at the same time and still be competitive, and they shouldn't. It's called making TACs lists: lists that won't be wonferful against anything but they also won't be terrible against anything.

And don't overestimate AP-1 on troops, since no more than 10-15 will actually be in range to fight. Blood Claws have 4A each at S4 AP-1 hittin on 2s pretty much everytime, and nobody says they're OP.

I think you got it wrong here. Personally I am totally fine with meta adjustments for the game and a living game. What I am not ok with is that people with different armies desing flexible lists and then they have to throw it to the trash because one codex broke the meta. Then people adjust to the new meta and then two weeks/one month later another codex breaks the game again. IT is ok to have to change some things from a list, but not entirely.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It just makes the game less fun for me.

I can assure you that if they had represented Ork resilience using a mechanic that actually fits thematically (ie. a Feel No Pain save) it would be a lot less fun as you sit there watching endless save rolls.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
With +1T and ap on choppas though? Totally worth 8 points.

Before 9th I would have said they're fine at 8. Now with everyone getting layered it only makes sense for them to stay the same cost and get buffed. Trukk Boyz become more interesting, too.

You mean trukk beast snagga boyz

Too bad that this picture seems to imply that their nob doesn't a propper powerklaw, but the same thing Zodgrod is holding. A "true" PK would have been great with +1 to hit vs big stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
*imagines a world of T2 W5 ‘gaunts* “gotta blow off all the limbs, see…”
That’s hilarious.

Maybe not gaunts, but 4W warriors, raveners or zoantropes? I could totally see that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People aren't expecting to build a single list and have it remain powerful forever, they are just asking that they build a single list then have it remain at least viable for at least an edition. Instead they are being told 'you just have to adapt with a few hundred dollars of additional miniatures plus all the labor it will take to get them looking nice, and they may not even be miniatures you like, but the option is available so it's your fault if the army you do want to run totally sucks now.'

Obviously a bit hyperbolic on my part (mostly...) but the sentiment is there.

You completely missed his point. You don't need to upgrade your army to handle this problem unless you want to do it in the best possible way, for example because you want to win tournaments.
120 could easily be blown off the table even by casual lists before, and unless all your shooting was S4, your army can most likely still kill enough orks to win, you just won't table them anymore.

And yes, top competitive meta is expensive and time consuming as hell. In other news, the sky is blue, orks are green and water is wet.

 Lhunephellion wrote:


I think you got it wrong here. Personally I am totally fine with meta adjustments for the game and a living game. What I am not ok with is that people with different armies desing flexible lists and then they have to throw it to the trash because one codex broke the meta. Then people adjust to the new meta and then two weeks/one month later another codex breaks the game again. IT is ok to have to change some things from a list, but not entirely.

But that's true only if you're actually chasing the flavour of the month. SM for example can deal with an horde oriented list just bringing basic stuff. If a SM collection only has anti tank/elite dudes, that's a skew oriented army and not a TAC one and it deserves to be left behind. An average SM collection made out of starters should be reasonably competitive in any casual/friendly meta for example.

As Jidmah said top competitive meta is expensive and time consuming as hell, and IMHO it's a very good thing as most of the players won't be able to field the most powerful combos of the moment, which most of the times aren't even intended by game designers. Let's leave the loyal32+smash captains+castellan knights, 5 stormravens, 30+ ynnari dark reapers, 12-18 smasha gunz, 30+ DT wracks etc... to a very selected environment, with little chances to see one of those powerful combos (from the past and the present) in real life. No new codex will break the meta then. Playing with lists that are and never will be asbolute top tiers but just need minor changes when a new codex drop is actually the best way of playing 40k outside tournaments, and I don't think it's actually something really unusual.

Anyway I haven't seen anything OP in the new ork codex yet. T5 orks means that I can finally play with greenskins units without spamming them. At the moment it's either 90 boyz plus specialists or nothing but a few super cheap specialists, as currently it's easy to wipe 30-40 boyz per turn with TAC lists, even if they are under the 5++ bubble. I'd like to field 10-20-40-50 orks plus vehicles instead, not the 100+ horde and no vehicles archetype or nothing but light and heavy vehicles.

My space wolves are pretty excited to see orks on the table, always enjoy fighting the greenskins!

Plenty of more infoto come on the Orks, so I wouldn't freak out yet. Like what we are seeing with AdMech, Sisters, etc, there will be many, many changes. Some up, some down, some a little of both.

Change is the other constant in 40k. Compare current Primaris marines to Rogue Trader beakies. Think back to 2nd edition armies who laid down enough pie plates to feed a company picnic.

Fluff wise, this can be easily justified, just got done reading the Beast Arises books, and people should be happy they aren't putting in new models of ork bosses the size of morkanaughts with bodyguards the size of dreadnaughts.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People aren't expecting to build a single list and have it remain powerful forever, they are just asking that they build a single list then have it remain at least viable for at least an edition. Instead they are being told 'you just have to adapt with a few hundred dollars of additional miniatures plus all the labor it will take to get them looking nice, and they may not even be miniatures you like, but the option is available so it's your fault if the army you do want to run totally sucks now.'

Obviously a bit hyperbolic on my part (mostly...) but the sentiment is there.

I don't know about you, but I definitely have enough orks in my collection that I can build multiple army lists, especially when I feel like trying something different in the next game. I don't know anyone who builds a single 2,000 point list and then uses that list for every single game for the entire length of an edition.

Anyway I haven't seen anything OP in the new ork codex yet. T5 orks means that I can finally play with greenskins units without spamming them. At the moment it's either 90 boyz plus specialists or nothing but a few super cheap specialists, as currently it's easy to wipe 30-40 boyz per turn with TAC lists, even if they are under the 5++ bubble. I'd like to field 10-20-40-50 orks plus vehicles instead, not the 100+ horde and no vehicles archetype or nothing but light and heavy vehicles.

This, so much. The ork codex has so much cool stuff in it, but it inevitably seems like orks are always reduced to "Green Tide is the only army build that wins anything". I'm hoping that T5 boyz will allow for a bigger variety of lists simply due to the way the higher toughness affects game mechanics.

 Irbis wrote:

 JoeRugby wrote:
Think I worked this out correctly let me know if I haven’t

How many boyz can 10 Space marines kill in one round with;
Assault bolt riffles
Was 8.44 (10.05 tac doctrine)
Now 5.57 (6.33 tac doctrine) boyz 32% more survivable

Bolt rifles rapid fire
Was 6.7
Now 4.42 boyz 34% more survivable

Bolters rapid fire
Was 5.63 (6.7 tac d)
Now 3.71 (4.42 tac d) boyz 33% more survivable

The was feels fluffier for me

So, 200 points of SM can barely kill 35 pts of orks even with 2 layers of buffs applied? Yup, sure sounds "fluffy" and "balanced"

So, bolter fire against "fluffy and balanced" 18 point MEQ and 20 point intercessor:

Bolt rifle rapid fire
.66*.5*.5*2*10
3.3

Or 33 points worth of intercessors with 200 points of bolt rifle fire.

Personally, I think GW chose the right way to increase Ork survivability. High T value doesn't add any extra dice rolls into the equation, nor extra W bookkeeping for large units.

I'm digging it

I'm just sad that there's so much bolterporn people can't believe that ork heads live off the body for a few hours, and that with their fungal soup type organs they can have a hole blown through em and be fine.

Weird take, the way to take orks down efficiently won't be S5, it would potentially be S3 fire. Notably, if they see any points increase, they actually see a reduction in efficiency against both poison and strength 3. They're still getting an increased resistance against S5 attacks, so that may be a trap.

The humble lasgun will now wound on 5's same as before. If they see a points increase, their survivability efficiency point for point against S3 will drop.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I'm just sad that there's so much bolterporn people can't believe that ork heads live off the body for a few hours, and that with their fungal soup type organs they can have a hole blown through em and be fine.

More people need to listen to this: https://www.blacklibrary.com/all-products/the-saga-of-the-beast-mp3-2020.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TedNugent wrote:
Weird take, the way to take orks down efficiently won't be S5, it would potentially be S3 fire. Notably, if they see any points increase, they actually see a reduction in efficiency against both poison and strength 3. They're still getting an increased resistance against S5 attacks, so that may be a trap.

The humble lasgun will now wound on 5's same as before. If they see a points increase, their survivability efficiency point for point against S3 will drop.

To be fair, one of the humble lasgun's specifically called out qualities is to be able to cut off an ork's head or limb with a well aimed shot

 TedNugent wrote:
Weird take, the way to take orks down efficiently won't be S5, it would potentially be S3 fire. Notably, if they see any points increase, they actually see a reduction in efficiency against both poison and strength 3. They're still getting an increased resistance against S5 attacks, so that may be a trap.

The humble lasgun will now wound on 5's same as before. If they see a points increase, their survivability efficiency point for point against S3 will drop.

My intercessor's grenade launchers will certainly be getting a workout.

 tauist wrote:
Personally, I think GW chose the right way to increase Ork survivability. High T value doesn't add any extra dice rolls into the equation, nor extra W bookkeeping for large units.

I'm digging it

That's a really good point!

I think people are getting too caught up on the lore matching the rules perfectly. 40k would be a completely unbalanced and unfun game if that was the case. A single custodian could easily solo an entire 2000 point ork army if we go by the lore, but is that really the kind of miniature game we want to be playing? Of course not. There should be plenty of parallels between lore and game mechanics, but it cannot and should not be 1-1.

T5 orks is really about using the design space opened up by the changes to S and T last edition. T5 is not what it used to be and it is I think helpful to keep perspective on that changed number. This is the other side of the coin as poor Tau pulse weapons loosing clout with the changes from 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
T5 orks is really about using the design space opened up by the changes to S and T last edition. T5 is not what it used to be and it is I think helpful to keep perspective on that changed number. This is the other side of the coin as poor Tau pulse weapons loosing clout with the changes from 8th.

Also, those $$ heavy intercessors are looking even better!

I do wonder if we will see max 20 on boyz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do wonder if we will see max 20 on boyz.

Likely for beastsnaggas, unlikely for regular boyz.

It's also worth noting that without the green tide rule and the endless green tide stratagem people wouldn't be running mobs of 30 in the first place. In previous editions 20 boyz was the sweet spot between having enough orks to achieve something while not having a huge unwieldy unit that can't get all models in combat.

From a defensive point of view there is not a big difference whether an ork tide is running 4x30 or 6x20 boyz.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I'm just sad that there's so much bolterporn people can't believe that ork heads live off the body for a few hours, and that with their fungal soup type organs they can have a hole blown through em and be fine.

See that isn't toughness though--toughness would be taking the shot and it failing to cause significant damage. That's never been what orks do; they take damage quite readily but it takes an inhuman amount of it to bring them down. That's multiple wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It just makes the game less fun for me.

I can assure you that if they had represented Ork resilience using a mechanic that actually fits thematically (ie. a Feel No Pain save) it would be a lot less fun as you sit there watching endless save rolls.

An extra wound wouldn't add save rolls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm only still in 40k for Crusade but stuff like this really does dampen my already limited enthusiasm. My suspension of disbelief is already stretched to the limit when S5/T5 unarmored ork infantry walk up to my S4/T4 Tyranid Warriors.

That they still only have 1 wound only makes it worse. It has never been that orks are hugely difficult to damage in the fluff, it is that they can suffer so much of it before they actually go down with missing flesh/limbs/organs not stopping them. That is obviously a high wounds count, toughness doesn't make sense. That in turn makes it apparent that orks were given T5 instead of W2 because they didn't want them to be similar to marines. Except with BS5+ and armor 6+ they were never going to be in the first place.

It isn't a good change mechanically or thematically. It just makes the game less fun for me.

Wound count is determined by size for GW. Look at the ork boy. Is that equal in size to tyranid warriors?

And good to know you already know what tyranid warriors are going to be in new codex. Care to share more spoilers?

They aren't equal in size to a termagant either. Imagine being so disinterested in good faith discussion that one cannot be bothered to apply first grade math.

And good to know I can already play the new codex now, where can I get it?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
An extra wound wouldn't add save rolls.

Still more complicated (and more record keeping) than T5.

Something that's pretty apparent from the discussions around this are that various people have their own ideas of what Toughness and Wounds represent, when they're both really just abstract variables that can represent resilience in different ways. Personally, I don't think there's any way one can argue that one or the other is *objectively* the wrong stat to be using.

Particularly when it comes to Wounds, the W characteristic has always had something of a flexible "meaning", ranging from "this is a big, resilient thing" or "this guy arbitrarily has more wounds so you don't lose your heroes etc too fast, in-game"