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.

narrative_forger wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm.

Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...

In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.

At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.

In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.

 addnid wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.

The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.

3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.

I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.

So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.

Green Tide and Da Jump are 100% gone in the new dex.

Da jump in 2000 points games is not that useful for green tides, table is too crowded and boyz should fight in turn 2 against appropriate targets anyway.

It could be very powerful at 1500 points though, but not many players use that format.

Spoletta wrote:

 addnid wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.

The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.

3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.

I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.

So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.

Green Tide and Da Jump are 100% gone in the new dex.

I hope you are right (I got bored out of using these tricks), but what makes you so sure ? The fact that wracks can't come back via similar strat anymore since new druk dex came out ?

 Blackie wrote:

narrative_forger wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm.

Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...

In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.

At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.

In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.

Shoot, thanks for the clarification and correction Blackie.
I remembered that Orks wasn't cheap (6 ppm) at that time since our resident Ork Player was complaining about it back then before the 4th ed codex. And i don't even remember those Space Wolves guys hahahaha. So rare in my area at that time before 5th.

@addnid
If you have been following the design of the previous dexes, the process is always the same.
All the crutches that keep a dex afloat get removed, and after this the average level of the dex gets increased.

None of the core strats/combos/gimmicks/exploits survive the transition from 8th to 9th. The cost of having your average power level increased, is losing all your power spikes.

Spoletta wrote:
@addnid
If you have been following the design of the previous dexes, the process is always the same.
All the crutches that keep a dex afloat get removed, and after this the average level of the dex gets increased.

None of the core strats/combos/gimmicks/exploits survive the transition from 8th to 9th. The cost of having your average power level increased, is losing all your power spikes.

I see your point, and indeed I agree with you. Sisters and ad mech got their power spike strats nerfed (36 range multimeltas, wrath of mars / kataphron spam related stuff). Probably good design too, as power spikes foster auto include options.
Kudos to GW for this, despite their numerous shortcomings in terms of rule design

I don't like T5 boys. If anything, Ork nobs/meganobs deserve to be a T5 dudes. However the game seems to be so lethal at this stage that this is the only way to increase boys durability without slowing the game down. Personally I'd prefer them to stay T4, get a 5+ save and have a feel no pain which could be buffed by a painboy. Maybe resurrection protocols similar to necrons, but with an orky twist.

What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.

BrianDavion wrote:
I have no real issues with T5 Ork Boyz, it's not how I would have done it (I would have kept Ork Boyz more or less as is and made them as cheap as possiable, while Making Nobz a troop choice, thus giving Orks 3 distinct grades of troops. grots who are COMPLETE fodder, Boyz whom are "fodder but tougher then say.. guard" and Nobz who would be T5 W2 and be what an Ork player runs if he wants a force where his warriors are individually hard to kill.

But I'm not a GW designer so *shrugs*

I see where you are coming from, but I really think that neither people playing ork nor those playing against them want to see even more boyz on tables.
Green tide isn't fun to play and isn't fun to play against - every time green tide rises to be the top competitive build orks get vastly less popular among non-ork players.
And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.

So this time around less boyz with more durability is the right way to go.

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I have no real issues with T5 Ork Boyz, it's not how I would have done it (I would have kept Ork Boyz more or less as is and made them as cheap as possiable, while Making Nobz a troop choice, thus giving Orks 3 distinct grades of troops. grots who are COMPLETE fodder, Boyz whom are "fodder but tougher then say.. guard" and Nobz who would be T5 W2 and be what an Ork player runs if he wants a force where his warriors are individually hard to kill.

But I'm not a GW designer so *shrugs*

I see where you are coming from, but I really think that neither people playing ork nor those playing against them want to see even more boyz on tables.
Green tide isn't fun to play and isn't fun to play against - every time green tide rises to be the top competitive build orks get vastly less popular among non-ork players.
And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.

So this time around less boyz with more durability is the right way to go.

Agreed. I tend to internally groan when facing an Ork horde of 120 or so Boyz, especially in 9th. Locally and nearly every tourney I attended utilized the 44x60" board size.

 JawRippa wrote:


What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.

Maybe the T buff will finally end that "horde unit" tag to boyz. Some players, including me, want to field units of 10-12 boyz in a trukk or 17-20 in a BW as legit alternatives to 30 man blobs.

Having T value close to vehicles also encourages to mix up infantries and vehicles which would be awesome, and that's is something that ork players currently don't do, even outside tournaments, if they want to play with optimized lists. No more skewed lists as the only competitive options to consider.

Vehicles should be tougher, regardless of the ork infantries stats, we all know that.

 Blackie wrote:

 JawRippa wrote:


What REALLY irks me is that T5 is very close to vehicle toughness. And this seems wrong for a horde unit. If anything, vehicles should be tougher.

Maybe the T buff will finally end that "horde unit" tag to boyz. Some players, including me, want to field units of 10-12 boyz in a trukk or 17-20 in a BW as legit alternatives to 30 man blobs.

Having T value close to vehicles also encourages to mix up infantries and vehicles which would be awesome, and that's is something that ork players currently don't do, even outside tournaments, if they want to play with optimized lists. No more skewed lists as the only competitive options to consider.

Vehicles should be tougher, regardless of the ork infantries stats, we all know that.

That's a good point really, haven't thought about that. I've probably written hundreds of posts here on dakka over the years explaining to some new ork player that his army is gak and has no chance of winning because they mixed vehicles and infantry. I'll gladly see that era come to an end.

 addnid wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Seriously though, 8ppm for a T5 ork. They are a 6+ save model, regardless of the nonsense of if you buy this 100pt model over here you can give 20-30 of them a 5++ against shooting.

The game isn't just shooting and that is a 100+pt tax model. There are a lot of guns and shooting that are ap0 and ap-1 which a 3+ is very good against(cover exists in 9th). All the people trying to say orks should be 14ppm because marines are popular and all my oponnents tech to kill marines is a silly argument. That is a meta issue, as metas shift there will be less ap-2 or -3 D2 guns in armies.

3+ armor is real and has value, if you think it doesn't I suggest you lobby for 6+ armor and a close to useless model that can buff one or two of your units against shooting only for a 5++. You won't, because you know it's worse.

I play orks (it is even my main army ATM) and say yes to this 8 pmm for the toughness 5 orks (and ap-1 choppas), but then other things should change lest "Boyz spam" become OP:
- No more Green tide strat
- No more da jump turn 1
- Can't think of any other "good" suggestion.

So perhaps I am more inclined to say 9 ppm boyz is a safer bet when striving for balance.

9ppm choppa boyz for sure. Maybe 8ppm shoota boyz. And I think Endless Green Tide should be removed and Da Jump nerfed (easy fix, the psyker comes with) as well.

Yeah, green tide needs to go. 200 points of free models can't ever be healthy, especially not with free deep strike attached.

I think the poxwalker stratagem does the reinforcement part rather well, though it definitely should cost more CP when applied to orks.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, green tide needs to go. 200 points of free models can't ever be healthy, especially not with free deep strike attached.

I think the poxwalker stratagem does the reinforcement part rather well, though it definitely should cost more CP when applied to orks.

I don't necessarily want unstoppable green tide gone, it is a 3 cp strat and fits the amry of never running out of ork bodies. I would say it could be fixed by removing the "from any board edge". unit is removed and comes in from the controlling player's board edge only instead and more than 9 inches from an enemy model. if they get rid of it i won't be broken up about it but i think narrowing it would be better, can be used as a reaction but has a cost and is not a instant mob on any board edge.

narrative_forger wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

narrative_forger wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

4th edition, orkz 6ppm, Marine 15ppm.

Usually i'm a lurker, but i just to have to correct you on this. Even though technically correct that Ork Boys is 6ppm in 4th.... but it happened only for 1/2 a year in the edition with Orks being the last codex (Jan 2008) before 5th rolled out (Jul 2008?). I believe they are in the vicinity of 9-11 ppm during the duration of 4th. Marines too are never 15ppm in 4th.... only Dark Angels (and i believe WD Blood Angels?) are 15 ppm. Marines are 18ppm with no nades, no pistols. All you stated here are 5th ed Stats...

In 3rd edition codex, which last for most of the 4th edition as well orks were 8ppm with shootas, or 9ppm with sluggas/choppas. The latter had a strong modifier on AP though as limited the armour save to a max of 4+ which means AP-1 against power armour and even AP-2 against termies. Which was very powerful in an era of "all or nothing" saves.

At the end of 4th edition boyz became 6ppm but lost the AP modifier.

In 3rd and 4th marines were 18ppm, but not all of them. Bare bones grey hunters were 17ppm (pistol and chainsword, and 18ppm if they had bolter and chainsword) and blood claws were 14ppm. In 5th they both became 15ppm.

Shoot, thanks for the clarification and correction Blackie.
I remembered that Orks wasn't cheap (6 ppm) at that time since our resident Ork Player was complaining about it back then before the 4th ed codex. And i don't even remember those Space Wolves guys hahahaha. So rare in my area at that time before 5th.

Blackie covered it well I was using the 4th edition codex points rather than the 3rd edition codex which was in play for most of 4th. However, I did mess up with the 4th edition price of Marines. SO technically I should increase the maths to favor Marines getting more durable by an additional 20%

cody.d. wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Has T5 orks been announced?

Yup yup yup! GW has shown us the statlines of old boyz, snagga lads and Choppas, Big choppas and the new bosses Uge choppas. So yes it's thankfully set in stone and it's why some peeps are hyped and others are panicking.

Personally I'm still super keen to see what our main faction rules are. Dakka Dakka Dakka and Ere we go will shape a lotta our gameplay.

Sounds great

 Jidmah wrote:
And let's not talk about the price tag on having to buy and paint 120-150 boyz for your average ork army.

I think this gets buried in discussions of gameplay, but it's an important point for a hobby where buying, building, painting, and having to shove around all those models is a key part of the game. Particularly when the sculpts are detailed and have a lot of fiddly bits that take time and effort to paint. One of my buddies who plays Orks is leaning heavily into vehicles just because he's tired of painting Boyz.

From a hobby perspective, I much prefer when basic troops have identity and value beyond being cheap and numerous. You'll still have Grots to provide cheap meatshields, if you want.

I'm curious to see if this trend of basic troops getting buffed continues through 9th. I like what they've done with Drukhari, AdMech, and now Orks. Makes all the time spent painting those models feel more worthwhile.

Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

The AoS team has certainly realized how powerful large squads are. Maybe they can share notes with the 40k team, some time?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

I think they do. Remember the time they had a whole edition dedicated to adding weapons that had gaurenteed #shots versus larger squads to weaken their effectiveness?


Nah. I must've been dreaming

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

I think they do. Remember the time they had a whole edition dedicated to adding weapons that had gaurenteed #shots versus larger squads to weaken their effectiveness?


Nah. I must've been dreaming

Those weapons don't count because they aren't effective at killing vehicles and heavy infantry as well which means they aren't a real choice *sarcasm*

The death of real TAC lists on display in almost every single tournament winning list right now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

Uhm yes, I can imagine that because DG could literally do that in 8th. It was removed in the last codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Kind of feels like a missed opportunity that marines weren't designed in the same way. Powerful targeted buffs which makes troops being relevant simply because they can be deployed in bigger units.
But that would probably be against the SM playstyle.

I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

For example...can you imagine a 20 man intercessor squad shooting twice twice auto bolt guns or bolt rifles? They would be putting up ADMECH level damage too in that case. Stratagems in general are a big problem and larger as squads make it work. Or maybe Gw has realized they can get people to buy more stuff by encouraging stratagem maximization with bigger units.

Uhm yes, I can imagine that because DG could literally do that in 8th. It was removed in the last codex.

also a lot of strats for 9th have been tweked so that you pay more CPs to use on a bigger unit

 Xenomancers wrote:
I dont even think GW realizes fully the power of larger squads.

Then explain the new reinforcement rule in AoS 3rd?

2 edition focusing on people having to buy units in large 20 or 20+ chunks, so with 3ed GW decides to go full msu?

w40k is the same where are the waves of intercessors with thunder hammers from the 2.0 times now or where are there the razoback spam lists from before 2.0? Gone. 8th was all about hordes , up until 2.0 marines droped. And big kits like eldar flyers or knights. Practicaly non of those things see play anymore. GW did make money out of the need of every imperial player to run the loyal 32. GW seems to do such stuff on a cyclical basis, both for armies and for the entire game.

What you describe are the problems of meta-chasers.

If you need to have the latest hotness to participate at tournaments or to curbstomp your local scene, go and spend the money.

Nobody is forcing anybody to buy stuff. Nobody is forcing anybody to use stuff.

I had a complete "Loyal 32" including Knight and Smash Captains from earlier editions sitting ready on the shelf, when I started in 8th. Haven't used it a single time, still had fun.

My honest advice for people who feel churned out by this:
Don't skew and spam a single unit because right now it might be used at tournaments.
1-2 selections of that unit are still good enough and won't leave you with a bitter feeling when the next balance patch comes around.

You should like the unit to begin with as well, so you want to use it after the meta shifted.

Yes, GW tends to buff underperforming units and nerf overperforming units. You can criticise whether their efforts get the game closer to "balance" - but I don't think its that surprising they do this.

I think its clear GW does recognise the power of larger squads sometimes. Equally however its clear there isn't one central architect for 40k rules so this recognition (and many others) appears to come and go.

a_typical_hero wrote:
What you describe are the problems of meta-chasers.

No it isn't . I liked how termintors look, and don't like power armoured units. in 8th terminators were in every way worse then power armoured troops. Cost, resililance, melee and shoting efficiency, even the few stratagems we had worked better for strikes then termintors. So no wonder people were buying strikes, because termintors were horrible, in an already not good army. PA waltzs in, and for a short time, you can play GK well, in US or else where, as long as you have the rules for buildings ITC had. and the whole army revolves around 10 paladins sitting in a building outside of LoS shoting, while not being able to be shot back. The rest of the army was still strikes. 9th comes around, GK are still bad, so no meta chasing can be spoken about. And suddenly falchions are horrible, when before they were the only sensible options, and strikes focused armies are worse then terminator armoured. So in order for to make the army work, an army which isn't good in 9th either, you practically have to rebuy large chunks of it, and replace all the basic weapons on each model, in an edition where unpainted=10VPs. So no I don't think it is the case of a meta chaser. Specially when the articles writen by GW on the GW owned sites, were telling knight, custodes and GK to run the loyal 32. And out of those 3, one was good in 8th, and okey is good in 9th.

Don't skew and spam a single unit because right now it might be used at tournaments.
1-2 selections of that unit are still good enough and won't leave you with a bitter feeling when the next balance patch comes around.

Okey, but what are you suppose to do when you have two options , there are no other stand ins, and the other is superior and the other is not just worse, but actually bad, in every way? Play with a terminator army all through out 8th ed? Because I can tell you that was not fun. I have old models, so no falchions problem, but for everyone else playing GK they had to remove them from every model that wasn't an NDK, character, or a hammer bearer. Can they ignore the efficiency and just stick to the falchions? Not really, not in an elite army struggling with points, being forced to pay 4 pts per each falchion armed model and getting practically nothing out of it.

And I use GK as an example, because I know the army. I am sure other people playing other armies have the same problems, specially when they armies are weak and don't have a powerful core that can carry some less optimal option. This is not a case of chasing the meta for those armies. It is a case of having some fun or losing every game, before they even start.