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.

 techsoldaten wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You're doing a crap job articulating your points in this thread, and this kind of condescension doesn't help.

Thank you Catbarf. I value your opinion.

I mean you made the point that the problem was that the drukhari made a bad tactical decision and catbarf produced a similar situation where the drukhari player tried to be more defensive and still lost their win conditions in their army in the first turn, whereas your opinion really doesn’t have any support from evidence and is purely your preference. You are allowed to enjoy the game in its current form and I sincerely hope you do, and you may have tried to make the argument that you and others extract joy from theorycrafting and breaking the game, or like others have stated you need to make further restrictions or structural changes to the game but with these changes it is good, which isn’t really disagreeing with the contrary opinions. Instead you chose to be pretty disrespectful to players on the receiving end of this issue we are discussing and have engaged in bad faith arguments of trying to deny or mitigate the facts supporting the argument contrary to your opinion.

It would be easier to defend catbarfs comment at you had they been more tactful but I certainly don’t believe catbarf is wrong.

Pretty sure I've been pointing to evidence throughout this thread.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

Orks don't steamroll Drukhari. What happened in the video is an outlier compared with overall tournament outcomes, which have Drukhari winning > 60% of the time in matchups against Orks. Have not seen anything to suggest losing 90% of your army in the first turn is a common occurrence. It's reasonable to expect better performance from Orks if they are capable of reliably doing this in game.

I appreciate your commentary about my comments, Macluvin, and value your opinion.

The argument isn’t that orks steamroll drukhari. The argument is that the edition is too lethal. The arguing point I am arguing with is when you said issue was that one of the top 3 warhammer 40k players in the world made a tactical mistake when someone else in a similar position tried a different approach; there was no way in either case for either drukhari players to beat their prospective ork speed waaagh lists. So that point is factually wrong.

That isn’t even the focus of the argument; we are discussing the fact that it is possible to remove 90% of the points of a list in a single turn as being a sign of some major flaws with the game. The other arguing points for the edition being too lethal have included admech and drukhari lists as well. To you, these flaws may opposite of a flaw. Most of the more active posters in this thread are utterly confounded by what joy there is to be had in a game where this sort of thing happens. We singled out the ork waaagh list in this particular example because it is an extreme that we still find unsettling. We have been saying the edition is too lethal since admech drukhari and what. This is just another example we chose to focus on to bring the same argument up again.

 techsoldaten wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
You're doing a crap job articulating your points in this thread, and this kind of condescension doesn't help.

Thank you Catbarf. I value your opinion.

I mean you made the point that the problem was that the drukhari made a bad tactical decision and catbarf produced a similar situation where the drukhari player tried to be more defensive and still lost their win conditions in their army in the first turn, whereas your opinion really doesn’t have any support from evidence and is purely your preference. You are allowed to enjoy the game in its current form and I sincerely hope you do, and you may have tried to make the argument that you and others extract joy from theorycrafting and breaking the game, or like others have stated you need to make further restrictions or structural changes to the game but with these changes it is good, which isn’t really disagreeing with the contrary opinions. Instead you chose to be pretty disrespectful to players on the receiving end of this issue we are discussing and have engaged in bad faith arguments of trying to deny or mitigate the facts supporting the argument contrary to your opinion.

It would be easier to defend catbarfs comment at you had they been more tactful but I certainly don’t believe catbarf is wrong.

Pretty sure I've been pointing to evidence throughout this thread.

https://www.40kstats.com/faction-breakdown-report

Orks don't steamroll Drukhari. What happened in the video is an outlier compared with overall tournament outcomes, which have Drukhari winning > 60% of the time in matchups against Orks. Have not seen anything to suggest losing 90% of your army in the first turn is a common occurrence. It's reasonable to expect better performance from Orks if they are capable of reliably doing this in game.

I appreciate your commentary about my comments, Macluvin, and value your opinion.

What do you call it when someone makes a point, it's soundly dismissed, and they just make it again as if that never happened?

There's gotta be a term for that.

Trolling is against the rules at DakkaDakka so it can't be that....

Considering, Sean (and yes we played a lot and friends) had made list for 10 years that have steamrolled people on turn one, effectively cripple and pretty much win on turn one... Its not really worth a rules debate.
Yes, some armies are fragile, and some armies are made to destroy as much as early as possible. Its formula and recipe for catastrophic results, that sometimes works out.
No, nothing needs a drastic change when one of the best players around loses 1800 points in one turn. Dems da breaks

What I find important to point out is that according to Sean's posts at the beginning of the thread, he framed the issue as that Ork list being in another different level. In other words, that problem is that Ork list in particular, not that the game is too lethal.

And that is also an easier issue to fix, just nerf that particular Ork list, rather than some inherent issue of the game.

Tsilber wrote:
Considering, Sean (and yes we played a lot and friends) had made list for 10 years that have steamrolled people on turn one, effectively cripple and pretty much win on turn one... Its not really worth a rules debate.
Yes, some armies are fragile, and some armies are made to destroy as much as early as possible. Its formula and recipe for catastrophic results, that sometimes works out.
No, nothing needs a drastic change when one of the best players around loses 1800 points in one turn. Dems da breaks

But we don’t believe a game system should allow for that at all. If it happens at all we don’t agree with the design. Especially if we are citing that it happened in fundamentally flawed 6th and 7th editions, or in 8th. It doesn’t matter which faction did it or who did it; we don’t think it’s any fun to put an army on a table then take it right back off. We being myself and the other forum posters that have been explaining our point. Dems da breaks that we would rather not be a thing that we have to live with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
What I find important to point out is that according to Sean's posts at the beginning of the thread, he framed the issue as that Ork list being in another different level. In other words, that problem is that Ork list in particular, not that the game is too lethal.

And that is also an easier issue to fix, just nerf that particular Ork list, rather than some inherent issue of the game.

But the OP (Scotsman) had been making the argument that the edition was too lethal for quite some time. There’s too much high volume long range high AP weapons and too many that combines that with LoS ignoring mechanics. I’m certain he has been making that point since drukhari and admech, and possibly well before that.

Scotsman also brought up that most weapons shoot for max efficiency at maximum range. Range has trended upwards table size trended downwards so most units can cover the whole board in maximally optimized shooting. I honestly wish he was either guiding rules design or writing them himself. The dude has both vision and logic on his side.

“But other armies are doing it!” Is only strengthening the argument we are trying to make.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What do you call it when someone makes a point, it's soundly dismissed, and they just make it again as if that never happened?

There's gotta be a term for that.

Trolling is against the rules at DakkaDakka so it can't be that....

Are you upset that the belligerent shoutdowns don't work on someone or the actual nitty gritty of the topic subject itself?

And now implying that the victim of a shoutdown mob is a troll...thats just pathetic

 Tyran wrote:
What I find important to point out is that according to Sean's posts at the beginning of the thread, he framed the issue as that Ork list being in another different level. In other words, that problem is that Ork list in particular, not that the game is too lethal.

And that is also an easier issue to fix, just nerf that particular Ork list, rather than some inherent issue of the game.

Against most other armies you can hide stuff. You can't hide from aircraft and Ork aircraft are very efficient plus I think the buggies have a bunch of no-LoS shooting?

See the semi finals I linked previously where a DE army hides out of LoS and still loses most of the army.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What do you call it when someone makes a point, it's soundly dismissed, and they just make it again as if that never happened?

There's gotta be a term for that.

Trolling is against the rules at DakkaDakka so it can't be that....

Are you upset that the belligerent shoutdowns don't work on someone or the actual nitty gritty of the topic subject itself?

And now implying that the victim of a shoutdown mob is a troll...thats just pathetic

Drinking from the same well are we?

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What do you call it when someone makes a point, it's soundly dismissed, and they just make it again as if that never happened?

There's gotta be a term for that.

Trolling is against the rules at DakkaDakka so it can't be that....

Are you upset that the belligerent shoutdowns don't work on someone or the actual nitty gritty of the topic subject itself?

And now implying that the victim of a shoutdown mob is a troll...thats just pathetic

I don’t have a ton of sympathy for someone who suggested games that are basically Candyland in place of 40k.

40k has issues. Recommending other games that achieve what you’re looking by for better than 40k is a good thing to do, as is trying to figure out how to address the issues in 40k.
But, at least as I read it, they were being mocking and rude, not legitimately trying to recommend a good alternative.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Well, if storytelling is your bag and the outcomes seem 50/50, maybe it's time to look beyond 40k?

Assuming that you weren't trying to be an ass, I want you to re-read this statement.

If you like storytelling, maybe it's time to move on from 40k. Do you realise how absurd a comment that is?

 GoldenHorde wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What do you call it when someone makes a point, it's soundly dismissed, and they just make it again as if that never happened?

There's gotta be a term for that.

Trolling is against the rules at DakkaDakka so it can't be that....

Are you upset that the belligerent shoutdowns don't work on someone or the actual nitty gritty of the topic subject itself?

I don't understand your question. Tech brought up an irrelevant point that had already been dismissed multiple times (the claim isn't about orks specifically so citing the Ork winrate has nothing to do with the price of tea in China).

If I am "upset" about something it is that someone can continue to miss the point repeatedly, and do so whilst being disrespectful and insulting.

That sort of behavior (being rude and dismissive whilst throwing the same irrelevant smoke grenade arguments again and again) is reminiscent of trolling, yes.

 GoldenHorde wrote:

And now implying that the victim of a shoutdown mob is a troll...thats just pathetic

When several people agree on something and you alone think they are wrong, perhaps your position is less secure than you think?

Oh, no, it must be the others.

(Also, lol at implying well-reasoned arguments are a "shout down mob". Anti-intellectualism at its finest.)

Tsilber wrote:
Considering, Sean (and yes we played a lot and friends) had made list for 10 years that have steamrolled people on turn one, effectively cripple and pretty much win on turn one... Its not really worth a rules debate.
Yes, some armies are fragile, and some armies are made to destroy as much as early as possible. Its formula and recipe for catastrophic results, that sometimes works out.
No, nothing needs a drastic change when one of the best players around loses 1800 points in one turn. Dems da breaks

That's the question though, isn't it? Should any army be able to "steamroll", "effectively cripple", or "pretty much win" on turn one? How much should a list designed to "destroy as much as early as possible" be able to destroy in the first, or any, turn? 90%? 50%? What level of lethality is acceptable? Just because you can do it, or could in previous editions, doesn't make it right. Or fun, IMO.

macluvin wrote:
The argument isn’t that orks steamroll drukhari. The argument is that the edition is too lethal. The arguing point I am arguing with is when you said issue was that one of the top 3 warhammer 40k players in the world made a tactical mistake when someone else in a similar position tried a different approach; there was no way in either case for either drukhari players to beat their prospective ork speed waaagh lists. So that point is factually wrong.

That isn’t even the focus of the argument; we are discussing the fact that it is possible to remove 90% of the points of a list in a single turn as being a sign of some major flaws with the game. The other arguing points for the edition being too lethal have included admech and drukhari lists as well. To you, these flaws may opposite of a flaw. Most of the more active posters in this thread are utterly confounded by what joy there is to be had in a game where this sort of thing happens. We singled out the ork waaagh list in this particular example because it is an extreme that we still find unsettling. We have been saying the edition is too lethal since admech drukhari and what. This is just another example we chose to focus on to bring the same argument up again.

That's nice. I appreciate you for your thoughts.

The word steamroll refers to the idea that 90% of an army can be destroyed in the first turn. It carries with it the connotation that nothing could be done to avoid it.

Apologies if that term is imprecise. It seemed to best describe the situation.

I get your point about 2 different players experiencing similar outcomes, but do not agree with your use of the word "fact." This is for 3 reasons:

- Fact implies the same outcome will occur 100% of the time. That's a very strong claim, which may be refuted by the actual games being discussed in this thread.

- Outcomes in 40k are determined by dice rolls. There is nothing inevitable about any aspect of the game, there are merely outcomes which are more likely to occur than others (and vice versa.) That's not theorycrafting, that's the way any game of chance works.

In the video in the first post of this thread, the Drukhari player did have an opportunity to tie up the Ork player. While it did not work out, it could have prevented the triggering of the speed waagh and the subsequent loss of 90% of his army in the first turn. That suggests a loss was not inevitable and that this outcome (90% loss of units in the first turn) was anything but assured.

- Likewise, outcomes for a specific player (or small set of players, even highly rated ones) do not predict outcomes for every game that will ever happen.

For a claim to be true / correct / valid, it needs to hold up 100% of the time. There can be exceptions, but they should be outliers and there should be a way to explain why they happen. While I agree that this was a tough matchup, and would go so far as to describe the Ork army as a hard counter to the Drukhari one, I don't believe it's impossible for Drukhari to win against an Ork speedfreak list. It's merely a very hard game for the Drukhari player to win, but it can be done.

When I asserted I would have played the game defensively, put some units in reserve, etc, that was an expression of how I would have played it. The outcome I could have avoided is losing 90% of my army turn one. I'm pretty sure the second player you mentioned avoided this outcome, and I could technically have achieved it simply through the use of reserves. Not saying I could have beat the Ork list, it's been a long time since I played Drukhari and I'm not making any claims about my skill level with that army. But I am saying the losses would have amounted to something less than 90%, and am of the opinion a defensive play would have increased the chances of a better outcome. To my eyes, the Drukhari player in the video left himself very exposed.

So I'm not clear on how that point is factually wrong. You would have to explain that to me, wrong is a judgement term. Are you saying there was no way to prevent losing 90% of the army, or claiming that I actually would have played it a different way? Or do you mean that my judgement is so inferior it must be condemned as false? Please help me understand how you meant that. I get that other players had experiences that suggest a specific outcome, but help me understand what you are trying to say that represents.

I understand your concerns about the outcome where 90% of an army could be lost turn one. My assertion is that this is a very rare event that relies on specific decisions from both players and does not deserve to be considered a serious risk. I've offered evidence that strongly suggests, at the very least, Ork armies in general don't regularly beat Drukhari lists in 9th edition competitive play. You're right to say I don't consider rare events a negative, they're something players of other games strive to achieve and my personal perspective is that they add to 40k, not take away from it. Nor do I think less of anyone who disagrees, it's a matter of taste.

The thing that perplexes me about the discussion is this. While I understand the admiration for the play of some top players, I'm not sure why overall outcomes from a larger sample size don't have equal or greater weight than a sample size of 2 or 3 games. It seems like you want to elevate these outcomes to the level of facts about the game, and I'm not sure why. Part of the reason this is confusing for me is there is a risk / reward calculation for any action in 40k, and it feels like the calculation part is being overlooked in this specific instance.

To say that, because this happened in 2 games to some top players, this will always happen in every game - I don't follow that logic. To me, it looks more like an overestimation of the risk side of the calculation. The majority of games are not played against top players, and the majority of players are not capable of anything approaching top play. A tactic that's very risky against a top player might be far less risky (and more beneficial) against someone who has not been in a situation where they've needed to defend against it.

It would also help me if you could explain your point from that perspective. Are you saying all "maxims" for the game should be judged against the actions of top players, along with all the consequences that entails? I could understand wanting to see this play as a "fact" under those circumstances, but believe it has limited applicability to most games anyone would ever play.

macluvin wrote:But we don’t believe a game system should allow for that at all.

Frankly, I'm okay with a game allowing for that in theory. Like, if I'm playing a WW2 game and I have a platoon of MG42 teams set up in defilade fire against unaware infantry caught out in the open at point blank range, yeah I expect that fight to be quick and lethal. That requires perfect positioning on the part of one player and inexplicable tactical blunders on the other such that if it actually ever happens in play, the winner will have thoroughly earned their victory and the loser their defeat.

The problem with a 90% return in 40K is that the circumstances do not involve that amount of contrivance or player skill. The Ork player in the OP didn't have a list that would normally do 400-500pts of damage and only did 1800 under extraordinary circumstances through astute tactics and clever positioning. It wasn't some incredible five-dimensional act of genius that exploited a subtle mistake to pull off the 40K equivalent of a Fool's Mate. They just had a list that would do so much damage no matter what their opponent did that the only way to have any chance of winning against it was to play very aggressively and risk getting steamrolled in one turn rather than two. The Drukhari player didn't make a mistake, they took their best shot at winning, and it just didn't work out.

Techsoldaten is focusing on the specific conditions involved in the 1800pt return and missing the bigger picture. Even in a game where the opponent did play defensively, the Orks still killed half their army turn 1 and won shortly thereafter. It wasn't necessary to catch their opponent making a grave mistake, nor did it involve any real tactics. The army just does that, and while 1000pts of damage isn't as bad as 1800pts, killing half the opponent's army on the first turn with no real tactics required and no opportunity to respond doesn't make for an enjoyable or fair game.

The reason for the more generalized takeaway- that this is a problem with the game, not with one specific list or codex- is because this kind of excessive performance isn't limited to just Orks and is due to systemic factors. We see AdMech lists throwing out similar levels of firepower, and Drukhari lists that get into melee on turn 1 and obliterate the enemy. Each new codex is bringing lethality increases in excess of durability increases, and the game doesn't have much besides terrain to prevent an army from bringing its full lethality to bear, hence the Ork list being chock-full of artillery and aircraft. I've seen enough T2/T3 tablings in 9th to know that doing 1000pts of damage in one turn is not the incredibly unlikely statistical outlier that some are portraying it as; it's not that uncommon in 9th among 9th-Ed-codex armies.

I don't have any axiomatic opinions on how much lethality is too much. I just don't think games should be decided by the roll-off for first turn, or after just two or three major interaction points (ie plodding IGOUGO turns), nor do I think the current state of the gameplay does a particularly good job of representing the fluff or telling engaging stories through gameplay. High lethality is the common thread underpinning all three issues.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Well, if storytelling is your bag and the outcomes seem 50/50, maybe it's time to look beyond 40k?

Assuming that you weren't trying to be an ass, I want you to re-read this statement.

If you like storytelling, maybe it's time to move on from 40k. Do you realise how absurd a comment that is?

H.B.M.C - Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I have not told anyone to move on from 40k. I suggested someone look beyond 40k.

There are other games that are models for qualities like balance and storytelling. I suggested Unicorn Glitterluck and Snail Sprint as examples. My 7 year old daughter and I play them together often and have been for a couple years.

Unicorn Glitterluck is popular in Europe, North America and Asia / South Pacific. It's an IGOUGO system where each player gets a unicorn piece and advances on the board using a single dice roll. There's 4 possible outcomes to each roll, one of which is a special event where you get glittering gems to add to the party.

The thing about this one - it's perfectly balanced. There's no way to gain an advantage based on who went first, how far along you are, or any other factor. The player who moved the least has the same chance to win (by arriving first to the party) as any other player. There's also a cooperative aspect to the game, players have to collect all the other party guest before any of them can enter the party themselves.

Snail Sprint is entirely different. You have this set of snails, players cooperatively advance them around the board using a set of dice. One dice tells you which snail to move, the other tells you where to move the snail. The goal is to advance 3 of the snails to the podiums, then each player gets a card. If the snails on the card match the ones on your card, you get points. The player with the most points wins, even thought each player did the same amount of work to bring about the outcome.

The thing about this one - it's an excellent example of storytelling. The race between the snails is low octane, happens in 4 directions, and has a cartoonish feel to it. Since you're not actually doing much, there is a lot of time to fill in the gaps. I find myself talking like a race announcer and hyping up the thrill of watching these snails climb walls. My daughter finds it hilarious.

While I don't take much from children's games, there are times it causes me to reflect on 40k and what people mean when they ask for better balance or to make it "fun." Seems odd spending all your time focused on a game that doesn't provide those qualities when they can be had in something simpler.

Variety is refreshing.

I would just add this. Remember the term "leafblower" lists? In previous editions, when the focus was more about just wiping your opponent off the board, leafblower lists were a problem. And 9th edition actually made shooting even more lethal than it used to be. But obscuring terrain was the solution. No matter how lethal your shooting is, if you can't see it, you can't shoot it.

Planes and out of line of sight shooting both totally bypass obscuring terrain. Now both have always been around since 9th edition started, but the early 9th edition out of line sight shooting just wasn't so lethal, and the early 9th edition flyers weren't so lethal as well.

Now, as more 9th edition codex comes out, GW is starting to release ever more powerful flyers and out of line of sight shooting. I would argue that flyers have always been problematic, but early 9th edition, flyers just wasn't efficient or lethal enough to be worth spamming. Same for out of line of sight shooting.

But now they are, and it is becoming a problem. And they have now brought back the leaf blower lists - lists designed with just one thing in mind, to wipe you off the board by turn 2 or 3 so VP is irrelevant.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

When several people agree on something and you alone think they are wrong, perhaps your position is less secure than you think?

Oh, no, it must be the others.
(Also, lol at implying well-reasoned arguments are a "shout down mob". Anti-intellectualism at its finest.)

Deducing that he is the only person that holds his position, and that mob consensus is an argument is anti-intellectualism.

The 'well-reasoned" arguments either stand on their own two feet or they don't. The fact you think you have a mandate for demanding people agree is a joke. When you need to prop something up with ad-hominem and shoutdowns it projects a real insecurity.

macluvin wrote:


But the OP (Scotsman) had been making the argument that the edition was too lethal for quite some time. There’s too much high volume long range high AP weapons and too many that combines that with LoS ignoring mechanics. I’m certain he has been making that point since drukhari and admech, and possibly well before that.

Overwhelming, LOS ignoring shooting is a relatively recent development of Orks and Admech, and I do not think Drukhari has overwhelming LOS ignoring firepower. But to be honest, I'm going to trust the argument of the proven tournament player, in which this Ork list is the issue (Sean even noted that he defeated Admech lists in multiple occasions, so this Ork list is quite something else).

How many units did Sean put into strategic reserves.

Simple question

I don't buy the forced into alpha strike attempt line, not even the slightest

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
There are games which open with a crippling alpha strike taking out a good chunk of the opponent's list, which get answered in tone and then the killy factors quickly runs out and the game drags to a turn 5 of stragglers battling over points. These games are also fine.

If the game gets to turn 5 I'd be surprised, since the reply from the defender is going to be anemic if they're down >25% of their most exquisite capability.

Oh, it actually happens more than people think.

Being badly alpha striken isn't the end of the game. An alpha strike usually leaves your opponent very badly positioned and prone to a sound beating.

Obviously we are not talking about extreme alpha strikes like the one in the OP.

Here, this is a good example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tyranids/comments/qkkbxp/tyranids_octarius_vs_orcs_2000pt_written_battle/

Those are 2 battle reports between 2 extremely alpha strikey lists, designed to cripple your opponent from turn 1. Speedwaagh vs NewNids (which are going to be a big issue).
In the first report, the Nids go first and the alpha strike is just too hard and the ork concedes.
In the second report, the nids take the full brunt of a 11 buggy 4 plane speedwaagh list and definitely don't look pretty after it, yet try to play the game and in the end they win. At turn 5, no one is yet tabled.

By the way, on the topic of flyers efficency, the issue is actually the freebooter trait, which is very badly designed. It scales horribly.
+1 to hit after killing a unit? Yeah, cause that is really going to be just as good at 500 and 3000 points, right?
It's a trait which becomes better the more points you have on the field, which is a terrible design. If you have a small force it will probably not doing anything, but if you have a big one then the majority of them will enjoy a +50% output. How can you ever balance something like that?
The reason that the ork conceded after being alpha striken, is because he had de facto lost his chapter trait.

It's a terrible trait which plays right into this "Kill me before I kill you". It snowballs very fast in both directions.
It badly needs a redesign.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
So what I’m getting is that if I make a huge tactical miscalculation in a competitive game, leaving my army of tissue paper elves standing right in the optimal range of a gun line with the optimal tools to kill me I should just be able to stand there and take it without mass casualties?

Did you read the thread or just pop in to repeat a useless, distracting, and unhelpful question?

I’ve been reading this entire thread and I’m addressing how people are talking about the lethality. I think that if your entire glass cannon army is parked in a bad spot in front of a gun line, it should die very very fast.

Alternative was getting tabled turn later. If de didn't get to hide in e melee it was dead. Deader than dead. You would just announce you don't even try to win and waste time of everybody involved by losing the game as slow as possible with so low chances to win you are more likely to get hit by lighting 5 times inside a minute.

tneva82 wrote:
...You would just announce you don't even try to win and waste time of everybody involved by losing the game as slow as possible with so low chances to win you are more likely to get hit by lighting 5 times inside a minute...

Would it not have been less of a waste of time to exchange lists, read lists, and say "all right, good game, you win" without taking armies out of the case at all?

Serious question. That's how I've felt every time I've played 9th.

Rihgu wrote:
How do people keep trying to sell this as a tactical miscalculation?

Unless they mean that Nayden should've just conceded before placing models down, avoiding the whole fiasco.

He simply should have avoided a skew melee list. An average optimized drukhari list would have had no problem against that orks, and still great odds to win a tournament. He wanted to gamble and it didn't pay off. Simple.

This is something many posters here are purposefully ignoring. They keep claiming that remiving 1000+ of stuff is common at tournaments, ignoring that only happens when this kind of skew is involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
...You would just announce you don't even try to win and waste time of everybody involved by losing the game as slow as possible with so low chances to win you are more likely to get hit by lighting 5 times inside a minute...

Would it not have been less of a waste of time to exchange lists, read lists, and say "all right, good game, you win" without taking armies out of the case at all?

Serious question. That's how I've felt every time I've played 9th.

What about changing those lists before playing? Never done that before?

It was close to impossible to play in 7th without doing that.

Spoletta wrote:
Those are 2 battle reports between 2 extremely alpha strikey lists, designed to cripple your opponent from turn 1. Speedwaagh vs NewNids (which are going to be a big issue).
In the first report, the Nids go first and the alpha strike is just too hard and the ork concedes.
In the second report, the nids take the full brunt of a 11 buggy 4 plane speedwaagh list and definitely don't look pretty after it, yet try to play the game and in the end they win. At turn 5, no one is yet tabled.

As I see it you have 2 games where one side is alpha striking and the other kind of isn't.

I mean in turn 2 the Ork player kills 500ish points on turn 1 - a 25% return. I think if that was normal output most people would accept it. Its not that incredible.
The Tyranid player's on table 1300ish points (gaunts in reserve) however... proceeds to kill over 650 points of Orks - a 50% return. You might say they need this to get back into the game - but still, that's kind of crazy.

The Ork player's 2nd turn then does basically nothing. 1350ish points kills just 3 Tyrant Guard - and loses 160 in the process. That's an 11% or something return. I'd argue a mistake versus hurting the remaining unit of Hive Guard - but its a fair argument that Speedwaaagh AP bonus would end next turn and he was running out of things to handle them.

The Tyranid Player's remaining 1350 points (Devilgaunts now on the table) - proceeds to kill a further 550 points of Orks, another 40% return, for the cost of the remaining Tyrant Guard.

From effectively starting the game with 1500 points, the Tyranid player has over 2 shooting and 3 assault phases killed 1350~ points of stuff - a 90% return.

Now since we are all no doubt cheering on the Tyranid player (his battle reports are always fun to read) this is all to the good - but in terms of the game its kind of crazy.

GoldenHorde wrote:How many units did Sean put into strategic reserves.

Simple question

I don't buy the forced into alpha strike attempt line, not even the slightest

Let's say he decides to reserve around 400-500 points of units. That doesn't change how lethal the Ork army is. All it means is that what he puts on the board dies first, then the reserves come in and die too. Sean could have reserved half his army and it just would have meant losing it in two equal chunks rather than all at once.

We can see this from the semi final where a slightly different style of DE list tried a more defensive approach and lost around 1400 points of stuff to the Ork alpha strike. The problem is both the overall damage output and the method of applying that damage. So much of the Ork list is either very fast or just ignores LoS so positioning doesn't really matter against it. There are similar issues with AdMEch and DE, where they have either teleportation or extreme mobility to get around attempts to mitigate the alpha strike.

Blackie wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
How do people keep trying to sell this as a tactical miscalculation?

Unless they mean that Nayden should've just conceded before placing models down, avoiding the whole fiasco.

He simply should have avoided a skew melee list. An average optimized drukhari list would have had no problem against that orks, and still great odds to win a tournament. He wanted to gamble and it didn't pay off. Simple.

This is something many posters here are purposefully ignoring. They keep claiming that remiving 1000+ of stuff is common at tournaments, ignoring that only happens when this kind of skew is involved.

We've seen two games at the same tournament where it happened at the top tables. We have a 1-turn tabling at the LGT involving two different armies and there are other accounts of this extreme lethality and alpha strike style ending games on turn 1 (either actually ending, or effectively).

And, again, the overall point is that lethality in general is too high. Doing 75%+ damage even under optimal circumstances shouldn't be a thing, so claiming this was some sort of outlier isn't really a valid argument unless it's an outlier because of absurdly lucky dice rolls. Even as an outlier it should be cause for concern, and I'm not convinced it truly is an outlier.

This isn't about Orks specifically. This isn't even really about whether there were different tactical options available to the De player in this one game. It's about the fact it's even possible to get this level of damage output without needing extremely lucky dice rolls. If your argument is you could have played the game better than Sean Nayden, or Ork winrates are fine according to the data you've missed the point completely.

 GoldenHorde wrote:
How many units did Sean put into strategic reserves.

Simple question

I don't buy the forced into alpha strike attempt line, not even the slightest

what would strategic reserves accomplish? genuine question what you think would happen. Because to me its pretty obvious. The Ork player gets 1-2 free turns of shooting, still removes what is on the table and then thanks to MSU has no issue screening out the strategic reserves to stop their impact when the come on board. And then those die aswell.

It means he is tabled in turn 2/3 (based on who goes first) instead of turn 1 but the chance of winning is even less then it was now.

If your answer is to hide the rest of army and make a play with his entire army when his reserves can come on the board I will, once again, point to the semi final which I linked earlier where another DE list hide their entire army behind big terrain pieces and the Ork went first and still destroyed basically all of the army.
You cannot hide from flyers and indirect fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
How do people keep trying to sell this as a tactical miscalculation?

Unless they mean that Nayden should've just conceded before placing models down, avoiding the whole fiasco.

He simply should have avoided a skew melee list. An average optimized drukhari list would have had no problem against that orks, and still great odds to win a tournament. He wanted to gamble and it didn't pay off. Simple.

This is something many posters here are purposefully ignoring. They keep claiming that remiving 1000+ of stuff is common at tournaments, ignoring that only happens when this kind of skew is involved.

I believe the semi finals was a more average optimized drukhari list. It had more raiders/ravagers (can't see which is which on a stream overview) and Cronos.

I linked the semi's earlier. Most of it died in 1 turn and the outcome of the game was never in question.

Slipspace wrote:

If your argument is you could have played the game better than Sean Nayden, or Ork winrates are fine according to the data you've missed the point completely.

My argument is that Nayden's list wasn't an optimized one, but a gamble. He gambled and he lost. The vast majority of 40k players don't play this way and outside those circumstances (extremely skew list vs its own tailored list) removing 50% or more of the opponent's models in turn 1 really is uncommon.

We definitely agree that lethality is too high, but it's not higher than in 7th for exmaple, it's probably much lower. And it's definitely lower than in 8th.

Now what happens when someone tries to break the game doesn't interest me, those results don't matter to me. That's my argument. It's not about how he played or general ork win rates, it's about how he decided to try to break the game by bringing an extreme list, hoping to avoid its hard counters, and it didn't pay off. Losing that harsh under those specific circumstances doesn't look like an issue to me, that's what I'm saying.

Main issue about that ork list is not lethality, it's the abuse of the flyers' bases mechanics.

Orks are selectively OP, with new units given broken abilities by lazy and cynical developers who want to rattle tills.
It is ths same bull as we got with the release of the Riptide, except Kirby was far more blatant than the current lot.

40K is is a bad state of balance ATM and getting worse, and GW are lazy with parsing out updates. Major changes to weapons occur, but they only effect certain armies. Try playing Tau or worse Eldar and see how their infantry fare with mas melta no long not only being their unique thing, but they can no longer match the ROF and range. General rules changes nowadays are so blatantly destabilising in a way they have never been before.

However that being said, Ork OPness is selective, take a regular ork army and its not OP, you can self police. Go to a tourney and you can expect the competitors to minimax everything and under those setting that is fair. Dark Eldar are far from underpowered (understatement) and those dead knife ears probably had the minimax done up for them too. In a friendly game someone turning up with a cheese on wheels list will be told to go get some actual orks, or allow other 'friendly' players to revamp their lists to make the game remotely challenging. In tourney there is no excuse, if you aren't ready to fight broken with broken you are not ready for GW tourney play..

The big difference is that Orks are an all or nothing army, they offest 'extra' dakka by poor accuracy. Despite all the talk they never really had the firepower until now, not since 2nd ed anyway.
This means if you do happen to roll lots of 5's and 6's orks can have an especially brutal shooting phase, beating anyone actually.
The Dark Eldar were played competently but didn't get the rolls they needed to lock down combat, then the orks had a turn and evidently didn't roll much less than a 5 on buckets of dice.
This whole event reads as a situational result. The Dark Eldar didnt sacrifice enough slaves to the dice gods and the omens were not in their favour.

Yes the sillyname buggies orks now have are overpowered and overcomplicated. I like the new models but I wish they were just moderately upgunned variants of old buggies. by effect. But plain old Kult of Speed does not cut it anymore, it doesnt ring the tills, so we have this crap. Just got to either live with it, beat it or self police. I self police, my orks are old school, but I wouldn't think of taking them to a competition.
So cuck it up, next codex, next steamroller. Nice to see Orks win for a change, and if there was a rematch I would not be expecting the same result, though this is a hard matchup for Dark Eldar. The Drukari win button got glued stuck, oh what a pity.

 Blackie wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

If your argument is you could have played the game better than Sean Nayden, or Ork winrates are fine according to the data you've missed the point completely.

My argument is that Nayden's list wasn't an optimized one, but a gamble. He gambled and he lost. The vast majority of 40k players don't play this way and outside those circumstances (extremely skew list vs its own tailored list) removing 50% or more of the opponent's models in turn 1 really is uncommon.

We definitely agree that lethality is too high, but it's not higher than in 7th for exmaple, it's probably much lower. And it's definitely lower than in 8th.

Now what happens when someone tries to break the game doesn't interest me, those results don't matter to me. That's my argument. It's not about how he played or general ork win rates, it's about how he decided to try to break the game by bringing an extreme list, hoping to avoid its hard counters, and it didn't pay off. Losing that harsh under those specific circumstances doesn't look like an issue to me, that's what I'm saying.

Main issue about that ork list is not lethality, it's the abuse of the flyers' bases mechanics.

Sigh. Again.

Here is the same army in the semi final also fighting Drukhari. Drukhari hides his army behind terrain. Orks go first.
https://youtu.be/TWq3w6HaeX8?t=1160
(stream gets cut because of technical problems)

This is the start of turn the Ork turn 2
https://youtu.be/5SD2OVJbcKg?t=270

No abusing flyers base mechanics because the Ork player has first turn and moves his flyers up to shoot the DE.
He instead screens with a bunch of bikes.

If nothing else check the first link for a few seconds to see the DE initial deployment and then check the second link for a few seconds to see the start of turn 2. The DE army is almost entirely gone from a single turn of shooting while entirely out of LoS behind a big building.

Spoletta wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
There are games which open with a crippling alpha strike taking out a good chunk of the opponent's list, which get answered in tone and then the killy factors quickly runs out and the game drags to a turn 5 of stragglers battling over points. These games are also fine.

If the game gets to turn 5 I'd be surprised, since the reply from the defender is going to be anemic if they're down >25% of their most exquisite capability.

Oh, it actually happens more than people think.

Being badly alpha striken isn't the end of the game. An alpha strike usually leaves your opponent very badly positioned and prone to a sound beating.

Obviously we are not talking about extreme alpha strikes like the one in the OP.

Here, this is a good example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tyranids/comments/qkkbxp/tyranids_octarius_vs_orcs_2000pt_written_battle/

Those are 2 battle reports between 2 extremely alpha strikey lists, designed to cripple your opponent from turn 1. Speedwaagh vs NewNids (which are going to be a big issue).
In the first report, the Nids go first and the alpha strike is just too hard and the ork concedes.
In the second report, the nids take the full brunt of a 11 buggy 4 plane speedwaagh list and definitely don't look pretty after it, yet try to play the game and in the end they win. At turn 5, no one is yet tabled.

By the way, on the topic of flyers efficency, the issue is actually the freebooter trait, which is very badly designed. It scales horribly.
+1 to hit after killing a unit? Yeah, cause that is really going to be just as good at 500 and 3000 points, right?
It's a trait which becomes better the more points you have on the field, which is a terrible design. If you have a small force it will probably not doing anything, but if you have a big one then the majority of them will enjoy a +50% output. How can you ever balance something like that?
The reason that the ork conceded after being alpha striken, is because he had de facto lost his chapter trait.

It's a terrible trait which plays right into this "Kill me before I kill you". It snowballs very fast in both directions.
It badly needs a redesign.

This is a well written and appropriately timed battle report. It does show the lethality of certain alpha strike lists and the fact certain alpha strikes lists aren’t as strong as people claim. Regardless it’s well written and the tyranid player won twice in a row.