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.

Not a terrible idea, but you take most attrition casualties during your first turn, while boyz would want to call the Waaagh! on their second. It also wouldn't help shoota boyz a lot.

The main issue with boyz is that they don't have a role to fulfill.

Something more orkish then.

Bak in da' fight!: When a warboss declares a WAAAGH, roll a dice for each model of this unit that has been destroyed during previous turns. On a roll of 4+ that model is added back into the unit.

I guess you could return to one of the old mob rule implementations - whenever any ork model is lost to attrition or morale, and there is a unit of boyz with at least 10 models nearby, you add one boyz model to that unit.

As far as morale goes, an Ork boy is LD6, and the unit Nob makes it LD7.

How about adding a clause to mob rule, changing it to:
While this unit is within 6" of a friendly <CLAN> MOB unit that is not under half strength, this unit is never considered to be under half strength. If that same friendly <CLAN> MOB unit contains an equal or greater number of models than this unit, add +1 to this units LD score.

Nobz mobs and Meganobz gain the following:
Bully Boyz
Models in this unit count as two models for the purposes of Mob Rule.

Then add a +1 LD aura to Warbosses and Beastbosses.

Then you have effectively LD 9 as long as they're around each other and their bosses, and they count as over half strength.


And then they could probably have a point reduction.

Dudeface wrote:
Points aren't the main problem, as mentioned elsewhere the morale losses are what's hitting hard, but they also don't want to just make them functionally immune to morale again as that's a poor design choice.

Its the same thing really.

The basic competitive question is whether a skew into lots of T5 bodies will be worth it. Right now it isn't. You can however help that skew by making them cheaper, changing morale etc. But you are still essentially going down the same line.

The meta is now in a bit of a state of flux given the recent changes - but its unclear its going to become more attractive. In recent times there have been too many armies who have no problems dealing with a handful of Boyz units.

On paper nothing stops people showing up with lists consisting of say 3*15 Kommandos, 3*15 Storm Boyz and 3*15 Burna Boyz. Which I think would be considerably better than say 150 boyz. (Okay this might be too much on both counts - but if you are going to skew, skew hard. Adjust the numbers if you want to compare with 3*30 boyz)
As I see it such a list is more flexible, less effected by morale, faster and more lethal. You have 135 bodies on the table (plus 500ish more points) to do stuff with, which I think is a horde. With the loss of Green Tide its unclear what the point of 30 Boyz in a unit is.

But is such a list meta? No. Because I think its *still* too slow. Win rates going second against any heavy shooting list would likely be horrendous. And it likely doesn't consistently do enough damage when going first - and can therefore just bounce against so-called mid-table lists. Its not that you can't win a game with it - but you are unlikely to win a sequence of games at a major tournament. And regular Boyz have even more problems. Without fundamentally changing what a Boy "is", I think all you can do is make them more and more resilient. So lists need to take dedicated anti-Boyz units (and the more you skew, the more specialised these become), or risk being run over.

 alextroy wrote:
I think it can be safely said that Ork Boyz are overly expensive while the key buggies are undercosted. That won't necessarily fix the problem unless they make Boyz 6 points given how badly Morale messes them up.

At 6ppm all you will have done is make boyz cheaper so you might see 1-3 MSU boyz units as a troops tax...not much else. Morale is the biggest issue and its quickly followed by the fact that Blast weapons got a hefty buff against hordes.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well 1st no matter what, Orks needs a LD buff of huge proportions.
Do that first then see if there are more problems (there are but lets see if there are others before changing).

Agreed. I don't think Boyz would be in as bad a place if their leadership wasn't horrendous.. Though I do have to point out that at 9ppm they are too expensive for what little they bring to the table. T5 sounds great, but a T5 with a 6+ save has about the same survival chance against a bolter as a T3 with a 4+ save.

Jarms48 wrote:
Boys and Beast Snagga Boys could probably go down 1 point per model. Gretchin could probably go back to a 6+ save again, or buff their support characters.
Kommandos probably need to go up by minimum 2, possibly 4, they're far too good for their cost.

Boyz could go down 3ppm and they still wouldn't be taken except in MSU because of the morale issues. Grots could go back to 6+ save and regain Obsec and they still wouldn't be taken except as MSU troop tax because they serve no purpose except as a token objective holder/action taker.

And if you nerfed Kommandos with a 20-40% price increase they would disappear from competitive play and be replaced by Stormboyz. Kommandos are good where they are, they are situational in their durability and dmg output. They require terrain to be effective.

Dudeface wrote:
Points aren't the main problem, as mentioned elsewhere the morale losses are what's hitting hard, but they also don't want to just make them functionally immune to morale again as that's a poor design choice.

You mean like Thousand sons are? Or all Space Marines? Or SoB? Or Dark Eldar? Or etc etc etc. If you are going to implement Morale as an important characteristic you have to do it from the start of the edition, not halfway through it. Orkz are literally the only faction at the competitive scene who give a damn about Morale.

Spoletta wrote:
Troops should work closely to the faction theme.
As such, IMO the correct fix is:
Boyz units automatically pass combat attrition tests during the first turn of WAAAGH.
Doesn't make them immune to morale, except during that one big turn where you go all out.

Wouldn't help them much if anything at all. As Jid mentioned, but also the fact that if you go 2nd you are soaking up the worst part of Morale before you even get a chance to call WAAAAGH meaning you turn 1 lose the game because you lost 45% more casualties to morale than you would have.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
As far as morale goes, an Ork boy is LD6, and the unit Nob makes it LD7.

How about adding a clause to mob rule, changing it to:
While this unit is within 6" of a friendly <CLAN> MOB unit that is not under half strength, this unit is never considered to be under half strength. If that same friendly <CLAN> MOB unit contains an equal or greater number of models than this unit, add +1 to this units LD score.

Nobz mobs and Meganobz gain the following:
Bully Boyz
Models in this unit count as two models for the purposes of Mob Rule.
Then add a +1 LD aura to Warbosses and Beastbosses.
Then you have effectively LD 9 as long as they're around each other and their bosses, and they count as over half strength.
And then they could probably have a point reduction.

That would just encourage MSU boyz at most. If I bring a blob of 30 and lose 10 I basically auto-fail morale.

Hankovitch wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

You just horde vehicles or land lol, it’s a horde no matter what, compared to everyone else at least.

Right. Nine ork vehicles in an army is a "horde," while nine vehicles in a Space Marine or Drukhari army is an "elite force."

Well, buggies are essentially sm vehicles. Real speed freeks is loads of bikers with battlewagons, and classic buggies which were like 40 points.

Killa Kans are also like 40 points, you put out a lot of em.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And since third edition, orks have ignored leadership for the most part. Leadership was always tied to mob size.

The biggest problem is that there is no space in 40k for a unit with a 6+ save that will end up standing anywhere on the battlefield aside from behind LOS blocking terrain. It will get instantly massacred because--oh look, this again--there are too many units with high accuracy, high lethality, >24" shooting on battlefields that are literally shrinking. Who cannot be tied in melee, are immune to morale, blah blah blah.

Boyz were only useful in 8th because, between Mob Rule and Green tide, you could sometimes drown control points in more bodies than the opponent could kill. They had no other tactical use--they were never a combat threat on par with their points cost.

The game will have to be changed to make room for ork boyz; boyz cannot be changed to be effective in the current game.

Hankovitch wrote:
The biggest problem is that there is no space in 40k for a unit with a 6+ save that will end up standing anywhere on the battlefield aside from behind LOS blocking terrain. It will get instantly massacred because--oh look, this again--there are too many units with high accuracy, high lethality, >24" shooting on battlefields that are literally shrinking. Who cannot be tied in melee, are immune to morale, blah blah blah.

Boyz were only useful in 8th because, between Mob Rule and Green tide, you could sometimes drown control points in more bodies than the opponent could kill. They had no other tactical use--they were never a combat threat on par with their points cost.

The game will have to be changed to make room for ork boyz; boyz cannot be changed to be effective in the current game.

Well, back in 8th they had a 5++ from kff, like they’ve gotten since back in 4th. Orks had ways to mitigate their weaknesses through their bosses, meks, and psykers, but the 9th authors bungled it all up.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Points aren't the main problem, as mentioned elsewhere the morale losses are what's hitting hard, but they also don't want to just make them functionally immune to morale again as that's a poor design choice.

You mean like Thousand sons are? Or all Space Marines? Or SoB? Or Dark Eldar? Or etc etc etc. If you are going to implement Morale as an important characteristic you have to do it from the start of the edition, not halfway through it. Orkz are literally the only faction at the competitive scene who give a damn about Morale.

That's a weird stance to take. You're arguing boyz need to be made better because they're not competitive, then saying that they're the only meta army that cares about morale due to the boyz they're not taking?

But no, 10 man marine units aren't that susceptible to morale checks, or msu eldar units, or sisters who can manipulate dice

The fact is the only 9th ed book that can even field a 30 man unit is orks I believe? Cultists aren't worth it even ignoring the fact they're equally vulnerable to morale, silver tides also don't like taking heavy losses due to morale.

But removing an inherent inbuilt deterrent to large units just to make a large unit stronger isn't the best idea in the world. Give a mitigating factor or a way to help a unit regrow or something, but anything approaching morale immunity isn't clever.

Orks have been effectively immune to morale until they fall to less than ten guys since 3rd lol.

There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

Making Boyz too cheap and/or too reliable will open up those force multipliers into something that is too strong for the mission set.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Orks have been effectively immune to morale until they fall to less than ten guys since 3rd lol.

^I second this.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

Making Boyz too cheap and/or too reliable will open up those force multipliers into something that is too strong for the mission set.

Gotta keep in mind the morale, and the slow speed.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

Making Boyz too cheap and/or too reliable will open up those force multipliers into something that is too strong for the mission set.

Gotta keep in mind the morale, and the slow speed.

Absolutely - just saying that it's easy to go too far.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

What are the numbers on this, deaths due to the weapon? How many shots to kill X number? Obviously not, but it isn't easy to infer the units on these numbers.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

Making Boyz too cheap and/or too reliable will open up those force multipliers into something that is too strong for the mission set.

Gotta keep in mind the morale, and the slow speed.

You also have to keep in mind the competitive mindset.

Daed's concern here is from a strictly competitive standpoint: where the game of warhammer 40,000 is a game the sole objective of which is to score a higher number of points thru primary and secondary objectives from the grand tournament pack than one's opponent.

An Ork Boy that stands absolutely zero chance of making it all the way across no-man's land to an opponent's units and killing them, but who CAN highly efficiently survive no-LOS and flyer firepower from behind obscuring cover camping on objectives is, from a competitive play standpoint, a highly successful ork boy.

but its very much not what casual ork players want them to do. Getting to and fighting and killing the opponent's list is secondary to winning from a competitive standpoint, but is 'the real point' to most casual players.

I'm very much of the current opinion that the main issue GW is having with light infantry in both their game systems is that they desperately, DESPERATELY do not want to create rules that allow their players to buy fewer models, but they also have to grapple with the fact that a light infantry based army gets a tremendous advantage when they occupy board space.

The current situation (where almost no light infantry unit has a prayer of winning in a fight with a similarly point-costed elite infantry unit, let alone a large vehicle or monster) is an attempt to square the circle that is the inherent advantages of board footprint size and model count. And I think it's unsatisfying for everyone tbh, except for those that really love the fantasy of their elite units carving through lesser units by the dozens with ease.

But you could retain that AND reduce the model count burden for light infantry AND reduce their crazy board footprint/objective control power by introducing respawning 'endless horde' mechanics to units like orks, gretchin, guardsmen, daemons, cultists, etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What are the numbers on this, deaths due to the weapon? How many shots to kill X number? Obviously not, but it isn't easy to infer the units on these numbers.

Just wounds caused by 100 shots per weapon. Each row is intendent of each other and it's devoid of any point efficiencies, availability of weapons, or anything like that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What are the numbers on this, deaths due to the weapon? How many shots to kill X number? Obviously not, but it isn't easy to infer the units on these numbers.

Just wounds caused by 100 shots per weapon. Each row is intendent of each other and it's devoid of any point efficiencies, availability of weapons, or anything like that.

So essentially I was right - T5 6+/6+++ is way worse against lasguns than the Marine profile (more than twice as bad)

The entire point of green tide/ lasgun tide/ bug tide is to just kinda clog the board, it’s strong because it’s the gimmick of three factions

No one cares about lasguns.

Tyel wrote:

On paper nothing stops people showing up with lists consisting of say 3*15 Kommandos, 3*15 Storm Boyz and 3*15 Burna Boyz. Which I think would be considerably better than say 150 boyz. (Okay this might be too much on both counts - but if you are going to skew, skew hard. Adjust the numbers if you want to compare with 3*30 boyz)
As I see it such a list is more flexible, less effected by morale, faster and more lethal. You have 135 bodies on the table (plus 500ish more points) to do stuff with, which I think is a horde. With the loss of Green Tide its unclear what the point of 30 Boyz in a unit is.

In a competitive game the thing stopping you is the simple fact of 11+ models. Put it this way, 2 units of stormboyz. 1 unit is 10 strong, the other is 15 strong. Each get hit with a Battlecannon. It shoots twice (grinding advance) Against the unit of 10 that averages 7 shots, 3.5 hits and 2.3 dead Stormboyz. Against the unit of 15 its 12 shots, 6 hits and 4 dead Stormboyz. Unit 1 suffers likely 2 casualties and only fails morale on a roll of a 6, unit 2 suffers 4 casualties and fails morale on a 4+. Failing morale is auto 1 casualty and likely 1 more from attrition for both. So you have a 1/6th chance to lose 2 models or a 1/2 chance to lose 2 models. So what is stopping you from taking larger units? 9th edition game mechanics and bad LD of all ork units.

Dudeface wrote:

That's a weird stance to take. You're arguing boyz need to be made better because they're not competitive, then saying that they're the only meta army that cares about morale due to the boyz they're not taking?

But no, 10 man marine units aren't that susceptible to morale checks, or msu eldar units, or sisters who can manipulate dice
The fact is the only 9th ed book that can even field a 30 man unit is orks I believe? Cultists aren't worth it even ignoring the fact they're equally vulnerable to morale, silver tides also don't like taking heavy losses due to morale.
But removing an inherent inbuilt deterrent to large units just to make a large unit stronger isn't the best idea in the world. Give a mitigating factor or a way to help a unit regrow or something, but anything approaching morale immunity isn't clever.

Sorry, I mean Orkz in general are the only faction that gives a damn about morale. I build all my lists with Morale factored into every one of my decisions. Why am I taking only 1 mek gun per battery? Because LD4 means If I lose 1 model in the unit, I will have a 50% chance to lose a 2nd to morale. Why aren't my Kommando/Trukkboy units bigger than 10? Because thats the smallest unit size they can be taken in and get their full abilities out of and is still small enough to mitigate morale and Blast rules. etc etc etc.

I wouldn't say remove morale as a game mechanic, I am just saying implement it fairly across the board. Right now you have entire factions which are functionally Immune to morale where as Orkz are the only faction that is highly susceptible to it. I'm sure there are others but at the moment orkz are also the only faction I know of which actively hurt themselves from morale. Both our stratagem to pass morale and Grot abilities actively hurt us.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.
Making Boyz too cheap and/or too reliable will open up those force multipliers into something that is too strong for the mission set.

I would say there is a huge gap. To kill an Ork boy with a 6++ and a 6+++ takes 6.48 bolter shots. 6.48 shots, is 4.32 hits, 1.44 wounds, 6++ brings it to 1.2 unsaved wounds and 6+++ brings it to 1 dead Ork. To inflict 1dmg to a Marine takes 9 Bolter shots, 9 shots is 6 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save, so to kill 1 Marine takes 18 bolter shots. For an ork boy to get a 6++ and a 6+++ requires a 70pt painboy and likely a 115pt Big Mek in mega armor with a KFF. A Space Marine squad at T4 3+ with 2 wounds at 90pts, a single 10 man unit of Boyz with a 6++ and a 6+++ is 90+70+115 for 275pts. Realistically you could easily congo line 4-5 mobz of boyz into this, but you still wouldn't want those bigger than 10 for morale/blast reasons, So lets say 5. Thats 450pts of Boyz plus 185 for buffing characters. so 635pts for 52 models with those stats. You can get 35 Marines for that same price. Orkz end up with 54 T5 6+ wounds and 6 T5 2+ wounds. Marines on the other hand have 70 T4 3+ wounds with points left over. As mentioned it takes 9 bolter shots per Marine wound, so to kill 35 Marines would take 630 shots, to kill the 50 boyz would take 324. You could literally lower their price 2ppm and give them that many more boyz and they would still be less durable point for point than those Marines.

I do agree with your general point, but the problem is that the "Force multipliers" orkz have right now are TRASH. A 6+ invuln is garbage because hardly anyone was wasting AP shots on ork boyz, and even if they were its not that big of a buff, the 6+++ is even more garbage because if you were shooting AP- shots into orkz it likely had 2+ dmg because you also built your list to contend with Marines meaning to save even 1 Ork boy you would have to roll 2 6s in a row.

I don't want Boyz broken, but it would be nice if I didn't feel obligated to take Patrol detachments or other types of detachments that cost CP because taking boyz is a huge handicap.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

As stated by others, what are these numbers even representing?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

As stated by others, what are these numbers even representing?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just wounds caused by 100 shots per weapon. Each row is intendent of each other and it's devoid of any point efficiencies, availability of weapons, or anything like that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What are the numbers on this, deaths due to the weapon? How many shots to kill X number? Obviously not, but it isn't easy to infer the units on these numbers.

Just wounds caused by 100 shots per weapon. Each row is intendent of each other and it's devoid of any point efficiencies, availability of weapons, or anything like that.

But each line also appears to use BS too? I can only reach 16.7 lasgun wounds against T3 5+ if I calculate .5 to hit as well. Irritating chart, as BS changes. Bolt Rifles are on BS 3+ . Which BS is the Heavy Bolter using, for example?

In fact the Heavy Bolter math appears to be wrong? Against T3 5+ I get 27.6 with a BS 4+, and 36.8 against BS 3+. Chart has it at 44.4?

In fact Assault Cannon appears wrong as well. .666 x . 83 x .83 (x100) = 45.8, not 55.5

Bolt Rifle scores the same number of wounds regardless of Light Cover against a 6+ save? That looks a lil sus.

What the feth do the colors even mean?

Daed, your chart sucks!!!!

 Jidmah wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There isn't a huge gap between T5 6++/6+++ and T4 3+ when staring down bolters.

What is it when staring down lasguns?

As stated by others, what are these numbers even representing?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just wounds caused by 100 shots per weapon. Each row is intendent of each other and it's devoid of any point efficiencies, availability of weapons, or anything like that.

Thanks, didn't see that.

So a boy is 9pts, 2 will be 18pts which is around marine troop cost, outside of cover with 6++/6+++ they are slightly better per wound, inside cover the are about 40% worst.

Honestly thats not that bad for just wounds, the problem is everything else.

Wyches are 12ppm and are t3 1w, 6++ (4++ in combat) they 100% need a transport, which together for a 10man is 225pts at least, so from a DE PoV 25 boys is equal to that. The problem is Boys needs moral, which is why I said at first to please give them a big moral boost, like over 10 only 1 can ever run away or something.

But not having play Orks my PoV could be off.

Just give orks old mob rule and ‘ere we go, they were fine and I honestly have no idea why they were nerfed.

 the_scotsman wrote:


You also have to keep in mind the competitive mindset.

Daed's concern here is from a strictly competitive standpoint: where the game of warhammer 40,000 is a game the sole objective of which is to score a higher number of points thru primary and secondary objectives from the grand tournament pack than one's opponent.

An Ork Boy that stands absolutely zero chance of making it all the way across no-man's land to an opponent's units and killing them, but who CAN highly efficiently survive no-LOS and flyer firepower from behind obscuring cover camping on objectives is, from a competitive play standpoint, a highly successful ork boy.

but its very much not what casual ork players want them to do. Getting to and fighting and killing the opponent's list is secondary to winning from a competitive standpoint, but is 'the real point' to most casual players.

I'm very much of the current opinion that the main issue GW is having with light infantry in both their game systems is that they desperately, DESPERATELY do not want to create rules that allow their players to buy fewer models, but they also have to grapple with the fact that a light infantry based army gets a tremendous advantage when they occupy board space.

The current situation (where almost no light infantry unit has a prayer of winning in a fight with a similarly point-costed elite infantry unit, let alone a large vehicle or monster) is an attempt to square the circle that is the inherent advantages of board footprint size and model count. And I think it's unsatisfying for everyone tbh, except for those that really love the fantasy of their elite units carving through lesser units by the dozens with ease.

But you could retain that AND reduce the model count burden for light infantry AND reduce their crazy board footprint/objective control power by introducing respawning 'endless horde' mechanics to units like orks, gretchin, guardsmen, daemons, cultists, etc.

Sort of. I just want to avoid games where people take 180 models. It's pretty boring and it is a skew like 4 knights are a skew. It takes 1,200 bolt rifle shots to kill 180 T5 6++/6+++ and a bit over 800 when they have no protection so the "real" figure is probably somewhere around 1,000. That's the equivalent of 100 marines double tapping every single round for five rounds if absolutely none of them die and morale isn't a factor. But then most marine lists have maybe 20 such marines.

You have melee and other incidental anti-infantry weapons like on a plasma dread, but those platforms are not always efficiently anti-infantry themselves. ( Personally I have a Gladiator Reaper in my marine army that I'm building. )