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.

Rihgu wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?

Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.

Breton wrote:
Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”

So you add +1" for getting fethed by Explosive, morale, even more so than boys are already fethed by?
Nope, chief, that ain't fixing the problem.

Breton wrote:
Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”

I don't mind that. Bring back some benefit to the mob.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:
Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”

So you add +1" for getting fethed by Explosive, morale, even more so than boys are already fethed by?
Nope, chief, that ain't fixing the problem.

+1 to charge at 20+ then?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Breton wrote:
Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”

I don't mind that. Bring back some benefit to the mob.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Breton wrote:
Oh, now there’s an idea. Ork boys mobs 10 or less move 5”, mob size 11-20 move 6”, 21-30 move 7”

So you add +1" for getting fethed by Explosive, morale, even more so than boys are already fethed by?
Nope, chief, that ain't fixing the problem.

+1 to charge at 20+ then?

boyzs already can (like all ork infantry, ) reroll charge throws. Adding +1 to a unit that just doesn't perform due to points, for supposed increased durability (which is worthless due to the T-shirt save making the increased T value not matter basically at all) and in an environment where your average opponent has ap-1 / ap-2 just for existing there is no way for melee boys to be effective, and melee boys are the better boys. Shota boys are just a tragedy compared to normal boys and the later you are not seeing. (because Dakka weapons don't also count as assault weapons, thank you GW...) beyond the occaisional truckboys.
That is the difference between boys and say acolythes, which also got nerfed kinda but atleast are still viable, and they got double the armor, -1 t (which ain't mattering realistically, ) got inbuilt deepstrike, more AP, better balistic skills, standard nades that actually do something, function as body guards, can be fielded in 5 man squads so can avoid explosives entirely , etc. Oh and can deepstrike closer aswell Indeed they can deepstrike in nade and flamer pistol range. for the same points.

If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.

I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles do, and indeed should, face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame. Terrain has been the enemy of armoured vehicles like tanks since crews were getting knocked out after driving over trenches in WW1. Not everywhere on a battlefield is accessible to heavy tanks, so why should that be the case in a wargame?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles are and indeed should face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame.

They "faced limitations" in 4th when they risked damaging themselves plowing through terrain.

In 9th, the terrain rules are so awful that they don't just "face limitations", they outright can't participate. It's not even realistic, it's just bad.

The problem isn't "limitations and penalties" exist. It's that they are so binary. Either you benefit from Obscuring, or you don't. The end. Either you can move through it, or you can't, the end.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

It's almost like massive tanks and vehicles are and indeed should face some limitations and penalties due to terrain in what is meant to be a tactical wargame.

Well, the image is a little misleading as those big blocks are open on the back so you can traverse more space than is pictured.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We kind have to be armchair generals on a forum. There's no way I could sit and elaborate on every potential scenario. It's the same thing with the transport stuff. It requires certain conditions, awareness, and opportunity for it to come together.

That is correct absolutely correct, so why are you continuously trying to tell people whose combined experience with playing orks is easily over a thousand games with the new codex alone that they are wrong?

The ork community of dakka rarely agrees on anything, so if people like semper, blackie, tim, koooaei, grimskul and even the scotsman who all play different types of games in different types of metas and all have different opinions on how orks should work agree that boyz are not bringing any value to their armies, what makes you think that your armchair theory can hold a stick to their experience?

The experience of playing actual games does take into account all those potential scenarios and conditions, which make all the difference.

As for MANZ - those graphs only scratch the surface. The point of Boyz is that they take force multipliers on considerably more quickly. To illustrate:

Both units are under the same effect. Boyz just benefit more. They get huge mileage out of +1S. Now pop 5+ explodes and you'd get an effect that would benefit Boyz three times as much.

Well, except trukk boyz can have neither the 5+ explodes nor the +1 strength. MANz charge out of the trukk and do significant damage to pretty much any enemy without having to rely on anything but their exclusive, clan-independent stratagem.
It's also worth noting that there are pretty much no other force multipliers of relevance in the codex, because GW has killed them all off.

The next time you play a game and go second, try placing 20 32mm bases out of sight of your enemy. Just for fun.

It's doable, but perhaps 16 or so would be the easiest. The types of terrain matters, but it's important to remember that stepping into obscuring turns it off by model so it depends how fast enemy units are if they wanted to come forward and risk it.

You need 20 models to have a second cast though. You also don't really gain anything from those positions outside of setting yourself up for getting charged which never ends well for boyz. Especially marines have no issues just moving into the ruin, shooting those boyz and then charging them. At 190 points for 20 boyz with PK, they will still be trading up if they lose their unit after it has butchered enough boyz to cause a guaranteed morale failure.
Worst case you even speed up slow melee hammer units like terminators.

And when you are already down to 16 models, why not make it 15? And instead of paying 205 for 15 boyz and a weird boy, why not pay 185 for 15 kommandoz?
They do the very same thing with a 100% chance to succeed, get deployed where you want them before your opponent moves when going first, get a 3+ save in cover and +1 to wound against anyone near cover.
Or you could pay 175 points to have storm boyz just advance to those positions without fail.


Those boyz aren't really hidden well though, and you need to take into account that your opponent will most like have moved towards the center - even a slow infantry unit like blightlords or deathwing will have cast their deep strike denial bubble 2" across the center line, advancing or even faster units might make all three positions invalid for deep strike. If your opponent has infiltrators or scout moves (like kroot ), you might not be able to deep strike outside of your deployment zone at all.

These are the reasons why da jump and tellyporta aren't used any more.

Tyel wrote:
I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.

Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?

Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.

This how it looks like in reality:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/29/metawatch-warhammer-40000-building-beautiful-balanced-battlefields-for-grand-tournament-play/

And yes, you are totally screwed if you bring a large model. Scratch bringing a baneblade, good luck getting a land raider or defiler across the board.
Then again, this kind of terrain setup is not meant for people like you and me, so we simply can elect to not play on those kinds of tables.

However, it does not really have an impact on the discussion, as this is a sufficiently obscured table and we are talking about infantry.

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.

Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.

Maybe make their leadership tied to how many boyz are around them, and have them reroll one or both on charges?, I know it’s sort of a preposterous idea that’s never been tested, but it might just work.

In terms of shootas, no idea how to make those work. Maybe go back to when they were stronger than boyz pre-charge, bump em to s5 or something, or potentially just 4 shots at s4. Either way, just have em be assault.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.

So did everyone, that was and still is the problem. Morale isn't right still now, but it's the intended handicap to hordes of cheap trash.

Dudeface wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If you just look back to where boyz kinda originated in their current form they’ve always had a way to functionally ignore morale. They’re designed around it, and with the cheap trukks of the time and cheaper boyz, they need a delivery system too.

So did everyone, that was and still is the problem. Morale isn't right still now, but it's the intended handicap to hordes of cheap trash.

Orks had ignore morale before the other gitz, and boyz aren’t exactly cheap, they really start adding up price wise. We have the handicap now too of way too many too good shots, and stuff like blast. Web spinners are going to be s6 ap1 blast flamers. Bye bye boyz.

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess every little helps - but I'm not sure a rule that makes a unit work but only if you bring 20-30 is great.

Make them completely fearless and immune to any morale shenanigans as long as they are 11+. Maybe adding a 1CP stratagem to give a unit double movement for a turn. Shootas need a new profile, or tricks to improve them.

8th edition's mob rule wasn't that terrible, I wonder why they tossed it out completely. If they wanted to reduce its effect, they could just have it give the mob +1ld for every 3 models in the mob or something like that.

Then again, I'm a total fan of that super-old mob rule where fleeing models would join nearby mobs. In modern 40k, it would look something like this:

Whenever one or more models flee from a MOB unit due to a failed attrition test, chose a BOYZ unit within 6" that is above half strength. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.

You'd also instantly have reason to field boyz again.

I wish morale would go back to actual effects, not just instantly deleting more models. I remember having fun with things actually fleeing.
I don’t even get peoples issues with hordes though. It’s not like more bodies than bullets actually works nowadays, any experienced player knows the tricks to move units pretty dang quick, and the opponent gets to watch a pretty cool spectacle. If anything I feel like it’s some sort of ego thing, having your “super mega ultra warriors of the big gold man” wiped out by some grots.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The biggest issue I have with most of your diagrams is that they're not realistically placed terrain. Maneuvering Baneblades or knights on that terrain (assuming you're using Ruins for obscuring) would be literally impossible.

Isn't that one of the Official(tm)(tm) Terrain Placement Setups?

Maybe, but as with many things Officially GW, it still unrealistically sucks.

This how it looks like in reality:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/06/29/metawatch-warhammer-40000-building-beautiful-balanced-battlefields-for-grand-tournament-play/

And yes, you are totally screwed if you bring a large model. Scratch bringing a baneblade, good luck getting a land raider or defiler across the board.
Then again, this kind of terrain setup is not meant for people like you and me, so we simply can elect to not play on those kinds of tables.

However, it does not really have an impact on the discussion, as this is a sufficiently obscured table and we are talking about infantry.

Thanks, Jidmah. I can add it to my list of wonky things about tournaments, haha.

I thought knights at least were supposed to be able to participate, but I guess not.

EDIT: I guess you could turn them sideways and move forwards with the narrow end of their base, since facing doesn't matter. That's... not appealing though.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Personally...I don't want Green Tide back.

Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.

Horde armies are fine as long as you have a chess clock to use.

Just move the front row carefully, push the rest forward at once. Bam, solved it. The dice aren’t an issue either looking at other elite armies throwing out gak loads.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Personally...I don't want Green Tide back.

Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.

It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...

Orks are expensive as gak no matter which way you run them. The price for 3 meganobz, which are now 90 points . I think it’s more people want the ability to run their 180 lads, cause I certainly do. 120 boyz is no more gatekeepy than any sort of meta thing otherwise.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Personally...I don't want Green Tide back.

Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.

It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...

How is that any different than the gatekeeper lists that exist now? There's always going to be a gatekeeper for any competitive meta, why care what that gatekeeper ends up being?

Which lists would you describe as gatekeepers at the moment?

I guess 170 Wracks would qualify, but its not exactly something you encounter in the wild. Maybe that will change given GW have nerfed Talos and Cronos (a bit).

Knights feel like a gatekeeper skew, as they have done since inception - but they are currently in the "not very good" phase, so its not a huge barrier to climb.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Personally...I don't want Green Tide back.

Why not? Fielding loads of Ork Boyz is very fluffy.

It definitely is, but there's a line where it just becomes too much and difficult to balance and it becomes a gatekeeper. People should feel ok running a large mob or three, but beyond that....ehh...

Becomes a gatekeeper to what? Their opponents? Diversity in list options is a good thing.

Tyel wrote:
Which lists would you describe as gatekeepers at the moment?

I guess 170 Wracks would qualify, but its not exactly something you encounter in the wild. Maybe that will change given GW have nerfed Talos and Cronos (a bit).

Knights feel like a gatekeeper skew, as they have done since inception - but they are currently in the "not very good" phase, so its not a huge barrier to climb.

I define a gatekeeper as the list that knocks a 2-0 player running a weaker list to 2-1 in a 5 round tournament. The lists which mark the divide between those who have a chance at a top-8 and those that have no hope, while also not having much chance to hit that mark itself. Dark Angels and Sisters seem to be in that position right now.

 Jidmah wrote:
That is correct absolutely correct, so why are you continuously trying to tell people whose combined experience with playing orks is easily over a thousand games with the new codex alone that they are wrong?

The ork community of dakka rarely agrees on anything, so if people like semper, blackie, tim, koooaei, grimskul and even the scotsman who all play different types of games in different types of metas and all have different opinions on how orks should work agree that boyz are not bringing any value to their armies, what makes you think that your armchair theory can hold a stick to their experience?

The experience of playing actual games does take into account all those potential scenarios and conditions, which make all the difference.

Why were people dismissive of my experience with transports?

Besides if I didn't challenge you then the forum would be boring.

I challenge, because someone was capable of taking an army with below 50% WR to a 9-0 victory. Because Wracks were a pointless until someone ( the same guy ) decided to use them. DE on foot was supposedly junk and why wouldn't you just do Wyches?

And while Boyz are NOT the same as the examples above 40K is not a solved game and with the rate of new books things change all the time.

That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
That’s just like, a bad matchup. If I brought an army into war that’s all tanks and I’m up against a bomber squadron, I’m not gonna win, but that same bomber squadron is going to crumple against some fighters. As long as people bring very one dimensional lists to tourneys another one dimensional list will crush them.

Yea, but that's not fun for either participant at some point. 40K is made a better game when there's fewer "listbuilding losses". We can't stop people from making bad decisions, of course, but we can round off the edges.