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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

That's the practical result - and I guess that fits how a lot of people use the term - but to my mind Daed meant a different phenomenon.

I tend to use the word differently. As I see it a gatekeeper isn't just a B-Tier faction that expects to beat ones below but struggle to the ones above. Its instead a list that represents a hurdle in the meta (which works out the same practically). So if mass boyz became effective but not tournament winning, it might become a skew you'd need to be aware of - or risk running into it and losing your run - even if your list had a decent win percentage versus Custodes, Dark Eldar and Tyranids. Maybe we need a different word for it.

As it stands right now if you stood to lose versus say Sisters, Grey Knights, Orks, DA, maybe DG (looking at the LVO) etc, and also Custodes, DE, Tyranids, well, you stood to lose versus a huge percentage of lists. A lot of factions in 40k seem capable of going 4-1 at the moment. It seems weird to define them all as Gatekeepers if they aren't really keeping each other out.

 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.

This is GW tournament maps.

To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.

Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.

 Niiai wrote:
To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.

Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.

They do - generally people don't find transports valuable and/or don't like having to stress about losses from morale.

Tyel wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
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.

That's the practical result - and I guess that fits how a lot of people use the term - but to my mind Daed meant a different phenomenon.

I tend to use the word differently. As I see it a gatekeeper isn't just a B-Tier faction that expects to beat ones below but struggle to the ones above. Its instead a list that represents a hurdle in the meta (which works out the same practically). So if mass boyz became effective but not tournament winning, it might become a skew you'd need to be aware of - or risk running into it and losing your run - even if your list had a decent win percentage versus Custodes, Dark Eldar and Tyranids. Maybe we need a different word for it.

As it stands right now if you stood to lose versus say Sisters, Grey Knights, Orks, DA, maybe DG (looking at the LVO) etc, and also Custodes, DE, Tyranids, well, you stood to lose versus a huge percentage of lists. A lot of factions in 40k seem capable of going 4-1 at the moment. It seems weird to define them all as Gatekeepers if they aren't really keeping each other out.

Unless we're going to add sideboards, this is already the reality in a lot of scenarios. Also, what percentage of the meta do you think a skew list that has no hope of winning and gets hard countered sometimes will actually obtain?

 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.

I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

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 [And Larger than the testing mob]. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.
Boys running away from attrition would join a bigger mob, but probably not a smaller one, plus attrition boys pinballing between two different boyz mobs isn't healthy either.

6 ppm boyz would become viable.

 Niiai wrote:
To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.

Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.

Boys start out with M5, so 12 +5 +3.5 makes us talk about a movement reach (depending of course upon placement, 8.5. on average. with a 12 " reach for a charge which you will rarely see. Further advance and charge is only the first turn of the waagh. Second turn is just +1A
Compared to actually troop melee capable armies like GSC (and i run both) boys on foot are a joke and in a truck only worth it if you go truckboys and even then you are talking about a 160 pts dysfunctional semi-isolated unit that can't profit from other effects to increase their melee capability. Even less than normal boys
For the record for 160 pts you can upgrade a bunch of acolythes with sprung trap for 15 pts, a cult hornblade and 4 power weapons and just commit an 40k reenactment of chainsaw massacre on an enemy unit, doubly hillarious considering huntersinstinct +ice cold killers. and that is just the way i run my acolythes.
Which for the record still can profit from basically all other buff charachters whilest "truckboys" just lose basically anything at all. (not that the ork codex has much synergy, forcing units to stand on their own merits or basically be obsolete.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
6 ppm boyz would become viable.

most units are "viable" if you cut their cost by 33%

 koooaei wrote:
6 ppm boyz would become viable.

And spammable, which is against what GW wants. Not gonna happen. 9ppm boyz can be good as long as they get some purpose. I think damage output in melee is fine, it's durability, aka morale, their main issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:


I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob

You think? The goal here is to make boyz viable, not just the greentide archetype. Also a single blob or multiple 10-20 man squads matter.

In 3rd edition Mob rules was an additional check after failing morale. Roll 2D6 and if the result is equal or lower to the number of the orks in the squad then morale is passed. So flat out fearless as long as they were 12 models. Close to fearless for 10ish man squads. 3rd edition was also the last time boyz were 9ppm before dropping to 6ppm.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Unless we're going to add sideboards, this is already the reality in a lot of scenarios. Also, what percentage of the meta do you think a skew list that has no hope of winning and gets hard countered sometimes will actually obtain?

I don't know really. 5-10% perhaps?

I mean Orks were about 7% of the LVO - if Green Tide was the best way to run them, and it performed about as well, logically it would be about that.

For interest, Custodes, DE and Tyranids/Hive Mind made up less than 25% of lists - or lower than just Marines.

Hecaton wrote:

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

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

The short answer is that any army that revolves around spamming one unit is bad for the game, no matter how fluffy. A healthy green tide archetype should have boyz as a core, but not 150+ of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

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 [And Larger than the testing mob]. Add that many boy models to that BOYZ unit.
Boys running away from attrition would join a bigger mob, but probably not a smaller one, plus attrition boys pinballing between two different boyz mobs isn't healthy either.

Good point, maybe scratch the half strength limitation then.

This all devolved to proposed rules.

 koooaei wrote:
This all devolved to proposed rules.

Would you rather do another round of "my experience tells me that boyz suck" "my charts tell me that they don't"?

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
This all devolved to proposed rules.

Would you rather do another round of "my experience tells me that boyz suck" "my charts tell me that they don't"?

I preferred the "transports are so good we'd be back at 5th edition Parking Lot Simulator, if only players weren't so stupid!"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
This all devolved to proposed rules.

Would you rather do another round of "my experience tells me that boyz suck" "my charts tell me that they don't"?

I preferred the "transports are so good we'd be back at 5th edition Parking Lot Simulator, if only players weren't so stupid!"

Ah yes, "My experience with my thing is relevant, but your experience with your thing is not!"

And, "My claim that something doesn't kill anything unsupported by data means this data is irrelevant".

Neat. Disingenuous forum arguments gooooo!

Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.

Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.

 Blackie wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
6 ppm boyz would become viable.

And spammable, which is against what GW wants. Not gonna happen. 9ppm boyz can be good as long as they get some purpose. I think damage output in melee is fine, it's durability, aka morale, their main issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:


I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob

You think? The goal here is to make boyz viable, not just the greentide archetype. Also a single blob or multiple 10-20 man squads matter.

Within the constraints of ork themes and balance to the other armies - for example Poxmongers. Even DA only got Pass Attrition Only, while UM got +1 to LD only not some sort of fearless blanket immunity to all things morale.

In 3rd edition Mob rules was an additional check after failing morale. Roll 2D6 and if the result is equal or lower to the number of the orks in the squad then morale is passed. So flat out fearless as long as they were 12 models. Close to fearless for 10ish man squads. 3rd edition was also the last time boyz were 9ppm before dropping to 6ppm.

You mean similar to the mechanic I’ve just been suggesting about improving them based on mob size you didn’t like because it was “green tide”?

-removed-

 cuda1179 wrote:

Which isn't horrible for a 19 point model. 22 boys with a claw is still a couple points cheaper than 10 intercessors with a fist. If the boys charge they kill 6.3 intercessors. If the intercessors charge they kill 8 boys. Looks like the Boyz are better in melee, but I will admit the intercessors are still useful when shooting.

For a unit which only functions in the CC phase...yes, this is in fact terrible. If i have to literally cross the board with nothing but a T-shirt armor save, all while moving only 5' a turn, when I get there I better hit like a damn Wrecking ball because otherwise wtf was the point?

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 I have to take 21 models to get the same movement characteristic that Kroot already get, and as I lose models it degrades heavily. Which wouldn't be terrible in and of itself except that being over 10 models means I am fully exposed to blast, and since nothing has changed from my Morale problem I'm likely losing 40% of my models to Morale/attrition. Not worth it even slightly. Boyz btw got reduced to 5' movement in 8th edition, this, in my opinion, was done to counter the speed bonuses given to orkz in Evil Sunz. Without the nerf you could have had Boyz moving 7, Advancing 4.5 and Charging 2D6+1 with full re-rolls turn 1. Sadly, when they nerfed Evil sunz they never changed this.

Dudeface wrote:

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.

Breton wrote:
I'd say that goes too far - especially as they're trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game (especially for some subfactions that might turn orks into a hard counter for those factions) - but I'd give them +1 to Ld/Morale/Attrition of some sort for every X models in the mob such that a 20+ mob is somewhere around LD 10 - Boys should get better the bigger the mob

Breton wrote:
Within the constraints of ork themes and balance to the other armies - for example Poxmongers. Even DA only got Pass Attrition Only, while UM got +1 to LD only not some sort of fearless blanket immunity to all things morale.

Dude kind of has it right, Breton, you are completely wrong. They are 100% not "Trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game" they are using it to KILL certain play styles and that is it. in 9th so far we have what? 16ish codex's released? How many of them have significant portions of their units with morale issues? I'll give you a hint, its 1. Marines of all flavor are functionally immune to Morale. Units of 5 don't really care about LD8 since they basically have to lose 80% to have a chance at failing morale. And GW went even further by saying they are immune to attrition modifiers so if they lose 60% they have little to no chance to lose 2 models, because that just wouldn't be fair...even though it would have been a 1/6 chance to fail morale followed by a 1/3 chance to lose 1 model to attrition, nope instead its a 1/6th chance followed by a 1/6th chance, or another way to view that is double box cars or a 1/36 chance

Now compare that to Orkz, a 30 mob loses 6 and fails morale 83.3% of the time, so they lose 1 more to morale, then they roll attrition and lose 4 more. So you kill 6 models but the unit loses 11 thanks to morale. How about with Mek gunz, LD4. Kill 1 in a unit of 3 and you have a 50% chance to fail morale and lose 1 whole extra model. THEN for attrition you have a 33% chance to lose that 3rd gun lol. How about with Buggies, units of 3 seem rather powerful, but are LD7, Kill 2 of them and there is a chance similar to that of the Marine to lose 1 model..except instead of it being an 18pt model, its a 90-110pt model. I can keep going. No, LD is not being introduced into the game except to punish certain factions to force them not to play a certain way.

Where dude gets it wrong is that Boyz are no longer Cheap Trash. At 9ppm they are the most expensive they have ever been, in both game terms and compared to their #1 adversary, Marines. In prior editions Ork boyz were 6ppm and Marines were 15. thats 2.5x more expensive. Now, boyz are 9 and those same Tacs are only 18. 2x more expensive.

 Niiai wrote:
To all of you doing Ork boys napkin math. At very least account for whaag. My opponent usually runs them as S5, but that is more rare i belive.
Orks advance turn 1 and charge turn 2. Advance + charge from whaag gives them a tremendus threat range.

They aren't S5, they are goff which means on a charge turn they are S5. Orkz move 5, advance 3.5 turn 1, they are now 10+ inches from the enemy, a charge isn't likely to succeed and likely won't happen. Turn 2 they move another 8.5 and this turn they call WAAAGH and charge, they've covered a grand total of 16-17' before the charge....in 2 turns. That is not by any means "tremendous threat range". That is in fact, "Terrible threat range". And it requires a once a game buff to pull off. Compare that to Warbikes which move 14' turn 1, advance 6 and can then charge turn 1. That is a first turn threat range of 22-32. That is a "tremendous threat range". What about Kommandos with 9' from enemy lines forward deploy, on their first turn they move 6, advance 3.5 and then charge 2D6. That means that turn 1 they can reach literally ANYWHERE on the board. They effectively get a 1st turn movement of 9+6+3.5 for 18-19 inches and then get to charge. So again, no, boyz do not have a good threat range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

Boyz don't have force multipliers worth mentioning. +1S is for Goffs only and only on charge turns, yes boyz benefit more from it because the difference from going to S4 to S5 is massive compared to going from S10 to S12 (or S11 not really sure this edition). Except of course unless you had different target priorities, like T6 vehicles in which case its no chance to boyz but significant improvement for meganobz (if you go to S12 instead of 11). Exploding 5s...yes, when you have more attacks any modifier which gives explosions is better...but it kind of depends on whats happening here...so even with +1S and more exploding hits from strats those Boyz are still the same in regards to dmg output as Meganobz against Marines. Against T6 Vehicles though...(assuming S12) Those same meganobz are doing significantly more dmg. So again...no, boyz don't benefit more from buffs. The other buffs you didn't mention, and in your defense fairly so because they suck, are 6+ invuln or FNP from Big Mek w/KFF and Painboy. You could give them +1 attack with a weirdboy, its unreliable but that would be +10 attacks vs +3, but again its kind of a wash thanks to difference in AP and S. There is also +1 to hit which is mostly a wash as well...and I believe that is it. No strats for the boyz except Tankbusta bomb but the meganobz do get a strat to increase dmg by 50% so there is that.

Against Marines.

10 boyz is 90pts, 3 meganobz is 30 points. Assuming both are goff and charged this turn.
10 Boyz get 30 attacks, 30 hits, 20 wounds, 10 dmg and 5 dead Marines.
3 Meganobz get 9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds and 5.2 Dead Marines.

Against T6 vehicles with 3+ armor
10 boyz, 30 attacks, 30 hits, 10 wounds, 5dmg.
3 Meganobz, 9 attacks, 7.5 hits, 6.25 wounds and 10.4dmg.


I highlighted this because this is the false assumption I see a lot of people still make even though the ork codex has been out for about 5 months now. NO, boyz no longer have a plethora of stacking buffs that benefit them more than other units, nor are they stacking to the point of making boyz useful/durable. That was an 8th edition tactic that has since been removed from the game by GW.

But with that in mind, Kroot on the other hand, do have access to a number of stacking buffs which do benefit them greatly. But again, I'm not saying kroot are going to be the best thing since sliced bread, just that they can at least exist in the game and serve a purpose rather than being a 90pt troop tax.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dude kind of has it right, Breton, you are completely wrong. They are 100% not "Trying to work morale/ld into a significant part of the game" they are using it to KILL certain play styles and that is it. in 9th so far we have what? 16ish codex's released? How many of them have significant portions of their units with morale issues? I'll give you a hint, its 1. Marines of all flavor are functionally immune to Morale. Units of 5 don't really care about LD8 since they basically have to lose 80% to have a chance at failing morale. And GW went even further by saying they are immune to attrition modifiers so if they lose 60% they have little to no chance to lose 2 models, because that just wouldn't be fair...even though it would have been a 1/6 chance to fail morale followed by a 1/3 chance to lose 1 model to attrition, nope instead its a 1/6th chance followed by a 1/6th chance, or another way to view that is double box cars or a 1/36 chance
g. No, LD is not being introduced into the game except to punish certain factions to force them not to play a certain way.

You probably should have looked up the Poxwalkers. They don’t have morale issues, the CAUSE morale issues. As do the Night Lords Chaos Marines. Or Reivers, Or those The Kabal of the poisoned tongue, the cult of the trophy takers, and probably may army books have a way to build an army around or weighted to the morale phase like that. They ARE trying to work Morale into a significant part of the game between units, prebuilt and customized doctrines. I found what five? of them in a half assed look through 6 different books? They’re just not doing it as well, plus the play style isn’t as universally sexy as “blow stuff up”.

And no, Dude does not have it completely right. Even the SM you’re trying to establish best case immunity for don’t have total immunity. What happens to your best case immunity space marine math when they’re -3 to LD from Night Lord Terror Troops? Do 5 model units care about morale when they’re LD 5?
Even Nids aren’t 100% immune to morale, requiring Synapse in range.

I think the general reason small units generally don't care about morale is that the sort of... harvesting of units that Semper describes is often hard to do.

Its the Scotsman's bit - but generally speaking when anything in 9th looks at an MSU squad (say 100ish points or less) - it dies. So yes - the logic of what happens when Marines are LD 5 and you kill 2-3 is reasonable. But... you could also just kill all 5.

Tyel wrote:
I think the general reason small units generally don't care about morale is that the sort of... harvesting of units that Semper describes is often hard to do.

Its the Scotsman's bit - but generally speaking when anything in 9th looks at an MSU squad (say 100ish points or less) - it dies. So yes - the logic of what happens when Marines are LD 5 and you kill 2-3 is reasonable. But... you could also just kill all 5.

. Yes, MSU is the extreme and also debunked. Even they aren’t “fearless” and immune to morale and attrition. Even Synapse - while slowing down the morale-attrition aspect even more than MSU Marines aren’t completely fearlessly immune to the phase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Ah, I deserve to win taking exclusively anti tank weapons against an infantry force. Splendid.

 Jidmah wrote:
Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.

Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.

There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.

These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.

Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.

I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.

I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Calculations made by a flawed model is not the same as data.

Actual data, as in observed facts, show that most ork armies are trying to avoid running boyz as good as they can and that a large number of experienced ork players think that they are garbage.

There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.

These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.

Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.

I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.

I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.

Their worth isn’t exactly zero, but literally any other thing is going to be better. In any case, if you read the title of the discussion, kroots have just much more value than boyz.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

Ah, I deserve to win taking exclusively anti tank weapons against an infantry force. Splendid.

That's not what I said.

If you take 180 Boyz and face an opponent who took a well rounded list, but simply can't compete, because all you did was overwhelm the dice available to them. Not every army has a Punisher available just in case hordes of Boyz show up.

You didn't win by being clever and they didn't lose by being dumb. The game was decided before models hit the table.

That's the dynamic I'm referencing even if Boyz aren't the same horde threat they used to be.

Breton wrote:

You probably should have looked up the Poxwalkers. They don’t have morale issues, the CAUSE morale issues. As do the Night Lords Chaos Marines. Or Reivers, Or those The Kabal of the poisoned tongue, the cult of the trophy takers, and probably may army books have a way to build an army around or weighted to the morale phase like that. They ARE trying to work Morale into a significant part of the game between units, prebuilt and customized doctrines. I found what five? of them in a half assed look through 6 different books? They’re just not doing it as well, plus the play style isn’t as universally sexy as “blow stuff up”.

And no, Dude does not have it completely right. Even the SM you’re trying to establish best case immunity for don’t have total immunity. What happens to your best case immunity space marine math when they’re -3 to LD from Night Lord Terror Troops? Do 5 model units care about morale when they’re LD 5?
Even Nids aren’t 100% immune to morale, requiring Synapse in range.

And again, what army actually gives a damn about those -Morale debuffs? in the example you highlighted, 5 Marines, -3LD, they lose 2 models which puts them at LD3, they now have a 50% chance to fail morale. think about what I just said, with stacked debuff and losses they still have only a 50% chance to fail. So half the time they lose 1 model, they then have a 1/3 chance to lose 1 more model (kind of, its 1/6 x2) to attrition. Will I give a damn about a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after that 50% to lose 1 more? no. But again, apply that logic to the aforementioned ork 30 blob. -3 means you kill 1 Boy...yup, 1 boy, and I have a 50% chance to fail morale. Kill 3 and I am all but guaranteed to fail morale. So I have lost 3 models, I fail morale, down 4 models, now I do an attrition test, suddenly I just lost 4-5 more models. So you kill 3 I lose 8-9. So again, I would argue that LD/morale is functionally useless, not a factor, for those Marines, but for my Boyz its devastating. And if you are worried about a comparison between Marines/Boyz as far as points/durability differential. It takes 36 bolter shots to kill 2 Marines. 36 shots, 24 hits, 12 wounds, 4dmg. Those same 36 shots do, 24 hits, 8 wounds and 6.6dmg to Ork boyz. So 36-40pts of dead Marines pre-Morale compare to 60pts of Dead boyz before Morale. With those Morale debuffs as mentioned, Marines have a 50% chance to lose 1 model and a 33% chance after to lose 1 more. The boyz have a 83% chance to fail morale, they then average about 4 more boyz dead to Attrition.

So yeah, no. Those factions still don't give a damn about Morale, but it does severely limit how Ork units can function. I'll put it this way, if I could take mobz of 5 boyz...I would. Makes no sense, but its half the cost and they would at least be significantly less likely to die from morale.

It’s a wargame, the game being decided before anything happens is just a result of the medium. “Balance” is a sort of stupid concept for anything relating to wargames, and it gets even worse when you put people on symmetrical battlefields. It’s why tournament 40k is a huge mistake imo.
Additionally, a well balanced force doesn’t mean you can take on everything, just that your power against most things is going to be equal.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

There's a distinction between 'Boyz do nothing in melee and so are not worth the points' and 'Boyz can't get to melee to do something and so are not worth the points'.

These two things are getting blended together often it seems. I disagree with the former and I am sympathetic to the latter.

Nobody ran Wracks and Cronos until Siegler did and neither of those units got buffed. The notion that there's a consensus on something just because you don't see top players using said models isn't the best metric in my eyes.

I'm not saying people's feelings aren't valid.
I'm not saying some "genius" will revolutionize Boyz.

I'm saying they are worth playing more than "none" and that they're harder to kill then the math lets on - and that's based on experience fighting them.

There is a distinction between Boyz do nothing in melee and boyz cant get to melee...but only in a semantic argument. Because most say boyz don't do much in melee because they either A: Can't get there or B. when they do get there they are so under strength that they can't achiever their mission. And in my opinion, Boyz don't do much in melee because 3 S4 AP-1 attacks an edition ago would seem crazy good, but by today standards its below average. Meganobz in my opinion need at least 1-2 more attacks each to realistically be competitive...and they already do as much if not more dmg than Boyz.

As far as Wracks/Cronos...i'm not a huge DE guy, but that just isn't true in the slightest. 40k stats records top 4 lists and going all the way back to April of last year they had a huge number of wracks in their lists. So unless you mean, literally as the DE codex dropped Siegler was the dude saying "WRACKS!" and everyone went "YES!" it just isn't true.

Meganobz just suffer from a lot of issues. They’re dedicated melee terminators, but they have no delivery method, no inbuilt invuln or even a shield option, subpar melee compared to others, but I guess a slight amount of durability over them in the toughness regard?

They’re the bosses personal retinue, it wouldn’t be wrong to give em tellyporta strike, some sort of 5+ fnp to show the amount of armor they have, just sloughing off when hit, and even better guns.