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.

SemperMortis wrote:
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.

Yeah - Daed's said this before, and I feel its just not true.
Siegler won the Austin GT which seemed to cause the internet to go crazy - and sure, I guess his list was only 35 points "up" from where it was before due to the points changes...

But it was really just an evolution of DE thought throughout the year.
In practice Wracks were good from the Codex drop - indeed DT liquifiers had to be removed from the game. DT Cronos were likewise good from the Codex drop. Both are staples in lists from April onwards.
Talos were initially thought to be kind of mediocre - but as the meta shifted (blame Speedwaaagh imo) you started to see them. Then they bizarrely got a 10 points drop, and became excellent. 20 points on a 4 man grot unit adds up too.

Meanwhile Wyches, Incubi and raiders got a significant hike.

Its a fair argument that you could have run a broadly similar list earlier - but you had other options, and it would have been more expensive.

So after 7 pages, 6 being arguments & playing lets-make-a-wish concerning ork boyz, what was the verdict on Kroot vs Boyz?

(sorry, if this was actually answered, it got buried & I didn't see it.)

ccs wrote:
So after 7 pages, 6 being arguments & playing lets-make-a-wish concerning ork boyz, what was the verdict on Kroot vs Boyz?

(sorry, if this was actually answered, it got buried & I didn't see it.)

Tl;dr

People A say Kroot are better.

People B who don't understand the question talk about how Boyz aren't bad because X Y Z

People C, Ork players, call people B out for not understanding the flaws of Boyz.

No one has been able to dispute People A claim.

So I think People A win.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

ccs wrote:
So after 7 pages, 6 being arguments & playing lets-make-a-wish concerning ork boyz, what was the verdict on Kroot vs Boyz?

(sorry, if this was actually answered, it got buried & I didn't see it.)

Tl;dr

People A say Kroot are better.

People B who don't understand the question talk about how Boyz aren't bad because X Y Z

People C, Ork players, call people B out for not understanding the flaws of Boyz.

No one has been able to dispute People A claim.

So I think People A win.

Fairly solid summary of the debate so far

Kroot serve a purpose, are faster, cheaper and a decent MSU troop tax unit. Boyz...none of those.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
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.

Nobz in general have issues atm. Meganobz mainly get by because they have access to the "Hit Em Harder" strat, which lets them bypass a bit of the plethora of -1D abilities around nowadays, and that with a 2+ save they can actually benefit from cover at some level. The core issue is that Nobz in general don't really have a good role in the Ork army since they don't really hit that hard and they also aren't very durable. As you mentioned, their cost is inflated by having to be transported by strat or vehicles, and there aren't any other supporting elements to make them worth considering. Their weapon choices also are fairly limited. GW had a chance to give them more utility by giving them either the bodyguard rule or some meaningful morale rule that would have made taking boyz and other large boy squad reasonable, but alas, we stuck with iffy combat units.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
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.

They're supposed to have a medical squig in there, a 5+ FNP would be entirely appropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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!

The difference is that your argument flies against how the game is actually played at a high level, whereas the people arguing against you acknowledge and account for how the game is actually played.

SemperMortis wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

ccs wrote:
So after 7 pages, 6 being arguments & playing lets-make-a-wish concerning ork boyz, what was the verdict on Kroot vs Boyz?

(sorry, if this was actually answered, it got buried & I didn't see it.)

Tl;dr

People A say Kroot are better.

People B who don't understand the question talk about how Boyz aren't bad because X Y Z

People C, Ork players, call people B out for not understanding the flaws of Boyz.

No one has been able to dispute People A claim.

So I think People A win.

Fairly solid summary of the debate so far

Kroot serve a purpose, are faster, cheaper and a decent MSU troop tax unit. Boyz...none of those.

Fascinatingly, in a vacuum, a fight between 15 kroot and 10 boyz (both 90 points) would result in an exact tie.
15 kroot, rapid-firing and charging will inflict 10.8 wounds on the boyz (11 w with nob)
10 boyz shooting and charging will kill 15.8 kroot.
You may argue about the kroots mobility vs the boyz klan buffs and stratagems, but in the end it doesnt matter, because kroots serve an actual role in a tau army,
whereas orks have multiple options which are boyz+1. Therefore kroot win.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
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.

I do think Kroot have more utility, worse in melee, and better at shooting. That doesn't make up for the shortcomings of Boyz, obviously.

Kroot suffer the same morale problem as Boyz with worse leadership. You can get a Shaper or Ethereal in there, but then the indirect cost of a 10 man goes up. You can spread that cost with 20 of them, but then you lose the flexibility of those units. But no one complains about Kroot morale as much as Boyz.

Everyone is going to assume Kroot are in cover though so the durability question comes down to what exactly is going to shoot them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
In practice Wracks were good from the Codex drop - indeed DT liquifiers had to be removed from the game. DT Cronos were likewise good from the Codex drop.

To be clear - I'm referencing DE post initial nerf.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I do think Kroot have more utility, worse in melee, and better at shooting. That doesn't make up for the shortcomings of Boyz, obviously.

How are Kroot worse than Boyz in melee, they have the same offensive profile point:point.

Hecaton wrote:
The difference is that your argument flies against how the game is actually played at a high level, whereas the people arguing against you acknowledge and account for how the game is actually played.

A number of high level players seem to be using Snaggas in Kill Rigs at the moment. I recognize that this doesn't mean it will go any further than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I do think Kroot have more utility, worse in melee, and better at shooting. That doesn't make up for the shortcomings of Boyz, obviously.

How are Kroot worse than Boyz in melee, they have the same offensive profile point:point.

Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.

Again. For the same points. It is the same melee profile. The stat line is identicle for points : offensive output in melee.

If you factor in other rules, such as waagh, then it gets murky because you need to evaluate the bonus of that vs the bonuses kroot have, and that can ultimatley be up to preference, mission, or other factors external to the offensive stat line.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.

Again. For the same points. It is the same melee profile. The stat line is identicle for points : offensive output in melee.

If you factor in other rules, such as waagh, then it gets murky because you need to evaluate the bonus of that vs the bonuses kroot have, and that can ultimatley be up to preference, mission, or other factors external to the offensive stat line.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kroot don't get Tenets - Boyz get clans ( as limited as they can be ). Kroot can be in Dal if they want to get the T'au equivalent of Waaagh. Even in Dal they don't benefit from the full Tenet.

The idea that a 3:2 ratio is how it plays on the table doesn't really flow. Kroot will be 10 models and will produce 20 attacks. Boyz at 10 models will be 30 or 40 attacks. Kroot don't get to have an appropriate ratio to Boyz where ever they engage.

Why does that matter? Because when those Kroot swing they won't take the target down and will face reprisals. Boyz might take the target down a bit faster and may not take as many swings.

It isn't as if Kroot scout and Boyz do nothing, either.

Kroot might advance and get better cover.
Boyz can advance and charge, reroll charges, can get +1A, can mitigate attrition ( not that anyone cares ), +1S, exploding 6s ( or 5s ). They can also be given a further +1A through psychic, a 6+++, a 6++. There's also a 6" pile-in, a way to pass morale ( yes with D3 MW ), ignore charge mods ( hello T'au ), and toss a tankbusta bomb.

And the unit Nob still has 2 wounds.

Yes some of that costs points and other considerations.

Kroot have other stuff, too, but are not CORE and so miss out on quite a bit, too. The WL traits are 3D6D1 charge, ignore cover in 12", and something else. And then there's a +1 to wound from an ethereal. I'm sure I'm missing things though.

"point for point kroot are equal to Orks"

"Yeah but 10 kroot vs 10 Orks on the tabletop..."

Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Kroot have 2A. Boyz have 3A and 4A in Waaagh. Kroot only get benefits in Dal. Boyz only really get benefits in Goff.

Kroot are 6ppm, Boyz are 9, so for every 2 boyz you can take 3 Kroot. 2 Boyz is 6 attacks, 3 kroot is 6 attacks. If you are going to count in the "WAAAAGH" than you have to add in the 100pts for hte warboss who has to be in the list and your warlord to call the WAAAGH. And as far as kultures, as you mention Goff is the only good one for boyz and if you are taking boyz they are coming as Trukk Boyz which means they don't get kulture. So its a moot point.

As far as leadership, yes they have "worse" leadership...except they don't because taking a Shaper is a no brainer in this list. For 25pts you get +2 leadership and re-roll 1s to hit aura for all Kroot units within 6'. So 30 boyz is 270pts, A Shaper and 40 Kroot is 265pts. Those kroot get 40 shots at 24' range or 80 at 12. At 40 shots its 23.3 hits with re-roll aura. The Orkz get...nothing. At 12' range the kroot get 46.6 hits, at S4 the Orkz get 10 hits. The shaper btw, is Rapid Fire 2, S4 -1AP so hes getting 1 hit at 24' range and 2 at 12. His shots pierce armor In CC the disparity is less noticeable. 40 Kroot get 80 attacks 62.2 hits and 20.7 wounds for 20.7 dead Orkz. The shaper gets 3 attacks, 3 hits (hitting on 2s re-rolling 1s) 1.5 wounds for 1.5 more dead Boyz. So the Kroot kill 22 Boyz out of 30, morale will kill another 3 or so, thats a pretty hefty return. The 30 boyz at full strength get 90 attacks, 60 hits, 40 wounds, wiping out the two kroot squads. So in reality, if kroot swing first they will win, if orkz swing first they will win. For a unit which is head and shoulders better at Ranged combat I would say that is a pretty damn good unit in comparison.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"point for point kroot are equal to Orks"

"Yeah but 10 kroot vs 10 Orks on the tabletop..."

Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.

No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.

Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.

At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.

Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"point for point kroot are equal to Orks"

"Yeah but 10 kroot vs 10 Orks on the tabletop..."

Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.

No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.

Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.

At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.

Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.

I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.

Yeah, if anyone is likely to have a force concentration advantage it is the kroot, not the Orks.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.

So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"point for point kroot are equal to Orks"

"Yeah but 10 kroot vs 10 Orks on the tabletop..."

Methinks someone doesn't understand what "point for point" means.

No, I think you're not understanding what I am saying.

Do you bring Kroot in units of 10 or 15? You'd probably bring 3x10 Kroot. I might bring 2x10 Boyz. 10 Boyz engage 10 Kroot. That's how it ends up working. Maybe you took 20 Kroot and I only have 10 Boyz.

At no point are you going to be able to guarantee resolving outcomes as if Kroot have a 3:2 advantage or vice versa.

Whatever the unit you took at the size it is - that it how it will operate. Not at the math-hammer ratio.

What the hell do you think the other squad of Kroot will be doing? Nothing? One of those ork mob is gonna get double teamed, probably.

Your argument is incredibly disingenuous or incredibly ignorant.

SemperMortis wrote:

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?

The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.

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.

Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.

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.

Breton wrote:
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.

If large mobs of orks hadn't historically been very resilient to morale, and other armies didn't have abilities and squad setups (i.e. small squads) that invalidated morale, you'd have a valid argument.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
The subfactions who get a boost from handing them out? Orks/Boys should get a boost. That boost should not be fearlessly and completely hard-counter invalidating an entire style of play based on the morale phase.

If large mobs of orks hadn't historically been very resilient to morale, and other armies didn't have abilities and squad setups (i.e. small squads) that invalidated morale, you'd have a valid argument.

I'd say make Orks immune to Combat Attrition when at ten boyz or more.

That is not fearlessly immune to the entire phase. I liked the other idea better though, orks that flee from one unit (via attrition and/or even the intial morale loss boy) "Mob Up" into another nearby same-datasheet unit if it's = or larger, if there isn't a nearby one that is = or larger THEN they're lost. Of course I'd also change most of these sorts of things to work better on bigger units. Transhuman? Its 1CP if your unit started at max, 2CP if it started below max for example. The two stages of the WAAGH! are now based on starting unit size, not turn number. These boost rules are perfect for offsetting the BLAST rule. Or at least making it a tough choice. Some wiggle room is needed for some units of course. Stuff like Terminators, all the 3-6 units I hate, or the 3 and only 3 I hate even more, Trukk Boys (Make the Trukk count as X boys for morale/LD only as long as it's on the table and nearby or something) LRBT etc. squadrons and so on. Blast as a general rule - not ork specific - needs an offset that makes people choose between Blast and their best "goodies" in the most cost effective way. Transhuman is all kinds of backwards. It should have been the carrot pushing people into 10 man Intercessors. Or 5 Man Assault intercessors with an Impulsor.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think real-game scenarios favors the 5" move, Advance-and-Charge for one turn only (and only if your Warlord is a Warboss) when compared to the 7" move and 7" pre-game move unit.

So, I will say Kroot absolutely have the objective game on lock. That doesn't feel like something Boyz should resign themselves to.

Didn't you argue the Objective Secured as a selling point over other Ork units though?

Breton wrote:
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”?

They're nothing similar. That old mechanic I quoted meant 100% fearless as long as the unit had 12+ bodies. Not just a buff, but total immune to morale. Units of 8-9 orks also still had good odds to pass moral tests. My point is ork units shouldn't need to be 20+ models to get strong mechanics to mitigate morale, but 10ish+.

Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.

After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?

It would be great if min-sized units of Boyz could do the whole toolbox thing - i.e. claim objectives, screen DS, screen charges, maybe get reasonable exchanges with comparably priced units etc and win you the game by virtue of your decision making. But being relatively slow/low reach outside a Waaagh turn, fragile for the points and not really synergizing with anything sort of precludes them from this. They are just going to be on the table for a bit, then your opponent will decide its time to take them off. And 90 points isn't really the same as losing a 60 or 40 point unit - even if, theoretically, getting 10 Goff Boyz in the face in a Waaagh turn hurts.

 Blackie wrote:

Smaller units or decimated units should suffer morale a lot, like MSU of specialists or squads of boyz that have been reduced to a handful of dudes. But by the 9th edition standards a squad of 10 models is not a small unit.

After all blast effect is maxed out at 11+, not 20+ right? If anti horde bonus is maxed out at 11+ why shouldn't the horde bonus get its max effect at 11+ as well?

Because the min unit size is 10, and the max size is 30. 1-10 should be the "weak" zone, 21-30 should be the "strong" zone, and 11-20 should be the swing zone. The mechanic should give max benefit at 30ish, and no benefit at less than 10ish. 20 should be potent (but still not completely immune to the entire phase nor should 30) and 30 should be more so to make a max mob size have a benefit as well.

What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?

Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.

Dudeface wrote:
What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?

Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.

I like them getting a higher LD because that will also affect psychic powers - so many of them are compare your LD vs their LD etc. Of course less of both is also an option.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What if rather than rolling d6 for the morale test it was a flat result of 1 if 21 and over, d3 11-20 and then d6 as normal 10 or less. Determined using the squad size after casualties are removed?

Makes bigger squads less likely to clear off and is only a subtle buff.

I like them getting a higher LD because that will also affect psychic powers - so many of them are compare your LD vs their LD etc. Of course less of both is also an option.

LD altering abilities are already of such low value and niche application that I feel they should actually be encouraged or still given fair reward or benefit, so increasing the LD rendering other factions abilities etc less useful just moves these complaints to other factions.

Breton wrote:
Maybe hate on Marines a little less, and think about others. The only time I brought up Marines was to point out even they don't fearlessly ignore the entire phase. They slow it down, they don't shut it down. Or do Night Lords players not deserve to have their army work too? You can't boost one army at the complete expense of others - especially others that might be struggling.

As someone who actually plays Night Lords, I'd much rather my army "work" through gw dropping the whole "Scary Marines" shtick and focusing on some of the Legion's other aspects that can actually work against the majority of opponents. Anti-leadership mechanics in 40k have always run up against the issue that many of the factions are functionally "fearless" for various reasons. Our "leaked" Legion trait, if true, will be practically useless against any other Marines or high leadership factions like Necrons and Custodes, while possibly devastating against armies like Orks. That, is design. I don't want to see some armies forced to have bad leadership just so my army can work occasionally, I want a Legion trait that actually works most of the time against most opponents instead.