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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Goffs with a Warboss nearby and +1 attack take 1.5 boys to kill a single marine on the charge.
It’s two full boys if they lack the attack boost.

And +1 to-hit matters MORE for MANz than for boys-going from 3+ to 2+ isn’t as impactful as 4+ to 3+.

Sorry - I should have been more specific. I mean in relative terms.

i.e. MANZ with +1 can kill up to 13 things instead of 10. Boyz with +1 can kill 67 things instead of 53.

The outcome, of course, relies on the target and the weapons suitable to hit it.

It doesn’t affect the min (0) or the max (1 kill per hit).
It only affects the average.

Deadalus is just trolling. Stop feeding him.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It doesn’t affect the min (0) or the max (1 kill per hit).
It only affects the average.

I'm not expressing my idea clearly enough.

5 MANZ with +1 will kill 7 or 8 skitarii vets.
20 boyz will kill up to 30.

These are not Goff numbers and your explodes absolutely scale far faster with boyz.

Skitarii don't come in blocks of 30, so the boyz "cap out" even sooner.

You're going to achieve a greater effect when you punch something that doesn't favor MANZ.

With battlesuit and custodes madness that becomes more favorable to MANZ - for the +1 anyway.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Deadalus is just trolling. Stop feeding him.

No. Typically a troll is someone who makes a post that doesn't address or contribute anything.

You can feel free to refute my other points at your leisure.

Goff Boy damage, especially in a Waaagh turn, is fine. The issue is their relative speed and survivability.

The next issue is that there are (kinda) things you could do to help those issues by say not being Goffs. But then your damage is bad.

Seemingly regardless of what you do, a 10 man unit of Boyz makes for a bad toolbox unit, that in other lists would say do actions, tag objectives, screen things out or go +1 with comparable toolbox units in your opponents list.

Yes, I won't argue that speed is a problem.

And, yes, Goffs definitely keep boyz from being viable in other kultures - not that that is necessarily bad depending on how you view orks in general.

I.e. if shootas were interesting Bad Moons would have them on lock.

The recent posts are more about whether the design is appropriate and deliberate.

Goff Boyz have good results even after taking losses. I'll be giving some thoughts on the issue a whirl as soon as I can.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
80 attacks [...]

Warboss used to break heads, which is the same as the strat, but now the strat is "bad".

Yes, a single-target stratagem for 2 CP that replaces 2-4 dead models with d3 dead models is worse than a free aura that affects multiple units. Who would have thought.
Thrakka also used to have twice the range on his aura than the stratagem does now.

Goffs went from 6s give you another attack to 6s give you a hit on top of +1S.

They also had +1S for boyz in the old codex, just as a stratagem. Having an extra hit instead of an extra attack is a pretty trivial upgrade for a unit that already hits on threes or twos with potential re-rolls.
And let's not forget that boyz also had a fight twice stratagem.

KFF may have ben halved, but it works in melee and covers more than one mob.

Having a one in six chance to not die to melee hit does not make up failing twice as many saves. The whole point is that boyz needed the KFF to get to melee, they don't care for the save they get when they are there.
In addition, a 6++ KFF has to cover about 50 boyz to break even, while a 5++ only has to cover 25. It's worse for MA big meks.

They lost +1A for 20 models, but gained an AP, which is phenomenally better.

Unless you are fighting 1+ save models, models with invulnerable saves, models that ignore AP-1 or models with no armor to begin with...

Also note Waaagh.

So 20 Goffs from the past v MEQ with a Warboss nearby --

((80 * .167 * .666) + (80 * .666)) * .5 * .333 = 10.4

And 20 now --

((80 * .167) + (80 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 26.6

Do you honestly think it'd be ok for Boyz to have the same morale when they can produce almost three times the output under the same conditions?

I don't even want to write anything about this. You taking a warboss into the equation which did absolutely nothing for the offensive of boyz but had much greater utility than it does now and claim that it is better isn't even arguing just for the sake of arguing anymore. ESPECIALLY since a +1 to hit character existed in the old codex, for a similar price.
It's straight being dishonest for no other reason than to prove a point. koooaei is right, you are a troll.

Actual math for old boyz being played competitively would be with Thrakka nearby, so 100 attacks, hitting on 3s, re-rolling ones, wounding on 3s due to 'ard boyz, fighting twice, for a total of 34.568 damage, while also advancing and charging and being almost immune to morale for at least two turns (more if Thrakka surivived longer or another warboss was around), not just for one turn.

So, stop trolling. You are contributing nothing to this discussion. Your scenarios and calculation have no value, because they are either wrong, constructed to prove a point or completely removed from reality.
A good data scientists is trying to prove their hypothesis wrong, and only draw conclusions when they fail to do that. Try that for a change.

 Jidmah wrote:

I don't even want to write anything about this. You taking a warboss into the equation which did absolutely nothing for the offensive of boyz but had much greater utility than it does now and claim that it is better isn't even arguing just for the sake of arguing anymore. ESPECIALLY since a +1 to hit character existed in the old codex, for a similar price.
It's straight being dishonest for no other reason than to prove a point. koooaei is right, you are a troll.

A Waaagh Banner was an extra slot and did nothing much else. A Warboss is a totally competent model and brings the buff instead of consuming points and a slot.

Actual math for old boyz being played competitively would be with Thrakka nearby, so 100 attacks, hitting on 3s, re-rolling ones, wounding on 3s due to 'ard boyz, fighting twice, for a total of 34.568 damage, while also advancing and charging and being almost immune to morale for at least two turns (more if Thrakka surivived longer or another warboss was around), not just for one turn.

So, stop trolling. You are contributing nothing to this discussion. Your scenarios and calculation have no value, because they are either wrong, constructed to prove a point or completely removed from reality.
A good data scientists is trying to prove their hypothesis wrong, and only draw conclusions when they fail to do that. Try that for a change.

You're really going to sit there and tell me that a 240 point HQ plus four CP is a valid comparison? Ok.

That's 360 for Ghaz and 20 Boyz @ 6. Twenty new boyz are 180 plus 115 for MA boss. So instead I should have 27 boyz instead.

((108 * .333) + (108 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 41.9

That's 2 CP spend.

Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Sounds like the point you are trying to make is that if you add a rule that Boyz use to have "morale immunity" to the existing Boyz rules, then they would be more viable... Which was deduced on page 1 by numerous others and also is irrelevant to the topic of are "Kroot better than Boyz"

Your web of half-truths and misinformation has gotten tangled. Accept the L and move on.

KROOT ARE BETTER THAN BOYZ.

Not really sure why you guys are getting upset over this.

To my mind I like this discussion because its vaguely rooted in 40k as it is, rather than most threads on this subforum which all focused on how 40k should be a totally different game or was better 10+ years ago, maybe.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warboss now gives out +1 to hit. That +1 matters when it's 80 attacks instead of say 20 for MANZ - especially if you want to go take out something with an invulnerable save.

Depends on how good those attacks are at wounding and dealing damage. It increases the effectiveness of each boy attack by 25%, and the effectiveness of each MANZ attack by 33%. Raw number of attacks is not a good metric to go by here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly the mods just need to slap Daedalus with a temp ban for trolling.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Sounds like the point you are trying to make is that if you add a rule that Boyz use to have "morale immunity" to the existing Boyz rules, then they would be more viable... Which was deduced on page 1 by numerous others and also is irrelevant to the topic of are "Kroot better than Boyz"

Your web of half-truths and misinformation has gotten tangled. Accept the L and move on.

If you say so, champ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:
Honestly the mods just need to slap Daedalus with a temp ban for trolling.

You people have some real gaul, you know?

I've been making rational and composed posts and you all come in like gak lords and tell me I'm a troll, because I don't agree with your premise.

In short, current boyz are in some ways better than old boyz if you simply check their damage per point ratio. But are worse in most other ways like being more expensive, loosing semi-fearless which, in turn, makes them more fragile than they used to be.
The biggest hits are: the loss of reliable t1 deep strike and clan +1 to charge bonus, loss of fight twice and unstoppable greentide.

So, we end up with an overall worse version of boyz with a niche useful trick of becoming trukkboyz (which is still quite mediocre but occasionally useful).

But the most important thing is that the power level of the game has progressed significantly. While the boyz have regressed or at very best stayed arguably comparable with what they used to be. Which makes the comparison irrelevant yet again.

If you find this untrustworthy, check tourney ork lists that got somewhere. It's gonna be pretty hard to find someone running 30 boyz and doing good.

Again, this is the 2nd or 3rd thread that basically boils down to "ork boyz aren't great right now and need some rules help". Just let it die... like the boyz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Warboss now gives out +1 to hit. That +1 matters when it's 80 attacks instead of say 20 for MANZ - especially if you want to go take out something with an invulnerable save.
Warboss used to give advance and charge all the time. Now it's once per game, but you gained two turns of +1A - again a thing that increases in effectiveness the more models you have.

Comparison between 8th and 9th is the main point relating to this thread because it shows that Orkz do have bad rules and Kroot on the other hand went from having bad rules to having good rules and being taken in lists with pretty damn good troops choices.

Warboss Now gives +1 to hit, yes he does. The +1 does matter when its 80 attacks. Yes it does. But again, like for like. Last edition a Warboss was taken competitively as a beat stick for the most part. In the end of 8th, the competitive ork players who were running boyz were doing so with GHAZ. Why? Because Ghaz gave them all a host of benefits while the warboss was taken as another melee beat stick, specifically with CP used to buff him with the new additions from psychic awakening which turned him into a more points efficient Mini-Ghaz as far as melee dmg goes. So the example you are doing from the start is flawed because almost nobody was using Warbosses for their advance and charge, they were using them as a delivery system for melee dmg. Ghaz was the de-facto buffing character. And to the point you made about +1 mattering, as Jidmah pointed out we already had that in a host of ways including a banner nob. But yeah +1 does help a bit, but nobody is swinging with 80 attacks because NOBODY is taking 20 boyz, they are taking 10 because again, GW wrote BAD rules for Boyz which completely destroyed them in larger units So your example is a bad faith argument because nobody would take 20 to start with. So in reality its 10 boyz with +1 to hit. And 10 boyz with +1 to hit and 3 attacks each because we aren't assuming waaagh is 25 hits at S4 -1AP. For the exact same price you can take 3 Meganobz which get 9 attacks and 6 hits (With the same +1 to hit) at S10 -3AP So the Meganobz go from 4.5 hits to 6, an increase of 33% Boyz went from 20 hits to 25, or an increase of 25%. Dmg wise its 5 extra S4 hits or 1.5 extra S10 AP-3 hits. Against a Marine those extra hits are Boyz: 0.83 extra dmg Vs. Meganobz: 2.08 extra dmg. So in the scenario you built just changed for reality, the Meganobz receive a significantly greater bump in dmg output

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Morale used to be just straight up lose models, which could happen back then unless you had multiple mobs, which means it was all in or nothing. If you lost 20 then you LD was 10 and you'd still lose every other model in that unit unless you have a 20+ mob nearby. NOW if you lose 20 with a 10 man nearby then you lose 1 and then 1 or 2 more.

except that isn't true either In 8th, I would run multiple blobs of 30 boyz, so if I lost 20 in 1 mob I was still LD30, to actually inflict morale casualties to an ork horde army you had to go hard into every mob of boyz I took because otherwise you wouldn't inflict any morale dmg. But even that isn't true either because NOBODY was letting 1-10 boyz survive in a decimated ork mob because Endless Green tide would just bring back the entire mob and be placed somewhere else on the battlefield where there better Ere We Go special rule allowed them a better than average chance at a successful Charge.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Warboss used to break heads, which is the same as the strat, but now the strat is "bad".

As Jid already pointed out, Breaking Eads used to be a Warboss/character Aura that auto-passed morale at the cost of D3 boyz. It wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either. Now I have to pay CP for the honor of killing my own models, and also only if its within of a Warboss/Nobz unit...IE never. So yes, Break Eads is significantly worse than before. And the stratagem is in fact Bad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Goffs went from 6s give you another attack to 6s give you a hit on top of +1S.

yes, I won't argue this point. the Goff Kulture is now significantly better than it was in 8th. I will point out though that while Goffs got better for Ork boyz, every other kulture got markedly worse and thanks to all the aforementioned nerfs, nobody really runs Goff boyz. I for instance am the weird ork player who brings boyz in my competitive list, but only as Trukk boyz WHO DONT BENEFIT FROM GOFF KULTURE!

 Daedalus81 wrote:
KFF may have ben halved, but it works in melee and covers more than one mob.

What matters more Daed, getting into CC with 50% fewer casualties or getting into CC with 50% more casualties but getting a 6+++ when you finally get into CC? IN real game terms, I take 30dmg on a boyz mob, in 8th that left me with 10 boyz alive thanks to the KFF to get stuck in and swing their choppas. In 9th I have 5 left. There is a reason nobody is taking KFF's anymore in competitive lists.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
They lost +1A for 20 models, but gained an AP, which is phenomenally better. Also note Waaagh.

Almost every single faction in the entire game is getting an upgraded troop choice weapon that has -1AP. So this isn't a good faith argument either. We lost something we had but gained something that is being given out freely to everyone who they themselves aren't losing anything. Case and point, Kroot. Kroot lost +1S on their weapon but gained -1AP...oh but wait, that +1S got baked into their profile...so they didn't lose anything.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Do you honestly think it'd be ok for Boyz to have the same morale when they can produce almost three times the output under the same conditions? Christ you could fight twice with the old Boyz and STILL be behind.

Another bad faith argument. Even if Ork boyz got their old Morale rules back they still wouldn't put out anywhere near 3x the output. 1: Fewer buffs from characters means fewer are alive. 2: No strat support and 3: and most importantly THE RULES HAVE CHANGED! Boyz were 25mm they are now 32mm. CC range got reduced heavily so you can't have 3 ranks of boyz fighting. Please tell me how 20 boyz who with some work could all get into CC have 3x less dmg output than 20 boyz in 9th who can't reach CC with more than 10 models on average?

If you are going to cherry pick rules/buffs and data points you can make anything look true. But in reality its a bad faith argument. REAL game play last edition, on a regular basis, in competitive tournaments I would have blobs of 30 boyz in CC, 20(ish) of them could swing, they would be +1 Attack for having 20+ Models and +1 attack for Ghaz being nearby, and likely another +1 for the weirdboy casting warpath because i routinely was taking 3 in 8th and had spells to spare. So that was 20 boyz with 6 attacks each, hitting on 3s, re-rolling 1s and wounding on 3s because I had buffed them with +1S pre-game. Now compare that to a current real game scenario, you cant because it doesn't exist and it doesn't for a reason. No please stop lying saying 9th edition boyz put out 3x the dmg as 8th edition boyz, if that was the case you would see them spammed fething everywhere even in 10 man blobs because who cares if you lose 1-2 to morale since if 4 get into CC they apparently have the dmg output of 12 boyz from 8th.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You're really going to sit there and tell me that a 240 point HQ plus four CP is a valid comparison? Ok.

That's 360 for Ghaz and 20 Boyz @ 6. Twenty new boyz are 180 plus 115 for MA boss. So instead I should have 27 boyz instead.
((108 * .333) + (108 * .833)) * .666 * .5 = 41.9
That's 2 CP spend.
Now just imagine for a moment that you took THOSE rules and added morale immunity. That's the fething point I'm making.

Since it was a competitive build from 8th, IE how they were routinely taken, Yes. You want to give boyz in 9th all these buffs they never really get, somehow getting their larger bases into the smaller CC range every single time, completely ignoring their lack of mobility in 9th, not to mention the fact that they die pt for pt significantly faster than in 8th...yes, its a valid comparison.

I'll be very blunt. If you kept boyz AS IS right now and gave them back old Mob rule, they still wouldn't be competitive. They might make it into events as a gate keeper army, but even that would be rather rare to see. But the thing is, I don't necessarily want the old Green Tide 180+ body armies running around, I'd be happy with Trukk boyz if they were more competitive, I would be thrilled if Boyz had a purpose on the table similar to the Kroot carnivores who are now being taken in GT WINNING events, even though Tau have troops choices that are better in a lot of different ways.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, I won't argue that speed is a problem.
And, yes, Goffs definitely keep boyz from being viable in other kultures - not that that is necessarily bad depending on how you view orks in general.
I.e. if shootas were interesting Bad Moons would have them on lock.
The recent posts are more about whether the design is appropriate and deliberate.
Goff Boyz have good results even after taking losses. I'll be giving some thoughts on the issue a whirl as soon as I can.

Goff Boyz aren't taken in competitive lists. Like I said, I'm about the closest you can get to a "Goff" player with boyz in my list, and those boyz LOSE their kulture when they become Trukk boyz.

As far as Design being appropriate and deliberate...please explain your aforementioned Shoota boyz. They actually got worse Model for Model at 10-18' range, pt for pt its not even funny to compare because it leaves such a sour taste in my mouth. Were shoota boyz really that overpowering in the meta and in need of a nerf? Or was it yet another example of GW not being able to write coherent Rules for Orkz. I would expand that further, explain the stupidity behind "Dakka" weapons. Orkz lost MOST of their assault weapons, they either became Heavy or became "Dakka" weapons, but then some clown at GW gave Evil Sunz a rule that lets them advance and shoot assault weapons at full BS...which itself is a pretty bad rule, but teamed with the removal of 90% of ork assault weapons, it was just a hilarious example of GW not knowing what they are doing.

You will literally never change my mind about whether or not GW knows what they are doing when they write ork rules. The consensus among the Ork players here is that GW does not know WTF they are doing. AND to make it even more inexcusable GW themselves said they didn't even have an Ork army. So the clowns writing our rules DONT EVEN PLAY orkz.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


You people have some real gaul, you know?

I've been making rational and composed posts and you all come in like gak lords and tell me I'm a troll, because I don't agree with your premise.

No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
As far as Design being appropriate and deliberate...please explain your aforementioned Shoota boyz.

Seriously this. Dakka should have been a keyword, and the majority of those weapons should have stayed Assault. Someone at GW just was frustrated that Orks had access to shooting like that.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I would agree that Boyz aren't solid, but I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.

4th edition.

Tac Marine 15pts
Ork boy 6pts.

To kill 1 Marine with bolters took 9 Bolter shots at BS3+
To kill 1 Ork boy took 3 Bolter shots.

Took 3 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marines (12 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds 1 dead Marine)

Fast forward to 9th edition: Marines now have double their ROF normally, they gained a plethora of special rules which allow them to gain AP depending on phase and of course, most notably they got a 2nd wound. Stratagem wise they have a bunch.

Ork boyz: They are now Base S4 as opposed to being S3(4) Furious Charge and T5 . They lost +1 attack, they lost movement, and their dmg output actually went down.

Tac Marine 18pts
Ork Boy 9pts.

To kill 1 Marine now takes 18 bolter shots at BS3
To kill 1 Ork boy now takes 5.4 bolter shots

Takes 4 Boyz in CC to kill 1 Marine (12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds, 1 Dead Marine)

In 4th the math was 18pts of Boyz to kill 15 of Marines
In 9th the math is 36pts of Boyz to kill 18 of Marines.

My belief is that Ork boyz took it to the face in 9th as far as rules go, because at the tail end of 8th the "competitive" ork list was Ghaz Green tide with 90-120 boyz. The problem being that the list wasn't competitive because Boyz were good, it was competitive because nobody was bringing anti-horde firepower and it ran counter meta.

So going back to your quote

I don't think they suffer from garbage rules creation.

Well lets see, in 8th they were good because nobody brought weapons that worked against them. In 9th GW bumped them up to 9ppm but gave them T5, they then stripped all their stratagem support, nerfed the KFF to be 50% less effective while also costing significantly more, nerfed Weirdboyz so they wouldn't be handing out buffs like they were in 8th and then stripped or destroyed their inherent rules.

Ere we go: lost re-roll 1 or both dice
Mob Rule: Went from Model count = LD to If another mob is nearby and has more than 50% of its models alive you don't take attrition tests on 2s just on 1s.
Completely got rid of the +1 attack for 20+ models.

So yes Ork boyz are absolutely suffering from BAD RULES WRITING for them specifically. GW's intent was pretty clear from the get go "Get rid of hordes" The problem is that GW nerfed boyz so hard that they aren't even worth taking in smaller units. Why? Because their rules teams do not inherently understand orkz, and figured T5 and -1AP on choppas would be good enough compensation for utterly destroying THE most iconic Ork unit.

I noticed you compared how many shots it takes to kill boys and marines, and how many boys it takes to kill a marine but not how many marines it takes to kill a boy. That is not a subtle omission when you’re making the “just boys specificially” argument. Especially around people who tracked the effectiveness of Assault Marines in recent editions after losing all their situational bonus attacks.

Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

Hecaton wrote:
No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my math and it isn't specious in the least.

Things like people saying there is no upside to a KFF that can cover 120 models ( or more ) as opposed to 30 and dismissing that it works in melee isn't a math problem. Just because you don't like how it operates as compared to the past doesn't make the math about a singular unit proof that it doesn't have an effect on the overall design of the units.

Uping the ante with something like Ghaz and 20 fight twice Skarboyz is a comparable outcome without actually taking anything else into account for spending the extra points or CP is actually more dubious than what I've discussed.

Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

And the window where Chainswords and Choppas didn’t give +1A? And how that happened at about the same time not? And that Eviscerators don’t get +1A Even though the model still has a pistol? The Sgt and Boss Nob “lose” an attack for upgrading away from the chain sword/choppa?

Of course the fact that you had to ask what “the difference is” also is kind of my point. Given how much of these things are happening to other units all over everywhere, claiming one army is being singled out might be a little inaccurate.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
No, it's because you put forward specious mathematical arguments, then dismiss the actually correct math people throw at you out of hand on the basis of your feelings.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my math and it isn't specious in the least.

Things like people saying there is no upside to a KFF that can cover 120 models ( or more ) as opposed to 30 and dismissing that it works in melee isn't a math problem. Just because you don't like how it operates as compared to the past doesn't make the math about a singular unit proof that it doesn't have an effect on the overall design of the units.

Uping the ante with something like Ghaz and 20 fight twice Skarboyz is a comparable outcome without actually taking anything else into account for spending the extra points or CP is actually more dubious than what I've discussed.

Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

I am sorry daed, normally your input is actually decent but just stop.

Your first exemple under the 6+++ alone proves beyond a doubt that you have serious issues in understanding the ork dex. You don't field a Dok, period, ever. 70 pts for a glorified nob with powerklaw (and btw you also don't see nobs really either soooooo) is not something you field in any ernest matchup and i say this as someone that owns the GOOD old metal dok and uses him in fun matches and actually fields boys. And that is being mercifull because the bossdok is somehow even WORSE than the normal dok.

The KFF argument is laughable, 85 pts for a worse dok in essence and an HQ slot wasted does not make a good choice. a 1/6 permanent as opposed to 5++ against shooting , when geting shot to bits is the issue and not the stabbing (because not much survives an ork charge) is pointless and doesn't resolve the issue that your squads (especially big ones) of boys just disintegrates as soon as something looks at them the wrong way. Slapping a T-shirt save ontopof them has never worked, also its basically just giving them their T-shirt save back, considering the swaths of AP inflation going on. And no T5 as already established means nothing due to the wound table.

Ghaz alone is 300 pts. Wasting him and his aura on a bunch of boys or suggesting something like that ontop of the use of CP is hillarious on its own, NVM that its rare to get 20 boys into melee reach seeing as msu and base size is a thing.Further alone 20 boys and ghaz cost 480 pts.
You know what i also could get for 480 pts?
2 killrigs, a tripplet of squigbuggies, or any other buggy type and a bunch of storm boys, or warbikas etc.
Your maths alone fails to take into account opportunity cost of internal and external balance, nvm that it is based upon scenarios that will basically never happen on the table.

Breton wrote:
I noticed you compared how many shots it takes to kill boys and marines, and how many boys it takes to kill a marine but not how many marines it takes to kill a boy. That is not a subtle omission when you’re making the “just boys specificially” argument. Especially around people who tracked the effectiveness of Assault Marines in recent editions after losing all their situational bonus attacks.

The counter argument surely is that Goff Boyz and Waaagh exist, you have to build around them - and on that basis, just 16.2 points of Boyz kills an 18 point Tactical Marine.
The problem surely is how anemic boyz are without these buffs. 2 buffed up Goff Boyz do more damage than 4 non-Waaaghed Evil Sunz boyz. Conclusion, throwing a squad of Evil Sunz boyz into say an Evil Sunz Speedwaaagh list is probably a bad decision.

But then I think there is a wider issue with comparisons.

I tried this before but trying again - for example - I'd agree, Shoota Boyz are objectively dreadful. There's not really any way to slice things. Making them Bad Moons, which clearly should synergise, gives them a relatively token upgrade in firepower compared with the Goffs in combat above. In fact its so token you'd be better taking Goff Shoota Boyz and charging into combat at which point it should be obvious your rules system is screwed up and needs to be changed.

But if you stack Shoota Boyz against basic 11 point Sisters, which may be how GW worked them through, they are probably not too far off a wash. The Sisters shoot a bit better (and easier with 12" rapid fire versus 9" Dakka), but the Boyz punch quite a bit better while both stack up around the same versus S4 AP- shooting. If you make those Shoota Boyz just 8 points the 1v1 mathammer comparison starts to become quite favourable.
(Then you have Kroot who handily outshoot and outpunch both for their points and get a free 7" move but lets ignore that for now.)

Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are different things needed so A) you see 1 minimum squad of Boyz in a list (and arguably Trukk Boyz already accomplishes this), B) you see 1 maxed out squad of 30 with all bells and whistles and C) you see 150 on the table because Green Tide is back being tournament viable.

Tyel wrote:
Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

55 Points for 5 shoota boyz with a rokkit and a nob to sit on an objective instead of gretchin? Sign me up!

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assault Marines were 1 attack in 6th and 7th, correct me if I'm wrong.
+1 attack for Pistol and Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

Now, they're 1 attack.
+1 attack for Chainsword.
+1 attack for charging.

So... Difference is?

And the window where Chainswords and Choppas didn’t give +1A?

The attack stat is still the same? Not sure I'm following this train of thought.

 Jidmah wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Would anyone take say 5 Shoota Boyz to unlock a patrol detachment? Probably not - but if they did so, I feel it would be for much the same reason you'd see 5 Sisters.

55 Points for 5 shoota boyz with a rokkit and a nob to sit on an objective instead of gretchin? Sign me up!

I 100% agree and would take this in every patrol I ever needed to take regardless of Klan.

Even spending the extra points for a kombi rokkit on the nob would be viable, and actually really decent for Deathskulls.

I feel like making it so you can take 5 man ork boyz squads would not "fix" ork squads, only allow us to spend less points relegating boyz doing unorky things like *spits out fungus beer at the though* standing on an objective and not getting in the fight maybe even holding sensors as the ork boy gathers octarious data? NO i say, that is Grot work, those boys would be shot immediately as they are obviously a genesteeler cult within the ork kultur.

functionally it really only helps fix the army as a whole as it means you can spend more points not wasted on a poor choice nonfunctioning unit.

9th is all grot work. Missions should go back to being about like, battles and fighting, not sitting on a random point. At least have them be an asymmetric bunker assault or something.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
9th is all grot work. Missions should go back to being about like, battles and fighting, not sitting on a random point. At least have them be an asymmetric bunker assault or something.

i would love special ork objectives that just mess with all of it

replace 'gather octarius data" with "hey stop dat ya git"

points scored when you charge a unit gathering octarius data.

Even then, it’s just going to be the same game every match. It’s an argument someone else made way better, but with how 9th has been leached of all randomness/variability in missions you just play the same zoggin game every time, but maybe with some different armies. This just leads to some armies dominating cause they play that game really well.
I don’t want pickable secondaries, I want good ol asymmetric missions.

That is one of my hopes for 10th, problem is this is warhammer 40k ITC edition. To be clear i love competitive play, and i love the missions when playing 40k as a competitive game at a tournament or doing tournament prep games for people going to tournaments (these days i do more of this, having kids meant less tournaments) I just dislike that level of gamesmanship when i want to have a casual game at my flgs over a couple of beers. those 2 experiences in past editions were hugely different, now its all the same.