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.

I'd like missions like in Risk.

So, say there's 6 objectives on the board. At the beginning of the game you draw your mission card from the mission deck. That tells you what you need to accomplish by the end of the game in order to complete your mission. It could be stuff like hold objective 1 and 6, place a targeting beacon at objective 5 etc.

Your mission will not be known by your opponent and vice versa. So now you can actually make use of deception and feints. Are you attacking objective marker 4 because you need it for your mission? Or maybe this is a trick to try and lure my forces to try and take it from you to deny it, thereby weakening my hold on other parts of the board?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'd like missions like in Risk.

So, say there's 6 objectives on the board. At the beginning of the game you draw your mission card from the mission deck. That tells you what you need to accomplish by the end of the game in order to complete your mission. It could be stuff like hold objective 1 and 6, place a targeting beacon at objective 5 etc.

Your mission will not be known by your opponent and vice versa. So now you can actually make use of deception and feints. Are you attacking objective marker 4 because you need it for your mission? Or maybe this is a trick to try and lure my forces to try and take it from you to deny it, thereby weakening my hold on other parts of the board?

could be fun but then what if both meet the objectives? i could see something like the tiebreaker being who controls a central objective or an objective each player gives to thier opponent. so a tau player might say you have to control that objective in your own deployment vs orks so they have to leave something behind to do that while the ork player says you have to come get that same objective in the back. (to be fair most ork lists won't have models left on the table after turn 3 vs tau but that is a codex problem not a game problem)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 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.

Well it is fortunate for me that my noodle list for TTS includes a Doc ( not boss, because I'll agree that one is bleh ).

I might even be tempted into Lootas and Shootas, because I'm a glutton for punishment.

The Ghaz thing wasn't me talking about using him - there's a lot to that discussion, but I won't bother unwinding it, because it's just too exhausting to restate things so people don't get confused on what I'm talking about.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

Interesting to see the support for 5 Shoota Boyz. I guess I hadn't considered throwing a Rokkit in there. Maybe something to suggest to GW.

Admittedly I'm not sure if "Fire Warriors and Pathfinders must be 10 man units" in the Tau Codex is some sort of "we discovered chaff units of 5-6 models were mechanically too good, but clearly we can't retroactively go through past books and change them, so its just going to be a new thing we insist on in new books".

If Morale wasn't an issue it would be interesting to see whether an all Boyz list could take out Vijay's Tau at Beachhead Brawl. To my mind apart from the Crisis suit with flamers (which if buffed up kills 30 boyz easily), there's nothing incredibly efficient at horde clearance. Maybe 40~ or so dead Boyz from the rest? If you went first to get up the board, popped KFF to save a third it could be interesting to see how it would play out.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

It absolutely is not.

This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Similar to the Hammerhead debate among others.

Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

Tyel wrote:
Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

Oh yea they're going to show.

Suits are obnoxious for multiple reasons. Getting cover on 2+ W8 is just....yuck. And the full reroll to wounds in 12" on top of Montka on Crisis is bananas. Out of LOS shooting with no penalty is just too much - it's part of why Rukks got kicked in the nuts so T'au should suffer no less of a fate ( points wise at least ).

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 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.

Maybe not that, but if the objective was multiple faction centric - i.e. an Augur array in an Orkoid Fungus patch hiding an altar to Khorne etc etc. something for everyone.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

He uses GW logic, AKA it really doesn't make sense. I'm almost 90% sure he refused the other buffs for other units too but only applied the buffs for the Boyz

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.

Elaborate on what this means in terms of why the point by point analysis isn't applicable. This seems like absolute foolishness and I'm pretty sure the more you explain it the dumber it's going to look.

He uses GW logic, AKA it really doesn't make sense. I'm almost 90% sure he refused the other buffs for other units too but only applied the buffs for the Boyz

At least that would be consistent - but no, he flip-flops between applying random amounts of buffs to whatever units he is comparing. I honestly started to just scroll over his charts and numbers, as I'm tired of figuring out what scenario he cooked up to make a point this time.

Just see his response to me above - instead of comparing most competitive 8th edition boyz build to most competitive boyz build in 9th he insist on using the exact same models despite points rises and massive rules changes.
All of it is utterly worthless.

Tyel wrote:
Interesting to see the support for 5 Shoota Boyz. I guess I hadn't considered throwing a Rokkit in there. Maybe something to suggest to GW.

Admittedly I'm not sure if "Fire Warriors and Pathfinders must be 10 man units" in the Tau Codex is some sort of "we discovered chaff units of 5-6 models were mechanically too good, but clearly we can't retroactively go through past books and change them, so its just going to be a new thing we insist on in new books".

If Morale wasn't an issue it would be interesting to see whether an all Boyz list could take out Vijay's Tau at Beachhead Brawl. To my mind apart from the Crisis suit with flamers (which if buffed up kills 30 boyz easily), there's nothing incredibly efficient at horde clearance. Maybe 40~ or so dead Boyz from the rest? If you went first to get up the board, popped KFF to save a third it could be interesting to see how it would play out.

Yes Tau/Kroot are all stuck to 10 man units.

Even if you took out Morale issues, Vijays Tau list would absolutely roflstomp a Green tide list. As you mentioned those flamers kill an entire mob by themselves, thats a 400pt unit wiping out 270pts in 1 shooting phase, thats a pretty damn good return on investment. The rest of the enemy firepower is also rather formidable and with a few kroot units to act as speed bumps the Tau could theoretically paste upwards of 3-4 mobs before receiving any significant return dmg. Boyz just do not have the durability/speed/dmg output to compete in 9th, especially against the more recent codex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just because you disagree with me and agree with them doesn't make me deceitful or misleading.

In this case it does. Refusing to do a damage per point analysis, and instead insisting on equal numbers, is definitely deceitful on your part.

It absolutely is not.
This idea that you can precisely analyze how units interact with missions and other facets by peeing at just a small subset is deceitful and detrimental to understanding the game itself.
Similar to the Hammerhead debate among others.

Daed, instead of making abstract unit comparisons with ever changing buffs/builds you would be much better off comparing the most competitive 8th edition green tide list vs the most competitive 9th green tide list that you can build. So a unit of Goff Boyz in 8th were running around under a 5++ KFF turn 1-2, with S5, 6 attacks, 6s generated extra attacks, re-rolling 1s most of the rest had 4-5 attacks each. You could once a game regenerate an entire mob of 30 boyz if any were left from a surviving mob. IE turn 1 boy back into 30. You could attack twice if you wanted/needed to, and you were functionally immune to morale checks, especially since Ghaz could just crack D3 over the head and auto-pass.

Now compare that with the best you can think of for boyz in 9th, it won't be nearly as good by any stretch of the imagination.

Tyel wrote:
Still think Hammerheads will make an appearance in the meta because of the maths. Probably somewhere like Australia that's always been less interested in what the big names are saying and playing.

But it might have to wait on GW going "yeah... we may have dun goofed on Crisis and Broadsides points (or the effect of rules piled on rules)". Whether that happens sooner or not at all remains to be seen. I'd guess though since Tau won't obviously be in a league of their own GW might just shrug it off. (And in 12 months time, after Tau have sunk miles down the pecking order, Broadsides will go up 15-20 points because internal balance is important...)

I think HH's will absolutely make an appearance, but its a scenario similar to Marines at the beginning, why take them when there are already better options available, IE the battlesuits.

As far as Tau receiving nerfs, I don't want to guess because Drukhari and Ad-Mech ran away on the tournament scene for 6+ months before they received even token Nerfs. And I do mean token. Remember Incubi got hit with a massive 2ppm nerf? And then their transport which took 5-6 of them got a 10pt price cut.....almost like it completely voided the point of the incubi nerf . Chickenwalkers are still OP to the point where the LVO list took a bunch of them, and nobody figured they were broken for 6 months which made me LOL.

But then in comparison, Orkz had 2(ish) good months of tournament play, still winning significantly less than Drukhari/Ad-Mech but immediately received a ham fisted nerf which invalidated some peoples entire armies (Can't take multiple units of buggies anymore), and reduced flyers to 2 per army even though GW had already gone through 2 entire editions where armies made up almost exclusively from flyers were running away with tournaments. Apparently it was OK when Marines, Eldar, Nidz did it, but feth the orkz, they can't have that. And then when we finally got our CA points costs, they nerfed Kommandos which hadn't been doing much in top lists same with Killrigs, but don't worry we reduced lootas from being the worst Auto-cannon unit in the entire game to only being tied for worst auto-cannon unit in the game.

GW nerfs/buffs are a lot like the NHL's Department of Player safety handing out Bans. It makes no sense and is always random.

Wow.

People are clearly so incensed that someone disagrees with them that they don't actually stop to fething read what I wrote and just immediately go to insult me.

I'll try one last god damn time. We talked about multiple things in this thread. The most recent topic I was addressing was whether or not the design of the book was intentional. I said it was. I supplied supporting info.

WHAT I AM NOT SAYING

That you can make a Green Tide list work with the current book.

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee. The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide. If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane -- 30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

Ork boyz have lost their moral immunity, they've lost damage, resistance, rule cover, strat cover, ect... while about every other new codices have had only buffs on their troops.

Why would orks be problematic, if not even decent if you give them back something that wasn't even making them broken an extension ago when things weaker in general ?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wow.

People are clearly so incensed that someone disagrees with them that they don't actually stop to fething read what I wrote and just immediately go to insult me.

I'll try one last god damn time. We talked about multiple things in this thread. The most recent topic I was addressing was whether or not the design of the book was intentional. I said it was. I supplied supporting info.

WHAT I AM NOT SAYING

That you can make a Green Tide list work with the current book.

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee. The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide. If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane -- 30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Honestly the more I play orks and try and make this book work compared to my other armies, the more I am sure nobody on the GW team plays, understands, or maybe even likes orks. I think its in the running for the worst 9th edition codex. The unintentionally gave Orks a strong build with freebootas and after one major tournament win nerfed that specific build to oblivion. Many books have options for competitive builds but now orks just don't have units that work together, all the buffing characters do not justify the points for the paultry buffs (looking at you painboy, painboss, kff mek, kff big mek, nob w/waggh banner etc). I honestly think they just overvalued what T5 was going to do and took away everything that added durability, patted themselves on the back and said good enough.

on mob rule it was not immunity from morale it just gave some protection, in this edition i do think bosspole would have made more sense though. take the test, if failed nob may choose to deal D3 wounds to pass instead as they are keeping order.

on KFF just no, in 5th it used to be a 4++ and extend to range even from a vehicle which expanded that range. It still was not winning tournaments then. in 7th they decided to nerf one of our at that point key units and have just kept nerfing it ever since.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

Man, this thread and the treatment of Daedalus sure are making me think differently about the "Ork players are fun and chill" stereotype.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules.

People are asking for old mob rule and breakin' heads, which is not the same as being immune to morale. Losing d3 models to morale is fine. Losing models to morale after taking massive casualties is fine. Having a 66.66% chance to lose 36-45 points worth of models after an opponent has killed 4 boyz is not. That's like having terminators lose an extra model whenever they take a single casualty.

The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

11W with T5/6+ and no other defensive buffs for 90 points is not hard to remove. Continuing to claim otherwise is deceitful and misleading, especially since you have been called out on this multiple times.

KFF got nerfed, because it can cover so much more space and does melee.

It got nerfed, full stop. It does not cover more models, talking about space instead of models is deceitful and misleading.

The firepower of close to 40 Skitarii Rangers and two Disintegrators would struggle to kill a 6++/6+++ mob per turn assuming no significant sight blocking to a single unit.

Still pulling worthless KFF meks and worthless docs into the calculation despite a full dozen people explaining to you that these are not a factor AND YOU AGREEING TO THEM is deceitful and misleading.

Old Ghaz provided a 6" bubble, which is now table wide.

Thrakka provided a total of four different benefits as 6" auras: extra attacks, advance and charge, re-roll ones and causing d3 mortal wounds instead of failing morale.
The "table wide" rule does one of those four effects for two turns and one of them for a single turn. This is as well deceitful and misleading.

You also claimed earlier that the Waaagh! was a replacement for the mob rule. Now you are moving goalposts to claim that it is a replacement for both?

If you wanted Skarboyz you paid 6 CP, which means little room for fight twice or green tide -- you get Skarboyz for free now.

Skarboyz are 1 CP each, used on three or four mobz. No one ran six full mobs, which could easily have been verified with some research. The only reason to claim 6 CP is to be deceitful and misleading.

You lost the mob bonus, because exploding 5/6s with 5 AP1 attacks would be absolutely insane

Goff already had exploding sixes before and were causing more damage through the "fight better" stratagem of the old book. Still insisting on this despite having been shown the math refuting this argument is deceitful and misleading.

30 Boyz would smoke a Castellan in one turn ( and they're not far off presently ) meaning smaller units are capable of cleaning up pretty serious threats.

You constantly ignoring the physical limitations of getting model within 1/2" of models within 1/2" of the target also is deceitful and misleading. Even more so on such a huge base on a model that can not only comfortably hide all the way in the deployment zone while armigers intercept any mobs headed its way, but also should totally attempt to fire overwatch at the boyz charging it.

Constantly insisting that all boyz will always be goff, not a specialist mob, always using a stratagem, always in range to strike at full unit strength, never receive overwatch and never fight second is deceitful and misleading.

If the stars align perfectly, and you get a night unhideable 280(!) point unit unharmed into your opponent's deployment zone at 5" per movement phase, activate your once per game army rule and then dump even
more CP on them, they should damn well be able to almost down a castellan.
Much cheaper units can destroy castellans without going through all that.


Daed, when all your posts consist of repeating debunked arguments, constructing impossible scenarios and ignoring facts, experience and real-life factors, it's time to accept that you are wrong. This whole thread has become nothing but people calling all your BS. Just stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
Honestly the more I play orks and try and make this book work compared to my other armies, the more I am sure nobody on the GW team plays, understands, or maybe even likes orks. I think its in the running for the worst 9th edition codex. The unintentionally gave Orks a strong build with freebootas and after one major tournament win nerfed that specific build to oblivion. Many books have options for competitive builds but now orks just don't have units that work together, all the buffing characters do not justify the points for the paultry buffs (looking at you painboy, painboss, kff mek, kff big mek, nob w/waggh banner etc). I honestly think they just overvalued what T5 was going to do and took away everything that added durability, patted themselves on the back and said good enough.

on mob rule it was not immunity from morale it just gave some protection, in this edition i do think bosspole would have made more sense though. take the test, if failed nob may choose to deal D3 wounds to pass instead as they are keeping order.

on KFF just no, in 5th it used to be a 4++ and extend to range even from a vehicle which expanded that range. It still was not winning tournaments then. in 7th they decided to nerf one of our at that point key units and have just kept nerfing it ever since.

100% agree. The ork book is not a well written book, they just manage to make it work by fluke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Man, this thread and the treatment of Daedalus sure are making me think differently about the "Ork players are fun and chill" stereotype.

Go to any fun and chill group and stat telling them how they are wrong about everything they do, that you know it all better and support that by made up arguments from thin air while ignoring anything they say. See how well that goes for you

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

If Boyz were morale immune they'd be carting around KFF and painboys. But you're telling me that Thin City can walk around with fewer attacks, morale vulnerability and T4 most of the time, but that morale immune Boyz with 6++/6+++ and a stronger melee profile couldn't do well?

5 Crisis suits with twin AFPs, a markerlight, and full rerolls to wound get an average of 15 Boyz under those conditions and you still think they're not durable enough?
60 * .666 * .555 * .833 * .833 = 15

And that 10 Goffs with a PK, Waaagh, +1 to hit, and exploding 6s averages three battlesuits and they're not killy enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
People are asking for old mob rule and breakin' heads, which is not the same as being immune to morale. Losing d3 models to morale is fine. Losing models to morale after taking massive casualties is fine. Having a 66.66% chance to lose 36-45 points worth of models after an opponent has killed 4 boyz is not. That's like having terminators lose an extra model whenever they take a single casualty.

Old mob rule and 180 boyz is effectively immune to morale and you damn well know that.

11W with T5/6+ and no other defensive buffs for 90 points is not hard to remove. Continuing to claim otherwise is deceitful and misleading, especially since you have been called out on this multiple times.

Good thing I didn't fething claim that now, huh?

It got nerfed, full stop. It does not cover more models, talking about space instead of models is deceitful and misleading.

Are you fething kidding me right now? You think you can fit more boyz FULLY within 9" as opposed to one model toe-in within 6"?

This is so fething absurd that I can't even.

I'm done. You guys have your piss and moan bs party.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

WHAT I AM SAYING

You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

This is already not credible because Boyz aren't durable anyway. Poxwalkers are immune to morale and defensively they're probably tougher with the T4 6+++. At 9 points current Boyz would be fine EVEN IF they had morale immunity baked in.

If Boyz were morale immune they'd be carting around KFF and painboys. But you're telling me that Thin City can walk around with fewer attacks, morale vulnerability and T4 most of the time, but that morale immune Boyz with 6++/6+++ and a stronger melee profile couldn't do well?

5 Crisis suits with twin AFPs, a markerlight, and full rerolls to wound get an average of 15 Boyz under those conditions and you still think they're not durable enough?
60 * .666 * .555 * .833 * .833 = 15

And that 10 Goffs with a PK, Waaagh, +1 to hit, and exploding 6s averages three battlesuits and they're not killy enough?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.

Spoiler:

So, you get 10 Boys, give them a certain subfaction trait, a once-per-game (though it does last two turns) buff, and a buffing character, to down 100-150 points worth of models that are faster than them, and have access to charge penalties.

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

Each Suit with that loadout (and the listed buffs-so NOT including the Mont'Ka bonus for AP boost) does...



So, for the same investment in points, strats, and all that... 4 Crisis Suits do just over 29 wounds. If you roll a 1, congrats! You keep the Nob. If you don't, tough tuckus-he's dead.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

You're talking about a unit that has the job of dropping down near an enemy unit and dumping a shedload of shots into them.

AFPs have the utility of shooting from out of LoS. And the strat to get full wound rerolls is, correct me if I'm wrong, used on a unit that Deep Strikes in and is within 12" of their target.

I don't follow tournaments, so I wouldn't be at all shocked to hear that double AFPs are common-but are they used in THAT way?

Thank you for posting that first because I wasn't sure why Daed chose to use twin Frags. Weren't Burst Cannons agreed to be better anyway?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Do you not see why that's unrealistic? And, hell, why did you go with double AFPs? That's 45 PPM, when you can do AFP, Flamer, and Burst Cannon for the same price.

That's what we call building for skew and people don't presently run that, because it isn't as useful of a loadout. People are running double AFPs - that's what I used. They also run Plasma/Cyclinc/Shield, which isn't very good against Boyz. I'm sure someone who takes 6 Punisher LRBTs would have fun, too. I'm not discussing skew games, because those don't make the top tables, right?

Oh, but now i'm misleading and deceitful! OOOooOHOOoOoOH!

You're talking about a unit that has the job of dropping down near an enemy unit and dumping a shedload of shots into them.

AFPs have the utility of shooting from out of LoS. And the strat to get full wound rerolls is, correct me if I'm wrong, used on a unit that Deep Strikes in and is within 12" of their target.

I don't follow tournaments, so I wouldn't be at all shocked to hear that double AFPs are common-but are they used in THAT way?

Full reroll wounds is on the commander and is given in the command phase, so, no.

You can see them used that way here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3OKm09ppLs&ab_channel=ArtofWar40k

Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Full reroll wounds is on the commander and is given in the command phase, so, no.

Ah, okay. I was not aware of that-thank you for letting me know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
This post needs an unlabeled chart.

Made this one just for you.

Spoiler:

Excellent! Now the debate can properly continue.

I think bar #3 could be representing:
A) the # of basic boyz one would need to take in order to get about 10 of them into melee,
OR
B) the # of posters here in this thread who disagree with Daedalus,
OR
C) The # of ways Kroot squads are better than Boyz squads.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[
Anyway, whatever. I'm done. You guys win.

Still not an admittance of being wrong

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You can't have morale immune Boyz with the current book rules. The mission set highly values units that are obsec and are hard to remove.

Why not? Tyranids have morale-immune hordes of cheap troops and they aren't tearing it up (except with Crusher Stampede, and that explicitly doesn't do that.)

You have not presented sufficient evidence for this line of reasoning but you keep insisting that it's true.