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.

So here is a fun story from the weekend. Played a game against a rather...obnoxious Space Marine player who decided to show up to a pickup game with a Meta list (Lots of dreads). During our game it became apparent he wasn't very good at piloting his army and more importantly, he wasn't used to losing to Orkz For this pickup game I had brought out my Squigz backed up by some Killakanz and my favorite little guys, Kommandos! Well Turn one he went aggressive and managed to kill my Killrig and all my Killakanz, but in doing so he ignored my Kommandos and squig cavalry while also moving closer to my lines, putting himself in easy charge range on my turn. On my turn I proceeded to yell as loudly as I could "WAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!" and began moving my guys forward....and the baggery of douche began in earnest.

To start he made me show him the WAAAGH rules that allowed me to advance and charge. Following this he proceeded to demand I show him the movement characteristic of each model and said that if I didn't declare at the start of the movement phase which units were advancing they couldn't advance when I went to move that unit.

Following the longest movement phase of my life (including when I ran green tide) it was time for the shooting phase where things really started to get annoying. According to him, units that had advanced (squig riders) could not shoot because they had advanced. This followed with me bringing out the big rule book to show that Assault weapons could be used after advancing. His next complaint came when I released the Bomb Squigs. He proceeded to demand to see that rule (Ok, fair enough) and then pointed out that my Squig riders had advanced and therefore couldn't use bomb squigs...which they can. Finally he demanded to know why my Squig riders were hitting on 4s and 5s if they had advanced, so I had to show him the Beastsnagga rules which give Beastsnagga models +1 to hit against vehicles/monsters. He unsuccessfully said this only applied to CC not to shooting. At this point he had created a bit of a commotion and a lot of locals were watching the game, to include the store's ITC judge who explained to him that yes I was telling him the truth.

Finally after all the complaining I made it to the assault phase where he flat out told me I was cheating because there is no way a Kommando could be wounding his T4 models on 2s (Goffs on a WAAAGH Turn are S6 and have +1 to wound while touching cover) and that there is no way my Squigs got to bite and do dmg to his precious dreadnoughts (beastboss on squigosaur one shot a dread). After the CC phase he packed up his models and left with me sitting there shaking my head at the level of obnoxious some players are capable of displaying in a friendly pickup game.

But here is the absolute best part. After he accused me of cheating I asked him somehow politely "How did I cheat" to which he replied, "you killed more then I did while playing orkz!" ok...and? So he explained "Orkz aren't supposed to be good! My guys should have won."

And there it is, the entitled mindset of a player who thinks that some factions shouldn't be competitive because reasons

Wow, just wow...

Maybe they need to taken out behind the shed and have some sense either beat into/or out of them.

The best part is the justification for why they were mad!

Unfortunately I've met multiple players with this mindset. Most of them were actually SM players. Also custodes, eldar and tau to be honest.

SemperMortis wrote:

But here is the absolute best part. After he accused me of cheating I asked him somehow politely "How did I cheat" to which he replied, "you killed more then I did while playing orkz!" ok...and? So he explained "Orkz aren't supposed to be good! My guys should have won."

Who knows, maybe if he hadn't conceded after 1 turn....

So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

Man, I miss the halcyon days of kicking about in a GW store on a Saturday. This reminds me of those days in a weirdly fond way.

He's the bad guy because his attitude&behaviour sucks.

Karol wrote:
So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

Even if you want to excuse him like that - and I think you won't find many supporters for this point of view - there is still the bad sportsmanship on display of packing up after one bad round and questioning everything the other side does.

Karol wrote:
So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

I see you glossed over the part where he said that Orks (and probably all Xenos in his opinion) are an NPC race. It is nothing at all to do with what you are saying.

Eesh. That’s a rough story-hopefully your opponent learns to improve his attitude.

Sorry you had to waste energy on that guy, but congrats on giving him a public thrashing.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Karol wrote:
So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

Even if you want to excuse him like that - and I think you won't find many supporters for this point of view - there is still the bad sportsmanship on display of packing up after one bad round and questioning everything the other side does.

I don't know how often this guy has played against the 9th ed Ork 'dex, especially a list like the one Semper described - if it was his first encounter with it, and things were sounding too good to be true, then asking to look at things from the 'dex is reasonable.

Given it was a thing in 8th, though, I'm a little surprised he didn't know about shooting Assault weapons after an advance.

And his attitude as a whole, especially towards the end of the sorry tale, is not good.

I doubt he didn't know about assault weapons.

Karol wrote:
So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

It does. Git gud.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
I doubt he didn't know about assault weapons.

Sure, but at a certain point it's clear his attitude was "I got beat, so I'm going to try to deny my opponent as much sportsmanship as possible to make their victory as uncomfortable as possible."

My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

I mean, there's "quit while you're ahead" and then there's this muppet. You think after being wrong about basic rules (let alone Ork rules) over and over again in each phase he'd give up* and just get on with the game.

*Well, I mean, he did give up, but you know what I mean.

This reminds me of marine players getting so salty about losing terminators to lasguns. I remember one guy in particular that just could not accept that a 2+ save did not mean 100% immunity to those pathetic little guardsmen he wanted to slaughter. Every single time he rolled a 1 he'd whine about how overpowered lasguns are, how unfair it is that they're so good at killing marines, etc. Needless to say once that game was over there was not a second game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

Ugh, please no. Passively watching the RNG decide the outcome of the game with little or no player agency is a miserable experience.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
This reminds me of marine players getting so salty about losing terminators to lasguns. I remember one guy in particular that just could not accept that a 2+ save did not mean 100% immunity to those pathetic little guardsmen he wanted to slaughter. Every single time he rolled a 1 he'd whine about how overpowered lasguns are, how unfair it is that they're so good at killing marines, etc. Needless to say once that game was over there was not a second game.

And now Lasguns wound everything in the game on a To Hit roll of a 6, so maybe he was onto something?

If you think its bad now, you've no idea how much people whined about losing terminators to lasguns back in 2nd when they rolled armor saves on 2d6. Silly times.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
This reminds me of marine players getting so salty about losing terminators to lasguns. I remember one guy in particular that just could not accept that a 2+ save did not mean 100% immunity to those pathetic little guardsmen he wanted to slaughter. Every single time he rolled a 1 he'd whine about how overpowered lasguns are, how unfair it is that they're so good at killing marines, etc. Needless to say once that game was over there was not a second game.

And now Lasguns wound everything in the game on a To Hit roll of a 6, so maybe he was onto something?

I need to point out that even with HotE, the fact that Terminators now have 3 wounds makes them way harder targets for lasguns.

You needed 36 lasguns shots to kill one Terminator back when they had 1w. Now you need 65. Without HoTE it would be 108 which shows both how strong HoTE, and also the ridiculous Marine durability creep.

-removed

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

No. Animosity is a gak rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
If you think its bad now, you've no idea how much people whined about losing terminators to lasguns back in 2nd when they rolled armor saves on 2d6. Silly times.

Hey, lasguns had AP back then, they were NASTY.

I'd have conceeded too if someone had gone WAAAAAGH during their turn...

Hecaton wrote:
Hey, lasguns had AP back then, they were NASTY.

Yeah. 2nd Ed was a time when they gave out save modifiers to far too many weapons.

Hey wait a minute...

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

Haha, hilarious, the six hour game I play twice per month with the 100+ of models I had to build, paint and lug to a location in three suitcases ended with my army exploding on it own, awesome, right?

No, it's not. Sorry, but feth that opinion. Randumb is not hilarious, there is nothing less fun that having your or your opponent's game ruined by a few dumb random rules.

There are good and fun ways to capture the feel of ork tech being unpredictable without being super swingy - bubble chukka or SJD come to mind.
Orks should absolutely be able to able to play regular games just like any other army. There is nothing random about getting hit by a choppa, getting run over by an ork vehicle or a dozens of guns pumping out a wall of lead.

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

Haha, hilarious, the six hour game I play twice per month with the 100+ of models I had to build, paint and lug to a location in three suitcases ended with my army exploding on it own, awesome, right?

No, it's not. Sorry, but feth that opinion.

Randumb is not hilarious, there is nothing less fun that having your or your opponent's game ruined by a few dumb random rules.

Besides, GW will supply plenty of random everytime they release a new CA, FAQ, Balance sheet etc.

Karol wrote:
So a guy who isn't used to playing against orks was asking for ork rules, and he had marines good units in his army, instead of bad ones, and then was not happy that he lost vs an army he didn't knew, and which after so many nerfs, he could be in the right to think it should lose to his army. And this somehow makes him the bad guy.

No.... his attitude and lack of basic manners, maturity and sportsmanship during and following the game at what the issues are with.

We see this all the time, sometimes its because people really are playing against kids who have yet to really learn and mature into those skills; sometimes they are people with more limited social skills/experiences and thus such things are, again, something they've yet to really learn to find difficulty with learning. Sometimes they are just rude people or very self centred or whatever.

Suffice it to say that sometimes such people simply need the experience, the learning and then sometimes being both shown and told how their behaviour is not appropriate and how to appropriately behave. Many times if they don't get told/shown they might well continue on being unaware of the negative elements of their behaviour.



In the end wargaming attracts all sorts from all kinds of backgrounds. Help and teach those who need to learn; welcome and keep your own manners up and if all else fails and they refused or are unable to learn; choose not to play them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

This can sound fun, but in reality its not.

Yes many of us like dice rolls to add an element of random into the game, however when the win/loss is almost purely on the dice the player starts to lose impact in the game. When it doesn't matter if you make good choices or bad; when you can't win through player skill; when you can't evaluate the end game and see where you went wrong and improve for next time. When its all the fate of the dice - you might as well put away the models and just roll dice-offs with your opponent.

It's not actually that fun to have such an extreme amount of random for one player. If both have it at least you're on a level playing field, but if one army is running fully random then it loses a lot of fun for that player for most cases.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
My take on orks is that they should never be a consistent army.

They should be good, but that "good" should be left up to the dice role, im not saying if you roll only 6 you are good i mean like they have wild wings between good and bad results.

IMO Orks should be a thing where the higher you roll in general you get a lot more buffs, and a lot more damage vs just rolling OK. So like if you roll hot orks just meme across the table. if you roll meh, its a nothing speical army, and if you roll bad its catastrophically hilarious for everyone involved, both ork player and his opponent. Things like causing mortal wounds to yourself and to your oponent at the same time if you roll reall bad.

Haha, hilarious, the six hour game I play twice per month with the 100+ of models I had to build, paint and lug to a location in three suitcases ended with my army exploding on it own, awesome, right?

No, it's not. Sorry, but feth that opinion.

Randumb is not hilarious, there is nothing less fun that having your or your opponent's game ruined by a few dumb random rules.

Besides, GW will supply plenty of random everytime they release a new CA, FAQ, Balance sheet etc.

I'd totally be down for random point costs

I think high risk/high reward is what Orks should be. Not "random", or as Jid put it, "Randumb".

On "random" it depends on what you want out of a game really.

I built a "randumb" Night Goblin army back in the day when a friend managed to get me back into fantasy for 8th's last hurrah. Between animosity, stupidity, fanatics, misfiring rock lobbas, suicidal shaman and terrible Ld scores there was a huge amount of dice rolling to work out what would happen. Sometimes things went to plan and sometimes the army tore itself to pieces. It was not a competitive army - it would have been crushed by competitive players, playing to win. But it was fun to play against weaker players mainly interested in the spectacle of the game.

The issue is though - like picking halflings in Blood Bowl, I knew what I was getting into when I put it together. There are clear issues with GW arbitrarily going "actually we've decided you are meant to be the comic relief" and writing rules on that basis (which often aren't even all that funny, they just make the unit weak) for what was a serious army before.

You then also have things like the old Deathskulls Souped up Shokka. Two thirds of the time it did absolutely nothing. One sixth or something of the time it blows up whatever you pointed it at. Its random - but who is it fun for?