Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 17  Next

2017 - Ork Review

 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9624
Location: Manalapan, FL
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Arguably the various bigger Walkers (Stompa and up) would want to pick up transport capacities to fit the same niches as their 40k equivalents (Gorkanought and up).

And even that's more of a variant on the stompa, just that has a transport upgrade. Would be good in the stompy onslaught list for Epic: Mechanicum. [writes himself note]

Evil and Chaos wrote:
Other than that, all units in EA are broadly analogous in role to something in 40k I think, even if the names sometimes differ.

Correct. For instance, in EA SuperStompa is the 40k Stompa analog.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:58 am
Posts: 98
Dave wrote:
The Ghaz list has all of that with the exception of the references to Tankbustas/Lootas/Flash Gits and Burnas.

Ooh, ya got me. If you ignore half the stuff that's mentioned, they're exactly the same!

Dave wrote:
I also don't agree mechanically either, 'Ere We Go makes them good at charging which EA does with Power of the Waaagh! And Mob Rule bumps their morale when numbers are high, which EA has with an identically named rule.

Let's do a quick mechanical rundown. The description you quoted is actually a pretty good representation of Orks on the tabletop in 8th, so let's start there.

Quote:
The rest of the tribe is made up of Ork mobs. Many of these fight on foot, gathering in great numbers beneath the boss-pole of one Nob or another and following them howling into battle.

Nope. The only way to run Ork mobs effectively in NetEA is to put them in a Landa. "Fighting on foot" is a complete waste of time - even if they do manage to slog across the board, a much faster unit will clip your mob and then they're stuffed.

Quote:
Other Orks hurtle to war in smoke-belching Trukks, Buggies and Battlewagons, or sitting astride snarling Warbikes.

Nope. Trukks ("Battlewagons" in EA) exist, but they're a massive liability because of the way damage kills passengers, not to mention that they're overcosted. Buggies effectively don't exist - only Skorchas do, because everything else in that class is worthless. Seen a lot of Warbikes on the table recently? There's nothing like a 40k Battlewagon in NetEA.

Quote:
Others still build huge and preposterous guns with which to shred their victims from a distance, or else charge madly into the fight spewing fire from dubious-looking flamethrowers.

Nope.

Quote:
Squadrons of hurtling aircraft, convoys of looted tanks, clanking, saw-fisted walkers and batteries of bizarre field artillery - all of these mobs and many more can be found within most Ork tribes to one degree of another.

I'll happily give you the aircraft and the field artillery. Looted tanks are a tough one to judge, given they don't exist in either game at the moment. Walkers? The Kans and Dreads are sort of there (when was the last time you saw a Dreadmob in a Ghaz list again?), Stompas could pretend to be some portion of the Gorkanaut/Morkanaut/Meka-Dread/Mega-Dread spectrum if you sort of squint a bit (but are rarely ever fielded), and Supa-Stompas can pass as Stompas. So... kind of?

If you think they're similar, that's fine, good for you. I find them nothing alike. Orks in NetEA just aren't very "Orky", and I think that's a huge shame.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Nope. The only way to run Ork mobs effectively in NetEA is to put them in a Landa. "Fighting on foot" is a complete waste of time - even if they do manage to slog across the board, a much faster unit will clip your mob and then they're stuffed.

I often use garrisoned mobs. They're arright IMO.

Quote:
Seen a lot of Warbikes on the table recently?

I take a mix of Warbikes and Skorchas in a Landa quite often. Land to shoot, rather than engage.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:56 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:58 am
Posts: 98
Evil and Chaos wrote:
I often use garrisoned mobs. They're arright IMO.

How often would you see them "howling into battle"? There's obviously a purpose to sitting on an objective, but it has nothing to do with the army playing thematically like Orks. It's basically impossible to effectively engage the enemy with an infantry mob, so all they can do is try to hold out in cover until they die. Fun!

Somehow, CC and FF seem to have been costed roughly the same, despite CC being an almost entirely useless stat unless you have an air-assault delivery mechanism and your opponent isn't using any skimmers. That's more an aspect of a larger discussion ("Clipping assault is the cancer that is killing this game") than something that could be addressed by tweaking the Ork lists, but it does disproportionately affect Ork armies.

Evil and Chaos wrote:
I take a mix of Warbikes and Skorchas in a Landa quite often. Land to shoot, rather than engage.

Based entirely on their mysteriously super-powered version of the Big Shoota, I presume. Is there a reason why sawing off the barrels of a Twin Big Shoota makes it twice as effective against armour?

Look, we could all go back-and-forth nitpicking each others' arguments about this stuff. At the end of the day, I'm not arguing that the Ork lists can't function in the game. My problem is that while Orks in NetEA might technically be able to bring a lot of similar stuff to what their 40k counterparts can bring, the way they use those things is very different, and feels wrong to me.

That's my general thematic and mechanical disconnect, built up through lots of specific differences: Boyz aren't rushing across the board in a green tide, they're disembarking from assault shuttles like Space Marines; Kanz and Dreads aren't tearing tanks apart in melee, they're just not being fielded; Battlewagons aren't heavily-armed unstoppable behemoths smashing through the enemy lines, they're small, flimsy transports like Rhinos. I could go on.

In 40k, movement allowances are generous and getting into melee is easy, so Orks can successfully use tactical approaches like Green Tides and Kan Walls. In NetEA, getting into melee on foot is basically impossible, assaults are massively weighted towards FF, and weight of numbers means almost nothing in a clipping assault. Yes, Orks can build lists that do other things instead, and compete that way... but the thing that feels wrong is that they are forced to use those un-Orky alternatives because Orky tactics don't work.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:11 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
A ambiguous reference to "orks with big guns" and another to burner boyz is no where near half of the units referenced in that paragraph. But please, heap some more derision in your response. It's really reinforcing your points and making me want to take you seriously.

The lists I use for Orks include things like foot mobs, battlewagons, dreadnoughts and warbikes which you're saying are non-options and not seen on the Epic tabletop. Again, I disagree. They're being used here and you can win with them if you play a good game. Here's four games I found where I was playing Orks:

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=29636
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=29070
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=28910
viewtopic.php?f=84&t=21488

There's instances of foot warbands engaging in CC in there, as well as doubling up to support. I look at both of those as "howling into battle" and Orkish. Do you have any games we can look at to see what you're doing/fielding?

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:23 pm
Posts: 304
Location: Newcastle, UK
Well I took what I felt to be an "orky" army to a 2 day tourney in birmingham. 4 foot warbands, a G Gargant, some Blitz brigades and some Kults of Speed. Never stood a chance in any of my 5 games. Each of my games was over in ~1.5 hours mostly due to clipping assaults. I had no landas or skorchas.

Foot warbands don't work for me without a landa. Sitting on objectives they're OK but offensively their pants. Their supporting fire isn't worth a damn either.

I don't want to have to spam landas, zzap guns n skorchas to have an effective Ork force


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:58 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Galicia
The issue more than to Orks, happens for almost every CC focused unit in the game, except for Tyranids and some more, thanks to costs, speed, deepstricking and Infiltrator, so i think we could continue it here http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... =4&t=32500

If it weren't so big of a change this should be issued,with probably a rule, like for example ...

Any unit can add xx speed (or double like Infiltrator maybe) to its charge move as long as that takes them into base to base with an enemy unit, if not the unit moves as normal.Can't be used with Infiltrator rule.

Makes sense that units for CC would move more than those that just will take some good spots for shooting in FF.

That rule won't work for air assaults, clipping and support fire and would focus units on assaulting on CC more, but would only work for mechanized formations as long as the vehicle rams into the enemy formation, where the hit allocation works here to get the hits on the infantry so the risk is lessened but most vehicles will lose its FF advantage. It is still way different and worse than Infiltrator so it wouldn't conflict that much with Tyranids' power and gameplay, after some points changes.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list


Last edited by Abetillo on Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:58 am
Posts: 98
Dave wrote:
A ambiguous reference to "orks with big guns" and another to burner boyz is no where near half of the units referenced in that paragraph. But please, heap some more derision in your response. It's really reinforcing your points and making me want to take you seriously.

That's fair, and I apologise. I hope that you'll be able to look past the hyperbole of my opening line and consider the rest of my points.

Dave wrote:
The lists I use for Orks include things like foot mobs, battlewagons, dreadnoughts and warbikes which you're saying are non-options and not seen on the Epic tabletop. Again, I disagree. They're being used here and you can win with them if you play a good game.

This is perhaps another manifestation of the "strangeness" of the Australian meta, but I have never seen lists that "fluffy" here. (Or "friendly", "thematic", whatever your preferred term is for lists that don't focus exclusively on the most optimal choices available. I don't intend that as any kind of disparagement of the skill of the players involved, it just looks like you've got a kind of "gentleman's agreement" about how nasty you make your lists.) It's probably worth noting that Space Marines and Chaos don't get that much of a look-in as "competitive" armies either - our scene (at least when I was last playing) was dominated by AMTL, Eldar and DKoK.

Dave wrote:
There's instances of foot warbands engaging in CC in there, as well as doubling up to support. I look at both of those as "howling into battle" and Orkish. Do you have any games we can look at to see what you're doing/fielding?

I don't have any recent battle reports to offer, sadly, because I haven't played the game in about two years. I played for a few years before that, but over time, the constant frustration of being forced to play my Orks in a way that I hated just to have a fleeting hope that my army could achieve anything wore me down. Every so often, I get a surge of nostalgia about some of the fantastic design elements of this game, and an urge to play... then I remember that things like clipping assaults exist, and it's immediately ruined. At that point, I drop in to the forums to see if anything has changed.

Inevitably, nothing has changed. In fact, I tend to come across people making statements to the effect that nothing should change. That's when I get really frustrated, and start making noise like this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:33 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:30 am
Posts: 1486
Location: Örebro, Sweden
A bit late to the party I guess Image

I play orks every now and then, but I haven't brought orks to any tournament. I'm not a power gamer and don't generally min max lists. Image Image

I'd like to echo some stuff said earlier. When I started getting into epic armageddon 7 years ago I started with necrons and orks. My first vision was to have loads of orks on foot. With at least one or two big size warbands. I quickly realized that it doesn't work well in epic and I think that's a shame from the background perspective. Foot warbands are mainly objective watchers, but lack offensive power.

  • I think all orks on foot should have infiltrate and perhaps even the small walkers. Thematically perhaps not so for grots, but not giving them makes for a bunch of problems. Let's just say they're more afraid of the orks at the back than the enemy Image
  • Battlewagons are to expensive for what they give. I'd suggest lowered price at least down to 30, but preferably down to 25 pts. I don't see the need to compensate by lowering their shooting it's rather crappy anyway when doubling mostly is taken into account.
  • Stompas need a price decrease not just the formation, but also as upgrades. 50-60 pts perhaps.
  • Epic-uk shields for fortresses please.


Last edited by Borka on Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:15 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
I don't think anyone's saying that nothig will change, kadeton. The purpose of this thread is for Tim to come up with things we'd like to change. It likely won't be as comprehensive as you want or think you want, but the list is used all over the world and that has to be taken into account.

Given what information you've posted, I'll say getting a Great Gargant to perform in a 3k tournament is tough. Anything over 500 points, for that matter, is tough. Even if you're getting 10-11 activations they're going to average 225 points, which can be hard to get late game use out of them for Orks. You want your formations to be able to take advantage of Mob Rule inspite of losses, which Orks will suffer as they close.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:26 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6353
Location: Leicester UK
I do like the idea for orks being given infiltrator to represent their screaming charge (in the same way as rough riders have it) and to give them a better chance of getting into BTB

Having said that I've never had a problem mechanising them, EUK battleforts with power fields are fantastic, and you can often easily leave the orks mounted in relative safety to give you a big, bargey 30cm engage move

Very few infantry types in the game are effective without some form of transport, this is not a problem solely confined to the orks....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:58 am
Posts: 98
Dave wrote:
I don't think anyone's saying that nothig will change, kadeton. The purpose of this thread is for Tim to come up with things we'd like to change. It likely won't be as comprehensive as you want or think you want, but the list is used all over the world and that has to be taken into account.

Yep, sure. I mean... it's not the first time I've heard that, is all I'm saying. Very little has changed so far, at least from my perspective.

I think I might read too much into statements like "no new units", "no added special rules", "no changes to existing rules" (all said by Tim or yourself in this thread). To me, taken together, that sounds a lot like "no meaningful changes". It just makes me think, well, what does that leave? Adjustments to points costs? I can't really see how making units whose gameplay is fundamentally broken cheaper is going to help.

That said, I do understand and appreciate the cautious approach. I just think this community has a tendency to be extremely cautious, to the point of paralysis. Many of the complaints in this thread have been consistently voiced for many years.

Dave wrote:
Given what information you've posted, I'll say getting a Great Gargant to perform in a 3k tournament is tough. Anything over 500 points, for that matter, is tough. Even if you're getting 10-11 activations they're going to average 225 points, which can be hard to get late game use out of them for Orks. You want your formations to be able to take advantage of Mob Rule inspite of losses, which Orks will suffer as they close.

Yeah, I really wanted to make Gargants work... I agitated for the Gargant Bigmob list to be picked back up from the abandoned pile, to the point where Mordoten was kind enough to resurrect it, and has done great work with since. That said, I agree - expensive single models do not really work in this game, which is yet another consistently-raised complaint for which no fix has so far been attempted.

The lists I was running towards the end of my time with the game looked like all the other Ghaz lists people post up here... Landas, Skorchas, Fighta-Bommas, the usual. They worked fine, but I could never really summon much enthusiasm to play them, so I never had much success.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3338
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
I just want to echo E&C:s view on giving infiltrate to boyz, grots and nobz. It's a pretty small and very much needed change that wont affect anyones collection, wont cause tinkering with points or stat-numbers and is pretty elegant.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:39 am
Posts: 1097
Location: Alleroed, Denmark
kadeton wrote:
It just makes me think, well, what does that leave? Adjustments to points costs? I can't really see how making units whose gameplay is fundamentally broken cheaper is going to help.


Call me a neo-classical economist, but I think adjustments to point costs ("prices") is all that is necessary to fix internal balance in any list ("the market"). ;)

For example, if the cost of a warband dropped to 150/250/350 and the cost of a landa rose to 250, the ubiquitous "landa mob" would still be as expensive, but since the warband is now close to spam prices, we would see a lot more of them - they are now much closer to the price of a "naked" activation.

Moving the price to 175/300/400 (with the Landa at 225) would be a reasonable first step. At this point, I think using foot Warbands for assaults become interesting - at the price, you should be able to field enough that you can set up more possible engagements than your opponent can deal with in their first activations - barring clever scout screens and similar tactical finesses. Yes, you'll lose warbands to clipping assaults, but you will also have foot warbands getting into CC.

Similarly for Gunwagons and Zzapguns. Change the cost of the Blitz Brigade to 125/200/275 and change the cost of the Oddboy to 75, and maybe you'll see ramshackle tanks without superguns for a change.

I think it would go some way towards making the list a bit more tide-of-green and a bit less Orky-tech parade...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2017 - Ork Review
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20886
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Call me a neo-classical economist, but I think adjustments to point costs ("prices") is all that is necessary to fix internal balance in any list ("the market"). ;)

For example, if the cost of a warband dropped to 150/250/350 and the cost of a landa rose to 250, the ubiquitous "landa mob" would still be as expensive, but since the warband is now close to spam prices, we would see a lot more of them - they are now much closer to the price of a "naked" activation


On the other hand, that nerfs every other Landa-bourne formation type (eg my favourite bikes & skorchas).

Which means capitalism has failed and we need immediate communism, obviously.

Quote:
Similarly for Gunwagons and Zzapguns. Change the cost of the Blitz Brigade to 125/200/275 and change the cost of the Oddboy to 75, and maybe you'll see ramshackle tanks without superguns for a change.

Although, I actually like this one.

Third Way economics to the rescue!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 246 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 17  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net