|
|
Post by No One on Nov 19, 2018 3:12:22 GMT
So TOs will have to accept this interpretation of the stratagem. The issue isn't subtracting 1 from the save (i.e. AP-1) still only failing on an unmodified 1: that's fine, and is the only thing actually addressed in that FAQ. It's the fact that, RAW, even AP-200 will still only fail on an unmodified 1. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 19, 2018 13:26:35 GMT
After watching a few reports and reviews I think Sean Naden (Team USA Captain,) and the Long War guys hit it on the head. Shooting with Orkz is a trap. The buggies are all dumb, and the Battlewagon makes for a better buggy. Nevermind the stupid that are Killa Kans. The template should still be 90 Boyz, 90 Stormboyz, Gretchin to fill. Evil Suns with maybe a little Bad Moons shooting. I am happy to report that this is false. My son just won an RTT with all buggies, a battlewagon, and deffkoptas. He wasn't trying to take a gamey list, he just loaded up on buggies and wartrikes because he bought 3 of all of them and wanted to give them a whirl. He beat a thousand suns/chaos daemon list, a chaus cultists spam list with The Abaddon, and a Yannarri/Alatioc list. A 90 boyz/stormboys evil suns list only went 2-1. One or two buggies are meh, spammed buggies are an issue. Orks can shoot with the best of them now. I've been playtesting against them for pretty hard the last few weeks and I can promise you their shooting is not a trap. I heard that podcast and I was confused. What they totally are missing that is that whilst orks hit on a 5+, they get a boatload of shots, always hit on 6s no matter what (and get extra shoots) and have a strategem to do the same on 5s. Against things with a -2 to hit, they do more work than units with a 3+. The Long War guys also said that 90+ wyches was going to be the go to for Drukhari. Still haven't seen it run anywhere. (Though I did buy in and am finishing my 100 wyches as we speak.) I think we need to stop with all the group think. It's interesting to hear what others have to say, but if 8th has taught us anything, it's that netlists are next to useless. By the time a netlist wins a GT, you buy, build, and paint the models, the next best list will be out and you will be stuck with last weeks dried out meatloaf. |
|
|
|
Post by Hive Bahamut on Nov 19, 2018 19:20:09 GMT
I think the point is that they aren't going to bring the Meta anything we aren't already dealing with. Or at least mine is.
Also, we will need a showing of a few events before we can jump to conclusions. 1 event could be chalked up to perfect matchup, luck of the dice or any 1 off.
My first drop of an Abominant saw it flip a full health vehicle. If I were to count only that he is the best AT we have. On the other hand that doesn't account for bad CA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iryan on Nov 19, 2018 19:44:10 GMT
Ork Codex errata/FAQ hit today. As we expected, Loot It! got changed so that it cannot improve the armor save beyond 2+, preventing the 1+=2++ issue from coming up.
|
|
|
|
Post by autoxidation on Nov 20, 2018 1:19:45 GMT
Ork Codex errata/FAQ hit today. As we expected, Loot It! got changed so that it cannot improve the armor save beyond 2+, preventing the 1+=2++ issue from coming up. While I'm happy this is fixed, and the Ork FAQ is generally good, I'm a bit disappointed GW doesn't just rule at a result of 1 always fails. It would literally fix this problem and let units get 1+ and better armor saves, without creating more invulnerable saves. |
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 20, 2018 1:40:18 GMT
While I'm happy this is fixed, and the Ork FAQ is generally good, I'm a bit disappointed GW doesn't just rule at a result of 1 always fails. It would literally fix this problem and let units get 1+ and better armor saves, without creating more invulnerable saves. While I would also like GW to fix their rules (this didn't  ), your fix doesn't: or at least, not in the manner you intend. (It would fix the rules better for other cases, but would also be more confusing for this case). The only time a 1+ is better than a 2+ is when you roll a modified 1. If a modified 1 always failed...It's no different than a 2+. A (probably) better fix would be to remove the 'can't be modified below 1', which would allow 1+, 0+ etc to be affected by AP as normal. However, this might break something somewhere else (pretty sure it's fine for BRB, but who knows?) |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 20, 2018 3:27:03 GMT
While I'm happy this is fixed, and the Ork FAQ is generally good, I'm a bit disappointed GW doesn't just rule at a result of 1 always fails. It would literally fix this problem and let units get 1+ and better armor saves, without creating more invulnerable saves. While I would also like GW to fix their rules (this didn't ), your fix doesn't: or at least, not in the manner you intend. (It would fix the rules better for other cases, but would also be more confusing for this case). The only time a 1+ is better than a 2+ is when you roll a modified 1. If a modified 1 always failed...It's no different than a 2+. A (probably) better fix would be to remove the 'can't be modified below 1', which would allow 1+, 0+ etc to be affected by AP as normal. However, this might break something somewhere else (pretty sure it's fine for BRB, but who knows?) At least they showed that a 1+ armor save isn't supposed to be a 2++ invul save is a win for 40K. |
|
|
|
Post by tomb on Nov 20, 2018 7:04:32 GMT
I'm surprised the Ork strat the allows a unit to be recycled to full health when it jumps has not been given a reserve cost.
GW needs to look at dropping the reserve points cost to endless swarm...
Please address this GW!
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 20, 2018 7:30:21 GMT
I'm surprised the Ork strat the allows a unit to be recycled to full health when it jumps has not been given a reserve cost. It's because it's still the same unit (ala terv), rather than a new unit entirely. This is totally consistent with all of the other recycle vs new strats. Now, why GW thinks that they're equal is beyond me. Endless Swarm is, frankly just terribly designed: awful in matched, OP (seriously, 3 CP for a new unit repeatable vs 3 CP once per game, needing a unit near dead to be useful) in open. I mean, open is just terribly balanced in general, but if you're not going to balance for it in the first place, just balance for matched and give us and IG the same version... |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 20, 2018 13:11:39 GMT
Now, why GW thinks that they're equal is beyond me. I often find it hard to understand choices GW makes. (Why was the "Orktober" codex released the first week of November? Why announce Sister of Battle as imminent when the release date was at best 2 years in the future?) But then I heard Rob Symes from The Honest Wargamer talking about his days at Warhammer TV and how they just throw stuff against the wall and see what sticks. You can say, What if we try X outlandish idea? and GW will try it. This answered a lot of questions for me. If it seems like GW doesn't have a handle on the creative process or someone trying to see how all the parts fit together, you would be correct. It's a fly by the seat of the pants in terms of rolling out new product. In the end, I don't see this as a problem. Sure it can wreck havoc with our competitive playstyle and give us headaches. But it also gave us 40K. There are a ton of other gaming platforms that have come and gone that had a far tighter grip on their creative process and the in-game implications it could have. Most are in the dustbin of history. GW on the other hand has always put the primary focus on selling new product and making the best product in the marketplace. The creativity seems to allow any new wild idea to come to the table if it will sell. And it works. Whilst Privateer Press and Star Wars challenged for a bit, they have seen a real falling off. GW is the undisputed heavy weight champ of mini wargaming, so who am I judge? |
|
|
|
Post by bigpig on Nov 21, 2018 0:28:44 GMT
I'm surprised the Ork strat the allows a unit to be recycled to full health when it jumps has not been given a reserve cost. It's because it's still the same unit (ala terv), rather than a new unit entirely. This is totally consistent with all of the other recycle vs new strats. Now, why GW thinks that they're equal is beyond me. Endless Swarm is, frankly just terribly designed: awful in matched, OP (seriously, 3 CP for a new unit repeatable vs 3 CP once per game, needing a unit near dead to be useful) in open. I mean, open is just terribly balanced in general, but if you're not going to balance for it in the first place, just balance for matched and give us and IG the same version... I would pee my pants a little if GW chose to make endless swarm work just like Unstoppable Green Tide or Tide of Traitors. I feel like the forgot about us on this one. We KIND of have something similar with the Tervigon ability to replenish units, except for the fact that Tervigons are way too expensive. Hopefully CA shakes that out a bit |
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 21, 2018 1:53:29 GMT
exactly. remove the spawning mechanic completely from the tervigon, lower its points cost appropriately, and tie the spawning in with a stratagem and you've gone a long way towards fixing the terv.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 21, 2018 13:25:57 GMT
exactly. remove the spawning mechanic completely from the tervigon, lower its points cost appropriately, and tie the spawning in with a stratagem and you've gone a long way towards fixing the terv. I like it! Spend 2 CP to remove a unit of termagaunts from the table and redeploy them at original strength within 6" of a tervigon. |
|
|
|
Post by phayze on Dec 9, 2018 4:51:32 GMT
My buddy has been playing orks and hasnt lost a game yet. He's got a brutal list. Do NOT discount ork shooting, it is still incredibly strong if used correctly.
He brings deff skulls supreme command with 3 shock attack gun big meks, and a unit of tankbustas in a trukk. Then a battalion of goffs with a ton of boyz, nobz with klaws, nob with banner, and battlewagons with 2 warphead weird boyz and a kff mek. Lastly is the cover kulture battalion with a warboss on wartrike, 3 units of 10 grots for fodder, and 2 unjts of 3 mek guns. Nornslly takes tractor kannons, just recently tried smasha gunz to good effect.
Tractor kannons are incredible, and AUTO HIT. untargetable big mek with shock attack gun snipers, mek guns apply constant damage and harassment, and boyz and battlewagons blaze forward incessantly.
8 tankbustas in a trukk can kill a knight in 1 turn easily.
Stikkbomms stratagem with deff skulls reroll to wound, roll up and unload your anti tank grenades.
|
|
|
|
Post by autoxidation on Dec 9, 2018 6:02:52 GMT
My buddy has been playing orks and hasnt lost a game yet. He's got a brutal list. Do NOT discount ork shooting, it is still incredibly strong if used correctly. He brings deff skulls supreme command with 3 shock attack gun big meks, and a unit of tankbustas in a trukk. Then a battalion of goffs with a ton of boyz, nobz with klaws, nob with banner, and battlewagons with 2 warphead weird boyz and a kff mek. Lastly is the cover kulture battalion with a warboss on wartrike, 3 units of 10 grots for fodder, and 2 unjts of 3 mek guns. Nornslly takes tractor kannons, just recently tried smasha gunz to good effect. Tractor kannons are incredible, and AUTO HIT. untargetable big mek with shock attack gun snipers, mek guns apply constant damage and harassment, and boyz and battlewagons blaze forward incessantly. 8 tankbustas in a trukk can kill a knight in 1 turn easily. Stikkbomms stratagem with deff skulls reroll to wound, roll up and unload your anti tank grenades. You can't use Extra Stikkbomms on a unit in a transport. Units in transports aren't valid targets for stratagems, per the Ork FAQ. Also keep in mind the Deff skullz kultur only allows a single reroll per unit. |
|
), your fix doesn't: or at least, not in the manner you intend. (It would fix the rules better for other cases, but would also be more confusing for this case). The only time a 1+ is better than a 2+ is when you roll a modified 1. If a modified 1 always failed...It's no different than a 2+. A (probably) better fix would be to remove the 'can't be modified below 1', which would allow 1+, 0+ etc to be affected by AP as normal. However, this might break something somewhere else (pretty sure it's fine for BRB, but who knows?)
