Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Rules Questions => Topic started by: Admiral_d_Artagnan on October 08, 2010, 10:22:59 PM
-
This thread is for every GW players favorite green race, the Orkz. Voice your concerns here and maybe we can finally sort this race out into something that's fluffy and can better compete.
Personally I think they should be a race which has lotsa Dakka but can't hit the side of a barn and requires massed firepower to get the hits in. So as a race, they should have the most guns on any ship class and ordnance but they should have a negative modifer when it comes to hitting.
For example. WBs vs a 5+ armored ship would be hitting at 6+ instead. Lances are rare with the Orks. Should be hitting at 5+ instead (6+ vs holofields). Ordnance, same as the WBs. Exception would be the Assault Boats (which they should have) and boarding torps. They should get better chances for crits as well as to board.
Armaments should get at least 1/3 increase in strength as well as Launch Bay and Torpedo strength. Maybe even half. Probably not double. Majority of the weapons should be in the 30 cm range. The battlekroozas and battlezhipz limited to 45 cm. Their FBs can now follow the standard Bomber rules with Fighter Suppression since they will need higher rolls to hit. So (D3-turrets)+Modifier (whatever the final decision is, +2 or +3). Their ordnance should be able to rival if not exceed Tau at the expense of efficiency.
Defensively, they should retain the Shield Strength and Armor setup. They should however get an increase in turret strength but requiring a 5+ to hit vs regular ordnance, 6+ vs holofields. I'm also thinking they should get more HP per class but they suffer crits on 4+ because of their haphazard design.
Their ships could do with a bit more speed but not as fast as Eldar or DE. Possibly 5 cm more than IN per ship class.
Special Orders-wise, retain the no need to pass Command Check for AAF.
I'm thinking each escort should get another 5 point discount but their cap ships should get an increase. This is to encourage the Swarm mentality.
Those are starters for now. Not saying they're all correct. With colloboration, we should be able to hash out something which will do Orks justice so further suggestions and comments as well as critiques would be welcome.
-
This thread is for every GW players favorite green race, the Orkz. Voice your concerns here and maybe we can finally sort this race out into something that's fluffy and can better compete.
Personally I think they should be a race which has lotsa Dakka but can't hit the side of a barn and requires massed firepower to get the hits in. So as a race, they should have the most guns on any ship class and ordnance but they should have a negative modifer when it comes to hitting.
For example. WBs vs a 5+ armored ship would be hitting at 6+ instead. Lances are rare with the Orks. Should be hitting at 5+ instead (6+ vs holofields). Ordnance, same as the WBs. Exception would be the Assault Boats (which they should have) and boarding torps. They should get better chances for crits as well as to board.
Armaments should get at least 1/3 increase in strength as well as Launch Bay and Torpedo strength. Maybe even half. Probably not double. Majority of the weapons should be in the 30 cm range. The battlekroozas and battlezhipz limited to 45 cm. Their FBs can now follow the standard Bomber rules with Fighter Suppression since they will need higher rolls to hit. So (D3-turrets)+Modifier (whatever the final decision is, +2 or +3). Their ordnance should be able to rival if not exceed Tau at the expense of efficiency.
Defensively, they should retain the Shield Strength and Armor setup. They should however get an increase in turret strength but requiring a 5+ to hit vs regular ordnance, 6+ vs holofields. I'm also thinking they should get more HP per class but they suffer crits on 4+ because of their haphazard design.
Their ships could do with a bit more speed but not as fast as Eldar or DE. Possibly 5 cm more than IN per ship class.
Special Orders-wise, retain the no need to pass Command Check for AAF.
I'm thinking each escort should get another 5 point discount but their cap ships should get an increase. This is to encourage the Swarm mentality.
Those are starters for now. Not saying they're all correct. With colloboration, we should be able to hash out something which will do Orks justice so further suggestions and comments as well as critiques would be welcome.
I will comment more on this, but I definitly overall support giving orks a boost. Its pretty boring when the fleet is only all about boarding actions to get the win.
And bring back fighta-bomba's! More in depth comments on this later, Admiral.
-
No discount for Brutes ! Don´t get me wrong, I started BfG with Orks and own about 80 Brutes myself for they are great, but to lower them to 20 Points is to much of a boost for this ship.
-
The ONLY boost i can see for them is to give them some help ramming. While it's a definitively orky tactic, it's a pain in the arse for orks to ram a ship of the same size. The only real benefit i would add to them is a +1 ld when attempting to ram a target of equal or greater size.
-
Inspiration smacked me while I was at work. Give Orks more gunz, makes sense. I don't know if I like random dice with this though, I'm not sure.
Instead of working out a '6+ instead of 5+' system or anything like that, I think the simple solution would be 'Ork gunz always suffer a right column shift'. This allows you more gunz, but you only 'hit normally' when you close to close brutal firing range, very orky.
It also would explain why heavy gunz dont get a left column shift.
-
Allow irks to reroll lock on special order fleet wide or with warbosses
-
Why don't we replace all of their batteries with d6+2 lances at 60cm?
-
Orks are a very blunt race, zelnik. They don't understand lances as its not built into them, and is much too precision based, except on that one special battleship, which is a unique example. Its a fluff thing.
-
LS, you forgot to get your sarcasm detector online.
;)
-
Orks were designed with built in biologic ability
In bfg they have auto aaf
If you want them stronger without changing the stats then one way to do so would be to give them something similar. Another auto pass special order would be too much but something like a +1 for lock on with warbosses would be reasonable since warbosses don't give any leadership boost do they?
-
They just need more guns. Not the lances variety but guns. And swarms and swarms of AC.
-
no they dont fracas, so that would be interesting. Why don't warbosses give any kind of LD increase? Any reason why they shouldnt?
Orks literally coined the term 'more dakka' and certainly believe in quantity over quality. So more guns would certainly be good.
Does the randomness stay? Would a right shift balance out the guns? More attack craft would be cool as well,if we keep fighta bommas as in the latest errata.
As to speed, im not sure, Admiral. On one hand, one does wonder how Ork raiders catch ships while going so slow, and Orks do love speed.
I just wonder if they have the tech to reach 25cm on most of their escorts and kroozers, or have a normal AAF. Worth cosidering though.
-
What about +5cm Speed if they don´t turn that movement phase ;D
-
That...is certainly an interesting mechanic idea.
-
more guns vs lock on?
a lock on bonus of +1 would not change any ship stats published, compensate a little for their poor leadership, and would force a choice between all ahead full vs lock on
-
Okay, now that the Tau, Space Marines and Rogue Traders are on the street to see how they settle in the wash, we should have a draft of the FAQ out by later tonight.
The next project we have in the hopper is the Ork Klans list featured in Fanatic Magazine #5. This was one of the big projects some of the designers wanted to have cemented, but some of the otherwise excellent ideas in that article were not smoothly executed, and it was not made official before Specialist Games shut down. Here's the opening salvo:
- basic rules concerning the Orks will not be changed, such as their free AAF, poor leadership, etc.
- current capital ship profiles will NOT be changed.
- no new special order mechanic will be added to their core rules, such as freely re-rolling CTNH, etc.
- other stuff I can't think of right now.
However, here are some things we DO want to examine, maybe adjust and/or possibly introduce:
- minor tweaks to the escort profiles, as suggested in the Fanatic article.
- minor tweaks to what each klan can and can’t have, as well as what it should cost.
- Adding gubbinz that can be taken, such as a cleaned up version of WS Boyd’s Shokk Attack Lance and the Klaws refit from the 2001 Armageddon Ork fleet list.
- Introduction of the Grunt escort, as well as entertaining other escort ideas from the fans. The Orks should have the most varied escort fleet in the whole game, as every Nob and Mekboss out there is looking to make his stamp in the ‘ooniverse, and if ‘is ship haz some pretty good gubbinz, it’z likely to get copied!
- Caveats on Ork escorts- if someone has a cool idea, fit it inside a 40-point limit.
- The Gouga Lite Kroozer made perfect sense and is fluff true. Not every Nob or Mekboss starts out with a big ship ta terrorize the starz! Som’ Nob’s gottta start small an’ work ‘dere way up by swiping more hulls and whatnot! Caveat: the Gouga still counts as a kroozer so in kroozer-limited fleet lists, it’s like trying to pick between a Dictator and a Dauntless. However in smaller battles it might prove just the trick.
There are other things I’m not even thinking right now, as well as plenty of ideas, complaints, etc. that have been addressed on this thread and elsewhere on this forum. Now’s the time to bring it up!
Blindfold on and cigarette in mouth, I await your bolter rounds, shuriken shards, etc.
- Nate
-
Hi Nate,
your mission should be:
"How to make Orks competitive enough so they do not need to have a fleet made up of 4 Terror Kroozers or more in 1500pts."
-
Hi Nate,
your mission should be:
"How to make Orks competitive enough so they do not need to have a fleet made up of 4 Terror Kroozers or more in 1500pts."
We have a few ideas on how to make that happen, particularly from the Fanatic #5 Klans article. What other suggestions do you have? Keep in mind the Kill Kroozer, Terror ship, Hammer and battleships are not changing. The Ork's core rules are not changing either. Other than that, all suggestions are welcome.
You know something? I happen to love Orks, and Ray Bell in particular can tell you how lovingly detailed (and large!) my Ork fleet is. I rarely take more than two Terror Ships in 1500 points, but I am a BIG fan of escorts, LOTS of escorts! For 1500 points I will take two Terror Ships, a Kill Kroozer, four Roks (yep, FOUR), and all the rest Ork escorts, about half Brutes and half a mix of the bigger ones. Put the Roks in squads by themselves and write them off as destined to die. They will, but your opponent will spend so much energy afraid to let those things get behind his gun line because of how much slower they are than everything else, it forces him to split his firepower. Roks at 80 points a pop are the secret basement-bargain ship of the whole game! I have eight built and painted, but I rarely use more than four except in really big games because more than that, it almost feels like cheating. :)
- Nate
-
I would just negate the Roks and focus on other stuff.
Have you read the Ork Tactica in Warp Rift 29?
The key to Ork victory is Terror Kroozers.
-
I'd like to see an escort with an ' afta burna' that gives a half speed move but lets it fire the rear engines as a15 cm s1 lance in the rear arc or something.
-
Why no plans to revise the capital ships? Oh well, house rules are still fun :)
-
I really don't understand why either. And not only for one or two races but every race.
There's no more plans to print the books.
Everything is now Living Rulebook or Online.
It shouldn't be that hard to change problem ships or fleet lists.
Another mini company went on a major revision of almost every model it had in its lineup and they STILL printed books afterwards. I don't see any reason why ships should not be changed as long as it fits the fluff and the rules are not OTT.
-
If this really is the case, all agreed this thread can be for a competative houserule set?
-
If this really is the case, all agreed this thread can be for a competative houserule set?
How about this: if I could design a variant Kill Kroozer or Terror ship, what would it look like?
The Ork Klans rules lets you pay to swap heavy gunz for 30cm lances (15cm on escorts).
The 'Ammer lets you have B-cannon OR torps, at the same time! unlike the named battleships, there's no limit on 'Ammers except the two kroozers for one 'Ammer rule.
With all the Mad Meks and Warbosses, I'm sure there are kroozers and Terrors out there that don't fit the norm. Ideas?
- Nate
-
I really don't understand why either. And not only for one or two races but every race.
There's no more plans to print the books.
Everything is now Living Rulebook or Online.
It shouldn't be that hard to change problem ships or fleet lists.
Another mini company went on a major revision of almost every model it had in its lineup and they STILL printed books afterwards. I don't see any reason why ships should not be changed as long as it fits the fluff and the rules are not OTT.
Agreed. I'm sure that if the community and HAs came up with a fun, balanced and fluffy set of rules and profiles for all races and models in a single comprehensive and professional document and then submitted it to SG they'd be amenable to officially stamping it BFG 2.0. Likely get a plug in White Dwarf and front page ad space on all the GW websites.
-
2.0 needs to happen. If not, then I fully plan on the tedious task of adding all the errata and original rules together in a revised core rule pdf, with revised race rules as well, for the sake of my playgroup :)
-
With all the revision GW should repackage and sell it as 2.0
Yes sell it
-
With all the revision GW should repackage and sell it as 2.0
Yes sell it
Okay folks, here's what's going on, and I'm skirting the edge of what we can talk about and what we can't. BFG 2.0 almost happened. I mean really really almost happened, with Andy C and Matt Keefe elbow-deep into it. As the Living Rulebook was being created, the new Nova Cannon and Reload ordnance rules were but a first step in what was supposed to eventually be BFG 2.0. Instead of changing any of the profiles, significant changes were going to happen to the core rule-set that would have made the profiles (in their unchanged form) behave significantly different than they do now. Imagine race-specific weapon battery behavior, violent boarding actions, recalibrated ordnance, etc. The debates were completed and the rule-set was about 90% solidified just before (unfortunately) everything was unplugged, the reasons for which are beyond the scope of this post.
That option is now gone, and if one interpretes our NDA in the strictest sense, all those materials are not to see the light of day. What we are trying to do with the new FAQ/Errata/Additions is to incorporate small tweaks and changes to make the game better without tapping too deeply into the rule sets we are longer supposed to access. Think of the 2010 FAQ/Errata more as BFG 1.5 than a re-vamp of the entire game.
As per our guidance straight from design leadership, BFG is NOT to be re-written. The point of the FAQ/Errata/Additions is to incorporate as much change as we can without violating that guidance. The more skewered to the left or the right we take this thing, the greater the possibility exists the improvements we are trying to make will simply be rejected.
Here's my master plan. I say "my" only because I freely admit it's wishful thinking, and I have NOT conversed this with the other HA's. The Eldar refits and three draft rule packages are just the first salvo in a group of small projects the HA's are going to be working on in the next few months to address everything in the game still left unfinished. Once that's complete and we push it to the GW website, we are hoping the renewened interest provides them the incentive to let us crack open the core rule-set. if THAT happens and we get permission to make public our materials on BFG 2.0, we can post everything here, and the fans can pick at it as we please. Imagine it- a revised BFG rebuilt from the ground up with full input from the fans themselves.
Baby steps, everyone. Baby steps will get us there.
This post was not reviewed by or discussed with any of the other HA's before I posted it. I bear full and sole responsibility for any consequences of this post.
- Nate
-
Thanks for the info
-
Oh frick, GW are really a bunch of.... <removed>.
If memory serves me right BFG2.0 was in process before the latest rulebook. The latest rulebook took on the mayor wishes like Nova Cannon and Ordnance limits (yay all). Some point changes (eg Styx, Emperor-Retribution) players asked for and point + profile (!) changes no one asked for (Orks) (Blame Andy C himself I think).
Many wondered if it was the new 2.0 but if memory serves it was Bob who called it 1.5*.
That 1.5 rulebook is a bad book. Look at the Nova Cannon: rules with scatter, diagram with guess. Point swaps not in all places. Rules forgotten: Repulsive shield. Rules forgotten and only recently Ray found out (the asteroid field rules on AAF). Some other things.
The book was a bad decision in hindsight.
* If the current book is 1.5 then the FAQ2010 makes it more or less 1.75.
What I find is odd why GW is so secure on the rules not being shown/used. I mean, back then it costed them money, now they could just make em free. Have a freelance HA and fans chew and work on it. Do all the work for them and only host the pdf's without makings costs to create a bound book.
Also Nate, you did not give anything away so your NDA remains safe. You just confirmed what many already thought to believe. :)
Although some changes you hinted are are extremely worrying ;)
But I approve of the HA's approach.
I don't know who is the guidance setter is for BFG from the GW team but Jervis has allowed the Epic: Armageddon team to do a lot of work and changes to the core rules.
I would find it cool if the GW responsible would show up and explain why changes are not allowed. Okay, given, as long as the blue book is being produced/sold changes are indeed off limtis.
-
Thanks for the info, Nate, and for reminding me that this is indeed a GW game, with all the red tape idiocy that comes with it :)
I would love to hear what their reasoning is too. I don't suppose you could give us some 2.0 info in the use as house rules?
I would really love to see what you came up with, for now.
Edit: So, if we fail to get anything more than a minor change to Orks, besides core stats, can we move ahead with an alternate list for those who dont like it? ORK MMS!
'Maybe Move Sometimes'
-
ORK MMS!
'Maybe Move Sometimes'
:D
-
Oh frick, GW are really a bunch of.... <removed>.
If memory serves me right BFG2.0 was in process before the latest rulebook. The latest rulebook took on the mayor wishes like Nova Cannon and Ordnance limits (yay all). Some point changes (eg Styx, Emperor-Retribution) players asked for and point + profile (!) changes no one asked for (Orks) (Blame Andy C himself I think).
Many wondered if it was the new 2.0 but if memory serves it was Bob who called it 1.5*.
That 1.5 rulebook is a bad book. Look at the Nova Cannon: rules with scatter, diagram with guess. Point swaps not in all places. Rules forgotten: Repulsive shield. Rules forgotten and only recently Ray found out (the asteroid field rules on AAF). Some other things.
The book was a bad decision in hindsight.
* If the current book is 1.5 then the FAQ2010 makes it more or less 1.75.
What I find is odd why GW is so secure on the rules not being shown/used. I mean, back then it costed them money, now they could just make em free. Have a freelance HA and fans chew and work on it. Do all the work for them and only host the pdf's without makings costs to create a bound book.
Also Nate, you did not give anything away so your NDA remains safe. You just confirmed what many already thought to believe. :)
Although some changes you hinted are are extremely worrying ;)
But I approve of the HA's approach.
I don't know who is the guidance setter is for BFG from the GW team but Jervis has allowed the Epic: Armageddon team to do a lot of work and changes to the core rules.
I would find it cool if the GW responsible would show up and explain why changes are not allowed. Okay, given, as long as the blue book is being produced/sold changes are indeed off limtis.
You are correct, the current rulebook is technically BFG 1.5. In fact, the 2007 Errata at one point was called exactly that. I guess you can say the end state of what we are doing can be called BFG 1.7 or whatnot. I was just calling it BFG 2010 and holding off on the version change until we can (maybe) incorporate some of the REAL goodies later on.
The new rulebook did have a number of glaring omissions. Ray and I had a rather surreal arugment recently where he was referring to a new rulebook and I was referring to an old rulebook concerning at what point ships are in contact with celestial phenomena until we both figured out that at some point a vitally important rule concerning this had been accidentally snipped out of the new rules!
The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.
- Nate
-
Hi,
... until we can (maybe) incorporate some of the REAL goodies later on.
heh heh. You know us and what we can do with the goodies if we do not like them (aka to much or to less sugar on it). ;)
Oh and before you hint at it: we like the gunnery table we do not want to see it replaced with that modifier system.
(iirc take battery strength of vessel, roll those dice (10 on a Murder), add +1 or -1 for range of whatever etc).
This was a thing your previous HA (Andy) was working on for BFG 2.0. And I didn't like it. :)
The new rulebook did have a number of glaring omissions. Ray and I had a rather surreal arugment recently where he was referring to a new rulebook and I was referring to an old rulebook concerning at what point ships are in contact with celestial phenomena until we both figured out that at some point a vitally important rule concerning this had been accidentally snipped out of the new rules!
tsssk sloppy editing. ;)
The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.
In contrast to the old Space Marines pdf from Andy, Matt and Gavin(?) this Ork Klanz pdf has a more forgotten obscure status. If I recall the fan reception on it was not very good. I could be mistaken though. Shortly after Andy went to Red Star Games.
I recall I recall way too many things.
-
The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.
- Nate
All 40 points is a bad thing for filling point gaps in a fleetlist. We still use the old BBB stats for Ork escorts because of this.
-
Okay, now that the Tau, Space Marines and Rogue Traders are on the street to see how they settle in the wash, we should have a draft of the FAQ out by later tonight.
Will it be on GW´s site or here somewhere?
The next project we have in the hopper is the Ork Klans list featured in Fanatic Magazine #5. This was one of the big projects some of the designers wanted to have cemented, but some of the otherwise excellent ideas in that article were not smoothly executed, and it was not made official before Specialist Games shut down.
I like that list. But I have to say the hole "need to take this and that many skwadrons" per rerolls made it quite useless imo. The cheap rerolls is something the orks really need, but with that requirement they become very expensive. DON`T use that part, but some of the other ideas in it were nice.
cheers
-
The new Ork escort profiles were driven by Andy C but for an important reason- the intent was for the big escorts to be "fixed" in that they didn't work as intended and in some cases were too expensive. Now they have a flat price and fill their intended roles much better, with the Savage getting a speed boost so it can close more quickly with its short-ranged guns (this thing is now brutal when used with Brutes) and the Ravager getting an extra turret to justify its +5 points. 45 points is simply too expensive for an Ork escort so the Onslaught was brought down to 40, and for this he brought the maximum firepower down a bit. Considering how small the change was, the Onslaught as a whole was improved. This thing is still a beast when used in large squadrons, and we're hoping to capitalize on this in one of our projects soon.
- Nate
All 40 points is a bad thing for filling point gaps in a fleetlist. We still use the old BBB stats for Ork escorts because of this.
Aah, good point. I'll be honest, I was thinking of improving the Grunt and making it 40 points as well, leaving the Brute to be the only "flesh-out" escort in the fleet because it serves this purpose well. We'll take this on board and leave the Grunt 35 points. Any other thoughts?
- Nate
-
Okay, now that the Tau, Space Marines and Rogue Traders are on the street to see how they settle in the wash, we should have a draft of the FAQ out by later tonight.
Will it be on GW´s site or here somewhere?
The next project we have in the hopper is the Ork Klans list featured in Fanatic Magazine #5. This was one of the big projects some of the designers wanted to have cemented, but some of the otherwise excellent ideas in that article were not smoothly executed, and it was not made official before Specialist Games shut down.
I like that list. But I have to say the hole "need to take this and that many skwadrons" per rerolls made it quite useless imo. The cheap rerolls is something the orks really need, but with that requirement they become very expensive. DON`T use that part, but some of the other ideas in it were nice.
cheers
That will be one of the primary things we will be fixing, as that part in particular was not very smoothly executed. The intent is for all the projects we are working on to be posted on the GW resources site once they come out of draft form, which will take a little while to be sure everyone's already seen it and we have all the kinks worked out.
- Nate
-
Oh, hi Nate,
fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.
Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.
-
Oh, hi Nate,
fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.
Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.
I agree, keep the FAQ 2007 rules.
But if you do go with the proposed change, please rewrite the example about FB attacking the emperor. I do think i get what you mean
but that part is quite confusing.
cheers
-
Oh, hi Nate,
fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.
Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.
I agree, keep the FAQ 2007 rules.
But if you do go with the proposed change, please rewrite the example about FB attacking the emperor. I do think i get what you mean
but that part is quite confusing.
cheers
We can look into making this exactly right, and now's a good time to investigate this further since we're working on Orks right now. That being said, the FAQ2007 rules made the Orks absurd in that it could be interpreted that the more turrets they faced the more powerful FB's actually became! How can it be that FB's are actually MORE effective against an Emperor battleship than they are against say a Murder?
Thank's for bring it up- we'll get it fixed. It may not be exactly like 2007, but if the 2010 rules still don't work, we need to get it fixed. I have a 4,500-point Ork fleet I love very much, and I want them to be right as well!
- Nate
-
The FAQ2010 rules, I also playtested this in a real encounter with the AdMech (me), and made fighter bombers just laughable weak.
There is nothing wrong for Orks to get a lot of attacks. But you say that interpretation could lead to... then the wording was unclear. It was, but the two paragraphs in FAQ2010 are weird and contradicting as well. ;)
But good to see it adressed.
-
The FAQ2010 rules, I also playtested this in a real encounter with the AdMech (me), and made fighter bombers just laughable weak.
There is nothing wrong for Orks to get a lot of attacks. But you say that interpretation could lead to... then the wording was unclear. It was, but the two paragraphs in FAQ2010 are weird and contradicting as well. ;)
But good to see it adressed.
Well THAT was a fast reply! I actualy have a playtesting session this afternoon with my son to make sure the Tau and Space Marines are stapled shut. We can work this in as well.
Here's how we do play-testing, to use the Ork FB's as an example. It makes the game a bit monotonous and bookkeeping-intensive, but in the end it makes things right. When comparing a given set of rules with a proposed set of rules (say two Terror Ships against an Emperor BB and some escorts), every attack with FB's is rolled three times with old rules and then three times with test rules, with all scores kept separately.
We keep doing this for every turn until the game ends. It gets REALLY complicated about halfway in when the ship is crippled in some columns but still fully up in others, in which case we ignore movement restrictions for being crippled but keep turrets/launchbays/etc. since they apply to FB's. Like I said, it can get very slide-rule-ish in a big hurry, but this is in my mind the ONLY real way to test rules.
- Nate
-
Ah heck,just do it. ;)
Last week we showed someone a bombing run (after finishing the introduction game without attack craft) between a Styx & Dragonship doing no measured movement. The Styx got a fair share of hits har har.
Your opponent(s) must be a good fellow to endure all these tests based upon feedback from some internet people. ;)
-
i like it in the rules, but how do you exactly justify the fighta bombas doing fighter and bombing duty at the same time, 'real world' ?
-
We can look into making this exactly right, and now's a good time to investigate this further since we're working on Orks right now. That being said, the FAQ2007 rules made the Orks absurd in that it could be interpreted that the more turrets they faced the more powerful FB's actually became! How can it be that FB's are actually MORE effective against an Emperor battleship than they are against say a Murder?
Thank's for bring it up- we'll get it fixed. It may not be exactly like 2007, but if the 2010 rules still don't work, we need to get it fixed. I have a 4,500-point Ork fleet I love very much, and I want them to be right as well!
- Nate
Battleship big. Even Orks are not that blind that they can't dump more attacks onto a big target. More attacks is good. Make them less efficient when conducting the attacks. Any Ork attack for that matter.
-
Well, I will push for making it easier for orks to ram, perhaps a bonus to LD to ram if they do a ramming+boarding action at the same time?
-
u can ram and board?
-
As long as your AAF lands on another ship's base, yes you can Ram and Board.
-
So each fightabomber is acting as a fighter and bomber at the same time? Suppressing turrets for it's own bombing runs?
-
@Hymirl
Fightabommas have their own rules
-
Seeing as ramming and boarding are preactically the cornerstone of the fleet, and large bases are recommended, why not give them a little help with the bashy?
-
Where do I find the 2007 FAQ and the current rules for fightabombas. Currently I don't really understand how they work at the moment?
-
The current rules for fightabomba's are as such:
Fighta-bomba's act as both fighters and bombers. when attacking a ship, roll 1d3 per counter that survives turrets.
fighta bomba's negate turret surpression by 3. So any vessel with 3 turrets or less DO NOT SURPRESS fighta bomba's at all. 4 turrets surpress 1 attack, 5 surpress 2, 6 surpress fighta bomba's entirely.
-
That's not actually how it works for fighta-bommerz:
Direct from FAQ2010:
Fighta-Bommas: Fighta-Bommas are fighters with a speed of 25cm. They may also attack like bombers with D3 attack runs instead of D6. Fighta-Bommas count as having +3 to turret suppression. E.g. If a wave of 4 Fighta-Bommas attacks a cruiser with 2 turrets they will have (D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+ turret suppression(2) attack runs. Note: If each Fighta-Bomma marker attacks individually they will have (D3-2)+ turret suppression(2) attack runs, which is far more offensive.
Fighta-Bommas and turret suppression: When a wave of fighta-bommas attacks a ship you must decide if any of the markers will forgo their attack runs in favour of turret suppression. This is in addition to the inbuilt +3 fighter suppression.
This is yet another reason why the turret suppression system needs to change to something more sensible.
-
FAQ2007 = current = what Zelnik says.
;)
-
I say just leave them as they are. It provides Orks a much needed Super-punchy attack method that still has the strong "unreliable" nature of the orks (namely in reloading their ships, with an average of ld 7). Kill Krooza's should be the things that get a significant boost, perhaps to increase the gunz to d6+4 and st 8 Heavy gunz, make them actually a "kill krooza" instead of a "lump of metal with a bottle rocket on the end"
-
So, I went and looked at the 2007 FAQ and I really don't remember the FB rule being worded that way. I could swear it used the phrase "+3 turret suppression". Is there more than one version of the 2007 FAQ floating around? Also, I don't see any mention of how turret suppression works for normal fighters in a bomber wave in there. Is it actually in the rule book? Am I just blind?
-
So, I went and looked at the 2007 FAQ and I really don't remember the FB rule being worded that way. I could swear it used the phrase "+3 turret suppression". Is there more than one version of the 2007 FAQ floating around? Also, I don't see any mention of how turret suppression works for normal fighters in a bomber wave in there. Is it actually in the rule book? Am I just blind?
No you haven't missed it. It's not in the rulebook and it's not in the 2007 FAQ either. I think the rule in the beginning came from one of the BFG magazine issues.
-
How about this: if I could design a variant Kill Kroozer or Terror ship, what would it look like? ... With all the Mad Meks and Warbosses, I'm sure there are kroozers and Terrors out there that don't fit the norm. Ideas?
- Nate
An “assault cruiser†would be an interesting variant. What I mean by that is a cruiser which is designed for the purpose of boarding other vessels or assaulting space stations. For example it might be particularly adept at teleport attacks, boarding actions, hit and run, boarding torpedo's and the use of assault boats. Basically a ship designed for the purpose of getting the boyz onto an enemy ship/station. This is also very orky.
fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.
Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.
I tried the new proposed fighter bomber rules and have to concur with Horizon. Please take a good hard look at these or let us keep the ’07 rules.
Finally, since you were asking for thoughts on escorts I wanted to chime in. I read where you are a fan of the use of escorts. As you already know, I am sure, this sentiment is not reflected by the Ork BFG community in large part. Ork escorts need serious help. However, the primary issue I have found in using them effectively is the limitation of having a 45 degree turn and only front fire weapons. This makes out maneuvering them very easily for other escorts and makes it significantly more difficult to keep targets in your field of fire. I believe that giving them a 90 degree turn like other escorts or an expanded firing arc (180 or 270) would be a very quick and easy way to put the punch back into ork escorts.
Regardless of what you are able to do I do hope that you are able to adjust the ork fleet so that it will have a solid diversity of effective fleet builds.
Thanks for your hard work,
Redd
-
I came up with another fun idea the other day.. allow orks to shoot and blow up their own hulks!
-
Redd, I agree with you about ork escorts. And the assault kroozer is an interesting idea. Maybe 6+ armor all around, ramming gear, very little real weaponry, and such.
Zelnik, I don't like it. What would be the fluff purpose?
-
Assault Kroozer . . . . . . . . 175 pts
Hits/10 Shields/1 Turrets/1 Speed/25cm Turns/45* Armor/ 6+, 5+ Rear
Armament: Range/Speed: Firepower/Strength: Fire Arc:
Prow Torpedoes: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Prow Weapons Batteries: 45cm: D6+2: Front
Port Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Starboard Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Notes:
-Equipped with Boarding Torpedoes
-Equipped with Power Ram
-May conduct up to 2 teleport attacks per turn.
-Boarding Value is doubled. If carrying a Warlord, it gives +10 Boarding points to the Assault Kroozer's value instead of doubling it again.
I think this achieves what you all say an Assault Kroozer should be right? And if it's designed to board Space Stations, then a Boarding Value of 30 pts on a fresh one with a Warlord gives you a 2-1 boarding value against a Space Station. Alternatively you could arm this type of ship with W.S. Boyd's "Shokk Attack Lance Gublins" weapon?
As for the Escorts, don't give them all 90* turns. That wouldn't be very Orky. Give the Onslaught and Ravager 90* turns and reduce the turn radius of the Brute to 45*. This way, the Ork player has the option of taking slower but more maneuverable escorts or faster but harder to turn escorts. Seems like an Orky thing to me. Just my initial thoughts though so don't cruicfy me please.
-Zhukov
-
in my opinion ork have to be more shooty (maybe have also more turrets because of the shootines) The assault cruiser is a good idea , but i don't know what are the effect of a power ram? The ork escort at the moment suks , is really more easy to play an horde of fighta bomber (with the 2010 faq the do very little damage and are used more for defense that is against all the ork fluff )or assault boat to defend or damage the weapon system of the enemy. The brute is cheap and can virtually do some damage to enemy cruiser but the are also very easily destroyed by their own attack , sometimes i lost more point in destroyed /crippled brute squadron because of the ram than the effective damage done to the enemy target. The other escort are inhmo useless , because of poor speed , lack of manovrability and randomness of weapons , the heavy guns are too short range to be used by some fragile escort , the torpedo can't sum the firepower and have to recharge with the orky low ld , the batteries one is a little better but suffer from the same speed/range/manovrabily of the other. Escort are a really victory point mine for a smart opponent , he can focus on fire them or swarm them with assault boat to make easy vp (he can ignore the fb because now they do very little damage and must be used to protect the soft 4+ rear of our cruiser )
-
I fondly remember seeing Serenity and thinking the Reaver fleet should be more like how the Orks perform.
I'm personally of the viewpoint that some serious overhauls are needed to their fleet. If they stay with a design geared towards sluggish fleet speed and poor-manuverability, then IMO they need to be 'tougher' with some longer range options. If the goal is to make them a ramming-menace with low shielding... then speeding them up so they can actually do that wouldn't be a bad idea either.
-
I fondly remember seeing Serenity and thinking the Reaver fleet should be more like how the Orks perform.
I'm personally of the viewpoint that some serious overhauls are needed to their fleet. If they stay with a design geared towards sluggish fleet speed and poor-manuverability, then IMO they need to be 'tougher' with some longer range options. If the goal is to make them a ramming-menace with low shielding... then speeding them up so they can actually do that wouldn't be a bad idea either.
They are big on ramming and boarding. That's why it's the only fleet that can AAF for free. They also have the only 10HP cruisers in the whole game, the only "normal" escorts with armor-6 prows (shut UP Necrons!), cheap Brutes that count 4D6 to ram, good boarding value as a race, etc. Play Orks like Imperials in a ranged shooting fight, you lose all day long. Play Orks like Orks, and they are FUN!!!
- Nate
-
Assault Kroozer . . . . . . . . 175 pts
Hits/10 Shields/1 Turrets/1 Speed/25cm Turns/45* Armor/ 6+, 5+ Rear
Armament: Range/Speed: Firepower/Strength: Fire Arc:
Prow Torpedoes: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Prow Weapons Batteries: 45cm: D6+2: Front
Port Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Starboard Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Notes:
-Equipped with Boarding Torpedoes
-Equipped with Power Ram
-May conduct up to 2 teleport attacks per turn.
-Boarding Value is doubled. If carrying a Warlord, it gives +10 Boarding points to the Assault Kroozer's value instead of doubling it again.
I think this achieves what you all say an Assault Kroozer should be right? And if it's designed to board Space Stations, then a Boarding Value of 30 pts on a fresh one with a Warlord gives you a 2-1 boarding value against a Space Station. Alternatively you could arm this type of ship with W.S. Boyd's "Shokk Attack Lance Gublins" weapon?
As for the Escorts, don't give them all 90* turns. That wouldn't be very Orky. Give the Onslaught and Ravager 90* turns and reduce the turn radius of the Brute to 45*. This way, the Ork player has the option of taking slower but more maneuverable escorts or faster but harder to turn escorts. Seems like an Orky thing to me. Just my initial thoughts though so don't cruicfy me please.
-Zhukov
Admittedly something like this is quite themeful, and the timing is right because a few new ship ideas are being examined. this however is quite a bit different from anything else the Orks have. this will require quite a bit of discussion with the HA's, along with careful playtesting.
-
Does reducing costs on cruisers count as a change?
In all honesty it feels like Ork cruisers should cost about 10 pts less than they currently do. With the Smotherman formula this equates out a Kill Kroozer to be 145 points, and terrors costing 175. Although I could still see a Kill-kroozer still costing less than that, maybe as low as 135. Orks are supposed to be a horde right? I would like to see a game where I outnumbered my opponent by a little.
I would love to see the Kroozers turrets upped to two points, (as this would negate a lot of the fear of not having enough fighta-bommaz) I know this wont happen. Although I feel it is rather fluffy.
Mathematically 6 bombers attacking an ork cruiser results:
.5 killed from turret
19.25 attacks
13.75 after turret reduction
6.875 hits Ouch, especially when compared to an imperial or chaos cruiser, which only 2.5 hits are caused. At two orks would only suffer 3.75 hits. A much more reasonable amount. At three they would suffer 1.125 which is way too small.
Raising firepower on Ork vessels I like the idea of a little, but meh. I would like to see an Ork cruiser be able to at least get to Imperial or chaos firepower standards at reasonable range. It would be nice to see D6+4 fp on the front, and D6+2 on the sides. Then 10 is possible, still accounting for the possible close-ranged heavy gunz super fire and fulfilling the orky fluff of overarming their ships.
I want a reason to use a Kill-Kroozer and not feel like I'm wasting precious opportunities to buy another Terror ship.
As well I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to eliminate entirely two of the Orks crutches, the 2d6 on AAF, and the non-column shift for heavy guns. In my local game group, we don't use the column shift thing, as the one time that you will be using it it doesn't matter so much. The real issue with heavy guns on cruisers is that if I can get close enough to use them (especially the side mounted ones) then I'm close enough to board or ram, both more lucrative ideas than shooting.
AAF really doesn't seem like it needs to be limited, I don't think that ork ships need a speed increase, or even that they deserve one. In my mind orks ships are worse than everyone elses. And the special rule that they have allowing free AAF is supposed to balance this, but I think it wouldn't hurt to get rid of it. As far as the 2 battleships that already ignore it, I'd add 1d6 to their AAF beyond that.
Getting rid of these two rules would very much help out the Savage Gunship. The poor little unused big escort. Otherwise it could see a points decrease to 35 or even 30 points.
Then there's the Onslaught, from a shooty standpoint I'd like to compare it to the Brute, 5 onslaughts vs 8 brutes both the same cost
From the onslaughts you get averaged 17.5 firepower, 1.5 more than 8 brutes. For those 1.5 extra points of firepower the brutes have +5 cm speed, a better turn radius, 3 more hits, and pow4 ramming capacity. Sure you could roll higher, but math proves otherwise. This is the case for onslaughts getting D6+1 firepower, as with 22.5 firepower, the 6.5 difference seems a lot more worthy of the disadvantages.
The Ravager is fine and a beautiful escort.
As far as the lists goes, I've always thought that the hammer should be listed as a separate category than the battleships, much like the chaos lists being able to take 1 grand cruiser and one battleship for every three cruisers, I could easily see the orks being able to take one BB and one Hammer BC
All right, rant off. I'll post again later with thoughts more in-line with what you're requesting.
-
I'd like to say that as much as I understand it for its fluff reasons, I think random weapon strengths need to go. Frees up a clunky extra mechanic and lets you balance ork innacuracy in other ways, like column shifts.
Its something I see that is holding the Orks back.
-
As far as Klanz go, I've never liked the idea of widely customizable lists outside of nids. It's... weird.. and I know it makes them more competitive, but it's just something I would rather leave in the past.
I do love the idea of an Ork light cruiser, and I never really understood the argument that 'the orks would just keep building on it until it was a full-blown krooza' idea. Why doesn't that apply for escorts? After playing a lot of rogue trader, and reading fluff, I've come to think of think of it more as the orks build on a vessel to as much as the components will allow (given power source, general ships 'frame', as well as supplementary components) Presumably orks could capture light cruisers and adapt them to orky ideals, still being unable to make them Uger.
I would like to see something like this:
Stompa Class Ligt Krooza: 125 pts
Cruiser/8 Turns:45 Shields:1 Turrets:1 SPD 25 armor 6/4
Prow Heavy Gunz: 6 front
Port/Starboard Heavy Gunz: 4L/R
Prow Gunz str: D6 30cm range
Soopa Engines
This ship would be much like the feel of current savage gunships, and I like to see redundancy in lists. Honestly I could see removing the prow gunz altogether and making it str8, but I don't think it's orky to not have mixed weaponry, and it's about the same effect this way
Hmm... as far as escorts go, the limited points alotment limits what you can do as far as mixed weaponry and still keeping it useful. Most fleets have about their limits of what is imaginable, but I'll give it a shot:
Pillager class escort carrier: 40 pts
The pillager is captained by ork freebootaz of the highest order, and as such they are mostly interested in loot in all its forms, as such they perform raids on other ships, often crippling them in the process.
Escort/1 turns 45, shields 1 turrets 1 6/4
Launch Bays 1 with fighta-bommaz/assault boats
Prow gunz str 2 30 cm
Special: the freebootaz of these pirate ships are interested in loot, and if any successful hit and run attacks were performed in the last turn (by the orks of course) then this vessel gets +1 on it's reload ordinance check as the orks return with much teef and new shiny bitz.
-
As far as Klanz go, I've never liked the idea of widely customizable lists outside of nids. It's... weird.. and I know it makes them more competitive, but it's just something I would rather leave in the past.
I do love the idea of an Ork light cruiser, and I never really understood the argument that 'the orks would just keep building on it until it was a full-blown krooza' idea. Why doesn't that apply for escorts? After playing a lot of rogue trader, and reading fluff, I've come to think of think of it more as the orks build on a vessel to as much as the components will allow (given power source, general ships 'frame', as well as supplementary components) Presumably orks could capture light cruisers and adapt them to orky ideals, still being unable to make them Uger.
I would like to see something like this:
Stompa Class Ligt Krooza: 125 pts
Cruiser/8 Turns:45 Shields:1 Turrets:1 SPD 25 armor 6/4
Prow Heavy Gunz: 6 front
Port/Starboard Heavy Gunz: 4L/R
Prow Gunz str: D6 30cm range
Soopa Engines
This ship would be much like the feel of current savage gunships, and I like to see redundancy in lists. Honestly I could see removing the prow gunz altogether and making it str8, but I don't think it's orky to not have mixed weaponry, and it's about the same effect this way
Hmm... as far as escorts go, the limited points alotment limits what you can do as far as mixed weaponry and still keeping it useful. Most fleets have about their limits of what is imaginable, but I'll give it a shot:
Pillager class escort carrier: 40 pts
The pillager is captained by ork freebootaz of the highest order, and as such they are mostly interested in loot in all its forms, as such they perform raids on other ships, often crippling them in the process.
Escort/1 turns 45, shields 1 turrets 1 6/4
Launch Bays 1 with fighta-bommaz/assault boats
Prow gunz str 2 30 cm
Special: the freebootaz of these pirate ships are interested in loot, and if any successful hit and run attacks were performed in the last turn (by the orks of course) then this vessel gets +1 on it's reload ordinance check as the orks return with much teef and new shiny bitz.
See, now this here is a useful post!! I'm going to need some time to digest this. Keep in mind that while Stompa is a cool name for a ship class, Orks don't really do capital ship classes per se. Kill Kroozers represent a range of capital ships that are all geared to be mainly shooty, whereas terror ships are capital ships geared as a springboard for the speed freekz to fly their shiny fighta-bommas. The 'Ammer represents a kill kroozer up-gunned to be even more shooty and carry some –bommas, with them simply being battle kroozers as a class named after and inspired by the most infamous one, the ‘Ammer. The named battleships are nothing more than larger, older and even more customized versions of battle kroozers, which is why they are all lumped together when deciding the ratio between how many kroozers you must have per battle kroozer. Essentially, you can have as many battle kroozers as you want restricted only by having one battle kroozer for every two kroozers in your fleet, but only one battle kroozer can be the Slamblasta, Dethdeala, etc.
This kind of variation was the intent with the Ork Klanz refits- to allow players to subtly alter the profiles between individual kill kroozers for set point costs. It was even recommended in the fanatic article that in campaigns, Ork players change the refits incorporated between battles!
Of course, how all this appears in the final product will be a bit different, but this is the direction I was looking for when I asked for input. Thanks!
Anyone else? Thoughts?
- Nate
-
So here's a little walkthrough of the Orks and 'non-radical' shipbuilding (I.E. no new/weird additions to current rulesets, ships follow general theme of orks)
Weapons:
Guns, usually D6's in any circumstance above firepower two. Presuming we're staying on a standard 'evens' system this would produce 4 firepower. Additions of +2 are common as this would raise it to a 'fp6'. 2d6 not present, instead we have D6+4 to represent fp'8' and D6+6 to represent fp'10'. Guns are only ever longer ranged in the forward location, forcing players to face their enemy.
Heavy Guns, Common either firepower 4 or 6.
Torpedos: Either listed as D6 or slightly increased in strength as a D6+2.
Bombardment cannon/lances: Character only (thus I unallowed in this scenario, and unfluffy for orks save on the largest of ships)
Launch Bays: Either 2 per side or D3+1 dorsal.
Soopa Engines (listed here as they represent a hardpoint)
Weapons Always fire unidirectional, unless on a defense. Firepower will always be greater in the forward arc, as this fulfills the theme of orks.
Chassis:
Cruiser: 10 hits 1 shield, 1 turret, forward armor bonus compensated with negative rear armor
Above average hits, half shields and turrets compared to imp/chaos. Speed lower as well
Battleship: 12 hits, 2 shields, turrets 3?
Standard hits, Half average shields, near average turrets.
Noting that everything in an ork arsenal is lower quality than that of imperials or chaos in every way save for pure damage taking capacity. Other trends note that no vessel (other than escorts) will have a better turn radius than 45. Presumably an ork CL would be two less hits than that of a Krooza, but it is possible (as shown by their battleships) that they could have the same value. Presumably Ork ships are around 15% cheaper than ships of similar class from other fleets. This would mean that an ork CL should cost about 100 pts.
General trends in BFG show a system of hardpoints; in orks this is F:2,S:2,D:0 for cruisers, F:2,S:2,D:1 for battlecruisers, F:2,S:3,D1 on Battleships. Presumably from what we know about imperial light cruisers (the closest thing to potential ork variants) they have F:2,S:1,D:0
Now with these limitations we will set four threshold values, Minimal, Light, Medium and High. CLs take minimal weaponry for sides, Light for front. Cruisers take light for sides and Medium as front, Battlecruisers take medium for sides, and high for front. Battleships take medium for sides and high for front.
For guns we note: Mi:2 L:d6 M:D6+2 H:D6+6
Heavy Guns: L:4 H:6
Torps: L:D6 H:D6+2
Launch Bays: L:1 M:2 H:D3+1
Now assuming that BBs are already covered, and BCs are a lot less needed without list changes our three categories needed for larger development are: Cruiser (primary goal), Light Cruiser, and escort. Now the thing is to solve problems in the ork fleet without reducing viability of current designs (not stomping on a kill-krooza and making it useless by making a better, cheaper, faster version, looking more towards something different), and without breaking current established themes and weaponry options. Basically we have to bash two rocks together and somehow make something miraculous yet simple that falls within current orky theme.
anyways, for now I'll list off a few ideas in each category:
Cruisers:
Assault cruiser: This ship would be of course based off the kill-krooza stats, but would replace its heavy guns or side guns for soopa engines. To not make it cross with the kill krooza and keeping it unique I would lose it's long range weapons batteries, instead replacing them with torps and keeping the heavy guns. I saw a previous poster mention a 'ram' and I could see this as adding +4 to the ships 'hits' when it makes ramming attemps, but would likely count as a hardpoint. Possibly you could have mega armored orks free on the vessel, as well as boarding torps.
Torpedo Carrier, basically a vessel that has replaced it's heavy guns on all sides in favor of torpedos, (it would give a good opportunity to buy the looted torps upgrade) These torpedos would only fire in each of their respective directions.
Gunboat: Likely anything of this type would shroud the Kill-Krooza, so it's difficult to make designs for it, but certain ideas are possible.
Light Cruisers:
Naturally light cruisers would need to have similar disadvantages to impie and/or tau CL's where they are slightly too squishy to be used in replacement of the standard, rather better in conjunction with them. I which would warrant either 6/4 armor (similar to escorts) or only 6 hits or even possibly both. Or the other option is to keep their cost relatively high and increasing their side armament (whilst keeping them in the light/minimal variety) to two as shown by my previous example. This would effectively make them a slightly lighter Krooza (which feels a bit more orky than the agile ships of the imperium) and still deter people from buying 4 CLs to get to the restricted BB/BCs.
Assault Ship: Similar to that above, likely a larger verson of a savage.
Gunboat/Mixed: Like the Kill-Krooza
Carrier: A smallish Carrier
Escorts:
Escort Carrier: Yes... I'm putting this up there
-
More building theory:
According to general trends in how people build their fleets. Redundancy is key, a ship which is 'mixed' between ordinance and shooty is generally much less chosen than either variety. Such is the case of the Emperor vs. the Oberon, showing that a mixed vessel (although cheaper) is not as valued as there is a cost in that the ship can't both lock on and reload at the same time. Other cases would be the Falchion vs the cobra/sword, and to an extent the murder vs all other vessels. Which comes to show another argument, the usable weapons concept, that players will take vessels which have more of their weapons available in a single arc, as this makes them far more likely to use them.
Orks ignore both of these trends in ship design, and all intents and purposes should be counterintuitive to fulfill theme. In an ideal situation, an ork player would want to replace all his heavy batteries with standards on a kill-kroozer, or more torps on a Terror ship. Ork designs shouldn't make the customer happy in this way, they should have a mixture of at least two, but more likely three of the available weapons on every ship. Making them much more 'jack of all trades' feeling. With this scenario it maintains the philosophy of, ram/board or die, as more firepower, or more efficient ordinance production would make Orks happy far away.
That being said on to thoughts for Klans, I'm not positive how these used to work (actually I haven't read it in years) but I think I've got some Koncepts.
If you're doing something similar to the way CSMs work, in that you specify a legion and have to take all marks of that legion (save for other chaos lords ships) you could apply something similar to da orks.
Say you choose a klan or no klan when list building. Each clan has an upgradable advantage to non-character ships, such as soopa-engines, an extra shield, an extra turret (or two to balance things), lance replacements (likely 1 in place of d6 weapon batteries, 2 in D6+2, 3/4 in D6+6) but you would only of course be able to replace one weapon on each ship (left/right weapons counting as one). Then you could also allow any ships owned by a different warboss having a different clan.
It's not a bad idea. I'm enjoying the thoughts of soopa-engines myself.
-
Torpedo Cruiser:
Basha Class: 170 Pts
Stats same as KK
D6+2 Torps F
D6+2 Gunz F 45cm
D6 Gunz L/R 30cm
D6 Torps L/R
Assault Cruiser idea:
Krusha Class: 165 pts
KK Stats
D6 torps F (equipped with assault torps)
8 Heavy Gunz F
6 L/R Heavy Gunz
Soopa Engines
Poss swap heavy gunz for 'Ram prow' Special +4 dice in rams. Also poss comes equipped with mega armored boarding parties.
-
Surprised no comments at my statement :)
-
I'd like to say that as much as I understand it for its fluff reasons, I think random weapon strengths need to go. Frees up a clunky extra mechanic and lets you balance ork innacuracy in other ways, like column shifts.
Its something I see that is holding the Orks back.
I'm going to disagree with you on this. I think having Ork firepower (but not so much torpedos) be randomly determined leads to them getting significantly different results than they would have if you simply rounded all the D6s out to 4. Compare a squadron of 2 Swords vs 2 Onslaugts shooting at a standard Chaos cruiser in an average targetting scenario. On average the Swords have more firepower (8 vs 7) so you would expect them to cause the same or a little more damage on any given turn. The reality is that the Onslaugts are simultaneously more likely to not knock any shields down and more likely to do significant damage to the the target while being less likely to simply drop both shields on the target. This creates a situation where Orks are more effective fighting the enemy one on one than most other fleets. If each squadron or capital ship in an Imperial or Chaos fleet shoots at a different target they are very likely to do little or no actual damage to any of their enemies. If an Ork fleet divides it's fire similarly it can expect to leave a greater portion of it's targets with intact shields but also the Orks can expect to reliably deal real damage to at least a few targets.
Ork heavy gunz also excel in ship vs ship rather than fleet vs fleet combat as do Ork torpedos since they are prohibited from combining salvos. These differences from how most other fleets work cause Ork tactics to differ from most other fleets. Almost everyone learns quickly that it is best to somehow divide the enemy fleet and then engage half of it with your entire fleet. Orks have the option of simply dividing both the enemy and their own fleet and still remaining combat effective. If Orks can manage to break the battle into 3 or 4 sub-battles they will be at a significant advantage over most opponents.
The fact that Ork weapon systems cause them to prefer different overall tactics than other fleets helps ensure that the Ork fleet keeps a significantly different overall feel.
-
Oh I wasnt saying make it average by any means. My proposal was have Orks effected by a right column shift, and give them a shedload of guns.
-
They should get a sh*tload of guns. They should be getting 4+D6 guns if you want it random. I'd even give them 6+D6 but that they should either get a right column shift or they should be hitting at Arm+1 to a max of 6.
-
Simply giving them more firepower and then taking it away with a column shift will have almost no effect except when they were already firing at a worst case target. If you are giving them more than you are taking away with the column shift why not simply give them less and leave the column shift out of the equation? Either way it won't actually make them play any differently than they play now (unless you remove the random firepower component) though it may make them overall more effective which is a different issue entirely.
-
Because it wouldn't be fluffy if you just gave them a few guns and made them operate the same way as another race. Give em lots n lotsa guns but give them penalties to hit.
-
Because it wouldn't be fluffy if you just gave them a few guns and made them operate the same way as another race. Give em lots n lotsa guns but give them penalties to hit.
If you give them 2 more firepower and then give them a right column shift you will almost always get the same number of shots plus or minus 1 compared to if you left the ship alone. This isn't going to really change how Orks play, how effective they are, or how they feel. You're just going to look at a slightly different spot on the firepower chart and then roll the same number of dice you would have rolled anyway.
A related suggestion: I know making heavy gunz fire simultaneously with gunz is a ruling that is probably coming. My suggestion would be to instead make heavy gunz ignore all column shifts. This would incorporate (and thus replace) the existing rule about ignoring the close range bonus and get almost the same result, except it would make heavy gunz slightly more effective against targets with an intrinsic right shift. I think Orks should be rewarded if they ever manage to get their heavy guns pointed at the dodgy Eldar.
-
Why do you think I said give them 6+D6? Maybe even more.
-
Why do you think I said give them 6+D6? Maybe even more.
When you say 'them' are you referring to Onslaugts? If so you are proposing an increase of 6FP and a right column shift. Why not just propose an increase of 4FP instead? I'm just saying that including a special rule (the column shift) should be avoided if you can get the same effect without it.
-
Firstly, there are subtle differences in right and left shift rules than simply increasing or decreasing firepower.
Secondly, it is as characterful and less clunky to give the Orks more guns and a right shift to represent their innacuracy than random dice, and more fun than simply averaging out whatever their batteries would be without a column shift. The Eldar represent their awesome accuracy with a left shift, not more guns. It seems only natural that there would be a race with a right shift, and orks fit the bill.
-
When you say 'them' are you referring to Onslaugts? If so you are proposing an increase of 6FP and a right column shift. Why not just propose an increase of 4FP instead? I'm just saying that including a special rule (the column shift) should be avoided if you can get the same effect without it.
I wouldn't mind of all the D6+2 weapons of Orks became D6+6. They should have that many guns. As lastspartacus mentioned, Eldar get a left column shift for their WBs. So why would Orks not get a right column shift? Either that or the less accurate to hit rolls. If that's how you feel then we should just let Eldar's WBs become higher to do away with the LCS rule.
It is fluffy that Orks has lots of dakka. Problem is they can't hit with those dakka effectively. It is a reason why special rules exist, to differentiate one race from another.
-
As an example, I picture a kill kroozer with, say, prow 12 batteries and right shift. Love it.
-
See, now this here is a useful post!! I'm going to need some time to digest this. Keep in mind that while Stompa is a cool name for a ship class, Orks don't really do capital ship classes per se. Kill Kroozers represent a range of capital ships that are all geared to be mainly shooty, whereas terror ships are capital ships geared as a springboard for the speed freekz to fly their shiny fighta-bommas. The 'Ammer represents a kill kroozer up-gunned to be even more shooty and carry some –bommas, with them simply being battle kroozers as a class named after and inspired by the most infamous one, the ‘Ammer. The named battleships are nothing more than larger, older and even more customized versions of battle kroozers, which is why they are all lumped together when deciding the ratio between how many kroozers you must have per battle kroozer. Essentially, you can have as many battle kroozers as you want restricted only by having one battle kroozer for every two kroozers in your fleet, but only one battle kroozer can be the Slamblasta, Dethdeala, etc.
This kind of variation was the intent with the Ork Klanz refits- to allow players to subtly alter the profiles between individual kill kroozers for set point costs. It was even recommended in the fanatic article that in campaigns, Ork players change the refits incorporated between battles!
Of course, how all this appears in the final product will be a bit different, but this is the direction I was looking for when I asked for input. Thanks!
Anyone else? Thoughts?
- Nate
Thanks Nate, my thoughts are that Orks don't have so many issues at 'raid' points values, in that their escorts are actually quite good and can compete with other fleets just fine.
Orks have 4 issues:
They have limited/no access to lance/lance equivalents: this makes it very tough to win games against high armored foes. This wasn't so much of an issue during the days of the 4 original bfg fleets, as none of them had 6+ armor, save for the imperials, and even then they still wanted to use their side weapons. Now with space marines and necrons, this is even more than the mild issue it used to be. Orks are forced to solve this problem through boarding actions, which is a whole different section.
They are slow/unmaneuverable: this makes it difficult for them to perform the function that they are supposed to be the best at, ramming and boarding. They can't get in range to do these things, particularly against the two fleets that they need it against the most, necrons and sms. Not only are they on the low spectrum of speeds, they lose out on AAF as well.
They are vulnerable to ordinance: orks have low rear armor, and low turrets, this makes ordinance nearly 3 times as effective at killing them. Forcing ork players to max out on terror ships to stand any relative chance. Fleets like most tau builds make orks into jell-o.
Orks have low range, and low weapons strengths: compared to imperial or chaos standards, ork ships are about half as well armed considering weapons of reasonable range.
Now, as you've stated, we cannot change the stats of any Ork capital ship. I understand, as for other fleets you're only changing semi-official things. I was wondering what you were willing to consider changing? The cost of ships? presumably not the loadout of them.
What about the way that fleets are built? Costs in warlords/their upgrades? Do you want new upgrades for every ship? Such as bombard cannons on savage gunships?
Can we revise the wording or special rules of orks? such as the way heavy guns work? One idea would be to let heavy guns work out to 30cm, but only give them the 'double hits' rule within 15. Or even eliminating the double hits and giving them +1 to their rolls, effectively reducing the opponents armor.
I understand that 'orks don't do capital ships' this is true, but like I said orks have the most trouble at fleet engagements, which are fought amongst capital ships. Kill-kroozers do represent a wide variety of capital ships (as no two orks would ever build their ships the same) which yes, makes it difficult to make a new capital ship class. I have a few ideas, of course I mentioned the torpedo-boat before, and would think of that as interesting and orky feeling. Unique enough from a kill-kroozer. Perhaps that could just be an upgrade.
Then there's the whole area of CLs, and you still said Orks don't do cap ships, but CLs are supposed to be somewhere between escort and cruiser, unfortunately BFG rules don't allow something to be a true hybrid. However, it is reasonable to assess that orks would have light cruisers, and they would be different enough from kill-kroozers and their larger brethren because of it. This class of ship gives us an opportunity to help the Orks with a few of their problems, without overshadowing Kill-Kroozers and the concept behind them.
As far as escorts go, there is a problem with them in BFG that makes them hard to develop, and that is the fact that they're just to small. This makes it near-impossible to make unique ones with new weapon loadouts or combat styles, as it's already been made, or it would just be too far from the point.
In this case with orks, we only have the three weapon options, which each has it's own respective escort. So there really isn't anything to make new ones, without outshining the old or being unfluffy.
Other than giving the savages soopa-engines or reducing their points cost, and increasing the onslaught fp by 1 or reducing it's points cost to 35. I really don't have any new ideas for orks.
I would like to see a reduction in points costs across the board, save for the brute, ravager, and perhaps 1-2 of the battleships. I think this would be a substantial benefit to orks, and keep them in-line with their fluff, not modifying any ship and considering how valuable ork ships are with their shoddy and poorly jury-rigged tech, I wouldn't be surprised to see ork ships at a much cheaper value.
Consider this, if each ship cost more appropriately it would look more like this;
Kill-Kroozer 135/155
Terror Ship 170/185
Brutes 25/25
Ravager 40/40
Onslaught 35/40
Savage 30/40
Gorbag's Revenge 310/310
Slamblasta 285/295
Deathdeala 275/275
Kroolboy 255/270 (this is mainly due to the fact that it doesn't have lances/bombard)
Hammer 245/245
Warboss upgrades:
Maniac Gunners 10pts
Mad Meks 5pts
Extra power field 20pts
Mega-armored boarders 15pts
Looted Torpedos 10pts
Overall only an 60 point deduction in cost (not counting warboss upgrades). But it's most needed around the kroozers/escorts. With that a fifteen-hundred point list would look like this:
Kill-Kroozer 135 (185)
Warboss 1rr 50
Maniac gunners
Terror shipx2 340
Hammer 240 (340)
warboss +2 rr 80
Extra power fields 20
Savage x5 180
Ravager x2 80
Onslaughtx4 140
Ramship x6 150
A lot more outnumbering feeling. You even could see people taking another kill kroozer and another hammer. With cheaper kroozers especially this way, it makes it more accessible to the hammer class battlecruiser, which helps with ordinance and reduces the fears of getting bombed. Making the Kill-Kroozer a larger staple in the fleet, and it does one of the most orky things around, allows for the orks to provide an outnumbering situation, which is very orky.
Anyway, that's a bit of annendum to my 'fixing the orks' thoughts.
-
Terror even cheaper????? Deadshane (Warp Rift 29) will be pleased. Adepticon winner with Orks. Are orks now a top notch fleet. Yes, with a good admiral and Terror kroozers!
Ork problem is in their escorts, not kroozers.
-
Ork Escort Math (as compared to Brute Ramships):
The Onslaught:
Ability to engage enemy: the Onslaught with its 45 degree turns allows it to engage any enemy within a 180 degree arc. Compared to the Brutes ability to engage enemies in a 270 degree arc. Brutes are capable of engaging enemies slightly further away than brutes, but Onslaughts are able to engage an area slightly closer. From a pure standpoint of area, this means that the onslaught can only engage 55.8% of the possible targets of the Brute under normal circumstance.
Firepower:
With an average of 3.5 firepower, the Onslaught has 1.5 better than a brute, but adjusting for points cost, a brute would have 3.2 firepower at 40 points. Still an onslaught is 9.3% better in this category.
Hits/Shields:
Combining these Onslaughts have 2, comparatively Brutes have 3.2 adjusting for points. Onslaughts are only 62.5% as good as brutes for soaking up damage.
From this, we can take the three categories and add them together into one value, (of course this is assuming that the three categories are equally as valuable), which renders an Onslaught about 75.8% as effective of an escort. This doesn't account for the Brutes ramming capacity, which is indeed another factor, but for this it is ignored.
Possible solution here:
Increasing the Onslaughts FP to D6+1, this would make the averaged value at 86.3%, increasing it to d6+2 (madness!) would make it 96.7% as effective. A much more appropriate balance.
Decreasing the points cost: at 35 points an onslaught would be 83.8% as effective as brutes. At 30 it would be 94.7% as effective.
Combination: Adding 1 firepower and decreasing the costs of Onslaughts to 35 would make it 96% as effective (personally my favorite solution)
Others: Deciding that big escorts all need 2 turrets (somewhat reasonable with ravager), increasing it's turns to 90 (unfluffy/destroys uniqueness of orks) but this would increase it's area of attack to 83% of a brute and overall to 85.1% Increasing their range to 45cm which would increase it's effectiveness to 94%.
The Savage Gunship:
Ability to engage enemy: The savage has a measly 33% ability to engage possible foes as compared to the brute.
Firepower: Assuming both are firing within 15 cm, and adjusting for the non-shifting of heavy guns and points adjustment accordingly we have the savage at 187.5% firepower of the brute. Assuming it is out (I know... makes it weird) this is a 0% effectiveness, totaling at 93.75% effective.
Hits at the same value as the Onslaught, these come out to be 62.5%
Overall: 63.18% effectiveness. This one of course is slightly harder to compare, as range affects this greatly, and people don't go against the same targets in the same ways.
Possible Solutions:
Increasing the firepower: This is a bit much, but increasing the firepower of the Savage to 5 would make it up to 68.25% effective, up to 6 would make it 73.5% as effective (I wouldn't do more than the value of a cruiser)
Reducing the cost: at 35 pts it is 70.5% effective. At 30 it is 80.4% as effective.
Combination: at our maximums 30 points and 6 fp, we have 105%. with firepower 5 at 30 points it's only 87%, with fp5 at 35pts it's 75.5%, with fp6 at 35pts: 77%
Other: of course increasing it's turrets as previously suggested, giving them soopa engines (which would compensate for a small area of engagement, at a reduced fp of course) to 50% the equivalent area. Increasing it's turns to 90 would make it 50% in this category as well. Adding fp 2 regular guns (reasonable when thinking of the heavy guns as a special weapon like the ravagers torps, and feels more orky with the mixed weapons) would result in 84% effectiveness.
The Ravager aka trying to compare a rock to a pair of scissors.
Ability to engage targets: the same as the onslaught at 55.8%
Firepower: for this we have to actually use 'damage caused' as a comparison, assuming armor 5 and an enemy ship with turrets 2 a Ravager would have 2.5 torps going through, assuming that this is a closing capital ship that is the equivalent of 3.5 weapons batteries. So 5.5 total batteries vs the adjusted 3.2 of brutes we have 171% effectiveness. Of course the ravager has to reload it's ordinance instead of other possible orders to keep firing, but that factor is not included here.
Survivability : 62.5% just like the others.
Overall: 96.4%, which is about right, correct to how people take ravagers. This of course is assuming the compensation of reloading for it's extra turret.
Possible solutions: Nothing, possibly increasing it's firepower to 3 (unlikely) to compensate for the special ability of brutes and get a slightly closer value. Decreasing it's cost to 35 to do the same, but this ship doesn't really need it.
Finally I would like to say that two of the Ork escorts could use some work, this doesn't stop people from using them of course. Sorry for not adding in the numbers, as I think that would clutter this a lot. Comments?
-
More on Orks (as I've been talking here for a while, but this probably doesn't pertain to revisions, but it's more useful info)
The Kill-Kroozer Conundrum:
Many advocate for a more shooty KK to differentiate it more from the TS and make it a more worthwhile buy. The real issue with the KK Imo is that its overpriced. For 30 points you get side weapons that you'll actually use (LBs). I've seen the comparisons to the Slaughter, and it's difficult to properly assess something like that.
Big Bases vs. Small on Cruisers:
People are divided on this, but I felt like doing the math behind it.
Negatives:
Obviously with a larger base you are twice as wide, and therefore twice as likely to get torpedoed. Also you are slightly further from your enemies, Starting 2.5 cm further (I would like HA ruling on deployment if it's by the edge of the base or the post) and when avoiding torps you have to do it essentially 2.5 cm sooner, keeping you slightly further from enemies. Also a larger imprint for random blast markers to be on your base (the main reason I don't use them)
Positives:
Better opportunities for boarding, and ramming (by of course doubled in the case of ramming) but boarding is the real question here, as this is what is argued as the reason to take larger bases.
Assuming that both bases start with their edges at the same location forward then (over base area possibly covered):
Then a small base can hit targets touching an area of 147 square centimeters vs 257 of large bases.... wow... I didn't think that it would affect it that much... *checks math* yep. This means that a large base is 175% as good as small at being able to board. Now this doesn't account for the players planning, just possibilities without any set up.
The escort conundrum.
Yes, it's true, like practically all fleets escorts aren't as worthwhile to take as cruisers. Game designers intended to specifically made escorts have more firepower than cruisers... Look at a kill kroozer, adding up all its weapons it has 14 heavy guns and 3d6+2 Guns, for 145pts, To get that you would need 3.5 slaughters and 3.6 Onslaughts at a total of 284 points, and the KK gets 45cm range on one battery! This of course assumes that there will be things to fire at in every arc, and assumes some things about how the vessel is played. Still that is more than double. Lets compare with chaos, to make a murder you would need 5 Iconoclasts (assuming 3wb=1 lance) then it would be about 225 points.
Escorts unfortunately feel the hurt of damage in the loss of weapon strengths sooner than cruisers. This is the main reason for reducing the costs of escorts, as I mentioned before, or increasing their overall firepower. Unfortunately in Orks they don't solve their function of being more maneuverable, and are not able to engage targets more effectively. They are able to get a bit more firepower compared to the Kroozers in flank regions, but not that much, and that assumes that you have enemies in a very small area off to your side.
This is due to the differences in their turn capacity, and their non-rotating weapons. It makes them not serve either of the functions that we would think them useful for, being used as an effective rearguard, or really adding a high amount of firepower in a single aspect. As compared to a kroozer, simply in it's front arc (as it's the only place that either ship will really be fighting) you need 1 ravager and one onslaught to compare it's firepower. 80 points Vrs 145.
Actually if you ignore the side weapons of the kroozer and just look at the prow (also ignoring the weak side armor of the escorts) then we can take 1 onslaught and 1 savage combined for 80 points. Comparatively we adjust for points, increasing hits, shields and weapon strengths for our escort combo. We also account for weapon capability (noting area of acquisition). We account for some other things, but it's a lot of math to describe. Basically our Onslaught-savage combo has about 85% of the area covered by a KKs weapon batteries. As far as the slaughters heavy guns... well it's 230% of the area.
Adjusting for hits; 67% as many. as far as weapons go, they would have 140% the weapons of the KK, combining this with our previously mentioned area of attacks; slaughters are 285% better at using their heavy guns. Our savage-onslaught combo is 154% better at using theirs than the forward guns of a kk. Combining these we have (assuming for relative weapon strengths) Our combo is 232% better at shooting.
Now finally we will add in the side weaponry for comparison, adding in their area of acquisition. Making a Savage have only 167% the area of acquisition in reality. Still better, but comparing weapons (assuming the kk can fire both front and a side) then the kk has 139% more firepower. For the Combos weapons batteries it's 66% as much area as the KK, and with the same firepower assumption the combo has 111% on the KK. Overall in this scenario the combo is only 106% as effective at shooting compared to a cruiser. This seems oddly about right. But still combining with survivability (again assuming both are equal), then the total is now 86.5% as effective.
Solutions? Increasing FP on escorts (i'd do the math, but it's a lot), decreasing their cost to compensate, (in this case reducing them to 35 points would make them equal).
Things learned from this experiment:
The value of large bases. How it's almost absurd how much better Savages are at using heavy guns.
-
Finally, if you've kept reading, it's the ultimate comparison; Gorbag's Revenge vs. a Terror Ship!
Calculating out target acquisition firing capacity, survivability, launch capacity similar to those before we come up with an overall 117% in favor of the TS. Now, there are some unnamed advantages of GB, in that it is only one ship, so it has less 'leadership tests' to make to keep loaded. It also is going to have the best crew out there with it's special ability, and the fact that more hits accounts for lower crippling values, less likely to explode, better with boarding actions, more hits to take damage, more turrets, better rear armor etc.
Things learned here: Apparently GW does some math... this is weird. All the weapons came out to about the same values when compensating for points differences, at 5.84 wbs on the ts sides and 5.5 for GB, torps at the same, front weapons at 9.18 and 9.5 respectively. Launch cap at 6.68 and 7 everything was pretty close. At 17% seems like a good amount to compare for the BB benefits. considering it's a limited ship. However people still max out them Terrors, and don't take said Gorbags Revenge, I guess it's easier to have something to throw away. Overall, the BB feels like a better choice than 1.67 terrors, and I'll take it every time if able.
The thing that really killed the GB in this calculation was survivability with 14 'hits' compared to 18.37 , although it doesn't count quite the same, weapons were within 10% each time (counting targeting areas).
-
I think that it should be noted that while having an increased footprint of fire is more desirable, it is not a linear scale. It would be if the enemy's ships were distributed randomly on the table-top. Since they aren't then players are able to manipulate the value of their ships individual footprints.
That is to say, if you only had a 90° forward fire arc and limited mobility (45° turns, 20cm speed) then you would do your best to ensure that at least some part of the enemy blob (ie, fleet) is present in that arc at all times. If you had the same speed and mobility but had a 180° forwards arc this would be easier to do and as such worth more. If you had a 270° fire arc it would be easier again, but this extra 90° arc of firepower is not as beneficial as the previous 90° arc.
Obviously it amounts to a different added percentage, but beyond that there is the fact that the enemy is not randomly placed on the board in any given turn. Because you know where they are in one turn you have a good idea of where they'll be in the next turn and so have the ability to plan ahead to keep them in your fire arcs/weapon ranges. If they were placed randomly at the start of each turn then increased fire arcs would translate linearly into increased usefulness.
Still, having said all that, I'm very much in favour of reducing the points costs of Ork ships significantly. This reduction can be disproportionate across the board to fix internal balance issues as well.
I'd not like to see BM interference cancelling rules in any shape, and would like to see individual non-FC Warmasters able to ignore the chain of command for their ships/squadrons special orders with an increase in the cost and decrease of availability of re-rolls for the fleet.
-
@Sigoroth
Yeah, you are right about the 90 degrees behind thing, although you can say that if some pesky escorts get behind you, you would rather have a couple brutes than a couple onslaughts. The value system is very subjective, as people will try to keep enemies in their optimum fire arc, some people prefer survivability, different weapons; these are all subjective things when it comes to this experiment.
It's just some research into the subject, as who knows, hits may be twice as valuable as firepower or speed. To really get a solid basis on the subject it would take further research from several different angles, including playing the escorts in squadrons of same points values against each other as well as other fleets escorts and capital ships.
Orks should have reduced cost on their escorts, if the orks get the cheapest capital ships, why not the cheapest escorts as well? It's justifiable at least from this experiment. As I said before the KK deserves a little bit of a points reduction to make it more comparable to the KK, and perhaps some points adjustments elsewhere.
Simple logic, if something isn't as good as it should be for its points, then either reduce its points cost or make it better.
I'm tired of hearing about the 6TS fleets, and would like to see internal balance tweaked to make it so you don't have to play that to win. Orks are supposed to be about their escorts, like Nate said, "Orks don't really do the capital ship thing", so make it that a player who does that is actually missing out on something. Even if it's something small.
-
Also as more notes, the heavy guns on cruisers are less valuable compared to those on escorts as the capital ships will more than likely be boarding instead of using their heavy guns. Additionally the brute is a bit skewed in it's weapon strength as if a player were to get within 15 centimeters, they would likely attempt to ram instead. Although this one is a minor discrepancy.
In 40k mathhammer is a lot easier, as there are little factors affecting how a model is played (as there really isn't much to do with maneuvering, and units have 360 los). Usually players will calculate out a units effectiveness vs terminator equivalents, marine equivalents, guard equivalents, and occasionally monster equivalents. These values are averaged, then combined with survivability and compared with points. I've seen it done a lot with tau....
Anyways, I think I might do some experiments with playstyle of ork escorts vs Imperial, Chaos, Ork, and 'Maybe' Eldar. Comparing a squadron or two of equivalent points in various scenarios.
It's unfortunate.... but I truly doubt that the HAs will listen to any pleas for points revision, as a lot of vessels and things could use it. Primarily reductions (as most people hate increasing values). I mean... I can think of at least 2 capital ships of every fleet that should be either increased or reduced in points cost.
-
Orky escorts vs ordinance/Imperial Escorts Pt. 1 (the death of the escorts!)
Taking an Onslaughts stats, we have it become subject to attack by both AC and Bombers.
1 ac counter has a 41.6% chance of killing an onslaught, 2 have a 90% chance of killing it. For a sword class escort (the closest comparable example) 1 ac would kill a sword 20.8% of the time, and two would only have a 60.6% chance.
1 bomber has a 33.6% chance of killing it, 2 would have 58.3% chance. Compared to the sword 1 would have a 10.5% chance, 2 would have a 26.8% chance.
1 torp (from the front, then the sides) will kill an ork 8.8%% of the time, whereas from the side 25%, a sword would die from the front/sides 8.325% of the time.
Of course making Ac only effective on a 4+ as proposed would change this slightly:
1 ac=25% chance of killing onslaught, 2 have 56.25%,, almost the same as bombers. Similarly with the sword; 12.5%, and 37.5% respectively.
Now as more evidence for a points reduction in ork escorts, I guess I'll use my previous formula to compare the onslaught with the sword. Noting an account in survivability for the differences in armor, counting side/rear once.
a sword is 94.62% as survivable vs direct fire, counting for points. Now if we include what we know now about ordinance we can change this to: 125.6% survivability vs all weapons.
Also noting the difference in weapon strengths, an onslaught only has 76.9% as much firepower as the adjusted sword. For now we won't note the areas of attacks, as the sword will neatly double the onslaught in that. And as Sigoroth pointed out, the rear stuff isn't as important as what is in front of you.
So here we note that an onslaught is about 78% as effective as a Sword. Noting that comparing between different fleets is hard, because playstyle has a lot to do with it, but imperials are the closest. In this scenario, an onslaught should cost around 28 points, which is accurate with our comparison to the brute, which pegged it at 30. Now if we did some of the same things as our previous solution of increasing the onslaughts fp to d6+1 and reducing it to 35, then it would be about worth 90% of a sword, much more reasonable.
-
Now the value of ork ordinance: Comparing 4FBs to 4Bommers and 2fighters/bommers.
Against a cruiser with 2 turrets, 5+ armor, and a bb with 4 turrets and 5+ armor
FBS will get two hits against the cruiser on average. bombers will get 1.5. against the bb fighta bombers will get .66, and the bombers will get .33 hits
Now with the fighters... well it gets a little more complicated but they do an average of 1.68 hits against the cruiser and .4 hits against the bb. Apparently running bombers with an equal number of fighters is slightly more effective, but not by much.
Overall, at least against cruisers fbs are about 118% as effective as fighters/bomber mix, and against a bb they are 165% as effective. Considering the fact that a fleet is usually around 4 cruisers to one battleship, we can combine the values into this: fighter bombers are 127% as effective as 'standard' ordinance. Note, fighter bombers are slightly slower than fighters, so defence isn't calculated here, just sheer capacity to do damage. If you factor in this then the total would be about 106% depending on how you weighted the 5cm speed difference.
Anyways, it's no wonder people elect to take larger amounts of ordinance producing ships in ork fleets over escorts. With better than average ordinance capabilities, and less than average escort capabilities it makes the escorts seem almost like a joke.
A terror ship, presuming that it has it's enemy in the front and within 25 cm, will do about 3.155 points of internal damage to a ship with armor 5 facing. (assuming the defender elects to shoot at the fbs and not the torps). A squadron of onslaughts with adjusted points values will do 2.72 internal, assuming that the ship is facing them. Now if it's abeam, then well... this number drops to about .5, and rear of about 1.5. This doesn't account for the fact that ordinance will reach further during their turn, so if they don't counter you have longer range, and the shorter range of the onslaughts weaponry.
Now you may pose the argument, "the onslaughts don't have to reload! they have an advantage" well for experiments sake we'll presume that the terror has reloaded this turn and the onslaughts have locked on. In this case they would do 4.36 to the front, and 2.24 to the sides and about 3.3 to the rear. A little more substantial, but not much compared to the terror, who can elect to fire his batteries (instead of wasting them against shields) into fighters that might threaten his fbs or torpedoes, and not pose the risk of blask marker death to his ordinance.
-
A simple fix to ork that makes them more "shooty" would be to give all +1 turrets.
In addition even with the above all ork escorts should be 5 (for ramships) or 10 pts (all other ork escorts) cheaper. Both should be sufficient to make orks a predominantly escort based fleet more competitive and appealing.
I also like the idea of an assault based ork cruiser
-
love the idea of an assault kroozer for sure. More thoughts on the other things later.
-
@Fracas,
There is really no solid justification for reducing the cost of the brute or the ravager, unless you simply conclude that all escorts in general deserve a points reduction.
Anyways, a ravager as updated compared to the brute:
Ability to engage targets: the same as the onslaught at 55.8%
Firepower: for this we have to actually use 'damage caused' as a comparison, assuming armor 5 and an enemy ship with turrets 2 a Ravager would have 2.5 torps going through, assuming that this is a closing capital ship that is the equivalent of 3.5 weapons batteries. So 5.5 total batteries vs the adjusted 3.2 of brutes we have 171% effectiveness. Of course the ravager has to reload it's ordinance instead of other possible orders to keep firing, but that factor is not included here.
Survivability : 82.3% (now incorporating the value of turrets).
Overall: 103%
So as you can see a ravager has about a correct points cost. Although it does get more internal hits than wbs, but we'll assume this balances with having to reload, and the brute of course has the capability to ram.
No to make points values correct as far as my experiment, you have to give the savage gunship and onslaught a points cost of about 30. Or increase the savage gunships weaponry by 2, as well as the onslaughts, give them an extra turret, or do some mix of things.
Of course we discovered that ordinance is taken over the escorts, for good reason. Really the advantages that capital ships have over the escorts (at least in orks) is the ability to launch fighters, which covers the orky weakness of low armor and turrets. As well as being much better at boarding (really the orks only way of dealing with bbs and heavy armored vessels).
Escorts in orks don't really get more firepower relatively (presuming the enemies are in one arc, which they likely are), they don't have really any more speed or maneuverability, and they aren't able to deal with fast enemies really any better.
My plea, in essence is to reduce these two escorts slightly and increase their firepower. Even with reduced points values to the amounts that I've suggested for balance players will likely still opt to take TS instead to counter the Ork weakness. So unless the 4+ assault boat change happens, or these vessels get an extra turret, I still don't see it being likely.
Like we've seen, people don't take swords in imperial fleets, but for slightly different reasons. Still even with an increased statline and cheaper cost, we may still see them completely sidelined.
-
Like we've seen, people don't take swords in imperial fleets, but for slightly different reasons. Still even with an increased statline and cheaper cost, we may still see them completely sidelined.
IN players should never leave without escorts. Swords are top of the bill escorts. Good thing.
-
IN players should never leave without escorts. Swords are top of the bill escorts. Good thing.
So true...
-
Swords are cheaper than all ork escorts except brutes
And if we don't see enough swords it should come as no surprise regarding other escorts
Also considering assault boats
-
I really hope the new assault boat rule vs escorts is going to be official.
I mean, I use, like, appreciate and win with escorts. Giving them some more makes me happier and will also mean more escorts across all fleets.
-
I really hope the new assault boat rule vs escorts is going to be official.
I mean, I use, like, appreciate and win with escorts. Giving them some more makes me happier and will also mean more escorts across all fleets.
Yes... escorts should be at least on a 1:1 with any other ships in a fleet, but I would hope to make them desirable enough to make them 2:1.
The assault boat change would make them about on par with bombers, which is where they should be against escorts. I mean... it's only half the chart of a critical hit.... and it makes no sense that they should die from 'prow armament damaged'. Perhaps they could do something instead... maybe the escorts can't fire next turn, make turns, move more than half? but that would make ABS not very worthwhile.
-
Note: the area of acquisition is a good measure of maneuverability in Orks, basically a way of giving a value to the turns that a ship can make.
Now I'm considering doing a research method that I've seen done on Warmachine forums. Ultimately ships are more likely to be balanced or at 'correct' points values if they are taken fairly often in competitive or semi-competitive formats. Therefore if one were to look at the lists of say... 100 people you could come up with a percentage of how often a vessel is used. I.E. 95% of lists included terror ships, but only 35% contained Kill Kroozers. I'll start work on that soon.
-
Ok so out of the 126 fleets that I looked over... (note most of these are from first time players, who wanted suggestions on what they had, and seemed to take a 'some of everything' approach) I threw out space hulk lists, as these skewed results. They're taken from every forum I could think of with a significant bfg following.
TS: 92% of fleets (78% had at least 2)
KK: 64% (23% had at least 2)
Slamblasta: 5%
Kroolboy: 0%
Gorbags revenge: 7%
Hammer: 35%
Ramship: 54%
Onslaught: 7%
Ravager: 62%
Savage: 34% (this is surprising)
Deathdeala: 31%
Roks: 24%
I also did warlord upgrades,
Powerfields: 42%
Mad Meks: 0%
Looted Torpedos; 28%
Maniak gunners: 0%
Mega-armor: 14%
As you can see the favored BB/BC is the hammer, followed closely by the deathdeala, gorbags revenge and the slamblasta follow far behind. Kroolboy no one took. Also note that 75% of fleets had a BB/BC
The Kill-Kroozer is actually taken rather often, but not in multiples like the TS, which almost triples it in that respect. As far as escorts go, people love the ravager, followed by the brute (as suspected). These two show values that look like what you would expect compared to the cruisers, and the bb/bc (if they are lumped together, as people can only take one). However the savage gunships are fairly far behind, and onslaughts even further than that.
As far as the warlord upgrades... well no one likes two of the options, and about 40% of fleets elected to take no upgrade at all in their lists (even though every one observed was at least 1000 points).
-
Also some more interesting facts about this study:
Common Fleet Cores (i.e. cruisers/bb,bc)
4KK,2xHammer (or 1hammer and deathdeala)
4-5TS
1KK 2TS Deathdeala or Hammer
3-4TS Deathdeala or Hammer
Average number of lb per fleet: 9.4
Ratio of escorts to capital ships: 1.15:1 (very low considering. People seemed to mostly use them as a points fill or because they felt that they should)
-
Thats some pretty cool foot work :)
-
Hey thanks. Anyways for comparison I did Imperial bastion/gothic fleets as well:
Apocalypse: 4%
Emperor: 27%
Retribution: 23%
Vengeance: 11%
Avenger: 3%
Excorcist: 1%
Overlord: 20% (5% contained two or more)
Armageddon: 8%
Mars: 44% (21% contained two or more)
Gothic: 49% (28% contained two or more)
Tyrant: 16%
Dictator: 11%
Dominator: 40% (19% contained 2 or more)
Lunar: 44% (35% contained 2 or more)
Cobra: 30%
Firestorm: 28%
Sword: 35%
Dauntless: 48%
Endeavor (including variants): 1%
Anyways, this doesn't really provide any new insight in the way of Orks, although you can see that in this scenario, with the wide selection of vessels, ships considered 'good' are taken at least 30% of the time. Battleships... well as the limiting factor precludes, this is more like 20. I understand people not taking the dictator in favor of the mars (and all it's beauty) but what is with the hatred for the tyrant? is it the fact that it has no nova cannon and less weapon batteries compared to the dominator? Note that 3 of the five cruiser variants had similar values, as well as the dauntless. The emperor and retribution pretty much split the battleship market. And the Mars dominated the BC/GC section, followed slightly by the overlord. The escorts were about equal. 72% of fleets contained escorts.
Also note the low grand cruiser amounts, I think this is largely due to the money cost of the vessel, and how weird it feels in a IN fleet. Similarly with endeavors and variants, these aren't readily available anymore, and are generally considered worse than the dauntless.
Overall it's interesting, people favor lances a lot when it comes to basic cruisers. Also I kept track of the number of fleets with nova cannons: 65%, and 54% of those that did, had at least two.
Other interesting facts: Average LB per fleet: 5.6, average number of capital ships per fleet: 6.7, escort to capital ship ratio: 1.2:1 (slightly higher than orks)
I might do chaos later.
-
Ork escorts clearly are not appealing enough as is
But from a fluff standpoint it really should be an escort based fleet much like corsair eldars
-
Unless its a WAAAGH! list, right?
-
Still not. Perhaps less escorts then the normal list but still high amount of escorts.
-
Hi,
the following is from the (good) Ork player in our group:
---------------
Orks are sub-par in BFG, some reasons lie in the game-mechanics, some in the lack of restrictions and mandatory aspects in army-composition in BFG, some in the design of the Orks themselves.
In general Orks ships are fine the way they are, the rules reflect the ork background (and believe me, i know orks, play them in all GW games since Rogue Trader ;-) and typical ork strenghts and weaknesses.
There is but one real, mediocre, problem: the combined weaknesses lack of speed, lack of manouverability and few shields lead to 2 things:
- in battles orks are sub-par in, at least, the first 2 turns against any fleet that is faster and/or with better weapon-range. Especially a problem with some scenario's an set-ups where manouverability is of the essence and against really fast fleets with a lot of long-range (60cm) firepower
- in army-composition ordnance as theme is almost mandatory as the only working alternative
In game-mechanics this can be solved with a quite simple change though.1) All Ork ships get +1 shield2) Shields that are down come back on:
*** 5+ for escort (begins with 2, after that between 0 and 1 returns per turn)
*** 4+ for cruiser (begins with 2, after that on average 1 returns per turn)
*** 3+ for cruiser (begins with 3, after that on average 2 return per turn)
That solves the relatively big vulnerability in first turns for Orks (extra shield) and on average they they have the same number of shields IF the enemy keeps on the pressure.But if an enemy only sticks to shooting from afar (run and hit), the full +1 shield will return so that tactic (that is in my opinion less fun and hardly real gaming) does not work as well anymore.
With this change Orks get a little bit more survivability on just those parts where the game mechanics have made them sub-par.This also makes it possible to play with less ordance, a different army-composition becomes a valid option.Finally rolling for return of shields is VERY Orky, also exists in WH40K and Epic.
Furthermore i would change little, the rest of the Ork rules and fleet are quite allright except one thing: the heavy guns off course.
Heavy guns left/right are orky and fine, also in combination with point-cost of ships, but heavy guns in front are useless.That also, again, leads to the standard change to torpedoes in the front and, therefore, ordnance theme.Change the range in the front to 30cm on cruisers and that makes them usefull enough.
--------
-
The shield recovery is too much like necrons so I am not a fan
Shooty and tough are orky traits (fast as well when u factor in AAF)
Give them all +1 turrets or ork turrets hit on 3+ if you want to keep the stats
Ork cruisers are cheap and great value buys; ork escorts should all be cheaper by 5-10pts to keep this theme
-
Also some more interesting facts about this study:
Common Fleet Cores (i.e. cruisers/bb,bc)
4KK,2xHammer (or 1hammer and deathdeala)
4-5TS
1KK 2TS Deathdeala or Hammer
3-4TS Deathdeala or Hammer
Average number of lb per fleet: 9.4
Ratio of escorts to capital ships: 1.15:1 (very low considering. People seemed to mostly use them as a points fill or because they felt that they should)
This is excellent work, and its really sad that Ork escorts aren't used more. I wonder how much of this is the general malaise concerning escorts in general due to a-boat poison. BTW- the FAQ a-boat nerfing really works; escorts manage to spend a great deal of time on the table now. My son reverted to killing them with bombers because he said he had a better chance with them, which tells me this is fixed.
I'm really surprised Savages are taken more often than Brutes; I figured Brutes to be the most popular escort for price and utility, which explains why they command a high price on eBay (yes, I keep tabs in this as well to see what kinds of ships people buy more than others). I figured the new Onslaught with its +1 turret would be in higher demand, as it's the only Ork escort with two turrets now.
I know 40 points a pop is steep for what are supposed to be cheap ships, and this is still a discussion point.
- Nate
-
Orks do not fear assault boats as they have the Terror Kroozers. I think.
Very good to hear positive about the assault boat idea. We already used a healthy amount of escorts, I am glad such a change will see more escorts around all places.
Ebay stinks, ships tend to go by higher prizes then what GW asks. doh
As said an Orky problem was the change of costs/stats in the 1.5 rulebook update. A big suprise to everyone.
-
This is excellent work, and its really sad that Ork escorts aren't used more. I wonder how much of this is the general malaise concerning escorts in general due to a-boat poison. BTW- the FAQ a-boat nerfing really works; escorts manage to spend a great deal of time on the table now. My son reverted to killing them with bombers because he said he had a better chance with them, which tells me this is fixed.
I'm really surprised Savages are taken more often than Brutes; I figured Brutes to be the most popular escort for price and utility, which explains why they command a high price on eBay (yes, I keep tabs in this as well to see what kinds of ships people buy more than others). I figured the new Onslaught with its +1 turret would be in higher demand, as it's the only Ork escort with two turrets now.
I know 40 points a pop is steep for what are supposed to be cheap ships, and this is still a discussion point.
- Nate
Nate, you're reading it wrong... Brutes are more popular than savages (I listed brutes as 'ramship') brutes are used in 54% of lists, savages in 34%. I think I might go back and write average number of each ship per list. Because it seems people run brutes in larger numbers (5-11 each time they take them, as opposed to usually 3-5 for savages)
Onslaughts don't have 2 turrets, you're thinking of the ravager, which is quite popular at 62% of lists. Onslaughts are the least taken of all at just 7%
Ork escorts shouldn't fear ABs, because even with the old rules, bombers were almost as good at killing them with their 4+ armor, now ABs have a harder time than bombers to kill them (ha!) which to me feels more orky. I mean a hit and run team is going to probably have little idea what to blow up on an ork ship. Not to mention they will be getting more resistance from the crew.
-
Average number of each escort taken per fleet. (actually this time only over 50 fleets, it's a bit hard finding all of them, but this time they are all 1500)
.42 Savage Gunships per fleet. (saw one squadron that wasn't 2 or 3 ships, very rarely mixed)
2.85 Brute Ramships per fleet.
1.15 Ravagers per fleet
.76 Onslaughts per fleet
So even though the ravagers are taken in more lists than any other ork escort, they aren't taken in large numbers, and even though the onslaughts are by far represented in the fewest lists, of these they are taken in large numbers. Brutes... we'll they are as expected.
What this means... well the savage is taken somewhat often... but in very few numbers... which leads to the idea that it's job as a flanker, or the fact that it may be taken as a 'just because I have the models' type deal. Although it is odd that this wouldn't happen for the onslaught.
I don't know what to make of this, but this is a bit more evidence for the Onslaught/Savage weakness. Although it is weird....
-
Nothing to add atm, just wondering:
What are the current proposed rules for the Grunt and Assault kroozer? I cant seem to find them.
-
Orks do not fear assault boats as they have the Terror Kroozers. I think.
Very good to hear positive about the assault boat idea. We already used a healthy amount of escorts, I am glad such a change will see more escorts around all places.
Ebay stinks, ships tend to go by higher prizes then what GW asks. doh
As said an Orky problem was the change of costs/stats in the 1.5 rulebook update. A big suprise to everyone.
Okay, here's what we are looking at.
All Ork escorts keep their profiles from BFG 1.5 except for price changes:
Ravager: 40 pts (unchanged)
Onslaught: 35 pts
Grunt: 35 pts (new ship, profile to follow)
Savage: 30 pts
Brute: 25 pts (unchanged)
Thoughts?
- Nate
-
It's a good start Nate
Boost ork turrets?
-
It's a good start Nate
Boost ork turrets?
The Ravager has two turrets in the current profile, and the Grunt will have 2 as well. Everything else will remain unchanged.
- Nate
-
Great to be ignored -_-
Fracas' suggestion is a minimum requirement. Orks are twice as weak to ordnance as any other fleet in the game, and ordnance has proven to be the premier game winner, currently. 4+ armor coupled with ridiculously low turrets equals super dead ships.
At least double all ork turrets, and, maybe orks suffer a -1 up to 6? Tons of ork turrets but they enemy bombers dont suffer suppression? (bad coordination in turrets) Orks love dakka. Their ships should have very little hull space between the gunz.
-
Leave the number of turrets as is then
But make them work better like hitting on a 3+ or reroll misses
-
Okay, here's what we are looking at.
All Ork escorts keep their profiles from BFG 1.5 except for price changes:
Ravager: 40 pts (unchanged)
Onslaught: 35 pts
Grunt: 35 pts (new ship, profile to follow)
Savage: 30 pts
Brute: 25 pts (unchanged)
Thoughts?
Beautiful. I like the fact that you made the savage 30, I would've made it 35 but changed the 'no column shift' rule, but this works just fine. I've been running a squadron lately (because I finally painted a few, and from my # study) and testing them out against various fleets. I've never run them before thinking of them as worthless, or as the general consensus of gothic players. They are actually not bad.
The onslaught at 35 points... well at this value it's still a bit underpowered IMO, but that's more or less fine. I would probably boost its guns back to D6+1, but this would seem weird as it's average would be more than a sword at the same cost. Then again it does have some disadvantages comparatively (turns, speed and turrets). Still without the +1 then it's disadvantages would be four things. I would've probably made the Onslaught 30 and the savage 35 (then changed the shift rule of course). They will be still unpopular at this value.
I've always run escort-heavy ork fleets. Usually 2 TS, a hammer or slamblasta, 2 squads of 2onslaught/1ravagers, 1 squad of 5 ravagers, and 5 brute rams at 1500.
Orks are twice as weak to ordnance as any other fleet in the game, and ordnance has proven to be the premier game winner, currently. 4+ armor coupled with ridiculously low turrets equals super dead ships.
Actually more than twice on their cruisers. This is a quirk of the ork fleet and its main weakness, which is why we see such high LB averages in an ork fleet compared to imperials (almost twice as many). I don't think this should change, but it would be nice to have perhaps some other solutions. I think this is the real killer for the KK, as an ork is so desperate to cram as many LBs in his fleet to save himself from bombers. Dropping the KK in cost... well trying to think about it from another standpoint, maybe not... but it would be nice to not feel somewhat hindered for taking one.
I honestly think it would be funny to make ork cruisers have d3 turrets (BB d3+1?), but this might tie up the game in more dice rolls. It would feel orky and give them a better resistance to ordinance.
Anyways thanks Nate+HA's, it's good to be heard out. You've kept the escorts with the current ork theme and are making them much more competitive. Without adding weird clunky mechanics.
-
Also as another note for why the onslaught should have more fp; swords can and often will turn abeam to enemies to fire, making them more survivable against enemy fire than the closing Onslaught (even with armor 6). LFR weapons batteries make this 5 total things that the sword has over the Onslaught. So the ship definitely needs an up in FP.
-
Good point.
Dunno how this would be, but you could always say ork turrets are massively focuse on the rear of the ship, for some orky reason or another.
So bombers use side armor when rolling against.
-
Good point.
Dunno how this would be, but you could always say ork turrets are massively focuse on the rear of the ship, for some orky reason or another.
So bombers use side armor when rolling against.
javascript:void(0);
Another clunky rule-mechanic. From what I understand HA's are trying to avoid these as much as possible.
Nate, I know you think of the Onslaught having a lot of firepower, (or at least a chance for it), this is balanced out in squadrons. It is likely to roll consistent totals when rolling three dice.
For example with three dice the total rolled (and percentage chance)
3=.5%
4=1.4%
5= 2.8%
6=4.6%
7=7%
8=9.7%
9=11.6%
10=12.5%
11=12.5%
12=11.6%
13=9.7%
14=7%
15=4.6%
16=2.8%
17=1.4%
18=.5%
You see that the ships have a 70% chance of rolling between an 8 and 13, fairly consistent over 6 numbers. 50% of the time the ships firepower is worse than swords, 12.5% it is the same, and 38% of the time it is better. This is bad considering. It is more expressed in larger squadrons with more consistently less firepower.
With this we can determine how a squadron of 3 onslaughts compare to 3 swords. Now with this we note that 38/50% as a determinate for firepower comparison. Actually dividing the 'equal' percentage in half is a bit of a better representation so 45/55% Making it only have 81% the firepower capacity of the swords, close to the individual at 87%, but it appears as less in squadrons. I imagine this number will drop further with larger squads. With survivability, comparing them both in closing and abeam options we note that an onslaught has 2x survivability if both are facing forwards, and 2/3 from abeam. Comparing the two aspects, noting the general playstyle of each, then the sword will always face abeam when able, and the onslaught will always face forward.
This means that the Onslaught has only a 66% survivability compared to the sword overall in first strike scenarios. The sword closes with it's enemy, then turns abeam and fires, next turn it will turn again to face the enemy and fly between it's ranks to fire again, maintaining it's abeam status. Whereas the onslaught will perform no turns, and keep it's high-armor facing to the opponent.
Not to mention the fact that it is much less survivable against ordinance. Particularly bombers.
With a smaller turn the Onslaught is not likely to be able to turn and catch an enemy after they pass, as well as the fact that it doesn't have LFR batteries. This is fine and orky. It is slower as well.
This is the case for the Onslaught having +1 firepower, as I analyzed (technically my analysis said +2 at 35 points, but I'll take what I can get).
To make the fleet a more escort-heavy fleet you have to make the escorts at least nearly as appealing as they are in IN. With a weaker escort gunship, it will be looked over. I know its hard to compare two different fleets, but the mechanics are close.
The ravager is fine, torpedo boats always are well represented. The savage... at 30 points is close, I think I said that it would cost 27 points as compared to other ships, so close enough.
-
Hot off the debate about Orks:
- All other escort profiles perviously discussed (including new prices) remain unchanged
- Ork escorts can buy +1 turret for +5 points
- Ork kroozers can but +2 turrets for +20 points, as a one-off buy. This is as opposed to and distinct from saying they can buy up to 2 turrets for +10 points each.
Eldar are getting soem juice too, but you have to go here to read about it. We're really close to stapling shut the FAQ.
- Nate
-
Aw focus on eldar later :p
Who uses msm these days? ;)
Turrets is a big help, but I feel its doubly priced.
-
Hmmm... turret upgrades... Didn't see that coming. 20 points seems right for 2 turrets, but I don't know if I will ever buy it. Probably not on escorts. Does the whole squadron of escorts have to have the upgrade or just one or two?
-
Escorts can upgrade for 5 points, once. That is the correct cost of turrets. A points premium of 20 on a fleet that desperately needs turrets only grows the ork problem.
-
I would've preferred d3 turrets for 10 points. I was asking if the whole squadron had to have the upgrade. I don't think that it extends the ork problem, any new thing will always help. It's just that the issue that you have to spend more points for it, where orks are underpowered as is, so they should have a points drop or something... free?
However 3 turrets on a cruiser with 4+ armor is better than 2 on a cruiser with 5+ armor. You get much better resistance to ABs of course. As I calculated before an Ork Kroozer with 3 turrets takes about half the number of hits from bombers as a standard chaos/IN cruiser.
Orks are now the most resistant fleet to ordinance! HA!
I still hope that the onslaught is changed to D6+1, otherwise I'm rather happy about what happened.
Also I would like to see my LC put into play, but that's a bit to ask. I would like to build a fast assault-based ork fleet.
Something like:
Stompa x4 500
Kroolboy 270
Deathdeala 275
Warlord (on each) +1 shield, extra rr 180
6 Savage gunships 180
Hmmm... under-escorted....
-
Escorts can upgrade for 5 points, once. That is the correct cost of turrets. A points premium of 20 on a fleet that desperately needs turrets only grows the ork problem.
What came up in play-testing is that in smaller games, Ork capital ships with better turrets really start to shine. This way in bigger battles they get what they need, but in smaller battles you have to think about whether or not its worth the cost.
To upgrade escorts is only +5 points each, but the whole squadron has to pay for it. Remember, we have to make rules for EVERYONE, not just the gentleman players. Having the squad pay for the upgrade prevents someone from paying +10 points for the squadron, then dropping one or two random Brutes on a massive ordy wave and saying, "uh, nope, THIS'S the one I paid for extra turrets, not that one."
- Nate
-
But Nate, Orks DIE to ordnance, they die so hard. 4+ armor makes you die to ordnance, 50% of normal races turrets just makes you want to cry at how sad it is. On a race that should have bristling guns no less ???
+2 turrets really helps alot, but 20 point increase on a kill kroozer brings it to points levels where it just isn't in the same league as other ships.
-
What came up in play-testing is that in smaller games, Ork capital ships with better turrets really start to shine. This way in bigger battles they get what they need, but in smaller battles you have to think about whether or not its worth the cost.
I'm sure. Making the enemies ordinance half as effective (as compared to IN and Chaos) is quite a big slap in the face. Especially with how ordinance-heavy a lot of people play. Although I think that this upgrade will be somewhat of a metagame thing.
In my group (with Bluedagger and PatGhiggins) people usually go ordinance light (save for me).
@LS having more turrets is better than having better armor when it comes to bombers. In the case of 5+ armor with 2 turrets compared to 4+ with 3 turrets, 6 bombers will do 2.5 hits to the 5+ armor, and likewise 1.125 hits against the 4+ armor.
I know it doesn't really make sense, but it's true.
-
Oh and not to mention the fact that orks with three turrets will be quite a bit better at dealing with ABs. As the one extra chance to kill a boat is something, but naturally with more hits the orks are more likely repair critical hits than IN/Chaos. Additionally people can take Mad Meks (but they're overcosted) if they really hate criticals.
I wonder if there is any likelihood of changing mad meks or maniak gunners?
It would be cool if Mad Meks could repair any critical, including Bridge smashed and Shields Collapse.
-
I'm not saying it won't help solve the problem Plaxor. I'm saying it raises a kroozer's costs to generally unacceptable as a line ship of its quality.
-
the kroozers will be fine as is or upgraded
-
I'm not saying it won't help solve the problem Plaxor. I'm saying it raises a kroozer's costs to generally unacceptable as a line ship of its quality.
Yeah, I know. The Kill Kroozer does deserve to be 10-15 points cheaper. It helps with one ork problem. Giving it upgrades to 'fix' things aren't exactly what it needs, it needs either more stuff for its standard layout, or a cheaper cost overall.
I wonder how the HAs would feel about making the Ork Kroozers 15 points cheaper and making the torps a 5-10 point upgrade?
Comparing a Murder with a chaos lord and MOK is about the same as a KK with the turret upgrade and a warlord. The unfortunate thing is that the KK only has one playstyle, whereas the Murder has multiple options, more firepower, and more speed. Predictability is another thing that hurts the Orks.
The HAs have told us that no points adjustment will be awarded to any fleet (i guess save the Ork escorts); as that is similar to calibrating a bomb. Apparently my analysis has provided somewhat of an arguing base for Nate, as well as I think the latest tactica from warp rift.
Of the issues with the Ork fleet, well one of them is the character battleships vs the hammer, for 30 points more than a hammer, one can upgrade the hits, soopa engines, and turrets up to a Deathdeala. Although the deathdeala doesn't have torps (but you can't fire both). Such is often the effect of 'characters' in the 40k universe. I have seen BFG tournaments that banned character ships (For PK hatred... I think... and the fluff backing of not having characters always around).
Also taking a study of a bunch of random lists on the internet is a bit flawed. As these people are often new and don't understand the game, or don't have a good mix of opponents. A better study would be to get 10-12 veteran players together, and each have them write their lists at various points values (presuming that they have access to every possible ship, and will play against every other fleet).
Orks simply can't win a firefight, their weapon strengths are half compared to the other fleets. The game designers intended for heavy guns to compensate for this, but the fact that they are slow and unmaneuverable makes this not work. Similarly if they would be in range then usually they are boarding or ramming instead. They are dependent on boarding to do damage in most situations, but it's hard for them to get into place. These are the issues with Orks. Ideally an ork list would see a points drop across their cap ships (save likely the slamblasta) and an addition of several upgrades such as soopa engines.
I think that with these two things that not only the battlefleet gothic Ork community would be pleased, but the 40k Ork community as well. I all to often hear about 40k ork players feeling that the fleet isn't orky enough, so whats the solution? Make them more numerous, and more customizable. The customization thing was taken by the random firepower, presuming that no two ork ships were exactly the same, but that orks would have a general theme among their vessels.
We'll see what comes out of the Klanz document, but I would be happy if they didn't make things clan-specific. I would much rather for simplification have things like how they did vampire counts for fantasy, where they only gave ideas for each bloodline, but let you take whatever you wanted anyway.
Basically we're in the bottom of the ninth, and it's almost the last moment to get any changes in, for at least a while. Honestly if you have any idea for a solid, numerical basis for modifying a ship, this is really the only thing that the HAs will put under consideration.
-Plaxor
-
For one, just cut the kroozer turret upgrade cost in half. For sure.
What was the assault kroozer proposal? Who proposed it? I'd love to see the idea again, as I intend on using it as a homebrew ship even if it doesnt go through.
How is the Grunt different from the Brute?
Is there any official ruling on if all Ork capital ships can choose to have a large base or not? RAW or RAI?
-
The Grunt is a brute that has BV4 instead of the ram capability. In the faq any capital ship can choose to have a large base.
-
Aha! Thanks. So it loses the ramming capability totally? More points?
Don't I remember a large base too?
Thanks for the info, gonna have to find some large bases :)
-
35 points. It can still ram, it just doesn't count as 4 hits when it does. Yes it's on a large base.
-
2 questions. Are the rerolls warlords supply Fleet rerolls or just ship rerolls? Doesnt specify.
Also, who came up with the Assault Kroozer idea? Need to PM for stats, this thread is too long to search.
-
@LS having more turrets is better than having better armor when it comes to bombers. In the case of 5+ armor with 2 turrets compared to 4+ with 3 turrets, 6 bombers will do 2.5 hits to the 5+ armor, and likewise 1.125 hits against the 4+ armor.
I know it doesn't really make sense, but it's true.
I don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure 6 bombers will do 2.78 hits to the 5+ armour ship and 2.25 hits to the 4+ armour ship. The extra turret is still better than the armour, but not by as much as you thought.
-
Recalculated: Hmm... you're close, but we're both wrong on the 4+ 3 turret ship it's 2.43 hits. Yes the 5+ 2 turrets would take 2.77. Hmm... apparently 3 turrets on ork ships isn't that absurd.
-
Recalculated: Hmm... you're close, but we're both wrong on the 4+ 3 turret ship it's 2.43 hits. Yes the 5+ 2 turrets would take 2.77. Hmm... apparently 3 turrets on ork ships isn't that absurd.
3 turrets shoot down 1.5 bombers on average. .5x3=1.5
Against 3 turrets each bomber makes 1 attack run on average. (0+0+0+1+2+3)/6=1
(6 bombers - 1.5 turret kills)(1 attack run)(.5 hits per run) = 2.25
Do you do the math differently?
-
I get 2.25 hits for 3 turrets and 4+ armour
2.78 hits vs T2 and 5+.
T3&4+:
Average attack runs = (0+0+0+1+2+3)/6 = 1
0 shot down, 6 attack runs gives 3 hits at 0.125 chance
1 shot down, 5 attack runs gives 2.5 hits at 0.375 chance
2 shot down, 4 attack runs gives 2 hits at 0.375 chance
3 shot down, 3 attack runs gives 1.5 hits at 0.125 chance
Multiply the expected hits by the chance of each scenario, gives 2.25 hits for the sum of all scenarios.
T2&5+:
Average attack runs = (0+0+1+2+3+4)/6 = 1.667
0 shot down, 10 attack runs give 3.33 hits at 0.25 chance
1 shot down, 8.33 attack runs gives 2.78 hits at 0.5 chance
2 shot down, 6 attack runs gives 2.22 hits at 0.25 chance
Multiply the expected hits by the chance of each scenario, gives 2.78 hits for the sum of all scenarios.
I get 2.5 hits for T2&5+ if I incorrectly use an average value of 1.5 for the attack runs against a t2 target, so that's possibly what went wrong?
-
t3 and armor 4:
6 bombers:
1/8 chance of 0 dying from turret fire Hits inflicted: 3
3/8 chance of 1 dying Hits inflicted: 2.5
3/8 chance of 2 dying Hits inflicted: 2
1/8 chance of 3 dying Hits inflicted: 1.5
number rolled= number of attacks
1=0
2=0
3=0
4=1
5=2
6=3
average over all 6 is 1. In the scenario that zero die then you will get about 3 hits from 6 bombers on average (6 attacks x .5 chance of doing damage), when one dies 2.5 (5 attacks x .5 chance of doing 1 damage) etc. 375 9375 75
you then multiply each number above by its ratio and add them together; 3x1/8+2.5x3/8+2x3/8+1.5x1/8=2.25, dang. I don't know what I was doing wrong...
-
Also, who came up with the Assault Kroozer idea? Need to PM for stats, this thread is too long to search.
Assault Kroozer . . . . . . . . 175 pts
Hits/10 Shields/1 Turrets/1 Speed/25cm Turns/45* Armor/ 6+, 5+ Rear
Armament: Range/Speed: Firepower/Strength: Fire Arc:
Prow Torpedoes: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Prow Weapons Batteries: 45cm: D6+2: Front
Port Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Starboard Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Notes:
-Equipped with Boarding Torpedoes
-Equipped with Power Ram
-May conduct up to 2 teleport attacks per turn.
-Boarding Value is doubled. If carrying a Warlord, it gives +10 Boarding points to the Assault Kroozer's value instead of doubling it again.
I think this achieves what you all say an Assault Kroozer should be right? And if it's designed to board Space Stations, then a Boarding Value of 30 pts on a fresh one with a Warlord gives you a 2-1 boarding value against a Space Station. Alternatively you could arm this type of ship with W.S. Boyd's "Shokk Attack Lance Gublins" weapon?
-Zhukov
-
Also, who came up with the Assault Kroozer idea? Need to PM for stats, this thread is too long to search.
Assault Kroozer . . . . . . . . 175 pts
Hits/10 Shields/1 Turrets/1 Speed/25cm Turns/45* Armor/ 6+, 5+ Rear
Armament: Range/Speed: Firepower/Strength: Fire Arc:
Prow Torpedoes: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Prow Weapons Batteries: 45cm: D6+2: Front
Port Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Starboard Launch Bays: Assault Boats-30cm: 2: -
Notes:
-Equipped with Boarding Torpedoes
-Equipped with Power Ram
-May conduct up to 2 teleport attacks per turn.
-Boarding Value is doubled. If carrying a Warlord, it gives +10 Boarding points to the Assault Kroozer's value instead of doubling it again.
I think this achieves what you all say an Assault Kroozer should be right? And if it's designed to board Space Stations, then a Boarding Value of 30 pts on a fresh one with a Warlord gives you a 2-1 boarding value against a Space Station. Alternatively you could arm this type of ship with W.S. Boyd's "Shokk Attack Lance Gublins" weapon?
-Zhukov
Hey Zukhov, pretend for a moment this was going to have a name, like "Zagreb's Terror" or something like that. What would you name it?
- Nate
-
"Zhukov's Claw"
;)
-
Hey Zukhov, pretend for a moment this was going to have a name, like "Zagreb's Terror" or something like that. What would you name it?
- Nate
You're seriously considering this one? Wow.... Um... it's very radically different than anything Orks have.... I honestly would build it differently, but I guess you could make it a character ship.
I would do something like this, more in theme with Ork ideology of how they would build an assault ship/competes less with Kill-Kroozers:
Assault Kroozer . . . . . . . . 150 pts
Hits/10 Shields/1 Turrets/1 Speed/20cm Turns/45* Armor/ 6+prow 5+sides and rear
Armament: Range/Speed: Firepower/Strength: Fire Arc:
Prow Torpedoes: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Prow Weapons Batteries: 30cm: D6+2: Front
Port and starboard Torpedoes: Str: D6 L/R
Port and Starboard Heavy Guns: Str 4
Notes:
-Equipped with Boarding Torpedoes
-Equipped with Power Ram
-Has Soopa Engines
This build is a lot more like what Orks currently have, and gets rid of assault boats, the Orks would probably not be clever enough for that. Zhukov's design is way too powerful compared to a Kill-kroozer (6+armor front and sides, with 25cm speed?) the speed issue is better covered by Soopa Engines, and Orks wouldn't put long-range weaponry on an Assault Kroozer.
I recommend for name; Zagrot's Raider.
-
Nate, the Grunt is undercosted... 30 points? It has +1 armor on sides and rear, as well as an extra turret, it loses CTNH, but that's not so important. The special ability is an even trade off. Should probably be 35, or lose the extra armor or turret.
Also the large base makes it slightly harder for it to board. You can overlap bases, but the advantage of area coverage with a large base is diluted with an escort.
A large base on a Kroozer can board enemy vessels in 185% of the area, however this only is 123% as effective in the case of escorts.
This also makes them better at ramming than a Brute, which is only able to ram half the area, but half effectiveness. Some people would take that. I would probably have it be 30 points, but lose the large base rule, and be 4+ armor on sides and rear.
-
Assault Kroozer-170
Cruiser/10 Speed:20cm Turns: 45 Shields: 1 Armor: 6+/5+ Turrets: 1
prow bombardment cannon 6 30cm
port/starboard heavy gunz 8 15cm
*Soopa Engines
*Power Ram
*Ignores blast markers for purposes of boarding and speed reduction.
There's my idea, altered slightly to suit 'normal' orks ;)
-
A bombardment cannon on an ork kroozer class would destroy any semblance of internal balance that the orks have.
Right now there are two kroozer options, both decent in comparison to each other, however one helps defend against the main weakness of orks (ordinance) and therefore is greatly preferred.
-
Ah, right, I meant D6 not str6 :) Switch the thing out for gunz if need be, its not the primary facet of the beast, just a characterful weapon for an assault kroozer.
-
Ah, right, I meant D6 not str6 :) Switch the thing out for gunz if need be, its not the primary facet of the beast, just a characterful weapon for an assault kroozer.
That wouldn't be so bad, but still... it hurts the point of taking restricted ships as these give access to lances and bombardment cannons. Which of course is why the hammer and deathdeala are so well represented. (~35% of fleets each) Also the Slamblasta is significantly less represented due to its weak 'special' armament @2 instead of what would be Equivalent of a strength 6 bombard (which is about 4 lances) and it loses out on the soopa engines.
Gorbags revenge is taken too, because of its launch bays, which like on the terror ship, are needed to help reduce the weakness of orks.
No one takes the Kroolboy... as it has none of these advantages. I mean... 126 lists and no Kroolboys? Bit absurd.
-
http://s215.photobucket.com/albums/cc319/lastspartacus/RS%20Orks/
My Orks I made in celebration of the RS rules. 3 kill kroozers, 1 assault ship, 1 hammer class, 2 terror ships.
-
I know that you have stated that you will not be changing the rules for orks but I would like you to think on the following. The leadership of the orks is great I love it. Giving them re-rolls out the wazoo is not. I prefer to a change to the orks that allows each ship to be unaffected by leadership failures in the fleet. Each failure will cause 1 hit on the ship, drop the shileds of the ship, allow on the minimum move of the ship with no turns and any penalty of the order attempted. This would represent the ships systems over loading because of the good old ork "Let's try this? Opps." trick. On the up side the orks fleet would completely ignore the stop all further ordes penalty for failing leadership tests.
Points would have to be modified to allow this but in current orks you want a small amount of ship squadrons and loads of rerolls to maximize efficiency. This is not Orky! Accidentally blowing your own ship to kingdom come because you try to get too much out of it is definitly Orky.
Rather than giving them imperial sheilding could you possibly give them a 5+ ork save that is taken against any successful damage in the same way as brace for impact. Bracing for impact would still be at 4+. Orks don't shake in fear as easierly as other races. You could limit this to a set number of successful saves. A cruzer could have 3 sheilds for example allowing 3 5+ saves (5 or 6) to be successfully made before dropping. I would prefer to leave it unlimited however.
Turrets could be a random dice roll. d6-x depending on the class of the ship. -3 for escorts, -2 for cruzers, -1 for battlekroozas and 0 for defenses.
In short Orks should have massed huge fleets. Low leadership game mehcanics do not allow for this to happen. Changes to the rules need to be made to let the orks match their fluff.
-
For some reason there are a lot of weird ideas out there to change the way orks work in BFG. I can't really grasp it.
So far I've seen:
Saves instead of shields
Ignore Leadership rules
Shields that come back up on a die roll
More turrets but worse ones
Lots of criticals but more weaponry
Usually these are way complicated
@Barras
Although your idea is certainly Orky, the orks usually build their ships out of wrecked hulks of other ships, usually these are IN, and use their technology poorly refitted by the ork crew. Animosity doesn't exist in 40k.
Orks need to have their weaknesses lessened and kept equivalent to each other. The damage they take from ordinance can't be greater than the potential damage past shields that they would take from something equivalent. However they both should be weaker than IN/Chaos equivalents.
They also should have proportionally worse weapons (although more at close ranges, which is the reason for heavy guns).
-
whats wierd about it? :P
-
@Barras
Although your idea is certainly Orky, the orks usually build their ships out of wrecked hulks of other ships, usually these are IN, and use their technology poorly refitted by the ork crew. Animosity doesn't exist in 40k.
I didn't bring up animosity.
Just because something is built a certain way by its designer does not mean it can not be altered to become something else entirely. The save would represent fluctuations of the power grids for example. The fluff on the orks states the orks can do things with technology that other races can't. Orks are intuitive not intelligent. Orks will always push for something more out of their ships and technology for the simple reason that they are too dumb not to!
My final point is simply no other fleet should ever be mistaken for orks. For this you need special rules.
-
"Zhukov's Claw"
;)
"Zukov's Klaw"
LOL ;)
In all seriousness though, what are you looking for? A character ship or a generic class name?
Hey Zukhov, pretend for a moment this was going to have a name, like "Zagreb's Terror" or something like that. What would you name it?
- Nate
You're seriously considering this one? Wow.... Um... it's very radically different than anything Orks have.... I honestly would build it differently, but I guess you could make it a character ship.
I would do something like this, more in theme with Ork ideology of how they would build an assault ship/competes less with Kill-Kroozers:
[Ship stats....]
This build is a lot more like what Orks currently have, and gets rid of assault boats, the Orks would probably not be clever enough for that. Zhukov's design is way too powerful compared to a Kill-kroozer (6+armor front and sides, with 25cm speed?) the speed issue is better covered by Soopa Engines, and Orks wouldn't put long-range weaponry on an Assault Kroozer.
I'll admit, it surprises me too they are considering this. I just saw what people were asking for in an Assault Kroozer type ship, put some numbers and values to it, and slapped a price tag on it as a starting point! Maybe Nate has created an alternate profile, unless playtesting this actually turned out well? I don't think my profile conflicts with Kill Kroozers since they are a gunship and mine, clearly is not, lol. Ork's not crafty enough for A-Boat only Launch Bays? How so? They already get A-Boats so why wouldn't a boarding designed vessel get them too? I think that's better than having side mounted, boarding torpedo tubes. And I believe this vessel shouldn't have flank guns because it runs counter to what this ship is designed to do. Not to mention, I can make the argument the builder removed the guns for added space for Boyz which is why they get 2 teleport attacks and double boarding value?
When I "designed" this, I was thinking of what a good boarding cruiser should be.
1. Speed to close (Faster than the other cruisers. Soopa Engines is a nifty idea actually...)
2. Armor heavy (If it's designed to go board space stations, it should have a good protection. Can't give an Ork cruiser more shields so I added more armor. I chose not to keep the rear at 4+ since this vessel wouldn't stand a chance against the Launch Bays a space station has so it would defeat the purpose!)
3. Ordnance Heavy (I figured a good way for this ship to survive it's way into the teeth of the enemy is if you knock the teeth out! With boarding torps and a-boats (which adds emphasis to the type of ship it is) you can easily knock out the weapons of an enemy vessel or station.)
4. Boarding heavy (Special rules for boarding value so it can take on Stations. 2 Teleport attacks gives it something to do if it can't quite ram or board. Power Ram, well what better way to make a door in an enemy ship ;) ")
5. Guns light (I gave it just enough weapon strength so it CAN support other ships in the fleet and more importantly, take down shields of eventual ramming/boarding/teleport target.)
I can see setting speed at 20cm but adding Soopa Engines and reducing side armor to 5+. Also I could see changing the front Gunz to range 30cm, but that would be strange since the other Kroozers have 45cm. It wouldn't mesh as well in my opinion.
-Zhukov
-
I never understood how basic Ork kroozers had ranges IN cruisers struggled to reach anyway.
-
I'll admit, it surprises me too they are considering this. I just saw what people were asking for in an Assault Kroozer type ship, put some numbers and values to it, and slapped a price tag on it as a starting point! Maybe Nate has created an alternate profile, unless playtesting this actually turned out well? I don't think my profile conflicts with Kill Kroozers since they are a gunship and mine, clearly is not, lol. Ork's not crafty enough for A-Boat only Launch Bays? How so? They already get A-Boats so why wouldn't a boarding designed vessel get them too? I think that's better than having side mounted, boarding torpedo tubes. And I believe this vessel shouldn't have flank guns because it runs counter to what this ship is designed to do. Not to mention, I can make the argument the builder removed the guns for added space for Boyz which is why they get 2 teleport attacks and double boarding value?
Hey Zhukov, I wasn't saying that they wouldn't make Aboat only launch bays. I was saying that Orks usually don't design ships to make sense, and a vessel with P/S boarding torpedoes would be interesting. Also all launch bays in existence use all the craft available to the fleet, doesn't mean that you couldn't give them that, just limiting confusion.
1. Speed to close (Faster than the other cruisers. Soopa Engines is a nifty idea actually...)
I think soopa engines works better with the fluff, and has about the same effect :)
2. Armor heavy (If it's designed to go board space stations, it should have a good protection. Can't give an Ork cruiser more shields so I added more armor. I chose not to keep the rear at 4+ since this vessel wouldn't stand a chance against the Launch Bays a space station has so it would defeat the purpose!)
I still think you should go 6+prow/5+ at the very least. Side armor isn't as important to an Ork, they only think about the most obvious part to armor (the prow). Also if you look at how 5+ armor sides compared to 6+ armor prows according to the gunnery chart they are statistically about the same.
3. Ordnance Heavy (I figured a good way for this ship to survive it's way into the teeth of the enemy is if you knock the teeth out! With boarding torps and a-boats (which adds emphasis to the type of ship it is) you can easily knock out the weapons of an enemy vessel or station.)
Totally Awesome.
4. Boarding heavy (Special rules for boarding value so it can take on Stations. 2 Teleport attacks gives it something to do if it can't quite ram or board. Power Ram, well what better way to make a door in an enemy ship ;) ")
I would give it terminator teleport assault instead. Already exists in the current rules. So roll 2d6 on teleport attacks and pick the highest.
5. Guns light (I gave it just enough weapon strength so it CAN support other ships in the fleet and more importantly, take down shields of eventual ramming/boarding/teleport target.)
Yep, of course I don't think that an assault Kroozer would have 45cm guns.
I can see setting speed at 20cm but adding Soopa Engines and reducing side armor to 5+. Also I could see changing the front Gunz to range 30cm, but that would be strange since the other Kroozers have 45cm. It wouldn't mesh as well in my opinion.
Apparently missed this part before I started typing up my response, but yes, this is what I would do.
-
I never understood how basic Ork kroozers had ranges IN cruisers struggled to reach anyway.
IN doesn't have the accuracy. Orks don't need accuracy, they just use loads more Dakka!
-
Hi everyone! I wanted to get this out before Christmas while I'm on vacation, which explains why I haven't been on the Forum for a few days. I'll be back on Monday and will catch all your bolter rounds and the like for this latest project.
...and now da Orks hav' a break...
Ork Clanz DRAFT v 1.0
http://tinyurl.com/23nul8q
MERRY CHRISTMAS!! :) :D ;D :D ;D :D :)
- Nate
-
My God Nate.... This is radically different than anything that I would've ever expected.
Big Boostas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +25 pts
(+5pts/escort) the ship gains +5cm speed, and it rolls
4D6cm when on All Ahead Full special orders.
I think that this should be cheaper, and instead be soopa engines, as they already exist in the ork ruleset.
Looted Lances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +30 pts
(+10pts/escort) Any heavy gunz batteries on the ship
can be replaced with a Strength 2 lance battery.
Range is 15cm for escorts, 30cm for port/starboard
batteries, 45cm for prow batteries.
What? So for 30 points I can replace my prow heavy guns with lances? I would instead make this free, and have it be Strength of heavy guns/2 = the number of lances ALWAYS AT 15cm. People don't take prow heavy guns because of the range limitations, similarly, I could see people doing this and having a shit-ton of ridiculously shooty Kill-Kroozers. Then again 185 points is a fair amount for the amount of Dakka you're putting out there.
It is specifically stated in the Ork fluff that lances are nearly impossible for them to operate. Mostly this is because they don't want to devote the power to it. This is why only two vessels have these weapons, and I think having this destroys a bit of Ork character. However, I could see them having 15cm range lances (as they don't know how to operate them well enough to fire further).
Heavy guns are worth about 1.33 regular guns batteries at 15cm. If a lance is worth ~2wbs at close range, then it would be reasonable to have a 2:1 swap for free to lances. The lances would be a bit less powerful than heavy guns, but this is what makes sense for Orks.
Young guns and Mob Rule is somewhat confusing. If I take a bunch of squadrons at 4 models and hope I roll 5's or 6's then I get a bunch of free escorts and will get improved leadership?
I think this whole special rule system/purchasing system would be better represented by a more correct points value on the current line up of ships. Free Warlords & Escorts? Something to line up for stuff.
Tellyportas are a very rare thing. Actually Teleporters in IN fluff only exist on military vessels, as they are a very rare archeotech item. For gameplay they are added to every capital ship, ignoring fluff. I don't think that a seperate upgrade is necessary, instead I would give them terminator teleport assault as an option.
Also Orks do not need a bonus to Ramming. Here's an analysis: (chart is chances of success on any given ld check)
Ld 5 Ld6 Ld7 Ld8 Ld9
27.7% 41.7% 58% 72.2% 83.3%
Orks will have an average chance of passing an ld check of 49.8%, they only have to make 1 to ram, so this is 49.8%
For IN they have an average chance of passing an ld check of 64%, but they have to make 2 so this becomes 41%
So Orks are almost 10% better at the one maneuver. Considering they have the detrimental LD this ultimately is a 25% boost for them on one ld check.
People want their fleet to be very definitively the best at their 'thing' but really I don't think spaceships vary that much. Orks are 10% better at this, marines are... +1 modifier better at boarding than orks, Chaos has slightly longer range. It's not that huge of a difference
Also with the clans, I don't think there really is any way of convincing you, but I don't think they should be done in specific 'mark' style upgrades. I think that they should be more generic, like how they do the upgrades for vampires in vampire counts.
They are fairly well representable within the current ruleset, if one were playing a 'fluff' list then Goffs would have Mega-Armored boarding parties, Bad Moons would have maniak gunners or extra power fields, blood axes could have powerfields or maniak gunners or maybe looted torps, Deathskulls... looted torps (maybe power fields, as these could be stolen) and loads more re-rolls, Evil Sunz would need an upgrade (such as soopa engines) to represent them, and snakebites couldn't take any.
These are fine, and the list should be designed so fluff players could build their list, but not add in the extra 'thoughts' for them.
-
Also with the upgrades I would make people buy them on a squadron basis, for the standard points cost
I.E. 4 onslaughts purchase maniak gunners for 25 points. This would simplify things and convince people to buy larger squadrons.
-
My God Nate.... This is radically different than anything that I would've ever expected.
Big Boostas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +25 pts
(+5pts/escort) the ship gains +5cm speed, and it rolls
4D6cm when on All Ahead Full special orders.
I think that this should be cheaper, and instead be soopa engines, as they already exist in the ork ruleset.
This isn’t entirely unreasonable, but as it’s a cut and paste from Andy C’s material, it’s not like I just fanboy’ed this together. Done.
Looted Lances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +30 pts
(+10pts/escort) Any heavy gunz batteries on the ship
can be replaced with a Strength 2 lance battery.
Range is 15cm for escorts, 30cm for port/starboard
batteries, 45cm for prow batteries.
What? So for 30 points I can replace my prow heavy guns with lances?
Yes.
I would instead make this free, and have it be Strength of heavy guns/2 = the number of lances ALWAYS AT 15cm. People don't take prow heavy guns because of the range limitations, similarly, I could see people doing this and having a shit-ton of ridiculously shooty Kill-Kroozers. Then again 185 points is a fair amount for the amount of Dakka you're putting out there.
This should certainly NOT be free. Orks can use lances but should suck at it. Hence, they should be expensive.
It is specifically stated in the Ork fluff that lances are nearly impossible for them to operate. Mostly this is because they don't want to devote the power to it. This is why only two vessels have these weapons, and I think having this destroys a bit of Ork character. However, I could see them having 15cm range lances (as they don't know how to operate them well enough to fire further).
Heavy guns are worth about 1.33 regular guns batteries at 15cm. If a lance is worth ~2wbs at close range, then it would be reasonable to have a 2:1 swap for free to lances. The lances would be a bit less powerful than heavy guns, but this is what makes sense for Orks.
Agreed. It doesn’t destroy their character if it is made rare and expensive. If some flash gits mob wants a lance-heavy Ork fleet, he’s gonna pay a LOT of teef for it and in the end probably come up short against other fleets. One of the Orks’ biggest benefits is having relatively cheap ships, which this list tries to reinforce by rectifying some of the escort point cost issues. Taking a heap of lances defeats this without doing anything to really make the ships any better defensively.
Young guns and Mob Rule is somewhat confusing. If I take a bunch of squadrons at 4 models and hope I roll 5's or 6's then I get a bunch of free escorts and will get improved leadership?
Yes.
Of course, doing this on the hope of getting poor leadership for a free escort means you miss out on having big squadrons that get to take advantage of Clan goodies for a large point bargain. Everything’s a trade-off.
I think this whole special rule system/purchasing system would be better represented by a more correct points value on the current line up of ships. Free Warlords & Escorts? Something to line up for stuff.
Your suggestion in the end achieves nearly the same end-effect as the current approach. It isn’t better or worse, just different.
Tellyportas are a very rare thing. Actually Teleporters in IN fluff only exist on military vessels, as they are a very rare archeotech item. For gameplay they are added to every capital ship, ignoring fluff. I don't think that a seperate upgrade is necessary, instead I would give them terminator teleport assault as an option.
The tellyporta comes from the “Red Orktoba†machine invented by Orkimides to teleport troops to the surface of Armageddon from halfway across the system. A moving ship is a far harder target than a (relatively) stationary planet so the range is shorter, but still VERY long nonetheless. However, the idea is sound, and we can look at this as a separate item or something else.
Also Orks do not need a bonus to Ramming. Here's an analysis: (chart is chances of success on any given ld check)
Ld 5 Ld6 Ld7 Ld8 Ld9
27.7% 41.7% 58% 72.2% 83.3%
Orks will have an average chance of passing an ld check of 49.8%, they only have to make 1 to ram, so this is 49.8%
For IN they have an average chance of passing an ld check of 64%, but they have to make 2 so this becomes 41%
So Orks are almost 10% better at the one maneuver. Considering they have the detrimental LD this ultimately is a 25% boost for them on one ld check.
People want their fleet to be very definitively the best at their 'thing' but really I don't think spaceships vary that much. Orks are 10% better at this, marines are... +1 modifier better at boarding than orks, Chaos has slightly longer range. It's not that huge of a difference
Ramming and boarding is what Orks do best. Like you said, Orks should be the best at their ‘thing,’ and this allows them to do that. As you yourself demonstrated, the actual difference (10% better than everyone else at the ONE thing they are actually supposed to be good at) is not that consequential. The fact that they do this 25% better than they do any other kind of Ld check means the mechanic actually works and doesn't break how Orks are otherwise supposed to be generally worse than races at making leadership checks.
Also with the clans, I don't think there really is any way of convincing you, but I don't think they should be done in specific 'mark' style upgrades. I think that they should be more generic, like how they do the upgrades for vampires in vampire counts.
They are fairly well representable within the current ruleset, if one were playing a 'fluff' list then Goffs would have Mega-Armored boarding parties, Bad Moons would have maniak gunners or extra power fields, blood axes could have powerfields or maniak gunners or maybe looted torps, Deathskulls... looted torps (maybe power fields, as these could be stolen) and loads more re-rolls, Evil Sunz would need an upgrade (such as soopa engines) to represent them, and snakebites couldn't take any.
These are fine, and the list should be designed so fluff players could build their list, but not add in the extra 'thoughts' for them.
The ‘thoughts’ were written by Andy C and Gav Thorpe. Despite what some may feel about those guys, they have probably produced more material for Orks in BFG and WH40k than anyone. How the game creators feel a race should behave and be represented trumps anyone’s opinion, even mine.
- Nate
-
Power rams cost twice as much for Orks as they do Imperials? What gives?
Love the tellyporta idea.
No lances outside the Slamblasta unless it itself is a character kroozer or escort squadron with 15 lances!
Can any escort take traktor fields?
Why not make Klaws work exactly as Massive Claws?
Am I reading it right that escort squadrons can be taken up to 10?
What about an ork capital ship replacing its heavy gunz for a 'supa power ram' that takes up the entirety of the heavy gun area and does ramming damage on a 4+ like a giant power weapon in space.
More later, interesting for sure :)
-
Also just noticed that the Grunt, while perfect at first, is now completely ruined. Now only 2hp to board and 45 degree turns.
What gives? Take it back to the way it was, make it 6+, 4+, and its all good.
-
More thoughts:
Lots of needlessly complicated little rules. Not a fan at all of the concept for young gunz or mob rule, they need to go.
Boarding torps should be standard for all ork ships, much more so than chaos.
Why are torpedo bommas so pricey?
The shokk attack lance looks kinda powerful, but hilarious enough to keep me from discounting it sight unseen ^^
Now I understand the 10 point ram prow, you get a ld bonus as well. I don't agree with this, just make it a 5 point upgrade for any cap ship.
The Orks already have been proven to be better statistically at ramming than Imperials.
Attack karrier is too much trouble. Just make boarding torps free for all orks, as it should be.
The Skwadrons section is way too complicated. If you want rerolls beyond the Warlord's ship/squadron, just make them fleet rerolls. If not, then don't. Call the Warlords Big Bosses and make an option for 1 Warlord as fleet commander. He can have fleet rerolls, +1 leadership maybe.
Instead of warlords being able to take multiple upgrades, and based on their rerolls, I suggest having an alternate 'Big Mek' leader who has access to more upgrades but only the base reroll.
-
(And wheres the brute in that list?)
On the Clanz:
I like the idea alot. I think the clanz upgrades for escorts should at least be half points up to 4 or 5.
For the clanz, I have a request. Rather than continuing to increase Ork ships past the point of Imperial ships with all the upgrades and clanz bonuses, would it be possible to add negatives to balance the positives, so that all of the Clanz rules can be free? For instance, the Goffs gain their +1 to boarding and ramming, but also gain 4+ side armor, due to their belief that the enemy will never be anywhere but in front of them and closing.
As for the rules as is:
Goffs: Cool!
Evil Sunz: Cool, but pricey for cap ships.
Bad Moons: Holy crap thats not worth the points.
Deathskullz: Cool in concept, but don't like the general idea of looted lances. The idea of lance boat Savages makes me laugh.
Blood Axes: Cool! Give em a +20 nova cannon option that has shorter range and always scatters 3d6 ;)
Snakebites: Cool! Nice bonus if you choose to have only escorts and roks/hulks. I take it to mean the escorts still gain the bonus?
Proposed Clanz negative balancing ideas.
Goffs: 4+ side armor
Evil Sunz: 5+ front armor or 4+ side armor
Bad Moonz: Few options. No +1 racial boarding bonus and may not ram. They too rich for that stuff, and it might hurt their ships!
Deathskullz: -1 hit on cap ships and escorts gain cruiser status due to crappy(er) construction? Random criticals after shooting phase?
Blood Axes: May not take grunts or brutes, they use more advanced gunships.
Snakebites: Disadvantage built in.
-
Lol, really had your defense planned out eh Nate? :)
-
YES MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOO HOOOOO!!!! lol ;) This made my day!
Couple things I noticed:
Warlords for free. I guess you did this because of all the other upgrades Ork's can buy now? I think a re-roll should NEVER be free.
Warlords again. Is the +2 for "one boarding dice roll" for the entire game? Needs to be re-worded to make this clear.
Re-roll cost. With the multiple options of getting ships with +1 to rolling for ramming elsewhere (can they be stacked???), these should be much more expensive. The main reason these were bought was because it gave the Orks a chance to do their favorite thing, ram. Now the re-rolls are going to be used for SO's, which should be hard to come by.
Squadrons. I am so totally lost by this section I'm not sure where to begin honestly. Let me see if I'm getting this right....
First you determine the size of the battle. Let's say 1500 pts.
This means (as written now) you recieve three Warlords.
Then you determine how many extra re-rolls you want to purchase.
For every re-roll, you MUST get one escort squadron AND one cruiser or Battleship.
Let's say you have a total of 7 re-rolls in your fleet.
So you must buy at least 7 escort squadrons of at least three vessels per and 7 capital ships with the only restriction being you need 2 cruisers to purchase a BB?
Then you allocate the vessels to each "command" of Warlord based on how many re-rolls they have total?
Then if you have any points left over, you can purchase the plethora of upgrades?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems just a BIT complicated and restrictive to me.
Gubbins for Escorts. Should read that "Gubbins purchased for escort squadrons apply to every vessel in that squadron, but each vessel must purchase the upgrade individually". Otherwise it's confusing because it almost sounds like it take only +5 points to uprgrade the whole squadron with ____!!!!
Big Boosters. Should rename them to Soopa Engines.
Looted Lances. Don't like Lances in an Ork fleet unless they only have 15cm range forward firing and armed on a Kroozerm or the special Slambasta lances. No escort sized vessel should have the power supply to arm Lances.
Make Mad Meks dirt cheap. Otherwise, nobody will EVER buy these.
The Klaws. The Rule says you inflict the 1 HP of damage for ramming or boarding. Soooo not both if the Ork vessel can do both? And why not? What are the Klaws exactly? Things attaced to the ship or boarding parties armed with Klaws?
Zukov's Klaw ;D specifically:
4+ Armor for the rear. When this forum started throwing around the idea of this ship, we wanted it to go after space stations. But with 4+ armor to the rear, the bomber squadrons from the station will rip this ship up! Now I realize you have built the fluff for this, but if your not open to the idea of making the rear 5+ armor, why not increase the base number of turrets? This is advantageous for boarding values too, which is the whole point of this ship! Turret value of 2 or 3 and increase cost by ___ pts per turret. I have no beef with that.
Is this a character ship? Becuase it should be listed in the Ork fleet list if it is. And, if it is, it should get something to make it more.... unique. Like, allowing two teleport attacks! Gives it a reason to actually HAVE a name. Otherwise, take it off the pdf since the rules are explained quite clearly on what upgrades an Assault Kroozer has and this offers nothing to the document as a whole.
You made a mistake at the bottom of the special rules. You said it can't go on All Ahead Full. I think you meant Come to New Heading?
Light Kroozer:
Design phiolosophy. I see the stats are for a captured Endeavor class but the model illustrated would tell me it's more of a Dauntless. I think we should get stats for both variations :) The Dauntless variation for instance should have D3 Gunz for each broadside and D6 Gunz to front and 6 Heavy Gunz or D6 torps to front! The Endeavor should be D6 Gunz to each broadside, D3+1 Gunz to front and D3+1 Torps or 4 Heavy Gunz.
Grunt Assault Ships:
Increase the Boarding value back to 4. It's going to be hard to get any more than 2 of these guys into base-to-base contact with an enemy at one time so 2hp boarding value will make it really hard in my mind to be worth it.
Just my 2 cents ;)
-Zhukov
-
The ram spikes cost more because they do more... namely that +1 ld AND the spare damage.
I was SO happy when i read that.
-
Need to be 5 and normal. No bonus needed or warranted, imo.
-
LOL! these are orks, get over it LS
-
I actually agree with LS, I don't think they need a bonus to LD, and I think that 'claws' and the ram prow should merge into one option.
-
Orks already have a third greater chance at ramming than Imperials, someone on here did the math on that.
And as Sig said, their enthusiasm is matched only by their ineptitude. Because they are Orks, that is exactly why they shouldn't get any more bonus to ramming.
Plaxor, I fancy the idea of modeling big klaws on my ships, but I don't think it should exactly be a part of everything with a ram spike.
I think it should function exactly like the tyranid Massive Claws, and help hold a boarded ship in place.
Actually I think klaws and massive claws both should simple read 'ships boarded by vessels with klaws/massive claws will not be able to escape the boarding action unless they roll a 6 on a d6 at the start of their turn' Or something like that. Less damage, more focused on holding it place. Throw in the rules about larger sized ships still moving along while boarded and its good.
-
wait, what? how the fuck do orks have a better chance at ramming when their leaderships are lower and their ships slower??? That is the dumbest thing i have -ever- heard. Sorry LS, that is bull no matter what mathhammer they pull out of their ass.
-
Orks already have a third greater chance at ramming than Imperials, someone on here did the math on that.
And as Sig said, their enthusiasm is matched only by their ineptitude. Because they are Orks, that is exactly why they shouldn't get any more bonus to ramming.
Plaxor, I fancy the idea of modeling big klaws on my ships, but I don't think it should exactly be a part of everything with a ram spike.
I think it should function exactly like the tyranid Massive Claws, and help hold a boarded ship in place.
Actually I think klaws and massive claws both should simple read 'ships boarded by vessels with klaws/massive claws will not be able to escape the boarding action unless they roll a 6 on a d6 at the start of their turn' Or something like that. Less damage, more focused on holding it place. Throw in the rules about larger sized ships still moving along while boarded and its good.
RC's math was a bit wrong for that statistic. He didn't account for the fact that Orks will have more commonly LD 6+7 and IN will have more often 7+8 so the value is actually closer to 1/4 better.
And yes, I think that the ram spike and claws rules are too similar, so it's pointless to have both (unless someone wants to do 2 auto damage when heaiding in.) So either the claws should do something else (like tyranid massive claws) or just should be meshed into one option (I.e. Claws, Drills and spikes: the vessel automatically does 1 damage whenever its base moves over another vessel Friend or Foe!)
Nate: I always felt that it was more orky that there was a sacrifice of firepower for bonus speed, as the two ork philosophies, one is really tough with lots of guns, and the other is real fast and sneaky.
@Zelnik, it's because they don't have to make 2 leadership checks. The Orks have a 49% chance on average of passing an LD check (without blast markers or enemies on special orders. However they only have to make one, meaning they will have a 49% chance of being successful on ramming.
IN has about a 64% chance of passing an ld check, but they have to make two to successfully ram (1 for AAF and 1 to ram) meaning that they only succeed 42% of the time.
The only reason that it seems skewed is because Orks are really the only fleet that would choose to ram on a regular basis. Most other fleets have enough firepower that the risk of damaging themselves isn't worth it, as even when crippled they could do enough damage.
-
wait, what? how the fuck do orks have a better chance at ramming when their leaderships are lower and their ships slower??? That is the dumbest thing i have -ever- heard. Sorry LS, that is bull no matter what mathhammer they pull out of their ass.
Orks only have to take one leadership. Even if you weren't wrong, you don't have to be such an ass about it.
-
wait, what? how the fuck do orks have a better chance at ramming when their leaderships are lower and their ships slower??? That is the dumbest thing i have -ever- heard. Sorry LS, that is bull no matter what mathhammer they pull out of their ass.
Orks only have to take one leadership. Even if you weren't wrong, you don't have to be such an ass about it.
Agreed. Not so harsh next time Zel.
Plaxor, I fancy the idea of modeling big klaws on my ships, but I don't think it should exactly be a part of everything with a ram spike.
I think it should function exactly like the tyranid Massive Claws, and help hold a boarded ship in place.
Actually I think klaws and massive claws both should simple read 'ships boarded by vessels with klaws/massive claws will not be able to escape the boarding action unless they roll a 6 on a d6 at the start of their turn' Or something like that. Less damage, more focused on holding it place. Throw in the rules about larger sized ships still moving along while boarded and its good.
Agreed! It is weird the Klaws and Spike do essentially the same thing.
-Zhukov
-
I would say the lack of speed easily makes up for the single roll.
Sorry to be a dick, this is an issue i get easily annoyed over.
I would say change the klaw rule to be similar to the massive claws rule, i really don't see why they would aid in ramming.
-
So thats one thing down for sure. Klaws should have some function of holding whatever you are boarding. I'd rather see less direct damage and higher chances of actually grabbing hold than Massive Claws, but if it was exactly the same rule it would be better than current.
-
How about this.
pair o' 'uge Klawz: When a vessel with 'uge klawz declares a boarding action, roll 2d6 (1 for each of the klawz). on a 4+, each hit provides an instant hit and run attack against the vessel BEFORE the boarding action is initiated. If both klawz hit, the vessel is grabbed. Vessels of equal or smaller size CANNOT move when grabbed, vessels of larger size are reduced by 10cm speed (5cm if the grabber is an escort). This effect IS cumulative and can reduce the grabbed ship to 0cm.. just be aware, the grabba's are ALSO reduced to 0cm when grabbed on, and only count as moving IF the grabbed ship moves.
-
I'm not saying thats a bad idea, I'd just prefer a much simpler and more reliable method of 'locking', cuz the real damage is in the boarding.
I don't see the klaws doing any actualy hull damage to the ship, say, on a 3+ during boarding the ship is 'locked' in and can't escape unless x and x
-
well if the klawz are that large, i could see damage to ship systems, hence the hit and run.. and remember, you can always roll a 1.
-
I know they are large, and probably dig into the the hull to latch on. But bfg ships are very toughly armored, some scores and scratches on the hull doesnt equal a hit, losing a hit is like a city block sized chunk being burned out. I just can't see something 'squeezing' damage out of a ship. And I'd just rather have a reliable grapple than another way to do damage close up.
-
tell that to feeder tentacles and massive claws, LS. Logically speaking, they should snap against the hardened armor of even eldar craft. Instead they somehow automatically deal damage and pierce armor like a lance.
-
Feeder tentacles make sense, I understand them completely, even though they could be streamlined. Ive never liked the massive claws, or thought them worth it. Could be more intuitive to boarding, and the idea of one hitting if another misses is kinda silly.
-
Massive claw cruisers are shockingly effective and cheap, and claw kraken are the thing of nightmares LS... trust me on this.
I don't exactly agree that they should penetrate armor that is designed to repel near-relativistic rounds.. but then again, neither should feeder tentacles. Unless your throwing around babylon 5 level space fantasy, that is.
Either way, The Klawz will do what they were meant to do because the orks believe they will do it, it's as simple as that!
-
Yeah, Claw cruisers are really the only way to go with tyranid cruisers
-
Lol, zelnik, I agree with the ork psycology thing, i really do. But you know it has a limit, otherwise theyd be able to do much more with their ships. Its very effective at the personal level, and marginally effective due to the mob mentality at the stellar level, but it only goes so far.
I'm sure the massive claws are effective Zel, I just don't feel they accurately convey the intent of the claws, do you?
Would something that more reliably held the ship in place for better boarding be less desired than another ork close combat damage option?
-
In the end, the game has the mechanic for the nids, and its not like we can remove it. The klaws being a similar idea, and fun to model, since I did just such a thing for my fleet before klaws were even proposed. Why not make them slightly pokey?
-
Why not have some sort or Traktor Beem instead. It will hold the ship to allow boarding, no arguments over claws v armour, if it's a smaller ship grabbing a bigger one it can be pulled around (shaken off??), chance it will fuse after the first turn.
-
Orks and tractor beams? Its possible, but how many Orks are going to be able to have one of these for their ship? Claws are way simpler for them to operate. Why would they make things complicated when they could do something much simpler for the same effect?
-
I'm sure there were Traktor Beems in epic - didn't the mega gargant have one, or was it something else? I remember something being able to pick things up and throw them around.
I still think that extra powerfields (rather than void shields) would be orky - you have to make a modified repair rolls to get them back. So +D6 shields (on top of the built in shield) for the cost. It would give them 1 (or more on a BB) reliable shield. A successful repair roll brings back D6, or you can repair up to D6 each turn (6 max) - I don't know - just throwing some ideas around, I can't playtest anything this month anyway.
-
In the end, the game has the mechanic for the nids, and its not like we can remove it. The klaws being a similar idea, and fun to model, since I did just such a thing for my fleet before klaws were even proposed. Why not make them slightly pokey?
We can change how it works at least, thats what has been going on with all these revisions. But even if we don't the klaws are a different rule on a different fleet. They can be different if we want them to. I don't understand why its difficult enough when you are already in boarding range to have to get 2 4+ rolls to latch on, with klaws that are designed for the job, or how one can hit and the other might not, or if the other one doesn't hit, where is it getting its damaging pressure, assuming it could hurt the ship. The purpose of claws of any variety is to grab hold.
Would it be not fun to have klaws whose purpose was simply to keep the ship in a state of boarding?
-
I'm sure there were Traktor Beems in epic - didn't the mega gargant have one, or was it something else? I remember something being able to pick things up and throw them around.
I still think that extra powerfields (rather than void shields) would be orky - you have to make a modified repair rolls to get them back. So +D6 shields (on top of the built in shield) for the cost. It would give them 1 (or more on a BB) reliable shield. A successful repair roll brings back D6, or you can repair up to D6 each turn (6 max) - I don't know - just throwing some ideas around, I can't playtest anything this month anyway.
The battlekroozer Da Wurldbreaker in the Rogue Trader rpg is fitted with traktor beams so tractor beams are not without precedent on ork ships.
-
Traktor beams are represented by large basis in this game.
Klawz are for grabbin' and crushin'!
-
Funny idea.
"Wut you say?"
When an ork ship/squadron fails a special order, you may roll the SO dice and attempt whatever the result is. If passed, continue with your SO's. ^^
-
that sounds awesome... fund it!
-
Really or sarcastically? :)
I just was reading the fluff and all about ork communications and this dialogue came into my head of a warlord yelling down a pipe in his command chair:
"Oy you lot, the ummies be right ded ahead! Lock on da gunz!"
"Wuzzat boss? What he say? I fink it was the ummies is shootin theyz gunz! Brace for impact!"
"Wat? Whats goin on down there you dedskullz?!
"What he say? Oh he said all ahead full!"
-
Was it ever clarified if escorts could make use of the free traktor field rule?
Also, was it clarified that ork warbosses were not fleet rerolls?
Edit: For the last part, I found where it apparently clarified in the PDF that they are fleet rerolls. I actually dislike that, after some thought. I think there should be like, a Big Warlord option or whatever, who can grant fleet rerolls but is quite pricy by ork standards, and Warlords are general rerolls that promote squadroning. Orks should not easily get past their leadership negative. I like Orks being encouraged to travel in big, ineffeciant squadrons.
-
Also, escort destroyed by SA Lance, brace-able?
-
Shock attack lances don't do damage.
they just cause d3 LD checks to be made on 3d6.
-
Check the effect against escorts.
-
ah i see.
Well until the HA come back from walking their goldfish, we will never know.
-
What if orks had a rule that made them roll a 4+ to be able to test to disengage. they dont seem the disengaging type :)
-
What if orks had a rule that made them roll a 4+ to be able to test to disengage. they dont seem the disengaging type :)
How 'bout Orks test to disengage on 3D6.
-
Well I was thinking some kind of penalty to the actual test, but the idea is that they usually will refuse to disengage. A penalty to the test means they actually try, fail, and spend a turn doing nothing.
-
Also, escort destroyed by SA Lance, brace-able?
Yes. The next iteration will reflect this.
-
What about some kind of 'super power ram' where an ork vessel sacrifices all its prow weaponry for a device that causes ramming actions to count target armor as 4+ or -2 or something. Like a giant power sword, essentially.
Also, as to the lite kroozer. As I have said, does nothing for me. However, if it could turn 90 degrees, then at least it would have some niche in the fleet. I envision a large thruster modeled on each side of the nose of the ship, in a crude and inelegant turning inducer :)
-
All,
Draft Updates have been uploaded for all four of the last projects the HA’s are working on.
- Battlefleet Bakka DRAFT v1.1
Lots of changes here- too many to list.
- Inquisition DRAFT v1.6
Minor tailoring of points and questions at this stage, slightly improved GK boarding value, improved graphics and formatting.
- Ork Clanz DRAFT v1.3
Fixed and adjusted a number of confusing points, improved graphics and formatting.
- Powers of Chaos DRAFT v3.2
Fixed and clarified a number of confusing points, made some changes to the Powers of Chaos, adjusted some point values, improved graphics and formatting.
-
YAY! GIANT KLAWZ!!!
-
I like this document. Seems very orky!
Although this section in torpedo bombers may be confusing:
"are launched, each torpedo-
bomma marker may be converted into a str-2 torpedo
salvo. Torpedo bommas in a wave may combine their
salvoes into a single salvo, or any number of markers
may launch their salvoes separately. Each separate
salvo (regardless of size) is represented by a single
strength-3 torpedo marker."
So S2 torpedoes represented by S3 markers? Huh? I realise this is due to the ridiculous new core rules, but in this context it's just confusing, and doesn't need to be mentioned. You either play by the FAQ2010 torp rules or you don't. But that's literally the only thing in the document I didn't like.
-
The only thing that is striking me as difficult is the escort requirement for the fleet. I always liked running a Krooza fleet for my orkz, I only own six brutes.
I confess, I wanted to pick up some onslaughts, I suppose I have no choice now :D
-
Yay, clarified stuffs.
-
That being said, is the ork clanz document meant to eventually replace both the BBB and Armada ork fleet lists or just be an extra supplemental fleet list?
-
I like this document. Seems very orky!
Although this section in torpedo bombers may be confusing:
"are launched, each torpedo-
bomma marker may be converted into a str-2 torpedo
salvo. Torpedo bommas in a wave may combine their
salvoes into a single salvo, or any number of markers
may launch their salvoes separately. Each separate
salvo (regardless of size) is represented by a single
strength-3 torpedo marker."
So S2 torpedoes represented by S3 markers? Huh? I realise this is due to the ridiculous new core rules, but in this context it's just confusing, and doesn't need to be mentioned. You either play by the FAQ2010 torp rules or you don't. But that's literally the only thing in the document I didn't like.
This can be fixed, at it apears to be the only thing hanging this up from being marked FINAL. I will get this done once we get Bakka somewhat less gooey.
-
That being said, is the ork clanz document meant to eventually replace both the BBB and Armada ork fleet lists or just be an extra supplemental fleet list?
GREAT QUESTION! This is intended to be an adjunct to Armadas AND the Gothic list, meaning you an play either a Gothic Ork fleet list, an Armageddon Ork fleet list, or this one. In all cases, ship costs must reflect the list beig used, and all reserves rules must be followed as well. I will make sure this gets noted in the FINAL for this document.
-
Can you please once and for all include what rule always has to be applied first: Mob Rule or Young Gunz. Otherwise this might be exploited as needed.
-
I still have NO idea how the squadrons are supposed to work, PLEASE, someone explain it to me.
-
Can you please once and for all include what rule always has to be applied first: Mob Rule or Young Gunz. Otherwise this might be exploited as needed.
No they both apply and are supposed to be 'exploited' on purpose. We want big bad escort squadrons running around. Having both these rules in place encourages that. It encourages what Orks are supposed to be about, a lot of escort ships!
I still have NO idea how the squadrons are supposed to work, PLEASE, someone explain it to me.
Unless it's changed then I think this is how you do it:
First you determine the size of the battle. Let's say 1500 pts.
This means (as written now) you recieve three Warlords.
Then you determine how many extra re-rolls you want to purchase.
For every re-roll, you MUST get one escort squadron AND one cruiser or Battleship.
Let's say you have a total of 7 re-rolls in your fleet.
So you must buy at least 7 escort squadrons of at least three vessels per and 7 capital ships with the only restriction being you need 2 cruisers to purchase a BB?
Then you allocate the vessels to each "command" of Warlord based on how many re-rolls they have total?
Then if you have any points left over, you can purchase the plethora of upgrades?
-
Can you please once and for all include what rule always has to be applied first: Mob Rule or Young Gunz. Otherwise this might be exploited as needed.
No they both apply and are supposed to be 'exploited' on purpose. We want big bad escort squadrons running around. Having both these rules in place encourages that. It encourages what Orks are supposed to be about, a lot of escort ships!
Yes, of course both apply ! But in what order to check for them is important. The exploition would be that someone at the moment can choose what to apply first and get a greater benefit than intended. If the rules state which one is the first to check than there will be no cheesing around on this.
In case the exploition is intended than add that you can check what is more appealing first.
Orks are my main fleet, just want this to be sorted out.
-
Can you please once and for all include what rule always has to be applied first: Mob Rule or Young Gunz. Otherwise this might be exploited as needed.
No they both apply and are supposed to be 'exploited' on purpose. We want big bad escort squadrons running around. Having both these rules in place encourages that. It encourages what Orks are supposed to be about, a lot of escort ships!
I still have NO idea how the squadrons are supposed to work, PLEASE, someone explain it to me.
Unless it's changed then I think this is how you do it:
First you determine the size of the battle. Let's say 1500 pts.
This means (as written now) you recieve three Warlords.
Then you determine how many extra re-rolls you want to purchase.
For every re-roll, you MUST get one escort squadron AND one cruiser or Battleship.
Let's say you have a total of 7 re-rolls in your fleet.
So you must buy at least 7 escort squadrons of at least three vessels per and 7 capital ships with the only restriction being you need 2 cruisers to purchase a BB?
Then you allocate the vessels to each "command" of Warlord based on how many re-rolls they have total?
Then if you have any points left over, you can purchase the plethora of upgrades?
Anyone else think this is a stupid way to do things? Ya we get warbosses for free, but you can pretty much never have more than 3-4 re-rolls for your fleet...and re-rolls are needed...badly.
-
Anyone else think this is a stupid way to do things? Ya we get warbosses for free, but you can pretty much never have more than 3-4 re-rolls for your fleet...and re-rolls are needed...badly.
Actually, in a 1500 pt fleet, you can get anywhere from 3-9 re-rolls. You get one free for every warlord and you can buy up to 2 more for each Warlord.
-Zhukov
P.S. I think this is WAY to overcomplicated.
-
It's possible to have that many re-rolls yes...however for EVERY re-roll you must have an escort squadron + another squadron, so as I understand it that's 3 capital ships, + 3, 3 ship escort squadrons for just the initial warbosses...and that's only 3 re-rolls!
That's a pretty shitty system if you ask me.
-
Is it?
Terror + 3 brutes per Warlord?
Isn't bad persé. In fact it makes a lot of sense.
If it wans't for the fact Ork escorts aren't that good and need point reduction across the whole line.
-
If it wasn't for the fact Ork escorts aren't that good and need point reduction across the whole line.
But 20 point Brutes? 35pt Ravagers? Pretty hard to palate. I think the Brutes are good enough for 25, the Ravager is a bit.... underpowered at 40IMO, but at 35 it is way too good.
I like the Savage at 30, but others might disagree. The Onslaught is still way sucky, even at 35. Needs to be at most 30.
-
Is it?
Terror + 3 brutes per Warlord?
Isn't bad persé. In fact it makes a lot of sense.
If it wans't for the fact Ork escorts aren't that good and need point reduction across the whole line.
Then for every re-roll you add you must throw in another squadron...my point was, that if you want to have a decent amount of re-rolls for your fleet (Which are pretty crucial for orks) you have to take a lot of escort squadrons to allow for it.
-
This kills me, I love the gubbins in this fleet, and i want to make a bunch of grabba terror ships, but I have NO FREAKING CLUE how to use the rules in this fleet!!
PLEASE simplify this crap!