Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Feral Orks broken?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=3677		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Hojyn [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Hi,

I just read on two different threads that the Feral Orks army list is probably the most "broken" of the three Swordwind list. I have never played with or against them, so this came as a bit of a surprise.

Even now that I've re-read their unit stats and army list, I can't find what's wrong with them, as they seem to be mainly an infantry force with little firepower. Is it because they can use lots of small units, thus increasing their number of activations? Or in the contrary, is it because they can gather huge (or rather, 'uge :;): ) warbands that are all are impossible to break?

To me they just look like a toned-down version of the basic Ork list (no Oddboyz, no Gargants, no aircraft). In short: what am I missing?
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (Hojyn @ 17 Feb. 2006 (19:37))
To me they just look like a toned-down version of the basic Ork list (no Oddboyz, no Gargants, no aircraft). In short: what am I missing?

Two words: infiltrating Boarboyz...

And you can take an army with no Armoured Vehicles that still packs plenty of long range MW blasts that are also anti-air, plus *hordes* of 1BP, disrupt infantry units. ?They can lay out so much fire that it just breaks whatever they hit... and half the enemy's weapons are useless against them. ?And it's almost all garrisoned so it's all right in your face immediately.

I didn't believe it at first either, the list looks so "simple"... but there's deth in that thar list!
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Chroma hit it.  I recall even during playtesting that the Boarz were contentious with respect to price and I maintained that the Squig Catapults, being essentially upgunned versions of the Big Gun, seemed awfully cheap.  I don't think that any one of those is especially egregious, but the net effect is, like the other Swordwind armies, a good 10% or so too cheap.  

I would also add one thing I am concerned about that I've never seen in a batrep that I can recall:

Horde-o-Orkeosaurus
7x Wildboyz Mob w/ Orkeosaurus w/ Wyrdboy
2450 points

Add in whatever you want to make up the difference.  Heck, you could double one of the mobz to a Big Wildboyz Mob in 2 Orkeosauruses (Orkeosauri?), though only one Orkeosaurus would have a Wyrdboy at 2700 points.

*8* Orkeosauri
*7* Wyrdboyz blasting
*6* Boyz per Wild Mob
*5* Golden Squigs...

No... wait... Orks don't celebrate Christmas...
:D
Author:  Chroma [ Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (nealhunt @ 17 Feb. 2006 (20:04))
*8* Orkeosauri
*7* Wyrdboyz blasting
*6* Boyz per Wild Mob
*5* Golden Squigs...

...and a cartridge in a shoo-tah!!!
Author:  Legion 4 [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:32 am ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Very nice !  But with the pending release of F/Orks in Mar-Apr ... nice to know the "Broken" list is being thought about !  :alien:
Author:  primarch [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Hi!

How could something "broken" make it into the book if people pointed it out?

Primarch
Author:  Hojyn [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (primarch @ 18 Feb. 2006 (14:07))
Hi!

How could something "broken" make it into the book if people pointed it out?

Primarch

What's even stranger is that, according to most people, it seems to affect all three Swordwind lists.

Anyway, thanks for your answers, guys. And I thought those Squig Catapults were rather inoffensive...  :(8:
Author:  MemphisMark [ Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
I have a 3k point list that consisted of 2 Wildboys with 4 Squig Catapults each, 4 Warbands with an Orkeosaurus and Wyrdboy, and to top it off, an 'uge Steam Gargant Horde, 3 Steam gargants!

Those 6 Soopaguns putting out a total of 12BP Macro was devastating to antything they hit...Providing I could do a single move and fire or a sustained fire order.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (primarch @ 18 Feb. 2006 (08:07))
Hi!

How could something "broken" make it into the book if people pointed it out?

Primarch

My guess is that the number of people playtesting the feral ork list was significantly less than the number of people playtesting the original rulebook lists.

I'm of the opinion that during rulebook playtesting, everyone went along and playtested the rulebook armies, just because the prospect of a new "official" edition of epic was exciting. But once that was finished, we all split up to playtest our favorite armies. For my part, I kept track of the eldar development, but I didn't care too much about what the other armies were doing.
Author:  Markconz [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (primarch @ 18 Feb. 2006 (13:07))
Hi!

How could something "broken" make it into the book if people pointed it out?

Primarch

I'd put it down to limited numbers of playtesters with different opinions, and the first edition of a ruleset and armylists.

It would be a miracle if things were perfectly balanced.


For example, what version is Netepic up to?  How much of each successive revision was balancing issues? A fair bit if my observations of the netepic yahoo group are anything to go by!  :;):
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
But once that was finished, we all split up to playtest our favorite armies. For my part, I kept track of the eldar development, but I didn't care too much about what the other armies were doing.


I think that's pretty accurate.  This was about the same time that the Champion system was being implemented and a lot of the Swordwind development was driven by fans of whatever list they were developing.  This can cause multiple sources of error.

1) If the Eldar Fan's playtest group is playing Eldar in nearly every game, everyone will get good at playing against them.  That's fine to a certain extent.  You need to assume a skilled commander when determinign good balance.  But the problem is that the Eldar don't necessarily get good at playing against all the other armies to the same extent because their game experience is not as focused.

2) With a high volume of "v Eldar" play, regardless of whether games are set up "in the box," the general perception of the value of units in the group will change.  Units that happen to be better at exploiting Eldar weaknesses will become more common in general because their relative perceived value will tend to creep up.  Even "in the box" armies will begin to be better able to fight Eldar.

3)   The perception of "fun" and "fair" can differ quite significantly if you are playing with or against a particular army.  If it's your favorite army, winning 60% may feel like it's about right.

4)  Closely related to #3, the simple fact is that the people who do a lot of playtesting are usually good, well-practiced tacticians who can reasonably expect to win an above-average amount of time.  A 60% win ratio may even feel to them that they are under-achieving.

5)  There has been noted a tendency of people who like a particular list to not power-game the list.  Because they like it, they are interested in playing with all the spiffy toys and that tends to overshadow any uber-combos that might be more apparent to someone with less emotional investment.

Combining all those factors, if it is an experienced player, with a favorite force, not min/maxed, in a group of anti-force-x neo-veterans, an army can feel grossly underpowered.

6)  Specific to Swordwind, some of the playtesting was against other Swordwind armies.  Obviously, any power-creep is not going to be apparent if you compare it to another creeping force.  My personal opinion is that the Swordwind armies are all just about the same amount too powerful - ~10%.

7)  As has been noted recently in the Eldar discussions, several of the more hard-core, cross-army playtesters were offline for about the last 6 months of playtesting and there were a lot of tweaks in that time frame.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Even though I've stated my opinion on the matter, I do wonder how anyone thought a 45cm MW5+/AA available to every [nearly] formation seemed like a balanced idea. I mean, at least separate out the AA attack into a second weapon profile and give it a shorter range.

Also, would boar boys with infiltrate be more acceptible if they had a move of 20cm instead of 25cm? I looked at their stats and thought, "infiltrate represents a cav charge, just like the roughriders get." What I thought was odd was that the boars are faster than the horses are.
Author:  Chroma [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (semajnollissor @ 20 Feb. 2006 (16:29))
Also, would boar boys with infiltrate be more acceptible if they had a move of 20cm instead of 25cm? I looked at their stats and thought, "infiltrate represents a cav charge, just like the roughriders get." What I thought was odd was that the boars are faster than the horses are.

Well, the Boars *do* have fuel injectors...  :alien:
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Even though I've stated my opinion on the matter, I do wonder how anyone thought a 45cm MW5+/AA available to every [nearly] formation seemed like a balanced idea. I mean, at least separate out the AA attack into a second weapon profile and give it a shorter range.


Limited numbers, high price (relative to other units in the army), easy suppression due to lack of ranged shots or more than 30cm range on many units in the army.

That's not to say it's balanced, just that I don't think it is heinously over the top.

Also, would boar boys with infiltrate be more acceptible if they had a move of 20cm instead of 25cm? I looked at their stats and thought, "infiltrate represents a cav charge, just like the roughriders get." What I thought was odd was that the boars are faster than the horses are.

That is a good possibility, as far as I'm concerned.  That suggestion was batted around during playtest as I recall, but I don't know why it wasn't adopted.
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Feral Orks broken?
Quote (Chroma @ 20 Feb. 2006 (16:53))
Quote (semajnollissor @ 20 Feb. 2006 (16:29))
Also, would boar boys with infiltrate be more acceptible if they had a move of 20cm instead of 25cm? I looked at their stats and thought, "infiltrate represents a cav charge, just like the roughriders get." What I thought was odd was that the boars are faster than the horses are.

Well, the Boars *do* have fuel injectors... ?:alien:

Do you mean Boarz or Cyboarz? I can't imagine boarz really having fuel injectors. Seems to high tech for Feral Orks.

Also, I agree that Boarz shouldn't be as fast as the Roughrider horses. I hadn't noticed that before.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/