Good to see activity again.



Well, truth to be told, i have a list of them for you, i even passed it around my game group and we added and tweaked a lot on it, and also have a list of typos and suggestions, all written and prepared to be posted but it has been eating dust for this two last months for a reason.

The reason is, should i really post them? Isn't it too late already? You are already aiming with this version for Approved status and made already 3 games for that. If i find something to change those three games would be for nothing and would make its approval take a lot more. If i post them when the list is approved, there is a risk that the change is big and by NetErc rules it should be again in Developmental status and all work would be for naught.

But on the other side you also said this, so i have been doubting all this time.



But recent activity made me post, at least this.

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

As the approval process is not going forward in a steady pace i have no problem in adding new stuff and restarting the process.

If people where happy with the list as it is now I would expect way more battle reports from others. So please fire away with suggestions! :-)

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

OK, seal lifted. Be prepared, i have been writing for two months so i have a huge quantity of text written and ideas stored. It can overwhelm quite a bit. It can also sound negative and harsh because of the quantity of changes proposed but my opinion on this list and in your work and E&Cs is highly positive.


First with typos.

- The Missile is worded differently on the Gargant options and on the Mega Gargant and do the same, Grot Guided Missile and Grot Mega Missile. By NetEA ERC decision all weapon with the same stats have to have same name, so i would go with Grot Guided Missile or Grot Guided Mega Missile, make more sense.

- On the Missile, the wording for One shot is One-shot or Single shot since the original rules by GW (it says One-Shot on the Deathstrike and Single Shot on Special Weapon Rules).

- On the army options for the Lootas it says 0-1 Gunfortress but it is nowhere to be seen neither its attributes on the reference sheet. Delete it completely or if you keep the Gunfortress add it to the reference sheet and make it 0-2 so it can be used to transport the formation. There is the option of 1 Gunfortress and 4 Flakwagons but i see no harm done in 2 Gunfortress, as it won't turn into the same as in Speed Freks list because of the heavy need of activations in this list and the burden on points of the infantry. Truth to be told, i would drop the Uge on Lootas for 6k+ games sake because this list isn't about those but thats another topic.

- Ork Bommer: this is tricky and don·t know if calling it a typo or not: the Gun Turrets are AP5+/AA6+ and not AP5+/AT6+/AA6+ as always were in Landas. It seems you took the AT6+ part from 3.05´s Bommer Turrets and the name and the 3+1D3x shoots from the Gun Turrets from the Landa.

- Soopa Lifta Droppa. I know this came from a previous version like the previous typo but don't make much sense, so i think that it is a typo and it is Supa Lifta-Droppa, as has nothing in common with Soopa Guns. On the other side, and this isn't about typos, i would change the name entirely, as this isn't an improved version of the Lifta Droppa, it lacks the close combat attack and has shorter range, and there are many names out in Ork lore we could use instead. Most from the Mek Weapons or Heavy Weapons section in this link works fine.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Ork_Weaponry_(List)

- Lifta droppa: it is instead Lifta-Droppa, with capitals on the D and a - in the middle.

- Stompa: the Kombat Ammer is missing the ' before Ammer, so Kombat 'Ammer

- Head of Mork/Gork: wherever the two gods are called it is Gork and Mork, never the opposite. Well, maybe in the Gorkamorka game, amongst Morkists.

- Kill Kroozer: shouldn't it be 0-1 like in any other lists?


Second on the topics opened this week.



Well, right now they are just 25 points less than original, can be put back but i think that the issue comes from a different place: The weapons.

I noticed this when i was making weapons for this list, as it was hard to make the numbers of something around those two but afar from the 50 points weapons.

The two 25 points weapons (Mega Choppa doesn't exist compared to them) are way better than most of the others for their cost, except when a weapons for very specific task is needed.
The reasons behind this were to follow the lead by AMTL, the Gatling Kanon because the Gatling Blaster was upped to 6x shoots to compensate for deficiencies in AMTL list by making them more shooty and to up a bit the Warlord for AMTL and other lists too, and the Ripper Fist because a single person said that wanted a weapon on par with AMTL's Close Combat Weapon. In both cases i double checked the information about their origin to be sure.

-- For the GK i think that the reason is bad because Orks and more the Gargants aren't known for excelling at shooting so to solve the issue its better to focus on its strenghts. Also it would be hard to upgrade the other weapons that come from Ghazghkull list to keep up to it.
I would drop it to 5x shoots.
-- For the Ripper is a clear case of list creep : AMTL has the Close combat Weapon because the Warlock has the Power Fist, but made 50% better damage wise to balance it with Warlock's bigger movement (Vaaish latter saw it was too much and upped its cost to the second rank so now is more or less OK), and the Ripper got upped over the damage of the AMTL one and cloned it and got its cost down to first rank, instead of opting for the more Orky close combat plus shoots on the same option like with the other Ork WE close combat weapons.
I would make it 50 points, down to +1D3 EA and add a weapon, probably a Kustom Kannon from Speedsta (30cm MW4+) as its the only weapon known between a Supa-Zzap and Big Gun.



Yes, i agree with you about them being cheap, but i think that the problem is that they would be taken a lot less if they cost 50 points, except for BTS, Transporta for experimental lists, and maybe Extra Armour Bitz for Supa-Stompa. Also this list reiles a bit on upgrades to work. So i think that the problem is granularity, even though it could work as a way so the less used upgrades ones are used more by comparison. Maybe the problem can be solved by nerfing in other place where its easier to do so.

In case of upping some to 50 points, i would do it with Power Fields, Extra Armor Bitz, More Dakka and Transporta. Flakka Dakka wouldn't be OK for 50 points even considering it is very hard to suppress, as it mostly works for placing a BM like Flakwagons do, and its still better to use Fightas cost wise. The last one, the Head was good till the Special Rule of the Special Mob Rule was included, but i do not think its cost should be raise to 50 even if things were like before.


That's the problem, that the +1 isn't much of an advantage, so there isn't a reason to include it, much less in an army (Orks) that can deal with lots of damage and BMs and doesn't do well at rallying in most meta formations and much less it being an Special Rule of an Special Rule. So much trouble for so few.
Also, about the complaints, I've checked, and people that complained about them being bad at rallying is because they wanted AMTL in a Ork list, nothing else, and in my opinion that's no reason at all to change one of the basics of not only a list but an entire race.

But the biggest one is giving a +2 to Supa-Stompas:
- The Supas were too good to begin with, and are the only unit in Ghazghkull list that got its cost increased, and quite fast, in 2008.
- Have the shooting power of a Gargant for less than half the cost, and a bit less in shields and DC per point invested than Gargants, while being worse at breaking and rallying.
- I remember that the reason they weren't upped again to 300 in Ghazghkull list are the multiple downsides of having to take it with Stompas: Easy targeting, only good as BTS/very bad at activation wars, more prone to clipping, and still a bit fragile to damage and BMs for their points by Ork standards.

Thats why they were at 325 when you took the list.

And now they have 3 advantages over the original.
- You can take them alone.
- You can take them in singles with no increased cost for single like in any other WE in the game with option for both.
- And the third lessens one of their weakness, being vulnerable to BMs, by using Extra Armour Bitz for just 25 points.

And with the Special Rule of the Mob Rule its other weakness are deleted and are also put them on par with Gargants which makes no sense fluff wise, would be passable for them having a +1 but not +2. Right now they are almost as flawless as a WE can be in an Ork army.

To summarize, my suggestion is to put them at 300 (+25 is the typical single overcost) and get rid of the Special Rule, or keep the Special Rule and put them at least at 325. Third option would be to rid of the Supa-Stompa Mob and put them back to being upgrades in Stompa Mobs but that would be too much of a nerf, both gameplay and army variety wise, being only interesting this latter option for the option of a Kustom Upgrade on a formation with more than one unit.


Please, do you remember where they could be? I've checked in the last two months all the threads about Gargant lists and i don't remember that.


I admit that it was a big complaint from many, but as i said before that complaint came mainly from those that wanted the same as AMTL, and each army has its strengths and weakness, this is an Ork list Gargant version not AMTL list Ork version. Rallying on 5+ or 6+ is the most common on Orks and i have lived with that for around 10 years with no problems as they are harder to break than most, a lot less of an Impact for Supa-Stompas as they are just 275 points, and Gargants and GG have a bonus already so no problem there.


Thought about that too but two in a formation i think is around the same or worse of a problem, it will be worse for activations, assaults, and to use Upgrades but it would be fighting more directly for the place with the Gargant (shooting vs breaking, rallying and assault). Could work if the Gargant gives only 2 support formation options. Go for my suggestions up in this post for the rest of my opinions on this.

Also, it is not written on the statistics, but the Head upgrade was used a quite a number of times before the Special Rule of the Specail Mob Rule was added, and people was quite pleased with it. After that almost no one took it. The use i think is the best is to put it on a Gargant with a Missile, so it will stay a bit behind the others as it has to stop to fire it and works as a rallying point, also as it will probably be the BTS it will be more protected that way both by staying back and by the units that rally using it.


It was like that before, made more sense and was mostly liked but there was one game were a Gargant was destroyed after the fires grew in number after a single Push'em Harder used on a double by doing to it 7DCs, and in other games were cases of 3 or 4 DC down due to fires after a single double.

The problem comes from that Orks rely a lot on Double actions.


From your words it looks that maybe it is because you compare it with AMTL, and play it close to how you would play AMTL. How about for a change of pace you treat it like an Ork list Gargant version and not as an AMTL list Ork version and see what happens? If you are not veteran in playing Ork lists, play a few games first with Ghazghkull list to get how they work.


There are some battles on the statistics with 4 Gargants (none with 5 as far as i remember), you could check them and see how they fared, it will help with the discussion.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There can be some errors in what i wrote, it is a big amount of text and i get myself lost there sometimes.

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

a lesser man might see that as quite patronising..... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...

I've played my fair share of games with orks, but I struggle to see how to play the gargants, a slow, low activation, war engine list, like more general ghazgkull orks which tend to be quite fast and high in activations..... I compare them to the AMTL list as that is the main war engine list and pretty much the yardstick for how such armies play....

the typical advice for taking on an AMTL that has worked for me, is to spread objectives, hide, stall, pick off weak activations (robots/planes/warhounds) and evade them, all of those tactics are perfectly valid against the OGBM list and are routinely used by my opponents

anyway, testing the 8-activation list tonight, will do a batrep tomorrow hopefully

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

Wow! Lots of interesting info. But as stated above written with a very condecending tone, especially in the end phrases.
I've played orks lists in the last three years and own about 10K worth of models.

So this is whats going to happen. I'll look into some of the suggestions and see how they look. But there will be no more communicating with you because that patronizing tone of yours really pisses me off.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

I was AC of this list a century or two in the past. :-)

The attached pic is from slightly after I was in charge (the Gargant got dropped from 650 to 600pts) but it's still got the basic structure of weapons/upgrades that I proposed.

If writing it again today, I'd probably make the weapons selection rules a more simple, but keep the basic Free/0-1 50pt upgrade structure. (That's what EUK went with pretty much for their AMTL list too, some time later).

And probably remove the Drop Rok. And probably do something different with Lootas (only transport choice a Transporta Supa Stompa or something).

Or maybe chuck the whole thing, lol. I dunno.


My wording doesn't force the Ork player to use the rule on each move mind you, you could go 35cm and only get one fire.

Also, it seems like it should be risky, because as an ability it's pretty powerful?





Heh, makes me remember why I stopped doing list development. I didn't even like my own attitude most of the time lol.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

..., looks like i made the worst start ever.

* kyussinchains:

Thank you for doubting. Yeah it was not patronizing or at least that was not my intention. Did not see that possibility when i was writing but now i see it can be seen that way.

I just wrote that last part in a just in case mentality. I know well you are very veteran with the game, but there is many lists out there so i do not know if you played with Ork lists in 4ª edition because it is not the same playing with than against and the more veteran is one, more things slip under one radar because they are obvious. Also I was suspecting you did not play with much because i read all the posts of this thread in the last two months and you complained about obvious and common Ork traits affecting this list and was the main man behind several of the changes to delete this traits. So i just threw a wild guess but i got it all wrong.

So I misunderstood you big. I think it is a matter of different philosophy: you want to make the list better by improving it in its strengths or/and weakness, while i prefer to maintain the weakness to keep as much as possible the list flavour and focus more on strengths. Did i got it right this time?



Ouch! I am sorry if it sounded like that. It was never my intention. I expected some problems thats why i wrote the warning at the beginning and at the end but never so severe. I should have began even slower and bit by bit and It is probably the style i use, i tend to support my words with lots of data to sound convincing because i have no reputation here but that can overwhelm and sound patronizing hence the warning. Also having read all that much information lately made me too confident on my opinions, and having written all of this in one go as if this were crunch work made things worse.

Thats why for example I said that part about playing around 10 years, almost no one around here know me so i wanted to point out i am no newbie so my words would have a bit more of credibility just in case. The last part of paragraphs is also because of that, to counter my lack of reputation with data.

I suppose that the part about the +2 was the worst part. In my group we think thats obviously too good so i was a bit desperate to change it and threw even more data to support my opinion to ensure that which ended up even more overwhelming and patronizing.

I will try to make it better next time.



Looks like i made a double misunderstanding.

About the suggestions for a weapons pricing structure and upgrade choices i thought you were referring about a text on how a Gargant army or in general an Epic army should be, more like a short essay maybe, not the list you developed. Thats why i could not find it, it never existed in the first place. Thanks anyway.

And about the second i was always under the assumption that one had to use it for all the movements in that activation or nothing. But i agree with you that it is a bit tame while still being a good solution. If we could find a middle option ...

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

Kind of a dickish move. Please remember that not everyone have English as a first language and that conveying thoughts in written form is hard as is.
A "patronizing tone" doesn't necessarily invalidate a point and owning lots of miniatures doesn't make a point more valid.

Oh okay, so not having english as your first language makes it okay to write in patronising ways?

You know what guys. I got a better idea. I*m stepping down from this list, effective immediatly.

Do whatever you please with it. Put back drop rocks and teleporting fortmations into it, Strip the gargants from all customization choices, make them fly.

I'm done. Bye.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

Ah come on you can't be serious.

Ole

_________________
Thousand Sons Army Champion

My pueppchenspieler blog

Building a House Devine Army

Yes I am. For a number of reasons. This version is what i can come up with after 18-24 months of work. I can't really come up with more than matbe a slight points change here and there (i think supa-stompas needs to go up to 300p for instance). But other than that this is how I think the list should look and play.
If we look at the number of battle reports thats been coming in the last year I think it's safe to say that very few others think the list is good. I get more negative comments than positive about it. So in this case i can do two things:

1. Keep hogging the list and not listen to thoose who are very vocal about changing it. Keep producing battle reports and push it towards approvedwithout the community.

2. Give the list up to thoose who have other ideas and see if they can get the community behind their ideas (i.e having multiple groups actually doing battle reports for them.

I think at this stage option 2 is the most sensible. I'm just getting more pissed off at theoryhammering patronising comments. And i don't think thats agood state of mind to have as an AC.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

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

I'd be disappointed to see you step down because I think you've implemented some excellent ideas (I think the "Push" special rule is, in concept, really great, for example). Maybe think about it for a week first?

Drop Roks are silly.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I would be very disappointed to lose you as the AC for this list.

_________________
_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk - home of the UK Epic tournament scene
NetEA NetERC Xenos Lists Chair
NetEA Ork + Feral Ork + Speed Freak Champion

I think you are being overly dramatic here and there's no reason to step down. Lack of reports doesn't necessarily mean people don't like the list direction. There's a general lack of reports for just about every list right now except for what PFE200 posts and general tournament stuff. As an AC you have to take the negative as well as the positive and sift through it to see what can or should be done and just take the punches when someone's pet change can't be implemented.

What you're seeing here is exactly what you asked for: Ideas and criticisms of the gargant list. Instead of getting mad and shutting down because you perceive a tone that may or may not exist in a medium that's notoriously hard to accurately determine intent, buck up, weigh the criticisms and see if what's being said has merit. Stat discussions and point discussions are a to be expected and as you get more information from players you make have to make changes. Nothing I'm seeing has significant impact on what you've done with the list.

_________________
-Vaaish

I think I agree with them about the auto mob up rule. It makes the supa stompas too good and makes the head of Gork/Mork not really worth taking. Instead I was thinking either allow the list to take additional supreme commanders, each gargant (not supa stompa) gets a free one like IG commisars or maybe include them as an upgrade. And/or make the better rally roll (like the push them harder) come with a detriment to using it (DC loss or fire or w/e). Eg. A formation attempting to rally normally requiring a 5+, the Nob/big Mek can do some killing to get them back in line = lose 1DC/stand for +1 to rally, done before you make the roll. Want to auto rally, no problem but it's going to cost you!

Also please don't give up you are doing great! Take some time, cool off and come back fresh.

With all these fires another potential upgrade could be a fireboyz team. Changes the fire roll from;
1 = new fire, 5/6 = put out fire,
to
No new fires and 4+ to put out exsiting fires.

_________________
Necron AC (click to see current Necron list threads)
Toronto Wargaming Group