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

Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=13490		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Nicodemus [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Battlewagon is as armoured as Leman Russ (better, actually: grot riggers). Lootas shoot like crazy (and are omitted in epic (there is even miniature for them: that plastic ork that have that big gun on its shoulder, five of them on same base, voila, Loota)), BW and Looted wagon can throw as much (and basically as accurate) template as IG (Battlecannon S8 AP3, Large blast. Boomgun (from Looted wagon) S8 AP3. And ordnance scatters 2d6-BS (so 1 inch difference in Ork and IG shooting). Battlewagons can carry 20 Boyz, or 10 Mega-Armoured Nobz. Dethrolla does d6 S10 hits at close combat.

So... Shooty battlewagon: 4+RA save, 1 killcannon AP4/AT4, 4 bigshoota AP/AT6, Big Gun AP/AT5 (no transport capability)
Transportbattlewagon: 4+RA save, Big gun and few bigshoota. transport: 4 (Meganobs count as 2)
Truk, 6 save, 1 big shoota, transport 2

Boyz could have Big shootas just like IG have their heavy weapons (1 per 2 stands of boyz). Manz (mega-nobz), 4+RA save, Macroweapon CC.

Etc etc etc


Why every other army gets "40K wags Epic" treatment but orks are forgotten?
Author:  Erik M [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:56 am ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
And no Shokk Attack Gun, no Tractor Beam, no Lifta-Droppa.   :_(

And that heavy weapon split off you talked of, that's something all should have. Even marines have only one HVY WPN per squad, ie ½ per troupé.
Author:  Irondeath [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Well, where´s the Soopagun in 40kid? What are the stats of a Zzap Gun?

If Epic were to follow 40k with its (seemingly) yearly codices and infamous codex creep, where exactly would it land us?

I presume in a position where we are constantly lagging behind and never get to balance army lists anyway.
To put it somewhat sharply, if you want to play 40k ... play 40k!
Author:  Erik M [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Well, we have the opportunity to not fallin the 40k traps, if we choose to.
And at the same time Epic@GW is from the same time and place as 40k@GW. So what's in one ought to be in the other, if scale wise possible.
Especially if the model IS there.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Epic is a battle, 40k a skirmish.

What seems great in a 10 minute engagement is not much good if its got no ammo left, has problems coordinating resupply, has poor tactical cohesion etc etc.

In 40k Orks smash as a horde into the enemy and overrun, just like 'barbarians' vs Roman legionnaires. Epic gets that.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
JJ notes in the rulebook that the Orks have been heavily abstracted in order to make their panoply of unit types usable at Epic scale.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
What everyone else said.  Jervis laid out the philosophy pretty well in the rulebook.  Lootaz are Big Gunz (Shooty Boyz are listed in the "counts as" section).  The various Mek weapons are either Zzap-guns or Soopagunz.

The Battlewagon is a complete anomaly.  It was created well after the Epic system for wagonz.  It used an older name that Epic already had in use and revamped it completely differently.  It's essentially something between the current Wagonz and Fortresses in Epic.

Why every other army gets "40K wags Epic" treatment but orks are forgotten?

They don't and shouldn't.  Aside from keeping in the general flavor, you'll find great resistance to following 40K.  There are all kinds of 40K inspired house rules, from Techmarines to Mega-armored Nobz, but they are not being included.  Some of them might make it eventually into variant lists, but they should not be retro-fitted into existing Epic lists.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
As Neal has said.

Plus Orks are not forgotten, but they are currently the least modified list that we have. This has made them a good bench mark to compare changes to other armies.
Author:  scarik [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
The 40k Ork Battlewagon isn't the same vehicle as the Epic one.

The Epic Wagonz are closer to Trukks, the 40k Wagon is more of a half-sized Fort.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
I have to admit that the battlewagon thing does bother me a bit. It seems to me like gun wagons in E:A are pretty close to what a looted vehicle is in 40k (more or less), and as someone else pointed out, a battlewagon in E:A bears alot of resemblance to a 40k trukk (better armour, but same otherwise). But the 40k battlewagon is not here.

Would it be so bad if we had a third ork tank AV? I don't think there should be 2 separate versions of the thing, just:

Kustum Wagon
Type: AV
Speed: 30cm
Armour: 4+
CC: 4+
FF: 4+
weapons:
2 x twin bigshootas 30cm AP5+/AT6+
Big gun 45cm AP5+/AT5+

Notes: transport (4 + 2 grots)

I don't think the kill cannon needs to be included (let the oddboy upgrade represent that). RA also not needed, since that doesn't follow the rest of the ork wagons or fortresses. I'd guess point cost in the ballpark of 65 points.

As for the rest...
Nobz in E:A are about halfway between normal and meganobz in 40k, and the warlord character upgrade makes up the difference (there wouldn't be all that many mega-armoured boyz in an epic sized force anyway, unless it was an alt list).
Lootas are just big guns. Any weird stuff like shokk attak gunz, etc, can be represented with oddboy upgrades.

I do think that the idea of 40k orks getting more options than epic orks is pretty funny considering that the situation was the reverse for such a long time.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Fir Epicifyed 40k Orks see this thread:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/forums/ ... 83;t=11610
Author:  Nicodemus [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:34 am ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
Quote: (nealhunt @ 08 Sep. 2008, 13:56 )

Why every other army gets "40K wags Epic" treatment but orks are forgotten?


They don't and shouldn't.
But they still do. :)


If somebody from 40K comes to epic and starts marines, pretty much everything is there (and more) (apart from LR variants, but they can be found from Henas list. Land Raider in codex list is still shooty and has best armour, just as it should.). But if somebody who plays with orks comes... Orks are different army than in 40K. Iconic and most basic of ork vehicle (in 40K): Trukk is not even around (or has different name if epic battlewagon is supposed to be it) and instead of Battlewagon you get totally different vehicle.

Lets go through 40K orks:

HQ: Mekboyz with their contraptions are well represented (apart from Kustom Force Field that is nowdays found basically in every ork warband, and it is _very_ efective with vehicles, you can give 4+ cover save to all vehicles 12" from vehicle inhabited by KFF Mek. And it is common to see four battlewagons close to each other all having AV14 with 4+ cover save.) Warbosses are good in epic. Weirdboyz are missing in epic, just give them FF MW and job´s a good ´un.

Elites: Nobz/Meganobz. Nobz: good (could be actually flashgitz and nobs).
Meganobz... (if they are so few, then why do we even have terminators or marines in epic? For every marine chapter there are hundreds of ork worlds, so for every terminator there are probably millions of Mega-armoured nobz. Just normal 40k ork warband can have 52 MANZ while normal Marine warband have to deal with just 30 Mega-armoured Marines (and use special characters to get more, so drop terminators from marines (and drop devastators and assault marines too, basic marine should be enough (if it is good for orks, it is good for beakies too))).
Burnas: Non existing. FF5+ or FF4+? And CC4+, they do have powerweapons.
Tankbustas: Non existing.
Lootas: Non existing. (They are not big gunz, or at least they should have move 15 like other footsloggas, they do carry their gunz)
Kommandos: Well represented.

So 2/5 of elite choises.... "Epic does not bother with elites" "Yeah, drop aspect warriors from eldars"

Troops. Well represented all around. Gretchins and boyz.

Fast Attack:
Stormboyz: Well represented.
Warbuggies/Skortsas/bikers: Well represented
Deffkopta: Different, but at least it is there.

Heavy Support:
Battlewagon. :)
Deff Dread/Killa kans: Well represented. (But nowdays kans are better shooters than dreds, they are crewed by grots)
Flash Gitz: nobs in epic.
Big gunz: Well represented
Looted Wagon: nerfed down to gunwagon in epic. Basically same vehicle with worse shooting in epic. Possibly attaching mek to blitzbrigade could represent boomguns.

Summa summarum: Biggest problem is confusing naming of epic wagonz (or if not confusing, then plain old different) and nonexistance of battlewagon.

What to do to correct this difference: Epic Battlewagon -> Name it Trukk. Give stats for Battlewagon, semajnollissor gave great start. (And maybe lootas. Nowdays ork armies are bristling with lootas.). If not to Big Book List, then give us some alternative list. (But even big book list should have Epic Battlewagon named Trukk)



GW does not develop epic background. It developes 40K background. If we are supposed to play in same galaxy we have to take 40K in account, or deside not to take it account at all and start doing our own world (not bad idea), or take certain point from epic/4oK and keep every list as it were then (what would that point be?).


@Rug: Being good or bad in tournament has nothing to do with following background. If terminators would cost 5 points each with no limits then Marines would rock like no other, it is not fault of allowing terminators, it is about giving faulty points for terminators. Allowing marines to have terminators is background, putting good pricetag for them is gamebalance.
Author:  Soren [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:12 am ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
I´m pretty sure the death of Epic will be the 40kmania where some guys (with good intentions, indeed) think every fart GW produces to sell more 40k miniatures has to be represented in epic. Wrong way, very wrong way. Epic is abstraction lives from it and needs it. Epic creation was far more foreseeing than the constant changes in 40k some guys try to clamp on.....

In some cases we quarrel about themes likle "Uh there is a flamer possible if i take blablabla so every base has to have ignore cover and MW because of sentence two in row 6 beside special rule zeta in codex >irrelevant<. To be honest this horrifies me. Kills a decent game and makes me digging in my miniatures.

Orks are a very good example. Instead of using the "count as" rule some guys want to implement units exactly to the last word anywhere written with some obscure transformation rules of course. Do you really think this hits the core of the game? I think not.

It´s just my opinion, so don´t struggle with it. If you think this is the right way, why not. But it´s not for me and I´m pretty sure not only for me. Destroys a good functioning army list.

Soren
Author:  rpr [ Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:16 am ]
Post subject:  Epic Orks does not represent 40K orks
I think Orks are good. But so are all other lists, in general, too. So Nicodemus in that sense is right that iff we start following new winds in 40k in other lists then why not in Orks?

I prefer not fixing ANY list by 40k. Take the current lists, balance them and be with it, unless they start pouring out new figures.

(and all that 'this weapon has this name so it should have these stats!' is utter nonsense - give balanced stats to weapons and then name them something for fluff)
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/