PDA

View Full Version : Ork stats.



Goq Gar
21-12-2006, 05:37
Why is it that an ork, a spore grown muscly beast is as strong as a weak willed conscript guardsman, but can, after screaming in an almost incoherent string of bad grammar, can swing his choppa with the skills of the most highly trained warriors in the galaxy, the space marines :confused: :confused: :confused:

Am I the only one who thinks this is a serious typo? S4 you fools! And weapon skill 3! or even WS2!

It would just make the orks more believable in combat! In such a bloodlust they cant even swing their choppas right, but when they hit they make a big dent.

Can anyone please tell me why my orks are acting like underfed chihuauas (sp?) in combat? But Chihuauas that can attack with the skill and dexterity of chuck norris?

Hobgoblyn
21-12-2006, 07:52
Well, Orks might make more sense with a WS3 and S4, but...

Instead, what was done was that they compensated for the higher strength by moving the point to WS and giving them a really weird and pointless rule for their axes.

Or, alternatively, because they were 3/3 in 2nd edition and in 3rd edition they actually wanted to make them more clearly a hand-to-hand army they moved that point from BS into WS and really didn't think much about it.

Also, WS does NOT necessarially involve being fast or dexterious. I have never seen anything that would ever suggest that a Space Marine, especially in Terminator armor, is particularly fast or dexterious either.
Firewarrior? Dawn of War? Any time they can show Space Marines in motion? They are always relatively slow, but determined.

Goq Gar
21-12-2006, 08:04
hmmm... I see your point...

But still, we can only hope GW realises their mistake and makes the orks uber hard choppy monsters who tend to be a bit less along the lines of a squad of (corrected) combat masters who spend hours honing their skills at axe wielding.

And yes, the rule for the choppas is a bit wierd, instead of it always being a 4+ save, it should instead just -1 from their save, so that way space marines arent the only ones being picked on XD.

Speed Freek
21-12-2006, 08:12
Shortly after the Codex came out Andy Chambers said in an article that the Choppa rule was added during playtesting as Orks were not balanced against Space Marines otherwise.

Tulun
21-12-2006, 08:15
The Ork statline is fine. Orks AREN'T as strong as Space Marines; compare Necromunda stats. It's the flaw of the 10 point stat system.

But, this is made up by having 2 base attacks (Before adding weapons!), and if you want them to be good in CC, they have Choppas. Orks can easily tear apart 4+ save armies with shear number of attacks; and they reduce good armor to 4+. It's fine as is.

gorenut
21-12-2006, 08:28
Yea, I totally agree that the combination of str and attacks is what really represents their overall strength in combat. The problem with giving things clearly defined labels is that they aren't totally representative on a literal sense when it comes to stats. People often mistaken this and don't see the overall statline to see what they're trying to represent. Some may argue that attacks represent the speed of an attacker.. if that is so.. then how come Eldar Banshees, argueably one of the swiftest fighters in the galaxy, have only 1 attack? Speed is measured moreso by initiative.

So my belief is that Strength+Attack=overall strength. I guess certain weapons can play in to factor this as well.

They're fine as WS 4, they are very tenacious and all they do is fight. SO I would rathe them stay the same stats than to be changed into something like WS 3, Str 4, Attack 1 (giving them 2 attacks would make them stronger than Space Marines).

xibo
21-12-2006, 08:46
Yeah but banshees still get beaten up by braindead khorne berzerkers / death guard ( they fail to wound ) / orkses and basic DE warriors? (parry?)

Zedric
21-12-2006, 08:55
I concur with sticking to WS4. Orks missing in HTH would be more frustrating missing with guns. I'd rather they hit a lot and fail to wound than sit around wiffing their axes in the generally vicinity of the opponent.

xibo
21-12-2006, 09:06
you play marines 90% of the times. You hit marines on a 4 with WS4. You hit marines on a 4 with BS3. So no difference there...
You hit worse against guardsmen but wound better, and 10 GEq shouldn't be a problem for orks in CC either...
besides... ferral orks hit better than their nobs in shooting...

Warwolt the skaven
24-12-2006, 09:13
Orks don't do anything but fight, they do it after WAAAGH!s, during WAAAGH!s and even on the sunday afternoon with little yellow squgigs on their backyard. Ofcourse they got WS4! And its also the actuall only thing combined with choppas that makes orcs playable. They shoot for the dakka, nothing else. Its simply something noisy to keep them from behind bored till they can "Chopp sum 'eads"

HalfEvil333
24-12-2006, 09:46
I really don't know why people complain about the Ork stat line. For a species that lives to fight, WS4 is a given. The low BS works when you consider Orks use guns to make noise to scare the enemy, not to kill them. S may be a point of argument. "The fluff says they can rip a man apart with their bare-hands!" Yeah, but we are using a 10 point system, where 3 is used to represent the average human strength. That means it can range from the wimpy bookworm from high school to the steroid-chugging defensive lineman from the winning football team. It really doesn't seem like it in game, but when it comes to S&T, their is a major scale jump between the different points. S3 represents a guy smacking someone with the butt of his gun, while S4 represents a mini-rocket smashing through someone's chest. Besides, I'd rather have T4 over S4.

I do think that choppas should be -1 armor save instead of the 4+ rule. I think its a better representation of their weapons than the current rules.


besides... ferral orks hit better than their nobs in shooting...

Yes, but Feral Orks depend on hunting to survive. Most Ork Waaaghs survive off of stolen supplies and fallen enemy, so they don't need to shoot deer for dinner.

Zedric
24-12-2006, 10:16
Why is it that an ork, a spore grown muscly beast is as strong as a weak willed conscript guardsman, but can, after screaming in an almost incoherent string of bad grammar, can swing his choppa with the skills of the most highly trained warriors in the galaxy, the space marines :confused: :confused: :confused:
You have it exactly right.


Even with the genetically engineered Adeptus Astartes, it takes almost ten years of intensive therapy and physical alteration to perfect what an Ork knows instinctively!
I seriously don't understand why people doubt that a species that lives for no other purpose than fighting is good at fighting. These aren't chimps with knives, this is a race that was genetically engineered for war.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
24-12-2006, 13:47
ork statline should be IMHO:

WS4 BS2 S3 T4 W1 I3 A2 LD7 SV6+ 6+ Regenerate/like Feel no Pain USR but on 6/ and Waaaaaaaagh! like furious charge on succesful mob test and it'll be fine

studderigdave
24-12-2006, 14:14
orks need a strength boost on the charge, i agree that S4 on the basic slugga would be broke, but adding a +1 strength to the waaaaaagh roll would suffice. the charge is the pinnacle of ork existance anyway, the culmination of latent psychic release that is built up in the ork psycke, i mean +1 strength would be minor compared to other boosts that ppeople can think up.

Rikkjourd
24-12-2006, 15:39
I think the ork stat line is fine. I almost dare say perfect.

When you look at stat lines you have to see the whole package, not only focus on one stat. Take one aspect that you would like to determine if it is good: For example killyness, how tough they are, how fast they move, how much area denial they can produce etc and then use ALL relevant factors to determine if they are good/bad at it.

Back to the ork issue: They have high WS, VERY high number of attacks for basic troops (2 + choppa&slugga + charging), and reduce armoured targets survivability. This gives them alot of damage potential without raising them to S4. Just my 2 cents.

Morgrad
24-12-2006, 16:46
Orks are fantastic in CC, and I think it would completely unbalance the entire army to add +1S, even if only on the charge - unless you also took away an attack. 4 attacks each on the charge means that even if only a couple of orks survive to thier initiative turn, they'll still do a heapin' helpin' of damage - particularly if one has a power-klaw.

If you remove an attack, or some weapon skill (or both), or increase the points-cost - all in an effort to justify +1S - then they suddenly become even more killy vs. MEQs, but dramatically less so against guard, tyranids, and the like.

Make no mistake - it's the # of attacks that makes my tyranids fear a horde of orks - not the strength, choppas, or toughness of the mob. Anything at all that you do to balance out +1S will reduce the # of effective attacks - either through lower WS, lower A, or fewer models - all to the detriment of the ork codex as a whole.

Cill
24-12-2006, 17:30
I really gotta agree with the original poster. Orks definitely deserve to be S4. Having Orks as strong as guardsmen is really stupid imo...

Tulun
24-12-2006, 17:32
Having Orks as Strong as Space Marines is also equally stupid; a basic Boy just isn't that strong ;)

Goq Gar
24-12-2006, 17:34
Still, Cill, I have seen that my thoughts were indeed just, but the system just doesnt work right to represent this, but still works :D

Thanks to all for showing me the light.

Rowenstin
24-12-2006, 19:31
Can anyone please tell me why my orks are acting like underfed chihuauas (sp?) in combat? But Chihuauas that can attack with the skill and dexterity of chuck norris?

It comes from 2nd edition. There, orcs had the same statline than their Fantasy brethen.

However, in one White dwarf (I don't remember the number) they decided to make an unusual battle report of Praetorians against orcs, where the Guards had to defend a farm against tides of bloodthirst orcs.

The first battles didn't went well, since Adrian Wood, the orc player, quickly discovered it was much better to shoot than charge -orcs were much more of a shooty army back there- Since the orcs were supposed to overrun the defenders under a wave of green, they decided to improve the orc's overall combat performance.

Increasing Str wasn't a good idea, since back in 2e Str wasn't used by anything that didn't have 6 limbs (most weapons had their own Strenght). If you wanted to be better at hand to hand, the only option was to have a high WS -and of course be able to parry, but that's out of topic-. So for that particular scenario, they houseruled the orcs to have WS 4 and BS 2. The rest is history.

gorenut
24-12-2006, 19:33
I do think that choppas should be -1 armor save instead of the 4+ rule. I think its a better representation of their weapons than the current rules.

.

The day 40k started losing actual movement stats and modifiers was the day I started losing interest in it.

Da Reddaneks
25-12-2006, 00:55
I would very much like to see the +1 strength on the charge or with a successful waaagh roll or the like. I do think that would fit.

I also greatly advocate the 6+ feel no pain roll. That would add very little to their hand to hand survivability and aid in orks getting across the board as it would provide some level of protection from small arms fire. I would even be perfectly satisfied with doing away with ork flak armor if they got a 6+ feel no pain roll. This would have no effect on hand to hand but still give that little perk for getting across the field.

The final thing I would like to see, and to me the most important “wish list” item of all, is a reduction in cost across the board by one to two points per boy and a re-evaluation of the cost of ork vehicles. I sincerely view this as a necessity. To me the orks are the horde army of horde armies. We epitomize the ideology of "quantity has a quality all its own." This should apply not just in boyz but in our vehicles as well.

Gensuke626
25-12-2006, 01:35
I would very much like to see the +1 strength on the charge or with a successful waaagh roll or the like. I do think that would fit.

I also greatly advocate the 6+ feel no pain roll. That would add very little to their hand to hand survivability and aid in orks getting across the board as it would provide some level of protection from small arms fire. I would even be perfectly satisfied with doing away with ork flak armor if they got a 6+ feel no pain roll. This would have no effect on hand to hand but still give that little perk for getting across the field.

The final thing I would like to see, and to me the most important “wish list” item of all, is a reduction in cost across the board by one to two points per boy and a re-evaluation of the cost of ork vehicles. I sincerely view this as a necessity. To me the orks are the horde army of horde armies. We epitomize the ideology of "quantity has a quality all its own." This should apply not just in boyz but in our vehicles as well.


Quoted for truth. though I disagree in 1 point.

Orks vehicles should be able to horde up as much as the WAAAGH! itself, but to me the army that should be the empitomy of "Quantity over Quality" is the Tyranids. Played the way that the background describes them, a Tyranid army should have as many gaunts as an Ork army has boyz, and that's the fodder screen.

With the advent of Godzilla lists, I feel the Tyranids have lost their way...which is why I joined up with the Warseer Waaagh!

oh...and on the topic of Ork Stats...err...I'm all for the improvement of Orks in melee...but at the same time I'd rather have some sort of Defense against shooting for my foot sloggers (Grots don't seem to be cutting it for me) and maybe a tiny dash of speed....maybe something like a "WAAAGH! Forced March" Pass a Waagh test and the mob can fleet as it's lust for combat drives them forward.

EndlessNameless
25-12-2006, 01:58
[QUOTE=HalfEvil333;1168626]
I do think that choppas should be -1 armor save instead of the 4+ rule. I think its a better representation of their weapons than the current rules.
QUOTE]

While a save modifier would arguably be more realistic I see the rule as more of an abstraction to balance out play.
introducing a -1 save modifier would produce the same results against space marines but then creates balance issues with other armies.

Orks have no trouble in close combat with units like guardsmen, guardians etc and by introducing save modifiers would only make these units fair even worse. reducing the maximum save to 4+ allows orks to better deal with spacemarines but without effect other races to dramatically.

I play against orks on a regular basis and collected them for a brief period and I would say that their stat line is perfect.

The problem from a realism point of view comes from the limited 1 to 10 for stats. While obviously an ork should be stronger that a guardsmen but weaker than a spacemarine there is no middle ground either strength 3 or 4
.

Hobgoblyn
25-12-2006, 06:34
where 3 is used to represent the average human strength. That means it can range from the wimpy bookworm from high school to the steroid-chugging defensive lineman from the winning football team.

This is incorrect. Actually, a regular human off the streets would be Strength 2. An example is the Chaos Cultists or Necromunda new recruits ("juvies"). Only dedicated athletes and combatants who make weight-training a regular part of their exercizes get boosted to S3.

It can be a bit confusing because you basically never use any humans in WH40K that would be below S3, but you have to remember that the Imperial Guard training makes modern Marine bootcamp look like a Sunday afternoon picnic.

Of course the arguement here would be that humans who get S3 are only BARELY S3 and Orks are at the high point of what would still be considered S3... But then, I still think it'd be better for them to be A1 and S4.

Sorry, I just don't buy that your average newly recruited Space Marine Scout is that much stronger than a 8' tall rippling green fungus monster who is intentionally genetically designed to physically dominate all other species in the galaxy.

HalfEvil333
25-12-2006, 07:01
This is incorrect. Actually, a regular human off the streets would be Strength 2. An example is the Chaos Cultists or Necromunda new recruits ("juvies"). Only dedicated athletes and combatants who make weight-training a regular part of their exercizes get boosted to S3.

It seems like in 40k (40k strictly, not including Necromunda), WS represents training, both simply exercise to combat training, better than S&T. The difference between a conscript and a guardsman is WS and BS. Same goes for an Initiate and a Neophyte, and they do nothing but train and pray when not in combat.

Lord Zarkov
25-12-2006, 10:25
This is incorrect. Actually, a regular human off the streets would be Strength 2. An example is the Chaos Cultists or Necromunda new recruits ("juvies"). Only dedicated athletes and combatants who make weight-training a regular part of their exercizes get boosted to S3.

It can be a bit confusing because you basically never use any humans in WH40K that would be below S3, but you have to remember that the Imperial Guard training makes modern Marine bootcamp look like a Sunday afternoon picnic.

Actually Necromunda Juves are S3
as are Genestealer Cult Initiates who are just armed civilians
and as were Chaos Cultists before and after the current Chaos Codex
Sages and Mysics in an Inquisitors retinue are also S3 and I highly doubt that all (or even many) of them are dedicated athletes or even do that much weight training

intellectawe
25-12-2006, 16:55
Orks should be be either strength 4 with no weapon modifier ability or strength 3 with a - 1 armor modifier.

Or keep them as is, but give them BS of 3.

Warwolt the skaven
25-12-2006, 18:01
No... not BS3. The reason for BS2 is for balancing them out. We 'ave 'em ladz for bashin, not fish 'ead pruktizing! I mean, they kick ASS in CC (No, don't start naming all other bad'azzes in the Ooniverse, I got fifty more guys than you have of that ****** mega-stat line) and is pretty hordy enough to atleast get that unit of shoota's effective enough to use. Just add some more boyz.

marv335
25-12-2006, 18:28
well i can't see the S changing.
i talked to some of the dev team at GD and the opinion eas that S3 was fine for a basic ork.
you need somewhere to go with the stats. as orks grow, they get bigger and stronger, the stronger the ork, the higher the rank.
so
S2; grot
S3; da ladz
S4; nobz
S5; warboss
that, i believe is the planned progression for orks.
after all if stats were granted by the look of the models, catachans would be S6 ;)

Zzarchov
25-12-2006, 19:09
The orks should, given the models, be Stronger than the Space Marines.

Thats the source of the WTF? It would be like buying a Carnifex and finding out its S4, T4.

You could have a million fluff reasons why..but it doesn't make any damn sense when you look at the model.


I think rather than the S being as big of a change, the WS would be better

Boy: WS2, S4, I2, A2
Skarboy: WS3, S4, I3, A2
Nob: WS4, S4, I3 , A3
Warboss: WS5, S5, I4,A4

GloomyGrim
25-12-2006, 19:56
Orks WS of 4 is their first line of defense ... I prefers ws4 to S4.

Ex:
9 marines (135 pts) vs 15 orks (135 pts)
Most of the times the orks are being charged... ws3 would mean than lets say.. 9 marines would have 18 attacks, hitting with 12, wounding 6.. 5 dead orks...
that's alot specially since we're talking killzone so rest of orks probably would have maybe 3 or 6 attacks or none at all... The next turn around, those same 9 marines would kill 3 more orks.

with ws4 orks, those 9 marines woulg get their 18 attacks, hitting 9 and wounding about 4 orks (4.5 but throwing in the 6+ save). That extra ork alive will increase the change of having a bigger killzone thus more orks can strike back (specially the all important nob with powerklaw).

Ex2:
8 banshees assaulting ws3 ... 24 attacks, 16 hits, 5.33 wounds, 5.33 dead works.... 5 dead rounding down.
8 banshees assaulting ws4 .. 24 attacks, 12 hits, 4 wounds.. 4 dead orks

believe or not that extra ork saved is gold.

Now the orks strike back situation:
ws4 s3 orks vs 9 marines: 11 remaining.. 33 attacks, 16.5 hits, 5.5 wounds: 2.75 dead marines.. let's make it 3 since it rounds up.

ws3 s4 orks vs 9 marines: 10 remaining... 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7.5 wounds: 3.75 dead marines.. rounding to 4.

round 2 of assault:
6 marines vs 11 ws4 s3 orks: marines make 6 attacks, hit 3 and wound 1.5 orks.-- let's make it 2.
9 orks strike back with 27 attacks, hitting 13.5, wounding 4.5 killing 2.25 marines... 2 marine dead

5 marines vs ws3 s4 orks. marines make 5 attacks, hitting 4.5, wounding 2.25.. 2 dead orks.
8 orks left over: 24 attacks, 12 hits, 6 wounds, 3 dead marines.

in resume:
9 marines charging 15 ws4 s3 orks after 2 rounds:
6 dead orks vs 5 dead marines: marine below 50%

9 marines charging 15 ws3 s4 orks after 2 rounds:
7 dead orks vs 7 dead marines: marines below 50% but orks are near below 50%

Now for the banshees:
11 WS4 s4 orks strike back: 33 attacks, 16.5 hits, 8.25 wounds: 4 dead banshees

10 ws3 s4 orks strike back: 30 attacks, 15 hits, 10 wounds, 5 dead banshees.

yeah one more banshee down for the s4 orks.. but let's see round 2:

4 banshees: 8 attacks, 4 hits, 1.33 wounds : 1 ork down... 10 orks strike back.. 30 attacks, 15 hits, 7.5 wounds... 3.75 dead banshees.. make it 4... no more banshees.

3 banshees: 6 attacks, 4 hits, 1.33 wounds. 1 dead ork. 9 orks strike back... 30 attacks, 15 hits; 10 wounds... 5 banshees down.

So both s3 and s4 orks killed all the banshees.. but the WS4 orks have 1 more ork in the mob.. wich on the long run can be worth serious VP's.

just my 2 cents.

Panzer MkIV
25-12-2006, 20:20
The stats are just fine IMO. Not all armies should have the same statline as a space marine. We already have Str4 Orks: they're called Skar Boyz;)

Tulun
25-12-2006, 23:36
It seems the majority like the Ork statline.I don't really understand why people wanna change it ;) It's fine as is.

The only issue I see Orks having is the fact that new Rapid fire really tears them apart due to their movement bonus (and Trukks aren't neccesarily safe ways to assault ^_^). But, upping their statline won't solve this, as any serious improvement would have to cost a lot of points to be remotely fair to the already powerful statline, esspecially for their point cost.

Hellebore
26-12-2006, 00:47
S3 with A2 is better than S4 with A1, and sort of reflects their lower S.

I see the ork stat line as quite abstract, where the 2A actually represent an effective S of 3.5 or something.

Hellebore

Helicon_One
26-12-2006, 00:58
OK, breaking it down:

Why does an Ork have WS4? Because an Ork is a berserk flailing windmill of choppy death, wildly smashing his weapons against the enemy . The effects of this (it also accounts for the A2 statline) are to both make its attacks very difficult to parry or dodge, and frustrate enemy efforts to counter-attack because they're constantly being battered by the Ork's frenzied onslaught.

Hence WS4.

Why does an Ork have S3?. For the same reason - an Ork attacks like a wildly flailing windmill, not making a calculated deliberate strike. It hasn't been through any significant combat training, it close combat attacks aren't directed at known weakpoints of enemy defences but more or less randomly thrown towards the opponent's body in general. A great number of hits on the opponent are likely to be against arms, shields, equipment and other areas away from the important 'killzones'. Yes it has big muscles, but it uses its raw strength in a less than optimal way.

Hence S3.

Tim

Horusaurus
26-12-2006, 11:56
If you switched orks to WS 3, S 4, A 1 then you could drop their pts cost by a good amount and thus make them more survivable (more wounds per pt).

eyeolas
26-12-2006, 13:19
I think orks would only be right IMO at str 4 if they only had 1 attack base, as in their curent stat line it makes them out as to busy trying to hack and slash the enemy they don't really care how much damage their attacks are doing, or give them furiouse charge for a point extra or something along those lines.

Zedric
26-12-2006, 13:40
This is one of those instances where I'm glad I never have to worry about GW's design team getting their ideas from fan-forum threads.

lachlin
26-12-2006, 14:42
The ork stat line is fine. S3 is comperable to a human. Space Marines are genetically enhanced, thus S4. The choppa rule is fine.Should they take it away from the orks? What about Khorne Beserkers? There is no need to fix something that is not broken.

t-tauri
26-12-2006, 21:21
This is becoming a spam-fest. I've deleted lots of random spam. Please keep it on topic.



t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition

Victor Romeo
26-12-2006, 23:18
Having played Orks ever since Thrugg Bull-Neck attacked the farm I have to admit that I find the current edition of 40K the most frustrating. Like most Ork players I was really pleased with the new(er) Stat line as it represented Orks as the close combat monsters that we have come to think of them as.

The biggest problem we suffer from is getting through that darned T4 3+ save combination. The Choppa rule did something to help but is not really enough. A strength boost on Boyz would overpower them against non MEQ lists and effect game balance. My suggestion would be for Boyz to have the option of using their Choppas 2 handed for a +1 Strength bonus, thus Slugga Boyz have 2 attacks at S4 or 3 at S3. Combine this with a basic 7 points for a Boy with the option of replacing Sluggas with Shootas for one point (and keeping the Choppa) and we might start seeing hordes of Boyz returning.

Unfortunately the limited movement rules of the last two editions of 40K have stymied the idea of Orks as a huge mob of foot warriors Waagh-ing their way towards the enemy. Frankly orks cannot make it across the table in large enough numbers to over power MEQ armies when they finally reach HTH. I have seen ideas mooted around of Orks gaining the furious charge USR or even of being able to fleet; sadly these options will only result in the over powering of speed freak lists and result in us all fielding Gorka-Morka lists. Hopefully a points break woulds help this.

Diomedes
27-12-2006, 00:09
Ahh Thrugg Bull Neck some good memories, brings a tear to my eye...;)

I always thought that the higher WS and the extra attack were because of the Orks strength?

I mean Catachans are heavily muscled and are written as being stronger than your average Guardsman and I'm pretty sure that this is the reason they get a higher WS as opposed to the higher BS of say Storm Troopers?

Orks and their fantasy counterparts "Orcs" have always been written as huge and strong but have always had S3 for the basic boy, I think this fits as, as Orks get bigger they do get stronger so they need to start out at the basic S3.

If a mob can get into HH with enough numbers they can make a mess of most basic troop types including marines so I think they're pretty balanced as they are.

Zzarchov
27-12-2006, 01:26
I think you aren't quite grasping what Im attempting to say about orks and S4.

The problem isn't the stats for effectiveness, they are perfectly effective as they are.

The problem isn't that they need to be S4 to keep up. They are fine in game play with S3.

The problem isn't the fluff, the fluff easily allows for S3 orks.



The problem is the models. The physical pieces of plastic. The Third Edition orks are HUGE, bigger than Marines and bigger than Genestealers (both S4).


Think of it this way.

The stats for grots are fine. They have great gameplay value (Amazing really), the stats make perfect sense for the fluff and they are a competetive unit.

BUT, if the official model for a grot was ogryn sized, in terminator armour with a multi-barrel lascannon...

Then people would say .. WTF! Why does this guy have T2, no save the crappiest gun in the game! He should be three wounds, T4 or 5 with a 2+ save and an assault three lascannon!

Its not that the rules or fluff for grots would be flawed..its that the model produced by GW, doesn't represent the unit it is supposed to.



Such is the problem with Orks. There is no model that accurately represents Orks with WYSIWYG that GW still makes. The Third Edition Orks DO NOT represent the S3 blighters from the Codex, if anything its a box of skarboyz mislabeled as "Regular boyz"

The orks models should not have S3.

They can either release new ork miniatures with toned down size to represent S3 orks.

Or Bump Orks up to S4.

But as is, there will always be complaining about how the models don't match the unit they are trying to represent.

Grand Master Raziel
27-12-2006, 01:41
Shortly after the Codex came out Andy Chambers said in an article that the Choppa rule was added during playtesting as Orks were not balanced against Space Marines otherwise.

They should have playtested WS3 S4 Orks. With that combo, minus the Choppa rule, you get almost exactly the same math against both MEQs and GEQs as you get with WS4 S3 Orks with the Choppa rule. You get the same killy performance vs both types of foe. The only change is that MEQs will kill a few more Orks per turn - about one out of 10 attacks or so. I think the change would be worthwhile. Getting rid of the Choppa rule would please SM players, and getting S4 would please Ork players.

Q: What about Terminators?
A: Power Klaws. Burnas.

Q: What about Skarboyz?
A: WS4!

Diomedes
27-12-2006, 01:42
Well I'm bigger than a chimp but the Chimp is four times stronger than me, sometimes size is not an indicator of strength, its all about muscle efficency and tendon strength.

I can see what your saying about the models but their are no offical models for skarboyz (which I have always thought there should be) so at least with minimal conversion you can have a big mob of skarboyz.

This doesn't solve the problem your bringing up but I think a lot of people are happy with the models and the rules as they are and I actualy think the Orks before 3rd edition were too small for the fluff so its swings and roundabouts.

One mans trash is another mans treasure and all that, basicaly your never going to make everyone happy.

Personaly I find that the ork models have quite rangey builds, muscled yes but not heavily so until you get to the Nobz and Warboss models, which for me would fit in with their stats.

I can see from the build of a Marine model how a Marine would be stronger than an Ork, he just looks more solid imo regardless of which model is bigger.

Genestealers are like scaled up insects the strength of an insect would be many times more than that of a human if it were scaled up to human size so again I can see how it would be stronger.

Plus we don't know what GW will do with the new range of models when the new Codex comes out so you never know, your complaints may be answered.

Just don't hold your breath! ;)

Rikkjourd
27-12-2006, 22:55
[QUOTE=Diomedes;1172907]
Genestealers are like scaled up insects the strength of an insect would be many times more than that of a human if it were scaled up to human size so again I can see how it would be stronger.
/QUOTE]

No, it would not.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#scaling

*hides from all "this is science fiction not RL so anything can happen-posts"*

HalfEvil333
27-12-2006, 23:18
No, it would not.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#scaling

Yeah, see the problem with that is it addresses the problem of shrinking/enlarging in movies, not actually scaling. And even in that argument it relies on that the object retain the same mass, which might not be the case with shrink rays. For all we know, the purpose of a shrink ray is to shift mass on scale. Remove equal amounts of particles to shrink and add for enlarging. I mean, those things are always steaming/smoking when they are done, how do we know that isn't the access material.

But I'm getting off-topic. If, say, an ant was enlarged to human size, scaling everything from mass to density, the ant would be outragiously stronger than a human, even if it wouldn't seem to be. Its all about how the structure of the creature is built.

marv335
27-12-2006, 23:47
the imperial infantryman's uplifting primer says that ork muscles are inefficient therefore need to be bulkier to achieve the same strength as a human.

surely imperial propaganda can't be lying to the troops ;)

Dakkagor
28-12-2006, 00:06
orks strength is fine. Remember that this is the species that can heft around 50kal machine guns and antitank piat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT) guns and gas axes and still muster the strength to pelt into close combat and tear a guardsmen or three a new one. Never mind that ork nobz stomp around in scavenged, unarticulated tank armour plate, or use hydraulic jaws of life to cut open moving, fighting targets.

By all fluff rights, space marines should be strength 5 thanks to their power armour, and noone wants that do they. . . if guardsmen where strength 2, toughness 2 (drop t2s and s2s down to 1s) then orks could stay as they are to represent stronger than humans, as tough as marine monsters.

Diomedes
28-12-2006, 02:44
[QUOTE=Diomedes;1172907]
Genestealers are like scaled up insects the strength of an insect would be many times more than that of a human if it were scaled up to human size so again I can see how it would be stronger.
/QUOTE]

No, it would not.
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#scaling

*hides from all "this is science fiction not RL so anything can happen-posts"*

Well actualy it would if you look at how many times its body weight an ant can lift and then scale everything up to human size.

I wasn't talking about movie physics I was talking about strength to weight ratio.


Yeah, see the problem with that is it addresses the problem of shrinking/enlarging in movies, not actually scaling. And even in that argument it relies on that the object retain the same mass.
But I'm getting off-topic. If, say, an ant was enlarged to human size, scaling everything from mass to density, the ant would be outragiously stronger than a human, even if it wouldn't seem to be. Its all about how the structure of the creature is built.

HalfEvil, says it better than I but thats what I was refering to and this has been used in an "Animal Olympics" natural history program where all Animals and insects involved were scaled up or down to human size to see how they would fair.

I believe a beetle won the weightlifting, lifting something like 25 tons!

Rikkjourd
28-12-2006, 09:47
Yeah, see the problem with that is it addresses the problem of shrinking/enlarging in movies, not actually scaling.

I didn't mean you should read about shrinking/enlarging (and the associated problems of finding mass), just the bit about scaling. Mass increases much faster than muscle strength so scaled up bugs will NOT be able to do their feats relative to their size if you make them identical but bigger. Actually, figuring this out is not hard, since jumping big animals can do a few times their height but insects do hundreds of times their height.

HalfEvil333
28-12-2006, 10:06
I didn't mean you should read about shrinking/enlarging (and the associated problems of finding mass), just the bit about scaling. Mass increases much faster than muscle strength so scaled up bugs will NOT be able to do their feats relative to their size if you make them identical but bigger. Actually, figuring this out is not hard, since jumping big animals can do a few times their height but insects do hundreds of times their height.

I never understood this. I don't know the exact measurements, but when I look at the cat species, they have similar bone and muscle structures, but the larger ones can out jump a house cat. Again, I don't know what the exact measurements are, just going off the basis of watching the Animal channel and my own cat climbing trees.

Kegluneq
28-12-2006, 10:23
But I'm getting off-topic. If, say, an ant was enlarged to human size, scaling everything from mass to density, the ant would be outragiously stronger than a human, even if it wouldn't seem to be. Its all about how the structure of the creature is built.
No, it wouldn't. If a human were the same size as a flea, he would be just as strong. Very small muscles are very efficient ones.

Kriegsherr
28-12-2006, 15:09
Orks don't do anything but fight, they do it after WAAAGH!s, during WAAAGH!s and even on the sunday afternoon with little yellow squgigs on their backyard. Ofcourse they got WS4! And its also the actuall only thing combined with choppas that makes orcs playable. They shoot for the dakka, nothing else. Its simply something noisy to keep them from behind bored till they can "Chopp sum 'eads"

Not quite true... in 2nd ed, orks were one of the most shooty army... just unreliable.
And even now they are one of the best mobile shooty army thanks to loads of big shootas and small mobz. Its just that most people don't even give shooty orks a try.

And again, there is no fluff indication that orks should be all about CC. Don't try to pull that on me. :p

Helicon_One
28-12-2006, 15:45
The problem is the models. The physical pieces of plastic. The Third Edition orks are HUGE, bigger than Marines and bigger than Genestealers (both S4)
Yes, but as I've said before, the "Strength" characteristic isn't an indicator of how big your muscles are or how many weights you can bench-press, it literally represents how likely it is that your opponent will be seriously hurt when you hit them. As above, Orks don't recieve combat training on recognising and striking their opponent's weak points, they just pound away on whoever they're fighting and rely on inflicting so many hits that some of them are bound to hit the kill-zones and do the serious damage they want - hence them getting lots of attacks at a modest strength.

Tim

Captain Micha
28-12-2006, 15:53
larger muscles are more efficient. do much less work to acheive the same goal as a small one. otherwise weight lifting would be a very bad thing lol

anyways. s3 is what an army soldier has. not the average joe. I don't care what gw says. the "gun baby" conscript should have s2. since he apparently has not even gone through basic training yet. unless of course when they make a conscript out of someone they pick the biggest meanest looking sob out there on the street.

so no orks don't need s4 lol