Jump to content

Welcome to Da WAAAGH
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How can ork shooting be fixed?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#41
Orkimedez

Orkimedez

    Runtherd

  • Boyz
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Army Name:Waagh
As it is also part of the ork shooting I will leave this comment here.

A way to fix the burnas would be to give them skorchas and make cheap (or free) combi-burnas for nobs and the like.

It makes much more sense that way when looking at the models (cuz size and all).

#42
Skumdreg

Skumdreg

    Stormboy

  • Boyz
  • 1,380 posts
  • Army Name:Dreg Boyz
In a perfect world I would swap the profiles around. However, burnas might be pretty too good for orks if this happened and people would complain. Hehe, but a trukk rolling up next toma squad of Beakies and doing 30 auto hitting Skorcha shots would be funny.

#43
Badfang Brassaxe

Badfang Brassaxe

    Skitzo

  • Boyz
  • 2,411 posts
  • Army Name:Da Perfeshunelz

A way to fix the burnas would be to give them skorchas and make cheap (or free) combi-burnas for nobs and the like.

As Skumdreg says, I think the d3 shots is ok 'coz a unit of 10 is guaranteed 10 hits and could get 30 which at an 8" range should be plenty, a strength and AP bump wouldn't go amiss though - if it can bypass cover then flak armour isn't likely to provide any kind of protection  :sowhat



#44
Orkimedez

Orkimedez

    Runtherd

  • Boyz
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Army Name:Waagh

However, burnas might be pretty too good for orks if this happened and people would complain.


Hell! Why are we Ork players always so eager to throw a spanner into our works?^^. We have the community for that.

Let us have something nice for a change. I am sure that given the 6+ it could be acceptable.

Anyhow, KT has already gave us a clue to what will happen to orks. Burnas to stay d3 and orks 5+BS

#45
Orkimedez

Orkimedez

    Runtherd

  • Boyz
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Army Name:Waagh
On the bright side. In the KT special burna box there seems to be a stratagem that allows to d6 instead of d3.

Source:

Haven't watch the video myself yet.

#46
killercroc

killercroc

    Loota Boy

  • Boyz
  • 1,183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho

I actually dislike Burnas because their low number of shots. Yes it's 10-30 auto hits and yes they're AP -2 weapons but it's 14 points still on a 6+ sv model they're not difficult to kill. So if they get the shot then charge they're powerful but if they get shot or charged they're going to crumble and I don't think their points reflect this well. If they were 10 points it'd be worth it but not as it stands, too many points for not enough damage output.

 



#47
Bloatsnot

Bloatsnot

    squig attack arm

  • Boyz
  • 469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'Ouston

I actually dislike Burnas because their low number of shots. Yes it's 10-30 auto hits and yes they're AP -2 weapons but it's 14 points still on a 6+ sv model they're not difficult to kill. So if they get the shot then charge they're powerful but if they get shot or charged they're going to crumble and I don't think their points reflect this well. If they were 10 points it'd be worth it but not as it stands, too many points for not enough damage output.

 

 

Agreed, because of the weakness of the model holding the weapon, and it's grotesquely short range is should cost much less.  The odds of getting to use a burna are much lower than a big shoota.  I'm fine with it's current profile, but it needs to ignore cover.


WAAAAGH!! Da Cybermen.

Bloat

#48
Skumdreg

Skumdreg

    Stormboy

  • Boyz
  • 1,380 posts
  • Army Name:Dreg Boyz
Are they Ap -2? I thought they were S4 AP 0?

#49
Badfang Brassaxe

Badfang Brassaxe

    Skitzo

  • Boyz
  • 2,411 posts
  • Army Name:Da Perfeshunelz

S 4, AP 0 is wot the Index and KillTeam books say and I'm pretty sure that 'automatically hits its target' means ignores cover.



#50
Orkimedez

Orkimedez

    Runtherd

  • Boyz
  • 336 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Army Name:Waagh

Are they Ap -2? I thought they were S4 AP 0?

It has two profiles. One for CC and the other for shooting.

#51
Skumdreg

Skumdreg

    Stormboy

  • Boyz
  • 1,380 posts
  • Army Name:Dreg Boyz

It has two profiles. One for CC and the other for shooting.


I don't care for cc with burnas so never sent them in. Especially when you normally (like me) only bring 8 of them. Why throw them in to be killed when you can keep them in the trukk for more auto attacks?

#52
Bloatsnot

Bloatsnot

    squig attack arm

  • Boyz
  • 469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'Ouston

You would if they were cheaper.   Burnas do not ignore cover.


WAAAAGH!! Da Cybermen.

Bloat

#53
warhead01

warhead01

    Skarboy

  • Boyz
  • 1,490 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crescent City FL.
  • Army Name:Waaagh Gor-Gak !

I don't care for cc with burnas so never sent them in. Especially when you normally (like me) only bring 8 of them. Why throw them in to be killed when you can keep them in the trukk for more auto attacks?

I've had plenty of instances where it was a good idea to charge in with my Burnas. that -2 to save makes people worried. Like just about everything else they don't need to be fighting in a combat by them selves. 


Kick me! to see da blog! WWWAAAAAAUGH!!!

Takein' yer place at da top uv da Heap!


#54
Badfang Brassaxe

Badfang Brassaxe

    Skitzo

  • Boyz
  • 2,411 posts
  • Army Name:Da Perfeshunelz

  Burnas do not ignore cover.

I was under the impression that cover imposed a -1 to hit on assaulting troops and that as no to hit rolls are made with burnas, they ignored cover - the whole point of flamethrowers was to take out bunkers and pill boxes (which they were very good at) and since cover doesn't get any better than that.....



#55
Lexington

Lexington

    Runtherd

  • Boyz
  • 284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN
  • Army Name:Zagdakka'z Ladz
Cover grants +1 to armor saves these days.

#56
Badfang Brassaxe

Badfang Brassaxe

    Skitzo

  • Boyz
  • 2,411 posts
  • Army Name:Da Perfeshunelz

Cover grants +1 to armor saves these days.

Oh dear. Silly of me to think that a game including tinmen and fairies was going to have anything to do with reality.


  • warhead01, Lexington, Shagga and 1 other like this

#57
killercroc

killercroc

    Loota Boy

  • Boyz
  • 1,183 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Idaho

I was under the impression that cover imposed a -1 to hit on assaulting troops and that as no to hit rolls are made with burnas, they ignored cover - the whole point of flamethrowers was to take out bunkers and pill boxes (which they were very good at) and since cover doesn't get any better than that.....

To be fair in Kill Team cover does grant a -1 to hit so you were partly correct! 


  • Blakkreaper and Badfang Brassaxe like this

#58
Badfang Brassaxe

Badfang Brassaxe

    Skitzo

  • Boyz
  • 2,411 posts
  • Army Name:Da Perfeshunelz

I get so confused these days :blush



#59
Shabbadoo

Shabbadoo

    Looted Russ Pilot

  • Bad Moonz
  • 1,935 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Army Name:Bad Moons(Waaagh! Skargrim)

A way to fix the burnas would be to give them skorchas and make cheap (or free) combi-burnas for nobs and the like.

It makes much more sense that way when looking at the models (cuz size and all).

Not really, considering we don't have a pure infantry-sized skorcha model as a base for comparison.  The way to fix burnas is to fix flamer weapons in general, and that is by changing them from d6 auto-hits to d3+3 auto-hits (or just bringing back templates, which they still make). That is a core change that should be made to [infantry-sized] flamer weapons though, not an Ork change.

 

 

Unfortunately, almost every problem being experienced has nothing to do with the codexes and everything to do with the core rules, which are in need of profound changes; predominantly in regard to shooting.  Too many penalties and NO bonuses, because GW replaced bonuses with re-rolls. Well, a re-roll is worth a pocket full of shite if you can't hit in the first place, but I guess nobody had the brains to consider that before the book went to print. They need to leave their In House/Tournament Scene bubble and talk to some "more smarterer" people it seems.

 

GW needs to do just a few things to "get it right" in my humble opinion. Working within the general confines of the 8E rules, meaning all of the penalties to hit they have included, GW should...

 

    - bring back short range bonuses to hit for most weapons (pistols: +2, "standard" and special weapons: +1, heavy weapons: no bonus).

    - bonuses to hit for shooting at bigger targets (+1 to hit larger targets; +2 to hit super heavy targets and larger); these things should rely on armor/toughness/wounds to survive, not on

      not being hit, because even an Ork should be able to shoot the broad side of a barn...when it IS the broad side of a barn.

    - keep infantry at -1 to hit when moving and firing heavy weapons (because it is difficult!) , but change vehicles have no penalty to hit when moving and firing heavy weapons (because

      it is less difficult/there are targeters to aid them).

    - bring back the two levels of cover (light cover: -1 to hit, heavy cover ; -2 to hit).

    - increase the number of shots/hits of former blast/template weapons; scaling it according to the power of the weapons (d3+3, 2d3+4, 3d3+5, etc.), because

      a grenade launcher shooting frag doing d6 shots and a battle cannon (which previously covered 2/3 more area) also doing d6 shots is idiotic.

 

And then I would still bump Orks back to their previously better  BS stats.

 

So, how then would one reflect the unreliability of Ork weapons, which is what their BS 5+ is really supposed to, in part, be about (because it surely doesn't reflect a lack of exuberance on the part of Orks regarding how many rounds they are shooting!)?

 

:!   (whoever created this smiley is !!!AWESOME!!! by the way!)

 

Ummm...write some of those cooky/zainy rules for *some* Ork weapons that *sometimes* make them unreliable...or even dangerous?  You know, like, Ork-like weapons?

 

Because having to consult a weapon result chart every now and then is not a waste of valuable gaming time, but spending half an hour rolling FIVE BILLION $#@!ing DICE with the net result being, "You kill TWO beakies." sure as hell is for both me AND my opponent! The masturbatory dice fest could stand to be toned down just a lil' bit, and then be channeled in the direction of more fun/cool stuff.

 

:soap

 

[* Now with 5% extra rantiness...just because!] :biggrin


  • warhead01, Dim_Reapa, Lexington and 3 others like this

#60
Nefairius

Nefairius

    Steel Hornz

  • Blood Axez
  • 650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Secret Volcano Lair (Florida)
  • Army Name:Grand Meklord Morgrim's Waaagh!

Ahh, out of town a week and I missed out on a thread of particular interest to me.

 

Just about everythings been said, but I'll throw in my 2 teef anyway.

 

I don't expect anything to be done about this. We have no idea if they even recognize our problem as problem. And even if they did, that acting upon it wouldn't cause some embarrassment as it highlights flaws in 8th edition. Ideally the game would be fixed but we can't expect them to put out an 8.5, even though they absolutely could.

 

Regardless, if we do get thrown a bone, the simplest solution is an always-hit-on-6 rule, although I think we'd all prefer that our shooting is modifiable to that. Of course, I think we'd all prefer a more comprehensive rework so that our army could work well within the framework of 8th edition, as orks have many systemic issues in this edition, but I'd be happy for anything as long as it isn't clan-related or CP or some other shit like that.

 

The most frustrating thing about this is how opaque GW really is. The facebook and community section camouflage the lack of discourse about this game we all spend so much time on. I don't want damn platitude-articles (platitudicles?) about the next great thing. It's all propaganda when all I want is a damn honest newspaper. I'd really like to see some candid explanations for things from them, in an official capacity.


  • Lexington, Blakkreaper and Giganotosaurus like this
Ceterum hoc non est novum Bellum Currus!
Furthermore, we must have new War Buggies!