An interesting thread part deux

From this Dakka thread, pointed out to me by several comments (sorry Dakkites, I just don't follow the place since I left)...a very interesting rejoinder as to why Orks suck.  [Update:  Forgot to link the thread!  lol]

Frank Fugger wrote in reply to another poster, Primarch.  Primarch is in Italics, Frank is not.  My apologies if I got any of the quotes down wrong.

Primarch wrote:You say this, which I agree with....But wouldn't it also be fair to look at it in reverse? 3/4 of the results posted on Stelek's blog don't appear here at all? If they did, then this site's numbers would be more accurate.

Well yeah, it'd be fair to say that; but it should go without saying really, shouldn't it? If the same numbers appeared here then Dakka's results would be just as useful a barometer as Stelek's blog, common sense tells us that. The results don't appear here though, so it's not. Not really.

I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, but I doubt the majority of the Stelek followers would use that logic. As much as they trash talk Orks in general, they wouldn't be caught dead playing them.

Stelek plays Orks. I've seen various posts of his regarding his Orks. I've never tried them myself but they look like a helluva lot of fun, and I defy anyone to say they dislike the SAG Big Mek model.

Ok Frank, you've just lost me again. You say that Orks should not be a competitive army(correct me if I have your premise wrong), but that they are in fact competitive because of the environment, that being that 40k just isn't competitve as a whole on the tournament scene. Then, you provide results, where the Orks have shown to have scored the highest of all the other races. Including the choices that can make the so called "hard" lists.

You've got the premise down; where you're losing it is in the decryption of those results. Yeah the Orks did well. So did Tyranids. And Dark Angels. And there were more than a few Necrons in there too. I could also postulate that, since an estimated 99% of Chaos Marines players are Lash-merchants, the presence of so many CSM players in the results also attests to the low quality of the opposition; however that'd be conjectural since no army lists are available and a lot of hard lists can be built using the CSM Codex.

The same cannot be said of the Tyranids, Necrons or Dark Angels books. How else did players using these armies place so well if their opposition didn't suck?

However, couldn't you argue that in fact, Orks are the MOST competitive army in 40k?

Assuming their opposition is rubbish, yeah. They're a lot more forgiving to play than almost any other Codex in 40K whilst also being quite dangerous to the uninitiated opponent; the sight of 180 Orks deploying for a 1500pt game will cause some people to panic. People who know what those 180 Orks are capable of will shrug it off.

I mean, according to you(you are about to test your theory), pretty much anyone can show up with Orks and do well in a tournament.

Yup.

Whereas the "hard" armies require a lot more effort to win with.

Yup. They require a far more intimate understanding of the general game to run properly; you can have the hardest list in the world, but give it to a player who doesn't understand that Fast Skimmers can't fire weapons when moving Flat Out or AT weapons suck against infantry, or that Hormagaunts aren't something you need to kill but Carnifexes are, etc etc, and he'll fail with it every time.

The same thing cannot be said of Orks. I'm fairly confident that I could take an Ork list to a tournament and do well having never moved a Git in my life before, provided the opposition I face remains the same gaggle of footslogging Storm Troopers and Drop Pod Dreadding nuggets that currently attend GTs.

Contain your answer to just the current tournament scene, the one you think is not very competitive at all. In that box, if there was an army that took very little effort to win with, consistently scored high, higher than any other army, then couldn't you reach the conclusion that in fact, the Orks are the most competitive army running right now?

I'd agree with that. Thing is, though, if people actually started playing for keeps at tourneys the Orks would rapidly disappear from the placings, because they rely on simplicity, ease of use and weak opposition to be competetive. Hard lists rely on their own units being able to deal with anything in order to win games; the Orks rely on the opponent being unable to deal with their units to win games.

NOTE:  There is another set of excellent 'here is the truth' down a ways.

For whatever it's worth, I enjoy my Orks.  I can take out Rhinos and Speeders with glee.  Then the Land Raiders drive through my lines, take out my Lootas, and when my Nobs are done counterattacking his Thunder Shield Terminators--I'm dead.  I've been alpha striked by a mass IG Valkyrie + Melta Vet army and had precisely 2 units of gobbos left after turn 1.  I didn't get to do anything.  What, I should be impressed with my Orks?  Maybe I should mech up, oh yeah...the result was the same.  Every time I don't go first, that fucking army tables me in a turn.  Maybe if 26 BS4 meltaguns and mass anti-infantry fire from the Valkyries didn't beat my fucking face in, I'd stand a chance.  Oh whats that, I get to go second?  Great, he sits in reserve and outflanks, and comes in on a 2+, and re-rolls where he comes in...so I get my face beat on only half the board.  Yay!

Anyway back to the interesting Dakka thread.  I admit, only interesting because it's not ME saying why Orks are bleh, it's someone else.  I can't really keep track of who he is replying to, but same as above--Frank's replies are not in Italics.

thehod wrote:Well im not much for scientific research over a game of toy soldiers. I just see 40k more as a game where as many people treat this as a simulation.

Scientific as in "objective and based in demonstrable fact", rather than scientific as in "meticulously measured and tested to death". You don't need beakers to be scientific about something.

This game is simply broken down into 3 phases: Movement, Shooting, Assault

Orks can dominate the movement phase by using mass battlewagons or bike spam, special abilities such as snikrot's flank march ability can work as well in restricting the movements of the opposing army. You also have the run rule or the waaaagh special rule that can cover the board in no time. Domination of the movement phase can be accomplished too by controlling the battlefield and with 180 orks, that is pretty simple to take up the board.

The thing with all this is, apart from stuff like fielding hordes and Fleeting once per game, most other armies can do all of these things to a far more potent extent than the Orks. Marines and Eldar can Bike-spam. Marines, Daemonhunters and Guard can tank-spam. Eldar and Deldar can Fleet (and they can do it more than once per game), and most Codexes have some unit or other that can Outflank. Sure Snikrot's Outflank is different, but unless your opponent fails at 5th Ed and has something sitting back-field waiting to be gribbled then it's not massively useful. I'll give you that 180 Orks can take up the board, but they're only Orks. T4 and a 6+ save is hardly inspiring, and neither is S3(4) attacks against even AV10; even en masse. Assuming you get near my vehicles to begin with.

So yeah, none of this stuff is particularly novel or impressive in the grand scheme of things, and I'd hardly say any of it amounts to dominance.

As for shooting, Orks dominate it with volume of fire along with protection from return fire with the introduction of coversaves in 5th and the use of KFF to protect ork forces on their way to target.

Again, other armies can do this too, only they tend to do it better. Guard have more shots and a better chance of hitting with them, and it's hard to keep a 30-man Mob in cover; a ten man Tac Squad not so much.

IMO Orks are weakest in assault due to combat resolution that can kill way more orks than shooting could.

Considering the entire army is based on WOARGH MOVE CHARGE LOTS OF DICE that seems like a strange conclusion to reach. Not entirely unwarranted, but strange nonetheless.

Malecus wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:Hard lists rely on their own units being able to deal with anything in order to win games; the Orks rely on the opponent being unable to deal with their units to win games.

Frank, don't take either of the following statements the wrong way:

A) It's about time you got around to making a legitimate point as to what is actually "wrong" with the Orks.

What Danny Internets said. Also what I've been saying since page 1 of this thread.

dumbuket wrote:So basically, Orks enjoyed greater success than Tyranids, Necrons, and Daemonhunters (and Tau, Eldar, and Chaos). Wasn't Frank trying to explain that the presence of qualifying tyranid/necron/DH lists somehow disqualifies any success orks might have in the semis? I think the fact that Orks rival only Vulcanspam in these results suggests that the army might be competitive. Results like this don't look like a 3rd tier army sneaking through a tournament full of scrubs.

13 Daemons, 17 Tyranids and 6 Necron players also got through. The presence of such still devalues the Orks' success; numbers don't really enter into it.

Also, doesn't it seem a bit strange that the most popular army is also the best represented in round 2? Maybe they were all playing Vulkan Bikers.

Actually, he's trying to distinguish between Fugger's definition of hard/competitive and his own definition of hard/competitive. Whether or not being competitive can be seen as a logical extension from what Fugger is saying is a matter of debate.

Seems logical to me. Competetive Codexes will remain competetive even if the opposition is playing for keeps using a hard list. That doesn't happen, though, and so the Orks produce good numbers at tournaments. Tyranids do too, apparently; not as good as Orks, but they're still well represented considering they're a scrub Codex.

Trying to claim that a Codex is hard based purely on a bunch of numbers in a table isn't very subjective.

Tau, for example, have no effective way to deal with hordes (like horde orks or gaunt hordes) and therefore do not fall into Fugger's definition of competitive, even though he takes the fact that they are seemingly for granted.

I dunno, 30-40 S7+ shots per turn plus a couple of Blasts, plus the Broadsides and Pirhanas, plus the Kroot, plus the Smart Missiles, plus... yeah, it all adds up. Seems like a lot of shooting to me. Is it enough to deal with 180 Orks before they can get into combat with the Kroot? Maybe not, but does it really need to be?

It might also be worth noting that horde armies are not "hard".

NOTE:  I must say, I have never had a problem with horde orks.  I setup in a corner, and I kill 60-90 Orks in 2 turns.  Anything near, I attack with kroot.  Kroot beat the shit out of Orks, by the way.  15 kroot eat 30 orks for breakfast.  You, your Nob, and 3 friends might come through the other end of that kroot meat grinder but I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that squads doing anything afterwards.

I'd like to make mention of the local Ork players, two sold the army off, one sold his orks for ig, and another has stopped coming around entirely (I tabled his orks with my 7 land raider army) so who knows--maybe he's awesome now and pwning face with his Orks somewhere else.

I do firmly believe that Raiders make Orks and Demons cry, because they cannot kill the fucking things without resorting to suiciding huge point sink units (Nobs and Greater Demons of khorne/Soul Grinders) into them and still not have anywhere near a pair of meltagun shots capability to kill them.  As an anecdote, I have failed to do anything to a land raider with meltaguns hitting twice precisely one time since 5th edition started.  Just saying, it's only happened ONCE.  My Demons have gone to turn 5 before finally stopping one.  My Orks have been tabled trying.  What, it's not clear why Orks are second rate?

While I talk to thehod and don't generally bust his balls, I must say:

"Fact: Orks swept the 2008 GT season in the US
Fact: The GT circuit winner of 2008 played with orks"

Fact:  He never moved like he attached a must move towards enemy character to his big beater unit, and never once did he cross into the enemy deployment zone with them.  Most interesting 'cheat win' ever.

Wait, second to that Gareth guy deploying his Demons on the table.

Pattern?

When are you leaving those guys behind?  Always come off as a nice guy when we talk man.

I note this as well:

"Backfire wrote:  See, it's comments like this which make me think you have not actually played Tau. Sure they have all that stuff in the Codex. But Tau stuff tends to be expensive. You can tune your army to face horde, or face Mech, but it is hard to make it able to face both."

Gee, really?  Who hasn't played Tau?  Tau Stuff is expensive?  In Real Life monies, surely.  In game?  You must be crazy.

I could go on and on, but in the end...I think if you read the thread, you'll notice the truth hurts these ork players real bad.  Still true though.  ;)

BONUS!  Pure Nurglibberish at it's best folks, read at your own risk.

Part of the problem with responding to individual points by quoting said points is that you miss the forest for the trees. By breaking a post down into individual points, you fail to address the point made by the entire post. That's why no one does that in the real world, because in the real world people can read and write well enough to follow all sides of a discussion. Likewise nobody needs to quote entire posts in their own posts because, as I've pointed out, people are literate enough to read a conversation without parts of it being repeated in their entirety.

Quoting other people's posts, and breaking them down into a series of disconnected quotations, to which you append your own disconnected non sequitors, demonstrates not only an inability to digest and analyze information, but also an inability to evaluate and synthesize your own ideas. Simply address the poster whose post you are addressing, and get on with composing your own thesis or counter-thesis the way you would compose any essay.

By following the standard format of thesis statement, argument, and re-statement of thesis, you can make the content of your posts clear, as well as better develop your own positions and arguments. At the least, it will make your posts more legible, and more interesting to read. Proof-reading and multiple drafts will go a long way to improving the quality of your posts. If people have a problem with "blocks of text", then maybe they should go find some activity that doesn't require stuff like reading...