Orkz - gib uz a brik

[Plaxor]

What came up in play-testing is that in smaller games, Ork capital ships with better turrets really start to shine. This way in bigger battles they get what they need, but in smaller battles you have to think about whether or not its worth the cost.

I'm sure. Making the enemies ordinance half as effective (as compared to IN and Chaos) is quite a big slap in the face. Especially with how ordinance-heavy a lot of people play. Although I think that this upgrade will be somewhat of a metagame thing.

In my group (with Bluedagger and PatGhiggins) people usually go ordinance light (save for me).

@LS having more turrets is better than having better armor when it comes to bombers. In the case of 5+ armor with 2 turrets compared to 4+ with 3 turrets, 6 bombers will do 2.5 hits to the 5+ armor, and likewise 1.125 hits against the 4+ armor.

I know it doesn't really make sense, but it's true.

[Plaxor]

Oh and not to mention the fact that orks with three turrets will be quite a bit better at dealing with ABs. As the one extra chance to kill a boat is something, but naturally with more hits the orks are more likely repair critical hits than IN/Chaos. Additionally people can take Mad Meks (but they're overcosted) if they really hate criticals.

I wonder if there is any likelihood of changing mad meks or maniak gunners?

It would be cool if Mad Meks could repair any critical, including Bridge smashed and Shields Collapse.

[lastspartacus]

I'm not saying it won't help solve the problem Plaxor.  I'm saying it raises a kroozer's costs to generally unacceptable as a line ship of its quality.

[fracas]

the kroozers will be fine as is or upgraded

[Plaxor]

I'm not saying it won't help solve the problem Plaxor.  I'm saying it raises a kroozer's costs to generally unacceptable as a line ship of its quality.

Yeah, I know. The Kill Kroozer does deserve to be 10-15 points cheaper. It helps with one ork problem. Giving it upgrades to 'fix' things aren't exactly what it needs, it needs either more stuff for its standard layout, or a cheaper cost overall.

I wonder how the HAs would feel about making the Ork Kroozers 15 points cheaper and making the torps a 5-10 point upgrade?

Comparing a Murder with a chaos lord and MOK is about the same as a KK with the turret upgrade and a warlord. The unfortunate thing is that the KK only has one playstyle, whereas the Murder has multiple options, more firepower, and more speed. Predictability is another thing that hurts the Orks.

The HAs have told us that no points adjustment will be awarded to any fleet (i guess save the Ork escorts); as that is similar to calibrating a bomb. Apparently my analysis has provided somewhat of an arguing base for Nate, as well as I think the latest tactica from warp rift.

Of the issues with the Ork fleet, well one of them is the character battleships vs the hammer, for 30 points more than a hammer, one can upgrade the hits, soopa engines, and turrets up to a Deathdeala. Although the deathdeala doesn't have torps (but you can't fire both). Such is often the effect of 'characters' in the 40k universe. I have seen BFG tournaments that banned character ships (For PK hatred... I think... and the fluff backing of not having characters always around).

Also taking a study of a bunch of random lists on the internet is a bit flawed. As these people are often new and don't understand the game, or don't have a good mix of opponents. A better study would be to get 10-12 veteran players together, and each have them write their lists at various points values (presuming that they have access to every possible ship, and will play against every other fleet).

Orks simply can't win a firefight, their weapon strengths are half compared to the other fleets. The game designers intended for heavy guns to compensate for this, but the fact that they are slow and unmaneuverable makes this not work. Similarly if they would be in range then usually they are boarding or ramming instead. They are dependent on boarding to do damage in most situations, but it's hard for them to get into place. These are the issues with Orks. Ideally an ork list would see a points drop across their cap ships (save likely the slamblasta) and an addition of several upgrades such as soopa engines.

I think that with these two things that not only the battlefleet gothic Ork community would be pleased, but the 40k Ork community as well. I all to often hear about 40k ork players feeling that the fleet isn't orky enough, so whats the solution? Make them more numerous, and more customizable. The customization thing was taken by the random firepower, presuming that no two ork ships were exactly the same, but that orks would have a general theme among their vessels.

We'll see what comes out of the Klanz document, but I would be happy if they didn't make things clan-specific. I would much rather for simplification have things like how they did vampire counts for fantasy, where they only gave ideas for each bloodline, but let you take whatever you wanted anyway.

Basically we're in the bottom of the ninth, and it's almost the last moment to get any changes in, for at least a while. Honestly if you have any idea for a solid, numerical basis for modifying a ship, this is really the only thing that the HAs will put under consideration.

-Plaxor

[lastspartacus]

For one, just cut the kroozer turret upgrade cost in half.  For sure. 

What was the assault kroozer proposal?  Who proposed it?  I'd love to see the idea again, as I intend on using it as a homebrew ship even if it doesnt go through.

How is the Grunt different from the Brute?

Is there any official ruling on if all Ork capital ships can choose to have a large base or not?  RAW or RAI?

[Plaxor]

The Grunt is a brute that has BV4 instead of the ram capability. In the faq any capital ship can choose to have a large base.

[lastspartacus]

Aha!  Thanks.  So it loses the ramming capability totally?  More points? 
Don't I remember a large base too?
Thanks for the info, gonna have to find some large bases

[Plaxor]

35 points. It can still ram, it just doesn't count as 4 hits when it does. Yes it's on a large base.

[lastspartacus]

2 questions.  Are the rerolls warlords supply Fleet rerolls or just ship rerolls?  Doesnt specify.

Also, who came up with the Assault Kroozer idea?  Need to PM for stats, this thread is too long to search.

[Masque]

@LS having more turrets is better than having better armor when it comes to bombers. In the case of 5+ armor with 2 turrets compared to 4+ with 3 turrets, 6 bombers will do 2.5 hits to the 5+ armor, and likewise 1.125 hits against the 4+ armor.

I know it doesn't really make sense, but it's true.

I don't think it's true.  I'm pretty sure 6 bombers will do 2.78 hits to the 5+ armour ship and 2.25 hits to the 4+ armour ship.  The extra turret is still better than the armour, but not by as much as you thought.

[Plaxor]

Recalculated: Hmm... you're close, but we're both wrong on the 4+ 3 turret ship it's 2.43 hits. Yes the 5+ 2 turrets would take 2.77. Hmm... apparently 3 turrets on ork ships isn't that absurd.

[Masque]

Recalculated: Hmm... you're close, but we're both wrong on the 4+ 3 turret ship it's 2.43 hits. Yes the 5+ 2 turrets would take 2.77. Hmm... apparently 3 turrets on ork ships isn't that absurd.

3 turrets shoot down 1.5 bombers on average.  .5x3=1.5
Against 3 turrets each bomber makes 1 attack run on average.  (0+0+0+1+2+3)/6=1

(6 bombers - 1.5 turret kills)(1 attack run)(.5 hits per run) = 2.25

Do you do the math differently?

[RCgothic]

I get 2.25 hits for 3 turrets and 4+ armour
2.78 hits vs T2 and 5+.

T3&4+:
Average attack runs = (0+0+0+1+2+3)/6 = 1
0 shot down, 6 attack runs gives 3 hits at 0.125 chance
1 shot down, 5 attack runs gives 2.5 hits at 0.375 chance
2 shot down, 4 attack runs gives 2 hits at 0.375 chance
3 shot down, 3 attack runs gives 1.5 hits at 0.125 chance

Multiply the expected hits by the chance of each scenario, gives 2.25 hits for the sum of all scenarios.

T2&5+:
Average attack runs = (0+0+1+2+3+4)/6 = 1.667
0 shot down, 10 attack runs give 3.33 hits at 0.25 chance
1 shot down, 8.33 attack runs gives 2.78 hits at 0.5 chance
2 shot down, 6 attack runs gives 2.22 hits at 0.25 chance

Multiply the expected hits by the chance of each scenario, gives 2.78 hits for the sum of all scenarios.


I get 2.5 hits for T2&5+ if I incorrectly use an average value of 1.5 for the attack runs against a t2 target, so that's possibly what went wrong?

[Plaxor]

t3 and armor 4:

6 bombers:

1/8 chance of 0 dying from turret fire    Hits inflicted: 3
3/8 chance of 1 dying                         Hits inflicted: 2.5
3/8 chance of 2 dying                         Hits inflicted: 2
1/8 chance of 3 dying                         Hits inflicted: 1.5



number rolled= number of attacks
1=0
2=0
3=0
4=1
5=2
6=3

average over all 6 is 1. In the scenario that zero die then you will get about 3 hits from 6 bombers on average (6 attacks x .5 chance of doing damage), when one dies 2.5 (5 attacks x .5 chance of doing 1 damage) etc. 375 9375 75


you then multiply each number above by its ratio and add them together; 3x1/8+2.5x3/8+2x3/8+1.5x1/8=2.25, dang. I don't know what I was doing wrong...