August 05, 2024, 03:11:12 AM

Author Topic: Orkz - gib uz a brik  (Read 65735 times)

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2010, 10:17:42 PM »
We can look into making this exactly right, and now's a good time to investigate this further since we're working on Orks right now. That being said, the FAQ2007 rules made the Orks absurd in that it could be interpreted that the more turrets they faced the more powerful FB's actually became! How can it be that FB's are actually MORE effective against an Emperor battleship than they are against say a Murder?

Thank's for bring it up- we'll get it fixed. It may not be exactly like 2007, but if the 2010 rules still don't work, we need to get it fixed. I have a 4,500-point Ork fleet I love very much, and I want them to be right as well!


- Nate

Battleship big. Even Orks are not that blind that they can't dump more attacks onto a big target. More attacks is good. Make them less efficient when conducting the attacks. Any Ork attack for that matter.

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2010, 11:16:29 PM »
Well, I will push for making it easier for orks to ram, perhaps a bonus to LD to ram if they do a ramming+boarding action at the same time?

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2010, 01:47:10 AM »
u can ram and board?

Offline Admiral_d_Artagnan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2010, 01:54:23 AM »
As long as your AAF lands on another ship's base, yes you can Ram and Board.

Offline Hymirl

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2010, 02:37:48 PM »
So each fightabomber is acting as a fighter and bomber at the same time? Suppressing turrets for it's own bombing runs?

Offline Caine-HoA

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2010, 05:23:43 PM »
@Hymirl
Fightabommas have their own rules

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #51 on: October 17, 2010, 06:12:01 PM »
Seeing as ramming and boarding are preactically the cornerstone of the fleet, and large bases are recommended, why not give them a little help with the bashy?

Offline Hymirl

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #52 on: October 17, 2010, 08:42:46 PM »
Where do I find the 2007 FAQ and the current rules for fightabombas. Currently I don't really understand how they work at the moment?

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2010, 06:44:30 AM »
The current rules for fightabomba's are as such:

Fighta-bomba's act as both fighters and bombers. when attacking a ship, roll 1d3 per counter that survives turrets.

fighta bomba's negate turret surpression by 3. So any vessel with 3 turrets or less DO NOT SURPRESS fighta bomba's at all.  4 turrets surpress 1 attack, 5 surpress 2, 6 surpress fighta bomba's entirely.

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2010, 01:09:34 PM »
That's not actually how it works for fighta-bommerz:

Direct from FAQ2010:
Fighta-Bommas: Fighta-Bommas are fighters with a speed of 25cm. They may also attack like bombers with D3 attack runs instead of D6. Fighta-Bommas count as having +3 to turret suppression. E.g. If a wave of 4 Fighta-Bommas attacks a cruiser with 2 turrets they will have (D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+(D3-2)+ turret suppression(2) attack runs. Note: If each Fighta-Bomma marker attacks individually they will have (D3-2)+ turret suppression(2) attack runs, which is far more offensive. 

Fighta-Bommas and turret suppression: When a wave of fighta-bommas attacks a ship you must decide if any of the markers will forgo their attack runs in favour of turret suppression. This is in addition to the inbuilt +3 fighter suppression.

This is yet another reason why the turret suppression system needs to change to something more sensible.


Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 4197
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2010, 01:11:17 PM »
FAQ2007 = current = what Zelnik says.
;)

Offline Zelnik

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 775
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2010, 06:58:21 PM »
I say just leave them as they are. It provides Orks a much needed Super-punchy attack method that still has the strong "unreliable" nature of the orks (namely in reloading their ships, with an average of ld 7). Kill Krooza's should be the things that get a significant boost, perhaps to increase the gunz to d6+4 and st 8 Heavy gunz, make them actually a "kill krooza" instead of a "lump of metal with a bottle rocket on the end"

Offline Masque

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2010, 11:14:19 AM »
So, I went and looked at the 2007 FAQ and I really don't remember the FB rule being worded that way.  I could swear it used the phrase "+3 turret suppression".  Is there more than one version of the 2007 FAQ floating around?  Also, I don't see any mention of how turret suppression works for normal fighters in a bomber wave in there.  Is it actually in the rule book?  Am I just blind?

Offline Borka

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2010, 03:15:14 PM »
So, I went and looked at the 2007 FAQ and I really don't remember the FB rule being worded that way.  I could swear it used the phrase "+3 turret suppression".  Is there more than one version of the 2007 FAQ floating around?  Also, I don't see any mention of how turret suppression works for normal fighters in a bomber wave in there.  Is it actually in the rule book?  Am I just blind?

No you haven't missed it. It's not in the rulebook and it's not in the 2007 FAQ either. I think the rule in the beginning came from one of the BFG magazine issues.

Offline Da Reddaneks

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Orkz - gib uz a brik
« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2010, 10:16:08 PM »
How about this: if I could design a variant Kill Kroozer or Terror ship, what would it look like? ... With all the Mad Meks and Warbosses, I'm sure there are kroozers and Terrors out there that don't fit the norm. Ideas?

- Nate
An “assault cruiser” would be an interesting variant. What I mean by that is a cruiser which is designed for the purpose of boarding other vessels or assaulting space stations. For example it might be particularly adept at teleport attacks, boarding actions, hit and run, boarding torpedo's and the use of assault boats. Basically a ship designed for the purpose of getting the boyz onto an enemy ship/station. This is also very orky.

fighter-bombers. The FAQ2010 makes them ridiculous weak.

Could we have the old fighter-bomber rules back please? Mind you, my opponent has Orks.
I tried the new proposed fighter bomber rules and have to concur with Horizon. Please take a good hard look at these or let us keep the ’07 rules.
 
Finally, since you were asking for thoughts on escorts I wanted to chime in. I read where you are a fan of the use of escorts. As you already know, I am sure, this sentiment is not reflected by the Ork BFG community in large part. Ork escorts need serious help. However, the primary issue I have found in using them effectively is the limitation of having a 45 degree turn and only front fire weapons. This makes out maneuvering them very easily for other escorts and makes it significantly more difficult to keep targets in your field of fire. I believe that giving them a 90 degree turn like other escorts or an expanded firing arc (180 or 270) would be a very quick and easy way to put the punch back into ork escorts.

Regardless of what you are able to do I do hope that you are able to adjust the ork fleet so that it will have a solid diversity of effective fleet builds.

Thanks for your hard work,

Redd
« Last Edit: October 30, 2010, 05:04:14 PM by Da Reddaneks »