Orkz - gib uz a brik

[Masque]

I'd like to say that as much as I understand it for its fluff reasons, I think random weapon strengths need to go.  Frees up a clunky extra mechanic and lets you balance ork innacuracy in other ways, like column shifts.
Its something I see that is holding the Orks back.

I'm going to disagree with you on this.  I think having Ork firepower (but not so much torpedos) be randomly determined leads to them getting significantly different results than they would have if you simply rounded all the D6s out to 4.  Compare a squadron of 2 Swords vs 2 Onslaugts shooting at a standard Chaos cruiser in an average targetting scenario.  On average the Swords have more firepower (8 vs 7) so you would expect them to cause the same or a little more damage on any given turn.  The reality is that the Onslaugts are simultaneously more likely to not knock any shields down and more likely to do significant damage to the the target while being less likely to simply drop both shields on the target.  This creates a situation where Orks are more effective fighting the enemy one on one than most other fleets.  If each squadron or capital ship in an Imperial or Chaos fleet shoots at a different target they are very likely to do little or no actual damage to any of their enemies.  If an Ork fleet divides it's fire similarly it can expect to leave a greater portion of it's targets with intact shields but also the Orks can expect to reliably deal real damage to at least a few targets.

Ork heavy gunz also excel in ship vs ship rather than fleet vs fleet combat as do Ork torpedos since they are prohibited from combining salvos.  These differences from how most other fleets work cause Ork tactics to differ from most other fleets.  Almost everyone learns quickly that it is best to somehow divide the enemy fleet and then engage half of it with your entire fleet.  Orks have the option of simply dividing both the enemy and their own fleet and still remaining combat effective.  If Orks can manage to break the battle into 3 or 4 sub-battles they will be at a significant advantage over most opponents.

The fact that Ork weapon systems cause them to prefer different overall tactics than other fleets helps ensure that the Ork fleet keeps a significantly different overall feel.

[lastspartacus]

Oh I wasnt saying make it average by any means.  My proposal was have Orks effected by a right column shift, and give them a shedload of guns.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

They should get a sh*tload of guns. They should be getting 4+D6 guns if you want it random. I'd even give them 6+D6 but that they should either get a right column shift or they should be hitting at Arm+1 to a max of 6.

[Masque]

Simply giving them more firepower and then taking it away with a column shift will have almost no effect except when they were already firing at a worst case target.  If you are giving them more than you are taking away with the column shift why not simply give them less and leave the column shift out of the equation?  Either way it won't actually make them play any differently than they play now (unless you remove the random firepower component) though it may make them overall more effective which is a different issue entirely.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Because it wouldn't be fluffy if you just gave them a few guns and made them operate the same way as another race. Give em lots n lotsa guns but give them penalties to hit.

[Masque]

Because it wouldn't be fluffy if you just gave them a few guns and made them operate the same way as another race. Give em lots n lotsa guns but give them penalties to hit.

If you give them 2 more firepower and then give them a right column shift you will almost always get the same number of shots plus or minus 1 compared to if you left the ship alone.  This isn't going to really change how Orks play, how effective they are, or how they feel.  You're just going to look at a slightly different spot on the firepower chart and then roll the same number of dice you would have rolled anyway.

A related suggestion:  I know making heavy gunz fire simultaneously with gunz is a ruling that is probably coming.  My suggestion would be to instead make heavy gunz ignore all column shifts.  This would incorporate (and thus replace) the existing rule about ignoring the close range bonus and get almost the same result, except it would make heavy gunz slightly more effective against targets with an intrinsic right shift.  I think Orks should be rewarded if they ever manage to get their heavy guns pointed at the dodgy Eldar.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

Why do you think I said give them 6+D6? Maybe even more.

[Masque]

Why do you think I said give them 6+D6? Maybe even more.

When you say 'them' are you referring to Onslaugts?  If so you are proposing an increase of 6FP and a right column shift.  Why not just propose an increase of 4FP instead?  I'm just saying that including a special rule (the column shift) should be avoided if you can get the same effect without it.

[lastspartacus]

Firstly, there are subtle differences in right and left shift rules than simply increasing or decreasing firepower.

Secondly, it is as characterful and less clunky to give the Orks more guns and a right shift to represent their innacuracy than random dice, and more fun than simply averaging out whatever their batteries would be without a column shift.  The Eldar represent their awesome accuracy with a left shift, not more guns.  It seems only natural that there would be a race with a right shift, and orks fit the bill.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

When you say 'them' are you referring to Onslaugts?  If so you are proposing an increase of 6FP and a right column shift.  Why not just propose an increase of 4FP instead?  I'm just saying that including a special rule (the column shift) should be avoided if you can get the same effect without it.

I wouldn't mind of all the D6+2 weapons of Orks became D6+6. They should have that many guns. As lastspartacus mentioned, Eldar get a left column shift for their WBs. So why would Orks not get a right column shift? Either that or the less accurate to hit rolls. If that's how you feel then we should just let Eldar's WBs become higher to do away with the LCS rule.

It is fluffy that Orks has lots of dakka. Problem is they can't hit with those dakka effectively. It is a reason why special rules exist, to differentiate one race from another.

[lastspartacus]

As an example, I picture a kill kroozer with, say, prow 12 batteries and right shift.  Love it.

[Plaxor]

See, now this here is a useful post!! I'm going to need some time to digest this. Keep in mind that while Stompa is a cool name for a ship class, Orks don't really do capital ship classes per se. Kill Kroozers represent a range of capital ships that are all geared to be mainly shooty, whereas terror ships are capital ships geared as a springboard for the speed freekz to fly their shiny fighta-bommas. The 'Ammer represents a kill kroozer up-gunned to be even more shooty and carry some –bommas, with them simply being battle kroozers as a class named after and inspired by the most infamous one, the ‘Ammer. The named battleships are nothing more than larger, older and even more customized versions of battle kroozers, which is why they are all lumped together when deciding the ratio between how many kroozers you must have per battle kroozer. Essentially, you can have as many battle kroozers as you want restricted only by having one battle kroozer for every two kroozers in your fleet, but only one battle kroozer can be the Slamblasta, Dethdeala, etc.

This kind of variation was the intent with the Ork Klanz refits- to allow players to subtly alter the profiles between individual kill kroozers for set point costs. It was even recommended in the fanatic article that in campaigns, Ork players change the refits incorporated between battles!

Of course, how all this appears in the final product will be a bit different, but this is the direction I was looking for when I asked for input. Thanks!

Anyone else? Thoughts?

-   Nate

Thanks Nate, my thoughts are that Orks don't have so many issues at 'raid' points values, in that their escorts are actually quite good and can compete with other fleets just fine.

Orks have 4 issues:

They have limited/no access to lance/lance equivalents: this makes it very tough to win games against high armored foes. This wasn't so much of an issue during the days of the 4 original bfg fleets, as none of them had 6+ armor, save for the imperials, and even then they still wanted to use their side weapons. Now with space marines and necrons, this is even more than the mild issue it used to be. Orks are forced to solve this problem through boarding actions, which is a whole different section.

They are slow/unmaneuverable: this makes it difficult for them to perform the function that they are supposed to be the best at, ramming and boarding. They can't get in range to do these things, particularly against the two fleets that they need it against the most, necrons and sms. Not only are they on the low spectrum of speeds, they lose out on AAF as well.

They are vulnerable to ordinance: orks have low rear armor, and low turrets, this makes ordinance nearly 3 times as effective at killing them. Forcing ork players to max out on terror ships to stand any relative chance. Fleets like most tau builds make orks into jell-o.

Orks have low range, and low weapons strengths: compared to imperial or chaos standards, ork ships are about half as well armed considering weapons of reasonable range.

Now, as you've stated, we cannot change the stats of any Ork capital ship. I understand, as for other fleets you're only changing semi-official things. I was wondering what you were willing to consider changing? The cost of ships? presumably not the loadout of them.

What about the way that fleets are built? Costs in warlords/their upgrades? Do you want new upgrades for every ship? Such as bombard cannons on savage gunships?

Can we revise the wording or special rules of orks? such as the way heavy guns work? One idea would be to let heavy guns work out to 30cm, but only give them the 'double hits' rule within 15. Or even eliminating the double hits and giving them +1 to their rolls, effectively reducing the opponents armor.

I understand that 'orks don't do capital ships' this is true, but like I said orks have the most trouble at fleet engagements, which are fought amongst capital ships. Kill-kroozers do represent a wide variety of capital ships (as no two orks would ever build their ships the same) which yes, makes it difficult to make a new capital ship class. I have a few ideas, of course I mentioned the torpedo-boat before, and would think of that as interesting and orky feeling. Unique enough from a kill-kroozer. Perhaps that could just be an upgrade.

Then there's the whole area of CLs, and you still said Orks don't do cap ships, but CLs are supposed to be somewhere between escort and cruiser, unfortunately BFG rules don't allow something to be a true hybrid. However, it is reasonable to assess that orks would have light cruisers, and they would be different enough from kill-kroozers and their larger brethren because of it. This class of ship gives us an opportunity to help the Orks with a few of their problems, without overshadowing Kill-Kroozers and the concept behind them.

As far as escorts go, there is a problem with them in BFG that makes them hard to develop, and that is the fact that they're just to small. This makes it near-impossible to make unique ones with new weapon loadouts or combat styles, as it's already been made, or it would just be too far from the point.

In this case with orks, we only have the three weapon options, which each has it's own respective escort. So there really isn't anything to make new ones, without outshining the old or being unfluffy.

Other than giving the savages soopa-engines or reducing their points cost, and increasing the onslaught fp by 1 or reducing it's points cost to 35. I really don't have any new ideas for orks.

I would like to see a reduction in points costs across the board, save for the brute, ravager, and perhaps 1-2 of the battleships. I think this would be a substantial benefit to orks, and keep them in-line with their fluff, not modifying any ship and considering how valuable ork ships are with their shoddy and poorly jury-rigged tech, I wouldn't be surprised to see ork ships at a much cheaper value.

Consider this, if each ship cost more appropriately it would look more like this;

Kill-Kroozer 135/155
Terror Ship 170/185
Brutes 25/25
Ravager 40/40
Onslaught 35/40
Savage 30/40
Gorbag's Revenge 310/310
Slamblasta 285/295
Deathdeala 275/275
Kroolboy 255/270 (this is mainly due to the fact that it doesn't have lances/bombard)
Hammer 245/245

Warboss upgrades:
Maniac Gunners 10pts
Mad Meks 5pts
Extra power field 20pts
Mega-armored boarders 15pts
Looted Torpedos 10pts

Overall only an 60 point deduction in cost (not counting warboss upgrades). But it's most needed around the kroozers/escorts. With that a fifteen-hundred point list would look like this:

Kill-Kroozer 135 (185)
Warboss 1rr  50
Maniac gunners

Terror shipx2   340

Hammer 240  (340)
warboss +2 rr 80
Extra power fields 20

Savage x5 180
Ravager x2 80
Onslaughtx4 140
Ramship x6 150

A lot more outnumbering feeling. You even could see people taking another kill kroozer and another hammer. With cheaper kroozers especially this way, it makes it more accessible to the hammer class battlecruiser, which helps with ordinance and reduces the fears of getting bombed. Making the Kill-Kroozer a larger staple in the fleet, and it does one of the most orky things around, allows for the orks to provide an outnumbering situation, which is very orky.

Anyway, that's a bit of annendum to my 'fixing the orks' thoughts.

[horizon]

Terror even cheaper?? Deadshane (Warp Rift 29) will be pleased. Adepticon winner with Orks. Are orks now a top notch fleet. Yes, with a good admiral and Terror kroozers!

Ork problem is in their escorts, not kroozers.

[Plaxor]

Ork Escort Math (as compared to Brute Ramships):

The Onslaught:
Ability to engage enemy: the Onslaught with its 45 degree turns allows it to engage any enemy within a 180 degree arc. Compared to the Brutes ability to engage enemies in a 270 degree arc. Brutes are capable of engaging enemies slightly further away than brutes, but Onslaughts are able to engage an area slightly closer. From a pure standpoint of area, this means that the onslaught can only engage 55.8% of the possible targets of the Brute under normal circumstance.

Firepower:
With an average of 3.5 firepower, the Onslaught has 1.5 better than a brute, but adjusting for points cost, a brute would have 3.2 firepower at 40 points. Still an onslaught is 9.3% better in this category.

Hits/Shields:
Combining these Onslaughts have 2, comparatively Brutes have 3.2 adjusting for points. Onslaughts are only 62.5% as good as brutes for soaking up damage.

From this, we can take the three categories and add them together into one value, (of course this is assuming that the three categories are equally as valuable), which renders an Onslaught about 75.8% as effective of an escort. This doesn't account for the Brutes ramming capacity, which is indeed another factor, but for this it is ignored.

Possible solution here:

Increasing the Onslaughts FP to D6+1, this would make the averaged value at 86.3%, increasing it to d6+2 (madness!) would make it 96.7% as effective. A much more appropriate balance.
Decreasing the points cost: at 35 points an onslaught would be 83.8% as effective as brutes. At 30 it would be 94.7% as effective.
Combination: Adding 1 firepower and decreasing the costs of Onslaughts to 35 would make it 96% as effective (personally my favorite solution)
Others: Deciding that big escorts all need 2 turrets (somewhat reasonable with ravager), increasing it's turns to 90 (unfluffy/destroys uniqueness of orks) but this would increase it's area of attack to 83% of a brute and overall to 85.1% Increasing their range to 45cm which would increase it's effectiveness to 94%.

The Savage Gunship:

Ability to engage enemy: The savage has a measly 33% ability to engage possible foes as compared to the brute.
Firepower: Assuming both are firing within 15 cm, and adjusting for the non-shifting of heavy guns and points adjustment accordingly we have the savage at 187.5% firepower of the brute. Assuming it is out (I know... makes it weird) this is a 0% effectiveness, totaling at 93.75% effective.
Hits at the same value as the Onslaught, these come out to be 62.5%
Overall: 63.18% effectiveness. This one of course is slightly harder to compare, as range affects this greatly, and people don't go against the same targets in the same ways.

Possible Solutions:

Increasing the firepower: This is a bit much, but increasing the firepower of the Savage to 5 would make it up to 68.25% effective, up to 6 would make it 73.5% as effective (I wouldn't do more than the value of a cruiser)
Reducing the cost: at 35 pts it is 70.5% effective. At 30 it is 80.4% as effective.
Combination: at our maximums 30 points and 6 fp, we have 105%. with firepower 5 at 30 points it's only 87%, with fp5 at 35pts it's 75.5%, with fp6 at 35pts: 77%
Other: of course increasing it's turrets as previously suggested, giving them soopa engines (which would compensate for a small area of engagement, at a reduced fp of course) to 50% the equivalent area. Increasing it's turns to 90 would make it 50% in this category as well. Adding fp 2 regular guns (reasonable when thinking of the heavy guns as a special weapon like the ravagers torps, and feels more orky with the mixed weapons) would result in 84% effectiveness.

The Ravager aka trying to compare a rock to a pair of scissors.

Ability to engage targets: the same as the onslaught at 55.8%
Firepower: for this we have to actually use 'damage caused' as a comparison, assuming armor 5 and an enemy ship with turrets 2 a Ravager would have 2.5 torps going through, assuming that this is a closing capital ship that is the equivalent of 3.5 weapons batteries. So 5.5 total batteries vs the adjusted 3.2 of brutes we have 171% effectiveness. Of course the ravager has to reload it's ordinance instead of other possible orders to keep firing, but that factor is not included here.
Survivability :  62.5% just like the others.
Overall: 96.4%, which is about right, correct to how people take ravagers. This of course is assuming the compensation of reloading for it's extra turret.

Possible solutions: Nothing, possibly increasing it's firepower to 3 (unlikely) to compensate for the special ability of brutes and get a slightly closer value. Decreasing it's cost to 35 to do the same, but this ship doesn't really need it.

Finally I would like to say that two of the Ork escorts could use some work, this doesn't stop people from using them of course. Sorry for not adding in the numbers, as I think that would clutter this a lot. Comments?

[Plaxor]

More on Orks (as I've been talking here for a while, but this probably doesn't pertain to revisions, but it's more useful info)

The Kill-Kroozer Conundrum:

Many advocate for a more shooty KK to differentiate it more from the TS and make it a more worthwhile buy. The real issue with the KK Imo is that its overpriced. For 30 points you get side weapons that you'll actually use (LBs). I've seen the comparisons to the Slaughter, and it's difficult to properly assess something like that.

Big Bases vs. Small on Cruisers:

People are divided on this, but I felt like doing the math behind it.

Negatives:
Obviously with a larger base you are twice as wide, and therefore twice as likely to get torpedoed. Also you are slightly further from your enemies, Starting 2.5 cm further (I would like HA ruling on deployment if it's by the edge of the base or the post) and when avoiding torps you have to do it essentially 2.5 cm sooner, keeping you slightly further from enemies. Also a larger imprint for random blast markers to be on your base (the main reason I don't use them)

Positives:
Better opportunities for boarding, and ramming (by of course doubled in the case of ramming) but boarding is the real question here, as this is what is argued as the reason to take larger bases.

Assuming that both bases start with their edges at the same location forward then (over base area possibly covered):
Then a small base can hit targets touching an area of 147 square centimeters vs 257 of large bases.... wow... I didn't think that it would affect it that much... *checks math* yep. This means that a large base is 175% as good as small at being able to board. Now this doesn't account for the players planning, just possibilities without any set up.

The escort conundrum.
 Yes, it's true, like practically all fleets escorts aren't as worthwhile to take as cruisers. Game designers intended to specifically made escorts have more firepower than cruisers... Look at a kill kroozer, adding up all its weapons it has 14 heavy guns and 3d6+2 Guns, for 145pts, To get that you would need 3.5 slaughters and 3.6 Onslaughts at a total of 284 points, and the KK gets 45cm range on one battery! This of course assumes that there will be things to fire at in every arc, and assumes some things about how the vessel is played. Still that is more than double. Lets compare with chaos, to make a murder you would need 5 Iconoclasts (assuming 3wb=1 lance) then it would be about 225 points.

Escorts unfortunately feel the hurt of damage in the loss of weapon strengths sooner than cruisers. This is the main reason for reducing the costs of escorts, as I mentioned before, or increasing their overall firepower. Unfortunately in Orks they don't solve their function of being more maneuverable, and are not able to engage targets more effectively. They are able to get a bit more firepower compared to the Kroozers in flank regions, but not that much, and that assumes that you have enemies in a very small area off to your side.

This is due to the differences in their turn capacity, and their non-rotating weapons. It makes them not serve either of the functions that we would think them useful for, being used as an effective rearguard, or really adding a high amount of firepower in a single aspect. As compared to a kroozer, simply in it's front arc (as it's the only place that either ship will really be fighting) you need 1 ravager and one onslaught to compare it's firepower. 80 points Vrs 145.

 Actually if you ignore the side weapons of the kroozer and just look at the prow (also ignoring the weak side armor of the escorts) then we can take 1 onslaught and 1 savage combined for 80 points. Comparatively we adjust for points, increasing hits, shields and weapon strengths for our escort combo. We also account for weapon capability (noting area of acquisition). We account for some other things, but it's a lot of math to describe. Basically our Onslaught-savage combo has about 85% of the area covered by a KKs weapon batteries. As far as the slaughters heavy guns... well it's 230% of the area.

Adjusting for hits; 67% as many. as far as weapons go, they would have 140% the weapons of the KK, combining this with our previously mentioned area of attacks; slaughters are 285% better at using their heavy guns. Our savage-onslaught combo is 154% better at using theirs than the forward guns of a kk. Combining these we have (assuming for relative weapon strengths) Our combo is 232% better at shooting. 

Now finally we will add in the side weaponry for comparison, adding in their area of acquisition. Making a Savage have only 167% the area of acquisition in reality. Still better, but comparing weapons (assuming the kk can fire both front and a side) then the kk has 139% more firepower. For the Combos weapons batteries it's 66% as much area as the KK, and with the same firepower assumption the combo has 111% on the KK. Overall in this scenario the combo is only 106% as effective at shooting compared to a cruiser. This seems oddly about right. But still combining with survivability (again assuming both are equal), then the total is now 86.5% as effective.

Solutions? Increasing FP on escorts (i'd do the math, but it's a lot), decreasing their cost to compensate, (in this case reducing them to 35 points would make them equal).

Things learned from this experiment:

The value of large bases. How it's almost absurd how much better Savages are at using heavy guns.