Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Greenskins versus Meta-game

Below is one of my favourite Orks aren't competitive posts...
The question of whether or not Orks are a “top tier” army has been the subject of some debate amongst 40k players on the internet lately, particularly on Dakka (view the current thread here). The thread mostly consists of poster Frank Fugger offering an insightful analysis of the army while fighting off a horde of nerd-raging knuckle-draggers. There are a few exceptions however (Primarch and Mahu, most notably).
At the risk of coming late to the dead horse beatdown unlike me since the whole Orks thing was way back in July last year... except for Abuse Puppy and his recent wall-of-text, I’ll throw in my two cents since both sides aren’t really debating the viability of Orks, but the competitive nature of 40k armies and the tournament scene. It should also be be noted that Stelek has chimed in on the issue, and in fact has been asserting that Orks are one of the least competitive armies in 5th edition 40k for quite some time (view article here). More recently, he has commented on the same Dakka thread, posting highlights of the conversation (link).
The release of the Ork codex represented a significant shift in game design from previous army releases in late 4th edition, most notably Chaos Space Marines. Prior to the Ork codex release, it was mostly trash with the exception of a few very specific builds that relied on favorable rock-paper-scissor matchmaking to perform well in a competitive setting like what the ETC Teams try to do with their pairing. Afterwards, they managed to catch up with codex creep and perform on a level above pretty much everyone else.
It’s easy to point to Grand Tournament results like Nathan Fluger and claim that Orks represent the best all-around army in Warhammer 40k, but is this a valid set of data on which to base such a conclusion? Orks dominated early on because they were suddenly made viable and operated completely outside of the 4th edition meta-game. They continue to be a dominant force mostly because people have been slow to adjust to 5th edition.
Ask yourself, what are the armies that tend to dominate Orks? The answer in every case will be those armies which take full advantage of the changes between editions (Vulkan marines, Immolator spam, mech IG, and so on).
Orks do indeed dominate 4th edition armies in the 5th edition ruleset, but does that make them competitive? Well, that obviously depends on your definition of competitive, and it raises a number of more important questions about the Warhammer 40k meta-game. Theoretically, if 99 people bring crappy lists to a tournament and 1 person brings a slightly less crappy list and wins with it, does that make that list competitive? Relatively speaking, yes. But compared to good lists, it’s still garbage.
That’s more or less the status of Orks in 40k.
Now, I don’t feel as strongly as Stelek that Orks are a crap army. I simply believe they are a straightforward, mediocre army with an very mild learning curve. Without a favorable ruling on deffrollas affecting vehicles, they struggle badly against Land Raiders due to their lack of meltaguns. Even with the ruling they suffer against Land Raiders... please drive your expensive pseudo-melta weapon towards my real melta weapons. Sure, Nob bikers and a Warboss can take it down eventually key word with 6’s to hit, but they get slaughtered by the combination of massed firepower and Assault Terminators that get thrown at them on the following turn. You scratched my ride. Your going down. And that’s if they DO kill it. If they don’t, then the opposing player gets to cut out the heart of the Ork force unscathed. Game over.
But AV14 isn’t the only weakness in the Ork codex. Mechanized armies are difficult for Orks to cope with in general because of their heavy reliance on CC to crack armor. This has been mitigated somewhat in a recent shift in Ork list building towards Battlewagon spam with boarding planks, now that people have figured out how to beat Nobs on bikes (I still have trouble with Charlie’s army, but I chalk that up to him being a good player). Furthermore, while Orks can go mech, their big weakness is that they need to disembark to do anything, which breaks the #1 rule of mounting up: STAY IN THE TANK. Orks units need to expose themselves to be of much use, a weakness that is easily exploited by players who know how to sacrifice units, tank shock, and use flamers... the last bit was some quotes by Frank Fugger.
- Danny Internet in Greenskins versus Meta-game: Are Orks Competitive?

9 comments:

  1. Just a quick note, I don't claim that Orks are the best, just more competitive than propsed by Stelek and others. Were I to stack rank the top codices in terms of general power level I think I'd go:

    IG
    Blood Angels
    Space Wolves

    Orks
    Eldar
    Space Marines
    Daemons
    Tyranids
    Witch Hunters

    The REST

    And really, everything from Orks to Witch Hunters are all virtually interchangeable IMO in terms of power level.

    Also, I think what keeps Orks from being in the top tier isn't anti tank weakness (I don't think they lack here), but rather lack of AP2.

    -fluger

    ReplyDelete
  2. Which shows the lack of understanding. No tau on that list and Daemons are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nathan I've read some of your Ork Defence Force posts. And you come across as a Fanboi of the codex. Stelek et al. come across as Haters. However, neither of your views [that I've read] are that radical. Rather it is the way they come across... almost polar opposites.

    But it is disgusting that you haven't included Tau in your list. Really goes to show the skill level of the Tau players you meet. Which reinforces why using Tournament results as evidence is just stupid.

    And then you go on to suggest that the Codex: Chaos Daemons is interchangeable with Codex: Space Marines... What The Duck!?!

    Messanger

    ReplyDelete
  4. #1 player in England uses Daemons almost exclusively... I know you guys don't care about tournaments, but I don't think I've seen Tau finish ANYWHERE near the top at ANY GT qualifier, and yet, I've seen both Daemons AND Orks. But, you guys don't care about tournament placings...::shrug::

    I've never seen Tau do anything even remotely effective on the board. I've read what y'all say on your boards regarding Tau, and, frankly, it doesn't look that convincing to me.

    I'm sure its the best way to run Tau, but Tau is such a terrible dex (IMO) that you're handicapping yourself from the start.

    I really want to get that game in against AbusePuppy sometime! :) He's the only one in your circle that is geographically near me. If nothing else, we could at least see what the other does on the table.

    Also, Fanboi of the codex? Heck, I'm probably the least "orky" Ork player I know. I don't run pell mell at my enemy and I never yell Waagh at my opponent. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I also have never seen anyone run a good Tau list at a tournament or local store. Go figure.

    Daemons suffer on so many levels and they revolve around two things. Poor anti-mech and randomness. I don't care how great your army is if you can't rely on it and no army which cannot deal with a certain army type can be considered good. Yes, even armies which cannot deal with hordes (which aren't competitive) are not good armies.

    Bring on Vassal! :P. I don't see how anyone can discount 20 S7, 10-20 S6, 37-43 S5, 2 S6 5" blasts, 4 meltaguns, 20-40 S4 & 4 S10 shots all wrapped up in a nice present which takes most armies T4 to break into.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You don't seem to understand what makes valid and reliable results. We are not playing a professional sport.

    There is no consistency between different tournaments with some using weird and wacky scenarios while others are using weird and wacky terrain or even army composition for theme. Even the sample size of the tournaments are less than 100 in almost every single case (with the spread of codices uneven). There is just no way to argue the generalisability of the results.

    For example, your mates Daemon army would be the exception to the general observation. As can be said for Stelek's Tau army.

    I won't tell anyone you don't yell Waaagh. Your secret is safe in this hidden part of the blog-o-sphere ;)

    Messanger

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Kirby: I'm cool with that. I'm in the midst of moving and don't have internet at home yet (should by the end of the week).

    TSHFT is this weekend as well (hoping for 3 Best General's in a row!) so I won't be available.

    You're in Australia, right? I'm on Pacific time here, which I think is like 16/17 hours behind you. IIRC.

    Anyway, I'd love to go for it, since A. I love the models of Tau and their style, just can't wrap my head around making them competitive; so I'd love to be proven wrong. B. I like playing good players, so the more I meet, the merrier. And C. I'm hoping that, win or lose, I might be able to open some eyes as to how Orks can be good.

    @Messanger: I hear what you're saying in regards to all the variables; but when the same people win consistently in a variety of venues you can probably bank on them being good and knowing what's what.

    In terms of the tournaments I have participated in and such, none of them (outside of OFCC) have wacky missions or wacky terrain; just more or less straight from the book fights with 25% terrain and then secondary and tertiary objectives for bonus points.

    -fluger

    ReplyDelete
  8. If it is the same people then it has less to do with the codex/army and more to do with the player. Which is why tournament results can NEVER be used as 'real' evidence for a discussion.

    As for ideas on how to play competitive Tau. Stelek has some decent thoughts with battle reports from this years 'Ard Boyz. Kirby also has got a series of articles on the Tau codex.

    Messanger

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've read some of the stuff on 3++. I've even watched some of the video bat rep how tos. I think I'd need to see it in action though to really grasp it.

    Frankly, I think a lot of this debate between Orks being competitive or not and Tau being competitive or not boils down to how we think about 40k. I look at Orks and they make sense to me and I see how to use them to maximal effect. I look at Tau and they don't make sense to me. I think the reverse is true as well.

    I wrote an article about this on Blood of Kittens about how certain army builds tend to fit in our "wheelhouse" and we can instinctively play them, whereas when we step out of our comfort zone we don't do as well. Its not even a matter of understanding threats or what an army/opponent can/will do; I can see threats and make judgement calls on what an opponent should/will do with armies that I don't wield well; its just when I'm behind the wheel, it doesn't feel...comfortable.

    In any event, I really'd like to see Kirby's Tau in action vs my Orks.

    -fluger

    ReplyDelete