# Why do people think Orks are uncompetitive?



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Having read a few threads where people are saying this, I'm wondering if anyone can give me a reasoned explanation of why they think Orks are an uncompetitve army.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

The Meta Game has evolved to counter them now, nothing more nothing less.

Basically all that "oh god, Nob Bikers are so broken" rubbish has changed to actually, "melta's do pretty well against them". As to Mech Orks, well, Mech Orks didn't really work as their stats often weren't good enough to win in a one on one against enemy vehicles or units. Ork Hordes were only competitive in a mathhammer environment. They can win, but it's just too easy to avoid them - particularly with mech, and without getting into combat, they're no good at consistently dealing with Armour 12+ (BS2 is the killer).


----------



## steamius (Dec 9, 2010)

Orcs are very competative. I also dont understand those people who say that they arent.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

I agree with that notion Steamius, at least where Green tide is concerned. However having noticed a few people dismissing them as an also ran, I was curious as to they're reasoning.

@Vaz: With hordes, you can simply ignore heavily armoured vehicles until you get into combat.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Basically, the only answer to AV12+ vehicles that Orks have is Power Klaws.

All the opponent needs to do is move 12" or more per turn with any vehicle that is threatened by assault, and there's a very good chance you're just going to bounce off it.

Even against AV10 Rears you need a 6 on three dice to hit with the Klaw (and then a damage roll that stops it moving/destroys it), or 6s to hit and 6s again to glance with normal Boyz. That means out of 36 attacks, you get one glancing hit.

All the while you're trying to punch open this one vehicle, the rest of the enemies meched-up army is driving around blowing big holes out of your army with its guns, tank shocking you into good positions for flamer/blast templates and generally laughing as your Rokkits/Lootas (if any survived past turn 2) bounce off.


----------



## ChaosSpaceMarineGuy (Jan 29, 2010)

First of all, kudos to playing as snkaebites! :so_happy: They are awesome. I believe Orks are very competitive and those who have not played as orks may not fully understand there "hidden capability." Either that or they may not have ran a very effective list.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Thanks for that Chaosspacemarineguy. 

Personally I would argue that horde Orks are competitve (the others are for fun as far as I'm concerned) because sticking a hundred odd models on the table can be quite intimidating to your opponent, as is moving them forward even after losses sustained during your oppoent's shooting phase.

Admittedly they can seem slow so you do need to know how to deploy and move your units, as well as make use of their superior numbers in such a way as to overwhelm your opponent.


----------



## pringles978 (Dec 27, 2010)

hidden capability?

i ran orks when i first got back into 5th (even over my beloved marines) and spent a great deal of time playtesting new builds, analysing units and researching opinion. 

the ork list is fundamentally flawed, in that it lacks options in dealling with certain threats. due to the difficulty of hitting tanks in cc with claws, you have no reliable way to deal with high av. lootas work well against lower av targets, but are both expensive (for orks) and fragile, even if in cover. any half decent opponent simply will not let you ignore his raiders, he can afford to be agressive with them as he knows you dont pack any melta.

you have no psychic defense, so you are vunerable to any number of nasty powers, lash being the most prominent, and jetcouncils also spring to mind.

you lack effective transports. trukks are godawfull as you only get to transport 12 models, and they can be taken down with bolters. battlewagons suffer from high points cost, limited availability and weak side armour with long sides... if that wasnt enough to make them a target priority, they also carry the only effective way to deal with raiders. remember: you only get access to two kff, max.

thats just on the table. the elite and heavy slots face massive competition from each other. lootas vs nobz etc, kans vs wagons... there are some good choices but you only get to take some of your toys, even with foc altering through hq choices. 

green tide? noobhammer army. you lack the mobility to deal with a refused flank or anybody with high mobility such as dark eldar. you just cant catch them, and once your lootas are gone, your dead in the water. no, a one use waaaggghhh does not help enough.

fearless. its a bad thing. if you get charged by anything even half decent you loose furious charge, hit at str 3 (probably going last), loose combat by lots and take a bunch of 6+ saves. 

there is no hidden potential. the builds and units have been hashed over countless times on countless forums, and whilst the army did well when 180 charging orks/nob bikers was a new thing, its old news now and no reason at all to consider the army in any way competitive. i wnt orks to be a good army, i really do. ive got a big soft spot for the little green buggers, but the codex simply lacks the depth required to compete with any of the codicies released after it was.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Personally, I thinkthe whole competitive uncompetitive thing is junk.

It's should be, can a rookie pick up this army and have a good chance of winning.

With tactics, terrain and luck of the dice Gods few armies are unplayable.

Competitiveness is just a term IMO that is used for armies that 'on paper' look strong.

But once they hit the tabletop, there are loads of factors that determine the odds of victory.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

So I was thinking up a reply while reading this thread, and then Pringles basically read my mind and posted what I was going to say. So ill add some pointless shit talking.

Ill happily fight your green tide with my blood angels jumper army, you outnumber me 5 to 1? Thats fine, I am faster than you, I win. What about my nids? Bubble wrap with gaunts means your charge is wasted and the boys get torn up. Loganwing is a god awful match up for orks.

I would disagree with D-A-C about his definition of competitiveness. I use that as the definition for ease of play. Green tide is probably the easiest army in the game to use, as you just run across the table at people with a wall of guys. Great if you are righting a beginner. Horrible if your opponent knows what they are doing. Above mentioned blood angels army is basically immune to your shooting because of FNP. I will gladly run my 2 assault marine squads into the spearpoint of your army to grind it down, and this bubblewraps the rest of my force to be picked apart. 

Most every army has a maximum value to its tactics. The army can basically be played this well, and after that there is nothing you can do. Orks have a very very low maximum, but its compensated for with the ease of play. So you run orks, and quickly your tactics have maxed out, the army can reach this maximum with low skill players, as opposed to armies like space wolves. Of course orks are feared, most any player can understand how the entire army works, as opposed to, for example, tyranids. But as far as the really good players are concerned the low maximum of competition will really show.

I would define competitive value of an army as something like this.
1-Discount any horrible dice rolling, and assume that player skill is even. 
2-the amount of builds it can reliably deal with.
3-the least amount of gimmicks the better. Gimmicks are things that are very good if the dice go your way, or work well in some match ups, but fall flat if the dice are bad/average or the match up is bad. Fatecrusher demons are the best example of a gimmick army.
4-How much redundancy and duality the army can put out.
5-the amount of tactical options the army has. Can it put reliable deep strikers down? Can it open up new angles of battle? can it be played in multiple ways?

So lets anal-ize orks based on this definition.

2-struggles with mech heavy or armies that are very fast.
3-Very few gimmicks other than nob bikers, and those arent used much anymore.
4-very little. hidden power klaw=/=redundancy. The units are almost all specialized, and those that kill most anything (nob bikers) are gimmicks and cost a lot.
5-Very few. You can have outflanking deffkoptas, which are meh and die easily against most things. And snikrot who is, more and more, a joke.


----------



## pringles978 (Dec 27, 2010)

D-A-C said:


> Personally, I thinkthe whole competitive uncompetitive thing is junk.
> 
> It's should be, can a rookie pick up this army and have a good chance of winning.
> 
> ...


true in part, but if you put enough effort and research into your army build you mitigate most of those factors. if you adhere correctly to the principles of duality and redundancy, you end up with a list that no "battleforce army" has a hope of beating without such improbable luck i would go out and buy a lottery ticket the second the game is over.

dont take one anti tank unit, if you loose it your screwed. dont take a single rock unit, its easily countered and can only kill so much. if a unit can deal with a variety of threats its superior to one that cannot. this is where orks fail, as they lack the proper tools within the list and individual units to answer every threat, and you cannot rely on a paticular unit to be in the right place at the right time.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Don't know if this is a validated way of destroying heavily armed vehicles but it is very orky. Just ram your battlewagons into the other guy. It works!


----------



## ChaosSpaceMarineGuy (Jan 29, 2010)

@ pringle978 - Honestly, I think Orks really don't need to "deal" with av14 first. I found that you take out what you come into contact first, as long as the unit has the ability to. You can run your LRs all day if you want to. S10 cc atks will do enough when the time comes, even if the vehicle does move 12 inches.
@ Stephen_Newman - Yes, it is an effective way of dealing with av14. Just be prepared to have BW shot at before then.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> So I was thinking up a reply while reading this thread, and then Pringles basically read my mind and posted what I was going to say. So ill add some pointless shit talking.
> 
> Ill happily fight your green tide with my blood angels jumper army, you outnumber me 5 to 1? Thats fine, I am faster than you, I win. What about my nids? Bubble wrap with gaunts means your charge is wasted and the boys get torn up. Loganwing is a god awful match up for orks.
> 
> ...


Great post Chug :goodpost: I wanted to say something but you beat me to it.


----------



## pringles978 (Dec 27, 2010)

ChaosSpaceMarineGuy said:


> @ pringle978 - Honestly, I think Orks really don't need to "deal" with av14 first. I found that you take out what you come into contact first, as long as the unit has the ability to. You can run your LRs all day if you want to. S10 cc atks will do enough when the time comes, even if the vehicle does move 12 inches.
> .


ummm, yes you do. imagine you are running raiders against orks. how would you use them? would you hang back with them and lead with the other units in your army, or, knowing that your opponent has no effective way of stopping them rip the heart out of his army? and would you not make a point of making the few things that pose even a minimal threat a target priority?

and str 10 klaws are nice, but hitting on 6's and needing 5's to penetrate does not make them in any way a reliable way of dealing with av14. this only gets worse when you consider most of your klaws are str 9 on the charge. 6 followed by a 6? or glancing on a 5, then requiring a 6 to immobilise, as any raider worth its salt is running extra armour...


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Orks stomp everyone round here, because most can't afford transports or don't really understand their use. And hey, the fact still stands that a unit of 30 Slugga Boyz (The only real size for Sluggas) will kill those TH/SS Termies of Doom in CC.

Midnight


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Yeah sure, but thats a perfect example of why orks are bad. Load up a lot of cheap shitty troops, add a deathstar and something else, call it an army. Noobslay at the lgs, and then cry when people tell you your army sucks.

The thing ork players dont understand is my hammernators/sanguard dont need to murder your unit, I just need to tie your shit up. Thats right, in soviet russia, marines tarpit you


----------



## Zjoekov (Jan 11, 2011)

This is always a difficult discussion. Well I'll agree with the things Pringles said so far in any case.

What makes it difficult? The contradiction between what some people _see_ and what some people _hear_ here. Many gaming groups and even tournaments cannot be considered competative by any means. And it is in these not-so-competative environments that Orks do really well. Why?
-Orks tend to spam certain things. Mediocre armies have problems countering lists which spam something because there lists lack redundancy.
-Orks are relatively easy to play in an effective way.
-The lack of good lists are often the reason that the weaknesses of Orks don't get revealed. No good Mech Eldar or Blood Angel Jumpers for example.

Orks are not truly competative, full stop. That means they are at a severe disadvantage against many good players (with good lists ofc). But such games don't happen often enough to change people their opinion. These can be considered unlucky after all can't they? I mean everybody loses a game in a while right? Sure, Orks for me are auto-win though. You simply can't play them as well as I can play my army. Your movement is too limited and your Anti-tank is on a few units concentrated.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Mostly it's the lack of reliable ranged anti-tank that takes the trophy for me.

Then again I play Deffwing so I'm probably the least reliable Ork player to talk to :grin:


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

With any of my armies, it just depends on who goes first or if mistakes are made whether I win or lose to those screaming fungi.


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Have any of you played enough Ork armies to defintively state that random chance will always favour the None Ork Player? Methinks Not.
5's and 6's may just come up more often than you think or like. And that Raider your Throwing in to 'Rip out the Heart of my army' IS pretty useless without weapons; on LESS than 5's and 6's.
You can argue list types, unit types, lack of this, too much of that, all you like; You simply cannot predict the random fall of Dice.
Quit whining. If played properly, Orks can be very effective.

SGMAlice


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I dont agree with your argument. What you have basically said is "if the dice rolling is biased enough the player who benefits from it will win." Well sure, but that can happen anyways. My loganwing could play orks, and my opponent rolls great and me horrible, but ill still put up a better fight than he would if I rolled great and he didnt. Besides, dice rolling most always evens out.

Also, I dont know who in this thread is whining, or what that refers to.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> The thing ork players dont understand is my hammernators/sanguard dont need to murder your unit, I just need to tie your shit up. Thats right, in soviet russia, marines tarpit you


Genaralised much? I think that the idea is to make your tarpit cheaper than the unit you are holding up.

Midnight


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Nope, thats not necessarily how wheeling works. And if I am fighting orks most all of my units will cost more. Besides, sanguard with a priest can survive combat with ork mobs.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I guess it depends on local metagame, if I can use that word. Ork hordes stomp face in round here because no-one can afford transports or doesn't know how to use them. What's wheeling? I know it as a Fantasy term, rather than a 40k one.

Midnight


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Wheeling is a term I made up on the spot, although I think its used IRL for military strategy, in which case I didnt make it up. It basically involves pinning a key part of the enemies army and maneuvering around it. Ill draw an example in ms paint. and post it up in a minute.

Alright here you go. Keep in mind I am using a horribly abstract example through ms paint for wheeling. And this is blood angels vs orks, as they are a simple example. Furthermore I havent added anything other than jump marines and ork boys, as I am trying to deal strictly with maneuvering. I am however assuming 2 san priest for the blood angels here. The red circles are 10 man assault marine squads, the 3 gold circles are sanguard squads, and the 6 big green circles are 30 man boys mobs. Details are not key here.










So here in photo one what you have is a very basic deployment. I prefer to deploy my marines against orks as I can ensure they are where I need them, and the priest bubbles mean ork shooting is negligible. Its obviously a refused flank tactic, as I cannot expect to handle the army army at once.










So here in image 2 the blood angels have used their speed to get a few charges off. Notice how mobs 1,2, and 3 are all stuck in one large multi combat. That is not essential, but ideal. You will massacre the orks through fearless wounds that way. If the multi charge wouldnt work than units 1 and mob 1 fight, as well as 2 and mob 2, units 3 and 4 attack mob 3. Now unit 5 is going to kill very few boys, math wise 5 on the charge  So they are doomed. But they will still win combat that round, and thats all I need. So mobs 1, 2, and 3 are getting horribly slaughtered, while mob 4 is beating unit 5 and taking minor losses. 










Here in image 3 you have the final result. Our poor unit 5 died, but they were sacrificed for a good cause. That massive blob of boys they tied up prevented mobs 5 and 6 from doing anything effective. And with some good old priest FNP/furious charge our other units have come out in fairly good health, even after dealing with hidden fists. 10 assault marines with furious charge can lay over 18 orks or so in the charge (including no retreat wounds). So you figure the marine squads might have all lost 20-30% of their strength, the overall army is still at say 65%. The ork army is at 40% or so, and as the marines broke out in the orks turn they can easily get charges off and repeat. If the ork player bunched his mobs up around where unit 5 died you could enjoy some good multi charge action too. 

And thats basically how an army of 37 space marines with no shooting support can take out 180 orks in 2-3 turns.

So basically tarpit the center, isolate a flank and take it out with the majority of your strength and then move on. It can be much more effective when you have a mech army, like mech blood angels or wolves. But I didnt want to get into blocking/tank shocking and such.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Orks work great. I use them as my main army and do very well with them in both casual and competitive play.

There are 3 issues that keep them from being 'competitive' though:

1. Nothing to deal with AR 13-14 from afar. 

AR 12 isn't that much of a problem, but 13-14 can't usually be cracked except by powerklaws or deffrollas, both close range. Although many extremely tough vehicles can be ignored by Orks without too much trouble, a land raider filled with troops, sitting on top of an objective, can be a tough nut to crack.

2. They're a bit inconsistent

Speed freaks can be brought down by shooting before they reach anywhere near their opponent. The KFF helps protect them against this, but all you need is a few bad rolls and you'll have no chance of winning. 

Nob mob armies (nob bikers and such) just need a few missed cover/cybork saves after being hit by an ordnance weapon, and they'll be gone.

The success of horde armies will depend greatly upon their opponent's army, and the mission they're playing. If either is stacked against them, there's not much the Ork player can do to improve their chances.

3. Competitiveness isn't only about winning, but winning BIG and quickly

In most tournaments, there will be a time limit, and your overall score will be determined by how much you won by. This gives a big advantage to armies that can both play quickly and win by a large margin. Speed freaks are the only variety of Orks that can play quickly, but Orks almost never win by a large margin, regardless of what style you play. Part of the nature of Orks is to take heavy losses. Regardless, Orks are great at winning out in the end, regardless of those initial losses. 

In a competitive setting, however, there's a distinct advantage to playing armies that can win without taking virtually any casualties at all. Also, winning quickly (or doing a lot of damage within the first few turns) helps make sure that games don't end in ties, or narrow victories.

So all in all, Orks are indeed good, but usually aren't considered competitive. I wouldn't worry about it though, as how good a player you are will always matter a lot more than which army you play.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Wheeling is a term I made up on the spot, although I think its used IRL for military strategy, in which case I didnt make it up. It basically involves pinning a key part of the enemies army and maneuvering around it. Ill draw an example in ms paint. and post it up in a minute


What you mean is an outflanking manuver. It's what Lee used against Pope at Second Manassas and it's what I use with Orks. Generally one boyz mob locks the enemy in combat, then another two join in to destroy it.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wheeling is marching order. And neither is that outflanking, or whatever. Thats redused flank, hope to kill a squad, and then repeat.

I do disagree with Alice though - relying on the random fall of the dice is not the way to win consistently, minimizing randoms, and maximising constants - hence why MoDakka is better way for Orks to go over MoStrength at strength at range, while CC lets you into your best capabilities - enemies which can ignore that or bait you away are then more of a threat than measly armour 10/open topped suggests.

I much prefer Shootas over Sluggas if you take Green Tide - that way you get far more shots, and still 3 S4 attacks in CC.


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Vaz said:


> ...I do disagree with Alice though - relying on the random fall of the dice is not the way to win consistently, minimizing randoms, and maximising constants...


That is not was i meant. Maybe i wasn't clear....:

Random chance is all good and well (Or maybe bad and... not well) but the basis of most of the arguments against Orks being competitive is that they have no 'good' Anti-Tank units (Which i agree with in principle) and that what they do have (Nobz w/PK) are not going to work purely based on the roll needed being so high.
Even if it is a little high and less likely it is still possible and they cannot predict how the dice fall and therefore cannot say the the Nob w/PK is not a good way to deal with high AV targets.

Clear now?

And another point of mine that they conviently failed to address is that Weapons Destroyed results are easier to achieve and just as effective at making any vehicle, high AV or not, pretty much useless.

SGMAlice


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Disagree again. Reliability is critical in determining how good a unit is. Would you say a BS 4 broadside shooting its twin linked railguns is a better or worse tank hunter than a BS 3 guardsmen shooting a krak missile at a tank? Or ever than 3 guardsmen? Ill take a single railgun hit over 1.5 krak missiles.

Also, against orks the weapons on a lot of vehicles (transports) arent nearly as important as the actual bunker itself.


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

Still don't get my point do you.....
Am i talking to myself?.... or backwards?... or another language entirely?
:headbutt: I give up!

SGMAlice


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

No I get your point, I just think its wrong. Sure orks can theoretically beat any army. But if you say put my loganwing up against an ork army at 2k the logan should win at least 75% of the time.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

mynameisgrax said:


> Orks work great. I use them as my main army and do very well with them in both casual and competitive play.
> 
> There are 3 issues that keep them from being 'competitive' though:
> 
> ...


:goodpost: Well said.


----------



## Hialmar (Feb 19, 2008)

I believe Orks are as competitive as any other army as a general rule, but they are not the same as some of the newer army lists that can be spammed to death to make them easier to win with. 

This will also depend on the points used for the game as I think higher point games tend to expose more of the Ork weaknesses.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

As opposed to the two most commonly cited power builds for orks? A billion boys or a million boys in wagons? Theres a lot less spam in 5th edition books than the 4th edition ones, and thats due to edition change.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

SGMAlice said:


> Still don't get my point do you.....
> Am i talking to myself?.... or backwards?... or another language entirely?
> :headbutt: I give up!
> 
> SGMAlice


What I got from what you were saying is that because it's possible that dice will roll better than average, one can't really say that power klawz will never do anything useful against vehicles, so it'd be wrong to discount them entirely.

I agree that it's silly to say that power klawz will never kill/disable/damage a tank ever. I don't think that they're anywhere near good enough to be something that you'd want to rely on game after game.

--

Now of course, by all this I'm assuming that we're talking about in a highly competitive environment. Usually when someone says that Orks aren't competitive they're talking about big tournaments with really excellent players and armies like the Nova Open. Yes, of course Orks can clean house in a local tournament at a random FLGS where most players are nowhere near top-caliber, but we (and by this I mean people that are interested in a best-of-the-best sort of tournament) aren't talking about that sort of environment. Hell, _Necrons_ can and do win FLGS tournaments and only the delusional or seriously misinformed would argue that they're competitive in 5th edition.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

An Ork player placed as one of the Undefeated players end of the day at the Nova Open last year. Thus by your own argument Orks are competitive. Beat one Space Wolf player in a knock out, lost to Blood Angels in the Semi's. 

So there we go, Orks are not just noobslayers, they are competitive. Perhaps if you cannot make Orks competitive or do not think they can be, then you are in fact just a bad player? Conjecture of course.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Wheeling is a term I made up on the spot, although I think its used IRL for military strategy, in which case I didnt make it up. It basically involves pinning a key part of the enemies army and maneuvering around it. Ill draw an example in ms paint. and post it up in a minute.
> 
> Alright here you go. Keep in mind I am using a horribly abstract example through ms paint for wheeling. And this is blood angels vs orks, as they are a simple example. Furthermore I havent added anything other than jump marines and ork boys, as I am trying to deal strictly with maneuvering. I am however assuming 2 san priest for the blood angels here. The red circles are 10 man assault marine squads, the 3 gold circles are sanguard squads, and the 6 big green circles are 30 man boys mobs. Details are not key here.
> 
> ...


Your reasoning seems flawed to me, as you're assuming the Ork player will simply move the units on the right in a straight despite your refused flank tactic. The moment you refuse that flank the Ork player will simply move his units towards yours, not in a straight line.

True, it may take him a few turns to redeploy them, but he'll be able to do it. Alternatively if you deploy first, he could try and put one unit behind another, which is quite possible if he only has twenty Orks to a mob. If this happens he can just swamp those sanguniary guard and priests in combat, so that their powerweapons won't be able to kill enough a turn.

Admittedly FNP will make combat into a drawn out slugfest, but that will only allow the Ork player time to in more Orks to balance the odds in their favour.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

The only reason a person should think ork's are Crappy is if there a total idiot, there one of the most balanced army's out there! Not to mention like in the diagram above a Horde of pissed boyz is hard to stop even if you have all flamers!


----------



## Zjoekov (Jan 11, 2011)

Witch King of Angmar said:


> The only reason a person should think ork's are Crappy is if there a total idiot, there one of the most balanced army's out there! Not to mention like in the diagram above a Horde of pissed boyz is hard to stop even if you have all flamers!


Seriously, this is as unconstructive as somebody can be. You make people out for idiots and then don't add any valid arguments yourselves. That mate, makes you a troll.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Zjoekov said:


> Seriously, this is as unconstructive as somebody can be. You make people out for idiots and then don't add any valid arguments yourselves. That mate, makes you a troll.


Isn't that what you just did? Add nothing to the conversation. Arrrgh and now i'm doing it god dammit. 

Any Orks are competitive as evidenced by placing in Competitive Tournies, the end.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> An Ork player placed as one of the Undefeated players end of the day at the Nova Open last year. Thus by your own argument Orks are competitive. Beat one Space Wolf player in a knock out, lost to Blood Angels in the Semi's.
> 
> So there we go, Orks are not just noobslayers, they are competitive. Perhaps if you cannot make Orks competitive or do not think they can be, then you are in fact just a bad player? Conjecture of course.


DashofPeppers ork army lost to steleks wolves during the whiskey challenge, and he ended up losing once he got into the winners bracket. Orks can do well when you have a player using them playing people who arent as good, but once that player hits real competitive armies (mech wolves) with his orks, and the guys he is playing are as good as he is, he loses. 

Orks dont have the necessary tools to compete with the big boys. So yes, they can compete, but they arent competitive. 

Maybe I havent stated this well enough.
When two players of equal skill match up, and one is running a 5th edition codex, the ork player will generally lose. If the ork player is more skilled or the other player is running a 4th edition book then the army is still able to win. But they are not reliable at the top levels, and as such are competitive.



> Your reasoning seems flawed to me, as you're assuming the Ork player will simply move the units on the right in a straight despite your refused flank tactic. The moment you refuse that flank the Ork player will simply move his units towards yours, not in a straight line.
> 
> True, it may take him a few turns to redeploy them, but he'll be able to do it. Alternatively if you deploy first, he could try and put one unit behind another, which is quite possible if he only has twenty Orks to a mob. If this happens he can just swamp those sanguniary guard and priests in combat, so that their powerweapons won't be able to kill enough a turn.
> 
> Admittedly FNP will make combat into a drawn out slugfest, but that will only allow the Ork player time to in more Orks to balance the odds in their favour.


The ork player doesnt have time to redeploy his stuff against the jumpers, as they move much much faster. I dont think moving his units directly towards mine would change anything. The point of the suicide sanguinary squad is to tie down a huge mob. I cant see another huge mob finding it easy to move around them. and at most they can charge the sanguinary guard that has already sacrificed itself. If the ork player interlaces units than I will happily multi charge and massacre him on no retreat wounds.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Isn't that what you just did? Add nothing to the conversation. Arrrgh and now i'm doing it god dammit.
> 
> Any Orks are competitive as evidenced by placing in Competitive Tournies, the end.


Wrong again, zjoekov wasnt calling anyone an idiot. 

I played third in a 42 player event, that only focused on winning, no soft scores, with a very uncompetitive nid list. I am willing to make the assertion that winning=/=competitive, considering all the players I ran into just didnt know how to handle bugs.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> DashofPeppers ork army lost to steleks wolves during the whiskey challenge, and he ended up losing once he got into the winners bracket. Orks can do well when you have a player using them playing people who arent as good, but once that player hits real competitive armies (mech wolves) with his orks, and the guys he is playing are as good as he is, he loses.
> 
> Orks dont have the necessary tools to compete with the big boys. So yes, they can compete, but they arent competitive.


The tourney was played Swiss and as he went 5-0 he was always in the winners bracket. Every game he won was against winners. He then won his first game against Wolves in the knockout, and lost to Stelek in a very close game. 

Overall Orks went 16-12 in the tourney, that's a winning record in a competitive tournament. That makes them competitive by definition. Nova was touted as somewhere that Orks would fail as it was very competitive. 

By your standards the only competitive armies are Space Wolves and Blood Angels as they rounded out the undefeated players and that is clearly not the case. 

Out of interest are you playing in Nova this year?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Probably yes


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Did you play in last years? 

It's interesting looking over the results of the Nova Open, armies like Chaos Space Marines, Necrons, Tau and Eldar being distinctly underwhelming. Imperial Guard, Blood Angels, Space Marines, Orks all occupying that middle ground with only Space Wolves and Chaos Daemons really posting winning records. Too few Daemon players to draw anything from that and probably new codex effect with Space Wolves (Although Blood Angels seem fine). 

Over all though it's pretty balanced. With really just Space Wolves breaking from even scores. I think that indicates a well balanced game all in all.


----------



## Zjoekov (Jan 11, 2011)

Aramoro said:


> Isn't that what you just did? Add nothing to the conversation. Arrrgh and now i'm doing it god dammit.


Oh I'm a troll too; trolls trolling trolls you know.

But to be serious; it's not like I could add anything constructive when I did not had anything to reply too right? That was the purpose of my reply; to prevent further posts which don't add anything except an unbased opinion. 

Frankly; that's how these kind of discussions go. The 'pro Ork' players usually come with crappy tourney 'evidence' and things like calling people who say they aren't competative idiots. No a suprise though, because people with sense realise that Orks aren't top competative


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Anything other than Competitive Tourney results is just Theoryhammer. As i don't play Theoryhammer I don't care what it says about competitiveness.


----------



## Zjoekov (Jan 11, 2011)

What about combining the both? I mean I'm pretty sure that the people who claim that Orks are not competative, claim this from having it seen in real too. 

So it's not theoryhammering what (all) people do...It's simply putting down their experience/knowledge with words and logic.

Discussing things without your so called 'theoryhammer' is pointless. Then it comes to a fight who can bring up the most tourney results where Orks did well...

For me it's simple: If people can't argue why Orks do well, while others can that they don't do well (or shouldn't do well against good oppenents actually), then I know who's right.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

I'll probably regret getting involved in this conversation, but why not... :grin:





Zjoekov said:


> Frankly; that's how these kind of discussions go. The 'pro Ork' players usually come with crappy tourney 'evidence'


Ok... so the discussion on this thread (simplified) goes something like orks are only competitive against noobs, and therefore classified as a noobslayer army... and, that if facing real competition from truly competitive armies and players would be revealed as the uncompetitive army it truly is. The thread then asks people to offer evidence as to why they feel orks are competitive.

People then offer said evidence about how orks perform in a competitive tournament when played by competitive players, who are facing other competitive players, using competitive armies the anti-competitive ork camp feels are more competitive than orks are.

You then say that evidence about orks being competitive in a competitive setting is "crappy." 


I guess I'm wondering... :laugh: what evidence were you looking for then? :grin:


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

I dunno understand the cry about the Orks

2 years ago they were in the top of tournament, althou cheese marines have overcome the protagonism (cause orks are critters and minions) the orks have lots of chance of winning by overcoming the others armies. 

I have a good record with them because my strategy go around in waves, the fast first wave and then the others coming on foot. a footslogger army is not enough, you need to mix the things to get different thing in game; Koptas to storm, tankbusta to crack off vehicles (they´re cheap i use them a lot nowdays, maybe 1 or 2 10guys squad). 

Orks are made to be crazy and you get fun about that, maybe they lack old random stuff, but i still revere them as balanced and competitive army.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> People then offer said evidence about how orks perform in a competitive tournament when played by competitive players, who are facing other competitive players, using competitive armies the anti-competitive ork camp feels are more competitive than orks are.


So Orks did well in the Nova Open. Once. One tournament. One time isn't enough to really draw much of a conclusion. If they do well again _this_ year in the Nova and place well in other good events then we may need to revise our opinions.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Hooray, The Badger has the correct answer. The other thing you have to remember is that dashofpepper pimped that wagon rush ork army out in every possible event he could go to. And he lost to Steleks wolves on a tie breaker, stelek gets much less game time in, and was new to space wolves 

But yes, one tournament isnt conclusive evidence that orks as a whole are a good army. Leonhard Euler was publishing a math paper a week towards the end of his life, could work out problems to 50 decimal places in his head, etc etc. He is obviously though an outlier as far as humanity is concerned, as most people would struggle with college level calculus let alone be able to ever publish a paper on mathematics. 

So you have one instance of orks doing well in a serious tournament, against all the wolves, blood angels, and guard armies that have done better overall, and when played by more people.



> Anything other than Competitive Tourney results is just Theoryhammer. As i don't play Theoryhammer I don't care what it says about competitiveness.


Since we are on the subject of mathematics, ill prove this argument false. You say you dont do theoryhammer, and only real world results. Aside from your 1 instance of a real world result at a truly competitive tournament, I am wondering what else you would present other than theory. Heres an example of "theoryhammer" and its evil cousin "mathhammer". 6 fire dragons standing 6 inches away from a rhino have a better chance of killing it than 4 marines with missile launchers. Yes or no? I think most anyone would agree that 6 BS4 melta weapons is basically a dead rhino, 4 marines its likely but not nearly as much as with the dragons. 

But eldar players arent winning events as much as missile spam marines. So therefore the devastator squad would in fact do better. Your claim of discounting theory hammer for tournament results can imply this kind of rather silly thinking. 

The entire industrial scientific world is based on a real life version of theory hammer, its called mathematics and logic. Mathematics is a very abstract method of pulling certain elements of reality into a symbolic form, and then using those symbols to predict results. Even your basic arithmetic follows this idea. If you have a set of 2 things, and combine it with another set consisting of 3 things, you have created a new set of 5 things. But you can create new sets out of this consisting of 4 and 1 thing, or 3 and 2 things, or whatever. There is no number 1, or 5 or anything else, they arent real. Its all symbolic. Using this method has gotten humanity to the moon, and let us examine the deepest reaches of the universe. But thats alright, its just "theoryhammer".


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Uber Ork said:


> I guess I'm wondering... :laugh: what evidence were you looking for then? :grin:


they need to wear power armour for any evidence to be taken seriously these days.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> they need to wear power armour for any evidence to be taken seriously these days.


 
Hahahaha :laugh:. Good post Stella, I shot Pepsi out of my nose when I read that.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> they need to wear power armour for any evidence to be taken seriously these days.


For once I agree with Stella. Oh my God, just lay me down!

However Uber Ork, the original post in this thread stated that some people had said our beloved Orks were uncompetitive and that they could be dismissed as a serious army where tournaments were concerned. What I wanted was for people to provide me with reasons and evidence for this view.

Some of the arguments have been good, others have been laughably pathetic. Personally I'd discount what happened to dashofpepper because I don't think Mech Ork is ever competitive. As for Green Tide, it's never failed me, even in a couple of doubles games where due to poor deepstrike results/tactical inepitude of my partner I ended up fighting two armies (Chaos Marines & Eldar/Space Marines & Tau) with just my Orks.

Yes it'll struggle with AV14, but I've found that if there is only one AV14 vehicle on the table that I can simply ignore it till I'm ready to have a crack at it. I've also found that when it comes to tankbusting nothing compares to a Warboss with strength 10 Powerklaw (though to be fair to Tankbusters, I've never used them so I can't discount them).

I tend to run my Orks in two battlegroups, with the lead squad in each paired with an HQ choice. This way when it gets shot up I can use the greater leadership value to keep the squad in place, tie up an enemy unit for a round of combat, even if they've charged, then bring in enough reinforcements to make the outcome a foregone conclusion.

It's not subtle, nor an example of great tactical acumen or guile. But it's a case of Ockham's Razor, the simplest solution is often the best.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

So you would discount the only solid evidence of orks ever doing well in the current meta game?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> So Orks did well in the Nova Open. Once. One tournament. One time isn't enough to really draw much of a conclusion. If they do well again _this_ year in the Nova and place well in other good events then we may need to revise our opinions.


There are so few Swiss styled competative tounries without Comp scores it's impossible to draw good conclusions about ANY army in a competative setting. What i will say is Ork in general, not Dash of Pepper, at Nova did well, better than Vanilla Marine, better than Eldar As good as Imperial Guard. 

Yes that is just 1 touney, and all 16 Wins might have been against noobs or statisical outliers, but probably not. But i'll accept any finding, show me another compeative. Swiss tounry in 5th ed so we can compare and contrast. Tourniment data is the only way to determine if an army is truely competative or not.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

So you will ignore my lengthy argument?

The one that basically invalidated yours.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Basically, what a lot of ork supporters are saying, is that unless you play with like the michael jordan of warhammer, then you will be able to beat him using your best skills with orks.

There are like 4 million players that claim to be ultra competitive on this forum alone. Simply put, I know that all of you guys aren't as great as you might try to let on. 

basically, in all but the highest of high level tournaments, orks are great and will win all the time and even win the tournament.

And even in the highest level tournaments, sometimes orks still do fine.

So, can we agree to this?


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> So you would discount the only solid evidence of orks ever doing well in the current meta game?


As Katie, Aramoro and a few others have pointed out, one tournament isn't representative and therefore isn't solid evidence. My evidence comes from personal experience, namely that using Orks the way I do compensates for the fact that I'm not a great player.

Before now I've managed to be beat or draw with a friend of mine who is a far better player than I am, which is a great incentive to use Orks competitively.



ChugginDatHaterade said:


> So you will ignore my lengthy argument?
> 
> The one that basically invalidated yours.


What argument? You posted some diagrams showing a game where the Ork player was so unbelievably stupid that not only would they deserve to lose if it was an actual game, but afterwards they should be put down and their brain donated to medical science for research into criminal stupidity.

Beyond that you've mentioned this dashofpepper person a fair bit, who using a build I've stated that I don't consider to be competitive, seems to have done very well (and congratulations to him for that) at this Nova Open. If someone using a build I don't think of as competitive can do as well as he can then it would seem to indicate that Orks are competitive.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> So you will ignore my lengthy argument?
> 
> The one that basically invalidated yours.


Your argument is based your thoughts and opinions. Mine is based on Tourney results. You've touched on a lot of points as to why Orks are a tough army to play in 5th, and they are largely true. That does not alter the fact that people do play then, and do win competitive games. 

Like I said, produce more Swiss ranked tourney results and then we can have another look at it.

I only mentioned the Nova Open really because Katie brought it up, saying Orks would never be competitive there. I was mearly pointing out that they were.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> So Orks did well in the Nova Open. Once. One tournament. One time isn't enough to really draw much of a conclusion. If they do well again _this_ year in the Nova and place well in other good events then we may need to revise our opinions.


Ask and you shall receive... 


Here's a listing of every single tournament on the North American tournament circuit... (minus only the 'ard boyz results as they weren't completely listed). Original posting on U.S. GW website can be found here http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=14700053

Breakdown:

Space Marines... (unfortunately GW didn't make a distinction as to whether they were BA, SW, DA, BT, or Vanilla so... they all get wrapped into one. grrrr :threaten: ): 
---9 first place, 17 second place, & 14 third place finishes for a total of *40* 

I.G.:
---12 first place, 6 second place, & 4 third place finishes for a total of *22*

CSM:
---6 first place, 3 second place, & 3 third place finishes for a total of *12*

Eldar:
---4 first place, 5 second place, 1 third place finishes for a total of *10*

Tyranids:
---2 first place, 2 second place, & 5 third place finishes for a total of *9*

DE:
---2 second place & 1 third pace for a total of *3*

Tau:
---1 second & 1 third for a total of *2*

Daemonhunters:
---1 third place

Witch Hunters:
---1 third place


and last but not least...

Orks:
7 first place, 2 second place, & 4 third place finishes for a total of *13*


Orks took first place in: 
1.) Adepticon (Team) 
2.) Astronomi-Con Toronto
3.) Bolter Beach
4.) Game Summit
5.) Astronomi-Con Dallas
6.) SoCal Smackdown
7.) Da Grand Waaagh

Orks took second place in:
1.) ConQuest Ragnorak
2.) The Warmaster's Challenge 

Orks took third place in:
1.) The Alamo
2.) ConQuest LA Invasion
3.) SoCal Smackdown
4.) Da Boyz GT



According to total top 3 placements...

1st place SM with 40 _*(not completely accurate as it's SM's of every persuasion lumped together, but...I can't control how GW lists them :fool: )_
2nd place I.G. with 22
3rd place Orks with 13
4th place CSM with 12
5th place Eldar with 10
6th place Nids with 9
7th place DE with 3
8th place Tau with 2
9th place DH & WH with 1 each


According to # of 1st places...
1st place I.G. with 12
2nd place SM with 9 _(again... that's all persuasions grouped together...)_
3rd place Orks with 7
4th place CSM with 6
5th place Eldar with 4
6th place Nids with 2 




Ok Katie, I shall accept your "revised" opinion now. :grin: Looking at the 1st places (especially considering all SM's have been lumped in together) it's highly probable that Orks really came in 2nd only to I.G. here...

This is only North America so maybe someone from Europe, etc. can provide us with all the major tournament results from there, so we can put this baby to rest. :laugh:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> Here's a listing of every single tournament on the North American tournament circuit...


Oh god, here we go. -_-;;

Please, _please_ understand that we're talking about actually competitive tournaments, not Happy Fun Hour "tournaments".



> Orks took first place in:
> 1.) Adepticon (Team)


A lot of people don't pay much attention to Adepticon.



> 2.) Astronomi-Con Toronto


I live in Toronto so I can say with complete certainty that this tournament doesn't even deserve to be called one. It's so insanely soft-score heavy that you can't trust anything that comes from it. Yes Christian, I just called out your shitty "tournament".



> 3.) Bolter Beach
> 4.) Game Summit


Can't comment here.



> 5.) Astronomi-Con Dallas


This is the exact same thing as Astro Toronto, which is a big bucket of fucking fail.



> 6.) SoCal Smackdown
> 7.) Da Grand Waaagh


Can't comment here either.



> Orks took second place in:
> 1.) ConQuest Ragnorak


I _think_ I know this one, but I could be wrong. If I remember right, it's a decent tourney.



> 2.) The Warmaster's Challenge


This happens near me and it's a complete shit show, second in crappiness only to Astro. Yes Nate, I just dissed your event. Come at me, bro.



> Orks took third place in:
> 1.) The Alamo
> 2.) ConQuest LA Invasion
> 3.) SoCal Smackdown
> 4.) Da Boyz GT


The first three I don't know anything about, though I recall the fourth being mentioned quite recently. Someone else will know more about it.



> Ok Katie, I shall accept your "revised" opinion now. :grin: Looking at the 1st places (especially considering all SM's have been lumped in together) it's highly probable that Orks really came in 2nd only to I.G. here...


Sorry bud, but that's not quite enough. I simply don't trust the results of many of these tournaments for a variety of reasons, mostly because of soft-scores (things that have no bearing on an army's effectiveness like painting, composition, fluff and so on). I'll let others talk more in detail about the events I simply don't know anything about.

So yeah, bring on the comments about how I'm supposedly rejecting stuff that I don't want to accept or whatever. I'm ready. k:


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

As far as i can see the Nova Open is the only swiss ranked tourney with no soft scores which plays sufficient rounds. I think it's a reasonable basis for an opinion. It can't be a statistical outlier when it's the only one.

1.) Adepticon (Team) 

This was a teams tourney and more fun than anything else, also has soft scores.

2.) Astronomi-Con Toronto

Has soft scores and uses Battle points which are flawed. 

3.) Bolter Beach

This is a Swiss tourney so potential of good data here. Be good to know the break down of results here as No Battle Points, no Soft Scores. But seems a low number of players. 

4.) Game Summit

No information

5.) Astronomi-Con Dallas

Has soft scores and uses Battle points which are flawed again, worthless.

6.) SoCal Smackdown

No information

7.) Da Grand Waaagh

Soft Scores and Battle Points again.


Out of those only Bolter Beach has results which could be valid in anyway. People need to look not for tourney results, and not specifically for the faction they support. But tourney results of good quality and any and all results.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> As far as i can see the Nova Open is the only swiss ranked tourney with no soft scores which plays sufficient rounds. I think it's a reasonable basis for an opinion. It can't be a statistical outlier when it's the only one.


Yeah, I actually agree with you here. Until more events pick up the Nova format it's going to be hard to back opinions with hard proof, so I guess for now people will have to agree to disagree on the whole Ork issue.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Sorry bud, but that's not quite enough. I simply don't trust the results of many of these tournaments for a variety of reasons,


:laugh: You guys are funny.

We want evidence...

--ok, here you go... 

We won't accept your evidence...

--Ok, well... what evidence will you accept?

Only evidence that I permit and that supports my point of view...

--oh...



I think you guys are being a bit silly on this thread. I just listed off *every single* tournament in North America that's listed on the North American tournament circuit, and I am deeply, profoundly curious...

If you don't accept those tournaments... which ones *do* you accept??? :laugh:

I'm gonna take a wild stab here... only the ones you deem *"competitive"* and at which orks _*did not*_ place? :laugh:


Not trying to be a troll, just really trying to figure out (1) what you consider proper evidence, and (2) where we can find it so that we can move this thread from personal opinion (which will just spin in circles), to fact...


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Most of the Tourney's you listed use Soft Scores and Battle points. They are not valid results for the basis of any comparison of results. Here are the simple rules

1) Must be Swiss (with sufficient rounds based on player numbers)

That's it basically. No Comp Scores, no Battle Points nothing. Just who is left standing with a 5-0 or whatever. It's pretty simple really. So go and find those results and then you can analyse the data. 

I believe Orks can be played competitively as evidenced by results, but not your results. 

Though it does bring up an interesting point. Most tournies are played for Battle Points with Soft Scores, are Orks competitive in that environment? That's a different question really. Taking all that into part of the game and then you can see they are competitive if competitive means winning tournaments. I mean that's really the only measure we have so you have to look at things like, which is the best army to get massacres with for your Battle Points, which is the easiest to paint well for your soft scores, which army makes the most fluffy lists which can still win games for your other scores.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> :laugh: You guys are funny.
> 
> We want evidence...
> 
> ...


I can see why you'd think this, but I want to assure you that this _is not_ what's happening. I don't think I can do more than that at this stage.



> I think you guys are being a bit silly on this thread. I just listed off *every single* tournament in North America that's listed on the North American tournament circuit, and I am deeply, profoundly curious...
> 
> If you don't accept those tournaments... which ones *do* you accept??? :laugh:


Ones like the Nova Open that don't do soft score bullshit. Sadly they're very few and far between. In fact, the vast majority of tournaments aren't terribly competitive at all.



> Not trying to be a troll, just really trying to figure out (1) what you consider proper evidence, and (2) where we can find it so that we can move this thread from personal opinion (which will just spin in circles), to fact...


Since there's only been one Nova so far (and I don't have the names of other relevant events on hand), I don't think there _can_ be "proper" evidence. At this point, I'm quite willing to admit that this argument comes down to opinion because there aren't enough facts to support either side. Aramoro and I sort of determined this earlier.



Aramoro said:


> Though it does bring up an interesting point. Most tournies are played for Battle Points with Soft Scores, are Orks competitive in that environment?


Who cares? It's a retarded system that has no business calling itself a tournament.



> Taking all that into part of the game and then you can see they are competitive if competitive means winning tournaments.


I guess they're competitive in non-competitive environments? That's... cool, I suppose? It's also not really relevant.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

> Ones like the Nova Open that don't do soft score bullshit. Sadly they're very few and far between. In fact, the vast majority of tournaments aren't terribly competitive at all.


I would say that is clearly false, they are all competitions. They all have rules in which you can win or lose. So by definition they are all competitive. To what extent how you move your man-barbies around on the table has an effect on your winning and losing is a different matter entirely.

Though for the purpose of this discussion we're talking about the Man-barbie moving part, but I think the discussion of it as a whole is more interesting.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> I would say that is clearly false, they are all competitions. They all have rules in which you can win or lose. So by definition they are all competitive. To what extent how you move your man-barbies around on the table has an effect on your winning and losing is a different matter entirely.


They're competitions, but they're not the kind of competitions that we're interested in for the sake of this discussion. Plus, the whole Sportsmanship Score thing... ugh, I haven't slept, I really don't want to get into it. Just... go read Stelek's thoughts on it at www.yesthetruthhurts.com. Warning: Here be Dragons. And nerd rage.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeah they're not the Thunderdome of your unrivalled man-barbie skill but they're still competitions. Albeit of a different type, so your army has to have a different flavour to it to win that than win Nova etc. I think it's interesting to consider what are competitive armies to win those types of tournies. 

I've read Steleks stuff before but unfortunately my eyes reject his page formatting, but I know the pitfalls of the soft score system already.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> So you would discount the only solid evidence of orks ever doing well in the current meta game?


the competetive players round here would discount all evidence if they weren't directly involved or actually there playing, or only if its from tournies where you have to take your life should you lose, or at the very least where everyone is a cock of the highest caliber, if anyone so much as smiles at the ones they go to they become this new concept of "soft" tournies (dunno where this bullshits come from, probably sprouted from nowhere since these tournies make there evidence invalid, and they don't like that).


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> So go and find those results and then you can analyse the data.


Actually I think it's time for you guys to find the data. I've already done a good amount of searching. Aside from one main tourney you guys have referenced, it's been (as far as I can tell) purely opinion. While I find your thoughts to be well thought out and presented, they largely lack facts beyond your own experience to back them. 

I think it's time you did some research and brought a significant sampling of facts to the table to support your conclusions. I think this to be both reasonable, and necessary if you want people to take you seriously. 

I've avoided relying on personal experience and sought to produce facts. Since those were rejected out of hand (although I'm pretty sure that none of you were at most of these tournaments to witness first hand the quality or lack thereof, of the players there), I shall endeavorer to lay out some experience of my own...


Over my time through 4 of 5 editions of 40K I've seen and played a lot of games. I've been to both tournaments with soft scores as well as those without, and what you guys fail to realize is that I have never witnessed anyone who has placed 1st in a tournament by loosing games. 

People who win tournaments do so by winning games. It is only from this top echelon that winners come, soft scores or not. Your arguments to dismiss the weight of these tournaments due to soft scores is not based in reality. 

I challenge anyone to show me a tournament where the winner was someone who lost all their games but scored phenomenally in the soft score aspects of the tournament to take home 1st place. It doesn't happen.

The winners are winners because... they win.


In addition, since we seem to be staying in the realm of personal experience and opinion more than solid data, I've (as already stated) been to many tournaments of both types. Do you know who the winners of both types consistently were? The same people. 

They won/win because they're excellent generals, put together powerful competitive builds, and have learned the added skills of painting, basing, etc. They won the tournaments with no soft scores, and they won the tournaments with them. Why? Cause they're winners.





Aramoro said:


> Most of the Tourney's you listed use Soft Scores and Battle points. They are not valid results for the basis of any comparison of results.


Please explain to me how, if all things are equal, what it matters the system you use? Battle points not valid? Ok... why? When playing a sport each team has the same set of rules to play by. Therefore the rules are equal for both parties. Therefore it comes down to the builds people chose to bring to the tournament and the quality of general who uses them.

I can appreciate your opinions, but you need to back them with examples, and logic. It is not enough to say battle points are not valid, and then fail to explain why?

Players know the conditions of a given tournament before they enter (this includes battle points or any other system that might be used). It is up to the general to put together his army accordingly. 

The rules don't matter as long as the situation is equal. It then comes down to player skill, army selection, game execution, etc. It truly is survival of the fittest. Those that win consistently are more fit to do so (i.e. are the better players). Players who fail to adapt and can only cope with one type of tournament style are weak and will not consistently rise to the top.

People who win, deserve to do so, no excuses.

This last week our country enjoyed our American rules football college championship. The Auburn Tigers defeated the Oregon Ducks 22 to 19. Even though I was rooting for Oregon (the school's a little over 2 hours from where I live) I feel the Tigers won no excuses. Oregon simply didn't get the job done. 

Many times in American rules college football different games will have different overtime rules. No one ever complains about this. The situation is equal for both teams and it simply comes down to the teams doing what's needed to win.

It's the same thing in 40K.

Winners are winners. 

They find a way to win and rise to the top no matter what system is used. To take that away from practically every tournament winner by dismissing the validity of their victories is (to be honest with you IMO) both arrogant and unfounded since you've never faced these generals or tested their skill.

It is also an insult to the North American tournament circuit to flippantly dismiss it as not competitive and therefore not worth considering as evidence. Are you really saying there are no competitive players in any of those 37 some odd tournaments? Again, I find this arrogant and largely unfounded. How many of these tournaments did you actually play in and witness first hand? How is it then you can so systematically and entirely dismiss them?





Katie Drake said:


> Since there's only been one Nova so far (and I don't have the names of other relevant events on hand), I don't think there _can_ be "proper" evidence. At this point, I'm quite willing to admit that this argument comes down to opinion because there aren't enough facts to support either side. Aramoro and I sort of determined this earlier.


I respectfully disagree. I have submitted proper evidence (as explained above), but you chose to dismiss it. The one Nova Aramoro submitted as evidence (fitting the criteria you set for "proper" evidence) actually goes to support that orks are competitive


Aramoro said:


> ...Ork in general ...at Nova did well, better than Vanilla Marine, better than Eldar As good as Imperial Guard.


, so from where I'm sitting, there's only one side of this argument that hasn't submitted proper evidence much less any evidence to support its claims.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I've suddenly decided that I was wrong, Orks are not competitive at all. In case you hadn't noticed, I went and got the Nova results to back your dam case now don't say I have a duty of responsibility to find results which are better than the junk you provided. 

All the tourney results you posted the Orks had far fewer Battle Points than other armies but won due to soft scores. I dismiss them all because I looked at the system used to play each tourney and found it wanting. 



> Please explain to me how, if all things are equal, what it matters the system you use? Battle points not valid? Ok... why? When playing a sport each team has the same set of rules to play by. Therefore the rules are equal for both parties. Therefore it comes down to the builds people chose to bring to the tournament and the quality of general who uses them.


Battle Points are not valid because they're totally random in nature. The tournies are not Swiss so you play almost randomly. So first round the 2 best players draw each other and after an excellent hard fought game one of them squeezes a win, he get fuck all Battle Points and scrubs out. I however roll up and draw a Footdar play and I roflstomp him, maximum Battle Points for me. My win is now better than his win, even though we both won. I can roflstomp my way though the matches, never having to play someone good racking up maximum battle points. 

do you understand?

As I have apparently said all along Orks are awful and cannot win games.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I could have won the adepticon championship one year. My first round was against a new guy running ultramarines who had never fought eldar before, my second was a kid running necron phalanx who had only won his first game cause his opponent was a 12 year old. My third round opponent would have lost but there were some pretty shitty terrain rulings that went his favor. If I had massacred him 2/3rds of my battle points would have come from seal clubbing, so no, adepticon is not that competitive. 



stella cadente said:


> the competetive players round here would discount all evidence if they weren't directly involved or actually there playing, or only if its from tournies where you have to take your life should you lose, or at the very least where everyone is a cock of the highest caliber, if anyone so much as smiles at the ones they go to they become this new concept of "soft" tournies (dunno where this bullshits come from, probably sprouted from nowhere since these tournies make there evidence invalid, and they don't like that).


I am not quite sure I understand what the hell you are trying to say here.



> What argument? You posted some diagrams showing a game where the Ork player was so unbelievably stupid that not only would they deserve to lose if it was an actual game, but afterwards they should be put down and their brain donated to medical science for research into criminal stupidity.
> 
> Beyond that you've mentioned this dashofpepper person a fair bit, who using a build I've stated that I don't consider to be competitive, seems to have done very well (and congratulations to him for that) at this Nova Open. If someone using a build I don't think of as competitive can do as well as he can then it would seem to indicate that Orks are competitive.


Please tell me how else green tide would play. I havent seen it deploy very different from that, and thats playing some very good tournament players. And no, one outlier doesnt make orks competitive. They do well at events cause the vast majority of players are not competitive are arent running optimised lists. When they run into a competitive player with a good army they fall flat on their face. Orks have one tactic, run forward and overlord your opponent with boys. Once your opponent learns how to work around this there isnt much the ork player can do. They are playing the most basic army in the game tactics wise, and that leaves little room for thinking or improvisation. Compared to the better armies like mech marines that can do multiple things, orks just fall flat when someone can outthink the ork player. But I have stated all this before, please read everything posted before responding.



> They're competitions, but they're not the kind of competitions that we're interested in for the sake of this discussion.


Canadian events, at least the bigger ones, are laughably horrible as far as competition is concerned. I have considered going to canada for a tournament, until I see the rules packet. 1500 and full of soft scores doesnt make for a fun day.


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

For my 2 cents I think Orks can be run successfully in a competitive environment, but it is more difficult. There are fewer viable Ork army builds than SW or BA builds, and Orks have a few hard counters that they just fail against, like land raiders. The good news is that with all the melta around land raiders aren't terribly popular in meta.

I have had great success with my Orks when I take them to tournaments and play online or in person, but there are also no big GW-sponsored tournaments in my area.

I'd gladly challenge a BA jumper army Haterade. Not necessarily to prove anything, but rather because it'd be fun. Jumper assault marines seem to be an afterthought in most BA lists I see nowadays rather than a main feature. Show me a balanced all-comers list and I'll tell you whether I could deal with it or not.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

2000

Dante

2 saguinary priests
jump pack/combi melta

sanguinary guard
3 infernus pistols/power fist

2 sanguinary guard squads
2 infernus pistols/power fist in each

2 assault marine squads
2 melta guns, hand flamer, thunderhammer in each

3 predators
lascannons/autocannon

I think my nids or space wolves have a much better chance at beating orks, but this army would be interesting. Really cerebral game from a maneuvering perspective.


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

Here's what I'm usually fielding nowadays at 2k:

2x KFF Mek
2x 15x Lootas
2x 30x Slugga Boyz with PK Nob
30x Shoota Boyz with PK Nob and 3x big shootas
15x Gretchin and Runtherd
2x Deff Dreads with skorcha, extra CCW, extra armour, and grot riggers
2x 3x Kans with Rokkits
3x Kans with Grotzookas

It'd be an interesting game for sure but I'd be fairly confident. A lot of how it would go depends on the ability of the lootas to keep the predators suppressed, but each mob averages a couple glances against them each time they fire, which should be enough to keep them from taking down many walkers. This means that when the armies meet, the jumpers have to shoot/assault the walkers out front, leaving them open to counterassault from the boyz behind regardless of whether they kill the walkers or not. I think the deciding factor would be how many walkers are left alive after the jumpers charge. With 0 left it would be up to the 90 boyz to handle the 35 marines, which might be a tall order even with the charge due to FNP from the priests. If the priests can be killed, then volume of attacks should carry the boyz through.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Good lord this argument has gotten immature and whiny, on both sides of the fence. Listen, the truth is simple:

Orks aren't the best army, but they're a good one. They have a lot of advantages, but a few disadvantages: lack of long range shooting that can deal with AR 13-14, randomness, and fragile (but plentiful) units

The very best and competitive armies are one that have inherent unfair advantages that allow some players to win games they would have otherwise lost. That said, spending a bundle of cash on a new army in order to gain a slight advantage is pathetic. You're better off just using an army you enjoy, and working at becoming a more skilled player.

I'd use the Orks no matter how uncompetitive they became. ^_^


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> I've suddenly decided that I was wrong, Orks are not competitive at all. In case you hadn't noticed, I went and got the Nova results to back your dam case now don't say I have a duty of responsibility to find results which are better than the junk you provided.
> 
> All the tourney results you posted the Orks had far fewer Battle Points than other armies but won due to soft scores. I dismiss them all because I looked at the system used to play each tourney and found it wanting.


cool ...could you please present this evidence? A link with the breakdown of scores (battle points, soft scores, etc.) from each of the 37 some odd tournaments you're referring to? I, for one, would appreciate more than just your opinions. No offense... but I think you understand that most people need to see proof of such things as the word of someone we've never met over the internet is hardly conclusive.






Aramoro said:


> Battle Points are not valid because they're totally random in nature. The tournies are not Swiss so you play almost randomly. So first round the 2 best players draw each other and after an excellent hard fought game one of them squeezes a win, he get fuck all Battle Points and scrubs out. I however roll up and draw a Footdar play and I roflstomp him, maximum Battle Points for me. My win is now better than his win, even though we both won. I can roflstomp my way though the matches, never having to play someone good racking up maximum battle points.
> 
> do you understand?


Yes. I've played in many of those styles of tournaments. Almost every one I've played in though only does this for the first pairing. After that you start getting matched up with others with a similar score to you, and so on. So for example... you play a random person to start, as do I. Say we both beat our opponents by similar margins. We then move on to play people with the same/similar amount of points as we have. Lets say we win again, repeat, etc. until you and I would face each other at the top.


The real issue is, people have to win to gain the points necessary to achieve the number of points needed to achieve victory. Winning, and doing it consistently is a sign of competitive army. You can not be faulted if you play a weak player along the way. You should smash them. As you should also be able to beat the tough competitor.

You guys are dismissing one ginormous fact in all this...

All these pairings are random.


To fit your argument you have been distorting this. You assume that this always results in people playing weak players to get to the top. If it is random (for all 37 some tournaments... truth is you don't really know... or at least have yet to produce evidence to that end...) then odds are each player will play a mix of competitive and non-competitive players.

As we know all to well in a game of random dice rolls the more you roll, the more likely the odds will play out.

Does it not stand to reason then, that by including every single tournament in the North American tournament circuit that (by nature) we have both uncompetitive and non-competitive players present? And that furthermore, since the pairings (if they were like that for all 37 odd tournaments) would randomly mean players could also face super competitive, well commanded, powerful builds along the way.

Odds are yes. 

Odds are, when you take all 37 some tournaments together, that people played both competitive and uncompetitive players to get to the top. Quit assuming that that in every single case the winners played only weak players/armies to get there. If that were the case wouldn't we see more Tau, etc. near the top. There's a reason they're at the bottom don't you think? Sure... maybe on a few occasions the ball bounced correctly for a Tau player. That happens. But the odds are (and they show), that Tau is not a competitive army.

While being competitive doesn't mean that army will always be the tournament champions, it does mean that army and the people who play them should be consistently be at the top. Tau isn't. SM's are. Make sense? 

The odds balance out. I've presented the entirety of the North American tournament results (still waiting for someone to present Europe, etc. or any hard facts for that matter), and what you see is that consistently orks place in the top three, possibly depending on the breakdown of SM lists the top two in first place victories.

Quit making it seem like the random pairings + battle points (again, if indeed they were all that way) would only produce match ups, every time, in which players would never face a competitive opponent. Can this happen? Sure... how do you think the Tau ever got in the top three. Will this happen 100% of the time. Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. Odds will balance this out and when we look at the whole picture we'll get a good idea of who consistently rises to the top. 

Case in point... 

-do you believe SM's to be a competitive list? Yes. Were they at the top in the hard evidence I produced? Yes.

-do you believe I.G. to be a competitive list? Yes. Were they at the top in the hard evidence I produced? Yes.


Why is that? Cause the odds bear out what we all know to be true.



-did orks appear at the top in the evidence I produced? Yes. do you believe the orks to be a competitive list? No.

Why is that? Cause the evidence doesn't fit your presuppositions that the ork army is not competitive. 


Furthermore... in the one piece of evidence you did produce. How orks faired at Nova, also backs up the claim that they are competitive.


Please produce facts.

No more opinions.

Thank you for searching as you say you have... please present links to official sites and a breakdown of the hard data to support your claims. 



I thank you in advance for your time and effort in helping us to see the evidence you're looking at.


----------



## Sephyr (Jan 18, 2010)

Orks always seemed very solid to me; their ability to nuke anything below AV 14 into scrap with barrages of loota fire makes up for their lack of meltas and AV14-popping artillery, and a few Battlewagons with a KFF makes for a nasty core for an army.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

mynameisgrax said:


> Listen, the truth is simple:
> 
> Orks aren't the best army, but they're a good one.


I agree. And this is exactly what the tournament data reveals. Who's at the very top? I.G. and Space Marines. Who are very solid competitive armies? Orks. CSM's. Eldar. Who doesn't stand a fat man's chance in an alligator pond of winning a tourney? Tau. Necrons. Etc. 




mynameisgrax said:


> Good lord this argument has gotten immature and whiny


I'm sorry you feel I've behaved this way. It is only always my desire to behave in a professional, logical, adult manner. 

It was my goal to present the evidence that was being asked for and to call people to a higher standard of using good evidence to support their claims, thoughts, reasoning, and opinions. If I have acted in a manner that is whiny or immature, you have my apologies.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Uber Ork, if you do not and cannot understand why Swiss is better than Random Battle Points then I'm afraid no amount of analysing faulty data will help you. The simple fact is in a Battle Points tourny it is not about winning all your games it's about how many seals you club along the way. That is a fundementally flawed system. Especially where Swiss with strength of schedule exsists. One reason I keep stressing that they have to have enough rounds is to allow players to settle into thier correct bracket. That is bad enough in Swiss which is just W-L-D but even worse in Battle Points where player with winning records will be eliminated in favour of people who mearly clubbed a seal or two but didn't actually win as many games. 

Perhaps thats my fault from coming from a competive game background where W-L-D are the only results that matter. Swiss is not a perfect system but it makes clear winners without argument, or at the least a top cut.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

mynameisgrax said:


> Good lord this argument has gotten immature and whiny, on both sides of the fence.


If it bothers you so much, perhaps you should just leave the topic alone? Personally I don't see _anyone_ whining or being immature. We're having a serious, mature, adult discussion/debate. Nobody's getting upset.



Uber Ork said:


> People who win tournaments do so by winning games. It is only from this top echelon that winners come, soft scores or not. Your arguments to dismiss the weight of these tournaments due to soft scores is not based in reality.


It is, though. Think about it. In a discussion that focuses entirely on a matter of "Can this Codex compete at the highest level of play?" including anything aside from which book wins games is superfluous.



> I challenge anyone to show me a tournament where the winner was someone who lost all their games but scored phenomenally in the soft score aspects of the tournament to take home 1st place. It doesn't happen.


Look at this.

Specifically, this:

* 78 points - Game Play
* 60 points - Sportsmanship
* 30 points - Appearance
* 20 points - Composition
* 10 points - Army List
* 2 points - Bonus for submitting your Army List prior to the event.

Out of a total of *200* points, only 78 of them have anything to do with who actually wins their games. Seventy-fucking-eight. That's only 39% (I think. If I'm doing the math wrong, please understand that I failed math every year throughout school until I was 15).

Then we have a bunch of other crap that, while arguably relevant when determining who wins the _event_, has abso-fucking-loutely nothing to do with what armies are winning their games.

We have a "Who can kiss the ass of their opponent most?" score, a "Who paints a really cool looking army?" score, a "Who best builds an army according to our view of how armies should be built?" score, a "Who writes a neat, easy to read army list?" score and finally the "Who's decent enough to give the tournament organizers less to do on the day of the event?" score. That's a lot of irrelevant crap.

This means that, despite how nice it sounds, this:



> The winners are winners because... they win.


simply isn't true. It's easy to do only decently in your games and by kissing enough ass, painting well and so on to score incredibly well, whereas someone that wins all their games but isn't into kissing ass, painting to an insanely high standard and building their army to a strict set of rules that aren't present in any rulebook can easily get screwed over.

Seriously. Look at the composition "guidelines" and tell me that this event would determine which armies are best.



> It is also an insult to the North American tournament circuit to flippantly dismiss it as not competitive and therefore not worth considering as evidence.


You're damn right it's insulting. If tournament organizers got their shit together then we'd have less reason to dismiss their events out of hand.



> Are you really saying there are no competitive players in any of those 37 some odd tournaments? Again, I find this arrogant and largely unfounded. How many of these tournaments did you actually play in and witness first hand? How is it then you can so systematically and entirely dismiss them?


There are _definitely_ lots of competitive players in those tournaments, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, determining who wins the tournament so often has comparatively little to do with who wins games, so when deciding which armies function best it seems silly to rely on these sorts of events.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I agree with Uber Ork that without more evidence to the contrary, we have to agree that on the face of it, Orks are _at least playable_ in a tournament setting. You may not consistently beat that Razor-Spam Wolf list, or that Jump Angel list, or possibly Leafblower, but you are capable of competing in a way that Necrons, Tau, Inquisition can not. That makes Orks "competitive" in the sense that they are capable of entering tournaments without automatically being denied a top 3 finish.

The bigger problem is this:



Katie Drake said:


> You're damn right it's insulting. If tournament organizers got their shit together then we'd have less reason to dismiss their events out of hand.


It pisses me right off too. We have a painting competition, it's called "Golden Demon". I'm never going to enter that, because my painting sucks (compared to anyone who isn't 10) and I know it. What I *am* good at is playing the game. _I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a tournament where that is the only thing that matters._ Do you see Darts players being rated on their personality? Do you see Golf Players being rated on how shiny their clubs are? Do you see football teams being rated on how "flavourful" their player composition is? Do you fuck.

Warhammer is the only type of tournament I know of where something other than winning games can determine if you win or lose the tournament, and I think that's fundamentally bullshit. Take a leaf out of the MTG Pro Tour and organise some valid events. And some WD coverage of the same wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Uber Ork, if you do not and cannot understand why Swiss is better than Random Battle Points then I'm afraid no amount of analysing faulty data will help you.


I think you misunderstand me. I'm not dismissing saying the style of tournament isn't valuable for determining competitive armies at all. Far from it.

I am simply asking for evidence from those tournaments.

People say that orks aren't very competitive. Ok, I can appreciate those opinions, and seeming to say (at least I think seeming to say) that if they went up against the kind of competition found at a Swiss style tournament wouldn't stand up to the competition. 

Ok, I can appreciate that as well. All I'm asking for is hard data and fact to back that up. I absolutely don't mean to come across winny, or as a troll, not at all. I'm only wishing to have a profitable, intelectual, mature conversation about the orks being competitive or not.

To have a profitable, intalectual, mature conversation (IMO anyway) requires that opinion be backed up by fact.

So... 

I am not at all saying Swiss tournament style is not better, or that orks might not be competitive if put to the test there, etc. ...that may very well be. *What I am asking for is:*

(1.) That I would like to see hard factual official data to back that up, which to this point, I have yet to see. Or rather to be correct, have only been given one example (if not final official standings & a link to them) of how orks competed well. It seems illogical to me that one might make a claim about orks being uncompetitive at Swiss tournaments and then offer the evidence of one such tournament in which orks were competitive. Does that make sense where I'm coming from? I would just like to see the data to back up the claims that orks wouldn't be competitive in a Swiss tournament setting, that's all. 

(2.) That the North American tourneys, understanding full well you don't consider them to be valid examples, bear out what everyone is saying on every single count (that marines & I.G. are at the very top, and that Eldar -- especially mechdar, are competitive, etc.) ...save one. Orks. The reason these tournaments result in such a strong showing for SM, I.G. etc. is that statistically those armies that are competitive are going to rise to the top in whatever system they play in. Again, the statistics bear out what everyone is saying save with one army. Orks. Is this a fluke? An anomaly to be dismissed as random happenstance? I say no, you say yes. I can be ok with this if presented with hard factual information including links to official sites to back up your argument. 

Think of this if it were in a court of law. The prosecution states that orks are uncompetitive if faced with a real challenge as they would face in a Swiss tournament. The defense says the opposite and both sides present their and evidence and arguments to the judge (and/or jury).

Against ork evidence submitted: One example of a Swiss tourney where the orks were competitive.

Pro ork evidence submitted: 37 some examples of competitive tournaments in North America.

Judge (and/or Jury): I'll even give this one to you (although I don't at all agree with your premise) to illustrate my point. They throw out the 37 some North American examples, and stick to the only piece of evidence submitted by the prosecution. Oddly enough, it supports the pro ork claims. 

Verdict: Based off the evidence submitted (since we can't work with hard evidence we don't have) shows that orks can be competitive in Swiss style tournaments. Therefore "we the jury find in favor of the pro ork camp, that orks can indeed be competitive in a Swiss style tourney (or any other tourney for that matter as evidenced in how they placed in North America)." 



I truly, please hear me on this, have no problem with your premise about Swiss tournaments. I do have a problem with your premise about dismissing the weight of evidence that can be gleaned from the tourneys in North America, but am willing to set that aside even so that we can move forward. 

*What I am asking is this...* 

Please offer evidence to show that orks can not be competitive in Swiss style tourneys.


If not, we can only go with the evidence we have to make a verdict, and that verdict is (based on the evidence you submitted as well as myself) that orks can indeed be competitive, and drop this thread for greener (forgive the pun) horizons. 








ChugginDatHaterade said:


> 2000
> 
> Dante
> 
> ...


I very much wish we could play a game. Someday we'll have holographic technology that will allow us to play games across the world, but until then we could imagine. 

Here's my 2,000 pt. list. All vehicles are old versions as I do not have the time nor the money to reinvest in the newer trukks, etc. 

2 Big Mek's with KFF's and PK's + attack squigs

1 seven strong mob nob, pain boy, X4 big choppas, X2 PK's, Waaagh banner, cybork bodies, bosspole, and kitted each slightly differently to make use of wound allocation ('eavy armor, sluggas, shootas, etc.) and mounted in a trukk with extra armor, reinforced ram to hide behind terrain and pop right over it to deliver the payload and the (hopefully kill), & rokkit launcha.

5 trukk boy mobs (Big Mek's drive in two of these -1 boy in each so they can fit. All have nobs with PK's heavy armor, & bosspoles, etc. All five trukks are kitted the same as the nobs trukk.

3 buggy squadrons of 3 buggies each (total of 9). For MEQ apponents I take all three as T.L. Rokkit buggies with wartrakk upgrade to re-roll difficult terrain tests. Aagin, I use terrain and pop through to get the side shot, etc.

1 looted wagon with ST8 AP3 large blast 36" range ord. weapon. and two Big shootas. Equipped with a 'ard case to make it closed topped.


Army features. 

-9 buggies, 6 trukks, & a looted wagon. All vehicles fast and open topped (except the looted wagon) and can move 12" shoot and (in the case of trukks disembark their cargo into assault). The wagon gets into a good firing position and then sits and shoots.

-KFF's measured from the hull of the trukks + clever use of terrain means almost all of my vehicles have a cover save even when wide out in the open. I work very hard (obviously) to make shots on either the nobs or Big Meks are as hard to come by as possible.

-15 ST8 AP3 rokkits (9 of them twin linked) with excellent chances of moving 12" into favorable firing positions or to try and get shots MEQ's where they don't get the advantage of cover.

-10 PK's for a total of 42 ST9 no armor saves allows attacks on the charge (8 of them at WS5 the rest at WS4) & 67 orks. 

-Effective assault range of mounted orks is 21.8 - 26.8" (12" + 2.8" for the disembark -- taking into account that only part of the base needs to be within the 2" disembark radius + 1-6" for Waaagh + 6" assault).

-2 HQ, 1 Elite, 5 Troop, 3 FA, & 1 Heavy support 

Most probable plan of attack without too much thought would be to avoid your assault troops and focus first on shooting rockets at your preds to degun or kill them. Then for most of the game play keep away from your marines and shoot them with rokkits at range. Then near the end, move it to engage (hopefully) weakened units from the rokkit fire, and look to use the application of overwhelming force. However... no plan survives contact with the enemy. :grin:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Can't respond to everything atm since I'm eating, but I just wanted to drop these links. They're good stuffs.

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/07/heuristic-analysis-of-trend-maximal.html

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/07/orks-are-bad-in-competitve-play-2.html


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Those are mearly more of the same conjecture as we've gone into here already Katie. A written by someone who has only started playing competitvely recently and played few tounries so nothing to add. 

Without more results from actual Swiss compeitions you'll not really prove anything either way. To me Nova shows them to be what they are, mid table, good in the right hands. They're no Space Wolves but then no-one is Space Wolves right now, but also they are not Necrons. 

As an aside are Stelek and Kirby having some side bet about how can make the most eye hurtingly awful website?


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Those are mearly more of the same conjecture as we've gone into here already Katie. A written by someone who has only started playing competitvely recently and played few tounries so nothing to add.


I agree. 





Aramoro said:


> To me Nova shows them to be what they are, mid table, good in the right hands.


I'm confused... several posts back you said...



Aramoro said:


> What i will say is Ork in general... at Nova did well, better than Vanilla Marine, better than Eldar As good as Imperial Guard.


So if they're as good as I.G. and better than Vanilla SM and Eldar... that would mean that only SW and BA are competitive. Is that what you're saying? I guess I'm confused...

Are you saying that SW and BA are so ahead of everyone else, that any codex aside from those two are considered "mid table" or lower? 

Something like this?

*Top tier:* SW & BA

*Mid tier:* Orks, I.G., Vanilla SM, Eldar, and possibly CSM's or Tyranids 

*Bottom tier:* Everyone else... i.e. DA, BT, GK, WH, DE, Tau, & Necrons + CD


Edit: Oops... forgot Chaos Daemons...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> *Top tier:* SW & BA
> 
> *Mid tier:* Orks, I.G., Vanilla SM, Eldar, and possibly CSM's or Tyranids
> 
> *Bottom tier:* Everyone else... i.e. DA, BT, GK, WH, DE, Tau, & Necrons + CD


I'd agree with that assessment, with IG pushing top tier depending on the points value of the games.

I would also hesitate before placing DE in bottom tier, they have yet to see a major tournament, or even develop real archetypes. I would place them middle tier pending review after some actual performance.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I played in a team event recently that worked out something like this. 20 battle points available per game. Me and my friend brought guard/nids. 

Round 1 we drew a sisters/chaos player. Won but it was like 10-3 because they slow played, got 3 turns in if the game went any longer they would have been tabled 
Round 2 was against wolves/imperial guard. We beat them a solid 14-3 or something, another 3 turn game.
Round 3 was against an eldar army with 2 seer councils, 1 with eldrad in a serpent and one with a seer on bikes. Then nids with 6 hive guard, 2 primes, 2 tervigons, 2 tyrannofexs. Mission was kill points, and we brought an msu type list. Beat them 10-5 including killing off both councils. 

How did the event work out overall? We got 3rd place out of 10 teams. 
1st place went to the team we beat round 3, cause they got full points their other 2 games.
2nd place went to the team we beat round 1, because they also got full points other games.
3rd place went to us.
4th place went to the team we beat round 2.

So look at that, we beat teams 1, 2, and 4 to place 3rd, that alone doesnt sound right. But whats worse is that team one beat the teams that ended up with 7th and 10th place. And this is how the vast majority of events work out. Even though there werent any soft scores it still boiled down to seal clubbing. So it is a "competitive" event by standard definition because there are no soft scores, but those who were clearly the best team didnt get 1st because they drew the best teams at the event. 

Its reasons like this and my adepticon example that lets you throw out data from crappy events.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Please tell me how else green tide would play. I havent seen it deploy very different from that, and thats playing some very good tournament players. And no, one outlier doesnt make orks competitive. They do well at events cause the vast majority of players are not competitive are arent running optimised lists. When they run into a competitive player with a good army they fall flat on their face. Orks have one tactic, run forward and overlord your opponent with boys. Once your opponent learns how to work around this there isnt much the ork player can do. They are playing the most basic army in the game tactics wise, and that leaves little room for thinking or improvisation. Compared to the better armies like mech marines that can do multiple things, orks just fall flat when someone can outthink the ork player. But I have stated all this before, please read everything posted before responding.


Actually Orks have two tactics that I can think of, the second one is much sneakier than the first and involves removing casualties from the front of the mob to prevent it being charged.

Anyway onto the main point, which is that a lot of people arguing that Orks aren't competitive are talking about using data from only a hardcore of tournaments, of which only this Nova Open is actually mentioned (seriously there must be other hardcore tournaments you can name).

Personally I agree that soft scoring events should be discounted, as besides the outcome of the games themselves, only sportsmanship should count and then to discourage cheating if nothing else.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

> Here's my 2,000 pt. list. All vehicles are old versions as I do not have the time nor the money to reinvest in the newer trukks, etc.


You sure thats 2k? It looks a little small and vulnerable. KFF or not an autolas pred will jack up any ork vehicle it opens fire on. And buggies are meh, as are trukk boys. 



> Actually Orks have two tactics that I can think of, the second one is much sneakier than the first and involves removing casualties from the front of the mob to prevent it being charged.


Yeah, but bolt pistol fire isnt going to kill enough boys to make a difference. A squad of marines shooting will kill 3 orks or so, thats not enough to prevent a charge. If I notice that my squad is only in charge range of 1-2 models I wont bother shooting anyways. Also, whats the first tactic? 

I think the tiers work out like this

Top tier: wolves, ig, angels, space marines, tau

Mid tier: orks, chaos, templar, dark angels, eldar, witch hunters

bottom tier: necrons, demon hunters.

I can clarify any of these if anyone wants.

Also, for clarification. I dont think me or KatieDrake are saying that orks are a bad army, in the sense of they struggle to win. A solid ork army with a great player can beat most armies. But quite a few armies can give them a fight, especially when you have someone who knows what to expect.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Here are a pair of example of what I would consider top tier competitive armies.

loganwing space wolves

Logan-275

Rune priest-115
Jaws, lightning, chooser of the slain, melta bombs.

5 wolf scouts-110
1 melta gun, melta bombs

10 wolf guard-300
2 combi meltas 2 with terminator armor, cyclone launchers, power fists,

5 wolf guard-150 x3
1 combi melta, 1 with terminator armor, cyclone launchers, power fist, 

Wolf cav-110 x3
Thunderhammer, storm shield

6 long fangs-140 x2
5 missile launchers

6 long fangs-140
5 multi meltas

mech blood angels

Mephiston-250

2 sanguinary priests-145
2 with power weapons, 1 with infernus pistol

5 assault marines-140 x4
Infernus pistol/power weapon sergeant, 1 melta gun

Razorback-55 x4
Twin linked plasma guns, lascannons

Baal predator-145 x3
Twin linked assault cannon, two heavy bolters

5 Dev marines-130 x3
4 missile launchers

I think, assuming player skill even, the best orks could hope for against these armies would be a draw.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Here are a pair of example of what I would consider top tier competitive armies.
> 
> loganwing space wolves
> 
> ...


Hmm, the Rune Priest seems like a soft target reading the list, though I'm guessing you'd stick him in with a squad. If the Ork player has enough Lootas and goes first then you might lose some of those Long Fangs. Beyond that it's a slow moving list and your Terminators are vulnerable to Burnas or simply massed Ork charges (assuming of course that the missile Long Fangs and Rune Priest hadn't managed to take out to many as the armies closed on each other). Also it seems a pretty slow list to me and while I like how it would look on a table, it strikes me as vulnerable to anyone with massed plasma, Tau for example.

As for the Blood Angels, again it would be a nice looking army, but seems vulnerable. If an Ork player with say twenty Lootas in two squads of ten goes first, one Loota squad will target the devastators (unless you've rolled a one for their rage test) and if he rolls a five or six for shots, that's thirty shots. In which case they're dead. If he rolls high with the other one, or even if he gets a three or a four, I'd say goodbye to the Razorback.

Turn two, the Baal Predator does some damage, but unless it targets the Lootas and kills enough it'd could conceivably be glanced to death, or simply lose the assault cannon. Once that happens it'll stop being a threat (again this could happen in the first turn if the Ork player decides that a Lascannon and two Plasma guns are no threat).

After that the Assault Marines would be the next to go, either through Loota fire or simply running into too many boyz. The priests and guard would take a while to kill, but if their are Burnas then you've got another headache coming.

Also, against a good Tau list with a decent mix of Hammerheads and Battlesuits I'd expect massed plasma and missile fire to really take a toll on this army.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> So if they're as good as I.G. and better than Vanilla SM and Eldar... that would mean that only SW and BA are competitive. Is that what you're saying? I guess I'm confused...


You mistake being competitive with being top tier, they are not the same thing. 




Uber Ork said:


> Are you saying that SW and BA are so ahead of everyone else, that any codex aside from those two are considered "mid table" or lower?
> 
> Something like this?
> 
> ...


CD actually posted all winning records so I might place them mid tier. I would also place Blood Angels mid tier with only Space Wolves showing a massively different win/loss ratio. The only armies I would mark with the 'uncompetitive' tag would be bottom tier armies. 

The exact position within tiers obviously is affected by the meta game.

Can Sullen One and Chugging stop dick waving now, my list is better than your list proves nothing as you're not actually going to play a game. And even if you did it's not representative of anything really. The notion of being competitive is a meta-game level consideration, not how many Long Fangs you pack.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

> Hmm, the Rune Priest seems like a soft target reading the list, though I'm guessing you'd stick him in with a squad. If the Ork player has enough Lootas and goes first then you might lose some of those Long Fangs.
> Beyond that it's a slow moving list and your Terminators are vulnerable to Burnas or simply massed Ork charges (assuming of course that the missile Long Fangs and Rune Priest hadn't managed to take out to many as the armies closed on each other).


Rune priest goes with a squad, lootas will kill an around of 8 long fangs, assuming you have 45 of the things. My terminators arent any more vulnerable than the rest of my list. They stay with the wolf guard squads and I get mobile firepower that way. Also, my army puts out 20 missiles shots a turn, why would I close with you at all? I will gladly hang back, hurl frag missiles into your army for 2-3 turns and then beat you up in combat. 



> Also it seems a pretty slow list to me and while I like how it would look on a table, it strikes me as vulnerable to anyone with massed plasma, Tau for example.


Massed plasma tau are more vulnerable to my list than I am to them. I shoot 20 krak rockets and knock out 6 suits or so a turn after cover saves. I have twice the range he does. And I am not going to just leave marines in the open. 



> As for the Blood Angels, again it would be a nice looking army, but seems vulnerable. If an Ork player with say twenty Lootas in two squads of ten goes first, one Loota squad will target the devastators (unless you've rolled a one for their rage test) and if he rolls a five or six for shots, that's thirty shots.


Rage test hasnt been in play since the 3rd edition codex:smoke:



> In which case they're dead. If he rolls high with the other one, or even if he gets a three or a four, I'd say goodbye to the Razorback.


 So your lootas go first and alpha strike a devastator squad and razorback off the table with good rolling. I roll average and cripple your lootas with 3 baals and the other 2 dev squads. Those little devastator squad-130 x3 means I have 3 of those. 



> Turn two, the Baal Predator does some damage, but unless it targets the Lootas and kills enough it'd could conceivably be glanced to death, or simply lose the assault cannon. Once that happens it'll stop being a threat (again this could happen in the first turn if the Ork player decides that a Lascannon and two Plasma guns are no threat).


This is assuming you have any lootas left after turn 1, or enough to do damage. 



> After that the Assault Marines would be the next to go, either through Loota fire or simply running into too many boyz. The priests and guard would take a while to kill, but if their are Burnas then you've got another headache coming.


Why are your lootas still alive, you do understand that I will target them first with the baals and devs? Assault marines are in fast razors, I wont get out unless I have to or can use 2-3 squads on a single unit of boys for massive slaughter. 



> Also, against a good Tau list with a decent mix of Hammerheads and Battlesuits I'd expect massed plasma and missile fire to really take a toll on this army.


Tau could be a problem, but I also have enough S8 firepower to damage them too. It would be a tough fight, but tau arent orks. 



> Can Sullen One and Chugging stop dick waving now, my list is better than your list proves nothing as you're not actually going to play a game. And even if you did it's not representative of anything really. The notion of being competitive is a meta-game level consideration, not how many Long Fangs you pack.


Saying "no that list isnt good, this one is" is fairly representative of how the game can work out. Besides its not like I have anything better to do before classes start.


----------



## Culler (Dec 27, 2007)

You guys should really playtest all this kinda stuff out in Vassal. Then instead of theory you could have actual data to look at. I'd be down for showing off the capabilities of the way I play Orks.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Culler said:


> You guys should really playtest all this kinda stuff out in Vassal. Then instead of theory you could have actual data to look at. I'd be down for showing off the capabilities of the way I play Orks.


I actually agree, but a lot of competitive players turn their noses up at Vassal because it isn't a perfect replica of the actual tabletop game. I think it's sort of foolish, but what can you do?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I turn my nose at vassal because its an arcane and impossible to use program, also, my version is bugged.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Yeah, but bolt pistol fire isnt going to kill enough boys to make a difference.


Sorry... thought I was clear.... You're right, sluggas will do nothing. Kill one or two marines all game if I'm lucky. I was talking about moving fast, targeting the preds 1st, then working to stay as far away as possible (but no farther than 24") to shoot your assault marines, etc. with the ST8 AP3 rokkits mounted on the vehicles. Do this until near the end of the game then move in to assault and hopefully finish off weakened units with PK's. At that point I'd shoot the sluggas too of course. ...I mean ...you never know right. 

I finished off a trygon with slugga fire in a game recently. It happens... not very often, but it happens. :laugh: 




ChugginDatHaterade said:


> I think the tiers work out like this
> 
> Top tier: wolves, ig, angels, space marines, tau
> 
> ...


Really? You think Tau are top tier? I certainly would never place them there, nor have I seen anyone do well with them in a tournament (competitive or otherwise) for a long time, but maybe it's different where live and in the tournaments you play.

As to the rest of the top tier... I guess I just think it's funny that after all this conversation, the only piece of solid evidence offered about orks in a competitive style tournament is being ignored. 

I understand it is only one tourney, and I'm totally willing to accept new data if it were presented (I have in fact been asking for it, for the past 7 posts... ok, maybe it's not 7... I really didn't count). 

The only data we do posses (no links though) goes back to 1-12-11 Aramoro said about orks competing in a Swiss style tourney...


Aramoro said:


> What i will say is Ork in general... at Nova did well, better than Vanilla Marine, better than Eldar As good as Imperial Guard.


You have Vanilla SM and I.G. in the upper tier yet Orks are mid. It seems reasonable to me. That according to the sentiment being laid out on this thread thus far (i.e. only Swiss style -- or similarly competitive tourneys should count), that we have to go with what that evidence shows. 

As we're still waiting for other Swiss style tourney examples to be supplied, we unfortunately have only one to go on. Looking at Aramoro's breakdown of that Swiss style tournament... we see that Orks did "as good as I.G." and "better" than Vanilla SM, yet you have both as upper tier and orks as mid. 

Since the majority of people, including yourself, adhere to orks being competitive but not upper tier... this paints us into an interesting logical corner. 

If orks are *not* upper tier

and

If Vanilla SM's and I.G. *are* upper tier

and 

If Swiss style tournaments are the *best evidence to determine* true *competitiveness*

and

If the only evidence submitted from a Swiss style tournament _*shows *_that orks did as good as I.G. and better than Vanilla SM's...

then the following *has* to be true...


Vanilla SM's and I.G. are not upper tier (since orks performed better or as good as both of those and orks are not upper tier -- they can not be upper tier either)


That is why I was asking *Aramoro* if he felt that only SW and BA were worthy of being upper tier.


If he says yes... then that makes sense. He will be consistent with the logic he has used thus far, and would be able to track with, understand, and respect his well thought out and defended conclusion. 

If he says no... then the opposite would be the case as the argument wouldn't logically make sense.


That is not what I think, but while I'm waiting for *Aramoro* to answer my question, I'll ask you what do you think about it? Do you hold that Swiss style tournaments are the only real good source of determining upper, middle, and lower tier competitiveness? 




Also...


Aramoro said:


> You mistake being competitive with being top tier, they are not the same thing.


I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Wouldn't top tier armies be competitive? In my mind I was classing levels of competitiveness.

i.e. top tier is the most competitive, mid is... well, in the middle, and lower tier are the least competitive armies.

How are you seeing it?


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

heres something a little different a mini batrep.

Got the chance to play a friends wagon rush orks with my ba jumpers. My list was my sanguard jumpers posted earlier, he had something like

Gaz
mek with kff
2 squads of 20 boys and 1 squad of 19 all with klaw nobs
squad of 5 nobs
10 grots
2 squads of 13 lootas
4 wagons.

Spearhead, 3 objectives. Very very blood game. He moves as fast as I do, so my speed doesnt matter, and side shots were difficult. We each had an objective in our quarters and one was in the center of the table. I deployed my assault marines in combat squads and left 1 sanguard team in reserve. He just came at me full speed. I ended up fighting off his charge, but not quick enough. I held the center one, he held mine, though that might have been my fault. I went to see if one of my sanguard squads was contesting it, and knocked the model over while measuring. When I stood him back up I was 1/10th of an inch out  Definitely a very fun game. Nobody held his objective. Whenever you have 2 armies designed to do nothing but get close and punch each other in the face a lot of stuff will die. Killpoint wise it was 10-6 in my favor, I had killed gaz, the mek, 2 boys squads, 4 wagons, the nobs, and the grots. He killed 3 combat squads, a sanguard squad, and 2 predators.

Notable events, this game was very good on the dice rolling overall, but we each had some of the craziest things I have ever seen.

Dropped in a sanguard squad on his, they killed the grots (what a surprise!) which made it impossible for him to hold his. The sanguard then charged 12 lootas, killed none, and lost 3, the next guy dying in his assault phase. Pretty awful. 

That same turn I missed entirely with 3 melta shots and a predator. Dante immobilized a wagon when he charged it, which let me hammer and fist finish it off. 

Gaz and friends had a crazy charge. They got demeched from a lascannon shot to front armor. And then I did all of 2 wounds from 3 autolas preds shooting in the squad next turn. Gaz charged and exploded a predator. Next turn he charged one that immobilized itself on a tree. 6 auto pens, rolled a weapon destroyed and 5 stuns. 

Heros of the game had to be dante, and his sanguard squad with attached priest. They killed 2 wagons, and nearly 40 boys while losing 3 sanguard. Worst squad was my 5 man combat squad that jumped forward to bravely meltagun a wagon. Failed to hurt it. Were ignored, and then jumped into the middle of 3 wagons only to fail to do any damage, and they got killed by gaz and friends. Heres a random pic, said squad is to the right of the vehicles, top wagon was killed by a pred. You might wonder where the rest of my army is? Well it ran the hell back to my short table edge.










This was a crazy game, all metagaming aside, I would definitely fight orks again with my flesh tearers.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> As to the rest of the top tier... I guess I just think it's funny that after all this conversation, the only piece of solid evidence offered about orks in a competitive style tournament is being ignored.


I truly don't intend to come across as rude, so please don't take this the wrong way, but nobody's ignoring anything. I for one (and I feel like I'm speaking for everyone at this point, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have just gotten tired of repeating myself. Yes, we know that Orks did well at the one Nova that's ever happened. We've mentioned several times now that one tournament isn't a very good representation of a trend and so it's basically impossible to come to a fair conclusion at this time. So... this is going to be my last post on the topic for the time being.  Let's hope that there are a lot of Nova-esque events this year so we can come to a better conclusion later on.


----------



## buckythefly (Mar 16, 2009)

-DELETED There was a rant here.
EDIT: I wanna rephrase my opinion if that's OK

I don't like people asking me to present evidence of other peoples play. I may not be the best war hammer player in the world, nor do I have the ego pretend I am, but the only way your going to shake my faith that I will decimate you and shove a nail-shod boot up your ass is by flying to my house, and beating me. No amount of theory or endless debate will shake my opinion. If your so awesome don't you have battles to win? I'll be waiting


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> I truly don't intend to come across as rude, so please don't take this the wrong way,


Not at all. I feel we're having an intelligent conversation, and that you've only handled yourself in the most professional manner. 




Katie Drake said:


> ...but nobody's ignoring anything. I for one (and I feel like I'm speaking for everyone at this point, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) have just gotten tired of repeating myself.


I understand. In some ways I feel we may have been talking in circles and just missing each other.  




Katie Drake said:


> Yes, we know that Orks did well at the one Nova that's ever happened.


Ahhh... I think this is a big piece of the puzzle right here. I was asking for more results from other Swiss style tournaments, but did not realize that only one had ever happened. I kept wanting to see more data and couldn't understand why those siting Swiss style tourneys would not seek it out and deliver it. Thank you for your patience and helping me see a clearer picture of why it is no one was bringing forth the data asked for.  




Katie Drake said:


> We've mentioned several times now that one tournament isn't a very good representation of a trend and so it's basically impossible to come to a fair conclusion at this time.


I completely agree. This is why I kept asking for more data... :laugh: Of course, at the time I didn't quite understand _why_ no data was being presented (other than this one tournament). 




Katie Drake said:


> So... this is going to be my last post on the topic for the time being.  Let's hope that there are a lot of Nova-esque events this year so we can come to a better conclusion later on.


I totally agree... 


For my part, I hope I did not come across as a troll. I truly wanted to understand, and for the life of me just could not wrap my mind around how orks were uncompetitive in competitive environments, yet competed 
quite well at a super competitive Nova. During that whole time, I only sought to understand this.

Know that my questions were all in an effort to understand and wrap my mind around what people were saying.  

As far as you are concerned, I have nothing but respect for you. While I've not been on Heresy too long, I've been on long enough to tell you're a class act, positive, intelligent contributor to this board. Cheers! :biggrin:


----------

