Are Orks competitive?

[The Green Git]

Hahhahahahahahahahhahahahha <breathe> hahahahhahahahhahahahahah....Chumbawumba made a funny.

Quoting Frank Fugger and ****** really help you appear objective too. Using yourself as a reference...well that's just brilliant.

See here's the cute part: If anyone disagrees with you or Frank Fugger and gives you examples of how Orks win at tournaments, local games, etc. then you wave them off as facing poseurs and losers that don't know how to play or make army lists. Then you beat your chest and proclaim if they just faced a TRUE 40K master like yourself you would show them the error of their ways and the light of truth would descend on them like the Holy Spirit and lift the scales from their eyes.

Can't you even make up some new nonsense instead of dragging this old crap outta the bag?

[DoctorEvil]

Hahhahahahahahahahhahahahha <breathe> hahahahhahahahhahahahahah....Chumbawumba made a funny.

Quoting Frank Fugger and ****** really help you appear objective too. Using yourself as a reference...well that's just brilliant.

See here's the cute part: If anyone disagrees with you or Frank Fugger and gives you examples of how Orks win at tournaments, local games, etc. then you wave them off as facing poseurs and losers that don't know how to play or make army lists. Then you beat your chest and proclaim if they just faced a TRUE 40K master like yourself you would show them the error of their ways and the light of truth would descend on them like the Holy Spirit and lift the scales from their eyes.

Can't you even make up some new nonsense instead of dragging this old crap outta the bag?

I've read Chumbalaya's response to the posts, and I've got to say, I don't see him doing much chest beating. He certainly hasn't issued any proclaimations on himself being a TRUE 40K Master. In fact he's been clear that he's interested in hearing other peoples opinions on the subject, and pretty clear in politely stating his opinion.......so where exactly is this coming from?

[DoctorEvil]

The other thing to think about is what is the definition of competitive?

There is a way to define competitive in the theorical analysis (or Mathhammer has some call it). It's fairly simple to compare the various Codex and determine the needs for what a balanced army would need to contain. Let's face it, the Ork Codex comes up a little short when compared to some of the others. The lack of efficiently being able to deal with AV14 is one of the drawbacks.

So from an apples to apples comparison, you'd have a hard time convincing me (or apparently Chumbalaya) that the Ork Codex is competitive in that sense.

The other measure of competitive is actual results. How well do Ork lists actually do in tournaments. The data would seem to indicate, they do pretty darn well. But actual results add in other variables to the equation. Things like player skill. How do we measure player skill? Number of victories? Years played? Height? It's a largely subjective thing. Yes, you can usually point out the most skilled player at your LGS. Everyone knows him and has been beaten by him. But is he has good as the guy from that LGS from that big city 1000 miles away? It's like the arguments I have with friends over SEC football vs. Big Ten football. SEC football is always better, until a Big Ten team beats them The other factor is the local metagame. If for some reason the local metagame, does not include lists with much heavy armor, then an Ork list in theory would do much better than a metagame where everyone brings 6 Land Raiders to the table every week.

My point is with actual results, there are alot of factors other than simply the competitiveness of the Codex that come into play. The relative skill of the player group, the type of army list being played, etc.....will all factor very heavily into the actual competitiveness of an Ork list.

[Melissia]

That's not to say a skilled player can't win with them. The handicap an Ork list present can obviously be overcome, by a good player. But all things being equal, other Codii have a pretty big advantages for competitive list building in my opinion.

(it's codices, not "codii"-- that isn't a word)

Regardless, however, I actually dispute the claim that they aren't competitive, or even that they have a disadvantage. They have a different style, at most-- the style itself is not a disadvantage.

[The Green Git]

I've read Chumbalaya's response to the posts, and I've got to say, I don't see him doing much chest beating. He certainly hasn't issued any proclaimations on himself being a TRUE 40K Master. In fact he's been clear that he's interested in hearing other peoples opinions on the subject, and pretty clear in politely stating his opinion.......so where exactly is this coming from?

Dakka. He's just dragging old sewage from there back out here.

[Chumbalaya]

I don't post on Dakka, so I'm not sure what the dealy is. I've seen Orks being hailed as the greatest army evar in all of 40k-dom, I see them win tournies, and then I compare that with my experiences playing with/against them and I look at the "hard" evidence: rules, Codices, etc and something doesn't add up.

If you want to contribute to the discussion, by all means do. I don't claim to be the ultimate master of 40k, but I honestly think that I'm seeing something others don't and I want to show them that Orks are not something to freak out over. They're not cheesy, they're not unbeatable, I don't even think they're all that good in a competitive setting. Rather than go along with the internet mentality, I'd like to see if people call them competitive because that's their experience or because the prevailing opinion says so (Earth is flat cuz everyone says so).

And yeah, we can't quantify player skill, local competition, and so on, so we have to go by what's common for all of us: we all have the same rules and same numbers. A lot of local tournies and even big ones too alter the game to (intentionally or otherwise) favor certain armies or builds more than others. They bring in soft scoring to influence the results, which has nothing to do with player skill or army strength. And since there is no consistency between them, it's basically the same as saying you won one time at the FLGS.

Anyway, I think it's an interesting discussion to have if we leave the stupid stuff at the door (look who's talking too ).

[DarkLink]

I'd rate Tau a lot higher, maybe your local Tau players need to actually bring a good list :P

Good stuff so far, thanks for the contributions.

We don't actually have any active tau players right now. We do have a few ork players, one of which always places in the top spots of our local tournaments.

[RocketRollRebel]

Nob bikers may not be the "in thing" now but I have to say that the humble ork boy is their greatest strength. They are simply a cheap little killing machine and you can fill a board with them in a standard game. The mob rule took care of a lot of LD issues that they had plus 180 kitted out orks being under 1,500 pts is enough to make make anyone balk.

[Aldramelech]

Nob bikers may not be the "in thing" now but I have to say that the humble ork boy is their greatest strength. They are simply a cheap little killing machine and you can fill a board with them in a standard game. The mob rule took care of a lot of LD issues that they had plus 180 kitted out orks being under 1,500 pts is enough to make make anyone balk.

Agreed. My regular opponent fields Orks and he often says "You dont need stuff, tanks, bikes etc. You just need Orks, lots and lots of Orks". Apart from 1 Killer Kan and 3 Deffcopters his force is all foot slogging Orks and he wins more then he loses.

[Melissia]

A nice build I once saw was 180 boyz, six power klawz and bosspoles, and two big meks with KFFs and EA in a 1500 point game.

i'd not want to face off against that unless I specifically designed a horde Sisters army or something with lots of cover ignoring blasts (three whirlwinds?).