If the new tyranid codex with recycled pictures and swifly rushed out the door poorly planned untested rules are any indication of your current priorities, we will stick with the current one. Answering to the almighty shareholder with a poor product that will not help you sell plastic is not a strategy for success.

What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, screw you no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Can we just have this auto-respond to every new codex thread?

I edited it by the way.

But meh. Orks can always use more stuff.

Well that nid codex is a treasure trove of misspellings and poorly-written, unclear rules.

So has editions of the BRB and every codex since first edition.

For example, they "forgot" that half of the Major Orders of Sisters even existed in one (IIRC, fifth?) edition.

Well I remember when the Ork codex came out and it was before my several year hiatus, so they do really need a new one. Orks will always be Orks, there ain't much that can go wrong.

 BladeTX wrote:
Well that nid codex is a treasure trove of misspellings and poorly-written, unclear rules.

So it's pretty run of the mill then, yeah?

 Melissia wrote:
I edited it by the way.

But meh. Orks can always use more stuff.

Yep, and some things need to be fixed. Like Flash Gitz and Zzap cannons.

I am also curious as to what Warlord traits they will receive. Should be interesting.

Funny how people are complaining so much about the new Tyranid codex even thoughit's been out for 2 damn days

Nobody likes change that's the problem...everyone will find something to complain about

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I edited it by the way.

But meh. Orks can always use more stuff.

Yep, and some things need to be fixed. Like Flash Gitz and Zzap cannons.

I am also curious as to what Warlord traits they will receive. Should be interesting.

Ooooo wait for it. One of them has to be fear . We have SM with fear, CSM with fear, and I believe SoB with fear. For some odd reason, GW seems to REALLY think fear is something good and awesome

 StarTrotter wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I edited it by the way.

But meh. Orks can always use more stuff.

Yep, and some things need to be fixed. Like Flash Gitz and Zzap cannons.

I am also curious as to what Warlord traits they will receive. Should be interesting.

Ooooo wait for it. One of them has to be fear . We have SM with fear, CSM with fear, and I believe SoB with fear. For some odd reason, GW seems to REALLY think fear is something good and awesome

Or maybe they think it's so harmless, everyone should have it. Like puppies

 chiefbigredman wrote:
Funny how people are complaining so much about the new Tyranid codex even thoughit's been out for 2 damn days

Nobody likes change that's the problem...everyone will find something to complain about

Does time suddenly change things? Sure someone will figure out some power cheese combo in time, but it doesn't change the fact that taken as a whole this codex is pretty bland and disappointing.

Every codex is "bland and disappointing".

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Where does this new "people whined about the Eldar codex" meme come from?
I was there. Never happened.

Most "new" codexes have a lot of recycled art and text content.

Necrons was unusual in changing such a lot of the army and people complained about it.

 Code wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Where does this new "people whined about the Eldar codex" meme come from?
I was there. Never happened.

We whined about how the Howling Banshees were donky gak. Which turned out true

 Mahtamori wrote:

 Code wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Where does this new "people whined about the Eldar codex" meme come from?
I was there. Never happened.

We whined about how the Howling Banshees were donky gak. Which turned out true

Well, that's hardly whining then. That's justified criticism.

 BladeTX wrote:
Well that nid codex is a treasure trove of misspellings and poorly-written, unclear rules.

Well, I don't have the codex yet. But I have no expectations whatsoever. However, I'm curious to see a new Ork codex. Orks were always fun to play and they hopefully will be in the future incarnation of the codex.

i hope the same, but i fear for the future of the WAAAAGH!
If they nerf the nob bikers and/or lootas , my army can go on retirement

but we do need a new codex!

They should just give all Orks feel no pain instead of armour saves. Goes with the fluff.

 welshhoppo wrote:
They should just give all Orks feel no pain instead of armour saves. Goes with the fluff.

I like that and given that unless fighting IG ork armour saves are kind of pointless as is. I'd laugh at an army full of FnP orks.

Skriker

 welshhoppo wrote:
They should just give all Orks feel no pain instead of armour saves. Goes with the fluff.

Well, at least they'll get a save against ignore cover. I would prefer they keep their saves as well though. I like my 'ard boyz.

'Ard Boys could have 4+ FNP.

Awww, quit your complaining. 9x Carnifex lists are kicking the streets now, so that will be fun. Besides, half your weapons do more to harm you than good, and you have a Wierdboy who can't even use half his powers, last I checked. You need the update.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Awww, quit your complaining. 9x Carnifex lists are kicking the streets now, so that will be fun. Besides, half your weapons do more to harm you than good, and you have a Wierdboy who can't even use half his powers, last I checked. You need the update.

Yep, and Zzap cannons, which are meant to be our ranged anti-AV14, is woefully unpredictable.

The only thing we have other than that is

the Shok Attack Gun (unpredictable)

Kannons (only by glancing)

Tank Bustas (only by glancing AND unreliable)

I think the OP is just stating how little trust he, and the pretty much the community in general have with GW at this point.

Looking at pure 6th ed books we see very poor quality control, non-existent FAQs that are sorely needed, generally predictable releases (one new kit, one flyer/fmc, one dual build heavy walker/tank, one three pack elite/heavy unit, and/or repackaged unit with detestable price change), indications of almost no play testing, introduction battle reports that get laughed at, and instead of a power creep we're getting power waves.

My friends that I play with have almost lost all interest with the game. It's great to see regular updates, and should keep lists flexible and adaptable. But we aren't really seeing that. The problems with the current meta aren't getting any counters to try and balance it. As much as I love Tau, I can't help but feel bad seeing the nid codex because every strong unit has a strong counter in the Tau codex while Nids will generally have little answers for Tau in response.

This is a great example of bad imbalance. Instead of a new codex coming out and changing the current meta, it reinforces it.

 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
Awww, quit your complaining. 9x Carnifex lists are kicking the streets now, so that will be fun. Besides, half your weapons do more to harm you than good, and you have a Wierdboy who can't even use half his powers, last I checked. You need the update.

sometimes it can be hilarious

LOL... so much fail in people who think the new nids are a nerf...

riighht, all the basic core elements of the army went down in points, and your entire army can now have a 3+ cover save .....
and yes, you do actually get to roll cover saves, even against tau... if they have enough marker lights to take cover away from more then 1-2 units a turn, they wont have enough fire power to actually destroy those units...

just internet people complaining cause they want to...

orks have HUGE holes in their dex, we have nothing to deal with av14, nothing to deal with MC's, nothing to deal with flyers, nothing to deal with anything that is half decent in CC and goes before us... horrible armour/invunerables for a cc army... horrible weapon options... for a CC themed army, we have nothing top teir as far as CC goes.. warbossed are a joke in a lot of combats with decent opponents...

yes yes, I know we have PK's on nobs and warbosses, but they are over costed, and hard to actually get into position, and still means our two HQ's must be PK bosses...


luckily everyone treats CC as a joke, so orks do "ok" in it if they actually get there... but that can change very easily.

 Melissia wrote:
Every codex is "bland and disappointing".

I think the daemon book is rich and full of awesome sauce. The Tyranid book is trash. Why? Because it's a reprint of the 5th book (which was also trash) but even worse... The only thing keeping bugs afloat was biomancy and that's gone.

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

+1 to this guy

It's already a crappy monolist codex so they can't make it any worse. Also I just played a nid list they're horrifying now. Orks need this treatment

I get the Tyranid criticisms. To the best of my knowledge, it's the only 6E codex that's actually removed units (Doom of Malan'tai) from 5e, yes?

And other rumors say that the loss of Doom is fallout from the Chapterhouse lawsuit as well, yeah?

 Orock wrote:
If the new tyranid codex with recycled pictures and swifly rushed out the door poorly planned untested rules are any indication of your current priorities, we will stick with the current one. Answering to the almighty shareholder with a poor product that will not help you sell plastic is not a strategy for success.

I smell a troll.

 gwarsh41 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
If the new tyranid codex with recycled pictures and swifly rushed out the door poorly planned untested rules are any indication of your current priorities, we will stick with the current one. Answering to the almighty shareholder with a poor product that will not help you sell plastic is not a strategy for success.

I smell a troll.

The troll stench is strong with this one.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
It's already a crappy monolist codex so they can't make it any worse. Also I just played a nid list they're horrifying now. Orks need this treatment

horrifyingly good or bad? With the way you wrote this it's hard to find the correct context.

i think he means the nids did well.. That's how i read it

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

No. Also this was the first time I said that. No one has "proven me wrong", so much as they've just proven themselves to have bad memory. Bad memory you have shown by not realizing that this was the first time I've actually said that.

But please, make up gak and revise your own memory to support your arguments. It's funny.

Or you could, perhaps, realize that my point is simple: There's whining no matter what GW does. There has not been one incident where there was nary a complaint from the fans.

 Melissia wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

No. Also this was the first time I said that. No one has "proven me wrong", so much as they've just proven themselves to have bad memory. Bad memory you have shown by not realizing that this was the first time I've actually said that.

But please, make up gak and revise your own memory to support your arguments. It's funny.

Or you could, perhaps, realize that my point is simple: There's whining no matter what GW does. There has not been one incident where there was nary a complaint from the fans.

I also dont remember complaints about the eldar codex as a whole. just the usual banshee stuff (which happens now still). I remember people where raving about it in a good way. A big reason i actually picked up the book and ended up with the army of them.

I havent seen a reaction like this before to a codex but yet again i havent been on a forum (this is my first forum ever) before a few months ago. To me it seems the vast majority of people dislike it with very few optimistic players. But we will see what happens.

 Code wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Where does this new "people whined about the Eldar codex" meme come from?
I was there. Never happened.

there was whining mostly about stuff that didn't get better , but people wanted it to get better like screamer ladies and everyone whines when something good is droped from the codex like runes .

 Swastakowey wrote:
I havent seen a reaction like this before to a codex but yet again i havent been on a forum (this is my first forum ever) before a few months ago

It's so common that I just glaze over it and ignore it.

People whine about it, then the competent players get to work on making the codex competitive (or sometimes even figure out a way to break it completely), and the ones who whine either continue whining or they adopt the tactics of the players who made it work.

It's like a ritual. And everyone participates! I bring popcorn. Every single codex release is like this to some extent or other.

Django_Unchained wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
It's already a crappy monolist codex so they can't make it any worse. Also I just played a nid list they're horrifying now. Orks need this treatment

horrifyingly good or bad? With the way you wrote this it's hard to find the correct context.

I was trampled under the tide of 6 MCs and all my Heavy Supports were killed by Mawlocs. It's a good dex.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Django_Unchained wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
It's already a crappy monolist codex so they can't make it any worse. Also I just played a nid list they're horrifying now. Orks need this treatment

horrifyingly good or bad? With the way you wrote this it's hard to find the correct context.

I was trampled under the tide of 6 MCs and all my Heavy Supports were killed by Mawlocs. It's a good dex.

Yep. That's a lot of T6 5W units on the field.

 easysauce wrote:
LOL... so much fail in people who think the new nids are a nerf...

You're kidding right.

Rippers went up in cost. Up.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Django_Unchained wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
It's already a crappy monolist codex so they can't make it any worse. Also I just played a nid list they're horrifying now. Orks need this treatment

horrifyingly good or bad? With the way you wrote this it's hard to find the correct context.

I was trampled under the tide of 6 MCs and all my Heavy Supports were killed by Mawlocs. It's a good dex.

I think my Daemons would love to see a bunch of squishy 3+ nid monsters!

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I havent seen a reaction like this before to a codex but yet again i havent been on a forum (this is my first forum ever) before a few months ago

It's so common that I just glaze over it and ignore it.

People whine about it, then the competent players get to work on making the codex competitive (or sometimes even figure out a way to break it completely), and the ones who whine either continue whining or they adopt the tactics of the players who made it work.

It's like a ritual. And everyone participates! I bring popcorn. Every single codex release is like this to some extent or other.

Hmmm, i shall wait and see what happens to my guard with the new dex and see how people react. But i still dont remember it being that bad whenever i had a glance. I shall wait and see then.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm, i shall wait and see what happens to my guard with the new dex and see how people react. But i still dont remember it being that bad whenever i had a glance. I shall wait and see then.

Guard has changed so much since I first started using them. Mind you, I'm one of the people that still refuses to use vendettaspam, so I'm weird.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

While obviously not on the level of the Tyranid release there were some posts from those who were less than thrilled with the book before playing it.

All from this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/463557.page

My initial reaction is that the Council as an individual unit isn't viable at all anymore. The most important thing to note is that Farseers no longer unlock Warlocks, you get a unit of up to 10 Warlocks per detachment that do not take up an HQ slot, but since they now work like Wolf Guard again you will always be stripping out Warlocks to add to Jetbikes and other units and you can't get any more than 10. Essentially you would be crippling your army just to run a single block of Warlocks, which reduces the effectiveness of their powers.

wow those warlock sure do suck now.

So Warlocks kinda suck.

and we still can't stop a Heldrake from eating everything.

2+ ignore glance? It's a +2 to turn the pen to a glance, you don't' ignore it lol. To be honest, the shooting from lascannons weren't really an issue before the dex update. It's mass S6-8 fire that could down a serpent in shooting. the new field rules do little to help that because you're still going to get glanced down if you get swarm fired. The new holofields help a lot with that, but the loss of easy fortune counters that by a LONG shot. Ultimately, as i said, shooting isn't your worry it's loosing your 115+ transport to a basic dude in Melee.

35pt rhino getting blow up as it "does it's job as a transport" = cool, understandable
115pt+ serpent getting blown up as it "does it's job as a transport" = not so much

So Warlocks are utterly useless? How the **** can they muck that up :(

I'm mostly in disbelief that people are complaining about how bad the Wave Serpents are when they're a better MBT than my Hammerheads. The transport capacity is just icing.

To which this is posted...

Er what? A twin linked Bright Lance/Scatter Laser/Starcannon is nowhere near as good as a Railgun or Ion Cannon, honestly the SMS you get as a secondary weapon is on par with the main gun of a Serpent. On top of that you get AV13 front and Markerlight support to ruin people.

Heldrake spam are going to eat this army alive. Which saddens me.

 Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm, i shall wait and see what happens to my guard with the new dex and see how people react. But i still dont remember it being that bad whenever i had a glance. I shall wait and see then.

Guard has changed so much since I first started using them. Mind you, I'm one of the people that still refuses to use vendettaspam, so I'm weird.

I am much the same no net style armies for me. My praetorians have to fight in 2 rank firing lines under all circumstances (except bayonet charges). The savages (i have a variety of merc aliens) are allowed t fight in a mob though. so its not all bad.

But back to the topic, you are probably right. i have yet to see the standard fury of codex changes frequently.

Wolves need a new codex, Long Fangs and Rune Priests need a Nerf bat, with Blood Claws and Wolf Priests needing a Buff as well as some sort of Anti-Air.

I think the Nid release reminds me of the CSM complaints.
Old time Chaos fans were complaining that the majority of the book was terrible, and probably still has the longest list of just unusable units.
Then people tried saying that it was good because mono-nurgle and heldrakes were awesome.
Then it went back and forth between "GW butchered the codex and reduced it to Fast Attack spammng and everything else is Nurgle" and "You can spam bikes, spawn, heldrakes, and mark of nurgle so it's good"

Anyone who thinks the writing in this book is anything but rushed and poor should just read the pyrovore entry. Specifically where it says EVERY unit takes wounds in a certain situation. Not every unit within x inches, or even every enemy unit, EVERY unit. on the board. Because there wording is garbage. Go ahead and read it, then come back and post.

 Orock wrote:
Anyone who thinks the writing in this book is anything but rushed and poor should just read the pyrovore entry. Specifically where it says EVERY unit takes wounds in a certain situation. Not every unit within x inches, or even every enemy unit, EVERY unit. on the board. Because there wording is garbage. Go ahead and read it, then come back and post.

Just like the Death Ray's wording then? It's the normal GW fair of being unable to word those sort of rules properly.
I'm not sure anyone on this thread said the codex wasn't rushed or poorly worded.

The majority of 6th edition codex releases have been perfectly fine, and there's been some truly huge improvements (Tau, anyone?). Tyranids are really an anomaly and, really, I don't think the codex is that bad. It's as good as, if not better, than DA and CSM and certainly has more viable builds and usable units than the latter.

The book is rushed, yes, and we've heard rumours (probably true) that the codex needed to be taken back to square one, but was pushed out by the higher-ups. Chances are that this won't happen again. As for poorly written rules, it's GW, you should really be expecting it and wait for the community/FAQ to address them. Or simply come to a compromise with your regular gaming opponents.

I guess it does depend where you play, but, if you're that concerned and you really don't like the new codex, whenever it hits, you can always just use the old one.

 Melissia wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

No. Also this was the first time I said that. No one has "proven me wrong", so much as they've just proven themselves to have bad memory. Bad memory you have shown by not realizing that this was the first time I've actually said that.

But please, make up gak and revise your own memory to support your arguments. It's funny.

Or you could, perhaps, realize that my point is simple: There's whining no matter what GW does. There has not been one incident where there was nary a complaint from the fans.

Sorry, this arguments been so common lately that my eyes just glaze over when it comes to seeing it and all the names spin together.

I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

you mean several posters have silly, totally incorrect counters to what melissa said?


she is absolutely correct... whiners are just whining about the nid dex because they do not know the builds yet... to put it politely...

the new nid dex is more powerful, lots of cheaper units, gets 2 for one FnP for Psy powers, has a doom power as well...
whole armies of 3+ cover from venoms, cheap as hell fleeting carnifexes, cheap as hell flyrants...

4pts for an i4 t3 model with a gun.... thats fearless 90% of the time... yes please...


the only people who think the new dex are garbage are people who want the 5th ed codexes net lists to still be top dog instead of making new 6th ed codex lists to synergise with the new rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

yup this x1000...

everyone i play with, doesnt whine all the time, when they do it is about the legitimate "grey area no distinct RAW answer" type scenarios, but we roll off or house rule and move on.

the MOST whining comes from people who play the least I find, or have been out of the hobby for a while and just like to lurk.

whole armies of 3+ cover from venoms, cheap as hell fleeting carnifexes, cheap as hell flyrants...

I played an army just like this yesterday.

Venoms ID' by Blastmasters to knock out the cover save, the flyrants got grounded and killed by turn two, the carnifex's then proceeded to derp around for a few more turns while I mopped up the like..120+ tormagaunts who were also having issues with synapse once I shot them all out.

IMO, Orks have aged remarkably well, but we're still a 4th edition codex playing in 6th. If we get a codex as good as the 4th edition one was upon its release, (Fun fluff, fluffy rules, most units are good without many being overpowered, lasts for years...) I'll be very happy.
Please let it be that good...

 Eldarain wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

While obviously not on the level of the Tyranid release there were some posts from those who were less than thrilled with the book before playing it.

All from this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/463557.page

My initial reaction is that the Council as an individual unit isn't viable at all anymore. The most important thing to note is that Farseers no longer unlock Warlocks, you get a unit of up to 10 Warlocks per detachment that do not take up an HQ slot, but since they now work like Wolf Guard again you will always be stripping out Warlocks to add to Jetbikes and other units and you can't get any more than 10. Essentially you would be crippling your army just to run a single block of Warlocks, which reduces the effectiveness of their powers.

wow those warlock sure do suck now.

So Warlocks kinda suck.

and we still can't stop a Heldrake from eating everything.

2+ ignore glance? It's a +2 to turn the pen to a glance, you don't' ignore it lol. To be honest, the shooting from lascannons weren't really an issue before the dex update. It's mass S6-8 fire that could down a serpent in shooting. the new field rules do little to help that because you're still going to get glanced down if you get swarm fired. The new holofields help a lot with that, but the loss of easy fortune counters that by a LONG shot. Ultimately, as i said, shooting isn't your worry it's loosing your 115+ transport to a basic dude in Melee.

35pt rhino getting blow up as it "does it's job as a transport" = cool, understandable
115pt+ serpent getting blown up as it "does it's job as a transport" = not so much

So Warlocks are utterly useless? How the **** can they muck that up :(

I'm mostly in disbelief that people are complaining about how bad the Wave Serpents are when they're a better MBT than my Hammerheads. The transport capacity is just icing.

To which this is posted...

Er what? A twin linked Bright Lance/Scatter Laser/Starcannon is nowhere near as good as a Railgun or Ion Cannon, honestly the SMS you get as a secondary weapon is on par with the main gun of a Serpent. On top of that you get AV13 front and Markerlight support to ruin people.

Heldrake spam are going to eat this army alive. Which saddens me.

That threads last post was written on 2013/06/03. As far as I know, the 6th edition Eldar codex was released the first week of June. So almost all of those post were writte pre-release and based on rumors.
Not really comparable to this situation, as the Tyranid codex is actually out and people are still complaining (rightfully so)

Also you're bound to find some whiny posts in a 175 page thread. That doesn't show general negative consensus.

Django_Unchained wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Every codex is "bland and disappointing".

I think the daemon book is rich and full of awesome sauce. The Tyranid book is trash. Why? Because there is no Screamerstar instant-win-button.

Fixed that for you...

No one who doesn't complain about wargaming companies and products can call themselves a wargamer.

Let's not get too hot under the color about our toy soldiers. A friend of mine told me on Saturday he gave up on GW when his Orks went to BS 2. And wow the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the last nids dex came out, whew.

We wargamers get territorial about what we know.

 Melissia wrote:
I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

5 posts of whining about whining.

Hypocracy much?

Yeah. Tyranid players are complaining because there's no screamer-star instant win button. That's the reason. - I can't use those emORKticons enough to describe the dross you just wrote Zwei. I mean really, do you practice being so utterly blind to the world around you Zwie, because it's a remarkably impressive skill level you've got in just how unbelievably off-base your posts tend to be. Just look at any - any - of the multiple Tyranid threads and you'll see why people are complaining.

It's got nothing to do with tournaments or needing screamer-stars or anything. It’s got everything to do with things like Tervigons losing most of their special rules, gaining rules that make them worse, and going up in cost. Like Hive Guard losing BS and yet getting more expensive. Like Synapse allowing units to eat themselves (including units of Carnifexes). Like Warriors being unviable (again), Lictors being useless (again), and Genestealers having no way of getting into assault. Like ScyTals being reduced to weapons that do almost literally nothing. Like Primes going up in cost because… umm… well because! Like Bio-Artefacts being some of the most pathetic and lazy examples of quicky rules writing I’ve seen in a GW Codex for years (you going to sit there and say that the Ymgarl Factor is an excellent upgrade?).

Your unbridled and irrational hatred for the tournament crowd, who you all label as WAAC players at every opportunity, has left you utterly ignorant of the real problems that afflict this game and especially things like this new Codex. You think people are just complaining because there isn’t a broken/odd quirk of the rules/unforseen combo death star unit?

You don’t know a damned thing, and it shows.

I think that every 6th edition book is an improvement on the old ones, Tyranids was just a fluke. But then some awesome supplement may come out which makes everyone happy.


But whiners will always whine. If there is too much cheese (Heldrake, Riptide, ScreamerStar) or if there is not enough cheese (Tyranids, Dark Angels, Space Marines).

In some famous quote which I will shamelessly quote.

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all of the time." - Bob Marley - Get Up, Stand Up.

There is a fair amount of anguish in this Eldar Thread! Click me, I'm a link!

However, I'm holding out comments until I see it for myself this weekend. Just like I did for Space Marines, Tau, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Space Marines.

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

NOT ENOUGH WHINING! REV UP THE WHINE ENGINES UNTIL THE SKY IS STAINED WITH BASELESS COMPLAINTS!

You know how I can tell this is a terrible codex? Because the 7 S0B players in the world aren't all in here complaining that they should have gotten this release slot instead. They're just keeping their heads down this time, thinking "glad it wasn't us"

 lord_blackfang wrote:
You know how I can tell this is a terrible codex? Because the 7 S0B players in the world

Hey, be nice.

It's nine now.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

NOT ENOUGH WHINING! REV UP THE WHINE ENGINES UNTIL THE SKY IS STAINED WITH BASELESS COMPLAINTS!

WHINE FOR THE WHINE GOD

COMPLAINTS FOR THE COMPLAINT THRONE!

Good Lord, Mel has a sense of humour.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

NOT ENOUGH WHINING! REV UP THE WHINE ENGINES UNTIL THE SKY IS STAINED WITH BASELESS COMPLAINTS!

WHINE FOR THE WHINE GOD

COMPLAINTS FOR THE COMPLAINT THRONE!

And thus, the source of ammunition for noise marines' sonic weaponry was found to be forum users' whining.

"THIS SILENCE OFFENDS SLAANESH! THINGS WILL GET LOUD NOW!"

 Melissia wrote:
I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

No kidding...

I got back into 40k in early late 4th/ early 5th ed... I still remember how the Nob bikers were the ultimate cheese.

Then, it was Blood Angles with the fast spammed razorbacks/preds.

Then... it was Grey Knights who were nigh unstoppable...

The Necrons? Oh my... they couldn't be beaten.

o.O get the picture?

I, for one, am anxiously waiting for the next Ork Codex!

BladeSwinga wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

NOT ENOUGH WHINING! REV UP THE WHINE ENGINES UNTIL THE SKY IS STAINED WITH BASELESS COMPLAINTS!

WHINE FOR THE WHINE GOD

COMPLAINTS FOR THE COMPLAINT THRONE!

And thus, the source of ammunition for noise marines' sonic weaponry was found to be forum users' whining.

"THIS SILENCE OFFENDS SLAANESH! THINGS WILL GET LOUD NOW!"

Wait you can offend Slaanesh?

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

BladeSwinga wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

WHINECEPTION

We must whine harder.

NOT ENOUGH WHINING! REV UP THE WHINE ENGINES UNTIL THE SKY IS STAINED WITH BASELESS COMPLAINTS!

WHINE FOR THE WHINE GOD

COMPLAINTS FOR THE COMPLAINT THRONE!

And thus, the source of ammunition for noise marines' sonic weaponry was found to be forum users' whining.

"THIS SILENCE OFFENDS SLAANESH! THINGS WILL GET LOUD NOW!"

Wait you can offend Slaanesh?

Not being offended offends Slaanesh....

I think this thread is probably about over, so... final thoughts:

Feth yeah Orks need a new codex! I want tankbustas to be made in to something useful. I want Ork heavy weapons to... well, exist, but also to be useful. I want Ork Boyz to have more options for customization. I want Kommando Bosses and Freeloada Kaptins and so much more that can only be added with a new codex.

Even if it "sucks" by the standard of most people, I'll still prefer having more stuff than less.

 Melissia wrote:
I think this thread is probably about over, so... final thoughts:

Feth yeah Orks need a new codex! I want tankbustas to be made in to something useful. I want Ork heavy weapons to... well, exist, but also to be useful. I want Ork Boyz to have more options for customization. I want Kommando Bosses and Freeloada Kaptins and so much more that can only be added with a new codex.

Even if it "sucks" by the standard of most people, I'll still prefer having more stuff than less.

This thread can't die, it's fueled upon baseless complaints and ridiculous expectations. You can't kill those.

 Melissia wrote:
I think this thread is probably about over, so... final thoughts:

Feth yeah Orks need a new codex! I want tankbustas to be made in to something useful. I want Ork heavy weapons to... well, exist, but also to be useful. I want Ork Boyz to have more options for customization. I want Kommando Bosses and Freeloada Kaptins and so much more that can only be added with a new codex.

Even if it "sucks" by the standard of most people, I'll still prefer having more stuff than less.

Agree with all of this. Stormboyz should also be tweaked abit.

Also, I want Skar Boyz back.

I only have the 5th edition of the Ork Edition, so I don't actually know what they are. They sound awesome though.

 Melissia wrote:

 Orock wrote:
[snip]

One post of whining about whining about whining.

Meta!

Some people remember well (or can look up) all your whining posts about sororitas for years, so you are the last who can order me to like the new Tyranid Codex.

Objection!

I haven't ordered anyone to like anything.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I think this thread is probably about over, so... final thoughts:

Feth yeah Orks need a new codex! I want tankbustas to be made in to something useful. I want Ork heavy weapons to... well, exist, but also to be useful. I want Ork Boyz to have more options for customization. I want Kommando Bosses and Freeloada Kaptins and so much more that can only be added with a new codex.

Even if it "sucks" by the standard of most people, I'll still prefer having more stuff than less.

Agree with all of this. Stormboyz should also be tweaked abit.

Also, I want Skar Boyz back.

I only have the 5th edition of the Ork Edition, so I don't actually know what they are. They sound awesome though.

But yeah we need more stuff. We need Skarboyz! We need real tanks! we need not horrible base special rules! (Waaaagh is useless now) We also need Phil Kelly to write the fluff too.

Oh, the old looted tanks rules would be nice! I remember orks being able to steal all sorts of crazy stuff back in 4th ed, sadly before I started them. It was fun

Calling moaning what it is doesn't amount to denying that I also whine about stuff (e.g., the aptly abbreviated SoB).

Well, my nemesis just got the new codex and HE loves it... but this is the same guy who says Marker Lights are no good. Are the Genestealers better now? Just wondering.

Personally I think every codex should get re-written with each new ruleset, but then again... when they release a new edition it's not like they put any effort into the rules at all, so one can hardly expect them to have any sort of standards when it comes to the army books!

But I digress, yes GW please don't make any new codices until you are ready. Like really ready, like playtest that stuff bro!

Bring back looted tanks (looted titan anyone?) have a single unit of boys who can have either sluggas or shootas. Give orks FNP off the bat. Bring in some crazy flying squiggoth just because.

Let flash gitz take any random weapons, Lootas are cool. and then tidy up the rest.

Let Tank Bustas fire at what they want to fire at, or at the very least don't force them to fire at things that are out of range.

darkcloak wrote:
Well, my nemesis just got the new codex and HE loves it... but this is the same guy who says Marker Lights are no good.

Then I think we can safely ignore anything he has to say.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Bring back looted tanks (looted titan anyone?) have a single unit of boys who can have either sluggas or shootas. Give orks FNP off the bat. Bring in some crazy flying squiggoth just because.

Let flash gitz take any random weapons, Lootas are cool. and then tidy up the rest.

Actually FnP would fix a lot of problems. My biggest issue is how monolist the codex is.

ORks won't be hit as hard as Nids were I hope. We don't have the list of units without models that Nids did. The whole roll a six and your unit eats itself instinctive behavior has me terrified though. There always talk of animosity coming back which I HOPE TO MORK won't happen.

Oh dear god. I just imagined Noise Marines dressed up as Trekkies that fired the concentrated sonic energy from their rants on why "Picard was a superior captain to Kirk"

GW should take the route Magic did and release a self parody set.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Bring back looted tanks (looted titan anyone?) have a single unit of boys who can have either sluggas or shootas. Give orks FNP off the bat. Bring in some crazy flying squiggoth just because.

Let flash gitz take any random weapons, Lootas are cool. and then tidy up the rest.

I would like gitz to be in elite and lootas to be in heavy. How it is currently never made any sense to me. I mean, the lootas have heavy weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Oh dear god. I just imagined Noise Marines dressed up as Trekkies that fired the concentrated sonic energy from their rants on why "Picard was a superior captain to Kirk"

GW should take the route Magic did and release a self parody set.

Well, Wh40k was originally a parody

evilsponge wrote:

 chiefbigredman wrote:
Funny how people are complaining so much about the new Tyranid codex even thoughit's been out for 2 damn days

Nobody likes change that's the problem...everyone will find something to complain about

Does time suddenly change things? Sure someone will figure out some power cheese combo in time, but it doesn't change the fact that taken as a whole this codex is pretty bland and disappointing.

God, I wish they changed things - all they did was copy + paste the 5th ed book and the make all our good units significantly worse.

Orkhead wrote:
ORks won't be hit as hard as Nids were I hope. We don't have the list of units without models that Nids did. The whole roll a six and your unit eats itself instinctive behavior has me terrified though. There always talk of animosity coming back which I HOPE TO MORK won't happen.

To be fair, if they roll a 4-5 they charge the nearest enemy unit, and I didn't see any rule that forbade them from moving normally first.
If the nids roll a 6 they get rage on top of it.

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
God, I wish they changed things - all they did was copy + paste the 5th ed book and the make all our good units significantly worse.

Plus a bunch of other things too that made units better or canceled out many of the bad things, but you know, hyperbole is fun so let's just roll with it.

If animosity rolls come back it's game over man. Then the whole army is unviable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah. Tyranid players are complaining because there's no screamer-star instant win button. That's the reason. - I can't use those emORKticons enough to describe the dross you just wrote Zwei. I mean really, do you practice being so utterly blind to the world around you Zwie, because it's a remarkably impressive skill level you've got in just how unbelievably off-base your posts tend to be. Just look at any - any - of the multiple Tyranid threads and you'll see why people are complaining.

It's got nothing to do with tournaments or needing screamer-stars or anything. It’s got everything to do with things like Tervigons losing most of their special rules, gaining rules that make them worse, and going up in cost. Like Hive Guard losing BS and yet getting more expensive. Like Synapse allowing units to eat themselves (including units of Carnifexes). Like Warriors being unviable (again), Lictors being useless (again), and Genestealers having no way of getting into assault. Like ScyTals being reduced to weapons that do almost literally nothing. Like Primes going up in cost because… umm… well because! Like Bio-Artefacts being some of the most pathetic and lazy examples of quicky rules writing I’ve seen in a GW Codex for years (you going to sit there and say that the Ymgarl Factor is an excellent upgrade?).

Your unbridled and irrational hatred for the tournament crowd, who you all label as WAAC players at every opportunity, has left you utterly ignorant of the real problems that afflict this game and especially things like this new Codex. You think people are just complaining because there isn’t a broken/odd quirk of the rules/unforseen combo death star unit?

You don’t know a damned thing, and it shows.

Exalted. Everyone reading with a brain agrees with you, which is what matters.


I love how that guy trys to hate on competitive players but has unwillingly turned himself into a powergamer by not properly comprehending the threads. "People whining? Their mentality is so WAAC !!!!" Yet he's basically co-signing a poorly written product for the reasoning that "the army has gotten stronger we are just all too busy whining to realise!". Nothing in his post addresses issues like how we lost a bunch of possible playstyles and unique models, a bunch of useless models were left still useless, with 1 viable troop choice and 1 auto-take HQ choice. Saying competitive army strength is more important than a well balanced and diverse codex is the definition of power gaming. Have fun knowing this is now you.

I just hope Flash gitz become useful. As it is they are only really good against Hero spam. (rolling AP can get some good hits in) but no one plays like that. Tankbustas would also be a good thing to buff up, or decrease cost to.

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I just hope Flash gitz become useful. As it is they are only really good against Hero spam. (rolling AP can get some good hits in) but no one plays like that. Tankbustas would also be a good thing to buff up, or decrease cost to.

Yes to both of these. And we could use some more heavy weapons, crazy awesome stuff that really fits the Orks.

 Melissia wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I just hope Flash gitz become useful. As it is they are only really good against Hero spam. (rolling AP can get some good hits in) but no one plays like that. Tankbustas would also be a good thing to buff up, or decrease cost to.

Yes to both of these. And we could use some more heavy weapons, crazy awesome stuff that really fits the Orks.

Like a...squig launcher.

Just a squig with high explosives strapped to it being fired out of a sling shot. It twitches it's way in the general direction of the target, allowing -D3 scatter distance. Or something like that, anyway.

I feel like Orks are one of the few armies who genuinely deserve random tables. (Along with Chaos.) It never made sense to me why armies based on order and precision can't predict what their men will do.

That would be a great mortar weapon using bomb squigs

Could even deploy squig horde units that way, for more amusing fun! (the unit representing one big squig or a horde of smaller ones).

Could also use Flakk Kannonz for AA, that fire an absurd amount of shots against air units and can also be used against to lesser effect against ground units.

Actually, in case of the Ork Codex, treatment similar to CSM and Tyranids "Copypaste old Codex with minor tuning and coupla new units" would work real well. Difference is that the old Ork Codex is actually very solid in its core, and needs only redoing some units to be good.

By contrast, re-write like Tau or Daemons would be terrible, since they'd probably make up all sorts of wacky rules and destroy what was good in the old book in the process.

It could still make use of adding some cool new units.

Also, "wacky rules" is part of what a lot of people like Orks for to begin with!

 Melissia wrote:
It could still make use of adding some cool new units.

Also, "wacky rules" is part of what a lot of people like Orks for to begin with!

Yes, but key factor here is, not everything in Ork codex is "wacky". In fact most core Ork units are very reliable performers: wackiness is an option, if you want some randomness and flavour to your army, there are suitable units and HQ's for that.

What I fear is that they're given Daemons treatment, complete rewrite where "Orky wackiness" is an universal rule for the Orks and before each movement phase you have to roll from an "Orky table" what your units will do, or some similar nonsense.

Backfire wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It could still make use of adding some cool new units.

Also, "wacky rules" is part of what a lot of people like Orks for to begin with!

Yes, but key factor here is, not everything in Ork codex is "wacky". In fact most core Ork units are very reliable performers: wackiness is an option, if you want some randomness and flavour to your army, there are suitable units and HQ's for that.

What I fear is that they're given Daemons treatment, complete rewrite where "Orky wackiness" is an universal rule for the Orks and before each movement phase you have to roll from an "Orky table" what your units will do, or some similar nonsense.

Ork wackiness is currently in tolerable quanities. Any more wackyness will lead to the outright destruction of Ork fluff and viability. This doesn't mean we shouldn't get new units though.

 Melissia wrote:

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
God, I wish they changed things - all they did was copy + paste the 5th ed book and the make all our good units significantly worse.

Plus a bunch of other things too that made units better or canceled out many of the bad things, but you know, hyperbole is fun so let's just roll with it.

haha well of course it's hyperbole, but it's not too far off the mark. When I was first reading the Codex, I was stunned by how entire entries had literally been copy + pasted with maybe a very minor change (like adding Psyker Mastery Level for example). Yes, a few new units were added, but they're mostly just flavourful choices - hardly must-buys, which is good because I refuse to pay GW prices these days. Yes, a few units got their prices reduced (most notably Carnifexes) and Mawlocs, Carnifexes and Venomthropes were undoubtably buffed, but so many other lynchpin units were nerfed for no good reason. On top of that, they did absolutely nothing to fix units which were already terrible or struggling to survive (Lictors, Genestealers, Hormagaunts, Tyranid Warriors, etc). Then they also made synapse far more brutal, with extremely harsh penalties for falling back on instinctive behaviour. Oh and as if that wasn't enough, they made my lovely Mycetic Spore and Doom of Malan'tai models completely useless, just to give a middle finger to third-party manufacturers (and by extension, paying Tyranid customers).

Out of curiosity, what in the new Codex made units better (aside from Mawlocs, Venomthropes and Carnifexes) and/or cancelled out bad things?

I just wanna know if Gork's (is it Mork's) psychic foot is coming back..

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I just hope Flash gitz become useful.

Well Flash Gitz don't currently have a kit and a few 3rd party companies are making Ork bits that allow you to make Flash Gitz. Seems like a good reason to drop them from the Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overlord Thraka wrote:
I just hope Flash gitz become useful.

Well Flash Gitz don't currently have a kit and a few 3rd party companies are making Ork bits that allow you to make Flash Gitz. Seems like a good reason to drop them from the Codex.

Yet another flawless example of GW logic
"hey people are making Rhino variants"
"Better drop them next codex"
They punish the player for being too lazy to make models for their own units.

The key is to just not buy the 6th ed Ork codex and "supplements" when it comes out. And play by 4th ed rules with your friends. Nobody games at GW anymore (they don't want gaming either) so it isn't a problem.

 Harriticus wrote:
The key is to just not buy the 6th ed Ork codex and "supplements" when it comes out. And play by 4th ed rules with your friends. Nobody games at GW anymore (they don't want gaming either) so it isn't a problem.

Pretty much. Local GW and gaming space moved out of the mall now, so it's all home gaming. Hell, I technically don't even need Codices, rulebooks of 100% GW models anymore since they stopped hosting gaming space... hmm, thanks GW!

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
The key is to just not buy the 6th ed Ork codex and "supplements" when it comes out. And play by 4th ed rules with your friends. Nobody games at GW anymore (they don't want gaming either) so it isn't a problem.

Pretty much. Local GW and gaming space moved out of the mall now, so it's all home gaming. Hell, I technically don't even need Codices, rulebooks of 100% GW models anymore since they stopped hosting gaming space... hmm, thanks GW!

I remembered when I stopped going to my GW and began gaming at my FLGS it felt as though I had lost something but in it's place I gained more freedom with my army than I could ever dream of before.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Orkhead wrote:
ORks won't be hit as hard as Nids were I hope. We don't have the list of units without models that Nids did. The whole roll a six and your unit eats itself instinctive behavior has me terrified though. There always talk of animosity coming back which I HOPE TO MORK won't happen.

To be fair, if they roll a 4-5 they charge the nearest enemy unit, and I didn't see any rule that forbade them from moving normally first.
If the nids roll a 6 they get rage on top of it.

Ok so I got that wrong it's a roll of one oops.

 kronk wrote:
There is a fair amount of anguish in this Eldar Thread! Click me, I'm a link!

However, I'm holding out comments until I see it for myself this weekend. Just like I did for Space Marines, Tau, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Space Marines.

Ok, I'm sick of seeing people bring up the Eldar as an example of people whining about a codex (looking at you, Melissia*). I maintain (from memory) that the general consensus once the codex was out was overwhelmingly positive, but memory can be deceptive.

So I went through this thread page by page and counted the number of posters with an overall positive or overall negative opinion of the codex, for any reason. I didn't count anyone that said something like "I like the codex, missed opportunities on unit X though" or whatever as negative, as that is a basically favorable opinion, but even if all someone had to say in the entire thread was "unit X sucks now", I counted that as a negative view. Likewise, anyone saying "unit Y roxxorz" was a positive view.

The results?
Out of over 160 posts from 68 unique Dakkaites, there were 9 separate Dakkaites who made at least one post containing views that were more negative than positive. There were 27 who expressed views that were more positive than negative. There were 3 whose views were so mixed I had to say they were neutral. The other 29 posters comments were basically off topic or not relevant to the question of positive/negative opinion.

As far as negative views go: two posters were concerned that the codex had gotten weaker, two were upset because the rules did not fit the fluff. Two were worried that the codex had large flaws, but were still excited to play it. One poster called the codex "one dimensional and overpowered". One poster literally posted a picture of The Critic saying "It stinks!" and nothing else. One poster said he wanted to shelve his army.

That's literally all I found.

So all in all out of 68 unique users, 39 made comments about their opinion of the codex or some units in it. Only 9 (23%) were disappointed or complaining, while 27 (69%) expressed positive views, while 3 (8%) expressed very mixed opinions.

I challenge anyone to go through a post-release Tyranid discussion thread and come up with a 69% positive response.



*For the record, Melissia commented in the thread and didn't have any complaints about whiners** or doomsayers, instead saying "seems cool enough".

**There were two complaints of "whiners": one about the guy who wanted to shelve his army, and one person mistaking another person's comment for a criticism, when in fact it was not. There was also another person who linked to a thread in the tactics forum and said the majority of views there were positive, for what that's worth.

(Also credit where credit is due, like 3 days after the codex dropped Glocknall stated "jetbikes, Dire Avengers, and Wave serpents will be the new meta", which I thought was pretty cool to see)

 kronk wrote:
There is a fair amount of anguish in this Eldar Thread! Click me, I'm a link!

However, I'm holding out comments until I see it for myself this weekend. Just like I did for Space Marines, Tau, Chaos Daemons, and Chaos Space Marines.

Ravenous D wrote:Just glancing through mine now and Im sure glad I didn't open the wraithknight because that think is crap for 300pts, I'd rather take 2 wraithlords.

besides that:
- Farseers: terrible, I rolled it out a bunch of times and sometimes got Doom fortune, the other powers just blow. I even rolled Eldrad and managed it a few times. If I cant rely on them getting good powers they are a waste of points.

-Warlocks: also terrible, seriously you cant rely on a solid battle plan with these things unless you are getting shrouding, and they cant even join wraithguard!

-Spiritseer: cheaper then I expected but otherwise good, 2 rolls on that table is better then one, still random but its better then nothing.

-Wraithguard/blades: No battle trance is a bummer, but I think having a unit of D scythes will be a combat deterrent unless your enemys want to lose half a unit on the way in. Overall happy with these guys.

-Wraithknight: Waste of points, 280pts for 3 s6 plasma cannon shots? Next.

-Jetbikes: Sweet Jesus, why are the models so bad because these things are busted.

Warpspiders: 6 + 2D6 + D6 + shoot + 2D6 move? Holy feth balls!! and they are S7 against vehicles and everything i3 and lower? Give me 30.

Ravenous D wrote:

 Sasori wrote:


I think Farseers may be best served not taking the default lore, there are just too many bad powers there. Divination and Telepathy are both great though, I see no reason not to roll on those.

Warlocks need some playtesting imo, the Conceal power is pretty nice. LD8, not so much.

Wraithguard are intreasting, that's for sure. I haven't formed an opinion on them just yet.

The Wraith Knight is really underwhelming. However, Prisims and Nightspinners are awesome.

Warpspiders are Jetbikes are also quite excellent.

Its really that Ld8 that kills its, one bad test and your ass in hanging in the wind. Makes it not dependable, and even less dependable if you are going for the other powers, Seems like a seer jet council is the only way to go if you want the things.

I have been tinkering with wraithguard today and the D-scythes are standing out to me, the ability to scare assaulters is pretty nice, the downside is there is lots of weapons that can hurt them.

Yup that sounds exactly what I said about the Nid book.

Most of what I said was right, the only thing is warlocks on jetbikes mixed with baron and rerolls from the venoms didn't hit me right away. Guess what? Nids don't have allies, or BRB powers, its a stand alone book that is option bare. Nothing magical is going to happen before the FAQ or dataslates.

Makumba wrote:

 Code wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Where does this new "people whined about the Eldar codex" meme come from?
I was there. Never happened.

there was whining mostly about stuff that didn't get better , but people wanted it to get better like screamer ladies and everyone whines when something good is droped from the codex like runes .

Have you ever checked the comment section on BOL, there is a real hive of whinners, and yes there was and endless whine about the wave searpent and how it didnt become an assault vehicle, that it was to much expensive dedicated transport, how the runes were nerfed, how the farseer sucks, about the jetbikes, about each one of the aspect warriors, even about battle focus, yes, the poeple whine about battle focus and the rending shurikens

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Ok, I'm sick of seeing people bring up the Eldar as an example of people whining about a codex (looking at you, Melissia

I mentioned it exactly once. Yet some how people seem to think I've done so repeatedly.

I blame zoidberg.

Much to my dismay I fully expect the ork codex to be even more full of random tables, weapons exploding and orks fighting amongst themselves. The current level of randomness is fine, if you don't like it leave your wierdboy/SAG at home.

 Melissia wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Ok, I'm sick of seeing people bring up the Eldar as an example of people whining about a codex (looking at you, Melissia

I mentioned it exactly once. Yet some how people seem to think I've done so repeatedly.

I blame zoidberg.

And why not Zoidberg?

(Actually I'm sorry for calling you out. You're a totally level-headed person and I enjoy what you have to say. You just happened to be the first person to mention Eldar in this thread, and I snapped a bit).

*******

For the sake of completeness, I did a similar breakdown of the discussion thread "Your thoughts on the new Tyranid Codex?" reachable here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/572719.page

I only looked at the first 6 pages because reading the thread was depressing me (I only stuck it out through page 6 to ensure an equal page count with the Eldar thread I did earlier). The numbers I'm about to show look bad, but it's even worse if you read the content of the posts and realize the 23% who were unhappy with Eldar after 1 week looked like they were on Zoloft compared to the incredibly bitter people in the Tyranid thread. Numbers:

Within the first 6 pages, I counted 81 unique users. Out of those, 19 users made only off-topic or otherwise irrelevant comments. That leaves 62 users who did make their opinions known at least somewhat. There were 12 users who posted positive views (I was pretty generous with this, anyone even playing devil's advocate I considered positive), 5 mixed opinions, and 45 negative views. The negative views ran the gamut from long, impassioned, well-reasoned complaints, to people popping in to leave one snide comment.

Percentage-wise, the Tyranid thread broke down as 19% positive, 73% negative, 8% mixed.

There is just no comparison between the Tyranid response and the Eldar response.

If someone wants to track down a representative "thoughts on the chaos marine codex" thread from the first week after the CSM release, I'll do the stats on that one too.

Bring on the animosity and the random charts

I'll also be incredibly disappointed if we don't get clan rules.

When I play with my mates, I use custom clan rules for each unit depending on what clan it is, and models from different clans treat each other as Desperate Allies

Maybe just a tad alarmist there, chap. Just because the Tyranid codex was (supposedly) a disappointment doesn't mean that the Ork codex will be. Why not reserve judgement until we actually know some stuff about it?

The only complaint I have heard about the Tyranid book is about the power level being too low (comparable to that of the old book). I don't care a lot about power levels, since we limit the powerful units where I play anyway. I just want something with rules that easier can be translated to the 6th edition ruleset and a kit or two for some of the missing units.

 Dakkamite wrote:
When I play with my mates, I use custom clan rules for each unit depending on what clan it is, and models from different clans treat each other as Desperate Allies

That's cool (and fluffy: Evil Sunz don't trust Snakebites, Goffs shun Bloodaxes and nobody likes Deffskulls), but I'd keep rules for clan animosity out of the picture. Most folks out there have multiple clans in their armies. I'd expect a tyranid-like fan backlash if their troops had a chance of turning on each other just for coming close!

 Bonde wrote:
The only complaint I have heard about the Tyranid book is about the power level being too low (comparable to that of the old book). I don't care a lot about power levels, since we limit the powerful units where I play anyway. I just want something with rules that easier can be translated to the 6th edition ruleset and a kit or two for some of the missing units.

Then you really haven't been paying much attention on these boards. Can't really blame you though, there's about a million threads, where do you start. Most people's issue is that the codex did not only improve, it got worse. Not in power levels, but in diversity, strategy, and different types of units.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Bonde wrote:
The only complaint I have heard about the Tyranid book is about the power level being too low (comparable to that of the old book). I don't care a lot about power levels, since we limit the powerful units where I play anyway. I just want something with rules that easier can be translated to the 6th edition ruleset and a kit or two for some of the missing units.

Then you really haven't been paying much attention on these boards. Can't really blame you though, there's about a million threads, where do you start. Most people's issue is that the codex did not only improve, it got worse. Not in power levels, but in diversity, strategy, and different types of units.

Exactly, power level is honestly not my main complaint, it's the lack of diversity in viable units...

Hm . Let's see what my translator says that means:

"It's power level is below nine thousand."

Ah.


edit: For the record, I don't really care either way. But I do find it amusing to see people say "I don't care about power level but I wish my units were more viable", when "viable" means "competitive" which also translates to "powerful".

I don't even disagree with you that there should be more competitive units in 40k's codices.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

There was one thread, linked a few times earlier, with a catalogue of moans, and presumably others too, which is why someone decided to post a thread to say the Eldar codex wasn't bad, really!.

I can't wait for a new codex, anything to stop this constant thread creation, whining and wave of salty tyranid tears on this place, it's awful.

Please release something else to moan at GW, I beg you!

Im just annoyed by the fact that people seem to think the Orks Codex is the weakest dex and weakest army in the game. That one baffles me to no end. Against a Tourny TauDar build? I can see it.....but they can and still do, kick much ass. And they are the oldest codex now yes?

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

For the sake of completeness, I did a similar breakdown of the discussion thread "Your thoughts on the new Tyranid Codex?" reachable here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/572719.page

Thanks for doing this CPH, I appreciate a bit of clarity in the discussion. Not that opinion sharing isn't valid... but it is nice to have a bit of data.

I'm looking forward to a new dex. Having played 40k since RT, I believe one of the main things that's kept this game around all these years is the fact that the rules get shaken up once in a while... changing not only the game in general but the way the various factions relate to one another. Armies wax & wane as do units... new things show up, others dissappear. Keeps things fresh. If we could get a dex that was as flexible and durable as the last one (even if it was quite different), it would be a smashing success. If not, I'm sure we'll all find some way to enjoy the hobby until the next edition shakes things up again.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Haven't you been proven wrong about the Eldar codex whining? Like..Several times by now?

Several posts have counters to this, despite you repeatedly claiming this with no real info..

There was one thread, linked a few times earlier, with a catalogue of moans, and presumably others too, which is why someone decided to post a thread to say the Eldar codex wasn't bad, really!.

Yes, and that thread you're linking went on for only 2 pages because all but one person agreed with him. Two posts in: "You're not alone, in fact there are plenty of threads in a positive tone about the new book. If anything the nay-sayers are the obnoxious vocal minority as per usual on the Internet. Even Kirby over at 3++ seems to be happy with the new book."

Read my breakdown of those Eldar and Tyranid general discussion threads. Your "catalogue of moans" for the Eldar amounted to less than 10 people complaining in a 6 page long thread. Broken down by user, the views on the Eldar codex were 69% positive vs. 23% negative. The numbers are almost exactly flipped for Tyranids: 19% positive vs. 73% negative.

Please stop making things up, or at least stop linking to old threads without even reading them.

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I'm looking forward to a new dex. Having played 40k since RT, I believe one of the main things that's kept this game around all these years is the fact that the rules get shaken up once in a while... changing not only the game in general but the way the various factions relate to one another. Armies wax & wane as do units... new things show up, others dissappear. Keeps things fresh. If we could get a dex that was as flexible and durable as the last one (even if it was quite different), it would be a smashing success. If not, I'm sure we'll all find some way to enjoy the hobby until the next edition shakes things up again.

I didn't play through 3rd ed, but if i recall correctly Orks took a severe nerf with their 4th edition codex, losing units like Skarboyz and useful rules like choppas or mob up.

Ironically, 4th ed. Codex: Orks is universally regarded as one of the best books GW ever released.

 KingCracker wrote:
Im just annoyed by the fact that people seem to think the Orks Codex is the weakest dex and weakest army in the game. That one baffles me to no end. Against a Tourny TauDar build? I can see it.....but they can and still do, kick much ass. And they are the oldest codex now yes?

Me too...

An Ork list allied with IG seems like a good 6ed "synergy" army.

Orks provides the choppy bodies, and the slaves (erm, IG) provides some shooty!

I've played orks and Crons... they mesh together quite well. Took second at a local tournament with them.

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I've played orks and Crons... they mesh together quite well. Took second at a local tournament with them.

i was thinking about that combo so i'm glad to hear that. (instead of NOO, You must take tau, they're much better. )
just because i don't like tau models and do like necrons, i will experiment with them. But Orkdex first!!

I had orks as the primary with Necron Air as the allies. Worked well but was not overpowering by any stretch of the imagination... and that's even with the TO putting two skyfire nexii on each table so that *everyone* could shoot down my planes without too much trouble.

 Melissia wrote:
But I do find it amusing to see people say "I don't care about power level but I wish my units were more viable",

That's not what he said, tho. He wished that more units were viable.

The mark of a good codex (for me) is not being able to decide what to take because everything is so sweet. Good examples: Tau, Vanilla SM. Sure, there can be stand-out options, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot if you take something else. When you leaf through a codex and think "why would I ever field this... or this... or this...?" that's a terrible book. Even if someone finds that one powerbuild that wins tourneys, it's still a terrible book. See: CSM

 Gitsplitta wrote:
I had orks as the primary with Necron Air as the allies. Worked well but was not overpowering by any stretch of the imagination... and that's even with the TO putting two skyfire nexii on each table so that *everyone* could shoot down my planes without too much trouble.

sounds nice!!

All of the games were competitive and the only overwhelming victory I had was due to quirk in the mission rather than anything I did. Faced a DA terminator army and two Taudar. Humorously enough, the marines gave me the most trouble (sooo many terminators). It was a very challenging and fun day.

Necron/Allied Orks did really well in tournaments I believe. So there's that.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That's not what he said

Yes it is. You're making a distinction that isn't there.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
But I do find it amusing to see people say "I don't care about power level but I wish my units were more viable",

That's not what he said, tho. He wished that more units were viable.

The mark of a good codex (for me) is not being able to decide what to take because everything is so sweet. Good examples: Tau, Vanilla SM. Sure, there can be stand-out options, but you're not shooting yourself in the foot if you take something else. When you leaf through a codex and think "why would I ever field this... or this... or this...?" that's a terrible book. Even if someone finds that one powerbuild that wins tourneys, it's still a terrible book. See: CSM

This is much closer to what I meant. I have written Fandexes is the past with this philosophy while dumbing down the stupidly broken units to get to a nice, equal level for everything. Yes, I would also like for the Codex to be externally balanced as well, but it would have been nice to at least get some good options... right now it feels like list building boils down to "well, it's either Hive Guard or Venomthropes today, gee whiz!"

 KingCracker wrote:
Im just annoyed by the fact that people seem to think the Orks Codex is the weakest dex and weakest army in the game. That one baffles me to no end. Against a Tourny TauDar build? I can see it.....but they can and still do, kick much ass. And they are the oldest codex now yes?

I routinely beat on Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar even when fielded by better players.

Orks are far from the worst, they just can't tangle with the best

(without taking 180 boyz and being a chore to play that is)

That's cool (and fluffy: Evil Sunz don't trust Snakebites, Goffs shun Bloodaxes and nobody likes Deffskulls), but I'd keep rules for clan animosity out of the picture. Most folks out there have multiple clans in their armies. I'd expect a tyranid-like fan backlash if their troops had a chance of turning on each other just for coming close!

Eh, personal taste I guess. My army has every clan but snakebites, and all multiples of a unit are different clans. I *like* it when I roll ones and screw up my plans, fits with the feel of Orks

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

"I'll just generalise all critcisim as whinning and comepletely dimiss it!"

Mainly because a lot of it is whining. They lost Iron Arm. BFD.

You "lost" two units that were mentioned in the book and might appear in a later supplement. A lot of units either got cheaper, or got buffed. The bugs are weak to high-powered shots. Well, they should be, they're bugs. The Tyranids win by drowning planets in millions of bugs, not because 1 bug is a Bio-titan.

It's a mid-range Dex comparable to other mid-range Dexes, but not viable against the current Hotness. Well, no gak. Tau and Eldar are top of the pile. Tyranids aren't. Neither is anyone else.

 Psienesis wrote:
Mainly because a lot of it is whining. They lost Iron Arm. BFD.

You "lost" two units that were mentioned in the book and might appear in a later supplement. A lot of units either got cheaper, or got buffed. The bugs are weak to high-powered shots. Well, they should be, they're bugs. The Tyranids win by drowning planets in millions of bugs, not because 1 bug is a Bio-titan.

It's a mid-range Dex comparable to other mid-range Dexes, but not viable against the current Hotness. Well, no gak. Tau and Eldar are top of the pile. Tyranids aren't. Neither is anyone else.

Some did get cheaper, although most still aren't good choices and the only units that got buffed were Venomthropes and Mawlocs.

i have a smallish ork force, just bits and pieces i got from aobr sets online, and am waiting for the new dex before expanding it. The only thing that worries me is if they up the cost of boyz severely, I'm happy playing with the ramshackle, fall to bits, may explode at any moment, built-for-hilarity rules, but i like having a LOT of ork boyz on the table, and green tide makes a good ally for my marines when required.

 Melissia wrote:
Necron/Allied Orks did really well in tournaments I believe. So there's that.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That's not what he said

Yes it is. You're making a distinction that isn't there.

One thing I've learned over the years about "for fun" players is; its not power gaming when they do it.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Necron/Allied Orks did really well in tournaments I believe. So there's that.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
That's not what he said

Yes it is. You're making a distinction that isn't there.

One thing I've learned over the years about "for fun" players is; its not power gaming when they do it.

There's a difference between wanting super powered units and not wanting some good units and the rest sucking. When its a choice between OP and pants, that's not a fun codex. Take SM for example. They have a lot of good units. Some may be better than others, but none are really pants on the head if you do take them.
With the nids, we're dissapointed because there are many (most?) units you'll never actually take. That's bad dex writing and boring.

If you can't see the difference in a dex where most units are okay to take and a dex where you can only have one or two lists because everything is laughably bad, then I can't help you.

Translation: You want more powerful units.

I never said this was a bad thing. I just wish you'd openly admit it instead of dancing around the idea.

 Melissia wrote:
Translation: You want more powerful units.

I never said this was a bad thing. I just wish you'd openly admit it instead of dancing around the idea.

No, I want to be able to chose which units I take and not stuck with one choice per slot. Not only is that boring its not fun to play with or against. How that happens is irrelevant.

At this point I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse or what.

Without speaking of the Tyranid codex - I don't play bugs so have no dog in that fight - I also have some trepidation about a new Ork book. I thought the current one is one of the better books they have, as far as versatility - it could do power units, or mech, or foot sloggers, whatever you like (except dedicated antitank).

I too could use a little less humor in the book, but hope they retain the versatility and flexibility the current book has.

 Bonde wrote:
The only complaint I have heard about the Tyranid book is about the power level being too low (comparable to that of the old book). I don't care a lot about power levels, since we limit the powerful units where I play anyway. I just want something with rules that easier can be translated to the 6th edition ruleset and a kit or two for some of the missing units.

That's the only complaint? There's plenty of problems with the book besides the points being low, one of the big ones for me is that when a pyrovore dies, it HITS EVERYONE ON THE BOARD: "Volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damage before removing Pyrovore as a casualty). "

This is ridiculous, and I'm sure it's a mistake, it's probably supposed to read: "Volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a wound that inflicted instant death, every unit within D6" of the slain Pyrovore suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores, resolve damage before removing Pyrovore as a casualty). "

With the current rules, the Pyrovore is either the best or worst unit in the game for you, if you are playing against Imperial Guard, do your best to be instant killed, if you are playing against everyone else, never take them.

It's mostly the fact that this kind of thing made it into a major release that gets me, with this, it should not cost 50+ dollars.

So you're irked by the rule wording on a unit that no one ever took and no one was planning on ever using?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Translation: You want more powerful units.

I never said this was a bad thing. I just wish you'd openly admit it instead of dancing around the idea.

No, I want to be able to chose which units I take and not stuck with one choice per slot. Not only is that boring its not fun to play with or against. How that happens is irrelevant.

At this point I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse or what.

Eh they've got it fair enough, yes we wish that our units were more powerful. That would be good external balancing. That said, I don't want overpowered either.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Bring on the animosity and the random charts

I'll also be incredibly disappointed if we don't get clan rules.

When I play with my mates, I use custom clan rules for each unit depending on what clan it is, and models from different clans treat each other as Desperate Allies

Actually, tahats a good idea, and at least some possitive feedback here , the only think i wanto for my boyz is more squig, because there is not enought squig in an ork army, that and maybe a grot them army, with lots of suicidal dakka, just for the laught, but firts more squig

What is with people being unable to comprehend the Volatile rule? The unit is bad, but there's nothing wrong with the wording, just your reading comprehension.

They are kinda right. The rule is meant to say that every unit within D6" gets hit, but it doesn't actually say that. It says every unit suffers a hit for each model within D6" of the Pyrovore. So if you rolled a 4 and there are 10 models within 4" of the dying Pyrovore "every unit" on the whole table takes 10 S3 AP- hits.

Of course it's not what they meant, but it is what they wrote.

The main problem some of us have with the Nids´ Codex is the same we have with the Chaos´ Codex. There was a Codex few people liked and there was a lot of rumors about GW "fixing" it. Then we get a Codex that, according to most players, is even worse. Key units missing or getting nerfed and more expensive, options missing, lots of problems theoretically known by the developers ignored, that kind of stuff.

If you are a competitive player, if you have lots of money or if you are a new player, you just search for the new stuff. Buy a new army, begin from the scratch and you get fun. They are not bad this way. I guess there is a Heldrake equivalent in this Codex, some barely legal combo that will allow people to say: "you see? they win tournaments! they are ok!". Most players do not play tournaments, and do not really care about a single unit "saving" the Codex.

Players want more. The Eldar Codex, the Tau Codex, the Daemon Codex and, even more, the Marine´s Codex keep many units from their previous iterations at a good level. Look at the basic marine: he got lots and lots of options just from chapter tactics. He didn´t go worse, more expensive or missed. Of course, you can get some new stuff to make your army even better. But the army you got before is still playable. Buying the new stuff is an option if you want to play the army.

There is nothing wrong in admitting that there are good codices and bad codices.


On topic, the new Ork Codex can be two ways (concerning the rules):
1) Good Codex. Fun to play, with new units, new options, many viable builds.
2) Bad Codex. Four or more fan-favorite units missing. Another ten or so more or less the same than before but more expensive or nerfed. Five new units you really need to buy to "be competitive". Less options in many units. Only one or two viable builds even in casual games.

And, concerning the fluff:
1) Dard Eldar treatment: expanded, high quality stuff.
2) New tyranids, chaos daemons, chaos treatment: copy pasted stuff from the last Codex, with some random annoying retcons.
3) Grey Knight treatment: senseless & childish stuff, significant changes.
4) New Space Marines treatment: mostly the same, some new stuff, some random retcons, expanded with new information.
5) New Necron treatment: fluff destroyed and started anew from the scratch. Completely different army.

Time will tell.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They are kinda right. The rule is meant to say that every unit within D6" gets hit, but it doesn't actually say that. It says every unit suffers a hit for each model within D6" of the Pyrovore. So if you rolled a 4 and there are 10 models within 4" of the dying Pyrovore "every unit" on the whole table takes 10 S3 AP- hits.

Of course it's not what they meant, but it is what they wrote.

Because they mistakenly assume that grown people can tell which unnecessary words were omitted. It's not a rules issue, it's people being bad at grammar.

Of course this convoluted wording wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if the owning player could assign casualties.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Because they mistakenly assume that grown people can tell which unnecessary words were omitted. It's not a rules issue, it's people being bad at grammar.

It's bad grammar within a rule creating a rules issue. You can blame people's reading comprehension all you want, but the rule says what the rule says. Doesn't matter what they intended, and if they intended something different then they should have written that and not what they wrote. It will be FAQ'd, and it's obvious what they meant, but as I said it is what they wrote.

Has anyone ever complained that the rules for exploding vehicles are worded in the same way? We all seem to have figured that out without needing a FAQ, so why is it an issue for the Pyrovore?

Totally unambiguous wording would have been something like 'every model within D6" causes it's unit to take one hit', but that's a stilted and awkward way of phrasing it.

 Melissia wrote:
Hm . Let's see what my translator says that means:

"It's power level is below nine thousand."

Ah.


edit: For the record, I don't really care either way. But I do find it amusing to see people say "I don't care about power level but I wish my units were more viable", when "viable" means "competitive" which also translates to "powerful".

I don't even disagree with you that there should be more competitive units in 40k's codices.

You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap. Here's some examples to help you do so.




The Tyranid codex just lost a bunch of viable units. We are now limited to a single VIABLE troop choice, the termagant, who, although viable, is not a POWERFUL unit. This is a bad aspect of the codex, not due to the termagant's power levels, but due to the lack of diversity in the rest of the slot. This also enforces the distinction between VIABLE and POWERFUL. Nobody is asking to make the Termagant a POWERFUL unit, merely for changes to the useless flood of units in the same FOC slot.

We have a stand-out HQ unit, the Flyrant, who's wings got cheaper in this dex and thus this choice became more POWERFUL. Along with the changes to this unit was the removal of the Armored Shell +2 armor save biomorph, making the choice of taking a walking Hive Tyrant far less VIABLE. So while the Flyrant got more POWERFUL, the Hive Tyrant itself became less VIABLE for a diversity of lists due to him having one set loadout that works far better than other options.

We also lost a VIABLE playstyle, of deepstriking units with Mycetic Spores, due to the removal of, you guessed it, the Mycetic Spore. Is deep striking a unit of Devilgaunts for 240 points more POWERFUL than deepstriking 2 units of Mawlocs for 260 points? Highly unlikely, but alas it's no longer even slightly VIABLE due to it being completely removed from the codex.

I am going to now mention the Dark Eldar codex, who while far from POWERFUL, and one of the less COMPETITIVE codex's in the 40k universe, has a book full of very diverse units where almost every single one is VIABLE.




Hopefully this helped.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Because they mistakenly assume that grown people can tell which unnecessary words were omitted. It's not a rules issue, it's people being bad at grammar.

It's bad grammar within a rule creating a rules issue. You can blame people's reading comprehension all you want, but the rule says what the rule says. Doesn't matter what they intended, and if they intended something different then they should have written that and not what they wrote. It will be FAQ'd, and it's obvious what they meant, but as I said it is what they wrote.

This is one of the things that annoy me to no end with this game. You just said it's obvious what the rule means..... which it is..... only to then say, but the rule says what it says meaning people will argue that into the ground to win.


If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap. Here's some examples to help you do so.




The Tyranid codex just lost a bunch of viable units. We are now limited to a single VIABLE troop choice, the termagant, who, although viable, is not a POWERFUL unit. This is a bad aspect of the codex, not due to the termagant's power levels, but due to the lack of diversity in the rest of the slot. This also enforces the distinction between VIABLE and POWERFUL. Nobody is asking to make the Termagant POWERFUL, merely for changes to the useless flood of units in the same FOC slot.

We have a stand-out HQ unit, the Flyrant who's wings got cheaper in this dex and thus this choice became more POWERFUL. Along with the changes to this unit was the removal of the Armored Shell +2 armor save biomorph, making the choice of taking a walking Hive Tyrant far less VIABLE. So while the Flyrant got more POWERFUL, the Hive Tyrant itself became less VIABLE for a diversity of lists due to him having one set loadout that works far better than other options.

We also lost a VIABLE playstyle, of deepstriking units with Mycetic Spores, due to the removal of, you guessed it, the Mycetic Spore. Is deep striking a unit of Devilgaunts for 240 points more POWERFUL than deepstriking 2 units of Mawlocs for 260 points? Highly unlikely, but alas it's no longer even slightly VIABLE due to it being completely removed from the codex.

I am going to now mention the Dark Eldar codex, who while far from POWERFUL, and one of the less COMPETITIVE codex's in the 40k universe, has a book full of very diverse units where almost every single one is VIABLE.




Hopefully this helped.

Wow.

That is the single most succinct explanation of what a "viable" unit is vs what a "powerful" unit is that I've ever seen. It's impossible to exalt a post more than once, but for sake of argument pretend I spent a couple of minutes doing it 100 times.

 KingCracker wrote:
This is one of the things that annoy me to no end with this game. You just said it's obvious what the rule means..... which it is..... only to then say, but the rule says what it says meaning people will argue that into the ground to win.

If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

But this is a game where one has to read a rule and interpret its meaning based upon the words. The best way to do that is to take the wording as written as we can never claim to know the intent of the writer (even if its bleedingly obvious). Of course GW don't intend for Pyrovores to nuke the whole fething table every time one of them dies, but that is the way the rule is worded. There's a reason why legal documents go into extensive detail with defined terms and incredibly overwrought language: Because they need to in an effort to stop ambiguities. Rules are essentially a type of legal document as they establish the contract all players play by.

I always overwrite my rules because I despise loose wording and hate ambiguity. It means things are longer than they probably should be, but at the same time the aim is to avoid any ambiguity (or exploitable loopholes). The Pyrovore nukes the table when he dies. That's the rule. That's what's written. It's absurd and it's obviously not what they meant, but that's what's on paper. It should have been written better, and if the people who wrote it had any real sense of investment in the book they were writing (something they clearly didn't - just read the fething Tyranid Codex to see why!) they would have seen that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap.

You need to learn how there is no real difference in this discussion between these terms.

If you don't care that a unit is competitive or powerful, you don't care whether or not it is viable, because viable indicates that it is powerful enough to be taken in a competitive list. I don't even disagree with this idea, but I do disagree with the assertion that you can make the units more viable without making them more powerful

But by all means, keep inviting HBMC to +1 your post as if I'm supposed to care

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap.

You need to learn how there is no real difference in this discussion between these terms.

If you don't care that a unit is competitive or powerful, you don't care whether or not it is viable, because viable indicates that it is powerful enough to be taken in a competitive list.

Yes there is. In this context, a Heldrake is powerful. It is not broken since it can die rather easily, it is nowhere near a 2++ star in power, but it is a powerful unit.

Tactical Marines are viable. They have very low damage output, low resilience for their points given how much AP >=3 there is now, but they are not a powerful unit. Boyz are better. Avengers are better, if only for what they contribute to unlocking. Grey Hunters are better. Fire Warriors are better. Windrider Jetbikes are better. Etc. Lots of troops are.

Hell, even if Tacs are more survivable per point if Orks are in the open and the incoming attack is not AP3 or lower... It does not matter. As said, AP3 or lower is very common and what Ork player puts his Boyz outside of cover?

Nobody says competetive lists here. More strawmen? I am an extremely uncompetetive player and even I facepalm at the badness of the Tyranids. A unit like Pyrovores is barely viable for even a 100% fluff-driven scenario game because it is so bad. Trust me, we tried. You need to actively try to not wreck its face in order for it to work. That is not the sign of a good unit.

Tyranids have a few OK things. Flyrants. But their codex is bad. Unless GW gets their gak together I'd prefer the old codex or a fandex over getting a new one.

Making them more viable by making them more powerful is obvious. But making them more powerful =/= making them powerful. Or rather... Making them less bad =/= making them powerful. Making them less bad is what seems to be wanted.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Tactical Marines are viable.

Given the amount of whining I hear about them, I'm not sure a lot of people would agree with you on that.

The only reason many people take tacticals is because they have to take two troops and tacticals are marginally more survivable than scouts.

Or to translate: Many people don't consider them viable.

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Tactical Marines are viable.

Given the amount of whining I hear about them, I'm not sure a lot of people would agree with you on that.

The only reason many people take tacticals is because they have to take two troops and tacticals are marginally more survivable than scouts.

Or to translate: Many people don't consider them viable.

Depends on what you consider them viable for.

To my knowledge, there is no set standard for what something must be viable for in order for it to count as viable. I use no 'tournament' units (Common 1000 pts list for me is a bunch of CSMs, a few melee-Chosen, Kharn, a Rhino, a Defiler), but I think all of them are viable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap. Here's some examples to help you do so.




The Tyranid codex just lost a bunch of viable units. We are now limited to a single VIABLE troop choice, the termagant, who, although viable, is not a POWERFUL unit. This is a bad aspect of the codex, not due to the termagant's power levels, but due to the lack of diversity in the rest of the slot. This also enforces the distinction between VIABLE and POWERFUL. Nobody is asking to make the Termagant POWERFUL, merely for changes to the useless flood of units in the same FOC slot.

We have a stand-out HQ unit, the Flyrant who's wings got cheaper in this dex and thus this choice became more POWERFUL. Along with the changes to this unit was the removal of the Armored Shell +2 armor save biomorph, making the choice of taking a walking Hive Tyrant far less VIABLE. So while the Flyrant got more POWERFUL, the Hive Tyrant itself became less VIABLE for a diversity of lists due to him having one set loadout that works far better than other options.

We also lost a VIABLE playstyle, of deepstriking units with Mycetic Spores, due to the removal of, you guessed it, the Mycetic Spore. Is deep striking a unit of Devilgaunts for 240 points more POWERFUL than deepstriking 2 units of Mawlocs for 260 points? Highly unlikely, but alas it's no longer even slightly VIABLE due to it being completely removed from the codex.

I am going to now mention the Dark Eldar codex, who while far from POWERFUL, and one of the less COMPETITIVE codex's in the 40k universe, has a book full of very diverse units where almost every single one is VIABLE.




Hopefully this helped.

Wow.

That is the single most succinct explanation of what a "viable" unit is vs what a "powerful" unit is that I've ever seen. It's impossible to exalt a post more than once, but for sake of argument pretend I spent a couple of minutes doing it 100 times.

You have my exalt too, thanks for explaining my intent better than myself.

One of the psychic powers states something like "Deal X damage to target unit where X is 3D6 minus leadership of target" or something. My opponent and I had to stop the game to figure out how that affected a mob of 15 fearless Ork Boyz (Orks can swap out their normal leadership for the number of models in squad) as the rule said NOTHING about what is does to fearless units.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
One of the psychic powers states something like "Deal X damage to target unit where X is 3D6 minus leadership of target" or something. My opponent and I had to stop the game to figure out how that affected a mob of 15 fearless Ork Boyz (Orks can swap out their normal leadership for the number of models in squad) as the rule said NOTHING about what is does to fearless units.

In that, case, surely, you would assume that being Fearless has no effect? A rule cannot cover every possible situation or interaction in the game, because there are tens of thousands, if not more. Some rules are poorly written, yes, but some common sense is useful too.

 The Shadow wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
One of the psychic powers states something like "Deal X damage to target unit where X is 3D6 minus leadership of target" or something. My opponent and I had to stop the game to figure out how that affected a mob of 15 fearless Ork Boyz (Orks can swap out their normal leadership for the number of models in squad) as the rule said NOTHING about what is does to fearless units.

In that, case, surely, you would assume that being Fearless has no effect? A rule cannot cover every possible situation or interaction in the game, because there are tens of thousands, if not more. Some rules are poorly written, yes, but some common sense is useful too.

Guess I didn't think that through...

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
One of the psychic powers states something like "Deal X damage to target unit where X is 3D6 minus leadership of target" or something. My opponent and I had to stop the game to figure out how that affected a mob of 15 fearless Ork Boyz (Orks can swap out their normal leadership for the number of models in squad) as the rule said NOTHING about what is does to fearless units.

How is that difficult?

What's the majority Leadership of the Ork unit? Subtract that from the total of 3d6. The target unit now takes that many Wounds.

The Fearless attribute doesn't matter here, because this is not a Pinning, Fear or Regroup situation.

 Melissia wrote:
You need to learn how there is no real difference in this discussion between these terms.

He just explained in the clearest terms possible what the difference is.

But we all know that semantic arguments with you are utterly pointless.

I don't understand the need to pick on each other over a codex that is derailing this thread. Honestly, I have always had a hard time beating orks even with my guard and they do deserve a new book! I do get tired of the same games over and over because much of the book isn't worth taking....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
You need to learn how there is no real difference in this discussion between these terms.

He just explained in the clearest terms possible what the difference is.

But we all know that semantic arguments with you are utterly pointless.

I'd pretty much say most arguments are myself.

But I digress, it's a pity that Warriors didn't become viable, those were always cool to me even if I can't ally them in, the fact they still are bad is just so disappointing.

 KingCracker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Because they mistakenly assume that grown people can tell which unnecessary words were omitted. It's not a rules issue, it's people being bad at grammar.

It's bad grammar within a rule creating a rules issue. You can blame people's reading comprehension all you want, but the rule says what the rule says. Doesn't matter what they intended, and if they intended something different then they should have written that and not what they wrote. It will be FAQ'd, and it's obvious what they meant, but as I said it is what they wrote.

This is one of the things that annoy me to no end with this game. You just said it's obvious what the rule means..... which it is..... only to then say, but the rule says what it says meaning people will argue that into the ground to win.


If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Like this good ol' Shokk Atttack result of double sixes:

Any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play, Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.

How many combination/permutation would this be argued?

 whembly wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Because they mistakenly assume that grown people can tell which unnecessary words were omitted. It's not a rules issue, it's people being bad at grammar.

It's bad grammar within a rule creating a rules issue. You can blame people's reading comprehension all you want, but the rule says what the rule says. Doesn't matter what they intended, and if they intended something different then they should have written that and not what they wrote. It will be FAQ'd, and it's obvious what they meant, but as I said it is what they wrote.

This is one of the things that annoy me to no end with this game. You just said it's obvious what the rule means..... which it is..... only to then say, but the rule says what it says meaning people will argue that into the ground to win.


If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Like this good ol' Shokk Atttack result of double sixes:

Any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play, Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.

How many combination/permutation would this be argued?

Ohmagerd, Orkz are so OWERPAWADED!

Yeah, I never read it as all units on the table either. Context is important.

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

 Talizvar wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

Rules lawyers are frequently an unpleasant breed of people.

Regardless, I actually kind of wonder how they'll adapt the Weirdboy to the new edition now that I think of it...

Like this good ol' Shokk Atttack result of double sixes:

Any model hit by the gun this turn is removed from play, Vehicles take an automatic penetrating hit.

To Rules-Lawyer that...

RAW, the effect doesn't do anything, because the Shokk Attack Gun is not a CC weapon, and you're not hitting the target with the gun.

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

Rules lawyers are frequently an unpleasant breed of people.

Regardless, I actually kind of wonder how they'll adapt the Weirdboy to the new edition now that I think of it...

Maybe they'll all use a Scrolls of Magnus sort of system...? More than likely though, they'll get their own chart.

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

Rules lawyers are frequently an unpleasant breed of people.

Regardless, I actually kind of wonder how they'll adapt the Weirdboy to the new edition now that I think of it...

Giving Zogwort a BS would be a nice start.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You need to learn to differentiate "viable" from "competitive" from "powerful" asap.

You need to learn how there is no real difference in this discussion between these terms.

If you don't care that a unit is competitive or powerful, you don't care whether or not it is viable, because viable indicates that it is powerful enough to be taken in a competitive list. I don't even disagree with this idea, but I do disagree with the assertion that you can make the units more viable without making them more powerful

But by all means, keep inviting HBMC to +1 your post as if I'm supposed to care

I teach English for a living. Let me see if I can help.
Viable.

: capable of being done or used

: capable of succeeding

: capable of living or of developing into a living thing

Okay, so in game context this means can a unit do what it was intended to do? Now, remember, this is a game so the player has some expectation of winning even if its an uphill battle. So, can a unit do what its made for? In the Nid Dex, there are some units you simply will never take because either they suck so bad, don't do what they're supposed to do or other things do the same job but much better. So, many units are not viable. Meaning, they are not capable of being used. They are not capable of succeeding and not capable of living. (that describes half the Nid Dex there.)

So, when you hear someone say "I want a codex that is more viable," this is what they are saying. Of course you're just going to say "you mean more "powerful!!" No, we mean we want to unit choices that will actually do the job they're supposed to which will give us more options, more strategies and more tactics which in turn makes the codex more fun and less boring. And THAT is the main thing, less BORING.

(edit) Side note: Competitive means it can compete with the top army builds. That's not what we are talking about when we say viable. Are there viable lists in the new Dex? Of course, but they're EXTREMELY limited to just a few units and that goes back to the greatest sin a game can make, being boring.)

 MWHistorian wrote:
I teach English for a living. Let me see if I can help.

And I'm Her Majesty the Queen.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Okay, so in game context this means can a unit do what it was intended to do?

Translation: If a unit is too weak to be viable, you need to...

... wait for it, wait for it....

... make it more powerful.

But by all means, continue arguing that people who want more powerful units are not wanting more powerful units

Once again, I don't really have anything against them asking for stronger units, I just find the assertion that they AREN'T asking for stronger units to be bizarre as they complain about units being too weak.

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I teach English for a living. Let me see if I can help.

And I'm Her Majesty the Queen.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Okay, so in game context this means can a unit do what it was intended to do?

Translation: If a unit is too weak to be viable, you need to...

... wait for it, wait for it....

... make it more powerful.

But by all means, continue arguing that people who want more powerful units are not wanting more powerful units

Once again, I don't really have anything against them asking for stronger units, I just find the assertion that they AREN'T asking for stronger units to be bizarre as they complain about units being too weak.

More viable doesn't necessarily means slapping a crap ton of OP special rules on it. It could be a simple as just giving them more options. When I say a "viable" Ork book I don't mean some tournament breaking Taudar thing, I just want a book where I can field more units than just Ork Boyz.

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I teach English for a living. Let me see if I can help.

And I'm Her Majesty the Queen.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Okay, so in game context this means can a unit do what it was intended to do?

Translation: If a unit is too weak to be viable, you need to...

... wait for it, wait for it....

... make it more powerful.

But by all means, continue arguing that people who want more powerful units are not wanting more powerful units

Once again, I don't really have anything against them asking for stronger units, I just find the assertion that they AREN'T asking for stronger units to be bizarre as they complain about units being too weak.

You're playing a pure semantics game that isn't helping your cause or the conversation. Stop being purposefully obtuse and take a moment to listen to what we're saying. We want a dex that allows us to choose from many units, like the SM dex does. Power is an irrelevant possible means to an end.

I think the issue is that Melissia is using "more powerful units" in the meaning "units that are more powerful", whereas the rest of you lot is using it in the meaning "more units that are powerful".

It's not that it's a desire for stronger units, it's a desire for more evenly balanced units, shifting some of the extreme power from the OP stuff to the craptacular ones.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We want a dex that allows us to choose from many units, like the SM dex does. Power is an irrelevant possible means to an end.

Translation: You want a dex with units that are more powerful than the current perceived lameness.

I get perfectly well what you're saying. But you don't seem to, and it's causing you to use doublespeak. "I don't want units that are more powerful, I just want units that are more powerful" does not help YOUR case, and you keep saying it over and over and over and over and over again.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
More viable doesn't necessarily means slapping a crap ton of OP special rules on it

And why, in the name of the Emperor's Golden Toilet, do you assume I disagree?

 Melissia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We want a dex that allows us to choose from many units, like the SM dex does. Power is an irrelevant possible means to an end.

Translation: You want a dex with units that are more powerful than the current perceived lameness.

I get perfectly well what you're saying. But you don't seem to, and it's causing you to use doublespeak. "I don't want units that are more powerful, I just want units that are more powerful" does not help YOUR case, and you keep saying it over and over and over and over and over again.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
More viable doesn't necessarily means slapping a crap ton of OP special rules on it

And why, in the name of the Emperor's Golden Toilet, do you assume I disagree?

The argument has reached the point where I'm confused what were really arguing about here. Sorry.

She's trolling, that's why its confusing.

I was objecting to the doublespeak of "we don't want more powerful units, we just want more powerful units".

If someone sees the term "more powerful units" and thinks "obviously she means we want Tyranids to be OP", then my only explanation for that reaction is "so they don't really think Tyranids are weak, then?".

 MWHistorian wrote:
She's trolling, that's why its confusing.

...
Everything has sudden clarity.
...

So, what are people actually afraid of for the new ork codex? What could get worse?

Nerfing our better shooting units seems worryingly possible; I can easily see someone deciding that orks shouldn't have good shooting and pushing for them to rely on CC. At the very least, I think that Lootas are going to be less of a 'no brainer'. On the other hand, I think they are unlikely to make Tankbustas worse and they can pretty much fill the same role as Lootas do now.

Weaker Battlewagons would be another likely change. I think it's quite possible that they will lose AV 14 on the front and the Deffrolla will be a much less desirable upgrade. It's going to need to be hit pretty hard before it becomes useless though.

The KFF also seems like it could well be in line for getting a lot less useful. Probably by making it only cover one unit or only affect models within it's radius rather than entire units, making them much more vulnerable to focus fire.

Nob bikers might get a price increase, but I've never been all that convinced by them anyway.

We could lose the Mob Rule, but it was never that essential and for some units it was almost a disadvantage, because it often prevents you from going to ground.

Trukks could lose ramshackle, but it's unreliable anyway. I'd cheerfully trade it for a 5 point discount.

Mek repair rolls could well get worse (someone has eventually got to take issue with the idea that mekboys are better at repairing things than techmarines), but if Lootas and/or Big Meks with KFF become less desirable, we won't be bringing as many meks anyway.

Dakkajets seem unlikely to stay as shooty as they are now (probably losing the Waagh! plane rule), but I can't see the bommers getting any worse. We don't really rely on the Dakkajet for anything anyway; BS 2 and lots of shots meant that we always had fairly decent anti-air.

Warbikers might lose their Exhaust Cloud save, but all that really means is dropping from 4+ to 5+.

Some kind of infighting or animosity rule could come up, but I doubt that it will be cripplingly bad. Maybe a mob that fails a charge during a Waaagh! will take a bunch of wounds? Sounds nasty, but a unit which just failed a charge is as good as dead anyway most of the time.

Everything else that seems likely to get worse (or outright removed) is stuff that is barely viable anyway; who field Flash Gits or Looted Wagons at the moment?

Really, I think that even a worse case scenario is unlikely to ruin orks for me. You would have to be actively trying to make them terrible in order to make me as disappointed as CSM and Tyranid players seem to be.

Edit; nvm, stupid semantics nonsense is over and done with

Why don't you stop dooming and glooming and wait till an ork Dex is made...Christ half the goddamn whining about the nid dex regards what people wish listed wanting in there that didn't happen. You lot are embarrassing proper ork player's everywhere with all this crying before there's even rumors of a book. Christ Perfect Organism how did you wind up playing orks with such a depressing attitude. This is entirely from my perspective but just about every ork player I've ever known including myself has shared one trait, they are positive about their army and look forward to finding a way to use every damn unit in the book and have a blast doing it. (cept maybe flashgits dem nobs need better guns)

but yeah...same crap that was complained about when Eldar and Tau came out....in a couple weeks people will figure out the synergies of the book and realize it's actually perfectly fine just like they have every god damn time a new book has come out.

PS. Semantics nothing, you people ARE saying you want more powerful units. If you want to delude yourselves into thinking you don't want your book full of heldrakes or for every unit to be as good as a riptide then you are just lying to yourself and it's really quite sad. Don't bother replying to this part.....I don't wish to take part in your semantic delusions any further.

Orktavius wrote:
Christ Perfect Organism how did you wind up playing orks with such a depressing attitude.

Maybe I wasn't clear: that was what I thought the 'worst case' scenario might look like and even then, my conclusion was that it wouldn't be that bad. I think it's extremely unlikely that all of those changes are going to happen and I'm absolutely sure that there will be a lot of units which get better and more fun to play. My main concern with the new ork codex is how I'm going to afford all the new models.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the issue is that Melissia is using "more powerful units" in the meaning "units that are more powerful", whereas the rest of you lot is using it in the meaning "more units that are powerful".

It's not that it's a desire for stronger units, it's a desire for more evenly balanced units, shifting some of the extreme power from the OP stuff to the craptacular ones.

The point is that if we say "we want more powerful units" in this environment, that is easily misconstrued to "I hate this Codex because it isn't broken".

Then I apologize perfect organism as I obviously got the pessimism stuck in my head and ran with it. Clearly like other ork players sir you just want to get stuck in with a new book and run rampant with it......which reminds me...I should start repainting all my orks in preparation for the new dex......I'm sure I can repaint all 15k of my orks by 2016....only like 2 years after the book comes out >.>

As an Ork fanboy. I must contribute;


WAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

It's edition Dakka.. We are an assault Army. If our dex makes us relevant in this edition something would be amiss... Put two large LOS terrain in the middle of the table I feel like Orks still have a place. Make Assault viable in the shooting gallery of 5+ cover saves (which seems to be common) and I might say the game was assault biased.

btw.. Escalation and Dweapons.. What?

 Melissia wrote:
I was objecting to the doublespeak of "we don't want more powerful units, we just want more powerful units".

If someone sees the term "more powerful units" and thinks "obviously she means we want Tyranids to be OP", then my only explanation for that reaction is "so they don't really think Tyranids are weak, then?".

Well, you did make a post saying "viable = powerful" with some ill-conceived badly thought-out reason as to why.

If you meant "more powerful than before" then thats what you should have said, and you would have been right. We would like a power buff to useless crap such as raveners and rippers and genestealers and basura like that. But what you said wanting "viable" units is the equivalent of wanting "powerful" units, which is far from the truth, and I can quote you saying so. It also strongly came across as an extension to your earlier posts in the thread that people unhappy with the tyranid codex are just whiners. So you can change your tune all you want and claim you were just pointing out that "buffing a useless unit means up'ing its power, not making it a powerful unit!" (no gak... really??!) but the proof is in your earlier posts and all this back pedalling is the reason you are being called a troll, because you are really looking like one right now.

Or just keep arguing the technicality all you want, I don't care. If the Ork dex turns out as bad as the Nid one, you can just enjoy not being able to express a negative opinion due to the hole you have dug yourself.

 Rismonite wrote:
As an Ork fanboy. I must contribute;


WAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

It's edition Dakka.. We are an assault Army.

We can do either assault or shooty.

Orks love the dakkadakka!

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you did make a post saying "viable = powerful"

So what you're saying is, when people are complaining about how units are too weak, too expensive, and too useless, what they really want is for their units to be hit with the nerfbat?

Because that's exactly what you just said when you disagree with the assertion "viable = powerful".

Face it. People want their units to be more powerful. I actually agree with them; Warriors, for instance, cost too much once you upgrade them to be useful. So... they can be made more viable... by increasing their cost! Because viable != powerful! We cna make them more viable without increasing their overall power! Am I doing this right?

 SHUPPET wrote:
If you meant "more powerful than before" then thats what you should have said

It is what I said. It's just not what you chose to read, because you're stuck in your own doublespeak.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you did make a post saying "viable = powerful"

So what you're saying is, when people are complaining about how units are too weak, too expensive, and too useless, what they really want is for their units to be hit with the nerfbat?

Because that's exactly what you just said when you disagree with the assertion "viable = powerful".

Face it. People want their units to be more powerful. I actually agree with them; Warriors, for instance, cost too much once you upgrade them to be useful. So... they can be made more viable... by increasing their cost! Because viable != powerful! We cna make them more viable without increasing their overall power! Am I doing this right?

 SHUPPET wrote:
If you meant "more powerful than before" then thats what you should have said

It is what I said. It's just not what you chose to read, because you're stuck in your own doublespeak.

Ok. I play both Tyranids and Sisters, so let´s try this: Frateris Militia Bands.

I liked Frateris Militia. They are no more. I do not like Frateris Militia being gone. Helena the Virtuous, Praxedes, all of them I miss, even Kyrinov, who I never really liked. I want them back. And I want "Order Traits" rules, to help me visualize a Bloody Rose strike force sent to Prism to [censored] or an Ermine Mantle team searching for Sabrina. They are not supposed to be the same way.

That doesn´t mean I want Frateris Militia being the new Heldrake. Seriously. No. I do not even like the Heldrake as it is written. It is broken, unbalanced, is like cheating. It should be nerfed through house rules, just like Warp Talons or Mutilators should be buffed up.

Now Battle Sisters Squads. They are really lame. They got better in 6th (5 models squad is a big thing, and better weapons), but not enough. They are 12 points, close to a Marine. They need Order Traits, they need a stronger Acts of Faith system. Not because I want them to be able to win with ease, but because I want them to be worthy. They are supposed to be equal or near to a Marine in combat, both in Codex fluff and in points cost. And the same goes for Repentia, Penitent Engines and Celestian.

I was disappointed and angry with every Sister´s Codex released in the last years. We lost units. We lost options. Broken units remained broken. And I was expecting a lot more.

That doesn´t mean I want Sisters to easily destroy Tyranids. I play Tyranids too. I want them to have a chance against one another. And against any other army. And I want all units in the Codex to be at the same level, so I can choose whatever I fancy for any game. That´s External Balance and Internal Balance. I want balance. And I want many options. And most of all I do not want units I like missing from the Codex.

Regardless of how "powerful" it is, the Codex: Tyranids is awful. And the Sisters´ is far worse. I hope the Ork Codex is good, but I am afraid of the "get the Codex broken and then get this handful of dataslates to fix it" concept I think GW is toying with.


.... however, I must admit I sometimes feel a "doublespeak" in some claims people do about their favorite army too.

Melissa isn't saying they need to be over powered, but more powerful than they currently are. So cheaper, better abilities. Etc. That would make them also a more viable choice

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Melissa isn't saying they need to be over powered, but more powerful than they currently are. So cheaper, better abilities. Etc. That would make them also a more viable choice

In the case of the Heldrake, it means less powerful, or more expensive. That would make it a viable option for me. Same for Riptides or Serpents. It is not "more powerful". It is balance.

And not losing units. And not needing any of the three Dataslates already confirmed for Tyranids: http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/three-tyranid-dataslates-are-scheduled.html

If this succeeds, I would expect eight Ork key units, not four, not appearing in Codex: Orks. And many more nerfed to uselessness. Don´t worry, I am sure you will be able to play Orks thanks to the six Dataslates that will be scheduled for the month after the release.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you did make a post saying "viable = powerful"

So what you're saying is, when people are complaining about how units are too weak, too expensive, and too useless, what they really want is for their units to be hit with the nerfbat?

Because that's exactly what you just said when you disagree with the assertion "viable = powerful".

Face it. People want their units to be more powerful. I actually agree with them; Warriors, for instance, cost too much once you upgrade them to be useful. So... they can be made more viable... by increasing their cost! Because viable != powerful! We cna make them more viable without increasing their overall power! Am I doing this right?

What I and the rest of the people disattisfied with the latest codex are asking for is not that they get nerfed (obviously), we want them to get more powerful, but not for them to be buffed into powerful units. The distinction is easy. Or is everything so black and white that there can be absolutely no middleground? Let's use Rippers as an example. Taking AWAY their current 9 point nerf, they would get "MORE POWERFUL". But they would not be a powerful unit, they would be just as useless as they were in the last codex. So all people are asking for is a middle-ground, for units to become stronger to a point that they aren't necessarily POWERFUL units, merely PLAYABLE in the army. Somewhat like people's satisfaction with the Gargoyle for example. They are far from powerful, spamming them will probably mean you lose, however they are viable because they aren't ridiculously overpriced or built with a critical flaw to their role, making Gargoyles a VIABLE option, but not a unit anyone in their right mind would call POWERFUL. Cmon. The concept really isn't that hard.

 Melissia wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Well, you did make a post saying "viable = powerful" with some ill-conceived badly thought-out reason as to why.

If you meant "more powerful than before" then thats what you should have said

It is what I said. It's just not what you chose to read, because you're stuck in your own doublespeak.

Ok I'm just going to go ahead and quote your earlier post

 Melissia wrote:
"viable" means "competitive" which also translates to "powerful".

Nope, looks like you definitely said viable = "powerful", not viable = "more powerful than before". The hypocrisy of you trying to accuse anyone of double speak is just.... amazing.

More viable does not mean more powerful.

Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful. Each Genestealer would have the same statline and would kill just as much in melee. It would make them much more viable, however.

 Melissia wrote:
What? No, and hell no. Just because people whine incessantly about one codex means nothing, they whine about every codex. People whined that the new Eldar codex sucked, before they realied it was good. It's never as bad as the initial whining makes it out to be.

Lemme Break down the nids codex for you

THE WARLORD TRAITS ARE gak. THE EQUIPMENT IS gak. THE UNITS ARE gak. WHY DON'T MY KROOT HAVE A 2+ INVULNERABLE SAVE. THEY NERFED THIS, THEY NERFED THAT. I DON'T SEE WHY THEY DID THIS. MY RAILGUNS ARE S8 AP- you get that I'm talking about the tau codex here.

People do this for every codex, good and bad. Now, Tau is one of the best codexes, and Marines, Eldar and Daemons can't be far behind. Nids have the power to be a good codex, we just need to find out how.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
More viable does not mean more powerful.

Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful. Each Genestealer would have the same statline and would kill just as much in melee. It would make them much more viable, however.

At the cost of going off-topic, and knowing your (evil) intentions of eventually fixing this in the Proposed Rules section, I would like to point out that costs reduction is usually a bad idea when fixing something.

Genestealers appeared first in Space Hulk. They are close combat total monsters. Normal Marines do not stand a chance in a claustrophobic environment such a Space Hulk, this is the reason they send Terminators. Fighting a Genestealer should be a terrifying prospect. Play some iteration of Space Hulk and you will get it. So the 14 points of the Genestealer against 14 points of a Marine makes sense. They are worthy enemies of each other. And it is quite a "classic" match in w40k.

Genestealers share a problem with many other units: they are units over-especialized in assaulting from reserves. They no longer can do it. Fix the "assault from reserves" rule and Genestealers are fixed. The "units coming from assault can be hit only with Snap Shots" fix is my favorite.

 da001 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Melissa isn't saying they need to be over powered, but more powerful than they currently are. So cheaper, better abilities. Etc. That would make them also a more viable choice

In the case of the Heldrake, it means less powerful, or more expensive. That would make it a viable option for me. Same for Riptides or Serpents. It is not "more powerful". It is balance.

And not losing units. And not needing any of the three Dataslates already confirmed for Tyranids: http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/three-tyranid-dataslates-are-scheduled.html

If this succeeds, I would expect eight Ork key units, not four, not appearing in Codex: Orks. And many more nerfed to uselessness. Don´t worry, I am sure you will be able to play Orks thanks to the six Dataslates that will be scheduled for the month after the release.

Losing units? Blame chapter house et al for that. Now we will have to suck it up DLC style, and suffer whining from people who don't understand basic production economics...
Will you "need" them? Who knows

 da001 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
More viable does not mean more powerful.

Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful. Each Genestealer would have the same statline and would kill just as much in melee. It would make them much more viable, however.

At the cost of going off-topic, and knowing your (evil) intentions of eventually fixing this in the Proposed Rules section, I would like to point out that costs reduction is usually a bad idea when fixing something.

Genestealers appeared first in Space Hulk. They are close combat total monsters. Normal Marines do not stand a chance in a claustrophobic environment such a Space Hulk, this is the reason they send Terminators. Fighting a Genestealer should be a terrifying prospect. Play some iteration of Space Hulk and you will get it. So the 14 points of the Genestealer against 14 points of a Marine makes sense. They are worthy enemies of each other. And it is quite a "classic" match in w40k.

Genestealers share a problem with many other units: they are units over-especialized in assaulting from reserves. They no longer can do it. Fix the "assault from reserves" rule and Genestealers are fixed. The "units coming from assault can be hit only with Snap Shots" fix is my favorite.

You absolutely nailed it. But if GW has decided to run with a certain ruleset, however good or bad it may be, they should rebalance the units in each codex respective to it, this should be the point of the codex, not just selling new dragon models. Because now Genestealers are useless for this entire edition.

Oh, I did not intend to actually do that. Just pointed out that points dropping Genestealers makes individual Genestealers be as powerful as currently, while simultaneously becoming more viable, thus proving that powerful =/= viable.

But the whole argument is a clusterfeth anyway and kinda pointless.

We'll see how I intend to fix Genies later over in Proposed Rules, but that's another topic.

I agree that just dropping points values is not ideal in their case.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful

Yes it would.

Getting the same thing cheaper is more powerful.

I think Melissa needs to take an English class from MWHistorian or read a dictionary.

Well no, both of you are right. The words mean different things, but in this context asking for "more viable units" and "more powerful units" is the same. It's just that we're making assumption that "more powerful" = "overpowered"

 Melissia wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Making Genestealers 9-10 ppm would not make them more powerful

Yes it would.

Getting the same thing cheaper is more powerful.

Or perhaps that it is priced correctly? Not all things magically become powerful when you drop their points cost...

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:
Some did get cheaper, although most still aren't good choices and the only units that got buffed were Venomthropes and Mawlocs.

This really depends wholly on the meta you play in. In the right meta every unit is a decent choice when you are not regularly playing against min-maxed netlists just out for a quick win. When your meta is not obsessed with the most cost effective units only everything sees light on the table and has an impact. Generally for me if I use a specific unit that someone else things is useless and it performs the duty I planned for it admirably when I chose it, then I really don't care if there was another unit in the codex that could have done the job just as well for cheaper. Had someone argue with me in a thread before that I was wrong for doing that because the most cost efficient choice was the only one you should make. Left me shaking my head...

Skriker

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Well no, both of you are right. The words mean different things, but in this context asking for "more viable units" and "more powerful units" is the same. It's just that we're making assumption that "more powerful" = "overpowered"

I don't normally comment because I barely play anymore, but people really. This debate is bad.

Power if 40k is almost completely about cost competitiveness. I could write rules for a monsterous creature that had an 8 in every state but if it cost 800 points to play it, no one would ever use it. Take Tactical Squads as an example. On their own tac squads are bad. They cost a lot for a stat line they only use half of and relatively to other troops in other books are not cost effective for what they do. You use them because in C:SM they are typically the best option available. That makes them viable because they are cost competitive to other options in the dex, but not necessarily powerful (i.e. what makes them viable is simply the fact that your other choice is a niche unit except in specialized lists).

Likewise, Termagaunts in the 5th ed book (I haven't read the 6th) were not that great on their own but were better than the other options making them viable. What made them powerful is that they enabled you to make a good HQ that was outcompeted vs the flygrant (i.e. less viable) more viable by moving its position in the FOC. The relative power of the Tervigon didn't change at all but its viability went up because it no longer competed with flygrants and had little competition in the troops slots, likewise even though nothing changed for the termagaunt they became both more powerful and more viable at the same time because relative to other choices they were better to start with and got even better because they let you move the tervigon.

A powerful unit is almost always viable but a viable unit is not always powerful. However making a units more viable typically entails increasing its relative power to other choices so yeah. If you want warriors to be more viable you have to make them more powerful either by making them worth their points (T5) or by bringing their points down. Unless they become cost competitive i.e. more powerful they will be worse than gaunts.

Your argument of Tac Marines doesn't make them "viable", it makes them "the least crappy of crappy choices".

Can they do what they are designed to do? Many people these days are saying "no, no they can not". This means the unit is not viable.

When you ask these people "What do they need to be viable?" you get one of two responses (in the main): Either they need to be buffed in some way (whether that's better saves in ranged combat, better range for damage output, or alterations to assault rules), or they need to be dirt-dirt cheap so you can field more of them.

This makes the unit either more powerful in its stat-line, or more powerful because of weight of fire and weight of numbers. This is often a situation where people begin to say that a given unit-type is "undercosted" for the numbers in which people can field them.

Can you imagine fielding Tac Marines at Guardsman costs? As the saying goes, quantity has a quality all its own.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Or perhaps that it is priced correctly? Not all things magically become powerful when you drop their points cost...

If something is overpriced and you reduce its price, you're increasing its power.

If one army paid five points for a meltagun and another paid 25 points, the latter army is less powerful in regards to its capacity to field meltaguns (and overall anti-tank capability).

You can call it semantics if you want, but this doublespeak is honestly bugging me, so I make no apologies out of making an issue over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you know, I'll flat out admit it:

I want Orks to be more powerful.

I want tankbustas to be more powerful through better rules.

I want Ork anti-tank to be more powerful through new, cool units.

I want Ork Boyz to be more powerful through more options.

I want new units that can make certain lists more powerful, such as Kommando Bosses to build a sneaky Mork's Blood Axez force.

I want more vehicle options that allow me to build more tanks, thus making vehicle-oriented lists more powerful.

None of this says "I want my Orks ot be overpowered". But it does say I want them to be powerful.

A bit unbelievable really.


1. Mel gets into an argument over the (possible/multiple) meanings of viable vs powerful.
2. I point out that arguing semantics with her is pointless and that I won't be drawn into such an argument.
3. I get temp-banned for pointing this out.
4. The argument goes on, with people getting annoyed at the semantic-style of Mel's argument.

So basically exactly what I said would happen happened, and I got temp-banned for pointing out it would happen before it happened.

Class. Big thanks to the person who "reported" me. It wasn't you Mel, that much I know, so this isn't your fault.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A bit unbelievable really.


1. Mel gets into an argument over the (possible/multiple) meanings of viable vs powerful.
2. I point out that arguing semantics with her is pointless and that I won't be drawn into such an argument.
3. I get temp-banned for pointing this out.
4. The argument goes on, with people getting annoyed at the semantic-style of Mel's argument.

So basically exactly what I said would happen happened, and I got temp-banned for pointing out it would happen before it happened.

Class. Big thanks to the person who "reported" me. It wasn't you Mel, that much I know, so this isn't your fault.

That's beyond ridiculous. Especially due to the fact that she changed her original point of view over the course of the argument, originally it was that all Tyranid players are whiners and want an overpowered codex, by the end she is saying she just wants to point out that asking for useless units to become balanced involves a process of making them slightly stronger (yah Thanks mel, we figured), its blatantly obvious backpedalling and trying to escape moral defeat by arguing semantics (which is beyond childish) and all you did was quite accurately point out what she was doing.


Their point of view has to be really weak when they need to rely on technicalities and post reports to push it through, because the logic behind it = just isn't there.

Melissia wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmm, i shall wait and see what happens to my guard with the new dex and see how people react. But i still dont remember it being that bad whenever i had a glance. I shall wait and see then.

Guard has changed so much since I first started using them. Mind you, I'm one of the people that still refuses to use vendettaspam, so I'm weird.

It's not weird I have 1, just like my CSM have 1 heldrake, 1 Dark Eldar Razorwing, and I have only 2 Stormravens for BA. I like fliers, but real life price, and my dislike of spamming anything, means I run what I like. (hence my guard will always have ratlings.)

whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I feel the same way about the endless, ceaseless whining.

I'm still not convinced that the whining ever really stopped, from back in second edition when I picked up my first models. It's just one long blur of whine.

No kidding...

I got back into 40k in early late 4th/ early 5th ed... I still remember how the Nob bikers were the ultimate cheese.

Then, it was Blood Angles with the fast spammed razorbacks/preds.

Then... it was Grey Knights who were nigh unstoppable...

The Necrons? Oh my... they couldn't be beaten.

o.O get the picture?

I, for one, am anxiously waiting for the next Ork Codex!

Well yeah but it's still true for GK and Necrons, and oh how to the GODS I wish neither existed.

Backfire wrote:Actually, in case of the Ork Codex, treatment similar to CSM and Tyranids "Copypaste old Codex with minor tuning and coupla new units" would work real well. Difference is that the old Ork Codex is actually very solid in its core, and needs only redoing some units to be good.

By contrast, re-write like Tau or Daemons would be terrible, since they'd probably make up all sorts of wacky rules and destroy what was good in the old book in the process.

You know what would be good for Daemons? Putting the entire list back into the CSM book where it belongs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 da001 wrote:

And not losing units. And not needing any of the three Dataslates already confirmed for Tyranids: http://natfka.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/three-tyranid-dataslates-are-scheduled.html

If this succeeds, I would expect eight Ork key units, not four, not appearing in Codex: Orks. And many more nerfed to uselessness. Don´t worry, I am sure you will be able to play Orks thanks to the six Dataslates that will be scheduled for the month after the release.

Losing units? Blame chapter house et al for that. Now we will have to suck it up DLC style, and suffer whining from people who don't understand basic production economics...
Will you "need" them? Who knows

Yeah you are right! All blame Chapterhouse! How they dare to do something completely legal and not step back in fear when Mighty GW orders them to stop??

Thanks GW for punishing us all for this.

At the end, it is all our fault, because we shouldn´t have listened to Chapterhouse, nor allow our fellow players to fall to temptation. It should have been obvious that Chapterhouse was Evil, since it is a different company, regardless of what those silly laws said.

I think it is the time to confess that I used some Privateer Press´ Bile Thralls to count as Horrors in a Nurgle-only Daemons army. I am sick of myself, I deserve punishment. Punish me GW!! Bring on the day-one DLCs!! Obliterate my Codex!! Release the Ward!!

 Madcat87 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
If something is obvious it's obvious. Period.

Yes, but in the fine realm of "rules lawyering", "as written" is easier to prove than "as intended".

Rules lawyers are frequently an unpleasant breed of people.

Regardless, I actually kind of wonder how they'll adapt the Weirdboy to the new edition now that I think of it...

Giving Zogwort a BS would be a nice start.

I'll be a miracle if he and wazdakka are even IN the codex after parasite,spore pods and Doom.

Eh, I imagine he'll be in.

I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

They didn't have supplements last I played, when I read about them I was like "okay that's cool." Then I saw the price and I was "screw that." From what I hear they don't even do much but change the FOC around for some units, add some characters, and contain massive amounts of fluff.

From what I can tell from Farsight Enclave, they don't even change the points. Just add some IC's, a new unit and make bonding knife mandatory on those new spiffy crisis troops. Why the hell would I bother buying as much as a whole new full Codex for something I can decipher looking at a single list with certainty?

Talk about wasted opportunity. If they aggressively proved their supplements I'd be all behind it. Charge me $20, $25 not $50. That's insane.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I wouldn't mind the DLC style thing if it was easier to get hold of. Even if you do bring it in you look like a complete jerk, bringing in some OP piece of gak no one else has access to.

They didn't have supplements last I played, when I read about them I was like "okay that's cool." Then I saw the price and I was "screw that." From what I hear they don't even do much but change the FOC around for some units, add some characters, and contain massive amounts of fluff.

From what I can tell from Farsight Enclave, they don't even change the points. Just add some IC's, a new unit and make bonding knife mandatory on those new spiffy crisis troops. Why the hell would I bother buying as much as a whole new full Codex for something I can decipher looking at a single list with certainty?

Talk about wasted opportunity. If they aggressively proved their supplements I'd be all behind it. Charge me $20, $25 not $50. That's insane.

Me: HEY AN IMPERIAL FISTS SUPPLEMENT
Imperial fists supplement: I'm 40 bucks and digital only. *COUGH*
Me: um I'll pass then.

And now digital only? That's dumb. Don't they only sell the books via iPad's and Kindles? Some of us are already burning our money on plastic with little left for useless gadgets

 LordofHats wrote:
And now digital only? That's dumb. Don't they only sell the books via iPad's and Kindles? Some of us are already burning our money on plastic with little left for useless gadgets

You get on computers to. But good look dragging your desktop down to your FLGS

Yep, printing out is so, so hard....

Ds001- missed the point by a mile

GW are a business selling models for a game. They produce cyclical sets of rules in print for an army.

The duration of the cycle means they either , in the pre DLC days, release one codex with all models available. Or, one with more options, but not all models available at launch. Now, all gaps are filled, and if it is economic to produce a plastic model , they can do so with DLC.

Chapter house et al undermined the core concept, by filling this gap before GW did. Now, I agree this is fairly stupid of GW, but also incredibly understandable, from a company viewpoint - they aren't cannibalising their own sales, in their eyes. If you haven't bought a X from chapter house but scratch built it,they think you will then buy the "real" GW one.

Your hyperbole just showed nothing but your lack of understanding.

Chapter house et al undermined the core concept, by filling this gap before GW did

Lack of understanding? If GW doesn't want players filling the gaps they create in their own market, they can't very well complain that players are doing something they don't. Either players create the model themselves or buy something to stand in.

GW entire business model is ultimately flawed (evident by the fact nearly every other table top company doesn't use it because they have one that makes sense). You can recognize their model is flawed or blame the end result of the system which only exists because the model is flawed.

Why people have this obsession with blaming Chapter House completely baffles me. GW overreached when it sued them and now people blame them for GW's own failures.