Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thor665 wrote:And the use of the English language, apparently.

Thor665 wrote:
How about you just tell me what book(s) you would get the hard numbers from and I'll do it for you? I would think if the hard numbers are out there all you'd need to do is flip open the book they are in and quote them to me. Why would it take days?

So you have a nice index to find anything in a few seconds? Good for you.

I still need to remember where to search...
Would be not so easy to flip open just one book. Multiple sources could bring an acceptable image, but this needs more time than
i may be able to afford.

Should i retry C: armageddon? its the only GW book with imperium and orks without favouring one of them.
But you seem to dislike it.
Maybe the : imperial infantrymans uplifting primer is better suited for reliable fluff about orks?

Thor665 wrote:

...maybe because I didn't say that? I said I'd put it in my sig that you had owned me if you had met previously stated criteria from that same post. (if English is your second language, by the way, I do apologize for this comment and the earlier one.)

Location could be a hint.

Thor665 wrote:

I simply have stated that I feel there are far more Orks in existence then humans. You have disagreed with this.

To clearify: I disagreed with pulling any definition ( example=trillion ) from undefined numbers presented by GW.
This includes the possibility to compare, because to compare 2 things, you need to know both.

Thor665 wrote:
The only "numbers game" I have had any issue with is your obsession with hard fact numbers that GW has not provided. The post you are quoting me from had me request some hard numbers that you equally cannot provide in an attempt to make you somehow grasp that simply because I cannot point to a book that says "# of Orks = x" does not in any way prove that I cannot argue from a logical fluff standpoint that there are, indeed, more Orks then humans.

Maybe the idea of throwing "# orks = x vs # of humans = y" doesnt end in one person beeing right about "size of x vs size of y " when both definitons of # arent provided from a 3rd source ( GW ? ) ?
I think thats your logic: estimated number of humans vs unknown number of orks, but there must be a lot of them = endless green tide of orks outnumbering everything.

Too get this moving again, lets assume i have so many humans i want to believe and you get any desired number of orks.

Thor665 wrote:
I'm still not entirely sure if my inability to manage to get what I'm arguing across to you is due to an intentional level of obtuseness from you, or perhaps a language barrier due to English not being your native tongue. (and fascinatingly, from some of your posts, you seem to be feeling the same way towards me. For the record my argument is that there are more Orks then humans, and I believe that your argument is that there are more humans then Orks or that the numbers are relatively close. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

For the record: intentional obtuseness isn't part of my personality.

Thor665 wrote:

And there were more Orks then humans... Though I still stand by all of my earlier statements as to why I feel those numbers fail to accurately represent the correct amount for either side and will note yet again that you still have yet to answer my direct question to you about those numbers (which I have now pretty much asked for the third time).

So youre used to it now.

Thor665 wrote:
For more GW number fun let us take 'Planetstrike' in the description of the invasion of Rynn's world (pg 67). It says in the fluff that there was no way to know how many *millions* of Orks descended upon the planet. It then gives a breakdown of mobs (much akin to the Armageddon listing). There were 198 mobs (estimated). Even if I presume the supposed 'max mob size' of 3,000 (per Armageddon Codex) that tells me that there were barely over half a million Orks there. So, I have a single book and a single page that is potentially proving incorrect numberwise to itself.

Aged campaign books may not work well with actual books. And the 600-3000 could be also GW's attempt to keep the sizes imaginable
and not go overboard with gazillions of combattants.

But you noticed a fine point.

*millions* of orks invaded rynns world. The CF lost more than half of their strength but still defeated the orks.
So if 400 marines can beat * millions* of orks, how do they hope to stand against the adeptus astartes?

Or was *millions* not that serious and the guessed numbers of orks are correct but lack any given size per mentioned formation.
Maybe orks can't count.....

Thor665 wrote:
The possible solutions, to my mind, are;

1. That 3,000 is nowhere near the max mob size.
2. That GW isn't that clever at math and/or doesn't back check facts with previous books.

I take option 2.

Example: Space marine landspeeders are after heresy inventions in codex space marine. Now 2 short stories in Tales of heresy
show "new" landspeeders, one of them also in a legion going traitor later. Could a CSM-player now claim he gets landspeeders?

Thor665 wrote:
I still can't tell if you're incredibly clever and this is a very witty retort considering the rest of your reply post or not. If so, my hat is off to you.

Feel free to oddly cherry pick and redefine what I have said in your reply.

I could ask someone else to reply on my behalf. Shall i?

Well to conclude i think we should agree on:

1.The Orks if ever united could destroy the Galaxy but alas that could never happen so the Imperium could use there disorder to push them back to the fringes of the Mily way, which is in a sense victory for Imperium.

2.I doubt the Orks would care about being pushed back as longas they have a good fight doing it, while the Imperium could push them back they could never acheive a full exstermination, which is in a way a victory for the Orks.

3.Even though the Orks are pushed back they would reapear and wage war on the Imperium but with not much succes taking planets then being pushed back by some guard.

4. There are some area's of space that the Imperium just couldnt push the Orks from, and remain there as a small pocket ofresistance like the Enclaves.

5.But i believe one the Imperium falls and it will fall, it may be in hundred years or a million years but the point is i believe the Orks will endure in some form, and in some distant Galaxy.

So to conclude it would end in a nasty draw, with both sides acheives some form of victory, does anyone agree with my conclusion?

Can we agree on this? This is getting realy old and boring. The background Forum needs a new big topic!
So for the good of the Background forum. Stop!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well to conclude i think we should agree on:

1.The Orks if ever united could destroy the Galaxy but alas that could never happen so the Imperium could use there disorder to push them back to the fringes of the Mily way, which is in a sense victory for Imperium.

2.I doubt the Orks would care about being pushed back as longas they have a good fight doing it, while the Imperium could push them back they could never acheive a full exstermination, which is in a way a victory for the Orks.

3.Even though the Orks are pushed back they would reapear and wage war on the Imperium but with not much succes taking planets then being pushed back by some guard.

4. There are some area's of space that the Imperium just couldnt push the Orks from, and remain there as a small pocket ofresistance like the Enclaves.

5.But i believe one the Imperium falls and it will fall, it may be in hundred years or a million years but the point is i believe the Orks will endure in some form, and in some distant Galaxy.

So to conclude it would end in a nasty draw, with both sides acheives some form of victory, does anyone agree with my conclusion?

Can we agree on this? This is getting realy old and boring. The background Forum needs a new big topic!
So for the good of the Background forum. Stop!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well to conclude i think we should agree on:

1.The Orks if ever united could destroy the Galaxy but alas that could never happen so the Imperium could use there disorder to push them back to the fringes of the Mily way, which is in a sense victory for Imperium.

2.I doubt the Orks would care about being pushed back as longas they have a good fight doing it, while the Imperium could push them back they could never acheive a full exstermination, which is in a way a victory for the Orks.

3.Even though the Orks are pushed back they would reapear and wage war on the Imperium but with not much succes taking planets then being pushed back by some guard.

4. There are some area's of space that the Imperium just couldnt push the Orks from, and remain there as a small pocket ofresistance like the Enclaves.

5.But i believe one the Imperium falls and it will fall, it may be in hundred years or a million years but the point is i believe the Orks will endure in some form, and in some distant Galaxy.

So to conclude it would end in a nasty draw, with both sides acheives some form of victory, does anyone agree with my conclusion?

Can we agree on this? This is getting realy old and boring. The background Forum needs a new big topic!
So for the good of the Background forum. Stop!

Well to conclude i think we should agree on:

1.The Orks if ever united could destroy the Galaxy but alas that could never happen so the Imperium could use there disorder to push them back to the fringes of the Mily way, which is in a sense victory for Imperium.

2.I doubt the Orks would care about being pushed back as longas they have a good fight doing it, while the Imperium could push them back they could never acheive a full exstermination, which is in a way a victory for the Orks.

3.Even though the Orks are pushed back they would reapear and wage war on the Imperium but with not much succes taking planets then being pushed back by some guard.

4. There are some area's of space that the Imperium just couldnt push the Orks from, and remain there as a small pocket ofresistance like the Enclaves.

5.But i believe one the Imperium falls and it will fall, it may be in hundred years or a million years but the point is i believe the Orks will endure in some form, and in some distant Galaxy.

So to conclude it would end in a nasty draw, with both sides acheives some form of victory, does anyone agree with my conclusion?

Can we agree on this? This is getting realy old and boring. The background Forum needs a new big topic!
So for the good of the Background forum. Stop!

Xav wrote:
Stop!

You dont need to hammer the keyboard until we get a triple post from you....

*full stop*

Next topic please.

@Xav: Not a bad summary there, but honestly I don't see how you think that being pushed to the fringes of the galaxy is a victory for orks. And please quit the hyperbole about orksies ruling other galaxies.

If the orks were to be defeated as a major threat, and pushed back to the edge of the galaxy, that would be a victory for the Imperium. We don't have to go on about extermination for victory.

But victory in Imperial eyes is not victory, its victory in Imperial eyes. (That didnt make much sense but its true)

Orks are reasonably intelligent and too them there not defeated into there all gone, so there victory for Orks and Imperium.

1Hadhq i didnt do a triple post.....But yes we need i dea's for a new topic.

I wonder if the Orks are capable of realizing they are on the verge of a total strategic defeat, and acting accordingly. Doesn't seem likely. Although they might be able to tell since their latent psychic power would be really reduced if they had been the victims of a genocidal campaign (a successful one)

1hadhq wrote:

Thor665 wrote:

...maybe because I didn't say that? I said I'd put it in my sig that you had owned me if you had met previously stated criteria from that same post. (if English is your second language, by the way, I do apologize for this comment and the earlier one.)

Location could be a hint.

Excellent, I now understand your debate "style" and its reasoning and the handicaps that continue to plague ours. No worries then.

Regards,
Thor.