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.

 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.