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.

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.