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.

 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.