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.

 Talamare wrote:
We should make a poll on whether you trust them or not


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I HAVE PROOF!

That Ork Boyz keep their attack bonus if they start with lot's of Boyz.

Well, it's more like I have a really strong argument for it.

Genestealer have a similar rule but completely different that states...

"Genestealers have 4 attacks instead of 3 whilst their unit has 10 or more models."

If this was their intention for Boyz, then why not add the same "whilst" to the Boyz?

Because with Bespoke rules, you'll see this all the time? Different bespoke rule, different wording.

I don't buy your argument at all. "If a unit includes 20 or more models," does not preclude losing the bonus due to casualties. If I purchase 30 boys and lose 11 of them, my unit no longer 'includes' 20 or more boys. It now "includes" 19 boys. If it said "starts with" or "includED" then you'd have an argument.

I guarantee if you tried this at any tournament, it would get shot down in a heartbeat.

"If this unit includes 20 or more models, add a Power Klaw to each model in this unit."

Exact same spelling and wording, just changed the bonus.
You tell me...
Would you lose the Power Claw when you go under 20 or not.

English, includes is the present tense, it means at this time. Included would be past tense, so if the unit included 30 models, then as long as that True/False statement is met, the variable is valid. But includes would mean "at this specific time does the unit include (have) 20+ models?"

So in short, to answer your question, yes you lose the Power Claw once the unit falls below 20.

Words mean things, they are not relative. I agree it would be nice if GW would use the same verbiage across the board, or better yet were totally clear. For example:

If this unit contains/has/includes X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit enters the battlefied with X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit falls below X models, Then it gets (stated penalty or bonus)
etc.

I am the first who will love keep the extra attack even if they fall bellow 20.... But we need be serious, everyone knows that do that is twist the rules in an overwhelming way.

It is more than evident the "spirit" and goal of the rule. And clearly you lost the bonus when the unir is below of 20.

Franarok wrote:
I am the first who will love keep the extra attack even if they fall bellow 20.... But we need be serious, everyone knows that do that is twist the rules in an overwhelming way.

It is more than evident the "spirit" and goal of the rule. And clearly you lost the bonus when the unir is below of 20.

Well I think the idea of the rule is to force your enemy to make hard choices.

Bring 2-3 squads of 30 Boyz, then bring some fast movers with or Transports with Boyz you now have to choose between blowing up vehicles and letting the 10 man squads in at full hp or shoot at the 30 man squads so they don't get that extra attack.

 Talamare wrote:
We should make a poll on whether you trust them or not


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
I HAVE PROOF!

That Ork Boyz keep their attack bonus if they start with lot's of Boyz.

Well, it's more like I have a really strong argument for it.

Genestealer have a similar rule but completely different that states...

"Genestealers have 4 attacks instead of 3 whilst their unit has 10 or more models."

If this was their intention for Boyz, then why not add the same "whilst" to the Boyz?

Because with Bespoke rules, you'll see this all the time? Different bespoke rule, different wording.

I don't buy your argument at all. "If a unit includes 20 or more models," does not preclude losing the bonus due to casualties. If I purchase 30 boys and lose 11 of them, my unit no longer 'includes' 20 or more boys. It now "includes" 19 boys. If it said "starts with" or "includED" then you'd have an argument.

I guarantee if you tried this at any tournament, it would get shot down in a heartbeat.

"If this unit includes 20 or more models, add a Power Klaw to each model in this unit."

Exact same spelling and wording, just changed the bonus.
You tell me...
Would you lose the Power Claw when you go under 20 or not.

Ha! What a ridiculous argument. As if that rule would ever exist. Believe what you want, my friend. See how far it gets you on the tabletop. Your interpretation will never fly at a tournament and will probably lose you opponents in a friendly setting.

SemperMortis wrote:

 davou wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


And Blacksteel you make no sense. I keep bringing up pre-release 7th opinions? no I actually brought those up and pointed to how the reviewers were all positive about the Ork release and how it would do in 7th. Thats completely relevant because guess what? THAT IS EXACTLY WHATS HAPPENING AGAIN! Jesus thats a hard point to miss.

How many 8th edition games have I played yet? None, my area won't be playing 8th for at least another 2 weeks. So just like the rest of you I am using speculation based on the limited information available, it just so happens my opinion differs widely from yours and Davou and a handful of others. Of course I have been playing orks for a long time and I am now used to GW screwing the Ork faction as hard as possible so I will openly admit I am jaded. But from what I can see so far Orks aren't going to be doing well this edition, just like last edition.

Were they playing games before 7th released? Or were they speculating/hoping? The key difference here is that outside groups were playtesting the game prior to the release. That makes their opinions somewhat more credible than pre-release speculation. Jesus that's a significant difference to miss.

Additionally, the rules had been leaked for about a week before I posted this. Many people were playing games, judging by the number of battle reports that started appearing from non-insiders. I had played some test games with various armies before I posted that response. Clearly you had some kind of access to the rules to be doing all of the theorycrafting you've been doing, so it was a natural question: Was this all theory or had you actually seen something in actual games. If you had run into something in a game I was interested in what happened. By admission you had not, yet we're supposed to take your theory seriously? Why? As for "Just like the rest of you" - er, no. Some of the "rest of us" have been playing some games. Lots of people have. Googling "8th edition ork battle report" gives me at least ten results right now and that's just people taking the time to post theirs up.

So how about now? It's been another week - have you played your orks or against someone else's orks yet? Or are you still waiting for this weekend? As the loudest voice on here proclaiming orks as a failed army in this edition I'm actually really curious as to how you feel about them after a game or three.

 Blacksteel wrote:


Were they playing games before 7th released? Or were they speculating/hoping? The key difference here is that outside groups were playtesting the game prior to the release. That makes their opinions somewhat more credible than pre-release speculation. Jesus that's a significant difference to miss.

Additionally, the rules had been leaked for about a week before I posted this. Many people were playing games, judging by the number of battle reports that started appearing from non-insiders. I had played some test games with various armies before I posted that response. Clearly you had some kind of access to the rules to be doing all of the theorycrafting you've been doing, so it was a natural question: Was this all theory or had you actually seen something in actual games. If you had run into something in a game I was interested in what happened. By admission you had not, yet we're supposed to take your theory seriously? Why? As for "Just like the rest of you" - er, no. Some of the "rest of us" have been playing some games. Lots of people have. Googling "8th edition ork battle report" gives me at least ten results right now and that's just people taking the time to post theirs up.

So how about now? It's been another week - have you played your orks or against someone else's orks yet? Or are you still waiting for this weekend? As the loudest voice on here proclaiming orks as a failed army in this edition I'm actually really curious as to how you feel about them after a game or three.

Well for starters, FLG wrote their Ork Codex/supplement review a month after the codex was released so clearly they had enough time to playtest a bit, and yet they still made their prediction and it was HORRIBLY WRONG.

Since that post I actually did play a game against a Smurf who thought a gunline army with ZERO support from troops would do well against an Ork army, keeping in mind that this tactic has never worked for Marine players against orkz, ever. I had my Kommandos infiltrate into his rear lines and feth up his armored units for a turn while he quickly ran his other units back to support and i caught them with Stormboyz and BW Boyz. So YAY! Another ork win. Only problem? had I faced a competent opponent this could have gone horribly wrong. For starters he shot 2 (TWO!!!) Pred annihilators at....a unit of stormboyz, keeping in mind I had 2 battlewagonz on the table and other treats. Had he actually targeted the correct units with the correct weapons it would have been a completely different game.

So overall I was impressed with how nice/cheap Kommandos are, how crap stormboyz still are (They stayed the same just 1pt cheaper, they are only better because everything else got worse) ohh, and I am happy to confirm that BWs suck in every way possible except as a transport. Dont waste the points on guns.

So i'll reserve my full opinion on orks for 8th until i play more games but I'll gladly keep my speculation that we are going to suck like 6th and 7th edition.

Have to agree with SemperMortis; Orks are going to have some issues this edition.

It's fun to believe a new edition and a positive direction will mean that the Orkz can get back to having a reasonable chance on the table; but balance has never been Games Workshop strong suit, so I don't know why we're still expecting it even now. Vehicles are tougher to remove; which means they clog up your movement lanes for longer, and Orks lack any sort of anti-character option (sniper). Plus, Cover/Flamers are incredibly strong against the Boyz, and will be everywhere (especially flamers).

The Green Tide may be better now; but once people start adding anti-infantry back into their lists (thanks Tyranids) and learning how to properly position their transport spam, I think the initial wave of success will die off. Plus, it's not like there isn't enough Imperial firepower from Razorbacks/Taurox/Devastators to mow down the troops anyways. - I'm concerned about Mechanized lists in general now for the Orkz, I hope Green Tide isn't the only way to play.

We'll see what happens; I'd love to be proven wrong about these feelings.

BWs are transports, they've always been transports and always will be. Orks hit on 5s, the only effective shooting they can have is a spam of rokkits, lootas and bikes other than mek gunz, which are controlled by grots and hit on4s. Maybe even flash gitz with their new AP-2. BWs now are very nice as they can carry more units.

Stormboyz are very good now, cheaper, don't die while footslogging and zagstruk is become quite deadly. Of course you need at least 30 as they are basically faster boyz. Mobs on foot never reach combat against any decent shooty army.

Kommandos are very nice and useful now, indeed.

 Blackie wrote:
BWs are transports, they've always been transports and always will be. Orks hit on 5s, the only effective shooting they can have is a spam of rokkits, lootas and bikes other than mek gunz, which are controlled by grots and hit on4s. Maybe even flash gitz with their new AP-2. BWs now are very nice as they can carry more units.

Stormboyz are very good now, cheaper, don't die while footslogging and zagstruk is become quite deadly. Of course you need at least 30 as they are basically faster boyz. Mobs on foot never reach combat against any decent shooty army.

Kommandos are very nice and useful now, indeed.

Yep, but Battlewagons used to be able to mount 4 rokkitz and a Kannon for 30pts which put out 5 S8 shots a turn. At BS2 your statistically only going to hit 1 time per turn but hey, not a bad trade off in points, especially when you can't even get 3 tankbustas for that price. even with that though, Battlewagons, which are supposed to be our version of a MBT are little better then glorified transports, whats worse, is that with the rules/points changes, Battlewagons are going to replace Trukkz.

I am not sold on Lootas yet, I haven't had a chance to play them yet but realistically they aren't any better then before, the only difference is they get that -1 AP so they are slightly better at killing MEQs and TEQs.

Stormboyz are the same as last edition just slightly cheaper...they actually lost attacks because of the new rules. I mean they dont have to have a warboss nearby but they didn't need to last edition either, they just had to wait until Turn 2 to waaagh.

Basically the only real buffs I saw from our codex (beyond the general buffs everyone got like vehicles)were a select few units like Kommandos and Warbuggies/trax.

 Blackie wrote:
BWs are transports, they've always been transports and always will be. Orks hit on 5s, the only effective shooting they can have is a spam of rokkits, lootas and bikes other than mek gunz, which are controlled by grots and hit on4s. Maybe even flash gitz with their new AP-2. BWs now are very nice as they can carry more units.

Stormboyz are very good now, cheaper, don't die while footslogging and zagstruk is become quite deadly. Of course you need at least 30 as they are basically faster boyz. Mobs on foot never reach combat against any decent shooty army.

Kommandos are very nice and useful now, indeed.

Dakkajets got pretty good for shooting.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
BWs are transports, they've always been transports and always will be. Orks hit on 5s, the only effective shooting they can have is a spam of rokkits, lootas and bikes other than mek gunz, which are controlled by grots and hit on4s. Maybe even flash gitz with their new AP-2. BWs now are very nice as they can carry more units.

Stormboyz are very good now, cheaper, don't die while footslogging and zagstruk is become quite deadly. Of course you need at least 30 as they are basically faster boyz. Mobs on foot never reach combat against any decent shooty army.

Kommandos are very nice and useful now, indeed.

Yep, but Battlewagons used to be able to mount 4 rokkitz and a Kannon for 30pts which put out 5 S8 shots a turn. At BS2 your statistically only going to hit 1 time per turn but hey, not a bad trade off in points, especially when you can't even get 3 tankbustas for that price. even with that though, Battlewagons, which are supposed to be our version of a MBT are little better then glorified transports, whats worse, is that with the rules/points changes, Battlewagons are going to replace Trukkz.

I am not sold on Lootas yet, I haven't had a chance to play them yet but realistically they aren't any better then before, the only difference is they get that -1 AP so they are slightly better at killing MEQs and TEQs.

Stormboyz are the same as last edition just slightly cheaper...they actually lost attacks because of the new rules. I mean they dont have to have a warboss nearby but they didn't need to last edition either, they just had to wait until Turn 2 to waaagh.

Basically the only real buffs I saw from our codex (beyond the general buffs everyone got like vehicles)were a select few units like Kommandos and Warbuggies/trax.

So universal +1 S and hitting on 3s isn't a buff? Just asking because to me those are huge for all our units. Also the elimination of penalties for multi-charging, in 7th multicharging cost you attacks, and a point of Strength.

As for the Battlewagon, I see it as being back to its 5th ed role, transport + deffrolla. 6 attacks hitting on a 2+ with S8 and AP -2 is pretty good for a very cheap upgrade. I agree on the guns basically not being worth it. The mobile fortress rules mostly seem to be for benefits for its riders. SO lootas can ride around and shoot with no penalty.

As for Lootas, damage 2 for them is nice, and command points makes their shots more consistent.

SemperMortis wrote:


I am not sold on Lootas yet, I haven't had a chance to play them yet but realistically they aren't any better then before, the only difference is they get that -1 AP so they are slightly better at killing MEQs and TEQs.

They also cause 2 points of damage, which makes them quite deadly against T5-6 vehicles, like they were before, but in an edition in which wrecking even a light transport is not that easy. And they can use a 30 boyz mob leadership, which means that we are not forced to play MSU lootas anymore. Eventually you can take the spearhead detachment with 3 min units of 5 lootas and a HQ to add another command point for not a lot of points, while gaining some decent firepower.They're not overpowered of course but not a bad unit.

Stormboyz, like any other assault oriented unit in 40k lost one attack but they strike first if they charge making them cause the same damage than before, probably even more as they don't suffer casualties against units that used to have better initiative. They can even assault flyers now. I prefer boyz in transports though as in the open orks are too squishy but with footslogging boyz that never reach combat and bikes that are become too expensive they certainly have more usage now.

 davou wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
BWs are transports, they've always been transports and always will be. Orks hit on 5s, the only effective shooting they can have is a spam of rokkits, lootas and bikes other than mek gunz, which are controlled by grots and hit on4s. Maybe even flash gitz with their new AP-2. BWs now are very nice as they can carry more units.

Stormboyz are very good now, cheaper, don't die while footslogging and zagstruk is become quite deadly. Of course you need at least 30 as they are basically faster boyz. Mobs on foot never reach combat against any decent shooty army.

Kommandos are very nice and useful now, indeed.

Dakkajets got pretty good for shooting.

they got better, now what are they? 18 shots at BS3 (hitting on 4s) so 9 hits of S6, nothing to sneeze at, don't get me wrong. But the platform actually became less durable since Most armies can now reliably hit it on 4s and 5s instead of 6s.

Pedroig wrote:

English, includes is the present tense, it means at this time. Included would be past tense, so if the unit included 30 models, then as long as that True/False statement is met, the variable is valid. But includes would mean "at this specific time does the unit include (have) 20+ models?"

So in short, to answer your question, yes you lose the Power Claw once the unit falls below 20.

Words mean things, they are not relative. I agree it would be nice if GW would use the same verbiage across the board, or better yet were totally clear. For example:

If this unit contains/has/includes X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit enters the battlefied with X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit falls below X models, Then it gets (stated penalty or bonus)
etc.

It's a check, Does it have X. Change Y.
It doesn't say when it loses X, unchange Y.
It doesn't tell you to actively do the check.

It says that for other example. While is a active check.
As someone else posted, there is another one that tells you to check at the start of every fight phase.

This one tells you to check ONCE! Does it include? If yes, Stat has been altered.

Again why even word it to Alter the Stat? It could have been written 1000x better ways to do an active check. Hell, even if they said same opening and said "Each model has an extra attack during the fight phase" or even used the same wording that is on Chainsword.

This is telling you to alter it's core stats.
Finally no, if you paid for your Power Klaws. You would instantly be on the other side of the argument. So don't lie that you would be in favor of 750 points of wargear disappearing.

 Talamare wrote:

It's a check, Does it have X. Change Y.
It doesn't say when it loses X, unchange Y.
It doesn't tell you to actively do the check.

It says that for other example. While is a active check.
As someone else posted, there is another one that tells you to check at the start of every fight phase.

This one tells you to check ONCE! Does it include? If yes, Stat has been altered.

Again why even word it to Alter the Stat? It could have been written 1000x better ways to do an active check. Hell, even if they said same opening and said "Each model has an extra attack during the fight phase" or even used the same wording that is on Chainsword.

This is telling you to alter it's core stats.

You are making up a bunch of terminology that does not exist in the rules. It does not tell you to check once, twice or any number of times.
The rule says:
"If this unit includes 20 or more models, add 1 to the Attack characteristic of each model in the unit."

If your unit does not include 20 or more models for any reason you may not add 1 to the attack characteristic.

You get to add an attack as long as the requirement for that attack is true. You do not add an extra attack if the requirement for that attack is false.

Simple.

There is also a good reason why the wording on chainswords differ: You may only use that extra attack to attack with that very weapon, while added Attacks can freely be used with the nobz' PK or BC.
In contrast, Thrakka's Great Waaagh! rule also adds +1 to the Attack characteristic for everyone within 6" of him while fighting. Those attacks are also lost right after Thrakka moves further than 6" away, dies or simply stops fighting.

Finally no, if you paid for your Power Klaws. You would instantly be on the other side of the argument. So don't lie that you would be in favor of 750 points of wargear disappearing.

Congratulation, you have proven that your example was terrible.
You also called someone a liar and basically stated that you would misinterpret rules on purpose as long as you get a big enough benefit from it.
I suggest you take this to YMDC if you are still in disagreement.

Dakkajet is one of the few...more or less viable character sniping tools that orks have. Well, other than a bunch of choppas.

 Talamare wrote:


Again why even word it to Alter the Stat? It could have been written 1000x better ways to do an active check. Hell, even if they said same opening and said "Each model has an extra attack during the fight phase" or even used the same wording that is on Chainsword.

This is telling you to alter it's core stats.
Finally no, if you paid for your Power Klaws. You would instantly be on the other side of the argument. So don't lie that you would be in favor of 750 points of wargear disappearing.

But this isn't paying anything. It's free bonus so your PK arqument is flawed.

And as for why they would write it like this? They don't have unified wording(more's the pity). And we are talking about rulewriters who managed to blow up their rules bad enough that as it is by RAW assault weapons don't actually confern any bonuses...

Sorry if I don't have faith in them not writing solid rules when they have shown already inability to do so.

 Talamare wrote:

Pedroig wrote:

English, includes is the present tense, it means at this time. Included would be past tense, so if the unit included 30 models, then as long as that True/False statement is met, the variable is valid. But includes would mean "at this specific time does the unit include (have) 20+ models?"

So in short, to answer your question, yes you lose the Power Claw once the unit falls below 20.

Words mean things, they are not relative. I agree it would be nice if GW would use the same verbiage across the board, or better yet were totally clear. For example:

If this unit contains/has/includes X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit enters the battlefied with X models or more, Then it gets (stated bonus).
If this unit falls below X models, Then it gets (stated penalty or bonus)
etc.

It's a check, Does it have X. Change Y.
It doesn't say when it loses X, unchange Y.
It doesn't tell you to actively do the check.

It says that for other example. While is a active check.
As someone else posted, there is another one that tells you to check at the start of every fight phase.

This one tells you to check ONCE! Does it include? If yes, Stat has been altered.

Again why even word it to Alter the Stat? It could have been written 1000x better ways to do an active check. Hell, even if they said same opening and said "Each model has an extra attack during the fight phase" or even used the same wording that is on Chainsword.

This is telling you to alter it's core stats.
Finally no, if you paid for your Power Klaws. You would instantly be on the other side of the argument. So don't lie that you would be in favor of 750 points of wargear disappearing.

Is your argument really that anything which says it adds to a characteristic is permanent once you acquire the bonus? Do Orks get +1 Attack characteristic permanently every time they charge while within 6" of Ghazagkull? Other factions also have numerous abilities that give bonuses to characteristics for various triggers.

 koooaei wrote:
Dakkajet is one of the few...more or less viable character sniping tools that orks have. Well, other than a bunch of choppas.

Fully upgrading it your still going to struggle to take down a character, and you have to hope he doesn't have any bubble wrap at all.

 Jidmah wrote:

You are making up a bunch of terminology that does not exist in the rules. It does not tell you to check once, twice or any number of times.
The rule says:
"If this unit includes 20 or more models, add 1 to the Attack characteristic of each model in the unit."

If your unit does not include 20 or more models for any reason you may not add 1 to the attack characteristic.

You get to add an attack as long as the requirement for that attack is true. You do not add an extra attack if the requirement for that attack is false.

Simple.

There is also a good reason why the wording on chainswords differ: You may only use that extra attack to attack with that very weapon, while added Attacks can freely be used with the nobz' PK or BC.
In contrast, Thrakka's Great Waaagh! rule also adds +1 to the Attack characteristic for everyone within 6" of him while fighting. Those attacks are also lost right after Thrakka moves further than 6" away, dies or simply stops fighting.

Finally no, if you paid for your Power Klaws. You would instantly be on the other side of the argument. So don't lie that you would be in favor of 750 points of wargear disappearing.

Congratulation, you have proven that your example was terrible.
You also called someone a liar and basically stated that you would misinterpret rules on purpose as long as you get a big enough benefit from it.
I suggest you take this to YMDC if you are still in disagreement.

I'm not making up terminology
The word "IF" is a check
In contrast to Thrakka it has the word "While"

The example was good BECAUSE it was impossible to be against it, going against it basically discredited the person.
As in, if you agree that 750 points suddenly completely disappearing is perfectly fine, then you don't have much ground to stand on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


And as for why they would write it like this? They don't have unified wording(more's the pity). And we are talking about rulewriters who managed to blow up their rules bad enough that as it is by RAW assault weapons don't actually confern any bonuses...

Sorry if I don't have faith in them not writing solid rules when they have shown already inability to do so.

Best argument so far

 Talamare wrote:

I'm not making up terminology
The word "IF" is a check
In contrast to Thrakka it has the word "While"

This is plain wrong. Thrakkas rule also has an IF and does not even include the word "while". If you're making up rules, I suggest you use the proper forum.

The example was good BECAUSE it was impossible to be against it, going against it basically discredited the person.
As in, if you agree that 750 points suddenly completely disappearing is perfectly fine, then you don't have much ground to stand on.

Is that so?
Let's ignore that in your interpretation the effect of a rule actually changes the condition of the rule - which to does not, ever, in any kind of rule system.
Then I can make a better rule:
Lets assume the rule reads ""If this unit includes 20 or more models, whenever one is removed as casualty you must ship it to the dakkadakka poster jidmah."
Following your non-logic, I have invalidated your argument, because you could not possible want to send me all 30 boyz instead of just 11.
I'll be awaiting your models, contact me for the shipping address

So, face it: You are wrong.
Your only arguments are misquoted rules, a rule that does not exist and insults. You objectively have no ground to stand on.

If you add +1 to your Attack characteristic for a boyz mob with 19 or less surviving models you are outright cheating and should be treated accordingly.

 Jidmah wrote:

This is plain wrong. Thrakkas rule also has an IF and does not even include the word "while". If you're making up rules, I suggest you use the proper forum.

 Jidmah wrote:

In contrast, Thrakka's Great Waaagh! rule also adds +1 to the Attack characteristic for everyone within 6" of him while fighting.

Oh my bad, I assumed YOU QUOTED IT RIGHT

 Jidmah wrote:

Is that so?
Let's ignore that in your interpretation the effect of a rule actually changes the condition of the rule - which to does not, ever, in any kind of rule system.
Then I can make a better rule:
Lets assume the rule reads ""If this unit includes 20 or more models, whenever one is removed as casualty you must ship it to the dakkadakka poster jidmah."
Following your non-logic, I have invalidated your argument, because you could not possible want to send me all 30 boyz instead of just 11.
I'll be awaiting your models, contact me for the shipping address

whenever /ONE/ is removed as a casualty you must ship /IT/ to blah

Even in your own example you can't even write rules worse than GW it seems...
If you use the word IT, then you refer to the subject that it just occurred to. So in YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, you would only send the /ONE/ model to you. Which would be perfectly possible.

 Jidmah wrote:

So, face it: You are wrong.
Your only arguments are misquoted rules, a rule that does not exist and insults. You objectively have no ground to stand on.

If you add +1 to your Attack characteristic for a boyz mob with 19 or less surviving models you are outright cheating and should be treated accordingly.

Your arguments so far have been wrong, and I have yet to insult anyone.
Your contributions to the thread have yet to add anything of substance to the subject.
Pedroig and tneva82, are the main ones who have contributed. You have so far you only added pointless abrasiveness.
That is still not an insult by the way.

RULE #1 is BE POLITE.

It is a MANDATORY CONDITION of posting here on Dakka Dakka.

Something else I have noticed that is a bit....annoying.

Vanilla Marines seem to have significantly better Psychic powers then Orkz.

Now stay with me here.

Orkz have

Eadbanger: Get ridiculously close to your opponent and then roll a D6 and if that number is higher then the toughness value then you kill that model. Not bad, except that Everything worth doing this to will be T4+ (Characters) and will only work on a roll of 5 or 6. Not exactly something to write home about.

Warpath: This is good for orks. at WC 7 you select an ork unit within 6in of the Weirdboy and give it +1 attacks for that turn.

Da Jump: This is good to, Deepstrike any unit anywhere you want 9in away from an enemy unit. not bad.

Mehreens get

Veil Of time: 18in range, pick a unit and they get to reroll charges and advance AND if they are ever charged, they get to swing first.

Null Zone: NICE, Any unit within 6 of the psyker can't take Invul saves and any psychic tests they do are HALVED!

Might of Heros: This is what annoys me. For WC6 select a unit 12in away and they get +1 attacks, +1 Strength and +1 Toughness.

That last one.....what the heck. Its Warpath on SUPER steroids and its cheaper AND has longer range.

SemperMortis wrote:
Something else I have noticed that is a bit....annoying.

Vanilla Marines seem to have significantly better Psychic powers then Orkz.

Now stay with me here.

Orkz have

Eadbanger: Get ridiculously close to your opponent and then roll a D6 and if that number is higher then the toughness value then you kill that model. Not bad, except that Everything worth doing this to will be T4+ (Characters) and will only work on a roll of 5 or 6. Not exactly something to write home about.

Warpath: This is good for orks. at WC 7 you select an ork unit within 6in of the Weirdboy and give it +1 attacks for that turn.

Da Jump: This is good to, Deepstrike any unit anywhere you want 9in away from an enemy unit. not bad.

Mehreens get

Veil Of time: 18in range, pick a unit and they get to reroll charges and advance AND if they are ever charged, they get to swing first.

Null Zone: NICE, Any unit within 6 of the psyker can't take Invul saves and any psychic tests they do are HALVED!

Might of Heros: This is what annoys me. For WC6 select a unit 12in away and they get +1 attacks, +1 Strength and +1 Toughness.

That last one.....what the heck. Its Warpath on SUPER steroids and its cheaper AND has longer range.

You're not giving 'eadbanger enough credit. There are plenty of powerful T3 characters out their that want nothing to do with a 50/50 chance to get aced outright, which lets you control their positioning even if you can't just grab 'em.

Veil of time isn't fantastically useful for space marines. It's good but most of the dedicated close combat stuff already gets reroll charges, can't charge and advance in the same turn, and will have initiative anyway because they either deep striked or came out of a transport.

Nullzone is great, no arguments there.

Might of heroes doesn't do as much as you'd think. Only dedicated assault units really get anything out of it and you're only going to be buffing 5-10 models that cost more than a 30 blob of boyz.

I think your issue is that you're looking at the buffs as if the armies benefit from them in the same way. Any Ork unit gains a lot from warpath but only dedicated close combat units care about might of heroes. A unit of 10 JP assault marines with CCW/BP is comparable in price to a 30 brick of boyz (if I remeber correctly) and gains 10 attacks +1S (only makes a difference for T4 or T8 and isn't a huge benefit even then) and +1T (Only matters for S4 or 8 and not that much tbh) a unit of 30 boyz gains 30 attacks. And 20 attacks is much more valuable than +1S +1T on 10 models.

And let's be real, a T4 blob of 30 boyz with...what...120-150 S5 attacks that can deepstrike anywhere on the board would be hilariously busted, especially considering how easy it is to give things rerolls nowadays.

Eadbanger is trash, mostly because it targets the closest visible enemy model. On the weirdboy who is not terribly mobile I don't really see getting much out of it. Even against a T3 character you are looking at a 50-50 shot after casting.

Beyond that you are right that powers need to be looked at in context to their army. If we had might of heros it would be broken on our large squads. S5 T5 boyz with 4 attacks each. It is also important to note that a libby is 30 points more than a weird boy.

Their powers are good if they are running a single big close combat squad, but for most marine squads they are only so so.

There's also the fact that the Weirdboy is a far better caster then the Librarian due to the +1 per 10 models, even with the chance of perils of 12+

Giving him powerful abilities and a near guaranteed chance of getting off powers would be a bit much no?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
There's also the fact that the Weirdboy is a far better caster then the Librarian due to the +1 per 10 models, even with the chance of perils of 12+

Giving him powerful abilities and a near guaranteed chance of getting off powers would be a bit much no?

I agree with you entirely, but I fully expect someone to show up and call you an idiot because of how much more durable the librarian is, or hsince his car is cheaper

SemperMortis wrote:


Might of Heros: This is what annoys me. For WC6 select a unit 12in away and they get +1 attacks, +1 Strength and +1 Toughness.

A model. Not a unit. It does way less than you seem to think.

Still rather good on a melee dread or character.

Voss wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Might of Heros: This is what annoys me. For WC6 select a unit 12in away and they get +1 attacks, +1 Strength and +1 Toughness.

A model. Not a unit. It does way less than you seem to think.

Still rather good on a melee dread or character.

Everyone else had crap reasons, you sir win the award. You are correct it does say Model, and with that I admit i was wrong