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.
I find it rather weird to tell SoB players to just "pick another army" because through the power of soup it is totally a SoB army even though only 10% of the army is actually SoB models.
Seriously, this is some twisted level of logic. Just don't even go there.
Regarding allies I would love to see a GSC style release for grots that could ally with Orks. Could be rather awesome. Same for Kroot or Vespid for Tau. Necrons are a bit more tricky though.
Regarding Custodes selling well I think that can be attributed to the fact that one can make a decent sized army for a relatively cheap entry fee(comparatively to many other armies). Hell, I've been tempted even though I have almost zero interest in Custodes.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So if you think Imperium players have it so much better, why don't you just switch to some Imperium army? It's going to be the last time you have to start a new army!
Wanting equality between the factions via allies isnt the same as wanting to play current armies able to ally.
Aeldari and now Tyranids has those options, Necrons, T'au, Orks and some others do not.
Rumor is that orks are going to get a GSC-style subfaction in the Kult of Speed come December.
I rather see orks ally with demons then guard.
Orks can on a smaller scale ally with demons especially nurgle and khorne. Plague orks are pretty bad arse.
Guard already ally with all the imperium and tyranids.
I rather see tyranids ally with guard since they have their guerssa force, but they really should have a more pronounced alien presence such as kroot, vespid. Since they are suppose to be the communist coalition army.
necrons have a very loose ally with space marines and imperium. They will feel the most shoehorned of all.
But overall I'm fine with soup armies as long as the bonuses between factions are extremely limited and individual units are continually adjusted to keep them from being over/under powered outliers.
That's... not what I meant by GSC style. The rumor has nothing to do with Orks allying with Guard, its just that the Kult of Speed is allegedly going to be broken off into its own faction (which, in turn, would give main line orks an army to ally with, like GSC did with Tyranids).
Eldarsif wrote: I find it rather weird to tell SoB players to just "pick another army" because through the power of soup it is totally a SoB army even though only 10% of the army is actually SoB models.
Seriously, this is some twisted level of logic. Just don't even go there.
Regarding allies I would love to see a GSC style release for grots that could ally with Orks. Could be rather awesome. Same for Kroot or Vespid for Tau. Necrons are a bit more tricky though.
Regarding Custodes selling well I think that can be attributed to the fact that one can make a decent sized army for a relatively cheap entry fee(comparatively to many other armies). Hell, I've been tempted even though I have almost zero interest in Custodes.
I think for Necrons you would have to give one of the dynasties a sub-codex, similar to the Blood Angels for Space Marines or Death Guard for CSM. A Mephrit codex focused on using c'tan shards or a Maynarkh assault-heavy codex would be interesting (this is all just wishlisting I don't actually expect to happen, of course).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/29 21:52:10
Not really sure is splitting part of army into ally force really allying...That's like saying IG would gain new ally force if all the tanks would be moved to separate faction.
tneva82 wrote: Not really sure is splitting part of army into ally force really allying...That's like saying IG would gain new ally force if all the tanks would be moved to separate faction.
Are Ultramarines and Blood Angels not an "allied force" because they share some units?
tneva82 wrote: Not really sure is splitting part of army into ally force really allying...That's like saying IG would gain new ally force if all the tanks would be moved to separate faction.
Are Ultramarines and Blood Angels not an "allied force" because they share some units?
I think rather then GSC it'd be better to look at the death guard or 1K sons. where you have some sharec ore units sure but also lots of enw stuff
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
If cult of speed gets some new unique units that would be cool. If they are literally just the same ork kits with a few different rules that would be annoying. some crossover would be fine, but like the flavors of space marines give some unique units.
honestly I miss the old allies for my orks, I found CSM ork allies to be fun. played it as ork mercenaries (which are 100% a thing) working for whoever paid which in most cases meant chaos marines promising them salvage spoils. I get that people don't want another taudar but imperial soup and elder soup is already so good, throw us non elder/tyranids and ally bone.
Only reason I mentioned Grots for Orks is that currently they aren't very fleshed out model-wise and we already have goblins(or whatever they are called now) as a separate faction in AoS.
I also would love to collect a Grot-only army. Would also not be the first time this has happened. Harlequins were a part of the Craftworld(and later Dark Eldar as well) codex and then moved into its own codex so there is precedent for this.
Also, didn't Imperium do just this? Gain "new" allies because several factions were split up for the Indexes? Feels like the Imperium is a soup because GW can't decide which should go with which tbh.
Eldarsif wrote: I find it rather weird to tell SoB players to just "pick another army" because through the power of soup it is totally a SoB army even though only 10% of the army is actually SoB models.
Seriously, this is some twisted level of logic. Just don't even go there.
They said the same thing to Grey Knights and Deathwatch so join the club.
Eldarsif wrote: Only reason I mentioned Grots for Orks is that currently they aren't very fleshed out model-wise and we already have goblins(or whatever they are called now) as a separate faction in AoS.
I also would love to collect a Grot-only army. Would also not be the first time this has happened. Harlequins were a part of the Craftworld(and later Dark Eldar as well) codex and then moved into its own codex so there is precedent for this.
Also, didn't Imperium do just this? Gain "new" allies because several factions were split up for the Indexes? Feels like the Imperium is a soup because GW can't decide which should go with which tbh.
heck yea, I would love fleshed out grots, codex gretchin, put kans and grot tanks in it, make some fun shooting options including more crew gun options. I would buy that in a heartbeat. I just worry cult of speed codex will be codex orks with even less durability and 1 extra inch to vehicle movement which is the last things orks need (spoiler alert they need some durability on high cost units or large price drops, see lootas and flash gitz)
Blackie wrote: Last thing orks need is having their units split into two different codexes.
You can collect a grot only army even if they are all included into the regular ork codex.
They would then be internally balanced with Orks which would make it rather useless, much like Harlequins before they were thrown out of the Eldar codex and into their own codex.
Everyone talking about fringe models of grots, tau kroot, etc are wishlisting for obscure models Gw is not likely to flesh out.
Of course it is wishlisting. I doubt anyone is claiming otherwise.
Regarding Orks and Demons allying again, wouldn't that require a bit of a rewrite of the lore? I am personally not against it, but I imagine some 40k purists would be against it.
An Actual Englishman wrote: What makes you think there are more IG, AdMech or Custodes players that Orks? Orks were second in popularity only to SM at one point.
Obviously if that wasn't the case, GW would be releasing codices and new models for Orks!
An Actual Englishman wrote: I don't begrudge Sisters new models, I disagree with those pigheaded people who try to claim that they are incredibly popular (just unloved by GW ) despite a metric gakton of evidence to the contrary.
Totally unlike Orks of course, which *really for realz* are popular, much more so than AdMech or Custodes but also *really for realz* are just unloved by GW, hence the later getting new models and codexes .
1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
An Actual Englishman wrote: What makes you think there are more IG, AdMech or Custodes players that Orks? Orks were second in popularity only to SM at one point.
Obviously if that wasn't the case, GW would be releasing codices and new models for Orks!
An Actual Englishman wrote: I don't begrudge Sisters new models, I disagree with those pigheaded people who try to claim that they are incredibly popular (just unloved by GW ) despite a metric gakton of evidence to the contrary.
Totally unlike Orks of course, which *really for realz* are popular, much more so than AdMech or Custodes but also *really for realz* are just unloved by GW, hence the later getting new models and codexes .
1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
That is a horrible metric and lacks all perspective. If we were to take last LVO it is quite obvious that Eldar should become the poster boys of Warhammer 40.000(if we follow your rationale) as LVO had 20 Eldar players. With Chaos players at 24 the game could easily be rebranded as a fight between the Aeldari and the evil encroaching Chaos. Orks, Tau and Necrons could by the same metric be removed from the game due to low number of players. Looking further at LVO there were 3 players for Sisters of Battle while Orks had 5. That's not a huge difference in number of players.
Or, and this is the more logical argument, people in tournaments more often favor stronger factions than weaker ones. If it has good rules and is easily available without sacrificing an arm to khorne it will sell, and sell it does when one looks at the history of Aeldari. Wraithknights and Jetbikes sold very well between 6th and 7th edition, but they were also auto-include if you were into the competitive scene.
So please, do not start to claim you have statistics on your side when you can't even argue for those statistics unless you are trying to make an argument for the quote "There are three kindlies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
An Actual Englishman wrote: What makes you think there are more IG, AdMech or Custodes players that Orks? Orks were second in popularity only to SM at one point.
Obviously if that wasn't the case, GW would be releasing codices and new models for Orks!
An Actual Englishman wrote: I don't begrudge Sisters new models, I disagree with those pigheaded people who try to claim that they are incredibly popular (just unloved by GW ) despite a metric gakton of evidence to the contrary.
Totally unlike Orks of course, which *really for realz* are popular, much more so than AdMech or Custodes but also *really for realz* are just unloved by GW, hence the later getting new models and codexes .
1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
1) this is your exact reasoning for why SoB haven't been redone.
2) which tell you only which armies are easiest to min/max.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
Eldarsif wrote: That is a horrible metric and lacks all perspective. If we were to take last LVO it is quite obvious that Eldar should become the poster boys of Warhammer 40.000(if we follow your rationale) as LVO had 20 Eldar players. With Chaos players at 24 the game could easily be rebranded as a fight between the Aeldari and the evil encroaching Chaos. Orks, Tau and Necrons could by the same metric be removed from the game due to low number of players. Looking further at LVO there were 3 players for Sisters of Battle while Orks had 5. That's not a huge difference in number of players.
Or, and this is the more logical argument, people in tournaments more often favor stronger factions than weaker ones. If it has good rules and is easily available without sacrificing an arm to khorne it will sell, and sell it does when one looks at the history of Aeldari. Wraithknights and Jetbikes sold very well between 6th and 7th edition, but they were also auto-include if you were into the competitive scene.
So please, do not start to claim you have statistics on your side when you can't even argue for those statistics unless you are trying to make an argument for the quote "There are three kindlies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Thanks for the input. I'm surprised you totally missed my point, that being - as bad as it is, it is a much better metric than the aforementioned "codex release order" or "has the faction received a new model" claimed by Oxayotl.
You're stats are also wrong - Orks had only 5 players in the top 100 at LVO. I'm sure there were more in the entire tournament. I'm sure there were more at the event (including narrative players etc).
Finally, I don't recall saying it was the only metric that we have to judge popularity either? What I said was; "use statistical evidence to make a sensible judgement, statistical evidence such as (but not only) the number of players of a given faction in a given tournament". There are many other references we could use - players of certain factions at clubs, sales of certain figures etc etc.
EnTyme wrote: 1) this is your exact reasoning for why SoB haven't been redone.
2) which tell you only which armies are easiest to min/max.
1. Is it though? Care to quote me on that champ? I'm certain I know my own reasoning behind why I believe SoB haven't been redone better than you - that being they aren't popular. This isn't based on a 9 month period of releases, or the order in which codexes have been released since 8th dropped, but at their (lack of) support over the last 2 decades. A substantially larger data sample, I think we can both agree.
2. See above response to Eldarsif.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/30 15:14:13
Eldarsif wrote: That is a horrible metric and lacks all perspective. If we were to take last LVO it is quite obvious that Eldar should become the poster boys of Warhammer 40.000(if we follow your rationale) as LVO had 20 Eldar players. With Chaos players at 24 the game could easily be rebranded as a fight between the Aeldari and the evil encroaching Chaos. Orks, Tau and Necrons could by the same metric be removed from the game due to low number of players. Looking further at LVO there were 3 players for Sisters of Battle while Orks had 5. That's not a huge difference in number of players.
Or, and this is the more logical argument, people in tournaments more often favor stronger factions than weaker ones. If it has good rules and is easily available without sacrificing an arm to khorne it will sell, and sell it does when one looks at the history of Aeldari. Wraithknights and Jetbikes sold very well between 6th and 7th edition, but they were also auto-include if you were into the competitive scene.
So please, do not start to claim you have statistics on your side when you can't even argue for those statistics unless you are trying to make an argument for the quote "There are three kindlies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Thanks for the input. I'm surprised you totally missed my point, that being - as bad as it is, it is a much better metric than the aforementioned "codex release order" or "has the faction received a new model" claimed by Oxayotl.
You're stats are also wrong - Orks had only 5 players in the top 100 at LVO. I'm sure there were more in the entire tournament. I'm sure there were more at the event (including narrative players etc).
Finally, I don't recall saying it was the only metric that we have to judge popularity either? What I said was; "use statistical evidence to make a sensible judgement, statistical evidence such as (but not only) the number of players of a given faction in a given tournament". There are many other references we could use - players of certain factions at clubs, sales of certain figures etc etc.
EnTyme wrote: 1) this is your exact reasoning for why SoB haven't been redone.
2) which tell you only which armies are easiest to min/max.
1. Is it though? Care to quote me on that champ? I'm certain I know my own reasoning behind why I believe SoB haven't been redone better than you - that being they aren't popular. This isn't based on a 9 month period of releases, or the order in which codexes have been released since 8th dropped, but at their (lack of) support over the last 2 decades. A substantially larger data sample, I think we can both agree.
2. See above response to Eldarsif.
Is it just me, or does a post this condescending make every typo and grammatical error really stand out?
I mean, any points are just lost in this jumble of apostrophes and punctuation. "You're stats are also wrong" - this means "You are stats are also wrong." "What I said was;" - this is the worst use of a semicolon ever.
It's like a bad translation from Japanese. I don't want to pick on anyone where English is a second language, but the tone of the original post really draws attention to all the imperfections.
techsoldaten wrote: Is it just me, or does a post this condescending make every typo and grammatical error really stand out?
I mean, any points are just lost in this jumble of apostrophes and punctuation. "You're stats are also wrong" - this means "You are stats are also wrong." "What I said was;" - this is the worst use of a semicolon ever.
It's like a bad translation from Japanese. I don't want to pick on anyone where English is a second language, but the tone of the original post really draws attention to all the imperfections.
Is it just me, or is this the biggest and best example of a strawman argument ever?
English is my first language, as you might have worked out from my handle.
Rather than focus on my grammatical errors (the semicolon is actually in perfect use, by the way) because of writing a hasty reply on a phone before leaving for the gym, you could focus on, y'know, my points. Or do you have nothing to dispute or add there?
(the semicolon is actually in perfect use, by the way)
In American English, the semicolon is used to separate 2 independent clauses. To which "what i said was" is not an independent clause, and generally speaking prior to using a quotation, you use a comma, not a semicolon.
techsoldaten wrote: Is it just me, or does a post this condescending make every typo and grammatical error really stand out?
I mean, any points are just lost in this jumble of apostrophes and punctuation. "You're stats are also wrong" - this means "You are stats are also wrong." "What I said was;" - this is the worst use of a semicolon ever.
It's like a bad translation from Japanese. I don't want to pick on anyone where English is a second language, but the tone of the original post really draws attention to all the imperfections.
Is it just me, or is this the biggest and best example of a strawman argument ever?
English is my first language, as you might have worked out from my handle.
Rather than focus on my grammatical errors (the semicolon is actually in perfect use, by the way) because of writing a hasty reply on a phone before leaving for the gym, you could focus on, y'know, my points. Or do you have nothing to dispute or add there?
Thought not.
Yeah, most of the English people I know have better grammar. What part of the UK are you from? Pretty sure places like India / Australia are part of the commonwealth, not the country, so your name might not be a true and accurate claim.
In response to your points, the tone and grammatical errors make it hard for anyone to respond. After reading it a few times, nah - that's a horrible metric, and Eldarsif is right. People don't stick with the same army all the time and do make decisions based on what's new and popular.
Why are you assuming there were more than 5 Ork players at LVO? It's the most underrepresented faction at any tournament these days. In my meta, they're called shelf dwellers are dustherds. If you look at BCP, I didn't see more than 5 Ork players in the listings. But maybe you know something I don't.
I actually don't see much data about Orks being popular as Englishman suggests. I just wish he could provide some actual statistics since he demands it of others.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/30 20:46:45
techsoldaten wrote: Yeah, most of the English people I know have better grammar. What part of the UK are you from? Pretty sure places like India / Australia are part of the commonwealth, not the country, so your name might not be a true and accurate claim.
In response to your points, the tone and grammatical errors make it hard for anyone to respond. After reading it a few times, nah - that's a horrible metric, and Eldarsif is right. People don't stick with the same army all the time and do make decisions based on what's new and popular.
Why are you assuming there were more than 5 Ork players at LVO? It's the most underrepresented faction at any tournament these days. In my meta, they're called shelf dwellers are dustherds. If you look at BCP, I didn't see more than 5 Ork players in the listings. But maybe you know something I don't
Not that I have to defend my handle but I'm from the Midlands you pedant. I am literally English. Not British or from the Commonwealth. I've never heard anyone from India or Australia claim they were English either. Ridiculous. Where are you from, might I ask? Most people these days don't use grammar at all. Most people write as quickly and shorthand as possible ala txting.
So you haven't read my posts at all then? If you had you'd have realised that I didn't claim it was THE ONLY metric. Merely A metric.
There were more than 5 Ork players at LVO, the reference about 5 players is in with regard to the top 100, I know this because I saw the same information. I know there were more because others who attended the event confirmed. Unless they're liars, which begs the question why?
Your meta is odd, Orks are doing well (for a change) in tournaments and we have always had a presence, regardless of ability.
Regarding grammar - 'and' following a comma is poor usage. I guess English isn't your first language?
Eldarsif wrote: I actually don't see much data about Orks being popular as Englishman suggests. I just wish he could provide some actual statistics since he demands it of others.
All this strawmanning. How quaint. Where did I demand any statistics of anyone? I suggested that someone use statistics to make an informed decision as I've repeated two or three times already in this thread. Is this really so hard to understand or do you just flat ignore things that don't suit your rhetoric. Wait, I know the answer to this.
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
An Actual Englishman wrote: 1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
Yep, you are right, let's look at all the various models that Orks have received in 2015, 2016 and 2017 too! That will be better than just 9 month.
Since you are more familiar with this than me, surely you can tell me which one where released in that time period. To be honest I don't recall any though. Literally just the index, which means less than what Sisters got in that time period, since they had both Canonness Veridian and Saint Celestine.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
That doesn't help your point, as others have mentioned.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
An Actual Englishman wrote: 1. You trying to claim that codex release schedule or even model release schedule over an 9 month period has any relevance on popularity is laughable.
Yep, you are right, let's look at all the various models that Orks have received in 2015, 2016 and 2017 too! That will be better than just 9 month.
Since you are more familiar with this than me, surely you can tell me which one where released in that time period. To be honest I don't recall any though. Literally just the index, which means less than what Sisters got in that time period, since they had both Canonness Veridian and Saint Celestine.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
That doesn't help your point, as others have mentioned.
Dude can't accept he plays a faction that a lot of people like but no one plays.
Orkz were outnumbered MASSIVELY by Necrons at LVO and there's an absolutely 0% chance it was due to rules.
The hard fact is Orks don't get releases because there's no market for them and no one will buy them, even if a bunch of people say 'Oh, I love orkz i'd totally play them if they had better plastics, but then they come out and no one buys any. Just look at the wazzdakka jet thing.
Meanwhile Celestine and Veridian come out and sell MASSIVELY. Veridian sold out her production runs every 3 days for nearly 6 months.
Numbers don't lie, sorry AAE. An orc releases would be bad for the game and a massive mistake for GW as a company. If they really want to come out with kits that'll sell well, they should be coming out with SoB.
ERJAK wrote: Dude can't accept he plays a faction that a lot of people like but no one plays.
Orkz were outnumbered MASSIVELY by Necrons at LVO and there's an absolutely 0% chance it was due to rules.
The hard fact is Orks don't get releases because there's no market for them and no one will buy them, even if a bunch of people say 'Oh, I love orkz i'd totally play them if they had better plastics, but then they come out and no one buys any. Just look at the wazzdakka jet thing.
Meanwhile Celestine and Veridian come out and sell MASSIVELY. Veridian sold out her production runs every 3 days for nearly 6 months.
Numbers don't lie, sorry AAE. An orc releases would be bad for the game and a massive mistake for GW as a company. If they really want to come out with kits that'll sell well, they should be coming out with SoB.
It's sad, actually. I have a ton of unpainted Orks and have bought like 4 armies off people over the years.
Feels like everyone is waiting for a decent set of rules, they haven't had them since 5th edition. Rules drive sales, I say that because I used to help a friend manage his local FLGS. People would come in buying entire armies of Tau and Eldar in 6th edition after the Codexes came out. They would bring in netlists and I would help them pick all the models they needed to do it. I would often help them assemble the models and undercoat them so they could play that day (and loan them store painted minis if we had to order some, which happened often.)
That never happened with Space Marines, Chaos, Tyrannids, IG, or other armies. People would buy individual models for those armies, especially new ones, but never a whole army. Only Tau and Eldar, and only when they had great rulesets.
I know people are talking about June as the release date for an Ork codex. Really hoping they get their due and we start to see some decent Ork armies. I really love the faction and believe they would sell a lot of kit. It's not going to happen unless the Codex is great.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: You did use the wrong your, so...
Edit: Also, maybe just tone it down a little. Grammar issues or no, you are being quite condescending.
So what? That somehow invalidates all my points? I don't think so. I find that quite a few of you are being condescending also. Guess you get back what you give, huh?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yep, you are right, let's look at all the various models that Orks have received in 2015, 2016 and 2017 too! That will be better than just 9 month.
Since you are more familiar with this than me, surely you can tell me which one where released in that time period. To be honest I don't recall any though. Literally just the index, which means less than what Sisters got in that time period, since they had both Canonness Veridian and Saint Celestine.
New Mek, New Meganobz and Big Mek in Mega Armour, New SAG Big Mek, New Painboy, New Flashgitz, New Mork/Gorkanaut. You missed all them huh? Weird. There was a pretty big deal made of it. There might be more too, those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 2. Maybe look at any statistical evidence afforded to you? Like the number of [faction x] players at a tournament compared to [faction y] players?
That doesn't help your point, as others have mentioned.
No, others have strawmanned and taken my point completely out of context. As you have also repeatedly done.
ERJAK wrote: Dude can't accept he plays a faction that a lot of people like but no one plays.
Orkz were outnumbered MASSIVELY by Necrons at LVO and there's an absolutely 0% chance it was due to rules.
Any evidence to back up either of these (wrong) statements?
ERJAK wrote: The hard fact is Orks don't get releases because there's no market for them and no one will buy them, even if a bunch of people say 'Oh, I love orkz i'd totally play them if they had better plastics, but then they come out and no one buys any. Just look at the wazzdakka jet thing.
Meanwhile Celestine and Veridian come out and sell MASSIVELY. Veridian sold out her production runs every 3 days for nearly 6 months.
Numbers don't lie, sorry AAE. An orc releases would be bad for the game and a massive mistake for GW as a company. If they really want to come out with kits that'll sell well, they should be coming out with SoB.
Any evidence for how well Veridian and Celestine sold? Wasn't Celestine bundled with the first ever loyalist Primarch to be released? I'm sure that had nothing to do with the kit selling out though, right?
With regards releases, please see response above. You're right that numbers don't lie though and look at that, even despite a relatively big Ork release GW is going better than ever now! Crazy huh? Might be time to milk that sweet cash-Ork again (by releasing more models). With a K. Never a C.
Any evidence for how well Veridian and Celestine sold? Wasn't Celestine bundled with the first ever loyalist Primarch to be released? I'm sure that had nothing to do with the kit selling out though, right?
she was bundled with Cawl and Greyfax.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
7000 
) despite a metric gakton of evidence to the contrary.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
