PDA

View Full Version : Surviving "progress": The Codex re-write



Hawkmoon
17-10-2007, 12:39
I am a Chaos player.

I have always been a Chaos player.

And I shall always be a Chaos player.

Since I started playing both 40k and Fantasy I have always fielded the forces of Chaos.

Over the course of years I've seen the Army list change drastically. With new units appearing, old ones being removed and a veritable parade of special rules coming and going.

And so, I am very familiar with the trauma that is the Codex re-write experience and overall I feel it is a negative one.

I don't believe that changing or updating an army is a bad thing. In fact I believe the opposite, that a game such as this needs to be updated to stay fresh and interesting. Nor do I believe that today's Chaos army has been "nerfed" or made any less powerful.

What I object to is the random and often heavy-handedness of the Dev team's approach towards what should be a happy occasion. They have often fixed a problem from the previous codex to just replace it with a new one.

Well, I didn't want this to become a rant and it seems to be turning into that so I'll stop here with this question:

Do you think that re-written codices live up to your expectations?
If not, what can we do as a community to let GW know our criticisms in a constructive way?

superknijn
17-10-2007, 12:45
IWhat I object to is the random and often heavy-handedness of the Dev team's approach towards what should be a happy occasion. They have often fixed a problem from the previous codex to just replace it with a new one.

Hey, it's not like they do it on purpose.

Captain Micha
17-10-2007, 12:46
I feel that for the most part, barring two glaring exceptions to the rule (actually 3 but we're not going there) the new codexes are a success. I -hate- the falcon as it makes everything else even resembling an av look lame sick and dying, the lash.... seems abit dodgy (but I don't have any experience against it yet) and death company getting rending? Didn't the gaming community already determine rending was too good already? and you gave -another- unit a broken ability?

My problem is that gw seems to only half listen to it's players at times. They go and balance things (even things that didn't need it like the star cannon.. strip away one shot fine, not nerf it's str strip away a shot and jack up the points wtf!.. or even just strip away one Str... not both) no I don't play 'dar.

They strip away the creative straight jacket for legions, destroy their brokenness.. and replace it with lash? huh?

Aside from that. they've done a great job.... but the things they botched they botched every bit as bad as before

Dicey
17-10-2007, 12:47
The problem as I see it, is GW is beginning to cater for a younger audience. The codex’s are now easier to use and the "no brainer" options included. What it does is remove the options more experienced players used to tailor their armies. i.e. the armoury

My idea, return the armoury, allow people greater choice with options. i.e. I play DA and I don’t want an iron halo on my master.

Captain Micha
17-10-2007, 12:50
actually the armory was more of a temptation for me as a noobie than as a veteran..

the armory was a false sense of customisation that deserved the bullet between the eyes.

Anyone that says "but my model was lovingly converted to have x wargear" no it's not.

Until you've made custom jet packed equipped guardsmen with custom pistols to count as Vespid. You don't know what converting is. (or anything even remotely as dramatic as that for that matter) until you've lengthened vehicles so that they actually look like they can transport what they're supposed to, you don't know how to convert.

Bionics? Yes they still have a use, conversion... seals... same.... 'artificer armor' same deal, it's just nicer looking. why do people seek in game rules rewards for minor conversions?

If we used most wargear lover logic my vespid should get power armor and two wounds for pure awesome factor (and no I haven't used simple marine jump packs either)

If you want a custom army, be serious about it. Anyone that doesn't have that level of love and dedication, doesn't need 'improvements' to their models just for the look

Hawkmoon
17-10-2007, 12:57
Hey, it's not like they do it on purpose.

Of course they don't!

I never implied that they did it to purposely to mess with the players.

But when you can open a new armybook and in 10mins can pick out some special rule that you can abuse or identify units that have a very limited strategic value (read: possessed) then it might be that the Dev team didn't spend as much time playtesting as they should have.

Supremearchmarshal
17-10-2007, 13:02
I can't help feeling the new 'dexes have lost some of the feel of the older ones. Though they successfully balanced some units and removed some cheesy combos, there's still quite a few broken units left, and also IMO too many no-brainers. This especially applies to the Chaos codex, though I'm not too happy about the new SM 'dexes either. The Eldar codex is much better done IMO (only real gripes are the Falcons and Eldrad vs. normal Farseer). Another thing I don't like is the removal of customization or forcing you to take special characters if you want to do so.
My main complaint is the layout - it is not unusual to have to look through three different places in the codex to find all the rules for a unit.

Captain Micha
17-10-2007, 13:02
actually I think they do... in the case of the too good stuff

It's so that we can spot power gamers much easier now... (double lashes for example, unfortunately we don't get to see that one on the model...)

3 falcos.....
asscannon spam
nidzilla

grrr I broke my own statement with the lashes....

Also, at no point do you -have- to take the special characters. the 'normal' hq is still perfectly viable in -every- army that's been released.

Keichi246
17-10-2007, 14:23
I have 8 armies - although I only "actively" play 5. (Tau, Tyranids, Cadian IG, Armored Company, Dark Angels, Deathwing, Grey Knights, Necrons)

Honestly - I have yet to run into a Codex that I didn't overall like after a little time to get used to the changes.

Tau? Great codex. Most of the fixes in the codex were requested heavily by Tau players. I disliked the "darkening" of the Tau rep - but I know enough people were complaining about the goody two shoes nature of the Tau to make GW listen. Otherwise, though? A fine and balanced codex.

And to everyone who complains about mech Tau or JSJ? For the point costs, our crappy HTH skills, mediocre leadership, and total vulnerability to Psychic effects - we need SOMETHING to make the Tau list competetive. If you can't shoot down or cripple a Tau skimmer - you ain't trying hard enough. One! glance screws a Hammerhead. (It can't shoot, or can't move and shoot, or loses it's main gun, or becomes immobilized, or blows up. Tau Hammerheads aren't Eldar Falcons)

Dark Angels? I first I thought "Wow. They nerfed the heck out of the DA." Then I tried it. The codex works. Is it less powerful/ customizable than the stock Space Marine codex? yeah - kinda. Is it "weak"? For normal play - not really. The codex has really grown on me. Do i miss some of the customizability- yes. But was it the heart and soul of the list - hardly. Dark Angles were always a rock hard mass of troops shooting the crap out of anything that got close. The new codex? A rock hard core of troops shooting the crap out of anything that gets close...

Tyranids? I initially thought "Damn! there go the Hive nodes! Now how am I supposed to keep my gaunts around?" Then a veteran 'nid player took me apart with a "stock" 'nid army. I realized I was depending too much on my special trick crutches and not using the army right. Nid'zilla is a beast. A balanced army of swarm and a couple nidzilla is hella fun to play though. In the end - I realized that aside from a few minor problems - the Tyranid codex is fine. (Biovores and spore mines are teh suck. Elite "dakkafexes" are way too good. So I don't use either. :) )

No codex has ever been redone without changes. Personally - I find that getting upset about changes is counterproductive. Rather than worry about what GW did "wrong" with the codex (which by definition; is not really possible. It's GW's universe, they have the right to do whatever they want with it) - I'd much rather sit down and enjoy what they did right.

The Glass is half full.... (unless I'm stuck in the Matrix. In which case, the glass is not there. And hail to my Machine Overlords!)

Promethius
17-10-2007, 14:46
I was reasonably happy with the codex re-writes until the chaos book. As an Alpha Legion player, I now have 40 carefully converted cultist models which I can no longer use. These were not overpowered, killy units of doom either, but specialised, fluffy choices which gave me a different playing style to the majority of chaos forces out there. I resent being encouraged to spend money to convert figures which I am then told I can't use any more; personally, I am of the opinion that GW should give additional unit options with re-writes, not take them away.

The_Patriot
17-10-2007, 14:56
I was reasonably happy with the codex re-writes until the chaos book. As an Alpha Legion player, I now have 40 carefully converted cultist models which I can no longer use. These were not overpowered, killy units of doom either, but specialised, fluffy choices which gave me a different playing style to the majority of chaos forces out there. I resent being encouraged to spend money to convert figures which I am then told I can't use any more; personally, I am of the opinion that GW should give additional unit options with re-writes, not take them away.

They only took them away for tournaments, but for friendly play I'm sure your regular group would let you use them still.

Penitent
17-10-2007, 15:07
The recent re-writes are definitely more simplistic. That could be a good thing, in a game-balance sense...not that the current run of codices don't have balance issues, but I would think simpler codices would make creating a balanced army list easier.

That said, I do feel like the last few codices (chaos and DA) were lacking in flavor. Hopefully, the Daemon codex will restore some of that for chaos.

Thoth62
17-10-2007, 15:13
actually the armory was more of a temptation for me as a noobie than as a veteran..

the armory was a false sense of customisation that deserved the bullet between the eyes.

Agreed. All it did was encourage people to spend too many points on wargear options for their models. The number of times that i saw illegal models because too many points were spent on wargear was unbelievable, and that was even from 'veterans' who should have known better. Not only does eliminating the armoury encourage better list making, but it also eliminates (I think) one of the more common ways of cheating.


Anyone that says "but my model was lovingly converted to have x wargear" no it's not.

Until you've made custom jet packed equipped guardsmen with custom pistols to count as Vespid. You don't know what converting is. (or anything even remotely as dramatic as that for that matter) until you've lengthened vehicles so that they actually look like they can transport what they're supposed to, you don't know how to convert.

Bionics? Yes they still have a use, conversion... seals... same.... 'artificer armor' same deal, it's just nicer looking. why do people seek in game rules rewards for minor conversions?

If we used most wargear lover logic my vespid should get power armor and two wounds for pure awesome factor (and no I haven't used simple marine jump packs either)

If you want a custom army, be serious about it. Anyone that doesn't have that level of love and dedication, doesn't need 'improvements' to their models just for the look

This, I'm not sure I agree on, but it might just be the way you said it that doesn't sit well with me. I do agree that just because you spend time making your model look cool, doesn't mean you should get special rules for every little thing you model on it. Make models look cool for the sake of making them look cool. Don't do it just because you know you'll get an in-game advantage.

"Until you've made custom jet packed equipped guardsmen with custom pistols to count as Vespid. You don't know what converting is. (or anything even remotely as dramatic as that for that matter) until you've lengthened vehicles so that they actually look like they can transport what they're supposed to, you don't know how to convert."

I think it's this that gets me. Converting isn't just going all out to make something completely different. Don't minor little reposes and weapon modifications also count as converting? After all, you are changing the model from its original appearance into something that looks different. I love doing the little conversions that people don't notice unless they look really close and say, "Hang on a second. That model doesn't look like that out of the box, does it?" Those kind of things, for me, are just as lovingly converted as the unit of Rubric Terminators I put together last year.


They only took them away for tournaments, but for friendly play I'm sure your regular group would let you use them still.

Not all groups are like that. I could tell you that in my group there are virtually no tournament players, but that doesn't mean they would let you use units that aren't in the codex.

Cry of the Wind
17-10-2007, 17:47
I'd say overall I'm happy with the way the new codex style is working out. I think all they need to do to make me happier is just get a decent proof reading/playtesting team set up to avoid all these powergaming issues. The fact that one of the biggest complaints that comes up with each new book is the poorly written rules that create massive grey areas (which are then never addressed in a FAQ) and the obvious super power units (and obvious not so super units), would all be gone if they spent just a little bit more time working on the books. I'd be happy to wait a couple extra months for a new codex if it meant someone actually went through it page by page and used rules lawyer logic on every rule in the book.

Xenocidal Maniac
17-10-2007, 17:56
The problem as I see it, is GW is beginning to cater for a younger audience. The codex’s are now easier to use and the "no brainer" options included. What it does is remove the options more experienced players used to tailor their armies. i.e. the armoury

My idea, return the armoury, allow people greater choice with options. i.e. I play DA and I don’t want an iron halo on my master.

You know, I get sick of seeing this. People have been saying "uuhhhh GW is dumbing down the game to appeal to the 12 year olds!!!!111" since 3rd edition came out. No, they're not. They are streamlining things and making them less open to abuse.

I mean, come on! How hard do you think it is for a 12 year old to figure out an armory!? Not that hard! They are young, not retarded. I personally was deciphering AD&D rulebooks when I was 9, for God's sake.

I love the new codexes. They are super streamlined and easy to use. I slap my force together in Army Builder in about 5 minutes as opposed to the half hour ordeal it used to be before. And the result is roughly the same.

So, in short, I love the new dexes. Keep em coming.

EDIT: This is not a personal attack against you, Dicey - just a general frustration with your sentiments.

Captain Micha
17-10-2007, 18:03
It's more of an attitude I adopt when I hear someone whining about losing wargear, I can appreciate a simple conversion. just as I can appreciate a simple designed car vs the exotic piece.

It's when someone gets an attitude that they should be rewarded ingame aside from the other guy going "wow that's kinda neat" that irks me, and thus they get my attitude.

Some of my favorite conversions are simple ones. Like my firewarriors carrying kroot knifes at their sides in honor of their lost brethren. (my fluff, all my true kroot were killed on Medusa V) Or the ripper swarm trying to emerge from my friend's fex's back.

Even just dynamic posed models I can appreciate.

It's when someone goes "I deserve special rules because I glued x on to y" or "I painted his hand shiny" Why? because you spent some time to decorate him abit better? sheesh.

It's the people that think that the model should award them in game rules even when really it's just a look thing.

Aside from that back on topic. I've had more ideas come into my mind than ever with the codexes being released like they are.. If I were a rich man, I'd go broke all over again over the ideas I've had. Not just with the modeling, but the army building as well.

And I'd never get better at 40k because I'd be trying to learn far too many armies and lists at once

Engulfer of Cakes
17-10-2007, 18:24
I personally think that not having an Armoury saves me having to flick to and fro every single time I decide to add something onto a character or sergeant for the Marines/Templars...

I feel that the Chaos (and to a degree the Nid) codices are akin to the Warhammer ones, where in the extras for your unit are given under it and not elsewhere in the book...

But of course, it's not perfect, but easier to use...

UncleCrazy
17-10-2007, 18:29
If they make the codex prefect why would they ever need to make a new one?

I find it funny now that they have made psychic powers better over all, that people are crying about how strong psychic hoods are. Really now people need to think about which HQ to use.

Kveld-Ulf
17-10-2007, 18:48
First look at the Chaos Codex: There goes my army list.

Now that I've had time to look back through it, it has been evened out quite a bit. Except for Tzeentch, which we don't speak of.

My first army was Khorne Berserkers, full of fluff, with converted Wulfen for some of my elite Chosen, and a DP which was intended to have been a large werewolf-esque beast. I made this army purely for the fluff, and then proceeded to write a background for it.

Well, Khorne got the short end of the stick for DP now, so I'll be doing away with him and making my trusty Bike Aspiring Champion in charge of my army now. Can't say I won't mind between 4-16 power attacks from some Bike-Riding loon.

Even though my original army list was pure fluff, it rarely lost. I began to see that Chaos was overpowered, if I could as a first time player write a 8/10 wins list. Now I'm going to have to put a lot more strategy into the game, and I can still keep my glorious fluff.

With the exception of DP lashing, and Terminator Bombs (as it was coined), there's really not too much out of balance in the new Codex. Even Tzeentch which seemed ridiculous at first isn't amazing for it's points cost.

carlisimo
17-10-2007, 19:08
I was under the impression that GW was no longer aiming for kids as much as it was around the start of 3rd edition. And if they are, I'm fine with that, 12 year olds are more intelligent than we give them credit for.

The simplification is due to 40k's shift towards tournaments and larger games... neither work well with cumbersome special rules and a ton of options. I don't play in tournaments or larger games, so too bad for me. But I do appreciate the balance; 40k games are more balanced than they've ever been.

As for surviving a new Codex, I know it's hard. I'm happy as an Eldar player, but imagine what we went through during 3rd edition. Shuriken weapons used to be good against 3+ armor, suddenly they weren't. Jetbikes got too expensive to use easily. Half our units suddenly sucked and others vanished. There was no fluff in the Codex. So for the next few years, we whined :D. And played with what worked. A lot of the complaints about units you can't use go away once new minis are released!

jfrazell
17-10-2007, 19:15
Since the Nid codex the new rules are indeed simpler.
Advantages:
*simpler, ease to create lists
*can put them on an excel sheet easily.
*certain codexes have more balanced options than previously. Sadly this is not always the case.
*Old cult, craftworld, etc. lists have been sublimated into one overall codex.

Disadvantages:
*For options can fit rule differentials on the back of a business card for some of the codexes. The eldar and BA codexes are abysmal in this regard. The Nid and Chaos not as badly done.
*Chaos lops off a massive amount of the old options.

Overall-
Not sure if this helps the “one list to rule them all” poison. Previously I saw 1-3 chaos list types. I expect to see 1-2 chaos list types. I see a similar sameness in the eldar codex from starcannon heavy with falcons, primarily converting to mech eldar wuith harlies and dragons. On the positive the eldar dex feels more balanced. I like the newer Nid dex but multiple options feel underserved. I’m extremely meh on the DA and Chaos codexes.

Sovereign
17-10-2007, 19:43
I'm happy with the new style Codices. The number of gripes are much smaller and narrowly-focused. And that is to be expected because perfect balance within and among Codices cannot be realistically expected.

With a shifting metagame, there will always be units that are slightly better. Until they start dominating the game (half the players play it, the other half play against it), it's not a problem. Right now, MEQs are still very strongly dominant, so any complaints about Fish-o-fury, Holofalcons and nidzilla should be considered as sour grapes and whining until such time as EEQ or Nids reach 35% of what people actually bother to take to tournaments.

Imperialis_Dominatus
17-10-2007, 19:50
I like the Codices themselves overall and the format to some extent but GW could improve in a) playtesting, b) playtesting, and c) ...not playtesting but putting all the rules on one page or entry. Oh and d) playtesting. :p

Blutrache
17-10-2007, 19:53
I like the Codices themselves overall and the format to some extent but GW could improve in a) playtesting, b) playtesting, and c) ...not playtesting but putting all the rules on one page or entry. Oh and d) playtesting. :p

I think you forgot to include e) playtesting :p ;)

the1stpip
17-10-2007, 21:18
Personally, I do like the new Wargear lists, but I feel they have been trimmed down too much. Everything is standard issue now it seems. NBothing interesting and different (that is a generalisation, so please don't bitch slap me for that).

Also, the new Chaos Codex, while good in most respects, just don't feel Chaos-y. They do feel like Marines with spikes.

I am dreading the day they release the Dark Eldar Codex, cos my army will probably stop being interesting and become dull.

RavenMorpheus
17-10-2007, 23:06
Do you think that re-written codices live up to your expectations?
If not, what can we do as a community to let GW know our criticisms in a constructive way?

Well I'm only going by what I've read here but I don't think that the current Chaos codex has improved on the previous one. Some bits have been nerfed and some things have been taken out, but it seems that nothing interesting has been added and the codex lacks the character overall that a chaos army should have.

As a community I believe there are only 2 ways to let GW know our criticisms in a constructive way imo 1. Mass email/letter them if we can get hold of a specific email/postal address to send them to rather than the usual customer services addresses, or 2. stop buying the products.

I think option 2 would have the least effect because those that care don't really have large enough financial input to make a difference. And option 1 probably wouldn't work anyway because emails/letters can be ignored. So to me there is no effective way of expressing our criticisms on the re-dux of the codices.

VetSgtNamaan
17-10-2007, 23:24
I know I myself liked the new Dark Angel codex and am quite happy to continue to play them as my favourite. I have no opinion on either the eldar or chaos since I do not play those armies and do not wish to but yes I am quite satisified with the new direction the codecies are going.

Adra
17-10-2007, 23:29
hardest thing about the new chaos dex is that is they gave order to chaos. what a silly thing to do. i liked the big mess of an armory.

HowlingBanshee23
17-10-2007, 23:54
I really like the new codexeseses. The latest Chaos Codex convinced me to expand my collection of Space Marines into an army.

carlisimo
18-10-2007, 01:06
How bad is the Dark Angels codex? Personally, I don't think any Marine sub-lists should be stronger than the vanilla list... they always have been and I'd be happy to see them fix that.

RavenMorpheus
18-10-2007, 01:08
How bad is the Dark Angels codex? Personally, I don't think any Marine sub-lists should be stronger than the vanilla list... they always have been and I'd be happy to see them fix that.

Well lets put it this way instead of saying each extra bike costs x amount, they've basically told you that 3 extra bikes costs x amount, thus meaning you can't take single "extra" bikes in a unit anymore you have to take 3 "extra" bikes.

And whats the deal with the landspeeder attachment to a bike squad? :wtf:

Talk about dumbed down and re-jigged for a sales boost!

Xenocidal Maniac
18-10-2007, 01:09
How bad is the Dark Angels codex? Personally, I don't think any Marine sub-lists should be stronger than the vanilla list... they always have been and I'd be happy to see them fix that.

Not bad at all. Really not bad. As a Dark Angel player, I didn't even look at the dex until a few months after it came out because of all the dumbasses saying "zomg da are teh nerfed!1111 u can nevar win agan!!111" And, I finally cracked it open, and it's not that bad. Hardly altered my army at all. In fact, they streamlined it, made it better, and made Deathwing and Ravenwing actually make some sense.

The only thing I miss is the Intractible rule, but I can live without it.

doghouse
18-10-2007, 01:53
I'm starting to think that the newer streamlined armies are to allow them to create add-ons supplements like Apocolypse or CoD without creating power/rules issues.
It looks to me that the future of wh40k lies in different ways of actually playing the game through additional rule sets in which case the simpler codexes do make sense.

Occulto
18-10-2007, 02:19
You know, I get sick of seeing this. People have been saying "uuhhhh GW is dumbing down the game to appeal to the 12 year olds!!!!111" since 3rd edition came out. No, they're not. They are streamlining things and making them less open to abuse.

That's my thoughts.

Games like Epic and BFG have very few options available beyond the selecting of units, yet both are hardly "dumbed down" games.

I pick a unit of Revenant titans, that's it. No changing their weapons, buying upgrades or anything like that. How they perform depends entirely on my skill as a general (crap dice rolling aside).

Vault-Dweller
18-10-2007, 02:56
Well I must say that I don't have anything against the new Chaos Codex as a codex. Its more balanced than the old one and you can make a more varied army if you want (to the point that it becomes unfluffy). And If you want to make a competitive army there is lots of good options.

The thing I don't like is that its sutch huge difference between the new and the old codex. Lots of units have been changed to the point that they dont fill the same roll at all. Some that was good has been changed to the point that you dont know what to do witch role they have anymore.

But now to the how did my army survive the codex part.

The army I played before the new codex was a Deathguard army. Most of the stuff I used in my army was tried and true formulas amongst deathguardplayers. And while the deatguard has been harder now they are no longer as versetile as before. Now they are just hard. So the main bulk of the army is still good but will need suport from lots of non cult element to work and all my champions with plaguesword will have to be replaced. Now lets take a look at the other element.

HQ: As most of nurglelovers I used a lord with terminator armor and manreaper+ some other useful gifts. (Lovingly converted OFC). That was considered a cheap and tactical option for a chaosplayer, compared to the monsterprinces. The armour was a great deal for the price (5+ inv.save +1 A and deepstrike) And it had a real distinct use (good against infantry). Now I can field the same model its just that I dont know what to use it for. The terminator armour is no longer cheap or good anymore. but worst is ofc the manreaper poison wtf am I going to use that on? High T monsters? They are not that common when you think of it and the sad thing is its not even great aganst them as most of them have at least 50% chance to win and cost about the same points. So that have to be replaced.

Elites. MoN mixed good with possessed in the old codex no mutations just MoN. When I look at the new possessed I just wonder what they were thinking. Away with them.

Terminators. Nice. I can still use them. More or less.

Transports: I used only one or 2 rhinos for thansport most my units used infiltrate insead witch was cheaper both in points an in real life. Now if I want to take my army I will most likly have to go and buy rhinos for most of the units, both because its the only transport option and because its cheap as hell compared to the troops now.

Heavy. As plagueMarines dosent have any heavy weapons I used one or 2 dreadnoughts wis lascannons. That wasent realy good and even with some help from meltaguns and plasmaguns the army usualy struggled against armour, but that was the calculated downside with it. Now I think that the dreadnought changes is usefull for the chaos army as a whole. Buy one or 2 cheap and slightly unreliably dreadnougt (with HB or ML probably) run them close to the opponent and hope for the best. But its obvious the lascannons and the new and more expensive plaguemarines dosent mix. And the are to converted for me to just rip arm of them. So to the shelf whit them.

Defiler. As I understand it most Deathguardplayers advised against it but I found that one defiler and 1 dreadnoght was often more usefull than 2 dreads. Just beacouse it was so so unpredictable with mutated hull daemonic possession and battlecanon it was impossible for the oponent (and me) to predict how dangerous it was and while it was crap in CC it was harder to kill by assulters than a regular tank. The new defiler seems to suffer from a personality split. It can be both be a small tank and an fast cc unit, but not at the same time, and not good. And it seems overpriced. And its still a hell to transport. So good riddance.

Related. I used quite a few spawns too as they had the same T and save as the troops so it was boot a good way to flesh out the small 7 man units. But the new spawns are not rely god for anything at all. they arent even cheap.

Summary I can use the plaugemarines But I have to remodel half of the champs and buy rhinos. I can use the terminators maby with some arm or two replaced. Except that I will have to build a whole new army.

O have a theory that GW shifted so many units around in the codex just to force players buy new stuff.

Adept
18-10-2007, 04:09
I'm a big fan of restricting list options.

Theme and individuality should be expressed through unit selections, paint jobs and conversions. Not wargear and unit options.

OctopussyVonThunderballs
18-10-2007, 05:14
Hi guys, this is my 2nd post here, and I hope to be a contributing member of the community.

I am currently taking statistics courses here at university (which I dread because I suck with numbers, except with warhammer), which has led me to start finding the statistical significance in certain aspects of the game.

What I'm getting at, is that it is possible to gleam statistically significant facts about the relative strength of an army. Even so far as to find out which army is statistically stronger. Of course even operationally defining Army strength is difficult to say the least. Some armies may be better for sheer destruction of enemy models, while others are more suited for taking objectives.

My point is that it is possible to statistically find out how strong each other is compared to one another.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p266/droctopussyvonthunderballs/EvilMonkey.gif Arggg. STATISTICS! My Arch-nemesis.

Defcon
18-10-2007, 05:32
I'm a big fan of restricting list options.

Theme and individuality should be expressed through unit selections, paint jobs and conversions. Not wargear and unit options.

That stands more as a statement of fact than an opinion, which is not the way you should be presenting it. I personally think more list options are better - How can they possibly hurt? They become clunky? Then hopefully whoever is using them will be able to do a good job of explaining them. They are too overpowered? Why should the majority of players care, as unless they are game-warping, you're not out to win something important (in the scheme of other game tournaments, at least).

The game being more of a fun hobby amongst people seems, in my opinion, a better way to play this game as opposed to acting like you're going to take it to a tournament. People who make it an imperative to test their tactical skills with 40k of all games are people I can't understand. So I'm more inclined to let someone with the new Codex use Cultists, or give stats to Bonesingers. Individuality can be so much more broader than "Wow, you take 3 Fast Attack? That's a neat theme!" And paint schemes have never suddenly given an army a "feel" to me.

We may be saying almost the same thing, but I still don't see how Wargear options were or are a bad thing - What about those that don't give a game-sweeping benefit, like a Psyocculum or a familiar? And would you really mind if someone wanting their Power Stake to do something different than just a normal power sword?

I must admit I don't get what you are driving at with Unit Options, either. Do you think the Chaos 'dex has failed because it has, what, 5 different troop choices? Or is it that you would prefer if every similar army started of virtually similar at the base and then depended on what troops they selected to differentiate?

Adept
18-10-2007, 05:50
I personally think more list options are better - How can they possibly hurt?

They are unnecessary. All games should aspire to be as simple, as elegant, as possible. Adding in extra options, simply for the sake of having options, serves no purpose in the game.


I must admit I don't get what you are driving at with Unit Options, either. Do you think the Chaos 'dex has failed because it has, what, 5 different troop choices?

No. I haven't even read the Chaos Codex.

By unit options I mean ways of adding extra gubbins to a single unit. Like the Imperial Guard platoon rules; way too complicated. At least two different unit types, with up to six different units, armed with different weapons and different upgrades, all as a single army list entry?

Sticking with the Imperial Guard as an example, I'd like to see them simplified as such:

Each ten man squad can take one heavy weapon, which can either be an anti infantry weapon (S6 Heavy 3, AP4) or anti tank weapon (S9 Heavy 1, AP2). In addition, they can take a flamer, or a plasma gun.

Thats it. No veteran sergeants with pistols and chainswords, no dicking around with ten different types of weapon, and you still have the option of modelling up lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons or heavy bolters as you wish.


Or is it that you would prefer if every similar army started of virtually similar at the base and then depended on what troops they selected to differentiate?

Pretty much, yes. Every Space Marine army tactical squad should be identical, or have only a few options. The differences should be in how those marines are painted and modelled, which will always be a stronger indicator of theme than what kind of weapons and wargear you choose, and how many.

Wyndstar
18-10-2007, 05:57
Power shifts and metagame shifts are a part of every codex. Apparently with the new chaos codex GW decided they wanted to sell demon princes and their new terminator box set. Mission accomplished, those are some of the very best units to take. On the first day the new terminators arrived at my LGS all 8 boxes were sold out in under 30 minutes.

Decrease wargear options? That isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, when options are not balanced even with limited selection all that happens is that every army starts to look identical. With few options building a force takes less time, and there is less to take into account when building armies with other races. I'm not convinced this is a change for the worse.

Removing units? This is the one thing that has always bothered me, and will always bother me, and I think is the second biggest thing that drives people away from this hobby (the first being women). When you carefully pick a list, spend lots of money to pick up lots of bits and bobs and clean your parts, assemble the model, spend sometimes hours painting it, basing it, applying a finish.... by the time you are done you have invested hours of time, a good amount of cash, and a huge emotional investment in your little baby. When a new codex roles through and says "sorry, those are all garbage" it is very deflating.

I'll never forget back when terminators changed. There was a time when every terminator in the known universe (just about) was armed with a cyclone missile launcher, an assault cannon and a power fist. Yeah, it was more than a decade ago, but it was the way things were. Then, suddenly you had to choose between assault cannons and missile launchers... AND you could only have two per squad. Many people felt that the terminators they had put together, the cornerstone of their army - they just couldn't use the models anymore. Some people left the hobby over this, and some of them for good.

Were the old second edition terminators overpowered? Should it have been changed? Probably. It still feels like a slap in the face every time you have a carefully crafted model that suddenly you can't use. Sure, some people try and use "counts as" for a month or two, but it is unsatisfying. Then, you either chop up your old models, buy new ones, or stop playing.

Power shifts will come and go. The worst thing GW can do is invalidate models, because for a lot of people it feels like a personal affront. This is a direct result of the time/money/emotional investment in this hobby. This isn't like a video game where you just install a new patch, changes that invalidate models can destroy years worth of careful work.

I like the raw power of the new chaos codex - although I miss the old power of the demon bombs. But, I CAN still use those models. Sonic Havoc squads (etc., etc.) were lost, and people with those models deserve to complain the most. A power shift isn't the end of the world. Having an army of models that can't be used anymore... that hurts no matter how powerful the new army is.

- Wyndstar

blackroyal
18-10-2007, 05:58
I'm a big fan of restricting list options.

Theme and individuality should be expressed through unit selections, paint jobs and conversions. Not wargear and unit options.


I think both should play a part. Certain units should come "stock" with very limited options. However, other units should be very customizable so that a player can truly make the army their own.

This is not epic. In 40K we can see the individual solder and recognize his/her/it's deeds. How one chooses to kit their soldiers, especially elite infantry, should not be too limited.

I find that when list options are restricted, players lose time and money. I'm still annoyed that the Griffin is not in the Guard Codex.

Sovereign
18-10-2007, 06:55
They are unnecessary. All games should aspire to be as simple, as elegant, as possible. Adding in extra options, simply for the sake of having options, serves no purpose in the game.

Sticking with the Imperial Guard as an example, I'd like to see them simplified as such: Each ten man squad can take one heavy weapon, which can either be an anti infantry weapon (S6 Heavy 3, AP4) or anti tank weapon (S9 Heavy 1, AP2). In addition, they can take a flamer, or a plasma gun.

I can support the basic idea of elegant game design. To a point.

Your IG example is way past that point. If I wanted to play at that level of abstraction, I think I'd play Epic 40k.


Removing units? When a new codex roles through and says "sorry, those are all garbage" it is very deflating.

Power shifts will come and go. The worst thing GW can do is invalidate models, because for a lot of people it feels like a personal affront.

Having an army of models that can't be used anymore... that hurts no matter how powerful the new army is.
I'm only going to note that most of the "removing" is really "changing", and the notion of "garbage" is in the eye of the beholder, primarily in the sense that the new version isn't as powerful as the old version.

A good example of this is the DG player who posted below. His Dreads and such weren't invalidated, but their effectiveness changed enough from what they were, so he doesn't *want* to field them. But I suspect that if he fielded them and got to know how his revised army played, he'd probably be quite happy with the result.

In most Codex changes, I think more than 95% of the models in a *balanced* list would still be usable. Just not as necesarily as effectively as they were used before.

Given that players tend to gravitate towards whatever appears to be the most powerful, some players are affected more than others, and that is the price that one pays for having a stronger than average army. Basically, you get to win a bit more while the Codex is still current, and in exchange for these extra wins, you will lose some effectiveness in the next Codex. On the other hand, if you took weaker stuff, you will generally gain effectiveness with each rewrite. And if you were "balanced", your overall power level won't change.

Occulto
18-10-2007, 07:29
On the other hand, if you took weaker stuff, you will generally gain effectiveness with each rewrite.

For that reason, if I were a DE player, I'd be looking at buying 2nd hand Mandrakes right about now. ;)

cruzcontrol39
18-10-2007, 07:40
I really hate the way the new codexs are written. I understand that they did what they did to streamline some stuff for tournament play and all that, but honestly most people i think play for fun with their bros. The armoury, different rules for varient armies like craftworld and traitor legions, that was fun! This new simplified crap......not so fun. Also i can't stand it when you work hard on your models and then a new dex says ha, ha, you just wasted your time and money!! I believe the Alpha legion player was pissed about that:D The DA codex really pissed me off. DA is my main and i just don't even want to touch them anymore. What kinda crap is it that i have to buy 5 or 10 marines, 3 or 6 bikes, scouts are elites!?!? I think i'll just stop now:eyebrows:

Adept
18-10-2007, 07:58
This new simplified crap......not so fun.

It's really just horses for courses. Simplification and limited options are very fun to some people. Many GW gamers consider Epic to be the best of the GW games, and other games (DBA, DBM, Warmachine & Hordes, Flames of War) have very strict composition rules.

Personally, I like the new direction GW are taking. It reduces the impact of list construction on the game, without eliminating it, while still allowing you to field just about any model you want.

All I think we need is GW to strongly promote that 'counts as' models are ok!

cruzcontrol39
18-10-2007, 08:41
Yes Epic i hear is good and for some strange reason i have never played it. GW should have pushed Epic instead of this Armeggedon nonsense.

Wyndstar
18-10-2007, 08:57
I'm only going to note that most of the "removing" is really "changing", and the notion of "garbage" is in the eye of the beholder, primarily in the sense that the new version isn't as powerful as the old version.

Well, and don't get me wrong. I think changing is just part of a new codex, must be expected, and if you want to stay with the hobby should be absorbed and integrated into your army. I'm not overly sympathetic to people that think chaos is ruined because they can't use demonettes (I have about 40 demonettes myself) - because they CAN use demonettes, they just have worse stats. For that reason I really don't agree with "95%" of the teeth gnashing over this new chaos codex.

But, you can no longer take Havoc squads with 4 Blastmasters. If you have several of those squads, the figures are now "garbage" because they can't be taken anymore. Just like if you had terminators built and painted with both missile launchers and assault cannons. That was suddenly no longer a legal combination, and the models couldn't be used WYSIWYG.

Cutting up models to put on new arms rarely looks as good, and some people would rather just throw out the model than cut them up anyway. Some people just sell them. Lots are destroyed. There used to be piles and piles of cyclone/assault/fist terminators in the world. Try finding them now. Sure, there are SOME out there, and some were converted by their owners, but most of them were eventually thrown out. (I only have anecdotal evidence from the long time gamers I know)

Changing a unit so that you don't think it is any good and you don't want to take it any more, that is your problem. The only thing I really wish they would refrain from doing is actually making models unusable.

Surviving "progress": the Codex re-write is the topic of this thread. My point is that I think any dedicated player can survive a codex re-write and learn a new set of combinations for any codex. The one thing that is hard to "survive", and that GW should avoid IMO, is actually making models illegal. They've done it before, they'll probably do it again, but if I had my way they would never do it again. If they don't like something, just make it cost a lot.

- Wyndstar

Imperialis_Dominatus
18-10-2007, 09:12
While to some extent I can agree with and to a further extent understand with what you are proposing, Adept, I cannot accept it totally. There I must draw a line. I will take a simplified system like what we are approaching now, and even embrace it. However, for example, your suggestions for Guard were too extreme. The difference between an anti-tank or personnel weapon is obvious; the difference between a Lascannon or Multi Melta can change entirely the tactics of a game and the character of the model.

Armories I can see go as long as commanders are customizable. There were few builds anyone took seriously anyway, so I can see where they are going with this.

As for Platoons being complex? Not at all. At least, I don't think so. Advisors are more complex. And that's not that hard of a system.

Overall I can sympathize with your total message, but again I don't consider it likely or feasible for 40k to turn out this way. *shrug* But to each his own.

HowlingBanshee23
18-10-2007, 09:23
This is not epic. In 40K we can see the individual solder and recognize his/her/it's deeds. How one chooses to kit their soldiers, especially elite infantry, should not be too limited. Maybe your one of those people that name every toy soldier in their army, but too limited means diffrent things to diffrent folks. So far as I'm concerned the customization that GW does now is just fine. That's why I like the new codexes - less screwing around bilding lists and more time spent playing!

**goes back to writing up army list for chess...** :P

IJW
18-10-2007, 10:35
GW should have pushed Epic instead of this Armeggedon nonsense.
Armageddon is Epic. I assume you mean Apocalypse... ;)

cringle54
18-10-2007, 11:39
I haven't really been playing long enough to really know the old codexs, but I was kind of bummed that the Eldar craftworld special rules were taken out, moving wraith troops to troop choices, and dire avengers to elites and stuff.

I mean if you field 10 wraithguard, they become troops, but anyone can do that now, not just Iyanden.

Major King
18-10-2007, 12:48
I think that the thing to remember with the new codexes is that you can still customise your models, but without using all of the items that require you to remember 20 different special rules which you end up forgetting most of the time. I have done this a lot and i don't deny it at all, so why should i take an Imperial Commissar with 2 master crafter weapons when i forget to use them? Thats half a squad of Infantry or another commissar down the drain there.
People complain about simplification, fair enough. I can see where you are coming from, but i played a 3,000 point game the other day using the current guard codex and it took me about 3 hours to write it, my friend who was using the new chaos codex was done in about 1 hour or so. By the time i was done, i needed a break for an hour to keep myself wanting to play the game.
But what about my super duper character i have lovingly created over the years of gaming? We all have them, mine is an Imperial Guard officer who uses the stats of Gaunt and has been around for about three years in game. Simple. You make up some rules for them, run them by your gaming buddies to see if they are okay, playtest them and so on and then use them with your opponents permission. It's very very simple indeed. It's what me and my mates do and it works really well.
On a final note now, the games move more quickly with less arguing about the rules and there is less room for beardiness and the game is a hell of a lot more fun!!

Change is a lot better than no change, hence i can't wait for the new Ork codex lol, and if it all stayed the same? I would get very very bored. And the other thing, change takes time. GW has only had this game for about 18 or so years now, thats not a lot of time for something to truely develop.

So play, have fun and cut the whining!

Enanus
18-10-2007, 13:29
I am a Chaos player.

I have always been a Chaos player.

And I shall always be a Chaos player.

Since I started playing both 40k and Fantasy I have always fielded the forces of Chaos.

Over the course of years I've seen the Army list change drastically. With new units appearing, old ones being removed and a veritable parade of special rules coming and going.

And so, I am very familiar with the trauma that is the Codex re-write experience and overall I feel it is a negative one.

I don't believe that changing or updating an army is a bad thing. In fact I believe the opposite, that a game such as this needs to be updated to stay fresh and interesting. Nor do I believe that today's Chaos army has been "nerfed" or made any less powerful.

What I object to is the random and often heavy-handedness of the Dev team's approach towards what should be a happy occasion. They have often fixed a problem from the previous codex to just replace it with a new one.

Well, I didn't want this to become a rant and it seems to be turning into that so I'll stop here with this question:

Do you think that re-written codices live up to your expectations?
If not, what can we do as a community to let GW know our criticisms in a constructive way?

100% agreed with you. I might even add that where I live I was very hard to get the realms of chaos books and once I got them I was out of date. Then I remember that it took an eternity to GW to keep chaos updated, but these are just an old granny's memories ;)

Deathwing_Matt
18-10-2007, 13:33
I am a Chaos player.


What I object to is the random and often heavy-handedness of the Dev team's approach towards what should be a happy occasion. They have often fixed a problem from the previous codex to just replace it with a new one.




At the danger of sounding to philosophical, isn't that the nature of any progress. One problem is solved only for another to be created... Otherwise there would never really be a reason to update army lists etc...

FiendishTau
18-10-2007, 13:37
In honesty, looking at the changes GW have been making across the board in all areas, all the new codices and armybooks for 40k and Fantasy, and even in the way they're operating, I think we are currently at a stage where the company is having a long, hard look at itself, seeing how to streamline itself and its product to become more efficient in an increasingly competitive market.

Why does this matter?

Because this has filtered down into the way they are designing the new rules, I suspect. I believe that, with all of the recently released codicies and army books as evidence, GW are going back-to-basics with each and every army, their background, and the way they play. As seen in Codex: Dark Angels, Eldar, Tau and in Warhammer Armies: High Elves, they are looking at each army in turn and seeking to portray the essence of each, their motives and their playstyle.

What does this mean to us, having to cope with less extravagent codicies / army books?

GW has plans (I hope / suspect). The Design Team obviously have plans. They are using these revisions to construct a core 'foundation,' if you will, for a greater exploration and expansion of the 40k and Fantasy universes. Before they can go out and be innovative and creative, they probably feel that they have to provide core, stable rules for the standing armies out there. This may well mean, as seen with Codex: CSM, that they need to cut back on the more wild, interesting, but potentially more unbalanced rules that existed previously.

Codex: Chaos Space Marines, then, could be seen as the foundation and the launch pad for greater things. A Codex: Daemonic Legions. Individual codicies for the Ruinous Powers and their adopted Legions. Who knows? But they are doing things methodically, conservatively, because they damn well know that if they screw up, they'll have all of us hollering for blood. They're covering their bases first, setting down strict rules, before slowly letting players off the leash with more and more options and opportunities, such as Cities of Death and Apocalypse.

So, what was the point of all this?

My point, I guess, for all you guys out there who are disappointed with the relative 'tameness' of the new Codex: CSM, is to look to the future. And heck, even the most pessimistic of players out there could prolly agree, they can't really *take* more from the Chaos Space Marine rules, they can only add. ;)

Major King
18-10-2007, 13:46
Fiendish Tau......nuff said

gLOBS
18-10-2007, 13:47
I look at this this way if I survived 2nd to 3rd I can survive just about any codex redux.

The_Outsider
18-10-2007, 13:59
The new style of codices are an improvement.

They are designed so that they are rules first, fluff second.

While vets often complain about it it makes it easier for new players to grasp the army list and not using skanky little luff lines as rules justification (i.e "the monolith has no crew, thus it cannot sufer from crew stunned/shaken").

Okay the necron codex is old, but the example holds true.

The armoury gave waay too many computations to ever be balanced and IMO the nerfing that gave (and subsequent buffs) is a fresh of breath air.

Now with unit by unit upgrades GW can focus more on each units specific role without making them a bland unit as base and letting the armoury do all the work.

To use chaos as an example - it IS more chaos, chaos has always been about a few powerful units but in the old codex that vision wasn't jsutified - now it is. When you take Khorne berzerkers you are getting a unit that will rip 9/10 units apart. When you buy possessed you get a (albeit random) unit of death.

Enanus
18-10-2007, 14:19
I think both Fiendish-Tau and The_Outsider are quite right. We might be seeing interesting things in the future.

sebster
18-10-2007, 14:25
This is one of those once a week threads, isn’t it? Someone mentions something, anything, about the newer codices. Some people pop in and comment on the OP’s idea, but most people just give their well established positions on ‘new codices are bad’ and ‘new codices are good’.

Someone says ‘dumbing down’, someone else complains about GW making the game suitable for 12 year olds (presumably because only a mature vet can handle the sophistication of a special rule for spiky armour). Some other people suggest that maybe in pulling the options back GW is able to focus the game into a more balanced game, and one focussed on a more mobile, troop oriented style of play over building static shooting units and uber assault characters. There’s rarely a reply to that, and then next week the same thread pops up, generally with the same people in it.

But all that aside, I like the OP’s look on things. Stuff changes and develops and that helps keep the game fresh and interesting. But some changes will suck, you’ll lose models and favourite rules, but if you really love the idea behind an army some changes to the rules won’t ruin the fun you can have with the army. Just keep playing, keep having fun with your mates and try not to get too dramatic over a game.

Supremearchmarshal
18-10-2007, 14:52
The new style of codices are an improvement.They are designed so that they are rules first, fluff second.

This would be good IF the core rules were good, but they aren't. Let's face it, most people play 40k for the fluff and miniatures, not the rules system - there are far superior ones out there.


The armoury gave waay too many computations to ever be balanced and IMO the nerfing that gave (and subsequent buffs) is a fresh of breath air.

Except that removing the armoury still fails to balance things, even among characters - just take a look at the various Daemon Princes and see how poorly balanced they are. Besides, I don't like the fact that you can still get lots of fancy equipment and special rules, but only if you take special characters.
Also, take a look at the current SM armoury - is it really cheesy or unbalanced?


Now with unit by unit upgrades GW can focus more on each units specific role without making them a bland unit as base and letting the armoury do all the work.

Yeah, in principle this is good, but just take a look at, say, the new SM Assault squad - the grunts get nothing but overpriced plasma pistols while the sergeant gets everything else.
Aslo, the units are not well balanced in regards to one another at all - e.g. Eldar Heavy Support and Chaos Elites (and in fact almost everything Chaos). Take a look at the "what-do-you-think-is-the-least-used-unit-in-the-game" thread to see more.


To use chaos as an example - it IS more chaos, chaos has always been about a few powerful units but in the old codex that vision wasn't jsutified - now it is. When you take Khorne berzerkers you are getting a unit that will rip 9/10 units apart. When you buy possessed you get a (albeit random) unit of death.

Not true. Take a look at the very first chaos books if you will - it as the characters who were uber, while the grunts were essentially loyalists with worse technology and some mutations (which could be either good or bad). The new Berzerkers are certainly not the best assault unit in the codex (and are weaker, if more predictable than their previous incarnation), and the Possessed are indeed a unit of death - for their user (shoot here for big victory points).

john-connors
18-10-2007, 15:04
It would have been far simpler for GW to release Codex: Chaos Renegades, the new Codex, and in White Dwarf released an errata sheet updating any necessary changes being made to the Legions of Chaos to balance the older codex with the new.

Problems solved, GW has a new codex to pimp to the masses, and the veterans can carry on using their now slightly modified Legions. The 3.5 codex always needed its power level reducing, but the new codex in effect nerfs chaos equivalents of Black Templar, Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves. Would the community as a whole be pleased playing Codex Ultramarines?

Sovereign
18-10-2007, 17:29
It would have been far simpler for GW to release Codex: Chaos Renegades, the new Codex, and in White Dwarf released an errata sheet updating any necessary changes being made to the Legions of Chaos to balance the older codex with the new.
That presumes that the 3.5 Codex is fundamentally sound and only needs minor updates. Many people would disagree with that premise, including myself and likely the developers.

Xenocidal Maniac
18-10-2007, 18:00
The new Berzerkers are certainly not the best assault unit in the codex (and are weaker, if more predictable than their previous incarnation).

Uhh.... no.

Your post is fine, but then when you make patently false claims like this, it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

The berserkers were clearly improved. And, uh, yeah, they are the best assault unit in the codex. Have you read the codex?

cruzcontrol39
18-10-2007, 18:27
Uhh.... no.

Your post is fine, but then when you make patently false claims like this, it's hard to take the rest of what you say seriously.

The berserkers were clearly improved. And, uh, yeah, they are the best assault unit in the codex. Have you read the codex?

Uhmm...no have you read the codex? The Berzerkers are weak compared to what they were. Seriously take the old codex and look at the stats and compare with the new stats for Berzerkers. I don't have to spell it out:rolleyes:

Bookwrak
18-10-2007, 19:08
So... what's the best assault unit in the codex then?

Wyndstar
19-10-2007, 01:14
So... what's the best assault unit in the codex then?

Um, Khorne terminators. Do you really need to ask that?

The "best" in the codex is 10 khorne terms, all aspiring champions, and IMO half with double claws and half with fists. 55 power attacks on the charge, with either a reroll to wound or S8.

Kinda leaves zerkers in the dust.

- Wyndstar

gLOBS
19-10-2007, 01:26
And how many points is that over a regular zerk squad?

Wow how do ork boyz ever win in hth without mega armored nobz?

warchild9
19-10-2007, 01:27
Sure I was annoyed with something like the loss of my noise marine havocs and the loss of taking a missile launcher in a 8 chaos marine squad but look at the goodies we got....35 point rhino the ability to take multipe cults in one army plus with the new codex we get new goodies

Wyndstar
19-10-2007, 01:40
Its a lot of points over a zerker squad, and it will still make its points back. But you want a cheaper but still viable variant? Fine.

10 Terms, icon of Khorne, 2 fists. 350 pts.

Vs. 9 Zerkers, Champion w/ fist, Rhino - 285 pts.

This isn't even close when these two fight each other.

And I'm not playing theory hammer here. I've been extensively playtesting the new chaos codex, and Khorne terminators have become something of a specialty of mine. I fought an "All Khorne" army that extensively used beserkers (50), and I was using 20 Khorne terms and 10 Tzeentch terms. I wiped his army and didn't lose a single squad.

But that is anecdotal, so you don't have to believe me. Run the numbers. Zerkers have about an 8% chance of winning combat against Khorne terms if they charge. If they don't charge, they won't do anything. Better hope those Khorne terms don't have a LR or a lash to back them up.

Or, for more fun.... let the zerkers be charged by stealers, then let the Khorne terms be charged by stealers... which one won combat? How about against harliquin charges? How about against wych charges?

Or switch it around, and charge 10 Khorne terms into any of those, and then charge 10 zerkers into any of those. For just a few more points you get a unit that is easily 2-3x better.

- Wyndstar

- Edit - If you want, I have 7 battle reports featuring the new chaos up in the battle report forums. By all means go and check them out.

gLOBS
19-10-2007, 01:52
So in the 3.5 chaos dex zerkers did better against genestealers, harlies, and wyches?

Wyndstar
19-10-2007, 02:04
So in the 3.5 chaos dex zerkers did better against genestealers, harlies, and wyches?

Why did they have to? The question was, "what is the best assault unit in the new chaos codex?".

One person answered zerkers. I strongly disagree.

Doesn't mean zerkers can't have their place.... but they aren't the "best" assault unit out of the codex. That distinction lies with Khorne Terms.

- Wyndstar

Edit - well, they didn't answer zerkers... the question was from someone who already believed it was zerkers. It was an implied answer.

gLOBS
19-10-2007, 04:14
Ah because the reason you gave why zerkers are not as good as terminators was that they currently do not do well against those types of units which they never were good at fighting.

boogaloo
19-10-2007, 04:29
sorry for coming in to the thread late and slightly off topic but as far as that armoury malarky goes... they just included all of the options in each unit entry. now instead of having 1 armory with "T" marks for the stuff certain models can have (still present in the current SM) you have a bazillion little itty bitty armouries where each item is appropriatle costed for the model carrying it.

And besides ultramarines are the customisable Chapter as far as i see it, they should have a higer degree of customisability because the Dark angels are old, and set in their ways.

DhaosAndy
19-10-2007, 04:38
Of the new codexes I have issues with 2, the Eldar and the Chaos codexes, the eldar one has the no brainer, falcon/harlie combo and the new chaos codex, well boring is my opinion, it's the first chaos army list they've ever produced which holds no interest for me.

In general, the armoury system was IMHO better than the individual unit option system.

Occulto
19-10-2007, 04:40
And besides ultramarines are the customisable Chapter as far as i see it, they should have a higer degree of customisability because the Dark angels are old, and set in their ways.

Well the UM primarch wrote the Codex Astartes. So, if anything they should be one of the most inflexible. Deviating from the Codex would be considered akin to saying their own primarch didn't know WTF he was talking about. :D

RUSSADER
19-10-2007, 04:41
I've complained alot on the new dex, but honustly I think it's erm... okay. I have no issues with elimination of a massive armoury. To say I can no longer use an XYZ to blow your brains out and that I am left with only abc, okay cool. weapons break, rules are streamlined, soforth.

but what about the complete elimination of options? Chaos no longer has anything to repair a land raider. No servos.

and the great khorne himself has lost the ability to protect his beloved lords from the psy powers he has hated for centuries?

I probibly would have been fine with the new dex had they made servos available still and the collar of khorne available to khorne lords.

Almost forgot: If you want vanilla daemons fine, but do it right not half arsed. Gibbering hordes would have worked fine instead of nerglings, or a +3 pts per model to give them wings.

Occulto
19-10-2007, 04:43
Of the new codexes I have issues with 2, the Eldar and the Chaos codexes, the eldar one has the no brainer, falcon/harlie combo and the new chaos codex, well boring is my opinion, it's the first chaos army list they've ever produced which holds no interest for me.

That's a pretty impressive statement considering how bland the first 3rd ed codex was. :D

DhaosAndy
19-10-2007, 04:52
Occulto: "That's a pretty impressive statement considering how bland the first 3rd ed codex was."

None the less I mean what I say. :D

Wyndstar
19-10-2007, 06:44
Just so that you know where I'm coming from with the zerkers vs. terms fight, I took the time to write up the battle report of the game where I fought 50 of the new ones (referenced above). Check it out here:

http://warseer.com/forums/40k-battle-reports/108480-chaos-v-khorne-battle-report-illustrated-post2016987.html#post2016987

Its not the end of the discussion, but at least it will let you know why I'm coming from where I am. Enjoy.

- Wyndstar

Deadmanwade
19-10-2007, 08:17
As a part time DA player, I initially didnt like the new codex. In the last edition, you could make nearly every unit stubborn and stand them at the back edge of the board and outshoot anything. The new 'dex seemed more assault based. (Death-Raven for example).
I dont like that I HAVE to take a veteran sergeant and to be honest, the combat squad thing doesnt really appeal. "Oooh, I can buy a full 10 man squad with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon AND an unlooked for Veteran and make it into 2 squads. Yay!" With Codex SM, I can buy 2 5 man squads anyway and equip them as I see fit. Its very rare that I max out my FOC enough to need extra units.
That said game after game I am liking the 'dex more and more. Being able to cross the board on turn one and get some T5 bikes stuck into my opponents firing line is GREAT. The free bolt pistols may look useless, but they mean you can move, fire AND assault with every model in your army. Free grenades. YIPPEE. They always seemed like an unnecessary expenditure before. There are good points and bad points to the list but thats true of every codex.

I guess GW do sometimes remove units from lists (whatever happened to all the IG jetbikes?), but sometimes they bring them back. (Forgeworld released new Thudd Guns and Tarantulas). I would have no objection to my opponents using an army from an older dex if they wanted, or fielding a unit that they used to have.

cruzcontrol39
19-10-2007, 09:02
As a part time DA player, I initially didnt like the new codex. In the last edition, you could make nearly every unit stubborn and stand them at the back edge of the board and outshoot anything. The new 'dex seemed more assault based. (Death-Raven for example).
I dont like that I HAVE to take a veteran sergeant and to be honest, the combat squad thing doesnt really appeal. "Oooh, I can buy a full 10 man squad with 1 heavy and 1 special weapon AND an unlooked for Veteran and make it into 2 squads. Yay!" With Codex SM, I can buy 2 5 man squads anyway and equip them as I see fit. Its very rare that I max out my FOC enough to need extra units.
That said game after game I am liking the 'dex more and more. Being able to cross the board on turn one and get some T5 bikes stuck into my opponents firing line is GREAT. The free bolt pistols may look useless, but they mean you can move, fire AND assault with every model in your army. Free grenades. YIPPEE. They always seemed like an unnecessary expenditure before. There are good points and bad points to the list but thats true of every codex.

I guess GW do sometimes remove units from lists (whatever happened to all the IG jetbikes?), but sometimes they bring them back. (Forgeworld released new Thudd Guns and Tarantulas). I would have no objection to my opponents using an army from an older dex if they wanted, or fielding a unit that they used to have.

Yes brother combat squads are stupid and the DA are supposed to be a shooty army not an assault army like it tends to be now. I am really disappointed with the dex. it seems like DA always get hosed with their dex. The only time they had it moderately decent was when the 2nd 3rd edition DA dex came out. It really pisses me off considering they have such great fluff and are the 1rst Legion.:mad:

Supremearchmarshal
19-10-2007, 11:18
Well the UM primarch wrote the Codex Astartes. So, if anything they should be one of the most inflexible. Deviating from the Codex would be considered akin to saying their own primarch didn't know WTF he was talking about. :D

That's true, but I always envisioned the Codex itself as offering many different approaches to various situations and generally being flexible. It surprises me how many people (not aimed at you Occulto) think it is something extremely rigid and predictable - after all, it was written by a military genius and still works 10,000 years later.

As for the best Chaos assault unit, I agree wholeheartedly with Wyndstar - Termies are better in assaults than Berzerkers point for point, and another contender are Plague marines, who are far tougher, have Blight Grenades and, most importantly, they do not have to charge to be fully effective (my main gripe with the Berserkers - if they don't charge they're WS 5 marines). Besides, the main killer in any unit is the hidden powerfist. All in all I have to say Berzerkers are the worst of the cult units (not that they're useless like Possessed or Spawn, but I certainly wouldn't call them an awesome assault unit).

infernus31
19-10-2007, 12:09
Though I play guard, I do own the new codecii and play against most of the newer style armies (aside from Dark Angels, theyre not common round my gaming group)

Overall i would say i prefer this new style of layout and army constuction, its far simpler and leads to far less areas where overpowering can take place. it also means less unit specific special rules, which means its easier to get to grips and means games can progress that bit more smoothly.

the only thing i don't really like (and this is really only with Codex BA, and maybe Eldrad) is the relaince on superhero level special characters that now seems to be more prevalent, sure special characters have their roles in 40K, but Ive always preferred and used my own characters to develop my army unqiuely and originally.