PDA

View Full Version : The new style Codex



Doppleskanger
15-01-2008, 14:33
Right. I admit it. I’m a big fan of the new style codex’s. The new Ork one is excellent, the BA, DA, Eldar and Tau Empire, All good work. I think the way that variation is introduced via special characters changing FO charts is rather clever, and certainly simplifies the process of designing armies.

I think this allows less detailed customisation, which is a shame, but provides a more balanced game, which is far more important. I think charges of dumbing down are quite ridiculous in a game system with 15(16 with Codex Demons) separate army lists, all of which allow customisation. With that much variation as standard, proper balance is far more important than intricate levels of customisation (40k is NOT Rouge Trader!)

So far I have not mentioned CSM, as I think we all know what they think on this subject (So please, not again…)
In most cases variant lists of old can be created in the main list that’s replaced it, and so armies really can, with a bit of thought and imagination can be themed.

I recon it is far more important to fix the remaining problem codex’s (ie Dark Eldar and Necron, where many units are either too expensive or too useless to be chosen) than to increase the number of armies.

To illustrate this I have just finished building an Adeptus Mechanicus army with Codex Marines, using sniper scouts as techgaurd, Marines with cog shoulder pads and chest plates, gun servitors to represent heavy/special weapons, Enginseers and converted Combat servitors as Tech Servitors, three scratch built venerable Dreads, and two heavily modified Razorbacks.

Am I alone or would many of the rest of you consider overall balance to be more important than endless variation?

Bloodknight
15-01-2008, 14:38
I'd like to write a long post about it but as I can have it easier:

I fully agree with your post.

TheLionReturns
15-01-2008, 15:17
I'm afraid I partially disagree with you. I'll admit balance is important. However, I dont think balance and variation are mutually exclusive. Yes the more variety you have the more difficult it is to balance, but there is no reason for this singular approach. I would like to see the more balanced/streamlined new style codexes continue to provide a core game. However, once this is complete I would like to see some more themed and varied lists published. All that needs to happen is for them to err on the side of weakness compared to the more balanced codexes and they will be fine.

They will be very much for the more experienced gamer as a challenge. This brings the benefit of keeping the games challenging for the veterans outside of the tournament setting, and allows newer players to play against vets without either the former getting destroyed or the latter having to take it easy. It will also provide for those in the hobby side to convert away as models could not be economically produced for all possible lists.

Essentially I would like to see a 2 tier system. One tier balanced, the other providing the variety for those who wish to explore it. I don't see anybody being at a disadvantage except those who choose to be. This approach combined with supplements like CoD, Apocalypse etc would bring great variety. Whilst there is some now, we should surely want as much as possible.

Culven
15-01-2008, 15:39
I am liking the new codex format, but I admit I was concerned when the Eldar codex was released. Fortunately, they have reintroduced the Armoury in some form so that all of the special weapon and wargear rules are collected for easy reference. It was such a pain trying to make an Autarch when I had no idea where to find the rules for the items which were typically associated with certain units.

As to being limited in army "flavour", I have to disagree with some. I think that even with the reduction in the number of options, the army lists still allow enough flexibility to give the army some of the feel of the old army lists. For example, Eldar can easily represent Saimhann since Jetbikes are a Troops choice, Bieltan-Dire Avengers are Troops, Iyanden-Wraithguard can be Troops, Ulthwe-Take lots of Farseers and Warlock. Granted, the FOC modifications and special rules may be toned down or gone, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

ale
15-01-2008, 16:10
I partly agree, but partly disagree... I haven`t read all the new codexes thoroughly (with the exception of orks and blood angels. I`ve seen them all, though) but I like what I`ve seen. At least the ork codex is great and allows very different armies, even though it could be considered simplified. But what I truly would like to see, is a huge amount of different, unique, army lists. Yes, you can make different clans quite easily with the new ork codex, but even better would be a separate army list (codex) for all the major clans plus kult of speed and feral orks. Then there should be the vanilla codex like we do now. Same for different guard regiments and craftworlds etc. Like it is with marines. Balance isn`t that great an issue for me personally since I only play with my friends and (usually) nobody makes too cheesy lists. But I know my wish will never come true. It`s too much work to make several unique lists for each race, especially since they need to be quite well balanced. But I don`t complain, I like my new ork codex.

zombied00d
15-01-2008, 16:34
See I disagree fully. I think the new codex formats encourage an extremely cookie cutter style armies that aside from paint job are all essentially the same.

Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.

Under the old system yes, in higher level play (GT's and such) you tended toward seeing the same army for given factions. Why? Because GT's are about winning. Period. Since certain choices are more viable in terms of point economy, usefullness, flexibility, etc. they got played more. That's the nature of tourney play. People play what wins, because it wins. They may dress it up as fluff or liking the model or whatever, but at the end of the day people play good units because they're good units.

Now however, the new codexes are broken down into two types of units: viable and horrible. Very rarely are there any "in-between" in the unit types. As such, you'll only ever see the same type of army in tourneys.

This new style of codex is designed almost exclusivly with tournament play in mind. Sure, they hide it well. But these lists are about being streamlined and dumbed down. Period. Any fluff or flavor is sheerly incedental.

PondaNagura
15-01-2008, 16:42
i agree balance is an issue, but couldn't they balance between game and fluff dynamics of the armies? i don't have a problem with the tau (well, they didnt really change at all), eldar and ork dexes. it seems the phil kelly dexes are more rounded in keeping fluff and game in balance, or at least giving some option to custom armies vs CCC (cookie [or should it be cheese?] cutter codices) where certain other dexes seem a bit stagnant in not only content, but actual layout of the books/illustration.
also i wouldn't use the marine codex as an example for the "new" dex format, since it's still a reminant of the 3rd-4th ed transition dexes, where an armory and wide customization is still avalaible. now had you said BA or DA as an example...or perhaps the "taboo" chaos dex, i might be more swayed to agree with you.

lord_blackfang
15-01-2008, 16:43
See I disagree fully. I think the new codex formats encourage an extremely cookie cutter style armies that aside from paint job are all essentially the same.

Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.

Under the old system yes, in higher level play (GT's and such) you tended toward seeing the same army for given factions. Why? Because GT's are about winning. Period. Since certain choices are more viable in terms of point economy, usefullness, flexibility, etc. they got played more. That's the nature of tourney play. People play what wins, because it wins. They may dress it up as fluff or liking the model or whatever, but at the end of the day people play good units because they're good units.

Now however, the new codexes are broken down into two types of units: viable and horrible. Very rarely are there any "in-between" in the unit types. As such, you'll only ever see the same type of army in tourneys.

This new style of codex is designed almost exclusivly with tournament play in mind. Sure, they hide it well. But these lists are about being streamlined and dumbed down. Period. Any fluff or flavor is sheerly incedental.

:wtf: The differences in power level between units are WAY smaller now than the were in the previous batch of Codices. While the overall amount of options might have been slightly reduced (mostly at the expense of minor details that didn't have much bearing on gameplay in the first place), the amount of viable options has been greatly increased.

Shadowphrakt
15-01-2008, 16:53
I have to agree again. I love the new style Codex. Though one thing about the DE one, it now has a 2nd edition sticker on the front of it........

Doppleskanger
15-01-2008, 16:54
Yeah, the marine and gaurd dex use the trait style system, but I like that too, as it allows stronger customisation, but it has a different set of problems.
Maybe, if that wanted to put useful content in WD, they could have articles dealing with customisation of forces, could be an intersting read.

Lexington
15-01-2008, 16:54
:wtf: The differences in power level between units are WAY smaller now than the were in the previous batch of Codices. While the overall amount of options might have been slightly reduced (mostly at the expense of minor details that didn't have much bearing on gameplay in the first place), the amount of viable options has been greatly increased.
I'm with lord_blackfang here. Given the new book and what we've heard of 5th Edition, I can't think of a single unit in the Ork army, for example, that I don't foresee using at some point.

Now, this isn't true under all of the new Codexes. Even given the new rules rules in 5th Edition, the (obviously rushed) new Chaos Codex still has useless entries. I can't see using Possessed or a Dreadnought anywhere outside of filler in an Apocalypse game.

Mojaco
15-01-2008, 16:57
Now however, the new codexes are broken down into two types of units: viable and horrible. Very rarely are there any "in-between" in the unit types. As such, you'll only ever see the same type of army in tourneys.
What? That's not even remotely true. Orks don't have horrible units, nor does chaos or Tau or Tyranids. Some are more obvious choices, but let's illustrate.

I've consistently used every unit in the Eldar codex (except for weapon platforms; too expensive in $$). However, under the old rules I had no use for; dire avengers, dark reapers, weapons that weren't a brightlance or starcannon, anything on a jetbike. Now all of the above are fine choices, while none have become worthless in their stead.

A second one. The much debated Chaos codex. I'm building an army, but it contains a Defiler and a Dreadnought, both of which should be replaced by either Obliberators or Vindicators according to many, as these are supposedly far better. I won a tournament with them though. In the old codex I couldn't care less about horrors, possessed, half the chaos lord upgrades (probably more then half), Predator destructors, most psychic powers, bikers and raptors. Now, all have improved with only possessed still underpowered (if only you could roll before deployment...) and, granted, the horrors are not themselves anymore. New before you mention him; the spawn does have its place IMO (just not more then 2).

Looking at older codexes, when have you last seen ratlings, ogryns, priest, multilaser sentinels, inquisitors with retinue, repentias, half the Dark Eldar list, kommandos (before orks 2008), wraiths, tomb spyders or heavy destroyers? All units that are not picked because they suck(ed). Not a matter of style or taste, no, just plain sucking.

I'm not saying new codexes are perfect. Can't imagine why anyone would use a biovore or a Skyray for instance. But your claim that half of an army is just plain unusable is far overstated.

Vandur Last
15-01-2008, 17:05
Zombiedood: I dont mean to be rude,b ut what you are saying couldnt possibly be more untrue. Surely you dont think that the old (3rs ed) codexes had more/better fluff than the current ones???

Also look at the old Eldar codex and compare it to the new one. Which codex has some horribly overpriced units that arent viable? Fact of the matter was that in 3rd ed Jetbikes werent usable, now they are.
SAme with Dark Eldar, there are killer units and rubbish ones... no way could you say all/most units are viable.

Im not saying the new codex'es are perfect but they are definitely an improvement in terms of fluff and versatility/viable unit mix.

PS is there somerthing wron with Warboss+boyz on Trukk?

PPS: Computer had a brain fart so it was a few minutes between my typing this and it being posted. It seems im not the only one to be incredulous at the doods unbeleivable wrongness

Keichi246
15-01-2008, 17:13
I'm not saying new codexes are perfect. Can't imagine why anyone would use a biovore or a Skyray for instance. But your claim that half of an army is just plain unusable is far overstated.

Slightly off topic:
Actually - I have and do use the Skyray for one specialty build...

The "seeker alpha strike" army.

A squad of Pathfinders, as many seekers as I can load up on other vehicles and a Skyray supporting two Hammerheads...

Is it an uber army of doom? No. Actually it is quite borderline - in that it requires a modicum of good dice rolling for the markerlight turn. Dumping a pile of seeker missiles into a key enemy squad makes for entertaining results, though. Then the Skyray becomes a very large heavily armored Tetra, running along the board, markerlighting targets for Railgun lovin'.

Any fire that gets directed at the Skyray *isn't* hitting the Hammerheads - and the pair of markerlights on a vehicle that most people think of as a low priority target comes in handy - especially since those markerlihgts don't need to make target priority tests...

Is the Skyray an "awesome" tank? No. But it does have it's uses. My opponents groan and complain of cheese when they see 3 Hammerheads. One Railhead, one Ionhead and a Skyray makes them a lot less grumpy - at least until the seeker storm starts...

Bloodknight
15-01-2008, 17:29
Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.

I'd give two Warpheadz a try. That could lead to a lot of Waaghs.

TzeentchForPresident
15-01-2008, 17:38
Am I alone or would many of the rest of you consider overall balance to be more important than endless variation?

The most fascinating is that they give up all this variation, the biggest strength GW has over its competion and still manage to miss the goal completly, to achive balance.

It is as if fluff is the enemy now, something bad.

They cut the choises and the few times something new is added somehow it fails to be playtested properly. Prime example is the Lash of submission one of the few Chaos psychic powers that got changed and still...

Besides the dreaded double-lash one of the most powerful uses of it is to fit it properly under a Ordinance template. I can only imagine that this power was tested with 3.5 rules when the only one that used Vindicators and thus couldn´t use a Slaanesh psychic powers. Almost all defilers used to fire indirectly meaning that you had to be pretty lucky to score a direct hit on a by the lash neatly packed unit.

But now the combo of lash and Vindicator can break just about any unit with not high enough Inv-save.

And on the other scale the Chaos spawn, it could have been useful if by just adding some wordings that it must move towards the closest enemy unit that it can hurt. It will still be overpriced, it will still play "catch that skimmer" but given that it isn´t stupid enough to kill friends (unlike Chaos Dreadnoughts and Kharne) why is it attacking stuff that it can´t eat?

So little new and yet so failed playtesting. And this is the "balance" we got by giving up so much.

TheLionReturns
15-01-2008, 17:49
Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.


I don't really understand the above point. I assume you are suggesting that the above HQ's are the optimum ones. Assuming this is the case why does that mean automatically everyone will take them all the time? Are you really suggesting that without these 2 you cannot hope to win? Whats wrong with a sub-optimal list? (Please note sub-optimal does not necessarily mean very weak) I think you seriously exaggerate the impact army selection makes, but even with that surely there are occasions when you will play against those of lesser ability and experience. Surely then it is better to weaken your list to keep the game interesting.

Stella Cadente
15-01-2008, 18:05
Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.
yeah...except mine and almost everyones:eyebrows:

javgoro
15-01-2008, 19:11
I think the current codices are more balanced, but in the case of the DA and BA, there were a few things that I didn´t like...
a) Too much emphasis on special characters. I´m sorry, but not everyone likes special characters, yet sometimes they are a far better choice than a normal character for their points, or even worse, the only choice. If you want your commander to have terminator armor, and are playing DA, you´re stuck with a special character.
b) Limiting options is fine, but sometimes I felt like I´d feel constrained when deciding what to give a certain unit or character (can´t cite specifics, since I read DA codex some time ago, and I can´t remember them, only the feeling).
Overall, the fluff seemed all right, and better balanced, and given how much praise the Ork codex has been getting, I´d think they´re well on their way to make things right. Still, we´ll see what happens on future codices (looking forward to Space Wolves myself... ;) )

Spacker
15-01-2008, 19:15
Right. I admit it. I’m a big fan of the new style codex’s. The new Ork one is excellent, the BA, DA, Eldar and Tau Empire, All good work.

Did I fall into a time warp and miss a new Tau codex? My Codex: Tau Empire isn't a new format codex, and I don't remember seeing a new one released in the past year ...

AdmiralDick
15-01-2008, 19:17
See I disagree fully. I think the new codex formats encourage an extremely cookie cutter style armies that aside from paint job are all essentially the same.

for what its worth, i'm totally in agreement with you zombeid00d. the newer lists (from Eldar onwards) have been very palid and don't lead to variation on anything like the same scale. not all armys are the same, but a lot more armies are 'similar' now.


Now however, the new codexes are broken down into two types of units: viable and horrible. Very rarely are there any "in-between" in the unit types. As such, you'll only ever see the same type of army in tourneys.

i'm inclined to agree here as well. it is certainly true of the Codex: Chaos, and there are examples of such a situation in the others (Warboss on Bike vs. Grotz).


:wtf: The differences in power level between units are WAY smaller now than the were in the previous batch of Codices.

i can agree that most HQ choices have been levelled out (some becoming less useful as well as some becoming more useful) and certain under used units have become more battle-field friendly, but is that due to the changes in variety? probably not, its just due to a concerted effort to make things more level.

i would also point out that, as i've hinted earlier, that making things level does not mean increasing their effectiveness. the loss of 2 wound characters has hit my army pretty hard, and i know that other players who had been waiting to see one appear in the Codex: Eldar were disappointed when they didn't materialise.


What? That's not even remotely true. Orks don't have horrible units, nor does chaos or Tau or Tyranids. Some are more obvious choices, but let's illustrate.

well, i'm personally going to restrict myself to the most recent design philosophy (which commenced with Codex: Eldar) because to do otherwise would be counter productive, but still, Grotz and Chaos Spawn are pretty clear examples of 'horrible' units.


I've consistently used every unit in the Eldar codex (except for weapon platforms; too expensive in $$).

i think that that show's that the Codex: Eldar is above average rather than the norm.

nevertheless, variety and balance are still two independent issues. even if you personally would rather not have seen it, there is no reason why the current Eldar book could not have included both the balanced units it currently has and a 'doctine/sub-list' system that allowed greater differentation between list representing specific factions.


In the old codex [Chaos] I couldn't care less about horrors, possessed, half the chaos lord upgrades (probably more then half), Predator destructors, most psychic powers, bikers and raptors.

then i feel sorry for you, because i had plenty of fun with Possessed in the previous Codex. (although i agree that the other stuff was underpowered in comparison).


I'm not saying new codexes are perfect. Can't imagine why anyone would use a biovore or a Skyray for instance. But your claim that half of an army is just plain unusable is far overstated.

that would probably be why he didn't say that half the army was unplayable. just that units, individually, are very all or nothing. they are either worth it or their not, there few that occupy the middle ground. however, each army has its own balance of such units; Eldar being one end of the spectrum and Chaos being the other.


Zombiedood: I dont mean to be rude,b ut what you are saying couldnt possibly be more untrue. Surely you dont think that the old (3rs ed) codexes had more/better fluff than the current ones???

well that depends on what you mean (or at least what you think zombied00d means). personally i would say there have been 3 distinct types of codex since the release of 3rd editon. the first set were, for the most part very flat, lacking in rules and background. this ran from Codex: Space Marines in 1998 up to, but not including Codex: Tyranids in 2001 (i think, forgive me but my dates and order of codexes are not perfect). the second set clearly had more to them, they were a step away from the 2 dimensional lists that had come before and gave you more options that just picking units off a page. that philosophy ran from the first Codex: Tyranids up to, but not including Codex: Eldar. the 3rd set are those we are discusing here.

to try and confuse the middle philosophy would not be wise, because although there are points were it seems it could be split into two sets, it is a slippery slop because they will not fit nicely either side of the divide, because they are their own thing.

so if you are asking whether the first set trumps the third for background, i'd say absolutely not. they were rushed and simplistic and if i only had the choice of those two then i would definitely pick the more advanced third set. however if you're comparing the second and third then i'd ask you whether you were serious? of course the background in the 2nd set (and for the most part the design philosophy) was a lot better in the 2nd (if they had only had the balance as well, they would have been perfect).


I don't really understand the above point. I assume you are suggesting that the above HQ's are the optimum ones. Assuming this is the case why does that mean automatically everyone will take them all the time? Are you really suggesting that without these 2 you cannot hope to win?

although i can't speak personally for zombied00d (so he might turn round and agree with you rather than me), i think you're reading far too much into what he said. i think the implication is that (like the double-lash lords) there is a much greater abundance of these HQs than the others. on average, orkish gamers will play with a Warboss on bike and a Big Mek. that doesn't mean all, not even the majority, but a sizable enough portion of players to be noticable and to out number players who use specific other kinds of HQ.

two Wierdboys is another very good alternative to a ork army, but i don't think it will outweigh the Bike/Mek combo.

kikkoman
15-01-2008, 19:21
40k is a miniatures hobby game though, customizability should not be readily discarded for an attempt at balance.

A balanced game is great, but... having cool lookin' mini's with all the bits you want on them, that's why we play 40k instead of Dawn of War. (you can still play both tho)


proper balance is far more important than intricate levels of customisation (40K is NOT Rouge Trader!)

That's too bad.



I just think it's kinda annoying. When SM's and IG came out with traits and doctrines, I thought "awesome! so this is the replacement for variant armylists"
then Eldar n' Chaos came out, and... well. Were traits and doctrines intended only for the Imperium? Or did they just switch design philosophies right after the IG came out?

The mechanics of the ork codex is still plenty flexible though

Sekhmet
15-01-2008, 19:25
See I disagree fully. I think the new codex formats encourage an extremely cookie cutter style armies that aside from paint job are all essentially the same.

Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.

I doubt that. Wierdboyz (and zogwort) are exceptionally good. BMs with KFF are excellent for supporting a lootas gunline. 2 warboses on bikes can lead a deffwing. You can have a very shooty army with two BM with SAGs (8 templates anyone?). You can take grotsnik to make an extremely resilient MAN squad.

The Ork Codex has some of the best HQs in the game, I think if you're trying to push that new codexes are similar, the Ork Dex is the worst example.



Now however, the new codexes are broken down into two types of units: viable and horrible. Very rarely are there any "in-between" in the unit types. As such, you'll only ever see the same type of army in tourneys.

The new codex format doesn't change that.



This new style of codex is designed almost exclusivly with tournament play in mind. Sure, they hide it well. But these lists are about being streamlined and dumbed down. Period. Any fluff or flavor is sheerly incedental.
What makes you say that?

Sir_Turalyon
15-01-2008, 19:52
still, Grotz and Chaos Spawn are pretty clear examples of 'horrible' units.

Nothing horrible about new Grotz, except that they exel in fighting something that isn't MEQ.

catbarf
15-01-2008, 20:12
I think this allows less detailed customisation, which is a shame, but provides a more balanced game, which is far more important.

40k is a horrifically unbalanced game anyways. If you want a tournament-oriented game, Warmachine is there. I would much prefer to see the strength of 40k (friendly games) made more diverse and interesting. I couldn't care less about balance, if you're overly concerned over whether you win or not then you've missed the point.

Reaver83
15-01-2008, 20:32
40k is a horrifically unbalanced game anyways. If you want a tournament-oriented game, Warmachine is there. I would much prefer to see the strength of 40k (friendly games) made more diverse and interesting. I couldn't care less about balance, if you're overly concerned over whether you win or not then you've missed the point.

I think the point is though some people might not find it 'fun' if they keep losing because their cool miniatures are rubbish. I think that when the game is balanced it's more fun, as the fight is closer, the result down to who plays better/has luck. And that to me is an enjoyable game!

malisteen
15-01-2008, 21:36
I like the new run of codeces. All except the chaos book.

I look at that one and have to wonder - what happened to the internal balance that the other books promote? What happened to actively incorporating army variety into the main list via mutable force org positions? Tau, Eldar, Orcs, all these books feel very well done. The chaos book... it feels half finished.


But for the most part, I love the new style codeces. The layout is kind of a pain, but the overall paradigm and results are, barring that one bad exception, pretty awesome, imo.

Damien 1427
15-01-2008, 21:44
I feel the Orks are probably the best of the current design philosophy. It's solid, has few "poor" units, has enough variety to make things interesting, and seems to lack obvious broken units of rules. Which is to say it's everything, to me, that the Chaos Codex wasn't. The Ork Codex was an unreserved triumph, and actually made me think that perhaps the new direction isn't so bad... When GW actually put the effort in.

I have to agree with catbarf though. 40k as it stands just isn't a good tournie game. Whether this is due to the variety, or the breadth of the range, or fundamental flaws in the core mechanics really is up for debate. Trying to alter itself to appeal to tournie players just removes what I love about the game, and brings in what I hate about Warmachine.

That said, I'm always and forever someone who loves customisation, flexibility and silly little "flavour" rules. So the new way won't ever fully win me over, but if they try they may just keep me on board.

silashand
15-01-2008, 21:45
I think the new codices are fine for generic armies, but if they are to continue it they need to introduce alternative army lists for the clanz, speed freaks, craftworlds, legions, etc. The current crop of books have resulted in far too many look-alike armies and IMO all of them become less than they were because of it. I speak from only my own personal experience in what armies I've seen myself, i.e. falcon spam, lash prince-oblit spam, etc. While they might be fine once in a while, seeing them on a continual basis takes a lot away from the game and ultimately my desire to play.

On another point wrt the new codices, I happen to dislike them putting the army list in the back of the book, but not for the reason some might think. I find that by placing the most frequently accessed portion of the codex immediately adjacent to the cover page means the binding wears out a lot faster than it otherwise would. I haven't seen that happen often in the older codices, but the new ones seem extremely fragile and I suspect this change is at least partially at fault. It may seem easier to find, but I'd rather have a book that actually stayed together if I had to choose.

Cheers, Gary

Reaver83
15-01-2008, 21:51
I think not having different lists for all the craftworlds/clanz is a good idea. Right now I think they need to concentrate on balancing what's already there, bring guard, necrons, inquisition etc up to the level of the codex's since eldar.

The other thing they need to do with these books is to have it so the main list is flexible enough to represent all the sub lists, the way that you can make siamm-hann and alitoc in the current eldar codex, the way you can make iron warriors or nightlords from the chaos one, deathwing/ravenwing from the DA, and whilst not having poured over the ork one, i'm certain you can get some clan like lists from them. Thats the way to go IMHO

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
15-01-2008, 22:00
new style codices are quite good - i have to say that i like them more than middle style codices.

i still have hopes that 5th edition will even things up [ie - make eldar cdex internaly balanced by harlequin/falcon nerf ;)]

i hate one thing - special characters are must for competetive play :/ it is awful [codex:chaos space marines is notable exception - but its other parts are flawed, like HQ,Elites and HS - only 1 option for PG player ]

but it is hard to use them :/

p.s:craftwords/clans/chapters/legions imo should be meaningful in Apocalypse.

Lexington
15-01-2008, 22:07
40k is a horrifically unbalanced game anyways. If you want a tournament-oriented game, Warmachine is there.
I'm a long-time WARMACHINE fan, but I can't say that the game serves as an example of balance for tournament play. Steamroller's been an absolute mess, constantly dominated by certain combos within the Khador and Cryx list, and the overall game has become a fairly depressing example of continual, excessive power creep. Honestly, given the choice, I'd rather participate in a 40K Tournament these days, even with the balance quirks involved.


I speak from only my own personal experience in what armies I've seen myself, i.e. falcon spam, lash prince-oblit spam, etc.
How has this ever been different, though? I've been involved with the game since the birth of the current Tournament scene, and there's always been list combinations that dominate tournaments and cause players to whine and scream on forums. I'm hoping the eventual release of 5th Ed. curbs this, but at the moment, the new-style Codexes are simply keeping the status quo.

TheLionReturns
15-01-2008, 22:16
a) Too much emphasis on special characters. I´m sorry, but not everyone likes special characters, yet sometimes they are a far better choice than a normal character for their points, or even worse, the only choice. If you want your commander to have terminator armor, and are playing DA, you´re stuck with a special character.


I think DA, and space marines in general need to be seen as a special case as regards special characters. In the DA case the reason you have a named character as the only commander in Terminator Armour option is because only the Deathwing Company wear terminator armour and the master of the Deathwing is the only master who wears terminator armour.

I would agree with you to an extent that its a shame Sammael cannot be taken on a regular bike but I can live with it. In a chapter of approx 1000 marines there are only so many characters and naming some doesn't seem to bad to me.

Where I agree is when you come to armies like Orks which are far more numerous. Here the focus on special characters seems a little harder to justify. For me if special characters opened access to a specific type of list and were otherwise not massively better than other equivalent HQ's I think I would be far happier but thats just personal preference and it doesn't make too much difference to me. Special characters are certainly a great fluff tool for helping add a more personal twist to the background rather than the more general one.

As I have said, however, I am pretty happy with the new dex's in general.



although i can't speak personally for zombied00d (so he might turn round and agree with you rather than me), i think you're reading far too much into what he said. i think the implication is that (like the double-lash lords) there is a much greater abundance of these HQs than the others. on average, orkish gamers will play with a Warboss on bike and a Big Mek. that doesn't mean all, not even the majority, but a sizable enough portion of players to be noticable and to out number players who use specific other kinds of HQ.


Fair enough you are probably right and I am reading too much into this. I just get the impression sometimes that certain "truths" emerge from theory discussions and anecdotal evidence on the internet such as the Warboss on Bike and Big Mek being the best (I am not disputing they are a powerful choice). I worry that people reading such statements, especially those newer to the hobby feel these are a must to compete and experimentation and variation are stifled.

Part of the onus is on the games developers to produce lists where none of the options are useless. However, I think as a gaming community we also have a responsibility to try combinations perceived as being against the norm and perhaps share our experiences with them.

I don't want to exaggerate here and suggest that everyone is a mindless idiot following what they are told by the "internet experts", I don't believe thats the case at all. I just think it is important to try and avoid the generalisations in the example above and focus more on the alternatives and how they can be made to work.

StanMcKim
15-01-2008, 22:30
I think that when 5th ed comes out we're going ot see something a little closer to Warhammer Fantasy. What I mean by that is a game with fairly "simple" units entires, but a more advanced rules set to use them in.
-Stan

Clown_Elf
15-01-2008, 22:51
Right. I admit it. I’m a big fan of the new style codex’s. The new Ork one is excellent, the BA, DA, Eldar and Tau Empire, All good work.

So

Umm

You dont like the Nid Codex?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
15-01-2008, 23:20
So

Umm

You dont like the Nid Codex?

no only dont like them - i too hate the NId codex. it is so pathetic and unbalanced. if it only have some sort of diversity ... but it lacks even it :/

Stella Cadente
15-01-2008, 23:31
no only dont like them - i too hate the NId codex. it is so pathetic and unbalanced. if it only have some sort of diversity ... but it lacks even it :/
it has SOME diversity
Nid player 1: I shall take NOTHING but genestealers and claim its fluffy and balanced
Nid player 2: I shall take nothing but BIG bugs and claim its fluffy and balanced

see HUGE diversity:rolleyes:

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
16-01-2008, 00:23
it has SOME diversity
Nid player 1: I shall take NOTHING but genestealers and claim its fluffy and balanced
Nid player 2: I shall take nothing but BIG bugs and claim its fluffy and balanced

see HUGE diversity:rolleyes:

how i can overlook it ?

but i found 1 positive aspect of Nid codex - at least it dont have special characters;)

theluc
16-01-2008, 04:39
new codex ??? where !!!

seriously, some are did quite well.. but last three codex are just indecent .. GW clearly point out what you should play, two last codex are the worse of them plus codex daemons.. what a joke.. i clearly think that GW lost it

ok guys im off on Heavy Gear !!

Vandur Last
16-01-2008, 05:02
well that depends on what you mean (or at least what you think zombied00d means). personally i would say there have been 3 distinct types of codex since the release of 3rd editon. the first set were, for the most part very flat, lacking in rules and background. this ran from Codex: Space Marines in 1998 up to, but not including Codex: Tyranids in 2001 (i think, forgive me but my dates and order of codexes are not perfect). the second set clearly had more to them, they were a step away from the 2 dimensional lists that had come before and gave you more options that just picking units off a page. that philosophy ran from the first Codex: Tyranids up to, but not including Codex: Eldar. the 3rd set are those we are discusing here.

to try and confuse the middle philosophy would not be wise, because although there are points were it seems it could be split into two sets, it is a slippery slop because they will not fit nicely either side of the divide, because they are their own thing.

so if you are asking whether the first set trumps the third for background, i'd say absolutely not. they were rushed and simplistic and if i only had the choice of those two then i would definitely pick the more advanced third set. however if you're comparing the second and third then i'd ask you whether you were serious? of course the background in the 2nd set (and for the most part the design philosophy) was a lot better in the 2nd (if they had only had the balance as well, they would have been perfect).


For those just tuning in the above quote was in response to my disbelief that anyone could claim the old 3rd ed. Codexes were better fluff than the current 4th ed. ones.

Fair enough i guess i swept the table a little broadly when i said " old 3rd ed." Codexes.
What i meant by this was the original 3rd ed. ones, im talking Dark ELdar, Space Wolves, the recently replaced Orks codex...

Now that our definitions are clear ill still say i think the fluff of the latest (Eldar and onwards) books are better than anything after 2nd edition. However i will not say you are crazy for having a different opinion about, say the Tyranids 2005 codex etc, as i think at that point its more a subjective matter of opinion and taste.

Hooray we are in general agreement!

A13X
16-01-2008, 07:41
The new codexs are alot better designed and definatly have the eye candy if you're into that. Though I've heard a lot of complaints from people saying that too many special rules and units are becomming simplier and sortof "unfluffy". New codexs also can be annoying since it often makes your old armies either illegal or in need of large change to make them work, sometimes even removing units that are no longer used in the army list.

A good example of a codex gone wrong the new CSM. I don't play Chaos but there's a 3 page thread in this forum about how it sucks...

Hrafn
16-01-2008, 07:55
for what its worth, i'm totally in agreement with you zombeid00d. the newer lists (from Eldar onwards) have been very palid and don't lead to variation on anything like the same scale. not all armys are the same, but a lot more armies are 'similar' now.

Excuse me, but :wtf:

Are we looking at the same Codex:confused:

If anything, the old Eldar Codex were "pallid" and didn't lead to variation. The amount of non-viable and redundant units were so great that "competitive" armies from that Codex invariable contained the same units, since at most half of the units were viable. That is surely not the case with the new Codex! Almost all units are viable in one way or another, and I think that almost every unit offer so-called "interesting choices". The new Codex is a very fine piece of game-design, whereas the old was a load of crap right from the start (Warp Spiders with 3rd ed. Rapid Fire? :wtf: What were they thinking!)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Falcon/Harelquin combo when stating that the Codex lacks variance? Granted, that one is a mistake. Pity that they don't do Faqs anymore, as it could be mostly fixed by simply making Harlequins unable to be transported - would also reticify the problem that Banshees are somewhat redundant at the moment.

logosloki
16-01-2008, 08:29
The Eldar Codex is the first of the "true" 4.5 codecii and is still the best, that is until I have my grubby hands on my own copy of the ork one to verify that the ork codex may just beat the eldar. All the other 4.5 codecii after that are literally crap compared to the eldar one.

The use of special characters is just so GW makes more money and the skirmishery nature of 40k is slightly rectified. Also Codecii like the Blood Angels and Dark Angels need their Special characters or else people would just see them a marine given speshul rules.

Special characters aren't just necessary in the DA to field Raven and Deathwing, they are necessary to legitamize a near copy of the what will be 4.5 redux. there are only 4 things "different" in the DA 1) the characters 2) scouts as elites 3) speshul rulez for the ravenwing and deathwing and 4) its 4.5edition(which encompasses the lost armoury, etc)

Doppleskanger
16-01-2008, 09:27
Ok, well there seems to be some agrement with my original post.
OMG Content 40k players speak out at last!
A few points in reply
Why do you need a seperate Speed Freaks list? That army can clearly be built with the new codex, and will play VERY differently from other style forces built from the same list. And as another plus, it replaces the seperate list that was horribly unbalanced, which was infact written on a wet Tuesday afternoon in Notingham as part of a campaign suplement, and should never have had official status!

Speaking of craftworlds, I haven't checked the current codex for a while, but I know for sure you can do Sam Hain, Beltain and Ailiotic with it just fine. So what's missing? The one with the Wraithgaurds as troops (but you can still take 30? as elites) and you can't have storm gaurdians for your Ulthwe (and your seer counsil has been justifiably reduced in strength). So what's the problem, surely all the craftworlds can be done? So why would you need extra lists? Where is the lack of variety?

I agree that the problem of making the variations within the new codexes dependant on purchasing particular named characters is initially annoying. However it is not particularly restrictive. Once you choose what theme you want, you buy the appropriate character and it modifies the list for you. Then you design you're army how you want to. So the only limitation is that you can't custom build one of your HQ choices. On the up side this is clearly part of the new design as a whole, the days of large character armouries and the inevitable wargeer abuse are over. Once you have chosen the character though, there is nothing stopping you from renaming him and designing you're own custom mini, giving you're leader the all important personal touch.

As for the guy who claims that balance isnt important and loosing is just as much fun as winning! Well loosing a battle which has hung in the balance all game and turned on a last turn lucky roll or decisive tactic is obviously an enjoyable experience. Putting an army on the table and watching it disintergrate time and time again without making any sort of impact on the oponent is simply not my idea of fun. This may be because the oponent is choosing some ridiculous cheese ball list, or because you're own list comes from an underpowered codex (see my 100% on fluff templars, now in semi-retirement). Either way this is not an enjoyable gaming experience.

UltimateNagash
16-01-2008, 09:58
Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.
Really? Cause my ideas were using a Big Mek for fire support and Old Zogwort for his ability to call multiple Waaaghs, or, having Wazzdakka instead of the Big Mek... Have a super fast army :]

Personally, I like the new Codex style. I never understood why Purity Seals let you run away faster :wtf:, so I feel cutting down on some of that stuff is good.

At Doppleskanger: what Ulthwe don't have is Black Guardians (WS/BS 4 I think), but all armies still have Storm Guardians. And you can take Wraithguard as Troops by having a max size unit with Spiritseer :] and the Seer Council has had it's Farseer membership reduced (you can only get two). Still, that's good :]

And TBH, I know some people complain about the CSM Codex. Well, I'm playing Chaos, and I like the new Codex. End of :p Why? Well, I play Tzeentch, and yes, they might have changed, but I got fed up of the old Codex, I could never make a list, it always had something wrong with it because of the rules in six different places for making a marked army :rolleyes:

Rabid Bunny 666
16-01-2008, 10:15
My concept for an Ork list was 2 Big Meks, one to hang back with a Shokk Attak Gun with Lootas, and the other to walk forwards with a Kustom Force Field to make sure the lads and 'kans don't die.

Also, the one thing i find hilarious about the Chaos 'dex haters who go on about the fluff being gone, there was a MASSIVE wave of internet annoyance when the 3.5 was released as the legions got a page of fluff each. Surely the hardcore Chaos Gamers who love the background of their legions would researc them a bit first?

Ianos
16-01-2008, 11:06
New codeci are made in a way to promote almost ALL units in the list and i think that this will show more in 5th. Having list variants does not add flavor IMHO (don't need the imperial stamp of approval to know which craftworld, clan, chapter i am playing) and in 1500 points people are bound to select cookie cutters again despite the million variants out there. For example one would almost always play ulthwe if he had guardians, they simply had higher stats and would always be a better choice than vanilla.

Now that the variance is gone the only real issue for lessening cookie cutters and applying more balance is the decrease of MEQ dominance, which in turn "forces" people into unit selections. If the percentage of each race in players becomes balanced, the game will too (at least to some point), and cookie cutters will be less frequent.

catbarf
16-01-2008, 11:09
If anything, the old Eldar Codex were "pallid" and didn't lead to variation. The amount of non-viable and redundant units were so great that "competitive" armies from that Codex invariable contained the same units, since at most half of the units were viable. That is surely not the case with the new Codex! Almost all units are viable in one way or another, and I think that almost every unit offer so-called "interesting choices". The new Codex is a very fine piece of game-design, whereas the old was a load of crap right from the start (Warp Spiders with 3rd ed. Rapid Fire? :wtf: What were they thinking!)

Perhaps you are thinking of the Falcon/Harelquin combo when stating that the Codex lacks variance? Granted, that one is a mistake. Pity that they don't do Faqs anymore, as it could be mostly fixed by simply making Harlequins unable to be transported - would also reticify the problem that Banshees are somewhat redundant at the moment.

That's because the Eldar codex is too powerful as a whole so GW can push sales, meaning that what would be a weak unit in another list is viable in this. And then, of course, there's the Harlie/Falcon spam...

hivefleetcarrion
16-01-2008, 11:45
I will state that i for one like the new chaos codex, and the new da lists, and the new nid codex.

yes, my whole army has to be changed, but compared to what was offered in 3rd ed, i am very happy. i have much more choice, the books are much better written, there is more background contained in each(even if lots of it is re-hashed from previous eds) the rules are easy to find and you arent expected to know what everything does.

some Special lists are gone (cult armies, ork clans, eldar craftworlds) but most of the options have been retained so if you want to run a similar list you can.

TheLionReturns
16-01-2008, 11:46
Why do you need a seperate Speed Freaks list? That army can clearly be built with the new codex, and will play VERY differently from other style forces built from the same list.


To me its not only the lists that are important. One of the things I like about the new dexes is that you can build the variant lists from the main list on the whole. The reason I would like mini-dexes to accompany this main list is more for background reasons. I think the craftworlds, for example deserve more than a page each. Detailed background is obviously good for those who like the story, but it is also important as modelling inspiration too. I posted on another thread about how I believe that background, gaming and modelling are tools for selling GW's "toy soldiers". They provide a framework for collecting and a hook to keep you involved. Its all very well focusing on producing better balanced games, but it is important to enhance both the background an modelling aspects of the hobby too IMHO.

I don't really know the economics of it, but should printing such mini-dexes be cost prohibitive they could always just be released as PDF's, yes development takes time but as the main lists are done this is really only fleshing out fluff and doing some conversions and paint jobs in most cases.

There are also some gaps which do need filling. Cultists for Alpha Legion are one for me as are feral orks. It would be nice to see exodite and corsair variations for Eldar too.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2008, 11:57
Seriously, in any 2k ork game, what are the 2 HQ choices gonna be? Big Mek w/ Shokk Attak and Warboss on bike w/ PK.

Er. Actually... Wazzdakka and a Big Mek with KFF riding with some 'Ard Boyz in a Trukk. Sorry to refute your claim. :p


Even given the new rules rules in 5th Edition, the (obviously rushed) new Chaos Codex still has useless entries. I can't see using Possessed or a Dreadnought anywhere outside of filler in an Apocalypse game.

*ahem*

Possessed are on my 'to-buy' list for the Fallen Men (I want a unit of six of them) as is the Dread, if I can justify a bunch of pirates having something that arcane and powerful.

They're not 'useless' entries, simply ones that you don't like using. That's considerably different to 'useless'.


Looking at older codexes, when have you last seen ratlings, ogryns, priest, multilaser sentinels, inquisitors with retinue, repentias, half the Dark Eldar list, kommandos (before orks 2008), wraiths, tomb spyders or heavy destroyers? All units that are not picked because they suck(ed). Not a matter of style or taste, no, just plain sucking.

Urm. I used, and still do, all of those. Ratlings? Check - 10 in my Parvassian Dragoons. Ogryns? Check - 5 in my Chindits, 5 in my Berdans' Rifles. Priests? Berdans' Rifles again. Multilaser sents? Darendaran X Mechanised (among others). Retinue Inqs? All the time, I've never taken an Inq without one! Repentias? Yep. Dark Eldar? At least one unit of everything. Kommandos? Yep, the cool 2nd Ed models as well. Wraiths, Tomb Spiders, Heavy Destroyers? Yep, yep, yep.

I hate it when people say "wah wah it sucks" and assume that because they think it does that everyone else agrees.


I'm not saying new codexes are perfect. Can't imagine why anyone would use a biovore or a Skyray for instance.

*checks army lists*

Ooh! Biovores! Oh wow! A Skyray! :rolleyes:


Why do you need a seperate Speed Freaks list? That army can clearly be built with the new codex, and will play VERY differently from other style forces built from the same list.

Yes! Exactly! Well said! General applause from the floor! :D

UltimateNagash
16-01-2008, 12:07
Although I haven't made them (I hate making vehicles), I'm using Dreads in my Tzeentch army... Good mobile AP3 shooting, just needs a slight adjustment on tactics ;)

lord_blackfang
16-01-2008, 12:08
Possessed are on my 'to-buy' list for the Fallen Men (I want a unit of six of them) as is the Dread, if I can justify a bunch of pirates having something that arcane and powerful.

Urm. I used, and still do, all of those. Ratlings? Check - 10 in my Parvassian Dragoons. Ogryns? Check - 5 in my Chindits, 5 in my Berdans' Rifles. Priests? Berdans' Rifles again. Multilaser sents? Darendaran X Mechanised (among others). Retinue Inqs? All the time, I've never taken an Inq without one! Repentias? Yep. Dark Eldar? At least one unit of everything. Kommandos? Yep, the cool 2nd Ed models as well. Wraiths, Tomb Spiders, Heavy Destroyers? Yep, yep, yep.

Ooh! Biovores! Oh wow! A Skyray! :rolleyes:


The funny thing is, people who don't know how to use these units tend to look down on people who do :rolleyes:

UltimateNagash
16-01-2008, 12:16
If you're scared of Dreads shooting your own units (which shouldn't happen more than once a game incidentally), give them a CCW+ML. And have two of them. They can't hurt each others SA, so it's OK...
Possessed? So S5 isn't good then? with a 4+ Inv save/T5/soo many attacks...

And if I played Necrons, I would use Tomb Spyders, I just like 'em. And Wraiths (probably)...

Biovores I like, three sending out 2D6+3 armour penetrating shots a turn quickly blows up any tank :)

Kommandoes seem good to me... especially with Snikrot... that Ambush rule is nasty... And going back to Chaos, well, since I'm using Termies and 2 Dreads, I can't use Possessed, but I'm using the models as Raptors :)

Griffin
16-01-2008, 12:41
Speaking of craftworlds, I haven't checked the current codex for a while, but I know for sure you can do Sam Hain, Beltain and Ailiotic with it just fine. So what's missing? The one with the Wraithgaurds as troops (but you can still take 30? as elites) and you can't have storm gaurdians for your Ulthwe (and your seer counsil has been justifiably reduced in strength). So what's the problem, surely all the craftworlds can be done? So why would you need extra lists? Where is the lack of variety?



You can still pick Wraith Guard as troops if you take 10+ Spirit Seer, I myself use them like that. You can still pick storm guardians with any list. Maby you meant Black guardians. But counts as Dire avengers fill that nicely.

Personally I like the new Dexes.

I own the Chaos One (I love it, you can still play a legion just theme appropriately), Eldar and Nids. Soon I'll have my Orks and DA ones too.

Stella Cadente
16-01-2008, 12:50
And if I played Necrons, I would use Tomb Spyders, I just like 'em. And Wraiths (probably)...
Biovores I like, three sending out 2D6+3 armour penetrating shots a turn quickly blows up any tank :)
see I don't get this, people in this topic claim Spyders/wraiths/biovores are never used, BUT every Necron army I have ever played against has spyders and Wraiths
and every Tyranid army (that isn't swamped with Jeanstealers) always uses Biovores (and there a pain in the butt too)
so how can some people claim there never used, when THEY ARE USED???:wtf:

(not directed at you Nagash, its just you mentioned the 3 units)

Hrafn
16-01-2008, 13:00
That's because the Eldar codex is too powerful as a whole so GW can push sales, meaning that what would be a weak unit in another list is viable in this.

:confused:

Sorry, but I don't understand your point? Are you saying that:
1. The current Eldar Codex is generally overpowered
2. If I moved an underpowered unit from another Codex to the Eldar Codex, then said unit would become viable and balanced when used with the Eldar Codex?

Since this is a thread about the new Codex style, I won't ask you to substantiate that claim, but will simply state that I strongly disagree...


And then, of course, there's the Harlie/Falcon spam...

...which I have already mentioned and suggested an easy solution to..

Mojaco
16-01-2008, 13:05
Because a lot depends on your gaming environment. The gaming club where I play all these units would see regular use, as peopel care more about looks and feel for an army, instead of making the most efficient choice for an army. However, some gaming groups prefer to make optimal army builds and smack each other, learn from that and make an even better army list. To each his own, but I'm pretty sure the former gets a lot more out of a codex (using all/most units instead of complaining on forums about how your optimal build got ruined by a new releasem (which they always do, so it's a miracle some are still surprised))

UltimateNagash
16-01-2008, 13:29
see I don't get this, people in this topic claim Spyders/wraiths/biovores are never used, BUT every Necron army I have ever played against has spyders and Wraiths
and every Tyranid army (that isn't swamped with Jeanstealers) always uses Biovores (and there a pain in the butt too)
so how can some people claim there never used, when THEY ARE USED???:wtf:

(not directed at you Nagash, its just you mentioned the 3 units)

I know - because I use Biovores... :)

Lexington
16-01-2008, 14:24
The reason I would like mini-dexes to accompany this main list is more for background reasons. I think the craftworlds, for example deserve more than a page each.
I'm of the opinion that mini-dexes/sublists were one of the absolute worst things to ever happen to 40K's background, m'self. Background material is nice (though more is not always better by any means), but when it's tied to an army list in such a small format, the background becomes a way of justifying the way in which the original army list is stratified. The Eldar Craftworld book and Index Astartes articles did damage to the background that'll probably never be fixed, and I'm glad we're seeing the end of them.


Possessed are on my 'to-buy' list for the Fallen Men (I want a unit of six of them) as is the Dread, if I can justify a bunch of pirates having something that arcane and powerful.

They're not 'useless' entries, simply ones that you don't like using. That's considerably different to 'useless'.
Hey, to me, they just seem to be too risky and costly to justify regular use. In the Eldar, Ork and new Space Marine lists, almost every entry fits a 'niche' far more clearly than some of those in the Chaos Codex seem to, and these are especially egregious in that regard.

Really, though, if you've got a way to use Chaos Dreadnoughts effectively, I'd honestly love to hear about it, as two of them are kicking around my room with little to do at the moment.

Griffin
16-01-2008, 14:38
@ Lexington

Close combat weapon and Missile launcher - basically anything that can't hurt dreads. Stick 2 of them together. If they frenzy at your own troops pick Frag missiles, they can't hurt dreads. Use them to hunt Light Vehicles and infantry.

Doppleskanger
16-01-2008, 14:40
Oh no, I've changed my mind...well I'm gonna add an exception anyways

I had a great time about two years back playing the unofficial Harlequin list. That was so cool. Now it's better that they're in the main list once more, but that list was something special. interestingly it couldn't really win a game, but was so much mental fun for all involved. I played 3 games against a Nid list and it was awesome watching them plough through the swaith doing huge damage and slowly being whittled down. Not only that but the solitaire was the best combination of fluff and stats I've come across.

So much fun from that list but it was Unofficial so the balancing thing was irrelevant. It's nice the way other similar forces, ie 13th company, Legion of the damned, the expanded version of the court of the young king etc have been included as aocalypse lists, where again balance isn't such an issue. Maybe this is the right place for such wierd forces.

Vandur Last
16-01-2008, 16:45
To me its not only the lists that are important. One of the things I like about the new dexes is that you can build the variant lists from the main list on the whole. The reason I would like mini-dexes to accompany this main list is more for background reasons. I think the craftworlds, for example deserve more than a page each. Detailed background is obviously good for those who like the story, but it is also important as modelling inspiration too. I posted on another thread about how I believe that background, gaming and modelling are tools for selling GW's "toy soldiers". They provide a framework for collecting and a hook to keep you involved. Its all very well focusing on producing better balanced games, but it is important to enhance both the background an modelling aspects of the hobby too IMHO.


This doesnt make sense, nothing about a mini-dex adds to the background. Whatever background there was about sub-armies is still there, indeed there is far more Eldar background material now than there was in 10 copies of Codex: Craftworld Eldar combined. There was not a single scrap of Craftworld specific background in the Craftworld Codex that i didnt already know from having read the 2nd ed. book so clearly they contributed nothing.
Now (in the current Eldar codex) all the old fluff from 2nd ed. has been revived, plus a few extra tid-bits like the return of Altansar and a few new Craftworld paint schemes.


Mini-dexes added rules but made no contributions towards background/fluff whatsoever.

TheLionReturns
17-01-2008, 00:02
This doesnt make sense, nothing about a mini-dex adds to the background. Whatever background there was about sub-armies is still there, indeed there is far more Eldar background material now than there was in 10 copies of Codex: Craftworld Eldar combined. There was not a single scrap of Craftworld specific background in the Craftworld Codex that i didnt already know from having read the 2nd ed. book so clearly they contributed nothing.
Now (in the current Eldar codex) all the old fluff from 2nd ed. has been revived, plus a few extra tid-bits like the return of Altansar and a few new Craftworld paint schemes.


Mini-dexes added rules but made no contributions towards background/fluff whatsoever.

Sorry perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. My use of the term mini-dex was perhaps misleading. I am not advocating the same as before, but something very different. I think the best thing to do is take codex DA as an example. You could build the DA into a codex SM list reasonably easily and do away with the separate codex. However, in the DA codex there is a wealth of background information that could not exist if everything DA had to be in the main codex SM, there simply would no be room.

I would like to see the craftworlds for example get the treatment the DA do. I would like to see them given a detailed history, and their character, both in terms of mode of warfare but also more general outlook defined and delineated from the other craftworlds. I concede that many people couldn't care less about having this character for their armies but many do and I would find it a welcome addition, and perhaps one which would help challenge the dominance of marines that many people seem fond of moaning about.

Interestingly I would be strongly opposed to introducing variant lists for the sake of it. It would have to bring more than just a list for me and be a more complete codex to be a worthwhile endeavor.


I'm of the opinion that mini-dexes/sublists were one of the absolute worst things to ever happen to 40K's background, m'self. Background material is nice (though more is not always better by any means), but when it's tied to an army list in such a small format, the background becomes a way of justifying the way in which the original army list is stratified. The Eldar Craftworld book and Index Astartes articles did damage to the background that'll probably never be fixed, and I'm glad we're seeing the end of them.


I think the sublists were poor quality too and please refer above for my clarification on what I was proposing. I will also agree that more fluff is not always better, especially if it is poor quality and just a means of justifying a new list as you say.

I don't see, however, why an Ulthwe Codex for example could not be done to the standard of a DA Codex.

I am intrigued by your statement of the Craftworld book and the Index Astartes doing damage to the background. I am not entirely sure what you mean. Care to elaborate?

Vandur Last
17-01-2008, 07:34
Ah ok, i just misunderstood what you meant then. I am totally in agreement with you then, so long as mini-dexes didnt detract from the main codexes in any way.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2008, 09:04
Hey, to me, they just seem to be too risky and costly to justify regular use ... Really, though, if you've got a way to use Chaos Dreadnoughts effectively, I'd honestly love to hear about it, as two of them are kicking around my room with little to do at the moment.

If you dislike using them, that's fine, I'm not going to force you to - I just wish that people'd stop declaring them appalling, hideous, vile monstrosities of a twisted games designer who's out to personally ruin 40K.

As far as I'm concerned, using a Chaos Dread means that sometimes it'll kill your own men.

So what? It's a gamble. It's fun. And it's always had Fire Frenzy!

AdmiralDick
17-01-2008, 18:41
Are we looking at the same Codex:confused:

If anything, the old Eldar Codex were "pallid" and didn't lead to variation.

apparently we are not looking at the same Codexes. i was arguing that the 3.5 Codexes were on the whole better than the 4th. not that the 3rd were better than the 4th. that would be a loosing battle.

i think the Orks and Eldar have missed out on a Codex somewhere along the line. and i suspect that (to me at least) that would have been a more fun codex.


I worry that people reading such statements, especially those newer to the hobby feel these are a must to compete and experimentation and variation are stifled.

although i sympathise with your concern i think your fears might be a little extreme. people who could be considered 'new' usually are more concerned with learning the basics of the game than how to compete in tournaments (which is the only place where winning and loosing matters). if your are think about tactics you are probably beyond the 'new' phase. more importantly i don't think new players read this kind of forum for advice. they'll read what's in WD and on the GW website.

besides, what will happen to them if they do take a Mek and Warboss on Zombied00d's advice. they could make worse decisions.


it has SOME diversity
Nid player 1: I shall take NOTHING but genestealers and claim its fluffy and balanced
Nid player 2: I shall take nothing but BIG bugs and claim its fluffy and balanced

see HUGE diversity:rolleyes:

i'm not really sure what your idea of inter-army diversity is then if you feel that the difference between all man-sized and all monster-sized troops is not enough. those two armies do fight differently from each other but not independantly of generic tyranid tactics. you also missed out the all flying army and the (less common) all middle-sized troopsif you disagree, how would you suggest a remedy to the situation?


Hooray we are in general agreement!

Yipee! my favourite kind of post.


The new codexs are alot better designed and definatly have the eye candy if you're into that.

as far as eye candy goes, i don't see much beyond what basic units confront me on the page. sure as far as Codex eye-candy goes things in addition to what is necessitated by such a book are eye-candy, funky, but non-essential (doctrines, sub-list, FOC modifications).


Also, the one thing i find hilarious about the Chaos 'dex haters who go on about the fluff being gone, there was a MASSIVE wave of internet annoyance when the 3.5 was released as the legions got a page of fluff each. Surely the hardcore Chaos Gamers who love the background of their legions would researc them a bit first?

sorry, i don't really understand what you're saying. were people upset that the Legions were getting too much or not enough background in 3.5? most of their detailed background was only developed between 3rd and 3.5. before that they got a few paragraphs in the 2nd, barely a mention in Realms of Chaos and the concept of Chaos did not exist in Rogue Trader. we are now taken from their most developed in-codex form to something between Realms of Chaos and 2nd, and yet not really as good as either.


Yes! Exactly! Well said! General applause from the floor! :D

Gen.Steiner, much as i respect your opinion for what it is, you are not an average gamer. you are not only quite hard-core, but pretty radical to. the rule of mediocrity does not apply to you. just because you do something does not mean that everyone else does. that doesn't mean that no one does, but that like most of us Warseer regulars, our opinions generally represent the extreme. and yet repreatedly throughout your post you put forward your own example as being one representative of the whole (you even deliberately speak on behalf of everyone in the above quote, to which i disagree).

i'm not saying your opinion is of no consequence, nor that it shouldn't be heard. but please don't think of yourself as being the norm. you are anything but.

Lexington
17-01-2008, 19:45
If you dislike using them, that's fine, I'm not going to force you to - I just wish that people'd stop declaring them appalling, hideous, vile monstrosities of a twisted games designer who's out to personally ruin 40K.
Well, so do I. People who think of the Design Studio as some malign force out to destroy the game are silly. No one's out to ruin 40K, even if there are designers whom I think haven't been as beneficial to the game as others.

Like I said, though, the Chaos Codex seems to me like an obvious rush-job. I mean, this is just apparent from a quick flip-though: the illustrations are mostly old and often repeated several times, the weaponry section honestly looks like a bunch of slapdash sketches, and the writing is just downright poor. More, the army list itself feels like a rough draft rather than the elegant results we've seen from the 'new philosophy' in the DA, BA, Eldar and Ork lists.

The rumor, in fact, is that the Ork and Chaos release dates were switched up late in the game, which makes perfect sense given their respective results. This isn't some sinister plot, it's just a business decision that was made for reasons we can only really guess at. Regardless of its origin, however, it still left us with a problematic Codex that simply feels inferior to its contemporaries.

Ronin_eX
17-01-2008, 22:14
I never got that out of reading both codices. The Chaos one seemed a lot like the 2nd edition codex (which is about as big a compliment I can give a codex) but without the two appendix lists (though their is a Daemon Codex coming, hopefully a Cultist army may get its own treatment; if not IA has stuff for them). The original CSM list never focused on individual legions but rather on chaos as a whole. There were no special cult lists but because of the wide open nature of the codex you could easily make what you though a legion force may look like.

Getting rid of ancient enemies was a step in the right direction as a Chaos Warband was simply a bunch of degenerates being controlled by the meanest sucker on the block. If it was a bunch of Noise Marines and Berzerkers being controlled by a Tzeentchian Sorcerer then it was alright because chances are both sides were planning to off him but he's too damn smart to fall for that. Only daemons ever let their animosity effect them in battle.

Overall the Chaos list felt like what a Chaos list should feel like. Sure it abbandoned the design philosophy of 3.5th edition and went back to 2nd for list structure but I think the only reason for the weight of complaint compared to Codex: Orks is because it was a more popular list and the previous list was a little on the powerful side. As the game is being balanced it means most changes made somethings less powerful. People hate change and they hate it even more when a change is perceived as detrimental (even if "nerfing" something is the only way to balance it). Thus it was resisted more.

Contrast that with the Ork dex that had players waiting for so long that anything would have made them happy and them simply apply the new style to the codex with some good writing and you have success. I look at the Ork list and it seems much more rushed than Chaos (I'm used to typos but the amount in Codex: Orks is worse than usual I must say) due to many typographical errors and poor choices of wording (the whole PK Nob in a shoota mob being a weird one). It is certainly well written, entertaining and a fun list but so is the Chaos one. The only difference between the two is the mindset of either player base. The Chaos Codex saw the same amount of whinging as the DA codex (even now there are people quitting their DA lists and making a big huff about it on forums despite it being close to a year old now). Chaos is not a unique snowflake in this regard.

Hrafn
18-01-2008, 09:07
apparently we are not looking at the same Codexes. i was arguing that the 3.5 Codexes were on the whole better than the 4th. not that the 3rd were better than the 4th. that would be a loosing battle.
i think the Orks and Eldar have missed out on a Codex somewhere along the line. and i suspect that (to me at least) that would have been a more fun codex.

Allright, I think I get your point. True, the first 3.0 Codeci were really bad, and most later Codeci was an improvement.

Not that I agree otherwise, though ;)

Granted, there were some rather good Codeci. The Imperial Guard one, for instance (if that is part of what we perceive as 3.5). This one is good example of internal consistency, fluff and sport probably the best way of representing individual custumization (Doctrines). Off course, the IG Codex still poesses its share of problematic units, but what 3.0/3.5 Codex doesn't?
Which is, IMO, one of the recurrent problems with the older Codeci - nearly all of them suffer from redudant or non-viable units (as in: "really crappy", not as in: "a bit less powerfull than others"). An example here would be the WH Codex, which is really an OK Codex, bar the mindnumbing ill-conceived units like the Sisters Repentia! Don't get me started on Repentias - like Warp Spiders they were conceived with rules which can only make me wonder what the hell the devs were thinking of!

There were some stinkers among them too. IMHO, the most starling was the Chaos Codex [dons insulated suit and ducks for cover].

But overall, I think that the 4th eds are a massive improvement. Evidently, they are the product of a much tighter design process and clearly show the signs of being the product of a consistent design concept. Whether you like that overall concept or not is really a matter of opinion, but I believe that having one in the first place is a real benefit. One of the pillars of this concept is clearly the effort to try and rethink the units and their interaction with each other, which means the long overdue elimination of the plague of redundant and inviable units. That alone make the 4th ed Codeci worthwhile.
Please note that I do not perceive the 4th eds to be perfect, there are still problems, but they are minor and seldom on a structural level as with the former Codeci.

infinity101
18-01-2008, 11:25
Overall the Chaos list felt like what a Chaos list should feel like. Sure it abbandoned the design philosophy of 3.5th edition and went back to 2nd for list structure but I think the only reason for the weight of complaint compared to Codex: Orks is because it was a more popular list and the previous list was a little on the powerful side. As the game is being balanced it means most changes made somethings less powerful. People hate change and they hate it even more when a change is perceived as detrimental (even if "nerfing" something is the only way to balance it). Thus it was resisted more.


the codex chaos was a little on the powerful side?
imo it was as far as possible to be from balanced. but the chaos codex is still not balanced thus the effort of scraping fluff and variety was wasted for a still over the top codex with less variation



Contrast that with the Ork dex that had players waiting for so long that anything would have made them happy and them simply apply the new style to the codex with some good writing and you have success. I look at the Ork list and it seems much more rushed than Chaos (I'm used to typos but the amount in Codex: Orks is worse than usual I must say) due to many typographical errors and poor choices of wording (the whole PK Nob in a shoota mob being a weird one). It is certainly well written, entertaining and a fun list but so is the Chaos one. The only difference between the two is the mindset of either player base.


why would the ork players be complaining about the mostly great boosts to their codex?



The Chaos Codex saw the same amount of whinging as the DA codex (even now there are people quitting their DA lists and making a big huff about it on forums despite it being close to a year old now). Chaos is not a unique snowflake in this regard.


a unnecessarily nerfed codex doesnt get any better even if a century old
so why would the DA players stop grumbling

especially now when i get to see that other codeci get boosted or new power combos introduced, when most or all efficient combinations were so successfully removed from the DA codex
it seems to me that GW realized that they went too far with heavy nerfbat wielding on the DA codex so they are becoming progressively light handed on subsequent codeci

IMO DAs were relatively weak before the 4 ed codex and they got hit the hardest in the already weak power department
they at best stayed weak, or got weaker as the changes were intended to bring down the power level of the whole game


BAs were ok before the 4 ed codex and they got hit slightly(death company)... but got good characters and good other options to compensate (and they didnt even have to pay for a new codex to suck with)
so they stayed OK or got bumped up even for free ($$)

CSM were over the top before their 4 ed codex and they got hit (IW and demons+ some more things) but gotten equally powerful or in some cases even more powerful combos...
granted some lists are gone (IW and some others) but the codex as a whole is in some cases equally over the top as before or even more over the top (but that requires new models and spending $$)

Orks were maybe slightly weak (and old definitely = needing a change), but the amount of bonuses they received makes them one of the most powerful codeci now (and to be even more so if some of the rumors for the 5th ed are true)

all in all why shouldnt DA players complain even now... we took a heavy hit actually aimed at regular SM (who, by the way still roam around uninjured), and the designers realised they went too hard so they even boost other codeci... i wonder where that leaves DA (for 8+ years to come) and from these 5ed rumors DAs might get another nerf soon

skimmers are bad... LSs go up in price (nerf 1)
donkey cannons are bad .... LSs with AC go up in price and are less available (nerf 2)
= 100 pts for a av 10 vehicle .....ok...i guess that is ballanced in the 4th ed

now comes the 5th ed rumors
nerf to the skimmer survivability and speed (3) (easily accepted rumor)
nerf to the AC/rending (4) (easily accepted rumor)
nerf to the claiming objectives (5) (not as easily accepted rumor but not beyond the design team)

after 5 different nerfings ...weeee mindboggling ....we are left with a 100 pt av 10 slower moving, not as hard hitting, more easily destroyed point sink that cant even claim objectives .....geee thanx

and why all this?
nerfs 1, 2 and 4 because SMs can still field excessive amounts of ACs
nerfs 3, 4 and 5 because eldar abuse those points with some of their codex choices..

great ...5 nerfs because other codeci have >their< issues

[end grumbling]