PDA

View Full Version : New Codexes



rcm2216
12-03-2008, 16:50
What is your opinion?
Do you think every codex released since 2006 are better than their previos version of codex. Has the army improved or gotten worse. Do you think every change was suitable in meeting the theme and playability for the army of the codex.
I believe Eldar, Dark Angels, and Chaos were not improved, just adjusted to make them less killy to MEQ armies. They are not that bad off with the changes, just have to apply more and better tactics to accomplish what use to be easier. Orks on the hand have improved drastically. I have not found any to disagree with me yet regarding Orks. They are themed to be a close combat army, but they have made them to to to shooty.

TheDarkDuke
12-03-2008, 16:57
I think the only codex to receive anything negative was Chaos, only because they removed many peoples cult armies, but if you were just starting up Chaos, this book is an improvement. Also Im pretty sure Eldar aare widely considered perhaps the strongest army?????

Ozendorph
12-03-2008, 16:59
I dig the new Eldar codex...pretty much everything about it. The DA was a bit of a disappointment for me, but it's still better than the 3rd Edition pamphlet they received. The new Chaos Marines 'dex is decent imho, but I preferred the 3.5 version with the Legions.

The Ork 'dex is great.

Yarick Zan
12-03-2008, 17:01
What is your opinion?
Do you think every codex released since 2006 are better than their previos version of codex. Has the army improved or gotten worse. Do you think every change was suitable in meeting the theme and playability for the army of the codex.
I believe Eldar, Dark Angels, and Chaos were not improved, just adjusted to make them less killy to MEQ armies. They are not that bad off with the changes, just have to apply more and better tactics to accomplish what use to be easier. Orks on the hand have improved drastically. I have not found any to disagree with me yet regarding Orks. They are themed to be a close combat army, but they have made them to to to shooty.



Wait. Stop. Orks, not shooty? Have you seriously never read anything about Orks at all? They LOVE big shooty weapons. Hell thats why we have the phrase "MORE DAKKA!" They love being very shooty, but suck at hitting even the broad side of a barn. They get close in and then they shine. That is how I see it for them. They suck at shooting, they love shooting lots and loudly, but they really like killing things in hand to hand.

True they kind of screwed with the chaos codex, but added some nice things. Personally I think the daemons codex will have some nice expansions on it. I kind of look at it like the Daemon hunter and Witch hunter codices.

tanglethorn
12-03-2008, 17:04
First off Codex plural is Codices, if i am correct.

Secondly how long have you played 40k? The new Eldar Codex was a vast improvement over the last one. In fact I am sure that many of the folks on this forum will back me up on that one. Harlies were brought back, Dire Avengers were made to actually be useful, points costs were adjusted to better reflect and balance certain units and do I even need to bring up the new and improved Avatar?

So on the Eldar front, I believe your example doesnt hold much water.

However, I did recently pick up the new DA book because I keep trying to talk myself in starting Space Marines. My first pick would have been Black Templars, but I decided to hold off and wait for Dark Angels. After reading both books, I feel I made a mistake and I wish I could return my DA Army box I bought. Although I love the DA background and the mini's are beautiful, I feel like the new DA Codex was nothing more than a nerfed Space Marine source book. Everything feels too rigid. I have less options and weapons to choose on most of my troop choices. I have to take special characters in order do RavenWing or Deathwing which I'm not crazy about.

I do think Orks finally have a book that makes them fun to play and a lot more competitive. I dont plan on starting them anytime soon, but I might just pick up the book for the read.

The Song of Spears
12-03-2008, 17:04
Honestly, i think if GW did Traitors/LatD/Legions/etc codex(s) for chaos, the current chaos codex would be great. As it stands its just too bland to make a wide variety of chaos armies, and certainly not a wide variety of effective armys let alone fluff representations of all that is chaos.

Other than that, GW seems to be doing great things. Edlar, Tau, Orks and even i think DA are fantastic codexes, IMO, better than the previous editions.

Rirekon
12-03-2008, 17:09
The only problem with the new Chaos Codex is that GW haven't told people how to build a cult army even though they've actually made it easier... *shrug*
I like the new style of Codex personally, it's a much better layout having unit options and wargear all listed with the unit rather than off some where else entirely. I'm also all for having more open ended lists, if I want to play a restricted fluffy army then I'll restrict my self, I don't need a book telling me to do it.

TzeentchForPresident
12-03-2008, 17:30
Talking about the (C) SM codex there wasnīt a drop in power. Except for power gaming Iron Warrior players and Black legion / Word Bearers players using the Bloodletter daemon bomb.

But plenty of things got buffed and buffed alot in the Spikey Marine Codex.
Daemons got cheaper and donīt go *poof*. Terminators got a lot cheaper. Khorne Berzerkers got smarter, no longer playing *chase that skimmer*, Plague Marines got fnp, Lash of Submission, etc.

But there was a massive loss in character.

The problem with the Bloodletter Daemon bomb and the whole joke called the Iron Warriors army list, could have been done much better than by replacing 9legions and a dozen types of daemons with a boring Iron Warrior / Black legion mix able to take cheap fearless generic daemons of two types, one big and one small...

toymaker
12-03-2008, 17:42
At first I was upset that they nerfed my IW army in the new codex. When I was choosing my army, I wanted a Chaos Army with no daemons so IW seemed my only option. The fact I could smash most armies into paste was gravy. Now the new codex has opened alot of doors for me. Both in my army element choices and conversion ideas. I have Nurgle raptors now. The old codex didn't allow them but the new one does and I had a great time creating and painting them

Kymera
12-03-2008, 17:51
I don't think there was as big a loss of character in the new CSM codex as people make it out to be. Just because there aren't strict guidelines for themed list doesn't mean you can't do them, it just means you have to limit yourself to the choices that fluffwise would fit in your army.

TzeentchForPresident
12-03-2008, 18:08
I don't think there was as big a loss of character in the new CSM codex as people make it out to be. Just because there aren't strict guidelines for themed list doesn't mean you can't do them, it just means you have to limit yourself to the choices that fluffwise would fit in your army.

I had shooty lesser daemons, I had fast moving lesser daemons, Winged Possessed marines that was Sorcerers, Chosen sorcerers, Rubric Terminators. Wargear that gave some protection vs psychic attacks.

None of which I heard was called cheesy.

All gone.

No loss of character.... right. :mad:

But since there has been talks about a Legion codex ( that might be a God codex ). There is still a chanse for GW to redeem themselves.

==Me==
12-03-2008, 18:40
Eldar: Great book, a massive improvement for the army on the TT and in fluff. Eldar returned to form as a fast-moving army that is extremely specialized and hard-hitting, but fragile. Well balanced (bar falcons) and characterful. Much better than Codex: Starcannon. 9/10

Dark Angels: As a DA fanatic I love this book. Makes the Dark Angels much more interesting than just green marines. Combat Squads, Deathwing, Ravenwing all make this a fantastic army with its own unique strengths and weaknesses. The fact that it requires some actual ability in order to be successful is icing on the cake. This is how DA should be and I couldn't be happier (maybe if Force Barrier lasted an entire phase). 8/10

Chaos: If people were expecting Codex 3.5, but better (which apparently everyone was) they were disappointed. The new Codex addressed the balance issues that made 3.5 the monstrosity it was and opened up a lot of options. Rigid cult lists are gone, replaced by themed lists you restrict voluntarily (like all themed lists should be). Ironically, Chaos players bitched the most about losing restrictions and getting a much more fluid army list. The only gripes are a lack of emphasis on the Legions fluffwise and some units not being balanced relative to other choices (Spawn...). 8/10

Orks: This book was well worth the wait. Orks are now very competitive while still retaining their flavor. Everything in this book is great, 10/10.

So, if you couldn't tell, I love the new direction the game is headed.

TzeentchForPresident
12-03-2008, 19:36
Chaos: If people were expecting Codex 3.5, but better (which apparently everyone was) they were disappointed. The new Codex addressed the balance issues that made 3.5 the monstrosity it was and opened up a lot of options. Rigid cult lists are gone, replaced by themed lists you restrict voluntarily (like all themed lists should be). Ironically, Chaos players bitched the most about losing restrictions and getting a much more fluid army list. The only gripes are a lack of emphasis on the Legions fluffwise and some units not being balanced relative to other choices (Spawn...). 8/10
.

Having only 1 army to chose from instead of 9 that differed as much if not more from each other than Space Marine chapters that got and continue to get codex of their own is not a restriction?

Having generic daemons or nothing to chose from when we before had a dozen different ones is not a restriction? Noted that you didnīt touch the daemon subject so maybe it is so that even you agree that is a restriction.

And I canīt help but laugh out loud at people that first says that all players that liked 3.5 are powergamers and then at the same breath says that we are stupid to not like 4.0 because the 3.5 put limits on the Legions what troops could be taken or not. So wanting limits is making us powergamers? Splendid logic....

The limits was there in 3.5 to give uniqueness to the Legions and to make them balanced. In the case of Iron Warriors it was a huge fail and there was no question about it that it needed to be corrected.

But why destroy the Cult armies in the process? Bloodletters needed to be adressed, but why remove all other daemons as well?


But anyway this is history and I hope GW will learn from their mistakes when they make the Legion codex (that might be a God codex).

I also believe that Daemon codex will be a shortlived history, because players want to be able to play mono-God armies much more than they want to play a Spikey Marine-only or a Daemon-only army. No doubt there will be players that likes the Chaos Gods being best friends and wants to play an army of just daemons, but not many in comparison to the mono-God players.

And playing a mono-God seems to be almost impossible to do with the Daemon Codex and with the Spikey Marine codex you donīt gain anything from putting that restriction on you.

Daemonic Legions worked in Warhammer because even a pure Nurgle daemon army was playable there.

MrBigMr
12-03-2008, 21:04
I do have to say I'm far from a fan of the new way things are going, but what is a man to do?

Eldar: Ok, a simple listing and all, but very limited options to say the least and a bad omen of things to come. Not only are all the varied lists gone, but the "now you can have anything you want" crap rose its head for the first time. GW thinks they can trust players, which is a thing that comes to bite them later.

Also started a negative trend in layout. I'll always remember my friends comment when starting his 40K army and looking through the Eldar codex: "Man, this is crap." I don't know what logic was implemented on the thing, but when comparing to the old ones, the new codexes are as exciting in looks like a powerpoint presentation on taxes.

DA/BA: Ok, not bad per se. Quite normal codex for a non-codex SM armies. But there are also plenty of crap I don't like. One thing is shoehorning special gear. I've never used an iron halo nor have I must seen people use them often, but now they come with all ICs whether I liked or not. I also mind the loss of non-weapon options. Why no things like auspexes, combat shields or anything? And why must I replace my bolter with a power fist and not the pistol?

This is a big bad in my mind, the general "wise choice" big brothering of GW. They've taken all "unwise" things out and force all those who would rather make unique combinations vs. squeezing every point to play by their view of things.

Chaos: Don't even get me started. Lets talk about themes. I don't care how legal it is, but 4 HS IWs were little compared to fielding cheap Tzeentch terminators, Khorne raptors and two Slaanesh DPs with lashes in the same army. At least the first one was fluffy, the latter merely a way to get lots of stuff no matter what.

And then there's the mother of all the idiotic things ever: 'counts as.'
"Bwaaaa! Mah sonic EC terminators."
"No, prob bro, just 'counts as', ya dig."
With that as a rule, I might as well have anything in my army and just say 'counts as' no matter what. Counts as... counts my ass.

Orks: Haven't had time to browse this one yet too much, but so far it's a little better.


But that's just me. I'll do my best to coup with the situation, but so far I'm not liking it. I do understand the changes and some of their justifications, but how is it that the same problems aren't an issue in WHFB? Are 40K players merely so stupid that we need everything in slow little words and if we need to do any thinking, we might get scared?

I'll bleed from my ass when they take away Guard doctrines. They were the very reason I got into this game. With them gone, I'm left with vanilla list of unique models, which is about as exciting as having a fully pimped Lada. Sure, it's pimp and all, but it's a Lada non the less.

TheLionReturns
12-03-2008, 22:05
Depends what you mean by better. More powerful? Or just a more rounded codex? I will take the latter.

DA: Much better. I have very few complaints about it at all. It is perhaps a bit weaker but I'm sure that will be resolved once other SM's are updated. I like the fact you can have Deathwing and Ravenwing armies, and welcome the return of combat squads. Scouts clog up elites a bit but I think it is fluffy for a battle company to have a tactical squad presence, so this being the only option in troops is fine by me. Oh nice to be rid of that silly plasma fetish in the background too.

Eldar: I like this one too, especially the fact you really can make all of the craftworlds from one list. Only complaints would be lack of invulnerable save on phoenix lords and the indestructible falcons.

Chaos: I will give this a big thumbs up on one condition, that there are legion specific lists on the way. Without such lists it would turn into a major disappointment. I like that the characters have been toned down a bit, and I think there is plenty of variety in the list. I am not too bothered about lash which seems a major criticism, although I will never understand why slaanesh gets this type of power and not tzeentch.

Orks: I have only glanced at it so can't talk with too much authority, I like what I see but it does seem very powerful. I will reserve judgment until I have more experience.

Overall I think GW are moving in the right direction with their codexes. Whilst the loss of armories reduces the character to an extent, I still see sufficient options for me. My major complaints about 40K are more the rules itself rather than the lists. More complex and varied rules would allow more options in the codex armories. As it stands the codexes fit the rules fine.

Ironhand
12-03-2008, 22:52
I think all the new Codexes are much improved over their prior versions. GW is just taking to long to bring the other Codexes (like Space Marines) into line.

rcm2216
12-03-2008, 22:58
Better as in do you like the older codex or the newer codex for the content and what they allow your army to do. Are you able to get what you out of the codex.

Supremearchmarshal
12-03-2008, 23:16
I pretty much agree with MrBigMr on the new codexes.

The Ork codex is IMO quite a bit better than the others - oozing with fluff, more balance between the units (though there's certainly room for improvement - upgrade Lootaz to Meks - what were they thinking :confused:) and successfully integrating a sub-list (Kult of Speed). It's negative points include dropping the Feral Orks, Nobz who have only two valid upgrades (PK and Bosspole) and showing signs of being rushed (typos, erroneous reference sheet, poor wording).

catbarf
12-03-2008, 23:54
I dig the new Eldar codex...pretty much everything about it. The DA was a bit of a disappointment for me, but it's still better than the 3rd Edition pamphlet they received. The new Chaos Marines 'dex is decent imho, but I preferred the 3.5 version with the Legions.

The Ork 'dex is great.

I agree mostly with this post, my two disagreements being that I rather dislike the new Chaos dex and that I think Orks, while not necessarily OTT, are too cheap for what they can do.

BTW, that's from the Ralph Bakshi movie with the Nazi propaganda, isn't it? Wizards, IIRC?

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-03-2008, 09:09
Oh, God-Emperor have mercy. Do we really need another debate about the new Chaos Codex? Or any other similar Codex, for that matter. I feel as though threads such as these are moved by some vile plot of Tzeentch to sow dissent amongst my Warseer brethren.

Suffice to say, as far as my opinion goes, I like the new trend to an extent. I actually like the idea that, were I to design a list themed around a specific faction of the Codex, it would be I applying any restrictions I deem fit, instead of some single-page list of options and rules poorly thought out in regards to balance.

People complain that this new trend leads to powergaming and people taking advantage of unfluffy combinations; I simply say that that will always be a fact of life in Warhammer. There will always be so-called cheesemongers and powergamers, and the last Codex (wherein they attempted to limit such excesses) failed in that regard. I can see how GW, sickened with shame over the epic fail that was the Iron Warriors sub list, might simply leave it to the gamer (and his opponent, mind) to decide what's decent in a game.

Plastic Rat
13-03-2008, 09:26
Depends if you're factoring in 2nd Ed codexes.

If you are then for sheer content and fluff, no, they don't match up even closely.

For rules, well that's subjective and I don't want to start another 2nd ed debate. Overall though, the only new codex I liked was the Ork Codex. Somebody put their heart and soul into that and coupled it with good game design.

Dark Angels.. I could rant a bit if you wanted? Same for Chaos...

Imperialis_Dominatus
13-03-2008, 10:38
As I so subtly ;) stated, we probably don't need that.

nightgant98c
14-03-2008, 00:03
I think the newer books are quite good, overall. There are complaints for all of them, but I don't think they outweigh the good. I do however dislike the layout, with rules one place and points another.

Kalec
14-03-2008, 00:49
Whoever decided that marines should be bland and option-less should be fired. I have held off on buying anything for my marine army because I don't know just how badly I am going to get screwed in the next 'dex. If the basic SM codex looks just like the BA and DA codices with only tac squads as troops, I won't be playing for a long time.

I was considering dabbling in Chaos, but then the new Chaos dex came along and made them little more then spiky marines with Lash princes.

Rirekon
14-03-2008, 01:19
My Necron army is weeping little tears over your poor single, highly flexible, troops choice.

Right, that's all Chaos are.... I seem to remember there being a whole load of other options but I'm obviously thinking of a different book...

Skirnak
14-03-2008, 01:36
I had mixed feelings about Chaos and I thought Dark Angels was a bit bland...but that's more than made up for with the new Ork codex.

In my opinion they re-introduced a lot of character that was lost during 3rd edition, and including weapon stats is always a plus.

Imperialis_Dominatus
14-03-2008, 03:48
Whoever decided that marines should be bland and option-less should be fired. I have held off on buying anything for my marine army because I don't know just how badly I am going to get screwed in the next 'dex. If the basic SM codex looks just like the BA and DA codices with only tac squads as troops, I won't be playing for a long time.

Perhaps I'm simply daft, but I seem to recall Blood Angels being able to use Assault Marines as Troops?

Dark Angels have the potential to have three Troops options.

Both these armies are more fortunate than others... see Rirekon's post.

And let's not forget that Chaos has five (!) Troops options.

I'm fairly sure Orks are fortunate in this regard as well.


I was considering dabbling in Chaos, but then the new Chaos dex came along and made them little more then spiky marines with Lash princes.

Well, that depends entirely on how you play them, but I'm not willing to get into that debate......... again.

starlight
14-03-2008, 04:44
Orks = YA! HOO! Best I've seen in a *long* time. :D

Chaos - good for a generic renegade marine list, we'll see how the Daemon list works out and that will be another indication of how the Legions will play out. Yes, I'm assuming that the Legions will be getting their own book.

DA/BA - I'm liking what I'm seeing. I am a bit disappointed in the disappearance of some options and the limitations on the Deathwing, but overall it's not too bad. Let's see what it means for C:SM this fall.

Eldar - Again, I like the direction. However not being an Eldar player I'm only seeing this as an opponent. I'd like to be able to field a Harlequin Masque, but I'll wait and use the DEWC for now.

Basically, I'm happy with the direction things are going, so I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for now...

Malachai
14-03-2008, 12:56
The new codexes are all pretty nice. LATD not having a new codex is NOT NICE.

Democratus
14-03-2008, 13:48
I'm very pleased with the new Codexes, specifically DA, BA, Chaos, and Orks. All of these codexes do a good job of differentiating these various forces - and they are all highly competitive with one another. Keep in mind the emphasis there.

Hopefully as we move forward more codexes will be written to match the balance struck with the new wave of writing.

I play in a highly competitive 40K area (4 of 5 'ard Boyz from Texas play at my LGS) and have seen every one of the new armies compete and win on a regular basis.

ReveredChaplainDrake
14-03-2008, 13:53
When the Codex Space Marines (read: not Codex Ultramarines) gets redone, IMO the Marines should have the option of Combat Squads as an army trait or upgrade. So if they don't take it, no free Bolt Pistols, no Grenades, and no squad-splitting, not to mention your Powerfists and Lascannons stay moronically-expensive with no benefit. This way, while you should take it, you don't have to. Personally I thought Combat Squads made sense for Dark Angels as their "Army thing" (they are pretty much the oldest legion, or at least the oldest Loyalists, Fallen not included), but forcing it onto Blood Angels was a cop-out of epic proportions in an attempt to nerf them.

As for Eldar, I think they got a lot harder to play, but it really drilled home their theme. Now there aren't half as many noobs running around playing Eldar because they're so powerful, but the die-hard players who actually like the race stay behind. (I'll admit, I played Ulthwe for the power. Which is why I don't play Eldar now.) In all, bar the Invincifalc (which still isn't as irritating as the CTM falcons of 3rd ed; oh how I hated those!) and the utter injustice done to Guardians, it did the race better as a whole, if not turning the entire army into a veritable Biel-tan list.

Chaos: I played 3rd ed Word Bearers because (1) 4+ IV saves were really hard to come by in the day, and (2) they could use whatever Daemons I want (Daemonettes; that's right, we all know it...). However, the army I always wanted to play was Night Lords. Unfortunately, they couldn't compete with last edition, simply because the models for Furies sucked. Now that legion rules have evaporated, I now feel no guilt for playing Night Lords, as I can now play them whatever way I want! Particularly useful as Chaos Fast Attacks are either terrible (Spawn) or monetarily not worth it (all-metal Raptors).

Orks: Now Orks are just plain awesome, breathing life into a playstyle that was long-thought dead: the anti-horde. The Tyranids had a horde, but really it was a horde of balloon animals as the army as a whole ideally coordinates itself in the pattern of a-patta-patta-patta-patta-WHAM!, so once you take out the WHAM!, you win. (Conversely, the most powerful Tyranid builds spam lists full of pure WHAM!, like the dread Nidzilla. Bad Gaunts! You fail at life!)

I also see the Orks as like the opposite of Necrons. I can beat Necrons. It's tedious, exhaustive, and utterly unrewarding, but I can beat them. Orks are fun though, because even if I'm getting my a** handed to me (which seems to happen quite often), I can still make the other guy remove handfuls of models at a time. There's a sense of implacability with Orks too, but it's not a ":wtf: how can you not have lost a single model by Turn 3?!" kind of thing. Seeing 30+ casualties strewn across the opponent's board edge brings a smile to any general's face, even if you're losing. Granted as a General I hate the Orks, but as a gamer, there are much worse armies to face.

Neo799
14-03-2008, 14:01
Marines should have the option of Combat Squads as an army trait or upgrade. So if they don't take it, no free Bolt Pistols, no Grenades, and no squad-splitting, not to mention your Powerfists and Lascannons stay moronically-expensive with no benefit.

I agree, I don't think Marines should be at all competitive in the next Codex. Sure, they can't match up against Chaos using the current codex, but let's make sure they stay weak so intarnut haters can stop crying about them. :D

infinity101
17-03-2008, 15:57
Eldar.... OK were it not for some thingies

DA/BA .... biiiig thumbs down... bland, nerfed, overpriced beta version

Chaos... t'would be OK were it not for obvious underpricing of some things and excessive synergy of some others

Ork... great codex on its own...but what they didnt have in power up to it was returned to them with a large interest making it OOT in some cases and with some 5ed rumors in every case

all in all... i have already stopped playing ....but im giving GW a final chance with 5ed

Promethius
17-03-2008, 17:58
Eldar and Orks I was pleased with; SMs I'm fairly ambivalent with, and the chaos book I hated. As an Alpha Legion player who has several large units of cultists, I resent being encouraged to invest money, time and effort into converting a unit only for GW to turn around and tell me I can't use it anymore. Whilst I appreciate that some of the Legions lists were open to exploitation, I am personally of the opinion that this could have been fixed whilst maintaining the unique attributes of the individual legions on the table top.

Straha
17-03-2008, 20:43
The Ork Codex is a masterpiece. One of the best GW has put out. The other Codices are all pretty good. I really like the Dark Angels Codex a lot --- it got rid of the 3rd Edition Cheese and really updated the chapter.

The only Codex I don't like is Black Templars. The models are sweet, but the rules blow. They were better in the old Armageddon book.