PDA

View Full Version : The perfect Codex?



Tomalock
20-01-2010, 23:31
Now that I am more seriously playing my 40k Daemons, one of the first things I noticed was that Codex: Chaos Daemons is the only codex released that does not have a FAQ on the GW website (that I can tell atleast). That got me thinking, does it mean that Daemons are the perfect Codex that don't warrent even a single change? Its been around 2 years since the release of the Daemons so I think its fair to assume that GW won't be releasing an FAQ for them any time soon (seeing how Space Wolves are already on their second FAQ).

I know people like or dislike the Daemons as a force, but from a purely codex point of view, are Daemons the most perfect book out of the whole line? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Necrotyr18
20-01-2010, 23:46
Have you read the ambiguity of the Changling?

primarch16
20-01-2010, 23:53
Honestly I havent had any problems with it. The changelings rules seem perfectly clear to me and I've never had a problem in games with it or any of the codex.

Creeping Dementia
20-01-2010, 23:58
Lol, I doubt the lack of a FaQ means the codex is perfect, last I checked they don't have a reference sheet online either. I think GW just forgot about them.

LonelyPath
21-01-2010, 00:08
Lol, I doubt the lack of a FaQ means the codex is perfect, last I checked they don't have a reference sheet online either. I think GW just forgot about them.

That sounds very plausable to me, lol.

bigcheese76
21-01-2010, 00:13
GW were probably too busy worrying about their Space Marines to write an FAQ for the awesome Daemons. As you mentioned with the SW codex, it already has 2 FAQs so this sort of proves that Space Marine based armies are GWs main focus.

Grax
21-01-2010, 02:34
I'm a Chaos Daemons player, and I really like them. I wouldn't call it a perfect codex, but I have to admit, it does explain all of its rules very clearly. Of course, part of the reason for this is the fact that many of the units have the same abilities. It's easier to understand simply because it isn't as diverse as many other armies.

owen matthew
21-01-2010, 06:27
I think the rules are clear and well enough, the book just sucks.

lordmoon
21-01-2010, 06:41
yes as it has an Wizard of Oz reference in it. total win.

Corpse
21-01-2010, 07:31
Noxious Touch (pg 42: poisoned weapons)
A model with strength capable of instantly killing a model does not do so when using noxious touch because its using the poison rule and it ignores strength to toughness.

Use square bases for 40k - and if not is there a round chariot base or bike base for models not depicted apart from the standard 25mm bases?

Models using the deep strike rules with square bases, do not uniform them when 'surrounding' the models to take advantage of the extra corners and make larger? Furthermore, massively abuse the bike bases of beasts when deep striking say, flesh hounds?

"models supplied with the base they come with"

Nurglings that come with the great unclean one, placed on his base and used as nurglings on that huge daemon base legally by GW rules.


I can name others... But I'll stop there.

Deetwo
21-01-2010, 07:45
A model with strength capable of instantly killing a model does not do so when using noxious touch because its using the poison rule and it ignores strength to toughness.

Poison only modifies the wound roll, it does not change the strength of the attack.


Nurglings that come with the great unclean one, placed on his base and used as nurglings on that huge daemon base legally by GW rules.

Is that a problem, really?

As for being perfect, definitely not. It doesn't have a whole lot of issues, though it would be nice to have a FAQ answer for Changeling and the square bases thing.
I think there is no FAQ simply because it's a bit of wasted effort doing one for just a couple questions.

tengu
21-01-2010, 08:26
yes as it has an Wizard of Oz reference in it. total win.

really??? what page? or am i just being gullible?

big squig
21-01-2010, 08:48
Really? IMO it's one of the worst codexs.