PDA

View Full Version : What's the worst codex ever written?



Stinkfoot
25-03-2011, 00:50
I read through Casper Hawser's thread regarding the best codex ever written, and I thought it would be an interesting experiment to make a mirror thread asking people's thoughts on the worst army book ever written. I suspect that some of the apparently winners of the "best" thread will also be winners of the "worst".

For what it's worth, I think 3.5 Chaos was a terrible book that was basically made to be abused. Every game I played against it featured multiple horribly-broken units, army-list shenanigans, and usually a heavy dose of HeroHammer (though nothing compares to Fantasy Daemons back in 7th edition - yeesh). I've also heard bad, bad things about 2nd edition Space Wolves and Eldar, but since I didn't pick up the game until 3rd edition, I can't really comment.

EDIT: I just want to remind everybody not to only consider the boogiemen of the moment. I've heard a number of you say that 5th edition is a balanced, if not the most balanced to date, edition. How can this be so if it hosts the three most broken army books of all time? Think about your gaming experiences over the long term, rather than just who you played last Saturday.

DuskRaider
25-03-2011, 00:55
Three way tie between: 5th Edition IG, 5th Edition Space Wolves, and 5th Edition Grey Knights. Horrible book, unbalanced, overpowered, and can be abused more than any 3.5 Edition Chaos list.

Mannimarco
25-03-2011, 00:59
Either SW or IG, both of which are equally or even more so open to abuse than 3.5.

I reserve judgement on GK until I have played a few games against it.

Torpedo Vegas
25-03-2011, 01:00
I'm going to go on a limb and say that I don't think the GK book should be up for "worst codex ever" until a fair while after its out. Look at DE, everyone thought they would be OP Cheese machines, but now 4 months later and their book is generally considered balanced.

OT: I think that Codex:Witch hunters is horrible. Though I haven't been gaming long enough to be able to comment on pre-3e books.

Stinkfoot
25-03-2011, 01:02
Three way tie between: 5th Edition IG, 5th Edition Space Wolves, and 5th Edition Grey Knights. Horrible book, unbalanced, overpowered, and can be abused more than any 3.5 Edition Chaos list.

Odd that you choose a codex that isn't even released yet, but even with the other 2 entries... really?!? IG and Wolves are a bit underpriced with some units I admit, but neither book has anything that's straight-up broken/should never exist regardless of cost (actually, JOTWW, but that's a minor offender compared to some stuff that's existed in books past). Playing against a good IG or SW list is like playing with a 10% point disadvantage - that can be overcome by being a better player. 3.5 Chaos beat some lists all the time, regardless of generalship (1st turn guaranteed charge lists, unkillable DP lists, Mega ordinance las/plas spam lists, etc).

LonelyPath
25-03-2011, 01:05
For fluff the worst is the new GK, as for rules, for the sheer builds available and routinely used, SW.

Sinnertje
25-03-2011, 01:06
While not 40k, the previous edition of Beastmen... I quit reading that piece of poo somewhere halfway, when they started going on about how the leaders 'fought with their hands tied behind their backs, because they "didn't want to lose a general, even if he'd lose a fight" or some such rubbish...

Slashattack
25-03-2011, 01:11
The worst ever 40k codex I would consider to be probably the current tyranid codex because of the personality it took from the old book. It got rid of the cool core statistic modifications, and has a very un-balanced force organisation chart.

Vaktathi
25-03-2011, 01:12
Are we simply talking about being broken here? In which case, it depends on edition.

For 2E, Eldar were highly broken, worse than anything we've seen since then, 7E Fanatsy Daemons is probably about the only thing close. For 3E, there was the BA rhino rush, CSM 3.5, etc. For 4E, Eldar again were probably the most broken thing. For 5E? Probably SW/IG/BA.

In terms of just awful books? Most of the 3E books, any 5E SM book in terms of fluff and readability (between SW's buffonery and Wolfiness, BA's emotwilightbloodsanguinebloodbloodyfistsofblood, and Everyone wants to be Ultramarines...).

In terms of least playability? For 5E its probably Tyranids, but other books in previous editions have been pretty bad. The INQ and Imperial Guard books (excepting the current one) have typically been rather poor in terms of competitiveness. Dark Angels of course fell into a trap.

EDIT: also, how on earth could I have forgotten the 4E CSM codex. While it did some cool things and did make many units useable from the previous book that really weren't and did a great job making good Troops units, it also gutted and crushed the background and feel of the army and has some very real internal balance issues.

Colonel Kolm
25-03-2011, 01:14
as to the posters comments abuot 3.5 designed to be abused. i disagree i think it captured rally the essence of chaos whether it be the 4 traitor god legions or the undivided legions ort eh ability to just beuild a chaos "renegade" army. was it a strong book, absolutely, could it be abused, absolutely but i challenge you to find a book that cant be abused in one way or another(minus the really old books that cant be given the current rules set up).

onto the purpose of the original post. a prima facieargument could be made that the upcoming grey knights book is horribly unbalanced. but to quote mannimarco

I reserve judgement on GK until I have played a few games against it.

Bunnahabhain
25-03-2011, 01:15
All the matt ward SM books. Including Grey knights. We know enough to see it fits his form...

Between the simply aweful writing, abuse of background, and poor balance, they all stink.

No matter what you can say about some others- Vakathi's list just above is a good one- they don't fall down on all three at once.....

xxRavenxx
25-03-2011, 01:16
Current chaos codex.

Boring, underwhelming, lacking the excitement of the previous book. A horrible "tester" book to see if giving people few options in a book worked.

Tordeck
25-03-2011, 01:19
Grey Knights hands down

4th ed CSM a close 2nd

Project2501
25-03-2011, 01:28
Tied between 4.5e(?) CSM and Tyranids. Both books/armies got "gutted" horribly.

I've only proxied Tyranids thus far as I only recently wanted a new army/playstyle, and chose Tyranids. Thank god i've only proxied them. They aren't unplayable mind you, just completely disjointed and high priced (minus stealers). I've since gone back to my BloodAngels.

As for CSM, I played as them in 3e and 4e, and the purported "minimalist approach" "gutted" them of any and all flair. Yes yes, there was abuse, but honestly, that happens with every army, and is pretty much garaunteed that the WAAC players will exploit it, especially at tournies. I still just can't believe that to this day still tell themselves otherwise.

Draigo
25-03-2011, 01:44
Necrons or the current eldar.
I'm pretending the 4th edition chaos codex never happened.

DeeKay
25-03-2011, 01:45
IMO Matt Ward codexes (rightly) get a lot of flak for radical changes in fluff, poor writing style and an over-abundance of special rules, most of which aren't really needed.

Having said that, it wouldn't be fair to compare different editions to each other and try and find a worse codex, so we'll go by edition.

2nd: I'd say Eldar for the rules, due to some armies being worth 0 victory points until Dark Millenium updated the VP rules. As for fluff, none of them were bad enough to stand out since back then 40k was still establishing its identity.

3rd: I think Orks qualifies for the worst in terms of rules. The Choppas rule used to be that any armour save better than 4+ was reduced to 4+. In a game that had eliminated every other form of armour save modifiers, this seemed counter-intuitive. Especially when Guardsmen were unaffected and Terminators were crying themselves to sleep in carry cases.

4th: A toss-up between DA and CSM. Both codexes (still) suffer a lot from being an experimental shift in codex design. The logic used to create these seems to be one of minimalism. The less players are given to work with, the less can go wrong. We all know what happens next...

5th: ...which brings me to Matt "40k Michael Bay" Ward and his attempts. In terms of fluff, every one of his 40k books has been badly written rubbish. In terms of rules, I no longer care, as I'm sure GW gave up caring a while back. I rarely play 40k nowadays, now I'm in it for the models and I go elsewhere for competitive play.

With regards,
Dan.

Bloodknight
25-03-2011, 01:48
Most broken: 2nd edition Eldar
Most boring: 3rd edition CSM (not 3.5)
Weakest: 2nd edition SoB, current Necrons (but in 5th edition only)

Holding the record for most lower-tier books: Imperial Guard with 2nd edition, 3rd edition and IG 3.5/4.

Honorable mention for Brokenness goes to the late 2nd edition Necrons. Really not much fun to play against (everything had a 2+ armor save and additional armor penetration vs vehicles. They emitted some kind of force field that made them harder to hit with close range shooting and at the same time shut off strength-enhancing close combat weapons that were not primitive. A single Scarab could tie up a whole squad because they were T8 and couldn't be wounded by most troops. Scarabs on tanks would eat 3 armor points per scarab....)

Rosstifer
25-03-2011, 01:56
I'm glad Matt Ward wrote 8th Ed fantasy, but I'm also very glad Phil Kelly handled the fluff department. Love that guy. Matt Ward's a little too... enthusiastic(?) in regards to fluff.

scarletsquig
25-03-2011, 02:00
3rd Edition Codex: Catachans was particularly weak.

I know, because I had an army.. any game that wasn't totally covered in jungle they got completely and utterly slaughtered. Guard minus tanks = lose.

Minsc
25-03-2011, 02:11
Current Chaos Codex...

Achaylus72
25-03-2011, 02:25
Current Chaos Codex...

I'd second that.

If i was to rewrite a Chaos Space Marines Codex i would add Malal God of Anarchy and mark point value of 60 and give the Daemon Prince the same options as the Daemon Prince in Chaos Daemons, if i want a 340 point Daemy P then god damn it i want a 340 point Daemy P.

Toadius80
25-03-2011, 02:38
For me there isn't a overall worst codex.
For most un-competitive I'd say jungle fighters. Though I will add, I had a fair army of them and did quite well but I've never used guard right. In jungle or a good city they rocked with all there flamers and meltaguns but on any other battlefield? They just got shot to pieces. 2nd would be Witch hunters.

Most broken would be the previous Chaos codex. Way over optioned with nasty stuff and some builds where pretty much victory assured. Current codex brought them to heel pretty well and funny enough those that spammed with the iron warrior insta win list are those that still whine loudest. Again 2nd could well be Witch hunters.

Worst fluff? Any current marine codex!! God they depress me. That fool ruined my Blood Angels fluff.

Must say personally rules/gaming wise though all the codexes written in 5th are pretty even and all play quite evenly and competitively. Same I expect will be true with the Grey Knights. All this woe, heard it with every codex so far and none is any better then it's fellows, the only 'Codex Creep' I've seen is in the appalling fluff!

Zaonite
25-03-2011, 02:45
Imperial Guard get the biscuit this time.

They get everyone else's rules- but better.... How the ******* does that work?

(as you can tell, I'm quite bitter about it lol)

Fithos
25-03-2011, 02:54
I'm gonna have to go with the Ork dex that was right before the current edition. I'm not sure which one it is (maybe 3, it's the one by Andy Chambers) but seriously, the book didn't even have the weapon stats in it. How the crap are you supposed to play the game without all the rules.

Bloodknight
25-03-2011, 02:57
For most un-competitive I'd say jungle fighters.

That depended entirely on the terrain. On a standard field they would just die. In cities or their home jungle they'd be nigh-undefeatable in my experience. The only army I ever had problems defeating with my Catachans in the jungle were Kroot Mercs. Go figure...

freddieyu
25-03-2011, 02:57
Tied between 4.5e(?) CSM and Tyranids. Both books/armies got "gutted" horribly.

I've only proxied Tyranids thus far as I only recently wanted a new army/playstyle, and chose Tyranids. Thank god i've only proxied them. They aren't unplayable mind you, just completely disjointed and high priced (minus stealers). I've since gone back to my BloodAngels.

As for CSM, I played as them in 3e and 4e, and the purported "minimalist approach" "gutted" them of any and all flair. Yes yes, there was abuse, but honestly, that happens with every army, and is pretty much garaunteed that the WAAC players will exploit it, especially at tournies. I still just can't believe that to this day still tell themselves otherwise.

In terms of "fluff" and "feel" yes to both 4.5th ed CSM and 5th ed Nids...

Codex CSM 3.5 was a FANTASTIC read...and the mood and flavor it embodied was great.....

The 4th ed eldar dex isn't too bad.

DuskRaider
25-03-2011, 03:04
Odd that you choose a codex that isn't even released yet, but even with the other 2 entries... really?!? IG and Wolves are a bit underpriced with some units I admit, but neither book has anything that's straight-up broken/should never exist regardless of cost (actually, JOTWW, but that's a minor offender compared to some stuff that's existed in books past). Playing against a good IG or SW list is like playing with a 10% point disadvantage - that can be overcome by being a better player. 3.5 Chaos beat some lists all the time, regardless of generalship (1st turn guaranteed charge lists, unkillable DP lists, Mega ordinance las/plas spam lists, etc).

Well, in all technicality it IS out. I went down to my FLGS and spent a couple hours with a few friends examining it, taking everything into account... units, even mere core troops, are extremely underpriced and too powerful. I fully understand the (good) fluff behind Grey Knights (ie, before Matt Ward butchered it), so I know they're supposed to be powerful... but seriously? Come on... When you have to tailor a list specifically just to survive to Turn 4, you know there's an issue. The only two codices I see having a good shot at trumping GK are 'Nids with their ability to negate GK's inherent psychic strengths, and DE which can wipe out their units before they even have a chance to strike.

As far as IG and Space Wolves... I'll give Space Wolves the benefit of the doubt. Yes, they can be abused to the extreme, but they're also expensive. Anyone who spams JotWW needs to kicked in the teeth, they ruin the name of the other players. IG, on the other hand... such an imbalanced codex that blows everyone out of the water. I mean, come on... 50 man squads of FNP Guard? Give me a break. I think that also more shows GW's tendency to take a USR and molest it to the point of no return.

I didn't put Blood Angels up here for a good reason: Yes, they can be abused, they're powerful as well... but their point cost makes up for it. Whereas you do not see that with the other three I listed.

I would have also listed 4th Edition Chaos Space Marine codex, as I hate that book with a passion, it's boring, it's flavorless, it's made me lose interest in my main army, the army that got me into this game, but I can't ignore the blatant issues that GK, SW & IG have.

Sgt John Keel
25-03-2011, 03:12
I'm gonna have to go with the Ork dex that was right before the current edition. I'm not sure which one it is (maybe 3, it's the one by Andy Chambers) but seriously, the book didn't even have the weapon stats in it. How the crap are you supposed to play the game without all the rules.

Later prints did have a reference sheet. And the weapon stats were in the main rulebook as well, IIRC.

I'm going to have to go with the third edition Necrons. While I enjoy the retcons, I know many people didn't, but by God the list is boring. Half the units – of not that many – have never been good, and nothing has any options.

On the contrary, many of the much maligned 5th edition codices are fun to sit down and construct your lists with, even if the fluff is terribad. Although it would be fun to see a Xenos codex being overpowered instead of just marines all the time … perhaps Eldar?

jonadaya
25-03-2011, 03:14
Anything by Matt Ward to be honest, but the cake probably goes to the new Grey Knights codex, its really awful.

Bloodknight
25-03-2011, 03:24
50 man squads of FNP Guard?

I must have missed the part where normal infantry can have medics.
Command squads (who can have medics) cannot join infantry mobs.

Notanoob
25-03-2011, 03:57
5th edition nids. Terrible internal balance, the fluff was raped, the whole feel of the army was destroyed...I just dislike this dex in almost every single way.

DuskRaider
25-03-2011, 04:22
I must have missed the part where normal infantry can have medics.
Command squads (who can have medics) cannot join infantry mobs.

I don't know, but every time I've played IG they've fielded squads which consisted of infantry w/ FNP. Entire squads worth.

Woodsman
25-03-2011, 04:42
Eldar 2nd ed is probably the most "Broken" thing I've played with. It was awesome. So much fluff and depth to the Eldar compared to the bland drivel we have had since. We just played as a few mates, list building was buying what looked cool (Yeah, I had some chaos allies for my Eldar at one point) and games were destroying everything in sight, swapping sides and starting over. Balance never really came into my little head... :)

This is still how I play 40K (Generally) so balance doesn't really bother me that much. I thought the guard book was pretty well written.

3rd ed Eldar made me cry, my mum's shopping list was more fluffy and had more options.:wtf:

Chapters Unwritten
25-03-2011, 04:42
I consider the current Tyranid codex to be very poor. It is a very sloppy, non-streamlined book. Units that should share rules do not; units best suited by existing rules have new ones; units have bonuses and benefits that often are far too minimal given their downsides; there are almost no invulnerable saves of any kind in the book despite this edition seeing more AP2 and AP3 weaponry than ever before; and perhaps strangest of all, the Tyranids are not all that potent in combat. A lot of creatures in the book have WS3 despite having arms made of knives and existing solely because the hive mind evolved them as living weapons. Every army has an opportunity for its own unique stat bonuses and such, and Weapon Skill was probably the one thing that Tyranids could have synergized with.

The book also has some really strange units in it. The hive mind evolves its minions but there is no sign of this in the Nid codex; nothing has advanced to be better against melta or to be better at penetrating armor.

Mostly I despise the book because of its many opportunities present to really take it to another level that fell flat. They need anti-tank and have a unit that fires living mines, so you...give them a 48-inch anti-tank weapon on a different model that costs more than 10% of your average list, while leaving said living artillery creature as a near-worthless model.

This codex also has the most obvious cases of "kit creep." Units that players already owned en masse were made worse throughout the entire book, whilst new ones were buffed heavily. The tervigon tutorial they put up of how to buy two expensive kits and only get one model out of it was the most obvious example, but comparing anything new to anything old in that book basically comes up with the same conclusions.

The worst part is abilities that make more sense in the Nid book are all around us. That DE thing where they drag away a model is how flesh hooks should work. The Eldar's 3d6-take-the-highest psychic power issue is how Shadow in the Warp should work. The Blood Chalice FNP/FC bubble is how you'd expect something like synapse to work.

Add in tons of psychic powers that are different but similar from one another and restrict them by what model is where and you have a myriad nightmare of odd rules, ineffective units, etc...all topped by a complete and willful ignorance that an army with no transports or vehicles is virtually doomed in the competitive environment these days.

I just don't know what they were thinking with that book.

Ronin_eX
25-03-2011, 05:01
Just one? Nah, can't do it.

2nd Edition Space Wolves: Fluff was good, but what were they thinking when they did the mechanics. There is a reason no other army got unrestricted heavy weapon access and they seemed to have forgotten that.

2nd Edition Eldar: Again, great fluff but the rules were a mess of over-powered drek. It didn't help that exarch powers weren't attached to wargear limit (like Chaos gifts were). They were some of the few characters that could have an wide ranging impact due to several factors.

3rd Edition Marine Mini-dexes: Outside of maybe the Space Wolves (who made the least reference to the Space Marine codex out of them all) the rest of these were about as bad as it gets. From the over-powered and poorly made Blood Angels list to the vastly over-costed and underpowered Dark Angels list. I need not even mention how much the Armageddon mini-dexes blew chunks. Add to that a lack of any kind of fluff and these probably get as close as possible to the worst things GW has ever published in their history.

3rd Edition Dark Eldar: Not a good first showing. Bad internal balance and not nearly enough fluff to flesh out a brand new army. Ended up coming off as S&M Eldar and little else.

3E and 3.5E Chaos: The first was bland and uninteresting the second was over-stuffed with special rules and bloat.

3rd Edition Orks: Choppas was basically enough to make this a bad codex all on its own, poor internal balance did the rest.

4th Edition Space Marine Codex: Could be broken wide open, the chapter trait system was a horrible idea and they should feel bad about it. :p

5th Edition Space Marine Codex: Argh, the fluff it burns!

3rd Edition Eldar + Craftworld Eldar: Hello star-cannon spam and so many balance problems it killed the viability of several MEQ armies all on its own.

4th Edition Dark Angels and 4th Edition Chaos: Hello new direction codices. These basically broke the armies down, made them less interesting and complex in the name of simplifying them to promises of the next codices following suit to scale back the excesses of early 4th Edition. Too bad it lasted a whole two codices. In the end these dead ends probably lost GW a whole lot of players.

Daemons of Chaos for WFB: It's so bad that even though it isn't a codex it will make it on to this list just because it adds weight to the accusations against Matt Ward.

Oh hell, why not, anything Matt Ward touched: Seriously the rules are a little amateurish and over the top but the fluff is what really delivers the gut punch. He seems to be perfecting his dark craft with each new codex and he cannot be stopped. Blood Angels was pretty bad but after reading Draigo's fluff I am basically awe struck at his ability to write mary sues into everything he touches.

There are probably more but it feels like I've hit a lot of the big ones (oh crap forgot 5th Edition 'Nids... sorry poor little bug people). :p

Vaktathi
25-03-2011, 05:32
As far as IG and Space Wolves... I'll give Space Wolves the benefit of the doubt. Yes, they can be abused to the extreme, but they're also expensive. Grey Hunters and Long Fangs are expensive? :p


IG, on the other hand... such an imbalanced codex that blows everyone out of the water. I mean, come on... 50 man squads of FNP Guard? Give me a break. I think that also more shows GW's tendency to take a USR and molest it to the point of no return. IG can't get FNP on anything but command squads (where it's 30pts on a 30pt or 50pt squad depending on if its an HQ or Troop command squad). As such, anyone playing with FNP blobs is cheating.

d6juggernaut
25-03-2011, 05:43
I would have to say current edition 'nid and 4th edition Chaos.

The Tyranid codex is not as competitive amongst all the other 5th ed ones, the internal balance is almost none existent, when you combine these 2 problems you end up with very few viable builds.

The 4th ed Chaos Marine codex sucks because of all the potentials the codex had, but they took so much out that the codex just went all over the place. IMO the new GK codex felt more Chaos than the current Chaos codex, combining the highly elite Marines with the cheap, expendable and highly customizable GEQ along with some special fun gimmicks with crazy effects, yeah I can totally run a Chaos Renegade army with that codex.

DuskRaider
25-03-2011, 06:24
IG can't get FNP on anything but command squads (where it's 30pts on a 30pt or 50pt squad depending on if its an HQ or Troop command squad). As such, anyone playing with FNP blobs is cheating.

Aye, I've recently been enlightened to this :shifty:

Well, I guess I know what I'll be bringing up at the next 40K Night...

eyescrossed
25-03-2011, 06:24
The Chaos Space Marine Codex is the only Codex I can think of where they didn't add anything new and actually took things away.

Oakwolf
25-03-2011, 06:44
It just seems to me that there's so much weird stuff being produced lately.

I can't even pinpoint what's worse in my mind. Maybe it means i just can't like what 40k has become, or i changed in a way that i can only see more of the bad than the good.

eyescrossed
25-03-2011, 06:46
That's why my next army is either going to be from an old book, or I'm just going to quit 40k. Ward is just ruining my hobby.

AlexHolker
25-03-2011, 07:21
All of the codices I'd classify as "worst" are bad because of how they undermined the background:

3rd edition Necrons shoehorned the C'tan into pretty much every single race's backstory.

4th edition Chaos (both of them) removed any possibility of playing an army with personality.

5th edition Tyranids placed way too much emphasis on unique individuals, had ridiculous fluff and seemed designed to invalidate the armies that defined the Tyranids of previous editions.

5th edition Grey Knights ruined the Grey Knights by replacing amorality with heresy.

Nurgling Chieftain
25-03-2011, 07:22
Well, I guess I know what I'll be bringing up at the next 40K Night...If I had a nickel for every time someone came here complaining about or asking advice for how to counter a tactic that was never legal in the first place, I'd have... Well, I could buy lunch, at least. :cool:

But speaking of FNP, I think the Blood Chalice (of Sanguinary Priests) is the most abusive kit currently in the standard ruleset (mind you, I haven't read the Grey Knights codex yet, lol). Make the Blood Chalice effect only their own unit (it'd still be very good but it would become much closer to being in line with apothecaries, medics, and haemonculi) and make Blood Talons bonus attacks not recursive, and I would consider the Blood Angel codex to be an excellent ruleset. As is, while the dreads can be dealt with, as extreme as they are, the Blood Chalice just busts the whole codex with its mere existence. It's not like I ever play against Blood Angels not packing them.

Fast vehicles (for cost!), deep-striking land raiders, descent of angels, even the death company and its dreads, all that is either fixing things that needed help (who deep-struck assault squads before?) or at least reasonably fair in some way (rage and not scoring can be significant drawbacks, and who the heck wants to deep-strike a 'raider anyway?).

AlexHolker
25-03-2011, 07:39
But speaking of FNP, I think the Blood Chalice (of Sanguinary Priests) is the most abusive kit currently in the standard ruleset (mind you, I haven't read the Grey Knights codex yet, lol).
I really do like the idea of the 6" FNP aura, but it should only be given to the sort of medic who actually spends their time acting like a medic, not some nutter charging into battle waving a cup.

samiens
25-03-2011, 07:41
I think the hysteria over the power level of grey knights is totally unjustified, there just won't be enough of them on the table, particularly after an army like IG or super cheap wolves takes a turn. Fluff is subjective so I find it hard to judge by that (I like some att ward fluff...)

But the worst codex for being broken in its time has to be 3.5 ed chaos. Internal balance was non existent, the authors favourite army got more love than ultramarines (who to be fair only get fluff love and that ties in with marketing strategy) and their were so many options some completely nonsensical ones got through.

But it really takes the biscuit because despite this (and its minimal level of background that is inexplicably vaunted) people hold it up as a paragon of game design despite the fact its a fore runner to the current daft codec style which is so maligned. (Although at least the current ones have some sense of limitation)

RunepriestRidcully
25-03-2011, 07:57
The current chaos codex is bad, it took away a lot of charecter, options, even the ability for people to use models (warhounds, cultists, etc) and the fluff is just such a really small amount compared to the previous one and does not really say anything about non black legion legions. Then the there is Wards latest scrablings, the grey knights, I liked playing grey knights because they were hard to win with, not the overpowered mess they are now, and the fluff, the fluff, it has truely been destroyed, the heart and soul of the army has been ripped out and the new fluff is just...bad, so bad it's terrible, because of it I have decided to keep on using the old codex and have promised never to buy anything for 40k from GW again, and am now thinking of extending to that to anything form GW new, can't think of any other codex that has done that.
A moment of silence for The Grey Knights, they never stood a chance, and lets us pray no other army suffers him.

Sludgehammer
25-03-2011, 08:02
3rd Edition Codex: Catachans was particularly weak.

I know, because I had an army.. any game that wasn't totally covered in jungle they got completely and utterly slaughtered. Guard minus tanks = lose.

but if it was, it was as awesome as any Reb Brown movie!

AlexHolker
25-03-2011, 08:04
But it really takes the biscuit because despite this (and its minimal level of background that is inexplicably vaunted) people hold it up as a paragon of game design despite the fact its a fore runner to the current daft codec style which is so maligned. (Although at least the current ones have some sense of limitation)
No, it's not. The 3.5 Chaos codex was like 3rd edition D&D: it might be unbalanced, but it lets you create whatever you like. In new codices, the focus is more on enabling the author's ideas than the players'. Sure, you can put an IG squad in a Valkyrie, but you can't give the sergeant a lasgun.

GreaterDragon
25-03-2011, 08:09
But it really takes the biscuit because despite this (and its minimal level of background that is inexplicably vaunted) people hold it up as a paragon of game design despite the fact its a fore runner to the current daft codec style which is so maligned. (Although at least the current ones have some sense of limitation)
Amen brother.

Vaktathi
25-03-2011, 08:37
I think the hysteria over the power level of grey knights is totally unjustified, there just won't be enough of them on the table, particularly after an army like IG or super cheap wolves takes a turn. Fluff is subjective so I find it hard to judge by that (I like some att ward fluff...) Much of it is based off of the initial playtest leak document, where there was some very derpy stuff like Henchmen squads with no limit on melta/plasma guns, Dreadknights with higher T, S and better Invul saves at the same cost, etc.





But it really takes the biscuit because despite this (and its minimal level of background that is inexplicably vaunted) people hold it up as a paragon of game design despite the fact its a fore runner to the current daft codec style which is so maligned. (Although at least the current ones have some sense of limitation)
As I explained in the "best codex" thread, nobody is claiming it was a paragon of game design. Pretty much everyone admits it had balance issues. However these were more a problem of execution than a problem of design.

The stories, descriptions, artwork, options, customizability and feel of the book in general much better captured the feeling of the Chaos Space Marines than the current book, probably moreso than any other CSM book. Was it abuseable? Hell yes. Could most of that have been relatively easily fixed? Hell yes.

And yes, it has more background on each of the Legions than the current one does, which gives little more than a name and a color scheme for each Legion.

totgeboren
25-03-2011, 08:49
Getting the first 3:ed Chaos codex was tough, since I still had the 2:ed Chaos codex fresh in my mind.
The 3:ed Codex was like the current codex, but without much fluff, and some incredibly bad rules (a DP had T4 3W and only a 5++ save, what?!)
However, it did include proper rules for daemons, even daemonic cavalry. This combined with the CA article that allowed you to field cultists meant I could actually bring my army to a tournament and play according to the rules! Big plus in my book.
Combining this with the IA article about the Word Bearers made the 3:ed codex one of the most enjoyable I have ever used, even though it has got some glaring faults.

The current 4:ed Chaos Codex on the other hand is just like the first 3:ed codex, but without the cultists, and without the legion rules. So it's just the bad parts of the the 3:ed codex, without all the good stuff that made the codex usable, and it is even scaled down, with the removal of daemons.

Of all the other codexses I have played with/against, none come close to being such a bad product. It would maybe be the 2:ed Eldar Codex. The fluff was great, but the rules were so broken there was often no point in playing, unless you played SW, since they had an almost equally broken codex.

samiens
25-03-2011, 09:56
I've got the 2nd ed chaos codex- now that is a codex full of legion fluff, all the 3.5ed codex had was a few pieces of colour text. At least the current codex has a decent level of fluff, even though I'm not so fussed on the renegade focus.

I guess we all want different things, but customisability in a wargame is not my biggest concern- this isn't D&D- its a squad based wargame and such unbalanced customisation is bad for the game.

But then I'm the guy who liked the minimalism of the late 4th ed codexes

tuebor
25-03-2011, 10:05
I've only been playing since just after EOT so I don't really know the books from 2nd at all.

The two books I dislike the most are the 3.5 Chaos book for being utterly broken (every Chaos army I played had two unkillable Daemon Princes and max Obliterators) and the 4th Chaos book for being utterly flavorless.

A lot of the newer books are pretty crappy as far as fluff goes but I'd rather have crap flavor than no flavor.

Vaktathi
25-03-2011, 10:41
IIRC the 3.5 book could not have 2 Daemon Princes

totgeboren
25-03-2011, 10:58
IIRC the 3.5 book could not have 2 Daemon Princes

True, you could only have one Lord, and that Lord could become a Daemon Prince with enough daemonic upgrades, or the Daemonic Stature upgrade.

Wade Wilson
25-03-2011, 11:03
3rd Edition Marine Mini-dexes: Outside of maybe the Space Wolves (who made the least reference to the Space Marine codex out of them all) the rest of these were about as bad as it gets. From the over-powered and poorly made Blood Angels list to the vastly over-costed and underpowered Dark Angels list. I need not even mention how much the Armageddon mini-dexes blew chunks. Add to that a lack of any kind of fluff and these probably get as close as possible to the worst things GW has ever published in their history.

The Dark angels mini dex made me a saaad panda. then the 4th ed came out and it was pretty cool!...up until 5th ed Vanilla Marines came out...

Zweischneid
25-03-2011, 11:18
Chaos Space Marines 3.5

Worst piece ever. And by a good margin too.

AFnord
25-03-2011, 11:32
I can't comment on 2nd edition books, as I don't have enough experience with them, but:
(balance)
3rd edition craftworld eldar minidex. A seriously broken dex, with some entires that forces you to take certain units... but makes them better (for balance, you know).
3rd edition blood angels (so you give me a free (but random) death company upgrade, but to counterbalance this you give me a "disadvantage" that is an advantage most of the time?)

Fluff: The übercharacter fluff of 5th edition.
Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau

MadDoc
25-03-2011, 11:42
Thats a hard question to answer if GW intend on letting Mat Ward continue to write Codexes. :skull: Particularly if his apparent escalation of absurdity and cr@ppy writing continues the way its going, the worst will more than likely be his next one, then the next after that, then the next after that, and so on... :(

Xenthick
25-03-2011, 11:49
Current chaos codex.

Boring, underwhelming, lacking the excitement of the previous book. A horrible "tester" book to see if giving people few options in a book worked.

Agreed on all fronts.

Askari
25-03-2011, 12:22
Codex Space Wolves 5th Edition.

So what, you have Chaos Space Marines, that cost the same amount, but get ATSKNF, and Counter-Attack, and Acute Senses, for free?
Your special and heavy weapons also cost less?
At least you don't have Princes... oh wait, a Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf Cavalry has pretty much the same stats as a Daemon Prince too.
Well at least my Sorcerers are better... wait... what's that... Jaws?

Well call me Wolfy McWolf Wolf, isn't this nice for you.

archondan
25-03-2011, 13:14
Really anything written by Mat Ward, his rules are over the top and the fluff is down right awful. He seems more intend on out doing him self on each army.

2ed Eldar and Space Wolf codexes were pretty close. I loved the Eldar book but overall it could put out some awesome firepower. The Space Wolf codex with is loop holes that were eventually closed with FAQs.

3ed BA codex and the "negative" affect of blood rage that every BA player hoped would force his units to move an extra d6 toward the enemy combined with rhino surf boards.

d6juggernaut
25-03-2011, 14:11
Codex Space Wolves 5th Edition.

So what, you have Chaos Space Marines, that cost the same amount, but get ATSKNF, and Counter-Attack, and Acute Senses, for free?
Your special and heavy weapons also cost less?
At least you don't have Princes... oh wait, a Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf Cavalry has pretty much the same stats as a Daemon Prince too.
Well at least my Sorcerers are better... wait... what's that... Jaws?

Well call me Wolfy McWolf Wolf, isn't this nice for you.

Sounds more like a backlash due to the 4th edition Chaos codex being garbage, in this case, the Blood Angel codex would apply as well, maybe that book is also bad then?

And seriously, people really need to get over the whole naming thing, it's getting old and the problem only really applies to Canis Wolfborn anyway. Personally, I think Matt Ward renaming a standard Dreadnaught close combat weapon into Bloodfist for absolutely no reason is even worse in the naming department.

tuebor
25-03-2011, 14:21
IIRC the 3.5 book could not have 2 Daemon Princes

Quite right, it was always a Daemon Prince and a Greater Daemon. The most variation I ever saw among Chaos players was if they ran a relatively "normal" flying Prince or a Siren Prince and what GD they took.

TimLeeson
25-03-2011, 14:26
havent read/seen grey knight codex, but personally I found the imperial guard codex to be very boring - the backround was dull and felt watered down, there were none of the cool things like the old codex had like pictures of dozens of lesser known regiments, no mention of praetorians and far too much focus on cadians/catachans.

Otherwise id say most of the 3rd edition pamphlet codex "books", horrid.

Bloodknight
25-03-2011, 14:35
uite right, it was always a Daemon Prince and a Greater Daemon.

I usually fielded 2 infiltrating speed lieutenants with twin-LC and Strength.

Mr. Ultra
25-03-2011, 14:37
The worst codex? Without a doubt, the current Chaos Space Marines Codex. Nuff said.-

Oakwolf
25-03-2011, 14:45
We could also insert Chaos Demons codex as a very bad orange.

Shamana
25-03-2011, 14:54
I always thought the current CD codex is way worse than the CSM one, really.

Hrogoff the Destructor
25-03-2011, 15:34
Current CSM for sure. It's like a really awkward joke that you are better for not hearing.

Bonzai
25-03-2011, 15:48
Codex Space Wolves 5th Edition.

So what, you have Chaos Space Marines, that cost the same amount, but get ATSKNF, and Counter-Attack, and Acute Senses, for free?
Your special and heavy weapons also cost less?
At least you don't have Princes... oh wait, a Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf Cavalry has pretty much the same stats as a Daemon Prince too.
Well at least my Sorcerers are better... wait... what's that... Jaws?

Well call me Wolfy McWolf Wolf, isn't this nice for you.

I can only comment on 5th edition codexes as that's the edition I started with. However I agree wit your assessment. They take the Space Marine codex, throw in more goodies, keep the costs the same or in some cases lower them. How is that balanced? There is a very good reason that Space Wolves more or less dominate right now. People complain about IG, but I don't find them to be broken. Strong? Sure. But beatable. I play Necrons, and I was able to adapt and have a great win record against them. Not so against grey wolves. I consider C:SM to be the measuring stick for a balanced 5th edition codex (minus Vulkan). They are tough jack of all trades. Their specialists aren't as good as other armies, but they are durable, and not bad. Space wolf specialists are very good. Thier basic troops are marines that are as killy as Orks. Where is the weakness for opponents to exploit? There are none, and they aren't expensive either. BA's have some stupidly good stuff, but at least they are more or less realisticly priced. I am not even going into the stupidity of Jawws or Thunder wolves.

As bad as the SW codex is, there is no excuse for the Tyrannid dex. I could forgive the biovore if he was an isolated incident. But it was obviously not a well thought out codex, and the FAQ makes it even worse. But others have already gone over it.

Vepr
25-03-2011, 16:00
Some of the past IG codices would have gotten my vote if it was not for 5th edition Tyranids. It is hard to find any redeeming qualities about that book, it is dreadful and the authors should be ashamed of 5th edition nids. :(

ColShaw
25-03-2011, 16:05
The worst one in all my time playing 40K would be the 3rd Ed Blood Angels codex. It singlehandedly broke 3rd Ed 40K to the point that the main rules are still recovering! It was the speedy Rhino-rush of the BA which led to the pendulum swing of 4th Ed (flaming coffins for transports) and back again to slightly overpowered mech in 5th Ed. How many other codices can claim to have had malign ripple effect across three editions of the game?!

Lexington
25-03-2011, 16:20
Grey Knights, for the damage it's done to the background alone. Matt Ward is worst song, played on ugliest guitar.

nedius
25-03-2011, 16:31
The worst one in all my time playing 40K would be the 3rd Ed Blood Angels codex. It singlehandedly broke 3rd Ed 40K to the point that the main rules are still recovering! It was the speedy Rhino-rush of the BA which led to the pendulum swing of 4th Ed (flaming coffins for transports) and back again to slightly overpowered mech in 5th Ed. How many other codices can claim to have had malign ripple effect across three editions of the game?!

That is, I agree, a hard one to top.

However, I would put forth the current nid codex. Not because it is THE worst ever (which is a bit naughty of me, I know), but because of how it compares with all its same edition colleagues.

Of all the 5th ed releases, nid's is the only one to have had such an extreme negative reaction from its own fan base. Most codex releases are met with horror from those who will have to face them – not from those who will have to play with them. Following closely behind would be demons. Many of the 5th ed releases have been powerful, some of them really good too (C:DE is a great example of how to get these things almost bang on correct).

Not since C:CSM has there been such an astonishing backlash by a player base against their own codex. And C:CSM is a worse codex… So it probably is actually the WORST. I guess I’m just less forgiving of nids as not only am a nid fan, but to repeat the same trick as they did with C:CSM? Once is a mistake, twice is just… well, not good, anyway.

Vepr
25-03-2011, 16:42
That is, I agree, a hard one to top.

However, I would put forth the current nid codex. Not because it is THE worst ever (which is a bit naughty of me, I know), but because of how it compares with all its same edition colleagues.

Of all the 5th ed releases, nid's is the only one to have had such an extreme negative reaction from its own fan base. Most codex releases are met with horror from those who will have to face them – not from those who will have to play with them. Following closely behind would be demons. Many of the 5th ed releases have been powerful, some of them really good too (C:DE is a great example of how to get these things almost bang on correct).

Not since C:CSM has there been such an astonishing backlash by a player base against their own codex. And C:CSM is a worse codex… So it probably is actually the WORST. I guess I’m just less forgiving of nids as not only am a nid fan, but to repeat the same trick as they did with C:CSM? Once is a mistake, twice is just… well, not good, anyway.

It was a bit disconcerting when people started calling them balanced before they had even faced them, you knew something was wrong. The only stink I remember was the Doom because of unclear rules (imagine that).

Keichi246
25-03-2011, 17:06
3.5 Chaos - with the "Craftworld Eldar" minidex being a VERY close competitor.

Demonbomb. Untouchable Siren Prince. The Iron Warrior Oblit list.
Army lists that will live in infamy...

Sure you COULD make a fun, fluffy characterful list out of it. Too bad FAR too many people went "Moar POWER" and took it to the broken extremes. Add in a BUNCH of special rules (which curiously - people often "forgot" if they were somehow bad for their army) and you get a steaming pile of....

The Craftworld Eldar codex rivals it - with a handful of the worst "balancing" I 've ever since. Who else remembers seeing armies blown off the table before they got ON the table by the Ranger disruption table?

~~~
I find it vaguely amusing that people either loved it (pretty much ONLY the Chaos players) or hated it (pretty much anyone who DIDN'T play Chaos). There's VERY few people in the middle ground.

Ulrig
25-03-2011, 17:12
Hands down current Chaos Space Marines book.

DuskRaider
25-03-2011, 17:16
...The Iron Warrior Oblit list.
Army lists that will live in infamy...

I think the worst part about it is, EVERYONE can do it now :(

jsullivanlaw
25-03-2011, 17:29
Most overpowered\abusable book: Imperial Guard
Stupidest Book: Space Wolves
Most pathetic book: Chaos Daemons

Lord Inquisitor
25-03-2011, 18:00
There have been some corkers. Codex Craftworld Eldar certainly gets an honourable mention for the broken builds it brought to the table. The current Codex Space Marines also annoys me for kitchen sink mentality along with introducing us to Space Marines that "shall know no fear" honest, while they run away from combat and hide in their fortified bunkers.

Right now, though, my #1 peeve is the Tyranid codex.

- Massively overcomplicated rules? Check.
- Horrific internal balance? Check.
- Excessive use of special characters for an army of the faceless swarm? Check.

Blech.

(Incidentally, for those voting Chaos Daemons, I actually liked the Chaos Daemons (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5404847&postcount=108)book).

Leonidas300
25-03-2011, 19:19
Before I comment let me describe my gaming group. We have six players and get together to play a couple times a week in my garage where all of the armies are kept.

Because I have the time and the inclination, I have put together all of the army lists, and I have become good at it. My design philosophy is to keep all armies simple and competitive.

Over many years we have amassed a huge collection of armies. Here is a list of the armies we play (all armies are 2,000 points):

Daemon Hunters, 2 flavors of Chaos Space Marines, 3 flavors of Eldar, 2 flavors of Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard, Blood Angels, Necrons, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Chaos Daemons, Tyranids.

These armies do not share models, and each has been played many times. We try very hard to make each army balanced against each other. Some have had to go with the most competitive list possible, some did not.

But the most difficult army to balance against the others have been Tyranids. We have had the hardest time getting it to the point where it will compete with the other armies.

Too many of their units are just one wargear or one rules tweak short of being useful.

My vote goes to Tyranids.

Herman the Heathen
25-03-2011, 19:41
Although new codexes often get accused of being overpowered my general feeling is that codexes get more and more balanced. Of course there's exceptions but not to many really horrible ones.

I've been around since Rouge Trader (kinda the 1:st edition).

The things you could do with the "codexes" back then was... not balanced. I had the chaos books, Realm of Chaos and The Lost and the Damned, and there's actually certain scenarios when your deamons are invulnerable to normal weapons, only Psy cannons (which were limited to 1 or less per army...) or force weapons could harm them!:cheese:
Although, back then a bloodthirster costed about 1200 points before upgrades.
And orks were...not great but fun, your opponent actually got malfunction cards that he could play when he wanted a orky weapon to blow up or malfunction when used...:wtf:

In 2.nd edition I regulary played against Eldars, and god I hated them!!! Exarch powers, meaning you could have a (eldar kind of) vindicare sniper with a las-cannon that could shoot twice in the shooting phase and pick out characters in squads. Or the 3-parry exarch that could force EVERY opponent in close combat to reroll three of his to-hit dice. And falcons did the pop-up attack, firing all their weapons before sinkong down and behind cover again (pulsa rokikits worked against this though...). Or the all aspect army with a lot of small squads that actuall didn't give any victory points when destroyed!!!:cries:

And if you think Space Wolves are bad in this version, you should have met them in 2:nd. The wolf guard terminators could take an assault cannon AND a cyclone missile launcher...EACH! That meant 5 S8 assault cannons that could spit out up to 9 hits each, but that wasn't the worst thing, if you fired all the rokkets in the cyclone missile launcher you got 5 S9 blast templates with a 6" radius, imagine as an ork having them hit your army on the first turn before you moved....:eyebrows: And that they could fire both the AC and the Cyclone on the same turn made it even more "WTF was they thinking!!!"

Rant over...

sliganian
25-03-2011, 20:08
Agreed on all fronts.

I love the Chaos Codex so much that my Khador force is coming along nicely. :D

And that's saying something since I was one of the ones tagged to playtest the Chaos Codex...

DoctorDanny
25-03-2011, 22:06
Cut the IG codex some slack please. I've played through third and fourth edition IG and I feel that us Guard Commanders have suffered enough to earn us at least one edition of overpoweredness ;)

There might not be much balance within the codex, but fifth edition codex kind of balances the previous two incarnations.

Mannimarco
26-03-2011, 00:20
Cut the IG codex some slack please. I've played through third and fourth edition IG and I feel that us Guard Commanders have suffered enough to earn us at least one edition of overpoweredness ;)

There might not be much balance within the codex, but fifth edition codex kind of balances the previous two incarnations.

If it sucks in the past then its entitled to be overpowered in the future.

God help us when CSM and Necrons get updated ;)

owen matthew
26-03-2011, 00:35
I am going to humbly throw in Tau Empire. it is one of the most half-assed and soft books ever made, seemed to have been given very little attention in its crafting, and did not hold up at all. Current popular tactics for wining with the book revolve around bubble wraping anything you want to live for one turn longer than the wrap, and... i just cannot go into it any further, it hurts too much!

I agree that current chaos sucks abnormally hard, and was made worse so by following one of the most beloved codexes ever, but realize this... The current chaos codex, and most others, can own tau empire in the face! Including Necrons!

worst in order for me:

1. current tau
2. current chaos
3. necrons
4. current tyranids

Vaktathi
26-03-2011, 00:46
Cut the IG codex some slack please. I've played through third and fourth edition IG and I feel that us Guard Commanders have suffered enough to earn us at least one edition of overpoweredness ;)

There might not be much balance within the codex, but fifth edition codex kind of balances the previous two incarnations.

I used to never even be able to conceive of IG possibly being overpowered :p. Their 2E book was one of the weakest of that edition (and almost never had a chance to go first). The 3E Blackbook list was pretty decent but shortlived and was good primarily because the other blackbook lists were rather bad, and both 3E books were thoroughly mediocre, and they didn't even get a 4E book. 5th Edition is the only one where IG have been seen as a competitive army.

Now, there are some real balance issues granted, and also some awful internal balance, but IG have never been anywhere near as good as they are now, and in all honesty I think that fact alone bothers some players. Up until a couple years ago, the IG were always pretty much a whipping boy to make other armies sound cool and awesome, they almost never achieved anything that wasn't a pyhrric victory, and never won against anything that wasn't a horde type enemy. On the table they were generally an army most people looked at and thought "this won't be a problem, I got this".

I defeated an Eldar player once in 4th edition (I think one of like three or four times I beat Eldar in 4E), and he got really ********, not that he lost, but that he lost to the Imperial Guard, which just wasn't supposed to happen. His thoughts were that "IG shouldn't be a good army, they aren't supposed to be able to beat the Eldar".

That sort of attitude still persists in many minds, which I think exaggerates many complaints about IG beyond what actually may be the case.

Spell_of_Destruction
26-03-2011, 01:00
I understand all the C:CSM hate but in terms of pure competitiveness is it really that bad? Seems to be on about the save level as Codex Eldar in terms of the number of viable builds. If you take the right stuff you can still hold your own.

The 3.5 C:CSM codex was a mess. Yeah, you could do some cool stuff with it but the first edition was one of the most poorly organised and edited books GW have ever released.

From what I've seen of Codex Grey Knights, it seems to be an abomination but I'll reserve judgment until I've read it in detail.


Although new codexes often get accused of being overpowered my general feeling is that codexes get more and more balanced. Of course there's exceptions but not to many really horrible ones.

I've been around since Rouge Trader (kinda the 1:st edition).

The things you could do with the "codexes" back then was... not balanced. I had the chaos books, Realm of Chaos and The Lost and the Damned, and there's actually certain scenarios when your deamons are invulnerable to normal weapons, only Psy cannons (which were limited to 1 or less per army...) or force weapons could harm them!:cheese:
Although, back then a bloodthirster costed about 1200 points before upgrades.
And orks were...not great but fun, your opponent actually got malfunction cards that he could play when he wanted a orky weapon to blow up or malfunction when used...:wtf:

In 2.nd edition I regulary played against Eldars, and god I hated them!!! Exarch powers, meaning you could have a (eldar kind of) vindicare sniper with a las-cannon that could shoot twice in the shooting phase and pick out characters in squads. Or the 3-parry exarch that could force EVERY opponent in close combat to reroll three of his to-hit dice. And falcons did the pop-up attack, firing all their weapons before sinkong down and behind cover again (pulsa rokikits worked against this though...). Or the all aspect army with a lot of small squads that actuall didn't give any victory points when destroyed!!!:cries:

And if you think Space Wolves are bad in this version, you should have met them in 2:nd. The wolf guard terminators could take an assault cannon AND a cyclone missile launcher...EACH! That meant 5 S8 assault cannons that could spit out up to 9 hits each, but that wasn't the worst thing, if you fired all the rokkets in the cyclone missile launcher you got 5 S9 blast templates with a 6" radius, imagine as an ork having them hit your army on the first turn before you moved....:eyebrows: And that they could fire both the AC and the Cyclone on the same turn made it even more "WTF was they thinking!!!"

Rant over...

Strictly speaking, what you are saying is correct.

However, those books belong to a different era and so I don't think it's really fair to compare them to current codecis.

The gaming scene was very different back in the mid 90s. There wasn't the same obsession with competition and 'officialness' and there weren't any megaforums for people to exchange info on rules issues and the latest power builds.

In both 40k and WHFB in 2nd and 5th ed respectively, balance was virtually non existent. A degree of common sense and restraint was required to make the game work. Every gaming group had fairly extensive house rules to prevent the worst codex abuses.

Now, the idea of doing anything non-official that isn't written down in the ruleboox, a codex or an errata is relegated to 'friendly' games (I mean, who would want a game that is fun, balanced and challenging all at once!?!).

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 04:56
It seems to me that people who hate the 3.5 Chaos codex don't hate it for the book, but what players did with it.

For example, you could easily make a balanced list with the book. What about 7th edition Daemons in Fantasy? You had to actually put in a lot of effort to make sure your army wasn't overpowered.

Space Wolves and Imperial Guard, too. Sure, you can make strong lists with them, but the books aren't inherently broken.

It just seems that WAAC players ruin everything...

Draigo
26-03-2011, 07:05
What if it's the other way around, and the units the book provide rules for are meant to be used, while you're the fool for not doing just that?

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 07:38
I don't even get what you're trying to say.

Draigo
26-03-2011, 07:48
That people who refuse to run good lists are the problem - not the people who do.

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 07:50
So you're saying that the 3.5 book wasn't bad because the people facing it should have taken good lists?...

Or that nobody should play Daemons or Necrons because it makes them a problem? :wtf:


No. WAAC players are the problem. There are never threads about how it sucks having to face a fluffy foot-Eldar list because they're weak. It's always about facing the douche who plays absolute RAW and has a hissy-fit if he loses.

Abaraxas
26-03-2011, 07:54
RE 2nd Space Wolves: youd have to be a real scumbag to AC/cyclone spam like that-personally speaking mine only had/have the heavy flamer and assault cannon the box came with...pulsa rokkit spam in 2nd orks too-I mean who wants 10 pulsa rokkits in their collection?

Look and "fluff" has always dictated what I buy for my armies,and I can sympathize with defenders of 3.5 chaos in that regard,or the traits from SM 4
My other army is 2nd Orks and the clans were pretty much abolished rules and model wise,so I feel your pain.

At least wolves can make whatever list they want, but I feel sorry for chaos players that just want to make a themed army...powergaming/abuse goes against the spirit of the game (obviously) and you end up with a dumb collection of models.

Anyways, Id have to say the worst,purely on fluff basis are the current space marine dexes (Draigo,thunderwolves,blood etc etc) just sillyness.

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 07:57
At least wolves can make whatever list they want, but I feel sorry for chaos players that just want to make a themed army...powergaming/abuse goes against the spirit of the game (obviously) and you end up with a dumb collection of models.
Exactly :(



Anyways, Id have to say the worst,purely on fluff basis are the current space marine dexes (Draigo,thunderwolves,blood etc etc) just sillyness.
I actually have to agree. At least you can read the CSM book's fluff (although there's not exactly much) without /facepalming.

Draigo
26-03-2011, 08:00
WAAC players whine when they lose, and refuse to change.
In other words, you who refuse to use what the books give you, and instead rely on guilting people into running subpar armies.

Xabraxis
26-03-2011, 08:04
WAAC players whine when they lose, and refuse to change.
In other words, you who refuse to use what the books give you, and instead rely on guilting people into running subpar armies.

Someone doesn't know what the acronym stands for.

That, and he needs to troll less.

zantis
26-03-2011, 08:05
Worst codex ever written?... so many choices...to narrow things down a bit, I'll pick from one of the 3 i have armies of. I vote 5th ed nids.
Other than that I'd say the new grey knights. If codex creep wasnt blatantly obvious before, it sure is now. Its no longer codex 'creep', its codex
'leap'

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 08:08
WAAC players whine when they lose, and refuse to change.
In other words, you who refuse to use what the books give you, and instead rely on guilting people into running subpar armies.

Obvious troll is obvious. I admit do complain about dicky players if I play them, but not to their face, and would never try to change what army they play. I don't care if I lose as long as it's an enjoyable game. That's what this is; a game. You don't need to take it so seriously that you need to get the perfect build and crush everyone you face.

Games are meant for fun, and yeah fun is subjective, but judging from all of the threads about WAAC players I'd say that most people don't find facing a RAW-mongering number-cruncher fun.

May I ask, how long have you been playing Games Workshop games?

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 08:11
Nobody is "guilting" anyone. Unless you're starting to feel guilty for some weird reason :eyebrows:

Xabraxis
26-03-2011, 08:12
Isn't guilting people so they stop playing their 'cheese' armies the very ultimate form of Winning At All Costs?

One of the many Hallmarks of a WAAC player is deriding others for not running cheesy lists out of their codex.

OH WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE


That people who refuse to run good lists are the problem - not the people who do.

Draigo
26-03-2011, 08:16
Yes, how dare I insinuate that you're bad players, clinging to old, ancient, bad armies, and guilting people into playing as old, ancient, and bad armies as you?

Are you saying that's not the finest of the finest of WAAC right there?

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 08:18
Did you miss my reply, a few posts up?

Draigo
26-03-2011, 08:20
No, I just ignore baseless repetition.
You know, like people who whine about the game being 'broken,' despite their misery being largely because they refuse to play a modern army, or mech up.

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 08:23
Not everybody has hundreds and hundreds of dollars to throw into plastic and metal models.

You're sounding more and more like a snobby ten year old with rich parents who just got into the hobby.

(note: sounding like. You obviously won't take offence to it, because this is just a forum about toy soldiers).

Draigo
26-03-2011, 08:26
That's why it's important you buy an army that's good, and works on the table - no matter what units you decide to throw together.
Even if bloodclaws, skyclaws, and swiftclaws led by dudes on motorcycles, and supported by some vindicators isn't the be-all, end-all, the units all function, so you don't feel like you've wasted all your money.

You know, like how it'd feel if you bought swooping hawks.

eyescrossed
26-03-2011, 08:32
Which will become outdated in a year or two.

But yeah, you're obviously trolling. See ya later.

Coasty
26-03-2011, 11:02
Oi, Draigo; this the 40k section; Trolls belong in WHFB.

Get ye gone, o foul Red Book escapee!

hobodog
26-03-2011, 11:08
Oi, Draigo; this the 40k section; Trolls belong in WHFB.

Get ye gone, o foul Red Book escapee!

This made me laugh :) !
Obvious troll is obvious.
Worst codex in my opinion is the current Tau codex. Its layout is all over the place, boring fluff and terrible rules.

philbrad2
26-03-2011, 12:00
Wow troll and flame fest, think this one is done ....

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)