PDA

View Full Version : Old Armies: Why are they so bad?



'lectric-sheep12
30-03-2011, 11:37
Everyone keeps saying that the old codex's such as Necrons and Tau are pretty terrible at the moment. Not impossible to play with, but harder to use when it comes to playing against newer armies with newer codex's.

I'm just wondering why. It is it because they don't have a large enough range of units, they have rubbish weapons, they cost too many points for what you get out of most of their units. Something like that.

Specifically with Necrons as I collect them. Thanks

Thud
30-03-2011, 11:40
Tau has one build that can do reasonably well.

But their big problem is that they don't have the flexibility to put out army lists that can both take objectives and kill the enemy.

Abaraxas
30-03-2011, 11:43
Because you need to buy the newest army,RIGHT NOW.

:shifty:

This is why I stick to 2nd edition :eyebrows:

ehlijen
30-03-2011, 11:46
Because the core rules they were written for demanded different things in each edition.

In 5th ed, you need aggressively moving troops units. Tau never really had those. In 3rd and 4th, all you needed was aggressively moving units of any kind, and suits fit the bill nicely.

There's a few other things, but that's the main reason Tau don't work as well and necrons have their own similar reasons.

'lectric-sheep12
30-03-2011, 11:58
So basically, now troops are incredibly important because 2 out of 3 normal games in the rulebook are about objectives, however Necron and Tau troops just aren't that great or something like that.

Dorn's Arrow
30-03-2011, 12:02
Old books are written under certain assumptions. How many points things cost (transports are a good example), how powerful an individual unit is, the ability to move around the board. In 4th ed, costs were generally higher (and transports were MUCH higher than they are now), and many armies consisted of foot troops since transports were a death trap. Those assumptions have changed now but the old books haven't.

Xandros
30-03-2011, 12:21
Warseers complaining about something does not a legitimate complaint make.

Born Again
30-03-2011, 12:23
Because you need to buy the newest army,RIGHT NOW.



Because the core rules they were written for demanded different things in each edition.

In 5th ed, you need aggressively moving troops units. Tau never really had those. In 3rd and 4th, all you needed was aggressively moving units of any kind, and suits fit the bill nicely.

There's a few other things, but that's the main reason Tau don't work as well and necrons have their own similar reasons.

The complete answer is actually a combination of these two, I think. It's true that changes to the core rules have an affect on armies written for the previous edition. However, while it may require a change in tactics, I don't believe it makes them unplayable. What causes problems is the "must have new things NOW" situation. Two old armies will be evenly matched, even under the more modern rule set. Tau vs. Necrons, everything is hunky dory. If you only play against Blood Angels all the time (until next week, when everyone will be playing Grey Knights), then you can encounter problems.

By the way, this ISN'T codex creep. It's just a natural side effect of shifting design philosophies. I've found that playing against a variety of opponents/ armies, using lists that aren't taken from an internet thread on the latest big tourney winners, all armies can still make a fairly good go of it, regardless of their release date.

Archibald_TK
30-03-2011, 12:38
Everyone keeps saying that the old codex's such as Necrons and Tau are pretty terrible at the moment. Not impossible to play with, but harder to use when it comes to playing against newer armies with newer codex's.

I'm just wondering why. It is it because they don't have a large enough range of units, they have rubbish weapons, they cost too many points for what you get out of most of their units. Something like that.

Specifically with Necrons as I collect them. Thanks
Old Codex follow a different design philosophy:

- Tau troops lack any kind of versatility, namely in tank busting ability. That was not a problem before but became one when 5th Ed saw the rise of vehicles. Necron ones suffered from a major change of rules in 5th in term of firepower and WWB usefulness, making them totally subpar compared to their price tag. Current troops tend to be versatile either in their weapons or thanks to their transports.
- Pricing is higher, you tend to pay a lot for units that by 5th Edition standard would be far cheaper. It is even worse as time pass, for example Tau Crisis, due to the rise of SW and following armies face ridiculous amount of S8 ID shots, turning them into nothing more than very pricey Marines in term of survivability.
- The difference in term of vehicle pricing is huge, especially when it comes to transports. Eldar feel it, Tau even more.
- You tend to have "upgrades" that act more as an alternate way of doing something than an improved way, yet pay for it. Some have drawbacks but yet you pay for it like if they didn't. Sometime you pay an upgrade that only gives you the right to pay for another upgrade. Basically old Codexes tend to be full of point sinks.
- Internal balance in older Codexes tend to be very low. Not that it is not the case in some 5th Codexes but in no way can older ones come close to the current SM, SW, BA, GK or DE when it comes to that.
- Very few flexibility when it comes to list building. The only really old Codex that has some FoC alteration is the Eldar one with Wraithguards if I remember correctly. Other ones tend to gravitate around the same builds, which usually don't revolve around "overpowered" units but more around units that "try be decent".
- Some theme are done better by more recent Codexes. For example Tau are partially mobile shooty, but in reality lack range in the majority of their units (80% of the army won't go beyond 36", even with suits JSJ move that can lead to nasty dangerous terrain tests you won't go beyond 42), but IG totally outshoot them while doing more in other fields and lacking some of the Tau weaknesses. SW Razorback/Missile spam outshoot them due to huge amount of longer range ID shots.
- Widely available AT in 5th due to huge amount of vehicle, not so much in older Codexes. When you see 11x AV12 vehicles in an IG army at 1500 it must not be funny to play Eldar or Necron.

I'm sure people can add more than that.

Asuron
30-03-2011, 12:47
I don't really understand that honestly.
Does anyone know why they made troops the only scoring units?
I don't really see the point of it honestly

Archangel_Ruined
30-03-2011, 12:50
Erm, the Black Templar codex is old and allows some dirty, dirty armies. Bad Templars, dirty Templars... Sometimes the older codices are nasty pieces of work as the game changes made them better than the rules they were written for. Then there are the necrons. Point is: it works both ways.

Dorn's Arrow
30-03-2011, 12:53
To make them more valuable. The previous design philosophy was that Troops should be basically worthless and mandated for use by the 1 HQ, 2 Troops minimum. That resulted in people taking stuff like 2x 5 Scouts and filling the army with elite stuff. In 5th ed GW rectified this by making Troops a requirement to win 2 of 3 mission types, which means that having tiny, vulnerable units of them doesn't really cut it. At the same time Troops also became a lot better for many armies - Ork Boyz, Grey Hunters, Vets and Guardsmen are all very strong choices in their respective books.

shadowhawk2008
30-03-2011, 12:53
I don't really understand that honestly.
Does anyone know why they made troops the only scoring units?
I don't really see the point of it honestly

Because of the new objective based scenarios? Because they wanted to go in that direction? Because they wanted people to focus more on troops for their lists? Because they wanted people to really pick their elites/heavies for reasons other than sitting them on objectives? IDK.

But its a change I like.

Zweischneid
30-03-2011, 12:56
I don't really understand that honestly.
Does anyone know why they made troops the only scoring units?
I don't really see the point of it honestly

Because it brings an added element of trade-off a player needs to consider. Max-out on hard-hitting Elite-stuff that can wipe your opponent from the table (but make yourself vulnerable by lacking, originally less powerful, scoring units) or vice versa.

In a sense, the "limit" of "only troops can score" allows you to include more outrageous, powerful or silly stuff as non-troops, as they can be potentially sidelined in a game for objectives, rather than forcing your opponent to outright kill them.

Recent trends however seem to be turning back to allow more stuff to be scoring (or, alternatively, make troops tougher/more fighty).

Asuron
30-03-2011, 13:07
To make them more valuable. The previous design philosophy was that Troops should be basically worthless and mandated for use by the 1 HQ, 2 Troops minimum. That resulted in people taking stuff like 2x 5 Scouts and filling the army with elite stuff. In 5th ed GW rectified this by making Troops a requirement to win 2 of 3 mission types, which means that having tiny, vulnerable units of them doesn't really cut it. At the same time Troops also became a lot better for many armies - Ork Boyz, Grey Hunters, Vets and Guardsmen are all very strong choices in their respective books.

My thanks for that=), same applys to the posters below
I hadn't fully understood why, but that clears things up nicely

Soupcat
30-03-2011, 13:39
At least necrons are doing poorly for 2 major reasons at least in my mind:
1) The dex was designed around when a glance could destroy a a tank, with that warriors with the gauss rule were excellent anti tank and thus the rest of the codex really only had heavy destroyers as anti-tank. With the relase of 5th and the current tanks.. everywhere! meta necrons suffer greatly
2) Combat resolution has become much more decisive ending in a single round in most cases with the winner being run down. The necron warrior pays out the nose for WBB and the change to resolution squads as weak as tac marines can run down warriors easily enough preventing the use of WBB.
These are the reasons I see for the most part that necrons are so weak, the joys of having a 3rd ed dex D:

cobra0
30-03-2011, 14:02
From what I read (I only play 40K since 5th Edition) Necrons used to be overpowered in 3rd or 4th Edition and got a much needed nerf to re- stabilise the game.

Is it generally like this: New Codex -> more power, new rulebook -> less power (but same point costs) to armies with last edition codicies? In other words, is there a constant struggle to rebalance the game?

In my opinion the game balance should be maintained by adjusting the point costs. New codicies/rulebooks should concentrate on introducing different styles of play and army (e.g. 5th edition sold more vehicles).

What if the point costs of units/models were adjusted more often (for example every month in White Dwarf) according to gamers experience? For example, the more complaints about a unit being overpowered, the higher its point cost rises to compensate.
(Obviously that could be abused, but why would you?)

IcedCrow
30-03-2011, 14:07
The necrons were no more overpowered than today's IG, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, etc... are.

Everything cycles. I never saw the big deal with necrons in 3rd or 4th edition. They were no more annoying than several armies today are.

gitburna
30-03-2011, 14:24
The old Dark Eldar codex was a good example of a codex which simply got left behind by the game. Around half the codex was unusable except for warriors and skimmers, but they were incredibly powerful builds when used correctly. Essentially a succession of rules (3rd/trial assault rules/ trial vehicle rules/4th ed/5th ed) and codex changes for the enemy eroded their special abilities compared to other armies.

However, eventually everything came full cycle when 5th edition came out, it was one of the few armies left in the game which still had access to cheap and plentiful heavy weapons , and one of the few armies still able to assault out of its transport vehicle. The replacement codex has certainly introduced a wider variety of builds, (see hellions and reaver jetbikes for a start) and vastly superior miniatures, but i do miss the days of the 100 points 2 dark lance squad and the squads on foot with 2 blasters and 2 splintercannons :)

The Marshel
30-03-2011, 14:24
2 things
1: 5th ed with a 4th ed codex. having a dex designed with the current rules in mind is a notable advantage to having a dex with rules in mind that have changed or dont exist anymore. tau for example, iirc, have a lot of wargear for ignoring target priority. how many points do you think thats worth now? then you have wargear that lets you pick a different target to your unit so long as you pass your target priority heck. again, thats not gonna be worth the same amount of points now. this is as true for insignificant wargear as it is entire units. its not always crippling, but it certainly helps to be a current dex.

2: change in design philosophy. I'm specifically using this term over codex creep as it encompasses codex creep as well as any other ways in which codex writing changes.

codexes are getting bigger. each army seems to be having more list made viable.there is an undeniable, though not always consistent, power creep. occasionally gw also decides they want to try new things. flyers seem to be entering 40k now. they are getting more numerous amongst new dexs and through they're very good mobility and often decent armament, they are changing the way some armies can play. this is just a simple example of an option gw has provided new codexs, that older ones are gonna have to wait for. tau will probably get a barracuda in their next codex, but until then they're just gonna have to deal with stromravens and valks without their own air support.

the game is constantly evolving, but each dex is only getting updated like once every 4-5 years if your lucky or you play space marines.

Worsle
30-03-2011, 15:14
Most people are correct in that the change from the 4th to the 5th hurt some books quite badly. However not all old books are terrible but the nature of the internet is to look the new, the shiny and the simple to understand. That and people like to use the term codex creep even when it is not happening or even worse they can't even define it properly.

Tau can do very well in the 5th edition but you have to build to a certain set up and you can't afford to make mistakes like you can with other armies. People like to talk about eldar being anl army requiring they are not really though, the tau are and that is why the tau get talked to so much. Necrons on the other had suffer from a lack of options and a lack of anti tank under the new rules. They are not unplayable or as horrible as made out but you are lacking in a lot of areas.

Easy E
30-03-2011, 15:35
The increasingly cheaper cost of things (in order to boost model sales in a ham-fisted way) has not done old books any favors

IcedCrow
30-03-2011, 15:35
In other words: Some army are "easy mode" and some armies are "hard mode" =)

CarlostheCraven
30-03-2011, 15:59
Hi

Alot of good points have been raised. I do think that the evolution of the game, what some might call codex creep is a factor.

Examples:
An 18 point Necron Warrior has powered armour and a gauss flayer (a bolter with autoglance/wound on a 6) in 2001 and is still the same today in 2011.

A 15 point marine circa 2001 had powered armour, a bolter and ATSKNF. Frag grenades were 1 point, krak an additional 2 points. A rhino was 50 points base

A 16 point marine in 2011 has powered armour, a bolter and ATSKNF... and a bolt pistol and frag grenades and krak grenades... and combat squads... and combat tactics.... A rhino is 35 points base.

An Ork Boy in 2001 was 8 points with a shoota (an AP6 bolter at that time), a Slugga Boy was 9 points and had a choppa (reduced armour saves to no better than 4+), and units had mob size (a morale re-roll based on squad size) and mob up (fleeing orks can join other units)

An Ork Boy in 2011 is 6 points regardless of weapon combo. The shoota is now 18" Assault 2. All Orks have furious charge and are fearless while numbering 11 models or more. They have a cheap ld re-roll option and can use their mob size to test if it would give a better chance of success. Sadly, the choppa is just a hand weapon.

As you can see, the evolution of the game is a huge factor.

Cheers,
Nate

jsullivanlaw
30-03-2011, 20:49
At least necrons are doing poorly for 2 major reasons at least in my mind:
1) The dex was designed around when a glance could destroy a a tank, with that warriors with the gauss rule were excellent anti tank and thus the rest of the codex really only had heavy destroyers as anti-tank. With the relase of 5th and the current tanks.. everywhere! meta necrons suffer greatly
2) Combat resolution has become much more decisive ending in a single round in most cases with the winner being run down. The necron warrior pays out the nose for WBB and the change to resolution squads as weak as tac marines can run down warriors easily enough preventing the use of WBB.
These are the reasons I see for the most part that necrons are so weak, the joys of having a 3rd ed dex D:

This is completely true. And this is also the most disturbing thing I have seen concerning GW. Necrons are pretty much unplayable as an army. Some people can win with them but they need to play very very well and have an absolutely efficient list to do so.

The disturbing part is that GW just doesn't care about their players. When 5th came out it wrecked necrons for the above reasons. GW could have made a simple errata that would allow necrons a chance, but they didn't bother to as a couple sentences is far too hard for them to write, or else they want people to be in a frenzy when they release the new necron dex in a couple years.

The fix:

1. Make gausse weapons only -1 on a glance.
2. Make necrons fearless.
3. Get rid of phase out.

Simply due this and the army works. Otherwise, it's total crap.

razormasticator
30-03-2011, 20:51
Because you need to buy the newest army,RIGHT NOW.

:shifty:

This is why I stick to 2nd edition :eyebrows:

Yeah, because armies and rules werent broken in 2nd edition right?

:wtf:

I played second edition, and Eldar and Nids were broken as hell.

RandomThoughts
30-03-2011, 20:53
:eek:

Wow, this really makes me appreciate what Privateer Press did.

When they decided that First Edition didn't cut it anymore, they asked their fanbase for feedback of any kind, including pricing, balancing, whatever.

Using that information they made Warmachine 2nd Edition. In one year. The following year they updated Hordes to second edition. Altogether that's core rulebook and 10 army books for all armies they have in 2 to 3 years.

I wonder how a small company can do that, yet GW can't... :confused:

razormasticator
30-03-2011, 20:54
This is completely true. And this is also the most disturbing thing I have seen concerning GW. Necrons are pretty much unplayable as an army. Some people can win with them but they need to play very very well and have an absolutely efficient list to do so.

The disturbing part is that GW just doesn't care about their players. When 5th came out it wrecked necrons for the above reasons. GW could have made a simple errata that would allow necrons a chance, but they didn't bother to as a couple sentences is far too hard for them to write, or else they want people to be in a frenzy when they release the new necron dex in a couple years.

The fix:

1. Make gausse weapons only -1 on a glance.
2. Make necrons fearless.
3. Get rid of phase out.

Simply due this and the army works. Otherwise, it's total crap.

They have never really cared, does the word squats mean anything to you? It did to a buddy, who still has an army dating from 2nd ed days.

I remember buying the vehicles rules book like 2 months before 3rd edition came out and made them obsolete. This is standard practice and its never changed. We all know it. I still play the game and enjoy it. Adapt or be destroyed I always say.

Eldar, Tau and Crons will come around as will sisters.

GrogDaTyrant
30-03-2011, 21:18
An Ork Boy in 2001 was 8 points with a shoota (an AP6 bolter at that time), a Slugga Boy was 9 points and had a choppa (reduced armour saves to no better than 4+), and units had mob size (a morale re-roll based on squad size) and mob up (fleeing orks can join other units)

An Ork Boy in 2011 is 6 points regardless of weapon combo. The shoota is now 18" Assault 2. All Orks have furious charge and are fearless while numbering 11 models or more. They have a cheap ld re-roll option and can use their mob size to test if it would give a better chance of success. Sadly, the choppa is just a hand weapon.


True... for the most part. Some notable additions to that, though:
-Burnas were removed from Boy units. Stikkbombs were added, but Krak was removed (and Frag is now useless).
-Ork boys used to charge at Initiative 4 (Ix2) provided they passed a Mob-Check. Orks now swing last almost always, as I 3 only matters against Necrons, Tau, and IG (all 3 are armies not noted for CC).
-During 3rd ed, Initiative wasn't used to 'catch fleeing units' or escape from combat. The onset of 4th started the 'catch/flee from combat' penalty to Orks.
-Fearless is a detriment in CC, with extra 'wounds' piled on for however much you loose combat by.
-Orks used to have a second roll after a failed Morale check that was 2d6 equal or under unit size. Now a Bosspole is required for reroll, by inflicting a wound.
-Nob leaders were Ld 8, due to Big Horn / Iron Gob upgrade.
-Units could regroup at any percentage by 'mobbing up' to other units behind them (merging them into one unit, with the original unit counting as destroyed). Orks now endlessly flee off the board.


With the penalties and Fearless issue when in combat, choppa/slugga Orks are most definitely worth only 6pts now. Shootas are still undercosted IMO, but only by a point.

dancingcricket
30-03-2011, 22:11
:eek:

Wow, this really makes me appreciate what Privateer Press did.

When they decided that First Edition didn't cut it anymore, they asked their fanbase for feedback of any kind, including pricing, balancing, whatever.

Using that information they made Warmachine 2nd Edition. In one year. The following year they updated Hordes to second edition. Altogether that's core rulebook and 10 army books for all armies they have in 2 to 3 years.

I wonder how a small company can do that, yet GW can't... :confused:

In part because they really only have one product line. And when they did the reboot, they changed the rules, but they didn't change the entire model line. GW tries to tie in new models and updated models in with the various armies, so there's going to be a bit of a larger delay as they redesign a portion of each armys' rules and models. And this is for 3 games that play differently (though I admit I haven't played their LotR, so I don't know how/if they do updates.)

Would it make sense to launch a forum, release a playtest rulebook, then a couple weeks later a playtest codex for each army to get as many people as possible to playtest and provide feedback, then release everything in a massive update? Yes. Is it likely to happen? Probably not. Maybe if they get a refresh of management (that would need to like the game and understand making the customers happy will promote sales more than most other things you can do) who are up on the web as something other than a new sales venue, then they might.

CarlostheCraven
30-03-2011, 22:18
Hi

@GrotDaTyrant
Good additions! I should note that I mentioned both mob size and mob up as old ork advantages. The others slipped my mind. Yes, the old choppa boy was better offensively during that first turn of combat.

I have been dealing with the initiatives diadvantages for so long - Orks, Crons and Tau being my three painted tournament armies - that I completely forgot about the old way of catching a fleeing foe!

However, the resilience of the boy has not changed - and if anything improved in 4+ cover hammer.

Cheers,
Nate

dustfp
30-03-2011, 23:00
Old Codex follow a different design philosophy:

- Tau troops lack any kind of versatility, namely in tank busting ability. That was not a problem before but became one when 5th Ed saw the rise of vehicles. Necron ones suffered from a major change of rules in 5th in term of firepower and WWB usefulness, making them totally subpar compared to their price tag. Current troops tend to be versatile either in their weapons or thanks to their transports.
- Pricing is higher, you tend to pay a lot for units that by 5th Edition standard would be far cheaper. It is even worse as time pass, for example Tau Crisis, due to the rise of SW and following armies face ridiculous amount of S8 ID shots, turning them into nothing more than very pricey Marines in term of survivability.
- The difference in term of vehicle pricing is huge, especially when it comes to transports. Eldar feel it, Tau even more.
- You tend to have "upgrades" that act more as an alternate way of doing something than an improved way, yet pay for it. Some have drawbacks but yet you pay for it like if they didn't. Sometime you pay an upgrade that only gives you the right to pay for another upgrade. Basically old Codexes tend to be full of point sinks.
- Internal balance in older Codexes tend to be very low. Not that it is not the case in some 5th Codexes but in no way can older ones come close to the current SM, SW, BA, GK or DE when it comes to that.
- Very few flexibility when it comes to list building. The only really old Codex that has some FoC alteration is the Eldar one with Wraithguards if I remember correctly. Other ones tend to gravitate around the same builds, which usually don't revolve around "overpowered" units but more around units that "try be decent".
- Some theme are done better by more recent Codexes. For example Tau are partially mobile shooty, but in reality lack range in the majority of their units (80% of the army won't go beyond 36", even with suits JSJ move that can lead to nasty dangerous terrain tests you won't go beyond 42), but IG totally outshoot them while doing more in other fields and lacking some of the Tau weaknesses. SW Razorback/Missile spam outshoot them due to huge amount of longer range ID shots.
- Widely available AT in 5th due to huge amount of vehicle, not so much in older Codexes. When you see 11x AV12 vehicles in an IG army at 1500 it must not be funny to play Eldar or Necron.

I'm sure people can add more than that.

Hey, a lot of that describes 5th ed Tyranids lol.
Crappy internal balance, low flexibility, AT limited to only a few units...

Ivellis
30-03-2011, 23:36
:eek:

Wow, this really makes me appreciate what Privateer Press did.

When they decided that First Edition didn't cut it anymore, they asked their fanbase for feedback of any kind, including pricing, balancing, whatever.

Using that information they made Warmachine 2nd Edition. In one year. The following year they updated Hordes to second edition. Altogether that's core rulebook and 10 army books for all armies they have in 2 to 3 years.

I wonder how a small company can do that, yet GW can't... :confused:

Actually, twelve books were released in a single year. (The two main rulebooks and ten faction books) The playtests were the year before. Plus a couple months before we had an entirely new faction added with their own book. So uhh... yeah, even more amazing than you thought.

(Plus from now on they seem to be releasing both WM and Hordes books in the same year, giving every single faction in the game new rules and models every year)

RobPro
31-03-2011, 03:42
Necrons are the only codex in the game with an auto-lose special rule.

ehlijen
31-03-2011, 04:29
Necrons are the only codex in the game with an auto-lose special rule.

They are also the only ones with an armywide bring-back-yer-dead special rule.

Spell_of_Destruction
31-03-2011, 04:41
It isn't rocket science. From 3rd ed to 4th ed some older books fared quite well, mainly because there wasn't much of a shift of power level between those editions. Changes to the core rules have the potential to both help and hinder books balanced for a different edition.

The reason that some of the older books are suffering so badly now is due to the 5th ed power creep which is undoubdtedly making older armies look plain worse in comparison to newer ones. GW seem quite happy to release new books that are obviously better than older ones with no consideration given to how they balance.


:eek:

Wow, this really makes me appreciate what Privateer Press did.

When they decided that First Edition didn't cut it anymore, they asked their fanbase for feedback of any kind, including pricing, balancing, whatever.

Using that information they made Warmachine 2nd Edition. In one year. The following year they updated Hordes to second edition. Altogether that's core rulebook and 10 army books for all armies they have in 2 to 3 years.

I wonder how a small company can do that, yet GW can't... :confused:

The truth is that the companies have completely different priorities and business models. I have no doubt that GW could produce a well balanced game if they wanted to (it's not exactly rocket science particularly given the resources they have at their disposal).

Privateer Press' philosophy can be summed up by the saying "By Gamers For Gamers". Most of their customers are discerning lifelong gamers.

GW are quite happy to take parents' money for the 2-3 years before their young adolscent 'grows out' of the hobby. They could release all the army books at once (it really shouldn't be that difficult to write a decent codex in a short space of time - take it from someone who knows what it is like to be asked to produce a complex legal agreement in less than a week) quite easily. Obviously model lines take much longer but it serves their business model to release a nice new shiny set of rules with every new line of shiny new models.

DuskRaider
31-03-2011, 05:36
Two words: codex creep.

Abaraxas
31-03-2011, 07:16
Yeah, because armies and rules werent broken in 2nd edition right?

:wtf:

I played second edition, and Eldar and Nids were broken as hell.

Youre more than likely right, theres always broken armies though isnt there?

I was more referring to the fact that for some reason you have to buy the rules and codex books again every few years...I resent that personally.
No 40k is perfect, and a lot of it depends on wether or not you or your opponent is a cheese monger or not I think.

'lectric-sheep12
31-03-2011, 08:24
Examples:
An 18 point Necron Warrior has powered armour and a gauss flayer (a bolter with autoglance/wound on a 6) in 2001 and is still the same today in 2011.

A 15 point marine circa 2001 had powered armour, a bolter and ATSKNF. Frag grenades were 1 point, krak an additional 2 points. A rhino was 50 points base

A 16 point marine in 2011 has powered armour, a bolter and ATSKNF... and a bolt pistol and frag grenades and krak grenades... and combat squads... and combat tactics.... A rhino is 35 points base.

An Ork Boy in 2001 was 8 points with a shoota (an AP6 bolter at that time), a Slugga Boy was 9 points and had a choppa (reduced armour saves to no better than 4+), and units had mob size (a morale re-roll based on squad size) and mob up (fleeing orks can join other units)

An Ork Boy in 2011 is 6 points regardless of weapon combo. The shoota is now 18" Assault 2. All Orks have furious charge and are fearless while numbering 11 models or more. They have a cheap ld re-roll option and can use their mob size to test if it would give a better chance of success. Sadly, the choppa is just a hand weapon.


I think that pretty much summed everything up.

Archangel_Ruined
31-03-2011, 23:59
Not really, somebody has already pointed out the downsides of modern orks, I'll do the same for marines: No more small, specialised (cheesy min-maxed, if you like) squads. No more free drop pods. No more terminator honour upgrades or access to nasty veteran skills. Less useful vehicles due to different assault rules and vehicle firing rules. If you think that the modern marine list is hands down better and cheaper than the older ones I'd advise you to look at the oldest remaining legal list, Black Templars. There are some unbelievably nasty things lurking in there, at very low points costs.

Not all codices are better because they're newer, they are just different and written with the current rules in mind. Most tyranid and chaos players would give a lung to get their old books back, largely because those books got out of sync with the game shifts at the time. People whine and whinge, I've played since RT and each edition has nasty lists and codices. That, however, is a topic for another thread on another night.

Ronin_eX
01-04-2011, 02:00
It's not so much that all old codices are underpowered (Black Templar are still pretty nasty and until their new codex Space Wolves were probably one of the better marine codices through the editions; of course they got better with the new dex but the old one was pretty good) but rather they are all made with disparate design choices that are simply not supported by the core rules as they currently stand (of course, even some of the new codices any more than 3-4 years of age tend to have this issue as well).

This is a big problem with the lengthy codex cycle GW has. Basically they never set out a set of design goals at the inception of a new edition and because of this every 3-5 codices they will change design philosophies in such a way that they think it will better suit the current edition. This can sometimes cause power creep but can also cause things like the "new balance" foisted upon Chaos and Dark Angels players later on in 4th Edition.

Basically the problem is one of consistency, that is, GW lacks it in rules development. Because GW can't decide how codices should be built and can't fit a full cycle into the 4-6 years of life each edition has the codices of a year ago will be fundamentally different than the new ones.

So older codices aren't necessarily underpowered but rather they are different in a number of ways that may change depending on the current edition. In the case of Tau and Necrons (who were far from balanced externally or internally even in their own edition) this has resulted in the gradual "improvements" to things like core troops that started in late 4th Edition leaving their core choices in the dust and not doing a great deal of good for their non-core troops either. With both this has led to an internal balance shift that gives you only one or two viable armies now. With the Tau the viable build isn't too bad, with the Necron the viable build relies on warriors and lots of them to stave of phase out and thus is a bad list all around because Necrons are no longer point efficient as a core choice (and if they ever were that would be surprising :p).

Until GW sits down and decides how a full cycle will actually work out in the long run this will continue happening and the pendulum of change will keep swinging back and forth. Eventually the mess they have been making in this edition will get too much and things will dip back toward 3rd Edition mentality (see DA and Chaos) with threadbare rules and simplification until they remember it doesn't sell and quickly start "improving" things by lumping on special rules and extras until it is too much again. All you can hope for is that your codex isn't in the design nadir where simplification reigns thus dooming your codex to be less competitive than anything that comes later.

Runesight
21-03-2017, 00:28
I remember the Dark Eldar just owning most of the local tournaments. Its hard to imagine the game changing so much in the last 15 years that they are considered a weaker army. I hope 8th edition is a reset like 3rd was for 2nd and the game gains a bit more parity.

theJ
22-03-2017, 09:51
I'd say you're not the only one hoping for that, Runie... but you should probably take a look at the dates before posting in a thread; this one's way past expiration date.

I don't personally mind, mind you - it's been... 'refreshing' taking a look at the issues of yesteryear :)

Dribble Joy
28-03-2017, 17:47
Almost replied to a post in this thread until I realised it was it was six years ago.