PDA

View Full Version : Which codex has your favorite design philosophy (not a power level debate)



SgtTaters
05-06-2011, 09:06
Which codex has your favorite design philosophy? This isn't a matter of "which codex is strongest" but "which codex has options you find most agreeable"



It's perfectly possible to like the design philosophy behind a list, but feel it has weak options. Or perhaps you have a strong army with your codex but lament a lack of diversity. This thread is to discuss such issues


Add-ons to existing codex (3e witch & daemon hunters)
Doctrines/Traits (4e IG/SM)
SC unlocking options (5e loyalists, GK, DE)
Diverse troop options (4e CWE, 5e IG)
FoC swapping (3e Chaos)
Buttload of upgrade options (4e Tyranids, 3e Chaos)
Streamlining (4e Orks, 4e Chaos)

Devonian Commando
05-06-2011, 09:13
Doctrines/Traits (4e IG/SM)
SC unlocking options (5e loyalists, GK, DE)
Diverse troop options (4e CWE, 5e IG)

These do it for me, I like to be able to build an army that just feels right for me, all these elements allow for uber-fluff to be the order of the day.

Edit: I reckon GK is a good one for force customisation.

Wishing
05-06-2011, 09:23
I voted 3e Chaos, and I think SCs unlocking options is the worst thing ever.

Castigator
05-06-2011, 09:40
5th Edition Space Marines (& Blood Angels, Grey Knights).

SC-unlocking FoC-swaps or rule-swaps is IMO the best of design philosophy yet. It allows a great variety of armies to be build without cluttering a list with gazillions of options at unit/character-level (of which, inevitably, only the best will be used anyways).

Second best was the streamlined approach (4e Orks, CSMs).

Bloodknight
05-06-2011, 09:43
SC unlocking options (5e loyalists, GK, DE)
Diverse troop options (4e CWE, 5e IG)

I'm against doctrines and traits because GW has so far failed to do it right and I don't trust them to ever do it right. People nearly never choose fluffy ones, but the ones that guve the most bang for the buck. They failed with SM by making the disadvantages irrelevant and they failed with IG by making practically everything that wasn't free worthless, and some of the free ones (drop troops, for example) too good.

I don't like FOC-swapping in general because most armies will have one FOC category that is plain better than others. Which IW player ever minded giving up his FA-Slots for an additional HS slot? FA was crap (still is in the current CSM-codex) while HS was not. I've never seen a Night Lords player use the extra FA, not worth it. Orks on the other hand got a great deal with Troops Nobz (I think that's where the streamlining sucked. You should be able to choose a clan Warboss and get boyz that differ from the standard ork boy template. I.e. choose a Goff Warboss, get Nobz in troops. Choose a Deathskull, get Lootaz or upgunned shoota boyz. Choose an Evil Sun, get bikes, etc. Choose a Snakebite, get cyboar-boyz (I'd like to see those back on the field of glory ^^).
The only FOC-swapping I endorse is "Cult" units going to Troops if the general has their mark or clan because else you couldn't build a cult army and many CSM players love their cults, and I guess Orks wouldn't mind either.

Project2501
05-06-2011, 09:46
Doctrines/Traits was a fantastic idea that should have been fleshed out, not scrapped all-together.

Forcing people to take/pay for pre-made (wargear/rules wise) special characters to 'unlock' the ability to create the army you want, in a hobby based on creating the army you want, how you want, is ass-backwards.

ihavetoomuchminis
05-06-2011, 10:03
I don't know where the Dark eldar codex fits.

Spell_of_Destruction
05-06-2011, 10:09
Doctrines/Traits was a fantastic idea that should have been fleshed out, not scrapped all-together.

Forcing people to take/pay for pre-made (wargear/rules wise) special characters to 'unlock' the ability to create the army you want, in a hobby based on creating the army you want, how you want, is ass-backwards.

I agree. One of the key elements of 40k has always been creating and customizing your own force commander. These are now invariably weaker than the SC options in many of the new codeces.

I like the way that SCs operate in games like Warmachine (having a massive impact on the way that your army functions) but in 40k more often than not they're taken simply because a) they're better than the vanilla equivalents and b) they allow you to optimize your list.

The only issue with traits was that too often they were a case of having your cake and eating it - the benefits provided came with insufficient drawbacks. The danger is that the FOC becomes almost meaningless. This wasn't just an issue with IG and SM. The Craftworld Eldar codex allowed you to more or less ignore the force restrictions imposed by the main codex.

Project2501
05-06-2011, 10:17
Also, to the OP, the poll is goin to be faulty/biased based on what editions people know of/played.

If someone just started 2 years ago, how the hell are they supposed to know what the other systems/options were and how they worked aside from hearsay?

Castigator
05-06-2011, 10:31
Also, to the OP, the poll is goin to be faulty/biased based on what editions people know of/played.

If someone just started 2 years ago, how the hell are they supposed to know what the other systems/options were and how they worked aside from hearsay?

Seems irrelevant as the poll tries to assess the popularity of each design philosophy among current players (which includes those not familiar with older system, as well as, one should add, those nostalgically biased towards those systems they started with in the days of yore and the game seemed more "fresh" simply because it was "new"... at least on these forums, the latter probably even outnumber the former).

It is not a poll to assess the "objective" quality of any design philosophy.

Project2501
05-06-2011, 10:38
Seems irrelevant as the poll tries to assess the popularity of each design philosophy among current players (which includes those not familiar with older system, as well as, one should add, those nostalgically biased towards those systems they started with in the days of yore and the game seemed more "fresh" simply because it was "new"... at least on these forums, the latter probably even outnumber the former).

It is not a poll to assess the "objective" quality of any design philosophy.


It's rather difficult to assess the 'subjective' quality of any design philosophy as well when one has no idea as to how it actually worked in game or even a full explanation/grasp of it to begin with...

Castigator
05-06-2011, 10:54
It's rather difficult to assess the 'subjective' quality of any design philosophy as well when one has no idea as to how it actually worked in game or even a full explanation/grasp of it to begin with...

It's not assessing "subjective" quality either. Its assessing popularity. If I only started with the lastest Grey Knight Codex, and I like it, than it's my favorite. Simple enough. I do not need to have "full explanation" of all there are. It's just popularity/popular disposition.

And, unlike your claim, this need not be biased towards the "newest" design-philosophy either. Arguably, the rose-coloured glasses of time gone by usually make older versions seem more attractive than the more immediate nit-picking with the current system. See how many Americans consider Abraham Lincoln the "best" President ever, though few could give a "full explanation" of his presidency; let alone of all the other presidents.

Project2501
05-06-2011, 10:59
It's not assessing "subjective" quality either. Its assessing popularity. If I only started with the lastest Grey Knight Codex, and I like it, than it's my favorite. Simple enough. I do not need to have "full explanation" of all there are. It's just popularity/popular disposition.

And, unlike your claim, this need not be biased towards the "newest" design-philosophy either. Arguably, the rose-coloured glasses of time gone by usually make older versions seem more attractive than the more immediate nit-picking with the current system. See how many Americans consider Abraham Lincoln the "best" President ever, though few could give a "full explanation" of his presidency; let alone of all the other presidents.


That makes absolutely no sense, the poll should therefore be; 'What edition did you start playing and play now?' as that would account for both your "Rose-coloured glasses of time gone by" as well as favorite system.



As the poll stands, someone that's never played or even heard of any other editions/systems in place in yesteryore (previous to 5th edition) should only have one option, which precludes a poll to begin with.

Xelkireth
05-06-2011, 11:09
Doctrines/Traits (4e IG/SM)
FoC swapping (3e Chaos)
Buttload of upgrade options (4e Tyranids, 3e Chaos)


I voted 3e Chaos, and I think SCs unlocking options is the worst thing ever.
I agree.


Doctrines/Traits was a fantastic idea that should have been fleshed out, not scrapped all-together.

Forcing people to take/pay for pre-made (wargear/rules wise) special characters to 'unlock' the ability to create the army you want, in a hobby based on creating the army you want, how you want, is ass-backwards.
Exactly. Like the Baron for the Dark Eldar. I like his +1 to go first. That's it. I hate Hellions. Yeah, their models look good until you get to their wretched dreadlocked heads. Their rules aren't terrible either, but why do I have to waste an HQ slot? Why wasn't he an upgrade character?

I miss my old Chaos codex. The updated one almost made me quit. I spent a metric crapton of money converting everything to sonic. Tanks. Bikers. Termies. Chosen. Anyone who could have a sonic blaster or doom siren got one. Then the new Codex rolls out and 80% of my army is worthless. Oh? What's that? I can use it in Apocalypse? Go frak yourself.

Castigator
05-06-2011, 11:12
That makes absolutely no sense, the poll should therefore be; 'What edition did you start playing and play now?' as that would account for both your "Rose-coloured glasses of time gone by" as well as favorite system.

As the poll stands, someone that's never played or even heard of any other editions/systems in place in yesteryore (previous to 5th edition) should only have one option, which precludes a poll to begin with.

Well, any opinion poll is going to have a heterogenous group of people answering. And their answer will be shaped in some way by different factors. A poll on "when did you start" is certainly a viable other variable that a full-fledged-study would have to account for. More are possible:
- How much time per week/month do you spend on 40K?
- What age are you?
- What sex are you?
- How many armies do you own?
- How many/which other games do you play?
- How important is the "tactical" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- How important is the "social" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- How important is the "hobby/painting" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- etc., etc., etc..

All these things will impinge on the preferences of "design philosophy"; some more, some less. But simply noting that structural factors are important and that the population you quiz is diverse, does not make an opinion poll to show "popularity as it is now" useless.

Project2501
05-06-2011, 11:45
Well, any opinion poll is going to have a heterogenous group of people answering. And their answer will be shaped in some way by different factors. A poll on "when did you start" is certainly a viable other variable that a full-fledged-study would have to account for. More are possible:
- How much time per week/month do you spend on 40K?
- What age are you?
- What sex are you?
- How many armies do you own?
- How many/which other games do you play?
- How important is the "tactical" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- How important is the "social" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- How important is the "hobby/painting" aspect of the 40K game to you?
- etc., etc., etc..

All these things will impinge on the preferences of "design philosophy"; some more, some less. But simply noting that structural factors are important and that the population you quiz is diverse, does not make an opinion poll to show "popularity as it is now" useless.


The population might not be diverse at all, and therefore homogeneous pollees will completely bias any poll's results, especially this one.

Mr. Ultra
05-06-2011, 11:51
I love the doctrines/traits system of the currenty SM and IG codexes. I'm hoping the next CSM codex will be in this direction.

Tay051173096
05-06-2011, 11:57
Doctrines/Traits (4e IG/SM)
FoC swapping (3e Chaos)
Buttload of upgrade options (4e Tyranids, 3e Chaos)

As a Thousand son player I agree with Xelkireth, same with IG lists now, Salvar Chem guard are now the same as Cadians :eyebrows: really?

Radium
05-06-2011, 12:13
Buttload of upgrade options (4e Tyranids, 3e Chaos)
Diverse troop options (4e CWE, 5e IG)

I like having lots of options, and the ability to build unique lists and characters with, uh, lots of 'character'. I hate having to waste and SC to get the options I want, though.

Woodsman
05-06-2011, 13:17
I really like the Eldar design you can build any of the themed armies listed pretty easily. No need to buy SC's to do what you want either.

I like the idea of traits but haven't really seen them work yet.

With that said the DE 'dex is possibly the best thing GW have put out in a good number of years.

1201307
05-06-2011, 14:50
I actually like how the Chaos Daemons Codex was done. Simple and to the point yet allows a lot of variety and customizing, and unlike the Chaos marines codex, it does a decent job of making mono god armies.

Also you are not force to take a SC if you want a particular build.

Easy E
05-06-2011, 16:49
I also love the Eldar design, if we want a competitive game system; this would be the method to take.

However, since I don't want a competitive game and instead want to tell stories on the battlefield, I prefer traits/doctrines. This is impossible to balance, so it would never satisfy a vocal group of players.

Dryaktylus
05-06-2011, 17:37
Well, I liked the idea of the Witch and Daemon Hunter codices. Diverse troop choices, too. And some of the IG doctrines.

I want many possibilities to build themed armies, unique, sometimes weird and always full of character. I'd have no problems with generic characters unlocking options, but though I like SC's I don't want THEM to do this (or better: not they alone. For example Haemonculi unlock Wracks as Troop choices - Urien Rakarth too, as he's also a Haemonculus. Suits me fine, I may take him for a coven but that's not compulsory).

Isfimbur
05-06-2011, 18:45
The 4e Orks is the best and the 4e Chaos is one of the worst coedex ever. So putting those two in the same category is strange in my opinion. Compared to the 3rd edition Ork codex the 4th doesn't seem streamlined. I think it belongs more with the SC unlocking options (5e loyalists, GK, DE) option.

althathir
05-06-2011, 19:21
I really like the eldar codex it allows for a lot of diverse troop choices by imposing size restrictions on some options, and you don't have to take a special character to do so.

Vipoid
05-06-2011, 20:59
Buttload of upgrade options (4e Tyranids, 3e Chaos)
Diverse troop options (4e CWE, 5e IG)

I like being able to give my favourite units (usually HQs) lots of options to make them CC monsters. I enjoyed doing this with a 4th edition Hive Tyrant, and I know one of my friends did something similar with the old Daemon Prince. It's nice to be able to choose between large numbers of relatively basic troops, or smaller numbers of upgraded, elite troops (and quite possibly some combination of the two).

Whilst I like a few of the options in the new 'nid codex, I was disappointed in the overall lack of customisation available (and the fact that most of the new upgrades aren't worth it anyway).

Glyn
06-06-2011, 02:05
I liked the last Guard Codex myself for various reasons and not just the doctrine system....i've a few issues with the new codex and that mainly it steps away from the true core of the Imperial Guard which is it's infantry and takes a massive leap towards the support element which is it's tanks by bringing in the squadrons rules and the like....so it's changing the character of the army, just my opinion

Doppleskanger
06-06-2011, 02:14
Personally I loved the 4th ed Sm codex. So flexible, so customiseable. Sure the problem lay in the negative traits were sometimes two easy but boy there were effective fluffy lists in their the internet massive never even found! That's what I want in a codex. To feel empowered. To feel like it is an army I designed. The SC route is ok but it always feels like you're following an army that was pre-planned by the codex designer, not one that you had worked out for yourself. 3rd ed CSM had it but it was too much, too hard for an opponent to understand. 4th ed SM was just a really great piece of work.
The ork codex is also a very nice piece of kit, with one or two minor but very important flaws.

oldgamer56
06-06-2011, 02:59
I also liked the 4th SM Codex. Would have been happy if they had just adjusted the point costs and refined the trait system.

Current SM Codex yields a couple of good builds, but sucked all the individuality out of DIY chapters. Ultramarines 2nd company, Kantor or Vulcan is all I ever see. :(

So currently using Space Wolves because it is the closest to how I want to play. Funny how the Fanatical Close Combat guys are the best shooting army. :shifty:

Freman Bloodglaive
06-06-2011, 04:16
Space Wolves aren't close combat guys. You're thinking Blood Angels or Black Templars.

Space Wolves are close quarters guys. We get in close, and then shoot you. Unlike Tactical Squads our Grey Hunters are built for that sort of combat because they don't fold under the inevitable counter-attack.

Fire-fight, not melee.

Fist full of Pills
06-06-2011, 04:23
Basicly anything and everything the old CSM codex had! And Doctrines/Traits.

Gerrok
06-06-2011, 04:56
Honestly I like the way the current IG/Eldar books work. I don't have to take a special character to get the list I want.

Maybe I'm just jaded because I lived through the Iron Warriors chaos, Ranger disruption eldar, Space Marine "I get bonuses and no weakness" phases. Every army I would play against for months would have the same setup, with a variation or two at most. Bleh to that.

SgtTaters
06-06-2011, 05:20
The 4e Orks is the best and the 4e Chaos is one of the worst coedex ever. So putting those two in the same category is strange in my opinion.

I put them together because they both cut options from the previous codex


Compared to the 3rd edition Ork codex the 4th doesn't seem streamlined.
Warboss lost numerous options.
nobs lost numerous options
Looted vehicles no longer stolen from IG
lootas used to steal imperial weapons
skarboyz gone

the 4e codex rolled up skarboyz with nobs, cut down on boss options, and turned lootas/looted vehicles to stardardized weapons.

it's an excellent example of "same philosophy, different results"
the 4e ork codex is retarded by most as good, the streamlining was alright.
the 4e chaos codex is reviled.

ehlijen
06-06-2011, 12:20
the 4e ork codex is retarded by most as good, the streamlining was alright.


Most people delayed the ork codex as good? Or does 'retarding' have some other meaning I am not aware of?

I liked the style of the Eldar, DA, Orks and CSM codices of simplifying all the choices one could make in army selection. Especially the removal of the armoury, which had became nothing but a minor page flip hassle in late 4th ed at best, at worst it led to sillyness like terminator biker seargents...

Lot's of options and FO chart shuffling are not needed to make characterful armies. Few but balanced options offer a great deal more in that regard.

If weapon A and B are different but balanced, each with it's one up and downsides, choosing between them is a statement of character or even army character.
If weapons A, B, C, D and E are all different but one is just plain better in the MEQ metagame, the picking that one makes no statement of character and any other choice is simply hampering yourself.

Or so I say at least.

Wishing
06-06-2011, 12:54
Most people delayed the ork codex as good? Or does 'retarding' have some other meaning I am not aware of?


I think he meant "regarded", not retarded. And it's true that the Ork codex seems to be an example of streamlining done well, where the Chaos codex is an example of streamlining done badly.

Vipoid
06-06-2011, 13:11
Trouble is, whilst I agree that it's a good thing to refine and streamline rules, I think a lot of companies (like GW and WotC) end up going too far and needlessly remove lots of options in an atempt to make things as simple as possible. I understand that this may be helpful to new players, but I'm sure that many of those players, having learnt how to play, would like to then be able to customise their army. I feel that many of the newer codecies are lacking in this regard.

boogaloo
06-06-2011, 13:23
I entered the thread eager to vote Eldar: Pricey but specialised options, with a great ARMY flexability, but next to no unit versatility. Then I realised that the thread was about the whole game and not about a single army.

So I had to vote Traits. I honestly think that the traits were bloody awesome. I didn't even play space marines, and I found myself arm chair generaling, and list writing because of the flexability that it offered. They really hit the nail on the head with that one. Really it could have been stream lined a little bit more but it's far superior to build strengths and weaknesses in to the traits, than it is to build a strength in to a STC (Standard Template Character <--- heh heh like what I did with that? ;)) and pay a points premium which doesn't work in small games, and is easily compensated for in large games; or to dumb the rules down so much that a mentaly retarded chimpanzee could build an autowin list.

Vipoid
06-06-2011, 15:37
It probably doesn't count as a design philosophy as such, but could I vote for a codex that used the old layout? I find the new format exceptionally irritating.

Egaeus
06-06-2011, 21:47
I'm against doctrines and traits because GW has so far failed to do it right and I don't trust them to ever do it right. People nearly never choose fluffy ones, but the ones that guve the most bang for the buck. They failed with SM by making the disadvantages irrelevant and they failed with IG by making practically everything that wasn't free worthless, and some of the free ones (drop troops, for example) too good.

I have always argued that the disadvantages for the Trait system were irrelevant, that they were there to give the illusion that you gave something up if you weren't playing "vanilla" Marines. Most of the traits were simple swaps or had a cost associated with them. I don't really recall any of them giving a significant bonus "for free".

ColShaw
06-06-2011, 22:01
I always liked the IG Doctrine system. Great for personalizing an army. It gets my vote.

big squig
06-06-2011, 22:38
The ork and eldar codex's are the best codex's GW has ever written. You can make every single clan or craftworld with zero rules. Not one.

Chaos and Daemons would be on that list too if they were one book instead of two and if the list was flexible enough to allow legions without special characters or traits.

Vipoid
06-06-2011, 23:45
The ork and eldar codex's are the best codex's GW has ever written. You can make every single clan or craftworld with zero rules. Not one.

I agree. The eldar codex is very well designed - There aren't so many options as to make it befuddling to newer players, but still enough that armies can easily be personalised or tailored to a particular strategy. Also, unlike some codecies I could name, it has virtually no 'useless' upgrades (Unlike the new nid codex, which appears to be for people who enjoy spending points to make their units worse).

I'm also a big fan of the Phoenix Lords, both fluffwise and rulewise. They work well as being hero-squad leaders, however, since their powers are available to normal leaders of their aspects, you don't feel like they have to be purchased. FOr example, although Asurmen is probably a good choice for a Dire Avengers army, both bladestorm and defend are available to normal Dire Avenger Exarchs, so it's not necessary to purchase him just to 'get the most' out of your squads.

Apathyman
06-06-2011, 23:51
Out of the codex books I have the most experience with, I'd have to say BA, DE, GK, Tyranids, IG, and SM (all 5th). Tau and SW to a lesser extent (4th)

They all have multiple builds, no dead FOC slots, few truely "dead" choices (I'm looking at you, pyrovore), and units which, while flexible, require the players to focus a unit on one or two core roles(less so for all the SM books, but they're the "flexible" race).

Tau lack the multiple builds and have more dead choices (partially because they are a 4th ed book), but they still succeed in modularity and giving options across FOC categories.

SW aren't quite there because they really only have one troop choice of note (I'm not a fan of blood claws in the context of the codex) and their fast attack choices are limited.

It makes me happy that GW is getting better at making (at least internally) balance codex books as they go in 5th, giving players more choices in army construction.

harlekin
07-06-2011, 00:03
Doctrine system, and UPGRADES

Because I'm not so long to the hobby like many of you, I have a quite limited ankle.
Especially the traits (wasn't too interested in Guard in this time) were a great way to characterize the army. I'm not very keen with teh SC-unlocking method, mostly because I don't like to play SC, although many of them have for example the current nidz have cool ( I didn't say efficient gamingwise :P) mechanics.

So to come to the Upgrades: My first codex was the idz' 4th edition.... what else to say?
They where the to becustomized army, from all that I knew to this time. Note just the possibility to kit out a fex to over 280 points was just great imo!

I'm aware of balancing issues in both systems how some of you pointed out and "begged for abuse" in certain ways. But that's probably not only those two design philosophies' problem?

All Cing Eye
07-06-2011, 00:45
I voted SC unlocking options. But I would prefer this to be an option on your HQ choices, for X amount of pts you unlock option Y. That way you don't have to always field the same SC to lead your force.

self biased
07-06-2011, 01:00
I voted 3e Chaos, and I think SCs unlocking options is the worst thing ever.

I tip my top hat to you, sir.

More to the point I think that it would be way easier to balance and write lists around certain concepts rather than using Characters to unlock other troop choices. When 3rd edition came along, they upped the cost of heavy weapons in a space marine devastator squad because they realized that having more heavy weapons in one squad was worth more points, rather than paying a flat cost for a weapon no matter where it appeared.

What would be so wrong if an armylist if it had terminators in every FOC? Instead of having three different versions of a "ZOMFUG TERMEEEES!" army (DA, SW, GK), there could be one. I realize there are other minor differences between the respective chapter's philosophies, but the way an all terminator army must run to be effective is universal for such things

Charistoph
07-06-2011, 05:43
I voted SC unlocking options. But I would prefer this to be an option on your HQ choices, for X amount of pts you unlock option Y. That way you don't have to always field the same SC to lead your force.

Much like how a Space Marine Captain on a bike can make Bike Marines Troops?

I could easily get behind that concept. There is even fluff setups for Captains to do this, after all they have different titles, don't they?

Lord Inquisitor
07-06-2011, 06:21
I prefer the "minimalist" design ethos of the waning days of 4th ed. Eldar, Orks, Daemons and yes, even CSM. Not that they're perfect (named ability that gives USR instead of just giving the USR for example) and we all know CSM had it's flaws but these were really the best days of 40k in my opinion.

Asuron
07-06-2011, 07:58
I HATE the ability to have SC's who mess up the FOC the way they do
I don't like having SCs in my army, I like a personalized one, not one where if the SC appears in it, its out of place and jarring against the theme you've got going, but to make some units worthwhile you need to take them.

I'd much prefer it along the lines of the CSM codex, where they are good in and of themselves, but don't necessarily need to be taken to open yourselves to options like having Paladins as troops if you take Draigo

Vipoid
07-06-2011, 09:56
I HATE the ability to have SC's who mess up the FOC the way they do
I don't like having SCs in my army, I like a personalized one, not one where if the SC appears in it, its out of place and jarring against the theme you've got going, but to make some units worthwhile you need to take them.

I agree - whilst SCs can be fun, they really don't let you personalise your army. I think they should unlock any FoC changes that can't also be unlocked by a non-SC HQ.



Out of the codex books I have the most experience with, I'd have to say BA, DE, GK, Tyranids, IG, and SM (all 5th). Tau and SW to a lesser extent (4th)

They all have multiple builds, no dead FOC slots, few truely "dead" choices (I'm looking at you, pyrovore), and units which, while flexible, require the players to focus a unit on one or two core roles(less so for all the SM books, but they're the "flexible" race).

I have to disagree with regard to the nid codex - whilst I like a lot of the new units and such, I much prefered the philosophy of the old one - generally, things start cheap and basic, but can have a lot of upgrades to make them better.

In the new codex, many of the units appear to have had the stat-upgrades pre-added, yet their price has risen well beyond what those upgrades would have entailed in the old codex. To put it another way - in the old codex, you could generally see exactly what you were paying for, and tailor your models towards a particular end. In the new one, I find it very difficult to understand how they arrived at the point costs they did, especially when I try and compare the models to similar ones in other races. in fact, the carnifex seems to have doubled in price with almost no change in stats.

SgtTaters
07-06-2011, 12:29
The ork and eldar codex's are the best codex's GW has ever written. You can make every single clan or craftworld with zero rules. Not one.

Yeah, those are my two favorite too, and IG 5e sort of follow suit... sort of.
I do wish there was just a little more with the pointy ear dex's though.

Pathfinders sound more like they should be their own Elites choice than a strange buff to your troops choice. It'd be awesome to have nob-level versions of sneaky kommandos, just things like that.

But I think those suit the resources of the Craftworld Eldar and Ork warbands. Ultramarines won't have wolf scouts, Salamanders won't have berserkers because they are a much smaller force.

So the 'wide array of troops' for xenos
and 'doctrines/traits' for Imperium

dragonet111
07-06-2011, 12:40
The Eldar codex. I really like this one and I wish every codex were like this one.

the1stpip
07-06-2011, 16:50
Definitely traits, FOC swapping and diversity.

I loved the old Chaos Codex, even if it was open to abuse.