PDA

View Full Version : Not all Codexes are created equal



Vet.Sister
23-06-2006, 19:21
It was a really sad day when I finally realized this fact.

I post this due to the recent glut of "Why does everyone hate army X?" threads. When I started 40K, it was during the last half of Second Ed. I chose Battle Sisters (with Marine allies) because I liked the models and the background. Having never played before, I didn't realize that their rules (and by extension their codex) was not on par with other armies (like SM).:cries:

I had always wondered why this was until my recent conversations with Battle Sisters test player. GW designs armies around a concept first and playability second. This means that sometimes cool sounding units can have lame rules. So now since I know the GW design attitude, (ie take a unit because of its looks/background) I am disheartened with the game in general.

Where am I going with this? The folks who design armies for GW unintentionally put more effort and 'superseder' rules into the armies they are into than ones that they aren't into.

Main Entry: suˇperˇsede
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sEd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -sedˇed; -sedˇing
Etymology: Middle English superceden, from Middle French superseder to refrain from, from Latin supersedEre to be superior to, refrain from, from super- + sedEre to sit -- more at SIT
1 a : to cause to be set aside b : to force out of use as inferior
2 : to take the place, room, or position of
3 : to displace in favor of another : SUPPLANT
synonym see REPLACE


I am trying to look on the bright side of this and remember that someone at GW design studios actually cared enough to put Battle Sisters into a codex. Now, if they loved the army as much the SMs! What a codex I would have!!!

lord_blackfang
23-06-2006, 19:35
Cool, a Sisters whine. They're pretty rare these days.

Damien 1427
23-06-2006, 20:33
This means that sometimes cool sounding units can have lame rules. So now since I know the GW design attitude, (ie take a unit because of its looks/background) I am disheartened with the game in general.

So, instead of taking a unit because it looks cool, or fits a theme, you'd take it for rules alone? If that's the case I'd suggest Chess. Perfectly balanced, and designed to be competitive.

'sides, if you're whining about concept superceeding "leetness", don't roll Kroot Mercs. Or Lost and the Damned without Chaos allies.

Adept
23-06-2006, 20:58
So, instead of taking a unit because it looks cool, or fits a theme, you'd take it for rules alone?

I always wondered why some units that were intended to be cool, or core to the army, had comparitively weak rules.

A 'fluffy' army should, IMO, be the more powerful variant.

Vet.Sister
23-06-2006, 21:13
Cool, a Sisters whine. They're pretty rare these days.
*chuckle*:) (seriously, this was my first reaction to reading your post!)

This is not a Sisters Whine as you have misinterpreted my background that I gave. I think there are several codexes out that suffer from GW designers not being 'into' that particular army as other GW designers are 'into' their army.

Vet.Sister
23-06-2006, 21:18
So, instead of taking a unit because it looks cool, or fits a theme, you'd take it for rules alone? If that's the case I'd suggest Chess. Perfectly balanced, and designed to be competitive.

'sides, if you're whining about concept superceeding "leetness", don't roll Kroot Mercs. Or Lost and the Damned without Chaos allies.

NOPE! what I'm talking about here is that the core foundation of codexes are flawed in the fact that each army gets its own 'superseder' rules to make it characterful. However, the GW designers who are really 'into' their armies tends to put in better or more reliable S-Rules (into their army) than other armies which are popular and have a designer that's 'into' them, but not as much as other designers.

Make sense? I'm getting murky here.....

Lastie
23-06-2006, 22:14
I've long held a suspicion that some armies suffer the favoritism of the designers (Pete Haines and Iron Warriors are a particular grievance of mine, that I will mention to anyone foolish enough to ask). If true, you have to remember the designers are only Human, although that is a rather pitiful excuse when you consider the unbiased outlook they're supposed to have as professional games developers.

However, this is all if such accusations are correct, which cannot be totally verified anyway. So at the end of the day, all of this is opinion.

MarshallRenald
23-06-2006, 22:42
Our local gaming group have long held the suspicion of Chaos as the favored GW army, be it fantasy or 40K. But as with all armies I beleive that any army can beat any other army. Tactics, selection, use of terrain, and of course luck all play their part.

But for Sisters in general. I think that GW made great progress with the Witch Hunter codex and really made the SoB come back to life.

Khaine's Messenger
23-06-2006, 22:46
Make sense? I'm getting murky here.....

Ah. Well at least you didn't whip out the Pete "Perturabo" Haines joke. It's really not funny anymore. :)

That said, yes, it's pretty much on the record that various units are "cool, but worthless"--this has primarily to do with the fact that, in the end, they really are just cool and worthless (yes, they have those one a million shots where they're cool-beans, but who wants to spend the time lining up that one-a-million shot?). In a broadly thematic sense, yes, they're really cool. Heck, the Inquisition (DH/WH) armies are generally held to be some of the hardest and most challenging to play stand-alone for that very reason.

And yes, you're right. Not all codexes (codices, whatever) are created equal. But I don't really think it's consciously malicious (at least most of the time)--they really are working to what they believe the concept is. And there are a couple things about that...first, no matter how cool the concept, there will come a time when it utterly blows. Second, some of those concepts just flat-out don't work given certain assumption about how one wages war.*

For example, look at your average Fire Warrior Team. Each of them, individually, is a powerhouse by comparison to an Imperial Guardsman. A unit of them could smear a unit of Guard like nobody's business. In fact, the dice really are weighted in their favor. But, when the chips are down, I would personally find a Guardsman unit more threatening. Why? Because Imperial Guard loadouts and tactical doctrine allow every single unit in an army to be lethal to anything else on the board, period, simply because their range of weapon options is huge. The Fire Warriors do not have that luxury, depending instead on the support of friendly units. Look at the Skyray unit entry in the current 'dex--in order to fill in for line troopers' deficiencies regarding squad-level weapon access, they created a whole 'nother unit (several, in fact) instead of just giving line troopers more weapon options. The Imperium would just crank out a tube and a few rockets and hand it off to some whiteshield and wave good-day.

And to some Tau players, especially the ones who love their heavy support slots for their railguns oh so dearly, that was horrific. To some veterans of Marine and Guard armies who switch to Tau, the entire system can be an almost incomprehensible conceptual divergence, leading to game after game of being slaughtered wholesale.

And then let's take Sisters. Warrior Nuns. Paramilitary. They like flamers, bolters, and melta weapons, and sometimes they can perform quasi-magical "acts of faith." Well, that's cool and all, but...er...oops. Those are incredibly short-range weapons, and the acts...aheh. So that means you're going to have to either slog up or pile in via vehicle...while a great many of your foes are probably going to be las/plas marine/guard armies or starcannon Eldar armies...or.... It's a twillight world between Guard an Marines, with the stats of one and the save of the other...and about half the weapon options. And let us not start on the topic of attaching priests to Sister squads. Or the penitent engines. Or the arco-flagellants. Or the Sisters Repentia. And the Seraphim? Ehhhh....

I can see how it's enough to find maliciousness. But on a certain level I think it's not malicious so much as a conscious choice to differentiate the armies, making each as distinct as possible, and several of them suffer for that. In "real life," it's often argued that many militaries look similar (even if not 100% identical) because, in the long run, there are certain things that work and others that don't, and that things which do not work tend to die out. But in 40k, where everything is thematic and every army has its little fanbase dedicated to its philosophical underpinnings &etc., the devs create a neat delineation between things. And it goes beyond the tabletop. Just look at some of the background!

And then when you look at it, you really have to wonder what the line between "cool" and "useless" really is.

Of course, I'm sure all of that's just BS.

* Take Repentia for example....

Bregalad
23-06-2006, 23:42
@Vet.Sister. : If you chose your models for looks, you get good looking models.
If you chose your models for strategic value, then you get strategic valuable models.
If you are astonished that good looks do not equal good strategic value, then this is your fault (and I believe that today you would not make that mistake).

Sisters Repentia are a good example. They are cool models but quite useless in game. On the other hand, if you look at the Witchhunter Tactica, you will see, that Witchhunter armies are more than competitive with other armies if played well.

Not all Codices are equal, and not all players are equal. Space Marines may be a no brainer army (no pun intended ;) ), but Veterans can win with almost every Codex. Only obvious rules loopholes in certain well known armies create some artificial advantage for Iron Warriors, Ulthwe Seer Council of Doom or Blood Angels in tournaments, but then again, these armies are dull copies of each other and no fun.

susu.exp
23-06-2006, 23:57
So, instead of taking a unit because it looks cool, or fits a theme, you'd take it for rules alone? If that's the case I'd suggest Chess. Perfectly balanced, and designed to be competitive.

Chess, balanced? What planet do you live on? If both players are equaly good, white wins, because white goes first. That is an amazing advantage. It only appears to be balanced if both players aren´t very good and the white player can not make use of this advantage. Chess is not a truly balanced game. Bridge however is.

Smoking Frog
24-06-2006, 05:40
With the advent of 4th Edition, if you have a look at every codex that has come out for it so far, they are balanced more or less to each other, but comparing them to the 3rd Ed ones for the other armies, they more or less are somewhat overpowered. Then, each 3rd Ed codex has differing levels of power, with arguably Chaos and Eldar being at the top, filtering down to the Inquisition codices.

Essentially, as of late it seems the designers have been doing their utmost to prevent a codex creep, give an army many differing choices, and give it more power for a fair price.

Before 4th Ed Space Marines for example, the same list of SM's could be seen almost everwhere. Other options were just too weak, and it didn't need the internet to figure that out. With the coming of 4th Ed SM's, I've seen many varying shades of SM's, whch at least has made the fact that there are so many SM's around more bearable, as so far I have yet to encounter two SM armies with even a similar feel. Similarly, the other three codices have that feel about them, but I personally don't play them, rather play against them, and they feel more or less similarly powerful.

I suppose that's always a good thing. :)

Grand Master Raziel
24-06-2006, 06:02
I have to disagree with on one particular: the 4th ed Codices are not all equal. The current Codex Chaos Space Marines has to be included as one of the 4th ed. Codices, and none of the other new dexes that have come out have come anywhere near Chaos in terms of power and versatility. If you don't count Codex Chaos Space Marines, then I would agree with Smoking Frog: IG, SMs, Nids, and Tau all seem to stack up with each other pretty well. However, Chaos sits head and shoulders above the lot of them.

Heru Talon
24-06-2006, 06:32
I have to disagree with on one particular: the 4th ed Codices are not all equal. The current Codex Chaos Space Marines has to be included as one of the 4th ed. Codices, and none of the other new dexes that have come out have come anywhere near Chaos in terms of power and versatility. If you don't count Codex Chaos Space Marines, then I would agree with Smoking Frog: IG, SMs, Nids, and Tau all seem to stack up with each other pretty well. However, Chaos sits head and shoulders above the lot of them.


Codex Chaos and Codex Imperial Guard are not 4th Edition Codices as they were released before the 4th Edition 40k Rulebook was released (4th ed = released after the 4th ed Rulebook).

As it sits the list of 4th Ed books is (in order)

4th Edition Warhammer 40k Rulebook
Codex Space Marines
Codex Tyranids
Codex Black Templars
Codex Tau
Cities of Death Expansion (not a Codex)

Next =
Codex Eldar
Codex Dark Angels (rumour)



Now onto this issue I keep hearing about "4th Ed Codices being too overpowered, and should have been designed to fit with the 3rd ed ones".

Back during the transition between 2nd and 3rd edition all 2nd ed codices were made obsolete and the general rules for each army were put into the rulebook, it made a rather simple transition.

This time the rules haven't been as overhauled as the 2nd to 3rd edition transition and the 3rd ed Codices mesh alright with the 4th ed Rulebook (with the help of FAQs).


The only thing that can really be said is, just wait every army will get their own 4th Ed Codex soon enough and hopfully they will all be satisfactorily balanced. Now if the current lot of 4th Ed Codices are anything to go by, I'm sure they will all mesh well together.

thanoson
24-06-2006, 06:36
This is where I disagree. SM Do all look alike now; Assault cannons galore. How many can I pack onto the table is what I see from various armies. And if anyone is more versatile than chaos, it's the marines. Most vehicles in the game, 3 different choices of HQ with varible lvls, drop pods, trait system, etc.... True, a BLACK LEGION chaos army DOES have versatility, but everything had a weakness for it's strength. The other four chaos specific armies had high cost or were lacking long ranged weapons or something. As neat as a oblit is (poor man's chaos choice) he is still 80 points. That can be doubled out. Honestly, name a codex and then name another codex that can't beat it. I'll show you how they can beat it.

Heru Talon
24-06-2006, 06:48
I pity the SM players you play against Thanoson. In my SM force I have two, one in my Terminator Command Squad (which also includes a Cyclone Missile Launcher) and one on my Dreadnought (it's the only item worth putting on a CC variant Dread - Lascannons are for tank hunters).


Anyways according to most of the Eldar rumors, SM's aren't the only ones getting ranged rending...

Smoking Frog
24-06-2006, 07:04
The Assault Cannon army of doom I've seen three times on three different people.

Shoot the land speeders.

Dreads aren't rock hard.

Termies are too few to survive a good hail of fire. Starcannons are my friend, what's yours?

I hate the Ass Can army, the first time I came across this I was creamed simply because I underestimated the amount of fire 9 land speeders could do. One rematch later sent those speeders into the dust by turn two. Its not unbeatable, by a long shot (it's annoying though). Often, hiding and skulking around before unleashing crazy firepower is your friend here. I'm of the belief that if someone shows up to a tournie or casual game, no matter the circumstances, you make them pay for choosing anything unbalanced by hitting them where it hurts (ie: where they haven't covered themselves).

The Ass Can itself is just a weapon, it can't harm you if you don't let it, and usually is attached to a rather weak, slow or singular object. It's also a 24" weapon, heavy bolters outrange it, missile launchers outrange it. A decent Devastator Squad can get rid of Ass Cans before they can your ass. Even Nids I think have longer ranged weaponry.

But as is always the case, it is always, ALWAYS, easier said than done.

Grand Master Raziel
24-06-2006, 15:11
Codex Chaos and Codex Imperial Guard are not 4th Edition Codices as they were released before the 4th Edition 40k Rulebook was released (4th ed = released after the 4th ed Rulebook).


In the sense you mean, that's true. However, Codex IG and Codex CSM are both products of the currently-ongoing round of codex updating. As such, if you are comparing updated dexes to each other, you have to take them into account. The 3rd ed-4th ed distinction you're drawing creates an artificial line between those two books and the updated dexes that came out after the release of 4th ed. The term "4th ed dex" is handy, but should be stretched to include those two books.

As far as this little gem goes...


And if anyone is more versatile than chaos, it's the marines

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wait, he's serious! :eek:

Heru Talon
24-06-2006, 18:33
In the sense you mean, that's true. However, Codex IG and Codex CSM are both products of the currently-ongoing round of codex updating. As such, if you are comparing updated dexes to each other, you have to take them into account. The 3rd ed-4th ed distinction you're drawing creates an artificial line between those two books and the updated dexes that came out after the release of 4th ed. The term "4th ed dex" is handy, but should be stretched to include those two books.


Those books weren't made with the 4th Ed rules in mind (they still require an FAQ).

Going with your train of thought you could say both Codex WH and DH are both 4th Ed even though they aren't.

Codex Dark Eldar got an invisible update between it's original release and 4th ed would you count that too?



As it is Chaos and IG have 3rd ed v2 books designed to test ideas that were then toned down abit and used in the proper 4th ed books. CSM and IG weren't designed around the 4th ed rules and so don't count as 4th ed, especially since both those armies will get proper 4th ed Codices (would you call them 5th ed?)...

BrainFireBob
24-06-2006, 19:11
Actually, they WERE made with 4th Ed in mind. As I recall, Designer Notes were explicit on that. They were made for 3rd, since 4th wasn't nearly ready yet, but they were designed to try and mesh with upcoming 4th as much as possible. Those two codices are really 3.5 codices, made with the trial vehicle/assault rules in mind, as well as at least some of the changes made in 4th.

I agree, to exclude them from the 4th codices is wrong, because by the reasoning I'm seeing, that would place them in the 3rd Ed codices- also wrong.

They do need FAQs, because they were being designed "with 4th in mind", not 4th finished and polished. So there's glitches.

Regarding your last point: Are you unaware that the Chaos and Guard codices released at the end of 3rd were in fact the SECOND VERSION of these books released since the publication of 3rd?

And a further question: Are you unclear on the difference between clarification updates/expansions and new edition updates?

thanoson
24-06-2006, 19:27
Here's my take on a versatile sm codex. Ability to take a all 2+ army, the most vehicle choices in the game, dreads as elites as well as heavies, 5 different troop transports, Drop Pods, versatile HQ choices, trait system, a different codex for every style of play, troops that can hold up against any foe with their 3+ save. Yes, I know that chaos has a lot going for it as well, with the different demons, vet abilities and larger squads. Plus, the DP is also nothing to sneeze at. But, I believe the marines have now surpassed them with more variety and choices.

Also, I can deal with the ASS army of doom. I play my bugs vs them and the speeders are always top priority. 20 devourer shots at str 4 can normally do the trick. Or the v-cannons. Not so much a problem any more. Unless they deep strike or drop pod. They normally target my anti squads and then that's it. Even then, I'm on them the next turn.

Heru Talon
25-06-2006, 00:37
Regarding your last point: Are you unaware that the Chaos and Guard codices released at the end of 3rd were in fact the SECOND VERSION of these books released since the publication of 3rd?

If that is directed at me then :lol:


As it is Chaos and IG have 3rd ed v2 books designed to test ideas that were then toned down abit and used in the proper 4th ed book

Did I not say v2 aka Second Version ?


What I really question is why your post seems so hostile. I have one view you have another, fine.

To me CSM and IG won't be 4th ed until they have their new books which work 100% with the new rules rather than with 4th ed ideas that may or may not have made it into the new Rulebook.

Chem-Dog
25-06-2006, 05:25
The current Codex Chaos Space Marines has to be included as one of the 4th ed.

Appart from the fact it's quite blatantly a 3rd Edition codex you mean? ;)



Regarding your last point: Are you unaware that the Chaos and Guard codices released at the end of 3rd were in fact the SECOND VERSION of these books released since the publication of 3rd?

And wasn't the first installment of the Chaos codex Dire?

Grand Master Raziel
25-06-2006, 06:42
Those books weren't made with the 4th Ed rules in mind (they still require an FAQ).

As it is Chaos and IG have 3rd ed v2 books designed to test ideas that were then toned down abit and used in the proper 4th ed books. CSM and IG weren't designed around the 4th ed rules and so don't count as 4th ed, especially since both those armies will get proper 4th ed Codices (would you call them 5th ed?)...

All the dexes require FAQs, even the ones that were definately published after 4th ed came out. That has more to do with GW's bad editing than anything else. Codex IG and Codex CSM mesh pretty well with 4th ed, so I think that the developers at least had the major aspects of 4th in mind when they wrote those books.

Anyhow, if GW follows a rational progression of dex release, then IG and CSMs won't get new books until every existing race using older books gets their updated dexes. Of course, expecting a rational progression from GW might be a case of irrational naked optimism on my part.

BrainFireBob
25-06-2006, 18:40
@Heru Talon:

I apologize if you felt I was hostile. I was quite surprised that you seemed so combative that IG and CSM were so adamantly not 4th Ed codices, and went on to caustically remark that if any of the current 4th ones are reprinted, that would make them 5th Ed- quite a hostile tone. I was pressed for time, so I went straight to the point, trying to verify you were indeed aware, etc.

I'll further remark then that you have no reason to jump on GMR just because you don't feel IG and CSM are completely 4th by your criteria, when you are now indicating that you're willing to accept that they aren't completely 3rd, either.

Not trying to be hostile, again, pressed for time. Returning to the original question: I really think the idea being looked for is unconscious favoritism. Hard to escape from when your designers aren't just gamers, but gamers that grew up playing the games with their own opinions and biases and thoughts on how it "should" work- ie, the original conceptual generation of designers aren't involved anymore.

The_Outsider
25-06-2006, 19:11
All the 4th ed codices are equal, they focus less on "lets take all the shiny goodness" and more of "If I take all troops, there is little I cannot do".

IMO the chaos codex is possibly the most powerful in the game, they can spank SM at their own game.

Like all the players who whine about librarians being uber compared to the farseer, he is because he is newer, look at the 3rd ed librarian, he was a piece of crap.

the LST SM army is a pain in the ass, but its just that, its not fantastic, but it is damn good, anything with a 36" range will own it anyday of the week (hell, if anything the orks have the most right to complain).

IMO the weakest unit in the SM codex is the techmarine, is is kick ****, he is just more specialised than the typical marine, thus cookie cutter lists leave him at home.

Vet.Sister
26-06-2006, 16:26
Khaine's Messenger and BrainFireBob understood my rather inelegant post perfectly! I rather like BrainFireBob's term of 'Unconscious Favortism'.

While the WH Codex as a whole is AWESOME! I think it still needs a rewrite from a game-mechanic perspective. GW designers took the Ecclesiarch back ground and brought it to the table in the form of the Inquisition with whatever backup they could commandeer/request/brow beat/ etc/ etc......
so you can use the Inquisition with Marines/IG/Sisters.

But from a game-mechanic perspective, why would you want to take Marines???:confused: You can have all your Marine goodness with none of the restrictions by using straight Codex Marines!
As for IG, I can see the use of some IG units in a WH army. Sentinels, Leman Russ? Heck, even some guard with an Autocannon.
Sisters in WH. Well the the designer said that "if you want to play pure Sisters you can, they'll just face limitations." I naively expected the WH special units/rules to make up for those limitations, as far as I can tell they don't. (or at least not to my satisfaction, which is my personal opinion)

The release of V4 codexes seem to have 'balance' in mind. However, as I have been lurking in the new Eldar Army Rumor thread, I'd dare say that the Eldar rules are being rewritten with game-mechanics being more important than they were before. Fluff and concept are still KING when it comes to the rewrite, but game-mechanics seem to be getting a boost in importance. I think the next Battle Sisters release will be a more solid effort if this trend continues, but that's like 5-7 years?

moschino_man
26-06-2006, 23:01
There are two types of hobbyists, those who paint to game, and those who game to paint. I personally think more hobbyists SHOULD play with a unit because they think it looks cool or keeps a theme. Why does our automatic reaction have to be to create the hardest army from a codex. Pick well sculpted beautiful models people, good stats are a bonus. Lets game to paint.

Master Jeridian
26-06-2006, 23:40
There are two types of hobbyists, those who paint to game, and those who game to paint. I personally think more hobbyists SHOULD play with a unit because they think it looks cool or keeps a theme. Why does our automatic reaction have to be to create the hardest army from a codex. Pick well sculpted beautiful models people, good stats are a bonus. Lets game to paint.

Nobody likes to lose, no matter how mature/ crazy/ laid back. If you take every shiny toy and it's Calgar, your bound to lose every time.

It may not be ideal, but it's true.