Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
This topic is not a complaint. It is simply an observation that we can debate on or just talk about. I requires no radical comments, just adult conversation.
I have had the fortune of playing Blood Angels and Space Wolves lately and had the opportunity to read their codices. After reading the Space Wolves, I wondered if some of the special abilities now go over the top a bit. But then it occurred to me that maybe over the top is a good direction to go for all codices; to bring a new fresh flavour to the game. I see some of the more of these new abilities are coming (in rumor) to the Grey Knights. So, the topic I have to talk about is: Are the new codices going in a fresh new direction or are they just going over the top with these new abilities? Think happy, positive thoughts.
I don't really think it's either - it's just a reflection of the 5th edition ruleset. Daemon deployment for example, that's pretty left field if you compare it to the other armies, nids have synapse and necrons with their WBB is also quite unique even though that's a 3rd edition codex! They're just giving each army it's own twist, some (like SM) that effectively make up what would once have been 4-5 different books have multiples but I think we'll see one or at most two unique game changing rules for each release from here on out. CSM, I hope, will go the same way as vanilla marines - a standard list, but with HQs that change the way the army works.
Actually, I like the direction that GW is going. All of the new codices are very flexible in terms of army design. Unlike the older codices in which there is 1, perhaps 2 competitive builds, the newer books have multiple builds that could be competitive as well as fun. It adds variety and replayability, as well as increase GW sales as people try out different army builds.
For instance, you look at BA and you can build all mech, all jump infantry/DoA lists, sanguinary guard lists, fast stormraven army or lots of dreads, all of which are viable lists. In tyranids, you have the standard foot nids, all-reserve nids, tough monstrous nids, swarmy nids and even shooty nids. Dark Eldar have tons of options still waiting to be explored. You don't necessarily have to play raider-spam, though many people still do. Guards have foot infantry, mechanized, all-reserves, air cavalry and a multitude of possibilities. Last but not least, you have space wolves, one of the most balanced codex around - foot wolves, mechanized, loganwing, drop pod wolves, thunderwolf cavalry, etc. If anything, space wolves are a little too balanced and lack the weakness that some of the other armies have inherently.
While some of the units may seem powerful, it is a necessary evil because:
1) Every codex needs a good unit. That's what makes for a competitive codex. That's also what attracts some people to the army. And every new codex has it - sanguinary priests, fast tanks, scoring jump marines, rune priests, thunderwolves, long fangs, hive guards, tervigons, trygons, wyches, beasts (forgot what they'll called), venoms, veterans, vendettas, manticores, etc.
2) They need the books to sell. The best way to do that is to give them a couple of uber units to attract people to the army (or those who are not as into the fluff).
Last edited by jy2; February 12th, 2011 at 03:01.
Record: Win - Loss - Draw: Hive Fleet Pandora (New) 32-6-6 Space Wolf 7th Co. 52-11-6
Blood Angels 12-4-2 Daemonhunters 20-8-3
Imperial Guards 12-5-2 Daemons 8-3-2
jy2 makes good points. Also, I've heard some rumors that GW is trying to bring all the older armies up to date, or at least the 3rd edition ones, before they consider a new edition. I think the major flaw behind the 40k ruleset is that the edition codexes were released much faster than the army codexes could keep pace. If GW tries to bring all of the armies up to the same general level (more or less) before working on new editions, I think that it's a winning strategy all around. Besides, I think new army codexes are a much bigger money maker for GW than new editions (correct me if I'm wrong?), so it's good for both the company and the players. In my opinion, the codexes that need to be brought up to date before 6th edition can come around are: Necrons, SoB, GKs (which we're getting), Tau, Eldar, and maybe Chaos (both Marines and Demons). Orks might need a little work too, but not much. Dark Angels and Black Templar are also out of date, but your mileage may vary on whether they should get a new codex or just get folded into Space Marines in general. I'm of the latter camp, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. If everyone's at the same level edition wise, or at least close to it, then codex creep becomes less of an issue.
I wasn't really getting at the codices being up to date or equal. I'm talking more about really over the top perks. For example, I see that there are a few Psyker powers and unit abilities that "remove models from play" with no save (Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh, Jaws of the World Wolf). I agree that every codex need special things about them and special units to make them fun, but the question is, are GW going a little too far with some of it? Plus, what happens if some codices get over the top stuff and some don't? For me, I would like to see every codex with cool new unique qualities, I kinda object to any model to be removed from play without a save of any kind. If some of those things allowed even an invulnerable save to avoid the effect, I'd be OK.
Last edited by andrewbeater; February 12th, 2011 at 04:27.
Liking this thread a lot...
Are things OTT with some of the codexes? Mostly, they're okay I think. There are a few armies out there that have a abilities and units that are very effective/unbalanced and they are used a lot. Though I believe that these kinds of problems can be fixed with playtesting and the adjustment of some points costs, I accept that not everything is going to be 100% perfect and I don't really have a problem with this at all. Of course, on the other hand there are some abilities, wargear items, units that aren't particularly effective or worthy of their points costs, again, playtesting and consideration try to even these things out. Every army has its strengths and weaknesses, some are more noticeable than others (eg Necrons phasing out), while some are entirely unexpected (unit of 30 ork boys firing sluggas before charging... and killing off the enemy). If we perceive something as OTT, why not just find an effective way of combating it and improving your ability with the game. It's best if we're challenged to improve.
The importance of relativity? While we are talking about some aspects of the game that are "too good" for their cost, you have to remember that this is according to how you judge effectiveness in the game. I play Mechanised SoB, and most of the entries in our 'dex are uneffective in that type of list, so I wouldn't even consider them in making a list. If you think that something is unbalanced for the game (too good, or not good enough for cost), try to think of it as the developers would, how is that particularly army/list supposed to run and what place does it have?
If someone helps you, rep them.
In a votewar you don't vote on a single match, you vote on the entire round. Got that?
I think that it is a mistake for GW to go on to a new edition to the rules without bringing ALL codices up to the current rules first. Look at the poor Necrons who are stuck back in the 3rd edition even now. The new codices are leaving the Necrons and the Tau in the dust as far as perks and new builds. It seems a shame. I personally enjoy games involving armies that are close to the same age rather than say the Necrons vs Space Wolves.
The Wolf time is upon us!
Rep for the Rep God! Positive for the Positive Throne!
Armies: Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Emperors Children, Necrons, Eldar
You are correct with the Jaws thing. Also, the Last Laugh has a roll/ counter roll to it. I'm used to Daemons with Eternal Warrior rule, so a multi wound model would never be removed unless it obtained enough wounds to destroy it. Now, it can be removed without a save with one lousy roll.
I heard that the Necron codex was going to be released last year and it wasn't nor still is it. If GW update all the codices before going on to 6th edition, it would be a miracle, however a pleasant one for a change.
I think it is important to remember that GW are not going to carry out a Codex review unless they have new models to release along side it. There are some interesting comparisons between the age of current Codices and the results of the polls about the best/worst armys. Necron have some kick-ass options and abilities, but just don't cut it against the 5th Edition armies.
Interestingly, the top 3 armies from the recent polls (IG, BA & SW) are 3 of the latest codices to be released, personally I voted for IG, BA and DE, but that is from personal experience.
As for whether or not the codex abilities are over the top or not? I have 2 answers:
1. No way, the codex specific abilities are designed to get you hooked on an army and to reflect the background fluff. How are you supposed to immerse yourself in an army if they are all generic and bland? Playing against SW recently, I was in awe of my opponents Lone Wolf, what an amazing idea and something that had never been included in a codex previously. The idea that you had a model who simply had to die to complete his own personal mission. (He failed which worked out better for me, but hey, what ya gonna do?!?)
2. Yes, but only because it means that, in order to be successful, you have to know every single codex inside out, back to front and upside down to ensure that you can counter the specific abilities, or at least bear them in mind. There is nothing worse in a game than being surprised by some special ability or psychic power (like JotWW) swallowing up your army, when if you'd known about it you may have approached the situation a little differently.
I doubt that there will be a 5th Edition Codex for every army released before 6th Edition rules are produced. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether your Codex was produced in 2008 or 1988, if you want to play the game you are going to have to fork out for the latest rules set. Plus, there will always be tweaks needed for Codices, but that is what FAQ's are for, perhaps they could look at issuing paper copies of these in the GW stores to ensure that everyone has access to them.
Cracking Topic, Thanks+Likes.