How I think codex vs codex should be argued

[Cpt_Reaper]

Codex X trumps Codex Y. Unit X is better that unit Y.

We have all seen it before. Many of us have taken part in it before. I wonder, how many of us argue the right way? Too often do I see gamers tell someone that to win you MUST run as many TDA units as you can! You MUST run double lash princes and plague marines! Dark Angels should never run tacticals because Grey Knights have better troops...

 

It is one thing to say don't run a unit in your codex because the popular opinion is that unit brings nothing to the table. It is another to say someone shouldn't run a unit because a different codex does it better. Of course Grey Knight Strike Squads are superior to any Tactical Squad...they have storm bolters, force weapons and psychic powers. Of course Vanguard veterans are better than Assault squads...in codexes that have them.

 

Personally I think that the argument that a unit should/should not be run because another army can or cannot "do it better" is not only flawed but 100% wrong! Not only here, but at the local gaming group I have been told to run only Deathwing, and ignore the rest of the codex because, and I quote, "Those Assault Marines are pointless because Vanguard Vets are better at their job." Last I checked Dark Angels don't get them. Neither do Chaos Marines. I have also been told that I should just play my Grey Knights and Dark Eldar unless I am happy to lose even friendly games against non-competitive lists. Why? Because another codex does it better.

 

I find this logic...well illogical. What we should be doing is comparing units within the codex of the chosen army to each other. For example, C:SM have the choices of Assault Terminators, Assault Marines, Vanguard and even Honour Guard for a dedicated assault unit. Now say you have a 1500 list and think you need a assault unit. You look at your options, work out the pros and cons of each and make a decision based at what is at your disposal. The CC Termis are survivable and pack power weapons but are not mobile short of a Land Raider; the Assault Marines are above average, can deal decent damage and are jump infantry; The Vanguard are better than the Assault Marines with more options but are more expensive; The honour guard hit hard but lack mobility and require a Chapter Master to unlock. Now you can see what you have to do the job you can pick. This is the same for any codex!

 

long story short: Look at what you have in your codex, not what you don't have!

 

Now I ask what your opinions are. Do I have a point or am I raving mad?

 

P.s. I don't have codex envy. I play Dark Angels and Chaos but also Grey Knights and Dark Eldar.

[Hellios]

Some of your points may be valid but you are also wrong. You also need to compare against other codices because that is what you will be facing... There is no point making a combat based list with the tau because even if you take the best combat units (and Tau have none XD) you will be out classed by other armies...

 

You need to look at every unit in your codex and the units in other armies and then you need to think about the synergy between the units in your army and in the opponents army.

 

 

I think you are being a bit extreme but I will admit that others are just as extreme in the other direction.

[Grey Mage]

Emphasize the strengths, minimize the weaknesses. The reason you look at another codex, and what it can do, is to make sure that your assault specialists wont get rolled by the basic troops of your enemies- for example, kroot die pretty fast to even a tactical squad, let alone grey hunters- because then youll be actively hurting yourself against a majority of opponents.

 

Now, does this mean you should always compare them to the best things available? Nah, thats a bit extreme. But comparing them in the field of what you want them to do against things you are likely to run up against regularly is just common sense.

[Vesper]

long story short: Look at what you have in your codex, not what you don't have!

 

So it's all about taking what's best in the codices ? I'll take double lash DP, plague marines and mass obliterators.

[Cpt_Reaper]

Well that's just the thing isn't it? "You also need to compare against other codices because that is what you will be facing..." This is a great thing to do. The problem I see is that when choosing a unit we don't compare it to our enemy but another army. This isn't the same thing. It's a bad idea to assault a Grey Knight, we all know that. There are things every army can and cannot do, and units that rule at one job but fail at another. But to not use a unit because someone else does it better? There is a fine line between choosing to not use a unit due to tactics and saying because one unit is better in another codex you shouldn't take it.

 

I really hope that makes sense.

 

+edit+

 

Vesper, is that the only list that is best, or is it the only list the community accepts as "best"? I hate the idea that every codex, old or new, only has 1 winning list.

 

Grey Mage, I don't mean to put words in your mouth but you are kind of proving my point: if a unit is lacking in an area you use tactics to counter that. That kroot unit you mentioned might be terrible against Astartes (I saw 6 Khrone berzerkers take down a full squad once with no casualties in return) but those Scouts and Guardsmen are a better target. My Assault Marines/Raptors might not be THE BEST assault units out there but that means I have to put them in situations where that is enough. It won't happen all the time but it will happen.

[DarkGuard]

Comparing units across Codices is fine. As others have mentioned you need to know the competition that you're up against and how you can compare etc.

 

However, Codex envy is bad. Don't look longingly at other Codices and complain about why they have certain units. Well not without reason, I can understand DA players longing for Rifleman Dreads. But the point is too much Codex comparisons can be bad.

 

I must admit I don't see many people saying "don't take that unit because the other Codex does it better". Most know that some Codices have limited options an don't have a choice. There are other more pressing issues about army building feedback IMO, but I won't go into them here.

[the jeske]

Personally I think that the argument that a unit should/should not be run because another army can or cannot "do it better" is not only flawed but 100% wrong!

untrue . If someone is trying to build a RAS based army out of something else then BA then he is doing stuff wrong . If someone is trying to build a lets say gunline out of chaos then he is doing something wrong . Dex come with pre build armies , if someone wants to play a good list he is forced to take one . Sometimes there are options from which dex you want to take something and if one is lucky[read plays meq] then there maybe are more then 1-2 dex supporting a single list[razor builds for example . both SW and GK ones are good. BA ones are ok] , but if someone is trying to make a hth IG army well then he will not going to have a good list.

 

Neither do Chaos Marines

check how many chaos marines use raptors around the world then . If you think that the advice was not a good one . DA are DW and nothing else . green wing is more flexible out of the sm dex. bikers builds are better out of the sm dex .

 

Now say you have a 1500 list and think you need a assault unit. You look at your options, work out the pros and cons of each and make a decision based at what is at your disposal. The CC Termis are survivable and pack power weapons but are not mobile short of a Land Raider; the Assault Marines are above average, can deal decent damage and are jump infantry; The Vanguard are better than the Assault Marines with more options but are more expensive; The honour guard hit hard but lack mobility and require a Chapter Master to unlock. Now you can see what you have to do the job you can pick.

thats not how list building works . First if someone wants to do melee with meqs then he should be using the sm dex . RAS are crap because they are not avarge , they are lower then avarge . they get beaten in hth by troop choices of other armies while being less flexible[not troops , weaker arment , unable to break other meq units without a baby sitter HQ] . termis are taken because A they are cheap B SS are OP C something has to kill stuff in an sm list and tacs are not going to do it . So no there is no picking . normal army you take termis . Khan build you take termis in LRx2 . you technicly can take HG and build an LR rush around them but they are smoked too easy by GK[no SS] which means they droped from fluff option to unplayable . RAS [out of SM] are never a good option , so they are not an option to be taken [may just as well not exist in the dex] .

There is a fine line between choosing to not use a unit due to tactics and saying because one unit is better in another codex you shouldn't take it.

no there isnt . either a unit is viable and works or it doesnt get taken . RAS dont work they dont exist . SS termis are cheap [aka undercosted] with good rules they get taken. At least as long you use the sm dex . If you want to use the BA dex then it is reversed . termis cost too much and dont support the army [even if they do have a nice synergy with priests] RAS on the other hand are cheap , troops and make razorbacks/rhinos cheaper . And what does this brings us to ? dont take unit X with codex Y because codex Z uses unit X better . want X use codex Z .

[Grey Mage]

Grey Mage, I don't mean to put words in your mouth but you are kind of proving my point: if a unit is lacking in an area you use tactics to counter that. That kroot unit you mentioned might be terrible against Astartes (I saw 6 Khrone berzerkers take down a full squad once with no casualties in return) but those Scouts and Guardsmen are a better target. My Assault Marines/Raptors might not be THE BEST assault units out there but that means I have to put them in situations where that is enough. It won't happen all the time but it will happen.

The question becomes: how often is the situations where they will shine going to come up? How often am I going to face an enemy that will have the tools to hammer that unit aside without having to put real effort into it?

 

There are alot of ways this can come up. For example- veteran vangaurd, particularly in C:SM lists, are very expensive units when ran with much, if any, options. Now, because of this, and because C:SM is not an assault oriented army so they have to do not only the heavy lifting but also support themselves, they are simply not effective compared to the assault units in other armies. IE, if they go against a TDA unit from the BTs or the DA, a large mob of beserkers, or even just alot of nobz, theyll die to quickly to be worth it. Why? Because those other armies do it better, cheaper, and or more in the flow of their codex.

 

Does that mean that they are automatically a bad unit? No. You just have to be very careful when it comes to giving them upgrades- and that can include simply giving them jump packs, wich adds 50% to the base cost of every model.

 

Now, the same unit in C:BA isnt badly priced at all. Why is that? Because the army supports it. The other assault elements in the army mean that they only have to do the heavy lifting- break the hard nuts, wich will also be somewhat expensive we hope- while the rest of the army can clear the way for them.

 

Now on the flip side sometimes a unit just doesnt work well because its common enemies can outdo it reliably and easily. For an example: You dont see alot of Vypers running around in eldar lists these days, why? Its because compared to their common enemies- marines, DE, for example- they have a lower BS, pay atleast as much for their weapons, and have shorter range/are less survivable. This leads to their quick destruction on a regular basis against most opponents when you dont know what your facing. So, because the other books do it better we eldar players dont often take them. Are they horrible? No. Are they a rare sight because theyre not going to work as well as other FA choices? You bet.

 

I suppose what Im trying to say here is that yes, you do have to compare them to enemy units, as well as friendly units ability to compliment and support them, because to ignore either facet of their place in your army is crippling to developing a good list.

[Warprat]

Hmm, all good points... but I can see what the OP is getting at.

 

I too, used to choose armies of whatever game I was playing based on the super or low cost units I wanted to exploit. That sort of mentality, "for the win". I won, I lost, I mostly won.

 

Big deal... kind of hollow really, after a while. How many people did I really need to crush to feed my under strength ego?

 

 

When I started reading the posts on the Bolter and Chainsword about tactics and strategy. I discovered that I was relying on the "tricks" of the special units to give me the win. The special rules, the under costed units. Sadly, just relying on the tricks started making the game more boring.

 

I went back to my pile of codexes and though about the game. But this time, not about what would give me the win, but what would make the game more fun and interesting.

 

And for me, that meant giving up the special tricks, instead rediscovering the basic units of the game. Could I make them work? Could I even tie a game with them, much less win?

 

I decided to use codex SM because of its neutral, generic nature. I put away my other figures and started only using the stuff that comes in the Black Reach sets. No tricks, just basics.

 

I lost, then I lost some more, and I lost again. I got wholloped and stomped without my special tricks. Then a funny thing happened... I started to tie and eventually win a game here and there. I learned the true abilities of the army and how to adapt to the enemy. I truly began to use the flexibility of my army. Something that I had always read about, but not really experienced.

 

The Space Marine's famed flexibility started living up to the codex. Basic marines became heroes, and tactical Terminators legend.

 

I have toyed with the idea of using the other "more powerful" codex to gain an advantage. Which would be easily possible... but I have resisted the change. I must always be wary of returning to old "tricks". Of cheapening the game by exploiting it's points values. Taking those "trick" units, for a potential easy win, and ruining my enjoyment of the game.

 

Granted, I don't play in tournaments. I just play friendly games. Usually with people who take "trick" armies. Just like I used to do...

 

LOL, most of the time, they are so desperate for the win. So desperate to feed their egos.. I feel bad for them when I beat them. Not that it happens all the time, most times it's a tie, sometimes a loss. Really, I'm only just above average, win wise.

 

I have come to the realization that, for me, the joy of a codex is in it's hidden strengths. Optimizing an army by using the most basic tactics that the codex relies on to give it it's unique flavor. Learning how to just not "make do" by using the average or sub par units, but by learning to exploit their inherent strengths and adapting my tactics to fit.

[pyroknight]

I hate to point out the elephant into the room, but I think most of this discussion has to do with the problem that in 40K “a point cost is not a point cost”.

That is to say it is not a true numeric representation of the unit’s combat effectiveness.

 

If two armies have the exact same units for different costs, then it makes free form list building impossible.

 

For example, if a build a certain Vanilla marine army list, I know that I can make the exact same army list with Blood angels for less points. And I know I can make very similar Grey knights list that is much much better.

 

That makes it foolish for me to take that vanilla marine list. If I wanted to play that list, I could get an immediate bonus from switching to another codex. If I want to play Vanilla marines (or any codex for that matter) I have to compare my units to the similar units in other codices and how points effective those units are. If I expect to compete against them, I need to take units from my list that are cost effective or different from what they have.

 

If a point cost was simply a point cost, then I could bring whatever I units wanted and only need to worry about how they stood up against other units in my codex. However if I bring vanguard vets and he brings the exact same vanguard vets for 10 points less, I am immediately at a disadvantage. This forces me to compare my units against his!

 

As long as GW keeps skewing point costs at their whim, we have to play armies their way.

[DerekLee688]

Because all codexes do not release at the same time you are FORCED to compare similar units to apraise wether or not they are strong choices in your dex. Look at devestator squads in SW/BA armies. Some entries are made stronger in other dexes.

 

C:SM should compare GK Rifleman to their's and every "target" they would have in any other codex. You'll see that their job has gotten harder(valk's are harder than chimera, GK blessed hull is tougher than SM rhino's/dread's, necron AV13 shields(until pen hit), dark eldar vehicle special equipment, etc. I think the original targets for the C:SM rifleman are getting fewer and far between. Especially if more MEQ get FNP in 6th ed.

 

If all codex were balanced and released at the same time I would say you really can't put similar units in a vacume and compare them. Because of "codex creep", you must see how your units fair in future codexes. Riflemen have suffered greatly, but the Typhoon has benefited it because of the targets for it's missile laucher have expaned in almost every codex that has come after it.

[Dosjetka]

Sorry for not adding anything useful to this conversation (I don't really have much to say, due to lack of experience in gaming).

 

Warprat: I really enjoyed reading that, so thank you for posting it :)

 

Ludovic

[Warprat]

Warprat: I really enjoyed reading that, so thank you for posting it :)

 

Ludovic

 

 

Thanks Bud, its been a long road...

[facmanpob]

For me, its all about synergy within your own force. Figuring out how the various unit options could potentially work together to create an army which punches harder as a totality then the individual parts would suggest. Comparing with other codices, imo, is actually only valid if you plan to tailor your list to beat a particular army.....e.g. I know my opponent is going to bring lots of Vendettas with Veterans, so I must take X to counter it.....if you don't know who or what you are playing, and I mean, really, really don't know, then all you can do is take your own codex and try to maximise the effectiveness of your army.

 

For me, that can be achieved in 2 ways: 1) min-maxing; 2) synergising.

 

Personally, I don't like the idea of min-maxing, as it just seems cheesy, so I try to create synergy where I can. Synergy within units, such as trying to match weapon ranges to increase the effectiveness of a unit, and synergy between units to make it tougher for the opponent to figure out who to shoot at. Now, I'm not remotely close to thinking I'm particularly good at it, but a lot of the fun is in the trying. :tu:

 

Oh, and on a final note, sometimes I do think that many people game on tables that have far less terrain the rulebook suggests.....as the saying goes "mud is a great leveller" :wacko: