Iron Sage Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 In reality, if you pay one more point than previously, you gain back the lost LD but gain VotLW as well. Very fair. Also, seems to me that people willfully ignore the obvious buff concerning marks, and seemingly have a tendency to omitt mentioning the fact that they are "permanent" and no longer a man with a pole you can simply kill, thus also "slaying" the mark. Thats a very considerable buff I would say. Hell, Nurgle marked Chaos Space marines with only bolters or pistol and CC cost only 16 points, 18 if with ultra grit and 19 if you want old LD back. Thats 4 points more than old CSM, but considerably tougher against small arms fire. There is simply so much you can do with basic CSM that to add them to the "invisible Nerf" list is just simply wrong. I would never, ever want to swap the new ones with the old to put it like that. The new chaos space marines unit is simply much, much better. No it's not. Paying points for something you "can" take but didn't is silly. If the option is really that strong then price the option higher, don't charge someone for not taking an option that they could have. That said, I agree that it's fun to tweak your list and I definitely enjoy having the option to take this or that and overall this codex is a lot better than the Gavdex, but the bog standard CSM unit probably got less points efficient if anything, as did Berzerkers. Also nobody took Nurgle CSM in the Gavdex, people just took Plagues and I doubt many people will take Nurgle marked CSM now either, T5 is not really that great as it really just makes the unit more survivable against stuff that isn't really meant to kill MEQ anyway, the reason plagues are good is FnP, 2x special weapons in a small squad, and ultragrit+defensive grenades. Strongly disagree. In the vast majority of possible configurations, the basic chaos space marines are much better than previously. And in any strategic game you will ever play in your life, options is power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Grey Hunters lack the abillity to take marks etc., so the comparison, while accurate point for point, is akward, since you obviously also pay for the option to customize, which can be of great help in list building (you need to shave points to afford unit X you can shave off 10ish points or more from chaos space marine unit Y and so on). the GH marks gives them a better version of fearless and counter attack and acute sense [which only matters if someone lets them use a FW special HQ]. In the vast majority of possible configurations, the basic chaos space marines are much better than previously. ok . so short range plasma unit with ultra grit costs more . that seems bad . other csm kind of units dont realy exist . Or do you want to play a plas/auto cannon set up and make a gunline . technicly you can but why bother when you can do the same with codex SM and get superior rules[for a gunline]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearingtheword Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Maybe I am just being dense today (Hey! it happens as we age) But I'm not following what you're meaning here. (I don't think). Yes, we only had the use of the old 'dex in 6th ed for a few months but we still had precision on our champs. We still get it now, but the dif is we can only upgrade one termi to champ (something I can understand since they limited Wolf Guard in that way via the FAQ...and GK's as well iirc), so I don't see it being something that should be "ooh!-ed and ahh!-ed" at just because the champ has it as any character has it. And on top of paying more for it we are also paying for the privilege of not being able to turn down challenges, granted we do get to roll on the boon table with them, which I think almost makes up for the cost increase (as long as we don't roll spawns, lol) Anyhow....If that's different from where you were coming from TDA, please elaborate.... I always enjoy your insight... and your models! (they are awesome!) So far as other so called 'nerfs in the 'dex I am not finding many others than those mentioned already. All in all I am liking our new dex but I am still having some difficulty fine tuning my list and finding replacements for the unit I lose by staying/going undivided. ~BtW Game balance. When the old Codex was written, it had to take the rules of the time and the other codecii at the time into consideration when determining the points costs of their units and how they where to be able to be configurated. As such, since there was no Precision Strikes when the codex was written, they didn't have think about units full of Champions since Champions at the time only mean one additional attack. And from a game balance perspective, the extra points payed for it was fair and good. Yet now for the new Codex, there is a rule called Precision Strikes in the main rulebook, which means that a unit full of Champions would be extremely powerful, and as such would need either a massive increase in overall cost to balance the power of rule, or they would have to restrict the amount of models able to make use of the rule in question. GW in this case went with the second alternative of limiting the spread of the rule instead of giving us a massive points increase as a means of overall game balance towards the other armies. (And I would guess, is also why they FAQ'd it in the SW 'dex and GK 'dex as you pointed out.) It's also important to remember when looking at other units. Units don't always display cost increases or cost decreases based on account of balance towards other armies, they also need to take new or removed rules from the main rulebook into consideration, as well as the synergy potential with other units in the rest of the codex. That's why somethings have a price of XX in one codex but YY in another even though it's the exact same unit with the exact same wargear and special rules. It all depends on what other units you have available in that particular Codex. Daemon Princes, Lords, kitted out Chosen, Defilers, Forgefiends, Maulerfiends... All units that more often that not will cost alot of points, as such there's not game balance breaking if we have cheaper CSM to balance it out. As a quick example. I hope that makes more sense BtW, and please, keep up the good work yourself as well! :) TDA So it sounds like we are on the same page with the Termies. I fully understood what they did and why. But the problem I have is that there were the other changes I listed previously that leave me scratching my head. Like Malisteen said, we didn't really need to be reigned in. As for basic CSM being cheaper, I am on the fence about that. If I just look at WYSIWYG and pay the new points for what my unit has on it from the old dex they are more expensive. But also in that, some things have changed within their options that make them a better unit thus offsetting some of that points increase, if you know what I mean. I just hope that GW is proactive in addressing balance issues as this edition moves forward. Looking at the past I don't expect it but one can hope... ~BtW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 So let us say they will still do more w40k then WFB and hobbit wont take up much slots for new dexs . How many years will it take to update IG/SW and necron ? 2+ probably . well playing half an edition with those armies is going to be fun :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
space wolf Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 So let us say they will still do more w40k then WFB and hobbit wont take up much slots for new dexs . How many years will it take to update IG/SW and necron ? 2+ probably . well playing half an edition with those armies is going to be fun :) It will probably be longer than that. I'm willing to bet, especially with necrons, they are the way they are for this entire edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanReidel Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'm sorry but I think the mentality of some folks here is crazy! You cant compare army books written for different editions, even if you need to play against them. If the new chaos dex where pointed similarly to older books written for old core rules when ability's where less good then there is no point in ever updating the core rule book. Yes there will always be transition periods and yes GW is really bad at updating the army books in a timely fashion. But there is only 2 options to take here. 1 we live with the fact that some older books will be better/worse as the core rules and USR are changed, or, 2 GW wont change anything from the core rules ever and only update the army books until they are balanced and then the game stagnates and dies off. I know what I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I'm sorry but I think the mentality of some folks here is crazy! You cant compare army books written for different editions, even if you need to play against them. Yes you can, because you do have to play against them, and you'll likely still be playing against some of those 5e books, Necrons and Grey Knights in particular, for the entirety of 6th edition. After all, we didn't get a new chaos codex in 5th edition at all, we were stuck with the 4th edition codex until just now. And you can compare the new book to the previous one, keeping in mind how the previous one functioned in the environment, and ask why certain changes were made. Why was the points costs of several already mediocre options increased after accounting for gear? And then there's internal issues, that don't require any sort of outside comparison to notice - Why are there so few daemon weapons? Why are there no new special characters? Why are there so many obvious editing issues with the rules ('daemons of' vs. 'marks' for prereqs, equipment options on terminators and noise marine champs, size limits on zombies)? It's nice to get fast errata of these issues, but if they're so obvious, why are they there in the first place? Why do plasma pistols cost a whopping 15 points, especially on raptors where they are objectively worse that meltaguns? Like, literally, they have exactly zero even even arguable advantages over meltaguns on raptors - the meltaguns are better in every single way yet cost five points less. The blinding deep strike rule on the warp talons is practically unusable - who thought a rule that only exists as a trap to punish those players foolish enough to try and use it was a good idea? And after years of complaining from cult players, why are the commanders and terminator elites of cult aligned armies still less dedicated to their gods than their power armored subservients? Why is the discipline of Tzeentch, the god of sorcery, one of the weakest in the game, and definitely the weakest of the gods' disciplines? If challenges is such a big thing for our faction, why are so many of our characters so ill suited to them All of these are internal issues that don't require comparison to any other codex to see. That's not to say there's nothing good about the new codex. Bikes are awesome, cultists are awesome, the warpsmith and drake are cool if not fantastic, spawn are actually fieldable, predators and havocs are pretty good, and there's just way more interesting options than there used to be. I'm having a ton of fun making lists, and I'm looking forward to playing with them once I've got a bit more painted. This isn't an awful book in my mind. But I can certainly see where the complaints are coming from. The issues the book has are pretty overt, and yes, coming hot on the heels of the necron book does only highlight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Very true and let us not forget one thing . I remember [and at least some other people here do too] , what happened when 4th ed dex was out . Some people were saying "yes it is a bit one dimensional, but wait for other dex this edition they will be the same" and we know how that ended . or how some people said that DP/oblit/pm is the way to go but it is good and it was . So we played it for a year , then two and suddenly chaos was boring to the extrem . See the problem is not the fact that maulers or talons suck . Even SW/GK/IG dex had stuff that sucked[iG the most] . The problem is how one dimensional this dex is and am thinking about the stuff that will get focused on in 6th ed. Flyers/psykers/fortifications/ally options . We will always have fewer ally then loyalist[the marine dex alone out number us and demons by a lot] all imperial armies right now can run more flyers then we do in a basic under 2k points list , without focusing only on flyers. we technicly got 3 new psychic schools , but one sucks , one is ok[taken mostly for the T buff and possible combo of that with biomancy] and one good one . Can we hope that out of the next 3 dex for w40k 1 army will have suck powers , 1 nothing special and only 1 has good ? My wife has a saying about dex like the chaos one . Its "balanced stuff doesnt age well" . I hope she is wrong . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanReidel Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I have no problem with people pointing out the internal balance issues as they are a problem with the dex. What I take issue with is that this book is written with 6th in mind, and you folks are comparing it to books written with the 4th/5th editions in mind. The only problem here is that GW is to slow with updating the books to a new edition. But trying to balance new books written for a new edition with old books that where never meant to be played under the current rules is just crazy, especially when we take the different authors mentality towards the game in to consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azekai Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 My wife has a saying about dex like the chaos one . Its "balanced stuff doesnt age well" . I hope she is wrong . Yeah, and Mr. Ward is working on the DA codex. Say what you will about the man's fluff, his rules tend to be very powerful but also coherent. That's two things that we are currently lacking. I still think that our codex is going to be eclipsed by subsequent 6th ed codices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Sage Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 My wife has a saying about dex like the chaos one . Its "balanced stuff doesnt age well" . I hope she is wrong . Yeah, and Mr. Ward is working on the DA codex. Say what you will about the man's fluff, his rules tend to be very powerful but also coherent. That's two things that we are currently lacking. I still think that our codex is going to be eclipsed by subsequent 6th ed codices. ROFL!!! Worst post of the week goes to you, sir. At least I can now understand some of the reason why your always so incredibly negative, when Ward is apparantly what you want... Codex is balanced and fine and way more fun to play with than the Gav dex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 What I take issue with is that this book is written with 6th in mind, and you folks are comparing it to books written with the 4th/5th editions in mind. the edition was ready [as in rules ,testing etc] over a year ago . DE, necron have all full 6th dex . But trying to balance new books written for a new edition with old books that where never meant to be played under the current rules is just crazy, especially when we take the different authors mentality towards the game in to consideration. which would be all nice and good if all 5th ed dex wasnt more or less done by 1 man and the same team and the core rules [stuff like flyers for example] was an idea that sparked within the design team half way in to 5th ed. SW and chaos sm were done by the same dude for christ sake . They have identical game play[short range army lists] and yet somehow chaos is not better or , what is worse , different . this is one of the problems . the second one is that it doesnt matter what crudd was thinking doing IG [and what making nids] , the dex is here and the update is months , if not years away . We have to play against it ,so we have to compare it and this is why it matters. now imagine the chaos sm dex would totaly suck , like sob/nid style [which ,before someone starts poking me , it isnt] . what would be the sense of making a a chaos list , if the same could be done with SW . same gameplay , same gear , better rules. It is a bit like DA greenwing and codex sm . Technicly you ccould play something else then DW , but why would you want to do that , if sm does everything[including biker armies] better . Again this is less a question of better/worse , but more a question of why bother . A SW list can be lord/RP 3 GH squads , 2-3 Longfangs A chaos list is lord/sorc 3csm units 2-3 havocks . the difference is we have bikes and demons as ally and they have drop pods , termi squad leaders [am taking identical slogger arimes] and IG ally . its not different enough to be , for the lack of other words on my side, cool . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesper Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Grey Hunters lack the abillity to take marks etc., so the comparison, while accurate point for point, is akward, since you obviously also pay for the option to customize, which can be of great help in list building (you need to shave points to afford unit X you can shave off 10ish points or more from chaos space marine unit Y and so on). the GH marks gives them a better version of fearless and counter attack and acute sense [which only matters if someone lets them use a FW special HQ]. In the vast majority of possible configurations, the basic chaos space marines are much better than previously. ok . so short range plasma unit with ultra grit costs more . that seems bad . other csm kind of units dont realy exist . Or do you want to play a plas/auto cannon set up and make a gunline . technicly you can but why bother when you can do the same with codex SM and get superior rules[for a gunline]? You forgot to say that the mark of the GH is free and that they get multiple deployment options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The Dark Eldar and Necron books are 6th edition codeces - they were written with 6e rules in mind. The Grey Knight book will most likely not be revisited until towards the end of 6e's life cycle. They will be playing with the 5e book for the majority of 6th edition, making it functionally a 6e codex. It's anyone's guess whether blood angels or space wolves will be revised any time soon. It doesn't matter what edition codeces were supposedly written for. What matters is the edition they're being played in now, and the codeces they have to play against now and in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azekai Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Iron Sage, I can be as negative as I want. It isn't aimed at you, though. Indeed, this thread is about how much extra we have to pay to bring back onto par with what we had last codex for cheaper. The points costs for even our basic gear make no sense, which is just another issue with our overpriced, badly written codex. I think we have precious little to be happy about with this codex- as others have said, we are a middling assault-oriented army during a time when assault is bad and shooting is king. We have pretty poor assault units (why no grenades on assault specialists?), and instead received new bizarre gimmick units and a boon table that featuring GW's patent-pending 'lolchaos = randomzors™' system. I could go on, but you get the idea. I think many on this board are just happy with getting thrown a long-overdue bone by GW. That may be fine for them, but I don't owe GW anything, and I certainly won't thank them for producing a half-baked, rush-job of a codex that we are now required to use for 60 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevak Dal Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 My wife has a saying about dex like the chaos one . Its "balanced stuff doesnt age well" . I hope she is wrong . Yeah, and Mr. Ward is working on the DA codex. Say what you will about the man's fluff, his rules tend to be very powerful but also coherent. That's two things that we are currently lacking. I still think that our codex is going to be eclipsed by subsequent 6th ed codices. Why did we get Phail Kelly? This is like Cruddance's Tyranid codex in comparison to his Imperial Guard Codex. There are no crappy Ward books. And for the record: I very much did want Matt Ward to write it. I knew the nerfing was coming, I'd hoped for the best...I wanted my turn at the Power Trough. But yeah, seems my Red Corsairs might just get painted as Fallen Angels if Ward is indeed writing the Dark Angels book. Then I'll take a crap and wipe with the Phail dex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I dont think you play nids enough to claim that nids vs IG are on the same lvl as SW vs chaos. I mean the codex is no 3.5 [we knew the new one will be based on the gav dex] , but to be on the level you claim it would have to be like the 3ed jj chaos dex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Why did we get Phail Kelly? This is like Cruddance's Tyranid codex in comparison to his Imperial Guard Codex. There are no crappy Ward books. To be fair, this is the first "bad" codex that Kelly has written. Eldar and Orks were both very good during their editions (4th), and could still be very competetive in 5th. Both now suffer from old-book-syndrome. Space Wolves and Dark Eldar were both very good during their editions (5th) and can still be very competetive now in 6th. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kelly hasn't done any other 40k-codeci that still is in use. Personally I'm slightly optimistic. GW has tuned down the powerlevel in 8th Ed. WFB, and it looks like they intend to do the same in 6th Ed. 40k. Afaik 8th Ed. is 4 or 5 armybooks in, and they are all quite balanced towards eachother. Hopefully Ward won't overdo the DA-codex, and we can enjoy a period of decline in powerlevel in 6th Ed. 40k. On the other hand I'm slightly pessimistic as well - Necrons where clearly written with 6th Ed. in mind, and if we compare the powerlevel between Necrons and CSM, there's nothing to do but cry/laugh. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Drake Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Nids codex was hobbling along one-legged on a crutch when 6th. came along & kicked its crutch away. You know what bugs me most about this new C:CSM? How all the useless models from the last codex got a boost yet the models we all bought & lovingly painted up (DPs, Defilers, cult troops etc) all got a kick in the nads. If that isn't blatant disregard for fans/collectors & unscrupulous money grabbing then what is? & yeah, I know this is GW... DD Edit: Ward will cheese the DA codex to death. Dark grenades: count as frag, krak & melta - cause blind. Dark-missiles, count as krak missiles yet have sky-fire & interceptor. Haha, you just know it's coming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 You know what bugs me most about this new C:CSM? How all the useless models from the last codex got a boost yet the models we all bought & lovingly painted up (DPs, Defilers, cult troops etc) all got a kick in the nads. If that isn't blatant disregard for fans/collectors & unscrupulous money grabbing then what is? & yeah, I know this is GW... It's the same with every release, both in fantasy and in 40k. Good units that sell well get worse rules or doesn't change. Bad units that didn't sell get better rules to improve sales. I also don't quite agree with you: Cult-troops didn't really get a kick in the nads. Plague Marines and Noise Marines got better. Thousand Sons still suck and Khorne Berzerkers better (cheaper), but suffer due to 6th Ed. transport-rules. There is one major difference in the CSM-release however. Usually (always) when GW releases a new Armybook/Codex, the new units get good/overpowered rules so that everyone will run to the nearest store and buy them - not so with CSM: Dark Apostle - Not that great, mediocre at best. Warpsmith - Not that great, mediocre at best. Cultists - Not that great, mediocre at best. (allied IGinfantry costs the same and are better.) Mutilators - Very bad unit. Warp Talons - Quite bad unit. Heldrake - Quite decent, but not even near "I'm so powerful you should buy 3x of me!"-level. Forge/Maulerfiend - Decent/Quite good unit, but as with the Heldrake, not even near "buy me NOW!"-level. In fact, this is something that stems troughout the entire CSM-codex. The codex is overall to "weak" to attract new players --> less sales. This is all very unlike GW, and slightly scary. What are they up to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sception Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You know what bugs me most about this new C:CSM? How all the useless models from the last codex got a boost yet the models we all bought & lovingly painted up (DPs, Defilers, cult troops etc) all got a kick in the nads. First of all, that's kind of how it should be. Underpowered units should get the boost, while overpowered spammed options should be toned down. Second, that's not what happened. Several terrible units from the last dex - sons & possessed for instance, stayed terrible. The lord mostly only got better in comparison to the prince which got worse. Defilers aren't great, but the thing that hurt them wasn't the new book, it was the 6e rules, and they weren't super great in 4e or 5e either. Plagues are still arguably the best of the cult unit options, noise marines still aren't good. Honestly, this current book looks very much like the Gav dex, including in which units are good and which are meh. The only real break away winner is bikes, and I don't at all think that was in response to buying patterns of players. If GW really let things like 'which unit has new models' or 'which unit is underplayed' control their rules design, then possessed wouldn't have sucked in 4e, or they would have been changed to actually not suck now. What are our big new units? Drakes, fiends, warp talons? And their rules are meh, bad, and bad respectively. The big winners in the rules, again, are bikes, which don't have any fancy new models to sell, and in fact may sell poorly regardless of the rules simply because the current models are so old and their options are available only in a direct only upgrade kit. Seriously, people are way too keen to see conspiracies where there's only haphazard design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra the Unbeheld Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 You know what bugs me most about this new C:CSM? How all the useless models from the last codex got a boost yet the models we all bought & lovingly painted up (DPs, Defilers, cult troops etc) all got a kick in the nads. First of all, that's kind of how it should be. Underpowered units should get the boost, while overpowered spammed options should be toned down. Seriously, people are way too keen to see conspiracies where there's only haphazard design. Arguably, there was no such thing as an overpowered spammed option in the previous Codex, merely spammed options that were only marginally less crappy than non-spammed ones. The conspiracy exists, it's just "How can we keep making these buffoons buy more stuff even though we have every intention of releasing shoddy, haphazard designs?" as opposed to them having an actual plan about the details of units themselves and the haphazardness being incidental to that plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazath Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Correct me if I'm just imagining things, but I remember readig somewhere P.Kelly said that 6th ed CSM Codex is modification of Gav dex. Though I don't understand the reasoning behind such design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 considering its price hike, im very dissapointed that the DP lost eternal warrior, a gaming buddy had his killed in one round of combat with lysander. i realise its a bad example,, knowing the lack of EW i wouldnt have charged lysander, but even so a single vindicator shell being able to kill a 200+ point DP in one shot is nuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Falkor Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 im sorry ive been looking and most things in new dex are atleast 10pts cheaper for same equipment (5 man havoc squad with 4 autocannons and champion is 115pts now old dex was 170pts) and now a sorcerer may have had a stat reduction but with mastery lvl 3 B/P, Force weapon, M.o.T, daemonic steed and sigil of corruption ++4inv is 180pts old dex for one less power and a ++5inv was 195 powers may be ramdom but dont cost anything. A Chaos Lord with power weapon, B/P, Sigil of Corruption, M.o.S - 120pts new dex - old dex 110pts so 10pts cheaper for ++5inv (i would pay 10pts for the ++4inv) lord with TA, power weapon, combi bolter, M.o.S - 120pts new dex - 125pts old dex so it depends on how you equip your army but standard in old dex is mostly cheaper its only really the lord & daemon prince that gets to be abit more expensive most troops, fast attack, elite and heavy support choices are cheaper. While the unique characters like abaddon, huron, Khârn and ahriman are abit cheaper and fabius typhus and lucius are only 5pts more expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.