The real problem with the Chaos Space Marines Codex

[Dallas Drake]

Have you guys also considered the problem that 40k is an incredibly crappy medium to host tournaments in?

 

Its rules have NEVER been tournament centric. Their inconsistencies are too great, and the game is flat for such things. The game is meant to be enjoyed.

 

"omg, you can't win at ALL unless you field X, Y, Z."

 

This in my opinion, is the single worst thing to happen to the hobby. Its these kinds of shallow, tournament only mindsets that ruin this game. Why not build a World Eater Army... for the enjoyment, of building a world eater army? Playing it for what it is. Playing what you want to play. Having the units that you like and enjoy. Having the characters and story for your army that you enjoy. No, instead, people go to forums and look for the most mathammered units or armies possible, and declare other things irreverent.

 

And because those people do it? The people they run into either leave the hobby as they are tired of getting math hammered into the floor when in reality they just wanted a fun game of their Ork Big Mek's Waaagh that had a bunch of Burna Boyz it in, and fought a tournament list Dragowing, or they start building their own tournament lists, changing armies or tactics radically... for the sake of not being killed off the bat.

 

The stifling of creativity the 40k community has allowed, the stifling of people who just want to enjoy their games, is absolutely revolting. I rarely see "friendly" games, because enough douchebags play games regionally that everyone feels the need to always be ready to play against power gaming tourney players. The tournaments are pointless guys, completely, and absolutely pointless. They are tournaments hosting in a gaming system that is in no way meant for tournament play. Its designed for either when your having a beer with some friends in the basement, or playing out a story for your army, which you built.

 

And I used to be pretty active in the tournament scene locally as a teenager, and I was *very* successful at it from 2nd-4th edition. I'm not at all anymore because I've just learned this game isn't meant for this kind of play. And the communities encouragement of the most kick ass, math hammered armies has stained this game, badly.

 

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Honestly, tournament centric WAAC play nearly killed my gaming group. People were always striving for meaner, nastier set ups & in the end it took us all to take a step back & realise we were no longer enjoying the game. I've always known that there was a lack of internal balance in 40K (it would take GW to re-do all of the codex simultaneously with the release of game - not happening ever to get close to balance), that's just the way it is. Personally, I couldn't care less whether my Lord loses his wargear when he becomes as DP or whether the challenge mechanic is crap because... it's a game!. Seriously, I wonder why some gamers don't just go play video games or chess competitively, they are game that can be played competitively. 40k is for fun, since I realised that I've had a ton more laughs. Not saying a hard fought win or close battle isn't awesome but I enjoy my own dudes getting wasted as much as my enemy, just so long as everyone has a good time all round. If that makes me some kind of 40k heretic then so be it.

 

Dallas

[Brother Amarel]

6th was bad enough- hull points, premeasuring, fliers being stupid resilient, challenges, wound allocation that forces everyone to micro-manage the placement of every model, barrage sniping, useless deathtrap transports . . . I could go on and on. The rules award people for doing stupid things. For crying out loud people don't ride in rhinos any more, they run behind them! Madness!

I actually rather like 6th ed for the most part. I don't mind Hull Points, I prefer pre-measuring, I'm okay with the wound allocation and I'm even okay with the running behind Rhino's (it's mobile cover once you hit the combat zone). I agree that challenges aren't quite right and barrage sniping is a little 'off' (but it fits with the way the rules work, anything else would have been overly clunky), but these are relatively minor concerns (except, of course, when codex rules encourage interaction with a poor core rule (e.g. CSM enforced challenges)).

[Smurfalypse]

6th was bad enough- hull points, premeasuring, fliers being stupid resilient, challenges, wound allocation that forces everyone to micro-manage the placement of every model, barrage sniping, useless deathtrap transports . . . I could go on and on. The rules award people for doing stupid things. For crying out loud people don't ride in rhinos any more, they run behind them! Madness!

I actually rather like 6th ed for the most part. I don't mind Hull Points, I prefer pre-measuring, I'm okay with the wound allocation and I'm even okay with the running behind Rhino's (it's mobile cover once you hit the combat zone). I agree that challenges aren't quite right and barrage sniping is a little 'off' (but it fits with the way the rules work, anything else would have been overly clunky), but these are relatively minor concerns (except, of course, when codex rules encourage interaction with a poor core rule (e.g. CSM enforced challenges)).

 

These rules for 6th are infinitely better than 5th edition IMO. I really did not enjoy 5th at all and throw on top of that a codex that was boring as heck I ended up not playing for the better part of three years.

[Sception]

Just to point out that I create my Lord at a total of usually 160ish points every game I run him, and he has yet to lose in CC to anyone. That includes Calgar, any assortment of Squad Leaders and Walkers. Not bragging, just saying that you KNOW it is going to happen, build for it or stay out of CC. When he dies it is 100% due to eating some ranged fire after the squad he is with has died.

 

My lord wasn't naked, he had the sigil, murder sword, mark of slaanesh, gift, meltabombs. And your lord by all rights should have been eaten by Calgar. Just demolished. A grot can beat a bloodthirster if you roll nothing but sixes and the other guy nothing but ones, doesn't make a grot a quality duelist.

 

Yeah, the murder sword sucks and I shouldn't field it, but dammit it's a sword that only works in challenges and it sucks in challenges because apparently Kelly didn't know, or at least didn't care, how those rules work when writing our book.

[Azekai]

6th was bad enough- hull points, premeasuring, fliers being stupid resilient, challenges, wound allocation that forces everyone to micro-manage the placement of every model, barrage sniping, useless deathtrap transports . . . I could go on and on. The rules award people for doing stupid things. For crying out loud people don't ride in rhinos any more, they run behind them! Madness!

I actually rather like 6th ed for the most part. I don't mind Hull Points, I prefer pre-measuring, I'm okay with the wound allocation and I'm even okay with the running behind Rhino's (it's mobile cover once you hit the combat zone). I agree that challenges aren't quite right and barrage sniping is a little 'off' (but it fits with the way the rules work, anything else would have been overly clunky), but these are relatively minor concerns (except, of course, when codex rules encourage interaction with a poor core rule (e.g. CSM enforced challenges)).

 

These rules for 6th are infinitely better than 5th edition IMO. I really did not enjoy 5th at all and throw on top of that a codex that was boring as heck I ended up not playing for the better part of three years.

Infinitely better? Did you read my post? The game is significantly slower and I have to position every model just so, otherwise they could get focus fired or simply removed in a harmful order. They 'fixed' wound shenanigans by . . . making things like Lo,S and buffing 2+ saves. In 5th you could actually charge things back then, without having your elite assault troops trip over themselves, fail to charge, AND get shot up by their target unit. 6th is outright hostile to the CC oriented codecii, and I am surprised any Chaos players like it.

[Dallas Drake]

6th was bad enough- hull points, premeasuring, fliers being stupid resilient, challenges, wound allocation that forces everyone to micro-manage the placement of every model, barrage sniping, useless deathtrap transports . . . I could go on and on. The rules award people for doing stupid things. For crying out loud people don't ride in rhinos any more, they run behind them! Madness!

I actually rather like 6th ed for the most part. I don't mind Hull Points, I prefer pre-measuring, I'm okay with the wound allocation and I'm even okay with the running behind Rhino's (it's mobile cover once you hit the combat zone). I agree that challenges aren't quite right and barrage sniping is a little 'off' (but it fits with the way the rules work, anything else would have been overly clunky), but these are relatively minor concerns (except, of course, when codex rules encourage interaction with a poor core rule (e.g. CSM enforced challenges)).

 

These rules for 6th are infinitely better than 5th edition IMO. I really did not enjoy 5th at all and throw on top of that a codex that was boring as heck I ended up not playing for the better part of three years.

Infinitely better? Did you read my post? The game is significantly slower and I have to position every model just so, otherwise they could get focus fired or simply removed in a harmful order. They 'fixed' wound shenanigans by . . . making things like Lo,S and buffing 2+ saves. In 5th you could actually charge things back then, without having your elite assault troops trip over themselves, fail to charge, AND get shot up by their target unit. 6th is outright hostile to the CC oriented codecii, and I am surprised any Chaos players like it.

 

Add to that the fact that the CC mechanic is a pain in the ass & slow. Almost makes you think they don't want melee in 6th.

[Smurfalypse]

Just to point out that I create my Lord at a total of usually 160ish points every game I run him, and he has yet to lose in CC to anyone. That includes Calgar, any assortment of Squad Leaders and Walkers. Not bragging, just saying that you KNOW it is going to happen, build for it or stay out of CC. When he dies it is 100% due to eating some ranged fire after the squad he is with has died.

 

My lord wasn't naked, he had the sigil, murder sword, mark of slaanesh, gift, meltabombs. And your lord by all rights should have been eaten by Calgar. Just demolished. A grot can beat a bloodthirster if you roll nothing but sixes and the other guy nothing but ones, doesn't make a grot a quality duelist.

 

Yeah, the murder sword sucks and I shouldn't field it, but dammit it's a sword that only works in challenges and it sucks in challenges because apparently Kelly didn't know, or at least didn't care, how those rules work when writing our book.

 

That sword is indeed crappy and it is sad, as most things with the codex it has such potential.

 

Actually I didnt have to roll very well to beat Calgar, amazingly enough. I rolled an average 4 or 5 for attacks from the Mace the first round if I remember correctly, hit on 3s, reroll for hatred, wound on 2s. Inflicted 9 or so wounds and he failed a single save on the first turn. He countered needing 5s to hit and I think he only hit me once and I saved (this was fairly early into our codex and so memory may not be exact). Second round I rolled about the same for attacks and did the same thing minus the rerolls, he failed another and failed his T test. I then rolled on my crappy chart! As I said this was a few weeks ago so the exacts may not be perfect, but he died on the second ronud of combat due to a failed T check and was having troubles hitting me with the invis active on the unit.

 

I mean it doesnt seem all that amazing IMO, it actually seems to be how it would normally work on average rolls.

[Minsc]

]Yeah, the murder sword sucks and I shouldn't field it, but dammit it's a sword that only works in challenges and it sucks in challenges because apparently Kelly didn't know, or at least didn't care, how those rules work when writing our book.

 

The Murdersword works outside challenges too. All you have to do is be b2b. You don't even have to hit the "targeted" model to gain the bonus. Just try to move your Lord when you charge/pile-in so that he's in base-to-base with the target, and then whack away on the targets teammates instead.

Yes I know this won't always work (I haven't actually used the Murder Sword yet), but it should be doable on more than one occasion.

[Iron Warrior w/ Servo Arm]

Have you guys also considered the problem that 40k is an incredibly crappy medium to host tournaments in?

 

Its rules have NEVER been tournament centric. Their inconsistencies are too great, and the game is flat for such things. The game is meant to be enjoyed.

 

"omg, you can't win at ALL unless you field X, Y, Z."

 

This in my opinion, is the single worst thing to happen to the hobby. Its these kinds of shallow, tournament only mindsets that ruin this game. Why not build a World Eater Army... for the enjoyment, of building a world eater army? Playing it for what it is. Playing what you want to play. Having the units that you like and enjoy. Having the characters and story for your army that you enjoy. No, instead, people go to forums and look for the most mathammered units or armies possible, and declare other things irreverent.

 

And because those people do it? The people they run into either leave the hobby as they are tired of getting math hammered into the floor when in reality they just wanted a fun game of their Ork Big Mek's Waaagh that had a bunch of Burna Boyz it in, and fought a tournament list Dragowing, or they start building their own tournament lists, changing armies or tactics radically... for the sake of not being killed off the bat.

 

The stifling of creativity the 40k community has allowed, the stifling of people who just want to enjoy their games, is absolutely revolting. I rarely see "friendly" games, because enough douchebags play games regionally that everyone feels the need to always be ready to play against power gaming tourney players. The tournaments are pointless guys, completely, and absolutely pointless. They are tournaments hosting in a gaming system that is in no way meant for tournament play. Its designed for either when your having a beer with some friends in the basement, or playing out a story for your army, which you built.

 

And I used to be pretty active in the tournament scene locally as a teenager, and I was *very* successful at it from 2nd-4th edition. I'm not at all anymore because I've just learned this game isn't meant for this kind of play. And the communities encouragement of the most kick ass, math hammered armies has stained this game, badly.

 

Quoted for awesomeness

[Smurfalypse]

6th was bad enough- hull points, premeasuring, fliers being stupid resilient, challenges, wound allocation that forces everyone to micro-manage the placement of every model, barrage sniping, useless deathtrap transports . . . I could go on and on. The rules award people for doing stupid things. For crying out loud people don't ride in rhinos any more, they run behind them! Madness!

I actually rather like 6th ed for the most part. I don't mind Hull Points, I prefer pre-measuring, I'm okay with the wound allocation and I'm even okay with the running behind Rhino's (it's mobile cover once you hit the combat zone). I agree that challenges aren't quite right and barrage sniping is a little 'off' (but it fits with the way the rules work, anything else would have been overly clunky), but these are relatively minor concerns (except, of course, when codex rules encourage interaction with a poor core rule (e.g. CSM enforced challenges)).

 

These rules for 6th are infinitely better than 5th edition IMO. I really did not enjoy 5th at all and throw on top of that a codex that was boring as heck I ended up not playing for the better part of three years.

Infinitely better? Did you read my post? The game is significantly slower and I have to position every model just so, otherwise they could get focus fired or simply removed in a harmful order. They 'fixed' wound shenanigans by . . . making things like Lo,S and buffing 2+ saves. In 5th you could actually charge things back then, without having your elite assault troops trip over themselves, fail to charge, AND get shot up by their target unit. 6th is outright hostile to the CC oriented codecii, and I am surprised any Chaos players like it.

 

Did you read my post? I said "IMO".

[Azekai]

I did, but opinions can be wrong. 'Infinitely better' may have been hyperbole, and you can enjoy 6th more than 5th, but it is hardly better, let alone better to the degree that it is endlessly, boundlessly superior.

[Excessus]

and you can enjoy 6th more than 5th, but it is hardly better

You mean in your opinion? :)

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

Whilst I have had bad luck and my opponents really good luck for the last few weeks (it's kind of become a running joke now) the codex just feels like the old one with a few new bits tacked on, and I'll say it. I have not really enjoyed my last few games of 40k with the chaos codex, so much so even my enthusiasm for painting my Thousand sons and has taken a hit, and I'm now painting infinity/anima tactics and possibly considering getting some getting a vyper or even possibly some dark eldar allies for my Iyanden eldar, however I am planning on buying several models for Infinity/anima before that.

[Azekai]

and you can enjoy 6th more than 5th, but it is hardly better

You mean in your opinion? :)

I think I demonstrated fairly thoroughly all the issues with 6th, without even touching on the weirdness of allies, fortifications and double force org. The issues for 5th were, what, wound shenanigans and fearless? This is like comparing XP and Vista.

[tvih]

Have you guys also considered the problem that 40k is an incredibly crappy medium to host tournaments in?

 

Its rules have NEVER been tournament centric. Their inconsistencies are too great, and the game is flat for such things. The game is meant to be enjoyed.

 

"omg, you can't win at ALL unless you field X, Y, Z."

 

This in my opinion, is the single worst thing to happen to the hobby. Its these kinds of shallow, tournament only mindsets that ruin this game. Why not build a World Eater Army... for the enjoyment, of building a world eater army? Playing it for what it is. Playing what you want to play. Having the units that you like and enjoy. Having the characters and story for your army that you enjoy. No, instead, people go to forums and look for the most mathammered units or armies possible, and declare other things irreverent.

I wholeheartedly agree. Just today I think I got brain cancer at the FLGS again while discussing chaos marine units. Like how me wanting a Khorne Lord on a Juggernaut with AoBF is so bad because it's a suboptimal choice because it's not Nurgle and whatever. I mean really, so what if I want a Juggernaut with a bike squad if that's what I like? And then apparently it's my own fault if I lose matches because I don't min-max every single point, while the guy who said that rarely wins his matches either apparently, or so I hear.

 

Just yesterday we were in a small local tournament, part of a series (it was the second out of four in the series) that was meant to be a fun tournament series, but of course even the first tournament had plenty of cheesy stuff in it... however this second one was quite over the top indeed. It shows the focus around here - cheese or lose. It's sad, basically no one really plays fun lists. Because it's just not much fun to lose horribly even I've had to move towards efficiency over what I like with what how the rules have gone - which is towards anti-CC play style despite me wanting to play my Templars - my primary army, with which I also played in the tournaments - in CC style, and I'd like to play my chaos as CC too. Hence Khorne Juggernaut with bikes so that I can at least try to get to combat faster than with a Rhino considering no one-turn delay on being able to assault after disembarking - something that once again cost me 4 out of 6 chosen and my footslogging Khorne warlord today on my first outing of my DV Chaos army (spiced up with some AoBR ork boyz who actually saved the day in the end) because a Vindicator blew them away since I couldn't charge it. The remaining two did beat it into bits the next turn though, but it was still a major downer especially losing the warlord due to a failed LoS! and invulnerability save. Anyway, as a result of this, because I want a Khorne Lord and not Nurgle all the way it's baaaaad and I'm a bad player who has only himself to blame if he loses and playing fun units makes you stupid. Sigh :) Obviously enough, all other C:CSM guys play Nurgle here. As if being Nurgle would've helped in the above situation anyway. But whatever.

 

Overall I understand that winning is fun, but the thing is that having a good fight with fun units that you like is much more fun even if you do lose in the end.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

and you can enjoy 6th more than 5th, but it is hardly better

You mean in your opinion? ^_^

I think I demonstrated fairly thoroughly all the issues with 6th, without even touching on the weirdness of allies, fortifications and double force org. The issues for 5th were, what, wound shenanigans and fearless? This is like comparing XP and Vista.

Does this change that it's your opinion that it's worse? Sure, you can do mathammer and work out how X is unbalanced or how Y benefits Z units too little or whatever. That's cool and the people who consider that a major part of their games can agree with you. But it's still your opinion. I personally love TLOS - it just makes sense and it encourages fluffy games, as well as adding an element of real strategy*. I've seen rants on the board that TLOS sucks and all that oh so fun business. Just because you or whoever claims it is terrible doesn't make it so, and for my part I cannot demand that you utterly love and worship 6th edition.

 

So explain if you want, and you'll convince the people who are of like mind. By nature of being human not everyone will agree with you though, and they're not obliged to, because it really is just your opinion.

 

Please, though, don't take this as an attack, I don't intend it as such. I'm just trying to remind everyone here that one's opinions are just that, one's opinions. If you guys disagree, then just agree to be different, what you guys believe has already been posted for all the audiences to decide for themselves what is right.

 

Thank you, and have a nice day :)

 

 

 

 

 

*That is, deciding whether or not to expose your troops to incoming fire to allow them to shoot or keep them bunkered down so they are protected.

[Smurfalypse]

and you can enjoy 6th more than 5th, but it is hardly better

You mean in your opinion? :)

I think I demonstrated fairly thoroughly all the issues with 6th, without even touching on the weirdness of allies, fortifications and double force org. The issues for 5th were, what, wound shenanigans and fearless? This is like comparing XP and Vista.

 

As others have said, nothing I said was meant as a personal attack.

 

You can list everything you want that you dislike and most of those things I enjoy greatly (Hull points, pre-measuring, challenges, wound allocation). You can say why you dislike them, I will counter with why I like them and in the end we wont agree on it. IMO 5th was 40k worst edition hands down, it was simplistic, dull, and much like the CSM codex of 4th (and to a lesser extent the current one) it lacked any sort of "soul".

 

You are right, it is like comparing XP to Vista. . . There are people who prefer Vista over XP.

This is like comparing KFC to Popeye's.

Blondes to brunettes.

Bacon to Sausage.

You get the point. It is all subjective and you can "demonstrated fairly thoroughly all the issues with 6th" issues with 6th that you want, but that does not mean I do not like those exact things that you have issue with. This isn't an argument, this is comparing one persons likes/dislikes to someone else's likes/dislikes.

 

Are there issues with 6th? Sure, nothing is going to be perfect. I can agree with you on that.

[Azekai]

You are right, it is like comparing XP to Vista. . . There are people who prefer Vista over XP.

Those exist? I mean, besides seniors who don't know any better? :)

 

Does this change that it's your opinion that it's worse? Sure, you can do mathammer and work out how X is unbalanced or how Y benefits Z units too little or whatever. That's cool and the people who consider that a major part of their games can agree with you.

Then what is even the point of discussing this? If I point out examples of why 6th is inferior to 5th and you just discount them ("but I like challenge rules that involve my characters dying and/or not participating in combat!"), then we might as well not talking at all, since whatever is said is only evaluated through the lens of personal taste . . .

 

Wait, I think I am beginning to see the problem . . . and by the way, gentlemen, I appreciate your civility.

[tvih]

Wait, I think I am beginning to see the problem . . .

.... which is that on matters of opinion there will never be a consensus? Obvious :)

[Vilicate]

You are right, it is like comparing XP to Vista. . . There are people who prefer Vista over XP.

Those exist? I mean, besides seniors who don't know any better? :)

 

Does this change that it's your opinion that it's worse? Sure, you can do mathammer and work out how X is unbalanced or how Y benefits Z units too little or whatever. That's cool and the people who consider that a major part of their games can agree with you.

Then what is even the point of discussing this? If I point out examples of why 6th is inferior to 5th and you just discount them ("but I like challenge rules that involve my characters dying and/or not participating in combat!"), then we might as well not talking at all, since whatever is said is only evaluated through the lens of personal taste . . .

 

Wait, I think I am beginning to see the problem . . .

 

Hi, just saying, you can't disprove someone's opinion. Personal choice and all that. You could point out examples of where you feel that their logic is flawed, but trying to argue that someone's emotional state toward something is wrong is philosophical, so you may want to let that one go.

 

Now, I agree with him. 6th is a better edition for me than 5th. I was a huge fan of 4th, but after playing games of 6th, I'm all in. A better, more expansive selection of psychic powers, a realistic way of making vehicles less broken, exciting cimematic combats (with their own inbuilt stategy!), more basic rulebook missions and the removal (mostly) of wound allocation shenanigans. Also loving the CCW AP rules as well - makes choices difficult. It's a little sad that I might have to modify some of my unit's weapons, but that's a fun modeling project anyway, and gets me to try out weapon combinations I haven't tried before.

 

I've been loving 6th.

[Nehekhare]

opinions are like gripes about the new chaos codex...everybody has (at least) one.

[Dark Apostle Thirst]

Wait, I think I am beginning to see the problem . . . and by the way, gentlemen, I appreciate your civility.

I'm glad you appreciate it, I would hate to waste the class :blush:

 

Why are we here, you ask? Because our opinions are different, of course :devil: I'm not saying don't debate, by the False Emperor no, but at a certain point it's good to agree to disagree. You made the common mistake as believing that you were in the right, rather than seeing that you were equal, hence the multiple responses. We should definitely discuss things such as what this thread is about, as some people may find a new opinion more to their liking and for many this is a method of education. I myself have learned many things from these kinds of discussions, and I'm a vaunted moderator - so these debates are incredibly valuable, make no mistake. They must be held well, though, hence why my rank exists, and why I am posting this now :blink:

[Wolf Lord Fenrir]

Why not build a World Eater Army... for the enjoyment, of building a world eater army? Playing it for what it is. Playing what you want to play. Having the units that you like and enjoy. Having the characters and story for your army that you enjoy. No, instead, people go to forums and look for the most mathammered units or armies possible, and declare other things irreverent.

 

This cannot happen as wargaming is SRS BSNSS

 

 

BTW - Chaos Space Marines still without drop pods: Codex FAIL.

[Bulwyf]

Am I correct in thinking the new codex does not provide Legion specific lists like the old codex had? I'd have to reread through my copy of the new one again but I don't remember seeing any themed Legion lists.

[Tamwulf]

I skipped the 10 pages of probable whining about how bad the Chaos Space Marine Codex is, and offer this to the OP:

 

C:SM is 144 pages, and has more options, rules, wargear, etc. etc. and is meant to represent every Space Marine Chapter that doesn't have it's own Codex. With a little imagination, you can come up with your own Chapter led my Markus Anthony Carson.

 

C:CSM is only 104 pages, and offers little to no customization to the level that C:SM allows.

 

The Chaos Space Marine Codex is a good book. The units are pretty solid, there are many possible competitive army builds, and the Special Characters are overall good. Every codex has a few 'stinker' units that you can still use, they just are not as good as units from another completely different codex. To me, the sign of a good codex is that there is no obvious choices, must takes in every list, or over the top characters. To this end, the Chaos Space Marine codex is a good codex. You have to plan out your list, figure out what units you want to take and how they will work together. There is no "take unit X, repeat four times, win".

 

It's obvious that in 6th Edition, GW expects players to use allies and multiple force detachments. This evens out any short comings a Codex may or may not have. What I mean about may not have is that if you are facing an "Over Powered Army List", you can theoretically take allies or another detachment to even the playing field and bring your army up to at least the same level of power as your opponent's.

 

This could potentially be the theme for 6th Edition. Codex books that are not that good on their own, but when combined with another Codex, they become very, very good.