eureka!

[Emperors Immortals]

Ok...I am kind of over this. We waited years for a codex that fixed all the mistakes the old one created. So now we get a new codex and...we call it broken? It hasn't even been out very long. Why must we concentrate on the things we don't feel work to the exclusion of all else? It is this mentality that scares me away from the local gaming joint because I was told "you now worship Tzeentch". When asked why the reply was anything else isn't worth it. I am damned well certain every unit our the codex is worth it, people just don't want to think anymore. It's all copy/paste WAAC lists that play themselves...what happened to creating tactics, using models you liked to beat the enemy? I see it in army list reviews all too often. Person X states they want their army reviewed but don't wish to (or are unable to) change what models are in it and ask for tactical advice, only for person Y to demand they scrap the list and use "this list I copied from Mr WAAC over on Winnerz.com or something..."

 

/rant

 

 

 

THIS 1000 times over!!!.

 

I can finally run a WE warband again, I can do my Vraks list legally and I can even have Dark Mech if I so choose - way worth the loss of overpower bandwagon IMO.

[Hellios]

and I still can't take Rubric terminators outside of Apocalypse.... This is why I'm sad...

 

It wasn't an issue with strength when it came to the last dex or this dex, although this dex is better, it was a matter of being pretty bland. You can do more stuff now, but so much has been left out that could have easily implemented. It wasn't that you could make any competitive lists with the old codex but that what people considered the top that top tier lists were essentially a variation of the same list... Are you taking PMs or Zerks? The other issue was just being pretty bland a tasteless as a codex.

 

What I loved about the 3.5 dex was that my group had 12 regular chaos players and between them 9 of the lists were totally different (The 9 different lists were not in fact the legion lists but things like WE red tide and WE Daemon bomb). As over-powered as the dex was supposed to be I won against it 75% of time... and I played against IW Oblit spam, Slaanesh biker daemon bombs and the rest. Hell I even played in a tournament where I lost in the final to chaos by being tabled in the last turn... He had 1 Zerker left and I would have killed that if I hadn't rolled a double 1 on the previous turn. One of the best games I have ever had. The key thing here is that I spent most of the 3.5 days enjoying playing against it and my 1ksons didn't actually come out that often to play in 3.5 days.

 

Now I hope the new dex will make things more interesting as more 6th Ed codices are released but at the moment things seem the same except for cultists and spawn which I must admit are welcome additions to the game.

[Brother Amarel]

Ok...I am kind of over this. We waited years for a codex that fixed all the mistakes the old one created. So now we get a new codex and...we call it broken? It hasn't even been out very long. Why must we concentrate on the things we don't feel work to the exclusion of all else? It is this mentality that scares me away from the local gaming joint because I was told "you now worship Tzeentch". When asked why the reply was anything else isn't worth it. I am damned well certain every unit our the codex is worth it, people just don't want to think anymore. It's all copy/paste WAAC lists that play themselves...what happened to creating tactics, using models you liked to beat the enemy? I see it in army list reviews all too often. Person X states they want their army reviewed but don't wish to (or are unable to) change what models are in it and ask for tactical advice, only for person Y to demand they scrap the list and use "this list I copied from Mr WAAC over on Winnerz.com or something..."

 

/rant

There's a difference between asking for tactical advice and asking for an army list review. Both will get very different answers. In fact, in terms of tactical advice, that's really something that should be given on a unit per unit basis with interactions given rather than presenting an army as a fait accompli and asking other people how you should play it.

 

With regards the main body of your post, I think it's natural to concentrate on what is great and what is bad (game-wise) when a new Codex comes out. If someone wants to just play models they like regardless of how good they are, then they probably also don't care about whether some people on the internet think its a powerful list or not.

 

The new Chaos Codex has some good stuff and some nonsensical stuff and that's always going to be called out. Personally I think it suffers from having the Chaos Boon list - it was clearly considered to be the central focus of the Codex and lots of options that should be statically available for a points cost (2+ armour save, EW on a DP) were lost to make the Chaos Boon table work better.

 

EDIT: As an aside I do find it a little funny, that, seemingly, everyone stating that C:CSM is fine and it's fun, are also people who have an Index Astartes army as their primary force. I should imagine that C:CSM really is fine and fun as a whole if it's just a secondary list that you like to muck around with.

[Nehekhare]

I can finally run [...]

 

Well, what kept you from doing it before?

 

If the rules don't matter, you can play anything, convert anything, make anything up. You don't have to pay for rules that limits your imagination to choices that work on the tabletop.

 

If they do matter, this codex just isn't very good. And there is room in this statement for a LOT of grey area before touching anything like the fabled WAAC jerkery that supposedly thrives in "competitive" tournament surroundings.

 

in both cases, however...

[Cpt_Reaper]

You do raise some valid points Amarel. I admit, there is a difference between asking for tactical advice and reviewing an army list are two different things and as such I could have worded my point better. I over complicated things a bit much. What I meant to say was simply when someone asks for advice on how to effectively run their presented force and they are told to change every unit to meltaguns and powerfists it's wrong in my eyes. I myself saw this happen on another forum when I was told all of my Dark Angel Tactical Squads should be as such, and when I stated the squads I had where my list and I asked how to run them effectively I got the same reply. Run meltaguns and powerfists. I checked several other lists and the reply was the same.

 

This brings me to my overall point, which is simply the community focuses on the bad points of a codex to the exclusion of all else. When someone, such as myself, voices a disagreement to this mentality we are promptly told to be quiet and that everything that was stated to be wrong is wrong. I will admit, the codex could be better in some aspects but it is at the very least a massive leap in the right direction and I wish more people could see that instead of all the doom and gloom.

 

+Additional+

I just wish to clarify that I do not consider myself as owning a Primary Army. My Dark Angels are almost to the point where I shelf them simply because the comments I get when I turn up with them are getting really rather hurtful, my Dark Eldar need serious repairs due to inconsiderate people,my Grey Knights are currently being stripped ready for 6th Edition and my Chaos is slowly growing to 3500 points. Each army interests me for different reasons, both for fluff and gameplay.

[Dallas Drake]

I also agree 100% with 11th Company Dark Master.

 

I hate to say it but to a certain extent you have to look at player ability. Someone who is pretty bad at the hobby will still win games if they take the WAAC units, I know a guy who is alright, but he basically runs Vulkan loads of MM/HF speeders, ML Devs, 7xTH/SS Terminators in a LRC & 3 tac squads. He wins games because his army is pretty point & click. C:CSM is less points and click, mainly since we have no automatic 'go to' deathstar units.

 

For me, (a player since 2nd ed.) all this WAAC crap started to go crop up & go sour with the advent of TH/SS Terminators getting 2+/3++ against shooting & HtH. The fact that they can take LRC & in some armies add FNP is just the start of the end. Deathstars need to be priced out or taken out of the game. Hopefully our codex is the start of this.

 

Dallas

[UglyWretch]

I also agree 100% with 11th Company Dark Master.

 

I hate to say it but to a certain extent you have to look at player ability. Someone who is pretty bad at the hobby will still win games if they take the WAAC units, I know a guy who is alright, but he basically runs Vulkan loads of MM/HF speeders, ML Devs, 7xTH/SS Terminators in a LRC & 3 tac squads. He wins games because his army is pretty point & click. C:CSM is less points and click, mainly since we have no automatic 'go to' deathstar units.

 

For me, (a player since 2nd ed.) all this WAAC crap started to go crop up & go sour with the advent of TH/SS Terminators getting 2+/3++ against shooting & HtH. The fact that they can take LRC & in some armies add FNP is just the start of the end. Deathstars need to be priced out or taken out of the game. Hopefully our codex is the start of this.

 

Dallas

Agreed!

[Kol Saresk]

EDIT: As an aside I do find it a little funny, that, seemingly, everyone stating that C:CSM is fine and it's fun, are also people who have an Index Astartes army as their primary force. I should imagine that C:CSM really is fine and fun as a whole if it's just a secondary list that you like to muck around with.

Noctus and Excessus don't have IA armies and they think it's fine. And neither does Littlebitz. And Smurfalypse seems to be okay with it. I would list myself but I don't have an army.

 

But seriously, I just love how people look at the fact that the theoryhammer only has one tournament list for this Codex, that is the only list that exists. Look at it. Ignore the theoryhammer, and just start making lists just to make them. There is more than the Biker list. I've said more than once ad I've even shown how you could do it when it comes to recreating the Legion lists. You won't have the rules and you won't have the 100% guaranteed viability where you can sit, point and go "Kill!" and it kill, but you won't have the restrictions either. The only thing really missing are Cult Terminators. But as Hellios pointed out, they still exist in Apocalypse. Since everyone is into house rules and while complains about how being overpowered ruins othe armies just want to be overpowered themselves, I'm sure you can convince everyone to let you carry one or two Apoc units.

 

As for tactics being only on a unit by unit basis, not exactly true. It is in figuring out what you want each unit to do. But unless you make them work together in harmony, like say use a unit of Bikers to draw an enemy squad into range of an immobilized Dakka Fiend. Or a vehicle into range of an ectoplasma fiend.

[Brother Amarel]

You do raise some valid points Amarel. I admit, there is a difference between asking for tactical advice and reviewing an army list are two different things and as such I could have worded my point better. I over complicated things a bit much. What I meant to say was simply when someone asks for advice on how to effectively run their presented force and they are told to change every unit to meltaguns and powerfists it's wrong in my eyes. I myself saw this happen on another forum when I was told all of my Dark Angel Tactical Squads should be as such, and when I stated the squads I had where my list and I asked how to run them effectively I got the same reply. Run meltaguns and powerfists. I checked several other lists and the reply was the same.

Well it was the most effective way to run them. The most fun way to play them, however, is in the eye of the beholder and no-one else can really answer that :jaw:.

 

This brings me to my overall point, which is simply the community focuses on the bad points of a codex to the exclusion of all else. When someone, such as myself, voices a disagreement to this mentality we are promptly told to be quiet and that everything that was stated to be wrong is wrong. I will admit, the codex could be better in some aspects but it is at the very least a massive leap in the right direction and I wish more people could see that instead of all the doom and gloom.

I guess I don't see it as quite that negative - I've seen many comments on the quality of Fast Attack options (with a sub-point of Bikes being considered the best) and basic CSM being better for having choices (with a good amount of people commenting on them not being as good as GH) and DP having great stats now (with many people bemoaning the new cost and lack of EW that goes with it). My point being that you can always find many comments showing the good and the bad, but if you take them all into account it's a lot more balanced. You also have to allow for personalities, some people are naturally more negative and some more positive.

 

Certainly I have a number of issues with the new Codex, but I'm definitely happier with this one than the last one (even if it's not everything that I hoped it would be and a number of the issues just seem so simple to have got right).

[Brother Amarel]

Noctus and Excessus don't have IA armies and they think it's fine. And neither does Littlebitz. And Smurfalypse seems to be okay with it. I would list myself but I don't have an army.

I used "seemingly" on purpose.

 

But seriously, I just love how people look at the fact that the theoryhammer only has one tournament list for this Codex, that is the only list that exists. Look at it. Ignore the theoryhammer, and just start making lists just to make them. There is more than the Biker list. I've said more than once ad I've even shown how you could do it when it comes to recreating the Legion lists. You won't have the rules and you won't have the 100% guaranteed viability where you can sit, point and go "Kill!" and it kill, but you won't have the restrictions either. The only thing really missing are Cult Terminators. But as Hellios pointed out, they still exist in Apocalypse. Since everyone is into house rules and while complains about how being overpowered ruins othe armies just want to be overpowered themselves, I'm sure you can convince everyone to let you carry one or two Apoc units.

We need to stop throwing the phrase "Theoryhammer" around, it's a patronising strawman argument. Plenty of people have played plenty of games with the Codex now and have tabletop experience with it. Let's not forget that many people have the issue of lack of internal balance and interesting options rather than purely to do with if there is one power list. The last codex had a good power list, but it wasn't popular for various other reasons.

 

As for tactics being only on a unit by unit basis, not exactly true. It is in figuring out what you want each unit to do. But unless you make them work together in harmony, like say use a unit of Bikers to draw an enemy squad into range of an immobilized Dakka Fiend. Or a vehicle into range of an ectoplasma fiend.

 

Which is why I said: "in terms of tactical advice, that's really something that should be given on a unit per unit basis with interactions given rather than presenting an army as a fait accompli and asking other people how you should play it."

[Jonah]

+Additional+

I just wish to clarify that I do not consider myself as owning a Primary Army. My Dark Angels are almost to the point where I shelf them simply because the comments I get when I turn up with them are getting really rather hurtful, my Dark Eldar need serious repairs due to inconsiderate people,my Grey Knights are currently being stripped ready for 6th Edition and my Chaos is slowly growing to 3500 points. Each army interests me for different reasons, both for fluff and gameplay.

 

I have to ask. Are you being bullied?? What are the bad comments about your Dark Angels? Are people throwing your Dark Eldar off the table? If I ever play against a troll I just don't play them again.

[Kol Saresk]

Noctus and Excessus don't have IA armies and they think it's fine. And neither does Littlebitz. And Smurfalypse seems to be okay with it. I would list myself but I don't have an army.

I used "seemingly" on purpose.

 

As for tactics being only on a unit by unit basis, not exactly true. It is in figuring out what you want each unit to do. But unless you make them work together in harmony, like say use a unit of Bikers to draw an enemy squad into range of an immobilized Dakka Fiend. Or a vehicle into range of an ectoplasma fiend.

 

Which is why I said: "in terms of tactical advice, that's really something that should be given on a unit per unit basis with interactions given rather than presenting an army as a fait accompli and asking other people how you should play it."

Fair enough, misunderstood. My fault. I saw unit by unit and I thought you meant like the suggestions "Use this unit only to do this." but never any advice on how to get the units to act together.

 

But seriously, I just love how people look at the fact that the theoryhammer only has one tournament list for this Codex, that is the only list that exists. Look at it. Ignore the theoryhammer, and just start making lists just to make them. There is more than the Biker list. I've said more than once ad I've even shown how you could do it when it comes to recreating the Legion lists. You won't have the rules and you won't have the 100% guaranteed viability where you can sit, point and go "Kill!" and it kill, but you won't have the restrictions either. The only thing really missing are Cult Terminators. But as Hellios pointed out, they still exist in Apocalypse. Since everyone is into house rules and while complains about how being overpowered ruins othe armies just want to be overpowered themselves, I'm sure you can convince everyone to let you carry one or two Apoc units.

We need to stop throwing the phrase "Theoryhammer" around, it's a patronising strawman argument. Plenty of people have played plenty of games with the Codex now and have tabletop experience with it. Let's not forget that many people have the issue of lack of internal balance and interesting options rather than purely to do with if there is one power list. The last codex had a good power list, but it wasn't popular for various other reasons.

And how many people are "having trouble building lists" because they look at the units stats and then build their lists based on what will have the best chance in terms of probability? Quite a few. Yes, there are people who build a list, take it out, and if they think improvement is needed, improve it. But there are just as many people telling others how to use the list when they haven't even tried it out or anything approaching it. Is that not theoryhammer? Is it not theoryhammer when you do the math, build List A and then tell someone else how they should use List B based on the math you did? As pointed, there is a difference between "theoryhammer" and experience, but experience is not the same between everyone and depending on how you use the unit, your experience may be radically different from theirs, on the other side of the spectrum even. That's obvious when the comments follow something like "Well this unit did this on me." and the reply is "Well it has(n't) worked for me so far."

 

The theoryhammer becomes obvious when it follows:

"You should be doing this, not that."

"I don't plan on using it like that."

"Then how do you expect it to work?"

 

See the difference? Yes, some have experience, but others are still using the infamous theoryhammer. And yes, it is a patronizing word. I may not have coined it, but I'm pretty sure it was made with patronizing in mind.

 

And I believe part of the argument against the Codex is the one power list. After all, the phrase "3.5 had Nine different lists that varied" while this one is only termed as "only having one list" gives voice to that. I could be wrong. But, the flipside is that while it may only have one "power" list, it still has multiple lists that can work and more importantly, are viable. They're not as viable yes, but they are there so technically even saying that this Codex only has just one list is wrong because it doesn't.

 

Well, that was a rather big tangent. Point is, theoryhammer still is going on. And regardless of how many people have experience, it will still go on. But it is easily recognizable too. It's not the only advice that is being given. Some of it is wishful thinking, some of it is from experience, and some of it is from a moment of creativity that happens to pan out. But to simply say that the word should stop being used when the action itself is being used is wrong IMO. Sorry.

[the jeske]

They're not as viable yes, but they are there so technically even saying that this Codex only has just one list is wrong because it doesn't.

technicly doesnt matter . what can actualy be used matters. I can take a 3 maulers 9 spawns 2x10 cultists army with a flying DP and demon ally , only why play such a list when it has so many bad match ups . Bad list and bad units are dead choices . the fact that a dark apostol or chaos techmarine exist doesnt mean we got 2 new HQs in this dex , because each one of them sucks hard without limitiations like no HQs with more then 2 wounds and psychic powers.

 

 

But to simply say that the word should stop being used when the action itself is being used is wrong IMO. Sorry.

how do you know , if someone , you dont personaly know , doesnt test the codex ?

 

You won't have the rules and you won't have the 100% guaranteed viability where you can sit, point and go "Kill!" and it kill, but you won't have the restrictions either.

you know there is a slight problem then , because there are armies in w40k , which play just like that. unless they roll a lot under avarge , then units ment to kill/counter/tar pit stuff do just that . And before you claim that playing something different is more rewarding then playing something good , I would like to point out that till GK dex came out I was playing NM .In the end there was absolutly nothing rewarding in playing an army that is a bit different .

It is in figuring out what you want each unit to do. But unless you make them work together in harmony, like say use a unit of Bikers to draw an enemy squad into range of an immobilized Dakka Fiend. Or a vehicle into range of an ectoplasma fiend.

ok with range checking in 6th ed how is that suppose to work . If someone charge bikes then he must have a good chance to kill them . after he does that he gets d6" move . If he checks that even after a 4+move he still gets hit by 3 plasma templates he wont charge or he will do anything to not kill the bikers on his own turn . only time he would actualy do it even when in range of plasma , its late turn 5-6 and bikes contesting or being scoring and even then he would spread and go to the ground to get minimum models hits and highest cover possible .

[Kol Saresk]

And can you honestly say that everyone does the exact same thing you do Jeske? Can you say that everyone who gives list building advice actually tests the Codex? How do you know if someone you don't know actually does test the Codex? Can you honestly say that no one gets caught up in the game and makes mistakes, like running into range of a long distance unit? Are there not long distance units that get in hits? Not everyone pays the attention to detail you do. Not everyone is as thorough as you are.

 

Essentially, not everyone is you Jeske.

[Lepaca]

And can you honestly say that everyone does the exact same thing you do Jeske? Can you say that everyone who gives list building advice actually tests the Codex? How do you know if someone you don't know actually does test the Codex? Can you honestly say that no one gets caught up in the game and makes mistakes, like running into range of a long distance unit? Are there not long distance units that get in hits? Not everyone pays the attention to detail you do. Not everyone is as thorough as you are.

 

Essentially, not everyone is you Jeske.

 

Still, when judgeing units one must do so without considering player mistakes.

 

Warp Talons don't magically become better just because an opponent might forget that assaulting into cover without grenades means I1.

[Kol Saresk]

Judging units, that is true. But when judging lists, or more specifically, judging tactics, it becomes a different story. I once got checkmate with a pawn. Literally, a pawn. All because the other guy was too busy focusing my remaining rook and my queen. Tactics rely on your opponent doing exactly what you want them to do. Will it always work? No. But a wrecking ball won't always break through the wall either. Metaphorically speaking. Now, I'm not saying, take three Warp Talons and use them. No. What I an saying is that because if lists are ranked A, B, and C, you shouldn't look at a B list and assume that it is always going to fail because the A list is better. How the other person uses the B list might make it the equal of the A list, simply because the other person learned how to use it.

[Emperors Immortals]

There are a lot of far to obvious problems with this dex, there listed already, but as a positive I can now run khorne marked CSM from every slot no matter how innefficient so now Khorne has his Teeth back I can smile again. CSM is my primary, and has been since 2nd ed, and BA were always a close second, its been like that since 1993ish when I first played against a cardboard Ork Dread.

 

Rules are important to me, while I do counts as units I always prefer to use codex legal choices that are consistant with my models - and now I can. And thats what was stopping me, I dont want to just respray a unit, I want to run that unit. Now I can.

 

Anyway, a more interesting codex could have been written but I feel this one is not only better then Gavdex but also firmly in the direction of what ive been saying - GW are aiming firmly for the non-tournie scene, and really trying to add a "cinematic quality" however thats defined.

 

 

So heres to a new edition, where hopefully we are not left out in teh cold again. Alone...and bitterly plotting revenge. :D

[the jeske]

:) ok I dont get what your saying . you could run khorn marked csm under 3.5 and under 4ed and what do you mean by inefficient ? khorn csm are better then zerkers right now , just because they have 2 slots for special weapons .

 

 

And can you honestly say that everyone does the exact same thing you do Jeske? Can you say that everyone who gives list building advice actually tests the Codex?

unless your a total new guy and/or dont care about the game play aspect , is there any other way to know how a list performs against other lists . armies cost a lot of cash and time [which is cash too] , playing without testing would be like playing any form of poker and forgeting the rules after each game .

 

 

How do you know if someone you don't know actually does test the Codex?

his data is wrong . based on 'and this one time my unit X did Y" or starts with here we play full FW , no kill points only 2250-2350 games , without nightfight and d3 additional objectives . which means his game and his data are so out of synch what majority of main land europe plays , that it is inconsequestial [that Is why I dislike giving advice about 2k+armies , we dont play many games like that here. I can assume stuff about them , but I will never be sure].

 

 

 

Can you honestly say that no one gets caught up in the game and makes mistakes,

yes people do make mistakes , but saying an army or build is just as viable/good as a just good/viable build , just because people happen to make mistakes . is not the way to a good list . this is not WFB , there is no fail charging , baiting aside maybe sometimes in late 5-6th turn .

 

like running into range of a long distance unit? Are there not long distance units that get in hits? Not everyone pays the attention to detail you do. Not everyone is as thorough as you are.

playing against a bad player does not make my army good . at top level small mistakes decide whole games . one cant have both a weaker army and hope to play flawless , while opponents with good builds are suddenly suppose to make errors and not even check range to everything . not checking range in an edition with focus fire , bullet bending , sniping etc is not a smart thing to do .

[Kol Saresk]

Somewhere I feel like we are running around in circles. Let's see, common ground. Okay, you deal in certainty. You want to make sure that the most likely possibility is the possibility that is going to happen. Not everyone does that. It's like baiting. Baiting will never be a certain thing so it will never be something you will do. But for someone like me who relies on both, the probable and improbable happening, it would be a tactic I would try because I realize some people will fall for the bait because they will get caught up in attacking one specific unit that is a threat and forget there are other units that they suddenly walked into range of. Now, I'm not saying you won't use strategies. But going by how you talk and everything, it seems like you are the person who goes the sure route rather than the unsure route.

 

ok I dont get what your saying . you could run khorn marked csm under 3.5 and under 4ed and what do you mean by inefficient ? khorn csm are better then zerkers right now , just because they have 2 slots for special weapons .

Not sure I understand what you are saying here to be exact either. Okay, remember when you were talking to Littlebitz about his tournament army and you were asking him why he had one unit one way or why he didn't have this unit and some of his responses were "I like them this way and it worked out for me." and while his army wasn't the "top" army of the Codex, he still did pretty decent in the tournament? That's what I mean by a "B" rank army. It's not a bad army, but it's not a top tier "victory virtually guaranteed" army either like what you would play.

 

Essentially, not everyone really cares about playing the top army. Some people like to do the improbable and have more fun because they made the improbable happen even though it normally wouldn't. Now, only insane people would play an army that has about much chance of winning as a dead turtle does of running. But not everyone will play the army that has that little of a chance of losing either.

 

And some people don't test armies. They just go "This unit has this much of a chance of getting a hit and getting hit this much and has this much of a chance of dying." They don't test the army. At least, that's not what I would think of testing. I think of testing an army as actually playing the army so many times and seeing what it's overall performance is. And there are some people who just go "Well so-so said this army was the top army so this is what I'm getting."

 

And I'm not saying wait for people to make mistakes either. But, you can always trip someone. Sometimes that's just what baiting is. You "trip" them into doing something they shouldn't that just happens to work out for you. Like following a Biker squad right into range of say, a Defiler's Battle Cannon because you used the Biker squad so much they want to kill it before it does anymore damage. I'm not necessarily hoping and praying the make a mistake, so much as "tripping" them into following the bikers into range of a bigger, more deadlier gun. If it's a game were each side is holding an equal amount objectives, kill points do start to make the difference don't they?