Andy Chambers codex design philosophy Q&A from 1996

[A.T.]

Sure balance wasn't the best (when is anything ever balanced), but I still had great fun playing underpowered armies even though actual army lists and designs were so much simpler back then. 

 

Somewhere around the start of 5th was the closest GW have gotten with game balance IMO.

Still a lot of rough edges and somewhat wonky scoring but at around 1500-1850pts you could play any faction without being a massive underdog, blown off the board turn 1, dead out of the gate due to some unfavourable paper/scissors/stone match up, or stuck trying to shoot down the same wave serpent for five straight turns without success...

[M@verik115]

 

Sure balance wasn't the best (when is anything ever balanced), but I still had great fun playing underpowered armies even though actual army lists and designs were so much simpler back then. 

 

Somewhere around the start of 5th was the closest GW have gotten with game balance IMO.

Still a lot of rough edges and somewhat wonky scoring but at around 1500-1850pts you could play any faction without being a massive underdog, blown off the board turn 1, dead out of the gate due to some unfavourable paper/scissors/stone match up, or stuck trying to shoot down the same wave serpent for five straight turns without success...

 

Meh thats debatable. There have always been factions that are top tier and factions which were bottom tier. 

In 5th edition orks, tyranids, IG and chaos were really good. If we go just to the start, 4th ed daemons were constant winners. 

[Schlitzaf]

5th Edition had some problem espacially with Grey Knights and Space Wolves. But it was an edition where everything just worked. The biggest issue was tactics and flavor armies locked behind characters.

 

Some codexes and armies (Black Templars, and Dark Angels for Marines, Sisters of Battle post Grey Knight change, Tau alongside some specific rules and units such Mob Rule, and Carnifexes) really needed an update but the rule set was streamlined and nothing that grotesque.

 

If 5th had the modern army wide tactic of 8th edition I think it would been the best if not the best edition. However stratagems are something that add to the game and break up some of the modicum. My personal definition of a good edition is the following.

 

If the standard 2 HQ, 3-5 Tactical Squad Equivalent either Horde, Rhino or Podding, 2-4 Speciality Unit is viable it’s a good edition. For example.

Marshall

Champion

2x 5 Man Assault Terminators

4x 13 Man Crusaders (Or in 5th 9 Man Rhino)

2x Triple Las Devi (Or in 5th Trilas Pred).

Or more generic version

Captain

Auxillary Character

1-3 Veteran Squads

3-5 Tactical Squad Rhino/Pod/Etc

0-2 Scout Squad

1-3 Specialist Answer Squad

 

It looks quite a bit like Demi-Company I realized but the Demi-Company broke by giving essentially up to 500 free points. Something like the Battlelion or Brigade is a more balanced way to do this. That described army is able to take on most threats and has several layers of redundancy.

 

A good edition incentives with reasonable gimmicks troop choices while not invalidating taking Fast/Heavy/Elite Slots. The extra strategem points equates to one additonal interruption for troop tax. Or two rerolls. The edition more killy means you want bodies (or armor) so cheap troops.

 

5th had a good balance but was also last edition to use the traditional Force Org really. 8th returned to a Force Org like Structure while also removing the need for units > troop unlocks.

 

Tl;dr

A Good Edition needs a functional force org with functional taxes. Taxes however shouldn’t be useless but they shouldn’t disencentive other slots. A good edition is founded on a balanced list being playable by its on nature. The balanced list needed not be competitive.

[Lexington]

Meh thats debatable. There have always been factions that are top tier and factions which were bottom tier. 

In 5th edition orks, tyranids, IG and chaos were really good. If we go just to the start, 4th ed daemons were constant winners. 

Orks especially - their Codex technically came out in 4th, which means they could run Nob Biker shenanigans from the very beginning.

 

I would say that, overall, early 5th probably had the best relative balance of any Edition I was ever part of (been playing since late 2nd Ed), but there were still some notable issues even then. Once "Leafblower" IG and the insanity of Grey Knights hit, tho, things went precipitously downhill.

[M@verik115]

So what have we learned? Balance is a lie lol. 
I stopped playing 40K half way through 5th (it was just getting ridiculous and the flavour was destroyed). 
Had a look at 6th, was left even more disenfranchised.
7th... yeah I took up horus heresy then. 
So far 8th has done a pretty decent job and I have enjoyed every game so far (win or lose), but it still doesn't have that charm that 3.5/4th ed had for me. 
But that was mainly down to codex fluff, not really the rules edition itself. 

[A.T.]

 

Meh thats debatable. There have always been factions that are top tier and factions which were bottom tier. 

In 5th edition orks, tyranids, IG and chaos were really good. If we go just to the start, 4th ed daemons were constant winners. 

Orks especially - their Codex technically came out in 4th, which means they could run Nob Biker shenanigans from the very beginning.

 

Wound allocation, mission objectives, and the imperial/chaos/eldar books being caught half way along a shared unit/item points update are the main things that jump out at the outset of 5th.

 

Fix those three things and you are in reasonable shape relative to later edition escalation or earlier edition silliness, especially if you were to pull back on the transport price cuts.

[Major_Gilbear]

It's funny that the chap asking questions in the video is basically addressing the same sorts of issues that the last 8 or so posts have raised about their favourite editions in this very thread, and yet he was called out by an earlier poster as "whining". Even the comments made about 5E can be translated back to their 2E equivalents!

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I wish that one dude would stop asking silly questions, he was taking up time that could have been spent answering real questions. I met Andy the same year at Gamesday and we had a great chat about the Realm of Chaos books, the design of the 2nd ed Chaos range, the fluff and the thought that went into the main list and the two smaller lists in the back. Basically he went into more detail than he did in the designers notes, was really informative. Great geezer and you could tell he was really passionate about what he was talking about.

 

Crazy. I was at that GD, at that Q&A and also met Andy Chambers. 

 

Wasn't Jervis Johnson there, too?