Army box new Codex - bad taste

[TCC]

Not something I really want to post as I don’t like complaining, but I am quite annoyed at GW not supporting the Army box new codex rules and making statements after the fact that you cannot use it until the mainstream codex is out (no date given), you cannot redeem your codes, we will not tell you what will be left of the dataslate etc

 

Now if they had told us all of this before they put the box up for pre-order my expectations would have been managed and I would have been an informed buyer - highly likely I would have still bought the boxes but I would not have this bad taste in my mouth I have now - it’s as if they have ‘cheated’ the sale.

[sairence]

In fairness, the whole "Codex isn't tournament legal until general release" is pretty much the norm for this kind of thing. Same with the FAQ, that only ever comes after full release. So this is all standard, which is likely why they didn't specifically say it. Can't speak to the app, as I haven't used it in ages.

 

As for legal to play with, unless you play at GW events it's really up to talking to your opponents/TOs.

 

I know of an event here and one next weekend that allows it, and I've had several games in my local shop with the new rules already.

[Emperor Ming]

There's a lot that I don't like about the new codex cadia

 

Poor Valhallan's, every major regiment gets a little mention and little lore section, but nothing for the Valhallan's

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

My biggest complaint about the new box is simply how much you have to follow the instructions and how much cutting is required if you don’t.

 

the command squad doesn’t provide an alternative build for the medic. I didn’t want a medic I wanted another gunner. Had to cut most of the drum off the grenade launcher to make it fit over the satchel he carries

[Shamansky]

One golden rule today. NEVER  PRE-ORDER GAMES. No matter what is the game. PC/video, tabletop, CCG etc. Do not let them lazy/incompetent/greedy folks feast on your expectations. Pay for the result.

[Harrowmaster]

Reading through the dex I'm getting a suspicion this is another "designed for the next edition" codex.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

Reading through the dex I'm getting a suspicion this is another "designed for the next edition" codex.

I’d hope so, but I’m not seeing anything that doesn’t fit into this current edition perfectly well, so I’m not sure how different the next edition will be.

[Minsc]

4 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

Reading through the dex I'm getting a suspicion this is another "designed for the next edition" codex.

 

Anything specific that strikes you as designed for next edition?

[Emperor Ming]

57 minutes ago, Minsc said:

 

Anything specific that strikes you as designed for next edition?

Yep, the big standing out point for me, is that in 9th, a codex generally has many layers of rules, such as <chapter> rules, chapter doctrines, both standard and custom, super doctrines and so on

 

So that's generally 3ish layers of rules

 

Genestealer cults just as a random example, have <cult>, then the entire army can deepstrike, then crossfire, then the ambush markers

 

I used to play cults and all those rules are required to make the army not only work but the addition of crossfire in 9th made some decent improvements on the 8th codex. However if you were to tell cult players that you had to choose between crossfire and your <cult>rules, then you would get some odd looks, then anger

 

and the same with any codex really, tell a sisters player they have to choose between the faith system and <order> rules, they would looks at you if you had said something stupid

 

But guard now have to do exactly that, previously we had access to hammer of the emperor and regiment traits, which wasn't winning many people games, guard finished on the final metawatch article firmly at the bottom, making the old codex and dataslate the worst performing faction in 40k in the closing days of this edition

 

So guard will be loosing, standard regiment rules, being able to use hammer and regiment rules, armour of contempt and the line of sight exemption

 

So now, guard players are expected to choose between the new version of hammer of the emperor, and regiment traits, which really really really, has put me off using the new codex, as why should guard players be willing to accept less than what every other codex gets. Hammer while good, or born soldiers as its now know, isn't even that great compared to some of the crazy 9th rules, being solely dependant on how many sixes you roll. It may not affect a game much at all sometimes 

 

However, if this is going to be the format for 10th, were rules get stripped right back and factions have to choose between extra rules and <chapter> rules. Then that would be acceptable. It wouldn't be very popular, not very popular at all

 

But that's kinda my point it wouldn't be popular, so why do guard have to put up with it? 

 

I guess we will have to wait and see

Edited December 8, 2022 by Emperor Ming

[Shamansky]

Overall, the codex looks like either  a 'frame-book' that will be completed with DLC-supplements or an over-simplified 'entity' not from this edition

[MrKoolPants]

3 hours ago, Shamansky said:

Overall, the codex looks like either  a 'frame-book' that will be completed with DLC-supplements or an over-simplified 'entity' not from this edition

 

I wonder about that. I hope that's not the case. 

[Harrowmaster]

21 hours ago, Minsc said:

 

Anything specific that strikes you as designed for next edition?

@Emperor Ming beat me to it but it feels different in terms of faction rules than the other codexes and it's been a bit of a trend for them to do this with guard (3.5, 6). 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

58 minutes ago, Harrowmaster said:

@Emperor Ming beat me to it but it feels different in terms of faction rules than the other codexes and it's been a bit of a trend for them to do this with guard (3.5, 6). 

I think they feel different from other books because the guard’s different subfactions have physically distinct models unlike any other faction.

[Harrowmaster]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think they feel different from other books because the guard’s different subfactions have physically distinct models unlike any other faction.

Maybe but I'm skeptical, most of those aren't even sold anymore and it would be a poor reason to give us on less "layer" of faction rules. Would make more sense if that's how 10th is going to be and they just didn't want to write two guard dexes. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

31 minutes ago, Harrowmaster said:

Maybe but I'm skeptical, most of those aren't even sold anymore and it would be a poor reason to give us on less "layer" of faction rules. Would make more sense if that's how 10th is going to be and they just didn't want to write two guard dexes. 

We have 3 regiments that are currently in production. 4 if you count the GG unit.

every space marine chapter uses the same exact kit for intercessors. Guard don’t really have that ability. A Cadian is clearly a Cadian sculpt and a Catachan is clearly a Catachan.

8th didn’t have the same number of faction rules as others either did it?

Cutting down on rules bloat has been a big theme in how to make 10th better, cutting faction super rules is a way to cut that bloat.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

 

1. That's covered in the wording of the muintorum plasma cannons, its just1mw

 

2, terrible, covers quite a bit in this dex, /looks at catachan datasheet

 

3, demolisher cannons really needed d6+3 shots

What exactly is so terrible about this codex?

there’s a persistent minority constantly talking about how bad this codex is, yet I can never get a straight answer about what’s so bad about it from anyone.

[Shamansky]

7 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

What exactly is so terrible about this codex?

there’s a persistent minority constantly talking about how bad this codex is, yet I can never get a straight answer about what’s so bad about it from anyone.

Some units are made worse, or useless, or gone to make new model-units look better. 
Doctrines instead of 'super-doctrine' not in addition.
Only one PSYKER unit.

Poor wording.
Poor unit variety.
Some relics, WTs, Doctrines are simply fillers/trash in comparison to others, no inner balance in the book.
Lots of copy-paste

I don't say it is terrible, but there's the room for the wish that the Codex be a Codex and not a "Cadia Stands" box set advertisment brochoure.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Shamansky

[MrKoolPants]

3 hours ago, Shamansky said:

Some units are made worse, or useless, or gone to make new model-units look better. 
Doctrines instead of 'super-doctrine' not in addition.
Only one PSYKER unit.

Poor wording.
Poor unit variety.
Some relics, WTs, Doctrines are simply fillers/trash in comparison to others, no inner balance in the book.
Lots of copy-paste

I don't say it is terrible, but there's the room for the wish that the Codex be a Codex and not a "Cadia Stands" box set advertisment brochoure.

 

Agreed. "Having a few very powerful rules combos and/or units" is not the criteria for a good codex. Internal balance is the criteria. You want multiple valid builds that can compete at about 50% win rate in the meta. 

[L30n1d4s]

I have to disagree... this book looks like it can build competitive armies that are all footslogging infantry, mechanized infantry, heavy on tanks and Artillery, or a "balanced" combined arms force of all of these and do well (many armies can only hope to do one or two of these).

 

It also has all the tools needed to be competitive:

 

1- Cheap, durable-for-their-points objective holders that can trade up against more elite armies, as needed

2 - Fast/mobile units to get out and contest the board

3 - Strong baseline firepower and the ability to "spike" it when necessary via orders, Strats, etc.

4 - Easy access to CP generation, solid Psychic Powers, and very powerful (and unblockable) Orders

5 - Some solid counter-assault units and the ability to let squads fall back and shoot (or shoot out of combat with Turret weapons)

 

The only thing I am not sure about is indirect fire...if they keep the Balance Dataslate immunity to IDF nerfs, then they will have some of the most capable Artillery in the game.

 

Anyway, have to heartily disagree with a lot of the naysayers here.

Edited December 13, 2022 by L30n1d4s

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Shamansky said:

Some units are made worse, or useless, or gone to make new model-units look better. 
Doctrines instead of 'super-doctrine' not in addition.
Only one PSYKER unit.

Poor wording.
Poor unit variety.
Some relics, WTs, Doctrines are simply fillers/trash in comparison to others, no inner balance in the book.
Lots of copy-paste

I don't say it is terrible, but there's the room for the wish that the Codex be a Codex and not a "Cadia Stands" box set advertisment brochoure.

Not every unit is going to be strong but most are competitive with each other. This goes for relics and WLTs.

 

we don’t need a super doctrine because our rules combos combined with our orders are very strong. 1 psyker unit I’m not seeing how that’s terrible.

there’s a lot of inner balance.

 

sure there’s a few doctrines, maybe 3 that feel unimpressive and uninspired, but some people just want rules that allow them to build fluffy lists and don’t care if those are strong rules.

 

i agree the Cadian focus on datasheet naming is weird.

cadia stands has most of the new kits, why wouldn’t they want to push their new kits?

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, LtColKool said:

 

Agreed. "Having a few very powerful rules combos and/or units" is not the criteria for a good codex. Internal balance is the criteria. You want multiple valid builds that can compete at about 50% win rate in the meta. 

There are many viable builds.

there are few units that are clear auto-takes compared to other units.

 

 

1 hour ago, L30n1d4s said:

I have to disagree... this book looks like it can build competitive armies that are all footslogging infantry, mechanized infantry, heavy on tanks and Artillery, or a "balanced" combined arms force of all of these and do well (many armies can only hope to do one or two of these).

 

It also has all the tools needed to be competitive:

 

1- Cheap, durable-for-their-points objective holders that can trade up against more elite armies, as needed

2 - Fast/mobile units to get out and contest the board

3 - Strong baseline firepower and the ability to "spike" it when necessary via orders, Strats, etc.

4 - Easy access to CP generation, solid Psychic Powers, and very powerful (and unblockable) Orders

5 - Some solid counter-assault units and the ability to let squads fall back and shoot (or shoot out of combat with Turret weapons)

 

The only thing I am not sure about is indirect fire...if they keep the Balance Dataslate immunity to IDF nerfs, then they will have some of the most capable Artillery in the game.

 

Anyway, have to heartily disagree with a lot of the naysayers here.

right? like i've even seen a video with a title indicating IG are stronger than votann were initially.

the extremes in rhetoric surrounding this codex are wild.

most armies have 2 maybe 3 builds for tournament use. IG have at least 2 viable builds, but potentially a lot more depending how you define a viable build.
but outside the tournament scene where people aren't trying to use the most optimized lists, this codex should have no problem competing with hardly any build you choose.
the idea of losing AOC and the artillery buff kinda sucks, but it is what it is in the end and the codex is still 100% completely competitive.

[duz_]

Several posts have been moved here from the FAQ thread. 

 

The discussion is fine, however this the first and final warning on keeping the discourse civil. Any personal jibes will result in this thread being closed and offending posts removed. 

[Shamansky]

 

51 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

why wouldn’t they want to push their new kits?

 

Some day those will stop being 'new', ya know, and might become 'the only' if the rest of the codex is hamstring-cut

53 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

1 psyker unit I’m not seeing how that’s terrible.

It is HQ choice. Highly competetive in lesser than brigade detachment. Psychic actions will be unavailable if you don't take Primaris Psyker. You don't want it? OK, no more questions.

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

some people just want rules that allow them to build fluffy lists and don’t care if those are strong rules

Some people may not care of whatever they want. I've got tournament oriented community here. And i like taking opponents by surprise, not by pay-to-win.

Anyway. As already said, I don't say the book is terrible. I can see interesting and strong mechanics and lists. Only the time will tell how bad (or good) it is. It just doesn't look like a full scale codex.

[sairence]

You do realise you can take an Astropath as an attachée to your Command Squad, which you're probably taking as one of your HQs anyway, right?

 

So two Psyker-choices, one of which doesn't take up an extra slot. Granted, doesn't get all the spells, but if you're looking for actions it works just fine.

 

And it's not like Guard needs psychic to have viable secondaries. 

Edited December 13, 2022 by sairence
Forgot something

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Shamansky said:

 

Some day those will stop being 'new', ya know, and might become 'the only' if the rest of the codex is hamstring-cut

It is HQ choice. Highly competetive in lesser than brigade detachment. Psychic actions will be unavailable if you don't take Primaris Psyker. You don't want it? OK, no more questions.

Some people may not care of whatever they want. I've got tournament oriented community here. And i like taking opponents by surprise, not by pay-to-win.

Anyway. As already said, I don't say the book is terrible. I can see interesting and strong mechanics and lists. Only the time will tell how bad (or good) it is. It just doesn't look like a full scale codex.

There are many viable army builds with multiple unit combos, as well as army rule combos.

 

As for them doing only Cadia, probably not going to happen. At least not any time soon.
CST came out as new Cadian models. The krieg KT was new krieg models, the Catachan datasheet and the fairly recent Catachan characters both indicate we can expect a new Catachan kit in the near-ish future.(I’d expect it no later than 1yr after this current release has fully released.)

I’d say the most accurate criticism of the codex is it’s not perfect by any means.

 

saying it’s terrible is just flat out not true.

saying it’s bad is a major stretch.

[Shamansky]

10 hours ago, sairence said:

You do realise you can take an Astropath as an attachée to your Command Squad, which you're probably taking as one of your HQs anyway, right?

You do realise that neither Astropath nor Command squad has no PSYKER keyword, right? Only ASTROPATH is mentioned instead. And only Psychic Action an Astropath can make is CP generating ability. When the game was not about hanging out around objective markers that was not a problem. We always had the range of 3-4 units to cast spells, and that was fine. Now it's just another damned limitation of tactics.  You don't want those objectives? Fine. Your call.

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

There are many viable army builds with multiple unit combos, as well as army rule combos.

Please stop repeating this. I'm well aware of those potential combos, that will be good until the meta adapts or geedubs will nerf them. 

9 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

As for them doing only Cadia, probably not going to happen. At least not any time soon.

I don't like this codex because it looks like the space marines route, where only primaris units are in game now. Not in stores, but on the tables. 

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

saying it’s terrible is just flat out not true.

saying it’s bad is a major stretch.

Now tell me where i was saying that the book is terrible, please.

All i was talking about from the very start is the reasons why people don't like this codex. Weren't you asking for that?