Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sigvatr wrote:I guess that it's up to personal opinion, but imo, overall, non-Xenos tend to get better codexes.

/e: And yes, I do know that GK were worse. Then again, Necrons get a new codex that's relatively balanced. When GK got their new codex back then...well, it's obvious.

Except when Xenos got better codexes in the past. Again with the short memories.
Mechdar ruled 4th.
Orks have always been pretty good but had some spotlight times where they were top of the heap.
Nidzilla.
If you count CSM, 3.5 CSM Codex.
Necrons when they first came out and could kill everything.
DE and Necrons right now.

Your statements just don't hold up historically.

So Tyranids got a great codex? They are xeno.

Davor wrote:So Tyranids got a great codex?

In the previous edition? It was pretty good. Cheap monstrous creatures are what got the -zilla suffix on it. You basically spammed MCs and won.

Tyranids had a strong shooting/tarpit build in 3rd edition that was very competive and often had 4-5 Cheap MC in it. They had an even stronger Tier 1 codex in 4th that meshed perfectly with the rules for 4th Edition's BRB. Alot of people point to Nid-Zilla as being typified by the MC, and they were a significant part. However, the real diamonds were the genestealers who where extremely fast, fairly resiliant, possessed Frags, and could literally kill anything thanks to 4th edition's version of rending.

Unfortunately, this codex jumped down to tier 3 with the arrival of the 5th edition BRB. Cheap monstrous creatures proved meaningless when you couldn't open up transports (most 4th nid guns had negative modifiers on the new improved damage chart) and pin the occupants inside, couldn't get cover saves, and couldn't survive fearless wounds. Genestealers also took major hits: either losing 33% of rending or frags and geting hosed by tranportees who were no longer pinned.

Mechdar was also very strong through both 3rd and 4th edition. I played against alot of eldar both in 3rd and 4th edition, and it seamed to me that the 3rd edition codex that came out midway or so through third and lasted through half of 4th seamed to be the stronger of the two codices. Still, guys who actaully played the codices and faced armies other than nids would be the best to ask.

Orcs had a meh 3rd edition codex that lasted through most of 4th edition. When the new Orc codex came out, it was really a forerunner of 5th edition and was very successful in the last days of 4th and the early part of 5th. As the new 5th edition codices came out, Orcs did lose steam, but thier competiveness was boosted with the FAQ that officailly allowed Death Rollers to be used against vehicles.

Necrons had a solid 3rd edition dex that played well throughout 4th. Dash-of-Pepper proved that a very specific 3rd ed. codex build could compete handily in 5th.

All of the armies are competitive if built for fun. WAAC ruins the game as much as internet spam lists. My game group has found that playing lists that are fun with the coolest models a few beers and some smoke make the game so much more fun than spamming some list you found on the net to win.

stormboy wrote:

pretre wrote:. It is just that people have short memories.

This.

Many armies have seen the top and the bottom of the hill. Except the Tau - I think they have always been at the bottom.

I understand the gripes about not having balance - but I think most people just want their army/armies to be the top. It is human/hobby nature to want your army to be competitive. Or at least recently updated.

Tau used to be far better. Fish of Fury was a viable tactic, and back in 4th their prices didn't seem so high.

rothrich wrote:All of the armies are competitive if built for fun. WAAC ruins the game as much as internet spam lists. My game group has found that playing lists that are fun with the coolest models a few beers and some smoke make the game so much more fun than spamming some list you found on the net to win.

Not sure if serious...

Beerhammer is good and all, but that has nothing to do with competitiveness.

pretre wrote:How long do you think that the hobby would last if the company went down the tubes?

However much they may try to convince us otherwise, GW is not the hobby.

pretre wrote:

Davor wrote:So Tyranids got a great codex?

In the previous edition? It was pretty good. Cheap monstrous creatures are what got the -zilla suffix on it. You basically spammed MCs and won.

It was basically one unit that was good and could be spammed in exactly one competitive list: The Carnifex in HS and Elite. One unit doesn't make a good Codex though. Then they nerfed the Carnifex ...

insaniak wrote:

pretre wrote:How long do you think that the hobby would last if the company went down the tubes?

However much they may try to convince us otherwise, GW is not the hobby.

I was talking about his wish for sixth to tank.

So was I. Warhammer 40K tanking will not kill the hobby. Just Warhammer 40K. Maybe. It certainly didn't kill Battletech.

I think warhammer 40k surviving is assured. If only because of the number of players.
Also so if people hate 6th ed, theres always 5th/4th/3rd and pancake to play.

The hobby can survive without GW,
GW can't survive without the hobby.

Kroothawk wrote:

pretre wrote:

Davor wrote:So Tyranids got a great codex?

In the previous edition? It was pretty good. Cheap monstrous creatures are what got the -zilla suffix on it. You basically spammed MCs and won.

It was basically one unit that was good and could be spammed in exactly one competitive list: The Carnifex in HS and Elite. One unit doesn't make a good Codex though. Then they nerfed the Carnifex ...

Genestealers were pretty good in 4th with Rending activating on a hit of 6. And unless there was an FAQ, Carnis could only be Elites if they were under 115pts in a 1500pt game.

Hulksmash wrote:Pretre makes a good point And I'd like to point out that orks are still one of the nastiest armies in existence. I'm pretty sure that of the three GT's/2-day events I know about last weekend that we had:

Daemons & Eldar take overall at the Bugeater & Game Empire events. (not sure who had overall at the Railhead Rumble)

Orks, & Eldar take Best General at the Bugeater & Railhead Rumble.

The idea that Xenos is worse than MEQ is just wrong. They've pretty much always been strong or over the top and they mostly still are. Granted I won't say they don't have a higher learning curve than your average MEQ army. But if you actually take the time to learn them they are nasty, even in the world of GK's and SW's.

Yep. We recently had a thread about this. Xenos armies are on par with Imperial armies-- the idea that they aren't is largely a meme spread by netlisters who haven't spent the time necessary to understand more complex armies. MEQs are specifically designed to be somewhat forgiving to play-- this used to explicitly be spelled out in the designer's notes-- and thus have less of a learning curve, but that doesn't make them better. Some of the nasty tricks that Necrons, DE, Orks, and even the dated Eldar can pull off just aren't available in other books, and overall you'd be foolish to discount Xenos forces.

Deadshot wrote:Genestealers were pretty good in 4th with Rending activating on a hit of 6. And unless there was an FAQ, Carnis could only be Elites if they were under 115pts in a 1500pt game.

... which was the birth hour of the Dakkafex (plain Carnifex with 2 twinlinked devourers for 113 points), 3 of them mandatory in all competitive Tyranid lists.

Deadshot wrote:And unless there was an FAQ, Carnis could only be Elites if they were under 115pts in a 1500pt game.

There wasn't a game-size limitation, and that's what made Nidzilla so nasty - twin-devourer Carnifexes w/the BS upgrade were 113 pts. So you took 3 as Elites, 3 gun-fexes as Heavies, and dared your opponent to kill them.

Deadshot wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

pretre wrote:

Davor wrote:So Tyranids got a great codex?

In the previous edition? It was pretty good. Cheap monstrous creatures are what got the -zilla suffix on it. You basically spammed MCs and won.

It was basically one unit that was good and could be spammed in exactly one competitive list: The Carnifex in HS and Elite. One unit doesn't make a good Codex though. Then they nerfed the Carnifex ...

Genestealers were pretty good in 4th with Rending activating on a hit of 6. And unless there was an FAQ, Carnis could only be Elites if they were under 115pts in a 1500pt game.

113 for dual devourers and BS3 IIRC. 8 twin-linked S6 shots re-rolling to wound, at 18". It had to be at least a 1500pt game, but 1500pts was the smallest size you ever saw in normal tournaments. 1700-1850 has been more common for the last ten years (with some events spiking to 2k), at least in the US. Tyranids didn't just have the MCs, though. Stealers, Tyrants, Raveners, Biovores were all great, and even the little bugs were useful. Eldar, of course, were nasty as heck, especially the Harliefalcons build.

GW put a "teaser vid" up tonight

http://youtu.be/nef_5gNkGfM

6th edition lands on June 23rd!

well... thats cool with me lol

Just beat me to it, Kitch. Well I made a thread about it since I didn't see anyone make one.

God damn it. Feth 6th ed I'll find another club.

I think this would be a good time to close this one and move to the other thread. Especially since this one is now wrong.

@Deadshot: At least give it a chance, damn man.

pretre wrote:How long do you think that the hobby would last if the company went down the tubes?

Which hobby are we talking about? Miniature wargaming, which existed before GW and will exist after GW, or the HHHobby, an imaginary construct created by blind fools who thing GW is the be-all and end-all of miniature wargaming? Regardless of which one of those two you end up picking, the answer is "as long as it has always done". You think 40K dies with GW? You don't think other companies would swoop in to acquire that IP?

Well to bad for the OP.

Can someone edit the title since it is off by 2 weeks

6th ed 2 weeks from tomorrow, pretty sweet!

kitch102 wrote:6th edition lands on June 23rd!

I think that's the announce date.

Nice that we don't have too long to wait.

I may actually buy a starter box for the first time in 3 editions if the contents are as rumoured

As an added bonus, Wayland are offering extra discount on GW products (not all mind you) until the 30th June. In all likelihood it won't include the 6th ed box set, though it'll definitely be worth keeping an eye out for either way.

Slightly off topic, though I thought you guys would want to know, just in case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

kitch102 wrote:6th edition lands on June 23rd!

I think that's the announce date.

Be it the announce date or the release date, it'll be nice to actually know what's going on in our most beloved of hobbies either way

pretre wrote:I think this would be a good time to close this one and move to the other thread. Especially since this one is now wrong.

@Deadshot: At least give it a chance, damn man.

I have heard.some total loads of crap. Different characteristics and gak like that. If the set cganges too much I ain't playing. I like 5th. Its the magic number and lucky. 6 is evil.

Yeah, for the empire teaser they had the date advance orders went up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD7YVR5Cm98&list=UUwdh3MTrFq3sXlB4ct8B-Fg&index=10&feature=plcp