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.

With the Tyranid codex release, there have been a lot of people comparing the "whining" going on with people's opinions of previous codexes when they dropped. In particular, I've seen people dismissing complaints about the Tyranids by saying things along the lines of "people whined when the Eldar codex came out too, and now it's OP". However, my own memory of the Eldar codex release is quite the opposite. So who's right?

Now I'm not normally one to put myself in the middle of any controversy, nor one to make spreadsheets for fun (ok maybe I do make spreadsheets for fun), but I felt some hard data was needed to prove or disprove these claims about the opinion of old codex releases. Fortunately everything we ever say on the internet is preserved forever, so I compiled some data on what people thought about the Eldar codex by looking back at a discussion thread from the week after its release, and compared it to the Tyranid discussion thread going on right now.

The threads in question are here:
So thoughts on the new Eldar codex?, starting 6/1/2013 and looking at all 6 pages (thread died after one week)
Your thoughts on new Tyranids Codex?, starting 1/11/2014 and looking at only the first 6 pages (thread is at 12 pages after 4 days and still going)

To support the validity of the comparison, I believe it is important that the threads in question both started off with neutral (almost identical) titles and neutral first posts, and both started on the day of their codex release.

My methodology for each thread was pretty simple: make note of every unique user who posts in the thread, and based on any comments they make, determine if they have an overall positive or negative view of the codex for whatever reason. Off-topic users were noted, but not counted in any way for determining opinions on the dex. Users who only popped in to say "I like unit X now" or "I hate what they did with Y" with no other commentary on the codex at large were still placed in positive and negative categories respectively. When users offered a more nuanced view I looked for a summary statement like "Overall I'm happy/unhappy" or "Even still, I'm excited to get a chance to use this codex", as it's possible to praise or criticize some aspects of a dex while still holding the opposite view of the codex overall. Occasionally people's opinions were too mixed to categorize, so I considered them neutral.

I realize this is subjective, so I welcome anyone else to repeat my work and see what numbers you get.

Anyway, on to the results:

For the Eldar thread, I counted 68 unique users, of which 29 made nothing but off-topic comments or otherwise did not express a noticeable opinion on the codex. Of the 39 who offered some kind of praise/excitement or criticism/disappointment, etc, there were 9 users whose opinions were more negative than positive. There were 27 users whose opinions were more positive than negative. And there were 3 users whose views were neutral or mixed. Based on this, the consensus opinion on Eldar was 69% positive and 23% negative, with 8% neutral/mixed.

For the Tyranid thread, I looked only at the first 6 pages to get a similar sample size (and because reading the thread was tedious and depressing).

Within the first 6 pages, I counted 81 unique users. Out of those, 19 users made only off-topic or otherwise irrelevant comments. That leaves 62 users who did make some kind of opinion about the codex known somehow. There were 12 users who posted positive views (I was pretty generous with this, anyone even playing devil's advocate or saying "wait and see" I considered positive), 5 mixed opinions, and 45 negative views. The negative views ran the gamut from long, impassioned, well-reasoned complaints, to people popping in to leave one snide comment. Percentage-wise, the Tyranid thread broke down as 19% positive, 73% negative, 8% mixed.

So the numbers are actually nowhere near close. It's even worse if you read the content of the posts: the 23% who were unhappy with Eldar after 1 week looked like they were on Zoloft compared to the 73% of incredibly bitter and dejected people in the Tyranid thread. In conclusion, I don't think there is any basis at all for comparing the Eldar release to the Tyranid release. The difference between the two is night and day.

*********

For future work, I plan on waiting until the end of this week and evaluating the entire week's worth of opinion in the Tyranid thread, for consistency's sake. I also may revisit the Chaos Space Marine codex, Daemon codex, and Tau codex release discussions, as these are also frequently referenced in comparison with the Tyranid release. Based on memory, I hypothesize that the CSM codex might yield similar opinions to the Tyranid codex. Tau I expect to be mostly positive, and Daemons are a total wild-card as I remember that codex getting a pretty mixed reception (although comparing opinions on a ground-up rewrite to a barely-changed codex is not very useful anyway in my opinion - a total reboot is harder to evaluate than a collection of incremental changes, and the more you change the more flak you will draw whether the changes ended up being good or bad - some people just don't like change).

I also welcome anyone else to repeat my work on the two threads I used, or conduct a similar look at threads from different Codex releases. More data is never a bad thing!

Now please tell me the % of those (in the "whining" category) that are simply comparing units from the 5E codex to the new codex and freaking out ...and those that are looking at this codex as something new with a 6E approach - which does seem perfectly playable, though perhaps (like everything else) weak against the toys-r-us TauDar list...

First of all, awesome job! I'm sure that took you some time to do.

Secondly, your results don't surprise me. Most people have a very hard time being objective, especially with their own memories. I was personally getting tired of reading "its always this way when a codex releases". Obviously, it isn't, and that kind of statement is pure generalization and in no way represents reality.

Tau had incredibly positive responses. Eldar had incredibly positive responses. Tyranids did not.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Now please tell me the % of those (in the "whining" category) that are simply comparing units from the 5E codex to the new codex and freaking out ...and those that looking at this codex as something new with a 6E approach - which does seem perfectly playable, though perhaps (like everything else) weak against the toys-r-us TauDar list...

Yes, you were QUITE the vocal minority in the Tyranid thread.

And I didn't try to record or compare those numbers. The point was to dispute the claim that the Eldar codex had anything like a similar consensus about it on release - it absolutely didn't. I don't have any way of knowing whether people's complaints about Tyranids are valid, and I don't actually care. I just know that roughly 3/4 of people who expressed an opinion on the Tyranids were unhappy or critical (usually VERY unhappy or VERY critical), versus only 1/4 of people for the Eldar codex.

Incidentally for the Eldar thread there were really only a handful of complaints so I made a few notes on what they actually said. Two upset that the power level went down, two upset because the rules did not fit the fluff, two said that the codex had large flaws, but were still looking forward to play it (which honestly is not even that negative an opinion), one poster called the codex "one dimensional and overpowered", one poster literally posted a picture of The Critic saying "It stinks!" and nothing else, and one poster said he wanted to shelve his army.

What you should also factor is - most people are burnt on listening to and arguing with the whiners, and/or trying to add positive comment... we just did this with Escalation.

But why would this kill a discussion group for an army? If so, wouldn't people have long quit after the rage of CSM and even possibly SoB? Both of them (admittedly I came in after CSM were out and SoB I was only vaguely interested in) seem to have some level of bitterness and anger. Heck, CSM players still are very disapproving of their codex with bile and bitterness rampant. Drama is very common in 40k and it isn't like we don't have a weekly/monthly hey is forgeworld legal or not that leads to eternal rage. So I wouldn't quite say this did anything.

Also, wouldn't this opinion be long pre-existing? Maybe I am wrong, but good codices, bad codices, over-reactions, etc have come and gone. Some armies have been complained about for broken choices whilst others wallow in their aging. There were probably many of these people that were burnt out on listening and arguing with the "whiners" (my apologies, I find it silly to call them whiners when such individuals often whine about whining which thus rips a hole in the realm) open as spawn and gribblies dash out. Oh and the Eldar had less people.

Another factor is that the older Eldar codex was sooo far out of date that it was clearly expected to be a re-write. Not so much for the nids codex, despite the desires of the players.

A more accurate comparison will be when the new IG/SW/BA stuff comes; especially with the latter 2 I predict very little change except some unit movement and points adjustments.

 StarTrotter wrote:
But why would this kill a discussion group for an army? If so, wouldn't people have long quit after the rage of CSM and even possibly SoB? Both of them (admittedly I came in after CSM were out and SoB I was only vaguely interested in) seem to have some level of bitterness and anger. Heck, CSM players still are very disapproving of their codex with bile and bitterness rampant. Drama is very common in 40k and it isn't like we don't have a weekly/monthly hey is forgeworld legal or not that leads to eternal rage. So I wouldn't quite say this did anything.

Also, wouldn't this opinion be long pre-existing? Maybe I am wrong, but good codices, bad codices, over-reactions, etc have come and gone. Some armies have been complained about for broken choices whilst others wallow in their aging. There were probably many of these people that were burnt out on listening and arguing with the "whiners" (my apologies, I find it silly to call them whiners when such individuals often whine about whining which thus rips a hole in the realm) open as spawn and gribblies dash out. Oh and the Eldar had less people.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at, but I think you're saying burn-out from previous "whining" probably didn't affect people's responses to later releases, and I agree.

As for the Eldar thread having less people, I think that's a product of the topic at hand. "What do you think of X?" doesn't generate a lot of discussion when most everyone agrees and has a positive view. Then everyone drifts off to the tactics or fluff threads for further discussion. It makes for a smaller sample, but what can you do about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Another factor is that the older Eldar codex was sooo far out of date that it was clearly expected to be a re-write. Not so much for the nids codex, despite the desires of the players.

A more accurate comparison will be when the new IG/SW/BA stuff comes; especially with the latter 2 I predict very little change except some unit movement and points adjustments.

Sure, you can spin it however you like. I'm not claiming to know why the Tyranid codex had such a negative backlash, or whether any of those opinions were valid (I have my own reasons for disappointment, but I attempted to keep that out of this). All I know is that comparing the two threads, there is no similarity between the response to the Eldar dex vs. the response to the Tyranid dex.

Good on ya, mate. I had a feeling that the Eldar's release wasn't poorly received as the Tyranids release. Finally those "Oh, just wait. Look at Eldar, people said it was crap and look what happpened!" comments can stop. I would personally count the "Just wait and see" comments as irrelevant but I guess that's based on opinion.

To be fair, though, I'm going through that Eldar thread now, and it seems like everyone thought that the Wraithknight sucked balls.

And certainly no one picked up on the real power combos.

That said, instead of "proving the anti-whiners wrong" you could rather try to stop them from (or at least not let them get away with) using the massive fallacy that "people whined before and they were proven wrong so people whining now must be wrong too." Probably has a fancy latin name too.

No surprises. No one but a very small minority will dispute that the Eldar codex is objectively more powerful than this new Tyranid release by far in a TAC enviroment.

When the Eldar codex was nearing release and the details of rules like ARMY WIDE RENDING FOR FREE, FREE BS BOOSTS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE BATTLE-FOCUS FOR EVERYBODY, cheaper GJB's and a moronic FREE serpent-shield that fires d6+1 strength 7 shots at 60'' that IGNORE COVER, it's a no-brainer that people would be more optimistic. By comparison, the only "boosts" Tyranids really got were new units, none of which really "fit" into the meta very well (short-range shooting, weak flyers), and points cost reductions, some of which are deceptive when you consider other factors (like 'gaunt point drops. Yeah, termagaunts when down one point, but they lost the ability to get free toxin sacs from a tervigon, and they cost 2 points per model, so teramgaunts only went down in costs if you run them naked).

Clearly not as much of an "overall upgrade" for Tyranids, compared to the clear upgrade Eldar got as an army.

lol@ No one picking up on the power combos. The most competitive Eldar list is the seer council deathstar with Dark Eldar or Tau thrown in. That was the most competitive Eldar list before 6E Eldar was even released, Wraithknights have just been thrown in now for good measure.

Like all codexes, the most powerful builds were picked out early and probably won't change until the edition changes. The only mix-up to that is dataslates, which is an unprecedented factor for 40K.

Good work. I will be interested to see the other results as well. One thing that people should note is that this is the initial perception of the codex, not the "final" opinion. I think the final opinion is important as well, but would be harder to get.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

*********

For future work, I plan on waiting until the end of this week and evaluating the entire week's worth of opinion in the Tyranid thread, for consistency's sake. I also may revisit the Chaos Space Marine codex, Daemon codex, and Tau codex release discussions, as these are also frequently referenced in comparison with the Tyranid release. Based on memory, I hypothesize that the CSM codex might yield similar opinions to the Tyranid codex. Tau I expect to be mostly positive, and Daemons are a total wild-card as I remember that codex getting a pretty mixed reception (although comparing opinions on a ground-up rewrite to a barely-changed codex is not very useful anyway in my opinion - a total reboot is harder to evaluate than a collection of incremental changes, and the more you change the more flak you will draw whether the changes ended up being good or bad - some people just don't like change).

I also welcome anyone else to repeat my work on the two threads I used, or conduct a similar look at threads from different Codex releases. More data is never a bad thing!

Not positive about the Daemon results here, but overall I remember other sites for the most part claimed that new Daemon book was awful to downright unplayable crap... Hell, the Grey Knight community on B&C were beside themselves with laughter claiming that Daemons got even worse against them and that there was no longer any point to even play that match-up!

Of course, once people actually played with the book and learned how to manipulate the built-in controls to the perceived 'lol!random!' tables and the synergies that are present, Daemons earned some respect.
Hell, outside of the 2++ abuse that you have to go out of your way to build around, it's probably the best overall balanced book alongside the new Space Marine codex.


Time will tell where Tyranids slot into everything... Sure the book may turn out to be bottom tier on the cutthroat tournament circuit, but I daresay that the majority of players will only care if it's viable & fun for non-ultra competitive settings.
As I've noticed at the LGS for example, the only people who continually bleat on about CSM's being "absolute crap" are the hard-core tournament players. While most people will admit there's still work to be done to improve it, it's still a perfectly viable book when you're not simply looking to exploit the rules and break the game.

While maybe not as blaitently abusable as Tau/Eldar/Daemons, the new Tyranid book at least doesn't look to have the complete dysfunction of the Fantasy DoC book, so the sky isn't falling just yet!

An interesting summary to say the least, and perhaps does show something. However, there are a couple of qualifiers I'd like to throw into the mix:

Eldar players suffered for a long time, going from weak in 5th Ed and worse in 6th (with the 4th ed codex) to top-of-the-game with the new codex. The point being, by the time the Eldar update rolled around, anything would have been an improvement. Compare that to nids, where despite the complaining they were very effective with some builds in 5th and 6th. Nids got a boost just from the 6th Ed BRB, with FMC and Smash making MC's far more useful, and the tervigon staying amazing. So there was far less of a gap in respective power levels from one to the next. Unfortunately, we exist in a meta where, due to the failure to balance a couple of codexes, those who get a book that is in line with most of the others (From what I've read, Nids could take on CSM, DA, and SM in a fair fight, and also do well against non-netlists Tau/Eldar/Demons) then there is cries of complaint.

I'd also add that when the Eldar book came out, it was following CSM, and DA, and Demons were still struggling to find their feet. Tau were the clear winners of 6th at that point, with CSM and DA, as well as CD to some extent, appearing mediocre in comparison. As such, the 'average power level' for 6th Ed dexes was 3 average to 1 above average, so Eldar fit in the latter and are therefore seen as great. Nids, on the other hand, come at a point where Tau and Eldar rule the shooting game, Demons have found a single gimmick that works exceptionally well (Screamerstar) and SM can pull some very anti-MC stunts with grav-bikers/cents. So whereas the eldar release had 3 codexes as average and then 1 above, Nids are released at a point where 3 codexes are average, but 3 are also more powerful than the previous baseline. So the 'expected' power level is higher, and while nids are more than capable of handling half the 6th Ed codexes, 1 build from each of the 'above average' dexes makes them appear weak. It's a case of more and better competition making Nids seem worse, despite actually being in line with what used to be the norm.

As a final point, I would also say that, from initial reading of forums, Nids seem to be a very capable army. They can take CSM, DA and most SM builds on in a fair fight, and contrary to popular belief, there are people who play tau without Triptides, Eldar without Serpent Spam, and Demons without Screamerstar, and Nids look to be capable of beating those codexes when they aren't relying on the netlist crutches.

So really, it's all a matter of perception. SM, DA, CSM and now Nids, as well as Tau without spam and Demons without a gimmick, are all roughly the same level, but it's seen as worse as unfortunately, there is a prevailing belief that the only lists you see are GT-OP-netlists, so anything that doesn't have a 'take me now and win' unit (which is in fact an indicator of poor internal balance) is perceived as a failure, when in fact it is a triumph, bringing the army up to speed without breaking it, which is something Tau, Eldar and Demons failed to achieve.

I fully expect that, in the next few codexes, there will be a complete overhaul for the long-overdue orks, but IG, SW, BA, GK and DE will just be brought into line with 6th, have costs updated, and will be far more a nid-style update than an eldar-style one.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

*********

For future work, I plan on waiting until the end of this week and evaluating the entire week's worth of opinion in the Tyranid thread, for consistency's sake. I also may revisit the Chaos Space Marine codex, Daemon codex, and Tau codex release discussions, as these are also frequently referenced in comparison with the Tyranid release. Based on memory, I hypothesize that the CSM codex might yield similar opinions to the Tyranid codex. Tau I expect to be mostly positive, and Daemons are a total wild-card as I remember that codex getting a pretty mixed reception (although comparing opinions on a ground-up rewrite to a barely-changed codex is not very useful anyway in my opinion - a total reboot is harder to evaluate than a collection of incremental changes, and the more you change the more flak you will draw whether the changes ended up being good or bad - some people just don't like change).

I also welcome anyone else to repeat my work on the two threads I used, or conduct a similar look at threads from different Codex releases. More data is never a bad thing!

Not positive about the Daemon results here, but overall I remember other sites for the most part claimed that new Daemon book was awful to downright unplayable crap... Hell, the Grey Knight community on B&C were beside themselves with laughter claiming that Daemons got even worse against them and that there was no longer any point to even play that match-up!

Of course, once people actually played with the book and learned how to manipulate the built-in controls to the perceived 'lol!random!' tables and the synergies that are present, Daemons earned some respect.
Hell, outside of the 2++ abuse that you have to go out of your way to build around, it's probably the best overall balanced book alongside the new Space Marine codex.


Time will tell where Tyranids slot into everything... Sure the book may turn out to be bottom tier on the cutthroat tournament circuit, but I daresay that the majority of players will only care if it's viable & fun for non-ultra competitive settings.
As I've noticed at the LGS for example, the only people who continually bleat on about CSM's being "absolute crap" are the hard-core tournament players. While most people will admit there's still work to be done to improve it, it's still a perfectly viable book when you're not simply looking to exploit the rules and break the game.

While maybe not as blaitently abusable as Tau/Eldar/Daemons, the new Tyranid book at least doesn't look to have the complete dysfunction of the Fantasy DoC book, so the sky isn't falling just yet!

I'd agree re: Daemons. My recollection was some very negative opinions based on pre-release info, which, with one or two exceptions (looking at you Bloodcrushers, and as of yet still broken Burning Chariot) normalised pretty rapidly when people got the book in hand, played a few games and saw the whole picture.

The anguish over Nids started around the same point I think, but seems to have gotten worse, rather than better, with the release of the book.

Very nice post OP. Super Exalt.


This was the number one fallback I've seen used. All points that it was not even comparable were ignored by people posting it and argued against. I like that their fallback was really not as solid as they claimed and that they were really just using false information to back up a claim. I think by the time 75% of the 40k PAINTING blogs I follow are calling it a bad codex, it's no longer really comparable to whining about the eldar dex.

See I don't even have a problem with the power level of the Tyranid codex, didn't when it was released, still don't care how it stacks up to other codices. I am just disappointed in the fact that so little changed from a boring and bland 5th codex, how some things were pointlessly nerfed, Scything Talons, and how poorly thought out more than 2/3s of the units are.

It is nice to see that the anti-whiner whiners are full of crap as I expected, but it doesn't really help with how poor of a release this is. 5th Tyranids were boring and uninspired, 6th Tyranids follow the same suit and it is just sad. The 4th codex wasn't flawless but it was at least unique and had plenty of character, I want to see more of that and less of what we are getting now.

Excellent post! A a hack historian the attention to detail makes me very happy.

Apologists, this thread isn't about attacking or defending the codex itself, its about the argument in defending the codex that all previous releases had similar negativity. That simply isn't true and he has the results.

Very glad to see this as a fully-fledged thread. I've been posting on Dakka since the Space Wolves release, and so I can recall quite a few releases now. I'm curious to see whether my memory lines up with what you're going to get in your findings...

Sisters (~90/10): Very positive. Seriously, that Codex rocks.
Space Marines (~75/25): Mostly positive, the main complainers were BT ("we aren't unique anymore!!!!") and Iron Hands players.
Eldar (~85/15): Very positive. The main complaints were just how some units were too good or how the Wraithknight wasn't worthwhile.
Tau (~85/15): Very positive, I recall only 3 regular whiners at the time (and they boiled down to "I don't want to use markerlights" and "I can't move 12" and shoot all my guns on a Hammerhead anymore!?! That was the only reason I played the army!!!")
Daemons (~55/45): Bitterly mixed. Makes sense, since the book was basically turned on its head compared to the previous release.
Dark Angels (~65/35): Mostly positive. Main complaints were about the new units, especially the flyers, and how much Deathwing got shafted.
Chaos Space Marines (~45/55): Mixed. At the time it stacked up well versus other armies still, although a lot of people were pissed about Khorne and Tzeentch shafting. It seems to me like the Codex's reputation got worse over time.
Necrons (~60/40): Somewhat mixed. On the one hand, people liked the rules, but people were complaining to no end about the fluff changes, that Ward wrote it and that it wasn't as powerful as the GK Codex (oh how we would be proved wrong...)
Grey Knights (~35/65): Negative. People were complaining about how overpowered it was off the bat.
Dark Eldar (~90/10): Very positive. Was considered one of the most balanced Codices out there and a ton of fun to play. Honestly I didn't pay a lot of attention during this release though.
Blood Angels (~55/45): Mixed. Initially there was a lot of speculation that they were overpowered. Honestly I didn't pay a lot of attention during this release though.
Space Wolves (~50/50): Mixed. Mostly due to people saying the book was overpowered, especially in the 5th ed meta.

The Sisters Codex gets mostly-positive results because we weren't Squatted. There was really nowhere to go but up.

 Paradigm wrote:
An interesting summary to say the least, and perhaps does show something. However, there are a couple of qualifiers I'd like to throw into the mix:

Eldar players suffered for a long time, going from weak in 5th Ed and worse in 6th (with the 4th ed codex) to top-of-the-game with the new codex. The point being, by the time the Eldar update rolled around, anything would have been an improvement. Compare that to nids, where despite the complaining they were very effective with some builds in 5th and 6th. Nids got a boost just from the 6th Ed BRB, with FMC and Smash making MC's far more useful, and the tervigon staying amazing. So there was far less of a gap in respective power levels from one to the next. Unfortunately, we exist in a meta where, due to the failure to balance a couple of codexes, those who get a book that is in line with most of the others (From what I've read, Nids could take on CSM, DA, and SM in a fair fight, and also do well against non-netlists Tau/Eldar/Demons) then there is cries of complaint.

I'd also add that when the Eldar book came out, it was following CSM, and DA, and Demons were still struggling to find their feet. Tau were the clear winners of 6th at that point, with CSM and DA, as well as CD to some extent, appearing mediocre in comparison. As such, the 'average power level' for 6th Ed dexes was 3 average to 1 above average, so Eldar fit in the latter and are therefore seen as great. Nids, on the other hand, come at a point where Tau and Eldar rule the shooting game, Demons have found a single gimmick that works exceptionally well (Screamerstar) and SM can pull some very anti-MC stunts with grav-bikers/cents. So whereas the eldar release had 3 codexes as average and then 1 above, Nids are released at a point where 3 codexes are average, but 3 are also more powerful than the previous baseline. So the 'expected' power level is higher, and while nids are more than capable of handling half the 6th Ed codexes, 1 build from each of the 'above average' dexes makes them appear weak. It's a case of more and better competition making Nids seem worse, despite actually being in line with what used to be the norm.

As a final point, I would also say that, from initial reading of forums, Nids seem to be a very capable army. They can take CSM, DA and most SM builds on in a fair fight, and contrary to popular belief, there are people who play tau without Triptides, Eldar without Serpent Spam, and Demons without Screamerstar, and Nids look to be capable of beating those codexes when they aren't relying on the netlist crutches.

So really, it's all a matter of perception. SM, DA, CSM and now Nids, as well as Tau without spam and Demons without a gimmick, are all roughly the same level, but it's seen as worse as unfortunately, there is a prevailing belief that the only lists you see are GT-OP-netlists, so anything that doesn't have a 'take me now and win' unit (which is in fact an indicator of poor internal balance) is perceived as a failure, when in fact it is a triumph, bringing the army up to speed without breaking it, which is something Tau, Eldar and Demons failed to achieve.

I fully expect that, in the next few codexes, there will be a complete overhaul for the long-overdue orks, but IG, SW, BA, GK and DE will just be brought into line with 6th, have costs updated, and will be far more a nid-style update than an eldar-style one.

This is an excellent post and makes some really solid points. Basically the question is "Is the Nid codex in balance?" Or "Are the Tau, Eldar, Demons out of balance?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
OP Post filled with data

Thank you for posting this - fascinating reading!

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Stuff

Amazing!

Thank you very much for the data. You did a lot of work.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Sisters Codex gets mostly-positive results because we weren't Squatted. There was really nowhere to go but up.

That surprised me, I expected a lot of anger. I find it sad, sometimes it seems like most people assumes the faction is nearly destroyed. Including the players, who praise anything GW throws at them.

Last time I played the few Sisters I have, in the first game I got tabled by flyers and in the second a Termagaunt squad that had just popped out of a Tervigon assaulted one of my expensive (over 150 points) Battle Sisters squads, won the combat by two wounds, and did a sweeping advance. I am not a good player, but that was sad.

A very interesting post! It is nice to see things like this analysed and quantified.

 Psienesis wrote:
The Sisters Codex gets mostly-positive results because we weren't Squatted. There was really nowhere to go but up.

This is my recollection too. On the whole, it was well-reciveved. Though I do remember a fair few people were mostly negative about it.

Yeah, there were a few negative reviews but as a whole, I think the new Sisters Dex was an improvement. And maybe I was just glad we got something that wasn't worse than what we had before.

Which why this shows how sad this is when Nid players are getting sympathy from SOB players.

 da001 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The Sisters Codex gets mostly-positive results because we weren't Squatted. There was really nowhere to go but up.

That surprised me, I expected a lot of anger. I find it sad, sometimes it seems like most people assumes the faction is nearly destroyed. Including the players, who praise anything GW throws at them.

Last time I played the few Sisters I have, in the first game I got tabled by flyers and in the second a Termagaunt squad that had just popped out of a Tervigon assaulted one of my expensive (over 150 points) Battle Sisters squads, won the combat by two wounds, and did a sweeping advance. I am not a good player, but that was sad.

That's because the Sisters have not had a real Codex since Codex: Witch-Hunters in 3rd edition, apart from a stop-gap update in two issues of White Dwarf two years ago. The new digital Codex is the first love we've seen from the studio for the faction in for-freaking-ever.

For an Imperial faction, BL likes to piss on the Sisters, too, and even the GW studio isn't above doing it, either (generally through poorly-constructed scenarios, rather than just not "getting" them).

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
But why would this kill a discussion group for an army? If so, wouldn't people have long quit after the rage of CSM and even possibly SoB? Both of them (admittedly I came in after CSM were out and SoB I was only vaguely interested in) seem to have some level of bitterness and anger. Heck, CSM players still are very disapproving of their codex with bile and bitterness rampant. Drama is very common in 40k and it isn't like we don't have a weekly/monthly hey is forgeworld legal or not that leads to eternal rage. So I wouldn't quite say this did anything.

Also, wouldn't this opinion be long pre-existing? Maybe I am wrong, but good codices, bad codices, over-reactions, etc have come and gone. Some armies have been complained about for broken choices whilst others wallow in their aging. There were probably many of these people that were burnt out on listening and arguing with the "whiners" (my apologies, I find it silly to call them whiners when such individuals often whine about whining which thus rips a hole in the realm) open as spawn and gribblies dash out. Oh and the Eldar had less people.

I'm not totally sure what you're getting at, but I think you're saying burn-out from previous "whining" probably didn't affect people's responses to later releases, and I agree.

As for the Eldar thread having less people, I think that's a product of the topic at hand. "What do you think of X?" doesn't generate a lot of discussion when most everyone agrees and has a positive view. Then everyone drifts off to the tactics or fluff threads for further discussion. It makes for a smaller sample, but what can you do about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Another factor is that the older Eldar codex was sooo far out of date that it was clearly expected to be a re-write. Not so much for the nids codex, despite the desires of the players.

A more accurate comparison will be when the new IG/SW/BA stuff comes; especially with the latter 2 I predict very little change except some unit movement and points adjustments.

Sure, you can spin it however you like. I'm not claiming to know why the Tyranid codex had such a negative backlash, or whether any of those opinions were valid (I have my own reasons for disappointment, but I attempted to keep that out of this). All I know is that comparing the two threads, there is no similarity between the response to the Eldar dex vs. the response to the Tyranid dex.

Blah in retrospect, I regret typing that. I'm running on fumes by now. Apologies for the mess of words but you caught what I was meaning to say.

Honestly I think the Sisters book is pretty amazing, just lacking in choices somewhat due to not bothering to update the model line. But seriously, if GW would release plastic Sisters, I'd break my promise to never start another army and get some Sisters in a heartbeat.

Here is my personal historical record.

1 - Orks 3rd ed. Fun, competitive, love the special rules of the army that made them hordie and unique. Quickly overpowered by Blood Angles and Space Wolves. Orks speed freeks (OMG so fun. zoom zoom, spat. Guntrucks introduced and preliminary bombardment was so much fun. Burna trucks for the win. White dwarf suppliment clans - two pages for 4 clans. Did nothing to actually help the now aging ork codex. 4th ed codex. - Loota spam, no burnas in squads (WTF) loved the expanded capacity of trukks. Loathed the deminished weapon and armory options. No way to get I4 and actually do their job in HTH. Overall - still fun, but limiting.

2 - Space wolves 3rd edition. Lots of wolf labeled stuff back then too. 3 Pfists in blood claws. Rune priests and wolf lords were HTH monsters. Had a Leman Russ tank, wasn't all that great. Long fangs way to expensive. First to get Venerable dreads. Space wolves 4th edition. - pendulum swing on several units, I like TWC. Love Sagas, Love most special characters. Lost a tank, lost unique dreads, Overall a very fun book that had moved ahead with the times. SW always were a marine +1 book, I don't expect that to change.

3 - Chaos - 3rd edition. Pretty much just spiky marines with a few daemon units. 3.5 edition - Da bomb. Chaos now has moved past just spiky marines. First new deamon engine. Minor daemons with character, mutations, full customization, vet skills, it was awesome. Pretty much everything a fluff gamer could want. Also sadly everything a WAAC gamer could want too. 4th edition chaos - Total and complete castration of most everything that made Chaos cool in the 3.5 codex. Total sham. We lost everything customizable and went back to generic spikey marines. 6th edition - Well, its better. Got some flavor back with the cult units, can now play entire marked armies, very cool flyer and new daemon engines. A marked improvement over 4th ed codex. In conclusion... A roller coaster ride of highs and lows. At the moment, I feel they hold the same power level they did in 3rd before 3.5.

4 - Tau - 3rd - Nice fun move and shoot army. 4th - Added a few units, changed how some things worked, but over all a move forward in power. 6th - A pretty good power surge forward thanks primarilly to two units. The buffmander and the riptide. Its only because of allies/suppliments and the broken rules for battle brothers that Tau is OTT. Summery - Its been an steady rise in power and a constant influx of new units.

This has been my personal history and feelings of the three codexs I've been collecting since 3ed edition. Everytime a new codex came out, I had to add stuff and delete stuff from my armies. I've never been able to just swap everything over and have the same gaming experience. Stuff just works differently than it did when it was designed 3 editions ago.

I always have to remember when reading a thread with hate. If you hate something you write about it. If your indifferent to something you usually don't bother because you really don't care one way or the other. If you love something you tend to only write when either bragging or defending. One of which only comes about after a hater has started another thread. So yeah, there is a lot of hate on on-line forums simply because its just so easy.

I think the percentages show that people dont just hate every codex that comes out. I think most nid players want to like this dex, but it is falling so short thats a hard thing to do. I think using data slates to patch it is a poor option because of the volumes of nerfs that need repair.

Great thread, thanks!

Exalted.