Regularly it seems that there is a thread on these forums asking for what the best codex is. This is not one of those threads. Instead, I'm curious in figuring out, of all currently supported codexes, is generally considered to be the worst. Also, if you could explain why you feel that it is the worst, I would be grateful. When making your choice, you can use whatever criteria you choose. You could think that a codex is the worst because it is too over-powered, or too under-powered. It could have not aged well, or it could have been completely unbalanced when it was released, even though it is fair now. It could only have a few units worth taking. It could have horrible fluff. The book could repeatedly give you paper cuts whenever you pick it up. I don't care, just what criteria you use, I'm just curious to find out what the answer is.

Also note that although the new CSM release is just around the corner, I still included it on the list. Just reference the old codex since the new information is not yet available, and it will be a couple of months after that until we are able to see everything clearly after all the hype (good and bad) dies down.

Dark Angels, since they shouldn't exist at all. Now that bike captains let you take bikes as troops the ONLY thing (other than some 4th edition relics that won't make it into a new codex) different between DA and C:SM is a single character that lets you take some special terminators as troops. You could add two pages to C:SM and nothing at all would be lost.

Black Templars take second place. They're almost as pointless as DA, but at least they have a couple differences here and there. However, they still don't have a purpose in the game (we're the really angry assault marines, just like BA and SW!) and you could just throw out the entire codex and nothing would be lost.

Easily Grey Knights. Codexes come and go, power levels rise and fall, and books get old so judging by power level is silly. However, it takes a truly terrible person to mangle the fluff of the Grey Knights. A person like ward. He went on to mangle the necrons too, but people took it better than GK.

inb4 bandwagon

Black Templars, sadly.

They are much more unique than most other chapters, thus deserving their own codex, but it's from 3rd edition...

Dr. What wrote:
They are much more unique than most other chapters, thus deserving their own codex, but it's from 3rd edition...

See, I really don't understand that. What exactly makes BT different? The fact that they really hate xenos and witches, just like every single other marine army? The fact that they really love close combat, just like SW and BA? The fact that they still have 4th edition rules for terminators, which won't last if they get a new codex? The only thing they have that's really different is the ability to mix "scouts" and "tacticals" in the same squad, but that's not even close to enough to build an army concept on.

(And yes, I know they have different fluff, but stuff like "more marines than a standard chapter" or "always crusading in space" doesn't translate to the tabletop. On the table they're less unique than a C:SM army with a special character.)

...No, actually it's 4th Edition.

Also, as for Dark Angels, keep in mind that back in 4th the other SM codecies weren't all that different either.

I would pick Grey Knights as well. Not because of power, but fluff like Necroshea. There is just far too much Propaganda and 'Grey Knights are AWESOME!!!' held within its covers. It's meant to be the grim darkness of the far future, so why is Draigo waltzing around through the warp and carving his name on Mortarions heart. Yes, I know Draigo is meant to be badass, but come on! Mortarions was a Primarch for Crying out loud!

 Aun Tier wrote:
Also, as for Dark Angels, keep in mind that back in 4th the other SM codecies weren't all that different either.

Yeah, but DA don't have a concept they can fit into. BA, for example, at least had the idea of speed (preferably with jump packs) and close combat that could be expanded into a full army, but the only thing DA really have is some fluff (which doesn't translate into gameplay) and their use of bikes and terminators as troops. Bikes are already done in C:SM, which leaves a single special character. There just isn't very much you can do with "can take terminators as troops", so the best thing to do is just abandon DA as a separate codex and put a Deathwing character in the next C:SM.

Nothing wrong with our codex, apart from it being old. Nothing wrong with anybodys codex as long as you enjoy it. Only thing wrong is douchebags making "What you like sucks" threads over and over as if you thought of an original topic.

Eldar could use some love.

I vote Tau as I think they have more useless options and wargear available of any army. By worthless I mean things which pertain to old rues which no longer exists (Like ignoring target priority).

I voted Eldar for what looks like oldness, but the Tau one is also just as bad. Both are not organized like I expected and I had a weird time trying to find wargear rules in the Eldar 'dex. Fluff-wise, I guess it's fine, but the organization is weird.

I voted Eldar because i hate that codex just try to read it the layout of it is horrible. The way they did the armory and powers its a very confusing codex and i dislike it.

Likewise, I also voted eldar.

Game-wise, take a regular codex and then increase the points cost of everything by a third (or more). Furthermore, because they're an older codex, they don't have the most possible options out there. Also, even at the best of times, eldar armies have suffered from integration problems (oh, so that was my one good CC unit and now it's dead?), which is sort of overlookable when the codex is new and powerful, but not at this age.

Fluff-wise, a lot of new stuff has been written since eldar came out. In a way, some of the better fluff for eldar comes from necron, or dark eldar. You know, not from the eldar codex itself. Plus, emo-elves haven't aged gracefully. It would be nice if they had a reason for living, rather than just a reason for not dying.

They actually do have a reason to die, but it's not that great. Apparently, if all Eldar (DE included?) die, then Ynnead pops out and is powerful. Would be pointless unless by death all of the Eldar turned into Wraithguard/lords and remained spirit stones. The other theory is that their spirits have to go kaput to join with Ynnead. That would suck. Especially because it only gives the 'Crons, 'Nids, IoM, Orks and Tau less to deal with.

Besides all the repetitive Red Space Marine/Green Space Marine/Black Space Marine stuff, Grey Knights is everything that is wrong with 40k. Overpowered and uninspired combined with god-awful fluff. It's a shame because GW also made one of their best codex's ever in the same edition with Dark Eldar, which is it's opposite.

 Peregrine wrote:
Dark Angels, since they shouldn't exist at all. Now that bike captains let you take bikes as troops the ONLY thing (other than some 4th edition relics that won't make it into a new codex) different between DA and C:SM is a single character that lets you take some special terminators as troops. You could add two pages to C:SM and nothing at all would be lost.

Black Templars take second place. They're almost as pointless as DA, but at least they have a couple differences here and there. However, they still don't have a purpose in the game (we're the really angry assault marines, just like BA and SW!) and you could just throw out the entire codex and nothing would be lost.

Agreed 100%

 Ailaros wrote:
Likewise, I also voted eldar.

Game-wise, take a regular codex and then increase the points cost of everything by a third (or more). Furthermore, because they're an older codex, they don't have the most possible options out there. Also, even at the best of times, eldar armies have suffered from integration problems (oh, so that was my one good CC unit and now it's dead?), which is sort of overlookable when the codex is new and powerful, but not at this age.

Fluff-wise, a lot of new stuff has been written since eldar came out. In a way, some of the better fluff for eldar comes from necron, or dark eldar. You know, not from the eldar codex itself. Plus, emo-elves haven't aged gracefully. It would be nice if they had a reason for living, rather than just a reason for not dying.

Compare it to the 3rd edition codex. Yeah. Eldar 4th edition codex is, with the exception of the special characters and the Avatar, pretty much the 3rd edition codex. Oh, and nerfed Star Cannons.

I voted tau in terms of actual rules because it is on of the two codices with only one real army option(the other being SoB) but at least SoB are doing well in tournies..

 Peregrine wrote:
Dark Angels, since they shouldn't exist at all. Now that bike captains let you take bikes as troops the ONLY thing (other than some 4th edition relics that won't make it into a new codex) different between DA and C:SM is a single character that lets you take some special terminators as troops. You could add two pages to C:SM and nothing at all would be lost.

A wise man once said;

When the subject of combining the various space marine codexes comes up, I always hear something along the lines of "Well, Dark Angels are practically vanilla, so they can be folded into C:SM easily".


Well, they bloody well are vanilla now, aren't they!?!


Proclaming Dark Angels as being vanilla just shows ones age.
Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

They had Stubborn Terminators that could be Troops, they had Fearless Bikers that could be Troops, they had the Tornado Land Speeder, Land Speeder squadrons and they had unique access to heavy weapons such as Plasma Cannons outside of Devastator Squads.

The dreaded (pun intended) (psy)Rifleman Dreadnought used to be called a Mortis dread, and was Dark Angels only.

Not to mention Manstopper rounds (S4 on shotguns) and the precusor of the Relic Blade now available to vanilla Captains.

So who amongst the kids present would like to say; "Listen, old man, Space Wolves can get Terminators as Troops, Vanilla Marines have had biker Troops for a long time and everybody gets the Tornado and the Plasma Cannons!"?

Yes, they damn well do NOW!

You kids must realize that once those things were unique to Dark Angels. It was part of what made them special.

The Dark Angels codex is not a case of having been given no special things as such. It is a case of everybody else being granted access to all the things that used to be Dark Angels only.

The fate of Dark Angels is not to be made a codex-chapter. It is to be given new stuff and units, making them unique once again, just like the Space Wolves codex and the Blood Angels codex.

 Ailaros wrote:
Likewise, I also voted eldar.

How funny, so did I.

Horrible layout for one, as already mentioned. When my mate brings out his Eldar we can spend a good part of the game just on trying to find his stuff in the codex.

As for playing the army it too is frustrating. Units have high points costs and miss many options that any new codex gives out like candy. I'm sure the Eldar could afford grenades for everyone if they really tried.

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Space Wolves easily

It's quite a feat to take an army described as aggressive, brawling hunter-types, led by monster-slaying heroes and to turn it into an army list of table-edge hogging gun-lines led by Wizard-spam.

It's the prime example of an Codex-designer who either doesn't give a flying grot about the fluff or doesn't have the slightest clue on how to match rules to fluff.

The book is failure incarnate.

The uninspired Venom-spam that Dark Eldar become is a close second. Some of the best 40K fluff ever died an ugly death when the new DE-book came out.

I doubt most people who voted Sisters of Battle have actually played against them. They're a middling list, not that weak.

They really really really suffer in the flavour department though.

I voted Black Templars, but I also voted because I thought OP meant worse codex just rules wise, I forgot about lore. I actually like Black Templars fluff, but their rules are in serious need of a overhaul in the form of a new codex. Then again, so do Tau and Eldar.

 Zweischneid wrote:

The uninspired Venom-spam that Dark Eldar become is a close second. Some of the best 40K fluff ever died an ugly death when the new DE-book came out.

Enlighten me on how the DE codex is a fluff failure? I really like the current DE but I never read the old codex.

Kajon wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The uninspired Venom-spam that Dark Eldar become is a close second. Some of the best 40K fluff ever died an ugly death when the new DE-book came out.

Enlighten me on how the DE codex is a fluff failure? I really like the current DE but I never read the old codex.

I would also like to know how you think DE fluff sucks. I think DE codex, fluff wise, is the best.

Kajon wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The uninspired Venom-spam that Dark Eldar become is a close second. Some of the best 40K fluff ever died an ugly death when the new DE-book came out.

Enlighten me on how the DE codex is a fluff failure? I really like the current DE but I never read the old codex.

1. The writing is atrocious, expositionary drivel (e.g. "Vect is the most intelligent Dark Eldar" "Vect always felt underestimated in his youth", etc..). Great, don't tell me, show me through storytelling. It's like the book's been written by a 5-year old

2. The shift from sadistic, homicidal Dark Eldar to the apologetic "damned-to-evil-because-our-poor-souls-are-bleeding" was grating and carried way to many Twilight-vibes for me.

3. Poor naming and characterization. A guy called "Decapitator" who "decapitates" people with his "decapitator"? Really? I am surprised Kelly's new Chaos Codex doesn't have a SC named "Spiky" or something of this sort.

4. Too much goth-emo characterization (e.g. Vect example above). Yeah, you've had a tough childhood. We get it. Get on with it.

5. Too much "it's kinda-like-magic" ex machina. The sign of lazy writing

6. Black-holes-from-a-box to ruin a party and kill a single guy? Really? You know what a goddamn black hole heavy enough to "suck in" people would do not only to the people, but the entire building, the entire continent, the entire planet, the entire planetary system that planet was in? Clearly someone wanted to put in a Loony-Toon-Style joke (for reasons I cannot fathom) and didn't bother at least going to Wikipedia or something to get some basics.

7. And, like Space Wolves, clear disdain for the broader 40K universe. The Decapitator will end the Universe? Really? What about Tyranids? Chaos? C'Tan? Old Ones? Just wanted to flip the entire rest of 40K fluff I guess. And why exactly do we need "another" alternative dimension with yet "another" set of Dark Gods besides Chaos/Warp, just for one lousy SC?

Tau. It was invented simply to bring the annoying, Pocky-fueled anime/mechanfans into the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Kajon wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

The uninspired Venom-spam that Dark Eldar become is a close second. Some of the best 40K fluff ever died an ugly death when the new DE-book came out.

Enlighten me on how the DE codex is a fluff failure? I really like the current DE but I never read the old codex.

1. The writing is atrocious, expositionary drivel (e.g. "Vect is the most intelligent Dark Eldar" "Vect always felt underestimated in his youth", etc..). Great, don't tell me, show me through storytelling. It's like the book's been written by a 5-year old

2. The shift from sadistic, homicidal Dark Eldar to the apologetic "damned-to-evil-because-our-poor-souls-are-bleeding" was grating and carried way to many Twilight-vibes for me.

3. Poor naming and characterization. A guy called "Decapitator" who "decapitates" people with his "decapitator"? Really? I am surprised Kelly's new Chaos Codex doesn't have a SC named "Spiky" or something of this sort.

4. Too much goth-emo characterization (e.g. Vect example above). Yeah, you've had a tough childhood. We get it. Get on with it.

5. Too much "it's kinda-like-magic" ex machina. The sign of lazy writing

6. Black-holes-from-a-box to ruin a party and kill a single guy? Really? You know what a goddamn black hole heavy enough to "suck in" people would do not only to the people, but the entire building, the entire continent, the entire planet, the entire planetary system that planet was in? Clearly someone wanted to put in a Loony-Toon-Style joke (for reasons I cannot fathom) and didn't bother at least going to Wikipedia or something to get some basics.

7. And, like Space Wolves, clear disdain for the broader 40K universe. The Decapitator will end the Universe? Really? What about Tyranids? Chaos? C'Tan? Old Ones? Just wanted to flip the entire rest of 40K fluff I guess. And why exactly do we need "another" alternative dimension with yet "another" set of Dark Gods besides Chaos/Warp, just for one lousy SC?

Hehe. Well you got some points, its 40k after all. Stupid names and "kind of like magic" stuff are everywhere. I don't think it's any worse written than the other codices I've read. And didn't the webway exist even before this codex?

I personally like the background as it gives a reason for them being evil and sadistic without making them into victims. They really enjoy their way of life and look down upon all other races. I don't see whats so "twilight" about it.

Kajon wrote:



Hehe. Well you got some points, its 40k after all. Stupid names and "kind of like magic" stuff are everywhere. I don't think it's any worse written than the other codices I've read. And didn't the webway exist even before this codex?

Of course the webway existed before the Codex. I don't have any issues with the webway. It's not in any of the points I made either I believe.

 ischneid 478227 wrote:

Kajon wrote:



Hehe. Well you got some points, its 40k after all. Stupid names and "kind of like magic" stuff are everywhere. I don't think it's any worse written than the other codices I've read. And didn't the webway exist even before this codex?

Of course the webway existed before the Codex. I don't have any issues with the webway. It's not in any of the points I made either I believe.

How about point 7? Or I might have misunderstood.
Anyway. It's interesting to hear a very negative opinion of the de codex. It's usually regarded as one of the best.
Maybe it's a sign that the quality of codices isn't that high.

Kajon wrote:


Of course the webway existed before the Codex. I don't have any issues with the webway. It's not in any of the points I made either I believe.

How about point 7? Or I might have misunderstood.
Anyway. It's interesting to hear a very negative opinion of the de codex. It's usually regarded as one of the best.
Maybe it's a sign that the quality of codices isn't that high.

With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

 Shandara wrote:
With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Which I said is Space Wolves IMO. But I was asked about my side-remark on the Dark Eldar Codex, so I responded, sorry. I'll not discuss it further.

That said, the OP did specifically also ask for the fluff-aspect.

You could think that a codex is the worst because it is too over-powered, or too under-powered. It could have not aged well, or it could have been completely unbalanced when it was released, even though it is fair now. It could only have a few units worth taking. It could have horrible fluff.

 Shandara wrote:


Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Ok... I shouldn't have voted for the Sisters then. I have no clue about their rules but I feel it's not really a complete codex if its just released in white dwarf. I don't even know how I should get hold of it now as I didn't bought the issues when they were released.

Poll said "codex you dislike the most" and that's definitely the Grey Knight codex for having a huge "YO IF YOU WANT CHEAP VICTORIES COME HERE BRO" label on its cover.

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
With the amount of galactic threats lately, they'll have to line up and draw a number.

Still, we are talking worst codex mechanic/power-wise, not fluff.

Which I said is Space Wolves IMO. But I was asked about my side-remark on the Dark Eldar Codex, so I responded, sorry. I'll not discuss it further.

That said, the OP did specifically also ask for the fluff-aspect.

You could think that a codex is the worst because it is too over-powered, or too under-powered. It could have not aged well, or it could have been completely unbalanced when it was released, even though it is fair now. It could only have a few units worth taking. It could have horrible fluff.

To be fair, I said that you could use whatever criteria you wanted when declaring which codex you think is the worst. For some people, it could be the most under-powered codex. For others, it could be the most over-powered. It could have nothing to do with power level, but the internal balance of the codex being bad, or general flaws with the design philosophy. I wasn't saying I wanted you to take all of those things into account (I don't really care what criteria you use), I was just listing possible reasons why one might dislike a codex.

Well, I voted for CSM, especially when you compare it with the former one.
Other candidates are DA and SoB.

I voted for GK's, since not only did it suffer a massive fluff rape, but it also pretty much completely invalidated my entire Daemon army...

The title and the poll don't agree. The title says "Worst Codex" so I voted for Black Templars, because it is just sad. Pretty clear hints that there won't be another one and they will be WD rolled into Vanilla Marines.

The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something? (j/k) I hate playing against them, I hate the way they look, I hate the fluff in the book.

Side note on the DA argument: I highly doubt one of the armies in Dark Vengeance is going to go away...

Sisters of Battle, the fluff, the rules, the end product is a mangled mess, but something worse lurks near by.....


"GREY KNIGHTS "

Such a foul thing named Matthew Ward was said to have been spawned from a jackal and a homeless man, before falling into a gutter and walling in it's loneliness and self pity, it saw into the higher world and vowed it's revenge upon mankind, it's said it was found in the parking space of a man in the town known as Nottingham, before the dark acolytes of GW took it into their lair. Now Matthew gets to invoke his revenge upon the upper world, and has cursed many a gamers with his most foul project.

Grey Knights, are both fluff and rules horrible.

Grey Knights

An obscure faction with ridicuous fluff and it more or less forced daemon players to quit

 beerbeard wrote:


The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something?

By that notion, the only army available in 40K should probably be Orks. Infact, not even that. 99% of 40K players meeting for a game should be forced to stare at empty tables. After all, even in the 41st Millenium the Galaxy largely is... well... empty space.

Trying to judge what "deserves" a Codex and what not by the fictional "numbers" the faction has in the fictional background is the most idiotic thing ever. Hell, if it bothers you, just flip the numbers in your homebrew-40k with Orks being a dying race of only 12 guys left and the Universe populated by Grey Knights without numbers. Who cares.

Seriously, GKs deserve a Codex because they are a rare and special thing and people like to play the rare and special thing.

Because of the bad wording, this poll is totally flawed. It seems that some vote with they dislike most and others wich they think to be the weakest codex.

 Dark Scipio wrote:
Because of the bad wording, this poll is totally flawed. It seems that some vote with they dislike most and others wich they think to be the weakest codex.

Yep

Weakest Codex: Probably Nids

Worst Codex: Space Wolves, IMO badly written and even worse than GK.

I voted SoB. It's not the power or the fluff or miniatures or internal balance.
I need not one but two WD that are close to impossible to legally acquire in some places.
Shame on you GW!

I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

the worse codex is the one which A you have bad match up against B is one your not playing. Few people do ping sob or nids , but most the the community doesnt care if they are bad or worse , as they rarely play against them or with them .

 thenoobbomb wrote:
I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

...because we read the poll title?

 thenoobbomb wrote:
I wonder why people complaining that GK are OP vote for GK as worst codex xD

"Worst Codex" doesn't nessesarily mean "Weakest Codex"...

A codex can be "the worst" because it is an OTT/borderline broken pile of crap that plays itself and crushes all before it. It's no fun to play against, and can almost always leave a sour taste in an opponent's mouth.
GK's are that codex for alot of people, either because it hard countered their army into the ground, (ie: Daemons & Tyranids are nearly unplayable vs the knights), or else it's just a huge uphill battle, (like those BA assault armies that had to stop assaulting), or else it just was no fun because the army gets so many cheap & effective 'no brainer' units that people are sick of playing the same builds all the fething time!

Or else, just go look at Fantasy as an example. Daemons of Chaos are still considered "the worst" army book because the army is still bording on the over powering aspect. It was the outright worst book of the previous edition because it ing destroyed the entire game!

 Zweischneid wrote:
Space Wolves easily

It's quite a feat to take an army described as aggressive, brawling hunter-types, led by monster-slaying heroes and to turn it into an army list of table-edge hogging gun-lines led by Wizard-spam.

This, I love playing wolves because I like shooty armies, but it really doesn't fit their fluff, which is a shame. Doesn't stop me wanting to field them!

I ended up voting Black Templars, a close second would be Tau. The Codex just show too much of their age, and really need an update to not ignore all the parts that show old rules. However I still like the Fluff for both of these. Not sure who I dislike fluff wise the most, I am not a huge fan of the newest Dark Eldar or Necron iterations.

 Ailaros wrote:
Likewise, I also voted eldar.

Game-wise, take a regular codex and then increase the points cost of everything by a third (or more). Furthermore, because they're an older codex, they don't have the most possible options out there. Also, even at the best of times, eldar armies have suffered from integration problems (oh, so that was my one good CC unit and now it's dead?), which is sort of overlookable when the codex is new and powerful, but not at this age.

Fluff-wise, a lot of new stuff has been written since eldar came out. In a way, some of the better fluff for eldar comes from necron, or dark eldar. You know, not from the eldar codex itself. Plus, emo-elves haven't aged gracefully. It would be nice if they had a reason for living, rather than just a reason for not dying.

If they took the Eldar lore away from their current reason for progressing their doomed race, I would like it a lot worse. They are a tragic hero- esk race. They should be exactly how they are and I think their fluff has aged fine. *shrug* Than again, I am someone who doesn't have much issues playing them with great effect or using their Codex once you learn where things are.

Edit: I don't like how the Space Wolves play on the field at all either. Also I think I basically already had this thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/456716.page

I casted my vote in with the sob

bt & eldar have it kinda rough, tau & chaos could use some help, but other than that, what the heck? necrons and grey knights could use a nerf and still be op!

 Zweischneid wrote:

 beerbeard wrote:


The poll says "Codex you dislike the most" and that would be Grey Knights, without question. They shouldn't be an "army" at all, aren't there like 12 of them or something?

By that notion, the only army available in 40K should probably be Orks. Infact, not even that. 99% of 40K players meeting for a game should be forced to stare at empty tables. After all, even in the 41st Millenium the Galaxy largely is... well... empty space.

Trying to judge what "deserves" a Codex and what not by the fictional "numbers" the faction has in the fictional background is the most idiotic thing ever. Hell, if it bothers you, just flip the numbers in your homebrew-40k with Orks being a dying race of only 12 guys left and the Universe populated by Grey Knights without numbers. Who cares.

Seriously, GKs deserve a Codex because they are a rare and special thing and people like to play the rare and special thing.

New to the internet? Do you know what j/k means?

 captain collius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

If you think that's the case, you haven't fully explored the argument.

Dark Angels have no core, key concept for them to be structured around that in turn justifies a whole codex. They're like Salamanders, Imperial Fists, White Scars or Ravenguard; They're different, but not different enough.

You could make them more different, but IMO the Salamanders deserve that treatment more the Dark Angels. I think creating reasons to make yet another Marine army is generally a bad idea.

 beerbeard wrote:


New to the internet? Do you know what j/k means?

It means you wrote Harry Potter?

Seriously, that is why I started the last line with seriously. Shows you when it starts being seriously serious again.

Tyranids.

For the simple reason that the others at least have hope through allies. They got stuffed, royally.

Cheesiness: GK
Competitivness: Tyranid

Worst Codex: Dark Angels - They really deserve none. Even Templars (I play and love them) which differ more could easly brought back into Codex Space Marines.

Same for Grey Knights (to Codex Inquistion) they jump pumped them to much.


Weakest Codex: Templars or Sisters, although I have no problems with my Templars, but I have much easier games with Tyranids.

I still say sisters. Looking forward to the sisters players having there own codex insteade of some lame white dwarf knockoff. And possible some new release models.

The tau make me sad they have a bab codex

I wrote SOB Because it barely counts as a codex, there is only a few pages in the WD...

gonna say sisters for how bad they are, though I like the army
and grey knights for how badly written and broken the codex was (I donno if they still are but to this day I refuse to play against them)

I've begun my decent into Chaos. I am the 1 vote for Codex Space Marines even though I think it's the best codex of them all... MWAHAHAHAHA!

 Kaldor wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Back in the day (apparently before this game was over-run with kids. Get of my lawn!) Dark Angels used to be unique.

Key point: used to be.

Now they aren't unique, and "give them more unique stuff" isn't a design concept. To do that you'd have to re-write the whole codex to the point that it isn't DA anymore, so why not just start over from scratch without all the DA baggage? Or just get rid of them entirely, since it's not like the game needs another new marine codex, and the only reason to keep them seems to be a few DA fanboys who can't stand the thought of being in the basic marine codex.

Dude just go away please. I tried no t to respond to you and Kaldor earlier but really The last DA codex was bad as was the old Chaos codex. Your are using an argument that basically boils down to I don't like them so they shouldn't exist. No Codex should be cut that is simply the whining of people who hate insert codex here and having a reason to whine about it.

If you think that's the case, you haven't fully explored the argument.

Dark Angels have no core, key concept for them to be structured around that in turn justifies a whole codex. They're like Salamanders, Imperial Fists, White Scars or Ravenguard; They're different, but not different enough.

You could make them more different, but IMO the Salamanders deserve that treatment more the Dark Angels. I think creating reasons to make yet another Marine army is generally a bad idea.

That is the point all of you fail to take into account we were different and are different if you refuse to recognize reality i cannot make it more clear to you in fact if they were to redact a codex it should be grey knights going back to Deamon hunters because they do not operate independently like the rest of the chapters . More importantly your entire argument revolves around the fact that you have an opinion so it should be reality.

You can say what you want but it won't make you right.

I'm surprised at all the votes for sisters. It may not be a big codex, but it is doing quite well right now. Of course, the thread title and the poll question are pretty far off from each other so...

 captain collius wrote:
That is the point all of you fail to take into account we were different and are different if you refuse to recognize reality i cannot make it more clear to you in fact if they were to redact a codex it should be grey knights going back to Deamon hunters because they do not operate independently like the rest of the chapters . More importantly your entire argument revolves around the fact that you have an opinion so it should be reality.

You can say what you want but it won't make you right.

But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

SOB. They need the update the most. If it wasn't for WD (which most people wouldn't normally count as a codex anyway) they're a 4th edition army that was relatively sub-par to begin with. Don't even get me started on the necessary update of plastic models....

I agree that we could do with out a PA codex or two

Necrons, because it was probably written with some knowledge of what 6th would be like, yet 6th ed Necrons are probably one of the most broken codexes in 40k history.

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
SOB. They need the update the most. If it wasn't for WD (which most people wouldn't normally count as a codex anyway) they're a 4th edition army that was relatively sub-par to begin with. Don't even get me started on the necessary update of plastic models....

The rules as currently written are very strong though. I agree the army is in a subpar shape, its just not weak on the tabletop.

how do sob deal with necron or IG flyer lists ?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

 wowsmash wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

This. The ONLY reason to have a DA codex at all right now is the historical precedent that they've had one in the past. Making a new codex* would involve completely redesigning the army to the point that it would be DA in name only. And if you're going to do that there are other chapters that deserve it just as much, and no reason to pick DA other than the fact that they were lucky enough to be picked in the past. Or, the better thing to do would be to put them in C:SM where they belong and stop having marine armies just for the sake of filling a quota on the number of marine armies 40k "needs" to have.


*Assuming they make a proper codex that actually has a unique role in the game. Obviously they can just give DA unique unit or two and make them another "like C:SM but slightly better" army where everyone ignores 90% of the book and just spams the overpowered unit with the same marine models they've been using with BA/SW/GK. However, I think it should be pretty obvious that this is worse than just putting them in C:SM.

It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

We don't know that. It's likely, but we don't know for sure.

I'm going to have to vote for my beloved orks I'm afraid.

They took a major hammering due to the 6th edition meta changes from 'tanks and assault' to 'shooting in your turn, then some more in your opponents turn, then a bit more in between turns'.

My Reasons (why I've lost a lot of spirit for my green hordes):
Orks are an assault army, but due to crappy armour, the desire to give every gun and its mother an AP value of less than 6 and the fact that there is no way to 'boost' orks into combat, we end up whiffling out to massed gunfire by turn two.

Orks are an assault army, yet our best tactic in 6th is to slowly walk forward firing gakloads of shots (spirit of the army is lost under 6th).

Variety - Orks have lots of fantastic looking and bad-ass crazy units, however if you want a chance of actually winning a game, you choose between about 5 (Warboss, Big Mek, Boyz, Lootas, nobs&bikernobz, battlewagons/kanz)...

you forgot dakka jets. orcs arent bad , they are no longer assault and I understand that it sucks for those who like to play it this way , but its like trying to play assault BT.

 Kaldor wrote:

But the point remains, they have no clear, different concept around which to build a codex. Or rather, the core concept of their army is less deserving of a codex than Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Ravenguard or White Scars.

No, it isn't!

Dark Angels, in 3rd edition had;
- Fearless Terminators that could mix both tactical & assault options.
- Stubborn & Intractable across the army.
- Chaplains who could 'capture' enemy models for additional VP's.
- Plasma cannons in Tactical squads.
- 6++ saves on bikers & speeders
- 3 special banners with bonus abilities.
- The original 'relic blade' for Company/Grand Masters.

Plus, they're the original ing Legion!!!

In the 4th ed Vanilla codex, you got the Chapter Traits which ment that regular 'ol marines could steal one or two bits of the DA's uniqueness, and of corse, everyone esle got plasma cannons in their tac squad too.

Then once the 4.5 ed DA codex came out, it got neutered by the total change in design philosophy that GW tried out for all of 3 short codex releases. (Eldar being the first, then DA's, and finally ending with CSM's). GW was trying to bring a semblance of balance back into the game due to the rabid complaints about how ungodly broken the later 3rd edition and early 4th edition books were getting, such as Siren Daemon bombs or 1st turn auto-assault from an Icon, 70+ man Seer 'Congresses', along with crap like infiltrating dev squads & min/maxed las/plas death squads.
This lead to Jerivs basically re-writing the Eldar codex on Mr.Kelly, (who was very unhappy about it!), and then DA getting the "keep it super-simple-stupid" book that removed almost all options and left little flavour overall while having very rigid unit builds.
This design theory ended after the community uproar once DA players abandoned the army, followed by Chaos players raging & quiting over the utterly bland codex they got which was simply no more than "Codex: Naughty Space Marines with Spikes!"

So yes, right now, Dark Angels come across as maybe not really deserving of their own book, because their book was gutted by a bad overall design strategy!
The point is, Dark Angels are not a 'Codex Chapter' and never have been. Their 1st company is the ONLY company to have enough termie armour to outfit all 100 memebers, who also do not conform to the rules of 'tactical' & 'assault' loadouts. Their 2nd company isn't even a 'Battle Company', not to mention that the Ravenwing are far more 'elite' than the bikers & speeder pilots of normal chapters. While their officer ranks have various circles and are far more convoluted in their accension than a proper 'Codex Chapter'.
They also have the distincton of being the very first Space Marine Legion, plus their intractable nature and (hopefully) regaining Stubborn as an army-wide rule. (or at least, an option for characters).

Makumba wrote:
how do sob deal with necron or IG flyer lists ?

One way is retributors, or allied psyker with Div. So far, flyers haven't really been a problem for me though.

Experiment 626 wrote:


Dark Angels, in 3rd edition had;
- Fearless Terminators that could mix both tactical & assault options.
- Stubborn & Intractable across the army.
- Chaplains who could 'capture' enemy models for additional VP's.
- Plasma cannons in Tactical squads.
- 6++ saves on bikers & speeders
- 3 special banners with bonus abilities.
- The original 'relic blade' for Company/Grand Masters.

2nd Edition Ultramarines had:
- Captains in Terminator Armour
- Company Standard
- Chaplains
- Librarians
- Apothecary
- Techmarines
- Veteran Squads
- Space Marine Scouts
- Bike Squadrons
- Whirlwind
- Land Speeders
- Attack Bikes
- Razorbacks.

Than Angels of Death started stealing the gak.

Give those back and we can start talking

If we are talking no allies or fortifications, then its SOB hands down. Hello army with a bunch of overpriced T3 assault models with squad caps of ten, poor saves, and no access to assault vehicles. This backed by a core of infantry priced in the neighborhood of space marine that falls short on every stat with no access to AP2 or armor killing weapons on their squad leaders. And lets not forget the non scaling faith mechanic....

They do get better than Nids the moment they can take an ally or man an emplaced gun, however.

Eitherway, when it comes to crappy codexes, no one can touch the master robin Crudface.

Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

 Phazael wrote:
If we are talking no allies or fortifications, then its SOB hands down. Hello army with a bunch of overpriced T3 assault models with squad caps of ten, poor saves, and no access to assault vehicles. This backed by a core of infantry priced in the neighborhood of space marine that falls short on every stat with no access to AP2 or armor killing weapons on their squad leaders. And lets not forget the non scaling faith mechanic....

Umm. Sisters were fine before forts and allies and are still fine. Didn't frgswntr get in the top 8 at Nova with a pure sisters list? Allies and forts just make them even better.

Also, your analysis is a bit off. The T3 assault models have great saves (DCA, Crusaders with FNP is just great for saves), no assault vehicle does hurt though. The basic sisters are lame but every unit has AP1 and tons of it. Sisters players LOVE it when they get matched up against terminator 'wing' armies. I think you are really selling sisters short when they have been doing great both in 5th and 6th.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Celestine is a game winner by herself, dominions are great for linebreaker or first turn nukes, Seraphim make celestine even better and hold their own, exorcists and rets are great heavy slots.

 Flashman wrote:
Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

Disclaimer: I'm biased, just look at my avatar.


With that out of the way: minor? I could understand someone calling the Black Dragons or the Mentors Legion minor, but Black Templars? What?

 Flashman wrote:
Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

This, and it looks like GW agrees. Very possible BT get rolled into the SM codex (as should BA and DA, IMO)

Sisters of Battle. For the simple fact that they do not have a Codex.

 A-P wrote:
Sisters of Battle. For the simple fact that they do not have a Codex.

They have a WD codex. Which is a codex. It may not be the codex we want, but it is the codex we have.

Now I haven't seen many codices because I started a mere 2 months ago, but the Tyranid codex has some ed up plotholes. What happened to Guilliemen? he should of been chowed on by tyranids. Or the fact that as soon as Marnus destroyed the tyranid hive fleet, he went back as if there was a minor termite infestation, when the Swarmlord and numerous hive tyrants to lead the swarm. So Macragge, and the UltraSmurfs should be Nid chow.

Maybe the power of Matt Ward stopped Cruddance from destroying his beloved Smurfs.



Go Tyranids anyway.

Experiment 626 wrote:
So yes, right now, Dark Angels come across as maybe not really deserving of their own book, because their book was gutted by a bad overall design strategy!

Ok, but the past is past. The book, as it stands now, has no purpose, and giving it one would mean rewriting it to the point where it's DA in name only. Since the game has more than enough marine armies as it is the only reason to do so would be to satisfy people like you, who insist that once an army gets a codex it always has to have a codex.

Their 1st company is the ONLY company to have enough termie armour to outfit all 100 memebers, who also do not conform to the rules of 'tactical' & 'assault' loadouts.

You mean just like all-terminator SW, all-terminator GK...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wowsmash wrote:
It would appear that GW doesn't agree with your assessment since DA is coming out next.

Well, it remains to be seen whether they'll redo DA into a legitimate new codex, or just another generic marine book that the game didn't need.

Wether they do it now or later really dosnt matter. Personally I think it will be next. I believe GW have states they won't be killing any other codexs. Marines are the name of the game from GW stand point. I honestly don't understand why you guys have to start this argument every time DA is brought up. I don't try and down play other people's armies when they might be getting updated. Especially since GW seems to take 5 to 10 years to get back around to it. Just because your preferred army isn't next doesn't mean you have to rain on other peoples parades.

The WD SoB codex might not have too much in the way of options but it does work. Quite well, in fact - I'm still about even vs our resident Necron player.

DA hands down. The only thing that is worth it in the book is the deathwing army. Anything else besides termies, dreads, and landraiders in that list is over prices and not as good as codex marines. The SOB WD dex is not that bad and can be kind of beastly in the right hands and allies makes them even better.

Personally, I'm not sure if any codices are worse than others, but I am hating all the tonnes of new special rules and weapons that inflict instant death without using the instant death rule in the new books

There doesn't seem to be much point to Eternal Warrior anymore unless I'm missing something...

...Though Tyranids are probably the worst right now.

 HeatWave wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure if any codices are worse than others, but I am hating all the tonnes of new special rules and weapons that inflict instant death without using the instant death rule in the new books

There doesn't seem to be much point to Eternal Warrior anymore unless I'm missing something...

...Though Tyranids are probably the worst right now.

Umm... I'm not sure what you are playing, but I've encountered very little which bypasses EW. EW works against any source of instant death, including wounds from weapons with a strength equal to twice the model's toughness and force weapons. Only things that directly remove models can get around it, and the only example I can think of is the Tesseract Labyrinth for Necrons, and even that is rarely taken and is not very reliable. EW is still incredibly valuable so I'm pretty sure you are missing a ton of information.

GK's, almost as filthy as 'crons.

 Lobukia wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
Went for Black Templars. One too many "Fantasy in Space" archetype for me. Plus I find it untidy that a minor chapter gets it's own Codex. If we have to have individual books for Space Marine chapters, let's restrict it to the big 4 please.

This, and it looks like GW agrees. Very possible BT get rolled into the SM codex (as should BA and DA, IMO)

There has never been a single statement or rumor from the GW camp stating theyre getting rolled. That opinion stems from guesswork after their limited representation in the 6th Rulebook. The only actual BT rumors Ive seen can be found on Bolter and Chainsword in the BT Rumor Thread, and these are from BT fans who attend GW events to bug the game designers and have sent in numerous emails to their customer service department. These all state that GW is continuing to support BT and they are getting a new codex, but unfortunately there is no timeframe involved. This coupled with the BT-flavored models on the leaked release list keep me more than confident in our independence, and amazed that people consider fan-made speculation to be actual "rumors".


So....love us or hate us...were going to be around for a long time, with our own codex, and youre gullible if you dont think so.

 HeatWave wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure if any codices are worse than others, but I am hating all the tonnes of new special rules and weapons that inflict instant death without using the instant death rule in the new books

There doesn't seem to be much point to Eternal Warrior anymore unless I'm missing something...

...Though Tyranids are probably the worst right now.

Well, as a Daemon player who relies heavily on EW being the bee's knees to keep my gribblies going, I have to say that there's barely *any* abilities out there that can insta-gibb my dudes...

Outside of GK's who simply steamroll Daemons with absolutely no effort, the only abilities/wargear off the top of my head are;
- Jaws of the World Wolf (SW's)
- Tessarect Labrynth, Monolith portal, 1 specific C'tan power ('Crons)
- Dark Eldar have one or two single use items that can 'remove from play' a model
- Shokk Attack Gun rolling boxcars (Orks)
- Gift of Chaos/Boon of Mutation ability (CSM's & Daemons)

So yeah, EW is proof against pretty much anything outside of a bare handful of abilities that outside of Jaws, are either stupidly short ranged and/or 'one use only'

Only one I don't like is the Sisters of Battle (White Dwarf update thing).

I like the Sisters of Battle, Witch Hunters etc, I just don't feel it's enough to even be regarded as a codex anymore, which is a damn shame because if anybody they have a decent merit to be a single codex.

That whole little WD update just felt like a way to lessen peoples anger than actually caring about the sob line.

Can SOB work? Sure, in the same way Nids, Eldar, or Tau can work. Which is to say one specific build spamming the same handful of units that crumples up and dies when it runs into Space Wolves. I miss being able to play SOB as a HtH army and the ability to take Repentia in 20 girl units. Not to mention Canonesses suddenly losing the ability to take Jump packs after a decade and a half (and three of the four models) sporting them. Cruddace beat the flavor out of that army like he has every book he has ever touched.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- The WD thing was because they were tired of answering questions about the allies thing and the shared models with different profiles between them and the new GK book.

I had to vote Sisters of Battle, since it isn't even a real codex. Pretty sad considering it is such a unique range of models. Certainly more interesting than a variety of different colored space marines.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Well, as a Daemon player who relies heavily on EW being the bee's knees to keep my gribblies going, I have to say that there's barely *any* abilities out there that can insta-gibb my dudes...

Outside of GK's who simply steamroll Daemons with absolutely no effort, the only abilities/wargear off the top of my head are;
- Jaws of the World Wolf (SW's)
- Tessarect Labrynth, Monolith portal, 1 specific C'tan power ('Crons)
- Dark Eldar have one or two single use items that can 'remove from play' a model
- Shokk Attack Gun rolling boxcars (Orks)
- Gift of Chaos/Boon of Mutation ability (CSM's & Daemons)

So yeah, EW is proof against pretty much anything outside of a bare handful of abilities that outside of Jaws, are either stupidly short ranged and/or 'one use only'

RegalPhantom wrote:

 HeatWave wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure if any codices are worse than others, but I am hating all the tonnes of new special rules and weapons that inflict instant death without using the instant death rule in the new books

There doesn't seem to be much point to Eternal Warrior anymore unless I'm missing something...

...Though Tyranids are probably the worst right now.

Umm... I'm not sure what you are playing, but I've encountered very little which bypasses EW. EW works against any source of instant death, including wounds from weapons with a strength equal to twice the model's toughness and force weapons. Only things that directly remove models can get around it, and the only example I can think of is the Tesseract Labyrinth for Necrons, and even that is rarely taken and is not very reliable. EW is still incredibly valuable so I'm pretty sure you are missing a ton of information.

Huh, well maybe I've just been very unlucky in games I take my comment back though!

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
These all state that GW is continuing to support BT and they are getting a new codex, but unfortunately there is no timeframe involved. This coupled with the BT-flavored models on the leaked release list keep me more than confident in our independence, and amazed that people consider fan-made speculation to be actual "rumors".

Besides, what could be easier for GW than yet another Marine Codex? You can sell the same models again, and again, and again, just by adding a few flavor bits to make it the Chapter you want. Lower production costs since you produce a lot and don't need to sculpt it all anew for the Codex! And people will still buy it for the same price!

Spetulhu wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
These all state that GW is continuing to support BT and they are getting a new codex, but unfortunately there is no timeframe involved. This coupled with the BT-flavored models on the leaked release list keep me more than confident in our independence, and amazed that people consider fan-made speculation to be actual "rumors".

Besides, what could be easier for GW than yet another Marine Codex? You can sell the same models again, and again, and again, just by adding a few flavor bits to make it the Chapter you want. Lower production costs since you produce a lot and don't need to sculpt it all anew for the Codex! And people will still buy it for the same price!

Seems like a business model with no drawbacks to me.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
These all state that GW is continuing to support BT and they are getting a new codex, but unfortunately there is no timeframe involved. This coupled with the BT-flavored models on the leaked release list keep me more than confident in our independence, and amazed that people consider fan-made speculation to be actual "rumors".

Besides, what could be easier for GW than yet another Marine Codex? You can sell the same models again, and again, and again, just by adding a few flavor bits to make it the Chapter you want. Lower production costs since you produce a lot and don't need to sculpt it all anew for the Codex! And people will still buy it for the same price!

Seems like a business model with no drawbacks to me.

I never agree with you d3m01iti0n how is this happening!

Here are the facts Marines are one of the common starter armies. They do use the same base models. But then use sell a ton of upgrade sprues and chapter specific bits to make them fluffy and fitting.

I actually broke down the 9 main chapters into 4 codex based on their fluff tactical deployment (the you just add in (death company are for blood angels only for example)

Standard deployment: Ultramarines, Salamanders
Fast Strike: White scars, Blood Angels, Raven guard
I have no idea how to describe this but there doctorine is kinda similar: Iron Hands, Space Wolves
Elite Gunlines: Imperial Fists, Dark Angels

Tell me where you could fit Black Templars in there maybe with the wolves and hands yeah but they really don't fit there either. So in short leave it.

 captain collius wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
These all state that GW is continuing to support BT and they are getting a new codex, but unfortunately there is no timeframe involved. This coupled with the BT-flavored models on the leaked release list keep me more than confident in our independence, and amazed that people consider fan-made speculation to be actual "rumors".

Besides, what could be easier for GW than yet another Marine Codex? You can sell the same models again, and again, and again, just by adding a few flavor bits to make it the Chapter you want. Lower production costs since you produce a lot and don't need to sculpt it all anew for the Codex! And people will still buy it for the same price!

Seems like a business model with no drawbacks to me.

I never agree with you d3m01iti0n how is this happening!

Here are the facts Marines are one of the common starter armies. They do use the same base models. But then use sell a ton of upgrade sprues and chapter specific bits to make them fluffy and fitting.

I actually broke down the 9 main chapters into 4 codex based on their fluff tactical deployment (the you just add in (death company are for blood angels only for example)

Standard deployment: Ultramarines, Salamanders
Fast Strike: White scars, Blood Angels, Raven guard
I have no idea how to describe this but there doctorine is kinda similar: Iron Hands, Space Wolves
Elite Gunlines: Imperial Fists, Dark Angels

Tell me where you could fit Black Templars in there maybe with the wolves and hands yeah but they really don't fit there either. So in short leave it.

They dont fit anywhere, thats the point. They are an old school throwback to the days of the Great Crusade. They establish fortresses on multiple planets and recruit from each, effectively multiplying their numbers. They ignore the Codex Astartes. There command structure is, lets face it, nearly non-existant. Theyre more a less a horde with veterans running things. They only take orders from the Emperor, and seeing as how he's not saying anything lately, theyre are still on the "Purge the galaxy of xenos bitches" tip. They are more or less a bunch of raging over-zealous donkey-caves that look down on other chapters as lazy mary sues who dont get gak done.

You dont agree with me? Im deep frying truth nuggets here, breaded in crisp facts. Thats how their fluff is written. There is no official statement or rumor from GW concerning a codex roll; only confirmation of a new codex in the far future. Selling a shitton of Marines with different upgrade sprues IS a lucrative tactic. You might not like BT but Im not saying anything that is inaccurate.

I was supporting you. try and read what it actually says dude. my point was they are seperate even if they shouldn't have originally been seperated

 captain collius wrote:
I was supporting you. try and read what it actually says dude. my point was they are seperate even if they shouldn't have originally been seperated

LOL sorry with Righteous Zeal I sometimes run at the wrong targets..........

I fail to see how anyone can think Tyranids is the worst codex right now, don't get me wrong it maybe isn't as strong as it should be at this point in time but it is by far not the worst.

Black Templars, SoB's and even DA (I'm a DA player and I admit our codex sucks, still play it though) are worse off than the nids.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

 captain collius wrote:
I was supporting you. try and read what it actually says dude. my point was they are seperate even if they shouldn't have originally been seperated

LOL sorry with Righteous Zeal I sometimes run at the wrong targets..........

No problem

Now back to the truth the worst codex is the Nids they make no sense in the fluff, and the codex is pretty bad

Id like to see a Nid update as there is a decent army on Craigslist Ive been eyeballing. No idea if theyre bad or not as I have no idea how theyre played.

I will tell you that Orkz being forced to Loota spam seems ridiculous for a CC army. Would like to see that addressed so I can dust mine off.

Tau and Sisters, my 2 armies! I play to lose

SoB right now is the worst codex; it came in installments and is almost impossible to acquire now that the original print run is done on it.

Of all the codices in 40K right now, the one that least deserves to exist is the Space Wolves Codex.
I'm actually a little bit into Norse mythology, but I just feel that the "Viking" marines violate that in the most horrible way. They have the most ugly model range of all GW miniatures, and their fluff is completely rediculous because they are trying too hard.
The naming policy is so silly, that it makes the entire army look completely unserious while still trying the best to be "awesome" at the same time.
I wanted to start an elite close combat army, and a friend gifted me the SW battleforce, but I just coulden't get myself to assemble a single miniature, so recently decided to sell it, after hiding it in my closet for two years. After SW, GK is close second, because they were simply changed to "silver" "bad ass" marines, instead of a mysterious branch of the inquisistion. Fluff means a lot to me, so the codices that are written badly gets the most hate from me. It doesn't help either if people are chosing it because it is OP.

The sisters could use an update.

Makumba wrote:how do sob deal with necron or IG flyer lists ?

Lots of ways. My favourite is Melta Dominions. Four to five twin-linked meltaguns can make a mess of pretty much anything, even rolling 6s to hit. There's also the Avenger Strike Fighter, which is pretty nice, especially with its ability to target two enemy fliers at a time, one of which can be behind it[/]. Plus, a Canoness on an Aegis Defence Line will mincemeat a flier a turn with twin-linked BS5 double autocannons.

Phazael wrote:If we are talking no allies or fortifications, then its SOB hands down. Hello army with a bunch of overpriced T3 assault models with squad caps of ten, poor saves, and no access to assault vehicles. This backed by a core of infantry priced in the neighborhood of space marine that falls short on every stat with no access to AP2 or armor killing weapons on their squad leaders. And lets not forget the non scaling faith mechanic....

They do get better than Nids the moment they can take an ally or man an emplaced gun, however.

Eitherway, when it comes to crappy codexes, no one can touch the master robin Crudface.

You seem to have forgotten that Battle Sisters can take twin plasma pistols on their sister superior, or a combi-melta, or a power axe (yes, that DID get FAQ'd). You're also overlooking meltaguns in squads with preferred enemy. Meltabombs on Sister Superior as well, Don't forget we hit walkers on weapon skill with melta bombs now. We're also 3 points cheaper than a Marine, model for model, while being identical on the offence.

Repentia are insanely fragile for their price, but considering that they slaughter tanks and walkers, you just have to treat them like a real woman: with a little care and attention, and make sure you know what they like. Besides, they're hardly our main units. Dominions, Seraphim, Retributors and Exorcists are all excellent, while Battle Sister squads and Penitent Engines have their place.

Sure, I'd like the option to drop frag and krak grenades and only pay 10/11 points/model, but I can live with what I've got... and anyone who says the fluff has been ripped apart needs to go buy a copy of Codex: Grey Knights. The only thing that's disappointing about the "new" Sisters fluff is that Silvana's body just vanished, instead of being replaced with a silver skeleton. Everything else has been a return to the good-old-days, when the Sisterhood was a proud force in its own right, serving the Ecclesiarchy and the Ecclesiarchy alone without any of this "Ordo Hereticus" :cuss:.

So no, the SoB codex, what there is of it, isn't the worst.

The worst is the vanilla Space Marine codex. Not enough information on any [i]one chapter except the Ultramarines, it tries to be too many armies at once, and to do so it mostly stole Dark Angels equipment and tactics!

Tyrant's Legion!

I want to like it so much, because it's characterful etc., and is generally something I really like, but there are so many drawbacks w/o any real compensation (cheaper, etc.) that I can't get myself to field it. Every time I try, I find myself trying to salvage something terrible...

I would have to say Sisters of Battles. as an atheist I personally find the fanatism of the IoM rather annoying but with the IG it is sort of understandable. They have Commissars who say "Believe or die" and SM are less worship, than say, high respect. But Sisters just go on and on and on and deny their God-given rights (no pun intended) to happiness or pleasure.

And also, female space marines. No.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Tau. It was invented simply to bring the annoying, Pocky-fueled anime/mechanfans into the game.

No. Just... no.

As for the whole Space Marines Codex(es) thing... well, how about two books? You have Codex: Space Marines and Non-Codex: Space Marines! One for codex-adherent, and one for non-codex-adherent. That way, all the variations/flavours of Marines out there that are different more on the fluff side than the tabletop one, and therefore don't really deserve a full book, still get the attention they do deserve.

I feel that some are using a pragmatic point about how some of the game mechanics are poorly presented to take pot-shots at armies that provide a wealth of diversity and flavour to the setting, attacking their existence in the game wholesale, and not just their codexes. This is extreme, to say the least.

Tau, its just lackluster and old aged. The fish heads are in serious need of an update and some Matt Ward magic.

 Eidolon wrote:
Tau, its just lackluster and old aged. The fish heads are in serious need of an update and some Matt Ward magic.

In need of an update? Absolutely.

Wardified? HELL NO.

The new Sisters, by a long shot. They basically took the old Sisters, removed Inquisitorial units, and neutered Faith Points to make a decent (if difficult to play) list into a pretty bad one. If you're going to play Sisters of Battle these days you might want to see if you can get permission to use the old Hereticus Codex, it's better.

Orks are a runner-up, though, since they've got exactly no good way of dealing with enemy tanks besides walking up and whacking them with a hammer and the latest Codexes have been pretty template-happy.

 Nitros14 wrote:
I doubt most people who voted Sisters of Battle have actually played against them. They're a middling list, not that weak.

They really really really suffer in the flavour department though.

As a sisters player I dislike that my codex only exists on scribd by loyalists. Yes they took some options away that were not ladies in special pattern armour. Flavor aside I vote against the GK. How loyal to the emperor do you be to kill a whole convent of sisters to just win one battle against daemons, which is your forte? Bad Fluff. Every little kid (noob) starting plays them just so they can win with the most OP list there is. Yay, Termie Spam with force weapons!!!

And for the record: my Boyz of waagh 'edkika, krussed dat draggy 'umie.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Eidolon wrote:
Tau, its just lackluster and old aged. The fish heads are in serious need of an update and some Matt Ward magic.

In need of an update? Absolutely.

Wardified? HELL NO.

Scared you might end up with a decent codex?

 Kaldor wrote:

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Eidolon wrote:
Tau, its just lackluster and old aged. The fish heads are in serious need of an update and some Matt Ward magic.

In need of an update? Absolutely.

Wardified? HELL NO.

Scared you might end up with a decent codex?

Embrace the power, join us.

 Kaldor wrote:
Scared you might end up with a decent codex?

Decent codex? No, that would be fine. Be the next GK/Newcrons? Yup.

 Eidolon wrote:
Embrace the power, join us.

Nevar!

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Scared you might end up with a decent codex?

Decent codex? No, that would be fine. Be the next GK/Newcrons? Yup.

 Eidolon wrote:
Embrace the power, join us.

Nevar!

Yes well, look at it this way;

a) Ward will almost certainly be involved with one of the next three upcoming codices.

b) We're fairly certain the next three books to be Dark Angels, Daemons & Tau.

c) Do we honestly really want Ward to have another crack at his infamous, "Well, they're DAEMONS!1!!!1!lol!" mess?! (you know, the army that made an entire game completely unplayable )

Better the DA's or Tau suffer that monster's wrath than the unthinkable be allowed to happen again... If you experenced 7th ed Fantasy, then you know the true evils that could be unleashed and how the game will likely die out if the Daemons monstrosity unfolds again!

Experiment 626 wrote:
Do we honestly really want Ward to have another crack at his infamous, "Well, they're DAEMONS!1!!!1!lol!" mess?! (you know, the army that made an entire game completely unplayable )

If it means he leaves the Tau alone, then yes.

Better the DA's or Tau suffer that monster's wrath than the unthinkable be allowed to happen again... If you experenced 7th ed Fantasy, then you know the true evils that could be unleashed and how the game will likely die out if the Daemons monstrosity unfolds again!

I disagree, better he leaves the lot alone. But, if he's destined to doom another book as you say, then GW haven't learnt their lesson yet. Another broken army that "kills the game" as you predict will hopefully, finally, drive the message home. I doubt many players will tolerate it a second time, and, seeing as of the three I care least about Chaos Daemons... let them be the sacrificial goat.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 Eidolon wrote:
Tau, its just lackluster and old aged. The fish heads are in serious need of an update and some Matt Ward magic.

In need of an update? Absolutely.

Wardified? HELL NO.

To be entirely fair, for 40k at least Matt Ward is far from the worse codex writer (I believe that award goes to Cruddace). Additionally, his 40k Daemons book was fairly well written (at least from a mechanical standpoint and when compared to fantasy daemons), and while BA and GK where over-powered messes, Space Marines and Necrons were both well designed codexes (with Necrons being one of the best designed codexes I have encountered). As long as he doesn't write too much fluff, I think that Ward could easily do a decent job with Tau.

The Sisters need more variety but proved victorious once more today. ;-)

SoB and Chaos Daemons on one side of the table, Tau and Space Wolves on the other. 1500+1500 vs the same. Deployment Dawn of War, mission Scouring. I put 72 infantry and five transports on the table and lost 36 infantry (only 2 units though) in securing a victory for my side. The CD lost 2 units of Pink Horrors and 3 units of Screamers. The opposition was all but wiped out (a couple Razorbacks were still operational) when we decided to call it - a crushing victory both on objectives and on the extra VPs.

My personal vote for worst? In playability? Sisters. With regards to background? Space Wolves followed by the other 5E SM books. With regards to being broken? Under 5E I'd have gone with GK's or SW's, under 6th I'd definitely say Necrons.

RegalPhantom wrote:
Additionally, his 40k Daemons book was fairly well written (at least from a mechanical standpoint and when compared to fantasy daemons),

As a small note, the 40k Demon codex was written by Thorpe and Cavatore

and while BA and GK where over-powered messes, Space Marines and Necrons were both well designed codexes (with Necrons being one of the best designed codexes I have encountered). As long as he doesn't write too much fluff, I think that Ward could easily do a decent job with Tau.

The problem with C:SM was that, until Space Wolves came out, I literally didn't see a marine army that *didn't* have Vulkan in it, or that didn't have TH/SS terminators, and I'm not alone in that experience. I still see most C:SM armies with at least one of those two.

Necrons on the other hand does have a lot of issues. In 6E they pretty much annihilate anything vehicle based thanks to the ludicrous overlapping double-kill mechanic we have going on while their own vehicles have a huge resiliency relative to most opponents (especially their basic transport having an extra HP for no explicable reason), they've got a huge number of gimmick abilities that really break interactivity and abuse a lot of the rules (the ability to potentially keep many games nightfight almost the entire time, Imhotek being the largest crutch "roll dice and stuff happens without any interaction with opponent or game rules" monstrosity ever, using re-deploy abilities and veil of darkness with deathmarks to mark every unit on the table, etc) on top of some really nasty flyers fieldable in large quantities, and 50pt T6 W3 MC's fieldable in units of 3.

Ward really isn't any better than any of the other writers, his rules read like the mad experimentations of a 13 year old's internet fandex.


/

Thanks for the correction. I've only played against the Daemons codex, and since the 40k and Fantasy books were released together and have exactly the same models, minus that walker thing that I can't recall the name of, I had assumed that they had the same person write both to help keep both units in line with each other so that they were easily identifiable in both game systems. Thanks for the correction.

Deadshot wrote:I would have to say Sisters of Battles. as an atheist I personally find the fanatism of the IoM rather annoying but with the IG it is sort of understandable. They have Commissars who say "Believe or die" and SM are less worship, than say, high respect. But Sisters just go on and on and on and deny their God-given rights (no pun intended) to happiness or pleasure.

And also, female space marines. No.

Sisters are not female space marines. Thank the gods. On the other hand, I REALLY object to you saying that the Sisters shouldn't exist as an army because you personally don't believe in invisible friends. I'm not a monotheist either, and I love the Sisters' devotion and the fact that they fight for something greater.

Besides, you're basically cheapening the faith of every Imperial Guardsman in the game. You really think that your standard Guardsman doesn't believe in the god-emperor? No, more than that, you're saying that belief at gunpoint is OK?!

Besides, the Sisters deny themselves most pleasures because they don't want to invite freaking Slaaneshi daemons in for a snack. They have a fething good reason to do the whole self-denial bit, and they're stronger for it!

AnomanderRake wrote:The new Sisters, by a long shot. They basically took the old Sisters, removed Inquisitorial units, and neutered Faith Points to make a decent (if difficult to play) list into a pretty bad one. If you're going to play Sisters of Battle these days you might want to see if you can get permission to use the old Hereticus Codex, it's better.

Orks are a runner-up, though, since they've got exactly no good way of dealing with enemy tanks besides walking up and whacking them with a hammer and the latest Codexes have been pretty template-happy.

Nah, the sisters list from the WD is just as powerful as the old Witch Hunter book, and we're actually stronger for not wasting time with Inquisitorial units. Even under C:WH, I noticed that I was winning a lot more games after I cut out the Stormtroopers and just used Sisters. Besides, at least with the new system you can pretty much guarrantee that at least one unit will have their faith powers each turn, instead of relying on fiddly resource management to ensure you have enough Faith Points for that all-important Aspira Save.

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I would have to say Sisters of Battles. as an atheist I personally find the fanatism of the IoM rather annoying but with the IG it is sort of understandable. They have Commissars who say "Believe or die" and SM are less worship, than say, high respect. But Sisters just go on and on and on and deny their God-given rights (no pun intended) to happiness or pleasure.

And also, female space marines. No.

Sisters are not female space marines.
Power Armour, and bolters. That's the Space marine gear. In my eyes that makes them girl-marines

On the other hand, I REALLY object to you saying that the Sisters shouldn't exist as an army
I said nothing of the sort. They can be an army, I'll play them, I'll tolerate them, I just don't like the fanaticism.

because you personally don't believe in invisible friends.
Although I am atheist I somehow excel at Religious studies, so I am going to tell you that will come across as offensive to some people, or mabe none, but you're better off not talking/writing like that. I personally don't really mind,m just a heads-up..
Anyway, I wouldn't say that. I would say I don't believe in endless questions. I don't like the endless, "Chicken or egg?" cycles of "Who made the universe?" "God/ whatever non-christian/jewish deity you believe in" "Who made him?" cycles. I find it illogical and irrational to believe in some all-powerful being who knows, determines and can do anything and everything. I find that as an excuse for people to pass off bad things and bad luck to someone else, and there are those who do use God as a scapegoat, but I appreciate there are many who truly believe in a deity.

Anyway, talking this topic is a slippery slope. Retaliate if you wish, I doubt I will reply, but just to clarify you're first two points are incorrect in every way.

I'm not a monotheist either, and I love the Sisters' devotion and the fact that they fight for something greater.

Which is what I hate about them. They say they fight for the Emperor, but like in religion how some people say they killed because Jesus said so, an example, they may be lying to themselves to justify their own bloodlut/enjoyment of it. I appreciate there are some who genuinely do fight for the Emperor, but I believe not many.

Besides, you're basically cheapening the faith of every Imperial Guardsman in the game. You really think that your standard Guardsman doesn't believe in the god-emperor? No, more than that, you're saying that belief at gunpoint is OK?!
Not at all. Sure they believe in him, maybe not as fanatically as Sisters, but sure. Possibly, prabably even, some don't. However, EVERYONE will believe in whatever you tell them to when you hold a gun at their head, and they know you have been trained to, and will gladly, execute you for looking at them funny.


Besides, the Sisters deny themselves most pleasures because they don't want to invite freaking Slaaneshi daemons in for a snack. They have a fething good reason to do the whole self-denial bit, and they're stronger for it!

Others manage to get by without summoning daemonettes. Besides, even those who vow to deny themselves still giv in, as seen in recent years involving the catholic church. That is not meant to come across as nasty or offenssive, just making a point. While we don't read about it or hear of it, asthis is a game designed for 12yr olds+ I am sure they are not all completely abstinate.


Anyway, slippery slope and all that. Just wanted to point out that I did not say they shouldn't exist and look what happened! Good grief!

Chaos Space Marines. I say that as a CSM player.

The most recent codex is nothing but a pile of gak. Mainly because they used to be an army w/ character. They were unique, there were multiple builds & neat little nuances that made them stand out. In 3rd ed (w/ their 3.5 'dex) I could walk around my FLGS & if there were two CSM players, RARELY were they fielding the same builds. The fluff had substance, it was real, you could really dig into it. It was beautiful.

The 4th ed codex changed all that. All the flavor that was put into the 3.5 dex was wiped out we got a lukewarm, bland mishmash of bad rules and horrible fluff. You know what was the 'pinnacle' of fluff in that book? Huron Blackheart, a character that NO ONE has ever taken (not in my experience anyway) stole a ship from the SW. Yippie. The HH was almost just a passing thought & it felt like they were pushing the idea of 'good Marines gone bad' scenario on you. Gone were the righteous rantings of the Word Bearers, the infiltrating cultist cultivating Alpha Legion. The mighty siege machines of the Iron Warriors were silenced & the terror and ambushes of the Night Lords were nothing but fond memories. Instead we got all Cult Marines as troops, vanilla CSM could take Icons to pay allegiance to a particular God, but if the bearer of the Icon died, the rest of the unit suddenly forgot who they payed homage to. Then when it all came down it, Plague Marines were really the best option. Berzerkers are great assault troops to be sure, but for flat objective holding, there wasn't a unit that could match the PM's. TS's have their place (my favored legion) but are overpriced and AP3, until the recent 6th ed drop, just wasn't that great - you couldn't walk 6" in any direction & not find 4+ cover. Don't even get me started on NM's.

Special Characters are good, though most are terribly overpriced & badly thought out. Abbadon is a beast (as he rightly should be) as is Kharn, but Ahriman & Typhus are stupidly overpriced - and almost backwards. Generic Lords & Sorcs had their place - until you looked @ Daemon Princes. There was no reason NOT to take them. You didn't need lords of specific marks to unlock your cult troops anymore, so why not take a powerhouse melee psyker that was EW?? Then you look @ the Psychic powers & realize that Lash of Submission is the greatest power ever - pass your psy-test & unless it's blocked you just get to move that unit. It was a no brainer.

The elites section of the 'dex is pretty un-impressive; Dreadnaughts are just as dangerous to you as your enemy, Possessed just suck, you don't know what their battlefield role is until you put them on the table , terminators start good, but get expensive QUICK. Really, the only worthwhile option was melta/plasma-spam Chosen. Usually outflanking in a Rhino. Similar sentiments can be said for the Heavy Support section as well - the only real choice is Obliterators. While being a bit on the pricey side, they are w/o a doubt the most adaptable unit in the game. There is literally nothing they can't effectively attack & are deadly @ pretty much all range bands. So, yet another auto-take. Chaos Land Raiders, while not being as expensive as their Imperial counterparts, aren't nearly as useful. They only have one variant & nothing even like PotMS. Pass. Fast Attack is another let down. "Look, we have Chaos Assault Marines & Chaos Bikes. Absolutely the same as their Imperial counterparts! Just w/ different jump packs & spikes on the axles respectively!" Though I will grant I do love the look of the Raptors.

So, realistically, after everything boils down, you have an army list consisting of 2x Lash Princes, maybe a unit of Chosen, 3+ units of Plague Marines w/ w/e special weapon necessary & 6+ Obliterators. Sometimes you might see triple vindi-spam or occasionally triple Defilers. Granted, sometimes those variants are pretty deadly depending on the opponent, but rarely do I see anyone @ my FLGS w/ anything other than the first 'list' I talked about. Basically as far as possible from a fluffy list, but necessary if you wanted to have any real hope of winning as the edition wore on.

It is a slap in the face to any real CSM player & GW should be ashamed of themselves for allowing that abortion of a codex to have ever seen the light of day.

~Vryce

 Deadshot wrote:
Power Armour, and bolters. That's the Space marine gear. In my eyes that makes them girl-marines

Then maybe you should get your eyes checked.

 Deadshot wrote:
Although I am atheist I somehow excel at Religious studies

 Deadshot wrote:
Which is what I hate about them. They say they fight for the Emperor, but like in religion how some people say they killed because Jesus said so, an example, they may be lying to themselves to justify their own bloodlut/enjoyment of it. I appreciate there are some who genuinely do fight for the Emperor, but I believe not many.

You're missing the point entirely. In 40K, the God Emperor is not someone you 'believe' in. He's real. He has an address, you can go visit him, and he impacts the universe constantly in meaningful, measurable ways. He's really really real, and you'd better do what he says.

 Kaldor wrote:


You're missing the point entirely. In 40K, the God Emperor is not someone you 'believe' in. He's real. He has an address, you can go visit him, and he impacts the universe constantly in meaningful, measurable ways. He's really really real, and you'd better do what he says.

I guess if visiting a rotten corpse on a throne is 'real' and meaningful than yes. But as we all know, the only true powers are the gods of chaos.

 Eidolon wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


You're missing the point entirely. In 40K, the God Emperor is not someone you 'believe' in. He's real. He has an address, you can go visit him, and he impacts the universe constantly in meaningful, measurable ways. He's really really real, and you'd better do what he says.

I guess if visiting a rotten corpse on a throne is 'real' and meaningful than yes. But as we all know, the only true powers are the gods of chaos.

There's also the remaining Eldar Gods, and a few other minor gods out there.

 Eidolon wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


You're missing the point entirely. In 40K, the God Emperor is not someone you 'believe' in. He's real. He has an address, you can go visit him, and he impacts the universe constantly in meaningful, measurable ways. He's really really real, and you'd better do what he says.

I guess if visiting a rotten corpse on a throne is 'real' and meaningful than yes. But as we all know, the only true powers are the gods of chaos.

I cast my vote on Tau, there troop choices are just too squishy and don't get any job done besides camping behind buildings or being used as meatshields for the rest.
The suits and vehicles... To me honestly look ridiculous! The army's design doesn't fit together, they switch from the blocky look of broadsides and crisis suits to round slick vehicles and steath suits... There whole weapons range are mediocre at best (besides the railgun that never hits). Also from whats already been said this army was meant for Mech lovers so they would stop playing battletech and the like. And another note on wargear as a reacurring fact in all older codexes everything is over costed... The last note i have on this little rant of mine is (Matt Ward is already ruining Tau via the Rulebook.... Ultramarines going to protect Tau because apparently they are going to save us from Chaos...) Wow just wow....

 Riddick40k wrote:
The last note i have on this little rant of mine is (Matt Ward is already ruining Tau via the Rulebook.... Ultramarines going to protect Tau because apparently they are going to save us from Chaos...) Wow just wow....

Umm... this was a rumour posted months ago before 6th was released, and it turns out the guy was just talking out of his @$$. Nowhere in any of the GW material I have read has there been any reference to this.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Eidolon wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:


You're missing the point entirely. In 40K, the God Emperor is not someone you 'believe' in. He's real. He has an address, you can go visit him, and he impacts the universe constantly in meaningful, measurable ways. He's really really real, and you'd better do what he says.

I guess if visiting a rotten corpse on a throne is 'real' and meaningful than yes. But as we all know, the only true powers are the gods of chaos.

There's also the remaining Eldar Gods, and a few other minor gods out there.

Those dont count, and only exist because the ruinous powers allow them to continue their petty existence in order to foster hope against the inevitable. I, for one, am very excited about the new chaos book.

RegalPhantom wrote:

 Riddick40k wrote:
The last note i have on this little rant of mine is (Matt Ward is already ruining Tau via the Rulebook.... Ultramarines going to protect Tau because apparently they are going to save us from Chaos...) Wow just wow....

Umm... this was a rumour posted months ago before 6th was released, and it turns out the guy was just talking out of his @$$. Nowhere in any of the GW material I have read has there been any reference to this.

Nah, its legit, you can read all about it in white dwarf 154

Tau. I just want to curbstop those little blue things to the ground.

Tau because I really hate the aesthetic of them, also cause half my gaming group run them and they really are not that competitive but annoying with 3+ cover saves on vehicles everywhere.