Noir wrote:
LOL, this Codex really looks like it is balanced (still 10 bucks to much), to bad it for 6th edtion. But, what is the point of a well balanced book when the core rules need so much work.

A Librarian can't take a Sacred Standard, just Chapter relics.

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

On a squad of bikes that cost like termies and an AV10 vehicle with 2 hull points.

 Jackster wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

On a squad of bikes that cost like termies and an AV10 vehicle with 2 hull points.

On a squad of bikes (that are amazing this edition) that all have twin-linked plasma guns..... there is no comparison to termies here

Dr. What wrote:
70 pt 5 man tacticals make my CSM very sad (75 pts for 5 men, and we don't get the loyalist rules).

I think It'll be a strong army and it makes me curious as to what Vanilla SM will get, as everything becomes cheaper. Moreso, following this trend, what will Tau/Eldar (really cheap psykers?)/Orks (cheaper everything?) look like?

Your paying for the aspiring champion man. It's the tax of CSM. Every unit needs a champ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
A librarian is only 65pts?!?! Heck, an IG Primaris pysker is 70 and all he gets is a force staff, flak armor, and mastery one with a +5 invuln. Oh, and a laspistol, because thats helpful

The IG psyker gets 2 powers from his chosen discipline. The Libby does not come with an invuln.
It's not as off as you might think


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Griddlelol wrote:
That huge discrepancy in pricing makes me nervous for the IG codex changes. The vendetta is so going to be more than 130pts. Although on the other hand, a PP for 40-50 points sounds awesome for a mech list.

considering the IG codex is considered top tier, I would not be in a rush for a new codex were I you. Vets likely will go back to elite choices. Luckily there are quite a few in line before IG

 Spartan089 wrote:

 Jackster wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

On a squad of bikes that cost like termies and an AV10 vehicle with 2 hull points.

On a squad of bikes (that are amazing this edition) that all have twin-linked plasma guns..... there is no comparison to termies here

They've only got an 18" range. And considering that you can glance AV10 vehicles with S4 weapons it's hardly OP. Not to mention how fast it'll die to CC.

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

Until you face that daemon player. Flamers and screamers don't care. Blood crushers will eat them for lunch.
Bike armies are a great rock/sissors/paper army. They destroy IG and do well vs MEQ, but have some bad matchups
Heck, even GK psybolt storm bolters wreck bike armies.

Don't get me wrong. DA bike armies will be amazing, but nowhere nearly as powerful as flamer/screamer spam. They will tear up some lists and fall apart to others

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jackster wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

Dr. What wrote:
70 pt 5 man tacticals make my CSM very sad (75 pts for 5 men, and we don't get the loyalist rules).

I think It'll be a strong army and it makes me curious as to what Vanilla SM will get, as everything becomes cheaper. Moreso, following this trend, what will Tau/Eldar (really cheap psykers?)/Orks (cheaper everything?) look like?

Im pretty angry about this......and the codex clearly has some broken rules. The overhaul they gave Samuel alone,

That's because their vet sarge is optional. And honestly a tac shouldnt cost more than a Grey Hunter.

Course that was because the Grey Hunter is undercosted by about 2 points.

Well they were 17 before and worked just fine at that cost, it also made blood claws more attractive as a choice as they were cheaper.

Defilers difficult to take down? Absolutely not... I kept playing one for several matches and it NEVER passed turn 3 (usually falling turn 1-2)
Then I stopped... it's not WAAC list-buildin (I even play abaddon at 1500 )... simply 200 points is waaaaaaay too much for what you get. For the same amount you can almost take an entire allied guard contingent with a leman russ.
And about GH, they are of course one of the most unbalanced units in the most unbalanced codex (the worst codex ever seen IMHO... I have to start a thread maybe ).

And how a 2hp AV10 vehicles and 42 points each bikes are OP is simply incomprehensible to me...

As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

 labmouse42 wrote:
considering the IG codex is considered top tier, I would not be in a rush for a new codex were I you. Vets likely will go back to elite choices. Luckily there are quite a few in line before IG

Oh I'm in no rush. I'm very happy with the IG codex right now. Plenty of options to stop me getting bored, and allies present new modelling opportunities.

I think one of the good things with the book is that this might be an actual book that traverses edition change much better then others just looking at how solid these builds can be. Azrael is probably one of the most solid Chapter Masters I have seen with his support of both DW and RW as well as being able to choose his warlord trait (which are good).

And I think Asmodai may just be my new favorite fluff character after reading his entries with an image in my head of this old crocthety and crazy Chaplain on Caliban.

10pt storm shields on Utility Vets. Vets, Tacs and Dev access to Flakk missiles... Yummy.

Did I mention Devs are dirt cheap in points?

I like the book alot. I'm gonna maul fliers with it. Deathwing and Ravenwing options are superb as well!

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Chaos got shafted, Dark Angels isnt the best codex ever written but it certainly is leagues better than the pike of gak called CSM.

 Spartan089 wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Chaos got shafted, Dark Angels isnt the best codex ever written but it certainly is leagues better than the pike of gak called CSM.

And what are the best codices ever written in your opinion (limiting ourselves to 3rd and susequent editions). Maybe it's a little early to say that but I don't remember another dex with the options of the Dark Angels AND a good balance.

 punkow wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Chaos got shafted, Dark Angels isnt the best codex ever written but it certainly is leagues better than the pike of gak called CSM.

And what are the best codices ever written in your opinion (limiting ourselves to 3rd and susequent editions). Maybe it's a little early to say that but I don't remember another dex with the options of the Dark Angels AND a good balance.

No Chaos codex has ever been "balanced" but then again no codex has ever had super good balance so that's a red herring. And of course if you ignore the best Chaos codices ever written (Realms of Chaos) then it's a bit more difficult to choose.

On topic though, I like the new Dark Angels codex. They got a lot of pretty sweet units. The Deathwing Knights are insanely good and Deathwing Terminators when they deepstrike are going to violate (without consent) any unit that they shoot at.

In all, seems pretty true to the background and while there is some stuff that is super over the top, they feel like Dark Angels which is cool.

The army list is by and large very good. Not too bland and boring (see last DA Codex), but not over the top silly (See Space Wolves Codex).

Very little new stuff in the background section, though personally this is the first time I've seen it confirmed in black and white that Lion El'Johnson is sleeping inside the Rock. I did like the coverage of the Second Founding Chapters.

Photo section was efficient, but pretty much what I've come to expect.

There are a few irritating typos e.g. Normal Command Squads and Deathwing Command Squads take Sacred Standards. Ravenwing Command Squads have access to non-existent Relic Banners.

Overall I'd say the book is far too expensive for what it is. A decent FoW book (North Africa, Red Bear etc) is the twice the no. of pages for the same price. The days of buying every Codex are long gone.

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Azrael's the only one with Rites of Battle though. I assume we're going to see now more of him, as he's quite bit better now.

 punkow wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Chaos got shafted, Dark Angels isnt the best codex ever written but it certainly is leagues better than the pike of gak called CSM.

And what are the best codices ever written in your opinion (limiting ourselves to 3rd and susequent editions). Maybe it's a little early to say that but I don't remember another dex with the options of the Dark Angels AND a good balance.

a) You will NEVER have a book that makes CSM players happy unless it's a 900 odd page tome that gives every whiny girl their 100 or so special snowflake rules... 3.5 was an unmitigated disaster of OP silliness and 4th was bland as all hell.
The current one tries to do a bit of both and overall lets you theme to any legion or renegade chapter you can imagine, but obviously it can't do what individual legion-specific codicies could do.

b) The best Codex from 3rd edition to present is easily the 4.5 Ork codex. The background is awsome and solidly orky, the army list is still competitive despite 2 edition changes and even the couple of so-called 'dud units' aren't nearly as laughable as other codices terd units.
And most of all, it's a fun book to use AND play against. Nothing super cheesey, even during the wound-allocation-games of 5th Nob Bikers still weren't anything as horribad as what other similar units could pull... (looking at you true T5 Bloodcrushers and you horrible Paladins that needed 11 wounds before a single dude died!!!)

Dark Eldar were also pretty damn solid, the edition change simply gimped them badly.

5th ed Vanilla Marines are also still a great book, despite the initial moans about 3++ storm shields.

Orks still beat them out though!

Experiment 626 wrote:

a) You will NEVER have a book that makes CSM players happy unless it's a 900 odd page tome that gives every whiny girl their 100 or so special snowflake rules... 3.5 was an unmitigated disaster of OP silliness

Really? How was it OP?

 Flashman wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

a) You will NEVER have a book that makes CSM players happy unless it's a 900 odd page tome that gives every whiny girl their 100 or so special snowflake rules... 3.5 was an unmitigated disaster of OP silliness

Really? How was it OP?

Even I could agree it had issues, but it wasn't the worst. We still had 4th edition skimmerspam, late SW and GK armies mucking things up, 2nd edition Eldar and Space Wolves..

However, because it was OP, people apparently believe chaos doesn't deserve a good codex with a large number of decent options apparently, and so it had to be gutted till it's 4th edition incarnation was born, and its semi-gutted state in 6th.

 punkow wrote:
Guys... I know, maybe this is an hyperbole, but reading the New DA dex I was truly amazed.
The number of options available is incredible, I'm still unable to make a list because I am overwhelmed by the different builds available. The internal balance is striking, there are no clearly OP or clearly bad units (maybe the flyers looks a little meh on the paper but I'm not sure).
All of this without being an OP cheesefest like Newcrons or GK.
Chapeau Mr. Vetock!
What do you guys think?

I have a few disappointment's. The 180 pt nephilim fighter is just shy of being worth its points as an anti air unit. I think the storm Talon still fits that niche better. Razorbacks being a lot more expensive for no real reason is an odd balance. No attack bike squads is personally a sad thing. The Chapter master not unlocking bike or terminator troops is annoying but they did make great characters to fill those roles. Just have to mold your own character models for them. I personally dislike the Deathwing Knights. Their descriptions and their actual abilities don't really gel well. If they allowed you to upgrade them to full thunder hammers that would be fine. Raven Wing command squads being restricted to 3 models is just useless as an apothecary to protect 2 other guys isn't very useful. The deathwing command squad apothecary also seems a bit low on the usage side since it can't carry a close combat weapon.

Overall I think much of the codex is well done but some blaring issues with some of the units makes them pointless. The landspeeder Vengeance just seems like a horrible idea with Gets hot affecting its gun. Just put in a no gets hot rule for that gun and its worth its points a bit more. 140 points for a vehicle that can be killed by bolter fire in one turn or its own gun in one turn is something that would keep me from spending money to buy the model.

I think the strength in this codex isn't in the all one wing armies but the Azrael all troops army with bike squads and terminators all scoring and supporting cheap tac squads with some heavy support from their devastators.

spamthulhu wrote:
Razorbacks being a lot more expensive for no real reason is an odd balance.

Only the TLHB razorback is more expensive. The TLHF razorback is actually cheaper, and the TLLC, TLAC, TLPG+LC razorbacks cost the same points.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 punkow wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Chaos got shafted, Dark Angels isnt the best codex ever written but it certainly is leagues better than the pike of gak called CSM.

And what are the best codices ever written in your opinion (limiting ourselves to 3rd and susequent editions). Maybe it's a little early to say that but I don't remember another dex with the options of the Dark Angels AND a good balance.

a) You will NEVER have a book that makes CSM players happy unless it's a 900 odd page tome that gives every whiny girl their 100 or so special snowflake rules... 3.5 was an unmitigated disaster of OP silliness and 4th was bland as all hell.
The current one tries to do a bit of both and overall lets you theme to any legion or renegade chapter you can imagine, but obviously it can't do what individual legion-specific codicies could do.

b) The best Codex from 3rd edition to present is easily the 4.5 Ork codex. The background is awsome and solidly orky, the army list is still competitive despite 2 edition changes and even the couple of so-called 'dud units' aren't nearly as laughable as other codices terd units.
And most of all, it's a fun book to use AND play against. Nothing super cheesey, even during the wound-allocation-games of 5th Nob Bikers still weren't anything as horribad as what other similar units could pull... (looking at you true T5 Bloodcrushers and you horrible Paladins that needed 11 wounds before a single dude died!!!)

Dark Eldar were also pretty damn solid, the edition change simply gimped them badly.

5th ed Vanilla Marines are also still a great book, despite the initial moans about 3++ storm shields.

Orks still beat them out though!

I somewhat agree about the Chaos 3.5 dex. It was incredibly full of silly OP stuff that encouraged improbable combinations ( Eg:Thousand sons riding possessed Nurgle rhinos), but OTOH it was also full of options, which is IMO a good thing. The problem is that the other incarnations brutally addressed the OP problems simply and unreasonably restricting choices. I am both a DA player and a chaos player so I can understand the whining of my fellow chaotic players.

I agree also about the orks. That's a good codex but still I think that the new DA looks better because it lacks no-brainer choices (which are signs of poor internal balance), which are instead pretty abundant in the ork dex (Lootas, KFF, Shoota Boys over Slugga boys).
The same is true for Vanilla Marines. The internal balance is incredibly lacking: The elite choices are cramped, FA and HS sucks except a few good units.
I have little experience with DE so I can't judge.

Orks can run a variety of lists and still perform to quite a high lvl, dakkajets.....o dakkajets, boyz in general are bargain basement priced, shootas just accentuate that fact further, lootas are always good but both the gentlemen I played in yesterday's tourney (2 shooty ork players in one tourney!! against old school DA) didn't even run 20 lootas, and both took home prizes, one ran a parkinglot of deffrolla wagons 4 or 5 (filled with various things), a unit of slogging shootas, 2 medium loota units, 2 dakkajets it was sick nasty, the other was a huge assortment of things with 2 jets and ghazzy, (120+ models), at this point and time I think orks is highly competitve with lots of different builds


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:
As a Angel player since 4th I gotta say I am inlove with all the Detail and quirks of the units, Vetock wisely avoided the mistakes of Wolves, 5th ed knights, and Necrons, and gave great unit by unit flavor so they feel unique without leaving the opponent sorry he played you.

Though I can't help but feel sorry for basic Csm marines, compared to our Rites of battle ld10, stubborn, atsknf marines

Azrael's the only one with Rites of Battle though. I assume we're going to see now more of him, as he's quite bit better now.

At 215 pts and completely better in every regard you'd be kidding yourself that him and Ezekiel won't be popping up everywhere

I had a chance to play and watch a couple of games today with them being in it.
The game I played I won't talk much about due to turn 2 tabling due to extreme luck on my half.
The games I watched they seem fairly balanced. The tac squads seem pretty good, able to take a HW at 5 men. The bikers and termis also seem pretty cool, but haven't seen the plasma spam yet.

Going to have to look through the codex when I can to see if I can add some termies to my IG.

 Arthas367 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Azrael's the only one with Rites of Battle though. I assume we're going to see now more of him, as he's quite bit better now.

At 215 pts and completely better in every regard you'd be kidding yourself that him and Ezekiel won't be popping up everywhere

Yeah, maybe. In fact Belial seems somewhat redundant now - unless you want no-scatter Deep strike, why take him instead of Azrael who's just 25 points more expensive? But OTOH given how he was such a no-brainer choice in the last book, maybe this is not a bad thing.

This books lacks a big CC monster like Mephiston etc, but again that is not a bad thing.

Backfire wrote:

 Arthas367 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Azrael's the only one with Rites of Battle though. I assume we're going to see now more of him, as he's quite bit better now.

At 215 pts and completely better in every regard you'd be kidding yourself that him and Ezekiel won't be popping up everywhere

Yeah, maybe. In fact Belial seems somewhat redundant now - unless you want no-scatter Deep strike, why take him instead of Azrael who's just 25 points more expensive? But OTOH given how he was such a no-brainer choice in the last book, maybe this is not a bad thing.

This books lacks a big CC monster like Mephiston etc, but again that is not a bad thing.

Yes, Belial is good only if you want your unit of termies not scattering... One possible use is to put it in a large unit of shooty termies, with 2 CML or AssCan and a combiflamer on the sarge. Deepstrike next to a unit: flame/bolter it to death while the TL heavies take down a dangerous vehicle. Profit!

Dr. What wrote:
70 pt 5 man tacticals make my CSM very sad (75 pts for 5 men, and we don't get the loyalist rules).

I think It'll be a strong army and it makes me curious as to what Vanilla SM will get, as everything becomes cheaper. Moreso, following this trend, what will Tau/Eldar (really cheap psykers?)/Orks (cheaper everything?) look like?

I think the DA Tacs are definitely in a good place pointswise....maybe a little generous, especially compared to Vanilla SM.

Maybe the DA designers were looking at the DW/RW stuff and had an expectation that nobody would be using vanilla Tacs unless they were very low budget. I've gotta say with 30 Bolter Marines laying around I'm thinking about just making a well rounded list instead of a DW/RW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Flashman wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

a) You will NEVER have a book that makes CSM players happy unless it's a 900 odd page tome that gives every whiny girl their 100 or so special snowflake rules... 3.5 was an unmitigated disaster of OP silliness

Really? How was it OP?

Yea, outside of Siren prince Daemonette spam shennenigens it was pretty good, but not OP much.
Most of the silly stuff could have been fixed by one FAQ and it would have been better than the next book.

I just got my hands on the codex and I am really excited with what I have seen so far. I really wanted to run greenwing and it looks like it's going to be a legitimate option. So far I have a really favorable opinion of this codex, but I'll need a couple games under my belt before I can say with certainty if it's a good book or not. There are some devastating combos and each wing ( death-, raven- and green-) all look to be competitive and that's the best I could have hoped for.

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

I'm missing something, where is the stealth for the BK coming from?

The Darkshroud. It gives itself Shroud and Stealth within 6". Since stealth grants to entire unit, you only need 1 Black Knight within 6" of the Shroud to get the +1 cover save for the Black Knight squad

Another niche loyalist chapter with dozens of special rules and a price reduction on standard marines...

Can't wait to see what they come up with for 6E BA or SW lol

 punkow wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
I have not read it in detail YET. But from the bits i have, it strikes me as a very very bad codex (as in some units are plain better than their direct competitors in the same book, which also happen to be the new models) and some units are plain broken.

Examples:

-Divination psychic on marine stats for 65 points.
-Death wing terminators vs Death wing knights, knights are plain better all around, cheaper, same slot.

I don't understand... How the Librarian is broken? Yes it is undercosted if we confront it with previous codices incarnations but actually I rather think that the previous incarnation were overcosted (and DA libbies do not have acess to horrible things like Jotww )
Also DW knights are not cheaper and lacks the new DW goodness: Vengeful strike (TL on the turn they deepstrike) and split fire which make Shooty Termies much more interesting now.

Plus with Belia/Azrael the DW are Troops. Knights are very good but in the 2 games ive played so far with them, they have attracted a lot of fire right from the off.

Nivek5150 wrote:
The Darkshroud. It gives itself Shroud and Stealth within 6". Since stealth grants to entire unit, you only need 1 Black Knight within 6" of the Shroud to get the +1 cover save for the Black Knight squad

Got it, thanks... didn't know about 6" rule.

It does not give stealth to itself, however - unfortunately this codexx has a lot of bad editing so the print codex has "stealth" listed instead of "shrouded" in the unit entry

 Jackster wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:

Skilled Rider + Stealth + Turbo Boost = 2+ cover for the Black Knights.
Flat Out + Shrouding = 2+ cover for the Darkshroud.

-not balanced

On a squad of bikes that cost like termies and an AV10 vehicle with 2 hull points.

And have to be in a 6" cluster of the Landspeeder. Given the cost of the units it is not that broken.

I like the codex and think it gives a little more love to those who waited for it than the CSM codex did (and I'm a fan of the CSM codex).

CSM players that look at the DA codex and gripe aren't looking at the codices from the right perspective. No need to go into it because the CSM has been beaten to death on this forum and minds aren't going to change at this point.

 kcwm wrote:
I like the codex and think it gives a little more love to those who waited for it than the CSM codex did (and I'm a fan of the CSM codex).

Doh. The whole point of the CSM codex hate is that it gave no love to noone other than Nurgle players and those who like the Heldrake. What is a sad thing, but true, especially in spite of the DA codex (and I kinda' liked the CSM codex too!). lets be honest: the DA codex is pretty much a huge middle finger for the CSM players ...

spamthulhu wrote:
The 180 pt nephilim fighter is just shy of being worth its points as an anti air unit. I think the storm Talon still fits that niche better.

On the plus side, the flyers being garbage is going to save me $150 ( I would have probably picked up 2 if they were good)

spamthulhu wrote:
Razorbacks being a lot more expensive for no real reason is an odd balance. No attack bike squads is personally a sad thing.

Razorbacks went up 5 points and gained several new weapon options - not a bad tradeoff. We didn't have attack bike squads before, so no big loss there.

spamthulhu wrote:
The Chapter master not unlocking bike or terminator troops is annoying but they did make great characters to fill those roles. Just have to mold your own character models for them.

The chapter master does unlock both terminators and bikes as troops, not sure what you are getting at here...

spamthulhu wrote:
I personally dislike the Deathwing Knights. Their descriptions and their actual abilities don't really gel well. If they allowed you to upgrade them to full thunder hammers that would be fine.

I think the maces are awesome. If you go against a harder target, you activate smite. S6 AP4 on most of the unit and S6 AP3 on the leader, all with a 2+/3++ seems pretty badass to me.

spamthulhu wrote:
Raven Wing command squads being restricted to 3 models is just useless as an apothecary to protect 2 other guys isn't very useful. The deathwing command squad apothecary also seems a bit low on the usage side since it can't carry a close combat weapon.

I could not agree more. I doubt you will ever see DW/RW apothecaries in tourny lists - 30 points and you lose your PF, no thanks.

spamthulhu wrote:
The landspeeder Vengeance just seems like a horrible idea with Gets hot affecting its gun. Just put in a no gets hot rule for that gun and its worth its points a bit more. 140 points for a vehicle that can be killed by bolter fire in one turn or its own gun in one turn is something that would keep me from spending money to buy the model.

Yep.

 nolzur wrote:

spamthulhu wrote:
The Chapter master not unlocking bike or terminator troops is annoying but they did make great characters to fill those roles. Just have to mold your own character models for them.

The chapter master does unlock both terminators and bikes as troops, not sure what you are getting at here...

I think spamthulhu meant Company Masters, not chapter master. Yes Azrael the Chapter Master Unlocks both, but alot of people were hoping Company Masters would as well like how Captains do it in C:SM

Also Razorbacks are 15 more points than the C:SM version. They are only 5 points more than BA's Fast version. I would take fast over simple. They did balance out the other weapon options but it looks like the free HB's are a thing of the past. The old Razorback was very economical.

I did mean Company Master. Azrael is amazing. The only issue is getting him into battle. I think a command squad with a banner and a rhino or drop pod will be a minimum for his squad to hide in.

Looking at the book I think the combined arms all troops concept will be strong for DA. Having Az and a cheap libby with termies/bikes/tac squads all scoring will be a powerful combo.

Me and Nycus we talking about the Razorback price increase, it might actually be a fluff reason. Razorbacks are sort of a new Technology relatively speaking and Dark Angels are supposed to use buckets of old Technology.
By making Razorbacks more expensive, you will see less of them without needing special rules for them.
This might also explain why some Codex’s have some units over cost and some under cost, a subtle way to get people to play “Fluffy Armies”

Sounds good! Fingers crossed more writers will move across from fantasy and bring there balancing scales with them.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Me and Nycus we talking about the Razorback price increase, it might actually be a fluff reason. Razorbacks are sort of a new Technology relatively speaking and Dark Angels are supposed to use buckets of old Technology.
By making Razorbacks more expensive, you will see less of them without needing special rules for them.
This might also explain why some Codex’s have some units over cost and some under cost, a subtle way to get people to play “Fluffy Armies”

It could also be a prelude to making all marines pay for the Heavy bolters

I always thought Razorbacks being 40 points was cheap. It didn't matter as much when they made you take full ten mans to get a heavy and a special weapon in the same squad. I used to run 6 man squads in the old days with Razors because it was very strong.

I do like your theory though.

I just wish they had allowed combat squad-ding terminators so you could end up with half and half squads with assault on one side and 2 heavy weapons on the other.

spamthulhu wrote:
Also Razorbacks are 15 more points than the C:SM version. They are only 5 points more than BA's Fast version.

They are also (as I said earlier) only 5 points more than they were in the previous DA book with a lot more options than before.

Almost everything else in the codex got both cheaper and better, so griping that razorbacks went up 5 points is a bit silly IMHO.

Not really. Its just an overall criticism of the finer points of the book. Making one marine army pay 40% more for the same exact item with no rules benefit makes it seem odd. I just assume that will end up translating to the marine codex.

I do hope C:SM doesn't get the price increase for Razorback. As it is I often rather dump a combat squad with the tac squad's special weapons inside a Rhino to shoot with, while keeping troops inside a Razorback for cover is pointless in the long run because of no fire points and thus the firepower of the firepower of the tacticals is wasted.

Are the TLAC, TLLC and other variants priced similarly to C:SM though?

tvih wrote:

Are the TLAC, TLLC and other variants priced similarly to C:SM though?

They are the same. The TLHF is cheaper though.

Best codex of 6th edition? Maybe.
Best codex ever seen? No
It's hard to say this is a great codex when three days after its release it got FAQed. Most of the points where were they had to re-write entries. Things that could have been avoided if the codex went through some kind quality control. There are still more parts that will need to be FAQed, and I wouldn't be surprised if that happened soon.

My friend and I have spent a couple of days going over the codex and seeing what other people have said. To a certain extent, we feel strange because we wonder are we looking at the same codex. Everybody has glowed about the codex, but we find just meh. There are good things but standard codex marines are better. The Dark Angels tactical squad start out cheaper; however, that's where things end. To build a Dark Angels unit to the exact same build of a codex marine tactical squad, a player will generally spend the exact same amount of points. Codex marines get vet sergeants for free. Dark Angels have to pay 10 points to get one. Codex marines get flamers for free. Dark Angels do not.

I've said this in my tread and other places too. I find Azrael meh. A player only unlocks Deathwing Terminators, not Knights, and Ravenwing Attack squadron, not Black Knights, as troop choices. That's only if he's in the Primary detachment. The rule also stats that they are troop choices instead of their usual FO category. Seems cool, but the way I'm interperting it right now is that the rule does two things. First and most importantly, it moves Ravenwing and Deathwing from Elites and Fast Attack to Troops. That means they cannot be taken as Elites or Fast Attack. If a player fills the four troop slots with tactical squads, then they will not be able to take Ravenwing or Deathwing. This leads to the second point. That is a very exspensive army. Taking just Azrael, a Deathwing squad (no upgrades), and a full Ravenwing squad (no upgrades) comes to 691 points. For a 1500 point game that is a quarter of your army. It may just be me, but I don't see the greatness.

Again I found the codex to be lukewarm, and I think it will continue to be lukewarm throughout 6th edition. I may have had too high of an expectation for this codex. Given the last three codices that Dark Angels have had, I may have been expecting something that would truly set them apart. Instead, I just have the sinking feeling that this Dark Angel codex will suffer the same fate as the previous ones. It will turn out to be as vanilla or more vanilla than the regular codex space marines, and I will wonder why do Dark Angels even need their own separate codex.

i think the DE book was the best so far. its one of few books where the rules for units is actually well presented in the fluff, and vice versa. the codex itself also has many diffirent builds and options, plus many very stong units but nothing super overpowered or broken.

have only paged through the DA book, but i like the initial appearance, and back when i started thinking of doing a marine army i was attracted to the deathwing. it looks like they got a nice solid buff to make them competetive again.

 DarthSpader wrote:
i think the DE book was the best so far. its one of few books where the rules for units is actually well presented in the fluff, and vice versa. the codex itself also has many diffirent builds and options, plus many very stong units but nothing super overpowered or broken.

It was the nail in the coffin for Tyranids in 5th edition though.

I'd have to agree with those who say that Codex: Orks remains the Paragon among Codices. Two editions later and still kicking butt without ever being OP (a small spat with Nob Bikers notwithstanding). AND it's fluffy!


Green iz best!

Bkiker - 6 troops slots, and ~700 points is half a 1500 point army, not a quarter.

They are a very, very good codex, which doesnt invalidate prior army builds unlike other codex updates, I just wish the editing had been better.

J Vetock should have been given a codex WAY before now if this it he quality he can produce

@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

 bkiker wrote:
Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out?

You should really ask the Chaos Space Marine players about this !

@AtoMakl
Ha. I liked how one person put it. You can't make Chaos players happy unless their codex is 1000 page tome that has every snowflake option and rule. I personally like the Chaos codex. Of course this is the first Chaos codex I've ever own, so I came to it with no expectations and no previous history.

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

Great points. I've never played WHFB, so I was unaware at his history in that. I still can't help but think that one-up-manship will creep back, but maybe I'll be wrong.

 bkiker wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

 bkiker wrote:
@nosferatu1001
The fact that ~700 points is half of 1500 doesn't help improve Azrael. As I showed in my post, the build I made with no upgrades came to 691 points. That makes half of a 1500 point army consist of 14 models. I don't see that as very cost effective. Yes, you have 6 troop slots, but if you try to fill them all with Ravenwing and Deathwing, your points will burn up very quickly.
If by very, very good you mean balanced, then I will agree, but I feel they are almost too balanced. They're balanced to the point of being a flat line, which is why I'm saying it's "meh". Here's a thought me and my friend had last night that I wonder anyone else have thought about: the future. Right now everyone is glowing about the Dark Angels codex because it's the flavor of the month, but will that glowing feeling remain after more codices have come out? Given GW's past history, the later codices will see more and more flare and to some extent over the top-ness. I believe this codex will remain a flat line throughout 6th edition: never really being bad, but never really being great ether.
You're point about the editing and Vetock's level of quality I hardly support. I really wonder if this codex even saw an editor or some kind of quality control, or was it just rushed out to sale new models? Giving a rookie Dark Angels makes me feel that GW still doesn't really know what to do with Dark Angels or doesn't care. This dig's up the old feeling that I've always had about Dark Angels: why even give them their own codex.

I think they only seem so meh because of what we're used to seeing from 5th edition, where we got IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights, and everything trying to constantly top each other. I think the Chaos book, and DE in 5th, are a much better comparison for what we're likely to see with future codexes. Things becoming more balanced internally, so that there are no (or very few, *cough*Helldrake*cough*) stand-out no brainers in the book. So while we'll be stuck with some OP things from 5th until they get redone, everything is going to start converging more on this flat line that you see with the DA.

And as for Vetock being a rookie, he isn't. He's done several WHFB army books, and had a hand in the 6th ed main rulebook, I believe. He wasn't the problem, the problem was a lack of good editing and absolutely no QA from GW, but that's a matter for another thread.

Great points. I've never played WHFB, so I was unaware at his history in that. I still can't help but think that one-up-manship will creep back, but maybe I'll be wrong.

40k seems to be following on the same coat-tails as 8th ed Fantasy.

Basically, the nocticible power creep has been all but turned off. When you look at the supposed, (or rather net-listed), "best" & "worst" books - Ogres & Tomb Kings, there isn't really that much power seperating them overall. (Outside of one really evil Ogre magic item that has 'screw undead' written all over it!)
But thus far, Ogres/VC's/O&G's/Empire/TK's are all on a fairly even playing field, and each book is capable of multiple fun yet still decently competitive builds.

Most noticable of all, there really aren't any "I-win-buttons" in any of the new Fantasy books. (nor are there any present in the new DA's or CSM's)
This has IMHO caused the bulk of the grumbling and complaints, mainly from the very vocal minority who think GW either owes them for some percieved slight or other stupid reason or simply outright bad players who can't be bothered to properly learn their army/game itself and just want an easy 'point-and-click' option/s.



Now, here's the funny thing, thus far in terms of "who's written what" across both of the 'New Balanced Systems', we've had;
Mr.Vetock w/Dark Angels, Orcs&Gobbos & co-wrote Ogres.

Mr.Jervis Johnson co-wrote Orges with Vetock.

Mr.Cruddace w/Tomb Kings, Empire & (confirmed via WD leaks) Warriors of Chaos.

Mr.Kelly w/Vampire Counts, Chaos Marines.

We also have rumors of Mr.Vetock possibly being the man behind BOTH the forthcoming Daemons of Chaos & 40k Chaos Daemons...
Of those books, Vampires, (and I'd wager good money Warriors as well), were tonned way down while the others were generally brought up a notch or three! (Ogres gained the most for obvious reasons)

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

Experiment 626 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

He wrote the core rules for both 40k and Fantasy though.

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?

Yet we've still got Cruddace (Imperial Guard) and Kelly (Space wolves), hmmm.

@Experiment 626
As I mentioned, I have no familiarity with fantasy. If GW is scaling back the power creep, I am more than happy to see that happen. As you pointed out, it would make for a variety of builds and fun lists.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?!

He wrote the core rules for both 40k and Fantasy though.

And we can still hear the screaming about how borked the BRB magic lores are, not to mention the Power Scroll got nerfed hard-core in the FAQ!

I've not had a chance to play as much 40k, so I'll admit I haven't yet seen too much abuse myself of any OTT silliness from the new core rules.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Interesting to note that thus far, we've got a series of very balanced books and only 1 author who's missing in action, no?

Yet we've still got Cruddace (Imperial Guard) and Kelly (Space wolves), hmmm.

And those were both 5th edition books.

The 'new age' hardcovers for both systems have really ratcheted back the amount of 'win-button'/power creep options.
Sure, CSM's have the Helldrake of epicness while DA's have T5/3++ Termies and twin-linked Plasma bikers, but those options don't really play themselves to victory the way things like Longwang spam or Pally spam or MSU mech spam did in 5th.

Both Chaos Marines and Dark Angels are capable of making some hard lists.
But there's nothing in either book that screams outright 'broken' like we've suffered in the past with IG/SW/BA/GK/'Cron fiasco.

The 'new age' hardcovers for both systems have really ratcheted back the amount of 'win-button'/power creep options.
Sure, CSM's have the Helldrake of epicness while DA's have T5/3++ Termies and twin-linked Plasma bikers, but those options don't really play themselves to victory the way things like Longwang spam or Pally spam or MSU mech spam did in 5th.

We haven't gotten a new 40K book from Cruddace either.

Both Chaos Marines and Dark Angels are capable of making some hard lists.
But there's nothing in either book that screams outright 'broken' like we've suffered in the past with IG/SW/BA/GK/'Cron fiasco.

BA were never OP/Broken at any point in the game, and it's silly to try to even insinuate that they are, or ever were on the same level as IG/SW/5th GK.

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind. This had the unfortunate side effect of their dominance toward the end of 5th edition. No one is crying that GK are Overpowered now. Except you. Because of Warp Quake.

The main reason people cry about Necrons now, is the lack of AA, and their ability to spam flyers. As more codexs get Anti-Air/Flyers, this is slowly being addressed. It's another growing pain of sixth.

 Sasori wrote:

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind..

Or, 6th was written with GKs in mind?

I love how you think the year and a half this book was on the market in 5th was undertaken with some incredible prescience and patience by Matt Ward, as though he was the pinnacle of restraint.

If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex. It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011. Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?" I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

 TedNugent wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

GK were clearly written with 5th in mind..

Or, 6th was written with GKs in mind?

I love how you think the year and a half this book was on the market in 5th was undertaken with some incredible prescience and patience by Matt Ward, as though he was the pinnacle of restraint.

If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex. It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011. Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?" I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

+1,000,000 This.

GK's would have been written during the earlier concepts of 6th edition, hence why you see some early indicators such as Mastery Levels for Librarians and the newer printing of Prefered Enemy.
BUT!
GK's were most certainly designed for 5th edition because by the time the codex would have gone to the printers, the studio would likely have still been upto their ears in serious playtesting of the 6th ed rules. (as most codex/army book projects require at least 12-18 months from beginings to release)
And GK's would likely have been in progress a bit earlier too, since the new codex was a pretty giant overhaul and basically turned them into a brand new army in their own right. (making it even less likely that 6th edition was as far ahead as some seem to magically think it was)

Necrons clearly showed more progrees had been made with the 6th ed rules, and were designed far more with 6th in mind that GK's were.

And yes, BA's were a serious power creep codex, since they were just 'Space Marines +1'.
Notice how the only actual vanilla armies still being played after BA's hit were Vulkan or Biker lists?! That would because SW's played the gunline better, while BA's were simply way tougher and much faster.

SW's/IG/BA/GK's were the 4 biggest power creepers.

 TedNugent wrote:
If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex.

It sounds sensible at first. But when you think about what specific rules hurt GK most, it stops being sensible. Because those rules are the ones that have extremely large implications for most other armies too: Change to vehicle damage mechanisms, power weapon changes, no assault out of vehicles, etc. So changes of all of them being completely re-written because of single codex doesn't sound realistic at all.

Now, there actually is a rule C:GK probably influenced: Wound allocation. GW wanted to nerf Wound allocation shenigans to oblivion. But that issue had already been noticed with Nob Bikers.

 TedNugent wrote:
It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011.

Some rules, like Aegis, were obviously written for 6e psychic mechanics. RAW, Aegis working didn't work in 5e at all, but it meshed perfectly with 6e mechanics. Same goes for Mastery levels and lot of other stuff. So yes, there is very strong evidence that large parts of 6e were ready in all the ways that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

Fortitude is another one: 5 points for it made no sense for 5e, but makes sense for 6e. Are you seriously arguing that vehicle damage chart change was all because of Fortitude?

 TedNugent wrote:
Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?"

Yes I know. It means that people have good idea about what their goals are. Or they might have all the necessary core mechanics in place, but want to concentrate on specifics. Example would be that they have already ironed out the exact process of casting psychic power, but are still discussing what specific psychic powers do.

 TedNugent wrote:
I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Well, they probably didn't know all the rules and their exact wordings, but had chosen the main lines they were going to follow, which obviously included core Psyker mechanics (not necessarily powers though) and extremely likely included stuff like hull points, power weapon changes, existence of Flyer rules, no scoring inside transports etc.

And this is GW: They just are damn slow to take action. 90+% of the problems fixed in the first BRB FAQ were talked about widely within week of the BRB being published. It still took GW months to fix those issues via FAQ. Considering the timeframes involved and how long GW it takes for GW to take actual action, we have two scenarios:
1) Whole rulebook was hastily re-written in 9-12 months before its release, all to nerf C:GK. The changes done at this stage include (but are not limited to) power weapon changes, changes to Vehicle damage table and vehicle rules.
2) C:GK was written based on then current playtest version of 6e, which at that point already contained significant portions of the rules changes that nerfed GK in 6e. Some of the rules from that version have changed based on evidence: For example, Halberds being two-handed weapons has no in-game effect whatsoever because no model with halberd can have 2nd CCW.

Which of these scenarios sounds more sensible?

edit: Fixed typo

 bkiker wrote:

There are good things but standard codex marines are better. The Dark Angels tactical squad start out cheaper; however, that's where things end. To build a Dark Angels unit to the exact same build of a codex marine tactical squad, a player will generally spend the exact same amount of points. Codex marines get vet sergeants for free. Dark Angels have to pay 10 points to get one. Codex marines get flamers for free. Dark Angels do not.

Starting cheaper but ending up the same is in itself a huge advantage. DA tactical squads get to trim the fat that not everybody needs in order to save points. Save 10 points for having a regular sarge? That's a huge advantage, because then you save points you would be basically wasting on a 2nd attack for 1 model in a shooty squad. And if you want it, go ahead you can get it because you have the option to! Vanilla marines do not get that option. Options are good! The biggest advantage is that DA marines can get a special weapon with only 5 models, vanilla marines have to field a full 10 to get a special weapon. That's an absurd advantage over vanilla marines. If you want a 10-man squad of bolter boys alone, you are going to be able to field them way cheaper than a vanilla squad. DA has cheaper tacticals, scouts & devastators who can all get flakk missiles, which vanilla can't. DA also has cheaper whirlwinds. You can make half a list of hard-hitting elite units scoring and then fill out the rest with tons of cheap bodies. That's a pretty sweet option to have.

bkiker wrote:
I've said this in my tread and other places too. I find Azrael meh. A player only unlocks Deathwing Terminators, not Knights, and Ravenwing Attack squadron, not Black Knights, as troop choices. That's only if he's in the Primary detachment. The rule also stats that they are troop choices instead of their usual FO category. Seems cool, but the way I'm interperting it right now is that the rule does two things. First and most importantly, it moves Ravenwing and Deathwing from Elites and Fast Attack to Troops. That means they cannot be taken as Elites or Fast Attack. If a player fills the four troop slots with tactical squads, then they will not be able to take Ravenwing or Deathwing. This leads to the second point. That is a very exspensive army. Taking just Azrael, a Deathwing squad (no upgrades), and a full Ravenwing squad (no upgrades) comes to 691 points. For a 1500 point game that is a quarter of your army. It may just be me, but I don't see the greatness.

Azrael can make almost an entire army scoring. He confers a 4++ save to everybody he joins, including allies. He can pick his warlord trait. He has awesome wargear. He gives the entire army LD 10. He got +1 WS, stronger rules and he's cheaper than the last codex. What's not to like about him?

You say that by not keeping DW/RW as Elite/FA, you are stopping people from getting them. But then you say getting them as troops means you don't have enough points leftover. You've made half of a 1500 point army using 1 HQ and 2 troops slots. Are you saying that another HQ, 4 more troops slots and 3 elite/3 FA/3 heavy are not enough for you to finish the other half? Not to mention that DA can get units that don't use up slots such as a techmarine & 3 types of command squads in addition to dedicated transports. Just how is that not enough room for 700 points?

Luide wrote:

 TedNugent wrote:
If anything, it's the more sensible belief that 6th contained some of the rules it did specifically in order to nerf GKs perceived excesses in 5th. After all, 6th released after the GK codex.

It sounds sensible at first. But when you think about what specific rules hurt GK most, it stops being sensible. Because those rules are the ones that have extremely large implications for most other armies too: Change to vehicle damage mechanisms, power weapon changes, no assault out of vehicles, etc. So changes of all of them being completely re-written because of single codex doesn't sound realistic at all.

Now, there actually is a rule C:GK probably influenced: Wound allocation. GW wanted to nerf Wound allocation shenigans to oblivion. But that issue had already been noticed with Nob Bikers.

 TedNugent wrote:
It's not like you have any evidence at all what Matt Ward was thinking back in 2011 or that they had crystallized the 6th rules, which were probably still in the design or at LEAST playtesting stages back in 2011.

Some rules, like Aegis, were obviously written for 6e psychic mechanics. RAW, Aegis working didn't work in 5e at all, but it meshed perfectly with 6e mechanics. Same goes for Mastery levels and lot of other stuff. So yes, there is very strong evidence that large parts of 6e were ready in all the ways that matters for the purposes of this discussion.

Fortitude is another one: 5 points for it made no sense for 5e, but makes sense for 6e. Are you seriously arguing that vehicle damage chart change was all because of Fortitude?

 TedNugent wrote:
Do you know the meaning of the word "work in progress?"

Yes I know. It means that people have good idea about what their goals are. Or they might have all the necessary core mechanics in place, but want to concentrate on specifics. Example would be that they have already ironed out the exact process of casting psychic power, but are still discussing what specific psychic powers do.

 TedNugent wrote:
I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Well, they probably didn't know all the rules and their exact wordings, but had chosen the main lines they were going to follow, which obviously included core Psyker mechanics (not necessarily powers though) and extremely likely included stuff like hull points, power weapon changes, existence of Flyer rules, no scoring inside transports etc.

And this is GW: They just are damn slow to take action. 90+% of the problems fixed in the first BRB were talked about widely within week of the BRB being published. It still took GW months to fix those issues via FAQ. Considering the timeframes involved and how long GW it takes for GW to take actual action, we have two scenarios:
1) Whole rulebook was hastily re-written in 9-12 months before its release, all to nerf C:GK. The changes done at this stage include (but are not limited to) power weapon changes, changes to Vehicle damage table and vehicle rules.
2) C:GK was written based on then current playtest version of 6e, which at that point already contained significant portions of the rules changes that nerfed GK in 6e. Some of the rules from that version have changed based on evidence: For example, Halberds being two-handed weapons has no in-game effect whatsoever because no model with halberd can have 2nd CCW.

Which of these scenarios sounds more sensible?

Very well said!

I just want to add one point to this

I wonder what they were doing for a year and a !@#$ing half if they already knew what all the 6th rules were going to be before the GK codex even released.

Cruddace outright stated in an interview that releases are at the whims of sales. He said the reason for the release schedule, was because if they released too much in one year, that the shareholders would expect this kind of return every year, hence the "Waiting" for 6th and the CSM.

Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

Yes, the text on page 33 which talks about rerolls to hit.

I think it's pretty good, but needed someone with a brain to edit it.

The book itself isn't OP, but unfortunately anyone that is battle brothers with guard can be very powerful now.

The DA's main weakness is flyers, but IG can sure help there.. and Azrael gets a lot of mileage out of his 4++ in a big blob.

 bkiker wrote:
@AtoMakl
Ha. I liked how one person put it. You can't make Chaos players happy unless their codex is 1000 page tome that has every snowflake option and rule. I personally like the Chaos codex. Of course this is the first Chaos codex I've ever own, so I came to it with no expectations and no previous history.

Heh, go look at "slaves to darkness" and "The Lost and the Damned" books.

They had a d1000 mutation chart.

And it was great - Orks also had the Kustomising tables halicon days

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 yorkskargrimironklaw wrote:
Divination is broken i should know i play 3 rune priests in my SW army
10 Devastators 4xPC is total win

Prescience does not work on Blast Weapons though unless I am missing somthing.

Yes, the text on page 33 which talks about rerolls to hit.

Also, page 37 Gets Hot rerolls. All win.

 Mr Morden wrote:
And it was great - Orks also had the Kustomising tables halicon days

Also everything could be kombi, Kombi lascannon, kombi autocannon..


You could have an autocannon, with lascannon, with missle launcher if you rolled right. Best Dakka Ever

Ah but I also recall you could have a Stealth Avatar to fitght them

My brother used to run with Orks and he had mere units with as much firepower as present armies

I love the Dark Angel army. But this new 6th ed DA codex is really getting on my nerves. Here's why.

1. Price: This is the most expensive codex for me. $59.50CAD is nothing to be sneezed it. Blood Angels codex was only $34.50CAD. I know this new codex is hardcover and full colour and all that and I would have agreed on the price to be fair. EXCEPT for the points I will make below.
2. Spelling mistakes: I can't believe how many spelling mistakes I found in this codex! For a gaming company selling their models through storytelling and English as its orginal language the spelling mistakes really undermine the quality of the product.
3. Rules mistakes: if spelling errors is not enough. The amount of rule errors really hamper the enjoyment of playing the game unforgiving (pun intended). Does Belial have iron halo? Does Darkshroud have sleath? I paid good money for a quality book. Now I have to trout around an 'FAQ' with so many small annoyances.
4. Fluff: At first I praised Vetock for a codex well written. until last week I reopened my old 2nd ed Angels of Death codex and re-read the fluff about the Dark Angels and guess what I found? The fluff is a direct copy from the old codex! Granted its not copy/paste, but the similiarity will surly get your ass in trouble if you are in college. The paragrahs and sentance structre are the same, just a random word change here and there. So now again I paied 59.50CAD only to found out half the fluff I already bought 15 yrs ago. I won't be frustrated if Vertock rewrite the same story himself and not copy from an older codex.


In summary, this codex is my worst codex becuase for its high prices I got a lot of spelling mistakes to hamper my reading enjoyment, lots of rules misakes which hamper my playing enjoyment. and found it half the fluff I have already read WORD FOR WORD in an older book. Thank you for reading my rant which for some reason I feel the need to express. Thank god I didn't buy the Collector's edition otherwise I would be so mad and write to GW itself.

please don't flame me if I offened you in some way. I love DA and had been collecting for some time. I really wished the DA codex didn't have so many book mistakes. The rules are acturally quite nice and balanced in my opinion.

The other - legitimate - grievances aside, it's better to copy the old fluff than retcon it into oblivion Ward-style. If the fluff itself hasn't changed, the wording doesn't need to either, really. It'd still be the same ol' content... just probably with more spelling errors

Agreed re the Fluff aspect for the most part - although the Dark Eldar Codex for me represented a considerable increase in actual information and I actually liked pretty much all of it.

Not so much the Necrons and very little of the Grey Knights. Not got Codex: CSM or Dark Angels - waiting till they turn up at reasonable price on ebay.........

I skimmed through the codex, and im terrified to fight Dark Angels as chaos... some of those weapons drop in AP value when fighting Chaos to become ap3. ap2 and ap1... and one of those weapons can be used as a S10 AP1 weapon. The only thing that keeps me safe is the possibility of just getting termy squads w/ combi plasma and double tapping them into DW terminators.

 tvih wrote:
The other - legitimate - grievances aside, it's better to copy the old fluff than retcon it into oblivion Ward-style. If the fluff itself hasn't changed, the wording doesn't need to either, really. It'd still be the same ol' content... just probably with more spelling errors

That and there is a great deal of good, new fluff in the codex. All the post-Heresy stuff is gold, and it is all brand new. A nice addition as there was never any explanation of how we went from pre-fall to post-fall. So adding in all of that Templar/Freemason conspiracy stuff is great. More than I was expecting in any case (GW either rewrites you from the ground up or just reprints whatever you had in 2nd Edition). Getting to keep the old background while getting brand new stuff added on (that doesn't suck) actually makes the fluff section of this codex quite nice. I have no complaints about that bit.

decoste007xt wrote:
I skimmed through the codex, and im terrified to fight Dark Angels as chaos... some of those weapons drop in AP value when fighting Chaos to become ap3. ap2 and ap1... and one of those weapons can be used as a S10 AP1 weapon. The only thing that keeps me safe is the possibility of just getting termy squads w/ combi plasma and double tapping them into DW terminators.

Yeah it's fun fighting Chaos. Haven't tried the Knights myself yet but that T5 with Smite does sound fun. It has to get into CC to do anything though with T5 with a 3++ even plasma might not slow them down a lot. Will have to try it though I'm unsure. Overall I like both books and they seem sort of made for each other. Really hoping other Codex's get PE's to like this but if nothing else the new design of the wargear options seems great so far. I've come to refer to the Chaos Lord's and Company Master's as Build-a-Bear-Space-Marines.

KaryudoDS wrote:

decoste007xt wrote:
I skimmed through the codex, and im terrified to fight Dark Angels as chaos... some of those weapons drop in AP value when fighting Chaos to become ap3. ap2 and ap1... and one of those weapons can be used as a S10 AP1 weapon. The only thing that keeps me safe is the possibility of just getting termy squads w/ combi plasma and double tapping them into DW terminators.

Yeah it's fun fighting Chaos. Haven't tried the Knights myself yet but that T5 with Smite does sound fun. It has to get into CC to do anything though with T5 with a 3++ even plasma might not slow them down a lot. Will have to try it though I'm unsure. Overall I like both books and they seem sort of made for each other. Really hoping other Codex's get PE's to like this but if nothing else the new design of the wargear options seems great so far. I've come to refer to the Chaos Lord's and Company Master's as Build-a-Bear-Space-Marines.

T4 is literally identical to T5 when facing plasma.

I might ally then with IG so I can have azareal a div lib and 50 guardsman with attached LC , give azareal the trait that gives his squad FNP near an objective and you have a objective camper like no other ( 50 men with 4++ 5*FNP)