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

Stelek wrote:You can literally make at least 20 competitive army builds out of the new Codex. Better than 3 or 4, which were semi-competitive, like in the old Codex.

As far as balanced books goes, I think GW has figured out with the last year of release to stop screwing around. Alot of people think Vampire Counts and Demons of Chaos are all-powerful. They aren't. They're just the new toys everyone is running. Next year, it'll be whatever gets released. Same with Eldar and Chaos Demons. It isn't that they lose power, it's that they lose all the members of the FOTM club running them this year so they 'look' better than they really are.

You are contradicting yourself here. What appears to be 20 competitive builds will probably boil down to 4-5 competitive builds of some of which adopt non-obvious configurations, thanks to the new flexibility, once everyone becomes used to the new toys. I also wouldn't go so far as you to say that the old marine codex was a lame duck, only that it occupied "middle of the road" status. I think that with the trait system alowing customisation, the old Marine dex could have made a decent run into the new edition (i.e. up to 3 codex cycles) without the need for a new codex, especially when other codexes that were stripped of customisation didn't make the transition well.

I don't see how I contradicted myself.

Maybe you can tell me, since you didn't in your post.

4-5 internet competitive builds, with alot of dumbing down. Certainly. Still will be 20 competitive builds.

See I've been playing against them for a while now and there really are that many.

Can you give an example of some of the competitive builds you've noticed or played against? Ones I've seen talked about are Salamander DPs with lots of Ironclads, flamers, and multimeltas; razorback spam, typically with cantor and sternguard; shrike with 3 units of vanguard; and all-outflank armies with the khan. There's your 4 internet builds, what else have you seen?

Stelek wrote:I don't see how I contradicted myself.

You indicate that the new codex is much stronger than the old one in that you see around 20 competitive builds as opposed to the 4-5 sub-par builds available to the old dex.
Then you go on to say that new armies suffering from "new toys syndrome" drop off precipitously in power once everyone gets used to the army or goes on to the new hotness.

Based on this "breaking in period", might you be overstating the might of the new dex in light that it is still in the "new army" part of its lifecycle?

keezus wrote:

Stelek wrote:I don't see how I contradicted myself.

You indicate that the new codex is much stronger than the old one in that you see around 20 competitive builds as opposed to the 4-5 sub-par builds available to the old dex.
Then you go on to say that new armies suffering from "new toys syndrome" drop off precipitously in power once everyone gets used to the army or goes on to the new hotness.

Based on this "breaking in period", might you be overstating the might of the new dex in light that it is still in the "new army" part of its lifecycle?

Ah but the difference is this:

Marines now have many builds, and Marines as a baseline army are GOOD.

The last what, 3 Space marine books, they've been nothing but scrubs.

Few builds, and Marines as a baseline army were CRAP.

I do not think 'new toys syndrome' makes armies drop off in power--I think the power stays about the same, but players learn how to fight them.

At Vegas, everyone had 4th edition lists (which Demons massacre) and little experience playing against Demons. So if they are a 3 out of 5, they got +1 for playing against bad lists and +1 for playing against inexperienced players.

Doesn't make them a 5 star army, they are still a 3 star army...but at Vegas they LOOKED really good.

They really aren't in my opinion. Goatboy did what he could, but between my army and his dice rolls--he didn't stand a chance.

I believe stjohn70 beat both his demon opponents. One game ending a turn early cost him a pure win instead of a VP win (I think).

Where pretty much all my games went to turn 7 and it wasn't a good thing for me in any of those games. Maybe one it helped to go to 6, but 7 hurt me almost every time.

Anyway I hope you see the difference in how I define "good".

I think Marines will be "good" in a year.

I think Demons will be "fun" by the time Adepticon rolls around to start next season.

I have serious doubts the Demons will run rampant at the next two tournaments this year.

Time will tell.

I'm not sure, but I think marines have some serious weaknesses under the new rules. They aren't going to do well against CC hordes or being that heavily outnumbered by everyone. And they don't benefit as much from all the cover.
The uber characters annoy me, but because they are silly, not broken.
Fleeting assault marines might be something to worry about though, I dunno.