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.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The Tau codex without supplements, without allies is a very good book, but not dominating. I really don't think that individual codexs are written with any of the other things in mind that GW has thrown into the game. Which is where a lot of the problem comes from.

The Tau codex and the Eldar codex when standing by themselves are strong but have limitations and weakness that can be exploited by most other armies. Its only when you add in GWs "Here take whatever the hell you want" approach that things get wonky.

I don't mean to be insulting, but... Have you played 6th edition yet? You described Necrons and GK's as overbearing, but they were never as bad as these two.

 Jayden63 wrote:
The Tau codex without supplements, without allies is a very good book, but not dominating.

Um... no.

The easy access to ignore cover, the ready availability of interceptor and skyfire, the support fire stuff. Half the Codex simply bypasses all the parts of the game that could give other armies a solid strategy to tackling a strong shooty army. The other 3/4ths of the Codex are the best shooty army in the game. The 1/4th of overlap is what everyone plays.

The way the Tau army circumvents crucial parts of the game is as much an indicator of an author not overtly familiar with the game, as is the blatant undercosting of ... well .. a lot of stuff. Missilesides, Riptides, Markerlights to name the obvious.

The 6th Edition Tau Codex is easily the most "broken" Codex in 40K since 4th Edition Eldar Cheese Falcon. Nothing in 5th Edition ever came close (with IG Leafblower probably being the best contender).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
The Tau codex without supplements, without allies is a very good book, but not dominating. I really don't think that individual codexs are written with any of the other things in mind that GW has thrown into the game. Which is where a lot of the problem comes from.

The Tau codex and the Eldar codex when standing by themselves are strong but have limitations and weakness that can be exploited by most other armies. Its only when you add in GWs "Here take whatever the hell you want" approach that things get wonky.

I don't mean to be insulting, but... Have you played 6th edition yet? You described Necrons and GK's as overbearing, but they were never as bad as these two.

Yup, but I don't play in a cut throat WAAC environment. Even the tau flyers make an appearance every now and then. I never play 2000 points so single FOC, I don't use allies, or battle formations, etc. Just codex vs. codex with fun and fluff being the main concern.

But yeah, the game has become increasingly unfun lately with more people insisting on bringing the more WAAC force combos. But thats GWs fault at large and not a single author or codex.

Makumba wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I like Ward the most , his codex are good . People say the fluff he writes is bad , but I find his fluff just as good as the fluff in other books .

Blood Angels card played.
Who has ever said that a deep striking Land Raider is an example of proper codex-writing?

Have you ever used it or were forced to use deep striking LR as the main tactic of your army ? never ? well then it is not a problem .
DoA armies were ok casual lists , razorbuilds were good builds too . GK , BA , Necron were all very good books that made it fun to play them .

This might be the first time ever when I see you using words like "casual" or "fun". How convenient.

No-one has forced me to use Sanguinary Guard. That doesn't make them a good unit.
No-one has forced me to use CSM. That doesn't make it a good codex.
And no-one has forced me to deep strike a Land Raider. That does not make it a good or sensible rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 soomemafia wrote:


Most deep strikers aren't huge metal bawkses with weight of several tons as forementioned.

There is no deep-striking unit in the entire game that wouldn't squash Guardsman Billy though. That's what upsets you, no?

I recall something like the old Monolith having a rule. If it scatters on top of any models, they must take initiative test or die.
Few simple lines (that do make sense) could've made that random rule into a proper one IMO. But no, it was left like it is.

I think all of them can do a good job... if they want. It is becoming less frequent. I think GW is pushing them too far, most recent Codexes (Space Marines the exception) seems rushed.

I liked Kelly´s work with Dark Eldar, and his fluff is usually better than the average "so awesome" senseless stuff. But Chaos Marines was bad, and the fluff of Chaos Daemons he copy-pasted from Cavatore´s Codex with some random, senseless, really annoying retcons. Also the Warpstorm Rule and the Warriors of Chaos rule.

Cruddace´s Space Marines is good. And Ward is good at writing rules (awful fluff though, completely senseless and over-the-top). But they did a terrible, terrible job with the Sisters.

Vetock did two good Codexes (imho), but nothing impressive to date.

So... none?

Phill Kelly!

ORKS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!

Old black templar codex and so on

 sing your life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Jeremy vetock has written 2 great codexes so far.

Dark Angels, the Codex with awful internal balance, and Tau, the Codex with awful internal AND external balance?

Could you please think before you post things?

That's what I was going to ask you too. How are they examples of two "great" Codices?

And how might these be example of "awful" codexes? The quality of you posts and lack of qualms about making statements that dyed in the wool historical players could see are incorrect with a glance depresses me.

They're bad because one of them has a ton of lacking, overcosted units (DA) that just doesn't cut it and a few good things, while Tau is much stronger than an average 6th edition Codex while having things like Vespid and Riptides in the same book.

How are those "great" Codices?

I find Ward's books okay but his fluff is boring as dirt. Cruddance has okay fluff but having read IG and 5th ed Tyranid codex the guy has no sense of how units should be properly values. When I saw ho much firepower I could fit into a foot IG list I nearly fell out of my chair.

I like Phil Kelly's fluff writing. Loved the 5th ed Space Wolves rook and the 4th ed Eldar book the most out of all the ones I read. He has a style that really manages to convey the character of the army, if maybe in a way that over the top, but this is 40k. It's all over the top. Overall, I'd have to say I like Kelly the best as his books entertained me the most. The new Tau dex I think I enjoy just as much, but I need to get some models and do some kit bashing before determining if I like it more (modeling is big for me and I like armies where I can mess with the models a lot.)

Space wolves is probably my favorite overall. The stuff I could do with all those models wasn't just cool it was fluffy. Making each unit its own little soldier and knowing he had his own heroic deeds under his belt? Loved it.

How are those "great" Codices?

Just looking at Tau, I'd call it great because all the units are competitively priced and I'm not shoe horned into taking obvious options (you'd be insane not to take Long Fangs as a space wolf player for example, but Riptides or Crisis Suits is a tough pick). Some things in the book might be too aggressively priced, but Tau are unlikely to fall into a rut like they did with their old dex as their current one gets older. I.E. it's going to last, a lot like the current Ork and IG dex's and completely unlike the 5th ed Nid and BA dex's.

 Jayden63 wrote:

Yup, but I don't play in a cut throat WAAC environment. Even the tau flyers make an appearance every now and then. I never play 2000 points so single FOC, I don't use allies, or battle formations, etc. Just codex vs. codex with fun and fluff being the main concern.

In short, you AREN'T playing 6e. Double FOC and allies are no more optional than the Heavy Support FOC slot and contribute to the power level reduction of GK and Necrons (which can't have BBs) and increasing that of Tau and Eldar. Their weaknesses are less important when you can patch the hole with allies and multi-codex units with force multiplier ICs.

Interesting question.

Vetock is the only one without any epic fails to his name yet but he only did 2 books for 40k so far. Tau and DA are both characterful, fun books. Any problems with those armies stem more from crazy core rules and wonky meta than from any issues with the codexes themselves.

Ward can do good things. His Necrons, at the time of release, were a really good book with decent balance. Then the 6E switch turned it into an atrocity.

Kelly is a hack. He gained fame from 4E Eldar, Orks and DE, but honestly there was no way but up for those armies. These books only look good because the previous ones were awful. He also tends to break core game rules unintentionally because he doesn't understand them (most evident in his first work, the old Ogre army book). His 5E and 6E work has really exposed his lack of talent and vision.

Cruddace... what the heck, man. The current Space Marine codex is the best book GW has done since Rogue Trader. Everything else... I don't have to explain, right?

So nobody really has a consistent track record. If I had to pick someone to redo my favorite army, I'd take my chances with Vetock.

 GreyHamster wrote:
Fluff is easily negotiable. Rules are not. For that reason, I favor Ward. I like his use of subtractive design, even though many people don't even notice it's there and whine without considering it.

Kelly's books suffer from atrocious internal balance. Things like Long Fangs so utterly dominate their book's force org that other options in the slot may as well not exist.

Cruddace makes Kelly look like he knows what he's doing. Costing in the 5e Tyranids and IG books look like he was tossing darts and multiplying the value of the shot by a die roll.

For all the whining about Ward, Guard and Wolves were more consistently bitched about.

A pink horror entering from Deep Strike your T3 vs my T3. You will win, I guarantee it

Ward, I think he did a fantastic job with Blood Angels even though the codex may not have aged that well. And in my eyes nobody could be worse than Cruddace. Nobody.

I can honestly say cruddace did pretty darn good with 6th ed marines :p

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
I can honestly say cruddace did pretty darn good with 6th ed marines :p

But then he went and destroyed Tyranids for the second consecutive time in a row (he led the team they knew it was bad so they said it was a team effort instead of having one person take the credit)

EDIT: I think he added Gravity weapons just to screw over 'Nids even more, I'm pretty sure he has it out for them

 darthnatus wrote:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
I can honestly say cruddace did pretty darn good with 6th ed marines :p

But then he went and destroyed Tyranids for the second consecutive time in a row (he led the team they knew it was bad so they said it was a team effort instead of having one person take the credit)

EDIT: I think he added Gravity weapons just to screw over 'Nids even more, I'm pretty sure he has it out for them

Agreed, tyranids would've been certainly interesting to play, but ...yeah :|

Kelly. But then I'm biased.

Ward's Grey Knight fluff should never have been published, it reads like a 12 year old's fan fiction. But his rules are decent. (unless you play fantasy.)

Kelly's chaos codex earns him my least favorite rules writer. His dyslexic split personality of the unit's rules make no sense and should have been looked at by someone else before being published.

(How it should have ended.)
GW Employee "Wait...this is a close combat unit that sucks at close combat?"
Kelly - "Yes! Isn't it awesome? It adds depth and challenge to the army.
GW Employee - "But..it's way expensive. No one's going to take it."
Kelly - "That's not the point."
GW Employee - "What is the point?"
Kelly - "Warbble wobble wooo."
GW Employee - "Huh?"
Kelly - "See? Battle cannon...but you can't shoot it if you move...but its a CC unit. Get it? Its ______ing purity in light!"
(Begins gibbering to self while biting finger nails.)
GW Employee - "Okaaaay. Um...I'm going to go get someone in here to talk to you. Don't go anywhere."

 LordofHats wrote:


Just looking at Tau, I'd call it great because all the units are competitively priced and I'm not shoe horned into taking obvious options (you'd be insane not to take Long Fangs as a space wolf player for example, but Riptides or Crisis Suits is a tough pick). Some things in the book might be too aggressively priced, but Tau are unlikely to fall into a rut like they did with their old dex as their current one gets older. I.E. it's going to last, a lot like the current Ork and IG dex's and completely unlike the 5th ed Nid and BA dex's.

The thing is though, no one (competetively) ever takes Fireblades, or Ethereals, or Vespid, or Stealth Suits, or Devilfishes, or either of the fliers, or Hammerheads, or...

Yes, you have to choose between Crisis Suits and Riptides (which is immediately "fixed" by Farsight Enclaves), but both Buff commanders and Pathfinders are more or less no-brainers.

I like Ward, but my favourite is probably Kelly. He just has the most consistent record and my favourite codex under his belt.

I like Matt Ward for his consistent approach to writing rules, when I look at his rules I can tell he put effort into making things work and being appropriately costed, but his fluff tends to provoke frothing at the mouth.
I like Phil Kelly's fluff, but he's horribly inconsistent when it comes to rules.
Vetock hasn't done much that I've read, but overall seems decent, I think he has potential.
Cruddace... The first syllable sums up what I think of this turd.

What I'd love to see is having Kelly writing all the fluff for a boom but Ward doing the rules, I think it would be praised as the greatest codex ever written.
What I'd hate to see is Cruddace getting his grubby hands on 7th ed Nids.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The thing is though, no one (competetively) ever takes Fireblades, or Ethereals, or Vespid, or Stealth Suits, or Devilfishes, or either of the fliers, or Hammerheads, or...

Yes, you have to choose between Crisis Suits and Riptides (which is immediately "fixed" by Farsight Enclaves), but both Buff commanders and Pathfinders are more or less no-brainers.

Something's always going to be the best. There is no way two things can be exactly equally good in such a complex system. And there's no reason hypercompetitive players would bring second best stuff, is there? But those other Tau things you listed aren't bad. Certainly not in the same sense Kelly's bad units are bad, ie. you might as well just pay the points and not even deploy them.

They're all terrible and I hate every one of them with the same fury I hate people who call themselves hardcore gamers because they played COD and GTA V.

Whoever wrote the new Tyranid book in particular is on my gak list right next to the jerkweed who cuts me off at the intersection every day and parents who can't handle their crying babies in airplanes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darthnatus wrote:

 ThunderFury 2575 wrote:
I can honestly say cruddace did pretty darn good with 6th ed marines :p

But then he went and destroyed Tyranids for the second consecutive time in a row (he led the team they knew it was bad so they said it was a team effort instead of having one person take the credit)

EDIT: I think he added Gravity weapons just to screw over 'Nids even more, I'm pretty sure he has it out for them

Oh feth it's Cruddace again?

Didn't we all tell GW to never let Cruddace touch our stuff again?

Okay, Cruddace moves down to ignorant asswipes on Youtube level hate.