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.

Codex: Asstra Telepottica

Ork ask: wat iz Codex?

So, shut up?

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

BrianDavion wrote:

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

Death Guard and CSM are literally already showing signs of aging. Did you know there are already people asking for a price cut on frickin Plague Marines because they're just not durable enough against the newer codices? It's ridiculous!

People tend to call for a price cut to everything that didn't appear in the top 2-3 lists at their favorite tournament last week.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

Death Guard and CSM are literally already showing signs of aging. Did you know there are already people asking for a price cut on frickin Plague Marines because they're just not durable enough against the newer codices? It's ridiculous!

The problem is that durability factions get their baseline toughness and nothing else, while glass cannon factions have fragile datasheets that get buffed until those glass cannons are surrounded by an adamantine fortress.

If Death Guard and Necrons got half as many defensive buffs as Craftworld Eldar do they'd be a hell of a lot harder to remove, I can tell you that.

Skaorn wrote:
If I still played Tau, I might have kept a list of threads like this for any time someone made the accusation that all Tau players do is whine lol.

You guys are definitely beaten by SM in that regard, but I think that's just cause there is a lot more SM players.

BrianDavion wrote:

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

I've heard nothing but good things about Death Guard this edition. And as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

phydaux wrote:
as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

This has got to be satire

 SHUPPET wrote:

phydaux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

This has got to be satire

why did that quote me?

BrianDavion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

phydaux wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

This has got to be satire

why did that quote me?

Dunno

Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

Well, my former policy was to buy all codices.
But now I'm just buying the codices of the armies that I'm playing.
I have a GK army but lucky me I havent bought the GK codex and I will not.
It seems to be the worst in town.

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

There are some more things... like the extra T Plague Marines get and the various weapon choices. Even tho DG players mention that Plague Marines aren't that good aswell. Gauss and RP just need a rework or big buffs , right now Necrons only work halftime against braindead opponents or straight up bad players.

I've been doing really well with an iron hand dreadbaught list lately. Regular dreads are too slow and not durable enough for points but contemptors are good. 3 contemptors + 2 ironclads and some support in 1250 games have been decent enough to win even vs anti-tech lists.

As for necrons, infantry spam is really good in small games. The moment you go big, rp stops working and you're better off spending pts in doomsday arks, destroyers and probably ctans and stuff like that.

low tier list?
GK. So much pts invested in so little damage output and durability.
Necrons. Better off then GK still quite overpriced.

As for SM/CSM
I think there are some keyunits, that are the fluff centerpiece that just don't cut it no more. Tac marines are not tactical, they are one trick ponies that suffer as soon as AP comes into play.
Terminators just are not worth ther 30-40 pts price range.

Also additionally why would you bother with Tac marines / regular CSM when you can fill troop taxes with an IG detachment or Cultists, which do the min cost min tax way better and have better stratagems to support them?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

phydaux wrote:
My intention wasn't to give Space Marines players another chance to cry, but to see if there were other armies that got the GK treatment.

I've heard that every Coxes after Astra Mil was OK. So what codeses were before Astra Mil?

the dexes pre-IG are Space Marines, Death Guard and chaos space marines. none of which are complete crap.

Death Guard and CSM are literally already showing signs of aging. Did you know there are already people asking for a price cut on frickin Plague Marines because they're just not durable enough against the newer codices? It's ridiculous!

The problem is that durability factions get their baseline toughness and nothing else, while glass cannon factions have fragile datasheets that get buffed until those glass cannons are surrounded by an adamantine fortress.

If Death Guard and Necrons got half as many defensive buffs as Craftworld Eldar do they'd be a hell of a lot harder to remove, I can tell you that.

Yeah, which pretty much proves that GW can't balance gak.
You can't call an army a glass cannon if it can pull so many defensive buffs out of its ass that the glass becomes diamond.

Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

Immortals need their T5 back and warriors need 3+ again.
They're just copying 5th ed statlines, and its not working.
They also need to rework the dynasty traits so that every faction can be used independently. I hate this new design concept where you need to soup in order to make an effective force. Its just more book keeping and tedium, as you have to keep track of what unit goes where, and if you paint them differently then your army doesn't look like a coherent force anymore. It ruins the aesthetic of the army.

QS needs to be more reliable too. On paper its strong, but in practice its highly unreliable, as you not only have to roll low, you have to hope your opponent rolls high too. I could see it working much better with set damage values, but with random damage values there's too much variance for it to be effective. I would much rather have it ignore a single unsaved wounding hit from an enemy unit's shooting.
As in, if a lascannon shot gets through and it deals 6 damage, it does nothing. If two lascannon shots from the same unit gets through and both deals 6 damage, then the vehicle takes 6 damage. If 2 lascannon shots from two different units get through, the vehicle ignores both.

Also, translocation crypt needs be a universal necron stratagem and not faction locked, because it makes no sense that only the Nephrekh would have that tech when its been established that necrons in general are capable of teleporting shenanigans.
The necron codex just isn't well designed. You can tell it wasn't designed by a necron fan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

Sometimes it is overpowered though.

See : Wave serpent energy field from 5th ed.
Or scat laser spam in 6th.
Or constant psy power buffs.
Really, Eldar are bs in general.

Like really really bad? Only GK really.

But anything that isn't some flavor of Eldar or Guard is pretty underwhelming.

Most codexes only have 1 good unit so the rule of 3 kills about 3/4ths of the field and most 'pure' faction lists outright.

Grey Knights are the only "bad" codex. Every other codex in some form is "good", even if its a few options in a soup list, every other codex is reasonably represented.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

At the cost of a disproportionate amount of resources in a way that's only going to work the first time your opponent sees it.

The number of times I see people say 'oh this unit can be played around, so it's not OP!' is exhausting. OP means 'Over-powered'. As in 'Overly Powerful' I have no idea where this idea of it meaning 'Instant win' came from. Yes you can beat these units but the problem is it's more difficult for you to beat them than it is for them to beat you.

Then you see people talk about 'tactical counters' or however you want to phrase it like they're a magic spell you can cast and suddenly the unit isn't a threat anymore. Your opponent is just as capable of coming up with a counter to your counter as you are of coming up with a counter in the first place. So yes, you end up in a better spot than you would be if you just let them run roughshod over you but you're still at a disadvantage.

The issue with 40k is that it isn't really a counter-based system, beyond a broad meta consideration. It might be if you just play a small group of friends over and over again, but that generally isn't what people are describing.

I am really struggling to think of any meta evolution in 40k that hasn't been led by GW adding/changing units.

40k is about opportunity and probability for a certain points investment.

Forums tend to act as if there is cast iron certainty. "Grey Knights can never win a game". This is rubbish - of course they can. They do so all over the globe.

The issue is however to be top tier you need to be able to go a tournament and win 5 games in a row - preferably 20:0. Are you going to manage that as Grey Knights? No. You might get one game where everything goes your way - and your opponent can't stop rolling 1s - but its incredibly unlikely you will get 5.

By contrast an Eldar soup is powerful. Probability is on your side. Rather than thinking "I need hot dice to kill X" you are in the position of "I'd need to totally fluff this role to screw it up." This will happen too - if you play enough you will see Eldar shooting fail, psychic fail, charges fail etc. Meanwhile you keep rolling 6s to hit so all those -1s to hit might as well not be there. The odds of this happening is however low. Net result - you get a lot of these sorts of armies (and the other competitive builds) placing well in tournaments.

ERJAK wrote:


At the cost of a disproportionate amount of resources in a way that's only going to work the first time your opponent sees it.

The number of times I see people say 'oh this unit can be played around, so it's not OP!' is exhausting. OP means 'Over-powered'. As in 'Overly Powerful' I have no idea where this idea of it meaning 'Instant win' came from. Yes you can beat these units but the problem is it's more difficult for you to beat them than it is for them to beat you.

Then you see people talk about 'tactical counters' or however you want to phrase it like they're a magic spell you can cast and suddenly the unit isn't a threat anymore. Your opponent is just as capable of coming up with a counter to your counter as you are of coming up with a counter in the first place. So yes, you end up in a better spot than you would be if you just let them run roughshod over you but you're still at a disadvantage.

End of the day it's still a cop out, and in my mind it's bit of an excuse to justify why you cannot either perform well and/or beat a particular army or struggling with a particular unit. And guess what forcing them to make counters to your counter is actually a good thing, it means you're actually learning different ways to go about playing the game instead of relying on the same cookie cutter list over and over again.

BA are reduced to a 2-unit codex. Scouts and captains. I guess its better than Admech just stealing our pods.

Martel732 wrote:
BA are reduced to a 2-unit codex. Scouts and captains. I guess its better than Admech just stealing our pods.

Just because those are the best units to ally into another army doesn’t mean the rest of the codex doesn’t exist. There continue to be people playing pure BA and doing fairly well (X-1 and X-2) in tournaments despite this being an era where pure armies are way outclassed.