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.

I have been thinking about how some of the new codicies are some of the most balanced. Since i haven`t been around 40k for any considerable ammount of time, what are/were the best codicies. Can be in terms of fluffiness, balance and or customization potential.

Any ideas (based on my very limited experience 5th ed. C:SM would be among one of the best)

That's an incredibly subjective question.

I prefer the format of the newer books (late 4th edition and up) as all the pt costs for units are organized fairly neatly in the last few pages.

I loved my 3.5 CSM and the first Tau codex during their time, but looking back it was a pain to flip to the individual unit entries to find point costs.

I think my personal (as mentioned, this is VERY subjective) favourite is the current DA book, because it has so many different fluffy builds available.

I agree with Gossip, the Original Tau codex was awesome..but a pain the but to find units for build purpose.

Orks. Current codex.

Written for 4th, still kicking butt in 6th, though it could use some new shinies...

Multiple decent army builds, and only a very few inferior units, which can still be made useful if you aren't aiming for uber-optimised lists.

For be it's between 2 5th ed codexes, IG and SM, as the IG codex offers a treasure-trove of customisation options, which for players like me who go for fluffy over competitive lists is great. I love the ability to run anything from massed infantry to Deep-strike Stormtrooper lists, via tank spam and CC hordes.

With SM it is more about the reliability, as although I just as often play with DA/BA/SW and can build an objectively 'better' list, the SM codex always performs well, and while it may have lost some of its competitive edge over time, it is as close to perfect internal balance, with no unit absolutely terrible (possible Vanguard Veterans), but nothing brokenly overpowered... This may all change come the release of 6th SM on Saturday...

I have to say, I'm a fan of the new Daemons codex. I am far more competitive then the last codex, with multiple effective builds. It's fun to paint and convert, and with the Warp Storm table, I can have some effective shooting in an army with next to none.

That said, I'll have to agree with gossip, the 3.5 CSM codex was awesome.

The now old SM codex was phenominal. I'd probably put that at the top as well. Pages and pages of well-written fluff, lots of interesting little tidbits, reasonably laid out, many different possibly armies you can run. Very nice.

Current orks and guard are also high on my list for the same reason.

As for CSM, the 3.5 codex is way, way, way over-rated. People like the IDEA of the 3.5 ed codex, but they don't accurately remember the codex itself. It's like how people like the song they fell in love for the first time to. They remember the person they fell in love with, and remember the music, and so they project the memory onto the song. Even if the song itself was rubbish.

I actually kind of like the current CSM codex, actually. Mostly what I like is the smooth, nearly seamless transition across infantry units. You start with a regular CSM, and then there are a dozen steps where each time you get a little bit more, and each time you pay a little bit more. For example...

CSM -> CSM w/CCW -> CSM w/MoK, CCW -> CSM w/MoK, CCS, icon -> berzerkers -> berzerkers with icon -> possessed -> possessed w/MoK -> terminators -> terminators w/ MoK -> terminators w/MoK, icon -> terminators w/MoK, icon, everybody gets a better close combat weapon. A transition from 13 points to 39 points per model over 4 units in 11 configurations. That's an average of a bit more than 2 points per model per step.

It's sort of like going up to a buffet and taking what you want.

I also am glad that they finally put something back into the codex to replace all the demons that left for their own codex. You don't have to like the godzillas, but the idea of warp engine monsters is kind of neat, and does fill that gap.

I do consider the fluff somewhat bland, I'll readily admit, though I don't think it's that bad, the problem is that a lot of the fluff is old, but needs to be repeated, and there are still some gems in it. Looking back at old codices, though, and you'd be surprised how much isn't in there.

Anyways, I do have one serious greivance with the CSM codex. It is, by far, the worst layout of any book - 40k or otherwise - that I have ever read. I look at the chaos lord. It says the lord can take marks. Then I have to go to the wargear section, where they tell me which ones I can take, and for which price, but they don't tell me what they do. Then I have to go to a THIRD page to find out that the mark of khorne, say, gives me rage and counterattack, which means now I have to go to a different book, and look up what that does.

The book is so poorly laid out that 20 pages of rules requires FOUR PAGES OF INDEX. At the same rate, if the indecies were laid out as poorly as the rest of the codex, and if it was one page longer, the index would, itself, need an index. Except that it would be too expensive to do this, I'd love to buy a pair of the CSM codex, cut them apart, and rearrange them into something - anything - that would actually make sense. Something where I could look at an entry, and know what it means. The current system of having it mentioned somewhere, described somewhere else, and defined in several other places after that is insane.