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.

After looking at all the threads on dakka to do with the new SM codex ive had the feeling that its allowed so many varied competative lists.
Up until now when a codex came out, there were 3 or maybe 4 ways to run a competative list for that army (a few exeptions but the norm followed closely to one of the few builds that were popular for that army. Whereas with this codex there are so many possibilities it makes it far more interesting and far less 'samey'. It is definitely refreshing. Thats my thoughts on it anyway. What do you think? Breath of fresh air?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. When i say 'that army' I mean the army at the time of any recent codex. Not SM.

Don't worry, once people finish analyzing the codex properly all that speculation will converge on a small number of viable lists. And as GW releases new books codex creep will inevitably reduce that to a single option, and eventually "count them as {newer marine book}". It's the same thing that happened with Tau: everyone was all excited about how many new options there were and how many cool list ideas you could use, and then everyone figured out that taking 4-5 Riptides or a Farsight bomb is just better.

peregrine speaks for the tiny minority of waac players.

Though as a demon player there are plenty of viable builds in our codex...eldar also seems to have a fair few play styles, ditto necron.

Get your experience from playing 40k rather than the internet and you'll see a lot more diversity than you'd think.

The 5th ed SM codex was my favorite of the entire batch of them in 5th ed, and I'm glad that they seem to have gotten by in 6th without completely screwing it up. The fact that you can apparently even do MORE diversity is heartening.

Which is kind of odd, right? Take a Matt Ward codex that wasn't stupid and broken and then turn it into a good 6th ed codex that was better than its predecessor.

woot.

I really like it. White scars alone has 2 very viable builds. Iron hands, imperial fists, and smurfs all have excellent builds that play significantly different than their counterparts.

As Peregrine says, some playing will determine what are actually effective rather than just good on paper, but at the very least it's nice and fluffy. Something similar would be great for guard regiments.

xruslanx wrote:
peregrine speaks for the tiny minority of waac players.

And those "WAAC"* players are who the OP is talking about. Every codex has diversity if you don't care about winning, the whole "3 or maybe 4 ways to run a competitive list for that army" thing only applies if you're talking about competitive players who always use the best options. And in that context the new C:SM is no more diverse than any other codex, it's just newer so we're still in the early stages of analysis before we converge on those 3-4 possible lists.


*WAAC means "win at ALL costs", not "play competitively". IOW, cheating, rules lawyering, etc. Simply making good list-building choices is not WAAC.

no, waac means only playing the most powerful possible builds all of the time. Cheating is called cheating and gets you thrown out.

If you only acknoledge the most powerful builds then obviously you can slag off codexes and stick to your netlists.

xruslanx wrote:
no, waac means only playing the most powerful possible builds all of the time.

No it's not, that's just playing competitively. Peregrine was right about the distinction between WAAC vs competitive.

Orks is a diverse codex too, even under 6th.

It's usually the marine codexes that seem to wind up monobuild in my experience.

 Ascalam wrote:
Orks is a diverse codex too, even under 6th.

It's usually the marine codexes that seem to wind up monobuild in my experience.

Eldar Skimmerspam: 4th/6th

Tau Crisis suit & broadside spam: 4th/5th.

Tyranids: Tervigon/tormagaunt/hive tyrant spam 5th. Carnifex/fex/fex 4th and before.

Dark Eldar: Venomspam, but unlike the others had more options..till sixth ruined alotta assault builds anyways.

Necrons: Diverse, most things can be taken in some manner.

Chaos Daemons: Bloodcrusher/fateweaver spam 4th/5th

None of them were the only build that worked, though.

possibly the most common build, but the codexes were capable of other builds as well.

Oh, I'd agree that orks got hit particularly hard. In 5th you had green tide, and kan wall and trukk rush, and bike lists, and deffwing, and kommandoz/koptaz among others. 6th ed mercilessly slaughtered most ork builds, leaving you with nob bikes... and... umm... lootas with some grot artillery....

... and... uhhh...

...

xruslanx wrote:
no, waac means only playing the most powerful possible builds all of the time. Cheating is called cheating and gets you thrown out.

If you only acknoledge the most powerful builds then obviously you can slag off codexes and stick to your netlists.

Your definition of "Waac" is quite considerably different than anyone you'll find on this site.

People who use competitive lists are not necessarily "Waac" gamers, they are merely using a 'good' list.

You can't call someone a "waac" gamer just because they don't subscribe to your way of playing the game.

Iranna.